Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

New Delhi [<keyword id="19895063" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="India" source="keywords">India</keyword>], June 23 (ANI): India and <keyword id="19919639" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bangladesh" source="keywords">Bangladesh</keyword> have reiterated their commitment to a free, open, inclusive, secure, and rules-based <keyword id="1574110" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Indo-Pacific-region" source="Orion">Indo-Pacific region</keyword>. The two nations pledged to co-lead the <keyword id="481261" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Disaster-Risk-Reduction" source="Orion">Disaster Risk Reduction</keyword> and Management pillar of the <keyword id="19909557" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Indo-Pacific" source="keywords">Indo-Pacific</keyword> Oceans Initiative (IPOI) and cooperate to mitigate disaster risks. A joint statement was issued following the meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bangladeshi counterpart, <keyword id="66026" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Sheikh-Hasina" source="Orion">Sheikh Hasina</keyword>, during the latter's two-day State visit to India. The joint statement released by India and Bangladesh reads, "Recognizing the contribution of our partnership to peace, security and stability in the region, we reiterate our commitment to a free, open, inclusive, secure, and rules-based Indo-Pacific region." "Based on our converging visions for the Indo-Pacific region and recognizing the vulnerability of the region to adverse impacts of climate change, we will co-lead the 'Disaster Risk Reduction and Management' pillar of the Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI), and cooperate to mitigate disaster risks, build disaster resilient infrastructure, and contribute to the sustenance of our shared maritime region," it added. The two nations pledged to work together on global platforms to promote their common interests, particularly those of the Global South. "With our wide-ranging bilateral cooperation, we also envision India-Bangladesh relationship to become a major anchor for regional and sub-regional integration under the BIMSTEC, SAARC and IORA architectures. We will work together on global platforms to promote our common interests, especially the interests of Global South," the joint statement said. According to the joint statement, India and Bangladesh need to take the relationship to a "deeper and higher quality relationship" based on mutual trust and benefit in the coming days. India and Bangladesh committed to strengthening trade and investment linkages with each other, including through the early commencement of negotiations for a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), the early operationalization of two Special Economic Zones (SEZs) offered by Bangladesh to India in Mongla and Mirsharai, the opening of new border-haats, trade facilitation to enhance bilateral trade, and improving road, rail, air, and maritime connectivity. The joint statement reads, "Resolving to work towards promoting the prosperity of our people, we will strengthen trade and investment linkages with each other, including through early commencement of negotiations for a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), early operationalization of two Special Economic Zones (SEZs) offered by Bangladesh to India in Mongla and Mirsharai, opening of new border-haats, trade facilitation to enhance bilateral trade, improving road, rail, air, and maritime connectivity and trade infrastructure which can transform our geographical proximity into new economic opportunities for our peoples. We will also encourage and support our private sector to seek new investment opportunities in each other's priority areas of economic development." India and Bangladesh agreed to strengthen defence cooperation with a long-term perspective. The two sides will continue to work together for multifaceted military engagements of exercises, training and capability development. The joint statement reads, "Appreciating the significant role of the two countries in ensuring peace, stability and harmony in the region, we will strengthen our defence cooperation with a long-term perspective." "In line with the plans for modernization of the Bangladesh Armed Forces, we will explore defence industrial cooperation for modernization of the Armed Forces of Bangladesh, to strengthen their capability for defence. We will continue to work closely with Bangladesh for our multifaceted military engagements of exercises, training and capability development," it added. Considering the importance of <keyword id="22149253" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="water-resource-management" source="keywords">water resource management</keyword> in our bilateral relationship, the two nations continue to engage in prioritising the exchange of data and formulating the framework for interim water sharing based on the recommendations of the Joint Rivers Commission. India and Bangladesh welcomed the formation of a Joint Technical Committee to initiate discussions for the renewal of the Ganges Water Sharing Treaty of 1996, according to the joint statement. The joint statement further reads, "As part of our development cooperation, we will also undertake conservation and management of <keyword id="22048538" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="teesta-river" source="keywords">Teesta River</keyword> inside Bangladesh with Indian assistance within a mutually agreed timeframe." On June 21, Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina arrived in India on a two-day State visit at the invitation of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The newly appointed Minister of State (MoS) for External Affairs, Kirtivardhan Singh, welcomed the visiting Bangladesh PM at the airport upon her arrival. This was the first incoming bilateral State visit after <keyword id="2238662" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="PM-Modi" source="Orion">PM Modi</keyword> assumed office for the third consecutive term following the Lok Sabha elections. Notably, Sheikh Hasina was among the global leaders who attended the swearing-in ceremony of PM Modi on June 9.

India and Bangladesh reiterate commitment to free, open, inclusive, secure and rules-based Indo-Pacific region

In a caution to the investor's community, the <keyword id="19938957" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="National-Stock-Exchange" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="National Stock Exchange" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="National Stock Exchange">National Stock Exchange</keyword> said that one Amit Lilhare (PAN: ADFPL4472R), who is an "authorized person" of one of its registered <keyword id="21563800" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="stock-brokers" source="keywords">stock brokers</keyword>, is providing "assured" and "guaranteed" returns on stock market investment. "The <keyword id="19900618" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="investors" source="keywords">investors</keyword> are cautioned and advised not to subscribe to any such scheme or product offered by any person or entity offering indicative, assured, <keyword id="21291316" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="guaranteed-returns" source="keywords">guaranteed returns</keyword> in the stock market as the same is prohibited by law", the exchange noted. In its advisory dated August 1, the stock exchange asserted that the said individual is operating through various addresses -- BL.No.27, Plot No. 22, Second Floor White House, Nehru Nagar, East Bhilai, Durg-490020, Chhattisgarh; and A 2/302, Dream Estate, Handewadi Road, Nr. JSPM College, Hadapsar, Pune-411028, Maharashtra He is also collecting a commission on such assured/guaranteed returns from investors in his personal bank accounts, NSE said. The exchange is in the process of taking disciplinary action against the trading member. "It has been brought to the notice of the Exchange that Mr Amit Lilhare (PAN: ADFPL4472R), Authorised Person of one of our registered Stock Broker, operating through various addresses (mentioned below) is providing assured/guaranteed returns on investment in the stock market and is also collecting a commission on such assured/guaranteed returns from investors in his personal bank accounts," NSE's advisory read. Further, investors are advised not to share their trading credentials such as user id/password with anyone. The exchange has provided a facility of "Know/Locate your Stock Broker" under the link https://www.nseindia.com/invest/find-a-stock-broker on its website, to check the details of the registered member and its <keyword id="22641270" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="authorized-persons" source="keywords">Authorized Persons</keyword>. Further, the designated bank accounts named as client bank accounts to receive/pay money from/to investors as disclosed by the trading members to Exchange are also displayed under the said link. Investors are advised to check the details while dealing with any person/entity. "Participation in such prohibited schemes is at investors' own risk, cost, and consequences as such schemes are neither approved nor endorsed by the Exchange," NSE categorically said in its cautionary advice. In other news, a milestone for NSE, the Nifty 50 index hit the 25,000 mark for the first time during Thursday session, and managed to hold on to the gains. Today, it is, however, a shy below the 25,000 mark. The index hit the 20,000 mark for the first time on September 11, 2023, and took 221 trading days from that level to hit the 25,000 mark on August 1, 2024. "In a way, the last impetus came from the budget of the financial year 2024-25, and now people will be waiting for RBI interest rates declaration or the Fed interest rate declaration, so those are the kind of new triggers. And of course, India is the fastest growing large economy in the world so our own numbers on a quarter basis would also be important to note" NSE MD and CEO Ashish Kumar Chauhan said yesterday, talking to reporters. "So that's where now slowly the market has realized that it's a good budget which is going to improve the growth in the economy, and that's what they are now voting with their money," he added.

NSE advises investors to be cautious of those assuring guaranteed returns

In the early 2000s, the business of for-profit college was booming. After the University of Phoenix's parent company, the Apollo Group, went public in 1994, others were close on its heels: Corinthian, ITT Tech, and Kaplan each had IPOs in the 1990s, netting tens of millions of dollars and setting off tremendous periods of growth.Soon, private equity firms caught wind of the opportunity. In 2003, there were just 18 for-profits owned by private equity firms; less than a decade later, that number had more than tripled, to 61. For-profit enrollments were also exploding, from a little more than 425,000 in 2000 to 1.7 million in 2012 — an increase of more than 300%. By contrast, public colleges had grown by just 31%.Increasingly the boom could be characterized as a Wall Street versus Main Street match-up. Even in the 1980s, the majority of for-profit programs were still mom-and-pop affairs: short-term certificate courses in subjects like cosmetology and truck driving. By the early years of the new millennium, students were attending Fortune 500 chain schools for full-fledged degrees in teaching, medical assisting, business, and psychology. In 2012 there were 21 publicly traded for-profit colleges, and less than a quarter of for-profit college students attended a mom-and-pop operation; the other 1.3 million went to publicly traded or private-equity-owned schools.The profits in this new world were beyond belief. One study found that the for-profit industry netted 55% profit margins between 2000 and 2012. In other words, for every dollar they took from students, 55 cents went to shareholders, with overall profits peaking in 2011 at $5 billion. Within a decade of Apollo's IPO, Phoenix's student body had grown tenfold, and thanks to students' easy federal money, the company was bringing in more than $1 billion a year.It was a win-win for just about everyone involved. The schools' profits came almost exclusively from federal grant and loan moneys. The federal government was bankrolling not only their and their investors' windfalls but also those of the financial institutions and guarantee agencies that did the lending and collecting under the Federal Family Education Loan program.But there were two groups left out of the bonanza: the public at large, whose tax dollars kept the machine running, and the students who got sacked with the bill.Then the evidence started coming in, yet again, that the for-profit corporate darlings of the '90s and aughts were no more sophisticated — certainly no more beneficial — than the shady computer schools that had preceded them. In 1970 there had been only 18,333 students enrolled at degree-granting for-profit schools, less than a quarter of a percent of the total number of college students. By 2009 there were 1.85 million — almost 10% of the total. The grift had grown a hundredfold."I had worked in the sales industry for many years," the admissions supervisor stated. "But Ashford [University] had the most aggressive sales floor I have ever seen." The supervisor's employer was putatively an accredited institution that offered a wide variety of bachelor's and advanced degrees; in reality it was effectively a money-printing operation.The school's many sordid practices were revealed in a 2017 lawsuit filed against the institution by the attorney general of California. Among them were the tales of Ashford's salespeople — aka "admissions counselors" — who made hundreds, sometimes even a thousand, cold calls a week. Still their managers berated and taunted them, forcing underperformers to stand all day, jangling keyrings with the ID cards of their fired former colleagues in their faces. Some of them cried; some had mental breakdowns; eventually most quit or were fired. Managers created "lowest performer lists" and then fired the bottom 10th of recruiters. When the salespeople did manage to land a mark, they celebrated by ringing cowbells or flapping plastic hand clappers. "The sales floor had a true boiler room atmosphere," said the supervisor, not unlike that "portrayed in the movie The Wolf of Wall Street." And if they all misled some naive fools in the process, say, a few hundred a month, well, that was just the cost of doing business. It wasn't like they were going to get fired for calling loans "grants" or promising a program would lead to high-paying jobs or guaranteeing that if things didn't work out at the school, any credits earned there would transfer elsewhere (as they almost certainly would not). One Ashford admissions counselor got 25 violations in eight months and the managers dished out only a slap on the wrist. The risk of punishment by the company's Compliance Department was low, but the reward was irresistibly high: admissions counselors got paid by the sale, and the best of them made in the six figures. Recruiters preyed on their marks' naiveté about higher education, convincing them that they couldn't receive their financial aid until well into the semester (when it would be too late to get a refund), lying about what their degrees would qualify them to do, and encouraging them to spend their federal aid funds on things like cars or expensive vacations (against federal law).Ashford University was owned by Bridgepoint Education, which was backed by Warburg Pincus, a private equity firm. And the secret to its success was a foolproof tactic that for-profit financiers had discovered for getting their business off the ground and gaining access to the all-important stream of federal aid money. The trick was to gobble up existing mom-and-pop proprietary schools — as well as small, financially struggling nonprofits — and to acquire their accreditations, assets as valuable as New York City taxi medallions.But for students, the business model was a bust — at Bridgepoint, just as at any number of for-profit giants. With only seven full-time faculty for almost 74,000 students, Bridgepoint, like many of its competitors, spent way more on recruiting than it did on instruction. And it showed: Only about a quarter of students in any given year went on to get their "diplomas" within six years (public and nonprofit schools consistently graduated about two-thirds of students in that timeframe). Those who did graduate tended to leave with a hefty amount of debt — nearly $35,000 on average. By 2017 almost 20% of alumni were unemployed, and almost half didn't do anything related to their degree.Five years after California filed suit against Ashford, a state superior court judge found that the company had engaged in widespread deception — estimating that over an 11-year period, its recruiters had spread misinformation in more than 1.2 million calls — and issued more than $22 million in penalties. (In 2024, an appeals court reduced the penalty by nearly $1 million).The beneficiaries of Bridgepoint's grift were its shareholders and managing partners. The losers were everybody else. And if theirs wasn't a particularly victimless crime, so what? Nobody cared much about students anyway. "You stop thinking of these students as people," said one recruiting manager.In 2010, Tom Harkin, chair of the Senate's education committee, began a two-year investigation into for-profit schools. Harkin's assessment of the sector was scathing. He declared for-profits expensive, exploitative, and concerned only with their own profits. "They are not focused on the success of their students," Harkin declared.A number of these schools were held by private equity firms like Goldman Sachs. In 2011, one Goldman-backed chain took in more than $350 million in Pell Grant funds and made a little more than that in profit. At a time when the federal government was refusing to help unemployed, down-on-their-luck, and defrauded borrowers, it was bailing out banks like Goldman Sachs twice over: They had already benefited from billions of dollars in Great Recession recovery funds, and now they were scooping up ill-begotten federal student aid via failing for-profit colleges. Fifteen of the schools Harkin's team investigated were publicly traded. These schools received, on average, 86% of their revenues from federal sources, right up to the line of what was legal. One of the ways they did this, Harkin found, was by recruiting veterans. In the years after World War II, legislators reinvented the GI Bill several times to reward veterans of later conflicts, like the Vietnam and Iraq wars, and to adapt to the evolving military, which had become an all-volunteer force in the 1970s. A loophole allowed them to count Defense Department moneys, including GI Bill funds, as non-federal money. In 2009, a Bloomberg News reporter uncovered a tactic used by Ashford University recruiters. They were targeting a wounded warriors unit at Camp Lejeune, signing up veterans with brain injuries who couldn't remember which classes they were taking. Each veteran was a lucrative prospect, allowing schools to gobble up yet more federal funds.And gobble they did. By 2010, Harkin found, for-profits were taking in a third of all GI Bill education funds. But even more shocking, federal money flowing to for-profit schools accounted for 25% of all federal student aid and 47% of eventual loan defaults. This, in spite of the fact that the schools enrolled little more than 10% of all American college students.So what happened to all the extra money for-profits took in? Harkin's investigation found that for-profits spent nearly a quarter of all revenues on marketing and recruiting and often paid their executives multimillion-dollar salaries, far above the average rates for public- or nonprofit-university presidents. Students' money enriched every corner of the for-profit industry except one: quality of instruction.<div type="image" title="Cover image of Burdened: Student Debt and the Making of an American Crisis by Ryann Liebenthal" height="2775" width="1838" msid="113224481" hostid="261" sizebytes="715136"></div>Economist Stephanie Riegg Cellini co-authored a sweeping study of for-profits, which found that students of for-profit certificate programs were slightly less likely to hold a job than their counterparts in public programs. In 2015, a separate study found that job applicants got just as many call-backs by listing no educational experience on their résumés as they did by listing for-profit credentials.When for-profit grads did find employment, Cellini found, they earned about a 10th less than the public program certificate holders. In fact, these for-profit students were actually worse off than if they hadn't gone to school at all. When taking into account their debt loads, for-profit graduates were projected to lose about $1,200 on their educational "investments" over the course of their lifetimes.In short, a simple equation summed up the for-profit ethos at this time: charge as much as federal student aid will supply, and cut costs to the bone. Everything in the middle could be harvested as profit. For-profit education was an industry on the dole.<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/author/ryann-liebenthal">Ryann Liebenthal</a> is a writer and editor living in Oakland, California, who has reported extensively on the student loan crisis. She is the author of "BURDENED: Student Debt and the Making of an American Crisis."Excerpted from the book "<a target="_blank" href="https://www.harpercollins.com/products/burdened-ryann-liebenthal?variant=41472117669922">BURDENED: Student Debt and the Making of an American Crisis</a>." Copyright © 2024 by Ryann Liebenthal. From Dey Street Books, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers. Reprinted by permission.

Wall Street tried getting into higher education. Disaster ensued. 

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Neither Harris nor Trump outline specific disaster-relief policies on their website.</li><li>Their records, however, offer clues into how they'd deal with natural disasters as president.</li></ul>As another <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/hurricane-milton-evacuation-empty-gas-station-full-hotels-gridlock-traffic-2024-10">hurricane</a> threatens to devastate swaths of the Southeast, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump are under new scrutiny about their disaster response strategies. And though neither have specifically addressed how they'd approach disaster relief on their campaign websites, their environmental records offer clues into how they might deal with similar crises in the future.When Hurricane Helene bore down on six states, and with particular force in North Carolina and Georgia, both Harris and Trump said that the focus should be on providing aid, not politics. But the storm, which has killed more than 230 people and destroyed entire towns, has already crept into the presidential race. <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/hurricane-helene-milton-tampa-florida-desantis-clean-disaster-dangerous-2024-10">Hurricane Milton is expected to hit Florida</a> on Wednesday night, only exacerbating the focus on environmental devastation."Disasters are always political," Thomas Birkland, a political scientist at North Carolina State University who studies the politics of national disasters, told Business Insider. He said that disaster relief is not, however, usually <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/hurricane-milton-category-five-threatens-florida-fema-funding-2024-10">discussed during campaigns</a>.Timothy Kneeland, a professor at Nazareth University who studies politics and natural disasters, thinks that as hurricanes become more common, candidates should address them more explicitly."Having a short but clear statement on disasters should be part of any campaigner's policy," he wrote in a statement to BI.Both candidates have visited impacted areas, with Trump visiting Georgia on September 30 and <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/kamala-harris-donald-trump-crises-middle-east-strike-hurricane-election-2024-10">Harris on October 2</a>. Republicans criticized Harris for attending a fundraising event in California when Helene struck, while she maintained that politicians should stay out of the most devastated areas as first responders begin their early work.In the days since Hurricane Helene, Trump has spread misinformation about the storm and response efforts, prompting the Federal Emergency Management Agency to publish a fact-checking page. <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/hurricane-helene-relief-disinformation-misinformation-north-carolina-democrats-republicans-2024-10">Democrats and Republicans alike</a> say that the baseless claims are complicating <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-elon-musk-starlink-hurricane-helene-fema-2024-9">clean-up efforts</a>, and Harris has put out a digital ad slamming his former disaster relief. When he was president, Trump responded to several hurricanes. As with Hurricane Helene, he <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.vox.com/politics/376982/trump-hurricane-helene-fema-lies-debunked">publicized</a> misinformation. When Hurricane Dorian threatened Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, he incorrectly said that its path included Alabama as well. During a briefing in the Oval Office, he showed a map of the hurricane's path that included a Sharpie mark extending the storm's reach to Alabama. Trump also falsely claimed that the death toll from Hurricane Maria in 2017 was overblown, the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/08/trump-hurricane-helene-natural-disasters/">Washington Post reported</a>.The former president occasionally threatened to hold back disaster funding over political spats. In 2020, for example, he floated withholding money from flood-ravaged Michigan because he was frustrated with absentee voting procedures in the state."A charitable interpretation would be mixed on crisis management," Birkland told BI about Trump's past responses to natural disasters. Kneeland said that storm victims and disaster experts largely criticized his handling of Hurricane Maria.During his time in office, Trump's administration rolled back more than 125 environmental rules, the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html">Washington Post</a> found, with a big focus on deregulating the fossil fuel industry. Trump's campaign has, according to Birkland, "been pretty clear that it disdains alternative fuels."Harris doesn't have a presidential record to back up her approach to disaster relief, but Birkland anticipates she'd take a relatively similar approach to President Joe Biden.As attorney general, Harris prosecuted oil companies that broke environmental rules. During her tenure as vice president, she voted for the Inflation Reduction Act, which devoted $370 billion to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.But both Birkland and Kneeland told BI that Harris has become less aggressive about addressing climate change this election, likely in an attempt to court more moderate voters."Harris' position is a little murkier," Birkland said. "Harris has been clear that we should be doing things like alternative energy, but also supports, as of recent months, continued fossil fuel production. So it's kind of a both-and strategy."Presidents are somewhat limited in their disaster responses — both Kneeland and Birkland told BI that states and local governments lead disaster responses, with the federal government's assistance."Even when FEMA is on the ground they must work within the structure of existing state and local government," Kneeland said in his written statement. The responsibility is, he said, layered throughout the government.Regardless, all eyes are on how Harris and Trump respond to the twin storms — and the outcome of the election could theoretically hang in the balance. Kneeland said that disaster response can either greatly boost or doom an incumbent, pointing to instances as varied as Hurricane Betsey in 1965, Hurricane Andrew in 1992, and Hurricane Katrina in 2005.Though Birkland doesn't anticipate that the hurricanes will sway many voters, he said that even a small impact in swing states could matter."I think most people's minds are made up. I think that you're really dealing with the margins," he said. "On the other hand, this election is going to be won or lost on the margins, so that matters."

You Searched For "National Disaster Management Authority" and got 4 results

India and Bangladesh reiterate commitment to free, open, inclusive, secure and rules-based Indo-Pacific region

ANI

NSE advises investors to be cautious of those assuring guaranteed returns

ANI

Wall Street tried getting into higher education. Disaster ensued.

Ryann Liebenthal

Hurricanes are taking the election by storm. Here's where Harris and Trump stand on natural disaster policies.

Alice Tecotzky

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides