#penalty payout

[mostlysignssomeportents]

A business model for bankrupting the oil companies

Today (June 6), I’m on a Rightscon panel about interoperability.

Tomorrow (June 7), I’m keynoting the Re:publica conference in Berlin.

Thursday (June 8) at 8PM, I’m at Otherland Books in Berlin with my novel Red Team Blues.

When a giant company wrecks your life, what are you gonna do? They can afford more and better lawyers than you can, and they have people whose full time job is fighting off lawsuits — are you really gonna beat those people by pursuing your grievance as a side-hustle? Do you really wanna be a full-time, professional litigant?

For some people, the answer is yes: some people are angry enough, or sufficiently morally offended, to make suing a giant company their life’s mission. Sometimes, they succeed, and force companies to cough up gigantic sums of money. Obviously, this makes the plaintiff better off, but it can also make things better for the rest of us. Money talks and bullshit walks, and once it becomes clear that 300% of the profits from harming people will be sucked out of the company by a lawsuit, shareholders will revolt and force the company to clean up its act.

Shareholders don’t invest in companies that ruin our lives because they are committed to an ideology of cruelty. Ideology only gets you so far: the pursuit of profit incentivizes far worse conduct than mere sadism ever can:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/06/02/plunderers/#farbenizers

Incentives matter. Companies above a certain size become too big to fail and too big to jail. They capture their regulators and ensure that any damages the government extracts are less than their profits — a fine is a price.

Juries, on the other hand, can and do really whack a company for its bad conduct. They understand that incentives matter. They understand that a company that saves $1,000,001 by cutting back on workplace safety can’t be driven to improve its behavior by a fine of $1,000,000 after it kills a bunch of workers. If profit outstrips penalties, penalties aren’t effective.

A dirty $1m profit needs to be met with a $100m judgment. As the Untouchables MBA teaches us, this is just sound business: “They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPZ6eaL3S2E

But suing these giant companies is hard. They can tie you up in court for years — decades, even. They can outspend and outwait you. The more profits a company has racked up through its evil deeds, the more claims it can fend off. Incentives matter, so if you’re gonna commit corporate murder, you’d better do a lot of it to build up the cash needed to scare off your victims and their survivors.

However: the bigger a company is, the more cash it has, the more money there is to extract from it if you can prevail in court. If the company has genuinely injured you, and if you can mobilize the capital and resources to pursue it to final judgment, there’s a huge payoff at the end of the process — and a lesson for all the other companies contemplating their own course of action.

That’s the Voltaire MBA: “you have to execute an admiral from time to time, in order to encourage the others.”

For hundreds of years, rich, powerful people have observed their colleagues’ abuses and thought, “They only pull that shit on peasants — but if they did it to me, I could sue them for everything!”

This led to an obvious course of action: strike a bargain with the mutilated, ruined peasants to finance their suit against the toff that so abused them, in exchange for a (large) share of the proceeds. Medieval courts called this champerty; today, we call it litigation finance: investing in other peoples’ grievances against deep-pocketed monsters, in the expectation of reaping huge cash payouts.

On paper, litigation finance seems like a neat solution to a messy problem. The bigger a company is, the worse the abuses it commits — and the more it can be made to pay for its sins. The normal economics of litigation are turned upside-down: rather than avoiding the largest companies, you pursue them. This is the Willie Sutton MBA: “That’s where the money is.”

Litigation finance is a large and growing chunk of the finance sector. For about a decade, hedge funds and private equity have been bankrolling law-firms that represent people who’ve been mangled by corporations, keeping the money flowing through whatever delays and entanglements the target throws up:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/magazine/should-you-be-allowed-to-invest-in-a-lawsuit.html?smid=tw-share

Litigation finance can be thought of as the no-win/no-fee “ambulance chaser” business on steroids. While a local lawyer can make a tidy living going after slip-and-falls and fender-benders, splitting the proceeds with their clients, a firm backed by a huge investment fund can do the same to companies with billions in the bank and hundreds of millions on the line.

Litigation finance is also closely related to impact litigation, which is when a nonprofit uses charitably raised funds to chase corporations and governments through the courts to establish precedents that overturn bad laws or pave the way for future judgments. Impact litigation can be thought of as the trailblazer for litigation finance: for-profit lawsuits are risk averse and stick to pursuing cases that have a high likelihood of eventually succeeding, while impact litigators are a kind of legal entrepreneur, advancing new, uncertain legal theories in the hopes of making new law. Once that law is created, litigation finance can drum up thousands of similarly situated plaintiffs and sue tons of companies on the same theory, citing the new precedent.

Litigation finance’s first big scores was going after med-tech and pharma companies. A lax regulatory environment allowed medical companies to market deadly products that maimed or killed people wholesale — think Vioxx, vaginal meshes or metal-on-metal hip replacements (a doc about this, The Bleeding Edge, will give you persistent nightmares):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bleeding_Edge

Suing the companies that killed your family or permanently disabled you is a slow and ugly process, but it’s a lot more certain than asking Congress to patch the loopholes the company that hurt you exploited, or hoping that a future President will appoint an agency head who gives a shit, and that the Senate will confirm them. And since money talks and bullshit walks, corporations that can’t pay dividends or do stock buybacks because they owe all their cash to their victims will suffer in the stock market, and their rivals will clean house and tread carefully.

Which brings me to the latest turn in litigation finance: climate litigation. As more and more money has sloshed into ESG funds that are supposed to make money by investing in ethical, climate-friendly businesses, the idea of suing giant oil companies and other wreckers has grown more attractive. 18 months ago, Businessweek covered the nascent-but-growing phenomenon:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/09/grievance-factory/#champerty

That growth has only continued. With more and larger ESG funds chasing returns, there’s a lot more money available to represent, say, poisoned indigenous people in the global south whose ancestral lands have been rendered an uninhabitable hellscape by a mining or petrochemical company. The returns from these cases aren’t correlated with wider economic trends: whether the market is up down, it makes no difference to the size of the judgment or settlement that is extracted in the end.

A new piece in the Financial Times by Camilla Hodgson does an excellent job rounding up the state of play in litigation finance, starting with the oil giant PTTEP paying $102m to 15,000 Indonesian farmers to settle claims stemming from a massive, ocean-killing oil spill in 2019:

https://www.ft.com/content/055ef9f4-5fb7-4746-bebd-7bfa00b20c82

The firm that financed the suit is Harbour Litigation Funding, and they paid for a lot of shoe-leather lawyering, sending reps on off-road motorbikes to each of the farmers’ plots to sign them up. The case cost more than $21m, and Harbour creamed $53.5m off the top of the settlement from PTTEP — about 40% of the total.

Those numbers are pretty compelling investment story: there aren’t a lot of opportunities to make a >100% return on a $21m investment in 15 years — let alone investments that let you claim to be bringing justice to poor farmers who’ve been abused by rapacious corporate murderers.

Other cases are still ongoing: mining giant BHP is facing a £36b class action case over the 2015 collapse of Brazil’s Fundão dam, which released poisoned mine-tailings into waterways serving millions of people. 700,000 plaintiffs are in the class, and the investors, Prisma Capital (Brazil) and North Wall Capital (UK) have already fronted £70m pursuing the case.

There is a vast inventory of cases like these, just lying around, waiting for someone to stake a claim. One barrier is that most of the world’s large law firms are conflicted out of pursuing these cases — they represent these same companies in other actions. But a new sector of specialized, un-conflicted firms is growing up, and tackling more and more of these cases.

These firms are chasing relatively easy claims, but there’s an even bigger fish out there, waiting to be caught: class actions against carbon-intensive companies, especially coal and oil companies, for their knowing contributions to the global climate emergency. These corporations are sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars, and they have inflicted trillions in harms. There’s gold in them thar wildfires.

The FT cites experts who predict a massive wave of litigation finance climate suits in the next 2–3 years, and notes an increasing tempo of shareholder motions demanding that big oil and mining companies disclose their litigation risks in their investor reports. This is a very compelling idea, a kaiju boss-fight in which we recruit monsters to fight other monsters. It’s such a fun idea that I actually wrote a novel about it, 2009’s Makers, in which corporate misconduct that has not yet reached the statute of limitations becomes the new oil, prompting a huge investment bubble:

https://craphound.com/category/makers/

But is the answer to a bad guy with a law firm a good guy with a law firm? There are certainly some ways this can go very wrong (many of which end up in Makers). Back in 2015, Cathy O’Neil published an excellent critique of litigation finance in the context of vaginal mesh cases:

https://mathbabe.org/2015/09/01/litigation-finance-a-terrible-idea/

O’Neill’s point is that incentives matter. The incentive for a litigation finance fund is to extract settlements, not win justice. Time and again, we’ve seen how a financial tactic can be severed from a societal strategy — like how GDP can be goosed to spectacular heights without improving national prosperity.

There’s even a name for this phenomenon: Goodhart’s Law: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” The finance sector is spookily good at decoupling positive societal outcomes from positive investor outcomes. The real answer to medical companies that mutilate women with vaginal meshes, or destroy the planet with CO2, is criminal sanctions and regulation, not private lawsuits.

That said, I think there’s a case for the one leading to the other. Right now, climate wreckers devote very large sums to preventing effective action on climate. Suborning regulators and politicians all over the world isn’t cheap. If we take away the money they’ve saved up for this project through stonking, eye-watering judgments, and if we convince the capital markets not to give them any more money lest it be immediately extracted to pay for more redress of a litany of grievances, then perhaps we can deprive them of the capacity of corrupt our political process.

One way to understand whether something is a genuine threat to a company’s power is to look at how viciously the company attacks it. If you doubt that unions could do good for workers, just take a peep at the all-out violent blitzes that Amazon and Starbucks mount in the face of union drives. I mean, imagine if the Democratic Party took unions half as seriously as the GOP!

The corporate lobby exhibits the same terror over plaintiff-side lawsuits as it does over unions. A massive, decades-long campaign to villify plaintiff-side lawyers has convinced many of us that corporations are the victims of the legal system, rather than its masters. The PR campaign is surprisingly effective, despite its reliance on lies about the “McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit” and other urban legends:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/12/hot-coffee/#mcgeico

Corporate plunderers are terrified of being dragged into court by their victims, and devote titanic amounts of blood and treasure into making it harder and harder to do so. On the “the more scared the are, the better” metric, litigation finance is a slam dunk.

But winning a case isn’t the same as getting a judgment or disciplining a firm. When Steven Donziger won a landmark judgment against Chevron on behalf of indigenous people whose lands and bodies had been permanently poisoned, the company struck back:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/02/free-steven-donziger/#free-donziger

Chevron bribed a judge in Ecuador to claim that Donziger had rigged the case, then brought a case in the US against Donziger for racketeering, judge-shopping to get judge Lewis A Kaplan on their case. Kaplan is a former tobacco industry lawyer who never met a corporate criminal he didn’t love, and when the SDNY prosecutor declined to press charges against Donziger because the case was absurd, Kaplan appointed a private lawyer — whose firm also acted for Chevron! — to act as prosecutor. The case against Donziger was obviously trumped up — the Ecuadoran judge who accused him of corruption later recanted and multiple countries’ Supreme Courts upheld the judgment Donziger won against Chevron. Nevertheless, Kaplan got Donziger locked up under house arrest for years, and even got him banged up in Riker’s for a time. Donziger’s lost his law license and his clients are still awaiting judgment.

This is the best law that money can buy, and Chevron has a lot of money. The massive expenditures needed to railroad Donizer were a pittance compared to the $9.5b judgment Chevron owed its victims in Ecuador.

The lesson of Donziger is that these companies won’t go genrly to their graves. They are enormously, unimaginably wealthy and act with the ruthlessness born of greed, which makes mere sadism pale by comparison. Litigation finance is exciting and promising, but it’s only a tactic — and it’s a tactic that’s always in danger of being turned against the goal it nominally serves. The people funding litigation finance don’t want to save the world — they just want to get rich. They can and will change sides if someone can make the business case for doing so.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/06/06/thats-where-the-money-is/#champerty

[Image ID: A mirrored office tower bearing the Exxon logo. One face of the office tower is a graffiti-covered ATM. Before the tower is a giant pile of bricks of oversized US $100 bills in paper wrappers. The ATM screen depicts a smouldering Deep Water Horizon oil platform.]

Image:

Flying Logos (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Over_$1,000,000_dollars_in_USD_$100_bill_stacks.png

CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

 — 

Joe Shlabotnik (modified) https://www.flickr.com/photos/joeshlabotnik/2299501806/

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

[beautifulpersonpeach]

in general this status quo at hybe seems like it’s untenable. I can’t really see a way in which hybe is forever bound to keep a subsidiary ceo there indefinitely, even if it’s just bc they don’t want to, and especially since the court agreed that she wants to effectively take one of its subsidiaries. at the same time I can’t see how nwjns could leave and have careers, unless they completely start from scratch and pay massively. Hybe clearly promotes nwjns (I find the accusations that they sabotage their promotions pretty laughable, at least based on pure metrics) and there’s enough proof/reasonable suspicion on hybes side that I don’t see this legal fiasco being a breach of their duties to nwjns in a way that would allow them to break their contract without massive penalties. isn’t the outcome of this pretty inevitable? Does hybe really have to wait around for mhj to make ador an “empty shell” like the kakao chats say? I really doubt it. I just don’t see this ending without mhj gone (albeit maybe they’ll have to pay her more) and nwjns staying. That this is dragging on more almost seems more harmful to the artists involved, including nwjns

p.s. I assume this is where everyone goes to the negotiating table and starts to find a fix. I assume a payout of mhj and nwjns finishing out their contract with hybe working overtime to keep them afterwards. Unless they’ve always had a solid breach of fiduciary duty claim and it’s just the set-up of mhj’s contract that required an extra step before the termination. My understanding of this injunction decision is that it doesn’t say much about the weight of the evidence for mhj’s conduct in relation to Hybe, only about her conduct in relation to ador

***

The company is irreparably damaged because of Bang Sihyuk’s desire to make an example of MHJ. Even if they manage to remove her before she leaves on her own as she intended to, the company brand is significantly harmed, as are their idols and staff. You’re right on that point and I believe I’ve said as much since this mess started.

It’s particularly unforgivable because HYBE could’ve avoided this mess entirely if they handled things differently. If this dispute stayed in the c-suite and was resolved internally, the environment wouldn’t become so toxic and none of the fallout to the groups would’ve happened. Just working to resolve the non-compete clause dispute last year would’ve rectified a major grievance of MHJ and would’ve weakened her case if she went public. That would’ve been the business case for a clean resolution, but this was not about business. It was personal. And so we got this fiasco. And it’s likely going to drag on till the end of the year.

Anyway, I disagree with you on a few points. For example:

“Hybe clearly promotes nwjns…” If we’re to base it on the metrics as you say, a very good benchmark would be to compare how NewJeans performs and is promoted relative to other HYBE groups. In most of the groups created under HYBE/BigHit, NewJeans outperforms in almost every metric. The only key differentiator is that NewJeans is the only group managed by ADOR. So it makes more sense to think ADOR, rather than HYBE, properly promotes NewJeans. Incidentally, ADOR is the only sub-label in HYBE without ex-BigHit executives.

Min Heejin will leave eventually. Her contract expires in 2026 and she could leave before then if she settles on an agreement with HYBE or if some of the ongoing suits is successful, from both her end and HYBE’s. As you’ve said. NewJeans’ contracts will be up for renewal from 2026 as well and I hope they leave with her. In my opinion, HYBE has shown they cannot be trusted with their management.

[blorbocedes]

okay, your anon/nico thesis has really got me worked up because it's so true! i am also rewatching the 2016 season (for fic purposes) and the sky commentary is absolutely killing me. at first i thought it was just my hatred for the british (my country doesn't run their own f1 coverage and english is the only other language i understand so sky sports f1 it is) but these commentators and pundits are soooo biased.

whenever nico has a great race and just zooms off into the distance the commentators talk about how it's just because he's got the best car or it's really easy winning from the front, but i've just watched the malaysia race and when lewis is doing the same thing, just racing off into the distance, crofty and brundle were going on an on about how brilliant he was and how well deserved his win would have been.

equally, when lewis was fighting through the pack throughout races, usually because of bad starts (which were his fault) they would go on about how brilliant he was at overtaking blah blah, but in malaysia, when nico was having to fight his way through the pack because seb ran into him, they went, oh well of course he can, he has the best car on the grid.

also, the blatant lies and conspiracy theories that they promote are ridiculous! in malaysia, lewis complained that it was just his engine that was blowing up, but we literally heard nico's engineer telling him not to push the engine too much at the beginning of the race because they have some issues with it. and earlier in the season, when lewis said oh they switched our engineers for no reason, but we know that toto told them the reasons...

and it's so obvious that the team backed lewis. even when he was on his petty rants about how they supported nico and wanted him to win, not lewis, toto and niki put so much effort into appeasing lewis. at malaysia (still fresh in the mind lol) nico had what was genuinely one of the best races of his career, with some incredible overtakes, and managing to come back from literally last on the grid to the podium, including a time penalty (which the sky reporters were then trying to say wasn't long enough) and in the interviews afterwards toto and niki spent the entire time talking about lewis.

also if i were nico i would have been literally insane after barcelona. lewis took him out because nico was going to get him off the line again, and he wasn't even punished. he took 43 points from the team and got away with it. when nico took lewis out in spa 2014, he at least got points for the team, but was still punished for it. i literally don't know how nico didn't go completely insane over at mercedes.

this rant got really long, lol, sorry about that

no please feel free to go off lol 📣📣📣 I haven't rewatched all of 2016 but I can attest to the sky coverage and the lewis dick sucking fest that goes on roflmao... lewis talking about the team favouring nico is REALLY funny in retrospect. but that is why lewis himself admitted he's a better teammate now than he was in 2016 -- his own words!!!

did you know niki talked about how lewis would tear up his room after losing to nico (which he then paid for), then merc made him officially retract his statement 😶

i mean. nico did go insane lol, the training and full focus regiment and diet he did for 2016 was nuts. he needed 2 hours of therapy a day!!! and he walked out of a 100 million multiple year deal -- which he'd already signed!!! which means he had to pay a sweet payout for breaking the deal no doubt. but yeah even though he didn't air this part out to the media, it clearly did get to him — he proved he Can be world champion in the right car and now he had a family to go home to. and that's slay on girlboss 🫰

[saintmeghanmarkle]

Why does the British Justice system have a tent in its shorts for Harry? by u/Kimbriavandam

Why does the British Justice system have a tent in its shorts for Harry? Excuse the vulgar title of the post but seriously - what gives? Harry’s calamitous court proceedings were vindicated as he managed to get just half of his wild claims accepted .- Even if he didn’t receive the amount he was first offered.. it isn’t about the money. He wants his day in court and.. sadly got what he wanted. World wide attention and mantle of the victimhood. He’s deluded. Harry was always going to get a payout but now he’s unbearable. With his dragon slaying comparison.Other examples:Proffesional lick spittle Omids claim being treated as credible - *WTF?!?**Meagains case against the DM: Meghan should have been held legally accountable for her ‘forgetting that she had briefed Omid in Funding Freebies. Apparently the email was pages long. Of course she didn’t “forget.” And… guess what? she gets a pass.Wasn’t this perjury?There was also the lies about how her texts and em get automatically deleted after a month. ( only selected ones weirdly.)So many inconsistencies and.. nothing. No penalty. Move along, nothing to see here! Yes she was paid £1.00 for damages but this feeds into the ‘it’s not about the money’ narrative.We sinners know that the legal wins haven’t been the victory the Sussex’s are claiming. Regardless, it appears they can do and say what they like and are vindicated with world wide headlines of success. I am sure there’s more. I can only hope Samantha gets a fair trial in the States.I’d be interested in sinners thoughts on this. Especially UK folk. post link: https://ift.tt/hSyN2fa author: Kimbriavandam submitted: December 16, 2023 at 05:18PM via SaintMeghanMarkle on Reddit

[imperiallife]

Heat Death of the QT Taxi and How the Rakata (and Czerka) Might Save Us All

Editorial by The Editor

Well, my fellow sentients, rumors and threats of the price hike from free to astronomical of the QT Taxi service have now materialized and are very, very real.

Quasar Transit "QT" Taxis, a subsidiary of the Galaxy-wide BW Travel conglomerate that provides a number of convenient services for planetary and personal stronghold travel, has now tacked on a variety of unpredictable and expensive fees for everyday commutes. Once affectionately known as "Quick Travel," QT Taxis had been an extremely popular method of hiring speedy point-to-point transportation based on the user's ultra-current, mapped data of planetary features, local weather patterns, and pre-set "bind points." This enabled hired drivers to rush busy clients to an easy catalogue of destinations without wasting time on new travel path calculations. An extension of QT included travel to personal strongholds once the already-high fees for addition to the travel directory were paid. For civilians, soldiers, mercenaries, and Imperial and Republic government actors alike, this service was a godsend in navigating around war-torn and contested territories, no doubt playing a crucial role in shaping the face of the Galaxy as we see it today.

Alas, QT is free and convenient no longer.

BW Travel has decided to act on their monopolization of galactic transportation and instituted a draconian series of fees for all QT services, above and beyond fees already paid for increased convenience. Citizens of the Galaxy feel catapulted back in time to a primitive era when hiking on foot across vast and dangerous distances to locate taxis and QT bind points was the norm. Indeed, the new reality is eerily similar, with the vast majority of citizens forced to make anachronistic pilgrimages to standard planetary taxi hubs to avoid insane QT fees they're no longer able to afford. While standard taxi fares remain in the tens of credits, QT is now on the order of hundreds and thousands. Once, going home was a refuge - now, it's a calculated decision based on a nail-biting inspection of one's wallet and desperate hope for a decent payout from the next job. But it's credits up front for QT - cough up the payment, or GTFO. Not even bounty hunters mandate full payment for the most dangerous targets before the job is done! Many sentients face sleeping in the cold and the elements across the long hike, now.

Spokesmen for BW Travel claim justification as part of a multi-pronged effort to "reduce inflation" and "stabilize the galactic economy." But who made them judge, jury, and executioner? As many others suspect, this action reeks of Hutt involvement, of gleefully greedy string-pulling behind the scenes and beyond the reach of the actual governing Imperial and Republic factions. What of their self-determination? Is that not a prerequisite for basic state autonomy? Shouldn't those involved in the doings of the Galaxy know how best to fix the economy? Shouldn't they have a say in it? Or is that a lie now, with shadowy and malicious puppet-masters finally making themselves known? Who is it that thinks they have the right to "fight inflation" by inflicting penalties for basic, everyday tasks upon the poorest citizen? Meanwhile, the proud, the few, the galactic billionaires sprinkle out their pocket change on these fees with one appendage without so much as batting an eyelid, even as they make another billion with the other appendage. Do they even notice?

No.

Hutt corruption though and through. BW Travel ignored all "consultations" with citizens from every economic bracket, who unanimously advised them to stop, to consider other ways. Even those billionaires who play the Galactic Market like a fiddle say, "give us things to buy. We will voluntarily spend away our credits, if only we could! You criminalize the poor, the new, the young, and do nothing to us."

Criminalization, it is.

Yet. There is hope on the horizon. You, dear reader, have no-doubt heard of Czerka Corporation, the droid and arms manufacturer, and are at least vaguely familiar with their technological fingers in a Galaxy-spanning array of interests. You have also no-doubt heard whispers of the ancient Rakata, old and unknowable stellar gods. But have you heard of their transporter technology?

Czerka has.

According to an anonymous source inside the corporation, Czerka seeks to miniaturize the Rakata's miraculous and mysterious transportation technology. With a small, handheld device, incredibly similar to the QT comm in your pocket right now, Czerka foresees building a new transportation network upon the broken back of QT. Powered by ancient Rakatan ingenuity and using existing QT bind points, Czerka's "RT" tech would let you travel the way you do now, with almost no noticeable change - except for the travel being virtually instantaneous, of course.

Wonderous.

What does Czerka get out of it, you ask? What incentive could they possibly have? Well, the projected flat fee of 5 measly credits isn't free, of course, but with billions in the Galaxy travelling multiple times, every single day, does it need to be more?

It just needs to be affordable to everyone.

Czerka won't say how far off this development is, or even how probable it is. All we know is they're working on it.

At least someone is. At least it's not someone who knowingly fired a proton missile into our faces.

Only time can say how this will all fall out.

To the billionaires: keep making your credits. Drop a cool million on a few young'uns once in a while. To those just starting to make their way in the Galaxy: hang in there. Get a taste of the olden days, the days the billionaires still reminisce over. Learn to love the journey. You'll get there.

To all of you: keep talking at that slimy Hutt, BW Travel. If you haven't, start. Credits speak, even if it seems like no one is paying attention, and sometimes even the Hutts see fit to listen to the experts.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

When Hurricane Ian pummeled Florida last week, it left a stunning trail of physical devastation in its wake. Entire neighborhoods vanished beneath water, cities were shredded by 150-mile-per-hour winds, and thousands of people lost their homes overnight.

Though the storm has since dissipated, it will bring even more turmoil to the Sunshine State in the coming months — but this damage will be financial rather than physical. Ratings agencies and real estate companies have estimated the storm’s damages at anywhere between $30 and $60 billion, which would make it one of the largest insured loss events in U.S. history.

Wind damage is covered by standard homeowner’s insurance, and the payouts necessitated by Hurricane Ian’s extensive wreckage are likely to accelerate the collapse of the state’s homeowner’s insurance industry, driving private companies into bankruptcy and forcing thousands more Floridians into a state-run program with questionable long-term prospects. The process offers an early view of the way that natural disasters fueled by climate change threaten to upend regional economies.

Home insurance costs are poised to skyrocket for all Floridians — not just those who live in the places most vulnerable to major storms. The state will be forced to impose new taxes and penalties as it tries to keep the market afloat. New burdens will fall largely on low- and middle-income homeowners. For many working class Floridians, homeownership may become impossible to afford as a result.

“We already have a housing affordability crisis, and now we’re adding this new pressure,” said Zac Taylor, a professor at the Delft University of Technology who has studied climate risk in Florida and grew up in the city of Tampa. “Insurance is potentially the thing that is destabilizing homeownership — ironically, because it’s the thing that’s supposed to protect [homeownership] and make it possible.”

While homeowner’s insurance nationwide averages around $1500 a year, Floridians already pay almost three times as much. The state’s insurance market has been struggling ever since Hurricane Andrew made landfall south of Miami in 1992 and damaged more than 150,000 buildings. After Andrew, large private insurers like Travelers and Allstate froze their business in the state rather than risk having to pay for future disasters. This led to the creation of a public option called Citizens, which functions as an “insurer of last resort” for people who can’t find private coverage. The state also subsidized small “specialty” insurers who would only offer homeowner’s coverage in Florida, shifting market share away from national companies.

But this local market has begun to teeter in recent years, even in the absence of any major hurricanes. One reason is that Florida has become a hotbed for sham roof-repair lawsuits. Shady contractors approach a homeowner and offer her a free new roof, then file a claim with her insurer on her behalf, even if her roof didn’t actually suffer any insurable damage. Then, the contractors litigate the claim until the insurer settles. This has gotten quite expensive for insurers in the state: Florida accounted for 8% of all homeowner’s insurance claims in the United States in 2019, but more than 75% of all insurance lawsuits.

At the same time, it has become much more expensive for insurance companies to purchase their own insurance. The companies buy this so-called “reinsurance” to guarantee that they have enough money to make large payouts after big disasters, but the large global companies that sell reinsurance have gotten cagey about offering it in Florida, considering that the state has built millions of additional homes in areas vulnerable to natural disasters even as climate change increases their risk. The reinsurance companies have raised prices to account for this, and many local insurers have struggled to keep up with the costs.

The high costs of litigation and reinsurance had already driven six local insurers bankrupt so far this year, even before Hurricane Ian. In the summer, a ratings firm called Demotech threatened to downgrade several other specialty insurers, saying they weren’t stable enough to deal with a big storm. That downgrade would have made them worthless in the eyes of major lenders and effectively removed them from the market. It caused a flurry of concern from state lawmakers, one of whom said the market was about to “collapse.”

Hurricane Ian is likely to hasten that collapse by driving at least a few more homeowner’s insurance companies into bankruptcy. If Ian’s damages are close to the estimated $30 to $50 billion, it would be especially catastrophic for Florida’s already-struggling specialty insurers. The companies that do survive will have to pay even more for reinsurance, which will force them to further raise prices.

“I would predict the price of insurance will go up in Florida, or, certainly insurers will be looking for price increases,” Alice Hill, a climate change and insurance expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, told Grist. “It’s proving to be risky, particularly with climate change, looking at these storms intensifying more quickly.… Homeowner’s insurance is written on a year-by-year basis, so if a big event comes through, there’s a change next year.”

New bankruptcies and price hikes on the private market would drive thousands more Floridians to Citizens, the public insurance provider that the state established after Hurricane Andrew. The number of Floridians enrolled in Citizens has already surged over the past decade as other private insurers have collapsed, and this year the program surpassed 1 million policyholders for the first time, having doubled in size over two years. It controls around 15% of the insurance market — and more than twice that in especially vulnerable places like Miami.

“You’re going to see a big increase in the number of policies going to Citizens, and you could see a significant portion of the private market just go away,” said Charles Nyce, a professor of risk management at Florida State University and an expert on the state’s insurance market. “And the more of the market Citizens takes, the more at risk the state is.”

That’s because the state is on the hook to help Citizens pay out claims after big storms. Citizens has about $13 billion right now, and early estimates suggest that claims from Ian will only cost the program around $4 billion, so it’s not in any immediate financial jeopardy. But the program will balloon in size over the coming years as it absorbs all the people who lose coverage on the private market after Ian, and its expanding roster will leave it more vulnerable to the next big storm. If another Ian comes around, Citizens might find itself short on cash.

This would force Citizens to make what is called an assessment, or a “hurricane tax” in local lingo. When the program faces financial difficulties, it can impose a surcharge on every person in Florida who buys any kind of property insurance, from home insurance to auto insurance to business insurance. This surcharge acts as a kind of tax subsidy for people in vulnerable areas: Everyone in Florida ponies up to ensure the state can help storm victims rebuild.

“That’s the biggest concern I have,” said Nyce. “Say you’re a single mom working in Orlando living in an apartment, but yet you have to own a car. Now you’re paying an assessment on your auto insurance to subsidize someone who lives on the beach.”

Since Hurricane Ian is unlikely to stem the tide of new arrivals to Florida — and since the only insurance option for these new arrivals will be Citizens — Nyce said that these assessments could become much more common as the years go on. In the past they have never exceeded around 1.5% of annual insurance bills, but future storms could drive that number higher.

Citizens can also issue bonds to fund payouts, said Nyce. But because it would issue those bonds against the state’s credit rating, doing so could dampen the state’s own ability to borrow money, again leading to higher costs down the road. And the more tax revenue the state spends propping up Citizens, the less it has to fund other essential services like education and transportation.

The upshot is that Hurricane Ian could make life in Florida a lot more expensive for everyone in the state who owns a home or a car. Decades of rapid development and a new era of supercharged storms have created a risk burden that is impossible for the private insurance market to bear. Now, in the aftermath of Ian, the state’s 21 million residents will assume more and more of that risk, and their wallets will see its earliest effects.

For an example of how these costs might impact vulnerable Floridians, Taylor pointed to the community of Miami Gardens, a majority-Black community in the Miami metroplex that is one of the last places in the region where homes are affordable.

“How is this community supposed to reduce its risk?” they said. “How are homeowners going to deal with this? We’re talking potentially the equivalent of multiple monthly mortgage payments … and this is not poised to go [back] down. Fewer and fewer people are going to be able to afford their houses.”

[voskhozhdeniye]

Spotify is planning to make changes to its royalties model early next year, Billboard and Music Business Worldwide report. The reported plans will impact artists who don’t generate significant streaming numbers, anyone accused of fraudulent activity, and anyone who uploads white noise or nature sounds. The first proposed change to their royalties system requires for a song to hit a minimum number of annual streams before it will generate royalties. That threshold, which has not been announced or made clear, will reportedly demonetize songs that received 0.5% of the streamer’s overall royalty pool. According to MBW, that money will be redistributed through Spotify’s Streamshare royalty pot and pay out to more popular songs. Another new change will be financial penalties to music distributors whose uploads are flagged for fraudulent activity. Non-music “noise” tracks—specifically mentioned are white noise and nature sounds—will require longer play times to generate royalties, though the specific length has not been made clear. It also hasn’t been specified how it will be determined if a track falls into that category. When reached about the reported changes being planned, a Spotify spokesperson shared this statement: “We’re always evaluating how we can best serve artists, and regularly discuss with partners ways to further platform integrity. We do not have any news to share at this time.” The United Musicians and Allied Workers union offered a reaction to today’s news. “Artists have solutions to fix streaming but Spotify isn’t listening,” the union shared on social media. “Instead they propose changes that will enrich the top of the pyramid even more, and make it even more impossible for working musicians to benefit from streaming.” The Future of Music Coalition added: “This marks a serious shift away from how the service was pitched to the musician community at launch, as a level playing field that treated all tracks the same. Over time, Spotify has shifted further and further away from that pledge.”

[mariacallous]

hi boss,

soooo the twitter thing has gone on for a bit, a lot of firing, quitting, more firing, I've seen posts to the effect that Musk has broken EU labor laws/rules idk if thats true or not, I've seen reports that Tesla has lost about 50% of its value since Musk first floated his plan to take over twitter

and I just wanted your take on the whole thing, will twitter go down? will Musk lose everything?

The short answers to your questions are "probably, before too long" and "not really anytime soon barring other situations".

Twitter is definitely going to "collide with Brussels" as I've seen some commentators put it. For all of the European employees he's laid off, I can comfortably say he and his people never thought about any EU employment law and requirements, and so any employees laid off there would be able to pursue legal and other challenges through the EU systems, and until a proper laying off/termination is done, would still be considered employees and entitled to compensation. And he's still facing lawsuits in CA over the improper firing situation there.

Additionally, any payroll issues will add to further complaints and issues for Twitter (of which there is likely to be several all around) because of US and EU pay requirements.

Additionally, the EU has some pretty serious data privacy and information tech regulations, with more on the way, and if they end up running afoul of those regulations, they could be blocked from being used in the EU, and can face serious fines and penalties in addition. And the EU is going to be more than willing to use Twitter as a test case for the new rules coming out.

Additionally, with more disinformation and more bot and crypto and porn usage, they face penalties under any US and EU regulations or statutes *there*, to say nothing of Apple removing/banning Twitter from the app store, in addition to further advertiser exodus.

And then there's the FTC fines for violating the consent order plus any new violations or failures by Twitter.

For the fines and penalties and legal costs alone, we're talking millions of dollars - and likely from both Musk and other executives in addition to the company. And that's not including the other costs (such as additional payouts or compensation ordered by the courts should they rule in favor of twitter employees, which I would imagine they would considering how relatively clear-cut the violations are). If twitter and Musk try to get out of contracts or paying for services, they can be brought to court there too (and there's already indications that that's happening).

Estimates have indicated that Twitter has lost about 60% of its workforce since Musk took over, which is staggering to think about.

in regards to the value of Tesla, its shares have lost about 58% of their value in the past year, and Musk himself has lost about $170 billion, with an almost $9 billion loss yesterday. He had about $340 billion net worth in 2021. Depending on investments and other resources, and other revenue streams and the support of his other investors and the banks, he'll be able to hold out for a while specifically with twitter. If he continues to lose and if Twitter continues to lose money, that may change. And his other companies, of which Tesla and SpaceX are the most profitable and successful, are not super financially secure and reliant on him and Twitter, now (especially when something like 13%/just over $6 billion of the money to buy Twitter came from a margin loan based on Tesla securities, and when another 28%/$13 billion came from debt financing which means twitter has to pay like $1 billion in loans every year, which is a $500 million/year increase from previously. That debt financing is 7 times what were once the projected earnings for Twitter for 2022, by the way).

Twitter will remain, in some form, as long as the servers and code and other systems are still there - whether it loses functionality and has more issues is something else entirely. Elon Musk will continue to be ridiculously wealthy, unless he ends up being like that FTX guy or other cryptonaires and it turns out his wealth was far shakier than it otherwise looked.

[xsystema99]

Armored Core VI: Fires of Rubicon

A shell the size of a tanker car screams next to me, the heat and pressure alone enough to shred most of my armor plating. There is a great thunder behind me as it throws up such a fireball into the sky that it eats a helicopter whole. What is ahead of me is “The Wall” - a towering “rebel” fortress, near impenetrable, its defenses bolstered by the behemoth artillery piece that just wiped out any chance of profiting from this exercise within the first fifteen seconds on the ground. I’ve been contracted by BALAM, a corporation heavily investing in natural resource speculation, to “climb the Wall”; to beat the rebels into submission, silence their guns, and leave that killdozer Gustav Schwerer hybrid a sundered wreck. I will fight them all so fiercely, with such exacting precision, that I will almost feel guilty. Each cry of pain, desperate plea, that’s another few thousand c-notes hitting my bank account. It’s just business, after all. If I didn’t take this job, some other merc would.

This is a game about doing the dirty work nobody else will. It’s about taking a huge fucking paycheck to wipe out the desperate and hopeless prisoners of this barred off tomb-world to clear the way for capitalist exploitation. Your actions on Rubicon 3 are, contrary to what you may be conditioned to think by an economic system that’s all but enslaved you to brutal individualist violence, of truly interstellar importance. A new epoch is about to begin – and you? For two of the endings, you staight up do not give a fuck, and the “third way” will see you standing on the broken and bloodied bodies of everyone who put their trust into you. This game feels like the end times, an inescapable and absolutely crushing sense of impending doom bearing down on you at all times, the total and complete collapse of all order. There is a razor thin line between somewhat ordered anarcho-capitalism and desperate turmoil constantly being walked. 

Missions take the form of contracts, freelance gigs passed to you through the enigmatic “Handler Walter”, where your on the job performance determines your payout or penalty, depending(One criticism I have is that my finances were never in a truly desperate state in Armored Core VI, probably because you can replay missions at any time to earn some extra cash). You’ll be hit with a video briefing outlining the job request, intel on enemy positions and equipment, and some potential risks. Often, missions are simple affairs, “destroy this” and “activate that”, but when they go wildly off course, like when the PCA begins to invade Rubicon during a routine intel gathering mission, forcing you to stare down a battleship and it’s mecha escorts, that’s where Armored Core VI’s structure really shines. More often than not, you’ll get absolutely beasted on by whatever surprises Armored Core VI has in store, but in those moments where you fight back with all your might and win – that’s prime mecha right there. Facing down overwhelming odds and coming out on top by the skin of your teeth. When I stood amidst the flaming wreckage of foes I had never seen before, only a few hundred health points left and completely bereft of ammo, that’s when I was like “oh they get it”. The mechanics and structure synthesize in such a way that, to invoke a classic games writing cliche, makes you feel like Char Aznable. To some, that sentence won’t even register, but to those who know, it will mean everything.

Mechanized warfare is fast like lightning and loud like thunder. Build depending, mechs will either shriek or roar as nuclear thrusters send them hurtling towards each other, clashing in a dizzying acrobatic whirlwind where the visuals ascend from realism into impressions. Your unfocused eyes adhere to monocolor silhouettes, calculating movement, trajectory, angles of attack – It’s in these moments where Armored Core VI’s visuals truly ascend, the cold realism disappears in this haze of light and fire and everything becomes a kind of industrial impressionism.  To fully take in every movement of your foe is an outright impossibility, so you enter a sort of high blood pressure fugue state where everything melts away except you and the enemy. With four weapons (one in each hand, two on your shoulders) on your AC, each with unique damage and stagger properties, firing stances, accuracy values, and ideal ranges, Armored Core VI frequently becomes overwhelming in the best way possible. And god, the movement. After boosting, your AC skates across the ground Armored Trooper VOTOMS style, kicking up an inferno of sparks and shrapnel. Adjusting your course in one direction has your AC lean into the turn like it’s on roller skates, igniting peripheral thrusters on the opposite side to heave this hundred ton titan into a new trajectory. Leaping between and on top of buildings, chaining evasive dodges into forward boosts, and then chaining that movement into a devastating frontal kick felt surprisingly natural on keyboard and mouse after only a few hours of playtime. 

The addition of a Sekiro-esque posture mechanic, where attacks deal damage to both health and stamina, gives more freedom in build variety than I’ve experienced in any prior Armored Core. Looking to reddit and twitter, you’ll see no shortage of dual gatling and grenade launcher builds absolutely stomping some of the game’s nastiest bosses into the dirt, but that is easily the least rewarding playstyle on offer here. The general purpose AC that I would default to when going out on missions and fighting in the arena, was a mid-weight, in your face beast, blasting pistols akimbo to build up stagger from mid range before boosting in with dual shotguns, obliterating enemy armor at close-range. Shoulder weapons are cool, and offer no shortage of unique, artillery heavy playstyles, but I wound up having a lot more fun hot swapping between hand weapons like a 20 meter tall gunslinger. Regardless, there are so many parts, all with such distinctive properties that meaningfully alter your approach to combat, that I suspect my preferred AC build is going to change on each subsequent deployment to Rubicon’s surface. 

The boss fights are some of From Software’s best. My personal highlight was an early game showdown with a PCA prototype, BALTHEUS, an Armored Core strapped into a rocket-propelled throne with orbiting wheels of fire that invoke oppressive biblically imagery, a vainglorious robotic testament to the PCA’s bloated self-importance. I probably spent two whole days getting skill checked by this thing, but by the time I dealt the killing blow, my piloting skills had increased ten-fold. I was deftly dodging heat-seeking missile barrages, keeping track of their orientation and orbit path in my head as they screeched out of view, relentlessly pressing my assault while anticipating them circling back on a new heading. I was jumping over sword slashes and boosting under white hot napalm barrages, retaliating with a kind of exacting precision that Sekiro’s triumphant displays of martial skill. SEA SPIDER was similarly thrilling, especially when I identified the blind spot near its abdomen. Chasing this Hollywood producer’s wet dream down required constant assault boosts towards its thorax, always aligning my AC with one of it’s gargantuan legs so that I would be obscured from the firing path of the devastating central laser cannon. There’s a genuinely uncountable number of thrilling, suck the air out of your lungs encounters just like these in Armored Core VI.

My colleague Ted Litchfield wrote about how the presence of the Interior Ministry in Sekiro communicates so much about the state of the wider world – the vast, homogenizing engine of homogenizing snuffing out whole cultures, the great die-off of magic and folklore in society. Armored Core VI uses a similar technique with the presence of the PCA, albeit to a somehow more depressing effect. After a brief inter-corporate ceasefire, the PCA are all but routed from Rubicon in the conclusion of the second act, serving as a grandiose but ultimately ineffectual presence. I was so immersed in Armored Core VI’s setting that I found myself longing for the return of these strict legalists, the only evidence of some kind of centralized government or authority that stands a chance at stopping the corporations from achieving total dominance. If the PCA can’t stop the corporations, who can? 

The answer, obviously, is you. That “third way” ending, the Liberation of Rubicon, is one of the most uplifting finales to a game I’ve played since Ace Combat Zero. The bodies of your masters still fresh, you act independently to become the tip of the spear of an organized military effort to dislodge the corps from Rubicon, fighting above and alongside the mercenaries you’ve bested in the Arena and on the job. The droning synths and irregular industrial beats that dominated Armored Core VI’s soundtrack are remixed into a composition that is nothing short of angelic, the perfect accompaniment to a conclusion that sees Rubicon’s impenetrable gray skies part as you soar glorious and above a planet again consumed by raging fire – the fires of liberation. And after all is laid to rest, laid to waste, Armored Core VI still ends on a melancholy, mournful note: You can only do what you think is right. 

Ultimately, Armored Core VI is a deep game, both mechanically and narratively. It’s unlikely that this will be my final piece of writing on a game that genuinely moved me in a way few games have. It is the platonic ideal of the mech action game, all your Gundam and Macross daydreams and power fantasies made playable at the highest fidelity possible, with a narrative that stands tall in how it contextualizes, and allows you to contextualize, your own sordid actions. I cannot recommend Armored Core VI: Fires of Rubicon enough. 

[peachfirm]

Your Legal Options in Atlanta Hit-and-Run Accidents

Involved in a hit-and-run case? We understand how complex and overwhelming it can feel. Unfortunately, this type of accident is common in Atlanta, so you must know how to handle the situation. Even if you aren't a victim, some extra knowledge never hurts.

What Is a Hit-and-Run Case?

A hit-and-run case is when one party (usually the liable one) hits another driver, pedestrian, or cyclist and doesn't stop to offer aid or exchange any information. Fleeing from the accident is a misdemeanor unless no one's seriously or fatally injured. Penalties can often vary depending on the severity of injuries and damages but usually include fines, suspended driver's licenses, or imprisonment. Penalties become severe in the second, third, or subsequent conviction.

Hit-and-Run Statistics in Atlanta

In Atlanta, hit-and-run cases are increasing at an incredible rate. The Georgia Department of Transportation statistics reveal around 28,278 (reported) hit-and-run accidents in Atlanta. Although Atlanta has a fantastic road network, it also has several accident hotspots, making driving challenging. Accident victims don't just experience physical and emotional trauma but also deal with legal and insurance issues without knowing who is at fault.

Legal Steps to Follow After a Hit-and-Run Accident

If you're a victim of a hit-and-run accident in Atlanta, it's important to take immediate legal steps to protect your rights. But before that, and while you're at the accident site, it's crucial to call 911 and report the incident. Also, even if your injuries don't seem concerning, get them checked by a medical professional so you have a formal report documenting everything that happened.

If you can move around, gather as much information as possible from the accident scene. Document everything through photos and videos. Take note of witness information and carefully write essential details like the fleeing vehicle's make, color, model, or license plate number to strengthen your case when you pursue compensation.

Notify your insurance provider or agent ASAP and verify what your policy includes and excludes. Lastly, hire a car accident attorney in Atlanta with experience in hit-and-run cases to track down the responsible party, navigate the legal process, and fight for justified compensation.

How a Lawyer Can Help

If you think lawyers can be expensive and you'll be fine without one, think again. Hiring a lawyer specializing in personal injury in Atlanta can be instrumental in fighting for justice and compensation. The assistance of an expert can make a significant difference in the outcome of your case.

Skilled attorneys work one-on-one with law enforcement and investigators to determine the responsible party. They gather necessary evidence like traffic footage, witness statements, and forensic evidence to strengthen your case. They're also experts at handling negotiations with insurance companies, who often minimize payouts and convince you to settle for less. If you have an uninsured motorist protection, professional assistance can prove invaluable to represent your claim fairly.

When the hit-and-run driver is identified, your attorney can file a personal injury lawsuit against them and recover damages like short-term and long-term medical expenses, lost wages, and emotional distress. Their reputation, familiarity with Atlanta laws, and proven track record maximize your chances of winning the case.

Don't Face a Hit-and-Run Alone. Get Professional Help.

A hit-and-run can leave you feeling fearful and helpless. Besides, navigating the aftermath can be overwhelming. If you or a loved one has been involved in a hit-and-run accident in Atlanta, a skilled attorney can help. Immediate action is essential in such time-sensitive cases. A lawyer's expertise can increase your chances of recovering fair compensation. Book a consultation right away.

[vmfinserv]

Is a Money Back Insurance Plan in Jodhpur a Good Investment?

When thinking about your financial future, one important question often comes up: is a money back insurance plan in Jodhpur a good investment? If you are considering options like the Money Back Policy LIC Plan in Jodhpur, it’s important to understand how these plans work and if they fit your needs. What is a Money Back Insurance Plan?

A money back insurance plan combines insurance coverage with a savings component. Unlike other insurance plans where you receive the payout only after the policy term ends or upon death, a money back policy gives you regular payouts during the policy term. These payouts are called survival benefits. So, if you buy a Money Back Insurance Plan, you receive a portion of the sum assured at regular intervals, and at the end of the term, if you’ve survived, you get the remaining amount along with any bonuses. Why Consider a Money Back Policy? 1. Regular Income: One of the main advantages of a money back policy is the regular income it provides. If you choose the Money Back Policy, you’ll receive a percentage of the sum assured at predetermined intervals. This can be useful for meeting financial goals like paying for your child’s education or managing family expenses. 2. Life Coverage: Besides providing regular payouts, these policies also offer life insurance. In case of the policyholder's unfortunate demise, the nominee gets the sum assured. This ensures that your loved ones are financially protected even if you are not around. 3. Bonus Facility: Many money back plans come with bonus facilities. Bonuses are additional amounts that can increase your overall returns. If you have a Money Back Plan, you might receive bonuses that add to your survival benefits or final payout. 4. Savings Component: Money back plans are a good way to save systematically. Since you get money back at intervals, it helps in planning your savings and spending more effectively. The disciplined approach of saving regularly can help build a financial cushion over time. Things to Consider

1. Lower Returns: While money back policies provide regular payouts, the overall returns might be lower compared to other investment options like mutual funds or stocks. If your primary goal is high returns, you might want to explore other investment avenues alongside insurance. 2. Premium Costs: Money back insurance plans can be more expensive than traditional term insurance policies. You pay higher premiums because you’re getting regular payouts and insurance coverage. Make sure that the premiums fit your budget and financial goals. 3. Lock-In Period: These policies have a fixed term. If you need to access your money earlier, you might face penalties or lower returns. Ensure that you are comfortable with the policy duration and the terms. Is It Right for You?

If you are looking for a mix of insurance and regular savings with a focus on financial security and planned savings, then a Money Back Insurance might be a suitable option. It provides a steady income, life coverage, and a bonus facility. However, if you are aiming for higher investment returns and have a high-risk appetite, you might want to consider other financial products.

[coastalworkcomp467476]

5 Reasons Staffing Agencies Need Workers Comp Insurance 💼🛡️

Running a staffing agency? Here's why having the right workers comp insurance for staffing companies is essential to keeping your agency safe and compliant! 🏢

Top 5 Reasons to Get Covered:

🏥 Protect Your Employees: Medical coverage for injuries on the job.

⚖️ Stay Compliant: Meet state laws and avoid penalties.

💸 Financial Security: Prevent costly lawsuits and compensation payouts.

📊 Industry-Specific Risks: Every sector—healthcare, construction, clerical—has different hazards.

👔 Peace of Mind: Show clients and employees you care about their well-being.

Get covered with Coastal Work Comp—tailored for staffing agencies like yours! We provide affordable, flexible, and comprehensive insurance plans. Protect your workforce today!

🌐 [CoastalWorkComp.com] 📞 1-800-123-4567

[jefaccounting]

Maximizing Your SMSF: How an Expert Accountant Can Help You Thrive

1. Introduction to SMSF and Why It Matters

Self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) are a powerful financial vehicle for those looking to take control of their retirement planning. Unlike traditional super funds, SMSFs offer a level of control and customization that allows individuals to tailor their investments to their specific needs and goals. However, with this control comes a heightened level of complexity. To truly unlock the potential of your SMSF, working with a qualified SMSF accountant is not just advisable—it’s essential.

2. The Critical Role of an SMSF Accountant

An SMSF accountant doesn’t just handle paperwork; they play a strategic role in ensuring the compliance and efficiency of your fund. They are responsible for managing financial records, completing tax returns, and ensuring your fund complies with Australian tax laws. With frequent changes in regulations, having an expert guide can prevent costly mistakes and ensure you’re leveraging your fund to its full potential.

3. Why SMSF Compliance is Non-Negotiable

Compliance is at the heart of any successful SMSF strategy. The Australian Tax Office (ATO) has stringent rules governing SMSFs, and non-compliance can result in significant penalties. An SMSF accountant ensures that your fund is not only compliant but also positioned to maximize tax benefits and avoid unnecessary risks. Regular audits, timely tax returns, and adherence to legal guidelines are crucial to the long-term health of your SMSF.

4. How an Expert Accountant Maximizes Tax Efficiency

One of the most significant advantages of managing an SMSF is the opportunity for tax savings. An SMSF accountant can strategically manage your investments to minimize your tax liabilities. From structuring investment portfolios to take advantage of tax concessions to navigating complex regulations, a skilled accountant ensures that your fund operates in the most tax-efficient manner possible. If you’re looking for broader expertise, a tax accountant in Hornsby can further optimize your financial structure.

5. Strategic Investment Advice Tailored to Your Needs

SMSFs allow for greater control over your investment choices, but this freedom can also lead to missteps without proper guidance. A knowledgeable SMSF accountant can provide strategic advice, ensuring that your investments align with your long-term financial goals. They can also help you diversify your portfolio, reducing risk while maximizing returns. Their expertise in areas like property investment, shares, and even collectibles can be invaluable.

6. Navigating the Complexities of SMSF Auditing

Each SMSF must undergo an annual audit, which can be a daunting process without the right expertise. A professional SMSF accountant not only prepares your financial statements but also liaises with independent auditors to ensure a seamless audit experience. By staying on top of this process, they mitigate any potential compliance issues and ensure that your fund remains in good standing with regulatory bodies.

7. The Benefits of Corporate Bookkeeping in SMSF Management

Accurate bookkeeping is the cornerstone of a well-managed SMSF. Managing contributions, payouts, and investments requires precise record-keeping. Leveraging corporate bookkeeping services can streamline the administrative burden of your SMSF, leaving you more time to focus on growing your investments. An expert accountant ensures your fund’s finances are meticulously tracked, which is essential for compliance and long-term growth.

8. How Taxation Services Enhance Your SMSF Strategy

Tax planning for SMSFs requires a deep understanding of taxation laws and benefits. Engaging a specialized taxation advisor ensures that you are taking full advantage of available concessions. From tax returns to capital gains management, SMSF accountants provide insights that can significantly improve the tax efficiency of your investments. Their comprehensive understanding of taxation services ensures no opportunities for savings are missed.

9. Preparing for Retirement: The Long-Term View

One of the main reasons individuals opt for an SMSF is to have more control over their retirement funds. An experienced SMSF accountant works with you to create a long-term financial strategy that ensures your fund grows sustainably. From managing pension phase transitions to ensuring your investments are retirement-ready, their advice helps you achieve financial independence when it matters most.

10. Tax Accounting Services for Small Business Owners with SMSFs

Small business owners often use SMSFs as part of their retirement strategy. If you’re a business owner, it’s essential to find an accountant experienced in tax accounting for small business who also understands SMSFs. These dual expertise areas ensure that both your business and your retirement fund are optimized for tax efficiency and financial growth.

11. Avoiding Common SMSF Mistakes

Managing an SMSF independently can lead to common pitfalls, including misinterpreting compliance rules or failing to maximize investment opportunities. A seasoned SMSF accountant can help you avoid these errors by offering ongoing advice, keeping up with regulatory changes, and ensuring that your investment strategy remains on course. Their role is as much about preventing financial missteps as it is about maximizing growth.

12. Final Thoughts: Thriving with Expert Guidance

Maximizing the potential of your SMSF requires more than just financial savvy—it demands expert advice and strategic planning. By partnering with a skilled SMSF accountant, you ensure that your fund remains compliant, tax-efficient, and aligned with your long-term goals. The right accountant provides not just peace of mind but a pathway to financial success and security in your retirement years.

[andygitipityapon]

Optimizing Your Retirement Savings: Strategies for a Prosperous Future

Effective retirement planning is essential for ensuring a comfortable and financially secure future. With life expectancies rising and the costs of living increasing, maximizing your retirement savings is more important than ever. This guide outlines practical strategies for building a robust retirement fund, focusing on savings techniques, investment choices, and planning tools.

Start Early and Save Regularly

Beginning your retirement savings early in your career leverages the power of compound interest, where the returns on your investments generate their returns over time. Starting early also means you can contribute smaller amounts, which have grown significantly over the decades. It's not too late to begin if it hasn't started early. Increase your savings rate to catch up; even a few years of higher contributions can make a substantial difference in your retirement fund.

Utilize Tax-Advantaged Accounts

Maximize contributions to tax-advantaged retirement accounts such as 401(k)s, IRAs, and Roth IRAs. These accounts offer significant tax benefits that can accelerate your savings. For instance, contributions to a traditional IRA or 401(k) are tax-deductible, reducing your taxable income during your working years. Roth IRAs provide tax-free growth and withdrawals, which is beneficial if you expect to be in a higher tax bracket in retirement.

Employer Match Programs

If your employer offers a 401(k) match, ensure you contribute enough to get the maximum match. This is free money and an immediate return on your investment. For example, if your employer matches up to 5% of your salary, ensure you contribute at least that much to take full advantage of this benefit. Over time, these contributions can significantly increase your retirement savings.

Diversify Your Investments

Diversification helps manage risk and reduce the volatility of your investment portfolio over time. Instead of putting all your eggs in one basket, spread your investments across various asset classes, including stocks, bonds, real estate, and commodities. Each asset class has different levels of risk and return, so diversifying can help shield your savings from significant losses if one sector performs poorly.

Adjust Your Risk Over Time

As you approach retirement, consider adjusting your investment strategy to focus more on capital preservation rather than aggressive growth. This typically means gradually reducing your exposure to stocks and increasing your investments in bonds and other lower-risk assets. This strategy, often called a "glide path," helps protect your savings from market volatility that could erode your retirement fund as you near when you'll need to start drawing on it.

Automate Your Savings

Automating your savings can remove the temptation to skip contributions and help ensure you consistently invest in your future. Set up automatic transfers from your checking account to your retirement accounts regularly. This way, saving for retirement becomes a regular part of your budget, much like any other essential expense.

Review and Adjust Regularly

Your financial situation and the economic environment will change over time, so it's important to review and adjust your retirement strategy periodically. At least once a year, check your portfolio's performance, reassess your financial goals, and change your contributions or asset allocation as necessary. This is also a good time to increase your savings rate if your income increases.

Plan for Healthcare Costs

Healthcare costs can be one of the largest expenses in retirement. To prepare, consider investing in a Health Savings Account (HSA) if eligible. HSAs offer triple tax advantages: tax-deductible contributions, tax-free growth, and tax-free withdrawals for qualified medical expenses. Additionally, after age 65, you can withdraw funds for any purpose without penalty, although you'll payout pay income tax if the withdrawal is not used for medical expenses.

By implementing these strategies, you can maximize your retirement savings and work towards a future where financial worries are minimized, allowing you to enjoy your retirement years to the fullest. Starting early, taking advantage of tax benefits, investing wisely, and planning for future expenses are all crucial steps in building a sufficient retirement nest egg.

[hustleventure]

Progressive Payment Scheme For Singapore's New Launch

The PROGRESSIVE PAYMENT SCHEME FOR SINGAPORE’S NEW LAUNCH offers a phased payment plan for new condos, aligning payments with construction milestones. This structured approach benefits buyers by spreading payments over time, which can ease financial pressure. With the Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD) deadlines approaching, developers might offer discounts to avoid penalties, creating unique opportunities for buyers. Financial incentives like cash payouts, tax rebates, and CPF top-ups further enhance affordability. Notable new launches, such as Parc Clematis and Meyer Mansion, are seeing strong interest as they near completion. Prospective buyers can use various financial tools to plan and make informed decisions.

[dannydehekfacts]

Inside Danny De Hek Ponzi Scheme: What New York Times Revealed

Danny De Hek: A True Believer in Fraudulent Cryptocurrency Scheme OneCoin Owned by Ruja Ignatova.

In a sensational announcement that has upset the cryptocurrency world, Danny De Hek has been implicated in a large-scale Ponzi scheme, with detailed reports emerging from The New York Times. This scandal underscores significant risks within the crypto industry and highlights the urgent need for vigilance and regulatory oversight. Here, we delve into the details of the case and its broader implications.

The Scheme Exposed: Detailed Look at the Allegations

Danny De Hek, who previously garnered attention for his supposed expertise and investment opportunities in the cryptocurrency market, now faces serious allegations. According to The New York Times, De Hek’s operation promised investors high returns through a sophisticated cryptocurrency investment scheme. The scheme attracted several participants with its enticing promise of significant and rapid financial gains.

A Ponzi scheme operates by using the capital from new investors to pay returns to earlier investors, rather than generating profit through legitimate business activities. The scheme relies on a continuous influx of new investments to sustain payouts and often collapses when it becomes impossible to recruit new investors or when the operator can no longer hide the scheme’s true nature.

The Aftermath: Investor Losses and Market Repercussions

The exposure of De Hek’s Ponzi scheme has had significant repercussions. Investors who poured their savings into the scheme are now facing severe financial losses. Many of these individuals, attracted by the promise of high returns, are left grappling with the reality of having invested in a fraudulent scheme. The emotional and financial toll on these investors cannot be understated, as they navigate the aftermath of their misplaced trust.

The broader cryptocurrency market has also been affected. The association of Ponzi schemes with digital currencies can further tarnish the reputation of the crypto industry, which is already facing scrutiny and skepticism. Such scandals may deter potential investors and complicate efforts to establish the legitimacy of cryptocurrencies as a credible investment class. It emphasizes the need for greater transparency and regulatory oversight to protect investors and ensure the integrity of the market.

Regulatory and Legal Influences

In light of the revelations, regulatory authorities are likely to intensify their scrutiny of Danny De Hek and others involved in the scheme. Investigations are underway to determine the full extent of the fraud and to hold accountable those responsible. Legal actions may include fines, penalties, and potential imprisonment for individuals found guilty of orchestrating or participating in the scheme.

This case also highlights the need for stronger regulatory frameworks in the cryptocurrency space. As digital currencies continue to evolve and attract more investors, regulatory bodies must adapt to address emerging threats and ensure robust protections for participants. Enhanced due diligence, transparency requirements, and investor education are essential components in preventing similar incidents in the future.

Lessons Learned: Safeguarding Against Future Fraud

The Danny De Hek case offers several crucial lessons for investors and the cryptocurrency industry:

1. Conduct Thorough Research: Investors should perform extensive research before committing funds to any investment opportunity. This includes verifying the legitimacy of the investment, understanding the associated risks, and consulting with reputable financial advisors.

2. Recognize Red Flags: Be cautious of investment schemes that promise unusually high returns with minimal risk. Legitimate investments carry inherent risks, and returns should be realistic and aligned with industry standards.

3. Stay Informed About Regulations: Understanding and staying up-to-date with regulatory requirements can help investors make informed decisions and avoid falling prey to fraudulent schemes.

4. Promote Industry Standards: The cryptocurrency industry must work towards establishing and adhering to robust standards and best practices to enhance transparency and safeguard investor interests.

5. Encourage Transparency: Transparency in investment opportunities and financial dealings is crucial for building trust and preventing fraud. Both investors and industry participants should advocate for and support transparent practices.

Conclusion

The Danny De Hek Ponzi scheme has served as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities within the cryptocurrency investment landscape. The New York Times’ coverage has shed light on the intricacies of the fraud, bringing to attention the urgent need for enhanced regulatory measures and investor vigilance. As the investigation continues, the cryptocurrency market must address these issues and work towards creating a more secure and credible environment for investors.

Source: https://medium.com/@DvirDerhy/inside-danny-de-hek-ponzi-scheme-what-new-york-times-revealed-1cf64bdec74d