news blog from Van

The rating actions are as listed below.AUD254.6m Class A1 (ISIN: USQ49677AA73) Long-Term rating affirmed at ‘AAAsf’; Outlook Stable; Short-Term rating of ‘F1+’ placed on RWNAUD233.4m Class A2 (ISIN: USQ49677AB56) affirmed at ‘AAAsf’; Outlook StableAUD24.2m Class AB (ISIN: AU0000INBHC6) affirmed at ‘AAAsf’; Outlook StableAUD28.4m Class B (ISIN: AU0000INBHD4) ‘A+sf’; remains on RWNThe RWN on the Short-Term rating of class A1 reflects that of Barclays Bank Plc , which is the conditional purchaser agent for this particular class of notes. Barclays Capital , as re-marketing agent, is obliged to use reasonable efforts to identify third-party purchasers for all of the class A1 notes. In the event that a third-party purchaser cannot be identified, Barclays Bank Plc will under a conditional purchaser agreement purchase the tender notes at a pre agreed margin over the Libor. On 13 October 2011, Barclays’ Issuer Default Ratings and Viability Rating were placed on RWN (see ‘Fitch Lowers UK Support Rating Floors; Downgrades Lloyds, RBS to ‘A’, dated 13 October 2011 and available at www.fitchratings.com).At the same time Fitch has affirmed the ratings of the class A2 and AB notes as there performance has been stable since the last rating action on 8 August 2011. Arrears have remained steady since April 2011. As of end-July 2011, 30+ days and 90+days arrears were recorded at 2.44% and 0.60% respectively (versus 2.42% and 0.64% in April 2011). As at July 2011 the trusts cumulative gross loss on sale of properties amounted to AUD 7,058,563 of which only one loss (AUD 129,049) occurred in 2011. All gross losses on sales have been covered by lenders mortgage insurance.The class B notes were placed on RWN on 16 May 2011, as a result of an exposure draft criteria report published on the same day about the credit given to lenders’ mortgage insurance (LMI) within RMBS. The Class B notes remain on RWN pending a response from the servicer, Mortgage Management Pty Limited (Challenger).

* Sees Q4 loss $0.17-$0.26 vs est -$0.28Oct 17 (Reuters) - Women’s apparel retailer Coldwater Creek Inc forecast a wider-than-expected third-quarter loss, hurt by weak traffic and high advertising costs.The retailer, whose larger rivals include Chico’s FAS and Ann Taylor Stores Corp , projected a third-quarter loss of 30-36 cents per share, while analysts were expecting a loss of 28 cents per share, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.The company, which has been struggling with its merchandise for over a year now, expects comparable premium retail store sales to fall 17-21 percent for the period and flat gross margins compared to last year.However, the Sandpoint, Idaho-based company — which has been working on a number of initiatives to improve its business, including shutting stores — forecast a smaller-than-expected as it hopes its holiday collection will appeal to customers.It projected net loss at 17-26 cents a share for the quarter, while analysts had expected a loss of 28 cents a share.Coldwater shares closed at $1.13 on Monday on Nasdaq.

* Sees Q4 loss $0.17-$0.26 vs est -$0.28Oct 17 (Reuters) - Women’s apparel retailer Coldwater Creek Inc forecast a wider-than-expected third-quarter loss, hurt by weak traffic and high advertising costs.The retailer, whose larger rivals include Chico’s FAS and Ann Taylor Stores Corp , projected a third-quarter loss of 30-36 cents per share, while analysts were expecting a loss of 28 cents per share, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.The company, which has been struggling with its merchandise for over a year now, expects comparable premium retail store sales to fall 17-21 percent for the period and flat gross margins compared to last year.However, the Sandpoint, Idaho-based company — which has been working on a number of initiatives to improve its business, including shutting stores — forecast a smaller-than-expected as it hopes its holiday collection will appeal to customers.It projected net loss at 17-26 cents a share for the quarter, while analysts had expected a loss of 28 cents a share.Coldwater shares closed at $1.13 on Monday on Nasdaq.

An even wider margin, 87 percent, agreed with the protesters’ right to camp out in Lower Manhattan, as long as they obeyed the law. The movement began staging rallies more than a month ago.Support for the protests was split down party lines, with 81 percent of the Democrats saying they backed them, while only 35 percent of Republicans said so.The protests have spread across the country and moved overseas over the weekend. While most rallies were relatively small, violence flared in Rome where tens of thousands of people came into the streets.The movement’s focal point, however, has been New York, where protests have been largely peaceful. Still, less than half of those surveyed approved of the way police have handled the demonstrations, after several episodes in which force has been used on protesters.The largest block of voters, 37 percent, blamed former President George W. Bush’s administration for the nation’s economic problems, while 21 percent blamed banks. Seventy-three percent said they would support tougher government regulation.The Oct 12-16 poll of 1,068 registered voters had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

An even wider margin, 87 percent, agreed with the protesters’ right to camp out in Lower Manhattan, as long as they obeyed the law. The movement began staging rallies more than a month ago.Support for the protests was split down party lines, with 81 percent of the Democrats saying they backed them, while only 35 percent of Republicans said so.The protests have spread across the country and moved overseas over the weekend. While most rallies were relatively small, violence flared in Rome where tens of thousands of people came into the streets.The movement’s focal point, however, has been New York, where protests have been largely peaceful. Still, less than half of those surveyed approved of the way police have handled the demonstrations, after several episodes in which force has been used on protesters.The largest block of voters, 37 percent, blamed former President George W. Bush’s administration for the nation’s economic problems, while 21 percent blamed banks. Seventy-three percent said they would support tougher government regulation.The Oct 12-16 poll of 1,068 registered voters had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

– John Krubski is an entrepreneur and the architect of The Guardian Life Index: What Matters Most to America’s Small Business Owners. He is currently working on his next book, “Cracking the America Code: How to Get US Back on Track”. The views expressed are his own. – In their latest book — “That Used To Be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back” — authors Thomas Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum maintain that our hope for a happy future lies in how we address four critical issues: resolving the impact of globalization, the revolution in information technology, the nation’s chronic deficits, and its pattern of energy consumption. These are all very big issues requiring equally big solutions and presumably requiring some form of central planning. The Messers Friedman and Mandelbaum have written a wonderfully articulated, excellently organized, and very informative book. The trouble is that they have pretty much altogether missed the point. The future of America will not be decided by how we tackle any one, or four, or any hundred particular issues. The future of the U.S. will be decided by how well we understand who we are, how we got here, and how effectively we tap into the fundamental operating system at work here for more than 250 years. In other words, our future will be decided by us with the same tools we used to define our past. The real question is: Who that “us” will be? Based on years of direct experience with thousands of America’s small business owners (not to mention being one since age 24) in combination with extensive original research, I can categorically affirm that these folks possess a certain “something” that makes them more alike on the one hand and more different from everyone else on the other. “Disenfranchised Diligent Optimists” That “something” is what I have come to recognize as a virtually genetic coding. At their core, successful small business owners are “Disenfranchised Diligent Optimists”. Disenfranchised in the sense that they did not neatly fit with the conventional expectations of others, especially the people for whom they may have worked. Diligent in the sense that they have the fortitude to stop complaining and take corrective action. Optimists in the sense that dealing with obstacles, hurdles, and even disasters comes naturally to this group. As it happens, this genetic coding is precisely why most of us, or our parents, or grandparents, simply had to make the difficult journey to America. For them, remaining in the conditions “back home” inevitably became absolutely intolerable and they did what they had to do – tackled what they had to tackle to change those circumstances. America’s small business owners create nearly 70 percent of new jobs, account for half our GDP, generate more than seven times as many patents as big business, account for 30 percent of export value overall (and they don’t sell millions of cars to do it) and 63 percent of wholesale export value. This is the sector of America that appears to “get it right” most of the time. Even “failed” entrepreneurs frequently have another go at independence until they end up creating something that works. According to research and insights from the Guardian Life Small Business Research Institute they also effectively leverage technology, manage fiscally responsible and balanced organizations, and generally “walk the walk” when it comes to balancing energy use and the environment. What we need to do to get the U.S. back on track is to stop trying to harness and direct the energies and talents of our key economic resource in the interest of a centralized national agenda. Instead, we need to “clear the decks” around American small business, stop getting in its way, and let it do its thing – which appears to be remarkably consistent with Friedman/Mandelbaum’s mandates in intended outcome, although functionally different in execution. We can best get to our future by the same means that got us to the best part of our present. Rather than advocating a central plan, we should be thinking about returning to a less formal economy – an economy focusing more on the power of personal responsibility and personal initiative. There is no better model for that direction than the Disenfranchised Diligent Optimist fully supported and enabled. We have historically waited until we could no longer tolerate even the worst situations before rolling up our sleeves and getting the job done. We aren’t quite at that point yet as a nation, but we’re darn close. When the moment comes our solutions will come from our core more than from central planning.

That’s important because the age at which women stop getting their periods may influence their risk of bone and heart diseases as well as breast cancer.Study author Volodymyr Dvornyk, from the University of Hong Kong, said that women “should be aware of this effect and possible health consequences” of smoking, in addition to its other known risks.He and his colleagues scanned the literature and found that women who were current smokers hit menopause a year earlier, on average, than non-smokers.That data came from six studies including about 6,000 women in the U.S., Poland, Turkey and Iran. Non-smokers hit menopause between age 46 and 51, on average, depending on the study population. In all but two of the studies, smokers were younger — between 43 and 50, overall.Dvornyk and his colleagues also analyzed five other studies that used a cut-off age of 50 or 51 to group women into “early” and “late” menopause. Out of more than 43,000 women in that analysis, women who smoked were 43 percent more likely than nonsmokers to have early menopause.”Our results give further evidence that smoking is significantly associated with earlier (age at menopause) and provide yet another justification for women to avoid this habit,” the researchers wrote in the journal Menopause.Both early and late menopause have been linked to health risks. Women who hit menopause late, for instance, are thought to be at higher risk of breast cancer because one risk factor for the disease is more time exposed to estrogen.However, the “general consensus is that earlier menopause is likely to be associated with the larger number and higher risk of postmenopausal health problems, such as osteoporosis, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, obesity, Alzheimer’s disease, and the others,” Dvornyk told Reuters Health in an email.Overall, he added, early menopause is also thought to slightly raise a woman’s risk of death in the years following.Jennie Kline, an epidemiologist from Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health in New York, said there are two theories for why smoking might mean earlier menopause.Smoking may have an effect on how women’s bodies make, or get rid of, estrogen, she said. Alternatively, some researchers believe certain components of cigarette smoke might kill eggs.Dvornyk’s team didn’t have information on how long women had been smoking or how many cigarettes they smoked each day, so the researchers couldn’t determine how either of those factors may have affected age at menopause.For that reason, and a lack of data on other health and lifestyle factors linked to menopause, this analysis may not be enough to resolve lingering questions on the link between smoking and menopause, they added.Alcohol, weight and whether or not women have given birth may each also play a role in when they hit menopause — but the evidence for everything other than smoking has been mixed, Kline, who was not involved in the new study, told Reuters Health.She said it’s possible the same factors that influence age at menopause may determine whether or not women are still able to get pregnant when they hit their late thirties, or whether they have trouble with infertility.Still, Kline said, “There are way better reasons to stop smoking than worrying about menopause,” such as reducing the risk of heart disease and lung cancer.

Under the original proposal, salty, fatty or very sweet foods or foods with trans fats would no longer be advertised to children, defined as age 17 or under.But David Vladeck, head of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, is expected to testify to a congressional committee on Wednesday that the working group made major changes in its proposals.First, it lowered the age of the affected children to 11 or under.”FTC staff has determined that, with the exception of certain in-school marketing activities, it is not necessary to encompass adolescents ages 12 to 17 within the scope of the covered marketing,” according to Vladeck’s written testimony.The testimony was posted on the House Energy and Commerce Committee website.In the testimony, the FTC excluded advertising aimed at a general audience and advertising that was part of charitable or community events.It also said it would not recommend banning clowns and cartoon characters - think Ronald McDonald and SpongeBob SquarePants - used to advertise unhealthy foods.Advertisers, who had been lobbying hard on the issue, were pleased with the changes, but said the fight was not over.”I think the best thing that they can do is to withdraw the proposal and endorse the (industry-supported) Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative,” said Dan Jaffe, vice president of the Association of National Advertisers.The effort sets voluntary standards such as barring added sugars in juices and limiting flavored milk to 24 grams of sugar. It includes companies such as McDonalds Inc’s, General Mills Inc and PepsiCo Inc.”We believe that the food, beverage, restaurant and advertising community has done far more, unfortunately, than any other segment of society in regard to obesity problems,” he said. “We don’t see why the government really needs to step into this area.”Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said she was concerned Congress, which has oversight over the agencies, would press for the advertising principles to be scrapped.”The thing that worries me the most is that the congress is not asking for little tweaks to the standards … they’re asking the agencies to kill the whole thing,” she said. “The overwhelming majority of advertising to kids is for unhealthy food, about 80 percent.”A background memo prepared for the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee indicated some hostility to the proposed limits. Lawmakers sent a letter to the agencies in September asking questions such as what evidence is there that junk food advertisements are linked obesity and what would the proposal cost, in terms of ad revenues and jobs?The Obama administration, with its goal of containing healthcare costs, has emphasized children’s health. First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign has pushed children to eat better and exercise more.Concern about obesity rates prompted the campaign. About 17 percent of U.S. children aged 2-19 are obese, according to data on the CDC website. Nearly one in three U.S. children are overweight.

Under the original proposal, salty, fatty or very sweet foods or foods with trans fats would no longer be advertised to children, defined as age 17 or under.But David Vladeck, head of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, is expected to testify to a congressional committee on Wednesday that the working group made major changes in its proposals.First, it lowered the age of the affected children to 11 or under.”FTC staff has determined that, with the exception of certain in-school marketing activities, it is not necessary to encompass adolescents ages 12 to 17 within the scope of the covered marketing,” according to Vladeck’s written testimony.The testimony was posted on the House Energy and Commerce Committee website.In the testimony, the FTC excluded advertising aimed at a general audience and advertising that was part of charitable or community events.It also said it would not recommend banning clowns and cartoon characters - think Ronald McDonald and SpongeBob SquarePants - used to advertise unhealthy foods.Advertisers, who had been lobbying hard on the issue, were pleased with the changes, but said the fight was not over.”I think the best thing that they can do is to withdraw the proposal and endorse the (industry-supported) Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative,” said Dan Jaffe, vice president of the Association of National Advertisers.The effort sets voluntary standards such as barring added sugars in juices and limiting flavored milk to 24 grams of sugar. It includes companies such as McDonalds Inc’s, General Mills Inc and PepsiCo Inc.”We believe that the food, beverage, restaurant and advertising community has done far more, unfortunately, than any other segment of society in regard to obesity problems,” he said. “We don’t see why the government really needs to step into this area.”Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said she was concerned Congress, which has oversight over the agencies, would press for the advertising principles to be scrapped.”The thing that worries me the most is that the congress is not asking for little tweaks to the standards … they’re asking the agencies to kill the whole thing,” she said. “The overwhelming majority of advertising to kids is for unhealthy food, about 80 percent.”A background memo prepared for the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee indicated some hostility to the proposed limits. Lawmakers sent a letter to the agencies in September asking questions such as what evidence is there that junk food advertisements are linked obesity and what would the proposal cost, in terms of ad revenues and jobs?The Obama administration, with its goal of containing healthcare costs, has emphasized children’s health. First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign has pushed children to eat better and exercise more.Concern about obesity rates prompted the campaign. About 17 percent of U.S. children aged 2-19 are obese, according to data on the CDC website. Nearly one in three U.S. children are overweight.

* Quick solution to European crisis might not stop slide* Three-month Libor rates hover near highest in two monthsBy Chris Reese and Ana Nicolaci da CostaNEW YORK/LONDON, Oct 11 (Reuters) - Money market funds have been cutting their holdings of euro zone bank debt and are likely to continue to do so while Europe struggles to resolve a debt crisis, a strategist at a large U.S. financial institution said.Prime money-market funds are estimated to have cut their euro zone exposures roughly in half since the end of May, allowing $237 billion of net exposures to mature, Alex Roever, head of short-term rates strategy at JPMorgan Securities in New York, said in a note late on Monday.At the end of September, prime money market funds continued to hold $242 billion of euro zone bank credit, Roever said.The data shows the degree to which euro zone headline risk continues to dominate money market fund manager activity, Roever said.Institutional class shareholders remain wary of euro zone credits, given the ongoing lack of resolution to the peripheral sovereign debt crisis. In spite of the ECB’s unlimited liquidity backstop of euro zone banks, Roever believes money market fund managers will continue to avoid these banks for fear of losing more shareholders.”We doubt prime money market funds will return in the earnest to the sector until a clear and credible resolution to the root fiscal crisis is achieved,” Roever said.With over half of the remaining euro zone bank credit held by prime funds on track to mature before the end of October, Roever said even an “immediate resolution” to the European crisis might not head off further declines in money market fund holdings of euro zone bank debt.Meanwhile, in the euro zone, interbank lending rates remained elevated on Tuesday as fears regional debt problems could spiral into a banking crisis led banks to build up greater liquidity buffers.With a lack of detail in European leaders’ promises to recapitalize the banking system, stress in money markets has remained high with banks reluctant to lend to each other.The amount banks borrowed from the European Central Bank exceeded the central bank’s forecast liquidity needs, leaving more than 200 billion euros of excess liquidity in the system, up from 140-150 billion euros at the beginning of the maintenance period that ended on Tuesday, analysts said.”If you look at the excess liquidity levels now implied by the operations allotted today, you see that there is still a sense in the money market that liquidity in the private funding market is hard to come by for some people, so that they still have to rely on the ECB,” Benjamin Schroeder, strategist at Commerzbank in Frankfurt, said.Euro zone interbank lending rates hovered near their highest in two months , with benchmark three-month euro Libor fixed at 1.50438 percent, unchanged from the previous session.Three-month Euribor rates , traditionally the main gauge of unsecured interbank euro lending and a mix of interest rate expectations and banks’ appetite for lending, ticked up to 1.57 percent from 1.567 percent.The general reluctance to lend “is evidenced by the fact that you have this credit tiering within Eonia markets, where some institutions are paying considerably more than others,” Simon Peck, rate strategist at RBS in London, said.That is why over the past maintenance period Eonia rates have on average been higher than the excess liquidity would suggest, analysts say.Overnight Eonia rates were at 0.89 percent on Oct. 10 down from 0.92 percent in the previous session.”Also in that situation, the standard thing to do is to put the money on deposit with the ECB,” Peck said.Indeed, the ECB reported on Tuesday banks parked 270 billion euros at the ECB overnight. Excess market liquidity topped 210 billion euros on Tuesday, according to Reuters calculations, the highest level since the end of June last year.