Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman, recently announced his intentions of forming a plan that will decrease the federal deficit in the near future. Bernanke told The New York Times, “Although sizable deficits are unavoidable in the near term, maintaining the confidence of the public and financial markets requires that policy makers move decisively to set the federal budget on a trajectory toward sustainable fiscal balance.” He continued to explain the government’s pending decisions about the deficit saying that “postponing them will only make them more difficult” in the long run.

An acceptable plan of controlling the federal deficit could help lower interest rates. Bernanke did not reveal any new reasoning behind the Fed’s stance that short-term interest rates will remain near zero for the time being, but he said the time period is contingent on a number of factors including high unemployment, inflation and expected inflation for the future. Bernanke is adamant that if the situation changes drastically or if change is anticipated that they will take it into consideration and respond appropriately.

Inflation remains low. Personal consumption spending has steadily risen at a rate of 1.25 percent annually and, excluding the most unstable prices, core inflation is rising at a rate of .05 percent annually. Though Bernanke said that a moderate recovery is underway, he also stressed that it will take a long time before the jobs lost by the recession are recovered and the economy improves.

Bernanke warned last week in a speech in Dallas, of the consequences for the aging of the American population. Though he did not specify whether or not he thinks the government should raise taxes or make cuts to social security, he did warn of the nation’s growing debts and how this may frighten investors and cause the government to borrow even more money.

The New York Times reported Bernanke saying that, “At some point, the markets will make a judgment about, really, not our economic capacity but our political ability, our political will, to achieve longer-term sustainability,” and, “At that point interest rates could go up and that would be, of course, a negative for economic growth and recovery.” Bernanke went on to explain that this could happen right now but that the markets currently have a lot of confidence in the political system and its fiscal policy in the future.

Over the next two years, the deficit should start to decrease as the stimulus slows down and the recovery brings in more revenue, but the deficit is still anticipated to be four or five percent of GDP through the year 2020. Bernanke adds that the deficit could reach nine percent of GDP by 2020 if there is spending growing at the rate of GDP, an extension of tax cuts, and an inflation-indexed alternative minimum tax.

Bernanke also said that the Fed will not attempt to monetize debts simply by increasing the money and credit supply and stimulating inflation. Bernanke told The New York Times that, “Given that so many of our obligations are either short-term or indexed or real obligations, such as medical obligations or Social Security obligations, which are indexed, it wouldn’t have a substantial effect, even if there were willingness to that, which, of course, there is not,” and, “Inflation is just not an answer, either for economic reasons and just because it wouldn’t affect the balance very much.”

According to Bernanke the economy has begun to recover in the second half of 2009, but he insists that something must be done about the federal deficit for the future success of the economy.

Obama hopes to sign a bill regulating the financial services industry.

This past Thursday, President Obama proposed an “interesting” strategy to try and get Wall Street on board with his and Congress’ financial regulatory overhaul. In an address at Cooper Union College in Manhattan, the President boldly claimed that he foresaw the crisis two years ago when he gave a speech at the same venue. He warned the crowd, largely from the economic sector, that they should heed his words this time around. Obama is trying to gain support for the financial regulation bill that passed the House and now is up for floor debate in the Senate. He did not say which version of the bill had his support, but that both would help regulate the inappropriate practices of Wall Street in past years.

This speech came after the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil suit against Goldman Sachs for practices during the subprime mortgage crisis. President Obama did not directly refer to the incident in his address and has stressed noninvolvement in the timing of the suit. He did tell those from Wall Street that “some forgot that behind every dollar traded or leveraged, there is a family looking to buy a house, pay for an education, open a business or save for retirement. What happens here has real consequences across our country.”! This demonizing of Wall Street may be helping to draw support from the average American but will in no way sway the hearts of the financial services sector.

The regulation proposed by Congress would be the first major economic overhaul since the Great Depression. Its goal is to prevent another crisis and it imposes some monumental new restrictions. The legislation would create a mechanism for liquidating large, interconnected financial firms and also adds in restrictions on the derivatives market. Either bill would create a council to detect threats to the broader financial system and protect consumers who could be taken advantage of in the market.

Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, for regulation or against it, all can agree this was not the way Obama should have gone about gaining Wall Street’s support. While encouraging bipartisan support and conversations, Obama further pushed the two sides apart. Playing the blame game is not “progress.” To find a solution to the problem at hand the experts should be consulted. Coincidently, the majority of these experts are employed by Wall Street.

E-mails recently released by a Senate subcommittee implicate Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs in making “serious money” off of the real estate bubble burst. The e-mail chains contradict claims by Goldman officials that the investment bank also lost a substantial amount of money from mortgage-related investments, and will be addressed during the bank’s Senate hearing on Tuesday.

According to a case brought forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Goldman Sachs sold mortgage-backed securities to investors while aware that these securities would fail. Allegedly, Goldman then bet against these securities, enabling earnings to increase by 90 percent since the same period last year – $3.5 billion during the first quarter of 2010. Essentially, the SEC claims that the actions of Goldman and other investment banks helped set off the mortgage crisis, which ultimately brought them great profit.

How exactly is Goldman said to have perpetrated this fraud? According to the SEC, Fabrice Tourre, Goldman Vice President, was fully aware that the subprime mortgages Goldman used to create securities were very likely to default. Paulson & Co., a private hedge fund, secretly selected these investments for Goldman, while betting that they would fail. Paulson & Co. paid $15 million in exchange.

Goldman officials vehemently deny the claim, citing $2.5 million in losses from bad investments. According to Goldman, the suit is “completely unfounded,” and that the firm “did not generate enormous net revenues by betting against residential related products.” Still, investigations apparently indicate otherwise; the most noteworthy evidence against Goldman is the e-mails sent among executives, which indicate their awareness of the company’s actions.

The suit against Goldman has strong political implications. Many wonder about the timing of the SEC’s actions, as the accusations of such fraudulent behavior conveniently coincide with the current Democratic push for regulatory overhaul legislation. Democrats have taken full advantage of the situation in their movement to tighten Wall Street regulations.

Regardless the outcome of these allegations, the once golden reputation of one of the most prestigious firms in the world has been tarnished. Goldman was once one of the top qualifications for leading government jobs. Both Secretaries of the Treasury Robert Rubin of the Clinton administration, and Henry Paulson of the George W. Bush administration, were once Goldman chairmen. Goldman officials are also prevalent throughout the current Obama administration. After recent revelations, however, Goldman experience is a “toxic asset,” according to BusinessWeek.  It seems unlikely that a Goldman alum is selected for a top government financial position in the near future.

Other candidates and elected officials have made visible attempts to distance themselves from any association with Goldman political donations. Goldman donated $290,500 to congressional candidates last month alone; the firm also dropped almost $1 million on the Obama campaign. Now, Republicans and Democrats alike have scrambled to disassociate themselves from the firm. Mark Kirk, the Republican Senate candidate in Illinois has offered to refund any donations funded by Goldman. Meanwhile, both California gubernatorial opponents are currently attacking each other for their ties to the firm.

The Goldman Sachs fraud suit is not likely to be quickly resolved. As one of the top Wall Street firms and a widely respected establishment, Goldman will fight back to maintain its reputation.  Only time will tell whether or not the SEC’s allegations will be validated. Still in the aftermath of one of the largest financial crisis in history, it comes as no surprise that corporations and regulators alike seek to avoid blame and prevent future catastrophes.

As Greece experiences continued economic trouble, the government recently requested assistance from the International Monetary Fund. The IMF has agreed to lend Greece massive amounts in bailout money, as did many European nations. The assistance will allow Greece to avoid default on its many debts. Many European nations willingly agreed to donate billions to Greece, but Germany, the ultimate largest loaner, was hesitant.

Continued economic troubles for Greece that would lead to defaulting on loans would be bad news for European Union nations. The potential collapse of the Greek economy is a driving factor for European nations to financially assist Greece now. This financial aid is also a method to hopefully limit monetary issues of this nature to Greece. Any spread of this economic disparity to other, financially unstable countries, would be disastrous for both the European and world economies.

Greece has a debt of 300 billion euros, which the current bailout package does not begin to cover. It does, however, allow Greece to remain afloat and avoid defaulting on their loans. This year, Greece needs 54 billion euros. They’ve gotten about half from bond and Treasury bill issues. They will need to borrow the remaining amount. Greece is counting on this loan to help them reconfigure their economic reforms. European nations have agreed to loan Greece 30 billion euros at a 5 percent interest rate. The IMF will contribute 10 billion.

Throughout the bailout discussions, Germany was hesitant to financially assist Greece. German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, stated that any of Germany’s assistance would be accompanied by strict conditions. One such condition is a savings plan between Greece and the IMF. After the discussions, Germany is ultimately the largest contributor to the bailout plan. The nations is loaning Greece 8.37 billion this year. This figure is derived through Germany’s share in the European Central Bank. Germany holds the largest share at 27.92 per cent.

After these discussions, the European nations all understand that assisting Greece is in the benefit of all European nations. Economic disparity in one European nation threatens the economic stability of all others.

The centralization of European money to the Euro made impossible the idea of devaluing currency. The method, while painful for the country’s members, is a quick way to help the economy in times of crisis. This method is not a feasible option in any European country’s trade competition, and ultimately their economy, because the devaluing of the Euro in one country would lead to problems in all other euro using countries. The bailout loans then become Greece’s best, and most feasible, choice.

The aid is not without its own troublesome questions. Many worry that Greece will simply become the first of struggling nations to ask for massive amounts in bailout money, which will further strain the European economies. European nations are also concerned that assisting Greece will try their fiscal resources. In the present world economy, no country is willing to take too many risks in loaning money. European nations worry that in assisting Greece, they are putting their own economies at risk for economic disparity.

Ultimately, the group mentality won. It is simply not feasible to have one European country suffering such financial losses. It is not beneficial to any other European economy. By in helping Greece, the European nations hope to assure stability in their own economy, and in the European economy as a whole.

Greece is still suffering huge economic losses. They are still in massive debt, and their recovery is predicted as slow; it will be years before they can be back to economic prosperity. However, the bailout plan from European countries and the IMF will allow Greece to remain afloat and not default on its many loans. The plan is the first step in Greece’s long road to economic recovery.

FSA reveals the largest case of illegal insider-trading in agency’s history.

Authorities in the UK have arrested seven suspects in what is being marked as the largest insider-trading case ever for the Financial Services Authority. The FSA is the UK’s primary financial institution regulator that has recently been criticized for lacking oversight over the financial district in London. The FSA is now attempting to establish a reputation for hard hitting raids on illegal insider trading cases.

The agency reported to The Wall Street Journal that the arrest “targeted a sophisticated and long-running insider-dealing ring that netted participants significant profits.” Among the seven men arrested was an employee of the US Hedge Fund Moore Capital Management, another from Germany’s Deutsche Bank, and a third from the French Bank BNP Paribas.

The investigation, which has been underway since late 2007, involved approximately 143 agents from the FSA and the Serious Organised Crime Agency. The agents spanned out across London early last week and arrested all the accused at their homes and fulfilled the 16 warrants on homes and businesses in search of case sensitive documents and records.

This investigation is actually the first in which the FSA and the SOCA have collaborated on a case, and they have refrained from releasing details as of yet regarding the extent of illegal insider-trading that occurred.

Insiders of the Deutsche Bank, which specializes in sales and trading of bonds, equities and debt financing in their London based operations, say they are completely cooperating with the authorities in regard to the suspicions that one of their employees was involved with the scandal. The Paris-based brokerage firm, Exane, was also among the companies involved with the arrests specializing in equity derivatives and asset management. Exane is admitting that one of their employees has been questioned by the FSA but they have refrained from further comment until more information is available.

Julian Rifat, of the New York-based Moore Capital, is a London execution trader who was also arrested earlier this week for his supposed involvement in the case. Moore Capital told The Wall Street Journal, “UK authorities had executed a search warrant for documents related to an employee on its London equity-execution desk.” However, Moore Capital has made it evident that the investigation has nothing to do with the hedge fund’s capital and that they are more than willing to cooperate fully with the FSA.

The suspects are currently being held in police stations around London. However, none have been convicted of any crimes as of yet. Agents are continuing to question the suspects and will soon prosecute the suspects when they have established ample evidence.

Only recently has the FSA gained power to prosecute such criminals, bringing their first case in 2008 to court. They have executed about 6 similar raids in recent years concerning mainly small scale insider-trading operations. All of these similar raids are a direct response to a global crackdown on insider trading. American securities regulators are dealing with similar cases of insider trading centered mainly on New York hedge fund Galleon Group.

It is very apparent that insider trading has become an increasingly prevalent problem in the UK, and the FSA will have to continue to crackdown on many companies and banks in order to promote free trade in a free market.

The census is used to determine district lines as well as how many seats in the House of Representatives each state is allotted. Therefore, the Census itself is very important to many political figures and has made it a top priority despite its costs. However, in the last census, there was only a 67% return rate for the questionnaires. For such a costly process, this isn’t acceptable.

The 2000 Census director, Louis Kincannon, told Fox News, “Costs are escalating, mainly driven by wage costs and the escalation through inflation.” This increase in costs and wages paid to the thousands of workers put the Census over budget before 2010 even arrived. Last summer, when workers canvassed and verified addresses throughout the country, the process cost $444,000,000.

The very process of the Census has never been economically efficient. The wages, the paper, the printing, and other necessary aspects of the Census, all add up to billions of dollars. Additionaly, when it comes to counting each individual resident of this country, the methods of clipboard, pen, and paper are antiquated. A hope for the 2010 Census was that technology would allow some censuses to be filled out through secure handheld devices.

However, the devices and the necessary security measures have added up to the devices potentially costing $600,000,000. This cost, for many of the census workers, is worthwhile and will provide a more efficient system. To use paper and ink would add an estimated $1 billion to $12 billion dollars to the Census cost, according to The Washington Post.

While the Census campaign provides hundreds of thousands of jobs to people in the 500 bases across the country, their ways of training and utilizing their workers are, again, ineffective, being both money- and time-consuming. In one instance, the Census Bureau reported to Fox News that they spent $5.5 million to train 15,000 workers, most of which worked either very little or not at all. With the Census already over budget, it is foolish to spend money and not utilize the effects.

As 2010 is already one fourth over, it seems that the Census Bureau needs to buckle down, reorganize, and revamp their methods. According to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, which is the parent agency of the Census Bureau, these modifications are being instated as quickly as possible. The main target of these changes will be reconfiguring the arrangement between the Census Bureau and a private contractor so as to best utilize both sources.

The Census is underway, and even though it must overcome some already-hefty problems from over-budgeting, the crucial nature of the Census should lead to its successful completion. Hopefully it won’t cause taxpayers across the country to slide into another economic tailspin because they have to provide the funds to be counted in their own country’s census.

China’s rise to economic power is displayed across a variety of industries and this deal will put a Chinese company in control of a major automotive producer for the first time. The country has burst onto the scene in recent years, going after the United States in the competition for the world’s economic superpower. Because of the deal, a Chinese company can now viably compete in the United States automotive market.

Ford, in cutting its losses, has inadvertently created another competitor in a largely stagnant market. That is why the agreement contains many conditions and regulations concerning “intellectual property.” Ford developed in conjunction with Volvo many ideas and technologies that now become available to Geely. This would not be a problem if the Chinese company didn’t become an immediate competitor to Ford. Though the agreements have not been specified, it seems that the “intellectual property” will be limited to production of Volvo vehicles and not be allowed to be included in Geely automotives.

Volvo has been a burden on Ford Motor Company since 2007 losing around $1 billion each year. But Geely has a plan to slash production costs by utilizing the cheap labor available in China. With its own country being the largest automotive market in the world, Geely hopes to make Volvo a profit-turning machine in the next few years. Right now, the plans of Geely look positive because Volvo has experienced a 40% increase in sales in the first two months of 2010.

The agreement is helping Ford move back to its core brand name and pay off its $23.5 billion debt to the United States government. Chief Financial Officer Lewis Booth stated in a press conference, “we think it’s a fair price for a good business.” The purchase agreement still needs government approval, followed by an official transfer of the Gothenburg, Sweden-based company before the end of the third quarter. Geely plans to keep current Volvo management for the time being as the company transition begins.

"The Obama administration predicted serious cuts in Pell Grants for low-income students due to health-care legislation"

Officials in Washington moved to quickly overhaul the federally funded student loans programs last week as the Obama administration predicted serious cuts in Pell Grants for low-income students due to health-care legislation.  As politicians worked to fix the student-loan bill, many worried that it would cause ramifications concerning the ongoing healthcare plan.

One of the integral parts of the revamped student loans program is that there would no longer be any private lenders’ involvement in the loans’ origin.  The sole provider of the loans would be the Education Department through entirely government backed programs.  Borrowers who fail to pay back their loans would then be sought out by specific companies hired to make sure the loans were seen through.

Administration officials told The Wall Street Journal that the Pell program would be cut by nearly 60 percent in the fall of 2011 if the student-loan bill is not revised properly.  Currently, the program is aimed at handing out $32 million in grants this year to over 8 million low-income students around the country.  Due to inaccurate estimates over the past year the grants have risen from $4,800 to $5,300, which the government will not be able to cover in the future — especially with the rising number of applicants that have driven up the costs.  If the student loan bill is not revamped, it is estimated that the Pell grant ceiling will drop drastically to $2,150 by the academic year of 2011.

The student-loan package is opposed by Republicans in Congress, so the deal has been packaged with the democratic health care reform in hopes that it will be passed more easily.  The deal bundles the student-loan bill in an expedited budget package with the health care proposal and needs to be passed in the Senate with a majority vote.  By itself the bill would have needed 60 votes to pass.

Under this deal, the maximum Pell Grant is projected to rise to reach $5,550 for the 2010-2011 academic year  and would automatically increase due to inflation each year there after.

Though Democrats expected to loose some votes by packaging the two bills, it was a sacrifice they were willing to make to ensure that millions of low-income students can still get the loans they need.

Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa and chairman of the Education Committee, told The New York Times, “Families and students who rely on federal student aid need to know that Congress sides with them and not with the big banks.”  This statement is in response to the legislator’s decision to allow the government to regulate student loans rather than private banks.   Such a decision has resulted in criticism from private banks, which would see a cut off from current revenue with the new, completely government-sponsored student loans program.
The decision to package the student loans program with the health care legislation was a hard decision for many in Washington; still it is believed to be the best option for all parties involved.

BC’s Carroll School of Management students recently learned that their undergraduate program has been ranked in the Top Ten in the nation for 2010.  A leap upward from number 17 in 2009, CSOM’s current place at number nine is certainly an incredible achievement.  How did CSOM make such a drastic improvement, according to Business Week?  Well, first we should consider how the publication determines their rankings.

Two primary components go into determining a school’s rank: the results from two surveys distributed by Business Week, as well as an academic quality gauge.  Distributed to 88,000 students from 139 schools, the student survey examined “everything from the quality of teaching to recreational facilities.”  These results were combined with those of 2008 and 2009 to ultimately count for 30 percent of the final ranking.

Business Week also surveyed 718 corporate recruiters from some of the major employers of business graduates, asking questions regarding the background of top graduates, various curricula, and career services.  The results from the recruiter survey were also combined with those of the two previous years to contribute 20 percent of the overall ranking.

The remaining portion of the score is determined by the school’s academic quality gauge, which includes average SAT scores, the ratio of full-time faculty to students, average class size, percentage of business majors with internships, and average time spent studying.  These five factors contribute 30 percent.  Average starting salary and a measure of which schools send the most graduates into the top 35 MBA programs contribute the last 20 percent.

So where does CSOM fall with all of these numbers?  BC received a 21 in the student survey and a 3 for its recruiter ranking.  Academic quality rank was 23, faculty-student ratio was 26.0 and the average SAT score was 1345; average starting salary was $55,000 and MBA feeder school rank was 14.  Richard Keeley, Associate Dean for Undergraduates, gives his take on the numbers.

Primarily, Dean Keeley attributes the jump in rankings to CSOM’s “great students and great faculty.”  CSOM students are well-rounded; not only do they excel in academics, but they are leaders in their everyday activities.  They know how to work with people, a quality that shines when working with recruiters.  Dean Keeley quotes a statement he often hears from recruiters: “BC students pass the airplane test.”  Essentially, a recruiter would be more than happy sitting next to a BC grad if flying alone – an interesting, but revealing, measure in the business world.

Giving students proper credit, Dean Keeley goes on to acknowledge the excellent undergraduate faculty.  According to Dean Keeley, “six years ago, there were only two and a half people in the Undergrad Dean’s office.”  Today, Dean Keeley works with Dean James Halpin, Dean Ethan Sullivan, Erica Graf, and his always-pleasant secretary, Sara Nunziata, on an everyday basis to increase faculty contact with students.  The team has worked together to institute several new programs in recent years, all with the goal of providing opportunities for students to work with faculty on a daily basis.  Dean’s Coffee, which meets every Thursday afternoon in Fulton, allows undergraduates to meet with administration in a comfortable setting; increased drop-in hours are a convenient time to ask questions ranging from course selection woes to study abroad information; and a weekly “This Week in CSOM” email alerts all undergraduates of upcoming events and opportunities within the Carroll School.

Last, but certainly not least within Fulton, Dean Keeley gives special credit to Andrew Boynton, Dean of the Carroll School.  Dean Keeley describes Dean Boynton as “Oz, the man behind the function.”  Dean Boynton “has pushed to make the undergraduate program a priority, providing effective resources which make a tremendous difference.”  It is with his full support that the undergraduate program has flourished in recent years.

Dean Keeley also goes out of his way to recognize BC’s Career Center, whose services are crucial to senior job placement.  CSOM graduates in recent years have been so pleased with career advising and assistance that they rated job placement with an A+ when surveyed.

In response to much praise for the undergraduate program, Dean Keeley cautions that the Carroll School’s prestigious Top Ten rank may be subject to change in coming years, simply because of the nature of the ranking method.  He describes the overall process as “an apples and oranges kind of thing – it can be misleading.”  How exactly can a publication compare a program with 190 students, such as MIT’s Sloan School of Management, with CSOM’s 1,970 undergraduates?  “How are we going to beat that faculty-student ratio?” continues Dean Keeley, “We cannot budge this number without reducing students or increasing faculty, which is an expensive proposition.”

Despite certain flaws of the ranking system, CSOM’s newest achievement reflects the success of the tremendous effort and resources that have gone into the undergraduate program in recent years. “Overall, we are happy with where we are,” says Dean Keeley, “and the thing that has made a difference is how well students have done.”  The Carroll School faculty will certainly continue to work toward improvement.  The next step?  Dean Keeley hopes “to grow the faculty and increase faculty contact with students … the advising process is crucial.”

For now, however, Fulton will continue to celebrate its recent achievement.  Anyone passing through Fulton cannot miss the banner currently hanging in the main lobby, congratulating all who have contributed to the Top Ten rank.  Students and faculty gathered during Thursday’s Dean’s Coffee to celebrate over a chocolate fountain and a layer cake.

Congratulations, Carroll school faculty and students – the celebration is certainly well-deserved.

Jeff Immelt, Chief Executive Officer of General Electric, did not take an offered extra bonus from his company this year on top of his planned salary of 3.3 million dollars. In a letter to GE shareholders, Immelt was quoted by Businessweek as saying that the “world has been reset” by the sharp economic decline over the past two years.  With this attitude in mind, Immelt chose to refrain from accepting from his bonus in an attempt to help his company, as opposed to taking more from it.

Such an attitude contrasts sharply with many Wall Street CEOs who are glad to accept their bonuses.  In a struggling economy, the disparity between CEO pay and other employee wages is more pronounced than ever. According to Business Week, the average CEO of a major corporation made 42 times the average hourly worker’s pay in 1980. By 1990 that had almost doubled to 85 times. In 2000, the average CEO salary reached 531 times that of the average hourly worker.

What is the justification for this disparity?  Many corporations, threatened at the thought of losing top talent to other companies, try to reduce this threat with huge cash payouts.  Another theory known as “pay for performance” indicates that these salaries reflect the CEOs overall performances in the companies, and the impact the CEOS have had on the company’s successes. However, with a troubled economy and many companies struggling to remain out of bankruptcy, both theories tend to crumble.

So why do CEOs still accept their bonuses while their company suffers?  First, especially in times of economic uncertainty, the idea of financial security is persuading – most likely driving many CEOs to accept the bonuses since they still can. However, these CEOs are accepting bonuses while their companies are cutting jobs, barely staying out of bankruptcy. So, while the bonuses may help the CEOs stay out of financial disparity, they may push the companies themselves right into it.

Although this fact seems to be still hazy for many upper-level executives, it is clear that some still see the light in the midst of economic fog.  Jeff Immelt has proven himself a man of integrity and a true leader of his company — someone certainly deserving of high regard.