Women Break Down Barriers in Mideast Finance

Hoda Abou-Jamra still remembers the meeting when potential investors for herprivate equity fund thought she was the secretary.

“I would ask a question, and they would answer to the man next to me. I would answer their question, and they would look at him,” she said, laughing. “I didn’t let it bother me. I just stood up straighter and talked louder.”

Women deal makers, financiers and entrepreneurs are a rare breed in the Middle East. As a founding partner of a $40 million health care fund in Dubai, Ms. Abou-Jamra operates in a male-dominated industry globally and a male-dominated work force locally.

In private equity, women account for roughly 9 percent of the senior management positions worldwide, with the share varying from 9.1 percent in Europe to 8.7 percent in the United States, according to a study this year by the industry research firm Preqin. The gender imbalance is even more extreme in the Middle East, market participants say. While few statistics are available on the region’s nascent industry, only 25 percent of women enter the job market at all, compared with nearly 60 percent in the United States

Ms. Abou-Jamra and other women financial professionals in the Middle East are trying improve the mix. It is a slow process, but they are making headway by creating their own investment vehicles, forging ties with influential players, and generally raising awareness.

“For the gulf states, in the last decade, women have become a lot more entrepreneurial,” said Dina Kawar, the ambassador to France from Jordan, where women account for about 13 percent of all private-sector workers.

Like Ms. Abou-Jamra, Maha Al-Ghunaim found a place at the top by creating a new financial firm, rather than working inside an existing one. At the investment arm of Kuwait’s sovereign wealth fund, Mrs. Al-Ghunaim steadily rose through the ranks, reaching the position an assistant general manager. But competition was intense, and she felt her best opportunity for advancement was elsewhere.

“When you are climbing the ladder, you have to balance between speed and safety,” Mrs. Al-Ghunaim said.

So 13 years ago she founded Global Investment House, a Kuwait-based financial firm that began as a brokerage firm and investment bank. She has since expanded into private equity, with four funds overseeing about $1.5 billion.

The barriers for women are both cultural and structural.

“The guys have so much testosterone, I’ve had to learn to be more aggressive to be heard,” Ms. Abou-Jamra said. “I’ve found that unless I participate in boys’ club activities, I’m put aside. You have to be one of the boys to really fit.”

But some Mideast countries ban women from driving or mixing in public spaces with the opposite sex. Strict dress codes are also enforced in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran.

“There are buildings where I walk in, and I’m the only woman there,” said Ms. Abou-Jamra. “Even the secretaries are male.”

Such restrictions made it difficult for Muna AbuSulayman, an entrepreneur and former television personality, to develop her latest ventures, a fashion line and a Facebook application for new parents. Simply registering the businesses with the government took a year, instead of the usual three days, she said.

“Each time, they would ask for something else, another piece of information, but they wouldn’t ask for all of it at the same time,” she said.

One item that held up the process: an address. The country’s law forbids people from using their home for commercial purposes. Ms. AbuSulayman could not use her father’s office either, since it was not licensed to have women employees under Saudi Arabia’s gender segregation rules. She obtained a business address through a brother.

It can be difficult to find capital, too.

Despite the region’s wealth and deep-pocketed investors, women are often reliant on conservative lenders, which are reluctant to give loans to small, women-led firms. When Ms. AbuSulayman and a male counterpart submitted similar applications to the same Saudi Arabian bank, she received a loan roughly a third of the size of the man.

“Applying for a loan, a woman will not get as much as a man,” she said. “My sister decided to sell her catering business when she could not raise the money she needed to expand it.”

Ms. Abou-Jamra went outside of the Mideast to find money for her firm. After meeting with four international private equity firms, she won the backing of the TVM Capital, a German private equity firm focused on the life sciences, to start a health care fund. She has since raised capital from investors like the World Bank’s private-sector arm, the International Finance Corporation, and the health care unit of General Electric.

Fund-raising in the Middle East was a central topic at a conference in Paris this month. The one-day event, attended by dozens of business people, diplomats and policy analysts, covered how mentorships and social media could play a transformative role in helping women financiers succeed in the region.

“As a woman in the Middle East, as an Arab woman, I found some men were very supportive,” Ms. Abou-Jamra said. “They helped me to not give up.”

Anu Bhardwaj, organizer of the conference, said “like-minded people invest in one another.”

Ms. Bhardwaj’s efforts are tied to a wider campaign by the Women’s Business Forum. Backed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Jordan and the United States, the group is trying to educate women entrepreneurs and executives across the globe.

The group wants to tap into the vast resources of the region’s wealthy women. In the Middle East, women are thought to control billions.

“Widows and divorcées have that kind of money,” Ms. Bhardwaj said, “and they don’t spend it all on eye shadow.”

High Court Strikes Down Ariz. Campaign Finance Law

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow, but not a fatal one, to public campaign financing, with a 5-4 decision striking down a central provision of an Arizona law.

The Arizona law offers public funds to state legislative and executive-branch candidates who abide by tight contribution and spending limits. Another provision gives additional dollars when publicly funded candidates face big-spending opponents or outside money groups — and that's what was rejected by Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority.

Roberts said this type of public financing — called "fair fight" money, or funds "triggered" by other spending, or funds meant to "level the playing field" — unfairly burdens the free-speech rights of the other candidates or groups, because it balances out their political spending.

Three years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in another case that the government can justify campaign finance laws intended to fight corruption, but not those to level the playing field.

Reaction To Decision

Lawyers for the plaintiffs were jubilant.

"From our perspective, it is great that the court finally ended Arizona's Frankenstein's experiment with government-manipulated elections," said Nick Dranias of the Goldwater Institute, representing John McComish and two other former legislative candidates.

Dranias said the Goldwater Institute aimed this lawsuit at the leveling funds, but its larger target is Arizona's overall public financing system.

"Future lawsuits will undoubtedly determine whether the entire system can withstand the striking down of the matching funds component," he said.

Still, Roberts stopped short of throwing out the entire law, writing, "That is not our business." Some advocates of tighter campaign finance laws took comfort in that.

Arizona Assistant Attorney General James Barton said the law has been challenged repeatedly, and this is the first major loss. But he added, "Justice Roberts' opinion took the time to say that this isn't an attack on public financing in general. It's only related to these triggered matching funds."

Dissenting View

After Roberts delivered the ruling Monday, Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, read a fierce dissent.

Writing for the three more liberal members of the court, she said anyone "familiar with our country's core values — our devotion to democratic self-governance," and to a robust political debate, "might expect this court to celebrate, or at least not interfere with" a public financing system.

Kagan's dissent could open a new chapter in the campaign finance debate, and proponents of campaign finance regulation were cheered by it.

"To the majority, it looks like the mere mention of a leveling interest is enough to doom the law," said Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine. "Justice Kagan in her dissent says, 'So what if some of this is motivated to level the playing field? It was also motivated on anti-corruption grounds, and it is justified on anti-corruption grounds.' "

Still, Kagan is in a four-justice minority on the Roberts court. Monica Youn, who was an attorney for the Brennan Center for Justice on an amicus brief in the case, said, "This is the fifth campaign finance case that the Roberts court has heard, and the fifth that it has struck down, in a mere five years."

Future Lawsuits Possible

One of those other cases, of course, is the controversial Citizens United ruling of 2010, which was cited 10 times by Roberts in Monday's decision. The Citizens United decision lets corporations and unions spend unlimited amounts to support or attack candidates.

The Goldwater Institute's Dranias pointed to a footnote in Monday's decision as a possible seed for future lawsuits.

The footnote seems to cast doubt on the anti-corruption basis for public financing laws. Roberts wrote, "Public financing does nothing to prevent politicians from accepting bribes in exchange for their votes."

Dranias said, "Now that, to me, is a substantial finding that cuts out one of the three legs that has traditionally upheld public financing, that it's a means of preventing bribery to politicians."

So the legal foundations of campaign finance laws will continue to shift.

As campaign finance controversies brew, tougher Nevada laws coming into play

CARSON CITY, Nev. — Three years ago, an independent watchdog group ranked Nevada's campaign finance transparency laws 45th in the nation — an "F'' rating underscored by high-profile campaign finance hijinks in the past few months.
"The problem we have in Nevada," said Secretary of State Ross Miller, "is that we're perceived as being the Wild Wild West and have a reputation that anything goes."
Miller, who oversees the state's elections, finally found success changing those laws earlier this month after four years of trying. Gov. Brian Sandoval signed three bills that make a variety of changes in disclosure laws, from requiring candidates to file campaign contribution forms online, to requiring a disclosure on any ad $100 or more, so voters know when large, out-of-state advocacy groups are trying to influence Nevada politics.
"In previous sessions, it felt like pushing a rock up the hill," Miller said of the bills. "Every session, people forgot about the importance of the issue."
Votes were still split, but Miller said several controversies made it easier this time around for lawmakers to see holes in state election law.
Rory Reid, who failed a 2010 gubernatorial bid against Sandoval, was under investigation for skirting rules after his campaign created 90 smaller PACs and funneled donations through them from a large, umbrella PAC. Reid earlier this month paid an administrative fine of $25,000, but said he thought all along that the funding structure he used in his campaign was legal.
Another controversy cropped up after dozens of lawmakers received contributions from a company hoping to legalize Internet poker. Pokerstars is based overseas, and federal rules ban international contributions; one of the new campaign laws will clarify the ban in state law.
A criminal complaint filed Friday against a former Nevada Assemblyman brought the issue to the forefront again. The state attorney general alleges that Morse Arberry Jr. diverted more than $121,000 in campaign contributions to his personal checking account during the 2008 election cycle.
Miller says his office wants to "repair the perception" that political groups can get away with murder in Nevada.
Among the changes that will be in place by the 2012 election season:
Candidates will file all their reports electronically through the secretary of state's office. Existing law has candidates filing at different locations, including county clerk offices. The new system will create a database that voters can search by candidate, contributor, dollar amount and other data. It upgrades a system that required state staff to scan piles of handwritten documents into the system, and that only allowed voters to search reports by candidate.
Contribution and expense reports will be due four days before early voting begins so an increasing number of Nevadans who vote early can do more research before making their decision. The extra reports are in addition to the ones already due just before election day.
All ads, billboards and radio spots that cost more than $100 now must identify who paid for them. Anyone who spends more than $100 to influence an election must also register with the secretary of state and file expense reports.
Opponents say portions of the laws are too strict, and the extra paperwork and looming penalties could discourage average citizens from participating in elections.
"We want to be as transparent as possible," said Sen. James Settelmeyer, R-Minden, who vetted the laws as part of the Senate elections committee. "But to maintain the concept of a citizen Legislature, it can't be so cumbersome that a citizen can't participate."
He also worried that the electronic filing could oust candidates who don't have computer access.
Anne Bauer, a researcher with the National Institute on Money in State Politics, said some of the new laws are strong compared with those in other states — the $100 threshold for registering with the secretary of state is one of the lowest in the country.
But she added that the measures will make information more useable, and give voters a better picture of who is influencing the people on the ballot.

Personal Finance: Credit card offers are back

Seem like you're seeing more credit card offers lately? You aren't dreaming.

Targeting everyone from teenagers to 80-somethings, credit card companies are cranking out more offers, especially to those with good credit ratings.

Lee Marengo, a retired state employee in Sacramento, said she and her husband have been getting lots of tempting credit card offers in the mail.

A longtime credit card user who faithfully pays off her balance each month, the 84-year-old is getting "wonderful" offers for rewards cards, such as a Chase Visa that dangles 5 percent cash-back on gas, groceries and pharmacy purchases.

Marengo typically only uses one card but, "If something new and better comes along, by golly, I'm gonna grab it."

She's certainly not alone in getting credit card offers.

During the recession, card issuers kept a low profile. They got hammered by record rates of defaults by consumers who couldn't pay off their monthly balances. They also got pinched by new consumer protections in the federal Credit CARD Act that clamped down on late payment fees, interest rates and other charges.

But that's old news. Today, as the battered economy starts to heal, credit card defaults and late payments are lower. Banks have adjusted to the new landscape, amping up efforts to grab new consumers.

"There are a lot more mailings going out. The competition among credit card issuers has definitely stepped up," said Bill Hardekopf, CEO of LowCards.com, an online credit card comparison site. "They are sending out many more solicitations, especially to the most sought-after customers: those with good to excellent credit scores."

The spike in credit card mailings was significant this past year, says Anuj Shahani, who oversees tracking services for Synovate, a global market research firm. Direct mailings from credit card companies skyrocketed from 1.39 billion in 2009 to 2.82 billion in 2010, a whopping 103 percent increase.

"With the CARD Act in place and the economy doing better, credit card mailers have come back with a bang and are making up for some lost ground," said Shahani in an email. "We expect to see a modest rise in mailings for 2011."

Credit cards that offer rebates or rewards are where competition is most intense, says Hardekopf. "Issuers are offering some great deals out there, especially in miles and cash back. That is what excites consumers."

But if you're contemplating a new credit card, do your homework. Here are some tips:

Balance vs. no balance

You have to know which camp you're in, says Tim Chen, CEO and founder of NerdWallet.com, a Redwood City-based credit card comparison site.

If you don't carry a monthly balance, get a rewards card. They typically have an annual fee but offer airline miles, cash-back on purchases (groceries, dining, etc.) or discounts at certain stores.

If you do carry a balance, generally go for cards with the lowest interest rate.

Read the fine print

No matter what kind of card you apply for, be sure to read the disclosures first. Otherwise, you might get hit with surprise fees later. For instance, a company that brags it has no "annual fee," might instead charge an "application fee," says Ken Lin, CEO of CreditKarma.com, a Bay Area-based credit card site.

"If you take 20 minutes to read the disclosures, it can save you several hundred dollars," said Lin.

Watch out for terms/fees

Many new cards entice people to switch by offering to move your outstanding balance to a new card with a lower rate. But those so-called "teaser rates" usually last only six months or so. Or they can disappear entirely and be replaced by a sky-high rate if you fail to make a monthly payment on time.

For instance, let's say you've got a $2,000 balance on your credit card that's charging 20 percent APR. You get an offer to transfer your old balance to a new card that's only charging 6 percent. Sounds good, eh?

But look at the details: There's an upfront fee of 3 percent. On a $2,000 balance, that's $60. "Not the end of the world," notes Lin, but it's still money out of your pocket.

And if you don't pay on time every month, that super-low interest rate could jump to nearly 30 percent, the typical "penalty pricing" rate. In the end, you could be worse off than if you kept your original card.

Choose rewards wisely

If you buy a lot of gasoline, look at a card that pays cash back. Or if you fly for business or vacations and live in a Southwest Airlines city like Sacramento, it might be worth getting the airline's credit card to rack up miles.

But note that some cash-back rewards are capped, say $250 a year for gasoline purchases.

NerdWallet's Chen likes to tell how he scooped up 225,000 airline miles in one year by signing up for three cards: 75,000 bonus miles each for an American Airlines card from Visa and American Express. And a Capitol One card that did a match-my-miles promotion.

And he didn't get hit with annual charges.

"The fees were waived for the first year, so I just canceled the cards after I got the miles."

With his miles he's flying to Greece this summer.

That's not the kind of consumer that credit card companies are looking for, needless to say.

Every time you apply for a credit card, your credit score can get dinged. That's why it's best to do your homework before applying for too many cards. And if you have a card with a long history of good payments, don't cast it aside just because you see a better-looking deal out there. Hang onto it for the long-term benefit to your credit score.

Best tip: Always pay your credit card bill on time. "If you do, you're gonna save a lot of money. If you don't, that's where they get you," says CreditKarma's Lin.

By:- http://onlinemoney-foryou.blogspot.com