Affiliate Marketing Blog |

Almost all economic experts have said this is a lie. Even bush’s top 2 banking appointees have said this is a lie.

Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."

Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA.

Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in the following speech:

Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC
December 17, 2008
Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak.
What I’d like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool’s errand.

CRA as a scapegoat
I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there’s plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty.

Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.

You’ve heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people.

Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can’t afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth … pure and simple.

CRA isn’t perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions".

Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay "consistent with the safe and sound operations"? No, of course not.

CRA always recognized there are limitations on the potential volume of lending in lower-income areas due to safety and soundness considerations. And, that a bank’s capacity and opportunity for safe and sound lending in the LMI community may be limited.

That is why the CRA never set out lending "target" or "goal" amounts. That is why CRA supporters, many of you here today, have labored for three decades to figure out how to do it safely. It makes no sense to give a loan to someone under terms you know they can’t pay back. That’s a set up for failure.

Despite our current problems, the homeowner is still one of the best credit risks in the world. Today, the delinquency rate on all home mortgages is only 3.6 percent. For subprime loans, there is a stark difference in the type of loan. The rate of seriously delinquent subprime fixed rate loans is a little more than one-third the rate for subprime adjustable rate mortgages.

Any family willing to work, save money, pay the mortgage on their house is a sound basis of credit and a sound basis for America.

So let the record show: CRA is not guilty of causing the financial crisis.

I really don’t hear them say that. Could you stae where you got your facts

I have seen dozens of posts about how "dems forced banks to make bad loans" but when I provide proof, they won’t respond.

In fact, bush’s own top banking appointees have said the "cra had nothing to do with the crisis"

Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."

Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA.

Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in the following speech:

Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC
December 17, 2008
Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak.
What I’d like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool’s errand.

CRA as a scapegoat
I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there’s plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty.

Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.

You’ve heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people.

Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can’t afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth … pure and simple.

CRA isn’t perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions".

Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay "consistent with the safe and sound operations"? No, of course not.

CRA always recognized there are limitations on the potential volume of lending in lower-income areas due to safety and soundness considerations. And, that a bank’s capacity and opportunity for safe and sound lending in the LMI community may be limited.

That is why the CRA never set out lending "target" or "goal" amounts. That is why CRA supporters, many of you here today, have labored for three decades to figure out how to do it safely. It makes no sense to give a loan to someone under terms you know they can’t pay back. That’s a set up for failure.

Despite our current problems, the homeowner is still one of the best credit risks in the world. Today, the delinquency rate on all home mortgages is only 3.6 percent. For subprime loans, there is a stark difference in the type of loan. The rate of seriously delinquent subprime fixed rate loans is a little more than one-third the rate for subprime adjustable rate mortgages.

Any family willing to work, save money, pay the mortgage on their house is a sound basis of credit and a sound basis for America.

So let the record show: CRA is not guilty of causing the financial crisis.

Bwany Fwank is a lib and a little research will revel the truth!!!

Bush appointees Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and FDIC Chairman Shelia Blair, both republicans, have stated that the CRA had nothing to do with the housing crisis.

In fact, bush’s top 2 banking appointees have stated that the CRA - community reinvestment act - has had absoutely nothing to do with the banking crisis.
Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."
Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA.

Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in a speech:

Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC
December 17, 2008
Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak.
What I’d like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool’s errand.
CRA as a scapegoat
I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there’s plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty.
Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.
You’ve heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people.
Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can’t afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth … pure and simple.
CRA isn’t perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions".
Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay "consistent with the safe and sound operations"? No, of course not.
CRA always recognized there are limitations on the potential volume of lending in lower-income areas due to safety and soundness considerations. And, that a bank’s capacity and opportunity for safe and sound lending in the LMI community may be limited.
That is why the CRA never set out lending "target" or "goal" amounts. That is why CRA supporters, many of you here today, have labored for three decades to figure out how to do it safely. It makes no sense to give a loan to someone under terms you know they can’t pay back. That’s a set up for failure.
Despite our current problems, the homeowner is still one of the best credit risks in the world. Today, the delinquency rate on all home mortgages is only 3.6 percent. For subprime loans, there is a stark difference in the type of loan. The rate of seriously delinquent subprime fixed rate loans is a little more than one-third the rate for subprime adjustable rate mortgages.
Any family willing to work, save money, pay the mortgage on their house is a sound basis of credit and a sound basis for America.
So let the record show: CRA is not guilty of causing the financial crisis.

Because it was true. Loans made under the CRA, which has been law since the 1970’s, have a very low default rate and are an insignificant percentage of the mortgage loans outstanding.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Militants on Monday launched their fourth assault in a week on strategic targets across Pakistan, this time with a suicide car bombing against a military vehicle in a crowded market in the northwest, killing 41 people and wounding dozens more.

The bombing took place in the Shangla District, an area within the Swat Valley but under separate administration. The Pakistani military had declared the valley cleared of militants after an offensive this summer and announced that the Taliban were a shattered force.

Since the Swat campaign and the death of the Pakistani Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud, in an American drone strike in August, the militants have been relatively quiet. But the attack on Monday showed they could still shake the country with serious terrorist attacks in a short period over a wide geographic spread.

It was the latest in a series clearly intended to prove the Taliban’s resilience, to exact revenge for government and American strikes, and to discourage the Pakistani military from expanding its campaign into South Waziristan, the heartland of the Taliban in Pakistan.

The Pakistani Air Force has been pounding areas of South Waziristan in the last day, a prelude to a possible ground campaign, military officials said. Hundreds are reported to have fled in recent days in expectation of an attack.

On Saturday, in one of their boldest gambits, 10 militants dressed in army fatigues and armed with automatic weapons, mines, grenades and suicide jackets breached the perimeter of the army headquarters in Rawalpindi in a raid that left 23 people dead and set off a 20-hour siege.

The standoff ended Sunday morning with the rescue of 39 hostages by army commandos, but showed that even a building of the intelligence wing of the army was vulnerable to Taliban attacks. On Monday, the Pakistani Army announced that it had a telephone intercept showing that the Tehrik-e-Taliban, the umbrella organization of the Pakistani Taliban, was responsible for the assault.

The group’s deputy, Wali ur-Rehman, was heard telling a colleague by phone after the raid had begun to pray for the success of the operation, the army spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, said at a news conference.

A Taliban spokesman, Azam Tariq, told The Associated Press on Monday that the Rawalpindi assault was to avenge Mr. Mehsud’s death. “This was our first small effort and a present to the Pakistani and American governments,” he said.

He said that the raid had been carried out by a Punjabi faction and that the Taliban had given orders to other branches in Sindh, Baluchistan and North-West Frontier Province to carry out similar operations.

The sole surviving Taliban gunman was captured by the military and identified as Muhammad Aqeel, also known as Dr. Usman, because he had once worked with the Army Medical Corps.

Mr. Aqeel was in serious condition and unconscious from wounds suffered when he tried to blow himself up, the military spokesman said. He is a member of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, a Punjabi militant group affiliated with Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban, General Abbas said.

A senior police officer in Punjab said Mr. Aqeel led the commando operation against the Sri Lankan cricket team during its visit to Lahore in March, and military officials said he was behind a suicide bombing that killed the army surgeon general in 2008. On Friday, in the busiest bazaar in Peshawar, the capital of North-West Frontier Province, militants set off a car bomb that killed 48 people. Last Monday, five people were killed when a suicide bomber dressed in military fatigues walked through the security cordon at the World Food Program offices of the United Nations in Islamabad.

The attack in Shangla on Monday was clearly aimed to shake the confidence of the underfinanced local government and the people who returned to their homes only two months ago after the military operation in Swat.

Among the dead were six soldiers, including a lieutenant colonel, who were part of a quick response force and four newly recruited members of a community police force, a local police official said. Last month, the Taliban sent a suicide bomber to a police training center in the Swat capital, Mingora, resulting in the deaths of 16 new policemen.

One Pakistan general angrily denounced Monday’s bombing as “a diversionary tactic” that would not dissuade the Pakistani military from carrying out an expected offensive in South Waziristan. But the officer conceded that there was no “foolproof antidote” to stop suicide bombers, and acknowledged that the militants could conduct such attacks at will.

The officer said the bombing in the crowded market in Shangla District on Monday, as well as the bombing on Friday in Peshawar, could backfire against the militants, and present the Pakistani military and civilian government with a chance to tap into public anger over civilian deaths.

“There is opportunity in calamity,

you can only give 10 points… i just got 2.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Militants on Monday launched their fourth assault in a week on strategic targets across Pakistan, this time with a suicide car bombing against a military vehicle in a crowded market in the northwest, killing 41 people and wounding dozens more.

The bombing took place in the Shangla District, an area within the Swat Valley but under separate administration. The Pakistani military had declared the valley cleared of militants after an offensive this summer and announced that the Taliban were a shattered force.

Since the Swat campaign and the death of the Pakistani Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud, in an American drone strike in August, the militants have been relatively quiet. But the attack on Monday showed they could still shake the country with serious terrorist attacks in a short period over a wide geographic spread.

It was the latest in a series clearly intended to prove the Taliban’s resilience, to exact revenge for government and American strikes, and to discourage the Pakistani military from expanding its campaign into South Waziristan, the heartland of the Taliban in Pakistan.

The Pakistani Air Force has been pounding areas of South Waziristan in the last day, a prelude to a possible ground campaign, military officials said. Hundreds are reported to have fled in recent days in expectation of an attack.

On Saturday, in one of their boldest gambits, 10 militants dressed in army fatigues and armed with automatic weapons, mines, grenades and suicide jackets breached the perimeter of the army headquarters in Rawalpindi in a raid that left 23 people dead and set off a 20-hour siege.

The standoff ended Sunday morning with the rescue of 39 hostages by army commandos, but showed that even a building of the intelligence wing of the army was vulnerable to Taliban attacks. On Monday, the Pakistani Army announced that it had a telephone intercept showing that the Tehrik-e-Taliban, the umbrella organization of the Pakistani Taliban, was responsible for the assault.

The group’s deputy, Wali ur-Rehman, was heard telling a colleague by phone after the raid had begun to pray for the success of the operation, the army spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, said at a news conference.

A Taliban spokesman, Azam Tariq, told The Associated Press on Monday that the Rawalpindi assault was to avenge Mr. Mehsud’s death. “This was our first small effort and a present to the Pakistani and American governments,” he said.

He said that the raid had been carried out by a Punjabi faction and that the Taliban had given orders to other branches in Sindh, Baluchistan and North-West Frontier Province to carry out similar operations.

The sole surviving Taliban gunman was captured by the military and identified as Muhammad Aqeel, also known as Dr. Usman, because he had once worked with the Army Medical Corps.

Mr. Aqeel was in serious condition and unconscious from wounds suffered when he tried to blow himself up, the military spokesman said. He is a member of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, a Punjabi militant group affiliated with Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban, General Abbas said.

A senior police officer in Punjab said Mr. Aqeel led the commando operation against the Sri Lankan cricket team during its visit to Lahore in March, and military officials said he was behind a suicide bombing that killed the army surgeon general in 2008. On Friday, in the busiest bazaar in Peshawar, the capital of North-West Frontier Province, militants set off a car bomb that killed 48 people. Last Monday, five people were killed when a suicide bomber dressed in military fatigues walked through the security cordon at the World Food Program offices of the United Nations in Islamabad.

The attack in Shangla on Monday was clearly aimed to shake the confidence of the underfinanced local government and the people who returned to their homes only two months ago after the military operation in Swat.

Among the dead were six soldiers, including a lieutenant colonel, who were part of a quick response force and four newly recruited members of a community police force, a local police official said. Last month, the Taliban sent a suicide bomber to a police training center in the Swat capital, Mingora, resulting in the deaths of 16 new policemen.

One Pakistan general angrily denounced Monday’s bombing as “a diversionary tactic” that would not dissuade the Pakistani military from carrying out an expected offensive in South Waziristan. But the officer conceded that there was no “foolproof antidote” to stop suicide bombers, and acknowledged that the militants could conduct such attacks at will.

The officer said the bombing in the crowded market in Shangla District on Monday, as well as the bombing on Friday in Peshawar, could backfire against the militants, and present the Pakistani military and civilian government with a chance to tap into public anger over civilian deaths.

“There is opportunity in calamity,

you can only give 10 points… i just got 2.

My group is "Affiliate_Forum". It is a resource group for Webmasters, Developers, Netrepreneurs & Technology Enthusiasts. Keep up to date on key internet issues, and promotion opportunities that could change the way you do business online.
To join, please email: affiliate_forum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

count me in!

A new global fund that invests in the world’s top clean-energy companies is to be launched in Canada today by Criterion Investments Ltd., which sees huge opportunity in efforts to "de-carbonize" the environment.
Ian McPherson, president of Criterion, an affiliate of VenGrowth Asset Management Inc. of Toronto, said clean energy has matured beyond being a niche sector that until recently could only be tapped by seeking out and placing bets on individual companies.
"The sector has matured; it’s no longer nascent," said McPherson. "You have very strong capital flows and now there’s some investment management talent in the area, whereas historically there’s been a real shortage."
The timing is right to launch a managed fund, he said. "It’s on people’s radar screens. Clean energy has more mainstream acceptance."
The company is billing the RRSP-eligible Criterion Global Clean Energy Fund as the first Canadian fund of its kind focused on the clean-energy theme. Geneva-based Pictet Asset Management SA is investment adviser for the "high-risk" fund, which the Swiss company launched in May and is currently available throughout Europe and parts of Asia.
Phillipe de Weck, senior fund manager from Pictet, said in a phone interview from Geneva that concern over climate change and a worldwide drive to reduce greenhouse gases, backed by ambitious government targets and incentives, has primed the sector for long-term growth.
"We believe it will outperform the economy as a whole," he said, pointing out that the fund has jumped 7 per cent in its first four months compared to a drop of 2 per cent on the MSCI World Index, which measures the performance of market indices in 23 developed countries.
"We’re at the phase where policymakers have set targets, and now they have to move to the next stage where regulations are needed to move to those targets," he added. "We want to take advantage of that, and we think it’s a long-term trend. The transition to clean energy is a trend that will last our lifetime."
The fund was most recently invested in 59 companies, about 40 per cent located in the United States. Top 10 holdings included wind giants Gamesa and Vestas, and solar suppliers Suntech Power and Q-Cells.
Three Canadian companies are currently in the fund: hydropower developer Plutonic Power of Vancouver; wind and hydro developer Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. of Calgary; and Westport Innovations Inc., a developer of natural gas and hydrogen combustion engines in Vancouver.
De Weck said natural gas fits within the theme because it’s an important "transition fuel" to clean energy, though the fund doesn’t invest in nuclear power technologies or providers.
"The safety and waste issues are still unresolved," he said. "Yes, there are plans for more nuclear, but let’s be realistic. We’ve been in a nuclear winter in terms of skills and expertise. We haven’t had that brain influx in the field and we simply don’t have the experience."
Nicholas Parker, co-founder and chairman of the Cleantech Group, a provider of research and investor services targeted at the clean technology sector, predicted the Criterion fund would be received well in Canada.
"Canadian retail and institutional investors have been underserved in this space relative to their European and American counterparts, so I think this is going to meet demand," he said.
Parker’s group launched a Cleantech Index in partnership with the American Stock Exchange last year that tracks more than 70 publicly traded U.S. companies in the sector. He said his main concern is that the Criterion fund is focused on clean energy and excludes technologies aimed at cleaning up water and soil, reducing waste and creating "green" materials.
Limiting the fund to just energy makes it more volatile, he argued. "Which is why we’re advocating the broader cleantech space."
Last October, PowerShares Capital Management LLC launched an exchange-traded fund (ETF) based on the Cleantech Index.
Like most ETFs, the fees are more affordable than managed funds – for example, 0.7 per cent for the PowerShares fund compared to between 2.65 per cent and 2.75 per cent for the Criterion fund, which is near average for the mutual fund industry.
McPherson said the Criterion fund adds value by being actively managed. "Our portfolio manager will be trading to take a view on valuation, whereas those ETFs are a static portfolio for certain periods of time and don’t take into account if something is undervalued or overvalued as an index."
So far, however, the passively managed PowerShares fund, while traded in U.S. dollars and vulnerable to foreign exchange exposure, is performing well – it’s up more than 20 per cent since its launch 11 months ago.
Since mid-May, when the Pictet fund was launched in Europe, the PowerShares fund has increased nearly 9 per cent.

A new global fund that invests in the world’s top clean-energy companies is to be launched in Canada today.

A good reporter summarizes the whole story in the leading sentence.

THE PROJECT: "THE OPPORTUNITY"

You are a member of a team that is competing for the opportunity to program NBC-TV from 8-9 pm on Thursday evenings for the 2006-2007 season.

Your task is to come up with your own ORIGINAL program(s) for the time block based upon your research of the audience and the competition. You can assume that the competition (ABC, CBS, Fox, etc.) will program what is currently on.

As the attached sheet shows, you must cover more than just the program concept. The financial aspect is important as well.

ORAL REPORTS (15 minutes) AND WRITTEN REPORTS DUE MONDAY 11/13

THE OPPORTUNITY

I. PROGRAM CONCEPT

What is the idea? What is it like? Why is it different? Why will it work? You have an hour to fill. This could obviously be done by two half hour shows or a single one hour show. Which will you do? Why? Be as specific as possible when it comes to your program(s). What about casting? Include at least three show titles and brief story lines for your program(s). Have one of them be your sweeps show.

II. RESEARCH RATIONALE

What are the demographics available in the hour? Do they change? What part of the audience is "taken" or available? How will your program slant in terms of demos? Why will it work? Will it bring back audience to the time period?

III. PUBLIC RELATIONS

How will you get the attention of the consumer press TV editors? Will your people do selective touring on local TV shows? Any plans for satellite interviews? Are there any expected problems in the format with pressure groups? Are your stars promotable? Amenable?

IV. STATION CLEARANCE

Networks are dependent on local stations to carry their shows to viewers. What arguments will you suggest to have the affiliate carry this show rather than syndicated or local products? Why will your show be better? What will you say to the station manager?

V. SALES

Why will this program be of interest to advertisers? Will its demographics be good? How have similar shows done in the past? Will there be problem story lines?

VI. LICENSE FEES, DEFICIT FINANCING, OTHER MARKETS

Here are some estimated license fees for TV shows. Of course they may vary widely depending on productions costs.

1/2 hour comedy $1,000,0001 hour magazine $2,000,000
1 hour comedy $2,00,0001 hour news doc $750,000
1 hour variety $2,000,0001 hour sports $1,750,000

The network’s license fee generally covers about 80% of production costs. The producer then looks for back-end financing or expectations on other revenues. The network traditionally gets two runs. How will you recoup your money? Syndication? How syndicatable is your program? Overseas? Cable? Cassettes? Entertainment specials usually run only once since they usually don’t work well in reruns.

How will you try to keep down production costs? The problems of television production costs have been heavy copy in the trade press, business magazines, and consumer press. The production team must be sensitive to these issues and have answers. At the same time they must also assure the network that they will deliver a classy product, explaining why it "will all be on the screen" for the license fee.

VIII. AUDIENCE PROMOTION

What kind of TV Guide ads, newspaper, or magazine ads do you intend to run? How will you use major sporting events that take place on the network? What about network promos? Will you use radio? Why? What will you say? What will you do during sweeps?

try nielson rating

Seems there are bits-and-pieces around. We’re almost ready to go. We have a static site up. Our more dynamic ("sticky", we hope!) proof of concept looks good. So, we’re working on that development. I don’t want to miss anything in terms of getting the world to beat a path to our site! Marketing methods. Search optimization. Advertising methods. Income opportunities. The site has unique content. We’re not selling a tangible product. It’s not a game. We anticipate living off of affiliate income, advertising, and …. we don’t know what else! Thank you!

try http://www.oscommerce.com - they will give you step by step open source instructions.

Bain Capital = help China turn the US into a yard sale

In June 2005, Bain teamed up with Haier Group, China’s largest appliance maker, and private equity firm Blackstone Group in an attempt to acquire Maytag for over $1 billion.

On September 28, 2007, Bain and the Chinese networking company Huawei Technologies acquired 3Com for $2.2 billion in cash.

Bain Capital’s family of funds includes private equity, venture capital, public equity and leveraged debt assets.

Absolute Return Capital (ARC) is the global macro affiliate of Bain Capital managing approximately $600 million of capital. ARC manages assets in fixed income, equity and commodity markets to produce attractive risk-adjusted returns while maintaining low correlation to traditional investments.

Bain Capital Private Equity has raised eight funds and invested in more than 200 companies. The private equity activity includes leveraged buyouts and growth capital in a wide variety of industries.

Bain Capital (Europe) Limited, an affiliate of Bain Capital, LLC, is dedicated to investment opportunities in the European market. Based in London and Munich, and building off Bain Capital’s successful European investment track record since 1987.

Bain Capital Ventures is the venture capital arm of Bain Capital, focused on seed through late-stage growth equity investing in software, hardware, information, healthcare, and technology-driven business services companies.

His type of business tactics are transparent and the media needs to enlarge on what this would mean if he were in charge of the Nation and put us in positions we could NO LONGER buy out of! Because that day is coming! The leveraged buyouts will fail in the economy to come due to the buyout and sale of American Companies to foreign nations, already many many Corps. have been sold to other nations. People need to look into trading of companies and trading of countries and religions that seems pretty prevalent in Mr. Romneys heritage and study the implications that might well follow his Presidency if ellected