Tweet
Goldman Sachs Group’s plan to offer clients up to $1.5 billion in Facebook equity may invite US regulators to take a closer look at whether the owner of the world’s most popular social-networking site is circumventing disclosure rules, securities lawyers said.
The Securities and Exchange Commission, whose rules require any company with more than 499 investors to disclose financial information, is already scrutinizing the market for trading shares of closely held companies including Facebook, according to a person familiar with the inquiry, who declined to be identified because the matter isn’t public.
Goldman Sachs invested $450 million in Facebook and is planning to create a special purpose vehicle for its clients to make additional investments worth as much as $1.5 billion, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity because the deal is private. Some private companies avoid crossing the disclosure threshold when investors’ funds are channeled through a single entity, such as a private equity firm or hedge fund.
“The real question is, what are the details of this special purpose vehicle?” said James Angel, a professor at Georgetown University’s business school. If the investment is designed to circumvent the rule, “the SEC should be looking very closely at it.”
Further public confirmation of the SEC’s interest in such investment funds came when SecondMarket, which matches buyers and sellers of shares in private companies like Facebook and Twitter, received a request for information from the agency.
Source: Bloomberg
Tuesday 4 January 2011
Monday 3 January 2011
New Year's resolutions? Brain can sabotage success
Tweet
By LAURAN NEERGAARD , AP Medical Writer
Enlarge
Newscribe : get free news in real time
By LAURAN NEERGAARD , AP Medical Writer
Enlarge
Graphic shows the relationship between habits and decision making.
Uh-oh, the new year's just begun and already you're finding it hard to keep those resolutions to junk the junk food, get off the couch or kick smoking. There's a biological reason a lot of our bad habits are so hard to break - they get wired into our brains.
That's not an excuse to give up. Understanding how unhealthy behaviors become ingrained has scientists learning some tricks that may help good habits replace the bad.
"Why are bad habits stronger? You're fighting against the power of an immediate reward," says Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and an authority on the brain's pleasure pathway.
It's the fudge vs. broccoli choice: Chocolate's yum factor tends to beat out the knowledge that sticking with veggies brings an eventual reward of lost pounds.
"We all as creatures are hard-wired that way, to give greater value to an immediate reward as opposed to something that's delayed," Volkow says.
Just how that bit of happiness turns into a habit involves a pleasure-sensing chemical named dopamine. It conditions the brain to want that reward again and again - reinforcing the connection each time - especially when it gets the right cue from your environment.
People tend to overestimate their ability to resist temptations around them, thus undermining attempts to shed bad habits, says experimental psychologist Loran Nordgren, an assistant professor atNorthwestern University 's Kellogg School of Management.
"People have this self-control hubris, this belief they can handle more than they can," says Nordgren, who studies the tug-of-war between willpower and temptation.
In one experiment, he measured whether heavy smokers could watch a film that romanticizes the habit - called "Coffee and Cigarettes" - without taking a puff. Upping the ante, they'd be paid according to their level of temptation: Could they hold an unlit cigarette while watching? Keep the pack on the table? Or did they need to leave the pack in another room?
Smokers who'd predicted they could resist a lot of temptation tended to hold the unlit cigarette - and were more likely to light up than those who knew better than to hang onto the pack, says Nordgren. He now is beginning to study how recovering drug addicts deal with real-world temptations.
But temptation can be more insidious than how close at hand the cigarettes are.
Always snack in front of your favorite TV show? A dopamine-rich part of the brain named the striatum memorizes rituals and routines that are linked to getting a particular reward, explains NIDA's Volkow. Eventually, those environmental cues trigger the striatum to make some behaviors almost automatic.
Even scientists who recognize it can fall prey.
"I don't like popcorn. But every time I go to the cinema, I have to eat it," Volkow says. "It's fascinating."
Much of what scientists know about dopamine's role in habit formation comes from the study of alcohol and drug addiction, but it's a key player in more common habits, too, especially overeating.
In fact, for anything that links an action and a reward, "dopamine is indispensable for the formation of these habits," Volkow says.
A movement to pay people for behavior changes may exploit that connection, as some companies offer employees outright payments or insurance rebates for adopting better habits.
It's not clear yet just how well a financial incentive substitutes as a reward. In one experiment, paying smokers atGeneral Electric up to $750 to kick the habit nearly tripled the number who did, says Dr. Kevin Volpp, who directs the Center for Health Incentives at the University of Pennsylvania.
A similar study that dangled dollars for weight loss found no difference - and environmental temptation might help explain the differing results.
It's getting hard to smoke in public but "every time you walk down the street, there's lots of sources of high-calorie, tasty, low-cost food," Volpp says.
However paying for behavior plays out, researchers say there are some steps that may help counter your brain's hold on bad habits:
-Repeat, repeat, repeat the new behavior - the same routine at the same time of day. Resolved to exercise? Doing it at the same time of the morning, rather than fitting it in haphazardly, makes the striatum recognize the habit so eventually, "if you don't do it, you feel awful," says Volkow the neuroscientist, who's also a passionate runner.
-Exercise itself raises dopamine levels, so eventually your brain will get a feel-good hit even if your muscles protest.
-Reward yourself with something you really desire, Volkow stresses. You exercised all week? Stuck to your diet? Buy a book, a great pair of jeans, or try a fancy restaurant - safer perhaps than a box of cookies because the price inhibits the quantity.
-Stress can reactivate the bad-habit circuitry. "You see people immediately eating in the airport when their flight is canceled," Volkow points out.
-And cut out the rituals linked to your bad habits. No eating in front of the TV, ever.
"What you want to be thinking about is, `What is it in my environment that is triggering this behavior?'" says Nordgren. "You have to guard yourself against it."
©2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed."Why are bad habits stronger? You're fighting against the power of an immediate reward," says Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and an authority on the brain's pleasure pathway.
It's the fudge vs. broccoli choice: Chocolate's yum factor tends to beat out the knowledge that sticking with veggies brings an eventual reward of lost pounds.
"We all as creatures are hard-wired that way, to give greater value to an immediate reward as opposed to something that's delayed," Volkow says.
Just how that bit of happiness turns into a habit involves a pleasure-sensing chemical named dopamine. It conditions the brain to want that reward again and again - reinforcing the connection each time - especially when it gets the right cue from your environment.
People tend to overestimate their ability to resist temptations around them, thus undermining attempts to shed bad habits, says experimental psychologist Loran Nordgren, an assistant professor at
"People have this self-control hubris, this belief they can handle more than they can," says Nordgren, who studies the tug-of-war between willpower and temptation.
In one experiment, he measured whether heavy smokers could watch a film that romanticizes the habit - called "Coffee and Cigarettes" - without taking a puff. Upping the ante, they'd be paid according to their level of temptation: Could they hold an unlit cigarette while watching? Keep the pack on the table? Or did they need to leave the pack in another room?
Smokers who'd predicted they could resist a lot of temptation tended to hold the unlit cigarette - and were more likely to light up than those who knew better than to hang onto the pack, says Nordgren. He now is beginning to study how recovering drug addicts deal with real-world temptations.
But temptation can be more insidious than how close at hand the cigarettes are.
Always snack in front of your favorite TV show? A dopamine-rich part of the brain named the striatum memorizes rituals and routines that are linked to getting a particular reward, explains NIDA's Volkow. Eventually, those environmental cues trigger the striatum to make some behaviors almost automatic.
Even scientists who recognize it can fall prey.
"I don't like popcorn. But every time I go to the cinema, I have to eat it," Volkow says. "It's fascinating."
Much of what scientists know about dopamine's role in habit formation comes from the study of alcohol and drug addiction, but it's a key player in more common habits, too, especially overeating.
In fact, for anything that links an action and a reward, "dopamine is indispensable for the formation of these habits," Volkow says.
A movement to pay people for behavior changes may exploit that connection, as some companies offer employees outright payments or insurance rebates for adopting better habits.
It's not clear yet just how well a financial incentive substitutes as a reward. In one experiment, paying smokers at
A similar study that dangled dollars for weight loss found no difference - and environmental temptation might help explain the differing results.
It's getting hard to smoke in public but "every time you walk down the street, there's lots of sources of high-calorie, tasty, low-cost food," Volpp says.
However paying for behavior plays out, researchers say there are some steps that may help counter your brain's hold on bad habits:
-Repeat, repeat, repeat the new behavior - the same routine at the same time of day. Resolved to exercise? Doing it at the same time of the morning, rather than fitting it in haphazardly, makes the striatum recognize the habit so eventually, "if you don't do it, you feel awful," says Volkow the neuroscientist, who's also a passionate runner.
-Exercise itself raises dopamine levels, so eventually your brain will get a feel-good hit even if your muscles protest.
-Reward yourself with something you really desire, Volkow stresses. You exercised all week? Stuck to your diet? Buy a book, a great pair of jeans, or try a fancy restaurant - safer perhaps than a box of cookies because the price inhibits the quantity.
-Stress can reactivate the bad-habit circuitry. "You see people immediately eating in the airport when their flight is canceled," Volkow points out.
-And cut out the rituals linked to your bad habits. No eating in front of the TV, ever.
"What you want to be thinking about is, `What is it in my environment that is triggering this behavior?'" says Nordgren. "You have to guard yourself against it."
Newscribe : get free news in real time
Some banks help keep mortgage holders out of default, studies find
by Jeff Grabmeie
Tweet
While the nation's foreclosure crisis has focused blame on bad loan practices by some lenders, new research shows how some banks may have actually reduced the default risk of their homebuyers.
Newscribe : get free news in real time
Tweet
While the nation's foreclosure crisis has focused blame on bad loan practices by some lenders, new research shows how some banks may have actually reduced the default risk of their homebuyers.
Researchers found that low-income homeowners who received a mortgage from a local lender were less likely to default on their loans than are those who borrowed from a more distant bank or mortgage company.
Even if two similar homeowners received the same home loan, with the same interest rate, the one who got the loan at the local lender might be better off in the long run.
"The door you walk into when you're looking for a loan matters a lot," said Stephanie Moulton, assistant professor in the John Glenn School of Public Affairs at Ohio State University.
"Local banks seem to offer some protection to homebuyers, particularly those with low incomes who may be seen as risky borrowers."
A few other studies have found that borrowers who get mortgages from banks rather than mortgage brokers are less likely to default on their loans. But Moulton said this new research is among the first to find that not all banks are equal, and that bank location is a key.
Moulton's research looks at homebuyers who have participated in state administered Mortgage Revenue Bond (MRB) programs. MRB programs are funded through tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds, and help lower-income, first-time home buyers by offering affordable mortgages. In contrast to the subprime mortgage product that offered high-interest rate loans, the MRB loan product provides market or below-market interest rate loans to similar borrowers.
Moulton previously studied Indiana's program, and is now researching Ohio's program.
Overall, her findings from both studies show that delinquency and default rates for state MRB programs are much lower than the rates for subprime or even other conventional loans to similar borrowers.
However, Moulton finds that there are significant differences by lender. For some lenders, fewer than 9 percent of their MRB borrowers were ever 60 days late in making a payment. However, for other lenders, up to 37 percent of their borrowers were similarly late in making payments.
"I was trying to find out why there was such a wide variation in default rates, even though they were all offering the same loan product," Moulton said.
Both studies show that for higher-risk borrowers (those with credit scores below 660), delinquency and foreclosure rates are significantly lower if they got their mortgage from a local lender.
Moulton emphasized that this effect is not due to the loan product, as all borrowers receive the same type of mortgage (including interest rate) through the program. And personal characteristics of the borrowers, such as credit score, debt and income, are controlled for in the analysis. In other words, the effect truly seems to be related to the localness of the bank, and not other hidden factors.
In the Indiana study, recently published in Housing Policy Debate, Moulton examined the loan performance (as of March 2008) of more than 5,000 homebuyers who purchased homes between 2004 and 2006.
Higher-risk borrowers with loans from lenders with a lot of local loan activity (a high concentration of loans in the county where the homebuyer bought their home) were much less likely to be late on their mortgage or enter foreclosure, than homebuyers with loans from non-local lenders.
In the Ohio analysis, presented recently at the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management conference in Boston, Moulton is studying the loan performance (as of June 2010) of more than 20,000 homebuyers who purchased homes between 2005 and 2008. Rather than focusing on the location of the lender's loan activity (as in the Indiana study), this study examines the location of bank branches relative to where the homebuyers purchased their homes. Again, Moulton finds that higher-risk homebuyers with loans from banks with branches close to their new homes (less than 10 miles) were significantly less likely to default on their mortgages.
But what is it about local banks that make them better choices for many low-income borrowers?
Moulton said she believes it has to do with the type of information banks collect on potential borrowers, and the support they offer to their borrowers.
Many mortgage brokers base their decisions on whether to offer a mortgage on one or more key numbers, such as a credit score. In other words, if your credit score is above a certain level, and you meet other criteria, the broker will offer the loan. The same may be true of large, non-local banks, Moulton said.
But local lenders may place more weight on other factors, such as how long you've been working for your current employer, and whether you make regular deposits in a savings account.
"This kind of information may give a more complete picture of whether a person can really afford a mortgage, particularly for higher-risk borrowers," Moulton said.
"Some of the local bankers told me they won't even look at a credit score until they have talked to an individual and determined if they think he or she can make the payments."
In addition, local bankers are more likely to have a continuing relationship with the borrower, through the checking and savings accounts held by the customer.
"If there's a relationship, the borrower may feel more obligated to make their payments. And the banks may provide more education and information to the borrowers, equipping them to be better homeowners," she said.
The results of these studies suggest that policies aimed at making homeownership affordable may need to expand their focus, Moulton said.
"A lot of policies concentrate on the loan itself, and that's definitely important. But for higher-risk, lower-income borrowers, mortgage institutions also matter quite a bit," she said.
"These borrowers need to work with lenders that will properly evaluate their application and give them support after they receive the mortgage."
Provided by The Ohio State University (news : web)Even if two similar homeowners received the same home loan, with the same interest rate, the one who got the loan at the local lender might be better off in the long run.
"The door you walk into when you're looking for a loan matters a lot," said Stephanie Moulton, assistant professor in the John Glenn School of Public Affairs at Ohio State University.
"Local banks seem to offer some protection to homebuyers, particularly those with low incomes who may be seen as risky borrowers."
A few other studies have found that borrowers who get mortgages from banks rather than mortgage brokers are less likely to default on their loans. But Moulton said this new research is among the first to find that not all banks are equal, and that bank location is a key.
Moulton's research looks at homebuyers who have participated in state administered Mortgage Revenue Bond (MRB) programs. MRB programs are funded through tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds, and help lower-income, first-time home buyers by offering affordable mortgages. In contrast to the subprime mortgage product that offered high-interest rate loans, the MRB loan product provides market or below-market interest rate loans to similar borrowers.
Moulton previously studied Indiana's program, and is now researching Ohio's program.
Overall, her findings from both studies show that delinquency and default rates for state MRB programs are much lower than the rates for subprime or even other conventional loans to similar borrowers.
However, Moulton finds that there are significant differences by lender. For some lenders, fewer than 9 percent of their MRB borrowers were ever 60 days late in making a payment. However, for other lenders, up to 37 percent of their borrowers were similarly late in making payments.
"I was trying to find out why there was such a wide variation in default rates, even though they were all offering the same loan product," Moulton said.
Both studies show that for higher-risk borrowers (those with credit scores below 660), delinquency and foreclosure rates are significantly lower if they got their mortgage from a local lender.
Moulton emphasized that this effect is not due to the loan product, as all borrowers receive the same type of mortgage (including interest rate) through the program. And personal characteristics of the borrowers, such as credit score, debt and income, are controlled for in the analysis. In other words, the effect truly seems to be related to the localness of the bank, and not other hidden factors.
In the Indiana study, recently published in Housing Policy Debate, Moulton examined the loan performance (as of March 2008) of more than 5,000 homebuyers who purchased homes between 2004 and 2006.
Higher-risk borrowers with loans from lenders with a lot of local loan activity (a high concentration of loans in the county where the homebuyer bought their home) were much less likely to be late on their mortgage or enter foreclosure, than homebuyers with loans from non-local lenders.
In the Ohio analysis, presented recently at the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management conference in Boston, Moulton is studying the loan performance (as of June 2010) of more than 20,000 homebuyers who purchased homes between 2005 and 2008. Rather than focusing on the location of the lender's loan activity (as in the Indiana study), this study examines the location of bank branches relative to where the homebuyers purchased their homes. Again, Moulton finds that higher-risk homebuyers with loans from banks with branches close to their new homes (less than 10 miles) were significantly less likely to default on their mortgages.
But what is it about local banks that make them better choices for many low-income borrowers?
Moulton said she believes it has to do with the type of information banks collect on potential borrowers, and the support they offer to their borrowers.
Many mortgage brokers base their decisions on whether to offer a mortgage on one or more key numbers, such as a credit score. In other words, if your credit score is above a certain level, and you meet other criteria, the broker will offer the loan. The same may be true of large, non-local banks, Moulton said.
But local lenders may place more weight on other factors, such as how long you've been working for your current employer, and whether you make regular deposits in a savings account.
"This kind of information may give a more complete picture of whether a person can really afford a mortgage, particularly for higher-risk borrowers," Moulton said.
"Some of the local bankers told me they won't even look at a credit score until they have talked to an individual and determined if they think he or she can make the payments."
In addition, local bankers are more likely to have a continuing relationship with the borrower, through the checking and savings accounts held by the customer.
"If there's a relationship, the borrower may feel more obligated to make their payments. And the banks may provide more education and information to the borrowers, equipping them to be better homeowners," she said.
The results of these studies suggest that policies aimed at making homeownership affordable may need to expand their focus, Moulton said.
"A lot of policies concentrate on the loan itself, and that's definitely important. But for higher-risk, lower-income borrowers, mortgage institutions also matter quite a bit," she said.
"These borrowers need to work with lenders that will properly evaluate their application and give them support after they receive the mortgage."
Newscribe : get free news in real time
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)