Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Xing.Com | Companies | Springhillgroup - Home Loans


SpringHill Group

Spring Hill, Birmingham B18 7BH
B18 7BHWest Midlands
United Kingdom


0121 464 7423

Industry: Business Supplies & EquipmentType: Publicly held corporationSize of company: 11-50 employeesEmployees on XING: 3Job Offers: 0

About us

Springhill Group Home is a housing finance company with the principal goal of achieving a social requirement of motivating home ownership by offering long-term finance to households. Springhill Group Home has turned the idea of housing finance in Springhill into a world-class business venture with outstanding reputation for dependability, honesty and outstanding services.
Springhill Group Home  has a wide network of contacts from different loan companies within United States and Asia catering to towns & cities spread across the country providing housing loans and property advisory services.
For inquiries, email us at info@springhillgrouphome.com

Foursquare | Newscentershgh - Springhill Group

Spring Hill Group Home

Springhill Group Home is a housing finance company with the principal goal of achieving a social requirement of motivating home ownership by offering long-term finance to households. Springhill Group Home has turned the idea of housing finance in Springhill into a world-class business venture with outstanding reputation for dependability, honesty and outstanding services.

Springhill Group Home has a wide network of contacts from different loan companies within United States and Asia catering to towns & cities spread across the country providing housing loans and property advisory services.

For inquiries, email us at info@springhillgrouphome.com

Monday, July 9, 2012

News Corp Splitting Into 2 Companies

Embattled Rupert Murdoch’s empire, News Corp. appears to be planning a spin-off of its core businesses.

Its own flagship newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, has reported this week that the company’s board is considering a proposal that will make its publishing arm into a separate company.

Springhill Group Home analysts expect such separation of assets would appease regulators and could help it to avoid selling a USD 6.9 billion stake. Fortunately, the same became true for investors as the announcement was met with the rallying of News Corp’s stock to 8.3% high — the highest level it has reached since 2007.
“News Corp. has one of the best TV businesses, but some people like musty, dusty publishing companies that pay great dividends. It’s a good thing for shareholders.” said an analyst from Lazard Capital.

The media conglomerate has not yet specified which business units would be grouped together but the company is reportedly mulling to separate the entertainment operations from the book and newspaper publishing one.

News Corp’s publishing business brought in USD 8.8 billion in profit last year, accounting for about 7% of the company’s enterprise value or 24% of the revenues. This division includes a number of prominent newspapers (Times of London, The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, The Australian and the Sun) and HarperCollins book publisher, all of which are valued for around USD 5 billion.

Meanwhile, its entertainment business is more profitable with revenues of USD 23.5 billion last year, accounting for around 75% of the firm’s profit and almost all of the operating revenue in the first half of the fiscal year. News Corp’s television and film business consists of the Fox News channel, Fox broadcasting network and 20th Century Fox film studio.
Experts are saying that the move to split the news and media operations from its more profitable film and TV businesses might be a good one, as the former has been marred by the phone-hacking scandal in UK and is continuously under pressure from failing advertising target revenues.

News Corp is retaining the investment banks Blair Ephron’s Centerview and Goldman Sachs in handling the process.

Q + A July 8 - Panel Discussions | Scoop News


Sunday, 8 July 2012, 6:35 pm
Press Release: TVNZ

Panel Discussions

In response to DAVID SMITH/DR ANDREW MARSHALL interviews

Time to welcome the panel. Dr Claire Robinson from Massey. Good to have you along with us. Heather Roy, former minister in the National-ACT Government and now head of the Pharmaceutical Association. Welcome along. Matt McCarten, head of the Unite Union, a political strategist and Herald on Sunday columnist. Got all that out of the way quite well, I thought. Matt, first of all, going back three years - Kate Wilkinson, the back down then. You were on the panel then. What was your reading of how all that played out?
MATT McCARTEN - Unite Union
Well, I think she just came unprepared, and she got spooked, and she didn’t know, she didn’t think about it, and she stumbled into it. It became a political management problem, not about the science itself. And as soon as she said, ‘We think it’s safe, but we’re not sure about the risk,’ it was all over. Key had to come in a step in, and they put the whole thing on hold, because Key is risk-averse. Now the debate’s back, and now we’ve got to have it, and it’s instructed that you’ve got to go all the way to Sweden to get somebody because everyone has run away. The people that were given the responsibility of making the decision on this won’t front, which then makes people even more concerned. So it is turning into a political football.
GREG Claire, are you satisfied that this has been politically transparent enough, as opposed to three years ago when it clearly wasn’t?
CLAIRE ROBINSON - Political Analyst
Well, I think the fact that it’s been out for public consultation for a few weeks now, and nobody is really knowing about it in the broader general public is quite telling. I think we haven’t heard- The minister, Kate Wilkinson, didn’t actually make the announcement of the public consultation period. That came out of the Ministry of Primary Industries. So it’s been kind of one of those clayton’s consultations. It’s one that they want to do because they have to do it, but they’re not really wanting to have a big public debate on it.
GREG Interestingly, no one’s really owned it. We’ve had education and Hekia Parata, we’ve had ACC and Judith Collins. Everyone’s just sort of-
CLAIRE I think because of Kate Wilkinson’s experience three years ago, she’s probably very nervous about it, and I think the government never really wanted fortification because they don’t like the idea that they have to instruct business. But I think, unfortunately, the evidence is showing that they have to have some position on it.
GREG Heather, what are your thoughts on this?
Well, I think it’s hard to extricate the science, actually, and the decision should be based on science, not on a political whim or strong-arming by any particular sector. I think we’ve got it right with voluntary fortification. We are three years further down the field in the debate, and the science has progressed since then. I think that Andrew’s commentary about Professor Smith was- it’s always a bit untidy when you have scientists arguing in public. But, with respect, Andrew is a paediatrician. Professor Smith is a pharmacologist, and a very well regarded one with a high position at Oxford University. We’re not talking about a technical college from the back of beyond. And I think that there is emerging evidence that there may be harm. If we’re going to go down the mass-medication route, we need to be absolutely certain that the benefits outweigh the harm.
GREG Do you think people have been well enough informed, though, given that there comes a point that what they’re talking about and what the mass of us will understand-?
HEATHER You mean informed about the benefit of folate?
GREG Either way, actually?
HEATHER No, I don’t, and I think the education campaigns are the things that should be embarked on first before we go down the road of mass medicating the whole population.
CLAIRE Mass medication is a very emotional term. It’s a bit like mass extinction. It’s one of those triggers that people think, ‘Oh my God, how could they possibly do this?’ We were discussing this before. You look at a box of anything, a packet in the supermarket, there’s a thousand ingredients in there. We don’t have any idea, actually, what they do. They’re all in there. People are very scared of that they could potentially get cancer from something.
GREG But Marshall said it’s categorically, absolutely 100% safe.
HEATHER That’s one opinion, and that’s not what others around the world are saying, and the benefits do have to outweigh the risks.
MATT We’ve got to hope that the pointy heads that are studying the science of this get it right. It’s a bit like GE, you know? That, actually, was the boost to the Greens and shoved them in that whole debate. But it was political, and this is the danger of science and politics meshing. And then you’ve got fluoride. Same thing. It goes in the water for the greater good, and you can argue both sides to it. But the thing is that for the greater good, it has made a difference.
GREG What I want to know on this is what are we missing here? Because there’s been so many people apparently calling out with bits of information, but I don’t want to talk. Another bit of information, I don’t want to talk. What’s the great secret agenda we’re not hearing here? If we’re talking half a cent a loaf. I can’t see there’s a massive cost there. Putting that to one side, what’s going on?
HEATHER It’s not just that. If people are scared that there’s going to be harm caused, they will stop buying bread. And that’s a much greater risk than the cost of adding folate to the bread.
CLAIRE But on top of that, there’s this idea that we don’t want to be told to do something. In the other example that I’ve been thinking about is when they were going to ban smoking in pubs and clubs. There was this, ‘Oh my God, how could the government possibly tell us that we can’t smoke where we choose?’ But, again, it came in. Everybody’s happy. There’s little smoking areas. They cope. We just don’t like to be told that we have to do something.
GREG Is this the thin edge of the wedge? If this goes ahead, are they going to go, ‘Right, we’re going to bung this in your water, and we’re going to put that in your bread, and we’re going to spray your vegetables with this, that and the other’? Does this open the door to do it more?
MATT No. I think it’s got to be seen on its merits. I think genuinely that doctors do see the results, and they say this simple thing will cure it or fix it to some extent. So I get all that, and I think it’s real. The thing that we were discussing before, the whole point of us even having to do this is because our diets are inadequate. We eat processed food because we’re served the stuff up from a young age. Crap, crap, crap, crap, crap, and we have deficiency of nutrition. No one understands it. If the government spent more time putting resources into education when you read the bottles and the packages and there are laws actually preventing harmful materials being put in food, but no one wants to do that. So this is a band aid on a problem which has been with us for generations.
HEATHER That, combined with the fact that the evidence isn’t conclusive. If you read the Ministry of Primary Industries-
GREG You’re stuck on this one.
HEATHER I am. Because I was a physiotherapist once upon a time. I took folic acid when I wanted to get pregnant and I was pregnant because I realised the risk of neural tube defects, and I wanted to do all I could to prevent that.
GREG But a lot of women don’t, and that’s who this aimed at.
HEATHER That’s exactly right, but the voluntary regime - 34 breads, actually - and many of our breakfast cereals have folate now. The evidence shows that New Zealand women have the same or better than levels of folate than American women who already have mandatory fortification.
GREG All right. We will leave that there.
In response to PETER DUNNE interview
First of all, Heather, if I can start with you. Peter Dunne’s stance on asset sales, has that damaged his reputation, which way he voted?
Um, some people will say it might have, but I don’t think so. I think that he did signal before the election that that’s where he stood on this matter. I think the more damaging thing is people see him as one man who’s- the tail wagging the dog, if you like. But I don’t buy that either. He’s one man, one vote. To get something through, it’s the way democracy works. You need a majority. 59 National MPs, one John Banks, one Peter Dunne is a majority. And so he is one of that set.
GREG We have had this road with Winston Peters, and it was a little bit different. How do you think Peter Dunne has been perceived as a result of this and where he’s still not quite standing on the pokies aspect?
CLAIRE ROBINSON - Political Analyst
I think the remarkable thing about Peter Dunne is he’s the longest serving continuous electorate MP in the House. I mean, you have to give the man kudos for being able to do that, for having incredible political smarts to be in a Cabinet role in just about every government since 1984. You know, he plays this game better than anybody else, and the fact that he is this last vote on many things is just extraordinary. I mean, he’s a survivor, that man. Regardless of what happens in this current term over asset sales or over pokies, he will get to that election in 2014, and he’ll probably still be the electorate member for Ohariu.
GREG To a degree, though, has his longevity not, to an extent, been down to kind of keeping his head down and grafting? He’s now got no choice. He’s at the forefront at the pointy end of things.
CLAIRE He’s been in all sorts of ministerial positions over that period of time, and he’s dealt with lots of difficult positions. No, he’s a survivor.
GREG What did you take from what he said on the pokies, Matt? It sounds like he’s leaning maybe backing it.
MATT McCARTEN - Unite Union
He’s going to vote with Key. I don’t think there’s any doubt in that. He’s going to vote with him on every occasion where it’s down to his vote. He’s National-lite. He’s there because National, like John Banks, allows him to be there. He’s not going with Labour. Labour won’t have him. Because if it comes down to only his vote to determine which government it’s going to be, it’s National. Everyone knows it. So it’s all just playing games. For all intents and purposes on all the main issues, he votes with National, and he has consistently. The only time he was in with Labour because at the previous election, he got a good vote, and he had seven MPs, and Clark wasn’t sure if that could happen again, so she was better to have him in the tent. But that is gone. That world has gone by now.
GREG He said he’s the only MP who’s actually honoured his word. Given what he is about-
MATT I think that is right. I actually don’t get as upset as others, because people come to me. ‘He’s the swing vote.’ I said, ‘What did he say in the election?’ And they said, ‘Oh, he’s going to support it.’ And I said, ‘Well, he’s going to support it.’ And I think that’s his legitimacy. And I think today by him being able to explain it just now, I think that actually helps his position. ‘I said it before the election. I’m voting on it now.’
GREG Heather, you were in a similar position with civil unions. How much pressure were you under? How much pressure will he be under with things like pokies, alcohol reform and so forth?
HEATHER Quite a lot. But I think Matt’s absolutely right. He’s signalled that he’s part of this government. He’s going to vote with National when it’s important to them. There might be the odd thing. But also remember that most legislation actually gets through the house with about 80% support from everybody. Occasionally the Greens will vote against something, but the majority is usually there. So he does have some power, and let’s hope that he actually uses it for the greater good.
GREG That’s costing him in his electorate, though, isn’t it? Is that something Labour’s going to hone in on come 2014?
MATT Yes, but it’s a Tory electorate. Let’s not keep thinking it’s some swing electorate. It’s always been deep blue. It’s like Epsom. If National gives him the nod, he’s not going to have any trouble at all.
CLAIRE Also the other thing is that his vote actually, his majority over Charles Chauvel increased in the last election.
GREG But it was only 1400 votes.
CLAIRE But it increased over a thousand in the 2008 election, so he’s still there. The bizarre thing about that Ohariu electorate is that the combined vote of Labour, the Greens and National over United Future is twice.
HEATHER And that’s important, because MMP means that you can still support the party you want, but have a bit of a flutter with the person that you want in. I wouldn’t be surprised if that did go-
MATT You’re starting to talk like him now.
GREG The word flutter. I remember it quite well.
In response to DR KERRY SPACKMAN interview
Heather, I’m going to start with you. Do we have winning politicians?
Do we have winning politicians? Well, some people say that government’s lose elections, not win them, so I’m not sure. But I think that certainly politicians want to win, and that’s what they’re there for. They’ve got things that they’re passionate about. They want to be in power so they put in place the policies that they believe in.
CLAIRE ROBINSON - Political Analyst
We’ve got winning politicians. We’ve got politicians that do pay a lot of attention to being leaders and qualities of leadership that matter.
GREG Actually, watching Peter Dunne in action before, the footwork on him is akin to anything Cassius Clay every managed. He managed to just… (IMITATES DODGING) He’s done it for years.
MATT McCARTEN - Unite Union
Here’s my thing about New Zealand politicians. I don’t think they actually do. If you look at Shearer, you look at Key, how they win is they appear not to want to win. It’s almost like-
HEATHER That’s part of it. It’s a matter of style.
MATT It just becomes their turn. We have a thing in this country. The parties go backwards and forwards.
GREG But you contrast that with- The Helen Clark MO was different to that, though. Why did that work for so long?
CLAIRE Helen Clark has exactly the same MO. This is something I look at quite a lot. It’s all about the relationships that they build with certain people and how they appear to be building them. So, Helen Clark has an extremely good ability to be seen to be relating to ordinary people. John Key has also had that. Slightly more diminished now. But it’s really important. How do you appear like an ordinary person?
MATT Clark was in Opposition for nine years. Led the Opposition for nine years before she won.
HEATHER That actually shows perseverance.
CLAIRE Or nobody else. (LAUGHS)
MATT If we had an approach at the Olympics - ‘We’ll wait and we’ll go on.’ I’m saying that in New Zealand, I think they don’t put the big vision up, and you actually just wait your turn. We know perfectly well as political observers that when Labour lost and Goff because the Opposition leader, the scuttle bug within the party is we’re going to be out for two terms, and then we’ll have a real go. And it was just pacing time. Same with when a government comes in, we’ll get at least two terms, and we’ll coast along. I was quite interested in this technology-
GREG What about the exodus to Australia, because that would determine, ‘They’re the winners; we’re not.’
MATT That’s ok. It’s not winning.
CLAIRE It’s not about following winners. Those people are just following the dollar. You look at the news this last week. You know, you’ve got Australian businessmen asking John Key if he can come over the work over there because they want some of his leadership as opposed to Julia Gillard’s.
MATT Well, we should warn them. (ALL LAUGH)
GREG We’ll wrap it out.