NEW YORK | Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:01am EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Does an office perk count as a benefit if you pay for it yourself? Apparently so, because an increasing number of companies are using so-called voluntary benefits to bulk up workplace offerings.

More companies now offer extra coverage or benefits that workers pay for themselves. They run the gamut from life and disability insurance to vision and dental care, all the way to legal services, shopping discounts and pet care coverage.

About 85 percent of mid-sized companies offer at least one voluntary option, with nearly half offering three or more, according to a 2011 survey by industry-backed research group LIMRA International. Almost half of all companies planned to add more options in the future, according to a similar study by insurer Colonial Life.

That may sound nice, but these offerings are usually made in the context of companies trying to save money, and they put the onus on workers to decide whether they want to buy in.

So far, workers are unconvinced. Participation in life and long-term disability plans remained nearly the same from 2006 to 2010, at 34 percent of workers for life insurance and 24 percent for disability, according to LIMRA.

Employer-offered group plans can be cheaper and more convenient than plans individuals buy on their own. Group plans often carry discounts of 5 percent to 10 percent, as well as the convenience of having your payment automatically deducted from your paycheck.

But they are not necessarily better. Just because a policy is employer-sponsored does not automatically make it the best deal available, says Tom Billet of the human resources consultancy Towers Watson. "Do a little research first."

Smaller benefits like vision coverage or pet insurance aren't very significant; workers can opt in if they can afford the premiums and think it will save them some money around the edges.

But deciding about more expensive benefits -- disability, long-term care and life insurance -- is trickier. Here are some pointers.

LONG-TERM DISABILITY

Group disability coverage usually replaces 50 percent to 70 percent of your salary if an illness or accident leaves you unable to work for three months or longer. Group premiums typically top out at 1.5 percent of your salary, estimates Barry Lundquist of the Council for Disability Awareness. Individual policies can cost three times that.

Even so, private coverage is generally worth the extra money, says New York disability attorney Evan Schwartz. "With an individual policy, premiums are locked in and your policy can't be changed or canceled as long as you are paying premiums," Schwartz says. On group plans, "terms can change on annual basis."

If you change jobs, you can take your privately purchased plan with you; that's rarely the case with workplace group plans.

Furthermore, workplace policies may pay benefits for only two years, and may cut them off even more quickly for mental health or stress-related conditions, says Schwartz.

Group coverage policies also can include offsets, cautions Alan Olson, an employment lawyer in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. That means that before you ever receive your benefits, you must run through other income sources, such as workers compensation or state disability. Buying a private policy without offsets, "can definitely offer a greater return if you actually use the benefits," Olson says.

Finally, if your disability claims are denied, private coverage provides more remedies. Under group coverage - due to the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which covers a wide range of employee benefit plans - claimants must go through a lengthy appeals process before they can sue. ERISA also prohibits claimants from receiving jury trials. "That is one of the most powerful tools you have against an insurance company, and you're giving it up," Schwartz says.

Several online tools can help employees compare their company's disability offering, including MassMutual's Disability Benefits Benchmarking Survey (here).

LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE

If you think you want long-term care insurance, you may not have many choices beyond buying it at work - many carriers have stopped offering it privately, and some are not offering group plans anymore, either.

"You absolutely need to be sure, even with group coverage, that you're buying from an insurer you know and trust," says Frank Darras, a California-based disability lawyer. "What good is cheap insurance if there's no one to file a claim with when the time comes?"

Major carriers that are no longer selling new policies have said they would honor existing coverage but several smaller outfits have gone out of business. States have stepped in to aid existing claimants but not future ones.

Policies can provide financial lifelines for the 70 percent of Americans over 65 who the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says will require long-term care like assisted living at some point in their lives.

Employees who are already dealing with chronic medical conditions will sometimes find it easier to qualify for group coverage than an individual policy.

Fine print to consider: What is the daily benefit? Do I get to select where and when nursing home care is covered? Does the policy include home healthcare or coverage if a family member is providing the care?

Unlike life or long-term disability insurance, long-term care insurance stays in place after you've retired or have left a job, but there's no guarantee that the premiums will stay affordable once you've left your group. For that matter, there's no guarantee they will stay the same even while you're at your job.

Healthy employees, on the other hand, are likely to find buying on their own more affordable. Spousal discounts, for instance, are common on private policies but not workplace ones.

Another downside: Group long-term care policies also are subject to the same federal laws as long-term disability in terms of appealing claim denials detailed above.

TERM LIFE INSURANCE

Life insurance is one benefit that many employers still pay for - 44 percent of employers did in 2010, according to LIMRA - and if that is the case, there is almost no downside to signing up. These policies, usually equal to about one year's salary, are essentially free money. And they don't require medical examinations to qualify - especially important to anyone with a pre-existing condition.

If you want more coverage than your company is providing for free - or if you worry that you'll need coverage after you leave your job - shop around, says former Vermont insurance commissioner and Consumer Federation of America expert James Hunt. "You can often find better deals on the outside," Hunt says.

(This is part of a five-story package on employee benefits and open enrollment season. The author is a Reuters contributor and the opinions expressed are her own.)

(Editing by Linda Stern, Jilian Mincer and Steve Orlofsky)

View the original article here

n">(Reuters) - It's been a turbulent period for charter schools in the United States, with financial analysts raising concerns about their stability and regulators in several states shutting down schools for poor performance.

The volatility has made it tough for startup schools to get financing.

But an unlikely source of new capital has emerged to fill the gap: foreign investors.

Wealthy individuals from as far away as China, Nigeria, Russia and Australia are spending tens of millions of dollars to build classrooms, libraries, basketball courts and science labs for American charter schools.

In Buffalo, New York, foreign funds paid for the Health Sciences Charter School to renovate a 19th-century orphanage into modern classrooms and computer labs. In Florence, Arizona, overseas investment is expected to finance a sixth campus for the booming chain of American Leadership Academy charter schools.

And in Florida, state business development officials say foreign investment in charter schools is poised to triple next year, to $90 million.

The reason? Under a federal program known as EB-5, wealthy foreigners can in effect buy U.S. immigration visas for themselves and their families by investing at least $500,000 in certain development projects. In the past two decades, much of the investment has gone into commercial real-estate projects, like luxury hotels, ski resorts and even gas stations.

Lately, however, enterprising brokers have seen a golden opportunity to match cash-starved charter schools with cash-flush foreigners in investment deals that benefit both.

"The demand is massive - massive - on the school side," said Greg Wing, an investment advisor. "On the investor side, it's massive, too."

Two years ago, Wing set up a venture called the Education Fund of America specifically to connect international investors with charter schools. He is currently arranging EB-5 funding for 11 schools across North Carolina, Utah and Arizona and says he has four more deals in the works.

And that's just the start, Wing says: "It's going to be explosive."

CREDIT CRUNCH

The charter school movement is somewhat controversial. Critics - led by teachers' unions - contend they divert much-needed funds from traditional public schools. Still, they have proved quite popular and now educate more than 2 million children in the United States.

Charter schools are publicly funded but privately run, sometimes by for-profit companies. They receive taxpayer dollars to educate each child who enrolls. Yet in most states, they get little or no public money to build classrooms, libraries and other facilities.

Well-established and successful chains of charter schools, such as KIPP, Green Dot or Achievement First, receive hefty support from philanthropic foundations and private donors. The chains can also tap into financing provided by an array of for-profit and non-profit investment funds created for that purpose.

But the charter school movement also includes hundreds of small, one-of-a-kind schools, often started by parents seeking a different educational environment for their children. Those mom-and-pop startups have always had a hard time securing funding to build their schools. Many have had to make do with makeshift classrooms in strip malls or church basements.

And lately, experts say, the credit crunch has worsened.

"It's a hard go," said Eric Hall, an attorney in Colorado Springs who advises charter school boards.

Last month, Fitch Ratings warned it was likely to downgrade bonds backed by charter schools because the sector is volatile and the schools are highly leveraged. Such risks mean charter-school debt is typically considered speculative, rather than investment grade, said Eric Kim, a director at Fitch Ratings.

Meanwhile, the IRS has signaled it plans closer scrutiny of charter schools' tax-exempt status if they rely on for-profit management companies to provide their classroom space and run their academic programs, Hall said. He sent his clients a long memo this summer warning that the stepped-up IRS oversight could put some at "significant risk."

If that weren't enough to make investors wary, several well-known charter schools have run into significant legal and fiscal hurdles in recent months.

Missouri regulators shut down six campuses run by Imagine Schools, one of the nation's largest for-profit charter chains, because of poor academic performance. A judge in California ruled that Aspire Public Schools, a large non-profit chain, hadn't secured the proper approval for six of its schools and would have to get permission from local boards of education to continue running them. Local officials yanked the charter of a high-achieving middle school in Georgia over concerns about mismanagement.

All told, about 15 percent of the 6,700 charter schools that have been launched in the United States in the past two decades have since closed, primarily because of financial troubles, according to the Center for Education Reform, which supports charter schools.

This fall alone, more than 150 established charter schools didn't open their doors to students.

Such volatility "will spook people, no doubt about it," said David Brain, chief executive officer of Entertainment Properties Trust, which has historically owned movie theaters but branched out to invest in charter schools, including the six that were shuttered in St. Louis.

Brain said the closures did not affect his company's bottom line and he remains convinced charter schools are a profitable sector. But even he's not ready to start backing untested startup schools.

Charter school administrators say they know that wariness all too well.

"Until you get that charter renewal that says you're doing good things" - typically after five years in operation - "banks won't even talk to you," said Hank Stopinski, principal of the Health Sciences Charter School in Buffalo. Without foreign investment, he said, "we would not have been able to do this project."

RECESSION-PROOF

The EB-5 program has drawn sharp criticism in the past. Some immigrant investors have lost both their money and their shot at U.S. citizenship when their American partners proved inept or corrupt. In the United States, critics have questioned the value of trading visas for scattershot investment. (link.reuters.com/cem33t)

Yet interest is surging. In the first nine months of this year, the government approved 3,000 petitions from foreigners seeking to participate in the program - nearly twice as many as were approved all last year, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Charter schools have become particularly trendy because they are pitched as recession-proof.

An investor forum in China last spring, for instance, touted U.S. charter schools as a nearly fool-proof investment because they can count on a steady stream of government funding to stay afloat, according to a transcript posted on a Chinese website.

Arizona educator Holly Johnson, who runs three charter schools and plans to open a fourth next year, said she couldn't believe how easy it was to secure $4.5 million in funding from abroad.

"We didn't have to do anything at all," she said, other than open her schools to potential investors. They didn't ask many questions, she said. Their concern was more basic: "They wanted to come over and make sure it was real."

INNER SATISFACTION

Eager to join the rush, Ali Faisal devoted a day this week to touring charter schools in Arizona.

Faisal, 37, is a Pakistani citizen who now lives in Calgary, Canada. He runs a technology consulting business that works with oil and gas companies and says he is eager to expand to the United States. He figures the best way to do that is to get a green card.

And the best way to do that, he said, is the EB-5 program.

Participants can get a temporary visa by investing $500,000 to $1 million in a federally approved business. If the business creates or preserves at least 10 jobs in two years, the investor and his immediate family are eligible for permanent residency in the United States.

"It's a much easier path," Faisal said.

He decided to put his money in a charter school, he said, because that way he felt he'd be serving society as well as helping himself. The schools he saw impressed him with their rigorous science curriculum and he said he hoped his investment would help nurture a new generation of American entrepreneurs.

"Investing in some type of hotel," Faisal said, "will not give me that inner satisfaction."

(Reporting by Stephanie Simon in Denver; Additional reporting by Elizabeth Dilts in New York and Melanie Lee in Beijing; Editing by Jonathan Weber and Claudia Parsons)

View the original article here

LONDON | Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:10am EDT

LONDON (Reuters) - Christie's raised 41.2 million pounds ($62 million) from its combined London sales of post-war, contemporary and Italian art late on Thursday, towards the lower end of pre-sale estimates and down on the equivalent auctions of 2011.

The world's biggest auctioneer had expected to sell art worth 36.6-51.9 million pounds, and when buyers' premium are deducted, Thursday's total comes in at around the low estimate.

Last year the combined tally was 55.7 million pounds.

The auctions coincided with the start of the Frieze Art Fair which opened to the public on Thursday and has become an important fixture in the contemporary art market calendar.

Rival auctioneer Sotheby's holds its sales late on Friday, and in addition to more than 170 galleries exhibiting at Frieze, dozens more are selling top works across the city to capitalize on the presence of hundreds of wealthy collectors.

The top end of the art market has performed strongly in recent years despite global economic weakness and concerns over unemployment, the euro and faltering Chinese growth.

But Sotheby's saw its Hong Kong autumn sales of Asian and Chinese artwork and luxury goods fall well short of last year's levels, fetching $258 million or 37 percent less than in the same period of 2011.

At Christie's, the top price was for Martin Kippenberger's "Untitled", which fetched 3.1 million pounds, a new auction record for the artist. Piero Manzoni's "Achrome" realised 2.6 million pounds in Italy.

(Reporting by Mike Collett-White; Editing by Steve Addison)

View the original article here

Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:49pm EDT

n">(Reuters) - Plans to save Big Bird, the fuzzy yellow character on U.S. public television's "Sesame Street," from possible extinction are taking shape in the form of a puppet-based protest next month dubbed the "Million Muppet March."

The demonstration is planned for November 3 at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., three days before the general election.

Before the presidential debate between Democratic President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney had concluded on October 3, two men who had never met each floated the Million Muppet March idea on social media. They immediately united to defend public broadcasting.

Romney pledged during the debate to end the U.S. federal government's subsidy for the Public Broadcasting Service despite his professed love for Big Bird, one of the characters on PBS's 43-year-old children's educational program "Sesame Street," which features the Muppets.

Michael Bellavia, 43, an animation executive from Los Angeles, and Chris Mecham, 46, a university student in Idaho, separately came up with the Million Muppet March idea in response.

Big Bird, played by actor Carroll Spinney in an 8-foot (2.5-metre) bird costume, is strictly speaking not a member of the group of puppet characters known as the Muppets.

Bellavia bought the Internet address www.millionmuppetmarch.com during the debate and discovered Mecham had already started a Facebook page by the same name.

Within 30 minutes of the end of the debate they were on the phone with each other, planning the march.

"I figured, why just make it a virtual show of support? Why not take this opportunity because it seemed like there was already a growing interest in it and actually make it an active, participatory event," Bellavia said. "I literally just said, 'It's happening.'"

Both men consider themselves fans of "Sesame Street," perhaps the best-known program on PBS, which received $445 million of $3.8 trillion in federal budget outlays in 2012.

Coming from rural Idaho, Mecham said he was aware how important public broadcasting was in sparsely populated areas that receive no other signals over the air.

"Romney was using Muppets as a rhetorical device to talk about getting rid of public broadcasting, which is really so much bigger than Sesame Street," Mecham said. "While he was still talking I was thinking of ways I could express my frustration at that argument. Before the debates were over I had put up the Million Muppet March Facebook page."

The two men said they immediately decided to work together.

Mecham is a writer who is studying political science at Boise State University out of his interest in healthcare policy.

Bellavia is president of the animation studio Animax Entertainment, founded by former Second City actor Dave Thomas.

They may fall short of attracting a million people, or Muppets, to the event, but they do hope to create what Bellavia called a "lovefest" featuring skits and musical performances with Muppets.

"It does seem like we might get close to the biggest ever assemblage of puppets in one place," he said, "and probably the most ever puppets marching on Washington."

The Million Man March was a gathering held on the National Mall on October 16, 1995 to promote civil rights, with an emphasis on African Americans, and was led by rights advocate Louis Farrakhan. (Editing by Eric Walsh)

View the original article here

Actor and director Ben Affleck speaks at a news conference to promote the film 'Argo' during the 37th Toronto International Film Festival, September 8, 2012.

NEW YORK | Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:25pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Antonio "Tony" Mendez is the rarest of creatures: A former spy who has come out of the woodwork.

His story is the subject of Ben Affleck's new film, "Argo," released in the United States Friday, and tipped to feature in Hollywood's awards season.

"Argo" is based on one of Mendez's most remarkable missions, rescuing six Americans from Iran during the height of the 1979 hostage crisis and helping them pose as a Canadian film crew making a fictitious film called "Argo." It follows Mendez's memoir of the same name, released in September.

Mendez, 72, who was named in 1997 one of the CIA's top 50 officers of its first 50 years, talked to Reuters about "Argo" the movie, the real CIA operation and current events in the Middle East.

Q: "Argo" the film depicts the 1979 storming of the U.S. embassy and hostage crisis. How do you compare that to riots in the region in more recent times?

A: "Seeing those crowds surging in front of multiple U.S. embassies and consulates does indeed bring back memories. Security has been beefed up in many ways, but these events show that perhaps they should be beefed up even more."

Q: Why recall the story of the rescue operation now?

A: "I wanted to set the details down on paper for the record and call out my colleagues, who were involved in the planning, even if many were in alias. I wanted to pass on the lessons learned to the public and to my former work mates, something that the CIA does not often do."

Q: Decades later, what perspective do you bring?

A: "Before, Argo was an unorthodox operation, designed out of frustration, a form of risk taking that would probably not be approved in today's political environment. Today, the impact lingers on. A presidency was lost, America's relationship with Iran was severed, and radical Islam had struck its first blow."

Q: Some aspects remain classified, how did those kinds of restrictions impact your writing of the book?

A: "It caused us to mask the true identity of certain individuals and intelligence entities that worked with us. We had to be cautious in describing methods and techniques, but it didn't impede the telling of the story. Not much was lost."

Q: When the story first became public, the CIA asked you to be open to the media. How did it feel to vocalize your participation and who outside the CIA knew about it?

A: "It went against every instinct I had when the CIA first asked me to tell this story, but eventually I lost my inhibition. Only the Canadian government and some elements in Hollywood knew the story at the time. I believe that both are glad to see credit given."

Q: Was there anything that surprised you or complicated things as the Argo rescue unfolded?

A: "Trying to leave Iran, there were mechanical problems with Swiss Air, which was a surprise. A journalist discovered the ruse."

Q: How did this operation compare to the others?

A: "Argo was wildly different from most other exfiltrations I have been involved in. At the CIA we used to say innovation is born out of necessity, sometimes out of desperation. Argo had an operational necessity that demanded out-of-the-box thinking, and this kind of unorthodox planning probably won't be replicated until another occasion when traditional solutions won't work. Necessity drives imagination."

Q: You worked at the CIA through critical periods of transition. What changes did you see?

A: "Don't really want to go there. The agency continually improves its abilities, trains its officers in the state-of-the-art, and then advances that very state-of-the-art. I don't need to be there to know that their ability in documents and disguise is still unparalleled."

Q: What do you make of the situation in Iran now?

A: "Iran is still a pariah, caught up between the radical elements of Islam and the Arab spring. Hostage taking has become common, and as long as the West needs oil they will be able to threaten their neighbors and the rest of the world. A powerful argument for transitioning to renewable energy can be made here."

Q: There's a certain irony to Argo becoming a real movie. What are your thoughts on it?

A: ""Argo" is a magnificent movie. Ben Affleck did a great job. We worked closely with the screenwriter and it has been a very personal experience for me, one I will always treasure."

Q: Any favorite spy movies?

A: "Almost anything that John LeCarre does, and the Bond series. Those don't reflect real espionage, but they are certainly entertaining."

(Editing by Christine Kearney and Bernadette Baum)

View the original article here

1 of 5. Money market pioneer Bruce Bent (R) leaves the Manhattan Federal Court behind his son Bruce Bent II in New York October 11, 2012. Bent took a swipe at the U.S. government's response to the 2008 financial crisis when he testified at his own trial on Thursday, describing the desperate situation that led to the death of his conservative fund. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sued Bent, his son Bruce Bent II and their family-run Reserve Management firm in 2009, saying they lied to investors about the safety of their money after Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy on September 15, 2008, intensifying a global financial crisis.

NEW YORK | Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:47pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Money market pioneer Bruce Bent took a swipe at the U.S. government's response to the 2008 financial crisis when he testified at his own trial on Thursday, describing the desperate situation that led to the death of his conservative fund.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sued Bent, his son Bruce Bent II and their family-run Reserve Management firm in 2009, saying they lied to investors about the safety of their money after Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy on September 15, 2008, intensifying a global financial crisis.

Reserve held $785 million in Lehman debt, or 1.2 percent of the $62 billion it had invested in its funds. There was a run on Reserve funds and sources of liquidity dried up in the market turmoil, making it impossible to keep up with demand for redemptions.

Bent, answering a question on the Manhattan federal court witness stand about the government helping troubled financial institutions after the historic Lehman collapse, responded sharply: "Two days later everybody got it, except Reserve."

Part of the defense strategy is to shift the blame onto the SEC, which sued the Bents. Bruce Bent's testimony implies that the government should have made Reserve part of the bailout of financial institutions in an unprecedented crisis.

The white-haired, flush-faced Bent, 75, at times appeared irritated with the pointed questioning of SEC lawyer Nancy Brown, saying "no, no, no," before correcting her. His son Bruce Bent II, 46, is also expected to testify at the trial.

Brown's questioning over more than three hours took Bent and the jury through three Reserve board meetings and phone calls between the Bents, senior fund executives and lawyers during two hectic days of September 15 and September 16, 2008. The eight jurors heard that Reserve approached the New York Federal Reserve Bank and told the SEC itself about its dire straits.

Bent testified they were in a "desperation situation" and "we're throwing it at the wall, we're hoping something sticks."

The Reserve "broke the buck" - an almost unheard of event for money market funds when their net asset value falls below $1 a share. By January 2010, Reserve said it had distributed nearly all of the $50.5 billion left in its Reserve Primary fund after Lehman's bankruptcy.

Investors recovered about 99 cents on the dollar.

The regulators and the Bents failed to reach a settlement and the case went to trial on Tuesday. The trial is expected to last three weeks before U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe.

The jury is being asked to decide whether or not the Bents played by the rules of the securities markets. The SEC seeks unspecified gains the Bents might have made and a fine.

Reserve was the first money-market fund in the United States when Bruce Bent started it in 1970. Its collapse was a driver of the credit market seizure following Lehman's bankruptcy. New regulations have since reduced the credit and maturity risks that money funds may take.

The case is SEC v. Reserve Management Co et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 09-04346

(Reporting By Grant McCool; Editing by Richard Chang)

View the original article here