Saturday 14 November 2009

Fight Against Corruption - After Deterrence Comes the Structural Changes

A campaign against corruption must be credible. The public has grown cynical. Citizens and bureaucrats have heard all the words before. They have even seen a few minor prosecutions. But the culture of corruption remains, especially the feeling of high-level impunity. As a result, people feel that awful sense of structural shame that characterizes underdevelopment. Its awful, but there is nothing one can do about it. Its part of the system, part of the culture. As one Italian said before the remarkable recent events, In some parts of the world corruption is a fact of life. Here, its a way of life.

Experience indicates that frying big fish can help break that culture of corruption. Big corrupt actors must be publicly named and punished so that a cynical public believes that an anti-corruption drive is more than words, more than a campaign against a political opponents. Importantly, therefore, the first big fish must come from the party in power.

Having said this, the fishing of big offenders can be overdone. At some point it is a mistake to focus on the past if it takes energy away from a focus on the future. An analogy with health policy is germane. If illness is rampant, it must be treated. But in the long run, prevention deserves priority. In the case of reducing corruption, prevention means reducing monopoly power, limiting official discretion, and enhancing transparency in institutions of the public and private sectors.

Therefore, after frying a few big fish, we must turn to the reform of institutions. In the case of government corruption, experience shows that public officials should be involved in the solutions. We should begin with the positive. In particular, work with line officials to define ways to measure public sector success, and then link part of the officials' compensation to the achievement of results.

Private citizens should also be involved in the campaign to reduce corruption. The greatest enemy of corruption is the people. People can be sources of information about where corruption occurs. Popular participation may substitute, in some cases, for bureaucracy, thus reducing the scope of corrupt allocations. I have described in Controlling Corruption the many ways that popular participation was used in Hong Kong successful battle against corruption: hot lines, call-in shows, educational programs, barrio councils, oversight bodies for public agencies, involvement of professional organizations, and so forth.

How should we think about prevention? Corruption occurs when individuals find their economic calculation favors corruption. If the probability of being caught is small and the penalty is mild and the payoff is large relative to the positive incentives facing the government official, then we will tend to find corruption. Fortunately, it is possible to locate areas within an organization where corruption is most likely. Some people call it vulnerability assessment.

Here structural changes are worthy of systematic analysis: reduce monopoly, clarify discretion, enhance accountability, increase penalties, raise the probability of being caught, and link pay to performance. Also, a government may wish to create a special anti-corruption agency, as in Hong Kong and Singapore, whose role is not just investigating corruption but working with departments to reform policies and procedures in order to reduce the vulnerability to corruption.

Successful change requires a strategy against corruption. This may sound obvious, but in fact so-called anti-corruption campaigns often lack just this. Having a strategy means recognizing that we cannot attack all forms of corruption at once, even if we do not declare this publicly. We must distinguish various types of corruption and recognize that they are not all equally harmful, even if we do not say so in public. For example, corruption in the courts or in the police is usually more pernicious than corruption in the Customs Bureau or the Drivers License Department. In general, inspectors of all varieties must be cleaner than service-providers must be.

Home Based Business - 3 FAQ's About the 'X' Factor! Do You Have It?

Q: I see all these internet programs out there, I know what they're telling me. What are they not telling me?

A: That is a question seldom asked by novice e-business seekers, but it's the best question. The fact is, what these online business opportunities don't tell you is the most important element you'll learn in your endeavor. The most important answer is: it's what's inside of you that will determine your overall success or failure in this business.

Ultimately, what these programs are not telling you is that diligence, ambition, persistence, discipline, work ethic, honesty, and patience are a few of the virtues that will promise success in your online business. Quite honestly, this is the same with any other business you can start, but it is a factor that too many people forget. The lure of online riches is the catalyst for too much disappointment. The fact remains that your personal virtue is the ultimate decider in all things.

Q: I've started my business already and I can't seem to make any money! Am I doing something wrong or am I in the wrong business?

A: Many factors come into play when you get stuck. First of all, remember that it happens to the best of us. Second, the worse thing you can do right now is quit. If you keep going, you have a fighting chance. If you quit you have 0 chance. It all boils down to what's between your ears.

Examine your actions with an open mind. Make sure you eliminate bias and emotion when you do this. Are you doing enough work (10 or so hours per week)? Are you spending enough money on marketing (an inevitability in this business, a few hundred dollars is a good start)? Are you selling the right product? Is it just impatience on your part, or have you given it an honest effort? You must ask yourself these questions.

In the end, make sure you are making measurable progress. In other words, don't do the same thing over and over again and not get any results. If you've answered these questions honestly, then you have some decisions to make. You keep going with the product and campaign you have going, you switch marketing tactics, or you switch products and try different tactics. It's up to you!

Q: I've done all of what you told me, but I can't seem to make the progress I want to make. What gives?

A: Make sure your expectations are where they need to be. Accept that you probably won't make a million bucks in your first month unless you've got an infinite amount of capital to spend. I've heard this bit of wisdom from a highly successful entrepreneur, he says; "Too many people overestimate what they can make in a month, but they underestimate what can be accomplished in a year!". Great advice. This statement can bring you back down to earth, but it can also charge you up for what's in store for your future!

One more thing. I find a great deal of great advice in motivational speakers and self-help gurus. If you put the time and funds together, you can listen to what they have to say regarding success. If you listen to them, you will find what it take to achieve success in you business. But if you listen closely, intently, and with an open mind and heart, you may find as I did a blueprint for how to manage your life! Start with Anthony Robbins, Les Brown, and Zig Ziglar and branch out from there. Their messages are somewhat different, but they all tie in to living a more fulfilled and abundant life! Try it!

Millionaire online professionals call this program "online money making on steroids"! See what they're all raving about by clicking the link below!

Monday 9 November 2009

Supervisory Scheme Under Modifying Financial System

At the initial stage of development, commercial banks provided most of the services of financial intermediation. Later with the appearance of a variety of other financial intermediary services, such as investment banking, insurance, fund management, (notably between 1930 and 1970) strict demarcation lines between the various financial intermediaries and their functions was imposed with direct controls over competition between such intermediaries. For instance, the Glass-Steagall Act in the USA in 1933 prohibited provision of investment banking by commercial banking institutions and Italian Banking Law of 1936, which established the principle of separation between banking and non-financial activities.

With a view to limiting the risk of financial instability, significant restrictions on the lines of business, geographical location and operation of financial enterprises existed in many countries, sometimes supplemented by ceilings on deposit rates, new entry restrictions and official tolerance of cartel-type agreements. The result, in many cases, was the establishment of cartelized oligopolistic clubs of semi-specialized intermediaries, that led to the appearance of largely self-regulating clubs with agreed rules of conduct.

The cartelized oligopolistic structure limited competition, guaranteed franchise value and reduced likelihood of failure. This was partly due to international stability achieved by the Bretton Woods arrangements. This reduced the need for financial supervision. So over the years banking supervision did not play the central role in the central bank's activities, due to the structure that reduced the need for regulation and allowed self-regulation. In the United States the Federal Reserve became the major player in regulation and supervision only after enactment of Bank Holding Company act in 1956 that assigned central bank supervisory function over BHCs.

Oligopolistic structure reduced competition, efficiency and innovation. The protected and regulated financial system was abolished under the conditions of increased international competition, technological innovation, drive for efficient, improved services for customers and return of liberal, market based ideology. Instability and failures became frequent and led to greater involvement of central banks in supervisory activities. Moreover, this also led to the blurring of the previously clear boundaries between different types of financial intermediation. Universal banking became more popular and commonplace. Banking mixed with insurance, bank assurance, and undertook fund management. Eventually, this meant that the attempt to supervise separately by function would end up with multiple supervisors involved with the same institution.

So, one obvious conclusion that was reached was placing responsibility for the supervision of all financial intermediaries in one institution. But this naturally caused a problem for central banks, wishing to maintain internal control of banking supervision.

On the other hand, such unification results in economies of scale arising from single set of central support services (information services, premises, human resources, financial control etc), a unified management structure, a unified approach to standard-setting, authorization, supervision, enforcement, consumer education and tackling of financial crime. It also results in economies of scope implying that single services regulator will be able to tackle cross-sector issues more effectively and efficiently than multiple separate specialist regulators.

Alternatively, placing all supervision under the roof of the central bank would require taking responsibility for supervision over activities which lay outside its historical sphere of expertise and responsibility. One obvious example of this would be market price risk versus credit risk. Banking institutions mostly deal with credit risk, while securities firms face market price risk that derives from fluctuations in market price of securities held by the financial institution.

An even more serious problem would arise out of how to set the boundaries between those sub-sets of depositors/institutions which would be covered by the deposit insurance, the lender of last resort (LOLR) facilities, etc., and those not so covered. The central bank would be unwilling to extend its operational remit to dealing with financial markets and institutions where issues related to systemic stability are limited and customer protection of much greater importance. One more proposal was delegating supervisory responsibilities to multiple agencies outside the central bank. This option requires full and free exchange of information among multiple agencies at national and international level. Within the European Community, legislation has imposed a duty on these authorities to cooperate, however implementation of this may be more difficult. This model also requires the harmonization of capital standards. This would imply that the risks incurred would be subject to the same standards irrespective of the unit of the corporate organization they are incurred.

An obvious problem with the model is allocation of responsibilities between different supervisors. Traditionally, countries have organized their prudential framework along institutional lines. This has generally been on a tripartite basis (banks, securities firms, insurance companies), except in countries such as Germany and Switzerland which have universal banking systems, where securities business is generally regarded as the banking business. So it is difficult to allocate it under the specific supervisor. One alternative proposal was to divide the structure of supervision into two purposes: systemic stability (prudential supervision) and customer protection (conduct of business supervision). This was the Twin Peaks proposal, advocated in the UK primarily in the work of Michael Taylor (1995 and 1996). The supervisory body charged with customer protection would naturally take the lead in some areas, markets and institutions. Contrary to this, the body charged with responsibility for systemic stability would take the lead in dealing with the payments system, and with certain aspects of banking and, perhaps, other financial markets. In practice, however, to a large extent a 'systemic stability' regulator and a 'customer protection' regulator most probably would implement the regulation of a bank in exactly the same way, so there would be considerable duplication and overlap. Dealing with two supervisors would also raise the cost of supervised entities. The Twin Peaks concept has, so far, not found favor in practice, though, the US system has evolved in a way that approximates it, with the Federal Reserve coming close to a systemic stability (prudential) supervisor, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) undertaking the conduct of business role.

One important point is dividing tasks according to micro and macro approaches. Customer protection issues are generally associated with micro level decision-making, while systemic stability deals mostly with macro, however to some extent with micro-level as well. It has been argued that keeping macro part of systemic stability issues with the central bank and micro part with an independent agency would restore clarity and responsibility.

It is worth discussing how this problem applies to developing countries. The financial structure in developing and transitional countries is quite distinct from developed economies. They tend to be simpler, more dependent on standard commercial banking and degree of blurring boundaries in these countries is low. In developed countries the complexity of financial sector and blurring boundaries force central bankers to extend their activities further away from traditional limits. It also creates multiplicity of supervisors or unified supervisory body outside the central bank. This is not the case in developing countries. The banking system, insurance companies and stock exchange can co-exist without much friction or overlap.

Thus, the strength of argument concerning the changing structure of financial system and whether the central bank should regulate non-bank financial institutions as well largely depends on the degree of blurring boundaries between various types of financial intermediaries and readiness of the central bank to tackle with the responsibilities that lie outside its historical sphere of expertise. Practically observed trend towards separation of regulatory function from the central bank can be explained by the development of the financial markets in different countries that tends to make this argument decisive.

Best Stocks to Buy > Day Trading Strategies & Techniques - Hot Tips

The stock market is presenting us with a wide variety of NEW hot stocks in 2009 & 2010. Many of them are going to be new technology stocks that come from the nanotech, biotech, financial, energy, healthcare & communications sectors.

Most of them might seem promising, but the truth is that a good number of these trading & investing opportunities could be extremely risky, while others are simply not as good as they look. That's why it's very important to know how to choose among the best especially if you want to day trade them.

When you know how to pick and approach the best hot stock trading opportunities, you are able to generate a consistent and respectable amount of money in a very short period of time.

Experienced day traders recognize that trading hot stocks on momentum can be the fastest way to make money in the stock market, especially on uncertain times like these.

Imagine if You could make between $300 and $1200 daily trading hot stocks from your computer?

You don't necessarily have to trade momentum hot stocks all the time. But you can learn how to take advantage of them when you encounter the best opportunities for going long or for shorting them to make money when they are poised to fall down.

If You decide to day trade stocks just keep always in mind that for a trader to survive and be consistently profitable, its necessary to keep things as simple as possible. To much confusion and technical indicators will most of the time make you slow in your decisions and froze you up when a good opportunity is right in front of your screen.

In the end, stock trading is all about picking the best daily stock opportunities and following your buy and sell signals with ease and simplicity. Once you learn to master your trading decisions, you can aspire to produce consistent profitable results.

Sunday 8 November 2009

Fire Pit Considerations

You can enjoy and use fire pits for all the year round be it winter or summer. It is right that in the wintry weather the use of fire pits as well as hearths has a great deal more logic thanks to the truth that these equipments can be used to warm up rooms and save some expenses on electric or gas heaters. An efficient fireplace can warm up a big room, without the need to use any other power supply for warming up.

Fire pits can be fixed or portable. They are used as containers for barbecues, fires, in addition to open-air warm up. In addition, they come in various sizes, resources and accessories. A few fire pits make use of wood at the same time as others make use of natural gas. Besides a number of fire pits are intended to roast marshmallows even as others can accomplish a more difficult task like container of a fire all through a camping activities.

While choosing a fire pit, it is better to think about the pros and cons. If you required a portable fire pit, decide on a lightweight fire pit that can be set up without any difficulty. If you would like a fire pit for your backyard, its better you use a dish or bowl design. Be certain that fire pit add on products like screen, dome or cover are part of the package. In addition, think about the size of the equipment in particular once you are determined to utilize logs and coals. As soon as you are buying a fire pit with grill, take care that there is a fixed stand to lift the grill.

If your fire pit's burning medium is wood, there are good quality wood to burn although the most excellent is hardwood logs. They are compact and dense, are affordable, burn slower, and are better in addition are pleasant to burn as well. Just a word of warning, on no account set fire to pressure treated wood like plywood for they release poisonous gasses that are injurious to your health.

Additionally, you can seek advice from your neighboring fire department if you plan to buy an open-air fire pit. These fire pits are not supposed to be burned inside. Maintain them away from combustible materials to prevent catching fire. For safety reasons, you are required to keep fire extinguisher in close proximity to the fire pit. Besides, not at all leave the fire unattended. Last but not least, be careful of your surroundings.

Further, you should maintain the fire pits by carrying out proper repairs if need be, you have to avoid placing anything except firewood into the fire pit, if you have pets or small kids you have to take care that they cannot, by any means, get close to the fire pit or the flames, you have to maintain your pit spotlessly clean and dirt-free when not in use, and if you are using gas you are required to seek advice from a professional concerning the pipes as well as overall safety of the fire pit.

About Biometric Gun Safes

What are they?

Biometric gun safes are the most state of the art and technologically advanced gun safes in the marketplace today, naturally along with that comes significantly higher prices. “Biometric” references how the locking mechanism of the safe releases and allows access to the contents. Instead of using mechanical locks and keys or combination dials or electronic key (pin) pads similar to using a debit card at the atm, the biometric family of gun safes uses an electronic fingerprint scanners.

Why would someone need or want one of these devices?

Biometric gun safes are most useful if you have handguns that are kept at home or the workplace and the intended purpose of those firearms is protection. As a gun owner you should have an understanding that you need to keep your guns secure so that they do not get stolen by thieves, mishandled by curious children or misused by angry teenagers, any type of locking safe regardless of locking mechanism can handle this task. However if, in an instant you need to quickly have access to that firearm to protect yourself, your family or co-workers from an intruder or burglar, your only choice is a biometric gun safe. With any traditional safe you would have to fumble with keys, dials or type in a sequence of numbers on a key pad. These tasks if attempted under extreme pressure or half asleep in the dark of night could be impossible and prove fatal. Biometric safes allow you to release the locking mechanism by simply placing a finger tip over a laser scanner. You could have your gun in your hand within seconds without even opening your eyes.

How to differentiate between biometric gun safes?

Biometric gun safes can vary in price from a few hundred dollars for a single fingerprint scanner, single handgun safe; to thousands of dollars for larger gun vaults with the capacity to hold multiple handguns, long guns and ammunitions, with multiple fingerprint scanners.

While most gun safes are rated only on how well they prevent theft, unauthorized access and damage from fire; biometric gun safes are additionally rated on false acceptance and false rejections. False acceptance identifies how likely an unauthorized person like a thief could get access to the safes contents, a false rejection would identify how likely an authorized person like yourself would not be allowed to access the safe.

Single finger scanning safes are usually to most reliable and least expensive. Safes that scan four fingers offer much higher level of security but typically also posses higher cost and false rejection ratings.

Biometric gun safes also vary on how many samples they can store in memory and how fast they can process the samples. The higher end safes can hold multiple samples such as you, your spouse, your business partner or other trusted friend or family member and will be able to process the samples accurately within a split second.

The last variation in biometric gun safes is whether the safe can be opened with just a fingerprint, just a key, or with a fingerprint and a key in conjunction. Single purpose safes are the least costly and offer the most ease of use. Safes that offer the most variations require a bit more technical ability to configure to your liking or needs and will be at the top of the price spectrum.

Biometric gun safes replace your keys and combinations with fingerprints. They protect your firearms from theft, unauthorized use and fire, while allowing authorized access to the guns within in mere seconds. Typically the larger safes with the most robust choice of options and highest performing ratings command the highest prices.

Basic Gun Safe Information

Why bother?

With the decision to own a firearm of any type should also be the decision to own a gun safe Firearms whether intended for sport or self defense must be kept securely away from the possibility of theft or the possibility that someone other than the owner could happen across the weapon and intentionally or unintentionally use it to hurt someone. Criminals that use firearms typically do not walk into a sporting goods retailer and ask which guns are best to use for bank robberies or stick ups, the guns they use are from the streets, stolen guns that were once purchased by law biding citizens. Children of any age should never under any circumstance have unsupervised access to a firearm. The use of gun safes weather at home or work is one of the best measures a gun owner can take to prevent these tragedies. This article will provide basic information on what types of gun safes are available and how they differ from one another: by size, how they work, and how well they work.

Large or Small?

There are generally speaking two types of gun safes based on the overall size and quantity of firearms they will be used for.

Large gun safes used for long barreled firearms such as rifles or shot guns these are usually designed to stand vertically and have racks inside to hold the guns side by side without leaning onto one another, some have interior shelves to accommodate ammunitions or smaller handguns.

Smaller safes used for hand guns, revolvers or semi-automatics are usually designed to hold only one or possibly two guns. These must somehow be able to be secured to either a wall, a strong secure shelf or the floor, this is in order to prevent a would be thief from trying to abscond with it and its' contents. Regardless of size all gun safes need to provide protection from theft or unauthorized use and fires.

Mechanical or Electronic?

Another differentiating characteristic among all gun safes is how the locking mechanism works. There are two basic categories mechanical and electronic, with two sub categories under each.

Mechanical locking devices include both the classic locks with keys and the classic combination dials. These are typically the least expensive gun safes and offer the most basic functionality.

Electronic locking devices use either a key pad or fingerprint scanner. These will cost significantly more but offer the most convenient method of access no fumbling with keys or combinations simply type in a multiple digit code similar to an atm or press your fingertip over an illuminated scanner.

How they rate?

No matter what size or type of locking mechanism all guns safes are measured by two standards; how well do they resist theft known as the burglary rating and how well do they resist fire, the fireproof rating.

Burglary rating is measured in minutes and identifies how long it would take an experienced locksmith with locksmithing tools to gain access to the contents of the safe, it would take most common thieves much longer.

The fireproof rating is also based on time, and indicates how long the unit could be exposed to the extreme heat of a fire and still maintain and internal temperature safe enough to prevent damage to its' contents.

If you have guns you need to keep them safe. What types of guns and how many you have, will determine exactly what size safe you need. You need to consider how you want to access the firearms in the safe and what level of security you either require or desire.