Trump’s businesses are full of dirty Russian money. The scandal is that it’s legal. - The Washington Post

Craig Unger is the author of "House of Trump, House of Putin" and a former contributing editor of Vanity Fair.

Collusion or not, President Trump and the Russians are thick as thieves.

What I mean is that for more than three decades, at least 13 people with known or alleged links to the Russian Mafia held the deeds to, lived in or ran criminal operations out of Trump Tower in New York or other Trump properties. I mean that many of them used Trump-branded real estate to launder vast amounts of money by buying multimillion-dollar condos through anonymous shell companies. I mean that the Bayrock Group, a real estate development company that was based in Trump Tower and had ties to the Kremlin, came up with a new business model to franchise Trump condos after he lost billions of dollars in his Atlantic City casino developments, and helped make him rich again.

Yet Trump's relationship with the Russian underworld, a de facto state actor, has barely surfaced in the uproar surrounding Russia's interference in the 2016 campaign. That oversight may be explained in part by journalist Michael Kinsley's long-held maxim: The real scandal isn't what's illegal; it's what is legal.

Robert S. Mueller III, of course, is a prosecutor. His job as special counsel, now complete, was to decide whether to indict. But what if some of the most egregious and corrupt offenses are not illegal? Russian President Vladimir Putin has long insisted that American democracy itself is corrupt. Under his aegis, the Russians have methodically studied various components of the American body politic — campaign finance, our legal system, social media and perhaps especially the real estate industry — and exploited every loophole they could find.

As Oleg Kalugin, a former head of counterintelligence for the KGB, told me in an interview for my book "House of Trump, House of Putin: The Untold Story of Donald Trump and the Russian Mafia," the Mafia amounts to "one of the branches of the Russian government today." Where Americans cracked down on the Italian American Mafia, Putin dealt with the Russian mob very differently. He co-opted it. He made it an integral part of his Mafia state. Russian gangsters became, in effect, Putin's enforcers. They had long and deep relationships. According to a tape recording made by former Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko a year before he was fatally poisoned in London, Putin had close ties to Semion Mogilevich, a top mobster, that dated to the early 1990s.

That criminals with ties to Russia bought Trump condos, partnered with Trump and were based at Trump Tower — his home, his place of work, the crown jewel of his empire — should be deeply concerning. It's not hard to conclude that, as a result, the president, wittingly or not, has long been compromised by a hostile foreign power, even if Mueller did not conclude that Trump colluded or conspired with the Russians.

Let's go back to 1984, when David Bogatin, an alleged Russian gangster who arrived in the United States a few years earlier with $3 in his pocket, sat down with Trump and bought not one but five condos, for a total of $6 million — about $15 million in today's dollars. What was most striking about the transaction was that at the time, according to David Cay Johnston's "The Making of Donald Trump," Trump Tower was one of only two major buildings in New York City that sold condos to buyers who used shell companies that allowed them to purchase real estate while concealing their identities. Thus, according to the New York state attorney general's office, when Trump closed the deal with Bogatin, whether he knew it or not, he had just helped launder money for the Russian Mafia.

And so began a 35-year relationship between Trump and Russian organized crime. Mind you, this was a period during which the disintegration of the Soviet Union had opened a fire-hose-like torrent of hundreds of billions of dollars in flight capital from oligarchs, wealthy apparatchiks and mobsters in Russia and its satellites. And who better to launder so much money for the Russians than Trump — selling them multimillion-dollar condos at top dollar, with little or no apparent scrutiny of who was buying them.

Over the next three decades, dozens of lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, mortgage brokers and other white-collar professionals came together to facilitate such transactions on a massive scale. According to a BuzzFeed investigation, more than 1,300 condos, one-fifth of all Trump-branded condos sold in the United States since the 1980s, were shifted "in secretive, all-cash transactions that enable buyers to avoid legal scrutiny by shielding their finances and identities."

The Trump Organization has dismissed money laundering charges as unsubstantiated, and because it is so difficult to penetrate the shell companies that purchased these condos, it is almost impossible for reporters — or, for that matter, anyone without subpoena power — to determine how much money laundering by Russians went through Trump-branded properties. But Anders Aslund, a Swedish economist, put it this way to me: "Early on, Trump came to the conclusion that it is better to do business with crooks than with honest people. Crooks have two big advantages. First, they're prepared to pay more money than honest people. And second, they will always lose if you sue them because they are known to be crooks."

After Trump World Tower opened in 2001, Trump began looking for buyers in Russia through Sotheby's International Realty, which teamed up with a Russian real estate outfit. "I had contacts in Moscow looking to invest in the United States," real estate broker Dolly Lenz told USA Today. "They all wanted to meet Donald." In the end, she said, she sold 65 units to Russians in Trump World Tower alone.

The condo sales were just a part of it. In 2002, after Trump had racked up $4 billion in debt from his disastrous ventures in Atlantic City, the Russians again came to his rescue, by way of the Bayrock Group. At a time when Trump found it almost impossible to get loans from Western banks, Bayrock offered him enormous fees — 18 to 25 percent of the profits — simply to use his name on its developments.

So how did all this go unchallenged? According to Jonathan Winer, who served as deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement in the Clinton administration, one answer may be lax regulations. "If you are doing a transaction with no mortgage, there is no financial institution that needs to know where the money came from, particularly if it's a wire transfer from overseas," Winer told me in an interview for my book. "The customer obligations that are imposed on all kinds of financial institutions are not imposed on people selling real estate. They should have been, but they weren't."

And without such regulations, prosecutors' hands are tied.

All of which made it easier for the Russian Mafia to expand throughout the United States. As it did so, it grew closer to Trump. Even though Mogilevich had no known direct contacts with Trump, several of his associates did. Among them was Bogatin, who took part in a massive gasoline tax scam, and whose brother, Jacob (Yacov) Bogatin, was indicted with Mogilevich in 2003 on 45 felony counts of stock fraud. (Because there is no extradition treaty between the United States and Russia, they were never brought to trial in the United States.)

Another Mogilevich associate in Trump's orbit was the late Vyacheslav Ivankov, a ruthless extortionist who became renowned as one of the most brutal killers in the annals of Russian crime. Mogilevich had sent him to New York in 1992 with a mandate to consolidate the Russian Mafia in the United States and to form alliances with the Cosa Nostra and other Mafias. Once he arrived, Ivankov became a regular at the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City, and was widely thought to be based in the Brighton Beach area of Brooklyn, where many Russian mobsters lived. But when the FBI came looking for him, it discovered that the head of the Russian Mafia in New York owned a luxury condo in the glitziest part of Manhattan — at 721 Fifth Avenue, in fact — Trump Tower. There is no evidence of personal interaction between Trump and Ivankov.

Yet another Mogilevich associate with ties to Trump was Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov, better known as Taiwanchik, whose relationship with Mogilevich dates back more than three decades. Indicted in 2002 for bribing Olympic figure skating judges, Tokhtakhounov was awarded the No. 5 position on the FBI's Most Wanted List, two slots behind Mogilevich. In April 2013, two gambling rings that he allegedly ran were busted by the FBI on the 63rd floor of Trump Tower, resulting in the indictments of 34 members and associates of Russian organized crime. Among them was Tokhtakhounov, who fled the country to avoid prosecution, and appeared later that year at Trump's 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow.

These were just some of the Russian mobsters who gravitated toward Trump as they laundered money and cultivated politicians. Over time, they learned how to work the system. They paid large sums for the most powerful legal talent in the land — enough, at times, to woo the very men who had once been charged with pursuing them. In 1997, former FBI director William Sessions traveled to Moscow and alerted the world to the horrifying dangers of the brutal Russian Mafia. But 10 years later, he took on as a client the Ukrainian-born Mogilevich. At the time, the U.S. Department of Justice was investigating racketeering charges against Mogilevich over questionable energy deals between Russia and Ukraine. Sessions's successor as FBI director, Louis Freeh, also later represented Russian clients. All perfectly legal. In Freeh's case, the client was Denis Katsyv's Cyprus-based Prevezon Holdings. Freeh helped Prevezon settle a money laundering probe by the U.S. government after the company was accused of laundering more than $200 million in a Russian tax fraud scheme in which an American hedge fund manager and his firm, Hermitage Capital, were said to have been framed by the Russians. The ensuing scandal culminated in the death of Sergei Magnitsky, Hermitage's accountant, and led to the passage of the Magnitsky Act, which sanctioned high-level Russian officials. Natalia Veselnitskaya, Prevezon's defense lawyer, attended the much-discussed June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower with Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr.; Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner; and Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

Manafort has been convicted of bank fraud, tax fraud and failure to comply with the Foreign Agents Registration Act by not reporting foreign income.

The special counsel's report has not yet been released, only Attorney General William P. Barr's summary with its finding of no collusion. But it's clear that it was profoundly naive to think that a prosecutor would save the day and cure our diseased democracy of all that ails it. That's because the problem behind this assault on the nation's sovereignty far transcends the criminal arena. I'm no fan of Putin's, but he was right about one thing: Swaths of American society are corrupt. If we want to protect our most precious institutions, we should examine new regulations in a wide range of sectors. The House Intelligence Committee, the House Oversight Committee and the House Judiciary Committee have geared up for hearings and investigations. They had better move fast. We have a president who has a long, tangled history with figures connected to Russian organized crime — all of it, apparently, perfectly legal.

Twitter: @craigunger

Read more from Outlook:

Trump borrows his rhetoric — and his view of power — from the mob

'House of Cards' is credible. Just ask the Russians, Chinese and Iranians.

Russian trolls can be surprisingly subtle, and often fun to read

Follow our updates on Facebook and Twitter.

Reality Is Closing In On Netflix - Forbes

Shifting sentiment, as seen through price action in equity and debt markets, signals that investors are losing patience with Netflix's extraordinary cash flow burn ($13 billion since 2011).

For example, the 4% drop in the stock after the most recent earnings report shows that subscriber growth is no longer enough. Netflix needs to prove it can monetize its original content before competition (with decades of monetization success) takes more market share. Time is running out for Netflix's current business model to work.

Increasingly skeptical investor sentiment leads me to put Netflix (NFLX) back in the Danger Zone.

NFLX's Valuation Already Assumes Unreasonably High Subscribers: 500 million to 3 billion

As I stated on CNBC's Closing Bell on January 16, 2019, Netflix needs over 500 million subscribers at $20/month to justify $350/share. Without additional price increases, NFLX needs half the global population to sign up for Netflix. See Appendix I (below) for the straight forward math behind this analysis and my reverse DCF model.

I think these expectations are unrealistic, and the evidence backing up this belief continues to grow, as you'll see below.

Investors Realize They Can't Cover the Cash Burn Forever

NFLX's trading pattern shifted last year as it no longer moved in tandem with the "good" news. Per Figure 1, NFLX ended 2018 down 36% from its early July highs. After bouncing back to start 2019, NFLX is down 8% since January 15 (S&P +1%).

Investors are signaling that they will not subsidize Netflix's huge cash losses forever. They need the company to show it can monetize its content in the face of mounting competition.

Figure 1: NFLX Was Down 36% in Last Five Months of 2018

NFLX Share Price 2H 2018New Constructs, LLC

Debt investors are not happy either. In fact, they've always been more skeptical and assigned Netflix's debt "Junk" ratings since as early as 2015. In the last year, that skepticism has grown, as the yield on its issuances has increased 150 basis points. Since 2017, the cost of debt has risen 275 basis point to 6.375%. Should debt investors grow more weary of Netflix's massive cash burn, the liquidity they've provided could dry up quickly. See Appendix II (below) for more details.

Subscriber Growth Not Enough to Justify Content Spending

The main reason investors are losing confidence is that Netflix's subscriber growth has not generated enough revenue growth to cover the increase in content spending. Since 2011, revenue has increased by $12.6 billion, which is half the total increase in expenditures over the same time, per Figure 2. The difference in revenue and expenditures means Netflix has burned through nearly $13 billion since 2011. For the Netflix business model to work, subscriber revenue growth has to cover the cost of increased expenditures. To date, the model is not working – not even close.

The leverage investors need to see in Netflix's business model has not been present in the past and has still not emerged. Increasingly, investors are less willing to believe that leverage will ever emerge, per Figure 1 above.

Figure 2: Netflix's Revenue Growth Lags Spending Growth by 50%

NFLX Revenue vs. Expenditure GrowthNew Constructs, LLC

* 2018 FCF estimated based on financial data in NFLX's earnings press release. Final number will be calculated once 10-K is published.

Increasing Competition Will Slow Subscriber Growth

While Netflix was among the first to offer video streaming, it is no longer the only option. Competition includes:

Figure 3: Netflix Faces More Competition Now Than Ever Before

NFLX CompetitionNew Constructs, LLC

* Includes live TV channels commonly available through cable or satellite

Apple (AAPL), Disney (DIS), Warner Media (T), and NBC Universal (CMCSA) are all expected to release their own streaming platforms by 2020. These new entrants, with vast resources, could pose a significant threat to Netflix when it comes to licensing existing content.

Losing "Successful" Content Will Slow Subscriber Growth

A big part of Netflix's success in growing subscribers has been the content that its competitors provide.

Disney has already stated that it plans to end its licensing agreement with Netflix and pull its content by the end of 2019. Furthermore, Warner Media could pull the popular Friends series, which Netflix just paid $100 million to keep on its platform for another year. Additionally, NBC Universal could also pull The Office, which, according to recode "NBCU execs say Netflix has told them "The Office" generates more viewing hours than anything else on the service." Such a loss (or losses) would truly test the stickiness of Netflix's original content.

Price Increases Will Slow Subscriber Growth

Every price increase makes Netflix's competitors more powerful. The more Netflix charges subscribers, the more its competitors can charge.

Raising prices makes it easier for firms to compete for subscribers with Netflix. Raising prices makes it harder for Netflix to grow subscribers. But, Netflix has to raise prices to attempt to stem its unsustainably high cash burn.

What is Netflix to do? What is defensible about the Netflix business model?

Meanwhile, competitors smell blood in the water. After a year when Hulu grew subscribers at a faster rate than Netflix, it decided to lower the price of its most popular plan by 25%, to just $5.99/month.

Pricing Power Is an Illusion

Pricing power means a firm can make money while charging lower prices than its competition. The narrative that Netflix holds significant pricing power is false. Netflix must raise prices to make money and stop the huge cash losses, which investors cannot afford to subsidize for much longer.

Inability to Monetize Content While Competition Can

I put successful in quotes above because the mentioned shows have proven they can be monetized over many years. Not surprisingly, they're produced by some of the top studios in the business, such as Disney.

It's no secret that Disney is one of the best when it comes to monetizing. Its content can earn revenues through box office, merchandise, licensing deals, theme parks, and soon enough, streaming. With its Disney+ service, the firm will throw its full weight (and massive resources) into the streaming ring. Compared to Netflix, the trajectories of the two firms couldn't be more reversed.

At Disney, you have a firm that has generated $41 billion in cumulative FCF since 2011. Its FCF as a percent of revenue has been double digits or higher in each of the past five years, and positive every year since 2011. Meanwhile, Netflix has burned through $13 billion in cumulative FCF since 2011 while FCF as a percent of revenue has been negative each and every year, per Figure 4.

Figure 4: Content Monetization: Disney Makes $ vs. Netflix Loses $

NFLX vs. DIS - FCF as a % of RevenueNew Constructs, LLC

* 2018 FCF estimated based on financial data in NFLX's earnings press release. Final number will be calculated once 10-K is published.

Where Do All These Pressures Leave Netflix – the AOL of OTT?

If Netflix doesn't have pricing power, faces significant competition, doesn't stack up well (financially) with the largest competition, and is losing the trust of debt and equity investors, what does it have? The ability to raise money.

But, if nothing about the business is defensible, besides raising money, which won't last forever, does that make Netflix the AOL of over-the-top (OTT)? Jonathan Klein, former president of CNN, co-founder of Tapp Media, and current president of Vilynx stated such a comparison recently on Bloomberg TV.

Netflix was the first to stream video content to a mass amount of users. However, just as with AOL, nothing stops competitors from doing the same at equal or cheaper prices. Now, as Netflix raises prices, consumers can look elsewhere to find greater value. Furthermore, if your only advantage is the ability to spend cash, how do you compete with those that have significantly more cash, such as Apple, Disney, Alphabet (GOOGL), or Amazon (AMZN)? This juxtaposition could explain the rise in analysts voicing skepticism about Netflix while praising the future growth potential for Disney.

Can Netflix consistently provide better content than the rest of the industry for long enough to justify its current valuation? The evidence leads me to believe the answer to this important question is no.

2019 could become the biggest year for cannabis stocks. Click here to get the name of this quality stock poised to profit from the industry's rapid growth.

Disclosure: David Trainer, Kyle Guske II, and Sam McBride receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, style, or theme.

Appendix I

Figure I: Subscriber Expectations Baked into NFLX

NFLX Implied Subscriber ExpectationsNew Constructs, LLC

Scenario 1: Steady Growth – in this scenario, I assume Netflix can continue growing revenues at 26% a year (CAGR since 2011) and maintain current pre-tax margins of 11%. Such expectations are nothing to balk at, as even the most well run companies would be glad to grow revenues at such a pace for a prolonged period of time. Netflix would have to maintain this growth rate and margin for the next 17 years simply to justify its current stock price of $322/share. In this scenario, Netflix would be generating over $594 billion in revenue 17 years from now. Netflix would need over 3.8 billion subscribers at the current average price of Netflix's subscriptions, which equals $13/month. See the math behind this dynamic DCF scenario.

While I find it hard to believe nearly half the global population will sign up for Netflix, many believe Netflix can continue to raise prices and improve profitability, rather than go after 3 billion subscribers. I can also model such an optimistic scenario, as seen below.

Scenario 2: Profitability in Line with Disney – in this scenario, I assume Netflix can grow revenues at 30% a year and more than double its pre-tax margin to 25%, which equals Disney's 2018 pre-tax margin. Netflix would have to maintain this growth rate and margin for the next nine years to justify its current stock price. In this scenario, Netflix would be generating over $123 billion in revenue nine years from now. If I assume Netflix can increase its average price to $20/month, it would need 516 million subscribers to reach the revenue implied by this DCF scenario. See the math behind this dynamic DCF scenario.

Importantly, both scenarios assume Netflix's invested capital grows 20% compounded annually, which would be significantly slower than in the past. Since 2015, invested capital (based on estimated 2018 value), driven mostly by additions to the streaming content library, has grown 50% compounded annually.

Ultimately, to believe in Netflix at this price, you have to believe that the company can drastically increase its prices (or sign up half the world), reduce the growth in its content spending, and continue to grow its subscriber base at double-digit rates for nearly a decade or longer.

Appendix II

Since 2014, Netflix has raised more than $9.8 billion (7% of market cap) in capital, which includes:

  1. $0.4 billion in February 2014
  2. $1.5 billion in February 2015
  3. $1.0 billion in October 2016
  4. $1.4 billion in April 2017
  5. $1.6 billion in October 2017
  6. $1.9 billion in April 2018
  7. $2.0 billion in October 2018

Impatient Debt Investors Could Trigger Liquidity Crisis

Figure II: Bond Investors are Demanding More for Their Capital

NFLX Rising Debt CostsNew Constructs, LLC

In US-China Trade Talks, Beijing's Favoring Chinese Firms Is Sticking Point - NPR

Enlarge this image

A worker helps load steel rods April 6, 2016, at a plant in Tangshan, in China's Hebei province. China's government plays a powerful role in how its businesses operate — giving them preferential treatment over their rivals. Kevin Frayer/Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption
Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

In the 1980s, China was beginning a long economic boom that would transform the global trading system, and Michael Korchmar decided to go there to launch a joint venture.

He quickly soured on the country.

"It didn't feel right," recalls Korchmar, whose family runs a 102-year-old Florida-based company that makes briefcases and travel bags. The Chinese government maintained a heavy hand in his staffing and factory decisions, and its minders followed him everywhere.

So Korchmar cut his ties to China and eventually opened a plant in the Dominican Republic. But he could never quite escape China's orbit.

Over the years, companies in his field have faced bruising competition from Chinese firms that could undercut his prices because they were heavily subsidized by the government, he says.

"The government runs the economy," he concluded. "To think the government's not involved in any business practice in China is really I think a bit naïve."

Today, the United States and China are locked in intense negotiations aimed at resolving their trade differences. But there's an elephant in the room: Far more than other major economies, China's government plays a large, powerful role in how its businesses operate, giving them preferential treatment over their rivals.

Critics say this gives Chinese companies an unfair advantage over outsiders and makes it hard for foreign firms to really compete in China.

"The China that we trade with and compete with today is very different from the one that we had hoped would emerge," says Democratic Rep. Richard Neal of Massachusetts, who chairs the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. "China's economy, which has taken on some market characteristics, remains fundamentally state-directed."

Consider this: China has more companies in the Fortune 500 than any country except the United States. More than half of those firms are controlled by a single government agency, the state-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, wrote Harvard law professor Mark Wu, in a 2016 article, "The 'China, Inc.' Challenge To Global trade Governance."

Many of these companies are in essential sectors such as railroads, energy, shipbuilding and telecommunications. But government officials also maintain strong ties to private companies, says Jennifer Hillman, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

"They're able to direct resources and push resources into those industries and those entities they are trying to favor," Hillman says. She notes that at least one member of the Communist Party sits on the board of virtually every company of any size, and they exert considerable power over corporate decisions.

The Chinese government's influence extends to the financial world as well.

The largest shareholder of China's "Big Four" commercial banks is Central Huijin Investment Ltd., which is managed by the China Investment Corp. The government can order Central Huijin to direct funds and make loans for favored projects.

"The closest analogue would be if, in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, the U.S. Treasury Department set up a single government entity to act as the controlling shareholder of JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank and Wells Fargo," Wu wrote.

Even when a company has no explicit ties to the government or the party, executives must work hard to stay in Beijing's good graces, if they want their companies to have access to the best contracts, Wu says.

"People understand what the objectives are and they'll operate within those confines," he says.

"A lot of private companies in China, even publicly listed companies, take a lot of direction from the government, or are picked by the government as state champions," says Patrick Chovanec, chief strategist at Silvercrest Asset Management, who taught in China for years.

None of this is unprecedented, Wu notes. Governments own or control major companies in other places, and there's a revolving door between business and government all over the world, including the United States.

But few states exert the kind of strong control over their economies that China does, Wu says. And those ties have only gotten stronger under President Xi Jinping.

When China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, it essentially promised to open up its economy and adopt free-market principles. Reformers inside China argued that the country's economy needed to look more like that of the United States.

Events of the past decade have undermined the reformers and given Beijing more confidence in its hybrid system, Chovanec says.

"In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, China took a different look at what its economic model should look like. And a model that was more state-driven looked a lot more attractive to them," Chovanec says.

Successive U.S. administrations have argued that these policies violate the spirit — if not the letter — of WTO regulations. One of the aims of the current trade negotiations is to get Beijing to stop corporate subsidies.

But the opaque nature of China's economy makes it hard for outsiders to understand the true nature of the relationship between companies and the government, Chovanec says.

In a country such as France, a telecommunications or energy company may be part of the state sector, eligible for special subsidies or tax credits, but the ties are supposed to be on the record, he says.

"Whereas in China, a lot of this is behind the scenes and it's very nebulous," Chovanec says.

Chinese government officials are adept at giving preferential treatment to their own companies without leaving their fingerprints anywhere, he says. They also know how to make life tough for foreign businesses.

"They will just say, 'Well, there's a slowdown in inspections of this type of product from your country. It's for safety.' It makes it hard for you to then turn around and say, 'OK, you're engaging in illegal activity.' Because there's complete deniability," Chovanec says.

As Trump administration officials seek to overhaul China's trade policies, they need to be realistic. Chinese officials believe their system has served them well, and they're not going to change it overnight, Wu says.

"To the extent that we're expecting major, fundamental structural reforms, that's going to be very difficult to obtain, because they see this governance structure as being having been vital for both their political and economic successes," he says.

Apple changes its iPhone photo contest page to say it will pay winners - The Verge

For the past two days, Apple faced criticism from artists and creators over its new "Shot on iPhone Challenge," which will use photos from 10 photographers in a series of marketing campaigns without any compensation. In our original story, I spoke to an artist about frustrations over a major company like Apple using artists' work for their own marketing purposes without compensating the artists in question.

But around the time this story was originally published at 6:33PM ET, Apple updated the original newsroom announcement for the contest. Apple informed us after publish that it had added the following language to the bottom:

Apple believes strongly that artists should be compensated for their work. Photographers who shoot the final 10 winning photos will receive a licensing fee for use of such photos on billboards and other Apple marketing channels.

Apple wouldn't comment on whether or not it had intended to pay artists from the beginning nor (obviously) would it disclose how much those licensing fees would amount to.

Additionally, Apple changed the language in its PDF of the official contest rules. A line that originally read "Prize has no cash value" has changed to "Winners will receive a licensing fee for use on billboards and other Apple marketing channels."

Artists "working for exposure" isn't a new problem facing the creator community, but it is one that people are trying to combat. Bringing attention to Apple's contest, and acknowledging it originally did not have a cash prize attached, is a way for artists to express their frustration with the company's approach.

The original story follows below.


The contest asks for iPhone XS, XR, and XS Max users to submit their best photos via Twitter, Instagram, email, or Weibo. The 10 best photos — selected by a panel of judges that includes Apple marketing chief Phil Schiller and former White House photographer Pete Souza — will be featured "on billboards in select cities, Apple retail stores and online," according to the contest site. The company has used its "Shot on iPhone" marketing in prior ad campaigns, but Apple has typically reached out to photographers, including amateurs, on its own and has never before solicited photos from the public under these specific contest terms.

The only prize Apple is offering is exposure — but even that has its issues. The 10 winners won't receive a cash prize of any kind, and Apple's terms and conditions of the contest state that, "Any photograph reproduced will include a photographer credit in a format to be decided by Apple in its sole discretion." Essentially, Apple can choose to credit winning photographers however they see fit; in recent years, that means the photographer's first name and the initial of their last name.

The artist community has since called out Apple for its approach to the contest, with many referring to it as predatory. Timothy Reynolds, a 3D artist who often tweets about companies taking advantage of artists, was one of the most notable voices.

His tweet, which called out Apple CEO Tim Cook for not paying photographers when the company has a market cap of $730 billion, quickly caught fire. Reynolds told The Verge via email that what bothers him the most about Apple's approach is the company's attempt to "spin it as a 'challenge' (contest) to source free photos for their massive marketing campaign."

"Anything less than paying people for their usage is pure exploitation," Reynolds said, addressing artists' lack of compensation. "The rules [and] conditions are gross, and that's what I wanted to bring attention to — the fact that they're robbing you blind of your rights and ability to be properly compensated for the work by simply submitting."

Other artists have chimed in with similar concerns, acknowledging that although Apple may market the contest as a way to engage with its community, it still hurts artists in the long run. Contests that ask artists to submit their work for no financial gain don't just hurt the individual photographer, Reynolds said. It creates a precedent that hurts the entire community. Facebook groups like Artists Don't Work For Free and entire memes surrounding "work for exposure" trends within the art community have sprung up to bring attention to the issue, but Reynolds said it won't completely go away until people stop participating in unfair competitions held by major corporations like Apple.

"It's a vicious cycle and seems to only be getting worse these days," Reynolds said. "Again, until people stop allowing it [and] submitting to these things, it won't stop. People entering the contests definitely share some of the blame along with the companies pulling it."

It's not just Apple, either. Epic Games, the popular publisher behind Fortnite, has been accused of profiting off a dance submitted to a contest last year. The emote, known in-game as Orange Justice, was added to the massively successful battle royale hit after a Fortnite player, referred to in the community as Orange Shirt Kid, lost in the publisher's Boogie Down contest.

Epic Games included his choreographed dance in the game after outcry from the community and made it available with the season four battle pass. Although players didn't have to pay for the emote, they did have to pay for the pass, meaning that Epic Games profited off his dance. Now, his mother is suing Epic Games — along with a plethora of other creatives. In another instance, Epic Games did pay a father and son duo, as well as a professional artist who made a more polished mock up, for a skin design they inspired, which the publisher then molded into a final product it sold for money. It wasn't a contest — just a way to give back to the community.

It's an issue that Reynolds sees playing out with Apple — because there is a community of fans who are willing to offer their work for no compensation. It's a prestige play, even if the prestige isn't all that great, either, according to Reynolds. "I think that most people don't care enough to read the rules and just so badly want to be noticed that they'll gladly forfeit all rights for the slim chance to be noticed," Reynolds said. "And therein lies the real issue; until people stop submitting to nonsense like that, things will never change."

It's difficult to estimate just how much Apple should compensate its winners, because it's not quite clear just how much Apple intends to use the photos. Apple's terms and conditions for the service state that the photos can be used in "any and all Internet media, including [its] web sites and properties and on social networking sites (such as on Apple Newsroom, apple.com, Apple Twitter, Apple Instagram (@Apple), Apple Weibo, and Apple WeChat), on billboards, in Apple retail stores, and any Apple internal exhibitions."

The terms also state that Apple can remix the photo as much as it likes; the company has the ability to do so for up to one year under the contest terms. It's the type of marketing that Reynolds believes would cost the company around $10,000 to start if this was contracted work. The fact that Apple is taking a $10,000 job and asking people to do it for free in the name of a contest is what Reynolds is referring to as predatory behavior.

"I don't think I should have to explain to Apple that artists deserve to be paid for their work," Reynolds said. "They've always acted like huge advocates for the creative industry with their products and marketing campaigns, yet they are asking for free work from the very audience they pretend to care about. It's ironic at best and predatory at worst. They know exactly what they're doing here and someone needs to call it out. I just hope they're listening."

Apple was not immediately available for comment.

Blockchain is making it possible for anyone to buy shares in Apple and Facebook - VentureBeat

Despite being championed as a decentralized form of money that puts individuals firmly in control of their own wealth, cryptocurrencies mostly remain the preserve of the super-rich and the super-nerdy. 1,000 Bitcoin wallets currently hold 35.18% of all Bitcoins, for example, and only a select few computer scientists understand the inner workings and machinations of blockchains.

Such inconvenient truths undermine the oft-repeated claim that blockchains will democratize wealth, largely by lowering barriers to entry in financial networks and by preventing central banks from devaluing money via inflation. Nonetheless, this prediction has moved one step closer to realization in recent months, with the emergence of tokenized stocks. While much has already been written about security tokens and how they'll enable ICOs (initial coin offerings) to comply with securities legislation, tokenized stocks are a specific sub-category of security token that have only just become a reality. And they look set to make the financial world more accessible to millions people, in addition to having serious implications for global markets.

In contrast to a new cryptocurrency designed specifically to conform to securities legislation (i.e. a security token), tokenized stocks provide digitized versions of existing shares in established companies, such as Google, Facebook, or Apple. DX.Exchange, an EU-licensed corporation that has built its crypto-exchange platform using Nasdaq's matching engine technology, began offering these "digital stocks" in January. Specifically, it offers Google, Tesla, and Amazon shares via a partnership with Cyprus-based MPS Marketplace Securities. As CEO Daniel Skowronski explained, these digital stocks are backed up one-for-one by real stocks in the corresponding company, which are held by MPS.

For example, Skowronski told me, "Every time a digital Apple share is purchased on DX.Exchange, MPS allocates or if needed purchases a real share of Apple Stock. Each Digital share is backed 1:1 by a real stock similar to how stable coins work."

This is all simple enough, but what's interesting and potentially radical about such digital stocks is that they permit customers to buy fractions of stocks in big companies. According to Skowronski, that's because "MPS as the market maker for the Digital Stocks will always hold slightly more than what is needed by rounding up. So, if a trader purchases 0.25 of Tesla, then MPS will make sure one full share is covering the 0.25 Tesla digital share."

This will open up trading to millions of people who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford buying shares in Apple or Amazon. Indeed, DX.Exchange seems to be aggressively pushing this angle, because at the end of February it announced a new partnership with Perlin Network, a cloud-computing platform that harnesses underutilized computing power in smart devices in order to make supercomputing more accessible and affordable throughout the world. Through this partnership, DX aims to bring its digital stocks to such countries as Indonesia and India, where only as much as 2% of the population currently invest in shares (compared to just over 50% for Americans).

"As for the 'bottom billion,' this is where we believe the real disruption will be in the financial services," Skowronski said. "By allowing access to, say, individuals in Indonesia and allowing them to purchase fractional shares, this enables them to have a chance to build and create wealth that is just not possible today."

These are laudable aims, yet the question remains whether Indians and Indonesians (or people elsewhere in the developing world) can be fully integrated into financial markets like this, especially when internet penetration in these two nations remains at 25% and 30%, respectively. Skowronski, for his part, believes that most of the 'bottom billion' will be capable of purchasing digital stocks, even without enjoying the kind of internet access evident in the developed world.

"Under our regulations we make it as simple as possible for clients to open an account. Once the account is open, they will be able to invest as little as $10 into digital stocks such as Amazon or Google," he said. "When you multiply that by millions of people, that is real wealth being created that wasn't available before, and although that might not seem like a lot to the Western world, it's a fortune in developing countries."

There's still a lack of evidence as to whether microfinance programs are truly effective in lifting poorer individuals out of poverty, yet DX.Exchange asserts that its tokenized stocks will bring more benefits than increasing financial inclusion. The company also underscores that it offers the same access benefits to the wealthy.

"Berkshire Hathaway (BRK) is trading over $300K a share," for example, Skowronski explained. "For even the wealthy this is a stock that would be hard to obtain a single share. But now, anyone can own a piece."

One significant side effect of tokenized stocks is that they could change the fundamental nature of global stock markets and how they behave, by opening them up to round-the-clock trading.

"Digital stocks can be traded in off-market hours seven days a week," said Skowronski. And the cost of trading digital versions of stocks will be significantly cheaper, since person-to-person trades circumvent the need to go through a broker. "We believe that in a few years everything will become digitized. It is happening today and DX will continue to innovate and push the boundaries to disrupt the market."

DX.Exchange may be the first platform to offer tokenized versions of shares in big companies, but it won't be the last. Other companies are positioning themselves to offer something very similar. BlockState is a Switzerland-based platform that, having obtained licensing in September, offers the ability to tokenize the shares of any Swiss company. It also lets customers tokenize any financial asset, and this year it's planning to launch a range of digital management products for the financial industry, including smart contract-based services for managing bonds and derivatives. As its co-founder and managing director Paul Claudius said, the tokenization of shares "will change the face of financial markets, making it easier to understand the market and get involved from a usability standpoint."

Another new company in this area is Hg Exchange, launched in January by Taiwanese exchange MaiCoin and Singaporean blockchain platform Zilliqa. Like DX.Exchange, it will be building a service to allow big companies like Uber and Airbnb to tokenize their shares, opening them up for purchase by a much wider pool of potential investors.

Similarly, Vanbex, a blockchain services firm headquartered in Canada, has a subsidiary called Etherparty that's in the process of launching Rocket 2.0, a platform that will enable companies to tokenize their shares. As with BlockState and DX.Exchange, Vanbex Group founder Lisa Cheng believes the tokenization of traditional shares will lower entry barriers. She told me tokenization will also eventually remove much of the unnecessary baggage and costs that come with trading.

"Tokenization of shares will actually disrupt a lot of the tertiary businesses that exist today, namely shareholder services and registrars," she said. "Rocket has incorporated shareholder tracking so that at any time issuers can view who is holding its stock and at what allocations. As well, Rocket is planning to release dividends and voting functions — shareholder rights that have historically needed shareholder service companies to help facilitate can now be done on the blockchain in a much more efficient and transparent manner."

Cheng also said companies can use Rocket 2.0 to set lock up periods for their shares and that compliance is embedded into the platform, in that shares are only transferred to approved and accredited investors. More significantly, the use of smart contracts in automating the issuance of tokenized shares could radically change global stock markets by making it easier for investors and traders in one country to buy shares in a company based in another.

"Anyone that wants to buy LG shares [today], for example, would have to work with a broker who has a license in that [the South Korea] market," Cheng said. "The need to use a broker dealer to purchase or sell shares occurred because, historically, investors and issuers needed an agent to paper the transaction and ensure things were handled appropriately. The system these agents established of record keeping and checks and balances, is able to be better served today with electronic systems that incorporate these rules and governance processes without ambiguity."

By removing the necessity of legacy checks and balances, systems like Rocket 2.0 and DX.Exchange will make it easier to trade shares in companies based overseas. And this, in theory at least, could change the rhythms and dynamics of international stock markets, making them active around the clock, rather than only between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm local time.

This development could potentially have downsides. Warren Lorenz is the managing director of trading strategies and operations at Tennessee-based Amplify Exchange, which is building a hybrid cryptocurrency trading platform that mixes elements of decentralized and centralized exchanges. He worries that round-the-clock markets could destabilize global financial systems and make them less accessible for smaller traders.

"In terms of negatives, allowing markets for tokens tied to equities to stay open 24/7 would likely diminish liquidity and make assets more volatile," he said. "In traditional markets, having an eight-hour trading window each day gives market participants time to digest information both in pre-market and after-hours; this helps the market make more rational decisions. If all markets transitioned to 24/7, we'd see a massive increase in algorithmic trading, which would hurt the less sophisticated retail audience."

While other figures within the crypto industry acknowledge these risks, they also affirm that the use of smart contracts and other blockchain technologies will combine to reduce overall volatility. "Current markets are also de facto trading 24/7 via futures and global exchanges," argued BlockState's Paul Claudius. "We see the increased liquidity as a compensating factor for market volatility. In addition, the potential for digitally integrated compliance measures and bridges to regulatory bodies can be a stabilizing force for the markets."

In other words, the ability to encode regulations into blockchain platforms and smart contracts will help to moderate the behavior of markets. "Similar to the integration with market players, we view the technological connection to regulatory bodies and provision of transparent reporting data as key in the path to success for this technology," Claudius added.

This hypothetical interconnection between tokenization platforms and regulations would likely demand that regulators do as much to innovate as blockchain companies. It would also demand innovation on the part of markets and stock exchanges. And here it's interesting to note that some commentators believe the growth of round-the-clock exchanges might, in the long term, result in the emergence of a single global stock market.

This is what Lisa Cheng suspects. A single global stock exchange is "realistically the only way we could have a 24-hour securities market," she said, adding that a global exchange overseen by a single authority would be the only way to enforce regulation fairly for all traders (regardless of where they are) and halt trading during times of excessive volatility.

"The reason is that securities markets today are restricted by geography and consequently the working hours of that geography. Yes, this could potentially be a volatile exchange as markets wake up and others go to bed, as we see today with the cryptocurrency market. The answer to that is, this global securities exchange would have to halt trading on some securities if they want to control volatility. For example, if a mining facility in Antarctica is trading, but overnight there's a huge iceberg that breaks off and the mining facility sinks into the ocean, only those markets awake at the time of the news would be able to trade on that information."

Of course, all of this speculation remains largely at the hypothetical stage, given that the likes of Rocket 2.0, DX.Exchange, and BlockState are either very new or haven't even launched yet. As such, neither they nor other tokenization platforms have had much chance to make a real impact. However, they're all confident they eventually will.

Simon Chandler is a freelance tech journalist. His areas of expertise include AI, virtual reality, social media, big data, cybersecurity, and cryptocurrencies. He has written for such outlets as Wired, the Daily Dot, The Sun, TechRadar, the Verge, Cointelegraph, Cryptonews, and MakeUseOf.

'The Passage' Producer on Netflix's Theatrical Plans, "Noir Batman" - Hollywood Reporter

Matt Reeves was 8 when he made his first movie. By 13, he was on the festival circuit, where he met fellow film wunderkind J.J. Abrams. At 15, the pair caught the attention of Steven Spielberg.

As the story goes, Reeves and Abrams were tasked, via Spielberg's then-assistant Kathleen Kennedy, with restoring the director's early work, which had been found in his childhood home in boxes labeled "Stevie Spielberg." Their compensation: $250. "The great thing about Super 8 films is it's pretty much a great equalizer," says Reeves, seated in his cozy high-rise office on Sunset in Hollywood. "There's no way to make a beautiful-looking Super 8 film, so his movies looked a lot like ours, and we thought, 'Maybe we have a shot!' "

Turns out, they weren't wrong. After dipping his toe in as a writer-director on 1996 rom-com The Pallbearer (produced by Abrams), Reeves, 52, and his childhood pal reteamed for the TV hit Felicity and, later, the Cloverfield franchise. On his own, Reeves successfully relaunched Planet of the Apes, with his two installments grossing well over $1 billion at the global box office.

Now, the married father of a 7-year-old son is focused on building out his six-employee 6th & Idaho production company (which he runs with Adam Kassan and Rafi Crohn). Out front is Fox's freshman entry The Passage, which brought in nearly 10 million multiplatform viewers in its first week. Also in his pipeline: the comic adaptation Mouse Guard, which he's producing for Fox, Netflix's Jason Katims-produced space drama AwayTales From the Loop for Amazon and his highly anticipated stand-alone Batman film, which he'll write and direct for Warner Bros.

On a crisp January afternoon, the L.A.-reared filmmaker opened up — his interview has been condensed and edited for clarity — about a forthcoming collaboration with Shonda Rhimes, the upside of a Netflix movie deal and what's really happening on The Batman (save Ben Affleck's status, on which Reeves is staying mum).

You were making films by age 8. What were your earliest subjects?

I did one that was influenced by Star Wars called Galactic Battles. We had Planet of the Apes stuff in it because I had those masks. I was obsessed with Spielberg and [Martin] Scorsese and how they would tell stories that affected you in a way you never expected. That's how I met J.J. We were in an 8mm film festival, and the guy who [ran it] had a public access show called Word of Mouth Productions, and he'd offer to air shorts. He introduced me to J.J. because he was my age and doing the same thing I was. We hit it off right away. We felt like we'd had these weird parallel childhoods, where in our own spaces we'd been the kids asking others if they wanted to be in our movie.

So much of your work is genre or horror, but your big break came with Felicity. What inspired it?

J.J. said he always wanted to do this movie about what became the opening scene of Felicity: getting a love letter inside a yearbook on the last day of school and that changing a life. He was the Ben Covington [Scott Speedman], and he had a crush on this artist but didn't know her at all. That started bringing up all these experiences for me. As we were in season two or three, J.J. was like, "What are we going to do? How do we create more stories? We need her to be in the CIA." We all thought he was crazy, and so he said, "Forget it, that's my pilot." That [became] Alias.

If you could go back and do it all over, is there anything you would change? Maybe Felicity's infamous haircut?

The haircut is totally our fault! But I don't think we would've changed it. It was the right story idea.

The Felicity actors have said they'd be open to a revival. You?

We haven't had any conversations. I love working with J.J. … but I think there's probably zero chance that we would ever do it.

The Passage is your first series since Felicity. You were attached to direct it back in 2011, when it was a feature. What's been the draw?

Ridley Scott and I tried to crack the film for two years. It's a beautiful novel that wasn't a genre piece. Then I figured out what the problem was: It was a TV series. Fox [the film studio] laughed at me. They felt strongly that it was a movie, and I ended up doing the Apes movies, and as a result of that I got to start 6th & Idaho. I got in touch with Fox, who by this time had no plans to make it [as a movie] because they couldn't crack the story.

You recently inked a film deal with Netflix. Your mentor, Spielberg, is among those who has taken aim at the streamer's distribution model. Do you share any of his concerns?

I don't feel that way. The movies I grew up watching and imagined myself making don't get made anymore. But now they are starting to again by streamers like Netflix, Amazon and Apple. Anything that allows the middle to come back so you can do humanist stories in addition to these bigger stories is a good thing. I understand the love for a movie on the screen, but you also want to stay with the times.

Have you talked with Netflix about theatrical distribution for your films? Any guarantees in your deal?

It's all a per-film basis. They want to be able to [release films theatrically] as much as it makes sense. There are certain projects we are involved in that I think it will happen and then others where it probably won't. It will depend on the final products and the filmmakers involved. I binge-watched the first season of Handmaid's Tale, and it was a very powerful show. It wasn't like I didn't have a profound experience with that show because it wasn't on the big screen. So I'm willing to be open to the experience, but it would be tragic if we ever lost that part of the moviegoing thing.

Your last TV overall was a two-year pact with 20th TV. Do you intend to stay put or are you tempted to add TV to your Netflix deal?

We're feeling it out now, so I'm not quite sure what we'll do. I'm excited to have the option to go to all different places. I like being able to have that flexibility because I like making sure that the home is right for the project.

Netflix is looking to you and Shonda Rhimes to develop Recursion as an "innovative" film and TV franchise. How did it come together?

We sent the book to her. She read it in a night and fell in love. We're doing it together. It's not like she's doing TV and I'm doing the movie. It needs to be thought of as one organism. Because of the way it's told, it presents so many opportunities to go into tangents. There's a broad shape that could be a movie, but then that movie could beget a TV series. This was a book that felt like it might have a movie in it, it might have three movies in it and it also might have several TV series in it. That we could do all of that and that they could be concurrent and all be developed at the same time felt very innovative.

Recursion comes as many streamers and networks alike are looking to build and expand franchises. Having worked on so many — Apes, Cloverfield and now Batman — what's the hardest part about reworking big IP? 

Finding something that feels fresh that resonates emotionally. I was a huge fan of Apes as a kid but those stories were told from such a different perspective. The Caesar cycle of the Planet of the Apes stories is different from anything they told, though it touches in all these different ways on the originals. In Rise, [we had] the opportunity to take that story but to tell it in a way that related to our times. What's exciting about Batman is how it relates to now and also how personal it can be.

You launched your production company, 6th & Idaho, in 2015. What's the larger goal for the company? 

I want it to be a home for people who, like me, want to find a way to tell stories, whether they be in genre or whatever form, but they have something personal to say. The secret of everything I've done, including the Apes films, is that they were personal to me. When I did Dawn, my son was just learning how to speak, and Caesar [Andy Serkis] was like a child coming into articulation. Those two movies were about family, in addition to other mythic structures that really resonated with me. I want us to be a place that supports stories that use metaphors and the cover of genre to do personal things. 

Will there be another Planet of the Apes movie? 

I would love to but I'm so deeply embedded in getting Batman on its feet. If the opportunity ever came back around for us to be involved in that world, I would. There are definitely stories I could see doing.

So, Batman. Tell us about your take.

It's very much a point of view-driven, noir Batman tale. It's told very squarely on his shoulders, and I hope it's going to be a story that will be thrilling but also emotional. It's more Batman in his detective mode than we've seen in the films. The comics have a history of that. He's supposed to be the world's greatest detective, and that's not necessarily been a part of what the movies have been. I'd love this to be one where when we go on that journey of tracking down the criminals and trying to solve a crime, it's going to allow his character to have an arc so that he can go through a transformation.

Do you have a title yet?

(Laughs.) Right now it's called The Batman. What it will be called ultimately, I don't know.  

Have you begun the casting process? 

There will be a Rogues Gallery. The casting process will begin shortly. We're starting to put together our battle plan. I'm doing another pass on the script and we'll begin some long-lead stuff to start developing conceptual things. 

What's your goal as far as a release date?

We haven't been dated. I wouldn't commit to this, but we're thinking the movie would probably be for 2021, late spring or summer. Warner Bros. has been incredibly supportive and given me a lot of time and shared the same passion that I do for this story.

How involved are you with the other films in the DC universe, be it Harley Quinn or Batgirl?

Right now, I'm involved in The Batman. What it will be called ultimately, I don't know. Aquaman is going to be very different from the Todd Phillips Joker movie, and that's going to be different from Shazam and Harley Quinn. Warners believes they don't have to try to develop a giant slate that has to have all the plans for how it's going to connect. What they need to try and do is make good movies with these characters.

Final question: If you could spend a day shadowing anyone in the industry, who would you pick?  

Alfonso Cuaron. I'd love to be a fly on the wall to watch how his shots develop.

A version of this story first appeared in the Jan. 30 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. To receive the magazine, click here to subscribe.

Dan Haar: Lamont jumps in as Amazon plan for New York falters - CT Post

The Amazon welcome party is back on in Connecticut, with a new cast of characters and new hope based on the retail juggernaut showing second thoughts about New York City.

All that backlash in the city from politicians unhappy about Amazon's decision to locate a headquarters with 25,000 people in Queens seems to be having an effect. The Washington Post reported Friday that the Seattle-based company is reconsidering its choice.

Quickly, Gov. Ned Lamont fired off a pair of Tweets: "Upon the 1st indication - days ago - that there may be trouble with @Amazon's proposed deal with #NY, we mobilized our new Partnership to Advance the Connecticut of Tomorrow - and more specifically, @CERCInc co-chairs Indra Nooyi and Jim Smith, to construct a path forward."

Lamont added: "The state has already made an outreach to @Amazon through its in-state representation, and we are looking forward to expanding the dialogue."

Win or lose, dreamland or reality, this is a chance for the new governor to put in place the exact sort of rapid-response recruitment he's been talking about for weeks — with the team he put in place one week ago. Okay, so the players aren't all in place, for example, David Lehman, the nominee for economic development commissioner, is still wrapping things up at Goldman Sachs.

Is the New Connecticut capable of stealing Amazon from the icy grips of Gotham City? Is there even a New Connecticut?

Lamont isn't the only one mobilizing. In Stamford, Joe McGee, vice president of the Business Council of Fairfield County, worked the phones Friday — and took calls from people with the same idea — to formulate what could be a very innovative, 13th-hour bid.

"The Bronx and Fairfield County. Who would ever put that marriage together? They want to grow, and we're all on the New Haven rail line," McGee said. "Let's be crazy and talk about a two-state solution."

Stamford, you'll recall, was one of several bid sites for the Amazon co-headquarters prize. All the Connecticut locales were nixed early by Amazon — but this new development could change the game.

Lamont's office wasn't saying whether Amazon has shown any interest, but the company already has warehouses in the state. Amazon, in the Washington Post story, said it was working with neighbors in Long Island City to win them over.

"This is Day 1 in Connecticut," said Smith, the newly named Connecticut Economic Resource Center co-chairman, who, along with co-chair Nooyi, the recently retired PepsiCo chair and CEO, is charged with recruiting companies from out of state. "We've already mobilized dozens of people inside Connecticut."

The Amazon bids attracted just about every state with a metro area of at least 1 million people, as Amazon required. Connecticut's official state bids were from Stamford and greater Hartford, and others — including Danbury and the consortium of Bridgeport and New Haven — put in wildcat bids.

Dan Haar

Dan writes about the intersection of business, public policy and politics and how the issues affect the people of Connecticut.

Details of an updated Connecticut bid are just coming together. My two cents: Don't bother dusting off the Hartford portion. This is about nearness to New York, period. Focus.

As it was, Amazon came under heavy fire for picking New York City and Arlington, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C., to split the east coast headquarters. Those were the safe, humdrum options. A company that mighty could have created a whole new ballgame, and a new way of thinking, with its $5 billion investment.

For the Stamford-Bronx idea, McGee is talking about four new commuter rail stations now being built in the Bronx along the Hellgate line that connects New Rochelle and the Metro North line to Penn Station on the West Side of Manhattan. Amazon aside, he's had talks with Bronx officials who are looking to that borough as the next frontier of growth.

Linchpin for a massive development proposal with Connecticut? Stamford is, after all, the closest metro to Long Island City, the section of Queens where Amazon proposed the development.

"Yep, it's a crazy idea," McGee said, "but it's a fun thing to play with because it will force people to think in a new way."

We could use that around now. McGee was the state's economic development commissioner in the early '90s, when the state snagged Swiss Bank (later UBS) to move from New York to Stamford with a huge incentive — considered an impossible dream at the time.

"Let's just erase the political boundary," McGee said Friday. "What does the economic boundary look like? It's about workforce availability, it's about land, it's about revitalizing communities and that whole initiative in the Bronx and in Connecticut."

Many politicians in New York oppose the Amazon plan because it could drive out middle-class residents — now they worry about gentrification? — and it would require as much as $1.3 billion in subsidies. Amazon, of course, needs no such money and it's controlled by Jeffrey Bezos, far and away the world's richest human.

Bezos also owns the Washington Post, which did not cite sources in its story.

Among the Nerw York critics is newly elected U.S. Rep., and Democratic Party It-Person Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. She tweeted Friday, "Can everyday people come together and effectively organize against creeping overreach of one of the world's biggest corporations? Yes they can."

To paraphrase Tevye the Dairyman in Fiddler on the Roof — on behalf of Connecticut, if there's terrible creeping corporate overreach to be had — "God, strike me!"

That's the idea in Connecticut, where, in he balance of things, we've been a bit under-stricken by growth.

"Connecticut should think that we have a level shot at anything that we go after," Smith said. "The first thing that people have to figure out is whether this is real or is it part of the process."

Indeed, Amazon could easily be putting out a trial balloon to bluff New York officials to line up behind the Queens plan. That's one of a million things we don't know.

And of course, every city in America will be at Amazon's portal for this new round of groveling.

For Connecticut, what we're really talking about is a sort of trip to the economic gym — have some fun, build up some development muscles and maybe, just maybe, notch a huge win.

One weakness for Stamford is the tough trip to New York's LaGuardia Airport, which is just about walking distance from the chosen Amazon site. Yes, McGee notes, there is Westchester County Airport nearby, which can expand.

But it's no coincidence Amazon placed itself practically on top of major airports. Then there's the workforce. It's great in Stamford, but not New York great in huge numbers, when it comes to tech jobs.

"Our attitude is that all opportunities, whether previously explored or not, are on the table and to the extent that they are consistent with the governor's approach...all in," Smith, said.

"Sometimes," Smith said, "there are those 'drop everything' moments and you go for it."