December 17, 2014
The Revolving Door And Steve Cohen
Posted by David Zaring

The Times reports:

The billionaire investor, who managed to fend off a criminal insider trading investigation of himself, if not of his former hedge fund, is looking for a former prosecutor and several agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation to join his new $10 billion investment firm, Point72 Asset Management, said several people briefed on the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Look, one of the reasons to feel good about the revolving door is that it salts financial institutions with people who expect law compliance.  So maybe that explains this development, and we should celebrate Cohen's search for g-men.  Or maybe it is, as the Times reports, that he was heartened by the insider trading ruling of the Second Circuit requiring the trader to know both that he was trading on inside information and that the information was obtained in exchange for a benefit, and just wants to grow the enterprise on a number of different fronts.

I'm not sure he should be too heartened by that ruling.  It only may free one of his convicted lieutenants, and certainly wouldn't do anything about Matthew Martoma, who both paid for and traded on information provided by a pharma insider.

 

Permalink | Administrative Law| Securities| White Collar Crime | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

December 11, 2014
Will The Swaps Pushout Rule Die In The Cromnibus?
Posted by David Zaring

One dodgy thing that is being included in the currently debated spending bill is a substantive provision repealing a much-hated-by-banks law requiring them to do most of their derivatives trading though an entity that is not covered by deposit insurance.  It's a rule that sounds pretty logical - why subsidize derivatives trading with deposit insurance, and isn't it risky to do otherwise?  And why do we have to address this in a government budget bill anyway?

But it is also one of uncertain policy origins.  Blanche Lincoln thought the swaps pushout rule would resonate with voters when she pushed it, and maybe community banks, which don't do a ton of this stuff, would like to make life hard for the big banks that do.  Elizabeth Warren is incensed that it might  be repealed, so maybe her constituents would be for it.  But the Fed doesn't think it does bank safety much good.

Here's Dave Weigel on the politics, which look good for the banks (Warren's concerns aside, Democrats aren't whipping for the pushout rule reversal to be defeated).  Here's DealBook on the sausage-making (the statutory language was drafted by Citigroup, which has always seemed like the most tone-deaf bank to me, rather than the most politically puissant).

My view is that financial regulation, which is just about protecting banks from themselves/macroeconomic shocks, with a soupcon of rent-seeking, is a mixture of easy rules and hard ones.  Activity restrictions, like the Volcker Rule, or anti-branching laws, are easy.  Capital rules, at least the current ones, are hard, and require a team of examiners to look over the daily positions of the banks, and so on. Admati's capital rule recommendation - banks must hold 4 times more capital than they do now, and there will be no risk-weighting - is an effort to make that easy again.

And organizational rules - create a bank holding company, make this sub do this thing, and that sub do that thing - are also easy.

Note that currently, it's the left and community banks that like the easy rules, and it's the right and the big banks that prefer to do things the hard, sophisticated way.  That doesn't mean that complex rules are weak ones - I can't judge the onerousness of our tax laws, but some of them are super-complicated responses to super-sophisticated behavior, and maybe that makes more sense than giving up and charging everyone a VAT.  But that's the way I see financial regulation right now.

And yes, I don't know why part of Dodd-Frank should be repealed as a condition of passing a spending bill.  But I admire the ability of the lobbyists to get in there and at it.

One last thing - it's risky to be the bank named as the drafter of a bill taking away some of your regulator's regulatory powers.  We'll have to see if Citi starts paying a extra-large number of fines in the next year, or if it really did do this with the tacit approval of its supervisors.

Permalink | Administrative Law| Finance| Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

December 08, 2014
The International Review Of The Quality Of American Financial Supervision
Posted by David Zaring

The Basel committee enforces through peer pressure, rather than through resort to a formal dispute settlement process, and the peer pressure is increasingly institutionalized through IMF-like reviews of the implementation of Basel commitments.  The US just had its review, and Basel just released the report.

The big problem with the US embrace of global rules has come through its treatment of securitizations.  Perhaps most notably:

a number of divergences were identified that for some US core banks lead to materially lower securitisation  RWA [risk-weighted assets, the stuff against which you have to hold capital] outcomes than the Basel standard. These differences are mainly related to the prohibition on the use of ratings in the US rules. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the US rules cannot include provisions related to the Basel framework’s Ratings-Based Approach (RBA) for securitisations, so the rules provide alternative treatments.

The US is not Basel compliant because its regulators are explicitly not permitted to use a tool - credit ratings - that Basel requires.  It looks like the committee may fix this not by forcing credit ratings down America's throat, but by coming up with some equivalence standard, which tells you that when Congress speaks clearly, global regulatory harmonizers must listen.  Another admission of note:

In carrying out this review, the Committee's assessment team held discussions with senior officials and technical staff of the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The team also met with a select group of US banks.

This meet with regulated industry thing is one of the features of peer regulatory review, and it presumably gives industry yet another opportunity to make a case for its preferred version of regulation.  But then, it is also a feature of international regulation, where the cross-border parties may sometimes also play roles as representatives of the domestically regulated.

Permalink | Administrative Law| Finance| Financial Institutions| Globalization/Trade | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

The 11 Most Influential People In Business Ethics
Posted by David Zaring

This not at all silly list reveals the following:

  • #1 William Dudley – President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
    Category: Government and Regulatory
  • #1 Preet Bharara – US Attorney, Southern District of New York
    Category: Government and Regulatory
  • #3 Sophie Delaunay – Executive Director, Doctors Without Borders
    Category: Non-Governmental Organization
  • #4 Anonymous Whistleblower – Whistleblower, Securities and Exchange Commission
    Category: Whistleblowing and Media
  • #5 Glenn Murphy – CEO and Chairman, Gap Inc.
    Category: Business Leadership
  • #6 Eric Holder – Attorney General (outgoing), United States Government
    Category: Government and Regulatory
  • #7 José Ugaz – Chair, Transparency International
    Category: Non-Governmental Organization
  • #8 Pope Francis – Pope, Catholic Church
    Category: Thought Leadership
  • #9 Ma Jun – Director, Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs (IPE)
    Category: Design and Sustainability
  • #10 Larry Merlo – President and CEO, CVS Health
    Category: Business Leadership
  • #11 Carmen Segarra – Former Regulator, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
    Category: Whistleblowers and Media

Dudley is the regulator who has called for bankers to act more ethically.  I guess Bharara stands for the proposition that insider trading is the most unethical kind of business conduct, to the exclusion of all other such forms.  Anonymous Whistleblower at 4!  It proves you can make lots of money by being ethical!  And Carmen Segarra, the Fed examiner, rounding out the top 11  - it suggests that business ethics are in question, finance would appear not to be the answer.  Via.

Permalink | Administrative Law| Finance | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

November 25, 2014
Does The Revolving Door Work Differently For Bank Supervisors
Posted by David Zaring

We write about the revolving door here, and elsewhere, and we're not as worried about it as some.  So what to make of Goldman's hiring of Fed bank supervisors?  The critical problem here is that one hire may have brought (or obtained) Fed information to his new job at Goldman.  Since the bank supervisor relationship is supposed to be pretty confidential - why would a bank let you examine their books if you're going to talk about their positions to their competitors? - this is a big deal.  And also because of the ethics rules that generally require you to stay off of matters you worked on in the government.

Here's what happened:

Rohit Bansal, the 29-year-old former New York Fed regulator, was one such hire. At the time he left the Fed, Mr. Bansal was the “central point of contact” for certain banks.

Seizing upon Mr. Bansal’s expertise, Goldman assigned him to the part of the investment bank that advises other financial institutions based in the United States. That assignment presented Mr. Bansal with an ethical quandary: He might have to advise some of the same banks he once regulated.

Before starting at Goldman, Mr. Bansal sought to clarify whether New York Fed policy prevented him from helping those banks, according to a person briefed on the matter. Initially, he presented Goldman with a notice from the New York Fed, which indicated that he might have to steer clear of certain assignments for one client, the midsize bank in New York. (While the person briefed on the matter provided the name of the bank, The Times decided to withhold the name because the bank was not aware of the leak at the time.)

The New York Fed’s guidance was apparently somewhat ambiguous. And Mr. Bansal later assured Goldman colleagues that he could work behind the scenes for that banking client, the person briefed on the matter said, so long as he did not interact with the bank’s employees.

Mr. Bansal’s lawyer, Sean Casey at Kobre & Kim, declined to comment.

And then Goldman found him using some data that had to come from the Fed.  Some thoughts:

  • Our former supervisor has himself a very fancy lawyer
  • When enforcement officials go through the revolving door, there's little reason to believe they have been encouraged to go easy on the industry they plan to join.  Why not keep that guy where he is, and hire away the tormentor?  Bank supervision, which is more collaborative, could be different.
  • But note that what former bureaucrats are selling is, partly, expertise - particularly, the expertise about what current bureaucrats will do.  The question is whether there is anything wrong with paying for this sort of expertise.

Permalink | Administrative Law| Finance| Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

November 19, 2014
Conflict Minerals Rule Heads For Panel Rehearing
Posted by David Zaring

Which means a redo of the argument.  We'll outsource, via Corporate Counsel, to Cooley:

The D.C. Circuit court of Appeals has granted the petitions of the SEC and Amnesty International for panel rehearing (and the motion of Amnesty to file a supplemental brief) in connection with the conflict minerals case,National Association of Manufacturers, Inc. v. SEC. (The Court also ordered that the petitions filed for rehearing en banc be deferred pending disposition of the petitions for panel rehearing.)

...

[In prior litigation, the D.C. Circuit,] "specifically citing the NAM conflict minerals case, ... indicated that “[t]o the extent that other cases in this circuit may be read as holding to the contrary and limiting Zauderer to cases in which the government points to an interest in correcting deception, we now overrule them.”

Zauderer applies a lenient standard of review to requirements of disclosure of purely factual information.  Looks good for the SEC.

Permalink | Administrative Law| Securities | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

November 17, 2014
Battling A SIFI Designation
Posted by David Zaring

Over at DealBook, I've got a take on MetLife's claim that it will be suing over its designation as a systemically important financial institution.  A taste:

Congress gave the government 10 factors to take into account when making a too-big-to-fail designation. This sort of multiple-factor test all but requires regulators to balance values that have different degrees of quantifiability. Some can be counted, like the amount of leverage and off-balance sheet exposure. But others like “the nature, scope, size, scale, concentration, interconnectedness and mix of the activities of the company” have so many moving parts, some of them difficult to quantify, that expressing them mathematically may not be worth the effort. The government has also been given the leeway to consider “any other risk-related factors” that it deems appropriate, a standard that encourages judges to defer to regulators.

Do give it a look!

Permalink | Administrative Law| Finance| Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

November 06, 2014
Can You Litigate Your Way Out Of A SIFI Designation?
Posted by David Zaring

Eugene Scalia, of the family Scalia, has been the scourge of the SEC with his until recently effective insistence on a cost-benefit analysis to justify the imposition of new major rules on the capital markets.  Now he's working for MetLife, the insurance company recently designated as a SIFI (which stands for "dangerously big bank-like institution"), and I guess the argument will be that the designation was arbitrary and capricious, and so inconsistent with the federal standards for administrative procedure, which probably, in Scalia's view, require a quantitative cost-benefit analysis done with meticulous care.  Some thoughts:

  • Courts often stay out of financial stability inquiries, but, then, they used to defer to the SEC's capital markets expertise, until Eugene Scalia came along.  Perhaps Scalia can do something in this really nascent field of disputing SIFI designations.  Still, uphill battle.
  • If the FSOC somehow lost this case, it could always go global, and ask the Financial Stability Board to designate Met Life as a G-SIFI, which would give foreign regulators the right to persecute the firm's foreign operations, and maybe super-persecute it, if the American regulators could do nothing to control its SIFIness.
  • The basic idea, by the way, which is hardly ludicrous, is that insurance companies aren't subject to bank runs, even if they are really big, and that only one of them failed, or was even at risk, during the last financial crisis.  Since Met Life isn't in the business of writing unhedged credit default swaps (which is what AIG did, bolstered by its AAA rating and huge balance sheet), why should it have to hold bank-like levels of capital?  There's more to that story, but I assume that is part of the story that MetLife will be telling.

HT: Matt Levine

Permalink | Administrative Law| Finance| Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

October 08, 2014
When They Tell You About Capture, Tell Them About Graber
Posted by David Zaring

Geoffrey Graber, who is heading up a mortgage fraud task force for DOJ, is motivated by Glengarry Glen Ross, and the results have evinced an ouch from the banking community:

The surge of settlements engineered by Graber in the past year has helped neutralize some of that criticism and rehabilitate a key piece of Holder’s legacy. Still, the settlements have been controversial. Critics such as Roy Smith, a professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business, say prosecutors were driven by “political fever” to extract massive penalties from Wall Street.

“They have to deliver something, so they come up with this,” said Smith, a former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) partner. “The fact that it’s unfair never really gets considered. The banks have no choice but to hunker down and accept it.”

A bracing corollary to those capture stories, though notice that it's the enforcement officials who win headlines for big settlements, and the bank examiners who are subject to the expose about go along get along.

Permalink | Administrative Law| Finance| Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

October 02, 2014
A Take In DealBook On The Fannie/Freddie Takings Case
Posted by David Zaring

Steven Davidoff Solomon and I opine on a recent opinion dismissing cases brought by Fannie and Freddie shareholders against the government in DealBook.  A taste:

In one Washington court, Maurice R. Greenberg, the former chief executive and major shareholder of A.I.G., is suing the United States government, contending that the tough terms imposed in return for the insurance company’s bailout were unconstitutionally austere.

In another closely watched case in a different Washington court, the shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, led by hedge funds Perry Capital and the Fairholme Fund, lost a similar kind of claim.

Parsing what the United States District Court did in the Fannie and Freddie litigation offers a window into the ways in which the government’s conduct during that crisis might finally be evaluated.

...

There are three main points to the decision. For one, the court held that the government’s seizure of Fannie’s and Freddie’s profits did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act’s prohibition on “arbitrary and capricious” conduct. It also found that the Housing and Economic Recovery Act barred shareholders of Fannie and Freddie from bringing breach of fiduciary duty suits against the boards of the companies and that the government’s seizure of profits was not an unconstitutional “taking.”

Go give it a look, won't you?

Permalink | Administrative Law| Finance| Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

September 29, 2014
You Should Listen To The Goldman New York Fed Story
Posted by David Zaring

This American Life has a banking supervision story (!) that turns on secret recordings made by a former employee of the New York Fed, Carmen Segarra, and it's pretty good, because it shows how regulators basically do a lot of their regulating of banks through meetings, with no action items after.  That's weird, and it's instructive to see how intertwined banking and supervision are.  There's a killer meeting after a meeting with Goldman Sachs where Fed employees talk about what happened, and - though we don't know what was left on the cutting room floor - the modesty of the regulatory options being considered is fascinating.  Nothing about fines, stopping certain sorts of deals, stern letters, or anything else.  The talk is self-congratulation (for having that meeting with Goldman) and "let's not get too judgmental, here, guys."

The takeaway of the story, which is blessedly not an example of the "me mad, banksters bad!" genre, is that this kind of regulation isn't very effective.  It clearly hasn't prevented banks from being insanely profitable until recently, in a way that you'd think would get competed away in open markets.

But here's the case for banking regulation:

  • Imagine what it would be like if Alcoa and GE had EPA officials on site, occasionally telling them to shut down a product line.  That's what bank regulators do, and, more broadly, did with things like the Volcker Rule (with congressional help).
  • Since the financial crisis (and that's the time that's relevant here), regulation has made banking less profitable, not more, share prices are down, so are headcounts, etc.
  • Regardless of how it looks, regulators that essentially never lose on a regulatory decision - that includes bank supervisors, but also broad swaths of agencies like Justice and DoD - don't experience themselves as cowed by industry.  Kind of the opposite, actually.  So what you really worry about is the familiarity leading to complacency, not fear.  Regulators can fine any bank any number they like.  If they want someone fired, they could demand it without repercussion.  

The fact that TAL pulled off this story, given that it was centered around an employee who lasted at the Fed for 7 months before being fired, who made secret recordings of her meetings with colleagues (who does that?), who mysteriously and obviously wrongly alleged during her time at the Fed that Goldman Sachs did not have a conflict of interest policy, whose subsequent litigation has gone nowhere, and whose settlement demand was for $7 million (so that's one million per month of working as a bank examiner, I guess), is impressive.  But that's the former government defense lawyer in me, your mileage may vary.

Morover, even skeptical I was persuaded that maybe the Fed could do with a more ambitious no-holds-barred discussion among its regulators, at the very least.

Permalink | Administrative Law| Finance| Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

September 16, 2014
Why Did SEC Commissioner Aguillar Dissent In An Enforcement Case?
Posted by David Zaring

Enforcement cases, where the enforcers have total discretion about what to do, don't often motivate dissents from one of those enforcers, but one did recently before the SEC, in a case where a CPA CFO misstated earnings, and agreed to a Rule 102(e) suspension, or, if you like, a "wrist slap."  Commissioner Aguillar thought that the CPA role was crucial.

Accountants—especially CPAs—serve as gatekeepers in our securities markets.  They play an important role in maintaining investor confidence and fostering fair and efficient markets.  When they serve as officers of public companies, they take on an even greater responsibility by virtue of holding a position of public trust. 

Aguillar appears to be worried that CPAs are getting pled down into relatively innocent offenses even when there is strong evidence of intentional fraud.  

I am concerned that this case is emblematic of a broader trend at the Commission where fraud charges—particularly non-scienter fraud charges—are warranted, but instead are downgraded to books and records and internal control charges.  This practice often results in individuals who willingly engaged in fraudulent misconduct retaining their ability to appear and practice before the Commission. 

So there you go, a commissioner who is particularly insistent on holding the accounting profession to high standards, and thinks the SEC is too willing to plead down everything.  As an empirical matter, it is difficult to know whether the SEC is indeed guilty of Aguillar's charge (though he is, presumably, an expert on the matter).  It's hard to know how much conduct is going unprosecuted, and for settleed cases, whether stiffer charges would have been likely to stick.

Permalink | Accounting| Administrative Law | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

August 20, 2014
Trying To Understand New York State's Regulation Of Business
Posted by David Zaring

You'd think that the state that's home to the center of American business would take a Delaware-style light touch approach to overseeing it.  But instead, the New York paradigm is to take ambitious politiicans, blend with broadly worded supervisory or anti-fraud statutes like the Martin Act, and come up with stuff that, to my ears, sounds almost every time like it is off-base, at least in the details.  So:

  • Eliot Spitzer pursued research analysts for the sin of sending cynical emails even though they issued buy recommendations, despite that fact that analysts never issue negative recommendations, and if cynical emails are a crime, law professors are the most guilty people in the world.
  • I still don't understand what Maurice Greenberg, risk worrier par excellence, did wrong when he was running AIG.  I do know that after he was forced out by Spitzer, the firm went credit default swap crazy.
  • Maybe there's something to the "you didn't tell your investors that you changed the way you did risk management for your mortgage program" prosecutions, but you'll note that it is not exactly the same thing as "you misrepresented the price and/or quality of the mortgage products you sold" prosecutions, which the state has not pursued.
  • Eric Schneiderman's idea that high frequency trading is "insider trading 2.0" is almost self-evidently false, as it is trading done by outsiders.
  • Federal regulators wouldn't touch Ben Lawsky's mighty serious claims that HSBC or BNP Paribas were basically enabling terrorist financing.
  • And now Lawsky is going after consultants for having the temerity to share a report criticizing the bank that hired them to review its own anti-money laundering practices with the bank, who pushed back on some, but not all of the conclusions.

The easiest way to understand this is to assume that AGs don't get to be governor (and bank supervisors don't get to be AGs) unless people wear handcuffs, and this is all a Rudy Giuliani approach to white collar wrongdoing by a few people who would like to have Rudy Giuliani's career arc.

But another way to look at it is through the dictum that the life of the law is experience, not logic.  The details are awfully unconvincing.  But these New York officials have also been arguing:

  • Having analysts recommending IPO purchases working for the banks structuring the IPO is dodgy.
  • HFT is front-running, and that's dodgy.
  • This new vogue for bank consulting is dodgy, particularly if it's just supposed to be a way for former bank regulators to pitch current bank regulators on leniency.
  • If we can't understand securitization gobbledegook, we can at least force you to employ a burdensome risk management process to have some faith that you, yourself, understand it.
  • And I'm not saying I understand the obsession with terrorism financing or what the head of AIG did wrong.

Their approach is the kind of approach that would put a top banker in jail, or at least on the docket, for the fact that banks presided over a securitization bubble in the run-up to the crisis.  It's the "we don't like it, it's fishy, don't overthink it, you're going to pay for it, and you'll do so publicly" approach.  It's kind of reminiscent of the saints and sinners theory of Delaware corporate governance.  And it's my pet theory defending, a little, what otherwise looks like a lot of posturing.

Permalink | Administrative Law| Finance| Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions| White Collar Crime | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

August 17, 2014
After the Deal: Fannie, Freddie and the Financial Crisis Aftermath, by Davidoff Solomon and Zaring
Posted by David Zaring

Steve Davidoff Solomon and I have put together a paper on the litigation between the government and the preferred shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Do give it a look and let us know what you think.  Here's the abstract:

The dramatic events of the financial crisis led the government to respond with a new form of regulation. Regulation by deal bent the rule of law to rescue financial institutions through transactions and forced investments; it may have helped to save the economy, but it failed to observe a laundry list of basic principles of corporate and administrative law. We examine the aftermath of this kind of regulation through the lens of the current litigation between shareholders and the government over the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We conclude that while regulation by deal has a place in the government’s financial crisis toolkit, there must come a time when the law again takes firm hold. The shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who have sought damages from the government because its decision to eliminate dividends paid by the institutions, should be entitled to review of their claims for entire fairness under the Administrative Procedure Act – a solution that blends corporate law and administrative law. Our approach will discipline the government’s use of regulation by deal in future economic crises, and provide some ground rules for its exercise at the end of this one – without providing activist investors, whom we contend are becoming increasingly important players in regulation, with an unwarranted windfall.

Permalink | Administrative Law| Corporate Law| Financial Crisis| Financial Institutions | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

August 06, 2014
Avoiding The Problem Of Disregard In International Regulation
Posted by David Zaring

In the American Journal of International Law, Dick Stewart has an excellent piece on Remedying Disregard In Global Regulatory Governance: Accountability, Participation, and Responsiveness.  I've got a commentary on it over at AJIL Unbound.  A taste:

It may also be the case that as these bodies weave increasingly elaborate cross-border regulatory webs, they have no choice but to resort to something that looks quite law-like. In financial regulation, I view global administration as a sort of administration that has increasingly adopted stable bedrock principles that would be familiar to any international economic lawyer; indeed, given the importance of the cross-border work done to oversee financial institutions, it would be surprising if a measure of consistently applied rules, reason-giving, and transparency were not adopted.  The banks being supervised would certainly find it arbitrary if done differently.

Do give the rest a look

Permalink | Administrative Law| Globalization/Trade | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

Bloggers
Papers
Posts
Recent Comments
Popular Threads
Search The Glom
The Glom on Twitter
Archives by Topic
Archives by Date
December 2014
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Miscellaneous Links