Connect with us

Published

on

In the midst of the financial crisis in October 2008, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. CEO Warren Buffett made a significant late-night phone call to the then-Treasury Secretary Henry "Hank" Paulson. Buffett aimed to share an idea that could potentially revive the struggling economy.

Don't Miss:Why Silicon Valley Elites Are Betting On This Startups Vision For Reuniting American Families

Paulson, exhausted from a long night of collaborating with his team on policy ideas to restore confidence in Wall Street, recalls his weariness during that period. He shares his experience in the documentary "Panic: The Untold Story of the 2008 Financial Crisis." The documentary features interviews with notable figures, including former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, providing insights from both the government and private-sector perspectives.

During this time, Congress had recently passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, also known as the "bailout bill," along with the establishment of the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) to acquire assets from failing banks. Despite these measures, investor concerns remained unabated.

"While we were getting this legislation in Congress, the situation worsened," Paulson said. "We had the two biggest bank failures in U.S. history with Wachovia and Washington Mutual. We needed something that was going to work much quicker and be more powerful."Buffetts Proposal

Amidst the frantic search for an effective solution, Buffett reached out to Paulson with his proposal.

Initially caught off guard by the unexpected call and not recognizing the voice on the other end, Paulson humorously recalls his confusion, remarking, "My mom has a handyman named Warren. Im saying, Why is he calling me?'"

As Paulson gathered his bearings, he listened to Buffett's suggestion, acknowledging that it held the essence of what would eventually be implemented.

Buffett recalls saying, "It might make more sense to put more capital in the banks than it would to try and buy these assets."

Following Buffett's suggestion, a meeting was convened on Oct. 13, bringing together prominent bank CEOs such as John Mack of Morgan Stanley, Jamie Dimon of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, John Thain of Merrill Lynch, and Vikram Pandit of Citigroup. The objective was to discuss the proposal at the Treasury.

To stay updated with top startup news & investments,sign up for Benzinga's Startup Investing & Equity Crowdfunding Newsletter

While not all banks required immediate assistance, some CEOs expressed reluctance to accept cash injections, fearing it would indicate financial struggles and potentially lead to investor withdrawals. Nevertheless, Paulson stressed the crucial nature of the bailout to restore economic faith, eventually garnering unanimous agreement.

Mack recalls thinking, "Look, if I get lucky, my board will fire me, and I'll get out of all this craziness."

The outcome of the meeting resulted in the Treasury injecting $250 billion into the banking system using funds from TARP.Public Perception

The bailout's reception varied. Protesters took to the streets, expressing disapproval that taxpayer money was used to rescue wealthy Wall Street investors who, in the eyes of many, caused the crisis through their poor judgment.

One sign read, "CASH for TRASH?" Another read, "Bail Out Working People, Not the Rich!"

"I think there are still many people who believe that we bailed out companies and helped Wall Street because we were trying to help our friends in the financial industry and not out of our interest in defending the U.S. economy," former Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke said.

Paulson, Bernanke and New York Fed President Timothy Geithner emphasize that their actions were intended to aid Main Street by rescuing Wall Street. While admitting to imperfections in their crisis management, such as the inability to save Lehman Brothers from collapse, they stand by their decision to infuse funds into the economy through the banking sector.

See Next:This Startup Invented Programmable, Drinkable Plastic That Dissolves In Water In 60 Hours

Paulson highlights the steady recovery of the market and indexes like the S&P 500 since 2009, dubbing the bailout "the most successful program that is broadly hated in the history of mankind."

Echoing this sentiment, Bush believes it to be "probably the greatest financial bailout ever," even though he acknowledges the inability to provide irrefutable evidence, firmly believing that the intervention likely averted a severe depression.

A decade later in 2018, Buffett stated that another financial crisis is inevitable because of the same fundamental human traits jealousy and greed that contributed to the previous one 10 years ago. "That's a permanent part of the system," he said.

In March, a series of small to mid-size U.S. bank failures sent shockwaves through the global banking sector, resulting in a rapid decline in bank stock prices. Swift action by regulators aimed to prevent potential worldwide contagion. Buffett commended the government's intervention, emphasizing its role in averting a more significant crisis.

Buffett expressed little surprise at the banks' failures, attributing them to the growing complexity of the U.S. banking system. He revealed that he had been gradually divesting his holdings in bank stocks, beginning at the onset of the pandemic and continuing over the past six months. He cited increasing mismanagement within banks and their responses to flawed incentives as factors driving his decision.

"The American public doesn't understand their banking system and some people in Congress dont understand it any more than I understand it," Buffett said, highlighting the widespread lack of comprehension surrounding the intricacies of the banking industry.Getting Away from the Stock Market

The stock market has no shortage of volatility. From inflation to banking collapses the daily concerns of the modern investor continue to grow. Holding through the volatility can be difficult, which is why hundreds of thousands of investors have begun diversifying into startups with platforms like StartEngine and Wefunder. StartEngine allows anyone to invest in startups, including investing in StartEngine itself. This allows investors to diversify into a new asset class and shift their investment thesis to a more long-term approach circumventing much of the volatility associated with the open market. For example, Gameflip is a startup currently that is consistently raising millions from retail investors and venture capital alike.

See more onstartup investingfrom Benzinga. AI Startups Turn to Retail Investors To Fund the Growth of the $1.59 Trillion Artificial Intelligence Market Be An Owner, Not Just A Consumer: Retail Investors Are Taking Stakes In Their Favorite Startups To Own The Upside

Continue Reading

Sports

Is it the coach or the program? Ranking CFB coaches while factoring in expectations

Published

on

By

Is it the coach or the program? Ranking CFB coaches while factoring in expectations

Back in May, ESPN’s team of college football reporters voted on the sport’s best coaches for 2025. The results were about as you would expect: Start with the three active guys who have most recently won national titles (Georgia’s Kirby Smart, Ohio State’s Ryan Day, Clemson’s Dabo Swinney), move on to guys with recent top-five finishes or national title game appearances (Notre Dame’s Marcus Freeman, Texas’ Steve Sarkisian, Oregon’s Dan Lanning, Alabama’s Kalen DeBoer, Penn State’s James Franklin), then squeeze in a couple of long-term overachievers at the end (Utah’s Kyle Whittingham, Iowa State’s Matt Campbell).

The rankings made plenty of sense, but I couldn’t help but notice that the top eight coaches on the list all work for some of the richest, most well-supported programs in the country. There are some epic pressures associated with leading these programs — just ask Day — but there are also major advantages. It might only take a good head coach to do great things in those jobs, while at programs with smaller alumni bases or lesser historic track records, it might take a great coach to do merely good things. They’re such different jobs that it’s almost impossible to even know how to compare the performance of, say, Matt Campbell to Steve Sarkisian. Could Campbell have led Texas to back-to-back CFP semifinals? Could Sark have brought ISU its first two AP top-15 finishes?

The May rankings made me want to see if there were a way to apply stats to the conversation. If you think about it, we’re basically measuring two things when we’re gauging coach performance: overall quality and quality relative to the expectations of the job. I thought it would be fun to come up with a blend of those two things and see what the results told us.

Performance versus expectation

Gauging overall performance is easy enough. You could simply look at win percentage, and it would tell you quite a bit. From 2015 to 2024, the active coaches with the best FBS win percentages (minimum 30 games) were Day (.870), Lanning (.854), Swinney (.850) and Smart (.847). All ranked high in the May rankings. I tend to want to get fancy and use my SP+ ratings whenever possible, and they tell a similar tale. Looking at average SP+ ratings for the past decade, the top active coaches are Day (30.4), Smart (27.0), Lanning (22.3), Swinney (21.9), Franklin (20.3) and Freeman (19.0). They’re all in the May top 10 too.

Again, though, all of those coaches are employed by college football royalty. (Granted, Swinney gets bonus points for helping Clemson turn into college football royalty, but still.) Isn’t it more impressive to win 11 regular-season games at Indiana, as Curt Cignetti did in 2024, than to go 10-4 like Swinney did? Isn’t it probably harder to finish 12th in SP+ at SMU, as Rhett Lashlee did in 2024, than to finish fifth like Franklin did?

I’ve begun to incorporate teams’ performance against long-term averages into my preseason SP+ projections, and it seems we could use a very similar concept to evaluate coach performances. For each year someone is a head coach, we could compare his team’s SP+ rating for that season to the school’s average from the 20 previous years. (If the school is newer to FBS and doesn’t have a 20-year average, we can use whatever average exists to date. And for a program’s first FBS season, we can simply compare the team’s SP+ rating to the overall average for first-year programs.)

By this method, the 10 best single-season coaching performances of the past 20 years include Art Briles at Baylor in 2013-14, Jim Harbaugh at Stanford in 2010, Mark Mangino at Kansas in 2007, Bobby Petrino at Louisville in 2006, Greg Schiano at Rutgers in 2006 and Jamey Chadwell at Coastal Carolina in 2020 — legendary seasons of overachievement — plus perhaps lesser-remembered performances such as Gary Andersen at Utah State in 2012, Matt Wells at Utah State in 2018 and Brian Kelly at Cincinnati in 2007.

As far as single-season overachievement goes, that’s a pretty good list. And if we look at a longer-term sample — coaches who have led FBS programs for at least nine of the past 20 years — here are the 15 best performance versus baseline averages.

(Note: I’m looking only at performances within the past 20 years, so Nick Saban’s work at LSU (2000-04) or Michigan State (1995-99), for instance, isn’t included. I also went with nine years instead of 10 so Smart’s current nine-year run at Georgia could be included in the sample.)

Best performance vs. historic baseline averages for the past 20 years (min. nine seasons):

1. Chris Petersen, Boise State (2006-13) and Washington (2014-19): +12.8 points above historic baseline

2. Art Briles, Houston (2005-07) and Baylor (2008-15): +12.8

3. Gary Pinkel, Missouri (2005-15): +12.5

4. Nick Saban, Alabama (2007-23): +10.7

5. Jeff Monken, Army (2014-24): +10.3

6. Willie Fritz, Georgia Southern (2014-15), Tulane (2016-23) and Houston (2024): +10.0

7. Lance Leipold, Buffalo (2015-20) and Kansas (2021-24): +9.5

8. Bobby Petrino, Louisville (2005-06), Arkansas (2008-11), Western Kentucky (2013) and Louisville (2014-18): +9.5

9. Gary Patterson, TCU (2005-21): +8.6

10. Jim Harbaugh, Stanford (2007-10) and Michigan (2015-23): +8.5

11. Blake Anderson, Arkansas State (2014-20) and Utah State (2021-23): +8.5

12. Steve Spurrier, South Carolina (2005-15): +8.2

13. Greg Schiano, Rutgers (2005-11 and 2020-24): +7.8

14. Jeff Brohm, Western Kentucky (2014-16), Purdue (2017-22) and Louisville (2023-24): +7.7

15. David Cutcliffe, Duke (2008-21): +7.7

If we are looking for pure overachievement and aren’t in the mood to reward coaches for winning at schools that always win, this is again a pretty good list. Petersen was spectacular at both Boise State and Washington, while Briles, Pinkel, Monken and Patterson all won big at schools that hadn’t won big in quite a while. (Monken, in fact, is still winning big.) Blake Anderson’s presence surprised me, but most of the names here are extremely well regarded. And Saban’s presence at No. 4, despite coaching at one of the bluest of blue-blood programs, is a pretty good indicator of just how special his reign at Alabama was.

Still, looking only at performance against expectations obviously sells coaches like Saban and Smart short. Saban is probably the best head coach in the sport’s history but ranks only fourth on the above list. Meanwhile, Smart has overachieved by only 6.0 points above the historic baseline in his nine seasons at Georgia thanks to the high bar predecessor Mark Richt set. But he has also won two national titles, overcoming Georgia’s history of falling just short and at least briefly surpassing Saban as well. If our goal is to measure coaching prowess, we need to account for raw quality too.


The best coaches of the past 20 years

If we combine raw SP+ averages with this performance versus baseline average, we can come up with a pretty decent overall coach rating. We can debate the weights involved, but here’s what an overall rating looks like if we use 60% performance versus baseline and 40% SP+ average:

I always like to say that numbers make great starting points for a conversation, and this is a pretty good starting point. Anyone reading this would probably tweak this list to suit their own preferences, and while it probably isn’t surprising that Pinkel is in the top 20, seeing him fourth, ahead of Meyer, Harbaugh and others, is a bit jarring. (I promise that this Mizzou alum didn’t put his finger on the scales.) Regardless, this is a fun mix of guys who won big at big schools and guys who won pretty big at pretty big schools. That was the goal of the exercise.

Maybe the most confusing coach in this top 20 is Dabo Swinney. Clemson had enjoyed just one AP top-five finish in its history before he took over 16 years ago, and he has led the Tigers to 2 national titles, 6 top-five finishes and 7 CFP appearances. And while they haven’t had a true, title-caliber team in a few years, they’ve still won two of the past three ACC crowns. How is he only 10th?

The main culprit for Swinney’s lower-than-expected ranking is his recent performance — it has been inferior to both national title standards and his standards. Since we’re using a team’s performance against 20-year averages, a lot of this rating is basically comparing Swinney to himself, and he hasn’t quite measured up of late.

From 2012 to 2020, Swinney’s average rating was an incredible 17.0, which would have ranked second to only Saban on the list above. But his average over the past four seasons is only 3.6.

Part of what made Saban so impressive was how long he managed to clear the bar he himself was setting in Tuscaloosa. Per SP+, his best team was his 14th — the 2020 team that won his sixth and final title at Bama. While Swinney was basically matching Saban’s standard 12 years into their respective tenures, Saban continued at a particularly high level for at least three more years while Swinney fell off the pace.

Comparing Saban, Swinney and Smart year by year, we see that Smart was hitting Saban-esque levels seven seasons into his tenure, but his rating has fallen off each of the past two seasons. Even Saban slipped starting in Year 15, even though he still had nearly the best program in the sport for a couple more years.


The best coaches of 2025

Six of the top seven coaches on the list above are either retired or coaching in the NFL now, so let’s focus our gaze specifically on the guys who will be leading college teams out onto the field in 2025. Using the same 20-year sample as above — which cuts off the tenure of Iowa’s Kirk Ferentz but includes everything else — here’s how the current crop of FBS head coaches has performed at the FBS level. We’ll break this into two samples: the guys who have coached for at least four years in this sample and the guys who have coached between one and three years.

Our May top 10 list featured eight guys who have been head coaches for at least four years; all eight are represented on this list, including four of the top five. (Sarkisian has averaged a 13.8 rating over the past two seasons, which is a top-five level, but his overall run as head coach at Washington, USC and Texas has featured a number of ups and downs.)

Maybe the name that jumps out the most above is Josh Heupel. I think anyone would consider him a very good coach (he’s 37-15 overall), but he doesn’t exactly draw any “best in the game?” hype. He benefited from a positive situation at UCF, where he inherited a rising program from Scott Frost in 2019 and produced big ratings in his first couple of years on the job. But his average rating at Tennessee has been a solid 14.0 as well; the Volunteers had been up and down for years, but he has produced four top-20 SP+ ratings in a row and two top-10s in the past three years. He might not be getting the credit he deserves for that.

All in all, I enjoy this list. We’ve got mostly predictable names at the top, we’ve got some oldies but (mostly) goodies spread throughout, and we’ve got room for up-and-comers like Jeff Traylor too. This 60-40 approach probably doesn’t give enough respect to the Chris Creightons of the world — the Eastern Michigan coach has overachieved against EMU’s baseline by 7.2 points per season, which is a fantastic average, but at such a hard job, his Eagles have still averaged only a minus-14.4 SP+ rating during his tenure. Still, this is a mostly solid approach.

Now let’s talk about some small-sample all-stars.

Four of the top six of this list coached in the College Football Playoff last season, and while the guys ranked fifth and sixth made our May top 10 list, the guys who won big at SMU and Indiana, not Oregon and Notre Dame, take priority here. I was honestly floored that Curt Cignetti didn’t make our top 10 list; he led James Madison to one of the best FBS debuts ever, going 19-4 in 2022-23, then he moved to Bloomington and led Indiana — INDIANA! — to 11 wins in his first season there.

On this list, however, Rhett Lashlee tops even Cignetti. I’m not sure we’ve talked enough about the job he has done at SMU. He, too, inherited a rising program, as Sonny Dykes had done some of the nitty-gritty work in getting the Mustangs back on their feet (with help from an offensive coordinator named Rhett Lashlee). SMU hadn’t produced a top-50 ranking since 1985 before Dykes did so for three straight seasons (2019-21). But after holding steady in his first year replacing Dykes, Lashlee’s program has ignited: 12-2 and 24th in SP+ in 2023, then 11-3 and 12th in 2024. Looking specifically at the 2021-24 range, as the game has undergone so much change, Lashlee’s 16.8 average rating ranks second overall, behind only Smart (18.0) and ahead of Kiffin (15.1), Cignetti (15.0), Odom (15.0), Heupel (14.0) and Day (13.9).

Along with quite a few others here, Lashlee made my 2024 list of 30 coaches who would define the next decade; he’d definitely still be on the list — along with new additions like GJ Kinne and perhaps Fran Brown — if I remade that list today.

Continue Reading

UK

David Fuller: Offences committed by hospital worker who sexually abused dozens of corpses ‘could happen again’

Published

on

By

David Fuller: Offences committed by hospital worker who sexually abused dozens of corpses 'could happen again'

An inquiry into the case of a hospital worker who sexually abused dozens of corpses has concluded that “offences such as those committed by David Fuller could happen again”.

It found that “current arrangements in England for the regulation and oversight of the care of people after death are partial, ineffective and, in significant areas, completely lacking”.

The first phase of the inquiry found Fuller, 70, was able to offend for 15 years in mortuaries without being suspected or caught due to “serious failings” at the hospitals where he worked.

Phase 2 of the inquiry has examined the broader national picture and considered if procedures and practices in other hospital and non-hospital settings, where deceased people are kept, safeguard their security and dignity.

What were Fuller’s crimes?

Fuller was given a whole-life prison term in December 2021 for the murders of Wendy Knell and Caroline Pierce in Tunbridge Wells, Kent, in 1987.

During his time as a maintenance worker, he also abused the corpses of at least 101 women and girls at Kent and Sussex Hospital and the Tunbridge Wells Hospital before his arrest in December 2020.

His victims ranged in age from nine to 100.

Phase 1 of the inquiry found he entered one mortuary 444 times in the space of one year “unnoticed and unchecked” and that deceased people were also left out of fridges and overnight during working hours.

‘Inadequate management, governance and processes’

Presenting the findings on Tuesday, Sir Jonathan Michael, chair of the inquiry, said: “This is the first time that the security and dignity of people after death has been reviewed so comprehensively.

“Inadequate management, governance and processes helped create the environment in which David Fuller was able to offend for so long.”

He said that these “weaknesses” are not confined to where Fuller operated, adding that he found examples from “across the country”.

“I have asked myself whether there could be a recurrence of the appalling crimes committed by David Fuller. – I have concluded that yes, it is entirely possible that such offences could be repeated, particularly in those sectors that lack any form of statutory regulation.”

Sir Jonathan called for a statutory regulation to “protect the security and dignity of people after death”.

After an initial glance, his interim report already called for urgent regulation to safeguard the “security and dignity of the deceased”.

On publication of his final report he describes regulation and oversight of care as “ineffective, and in significant areas completely lacking”.

David Fuller was an electrician who committed sexual offences against at least 100 deceased women and girls in the mortuaries of the Kent and Sussex Hospital and the Tunbridge Wells Hospital. His victims ranged in age from nine to 100.

This first phase of the inquiry found Fuller entered the mortuary 444 times in a single year, “unnoticed and unchecked”.

It was highly critical of the systems in place that allowed this to happen.

His shocking discovery, looking at the broader industry – be it other NHS Trusts or the 4,500 funeral directors in England – is that it could easily have happened elsewhere.

The conditions described suggest someone like Fuller could get away with it again.

Continue Reading

UK

MasterChef is ‘bigger than individuals’ and ‘can survive’, BBC says

Published

on

By

MasterChef is 'bigger than individuals' and 'can survive', BBC says

BBC director-general Tim Davie has said MasterChef can survive its current scandal as it is “much bigger than individuals” – but the corporation must “make sure we’re in the right place in terms of the culture of the show”.

On Monday, it was revealed an independent review into “inappropriate behaviour” by MasterChef presenter Gregg Wallace had upheld more than half of the allegations against him.

A few hours later, Wallace’s former MasterChef co-presenter, John Torode, said an allegation he used “racial language” was upheld in the report as part of a review.

After the report was published, Wallace, 60, said he was “deeply sorry” for causing any distress, and never set out to “harm or humiliate”.

Torode, 59, said he had “no recollection of the incident” and said he “did not believe that it happened,” and said he was “shocked and saddened by the allegation”.

Mr Davie said the BBC’s leadership team would not “tolerate behaviour that is not in line with our values,” while BBC chair Samir Shah acknowledged there were still pockets within the broadcaster where “powerful individuals” can still “make life for their colleagues unbearable”.

They said several BBC staff members had been dismissed in the last three months, following an independent review into workplace culture.

More on Bbc

Wallace, who was sacked from MasterChef last week, is not included in that count as he was not directly contracted by the corporation, but employed by independent production company Banijay.

The corporation has yet to decide if the unseen MasterChef series – filmed with both Wallace and Torode last year – will be aired or not.

BBC Broadcasting House in Portland Place, London. Pic: Jordan Pettitt/PA
Image:
BBC Broadcasting House in Portland Place, London. Pic: Jordan Pettitt/PA

News of the findings in the Gregg Wallace report came just hours before the BBC was deemed to have breached its editorial guidelines by failing to disclose that the child narrator of a Gaza documentary was the son of a Hamas official.

Media watchdog Ofcom subsequently launched its own investigation into the programme.

While the 2024-25 annual report showed a small rise in trust overall for the corporation, Mr Davie acknowledged it had been a year which saw the reputation of the BBC damaged by “serious failings” in the making of the documentary.

The BBC boss acknowledged: “It was important that the BBC took full responsibility for those failings and apologised for them,” and later in response to a question, called the documentary – Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone – “the most challenging editorial issue I’ve had to deal with”.

He went on: “The importance of fair balance reporting, the need for high-quality homegrown programming in the face of massive pressure, I think has never, ever been greater. And I believe my leadership and the team I’ve assembled can really help the BBC thrive in that environment and very competitive environment.”

BBC Director-General Tim Davie. Pic: PA
Image:
BBC Director-General Tim Davie. Pic: PA

BBC boss has chair’s ‘full support’

Despite a series of failings in recent months – including livestreaming the controversial Bob Vylan set at Glastonbury last month – Mr Davie insisted he can “lead” the organisation in the right direction.

When asked if he would resign, he replied: “I simply think I’m in a place where I can work to improve dramatically the BBC and lead it in the right way.

“We will make mistakes, but I think as a leadership and myself, I’ve been very clear, and I think we have been decisive.”

He said the organisation was setting a “global standard” for media.

Mr Shah, reiterated his support for Mr Davie.

“Tim Davie and his team, and Tim in particular, has shown very strong leadership throughout all this period and he has my full support.”

The report also revealed its top earners, which saw former Match Of The Day host Gary Lineker top the chart once again.

Meanwhile, Australian children’s cartoon Bluey proved a boon for the broadcaster, and was the most watched show in the US across all genres – with 55 billion minutes viewed.

The top 10 shows watched over Christmas 2024 were also all from the BBC.

Recent annual reviews have been overshadowed by the Huw Edwards scandal and allegations of a toxic environment around flagship show Strictly Come Dancing.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the latest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

Continue Reading

Trending