UBS to pay $1.5 billion to settle Libor charges









UBS has agreed to pay a fine of $1.5 billion to authorities and plead guilty to a felony count of wire fraud, the most recent developments in a far-reaching probe into how banks manipulated interest rates leading up to the financial crisis.


Two former traders were also charged with conspiracy in a complaint unsealed Wednesday, the first people charged criminally in the Libor scandal.


"We cannot and we will not tolerate misconduct on Wall Street of the kind admitted to by UBS today and by Barclays last June," said Assistant Atty. Gen. Lanny Breuer, head of the criminal division. In June, Barclays was the first bank to settle with authorities, paying $450 million.





The fine was one of the biggest leveled against a financial institution by American and British authorities, just short of the $1.9-billion fine HSBC agreed to pay last week over money laundering allegations.


The charges relate to the ways traders leaned on banks to manipulate the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, to benefit their own trading positions.


Officials said that from 2006 through 2009 UBS traders placed bets on the movement of Libor and manipulated the rate, which is used as a benchmark to set interest rates for many mortgages, credit cards and other consumer lending instruments. The traders profited by knowing which way the Libor would move.


In coming months, the probe probably will expand to include other banks that help determine the Libor, analysts say. But it's the criminal charges that turned some heads on Wall Street on Wednesday.


The plea agreement on wire fraud charges by a UBS subsidiary in Japan, which included a $100-million fine, marks the first time since 2005 that a major financial institution has pleaded guilty to criminal charges, the Justice Department said.


"For a bank to admit to criminality is kind of mind-blowing," said Peter Shapiro, managing director of Swap Financial Group in South Orange, N.J. "Obviously, they didn't do that easily — that was something that must have been a big priority of enforcement agencies."


Enforcement agencies have been feeling some pressure to level blame on financial institutions in the wake of the financial crisis, Shapiro said. No senior financial executives have served jail time for their roles in the financial crisis.


"Both the regulators and enforcement agencies feel somewhat beleaguered by the repeated assertions that they failed to deliver enough heads on a plate as a response to the financial crisis," he said.


U.S. officials also announced criminal charges against two former senior traders for UBS in connection with the scandal. Tom Alexander William Hayes, 33, of Britain, was charged with conspiracy and wire fraud, and Roger Darin, 41, of Switzerland, was charged with conspiracy. Both remain abroad, but the Justice Department will try to extradite them.


"The motivation here was nothing short of sheer greed, and the scheme was nothing short of a shell game, a Wall Street version of three-card monte," said Kevin Perkins, associate director of the FBI, which helped investigate the case.


More criminal charges at other banks could follow, said Anthony Sabino, professor of law at the Tobin College of Business at St. John's University.


"Once you start to round up some accused bad guys, that leads to more people being rounded up," he said. "This is a vast conspiracy among a multitude of banks, which therefore implicates a multitude of individuals."


Much of the activity took place at UBS Japan Securities Co., where Hayes was a senior trader. The Justice Department released internal UBS messages in which Hayes and others talked about their alleged manipulation.


In one from November 2006, Hayes told a UBS employee who submitted rate information for the Libor that he and Darin "skew the Libors a bit" and then said he needed the six-month rate to stay high for three days.


UBS traders were often colorful and emphatic in their pleadings, according to documents released by Britain's Financial Services Authority. One wrote, "I need you to keep it as low as possible.... If you do that, I'll pay you, you know, $50,000, $100,000, whatever you want."


The UBS fine was larger than that leveled on Barclays earlier in the year because UBS' misconduct was "considerably more serious than Barclays' because it was more widespread within the firm," the Financial Services Authority said. At least 45 individuals at UBS were involved in or aware of the rate-fixing practice.


UBS said that it had fully cooperated with authorities and that the interest-rate manipulations were the isolated actions of certain employees.


"Their misconduct does not reflect the values of UBS nor the high ethical standards to which we hold every employee," UBS CEO Sergio Ermotti said in a statement.


Analysts say that there's still potential for significant civil suits against UBS and other banks, which could be more damaging than the fines levied against them. Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, an equity research firm, estimated in July that potential industry damages could reach $35 billion.


Those estimates were validated Wednesday when the Inspector General for the Federal Housing Finance Agency estimated that government-owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may have lost a combined $3 billion because of reduced interest payments on securities and other holdings. Officials at FHFA, which regulates Fannie and Freddie, have not confirmed the estimate but are evaluating potential issues involved with the Libor manipulation.


There are barriers to further lawsuits — the burden of proof will be high, analysts at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods said. To move forward with civil suits, plaintiffs would have to prove that traders were conspiring, said John C. Coffee, a Columbia Law School expert in corporate fraud.


"But that said, the size of the potential liability is mushrooming," he said.


Times reporter E. Scott Reckard contributed to this report. Semuels reported from Los Angeles and Puzzanghera from Washington.





Read More..

Sony confirms 10 devices will get Jelly Bean upgrade starting in February 2013









Title Post: Sony confirms 10 devices will get Jelly Bean upgrade starting in February 2013
Rating:
100%

based on 99998 ratings.
5 user reviews.
Author: Fluser SeoLink
Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment




Read More..

Cassadee Pope wins Season 3 of 'The Voice'


NEW YORK (AP) — Cassadee Pope, who was country singer Blake Shelton's protege on the third season of NBC's "The Voice," has won the show's competition.


The 23-year-old singer is stepping out into a solo career after performing with a band called Hey Monday. Her victory over Scottish native Terry McDermott and long-bearded Nicholas David was announced at the end of a two-hour show Tuesday.


"The Voice" has grown into a hit for NBC and was the key factor in the network's surprising success this fall.


The show's status was affirmed by the stream of hitmakers who performed on the finale. They included Rihanna, Bruno Mars, the Killers, Smokey Robinson and Peter Frampton.


Read More..

Church Officials Call on Filipinos to Campaign Against Birth Control Law





MANILA — After losing a battle to stop the passage of a contentious birth control law, Roman Catholic Church officials on Tuesday dug in and instructed their millions of followers to campaign against the measure in communities, schools and homes.




“Let us intensify the moral spiritual education of our youth and children so that they can stand strong against the threats to their moral fiber,” Archbishop Socrates Villegas said in a statement. “Let us use all the means within our reach to safeguard the health of expectant mothers in our communities.”


The Philippine Congress passed legislation on Monday to help the country’s poorest women gain access to birth control. Each chamber of the national legislature passed its own version of the measure, and minor differences between the two must be reconciled before the measure goes to President Benigno S. Aquino III for his signature.


The measure had been stalled for more than a decade because of determined opposition from the church in this overwhelmingly Catholic country.


Birth control is legal and widely available in the Philippines for people who can afford it, particularly those living in cities. But condoms, birth control pills and other forms of contraception are sometimes kept out of community health centers and clinics by local government and Catholic Church officials.


The measure passed on Monday would stock government health centers, including those in remote areas, with free or subsidized birth control options for the poor. It would also require sex education in public schools and family-planning training for community health officers.


Archbishop Villegas, the vice president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, on Tuesday encouraged Catholics to resist the measure by disseminating information about natural family planning methods and warning people about “the hazardous effects of contraceptive pills on the health of women.”


“Let us conduct our own sex education of our children insuring that sex is always understood as a gift of God,” Archbishop Villegas stated. “Sex must never be taught separate from God and isolated from marriage.”


Bishop Gabriel V. Reyes, chairman of the conference’s Episcopal Commission on Family and Life, said after the vote Monday that “we need to explain to our fellow believers that they ought to refuse contraceptives even when they are being offered these.”


The Philippines has one of the highest birthrates in Asia, but backers of the legislation, including the Aquino administration, have said repeatedly that its purpose is not to limit population growth. Rather, they say, the bill is meant to offer poor families the same reproductive health options that wealthier people in the country enjoy.


Though lacking the numbers needed to defeat the legislation, lawmakers who opposed the measure sought to delay the vote. In one instance, an opposition senator proposed 35 amendments just before a vote was to take place.


Often the debate took bizarre turns, as when a congressman claimed that the birth control measure was a plot by the Philippine Communist Party to take over the government.


In another instance, a male senator requested removal of the phrase “satisfying sex” from a passage in the bill that referred to “safe and satisfying sex.” Several female senators opposed its removal, and the amendment was debated live on television while social media networks crackled with sarcastic commentary. “I am a Filipina,” Senator Miriam Santiago said in response to the amendment. “I am also a married woman, and I insist whoever is married to me should give me safe and satisfying sex, period.”


During a vote on the measure in the House of Representatives, the boxer and congressman Manny Pacquiao linked the birth control measure to his having been knocked unconscious on Dec. 8 by Juan Manuel Marquez during their W.B.O. world welterweight fight in Las Vegas.


“Some thought I was dead,” Mr. Pacquiao said in a speech explaining his vote against the measure. “What happened in Vegas strengthened my already firm belief in the sanctity of life.” He added: “Manny Pacquiao is pro-life. Manny Pacquiao votes no.”


Read More..

Instagram draws ire over new user rules









SAN FRANCISCO — When it comes to policy changes, Instagram could have used a filter of its own.


Its usually devoted users threatened to delete their accounts en masse Tuesday if the popular photo-sharing app did not roll back new terms of service that appeared to give the company ownership of their images. Instagram users — about 100 million now — snap the photos on their smartphones, apply digital filters to enhance the photos and then instantly share them with friends.


"Dear @Instagram, why did you think we'd just be OK with your new terms? They are NOT COOL. Signed, The Entire Internet," Jason Pollock, a Los Angeles filmmaker and social media consultant, wrote on Twitter.





Instagram founder Kevin Systrom tried to calm the uproar and reassure users in a blog post Tuesday afternoon.


"Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos," he wrote. "We respect that your photos are your photos. Period."


Instagram's new terms of service announced Monday included a clause stating that Instagram had the right to turn images into advertisements without any approval from or compensation for users starting Jan. 16. — part of Facebook's drive to make money from the service it bought this year for $715 million in cash and stock.


That angered amateur and professional photographers alike — even Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg's wedding photographer.


"Pro or not if a company wants to use your photos for advertising they need to TELL you and PAY you," Noah Kalina said on Twitter.


The effort to make money from Instagram users struck a nerve. According to the Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project, nearly half of Internet users post photos and videos online that they have created themselves.


Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said Instagram quickly realized it had "overplayed its hand." But its mea culpa blog post still contains plenty of loopholes, he said.


"They say they don't have any plans to put your photos in an advertisement, but nevertheless that is the permission they were seeking," Opsahl said. "We will have to see what the language of the terms of service looks like after they revise it."


Jeff Lawrence, a 29-year-old DJ, graphic designer and photographer from Seattle, said he'll decide if he's dumping Instagram after he sees what the company plans to do in black and white.


"Thankfully we are all Internet savvy enough to know that people can say one thing and do another," said Lawrence, an avid Instagram user. "I am going to wait and see if Instagram takes this criticism to heart and changes the terms of service."


The backlash underscored the rising tensions between users of free social media services and the companies that are trying to profit from them. More users are asking for more control over how these companies handle their information.


Clayton Cubitt, 40, a photographer and filmmaker from Brooklyn, N.Y., quickly dubbed the new terms of service a "suicide note" from Instagram.


He urged his fellow Instagram users to revolt against the current policies at social media companies that he described as "you have a free place to post content and in exchange the company sucks the soul out of your life."


"They look at users as a herd to milk," Cubitt said.


His rants may have angered Zuckerberg, but Zuckerberg's sister Arielle Zuckerberg publicly "liked" Cubitt's Instagram snapshot of the most controversial part of Instagram's terms of service.


It's unclear if the Instagram backlash will cause lasting damage to the service.


Hacker collective Anonymous had urged its more than 780,000 Twitter followers to ditch Instagram with the hashtag #BoycottInstagram and posted screen shots from followers who had. The servers of Instaport.me, which helps users download their photos from Instagram, were overloaded Tuesday as Instagram users deleted their accounts and switched to other options such as Hipstamatic and Twitter's new photo service that has filters similar to Instagram. Yahoo said it has seen "strong interest" in its new Flickr app for iPhones.


Many Instagram users said they would give Instagram the benefit of the doubt — for now.


"I am going to rage about it, and get people to rage about it, until we change their policy," Pollock, 31, said in an interview. "There is just something so personal and beautiful about Instagram. Hopefully they don't completely ruin it."


jessica.guynn@latimes.com





Read More..

Obama makes a substantial counteroffer on fiscal deadline









WASHINGTON — President Obama trimmed his demand for tax increases on the wealthy Monday, making a substantial counteroffer as he and House Speaker John A. Boehner reconvened privately at the White House.


Crucial differences remain, but the quickened pace of the budget talks suggested the men are engaged in a serious effort to bridge the partisan divide before the holidays — and before the year-end "fiscal cliff" leads to economically dire tax increases and spending cuts.


The president offered to raise tax rates on household income above $400,000, according to a source familiar with the talks who was not authorized to speak publicly about them. The rate would rise from 35% to 39.6%. The president campaigned for reelection on a plan to require households with incomes above $250,000 to pay more, and, until recently, had emphasized that his victory and postelection polls showed that the public agreed with him.





Obama's overture came after Boehner suggested Friday in a phone call that he would be willing to raise tax rates for those earning more than $1 million — a major concession for the Ohio Republican, who had resisted any increase in the top rates. Aides on both sides were buoyed after that conversation, even though the White House rejected the offer.


After Monday's session, both sides remained optimistic. One senior administration official who requested anonymity to discuss the White House's thinking said the talks reflected "a more robust level of engagement."


Boehner panned the president's proposal, however, in an indication of the difficulty the speaker will have convincing his party's conservative flank to approve any deal with a tax rate increase.


Obama's offer "cannot be considered balanced," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel. "We hope to continue discussions with the president so we can reach an agreement that is truly balanced and begins to solve our spending problem."


After weeks of sputtering negotiations, the two sides have substantially narrowed their differences. The latest White House offer would yield $1.2 trillion in new revenue over a decade, to be matched with a similar amount of spending reductions.


Boehner's latest proposal was for $1 trillion in new revenue, and talks at the White House earlier Monday involved $1 trillion in cuts.


Obama is now offering twice as much in cuts as he initially put on the table. His proposal includes shaving $400 billion from healthcare programs and a similar amount from other domestic spending. Safety net programs also would be reduced, a prospect making Democrats uneasy.


One change sure to face intense resistance from Obama's allies on Capitol Hill would trim the annual cost-of-living adjustment for those receiving government assistance, probably including Social Security, with protections only for the oldest and poorest Americans.


Yet Obama also proposes to continue long-term unemployment benefits, as well as added infrastructure spending, nodding to other Democratic priorities. He dropped plans to extend the expiring payroll tax break, which Democrats have backed as necessary for economic stimulus, and intends to expedite tax and spending overhauls.


Failure to reach consensus by the end of the month would result in $500 billion in federal spending cuts and tax increases that would mean an estimated $2,200 hike on the average American family.


Boehner will meet Tuesday morning with rank-and-file GOP lawmakers, where he is expected to air the latest proposals and gauge the reaction — particularly from the more conservative House members who constitute the majority of his caucus.


Republicans will almost certainly balk at how the White House calculates the value of the president's proposed deficit reduction package, rejecting the administration's approach of counting accrued savings from last year's budget agreement and from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Including those measures, the White House says, the president's plan would reduce the deficit by more than $4 trillion over a decade.


The GOP also may be critical of Obama's plans to halt most of the automatic spending cuts, which are scheduled to take effect next year.


One key area where stark differences remain is the nation's debt ceiling, which must rise early next year to allow the country to pay its bills.


Boehner offered to increase the federal government's borrowing capacity for another year if the White House agreed to an equal amount of spending cuts, as has been his long-stated position.


Obama's counteroffer seeks a two-year extension of the debt limit, which would be difficult for Boehner's conservative Republicans to accept with the level of cuts now on the table from the administration.


The 45-minute meeting Monday at the White House was the third direct negotiation between Obama and Boehner in little more than a week.


The House had been scheduled to start its holiday vacation Monday. Instead, it joined the Senate in Washington the week before Christmas.


christi.parsons@latimes.com


lisa.mascaro@latimes.com


Michael A. Memoli in the Washington bureau contributed to this report.





Read More..

Facebook to launch new Snapchat alternative with self-destructing messages









Title Post: Facebook to launch new Snapchat alternative with self-destructing messages
Rating:
100%

based on 99998 ratings.
5 user reviews.
Author: Fluser SeoLink
Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment




Read More..

Zooey Deschanel, rocker husband finalize divorce


LOS ANGELES (AP) — A judge has finalized Zooey Deschanel's divorce from her rocker husband of roughly three years.


Court records show a judge finalized the actress' divorce from Death Cab for Cutie frontman Ben Gibbard on Wednesday in Los Angeles.


Gibbard and Deschanel, who stars in Fox's "New Girl," were married in September 2009. They had no children together.


The actress filed for divorce in December 2011 after separating two months earlier.


The judgment does not provide financial details of the breakup, although it states that the former couple's marriage cannot be repaired by counseling or mediation.


Deschanel was nominated last week for a Golden Globe for her work on "New Girl."


Read More..

Recipes for Health: Not-Too-Sweet Wok-Popped Coconut Kettle Corn


Andrew Scrivani for The New York Times


Not-too-sweet coconut kettle corn.







I’m usually not a big fan of sweet kettle corn, but I wanted to make a moderately sweet version because some people love it and it is nice to be able to offer a sweet snack for the holidays. I realized after testing this recipe that I do like kettle corn if it isn’t too sweet. The trick to not burning the sugar when you make kettle corn is to add the sugar off the heat at the end of popping. The wok will be hot enough to caramelize it.


2 tablespoons coconut oil


6 tablespoons popcorn


2 tablespoons raw brown sugar


Kosher salt to taste


1. Place the coconut oil in a 14-inch lidded wok over medium heat. When the coconut oil melts add a few kernels of popcorn and cover. When you hear a kernel pop, quickly lift the lid and pour in all of the popcorn. Cover, turn the heat to medium-low, and cook, shaking the wok constantly, until you no longer hear the kernels popping against the lid. Turn off the heat, uncover and add the sugar and salt. Cover again and shake the wok vigorously for 30 seconds to a minute. Transfer the popcorn to a bowl, and if there is any caramelized sugar on the bottom of the wok scrape it out. Stir or toss the popcorn to distribute the caramelized bits throughout, and serve.


Yield: About 12 cups popcorn


Advance preparation: This is good for a few hours but it will probably disappear more quickly than that.


Nutritional information per cup: 59 calories; 3 grams fat; 2 grams saturated fat; 0 grams polyunsaturated fat; 0 grams monounsaturated fat; 0 milligrams cholesterol; 8 grams carbohydrates; 1 gram dietary fiber; 1 milligram sodium (does not include salt to taste); 1 gram protein


 


​Up Next: Granola


Martha Rose Shulman is the author of “The Very Best of Recipes for Health.”


Read More..

U.S. agency sues JPMorgan Chase unit over bad mortgage bonds









The government agency overseeing credit unions is suing J.P. Morgan Securities, the investment arm of JPMorgan Chase & Co., over the sale of $3.6 billion in mortgage bonds that collapsed in value after the 2008 financial crisis.


The suit is the largest ever filed by the National Credit Union Administration.


It stems from actions by Bear Stearns & Co., the failed bank bought by JPMorgan in early 2008. The NCUA alleges that Bear Stearns misrepresented or hid information about mortgage-backed bonds sold to four corporate credit unions, in violation of federal and state securities laws.








The complaint says that many of the mortgages backing the bonds were bound to fail because underwriting standards were "abandoned." When the bonds later dropped in price, the credit unions suffered steep losses and eventually collapsed.


"Firms like Bear Stearns acted unfairly by ignoring the rules for underwriting," NCUA board Chairman Debbie Matz said in a statement. "They packaged these securities and then told buyers the paper was sound. When the securities plunged in value, we learned the truth."


The four federal credit unions were U.S. Central, Western Corporate, Southwest Corporate and Members United Corporate. NCUA oversees their liquidation. The lawsuit was filed in a federal district court in Kansas.


A representative for JPMorgan Chase did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


The NCUA has eight similar lawsuits pending against other banks, including subsidiaries of Barclays, the Royal Bank of Scotland and UBS.





Read More..