From The Arab Spring Springs New Geopolitical Trends And A Revision of Risk Assessment

Implications of Arab Spring and political transitions raise concerns for businesses around the world: Aon Political Risk Map 
PRESS RELEASE 
Feb. 8, 2012, 9:00 a.m. EST

Interest in political risk insurance increasing as chief stakeholders take notice

CHICAGO, Feb. 8, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- While clarity has begun to emerge in some of the countries affected by the Arab Spring, the resulting tension has spurred or intensified protests in dozens of countries, both within the region and elsewhere. According to Aon's 2012 Political Risk Map released today, this remains a concern for businesses operating in those nations.






Aon Risk Solutions, the global risk management business of Aon Corporation AON +0.54%, measured political risk in 167 countries and territories to assess the risk level of exchange transfer, sovereign non-payment, political interference, supply chain disruption, legal and regulatory, and political violence.

"These uprisings and protests remain a key concern in 2012 and we see this reflected in rating downgrades of several countries," said Roger Schwartz, senior vice president of political risk for Aon Risk Solutions' Crisis Management Practice. "This is forcing CEOs and CFOs of businesses with overseas operations in emerging markets to revisit risk management and risk mitigation measures."

In addition, the outcome of elections in the U.S., France, Russia and China may contribute to greater global uncertainty. The eurozone debt crisis remains a significant risk, and extends to those countries economically or otherwise dependent on the region.

Aon's map provides an indication of overall levels and types of political risk, which relates to the actions or inactions of foreign governments, including third-party countries which may deprive a business of its assets, prevent or restrict the performance of a contract and affect repayment of loans to financing banks.

Political risk can exist for businesses that invest, operate, trade or lend in emerging markets.

About the 2012 Aon Political Risk MapAon measured political risk in 167 countries and territories to assess the risk level of exchange transfer, sovereign non-payment, political interference, supply chain disruption, legal and regulatory, and political violence. Each country is rated as Low, Medium-Low, Medium, Medium-High, High or Very High. European Union and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development member countries are not rated in the 2012 map.

Country ratings reflect a combination of analysis by Aon Risk Solutions, Oxford Analytica, a global analysis and advisory firm, and the opinions of 26 Lloyd's syndicates and corporate insurers actively writing political risk insurance.

Upgrades (where the overall country or territory risk is rated lower than the previous year)Three upgrades: Moldova, Ukraine, Uruguay

Downgrades (where the overall country or territory risk is rated higher than the previous year)21 downgrades: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Colombia, Croatia, Egypt, Falkland Islands, Gabon, Guatemala, Guinea Bissau, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Uganda, Vietnam, Western Sahara

Each country on the map is rated according to the different types of risks it faces, and these risks are indicated by the following icons:

Exchange Transfer: The risk of being unable to make hard currency payments as a result of the imposition of local currency controls. 71 countries have this risk icon, including Bolivia, Kenya, Swaziland, Pakistan and Turkmenistan.

Legal and Regulatory: The risk of financial or reputational loss as a result of difficulties in complying with a host country's laws, regulations or codes. 104 countries have this risk icon, making it the most common risk on the map. Countries with this risk icon include Belarus, Kazakhstan, Somalia, Thailand and Yemen.

Political Interference: The risk of host government intervention in the economy or other policy areas that negatively affect overseas business interests; e.g., nationalization and expropriation. 92 countries and territories have this risk icon, including five new entrants for 2012: Egypt, Gambia, Libya, Peru and Western Sahara.

Political Violence: The risk of strikes, riots, civil commotions, sabotage, terrorism, malicious damage, war, civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, hostile act by a belligerent power, mutiny or coup d'etat. 81 countries have this risk icon, including Bahrain, Libya, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Turkmenistan.

Sovereign Non-payment: The risk of failure of a foreign government or government entity to honor its obligations in connection with loans or other financial commitments. 85 countries have this risk icon in 2012, including Croatia, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Nigeria and Vietnam.

Supply Chain Disruption: The risk of disruption to the flow of goods and/or services into or out of a country as a result of political, social, economic or environmental instability. This is the least common risk icon with 61 countries, including Guinea Conakry, Papua New Guinea, Syria, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.

For more information, visit http://www.aon.com/2012politicalriskmap.Follow Aon on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/aoncorpSign up for News Alerts: http://aon.mediaroom.com/

About AonAon Corporation AON +0.54% is the leading global provider of risk management, insurance and reinsurance brokerage, and human resources solutions and outsourcing services. Through its more than 61,000 colleagues worldwide, Aon unites to empower results for clients in over 120 countries via innovative and effective risk and people solutions and through industry-leading global resources and technical expertise. Aon has been named repeatedly as the world's best broker, best insurance intermediary, reinsurance intermediary, captives manager and best employee benefits consulting firm by multiple industry sources. Visit http://www.aon.com for more information on Aon and http://www.aon.com/manchesterunited to learn about Aon's global partnership and shirt sponsorship with Manchester United.

This communication states our intentions, beliefs and expectations or predictions for the future which are forward-looking statements as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements relate to expectations or forecasts of future events. They use words such as "anticipate," "believe," "estimate," "expect," "forecast," "project," "intend," "plan," "potential," and other similar terms, and future or conditional tense verbs like "could," "may," "might," "should," "will" and "would." You can also identify forward-looking statements by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. For example, we may use forward-looking statements when addressing topics such as our plans, objectives, expectations and intentions with respect to future operations.

Forward-looking statements may also include statements regarding market and industry conditions, including competitive and pricing trends; changes in our business strategies and methods of generating revenue; the development and performance of our services and products; and future actions by regulators. These forward-looking statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from either historical or anticipated results depending on a variety of factors. Further information concerning Aon and its business, including factors that potentially could materially affect Aon's financial results, is contained in Aon's and, historically, Hewitt's filings with the SEC. See Aon's Annual Report on Form 10-K and Annual Report to Stockholders for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the subsequent fiscal quarters and other public filings with the SEC for a further discussion of these and other risks and uncertainties applicable to our businesses. Aon does not undertake, and expressly disclaims, any duty to update any forward-looking statement whether as a result of new information, future events or changes in their respective expectations, except as required by law.

Aon Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority in respect of insurance mediation activities only.

Media Contact:Kelly Drinkwine+1.312.381.2684kelly.drinkwine@aon.com

SOURCE Aon Corporation

Copyright (C) 2012 PR Newswire. All rights reserved

SOURCE:http://www.marketwatch.com/story/implications-of-arab-spring-and-political-transitions-raise-concerns-for-businesses-around-the-world-aon-political-risk-map-2012-02-08

Outside Group Involvement in GOP Contest Skyrockets Compared to 2008

Outside Group Involvement in GOP Contest Skyrockets Compared to 2008

Jan. 30, 2012 by efowler

Romney Advertising Dominates in Florida; General Election Advertising Sets Furious Pace

(MIDDLETOWN, CT –) The overall number of GOP presidential ads on the airwaves this election year is comparable with 2008, but who is paying for them so far has changed significantly. The influence of SuperPACs in the race for the 2012 GOP nomination is clear, with a more than 1600 percent increase in interest-group sponsored ads aired as compared to 2008.

In the first presidential election cycle following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC, interest group involvement in the presidential air war has skyrocketed from 3 percent of all ads aired in the 2008 Republican nomination race to nearly half (44 percent) of all airings. Table 1 shows the total number of GOP presidential ads (through Jan. 25) was just shy of 70,000 airings on broadcast television and national cable in both years. Candidate-sponsored ads, which made up 97 percent of the total in 2008, declined to 56 percent of the total this year. An estimated $28.9M has been spent to date, a substantial drop from 2008.





Table 1: Advertising in GOP Presidential Primaries*





One reason the number of GOP candidate ads has fallen so much since 2008 is that the Romney campaign is not shelling out the cash it did the first time he ran for president. (He was on the air in Iowa for much of 2007, but he did not start advertising this time around until December 2011). Table 2 compares the campaigns with the largest number of candidate-sponsored airings across the last two GOP primaries.

Table 2: Front-Runner Candidate-Sponsored Ad Totals in the 2008 and 2012 GOP Presidential Primaries*


Even though Romney has not been on the airwaves as much as he was in 2008, his campaign and its allies have dominated the airwaves in Florida, airing almost 13,000 ads on broadcast television across the state, as of Wednesday, the 25th (Table 3). Gingrich and his interest-group allies have aired only about 200 spots, with Paul and Santorum out of the broadcast television game.


Table 3: Spot Count in Florida Primary*




“One reason we’ve seen the Florida polls shift in Romney’s favor over the past few days, when the national polls have not, is that his message has dominated the paid airwaves in the Sunshine State,” noted Travis Ridout, associate professor of political science at Washington State University and director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “Gingrich—and Paul and Santorum—have had a much more difficult time making themselves heard.”

In South Carolina, however, Romney’s ad advantage was not nearly as great (Table 4). Romney and interest-group allies aired about 8,000 ads, compared to 5,000 for Santorum, about 4,500 for Gingrich and 3,000 for Paul. All candidates benefited from sympathetic interest groups airing spots on their behalf; Romney and Gingrich benefited the most while Paul benefited the least.

Table 4: Spot Count in South Carolina Primary*


The outside group most heavily involved in the Republican nomination race has been Restore Our Future, Inc., a pro-Romney group that has spent an estimated $8 million to air over 13,500 spots on his behalf in media markets in Iowa, South Carolina, Florida, Arizona and Michigan (Table 5). Make Us Great Again, a pro-Perry group, spent an estimated $2.2 million on 4200 spots aired in Iowa and South Carolina, while Winning Our Future, a pro-Gingrich group, has been involved in advertising almost as heavily. Stephen Colbert’s SuperPAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow has aired 11 spots on broadcast stations and national cable.


Table 5: Top Groups Involved in GOP Nomination Race*


Meanwhile, the Obama campaign has aired over 5,000 ads at an estimated cost of $1.4M, targeting residents of 25 markets in Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Table 6 displays the top ten markets of airings.


“Advertising market placement is like a tell, and it is clear that the Obama campaign views these battleground states as most important at this stage of the game,” said Michael Franz, associate professor of government at Bowdoin College and director of the Wesleyan Media Project.

Table 6: Top Ten Markets Airing Obama Campaign Ads*


However, the Obama campaign is not the only one already advertising for the general election (Table 7). Americans for Prosperity has aired over 5,000 spots in battleground state markets, while Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies has aired over 4,200 spots in similar markets. The American Petroleum Institute also aired around 1,500 spots.

“I can’t remember a time when so many groups were so involved in general election advertising so early,” noted Erika Franklin Fowler assistant professor of government at Wesleyan University and director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “An underappreciated fact about this year’s contest is that outside groups are spending more money per ad than candidates, which makes examining the balance of actual ads voters are seeing very crucial when attempting to tease out their influence.”

Table 7: Top Non-Candidate General Election Spenders*




Data reported here do not cover local cable buys, only broadcast television and national cable buys. All cost estimates are precisely that: estimates.

The Wesleyan Media Project provides real-time tracking and analysis of all political television advertising in real-time. Housed in Wesleyan’s Quantitative Analysis Center –part of the Allbritton Center for the Study of Public Life – the Wesleyan Media Project is the successor to the Wisconsin Advertising Project, which disbanded in 2009. It is directed by Erika Franklin Fowler, assistant professor of government at Wesleyan University, Michael M. Franz, associate professor of government at Bowdoin College and Travis N. Ridout, associate professor of political science at Washington State University.

The Wesleyan Media Project is supported by grants from The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and Wesleyan University. Data provided by Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project using Academiclip, a web-based coding tool. All spending amounts are estimates of broadcast and national cable spots.

Periodic releases of data will be posted on the project’s website and dispersed via Twitter@wesmediaproject. To be added to our email update list, click here.

For more information contact:
David Pesci at 860-685-5612 or dpesci@wesleyan.edu
Erika Franklin Fowler at 860-685-3407 or efowler at wesleyan.edu
Michael M. Franz at 207-798-4318 or mfranz at bowdoin.edu, or
Travis N. Ridout at 509-335-2264 or tnridout at wsu.edu



Wesleyan University, in Middletown, Conn., is known for the excellence of its academic and co-curricular programs. More than 2,700 undergraduates and over 200 graduate students from around the world pursue their classroom studies, research projects, and co-curricular interests in ways that are demanding and intensely rewarding.

The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation supports transformational ideas that promote quality journalism, advance media innovation, engage communities and foster the arts. We believe that democracy thrives when people and communities are informed and engaged. For more, visitwww.knightfoundation.org.

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund advances social change that contributes to a more just, sustainable, and peaceful world. The Fund’s grantmaking is organized in three thematic programs that support work in the United States and at the global level: Democratic Practice, Sustainable Development, and Peacebuilding; and in three pivotal place programs that address these themes in specific contexts: New York City, Southern China, and the Western Balkans. For more, visitwww.rbf.org.


SOURCE: http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/2012/01/30/group-involvement-skyrockets/