Actual finance blog

Slightly fewer Americans filed for new unemployment benefits last week, a reassuring sign about the labor market in the closely watched economic reading.

The Labor Department reported Thursday that 367,000 filed new jobless claims in the week ended May 5, down from 368,000 the week before. The previous week reading was revised up by 3,000.

Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast 365,000 would file for help.

There have been growing worries about a weakening of the recovery in the jobs market, especially after a disappointing April jobs report that showed employers adding far fewer jobs than expected.

Jobless claims, which had been falling steadily earlier this spring, also had climbed again in recent weeks before a drop two weeks ago.

The 86 million invisible unemployed

"The fact that claims continue to drift back toward pre-Easter levels provides important evidence that the level of activity in the labor market did not stall in recent weeks," said Joseph LaVorgna, chief economist at Deutsche Bank, in a note Thursday.

Hiring in a hurry picks up

Economist Michael Gapen of Barclays Capital said the latest reading shows that the improvement in the labor market seen earlier this year has not vanished, despite the temporary jump in new claims filings in April.

"The fact that initial claims held their decline last week is supportive of the idea that the recent softness in initial claims has reversed," Gapen said.

Initial claims can be a volatile reading, which is why economists prefer to look at the four-week average for claims. And that reading also improved slightly to 379,000 from 384,250.

Behind the jobs recovery

There were also 61,000 fewer people receiving continuing unemployment benefits, as that reading for the week ended April 28 — the most recent week available — fell to 3.23 million from 3.29 million.

"Continuing claims never altered their downward trend, even while initial claims were moving higher in previous weeks," Gapen said. "Normally, initial and continuing claims will exhibit similar movements when underlying trends in the labor market are shifting." 

Source

Provides fast cash advance payday loans nationwide with no credit checks required.

There’s a rumble brewing over how you get your beer. And the newest front has opened right in the backyard of America’s biggest brewer.

Beer wholesalers — the people who truck the suds from brewery to store shelf — are pushing a bill in the Missouri Legislature that would protect their role as middlemen, by banning brewers from owning wholesalers and codifying the industry’s vaunted three-tier distribution system into state law.

It’s a pre-emptive strike against Anheuser-Busch InBev, which wants to streamline its complex distribution network, and a sign of increased tension between the big brewer and the people who deliver its product. The fallout from that dispute could eventually affect everything from the price of beer to what brands are on the shelf.

While state laws vary, the three-tier system — in which separate companies make beer, ship it, and sell it to consumers — has been in place since the end of Prohibition, when it was designed to rein in aggressive sales tactics and streamline regulation. The system is in sharp contrast to other consumer goods — Procter & Gamble, for instance, sells toothpaste and detergent straight to Walmart — and unique in the global beer industry.

Anheuser-Busch has more than 500 distributors across the country — five in the St. Louis area — nearly all of which are independent companies with an exclusive contract to sell A-B beer in a certain geographical area. It’s a lucrative franchise; distributors typically take about $4 per case, according to calculations by Beer Business Daily. And in recent years, the so-called “red network” of A-B wholesalers has won extra profits by shedding exclusivity agreements and carrying more craft beer, with higher margins and few extra costs.

But Anheuser-Busch InBev has started to push back, encouraging wholesalers to consolidate, urging tighter “alignment” with the brewery and blasting those who sell non-A-B products against A-B in neighboring markets.

“I’m loyal to my wholesalers,” A-B InBev North American president Luiz Edmond told the Wall Street Journal in March. “Why would I not expect the same loyalty to me?”

At stake is a lot of money.

Matter of efficiency

Wall Street analysts say more efficient distribution could play a big role in A-B InBev’s target of $1 billion in U.S. cost savings. By buying out the middleman and self-distributing, the brewery could tap wholesaler profits estimated at about $1 a case, and centralize functions such as phone operations and truck maintenance.

“It’s a good way to squeeze out costs,” said Harry Schuhmacher, editor of Beer Business Daily.

These kind of acquisitions are legal in about 20 states, and A-B InBev already owns 14 distributorships — which it calls “branches” — including some in big, if not especially profitable, markets such as New York and Los Angeles. It has bought two just since December, with a third deal pending in Seattle.

A-B InBev is likely to keep buying wholesalers where it can, and to encourage consolidation where it can’t, wrote Tony Bucalo, an analyst with the Spanish bank Santander, in a research note last month. All in a bid to drive down costs.

“We estimate that ABI could hypothetically control nearly 50 percent of its distribution, compared to 8 percent today,” Bucalo wrote. “We believe it will continue to move in that direction.”

But A-B’s “costs” are distributors’ profits, and distributors are pushing back.

Even as the brewer has talked of consolidation, wholesaler groups are resisting. They warn of job cuts and short-term profit-taking. They argue that the big brewer could restrict sales of other brands at its branches, making it harder for craft beers and imports to find a market.

Those arguments have gained traction in state legislatures no fax needed payday loans. In the past two years, laws banning self-distribution have been passed in Louisiana, Wisconsin, Nebraska and Illinois — where lawmakers acted after A-B InBev’s attempt to buy a majority stake in its Chicago distributorship prompted a federal lawsuit.

In Missouri, though, the idea has been a tougher sell. The big brewer’s clout in Jefferson City has long been the stuff of legend. Even today it wields considerable influence, employing nine lobbyists and doling out more than $340,000 in political donations statewide in 2011, according to the Missouri Ethics Commission.

Last year, a bill blocking brewery ownership of distributors went nowhere. So far this spring, it has received a hearing and the blessing of a committee in the Senate, but not in the House.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Mike Kehoe, R-Jefferson City, did not return calls seeking comment, nor did local Anheuser-Busch distributors, who have been silent on the matter. But Brian Gelner, vice president of Premium Beverage, a MillerCoors distributor in Springfield, and legislative chairman of the Missouri Beer Wholesalers Association, said he was hopeful that the bill would at least get to a full floor vote.

“The three-tier system has been a really good system,” Gelner said. “Anything that changes that by taking one tier out hurts the whole industry.”

Flexing muscles

A-B says it agrees on the value of three tiers, and insists it has no plans to buy Missouri wholesalers. But the brewery says it wants the option to do so if necessary, and is lobbying against the bill.

“We support keeping the existing system in place because it works and fosters competition,” said Mark Bordas, A-B’s regional vice president for state affairs, in a statement. “This system for many years has allowed for brewers to own a wholesaler in Missouri. If a wholesaler decides to sell, and if it makes sense for us to buy, our ability to own a wholesaler assures that our products are able to strongly compete.”

Some say this is a lot of fuss about very little.

Joe Thompson is president of Georgia-based Independent Beverage Group, which helps broker wholesaler acquisitions. When the owner of an A-B house wants to sell, he said, A-B is always a potential buyer — in the states where it’s allowed — but just one of many. And while the big brewer usually has right of first refusal in its network, distributors are free to take the best offer.

The real reason for all this push-back, Thompson said, is that many wholesalers don’t want to go up against the deep pockets of the brewery, which could easily undercut them on price.

“They’d rather compete against you or me than Anheuser-Busch,” said Thompson, who is representing Seattle-based K&L Distributors in its sale to A-B. “Fundamentally, it’s just that they don’t want a giant in their neighborhood.”

But others who have been watching this unfold say the distributors’ worries are well-founded.

From Chief Executive Carlos Brito on down, A-B InBev executives have made clear they have plans to save money on wholesaling, said John Conlin, a distribution consultant in Denver. And the more states where A-B owns wholesalers, the less leverage the stand-alone outfits will have.

Whatever happens in Jefferson City and elsewhere, Conlin said, the long-cozy relationship between the people who make Budweiser and the people who ship it is changing, perhaps for good.

“A-B has been flexing its muscles lately,” he said. “And there’s a lot of fear out there right now.”

Source

Please remember that a payday loan is a rather expensive line of credit. Much like taking something to the pawn shop.

The economy in the U.S. grew at a 3 percent annual rate in the last three months of 2011, the same as previously estimated, while corporate profits climbed at the slowest pace in three years, raising the risk that business investment and hiring will cool.

The increase in gross domestic product was the biggest in more than a year and followed a 1.8 percent gain in the prior period, revised figures from the Commerce Department showed today in Washington. Company earnings were up 0.9 percent from the third quarter, the smallest advance since the last three months of 2008.

While the report showed business spending on new equipment and software climbed more the previously estimated, figures this month indicate outlays are slowing following the expiration of a government tax credit. Consumers may be poised to take a leading role in the expansion as the biggest increase in employment since 2006 gives households the confidence and means to spend.

Europe

The Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan final index of consumer sentiment for February rose to 75.3 from 75 at the end of last month. Economists projected a reading of 73 after a preliminary figure of 72.5, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey.

Forecasts ranged from 71 to 76 in the survey of 60 economists. The measure averaged 89 in the five years leading to the recession that began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009.

Source

Just two years after it was rescued and reconstituted through bankruptcy and a government bailout, General Motors Co. cruised through 2011 to post the biggest profit in its history.

The 103-year-old company, leaner and smarter under new management, cut costs by taking advantage of its size around the globe. And its new products boosted sales so much that it has reclaimed the title of world’s biggest automaker from Toyota.

GM may have a hard time breaking this record in 2012 because it is losing money in Europe and South America, and U.S. sales growth slowed in the last three months.

But the company’s performance in North America and Asia still helped it earn $7.6 billion for the year, beating the record of $6.7 billion set during the truck boom in 1997.

The profit won’t stop the debate about spending $49.5 billion in taxpayer dollars to save GM. But it did drive up the company’s stock price, which could help the government get more of its money back.

The bailout of GM and Chrysler Group LLC, begun by George W. Bush and finished by Barack Obama, remains a major issue in this year’s presidential campaign. It’s so politically charged that even a Super Bowl ad celebrating Chrysler’s rebirth caused arguments.

GM, which released its earnings Thursday, performed best in its home territory, posting a $7.2 billion pretax profit in North America. The numbers were so good that 47,500 blue-collar workers will get $7,000 profit-sharing checks, the maximum allowable under their new union contract. International Operations, which includes Asia, made $1.9 billion before taxes, but that was down from 2010.

GM’s cost cuts, and its outlook for this year helped to push up the stock price by almost 9 percent to $27.08. The company said it trimmed costs by $500 million in the fourth quarter alone mainly by consolidating advertising agencies and engineering operations. A prediction that costs wouldn’t rise this year wowed investors, especially since other automakers have forecast rising costs, said Itay Michaeli, an analyst for Citi Investment Research.

“That was a very pleasant surprise,” he said.

GM also was optimistic about sales and revenue. It sees its global market share holding steady at 11.9 percent, and if global auto sales rise as expected this year, GM’s slice of that would also increase no fax cash loans.

That’s especially promising, since GM managed to make money last year with industry-wide sales in the U.S. at a historically low 12.8 million. Sales this year could rise to 14 million.

The company expects to charge more for its cars and trucks this year, but warned that the prices could be pressured as the market shifts toward smaller, less-expensive vehicles.

CEO Dan Akerson hinted at a better year for GM in 2012, saying that the company will build on the 2011 results as it brings more new products into the market.

“The outlook here is quite favorable for earnings growth,” said Citi’s Michaeli. “They’re keeping their costs really under control.”

That’s good news for the U.S. government, which still owns 26.5 percent of the company and needs more strong earnings to push up the stock price.

The government owns 500 million shares of GM, which it got in exchange for the $49.5 billion bailout. Through earlier stock sales and loan repayments, the government has recouped about $22.3 billion of that money. The remaining shares would have to double in price and sell for around $53 for the government to get back the rest.

Despite the big annual profit and optimistic outlook, GM still lost $747 million before taxes in Europe last year, and its losses are expected to continue until a restructuring plan takes hold.

Akerson said GM will have to cut its European factory capacity to match lower sales. South America lost money, too: $122 million for the year. GM’s fourth-quarter profit fell 8 percent, and its U.S. sales growth slowed in the quarter even as more Americans bought cars and trucks.

Also, GM’s U.S. stockpile of cars and trucks is growing, and that could force it to offer discounts, especially in competitive market segments like pickup trucks and midsize cars. In January, GM’s inventory was about 620,000, enough to supply its dealers for 89 days. That’s up by more than 100,000 from a year earlier, when GM had a 68-day supply, according to Ward’s AutoInfoBank.

Source

If Mitt Romney is elected president, he will have to make some tough choices about what to do with his personal fortune.

In order to avoid conflicts of interest and satisfy ethics watchdogs, soon-to-be presidents often sell assets or relinquish control of their investments to a trustee.

Romney, who has spent the better part of a month answering questions about his massive investment portfolio, would be one of the wealthiest presidents in history.

The former Massachusetts governor has a few options.

He could put his investments in a government-approved blind trust, convert some or all of his assets to cash, or possibly take advantage of an obscure tax break for executive branch officials.

Blind trust: Romney is no stranger to the concept of blind trusts.

After becoming governor of Massachusetts, Romney created a trust managed by Boston lawyer Bradford Malt. That’s where most of his assets, estimated to be between $85 and $264 million, are today.

But between federally required disclosure forms and the tax returns released by his campaign, the contents of Romney’s trust are easily accessible and have been widely scrutinized by the media.

It’s now far from blind.

As president, Romney would likely have to dissolve his current trust and create a new one. And this one, approved by the Office of Government Ethics, would require a truly independent trustee.

"Federal ethics guidelines for blind trusts are extremely strict," said Robert Kelner, a partner at Covington & Burling who has advised candidates and appointees on ethics. "Typically they are much stricter than what you find at the state level."

Rich, Gingrich and crazy rich

If Romney establishes a new trust, his communication with the trustee would be extremely limited, and he would not be informed of changes to his portfolio.

"He might learn the overall performance of his portfolio," Kelner said. "But he would not know anything about its particular holdings."

It’s a popular tactic.

Bill Clinton, both Bushes and Ronald Reagan put their money into a blind trust.

President George W. Bush told CNN at the end of his second term that he had "no earthly idea" what had become of his assets.

"I met the trustees eight years ago and I haven’t talked to them since," Bush said.

Unlike his immediate predecessors, Barack Obama does not have a government-approved blind trust.

Most of his assets are invested in U.S. Treasury bonds and bills, mutual funds and education savings plans for his children — hardly the kind of assets that present conflicts of interest.

Establishing blind trusts is not just popular with presidents. Other wealthy executive branch appointees have followed suit — sometimes with a little unease. Hank Paulson, who left the top job at Goldman Sachs to become Treasury Secretary, was one of them.

"Have you heard the joke, how do you make a small fortune?" Paulson quipped in 2009. "Give a large fortune to someone in a blind trust."

For Romney, who made his money by making savvy investments, relinquishing control might be particularly difficult.

"You’re turning your assets over to someone who is essentially a stranger," said Kenneth Gross, a partner at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom. "I think some people would not be entirely happy with that situation."

The Romney campaign would not elaborate on the candidate’s plans for his wealth, but said in a statement that his "assets will be arranged in a manner that comports with all rules" should he become president.

Move to cash: Perhaps the simplest option would be for Romney to liquidate his holdings.

The Clintons converted their assets to cash in June 2007 as Hillary’s campaign for president entered its final stretch, according to the New York Times.

The family’s holdings had been in a blind trust, but — like Romney — those assets were disclosed in campaign filings required by the Federal Election Commission.

Instead of creating a new blind trust, the Clintons chose to liquidate.

Romney made $42.7 million in 2 years

There is a substantial downside to taking this route. The Clinton’s likely owed huge sums of money in capital gains.

A fire sale of Romney’s assets would likely create a similar tax burden.

It’s also possible Romney could choose to divest — or sell — a targeted group of assets that are likely to cause conflicts.

But that would be difficult considering the breadth of decisions the president makes, and the vast diversification of Romney’s holdings.

"Practically everything the president does could affect individual companies," Kelner said. "Romney might find that difficult to do."

A tax benefit? Members of the executive branch who have to sell specific assets to avoid conflicts of interest are sometimes granted what is called a "certificate of divestiture" by the Office of Government Ethics.

Obtaining the certificate allows appointees to divest while deferring the payment of capital gains, provided they invest the proceeds in an approved asset like a diversified mutual fund or government bond.

The provision is designed to incentivize wealthy individuals to accept posts in the executive branch without forcing them to take a tax hit.

A president has never applied for the tax break, but law experts consulted by CNNMoney said it is conceivable the Office of Government Ethics would grant one to a president with a portfolio like Romney’s.

"It would be unprecedented," Gross said. "But I don’t know why a president wouldn’t be entitled to the same deferral of tax if he felt there was a conflict."

The tax benefit for Romney would be huge.

"Oh my god," said Robert Willens, a tax expert and professor at Columbia Business School. "He’d be right in the sweet spot. This would save him millions or tens of millions." 

Source

Consumers are demanding better service in unprecedented ways.

In the past several months, public outrage has helped beat back efforts by Bank of America, Netflix and Verizon to raise fees or significantly alter services. The victories come at a time when money is tight all around and consumers are tapping into social media to air their frustrations with like-minded individuals.

“In the past people would be angry, but they’d be all over the country talking to their neighbors,” said Kit Yarrow a professor of consumer psychology at Golden Gate University. “Now they can connect online and they have power.”

For example, petitions on Change.org were instrumental in convincing Bank of America and Verizon to drop plans for new fees. “Bank Transfer Day,” which sprang to life after Bank of America’s announcement, called on Facebook supporters to move their money to a credit union or community bank.

Not every issue demands a mass call to action. But consumers basking in their newfound sense of empowerment should keep their expectations high going into 2012. Here are some strategies for making sure you get the service you deserve.

_____

Work the chain of command

Before you switch into outrage mode, give a company a fair chance to right any wrongs. It may be that the issue can be easily resolved with a simple email or phone call to customer service.

But if the customary means aren’t helpful, one strategy is to reach out to the company CEO or another high-ranking officer. Most major companies have “executive resolution teams” that field correspondence from customers who take their complaints to the top, says Edgar Dworsky, founder of ConsumerWorld.org, which features news and tips on deals. And these teams generally have a lot more leeway to appease customers.

To get your message in the right hands, start by searching under the “About” section on the company’s website. Even if executive contact information isn’t listed, you can usually figure out their email addresses based on the contact information listed for other employees. Otherwise, try mailing a letter to the corporate headquarters.

“Really boil it down,” Dworsky said. “If it goes on and on, they’re not going to have the time or patience to read it. Put yourself in the shoes of the recipient of the letter.”

Make it easy for the company by quickly spelling out the resolution that you’re seeking. And don’t forget to include any relevant information, such as order numbers or purchase dates.

Reach out and tweet

You don’t have to be Alec Baldwin to have your complaints heard on Twitter.

Most major companies have a social media presence by now. And since they don’t want negative mentions turning up in search results, any reasonable question or complaint is likely to get a response.

Even if you don’t hear back from anyone, it’s likely that companies are taking note of any comments about them.

At JetBlue, for example, a few customers recently tweeted about a crowded gate that only had one agent. That triggered the airline’s social media team to contact staff at the airport to find out if any additional agents were available to help out, said Morgan Johnston, JetBlue’s social media strategist.

But he noted that Twitter is more commonly used to request time-sensitive information that can be conveyed in 140 characters _ such as connecting flight or gate numbers. The company monitors its Twitter account around the clock and tries to respond within a few minutes.

“It’s more of an information booth than a traditional customer service channel,” Johnston said.

Twitter isn’t only for basic information requests, however. Citibank also monitors the site and tries to respond to any questions within an hour, said Frank Eliason, who heads the bank’s social media strategy. If customers need to share personal account information, they’re sent a link to a private page on the bank’s website where they can continue the exchange in the same Twitter-like format.

Call for backup

If you’re not getting anywhere and feel your complaints are being brushed off, it can help to get a third-party involved.

If you paid with your credit card, you can always file a claim to have a charge removed from your account. Keep in mind that you need a concrete reason _ such as a product defect or missed delivery _ to make such claims. Your card issuer isn’t going to investigate a dispute just because you were unhappy with a rude waiter.

Another option is to file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau at www.bbb.org/complaint. The local BBB office will contact the company within two days and ask for a response to the complaint on your behalf. The vast majority of complaints are resolved this way, said spokeswoman Katherine Hutt. That’s because businesses know their ratings are affected by whether they respond to complaints.

For more serious situations where you suspect fraud or feel your rights were violated, consider filing a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission or your state attorney general’s office. You likely won’t get a speedy resolution but at least those agencies will be on notice in case other customers are reporting similar abuses.

Stay connected online

In rare situations, you may feel a company policy calls for a broader action. In the case of Bank of America and Verizon, online petitions were key in quantifying the public’s widespread distaste for new fees.

“It’s an incredibly efficient means of customer feedback that’s not controlled by the company,” said Ben Rattray, founder of the Change.org, which hosted the petitions against both companies. “It’s customer feedback that’s controlled by customers.”

Your issues don’t necessarily have to be with a big national company either. Change.org plans to roll out localized versions so users can voice concerns about businesses in their communities.

Source

China’s sovereign wealth fund wants to invest in improving neglected U.S. and European roads and other infrastructure to spur global growth, the fund’s chairman said in comments published Monday.

The announcement reflects a shift in strategy for the $410 billion fund, which was created in 2007. Until now, it has limited its investments mostly to small stakes in publicly traded companies to avoid stirring political opposition overseas.

China Investment Corp. wants to begin in Britain by teaming up with fund managers or investing directly in infrastructure projects, Lou Jiwei said in a commentary in London’s Financial Times newspaper.

“China is keen to get involved” in improving U.S. and European infrastructure, which “badly needs more investment,” Lou wrote. He cited energy, water, transport, digital communications and waste disposal but gave no indication of possible projects or the size of Chinese investment.

Some commentators in both Europe and China have suggested Beijing might use its $3.2 trillion in foreign reserves to gain leverage on political or trade issues at a time when other governments urgently want investment.

CIC was created to invest abroad in hopes of earning a better return on China’s foreign reserves, the bulk of which are in U.S. and European government bonds. It says investments are made on commercial rather than political grounds.

The move into infrastructure probably reflects CIC’s commercial views, rather than those of the government, said Citigroup economist Minggao Shen. He said it could help CIC earn a more stable profit and reduce Beijing’s exposure to U.S. and European government bonds amid volatile markets.

Some Chinese commentators have called for Beijing to reduce its exposure to the financial woes of Western governments by buying fewer bonds. China is Washington’s biggest foreign bondholder, with $1.15 trillion in Treasury debt as of September.

“There is a general thought that maybe China should not invest in U.S. Treasurys or European sovereign bonds. Instead, why can’t we hold direct assets in the economy?” Shen said.

By investing in individual projects, he said, “you don’t have to depend on government guarantees and it should be affected less by the sovereign debt crisis.”

CIC faced criticism over the performance of investments made just as the financial crisis was developing. But its results have improved and the fund reported an 11.7 percent return on assets last year.

Lou stressed that CIC is a commercial investor and wants to make a profit.

“CIC believes that such an investment, guided by commercial principles, offers the chance of a win-win solution for all,” he wrote.

Lou gave no indication in which other countries the CIC might invest but cited an estimate that the United States needs to spend at least $2.2 trillion in infrastructure repairs or rebuilding.

“Free of the inflationary pressure that afflicts many emerging economies, the U.S. and Europe should make substantial investment,” he said. “We cannot count on developing countries to deliver a stable economic recovery on their own.”

Source

Asian stocks fell Wednesday after the U.S. government revised its economic growth estimate downward and climbing yields on Spanish bonds magnified worries over Europe’s debt load.

Hong Kong’s Hang Seng index fell 1.7 percent to 17,941.62. South Korea’s Kospi lost 1.7 percent to 1,795.81 and Australia’s S&P ASX 200 index lost 1.2 percent to 4,082.40.

Japanese stock markets were closed for a public holiday.

Stocks on Wall Street slipped Tuesday after a government report showed the U.S. economy grew at a 2 percent annual rate from July through September, down from an initial estimate of 2.5 percent. Economists had expected the figure to remain the same.

The Dow Jones industrial average lost 0.5 percent to close at 11,493.72. The Standard & Poor’s 500 fell 0.4 percent to 1,188.04. The Nasdaq composite fell 0.1 percent to 2,521.28.

Higher borrowing costs for Spain, meanwhile, renewed worries about Europe’s debt crisis. The higher rates suggest that investors are still skeptical that the country will get its budget under control despite a new government coming to power this week.

Investors have been worried that Spain could become the next country to need financial support from its European neighbors if its borrowing rates climb to unsustainable levels.

Greece was forced to seek relief from its lenders after its long-term borrowing rates rose above 7 percent on the bond market. The rate on Spain’s own benchmark 10-year bond is dangerously close to that level, 6.58 percent.

But fears of the debt crisis spreading elsewhere in Europe were allayed somewhat after the International Monetary Fund announced a plan to provide quick cash on flexible terms to countries facing sudden financial stress.

Concerns remain that Europe’s debt crisis is pushing the region toward recession, which would slow industrial activity in Europe and in countries around the world that export to Europe.

Benchmark oil for January delivery fell 65 cents to $97.36 per barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The contract rose $1.09 to finish at $98.01 per barrel on the Nymex on Tuesday.

In currency trading, the euro fell to $1.3466 from $1.3509 late Tuesday in New York. The dollar rose slightly to 76.99 yen from 76.97 yen.

Source