This essay got a high-school senior into 5 Ivy League schools and Stanford

• Abby Jackson
 

• Apr. 1, 2016, 11:59 AM
• 1,333,255

Brittany Stinson.Brittany Stinson.

See Also

RANKED: Ivy League universities from most to least selective

Ivy League admission letters just went out — here are the acceptance rates for the class of 2020

39,000 people are about to find out if they got into Harvard

High-school senior Brittany Stinson learned Thursday she was accepted into five Ivy League schools — Yale, Columbia, University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth, and Cornell.

She also got into Stanford, which has an acceptance rate of 4.69% — a lower rate than any of the Ivy League schools.

"I'm sort of still in shock. I don't think I've processed everything yet," she excitedly told Business Insider.

The Ivy League is notoriously hard to get into, as the hundreds of thousands of other applicants to the eight elite schools are well aware.

The schools Stinson was accepted into have acceptance rates ranging from 13.96% to 4.69%.

Stinson graciously shared her Common Application admissions essay with Business Insider, which we've reprinted verbatim below.

Prompt 1: Some students have a background, identity, interest, or talent that is so meaningful they believe their application would be incomplete without it. If this sounds like you, then please share your story.

Managing to break free from my mother’s grasp, I charged. With arms flailing and chubby legs fluttering beneath me, I was the ferocious two­ year old rampaging through Costco on a Saturday morning. My mother’s eyes widened in horror as I jettisoned my churro; the cinnamon­sugar rocket gracefully sliced its way through the air while I continued my spree. I sprinted through the aisles, looking up in awe at the massive bulk products that towered over me. Overcome with wonder, I wanted to touch and taste, to stick my head into industrial­sized freezers, to explore every crevice. I was a conquistador, but rather than searching the land for El Dorado, I scoured aisles for free samples. Before inevitably being whisked away into a shopping cart, I scaled a mountain of plush toys and surveyed the expanse that lay before me: the kingdom of Costco. 

Notorious for its oversized portions and dollar­fifty hot dog combo, Costco is the apex of consumerism. From the days spent being toted around in a shopping cart to when I was finally tall enough to reach lofty sample trays, Costco has endured a steady presence throughout my life. As a veteran Costco shopper, I navigate the aisles of foodstuffs, thrusting the majority of my weight upon a generously filled shopping cart whose enormity juxtaposes my small frame. Over time, I’ve developed a habit of observing fellow patrons tote their carts piled with frozen burritos, cheese puffs, tubs of ice cream, and weight­loss supplements. Perusing the aisles gave me time to ponder. Who needs three pounds of sour cream? Was cultured yogurt any more well­mannered than its uncultured counterpart? Costco gave birth to my unfettered curiosity. 

While enjoying an obligatory hot dog, I did not find myself thinking about the ‘all beef’ goodness that Costco boasted. I instead considered finitudes and infinitudes, unimagined uses for tubs of sour cream, the projectile motion of said tub when launched from an eighty foot shelf or maybe when pushed from a speedy cart by a scrawny seventeen year old. I contemplated the philosophical: If there exists a thirty­three ounce jar of Nutella, do we really have free will? I experienced a harsh physics lesson while observing a shopper who had no evident familiarity of inertia's workings. With a cart filled to overflowing, she made her way towards the sloped exit, continuing to push and push while steadily losing control until the cart escaped her and went crashing into a concrete column, 52” plasma screen TV and all. Purchasing the yuletide hickory smoked ham inevitably led to a conversation between my father and me about Andrew Jackson’s controversiality. There was no questioning Old Hickory’s dedication; he was steadfast in his beliefs and pursuits – qualities I am compelled to admire, yet his morals were crooked. We both found the ham to be more likeable–and tender.

I adopted my exploratory skills, fine tuned by Costco, towards my intellectual endeavors. Just as I sampled buffalo­chicken dip or chocolate truffles, I probed the realms of history, dance and biology, all in pursuit of the ideal cart–one overflowing with theoretical situations and notions both silly and serious. I sampled calculus, cross­country running, scientific research, all of which are now household favorites. With cart in hand, I do what scares me; I absorb the warehouse that is the world. Whether it be through attempting aerial yoga, learning how to chart blackbody radiation using astronomical software, or dancing in front of hundreds of people, I am compelled to try any activity that interests me in the slightest. 

My intense desire to know, to explore beyond the bounds of rational thought; this is what defines me. Costco fuels my insatiability and cultivates curiosity within me at a cellular level. Encoded to immerse myself in the unknown, I find it difficult to complacently accept the “what”; I want to hunt for the “whys” and dissect the “hows”. In essence, I subsist on discovery.

David Cameron will publish his tax returns after admitting he profited from his dad's offshore fund

• Jeremy Wilson
 
•  

• 5h
• 595
 
• 1

Carl Court/Getty Images

British Prime Minister David Cameron will publish his tax returns "in the coming weeks," Downing Street spokespeople confirmed on Friday.

The announcement comes a day after the prime minister admitted that he once owned shares in his father's offshore trust and profited from them.

Cameron revealed the full extent of his investment in BlairmoreHoldings to ITV's political editor Robert Peston in a detailed TV interview on Thursday night.

Cameron told Peston that he and his wife Samatha used to own around £30,000 worth of shares in the trust, which was originally incorporated in Panama. He still held the shares while he was the leader of the opposition, but sold them in 2010 before he became prime minister.

On Sunday, a giant leak of documents from a law firm based in Panama revealed the offshore holdings of 140 politicians, public officials, and athletes around the world. Those documents revealed more about Cameron’s father's role as a founding director of the Blairmore trust.

According to the ICIJ, six members of the House of Lords, three former Conservative MPs, and lots of British political donors also hold or have held assets offshore.

Here is what Cameron told Peston about the shares he used to hold. 

Samantha and I had a joint account and we owned 5,000 units in Blairmore Investment Trust, which we sold in January 2010. That was worth something like £30,000. I paid income tax on the dividends. There was a profit on it but it was less than the capital gains tax allowance so I didn’t pay capital gains tax. But it was subject to all the UK taxes in all the normal way. I want to be as clear as I can about the past, about the present, about the future, because frankly I don’t have anything to hide.

Here's Cameron's explanation for why he sold his shares before he became prime minister.

But I was keen in 2010 to sell everything – shares, all the rest of it – so I can be very transparent. I don’t own any part of any company or any investment trust or anything else like that.

And here is Cameron's response to people who might think the fund itself was set up as a "tax dodge." Emphasis ours.

It was set up after exchange controls went so that people who wanted to invest in dollar denominated shares and companies could do so. There are many other unit trusts like it, and I think it’s being unfairly described and my father’s name is being unfairly written about.

REUTERS/Facundo Arrizabalaga/PoolBritain's Prime Minister David Cameron holds a Q&A session on the forthcoming European Union referendum with staff of PricewaterhouseCoopers in Birmingham, Britain, April 5, 2016.

Downing Street later confirmed that the Camerons bought their shares in Blairmore for £12,497 and sold it in January 2010 for £31,500. They made a profit of around £19,000, which explains why they didn't need to pay any capital gains tax – the joint capital gains allowance was £20,200.

Now, some people are calling for the prime minister to resign. Labour MP John Mann tweetedCameron should go because he has been dishonest and the Guardian and the Independent have both published opinion pieces calling for the prime minister to step down.

A protest outside Downing has been organised on Facebook for Saturday. The event has been promoted by whistleblower Edward Snowden, as has the hashtag #ResignCameron, which is currently trending on Twitter.

It's important to note that Cameron has not admitted to tax evasion or tax avoidance.

As Cameron pointed out, offshore unit trusts that are administered from countries that are in the dollar area can be a perfectly legitimate and sensible way of running funds that primarily invest in companies that are also in the dollar area. Cameron paid tax on his dividends and didn't need to pay any capital gains tax when he sold off his shares.

Here's a brief timeline of what has happened since the Panama Papers came out:

Sunday: The Panama Papers come out, revealing more about the role Cameron's father had as director of the Blairmore Holdings.

Monday: The prime minister's spokesperson told journalists who were asking questions that it was a "private, personal matter."

Tuesday: A journalist asks Cameron whether he has, does or will benefit from offshore funds. Cameron carefully answers the question by saying that he doesn't own any shares. Downing Street thought that they had done enough, saying that journalists who continued to ask questions needed "to put up or shut up. The prime minister has put out a very clear statement."

Wednesday: Downing Street says that Cameron and his family won't benefit from offshore funds in the future.

Thursday: Cameron says that he and is wife used to have shares in an offshore fund.

Britain's opposition and the Scottish National Party have both called out the "hypocrisy" of Cameron's involvement in the fund and his delay in admitting to owning shares.

SNP economy spokesman Stewart Hosie MP has been saying:

David Cameron says he doesn't have anything to hide, yet had it not been for the Panama Papers leak we would have been none the wiser - and even then it has taken him several days to clarify he benefited from his father's off-shore trust.

And here is what Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson has been saying:

"The time has come for David Cameron to put the record straight rather than having details dragged from him in instalments.... It feels like the prime minister is governing from the shadows in this announcement today. That he's been withholding personal information that he feels personal shame about."

Investors are sticking with Pfizer's CEO after the $160 billion Allergan deal was scrapped

• Bill Berkrot and Ransdell Pierson, Reuters

• 10h
• 559

Thomson ReutersPfizer Chief Executive Ian Read leaves after appearing at a commons science committee hearing at Portcullis House in London

See Also

ALLERGAN CEO: The US is building a wall around itself and making itself uncompetitive

Pfizer is in the lurch after it just scrapped a $160 billion takeover — here's what might happen next

6 banks just lost more than $200 million on the Pfizer-Allergan collapse

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Pfizer Chief Executive Ian Read has investors standing behind him even after his second attempt at a huge tax-saving deal collapsed this week.

The U.S. drug maker walked away from a $160 billion merger with Allergan on Wednesday because of new U.S. Treasury rules aimed at blocking the deal's tax benefits, marking the second major setback for Read in the past two years.

In 2014, Pfizer failed in its unsolicited $118 billion bid to buy London-based drugmaker AstraZeneca Plc after that deal ran into staunch opposition from British politicians.

This time it was the U.S. government that threw up roadblocks to prevent Pfizer from relocating to Ireland, where former U.S. company Allergan is now based, with rules that appeared to be aimed specifically at Pfizer/Allergan.

While failure on that scale often puts CEOs in jeopardy, 10 investors and portfolio managers told Reuters that Read still has their support.

Read, they said, has a deep reservoir of goodwill after tackling many problems he inherited since taking over in 2010, including re-energizing Pfizer's faltering research and development operations.

In addition, many of them blame the U.S. government, not Read, for the Allergan deal's demise.

"Read gets an 'A' for effort. It was the right move for him to give Allergan a shot," said Gary Bradshaw, a portfolio manager for the Hodges Funds in Dallas.

Rob Kim/Getty Images For alice + olivia by Stacey BendetA pill bottle installation on display at the alice + olivia by Stacey Bendet Fall 2016 presentation at The Gallery, Skylight at Clarkson Sq on February 16, 2016 in New York City.

Other options

With annual sales of about $50 billion, Pfizer has other options, including spinning off its large branded generics business. Pfizer had pushed back that decision by two years in announcing the Allergan deal, but said it will now make that call by the end of this year.

Pfizer shares rose 5 percent on Wednesday after the deal was scrapped.

Read is also likely to make other acquisitions to shore up its patent-protected drugs unit before shedding its generics business. Shares of several biotechs seen as possible acquisition targets for Pfizer and Allergan rose on Wednesday, after the deal was called off.

Read announced the Allergan deal last November just days after the U.S. Treasury laid out a previous set of restrictions on so-called tax inversions aimed avoiding U.S. taxes. The deal was structured to avoid those restrictions, but included an unusually small breakup fee should further new tax rules end up scuttling the deal. This week, the U.S. Treasury announced a newer set of restrictions, which is what ended up killing the Allergan merger.

Pfizer had to pay only $150 million, billions less than a standard breakup fee. That took some of the sting out of the deal's collapse for some shareholders.

Read, a trained accountant, has enjoyed strong support from the Pfizer board after restocking the company's portfolio of medicines in development and overseeing several important drug approvals.

But it now appears his legacy will not include slashing the company's tax bill, a passion for Read who has said U.S. corporate taxes left him disadvantaged when competing with overseas rivals. Pfizer declined requests for comment from Read.

Jacquelyn Martin/APPfizer Inc. CEO Ian Read arrives at the White House to attend a meeting of business leaders expected to meet with President Barack Obama and Vice President Biden at the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2012.

Not the 'fall guy'

Many of the investors Reuters spoke with said the U.S. government was responsible for the Allergan deal's collapse, giving Read a pass.

Oliver Marti, portfolio manager at Columbus Circle Investors, which has been a Pfizer investor, said Read "has made some very smart decisions" and the deal to buy Botox maker Allergan was one of them.

"You work within the rules as best you can to win the game. Unfortunately, the Treasury has abused its authority and made up its own rules," Marti said.

"Read shouldn't be the fall guy," agreed Tony Scherrer, director of research at Smead Capital Management, a longtime holder of Pfizer shares.

The Treasury and many U.S. politicians, including presidential candidates, have argued that U.S. companies should not be allowed to strike deals to avoid paying taxes.

Allergan CEO Brent Saunders said in a telephone interview on Wednesday that the companies each had contingency plans in place if Treasury changed the rules again. "While I'm sure Ian is personally disappointed, he hasn't skipped a beat and is absolutely focused on Pfizer and its independent future."

Asked if there was anything he could do to cheer up Read after his quest for lower taxes evaporated, Saunders said: "His stock price is up. He doesn't need cheering."

(Additional reporting by Caroline Humer in New York; Editing by Eric Effron and Matthew Lewis)

Read the original article on Reuters. Copyright 2016. Follow Reuters on Twitter.

YELLEN: 'I certainly wouldn't describe this as a bubble economy'

• Reuters

• 4h
• 2,503
 
• 12

• FACEBOOK
• LINKEDIN
• TWITTER
• EMAIL
• PRINT

REUTERS/Lucas JacksonUS Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen speaking to the Economic Club of New York on March 29.

NEW YORK — The US economy is on a solid course with some hints of inflation, so the Federal Reserve is on track for further interest-rate hikes, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said Thursday in a defense of her decision to tighten policy late last year.

In a rare spectacle, Yellen spoke on a New York panel alongside her three predecessors who ran the world's most powerful central bank. She said that, seven years after the brutal financial crisis, the US labor market was now "close" to full strength, again arguing that inflation would not be held down much longer by the strong dollar and low oil prices.

"The US economy has continued to progress in a satisfactory way. We continue to see good job performance, some evidence of inflation moving up, so that was our expectation when we raised rates in December," she said at the International House, a New York nonprofit residence for students.

"So yes, there is accommodation in the monetary policy that we have. But we think the gradual path of rate increases will be appropriate," Yellen added. "We remain on a reasonable path and I don't think December was a mistake."

The Fed raised its benchmark policy rate in December, the first increase in nearly a decade, to 0.25% to 0.5%.

Ben Bernanke and Paul Volcker joined the current Fed chair at the conference, and Alan Greenspan appeared via teleconference screens next to the stage. The four of them ran the Fed for a third of its 102-year history. This included Volcker's taming of the 1970s runaway inflation and Greenspan's 18-year run of relative economic stability and financial deregulation that ultimately led to the 2007-2009 Great Recession.

In a casual moderated discussion, they expressed a remarkable amount of agreement over one another's varied handling of the economy. They also agreed that China's growing prominence posed more opportunity than threat and that fiscal policymakers should step up more to support the Fed's economic stimulus.

A hot topic for the panelists was the US election campaign, in which Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has lambasted the central bank for helping to stoke asset bubbles.

"I certainly wouldn't describe this as a bubble economy," Yellen said, noting a "healing" labor market in which unemployment is 5%, or about where the Fed wants it.

While Volcker acknowledged that he saw some "overextended" parts of the financial system, he agreed with Yellen, saying he did not believe the US was in an economic bubble.

Asked about the monetary policy adage in which the Fed takes away the punch bowl just as the party gets going — and whether any of his successors added too much vodka — Volcker, who ran the Fed from 1979 to 1987, said: "My successors were great, all."

(Reporting by Jonathan Spicer in New York; Additional reporting by Jason Lange in Washington; Editing by Diane Craft)

Read the original article on Reuters. Copyright 2016. Follow Reuters on Twitter.

Valeant's getting a little mercy

• Linette Lopez
 
•   

• 16h
• 1,493
 
• 2

• FACEBOOK
• LINKEDIN
• TWITTER
• EMAIL
• PRINT

REUTERS/Christinne MuschiJ. Michael Pearson, chairman of the board and CEO of Valeant Pharmaceuticals.

What a difference a day — or two — makes.

Valeant has been talking to its lenders to try and amend the terms of some loans it has taken out.

The company had failed to file its 10-K by March 15, and a failure to file it before April 29 would have triggered a technical default on those loans.

On Monday, Valeant Pharmaceuticals' creditors did not seem open to showing the company mercy by allowing Valeant to amend the terms of its debt.

Now, according to The Wall Street Journal, it looks like they will.

According to the WSJ:

Valeant agreed to pay a fee of $50,000 per $10 million of loans to lenders for the amendment and to boost interest rates on the debt by 1 percentage point, though the rate could decline if Valeant achieves certain financial metrics, the person said.

The company needed more than half of the creditors of its $11 billion in secured loans to agree.

Valeant's share price was up 18% during regular trading on Wednesday, and jumped another 4% in after-hours trading after the WSJ reported the loan agreement.

This all started when Valeant announced that it would delay the findings of its annual report because of a discrepancy found by its internal ad-hoc committee.

The committee was created to find any issues surrounding Valeant's involvement with a once secret distributor called Philidor. The committee found a $58 million error — a blip, really, for a company Valeant's size — and then concluded its investigation into Philidor on Tuesday.

Philidor's existence was disclosed in October, when scrutiny over Valeant's pricing practices, combined with accusations of malfeasance from a short seller, forced the company to acknowledge Philidor.

It looks like everyone wants to put that behind them, though. We'll see how that works.

Jamie Dimon wrote an op-ed in defense of big banks

• Portia Crowe
 
•  

• 23h
• 5,165
 
• 13

• FACEBOOK
• LINKEDIN
• TWITTER
• EMAIL
• PRINT

ReutersJPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon.

See Also

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon explains what he looks for in an ideal job candidate

JAMIE DIMON: Warren Buffett is right, the US has never been better

Jamie Dimon wants you to know he doesn’t care about quarterly earnings

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon has thoughts on why big banks are important to America.

Dimon, whose firm is the largest US bank by assets, wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal about the benefits of large financial institutions like his, and the services they provide to consumers and smaller banks alike.

He framed the conversation around the relationship between large and small institutions, and led with an anecdote about some negative comments about big banks that the CEO of a regional bank recently made.

"I did some digging and found that our firms have a relationship that goes back many years and spans a broad range of essential services," Dimon wrote.

But Wall Street CEOs like Dimon are busy people, and they don't often take the time to personally write op-eds.

So it's unlikely that this personal tiff with another CEO is really what motivated the billionaire chief executive to take up the pen.

What's more likely is that this is about something much bigger.

Breaking up the banks

Since the heyday of the financial crisis, politicians and activists have been calling for the end of "Too Big to Fail" banks. But this being an election year, the volume of that conversation has ticked up a notch.

On Tuesday, the Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said in a Daily News interview that JPMorgan "and virtually every other major bank in this country" are destroying the fabric of the US.

Last month the financial policy advocate Bartlett Naylor proposed breaking up both JPMorgan and Citigroup. His proposal is likely to end up in both banks' annual proxy filings.

REUTERS/Jim YoungDemocratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

And then there's the Minneapolis Fed President and former Goldman Sachs executive Neel Kashkari.

In his first speech as a Fed official, Kashkari, who led President Obama's Troubled Asset Relief Program in the wake of the financial crisis, came out swinging with a call to break up big banks.

He advocated for "Turning large banks into public utilities by forcing them to hold so much capital that they virtually can't fail (with regulation akin to that of a nuclear power plant)."

In that light, it's maybe not so surprising that Dimon would choose this moment to publicly defend his firm.

The fact that he framed it around some comments made by an unnamed regional bank chief probably means that Dimon, who is a Democrat, was simply looking for a way to do it without appearing overtly political.