The past three months have been financially painful for many Americans — but not for billionaires.  However, US billionaires have become $565 billion richer since March 18, according to a report published last week by the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive think tank.

Total wealth for billionaires now stands at $3.5 trillion, up 19% from the low point near the beginning of the pandemic, the report said. Amazon (AMZN) boss Jeff Bezos alone is worth $36.2 billion more than he was on March 18.

Since that day, nearly 43 million Americans have filed for initial unemployment benefits. Lower-income workers, especially in travel and service-sector jobs, have been hit particularly hard by the health crisis.

With the anxiety and distress you may be feeling, wearing clothes that are in any way uncomfortable is simply not an option.

The numbers put an exclamation point on the deep divide between haves and have-nots that is helping to fuel unrest across the United States. Wealth inequality is likely to get even worse because of this crisis, experts say.

The acceleration of wealth for the richest Americans is being driven by the remarkable recovery of the stock market, which has skyrocketed in large part because of unprecedented action from the Federal Reserve.

“The stock market taking off — and decoupling from the real economy — is exacerbating inequality,” said Kristina Hooper, chief global market strategist at Invesco.

Despite the turmoil on the streets of US cities and a record 43 million Americans filing for unemployment benefits, the Nasdaq is on the cusp of hitting record highs — an astonishing feat that underscores how quickly Wall Street has rebounded.

The Fed’s emergency response, including slashing interest rates to zero and promising to buy unlimited amounts of bonds, was designed to make risky assets like stocks look more attractive. Investors have essentially been forced to gamble on equities — and Big Tech in particular is benefiting from that.

Large tech companies aren’t just surviving during the pandemic — many of them are thriving. The crisis has made Amazon, for instance, even more essential than it already was. Amazon shares have spiked 47% from their mid-March lows.

Facebook (FB) also swiftly recovered to record highs. The net worth of Mark Zuckerberg, the company’s co-founder and CEO, has climbed $30.1 billion since March 18, the IPS report found.

The report calculated billionaire wealth using data provided by the Forbes Global Billionaires List, a real-time assessment of net worth. March 18 is used as the starting date because that is the date tied to the 2020 Forbes Global Billionaire survey. It also roughly matches up with when US states and the federal government began imposing health restrictions.

Other tech power players have also amassed more wealth over the past three months. The net worth of Tesla (TSLA) boss Elon Musk, Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page and former Microsoft (MSFT) CEO Steve Ballmer have all climbed by $13 billion or more apiece since March 18, the report found.

Unemployment could soon hit nearly 20%

Meanwhile, the United States has been gripped by mass unemployment caused by social distancing requirements imposed to fight the pandemic.

Economists expect Friday’s jobs report to show the United States lost another 8 million jobs in May, lifting the pandemic tally to 28.5 million — three times the number of jobs lost during the Great Recession. The unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20%, higher than it’s been since the Great Depression.

“Surging billionaire wealth juxtaposed with the suffering and plight of millions undermines the social solidarity required for us to recover together in the years ahead,” Chuck Collins, co-author of the IPI report, said in a statement.

Of course, millions of average Americans are also benefiting from the V-shaped recovery in the stock market. The rebound has lifted the value of investment portfolios, pension funds and retirement accounts. Even just betting on a vanilla fund that tracks the S&P 500 would have given investors a tidy return of nearly 40% since the March 23 lows.

About 52% of families owned stocks directly or indirectly through retirement plans like 401(k)s, according to 2016 stats from the Federal Reserve.

Yet a surging stock market helps the rich more than the rest of the country. That’s because the top 10% of households owned 84% of all stocks in 2016, according to NYU professor Edward Wolff.

These trends help explain the unrest that has gripped the United States. Although the initial catalyst was police brutality, the protests and riots are taking place in a nation divided across racial and economic lines. And those fault lines appear to be growing during the pandemic.

“You’ve got a combustible concoction of lost income and inequality,” said Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM International.

Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) chief Mukesh Ambani is the ninth richest person in the world along with Steve Ballmer of Microsoft and Larry Page of Google, each having a net worth of $67 billion, according to the Hurun Global Rich List 2020.

Ambani, 62, maintained a place in the top 10 for the second time after a $13 billion or 24 per cent surge in his wealth to $67bn.

“The only Asian in the Top 10, Ambani’s wealth increased mainly on the back of a good performance in his telecom business,” the Hurun Rich List said.

Ambani is restructuring Reliance Industries to facilitate the planned strategic investments in group businesses – Reliance Jio, Reliance Retail, refining and petrochemicals. The conglomerate aims to be a zero net debt company in 18 months and is in discussion to sell 20 per cent oil-to-chemicals business to Saudi Aramco, at an enterprise value of $75 billion. RIL became the first Indian company to hit the milestone of achieving Rs 10 lakh crore market capitalisation.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos retains the top spot in the Hurun Global Rich List 2020 with $140 billion, down $7 billion, mainly due to the world’s largest divorce settlement with former wife MacKenzie Bezos, who makes the list in her own right with $44 billion.

Amazon is one of four companies, whose valuations have hit $1 trillion, the others being Microsoft, Apple and Google. Bezos bought a $165 million home, setting a new record for Los Angeles. In February, he pledged $10 billion to help fight climate change.

Bill Gates, dropped down to third place on the Hurun Global Rich List 2020, with $106 billion, despite growing his wealth $10 billion or 10 per cent. Last month, Gates announced a $100 million commitment to fight coronavirus which has triggered a global health emergency.

Over the past two decades, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has given out more than $50 billion to global health and education. (IANS)

Find the critical support and resistance level

Trade with the best broker

Reduce the risk at trading

Conclusion

IBM tapped Arvind Krishna as its next CEO last week. And this week WeWork confirmed it hired Sandeep Mathrani as its new chief executive.  They join a growing number of global CEOs of Indian origin, according to social media, news reports and online searching (incidentally, Google is run by an Indian).

Here’s a list of Indian American CEOs:

Shantanu Narayen, Adobe

Sundar Pichai, Alphabet, the parent company of Google

Satya Narayana Nadella, Microsoft

Rajeev Suri, Nokia

Punit Renjen, Deloitte

Vasant “Vas” Narasimhan, Novartis

Ajaypal “Ajay” Singh Banga, Mastercard

Ivan Manuel Menezes, Diageo

Niraj S. Shah, Wayfair

Sanjay Mehrotra, Micron

George Kurian, NetApp

Nikesh Arora, Palo Alto Networks

Dinesh C. Paliwal, Harman International Industries

A disclaimer that this is hardly complete or exhaustive. Some are the children of Indian immigrants.

To be sure, there is a risk of reading into one group’s success as a case of Indian exceptionalism, which I truly do not believe. Rather, a series of external factors have contributed to the rise of the Indian CEO, which says more about the state of corporate America, a globalized workplace, technological disruption and the leaders who might prevail.

”It’s not a not a surprise that we’re seeing Indians rise in corporate ranks,” says Richard Herman, coauthor of a book on migrants to the U.S., Immigrant, Inc. ”Of all the immigrant groups coming in today, Indians are head-and-shoulders above others, and this is partly because of their English language skills and also the advanced education that many of them are bringing to the U.S.”

Nooyi, says Herman, is part of a growing trend where U.S. companies are being created, or led, by foreign-born individuals who bring in something special. Herman cites new research from Brigham Young University showing American workers innovate and solve problems faster when working with a ”socially distinct newcomer,” meaning, a person from another culture.

Despite these personal success stories the number of immigrants who are leading corporate America, Indian or otherwise, is still a tiny fraction. But, says Herman, ”look at where the data was ten years ago and maybe it was zero or one [Indian then].”

The first of these happened in the early 1980s. After a decade of low borrowing costs, which enabled governments to expand their balance sheets considerably, interest rates began to rise, making debt-service increasingly unsustainable. Mexico fell first, informing the United States government and the International Monetary Fund in 1982 that it could no longer repay. This had a domino effect, with 16 Latin American countries and 11 least-developed countries outside the region ultimately rescheduling their debts.

In the 1990s, interest rates were again low, and global debt surged once more. The crash came in 1997, when fast-growing but financially vulnerable East Asian economies—including Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea, and Thailand—experienced sharp growth slowdowns and plummeting exchange rates. The effects reverberated worldwide.

The World Bank has just warned us that a fourth debt wave could dwarf the first three.

But it is not only emerging economies that are vulnerable to such crashes, as America’s 2008 subprime mortgage crisis proved. By the time people figured out what “subprime” meant, the U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers had collapsed, triggering the most severe crisis and recession since the Great Depression.

The World Bank has just warned us that a fourth debt wave could dwarf the first three. Emerging economies, which have amassed a record debt-to-GDP ratio of 170 percent, are particularly vulnerable. As in the previous cases, the debt wave has been facilitated by low interest rates. There is reason for alarm once interest rates begin to rise and premia inevitably spike.

The mechanics of such crises are not well understood. But a 1998 paper by Stephen Morris and Hyun Song Shin on the mysterious origins of currency crises, and how they are transmitted to other economies, shows that a financial tsunami can make landfall far from its source.

How the source of financial trouble can vanish, leaving others stranded, was illustrated in the delightful short story “Rnam Krttva” by the celebrated twentieth-century Indian writer Shibram Chakraborty. In the story—which I translated into English and included in my book “An Economist’s Miscellany”—the desperate Shibram asks an old school friend, Harsha, to lend him 500 rupees ($7) on a Wednesday, to be repaid the following Saturday.

But Shibram squanders the money, so on Saturday, he has little choice but to ask another school friend, Gobar, for a loan of 500 rupees, to be repaid the next Wednesday. He uses the money to repay Harsha. But when Wednesday rolls around, he has no way of repaying Gobar. So, reminding Harsha of his excellent repayment record, he borrows from him again.

It is not too late for countries to build seawalls to protect against debt tsunamis.

This becomes a routine, with Shibram repeatedly borrowing from one friend to repay the other. Then Shibram runs into both Harsha and Gobar one day at a crosswalk. After a moment of anxiety, he has an idea: Every Wednesday, he suggests, Harsha should give Gobar 500 rupees, and every Saturday, Gobar should give the same amount to Harsha. Shibram assures his former school friends that this will save him a lot of time and change nothing for them, and he vanishes into Kolkata’s milling crowds.

So who are the likely Harshas and Gobars in today’s debt wave? According to the World Bank, they could be any country with domestic vulnerabilities, a stretched fiscal balance sheet, and a heavily indebted population.

There are several countries that fit this description and run the risk of being the conduit that carries the fourth debt wave to the world economy. Among advanced economies, the United Kingdom is an obvious candidate. In 2019, the U.K. narrowly avoided a recession, with a growth rate a shade above zero—the weakest growth in a non-recession period since 1945. The country is also about to undertake Brexit. Conservatives in Britain have promised that a “tidal wave” of business investment will follow. This is unlikely: if there is a tidal wave, it will probably be one of debt instead.

Among emerging economies, India is especially vulnerable. In the 1980s, India’s economy was fairly sheltered, so the debt wave back then had little impact. At the time of the East Asian crisis in 1997, India had just begun to open up, and it experienced some slowdown in growth. By the time of the debt wave in 2008, the country had become globally integrated and was severely affected. But its economy was strong and growing at nearly 10 percent annually, and it recovered within a year.

Today, India’s economy is facing one of its deepest crises in the last 30 years, with growth slowing sharply, unemployment at a 45-year high, close to zero export growth over the last six years, and per capita consumption in the agricultural sector decreasing over the last five years. Add to this a deeply polarized political environment and it is little wonder that investor confidence is rapidly declining.

It is not too late for countries to build seawalls to protect against debt tsunamis. While India’s political problems will take time to solve, the Union budget—to be presented on February 1—is an opportunity for preemptive action. The fiscal deficit needs to be controlled in the medium term, but the government would be wise to adopt expansionary fiscal policy now, with money channeled into shoring up infrastructure and investment. Managed properly, this can boost demand without increasing inflationary pressures, and strengthen the economy in order to withstand a debt wave. The country’s leaders must seize this opportunity. The alternative is to adopt the brace position.

The world’s already huge debt load smashed the record for the highest debt-to-GDP ratio before 2019 was even over. In fact, it broke that record in the first nine months of last year. Global debt, which comprises borrowings from households, governments and companies, grew by $9 trillion to nearly $253 trillion during that period, according to the Institute of International Finance.

That puts the global debt-to-GDP ratio at 322%, narrowly surpassing 2016 as the highest level on record. More than half of this enormous number was accumulated in developed markets, such as the United States and Europe, bringing their debt-to-GDP ratio to 383% overall.

In a complex multi-cloud world, VMware delivers solutions that help streamline and simplify cloud management, reduce cost, and boost agility. Here’s how they do it.

There are plenty of culprits. Countries like New Zealand, Switzerland and Norway all have rising household debt levels, while the government debt-to-GDP ratios in the United States and Australia are at all-time highs. In emerging markets, debt levels are lower, for a total of $72 trillion, but they have risen faster in recent years, according to the IIF.

China’s ratio of debt to GDP, for example, is approaching 310%, the highest level in the developing world. Investors have long kept a skeptical eye on the highly-leveraged country. Following a push for Chinese companies to reduce their borrowing in 2017 and 2018, debt levels rose again last year, the IIF said in its Global Debt Monitor report.

Such massive worldwide debt is a real risk for the global economy, especially because the IIF expects levels to rise even further in 2020.

“Spurred by low interest rates and loose financial conditions, we estimate that total global debt will exceed $257 trillion” in the first quarter of 2020, the IIF said.

The Federal Reserve lowered interest rates three times last year, and the European Central Bank’s benchmark rate is still at its post-financial crisis lows.

Despite favorable borrowing conditions, the refinancing risk is massive. A total of more than $19 trillion of syndicated loans and bonds will mature in 2020. It’s unlikely that all of these will be refinanced or repaid.

Another issue that the report brings up is the financing needs for urgent climate change action.

The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals require $42 trillion of infrastructure investments by 2030, but “countries with limited borrowing capacity could face severe challenges in meeting development finance needs,” the IIF said.

Recession fears are again on the rise, with the vast majority of chief financial officers bracing for an economic downturn in 2020—and historical data shows that trends of declining optimism among America’s financial executives can sometimes be a harbinger for looming market sell-offs.

Recession fears are back in full force: 97% of CFOs said that an economic downturn has already begun or will begin in 2020—up from 88% who said the same thing last year, according to Deloitte’s latest CFO Signals Survey.

Many on Wall Street primarily use CFO sentiment as an indicator of the business environment, but deteriorating forecasts can sometimes help warn of looming market downturns, historical data shows.

Going into 2019, for example, just 28% of CFOs said they expected the North American economy to improve—half the number it was a year earlier, in 2018. That statistic fell to 24% in the following quarter, right before the S&P 500 dropped almost 7% in May and again by nearly 6% from mid-July to August.

Business optimism also notably declined before the big December 2018 market sell-off, when the S&P 500 shed over 9%: Over two thirds of CFOs warned that the U.S. market was overvalued, and a metric of their forward-looking optimism hit a two-year low.

Before the market lost almost 10% in the third quarter of 2015, some CFO growth expectations hit their lowest levels in five years, reflecting rising concern ahead of the sell-off. The S&P 500 also fell by 5% in the first month of 2016—in Deloitte’s prior outlooks, CFO optimism had been steadily on the decline.

Going further back, CFO sentiment was also relatively accurate in warning of the 2008 financial crisis: According to Duke’s CFO Global Business Outlook, optimism had plunged to a record low by September 2017—with pessimistic CFOs outnumbering optimists by around four to one.

What to watch for: It’s important to remember that CFO sentiment, which helps give insight into business and consumer spending, is primarily an indicator of economic activity—rather than stock market behavior.

Crucial quote: “While as a stand-alone they don’t offer much insight, it’s most helpful to look at these surveys hand-in-hand with hard economic data,” says Mark Freeman, chief investment officer at Socorro Asset Management. “What really matters is the extent to which sentiment potentially translates into CFO behavior—that has earnings implications, and that does matter to the market from a fundamental standpoint.”

Tangent: Nearly two thirds of CFOs surveyed by Deloitte said that U.S. economic performance beyond 2020 will “depend substantially” on the outcome of the elections, while trade policy remains CFOs’ “most worrisome external risk.” Respondents also cited falling expectations for two key measures of the economy: Consumer sentiment, which has largely held steady so far, and business spending, expectations for which hit a three-year low. More than 80% of CFOs also said they had already taken at least one defensive action to mitigate against a potential downturn, as evidenced by their growing focus on cost reduction and returning cash.

The market boomed in 2019, with major indexes hitting numerous record highs as stocks posted their best annual return in six years, thanks to the U.S. economy’s moderate expansion holding steady and renewed trade optimism on Wall Street.

On the last of day of trading in 2019, the session capped off a strong year for the stock market: In 2019, the S&P 500 rose by 29%, the Nasdaq by 35% and the Dow Jones Industrial Average by 22%. Both the S&P 500 and Nasdaq posted their biggest one-year gains since 2013, while the Dow’s performance was its best since 2017.

As stocks continued to rise, Wall Street put recession fears on the back-burner, especially as the U.S. economy’s moderate pace of expansion held steady. Solid consumer spending, a robust labor market and an apparent recovery in the housing market have all been good indicators in this regard.

Another huge reason for the market’s renewed optimism in 2019 was the signing of several new trade deals toward the end of the year, including a revised North American trade agreement to replace NAFTA and, after months of on-again, off-again negotiations, the long-awaited phase one trade deal with China.

U.S. and Chinese negotiators agreed upon a phase one deal in October, before both sides officially confirmed terms of the deal in December. As it stands, the phase one agreement is expected to be signed in the first week of 2020, as both sides work to finalize the legal and translation process.

The de-escalation of trade tensions with China was also a boost for the global economy, as tariffs from the last year and a half of the trade war have weighed heavily on international trade volumes.

What’s more, Wall Street is at ease knowing that the Federal Reserve is now on hold, after signalling that it has no plans to cut interest rates in 2020 and will remain on the sidelines unless inflation flares up.

What to watch for: Going into 2020, the market is optimistic that economic growth can continue, especially with diminishing tariff pressures and the Federal Reserve now on hold. Recession fears have been dampened for now, with stocks expected to continue their rise next year—but at a more modest pace, according to strategists polled by Reuters. The market should be boosted by more stable global economic growth, accommodative central bank policies and a recovery in corporate earnings, not to mention defusing trade tensions with China.

Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Industries said it had been inviting people to sign up to its grocery delivery service. The company is aiming to use its massive mobile phone customer base as a springboard for the business.

The new e-commerce venture could become a major challenger to India’s existing online retail giants. Two subsidiaries of Mr Ambani’s business empire, Reliance Retail and Reliance Jio, said they had soft-launched the venture, called JioMart.

JioMart says it offers “free and express delivery” for a list of grocery goods, which currently numbers some 50,000 items.

Unlike its rivals, JioMart will connect local stores to customers via an app rather than providing and delivering the goods itself.

India’s online grocery market is in its infancy – currently estimated to be worth around $870m a year, with just 0.15% of the population using such services. However, analysts predict the sector could see annual sales of around $14.5bn by 2023.

Grocery delivery has long been tipped as the next frontier in the battle for business in India. A staggering number of internet and smartphone users – plus an unorganised grocery delivery sector – make it a promising market for app-based services.

Some of the world’s largest and best-known technology companies, including Walmart and Amazon, are hoping to cash in too.

This should be a cakewalk for Reliance – it already has hundreds of millions of subscribers to its telecoms network, and operates its own grocery stores as well as retail stores for international brands.

Plus it has the advantage of being an Indian company. Amazon and Walmart have been held back from expanding in this space by government laws aimed at protecting domestic business.

There are Indian competitors operating in the market already – Big Basket and Grofers are the most well-known. But they’ve had to put the brakes on expanding or tweak their business models to meet the challenges of operating in India, such as poor infrastructure, unreliable mobile networks and strict labour laws.

Reliance has a reputation for disrupting markets it starts businesses in, be it power, oil, retail or telecoms. Its foray into e-commerce is unlikely to be any different.

India’s e-commerce market is currently dominated by Amazon and Flipkart, which is owned by Walmart . Both companies suffered a setback last year when the Indian government introduced new laws that restrict foreign-owned online retailers from selling goods from their own subsidiaries . This helped give Indian companies, which are not affected by the new rules, an edge over their foreign rivals.

Ambani, who is the chairman of Reliance Industries, has an estimated fortune of more than $60bn (£45bn). The group’s core business is oil refining but it also has major investments in other sectors including retail and telecoms.

Reliance Retail owns grocery stores in India, runs outlets for global brands, including Hugo Boss and Burberry, and in 2019 bought the British toy shop Hamleys . Reliance Jio is India’s second-largest telecom operator, with more than 360 million subscribers.

The leveraging of a giant social-media presence, a catchy tune about a family of sharks and a burgeoning collection of junkyards are just a few of the curious ways that helped make 2019 a fertile year for fortunes to blossom around the world.

Kylie Jenner became the youngest self-made billionaire this year after her company, Kylie Cosmetics, signed an exclusive partnership with Ulta Beauty Inc. She then sold a 51% stake for $600 million.

It has been almost two months since the Washington Nationals captured their first World Series championship, but people around the world are still singing along to the baseball team’s adopted rallying cry: “Baby Shark, doo-doo doo-doo doo-doo.” The Korean family that helped popularize the viral earworm are now worth about $125 million.

Even car wrecks proved to be a treasure trove. Willis Johnson, the gold-chain-wearing Oklahoma native who founded Copart Inc., has amassed a $1.9 billion fortune by building a network of junkyards to sell data. The emergence of atypical fortunes underscores just how much money the uber-rich accumulated in 2019.

And the richer they were at the start of the year, the richer they got. The world’s 500 wealthiest people tracked by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index added $1.2 trillion, boosting their collective net worth 25% to $5.9 trillion.

Such gains are sure to add fuel to the already heated debate about widening wealth and income inequality. In the U.S., the richest 0.1% control a bigger share of the pie than at any time since 1929, prompting some politicians to call for a radical restructuring of the economy.

“The hoarding of wealth by the few is coming at the cost of peoples’ lives,” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a self-described democratic socialist, said in a Dec. 12 tweet as the U.K. began to vote.

Still, the defeat of Britain’s socialist opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, whose campaign included attacks on billionaires and calls to “rewrite the rules of our economy,” gave an added boost to mega-fortunes.

Leading the 2019 gains was France’s Bernard Arnault, who added $36.5 billion as he rose on the Bloomberg index to become the world’s third-richest person and one of three centibillionaires — those with a net worth of at least $100 billion. In all, just 52 people on the ranking saw their fortunes decline on the year.

Amazon.com Inc.’s Jeff Bezos was down almost $9 billion, but that drop is because of his divorce settlement with MacKenzie Bezos. The e-commerce titan is still ending the year as the world’s richest person after Amazon shares jumped on Thursday. The company reported a ‘record breaking’ holiday season with billions of items shipped and “tens of millions” of Amazon devices like the Echo Dot sold.

Here’s what the year looked like for the 0.001%:

2019 Winners

The 172 American billionaires on the Bloomberg ranking added $500 billion, with Facebook Inc.’s Mark Zuckerberg up $27.3 billion and Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates rose $22.7 billion.

Representation from China continued to grow, with the nation’s contingent rising to 54, second only to the U.S. He Xiangjian, founder of China’s biggest air-conditioner exporter, was the standout performer as his wealth surged 79% to $23.3 billion.

Russia’s richest added $51 billion, a collective increase of 21%, as emerging-market assets from currencies to stocks and bonds rebounded in 2019 after posting big losses a year earlier.

2019 Declines

Rupert Murdoch’s personal fortune dropped by about $10 billion after proceeds from Walt Disney Co.’s purchase of Fox assets were distributed to his six children, making them billionaires in their own right.

Interactive Brokers Group Inc.’s Thomas Peterffy saw his wealth slump by $2.1 billion as investors weighed a reshaped competitive landscape for brokerage businesses after rival Charles Schwab Corp. eliminated commissions and agreed to buy TD Ameritrade Holding Corp.

WeWork’s Adam Neumann saw his fortune implode — at least on paper — as the struggling office-sharing company’s valuation dropped to $8 billion in October from an estimated $47 billion at the start of the year. Still, SoftBank Group Corp.’s rescue package left Neumann’s status as a billionaire intact.

New Billionaires

White Claw, the “hard seltzer” that was the hit of the summer among millennials, helped boost Anthony von Mandl’s net worth to $3.6 billion.

Mastering the art of fast-food deliveries proved rewarding for Jitse Groen, whose soaring Takeaway.com NV lifted his wealth to $1.5 billion.

The popularity of soy milk gave eight members of Hong Kong’s Lo family a combined $1.5 billion.

Despite the widespread gains, plenty of the world’s richest people may be happy to wave farewell to 2019. The year included messy details of the Bezos divorce and the Jeffrey Epstein saga, which enveloped a who’s who of financiers and entrepreneurs, after the convicted pedophile arrested in July by federal agents after stepping off his private jet at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey.

Through it all, their bank balances remained robust, as a record bull market got a December kick with an easing of trade tensions between the U.S. and China, a resolution to Britain’s political stalemate and a blowout U.S. jobs report.

Bill Gates has surpassed Amazon (AMZN) CEO Jeff Bezos to reclaim the distinction of richest person in the world, with a net worth of $110 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

It’s the first time, the co-founder of Microsoft (MSFT) has held the top spot in over two years. He briefly topped Bezos last month after Amazon reported that its profit for the three months ending in September fell nearly 28% from a year earlier. But Gates’ time at the top was short-lived.

He has regained the lead because Microsoft (MSFT) shares are up nearly 48% this year, which helped boost the value of his stake in the company. In October, Microsoft beat out Amazon for a $10 billion cloud-computing contract with the Pentagon, adding some additional drama to the Gates/Bezos wealth race.

Bezos, who this year paid out a significant portion of his Amazon stake in his divorce from his wife of 25 years MacKenzie Bezos, now sits at second with a net worth of $108.7 billion.

Gates recently commented on his wealth in response to a wealth tax proposed by some Democratic political candidates, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

He said he’s paid more than $10 billion in taxes already and it would be fine with him to up that to $20 billion. However, having to pay $100 billion would prompt him to start “to do a little math about what I have left over.”

India added over 1,300 start-ups, including 7 unicorns in 2019, making the country the third biggest start-up ecosystem in the world behind China and the US, according to a new report from industry body National Association of Software and Services Companies (Nasscom).

The total funding received by start-ups in 2019 stood at $4.4 billion, said the report, adding that total investment in the start-up ecosystem increased by 16 per cent year-on-year in 2019.

The cumulative valuation of the start-ups has now crossed $55 billion. The addition of 7 new unicorns in 2019 has brought up their overall number to 24, according to the report titled “India’s Tech Start-up Ecosystem”.

These 7 unicorns are Pune-based software company Icertis, Bengaluru-based Ola Electric, Delhi-based logistic courier service provider Delhivery, Gurugram-based cargo service Rivigo, Pune-based data protection and management-as-a service Druva, Mumbai-based fantasy sports platform Dream11 and Bengaluru-based online grocery store BigBasket.

The Indian start-up ecosystem has the potential to grow four times by 2025, it added.

“There are multiple levers propelling this remarkable growth of the ecosystem that are bolstering the Indian start-ups as well as creating an environment conducive for continued innovation,” said Nasscom president Debjani Ghosh.

“What stands out most starkly in this report is how various elements of the ecosystem are coming together in symphony to give rise to an orchestra of innovation – right from government support, evolution of the investor landscape, increase in participation from the corporates, growth of national digital infrastructure, to incredible global exposure,” she said.

The report showed that during 2014-2019, an estimated 8,900 to 9,300 start-ups were born, with their overall base growing at 12-15 per cent year-over-year.

While Bengaluru, Delhi-NCR, and Mumbai are home to 55-58 per cent start-ups in India, Jaipur, Ahmedabad, Kolkata and Kochi are the emerging start-up hubs in the country, said the report that Nasscom brought out in collaboration with global management and strategy consulting firm Zinnov. (IANS)

By Chacko Zachariah

(Licensed Real Estate Broker and Realtor, Fabulous Homes, Inc., 954-491-7600, [email protected])

Florida offers several Tax Savings and Benefits for Living, Working, Doing Business, and Owning Real Estate in Florida. Florida does not have any State or Local Personal Income taxes nor any Intangible Personal Property Taxes on most items. Florida offers the standard Homestead Exemption and additional Homestead Exemptions based on specific eligibility requirements. It puts an Annual Cap on the Assessed Value of your Homestead Property and allows Portability of the Accumulated Assessment Savings from one Homestead Property to the Next. Florida has a Cap on the Maximum Tax that you have to pay when buying a Yacht or Vessel (for example; even if you buy a US $100 Million Yacht in Florida, the Maximum Sales Tax you have to pay is capped at just US $18,000; instead of the usual sales tax of US $ 6 to 7 Million!). C corporations are the only types of businesses that pay Florida’s state income tax, while other types of corporations and sole proprietorship pay no Florida income tax irrespective of how big they are. In addition, Florida offers numerous Tax Incentives and Tax Credits for Businesses starting, expanding, or relocating to Florida.

(A) No State or Local Personal Income Taxes

Florida is the one of the very few states in USA that has No State or Local Personal Income Taxes. With the new US Tax Laws enacted in 2017, most people in the USA are encountering double taxation, while Florida is the one of the very few states in the USA where you can escape all or some of the double taxation and save money and thus avoid some of the adverse effects from the restrictions placed on the SALT (Sales And Local Tax) deduction. SALT tax includes the State and Local (City) Income Taxes, Intangible Personal Property Taxes, the Local Sales Taxes, and the Real Property Taxes. Thus, with these new restrictions placed on the SALT deduction, most people are now taxed twice on the same earned income. (The famous Boston Tea Party during our Independence struggle almost 250 years ago was on “Taxation Without Representation”.)

It should be of great interest to know that by allowing taxpayers the ability to deduct state and local taxes (SALT), taxpayers avoided double taxation and ended up with more net income. Further, deduction for property taxes along with the full deduction of mortgage interest always provided a strong incentive for individual home ownership which also led to increase in personal wealth and the standard of living. This created a boom in the home building, development, and construction industries, and stimulated real estate, mortgage, finance, other related businesses throughout the U S. This led to a stronger U S economy and brought about a faster and stronger growth of the U S GDP. These were the reasons for the enactment of these laws several decades ago allowing such deductions and had been used by taxpayers for generations for great benefits. However, several Presidents and Congresses, starting in the early 1980s, had been slowly chipping away and ripping off the taxpayers by lowering the amounts of deductions they could take on these items and using the additional taxes collected as a result to subsidize and benefit their favorite special interest groups and use it as additional welfare programs for big businesses.

Since Florida is the only state that also offers that combination of beautiful coastlines, beaches, weather, and island resort style living along with tremendous savings from not having to pay any individual state or local income and other taxes, a healthy and rapid migration to Florida of the well to do and the wealthy has begun to materialize in the last couple of years. They have been buying fabulous properties at bargain prices and are setting up permanent residences and businesses in Florida.

(B) The Homestead Exemption

The Homestead Exemption is a legal principle enacted in various states in USA to protect a homeowner’s primary (permanent) residence (the homesteaded property) from certain types of creditors. In Florida, January 1st of each year is the date on which permanent residency is determined.

The Florida Constitution also provides additional tax-saving exemptions for the homestead property on the first and third $25,000 of the assessed value of an owner-occupied residence. However, that third $25,000 exemption applies only to the non-schools portion of an homestead property’s assessed value.

Further, Florida law allows several other additional Property Tax Exemptions and Reductions for the homestead property owner depending on eligibility. They include:

$500 Disability Exemption
$500 Disability Exemption for Blind Persons
$500 Exemption for Widowed Persons
Additional Exemption for Low-Income Seniors
Full Exemption for Low-Income Seniors who have lived in their home for at least 25 years.
Exemption for Deployed Military Personnel
$5,000 Veteran’s Disability Exemption
Additional Exemption for Combat-Wounded Florida Disabled Veterans
Full Exemption for Veteran’s Service-Connected Total and Permanent Disability
Full Exemption for Totally and Permanently Disabled Persons
Full Exemption for Totally and Permanently Disabled First Responders
Surviving Spouse of Military Veteran or First Responder
Historic Property Exemption for property on the National or Florida Registers of Historic Properties
“Granny Flat” Exemption – Taxpayers who build additions onto an existing Homestead or perform extensive renovations to an existing Homestead to provide living quarters for a parent or grandparent may be entitled to a special exemption equal to the amount of the new construction (up to 20% of the homestead value).

(C) “Save Our Homes” (SOH) Amendment

Further, in Florida, pursuant to the 1992 SOH Amendment to the Florida Constitution, the assessed value of your Homestead property can increase by no more than 3% (three percent) above the previous year’s assessed value or the consumer price index, whichever is less. The Florida Department of Revenue certifies the annual percentage amount for each year. This law capped the maximum the assessed value of your homestead property can increase from year to year. This was a great help to the homeowners.

(D) Save Our Homes Portability Amendment (SOH Portability)

Prior to 2008, even if you had homestead on your property and the assessed value of your Homestead property only increased by no more than 3% above the previous year’s assessed value or the consumer price index, whichever was less, when you sold that property and either ‘up-sized’ or ‘downsized’ to a new home in value, you ended up having to pay higher property taxes on your new home compared to what you had been paying on your previous home, even if it was worth much less than your previous home. This is because: (a) you lost all the “Save Our Homes Savings” that you had accumulated over the years (savings on your home’s assessed value) by owning your previous homesteaded property in Florida, and (b) the assessed value of the your new home is its market value and in most cases is the purchase price you paid for it.

Many homeowners who wanted to ‘up-size’ or ‘downsize’ to a new home for some reason or another were shocked to find that because the property tax on their new home in many cases was much higher than what they had been paying on their previous homesteaded property they would be unable to move and this made their situation untenable.

In order to alleviate this situation and help homeowners, the “Portability of Save Our Homes” Amendment to the Florida Constitution was passed in 2008 to allow eligible homesteaded homeowners to move the accumulated savings on the home’s assessed value from one homesteaded property to another. As a result, Homesteaded homeowners are now allowed to move their Save Our Homes (SOH) benefit up to a maximum of $500,000 from one homesteaded property to another in Florida.

The new law allows that Portability may be used an unlimited number of times and may be used for moves to anywhere within Florida. Portability does not require you to sell your previous home, but merely that you can no longer claim it anywhere as your primary (permanent) residence.

Portability applies to both ‘up-sizing’ and ‘downsizing’ in value of the new property. If the new homestead has a higher just value than the previous one, the accumulated benefit can be transferred; if the new homestead has a lower just value, the amount of benefit transferred will be reduced. The local County Property Appraiser provides these figures for each homestead property in its jurisdiction by calculating it based upon specified formulas mandated by the State Law.

To be eligible to move these SOH Portability savings to a new primary residence, the new homestead must be established within two tax years of the “abandonment” of homestead at the previously homesteaded property. Owners of homesteaded properties sold (or “abandoned as homestead”) are eligible to move their SOH savings to a newly purchased property so long as the owner obtains homestead on the new property within the strict period allowed by law.

Therefore, if you purchase another home as your primary Florida residence and want to obtain Homestead Exemption for that property and if you held a Homestead Exemption on a previous property within the previous two (2) tax-years anywhere in Florida, you must also submit a Portability application with your Homestead application. The Portability application transfers any tax savings you have earned on your previous homesteaded primary residence to the new eligible primary residence, but it does NOT transfer your Homestead Exemption from one property to another. You MUST first apply for a Homestead Exemption in order to be eligible for Portability. Thus, you must submit an application for Homestead Exemption for your new primary residence and also an application for SOH Portability.

(E) Maximum Sales and Use Tax on Boats and Vessels in Florida

Florida residents used to buy expensive Yachts and register them in foreign countries; in the Islands off the coast of Florida and other countries around the world which offered several tax havens and other benefits. In order to encourage large Yacht manufacturing and sales in Florida, to support the Boating and Marine Industries and to bring in more revenues to the state and local governments, the Florida Legislature changed the laws pertaining to selling, owning, and registering Boats and Vessels in Florida in 2010. As a result, the maximum that can be taxed when purchasing a boat or vessel and registering it in Florida is capped at US $18,000!

This $18,000 total includes all sales and use taxes, plus any discretionary sales surtax. This is to encourage purchasing, registering, and using yachts in Florida year round. Thus for example, you can now buy a US $100 Million Yacht in Florida and or register it in Florida and the maximum you get taxed is US $18,000! After that all you have to pay is the nominal annual boat registration license tag renewal fees. For more information and detailed instructions on this maximum tax, please see Florida Department of Revenue’s Tax Information Publication (TIP) 10A01-07 issued on June 22, 2010.

Incidentally, the world famous Fort Lauderdale International Boat Show is celebrating its 60th year this year and will be held from October 30 – November 3, 2019. Similar Boat Shows are held in Miami and Palm Beach and other major coastal towns in Florida every year. Thousands of Yacht manufacturers and dealers from around the world exhibit at these shows and hundreds of thousands of visitors from the U S and abroad come to theses shows. These shows generate billions of dollars worth of business for the boating industry as numerous boats and related equipment are sold, billions for hotels, restaurants, and tourism, and billions of dollars in tax revenues for the state and local governments each year. Further, the visitors to these shows also engage in numerous real estate transactions throughout the regions where these boat shows are held, thus also benefiting the real estate and construction businesses.

(F) Intangible Personal Property Tax

Florida repealed the Intangible Personal Property Tax on most items on January 1, 2007. Therefore, there are NO Intangible Personal Property Taxes on items such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, money market funds, unsecured notes, certificates of deposits, patents, copyrights, life insurance, partnership interests, etc. There remains intangible personal property tax only on two items: mortgage deeds and leases of government owned properties to nongovernmental entities. This is another benefit to living in Florida. For more information, see the Florida Department of Revenue’s Tax Information Publication, TIP 07C02-01, Dated: January 2, 2007.

Before the repeal of the Florida Intangible Personal Property Tax, individuals possessing intangible property above a certain limit had to file the Florida Intangible Personal Property Tax forms and pay the taxes every year. Now you don’t have to file them anymore.

(G) Florida is a Business Friendly State

Individuals are not the only ones who benefit from Florida’s tax structure. Businesses in Florida pay less taxes than in many other states in the USA. C corporations are the only ones that pay Florida’s state income tax, while other types of corporations as well as sole proprietorships pay no Florida income tax irrespective of how big a business they are.

The State of Florida and its Counties and Cities encourage businesses to operate, relocate, expand, or open branches and divisions in Florida and offer several Tax Incentives and Tax Credits to medium and large businesses to relocate to Florida, set up operations, and create jobs. There are several categories of these incentives and tax breaks and some of them last for several years. Florida tries its best to promote itself as a business friendly state.

Further, in the past three decades Florida has become the gateway for banking, finance, and trade, and other businesses to the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. Therefore, several U S and foreign companies have set up their South American headquarters in Florida for conducting their businesses in various countries in the Caribbean, Central America, and South America while utilizing Florida’s business friendly climate.

Florida’s population has now grown to 22 Million, thus offering a large customer base. When you combine that with its spectacular coastlines and beaches, beautiful weather, vibrant cosmopolitan culture, availability of all the amenities at your finger tips, along with the low taxes and tax breaks for doing business, it sure makes it a great place to set up a new business, expand, or relocate one.

As you can see, Florida is the only state in the USA that also offers that combination of beautiful beaches, coastlines, weather, and resort style living, while also offering all the amenities that you can think of as well as all these tax savings that you obtain from owning Florida Real Estate or doing Business. These show what a beautiful, vibrant, and enchanting place Florida is to live, work, and play as well as a great place to set up a new business or relocate one. Residential properties along Florida’s coastal regions sell for anywhere from the US $300,000s to $100 Million.

Next in Part III of this series on ”Florida and Florida Real Estate” will be a brief explanation of Florida’s Economy and its Real Estate.

Chacko Zachariah, has been a Licensed Real Estate Broker and Realtor with Fabulous Homes, Inc., in Florida, selling Luxury Homes, Condominiums, Commercial, and Industrial Properties for over the past 30 years. He can be reached at 954-491-7600 or [email protected]

Several individuals of South Asian origin are among eleven people charged with alleged credit card fraud, according to the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

A posting on the website of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York.

Five complaints were unsealed June 26, in federal court in Brooklyn charging 11 defendants,  who prosecutors say, carried out an alleged  scheme to defraud banks by using fake, or “synthetic,” identities to obtain credit cards, and making approximately $3 million in charges that were never repaid to the issuing financial institutions, according to U.S. Attorney Richard P. Donoghue and other officials, who made the announcement in a June 27, press release from his office. Three of the defendants were also charged with money laundering conspiracy, designed to conceal the source of the proceeds of their scheme.

Nine defendants were arrested June 26.  Eight defendants made their initial appearances before United States Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom and were released on bond.  One defendant was scheduled to appear June 27, before Magistrate Judge Bloom.  Two defendants are not in custody, according to the press release.

Defendants, all of whom are from New York, include Bahader Thiara, 42, of Queens Village, N.Y.; Hafeez Ali, 54, of Fort Hamilton, Brooklyn; Mohammad Akhtar, 43, Flushing, N.Y.; Nadezhda Epshteyn, 44, Rockaway Park, N.Y.; Cyrus Shroff, 45, also of Rockaway Park, N.Y.; Anis Khan, 32, Sheepshead Bay, N.Y.; Daljeet Singh, 46, College Point, N.Y. (also known as “Akhtar Iqbal”; Zainoelbaks Karimbux, 50, Bellerose, N.Y.; and Gursimardeep Singh Rai, 34, Bronx, N.Y., are  charged with access device fraud.  Bahader Thiara, Perminder Thiara, 40, Queens Village, N.Y.; and Shaila Khondkar, 48, Jamaica, N.Y., are also charged with money laundering conspiracy.

The charges are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until convicted. If convicted, the defendants charged with access device fraud face up to 10 years’ in prison, and up to 20 years for money laundering conspiracy.

The documents filed in court allege that between January 2013 and December 2017, the defendants  used synthetic identities created by using various types of personal identification information (names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers) from different individuals to create a fake identity and obtain credit cards from financial institutions.  The court filings go on to allege that the accused then used those cards for expenditures that they had no intention to repay, including mortgages on three residential properties in Queens, New York.

Prosecutors allege that the defendants also used shell companies to record hundreds of thousands of dollars on those credit cards, and then received payment for the alleged sham transactions from financial institutions and credit card processors.

The government’s case is being handled by the Office’s General Crimes Section.  Assistant United States Attorneys Temidayo Aganga-Williams and David Lizmi are in charge of the prosecution.  Assistant United States Attorney Tanisha Payne of the Office’s Civil Division is handling forfeiture matters.

The most comprehensive changes to private retirement plans in more than a decade are gaining momentum in Congress. A key House committee on Tuesday unanimously passed a bill intended to increase the flexibility of 401(k) plans and improve access to the accounts, particularly for small businesses and their employees.

The proposal, known as the Secure Act, was backed by the top Democrat and Republican on the tax-writing Ways and Means committee.

The bill includes:

A host of provisions aimed at encouraging small businesses to provide private retirement benefits to their workers.

It allows them to band together to offer 401(k)s and creates a new tax credit of up to $500 for companies that set up plans with automatic enrollment.

Businesses with long-term, part-time workers must also allow them to become eligible for retirement benefits.

Several measures that would affect other types of savings are included in the bill.

It repeals the maximum age for IRA contributions and raises the age for required mandatory distributions from 70½ to 72.

It also expands the use of 529 plans, from only college-related expenses to include home schools and student loans. “Americans currently face a retirement income crisis, with too many people in danger of not having enough in retirement to maintain their standard of living and avoid sliding into poverty,” committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., said Tuesday.

The bill is one of the few proposals with a significant chance of becoming law amid a bitterly divided Congress. Elements of the bill have been debated among members for years and enjoy wide support among both industry groups and advocacy organizations. On Tuesday, Neal called the legislation “a major bipartisan accomplishment.”

“The Ways and Means committee is where we find solutions and get things done for the American people,” he said.

The last time Congress passed major retirement legislation was in 2006. The Pension Protection Act focused on underfunded accounts and reforms to that system. Since then, lawmakers have debated proposals to address the popularity of 401(k)s and individual savings accounts.

But those efforts have stalled on their own, said Paul Richman, chief government officer at the Insured Retirement Institute, a trade group. He said the Secure Act aims to “modernize” the system.

“It’s packaging them all into a comprehensive piece of legislation that would address many of these little issues that have cropped up over the years,” he said. “We think that it’s a good chance for Congress to take some positive, bipartisan action and advance this bill.”

The Senate Finance committee introduced a companion bill late Monday. It is expected to pass with backing from both sides of the aisle.

“There’s a lot of pent-up momentum for this, and that’s why it’s so bipartisan in nature,” said Shai Akabas, director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank. “They’re now getting to the point where there’s momentum to get it across the finish line in both the House and the Senate.”

In the House, Neal said he is also working on a second retirement bill with ranking Republican Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas. He said he hopes the committee will consider that legislation before Congress goes on recess in August.

Global software major Infosys on Thursday said its consulting arm would buy 75 per cent equity stake in Starter N.V., a subsidiary of the Dutch-based ABN AMRO Bank for Rs 999 crore ($144 million) in cash for strategic partnership in The Netherlands.

“Our subsidiary Infosys Consulting Pte Ltd will acquire 75 per cent of the shareholding in Stater N.V., a subsidiary of ABN AMRO Bank N.V., for Euro 127.5 million (Rs 999 crore or $144 million),” said the city-based IT firm in a statement here.

The Amsterdam headquartered third largest Dutch bank ABN will hold the remaining 25 per cent of the shareholding in Stater. As a market leader in the Benelux region, Stater operates in the mortgage and consumer value chain with capabilities in digital origination, servicing and collection.

“Infosys will drive Stater’s digital transformation roadmap with accelerators such as dynamic workflow, Application Programming Interface (API) layers, Robotics Process Automation (RPI) and analytics under its management team,” said the outsourcing firm in the statement.

The partnership also strengthens Infosys’ position as a leading technology and business process management provider in the mortgage services value chain, improves experience and operational efficiencies and enhances its strategy to help clients navigate their digital transformation journeys.

Stater is a market leader in the Benelux region, operating across the mortgage and consumer lending value chain with deep capabilities in digital origination, servicing and collection. It also has European mortgage expertise and a robust digital platform to drive superior customer experience.

Mortgage services is a focus area for large corporations in the financial sector, given the importance of the asset on a bank’s balance sheet. “The transaction helps our approach to offer clients digital platforms and industry focused solutions. It also brings our capabilities to enhance the value we offer to our financial services clients,” said Infosys President Mohali Joshi on the occasion.

The 22-year-old Stater’s knowledge and experience in the mortgage services market, combined with global reach, AI, digital transformation and automation capabilities of Infosys, can create differentiated solutions for the market.

“While mortgages are a key product for us, providing administrative mortgage services is not a core activity for us,” said ABN executive board member Christian Bornfeld in the joint statement.

As the Benulux (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxumbourgh) largest mortgage service provider, Stater services a whopping 17 lakh mortgage and insurance loans for 50 clients in the Netherlands and Belgium. (IANS)

The MIT Sloan School of Management recently announced that S.P. Kothari, the Gordon Y. Billard Professor of Management and former deputy dean, was appointed chief economist and director of the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis (DERA) at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

“S.P.’s contributions to our community are too numerous to count. I am grateful for his partnership during his tenure as deputy dean and as a leader amongst our faculty. We will miss him during his leave of absence, but we congratulate him and wish him well on this new endeavor,” says MIT Sloan Dean David Schmittlein.

SEC Chairman Jay Clayton notes, “S.P. brings with him wide-reaching insight from his decades spent as a leader in applying sophisticated research to the operation of our financial markets, including first-hand experience from his time in the private sector. His leadership will guide DERA well in the research and analysis it provides in support of the Commission’s work on behalf of Main Street investors.”

Kothari says, “I am honored to join the SEC’s team of dedicated economists, whose work is well-known and respected throughout the discipline. I look forward to working with the staff and the Commission to explore the important economic issues affecting investors and our markets.”

Related article:

On Chai With Manju, World Hindu Congress Chair and MIT Professor S.P. Kothari Talks…

During his two decades at MIT Sloan, Kothari has been both a professor and administrator. Most recently, he served for six years as deputy dean. Previously, he was head of the Department of Economics, Finance, and Accounting.

He also has been co-chair of the Board of Governors of Asia School of Business, Kuala Lumpur, faculty director of the MIT-India Program, and editor of the academic publication Journal of Accounting & Economics.

From 2008-2009, Kothari served as global head of equity research for Barclays Global Investors, where he was responsible for research supporting the firm’s active equity strategies. In addition, he managed a team of approximately 50 PhDs based around the world.

Kothari earned his B.S in Engineering from the Birla Institute of Technology and Science and his MBA from the India Institute of Management. He completed his PhD from the University of Iowa.

Jay Chaudhry, the founder of Zscaler Inc. is now part of a growing wave of billionaires who have built cybersecurity businesses. Chaudhry, 60, and his family benefit from stakes in the San Jose-based firm worth almost $3 billion. He along with six other cybersecurity software tycoons to emerge with 10-figure fortunes in the past year are worth about $9.5 billion combined, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, and together represent the latest wealth surge among the founders of internet-focused firms.

“I do look sometimes back and say, ‘Whoa,’” Chaudhry said in a telephone interview last month. “My success so far has mainly been because I have very little attachment for money. My obsession is really to make sure that the internet and cloud are a safe place for everyone to do business.”

Decades before he joined the ranks of Silicon Valley’s super rich, Jay Chaudhry lived with his parents in a Himalayan village without running water.

Fueled by the rapid rise of cloud-based computing, companies are increasingly tethering more and more of their business to online networks. While this allows them to gather unprecedented levels of operational information, it also exposes their firms to more cyber threats.

Data protection laws and high-profile cyberattacks — such as the world’s biggest airline data hack last year — are equally forcing companies to reconsider their internet defenses. At the same time, Western governments have expressed concern that China’s intelligence services are snooping on foreign citizens through products sold by telecom giant Huawei Technologies Co.

“The world runs on large-scale networks and data systems that are inherently complex and highly connected,” said Awais Rashid, professor of cybersecurity at the University of Bristol in England. “If we can’t protect them or be confident in their integrity, it leads to serious problems for society at large.”

The growth of cloud-focused cyber firms including Zscaler, Fortinet and Palo Alto Networks poses a threat to the market share of more established network software providers such as Cisco Systems and Juniper Networks. Fortinet’s two main individual shareholders — China-born brothers Ken and Michael Xie — have emerged as billionaires this year in the wake of the Silicon Valley firm’s shares surging more than 20 percent since January.

Yet even with this increased competition, some of the oldest cybersecurity firms have kept growing. Closely held ESET counts three billionaires — Miroslav Trnka, Peter Pasko and Rudolf Hruby — among the six co-founders that own all of the 27-year-old, Slovakia-based company. ESET has seen about 20 percent a year growth in revenue since 2014, according to data compiled by Bloomberg, and has become one of central Europe’s fastest-growing tech firms.

Trnka, 57, and Pasko, 63, started programming during the Cold War and helped resolve one of the world’s first computer viruses, which affected a Slovak nuclear power plant, according to a case study from Vienna University of Economics and Business. Hruby, 64, Chairman Pasko and former Chief Executive Officer Trnka each own about 22 percent of ESET, according to Orbis, a database of company data published by Bureau van Dijk. Their stakes are worth about $1 billion each, according to the Bloomberg index, putting ESET’s wealth creation in a similar league to U.S. tech titans Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc.

“We’ve traveled quite a road from then until now,” Trnka said in a emailed statement, referring to his early days in the cybersecurity business. “I definitely do not feel like a billionaire.”

Pasko said he agreed with Trnka’s statement, but declined further comment. Hruby declined to comment. While ESET has extolled the benefits of remaining a closely held company, Chaudhry’s Zscaler made a splash on New York’s Nasdaq exchange in March when its shares popped 106 percent on the first day of trading. The stock has since climbed more than 50 percent, putting its market value at about $6 billion — more than Bloomberg’s calculated enterprise value for ESET.

Zscaler shares climbed 18 percent to $58.60 at 10:01 a.m. in New York after the firm reported second-quarter revenue of $74.3 million. That was a 65 percent increase from a year earlier and beat analysts’ estimates.

Chaudhry, who has masters degrees in business administration, industrial engineering and computer science from the University of Cincinnati and also studied at Harvard Business School, founded Zscaler more than a decade ago after setting up and selling four other cyber start ups.

Even with a billion-dollar fortune, Chaudhry says his life hasn’t changed significantly. He still visits the Himalayan village where he grew up every few years, and said rather than passing on wealth, his priority is to pass along the work ethic his farming parents instilled in him. “For me, happiness is a state of mind,” he said. “And money has very little do with it.”

The financial system had nearly collapsed. The deepest recession in decades was devouring over 700,000 jobs a month. Roughly $13 trillion in stock market wealth, slowly rebuilt since the dot-com bust, had again been incinerated.  It was March 2009. And it was one of the best times in a generation to buy stocks.

On March 9, 2009, the day the bull market was born, the stock market, like the economy, was in deep, seemingly existential distress. The S&P 500 was down 57 percent from its 2007 peak.  Compounding the pain was the nationwide collapse in home prices, which landed a direct hit on most households’ greatest source of wealth.

The one-two punch destroyed the finances of millions of families. Between 2007 and 2010, the median wealth of a household in the United States dropped 44 percent, knocked below 1969 levels.

Every crash has a bottom, though, and in March 2009, the Federal Reserve announced that it would spend $1 trillion in newly created dollars on government and mortgage bonds to push interest rates lower. It was the dawn of “quantitative easing” — and, it would turn out, a new bull market. The S&P 500 rose 8.5 percent that month, its best monthly performance in more than six years.

A decade later, the bull market that began back then ranks among the great rallies in stock-market history. The 305 percent surge in the S&P 500 is the index’s second-best run ever.

According to The New York Times, the rise has generated more than $30 trillion in wealth. Adjusted for inflation, that is the most created during any bull run on record, edging out the $25 trillion in gains during the epic streak from December 1987 to March 2000, which ended with the bursting of the dot-com bubble, according to Federal Reserve data.

But compared with Americans’ attitudes during that earlier climb, reactions to the latest rally are downright subdued. There has been no frenzy for stock trading. Nobody is quitting an accounting, advertising, or waitressing job to concentrate on day trading.

The psychological and financial damage inflicted by the 2008 financial crisis and the ensuing Great Recession continue to weigh heavily. Fewer people are invested in stocks than before that meltdown, and many of them are wary of taking their gains for granted. That caution could last for decades.

“This was probably the most disliked or most suspected rally that we’ve ever had in the stock market,” said Charles Geisst, a professor at Manhattan College who has studied the history of financial markets.

In 2007, the wealthiest 10 percent of American families owned 81 percent of the nation’s household stock market wealth, according Ed Wolff, a professor of economics at New York University who studies the distribution of wealth in the United States. By 2016, they owned 84 percent, he said.

The recovery in the stock market made those families even richer, increasing their net worth by double-digit percentages. Median American family wealth, meanwhile, dropped 34 percent.

In the past, such episodes of wealth destruction cast long shadows. For much of the 20th century, the financial habits of the American public were heavily influenced by memories of the Great Depression.

Gallup survey data shows that in the last decade, an average of 38 percent of Americans under the age of 35 have money invested in the stock market. That compares with 52 percent before the crisis.

In 2017, 43 percent of all the money in American stock market funds was in index funds. Back in 2007, only 19 percent of stock market assets were in these passive strategies, a style of investing that acknowledges that, for most people, trying to beat the market through savvy trading is a mug’s game.

Americans also appear to be less willing than in previous booms to let the rise in stock market wealth on paper lead to a surge in spending. Family savings rates have stayed stubbornly high by historical standards.

Publics see mobile phones and social media bringing certain benefits to them and their societies. But these views are paired with widespread concerns about their impact on children

By Laura Silver, Aaron Smith, Courtney Johnson, Kyle Taylor, Jingjing Jiang, Monica Anderson and Lee Rainie

After more than a decade of studying the spread and impact of digital life in the United States, Pew Research Center has intensified its exploration of the impact of online connectivity among populations in emerging economies – where the prospect of swift and encompassing cultural change propelled by digital devices might be even more dramatic than the effects felt in developed societies.

Surveys conducted in 11 emerging and developing countries across four global regions find that the vast majority of adults in these countries own – or have access to – a mobile phone of some kind.1 And these mobile phones are not simply basic devices with little more than voice and texting capacity: A median of 53% across these nations now have access to a smartphone capable of accessing the internet and running apps.

In concert with this development, social media platforms and messaging apps – most notably, Facebook and WhatsApp – are widely used. Across the surveyed countries, a median of 64% use at least one of seven different social media sites or messaging apps.2 Indeed, smartphones and social media have melded so thoroughly that for many they go hand-in-hand. A median of 91% of smartphone users in these countries also use social media, while a median of 81% of social media users say they own or share a smartphone.

What is a median?

People in these nations say mobile phones have helped them personally in various ways. Among mobile phone users, an 11-country median of 93% say these devices have helped them stay in touch with people who live far away, and a somewhat smaller share (a median of 79%) say they have helped them obtain news and information about important issues. More broadly, majorities of adults in all 11 countries say the internet has had a good impact on education – and majorities in 10 of 11 countries say the same of mobile phones.

Facebook has brought a lot of advantages for our society. However, it has also affected society in a negative way. Just like anything which can be used for both good and bad, social media have brought negatives and positives for people.MAN, 22, PHILIPPINES

At the same time, smaller shares of adults in these nations say mobile phones and social media have been good for society than say these technologies have been good for them personally. And the challenges that digital life can pose for children are a particularly notable source of concern. Some 79% of adults in these countries say people should be very concerned about children being exposed to harmful or immoral content when using mobile phones, and a median of 63% say mobile phones have had a bad influence on children in their country. They also express mixed opinions about the impact of increased connectivity on physical health and morality.

Some of these tensions between the upsides and downsides of digital life span all 11 countries surveyed. At other times, there are nation-specific elements to people’s views about what these technologies have brought to their lives. For instance, more than half of mobile phone users in five of these countries describe their phone as something they couldn’t live without – but users in six countries are more likely to describe it as something they don’t always need.

These are among the major findings from a new Pew Research Center survey conducted among 28,122 adults in 11 countries from Sept. 7 to Dec. 7, 2018. In addition to the survey, the Center conducted focus groups with diverse groups of participants in Kenya, Mexico, the Philippines and Tunisia in March 2018, and their comments are included throughout the report.

How the focus groups were conducted

Majorities say mobile phones and social media have mostly been good for them personally, somewhat less so for society

Asked for their overall assessment of the impact of mobile devices and social media platforms on society and their own lives, people in these nations generally are more affirming than not. But within this broadly positive consensus, there are important nuances.

First, at both a personal and societal level publics are generally more likely to say mobile phones have had a mostly good impact than to say the same of social media. A median of 70% of adults across these 11 countries say mobile phones have been a mostly good thing for society, but that share falls to 57% on the question of the impact of social media. Indeed, a median of 27% think social media have been a mostly bad thing for society.

Second, these publics are more likely to say that both mobile phones and social media have been mostly good for them personally than they are to say they have been mostly good for society. As noted above, an 11-country median of 70% say that mobile phones have been mostly good for society. But an even larger share of 82% say mobile phones have been mostly good for them personally. When it comes to social media, users of these sites are generally more likely to proclaim their benefits than non-users. Even among users, people’s views of their personal impact tend to be more positive than their views of their societal impact.

These broad themes tend to occur across the full scope of the countries surveyed. But Kenyans and Vietnamese stand out somewhat for their more positive views of the societal impact of both mobile phones and social media. Conversely, relatively large shares of Venezuelans view the societal impact of these technologies as a negative one.

Many worry that mobile phones are a problem for children; it is common for parents to attempt to curtail and surveil their child’s screen time

While on balance people in these nations express largely positive judgments about the personal and societal impact of technologies, they also express significant concerns over the effects mobile phones and online connectivity might have on young people. Worries that mobile phones might expose children to immoral or harmful content are a key flashpoint in these fears. A median of 79% of adults in these 11 countries – and majorities in all countries surveyed – say people should be very concerned about this. More broadly, a median of 54% say the increasing use of the internet has had a bad influence on children in their country, and a median of 63% say the same about mobile phones.

Coupled with these concerns, many parents say they try to be vigilant about what their children are doing and seeing on their phones.3 Among parents whose children have mobile phones, a median of 50% say they monitor what their children do on their mobile devices. Parents who are themselves smartphone or social media users are more likely than non-users to monitor their child’s phone in this way. Along with monitoring their children’s activities on their mobile devices, a median of 52% of parents whose children have mobile phones have tried to limit the time their children spend with their phones.

Beyond these concerns about the influence of connectivity on children, people’s views of the broader impact of digital technologies on family life are more positive. For instance, the vast majority of mobile phone users (a median of 93% across the 11 countries) say their phone has helped them stay in touch with people who live far away. And although majorities of Lebanese (70%) and Jordanians (62%) feel that mobile phones have had a bad influence on family cohesion, in most other countries surveyed, more say mobile phones have had a good influence in this regard than a bad one.

Publics are divided over the role mobile phones play in their lives

Overall, mobile phone users tend to associate their mobile phones with feelings of freedom. In every country surveyed, a larger share of mobile phone users describe their phone as something that frees them as opposed to something that ties them down.

When it comes to whether their phones help them save time or make them waste time, the largest share of mobile phone users in seven countries describe their phone as something that helps them save time. Still, larger shares of Jordanians and Filipinos describe their phone as something that makes them waste time. And in Lebanon and Mexico, roughly equal shares see their phone as a time saver and time waster.

Across the 11 countries surveyed, mobile phone users fall into two camps about whether their phone is something they don’t always need or something they couldn’t live without. Kenyans, South Africans, Jordanians, Tunisians and Lebanese who use a mobile phone are more likely to say their phone is something they couldn’t live without. But in the six other countries, larger shares say they don’t always need their phone.

Both phone type and demographic differences are at the core of these assessments about the value of mobile phones in users’ lives. For instance, adults ages 50 and older are more likely than those under 30 to view their phone as a time saver, while younger adults are more likely to view it as a time waster – a relationship that persists in most countries even when accounting for age-related differences in smartphone use. And although mobile phone users tend to see their phone as something that frees them, the prevalence of these attitudes varies by device type. For instance, in most countries, smartphone users are more likely than basic or feature phone users to say their phone is something that ties them down rather than something that frees them.

Have you ever gone one day without a phone? You feel like you’re not in this world. MAN, 32, KENYA

Publics in these countries say mobile phones have a beneficial impact on certain aspects of society, but a more negative influence on others

People’s assessments of the specific societal impacts of mobile phones vary depending on the aspect of society in question. Broadly, people in most countries think mobile phones and the internet have had similar impacts on society – possibly because for many their online access comes through a mobile phone.

In most countries, education stands out as the issue where the largest share of adults say the increasing use of the internet and mobile phones has had a good impact. A median of 67% say this about the impact of mobile phones, and a median of 71% about the internet. Public attitudes regarding the influence of the internet on education have grown more positive since 2014 in six of the countries studied here (Jordan, South Africa, Kenya, Vietnam, Lebanon and Mexico), while falling in Tunisia.

Adults in the 11 nations surveyed also view these technologies as having a largely good influence on the economy: A median of 58% say this of mobile phones and 56% say same about the internet. And in seven of the 10 countries for which trends are available, more people today say the increasing use of the internet has had a good influence on their country’s economy than said the same in 2014.4

But digital connectivity is seen in a less positive light when it comes to other issues. In addition to their widespread worries about the impact on children, publics in these countries also express mixed views about increased connectivity’s impact on health. An 11-country median of 40% say mobile phones have had a bad influence on physical health, and 37% say the same of the internet. Majorities of the public in Jordan, Lebanon and Tunisia view these technologies as having a negative influence on health.

Children usually play with gadgets the most and are exposed to radiation and experiencing seizures – that’s what I heard.MAN, 43, PHILIPPINES
Also, instead of playing outside, they are busy with gadgets. […] They are no longer able to socialize with other kids.WOMAN, 21, PHILIPPINES

In addition, a median of 35% say that both mobile phones and the internet have had a bad influence on morality. In four countries for which trend data are available (Kenya, Venezuela, Mexico and Colombia), larger shares of the public say the internet has had a good influence on morality than was true four years ago. But in Jordan and Lebanon, the shares saying this have declined since 2014.

When people consider issues such as the impact of digital tools on local culture, civility, family cohesion and politics, the overall balance of public sentiment leans positive. But notable minorities – ranging from a median of 20% in the case of family cohesion to a median of 29% in the case of politics – say mobile phones have had a negative impact on these facets of society.

Moreover, public opinion across these 11 countries has diverged in recent years when it comes to the internet’s impact on politics. Compared with surveys conducted in 2014, larger shares of Mexicans, South Africans, Venezuelans, Kenyans and Colombians now say increasing use of the internet has had a positive impact on politics. But Tunisians, Lebanese and Jordanians are now less likely to say this compared with 2014.

Despite wide-ranging worries about the problems mobile phones invite, personal benefits are still widely recognized

In addition to their concerns about the impact of mobile phones on children, majorities across the 11 countries surveyed also say people should also be very worried about issues such as identity theft (an 11-country median of 66% say people should be very concerned about this), exposure to false information (64%), mobile phone addiction (62%) and harassment or bullying (59%) when using their mobile phones. Fewer are very concerned about the risk that people might lose the ability to communicate face-to-face due to mobile phone use (48%).

Yet these broader concerns often coexist with perceived benefits to users. For instance, despite widespread concerns that mobile phones might expose people to false or inaccurate information, a sizable majority of mobile phone users (79%) say their own phone has helped their ability to get news and information about important issues. Similarly, a median of 58% of mobile phone users say their devices have helped their ability to communicate face-to-face – even as a median of 48% of adults in these countries say people should be very worried about mobile phones’ effects on face-to-face communication.

AAHOA appointed Chief Operating Officer Rachel Humphrey to serve as the Interim President and CEO of the largest hotel owners association in the world. Humphrey will continue to execute her duties as COO during the interim period. The move follows an announcement made in December by current President and CEO Chip Rogers that he would step down in late January.

AAHOA Chairman Hitesh (HP) Patel said, “The Board of Directors is pleased to announce that Rachel Humphrey accepted the position of Interim President and CEO. Rachel is well known and respected, both in AAHOA and in the hospitality industry. She joined AAHOA in 2015 as the Vice President of Franchise Relations and quickly rose to become our Chief Operating Officer. Her work with our association dates back to 1999 when she began speaking at our conferences about franchise law and representing AAHOA members for their legal needs. Rachel’s knowledge of AAHOA, our members, and the hospitality industry will serve the association well during this time of transition.”

Following the announcement of Rogers’ planned departure, AAHOA retained management consulting firm Korn Ferry to conduct a comprehensive national search for a new President and CEO, and the process is moving swiftly.

“As AAHOA continues to build on the exceptional growth in membership and revenue, we are optimistic that Rachel will provide the stability and management needed as we choose our next President and CEO,” AAHOA Vice Chairwoman Jagruti Panwala said. “Since joining AAHOA, Rachel strengthened our relationships with franchise and industry partners and helped expand our industry-leading educational offerings. She possesses an excellent understanding of the hotel industry and will provide a steady hand as AAHOA enters a new era.”

Chip Rogers said, “The Board made an excellent choice in asking Rachel to serve as Interim President and CEO. Having worked closely with her for several years, I know AAHOA is in good hands. Rachel knows the association well and understands the issues affecting our industry and our members. She will keep AAHOA moving forward without interruption.”

“I am pleased to work with the officers, the Board, and our exceptional teams in both Atlanta and Washington D.C., to ensure AAHOA remains the most effective advocate for hoteliers in the nation,” Humphrey said. “As we look forward to our 30th anniversary, we strive to promote the association’s continued growth, and I look to maintain the excellent leadership standard that Chip established as we conduct our executive search.”

AAHOA is the largest hotel owners association in the world. The over 18,500 AAHOA members own almost one in every two hotels in the United States. With billions of dollars in property assets and hundreds of thousands of employees, AAHOA members are core economic contributors in virtually every community. AAHOA is a proud defender of free enterprise and the foremost current-day example of realizing the American dream.