Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Apple: ¿Qué está pasando con tu software?

Image
  • “En los últimos años, he notado una degradación gradual en la calidad y fiabilidad de las aplicaciones nativas de Apple, tanto en iOS como en Mac OS X”, Walt Mossberg.
  • “La calidad del software ha disminuido tanto en los últimos años, que estoy muy preocupado por su futuro”, Marco Arment.

Se trata de una muestra de usuarios ilustrados que lanzan la alerta de algo que podría estar sucediendo: Apple estaría descuidando el desarrollo del software en sus aplicaciones nativas, aunque no parece claro por qué, la compañía estaría torpedeando lo que ha sido durante décadas uno de sus principales pilares.

¿Se han relajado los controles de calidad?

Todos lo recordamos como un mal sueño. El defenestrado Scott Forstall salió todo ufano a desvelar uno de los proyectos más estratégicos para la compañía: Apple Maps, la esperada respuesta de los de Cupertino al todopoderoso Google Maps. Y bien, como recordarás, aquello fue un auténtico desastre. El producto salió al mercado cuando en realidad no debería ni haber alcanzado la fase beta de su desarrollo.

Calles torcidas, ubicación imposibles… Como para olvidarlo. Apple Maps fue, posiblemente, la primera y más flagrante demostración de que Apple habría relajado los controles de calidad de sus productos en lo que respecta al software, o al menos, eso es al menos lo que se está barajando entre los usuarios que no comprenden cómo aplicaciones que antes eran sólidas desde la primera versión, ahora pueden necesitar hasta cinco actualizaciones para lograr un nivel aceptable.

Image

La presión por desarrollar nuevo hardware

“El nuevo hardware ahora es simplemente maravilloso”, reconoce Marco Arment, una de las primeras voces en alertar ante un alarmante declive de la calidad de las aplicaciones. Y el conocido desarrollador ha sido también pionero a la hora de apuntar con el dedo acusatorio al departamento de marketing de Apple como el principal responsable de este cambio de tornas: las prioridades las marca ahora marketing, y son lanzar nuevos productos cada año.

Comprenderás que al final, por muy grande que sea la compañía, sus recursos son limitados con lo que si el equipo entra en la vorágine de cumplir calendarios de infarto para lanzar nuevos e innovadores productos cada año, al final se ve obligado a recortar en los controles de calidad del software que no están directamente relacionados con este objetivo. Pero Marco no puede resumir mejor y en una sola frase lo que está sucediendo en referencia a los desarrolladores: “están haciendo demasiado en plazos de finalización imposibles”.

Si el equipo entra en la vorágine de cumplir calendarios de infarto para lanzar nuevos e innovadores productos cada año, al final se ve obligado a recortar en los controles de calidad del software

En busca de la convergencia

Diríamos se trataría del famoso campo de distorsión de la realidad Jobs, pero potenciado y multiplicado por los ambiciosos planes de Tim Cook. Sin embargo, no se trataría sólo de una reducción obligada -provocada por la presión de lanzar nuevo hardware- sino también de otro tipo de presión: la búsqueda de convergencia entre plataformas. Como sabes, Apple persigue limar al máximo las diferencias existentes entre los ecosistemas de sobremesa y móviles, de forma que el cambio entre uno y otro sea sencillo.

Así las cosas, no tiene mucho sentido que un usuario tenga una suite de fotografías muy potente en el ordenador, y cuando pase al iPad se encuentre con una versión de la anterior limitada al 20% de sus posibilidades. Esto es lo que algunos llaman regresión funcional de las aplicaciones, o lo que es lo mismo, limitar sus funcionalidades de forma que, contando con iCloud como elemento común, el salto de OSX a iOS no sea tan traumático para el usuario.

¿Es grave todo esto que te estamos contando? Para Marco Arment lo es, y considera que esta degradación del software puede terminar por minar la reputación de la compañía, una de sus vacas sagradas. Pero parece que la firma californiana está por la labor de solucionar algunos de los problemas surgidos, o eso al menos es lo que deducimos de su reciente cambio organizacional.

Monday, February 8, 2016

Is Big Cable helping to "cut the cord"? Comcast, TWC, Charter had a stronger-than-normal 2015



A funny thing happened this week on the way to that big cable box in the sky: Three of the largest U.S. cable operators actually added subscribers.
In releasing their fourth quarter and full-year earnings for 2015, Time Warner Cable, Comcast and Charter Communications all posted subscriber gains for the past quarter. While it's common for cable operators to see a bump in subscribers at the end of the year, both Time Warner Cable and Charter–which are planning to merge–posted full year subscriber gains, ending years of declines.
Time Warner Cable added 54,000 subs in the fourth quarter after it lost more than 300,000 during the same period last year. For the full year, TWC added 32,000 subscribers, marking its first full year of growth since 2006. Charter, which released earnings this morning, had its best full year in more than a decade by adding 11,000 subscribers, including 33,000 during the fourth quarter.
Meanwhile, Comcast had its strongest fourth quarter in eight years by adding 89,000 subscribers, though it posted an overall decline in 2015 of 36,000. That is a huge improvement versus 2014, when the nation's largest carrier lost 194,000 subscribers.
The gains by the three cable operators come amidst the worst year for the overall pay-TV sector; Moffett Nathanson predicted cords would be cut in 514,000 homes in 2015, down from 1.2 million in 2014.
A number of factors contributed to those expanding subscriber bases. Executives from the three companies attributed the growth to fancy new set-top boxes that offer better user experiences; an increase in the amount of "TV Everywhere" options and episodes available to watch on demand; and better marketing about bundling television and broadband services.
And it appears the slowing of cord cutting among cable operators is hurting the satellite and Telco services. Telco growth, including Verizon FiOS and AT&T U-verse, dipped from 1.06 million new subscribers in 2014 to just 118,000 in 2015. Satellite, including DirecTV and DISH, was projected to lose 560,000 subscribers for the year, more than cable.
Last week, AT&T reported a loss of 26,000 subscribers between its DirecTV and U-Verse services for the fourth quarter.

Friday, February 5, 2016

The Super Bowl, America's Ad Champ

The titanic Super Bowl advertising franchise now extends well beyond TV. While big auto and beverage companies still dominate ad slots, digital upstarts are grabbing seats at the table. Meanwhile, Super Bowl ads -- seeking to engage viewers with mini-narratives -- have generally become longer…
…and more expensive to air...


...due to the Super Bowl's huge and growing live audience. A record 114 million people -- or about half of U.S. households -- watched the Super Bowl on TV last year, according to Nielsen data. For comparison's sake, "Sunday Night Football" averaged 22.5 million viewers while the "Game of Thrones" season finale had 8 million. TV VIEWERS LAST YEAR114 Million

Tuned In

Avergage number of people who watched the Super Bowl on TV each year

That growth has occurred even as overall TV viewership has declined and as TV advertising is quickly ceding ground to digital. 


The Super Bowl's advantage is that it's an event that still captures the attention of a massive, deeply attentive audience. Super Bowl ads and their accompanying publicity cause web traffic to advertisers' sites to spike after the game.

Network TV can still charge more per ad than digital platforms. In 2015, the average cost per 1,000 ad impressions on network TV was about $48, versus an average cost of $24 for in-stream video ads online, according to Magna Global. 

YouTube, a big competitor to TV for ad dollars, is fertile ground for Super Bowl ads. YouTube's audience engages repeatedly with those ads, so the ads tend to have a longer shelf life on YouTube than anywhere else. And that YouTube audience has grown sharply recently:

It's Growing

Time spent watching Super Bowl ads on YouTube, in millions of minutes
2016 will be an even bigger year for Super Bowl ad spending, with advertisers forking over $5 million for each 30-second ad, up from $4.4 million in 2015. Advertisers spent a total of $345 million on Super Bowl ads last year and are expected to spend even more this year.

Big Bowl

Total Super Bowl ad spend










Thursday, February 4, 2016

How AI and automation could hollow out the US job market

Economists on how the spoils generated by near-future technologies could be enjoyed by the wealthy and highly-educated, rather than the average worker.

Sawyer, a Rethink Robotics robot being used to fill manufacturing jobs in China.

In 2012 US vice president Joe Biden warned against continuing to sacrifice the country's middle class in order to consolidate the wealth of the richest in society.

This hollowing out of middle-skilled jobs and wage stagnation has been taking place in the US for decades - with the median hourly wage in the US barely changed, growing by just 0.1 percent per year between 1973 and 2011.

This standstill in wages and erosion of mid-skilled jobs has, in the eyes of a number of economists, been fuelled by the increased use of information technology in the workplace.

median-income.png

MIT economist Erik Brynjolfsson refers to the trend as the Great Decoupling: "Economic abundance, as exemplified by GDP and productivity, has remained on an upward trajectory, but the income and job prospects for typical workers have faltered". He points to technology as the force that is driving this trend in the US and in European countries.

Professor Wojciech Kopczuk of Columbia University, an economist who has written extensively on the topic of income and wealth inequality, said we are witnessing a polarization of the labor force.

"The lower part of the income distribution becomes more condensed, the middle becomes closer to the bottom and the top runs away," he said.

"I think this has a lot to do with technology because we're talking about a lot of workers who are not sufficiently skilled to take advantage of the technology."

The extent to which this trend will continue depends on who you listen to. Predictions as to the extent that automation will continue to disrupt job markets vary: from half of current US jobs - supermarket cashiers and shop assistants, waiters, truck drivers and office admins - being automated in the next couple of decades to overall demand for human labour remaining resistant to technological change.

However, at least some short-term upheaval is on the cards - as businesses find ways of turning advances in fields such as natural language processing, computer vision and big data analytics into systems that can drive vehicles, talk to shoppers and handle office paperwork.

The effects of these changes won't necessarily be "masses losing their jobs" said Kopczuk but increasing numbers of middle and low-skilled workers could see their wages "not keeping up with the overall economy" as technology makes their skills less valuable.

"They are replaceable in the sense that anybody who will put eight hours in will do the same type of job that they can do, because they are not taking advantage of this connection to technology."

Meanwhile demand for high-skilled workers who can exploit the information technology at the heart of modern economies should continue to be handsomely rewarded.

"As the economy is growing everybody's wages will be growing - it's just skilled individuals are going to be making much more than unskilled individuals."

No guarantees

The argument that automation will worsen inequality is sometimes rejected on the grounds that business owners won't act against their own interests. The reasoning goes that if business owners impoverish their workers they undermine those workers' ability to buy goods and services from that business.

However, Kopczuk says this argument is undercut by there being no simple mechanism for employers to collude to keep workers employed and well-paid in this way.

"It's a very old argument. I think I would associate it with Henry Ford, 100 years ago. You pay your workers so that they can afford to buy your cars."

The problem with that argument is twofold, he said, it requires employers to overpay workers and there is no guarantee that workers will use this additional wealth to buy that same employer's goods.

"So you'll be overpaying them to afford a lot of other things and not just your own. The economics of it doesn't work unless you think of somehow everybody coordinating. All business owners coordinating to overpay so that everybody benefits. But that coordination is virtually impossible without government intervention."

Reworking education

A key issue in Kopczuk's mind is how to prepare people for these future job shocks, where skills people have spent a lifetime learning are no longer valued.

"These kind of structural problems are serious. We have empirical evidence of the implications of factory closures in small towns in the 1980s and the implications that it had for workers that lived there and they are very dire."

To resist such shifts in demand for skills, Kopczuk sees the need to educate people in a way that helps them adapt to new roles more easily and that is less-oriented to a specific line of work.

"There's definitely a strong argument for an education that's broader. That is not one job specific. If you have skills for one particular job and the job goes away then you don't have the ability to switch."

Kopczuk is not alone in seeing a need to refocus education. Brynjolfsson and Andrew Ng, the chief scientist for Chinese search giant Baidu and co-founder of the open online course service Coursera, have expressed similar sentiments.

Brynjolfsson sees the need to look beyond Victorian obsessions with reading, writing and arithmetic to fostering skills that are tricky for computers, such as as ideation (the creation of new ideas), large-frame pattern recognition, and complex communication — as well as making it easier for people to continue to learn throughout their lives.

"From the point of view of the employee you want skills for the job you're doing but you should also want skills that will serve you 30 years from now as well," said Kopczuk.


Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Election Tech 2016:based on social data analysis

In the days before the Iowa Caucus Twitter data reveals that presidential candidates are talking about the economy, foreign policy, and themselves.


Perhaps in reaction to attacks questioning his experience, @RealBenCarson Tweeted about foreign policy more than any other candidate.
Our charts were produced with assistance from political scientist William P. Stodden, using Microsoft Excel.

magnitude.png

We looked at the top ten words uttered (a single Tweet can contain multiple keywords 'utterances') by the candidates and broke down those utterances by category. Here is what we found. The topics all candidates discussed most frequently on Twitter were the campaigns themselves, foreign policy, domestic policy, the economy, and other keywords unrelated to politics or the campaign.

  • @TedCruz is the only candidate that almost exclusively discussed his campaign, as opposed to any of the other category areas.
  • For most of the leading Republican candidates, the campaign itself is the plurality category. Meaning, these candidates Tweeted about their own campaigns more than any other single topic.
  • In the keyword cluster of recent utterances, @TedCruz's campaign was mentioned in 85% of Twitter keywords, followed by @RealDonaldTrump at 81%, @MarcoRubio at 74%, @John Kasich at 71%, and @JebBush 53%.
  • In contrast, @HillaryClinton Tweeted about her campaign 44% of time time, followed by @BernieSanders at 27%, and @MartinOMalley at 23%.
  • Democratic candidates also Tweeted about domestic policy and the economy more than Republican candidates.
  • Republican candidates Tweeted about foreign policy more than any Democratic candidates, but also Tweeted about their own campaigns more than any of the Democratic candidates.Perhaps in reaction to attacks questioning his experience, 
  • @RealBenCarson Tweeted about foreign policy more than any other candidate.

    Our charts were produced with assistance from political scientist William P. Stodden, using Microsoft Excel.



    Tuesday, February 2, 2016

    Google Surpasses Apple as the Most Valuable Public Company in the World

    20150929-google-event-5-sundar-pichai

    Google parent company Alphabet has taken away Apple’s title as the most valuable company in the world by reaching a market value of about $544 billion in after-hours trading today.

    Alphabet closed Monday at around $518 billion, but its after-hours stock spike means that it’s bigger — for now. We’ll see if it maintains that at tomorrow’s open.

    Apple passed Exxon Mobil in 2011 to become the most valuable public company in the world, worth around $350 billion, before falling to about $538 billion at today’s close.

    The changing of the guard here has less to do with an ascendant Alphabet and more to do with Apple’s iPhone sales, which are beginning to slow down. When Cupertino released its earnings report last week, it posted its slowest growth in phone sales since Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007.


    Monday, February 1, 2016

    The World’s Favorite New Tax Haven Is the United States (BusinessWeek)

    Moving money out of the usual offshore secrecy havens and into the U.S. is a brisk new business.

    Shifting money from offshore secrecy havens to the U.S. has become a brisk business for Rothschild & Co. One Turkish client is moving assets from the Bahamas to Nevada.
    Shifting money from offshore secrecy havens to the U.S. has become a brisk business for Rothschild & Co. One Turkish client is moving assets from the Bahamas to Nevada

    Last September, at a law firm overlooking San Francisco Bay, Andrew Penney, a managing director at Rothschild & Co., gave a talk on how the world’s wealthy elite can avoid paying taxes.

    His message was clear: You can help your clients move their fortunes to the United States, free of taxes and hidden from their governments.

    Some are calling it the new Switzerland.

    Featured in Bloomberg Businessweek, Feb. 1, 2016. Subscribe now.
             Featured in Bloomberg Businessweek, Feb. 1, 2016.

    After years of lambasting other countries for helping rich Americans hide their money offshore, the U.S. is emerging as a leading tax and secrecy haven for rich foreigners. By resisting new global disclosure standards, the U.S. is creating a hot new market, becoming the go-to place to stash foreign wealth. Everyone from London lawyers to Swiss trust companies is getting in on the act, helping the world’s rich move accounts from places like the Bahamas and the British Virgin Islands to Nevada, Wyoming, and South Dakota.

    “How ironic—no, how perverse—that the USA, which has been so sanctimonious in its condemnation of Swiss banks, has become the banking secrecy jurisdiction du jour,” wrote Peter A. Cotorceanu, a lawyer at Anaford AG, a Zurich law firm, in a recent legal journal. “That ‘giant sucking sound’ you hear? It is the sound of money rushing to the USA.”

    Rothschild, the centuries-old European financial institution, has opened a trust company in Reno, Nev., a few blocks from the Harrah’s and Eldorado casinos. It is now moving the fortunes of wealthy foreign clients out of offshore havens such as Bermuda, subject to the new international disclosure requirements, and into Rothschild-run trusts in Nevada, which are exempt.

    The U.S. “is effectively the biggest tax haven in the world” 
    —Andrew Penney, Rothschild & Co.

    The firm says its Reno operation caters to international families attracted to the stability of the U.S. and that customers must prove they comply with their home countries’ tax laws. Its trusts, moreover, have “not been set up with a view to exploiting that the U.S. has not signed up” for international reporting standards, said Rothschild spokeswoman Emma Rees.
    Others are also jumping in: Geneva-based Cisa Trust Co. SA, which advises wealthy Latin Americans, is applying to open in Pierre, S.D., to “serve the needs of our foreign clients,” said John J. Ryan Jr., Cisa’s president.

    Trident Trust Co., one of the world’s biggest providers of offshore trusts, moved dozens of accounts out of Switzerland, Grand Cayman, and other locales and into Sioux Falls, S.D., in December, ahead of a Jan. 1 disclosure deadline.

    “Cayman was slammed in December, closing things that people were withdrawing,” said Alice Rokahr, the president of Trident in South Dakota, one of several states promoting low taxes and confidentiality in their trust laws. “I was surprised at how many were coming across that were formerly Swiss bank accounts, but they want out of Switzerland.”

    Rokahr and other advisers said there is a legitimate need for secrecy. Confidential accounts that hide wealth, whether in the U.S., Switzerland, or elsewhere, protect against kidnappings or extortion in their owners’ home countries. The rich also often feel safer parking their money in the U.S. rather than some other location perceived as less-sure.

    “I do not hear anybody saying, ‘I want to avoid taxes,’ ” Rokahr said. “These are people who are legitimately concerned with their own health and welfare.”

    No one expects offshore havens to disappear anytime soon. Swiss banks still hold about $1.9 trillion in assets not reported by account holders in their home countries, according to Gabriel Zucman, an economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley. Nor is it clear how many of the almost 100 countries and other jurisdictions that have signed on will actually enforce the new disclosure standards, issued by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a government-funded international policy group.

    There’s nothing illegal about banks luring foreigners to put money in the U.S. with promises of confidentiality as long as they are not intentionally helping to evade taxes abroad. Still, the U.S. is one of the few places left where advisers are actively promoting accounts that will remain secret from overseas authorities.


    Rothschild’s Reno office is at the forefront of that effort. “The Biggest Little City in the World” is not an obvious choice for a global center of capital flight. If you were going to shoot a film set in Las Vegas circa 1971, you would film it in Reno. Its casino hotels tower above the bail bondsmen across the street, available 24/7, as well as pawnshops stocked with an array of firearms. The pink neon lights at casinos like Harrah’s and the Eldorado still burn bright. But these days, their floors are often empty, with travelers preferring to gamble in Las Vegas, an hour’s flight away.

    The offices of Rothschild Trust North America LLC aren’t easy to find. They’re on the 12th floor of Porsche’s former North American headquarters building, a few blocks from the casinos. (The U.S. attorney’s office is on the sixth floor.) Yet the lobby directory does not list Rothschild. Instead, visitors must go to the 10th floor, the offices of McDonald Carano Wilson LLP, a politically connected law firm. Several former high-ranking Nevada state officials work there, as well as the owner of some of Reno’s biggest casinos and numerous registered lobbyists. One of the firm’s tax lobbyists is Robert Armstrong, viewed as the state’s top trusts and estates attorney, and a manager of Rothschild Trust North America.

    The trust company was set up in 2013 to cater to international families, particularly those with a mix of assets and relatives in the U.S. and abroad, according to Rothschild. It caters to customers attracted to the “stable, regulated environment” of the U.S., said Rees, the Rothschild spokeswoman.

    “We do not offer legal structures to clients unless we are absolutely certain that their tax affairs are in order; both clients themselves and independent tax lawyers must actively confirm to us that this is the case,” Rees said.

    The managing director of the Nevada trust company is Scott Cripps, an amiable California tax attorney who used to run the trust services for Bank of the West, now part of French financial-services giant BNP Paribas SA. Cripps explained that moving money out of traditional offshore secrecy jurisdictions and into Nevada is a brisk new line of business for Rothschild.

    “There’s a lot of people that are going to do it,” said Cripps. “This added layer of privacy is kicking them over the hurdle” to move their assets into the U.S. For wealthy overseas clients, “privacy is huge, especially in countries where there is corruption.”

    One wealthy Turkish family is using Rothschild’s trust company to move assets from the Bahamas into the U.S., he said. Another Rothschild client, a family from Asia, is moving assets from Bermuda into Nevada. He said customers are often international families with offspring in the U.S.

    For decades, Switzerland has been the global capital of secret bank accounts. That may be changing. In 2007, UBS Group AG banker Bradley Birkenfeld blew the whistle on his firm helping U.S. clients evade taxes with undeclared accounts offshore. Swiss banks eventually paid a price. More than 80 Swiss banks, including UBS and Credit Suisse Group AG, have agreed to pay about $5 billion to the U.S. in penalties and fines.

    “I was surprised at how many were coming across that were formerly Swiss bank accounts, but they want out of Switzerland”

    Those firms also include Rothschild Bank AG, which last June entered into a nonprosecution agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice. The bank admitted helping U.S. clients hide income offshore from the Internal Revenue Service and agreed to pay an $11.5 million penalty and shut down nearly 300 accounts belonging to U.S. taxpayers, totaling $794 million in assets.

    The U.S. was determined to put an end to such practices. That led to a 2010 law, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or Fatca, that requires financial firms to disclose foreign accounts held by U.S. citizens and report them to the IRS or face steep penalties.

    Inspired by Fatca, the OECD drew up even stiffer standards to help other countries ferret out tax dodgers. Since 2014, 97 jurisdictions have agreed to impose new disclosure requirements for bank accounts, trusts, and some other investments held by international customers. Of the nations the OECD asked to sign on, only a handful have declined: Bahrain, Nauru, Vanuatu—and the United States.

    “I have a lot of respect for the Obama administration because without their first moves we would not have gotten these reporting standards,” said Sven Giegold, a member of the European Parliament from Germany’s Green Party. “On the other hand, now it’s time for the U.S. to deliver what Europeans are willing to deliver to the U.S.”

    The Treasury Department makes no apologies for not agreeing to the OECD standards.

    “The U.S. has led the charge in combating international tax evasion using offshore financial accounts,” said Treasury spokesman Ryan Daniels. He said the OECD initiative “builds directly” on the Fatca law.

    For financial advisers, the current state of play is simply a good business opportunity. In a draft of his San Francisco presentation, Rothschild’s Penney wrote that the U.S. “is effectively the biggest tax haven in the world.” The U.S., he added in language later excised from his prepared remarks, lacks “the resources to enforce foreign tax laws and has little appetite to do so.”

    Firms aren’t wasting time to make the most of the current environment. Bolton Global Capital, a Boston-area financial advisory firm, recently circulated this hypothetical example in an e-mail: A wealthy Mexican opens a U.S. bank account using a company in the British Virgin Islands. As a result, only the company’s name would be sent to the BVI government, while the identity of the person owning the account would not be shared with Mexican authorities.

    The U.S. failure to sign onto the OECD information-sharing standard is “proving to be a strong driver of growth for our business,” wrote Bolton’s chief executive officer, Ray Grenier, in a marketing e-mail to bankers. His firm is seeing a spike in accounts moved out of European banks—“Switzerland in particular”—and into the U.S. The new OECD standard “was the beginning of the exodus,” he said in an interview.

    The U.S. Treasury is proposing standards similar to the OECD’s for foreign-held accounts in the U.S. But similar proposals in the past have stalled in the face of opposition from the Republican-controlled Congress and the banking industry.

    At issue is not just non-U.S. citizens skirting their home countries’ taxes. Treasury also is concerned that massive inflows of capital into secret accounts could become a new channel for criminal money laundering. At least $1.6 trillion in illicit funds are laundered through the global financial system each year, according to a United Nations estimate.

    Offering secrecy to clients is not against the law, but U.S. firms are not permitted to knowingly help overseas customers evade foreign taxes, said Scott Michel, a criminal tax defense attorney at Washington, D.C.-based Caplin & Drysdale who has represented Swiss banks and foreign account holders.

    “To the extent non-U.S. persons are encouraged to come to the U.S. for what may be our own ‘tax haven’ characteristics, the U.S. government would likely take a dim view of any marketing suggesting that evading home country tax is a legal objective,” he said.
    Rothschild says it takes “significant care” to ensure account holders’ assets are fully declared. The bank “adheres to the legal, regulatory, and tax rules wherever we operate,” said Rees, the Rothschild spokeswoman.

    Penney, who oversees the Reno business, is a longtime Rothschild lawyer who worked his way up from the firm’s trust operations in the tiny British isle of Guernsey. Penney, 56, is now a managing director based in London for Rothschild Wealth Management & Trust, which handles about $23 billion for 7,000 clients from offices including Milan, Zurich, and Hong Kong. A few years ago he was voted “Trustee of the Year” by an elite group of U.K. wealth advisers.

    In his September San Francisco talk, called “Using U.S. Trusts in International Planning: 10 Amazing Feats to Impress Clients and Colleagues,” Penney laid out legal ways to avoid both U.S. taxes and disclosures to clients’ home countries.

    In a section originally titled “U.S. Trusts to Preserve Privacy,” he included the hypothetical example of an Internet investor named “Wang, a Hong Kong resident,” originally from the People’s Republic of China, concerned that information about his wealth could be shared with Chinese authorities.

    Putting his assets into a Nevada LLC, in turn owned by a Nevada trust, would generate no U.S. tax returns, Penney wrote. Any forms the IRS would receive would result in “no meaningful information to exchange under” agreements between Hong Kong and the U.S., according to Penney’s PowerPoint presentation reviewed by Bloomberg.

    Penney offered a disclaimer: At least one government, the U.K., intends to make it a criminal offense for any U.K. firm to facilitate tax evasion.

    Rothschild said the PowerPoint was subsequently revised before Penney delivered his presentation. The firm provided what it said was the final version of the talk, which this time excluded several potentially controversial passages. Among them: the U.S. being the “biggest tax haven in the world,” the U.S.’s low appetite for enforcing other countries’ tax laws, and two references to “privacy” offered by the U.S.

    “The presentation was drafted in response to a request by the organizers to be controversial and create a lively debate among the experienced, professional audience,” Rees said. “On reviewing the initial draft, these lines were not deemed to represent either Rothschild’s or Mr. Penney’s view. They were therefore removed.”