text:
JPMorgan reported on how many people are required to do new regulatory compliance work. Let's outsource to this take:
- "That one million hours a year devoted to resolution planning is 500 full-time employees"
- "There are 8,000 employees 'dedicated solely to building and maintaining an industry-leading Anti-Money Laundering (AML) program.' JPMorgan employs more AML compliance officers than the Treasury and the Fed combined."
- Stress testing required 500+ FTEs
- Compliance with Basel's new securitization rules has required 35,000 hours of work (at 2000 hours per year, that's only 17.5 FTEs, so you can see why they moved to hours there).
That's a lot of compliance, and indeed, at these rates, way more people do compliance for JPMorgan than, probably, do actual investment banking. Of course, maybe we want all of this given that the firm is far too big to fail, and maybe we want to make banking burdensome and unprofitable. If so, we are on our way!
Permalink | Administrative Law| Finance| Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark
The leverage rule agreed to internationally is 3%, and you should think of a it as an alternative minimum tax. Worried that banks might be able to game capital requirements, which require them to hold funds in reserve to deal with shocks, the world's regulators also decided to forbid, on pain of cutting dividends and executive compensation, large banks froms from taking positions that would mean that more than 3% of their assets are capital. American banking regulators are going further - they are disincentivizing bigness by requiring the 8 largest banks to comply with a 5% leverage ratio. Some thoughts:
- The giveback to industry is that this rule isn't effective until 2018. Only in financial regulation do you ever see such long-dated rules.
- American banks might have to add $68 billion in capital to comply with this requirement. Would you sue to avoid that kind of a charge? Of course you would! But the banks probably won't. The Fed just doesn't face the sort of Total Litigation regulatory contest that the SEC faces.
- Ditto, you'd think that such a big deal rule would require review by OIRA. Nope!
Permalink | Administrative Law| Finance| Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark
The answer is no, it won't kill monetary policy, but here's the way it might constrain the Fed, which relies on primary dealers (that is, big banks, who would now be subject to leverage requirements) to help it set the federal funds rate. This reliance has been cited as a reason to delay the leverage rule. Felix Salmon also thinks that's no reason to delay the imposition of the rule, but here's how the argument works, in his nicely straightforward words:
The way that the Fed conducts monetary policy is by instructing the traders at the New York Fed to buy and sell certain financial instruments so that a particular interest rate — the Fed funds rate — is very close to a certain target. Through a complex series of financial interlinkages, setting the Fed funds rate at a certain level then has a knock-on effect, and ultimately helps determine every interest rate in America, from the Treasury yield curve to the amount you pay for your credit card or your mortgage.
Those interlinkages are so complex that they're impossible to model with any particular accuracy: all the Fed can do, really, is set the Fed funds rate and then see what happens to everything else. And directionally the causality is clear: if the Fed wants rates to rise, then it pushes the Fed funds rate upwards, and if it wants rates to fall, then it brings the Fed funds rate down. That doesn't always work at the distant end of the yield curve, but it's still most of what monetary policy can do.
Especially early on in the chain, a lot of the interlinkages take place at the level of big banks. And so it stands to reason that if you change the leverage requirements of big banks, that might change what happens to interest rates when you move the Fed funds rate.
Permalink | Administrative Law| Finance| Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark
Image: Flickr
In my last post—also a shameless plug for my recent article, "Boilerplate Shock"—I argued that boilerplate terms governing securities could serve as a trigger that transforms an isolated credit event into the risk of a broader systemic failure. I'll now briefly explain why I see this danger—which I call "boilerplate shock"—as a general problem in securities regulation, not just some quirky feature of Eurozone sovereign debt (the focus of the paper and post). Any market where securities are governed by uniform boilerplate terms is vulnerable to boilerplate shock.
The nature of this phenomenon—systemic risk—is of course familiar, but its source in contract language is a little unintuitive. How could private contracts unravel an entire securities market or the world economy?
Coordination around uniform standards.
In the back of our mind most of us probably still conceive of contracting as an activity that occurs among two, or perhaps a few, individuals or firms. But when standard terms are used by virtually all actors within a given market, it's worth considering the collective impact of those terms as a distinct phenomenon.
Coordination's benefits are well known. Consider uniform traffic signals. But coordination can also compound the effects of bad individual decisions.
As Charles Whitehead has argued, widespread "destructive coordination" among banks during the precrisis days helped generate systemic risks. When the credit markets froze, for example, firms using the same risk management formulas reacted in the same way at the same time. This helped transform isolated events into systemic ones—e.g., Lehman, the canonical example of a failure that triggered a de facto coordinated panic.
A similar risk, I argue, is present where participants in a securities market rely on the same standardized contract terms. Whether they were intended to or not, these terms will often control what happens in the event of certain legal emergencies, like a country departing the euro or Lehman declaring bankruptcy.
For example, if an effort by Greece to pay its bonds in "new drachmas" is rejected because of Boilerplate Contract Terms A and B, the market will surely be concerned that Terms A and B also govern the bonds of similarly situated borrowers, like Spain, Italy, etc. You'll see that the borrowing premium the "peripheral" euro countries (the uppermost five lines: Ireland, Italy, Greece (biggest spike), Portugal, Spain) paid versus richer euro countries (Germany, France, the Netherlands, the three lowest lines) zoomed higher as worry over a Greece exit gripped markets in late 2011/early 2012, and again (to a lesser extent) because of Cyprus exit talk in early 2013:
Bloomberg. Click to enlarge.
Moreover, this panic occurred against a backdrop of unduly rosy assumptions (namely, that a departing euro country could convert its bonds into a new currency and thereby avoid default, a likely contagion trigger). I argue that the uniformity of boilerplate across these bonds would intensify these problems significantly since it's likely to result in a declaration of default.
To my mind, this demonstrates that boilerplate securities contracts, in the aggregate, can be systemically significant. "Boilerplate Shock" introduces this concept and offers a modest proposal to mitigate its dangers in the Eurozone.
Beyond the euro, what about the risks of boilerplate shock in general?
Boilerplate shock is probably an inherent and permanent risk in any securities market.
Securities contracts are quintessential candidates for boilerplate. They are used by sophisticated parties for repeat or similar transactions and are drafted quickly—sometimes in three and a half minutes. The (correct) assumption is that they are more efficient for the parties that use them.
I'd like to begin thinking about how contracts can be drafted with a view to systemic risk mitigation, or at least to avoid exacerbating existing risks. But I think this is a hard problem that lacks an off-the-shelf solution:
- The nature of the risk is that it is a byproduct, not the result of intentional choices about risk allocation. This is the reason for the information-forcing default rule I propose in the Eurozone.
- The risk is also an externality: it is severe because of its collective impact. The parties do not bear the primary risk that uniform contracts will result in a meltdown, and in the unlikely event a crash happens (1) no individual party will be to blame and (2) at least one party to the initial transaction (the initial purchaser of a bond, for example) will probably no longer hold the asset, because most systemically significant securities are actively traded on the secondary market.
But banning or discouraging boilerplate is not the answer:
- The risk that a bunch of assets governed by the same terms will plummet in value is not only an externality. Risk allocation among parties might improve if scrutiny of existing securities boilerplate improves. The terms can evolve.
- A requirement to craft unique, artisanal terms—disclosures, subordination provisions ("flip clauses"), choice of governing law—for each individual securities transaction would be criminally inefficient.
- A requirement to craft unique contract terms might even be unjustified on risk-management terms alone, because it would increase drafting errors.
It's tricky to mitigate the risks of securities boilerplate.
Some options for places to start:
- Validation by third parties: perhaps issuers could use risk-rated contract templates. For example, see credit ratings…but see credit ratings.
- Culture: inculcate systemic risk mitigation as a professional norm among private sector lawyers? In principle, this could work. The number of lawyers who draft these contracts is pretty small. In practice, one could envision many complications.
- Insurance: encourage the development of derivatives to account for the possibility of boilerplate shock? Like some of the other solutions, this one presumes some agreement on what terms create the risk of boilerplate shock. It could also encourage new forms of moral hazard.
- Mandatory regulation: some public entity could be tasked with the mission of proactively identifying and combating the risk of boilerplate shock in contract practices. Arguably a natural choice given that the risk is an externality. Nevertheless, I'm a little skeptical. First of all, who would do it? A domestic regulator, like the SEC or CFTC, that might be dodged on jurisdictional grounds? An international institution, which is arguably more subject to capture? More generally, regulation seems like a heavy-handed first choice.
In sum, when standardized and aggregated, choices that determine legal risks—e.g., contract terms designating governing law, payment priority—can create the same hazards as choices about business risks. This suggests that contract terms should be taken seriously as possible sources of systemic risk alongside more familiar sources, like leverage and credit quality.
Securities contracts as a source of systemic risk—what do you think?
Permalink | Contracts| Economics| Europe| European Union| Fiduciary Law| Finance| Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions| Law & Economics| Rules & Standards| Securities | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark
By now, the risk that a distressed European nation such as Greece might leave the Eurozone and thereby spark global economic calamity is well known. Regular readers of this blog may even privately relish the prominence of the issue. Not since the days of the gold standard has international monetary policy come so close to being a socially acceptable topic of dinner conversation.
As I noted in my first post, observers rightly perceive the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis to be driven by political and economic forces. But many consequences of a euro breakup would be determined by law, including sources of American (specifically New York) private law.
This is a complex issue. I try to address it more fully in a new article, "Boilerplate Shock," which I've just posted on SSRN.
In brief, and to continue picking on Greece, one key question in the event of a euro breakup would be: would a court recognize an attempt by Greece to convert its euro-denominated debt into its new currency, or would it instead insist that Greece pay in euros, the currency of contract? The answer is important because, as a practical matter, requiring payment in euro would be tantamount to forcing a default.
That's the familiar narrative, anyway. And I agree. But I believe that the ubiquity of boilerplate terms in these bonds—specifically, clauses selecting governing law (usually foreign) and currency of payment (euro)—is likely to make any dispute over redenomination even more damaging than this suggests.
In the article, I argue that the sparse literature on the question of redenominating sovereign bonds overlooks some sources—especially cases interpreting New York contract law and private international law—that, if extended to Eurozone sovereign bonds, could surprise the market and cause serious global repercussions. I argue that the reason for this is not only that the dominant view overlooks what are likely controlling sources of law. It is that standardization of contract terms across the Eurozone sovereign lending market makes the stakes of surprise that much higher.
If Greece's attempt to redenominate its bonds is declared a default, then the fact that the operative terms in Italian, Spanish, Irish, etc. sovereign bonds are the same or similar makes markets likely to demand unsustainable premiums from those countries. Capital and investor flight could be very rapid. We have seen several previews of this movie over the past few years in the Eurozone, and each time official-sector bailout institutions have saved the day. But the European Union/European Central Bank and IMF probably do not have the resources to stop a broad-based bank run of this nature, to say nothing of the political support necessary to attempt it.
Maybe none of that will happen. Nevertheless, the potential for uniform contract terms to create risk not just to individual third parties but to securities markets seems likely to grow at least as fast as those markets. Using Eurozone sovereign bonds as a case study, I introduce the term "boilerplate shock" to describe the potential for standardized contract terms—when they come to govern the entire market for a given security—to transform an isolated default on a single contract into a threat to the market of which it is a part, and, possibly, to the economy in general. My larger objective here is to foster a discussion of the potential for securities law and private-sector securities lawyers to manage (or alternatively, to contribute to) systemic risk.
I've posted an abstract below and will be returning to the subject. I look forward your comments.
Boilerplate Shock abstract:
No nation was spared in the recent global downturn, but several Eurozone countries arguably took the hardest punch, and they are still down. Doubts about the solvency of Greece, Spain, and some of their neighbors are making it more likely that the euro will break up. Observers fear a single departure and sovereign debt default might set off a "bank run" on the common European currency, with devastating regional and global consequences.
What mechanisms are available to address—or ideally, to prevent—such a disaster?
One unlikely candidate is boilerplate language in the contracts that govern sovereign bonds. As suggested by the term "boilerplate," these are provisions that have not been given a great deal of thought. And yet they have the potential to be a powerful tool in confronting the threat of a global economic conflagration—or in fanning the flames.
Scholars currently believe that a country departing the Eurozone could convert its debt obligations to a new currency, thereby rendering its debt burden manageable and staving off default. However, this Article argues that these boilerplate terms—specifically, clauses specifying the law that governs the bond and the currency in which it will be paid—would likely prevent such a result. Instead, the courts most likely to interpret these terms would probably declare a departing country's effort to repay a sovereign bond in its new currency a default.
A default would inflict damage far beyond the immediate parties. Not only would it surprise the market, it would be taken to predict the future of other struggling European countries' debt obligations, because they are largely governed by the same boilerplate terms. The possibility of such a result therefore increases the risk that a single nation's departure from the euro will bring down the currency and trigger a global meltdown.
To mitigate this risk, this Article proposes a new rule of contract interpretation that would allow a sovereign bond to be paid in the borrower's new currency under certain circumstances. It also introduces the phrase "boilerplate shock" to describe the potential for standardized contract terms drafted by lawyers—when they come to dominate the entire market for a given security—to transform an isolated default on a single contract into a threat to the broader economy. Beyond the immediate crisis in the Eurozone, the Article urges scholars, policymakers, and practitioners to address the potential for boilerplate shock in securities markets to damage the global economy.
Permalink | Comparative Law| Contracts| Economics| Europe| European Union| Finance| Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions| Globalization/Trade| Law & Economics| Legal Scholarship| Securities| SSRN | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark
Over at DealBook, I've got a piece on the analysis of FOMC transcripts – a cottage industry, now that the Bernanke era version of the committee has released its 2008 (that is, depth of the crisis) records. There's lots of counting that can be done, including some, in honor of Jay Wexler's Supreme Court study, on the number of times the FOMC broke into laughter. Easy enough to actually do for the Greenspan FOMC, and so I do it:
For what it is worth, the mood lightened as the chairman aged, although the F.O.M.C. certainly went through turbulent times during both the beginning and the end of Mr. Greenspan's tenure. Meeting transcribers recorded laughter on a per-transcript-page basis increasing from an average of less than 20 percent from 1988 to 1992 to more than 20 percent from 2001 to 2006. In a few years, we will be able to make comparable statements about the F.O.M.C. when Ben S. Bernanke was the Fed chairman. Mr. Greenspan used wit far more than any other single Fed official (although he spoke far more at F.O.M.C. meetings than the others did) – laughter ensued after something he said 556 times over the course of his tenure.
Do give it a look.
Permalink | Administrative Law| Finance| Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark
Late last month I posted my colleague Mehrsa Baradaran's thoughts on the US Postal Service moving into banking. She'd written an article on the subject 2 years ago, and the US Postal Service seemed to be warming up to the idea. Since then, Mehrsa has written a NYT op-ed on the subject and, most recently, has a short piece up in the Harvard Law Review Online Forum: It's Time for Postal Banking.
From the introduction:
... government support and even subsidies to enable postal banking in the United States are appropriate and justifiable. First, banking-related subsidies are grounded in historical practice, as demonstrated by government support for credit unions, savings and loans, and student loan associations. Postal banking derives from these longstanding practices, but broadens the scope to include the poor, not just the middle class. Further, state support of banking throughout U.S. history has operated much like a social contract: the state supports the banking system in a variety of ways and, in return, banks serve as credit intermediaries, providing the populace with access to loans and financial services. Thus, subsidies for banking have been justified because they provide a benefit to all citizens. Mainstream banks have met part of their obligation, but a large portion of the population, namely the poor, has been left out. It is time, then, for the government itself to meet the demand for credit.
Go read the whole thing!
Permalink | Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark
This morning, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that Mt. Gox—until this month the world's leading market for buying and selling Bitcoin—has "disappear[ed]" from the web:
The Bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox appeared to be undergoing more convulsions Tuesday [February 25], as its website became unavailable and trading there appeared to have stopped, signaling a new stage in troubles that have dented the image of the virtual currency. . . .
Investors have been unable to withdraw funds from Mt. Gox since the beginning of this month. The exchange has said that a flaw in the bitcoin software allowed transaction records to be altered, potentially making possible fraudulent withdrawals. No allegations have been made of wrongdoing by the exchange, but the potential for theft has raised concern that the exchange wouldn't be able to meet its obligations.
The apparent collapse of Mt. Gox is just the latest shock to hit Bitcoin, the price of which is now off more than 50% from its December 2013 peak:
For those better acquainted with the dead-tree/dead-president variety of money, Bitcoin is a virtual currency not backed by any government. Rather than being printed or minted by a central bank, Bitcoins are created by a computer algorithm in a process known as "mining" and are stored online or on your computer. They are bought and sold on various exchanges, including until recently Mt. Gox (whose troubles have been reported for a few weeks now).
So, why use Bitcoin—which may well implode (see, e.g., here, here, here, here)—instead of a traditional state-backed currency, which in many ways is clearly superior?
There are many reasons, some of them even lawful. Bitcoins can be regarded as a medium of exchange, an investment, a political statement...or a way of avoiding capital controls and other pesky laws like bans on drug trafficking and human smuggling.
But the criminal potential of Bitcoin is probably overstated. The Chinese have gotten wise to its use for avoiding capital controls. Using Bitcoin for criminal or fraudulent activity would be difficult at scale (PDF). The Walter White method is still far and away the best way to ensure your criminal proceeds retain their value and anonymity.
I don't share the utopian fervor for Bitcoin expressed in tech and libertarian circles (see, e.g., this supposedly non-utopian cri de coeur), but it may have some positive potential as a decentralized and lower-cost electronic payments system. We'll see if that ever gets off the ground.
In the meantime, the Mt. Gox collapse is pretty huge news for Bitcoinland. Unlike the NYSE (the failure of which would be hard even to imagine), Mt. Gox does not benefit from any systemic significance and thus is unlikely to receive a lot of official-sector help. The situation has some early adopters running for the Bitcoin exits, like this leading Bitcoin evangelist.
Despite (because of?) my agnosticism on the currency, I'll be writing more about Bitcoin soon. (Mainly, I wanted to stake a claim to being the first to write about Bitcoin on The Conglomerate.) If your Palo Alto cocktail party can't wait, however, this explainer (PDF) from the ever-impressive Chicago Fed should tide you over.
Permalink | Businesses of Note| Crime and Criminal Law| Current Affairs| Economics| Entrepreneurs| Entrepreneurship| Finance| Financial Institutions| Innovation| Internet| Investing| Securities| Technology | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark
Below you'll see the first of what I suspect will be many interesting posts from guest blogger Greg Shill. Do welcome him.
And here you'll see a neat graphic of the money that the big American banks are agreeing to pay to settle their financial crisis suits; the tl;dr is poor Bank of America! Here's USC's worthy effort to track all the settlements.
Permalink | Administrative Law| Finance| Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark
Greetings, Glommers! (and hello, Janet and Mario*!)
It's an honor to join this extremely sharp and thoughtful community of corporate and commercial law scholars for the next two weeks. The Conglomerate has long been one of my favorite law blogs and it's truly a privilege to walk among these folks for a time (if a bit daunting to follow not just them but Urska Velikonja and her excellent guest posts). Thanks to Gordon, David, and their Glom partners for inviting me to contribute.
By way of biographical introduction, I'm currently a Visiting Assistant Professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, where I teach International Business Transactions and International Commercial Arbitration. Last year, I did a VAP at Hofstra Law School (and taught Bus Orgs and Contracts).
In the next few weeks, I'll be exploring a number of issues related to law and global finance. I have a particular interest in currencies and monetary law, or the law governing monetary policy. Two of my current projects (on which more soon) address legal aspects of critical macroeconomic policy questions that have emerged since 2008: U.S. monetary policy and the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis.
Without further ado, I will take a page from Urska and kick off my residency here with a somewhat meta question: should scholars refrain from writing about legal issues in macroeconomics, specifically monetary policy?
One thinks of monetary policy decisions—whether or not to raise interest rates, purchase billions of dollars of securities on the secondary market ("quantitative easing"), devalue or change a currency—as fundamentally driven by political and economic factors, not law. And of course they are. But the law has a lot to say about them and their consequences, and legal scholarship has been pretty quiet on this.
Some concrete examples of the types of questions I'm talking about would be:
- Pursuant to its dual mandate (to maintain price stability and full employment), what kinds of measures can the Federal Reserve legally undertake for the purpose of promoting full employment? More generally, what are the Fed's legal constraints?
- What recognition should American courts extend to an attempt by a departing Eurozone member state to redenominate its sovereign debt into a new currency?
When it comes to issues like these, it is probably even more true than usual that law defines the boundaries of policy. Legal constraints in the context of U.S. monetary policy appear fairly robust even in times of crisis. For example, policymakers themselves often cite law as a major constraint when speaking of the tools available to the Federal Reserve in combating unemployment and deflation post-2008. Leading economics commentators do too. Yet commentary on "Fed law" is grossly underdeveloped. With the exception of a handful of impressive works (e.g., by Colleen Baker and Peter Conti-Brown), legal academics have largely left commentary on the Fed and macroeconomics to the econ crowd.
A different sort of abstention characterizes legal scholarship on the euro crisis. Unlike the question of Fed power, there is a burgeoning literature on various "what-if" euro break-up scenarios. But this writing tends to focus on the impact on individual debtors and creditors, not on the cumulative impact on the global financial system. Again, the macro element is missing.
It is curious that so many legal scholars would voluntarily absent themselves from monetary policy debates. The subtext is that monetary policy questions are either normatively or descriptively beyond the realm of law. If that is scholars' actual view, I think it is misguided. But maybe the silence is not as revealing as all that.
- One issue is sources. You will not find a lot of useful caselaw on the Fed's mandate or the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and the relevant statutes and regulations are not very illuminating. Further, it's a secretive institution and that makes any research (legal or otherwise) on its inner workings challenging.
- Another issue is focus. Arguably the natural home of legal scholarship on domestic monetary issues, for example, should be administrative law. But the admin scholarly gestalt is not generally as econ-centric as, say, securities law. Meanwhile, securities scholars tend to focus on microeconomic issues like management-shareholder dynamics.
- A final possibility, at least in the international realm, is historical. After World War II, Bretton Woods established a legal framework intended to minimize the chance that monetary policy would again be used as a weapon of war. The Bretton Woods system collapsed over forty years ago, the giants of international monetary law (Frederick Mann, Arthur Nussbaum) wrote (and died) during the twentieth century, and now even some of the leading scholars who followed in their footsteps have passed away. At the same time, capital now flows freely across borders and global financial regulation has become less legalized in general. These factors plus the decline of exchange-rate regulations (most countries let their currencies float) may have undermined scholars' interest in monetary law. But as the ongoing euro saga demonstrates, international monetary law and institutions remain as critical as ever.
These are some possible explanations for why legal scholars have largely neglected questions of monetary law, but I'm sure I've overlooked others. What do you think?
*Pictured are Janet Yellen and Mario Draghi, chiefs, respectively, of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank.
Permalink | Administrative Law| Comparative Law| Economics| European Union| Finance| Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions| Globalization/Trade| Law & Economics| Legal Scholarship | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark
Better Markets is an advocacy group worried about the failure of the government to hold banks accountable for misdeeds that lead to the financial crisis. No problem there, I'm mystified by it myself, though there might be a normative case to be made for the policy, depending on how you feel about how the government treated Arthur Andersen and varous Enron executives during the last crisis.
But the group's suit against the government for violating separation of powers principles and FIRREA for settling with JPMorgan without filing the settlement with a court must have made the lawyers who filed the complaint a little nervous, in the "is this frivolous and will I get sanctioned?" kind of way.
Are you depriving courts of their Article III jurisdiction if you settle a case, instead of trying it to completion (and presumably then filing an appeal)? Owen Fiss thought so, in an article that I really love, but perhaps we should put the piece under the "seminal Yale thought experiment" rubric.
Settlement isn't exactly unprecedented in our federal system. Sometimes the government announces that it won't be defending a statute like DOMA in court, thereby depriving the judges of their Article III powers to assess the constitutionality of the law. Sometimes it changes policies when a powerful senator complains, thereby depriving Congress of its Article I right to reverse the executive branch's overreaching through legislation. And sometimes it enforces statutes - Title VII is an example - that deprive millions of potential plaintiffs of their right to file constitutional suits, in that case invoking the Equal Protection Clause. Sometimes, it also just settles cases before they go to trial, just like every other institution in America.
And yet somehow these dramatic examples of executive branch overreaching have never resulted in a colorable separation of powers claim. Indeed, separation of powers claims are almost never colorable; as a rule of thumb, they are step one towards losing a lawsuit, because they can be made about all cases, which is basically the same thing as saying they can be made about no cases. I'm generally not a fan of holding the government to particularly different standards than, say, Amnesty International, but even if you feel differently, you might do so because of the government's criminal powers, which the JPMorgan settlement doesn't involve.
The FIRREA count isn't a whit better, by the way. FIRREA authorizes the Attorney General to file suits against banks who violate the substantive principles of that banking statute. But just because a statute permits such litigation hardly means that it means that courts will be reviewing the AG's decisions as to whether to bring a case under it or not. THAT would be a separation of powers problem; courts would get to micromanage every decision whether to prosecute a case, supposedly one of the most core executive branch functions there is. Just ask Justice Scalia.
And don't even get me started on whether Better Markets has standing to sue over a settlement between the government and some other party that has nothing to do with Better Markets.
Permalink | Administrative Law| Finance| Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark
I asked my colleague, Mehrsa Baradaran, to comment on some recent news out of the USPS. Here are her excellent insights:
Two years ago, I wrote an article about how the poor are not being properly served by the banking sector, suggesting the outlandish idea that the U.S. Postal Service could help by offering loans and other financial services. Imagine my delight this week when the Office of the Inspector General of the USPS came out with a white paper suggesting more or less the same thing! Immediately, American Banker called it the"worst idea since Edsel." (the infamous Ford marketing disaster). The main criticism is that the USPS should focus on what it does best (er, or more accurately, what it does) and that it's dangerous to let non-banks provide bank-like services. (Sound familiar?)There are good reasons to be concerned about the USPS entering financial services. We certainly would not want to create another federally subsidized GSE. And we may need to be convinced that a bloated government agency that's been hemorrhaging tax dollars for years can run anything well. However, there are several hurdles to banking the poor that the post office can uniquely overcome.
So in the spirit of buzzfeed lists and magazine covers, here are the top 5 reasons that postal (non-)banking is a great idea whose time has come:
1. Location, Location, Location: When mainstream commercial banks and thrifts started facing intense market competition in the 1970s and 1980s, they deserted low-income neighborhoods en-masse and basically stopped lending there. This is what the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) is meant to address. When the banking establishment left, the fringe banks moved in. In many low-income neighborhoods, payday lenders are the only establishments offering credit. But you know who is still there? That's right, your local post office.
2. Your local post office is more inviting than your local bank: Another documented reasons the poor avoid banks is that they feel certain race/class/language barriers--they just don't feel comfortable there. Payday lenders are different—they have a façade of informality (which masks their large corporate structures). They speak your language and are located in the strip mall you frequent. The post office doesn't have a stiff formality like most mainstream banks and can overcome some of these cultural barriers because it serves a diverse array of customers.
3. Postal banking used to happen in the US and still happens abroad: President Grant suggested and President Taft initiated post office savings accounts in the early 1900s. The Postal Savings accounts were created and geared to recent immigrants and the unbanked poor, and were widely successful—at the end of the first year, there was a total of $20 million in deposits, most of which had been coaxed out of hiding. Many other countries use their postal service to provide credit and savings to their citizens (though not necessarily the poor), including: Japan, Germany, China, Brazil, Israel, France, Korea, India, South Africa, Kenya, and Sri Lanka.
4. They would fill a market gap: A recent FDIC study found that over half the population could not access $2000 in the event of an emergency and that about 30% is either unbanked or underbanked. In fact, this problem is at the top of the FDIC's agenda this year. Banks do not offer the types of small loans the poor need--it's just not profitable. For a bank, the cost of making a $1000 loan or a $100,000 loan is the same, but the returns on the latter are much greater. On the flip side, loans from payday lenders, with an average interest of 500%, are very costly to those who need them. Even check-cashing can cost the unbanked up to 5% of their paycheck (even if your paycheck is issued from the US military and is risk-free). A few corporations, like Wal-Mart, are beginning to offer basic financial services, but they are nowhere near market saturation. If the USPS can offer small loans and other simple transactional services at lower costs, they don't put anyone out of business and they fill a real market need. How can they do this? (1) I don't buy the argument that the poor are too high of a credit risk to serve--you just need to price for the risk. But the premiums charged by the fringe banks are just too high--as demonstrated by the fact that they are so profitable that many large banks have invested in these charters to boost their own revenue). (2) The post office can offer these services at a much lower cost because it would be using the infrastructure it already has with little marketing expenses and a large customer base. Yes, all these things are federal subsidies….and I'm perfectly comfortable with that.
5. The government should facilitate and subsidize access to credit for all people. Let's face it, our banking system has always been and will always be a heavily-subsidized sector. And a big justification for these subsidies is that the populace gets something in return--I've called it a social contract. The state supports banks because we need them to provide credit, which allows companies and individuals to improve their economic position. But unfortunately, most of these subsidies (especially in the form of bailouts) flow to the largest banks who are not serving most of the public. Nor should we force them to; their job is to maximize profits for their shareholders and past attempts at enlisting large banks to service the poor have failed. So we have two banking systems: a subsidized one for the rich and middle class and the "wild west" for the poor. It wasn't always this way. Credit Unions and S&Ls used to be subsidized by the US government to provide credit to the poor, but they stopped doing that a few decades ago. Since then, our government continues to subsidize banks, but those subsidies are not making their way to those who most need banking and credit services. This gap of services to the poor is a relatively new phenomenon and one that I believe the USPS should help to fill.
This proposal will likely garner significant opposition from the banking industry and from the payday lenders (see e.g. the media and lobbying firestorm surrounding Wal-Mart's proposal to enter banking). But I, for one, am hoping that someday I can go cash a check at the post office on my way to UPS to drop off a package (the lines are much shorter).
Permalink | Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark
Chris Brummer has a column over at Project Syndicate with some proposals for improving an increasingly frayed relationship. You'll have to head over there for the prescriptions, but here's his encapsulation of the problem:
Radical disparities between the rule-making cultures of the US and the EU are exacerbating the problem. Unlike the US, where independent agencies lead the rule-making process according to Congressional dictates, legislative actors in Brussels and Strasbourg – the European Commission, the European Council, and the European Parliament – set regulatory agendas and write the rules. And, though EU agencies like the European Central Bank are assuming an increasing share of regulatory responsibility, divergences in decision-making procedures continue to affect the rate and nature of transatlantic coordination.
Making matters worse, market and monetary reforms have occasionally merged, with rule-making becoming partly dependent on the decisions of disparate agencies and institutions. Meeting enhanced Basel III capital standards, for example, is about more than just rules; it requires the recapitalization of banks – a process that is taking longer in Europe than in the US, partly because the eurozone has had to negotiate funding mechanisms for banks and cash-strapped governments. Now these delays are raising doubts in the US about the EU's commitment to reform.
Well worth your time, if you think that this sort of regulatory diplomacy is an increasing feature of financial supervision....
Permalink | Administrative Law| Finance| Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark
Nathaniel Popper's story this week in the New York Times on the state of banking Iceland underscores how history makes a mess of neat divisions between financial crisis containment/resolution on the one hand and financial regulation for crisis prevention on the other. The Times article does not delve extensively into Icelandic regulation, but this report outlines some of the dramatic changes in that country's financial regulatory architecture since 2008 (see pages 17-21). Iceland chose to let banks fail, and its financial services sector and its approach to regulation continues to reflect that choice.
The following insight may sound obvious to the uninitiated: the path that a country chooses to deal with a financial crisis shapes the course that regulation will take after the crisis ends. Even so, there remains a stark divide in scholarship between the study of regulation in normal times and the management of financial crises in not-so-normal times. Management of a financial crisis reflects not just ad hoc decision-making under fire, but also clear policy and value choices of what the legal landscape should look like when the earth stops shaking.
This story with respect to the United States can be told with much more nuance than simply equating the bail-out of big banks with the government green-lighting business as usual on Wall Street. Disaggregating the "bailout" into its constituent parts – not just TARP, but also a series of bespoke interventions and an array of Federal Reserve facilities – reveals the extraordinary lengths the government went to in order to preserve the shadow banking system (a topic I've been writing about for a while and that appears in my new book) as it was.
Christian Johnson's chapter on the Federal Reserve and Section 13(3) (which appears in this excellent edited volume) provides a travel guide to these government interventions. Consider the least known aspects of the government intervention, the Federal Reserve facilities that provided guarantees and liquidity to various financial markets during the crisis. Chewing through the letters of this alphabet soup – from ABCPMMMFLF (asset-backed commercial paper money market mutual fund liquidity facility) to TALF (Term Asset- Backed Securities Loan Facility) – it becomes clear that the government attempted to save securitization, money-market mutual funds and other shadow banking markets. How did the Federal Reserve accomplish this? It created complex structures that essentially replicated the mechanics of shadow banking. In essence, the government became sponsor to one after another mammoth securitization vehicles.
And now the Economist tells us that securitization is back!
What's the problem? To start with, with these interventions, the government essentially adapted the same tools governments have used to fight banking crises throughout history to fight the (the first (so far)) shadow banking crisis. What were the government interventions – both equity infusions, loans, and guarantees – if not deposit insurance for shadow banking investments, the government acting as liquidity-provider-of-last-resort to shadow markets, and the government resolving institutions that failed because of shadow banking investments. However, the government offered all these forms of relief without acting like a bank regulator – charging an appropriate premium for insurance or loans or wiping out shareholders of failed institutions.
So we had a shadow system that performed the same functions as banks, posed the same risks as banks, suffered runs and failed just like banks, was rescued just like banks, but was never regulated like banks. (For more on the role of regulation in fueling the shadow banking bubble, see Chapters 10 and 11 of my book).
And now that securitization has returned, the continuing failure of financial reform to address the risks of shadow banking has become even more worrisome. What me worry? We can't have another crisis so soon after a bubble popped? The financial industry and its advocates hate the term shadow banking. Why? Because disaggregating the financial crisis into various technocratic failures, allows them to say the problem has been fixed by the bubble gum (pun half-intended) and shoe string patchwork of financial reforms, and even to argue that this patchwork goes too far.
To return to lesson of Iceland: the course of financial reform may have been set in the first responses to crisis management. We could see that the government wanted to preserve shadow banking. And a second lesson from Iceland: the government's success in preventing a deeper crisis likely took the political wind out of the sails of deeper and more effective financial reform.
Permalink | Finance| Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark
After over four years of work, my book Law, Bubbles, and Financial Regulation came out at the end of 2013. You can read a longer description of the book at the Harvard Corporate Governance blog. Blurbs from Liaquat Ahamed, Michael Barr, Margaret Blair, Frank Partnoy, and Nouriel Roubini are on the Routledge's web site and the book's Amazon page. The introductory chapter is available for free on ssrn.
Look for a Conglomerate book club on the book on the first week of February!
Permalink | Books| Comparative Law| Corporate Law| Economics| Finance| Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions| Law & Economics| Legal History| Legal Scholarship| Securities| White Collar Crime| Wisdom and Virtue | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark
The Conglomerate Bloggers
Powered by TypePad


text:
I took the day off from all things computer (from all things Kelly, actually!) to watch my niece yesterday. She's four years old and it was our very first all day, just-the-two-of-us day.
Let me say this: I am very glad I got my child rearing days out of the way when I was younger!
We started off our day with a quick stop to watch the two Blackhawk helicopters that bisected our route. We got out of the car on the side of the road and watched them fly. It was very cool.
Afterwards was a stop to Wal-Mart. Now THERE'S a fun thing to do with a child on Saturday morning….bumper carts in a busy superstore. Yee hah!
We finally made it to my house in time for a bathroom break. I never thought about the bathroom door having a lock. Shoulda. I finally was able to explain the workings of the lock to her from outside the door and we decided it was lunch time.
Lunch consisted of popcorn chicken, some kind of crunchy that boasts ½ serving of veggies per 16 chips (never let it be said that Aunt Kelly isn't all about nutrition) and juice. While I cleaned up the lunch dishes, she decided she wanted to check out the John Deere tractor website. I got her set up with that, turned away for a couple minutes and turned back to find her rearranging my desktop icons. I'm still not sure if that's ALL she managed to accomplish but after hearing some of my sister's stories about child-induced program issues, I'm almost afraid to find out!
With the computer shut off, it was time for swimming! Bathing suits on. Towels. Pool toys. Water camera. I feel like a pack mule and we're only going out back. Unload at the pool. She doesn't want to get in the water. What? The water: a balmy 80 degrees…..perfect. Once I'm in, her mind changes and she decides it might be fun, after all. I lift her in and set her down.
Being in, on or around water has always been one of my great loves. Somehow my sister has birthed a child who doesn't like getting her face wet so when the girl trips over my outstretched legs and face plants in the water, I'm expecting major problems. I set her back on her feet and wait for the cough, choke, and sputter. Nothing – she stares at me with those big blue eyes like I'd kicked her.
"Did you hold your breath?" I ask.
"No," she answers.
"I think you must have or you'd be gagging about now," I tell her. I clap and cheer and tell her she was such a good girl to hold her breath when she went under the water. She looks at me as if I'm mental. I probably am by now.
Before we finish with this round of swimming, I get the first phone call from my sister. I'm surprised it's taken her this long to call, actually. I convince her that I haven't harmed her child – leaving out the locked in the bathroom thing and the going under water thing.
When it's time for a break from the water, we go in to make cookies – never mind that it's nearly 90 degrees. "You promised!" Silly me…so much for my daydream of her on a stepstool, flour on her nose, looking all cute while we create the perfect cookies. She plays with cars and trucks outside with her uncle while I sweat into the batter.
I finish the baking to hear her say "I'm hot. It's time to go swimming again." SHE'S hot? The little deserter.
We swim some more. I'm back in heaven and she's adorable again.
Next step is to eat cookies and "ride" on uncle's motorcycle. She's starting to drag and so am I.
"Can I take you home now?" I ask.
"No," she answers. "Now I need some private time. I'll be inside." Private time? What, pray tell, does a four year old know about private time? Turns out it's code for "I'll be all alone in here bothering the ferrets….and the cat….and the dog…and the guitars…and the television….and the…."
"Can I take you home NOW?" I ask. "I'm putting your car seat back in the car."
"No, you're not."
"Yes, I am."
"No, you're putting my BOOSTER seat back in the car. I'm NOT a baby."
"Wise A…..cre."
We had a good day. It ended with "I love you, Aunt Kelly."
Yep, a very good day.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
August 1, 2014
Stay up-to-date with KAKE News:
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
A Kansas Department of Revenue official has sent email from a personal account to friends in the real estate business in effort to build support for Gov. Sam Brownback's income tax proposal.
Chad Bettes, chief of staff for Revenue Secretary Nick Jordan, sent the email from his personal account to six real estate friends who are also members of the Kansas Association of Realtors.
Included in the email, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, was a letter stating why the sender backed the Republican governor's plan, including elimination of the state's home mortgage deduction and favored other tax changes.
Sherriene Jones-Sontag, the governor's spokeswoman, said the communication was part of the effort to reach Brownback supporters on policy proposals.


text:
Jason Evangelho, Contributor
I provide honest reviews and opinions on the bleeding edge of tech
Windows 8.1 (codenamed "Blue") will reportedly reinstate two sorely missed features, but there's no need to wait for Microsoft Microsoft's update to get them.
If you've recently upgraded to Windows 8, perhaps you miss your old reliable companion, the iconic Start button. While the death of the PC has certainly been exaggerated, Microsoft's axing of the Start button from Windows 8 certainly hasn't helped its adoption.
Further aggravating users has been the
Metro Modern UI, an elegant touch-friendly interface that morphs into the bane of your existence with the absence of a touch-friendly monitor or gesture mouse. Windows 8′s default boot procedure is to boot into this new app hub instead of the traditional desktop. (Psst, hey Windows Client team: You should be detecting the type of display a user has and booting Windows into either the desktop or Metro based on what they have.)
Here's the truth: I love Windows 8 because of its snappy boot speed and reliability. But I also love it because I already have the Start button and the boot to desktop feature installed, courtesy of a single free piece of software called Classic Shell.
With more than 300,000 downloads per week, the demand for these absent features certainly exists. Some power users have been rocking this app since Windows 8 launched, but it definitely doesn't have mainstream awareness yet. Let's change that with these steps:
As I said, Windows 8 and its Modern UI interface is fantastic and intuitive on a touch screen, but even on the Surface Pro I still prefer booting into my trusty desktop. It's humorous that two features of Windows 8.1 will simply be the reinstating of two essential features that users have embraced since Windows 95. But hey, now you can get back to familiar territory whether or not the Windows 8.1 rumors ring true.
Follow me on Twitter or Facebook. Read my Forbes blog here. And don't forget about the $750 Build-Your-Own PC Project and Giveaway!
Also From Forbes:
What's Windows 8? I thought the latest was Mountain Lion!
In my opinion, Microsoft has been ostracizing it's power users. One of the first examples of this was the AWFUL ribbon introduced in Office 2007, with NO way to turn it off and revert to the "menu" driven interface. No "Up folder" in Windows Explorer? Why get rid of it? No Quick Launch? Why not? At least I was able to get that back. Not everyone uses there system the same way and pinning just didn't work for me. I've always been a MSFT fan, but in the past few years, I'm actually contemplating moving away from this Operating System. I SHOULD NOT have to relearn the same software/OS over and over because someone at MSFT thought it would be "better".
Um… you don't have to relearn anything. Just don't upgrade.
The reality is that Microsoft creates the software and can do whatever it wants with it. As a consumer, you can choose to buy or not to buy what they're selling. So no one's really forcing you to do anything.
Have you used Windows 8 on a touch device or tablet? It's amazing! And those ribbon & tabs that you hate so much in Office actually come in handy.
Yeah… That's a great attitude that every company should take. Who cares about the consumer, but do whatever we want and don't listen. That's working out pretty well for JCP's CEO right now.
I have used W8 on a tablet and it's nice, however, I use a laptop and desktop for business purposes and it's NOT nice. …and why should I have to download/install add-ons for features that really should never have been removed in the first place. Sure, make the "new" interface the default, but don't ostracize your power users. Poor decision making at the executive level if you ask me.
Not making changes would be good for microsoft if they didn't want to make any money. Change is what keeps the world moving. Sometimes ideas don't turn out as expected, but that is what it takes to build up towards a truly innovative idea. Something that is world changing. If change didn't exist, we would still be beating our dinner to death with clubs.
and as the web moves forward and requires you to use a newer browser that I can't load on XP or Windows 2000 what is one supposed to do? So I am forced to upgrade to an OS that offers me no advancement in the manner in which I use my computer. So you statement that no one is forcing us to do anything is not only wrong but slightly arrogant.
It's absolutely amazing how lazy people are these days! Even Jason, the author, is just as lazy! What is so wrong with learning how to use something new? Windows 8 is an amazing OS, even if you don't have a touchscreen! If there's anything you need that works best in desktop mode, just pin the icon to the Metro IU. When you click on it, it'll automatically launch the application from the desktop. Windows 8 can do so much. It's just unfortunate that people would rather complain just like they did back when Office2K7 came out. Trust me, I know all about the complaints. Back in the day, I used to be the IT Director for one of the largest Residential Property Management companies in the nation. I was responsible for thousands of desktops and all people did was complain rather than roll up their sleeves and figure it out. Nothing but a bunch of lazy SOBS in this country!
". As a consumer, you can choose to buy or not to buy what they're selling. "
I have documented proof, by way of more than 20 chat logs with Dell computer, as well as phone conversations, that this is a crock of crap.
I buy computers from Dell regularly, some for personal use. For weeks, I asked Dell if I could get some mainstream consumer-grade laptops without Windows 8. They said, "
No., then preceded to read from their friggin' script to try to convince me that Windows 8 was 'fast, fluid, beautiful' I finally told them that I would never buy another product from them again, not even a memory stick, unless they gave me choice of OS. They said, "It's not us. It's Microsoft that's calling the shots."
Well, as is clear by now, Dell gave Microsoft the metaphorical foot, and started selling Windows 7 again, but you have to wait three weeks on some models. And I have good insider information that Dell is NOT happy with Microsoft for 'forcing' Dell to sell only Windows 8 in the first place.
Microsoft has a monopoly over hardware that it does not even make. That's plain and simple. And now, if you buy that hardware, and you want to use UEFI secure-boot (which does NOT belong to Microsoft), you cannot use that PC to boot anything other than Windows 8.
Choice? Flat-out lie. Plain and simple.
i love the ribbon. i am glad i am seeing it in more applications. it really has helped with my productivity.
havent used win 8, but in 7 the up folder button no longer serves a purpose. you just click on the folder you want to go to in the path bar. you can go up one or as many folders as you like.
quick launch and pinning seem identical to me, with more features in pinning. pinning does take up more space, but that isnt an issue for me.
i understand frustration on relearning something. but honestly you sound like a bitter old man. i cant think of one change in win 7 or office 2010 that hasnt been an improvement. obviously it took time to learn my way around, but my reaction isnt 'why did you make me waste time learning this change?', it's 'why wasn't it this way to begin with?'
You do have a choice. Truth. Plain and simple.
If you order a pc with windows 8 loaded, install windows 7. If you cannot do this, that does not mean you do not have a choice, just not the ability to give yourself that choice. a quick google search and a copy of Windows 7 from your previous pc would have you up and running on the new system in no time.
the original poster obviously does not realize that half of the features they are complaining about are actually there and they just do not know how to use the computer. Pretty shocking for a self proclaimed "power user". The "Up Arrow" in Windows explorer is actually available in Windows 8 and was NOT in Windows 7. But if you knew how to use it, being a power user and all, you would notice that you can simply click on the folder in the address bar at the top that you would like to jump back to. This is no harder or more confusing than using the "up arrow". Second on the list is the quick launch bar. this is essentially the same thing as pinning the program to the start menu. You can right click on the icon to open a new window of that particular app and it groups the open windows into that icon. Oh, you dont like the grouping, well guess what? YOU CAN TURN IT OFF!! But ill let the "power user" get back to explaining why it is worse in the new version of windows. And if you dont like the ribbon, google "Quick Access Toolbar", it lets you pick any specific icons or macros that you use from the ribbon and place them on a toolbar that is always visible and does not need to be picked through. It is totally customizable making it actually a lot better than the old "menu driven" format where you constantly had to be digging through menus to get what you wanted done. The only reason you think the menus are better is because you refuse to learn anything new. I guess we could stay on Windows 95 forever, just for you so you do not have to learn anything new.
Yes. I know about all that stuff. I'm really complaining about changes that were made to W7 with no regard to power users. W8 is just another example. Why do we need all these "add ons" to do the same thing we used to do?
Correct, the up arrow is not available in W7? Why? Was it that big of a deal to keep it in the Windows Explorer, or was the "burn" icon more important. I realize you can "click" the folder you want to "jump back to", but what if you want to go back a higher level than that? Oh yeah, there isn't a good way to do that.
The quick launch is actually quicker than RMB to start a new instance of a programs. And yes, I do not like grouping because right now, I have 38 windows open and my task bar is vertically on the right hand of the screen so I can READ each file name that is open. You probably use your OS differently, but Quick Launch and NO pinning (pinning will leave icons in the middle of your task bar and take up an entire row) actually works MUCH better for me.
The ribbon is terrible… and my point is, why should I have to go get "add ons" for functionality that did NOT need to be turned off? It was already there? Sure, go ahead a default to the new ribbon, but allow users to go back to the menu system that has been around for years and is functional. Why remove it? Yes, I'm a developer and know all about the ribbon. An no, I didn't have to dig around the menu system because I knew exactly where everything was located.
I am forced to use the ribbon since I'm in the software industry, but that doesn't mean I like it. It's terrible.
The Libraries is also another terrible "innovation". I KNOW how to organize my folders and don't need the OS to force me into new places. It would be great if you could "easily" turn off the libraries and not have it be the default. Sure, I can go mess with the registry, but why should I?
Ever try exports a pipe delimited file in Excel these days? Probably not. The functionality has been removed from the Excel "Application" and has been moved to a system location "outside" of the application. Why? Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
In general, everyone uses there computer differently. For MSFT to force me to use my system in ways that cause me to lose productivity is mind numbing and down right dumb.
-The Power User
The reality of it is, when a company starts trying to force their vision on their customers, they're customers start going elsewhere. Let's see, Windows 8, even a slower adoption rate than Vista. (Hint, hint)
No force? Ask anyone who's still happy with their Windows XP.
As a further exercise, take the number of tablets that can run Windows 8 and divide it by the number of desktop and laptop computers that can run Windows 8. What number do you have? Did you make it to double digits?
Regardless of where Microsoft expects the market to go over the next five years or so, why spit on 90% of your established market by getting rid of the interface the vast majority of your users are familiar with?
ps – If you want to know how good Microsoft is at predicting the future of computing, go back to 1992 or there abouts and look at their corporate vision for the Internet. Short version: there wasn't one.
It's not surprising that Microsoft is pushing the OS that is newer, faster, safer, etc. All PC vendors do that. You can't buy a Mac with the old OS on it either.
While I understand that you are frustrated that you can't get the version of Windows you want installed on a new PC. I also understand why Microsoft is pushing Windows 8 (for the reasons mentioned above).
Furthermore, though there will be more cost involved, you still do have "choices." You could buy a Windows 8 PC and then buy a copy of Windows 7 and install it. You could buy a Mac and install Windows 7 on that. You could buy a Chromebook or a Linux-based system.
While there's a learning curve with Windows 8, I really don't think it's so bad that someone as articulate as you can't figure out and/or just purchase a $6 app that makes Windows 8 look like Windows 7.
No offense, but all of your posts seem extremely angry, as if getting Windows 8 was creating a life or death emergency… but it isn't. It's an operating system… that can be easily replaced. Maybe not by Dell or HP or Lenovo… but by you.
If you want to go up a level, just click the part of the path in the address bar you want to go up to. It is still one click, and provides more control than the previous up folder button.
"I SHOULD NOT have to relearn the same software/OS over and over because someone at MSFT thought it would be "better"."
Yet…………..HOW MANY TIMES HAS MS DONE THIS………………………?
You remember what Einstein said about INSANITY………………………?????????
What a joke . . . a third party had to come in to make Windows usable.
The only good thing you can do for Win 8 is a complete reformat and installation of Win 7.
Win 8 is by far the worst OS the gang at MS has ever done to the computing public. I don't care how fast my PC boots if it doesn't work after its running.
I have more blue screen crashes, program freezes and lost work with 8 than I've had with any OS since Win 95.
I give it an F– and I've been building and using computers since DOS.
Bill Gates could fix the US debt in 2 payments!
Believe it or not, some of us out here don't like touch screen interfaces at all!
I think that this writer is working for Microsoft. Go to any PC store and reboot a new computer running Windows 8. Bootups take a lot longer that I saw. Also, Microsoft…reliable? Since when?I also wonder why I have to "re-learn" software? WHY?
In addition to the start button, I want my pull-down menus back. I hate the ribbon! I have been struggling to use it since the release of Office 2007, and it still makes me want to chuck my laptop out the nearest window! Pull-down menus have been around since the dos days because they are simple, and they work.
I agree 100%. The ribbon is counter productive.
I had to help too many people using the public computers in the library I worked at with this. It is not intuitive. I don't think I can recall one person (staff or user) who thought that the organization of this made any sense at all.
Whats funny is that Classic Shell has been out for awhile now and its just now being written about on here? This was one of the first things I installed as soon as I "upgraded" to Windows 8 on my new ultra book.
It is nice that Microsoft can sometimes admit to screwing up and giving people the start button back!
I do totally agree they could have bypassed the whole snafu by just detecting what type of hardware a user is running (which it does already) and determining the bootup based on that. Or even just ASKING during the install – "Hey we have this Crazy New Metro screen – or you can have your normal Desktop" would have been great!
Sergei, Google, are you listening? ANDROID on the Desktop PC. Now is your chance, nobody wants Windows 8.
Yes, the entire world is going mobile. But, there are still users (like me!) who edit videos, photos, play games, and render out high-quality digital media with tools like Adobe Lightroom and After Effects.
Even APPLE didn't do something as STUPID as trying to make their mobile and desktop devices run on the SAME operating system (that's what Win8 is, kids – one stop shopping for mobile devices.. desktops are dead to Microsoft, right?)
I won't be upgrading. I build my own PCs, I'll be going to Linux if Microsoft doesn't make MAJOR changes soon. Valve and Steam are available via Linux, now if I can just get a port of Adobe software.. then I wouldn't need WINDOWS AT ALL.
Microsoft should have stuck with Windows 7, which was the best OS they ever came up with and simply created a tablet version of it. That would have made things a lot simpler and it would have helped them cover the PC/lap top and tablet side of things. Win 8 could have been made exclusively for mobile phones. I hate the name "Windows". They probably are capable of coming up with some attractive name. They must have gone to the consumers and asked if they wanted to keep the start menu button and task bar or not. If the consumers wanted it, then that is the selling point. Keep what they want and may be add other things slowly, one by one. There was no need to catch up with anyone on the PC/Laptop market. Everyone was quite happy with Windows 7. They could have made life easier for themselves by making a tablet version of it that could integrate everything. Their thinking could have been simple. But being engineering driven, they cannot help thinking in a complicated way. Consumer market is about simplicity and user experience. If they aim to capture it, they had to follow Apple's lead in it.
Thank you, Jason Evangelho. I like Windows8 a lot. But, you are right that the 'metro screen' can get in the way at times.
Re: (Psst, hey Windows Client team: You should be detecting the type of display a user has and booting Windows into either the desktop or Metro based on what they have.)
Or better yet, detecting if it has an attached keyboard (fully attached or bluetooth) as opposed to an onscreen keyboard ..and giving you the preference to sense the presence of a keyboard or a touch screen and how it reacts. This should be as simple as the power options menu.
I was a Microsoft fan for a long long time, but their OS, software and tools became more and more bug ridden and less intuitive over the years. What made windows and MS software great was the consistant user interface. It made things easy to use and intuitive. Now it seems using any MS software is a puzzle. Never thought I would do this but I took the plunge and went Apple all the way. iPhone iPad, Mac. Even MS Office is better on a Mac because Mac's don't think menus are a bad thing like MS does. Don't miss the PC at all.
And you would expect anything else from Bill Gates' company.
He and his wife's foundation donate millions upon millions to organizations dedicated to brain-washing and re-programming of our children's brains.
He's a sick freak.
There is also a beautiful looking free skin for Classic Shell here: http://www.winaero.com/blog/introducing-winaeros-exclusive-special-skin-pack-for-classic-shell/
(SIGH!) Well FFS! (as they, and now I, happily abbreviate) I was ready to leave an intelligent comment about how my initial SHOCK and HORROR (!) at the look of the interface previously known as Metro… and the seemingly AWFUL changes M$ had made with Windows 8- like not starting in desktop view, and the lack of a start button (the start KEY hasn't gone anywhere, people…It still sits Westward of Alt-Next-The-Spacebar in the Keyboard region of my desk…). BEFORE EVEN TRYING IT I WAS PHOBIC- BECAUSE WINDOWS HAD CHANGED!!! I think people perhaps need to think less, and appreciate MORE what Windows 8 has DONE RIGHT… At first the new Metro Screen confused me- I STILL have problems finding some programs without resorting to Windows Explorer and looking in… well, obviously Program Files ((x86))… BUT… It's primarily a touch-oriented UI, in the same style unsurprisingly as Windows Phone 8, which I know very little about except that it looks rather BORING on a phone… lots of boxes on screen, no wallpaper… I love my scrollable Android homescreens with fullscreen scrolling widgets, and Windows will NEVER sell a phone to me… Truth be told (I'm GETTING to the point…)
I was all ready to completely give up on having Windows installed on my PC AT ALL- since Ubuntu still felt more like 'home' (Which actually would probably be AmigaDOS… That OTHER Unix-based OS which I remember making a GREAT DEAL of sense to me at the time, as a teenager doing Computer Science… until I lost my way)…
…but then, of course I realised that I HAD to at least TRY it… and I found that YES, they got SOME things a bit wrong… but THEY GOT SOME COOL STUFF RIGHT!!! Like startup and shutdown times being MUCH improved over Win7… the POP-UPS that happen by cornering the pointer- and… NO START BUTTON- until it wasn't there, I forgot how much I HATED it… and as I continue to explore Win8, I'm finding that I actually LIKE IT, and Windows still has a place on my PC… and I WISH I could afford a nice 22″ touchscreen monitor (or even BIGGER this time!)…to help me do more with my fingers… I'm sorely tempted to beg, borrow, or steal a touchscreen just to see if it's a awesome as I expect it will be to touch the screen instead of using a mouse… which honestly is starting to feel awkward… Microsoft NEEDED to make changes to Windows that moved it FURTHER into new UI territory… lots of the devices we'll be using in the future, it seems will be touchscreen- even if we'll still prefer an ACTUAL keyboard to an on-screen one… but with further improvements in voice recognition and gesture input by touch/camera, surely it's time we need to think how much EASIER, SIMPLER, and LESS STRESSFULL it will be to JUST POINT at what you want to select on screen, and JUST TALK any typing that needs doing… Windows was definitely NOT the best "Window-Icon-Mouse-Pointer" -oriented OS when it appeared on the scene… I found it laughable in comparison to AmigaDOS and MACOS(or whatever it was called back in the day)… but it's had its moments… and like Android, Windows has a few "fragmentation" issues… of ALL the Windows releases, Windows 7 I found actually USEABLE at last… even though I'd HAD to suffer both Windows ME and XP… Thankfully Windows 8 actually feels RIGHT- like Microsoft actually had a good idea for once… and weren't afraid to upset people by losing the start button and desktop- orientation (I STILL want to call the Desktop 'Workbench'… AmigaDOS may well have a future on my PC too…) in favour of the Metro screen which makes more sense for a primarily Touch-based user of Win8 (I'm STILL assuming…) than the desktop… With the BRINGING BACK of the Ribbon, Windows 8 seems like something of a Chimera… a Darwinian nightmare of divergent evolutions having to still meet in the middle and look BLOODY strange… but as I recall from being a very young child, EVERYTHING looks bloody strange at first… and it's SO EASY to forget how we ADAPT… Seriously though… Windows had better REALLY NOT be a mish-mash in its next incarnation… it NEEDS to be FAST, EASY and OBVIOUS to learn and use, and take us AWAY from the work stresses that we've ALL had too much of… At least if M$ are insisting on bringing the Start Button and Desktop-centricness BACK to Windows (Which I think is the WRONG way to go- M$ need to be inventive, pioneering, and BRAVE… not keep squashing divergent UI experiences together in an ugly mutant blob)… THEN THEY SHOULD AT LEAST MAKE THE ENTIRE UI EXPERIENCE FULLY CUSTOMISABLE FROM THE START, so the non-NEOPHOBIC users can set their Windows up as suits them, point, and gesture at the screen, and TALK to their PC, while people too inflexible to realise that its only the CHANGES in life that give us any appreciation of things ANYWAY can slide a mouse around a desk to move a pointer on the screen, tie themselves up in unneccessary knots of tension still as thes sit at their desk… you LUCKY PEOPLE- I don't even have a CHAIR!
… oh… my initial frustration with my last comment BY THE WAY… was at being forced to watch an advert for Star Trek whatever which distracted me from forming my comment properly; made me spell theY with an S(actually lower case: s), and for get that I'd been FORCED to WATCH AN ADVERT before I could post!!! Which reminds me of the one TRULY EVIL thing that M$ did with Windows 8… make space for ADVERTISING… to make them EVEN MORE M$! D'OH! (Facepalm)
What Microsoft and Apple both seem to ignore is that consumers have different opinions and preferences. When I use Linux, I can choose the desktop shell I prefer to use. If Microsoft would do this when they upgrade, they could show off their latest art project to the masses without upsetting those of us who prefer a simple OS experience. It is simple; keep each generation's shell as an option in the control panel. If I am a windows 3.1 Luddite, let me choose it and stop trying to force me into a herd mentality. Sometimes it seems like MS is caters to the technologically illiterate crowd while ignoring the power user.
Enter Your you Commen I love windows 8 and I did downloaded Classic Shell with the with Metro a great APP, any way windows 8 is missing the Column Headers in all Views except in Details Views, and also you cant move your folders,files and Photos the way you want to, if you try to move it around it will return to its original place but after looking and looking I found an App that will give you this two options and it is call FOLDER OPTION X, this is there Web page where you can download it http://free-sk.t-com.hr/T800/software/FolderOptions.htm with this programs you will feel at home finally,what I am still looking its for an app to have back your Folders specially the MUSIC folders as it was in XP thumbnails,that was a good idea from windows but since Vista its not anymore, if somebody knows about a program to have this option let us know thank you
Actually, if I believed everyone who gave a bad review of Windows 8 ( and I actually did once), I'd never use it. I've had Windows 8 for about 6 months now on a desktop without a touch screen, and I think it's fantastic. It's probably the most stable operating system I've ever used.
My upgrade to Windows 8.1 was easy. The longest part of the whole procedure was the download. The start button, if that's what you prefer to call it, doesn't really do anything but send you back to the metro screen. I have 2 other ways of doing that without this start button feature. In fact, I don't even use it. It's like an eyesore now that wont leave my task bar. As far as I can tell, there is very little upgrade at all that is noticeable to the average end user. I am one of them.
I install ClassicShell and FileSearchEX on every PC I build for people. Microsoft can chose to do as they please. As long as we have choices and someone steps up to the plate, no harm done.


text:
Dexter Village's plans for cityhood may be on hold at least until next year.
A small group of local residents submitted a petition with the State Boundary Commission's Office this week to seek a referendum vote on whether or not the village should proceed with its application.
The petition was filed during the state's , which is the next next legal step in the process of Dexter becoming a city. The commission in July.
In order to request a referendum, 5 percent of registered voters must sign the petition. On Aug. 23, the Boundary Commission received a petition with 373 signatures, 13 percent of registered voters in the village.
The Boundary Commission will now request the Scio and Webster Township Clerk Offices to validate the names and signatures.
"I've said from the very beginning that this should be a decision that people need to vote on," resident Jim Smith said.
Smith said it will be up to the State Boundary Commission to determine when cityhood could be placed on a ballot.
"Most likely it will be sometime next year if our request is approved," he said.
If the clerks determine there aren't enough valid signatures on the petition, village voters will be asked to elect a charter commission, which will be comprised of nine members, who would write the governing document for the new City of Dexter.
According to information provided by the village, the main benefits of becoming a city include not paying township taxes, having a centralized government for the city with all elections and tax payments within the city, and more recognition at the state and county level since Dexter is still considered part of Webster and Scio townships.
For a detailed history of the cityhood process, visit Dexter's information page on the village website.


text:
The Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club has endorsed Shelly Masur and Kirsten Keith for the District 4 seat on the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, solidifying public perception of these individuals as the environmentally conscious candidates.
Eight people are that will be vacated when Supervisor Rose Jacobs Gibson concludes her term this year. The winner of the race will be charged with representing the interests of Menlo Park, Redwood City, and East Palo Alto.
" and rose to the top in terms of how articulate, informed, and committed they are to issues important to the Sierra Club," said Melissa Hippard, the endorsement team leader for the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club during this process.
The club works with government officials in San Mateo Couty to refine ordinances that outline how developers can use land, with the goal of preserving county parks and open spaces. It has about 9,000 local members who support the national mission to "enjoy, explore and protect the environment," according to their website.
Specifically, the Sierra Club wants to work with the candidates to identify the areas where the county could place housing, and find funding for county parks.
"The idea is to move toward planning for the next generation of growth around infill and transit development to create new housing and jobs near transit," Hippard said.
To make the decision about which candidate to endorse, the club sent questionnaires to each one to discern their environmental inclinations, said Mike Ferreira, a club member who specializes in Conservation Issues. The candidate's viability, leadership abilities, and campaign organization were also scrutinized.
"We want to work with people who have a strong chance of winning and be successful with their agenda if they win," Ferreira said.
Only six of the eight candidates responded to the Sierra Club's questionnaire. Warren Slocum and David Woods did not.
The election is June 5.
For more news about Menlo Park, follow us on Twitter and like our Facebook page.
Get patched in daily with our newsletter.


text:
On cookies and sharing
I love this whole "team" thing Darryl and I have going on ... 99% of the time we share costs, responsibilities, chores and all of that other good stuff. It's really nice to have an equal partner and do everything 50-50.
Sometimes it's the little things, though ...
I was running out of time this afternoon before I had to head off to work, so I asked Darryl to take some cookies out of the oven when they were done cooking. I had a timer set and everything.
I got out of the shower and smelt the definite odor of burning ... went into the kitchen and my cookies were charred.
Darryl was oblivious to the kitchen catastrophy and was watching football in the next room, about 30 feet from the oven.
I'm not mad, it was only a dozen easy-to-make cookies. It's not a big deal.
I guess everything can't be shared. I don't mow the grass and kill spiders, he shouldn't have to monitor my cookies. Next time, I'll watch my own baking. :)
Posted by Katie Kolt on November 12, 2006 at 08:26 PM
Post a comment
Recent Entries
Meet the blogger


text:
The Tribune-Star
If you're used to driving on Indiana 42 just east of Terre Haute, be prepared to look for some alternate routes this summer.
A major road improvement project, beginning on Indiana 42 near the Terre Haute International Airport, is expected to result in a 75-day road closure on the state highway starting around May 1, said Debbie Calder, communications director for the Indiana Department of Transportation, Crawfordsville District.
Indiana 42 is essentially an eastern extension of Poplar Street — beginning at Indiana 46/U.S. 40.
Gradex Inc., a Carmel-based contractor, won the bid for the $6.9-million project and already has crews at the site conducting tree removal and utility relocation.
The project includes adding new traffic lanes to Indiana 42 and improving the intersections at Hunt Road and Chamberlain Road, Calder told the Tribune-Star on Wednesday. The project will also improve the entrance to the airport, she noted.
The roadwork will take place on a roughly two-mile stretch from Indiana 46/U.S. 40 to Chamberlain Road and is expected to wrap up by July of next year, Calder stated.


text:
Alternative Care Facilities
New ACF Proivder Training - April 2014
This training has been revamped and is being required of ALL new and existing ACF providers.
Training for New Providers - follow instructions at end of presentation to submit certificate of completion
Training for Existing Providers - follow instructions at end of presentation to submit certificate of completion
Alternative Care Facilities
Colorado has provided an alternative to institutionalization for elders and persons with disabilities by offering health care services in deinstitutionalized community settings. Alternative Care Facilities (ACFs), or assisted living residences that are Medicaid certified, are residential care settings that provide twenty-four hour protective oversight, daily living skills assistance, personal care services, and homemaker services in a community-based environment.
ACF services are available to clients enrolled in the Elderly, Blind, and Disabled (EBD) waiver, the Community Mental Health Supports (CMHS) waiver, and the Medicaid Buy-In Program. Recipients of ACF services pay a room and board amount to the ACF provider that is calculated by a Single Entry Point (SEP) case manager.
All ACFs must comply with waiver requirements found in Section 1902(c) of the Social Security Act, 6 C.C.R. 1011-1, Chapter VII §1.102 of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Regulations for Assissted Living Residences and 10 C.C.R. 2505-10, §8.495 of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing requirements for Alternative Care Facilities
For more information regarding ACF's, please contact email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.com.
Dear Administrator Letters (DALs)
ACF December 2012 DAL for Room and Board
HOPE Service Delivery Model
Other References
CMS Proposed Rules for HCBS Settings
ACF Home-Like Person-Centered Survey - December 2011
ACF Meeting Information
|April 10, 2013
|No handouts


text:
Spreadapedia offers a feast of winning trends - 0 Comments
Smart football fans harvest Spreadapedia for a celebratory feast of winning trends each and every week of the NFL season.
Spreadapedia is the amazing point-spread database powered by Cold, Hard Football Facts Insider and available now to Boston Herald readers.
Spreadapedia is a database of every score, point spread and over-under line since 1978. It empowers you to quickly uncover winning trends for any game, team, coach, location, date, week, line or situation.
Welcome to our new commenting system
Discussions at BostonHerald.com are powered by Disqus, a commenting system that gives you the ability to voice your thoughts and share your opinions with other readers.
You are required to provide at least an email address to comment on our site, and you can comment by connecting your Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or Google Plus accounts also. Comments not associated with a verified account will be held for review, so to keep the conversation flowing, you'll want to use one of the verified methods.
You can now respond directly to a specific comment by clicking "reply." All conversations stemming from one comment will have their own thread, making discussions neater and more focused. You can also vote specific comments up or down, and share them more easily on your favorite social network. Clicking "newest" in the top left of the discussion panel also sorts comments by newest, oldest, or best-rated.
Disqus has a help section and knowledge base if you'd like to learn more.
Happy Commenting,
The Boston Herald staff
Note: To send a Letter to the Editor, click here.


text:
The recipe I use is based on Pierre Herme's recipe which requires fresh passionfruit, juiced. The trick to getting lots of juice out of passionfruit is to blitz the pulp first then strain it. Another option is to buy frozen passion fruit juice (Boiron) but this can be quite costly.
For the shells
110g ground almonds
200g icing sugar
50g caster sugar
90g egg whites
food colouring - yellow and red
Whisk egg white to stiff peaks, gradually adding the caster sugar. Add colouring to achieve intensity you desire - I use yellow and a touch of red colouring.
Fold almonds and icing sugar into the eggwhites, "macaroning" until you achieve the correct consistency.
Pipe rounds onto baking trays and leave until a skin forms (usually at least 30 mins, much longer if humidity is high).
You can dust these with unsweetened cocoa powder if you like, or leave them plain.
For the passionfruit ganache
100g passionfruit juice (around 5-6 passionfruit)
40g good quality unsalted butter
140g milk chocolate (~40% cacao)
Heat passionfruit juice to around 60 degrees Celsius and put aside.
Melt chocolate and butter and add the passionfruit juice, whisking until completely combined.
This ganache takes longer to set than most and is best left in the fridge overnight.


text:
This brand new style Bali Tree house is located in Manuel Antonio's most exclusive neighborhood and is just a few minutes walk to world famous Manuel Antonio Beach and also fabulous restaurants and shopping. Private pool and hot tub to relax while sitting in the middle of the tropical rain forest watching monkeys and sloths in the trees. Birds and butterflies abound all while listening to the soothing sounds of a natural stream bordering the property. Tastefully decorated with native hardwoods and local artisan furniture and all new stainless GE appliances. Professionally managed with maid service. Transportation can be arranged from SJ airport or Quepos airport. Manuel Antonio National Park, the gem of the national park system, is minutes away with more amazing beaches and hiking trails.
'the house was fantastic - what a great location. We saw more monkeys than any other location including the national park' Bob S. - PA. USA
Brand New Bali Tree House: Awake in the morning to the sound of the howler monkeys in the tropical rain forest canopy at eye level. Sip your morning coffee on the veranda with the white face and mono titi monkeys on their daily migration through the jungle or perhaps one of the resident sloths will make an appearance. This jungle hide away is one of the very few private houses within walking distance to world famous Manuel Antonio Beach and also within walking distance to great restaurants and shopping.
'your house was awesome, the beach was perfect and the kids really liked the monkeys.' Joe T. - TX. USA
'we absolutely loved the house! It was so beautiful and the setting exquisite. The pictures on the website do not do it justice!' Greg P. - New Orleans LA USA
'we had a GREAT time at your house. Your staff was amazing and they helped so much! Lisa M. - Atlanta GA. USA
Relax in the very private pool or jacuzzi. Full modern kitchen with stainless GE appliances. Great open feel living space is great for family or groups. Tastefully decorated with native hardwoods and local artisan furniture. Three bedrooms all with 4 post queen beds and air conditioning. Wrap around deck puts you right in the forest canopy.
I am a Costa Rican and enjoy providing our guests and clients with an INSIDERS perspective on the best tours, activities, restaurants, houses and opportunities here. I love being able to share my country, its beauty and people with visitors.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about Costa Rica in general, the different areas you can visit or specific properties which are of interest and we will always get back to you quickly with detailed and insightful responses on the pros and cons of each region and property.
Alvin Chinchilla
Offers a unique opportunity to stay in a very private house inside the canopy with walking distanceaccess to the most spectacular pristine beaches in the Manuel Antonio area without sacrificing comfort and ease.
A confortable and warm place to stay with your family or friends when visiting Costa Rica, abundant birds, butterflies and three types of monkeys.
Easy access to beaches, national parks, tours, souvenirs, supermarkets, banks, hospital, airport, bus station and most services.
1) Walking distance to Manuel Antonio beach and Pristine Private Biesanz Beach
2) Walking distance to restaurants, souvenirs, tours, supermarkets, etc
3) Complete Privacy
4) Private Pool with outdoor jacuzzi
at no additional cost:
- maid service
- local Calls
- high speed wifi Internet
- tours and activities information and booking
- car rental reservation
We offer optional services at reasonable prices:
- Transportation from/to airport or during your stay, airport pickups and transport to other destinations in Costa Rica.
- Private Chef per meal or in house cook per day or per meal
- Wedding / Celebration packages
- Cosmetic / Plastic Surgery and Dental Care Arrangements with special discounts
Manuel Antonio can be reached by a 20 minute flight from San Jose Airport (Juan Santamaria), or a beautiful 2-1/2 hour drive over mountains, through coffee plantations, down the coast through palm fields. The many small towns along the way gives one a great feel for the rural countryside, which is the true Costa Rica. Manuel Antonio is a bohemian mixture of people and places. Restaurants range from simple to five star quality. Great shopping for local crafts and art. This is not a 'surf' town like Tamarindo to the north. Lots of incredible live music. The beaches of Manuel Antonio are world class and the area is truly a tropical paradise.
Other Activities: Canopy tours, rafting, kayaking, butterfly farm
|Rate Period
|Weekend Night
Christmas Week
Dec 21 2014 - Dec 27 2014
7 night minimum stay
New Year's Week
Dec 28 2014 - Jan 3 2015
7 night minimum stay
My Standard Rate
3 night minimum stay
|All transactions are in US dollars.
50% deposit required to confirm reservation dates.
Balance collected 30 days prior to arrival date.
Safety/damage deposit required
No refunds, changes or cancellations on reservations.
Until confirmed, rates are subject to change without notice.
|Discounts are available for smaller groups, extended stays & returning guests.
Laundry service & meals are available for reasonable fees.
Additional discounts available for multiple week bookings.
Feel free to inquire 24/7.
Payment is usually accepted in the quoted currency (USD) unless the currency and the amount is specifically agreed in advance with the owner / advertiser.