Mediaboss Marketing

comdirect: record pre-tax profit of EUR 108.1m -  over 2.6 million
customers - dividend proposal of 56 cents per share

Quickborn/Frankfurt/Main, 16 February 2012. The comdirect group closed
financial year 2011 with pre-tax profit of EUR 108.1m. This surpassed the
previous year´s figure of EUR 80.9m by a good third, making it the best
result in the company´s history. ´The high level of profitability confirms
the comdirect group´s sound business model and shows that following growth
in recent years it is able to extensively benefit from developments in the
market, ´ says Dr. Thorsten Reitmeyer, CEO of comdirect bank. After-tax
profit stands at EUR 111.8m and reflects a tax refund amounting to some EUR
37m, which relates to appeal proceedings dating back several years.

Shareholders are set to benefit from this positive development and a
dividend of 56 cents per share (previous year: 42 cents) will be proposed
to the annual general meeting. This constitutes a full distribution based
on the operating profit including the interest payments on the tax refund.
The tax refund itself will be partially retained to strengthen equity with
a view to further growth.

The comdirect group generated income of EUR 340.2m (previous year: EUR
290.9m) in financial year 2011. This record figure stems from the increased
number of trades by customers in a volatile market environment as well as
higher market interest rates compared with the previous year. Consequently,
at EUR 182.6m net commission income was up 6% on the previous year (EUR
172.8m) and net interest income before provisions rose by 48% to EUR 150.8m
(previous year: EUR 102.1m). Other income included interest payments of
around EUR 9m on the tax refund.

The increase in total income of 17% was countered by a disproportionately
lower rise in administrative expenses of 11% to EUR 232.1m (previous year:
EUR 210.0m) resulting in part from intensified marketing activities.

At the year-end, the total number of customers in the comdirect group stood
at 2,630,525 and total assets under custody amounted to EUR 41.59bn. In the
B2C business line (comdirect bank AG) the number of customers has increased
by 73 thousand to 1,632,467 since the start of the year. At EUR 24.90bn at
the end of 2011, assets under custody were down on the level at the end of
2010 (EUR 26.32bn). This was due to the decline in the portfolio volume as
a result of price slides on the stock exchanges, particularly in the third
quarter. 1,235,770 customers had a Tagesgeld PLUS (´call money plus´)
account, which is a rise of 105 thousand. The number of current accounts
increased by 127 thousand to 774,518 and the number of custody accounts by
35 thousand to 783,616.

In the B2B business line (ebase GmbH), the number of customers serviced
climbed by 261 thousand to 998,058 compared with the end of 2010 (737,054).
This rise was attributable to the takeover of customers of renowned
partners in the insurance and investment sectors. Furthermore, around 195
thousand Commerzbank customers have been included following implementation
of a partner-specific white label variant in the second quarter. Assets
under custody rose to EUR 16.69bn (year-end 2010: EUR 16.22bn).

The full annual report 2011 will be published on 27 March 2012. The figures
in this press release are unaudited.

Overview

EUR´000                                  2010    Q1/11    Q2/11    Q3/11
Net interest income before            102,074   33,262   37,624   39,352
provisions
Provisions for possible loan losses      -255     -148     -419     -474
Net commission income                 172,772   50,144   40,308   50,262
Other income                           16,311      324      374   -1,852
Administrative expenses               210,028   58,724   52,322   59,092
Pre-tax profit                         80,874   24,858   25,565   28,196
After-tax profit                       59,634   18,235   18,856   20,458

EUR´000                                  Q4/11      2011   2011 vs. 2010
Net interest income before provisions   40,609   150,847           47.8%
Provisions for possible loan losses       -290    -1,331            n.a.
Net commission income                   41,871   182,585            5.7%
Other income                             9,203     8,049          -50,7%
Administrative expenses                 61,936   232,074           10.5%
Pre-tax profit                          29,457   108,076           33.6%
After-tax profit                        54,214   111,763           87.4%

Length:  3,154 characters including spaces, excluding table

All images for the press and analysts´ conference on 16 February will be
available as of 15.00 hrs at http://www.comdirect.de/bildmaterial
All press releases are available at http://www.comdirect.de/pr

If you no longer wish to receive these press releases, please send an
e-mail to presse@comdirect.de.

End of Corporate News

Read the original:
DGAP-News: comdirect bank AG: record pre-tax profit of EUR 108.1m - over 2.6 million customers - dividend proposal of ...

Exclusive: The U.S. news media has consistently created the impression that Iran is building a nuclear bomb and that its denials shouldn’t be taken seriously. However, U.S. and Israeli intelligence assessments may finally be eroding that smug certainty, Robert Parry reports.

By Robert Parry

What can one say when the Washington Post’s neoconservative editorial writers more correctly describe the U.S. and Israeli assessments on Iran’s nuclear program than does a news story in the New York Times? In a Wednesday morning surprise, a Washington Post editorial got the nuances, more or less, right in stating: “U.S. and Israeli officials share an assessment that, though Iran is building up nuclear capability, it has not taken decisive steps toward building a bomb.”

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testifying before Congress, seated next to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey (Defense Department photo)

You could still say the Post is hyping things a bit, skewing the wording in an anti-Iranian direction, but the sentence is essentially correct on where U.S. and Israeli intelligence judgments stand, that Iran has NOT made a decision to build a nuclear bomb.

But then there’s the New York Times. It continues to mislead its readers, albeit with a new weasel word inserted to avoid being accused of completely misstating the facts. In a news article on Wednesday, the Times reported that “the United States, Europe and Israel have all called [Iran’s nuclear] program a cover for Iranian efforts to develop nuclear weapons capability, an accusation that Iran denies.”

The key weasel word now is “capability,” which is a very elastic concept since any work on nuclear research for peaceful purposes, such as low-level enrichment of uranium, could theoretically be used toward a weapons “capability.” (The word also appeared in the Post editorial.)

There’s a parallel here to President George W. Bush’s statements about the Iraq War: Remember, after his promised Iraqi stockpiles of WMD didn’t materialize, Bush retreated to claims about WMD “programs,” i.e. the possibility that something might have occurred down the road, not that it actually had happened, was happening or was likely to happen. “Capability” is now filling a similar role.

So, instead of stating that U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies concur that Iran’s leadership has NOT made a decision to go forward with a nuclear bomb, the Times creates a false impression that they have done so – by suggesting Iran is making progress toward a “nuclear weapons capability.”

If that wording leaves you with the notion that Iranian leaders have decided to press ahead in building a nuclear bomb (but are lying about their intent), you can be forgiven because that seems to be the misimpression the Times wants you to have. Indeed, even well-informed Americans have come away with precisely that misimpression.

And there’s another parallel to Bush’s case for war with Iraq, when he falsely implied that pre-invasion Iraq was allied with al-Qaeda, without actually saying precisely that. Any casual listener to Bush’s speeches would have made the implicit connection, which was what Bush clearly intended with his juxtaposition of words, but his defenders could still argue that he hadn’t exactly made the link explicit.

Now this sleight of hand is being done mostly by the U.S. news media, including the New York Times in its influential news columns. To state the obvious, employing misleading word constructions to confuse readers is an inappropriate technique for a responsible news organization.

Intelligence Assessments

The Times and most other major U.S. news outlets have refused to alter their boilerplate on Iran’s nuclear ambitions (beyond slipping in the word “capability”), even as a consensus has emerged among the intelligence agencies of the United States – and Israel – that Iran has NOT made a decision to build a nuclear weapon.

As ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern has noted, this intelligence judgment has even been expressed recently by high-profile figures in the defense establishments of the two countries – U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

In an article entitled “US/Israel: Iran NOT Building Nukes,” McGovern wrote: “You might think that you would have heard more about that, wouldn’t you? U.S. and Israel agree that Iran is NOT building a nuclear bomb. However, this joint assessment that Iran has NOT decided to build a nuclear bomb apparently represented too big a change in the accepted narrative for the Times and the rest of the FCM [Fawning Corporate Media] to process.”

McGovern cited an interview by Barak on Jan. 18 in which the Defense Minister was asked:

Question: Is it Israel’s judgment that Iran has not yet decided to turn its nuclear potential into weapons of mass destruction?

Barak: … confusion stems from the fact that people ask whether Iran is determined to break out from the control [inspection] regime right now … in an attempt to obtain nuclear weapons or an operable installation as quickly as possible. Apparently that is not the case. …

Question: How long will it take from the moment Iran decides to turn it into effective weapons until it has nuclear warheads?

Barak: I don’t know; one has to estimate. … Some say a year, others say 18 months. It doesn’t really matter. To do that, Iran would have to announce it is leaving the [UN International Atomic Energy Agency] inspection regime and stop responding to IAEA’s criticism, etc.

Why haven’t they [the Iranians] done that? Because they realize that … when it became clear to everyone that Iran was trying to acquire nuclear weapons, this would constitute definite proof that time is actually running out. This could generate either harsher sanctions or other action against them. They do not want that.

Question: Has the United States asked or demanded that the government inform the Americans in advance, should it decide on military action?

Barak: I don’t want to get into that. We have not made a decision to opt for that, we have not decided on a decision-making date. The whole thing is very far off. …

Question: You said the whole thing is “very far off.” Do you mean weeks, months, years?

Barak: I wouldn’t want to provide any estimates. It’s certainly not urgent. I don’t want to relate to it as though tomorrow it will happen.

Less Alarming Consensus

In a Jan. 19 article on Barak’s interview, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz summed up the Israeli view as follows: “The intelligence assessment … indicates that Iran has not yet decided whether to make a nuclear bomb.

“The Israeli view is that while Iran continues to improve its nuclear capabilities, it has not yet decided whether to translate these capabilities into a nuclear weapon – or, more specifically, a nuclear warhead mounted atop a missile. Nor is it clear when Iran might make such a decision.”

McGovern noted that Barak in the interview appeared to be identifying himself with the consistent assessment of the U.S. intelligence community since late 2007 that Iran has not made a decision to go forward with a nuclear bomb. The formal National Intelligence Estimate of November 2007 – a consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies – stated:

“We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; … Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005.”

Despite complaints about the NIE from some American and Israeli war hawks, senior U.S. officials have continued to stand by it. Defense Secretary Panetta raised the topic himself in an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Jan. 8.

Panetta said “the responsible thing to do right now is to keep putting diplomatic and economic pressure on them [the Iranians] … and to make sure that they do not make the decision to proceed with the development of a nuclear weapon.”

Panetta was making the implicit point that the Iranians had not made that decision, but just in case someone might miss his meaning, Panetta posed the direct question to himself: “Are they [the Iranians] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.”

Today, it appears that even the neocon editors of the Washington Post have been forced to accept this important distinction, grudging as that acknowledgement may have been. The New York Times, however, has simply inserted the new weasel word, “capability,” which could mean almost anything and which still misleads readers.

To its credit, perhaps, the Times did include another relevant fact near the end of its Wednesday article, noting that Israel is “a nuclear weapons state.” That’s a key fact in understanding why Iran might want a nuclear deterrent but is rarely cited by the Times in its background on the current crisis.

For further context, the Times also might want to add that Israel’s nuclear arsenal remains undeclared and that Israel – unlike Iran – has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or to allow international inspectors into Israeli nuclear facilities. But such balance may be simply too much to expect from the Times.

[For more on related topics, see Robert Parry’s Lost History, Secrecy & Privilege and Neck Deep, now available in a three-book set for the discount price of only $29. For details, click here.]

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth’ are also available there.

Tags: Ahud Barak, George W. Bush, Iran, Israel, Leon Panetta, New York Times, nuclear weapons, Robert Parry, Washington Post

Go here to see the original:
New Weasel Word on Iran Nukes

13-02-2012 21:08 Visit: http://www.DavidEspino.com to check out additional resources! Also, be sure to subscribe so that you get all our videos. Our goal is to help 1 million people discover the internet lifestyle by teaching eBay, Affiliate Marketing and Info-Product Marketing and we are 1 of the way there! Dave Espino is an eBay and Internet Marketing expert who is famous for his "Auctions For Income" eBay infomercial. He is also the author of the bestselling "Auctions For Income" eBay success system and has helped more than 300000 people learn how to use the internet to make more money. His goal is to help more than 1 million people discover the secrets of making money online and this YouTube channel is how he plans to do it! So be sure to subscribe, like and comment!

More here:
How To Make Money Online - 4 Proven Website Business Models, Part 4 - How To Build Residual Income - Video

14-02-2012 04:04 bit.ly I Have Just Got An Amazing E-book Which Can Guarantee Make You $2700 In Just 6 Days. I am Giving This E-book For Free To Everyone Who Want To Make Money Online Without Any Investment. More Details On This E-book Is Described Below: I Also Never Knew That Cracking Internet Marketing Success Code Would Be Too Easy. I won't say that I wasn't making any money before this method. I was making money before too, but this method really made me to think about those precious hundreds of hours which I wasted in the past and GOT NOTHING!

Read the original post:
How To Make Money Online By Selling Digital Products Unique Methods the 2012 - Video

14-02-2012 16:08 I Marry Money (Rebeca) was written about a pig of a boss I once worked for. She lived amongst the cockroaches in a rundown apartment and got married to someone who 'saved' her and bought her a lot of things. She used those things as an attempt to fill an empty void in her life, but failed miserably at doing so. She thought that trying to change other people around her could help change herself. As much as she strives to be a unique flower each day, she is simply one of the many cockroaches left behind, crawling around on her apartment floor. http://www.glamourkings.com

Go here to see the original:
Glamourkings - I Marry Money (Rebeca) - Video