Tuesday, December 14, 2010

FIRST, please go down and watch the Jesse Ventura videos.  It is a must see and WE MUST get them out to everyone.  I've only just watched the first one so far and wanna do research on Fusion Centers right now.  (Oh yeah, and d-fuse and Mike German and John Bush) 

(by go down, I mean in the first link, if not read about some of the things inside Ventura's videos)

http://hellomichigan.blogspot.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Industry_Regulatory_Authority
EXCERPT:
In the United States, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., or FINRA, is a private corporation that acts as a self-regulatory organization (SRO). FINRA is the successor to the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD). Though sometimes mistaken for a government agency, it is a non-governmental organization that performs financial regulation of member brokerage firms and exchange markets.

Contents

[hide]

[edit] Overview

FINRA is an association that regulates its members through the adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations governing business conduct of member firms. It often provides advice to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, a U.S. government agency legally tasked with governing this conduct. According to the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), FINRA has an "abysmal record of protecting the investing public", incestuous ties to the very industry it is supposed to be overseeing, "was asleep at the wheel for most of the major securities industry scandals dating back to the 1980's," and "took a hands-off approach to regulating many of the larger firms that" collapsed, engendering "the financial crisis, including Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch" ... and also failed to detect Bernie Madoff's US$65 billion Ponzi scheme. "Yet despite its countless regulatory failures leading up to the financial meltdown, FINRAS's board has repeatedly approved outrageous seven-figure compensation packages for its top executives." [1] FINRA also provides the binding arbitration service which investors (customers of Wall Street firms) are forced to agree to (through contracts of adhesion), rather than being able to bring their disputes against Wall Street firms and stock brokers, for example, into the federal court system for a judge or jury to rule upon. While arbitration cases are frequent, cases are brought and often permitted to go forward in courts as well, where binding arbitration contracts are sometimes rejected, typically after being ruled unconscionable.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/staff/german.htm

GlobalSecurity.org

Mike German — Senior Fellow


Mike German is a recognized expert in terrorist group behavior, counter-terrorist operations, and right-wing extremism. He has appeared on Dateline NBC, Paula Zahn Now, CNN, and MSNBC and his commentary has been published in the National Law Journal and the Washington Post. Mike lectures frequently on counter-terrorism and intelligence matters, appearing most recently as a featured speaker at a symposium on the legal response to terrorism at the University of Virginia's John Bassett Moore Society of International Law.
Mike served for sixteen years as a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and is one of the few agents credited with actually having prevented acts of terrorism before it became the FBI's number one priority.
In the early 1990s, Mike successfully infiltrated white supremacist groups in Los Angeles that were engaged in a bombing campaign against racial minorities and stockpiling weapons in preparation for a race war. In the late 1990's, after the Oklahoma City bombing, he again went undercover against right-wing militia groups that were conspiring to harm federal agents. Both cases disrupted multiple terrorist cells, leading to criminal convictions that prevented terrorist acts. Mike's undercover work gave him unique insights into the way terrorist groups organize, recruit and operate.
Mike has a Bachelor's degree in philosophy from Wake Forest University and a Juris Doctorate from Northwestern University School of Law. Mike's last assignment before leaving the FBI in June of 2004 was as a counter-terrorism instructor at the FBI National Academy.

John Bush Arrested for Protesting Outside Free Speech Zone at UT Austin youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Gr1BIDi97M

Matt Taibbi mentioned in 2nd Jesse Ventura video
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Taibbi
EXCERPT:
Matthew C. "Matt" Taibbi (born March, 1970) is an American polemical journalist.[1] He reports for Rolling Stone authoring a "Road Rage" column for the print version, and a weekly online column, "The Low Post". He is well-known for covering the 2004 US presidential election, and for his earlier editorial contributions to newspapers the eXile, the New York Press, and the Beast. In 2008 Taibbi was a regular contributor to Real Time with Bill Maher. Much of his recent reporting has been on financial scandals. His July 2009 Rolling Stone article famously fixed to Goldman Sachs the epithet of "vampire squid", which Taibbi metaphorically described as "wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."[2][1]


[edit] Early years

Taibbi spent his childhood in the suburbs of Boston, Massachusetts. He attended Concord Academy and Bard College at Annandale-on-Hudson, New York, then spent a year abroad at Saint Petersburg Polytechnical University. His father is Mike Taibbi, an NBC television reporter.

[edit] Career

In 1992 Taibbi moved to Uzbekistan, but was forced to leave six months later after writing articles critical of the country's president, Islom Karimov. Afterwards, Taibbi worked for The Moscow Times as a sports editor, before moving on to work in Russia and Mongolia as a professional athlete and as a correspondent for Montsame, the Mongolian National News Agency.
Taibbi then took a break from journalism and turned to professional sports. He was one of the first Americans to play Russian pro baseball, playing center field for Spartak Moscow. While playing professional basketball in Ulan Bator, Mongolia, Taibbi contracted a serious case of pneumonia and returned to Boston for treatment. After recovering with his family, he returned to Russia and became editor of the expat paper Living Here. He then joined Mark Ames in 1997 to co-edit the controversial English-language Moscow-based, bi-weekly free newspaper, The eXile. Taibbi said about that experience, "We were out of the reach of American libel law, and we had a situation where we weren’t really accountable to our advertisers. We had total freedom."[3]
In 2002, he returned to the U.S. to start the satirical bi-weekly The Beast in Buffalo, New York. He eventually left The Beast, declaring that "Running a business and writing is too much." Taibbi continued as a freelancer, writing for The Nation, Playboy, New York Press (where he wrote a regular political column for over two years), Rolling Stone, New York Sports Express (where he was Editor at Large), but with reservations. "For me, it’s a career failure. I wanted to be a novelist," he announced at an NYU lecture.[3] In 2004, while Taibbi followed the democratic campaign of the 2004 US presidential election, he wore a gorilla suit in front of campaign staffers and took LSD at a major debate.[4][dead link]
Taibbi left the New York Press in August 2005, shortly after his editor Jeff Koyen was forced to quit over issues raised by Taibbi's column "The 52 Funniest Things About The Upcoming Death of The Pope." [5][6][7] "I have since learned that there would not have been an opportunity for me to stay anyway," Taibbi later wrote.[8]
Taibbi went on to serve as a Contributing Editor at Rolling Stone, penning feature-length articles on both domestic and international affairs and a weekly political column titled "The Low Post" for the magazine's Web site. Taibbi continues to write for the print edition of Rolling Stone, and contributes to their website in his current blog, "Taibblog." A later online column titled "Year of the Rat" was meant to document the 2008 election season, but it ended after only a few postings.[9]
Taibbi served as a special correspondent for Real Time with Bill Maher offering political coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign,[10] and he has made several guest appearances on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show[11] to discuss the 2009 economic crisis.
In 2009 in Rolling Stone he described Goldman Sachs as "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."[12]

http://www.observer.com/2010/wall-street/ross-mandells-high-profile-plea
Mandell in second video........  .........cal

Broker Ross Mandell's High-Profile Plea

By Robert Rosenthal
September 7, 2010 | 12:50 p.m
Broker Ross Mandell's High-Profile Plea
Ross Mandell turned himself in to the FBI in July 2009 for his alleged involvement in a $140 million securities fraud case. By November, the former Wall Street stockbroker was taking a page from the Rod Blagojevich playbook, pitching a reality series that would focus on his on his legal struggles. He's even made a trailer for the would-be show.
Ross has been in trouble before, in 1990, 1995 and 2002, actually. He's now out on a $5 million bond and facing 25 years in prison. He hails from Boca Raton, the "Beverly Hills of the East Coast" as he likes to call it, but Robert Rosenthal knew Ross back when they were kids on Long Island. Recently he caught up with his old acquaintance in person, following a Facebook reconnection.
The Observer:  Are you guilty?Ross Mandell: As I plead in court, I am not guilty of the charges against me. I believe that I've been wrongfully charged. I believe that I've been irresponsibly charged. I am innocent of these charges.
But you have been accused before of criminal activity or misconduct?
I have never been accused of criminal activity, ever. I don't have an arrest record. It is the first time I have been arrested. I have never been accused of any criminal misconduct ever.  Prior to 1990, before I got sober, I had some run-ins with customers. I was an abrasive character, which many active alcoholics are. In 1995 I made a blanket settlement with the New York Stock Exchange which involved all and any activity prior to 1990. I agreed to a six-week suspension for any and all misconduct, let's call it, and I was reinstated after six weeks. I was not fined. It was just for regulatory action. That was it. Aside from that, I've never had an issue with a regulator. I've never had an issue with the law. I've never even sat or met anybody from the SEC in regard to anything.
Why do you feel you've been persecuted by the SEC?Do you know why they weren't investigating Bernie Madoff at the SEC? Because they were in my place in three years, 14 investigators from all the different agencies sitting in my little place, 110 Wall Street. Bernie Madoff is down the block looting $60 billion, and by the way, was the president of NASDAQ. People don't understand that he was the president. He was part of the club! When you're part of the club you do not get investigated. You tell the corrupt who to investigate. "Go get Ross Mandell. Go get this one, go get that one." Meanwhile, Lehman Brothers is going bankrupt. AIG is beyond bankrupt. Merrill Lynch. And they're all pointing fingers at guys like Ross Mandell. It's horrible. It's pathetic.
The fact that Madoff slipped by for awhile isn't much of a legal defense.In 14 years, Madoff had only three routine investigations. Three. Now this is a guy that managed close to a hundred billion dollars. I was a small firm which had about a billion dollars and we had 14 routine examinations in three years. We were not in the club, so they were trying to find dirt on us. There were times we'd ask an examiner, What's going on, how come you're still here? They would stay for weeks on end. They said, "We were told by the main office we better come back and find something." Sky Capital, my firm, didn't fail, even after the FBI raided us. It's a little weird that all these other firms, major banks and major brokers failed to the tune of billions and billions of dollars and not one examiner from the SEC, not one examiner from FINRA, not one examiner from the FBI, not one examiner from the Second District, ever charged them, investigated them or examined them. You don't find that to be incredulous?
How does your lawyer feel about making your case so public?"Everything I say can and will be used against me in a court of law." I didn't bring my lawyer. He's not advised me what to say.
Then why make your story so public?I have a message, a very important message to deliver that represents something extremely important. And if I have to be that guy—which I do not want to be—but if I've got to be that guy under arrest, on bail, bringing to the attention of the American people the corruption that's going on in the system—because I'm living it, a small part of it, but it's representative of it all—then I'll be that guy.
What's been your low point so far?After being perp walked and paraded in front of reporters and news crews—like a red carpet event, except I'm in handcuffs—my photograph was featured in hundreds of newspapers around the world. Before I had even said a word publicly, I'm a scumbag, evil, wrongdoing, bad guy. Papers like The Times of London were quoting me, as if they interviewed me. Never spoke to me. I have already been arrested, tried and found guilty. This is the government's play.
After those early difficulties you had some success on the the London Stock Exchange. How did that come about?After I became a sober guy in 1991, I met some people from the UK that I befriended and I started to represent them in acquiring American stocks. We were very successful, and the performance was terrific, earning 20 to 25 percent a year. They referred me to other people in London, I made a trip there, and I came back with like 16 customers and $25 million that they wanted to invest in American securities. And it evolved to the point where I became the most successful retail broker from America in the UK. I really enjoyed doing business in London. I felt that the London Stock Exchange was much more honest than any of the American stock exchanges. I felt like the people in the UK were much less leveraged, there was real liquidity there, and because there was less government involvement, the markets there worked much more efficiently than the US markets. I believe the US markets are completely rigged, completely manipulated, over regulated, and being maneuvered by a chosen few that are lining their pockets with wealth as the rest of America is getting eviscerated.
From 2006 to 2008, U.S. prosecutors dismissed charges against numerous defendants charged with securities fraud, cases that would seem to be very similar to your own. Do you feel like you'll be eventually be among the exonerated? 42 innocent men were dragged through the process and not even tried. They didn't ask them to plea to a misdemeanor, take a little fine. They just discharged them completely. And that only happens when someone is innocent. I hate to say it but they prosecute innocent people all the time. In a complex securities white-collar matter, your legal fees are in the millions of dollars. You can't work. Your phone stops ringing. People assume you're guilty because you've been charged. Much like me, all of them were tried in the papers and found guilty in the court of public opinion, even though they never had a defense and never spoke. I'm not going to lie down and disappear. I'm not made of that. I'd rather stand up and fight than live on my knees.
Going to jail for 25 years is a daunting possibility.It's my reality right now. It's undeniable. That's why this show and this story's so compelling, because I don't know how it's going to turn out. I'd like to believe I do. My attourney would like to believe he does. The truth is nobody knows what's going to be. This is really real-life drama. You can't buy this kind of situation. Day to day if you focus on this negative outcome, if you live in an outcome that hasn't happened yet, you cannot survive. And it will break you. And this is what happens to most people.
How is the show going? Any nibbles?We've already shot four months of the reality show—it's in the can. A major production company that's won eight Emmy Awards is interested. We've gotten offers and are negotiating, but it's not signed yet, so the rights are still available.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_center
Fusion center
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A fusion center is a terrorism prevention and response center that was started as a joint project between the Department of Homeland Security and the US Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs between 2003 and 2007.
The fusion centers gather information not only from government sources, but also from their partners in the private sector.[1][2]
They are designed to promote information sharing at the federal level between agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Justice, US Military and state and local level government. As of July 2009, the Department of Homeland Security recognized at least seventy-two fusion centers.[3] Fusion centers may also be affiliated with an Emergency Operations Center that responds in the event of a disaster.
State and local police departments provide both space and resources for the majority of fusion centers. The analysts working there can be drawn from DHS, local police, or the private sector. A number of fusion centers operate tip hotlines and also invite relevant information from public employees, such as sanitation workers or firefighters.[4]

Contents

[hide]

[edit] Criticism

There are a number of documented criticisms of fusion centers, including relative ineffectiveness at counterterrorism activities, the potential to be used for secondary purposes unrelated to counterterrorism, and their links to violations of civil liberties of American citizens and others.[5]

[edit] MIAC Report

Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) made news in 2009 for targeting supporters of third party candidates (such as Ron Paul), pro-life activists, and conspiracy theorists as potential militia members.[6] Anti-war activists and Islamic lobby groups were targeted in Texas, drawing criticism from the ACLU.[7]
According to the Department of Homeland Security:[8]
[T]he Privacy Office has identified a number of risks to privacy presented by the fusion center program:
  1. Justification for fusion centers
  2. Ambiguous Lines of Authority, Rules, and Oversight
  3. Participation of the Military and the Private Sector
  4. Data Mining
  5. Excessive Secrecy
  6. Inaccurate or Incomplete Information
  7. Mission Creep

[edit] 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment

In early April 2009, the Virginia Fusion Center came under criticism for publishing a terrorism threat assessment which stated that certain universities are potential hubs for terror related activity.[9] The report targeted historically black colleges and identified hacktivism as a form of terrorism.[10]

http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/11/15/2010-28572/privacy-act-of-1974-implementation-of-exemptions-department-of-homeland-security-office-of

Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security Office of Operations Coordination and Planning-003 Operations Collection, Planning, Coordination, Reporting, Analysis, and Fusion System of Records

A Proposed Rule by the Homeland Security Department on 11/15/2010
This article has a comment period that ends in 1 day (12/15/2010) Submit a formal comment

Summary


The Department of Homeland Security is giving concurrent notice of a newly established system of records pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 for the Department of Homeland Security Office of Operations Coordination and Planning—003 Operations Collection, Planning, Coordination, Reporting, Analysis, and Fusion System of Records and this proposed rulemaking. In this proposed rulemaking, the Department proposes to exempt portions of the system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements.Show citation box

Table of Contents

DATES: Back to Top

Comments must be received on or before December 15, 2010.Show citation box

ADDRESSES: Back to Top

You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2010-0053, by one of the following methods:Show citation box
  • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.Show citation box
  • Fax: 703-483-2999.Show citation box
  • Mail: Mary Ellen Callahan, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.Show citation box
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.Show citation box
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Show citation box

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Back to Top

For general questions please contact: Michael Page (202-357-7626), Privacy Point of Contact, Office of Operations Coordination and Planning, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528. For privacy issues please contact: Mary Ellen Callahan (703-235- 0780), Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.Show citation box

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Back to Top

Background: In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS), including the National Operations Center (NOC), proposes to establish a new DHS system of records titled, “DHS/OPS—003 Operations Collection, Planning, Coordination, Reporting, Analysis, and Fusion System of Records.”Show citation box
This system of records will allow DHS/OPS, including the NOC, to collect, plan, coordinate, report, analyze, and fuse information related to all-threats and all-hazards, law enforcement activities, intelligence activities, man-made disasters and acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other information collected or received from Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial agencies and organizations; foreign governments and international organizations; domestic security and emergency management officials; and private sector entities or individuals into the Department.Show citation box
OPS serves as a joint operations coordination and planning capability at the strategic level to support internal DHS operational decision making, DHS leadership, and participation in interagency operations. OPS integrates DHS and interagency planning and operations coordination in order to prevent, protect, and respond to and recover from all-threats and all-hazards, man-made disasters and acts of terrorism, and natural disasters.Show citation box
The NOC serves as the nation's homeland security center for information sharing and domestic incident management, dramatically increasing coordination between federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial agencies and organizations; foreign governments and international organizations; domestic security and emergency management officials; and private sector entities or individuals. The NOC collects and fuses information from a variety of sources everyday to help deter, detect, and prevent terrorist acts as well as to prepare for, respond to, and recover from all-threats and all-hazards, man-made disasters and acts of terrorism, and natural disasters. Operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, the NOC provides real-time situational awareness and monitoring of the homeland, coordinates incident and response activities, and, in conjunction with other DHS components, issues advisories and bulletins concerning threats to homeland security, including natural disasters, as well as specific protective measures. Information on domestic incident management is shared with state Fusion Centers and Emergency Operations Centers (EOC) at all levels through Watch Officer Desks located in the NOC.Show citation box
The purpose of this system is to:Show citation box
1. Collect, plan, coordinate, and analyze all-threats and all-hazards, law enforcement activities, intelligence activities, man-made disasters and acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other information collected or received from Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial agencies and organizations; foreign governments and international organizations; domestic security and emergency management officials; and private sector entities or individuals; andShow citation box
2. Report, integrate, and fuse such information throughout DHS in order to share information, increase coordination, identify and assess the nature and scope of information and understand risks in light of potential or actual vulnerabilities to the homeland; and help deter, detect, and prevent terrorist acts as well as to prepare for, respond to, and recover from all-threats and all-hazards, man-made disasters and acts of terrorism, and natural disasters.Show citation box
DHS is authorized to implement this program primarily through 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 44 U.S.C. 3101; 6 U.S.C. 121; §§ 201 and 514 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended; § 520 of the Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act; 44 U.S.C. 3101; Executive Order (E.O.) 12958; E.O. 9397; E.O. 12333; E.O. 13356; E.O. 13388; and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5. This system has an effect on individual privacy that is balanced by the need to collect, plan, coordinate, report, analyze, and fuse homeland security information coming into and going out of OPS, including the NOC. Routine uses contained in this notice include sharing with the Department of Justice (DOJ) for legal advice and representation; to a congressional office at the request of an individual; to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for records management; to contractors in support of their contract assignment to DHS; to appropriate Federal, State, tribal, local, international, foreign agency, or other appropriate entity including the privacy sector in their role aiding OPS in their mission; to agencies, organizations or individuals for the purpose of audit; to agencies, entities, or persons during a security or information compromise or breach; to an agency, organization, or individual when there could potentially be a risk of harm to an individual; and to the news media in the interest of the public. A review of this system is being conducted to determine if the system of records collects information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).Show citation box
Consistent with DHS's information sharing mission, information contained in the DHS/OPS—003 Collection, Planning, Coordination, Reporting, Analysis, and Fusion System of Records may be shared with other DHS components, as well as appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies. This sharing will only take place after DHS determines that the receiving component or agency has a verifiable need to know the information to carry out national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other functions consistent with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice.Show citation box
The information within this system that meets the functional standard of the National Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative will be placed into the DHS/ALL—031 Information Sharing Environment Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative (September 10, 2010, 75 FR 55335).Show citation box
The Privacy Act embodies fair information principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which the United States Government collects, maintains, uses, and disseminates personally identifiable information. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. Individuals may request their own records that are maintained in a system of records in the possession or under the control of DHS by complying with DHS Privacy Act regulations, 6 CFR part 5.Show citation box
The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish in the Federal Register a description of the type and character of each system of records that the agency maintains, and the routine uses that are contained in each system in order to make agency recordkeeping practices transparent, to notify individuals regarding the uses to which personally identifiable information is put, and to assist individuals in finding such files within the agency.Show citation box
The Privacy Act allows Government agencies to exempt certain records from the access and amendment provisions. If an agency claims an exemption, however, it must issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to make clear to the public the reasons why a particular exemption is claimed.Show citation box
DHS is claiming exemptions from certain requirements of the Privacy Act for DHS/OPS—003 Operations Collection, Planning, Coordination, Reporting, Analysis, and Fusion System of Records. Some information in DHS/OPS—003 Operations Collection, Planning, Coordination, Reporting, Analysis, and Fusion System of Records relates to official DHS national security, law enforcement, immigration, and intelligence activities. These exemptions are needed to protect information relating to DHS activities from disclosure to subjects or others related to these activities. Specifically, the exemptions are required to preclude subjects of these activities from frustrating these processes; to avoid disclosure of activity techniques; to protect the identities and physical safety of confidential informants and law enforcement personnel; to ensure DHS' ability to obtain information from third parties and other sources; to protect the privacy of third parties; and to safeguard classified information. Disclosure of information to the subject of the inquiry could also permit the subject to avoid detection or apprehension.Show citation box
The exemptions proposed here are standard law enforcement and national security exemptions exercised by a large number of federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. In appropriate circumstances, where compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement purposes of this system and the overall law enforcement process, the applicable exemptions may be waived on a case by case basis.Show citation box

List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 5 Back to Top

Freedom of information; Privacy.Show citation box
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:Show citation box

PART 5—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION Back to Top

1. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows:Show citation box

Authority: Back to Top

6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; 5 U.S.C. 301. Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a.Show citation box
2. Add at the end of Appendix C to Part 5, the following new paragraph “53”:Show citation box

Appendix C to Part 5—DHS Systems of Records Exempt From the Privacy Act Back to Top

* * * * *
53. The DHS/OPS—003 Operations Collection, Planning, Coordination, Reporting, Analysis, and Fusion System of Records consists of electronic and paper records and will be used by DHS/OPS. The DHS/OPS—003 Operations Collection, Planning, Coordination, Reporting, Analysis, and Fusion System of Records is a repository of information held by DHS in connection with its several and varied missions and functions, including, but not limited to: the enforcement of civil and criminal laws; investigations, inquiries, and proceedings there under; national security and intelligence activities. The DHS/OPS—003 Operations Collection, Planning, Coordination, Reporting, Analysis, and Fusion System of Records contains information that is collected by, on behalf of, in support of, or in cooperation with DHS and its components and may contain personally identifiable information collected by other federal, state, local, tribal, foreign, or international government agencies.Show citation box
The Secretary of Homeland Security is exempting this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act, subject to limitations set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I); and (f) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(3). Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons:Show citation box
(a) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process.Show citation box
(b) From subsection (d) (Access to Records) because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS or another agency. Access to the records could permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities and would impose an unreasonable administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continually reinvestigated. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could disclose security-sensitive information that could be detrimental to homeland security.Show citation box
(c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information) because in the course of investigations into potential violations of federal law, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear, or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful activity.Show citation box
(d) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (e)(4)(I) (Agency Requirements) and (f) (Agency Rules), because portions of this system are exempt from the individual access provisions of subsection (d) for the reasons noted above, and therefore DHS is not required to establish requirements, rules, or procedures with respect to such access. Providing notice to individuals with respect to existence of records pertaining to them in the system of records or otherwise setting up procedures pursuant to which individuals may access and view records pertaining to themselves in the system would undermine investigative efforts and reveal the identities of witnesses, and potential witnesses, and confidential informants.Show citation box
Dated: November 5, 2010.
Mary Ellen Callahan,
Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2010-28572 Filed 11-12-10; 8:45 am]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_%26_Poor's
Standard and Poors in Jesse Ventura's 4th video
"S&P" redirects here. For the video game, see Sin and Punishment: Hoshi no Keishōsha.

Standard & Poor's
TypeDivision of The McGraw-Hill Companies
IndustryFinancial Services
Founded1860, present corporation status in 1941
HeadquartersNew York City,
 United States
Key peopleDeven Sharma (President)
Revenueincrease$2.61 billion USD (2009) [1]
Websitestandardandpoors.com


Headquarters, 55 Water Street
Standard & Poor's (S&P) is a United States-based financial services company. It is a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies that publishes financial research and analysis on stocks and bonds. It is well known for the stock market indexes, the US-based S&P 500, the Australian S&P/ASX 200, the Canadian S&P/TSX, the Italian S&P/MIB and India's S&P CNX Nifty.
 
[edit] Corporate history
Standard & Poor's traces its history back to 1860, with the publication by Henry Varnum Poor of History of Railroads and Canals in the United States. This book was an attempt to compile comprehensive information about the financial and operational state of U.S. railroad companies. Henry Varnum went on to establish H.V. and H.W. Poor Co with his son, Henry William, and published updated versions of this book on an annual basis.
In 1906 Luther Lee Blake founded the Standard Statistics Bureau, with the view to providing financial information on non-railroad companies. Instead of an annually published book Standard Statistics would use 5" x 7" cards, allowing for more frequent updates.
In 1941, Poor and Standard Statistics merged to become Standard & Poor's Corp. Then in 1966 S&P was acquired by The McGraw-Hill Companies, and now encompasses the Financial Services division.[2]

[edit] Credit ratings

Standard & Poor's, as a credit rating agency (CRA), issues credit ratings for the debt of public and private corporations. It is one of several CRAs that have been designated a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
It issues both short-term and long-term credit ratings.

[edit] Long-term credit ratings

S&P rates borrowers on a scale from AAA to D. Intermediate ratings are offered at each level between AA and CCC (e.g., BBB+, BBB and BBB-). For some borrowers, S&P may also offer guidance (termed a "credit watch") as to whether it is likely to be upgraded (positive), downgraded (negative) or uncertain (neutral).
Investment Grade
  • AAA: the best quality borrowers, reliable and stable (many of them governments)
  • AA: quality borrowers, a bit higher risk than AAA
  • A: economic situation can affect finance
  • BBB: medium class borrowers, which are satisfactory at the moment
Non-Investment Grade (also known as junk bonds)
  • BB: more prone to changes in the economy
  • B: financial situation varies noticeably
  • CCC: currently vulnerable and dependent on favorable economic conditions to meet its commitments
  • CC: highly vulnerable, very speculative bonds
  • C: highly vulnerable, perhaps in bankruptcy or in arrears but still continuing to pay out on obligations
  • CI: past due on interest
  • R: under regulatory supervision due to its financial situation
  • SD: has selectively defaulted on some obligations
  • D: has defaulted on obligations and S&P believes that it will generally default on most or all obligations
  • NR: not rated

[edit] Short-term issue credit ratings

S&P rates specific issues on a scale from A-1 to D. Within the A-1 category it can be designated with a plus sign (+). This indicates that the issuer's commitment to meet its obligation is very strong. Country risk and currency of repayment of the obligor to meet the issue obligation are factored into the credit analysis and reflected in the issue rating.
  • A-1: obligor's capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation is strong
  • A-2: is susceptible to adverse economic conditions however the obligor's capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation is satisfactory
  • A-3: adverse economic conditions are likely to weaken the obligor's capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation
  • B: has significant speculative characteristics. The obligor currently has the capacity to meet its financial obligation but faces major ongoing uncertainties that could impact its financial commitment on the obligation
  • C: currently vulnerable to nonpayment and is dependent upon favorable business, financial and economic conditions for the obligor to meet its financial commitment on the obligation
  • D: is in payment default. Obligation not made on due date and grace period may not have expired. The rating is also used upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition.

[edit] Stock market indices

Standard & Poor's publishes a large number of stock market indices, covering every region of the world, market capitalization level, and type of investment (e.g. indices for REITs and preferred stocks)
These indices include:

[edit] Publications

Standard & Poor's publishes a near-weekly (48 times a year) stock market analysis newsletter called The Outlook which is issued both in print and online to subscribers.

[edit] Criticism

See also: Credit rating agency#Criticism
Credit rating agencies such as Standard & Poor's have been subject to criticism in the wake of large losses beginning in 2007 in the collateralized debt obligation (CDO) market that occurred despite being assigned top ratings by the CRAs.
Credit ratings of AAA (the highest rating available) were given to large portions of even the riskiest pools of loans. Investors, trusting the low risk profile that AAA implies, loaded up on these CDOs that later became unsellable. Those that could be sold often took staggering losses. For instance, losses on $340.7 million worth of CDOs issued by Credit Suisse Group added up to about $125 million, despite being rated AAA by Standard & Poor's.[4]
Despite common perception, Standard & Poor's didn't rate the two major Icelandic banks, Kaupthing and Landsbanki.[citation needed]
Companies pay Standard & Poor's to rate their debt issues. As a result, some critics have contended that Standard & Poor's is beholden to these issuers and that its ratings are not as objective as they should be.
See also: 2010 European sovereign debt crisis
In April 2009 Standard & Poor's called for "new faces" in the Irish Government, which was seen as interfering in the democratic process. In a subsequent statement they said they were "misunderstood".[5]
On April 27, 2010, the Greek debt rating was decreased to 'junk' status by Standard & Poor's amidst fears of default by the Greek Government.[6] They also cut Portugal's credit ratings by two notches to A, over concerns about Portugal's state debt and public finances on April 28, 2010.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moody's
Moody's Corporation (NYSE: MCO) is the holding company for Moody's Investors Service, a Credit rating agency which performs international financial research and analysis on commercial and government entities. The company also ranks the credit-worthiness of borrowers using a standardized ratings scale. The company has a 40% share in the world credit rating market, as does its main rival, Standard & Poor's.[1]
Moody's was founded in 1909 by John Moody. Top institutional owners of Moody's include Berkshire Hathaway and Davis Selected Advisers.

Contents

[hide]

[edit] History

Moody's was founded in 1909 by John Moody, beginning with Analyses of Railroad Investments, "a book about railroad securities, using letter grades to assess their risk."[1] Moody's Investors Service was incorporated on July 1, 1914, and soon extended coverage to US municipal bonds. By 1924, Moody's ratings covered nearly 100 percent of the US bond market.[2]
In the 1970s, Moody's expanded into commercial debt, and also began the practice, along with other ratings agencies, of charging bond issuers for ratings as well as charging investors.[2]
The number of countries covered by Moody's has risen from 3 in 1975, to 33 in 1990, to over 100 by 2000.[3] Announcements by Moody's of possible or actual downgrades of a country's bond rating can have a major political and economic impact, as for example in Canada in 1995.[3]

[edit] Criticism

See also: Credit rating agency#Criticism
Credit rating agencies such as Moody's have been subject to criticism in the wake of large losses in the Asset backed security collateralized debt obligation (ABS CDO) market that occurred despite being assigned top ratings by the CRAs. For instance, losses on $340.7 million worth of ABS collateralized debt obligations (CDO) issued by Credit Suisse Group added up to about $125 million, despite being rated Aaa by Moody's.[4]

[edit] Power & Influence concerns

Moody's has been accused of "blackmail". In one example the German insurer Hannover Re was offered a "free rating" by Moody's. The insurer refused. Moody's continued with the "free ratings", but over time lowered its rating of the company. Still refusing Moody's services, Moody's lowered Hannover's debt to junk, and the company in just hours lost $175 million in market value.[5]
"As the housing market collapsed in late 2007, Moody's Investors Service, whose investment ratings were widely trusted, responded by purging analysts and executives who warned of trouble and promoting those who helped Wall Street plunge the country into its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. A McClatchy investigation has found that Moody's punished executives who questioned why the company was risking its reputation by putting its profits ahead of providing trustworthy ratings for investment offerings."[6]

[edit] Moody's ratings

[edit] Long-term obligation ratings

Investment grade
Aaa
Moody judges obligations rated Aaa to be the highest quality,[7] with the "smallest degree of risk".[8]
Aa1, Aa2, Aa3
Moody judges obligations rated Aa to be high quality, with "very low credit risk",[7] but "their susceptibility to long-term risks appears somewhat greater".[8]
A1, A2, A3
Moody judges obligations rated A as "upper-medium grade", subject to "low credit risk",[7] but that have elements "present that suggest a susceptibility to impairment over the long term".[8]
Baa1, Baa2, Baa3
Moody judges obligations rated Baa to be "moderate credit risk".[7] They are considered medium-grade and as such "protective elements may be lacking or may be characteristically unreliable".[8]
Speculative grade (Also known as High Yield or 'Junk')
Ba1, Ba2, Ba3
Moody judges obligations rated Ba to have "questionable credit quality."[8]
B1, B2, B3
Moody judges obligations rated B as speculative and "subject to high credit risk",[7] and have "generally poor credit quality."[8]
Caa1, Caa2, Caa3
Moody judges obligations rated Caa as of "poor standing and are subject to very high credit risk",[7] and have "extremely poor credit quality. Such banks may be in default..."[8]
Ca
Moody judges obligations rated Ca as "highly speculative"[7] and are "usually in default on their deposit obligations".[8]
C
Moody judges obligations rated C as "the lowest rated class of bonds and are typically in default,"[7] and "potential recovery values are low".[8]
Special
WR
Withdrawn Rating[9]
NR
Not Rated[9]
P
Provisional

[edit] Short-term taxable ratings

P-1
Moody judges Prime-1 rated issuers as having "a superior ability to repay short-term debt obligations".[10]
P-2
Moody judges Prime-2 issuers as having "a strong ability to repay short-term debt obligations".[10]
P-3
Moody judges Prime-3 rated issuers as having "an acceptable ability to repay short-term obligations".[10]
NP
Moody considers "Not Prime" rated issuers as not falling "within any of the Prime rating categories".[10]
  • Moody noted that "Canadian issuers rated P-1 or P-2 have their short-term ratings enhanced by the senior-most long-term rating of the issuer, its guarantor or support-provider."[10]

[edit] Short-term tax-exempt ratings

Unlike S&P, Moody's has separate categories for short term municipal bonds. The ratings categories largely overlap, though, and have the same implications for the ability to repay short-term obligations.

[edit] Individual bank ratings

Moody's also rates each bank's financial strength.[8] These ratings differ from deposit ratings in that they measure how likely the bank is to need assistance from third parties.
A
"superior intrinsic financial strength"[11]
B
"strong intrinsic financial strength"[11]
C
"adequate intrinsic financial strength"[11]
D
"modest intrinsic financial strength, potentially requiring some outside support at times"[8][11]
E
"very modest intrinsic financial strength, with a higher likelihood of periodic outside support"[8][11]

[edit] Moody's Executive Officers

[12]

[edit] See also

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)