eirinnphotography.com

By MEGHA BAHREE

Mobile advertising company InMobi Pte. Ltd. is in its second avatar. It started in early 2007 in mobile search but after a short and dismal run, InMobi switched to the nascent business of mobile advertising.

Bangalore-based InMobi decided to make a bet on emerging markets in Asia and Africa and now has the second-largest mobile-advertising network globally, after Google Inc.,

with 77 billion global monthly ad requests, a metric that measures the size of an ad network.

InMobi APAC

‘It’s a lot of fun to compete with companies that are very successful,’ says InMobi’s Atul Satija

The company recently received a $200 million investment from Softbank Corp.,

a Japanese media and telecom company. Other investors in the closely held company include Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sherpalo Ventures. Following the most recent boost, the company is on an expansion spree.

When Atul Satija, vice president and managing director of Asia Pacific, joined the company in December 2010 from Google, it had six offices and about 200 employees.

Today the number of employees has doubled and the company is planning to open 25 offices world-wide. He spoke with Megha Bahree in Mumbai about hiring the right kind of people as the business expands, and ensuring consumers’ privacy. The following interview has been edited.

WSJ: What are your concerns as you expand so rapidly?

Mr. Satija: It’s almost a nonnegotiable business imperative to expand. Our challenge is to add depth in leadership, especially in new countries. We are starting offices shortly in Melbourne, Auckland, New Delhi and Mumbai. The culture of our company has taken us this far. But the question is how do we keep that culture alive as we expand. We still have the feel of a start-up, meaning you earn your promotion and we give it to you. We’re growing without too many policies in place. We need to keep those elements of trust and aggression.

WSJ: What sort of people are you looking for?

Mr. Satija: We need to hire people who are entrepreneurial and risk takers. But it’s slightly more challenging to hire risk takers in Australia and Singapore than in some other markets like China, for instance. People find it hard to believe that a start-up from Asia can achieve the kind of growth that we are aiming for, a revenue of $1 billion within the next two to four years. There was a time we were hiring frantically and we made some mistakes in the process. We realized we couldn’t hire just for skill sets and instead we needed people with a lot of positive energy, those who are smart and have a great attitude. Skills can be taught.

WSJ: What else do you need to do to achieve your target?

Mr. Satija: We first went from zero to a million dollars in revenue. Now we have set our next target at a billion dollars. We need to do the right things to get there. It’s critical to pick the best talent. We are also very partnership-centered, and we have to keep an open mind in order to find good partnerships to move the needle. A third thing we need to focus on is technology.

This is the one thing that’s directly in our control. We’re investing heavily and looking at acquisitions globally as well as building up in house.

We’re only worried that if we don’t invest in people and technology, even a small company that has made those investments can beat us.

WSJ: Are there any changes in the industry that could impact your business?

Mr. Satija: Privacy is becoming a concern. How we accept data from publishers will be something to be careful of going forward. One of the challenges with advertising in the digital world—either on a computer or a cellphone is ensuring consumer privacy. How does an ad network or a publisher ensure that the privacy of consumers is not compromised, while helping advertisers to reach the consumers. This involves educating all stakeholders—publishers, advertisers and consumers—and also building the privacy requirements into our product, policies and processes. InMobi is doing both of these.

WSJ: What are the dos and don’ts as you enter a new country?

Mr. Satija: Typically when a Western company enters a market outside the U.S., it goes in with a very strong point of view. For us, being based out of India and as one of the first digital media companies out of Asia, we can’t carry that mindset. We say, “let’s learn like a child in a classroom.” We have the luxury of a good product, so now how do we localize and customize it. Usually when we go into a new country, one of the things we will do is to go broad and shore up several easy accounts.

But when we went into Japan, for instance, our local team said instead of that approach we had to go narrow and try and win a few big-ticket accounts, instead of several small ones. This helped us build credibility before we went after the larger market. It’s important to find a good local leader and then trust him to give you insights to that market, even if you don’t initially agree with those views.

WSJ: What’s it like to compete with Google?

Satija: It’s a lot of fun to compete with companies that are very successful. We’re business-to-business and not business-to-consumer like Google, so it’s not a direct competition. And in a sense Google is still in the Internet business and has to protect that space. The only thing we worry about 100% is mobile.

WSJ: How realistic is your goal to hit $1 billion in revenue?

Mr. Satija: Just look at the statistics. The mobile-ad industry is growing three to five times, year-on-year, and we’re growing at the same rate, if not more. Companies that have achieved critical mass in terms of advertiser, publisher and consumer base, product portfolio, technology and business teams, are going to be able to ride the wave. The ball is in our court.

Can you have too much of a good thing? When it comes to credit cards, maybe not.

Consumers with good credit are seeing an influx of generous rewards offers, even as overall card offers dropped 30% in the first quarter of 2012 as issuers took a break from their 2011 expansion, according to research firm Mintel Comperemedia.

Illustration by Keith Negley

Reflecting the sometimes bizarre rules of modern credit scoring, you may be able to take advantage of as many of them as you wish.

The rewards are tempting, even for the most disciplined card holders. For big spenders, the British Airways Visa Signature card is offering 100,000 bonus miles to those who charge at least $20,000 on the card in the first year. American Express‘s

Blue Cash Preferred offers $150 cash back to those who spend $1,000 in the first three months. And the Chase Freedom Visa comes with $100 cash back if you charge at least $500 in the first three months.

The offers may get even better this summer if previous trends hold, says Beverly Harzog, a credit-card expert with Credit.com, a card-comparison website.

If you want to take advantage of the deals—or just want to keep your good credit score intact—here are some of the unwritten rules of the credit-card game.

There’s no such thing as “too many.” Some years ago, mortgage brokers would encourage people with “too much credit” to close an account. But today, the credit cards filling your wallet and desk drawer, by themselves, aren’t a minus—as long as you can manage them all.

What does matter—a lot—is that you always pay your bills on time and that you try to use less than 30% of the credit line you have on each card. Fair Isaac, creator of the commonly used FICO credit score, says that those with top credit scores use just 10% to 20% of their available credit.

Similarly, a 2010 analysis by Credit Karma, which runs a free credit-score site, found that the very highest scorers had more than $78,000 in credit but used just 7% of it.

One isn’t enough. While no-debt disciples don’t like this one, it’s true: You need more than one credit card. On a practical level, you should carry at least two cards, in case one doesn’t work or you need to exceed your credit limit in a true emergency.

In addition, holding only one or two credit cards may mark you as someone with a “thin file,” equivalent to a youngster with little work experience. “They’re your references,” says Maxine Sweet, vice president of public education at Experian, a credit bureau. “They demonstrate you can manage multiple accounts.”

The sweet spot is probably three to five accounts. In fact, the average consumer with a FICO credit score of 780 or above (out of a possible 850) has four to five cards, including three that are used regularly, says Anthony Sprauve, a spokesman for Fair Isaac.

Don’t open a bunch of accounts all at once. You can go for those bonus miles and cash-back cards, but not all at the same time. One inquiry for new credit can knock as much as 25 points off a very high score, says Kenneth Lin, CEO of Credit Karma. Even so, the ding from a single new account isn’t likely to change the interest rates you’ll pay.

But seeking several new cards at once can raise concerns that you may be suddenly in need of credit for some reason—and that could hurt your score. So if you want to open a couple of new cards, be choosy, selecting major credit cards over single-store cards, and apply three or six months apart.

Inquiries for new credit stay on your credit record for two years but impact your score for just a year. Try to make sure upfront that you qualify for the card so you don’t have to apply elsewhere after a rejection.

One caveat: If you plan to get a new home or car loan in the next six months, refrain from opening any new accounts so that your score will be as high as possible.

Close credit-card accounts carefully. The best way to close an account is to cut up the card and let the issuer close the account over time for lack of use. However, consumers who want the credit-card bonuses—but don’t want to pay annual fees—should be able to drop the card after a year without penalty when the fee comes due.

There is an exception: You can hurt your score if losing that credit line raises your debt-to-credit ratio.

Because how long you’ve had your accounts is also a factor in your score, think twice about dropping an old card if doing so greatly shortens your average credit history.

Write to Karen Blumenthal at karen.blumenthal@dowjones.com

A version of this article appeared May 5, 2012, on page B8 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: It’s Raining Credit—Again.

(See Corrections & Amplifications item below.)

Federal tax credits for home buyers are some of the best deals around—but you will have to jump through some hoops to get one before the deadline.

Mark Matcho

Under the program, first-time buyers can take up to $8,000 off their taxes, and existing-home owners can take up to $6,500. To qualify, a contract to buy must be signed by April 30 and the purchase must close by June 30.

When the program was expanded late last year, the income limits were raised. Now, individuals with adjusted gross incomes up to $125,000 and married couples with adjusted gross incomes up to $225,000 qualify on home purchases up to $800,000. If you owe less in taxes than the credit, the Internal Revenue Service will send you a refund check.

But these days, getting a mortgage involves something of a financial inquisition. Here is what you need to know before you jump in:

To qualify for a mortgage, you will need a job and at least two recent pay stubs. You also will be asked for two years of W-2 forms, proof of other assets and either your tax return or a form allowing the lender to get your return from the Internal Revenue Service. That means that items that reduce your adjusted gross income, like business expenses or IRA contributions, can reduce the loan for which you qualify.

Then there is the appraisal challenge. With home prices still falling in many markets, an appraisal below the purchase price puts the deal in jeopardy. That is because a low appraisal means the buyer must come up with more cash or the seller must lower the price to keep the deal alive.

David Romero, who has 17 Century 21 offices in Southern California, says that has been a problem in San Diego, where lower-priced properties are in demand and buyers sometimes get into bidding wars.

Mortgage rates remain low—around 5% for a 30-year mortgage and closer to 4% for a shorter one. But to get the best advertised rates, you will need a FICO credit score of at least 720 out of a possible 850. Under guidelines set by Fannie Mae,

the big mortgage buyer, every 20-point drop in your credit score below 720 results in a steeper origination fee.

While you can put down as little as 5%, you also generally will pay more fees with a lower down payment.

Fannie Mae has increased its minimum credit score to 620 from 580, but in reality, buyers on the low end may still have trouble getting a loan. If you put down less than 20% of the purchase price, as many first-time buyers do, you will need to buy private mortgage insurance, which helps protects the lender from a default. Today, most mortgage insurers aren’t insuring mortgages if the borrower’s credit score is below 680. Some charge higher rates for scores below 700.

Mortgage insurance costs vary widely based on the insurer, credit scores and down payments, ranging from $300 to more than $1,000 a year for every $100,000 you borrow.

Federal Housing Administration loans allow for down payments as low as 3.5%, but also require an upfront mortgage insurance payment of 1.75% of the loan amount, which climbs to 2.25% next month. Borrowers also pay about $500 a year for each $100,000 borrowed.

If you put down between 20% and 25% of the purchase price, you will find yourself in a strange middle ground: You will avoid mortgage insurance, but you will pay extra origination fees because Fannie Mae considers this group to be its highest risk at a time when home prices may decline.

For example, a buyer in this category with a credit score of 680 to 700 would pay an origination fee of 1.5% of the loan, while a buyer who put down 10% would pay a fee of half that.

Last, consider how long you plan to stay in the home. If you move within three years, you will have to pay back the tax credit. Realistically, given the cost, hassle and potential for home-price gyrations, you should plan to own the home five years or more.

Write to Karen Blumenthal at karen.blumenthal@wsj.com

Corrections & Amplifications

IRA contributions don’t affect your ability to get a mortgage. This column incorrectly said IRA contributions can reduce the size of the loan for which you qualify.

Por MATT WIRZ

Se há uma habilidade de que os operadores da Goldman Sachs Group Inc. se orgulham, é a arte de comprar ativos na baixa e vendê-los na alta.

Mas no ano passado, antecipando novas restrições dos reguladores aos investimentos de instituições bancárias com recursos próprios para reduzir a exposição dos bancos a ativos de risco, os operadores de renda fixa da Goldman se livraram de centenas de milhões de dólares em empréstimos alavancados, com prejuízo nessas vendas, dizem pessoas a par do assunto. Para piorar, muitos desses empréstimos desde então subiram muito de valor.

Detalhes de uma transação, em particular, causaram recentemente um rebuliço no mercado. Em novembro, a Goldman vendeu uma carteira de cerca de US$ 85 milhões em empréstimos à combalida editora de jornais Lee Enterprises Inc. A Goldman vendeu a dívida por cerca de US$ 0,65 por dólar, depois de tê-la comprado, meses antes, por cerca de US$ 0,80 por dólar, resultando em um prejuízo de pelo menos US$ 13 milhões.

O comprador: uma divisão da Berkshire Hathaway Inc., financeira de Warren Buffett, segundo várias pessoas a par do assunto.

Buffett desde então obteve um bom lucro no papel sobre os empréstimos, que agora valem cerca de US$ 0,82 por dólar, disseram aquelas pessoas.

Um porta-voz da Goldman não quis comentar sobre as vendas dos empréstimos. Buffett não retornou pedidos de comentário para esta reportagem.

A venda dos empréstimos ocorreu em meio a discussões sobre novas normas nos Estados Unido, que executivos da Goldman temiam que restringirão sua capacidade de manter empréstimos em carteira e negociá-los. A empresa também temia que os mercados financeiros piorassem, depois de um começo de ano promissor. A Goldman também estava realizando uma ampla consolidação de suas mesas de operações de renda fixa, focando-se mais em facilitar as transações entre clientes.

No primeiro semestre de 2011, a Goldman decidiu reduzir consideravelmente a quantidade de empréstimos realizadas por sua maior mesa de renda fixa, chamado de divisão de negociações globais de empréstimos bancários e investimentos em dívidas de recebimento duvidoso, que possuía uma carteira de mais de US$ 4 bilhões. O balcão vendeu muitos desses papéis em meados do ano, justamente quando os mercados americanos e europeus estavam desmoronando. Em outubro, esse balcão se fundiu a outro, cujos operadores continuaram a vender os títulos de dívida, gerando mais prejuízos.

Sem dúvida, os prejuízos nas vendas de empréstimos representaram uma porção pequena do desempenho global da Goldman, e algumas de suas transações foram rentáveis ao longo de 2011, segundo pessoas a par do assunto. A mesa de empréstimos também usou hedge para compensar alguns prejuízos, disseram aquelas pessoas.

Mas os operadores da Goldman também venderam com prejuízo empréstimos feitos à Clear Channel Communications Inc. e à Las Vegas PropCo LLC, da Harrah, papéis que desde então subiram de preço, segundo pessoas a par do assunto.

“Não há dúvida de que quando se tomam decisões para reduzir as transações, serão tomadas decisões que não são financeiramente interessantes”, disse uma das pessoas.

As perdas na mesa de empréstimos contribuíram para o prejuízo líquido de US$ 907 milhões divulgado pela Goldman para o terceiro trimestre, gerado por títulos de dívida que a firma possui em todas as suas divisões de investimento e crédito, embora não esteja claro qual foi, exatamente, essa contribuição. A Goldman como um todo divulgou para esse período seu primeiro prejuízo trimestral desde 2008.

No fim de outubro, cerca de metade dos empréstimos da mesa de negociações havia sido vendida. Mesmo assim, nem todas as vendas geraram prejuízo, e alguns operadores da divisão global de empréstimos bancários ganharam dinheiro em 2011, inclusive sobre empréstimos feitos à falida empresa de mídia Tribune Co., disseram aquelas pessoas.

No final de outubro, a Goldman combinou a mesa de negociação de empréstimos com uma especializada em títulos de renda fixa. A diferença entre as duas era grande. A mesa de empréstimos era privada, com acesso a informações confidenciais sobre os tomadores dos empréstimos — uma vantagem crucial nas negociações com recursos próprios. A mesa de títulos de renda fixa só tinha acesso a informações de domínio público.

Mas as duas mesas foram combinadas porque manter ambas saía caro e “a maioria dos nossos clientes prefere ter acesso a um negócio financeiro alavancado e totalmente integrado”, disse o porta-voz da Goldman.

Em novembro, a Goldman recebeu um telefonema de um negociador de empréstimos do Citigroup Inc., dizendo que um cliente não identificado estava interessado em comprar empréstimos da Lee Enterprises, disseram pessoas a par da operação.

A Goldman estava trabalhando com outros credores, incluindo Lee Monarch Alternative Capital LP e Capital Management LP Mudrick, sobre um plano de concordata para a editora que estava à beira de ser concluído.

No entanto, os operadores da Goldman concordaram em vender o empréstimo Lee.

Na época, o banco não sabia que o comprador era Buffett, que também tinha ganhado mais de US$ 1,5 bilhão em um investimento que ele fez no Goldman durante a crise financeira.

Através da BH Finance LLC, Buffett está comprando mais empréstimos da Lee, abocanhando US$ 5 milhões nos últimos dias, disse uma pessoa familiarizada com a situação. Desta vez ele pagou 81,5 centavos de dólar, 25% a mais do que ele tinha pagado à Goldman.

The ink isn’t dry on Europe’s new pact for common fiscal governance, but some of the signatories are already challenging the new rules out of Berlin—er, Brussels. Spain is the offender this time, but others will soon follow. As they do, we’ll find out whether the pact will safeguard the common currency, or merely enshrine bad economic policy into law.

Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s crime against Europe’s Budget Inquisition was to raise his country’s 2012 deficit target to 5.8% of GDP from 4.4%. (Madrid’s deficit ended 2011 at 8.5% of GDP.) Mr. Rajoy says Spain’s economic contraction has made fiscal consolidation tougher than expected, but insists his government will meet 2013′s deficit goal of 3% of GDP.

This isn’t exactly the first time a euro-area government has failed to meet its EU deficit obligations. But the timing of Mr. Rajoy’s announcement last week, coming a day after he and 24 fellow EU leaders signed off on the new fiscal pact, makes his transgression a pointed one.

It’s not clear whether Mr. Rajoy’s breach will provoke the Commission to seek punishment. The text of the fiscal pact authorizes sanctions to be imposed against budget scofflaws. Then again, somebody in Brussels must be asking himself whether it really makes sense to penalize an excessive deficit by imposing fines that increase the deficit.

But regardless of the Commission’s next move, the Spanish decision highlights the gap between the EU’s aspirations for its fiscal union and reality. Spain is enduring an economic convulsion barely less serious than Greece’s. Spanish unemployment, at 23.3% in January, is the highest in the EU; almost half of Spanish youth are out of work.

That’s a sign that Spain, like the rest of Europe, needs pro-growth reform. And the good news is that Madrid has more room for budgetary maneuver than its Club Med friends, thanks to public debt of only 67.8% of GDP, one of the lowest ratios in the developed world. Add to that a little help from Mario Draghi, and the Spanish Treasury has already secured some 40% of its targeted borrowing for the year.

That puts the onus on Mr. Rajoy to deliver the right kinds of economic reforms. The Prime Minister deserves credit for pushing through unpopular changes to Spanish labor laws last month. Reducing the cost of firing employees makes it easier for employers to hire them.

But taxes in Spain remain too high, and Mr. Rajoy didn’t help by imposing “temporary” levies a week after entering office in December. A paper published last week by the Washington, D.C.-based Cato Institute shows that Spain’s marginal income tax rates are now higher at almost every income level than those of its Western European peers.

***

One danger of fiscal union is that it will entrench bad economic policies and make good ones harder to put into action. Sound national fiscs are an important component of a successful monetary union. But there’s no better way of improving the overall budgetary picture than by growing the overall economy. For that, Spain needs lower tax rates, less regulation and more incentives to invest—whatever the mandarins in Brussels, Berlin or Paris might say.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page 13

Por SCOTT PATTERSON e JEAN EAGLESHAM

As autoridades de mercado dos Estados Unidos estão investigando se algumas corretoras sofisticadas e especializadas em negociações de alta frequencia usaram sua estreita relação com bolsas de valores computadorizadas para ganhar vantagem injusta sobre outros investidores, dizem pessoas a par do assunto.

A ampla investigação, liderada por agentes da SEC, a Comissão de Valores Mobiliários dos EUA, se concentra em plataformas de transações computadorizadas das bolsas, incluindo a Bats Global Markets Inc., disseram as pessoas a par do assunto.

A investigação da SEC reflete um esforço maior por parte de reguladores em examinar partes menos transparentes dos mercados de valores, como o emergente campo das chamadas transações de alta frequência. Firmas de negociações de alta frequência utilizam poderosos sistemas computadorizados para realizar transações ultra-rápidas, nas quais elas com frequencia mantêm ações por apenas poucas frações de segundos. Elas se beneficiam porque conseguem agir muito mais rápido que investidores com menos capacidade tecnológica.

As bolsas computadorizadas operadas por empresas como a Bats são as preferidas das corretoras de alta velocidade. A Bats subiu para o terceiro lugar em volume de venda de ações, atrás de bolsas operadas pela NYSE Euronext e pela Nasdaq OMX Group Inc., com cerca de 11% do volume médio diário.

A Bats não quis comentar.

A investigação da SEC deriva, em parte, de uma análise mais ampla das transações computadorizadas iniciada por reguladores depois do incidente que ficou conhecido como “flash crash”, em maio de 2010, quando as ações desabaram e se recuperaram em poucos minutos, depois de falhas nos sistemas de transações computadorizadas.

Como parte dessa iniciativa, a SEC está analisando a comunicação entre as bolsas e firmas de negociações de alta frequência. Investigadores estão examinando se empresas conspiram para limitar a concorrência ou manipular mercados, informou uma pessoa a par do assunto.

A análise ainda está em estágio inicial e não há nenhum sinal de transgressão por parte das corretoras ou bolsas de valores. Ainda de acordo com pessoas próximas à investigação, reguladores enviaram cartas a uma série de firmas de transações de alta velocidade, solicitando informações sobre suas atividades comerciais e comunicação com as bolsas.

Na investigação, a SEC está analisando as atividades comerciais das firmas de transações de alta frequência Getco LLC e Tradebot Systems Inc., que investiram na Bats, afirmam as pessoas a par do assunto.

A SEC também está examinando a comunicação entre algumas corretoras de alta frequência e a Direct Edge Holdings LLC, sediada em Jersey City, no Estado de Nova Jersey, que realiza transações computadorizadas, de acordo com as pessoas. Representantes da Direct Edge, Tradebot e da SEC se recusaram a comentar. Não se sabe se a NYSE e a Nasdq estão envolvidas na investigação.

A investigação ocorre num momento delicado para a Bats, sigla para Better Alternative Trading System, sediada em Lenexa, no Estado do Kansas. A empresa abriu seu capital na sexta-feira e problemas técnicos levaram a uma suspensão das negociações no meio da jornada.

Juntas, a Bats e a Direct Edge respondem por cerca de 20% do volume médio diário de ações nos EUA, de acordo com o Sandler O’Neill + Partners LP, um banco com analistas que rastreiam as negociações. A Tradebot e a Getco são responsáveis por aproximadamente 25% das transações diárias de muitas das grandes ações americanas, de acordo com corretores, os sites das empresas e pessoas a par do assunto.