Boxing had another year more notable for what didn’t occur than what did. The bout that fans have been clamouring to see for at least three years, a welterweight showdown between Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Manny Pacquiao, the two best fighters in the world, never materialized.
Both of boxing’s brightest stars did compete in 2011 and their work was big news.
So was a stunning admission from one of the sport’s greatest icons, as well as the death of some notable boxers. Here are the top five boxing stories of 2011, as chosen by Yahoo!
A quarter century ago, the odds were great that Bernard Hopkins might not even be alive at 46, let alone setting boxing records. He was in a Pennsylvania prison on a strong arm robbery conviction and was clearly rolling down the wrong path. But Hopkins turned his life around to become one of boxing’s greatest champions, defending the middleweight title successfully 20 times. He set a record on May 21 in Montreal when, at 46, he defeated Jean Pascal for the WBC light heavyweight title to become the oldest man ever to win a world championship.
In early November, the news broke that the legendary heavyweight champion Smokin’ Joe Frazier was fighting liver cancer. Only a few days later, on Nov. 7, the sad news broke that Frazier had died. He was a 1964 Olympic gold medallist best known for his victory over Muhammad Ali in their epic 1971 bout of unbeaten heavyweight champions. Among the other boxing notables who died in 2011 were Genaro Hernandez, Sir Henry Cooper, Billy Costello, Butch Lewis and Scott LeDoux.
Floyd Mayweather Jr. has long been one of the sport’s elite fighters, but his greatest talent may be to get people talking about him. He did that again on Sept. 17, when after taking a head butt from Victor Ortiz in their welterweight title fight, Mayweather clocked Ortiz with a 1-2 just as the bout resumed, while the referee looked away. Many, including HBO commentator Larry Merchant, called it a cheap shot. Mayweather, though, said it was a part of the business and celebrated the win. “Money” added to his 2011 headlines in late December, when he was sentenced to 90 days in a Nevada jail for misdemeanour battery domestic violence and harassment.
It shouldn’t have been a surprise that Manny Pacquiao had a hard time with Juan Manuel Marquez in their welterweight title fight on Nov. 12. They’d fought two extremely close bouts before. But since that second bout, Pacquiao had improved dramatically and had become, in the estimation of many, the top fighter in the world. He was not, however, able to conclusively beat Marquez, winning a hotly disputed majority decision. Many fans in the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas that night agreed that Marquez won and began showering the ring with trash and shouting obscenities. Pacquiao, though, insisted he’d clearly won.
While Hopkins was becoming the oldest champion in boxing history, his partner at Golden Boy Promotions and one-time in-ring rival Oscar De La Hoya entered a rehabilitation centre for drug and alcohol abuse. He spoke openly of his drug and alcohol abuse, admitted he harboured thoughts of suicide, and said he had been unfaithful to his wife, Latin pop singer Millie Corretjer. It was a stunning admission for a guy who had a squeaky clean image and was the face of boxing.
2011年12月27日 星期二
2011年11月8日 星期二
Requiem for a Heavyweight: Smokin' Joe Frazier
Even though my father was a huge fan of boxing, I was too young to remember or appreciate in real-time the first heavyweight championship fight between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier, the one that took place on March 8, 1971 at Madison Square Garden, the one that life-long boxing fans still describe as the greatest match of all time. By the time I was old enough to pay attention, the two boxers were sweating it out in the Phillippines in 1975, in the brutal final of their three bouts, pushing each other to what Ali would later call "the closest to death I ever came."
Deprived of experiencing the "Fight of the Century" as it unfolded, either live via satellite or later on the Wide World of Sports, I've had to settle for watching the occasional grainy replay of the 1971 bout and to otherwise sniff around for impactful first-hand narratives of the fight. Those accounts, along with ESPN Classic and a handful of Ali movies and documentaries, have kept alive for two subsequent generations the spirit and the glory of first Ali-Frazier fight. And now, as a tribute to the fallen Frazier, I'll bet you Manny Pacquiao's next paycheck that we'll be seeing the replay again this week on television in the comfort of our own homes.
Here are some of the highlights. Makes contemporary boxing seem like beanbag, doesn' it?
You never know where you are going to find Ali-Frazier. You never who has been bitten by the bug. For example, in the newsroom at CBS Radio News, in the studio where the World News Roundup is broadcast every morning and every evening (as it has been for three quarters of a century) there hangs on the wall, posted years ago, the text of of the famous account of the first Ali-Frazier fight. It is written by Larry Merchant, yes, the Larry Merchant of HBO Boxing fame, the timeless chronicler of the sport. For The New York Post, dateline March 9, 1971, Merchant wrote this unforgettable lede:
Muhammad Ali fought a truth machine last night, and the truth that emerged was painfully clear. The arrogance and hubris that made Ali a great champion made him a former champion.
You can't con Joe Frazier for 15 rounds. Joe Frazier comes at you too honestly, too openly. He lets you find out what you have inside you. It is going to take an honest man made of stern stuff to beat him. Ali was not honest enough last night.
Ali went to the Garden last night to paint a masterpiece, to put on a great show, and he put on a great show; a fight of primitive fury and insolence, punctuated by ghetto gamesmanship. But Joe Frazier was not in Ali's plans for the show. And, ultimately, that is where he went wrong.
As it is with many famous people who live a public life of triumph and tragedy, of such visible extremes between the high and the low, Joe Frazier's death Monday evening will mean many different things to many different people. We know what Ali himself will say about the passing of his most famous foe. When word spread over the weekend that Frazier was in hospice care, Ali put out a statement saying that he and his family were praying for Joe, whom Ali called his "friend," a "fighter and a champion." Frazier's death is another death of a sort to Ali as well; another part of him that is sadly gone from us, too.
What will George Foreman say? What about Merchant and Bert Sugar and Dave Anderson and Pete Hamill and the hundreds of other people who know what they are talking about when they talk about Joe Frazier? Does Frazier's (relatively sudden) death somehow change the trajectory of the story any more than the Ali-Fraizer "reconciliation" did a few years ago? I put "reconciliation" in quotes since it's difficult to tell whether and to what extent the two actually did reconcile, or at least stay reconciled for any length of time.
Whatever the consensus, I hope Frazier's tribunes buttress his legacy in the coming days and weeks. He deserves in death the stability of reputation he so often was deprived of in life. Poor Frazier might have been a round or two shy of outboxing Ali in the ring but Smokin' Joe never stood a chance against Ali's wit outside of it. "One moved forward, the other back," the writer Charles Leerhsen wrote on Facebook Monday night after Frazier's death was confirmed. "What they had in common was the willingness and the ability to take a punch, and we all saw the result."
More than one person had suggested to me over the past few days that Frazier desperately wanted to outlive Ali, to best him in the simple act of living. But in death Frazier again beat Ali to the punch. It is the latter who has to hear the accolades and the posthumous praise for Frazier from smart men like Max Kellerman and Jeremy Schaap and David Remnick. It is Ali who is left alone in the ring. And today at least the spotlight shines on his fallen rival.
Merchant inadvertently may have written Frazier's obituary 40 years before the fighter succumbed to liver cancer--"Joe Frazier comes at you too honestly, too openly"--but the boxer's life was truly an astonishing one, full of parallels and contrasts, of glorious opportunities and numbing disappointments. I've always been struck by this one: Ali openly mocked Frazier as a "gorilla" and an "Uncle Tom" before their fight. He derided him mercilessly--after Frazier had loaned Ali money when the latter couldn't box because of his well-documented legal troubles. No wonder Frazier was so angry at the Garden that night.
Some of it we now know was for show. But some of it was deadly serious. That fight at the Garden in 1971 was the "Fight of the Century" not just because the two men were such great fighters. They were symbols, too, between black and white America, and between the Establishment and the Uprising, elements in our society which are still battling each other, out in the streets of America. Frazier is gone, now. Ali will follow him soon enough. But Ali-Frazier is timeless. And so are the undercurrents of the first Ali-Frazier fight. As a nation, we are still bloodied, and bloodying, and we are still unbowed.
In the Garden, in 1971, it was Frazier, the Establishment guy, who beat the living crap out of Ali, the people's poet. Who could have imagined that it would be mostly downhill from there for Joe Frazier and that, 40 years later, Muhammad Ali would be one of the most beloved sports figures in world history? Certainly not Larry Merchant; the Ali of March 1971 is very different indeed from the Muhammad Ali of today. And you could have said the same thing about Joe Frazier.
Like every other heavyweight boxer of that era, Frazier needed Ali. He was the hub of the wheel. But unlike every other fighter, Ali needed Frazier, too, for Ali's greatness in many ways is measured by his three fights with Frazier. They made each other, or at least they made each other more than any of the rest of their contemporaries did. And now one is gone and the other is terribly sick. The sport may be a sweet science. But as always it takes a terrible toll.
Deprived of experiencing the "Fight of the Century" as it unfolded, either live via satellite or later on the Wide World of Sports, I've had to settle for watching the occasional grainy replay of the 1971 bout and to otherwise sniff around for impactful first-hand narratives of the fight. Those accounts, along with ESPN Classic and a handful of Ali movies and documentaries, have kept alive for two subsequent generations the spirit and the glory of first Ali-Frazier fight. And now, as a tribute to the fallen Frazier, I'll bet you Manny Pacquiao's next paycheck that we'll be seeing the replay again this week on television in the comfort of our own homes.
Here are some of the highlights. Makes contemporary boxing seem like beanbag, doesn' it?
You never know where you are going to find Ali-Frazier. You never who has been bitten by the bug. For example, in the newsroom at CBS Radio News, in the studio where the World News Roundup is broadcast every morning and every evening (as it has been for three quarters of a century) there hangs on the wall, posted years ago, the text of of the famous account of the first Ali-Frazier fight. It is written by Larry Merchant, yes, the Larry Merchant of HBO Boxing fame, the timeless chronicler of the sport. For The New York Post, dateline March 9, 1971, Merchant wrote this unforgettable lede:
Muhammad Ali fought a truth machine last night, and the truth that emerged was painfully clear. The arrogance and hubris that made Ali a great champion made him a former champion.
You can't con Joe Frazier for 15 rounds. Joe Frazier comes at you too honestly, too openly. He lets you find out what you have inside you. It is going to take an honest man made of stern stuff to beat him. Ali was not honest enough last night.
Ali went to the Garden last night to paint a masterpiece, to put on a great show, and he put on a great show; a fight of primitive fury and insolence, punctuated by ghetto gamesmanship. But Joe Frazier was not in Ali's plans for the show. And, ultimately, that is where he went wrong.
As it is with many famous people who live a public life of triumph and tragedy, of such visible extremes between the high and the low, Joe Frazier's death Monday evening will mean many different things to many different people. We know what Ali himself will say about the passing of his most famous foe. When word spread over the weekend that Frazier was in hospice care, Ali put out a statement saying that he and his family were praying for Joe, whom Ali called his "friend," a "fighter and a champion." Frazier's death is another death of a sort to Ali as well; another part of him that is sadly gone from us, too.
What will George Foreman say? What about Merchant and Bert Sugar and Dave Anderson and Pete Hamill and the hundreds of other people who know what they are talking about when they talk about Joe Frazier? Does Frazier's (relatively sudden) death somehow change the trajectory of the story any more than the Ali-Fraizer "reconciliation" did a few years ago? I put "reconciliation" in quotes since it's difficult to tell whether and to what extent the two actually did reconcile, or at least stay reconciled for any length of time.
Whatever the consensus, I hope Frazier's tribunes buttress his legacy in the coming days and weeks. He deserves in death the stability of reputation he so often was deprived of in life. Poor Frazier might have been a round or two shy of outboxing Ali in the ring but Smokin' Joe never stood a chance against Ali's wit outside of it. "One moved forward, the other back," the writer Charles Leerhsen wrote on Facebook Monday night after Frazier's death was confirmed. "What they had in common was the willingness and the ability to take a punch, and we all saw the result."
More than one person had suggested to me over the past few days that Frazier desperately wanted to outlive Ali, to best him in the simple act of living. But in death Frazier again beat Ali to the punch. It is the latter who has to hear the accolades and the posthumous praise for Frazier from smart men like Max Kellerman and Jeremy Schaap and David Remnick. It is Ali who is left alone in the ring. And today at least the spotlight shines on his fallen rival.
Merchant inadvertently may have written Frazier's obituary 40 years before the fighter succumbed to liver cancer--"Joe Frazier comes at you too honestly, too openly"--but the boxer's life was truly an astonishing one, full of parallels and contrasts, of glorious opportunities and numbing disappointments. I've always been struck by this one: Ali openly mocked Frazier as a "gorilla" and an "Uncle Tom" before their fight. He derided him mercilessly--after Frazier had loaned Ali money when the latter couldn't box because of his well-documented legal troubles. No wonder Frazier was so angry at the Garden that night.
Some of it we now know was for show. But some of it was deadly serious. That fight at the Garden in 1971 was the "Fight of the Century" not just because the two men were such great fighters. They were symbols, too, between black and white America, and between the Establishment and the Uprising, elements in our society which are still battling each other, out in the streets of America. Frazier is gone, now. Ali will follow him soon enough. But Ali-Frazier is timeless. And so are the undercurrents of the first Ali-Frazier fight. As a nation, we are still bloodied, and bloodying, and we are still unbowed.
In the Garden, in 1971, it was Frazier, the Establishment guy, who beat the living crap out of Ali, the people's poet. Who could have imagined that it would be mostly downhill from there for Joe Frazier and that, 40 years later, Muhammad Ali would be one of the most beloved sports figures in world history? Certainly not Larry Merchant; the Ali of March 1971 is very different indeed from the Muhammad Ali of today. And you could have said the same thing about Joe Frazier.
Like every other heavyweight boxer of that era, Frazier needed Ali. He was the hub of the wheel. But unlike every other fighter, Ali needed Frazier, too, for Ali's greatness in many ways is measured by his three fights with Frazier. They made each other, or at least they made each other more than any of the rest of their contemporaries did. And now one is gone and the other is terribly sick. The sport may be a sweet science. But as always it takes a terrible toll.
2011年10月30日 星期日
Timba family accused
Timba had been the major shareholder of the bank, but it was later placed under the management of a curator.
A report compiled by BCA Forensic Audit Services - and marked "private and confidential" - reveals a trail of plunder of depositors' funds at the bank. It says the pillaging bordered on "criminality, fraud and theft".
Senior Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe officials are pushing for the police's fraud branch to take action.
Timba's looming arrest could be a throwback to 2004, when prominent bankers were arrested for corruption, following the closure of banks in the midst of hyperinflation.
RBZ officials told the Sunday Times on Friday steps were being taken to tackle the RMB situation.
"If you read the original RBZ investigation reports and now the forensic audit report, it's clear the bank was looted through criminal activities, fraud and theft. Depositors' money was simply stolen," a senior RBZ official said.
"If it was ordinary banking employees who stole, they would be in jail by now. But because this case involves men in suits, the wheels of justice tend to move slowly."
Minutes of two RBZ board meetings held on June 28 and September 27 reveal the central bank board resolved to call on the police to deal with the RMB crisis. If they do, police would rely on initial RBZ investigation reports.
The latest one is a two-volume, 1415-page forensic report dated October 11. The first volume has 706 pages while the second has 709 pages. A shorter version of the report, a 49-page summary prepared on August 15, says Timba and his partners, mainly Dunmore Kundishora, also a major shareholder and director, ran down the bank through systematic looting.
"Available evidence shows a total of $1018286.25 of depositors' funds were used to pay for Timba's expenses. The various payments adding up to this figure were done in violation of the Companies Act," the forensic report says.
It details a "Nick Leeson-type" of pillage, and the report also confirms findings of earlier reports that Timba siphoned off funds with his relatives through "related party transactions and insider loans".
"Investigations established that there was a total collapse in corporate governance structures at RMB, which resulted in Mr PF Timba, his father Mr PJ Timba, his brother Mr Stevenson Timba, his brother Mr Jameson Timba (the Minister of State in Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai's Office), his in-laws, George and Mary Mazhude, and other related parties accessing loans through various investment vehicles from RMB through RFHL's unfunded call-account numbers," the report says.
"The loans to the related parties have since matured but are still outstanding. The amounts have since been provided for in full. Related party borrowings, which were not approved by the board, were so rampant and to such an extent that it is appropriate to conclude that the intention was to loot the bank."
The report further states $313457.43 in depositors' funds was stolen, while $149913 was externalised. A further $100000 was suspected of being salted away.
It also says the transfer of $2-million to the Ugandan subsidiary was "criminal, amounting to theft and or fraud".
RMB, whose closure shook the market before a curator moved in, is wholly owned by RFHL, which also controls Renaissance Securities Limited and ReNaissance Capital Limited in Uganda.
In adition, RFHL owns 30.89% of Africa ReNaissance Corporation.
Timba was the chief executive of RFHL and a director of RMB.
RMB, technically insolvent, had negative capital of $16.7-million in April, against a prescribed minimum capital requirement of $10-million for merchant banks.
A report compiled by BCA Forensic Audit Services - and marked "private and confidential" - reveals a trail of plunder of depositors' funds at the bank. It says the pillaging bordered on "criminality, fraud and theft".
Senior Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe officials are pushing for the police's fraud branch to take action.
Timba's looming arrest could be a throwback to 2004, when prominent bankers were arrested for corruption, following the closure of banks in the midst of hyperinflation.
RBZ officials told the Sunday Times on Friday steps were being taken to tackle the RMB situation.
"If you read the original RBZ investigation reports and now the forensic audit report, it's clear the bank was looted through criminal activities, fraud and theft. Depositors' money was simply stolen," a senior RBZ official said.
"If it was ordinary banking employees who stole, they would be in jail by now. But because this case involves men in suits, the wheels of justice tend to move slowly."
Minutes of two RBZ board meetings held on June 28 and September 27 reveal the central bank board resolved to call on the police to deal with the RMB crisis. If they do, police would rely on initial RBZ investigation reports.
The latest one is a two-volume, 1415-page forensic report dated October 11. The first volume has 706 pages while the second has 709 pages. A shorter version of the report, a 49-page summary prepared on August 15, says Timba and his partners, mainly Dunmore Kundishora, also a major shareholder and director, ran down the bank through systematic looting.
"Available evidence shows a total of $1018286.25 of depositors' funds were used to pay for Timba's expenses. The various payments adding up to this figure were done in violation of the Companies Act," the forensic report says.
It details a "Nick Leeson-type" of pillage, and the report also confirms findings of earlier reports that Timba siphoned off funds with his relatives through "related party transactions and insider loans".
"Investigations established that there was a total collapse in corporate governance structures at RMB, which resulted in Mr PF Timba, his father Mr PJ Timba, his brother Mr Stevenson Timba, his brother Mr Jameson Timba (the Minister of State in Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai's Office), his in-laws, George and Mary Mazhude, and other related parties accessing loans through various investment vehicles from RMB through RFHL's unfunded call-account numbers," the report says.
"The loans to the related parties have since matured but are still outstanding. The amounts have since been provided for in full. Related party borrowings, which were not approved by the board, were so rampant and to such an extent that it is appropriate to conclude that the intention was to loot the bank."
The report further states $313457.43 in depositors' funds was stolen, while $149913 was externalised. A further $100000 was suspected of being salted away.
It also says the transfer of $2-million to the Ugandan subsidiary was "criminal, amounting to theft and or fraud".
RMB, whose closure shook the market before a curator moved in, is wholly owned by RFHL, which also controls Renaissance Securities Limited and ReNaissance Capital Limited in Uganda.
In adition, RFHL owns 30.89% of Africa ReNaissance Corporation.
Timba was the chief executive of RFHL and a director of RMB.
RMB, technically insolvent, had negative capital of $16.7-million in April, against a prescribed minimum capital requirement of $10-million for merchant banks.
2011年10月17日 星期一
4 Steps to Getting the Right High-Risk Merchant Account
Happy Guest Blogger Monday! This week our guest talks about establishing the high-risk merchant account that’s right for your ecommerce solution. Without this knowledge, you might be at risk yourself–for winding up without a merchant account. VP of PayNetSecure.net Tina Brandon guides you through four steps to ensure your business stays safe and your accounts stay open.
Has Your Ecommerce Business Been Labeled “High Risk”?
4 Steps to Getting the Right High-Risk Merchant Account
The lifeblood of your ecommerce business is the ability to accept payments from your online customers. In the last 9 months, banks have been shutting down merchant accounts for many ecommerce businesses because the banks are mitigating their risk. Even if the merchant has good processing history, low charge-backs and fraud, you can find yourself cut off.
There are a lot of sharks lurking in murky waters of high-risk merchant processing that take advantage of unwary business owners. Here are 4 ways to protect yourself.
Establish a Direct Account. Any business with high-risk credit card processing volumes of $50,000 or more should establish an account directly with an acquiring bank. It takes a little more paperwork to set up a high-risk merchant account with a bank compared to using a third-party payment processor but the benefits are worth the extra effort.
A direct high-risk merchant account eliminates the middleman and protects your cash flow. With a direct account, all settlement money is sent directly to you from the bank, providing faster and safer deposits.
Avoid Application or Setup Fees. Stay away from high-risk merchant account providers who charge setup or application fees. Typically the “middlemen”/third-party processors are those that charge setup fees.
Reputable firms that establish high-risk accounts are registered agents and get paid by the acquiring banks. Although there may be some fees associated with establishing high-risk merchant accounts, those fees are assessed by the banks or card brands and should be paid directly to them, not to an agent.
Establish More Than One Merchant Account. Any high-risk merchant processing more than $100,000 per month is wise to establish more than one account. Redundancy and backup is critical for any business but especially so for high-risk merchants. Companies should consider setting up more than one high-risk account, perhaps in different jurisdictions, to safeguard cash flow from card payments.
We all know the saying “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket,” and this is especially true for ecommerce businesses. Diversifying your processing with multiple banks creates an environment where banks are competing for your business. This drives your fees down and profits up.
Interview the High-Risk Merchant Account Provider.
It’s amazing how many companies don’t answer their phones and don’t respond to voicemail or emails. Take your time to call the companies and interview them as you would a new hire. Judge the level of customer service and responsiveness.
Has Your Ecommerce Business Been Labeled “High Risk”?
4 Steps to Getting the Right High-Risk Merchant Account
The lifeblood of your ecommerce business is the ability to accept payments from your online customers. In the last 9 months, banks have been shutting down merchant accounts for many ecommerce businesses because the banks are mitigating their risk. Even if the merchant has good processing history, low charge-backs and fraud, you can find yourself cut off.
There are a lot of sharks lurking in murky waters of high-risk merchant processing that take advantage of unwary business owners. Here are 4 ways to protect yourself.
Establish a Direct Account. Any business with high-risk credit card processing volumes of $50,000 or more should establish an account directly with an acquiring bank. It takes a little more paperwork to set up a high-risk merchant account with a bank compared to using a third-party payment processor but the benefits are worth the extra effort.
A direct high-risk merchant account eliminates the middleman and protects your cash flow. With a direct account, all settlement money is sent directly to you from the bank, providing faster and safer deposits.
Avoid Application or Setup Fees. Stay away from high-risk merchant account providers who charge setup or application fees. Typically the “middlemen”/third-party processors are those that charge setup fees.
Reputable firms that establish high-risk accounts are registered agents and get paid by the acquiring banks. Although there may be some fees associated with establishing high-risk merchant accounts, those fees are assessed by the banks or card brands and should be paid directly to them, not to an agent.
Establish More Than One Merchant Account. Any high-risk merchant processing more than $100,000 per month is wise to establish more than one account. Redundancy and backup is critical for any business but especially so for high-risk merchants. Companies should consider setting up more than one high-risk account, perhaps in different jurisdictions, to safeguard cash flow from card payments.
We all know the saying “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket,” and this is especially true for ecommerce businesses. Diversifying your processing with multiple banks creates an environment where banks are competing for your business. This drives your fees down and profits up.
Interview the High-Risk Merchant Account Provider.
It’s amazing how many companies don’t answer their phones and don’t respond to voicemail or emails. Take your time to call the companies and interview them as you would a new hire. Judge the level of customer service and responsiveness.
2011年10月9日 星期日
UseMyServices Partners with SafetyPay for Mutual Network Expansion
A new co-operative agreement was announced today between two global payment technology firms, Toronto-based UseMyServices, and Miami-based SafetyPay. The new venture will significantly expand the international reach of both firms, giving each company access to more than 100 banks and financial institutions, across 20 countries. The agreement will make real time bank payment services available to more than half a billion online banking customers worldwide
“Partnering with UseMyServices makes total strategic sense in SafetyPay’s continual international expansion efforts,” said Manuel Montero, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of SafetyPay. “We look forward to expanding our global footprint and utilizing the natural synergy between our two companies.”
Both SafetyPay and UseMyServices are recognized leaders in the "alternative" payments sector. Although each company utilizes their own proprietary technology, both platforms provide a secure e-payment solution that enables online banking customers to make Internet purchases from merchants worldwide and pay directly through their bank account. Customers are never required to disclose any financial information to the merchants or to the payment processor. All payment transactions are done from within the bank’s online environment.
According to UseMyServices CEO and Founder, Joseph Iuso, "This is exactly the type of partnership that will bring all the banks into one network."
"With this co-operative venture, both companies’ Merchants will reap huge benefits. In today’s competitive marketplace, businesses need to have a global web presence - but it can be expensive and risky to expand into new markets," said Melody Wigdahl, Vice President of UseMyServices. "Real time bank payments minimize the risk and now our Merchants have the opportunity to greatly expand their current market reach, with minimal risk, very quickly. This is a win-win deal for everyone involved."
The expanded services will be available to merchants and customers of UseMyServices and SafetyPay early Q1, 2012.
Launched in 2002, Toronto-based UseMyServices is a pioneer in real-time bank payments. Using UMS’s flagship product, UseMyFunds, Consumers can pay for their web purchases using their online bank account, without revealing their financial data to the Merchant.
SafetyPayTM is a safe and secure e-payment solution that enables online banking customers to make Internet purchases from merchants worldwide and pay directly through their bank account.
“Partnering with UseMyServices makes total strategic sense in SafetyPay’s continual international expansion efforts,” said Manuel Montero, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of SafetyPay. “We look forward to expanding our global footprint and utilizing the natural synergy between our two companies.”
Both SafetyPay and UseMyServices are recognized leaders in the "alternative" payments sector. Although each company utilizes their own proprietary technology, both platforms provide a secure e-payment solution that enables online banking customers to make Internet purchases from merchants worldwide and pay directly through their bank account. Customers are never required to disclose any financial information to the merchants or to the payment processor. All payment transactions are done from within the bank’s online environment.
According to UseMyServices CEO and Founder, Joseph Iuso, "This is exactly the type of partnership that will bring all the banks into one network."
"With this co-operative venture, both companies’ Merchants will reap huge benefits. In today’s competitive marketplace, businesses need to have a global web presence - but it can be expensive and risky to expand into new markets," said Melody Wigdahl, Vice President of UseMyServices. "Real time bank payments minimize the risk and now our Merchants have the opportunity to greatly expand their current market reach, with minimal risk, very quickly. This is a win-win deal for everyone involved."
The expanded services will be available to merchants and customers of UseMyServices and SafetyPay early Q1, 2012.
Launched in 2002, Toronto-based UseMyServices is a pioneer in real-time bank payments. Using UMS’s flagship product, UseMyFunds, Consumers can pay for their web purchases using their online bank account, without revealing their financial data to the Merchant.
SafetyPayTM is a safe and secure e-payment solution that enables online banking customers to make Internet purchases from merchants worldwide and pay directly through their bank account.
2011年3月20日 星期日
It boils down to securing coal
Coal availability has become a major issue for thermal power projects. Earlier, the delays in
projects would neutralise the delay in coal production. However, coal production in recent
times has been lagging behind capacity addition as execution delays are shrinking, especially
in the case of private sector projects.
While the Ministry of Power is desperately trying to reduce the demand-supply gap in
electricity, this is contingent on the availability of coal supply, given that two-thirds of
the power projects to be commissioned during the current Plan are coal-based.
Hence, JSW Energy in the December 2010 quarter saw its fuel expenses double year-on-year,
even as power generation and revenues only went up by 45 per cent and 39 per cent
respectively. This has been the case with most other utilities which did not have the
flexibility to pass on the rising fuel cost by way of regulated tariff. Sharp rise in fuel
cost was a function of international spot coal prices shooting up due to the Australian
floods stalling coal production.
WIDENING GAP
The coal demand this fiscal is estimated to grow by 43 per cent more than the 2006-07 demand
levels while the production may rise by only 32 per cent, widening the gap.
According to the Central Electricity Authority, another 20,000 MW of coal projects or (21 per
cent of the current capacity) are expected to be added over the next 14 months while the coal
production will only grow at historic rates of 6-7 per cent. This coupled with huge capacity
-addition targets for 12th Plan aggravate the problem of fuel availability over the next five
years.
In 12th Plan (FY13-FY17), around 74,000 MW of thermal power capacity is expected to be
commissioned, with a majority of it being coal-based. Lack of definitive fuel supply may also
hamper the financial closure of the projects in the 12th Plan, as financial institutions
insist on coal availability.
In 2011-12, according to the Annual Plan Document, the import of coal is estimated to be 137
million tonnes as against 83 million tonnes in the current fiscal. The eleventh plan
projections at 51 million tonne were revised higher due to slippages in production of Coal
India (CIL).
The import gap takes into account non-power sector demand also. Such high levels of imports
are exposing the coal-dependent sectors to volatile international prices, which have risen
significantly over the past few months.
In the medium term, power players with their own captive blocks, if developed, will be better
placed to tide over the widening demand-supply gap, followed by those with coal linkages.
This category is followed by the companies which own mines abroad. These high quality mines
are expensive compared with domestic mines, which would mean higher power tariffs to make the
same returns. The last category, which sources coal in the e-auction market of CIL or global
spot market, are most vulnerable to both fuel price and procurement risk. These projects
typically sell in the short-term merchant market to improve their profitability.
COAL BLOCKS AND LINKAGES
Of the 208 captive coal blocks, around 113 have been allocated to private companies. The
reserves of these projects are huge (49 billion tonnes of reserves), however, only 26 blocks
are operational. These coal blocks, in 2009-10, cornered a modest 6.5 per cent of the total
coal production. Of the 74,000 MW capacities to come up in 12th Plan, 44,000 MW capacity
would have access to captive blocks.
However, the Ministry of Power is concerned about the delays in developing these mines, on
account of environmental clearances, obtaining mining lease and land acquisition.
Most of the coal supply for the power sector is however through coal linkages. . More than 90
per cent of the non-coking coal mined by CIL is supplied to the power sector through this
route. The ones with coal linkages would be subject to procurement risk while price risk is
mitigated. But lack of adequate infrastructure for speedy movement of coal produced is a
concern due to remote location of the mines and coal wagon shortage.
projects would neutralise the delay in coal production. However, coal production in recent
times has been lagging behind capacity addition as execution delays are shrinking, especially
in the case of private sector projects.
While the Ministry of Power is desperately trying to reduce the demand-supply gap in
electricity, this is contingent on the availability of coal supply, given that two-thirds of
the power projects to be commissioned during the current Plan are coal-based.
Hence, JSW Energy in the December 2010 quarter saw its fuel expenses double year-on-year,
even as power generation and revenues only went up by 45 per cent and 39 per cent
respectively. This has been the case with most other utilities which did not have the
flexibility to pass on the rising fuel cost by way of regulated tariff. Sharp rise in fuel
cost was a function of international spot coal prices shooting up due to the Australian
floods stalling coal production.
WIDENING GAP
The coal demand this fiscal is estimated to grow by 43 per cent more than the 2006-07 demand
levels while the production may rise by only 32 per cent, widening the gap.
According to the Central Electricity Authority, another 20,000 MW of coal projects or (21 per
cent of the current capacity) are expected to be added over the next 14 months while the coal
production will only grow at historic rates of 6-7 per cent. This coupled with huge capacity
-addition targets for 12th Plan aggravate the problem of fuel availability over the next five
years.
In 12th Plan (FY13-FY17), around 74,000 MW of thermal power capacity is expected to be
commissioned, with a majority of it being coal-based. Lack of definitive fuel supply may also
hamper the financial closure of the projects in the 12th Plan, as financial institutions
insist on coal availability.
In 2011-12, according to the Annual Plan Document, the import of coal is estimated to be 137
million tonnes as against 83 million tonnes in the current fiscal. The eleventh plan
projections at 51 million tonne were revised higher due to slippages in production of Coal
India (CIL).
The import gap takes into account non-power sector demand also. Such high levels of imports
are exposing the coal-dependent sectors to volatile international prices, which have risen
significantly over the past few months.
In the medium term, power players with their own captive blocks, if developed, will be better
placed to tide over the widening demand-supply gap, followed by those with coal linkages.
This category is followed by the companies which own mines abroad. These high quality mines
are expensive compared with domestic mines, which would mean higher power tariffs to make the
same returns. The last category, which sources coal in the e-auction market of CIL or global
spot market, are most vulnerable to both fuel price and procurement risk. These projects
typically sell in the short-term merchant market to improve their profitability.
COAL BLOCKS AND LINKAGES
Of the 208 captive coal blocks, around 113 have been allocated to private companies. The
reserves of these projects are huge (49 billion tonnes of reserves), however, only 26 blocks
are operational. These coal blocks, in 2009-10, cornered a modest 6.5 per cent of the total
coal production. Of the 74,000 MW capacities to come up in 12th Plan, 44,000 MW capacity
would have access to captive blocks.
However, the Ministry of Power is concerned about the delays in developing these mines, on
account of environmental clearances, obtaining mining lease and land acquisition.
Most of the coal supply for the power sector is however through coal linkages. . More than 90
per cent of the non-coking coal mined by CIL is supplied to the power sector through this
route. The ones with coal linkages would be subject to procurement risk while price risk is
mitigated. But lack of adequate infrastructure for speedy movement of coal produced is a
concern due to remote location of the mines and coal wagon shortage.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)