#excel ytd calculation | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

emploimaroc30 · 4 years ago

Text

Centrale Automobile Chérifienne recrute Plusieurs Profils

New Post has been published on https://emploimaroc.net/centrale-automobile-cherifienne-recrute-plusieurs-profils/

Centrale Automobile Chérifienne recrute Plusieurs Profils

Centrale Automobile Chérifienne recrute Plusieurs Profils:

-Contrôleur de Gestion. -Chef d’Equipe Audi. -Superviseur Qualité et Process AV. -Caissier. -Chargé de Communication Digitale. -Conseiller Commercial. -Comptable Clients.

La Centrale Automobile Chérifienne (CAC) est l’importateur exclusif au Maroc des marques Volkswagen, Volkswagen Utilitaires, Audi, Skoda, Porsche et Bentley, ayant chacune développée une réelle identité les rendant uniques sur leur segment de marché.

Dotées d’un fort potentiel de développement au Maroc et à l’international, les marques s’appuient sur des services experts et des compétences mutualisés pour augmenter leur performance et accompagner leur croissance.

La politique Ressources Humaines de la CAC se décline autour de 4 grands axes à l’égard de ses collaborateurs:

-Valoriser leur performance en fixant des objectifs clairs, précis et réalisables

-Fidéliser par la motivation et la reconnaissance

-Développer leur expertise par l’accompagnement, l’amélioration des compétences et la responsabilisation

-Encourager l’évolution de carrière

Nos collaborateurs partagent les mêmes passion et valeurs et ont su construire une véritable culture d’entreprise qui favorise la satisfaction client (interne/externe), l’esprit d’équipe, et l’expertise.

Contrôleur de Gestion

Poste:

Rattaché(e) au Directeur Administratif & Financier, vos missions seront les suivantes:

-Elaboration de Tableaux de bord de pilotage et KPI (Tableaux de bord, indicateurs, procédures de contrôle de gestion…);

-Elaboration du Reporting de Gestion

-Participation au clôture mensuelle et élaboration de P&L analytique

-Elaborer les Reportings SI, Déplacement, gestes commerciaux et services généraux et autres reportings mensuels;

-Elaborer les présentations mensuelles des sites CAC;

-Identifier et analyser les écarts significatifs entre les réalisations N et N-1;

-Animer et coordonner les réunions de présentations des réalisations mensuelles et YTD;

-Suivre et pilotage des actions de réduction des coûts 2020;

-Participation aux Appels d’Offres

-Effectuer des analyses économiques et concurrentielles selon la demande du SAV ou DG.

Profil recherché:

De formation Bac +5 en Contrôle de Gestion, avec une expérience minimum de 5 ans le même poste.

Connaissances:

Comptabilité analytique

Organisation et procédures internes

Principes budgétaires et indicateurs de gestion

Savoir faire techniques:

Analyser les données d’une situation: anomalies de restitution de données, cohérence des données restituées

Calculer des budgets prévisionnels

Définir et mettre en œuvre une procédure et des indicateurs de contrôle et de suivi

Savoir faire relationnels:

Argumenter ses décisions afin de convaincre

Être force de proposition

Faire preuve de rigueur et d’organisation (respect des délais, fiabilité)

Postulez ici

Chef d’Equipe Audi

Poste:

Le (la) Chef d’équipe et responsable de la mise en œuvre de la stratégie commerciale et de l’atteinte des objectifs quantitatifs et qualitatif de son équipe.

Il (elle) dirige une équipe commerciale. Il (elle) doit s’assurer que l’ensemble des équipes qu’il (elle) dirige mettent le client toujours au centre de leurs actions et répondent aux exigences de la marque représentée.

Il (elle) est responsable du développement des compétences de son équipe.

Il (elle) doit veiller au respect des normes des marques et procédures internes.

Profil recherché:

Formation et diplômes: Diplôme Bac +5 Commerce et/ou Management.

Connaissances:

Expérience au minimum de 5 ans dans un poste similaire

Connaissance du marché de l’automobile

Connaissance du fonctionnement d’un show-room automobile et management des équipes

Postulez ici

Superviseur Qualité et Process AV

Mission principale:

-Elaborer et déployer la politique qualité au niveau des opérations après vente, -Mettre en place et analyser cycliquement les processus après vente et établir les plans d’amélioration, -Assurer la réalisation des objectifs tracés par la Direction Après Vente en termes de qualité service.

Tâches Principales:

-Déployer et mettre en place les processus après vente (service et pièces de rechange) tel que recommandé par les marques représentées, -Déploiement et mise en place des programmes de qualité service. -Mettre en place le système de contrôle qualité au niveau des différentes étapes de réparation des véhicules, -Etablir le système de collecte et d’analyse d’informations sur les retours atelier, -Déployer les actions ayant pour objectif la réduction des retours atelier, -Contrôler le processus de préparation des véhicules neufs pour livraison et mettre en place des actions d’amélioration, -Contrôler le stockage des véhicules neufs et s’assurer du respect des recommandations et standards des marques représentées, -Prendre en charge et analyser les réclamations client concernant la qualité du produit, -Assurer le maintien d’un haut niveau d’hygiène au sein des sites après vente, -Suivre le maintien des normes de sécurité.

Profil recherché:

De Formation Ingénieur de préférence en mécanique ou électromécanique ou équivalent, vous bénéficiez d’une expérience de 3 ans minimum dans le secteur automobile.

Qualifications requises:

Langues: -Bonne maîtrise de l’Arabe, du Français et de l’Anglais. -Connaissances en langue Allemande est un atout. Aptitudes requises: -Maîtrise des nouvelles technologies automobile. -Aptitude à formuler et à déployer des plans d’actions en vue d’atteindre les objectifs tracés par la Direction Après Vente. Divers: -Permis de conduire en cours de validité. -Maîtrise de MS office.

Postulez ici

Caissier

Rattaché au Responsable Caisse, vos missions seront les suivantes:

Encaisser les paiements effectués par les clients

Réaliser les contrôles nécessaires pour chaque encaissement

Valider la situation de caisse

Contrôler le fond de caisse

Transmettre les justificatifs de paiements ou de versements au service comptable

Profil recherché:

Minimum niveau bac + 2

Avoir au minimum 3 ans dans un poste similaire

Postulez ici

Chargé de Communication Digitale

Rattaché(e) au Responsable Communication vos missions seront les suivantes:

Proposition, élaboration et mise en œuvre d’un plan annuel de communication digitale.

Assurer la veille technologique sur les coûts et les techniques de communication digitale.

Assurer la veille concurrentielle en termes de stratégie et de supports communication digitale.

Proposition et mise en œuvre des thèmes des campagnes publicitaires.

Elaboration des médias planning et des budgets des différentes campagnes.

Mise en œuvre de la stratégie digitale définie par la direction marketing et Générale.

Veuillez à la mise en place d’un site conformément à la charte des constructeurs et à leurs mises à jour régulières.

Gestion, alimentation et suivi des réseaux sociaux.

Contrôler et assurer la mise en place des activations web avec les agences prestataires.

Assurer la veille concurrentielle.

Profil recherché:

Formation et diplômes

Diplôme Bac +5 en Commerce et/ Marketing et/ou Management.

Connaissances

Expérience au minimum de 3 à 5 ans dans un poste similaire

Connaissance approfondie dans le digitale

Connaissance du marché de l’automobile

Maitrise de la communication et relations publiques

Postulez ici

Conseiller Commercial

Mission principale:

Endosser des fonctions d’ambassadeur de la marque, assister et conseiller les prospects et les clients tout au long du processus de vente et assurer le suivi satisfaction client.

Tâches:

Développer un portefeuille clients en captant les opportunités afin de générer du CA et de la croissance.

Assurer le suivi nécessaire de ce portefeuille de projets et fidéliser les clients

Gestion de la satisfaction des clients après remise du véhicule et remontée des informations

Identification des nouvelles opportunités commerciales

Suivi client annuel pour projet de renouvellement

Profil recherché:

Minimum niveau Bac+4 Commerce/Vente

Connaissance des techniques de vente d’automobile serait un plus

Une expérience d’au moins 4 ans dans le commercial

Postulez ici

Comptable Clients

Missions:

Rapprocher au quotidien les encaissements à la facturation Véhicules Neufs de J-1

S’assurer de l’exactitude de la facture enregistrée sur INCADEA VS le BC sales force pour les clients hors concessionnaires

S’assurer de l’exactitude des factures concessionnaires enregistrées sur INCADEA VS le tarif en vigueur.

Transférer par OD les créances clients particuliers, justifiées par des bons d’enlèvement, aux organismes de crédit appropriés

Transférer par OD les créances taxis, justifiées par des attestations d’éligibilités, au compte ministère intérieur

Contrôler l’authenticité des attestations d’exonérations de la tva relatives à toute facturation en H.T

Profil recherché:

De formation Bac +5 Comptabilité/Finance. Vous maîtriser les normes comptables et de la réglementations fiscale marocaine.

Vous avez une bonne capacité d’analyse, de communication et d’interaction avec les différents partenaires internes et externes à l’entreprise.

Vous êtes organisé, rigoureux et maîtrisez parfaitement Excel et avez une connaissance d’un ERP ou SAP.

Postulez ici

0 notes

presssorg · 6 years ago

Text

Santander reports 18% rise in annual profit as Brazil unit sees strong performance

Santander reports 18% rise in annual profit as Brazil unit sees strong performance Banco Santander reported an 18 percent increase in net income for 2018 on the back of strong growth in the United States, Brazil and Spain. Looking at the bank's annual performance, net income reached 7.81 billion euros ($8.93 billion) last year, compared to 6.62 billion euros in 2017. Related News: Santander Bank to Close 140 of it's Branches

The Spanish bank also reported Wednesday an increase of nearly 4 percent in net income in the last quarter of 2018 from the previous three-month period — reaching 2.07 billion euros. Shares were marginally higher in morning trade on Wednesday. Speaking to CNBC, Ana Botin, the executive chairman at the bank, said she is "extremely proud" of the last three years. "We are extremely proud of what we have achieved these three years, because we have … delivered growth, very few European banks delivered growth. We have delivered more than 20 percent of growth in the top line with profitability and strengthening the balance sheet," she told CNBC's Geoff Cutmore in Madrid. Botin also said that the bank will keep the current strategy, which is "based on customer loyalty and digital excellence."

Looking at the different regions where the bank operates, the United States saw underlying attributable profit up by 42 percent year-on-year; Brazil rose 22 percent and Spain 21 percent. Argentina and the U.K. didn't register positive growth. "We have a lot of faith in Brazil," Botin said. "Brazil suffered one of the most deep recessions in history, there was a 9 percent decrease in GDP and our bank performed very well through that period." She also commented on the appointment of new leader Jair Bolsonaro and his plans for the country. "The plan that they (the government) have to get the pension reform approved is the single most important thing," she said. "There are other things they need to do but I believe you could see 10 years of growth in Brazil at 3, 4 percent." The International Monetary Fund (IMF) lowered its forecasts for global growth last week, citing issues in China, Germany and the U.K. However, Botin told CNBC that lower global growth could be a positive for banks. "There is no doubt there will some slowdown in global growth, but I think that's not bad because it could be a more sustainable growth and that's actually relatively good for banks," she said. "If we have a more sustainable growth, we are going to have margins maybe widening a little bit, with a bit higher rates but not too much — that's good for our non-performing loans and that's also good for demand for credit."

Banco Santander, S.A. (SAN) projected to achieve 2.40% earnings growth for this year

Banco Santander, S.A. (SAN)’s EPS growth Analysis: Out of the important value indicator of stocks, EPS growth rate is most important. It will depend on the stock, the industry and the interest rates. Some stocks rarely if ever have high EPS, while others seem like they are always high. Some industries have lower average historical EPS than others as well. Also interest rates can affect EPS. EPS stands for earning per share. It is calculated as Net Profit/No. of Shares Outstanding. The term earnings per share (EPS) represents the portion of a company’s earnings, net of taxes and preferred stock dividends, that is allocated to each share of common stock.

Generally, companies with positive EPS are more highly valued than companies with negative EPS, and a novice investor should just stick to companies with long track records of profit making. But that is not to say that companies with negative EPS should be avoided. These stocks are extremely attractive to contrarian/special events/distressed securities investors. But it takes a remarkable amount of expertise and knowledge (don’t forget common sense) to be investing in these companies and being successful. Evaluating stocks to buy and sell can be a tricky business, even with all of the data available at your fingertips. Banco Santander, S.A. (SAN) predicted to achieve earnings per share (EPS) growth of 2.40% for this year while EPS growth expected to touch 6.00% for next year. The company reported EPS (ttm) of 0.5. Take a view on its long-term annual earnings per share (EPS) growth rate which is suggested by Analyst to reach at 6.90% for next 5 years and looking its past five year record, annual EPS growth rate was 14.30%. Banco Santander, S.A. (SAN) ticked a yearly performance of -33.23% while year-to-date (YTD) performance stood at 11.16%. The stock price moved with change of -0.99% to its 50 Day low point and changed 18.29% comparing to its 50 Day high point. SAN stock is currently showing positive return of 0.20% throughout last week and witnessed increasing return of 12.42% in one month period. The stock price increased 10.67% in three months and dipped -9.53% for the last six months trading period. The recent session unveiled a 18.29% positive lead over its 52-week stock price low and showed down move of -33.49% over its 52-week high stock price. The stock price volatility remained at 1.66% in recent month and reaches at 1.26% for the week. The Average True Range (ATR) is also a measure of volatility is currently sitting at 0.1. Analysis of Simple Moving Average: Chart patterns can be difficult to read given the volatility in price movements. Moving averages can help smooth out these erratic movements by removing day-to-day fluctuations and make trends easier to spot. Since they take the average of past price movements, moving averages are better for accurately reading past price movements rather than predicting future past movements. The most common type of moving average is the simple moving average, which simply takes the sum of all of the past closing prices over a time period and divides the result by the total number of prices used in the calculation. Moving averages are a powerful tool for traders analyzing securities. They provide a quick glimpse at the prevailing trend and trend strength, as well as specific trading signals for reversals or breakouts. The most common timeframes used when creating moving averages are the 200, 50 and 20-day moving averages. The 200-day moving average is a good measure for a year timeframe, while shorter moving averages are used for shorter timeframes. These moving averages help traders smooth out some of the noise found in day-to-day price movements and give them a clearer picture of the trend. Banco Santander, S.A. (SAN) stock price performed at a change of 4.19% from 20 day SMA and stands at a distance of 6.11% away from 50 day SMA. At present time the stock is moving -5.15% away to its 200-day moving average. Short Ratio of stock is 0.79. Banco Santander, S.A. is a part of Financial sector and belongs to Foreign Money Center Banks industry. Banco Santander, S.A. (SAN) finalized the Monday at price of $4.98 after traded 5820184 shares. The average volume was noted at 8290.64K shares while its relative volume was seen at 0.69. Volume is an important technical analysis tool to learn and understand how to apply to price movements. Volume increases every time a buyer and seller transact their stock or futures contract. If a buyer buys one share of stock from a seller, then that one share is added to the total volume of that particular stock. Volume has two major premises: When prices rise or fall, an increase in volume acts as confirmation that the rise or fall in price is real and that the price movement had strength. When prices rise or fall and there is a decrease in volume, then this might be interpreted as being a weak price move, because the price move had very little strength and interest from traders. Banco Santander, S.A. (SAN) reported fall change of -0.80% in last trading session. It is a positive indicator for investor portfolio value — when the price of a stock Investor owns goes up in value. On the other side it is not a negative indicator for Investor portfolio value — when the price of a stock Investor owns moves down in value. In the liquidity ratio analysis; Total Debt/Equity ratio was 2.46. The return on assets ratio of the Company was 0.50% while its return on investment ratio was 6.80%. Price to sales ratio was 1.31 while Price to sales book ratio stands at 0.81. 1.80% shares of the company were owned by Institutional investors and Insider investors hold stake of 21.00%. Published at Wed, 30 Jan 2019 06:18:00 +0000 Read the full article

#BancoSantander #EarningsReport #santanderbrasil #SantanderBank

0 notes

lenvicacomputersolutions · 5 years ago

Text

Payslip Software and Payslip Formats

Every company is unique, and so are their payslips. And the rules are quite flexible, so you can create your payslip as you want. If you are about to choose a format for your payslip, or about to purchase a payroll software that generates payslips, continue reading and it should help.

Here are some points to consider before you finalize on your payslip software.

1. Contents of a payslip

A payslip usually contains the company name, details about earnings, deductions and net pay. Do you need something more? Probably you also require a company logo, a short address, space for a company seal, and space for employee to sign. You may also require an attendance, leave and income tax summary within your payslip.

2. Customizable Payslips

Is it possible to customize your payslips as you want? Can you decide what appears in your payslip and what not? You should be able to decide and control what appears on your payslips. The payroll software should allow you to design your payslip.

3. Payslip with leave balances

It would be good for you and for your employees, if you were displaying leave balances in payslips. In this case, the payslip has clear information about how many leaves he is entitled to, enabling him to plan his leaves in the upcoming month.

4. Payslip with YTD

YTD stands for ‘year to date’, and is widely used nowadays. Basically, YTD is the total of transactions from the start of the financial year up to now. For eg. If you are on the last month of the financial year, the YTD for ‘Basic Pay’ shows how much you received as ‘Basic Pay’ for the whole year.

5. Payslip with carry forwarded values

It is handy to pay out employee wages rounded to the nearest multiple of 10 or to the nearest integer. But in that case, there should be an option to automatically carry forward the residue to the next month.

6. Payslips with different currencies

Sometimes, you want to pay your employees with different currencies. An employee working overseas gets paid in USD, but the payslip is generated at your place. So, in that case, you want to pay some of your employees in USD, and the others in local currency.

7. Calculation History for each payslip

Every payslip is a result of some calculations, but how to verify if the values are correct? You just cannot blindly trust a payroll software, you need to verify and convince yourself. A good payroll software should have a calculation history for each item in the payslip, thereby providing clarity on calculations.

8. Bulk email of payslips to employees

You may have several employees, and you are ready with your payslips, but how to send it to all your employees? If you have just a few employees, it doesn’t matter. Otherwise, it does matter, and it should be possible to email payslips to your employees in a few clicks, if you have a good payroll software.

AttendHRM is an HR

Payroll Software

with excellent features including all features listed above.

Download a trial

and get started Now!

#Time attendance #payroll #software #device #access control

0 notes

mikemortgage · 7 years ago

Text

Home Capital Announces Third Quarter Results along with Board Approval for a Substantial Issuer Bid of up to $300 Million in the Fourth Quarter and Intention to Apply to the TSX for a Normal Course Issuer Bid Effective 2019

TORONTO — Home Capital Group Inc. (“Home Capital” or “the Company”) (TSX:HCG) today reported financial results for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2018. This press release should be read in conjunction with the Company’s 2018 Third Quarter Report including Financial Statements and Management’s Discussion and Analysis which are available on Home Capital’s website at www.homecapital.com and on SEDAR at www.sedar.com.

“Our third quarter results demonstrate continued progress in all lines of business,” said Yousry Bissada, Chief Executive Officer. “Our commitment to servicing the customer in partnership with the broker community, and the development of our Oaken product line, have proven to be the right strategy for long-term success in our business. We are excited to take the next steps in our digital journey. Our plans for a substantial issuer bid and a normal course issue bid demonstrate our confidence in our business and outlook.”

Income Statement

Income:

Net interest margin was 2.03% compared with 1.91% in Q2 2018 and 1.85% in Q3 2017. Net interest margin in the quarter increased due to the reduced cost associated with the standby credit facility that was replaced at the end of Q2 2018. An improved asset mix also contributed to the increase.

Expenses:

Non-interest expenses increased by $176 thousand or 0.3% from Q2 2018 resulting from an increase in salaries and benefits offset largely by lower operating expenses. The result from Q2 included a reversal of $1.8 million of estimated severance expenses in Q2 2018 related to the Project EXPO expense savings initiative completed in 2017.

Non-interest expenses declined $4.3 million or 7.2% from Q3 2017 mainly due to a decrease in both salaries and benefits, and other operating expenses related to the liquidity event in Q2 2017.

Net income:

Net income for the third quarter was $32.6 million or 41 cents per share, an increase of 10.1% over Q2 net income of $29.6 million or 37 cents per share and an 8.7% increase over net income of $30.0 million or 37 cents per share reported in Q3 2017.

Balance Sheet

Asset growth:

Mortgage originations were $1.44 billion in Q3 2018, up 16.7% over Q2 originations of $1.23 billion and up 272.9% over originations of $385.1 million in Q3 2017.

Single-family residential mortgage originations were $1.02 billion in Q3 2018, an increase of $66.7 million or 7.0% from Q2 2018 and $792.0 million from Q3 2017.

Total loans at the end of the quarter were $16.04 billion, an increase of $594.8 million or 3.9% from Q2 2018 and an increase of $973.1 million or 6.5% from Q4 2017.

Loans under administration were $22.82 billion, up 1.4% from Q2 2018 and up 1.3% from the end of 2017.

Funding:

Total deposits were $12.36 billion compared to $12.50 billion at the end of Q2 2018 and $12.17 billion at the end of Q4 2017.

Brokered GICs totaled $9.27 billion compared with $9.55 billion at the end of Q2 2018 and $9.35 billion at the end of Q4 2017. Oaken GICs totaled $2.37 billion compared with $2.23 billion at the end of Q2 2018 and $1.81 billion at the end of Q4 2017.

Credit Quality:

Total provision for credit losses was $4.0 million in Q3 2018 compared with $6.5 million in Q2 2018, and recovery of $4.3 million in Q3 2017. Provision expense as a percentage of gross uninsured loans was 0.13% compared to 0.22% in Q2 2018. Provisions in Q3 were driven mainly by activity in both the residential and commercial mortgage portfolios. Provisions for credit losses were calculated under IFRS 9 for 2018 and under IAS 39 for 2017. As provisions for credit losses for 2017 were not restated, comparability of the provision is reduced to some extent.

Net non-performing loans (represented by Stage 3 loans under IFRS 9) as a percentage of gross loans remained low at 0.34% at the end of Q3 2018, unchanged from Q2 2018 and up from 0.30% at the end of Q4 2017.

Leadership Appointments:

Dr. Hossein Rahnama, previously an advisor to the Board of Directors, has now joined the Board of Directors effective November 6, 2018. We had previously announced that Sue Hutchison joined the Board of Directors effective September 27, 2018. In preparation for the next steps in the advancement of the Company’s vision for company-wide digital capability, Benjy Katchen, Executive Vice President, Deposits and Consumer Lending, has been appointed to the new role of Chief Digital and Strategy Officer.

Substantial Issuer Bid and Normal Course Issuer Bid:

The Board has authorized the initiation of a substantial issuer bid (SIB) pursuant to which the Company will offer to purchase for cancellation up to $300 million of its common shares. The Company expects that the terms of the bid will be announced on or about Monday, November 12, 2018 and that the bid will be completed by the end of the fourth quarter. Upon completing the SIB, the Company intends to apply to the Toronto Stock Exchange (“TSX”) for a Normal Course Issuer Bid to be effective in its next fiscal year.

Outlook:

The Company expects that market conditions experienced in the third quarter will continue for the balance of 2018. The growth in originations suggests our lending market has begun to absorb the impact of the new mortgage rules and is adjusting to a higher interest rate environment. “We are confident that our focus on service excellence, underpinned by a robust internal risk culture, will continue to drive growth and profitability in our core business,” said Mr. Bissada. “We are excited to embark on the next phase of transforming our business, including executing our substantial issuer bid and investing in digital enablement.”

YOUSRY BISSADA

PAUL DERKSEN

President and Chief Executive Officer Chair of the Board

The Company’s 2018 Third Quarter Report, including Management’s Discussion and Analysis, for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2018 is available at www.homecapital.com and on the Canadian Securities Administrators’ website at www.sedar.com.

Third Quarter 2018 Results Conference Call and Slide Presentation Webcast

The conference call will take place on Wednesday, November 7, 2018, at 8:00 a.m. ET. Participants are asked to call approximately 10 minutes in advance at toll-free 1-844-899-4831 throughout North America. Participants calling from outside of North America may dial 1-647-689-5401. The call will also be accessible in listen-only mode on Home Capital’s website at www.homecapital.com in the Investor Relations section of the website.

Conference Call Archive

A telephone replay of the call will be available between 11:00 a.m. ET Wednesday, November 7, 2018 and midnight ET Wednesday, November 14, 2018 by calling 416-621-4642 or 1-800-585-8367 (enter passcode 6382499). The archived audio webcast will be available for 90 days on Home Capital’s website at www.homecapital.com.

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

(Unaudited) For the three months ended (000s, except Percentage and Per Share Amounts) September 30 June 30 September 30 Sequential 2018 2018 2017 Change INCOME STATEMENT HIGHLIGHTS1 Net Interest Income $ 89,847 $ 84,129 $ 88,762

6.8% Net Interest Margin (TEB)2 2.03% 1.91% 1.85% 12 bps Efficiency Ratio (TEB)2 52.9% 54.5% 62.7% (160) bps Provision for Credit Losses $ 3,990 $ 6,487 $ (4,257) (38.5)% Provision as a Percentage of Gross Loans (annualized) 0.10% 0.17% (0.11)% (7) bps Net Income $ 32,600 $ 29,606 $ 29,983 10.1% Diluted Earnings per Share $ 0.41 $ 0.37 $ 0.37 10.8% Return on Shareholders’ Equity (annualized) 6.9% 6.4% 6.8% 50 bps ORIGINATIONS Total Mortgage Originations $ 1,435,793 $ 1,230,208 $ 385,065 16.7% Single-Family Residential Mortgage Originations 1,015,998 949,339 223,964 7.0% As at September 30 June 30 December 31 YTD 2018 2018 2017 Change BALANCE SHEET HIGHLIGHTS1 Total Assets $ 17,882,017 $ 17,935,799 $ 17,591,143 1.7% Total Assets Under Administration3 24,657,402 25,001,732 25,040,182 (1.5)% Total Loans4 16,042,702 15,447,928 15,069,636 6.5% Total Loans Under Administration3,4 22,818,087 22,513,861 22,518,675 1.3% Total Deposits 12,361,030 12,496,704 12,170,454 1.6% Demand Deposits 419,664 411,056 539,364 (22.2)% FINANCIAL STRENGTH1 Capital Measures5 Common Equity Tier 1 Capital Ratio 23.27% 23.21% 23.17% Leverage Ratio 9.20% 8.96% 8.70% Credit Quality Net Non-Performing Loans as a Percentage of Gross Loans 0.34% 0.34% 0.30% Allowance as a Percentage of Gross Non-Performing Loans 71.0% 71.0% 79.5% Share Information Book Value per Common Share $ 23.82 $ 23.40 $ 22.60 Number of Common Shares Outstanding 80,246 80,246 80,246

1 The amounts pertaining to 2018 have been prepared in accordance with IFRS 9 Financial Instruments (IFRS 9); prior period amounts have not been restated and have been prepared in accordance with IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement (IAS 39). Please see Note 2 in the unaudited interim consolidated financial statements included in the 2018 Third Quarter Report for further information. 2 See definition of Taxable Equivalent Basis (TEB) under Non-GAAP Measures included in the 2018 Third Quarter Report. 3 Total assets and loans under administration include both on- and off-balance sheet amounts. 4 Total loans include loans held for sale and are presented gross of allowance for credit losses, for all periods presented. 5 These figures relate to the Company’s operating subsidiary, Home Trust Company.

Caution Regarding Forward-looking Statements

From time to time Home Capital Group Inc. makes written and verbal forward-looking statements. These are included in the Annual Report, periodic reports to shareholders, regulatory filings, press releases, Company presentations and other Company communications. Forward-looking statements are made in connection with business objectives and targets, Company strategies, operations, anticipated financial results and the outlook for the Company, its industry, and the Canadian economy. These statements regarding expected future performance are “financial outlooks” within the meaning of National Instrument 51-102. Please see the risk factors, which are set forth in detail in the Risk Management section of the 2018 Third Quarter Report, as well as the Company’s other publicly filed information, which is available on the System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval (SEDAR) at www.sedar.com, for the material factors that could cause the Company’s actual results to differ materially from these statements. These risk factors are material risk factors a reader should consider, and include credit risk, liquidity and funding risk, structural interest rate risk, operational risk, investment risk, strategic risk, reputational risk, compliance risk and capital adequacy risk along with additional risk factors that may affect future results. Forward-looking statements can be found in the Report to the Shareholders and the Outlook section in the 2018 Third Quarter Report. Forward-looking statements are typically identified by words such as “will,” “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “should,” “estimate,” “plan,” “forecast,” “may,” and “could” or other similar expressions.

By their very nature, these statements require the Company to make assumptions and are subject to inherent risks and uncertainty, general and specific, which may cause actual results to differ materially from the expectations expressed in the forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, global capital market activity, changes in government monetary and economic policies, changes in interest rates, inflation levels and general economic conditions, legislative and regulatory developments, competition and technological change. The preceding list is not exhaustive of possible factors.

These and other factors should be considered carefully and readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. The Company presents forward-looking statements to assist shareholders in understanding the Company’s assumptions and expectations about the future that are relevant in management’s setting of performance goals, strategic priorities and outlook. The Company presents its outlook to assist shareholders in understanding management’s expectations on how the future will impact the financial performance of the Company. These forward-looking statements may not be appropriate for other purposes. The Company does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements, whether written or verbal, that may be made from time to time by it or on its behalf, except as required by securities laws.

Assumptions about the performance of the Canadian economy in 2018 and its effect on Home Capital’s business are material factors the Company considers when setting strategic priorities and outlook. In determining expectations for economic growth, both broadly and in the financial services sector, the Company primarily considers historical and forecasted economic data provided by the Canadian government and its agencies and other third-party providers. In setting and reviewing its strategic priorities and outlook for the remainder of 2018, management’s expectations continue to assume:

The Canadian economy is expected to be relatively stable for the remainder of 2018. However, the impact of the renegotiated trade agreement with the United States and Mexico remains uncertain as does the impact from other global trade relations.

Stable employment conditions in its established regions. Also, the Company expects inflation will generally be within the Bank of Canada’s target of 1% to 3%, leading to stable credit losses and demand for the Company’s lending products in its established regions.

The Canadian economy will continue to be influenced by the economic conditions in the United States and global markets; as such, the Company is prepared for the variability that may result.

The Bank of Canada is expected to continue to raise interest rates in 2019.

Current and expected levels of housing activity indicate a relatively stable real estate market overall and in particular for the Company’s key Greater Toronto Area (GTA) market. Please see Market Conditions under the 2018 Outlook in the Company’s 2018 Third Quarter Report for more discussion on the Company’s expectations for the housing market.

Debt service levels will remain manageable by Canadian households in 2018, however high levels of consumer debt make the economy more vulnerable to rising interest rates and any economic weaknesses resulting from trade disputes.

Access to the mortgage and deposit markets through broker networks will be maintained.

Non-GAAP Measures

The Company has adopted IFRS as its accounting framework. IFRS are the generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for Canadian publicly accountable enterprises for years beginning on or after January 1, 2011. The Company uses a number of financial measures to assess its performance. Some of these measures are not calculated in accordance with GAAP, are not defined by GAAP, and do not have standardized meanings that would ensure consistency and comparability between companies using these measures. Definitions of non-GAAP measures can be found under Non-GAAP Measures in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis included in the Company’s 2018 Third Quarter Report.

Regulatory Filings

The Company’s continuous disclosure materials, including interim filings, annual Management’s Discussion and Analysis and audited consolidated financial statements, Annual Information Form, Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders, and Proxy Circular are available on the Company’s website at www.homecapital.com and on the Canadian Securities Administrators’ website at www.sedar.com.

About Home Capital

Home Capital Group Inc. is a public company, traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange (HCG), operating through its principal subsidiary, Home Trust Company. Home Trust is a federally regulated trust company offering residential and non-residential mortgage lending, securitization of insured residential mortgage products, consumer lending and credit card services. In addition, Home Trust offers deposits via brokers and financial planners, and through a direct to consumer brand, Oaken Financial. Home Trust also conducts business through its wholly owned subsidiary, Home Bank. Licensed to conduct business across Canada, we have offices in Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Manitoba.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20181107005296/en/

Contacts

Home Capital Group Inc. Jill MacRae, 416-933-4991 Director, Investor Relations [email protected]

from Financial Post https://ift.tt/2RIMqAv via IFTTT Blogger Mortgage Tumblr Mortgage Evernote Mortgage Wordpress Mortgage href="https://www.diigo.com/user/gelsi11">Diigo Mortgage

#IFTTT #Financial Post

0 notes

rebeccahpedersen · 7 years ago

Text

Quick Hits!

TorontoRealtyBlog

“Little bit ‘a lotta things” today, as they say.

They who? I don’t know. But it sounded good when I wrote it.

I’m going to cover five or six topics today, all noteworthy & newsworthy, all free for your commentary. Although I think I already know which one will get solicit the most opinion…

How Can You Put A Price On Emotion?

If you didn’t read about this story a couple of weeks ago, then I’m so happy to be the one bringing it to your attention.

Sellers of a Beaches home have decided that they will not sell their property to the highest bidder, but rather, “a deserving young family who will benefit from the neighbourhood and preserve and enrich the community,” as the MLS listing states.

Here’s a Toronto Star article from May 15th:

“For sellers of this semi-detached home, a deserving family trumps price”

“This is about putting a nice young family in there. We’re not interested in a bidding war or anything like that,” the deceased seller’s daughter said.

As soon as this article came out, however, the reaction was just oh-so-perfect for the confusing times in 2018, in that the peanut gallery took a positive, and turned it into a negative.

That’s right; the peanut gallery started to call discrimination.

It is, I suppose.

Accepting the highest offer is an easy way to pick a winner. But when you start examining people, their personalities, their lives, their values, and start putting a value on their self-worth, then surely that does become, by very definition of the word, “discriminatory.”

We’ll never know how the sellers decided to pick the winner, and for many, that’s the problem.

Personally, I think it’s the sellers’ right to sell to whoever they want, for whatever reasons.

But what if behind closed doors, they never intended to sell the house to a person of a particular race, age, demographic, sexual orientation, etc?

Wow. Do you see what we’ve done as a society? Our glass is half empty. We create “what-if” scenarios, and then debate them. I miss the 1980’s…

In any event, the clamouring died down a little bit, and the sale went forward.

Low and behold, the house sold for the asking price, and no more.

I wonder what it’ll be like for that new family, with everybody in the neighbourhood asking, “What did they do, or who are they, to ‘win’ that house?”

–

Who Doesn’t Love A New Tax?

Wasn’t this simply a matter of time?

“York Region demands power to bring in new taxes”

To the surprise of just about nobody, one of the taxes at the top of the list is a land transfer tax.

For those youngin’s out there, I do recall a time when the sale of properties in Toronto only had one land transfer tax!

Ah, the good old days! When buying a $900,000 home only came with a $14,475 raping of the wallet, for absolutely no reason.

Then along came David Miller, who didn’t realize that “2 x 1 = 2,” and the tax doubled overnight.

Now it’s almost $30,000 to simply move.

Tell me I’m biased because I’m in real estate, but this tax, in my opinion, is the most bizarre tax I’ve ever seen. The tax isn’t tied to anything! Garbage pickup, hydro, sewer and water – all the services associated with a home are paid for via property taxes! What is the land transfer tax tied to? It’s a nothing tax.

In any event, York Region councillors are demanding that the government of Ontario give them power to increase, and create new taxes. They’re facing a $220 Million budget shortfall, and while a fiscal conservative like myself might suggest reducing spending, the obvious answer for anybody in government is simply to increase taxes.

I think it’s prudent to keep in mind just how hard York Region has been hit with the decline in real estate prices in the last 12 months.

May I remind you of the chart from a blog post earlier this month:

(yes I know that chart is prettier than my usual screenshots from Excel, but I gussied it up for the Toronto Life presentation last night…)

York Region prices are down 20.6%, April YTD.

Adding another land transfer tax isn’t exactly going to help stabilize real estate prices, but perhaps the government doesn’t care?

–

F*** The Rich!

This is old news, but it was recently brought up again via an interaction I had with a buyer client.

This client is looking to purchase for $4,500,000, and was last active in November of 2016.

He’s been away for 18 months, and when calculating the expenses associated with his purchase, he was using his old spreadsheet – from 2016.

Little did he know, the government’s rebate on land transfer tax for first-time home buyers in 2017 was offset by an increase in land transfer tax for luxury homes.

Do you guys even remember this? It’s like it almost didn’t make headlines.

Land transfer tax was increased from 2.0% to 2.5% on the portion of purchase price over $2,000,000.

That means an additional $12,500 in land transfer tax payable.

$12,500?

Really? Am I making a fuss about this?

$12,500 in the context of a $4,500,000 house is a rounding error!

But what if I told you that the total amount of land transfer tax payable on this purchase was $197,950? What then?

It’s tough to define the word “fair” in today’s world, especially in the context of politics and governance.

But I’d love to know what you all think. As I alluded to in the previous point, people don’t really “get anything” for their payment of land transfer tax. Is shelling out nearly $200,000, fair? And would any of you subscribe to the simple theory that “These people can afford to pay it?”

–

Have You Seen My Agent? I Can’t Find Her…

This is a great story.

And by “great,” I mean it’s entertaining. But in reality, it’s sad, and pathetic.

I was set to receive offers on a listing last week, and I got a call around 5:30pm from a young lady who asked, “What time are offers?”

I told her we were going to review offers at 7:00pm.

I asked, “Are you an agent?” since I assumed she was. But she said, “No, I’m not, but I’d like to submit an offer.”

I wasn’t sure if she meant through me, or not. So I simply asked, and she said, “Maybe, I’m not sure yet.”

I dragged the situation out of her – it seems that she had a buyer agent working for her, who works out of Oakville, but she couldn’t get ahold of the agent. She said she had been trying “all day,” and she knew “something was wrong” when her agent didn’t email her on the morning of offers (let alone, the night before…) to tell her that offers would be reviewed at 7pm, remind her she needs a deposit cheque, etc.

Imagine that.

You hire somebody to represent you, and they do anything but.

“What about somebody at the brokerage?” I asked her. “If your agent is away on vacation, surely she has somebody to look after her business, right?”

“I don’t know,” she told me. “I’m not sure how she runs her business; she’s often hard to reach. What can I do here? What are my options?” she asked me.

“If you want to make an offer, that can happen,” I explained. “You can do so through any agent, any brokerage, whoever you want.” I told her.

She asked if she could make the offer through me, and I explained that I was representing the seller, and while it’s technically possible, I don’t like multiple representation, and I’d rather her work with somebody from my brokerage. Or another brokerage. It was totally up to her.

I further explained the buyer representation rules and regulations, and explained the difference between a Buyer Representation Agreement and a Customer Service Agreement and that’s when she said something amazing: “I’ve already signed a buyer representation agreement with my agent.”

Well, crap.

“For me to speak to you about this property, a potential offer, and your options, technically, is interfering with a buyer under contract,” I explained. “The B.R.A. is signed with the brokerage, not the agent,” I told her. “So you can make the offer through anybody at the brokerage.”

Then I asked her, “Which brokerage is it?”

Even more amazingly, she said, “I don’t know.”

“You don’t know?” I asked. “Re/Max, Royal Lepage, Homelife, Century 21, Chestnut Park, Keller Williams,” I went on, and on, and on.

“Nothing rings a bell,” she told me.

So I told her quite honestly, “You’re under contract with a brokerage, working with an agent that you can’t get in touch with. I honestly don’t think I can help you.”

And this isn’t about commission, in case you’re wondering. The truth is, I’m not sure if I could have even drafted the offer for her to sign, and submitted it on her behalf – with the full understanding that she was working with another brokerage, and they would receive the commission. I just can’t interfere with somebody else’s client. It’s very simple.

I felt bad for the girl. I told her to call the brokerage, and ask for the manager or the broker of record, to see if they could help.

Then she reminded me that she didn’t know which brokerage it was, and I essentially gave up.

I don’t know that there’s a moral of the story, a conclusion, or any takeaway her. It’s just really unfortunate.

–

“What Goes Up Must Come Down……Most Of The Time”

We see a lot of real estate “fluff” columns in the newspapers, so I love seeing something new and interesting; something I haven’t read about before.

Shane Dingman from the Globe & Mail wrote an interesting, albeit depressing piece last week:

“Elevators a let-down for Toronto condo dwellers”

According to the article, condominiums have the lowest rate of elevator “availability” at 93%, which translates to 25 out-of-service days per year.

But the really interesting part of the article was about one specific building in Toronto: 59 East Liberty Street.

Apparently none of the elevators were in service at one point, and residents were without options – other than the stairs.

One of the three elevators has been out of service for a year!

And what of the board of directors?

They told residents not to voice any displeasure; not to “tweet, talk to the media, or make waves.”

What a mess.

The article is a solid read – click the link above.

The post Quick Hits! appeared first on Toronto Real Estate Property Sales & Investments | Toronto Realty Blog by David Fleming.

Originated from https://ift.tt/2Jno6DI

0 notes

simonconsultancypage · 8 years ago

Text

What to Watch Now in the World of D&O

Every year just after Labor Day, I take a step back and survey the most important current trends and developments in the world of Directors’ and Officers’ liability and D&O insurance. This year’s survey is set out below. Once again, there are a host of things worth watching in the world of D&O.

Will Securities Class Action Lawsuits Filings Continue Their Record Pace?

Year to date, as of September 1, 2017, 299 federal court securities class action lawsuits have been filed, representing a pace of securities suit filings that if continued would set an annual record. The 299 filings so far this year also already exceed the 272 securities suit filings during the full year 2016. The filing total through the year’s first eight months projects to a year-end total of 448, which would be the highest annual number of securities suit filings since 2001, when a flood of IPO laddering cases swelled the filing totals. An annual total of 448 filings would exceed the 1996-2015 annual average of 188 securities suit filings by 138%.

The high number of 2017 federal court securities suit filings is in part a reflection of the shift of merger objection lawsuits from state to federal court. As discussed further below, because of the hostility of the Delaware Court of Chancery to the disclosure-only settlements that frequently resolve these kinds of cases, the plaintiffs’ lawyers are filing these suits in federal court.

However, even if the federal court merger objection lawsuit filings are disregarded, the YTD pace of securities suit filings is still at extraordinary levels. Through the first eight months of the year, there were 168 traditional securities lawsuit filings, which projects to a year-end total of 252 traditional securities suit filings. A total of 252 traditional filings would far exceed the 170 traditional securities lawsuit filings during the full year 2016, and would exceed the 1996-2015 annual filings average of 188 by 34%.

The volume of securities suit filings is all the more striking if the decline in the number of publicly traded companies is taken into account. Due to bankruptcies, mergers, and going private transactions, there are 46% fewer publicly traded companies now than there were in 1996. The increase in the number of securities suit filings together with the decline in the number of publicly traded companies means that the litigation rate has increased substantially compared to historical levels. Measured as of June 30, 2017, and including the merger objection lawsuits, the 2017 filings were on pace for a litigation rate of 9.5% — compared to a comparable litigation rate for the full year 2016 of 5.6% and a 2.8% annual average litigation rate for the period 1996-2015. A 9.5% litigation rate essentially means that one of ten publicly traded companies will get hit with a securities suit this year.

Even if we disregard the merger objection lawsuits, the projected year-end 2017 total of 252 traditional lawsuits implies a litigation rate of 5.4%, which again would far exceed the 2016 litigation rate for traditional lawsuits of 3.9%. The implied 2017 litigation rate for traditional filings is nearly double the 1997-2015 average annual litigation rate of 2.8%.

What is behind this extraordinary increase in the litigation rate? The likeliest explanation is that increased levels of securities suit filings reflect changes in the plaintiffs’ securities class action bar. As Prof. Michael Klausner and Jason Hegland of Stanford Law School detailed in a guest post on this blog (here), since 2009, a significantly larger number of securities class action lawsuits (both in terms of absolute numbers of lawsuit filings and in terms of percentage of all lawsuits filed) are now being filed by a group of small plaintiffs’ firms that were not previously active in filing securities lawsuits. The activities of these “emerging law firms” appear to account for a large proportion of recent increased numbers of securities class action lawsuits filings.

In an August 22, 2017 Wall Street Journal article discussing the extraordinary rise in the rate of securities litigation filings (here), a comment by an attorney at one of the emerging firms seemed to corroborate the conjecture that changes in plaintiffs’ bar’s approach explain the rise in the pace of securities suit filings. The attorney agreed that his firm and others have filed a broader range of cases in recent years, calling it a “necessary adaptation as the more obvious accounting misstatements have become scarcer.”

The changes in securities litigation filing patterns have important implications both for listed companies and for their insurers. Long-term securities litigation frequency risks have changed categorically. This means not only that publicly-traded companies now face an overall greater risk of securities class action litigation than in the past, but it also means that their D&O insurers also may be facing a significantly increased litigation frequency risk as well. To the extent that insurers’ pricing models are not taking these increased risks into account, their pricing calculations may result in premium charges that come up short.

How Will President Trump’s Judicial Nominees Shape the Federal Judiciary?

President Trump’s appointment of Neal Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court represents one of his administration’s early accomplishments. However, as important as the U.S. Supreme Court is, it is in the lower federal courts that the Trump administration may have its most significant impact.

The clamor of day-to-day White House activity dominates the news media’s attention, but in the meantime, the Trump administration has quietly been moving forward to fill the vacancies on the lower federal courts. The Trump administration also has been moving at what has been described as a “breakneck pace” to place its nominees in the federal judiciary. The President’s efforts to put his nominees on the federal bench could have a far greater impact than his more attention-grabbing activities.

There are a significant number of vacancies on the federal bench for President Trump to fill. As of September 1, 2017, there were 144 federal court judicial vacancies, representing over 16% of the authorized federal judgeships.

As of August 31, 2017, the Senate has confirmed including six Trump administration judicial nominees, including one Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, three judges for the United States Courts of Appeals, and one judge for the United States District Courts. However, of even greater significance, and as of the same date, there are 30 Trump administration nominations to federal court judgeships awaiting Senate action, including eight for the Courts of Appeals and 22 for the District Courts.

As Democratic Senator Chris Coons, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee was recently quoted as saying, President Trump’s influence on the federal judiciary as a result of his nominations “will be the single most important legacy of the Trump administration,” adding with respect to the kinds of candidates that the Trump administration has been nominating, “given their youth and conservatism, they will have a significant impact on the shape and trajectory of American law for decades.”

Some of Trump administration’s nominees to the federal judiciary have proven to be controversial, most of Trump’s judicial nominees have, as Jeffrey Toobin noted in a recent New Yorker article, “excellent formal qualifications.” More to the point in terms of possible consequences of Trump’s judicial nominations, Toobin noted that “Trump is poised to reshape the judiciary in a notably conservative direction.”

With the benefit of a Republican-controlled Senate, the Trump administration appears well-positioned to continue to place its nominees on the federal bench. The decidedly conservative cast of the administration’s nominees will have a significant impact on the proceedings in the lower federal courts for years to come. This impact may take a number of forms, but among other things, one likely impact would seem to be a more defendant-friendly approach to business disputes and other commercial matters, at least to the extent the adminitration’s nominees share the President’s anti-regulation, business-friendly outlook. To the extent this defendant-friendly approach actually materializes, it could prove to provide a significant boost to corporate litigants and their D&O insurers.

What Impact Will President Trump’s Political Appointments Have on D&O Claims?

Beyond his judicial appointment authority, President Trump’s authority to make executive branch and other political appointments affords him, through his administration, enormous power to set policy, promulgate or revise regulation, and determine the direction of the government and its course of conduct. As Michael Lewis’s potent July 26, 2017 Vanity Fair article about U.S. Department of Energy under the Trump administration demonstrates, the President’s executive branch nominations and other political appointments potentially can have a dramatic impact on the policies and activities of the U.S. government and on its fulfillment of its responsibilities.

Two of President Trump’s appointments have the greatest potential to have a significant impact on companies and their directors and officers. First, the President appointed Senator Jeff Sessions as the Attorney General and head of the U.S. Department of Justice. Sessions is a former prosecutor and U.S. Attorney with a well-established reputation as defender of “law and order.” While he is well known for his focus on drug enforcement issues, he has also made it clear that he is prepared to be active on white collar crime issues. In his confirmation hearings as well as in numerous prior public statements, Sessions has made it clear that he places a high priority on fighting corporate misbehavior.

Though Sessions has moved quickly to reverse Obama administration policies in a number of areas, expectations are that he will continue the Obama’s aggressive approach to white collar crime enforcement. In a May speech, Sessions affirmed that would continue to vigorously enforce the nation’s anti-fraud laws, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), stating with respect to law enforcement that “one area where this is critical is enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.”

One particularly important question about the Department of Justice under Sessions is the extent to which the agency will continue to enforce the so-called Yates Memo, which embodied the prior administration’s policy of seeking to hold individual executives accountable for corporate misconduct. Though the Department administration will no longer refer to this policy as the Yates Memo, expectations are that the new administration will continue the policy of seeking to hold individuals accountable. Indeed, in his May speech, Sessions specifically said that “The Department of Justice will continue to emphasize the importance of holding individuals accountable for corporate misconduct.”

President Trump’s appointee as Chairman of the SEC, Jay Clayton, is a Wall Street lawyer who has made a career representing large financial firms and other corporate clients in financial transactions and regulatory matters. His client list included most of the largest banks on Wall Street; his wife works for Goldman Sachs. His law practice generally did not include representing clients in connection with enforcement matters. His background contrasts from that of his predecessor, Mary Jo White, who was a career prosecutor who brought to her job a lifetime reputation as a “tough cop.” All else equal, it seems likelier that priority of the agency under Clayton would be more toward regulatory and finance issues, rather than toward enforcement issues.

Just the same, in a July 12, 2017 speech, Clayton made a point of emphasizing that “I fully intend to continue deploying significant resources to root out fraud and shady practices in the markets, particularly in areas where Main Street investors are most exposed.” He also said that “the Commission will continue to use its enforcement and examination authority to support market integrity.” One particular area he chose to emphasize in his speech is corporate responsibility for disclosure relating to cybersecurity. He said that “public companies have a clear obligation to disclose material information about cyber risks and cyber events. I expect them to take this requirement seriously.”

In the past, Clayton contributed to a white paper suggesting that rigorous FCPA enforcement was pushing foreign companies to avoid registering as U.S. issuers and stating that the U.S. government should “dial back the scope of FCPA enforcement with respect to companies.” Nevertheless, expectations are that as head of the SEC, Clayton will continue prior administration’s policies of active FCPA enforcement.

How Will the Supreme Court Decide the Pending Securities Cases on its Docket?

In the past, years would pass between occasions on which the U.S. Supreme Court would take up cases raising questions under the securities laws. In more recent years, the Court inexplicably has seemed more inclined to take up securities cases. The upcoming Supreme Court term, which commences in October 2017, is no exception to this recent trend. The Court already has at least three important securities cases on its docket for the upcoming term.

Leidos, Inc. v. Indiana Public Retirement System: This case will afford the Court an opportunity to resolve a circuit split by addressing the question of whether or not the alleged failure to make a disclosure required by Item 303 of Reg. S-K is an actionable omission under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. The Second Circuit has held that Item 303 does create an actionable duty of disclosure, while the Ninth and Third Circuits have held that it does not.

Item 303 of Reg. S-K states in pertinent part that in its periodic reports to the SEC, a company is to “[d]escribe any known trends or uncertainties that have had or that the registrant reasonably expects will have a materially favorable or unfavorable impact” on the company. Guidance provided by the SEC on Item 303 clarifies that disclosure is necessary where a “trend, demand commitment event or uncertainty is both presently known to management and reasonably likely to have material effects on the registrant’s financial conditions or results of operations.” Issuers’ Item 303 disclosures appear in the Management Discussion & Analysis (MD&A) sections of their annual reports (and in interim or quarterly reports, where there have been material changes since the last annual report).

The plaintiffs in the Leidos case allege that the SEC filings of SAIC (the predecessor of Leidos) omitted disclosures required by Item 303. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, ruling, among other things, that the plaintiff’s claims based on the allegation that the company’s SEC filings omitted disclosures required by Item 303 were insufficiently pled. On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated the portion of the district court’s ruling relating to the Item 303 allegations, at the same time noting the circuit split on the question relating to Item 303 disclosures. The defendants filed a petition seeking Supreme Court review of the Second Circuit’s ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court’s March 27, 2017 order granting the writ of certiorari can be found here.

The Supreme Court’s consideration of these issues will address the circuit split on the question of whether or not Item 303 creates an actionable duty of disclosure under Section 10(b) and applicable regulations. Although some commentators have questioned the significance of this issue, the fact is Court’s consideration of these issues will address an issue that comes in frequently in the securities cases in the lower courts and that the circuit courts have decided in differing ways that could allow cases to go forward in some judicial circuits that would not pass muster in other circuits. The case will be argued on November 6, 2017.

Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund: A recurring question that has arisen in recent years is whether or not state courts retain concurrent jurisdiction over lawsuits alleging liability under the Securities Act of 1933.

Section 22(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 provides for concurrent state court jurisdiction for civil actions alleging violations of the ’33 Act’s liability provisions. Section 22(a) specifies further that when an action is brought in state court alleging a ’33 Act violation, the case shall not be removed to federal court.

In the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA), Congress enacted provisions to preempt state court jurisdiction over federal law securities suits and to require the “covered class actions” to go forward in federal court.

The question that arose after SLUSA was enacted was whether or not SLUSA’s provisions pre-empt the concurrent state court jurisdiction provisions in the ’33 Act. The determinations of these issues have not been uniform, but that in the Ninth Circuit, the state of the law seems to be that ’33 Act cases filed in state court in reliance on Section 22’s concurrent jurisdiction provisions are not removable from state court to federal court notwithstanding the provisions of SLUSA.

The question of whether or not after SLUSA state courts retain jurisdiction for ’33 Act liability lawsuits is a significant one. In recent years, a significant amount of IPO-related securities class action litigation has been filed in state court, particularly in California, as detailed in a recent guest post on this site. The question of whether post-SLUSA state courts retain their concurrent ’33 Act liability lawsuit jurisdiction has vexed the courts and litigants for years. This case offers the opportunity for these questions finally to be resolved. Oral argument in the case has not yet been scheduled.

Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers: At the end of its last term in June 2017, the Court also agreed to take up the question of whether or not the Dodd-Frank Act’s anti-retaliation provisions apply to and protect individuals who did not make a whistleblower report to the SEC. The lower courts have struggled with the question of whether or not the Act’s anti-retaliation protections extend to individuals who file internal reports within their own companies.

The problem for the courts is that the statutory provisions conflict. The Dodd-Frank Act’s definitions seems to restrict the term “whistleblower” to those filing whistleblower reports with the SEC, but the Act’s anti-retaliation provision seems to extend its protections to other whistleblowers, including, for example, those filing an internal whistleblower report within their own company under the Sarbanes Oxley Act. As one district court said with respect to the tension between these two provisions, “at bottom, it is difficult to find a clear and simple way to read the statutory provisions … in perfect harmony with one another.”

Of potential relevance to the resolution of these issues, the SEC’s regulations in effect interpret the Act’s provisions to extend the anti-retaliation protections to all those who make disclosures of suspected violations, whether the disclosures are made internally or to the SEC.

In taking up the case, the Court will not only have the opportunity to address the split between the circuits on the issues surrounding the Dodd-Frank Act’s whistleblower anti-retaliation protections, but it may also have the opportunity to take up the “Chevron deference” issue. Under this doctrine, which refers to the U.S. Supreme Court 1984 decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., courts defer to agency interpretations of statutory mandates unless the interpretations are unreasonable. Chevron deference has been a hot button issue in conservative circles for years. It is in fact an issue on which new Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch weighed in while he was on the Tenth Circuit; he called the doctrine “a judge-made doctrine for the abdication of the judicial duty.” To the extent the court takes up the Chevron deference issue, it will address the question of whether or not it should defer to the SEC’s interpretation of the reach of the Dodd-Frank Act’s anti-retaliation provisions.

The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled oral argument in the Digital Realty Trust case.

How Will the Federal Court Merger Objection Lawsuits Fare?

As I noted above, an important part of the surge in YTD securities suit filings is a reflection of the shift of merger objection lawsuits from state to federal court. Of the 299 securities suit filings during the first eight months of 2017, 129 (or about 43%) are merger objection suits. The 129 federal court merger objection lawsuit filings YTD far exceed the 80 federal court merger objection lawsuit filings during the full year 2016.

The surge in the number of federal court merger objection lawsuit filings is a direct result of a series of Delaware state court rulings, culminating in the January 2016 ruling in the Trulia case, in which a series of Delaware judges evinced their hostility to the type of disclosure only settlements that frequently characterize the resolution of merger objection lawsuits. As a result of the unfavorable climate in the Delaware courts, the plaintiffs’ lawyers have shifted their filings of many of these suits to federal court.

With merger objection lawsuits now relatively more likely to be filed outside Delaware, the question of whether or not judges in other jurisdictions — and in particular, federal district court judges — will follow the lead of Delaware’s courts in rejecting disclosure-only settlements takes on greater significance. There has been some reason to be concerned that judges in other jurisdictions were not inclined follow Delaware’s lead and might continue to approve disclosure-only settlements of these kinds of cases.

However, as discussed here, last year, in a lawsuit involving Walgreen’s acquisition of Alliance Boots, the Seventh Circuit, in a blistering opinion written by Judge Richard Posner, affirmatively adopted the Delaware Chancery Court’s position on disclosure-only settlements. Saying that these kinds of lawsuits are “a racket” and characterizing the additional disclosure that was the basis of the settlement as “worthless,” the appellate court reversed the district court’s approval of the settlement.

With the number of federal court merger objection lawsuit growing significantly, the question of whether or not the federal courts will, similarly to the Seventh Circuit in the Walgreens case, follow the Delaware courts’ lead in rejecting disclosure-only settlements takes on increased urgency. If the federal courts show the same level of scrutiny and hostility as the Delaware courts, the flood of federal court merger objection suits may prove to be a short-lived phenomenon. However, if the federal courts decline to follow the Delaware courts’ lead, federal court merger objection litigation could remain an important corporate and securities litigation phenomenon, representing a significant litigation exposure for companies and for their D&O insurers.

Will Mandatory Securities Claim Arbitration Become a Serious Possibility?

For a time a few years ago, litigation reform bylaws were all the rage – including forum selection bylaws, fee shifting bylaws, even mandatory arbitration bylaws. More recently, discussion of the topic quieted down, in part because the Delaware legislature enacted legislation allowing Delaware corporations to adopt forum selection bylaws while also prohibiting fee-shifting bylaws. However, the topic of litigation reform bylaws may be back on the docket again. As discussed here, in July 2017 speech, SEC Commissioner Michael Piwowar invited companies heading toward an IPO to adopt arbitration provisions in their corporate bylaws.

According to a July 17, 2017 Reuters article entitled “U.S. SEC’s Piwowar Urges Companies to Pursue Mandatory Arbitration Clauses” (here), Piwowar said in a speech at the Heritage Foundation that “For shareholder lawsuits, companies can come to us to ask for relief to put in mandatory arbitration into their charters. I would encourage companies to come and talk to us about that.”

As Alison Frankel points out on here On the Case blog (here), mandatory arbitration of shareholder claims is not a new idea. Academics have been debating the possibility for decades. And as I noted in a post a few years ago, several courts did uphold the enforceability of one company’s bylaw provision requiring arbitration of shareholder claims.

Nevertheless, at least until now, the view has been that the SEC opposes provisions requiring shareholder claims to be arbitrated. The agency’s position has been a corporate charter provision mandating arbitration of shareholder claims would violate Section 29 of the ’34 Act, which voids any contractual provision that would seek to waive any right under the statute.

Though Piwowar seems to have invited companies planning IPOs to step forward with mandatory securities claim arbitration provisions, there may be some good reasons for companies to hold back. For starters, notwithstanding Piwowar’s comments, it is not entirely clear whether a securities claim arbitration provision would withstand scrutiny. Among other things, a court might conclude that, notwithstanding the SEC’s position, an arbitration provision is contrary to the prohibitions in Section 29.

There may be a more practical reason companies might hesitate to adope a securities claim arbitration provision, and that is concern about the market’s reaction. In her blog post, Frankel raised the question whether big institutional investors might balk at waiving their right to sue. Frankel quotes Columbia Law School Professor John Coffee as noting that a company’s adoption of an arbitration provision could have an impact on the company’s share price at the IPO. On the other hand, Frankel also quotes Michigan Law School Professor Adam Pritchard as suggesting that investors might pay more for shares of companies that could be able to avoid the expenses of securities class action lawsuits.

In any event, it may not be long before a company takes Piwowar up on his invitation and steps forward for an IPO with a securities claim arbitration provision in its bylaws. If the IPO candidate’s submission passes agency muster, not only will these kinds of provisions quickly become standard for IPO companies, but many of the already public companies will quickly take steps to adopt similar provisions, just as they did with forum selection bylaw provisions a few years ago.

What might it mean if shareholder securities claim arbitration provisions become standard? It could mean serious changes in the way securities claims are litigated in this country. To whatever extent changes of this magnitude are even in the realm of the possible, we are a long way off from any of these kinds of things taking place. Even if these kinds of arbitration provisions actually do take hold, there are still a lot of other things that could happen. As we saw a few years ago when fee-shifting bylaw provisions were all the rage, the Delaware legislature stepped forward and changed the relevant laws, pretty much stopping the fee-shifting bylaw bandwagon in its tracks. By the same token, if securities claim arbitration provisions were to take off, Congress might act.

The one thing that is certain is that if Piwowar’s recent suggestion succeeds on getting things started, it could get very interesting. For now, put the question of mandatory securities claim arbitration provisions on the list of things to watch.

Will the Frequency of Collective Investor Actions Outside the U.S. Continue to Grow?

As the statistics discussed above reflect, securities class action litigation is an important part of the U.S. litigation landscape. By contrast, in the past, and until quite recently, there has not been significant collective investor litigation activity outside the United States, other than in Australia and Canada. However, as underscored by several recent developments, collective investor litigation outside the U.S. is now a significant phenomenon and it not limited just to Australia and Canada. The likelihood is that it will continue to grow.

Two recent developments underscore the significance of the changes. First, as discussed here, in March 2016, shareholder associations acting on behalf of former shareholders of the failed financial firm Fortis entered a $1.3 billion settlement under the Dutch Collective Settlement procedures. Second, as discussed here, in December 2016, collective investor groups negotiated a $1.0 billion partial settlement in the U.K. of the credit crisis-era claims asserted against RBS. Subsequent settlements in the RBS case brought the total value of the RBS settlements close to $1.3 billion.

It must be emphasized that settlements of this magnitude in collective investor actions outside the U.S. is absolutely unprecedented. Indeed, were these settlements to have taken place in the U.S., they would be among the ten largest settlements ever. The fact that the settlements took place outside the U.S makes them all the more significant.

In addition to these massive settlements, there has also been a surge of new collective investor actions filed around the world, driven by a wave of high-profile corporate scandals. New claims have been filed in recent months in a variety of jurisdictions outside the U.S. against a number of companies, including Volkswagen, Tesco, Toshiba, Petrobras, and others.

There are a number of factors driving this litigation activity. The disruption of the global financial crisis engendered a new willingness to try to hold corporate executives accountable. The global financial crisis also spurred increased regulatory enforcement activity and increased cross-border regulatory collaboration. Though the financial crisis has passed, the regulators have remained active. In addition, legislatures around the world have continued to enact legislative reforms that allow for various kinds of collective investor action. For example, in December 2015, Thailand enacted provisions allowing for securities class actions in that country.

Another significant factor in the global rise of collective investor actions has been the growth of third-party litigation funding. Third-party litigation funding has been a major force in the rise of securities class action litigation in Canada and Australia, and is a significant contributing factor behind many of the more recently filed scandal-related collective investor actions.

The spread and growth of litigation funding increases the likelihood that the collective action procedures various countries have recently adopted will be put into use for remedial purposes. The high-profile corporate scandals seems likely to provide ample motivation and incentive for these developments to continue.

These developments have important implications for companies and their directors and officers, as well as for their D&O insurers. For the companies, these developments mean that their D&O claims exposure has expanded, as they face the potential for serious claims across a vastly expanded landscape. For the D&O insurers, these developments represent a radical shift, as the possibilities for D&O claims frequency and severity has changed in ways that defy long-standing assumptions. The future for D&O claims literally represents a whole new world.

Will Cybersecurity Become a Significant D&O Claims Issue?

By now, every organization is aware of the importance of cybersecurity concerns. Indeed, news of a data breach of other type of cybersecurity event is a nearly daily occurrence. Many of these cybersecurity events lead to litigation, though the vast bulk of the litigation has concerned consumer privacy issues. As cybersecurity events have continued to mount, one question that has arisen is whether or not claims cybersecurity incidents will also lead to D&O claims in which the claimants allege that the senior officials at a company should be held liable.

There has in fact been a small number of high profile data security-related D&O lawsuits filed. However, several of those cases – including, for example, the derivative lawsuits filed against Target (about which refer here) Wyndham Worldwide (here), and Home Depot (here ) – were quickly dismissed. (It should be noted, however, that while appeal in the case was pending, the parties to the Home Depot case settled the case, with the defendant agreeing among other things to pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees of $1.1 million).

With the dismissal of these cases, the plaintiffs’ prospects in these kinds of cases appeared dim. However, within days of Home Depot suit dismissal and just at the point where it seemed as if these kinds of cases might dwindle altogether, a plaintiff shareholder filed a new shareholder derivative lawsuit against the board of Wendy’s, as discussed here.

In addition, in January 2017, plaintiffs filed a data breach-related securities lawsuit against Yahoo!, as discussed here. The securities suit filing followed the company’s two announcements, in September and December 2016, that several years earlier the company had experienced separate data breaches in which hackers had obtained access to hundreds of millions of users’ accounts. Among other things, the plaintiffs in the securities suit alleged that the announcement of the data breaches led to the delay and renegotiation of the terms of Verizon’s planned acquisition of Yahoo!

The lawsuits against Wendy’s and Yahoo were only recently filed. It remains to be seen whether they will fare any better than the earlier suits. It also remains to be seen whether other prospective data breach claimants will choose to file D&O lawsuits. However, the arrival of the Wendy’s and Yahoo lawsuits is a reminder that it is far too early to conclude that we don’t need to be worried about the possibility of cybersecurity-related D&O litigation.

The reality is that the plaintiffs’ lawyers are still trying to find the right approach (or perhaps to find a case with just the right facts). The plaintiffs’ bar is creative and entrepreneurial and they have significant incentives to try to find a way to capitalize on the chronic cybersecurity risks and exposures that companies face. The plaintiffs’ lawyers will continue to experiment, and for that reason alone we are going to see further cybersecurity-related D&O lawsuits. The more important question for companies and their advisors is how frequent and how severe these claims will prove to be.

Will Climate Change-Related Concerns Lead to More D&O Claims?

Even though President Trump announced on June 1, 2017 the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Climate Accords, it seems likely that climate change will remain a high profile issue for many corporate boards, and potentially could be a source of future corporate claim activity.

Climate change-related issues have in fact already been the source of claims against corporate officials. As noted in a prior post (here), in November 2016, shareholders filed a climate change-related securities class action lawsuit against ExxonMobil, in which the claimants allege that the company’s did not adequately disclose that its own internal analyses of the likely impact from climate change-related issues on its ability to realize the full value of the hydrocarbon assets on its balance sheet. Although one claim does not represent a trend, the ExxonMobil lawsuit does highlight the possibility of other investor claims based on climate change-related disclosure issues.

Beyond the possibilities for these kinds of investor-related damages claims, activists and others frustrated by climate change-related developments in the political arena increasingly may to use the courts as a way to advance their agendas.

A recent lawsuit filed in Australia provides a good example of the way in which climate change activists may seek to use the courts. As discussed here, on August 8, 2017, Environmental Justice Australia filed an action in the Federal Court of Australia, Victoria Registry, against Commonwealth Bank of Australia, on behalf of two Commonwealth Bank (CBA) shareholders.

In their complaint (here), the plaintiffs allege the bank’s Annual Report reflected omissions with respect to climate change-related issues. Among other things, the complaint alleges that the Annual Report did not report on the company’s climate change business risk or its management of climate change risks. The complaint alleges that in making these omissions, the Annual Report “contravened” the requirements of the Corporations Act, by “failing to give a true and fair view of the financial position and performance” of the company and by failing to include information that the company’s shareholders “would reasonably require to make an informed assessment of: the operations of CBA; the financial position of CBA; and the business strategies, and prospects for future financial years, of CBA.”

The complaint seeks a judicial declaration that in failing to report the company’s climate change risks, the 2016 Annual Report “contravened” the relevant sections of the Corporations Act. The complaint also seeks an injunction restraining the company from continuing to fail to report on its climate change- related risks.

The lawsuit has only just been filed and it remains to be seen how it will fare. While the shareholders who filed the lawsuit undoubtedly would be happy to have the court grant their requests for declaratory and injunctive relief, their objectives in filing the lawsuit do not depend on successfully obtaining this relief. Rather, the litigants and the lawyers that represent them are seeking to draw attention to climate change related issues and to use publicity measure to put pressure on companies to focus on and to address climate change issues.

The lawsuit surely will not be the last one of the type, as activists seek to use the use the courts and the publicity surrounding their lawsuits as a way to advance climate change-related awareness. The bottom line is that notwithstanding – and perhaps even because of – the Trump administration’s move to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate accords, climate change issues likely will remain an area of concern for corporate boards. Climate change-related disclosure seems likely to remain a particular area of focus, as I previously discussed here.

The post What to Watch Now in the World of D&O appeared first on The D&O Diary.

What to Watch Now in the World of D&O published first on http://ift.tt/2kTPCwo

0 notes

golicit · 8 years ago

Text

What to Watch Now in the World of D&O

Will Securities Class Action Lawsuits Filings Continue Their Record Pace?

How Will President Trump’s Judicial Nominees Shape the Federal Judiciary?

What Impact Will President Trumps Political Appointments Have on D&O Claims?

How Will the Supreme Court Decide the Pending Securities Cases on its Docket?

The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled oral argument in the Digital Realty Trust case.

How Will the Federal Court Merger Objection Lawsuits Fare?

Will Mandatory Securities Claim Arbitration Become a Serious Possibility?

Will the Frequency of Collective Investor Actions Outside the U.S. Continue to Grow?

Will Cybersecurity Become a Significant D&O Claims Issue?

Will Climate Change-Related Concerns Lead to More D&O Claims?

The post What to Watch Now in the World of D&O appeared first on The D&O Diary.

What to Watch Now in the World of D&O published first on

0 notes

lawfultruth · 8 years ago

Text

What to Watch Now in the World of D&O

Will Securities Class Action Lawsuits Filings Continue Their Record Pace?

How Will President Trump’s Judicial Nominees Shape the Federal Judiciary?

What Impact Will President Trumps Political Appointments Have on D&O Claims?

How Will the Supreme Court Decide the Pending Securities Cases on its Docket?

The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled oral argument in the Digital Realty Trust case.

How Will the Federal Court Merger Objection Lawsuits Fare?

Will Mandatory Securities Claim Arbitration Become a Serious Possibility?

Will the Frequency of Collective Investor Actions Outside the U.S. Continue to Grow?

Will Cybersecurity Become a Significant D&O Claims Issue?

Will Climate Change-Related Concerns Lead to More D&O Claims?

The post What to Watch Now in the World of D&O appeared first on The D&O Diary.

What to Watch Now in the World of D&O syndicated from http://ift.tt/2qyreAv

0 notes

rebeccahpedersen · 7 years ago

Text

Quick Hits!

TorontoRealtyBlog

“Little bit ‘a lotta things” today, as they say.

They who? I don’t know. But it sounded good when I wrote it.

I’m going to cover five or six topics today, all noteworthy & newsworthy, all free for your commentary. Although I think I already know which one will get solicit the most opinion…

How Can You Put A Price On Emotion?

If you didn’t read about this story a couple of weeks ago, then I’m so happy to be the one bringing it to your attention.

Here’s a Toronto Star article from May 15th:

“For sellers of this semi-detached home, a deserving family trumps price”

“This is about putting a nice young family in there. We’re not interested in a bidding war or anything like that,” the deceased seller’s daughter said.

As soon as this article came out, however, the reaction was just oh-so-perfect for the confusing times in 2018, in that the peanut gallery took a positive, and turned it into a negative.

That’s right; the peanut gallery started to call discrimination.

It is, I suppose.

We’ll never know how the sellers decided to pick the winner, and for many, that’s the problem.

Personally, I think it’s the sellers’ right to sell to whoever they want, for whatever reasons.

But what if behind closed doors, they never intended to sell the house to a person of a particular race, age, demographic, sexual orientation, etc?

Wow. Do you see what we’ve done as a society? Our glass is half empty. We create “what-if” scenarios, and then debate them. I miss the 1980’s…

In any event, the clamouring died down a little bit, and the sale went forward.

Low and behold, the house sold for the asking price, and no more.

I wonder what it’ll be like for that new family, with everybody in the neighbourhood asking, “What did they do, or who are they, to ‘win’ that house?”

–

Who Doesn’t Love A New Tax?

Wasn’t this simply a matter of time?

“York Region demands power to bring in new taxes”

To the surprise of just about nobody, one of the taxes at the top of the list is a land transfer tax.

For those youngin’s out there, I do recall a time when the sale of properties in Toronto only had one land transfer tax!

Ah, the good old days! When buying a $900,000 home only came with a $14,475 raping of the wallet, for absolutely no reason.

Then along came David Miller, who didn’t realize that “2 x 1 = 2,” and the tax doubled overnight.

Now it’s almost $30,000 to simply move.

I think it’s prudent to keep in mind just how hard York Region has been hit with the decline in real estate prices in the last 12 months.

May I remind you of the chart from a blog post earlier this month:

(yes I know that chart is prettier than my usual screenshots from Excel, but I gussied it up for the Toronto Life presentation last night…)

York Region prices are down 20.6%, April YTD.

Adding another land transfer tax isn’t exactly going to help stabilize real estate prices, but perhaps the government doesn’t care?

–

F*** The Rich!

This is old news, but it was recently brought up again via an interaction I had with a buyer client.

This client is looking to purchase for $4,500,000, and was last active in November of 2016.

He’s been away for 18 months, and when calculating the expenses associated with his purchase, he was using his old spreadsheet – from 2016.

Little did he know, the government’s rebate on land transfer tax for first-time home buyers in 2017 was offset by an increase in land transfer tax for luxury homes.

Do you guys even remember this? It’s like it almost didn’t make headlines.

Land transfer tax was increased from 2.0% to 2.5% on the portion of purchase price over $2,000,000.

That means an additional $12,500 in land transfer tax payable.

$12,500?

Really? Am I making a fuss about this?

$12,500 in the context of a $4,500,000 house is a rounding error!

But what if I told you that the total amount of land transfer tax payable on this purchase was $197,950? What then?

It’s tough to define the word “fair” in today’s world, especially in the context of politics and governance.

–

Have You Seen My Agent? I Can’t Find Her…

This is a great story.

And by “great,” I mean it’s entertaining. But in reality, it’s sad, and pathetic.

I was set to receive offers on a listing last week, and I got a call around 5:30pm from a young lady who asked, “What time are offers?”

I told her we were going to review offers at 7:00pm.

I asked, “Are you an agent?” since I assumed she was. But she said, “No, I’m not, but I’d like to submit an offer.”

I wasn’t sure if she meant through me, or not. So I simply asked, and she said, “Maybe, I’m not sure yet.”

Imagine that.

You hire somebody to represent you, and they do anything but.

“What about somebody at the brokerage?” I asked her. “If your agent is away on vacation, surely she has somebody to look after her business, right?”

“I don’t know,” she told me. “I’m not sure how she runs her business; she’s often hard to reach. What can I do here? What are my options?” she asked me.

“If you want to make an offer, that can happen,” I explained. “You can do so through any agent, any brokerage, whoever you want.” I told her.

Well, crap.

Then I asked her, “Which brokerage is it?”

Even more amazingly, she said, “I don’t know.”

“You don’t know?” I asked. “Re/Max, Royal Lepage, Homelife, Century 21, Chestnut Park, Keller Williams,” I went on, and on, and on.

“Nothing rings a bell,” she told me.

So I told her quite honestly, “You’re under contract with a brokerage, working with an agent that you can’t get in touch with. I honestly don’t think I can help you.”

I felt bad for the girl. I told her to call the brokerage, and ask for the manager or the broker of record, to see if they could help.

Then she reminded me that she didn’t know which brokerage it was, and I essentially gave up.

I don’t know that there’s a moral of the story, a conclusion, or any takeaway her. It’s just really unfortunate.

–

“What Goes Up Must Come Down……Most Of The Time”

We see a lot of real estate “fluff” columns in the newspapers, so I love seeing something new and interesting; something I haven’t read about before.

Shane Dingman from the Globe & Mail wrote an interesting, albeit depressing piece last week:

“Elevators a let-down for Toronto condo dwellers”

According to the article, condominiums have the lowest rate of elevator “availability” at 93%, which translates to 25 out-of-service days per year.

But the really interesting part of the article was about one specific building in Toronto: 59 East Liberty Street.

Apparently none of the elevators were in service at one point, and residents were without options – other than the stairs.

One of the three elevators has been out of service for a year!

And what of the board of directors?

They told residents not to voice any displeasure; not to “tweet, talk to the media, or make waves.”

What a mess.

The article is a solid read – click the link above.

The post Quick Hits! appeared first on Toronto Real Estate Property Sales & Investments | Toronto Realty Blog by David Fleming.

Originated from https://ift.tt/2Jno6DI

0 notes

simonconsultancypage · 8 years ago

Text

What to Watch Now in the World of D&O

Will Securities Class Action Lawsuits Filings Continue Their Record Pace?

How Will President Trump’s Judicial Nominees Shape the Federal Judiciary?

What Impact Will President Trumps Political Appointments Have on D&O Claims?

How Will the Supreme Court Decide the Pending Securities Cases on its Docket?

The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled oral argument in the Digital Realty Trust case.

How Will the Federal Court Merger Objection Lawsuits Fare?

Will Mandatory Securities Claim Arbitration Become a Serious Possibility?

Will the Frequency of Collective Investor Actions Outside the U.S. Continue to Grow?

Will Cybersecurity Become a Significant D&O Claims Issue?

Will Climate Change-Related Concerns Lead to More D&O Claims?

The post What to Watch Now in the World of D&O appeared first on The D&O Diary.

What to Watch Now in the World of D&O published first on http://ift.tt/2kTPCwo

0 notes