Mediaboss Marketing

PITTSBURGH | February 14, 2012

Researchers say offshore wind farms planned for the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico face severe risks from hurricanes that could destroy half of them.

The U.S. Department of Energy has set a goal of generating 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs from wind by 2030, with one-sixth of the total coming from turbines located in shallow waters offshore, researchers said.

Scientists at Carnegie Mellon University have modeled the risk hurricanes might pose to turbines at four proposed wind farm sites and found that nearly half of the planned turbines are likely to be destroyed over the 20-year life of the farms.

While turbines can be shut down in high winds, hurricane-force winds can be strong enough to topple them.

A proposed location for a wind farm site near Galveston, Texas, for which the state has granted a multimillion-dollar lease, is "the riskiest location to build a wind farm of the four locations examined," researcher Stephen Rose said.

A typical offshore wind turbine costs $175 million.

"We want these risks to be known now before we start putting these wind turbines offshore," researcher Paulina Jaramillo told NewScientist.com. "We don't want any backlash when the first one goes down and it costs a lot to replace."

? 2012 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Related Topics:

• Offshore wind farms face hurricane risk

• Satellite telephony not secure

• Criminals hack banking security techniques

More links on Oceans

More links on Technological Disasters

Go here to read the rest:
Offshore wind farms face hurricane risk

DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

Research and Markets (http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/3d6f9c/wealth_management) has announced the addition of the "Wealth Management in Asia's Offshore Centers" report to their offering.

This report is the result of WealthInsight's extensive research covering the Wealth Management industry in Asia. It covers Asia's major offshore centre's namely: Hong Kong and Singapore.

Asia is the fastest growing region in the world in terms of wealth. Financial centres such as Singapore and Hong Kong are ideally located to benefit from this new wealth. The report analyses Hong Kong and Singapore's Wealth Management and Private Banking sector, and the opportunities and challenges therein.

The report features:

Political and Economic reviews Competitive Landscape of the Wealth Sector in Hong Kong and Singapore Challenges and Opportunities for the Wealth Sector in both countries Leading Companies in the Wealth Management and Private Banking Industry in Hong Kong and Singapore Family office information

Reasons To Buy:

The WealthInsight Intelligence Center Database is an unparalleled resource and the leading resource of its kind. Compiled and curated by a team of expert research specialists, the Database comprises up to one hundred data-points on over 100,000 HNWI, private banks, wealth managers and family offices around the world. With the Database as the foundation for our research and analysis, we are able obtain an unsurpassed level of granularity, insight and authority on the HNWI and wealth management universe in each of the countries and regions we cover. Comprehensive forecasts to 2015.

Companies Mentioned:

ABN Amro ABSA Asia Ltd ANZ Private Bank Bank of America (Asia) Ltd Bank of Taiwan Banque Pictet Banque Prive Edmond de Rothschild Barclays Wealth BNP Paribas Citi Private Bank Credit Suisse DBS Bank Deutsche Bank EFG Bank Fubon Bank Goldman Sachs J.P. Morgan Private Clients Julius Baer Morgan Stanley Asia Limited RBS Coutts Rothschild Standard Chartered Private Bank And many more...

For more information visit http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/3d6f9c/wealth_management

See the original post here:
Research and Markets: Wealth Management in Asia's Offshore Centers: Hong Kong and Singapore

2/14/2012 3:46 PM ET

|

By Brett Arends, SmartMoney

Mitt Romney has been criticized for parking some of his fortune in Caymans Islands accounts, but he and other wealthy people aren’t really trying to duck taxes there.

One thing's for sure. Mitt Romney didn't send his money down to the Cayman Islands to work on its tan.

The former Massachusetts governor has been criticized by some for factor of five in the last 10 having some of his vast fortune in the Caribbean offshore banking center. Yes, it was politically clumsy. But it was not uncommon, and -- assuming he has filed all the right disclosures -- it was perfectly legal.

But if you're not running for president, and don't have to worry about public relations, what are the legitimate reasons for moving money offshore?

I spoke to Jim Duggan, a partner at Chicago law firm Duggan Bertsch, to get the skinny. He's a tax and estate planning attorney who specializes in wealth management issues for the very rich, and he's been practicing in this area for nearly 20 years.

He says a growing number of wealthy people are looking into moving some of their money offshore. "The interest in offshore planning has increased basically by a factor of five in the last ten years," he says. Clients want to talk to him about it all the time.

Why?

Contrary to popular opinion, it's not really to save on taxes.

That's because American taxpayers are taxed on their worldwide income -- so if you're making $10,000 (or $10 million) in interest on a bank account in, say, the Caymans or Switzerland, you're getting taxed by Uncle Sam as if you're making it in a bank account here.

It's easy to scoff and assume the rich are hiding their money and cheating. Doubtless some are. But enforcement is tight, and the penalties aren't so much draconian as medieval. They are far more severe than for tax evasion onshore.

And there are plenty of tax shelters available here in the U.S. anyway -- such as trusts in low-tax states, life insurance and variable annuities.

So what are the real reasons the rich are casing the Caymans with their cash?

There are two, says Duggan: Litigation risk and political risk.

Yes: Political risk. Or, as he puts in a nice legal euphemism, "jurisdictional diversification."

Litigation risk is the old reason. You could get hit by a crazy lawsuit here in the U.S. The wealthy are an easy mark, and anything onshore is vulnerable. But the U.S. courts don't have jurisdiction overseas and if you plan things right you have at least some chance of protecting money held offshore, Duggan says. "It keeps you away from our court system and the caprices of our courts," he says.

The new reason, though, is political risk: "Diversification from our government, policies and banking systems," says Duggan. The last few years have shaken faith in our system. Duggan says growing numbers of his clients are worried about the financial system, confiscation -- the whole shebang. "They're concerned about our government and where our society is headed. There's a lot of socialistic tendencies, capital controls, the redistribution of wealth."

Once again it's easy to scoff. Financially, the very wealthy have probably never had it so good in this country. Corporate profits and financial assets are booming. Tax rates on dividends and long-term capital gains are very, very low. But Duggan says the wealthy feel under attack, and government rhetoric is making them nervous.

But there's a problem here. Imagine a future government did decide to confiscate assets. They'd go after the money you held in Switzerland just as much as the money you held in New York, and the penalties for tax evasion would be as medieval as they are now.

The only way to save your money would presumably be to renounce your citizenship and move into exile. Even then the IRS might come after you. Do you want to spend the rest of your life living next to Roman Polanski in France?

Once again, all this makes you see the appeal of holding some gold within a portfolio.

Personally, I don't see any reason to think this administration is going to go after the so-called 1%. Too many policymakers are members of that elite group already -- or they have high hopes of joining after they retire.

More from SmartMoney.com:

Original post:
Why rich stash cash offshore

One thing's for sure. Mitt Romney didn't send his money down to the Cayman Islands to work on its tan.

The former Massachusetts governor has been criticized by some for having some of his vast fortune in the Caribbean offshore banking center. Yes, it was politically clumsy. But it was not uncommon, and -- assuming he has filed all the right disclosures -- it was perfectly legal.

But if you're not running for president, and don't have to worry about public relations, what are the legitimate reasons for moving money offshore?

I spoke to Jim Duggan, a partner at Chicago law firm Duggan Bertsch, to get the skinny. He's a tax and estate planning attorney who specializes in wealth management issues for the very rich, and he's been practicing in this area for nearly 20 years.

He says a growing number of wealthy people are looking into moving some of their money offshore. "The interest in offshore planning has increased basically by a factor of five in the last ten years," he says. Clients want to talk to him about it all the time.

Why?

Contrary to popular opinion, it's not really to save on taxes.

That's because American taxpayers are taxed on their worldwide income -- so if you're making $10,000 (or $10 million) in interest on a bank account in, say, the Caymans or Switzerland, you're getting taxed by Uncle Sam as if you're making it in a bank account here.

It's easy to scoff and assume the rich are hiding their money and cheating. Doubtless some are. But enforcement is tight, and the penalties aren't so much draconian as medieval. They are far more severe than for tax evasion onshore.

And there are plenty of tax shelters available here in the U.S. anyway -- such as trusts in low tax states, buying life insurance, and variable annuities.

So what are the real reasons the rich are casing the Caymans with their cash?

There are two, says Duggan: Litigation risk, and political risk.

Yes: Political risk. Or, as he puts in a nice legal euphemism, "jurisdictional diversification."

Litigation risk is the old reason. You could get hit by a crazy lawsuit here in the U.S. The wealthy are an easy mark, and anything onshore is vulnerable. But the U.S. courts don't have jurisdiction overseas and if you plan things right you have at least some chance of protecting money held offshore, Duggan says. "It keeps you away from our court system and the caprices of our courts," he says.

The new reason, though, is political risk: "Diversification from our government, policies, and banking systems," says Duggan. The last few years have shaken faith in our system. Duggan says growing numbers of his clients are worried about the financial system, confiscation -- the whole shebang. "They're concerned about our government, and where our society is headed. There's a lot of socialistic tendencies, capital controls, the redistribution of wealth."

Once again it's easy to scoff. Financially, the very wealthy have probably never had it so good in this country. Corporate profits and financial assets are booming. Tax rates on dividends and long-term capital gains are very, very low. But Duggan says the wealthy feel under attack, and government rhetoric is making them nervous.

But there's a logical problem here. Imagine a future government did decide to confiscate assets. They'd go after the money you held in Switzerland just as much as the money you held in New York, and the penalties for tax evasion would be as medieval as they are now.

The only way to save your money would presumably be to renounce your citizenship and move into exile. Even then the IRS might come after you. Do you want to spend the rest of your life living next to Roman Polanski in France?

Once again, all this makes you see the appeal of holding some gold within a portfolio.

Personally, I don't see any reason to think this administration is going to go after the so-called one percent. Too many of its members are either members of that elite group already -- or have high hopes of joining after they retire.

More:
Why the Rich Are Really Moving Cash to the Caymans

February 14, 2012, 12:11 AM EST

By Steven Sloan and Richard Rubin

(Updates starting with Hintzke comment in third paragraph.)

Feb. 8 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service are trying to make it easier for overseas banks to comply with a tax withholding and information- collection requirement for some U.S. clients.

Regulations proposed today would allow overseas banks to use information they already collect to comply with due diligence requirements, the Treasury said in a press release today. The proposal would delay the implementation schedule under which foreign financial institutions must report information about their customers. The regulations also would expand the range of financial institutions that won’t be required to enter into formal agreements with the IRS.

“It’s clear that Treasury has been listening to the comments and they’re responding to them,” said Denise Hintzke, global leader for foreign account tax compliance at Deloitte Tax LLP. “These regulations are moving, I think, forward in making these provisions workable for the industry.”

The announcement is intended to address concerns of overseas financial institutions while making it clear that the U.S. plans to implement the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA. The 2010 law requires banks to withhold 30 percent from “certain U.S.-connected payments” to the accounts of U.S. clients who don’t disclose enough information to the IRS.

“When taxpayers overseas avoid paying what they owe, other Americans have to bear a disproportionate share of the tax burden,” Emily McMahon, the Treasury’s acting assistant secretary for tax policy, said in the press release. “FATCA is an important part of the U.S. government’s effort to address that issue and these regulations implement FATCA in a way that is targeted and efficient.”

Toronto-Dominion

Overseas financial institutions including Toronto-Dominion Bank of Canada, Allianz SE of Germany and Aegon NV of the Netherlands have said previous versions of FATCA were too complex. In some cases, the reporting requirements under U.S. law conflicted with bank secrecy laws and other banking regulations.

U.S. citizens living outside the country have complained about the burden created by the reporting requirement, which can apply to people who have never lived in the U.S. and whose parents were U.S. citizens.

The Treasury said it wouldn’t exempt any country from FATCA’s compliance requirements. The U.S. also issued a joint statement with France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the U.K. to enforce the law.

“The United States is willing to reciprocate in collecting and exchanging on an automatic basis information on accounts held in U.S. financial institutions by residents of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom,” according to the statement. “The approach under discussion, therefore, would enhance compliance and facilitate enforcement to the benefit of all parties.”

Step Forward

Michael Mundaca, who preceded McMahon as the U.S. Treasury’s top tax policy official, said in a statement that the international cooperation marked a significant step forward.

“I imagine Treasury will now approach other governments about adopting this model, if they haven’t already done so,” said Mundaca, now co-leader of the Americas Tax Center at Ernst & Young LLP. “It will be interesting to see how other countries and especially other financial centers react.”

Several countries where U.S. citizens hold assets, including Canada and Switzerland, weren’t included in the agreement.

James Mastracchio, a tax partner at Baker & Hostetler LLP in Washington, said the U.S. is trying to respond to concerns from other governments and banks around the world about the reach of the U.S. law.

“If we do this, what’s to stop any other country from doing this?” he said in an interview.

Bigger Accounts

The changes proposed today also would require the financial institutions to do paper searches of fewer accounts for U.S. connections. The rules would limit more labor-intensive efforts to accounts with more than $1 million.

“It’s really just the bigger accounts,” Hintzke said.

Ken Bentsen, executive vice president for public policy and advocacy at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association in Washington, said his group welcomes the additional time to comply with some of the law’s requirements.

“Nevertheless,” he said in a statement, “implementation of FATCA will impose significant challenges and costs for many United States financial services firms and their customers.

Members of his group include units of Barclays Plc, UBS AG and BNP Paribas SA.

--Editors: Jodi Schneider, Bob Drummond

To contact the reporters on this story: Steven Sloan in Washington at ssloan7@bloomberg.net; Richard Rubin in Washington at rrubin12@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jodi Schneider at jschneider50@bloomberg.net

More here:
Treasury Proposes Easing Offshore Bank Tax Compliance Burden