M·CAM | All Post
22144
blog,paged,paged-43,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,select-theme-ver-4.1,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-7.9,vc_responsive
December 17, 2007 In News Archive

Arlington Institute issues an Alert – Economic Disruption: Weathering the Storm

Date:  Mon, 2007-12-17

Economic Disruption: Weathering the Storm

Kenneth Dabkowski, Executive Director — The Arlington Institute

Berkeley Springs, West Virginia — December 17, 2007 — Ever since Dr. David Martin gave a speech at The Arlington Institute in July of 2006, his economic report of opaque data-driven certainties has elicited many questions from friends, not the least of which is, “Well, what do we do about all of this?”

Given our position as think tank and not financial advisor, we have worked with Dr. Martin and other advisors to gather some general thinking points, sectors, and emergent fundamentals that are worthy of consideration. Although we cannot offer advice, it is, after all, helpful to see how the architects of scenarios and analysis manage their personal businesses and investments based on their own insights. In our scenario driven world, we would suggest that this is a thoughtful approach which outlines fundamental principles for weathering the financial storms to come.

Discretionary asset allocation to restructuring debt:

If you have your mortgages and credit cards paid off and have discretionary liquidity, sections one, two and three will be particularly applicable. If you hold a debt position, you will find sections three, four and five particularly applicable. These considerations apply to business and personal investments and are based on the analysis found in Dr. Martin’s July 2006 speech: (download link below post)

and TAI Alert #11:

http://arlingtoninstitute.org/tai-alert-11-major-financial-disruption

Fundamental #1: Consider Diversifying globally.

Consider diversifying a portion of your assets into a GB Pound/Euro basket. Most of the international corresponding banks have foreign exchange and currency desks. Super regional banks like Wachovia have the ability to do this.

Consider converting your payment and contracts:

Consider restructuring some or all revenue bearing contracts such that they are denominated in GB Pounds or Euro. At a minimum, it might be worth thinking about doing this with future contracts. Holding contracts payable in both currencies would maintain a diversity of currency risk. Payments in currencies that are more closely linked to a true sovereign bank may attenuate the current dollar exposure risks. Options here are to open an international account using any bank that will allow for one. An electronic banking option might be useful so that you can make your holdings liquid in US Dollars as you need them. For example, consider converting funds back into dollars on a monthly or semi-monthly basis to pay your credit card bills or your employees — however, repatriate only what you need when you need it. If you don’t need it, leave it where it is. Remember, anything over $5K USD or more may trigger an individual Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) under 12 CFR 21. The Bank Secrecy Act was set up, among other things, to provide a means by which Federal authorities could detect money laundering and so the SAR is an important consideration.

Fundamental #2: Consider researching companies that diversify globally.

Sector examples:

Food – retail and production: People need to eat. As the number of farms in the US dwindles, food will continue to require significant transportation networks. With the potential drought/flood conditions caused by climate change and rising energy prices, margins on this will probably increase.

Transportation/shipping: For example, in the European shipping sector, shippers that are involved in freight in terms of ground transportation are doing better than companies shipping cargo containers. Companies shipping liquid natural gas and other energy supplies are doing better than commercial shipping lines.

Basic infrastructure, beverage distribution, water purification: As a sub-sector of food sector, filtration as well as bottling companies have historically done a good job at tracking the food sector when there is destabilization.

Precious usable metals and materials: These are also a potential winner. Things like copper and silicon will still be in high demand for production purposes until nanotech becomes scalable. Gold may increase in value as a parking place but may not be liquid at high prices. Aluminum recycling, plastics/polymer engineering/recycling companies also stand to benefit from higher priced commodities.

Volatile Investments:

Fundamentals: High risk, high reward, derivative/public equity based, non-essential, non-transparent.

Specifics: See links at the top of the document.

Fundamental #3: Consider account accessibility.

Ask the question,” Can I get to get to a physical location and talk with a person?” Electronic environments may not always be stable or predictable. More than one mode of communication will provide more options.

Fundamental #4: Examine your credit agreements.

In the coming environment, many people may be more interested in restructuring their debt situation than in focusing on investing. Take a look at how Americans have historically dealt with debt. The old thesis said, “Put everything into your home and borrow against it.” A new thesis would begin with knowing where you stand on your personal debt.

Read your agreements: Read the fine print of your mortgage, second mortgage, and home equity line of credit. Read the terms of your refinancing paperwork and personal credit card paperwork. Determine what factors may change triggers in credit facilities.

Many people do not know that their mortgage is subject to mortgage interest and repayment rate resets (increases) under certain market conditions. When you start to search through the fine print, look for your covenant exposures. Deep inside credit agreements there are often a whole series of requirements regarding the value of an underlying asset which is securing a debt, i.e. the loan to value ratio. If there are significant alterations in the value of the asset, there are remedies available to accelerate the payment of the loan. These resets have nothing to do with subprime rate increases.

For example, if the underlying value of the asset (house, car, boat, etc.) devalues 10%, and you were leveraged at the original value of the asset, the banks have the ability to change the rates of interest and repayment. Therefore, in a market where housing prices are devaluing on a mass scale, it would be wise to know how much the underlying value of your house could be adjusted, based upon appraisal. As the property value degrades, you could find yourself in a breach of your loan agreement.

As a house is devalued, there is less value securing a loan and the loan portfolio of a lending institution becomes more and more risky. In order to recoup as much of the investment as it can, the lending institution may legally increase interest rates and speed up your payment schedule. This may increase your mortgage payment and may also increase the amount of money going toward interest rather than principal.

Therefore, barring wild cards of large scale legislation and financial regulation, if your debt (mortgage) contract(s) have such terms you may want to start to pay down your exposure on outstanding consumer debt and re-finance debt rather than putting money into safe haven currency investment or safe cash denominated investments. Furthermore, in a highly volatile market, the amount of money saved on interest payment may potentially be greater than the growth on investments. Tax benefits may also be decreased by paying off loans, however, in most cases, the loss of deductions will be offset by the savings in increasing interest payments.

Consideration: Pull out all your loan documentation and read the fine print. Look for mention of triggers that could bring an alteration in terms (higher interest or acceleration of repayment) based on an insufficiency of collateral.

*These exposures may exist on your credit cards as well. It would be well to pay off the debt with the highest interest rates first!

Fundamental #5: Know who owns what

Find out from your bank who owns the mortgage. Many loans have been bundled and sold to third parties as equities (these have also been resold many times over). At the moment, courts have ruled that until proof of ownership exists, banks cannot foreclose on the asset. However, if a bank or third party can prove ownership (or if the legal ruling changes), then they will have the ability to foreclose on the property. Therefore, this second point illustrates why a solid strategy may be to pay down home equity loans particularly those who have been sold to 3rd party institutions.

Regulatory Wild Cards:

As the Bush Administration unleashed its plan to tackle the housing foreclosure crisis(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16981165) other institutions are scrambling to come up with solutions. This may change the considerations above in a positive or negative way. Consider for the moment what was reported in a Financial Times article on 12/13/2007, “The Bank of England and the Bank of Canada, meanwhile, announced sweeping changes to their collateral rules to allow banks to pledge a much wider range of securities in exchange for funds.” (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d9e03c62-a8bb-11dc-ad9e-0000779fd2ac.html?ncli…)

On one hand this development seems to free up liquidity in the market and ease the burden on people who want to acquire mortgages. Commercial banks will be able to borrow from their central banks using non-traditional collateral. However, depending on what is accepted as collateral, we may see similar problems beginning to emerge as occurred in the subprime lending debacle. Changing collateral rules lacks transparency and accountability and, if not held in check, banks will be forced, similar to the subprime situation, to foreclose on assets that don’t add up to the value of the lent capital.

Conclusion:

Above we have given consideration to some fundamentals about how to restructure debt and allocate discretionary funds. Please let us know what you think and send comments to info@arlingtoninstitute.org.

For more information see: The Arlington Institute.

December 4, 2007 In News Archive

David E. Martin, CEO, M·CAM, Inc. presents: Patent Law Update – Processes and Strategies that Affect Commercialization Success

Date:  Tue, 2007-12-04

Herndon, Virginia — December 4, 2007 — David E. Martin, CEO, M·CAM, Inc. presents: Patent Law Update — Processes and Strategies that Affect Commercialization Success at Innovative Transitions 2007: Virginia’s 13th SBIR and Federal Funding Conference for Small Technology Firms. The annual event is hosted by The Center for Innovative Technology.

This educational event will focus on “learning the secrets to successful advanced transition. The conference will gather representatives from approximately 200 innovative technology companies and SBIR participants from around the Mid-Atlantic region together with leading players from the Federal government, DoD, prime contractor, major US industry, and investment communities.”

For more information see download file after this post:

M·CAM Contact: Debra L. Fisher, Director of Corporate Relations — info@m-cam.com.

November 19, 2007 In News Archive

Arlington Institute issues a Financial Alert based on M·CAM Analytics

Arlington Institute issues a Financial Alert based on M·CAM Analytics

Kenneth Dabkowski, Executive Director — The Arlington Institute

Berkeley Springs, West Virginia — November 19, 2007 — At a recent board meeting of The Arlington Institute, Dr. David Martin, CEO of M·CAM and one of the members of the board was asked for his assessment of the global financial situation in the coming months.

Here are the notes from his response:

I stand by my commentary in July of ’06.

  • The next shoe to fall is consumer credit

Currently as reports came in on 3rd quarter, foreclosures were up 470% this quarter alone. They will be up over 500% this coming quarter (4th). A foreclosure in our terms is when the bank has officially declared an account insolvent and tries to regain the asset (if it exists). The person who is foreclosed upon can no longer secure any traditional consumer credit. This in turn goes straight to the banks as no one will be able to get the store issued charge cards.

A minority of people pay off their consumer debt every month. When one considers the combination of consumer credit card debt and the compounded debt of “home equity” financing, we estimate that less than 20% of people actually carry no consumer credit from one month to the next. Many of the ones who don’t pay off their carried consumer debt have at least one credit card at its limit and therefore lack credit capacity. Most have their paycheck directly covering bills and servicing the minimum balance due.

Therefore people who are foreclosed upon will not be able to obtain credit and since their paychecks will be maxed out, there will not be extra cash left over from the paycheck to service a new debt.

Next, everybody buys things at Christmas. As much as 40% of retail sales are done in the 4th quarter of the year — i.e. the retail miracle. The purchase decline in retail goods this fourth quarter will occur because many credit-only consumers will lack the credit capacity mentioned above. Frequently, people overcharge their limit and the banks (albeit a profit center for subprime credit users) levy a penalty by increasing interest rates and charging additional fees. In the 4th quarter of 2007, the amount of people overcharging their limits will be too many for the banks to handle. We do not have a system in place to deal with overcharge on that scale. A substantial number of this December’s purchases will go into an overdraft on credit limits.

CDO — Collateral Debt Obligation — Consumer Credit

Consumer credit pooled debt investment instruments (a form of CDO) are originated and rated based on underlying historical credit behavior and a complex series of predictive models for repayment dynamics. CDOs have “strips” which are a combination of similar profile tranches within a larger investment product. Based on the market’s appetite for risk, investment performance guarantees (or credit enhancements) are packaged with the credits. These credit guarantees are issued by insurance companies, reinsurance companies, and other specialty finance companies — many operating with extra-territorial jurisdiction rendering fiscal oversight more complicated.

These strips come in several categories:

  • Investment grade
  • Almost investment grade
  • Junk and
  • Why did we give them a credit card?

All of these grades are priced on historical default rates. The credit insurance companies (AIG, MBIA, Ambac, Financial Security Assurance, Channel Re, XL, Zurich Re and other reinsurers) have, from time to time, issued credit guarantees to the securities. Banks sell debt in the form of a Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO).

Minor shifts in default actuarial activity (+/- 25 basis points) from normative behavior is absorbed within pricing of these financial guaranty contracts. However fundamental shifts (hundreds or thousands of basis points in one quarter) are not built into the model and result in credit enhancement insolvency on a major scale. When the insurer cannot pay based on its own liquidity impairment, the bank is left with catastrophic (an insurance term for excessive loss outside of expected) exposure.

If in a single quarter we have an increased foreclosure rate of 400% (or 4000 basis points) the insurance contracts simply cannot handle that kind of drastic shift as evidenced by the write offs in the third quarter. When we will follow the drastic third quarter with a loss of 500% in the fourth quarter, the trajectory becomes clear.

Neither the banking nor the insurance industry has a historical experience in dealing with this type of challenge and neither has the liquidity linked to these contracts to support system wide collapse.

  • Where was the announcement of this? There was no announcement.

However Hank Greenberg is resurfacing in AIG leadership even during an SEC investigation because without him, no one else can remember where the counterparty risks are. In order to save the insurance industry, shareholders have looked past alleged SEC violations as there is no one with Mr. Greenberg’s awareness of the market and counterparty agreements who can hope to navigate the coming challenges. In the 4th quarter, the US will have another record foreclosure announcement. Once you’re over 25% (25 basis point) foreclosure, all models are broken.

Under a consumer credit melt-down, Capital One and/or Wachovia are likely going to put a massive foreclosure liability to an insurance company and the insurance company will not have liquidity to cover the exposure.

This is the problem we got into when we issued credit card debt on top of secondary mortgages — (inflated the value of the home) and gave out credit based on faux equity that no one really had.

The reason why this problem is the second shoe to fall (subprime mortgage collapse was the first shoe) is because consumer credit has a different foreclosure frequency than traditional mortgage credit.

December is when the maturity of the giant buyout of the economy moves.

By December, you’ll have a second round of charge offs based on consumer credit. The real big problem — when you foreclose on consumer credit, people stop buying things. When people stop buying things, we don’t have a tertiary way to pump liquidity into the market. People won’t have extra cash from their paychecks and won’t have capacity on their cards.

Try this case study:

Go to the mall and stand in front of counter at Victoria Secret. Watch what happens when someone wants to pay with cash. The clerk won’t know how to ring up cash. They will need a manager to come over to give change and unlock drawers. When you don’t have capacity on those cards, you don’t buy things. VISA credit cards actually denigrate using cash in their run-up-to-Christmas add campaign.

Next, go to any savings bank data set. If you were going to spend $1000 in cash this Christmas, can you do it? For the most part, the answer would be “no” because we have had a net negative spending for the last 5 years.

Therefore there will be depressed consumer spending this Christmas but what is spent, people will overcharge. This will take what used to be good investments in CDOs and will change the dynamic. If you used to be a person who paid their bills on time, you will now only pay half. If the credit companies are counting on the top two tranches to pay their card off in full and they don’t, they won’t have liquidity to cover the rest. The banks cannot afford the top tranch paying half.

The estimates are out. There will be at least $400B in the first round of charge offs in the CDO market.

We’re not going to be done with the subprime mortgage when the CDOs fall. Therefore we will have an insolvency problem with the banks that are mentioned above.

This is the kiss of death of a privately held Federal Reserve. For the Federal Reserve to function, its stakeholder banks (like JP Morgan Chase) must remain viable and liquid. When one of them, or any major bank in the U.S. (like Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, Bank of New York, Washington Mutual, etc.) is impaired or ceases to exist, the architecture of the Fed’s capacity to respond to systemic challenges is unsustainable.

If the banks have no money, they can’t pump liquidity into the market. Taking half of a trillion dollars out of market in a single distressed write down becomes problematic. The US banking system does not have the liquidity to take the hit.

The actual solvency of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is relatively indecipherable due to the fact that their treasury management processes (and the risks of their own investment strategies) are not uniformly disclosed with sufficient transparency. The FDIC was set up for isolated problems with a few bad banks but is NOT prepared to “insure” the system in an industry-wide crisis. The actual liquidity reserve of the “insurance” that Americans view as their safety net is 1/100th the actual exposure of outstanding deposits. The actual coverage ratio for the Bank Insurance Fund (BIF) fell below 1.25% in 2002, the same year that less stable credit practices were adopted by America’s leading banks.

The funny part is that the Federal Government will be on holiday when all of this happens. There will be no one to put freeze actions and moratoria on actions. The only way you stop the cataclysm is to put together civil actions on deposit withdrawals.

As I discussed previously, the Chinese currency wild-card may become relevant far sooner than expected. An effort by China to convert its $1.4 trillion U.S. Treasury holdings into euros is not viable for many reasons — not the least of which is the European Central Bank’s inability to absorb such an event. As China continues its rush away from supporting U.S. Treasuries and as Middle Eastern investors are buying them up in more diversified holdings, a new “currency exchange” is unfolding. Realizing that they cannot liquidate their holdings, it appears that the Chinese are currently using their U.S. Treasury holdings as collateral for euro denominated purchases and long term infrastructure transactions. In other words, they may be “liquidating” their holdings as collateral and, in so doing, effectively migrating to non-dollar value without ever having to officially dump their current Treasury holdings.

Therefore, collateralize the credit in dollars — especially if you’re long in dollars. The lender/financier won’t call the note because you have it structured in such a way to both allow it to perform and hold illiquid collateral that no one wants. This essentially inflates euros. Although you can’t sell dollars, the whole purpose of collateral is that it is a second source of payment — collateral is there to down rate the risk of the loan. Secondary becomes irrelevant.

When February comes, the Chinese are going to do something as they will have to decide what the exposure is going to be with the treasury. As I see it they have to just dump the treasury. They only keep it because they can use it — they have 43% direct/indirect of US treasuries so they’ll dump them on the market.

The US Congressional pressures to decouple the RMB will work, but not in the way we want. Our plan includes helping them hold on to the treasuries, it does not involve them not holding the dollar anymore. The US wanted the tether to be part of the float. This will cause disenfranchisement of the US electorate (during primary season). February is also when public (media) will realize we won’t pull out of this.

Side note: Mayor Bloomberg could enter the race at this point, being the savior candidate (at least economically), but has $1B dollars in non-liquid money so he may not be able to enter.

  • March is when we realize that the dollar doesn’t come back.

OPEC price with the whole fluctuation of oil futures presages the event. They are going to run the price of oil as high as they can get it on the dollar, while buying US treasuries from China with the money. When the dollar does collapse, they’ll flip denominations. The wild card is long about March when the OPEC cuts spot oil off the dollar to the euro. One can look at the current oil price at close to $100/barrel and fail to see that, as this premium price is currently turning around and investing in a weakening dollar, the effective price (less the dollar investment hedge) is probably closer to $50/barrel than the spot price reflects.

Currency problems will change the game — they are financially structuring themselves to take the hit.

When we can’t afford to buy oil commodities on a spot market — it compounds the problem however the consumer that Saudi Arabia ships to is liquid (China). In the US it is a big problem. There is still a market for oil; it just changes. When you come out of Straits of Hormuz, turn left.

For more information see: The Arlington Institute.

November 16, 2007 In News Archive

Apex Associates Highlights M·CAM’s Market Leading Assessment of Credit Crisis and Upcoming Basel II Second Shock

Tony Meldonian – Apex Associates
November 16, 2007

Capital Ratios under fire.

Lending Shock

Today, Goldman Sachs says credit supply could be curbed by $2 trillion as the mortgage mess fallout makes its way, with Jan Hatzius, Goldman Sachs chief U.S. economist and CNBC’s Mark Haines.

I am on record, months ago, for stating the deficiency can be at $2.5 to $3 trillion plus and probably will be acknowledged by banking community before January 2009, when the Basel II accord demands / guidelines, go into the penalty phase… – likely sooner.

As my recent mortgage comments have caused a remarkable amount of negative feedback and cancellations from unbelieving readers, I feel a small bit of vindication. It seems most people do not want to know or certainly do not believe what is happening. It is understandable as most do not have access to the governing process.

Credit offered to Dr. David Martin, who aptly outlined the scenario in July, 2006 and gave us the root and formula for what is happening by exposing the media blackened Basel II Accord and its potency as the governing body for world banks. I wonder how many people even know that? Certainly no direct reference on CNBC or Bloomberg….

The good news (for my psyche), I was right. The bad news, I am right – so hunker down and secure your financing while you can.

This deficiency can cripple the lending process and / or demand NEW Cash into Bank system to stimulate an otherwise, soon to be frozen lending environment – at least until capital ratios come into alignment. So who / where does the money come from? SIV’s? Dubai, who’s your master?

Source: © Apex Associates, November 16, 2007. Used with permission.

October 22, 2007 In News Archive

David Martin Presents Keynote Address for the International Conference for Science and Business Information in Barcelona.

Date:  Mon, 2007-10-22

Dr. David E. Martin October 22-24, 2007

Barcelona, Spain – October 22-24, 2007 – David E. Martin, CEO, M·CAM, Inc. presents opening keynote titled “Innovation and the Birth of the Fusion Economy: Financial Implications of Intellectual Property” at The International Conference for Science & Business Information Conference (ICIC).

This year the ICIC meeting will cover trends in the field of scientific and professional information. Topics include:

For more information see: infonortics

October 3, 2007 In News Archive

M·CAM Forecasts Global Financial Collapse in 2008

Date:  Wed, 2007-10-03

M·CAM Forecasts Global Financial Collapse in 2008

Brussels, Belgium − October 3, 2007 −− At a recent EUPACO conference, M·CAM CEO Dr. David Martin explained the interaction between intangible asset opacity and the tumultuous consequence of intangibles in Basel II banking changes. He discussed the certainty of financial market instability and the high likelihood of global financial market collapse.

For more clarity on this topic, please Click here.

September 28, 2007 In News Archive

David Martin Speaks about Intellectual Property and the World Economy on Insight, on WMRA, your NPR Station

Date:  Fri, 2007-09-28

Dr. David E. Martin September 28, 2007

Harrisonburg, Virginia – September 28, 2007 – David E. Martin, Ph.D., founder of M·CAM Inc., an international intellectual property rights firm based in Charlottesville speaks about intellectual property and the world economy on Insight, on WMRA, Your NPR Station.

From the WMRA website:

19 years ago, doctors said David Martin would never walk again… he proved them wrong.

Now Martin has taken on a new impossible challenge… changing America’s approach to world trade.

We ask this specialist in intellectual property rights to explain his view that changes in patent and copyright law hold the key to saving the U.S. economy.

Insight is the combination of talk shows and documentaries available on WMRA weekdays at 3 p.m., just before All Things Considered. Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday Insight features locally originated interviews hosted by journalist Tom Graham and often including live listener call-ins. On Tuesdays and Thursdays Insight presents in-depth special reports produced by a variety of the most respected documentary makers in public broadcasting.

Listen to the Program

September 11, 2007 In News Archive

Business experts press for closer ties between Western and Islamic cultures

Dr. David E. Martin
September 11, 2007

Goshen, Indiana – September 11, 2007 – Fostering better relationships between companies – and countries – in the West and the Middle East will require setting aside stereotypes and developing a higher level of mutual understanding and trust.

That message was recently delivered at Goshen College by a U.S. business owner, a German banker who helped start the Dubai International Finance Exchange in the United Arab Emirates and an Egyptian scholar with financial interests in the Middle East and Europe.

For the full article see: http://www.goshen.edu/news/pressarchive/09-11-07-islam-forum.html.

September 11, 2007 In News Archive

Business experts press for closer ties between Western and Islamic cultures

Date:  Tue, 2007-09-11

Dr. David E. Martin September 11, 2007

Goshen, Indiana – September 11, 2007 – Fostering better relationships between companies – and countries – in the West and the Middle East will require setting aside stereotypes and developing a higher level of mutual understanding and trust.

That message was recently delivered at Goshen College by a U.S. business owner, a German banker who helped start the Dubai International Finance Exchange in the United Arab Emirates and an Egyptian scholar with financial interests in the Middle East and Europe.

For the full article see: http://www.goshen.edu/news/pressarchive/09-11-07-islam-forum.html.

September 11, 2007 In News Archive

Experts on Middle Eastern and Western relations visit Goshen College

Date:  Tue, 2007-09-11

Dr. David E. Martin September 10, 2007

Goshen, Indiana – September 10, 2007 -The forum “Doing Business in the Muslim World: Are Western Leadership Concepts Appropriate in Islamic Cultures?” took place at Goshen College on September 8. Presenters were M·CAM Board Members David E. Martin, Moustapha Sarhank, and Steffen Schubert.

According to Goshen College President Brenneman, “This discussion is especially timely as we reflect on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon…. It’s a rare opportunity to hear three international business people, in a forum moderated by Professor Jan Bender Shetler, speaking about how being a peace builder makes good business sense as well as is good for international relations.”

For the full announcement in Goshen College’s The Record, see: http://www.goshen.edu/record/Archive/Fall_2007/20070906:CB6=MiddleEastExperts.html@CB6

September 4, 2007 In News Archive

David Martin presents keynote address for the Regional Workshop on Promoting Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Asia in Hanoi, Vietnam on October 3-5, 2007

Date:  Tue, 2007-09-04

Dr. David E. Martin September 3-5, 2007

HANOI, VIETNAM – October 3-5, 2007 – David Martin presents opening day keynote address and leads a panel session for the Regional Workshop on Promoting Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Asia in Hanoi, Vietnam on October 3-5, 2007. The workshop is jointly organized by the Information for Development Program (infoDev) and the Centre for Research and Consulting (CRC) at Hanoi University of Technology. Hosted by The World Bank, the Workshop is a platform for sharing experiences and best practices on developing local innovation, incubation and entrepreneurship, and for strengthening the linkages among business incubators across the Asia region.

For further information see: http://www.idisc.net/en/Article.38484.html

For keynote presentation on Resilient Innovation for Economic Transformation, see: Keynote Presentation and Speech

For panel session addressing Innovation Facilitation — Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Rights, see: Panel Session

September 3, 2007 In News Archive

Goshen College to host Sept. 8 forum on Western and Islamic business cultures

Date:  Mon, 2007-09-03

Dr. David E. Martin September 3, 2007

GOSHEN, Indiana – September 8th, 2007- Efforts to foster better relationships between the United States and countries in the Middle East and to reconcile their distinct business styles and systems will be the focus of a major public forum later this week at Goshen College.

The forum — “Doing Business in the Muslim World: Are Western Leadership Concepts Appropriate in Islamic Cultures?” — will take place at 7 p.m., Saturday, Sept. 8 at the Umble Center. Admission is free.

Goshen College President James E. Brenneman will participate in the forum along with three experts on business relationships in Western and Islamic cultures. The experts are:

For the full announcement see: http://www.goshen.edu/news/pressarchive/09-03-07-forum.html.

August 28, 2007 In News Archive

Ned Goldstein resigns post as President and Director of M·CAM

Date:  Tue, 2007-08-28

Dr. David E. Martin August 28, 2007

M·CAM has accepted the resignation of Ned Goldstein as President and Director of both M·CAM and M·CAM Financial — a wholly owned subsidiary. Mr. Goldstein has served the company in several capacities since 1999 and is departing to pursue other opportunities.

August 3, 2007 In News Archive

MBA Channel ranks David E. Martin’s February 2007 Notre Dame Lecture one of best MBA web videos for 2007

Date:  Fri, 2007-08-03

MBA-Channel.com August 3, 2007

The MBA Channel links target groups in the immediate field of the Master of Business Administration: schools, companies, and prospective students. Besides journalistic expertise, the website bundles different features with high utility: Extensive and in-depth search functions for business schools, MBA programs and events.

David E. Martin’s February 2007 Lecture to the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza School of Business Ten Years Hence Lecture Series has been ranked by the MBA Channel as one of the best MBA videos for the web for 2007. Watch the latest clips in their video section on their site.

July 24, 2007 In News Archive

PUBPAT News: Monsanto Patents Asserted Against American Farmers Rejected By Patent Office In PUBPAT Initiated Review

Date:  Tue, 2007-07-24

Dr. David E. Martin July 24, 2007

MONSANTO PATENTS ASSERTED AGAINST AMERICAN FARMERS REJECTED BY PATENT OFFICE IN PUBPAT INITIATED REVIEW: PTO Finds All Claims of All Four Patents Invalid

New York — July 24, 2007 — The Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) announced today that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has rejected four key Monsanto patents related to genetically modified crops that PUBPAT challenged last year because the agricultural giant is using them to harass, intimidate, sue – and in some cases literally bankrupt – American farmers. In its Office Actions rejecting each of the patents, the USPTO held that evidence submitted by PUBPAT, in addition to other prior art located by the Patent Office’s Examiners, showed that Monsanto was not entitled to any of the patents.

Monsanto has filed dozens of patent infringement lawsuits asserting the four challenged patents against American farmers, many of whom are unable to hire adequate representation to defend themselves in court. The crime these farmers are accused of is nothing more than saving seed from one year’s crop to replant the following year, something farmers have done since the beginning of time.

One study of the matter (http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/Monsantovsusfarmersreport.cfm) found that, “Monsanto has used heavy-handed investigations and ruthless prosecutions that have fundamentally changed the way many American farmers farm. The result has been nothing less than an assault on the foundations of farming practices and traditions that have endured for centuries in this country and millennia around the world, including one of the oldest, the right to save and replant crop seed.” The lawsuits filed by Monsanto against American farmers include Monsanto Company v. Mitchell Scruggs, et al, 459 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006), Monsanto Company v. Kem Ralph individually, et al, 382 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and Monsanto Company v. Homan McFarling, 363 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Although Monsanto has the opportunity to respond to the Patent Office’s rejections of the patents (U.S. Patents Nos. 5,164,316, 5,196,525, 5,322,938 and 5,352,605), third party requests for re-examination, like the ones filed by PUBPAT against the four Monsanto patents, are successful in having the reviewed patents either changed or completely revoked more than two-thirds of the time.

“We are extremely pleased that the Patent Office has agreed with us that Monsanto does not deserve these patents that it has used to unfairly bully American farmers,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT’s Executive Director. “Hopefully, this is the beginning of the end of the harm being caused to the public by Monsanto’s aggressive assertion of these patents, which threatens family farms and a diverse American food supply.”

More information, including copies of the Office Actions issued by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office rejecting the four Monsanto patents, can be found at http://www.pubpat.org/monsantovfarmers.htm.

July 22, 2007 In News Archive

WVPT presents: Are Western Leadership Concepts Appropriate in Islamic Cultures? — Implications for Global Business Affairs.

Date:  Sun, 2007-07-22

Dr. David E. Martin July 22, 2007

On Sunday, July 22, 2007 at 2:00 p.m., WVPT — Virginia’s Public Television will televise the MILLER CENTER FORUM: Are Western Leadership Concepts Appropriate in Islamic Cultures? — Implications for Global Business Affairs. This forum explores how one area of Western/Islamic relations has implications for global business affairs. Participants include international banker Steffen Schubert, scholar Moustapha Ismail Sarhank, and David E. Martin, an international businessman and theorist.

See: http://www.wvpt.net/schedules

July 18, 2007 In News Archive

PUBPAT News: Key HIV/AIDS Drug Patents To Be Reviewed By U.S. Patent Office

Date:  Wed, 2007-07-18

Dr. David E. Martin July 18, 2007

KEY HIV/AIDS DRUG PATENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY U.S. PATENT OFFICE: Prior Art Submitted by PUBPAT Raises Substantial Doubt Regarding Validity of Gilead Sciences Claims

New York, NY — July 18, 2007 — The Public Patent Foundation (“PUBPAT”) announced today that the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office has granted each of PUBPAT’s requests to review four key HIV/AIDS drug patents held by Gilead Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: GILD). The patents relate to the drug known generically as tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), a key weapon in the battle against HIV/AIDS. Gilead markets TDF in the United States under the brand name VIREAD and as a part of its ATRIPLA combination product.

Roughly 40 million people worldwide are infected with HIV/AIDS, including more than 1.2 million Americans. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will not allow anyone other than Gilead distribute TDF in the United States because Gilead claims the four challenged patents give them the exclusive right to do so.

“Every person suffering from HIV/AIDS has a right to get the best medical treatment science can offer, without any unjustified impediments placed in their way,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT’s Executive Director. “This includes Americans infected with HIV/AIDS, who are entitled to the best pharmaceuticals possible without undeserved patents making them exorbitantly expensive.”

In its March filings challenging the patents, PUBPAT submitted prior art that the Patent Office did not review before granting the patents to the Foster City, California, biopharmaceutical giant. PUBPAT also described in detail how the prior art invalidates the patents. The Patent Office has now found that PUBPAT’s filings indeed raised “substantial questions” regarding the validity of each of the four Gilead Sciences patents. Having granted PUBPAT’s requests to review each of the patents, the Patent Office will now turn to deciding whether they deserve to exist or not.

“We are very pleased that the Patent Office has agreed with us that there are indeed significant questions about the validity of the Gilead patents on TDF,” said Ravicher. “This is a very strong first step towards ending the harm being caused to the public by Gilead’s use of those patents to prevent anyone else from offering TDF to HIV/AIDS patients in the United States.”

The Gilead Sciences TDF patents challenged by PUBPAT now being reviewed by the Patent Office are U.S. Patents No. 5,922,695, 5,935,946, 5,977,089 and 6,043,230. Gilead has applied for similar patents on TDF in other countries throughout the world, including India, where they have received fierce opposition by non-profit AIDS patient groups.

More information about the reexaminations of the four Gilead Sciences TDF patents challenged by PUBPAT, including copies of the official Office Actions issued by the Patent Office granting PUBPAT’s four requests for reexamination, can be found at http://www.pubpat.org/gileadhivaidsdrug.htm.