Showing posts with label finance business. Show all posts
Showing posts with label finance business. Show all posts

Monday, 8 July 2013

SF Plane Crash: Social Media Is Key First Responder

The Asiana Airlines flight that crash-landed at SFO airport
In the aftermath of the Asiana Airlines flight that crash-landed at San Francisco International Airport on Saturday at 11:36 a.m., the drama unfolded on social media as witnesses relayed the initial reactions that were then amplified by cable news.

Passenger David Eun, a Samsung exec who was formerly president of AOL Media and Studios, posted his first tweets at 12:13 p.m., within minutes of the crash-landing and fire. According to the Associated Press, at least two people have died and 182 were taken to area hospitals.

Eun, a Harvard Law graduate who also has worked at NBC, calmly posted short but clear bulletins on the crash and the condition of the passengers. (His first cool-under-pressure tweet, which even included the airport's Twitter handle (@flySFO), was retweeted nearly 30,000 times. His Twitter followers grew from 2,000 to nearly 19,000 in hours.

STORY: Cable News Breaks in to Cover Boeing 777 Crash

Prospective Asiana passenger Sheryl Sandberg’s postings on Facebook also were widely quoted in traditional media. “Taking a minute to be thankful and explain what happened,” wrote the Facebook COO. “My family, colleagues Debbie Frost, Charlton Gholson and Kelly Hoffman and I were originally going to take the Asiana flight that just crash-landed. We switched to United so we could use miles for my family's tickets. Our flight was scheduled to come in at the same time, but we were early and landed about 20 minutes before the crash. Our friend David Eun was on the Asiana flight and he is fine.”

Meanwhile, a young woman (@EuniceBirdRah) whose father was on board asked her followers to pray for his safety. "He is on the 777," she wrote as she headed to the airport. Awhile later she sent out another tweet -- tagged for CNN -- with a photo of the burning plane that her father (who had escaped unhurt) had sent to her via text message.

She followed up a few minutes later: "About to go on CNN.. My heart is aching for the passenger, crew, family." Then finally: "God is real."

The story’s development was the latest chapter in what has become an emerging story for the traditional news media, which has found itself ever more reliant on social media bulletins and photos for its most immediate and, often, eye-witness coverage of significant breaking news events.

Saturday, the lesson implicit in that story was dramatically reinforced when traditional news outlets with no reporters immediately on the scene were forced to rely on passengers’ Twitter postings, as well as dozens of photos posted to the Internet by passengers and those waiting inside the airport terminals.

Within a relatively short time, there were videos of the evacuation and fire up on YouTube, which were picked up by Fox News, CNN and MSNBC. By then, FNC's Claudia Cowan was on the ground reporting in SF, MSNBC aired a special report with Lester Holt and CNN's international anchor Richard Quest called in to discuss the incident.

Eun's cool-headed series of tweets made him the dominant initial observer of the crash-landing.

Among his Tweets:

"Fire and rescue people all over the place. They're evacuating the injured. Haven't felt this way since 9/11. Trying to help people stay calm. Deep breaths…"

"Lots of activity here. Friends, pls don't call right now. I'm fine."

'The Butler' Fight: David Boies Claims WB Extortion in New Letter

In the latest salvo in The Butler title standoff, The Weinstein Company's litigator David Boies has responded to Warner Bros. by threatening a restraining order and continuing to press an antitrust violation claim.

"[N]one of this controversy would have occurred if Warner Bros. had not repudiated its representations and agreements not to object to 'The Butler' in a transparent attempt to hold a major civil rights film hostage to extort unrelated concessions from TWC," Boies wrote in an e-mail dated July 5 and obtained by The Hollywood Reporter.

The public battle between the studios erupted last week. The MPAA's Title Registry Bureau ruled in an arbitration on Tuesday that TWC couldn't use the title, The Butler, for the 2013 release because a 1916 short in the Warner Bros. Library shares the same name.

ANALYSIS: Few Options for Weinstein Co. in Wake of MPAA 'Butler' Ruling

The move followed months of back-and-forth between the two studios after TWC failed to "clear" the title before moving forward with its release plan for the White House-set drama directed by Lee Daniels. The film is scheduled to hit theaters August 16.

Boies sent letters to Warner Bros. litigator John Spiegel and the MPAA threatening litigation over the ruling. Daniels personally appealed to Warners CEO Kevin Tsujihara in a public letter claiming that changing the title "would most certainly hurt the film by limiting the number of people who would ultimately see this important story."

The film stars Forest Whitaker as a longtime White House butler and also features performances by Robin Williams, Oprah Winfrey, John Cusack and Liev Schreiber.

TWC is appealing the arbitrator's ruling, though as THR has noted, it could face an uphill battle. Its antitrust argument -- that the arbitrator's ruling restricts competition since the 1916 film "has not been shown in theaters, television, DVDs, or in any other way for almost a century," in Boies words -- also might be problematic.

The full text of Boies' latest letter to Spiegel is below:

Dear Mr. Spiegel:

Although you do not directly respond to my inquiry, I assume that you are the counsel who should be notified in the event it is necessary to seek a TRO.

I will not try to respond to your version of the facts in part because it is so inaccurate and incomplete that such an exercise would be extensive, and in part because your letter appears to be a press release masquerading as a lawyer's letter. However, I briefly note your lack of response to three critical points.

First, if an anticompetitive "permanent" allocation of titles (and words used in titles) among competitors is a product of a horizontal agreement, that is an antitrust violation, not a defense.

Second, the purported order that TWC not use titles that it has already cleared pursuant to the MPAA's own rules and procedures demonstrates that it is Warner Bros. and the MPAA that are at odds with established custom, practice, and procedure.

Third, none of this controversy would have occurred if Warner Bros. had not repudiated its representations and agreements not to object to "The Butler" in a transparent attempt to hold a major civil rights film hostage to extort unrelated concessions from TWC.

CNN Airs Bystander's SF Plane Crash Landing Footage

Amateur footage of the crash landing taken by observer Fred Hayes
On Sunday, as investigators piece together the chain of events that lead to the crash landing of the Asiana Airlines flight at San Francisco airport that left two dead and many injured, a new video has surfaced of the plane's descent.

CNN exclusively aired amateur footage by Fred Hayes, an observer described as an "aviation buff" who had "gone to a place where you could see these planes taking off and landing," said network correspondent Dan Simon.

In the clip, the Boeing 777, which carried 291 passengers, can be seen descending onto the runway before appearing to to skid as smoke rises. Anchor Don Lemon said that the video was shot while Hayes was out walking with his wife.

The news network also aired the video in a split screen along with the National Transportation Safety Board press conference that was scheduled for 1:30 pm PT.

"Everything is on the table right now, it is too early to rule anything out," said NTSB spokesperson Deborah Hersman when asked about any potential mechanical failure on the aircraft by a reporter at the presser.

Hersman encouraged those with photos and videos of the crash to submit an eyewitness report to the agency.

Lance Armstrong Returning to Cycling Six Months After Doping Confession

Lance Armstronghas announced his return to cycling.

The disgraced professional cyclist, who admitted to using banned substances in a highly publicized interview with Oprah Winfrey in January, says he plans to take part in The Des Moines Register's Annual Great Bicycle Ride Across Iowa this month.

PHOTOS: Hollywood's Memorable Mea Culpas

“I’m well aware my presence is not an easy topic, and so I encourage people if they want to give a high five, great,” he told the Register. “If you want to shoot me the bird, that’s OK, too.”

Armstrong has been banned from professional cycling for life. He also has been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency in addition to the bronze medal he won at the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney.

“To be honest, it’s not a statement, it’s not an experiment,” Armstrong said of his decision to take part in the Iowa event. “It’s just me wanting to go ride my bike with what in the past has been a friendly group of people that share the same interests.”

This will mark his fifth time in the six-day Great Bicycle Ride -- kicking off July 21, which, incidentally, also happens to be the final day of the 2013 Tour de France -- and his first major public appearance since his confession to Winfrey.

Said the Iowa event's director, T.J. Juskiewicz, “We are open to anyone that wants to come ride RAGBRAI.”

VIDEO: Lance Armstrong Admits to Oprah: Yes, I Used Banned Substances

Since his confession, Armstrong has been slapped with up to $135 million in liabilities from a series of lawsuits.

“I’m committing to working through them, and whether it’s settling cases or whether it’s fighting some cases — because some have merit some don’t, ” he told the Des Moines newspaper. "But I’m committed to the process and that’s probably as much as I would and could say about it. That’s a tricky area there. Unless you have $135 million you want to let me borrow, or have?”

In his sitdown with Winfrey, Armstrong admitted that he had used banned substances -- EPO, testosterone and human growth hormone -- as well as blood doping or blood transfusion to enhance his performance.

Asked by Winfrey why he finally decided to tell the truth after years of denials, Armstrong replied: "I don’t know that I have a great answer. I will start my answer by saying this is too late. It’s too late for probably most people. And that’s my fault. I view this situation as one big lie that I repeated a lot of times. It wasn’t as if I said no and I moved off it."

PHOTOS: Exclusive Portraits of Famous Former Olympians

He also told Winfrey he felt his punishment was too harsh.

"I deserve to be punished. I'm not sure I deserve a death penalty," he said, adding that he feels that some of his fellow teammates got off easier than he did. "If I could go back to that time, trading my story for a six-month suspension -- what other people got. I got a death penalty, and they got six months. I'm not saying that's unfair necessarily; I'm saying it's different."

Richard Nanula Officially Out at Colony, Miramax

Richard Nanula is no longer on personal leave from Colony Capital, Miramax and other related companies. He has now completely severed his ties with the international investment bank, where he was a partner, and the movie company, where he was chairman, a spokesperson for Colony Capital confirmed to The Hollywood Reporter on Sunday.

Nanula, who was once chief financial officer of the Walt Disney Co., has recently been linked to a growing sex scandal. It began when pictures were published about three weeks ago on the website The Dirty (and later elsewhere) of a man believed to be Nanula playing the male lead in a porn movie with adult-film actress Samantha Saint.

PHOTOS: Leslie Moonves, David Zaslav, Robert Iger: 10 Highly-Paid Entertainment CEOs

Nanula has not responded to THR's request for comment.

It appears Nanula’s expensive sex addiction has a long history. On Sunday, the New York Post reported that around 1999, when Nanula was working for Amgen, he attended a sex-addiction therapy program at the Hoffman Institute in San Rafael, Calif., according to a 2005 divorce filing.

This story of his sex addiction was told in the divorce case involving his then-wife, Tracey Nanula. She said she had forced her husband to enter sex therapy after she found he had spent as much as $10,000 on a prostitute. She says he first learned the truth in 2001 from credit card bills and checks paid to escorts. Tracey had met her husband when both worked at Disney.

This comes only a week after revelations that Nanula was sued in a sex harassment suit filed against him personally and against Colony Capital on Jan. 30.

The suit was filed in L.A. Superior Court by Stephanie Shaw, who says she started as a temp at Colony Capital in February 2011. She was made a permanent employee in June and then the following Jan. 30, she says she was groped and sexually harassed by a male employee.

Nanula was her supervisor, and she charges he did not help her and that after she went public with her complaint, Nanula created a hostile work environment and is to blame for what she calls her wrongful termination.

PHOTOS: Hollywood's Memorable Mea Culpas

On Sunday, the New York Post reported that Ronald Tutor, the CEO of Tutor Perini construction, which recently won the contract to build the first leg of California’s high-speed rail system, is still an owner of Miramax along with Colony, its principal Thomas Barrack, the Qatar Investment Authority and The Weinstein Co.

That is incorrect.

Tutor, who also is involved in several federal and state lawsuits and a bankruptcy in association with his former business partner David Bergstein, sold his interest in Miramax in January. Tutor apparently continues to try and reduce his movie business interests.

Miramax is left with no chairman with Nanula gone and no CEO (since Mike Lang left in March 2012), but it has hired a corps of veteran executives to run the divisions charged with continuing to monetize the Miramax film library. That asset was acquired in December 2010 from Disney.

The buyers at the time included Barrack, individually and on behalf of Colony Capital, along with Ronald Tutor and, putting up the largest amount in the high-leveraged deal, Qatar Investment Authority. The joint venture, then called Filmyard Holdings, paid Disney $663 million.

Thursday, 4 July 2013

Accel and Sequoia vets raise new VC fund

Wagner & Garg Wagner & Garg


FORTUNE -- Veteran venture capitalists Peter Wagner and Gaurav Garg have raised $111 million for a new fund called Wing Venture Partners, according to a regulatory filing.

Fortune first reported in April that the pair had teamed up, with plans to raise between $50 million and $100 million for an early-stage technology fund based in Menlo Park. Seems the fund was well oversubscribed, with some prospective investors unable to get any allocation at all.

Wagner had spent more than 14 years with Accel Partners, where his deals included Arrowpoint Communications (acquired by Cisco for $5.7 billion), Fusion-io (FIO) and Infinera Corp. (INFN). Garg previously was a partner for 11 years with Sequoia Capital, focused on semiconductor and systems deals like Aruba Networks (ARUN), Ruckus Wireless (RKUS), MobileIron and Jawbone.

Wagner and Garg both also worked on Redback Networks, where Garg was a co-founder and Wagner an investor (via Accel), and have done a series of angel deals together since each leaving their respective firms.

I've reached out to Wagner and Garg and will update this post if they respond.

Banks balk at Icahn's Dell deal

FORTUNE -- I believe that Carl Icahn sincerely wants to buy Dell Inc. Maybe not always, but by now he really has talked himself into the idea that this is a great company beset by lousy management.

At the same time, I don't believe he has a shot at it.

My last slivers of doubt were wiped out this morning, when Icahn disclosed that he had secured $5.2 billion in bank debt to help finance his proposed $14 per share tender offer for the company. Or, more specifically, when Icahn disclosed that he personally was financing more than half of that $5.2 billion. Seems most lenders didn't want anything to do with his Dell (DELL) deal.

According to a proxy statement, Icahn affiliates would put up 65.8% of the $5.2 billion package -- or $3.42 billion. But it actually comes in at only $3.1 billion because of a series of back-to-back commitment letters where other buyers would take around $320 million off Icahn's hands.

When first discussing the deal publicly back in May, here is what Icahn told CNBC:

"I personally have said that i would be good for over $2 billion if needed. So that brings it down to only $3.2 billion, and we got $1.6 billion already from Jeffries without going anywhere yet."

So Icahn ultimately had to put in $1.1 billion more than he had originally projected, after Jefferies proved unable to syndicate out the $1.6 billion it hadn't committed off its own balance sheet (after two months of work!).

To be fair, Icahn was discussing a recap rather than a tender during his CNBC interview -- in part because he thought Dell's board would only consider the former to be a "superior offer" -- but this still represents a pretty broad rejection of his plan.

Remember that Icahn only gets Dell if (a) Shareholders reject the $13.65 per share buyout offer from Michael Dell and Silver Lake, and (b) If Dell's board subsequently votes in Icahn's slate of directors who then would engage the tender (a vote in which Michael Dell could participate).

And if lenders are saying no, why does he think equity holders will be any different. Particularly given that the bondholders would have greater protections? Moreover, there's a high likelihood that the stock is now largely in the hands of arbs who are content with the $13.65 per share price, and have no interest in a longer-term hold.

Icahn today argued that his ability to put together the $5.2 billion package should be enough for Dell's board to realize he's serious. Unfortunately for Icahn, it also makes everyone realize that he's got a losing hand.

Exclusive: Homebrew closes debut fund

The Homebrew crew The Homebrew crew


FORTUNE -- Homebrew, a new venture capital firm founded by former Google and Twitter product managers, has quietly closed its debut fund with $35 million.

The San Francisco-based firm was launched earlier this year by Hunter Walk, who led product for Google's (GOOG) YouTube, and Satya Patel, a fellow ex-Googler who most recently was VP of product for Twitter.

Both also have past investing experience -- Walk as an active angel and Patel with Battery Ventures.

The Homebrew strategy is to create a concentrated portfolio of startups that "enable the people-based economy" for both consumers and enterprises. Half of the companies would be incubated by Homebrew, while the others would be seed-stage financings. None of Walk and Patel's personal angel investments will be rolled into the Homebrew portfolio.

Walk and Patel personally contributed around 2% of the fund capital, while the majority came from funds-of-funds.

Walk declined to comment on the fund close. So far, Homebrew does not have a website.

How Brazil can win back investors

brazil-protests-620xa

FORTUNE -- The massive protests in Brazil may have subsided, but the unrest is far from over, as evidenced by the tear gas earlier this week outside the Brazil-Spain soccer game in Rio. The turmoil threatens to exacerbate an already tense situation for the nation's shaky financial markets. The protests, which erupted last month in response to a hike in bus fares, is undermining the Brazilian government's attempt to alleviate a potentially disastrous flight of foreign capital as investors cycle out of emerging markets.

If the government doesn't move to address the grievances of its restless and frustrated population quickly and prove to the investment community that it is still committed to responsible government spending, then the country could be setting itself up for a severe economic downturn.

Brazilians rarely like to rock the boat. They have lived through dictatorships, corrupt governments and wild economic swings without much popular dissent. Indeed, this was, after all, the last western nation to ban slavery -- and it didn't come about because of a mass popular uprising, it just happened because it was time.

But Brazil has changed dramatically in the last few years. Brazilians, now numbering nearly 200 million, are richer and more educated than at any time in the nation's short history. An amazing 20% of the population, around 40 million people, have been lifted out of poverty in the past decade. At the same time, enrollment in higher education has doubled and the nation's literacy rates among youths now tops 97%.

MORE: Only the wealthy feel economic recovery

These are all good things for investors to hear. A richer and more educated population usually leads to a healthy uptick in spending within the country on a variety of services and assets. This creates an upward spiral in economic growth where investors are able to reap healthy returns across a variety of markets.

As such, with an abundance of exploitable natural resources and a growing service sector, Brazil was the favorite emerging market for many investors, especially those concentrated in fixed income. Investors were able to park their cash with ease and reap returns that well exceeded whatever they could get back in Europe or even in the United States.

Furthermore, as a legitimate democracy with a somewhat competent legal system, Brazil also offered investors security from political risk, a rarity among emerging market economies. Brazil was so popular that foreign direct investment had held steady at around $65 billion from 2011 to 2012 even though economic growth in the country had stalled. The hope was that Brazil would bounce back.

But instead of things picking up, Brazil's economy just seems to be getting worse. Credit rating agencies Moody's and S&P both downgraded Brazilian debt last month after the government said it was expecting a further slowdown in economic growth. Traders in Brazilian government debt tell Fortune that this is causing a major outflow of capital from Brazil's fixed income markets. As such, dollar-denominated Brazilian bonds are down nearly 8% in the second quarter of this year, the largest such decrease for a single quarter since 2002, according to an analysis by Bloomberg.

MORE: Bernanke is driving the car but can't see the road

There are a few things going on here. First, there has been a mass sell-off in emerging market debt by investors from Wall Street to London in the last two months. What started out as a trickle of selling has since turned into a stampede for the exits -- with debt markets across the emerging market space taking a pounding, especially Brazil. Secondly, the rout was exacerbated by the US Federal Reserve, which signaled last month that it may be willing to raise interest rates in the not-so-distant future. The promise of higher rates, and, thus, potentially higher returns on U.S. investments, managed to lure investors away from the emerging markets and back to the U.S.

Brazil's finance ministry has quickly sprung into action to prevent the hemorrhaging of foreign capital from the nation's debt and equity markets. It first eliminated a 6% tax foreigners had to pay to invest in Brazilian local bonds. The tax, put in place by the government in 2010 to supposedly prevent wild swings in the Brazilian currency, now levels the playing field and should draw in new investors. In addition, the government recently cut a 1% tax on currency derivatives in an attempt to boost the value of the Brazilian Real.

Normally, such actions would have been enough to at least stabilize the sell-off. Investors who had hesitated to enter the Brazilian markets due to the "foreigners tax" would have jumped in the second they heard the news that the tax was history. But the tax changes haven't been enough this time around to lure back investors. That's because of what's going on in the streets of Brazil's largest cities -- protests and riots.

Fund managers who had stuck by Brazil during the recent market rout will now find it even harder to do so with millions of Brazilians on the street, shutting down ports, creating traffic jams, and scaring the government. What turned out to be outrage at the government for raising transit fares (which had since been reversed) has now become a protest for everything by everyone with no clear leader or agenda. Among the dozens of causes that people are protesting include: transportation costs; Native Indian rights; government spending on the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Summer Olympics; corruption in state and local governments; and a bill in the Brazilian congress that would authorize psychologists to try and "cure" homosexuals.

So far the government, led by President Dilma Rousseff, has failed miserably to contain the protests, many of which have become violent and chaotic. For example, over the weekend, hooded protesters armed with screwdrivers and slingshots set fires and attacked police outside the Confederations Cup soccer game in Rio de Janeiro. It was a terrible embarrassment for the government.

MORE: Sequester shmester? The worst is yet to come

So what is the government to do here? With so many different causes and no real leadership, it seems impossible to get control of the situation. But while there are many different causes, they all share a common root -- corruption and mismanagement in Brasilia. Brazil's new middle class is simply fed up with Brazil's shoddy infrastructure, terrible medical system, super high taxes and shoddy education. The government purse continues to expand thanks to the economic boom, but it has failed to reinvest that money in a productive way. Indeed, the 40 million people who pulled themselves out of poverty did so because of a surge in commodity prices that helped fuel a boom in the service sector. The government did little, if anything, to encourage the development of the boom and kept income taxes at around 40%, by far the highest such tax rate for an emerging market economy.

It is clear that the Brazilian government needs major reform. For starters, the President could send a gesture of goodwill to the protestors by reshuffling her cabinet and firing ministers who have failed to perform. She can also create an action plan that addresses all the causes and sets forth ideas on how to address the problems. She should also explain to the Brazilian people that the protests, while understandably valid to some degree, could be setting the country up to take a big economic hit. Bond traders from Lisbon to Sao Paulo tell Fortune that they are afraid of jumping back into the Brazilian debt markets because of the uncertainty surrounding the protests. Foreign direct investment last year in Brazil was around $65 billion, but is set to take a big dive in the weeks to come.

The protests in Brazil aren't going away without some proactive steps taken by the government to show that it "gets it." So far, the Brazilian government's usual plan of action, to do nothing and wait things out, isn't working. The government needs to see the protests as part of a larger social revolution and should get to the roots of the problem. Investors will be waiting on the sidelines until they see that Brasilia is making a true and concerted effort to stamp out corruption and govern in a way fitting for the world's seventh-largest economy.

No golden parachute for Zynga's Pincus

FORTUNE -- Mark Pincus will not be receiving any special payout for stepping down as CEO of Zynga Inc. (ZNGA), the social gaming company he founded and ran until yesterday turning over the reins to former Microsoft (MSFT) executive Don Mattrick.

Pincus' employment contract stipulates that his equity vesting would accelerate if he lost his job due to a change in control (i.e., Zynga being acquired), but that isn't what happened here.

Moreover, Pincus does not have any salary or bonus continuation clauses in case of either voluntary or involuntary termination -- something featured in the contracts of several other Zynga executives (we don't yet have details of Mattrick's contract).

Of course, such continuations are largely irrelevant given that Pincus recently cut his annual salary to just $1 and said that he would not take either a cash bonus or equity award in 2013.

A Zynga spokeswoman confirms that Pincus will maintain that $1 comp plan in 2013 in his new role as chief product officer, and adds that there is no special compensation tied to his stepping down as CEO.

Pincus currently holds around a 7.5% ownership stake in Zynga, which closed trading today with a market cap of around $2.6 billion.No golden parachute for Zynga's Pincus

What if Carl Icahn wins Dell?

FORTUNE -- Carl Icahn yesterday laid out the details of his $5.2 billion in debt financing for Dell Inc. tender offer. Turns out Icahn himself had to put up a whopping $3.1 billion, after originally suggesting that he'd be good for $2 billion in a worst-case scenario. In other words, it was a tough sell.

So I wrote a post arguing that while Icahn hoped the debt commitments would strengthen his position, it actually made him look weaker. After all, if prospective lenders are saying no, why does Icahn think equity holders will be any different. Particularly given that the bondholders would have greater protections (and a quasi-termination fee for their troubles)? Moreover, there's a high likelihood that the stock is now largely in the hands of arbs who are content with the $13.65 per share price, and have no interest in a longer-term hold.

Then this morning came numerous media reports that Dell's (DELL) special committee has asked Michael Dell to raise his $13.65 per share price. Seems that informal surveys of existing shareholders have indicated the buyout vote is a toss-up, and there are strong hints that ISS will come out in opposition (something that may sway just enough shares to matter). And the special committee must be legitimately worried, given that it leaked its request as a way to put extra pressure on Michael Dell (albeit not on Silver Lake, which is stretched thread-thin as it is).

But don't be so sure that Michael Dell is going to play ball with the special committee on this. Let's assume, for a moment, that the buyout is voted down and that Icahn subsequently gets his board installed (something I still don't believe will happen). At that point, Michael Dell still has some options:
(1) He could tender most of his shares to Icahn, thus leaving him with around an 11% stake of the remaining float (and also diluting the payout for everyone else).(2) Michael Dell could tender none of his shares, thus leaving him with around a 41% ownership stake. If Dell struggles under Icahn's control, then Michael Dell would be in position to launch his own proxy fight and/or propose a new buyout offer (likely at a lower price than $13.65 per share). Or Icahn could succeed with Dell, thus buttressing Michael Dell's paper fortune.(3) Michael Dell could go for some sort of middle ground (partial tender), depending on what math he thinks works the best.
To be sure, there are serious risks to Michael Dell remaining a major part of an Icahn-owned Dell. For example, Icahn could sell certain business units before Michael can begin trying to regain control, thus scuttling his desires to do so. And there is the broader issue of weakening employee morale as corporate palace intrigue drags on.

But my basic point is that the upcoming shareholders vote isn't a zero sum game for either Michael Dell or Carl Icahn. In fact, it may turn them into uncomfortable partners.

What next for Egypt's entrepreneurs?

FORTUNE -- With all of the change today in Egypt, Fortune decided to check in with Leslie Jump -- a Washington, D.C.-based partner with Egyptian venture capital firm Sawari Ventures. She also is the wife of Edward Walker, U.S. Ambassador to Egypt between 1994 and 1997.

We first talked to Jump during the original Tahrir Square protests of 2011, which resulted in the ouster of Hosni Mubarak.

This evening we wanted her sense on what has happened to Egypt's economy since then, and what today's events mean for the future of Egyptian entrepreneurs. What follows is an edited transcript of our conversation:

FORTUNE: From an economic perspective, was President Morsi good for Egypt?

JUMP: No, he was not. There has been a lot of talk today about whether or not this was a coup, but the reality is that while Morsi was democratically-elected, he had been making so many moves to consolidate authority that it was getting closer to a dictatorship.

And that had begun to spread to businesses and the economy, which spooked international investors.

So it has been a pretty rough time over the last couple of years for Egyptians. We're still early in this new process, but the people I work with in Egypt are encouraged by what has happened today.

Won't international investors continue to be spooked, worried that Egypt will become mired in political instability?

I would argue that today is really a continuation, and hopefully conclusion, to what happened two years ago. I'm not a political expert, but the people who participated in the events of 2011 thought they were moving toward a more open government and thus more open economy. There is hope that the interim regime regains that spirit, by being diversified, transparent and quickly moving through what we'd consider to be proper democratic processes. It's encouraging that standing next to the military today was the head of the Coptic Church, the imam of Cairo's first mosque and Mohamed ElBaradei.

Of course, one group wasn't represented...

The Brotherhood? One thing people in Egypt really were worked up about was the government, by which I basically mean the Brotherhood, interfering in their daily life. A lot of people, including Muslims who don't happen to be far right-wingers, found what they were doing to be highly offensive.

If Egypt does quickly get a new democratically-elected government, what must it do for the economy?

It's got to focus on doing what it takes to make it easier to put people back to work. People forget that Egypt had made significant economic progress leading up to 2011, even though a lot of people didn't like that it was consolidated into what they thought of as the elites. And all of that stuff was stalled by what happened in the last couple of years, particularly once people saw the Brotherhood crack down on things and make restrictive rules that were really looking more socialist than anything else. For example, there was talk about limiting the amount of profits companies could make. It didn't make us businesspeople very comfortable.

How has the startup environment changed in the past two years?

We've seen more and better startups every day. For example, one of the top markets Startup Weekend says it sees is Egypt. These guys and gals are really putting their noses to the grindstone, and could really flourish if the new government can just apply a modicum of rule of law, respect for intellectual property and not try to get in the way.

Is there enough available capital inside of Egypt for the country's entrepreneurs?

The market is still in the stage that India and China were 10 or 15 years ago, and it certainly would help to have outside investors come in and validate certain companies. But is there enough capital inside of Egypt? Sure there is. And certainly within the region.

Will Egyptian entrepreneurs go to work tomorrow?

No, people will be partying tomorrow. But many will go to work on Sunday. I've even gotten emails today from companies where I'm o the board with 'business as usual' questions.

Imagine being 28 years old, and until two years ago never new a world without Mubarek and now you've seen two massive changes in just two years. These people feel empowered and in control of their own destiny, which is what entrepreneurship is all about: The ability to create something new. It's about hope.

Why the student loan interest rate hike isn't that big a deal

121129043105-college-tuition-monster

FORTUNE -- For all the gripes over the costs of student loans, there may be fewer reasons to worry about this week's doubling of interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans than you might think.

On Monday, rates surged to 6.8% after Congress couldn't agree how to keep them from rising. Despite the bad news that the hike could cost average student borrowers an additional $2,600 over 10 years (or an extra $21 a month), it doesn't really affect anyone -- at least not yet. The hike applies to loans issued after July 1, 2013. Students typically sign their loan documents when they return to campus in the fall.

That doesn't leave Congress much time, though -- if lawmakers can't get their act together this summer student borrowers will certainly pay more than previous graduates.

Congress has pledged to tackle the issue after the July 4th holiday. There are a handful of competing proposals being considered -- most of which urge the government to allow interest rates to fluctuate with the market rather than leaving them fixed and set by a highly politicized Congress. This makes economic sense, since market rates would reflect what it costs the government to lend to students.

MORE: The Fed's magic jobs number

The options include President Obama's and Republicans' push to peg it to the 10-year U.S. Treasury note and U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-MA) proposal to link it to the rate that banks pay to borrow overnight from the Federal Reserve (currently near zero percent). As different as the proposals might look, the costs to students differ very little, at least over the next four years, says Beth Akers, an education policy fellow at Brookings Institution, a Washington DC-based think tank. She thinks the hype over interest rates is overplayed.

Akers developed a calculator that shows how much the six options on the table would cost an average borrower each month. This includes the most costly option: If the rate stays at 6.8%, the average borrower with $27,000 in federal student loan debt (the maximum allowable for both subsidized and unsubsidized loans) would pay $327.47 a month. That's high, but it's only a $46.93 difference from the most generous proposal under Obama's plan, which would peg rates to the 10-year note plus 0.93 percentage points.

A lot of things could change over the next few years, but Akers' conclusions are worth looking at; they factor in the likelihood that yields on Treasuries will continue rising over the next few years.

What's perhaps most unexpected is that it makes little difference even if Congress passes Warren's bold proposal, which is highly unlikely. The Massachusetts senator wants to match interest rates charged on student loans to the super-low rate of 0.75% that the Federal Reserve offers banks for overnight loans. This would only last for a year, though. After that, rates would rise to 6.8%. So borrowers would pay $313.90 a month, only slightly less than the $327 a month if rates stayed at 6.8%.

MORE: Only the wealthy feel economic recovery

In fairness, Warren's proposal might make sense for anyone who thinks that struggling student borrowers entering a rough job market should enjoy the same cheap rates as banks. Pragmatically, though, it's right to label it gimmicky at best, since it makes little financial sense. The discount rate offered to banks reflects the risks involved; such loans span nowhere near the average 10-year life of a student loan.

Even if it makes more sense to match interest rates for student loans to the 10-year note, the cost differences are minimal under Warren's proposal. Which is why interest rates aren't as big a deal as the media and lawmakers would have us think.

What matters, Akers adds, is not what kind of savings student borrowers gets from interest rates. Democrats may want rates to return to 3.4%, but most students are unlikely to notice that kind of savings. However, they'll probably notice if their Pell grant gets bigger.

Correction: An earlier version misstated the monthly costs of a student loan if interest rates remain at 6.8%. It's $327 a month, not $427 a month, according to estimates by Brookings Institution.

Tuesday, 2 July 2013

Bank rescue would hit investors

In the event of a future banking crisis, European finance ministers agreed there would be bank 'bail-ins' instead of 'bailouts' where investors would be forced to rescue struggling financial institutions.

The new framework requires bondholders, shareholders and large depositors with over 100,000 euros to be first to suffer losses when banks fail. Depositors with less than 100,000 euros will be protected. Taxpayer funds would be used only as a last resort.

Shielding small depositors from losses is a top priority in Europe, especially after the public outrage over initial plans to bailout Cypriot banks using money from both large and small depositors.

Commissioner Michel Barnier called the agreement a "balanced compromise" between the 27 finance ministers.

"The EU has made a big step towards putting in place the most comprehensive framework for dealing with bank crises in the world," Barnier said in a statement.

Related: 5 reasons the Cyprus bailout matters

The new plan outlines a hierarchy of who will have to rescue struggling banks, with bondholders taking the first hit. Shareholders will be next, followed by large depositors.

Even within the large depositor category, there is a specific order detailing which depositors will have to kick in money first, with small and medium-sized businesses receiving preferential treatment.

The plans also outline that European banks must contribute toward "resolution funds," which can be drawn upon during a banking crisis.

"During the financial crisis, there was no single set of tools available to member states to deal with failing banks," said Ireland's finance minister, Michael Noonan, who chaired the talks.

"This agreement will effectively move us from ad hoc 'bail-outs' to structured and clearly defined 'bail-ins'," he said. "In the event of future banking failures taxpayers will be protected."

The framework will now have to be considered by the European Parliament before it is approved. The goal is to have the plans finalized by the end of the year.