Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Where did that trillion dollars go that was recently added to the national debt?
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=2751415
As a result of SEC investigations in the mid-1970's, over 400 U.S. companies admitted making questionable or illegal payments in excess of $300 million to foreign government officials, politicians, and political parties. The abuses ran the gamut from bribery of high foreign officials to secure some type of favorable action by a foreign government to so-called facilitating payments that allegedly were made to ensure that government functionaries discharged certain ministerial or clerical duties. Congress enacted the FCPA to bring a halt to the bribery of foreign officials and to restore public confidence in the integrity of the American business system.
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/dojdocb.htm
It would appear that this practice would need to be revisited in light of the trillions of dollars being used to woo foriegn governments into Iraq.
UN Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq
The following is a complete list of Security Council Resolutions (SCRs) involving Iraq.
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art51
What does all that mean?
Kerry Nader is a shoe in if you ask me. Might be the only way to bust bush...but never happen.
BY KAREN CROFT / I remember Ralph Nader sorting mail. He'd come into the Center for Study of Responsive Law, hunch his 6-foot-4 frame over the boxes of mail (some addressed only to Ralph Nader, Washington, D.C.) and use the time to catch up on what his troops were doing. He'd be alert to every detail in the casually chaotic front office, where I worked in the late 1970s and early '80s, one of an army of laughably underpaid but passionately loyal minions who have served Nader over the years. Two phones, each with five or six lines, would be ringing and the office managers would be juggling everyone from Marlon Brando (in town with a Native American group) to a lady in Detroit who'd sent her car's broken drive shaft to Nader because no one else had helped her and she knew he would.
Without looking up, he'd ask us to find newspaper articles for him ("It's on the left side of the front page of the second section of the New York Times within the last three weeks"), get someone on the phone (his way of orchestrating his escape to his paper-strewn warren when he was ready) and inject occasional questions about the outside world, like "What movies are people seeing?"
Ralph Nader didn't have time to do things like see movies. He has been busy since 1968 being the most vigilant citizen in America. He works harder than any president or member of Congress. He has affected your life as a consumer more than any man, but you didn't elect him and you can't make him go away. All of us Naderites (there have been thousands over the years) call him Ralph, even though we all have the deepest respect for him. We call him Ralph because that's what fits. Like Uncle Ralph. Or Father Ralph.
Nader really is like a priest. He is little affected by the world he affects. He has never been married, never had children. No one knows for sure if he has a love life. He has never owned a car and has lived in the same inexpensive Washington boardinghouse for many years. "Fashion" is not a word he could define: He has the look of a man who cuts his hair with kitchen scissors and his idea of great bedtime reading is the Congressional Record. His hero is baseball legend Lou Gehrig because Gehrig was a modest man who just kept going, playing in 2,130 consecutive games. Ralph has served in the nation's capital for 30 years now, dueling with its entrenched political and corporate interests and trying to rouse the citizenry. These are, arguably, comparable feats.
Nader's accomplishments have become part of the fabric of American public life. You know that clause on plane tickets that says that if you're bumped, the airline has to reimburse you and put you up for the night? Nader got bumped from an overbooked flight and got angry, and that's why you get treated fairly now. Remember the days before seat belts and air bags? Nader wrote an article for the Nation in 1959 titled "The Safe Car You Can't Buy" and ranted as early as 1975 to Congress that all auto manufacturers should have to install air bags in their cars. People said Nader was a nut. Now car companies advertise that their air bags are the best.
And remember the march on Washington after the near-meltdown at Three Mile Island? Nader organized that and was a key player in changing this country's attitudes toward nuclear power.
http://archive.salon.com/bc/1999/01/26bc.html
Heavy music.
In December 2000, foreign banking organizations operated or controlled 348 branches, 111 agencies, 79 U.S. commercial banks, and 18 Edge or Agreement corporations. A significant portion of foreign banking institutions' assets is composed of commercial and industrial loans. In June 2000, foreign banking institutions held about $210 billion in commercial and industrial loans, roughly 20 percent of the total in the United States.
http://www.fednewyork.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed26.html
Foreign Banks and the Federal Reserve
Foreign banking institutions, which include foreign bank branches, agencies, and U.S.-chartered bank subsidiaries, hold approximately one-fourth of all commercial banking assets in the United States.
Foreign bank branches and agencies operating in the United States are subject to Federal Reserve regulations, and the Federal Reserve examines most foreign bank branches and agencies annually.
Federal Reserve services and privileges are available to foreign bank branches and agencies, but U.S. deposit insurance is not available to branches established after December 1991.
Importance of Foreign Banking Institutions
Foreign banking organizations (FBOs) operate a variety of banking institutions in the United States: branches, agencies, and U.S.- or state-chartered Edge Act and Agreement corporations and banks. Foreign banking institutions play an important role in the U.S. financial system; in June 2000, foreign banking institutions held over $923 billion in assets, approximately 19 percent of the total commercial banking assets in the United States.
Because foreign banking institutions play an integral role in the U.S. financial system, they are supervised and regulated by U.S. banking authorities. The types of regulations faced by a particular foreign banking institution depend in part on whether its U.S. units are chartered in the United States or abroad. Foreign bank branches and agencies are legal extensions of their parent companies, and not freestanding entities in the United States. They do not have any capital of their own and face somewhat different regulations from other depository institutions in the United States. Edge and Agreement corporations and foreign banks' U.S. subsidiaries, on the other hand, are freestanding legal entities with U.S. or state charters and their own capital.
Regulation and Supervision
Before the International Banking Act of 1978 (IBA) was passed, rules governing foreign banking institutions were significantly different from those governing U.S. banking institutions. The IBA brought the different rules into closer alignment, particularly those relating to chartering, branching, and reserve requirements. The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) of 1980, continuing in the same direction as the IBA, included provisions granting foreign bank branches and agencies operating in the Unites States direct access to Federal Reserve services and privileges such as check clearing, provision of coin and currency, Fedwire, and the discount window. Federal Reserve services and privileges are offered to foreign bank branches and agencies under the same rules and at the same prices as other depository institutions. Another important provision of DIDMCA was to subject all foreign banking institutions accepting deposits to Federal Reserve reserve requirements.
Some FBOs, called "qualified foreign banking organizations," are exempt from some Federal Reserve regulations. For an FBO to qualify for the exemptions, more than half its worldwide business must be banking, and more than half its banking activities must be outside the United States. Qualifying FBOs may undertake any activity outside the United States, and, under certain conditions, own voting shares of any foreign company operating in the United States. (Rules regarding FBOs can be found in Federal Reserve System Regulation K: International Banking Operations.)
Under the IBA, supervision of foreign branch and agency offices in the United States was primarily the responsibility of the state licensing authority and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The Foreign Bank Supervision Enhancement Act of 1991 (FBSEA) switched this responsibility to the Federal Reserve. As a result, the Federal Reserve generally must examine foreign bank branches and agencies annually. Examiners assess branches and agencies based on their Risk management, Operational controls, Compliance, and Asset quality, or ROCA for short. In addition, the Federal Reserve assesses parent banks' financial conditions to ensure that the banks can manage and support their U.S. branches and agencies effectively. In response to the increasing sophistication and diversity of banks' financial practices, examiners pay particular attention to the risk management practices and controls of both domestic and foreign banks.
If the Federal Reserve or other banking supervisors find that a banking institution has problems with compliance, or engages in unsound banking practices, they may take various measures to address the problems. In less serious cases, supervisors usually take informal action, such as requiring letters of commitment from the problem institution. In more serious cases, however, a range of legal measures may be taken, varying in severity. In the most serious cases, the U.S. activities of a foreign banking institution can be terminated, and the institution can be expelled from the United States.
Establishing a Foreign Banking Institution
Federal Reserve approval is necessary to establish any foreign banking institution in the United States. In addition, foreign banks must obtain regulatory approval from the OCC or the state banking supervisor when establishing new branches and agencies. Although branches and agencies have no capital of their own, those that are federally licensed must deposit cash or eligible securities at approved depository banks to satisfy the "capital equivalency requirement" specified by the IBA. State-licensed branches and agencies also must meet capital equivalency requirements, which vary from state to state.
Types and Activities of Foreign Banking Institutions
Foreign bank branches, which may be federally or state-licenced may provide a full range of banking services. They make short- and long-term loans, make investments, and can accept certain types of deposits. Branches tend to be significantly less expensive to operate than subsidiary banks, and so they are the most common type of foreign banking institution operating in the United States.
Foreign bank branches face certain limitations, however. Although branches may receive deposits of any size from foreigners, they may accept deposits only in excess of $100,000 (wholesale deposits) from U.S. citizens and residents. Furthermore, as a result of the FBSEA, deposits in any foreign bank branch established after December 19, 1991, are not covered by U.S. deposit insurance; deposit insurance is now offered only to U.S.-chartered depository institutions. Foreign agencies specialize in making commercial loans to finance international transactions, and they may accept only short-term deposits related to such transactions.
Edge Act corporations are chartered by the Federal Reserve mainly to engage in international banking activities. Such activities include accepting deposits to finance projects abroad and providing international payment services. Agreement corporations essentially are the same as Edge corporations, but are chartered by states. U.S. subsidiaries of foreign banks, because they are chartered in the United States, may become members of the Federal Reserve and undertake any banking activities permitted U.S.-owned banks.
In December 2000, foreign banking organizations operated or controlled 348 branches, 111 agencies, 79 U.S. commercial banks, and 18 Edge or Agreement corporations. A significant portion of foreign banking institutions' assets is composed of commercial and industrial loans. In June 2000, foreign banking institutions held about $210 billion in commercial and industrial loans, roughly 20 percent of the total in the United States.
http://www.fednewyork.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed26.html
Foreign banks may increase domestic spread, says Fitch
Our Banking Bureau in Mumbai
Published : November 7, 2003
Larger foreign banks which are operating in India are expected to seek a greater market share which would be aided by benign regulatory attitude towards branch expansions and the easing of investment norms in private sector banks.
The proposed option of setting up a subsidiary in India would also help the foreign banks in this regard, said Fitch Ratings.
The rating agency, in a report titled “Foreign Banks in India – 2003 Results”, said while foreign banks account for only around 5 per cent of total bank deposits and 7 per cent of total bank loans in India, they comprise an important part of the banking sector in metropolitan areas.
The report looks at the financials of 21 foreign banks that account for 97 per cent of the total assets held by foreign banks in India.
The four largest foreign banks with full service presence across all products account for over 70 per cent of the total assets of all foreign banks in India as at end-March 2003.
Standard Chartered Bank leads the race with 24 per cent of the total assets followed by Citibank at 22 per cent, HSBC 18 per cent, ABN Amro Bank 8 per cent and Deutsche Bank at 5 per cent.
According to the rating agency, foreign banks have generally enjoyed strong support from their parents. The capital adequacy ratios of most foreign banks in India were above the regulatory minimum level of nine per cent.
In the last fiscal HSBC and Standard Chartered received additional capital from their parent amounting to $150 million and $80 million, respectively, following the revision made by RBI in the calculation of Tier-I capital.
Four smaller banks (Amex, Credit Lyonnais, Credit Agricole and Societe Generale) with low capital adequacy ratios also received capital infusions from their parents.
The report added that the asset quality of large foreign banks is better than the average for Indian banks.
While loan quality has been a problem for some medium and small foreign banks, loan loss coverage ratios are usually high and are supported by the periodic capital infusions by the parent.
Fitch added that a locally incorporated subsidiary would enjoy greater scope for growth through increased freedom in opening branches or acquiring other Indian banks.
Also, the income-tax rate applicable to the subsidiary would be at 35 per cent as against 42 per cent for a branch’s operations in India.
The subsidiary would also have greater flexibility of raising equity or subordinated debt from the domestic capital market.
It would, however, be subjected to a higher proportion of directed lending and be required to open lesser profitable rural branches.
“Foreign banks have so far been lukewarm to the idea of establishing a locally incorporated subsidiary as their near-term expansion needs in the urban centers have been aided by the increasing liberal approach of RBI towards issuing branch licenses to foreign banks, especially to the larger ones. The subsidiary format would therefore be attractive to foreign banks that have significant growth plans in the Indian market,” said Fitch.
Consumers Pay at the Pump While Oil Companies Pay Themselves
Pending Energy Legislation Worsens Price Problem
by Protecting Oil Companies, Not Consumers
WASHINGTON, D.C. - In the past decade, mergers in the oil industry have
resulted in an uncompetitive domestic oil market that keeps gas prices
artificially high for consumers while the top oil companies rake in
record-setting profits, Public Citizen said today in a new report,
Mergers, Manipulation and Mirages: How Oil Companies Keep Gasoline
Prices High, and Why the Energy Bill Doesn't Help, The national public
interest organization is calling on the U.S. government to fix the price
crisis through increased oversight and regulation, as well as stronger
fuel economy standards to reduce the United States' dependence on oil.
The five largest oil companies operating in the United States are
ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, BP-Amoco-Arco and Royal Dutch
Shell. They control 14 percent of global oil production, 48 percent of
domestic oil production, 50 percent of domestic refinery capacity, and
nearly 62 percent of the retail gasoline market. These same companies
also control 21 percent of domestic natural gas production. Since 2001,
these top companies enjoyed cumulative after-tax profits exceeding $125
billion.
This control enables oil companies to manipulate prices by
intentionally withholding supplies. Indeed, a 2001 Federal Trade
Commission investigation into high gasoline prices concluded that oil
firms intentionally withheld or delayed shipping oil to keep prices up.
However, the government has done nothing to end these uncompetitive
practices.
"If the same company owns every step of the process, from crude oil
production to the gas station down the street from your house, it has
utter control over the price people pay at the pump," said Public
Citizen President Joan Claybrook. "Making it worse is our government's
lackadaisical approach to regulating these oil companies as they collect
billions of dollars from every American who drives a car."
A decade ago, the top five oil companies controlled only 8 percent of
global oil production, 34 percent of domestic oil production, 34 percent
of domestic refinery capacity, 27 percent of the retail market and just
13 percent of domestic natural gas production.
The lack of investigations into uncompetitive practices by these large
companies may be explained by the more than $67 million the oil industry
has contributed to federal politicians since 1999 - with 79 percent of
those contributions going to Republicans, according to an analysis of
Federal Election Commission data from the Center for Responsive
Politics. Further, the energy legislation first developed in Vice
President Dick Cheney's secret energy task force and then largely
written behind the closed doors of the congressional energy conference
committee would do nothing to lower oil and gas prices. Instead, it
contains more subsidies for oil and gas corporations.
"The stalled energy bill does nothing to address this worsening
crisis," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass
Energy and Environment Program. "In fact, as the legislation is
currently written, these giant oil companies are the greatest
benefactors, and consumers are the victims."
The most effective way to protect consumers is to restore competitive
markets. The Bush administration should take the following actions or
seek congressional authority to do so if necessary, according to the
report, available at http://www.citizen.org/documents/oilmergers.pdf.
These include:
- Releasing oil supplies from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or, at a
minimum, cease filling it.
- Enforcing antitrust laws, thereby making it illegal for companies to
intentionally withhold any energy commodity from the market for the sole
purpose of creating supply shortages in order to drive prices up.
- Assessing how recent mergers have made it easier for large oil
companies to engage in uncompetitive practices, and take concrete steps
- including forced divesture of assets to independent companies - to
remedy the problem of too few companies controlling too much of the
market.
- Requiring oil companies to increase the size of their storage
capacities, requiring them to hold significant amounts in that storage,
and reserving the right to order these companies to release this stored
oil and gas to address supply and demand fluctuations.
- Reducing the United States' oil consumption by 54 billion gallons of
oil by 2012 by improving passenger vehicle fuel economy standards.
- Restoring transparency to energy futures markets by re-regulating
trading exchanges that were exploited by Enron and continue to be abused
by other energy traders.
- Imposing a windfall profits tax to discourage price-gouging.
"Although the Bush administration blames environmental rules for
causing strains on refining capacity, prompting shortages and driving up
prices, company memos show that the largest oil companies have driven
smaller, independent refiners out of business to maximize profits,
resulting in tighter refinery capacity markets," said Tyson Slocum,
research director of Public Citizen's energy program and author of the
report. Ninety-seven percent of the more than 920,000 barrels of oil per
day of capacity that was shut down between 1995 and 2002 was owned and
operated by smaller, independent refiners. Were this capacity
operational today, refiners could use the excess capacity to better meet
today's reformulated gasoline blend needs.
Finally, taxes also have little to do with rising gasoline prices. The
federal gas tax (18.4 cents per gallon) hasn't been changed since 1997,
and the average state gas tax is 19 cents per gallon. Combined, taxes
make up 22 percent of the cost of a gallon of gas today.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=2751295
Bathgate Capital Partners LLC is an innovative investment banking firm headquartered in the Denver suburb of Greenwood Village, Colorado. We focus primarily on providing comprehensive investment banking services to underexposed and undervalued microcap companies.
Bathgate Capital Partners is committed to a simple operating philosophy: provide exceptional emerging companies with the financial and professional resources necessary to achieve long-term goals, fulfill outstanding potential, and maximize shareholder value.
http://www.bathgatepartners.com/
David Spitz
Director of Mergers and Acquisitions
For the past 24 years, David has led several international hi-tech companies to tremendous success. At the end of his military services in 1979, David founded IES Ltd. in Israel with his identical twin brother. As President and CEO, David developed IES into an international success story. Capitalizing on his interdisciplinary experience, diverse education, and leadership skills, David has grown two companies from an early start-up phase, to successful IPO's with several mergers and acquisitions along the way. The key to David's success is the combination of strong entrepreneurial, business and leadership skills coupled with vast experience in international sales and marketing, and an in-depth technical knowledge of many hardware and software applications. Born and raised in Israel, David has developed his leadership skills during his service in the Israeli Airforce. His education includes Practical Electronic Engineering and a law degree from the Tel-Aviv University in 1997.
International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Volume 1 Number 2, has just been published. The contents include:
The implications of IAS / IFRS for UK companies
David Cairns OBE
Former Secretary-General of the IASC, currently Senior Visiting Fellow in the Department of Accounting at the London School of Economics and Political Science
How do you stop the books being cooked? A management-control perspective on financial accounting standard setting and the section 404 requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
Michael G. Alles* and Srikant Datar**,
* Rutgers Business School, Rutgers University, ** Harvard Business School
The effect of recent US legislation and rule making on corporate compliance and ethics programmes
Rebecca S. Walker
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP.
The importance of disclosure in corporate governance self-regulation across Europe: A review of the Winter Report and the EU Action Plan
Gregory F Maasen, Frans A. J. van den Bosch and Henk Volberda
Rotterdam School of Management, Rotterdam University
The new German Takeover Act: An economic perspective – Part 2
Harmut Schmidt and Stephan Prigge
Money and Capital Markets Institute, Hamburg University
Separation of cash-flow and control rights: Should it be prohibited?
Massimo Belcredi and Lorenzo Caprio
Università Cattolica, Milano
Some questions about the governance of auditing firms
Prem Sikka
University of Essex
To find out more about the Journal, or to subscribe, please go to:
http://www.henrystewart.com/journals/jdg/index.html
Imagine that, China with almost 2 billion people doesn't like Bush Doctrine, and the Islamic world with almost 1 billion people doesn't like Bush Doctrine, and India with slightly more than 1 billion people is taking jobs away from America because of Bush Doctrine. What does that spell for Bush?
Notice how the oil is moving east where the greatest demand will come from during the next decade. This is a global shift in marketing strategy by the major owners of the resources away from American oil interests. It could be a sign of future trends, and perhaps a new national energy policy will become ever more vital to American interests as the oil is taken away from the U.S. Consumer. The east already knows the west has the technology to become totally energy independent.
Yep...Auto Sales March Higher, as Do Incentives
Thursday April 1, 6:42 pm ET
By Michael Ellis
DETROIT (Reuters) - Ford Motor Co. (NYSE:F - News) and General Motors Corp. (NYSE:GM - News) posted stronger U.S. vehicle sales in March, but the gains were not enough to prevent them from offering another round of costly incentives.
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. (Tokyo:7201.T - News) led all automakers with a 30.3 percent gain to a record of 90,494 cars and trucks, while sales at Japanese rival Toyota Motor Corp. (Tokyo:7203.T - News; NYSE:TM - News) gained 5.5 percent to a March record of 174,209 units.
In contrast, U.S.-based Ford posted a modest 2.2 percent gain in sales, excluding its foreign brands and some large trucks, while GM said sales, excluding its Saab brand and some medium- and heavy-duty trucks, rose 6.3 percent.
Overall, sales rose to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of about 16.68 vehicles, the strongest rate of the year and an increase from 16.1 million in March last year when the war in Iraq kept many consumers at home in front of the televisions, officials said.
GM, the world's largest automaker, along with Ford and Chrysler said they were adding more cash rebates to bolster sales, heating up a price war in the early days of the spring selling season.
"This aggressive action by GM ... sends the message clearly that the auto industry intends to sell its way out of its inventory overhang rather than cut production to reduce oversupply," Merrill Lynch analyst John Casesa said in a research report.
Sales for Honda Motor Co. Ltd. (Tokyo:7267.T - News) dropped 4.8 percent, even though its Acura luxury brand topped its record results.
"That's a pretty big statement when you look at the Asian three versus the Detroit three," said Jim Sourges, vice president of the global automotive practice at Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, noting the sales records at Nissan, Toyota and Acura.
"We still need to gain some additional momentum as the year progresses," Paul Ballew, GM executive director of market and industry analysis, told analysts and reporters in a conference call. "Sales will pick up as we go into the second and third quarters."
U.S. sales at German-based DaimlerChrysler (NYSE:DCX - News; XETRA:DCXGn.DE - News) fell 3 percent in March, with weaker results for its Mercedes and Chrysler group brands, the automaker said. Sales for the U.S.-based Chrysler group of brands dropped 2 percent while Mercedes brand saw its sales fall 10 percent.
INCENTIVES RISE
GM added an extra $1,000 cash back and interest-free loans for up to five years on most of its pickup trucks and SUVs, the automaker said on Thursday.
The extra $1,000 "bonus" cash is in addition to cash rebates of up to $3,500 on many models.
Ford said it was adding $500 to a cash-back offer on some versions of its popular F-150 pickup truck, bringing the total rebate on some models to $1,500.
Ford also added $500 to the rebates on its 2004 model Focus car and compact Escape SUV, and also sweetened its customer cash on its all-new Freestar minivan.
Chrysler enhanced cash-back deals on its Dodge Durango SUV, and said it was offering a $1,000 rebate on its all-new 2005 model year minivans, which recently went on sale.
Although gas prices hit an all-time high in March, unadjusted for inflation, and threaten to rise higher, both GM and Ford posted stronger sales in gas-thirsty vehicles such as pickup trucks and SUVs.
If the culture changes gradually the incentives will change and maybe transportation will become free... don't hold your breath too long, you can't keep the pollution of mind and environment away for too long using that method.
Form 8-K for QUINTEK TECHNOLOGIES INC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31-Mar-2004
Other Events
Item 5. Other Events and Regulation FD Disclosure.
To Quintek's valued shareholders and customers,
Quintek has experienced some major key developments thus far in calendar year 2004. In January the Company announced its expansion into the service industry. In February a strategy was disclosed to develop a complete information lifecycle management (ILM) solution for cradle-to-grave document storage. Then, most significantly, in March Quintek announced a new President with considerable industry and sales experience, which is expected to further impact the successful growth and expansion of the Company.
As Quintek aligns itself as a 'Business Process Outsourcing' (BPO) services provider we will greatly expand the Company's offerings. Forester Research has estimated that this BPO space will grow to $146 billion by the year 2008. As a BPO services provider, Quintek will enable document intensive organizations to improve efficiencies through our multi-tiered service and offering end-to-end solutions.
This new division of the Company will be referred to as Quintek Services, Inc. (QSI). To spearhead QSI, the Company recently named Bob Brownell as President. A key component to the successful execution of our growth plans, Mr. Brownell brings more than 25 years of experience in the document imaging and data capture markets.
The five tiers of QSI's Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) offerings will encompass a range of services, such as document scanning and off-shore data entry. QSI will also offer more sophisticated services including mail handling, off-shore data capture, web-based image hosting, EDM software integration, off-shore health care claims adjudication and digital archival storage. QSI will also leverage Quintek's proprietary, Chemical-Free Microfilm (CFM) technology as a unique differentiator among its competitors.
The expansion of services and the addition of Mr. Brownell are some of the most significant positive developments in Quintek's history and represent a solid move towards our ongoing goal to increase shareholder value. Over the next 24 month period we intend to add up to an additional 35 new sales people and greatly increase the scope of Quintek's offerings.
Management thanks you for your patience and support over the last twelve months. Today, through managements rebuilding efforts, we have a much stronger company, poised to aggressively pursue opportunities and capitalize on technology and innovation.
Sincerely,
Robert Steele Chairman and CEO
Quintek Technologies Announces Expansion of Business Development Team
Tuesday March 30, 4:00 pm ET
CAMARILLO, Calif., March 30, 2004 (PRIMEZONE) -- Quintek Technologies, Inc. (OTC BB:QTEK.OB - News) announced today that it has brought on board Mr. Chris de Lapp as senior account executive.
From 1995 to 2002 de Lapp served as Senior Business Development Manager for Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. (NYSE:ACS - News), a $6.5 billion dollar provider of Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) and Information Technology (IT) solutions. In his last 5 years with ACS, Mr. de Lapp averaged $2.75 million a year in sales, consistently exceeding his sales quota.
ADVERTISEMENT
Quintek intends to add up to an additional 35 sales representatives over the next 24 months. The Company's planned sales expansion began on March 16, 2004 when it was announced that senior industry sales executive, Bob Brownell, was hired as President.
Brownell commented, ``The hiring of Mr. de Lapp is the first step in building our national senior sales team to effectively grow Quintek's ''Business Process Optimization`` outsourcing services.'' He added, ``We will continue to add qualified sales professionals on a national scope to meet our aggressive sales objectives while servicing the demands of the BPO market space. Brownell ended, ''It is my job to orchestrate Quintek's North American expansion of services while attracting the industry professionals needed to consultant with the document-intensive business community.``
About Quintek
Quintek is the only manufacturer of a chemical-free desktop microfilm solution. The company currently sells hardware, software and services for printing large format drawings such as blueprints and CAD files (Computer Aided Design), directly to microfilm. Quintek does business in the content and document management services market, forecast by IDC Research to grow to $24 billion by 2006 at a combined annual growth rate of 44%. Quintek targets the aerospace, defense and AEC (Architecture, Engineering and Construction) industries.
Quintek's printers are patented, modern, chemical-free, desktop-sized units with an average sale price of over $65,000. Competitive products for direct output of computer files to microfilm are more expensive, large, specialized devices that require constant replenishment and disposal of hazardous chemicals.
``Safe-Harbor'' Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
This press release contains forward-looking information within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Exchange Act''), including statements regarding potential sales, the success of the company's business, as well as statements that include the word ``believe'' or similar expressions. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of Quintek to differ materially from those implied or expressed by such forward-looking statements. Such factors include, among others, the risk factors included in Quintek's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002 and any subsequent reports filed with the SEC under the Exchange Act. This press release speaks as of the date first set forth above and Quintek assumes no responsibility to update the information included herein for events occurring after the date hereof. Actual results could differ materially from those anticipated due to factors such as the lack of capital, timely development of products, inability to deliver products when ordered, inability of potential customers to pay for ordered products, and political and economic risks inherent in international trade.
Contact:
Quintek Technologies, Inc
Andrew Haag, Chief Financial Officer
(805) 383-3914 ext. 14
ahaag@quintek.com
Investor Relations
Cinapsys, Inc.
Todd Gilligan, Director
(866) EASY-IRM
(949) 497-6684
todd@cinapsys.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Quintek Technologies
Yen Slips from Near 4-Year Peak Vs Dollar
Thursday April 1, 10:40 pm ET
By Hideyuki Sano
TOKYO (Reuters) - The yen slipped from near a four-year peak against the dollar on Friday as Japanese investors bought fresh foreign assets at the start of the new financial year in a market otherwise becalmed ahead of key U.S. jobs data.
"Japanese investors' fresh investment is blossoming," said a trader at a major Japanese bank.
"But this will take place only in Asian markets," he said, adding that participants remained focused on the non-farm payrolls data due at 8:30 a.m. EST.
Japanese investors, frustrated by near-zero interest rates at home and seeking higher returns abroad, are allocating fresh money for the fiscal year that kicked off on Thursday.
Dollar bulls are hoping the jobs data will show the U.S. recovery has finally started to create enough jobs to allow the Federal Reserve to think about hiking interest rates.
Economists on average expect 103,000 more jobs were created in March than in February, while some traders forecast a larger figure.
Still, most traders were cautious as the data has had a habit recently of causing disappointment. The February payrolls data posted a rise of just 21,000 and sent the dollar reeling as it dented hopes for a Fed rate hike in the near future.
The Fed fund rate is at one percent, the lowest level since 1958. Low U.S. rates are thought to have worked against the dollar as they discourage foreign investors from buying U.S. bonds.
"I'd say the dollar will be sold if the (jobs) data is in line with expectations, and even a strong reading would just give it a mild boost," said Junya Tanase, forex strategist at JP Morgan Chase in Tokyo.
"The dollar's longer term downtrend is unchanged."
Tanase said the Fed was unlikely to consider lifting rates until payroll figures show jobs growth of around 150,000 or more for several consecutive months.
As of 10:12 p.m. EST Thursday, the dollar was around 104.20 yen up about 0.5 percent from late U.S. trade.
Still, it was not far from the four-year low of 103.40 hit on Wednesday while the yen rides high on growing optimism the Japanese economy may be staging its strongest recovery since the bursting of the asset bubble more than a decade ago.
100-YEN LEVEL
Many analysts say that given improving economic fundamentals, large foreign buying of Japanese stocks, and the Japanese authorities apparent scaling back of currency intervention, the yen would soon challenge the 100 per dollar mark.
Japan's top financial diplomat, Zembei Mizoguchi, said on Friday that Tokyo's stance on foreign exchange was unchanged, and that it would continue to act as needed in the market.
Toshiaki Kimura, group manager of forex trading at Mitsubishi Trust and Banking, said that the dollar may drop below 103 yen in April, and could test 100 yen by June.
The Nikkei average gained 0.86 percent in morning trade, as foreign investors continued to pour capital into Japanese assets.
The latest data from the Finance Ministry on weekly capital flows shows that net purchases of Japanese stocks by foreigners from March 1 to March 26 totaled 2.58 trillion yen ($24.88 billion), which would likely make the month of March a record.
The euro was largely unchanged around $1.2360 compared with around $1.2365 in late U.S. trade and Thursday's 10-day high around $1.2390, hit after European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet said the bank was in no hurry to cut rates.
While the bank kept policy unchanged as expected, Trichet wrong-footed many traders, who had been expecting him to signal a rate cut in coming months to help shore up sluggish euro zone economies.
The euro rose to 128.70 yen from around 128.12 in late U.S. trade.
Quintek Technologies, Inc., Files 8K Disclosing Text of its
Shareholder Letter
Company Enters Multi-Billion Dollar Business Process
Outsourcing Market
CAMARILLO, Calif., April 1, 2004 (PRIMEZONE) -- Quintek Technologies,
Inc. (OTCBB:QTEK) filed an 8k with the Securities and Exchange
Commission yesterday disclosing the text of a letter to its
shareholders in which the Company discussed its plans to enter the
Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) market.
In the letter, the Company highlighted its previously disclosed
achievements to date in 2004, including:
-- The announced expansion into the service industry;
-- The strategy to develop a complete information lifecycle
management (ILM) solution for cradle-to-grave document storage;
-- The appointment of a new President with considerable industry and
sales experience to help further impact the successful growth and
expansion of the Company.
Quintek also disclosed that it has formed a new division, Quintek
Services, Inc. (QSI). The formation of QSI is complementary with
Quintek's alignment of the Company as a 'Business Process Outsourcing'
(BPO) services provider. Forrester Research has estimated that the BPO
space will grow to $146 billion by the year 2008. Quintek also
referenced that over a 24-month period they intend to add up to an
additional 35 new sales people and increase the scope of the Company's
offerings.
About Quintek
Quintek is the only manufacturer of a chemical-free desktop microfilm
solution. The company currently sells hardware, software and services
for printing large format drawings such as blueprints and CAD files
(Computer Aided Design), directly to microfilm. Quintek does business
in the content and document management services market, forecast by IDC
Research to grow to $24 billion by 2006 at a combined annual growth
rate of 44%. Quintek targets the aerospace, defense and AEC
(Architecture, Engineering and Construction) industries.
Quintek's printers are patented, modern, chemical-free, desktop-sized
units with an average sale price of over $65,000. Competitive products
for direct output of computer files to microfilm are more expensive,
large, specialized devices that require constant replenishment and
disposal of hazardous chemicals.
"Safe-Harbor" Statement Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995
This press release contains forward-looking information within the
meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), including statements regarding potential
sales, the success of the company's business, as well as statements
that include the word "believe" or similar expressions. Such
forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks,
uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual results,
performance or achievements of Quintek to differ materially from those
implied or expressed by such forward-looking statements. Such factors
include, among others, the risk factors included in Quintek's Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002 and any
subsequent reports filed with the SEC under the Exchange Act. This
press release speaks as of the date first set forth above and Quintek
assumes no responsibility to update the information included herein for
events occurring after the date hereof. Actual results could differ
materially from those anticipated due to factors such as the lack of
capital, timely development of products, inability to deliver products
when ordered, inability of potential customers to pay for ordered
products, and political and economic risks inherent in international
trade.
-0-
CONTACT: Quintek Technologies, Inc
Andrew Haag
Chief Financial Officer
(805) 383-3914 ext. 14
ahaag@quintek.com
Investor Relations
Cinapsys, Inc.
Todd Gilligan, Director
Toll Free 1-866-EASY-IRM
Direct (949) 497-6684
todd@cinapsys.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This news release was delivered to you by PrimeZone Media Network.
If you wish to be removed from this list, please call 1-800-307-6627
FASB Proposes Expensing of Stock Options
The Financial Accounting Standards Board today issued an exposure
draft that addresses the accounting for share-based payment transactions in
which an enterprise receives employee services in exchange for (a)
equity instruments of the enterprise or (b) liabilities that are based on
the fair value of the enterprise's equity instruments or that may be
settled by the issuance of such equity instruments. Proposed Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards: Share-Based Payment (Mar. 31, 2004).
The proposed statement generally would require that companies account
for share-based compensation transactions, such as a grant of stock
options, using a fair-value-based method (i.e., valuation at the amount at
which an asset could be bought or sold in a current transaction between
willing parties). It would reject the practice, currently used by a
majority of companies, of valuing stock options at their intrinsic value
(i.e., the amount by which the fair value of the underlying stock
exceeds the exercise price of an option). Since most stock options have a
fair value but no intrinsic value when granted, the majority of
companies currently do not book stock option grants as an expense.
Comments on the exposure draft are due by June 30, 2004. The proposal
is the most controversial ever made by FASB, and a large number of
comments is expected. The exposure draft contemplates that the proposed
statement would be applied to public entities (and nonpublic entities
that had adopted the fair-value-based method of accounting for recognition
or pro forma disclosures) prospectively for fiscal years beginning
after December 15, 2004, as if all share-based compensation awards granted,
modified, or settled after December 15, 1994, had been accounted for
using the fair-value-based method of accounting. Other nonpublic
entities would apply the proposed statement prospectively for fiscal years
beginning after December 15, 2005. The exposure draft is available online
at
http://www.fasb.org/draft/ed_intropg_share-based_payment.shtml
Interesting how we were both looking into the same subject at about the same time:
Calling on the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse of the Global Oil Industry
Perhaps it's a sign of politics inching back toward business as usual: Congressional Republicans were exploiting the Sept. 11 terror attacks to push the Bush administration's plan for an all-out increase in energy production, and drilling advocates are likely to continue invoking terrorism fears as they argue for more oil development while continuing to profit from higher and higher oil prices. Bush has recently failed to convince OPEC to stop curtailed production.
Bush, of course, has long maintained that his energy plan will increase America's "energy security" -- meaning the nation's access to relatively inexpensive electricity and fuel. To that end, he had proposed a package of measures intended to encourage greater production of oil, along with other fossil fuels and nuclear power.
In a victory that surprised even Republicans, the House of Representatives in August of 2001 endorsed much of Bush's approach, including $33 billion worth of tax incentives for oil companies. But where is the beef? Oil prices have soared because of the falling dollar on world markets and bad foreign policy after the invasion of Iraq.
Oil, as long as the dollar continues to fall, is inching closer to $40 per barrel than the much more comfortable level of $10, certainly a more reasonable price in any consumers estimation.
The U.S. is mired down in the occupation of a land that has an estimated $2 trillion in oil and gas reserves but it will take another decade to get it to market at the current rate of turmoil.
Some people say that the reason behind the hatred of the US by Mideast extremists can be summed up in one word: oil. This is why we have a military presence there and why we have supported corrupt regimes (Saudi Arabia a la Carlyle Group and reciprical trades via Citi Group) that do not pursue democratic or equitable societies.
If I Had $33 Billion from the Federal Government I would invest it in alternative energy projects such as alternative vehicles production that didn't use oil and gas to run on. I would put the Japanese auto makers to shame with that kind of investment.
There are plenty of those types of opportunities out there. But trying to put a fund like that together against the grain of the military industrial financial media complex is like trying to milk honey out of a dried turnip.
It was questionable even then whether these steps announced by the Bush administration would in fact guarantee stable energy prices. Given the power that OPEC and the international oil companies have to manipulate production, the usual rules of supply and demand don't apply to the oil business.
And even if Bush's approach had worked, it would only affect the price of oil in a narrow sense: what a barrel of light crude fetches on the London spot market, what a gallon of gasoline for the family automobile costs at the pump.
What matters more is what should be called the real price of oil. This is comprised of two elements: petroleum's market price, plus the many indirect costs that its production and consumption impose on nature, public health, and future generations.
Under Bush's old plan, for example, the real price of oil would have included not only those $33 billion in subsidies, but the potential destruction of Alaskan caribou calving grounds. Increased production also means a growing possibility of more oil spills like the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster, as well as continuation of the less-publicized release of an average of 10 million gallons of petroleum into the oceans every year from tanker accidents.
America needs to either increase its oil production by 10 million barrels per day or cut it in half. The cost of increasing it is far greater than investing in alternative energy transport systems in the major cities of America.
There are literally thousands of alternative transport projects on the boards that could use $33 billion in federal government subsidies which could be implemented within the next 24 months. It all boils down to bad administration and Bush has certainly been bad for the majority of small and medium sized businesses. Only the most powerful and wealthiest of businesses have benefited from the Bush administration's energy and foriegn policies.
Needless to say, without tapping into Alaska's reserves, invading Iraq has cost an additional $200 billion to date, leaving the tab for oil closing in on a quarter trillion dollars in hard tax dollars, let alone the mounting cost of human life.
This is a clear sign of a failed energy policy as well as the remaining unanswered questions surrounding the Cheney Energy meetings. Perhaps when the death toll from the war reaches 3,000, America will wake up and realize that lives and families are worth more than the blood of any nation.
Further raising oil's real price will increase air pollution made possible by Bush's relaxation of environmental regulations. Already, diseases stemming from car exhaust kill some 30,000 Americans each year, according to a 1995 Harvard University study. And back in 1993, the Worldwatch Institute estimated the damage to human and environmental health from vehicle emissions at $93 billion a year. Bottom line, the US Energy Policy is costing closer to half a trillion a year in total.
For the world at large, the most serious consequence of continued reliance on oil and other fossil fuels will be accelerating climate change in the 21st century. Though a number of factors contribute to the greenhouse effect, oil remains a major culprit. Some 40 percent of America's greenhouse gas emissions stem from automobiles.
This is a solvable problem that requires more than just money backing reforms. It requires a global revolution toward an industrial overhaul of energy policy and educating the consumers who are hooked on oil by no choice of their own.
Getting support for that is near impossible due to the monopolies enjoyed by US multinationals and OPEC, their global media reach, and the vested interests of the multinational bankers behind them.
Even a more open disclosure policy by major oil companies who pay soveriegns for the use of their natural resources is being pushed from various NGO's around the world, but the process is slow going.
Scientists have noted that already -- after a mere one-degree increase in temperatures over the past century -- glaciers are melting and catastrophic storms becoming more severe and frequent. They expect the planet to warm an additional 4 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit in the 21st century, bringing yet more violent weather, flooded coastlines, killer droughts and social havoc. One insurance industry study projects that climate change will impose $304 billion of additional direct costs on the global economy every year.
Aside from these hypotheticals, the solution is not in spending another trillion dollars on Mars exploration until we put our own global house in order. A trillion dollars spent on alternative energy over the next decade would result in ten trillion dollars in total global costs during the same period.
Bush has rightly been criticized for rejecting the Kyoto accord on global warming. But the truth is, America has never been shy about expecting the rest of the world to support its oil habit. Presidents and Congresses of both US political parties have for decades affirmed military and diplomatic policies aimed at guaranteeing American access to overseas oil; the CIA-assisted overthrow in 1953 of Iran's prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh -- who had advocated nationalizing the country's oil supplies -- is but one of many examples.
According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, an eco-think tank that analyzed Pentagon and Department of Energy spending data for the mid-1990s, federally funded research and development provided at least $300 million annually in subsidies for the fossil-fuel industry.
And at least $50 billion of the US annual military budget during those years paid for forces whose primary purpose is to safeguard Middle Eastern oil fields and shipping lanes -- and whose presence, especially in the Islamic holy land of Saudi Arabia, provokes bitter resentment in much of the Muslim world.
Since its inception, the United States has spent over $5.5 trillion on nuclear weapons research and has created over 80,000 metric tons of hazardous chemical wastes which are estimated to cost between $1.7 to $2 trillion to clean up over the next decade. This money, even half of it, could have created a national electric transportation grid without the incumbent debt currently driving up fuel prices to record levels.
Economists use the term "externalities" to refer to costs that are not included in a commodity's market price, but are borne by society as a whole. Society, of course, also has benefited from the past century's increase in oil consumption: The US economy underwent an extraordinary expansion during the 20th century, when cheap oil fostered first the automobilization of the nation and, after World War II, its suburbanization. Oil also made possible a transportation system built around individual mobility and personal convenience that in many respects remains the envy of the world.
But the impending threat of climate change suggests that our reliance on oil has reached a point of diminishing returns. It's time for a new strategy -- a shift to energy efficiency in the short term and to solar and other renewable energy forms in the long term. Such a Global Green Deal would not only reduce ecological damage, but yield substantially more jobs, profits and economic prosperity than today's system does.
Investments in energy efficiency create two to ten times more jobs per dollar than investments in oil and nuclear power -- a crucial concern as the global economy slides into depression due to the collapsing dollar.
Bush is still betting that the nation is willing to pay whatever it takes to keep oil flowing, and he may be right. In the House of Representatives, the president's plan was supported by Democrats and Republicans, labor and corporate interests.
The majority of hard working Americans may ultimately agree with Bush that maintaining their oil habit is worth any price. But we should at least acknowledge the full cost of such a decision -- not only for Americans, but for the six billion people we share the planet with.
A $33 billion energy fund would create at least 3 million jobs and build a national electronic mass transport system in every major city in North America within four years. The technology already exists. Perhaps the democrats should consider such a fund in their political platform this coming November and get more backing from the likes of Buffet, Soros, Gates and Turner.
The four of them alone could provide the necessary seed money and create the starter fluid to get the entire project moving forward. Certainly Buffet could provide the insurance, Gates the software, Soros the political might, and Turner the United Nations development support to get the rest of the world and the media behind it. The only risk to them might be their becoming known as the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse of the Global Oil Industry.
What do you think?
Mark Hertsgaard originally contributed to this story. Edited by G! Alex Gabor
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid386.php
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=2750049
Calling for the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse of the Global Oil Industry
Perhaps it's a sign of politics inching back toward business as usual: Congressional Republicans were exploiting the Sept. 11 terror attacks to push the Bush administration's plan for an all-out increase in energy production, and drilling advocates are likely to continue invoking terrorism fears as they argue for more oil development while continuing to profit from higher and higher oil prices. Bush has recently failed to convince OPEC to stop curtailed production.
Bush, of course, has long maintained that his energy plan will increase America's "energy security" -- meaning the nation's access to relatively inexpensive electricity and fuel. To that end, he had proposed a package of measures intended to encourage greater production of oil, along with other fossil fuels and nuclear power.
In a victory that surprised even Republicans, the House of Representatives in August of 2001 endorsed much of Bush's approach, including $33 billion worth of tax incentives for oil companies. But where is the beef? Oil prices have soared because of the falling dollar on world markets and bad foreign policy after the invasion of Iraq.
Oil, as long as the dollar continues to fall, is inching closer to $40 per barrel than the much more comfortable level of $10, certainly a more reasonable price in any consumers estimation.
The U.S. is mired down in the occupation of a land that has an estimated $2 trillion in oil and gas reserves but it will take another decade to get it to market at the current rate of turmoil.
Some people say that the reason behind the hatred of the US by Mideast extremists can be summed up in one word: oil. This is why we have a military presence there and why we have supported corrupt regimes (Saudi Arabia a la Carlyle Group and reciprical trades via Citi Group) that do not pursue democratic or equitable societies.
If I Had $33 Billion from the Federal Government I would invest it in alternative energy projects such as alternative vehicles production that didn't use oil and gas to run on. I would put the Japanese auto makers to shame with that kind of investment.
There are plenty of those types of opportunities out there. But trying to put a fund like that together against the grain of the military industrial financial media complex is like trying to milk honey out of a dried turnip.
It was questionable even then whether these steps announced by the Bush administration would in fact guarantee stable energy prices. Given the power that OPEC and the international oil companies have to manipulate production, the usual rules of supply and demand don't apply to the oil business.
And even if Bush's approach had worked, it would only affect the price of oil in a narrow sense: what a barrel of light crude fetches on the London spot market, what a gallon of gasoline for the family automobile costs at the pump.
What matters more is what should be called the real price of oil. This is comprised of two elements: petroleum's market price, plus the many indirect costs that its production and consumption impose on nature, public health, and future generations.
Under Bush's old plan, for example, the real price of oil would have included not only those $33 billion in subsidies, but the potential destruction of Alaskan caribou calving grounds. Increased production also means a growing possibility of more oil spills like the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster, as well as continuation of the less-publicized release of an average of 10 million gallons of petroleum into the oceans every year from tanker accidents.
America needs to either increase its oil production by 10 million barrels per day or cut it in half. The cost of increasing it is far greater than investing in alternative energy transport systems in the major cities of America.
There are literally thousands of alternative transport projects on the boards that could use $33 billion in federal government subsidies which could be implemented within the next 24 months. It all boils down to bad administration and Bush has certainly been bad for the majority of small and medium sized businesses. Only the most powerful and wealthiest of businesses have benefited from the Bush administration's energy and foriegn policies.
Needless to say, without tapping into Alaska's reserves, invading Iraq has cost an additional $200 billion to date, leaving the tab for oil closing in on a quarter trillion dollars in hard tax dollars, let alone the mounting cost of human life.
This is a clear sign of a failed energy policy as well as the remaining unanswered questions surrounding the Cheney Energy meetings. Perhaps when the death toll from the war reaches 3,000, America will wake up and realize that lives and families are worth more than the blood of any nation.
Further raising oil's real price will increase air pollution made possible by Bush's relaxation of environmental regulations. Already, diseases stemming from car exhaust kill some 30,000 Americans each year, according to a 1995 Harvard University study. And back in 1993, the Worldwatch Institute estimated the damage to human and environmental health from vehicle emissions at $93 billion a year. Bottom line, the US Energy Policy is costing closer to half a trillion a year in total.
For the world at large, the most serious consequence of continued reliance on oil and other fossil fuels will be accelerating climate change in the 21st century. Though a number of factors contribute to the greenhouse effect, oil remains a major culprit. Some 40 percent of America's greenhouse gas emissions stem from automobiles.
This is a solvable problem that requires more than just money backing reforms. It requires a global revolution toward an industrial overhaul of energy policy and educating the consumers who are hooked on oil by no choice of their own.
Getting support for that is near impossible due to the monopolies enjoyed by US multinationals and OPEC, their global media reach, and the vested interests of the multinational bankers behind them.
Even a more open disclosure policy by major oil companies who pay soveriegns for the use of their natural resources is being pushed from various NGO's around the world, but the process is slow going.
Scientists have noted that already -- after a mere one-degree increase in temperatures over the past century -- glaciers are melting and catastrophic storms becoming more severe and frequent. They expect the planet to warm an additional 4 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit in the 21st century, bringing yet more violent weather, flooded coastlines, killer droughts and social havoc. One insurance industry study projects that climate change will impose $304 billion of additional direct costs on the global economy every year.
Aside from these hypotheticals, the solution is not in spending another trillion dollars on Mars exploration until we put our own global house in order. A trillion dollars spent on alternative energy over the next decade would result in ten trillion dollars in total global costs during the same period.
Bush has rightly been criticized for rejecting the Kyoto accord on global warming. But the truth is, America has never been shy about expecting the rest of the world to support its oil habit. Presidents and Congresses of both US political parties have for decades affirmed military and diplomatic policies aimed at guaranteeing American access to overseas oil; the CIA-assisted overthrow in 1953 of Iran's prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh -- who had advocated nationalizing the country's oil supplies -- is but one of many examples.
According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, an eco-think tank that analyzed Pentagon and Department of Energy spending data for the mid-1990s, federally funded research and development provided at least $300 million annually in subsidies for the fossil-fuel industry.
And at least $50 billion of the US annual military budget during those years paid for forces whose primary purpose is to safeguard Middle Eastern oil fields and shipping lanes -- and whose presence, especially in the Islamic holy land of Saudi Arabia, provokes bitter resentment in much of the Muslim world.
Since its inception, the United States has spent over $5.5 trillion on nuclear weapons research and has created over 80,000 metric tons of hazardous chemical wastes which are estimated to cost between $1.7 to $2 trillion to clean up over the next decade. This money, even half of it, could have created a national electric transportation grid without the incumbent debt currently driving up fuel prices to record levels.
Economists use the term "externalities" to refer to costs that are not included in a commodity's market price, but are borne by society as a whole. Society, of course, also has benefited from the past century's increase in oil consumption: The US economy underwent an extraordinary expansion during the 20th century, when cheap oil fostered first the automobilization of the nation and, after World War II, its suburbanization. Oil also made possible a transportation system built around individual mobility and personal convenience that in many respects remains the envy of the world.
But the impending threat of climate change suggests that our reliance on oil has reached a point of diminishing returns. It's time for a new strategy -- a shift to energy efficiency in the short term and to solar and other renewable energy forms in the long term. Such a Global Green Deal would not only reduce ecological damage, but yield substantially more jobs, profits and economic prosperity than today's system does.
Investments in energy efficiency create two to ten times more jobs per dollar than investments in oil and nuclear power -- a crucial concern as the global economy slides into depression due to the collapsing dollar.
Bush is still betting that the nation is willing to pay whatever it takes to keep oil flowing, and he may be right. In the House of Representatives, the president's plan was supported by Democrats and Republicans, labor and corporate interests.
The majority of hard working Americans may ultimately agree with Bush that maintaining their oil habit is worth any price. But we should at least acknowledge the full cost of such a decision -- not only for Americans, but for the six billion people we share the planet with.
A $33 billion energy fund would create at least 3 million jobs and build a national electronic mass transport system in every major city in North America within four years. The technology already exists. Perhaps the democrats should consider such a fund in their political platform this coming November and get more backing from the likes of Buffet, Soros, Gates and Turner.
The four of them alone could provide the necessary seed money and create the starter fluid to get the entire project moving forward. Certainly Buffet could provide the insurance, Gates the software, Soros the political might, and Turner the United Nations development support to get the rest of the world and the media behind it. The only risk to them might be their becoming known as the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse of the Global Oil Industry.
What do you think?
Mark Hertsgaard originally contributed to this story. Edited by G! Alex Gabor
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid386.php
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=2750049
Calling for the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse of the Global Oil Industry
Perhaps it's a sign of politics inching back toward business as usual: Congressional Republicans were exploiting the Sept. 11 terror attacks to push the Bush administration's plan for an all-out increase in energy production, and drilling advocates are likely to continue invoking terrorism fears as they argue for more oil development while continuing to profit from higher and higher oil prices. Bush has recently failed to convince OPEC to stop curtailed production.
Bush, of course, has long maintained that his energy plan will increase America's "energy security" -- meaning the nation's access to relatively inexpensive electricity and fuel. To that end, he had proposed a package of measures intended to encourage greater production of oil, along with other fossil fuels and nuclear power.
In a victory that surprised even Republicans, the House of Representatives in August of 2001 endorsed much of Bush's approach, including $33 billion worth of tax incentives for oil companies. But where is the beef? Oil prices have soared because of the falling dollar on world markets and bad foreign policy after the invasion of Iraq.
Oil, as long as the dollar continues to fall, is inching closer to $40 per barrel than the much more comfortable level of $10, certainly a more reasonable price in any consumers estimation.
The U.S. is mired down in the occupation of a land that has an estimated $2 trillion in oil and gas reserves but it will take another decade to get it to market at the current rate of turmoil.
Some people say that the reason behind the hatred of the US by Mideast extremists can be summed up in one word: oil. This is why we have a military presence there and why we have supported corrupt regimes (Saudi Arabia a la Carlyle Group and reciprical trades via Citi Group) that do not pursue democratic or equitable societies.
If I Had $33 Billion from the Federal Government I would invest it in alternative energy projects such as alternative vehicles production that didn't use oil and gas to run on. I would put the Japanese auto makers to shame with that kind of investment.
There are plenty of those types of opportunities out there. But trying to put a fund like that together against the grain of the military industrial financial media complex is like trying to milk honey out of a dried turnip.
It was questionable even then whether these steps announced by the Bush administration would in fact guarantee stable energy prices. Given the power that OPEC and the international oil companies have to manipulate production, the usual rules of supply and demand don't apply to the oil business.
And even if Bush's approach had worked, it would only affect the price of oil in a narrow sense: what a barrel of light crude fetches on the London spot market, what a gallon of gasoline for the family automobile costs at the pump.
What matters more is what should be called the real price of oil. This is comprised of two elements: petroleum's market price, plus the many indirect costs that its production and consumption impose on nature, public health, and future generations.
Under Bush's old plan, for example, the real price of oil would have included not only those $33 billion in subsidies, but the potential destruction of Alaskan caribou calving grounds. Increased production also means a growing possibility of more oil spills like the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster, as well as continuation of the less-publicized release of an average of 10 million gallons of petroleum into the oceans every year from tanker accidents.
America needs to either increase its oil production by 10 million barrels per day or cut it in half. The cost of increasing it is far greater than investing in alternative energy transport systems in the major cities of America.
There are literally thousands of alternative transport projects on the boards that could use $33 billion in federal government subsidies which could be implemented within the next 24 months. It all boils down to bad administration and Bush has certainly been bad for the majority of small and medium sized businesses. Only the most powerful and wealthiest of businesses have benefited from the Bush administration's energy and foriegn policies.
Needless to say, without tapping into Alaska's reserves, invading Iraq has cost an additional $200 billion to date, leaving the tab for oil closing in on a quarter trillion dollars in hard tax dollars, let alone the mounting cost of human life.
This is a clear sign of a failed energy policy as well as the remaining unanswered questions surrounding the Cheney Energy meetings. Perhaps when the death toll from the war reaches 3,000, America will wake up and realize that lives and families are worth more than the blood of any nation.
Further raising oil's real price will increase air pollution made possible by Bush's relaxation of environmental regulations. Already, diseases stemming from car exhaust kill some 30,000 Americans each year, according to a 1995 Harvard University study. And back in 1993, the Worldwatch Institute estimated the damage to human and environmental health from vehicle emissions at $93 billion a year. Bottom line, the US Energy Policy is costing closer to half a trillion a year in total.
For the world at large, the most serious consequence of continued reliance on oil and other fossil fuels will be accelerating climate change in the 21st century. Though a number of factors contribute to the greenhouse effect, oil remains a major culprit. Some 40 percent of America's greenhouse gas emissions stem from automobiles.
This is a solvable problem that requires more than just money backing reforms. It requires a global revolution toward an industrial overhaul of energy policy and educating the consumers who are hooked on oil by no choice of their own.
Getting support for that is near impossible due to the monopolies enjoyed by US multinationals and OPEC, their global media reach, and the vested interests of the multinational bankers behind them.
Even a more open disclosure policy by major oil companies who pay soveriegns for the use of their natural resources is being pushed from various NGO's around the world, but the process is slow going.
Scientists have noted that already -- after a mere one-degree increase in temperatures over the past century -- glaciers are melting and catastrophic storms becoming more severe and frequent. They expect the planet to warm an additional 4 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit in the 21st century, bringing yet more violent weather, flooded coastlines, killer droughts and social havoc. One insurance industry study projects that climate change will impose $304 billion of additional direct costs on the global economy every year.
Aside from these hypotheticals, the solution is not in spending another trillion dollars on Mars exploration until we put our own global house in order. A trillion dollars spent on alternative energy over the next decade would result in ten trillion dollars in total global costs during the same period.
Bush has rightly been criticized for rejecting the Kyoto accord on global warming. But the truth is, America has never been shy about expecting the rest of the world to support its oil habit. Presidents and Congresses of both US political parties have for decades affirmed military and diplomatic policies aimed at guaranteeing American access to overseas oil; the CIA-assisted overthrow in 1953 of Iran's prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh -- who had advocated nationalizing the country's oil supplies -- is but one of many examples.
According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, an eco-think tank that analyzed Pentagon and Department of Energy spending data for the mid-1990s, federally funded research and development provided at least $300 million annually in subsidies for the fossil-fuel industry.
And at least $50 billion of the US annual military budget during those years paid for forces whose primary purpose is to safeguard Middle Eastern oil fields and shipping lanes -- and whose presence, especially in the Islamic holy land of Saudi Arabia, provokes bitter resentment in much of the Muslim world.
Since its inception, the United States has spent over $5.5 trillion on nuclear weapons research and has created over 80,000 metric tons of hazardous chemical wastes which are estimated to cost between $1.7 to $2 trillion to clean up over the next decade. This money, even half of it, could have created a national electric transportation grid without the incumbent debt currently driving up fuel prices to record levels.
Economists use the term "externalities" to refer to costs that are not included in a commodity's market price, but are borne by society as a whole. Society, of course, also has benefited from the past century's increase in oil consumption: The US economy underwent an extraordinary expansion during the 20th century, when cheap oil fostered first the automobilization of the nation and, after World War II, its suburbanization. Oil also made possible a transportation system built around individual mobility and personal convenience that in many respects remains the envy of the world.
But the impending threat of climate change suggests that our reliance on oil has reached a point of diminishing returns. It's time for a new strategy -- a shift to energy efficiency in the short term and to solar and other renewable energy forms in the long term. Such a Global Green Deal would not only reduce ecological damage, but yield substantially more jobs, profits and economic prosperity than today's system does.
Investments in energy efficiency create two to ten times more jobs per dollar than investments in oil and nuclear power -- a crucial concern as the global economy slides into depression due to the collapsing dollar.
Bush is still betting that the nation is willing to pay whatever it takes to keep oil flowing, and he may be right. In the House of Representatives, the president's plan was supported by Democrats and Republicans, labor and corporate interests.
The majority of hard working Americans may ultimately agree with Bush that maintaining their oil habit is worth any price. But we should at least acknowledge the full cost of such a decision -- not only for Americans, but for the six billion people we share the planet with.
A $33 billion energy fund would create at least 3 million jobs and build a national electronic mass transport system in every major city in North America within four years. The technology already exists. Perhaps the democrats should consider such a fund in their political platform this coming November and get more backing from the likes of Buffet, Soros, Gates and Turner.
The four of them alone could provide the necessary seed money and create the starter fluid to get the entire project moving forward. Certainly Buffet could provide the insurance, Gates the software, Soros the political might, and Turner the United Nations development support to get the rest of the world and the media behind it. The only risk to them might be their becoming known as the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse of the Global Oil Industry.
What do you think?
Mark Hertsgaard originally contributed to this story. Edited by G! Alex Gabor
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid386.php
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=2750049
Calling on the Four Horseman of the Apocolypse of the Global Oil Industry.
Perhaps it's a sign of politics inching back toward business as usual: Congressional Republicans were exploiting the Sept. 11 terror attacks to push the Bush administration's plan for an all-out increase in energy production, and drilling advocates are likely to continue invoking terrorism fears as they argue for more oil development while continuing to profit from higher and higher oil prices. Bush has recently failed to convince OPEC to stop curtailed production.
Bush, of course, has long maintained that his energy plan will increase America's "energy security" -- meaning the nation's access to relatively inexpensive electricity and fuel. To that end, he had proposed a package of measures intended to encourage greater production of oil, along with other fossil fuels and nuclear power.
In a victory that surprised even Republicans, the House of Representatives in August of 2001 endorsed much of Bush's approach, including $33 billion worth of tax incentives for oil companies. But where is the beef? Oil prices have soared because of the falling dollar on world markets and bad foreign policy after the invasion of Iraq.
Oil, as long as the dollar continues to fall, is inching closer to $40 per barrel than the much more comfortable level of $10, certainly a more reasonable price in any consumers estimation.
The U.S. is mired down in the occupation of a land that has an estimated $2 trillion in oil and gas reserves but it will take another decade to get it to market at the current rate of turmoil.
Some people say that the reason behind the hatred of the US by Mideast extremists can be summed up in one word: oil. This is why we have a military presence there and why we have supported corrupt regimes (Saudi Arabia a la Carlyle Group and reciprical trades via Citi Group) that do not pursue democratic or equitable societies.
If I Had $33 Billion from the Federal Government I would invest it in alternative energy projects such as alternative vehicles production that didn't use oil and gas to run on. I would put the Japanese auto makers to shame with that kind of investment.
There are plenty of those types of opportunities out there. But trying to put a fund like that together against the grain of the military industrial financial media complex is like trying to milk honey out of a dried turnip.
It was questionable even then whether these steps announced by the Bush administration would in fact guarantee stable energy prices. Given the power that OPEC and the international oil companies have to manipulate production, the usual rules of supply and demand don't apply to the oil business.
And even if Bush's approach had worked, it would only affect the price of oil in a narrow sense: what a barrel of light crude fetches on the London spot market, what a gallon of gasoline for the family automobile costs at the pump.
What matters more is what should be called the real price of oil. This is comprised of two elements: petroleum's market price, plus the many indirect costs that its production and consumption impose on nature, public health, and future generations.
Under Bush's old plan, for example, the real price of oil would have included not only those $33 billion in subsidies, but the potential destruction of Alaskan caribou calving grounds. Increased production also means a growing possibility of more oil spills like the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster, as well as continuation of the less-publicized release of an average of 10 million gallons of petroleum into the oceans every year from tanker accidents.
America needs to either increase its oil production by 10 million barrels per day or cut it in half. The cost of increasing it is far greater than investing in alternative energy transport systems in the major cities of America.
There are literally thousands of alternative transport projects on the boards that could use $33 billion in federal government subsidies which could be implemented within the next 24 months. It all boils down to bad administration and Bush has certainly been bad for the majority of small and medium sized businesses. Only the most powerful and wealthiest of businesses have benefited from the Bush administration's energy and foriegn policies.
Needless to say, without tapping into Alaska's reserves, invading Iraq has cost an additional $200 billion to date, leaving the tab for oil closing in on a quarter trillion dollars in hard tax dollars, let alone the mounting cost of human life.
This is a clear sign of a failed energy policy as well as the remaining unanswered questions surrounding the Cheney Energy meetings. Perhaps when the death toll from the war reaches 3,000, America will wake up and realize that lives and families are worth more than the blood of any nation.
Further raising oil's real price will increase air pollution made possible by Bush's relaxation of environmental regulations. Already, diseases stemming from car exhaust kill some 30,000 Americans each year, according to a 1995 Harvard University study. And back in 1993, the Worldwatch Institute estimated the damage to human and environmental health from vehicle emissions at $93 billion a year. Bottom line, the US Energy Policy is costing closer to half a trillion a year in total.
For the world at large, the most serious consequence of continued reliance on oil and other fossil fuels will be accelerating climate change in the 21st century. Though a number of factors contribute to the greenhouse effect, oil remains a major culprit. Some 40 percent of America's greenhouse gas emissions stem from automobiles.
This is a solvable problem that requires more than just money backing reforms. It requires a global revolution toward an industrial overhaul of energy policy and educating the consumers who are hooked on oil by no choice of their own.
Getting support for that is near impossible due to the monopolies enjoyed by US multinationals and OPEC, their global media reach, and the vested interests of the multinational bankers behind them.
Even a more open disclosure policy by major oil companies who pay soveriegns for the use of their natural resources is being pushed from various NGO's around the world, but the process is slow going.
Scientists have noted that already -- after a mere one-degree increase in temperatures over the past century -- glaciers are melting and catastrophic storms becoming more severe and frequent. They expect the planet to warm an additional 4 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit in the 21st century, bringing yet more violent weather, flooded coastlines, killer droughts and social havoc. One insurance industry study projects that climate change will impose $304 billion of additional direct costs on the global economy every year.
Aside from these hypotheticals, the solution is not in spending another trillion dollars on Mars exploration until we put our own global house in order. A trillion dollars spent on alternative energy over the next decade would result in ten trillion dollars in total global costs during the same period.
Bush has rightly been criticized for rejecting the Kyoto accord on global warming. But the truth is, America has never been shy about expecting the rest of the world to support its oil habit. Presidents and Congresses of both US political parties have for decades affirmed military and diplomatic policies aimed at guaranteeing American access to overseas oil; the CIA-assisted overthrow in 1953 of Iran's prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh -- who had advocated nationalizing the country's oil supplies -- is but one of many examples.
According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, an eco-think tank that analyzed Pentagon and Department of Energy spending data for the mid-1990s, federally funded research and development provided at least $300 million annually in subsidies for the fossil-fuel industry.
And at least $50 billion of the US annual military budget during those years paid for forces whose primary purpose is to safeguard Middle Eastern oil fields and shipping lanes -- and whose presence, especially in the Islamic holy land of Saudi Arabia, provokes bitter resentment in much of the Muslim world.
Since its inception, the United States has spent over $5.5 trillion on nuclear weapons research and has created over 80,000 metric tons of hazardous chemical wastes which are estimated to cost between $1.7 to $2 trillion to clean up over the next decade. This money, even half of it, could have created a national electric transportation grid without the incumbent debt currently driving up fuel prices to record levels.
Economists use the term "externalities" to refer to costs that are not included in a commodity's market price, but are borne by society as a whole. Society, of course, also has benefited from the past century's increase in oil consumption: The US economy underwent an extraordinary expansion during the 20th century, when cheap oil fostered first the automobilization of the nation and, after World War II, its suburbanization. Oil also made possible a transportation system built around individual mobility and personal convenience that in many respects remains the envy of the world.
But the impending threat of climate change suggests that our reliance on oil has reached a point of diminishing returns. It's time for a new strategy -- a shift to energy efficiency in the short term and to solar and other renewable energy forms in the long term. Such a Global Green Deal would not only reduce ecological damage, but yield substantially more jobs, profits and economic prosperity than today's system does.
Investments in energy efficiency create two to ten times more jobs per dollar than investments in oil and nuclear power -- a crucial concern as the global economy slides into depression due to the collapsing dollar.
Bush is still betting that the nation is willing to pay whatever it takes to keep oil flowing, and he may be right. In the House of Representatives, the president's plan was supported by Democrats and Republicans, labor and corporate interests.
The majority of hard working Americans may ultimately agree with Bush that maintaining their oil habit is worth any price. But we should at least acknowledge the full cost of such a decision -- not only for Americans, but for the six billion people we share the planet with.
A $33 billion energy fund would create at least 3 million jobs and build a national electronic mass transport system in every major city in North America within four years. The technology already exists. Perhaps the democrats should consider such a fund in their political platform this coming November and get more backing from the likes of Buffet, Soros, Gates and Turner.
The four of them alone could provide the necessary seed money and create the starter fluid to get the entire project moving forward. Certainly Buffet could provide the insurance, Gates the software, Soros the political might, and Turner the United Nations development support to get the rest of the world and the media behind it. The only risk to them might be their becoming known as the Four Horseman of the Apocolypse of the Global Oil Industry.
What do you think?
Mark Hertsgaard originally contributed to this story. Edited by G! Alex Gabor
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid386.php
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=2750049
AEC RETAINS GT DESIGNS TO OPEN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT CENTER.
Tennessee Facility to be Site of First Product Shipments.
Alternate Energy Corporation (ARGY) announced today that it has retained GT Designs, Inc. and principal owner Ted Buel to make operational the AEC Product Development Center near Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The Center is expected to manage the product development, and manufacturing and certification of AEC's hydrogen production units for alpha product shipments targeted for late 2004.
GT Design's principal has 25 years of product design, fabrication, and user documentation experience. They have designed proprietary products, developed fabrication and presentation drawings, prototypes and user documentation for such companies as Kaiser, Reynolds, Alcan, Alcoa and United Marine.
Pursuant to the agreement, GT Designs will coordinate the development and testing of prototype products and their transition into alpha products. AEC seeks to begin shipment of alpha products by October 2004 to the United States Coast Guard for certification and approval of marine applications. It also seeks to ship alpha products for green energy applications by November 2004, and for commercial back up power applications by December 2004. GT Designs will also supervise the certification of alpha products by the Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL), International Organization for Standardization (ISO), National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), Canadian Standards Association (CSA), and the United States Coast Guard; and as well as work with other appropriate entities to certify and develop the optimal design of the AEC hydrogen production system and its applications.
"Our recently completed financing has allowed us to accelerate our development and production activities," said Blaine Froats, AEC's Chairman. "We are pleased to have Ted Buel as part of the AEC team with his decades of hands-on experience. We chose to locate our Product Development Center in the Oak Ridge Tennessee area based on the expertise and depth of available resources that exist there, which will best support the mass deployment of our product."
About Alternate Energy Corporation (AEC):
AEC is an energy company committed to delivering innovative, practical and environmentally responsible fuel and power solutions to consumer, commercial and government markets. AEC owns an affordable, on-demand, high-grade hydrogen production process that is expected to expedite the transition from fossil fuels to the hydrogen economy. AEC's inexpensive hydrogen production process has been recognized for its ability to overcome two major industry obstacles - affordability and safety. The hydrogen production system leverages a proprietary chemical process that yields fuel-cell-quality hydrogen from fresh or salt water, with no known harmful by-products. AEC's achievements are already profiled in a variety of "green energy" publications and numerous pervasive press outlets. The company has been covered in Fuel Cell Today, Solar Daily, Live Power News, Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Investor, Fuel Cell/Alternative Energy News, the Canadian Centre for Energy, and a variety of notable news wires. AEC's test results have also been featured in such widely recognized journals as CNN Money and the Toronto Star.
Statements herein express management's beliefs and expectations regarding future performance and are forward-looking and involve risks and uncertainties, including, but not limited to, the ability to negotiate outstanding prior debts of acquired companies; properly identify acquisition partners; adequately perform due diligence; manage and integrate acquired businesses; react to quarterly fluctuations in results; raise working capital and secure other financing; respond to competition and rapidly changing technology; deal with market and stock price fluctuations; and other risks. These risks are and will be detailed, from time to time, in ARGY's Securities and Exchange Commission filings, including Form 10-KSB 10-QSB and 8-K. Actual results may differ materially from management's expectations.
Additional information is also available on the company's website at www.cleanwatts.com
SOURCE: Alternate Energy Corporation
Alternate Energy Corporation
Suzanne Brydon, 519-620-2623
or
CEOcast, Inc.
Cormac Glynn, 212-732-4300
http://alternateenergycorp.dbdta.net/newsroom.asp?id=newsroom.020604a
Alternate Energy Corporation ("AEC")(OTCBB: ARGY - News) today reported that it had filed its 10-KSB with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The report contains details of its market analysis and business plan.
AEC reported a loss for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 of $3,699,119. The Company had no revenue. The Company's expenses included $76,973 in administrative expenses, $2,857,703 in consulting fees, $240,000 in management fees, $29,443 in professional fees, $697,000 in stock option benefits. The 10-KSB filing outlines AEC's market analysis and phased market penetration, with the first phase including Commercial Back-Up Power and Green Energy (Residential and Commercial).
Several key milestones were met over the course of last year. In late September, AEC purchased the rights to its hydrogen production technology for the global fuel cell industry. With 99.95% purity achieved in testing with Maxxam Analytics, AEC, through its joint venture relationship with Astris Energi successfully powered Astris' golf cart fuel cell with its affordable hydrogen maker. In December and continuing into January, AEC completed a total of $3.28 million in funding. AEC intends to use the proceeds to complete certification, finalize development of Alpha products and execute the Company's "go to market" strategy. In early November, AEC expanded its senior management team and hired Velocity Product Solutions to manage its head office. Early in 2004, it selected GT Designs to open and manage its Tennessee-based Product Development Center, which is expected to open in June, 2004.
"We are pleased to provide to our shareholders details of our product deployment strategy which is now well underway," said Blaine Froats, Chairman. "We have invested heavily in our technology in the last several months and believe we have built the foundation for deploying our small scale and non-fossil fuel hydrogen generation system."
Additional information and a link to the SEC 10-KSB filing is also available on the company's website at www.cleanwatts.com.
About Alternate Energy Corporation (AEC):
AEC is an energy company committed to delivering innovative, practical and environmentally responsible fuel and power solutions to consumer, commercial and government markets. AEC's main technology is focused in production of on-demand hydrogen. We believe AEC's hydrogen production process is designed to overcome two major industry obstacles - affordability and safety. The hydrogen production system leverages a proprietary chemical process that yields fuel-cell-quality hydrogen from fresh or salt water, with no known harmful by-products.
Statements herein express management's beliefs and expectations regarding future performance and are forward-looking and involve risks and uncertainties, including, but not limited to, the ability to negotiate outstanding prior debts; develop its technology; react to quarterly fluctuations in results; raise working capital and secure other financing; respond to competition and rapidly changing technology; deal with market and stock price fluctuations; and other risks. These risks are and will be detailed, from time to time, in ARGY's Securities and Exchange Commission filings, including Form 10-KSB 10-QSB and 8-K. Actual results may differ materially from management's expectations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact:
CEOcast, Inc.
Cormac Glynn, 212-732-4300
or
Alternate Energy Corporation
Suzanne Brydon, 519-620-2623
Over $11,000,000,000,000 of investment capital is available in the US alone.
Why is appropriate funding so difficult to obtain, even if your business is worthy??
The simple answer is you must know the system to succeed. Pools of capital exist around the globe. Once properly identified, certain rules and techniques have evolved over the last 100 years to effectively access these capital resources. If you know where to find these capital pools and understand and use the appropriate tools, you are much more likely to achieve your goals.
Taurus Global functions as your guide. Through our knowledge and experience we enable you to identify the appropriate capital resources and properly structure and execute an approach that can result in a very substantial net worth.
In many instances, Taurus Global has multiple decade relationships with its affiliations. We believe such comprehensive knowledge of prospective relationships is often invaluable.
Contact us immediately if you have a fund or business that could benefit from the resources of the global capital markets.
http://www.taurusglobal.com/
Franco Scalamandre, President
Franco Scalamandre previously served as Chief Executive Officer of Franklin Financial, a Los Angeles based investment company which provides financial, technological, and management expertise to companies that enjoy a franchise in their respective fields and have the ability to achieve superior financial results. Franklin Financial arranged strategic distribution channels for its clients that reduced risk with respect to proforma revenues without significant expense and thereby made potential funding alternatives more attractive for all parties. Franklin Financial has participated in arranging over $250,000,000 in financings. Additionally, Mr. Scalamandre previously managed DM International, a worldwide distribution and direct marketing company.
Mr. Scalamandre previously served for three years as advisor to ASEAN Communications, Singapore, a technology and finance company providing capital and state of the art technologies to government clients in the areas of communications and business electronics. Prior to that, Mr. Scalamandre worked in the commercial real estate business with Franklin Associates and Andrex Development Company, an office and industrial real estate development company with over $500 million of office and industrial projects in Southern California. Mr. Scalamandre received his Bachelor of Arts Degree Magna Cum Laude in Economics from Harvard University in 1979 and was awarded the Harvard Scholarship for "Academic Distinction of the Highest Achievement during the Academic Year."
Mr. Franco Scalamandre
President
Taurus Global, LLC
22287 Mulholland Highway
Suite 265
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone 818 710-7650
Fax 818 710-1121
Cell 323-252-9200
e-mail fs@taurusglobal.com
Lending By Non-Canadians On The Security Of Real Estate
Weekly News Alerts
Edit or Add to your existing selection of 9 topics. >Edit<
Article by Silvana D'Alimonte
Non-Canadian investors who are considering real estate based lending in Canada should be aware of certain regulatory requirements or limitations in Canada.
Income Tax Act (Canada)
If a lender has a "permanent establishment" in Canada and carries on business in Canada, it will be subject to Canadian income taxes. A non-resident lender with no Canadian presence who lends to a Canadian borrower will not be subject to Canadian income tax on its business profits, even though some of its profits may be generated in Canada. However, the Canadian government does impose a withholding tax of 25% on most payments of interest by Canadian residents to foreign lenders. Bilateral tax treaties between Canada and the investor’s country may help by setting a lower withholding tax rate. As well, there are limited exemptions from Canadian withholding tax on interest. For example, there is no withholding tax on interest payable by a resident Canadian corporation to an arm’s length foreign lender, provided that no more than 25% of the principal amount of the loan is due within five years, except in certain circumstances, such as default in the scheduled payment of interest or principal.
Mortgage Brokers Act (Ontario)
A non-resident intending to provide mortgage loans in Ontario will have to consider the Mortgage Brokers Act (Ontario), which imposes certain constraints. In order to carry on a business involving lending on the security of real estate, a person or entity must be registered under the Act as a mortgage broker. Certain lenders are exempt, mainly financial institutions governed by other legislation, such as banks and trust companies. To become registered, an individual, partnership, association or corporation must be a Canadian citizen or permanent resident of Canada. The Mortgage Brokers Act (Ontario) does not permit corporations to carry on business as mortgage brokers if the total percentage of shares held by non-residents exceeds 25%, the percentage of shares held by a single non-resident exceeds 10%, or if the corporation has not been incorporated in Ontario or federally.
The requirement for permanent residency (essentially, being required to have an office in Ontario) may be problematic for foreign lenders who wish to lend into Canada without establishing a new business in Canada.
Bank Act (Canada)
The 1999 amendments to the Bank Act, enabling foreign banks to establish and operate full service or lending branches in Canada, provide investment opportunities by reducing both barriers to entry and costs of administration. Foreign banks no longer have to incorporate a Canadian subsidiary or open a representative office. The amendments will hopefully promote foreign bank presence in Canada and encourage competition in the financial services sector.
Foreign bank branches generally have the same abilities as domestic banks and foreign bank subsidiaries, with the exception of taking deposits. Generally, full-service foreign branches may not accept retail deposits, which are deposits of less than $150,000, and lending branches may not accept any deposits or borrow funds except from other financial institutions. For lending branches only a minimal capital deposit of $100,000 is required. For both branches, there is an increased ability to rely on the corporate governance processes of the parent and the branches are less regulated. For example, foreign bank branches cannot be members of Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation and thus can avoid the costly regulatory compliance process associated with being a member. The ability of a foreign bank branch to lever off the capital of its parent bank gives foreign banks a greater opportunity to focus on commercial banking and engage in various lending activities.
The Income Tax Act was also amended to ensure that foreign bank branches would be subject to tax treatment equivalent to that which applied to Canadian domestic banks. For example, Canadian borrowers can make interest payments to authorized foreign banks without withholding tax since those banks are deemed to be resident in Canada for the purposes of amounts paid or credited to the bank when the payments are in respect of that bank’s Canadian banking business.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Predicted Yen to hit 100 to the dollar over six months ago. BP predicted at $1.00=2GBP. Increased national debt creates inflation causes dollar to go down. Simple math only the extremely intelligently informed should be able to figure out. No amount of government interventionist meddling or plunge protection will save the dollar. Predict Greenspan will not continue in his current post after June 2004.
Australia: Australian Lenders Put On Notice
Article by Karen O'Flynn
Australia's relatively lenient attitude to tardy lenders may be about to change.
The Federal Court has questioned the use of judicial discretion to validate the late registration of debentures and other charges. If other courts adopt the same attitude, lenders (and other secured creditors) will have to tighten up their back office procedures.
Background
Australia's Corporations Act requires the public registration of charges over company property. When a company goes into liquidation, priority between secured creditors is determined by the chronological order in which they registered their charges.
Public registration allows other potential creditors to determine the extent to which the company's assets are pledged to the payment of particular secured creditors. In general terms, unsecured creditors are only entitled to be paid out of those assets - if any - left over after secured creditors have taken their cut. A company which has given charges over all or most of its assets may be seen a greater credit risk for unsecured creditors than a company which has no charges over its property.
This straightforward position is subject to some important qualifications.
A charge must be registered within 45 days of its creation. Late registration of charges has a number of consequences. The most important of these is that the charge will be voided if the company goes into liquidation within six months of the late registration.
The second important qualification is that the Court has the power to extend the time for registration of a charge. This can work in the following way:
1 January - company grants charge
14 February - time for registration expires
28 February - charge is registered
14 March - chargeholder successfully applies to court to extend time for registration of charge until 28 February
1 May - company goes into liquidation.
In practice, it's relatively common for chargeholders to lodge a charge late but not to apply for an extension of time. It's only when the company goes into liquidation that the creditor realises that the late registration will be useless without a court order to validate it.
Australian courts will hear extension applications made after the company has gone into liquidation. Although reluctantly, the courts will tend to grant an extension if they can be convinced that the late lodgement was a genuine accident and that other creditors' interests will not be prejudiced.
However, that may be about to change.
"The better view"
A Full Court of the Federal Court recently expressed strong doubts about whether courts actually have the power to hear extension applications after the company has gone into liquidation.
All three judges said that, when read correctly, the relevant statutory provision only allows applications before the date of winding up. Once winding up has begun, a court has no power to grant an extension. However, two of the judges also acknowledged that their reading of the statute was at odds with the prevailing line of cases. Faced with this, they opted to follow the existing authorities, rather than their own preferred interpretation.
The third judge, Whitlam J, held that the existing authorities were plainly wrong and should not be followed.
Implications
Although the Federal Court ended up granting this particular extension application, its comments will provide significant ammunition for unsecured creditors and liquidators.
It's now reasonable to expect that, sooner or later, this issue will be taken to the High Court for final pronouncement. Although it's impossible to predict how the High Court would rule, history shows that it doesn't hesitate to overturn entrenched authorities if it thinks that those authorities were incorrect.
A High Court ruling that extensions can't be granted after winding up has begun would not be a disaster for secured creditors. On the other hand, it would highlight the need for effective procedures for handling charges.
Many financial institutions already have compliance processes for ensuring timely registration. Nevertheless, the fact that applications for extensions regularly appear in court suggests that there may still be room for improvement across the industry as a whole.
Outside the finance industry, trade creditors who take a charge as a one-off transaction will have to rely on their professional advisers to avoid late registration and the risk of completely losing their security.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Cayman Stock Exchange Achieves Recognised Status With Inland Revenue, by Amanda Banks, Tax-News.com, London 12 March 2004
With effect from 4 March 2004, the Board of the Inland Revenue has designated the Cayman Islands Stock Exchange as a ‘recognised stock exchange’ under section 841 of ICTA.
Section 841 ICTA is exclusively concerned with recognition for tax purposes. Its scope does not cover recognition or approval for regulatory or other purposes, nor approval or recommendation of any investments listed or traded on an exchange.
The term ‘recognised stock exchange’ occurs throughout the Taxes Acts and in various tax regulations. For example it is used in the definition of a close company in section 415 ICTA 1988, and in the definition of investments which may be held in PEPs and ISAs. The term is often used in the phrase ‘listed on a recognised stock exchange’ or in similar or related expressions.
The definition of a recognised stock exchange includes the London Stock Exchange and any such stock exchange outside the UK as is designated in an Order of the Board of Inland Revenue.
http://www.tax-news.com/asp/story/story.asp?storyname=15365
Oil is priced in dollars, the dollar is down 30%, thus to retain their purchasing power they need to reduce production. That is OPEC Ministers arguments not mine.
I would think if he had any influence over there at all he would be able to get them to turn up the spigot, but he's pissed off the entire Islamic world of over 1 billion people.
Tens of thousands take to the streets of Baghdad Wednesday March 31 2004 to protest the U.S.-led coalition shut down of a weekly newspaper, Al-Hawza, run by followers of a hardline Shiite Muslim cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, saying its articles were increasing the threat of violence against coalition troops. Burning is an American flag.(AP Photo/Murad Sezer)
Are you kidding? Bush is part of the OPEC Cartel through Carlyle and his control of IRAQ...see articles on JP Morgans moves into controlling Iraqs banking system. The Saudi Prince owns more than 5% of Citi...who is kidding who here?
The Mill Grinds Slowly...whom the gods destroy will first make mad with power...
Lifting the Lid: Levitt legacy clouded by latest scandals
By Martin Howell
NEW YORK, Nov 20 2003 (Reuters) - Arthur Levitt embraced the mutual fund industry's trade body at its 60th anniversary celebration in October 2000.
In a glowing tribute, the then Securities and Exchange Commission chairman -- who was often portrayed as the small investor's friend when in office -- declared the event marked the Investment Company Institute's "time honored commitment to serving and protecting America's investors."
He also said it was a celebration of a "truly remarkable and long standing partnership" between the SEC and the ICI that had promoted investors' interests and preserved the public trust. It had helped to make the U.S. fund industry "the most trusted, transparent and respected in the world," he declared.
Those words can come back to haunt Levitt now that the tentacles of the mutual fund scandal are shown to touch more firms by the day, market experts say.
The SEC has been accused of being asleep at the wheel during and after his 7 1/2-year reign - the longest of any SEC chairman -- that ended in 2001.
The agency has also been criticized for being too close to the ICI, which has been seen by some funds experts as a staunch defender of the status quo rather than a group prepared to accept reforms that might hurt its members' profits.
In an interview on Thursday, Levitt said he wished he had pushed the ICI harder on some questions. "On reflection, I wish I was more cynical," he said.
Still, he said the ICI had been far less confrontational than many other trade groups he dealt with while at the SEC and had responded positively when he brought problems to its attention.
"Outright fraud is very difficult to anticipate unless it is a result of a tip or a whistle-blower," Levitt said.
And, he said there hadn't been warning signals that indicated the kinds of problems that are now being uncovered.
"He realized he was up against ICI and all the investment banks and brokerage firms and basically he had to choose his battles and he backed away," said Doug Klein of 401(k) Education, a research provider on retirement plans.
"He wanted to be very aggressive on disclosure of sales practices, but he was beaten down because he was taking on an army and the SEC is not an army," said Klein.
It is not the first time since the Enron collapse began a two-year wave of revelations of corporate skulduggery that Levitt's legacy has been questioned.
A year ago, after Levitt published his book, "Take on the Street," at least one columnist suggested that he talked the talk better than he walked the walk and that he had failed to do enough to make the markets safer for individual investors.
At that time it was easier to defend Levitt against such criticism, and his short-lived successor at the SEC, Harvey Pitt, was struggling amid accusations of conflicts of interest.
Levitt's influence was reduced by Congress and a business elite fattened up by the financial bubble in the 1990s.
In his book, Levitt recounts how he witnessed "the ability of Wall Street and corporate America to combine their considerable forces to stymie reform efforts" on such questions as the expensing of stock options by companies.
"Working with a largely sympathetic, Republican-controlled Congress, the two interest groups first sought to co-opt me. When that didn't work they turned their guns on me," wrote Levitt, who is a member of the board of news and information provider Bloomberg LP, a competitor of Reuters Group Plc.
But the latest disclosures that many mutual fund companies and their associates were allowing various favored investors and traders to skim the cream off the top of the kinds of investments relied on by 95 million Americans are different.
Levitt's book has a chapter that focuses on the "seven deadly sins of mutual funds," though the improper trading that is being revealed -- whether market timing or late trading -- is not among them.
In late trading, which is illegal, an investor is permitted to trade mutual fund shares after hours at prices set when the stock market closes. Market timing involves quick buying and selling of mutual fund shares to profit from stale prices, a practice that is not illegal but is prohibited at most fund firms because it dilutes gains for long-term investors.
In both cases, those indulging in these practices seek to take advantage of contrasts between stale pricing and fresh information.
Levitt's critics say that it is too easy for him to say now that various rules and laws "should be" changed. They suggest it would have been nice if reforms had been made before millions of Americans were affected by the scandals.
Levitt, though, says such criticism comes with the SEC job, whether leveled at him, his predecessors or successors.
Hindsight makes it easy, he said. If he had heard anything about market timing and late trading "you bet I could have done something," said Levitt, who likened it to knowing about the time and location of a bank robbery and being able to foil it. (With additional reporting by Steve James in New York)
http://www.forbes.com/work/newswire/2003/11/20/rtr1155960.html
igen, veled meg mi lesz, Csókolom!