Categories
Law Tech

DOJ endorses net neutrality

The Trump administration is leading a double life when it comes to competition in the market for content that arrives via the internet.

The Department of Justice on Monday sued AT&T and Time Warner to block a proposed merger between the two that the government charges would lessen competition in violation of federal law.

The lawsuit upends a transaction that the companies announced a year ago, when AT&T agreed to pay about $85 billion for Time Warner, which owns CNN, HBO, Turner Sports and other networks.

Jekyll and Hyde?

DOJ contends that the deal, which is riding on regulatory approval, would set back competition and lead to higher prices for consumers.

A day later, the Federal Communications Commission voted to roll back rules that prevent cable companies and other internet service providers from blocking or slowing websites or social networks that do not pay for priority.

“We have one government, but two separate agencies with opposing views,”  Spencer Kurn, an analyst at New Street Research, told the Times. “You’ve got one agency saying that marrying content and distribution results in too much market power, and another agency saying there’s no problem with a distributor favoring their content over someone else’s.”

Net neutrality, as the rules are known, prevents ISPs from prioritizing content from companies they own. The FCC chairman opposes the rules, saying they slow development of broadband networks by lessening the incentive of the companies that own them to add connections.

But the arguments advanced by DOJ in court seem to validate the concerns that net neutrality reflects. A combination of AT&T and Time Warner (the owner of CNN and HBO, among other networks) would give the combined company the ability to throttle programs that someone else owns, leading to higher prices for consumers, DOJ charges.

“After the merger, the merged company would have the power to make its video distributor rivals less competitive by raising their costs, resulting in even higher monthly bills for American families,” the government told the court.

That sounds like a defense of net neutrality.

The rollback at the FCC is a win for AT&T, which is vowing to fight the move by DOJ to block the company’s deal for Time Warner.

Categories
Finance

Volatility highlights stock selection

With stocks in 2017 on track to experience the fewest jitters in 22 years, do the stocks you buy or the industries they represent matter more to performance of a portfolio of so-called low volatility stocks?

In the energy and technology industries, the selection of stocks explained performance more than the ups and downs of the sector generally, at least for the year that ended on Oct. 31, according to a recent analysis by Fei Mei Chan, director of index investment strategy for S&P Dow Jones Indices.

Among the 11 sectors represented in the S&P Low Volatility Index, energy stocks experienced the largest fall in volatility over the year, Chan notes. Yet the weighting of energy stocks in the index has remained the same – about 2% in the latest rebalancing of the index – suggesting stock selection mattered more to the falloff than volatility of energy stocks generally.

Similarly, tech industry stocks experienced greater volatility during the year that ended Oct. 31. Yet the weighting of tech stocks in the index remained unchanged, at 11%.

“This would suggest that there was a wide range of volatility within both sectors, and that stock selection was more meaningful than the sectoral effect,” Chan writes.

Unlike energy and tech, the weights of each of the nine other sectors in the index changed over the relevant period. Thus, volatility in the sectors themselves provided a gauge into the performance of the index.

“As a rule of thumb, sector level volatility usually provides good insight into the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index, even though the index’s methodology is entirely focused at the stock level,” notes Chan. “For the latest rebalance, however, sectoral volatility was only part of the picture.”

Categories
News

Trump cedes US leadership on trade

The leaders of the world’s two largest economies each presented their views in a pair of speeches on Friday that highlight the extent to which the U.S. in the Trump presidency is ceding leadership in trade.

President Xi Jinping of China, the world’s second-largest economy, discussed climate change, globalization, multilateralism and connectivity in an address on Friday to leaders of 21 countries who gathered in Vietnam for the annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Council.

He spoke minutes after President Trump, who talked mostly about America and the indignities he contends it has suffered at the hands of trading partners.

Xi spoke of connection. “This is a new journey toward greater integration with the world and an open economy of higher standards,” he said. “We should uphold multilateralism, pursue shared growth through consultation and collaboration, forge closer partnerships, and build a community with a shared future for mankind.”

Trump listed grievances. He accused China of stealing intellectual property, muscling out private enterprise, hacking into the computer systems of U.S. companies, competing unfairly and failing to open markets for goods and services. “We are not going to let the United States be taken advantage of anymore,” Trump told the gathering.

Xi used the words “shared” and “community” eight times apiece. He used the word “open” 18 times, three times more than Trump, who used the word “community” once. Twice Xi mentioned “climate change,” which Trump never uttered.

The stance marked a turnabout from a day earlier in Beijing, where Trump flattered Xi and blamed his American predecessors for the imbalance in trade between the two countries.

Trump tends to talk tough when surrounded by the press. Alone with his fellow leaders, it seems, is another story. After meeting on the sidelines of the summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump told reporters that he believed assurances by Putin that Russia “did not meddle in our election.”

Though Trump later appeared to walk back the suggestion that he placed more stock in the assurances of the former head of the KGB than he does in a determination by U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the election, the exchanges with both Putin and Xi suggest struggles by the self-proclaimed dealmaker to hold his own with counterparts.

Xi talked of China’s Belt and Road initiative, as part of which the country has pledged to spend more $1 trillion to build infrastructure across Asia, Africa and Europe over the next decade. As Anja Manuel, a former adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, noted recently in the Atlantic:

According to the CIA, 92 countries counted China as their largest exports or imports partner in 2015, far more than the United States at 57. What’s most astounding is the speed with which China achieved this. While the country was the world’s largest recipient of World Bank and Asian Development Bank loans in the 1980s and 90s, in recent years, China alone loaned more to developing countries than did the World Bank.

One result: There are now more than 10,000 Chinese firms (most privately owned) operating in Africa, up from 2,500 a decade ago, according to research by McKinsey & Co. Visit South Africa, to name one destination for Chinese investment, and you’ll see the evidence at construction sites and shops all around you.

At APEC, 11 nations, including Australia, Japan, Mexico and Canada, said they had achieved significant progress toward a revised trans-Pacific trade pact, which Trump withdrew from in March. America “has lost its leadership role,” Jayant Menon, an economist at the Asian Development Bank, told the Times. “And China is quickly replacing it.”

Which leaves the question how the smallness of the vision expressed by Trump helps the people who voted for him, particularly those in areas of the Midwest and Northeast that have experienced the trauma of the loss of jobs in manufacturing.

The U.S. imports more goods from China than it exports. The difference stood at $347 billion in 2016, a decrease of 5.5% from a year earlier. But the U.S. exports more services to China than it imports. The difference was $37 billion in 2016, up 12.3% from year earlier.

The surplus in services represents demand in China for such American exports as logistics, software, financial know-how and tickets to movies made in Hollywood. It reflects visits to the U.S. by people from China, and students who come to the U.S. from China to study.

“If our trade deficit for goods is somehow related to unfair trade practices, then how does Trump explain America’s large and growing surpluses for services,” Mark Perry, a professor of economics at the University of Michigan, told the South China Morning Post in May.

Trump doesn’t say much about that surplus. Nor does he put forth or embrace efforts to bring college-educated graduates to Rust Belt cities that might benefit from an influx of productivity and capital.

Writing recently in the Harvard Political Review, Henry Sullivan Atkins cited the payoff in Pittsburgh of efforts to transform an economy that once relied on heavy manufacturing.

According to Atkins, “Pittsburgh offers a textbook example of successfully attracting these college-educated adults:  The number of city residents aged twenty-five and older with a college degree skyrocketed by 37.3 percent from 2000 to 2013.

Over roughly the same period, productivity among workers in the Pittsburgh region rose 10 percent, average annual wages increased 9 percent and the overall standard of living rose 13 percent.

“This demographic sea change didn’t occur in a vacuum; rather, it was the result of a series of careful policymaking decisions that came from the city,” Atkins writes. “Firstly, the city invested in providing a top-notch education for its residents, collaborating with Carnegie Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh to transform Pittsburgh from the Steel City of the 1980s into a STEM juggernaut in fields like computing, robotics and biotechnology.”

In September, Trump directed the Department of Education to invest $200 million toward the teaching of science, technology, engineering and math in public schools. Tech giants, including Amazon, Facebook, Google and Microsoft, added $300 million to the push.

“Where that money will be pulled from remains to be seen, but with around just 40 percent of schools currently teaching computer programming, it would be good if this push had some success,” noted Mallory Locklear for Engadget.

Credit Trump for jump-starting a partnership with potential for payoff in the form of college graduates, skills and jobs. Leadership takes a thousand such acts (and the investments that accompany them), but the approach hints at a way forward for the U.S. that has nothing to do with withdrawing from a world that has moved on.

Categories
Law

A case of usury in Queens

Somewhere in Queens about six years ago this month, Rosmarie Roopchand lent Raffeek Mohammed $200,000, which Mohammed agreed to repay within two years at a rate of interest of 50 percent per year.

When Mohammed failed to make payment on the loan (his wife allegedly repaid $15,000 of it on his behalf), Roopchand sued Mohammed, his wife and his company. Mohammed asked the court to dismiss the suit on the ground that the loan violated New York law, which limits the amount of interest on loans from one person to another to 16% per year for loans less than $250,000. (Charge someone more than 25 percent per year and you’ve committed a crime.)

The trial judge sided with Mohammed and Roopchand appealed. The appeals court in Brooklyn affirmed the ruling, finding that Roopchand admitted that the interest on the loan was excessive, and an absence of any evidence suggesting that Mohammed agreed to the rate knowing that it might later allow him to avoid repayment.

“A usurious contract is void and relieves the borrower of the obligation to repay principal and interest thereon,” wrote Judge Mark Dillon on behalf of himself and three colleagues. “Indeed, where usury has occurred, ‘the borrower can simply keep the borrowed funds and walk away from the agreement.’” [citations omitted]

Laws that prohibit lending at exorbitant rates of interest date to England in the 15th century and aim to protect “desperately poor people from the consequences of their own desperation,” New York’s Court of Appeals explained in 1977.

By law, a borrower whose loan a court determines to be usurious “can simply keep the borrowed funds and walk away from the agreement,” Chief Judge Judith Kaye wrote on behalf of the court in a 1992 ruling.

Still, the penalty depends on the lender and the amount of the loan. Banks forfeit the interest but not the principal. Corporations cannot allege usury to avoid repaying a loan. Loans between $250,000 and $2.5 million are subject to the prohibition on criminal usury but exempt from the 16% cap. (Loans that exceed $2.5 million are exempt from all usury caps.) Merchants who lend to each other as part of a transaction are exempt from usury laws, so long as the interest does not exceed eight percentage points above the prime rate.