Eight Buckeyes will have one of the most important days of their football lives Friday when their talents are showcased for NFL scouts and executives at Ohio State’s Pro Day. Running back Brandon Saine, wide receiver Dane Sanzenbacher, guard Justin Boren, linebackers Ross Homan and Brian Rolle and defensive backs Chimdi Chekwa, Devon Torrence and Jermale Hines will be going through drills and interviews at the Woody Hayes Athletic Center similar to what they experienced at the NFL Scouting Combine two weeks ago. The players will be working out amid coach Jim Tressel’s recent suspension by the school for allegedly failing to report e-mails from attorney and former Buckeye football player Christopher Cicero, indicating players gave football memorabilia to Eddie Rife, the owner of Fine Line Ink Tattoos. The failure to report the e-mails is in violation of both his contract with OSU and NCAA Bylaw 10.1. The university conducted a self-report on the infractions, and is awaiting the results of a report from the NCAA. OSU notified the NCAA of Tressel’s violation Feb. 3 after becoming aware of the Jan. 13 violation. Defensive lineman Cameron Heyward, once regarded as a first-round pick, will not participate because he’s rehabbing an elbow injury he suffered in the Sugar Bowl win against Arkansas. He received Tommy John surgery in mid-January. Heyward has been working out at the Woody Hayes center with the Buckeyes, supporting his former teammates while undergoing treatment. “I can’t remember a time we haven’t had representation from all 32 (NFL) teams,” said Eric Lichter, OSU’s director of football performance, at Monday morning’s practice. “We’ve got a pretty good group. … We had a lot of combine invites this year, so I’d imagine we’ll have a pretty good showing.” Chekwa is coming off a strong combine, in which he ran a 40-yard dash in an impressive 4.4 seconds. Homan’s bench press highlighted his workouts in Indianapolis. He put up 225 pounds 32 times — tops for any linebacker. Pro Day workouts begin at 10 a.m.
Chopra (North Dinajpur): With just hours to go before the polls, Trinamool Congress supremo Mamata Banerjee trained guns on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and said if he is taking credit for the air strike, then he should also take responsibility for the killing of 40 jawans who lost their lives in a terror strike in Pulwama on February 14.Addressing an election rally in Chopra on Wednesday afternoon, Banerjee said: “This time it is a very important election. This election is to defeat the BJP. It is to drive out the BJP from power… This election is to make sure that Narendra Modi can never be the Prime Minister of the country again. We must ensure that they (BJP) never come back.” Also Read – Rs 13,000 crore investment to provide 2 lakh jobs: MamataShe further said it is most unfortunate that Modi is taking credit for the air strike. “It is a shame that Modi had asked the first-time voters in an election meeting to exercise their franchise in favour of BJP keeping in mind the action of the Indian Army. We are all proud of the Army and Modi is taking credit for their feats. He should then also take responsibility for the death of the jawans and will have to answer whose callousness had led to the unfortunate incident. The Centre had the information that there could be an attack but still no action was taken to save their lives,” she asked. She also alleged that all the institutions have lost their sanctity because of constant intervention from the saffron party. “The integrity and credibility of the agencies are being questioned because of BJP,” she maintained. Also Read – Lightning kills 8, injures 16 in stateBanerjee said BJP is trying to divide between the people of the Hills and plains. “When Darjeeling was burning, Modi did not come to solve the problem nor did the BJP MP was seen anywhere. They have now come to get votes and win the election.” The Chief Minister stated that in the past four-and-a-half-years, Modi had not done anything for India. “Note ban is a curse and has affected thousands of poor people. Many have lost their jobs. The unemployment is mounting and he had made a false promise that 2 crore people will get jobs per year. The economic condition of the country has turned from bad to worse. But he is unperturbed and busy in making foreign trips.” Banerjee urged people not to waste their votes by casting them in favour of BJP, CPI(M) or Congress. “Two Congress leaders, one in Berhampore and another in Jangipur are receiving support from the RSS. Congress gets support from BJP and CPI(M). A Congress worker attends his party meetings in the morning, CPI(M) in the afternoon and BJP in the evenings,” she alleged. The TMC supremo said Amar Singh Rai, the local candidate, is a son of the soil and will do all-round development in Darjeeling. Chopra falls under Darjeeling Lok Sabha seat where the election will be held on April 18.
Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. Register Now » Growing a business sometimes requires thinking outside the box. I grew up in Iraq, under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. One of the many reasons I left that place was to find freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of information. The free, open access of information is one of the building blocks of a true democracy. In many countries, even today, that free and open access doesn’t exist. China notoriously blocks everything from Facebook and YouTube to news articles portraying the government in a negative light. In the UAE, you’re forced to agree to use their certificate to access certain sites. In North Korea, even accessing the internet is difficult because of government censorship.Authoritarian countries censor what you can see while you’re online and have full access to all of your data and history. They can see everything you post, track every site you’ve visited and know every password or bank code you’ve ever accessed. They can control what information you can access. There’s no such thing as online privacy or free exchange of ideas when that much power is in the hands of the government.But what if that power is in the hands of corporations?If corporations have the power to throttle, which is arguably just a more reassuring word for “censor,” is that really a free society? If they have the power to sell “free speech” to the highest bidder, is that really a free society? If they have the power to access any and all of your private data, is that really a free society?Of course it isn’t.Related: Facebook’s Data Scandal and Europe’s New Data Privacy Rule Have Massive Implications for U.S. EntrepreneursAmericans have become so fearful of an over-powerful government, they underestimate the dangers of over-powerful corporations. Yes, we must be wary of handing too much authority to the government — trust me, I’m well aware of the danger that poses. In Iraq, speaking out against the government meant risking your life, and that of your family. We obviously want to be cautious of the power we give government. But we aren’t protecting ourselves from an abusive government by deregulating net neutrality — we’re handing power over to abusive corporations. These ISP’s were not afraid to throttle sites they didn’t like even when it was illegal. Now that we’ve made it legal, do you think they’ll behave with your best interest at heart? Or do you think they’ll behave within the interest of their bottom line, no matter the cost to our economy or our democracy? History tells us we can expect the latter.Without net neutrality, corporations like Comcast or Verizon have unrestricted power to data mine — no matter how private your Facebook settings, they’ll be able to access it. They have unrestricted power to block any content they choose: If they don’t want you seeing it, you won’t be able to see it, regardless of your need or their excuse. Without net neutrality, we’ve essentially given ISP’s the same outrageous power exercised by authoritarian governments in countries like China, UAE or North Korea. We’ve given these corporations a level of power we wouldn’t dream of giving our own government, because we have grown fearful of government itself instead of fearing the real danger: an abuse of power. We forget that it’s not government that’s inherently dangerous, it’s the unbalanced and unchecked power those authoritarian governments wield. That kind of power is a danger to society, whether it’s in the hands of a president or a CEO.Thankfully, because we don’t live in an authoritarian dictatorship, we don’t have to fear for our lives or that of our family. We do have solutions on the consumer side, in the form of VPNs like Private Tunnel, which will give you your own personal net neutrality as you surf the web. With a VPN, ISPs won’t able to access your private data. They won’t even be able to see what sites you’re visiting, and therefore won’t be able to censor or throttle those sites accordingly. So if you want to maintain your browser’s net neutrality from a consumer standpoint, that’s your solution.Related: How to Choose a VPN Provider for Your BusinessBut a VPN does not protect your freedom of speech; it only protects your freedom of consumption. When it comes to actually sharing information, not just surfing the web, without net neutrality you have no protection from throttling. If you want to start your own online business, launch your own website or even publish a news article online, you have no protection. You can only hope that your users have VPNs; otherwise, you’re at the mercy of the internet service providers. If that corporation wants to block the information you’re sharing, there’s nothing you can do about it. If they want to sell the ability to block what you’re sharing, there’s nothing you can do about it. If they want to charge you hand-over-fist for the ability to exercise your free speech, there’s nothing you can do about it.That doesn’t sound like a free democracy to me. That doesn’t sound like free speech, and it certainly doesn’t sound like the free exchange of ideas and information. That sounds like we’ve given corporations the power to censor our media and invade our privacy with absolutely no legal ramifications. We can hope Congress eventually takes action, or that more states take Washington state’s lead and impose their own laws — but until then, your freedom of speech has no protection from ISP censorship.Related: You Want Fries With That? Burger King Explains Net Neutrality In Less Than 3 Minutes.I don’t want to live in a country where authoritarian leaders make it difficult for citizens to exercise their freedoms; I left that place long ago. Freedom of speech, free exchange of information and unimpeded privacy are essential human rights. They were never meant to be available for purchase. Unfortunately, by letting net neutrality die, we’ve essentially put out the “for sale” sign. June 14, 2018 6 min read Free Webinar | Sept. 9: The Entrepreneur’s Playbook for Going Global
In this interview, outside-the-Matrix author Paul Rosenberg discusses the rise and subsequent fall of civilizations throughout history. As from the interview’s introduction: The Seasons of Empire Over the ages, great civilizations and mighty empires have come and gone in a remarkably similar pattern. From Sumer to Egypt, from Greece to Rome, all have crashed from triumph to tragedy. The British built the largest empire in history, only to see it disintegrate in the aftermath of war. Since then, the USA has assumed the mantle of the World’s dominant power, winning a war of attrition against the former Soviet Union whilst waging real and increasingly bloody wars for resources across the globe. But are the days of the American Empire numbered? Has it fallen prey to corruption, greed, hubris and arrogance like so many before it? Is a new power waiting in the wings to take its place, or does the decline of US hegemony mark the beginning of the end of industrial civilization as we know it? If so, what – if anything – can we do about it? Decide for yourself. To listen to the interview, click here. (opens in a new window on the Legalise Freedom site) [Legalise Freedom radio online is hosted by independent UK writer and journalist Greg Moffitt and features interviews with some of the World’s foremost alternative thinkers and researchers.]
MIT was something new under the sun. It promised transparency and fairness. It promised low-cost professional management for the small investor. It had a sensible and conservative investment policy, with a focus on large dividend-paying stocks. MIT would not trade these stocks, but would aim to buy and hold. Why Bill Bonner is betting $5 million on one small group of stocks For the first time, Bill Bonner explains why he is preparing to invest $5 million of his family’s money in the recommendations of his newest analyst. Full details here. Recommended Links Editor’s Note: In yesterday’s Weekend Edition, Chris Mayer explained his successful “coffee can portfolio.” The idea is simple: Buying great businesses and holding them for 10 years will likely make you a lot of money. Today, Chris takes it a step further. What if you hold stocks for even longer? The results will probably surprise you… By Chris Mayer, Chief Investment Strategist, Bonner Private Portfolio I write a lot about the virtues of buying stocks and sitting on them… Take my “coffee can portfolio,” for example. It’s a simple, but successful strategy in which you find the best stocks you can and let them sit for 10 years. By committing to these safe and steady businesses, you incur almost no costs and you keep your worst instincts from hurting you. But how about sitting still for 80 years? There is a portfolio that makes the coffee can portfolio look impatient: the Voya Corporate Leaders Trust Fund. It was the subject of one of the best stories I read all week. Ross Kerber wrote it for Reuters, and the headline was “Buy-and-Hold Fund Prospers With No New Bets in 80 Years.” Now, I know you have no interest in holding stocks for 80 years. I don’t either. In fact, 10 years is pushing it. I know that. Still, that doesn’t mean we can’t learn something from the story… Here’s Kerber: The Voya Corporate Leaders Trust Fund, now run by a unit of Voya Financial Inc., bought equal amounts of stock in 30 major U.S. corporations in 1935 and hasn’t picked a new stock since. Wow, talk about set it and forget it! What’s so interesting is the story the portfolio tells. It still has some of the same names it had in 1935: DuPont, General Electric, Procter & Gamble, and Union Pacific. But it also has positions that came about through mergers and/or spinoffs. For example, it owns Berkshire Hathaway via an original position in the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway. It has CBS via a stake in Westinghouse Electric. It owns Honeywell through a stake in Allied Chemical. It has shares in Foot Locker because that’s where a 1935 position in F.W. Woolworth wound up. It owns ExxonMobil and Chevron thanks to an investment in Rockefeller’s Standard Oil. There are only 21 names left, as some have gone on to the great big board in the sky, such as American Can and the Pennsylvania Railroad. Remarkably, the fund has beaten 98% of its peers over the last five- and 10-year periods. Writes Kerber: Over the five-year period ended Feb. 24, the fund returned an average of 17.32 percent a year, including fees, 1.03 percentage point better than the S&P 500, said Morningstar. For the 10 years ended Feb. 24, the fund returned an average of 9.40 percent a year, including fees, 1.32 percentage point better than the S&P 500. In fact, it has beaten the S&P 500 for 40 years. The fund’s website doesn’t go back any further than that, though I wonder what it has been like since inception. It is a low-cost fund, with a fee of just 52 basis points. (Most funds are triple that, at least.) And there are few capital gains taxes to pay, thanks to low turnover. (The fund still has to buy and sell to meet redemptions and invest new money.) All in all, a remarkable little story about the power of sitting tight in a portfolio of carefully chosen stocks based on a sensible investment strategy. The fund’s original sponsor was Corporate Leaders of America. Today, after a series of deals, it wound up under Voya’s umbrella. The original fund had a simple mandate, as described in a brochure on the fund’s history: The founders of the Trust bought equal shares of 30 leading companies in 1935 and decreed they could never be sold. The only exception was companies that went bankrupt, merged or spun off. You don’t find them making any more funds like this. But back in the early days of the mutual fund industry, most funds looked more like it than not. In fact, the first open-ended mutual fund in America — and in fact, in the world — was the Massachusetts Investors Trust, established in 1924. Open-ended means you can buy and sell shares of the fund at a price that matches the value of its portfolio. Before MIT came along, funds were closed-end. This meant prices might not match the underlying value of the portfolio. Disclosures were poor. And as you can imagine, sponsors often manipulated prices to their advantage. As the late, great professor Louis Lowenstein writes: The transparency and flexibility, and the security and comfort thus offered to small investors, made MIT a uniquely American contribution to finance… Good ideas usually have simple beginnings: it’s the very simplicity of the concept that makes them ultimately successful. This one was brilliant. Lowenstein tells MIT’s story well in his book The Investor’s Dilemma, which I highly recommend to anyone who invests in mutual funds. (Lowenstein is also the author of my two favorite books on corporate finance: Sense and Nonsense in Corporate Finance and What’s Wrong With Wall Street.) Like Voya, MIT held on to stocks for a long time. In 1949, the average holding period was 27 years. And it attracted like-minded investors. Redemptions were less than 3% per year. The fee was only 40 basis points (or 0.4%). By 1960, the fee would drop to just 19 basis points. But unlike Voya, this tale has a sad ending. MIT’s story also illustrates another old truism: Wall Street often turns good ideas into bad ones. It would soon corrupt that simple, brilliant idea of the open-ended mutual fund…and turn it into just another moneymaker for Wall Street. The problem with MIT from Wall Street’s perspective is that nobody could make any money off it — except the investors in the fund. So, somehow, somebody convinced MIT to take on an external manager in 1969. Before that, MIT had its own managers in-house. This was the beginning of the end. With an external manager, the fee started to go up. By 1969, the fee was up 36-fold, while assets under management went up just seven-fold. The external manager also managed the fund more aggressively and traded more frequently. A sad decline set in. By 2004, BlackRock bought the fund and merged it with others. MIT was no more. The typical fund these days charges a lot, trades way too much and trails the market badly. Lowenstein writes in his book that the average fund has 160 stocks and turns them over every year. That’s not investing. But Wall Street makes money. The establishment doesn’t want you to just sit on carefully chosen stocks. It wants to charge you fees. It wants to sell you stuff. This brings us back again to the Voya fund. MIT’s tale makes it seem all the more incredible that the Voya fund lasted as long as it has with its initial mission intact. It’s a special fund, a piece of Americana. OK, so maybe you don’t hold stocks for 80 years. And maybe even my coffee can approach — with its 10-year holding period — is still too long for you. But there is surely some young person in your life who you can share the wisdom of long-term investing with. Tell them about the coffee can idea. Tell them the story of the Voya fund. Make them wise to the ways of Wall Street. In any event, I urge you to try and hold on to your stocks a little longer. I’ll end with a few words from Thomas Phelps, who wrote the book on 100-baggers and knew a little something about long-term investing: Just as a slight change in a golfer’s grip and stance may improve his game, so a little more emphasis on buying for keeps, a little more determination not to be tempted to sell…may fatten your portfolio. In Alice in Wonderland, one had to run fast in order to stand still. In the stock market, the evidence suggests, one who buys right must stand still in order to run fast. Sincerely, Chris Mayer Editor’s Note: Chris is one of the best stock pickers in the business. He’s beaten the market 3-to-1 over the last decade, and he even helped readers avoid losses during the financial crisis. In 2008, his picks beat the market by 42 percentage points. On Thursday, April 28, Agora founder Bill Bonner is committing to invest seven figures of his family money in Chris’s recommendations. You can learn how to invest two full days before Bill by watching this free presentation. But do it quick, because the deadline is rapidly approaching. Chris releases his first new picks in a few days… Jim Rickards’ Breaking Video Goes Too Far Inside, he exposes the next major attack against the U.S. dollar. But here’s the scariest part… According to Jim, this new surprise attack will come from one of America’s sworn allies. If you can stomach it, I strongly urge you to watch immediately. Click here to watch Jim Rickards’ controversial presentation. — –
There’s capitalism… and then there’s crony capitalism.Now, I love capitalism. It allowed a 16-year-old kid from England – who arrived in the U.S. with only $150 in his pocket and zero connections – to become a self-made multimillionaire.American capitalism made that happen.But over the last 32 years, I’ve watched American capitalism morph into Soviet-style cronyism.You’d have to be blind not to notice that something’s very wrong with our once-great capitalist system.For instance, why is the Federal Reserve thinking about lowering interest rates when unemployment is at a 50-year low… GDP growth is running at 3%… and inflation is hovering at 2%?What on Earth would motivate it to cut rates other than kowtowing to Wall Street’s greedy demands?Well, today, I’ll tell you why this is happening – and what you can do about it…Wall Street’s Good TimesIt all started in 1998 with then-Fed Chair Alan Greenspan.At the time, a small, Connecticut-based hedge fund called Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) amassed a $1 trillion position in government bonds.But LTCM’s positions dropped, and its lenders were on the hook for billions in losses.And rather than let some of the banks go under, Greenspan lowered interest rates.The rate cuts bailed out the banks and ignited a powerful stock market rally (which ended with the dot-com bust).And ever since then, Wall Street firms have known they could take outlandish risks and pocket massive fees. If it didn’t work, the Fed would simply bail them out.Just look at what happened during the 2008 global financial crisis.Banks took insane risks. For every $1 in equity, banks lent as much as $35 (or 35:1 leverage).That’s insane. Yet when the proverbial spaghetti hit the fan, the Fed rode in for the rescue.This behavior has created a two-tier capitalist system… There are those who are part of the Wall Street banking elite – and then there’s everybody else.And the problem is: Everybody else is paying for Wall Street’s good times…Crony CapitalismSince the 2008 crisis, the Fed has kept interest rates artificially low.Now, this has been great for stock prices – and for the banks and brokers hawking them. Over the last 10 years, the finance sector has racked up $1.75 trillion in gross profits.But what you may not know is, these bankers have been swilling champagne and chomping caviar on your dime.You see, the average U.S. household has lost an estimated $4,236 in interest income due to the Fed’s low interest rates (as opposed to a “normal” rate environment).In total, this has funneled $51.8 billion from the pockets of American savers into the coffers of Wall Street banks.So all the “wealth” the Fed has created over the last 10 years was simply transferred from everyday savers like you.And this isn’t the only way the elite have diverted wealth from your pockets to theirs, either…According to a report from the People’s Policy Project think tank, the wealth of the bottom 50% is down $900 billion over the past 30 years.Meanwhile, the wealth of the top 1% has increased by $21 trillion. Digging deeper, we found that at least $5 trillion of this was taken away from average investors, like you and your fellow readers.Without getting too deep into how this “theft” occurred, I can tell you that the financial elites created a private investment market. Then they restricted access to this massive market to only themselves… cutting the rest of America out of the deal.To put it in perspective: $5 trillion is enough money to give all 141 million U.S. taxpayers $35,460 each. It’s not chump change. And by right, it should’ve been yours.And we aren’t the only ones in on this story…Last year, CNBC covered a high-profile “anonymous whistleblower” who held senior roles in the investment business.The whistleblower said he came across market manipulation by some of the country’s biggest trading firms.He claimed that a flaw in the Volatility Index (the VIX – also known as Wall Street’s “fear gauge”), “allows trading firms with advanced algorithms to move the VIX up or down” whenever and however they want.And the whistleblower said it was costing investors hundreds of millions of dollars per month.I hope by now you can see navigating this world of crony capitalism requires a new approach. Old ideas of just buying and holding traditional stocks just don’t work anymore.And that’s why I travel the world looking for ways for my subscribers to beat these crony capitalists at their own game…Leveling the Playing FieldWhether it’s getting into alternative assets like cryptocurrencies before anyone else… or uncovering ways for ordinary investors to build their own collections of classic cars and fine art… I’m devoted to finding ways to help you make money in this new world we’re living in.So I’ve spent the past few months kicking in the door on investment ideas the crony capitalists have kept to themselves for years.Recently, I gave a presentation on how to tap into that $5 trillion the elite hope you never find out about.It’s a “loophole” I’ve used to see gains of as much as $1.6 million on just a $1,000 investment.To be clear, this isn’t about cryptos, commodities, currency trading, or even options. In fact, you’ve probably never heard of it before. Wall Street has no incentive to share it with you.We’re sharing a replay of my presentation online. But be warned: We’re taking it down soon. So go here right now to get this exclusive insight.Let the Game Come to You! Regards, Editor’s note: Today, we’re handing the reins to our good friend Teeka Tiwari, who reveals one of Wall Street’s biggest secrets…For decades, Wall Street has been picking the pockets of America’s taxpayers through something called “crony capitalism.”But it’s not all bad news. Below, Teeka explains why this is happening… and more importantly, how you can beat them at their own game…By Teeka Tiwari, editor, Palm Beach Confidential Teeka Tiwari Editor, Palm Beach Confidential