Fortune Watch

We hear about millionaires — and billionaires — quite frequently. But less often do we hear about pet millionaires. They do, however, exist. Since 1923, when the first reported case of a pet inheritance was affirmed in Willett vs. Willett, pets have been receiving money. Sometimes quite a lot of money. Here are seven dogs and seven cats (in particular order) that are probably richer than you:

Some of the World’s Richest Dogs

These dogs know how to live the high life. Seriously. They give a whole new meaning to the phrase “being treated like a dog.”

1.Gunther IV, the German Shepherd: This dog actually received his inheritance from his father, Gunther III, a German Shepherd who received an inheritance from Karlotta Liebenstein, a German countess. Gunther IV has bought a Miami villa from Madonna and won a rare white truffle in an auction. Learn more about Gunther IV on a Web site devoted to him and those he hangs out with. He’s worth about $372 million right now, thanks to his growing trust fund.

2. Oprah’s dogs: Oprah Winfrey has several animals, including some dogs. She wants to make sure that her dogs are cared for when she is gone. Her will specifies that that her dogs receive $30 million for their care. (Just a drop in the bucket when you look at the billions Oprah is worth.) True, that money will be split amongst all dogs that she has, but even so, each and every one is probably richer than you are. They’re definitely richer than I am.

3. news023Trouble Helmsley: New York’s “Queen of Mean”, Leona Helmsley, famously cut her grandchildren out of her will, but left her Maltese terrier $12 million. However, a judge knocked $10 million off that amount, so that brings the amount to $2 million. Additionally, Trouble will be not be so well taken care of after death, as the dog can’t be buried in the Helmsley mausoleum, due to cemetary requirements and state law.

4. Drew Barrymore’s yellow Labrador retriever and chow mix, Flossie, has been left a home. Flossie awakened Barrymore and then-boyfriend Tom Green when a fire raged through the home. Barrymore amended her will to leave the home, valued at $3 million, to Flossie in return for this possibly life-saving deed.
Read (more…)

Citigroup became the latest bank to post better than expected results for its first quarter. The bank on Friday said net income of $1.6 billion, compared with a loss of $5.11 billion in the quarter a year ago. Citigroup’s problems are far from over, but it had its best quarter since late 2007.

The bank reported a loss to common shareholders of $966 million after massive loan losses and dividends to preferred stockholders. But before paying those dividends, the bank had net income of $1.6 billion.

Overall, Citigroup’s results were better than expected. The company reported a loss per share of 18 cents, which was narrower than the 34 cents analysts predicted. A year ago, Citigroup suffered a loss of more than $5 billion, or $1.03 a share.

Citigroup’s revenue doubled in the first quarter from a year ago to $24.8 billion thanks to strong trading activity. Its credit costs were high, though, at $10 billion, due to $7.3 billion in loan losses and a $2.7 billion increase in reserves for future loan losses.

Citigroup has been one of the weakest of the large U.S. banks, posting quarterly losses since the fourth quarter of 2007. But in March, CEO Vikram Pandit triggered a stock market rally after he said that January and February had been profitable for Citigroup.
Read (more…)

In light of the current Keynesian-style government fiscal stimulus measures introduced to try to tackle the economic slowdown, the series looking at economic theories within the context of the present situation examines the work of Jean-Baptiste Say and classical economic theories.

Say’s Law, one of the core tenets of classical macroeconomics, states that “aggregate supply creates its own aggregate demand”. Classical economics emphasises the equilibrium between supply and demand as key for a balanced economy and suggests that recession and unemployment are caused by a mismatch between supply and demand rather than, for Keynesians, a lack of consumption.

Say (1767-1832) was a French economist who advocated saving rather than spending and a focus on production instead of consumption. In fact, he believed that  consumption destroyed wealth and only production could create it. Say’s Law makes supply a precondition for demand because, in order to buy something, he believed that you must first sell something.

This is crucial for economic growth, because the desire to generate purchasing power motivates productive effort and invention. It also has major implications for how governments respond to downturns and periods of high unemployment. While Keynes wrote that aggregate demand and the use of fiscal spending is the key to economic recovery, classical economists believe that spending capital on Consumption without saving and investing it in production could mean slower potential future growth.
Read (more…)

With gold prices topping $1000.00 plus per oz., one has to question, is now the time to buy gold or has the buying opportunity already passed? Should you invest in the actual commodity of gold itself or is there an alternative that could prove to be more profitable?

The rise in gold prices from $250 per ounce in 2001 to over $900 today has drawn investors and speculators into the precious metals market. However, buying gold per se should not be considered an “investment”. After all, gold earns no interest and its quality never changes. It’s static, and does not grow as sound investments should.

“It’s more accurate to say that one might invest in a gold or silver mining company, where management, labor costs, and the nature of new discoveries all play a vital role in determining the quality of the investment and the profits made.”, stated Congressman Ron Paul (TX-R) in his address before the U.S. House of Representatives.

Both gold and dollars are considered money, and holding money does not qualify as an investment. However, there is one big difference between the two. By holding paper money one loses purchasing power. The purchasing power of commodity money, e.g., gold, however, goes up if the government devalues the underlying currency.

Many believe the United States is the cause of the global financial crisis we are currently experiencing and consequently, they are looking to the US to provide leadership in escaping this crisis. The US Dollar is currently experiencing strength over other currencies because it is presumed that since we are leading the pack with recovery initiatives, it stands to reason that our economy will recover before those who are following our lead.
Read (more…)

Five banks have repaid millions of dollars they received from the government’s $700 billion financial bailout pot, the Obama administration said Thursday.

The Treasury Department, which oversees the bailout program, said the banks returned a total of $353 million.

The banks are: Iberiabank Corp. of Lafayette, La.; Bank of Marin Bancorp of Novato, Calif.; Old National Bancorp. of Evansville, Ind.; Signature Bank of New York; and Centra Financial Holdings Inc. of Morgantown, W.Va.

They were the first banks to repay the government, wanting to escape the increasingly tough restrictions placed on participants in the rescue program.

In addition to the $353 million, the banks paid the government a total of $5.4 million in dividends, Treasury Department spokesman Andrew Williams said.

The program was enacted in early October after the financial crisis — the worst since the 1930s — intensified. The goal of the program was to inject capital in banks so that they would be in a better position to boost lending, a crucial ingredient to any economic recovery. Nearly $200 billion has been injected into banks thus far.

The five banks have 15 days to buy back warrants from the government. If they don’t, the government will sell them to private investors, Williams said.

Risk is the probability of loss. It is best to estimate it and to adjust your purchase and sell strategies to it in order to control loss before the purchase is made. Correct timing of purchases, buying near support, limiting loss potential, and stopping the decline by using volatility stop losses are all ingredients of a good risk control system. Let’s look at a few of these loss control discipline components.

One method of controlling risk is by timing purchases so that they occur at or near support. That way, your stop loss can be a very small distance away from your purchase price. If you buy when the stock is 5% above its trendline, for example, it will mean little if the stock declines 5% to reach its trendline. Since stocks often return to support, why would you sell? You would sell only if it broke to the downside through its rising trendline. Therefore, your loss would be calculated by adding the distance the sell point is below the trendline to the distance the purchase price was above the trendline. Buying at the trendline instead of above it would eliminate that unnecessary 5% loss.

However, stocks often make a small temporary penetration through a support line and then resume their climb. When, precisely do you sell? Let us use the suggestions offered in Technical Analysis of Stock Trends by Edwards and Magee as an example. If you are using stops that are based on closing prices, they suggest a trendline penetration of 3% would warrant selling. If your stop loss is placed with a broker, they recommend that the stop be placed 6% below the trendline because of the possibility of inconsequential intra-day spikes. Therefore, if you buy when the stock is 8% above its rising trendline and place the stop loss 3% below the trendline, you will lose 11% before your stop is triggered. On the other hand, if you wait for the stock to return to its trendline before buying, you will lose only 3% if your stop is triggered. It is important to buy right so that you can sell right.
Read (more…)

Until now, the official line is that the two Madoff sons, Mark and Andrew, only worked on the market-making side of the business.

Dad’s business — Bernie Madoff Investment Securities — was not their domain, they say, and thus they have nothing to do with the fraud. For a long time, people have suspected this wasn’t true, but a story in offers the best evidence yet. Far from just being in the back office on the brokerage side of the business, the sons were salesman for the Madoff fund:

Dalton Givens saw the warning signs.

Madoff’s sons wined and dined Givens, then a senior vice president of Wachovia Securities, at a steakhouse in Charlotte, N.C., to try to persuade Wachovia to invest in Madoff’s hedge fund.

Givens, now retired from the firm and living in Boonville, said he took a few sniffs and didn’t like the aroma.

Read the whole thing >

This is new. There have never been reports of the sons going out to sell the fund, let alone wining and dining bankers. Obviously, if they thought the fund was legitimate, then there’s nothing wrong with selling it. But obviously their involvement is more than they’ve let on, which means everything else they’ve said should be suspect.

Read (more…)

Imagine how you might feel if you had entrusted all of your hard earned savings into a high-stakes investment, just to find out later that you had lost it all and had been taken advantage of! Well, that is exactly the sort of thing that often happens with a Ponzi scheme! But what exactly is a ponzi scheme and how can you avoid being duped by this dishonest business practice?

The Ponzi Scheme Definition:

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to investors from their own money or money paid by later investors rather than from actual earned revenue. The scheme is named after Charles Ponzi, who became famous for using this technique in the 1920s. He paid investors 50% interest on short-term investments with money from new investors. All the while, spending a good part of the incoming funds for personal purposes.

Ponzi did not invent the scheme, but his operation took in so much money that it was the first to become known throughout the United States. Years later, Ponzi Schemes are illegal but continue to operate on the “rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul” principle, as money from new investors is used to pay off the previous investors in a continuous and destructive cycle until the whole scheme eventually falls apart.

What to look for and how to avoid a Ponzi Scheme:
Read (more…)