Group items tagged

Spotify UK drop into the red last year, since subscription revenue fell and the music streaming service invested more in growth here. When compared to 2011's profit of £21 million, accounts reveal Spotify's British arm made a loss of £10.1 million in 2012. Down from £96.5 million a year earlier in 2012 it fell to £92.6 million, the online music streaming platform saw this revenue fall. The decrease in revenue was partially down to its decline in subscription, which fell from £72.4 million to £64.7 million because of the alteration in the way subscriptions were booked. A minimal increase was seen by UK advertising on the platform, rising from £8.1 million to £9.1 million to the year ending December 31. Sources say that subscription numbers have been growing strongly in 2013 thanks in part to partnerships with the likes of Vodafone. Spotify UK declined to comment on its accounts but earlier in the year parent company Spotify Group said: "In 2012 the business focused on driving user growth, international expansion and product development, resulting in soaring user numbers and increased market penetration. "Our key priority throughout 2013 and beyond remains bringing our unrivalled music experience to even more people while continuing to build for long-term growth - both for our company and for the music industry as a whole." With its operations in the thirty two countries around the world, Spotify lets users stream 10 hours of music a month for free with advertising or pay a subscription fee for unlimited, advertising-free listening. Naming Sony, Universal and EMI, and to date has paid out $500 million in royalties to artists, the company has signed deals with major record labels with the said records. With 5 million paying subscribers Globally Spotify saw users leap from 11 million to 20 million in the year. UK numbers were not disclosed. From March this year figures demonstrate this has augmented to 24 million users and 6 million subscribe

Economist: U.S. labor market recovery is a fraud http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2013/10/02/economist-us-labor-market-recovery.html University of Central Florida economist Sean Snaith has this to say about the current labor market recovery: It's a fraud. That's because there's more to assessing economic recovery than just monthly payroll job gains and a declining unemployment rate, he said. "You need to look at the number of jobs being created in the context of the potential number of workers in the U.S. economy," Snaith said. "The gap between payroll employment and the Congressional Budget Office estimates of the potential number of workers in the U.S. economy is pretty darn scary right now." If payroll job growth were to persist at the average level of the past three jobs reports and increase at just 148,000 jobs per month, it would take until December 2021 for employment to reach its CBO estimated potential, he added. In his 2013 third-quarter U.S. forecast, Snaith explains that by just focusing on the unemployment rate, many analysts erroneously are predicting a fast recovery that's simply not there yet. That's why it's not surprising that consumers are holding back on spending, which in the past has brought the economy out of the doldrums, he said. Snaith was only one of four national economists to predict that the federal Reserve Bank would continue to funnel billions of dollars into the market on a daily basis as a way to help stimulate the economy and not begin tapering that process until 2014. "Will the Federal Reserve's exit be more like Ginger Rogers gliding across the dance floor or Miley Cyrus awkwardly twerking remains to be seen," Snaith said. "But given the phony labor-market recovery it could be some time before the Fed hits the dance floor." More Related Article: http://www.wattpad.com/25728832-the-corliss-group-stocks-surge-past-economic http://www.yellowbook.com/profile/corliss-group-the_1855

According to the Biz2Credit Small Business Lending Index, more than one-half of all small-business loan applications are being rejected by banks. Companies in need of capital might find lenders more receptive in a hard-hitting lending environment if they invest in audited financial statements. "We've had clients who needed these statements to even get the loan, and it can make a difference in the interest rate you get," says David G. Barbeito, a principal in the Miami office of Morrison, Brown, Argiz & Farra, a large independent accounting firm.

Democratic presidents tend to preside over better economies than Republican ones, but that may be down to pure luck, according to a recent paper from Alan Blinder and Mark Watson at Princeton. Since the end of World War II, the U.S. economy has grown at an average real rate of 4.35% under Democratic presidents and only 2.54% under Republicans. So what gives? "Democrats would no doubt like to attribute the large D-R growth gap to better macroeconomic policies, but the data do not support such a claim," they write. "It seems we must look instead to several variables that are mostly 'good luck.'" Three factors can explain 46-62% of the growth gap, according to the paper. Here are the reasons (via James Hamilton): Oil shocks. With the exception of Jimmy Carter, oil price shocks tend to dog Republican administrations more. The 1956-57 Suez Crisis, early-70s OPEC embargo, 1980 Iran-Iraq War, and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 all happened during Republican administrations. Productivity. It's hard to say that a U.S. president is responsible here, but Democrats tend to see bigger gains in productivity. Bill Clinton, for example, enjoyed a big boost in U.S. productivity during the 1990s. Consumer confidence. Consumers tend to have a rosier outlook on the U.S. economy in the first year a Democrat is in the White House. "Yet the superior growth record under Democrats is not forecastable by standard techniques, which means it cannot be attributed to superior initial conditions," they write. Chalk this one up to luck again, but it does come "tantalizingly close to a self-fulfilling prophecy in which consumers correctly expect the economy to do better under Democrats, then make that happen by purchasing more consumer durables."

Financial advisers stress that there are several money lessons everyone in their 20s should know. For example, start saving at least 10 percent of your monthly income. Changing your financial state requires a kind of time travel to commune with your future self. Where do you want to be in 10, 20 years? Are you on the right path, or heading in the wrong direction? The time value of money-that is, how savings, investments and debt levels compound with the passing of years-means that money habits, good or bad, created when we start to earn cash echo into the decades that follow. And a whispered bit of wisdom up front can keep you from howling over your mistakes later in life. We polled our NerdWallet network of Ask an Advisor certified financial planners about the greatest regrets and lessons you should learn in your 20s, 30s and 40s. Taken together, these could be considered 12 steps toward securing your financial future. And they all hinge on two keys skills we must learn-and often relearn-in our money lives: prepare and stick to a budget, and establish good savings habits. We'll address the 30s and 40s later this week, but first: your 20s. "Understand that the world has changed. You will be more responsible for your financial future in regard to earning a living, retirement planning, funding and investing, health insurance coverage and costs and less coverage through government programs," says Jerome Deutsch, managing director of U.S. Institutional Markets for Index Strategy Advisors in Decatur, Georgia. "Learn, plan and live mindfully and with a long-term perspective. It may not sound like fun, but you have a long life ahead of you."

The World Bank's most recent Global Economic Prospects (GEP) report, released this week, says a global economic recovery is underway, underpinned by strengthening output and demand in high-income countries. Global GDP growth in 2014 will be 2.8 percent and it is expected to rise to about 4.2 percent by 2016, according to the report, which the World Bank publishes twice a year. Average GDP growth in developing countries has reached 4.8 percent in 2014, faster than in high-income countries but slower than in the boom period before the global financial and economic crisis of 2008. Demand side stimulus or supply side reforms? The global economic slowdown that struck in 2008 was caused by a financial crisis that resulted in large part from the bursting of an enormous, fraud-ridden mortgage lending bubble in the US. The crisis led to varying responses in different countries. The GEP report's authors said that in general, developing countries privileged demand stimulus policies over structural reforms during the past several years. For example, in 2008 to 2009, China implemented a four trillion-renminbi ($586 billion) stimulus program as a direct response to the slowdown in global trade caused by the global financial crisis. Critics pointed to over-investment in China as a risk to continued fast growth. The country is now struggling to contain a real estate bubble of its own. The World Bank wants China and other emerging countries to refocus on structural reforms. "A gradual tightening of fiscal policy and structural reforms are desirable to restore fiscal space depleted by the 2008 financial crisis," the bank's chief economist, Kaushik Basu, has said. "In brief, now is the time to prepare for the next crisis."