DALLAS — Texas Instruments Inc. raised its fourth-quarter profit and sales outlook on Tuesday, citing an improving market for chips used in cell phones and other electronic gadgets like hard disk drives and video game consoles.
Dallas-based Texas Instruments now expects to earn between 47 cents and 51 cents per share, up from a prior estimate of 42 cents to 50 cents and above third-quarter earnings of 42 cents per share. In its regular mid-quarter update, the company also lifted its revenue forecast to between $2.90 billion and $3.02 billion from $2.78 billion to $3.02 billion, previously. That would mark sequential growth of 1 percent to 5 percent.
Analysts are expecting the company to earn 47 cents per share on sales of $2.93 billion, according to a Thomson Reuters poll. The midpoint of the company's revenue guidance would total $2.96 billion, slightly above Wall Street's average estimate.
On a conference call with analysts, Texas Instruments executives said the company has seen sharply increased demand in the last few quarter, and is working to address "bottlenecks in our operations," but noted that "supply definitely remains constrained currently."
Lead times for certain product categories had stretched into the high teens to 20 weeks, which always raises the spectre of cancellations, BMO Capital markets analyst Ambrish Srivastava had noted in a client report Monday. Other chipmakers, such as Nvidia Corp., also have experienced some supply constraints during the quarter, as their customers saw stronger than anticipated demand for their products.
Texas Instruments said October and November were both strong months, and the company is not seeing any signs of heightened cancellations at this point.
Despite the upgraded outlook, shares slid more than 2 percent in after-hours trading Tuesday, having earlier closed down 29 cents at $26.33.
News Source: The Associated Press.
Professionals Business
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Geithner Disputes Goldman Sachs Claims It Didn’t Need U.S. Help
Secretary Timothy Geithner disputed claims by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. executives that the bank could have survived the financial crisis without government help and said it and other Wall Street firms should show some restraint in handing out bonuses this year.
“It is very important that we change the way these executives are paid, the form of compensation, this year,” Geithner said in an interview yesterday for Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” which is being aired throughout the weekend. “We have to end that era of irresponsibly high bonuses.”
President Barack Obama has blamed compensation tied to excessive risk-taking for fueling the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression. The administration has named a special master to approve compensation packages at firms that have received the biggest government bailouts.
Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s investment bank are set to pay record combined bonuses this year, according to analysts’ estimates. Goldman set a Wall Street pay record in 2007 when its compensation totaled $20.2 billion, including $68.5 million for chairman and chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein.
Blankfein told Vanity Fair magazine in an article published online this week that he thought the company could have survived the financial turmoil on its own without government help. Goldman’s president, Gary Cohn, was more definitive. “I think we would not have failed,” he told the magazine. “We had cash.”
Geithner, 48, took issue with that, saying that the entire financial system was at risk at the height of the crisis, including Wall Street’s big institutions.
‘Classic Bank Run’
“None of them would have survived” had the government stood aside and let the crisis run its course, he said. “The entire U.S. financial system and all the major firms in the country, and even small banks across the country, were at that moment at the middle of a classic run, a classic bank run.”
New York-based Goldman Sachs, the fifth-largest U.S. bank by assets, accepted $10 billion from the Treasury and other forms of government support last year. It has since returned the funds with interest, as have firms including Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley.
Geithner said that most of the money the federal government injected into banks through the Troubled Asset Relief Program will likely be paid back. “We now estimate that we’re probably going to have $175 billion in repayments from the banking system by the end of next year,” he said.
Goldman spokesman Lucas van Praag said the firm recognized that it would have failed had the financial system broken down.
Government Action
“If the financial system collapsed, we would have collapsed too,” he said. “We believe that government action averted a major systemic problem.”
He added that Goldman acted on its own to raise capital amid the turmoil. “We had cash and funding that would have allowed us to survive for quite a long time,” he said.
Geithner said that even institutions that have repaid the government should show restraint in paying out bonuses, arguing that Wall Street’s compensation practices had encouraged excessive risk-taking.
“We want to see fundamental constraints in how senior executives are paid,” the Treasury secretary said.
He said he wants compensation at financial institutions to be tied more to their long-term performance, rather than to short-term gains. Should those gains prove ephemeral, the bonuses would be clawed back, he added.
“The basic problem we face across the system is that executives were paid for taking imprudent risks,” Geithner said.
The Federal Reserve has said it will review the 28 largest banks to ensure that compensation doesn’t create incentives for excessively risky investments. It also offered guidelines on making pay more tied to risk management.
To contact the reporters on this story: Rich Miller in Washington rmiller28@bloomberg.net; Christine Harper in New York.
News Source: bloomberg.com
Professionals Business
“It is very important that we change the way these executives are paid, the form of compensation, this year,” Geithner said in an interview yesterday for Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” which is being aired throughout the weekend. “We have to end that era of irresponsibly high bonuses.”
President Barack Obama has blamed compensation tied to excessive risk-taking for fueling the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression. The administration has named a special master to approve compensation packages at firms that have received the biggest government bailouts.
Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s investment bank are set to pay record combined bonuses this year, according to analysts’ estimates. Goldman set a Wall Street pay record in 2007 when its compensation totaled $20.2 billion, including $68.5 million for chairman and chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein.
Blankfein told Vanity Fair magazine in an article published online this week that he thought the company could have survived the financial turmoil on its own without government help. Goldman’s president, Gary Cohn, was more definitive. “I think we would not have failed,” he told the magazine. “We had cash.”
Geithner, 48, took issue with that, saying that the entire financial system was at risk at the height of the crisis, including Wall Street’s big institutions.
‘Classic Bank Run’
“None of them would have survived” had the government stood aside and let the crisis run its course, he said. “The entire U.S. financial system and all the major firms in the country, and even small banks across the country, were at that moment at the middle of a classic run, a classic bank run.”
New York-based Goldman Sachs, the fifth-largest U.S. bank by assets, accepted $10 billion from the Treasury and other forms of government support last year. It has since returned the funds with interest, as have firms including Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley.
Geithner said that most of the money the federal government injected into banks through the Troubled Asset Relief Program will likely be paid back. “We now estimate that we’re probably going to have $175 billion in repayments from the banking system by the end of next year,” he said.
Goldman spokesman Lucas van Praag said the firm recognized that it would have failed had the financial system broken down.
Government Action
“If the financial system collapsed, we would have collapsed too,” he said. “We believe that government action averted a major systemic problem.”
He added that Goldman acted on its own to raise capital amid the turmoil. “We had cash and funding that would have allowed us to survive for quite a long time,” he said.
Geithner said that even institutions that have repaid the government should show restraint in paying out bonuses, arguing that Wall Street’s compensation practices had encouraged excessive risk-taking.
“We want to see fundamental constraints in how senior executives are paid,” the Treasury secretary said.
He said he wants compensation at financial institutions to be tied more to their long-term performance, rather than to short-term gains. Should those gains prove ephemeral, the bonuses would be clawed back, he added.
“The basic problem we face across the system is that executives were paid for taking imprudent risks,” Geithner said.
The Federal Reserve has said it will review the 28 largest banks to ensure that compensation doesn’t create incentives for excessively risky investments. It also offered guidelines on making pay more tied to risk management.
To contact the reporters on this story: Rich Miller in Washington rmiller28@bloomberg.net; Christine Harper in New York.
News Source: bloomberg.com
Professionals Business
Friday, December 4, 2009
Report Faults Film Industry’s Marketing to Children
Movie companies still engage in “explicit and pervasive targeting of young children” with their advertising for movies rated PG-13, and often advertise R-rated films on television shows and Internet sites likely to reach teenagers, the Federal Trade Commission said in a periodic review of entertainment industry marketing practices that was released on Thursday. The report is the seventh in a series that began in 2000, when lawmakers asked for regular monitoring of the marketing of violent entertainment to youth. The reports have found that the marketing of violent images by the film, music and gaming industries has become more restrictive, but that the film industry is putting out more unrated DVDs that may include material more explicit than versions of the same films that were rated R or PG-13 for theatrical release. And retailers sold R-rated DVDs to those under 17 more than half the time in a shopper survey by the commission. The music industry drew criticism for failing to display readable parental-advisory labels in online and television advertising.
The gaming industry, the report said, has “the strongest self-regulatory code,” and has generally strong compliance with its standards.
News Source: nytimes.com
Professionals Business
The gaming industry, the report said, has “the strongest self-regulatory code,” and has generally strong compliance with its standards.
News Source: nytimes.com
Professionals Business
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Afghanistan timetable raises questions
President Obama's plan to expand, then shrink, the U.S. forces fighting the Taliban has critics and supporters at home and in Europe asking for clarification.
Reporting from Washington - President Obama's timetable for rapidly expanding and then shrinking U.S. force levels in Afghanistan, a central feature of his new war strategy, raised questions from critics and supporters alike Wednesday, and left top administration officials struggling to explain the plan.
The war plan presented by the president Tuesday night, which fixes the beginning of troop reductions in July 2011 but does not set an end, was the subject of widespread confusion as lawmakers, diplomats and others debated whether it meant that American forces were headed for a hasty exit or a protracted military engagement.
Richard C. Holbrooke, the special U.S. representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, was sent by Obama to Brussels to explain the policy to European officials. When he arrived Wednesday, he was asked whether the new policy meant that the U.S. military was on the way out.
"Europeans sought clarification on this key point because of confusion over some initial press reports," said Holbrooke, who explained that the drawdown would be based on conditions in Afghanistan, a point Obama made during his speech.
The first American reviews of the plan showed how a policy carefully designed to appeal to differing points of view nonetheless found doubters in virtually all camps.
In Washington, Republicans said it was contradictory to add 30,000 U.S. troops by mid-2010 and begin withdrawing them a year later.
"That gives the wrong impression to our friends; it's the wrong impression to give our enemies," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
Democrats worried that Obama's emphasis on a "conditions-based" withdrawal set up the possibility of an enduring involvement.
"I need to be convinced that . . . we are not making an open-ended commitment and that there is a sensible way to pay for the war," said Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.).
Obama outlined the timetable for his Afghanistan troop buildup during an address at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.
Whipsawed by political pressures, Obama has been eager to show war-weary Americans that he intends to end the eight-year mission, while signaling allies and the enemy that he intends to remain long enough to achieve U.S. goals.
"You can call it contradiction. You can call it challenge," Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said in a televised interview. "The United States, according to the president, has vital national interests there and the United States is going to add 30,000 troops. But in 18 months we're going to start taking those troops out."
Obama and other administration officials have chosen their words carefully in arguing that their approach will help pressure Afghan President Hamid Karzai to build up his security forces and improve the government, winning the support of ordinary Afghans away from Taliban-led insurgents.
Administration officials have also struggled to explain the policy. David Axelrod, a senior White House advisor, said Tuesday: "I'm not putting . . . an end, you know, a timetable. But . . . the president made clear, this is an action that has an end to it."
Gates, under questioning by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, at Wednesday's hearing, explained that the troop drawdown would begin in July 2011, no matter the situation in Afghanistan.
When pressed by McCain, however, Gates portrayed the July 2011 date as less definite, asserting that the president may change his plans as needed.
"The president has indicated that we will have a thorough review of how we're doing in December of 2010, and I think we will be in a position then to evaluate whether or not we can begin that transition in July," Gates said.
Later, Gates conceded that it is possible for Obama to alter the July 2011 date for beginning withdrawals, if conditions require.
"I think the president, as commander in chief, always has the option to adjust his decisions," Gates told Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
The complicated message was interpreted in different ways by different audiences. For instance, Clinton testified that though the decision to withdraw was not irrevocable, the administration had no interest in occupying the country.
News Source: The Los Angeles Times
Professionals Business
Reporting from Washington - President Obama's timetable for rapidly expanding and then shrinking U.S. force levels in Afghanistan, a central feature of his new war strategy, raised questions from critics and supporters alike Wednesday, and left top administration officials struggling to explain the plan.
The war plan presented by the president Tuesday night, which fixes the beginning of troop reductions in July 2011 but does not set an end, was the subject of widespread confusion as lawmakers, diplomats and others debated whether it meant that American forces were headed for a hasty exit or a protracted military engagement.
Richard C. Holbrooke, the special U.S. representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, was sent by Obama to Brussels to explain the policy to European officials. When he arrived Wednesday, he was asked whether the new policy meant that the U.S. military was on the way out.
"Europeans sought clarification on this key point because of confusion over some initial press reports," said Holbrooke, who explained that the drawdown would be based on conditions in Afghanistan, a point Obama made during his speech.
The first American reviews of the plan showed how a policy carefully designed to appeal to differing points of view nonetheless found doubters in virtually all camps.
In Washington, Republicans said it was contradictory to add 30,000 U.S. troops by mid-2010 and begin withdrawing them a year later.
"That gives the wrong impression to our friends; it's the wrong impression to give our enemies," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
Democrats worried that Obama's emphasis on a "conditions-based" withdrawal set up the possibility of an enduring involvement.
"I need to be convinced that . . . we are not making an open-ended commitment and that there is a sensible way to pay for the war," said Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.).
Obama outlined the timetable for his Afghanistan troop buildup during an address at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.
Whipsawed by political pressures, Obama has been eager to show war-weary Americans that he intends to end the eight-year mission, while signaling allies and the enemy that he intends to remain long enough to achieve U.S. goals.
"You can call it contradiction. You can call it challenge," Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said in a televised interview. "The United States, according to the president, has vital national interests there and the United States is going to add 30,000 troops. But in 18 months we're going to start taking those troops out."
Obama and other administration officials have chosen their words carefully in arguing that their approach will help pressure Afghan President Hamid Karzai to build up his security forces and improve the government, winning the support of ordinary Afghans away from Taliban-led insurgents.
Administration officials have also struggled to explain the policy. David Axelrod, a senior White House advisor, said Tuesday: "I'm not putting . . . an end, you know, a timetable. But . . . the president made clear, this is an action that has an end to it."
Gates, under questioning by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, at Wednesday's hearing, explained that the troop drawdown would begin in July 2011, no matter the situation in Afghanistan.
When pressed by McCain, however, Gates portrayed the July 2011 date as less definite, asserting that the president may change his plans as needed.
"The president has indicated that we will have a thorough review of how we're doing in December of 2010, and I think we will be in a position then to evaluate whether or not we can begin that transition in July," Gates said.
Later, Gates conceded that it is possible for Obama to alter the July 2011 date for beginning withdrawals, if conditions require.
"I think the president, as commander in chief, always has the option to adjust his decisions," Gates told Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
The complicated message was interpreted in different ways by different audiences. For instance, Clinton testified that though the decision to withdraw was not irrevocable, the administration had no interest in occupying the country.
News Source: The Los Angeles Times
Professionals Business
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Bobby Bowden, FSU's master of the game, bows out
Bobby Bowden never feared losing because football was never his religion. He could have been a preacher. He chose to be a coach.
But Bowden always feared retirement, which he announced Tuesday. He saw what it did to his father and his idol, Bear Bryant. Retirement killed them. They stopped working, they stopped living.
Perhaps that's why Bowden hung on so long at Florida State, as the garnet-and-gold dynasty he built corroded around him.
To retire was to quit. To quit was to die.
Bowden debated his greatest fear during two days of soul-searching after FSU lost for the sixth consecutive time to Florida and finished the season with a 6-6 record. You could almost hear him, inside the same house he's occupied for all of his 34 years in Tallahassee, talking to his greatest fear in that Alabama drawl.
He had some persuading to do, and no one is a better persuader than Bobby Bowden. Had he become a preacher, he would have recruited the No. 1 class of blue-chip converts every single year.
This time, instead of persuading mamas and daddies and their talented sons to join the Seminoles, he had to persuade himself to say goodbye. He had to decide whether leaving the program was the best way to save it. He had to defeat that persistent fear the way he once defeated rivals.
``I am 80 years old and it is time,'' he said as he began his inner dialogue.
``But you don't want to leave on a low note, after another disappointing season,'' his fear argued back. ``You can turn this thing around, just like Joe Paterno did at Penn State when the vultures were circling. They said he was a doddering old fool, too, and at 82 they adore him again.''
``But sometimes I can't even remember what the score was, like after the Clemson game. I feel useless, ambling along the sideline. I'm still the face of FSU football, but not the brain anymore.''
``You built this program, from an unknown loser to a two-time national champion with an incredible 14-year reign in the top five and an unprecedented, perfect season wire-to-wire run as No. 1 in 1999. You'd have more titles, if not for a few feet to the right of the goalposts against Miami. Wait until next year and retire after victories over the Hurricanes and Gators!''
``But what if we go 6-6 again? We're 16-16 in the ACC the last four seasons. I'd want to stick around another year to fix it, and they'd have to pay Jimbo Fisher $5 million for waiting.''
``Bobby, you could have another Charlie Ward in the wings, another Chris Weinke, a Warrick Dunn or Derrick Brooks. You've sent more than 150 players to the NFL. Don't let Urban Meyer beat you on the best kids. Woo a big name away from Randy Shannon. Where's the competitor in you?''
``Charlie Weis was fired. I can't go out like that. I'm being nudged, I know. I ain't no dummy. It's a year earlier than I planned. But at least it's my decision. This is a what-have-you-done-for-me-last-Saturday business. I have no illusions.''
``Coach, you haven't lost your charisma. You could still sell sand to Lawrence of Arabia. You could still charm the snort out of a rodeo steer. And you are the genuine article, a man to whom kindness matters.''
``I'm a people person. I love 'em dearly. I don't want them to regard me with pity. I don't want to hang on, stubborn as a gravy stain.''
``Bobby, as a kid, you lived in two homes in Birmingham, both adjacent to football fields. You've been coaching for 44 years, won 388 games. Football is like oxygen in your blood. What's going to happen to your body when you're not outside sweating through two-a-days?''
``Change leads to progress. Best to turn it over to Jimbo. Put that silly NCAA cheating scandal in the past. Wrap it up with one last bowl game, the Gator Bowl against West Virginia, where I coached before FSU, and they hung me in effigy after a bad season. They'll call it the Bobby Bowl. I could go out a winner. I got some trick plays up my sleeve.''
``Then what are you going to do with yourself? Remember when you were 13 and spent a year in bed recovering from rheumatic fever, listening on the radio to play-by-by coverage of World War II? Are you going to read more historical nonfiction? Visit more battlefields? Play Scrabble? Rewrite your will?''
``I could spend time with my six kids and grandkids, take Ann on that dream vacation we've discussed for 60 years, do some fundraising, speak in churches.''
``Coach, what about the sound of 80,000 screaming fans? The smell of the locker room? The sight of a receiver leaping for a touchdown catch? The look in the eyes of those boys you've taught to be men? The team needs you. The university needs you. You are Florida State! Coach?''
``Dadgummit. It's time.''
News Source: miamiherald.com
Professionals Business
But Bowden always feared retirement, which he announced Tuesday. He saw what it did to his father and his idol, Bear Bryant. Retirement killed them. They stopped working, they stopped living.
Perhaps that's why Bowden hung on so long at Florida State, as the garnet-and-gold dynasty he built corroded around him.
To retire was to quit. To quit was to die.
Bowden debated his greatest fear during two days of soul-searching after FSU lost for the sixth consecutive time to Florida and finished the season with a 6-6 record. You could almost hear him, inside the same house he's occupied for all of his 34 years in Tallahassee, talking to his greatest fear in that Alabama drawl.
He had some persuading to do, and no one is a better persuader than Bobby Bowden. Had he become a preacher, he would have recruited the No. 1 class of blue-chip converts every single year.
This time, instead of persuading mamas and daddies and their talented sons to join the Seminoles, he had to persuade himself to say goodbye. He had to decide whether leaving the program was the best way to save it. He had to defeat that persistent fear the way he once defeated rivals.
``I am 80 years old and it is time,'' he said as he began his inner dialogue.
``But you don't want to leave on a low note, after another disappointing season,'' his fear argued back. ``You can turn this thing around, just like Joe Paterno did at Penn State when the vultures were circling. They said he was a doddering old fool, too, and at 82 they adore him again.''
``But sometimes I can't even remember what the score was, like after the Clemson game. I feel useless, ambling along the sideline. I'm still the face of FSU football, but not the brain anymore.''
``You built this program, from an unknown loser to a two-time national champion with an incredible 14-year reign in the top five and an unprecedented, perfect season wire-to-wire run as No. 1 in 1999. You'd have more titles, if not for a few feet to the right of the goalposts against Miami. Wait until next year and retire after victories over the Hurricanes and Gators!''
``But what if we go 6-6 again? We're 16-16 in the ACC the last four seasons. I'd want to stick around another year to fix it, and they'd have to pay Jimbo Fisher $5 million for waiting.''
``Bobby, you could have another Charlie Ward in the wings, another Chris Weinke, a Warrick Dunn or Derrick Brooks. You've sent more than 150 players to the NFL. Don't let Urban Meyer beat you on the best kids. Woo a big name away from Randy Shannon. Where's the competitor in you?''
``Charlie Weis was fired. I can't go out like that. I'm being nudged, I know. I ain't no dummy. It's a year earlier than I planned. But at least it's my decision. This is a what-have-you-done-for-me-last-Saturday business. I have no illusions.''
``Coach, you haven't lost your charisma. You could still sell sand to Lawrence of Arabia. You could still charm the snort out of a rodeo steer. And you are the genuine article, a man to whom kindness matters.''
``I'm a people person. I love 'em dearly. I don't want them to regard me with pity. I don't want to hang on, stubborn as a gravy stain.''
``Bobby, as a kid, you lived in two homes in Birmingham, both adjacent to football fields. You've been coaching for 44 years, won 388 games. Football is like oxygen in your blood. What's going to happen to your body when you're not outside sweating through two-a-days?''
``Change leads to progress. Best to turn it over to Jimbo. Put that silly NCAA cheating scandal in the past. Wrap it up with one last bowl game, the Gator Bowl against West Virginia, where I coached before FSU, and they hung me in effigy after a bad season. They'll call it the Bobby Bowl. I could go out a winner. I got some trick plays up my sleeve.''
``Then what are you going to do with yourself? Remember when you were 13 and spent a year in bed recovering from rheumatic fever, listening on the radio to play-by-by coverage of World War II? Are you going to read more historical nonfiction? Visit more battlefields? Play Scrabble? Rewrite your will?''
``I could spend time with my six kids and grandkids, take Ann on that dream vacation we've discussed for 60 years, do some fundraising, speak in churches.''
``Coach, what about the sound of 80,000 screaming fans? The smell of the locker room? The sight of a receiver leaping for a touchdown catch? The look in the eyes of those boys you've taught to be men? The team needs you. The university needs you. You are Florida State! Coach?''
``Dadgummit. It's time.''
News Source: miamiherald.com
Professionals Business
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)