credit-card

Huffington Post…

For a generation that is often criticized for their coddled upbringing and conspicuous consumption habits, new findings suggest that Millennials are actually more conservative than their parents when it comes to spending. According to a study that was conducted in February by Bankrate.com , fewer Millennials have more credit card debt than money saved for a rainy day as compared to the boomer generation. Twenty-four percent of Millennials have more debt than savings, compared to 31 percent of boomers. Perhaps bearing witness to the tech bust in 2000 and the financial catastrophe of 2008 and watching their parents’ retirement funds dry up made Millennials — 18- to 30-year-olds — more inclined to save . It has certainly made them more wary of making high risk investments . Still, both generations are facing a cash crunch. “Emergency savings remains a problem area for many Americans, which leaves them only one unplanned expense away from having high-cost debt,” Greg McBride, Bankrate.com’s senior financial analyst, said in a statement. One in four Americans have more debt than savings. Lingering high rates of unemployment and stagnant wages have caused many to drain life savings and buy on credit, leaving only 54 percent of Americans with more money in their savings accounts than they owe to credit card companies. These statistics represent a small improvement over last year’s figures, which showed that 52 percent of Americans had more in savings than in credit card debt . “As difficult as it may be to boost savings, having an adequate emergency savings cushion is critical to maintaining financial stability, and Americans need to find ways to sock away more cash for a rainy day,” McBride said. Credit card spending and racking up debt is also a major factor bringing down the financial well-being of all Americans. After the recession, credit card usage fell to an all-time low . But recent data suggests we’re returning to our pre-recession spending habits : In the second quarter of 2011, credit card spending grew exponentially with Americans accumulating $18.4 billion in debt, or 368 percent more debt that we accumulated in the second quarter of 2009. Even more troubling: Americans underestimate their credit card debt by a third, according to a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. While the average household thinks they owe $4,700 to credit card companies, lenders say this number is actually $7,134.

The rest is here:
Surprising Way Millennial Generation Beats The Boomers

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

The 10 Most Hated Companies In America

by Jillian Berman on January 15, 2012

Huffington Post…

Customers, employees, shareholders and taxpayers hate large corporations for many reasons. 24/7 Wall St. reviewed a lengthy list of corporations for which there is substantial research data to choose the 10 most hated in America.

Follow this link:
The 10 Most Hated Companies In America

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

U.S. States Race To Build Casinos As They Scramble For Revenue

January 15, 2012

NEW YORK — A Malaysian company’s plan to build a $4 billion convention center and big-time casino on the outskirts of New York City could be the biggest shot fired yet in a tourism arms race that has seen a growing number of Eastern states embrace gambling as a way to lure visitors and drum up revenue. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced last week that he would work with the Genting Group, one of the world’s largest and most successful gambling companies, to transform the storied, but sleepy, Aqueduct horse track into a megaplex that would eventually include the nation’s largest convention center, 3,000 hotel rooms, and a major expansion of a casino that began operating at the site in October. The proposal came less than two months after once-puritanical Massachusetts passed a law allowing up to three resort casinos, plus a slot machine parlor, at locations around the state. Ohio is poised to see its first commercial casinos open this year, after voters approved up to four gambling halls in 2009. Maryland’s first casino opened last year, with more on the way. Pennsylvania’s first casinos opened in 2006, and already the state is threatening to surpass Atlantic City as the nation’s second-largest gambling market. And in Florida, lawmakers are hotly debating a whopper of a bill that would allow up to three multibillion-dollar casinos, plus additional slot machines at dog and horse tracks. Genting appears confident the law will pass. It has already spent around $450 million to acquire waterfront property in Miami, where it wants to build a $3.8 billion complex that would include a casino, dozens of restaurants and a shopping mall. States have embraced casinos, after years of trepidation about their societal costs, for two simple reasons: a promise of a rich new revenue source, plus the possibility of stimulating tourism. “They are faced with tough decisions. They are in recession … And we pay taxes far over and above normal taxes,” said Frank Fahrenkopf, president of the American Gaming Association. Last week alone, Genting’s new gambling parlor at Aqueduct, now limited to 4,500 video slot machines and another 500 electronic table games, made nearly $13 million – putting the “racino” on pace to make $676 million per year, with 44 percent of that take going to a state education fund. And that total is nothing compared to the $1.4 to $2 billion per year Genting predicts it would bring in at the huge complex it is planning in Miami. Some experts, however, have questioned whether revenue bonanzas that large are realistic, and say states should be cautious about giving up too much to lure these projects. Competition for a limited pool of gambling and tourism dollars is already fierce, and recent years haven’t been kind to casinos. Nevada’s larger casinos lost $4 billion in 2011, according to a report released this month by the state’s Gaming Control Board, as the state continued to feel the effects of the global economic slump. As gambling options have increased in the East, revenue has slid substantially at the pair of Indian tribe-owned casinos in Connecticut and declined by a dramatic 30 percent in Atlantic City, which has lost customers in droves to the new casinos in nearby Philadelphia, according to David Schwartz, director of the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada Las Vegas. That trend could deepen with the introduction of big-time gambling in New York and Massachusetts, and in the end result in a situation where few people need to travel to gamble. And that could mean that the tourism promise of the casinos largely goes unfulfilled, as the gambling tables and slot machines are played predominantly by locals taking revenue from other parts of the economy, rather than out-of-state visitors bringing in new dollars, said the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a Washington D.C. research group that advocates for progressive tax codes. “Gambling may simply shift money from one tax to another, limiting the net gain to the state,” it said. “Consumers spend more money on gambling activities, they will spend less money on other items, such as recreation and even basic needs.” Gambling resorts, most notably Las Vegas, have responded to tougher competition by trying to make themselves into destinations for visitors of all stripes, offering concerts, theater, museums, zoos, restaurants and other attractions. Genting appears to be planning a variation on that model for New York. The company and the project’s champion, Cuomo, have heralded it first and foremost for the planned convention center, which they have boasted will be the nation’s largest. Genting has insisted it will go ahead with construction of the center even if the state doesn’t pass the constitutional amendment needed to fully legalize the type of casino it wishes to operate at the site, with table games run by human dealers rather than the electronic machines. “I can’t be clearer about this: This project, this convention center, is in no way predicated on the legalization of table gambling in New York,” said Stefan Friedman, a publicist for the company. “We think there is a real opportunity here.” The company has, however, asked for permission to expand its current casino operation as part of the deal. It also wants to alter its revenue-sharing deal so it can take home a bigger slice of the profits. There are some skeptics. The convention center the company wishes to build will be a 45-minute taxi ride from Manhattan, or an hour or longer by train. It will be located in a residential area where there are now no restaurants, shops or sites of interest, aside from nearby John F. Kennedy International Airport. Convention centers across the country have been losing money for many years, and suffering from attendance declines even while going ahead with expansion projects. “I would consider that a very risky business proposition,” said Heywood Sanders, a professor of public administration at the University of Texas who is a leading critic of using taxpayer money to build convention centers. He noted that the nation’s biggest convention center, Chicago’s McCormick Place, has seen attendance drop steadily in recent years, despite several expansions and costly upgrades. The Chicago Convention and Tourism Bureau reported that 2 million people attended events at the center in 2010, compared to 3 million in 2001. Convention delegates dropped to 890,000 from 1.3 million over that same decade. Cuomo himself noted in a letter to New York legislators this week that many convention centers lose money, and he expressed doubt over the wisdom of using public money to pay for such facilities, saying it was “debatable” that they generate enough new tourism to validate the investment. But he noted that, in this case, the building would be privately funded and operated. “The state is not building anything. We are not spending public money on a convention center. Genting, a private entity, will take the risk of economic success,” he said. That argument rang true with Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, an influential group of business leaders. “There is only upside for the city and state,” she said. “We have very little to lose by encouraging them.” As in Florida, Genting appears to be betting big that the state will eventually eliminate legal hurdles to expanded gambling. It paid $380 million up-front for the right to operate at Aqueduct for 30 years, and said it is prepared to spend billions of dollars constructing convention and exhibition space, as well as a theater and 1,000 hotel rooms, even without the gambling expansion it desires. Clearly, Friedman said, the company doesn’t believe the East Coast is saturated with either casinos or convention centers. That said, it isn’t necessarily keen for more competition. As part of its negotiations with the state, he said, the company is discussing a possible grant of exclusivity that could prevent another casino from opening “right in our backyard.”

Read the full article →

Roger Martin: What CEOs and Hedge Funds Don’t Want the 99% to Understand

January 15, 2012

Zuccotti Park may be emptied and the Wall Street no longer occupied, but the anger of the 99% hasn’t abated one iota as they watched CEOs cash in on the recovery and hedge funds make money hand over fist whether the market is going up or down. This shouldn’t be a surprise. The fact is, because of the structure of their compensation, CEOs are rewarded for share price volatility not share price performance. And hedge funds make big money on the volatility that CEOs are incented to produce. So while the volatility of the past five years has devastated the lives, savings and pensions of vast numbers of the 99%, it has served CEOs and hedge fund managers very well indeed. To understand the perverse structures, let’s compare the compensation of two hypothetical CEOs, Bill and Sally, appointed on Jan. 1, 2007 and retired five years later on Dec. 31, 2011. The average US large company CEO has a compensation package of approximately $10 million/year made up half of salary/bonuses and half of stock-based compensation, so that is what we awarded Bill and Sally. Typically, the stock compensation is awarded annually on Jan. 1 of each year. If it is in the form of restricted stock, it vests as of retirement. If it is in the form of stock options, they typically must be exercised at the time of retirement. So that is how we structured their stock-based compensation. It was a wild ride during Bill’s and Sally’s time. The S&P 500 (which accounts for 75% of US market capitalization) was 1,416 when they took over, shot up to an all-time high of 1,565 on Oct. 9, 2007, then plummeted in the fall of 2008 and bottomed out on March 9, 2009 at 676, then rose to the close of 2011, finishing at 1,258 — 80% of that all-time high. CEO Bill managed the company as if it was a proxy for the stock market; its stock followed the S&P500 exactly with the huge ups and downs. On January 1, 2007, his stock price was $100/share, making the share price at the beginning of 2008-2011: $102, $66, $80, and $90, respectively. When he retired, the price was $89. So in five years, he took his shareholders on a wild ride and ended up losing 11% of the investment of the shareholders who stuck with him the whole time. CEO Sally was able to buck the market trend. She managed carefully and proactively and somehow kept the stock stable at $100/share from 2007 through to the end of 2011. So against the backdrop of five wild years in the market, she avoided giving shareholders scary ups and downs and left them with their investment whole — 11% better than the market performance and 11% better than Bill. Who is the more valuable CEO? Whose compensation should be higher? Should it be Bill, whose shareholders experienced massive volatility and a net loss of 11% over the period? Or should it be Sally, who avoided ups and down, protected investors’ capital and ended up 11% higher than Bill? The answer, of course, is obvious — Sally with both better returns and lower volatility. She should have made a hell of a lot more. But that is not the way it works out in crazy America. Over the period, Bill made $57M in compensation to Sally’s $50M if their stock-based compensation was in stock options; $51M versus $50M if it was restricted stock. It seems impossible: how could the valuations end up there when Sally’s stock was 11% higher on the day the stock-based compensation was valued? It is primarily because of the huge value of Bill’s stock-based compensation given to him on Jan. 1, 2009 when his stock price was languishing at $66. Therein lays the fundamental problem eating away at the core of American capitalism — and generating anguish of the 99%. American CEOs are paid to generate volatility — so they did just great over the last five years while the 99% took it in the teeth. And that wasn’t some kind of accident — it is inherent in the current system. The 99% would love nothing more than slow and steady growth, but that is not what maximizes incentive compensation for corporate executives. As far as CEO compensation goes, under the current stock-based compensation model, it is unambiguously better to have your stock plummet and then partly recover than to have the stock price stay steady over the same period. In fact, the most bloody-minded and self-interested CEO would be wise to drive its stock down immediately after taking over — and blaming the prior administration for all the problems found — and then get the stock back to the initial level. The CEO will make a small fortune doing that — while shareholders make nothing — and it is a lot easier than producing stock price increases from the initial level. Though they wouldn’t want to admit it, the crash of 2008 wasn’t all that bad for the vast majority of big-company CEOs. With the exception of those few CEOs who were sacked, most had terrific air cover: “Our stock may be down 50% but so is everybody else. Really, I’m doing well, all things considered.” Even better, CEOs got tranches of stock grants at super-low prices — in some cases lots of them to keep the CEOs from being depressed that their existing options were “so far underwater.” As the market dragged their stock prices up with everyone else’s, these CEOs made out like, well, bandits. Stock-based compensation has produced a volatility machine and that volatility is wrecking the American economy, while it makes CEOs and hedge fund managers rich. The crash of 2008 wasn’t a rogue event and it will happen again as long as our rogue system of executive compensation stays intact.

Read the full article →

10 Jobs That Shed The Most Calories

January 14, 2012

With a growing percentage of American workers finding themselves glued to a computer all day, those jobs that require a little bit of physical activity look more and more enticing to many. So which jobs are good for burning the calories? After sifting through millions of listings, job search site Glassdoor.com found that in several jobs, exercise and physical exertion is a key component of daily tasks. Even so, based on recent research, finding a job that requires a little extra exercise may be harder than it used to be. Over the past fifty years, the percentage of jobs held by Americans that required physical exertion has fallen to just 20 percent, down from 50 percent, a May report by PLoS One found . That means both American men and women now burn over 100 fewer calories a day than they used to. When it comes to working off calories, some jobs have more obvious benefits than others. It’s not surprising that personal trainers get a good workout, for example, but we didn’t realize they get outranked by both valets and the sales reps at Best Buy. It’s not that those jobs that shed the calories are all fun and games — far from it. Indeed, a number of these careers come with high degrees of stress. Firefighters, ranked seventh on the list below, have to stay in great shape to ensure they’re ready to save lives and put out blazes, but the danger associated with the occupation also makes it an incredibly stressful job, according to one recent survey . Photojournalists, to use another example, also reportedly deal with the high stress of deadlines and intense competition. That might be expected when obtaining the best shot requires getting to the action just a bit faster than competitors, heavy equipment in hand, as Glassdoor.com points out . Here are the ten jobs that burn the most calories, according to Glassdoor.com :

Read the full article →

Americans May Be Getting Back Into A Pre-Recession Habit

January 9, 2012

WASHINGTON — Americans are feeling confident enough in the economy to go back to a time-honored tradition – taking on a little extra debt. Consumer borrowing surged in November by $20.4 billion, the Federal Reserve said Monday. It was the third straight increase and the largest monthly gain in a decade. The jump in borrowing was largely because people took out more loans to buy cars and swiped their credit cards frequently to purchase holiday gifts. In November, total consumer borrowing rose to seasonally adjusted $2.48 trillion. That’s nearly at pre-recession levels and up from a post-recession low point of $2.39 trillion reached in September 2010. Borrowing had tumbled for more than two years during and immediately after the recession. Since then, consumers have increased their borrowing in 13 of the past 14 months. Americans are taking on more debt after seeing the unemployment rate drop and the economy improve, albeit modestly. Many are also leaning on their credit cards and loans to make up for wages that haven’t kept pace with inflation this year. Holiday sales were solid in November, and the U.S. auto industry had its two best sales months for the year in November and December. The Fed’s credit report appeared to reflect those sales. The category that measures credit card debt rose in November by $5.6 billion, the most since March 2008. The gauge that tracks auto loans and student loans increased $14.8 billion, nearly matching July’s gain that was the biggest since February 2005. Sung Won Sohn, an economics professor at the Martin Smith School of Business at California State University, said many consumers were likely persuaded by incentives that retailers and auto dealers offered to boost sales. Still, Paul Edelstein, director of financial economics at IHS Global Insight, expressed concern that consumers may have relied on their credit cards to finance holiday purchases. The rise in borrowing comes as many consumers are seeing little to no growth in their paychecks. Inflation-adjusted, after-tax incomes shrank by nearly 2 percent in the July-September period. To make up the difference, many consumers have reduced the amount they save. The savings rate fell in November to 3.5 percent – the lowest level since the recession began. The savings rate jumped in 2008 to 5 percent and stayed above that level until early last year. Sohn said he expects the savings rate to level off near November’s level. He also said the increase in consumer demand should prompt businesses to hire more workers. Those gains would allow consumers to finance their spending with rising incomes. In December, employers added 200,000 jobs and the unemployment rate fell to 8.5 percent, the government said Friday. It was the sixth month in a row that the economy had added at least 100,000 jobs, the longest streak since 2006. And the unemployment rate dropped to its lowest level in nearly three years. With more jobs and better pay, consumers could step up spending even further. That could lead more companies to add workers, which ultimately drives more spending and more hiring. Economists call that a virtuous cycle. Still, a recession in Europe could dampen demand for U.S. exports and weaken financial markets. The Federal Reserve’s borrowing report covers auto loans, student loans and credit cards. It excludes mortgages, home equity loans and other loans tied to real estate.

Read the full article →

With Obama Appointment, Jeopardy Champ Takes On Payday Lenders

January 4, 2012

The new government agency tasked with looking after the best financial interests of ordinary consumers finally has a leader. President Barack Obama defied Republican congressional opposition and used a recess appointment to install his nominee, former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, as the top watchdog at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The move caps six months of combat over the direction of the bureau, but is just the latest chapter in the fight over the shape of Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the controversial financial regulation law that Obama signed in 2010 that created the new agency. With Cordray in place, the bureau, which already regulates consumer practices at banks with assets of more than $10 billion, can assume its full powers to make or enforce rules governing certain non-bank financial companies, including payday lenders, mortgage brokers and private student loan companies. Consumer advocates applauded Obama’s move. “For all the ire aimed at banks, there are many serious problems for consumers posed by non-bank financial companies,” said Lauren Saunders, managing director of the National Consumer Law Center. Cordray has said that expanding the bureau’s reach to non-bank financial institutions would be his first order of business . “I’ve got a big job to do,” Cordray told Reuters . A former five-time Jeopardy! champ, Cordray attracted notice as Ohio attorney general for aggressively pursuing some of the architects of the financial crisis, including credit rating agencies. He was also the first attorney general to sue a mortgage servicer over robo-signing. Republicans quickly criticized the recess appointment. “The #CFPB position had not been filled for one reason: the agency it heads is bad #4jobs and bad for the economy,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said on Twitter. But consumer advocates say the decision is good for the most financially vulnerable Americans. “We applaud the president for battling through the dysfunction of a Congress that finds itself in the grip of Wall Street,” said Bart Naylor, a consumer advocate at Public Citizen. Payday lenders, including some banks and credit unions, often make loans at 400 percent annual interest or more. The consumer agency cannot set interest rate caps, but it will have authority to go into payday shops and examine their records and practices, in the same way that regulators do now at banks. It’s not clear what changes the agency could impose, but at a minimum better disclosure to customers about hidden fees and the dangers of compounding interest is expected. The bureau will also oversee “larger participants” in other financial industries, including credit reporting agencies, which Saunders said make frequent and damaging mistakes. “They affect every aspect of people’s financial lives and yet have received little scrutiny,” she said. “It is a nightmare dealing with them.” The consumer agency is currently trying to decide how to define the larger participant mandate. Interestingly, the big banks, which have otherwise opposed the bureau at every step, have sided with consumer advocates who are seeking for as broad a definition –and as such, as many companies — as possible. “Comparable accountability across all providers of comparable financial products and services is a fundamental mission” of the new agency, the American Bankers Association said. Senate Republicans, led by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), had held up the Cordray nomination for six months. They promised to continue to block Cordray, who is currently serving as the agency’s enforcement chief, until Dodd-Frank is amended to make the agency more accountable. “No bureaucrat will have more power over the daily economic lives of Americans than this director,” Shelby said from the floor of the Senate shortly before the a vote to move the nomination forward failed last month. Without more oversight, the agency’s actions will lead to bank failures, he said. The Republicans said they wanted more control over the agency’s purse strings and a board of commissioners rather than a single director to oversee the agency — moves that would weaken the bureau, consumer advocates said. The Republican position matched that of Washington’s most prolific lobbying force, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which pushed a House bill that would replace the director with a five-member commission. A total of 34 industry groups list the bill as a lobbying priority, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of federal records, representing 183 industry lobbyists. At least 86 once worked for the government. The Chamber spent nearly $30 million in lobbying on financial regulation and a host of other issues in the first three quarters of 2011. It tasked 21 lobbyists to work bills that would restructure the agency. In addition to the chamber, the most active opponents of the bureau’s current structure include the American Bankers Association, the Financial Services Roundtable, the Independent Community Bankers of America and the Consumer Bankers Association. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau spokeswoman Jennifer Howard did not respond to a request for comment about the Cordray appointment.

Read the full article →

Dems, Reps Agree On Reducing Jobless Benefits

December 21, 2011

WASHINGTON — Republicans and Democrats have clashed frequently over federal unemployment insurance ever since the unemployed first became eligible for 99 weeks of benefits at the end of 2009. Despite the high-profile disagreements, which have repeatedly led to lapsed benefits for millions of people, Republicans and Democrats broadly agree on what to do next: reduce the duration of benefits and make sure their cost isn’t added to the federal budget deficit. But unless Congress reaches a compromise in the next week or so, federal unemployment benefits will lapse again for nearly 2 million people come January. In December, Republicans proposed reducing the number of weeks available by 40. Democrats are willing to meet them halfway by cutting 20 weeks, albeit in a backdoor fashion: Congress would reauthorize the two federal unemployment programs, but the second would automatically phase out in one state after another over the course of 2012. The phaseout would begin under a bill that passed the Senate on Saturday per a deal between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and his GOP counterpart, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Democrats in the House of Representatives want the House to pass the Senate bill immediately. Although the Senate legislation would keep the federal programs in place for just two months, the second Extended Benefits program would phase out in 11 states during that time. It’s a “wholly inadequate” outcome, said Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.), the top Democrat on the committee overseeing unemployment, because “with very little warning, tens of thousands of long-term unemployed Americans will be cut off unemployment insurance.” Levin did not say, however, that he opposed the bill. The Extended Benefits program, which provides help for up to 20 weeks, kicks in after workers exhaust up to 53 weeks of federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation following 26 weeks of state benefits. The program is restricted to states with high and rising jobless rates. If a state’s jobless rate isn’t significantly higher than its rate three years ago, the program is not triggered. Democrats in both the House and Senate initially proposed reauthorizing Extended Benefits to allow states to extend their “lookback” period to four years ago, which would have meant more states kept the benefits through 2012. Those proposals have been pushed aside. As Republicans have noted, the Obama administration was the first to suggest letting Extended Benefits dwindle in 2012. Cynthia Rogers of Minneapolis received a letter last week telling her that Extended Benefits would end on Jan. 8. Rogers, 55, has been drawing unemployment benefits since September 2010, after she lost her job as a registered nurse due to an injury. She’s currently on the third “tier” of Emergency Unemployment Compensation, which lasts only 47 weeks in Minnesota (the duration of federal unemployment programs varies by state ). Rogers will be eligible for 13 weeks of Extended Benefits starting in January — if Congress renews the program and allows states to change their triggers. Rogers could use the money. “I’d be able to pay my medical premium for another month or two, and my car insurance and my rent,” she said. “But I still need a job.” She said she has already sold her house and is grateful her children are grown. She’s applied for pet store jobs as well as nursing positions. She’s planning to enroll in dog grooming school and launch a new career in Texas as soon as she can. “At age 55, no one wants to hire you,” she said in an email. “So, unless a Christmas miracle happens, I am at the mercy of Congress and the Lord Himself. I place my trust in God, not Congress.” As recently as 2010, Democrats insisted that the cost of federal unemployment compensation not be offset with spending cuts or tax hikes elsewhere in the budget, arguing that deficit spending stimulates the economy. They’ve since abandoned that stance and only disagree with Republicans on how the benefits should be paid for. Another area of agreement: Both parties support making millionaires ineligible for unemployment insurance. If such a policy had been in place in 2009, it would have saved $20 million out of $135.9 billion spent on benefits, according to the National Employment Law Project. The worker advocacy group argued in a recent report that cutting off higher earners could undermine what is supposed to be an entitlement for anyone who loses a job through no fault of his or her own: “[E]xaggerating the extent to which millionaires, a group of potential beneficiaries who garner little or no public sympathy, are drawing UI [unemployment insurance] benefits opens the door to means-testing of unemployment benefits at any level of income by essentially eliminating UI for certain workers at the highest income levels.” Republicans are on their own, however, when it comes to allowing states to drug-test the jobless and require layoff victims who haven’t finished high school to enroll in GED courses as a condition for receiving benefits. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have said they’d be willing to drop extended unemployment compensation altogether, something Congress has never done with a national jobless rate above 7.2 percent. But the latest deal has fallen apart, and most members of the House and Senate have returned to their districts for a Christmas break that ends in late January. As many as 1.8 million long-term jobless will lose assistance over the course of the month. Arthur Delaney is the author of ” A People’s History of the Great Recession ,” HuffPost’s first e-book.

Read the full article →

Analysis: Americans Shedding Debt, Becoming ‘Radically Different Consumers’

December 18, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Americans are making progress in working down their heavy debt burden, but are struggling to break out of another funk holding back the economy: their deep pessimism. Some economists point to a big drop in household debt as a sign that American consumers – once considered the driving force of the world economy – are primed to return to more spendthrift ways. But standing in the way of a stronger recovery, and possibly President Barack Obama’s re-election as well, are unprecedented levels of concern that better days may not lie ahead. Research suggests that economic growth will suffer from a sinking feeling among consumers that their incomes will continue to lose ground to inflation. Even though households are digging themselves out of debt, the painful 2007-2009 recession could leave a lasting scar on their willingness to spend. “Given people’s expectations, the outlook going forward does not suggest much upside for consumption,” said Jeff Greenberg, an economist at Nomura in New York. “A lot of people will be radically different consumers.” Polls show record levels of pessimism about future income despite slow improvements in the economy. Indeed, Gallup surveys have found Americans are even gloomier about their finances now than they were during the recession’s darkest days. Americans should be feeling better. They have made big strides whittling down the mountain of debt left after the explosion of the housing bubble and the subsequent recession. Debt payments have already fallen to the smallest fraction of income since 1994. Households spent 11.09 percent of after-tax income servicing their debt in the third quarter. In 2007, that rate hit a record high 14 percent. Many borrowers have been helped by the Federal Reserve’s push to lower interest rates. Others are simply walking away from mortgages. PROTRACTED MALAISE Shaking the painful debt hangover is widely seen as crucial for getting the economy growing faster again. But it might not be enough. Derek Thompson, a salesman at a credit card company in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, recently refinanced his mortgage to lower his monthly payments. But given a sobering outlook for future income, he says he will use the extra money to pay off other debts rather than buy new stuff. Thompson needs to start paying off the $50,000 he borrowed to get a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice, and he plans to switch careers to get into law. At the same time, he fears he will take a pay cut due to a tough job market. “I want to wait until the financial situation straightens out a bit before I make any other changes,” he said. Thompson is far from alone in his unease over the economy. Americans’ median guess of how much their incomes would rise in the coming 12 months fell to 0.2 percent this month, the lowest in records going back to 1978, according to the Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan sentiment survey. That reading cratered in late 2008 after the collapse of U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers. Views on wage gains never recovered, and now only 8 percent of Americans expect incomes to grow faster than inflation over the next year. Perhaps even more worrisome, views of future inflation-adjusted income have been moving lower since around 2003, a trend that was only exacerbated by the recent recession. That bodes poorly for growth. Research by JPMorgan economist Michael Feroli found inflation-adjusted income expectations might be the best single indicator for predicting future consumption. His crunching of real income expectations implicit in the University of Michigan survey found they correlated better with spending growth than changes in the stock market, wider measures of consumer sentiment or even the actual growth in people’s wages. This is scary not just because pessimism is so rampant, but because top policymakers like Obama and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke have limited sway over the national mood. “People (need) to really believe that sustained strong growth is coming, which is like solving a problem by presuming its solution,” Feroli said. “It’s hard for the Fed to directly affect households’ psychology regarding their real income expectations.” Other recent research also points to the importance of expectations, suggesting that shifts in the collective mood may have been the driving force behind the ups and downs of the U.S. economy over the last six decades. Working together, economists from the University of British Columbia, City University of Hong Kong and the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank found positive turns in sentiment led to substantial pick-ups in investment and hours worked. The opposite held for a souring mood. It seems hard to imagine a quick turnaround in the current malaise. Feroli suggests that allowing a little extra inflation could prompt people to buy more homes and boost investment, perhaps leading to more growth and optimism. Others propose tax cuts or more government spending to get more money in people’s pockets. Both ideas face big hurdles, with lawmakers currently embracing austerity and central bankers at the Fed divided over how much inflation can be tolerated. Yet the national mood has shifted quickly before. In the early 1980s, after a tumultuous period marked by recession and high inflation, Americans suddenly began to believe in real wage gains as the Fed tamed prices and then-President Ronald Reagan cut taxes and boosted military spending. “It’s amazing how quickly it can turn around,” said Hersh Shefrin, an economist and professor of behavioral finance at California’s Santa Clara University. (Reporting By Jason Lange; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama; and Jan Paschal) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Party Leaders Quiet About Proposal To Drug Test The Jobless

December 12, 2011

WASHINGTON — Since Republicans proposed drug testing the unemployed last week, both Republican and Democratic leaders in Washington have been quiet on the controversial proposal. Spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have repeatedly referred questions on specific parts of a broader Republican jobs bill to the office of Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), chairman of the House committee that oversees unemployment insurance. A Camp spokesman referred drug testing questions to Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), author of a different drug testing proposal unveiled last week. And Kingston’s office has said only that local businesses complain of drug use among the jobless. A White House official pointed out drug testing was not part of the president’s jobs bill, but declined to say the administration opposed it. Congressional Democrats have focused their criticism of the Republican plan on its provisions to slash the duration of federal unemployment benefits by 40 weeks. Since 2008, federal programs expiring in January have provided up to 73 weeks of compensation for workers who use up 26 weeks of state benefits. Both the administration’s jobs bill and the Republican proposal would phase out the federal Extended Benefits program, which provides up to 20 weeks of compensation for the long-term jobless. The Republican version would slash an additional 20 weeks of federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation and it would let states reduce benefits even further. It would also impose a uniform federal work search requirement and disqualify high school dropouts not actively pursuing GEDs and millionaires from receiving benefits. The unemployment reforms, sweeping as they are, may be lost amid other features of the Republican package — particularly the part that calls for a speedy construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline, which has already drawn a veto threat from the White House. Worker advocacy group the National Employment Law Project on Monday described the drug testing element the “most disturbing” part of the GOP’s unemployment reforms. “Devising new ways to insult the unemployed only distracts from the current debate over how to best restore the nation’s economy to strong footing and the discussion over how to best support the unemployed and get them back to work,” NELP said in a report ( PDF ). Elizabeth Lower-Basch, a senior analyst with the Center for Law and Social Policy , a liberal-leaning Washington think tank, sounded a similar note on Monday. “Drug testing unemployment insurance recipients is part of a strategy of blaming the jobless for their predicament, rather than economic conditions,” Lower-Basch said. “It’s an insult to unemployed workers — and a massive waste of taxpayer money — to test millions of people for drug use with no reason other than stereotype to believe they are using drugs.” Tom Ballard of Lexington, Ky., said he doesn’t care about the drug testing. He just wants Congress to strike a deal, otherwise he’ll be one of nearly 2 million whose benefits will prematurely expire in January. Ballard said he lost his job as a supervisor for a thoroughbred racing company in August 2010 and that his current tier of Emergency Unemployment Compensation will run out at the very beginning of 2012. “I’ll pay my rent in January but as of February 1, I’m homeless,” Ballard said. Ballard, 59, said his job search has been dismal. He said that when he omitted his earlier years of work from his resume, he landed several interviews, but managers didn’t want to hire him after meeting him. “I’m too young to retire but too old to hire,” he said. He said there may be “bad apples” not sincerely looking for work, but the vast majority of the jobless are in their predicament through no fault of their own. “There are those of us sincerely looking for employment, and the jobs aren’t there,” he said. “And if you’re my age, even if the job is there, you’re probably not going to get it.”

Read the full article →

Consumer Bureau Developing Simpler Credit Card Form

December 7, 2011

Imagine a credit card agreement that’s short, to the point and easy to understand. If one federal agency gets its way, what you’re picturing could become a reality. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau launched a campaign aimed at simplifying credit card agreements Wednesday. The agency is asking the public for feedback on a more transparent credit card form that is broken down into three sections — costs, changes and additional information — and features information high up on fees, interest rates and other information. The bureau will also be soliciting feedback through a pilot program that will offer the agreement to customers of the Pentagon Federal Credit Union. “When a consumer has to read through pages of legal fine print in their credit card agreement to figure out how their card works — it’s easy to get confused,” Raj Date, a special adviser to the Treasury said in a statement announcing the program. “With a short, simple, easy-to-understand credit card agreement, consumers can clearly see the terms of the deal and make the decisions that are right for them.” The announcement comes after a CFPB report analyzing more than 5,000 credit card complaints found that customers are confused by their credit card terms. The report also found that consumers are still complaining about interest rates, billing disputes and other issues, despite legislation passed in 2010 that aimed to make credit cards more transparent. The complaint system was the first of its kind for the CFPB, which launched in July. The agency plans to expand the complaint system to all financial products starting with mortgages. The bureau, which was created as part of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform legislation, has been controversial since before its inception . Consumer advocates welcomed the agency as a necessary step towards preventing another financial fallout, while the financial industry and some lawmakers derided it as over-regulation. The new credit card form may be coming at just the right time. Credit card purchases climbed more than 10 percent last quarter after an 8.6 percent increase and a 9 percent boost in the first and second quarters respectively, according to statistics from First Data. The findings may indicate that credit card use is edging up after consumers cut back on debt immediately following the recession. Check out an early version of the CFPB’s simplified credit card form:

Read the full article →

Loopholes, Corporate Tax Dodging Costing Developing Countries Billions: Report

December 5, 2011

It’s no secret that many multinationals have become particularly adept at exploiting tax loopholes. Nor is it a surprising that the U.S. federal deficit is widening as a result. What’s not as publicized, however, is that developing nations are also feeling the heat. Developing countries have lost hundreds of billions of dollars due multinational corporations’ ability to both legally and illegally avoid taxes, and a lack of adequate monitoring by regulators, according to a recent report from the European Network On Debt and Development. Between 2005 and 2007 in sub-Saharan African countries alone, nearly $27 billion was shifted illegally due to trade mispricing — or when companies manipulate trade access borders for profit — the report found. But multinational corporations are also using legal means to pay less in taxes, including setting up subsidiaries and administrative units in countries with near-zero tax rates and allocating the value of what the company creates to the most favorable region. The report mirrors others indicating that many multinational corporations are getting increasingly skilled at avoiding taxes. Nearly 300 of America’s most profitable corporations paid an average tax rate of 18.5 percent between 2008 and 2010, according to an October study from Citizens for Tax Justice. That’s compared to the actual corporate tax rate of 35 percent, nearly double the rate actually paid. The CTJ report also found that 30 highly-profitable companies paid a negative tax rate between 2008 and 2010, even though they took home a combined $160 billion in pre-tax profits. Some corporations are pushing for more ways to make it easier for them to avoid taxes. Companies such as Apple and Google have hired more than 160 lobbyists to encourage Congress to reinstate a repatriation tax holiday, according to Bloomberg. The tax holiday on offshore profits would save the companies more than $1 trillion if passed. But corporations already take advantage of a variety of tax loopholes. Some use the “active financing exception,” which allows companies to avoid paying taxes on overseas profits if the company got those profits by “actively financing” a deal, according to The New York Times . Companies also commonly take advantage of the “accelerated depreciation” rule , which allows them to write off investments faster than they wear off, according to The Washington Post . The companies then subtract the falling value of the investments from their taxable income.

Read the full article →

OWS Protester Ditches Tent For Job On Wall Street

December 5, 2011

An Occupy Wall Street protester has ditched her tent in Zuccotti Park in favor of a position at one of Wall Street’s financial institutions. It all started when Wayne Kaufman, chief market analyst for John Thomas , saw Tracy Postert’s placard that read: “PhD Biomedical Scientist Seeking Full Time Employment”, according to the New York Post . Grabbing a copy of her CV, Kaufman decided she might be a good fit for a junior analyst position. “I thought, ‘Maybe this is a person who could help us understand these early-stage biotech companies that financial people just don’t always understand,’” Kaufman told ABC News . By then, Postert had already spent 15 days at the Occupy encampment where she touted anti-capitalist messages with signs that read: “Reagan Sucks” and “I’ll vote after the revolution,” according to the Telegraph . “I had been unemployed for so long, I thought why not?” Postert told the New York Post . Now she’s worked at the financial firm for three weeks and is in the midst of studying for her financial analyst exams. CEO Thomas Belesis believes this is one win against the Occupy movement. “She was ranting about Wall Street, and now she’s working on Wall Street. Banks are not so bad. I hope we have opened her eyes,” Belesis told the New York Post .

Read the full article →

Larry Summers Denounces Inequality — But Why?

November 28, 2011

Why is Larry Summers suddenly so worried about inequality? The Harvard professor — a former U.S. Treasury Secretary and Barack Obama’s first Director of the National Economic Council — penned an opinion piece last week decrying the concentration of income at the very top. Warning of “a strong and troubling shift in market rewards for a small minority,” Summers cited “dismal” figures, such as a 275 percent increase in incomes of the top 1 percent from 1979 to 2007. During that same period, income grew a mere 40 percent for the middle class. The need for fixes is fiercely urgent, he said. But his timing is curious. Summers was driving economic policy during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, yet he remained largely silent on income inequality. A scan of news items featuring Summers during his recent time in power turns up almost nothing on this topic, at a moment when economic matters were at the forefront of public debate. The gist of Summers’ op-ed — that the United States has become a profoundly unequal society — will surprise no one who’s been following economic trends for the last several years, to say nothing of the country’s thousands of Occupy protesters, whom Summers conspicuously did not mention. But it’s remarkable to hear the alarm being sounded by someone who’s been portrayed by detractors as an embodiment of the tight link between Washington and Wall Street. Summers’ motivation is largely political, according to several economists contacted by The Huffington Post. “Reputation,” said Derek Shearer, who served in the Clinton administration as an economics official in the Commerce Department and is professor of diplomacy at Occidental College, when asked about the purpose of Summers’ recent move. “Show he’s a good liberal guy.” Summers did not return request for comment for this article. A career-minded technocrat like Summers — especially one who’s been associated with discredited policies like financial deregulation — has to try to stay on the leading edge of political discussion, Shearer said. “These are issues of the day, and he’s out marketing and branding himself. The facts are there, you can’t deny them. All he’s doing is stating reality. It’s like, ‘Oh, my god, there’s global warming.’ ” Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, agreed: “My guess is he’s being political here — he’s trying to go with the tide.” This isn’t the first time Summers has swung to the left while out of government. Baker and Shearer mentioned a series of increasingly progressive-sounding opinion pieces Summers wrote in the run-up to the 2008 election. “If you go back to ’06, ’08, he started to say some really good things in the Financial Times . There was talk about a new Larry Summers,” said Baker. But when Summers joined the Obama administration, where his job was to gather and present the president a range of economic policy options, many observers criticized him for marginalizing progressive opinions, including those of former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and economists Joseph Stiglitz and James K. Galbraith. “None of the economists who were named to the council were particularly progressive,” Shearer said. “What you can fairly say is that there’s no evidence Larry was concerned with the issue [of inequality], and he really limited the range of interests and expertise that would be provided to the president. He saw himself as an expert on the economy, not somebody with strongly demonstrated progressive values.” In fact, when Summers is quoted talking about inequality in Ron Suskind’s new book, “Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President,” it’s in starkly different terms than those employed in his recent opinion piece: “One of the challenges in our society is that the truth is kind of a disequalizer.” Summers is quoted as saying. “One of the reasons that inequality has probably gone up in our society is that people are being treated closer to the way that they’re supposed to be treated.” Summers has disputed aspects of Suskind’s account , but the remarks seem in line with a couple of other famous Summers statements. While a vice president of the World Bank in 1991, Summers penned a memo suggesting it was only logical for high-pollution industries to move to developing countries . Once the memo was leaked, Summers said it was written in jest. And in 2005, Summers said innate ability may partially explain why women are underrepresented in the sciences — comments that drew a firestorm of criticism at the time. To be sure, Summers has publicly adopted progressive positions before. During the 2008 campaign he spoke forcefully about inequality in a speech at a Harvard Business School conference . At the time, Summers was an adviser to Obama, and seen as a potential candidate to head the Treasury. Once secure in the White House, however, Summers seems to have lost focus on inequality: His next prominent statement about the issue came on October 14, 2010, when his departure from the Obama administration had already been announced. In an interview with the Washington Post , Summers spoke of the subject almost in passing, seemingly at the prompting of the interviewer, while discussing the benefits of letting upper-income tax cuts expire. The chief reason to do so, Summers said, was to allow the government to invest in job-creation: “Summers, who will step down and return to Harvard in January, agreed that tackling income inequality is also a factor,” read the article. “But ‘ this isn’t about redistribution ,’ he said.” Ira Kalish, director of global economics at Deloitte Research, said Summers should be forgiven for having other priorities while working in the White House. “The Obama administration was dealing with a near-collapse of the financial system. It was in a sense a triage,” said Kalish, who authored a study of income inequality’s implications for U.S. business . “They had to prevent the economy from collapsing before they could focus on longer term issues, and this [inequality] is a longer term issue.” While Shearer agreed that the Obama administration had to address many short-term issues, he said it wasn’t an either/or situation. “If this inequality was a major concern of yours, after dealing with the meltdown you move into the reform stages,” Shearer said, “and you of course could have been much tougher in the reforms you proposed.” At the very least, Shearer said, the White House could have established a presidential commission on inequality in the U.S., its causes and potential solutions. “That’s the bare minimum you could have done. That’s something Larry seemed to have no interest in. Instead they set up a Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction commission.” In his recent op-ed, Summers was careful to position himself at the political center, chiding those who blame “the success of the wealthy” for “the disappointing lack of income growth for middle-class workers,” as well as those who “call concerns about rising inequality misplaced or a product of class warfare.” But this equivocal stance — part denunciation, part defense of inequality — lead Summers into a vague and limited appraisal of the problem and its solutions. None of the economists contacted by The Huffington Post were impressed with Summers’ assessment of the problem of income inequality and potential solutions. Baker called the analysis “really the standard textbook stuff, small-bore stuff.” The cause of the problem, according to Summers, is that “the market system distributes rewards increasingly inequitably.” But Baker notes that the inequality we see is consistent with the direction of policy: “They designed the system to redistribute income upward. The taxpayers are subsidizing the executives at the banks and the shareholders. We have those huge compensation packages on Wall Street; that has nothing to do with the market, it’s government subsidy.” Trade agreements too have played a large part, Baker said, putting less educated workers in direct competition with people from the developing world. “That puts downward pressure on their wages, and at the same time we largely protect the most highly educated professionals — doctors, lawyers — so that they aren’t competing with their counterparts in the developing world.” “This is stuff that’s been said since the Clinton years,” Baker said. “The position is, ‘We have inequality from the market and we can ameliorate it a little bit with good policy.’ The position is that inequality came from the market, not inequality came from the policy.” “He’s not going to say something too controversial,” Shearer said. “Because then he’s not going to be hired by another hedge fund.” “You do very well if you don’t rock the boat in America. I don’t expect Larry to lead the charge,” Shearer added. “I’d be shocked if he did.”

Read the full article →

Charles Gasparino: Wall Street: In the Dumps

September 21, 2011

On the three-year anniversary of the financial crisis, Wall Street is in the dumps. Not the same dumps as the big banks and Wall Street firms found themselves in back in 2008, but the mood on Wall Street is pretty dark. It’s not easy to refrain from vomiting when millionaires and billionaires cry on your shoulder, but for the sake of making a larger point (just bear with me for a few paragraphs) here are some of the sob stories I keep hearing at bars where traders and bankers drink themselves silly (or I should say sillier) and at places like San Pietro restaurant, the mid-town Manhattan cafeteria for the banking CEO. From what I’m hearing, it’s not just that America hates Wall Street for its greed, excess and bailouts that has the typical Wall Streeter so glum; in fact, the typical Wall Street executive can live quite comfortably with being hated by some guy in Kansas who actually works for a living. Wall Street’s foul mood is all about money: Three years after the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman, and the taxpayer-financed bailouts of Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, Wall Street isn’t being allowed to return to old ways of making money in any way it can. Profits are down this year and so will be bonuses for 2011, big time, I am told, at least by Wall Street standards. How much are bonuses off? It all depends on who you speak to and where they work; my guess is look for average reductions anywhere from 10 percent to 30 percent depending on just how bad the bank is handling the lousy business environment of low levels of trading and shrinking profit margins. By that measure, people at basket-case banks like BofA might want to start looking for jobs at places like JP Morgan — and they are. Resumes are flying out of BofA, which just announced 30,000 layoffs and today, had its credit rating cut by Moody’s. It wouldn’t be so bad if this was a one-year phenomenon. The relatively new Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation is just starting to kick in and crushing profits for the foreseeable future as banks have to exit certain businesses like proprietary trading. Throw in new global banking regulations also crimping future profits and that means even smaller profits and bonuses to come. And it’s so unfair, I keep hearing from the Wall Street whiners. It’s unfair because all the new regulations are the result of the financial crisis, which many on Wall Street still believe wasn’t of their own making. An aggressive media (they put me high on the list) whipped the markets into a frenzy in 2007 and 2008, exaggerating the exaggerated risk taking at Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, whose combined downfall set the stage for the wide financial crisis, and now, all those nasty new regulations. Throw in the actions of short sellers, who made so many billions by spreading “rumors” exaggerating the exaggerated risk taking at Bear and Lehman, and the rest of the big banks and Wall Street had no choice but to beg the taxpayers for all those billions in bailout money. “And we paid it all back,” one senior investment banker at a big firm recently told me. All those billions in bailout money were paid back with interest, this executive reminds me. Some firms like Goldman Sachs were offering to repay the government almost immediately after taking the money, which is further proof that the bailout wasn’t really a bailout, but something like a temporary loan. Its pretty astonishing that the same Wall Street firms who couldn’t control risk taking for all those years, can produce a fairly coherent message articulated by both CEOs and traders alike, even if it’s all bullshit. What most people on Wall Street fail to accept as fact is that they now work for the government. The minute Wall Street took even a dime in government bailout money it became a ward of the state. Traders, bankers and even CEOs have been reduced to bureaucrats, whose ultimate boss is the guy in the White House who whenever his approval rating dips below 50 percent (which is almost all the time these days) calls them nasty names and demands that they make less money. Working for the government has its perks, of course. Banks were able to repay the government all the bailout money and pay their execs fat bonuses within a year or so after the bailouts because the government helped them in every way imaginable. It’s almost impossible not to make money on Wall Street when it costs almost nothing to finance your operations thanks to zero percent interest rates, QE1, QE2, which brought down interest rates even further, not to mention all the other programs instituted by the government to help support the banking business. The price paid for helping Wall Street and the banks is a modestly stronger financial sector, but a weaker overall economy. Main Street gets screwed because investors bid up commodities in search of higher returns, but that means higher food and gas prices for Average Americans. Zero percent interest rates also means that even risk-averse investors (think the elderly) must roll the dice in the stock market because money market funds and other low risk investments offer almost no return these days. Of course, the new regulations are now squeezing bank profits and bonuses, but the biggest sin of Dodd-Frank and the global regulations being pushed on our banks known as “Basel III” is what it’s doing to Main Street rather than Wall Street. Small businesses can’t get loans if banks are under pressure to hold more capital, one of the big reasons we have 9-plus percent unemployment well into President Obama’s much-hyped economic “recovery.” Finally, it is pretty amazing that Wall Street executives with educations from the nation’s best schools and make boatloads of money consider themselves “victims” of class warfare and ambitious reporters. In their world, if reporters like me never mentioned the fact that Bear Stearns borrowed 30-to-40 times more money than it had in capital to finance mortgage-bonds that were losing money, the financial crisis would have been a mere blip. In the real world, the Wall Street complainers should be happy to have government jobs and just keep their mouths shut.

Read the full article →

U.S. Credit Card Debt Grows Despite Desire To Control Personal Finances

September 12, 2011

Consumers would like to spend less, but they are falling further into credit card debt. Two-thirds of Americans say that the financial crisis has fundamentally changed their view of debt, making them less likely to borrow or spend, according to a new report by Absolute Strategy Research. A third of respondents to the survey said they plan to pay down their debt in the coming year, and another third said they plan not to take on any new debt. But even as consumers have become more debt-averse, they have plunged more into debt to pay for essentials. Indeed, credit card debt has been growing at an increasingly higher rate. The rate of increase for credit card debt has risen two-thirds compared to the same period last year, and it has increased 368 percent since two years ago. Earlier in 2011, Americans started to climb out of the vicious cycle of borrowing and spending, as credit card debt stopped increasing after two consecutive years, but they seem to be falling back into more credit card debt, even as they seem to want to borrow and spend less. Policymakers hope that consumers will start spending again, so that businesses will be confident enough to invest in new products and hire more workers, bringing the unemployment rate down and spurring economic growth. But a double-dip recession has become increasingly likely , with Paul Krugman putting the likelihood of global recession at 50 percent, as ordinary consumers avoid buying the big-ticket items that could jumpstart the economy. Recent volatility in the stock market has played some role in shattering consumer confidence, which has plunged to its lowest level in a year and a half. As consumers’ retirement accounts have taken a hit because of recent plunges in the stock market, consumers have reportedly felt less wealthy and thus have been less likely to buy expensive products like furniture, appliances, and cars. Since spending fuels 70 percent of the economy, economists are worried about a negative feedback loop in which less consumer spending and stock market plunges continue to reinforce each other. “We’ll just scare ourselves into a recession,” David Kelly, chief market strategist with J.P. Morgan Funds, told the Associated Press. Nonetheless, since many consumers took on too much debt before the financial crisis, which overburdened them as the economy cratered, it may be a positive sign that consumers have become more watchful of their savings. While 28 percent of Americans in 2009 said that their income did not cover their spending, now only 13 percent of Americans said that their spending exceeded their earnings, according to the Absolute Strategy Research report . Similarly, 51 percent of Americans now said they were making ends meet, compared to 35 percent in 2009, and a third of Americans said that their income exceeded their spending.

Read the full article →

Majoring In Debt: College Students Struggle Under The Weight Of Loans

September 6, 2011

$24,000. That’s the average student debt in America, according to a report last year from the Project on Student Debt. For many students, that figure is modest. Take Aleesha Nash, a graduate of New York University. “Logging into the Federal Student Aid website,” she writes on the Huffington Post, “I see that today my balance is $104,104.63 for a percentage of the information in my head.” And there’s Jaclyn Cabral, too. Jaclyn chose to attend Elon University in North Carolina because it’s “regarded as one of the most affordable private educations.” Still, she graduated $90,000 in debt. For many of these students, paying off their loans is a nearly unsurmountable challenge. Brandon Woods, a Hampton University alum, finds himself working two jobs — and hardly making a dent in his $58,000 deficit. Since HuffPost College’s launch in Feb. 2010, we’ve been documenting the stories — your stories — of students and graduates in crippling, suffocating debt. The students who are America’s promise, its very future, and can hardly afford to keep themselves afloat. This is our third installment in the series. If you have a story to share, please email college [at] huffingtonpost [dot] com.

Read the full article →

Jared Bernstein: Rick Perry, Ben Bernanke, and the Middle Class

August 16, 2011

Just when you thought our politics couldn’t get any weirder, I think Texas Governor Rick Perry just threatened to beat up Ben Bernanke for suggesting another round of quantitative easing. Responding to a question about the Federal Reserve at a campaign event in Cedar Rapids, Perry said: “If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don’t know what y’all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. I wish I was making this stuff up, folks… I really do… but I’m not. (Does this mean the Fed research team needs to add a new variable into their impact models?… i.e., the estimate of the impact of monetary easing on long-term rates, conditional on the Chairman getting a fat lip.) Perhaps Gov. Perry is just looking over his shoulder at Ron Paul, who’s always bashing the Fed (and was a close second to Rep. Bachmann in the Iowa poll), but let’s take a look at the economics in play here. Quantitative easing (QE) is when the Fed “prints money” — really just bytes in Fed and Treasury electronic bank accounts — to buy longer term bonds, either Treasuries or mortgage bonds with the goal of lowering interest rates and stimulating more economic activity. They’ve done two rounds so far and estimates suggest they lowered long term interest rates by somewhere between 60 basis points (0.60 of a percentage point) to more than 1%. (Scholars of intermediate macro: they’re pushing out the LM curve!) Perry went on to complain about “devaluing the dollar in your pocket” based on the notion that if you’re printing money, you’re creating inflation. And as I and others — most notably Ken Rogoff — have argued recently, that would help right now. First off, faster inflation lowers the real interest rate — that’s the nominal rate minus inflation. So if a business is thinking of building a new factory, and the interest rate on the loan it needs is 4% and inflation is 3%, then the real rate faced by the borrower is 1%. That’s especially germane right now with corporations sitting on fat cash reserves. A little more inflation in the system could nudge them off of the sidelines. More inflation also speeds up the ongoing deleveraging cycle by eroding the real value of households’ debt burdens. That said, a commenter the other day raised a good question about this: how can I, as someone who actively worries about real wage losses, advocate higher inflation, which all else equal, means lower real wages? It’s the “all else equal” part — lower real rates and more deleveraging means faster growth and lower unemployment, which itself should help boost job and wage growth. Here’s the punchline of all this — and be clear that I’m not talking about very high inflation, which hurts everyone. I have no idea if this is where Gov. Perry is coming from, but what’s really behind conservatives’ view on this issue is that the wealthy get hurt a lot more by inflation than by unemployment, and visa-versa for the middle class. (Remember, I’m talking 2-4% inflation here, nothing higher.) For those living off of capital (versus labor) income, inflation erodes their assets, their wealth, their capital. So lower real interest rates, faster growth, lower unemployment ain’t what gets them out of bed in the morning. That’s also why the editorial page of the WSJ, for example, permanently campaigns against anything that would “weaken” the dollar. Why just last night, I was on the Kudlow show arguing against someone who wanted us back on a the gold standard (!!), the natural conclusion of sentiments like Gov Perry’s, and a fine way to cut the Fed off at the knees and ensure deflation at a time like this. And, of course, the other “punch”line: Ben, you might want to let things settle down a bit before you mosey on down to Texas. This post originally appeared at Jared Bernstein’s On The Economy blog.

Read the full article →

How Banks Are Using Bulldozers To Minimize The Foreclosure Glut

August 1, 2011

Banks have a new remedy to America’s ailing housing market: Bulldozers. There are nearly 1.7 million homes in the U.S. in some state of foreclosure. Banks already own some of these homes and will soon have repossessed many more.

Read the full article →

Honda Lifts Profits With Speedy Earthquake Recovery

August 1, 2011

(Chang-Ran Kim) – Honda Motor Co reported an unexpected quarterly profit and raised its annual outlook by more than a third, as Japan’s No.3 automaker rebounded quickly from a severe parts shortage caused by the March 11 earthquake. Honda reported a 90 percent fall in quarterly operating profit on Monday, versus expectations of a loss, after it suffered the biggest production drop by any car maker from the March disaster, due mainly to bad timing for the scheduled delivery of parts. The supply shortage coincided with the full remodeling this spring of its Civic model in the key U.S. market, where sales of the popular car fell by a third in June. While its recovery schedule still lags that of rivals, Honda now expects to produce more in July-September than it had outlined in June as the supply bottleneck eased. It raised its annual sales forecast by 135,000 vehicles to 3.435 million vehicles. “I think Honda deserves some credit for the first quarter, which some expected to be in the red,” said Naoki Fujiwara, a fund manager at Shinkin Asset Management. In April-June, Honda made an operating profit of 22.58 billion yen ($292.5 million), better than the average estimate of a loss of 67 billion yen according to seven analysts polled by Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S. The results were boosted by a 43 percent jump in profits from its motorcycle operations and stronger-than-expected earnings at its finance business, the maker of Civic and Accord cars said. First-quarter net profit, which includes earnings from China, was 31.8 billion yen, down 88 percent, while revenue fell 27 percent to 1.715 trillion yen. Honda’s Japanese car production halved in June from the previous year, even as Nissan Motor Co (7201.T) eked out a rise and the decline at Toyota Motor Corp shrank to 16 percent from 78 percent in April. Top automaker Toyota reports quarterly earnings on Tuesday, with consensus estimates calling for a 190 billion yen loss. For the full year to March 2012, Honda expects an operating profit of 270 billion yen, or 35 percent more than the previous forecast of 200 billion. A poll of 21 analysts produced a forecast of 407.7 billion yen. The automaker raised its annual net profit forecast to 230 billion yen from 195 billion yen. The results came as vehicle sales in Japan fell by a record in July, battered by production disruptions from the March earthquake, while South Korean rivals extended their winning streak to report strong global sales. TOUGH U.S. MARKET With full restoration of the supply chain only a matter of time, Honda Chief Financial Officer Fumihiko Ike expects sales to improve as production ramps up. He cautioned however, that a U.S. economy plagued by weak housing starts, a high jobless rate and the debt crisis would make for a tough sales environment. “I think car makers will start offering bigger incentives once supply is available and consumers seem to know this and are waiting for them,” he told a news conference. “It will be a very competitive market then.” A stronger yen also hangs over Honda, while surging raw materials prices and escalating fears over the health of the global economy weigh on the overall industry. Honda kept its dollar assumption for the year at 80 yen, while changing its euro assumption to a more favorable 112 yen, from 110 yen. The dollar was trading around 77.5 yen on Monday, while the euro was fetching 111.6 yen. Separately, Mitsubishi Motors Corp reported first-quarter operating profit of 12.23 billion yen, against a loss of 4.5 billion yen last year as it sold more cars and cut costs. Mitsubishi Motors raised its six-month operating profit forecast to 18 billion yen from 5 billion yen but retained its full-year outlook, citing uncertainties including the strong yen and a shaky global economy. Honda’s shares have fallen 4.2 percent so far this year, underperforming a 1.7 percent drop in Tokyo’s transport sector subindex. Before the results were announced, Honda shares closed up 1.5 percent at 3,125 yen, outperforming the benchmark Nikkei average and a rise in most other auto stocks. ($1 = 77.190 Japanese yen) (Additional reporting by Taiga Uranaka; Editing by Matt Driskill and Anshuman Daga) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Billionaire Downplays Downgrade Threat To Markets

July 31, 2011

DUBLIN (Reuters) – A downgrade of sovereign debt would not necessarily have a big impact on financial markets, billionaire investor Wilbur Ross said. Entrenched differences were hampering a compromise between Republicans and Democrats on Saturday to head off a ruinous debt default, less than 100 hours before the government says it will run out of money to pay all its bills. A late deal could raise the prospect the United States will lose its top-notch triple-A credit rating, which analysts say would rattle financial markets and raise borrowing costs for Americans. “I am not at all certain that even if they were to downgrade U.S. debt to double-A, it is not at all clear that would have a big impact on markets,” Ross told Reuters in a telephone interview late on Friday. “It depends to what level and how much markets really believed the downgrade,” he said. “At the end of the day who decides where paper trades and whether new issues are sellable is the market, not the rating agencies.” He said he expected the crisis to be over by the August 2 deadline after which the Treasury says the government would be barred from further borrowing. “If the U.S. solves its problem, as I believe and assume that it will, by August 2 … I think that crisis will be behind us,” Ross said. “I really don’t see default as such happening.” (Reporting by Conor Humphries; Editing by Catherine Evans) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Greece’s Dismal Economy Leaves Some Feeling They’ve Lost ‘Quality As A People’

July 29, 2011

A sovereign debt crisis has left Greece with riots and the worst credit rating in the world. And day-to-day life outside the capital can be equally dismal. Some Greeks living near the ruins of Athens’ ancient rival city Sparta feel they are paying the price for the choices made by politicians in the capital, BBC World reports. Small business owners across multiple industries say they are barely surviving even though the government’s latest round of austerity measures has yet to take effect. From pastry chefs to orange farmers to luxury furniture salesman, times are tough and the outlook does not look good — that’s if you’re lucky enough to even have a job with unemployment ratings rising 40 percent in March. And maybe worse, the joblessness casts a pessimistic malaise even over the most qualified of Greek citizens. “You lose your quality as a people, as a citizen,” one business school graduate who was forced to move back in with his parents after losing his job in Athens told BBC World. “Because you can’t offer [anything] in the community, you can’t offer [anything] for yourself, for your family.”

Read the full article →

General Electric Boosts Earnings, Beating Expectations

July 22, 2011

BOSTON (Scott Malone) – General Electric Co notched a better-than-expected 21.6 percent rise in earnings, helped by strong demand for jet engines as well as equipment used in oil and natural gas production. The largest U.S. conglomerate said on Friday its second-quarter results were helped by a rebound in sales of railroad locomotives, which offset weakening demand for wind turbines. With overall orders up 24 percent, pushing the company’s backlog to $189 billion, Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt said he was confident about the rest of the year. “We are optimistic about our growth prospects in the second half and beyond,” Immelt said. The company’s industrial revenues outside the United States were up 23 percent in the quarter, outperforming the overall company, which recorded a 7 percent rise in sales from continuing operations. Investors said the results showed the Fairfield, Connecticut-based company’s focus on emerging markets was paying off. “GE’s strategy of growth in developing nations and energy and infrastructure and healthcare and technology is serving it well,” said Perry Adams, vice president and senior portfolio manager at Huntington Private Financial Group, in Traverse City, Michigan, which holds GE shares. The rise in orders is a key sign that GE will be able to continue its pace of growth, said Nick Heymann, an analyst at William Blair & Co. “That’s the path back to the future,” he said. GE shares were down 5 cents at $19.11 on Friday morning, a day when fellow blue-chip industrial Caterpillar Inc missed profit forecasts, sending its shares sharply lower and weighing on the broader stock market. Over the past year, GE shares have risen 26 percent, ahead of the 23 percent rise in the Dow Jones industrial average. PROFIT TOPS STREET VIEW The world’s largest maker of jet engines and electric turbines said second-quarter profit attributable to common shareholders rose to $3.69 billion, or 35 cents per share, from $3.03 billion, or 28 cents per share, a year earlier. Factoring out one-time items, profit was 34 cents per share. On that basis, analysts had expected 32 cents, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S. Revenue fell 3.5 percent to $35.63 billion, reflecting the sale of a majority stake in GE’s NBC Universal business to Comcast Corp. Analysts had expected $34.7 billion. Profit fell 19 percent at GE’s energy unit, which incurred large costs to integrate the $11 billion wave of takeovers it made between September and March. Profit margins on renewable energy equipment deteriorated. Demand was split, with sales of equipment used in oil and natural gas production up 39 percent, and electricity-producing gear up just 1 percent. “If oil keeps going up and if Congress and the president do something more on renewables, which they keep talking about but haven’t done, then margins have a long way to expand,” said Jack De Gan, chief investment officer at Harbor Advisory Corp in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. “They’re doing well to keep margins in those businesses as good as they are.” (Additional reporting by Nick Zieminski, Ryan Vlastelica and Roy Strom in New York; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn, John Wallace and Matthew Lewis) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Google To Offer Its Own Credit Card–With A Catch

July 20, 2011

Google Inc is introducing a credit card for its advertising customers, offering its clients a credit line to try and drum up business as competition in the online ad market heats up.

Read the full article →

Recession Cost Average American $7,300, Fed Economist Says

July 12, 2011

The recession that struck the U.S. in 2007 has cost consumers about $7,300 each in lost spending, according to a San Francisco Federal Reserve economist. In a paper published Monday, Kevin Lansing, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, wrote that if personal consumption had continued on from December 2007 to the present day at the same rates that it occurred from 2000 to 2007, Americans would have each spent an extra $7,356 by now. Taken over a period of 42 months, that’s about $175 in lost spending per month, Lansing writes. However, it’s not necessarily true that personal consumption should have continued on at pre-2008 rates. That kind of spending was symptomatic of a bubble economy, Lansing notes in the paper, and “was bound to slow sooner or later.” The climbing rates of consumption may not have been “economically desirable,” he writes, in part because Americans were saving so little and taking on so much debt. And much of that spending was made possible by “unsound lending practices,” which have since come under scrutiny. In an interview with Bloomberg, Lansing said the pre-recession spending reflected an “artificial economy that was driven by debt.” Real consumer spending took a nosedive in December 2007, the official start of the recession, which was declared to have ended in June 2009. Lansing points out that after the recession of 1990-91, personal consumption took 23 months to recover to pre-recession levels; by contract, current personal consumption is still 1.6 percent below its pre-recession peak, 42 months later. Last month, the U.S. Department of Commerce reported that month-over-month consumer spending rates were virtually unchanged in May, making for the weakest month in spending since September 2009. It was suggested that inflation, particularly in the form of high gas prices, accounted for the slowdown in spending. And it seems as though spending remained sluggish during June, according to economist forecasts showing that retail sales probably stagnated during that month. The Commerce Department will release its figures for June on Thursday. In his report, Lansing notes that policymakers might have done more to address the housing bubble while it was happening. In particular, he cites monetary policy as an instrument central banks can use to prevent harmful deflation. Lansing writes that interest rate policy could have “a distinct advantage” over regulatory measures “because vigilant central bankers can deploy it against bubbles regardless of the regulatory environment.” Given the costly results of the housing-bubble burst, Lansing writes, “the case for preemptive action against bubbles may be strong indeed.”

Read the full article →

Retailers Go Green: Ditching Paper And Emailing Receipts

July 9, 2011

Apple customers have been used to it for years, but now more retailers are following in the tech giant’s footsteps by emailing receipts to their customers. Big chain stores including Nordstrom and Gap have started offering e-receipts over the past few months and even small business are starting to embrace the environmentally friendly option as well, reports USA Today . In five years, up to 60 percent of retailers will go paperless, a Nordstrom spokesman told The Boston Herald . Those who can’t stand keeping a wallet full of receipts will be thrilled, but some consumers won’t see this as a good move. It takes more time as cashiers have to ask each customer for their email address and some view it as a ploy to market online directly to customers, says USA Today . It’s part of a growing effort by retailers to electronically reach out to consumers via their smartphones and computers. They send emails and text messages alerting consumers to deals. They have websites and Facebook pages and smartphone apps –all aimed at making the store more than just a bricks-and-mortar shop. Typically, emailed receipts will contain offers for consumers to receive coupons and other deals from retailers in the near future. But customers shouldn’t worry about stores abusing their email addresses, as it’s a service that’s more about offering something the customer will appreciate, John Talbott, assistant director of Indiana University’s Center for Education and Research in Retailing told USA Today. In 2008 Best Buy and Target began testing AllEtronic to provide customers with emailed receipts. The company boasts their service as “green” for helping to save the trees felled for about 600,00 tons of thermal receipt paper used by stores each year. And it takes 15 trees, 19,000 gallons of water and 390 gallons of oil to make one ton of paper, the company told CNET .

Read the full article →

Mark Bourrie: Canada’s New Bills Won’t Change Old Financial Habits

June 24, 2011

In a drawer somewhere, I have a nickel-sized coin of the Roman emperor Gallienus (ruled 253-268 AD). Gallienus is long-forgotten, but he shouldn’t be. He is one of the true fathers of inflation, and there should be a statue to him on the Acropolis in Athens and in the lobby of every government’s central bank. Gallienus was a victim of bad timing. Plagues and invasions had weakened the Roman Empire. Big chunks of it were seceding and rebelling. Gallienus rarely visited Rome. He spent most of his reign on the road, hunting down various barbarian hordes and rebel legions. And he fretted over his finances. Because of the wars and the decline of trade, (along with hoarding by nervous Romans), silver disappeared from circulation. Coins were almost impossible to come by. Gallienus’ money guys came up with a solution to this problem. They got the mint to stamp his coinage in copper. Then they put a silver wash on the coins. Gallienus paid his army with it. The resulting carnage left Gallienus and his entire family dead, his statues smashed and his monuments pulled down. Geneologists re-wrote family histories to erase Gallienus. I bring up poor Gallienus just hours after seeing Canada’s new polymer $100 bills. I was at a news conference where these bills were handed out to reporters. We had to give them back, but, while we had them, I went at mine with every intention of seeing if it really could not be torn or mutilated, as the Bank of Canada’s people said. Some of the people around me reacted in horror at the disrespect I showed to my little piece of plastic, as though “money” — even a piece of holographed chemistry that no one would accept as money right now — was somehow sacred. Money is what people think it is. A “dollar” used to be the same everywhere: one ounce of silver, give or take a small nip. A dime was 1/10 of an ounce of silver. A “penny” was, for hundreds of years, 1/240 of a Roman silver pound, which was 12 troy ounces. A British pound morphed from those 12 ounces of silver to ¼ ounce of gold, which was also about the size of a U.S. $5 gold piece. A U.S. $20 gold piece was just under one troy ounce of gold. A century ago, Canadians were very familiar with the big British copper penny, which was about the size of a loonie and had about the same purchasing power. But now money is all numbers, articles of faith. Canada’s paper money used to bear the words “The Bank of Canada will pay to the bearer on demand…” the number of dollars on the bill. The bill was a promise to pay money. By sleight of hand, the bill somehow became money. Money and governmental jiggery-pokery have always been intertwined. Henry VIII’s subjects called him “Old Copper Nose” because he watered his silver coins down with so much copper. I have a $50 trillion Zimbabwe note around the house somewhere, one of the last bills issued by Robert Mugabe’s regime before the German printers stopped the presses until their account was settled (in Euros). Somewhere else, I have a stash of billion-mark bonds issued by Germany’s Weimar Republic in 1923. That inflationary trick, which conned some of my gullible relatives and wiped out the bond-holding German middle classes, helped seal the German republic’s fate. (The company that printed the German bank notes in the worst weeks of the inflation submitted a bill to the government for 32,776,899,763,734,490,417.05 marks.) Sound currency issuers: Elizabeth I, Julius Caesar, Constantine the Great, Napoleon, George Washington, Sir John A. Macdonald, Otto von Bismarck. Unsound currency issuers: Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, unlamented Gallienus, the Soviet Union, Communist China, Robert Mugabe (and Abraham Lincoln, just to throw a wrench into my own argument. But war is hell on currency). We’re in for a reckoning about money, not because we’ve physically debased it, but because we don’t understand it. The yuppie who stiffs a waitress on a tip has no problem bidding up a house by $50,000 over its asking price, which already reflects a speculative “value” that has no basis in intrinsic costs. Politicians in Canada hold a five-week election campaign to argue about economics, then pass $275 billion in spending, some 800 pages of estimates, in far less time than it takes to read them. Each Canadian family has, on average, some $180,000 in mortgage and personal debt. Take out the renters, the people making minimum wage, people with bad credit, the elderly who have the sense to be debt-free at retirement, people who abhor debt or have religious scruples about usury, and the small number of people who are so rich that they rarely borrow, and you have a skilled working class and a professional middle class in deep, deep financial trouble. The CMHC, which insures most of the worst of Canadian mortgages, has more risk on its books than the amount of the federal debt. We also hide debt by spreading it among pension plans, provinces and municipalities. Our statisticians play with numbers to try to convince us that inflation is much lower than it actually is. Our allies and friends are already showing us the future. In Greece, revolution is in the air because the government is worse than broke. In the U.S., public debt levels are above the ability of most people to comprehend. It’s like trying to calculate the number of stars in the universe. Eventually, things will work out. People will need stuff. People will make stuff. People will carry stuff around and sell it. Barter is far less efficient at setting prices than a cash economy, so people will create good money out of necessity. But the road between now and then could be pretty rough. I doubt the new plastic currency will help, though I did find that if you do pull really hard, you can stretch the new bucks. You just can’t stretch them far enough.

Read the full article →

China: GOP Lawmakers Are ‘Playing With Fire’ By Contemplating Default

June 8, 2011

Republican lawmakers are “playing with fire” by contemplating even a brief debt default as a means to force deeper government spending cuts, an adviser to China’s central bank said on Wednesday. The idea of a technical default — essentially delaying interest payments for a few days — has gained backing from a growing number of mainstream Republicans who see it as a price worth paying if it forces the White House to slash spending, Reuters reported on Tuesday. But any form of default could destabilize the global economy and sour already tense relations with big U.S. creditors such as China, government officials and investors warn. Li Daokui, an adviser to the People’s Bank of China, said a default could undermine the U.S. dollar, and Beijing needed to dissuade Washington from pursuing this course of action. “I think there is a risk that the U.S. debt default may happen,” Li told reporters on the sidelines of a forum in Beijing. “The result will be very serious and I really hope that they would stop playing with fire.” China is the largest foreign creditor to the United States, holding more than $1 trillion in Treasury debt as of March, U.S. data shows, so its concerns carry considerable weight in Washington. “I really worry about the risks of a U.S. debt default, which I think may lead to a decline in the dollar’s value,” Li said. Congress has balked at increasing a statutory limit on government spending as lawmakers argue over how to curb a deficit which is projected to reach $1.4 trillion this fiscal year. The U.S. Treasury Department has said it will run out of borrowing room by August 2. If the United States cannot make interest payments on its debt, the Obama administration has warned of “catastrophic” consequences that could push the still-fragile economy back into recession. “It has dire implications for the economy at a time when the macro data is softening,” said Ben Westmore, a commodities economist at National Australia Bank. “It’s just a horrible idea,” he said. Financial markets are following the U.S. debate but see little risk of a default. U.S. Treasury prices were firm in Europe on Wednesday, supported by a flight to their perceived safety on the back of the Greek debt crisis and worries about a slowdown in U.S. economic growth. Marc Ostwald, a strategist with Monument Securities in London, said markets were working on the assumption that the U.S. debt story “will go away.” But nervousness would grow if a resolution was not reached in the next five to six weeks. ‘WOULDN’T HAPPEN’ The Republicans’ theory is that bondholders would accept a brief delay in interest payments if it meant Washington finally addressed its long-term fiscal problems, putting the country in a stronger position to meet its debt obligations later on. But interviews with government officials and investors show they consider a default such a grim — and remote — possibility that it was nearly impossible to imagine. “How can the U.S. be allowed to default?” said an official at India’s central bank. “We don’t think this is a possibility because this could then create huge panic globally.” Indian officials say they have little choice but to buy U.S. Treasury debt because it is still among the world’s safest and most liquid investments. It held $39.8 billion in U.S. Treasuries as of March, U.S. data shows. The officials declined to be identified because they are not authorized to speak to the media. Oman is concerned about the impact of a default on the currency reserves of the sultanate and its Gulf neighbors. “Our economies are substantially tied up with the U.S. financial developments,” said a senior central bank official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “It just wouldn’t happen,” said Barry Evans, who oversees $83 billion in fixed income assets at Manulife Asset Management. “They would pay their Treasury bills first instead of other bills. It’s as simple as that.” Monument’s Ostwald called the default scenario “frightening” and said bondholders’ patience would wear thin if lawmakers persisted in pitching this strategy in the coming weeks. “This isn’t a debate, this is like a Mexican standoff and that is where the problem lies,” he said. Yuan Gangming, a researcher with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a government think tank, smelled some political wrangling behind the U.S. debt debate as the 2012 presidential election draws nearer and said Republicans “want to make things difficult for Obama.” But with time running short before the U.S. Treasury exhausts its borrowing room, Yuan said default was a real risk. “The possibility is quite high to see a default of the U.S. debt, which would harm many countries in the world, and China in particular,” he said. (Reporting by Kevin Lim and Jong Woo Cheon in Singapore, Suvashree Dey Choudhury in Mumbai, Aileen Wang and Kevin Yao in Beijing, Abhijit Neogy in Delhi, Marius Zaharia in London and Umesh Desai in Hong Kong; Editing by Dean Yates and Neil Fullick) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Bryce Covert: Debt Collection Agencies Gone Wild

June 2, 2011

As Elizabeth Warren says , “Nothing will ever replace the role of personal responsibility.” Just as the FDA doesn’t prevent overdoses, the point of consumer protection regulations isn’t to come to the rescue of people who simply don’t want to pay back the money they owe. But debt collection agencies have started using outrageous tactics to get payments on debt. These companies buy up bad debt from lenders — credit card companies, phone companies, health care providers, you name it — for cheap and then hunt down the money owed in order to turn a profit. And in doing so, some act more like organized crime than private businesses. They harass consumers with threats and obscenities. Complaints about debt collectors filed with the Federal Trade Commission, the agency tasked with regulating these operations, rose by about 17% in 2010, which is nearly three times the number of complaints filed in 2002. They account for 27% of all those lodged with the FTC. And of the 54,147 consumers complaining to state level authorities in South Carolina, 4,182 said debt collectors had threatened violence. In 2005, 8,000 consumers told the FTC that debt collectors had used obscene or profane language, according to ” Up To Our Eyeballs .” But it’s not always just about outright harassment. It’s also a mind game. A former debt collector has anonymously blogged about some of the tactics he used, describing how he would “sound educated enough to perform some sort of legal action” by dropping four important phrases: office, file, client, and flat refusal to pay. This careful use of language was often enough to scare consumers into coughing up some money. Debt collectors put people in jail . The Minneapolis StarTribune reported that “the use of arrest warrants against debtors has jumped 60 percent over the past four years, with 845 cases in 2009.” The Wall Street Journal found similar numbers: More than a third of all U.S. states allow borrowers who can’t or won’t pay to be jailed. Judges have signed off on more than 5,000 such warrants since the start of 2010 in nine counties with a total population of 13.6 million people, according to a tally by The Wall Street Journal of filings in those counties. This has resulted in people being jailed for owing as little as $85, while the rising number of cases has clogged law enforcement computer systems, making it harder for police to work on hard crimes. And in a sign of the times, debt collection agencies have started using social media as a weapon. One man reported that he checked in at a restaurant on foursquare, tipping the debt collectors off to his location, and they repossessed his car while he ate. They also sign up for accounts on Facebook and friend debtors — and while Brad Klein, president of the Arizona Collector’s Association, points out that they can’t misrepresent themselves or send messages or comments without violating laws, they use it to find phone numbers and home addresses. Meanwhile, they can send emails without violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act . Why is the industry deploying such aggressive, quasi-legal tactics to hunt down debt? Because it’s a very lucrative business. The industry as a whole made $11.7 billion in revenue last year. Portfolio Recovery Associates, a debt buyer, alone made $44 million on $281 million in revenue, a 16% net margin. This is because that company pays about 2.5 cents for every dollar of bad debt it purchases, but it makes back about 7.5 cents. That profit has jumped from $402,000 in 1998, mostly because so many more lenders are selling bad debt in order to write it off. Even the business community sees this as a golden opportunity: in the third quarter of 2005, private equity firms and venture capitalists invested $1.6 billion in it. Those who take out loans and lines of credit are responsible for paying back what they owe. But the debt collection industry has run amok in the practices it deploys to get repaid. We need some cops on the beat to rein them in. Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0 .

Read the full article →

Does Google Finally Have A Winner?

May 26, 2011

Google’s latest product marks another attempt by the Internet giant to launch a new business that will help it move beyond its highly profitable (and decade-old) search engine. So does Google finally have a winner? Or is it repeating the same mistakes that doomed its other ventures? The new service, Google Wallet , uses near-field communication technology to enable users to pay for purchases, redeem coupons and track loyalty points by swiping their smartphones over readers at registers. Google will not take a cut of transaction fees. Rather, the company aims to leverage the information it collects about what consumers buy, where they purchase and how frequently in order to sell ads, coupons and loyal reward programs to local retailers via its Google Offers service. In essence, Google aims to apply its success with online advertising to offline activity in the physical world. Google Wallet is just the latest in the company’s long line of ambitious product launches, which have spanned everything from social networking to e-commerce. Many of these efforts have been ignominious flops: Google Buzz fizzled and led to a settlement with the FTC over “deceptive” privacy practices; Google Wave, the “email killer,” proved far too complex for most users; Google TV has failed to make inroads into the living room; and Google Music lacks the simplicity and record label deals to compete with Apple’s iTunes. Time and again, Google has unveiled products that seem far better suited to Silicon Valley labs than to the marketplace, announcing half-baked, still-in-beta services that appeal to early adopters but lack the ease-of-use of other devices and products. Google Wallet could prove to be no different, though much will depend on Google’s success in wooing not only industry stakeholders, but also retailers and shoppers, to trade plastic for phones. With Google Wallet , Google seems to have learned some lessons from past missteps and has rallied others in the payment industry to join in its mission to make wallets obsolete. Whereas Google Music launched without the support of music studios, Google Wallet had the blessing of Citibank, MasterCard, First Data, and Sprint, each giants in their field and integral in processing credit card payments via phones. Executives from all four companies joined Google at its press conference in New York Thursday to praise the effort. Citi executive Paul Galant noted that Google Wallet marked an “important milestone in digital and mobile banking.” “This shows some increasing maturity on Google’s part,” said Forrester analyst Charles Golvin of Google’s partnerships. “They did a good job of making sure that they partnered with the key players in the industry and that what they released was aligned with those partners’ interests and business models.” Yet Google seems to have made less progress convincing retailers to get on board, which could be dangerous. Over 100,000 merchants in the United States have terminals that enable them to accept contactless payments via phones and other devices, but Google announced that, so far, just 15 merchants will participate in its Offers program to present coupons, loyalty credit and other perks via the Wallet app. In this sense, Google Wallet looks a lot like Google TV: once again, the company has the infrastructure but lacks the goods. With its television product, Google worked with Logitech and Sony to produce the hardware that was necessary–just as Google has convinced Mastercard, Citi and others to support the payment system Google Wallet depends on. But it failed to win over the networks that control access to must-see TV, just as Google has, to date, been unable to attract more than a handful of retailers to provide discounts and perks. “I think there’s a huge issue about having the sufficient critical mass of merchants–and merchants you want to shop at,” said Alistair Newton, a research vice president with Gartner, a research firm. “The merchants that will sign up for this sort of thing can often be merchants who are desperate for sales, not necessarily merchants I go to make purchases from.” Google, known for innovative but not always intuitive products, also faces the challenge of convincing consumers to toss their wallets for a product the company itself has noted is still in its early stages. Analysts warn that consumers may have little tolerance for a work-in-progress service, especially one that integrates sensitive credit card information and involves something as basic and crucial as paying. Who wants to arrive at a store, try on clothes, wait in line, then discover they’re unable to pay because of technical difficulties with a product still in its beta form? The potential inconvenience Google Wallet could cause far outweighs carrying a three-inch piece of plastic. Google Wallet may also have what proves to be a crippling number of exceptions: It isn’t available for every credit card, on any smartphone, in every city in the nation or at every retailer. In fact, Google Wallet will launch in just two cities and on one phone, the Nexus S 4G. “There are a lot of underlying questions whose answer is ‘not very many,’” said Golvin. “How many phones are there that people can use it with? Not very many. How many card issuers out there let you put existing payment credentials in there? Not very many. How many merchants can you pay with this technology? Not zero, but in the grand scheme of all merchants in the U.S., not very many. You have to ask yourself, what’s the value? Why would a consumer be motivated to not pull out a credit card and use a phone instead?” Yet Google’s greatest advantage may ultimately come from the forward-thinking nature of this product. Analysts note that the company’s past failures have often been services that tried to compete with existing brands, such as PayPal, Twitter and iTunes. Google Wallet is the first service of its kind, and it plays to Google’s strengths collecting and leveraging vast quantities of user data to sell lots and lots of ads. Google’s control over smartphones–its Android operating system powers a lion’s share of smartphones in the U.S.–may also it give the company the leverage it needs to convince additional partners to bring NFC technology to more and more handsets. “Google doesn’t do well when it tries to replicate someone else’s business,” said Nick Holland, a senior analyst at the Yankee Group, a firm specializing in tech industry research. “Whereas the other initiatives were frankly copycats, [Google Wallet] is new… No on else is doing this, there’s no one else out there in the U.S. with a digital wallet that can store credit cards on a mobile device.” No one else for now. Apple is rumored to be developing its own digital wallet solution .

Read the full article →

Larry Womack: Sorry, Creditors: I’ve Already Reached My Debt Ceiling

May 26, 2011

The federal government could eliminate around seventy percent of its debt by ending two costly wars, restoring tax rates for the wealthy to their already historically low pre-Bush levels and taking more serious measures to get the economy back on track. But who wants to do all that! Certainly not the House Republicans who control the nation’s purse. Instead, the new Republican majority came into Congress insisting that the bulk of the debt remain untouched, arguing instead that it was time to “get serious about the national debt” by whittling away at the remaining sliver that funds infrastructure, essential services and the social safety net. Sure, their math may stink, but the approach was certainly novel. (So novel, in fact, that Republicans panicked when they realized they might be tricked into accidentally actually passing their own proposals.) If you’re anything like me, you could probably eliminate your personal debt by selling your house and living out of a tent, firing any employees you might have, running or biking to work, never purchasing or doing anything you didn’t absolutely need to survive, canceling your cable and Internet accounts and selling your children to some clean-looking strangers. Given the available options, I would say Congress has it easier. But, if you really are anything at all like me, you’re about as interested in living in a tent as Republicans are in making the insanely wealthy pay real tax rates as high as their maids. (Though for the record, I will cancel my cable the moment networks realize they could be selling their “live” content through TV, IOS and Blu Ray apps like Netflix, Hulu or DivxTV.) So, sucker that you are, you probably intend to take the more conventional approach of generating revenue through work and then trying to live within those means. Rather than adopt an ideology so embarrassingly consistent with simple math, the Republican-run House of Representatives is choosing a third option, even more novel than the last: the get-out-of-debt-free card. With Democrats unwilling to fork over the magic wand that turns 30% into 100% while simultaneously engaging in a good deal of what Newt Gingrich called “radical right wing social engineering,” Republicans are threatening to simply not raise the federal debt ceiling… thereby making payments on the national debt unnecessary until they do! Did you know that we could do this? If this strategy plays half as well with creditors as it does with a deeply, distressingly uninformed public that seems to think that about 90% of the national debt is sitting in the liquor cabinet on Nancy Pelosi’s invisible jet, you and I have just hit the jackpot. I think I’m going to start by calling my bank and telling them that I will no longer be making mortgage payments. Many people are already doing this , of course, but they’re losing their homes and hurting their credit ratings. They must not have explained to the bank that they had reached their personal debt ceilings. I, on the other hand, will inform the bank that there will be no use in foreclosing or doing any sort of violence to my credit rating, since financial penalties actually mean higher real debt, and that doesn’t happen when one has reached his personal debt ceiling. Then I’ll call my credit card companies and tell them not to expect a payment this month. But of course, don’t bother charging me late fees, raising my interest rates or reporting me to the otherwise-appropriate agencies. I’ve reached my personal debt ceiling, after all, and that would all mean much more debt! I’ll probably soon after call the various contractors I am working with and tell them not to expect payment for their work, but please do still deliver the products they are working on. Of course, there will be no sense in filing suit, as I have already reached my personal debt ceiling. And don’t worry about the secondary, tertiary and ongoing repercussions of my failure to pay. Why, if their creditors don’t like it, they can tell them that they’ve reached their debt ceilings, too! Next, I think I’ll call the cable company and tell them to no longer bother sending me a bill. But, of course, don’t even think about shutting off my service; I’ve reached my personal debt ceiling and I’m pretty into Game of Thrones . I should probably call my phone provider to inform them next. They won’t be getting any payments from me in the near future and I can’t have them discontinuing my service with still so many more creditors to call. I especially plan to savor the one to the IRS…. Now that there are no consequences to not paying your bills, there has never been a better time to be a deadbeat in America. Of course, if that doesn’t work out, you can always go into the business of capitalizing on ignorance. That seems to be working out well for some.

Read the full article →

Why Google Wants To Reinvent Your Wallet

May 25, 2011

NEW YORK — Google is poised to announce a new cellphone-based payment system that would enable the Internet giant to tap into a new treasure trove of personal data and allow the company can use to do what it does best: sell ads. Google will reportedly unveil smartphones equipped with near-field communication (NFC) technology that enables shoppers to pay for purchases by waving their phones over scanners at retailers’ registers. Building a ‘digital wallet’ will help Google grow its advertising business by collecting even more valuable data about its users, which it can in turn leverage to attract retailers eager to learn more about their customers. “The first thing everyone needs to realize is that customer data is the new currency,” said Bob Egan, chief analyst for the Sepharim Group, a market research company. “Google wants to gather customer information.” Though details on the service are still slim, the new mobile payment system could potentially allow Google to collect real-time information about users’ locations, shopping habits, spending patterns and more, then use this to sell ads, coupons, and loyal reward programs to local merchants. “If Google, a company whose core business model is based on advertising revenues, can somehow add real-world purchase information to its collection of online behavioral data, it could allow them to drive even more advertising revenues,” explained Forrester analyst Thomas Husson. By tracking where people shop and what they buy, Google could take its lucrative online advertising business, where promotions appear on a screen next to search results and build a second advertising business that links ads with offline activities. These offers and promotions would be based not on search queries, but on more tangible data, such as how much a customer tends to spend. Google could potentially even use an individual’s shopping history to propose items she might like to buy, a possibility that recalls former Google CEO Eric Schmidt’s affirmation that “most people … want Google to tell them what they should be doing next.” Analysts note that Google’s digital wallet is at once a strategic move and a public relations ploy. It aims to put its competitors on notice and help Google stake out its territory in the burgeoning mobile payments business. At the same time, the new feature helps differentiate Google’s Android smartphone operating system from competitors, such as Apple’s iPhone. Though Google has not yet confirmed its plans to unveil an electronic wallet, on Thursday, the company is hosting a press conference in New York at which it promises to announce its “latest innovations.” “This is a PR event for Google,” said Egan. “It fires the first shot across the bow and forces more conversations to take place among other players.” Yet Google’s efforts to upend traditional payment systems face a host of challenges, among them convincing retailers to invest in new hardware to process sales transactions, as well as getting consumers to move sensitive credit card information from their wallets to their phones. “The biggest challenge of mobile payments is acquiring merchants and acquiring customers,” said Drew Sievers, chief executive of mobile banking company mFoundry. “Merchants don’t want you unless you have customers and customers don’t want you unless you have merchants.” And while Google may be one of the first Internet companies to launch a mobile payment service, it will not be alone for long. Apple is rumored to be preparing its own “wave and pay” system, and experts say Amazon and Facebook are likely to follow. Though Google has launched several flops recently — among them, Google Buzz and Google Wave — the company has shown it is more or less unparalleled when it comes to collecting, organizing and monetizing vast quantities of user data. By some estimates, Google stands to use digital wallets to reinvent the discount and daily deals business, much as it did for the search industry nearly a decade ago. “There are so many reports about how confused consumers are,” said Sievers of the numerous deal sites, such as Living Social, Groupon, and Yipit. “That’s the identical problem Google solved in search: Consumers couldn’t really find the best thing for them, and Google came out and owned the market because they allowed consumers to get what they wanted. If they do that in the offers space, it’s going to be history repeating itself.”

Read the full article →

Fewer Americans Falling Behind On Their Credit Cards

May 24, 2011

NEW YORK — Late payments on credit cards fell to their lowest level in 15 years during the first three months of 2011, TransUnion said Tuesday. Nationwide, the rate of payments 90 days or more past due on bank-issued cards dropped to 0.74 percent in the first quarter, down from 1.11 percent a year ago. The delinquency rate is the lowest level since the third quarter of 1996, TransUnion said. It peaked in the first quarter of 2009 at 1.32 percent. Improved card payment habits come despite stubbornly high unemployment, noted Ezra Becker, vice president of research and consulting in TransUnion’s financial services business unit. Becker said research shows that cards play such an important role in money management during periods of unemployment that users are making an effort to prioritize their payments. One of the main reasons for the gains is that card users continue to pay down their credit card balances. The average credit card debt per borrower dropped to $4,679 for the quarter, down 9 percent from $5,165 a year ago. TransUnion said balances haven’t been this low since the third quarter of 2000. There are other factors contributing to the shift. One is that consumers are more aware of the dangers and costs of carrying large balances. Even though the widespread fear of sudden unemployment has lessened, the shock of the recession led many to take a new approach to using credit. In addition, Moody’s estimates banks wrote off about $74.5 billion in uncollectible credit card debt in the last few years. That fact, combined with strict regulations on card policies that took effect last year, has made them more cautious about who gets cards, and how large credit limits are. “It’s not wide open floodgates,” Becker said, even though banks are starting to issue more cards. TransUnion also noted that the recovery is not uniform across the country. There are 18 states that have delinquency rates higher than the national average, including Nevada, which leads the nation with a 1.16 delinquency rate. Nevada was among the hardest-hit states in the housing foreclosure crisis, and has an unemployment rate of 12.5 percent, well ahead of the 9 percent national rate. The forecast is for delinquency rates to edge down for the rest of the year, ending 2011 at around 0.7 percent. While there is some data showing an increase in credit card use, TransUnion does not expect balances to increase.

Read the full article →

WATCH: College Grads Move Home, Face Uncertain Futures

May 24, 2011

LANSDALE, Pa. — One midnight in April, Sabrina Malik pulls her red Chevy Blazer into her mother’s asphalt driveway, removes the keys from the ignition, and stops to take a deep breath. Alone in the darkness, a sense of defeat courses through her body — disappointment about her past and uncertainty about what lies ahead. This, she thinks to herself, is surely what failure feels like. Six years ago, Malik fled this town for Syracuse University. Since graduating in 2009 with a bachelor’s degree in art history, she has yet to find a decent job. She hadn’t planned on moving back home and, at the age of 23, never expected to return to her mother’s house for an extended and open-ended period of time. “At times, it really feels very personal, it really feels like I’ve failed,” says Malik, standing in the kitchen of her mother’s two-story stone house and recalling the eight weeks since she returned home. She’s wearing khaki shorts and white socks that come up to her ankles. Glasses frame her brown eyes and wavy chestnut hair grazes her shoulders. “Your dream is a very personal thing and when you can’t do it, it feels like you’re being told that you’re not talented enough and that you haven’t worked hard enough.” After graduating from college, Malik moved to Boston. There, she worked as a nanny, sold books, and waited tables — a series of dead-end jobs that didn’t pay more than the minimum wage, didn’t require a college degree, and weren’t remotely related to what she wanted to do for the rest of her life. Two months ago, she ran out of money and drove home from Boston to Lansdale, a middle-class suburb north of Philadelphia, her car brimming with the contents of post-college life: canned food, twinkle lights, potted plants. A dozen of her paintings, stacked to the ceiling, kept hitting the back of her head. When a gas station attendant in New Jersey asked why she was moving and where she was headed, Malik didn’t know quite how to respond. She’s hardly alone. Malik is part of a generation of 20-somethings that’s experiencing what it’s like to graduate from college, move back in with your parents, and then get stuck there. Though estimates vary, a recent study by Twentysomething Inc., a consulting firm specializing in marketing to young adults, predicted that of the 2 million graduates in the class of 2011, 85 percent will return home because they can’t secure jobs that might give them more choices and more control over their lives . To be sure, having a college degree still matters. Nationwide, while the unemployment rate hovers around 9 percent, the jobless rate for college graduates 25 years and older is 4.5 percent. By contrast, 20 to 24-year-olds who only have a high school diploma are contending with an unemployment rate of nearly 20 percent. While college graduates typically navigate periods of economic decline far better than those lacking such credentials, the past few years have still taken an especially brutal toll on them. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the jobless rate for younger workers with a college degree has more than doubled since the recession began four years ago — from 3.5 percent in April of 2007 to 6.4 percent in April of this year. For college graduates under the age of 25, finding stable work is a particular challenge. According to Andrew Sum, an economist at Northeastern University, about half, or 3.2 million, are “underutilized”  — meaning they’re unemployed, working part-time, or working a job outside of the college labor market, such as bartending or waiting tables. Added to the lack of jobs is an increased amount of debt. Student loan debt recently outpaced credit card debt in terms of total amounts owed by borrowers. By year’s end, it is on track to surpass a trillion dollars, according to Mark Kantrowitz, an expert on student financial aid who runs the websites FinAid.org and Fastweb.com. According to the Institute for College Access and Success, an independent, nonprofit organization that works to make higher education more affordable, the average graduate finishes school with $24,000 of debt — though many struggle to repay far more. Like Malik, many 20-somethings are experiencing early adulthood as one long pause in their lives, affecting not only conventional coming-of-age milestones such as becoming financially independent, but more deeply personal things as well — like their hopes and their dreams.  THE AMERICAN DREAM Recently, after sending out dozens of resumes and cover letters, all of which went unanswered, Malik’s spirits plummeted. Even rejection feels better than no response at all, she thought to herself. In her second-floor bedroom, where handmade quilts cover the bed and charcoal drawings line the walls, she tries as best she can to avoid her mother’s notice. Mostly, she just doesn’t want her to worry. But Marilyn Malik is close to her daughter and is an expert at reading Sabrina’s shifting moods. “Sabrina gets down on herself and I worry,” says Marilyn, sitting in her home office in the basement, where she works as a nursing supervisor for a health insurance company. While she says that her daughter is welcome to live in the house for as long as she needs, she hopes that Sabrina might find a job sooner rather than later. And Marilyn is adjusting to the fact that her daughter’s path may not mirror the one she took 30 years ago, when, as a college-educated young woman, she first ventured out into the world.  Marilyn, 53, grew up in a small town in the Poconos. Her father worked as an electrician; her mother worked as a nurse. Marilyn studied nursing in college and she and her parents split the $4,000 annual tuition. She worked as a waitress to earn her share. A few years after college, Marilyn married Ajmal Malik, a Pakistani immigrant. He attended college at the University of Lahore in Pakistan and earned two master’s degrees after moving to the U.S. The couple made their home in Plymouth Meeting, Pa., where they raised Sabrina and her older brother Omar, who’s now 25. In those early years, Ajmal, an accountant, worked his way up the ladder while Marilyn picked up night shifts at the nearby hospital. She describes their standard of living as lower-middle-class — borrowing money to purchase their first starter home and relying on quick, cheap dinners of soup and biscuits to get by. Ajmal died of cancer when his children were nine and 11, leaving Marilyn to support an entire household on her income alone. “You grieve for yourself, and you grieve for your kids,” explains Marilyn, who started working full-time after Ajmal died and has yet to let up. Sending both kids to college was always the plan. The majority of the payout from her deceased husband’s life insurance went towards a college savings account, which ultimately wasn’t enough to cover the high costs associated with sending two kids to out-of-state schools. Marilyn paid about $100,000 for Sabrina to attend Syracuse University in upstate N.Y. and took out another $20,000 in loans to cover the rest. Sabrina and Omar, who attended the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, will have to shoulder their own graduate school costs, however. “She’d probably say no to doing things if she knew how much everything cost,” says Marilyn, who pays down the $20,000 in Sabrina’s student loans while also saving up for her own retirement. Sabrina is struggling to pay off about $2,000 in credit card debt and her remaining student debts weigh on her relationship with her mother. Marilyn hates owing money and tries to put an extra $100 or $200 towards paying down the student loans whenever she can. Marilyn and Sabrina find it hard to talk about Sabrina’s student loans and generally avoid the subject. Sabrina wishes she could do more to help her mother pay the debt and had planned on having a job after graduating that would allow her to do that — yet another part of her future that hasn’t exactly gone as planned. While living in Boston, she made barely enough to cover her own rent and utilities, let alone scrape together enough extra to help her mother with the monthly loan repayments. Sabrina also wonders whether paying so much for college has made her mother’s own life more insecure. “I know she’s further away from her own retirement because she sent us to such expensive schools” says Malik, whose plans for graduate education are indefinitely on hold until she can save up some money. Right now, even $80 application fees for graduate school seem like a lot.  Although Marilyn remarried a few years ago, her first husband’s absence is deeply felt — especially now, when their daughter is struggling. “I wonder if he had been around, whether my kids would have been better placed, whether they would have received better advice,” says Marilyn, who plans to work for at least another decade. She long ago decided that sending her kids to college was more important to her than saving for the day when she could retire. By this point in her life, Marilyn imagined that her daughter would have already embarked upon a well-paying career and be living on her own. She also wonders what it means for the next generation of 20-somethings, and whether they’ll have access to better opportunities than their parents’ generation. “My generation had it better than what my parents had and you’d think it would continue progressing that same way,” she says. “Historically, each generation gets better as it goes along — they’re more affluent, they have more education, they reach more goals. This generation, you would hope that would happen, too, but it doesn’t seem to be going that way.” DREAMS ARE CHEAP Half a century ago, 77 percent of women and 65 percent of men had attained traditional markers of maturity by their 30th birthday: They had left home, finished school, gotten a job, married, and started a family. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, by 2000, less than half of 30-year-old women and just one-third of 30-year-old men had attained similar markers of adulthood. A lot, but not all, of the shift has to do with work — or, more specifically, a lack of work, say analysts and others . They argue that the current recession has pushed 20-somethings farther and faster in a direction they were already headed. Sending your kid to college once was a way of ensuring their sure-footed success. But with 20-somethings mired in debt and confronting a dearth of decent-paying jobs, many are returning to the nest. “I can assure you that few people in my generation are living high off the hog in their parents’ house,” says Matthew Segal, the 25-year-old founder of Our Time , a national membership organization for young people under 30. He says he resents the popular characterization of 20-somethings as lazy and unmoored. “Trust me, they’re not getting too comfortable sleeping in their childhood bedroom or eating out of their parents’ fridge. They’re moving home because they don’t have jobs and they have a lot of debt.” Except for designated downtime, when she’s either making art or weaving on her loom, Malik spends much of her time avoiding thinking about what became of the goals her parents helped her to set. Her mother always encouraged her to think and dream big. Yet since graduating from college, she’s found herself doing the exact opposite. Her dream for the future used to encompass a well-appointed and comfortable life — a farmhouse, two artist studios, a husband, and several children. “But it’s not worth dreaming so big anymore,” says Malik. “My plans now are far less extravagant. I guess I’m learning to dream on a much smaller scale.” Specifically, she doesn’t think she’ll be able to afford a home as nice as her mother’s. Nor, she predicts, will she be able to send her own children to schools as fancy as those that she attended. “The hope that things are going to get better is really all we have,” she explains. “I mean, on top of being the generation that’s struggling, we don’t want to be the generation that’s cynical, too.” Some scholars attribute such hard-wired optimism to the way that the parents of 20-somethings raised them. Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais co-author books about millennials (typically defined as the generation born between 1982 and 2003). “Millennials were raised the way Bill Cosby told parents to raise their kids — set rules, show encouragement, don’t use physical discipline, build up a child’s self-esteem,” explains Winograd. “If you tell someone from zero to 13 that they’re always doing a nice job and that they’re really special and wonderful, they’ll wind up believing they are.” Self-confidence breeds optimism, according to Winograd and Hais, even when times are tough. “The millennials don’t have a sense that everything is wonderful, because obviously it isn’t, but they believe as a country that things will get better and their lives will also get better,” says Hais. “In part, it’s because they’re young and they actually have time to accomplish this. But it’s also because generations like the millennials feel they’ve accomplished good things in the past and that they will again in the future because their parents told them so.” Jeffrey Jensen Arnett, a psychology professor at Clark University, is also struck by the optimism of the young adults that he studies. “I think the main reason for their optimism is that dreams are cheap in emerging adulthood. That is, their dreams haven’t yet been tested in the fires of real, adult life. And who knows, maybe they really will find their dream job?” In general, young people are taking longer to assume more traditional adult responsibilities and young lives are unfolding in a less predictable sequence , Arnett says. He views the twenties as a new and distinct life stage and classifies it as “emerging adulthood.” According to Arnett, this stage generally starts around the age of 18 and continues until an individual is in his or her mid-to-late twenties. While the category itself is fluid, “emerging adulthood” refers to a time during which young people are relatively free of obligations. But many 20-somethings, like Malik, are increasingly delaying adult responsibilities because they can’t secure a job stable enough to allow them to take the steps necessary to establish an independent life. As such, even youthful optimism has its limits . Despite a general proclivity toward positive thinking, analysts say current circumstances are weighing down this generation of 20-somethings. “The mood for young people definitely isn’t as optimistic as it’s been in the past,” says Carl Van Horn, a professor of public policy at Rutgers University. Last week, he and his colleagues released a study titled “Unfulfilled Expectations: Recent College Graduates Struggle in a Troubled Economy.” It polled young people who graduated from college between 2006 and 2010. “You expect people to be optimistic when they’re young about their ability to get ahead,” Van Horn says. “It’s pretty clear that this group of college students are feeling very much like their opportunities have been stunted.” A FALSE PROMISE? Since moving home, the highlight of Malik’s weekend involves walking to the edge of her mother’s driveway on Sunday morning and retrieving the hand-delivered copy of The New York Times . She’s on a $15 weekly budget and getting the paper delivered is a rare indulgence. Last Sunday, Malik accompanied her extended family to a pancake breakfast to support the local firehouse in the nearby town of Sellersville, Pa. Without traffic, it’s about a 20-minute drive from Lansdale. As her family and some of her mother’s friends waited for a table, Malik carved out a tiny space where she sat and read the paper in silence. She wasn’t up for answering the questions that usually follow — about what she was up to, or how the job search was going. She mostly just needed a break from the constant inquisition. “I spend a lot of my time trying as best I can to appease everyone and show them that I’m in good spirits and putting forth all this extra effort,” says Malik. “Every once in a while, I just need to be by myself. They know what I’m going through.” Even the relentless optimism of millennials is straining under the depth and length of the current recession. A poll released in April by AP-Viacom indicated that among Americans between the ages of 18 to 24, there was skepticism about the notion that life would improve with each passing generation. Four in 10 of those surveyed predicted difficulty in raising a family and affording the lifestyle they felt they deserved. Like homebuyers who took on outsized mortgages they couldn’t afford, either out of ignorance or because banks cajoled them, in order to realize the American Dream of home ownership, many students and their parents have taken on crushing piles of educational debt in order to realize another part of the American Dream: a college education. Andrew Sum, a 64-year-old economist at Northeastern University who’s studied the college labor market for the past 30 years, thinks the current economic slump is giving both recent graduates and their parents a rude awakening. Sum grew up in Gary, Ind. with a father who worked as a welder. While he says that he and his four siblings were able to achieve a better life than their parents, for the first time in recent American history, the majority of the young people he studies are not. “Every generation ought to try and leave behind a better world for the next generation,” says Sum. “And until recently, it’s generally been true that the next generation exceeded the living standard of the current one. But over the last decade, that’s no longer the case.” One of Sum’s pet theories is the “age twist effect.” He says that over the decade from 2000 to 2010, the younger someone was, the more likely they were to get fired or be otherwise left without a job. Historically, and in every decade since the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics began compiling such data, it’s been the exact opposite. Sum’s findings conclude that 7 million more young people under the age of 30 would be working today if the labor market behaved as it did only a decade ago. Sum and his colleagues predict that underutilization and underemployment will leave an indelible mark on this generation. In the near term, Sum finds college graduates moving home, and staying there. And while college degrees matter, they only matter if young people are able to then convert them into a job — hence, generating the considerable college premium. “If you can manage to do that, you can do well,” says Sum. “But if you end up outside, you’ll only do marginally better than someone who has a high school diploma and those losses stay with you for a lifetime.” For Malik, both in terms of her current and future income, the longer she’s out of work, the more dire the consequences will be. Being unemployed is always worse than working, but it’s ultimately the type of job she gets that will affect her future stability. For instance, should Malik secure yet another job outside the college labor market — working again as a nanny or as a clerk in a retail shop — the chances that she’ll regain a more permanent economic toehold will grow ever more unlikely. The impact that the job she lands will have on her future wages is likely to be staggering. For the public at large, Sum finds there’s a 73 percent gap in the annual earnings of college graduates that have a college labor market job versus those that work in a job that doesn’t require a degree — say, the difference between working as a paralegal and a receptionist in a law firm. Bachelor’s degree holders between the ages of 22 to 64 that have a college labor market job make an average salary of $52,873. Those working outside the college labor market earn $30,503 — or a difference in salary of more than $22,000 a year.  But many 20-somethings, like Malik, are also struggling with what is likely a case of bad economic timing. Graduates of 2009 were hit especially hard. A study conducted by the  John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers indicates that 50 percent of 2009 graduates are either unemployed or working in jobs that don’t require a college degree. Lisa B. Khan, who studies economics at Yale’s School of Management, recently conducted a study that looked at the long-term impact of graduating into a weak economy. Khan examined young people that graduated from college during the peak of the recession that occurred in the 1980s. In their first three years on the job market, Khan found they made about 30 percent less than classmates with more advantageous economic timing. And their subsequent salaries, even a dozen years later, were between eight and ten percent lower. This means that it might take Malik, who graduated two years ago during the beginning of a particularly brutal recession, up to a decade to recover the wages she might have earned had she sidestepped the downturn altogether. Paul Oyer, an economist at Stanford University, concedes that young people who start work when times are tough not only get behind, but generally have a tough time catching up. But Oyer also thinks that luck plays a role in the making of any successful career, good economic times or bad. What does concern him is that some historical trends seem to be withering in the current economy. Although wealth in America has increased from generation to generation, Oyer isn’t convinced that the current generation of 20-somethings will enjoy the rewards of a similar phenomenon. He attributes the shift to globalization and the number of available jobs. Because of these factors, he doesn’t think it makes much sense for young people to pile on educational debt to attend elite schools when they have less expensive alternatives — unless, of course, their parents are willing to go on the hook for it. Parents exert a powerful shaping force on their children’s decisions to go to college, as well as which college to attend. In addition, they are often caught up in the emotional rush that a college education entails, further complicating an issue that has already become a financial minefield for the middle class. “All along, I was going to make it work,” explains Marilyn. “If I had to take out loans, I was going to do that.” Once Sabrina and Omar were admitted into the colleges of their dreams, Marilyn saw it as her personal responsibility to make sure they could attend — even when it meant taking out additional loans in order to finance it. And while Marilyn says she doesn’t regret her investment, she assumed that a $120,000 degree would at least translate into a decent-paying job for her daughter. “One thing that terrifies parents more than budget deficits or a weak economy is job security for their kids. They’re afraid they won’t be able to pass along their middle class status to the next generation,” says Anthony P. Carnevale, who directs Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce. “In raising a child in America, the fear of failing is just enormous. Sending your kid to college used to pretty much guarantee their future success. It no longer necessarily works that way.” And, of course, what if this generation simply doesn’t value the same things their parents’ generation did? John Della Volpe, who directs polling at Harvard University’s Institute of Politics, spends much of the year gauging the thoughts of young people. His company SocialSphere recently conducted a study of 5,000 millennials between the ages of 16 and 24. It asked them to think about the next five to seven years of their lives and to rank the importance of what they hoped to achieve. His findings indicate that many young people aren’t focused on becoming famous or making piles of money. On the contrary, their hopes for the future revolve around making a contribution to society and staying in close touch with family and friends. “There’s a potential for this younger generation to have an economic reset,” explains Della Volpe. “It’s now okay to stay in your hometown.” AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE When it’s your decision, returning to your hometown is one thing. Being stuck there feels like something else entirely.  Malik says her days are an exercise in resilience. She has yet to shake her loneliness and general feeling of isolation. Most weekdays, she gets up by nine o’clock and immediately forces herself to get dressed. After breakfast, she typically positions herself on one of two floral upholstered couches in the sunroom, where, with laptop in hand, she begins the daily chore of scouring websites for job openings. When not job hunting, Malik helps out around the house — taking out the trash, doing the dishes, going grocery shopping, walking the dog, or making dinner a few nights a week. In some ways, the chores remind her of being in high school. Before her mother remarried and she and her brother headed off to college, it was just the three of them helping out around the house. Growing up, when her mother made dinner or when the house needed cleaning, the two siblings alternated chores. “Now that I’m back, I do those same kinds of things and it feels like the least I can do,” explains Malik. “It doesn’t feel like a task or a chore. I’m just helping my mom out, like I’ve always done.” But now, Malik is a grown woman. Part of her yearns for her own place where she can come and go as she pleases, and where the rules are hers and hers alone. On visits to see her boyfriend, who lives in Brooklyn, N.Y. and works for a private art collector, she sees glimpses of the independent life she expected to be living by now. Until she can land her ultimate gig of working as a curator in an art gallery, or begin a long trajectory of jobs that might eventually get her there, she’s looking for something to pay the bills. She’s looked into working as a clerk in a local retail shop and selling hot water heaters. Businesses in Lansdale are inundated with swarms of recent colleges graduates looking for any job they can get. Locally, there’s the option of working for a big pharmaceutical company, Starbucks or Walgreens, but not much else. When things start to feel overwhelming, Malik finds it helpful to make lists of things to accomplish. The current two-page iteration lists everything from big to small stuff — like getting a job and someday opening an art gallery to straightening her hair and eating fewer bagels. A recent addition, which has yet to be crossed off, is that Malik aspires to be less hard on herself. Namely, that for the time being at least, it’s okay to allow herself to feel sad sometimes. “Right now, it’s a battle of trying to remain levelheaded — and I don’t know if it’s trying to stay optimistic, or become more realistic, or just learn to be okay with going through the motions,” she says. “It feels like a lot of pressure. I want to make everyone proud. I want to blow everyone out of the water with everything I’ve accomplished. And I just can’t get there.” 

Read the full article →

2011 College Grads Moving Home In Record Numbers, Saddled With Historic Levels Of Student Loan Debt

May 13, 2011

NEW YORK — While one’s college graduation is normally a time of jubilation, Megan Muller can more than relate to the sense of defeat that now hangs over the class of 2011. Muller, 26, graduated from Kean University in Union, N.J., yesterday with a bachelor’s degree in communication. She is the first person in her family to graduate from college. Like many graduates, she’s now faced with the larger worry of living back at home while also paying down vast amounts of debt. All along, money’s been a chronic source of anxiety. In order to finish, Muller took out more than $70,000 in student loans and has another $10,000 in credit card debt. Midway through college, after transferring and taking a few semesters off, Muller moved back in with her parents in order to save money. And until she can move out and find her own place, it’s the credit cards she must first pay down — in addition to beginning repayments on her student loans. “Trust me, you don’t want to be 26 and still living at home with your parents,” explains Muller, who, daunted by the expense of college, struggled with whether to finish at all. She currently makes about $25,000 as an assistant editor at Federal Practitioner , a peer-reviewed medical journal. Muller is hardly alone in her ongoing quest to establish an independent life. In addition to the normal job worries, the class of 2011 is saddled with a dual set of other obligations: moving home and paying back debt . A study conducted by Twentysomething Inc., a consultant firm specializing in young adults, reports that 85 percent of this year’s graduating class will be forced to move back home . Meanwhile, 2011 graduates also face historic amounts of student loan debt — or an average of $27,200 for graduates that borrowed money in order to finish school. “We tell people they need to get a college education in order to succeed, but then we put all of these roadblocks in their way by then making it practically impossible to repay what you owe,” says Michael D. Hais, who, along with Morley Winograd, coauthored the forthcoming book “Millennial Momentum: How a New Generation Is Remaking America.” The two men describe the number of 20-somethings moving home as “historically unprecedented.” Andrew Sum, a professor of economics at Northeastern University, couldn’t agree more. “This is our country and this is our future and we’re failing them,” says Sum, who reports a record number of 2011 graduates returning home to their parents’ nest. As a consequence, Sum sees young graduates not only delaying the formation of their own households, but consequently unable to achieve a desirable standard of living. Apart from the longer-term consequences associated with moving home, Sum’s data reveals another concern altogether. Namely, that young people face high amounts of debt and a lack of decent jobs. Using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Sum reports that as many as 50 percent of college graduates under the age of 25 are underutilized, meaning they’re either working no job at all, working a part-time job or working a job outside of the college labor market — say, as a barista or a bartender. Mark Kantrowitz, who came up with the $27,200 figure based on the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study and publishes the financial aid sites Fastweb.com and FinAid.org , is concerned that debt at graduation is outpacing starting salaries. It’s a worry that Muller and many of her classmates also share. Going to school while working full-time required that Muller learn to survive on fewer and fewer hours of sleep. Coffee became her fuel. Name the job — whether working as a nanny, as a waitress, behind the counter at a beauty supply store or at the front desk of her local gym — and she’s done it. And while Muller realizes she’s fortunate to have a job, her paycheck is hardly enough to repay her existing debt while she saves to get her own place. Meanwhile, Muller is toying with whether to go into more debt in order to finance a graduate degree, hoping that more qualifications might lead to a bigger paycheck. “But so what if I’m $100,000 in debt and living in a smaller house and not able to afford the nicest clothes?” asks Muller, whose to-do list remains longer than her shopping list, despite yesterday’s high of finally receiving her diploma. “One day, it’s all going to pay off.”

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Forget Raj: "Too Big to Fail" is Still "Too Big to Jail"

May 13, 2011

Some of the headlines about the conviction of hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam are misleading or just plain wrong. The Rajaratnam guilty verdict won’t “change the way Wall Street does business” – not where it matters most. Too Big to Fail banks will continue to endanger the economy because they know they’ll be rescued again. And they’ll keep on breaking the law, knowing that even if they’re caught they’ll be protected from prosecution. And yet, instead of being grateful, bankers like JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon will continue to publicly sulk about their own perceived mistreatment. That can be annoying, since the U.S. taxpayer saved their corporations, their careers, and their wealth from the consequences of their own mismanagement. But in the end all this public posturing is just a form of territorial primate display, like mandrills showing their brightly-colored posteriors to zoo visitors. These bankers are reminding us that this country’s economy and government are their territory and we’re just trespassing on their mating grounds. To paraphrase an old Sam and Dave song, “It’s their world, we’re just living in it.” Any aggravation felt as a result of their actions can easily be overcome through a rigorous program of spiritual and emotional self-improvement – or so I’m told. Here’s the real problem: If you combine the egocentric and self-absorbed vituperation from these CEOs with the fact that their institutions can continue to commit crimes without fear of prosecution, it means that Wall Street enjoys state of “undiplomatic immunity” that endangers the entire country. Whether it’s Dimon’s whine du jour , Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan’s arrogant sarcasm , or Washington’s love affair with the CEO of serial corporate lawbreaker GE , the arrest of a hedge fund manager or two is insignificant as long as Wall Street’s real power brokers remain immune from investigation. The Rajaratnam conviction doesn’t change the underlying reality: Too Big to Fail is still Too Big to Jail. Something Fishy Rajaratnam sounds like a big fish. He ran a $7 billion hedge fund and was convicted of making $63 million from criminal behavior. But one bank alone, Dimon’s JPMorgan Chase, has already given up three quarters of a billion dollars to settle charges after it systematically bribed government officials in Alabama. Dimon’s Chase has set aside another $2.3 billion to settle additional lawsuits that are expected to arise from other illegal acts on its part. Jack Palance’s line to Billy Crystal in City Slickers was “I cr*p bigger than you.” Dimon’s JPMorgan Chase excretes legal settlements that are bigger than Raj Rajaratnam. How big are the biggest banks in America? Bank of America has $2.27 trillion in assets. JPMorgan Chase has $2.2 trillion. Citigroup has $1.97 trillion. Wells Fargo has $1.2 trillion. Compared to them, Rajaratnam’s hedge fund is just a rounding error. Raj Rajaratnam isn’t a big fish. He’s a guppy. Busting up the wrong gang This conviction is ” just the start, ” we’re told. Other members of Rajaratnam’s Galleon fund have been targeted, along with Silicon Valley executives and employees of other investment funds. And we’re told that the SEC’s investigation is broadening to address the idea of ” expert networks ” that link industry professionals (i.e., in technology) with hedge fund investors. To be sure, “expert networks” are dubious at best and downright illegal at worst. Business Insider did a useful round-up of firms who advertise themselves with phrases like these: “a global knowledge broker connecting professionals seeking specialist knowledge with those possessing it” …”connects the investment community and advisory firms with leading industry specialists around the globe in order to access key market information” … “the premier provider of expert consultation, market intelligence, advisory services, investment, and events for the China market.” To the untrained eye, that sounds a lot like insider trading. And to the trained eye it sounds a lot like insider trading. A very gray, very faint line divides “networking between the investment community and experts in the industry” and the illegal exchange of information between investors and experts. And it can be crossed in a heartbeat. In can be crossed in the course of a four or five-sentence answer that a “industry specialist” gives to a question from “a member of the investment community.” So it’s worth investigating. But it’s not the source of our economy’s systematic danger … or its systematic corruption. The Rajaratnam conviction may be “just the start” of something useful. But it’s not going to fix our worst problems. Big and Bad We never learned our lesson from the 2008 crisis. Instead of ending Too Big to Fail, the government has encouraged it. It’s been helping larger banks acquire small ones. There were 157 bank failures last year, and there are now roughly half as many banks in the U.S. as there were 20 years ago. And most industry experts agree that consolidation in the banking industry will continue. What’s much worse is the fact that the top banks are getting bigger, not smaller. The “Big Four” – Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo – had 32% of the market before the 2008 collapse. Afterwards they had 39%, and they continue to grow. And these corporations are all serial outlaws. Each of them has been deeply implicated in widespread mortgage fraud that includes the forging of court documents, a crime for which the Attorneys General for fifty states are reportedly reducing a proposed slap on the wrist to a proposed gentle kiss on the back of the hand. We’ve already described some of the crimes committed by Dimon’s JPMorgan Chase. The number of criminal indictments that resulted? Zero. Another “Big Four” bank, Wells Fargo, systematically laundered drug money from the cartels that have murdered 35,000 people in Mexico. Number of criminal indictments? Zero. Citigroup violated SEC law regarding corporate disclosures, engaged in illegal rate activity toward credit card customers, and is under investigation for aiding and abetting a Ponzi scheme. Number of criminal indictments? Zero. (A more detailed description of these banks and their rap sheets can be found here .) Get Real So forget all of those headlines that say Raj Rajaratnam’s conviction will “change everything.” The government is still targeting small fry and trying to convince the public it’s getting the people who have ruined their lives. It’s not. Justice won’t be served, and we won’t be protected from the next crisis, until executives from the major U.S. banks are seriously investigated for their roles in the criminal behavior that has already been admitted to and addressed with a wave of large financial settlements. It’s time to get real about Wall Street crime, before it brings down the economy again. And it’s time to end Too Big to Fail. If Raj Rajaratnam’s conviction fails to convince the public that the government’s cracking down on bad bankers, they’ll need another target for the public’s wrath. Who knows? Maybe they’ll arrest Martha Stewart again. Or they can get serious, and investigate the people whose crimes have done so much damage and may very well do more in the years to come. As Martha might say, that would be a good thing. ____________________________________________________________ Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America’s Future. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project. Richard also blogs at A Night Light . He can be reached at “rjeskow@ourfuture.org.” Website: Eskow and Associates

Read the full article →

Visa Announces ‘Digital Wallet’

May 11, 2011

Pretty soon, your phone may replace your wallet. Visa announced that it will be rolling out a digital wallet that will let customers pay for purchases across the web with one click, eliminating the step of manually typing in credit card information. With a single dedicated username and password combination, users can pay using the card they choose, be it credit, debit, or a specific store’s credit card. While one-click shopping exists, most prominently at online retailer Amazon, Visa’s move is sure to make waves, thanks to the size of its pre-existing user base. According to Jennifer Schulz, Visa’s Head of Global Product Strategy Innovation & eCommerce, Visa is currently “the largest provider of digital payment capability online.” Thirty years ago, Visa invented the magnetic stripe. Schulz compared the digital wallet to that advance in terms of the impact it could have on the payments industry. The digital wallet, to put it simply, makes it easier to buy things, both online, in real life, and on the phone. Rather than having to enter in credit card numbers, expiration dates, and home addresses in different places across the Internet, the Visa system will provide the checkout experience by connecting all online payments to one account. “Convenience is incredibly important to allow for consumers to use their currency online,” Schulz said. They’re not stopping there: Visa is also working with cell phone companies to push forward phones equipped with Near Field Communications (NFC) technology. With NFC, a smartphone does the job of a credit card, so that instead of swiping a card, the shopper would be able to wave or tap a phone when paying for a purchase. While some smartphones, like the Google Nexus S, are set to have NFC technology baked in, Visa plans to offer cases and SD cards that provide compatibility for devices built in earlier times. The service would also provide merchant offers, a take on the blazingly popular online coupon industry, which is spearheaded by companies like Groupon and LivingSocial and emulated by parties ranging from Facebook to Google to AT&T. Visa has already partnered with the Gap to bring these kinds of location-based discount offers to Visa card users via text messages promoting discounts at local Gap stores. (These services are strictly opt-in.) Paypal, probably the oldest and most famous online payment system to date, seemed pleased, rather than worried by Visa’s announcement, citing its 98 million-strong user base. “It’s clear that the payments industry is starting to look more and more like PayPal,” a PayPal rep said in an emailed statement. “PayPal was built 12 years ago, because traditional payment methods weren’t designed for the digital world. We’re light years ahead.” Visa, while not commenting specifically on any rival online payment systems, seemed confident that it would prevail in any online payments showdown to come. “The way we look at the market in general, the solutions out there today ask consumers to do an additional act or ask retailers to do an additional act,” said Schulz. “Visa’s global scale and size– 1.8 billion cardholders–will allow for ubiquitous acceptance.” But making it easier for consumers to purchase goods online may also make it easier for cyber-criminals to access a vast store of valuable credit card data. Currently, when credit card information is entered into a website, the data is sent in packets over the web, rather than in one full transmission. Beth Jones, a senior threat researcher at cybersecurity firm Sophos , noted that the first iteration of any new technology is likely to have a greater risk of vulnerability. “[Visa's new system] is a good thing because now your payment information isn’t spread out all over the web on hundreds of different servers,” Jones said. “But this is a goldmine for criminals, an absolute goldmine. All that payment information is in one spot. All they have to do is get that one password and they’ve got everything.” Schulz’s response to queries regarding the digital wallet’s security was simple. “At Visa we take security extremely seriously,” she said. The digital wallet technology will be introduced this fall, and Visa expects customers to start using it in online spaces such as gaming, where small quantities of virtual currency can be purchased via digital transactions. Visa also envisions a future wherein a consumer might set his preferences so that all travel tickets purchased online would go straight to a credit card, while smaller retail purchases would be set to charge to the debit card. This is not Visa’s first foray into digital payments. Last month, the credit card company announced its investment in Square , Twitter founder Jack Dorsey’s new startup that lets any business accept credit card payments through Square’s “dongle,” a small device that plugs into a phone. But Schulz doesn’t believe that we’ve seen the end of the plastic-crammed wallet just yet. “There is a population that is just not comfortable with it. My grandma wouldn’t want to use it, but my son cant wait to ditch his wallet,” she said. “This is a multiple decades journey. It’s an evolution rather than a revolution.”

Read the full article →

Dean Baker: The Big Retailers Versus the Big Banks: It Makes a Big Difference

May 9, 2011

The battle of the “swipe fees” has been hard to miss the last few weeks. The big banks are spending millions of dollars on TV, radio and Internet ads telling us that the government should not limit the fees that they charge on debit cards transactions. On the other side, a coalition of major retailers, such as Wal-Mart and Target, has been funding a comparable campaign to stop the bank gouging. It may seem as though the public has little at stake in this battle between big banks and big retailers, but that is not true. In this case, Wal-Mart is on the side of the angels; small businesses and consumers will win if they prevail. This is an important battle in its own right, but even more important as a lesson in effective politics. The basic story here should be a policy no-brainer. There are two major debit card networks, Mastercard and Visa, who essentially are the market. Together, they control more than 90 percent of the debit card market. This control gives them enormous market power. There are few retailers who can refuse to accept the debit cards issued by these networks. They would lose a huge amount of business if they did. As a result, Mastercard and Visa and the banks with whom they share their profits, are able to charge fees that far exceed the actual cost of a debit card transaction. According to research from the Federal Reserve Board, the fees on debit card transactions average 48 cents. The Fed estimates that the networks can cover their overhead and operating costs with a fee of 12 cents per transaction. The difference, which comes to $12 billion a year, is pure frosting. It’s additional profits for the banks and credit card networks. (Some of this is shared with debit card customers with various rewards, like frequent flyer miles.) The biggest losers in the current system are cash-paying customers. Retailers are required by the companies to charge the same price to everyone. When they raise their prices to cover the debit card fees, they also must raise prices to customers who pay in cash, who tend to be poorer. So we have a system in which low-income consumers pay higher prices to increase the profits of the big banks and give frequent-flyer miles to higher-income consumers. This is where the big retailers come in. If they can lower the swipe fees, they hope to be able to pocket some of the savings, even if they end up passing most of the savings on to consumers. If the big retailers can pocket 20 percent of the savings, this gets them another $2.4 billion a year in profits. This is real money, certainly enough to get their attention. However the other 80 percent translates into an additional $9.6 billion a year in consumers’ pockets. This is the reason that Wal-Mart is on the side of the angels. It is not being altruistic; it hopes to increase profits by lowering swipe fees. However, it will also be putting money into consumers’ pockets (and taking it away from banks), if it succeeds in this effort. Unfortunately, any political victories by progressives in the foreseeable future are going to look like this. The reality is that progressives are far too weak to have any clean victories. Good policy to help ordinary people won’t buy you a cup of coffee in Washington. Without the firepower of some deep-pocketed interest that gets to share in the pie, policy will go nowhere. This is why cap and trade was the best hope for an agreement limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Goldman Sachs and the Wall Street gang saw the possibility of big bucks hustling emission permits, futures and options on emission permits, emission-permit-backed securities, etc. A carbon tax would be easier and more efficient, but no one in Congress or the Obama administration cares about a bunch of enviros whining over the future of the planet. On the other hand, Goldman’s campaign contributions are taken very seriously. This was the genius, whether intended or not, of the Obama administration’s green jobs projects. These projects financed work by thousands of contractors around the country who made profits by weatherizing homes and businesses. These contractors are now strong advocates of more funding to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, even some of the recently elected conservative Republican governors now support such spending. The moral of this story is that we should get used to seeing some of the bad guys in our camp. And if we are going to design policy that has any chance of being implemented, we have to find ways to bring more of them on board.

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Green Alert: Banks Use Bush Terror Team, Threat Tactics to Push Debit Card Fees

May 5, 2011

Big banks and credit card companies have made a PR misstep in the fight over debit card charges. They’re trying to use the Bush Administration’s anti-terror team to convince Americans that exorbitant debit card fees are needed for our nation’s security. The timing couldn’t be worse. Just as Bin Laden was being hunted down they decided to rely on the credibility of Michael Chertoff and Gen. Michael Hayden, two of the senior officials who failed to find him. It’s hard to imagine that somebody made a proposal for this campaign and somebody else gave it the green light. Attackers could strike the U.S. banking system, of course, either for criminal purposes or as a terrorist act. (I wrote a memo on the topic myself, in 1998.) But this campaign never suggests that any significant portion of U.S. debit card fees is being used to prevent cyber-attacks. Instead they use vague threats and insinuations to suggest that an attack could happen, and that we could be very, very sorry, if we don’t do as we’re told. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Just think: For a few bucks more they could’ve hired Tom Ridge to issue an “orange alert.” Their strategy centered around a meeting called the “Visa Global Security Summit – Evolutions in Payment Security.” It should be noted that Visa has more than 60% of the entire U.S. debit card market and Mastercard had the lion’s share of the rest. This duopoly crushes all competition in this marketplace, which is the main reason credit unions and other normally trustworthy groups have been arm-twisted into supporting them on this issue. After, all, if you don’t play along with Visa and MasterCard, you don’t have anywhere else to go. (Free market, anyone?) Publicity around the “summit” centered on a “Live Data Breach Simulation” moderated by Gen. Michael V. Hayden of the Chertoff Group. Here’s what you need to know about Gen. Hayden: His greatest foray into information technology came when, as director of the NSA, he initiated what may be the largest software development failure in history. As the Baltimore Sun reported in 2006, “A program that was supposed to help the National Security Agency pluck out electronic data crucial to the nation’s safety is not up and running more than six years and $1.2 billion after it was launched … After an estimated $1.2 billion in development costs, only a few isolated analytical and technical tools have been produced, said an intelligence expert.” Gen. Hayden didn’t just waste a billion dollars of taxpayer money. His project’s delays and failures also endangered our national security, leaving our defenses weakened at a critical time. One can only hope that the Summit’s “live simulation” came in on time and on budget. An executive in private industry would have been fired for a debacle like Trailblazer. Instead Hayden eventually became CIA Director, after pushing hard throughout the Bush years to dismantle civil liberties and expand the warrantless wiretapping program. These two events aren’t unrelated, of course. Compliance can be more useful than competence, when a boss wants the right political answer and a subordinate can be depended on to give it. Hayden chose a time-honored, if cynical, road to career advancement. Mr. Chertoff’s path to becoming Secretary of Homeland Security is equally instructive. As Special Counsel for the “Senate Whitewater Committee,” Chertoff worked tirelessly (if fruitlessly) to prove that Bill and Hillary Clinton did something illegal, in the now-discredited “Whitewater Scandal,” then did some fundraising for the Bush campaign in 2000. He was rewarded for his service with a judgeship on the Third Court of Appeals. When Rudy Giuliani sidekick (and now convicted felon) Bernie Kerik was forced to step aside, Chertoff was further rewarded with an appointment to Homeland Security. These two gentlemen appear to share a certain – how shall we say it? – responsiveness to the needs and wishes of their superiors. Their shared history hardly lends credibility to the claim that high debit card fees are the only thing standing between our bank accounts and the bad guys. The crux of this PR campaign came with stories like this one from the Washington Post : “The Federal Reserve has proposed capping … interchange or “swipe fees,” depending on which side you’re on — at 7 to 12 cents per transaction. That would reduce banks’ revenue from the fees by about 75 percent … On Wednesday, the card industry said a massive cybersecurity data breach could … be the result.” The Post added: “Debit card fees help pay for banks and the networks that process the transactions, namely Visa and Mastercard, to combat fraud and identity theft.” True, but excessive debit card fees don’t. The Fed didn’t just decide to cut fees by 75 percent on a whim. The recommended rate for similar fees in Western Europe is 75 percent lower, and they’re presumably as concerned about cybersecurity as we are. On the other hand, it could be true that cybersecurity four times as much here as it does in Europe – that is, if Hayden is managing it. Just it case you didn’t get the point of the Summit, a panel was held on what was called “the Durbin Effect,” named after the Durbin Amendment restricting debit card fees. The panel was described this way: “Panelists will explore long-term issues stemming from this new law, specifically the potential to impact payment security. Will a reduction in financial institution debit card revenue reduce future innovations and investments in new technology or force them to create more efficiency through tighter transaction screening?” We’re willing to place bets on which conclusion the panel reached. There was another unfortunate coincidence of timing As the Summit was being held last week, the Pew Foundation released a report which slammed the banking industry for taking advantage of debit cards to hit its customers with excessive and deceptive overcharge fees. (There have been no panels suggesting that deceptive overdraft fees are also needed to protect us from cyberattacks … at least none yet.) With this cynical move, the banking and card industries have only reinforced the impression that they have no legitimate argument for these extraordinarily high fees. Americans have reasonably good memories, and they remember when some of the same high-profile individuals who appeared at the Summit used security threates to promote everything from the invasion of Iraq to the re-election of political partisans. For more background on the debit card charge issue, the work of Zach Carter & Ryan Grim and that of Mike Konczal , is extremely helpful. (We did an overview of the debit card debate ourselves in March and concluded that it has become Wall Street’s ” invisible tax .”) More perspective can be found in this Grim/Arthur Delaney piece on how banks exert their influence over Congress. And as Carter reported today , Republicans made headway today in their efforts to prevent the government from protecting consumers from a wide range of bank ripoffs. None of this should reflect negatively on the other participants in the Visa Security Summit, by the way. There are a lot of good professionals working in this field, and presumably they provided valuable technical perspective to the discussion. That presumably includes Visa’s senior executive for risk management, who provided the first keynote address for the event. Risk management is a complex field, and most people who have leadership roles have earned them. But Chertoff’s speech and Hayden’s staged event only served to remind us of those desperate days when cynics used our greatest threats, and our greatest fears, to advance their own self interest. In trying to scare us into submission, the banks and card companies may have just lost their case. Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America’s Future. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project. Richard also blogs at A Night Light . He can be reached at “rjeskow@ourfuture.org.” Website: Eskow and Associates

Read the full article →

Blake Fleetwood: Frequent-Flyer Programs Are Convoluted, Mysterious, and a Maddening Fraud

May 4, 2011

Thirty years ago in May 1981, American Airlines started its successful Frequent Flyer program in secret on May 2, 1981. They didn’t advertise and the plan’s author admitted “we didn’t want the great unwashed to be a part of it.” They deliberately cobbled together a complicated new class system to pay off 150,000 of its favored customers. This ingenious loyalty scheme succeeded beyond the airline’s wildest dreams. Frequent-flyer programs — which now enroll nearly 200 million customers — are the largest, and most brazen, commercial bribery systems ever –rewarding the deep-pocket elite and neglecting, overcharging, and abusing most everyone else. Ironically, the elite, who benefit the most, are also being defrauded by the airlines by a convoluted “bait and switch” scheme, which effectively devalues the frequent-flyer currency. Instead of being able to redeem flights for the normal points (25,000 – 30,000 miles), airlines are forcing frequent-flyers to pay double points (50,000 – 60,000) for almost all flights, unless you can book 330 days in advance. Today, more miles are earned from non-flight activity than from flying. In 2010 American issued more than 185 billion miles to credit cards, and other partners — 62 percent, raising the price of everything we buy by 1 or 2 percent. There are more than 17 trillion miles (and points) in circulation according to Conde Nast Traveler , and at a rough exchange rate of one penny and a half a mile, this is the equivalent to $255 billion. All the airlines combined are not worth that much. The admitted goal is to build loyalty among customers in a business where the products are almost indistinguishable. The hidden agenda is to pay off the business traveler personally into spending the boss’s money with one airline rather than with another. Industry analysts estimate that about a million trips are taken each year just to add miles to one’s account. If the purchasing agent of a firm were to accept a free vacation in return for selecting a certain vendor for a large purchase, he would go to jail for commercial bribery. But ethical niceties don’t apply when 200 million people are on the take. More than 40 million frequent- flyer tickets were issued last year. We have become a nation of frequent-flyer junkies. Nearly 50 percent of households participate in one or more of these loyalty programs and no one wants to give up even one frequent-flyer mile. People choose their breakfast cereal based on what miles they can earn. There is no underestimating the power of human greed. The programs are ingeniously designed to prevent companies from claiming these payoffs from employees. The airlines zealously hide frequent-flyer records from the very corporations that pay for the tickets. But some companies, including Abbott Laboratories, Chrysler, General Motors, Kmart, Wendy’s, and Nordstrom, have tried to get employees to turn over awards to be used for future company travel. In an ironic twist, employees of the Federal government were, in the past, required to turn over their awards earned on business travel to the agency that paid for the travel, but Senators and Congressmen specifically passed a law exempting them from this regulation. In 2002 all employees were allowed to keep their miles. What is wrong with these most successful programs? Plenty. For starters, a kickback is built into the price of each and every ticket or credit card purchase. Everyone pays more. But while that once-a-year vacation traveler never earns enough points to get a free trip and thus loses the benefit, the elite flyers always end up winning. 39 billion miles expire annually never to be used. Second, frequent-flyer programs cost companies $7 billion per year in fraud and unnecessary travel. Corporate travel managers are driven crazy when their negotiated lower fares are ignored by business travelers who refuse to go along because they won’t earn the right type of frequent-flyer miles. Employees are often more loyal to their frequent-flyer program than to their employer. The airline loyalty programs persuade travelers to make “irrational” higher priced decisions. One survey of frequent-flyers on Flyer Talk revealed that 24 percent admitted taking unnecessary trips to get extra miles. Estimates of waste caused by abuses come to 8 percent of annual travel expenses. Third , these programs cost the U.S. Treasury more than billions of dollars per year in unpaid taxes from the wealthiest people in our country. The Internal Revenue Service had been considering regulations to treat frequent-flyer benefits as taxable income. But so far, even as we drown in record deficits, politicians have not had the guts, or political clout, to levy a tax on such a widespread entitlement. Such a tax is only fair, since most middle class Americans pay taxes on all other dividends and bonuses, while affluent elite flies for free. Even frequent-flyers themselves recognize ethical dilemmas. Frequent Flyer Magazine polled readers, and 35 percent of the respondents — the obvious beneficiaries — saw the programs as unethical. Another third said they would gladly trade points for better service and cuts in airfare. In this new class system, VIP flyers are rewarded with special favors and treatment including: free flights, expensive vacations, upgrades to First and Business Class, distinctive ‘select’ check-in lines, priority seating on sold-out flights, early boarding, special seats, and other goodies that the rest of us can only dream about. It starts when they want to book a flight. There are secret phone numbers for “Gold” and “Platinum” and “Infinite Elite” members. They are blessed. The rest of us have to deal with constant busy signals, impersonal computer voices telling us to punch an endless series of different buttons, one after another, only to be left on infinite hold or, worse, looped back to where we started. Elite members, on the other hand, get their calls answered right away by human beings. For the blessed, flights are never sold out. These upper castes always get their reservations booked; even if more seats are sold than exist on the plane. Somebody else can get bumped. They never get squeezed into a middle seat. American, for example, saves 10-20 aisle seats per flight for its premium flyers and, on many flights, upgrades them to First Class for a nominal fee or for free. Continental and other airlines send upgrades to all their frequent flyers and many airlines block off adjoining seats so that the elite are not forced to rub shoulders with the masses. At any gate or check-in line, frequent flyers wave around their platinum, gold or premier cards that distinguish them from the hoi polloi. If flights are cancelled or delayed, as is happening more and more, the airline gods — sophisticated mainframe computers — identify the “chosen people” according to carefully calibrated mileage totals. Road warriors always get first crack on the next available flight. Everyone else has to wait.

Read the full article →

Jonathan Littman: Sony’s Slow-Mo Story

May 4, 2011

Sony has been in slow motion the past two weeks, stumbling on how to tell the story of a recent catastrophic intrusion into its on-line gaming network. Indecision doesn’t win in action games, and it’s been devastating to Sony’s reputation. The company has produced a textbook case study on how not to respond to a crisis. Sony first learned its gaming networks had been hacked on April 19 . But instead of making a straightforward, honest announcement, it waited a day and then issued the non-statement, “We’re aware certain functions of PlayStation are down. We will report back here as soon as we can with more information.” The passive corporatespeak revealed Sony had retreated into a reactive mode. By then Sony had already closed down its PlayStation Network and Qriocity networks. That glaring fact and the absence of a believable story fueled the crisis. Sony was painting itself in a distinctly non-heroic light. Like most corporate cover-ups this non-strategy was doomed. Millions of gamers assumed Sony had been hacked, as it had long been defending itself against notorious hackers. So what did Sony do? The company’s leaders went into hiding. Three full days passed before it acknowledged that it had shut down its networks because “an external intrusion on our system has affected our PlayStation Network and Qriocity services.” More Corporatespeak. To put this in perspective, imagine if New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani had announced on September 14th, 2001, “an external intrusion has affected our World Trade Center.” The fact is Sony was blitzed. Denying reality only highlighted Sony’s lack of candor. By then Sony’s official story was that it had shut down the networks to do a thorough investigation and insure that operations would be safe and secure. What was still missing? An authentic concern for Sony’s millions of customers — many of them children. By April 26th , after a full week had passed, Kaz Hirai, head of Sony’s gaming division appeared at a Tokyo press conference to unveil the company’s tablet PCs. He expressed condolences for victims of the March earthquake, and talked at length about the new tablets. Not a word about the hacking attack. He left the stage without taking questions. Twelve hours later, Sony dropped a bomb on its customers, revealing in a formal written statement that the names, addresses and birthdates of millions of customers, many of them children, had been stolen. Why didn’t Hirai apologize for this in the news conference or days before? Did he really believe executive silence would allow Sony to save face? Instead, Hirai hid behind a formal statement: “While there is no evidence at this time that credit card data was taken, we cannot rule out the possibility.” Once again, Sony seemed to be denying reality. Then the company went on to suggest that customers should create credit card fraud alerts and watch for fraudulent charges. By failing to take ownership of its story, Sony handed ammunition to its critics. George Hotz, a hacker who Sony had sued for posting code to enable gamers to play pirated games on PlayStations wrote on his blog: “The fault lies with the executives who declared a war on hackers, laughed at the idea of people penetrating the fortress that once was Sony, whined incessantly about piracy, and kept hiring more lawyers when they really needed to hire good security experts. Alienating the hacker community is not a good idea.” Finally, on April 30th , Hirai and other Sony executives bowed before the press and said they were sorry. Nearly two weeks had passed before they had finally admitted the truth. Ten million credit cards may have been stolen — the entire cache. Along with the records and birthdates of tens of millions of children. What began as a failure of security has become a colossal failure of trust. Worse than the hacks themselves has been the disastrous effect of Sony’s leadership breakdown. Sony’s stock has taken a hit, and a class action suit has already been filed, charging the company with not taking “reasonable care to protect, encrypt and secure the private and sensitive data of its users.” Boycotts are being threatened, and as the Wall Street Journal reported : “Now 77 million people are busy changing their passwords, cancelling their credit cards and worrying about identity theft.” Sony has two very big problems, and it’s difficult to say which one is more serious. Today, how and when a company tells its ongoing story is arguably as important as innovation and customer service. They are all intertwined. Meanwhile, the crisis seems to be snowballing. On Monday, May 2nd, Sony revealed hackers had also penetrated Sony Online Entertainment and stolen credit card records. Veteran Sony watchers are already speculating in the press that the continuing blunders may cost Sony’s CEO Howard Stringer his job. Sony is in desperate need of honest, strategic storytelling. So far, this story has spun out of control like the nuclear crisis in Japan and the early stages of the Toyota safety scandal. Inaction and cover-ups only feed controversy, and the next few weeks will be critical. Sony’s competitors, not the least of them, Microsoft, smell blood. The video game industry is brutally competitive. Sony’s executives are going to have to make some tough moves. They make action video games. But its about time Sony showed what any real gamer knows. In real life or a game, a hero defines himself by his courage under fire. Jonathan Littman is the co-author of The Ten Faces of Innovation and Art of Innovation. He’s the founder of Snowball Narrative.

Read the full article →

Pop Goes The Higher Ed Bubble?

May 3, 2011

NEW YORK — The average college graduate leaves school with $24,000 in debt and one in 10 are unable to find work of any kind. Recently, student loan debt exceeded credit card debt. Since the Second World War, Americans have grown accustomed to taking on debt to finance their future. It was part of the mobility associated with the American Dream — a college education, a job, a house. Much like the housing bubble, when home buyers took on outsized mortgages they were either lured into or which they knew they could ill afford, all in the service of realizing the American Dream of homeownership, students today are struggling with piles of educational debt assumed in service of a similar goal — the American Dream of a college education. According to the College Board, 70 years ago there were 1.5 million students enrolled at American universities. By 2006, that figure had swelled to more than 20 million. Meanwhile, the cost of tuition has grown steadily higher. Over the past 25 years, college tuition and fees have risen three times as fast as individual family income. And over the past decade, tuition has increased at a rate of 5.6 percent per year beyond the rate of general inflation. Recently, with tuition costs rising and debt levels increasing, the skepticism has reached a boiling point . Amid this backdrop , a Silicon Valley-based venture capitalist named Peter Thiel has inserted himself in a debate about whether a college bubble exists . Thiel, a co-founder of PayPal and an early investor in Facebook, created the Thiel Foundation, which last fall issued a radical declaration : It would give 20 people under the age of 20 $100,000 to drop out of school and become not just tech entrepreneurs, but world-changing visionaries. Hundreds applied to be among the first 20 fellows; the winners will be announced during the second half of May. Not unlike other foundations funded by one deep-pocketed source, Thiel uses it as a platform from which to espouse his particular worldview. Namely, Thiel believes that a lack of innovation will result in long-term economic stagnation. He also argues that the housing bubble, which inflated the real estate market and sent prices soaring and finally crashing back to Earth, now threatens to dismantle higher education. “A true bubble is when something is overvalued and intensely believed,” explained Thiel during a recent interview with TechCrunch . “Education may be the only thing people still believe in in the United States. To question education is really dangerous. It is the absolute taboo. It’s like telling the world there’s no Santa Claus.” Thiel’s slant has infuriated some, and emboldened others. But is he right?  Many scholars don’t buy the bubble theory as it concerns higher education. “It’s not really a bubble and the main reason it’s not a bubble is because college isn’t a tradable commodity. You can’t flip a higher education,” said Fabio Rojas, a professor of sociology at Indiana University who studies higher education. “Also, unlike a house, once you have college debt, you can’t get rid of it by walking away or selling the underlying asset. You have to work it off.” Mark Kantrowitz, who publishes Fastweb.com and FinAid.org , also sees but a superficial parallel between the housing and education bubble. “A lot of people are saying there’s a big higher education bubble and that it’s going to burst,” said Kantrowitz. “And they’re just plain wrong.” Kantrowitz worries not of one bubble bursting but of several smaller bubbles rupturing — particularly in the increased amount of debt that students are willing to undertake in order to finance a dream school they can’t really afford. “If you’re up to your eyebrows in debt and you borrow more than twice your starting salary, you’re at a very high risk of defaulting on your loans,” Kantrowitz said. Specifically, he advises that a graduate going into a field that pays a starting salary of $40,000 shouldn’t be taking out more than $40,000 in loans. Despite unemployment rates that are twice the levels they were a few years ago, college graduates still fare better than high school graduates. Still, while many conclude that college is the best investment you can make, there are no guarantees on your return. Frederick Hess, an education policy analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, cautions that a larger force may be at work. “We’re coming out of this incredibly privileged half-century. For better or worse, students can no longer spend a lot of money for four years of college and just assume that they’ll be entitled to start a comfortable, well-paying job. Those days may well be over.” Pushing more and more graduates into a weak labor market isn’t the answer, either . “If everyone went to college there’d be no rewards of going to college,” said Shamus Khan, a professor of sociology at Columbia University. “The universal push to college isn’t the answer if there aren’t enough jobs.” But everyone dropping out of college also won’t fix it. Khan sees Thiel’s argument as inherently elitist. For instance, for every tech entrepreneur who quit college and made millions of dollars, Khan can point to tens of millions who didn’t. “It’s a little fresh for those very, very wealthy people to say that college isn’t necessary when they’ve been part of the huge evisceration of the middle class.” Anthony Carnevale, a professor and director of Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce, has heard this tune before. Specifically, he finds the college bubble theory particularly persuasive during periods of economic decline. “It’s a bubble to the extent that during a recession when it rains hard enough and long enough that everyone’s going to get a little wet,” said Carnevale. He believes the length and depth of the current recession makes the notion that a college degree is essentially worthless all the more persuasive. “But higher education is still the best umbrella under which to wait out a storm, no matter how long the current storm lasts.”

Read the full article →

Credit Card Executives Optimistic In Face Of Looming Dodd-Frank Rules

May 2, 2011

MIAMI BEACH, Florida (Maria Aspan) For the first time in years, credit card executives are looking beyond the losses of the financial crisis — and they’re even losing less sleep over the prospect of tighter government oversight. Losses from credit defaults keep falling, an explosion in smartphone payment systems and other technology has raised the prospect of new long-term revenue growth, and executives now believe they can mitigate the effects of the latest regulatory overhaul of the U.S. card industry. “I am optimistic … Nothing has been done that can’t be rolled back quickly,” longtime credit card executive Stephen Eulie said in an interview last week. Eulie, who has worked at JPMorgan Chase & Co and Citigroup Inc, is now the head of First National Bank of Omaha’s card unit, which runs credit card programs for companies, including Chrysler Group LLC. He spoke to Reuters last week on the sidelines of an annual credit card industry conference hosted by the publisher, SourceMedia. As in recent years, much of the conference was dominated by discussion about new regulation — from the lingering effects of a sweeping credit card law passed in 2009, to the so-called Durbin amendment to last year’s Dodd-Frank financial reform law. That provision would slash processing fees merchants pay banks every time a customer uses a debit card to buy something. The fee cuts would cost U.S. banks an estimated $13 billion in annual revenues under rules the Federal Reserve proposed in December. U.S. banks are also struggling to grow other sources of revenue, as consumers resist adding to their credit card balances. Revolving consumer credit fell at an annual rate of 4.1 percent, to $794 billion, in February, according to Fed data. Now banks are increasingly looking to new technology, such as mobile phone and ecommerce payments, to grow businesses in developing countries where people do not regularly use credit and debit cards. Citigroup and American Express Co executives emphasized those opportunities at the conference, using their keynote speeches to discuss new types of payments technology instead of regulation. “We need to figure out ways in which we can grow our business in a way that aligns with what Durbin’s rules are,” former Citigroup credit cards chief Paul Galant, who now runs a new payments group for the bank, told Reuters in an interview. “The cards businesses are incredibly vibrant and power virtually all of us today. These businesses are not going to disappear because of a single law.” CLOUDS CLEARING The Fed was supposed to finalize its rules on debit fee limits a week before the conference, but said in March it needed more time to sort through an overwhelming number of comments on its proposals. The delay has given some bankers and credit card executives hope a broad industry campaign in Washington to repeal or delay the debit fee cuts will ultimately be successful. Opponents of the crackdown are pushing for a vote soon on a proposal from Senator Jon Tester that would delay the rule for two years. While “the odds are looking better for a DC fix, I don’t think it’s something that can be relied upon by the industry, because there are so many procedural hurdles” in Congress, Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Frisch said during a panel discussion at the conference. Key Republican lawmaker Representative Spencer Bachus urged hundreds of small U.S. banks on Monday to “slay the dragons” when they battle Congress over the debit fee crackdown. The debit card fee restrictions are only part of a slew of regulation affecting the payments industry since 2009. A sweeping credit card law passed that year restricted the fees and interest rate changes that lenders could levy on their customers. The Dodd-Frank law of last year also created a new consumer financial protection bureau that is expected to further scrutinize consumer lending practices. Yet the atmosphere — and attendance — at the annual conference was the sunniest in years. About 750 bank employees, consultants and vendors descended on the Fontainebleau resort in Miami Beach, sipping pineapple-flavored water and sharing post-panel cocktails on a patio overlooking the ocean. The crowd included employees of Bank of America Corp, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, American Express, MasterCard Inc and Visa Inc, as well as other large U.S. lenders and networks. It was the conference’s best attendance since 2008, when consumers started losing their jobs — and stopped paying credit card bills — in record numbers. As losses surged during the financial crisis, few lenders could afford either the expense or the reputation of sending employees to hobnob at a beach resort with the size and opulence of a French chateau. But last week those employees were eager to talk about new business — and to trade tips for recouping the revenue losses of whatever regulations are finalized. Banks, including JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, have already started discontinuing perks on debit cards or added fees to checking account services that were once free. As one conference attendee said, the industry is no longer focusing just on how to stop regulations: “Now it’s, ‘How do we get around it?’” The shares of the top six credit card lenders were mixed on Monday, with American Express shares closing up about 1.2 percent and Citigroup closing down about 2.2 percent. (Reporting by Maria Aspan; editing by Andre Grenon) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Newly Graduated And Drowning In Six-Figures Of Student Loan Debt

April 26, 2011

NEW YORK — Hardly a day goes by where Ashley Angello doesn’t fret about her student loan debt. Angello thinks about it at night, when packing tomorrow’s lunch means a few saved dollars. And she worries about it the next morning when deciding what to wear to work, since she hasn’t been able to afford any new clothes since starting her job. “I used to joke when I was in college that I’d be paying off these loans for the rest of my life,” says Angello, 22. She graduated nearly a year ago from Ithaca College, where she majored in communications. “Little did I realize that I actually will be.” Angello is on the hook for about $120,000. With six-figures in debt, she has little choice but to save every little bit that trickles in. And still, it’s a struggle. Midway through college, Angello wouldn’t have been able to graduate had she not been willing to go into debt. “I needed that loan no matter how much it was going to cost me in order to get my education.” Like the home buyers who took on outsized mortgages in order to realize the American Dream of home ownership, students like Angello are struggling with piles of educational debt assumed in service of financing a similar goal — the American Dream of a college education. “Thirty years ago, college was a wise, modest investment,” says Fabio Rojas, a professor of sociology at Indiana University. He studies the politics of higher education. “Now, it’s a lifetime lock-in, an albatross you can’t escape.” Like Angello, many recent graduates are straining under the increased weight of such an albatross. Recently, student loan debt exceeded credit card debt , meaning that Americans now owe more on their student loans than they do their credit cards. By year’s end, student debt is on track to hit the trillion dollar mark. While Mark Kantrowitz, who publishes the financial aid sites Fastweb.com and FinAid.org , reports that last year’s average graduate walked away with about $25,000 in debt , many juggle significantly more. “It’s one thing to pursue your dreams, but if you’re borrowing to pursue them, you have to make sure you have a plan to pay them back,” says Kantrowitz, who reports that graduates with large amounts of debt tend to subsequently delay other life cycles — things like buying a car and getting married, not to mention saving for retirement and eventually financing their own child’s education. Kantrowitz is particularly alarmed by the number of students overborrowing to pay for an undergraduate degree in fields that historically don’t pay well — majors, for instance, like theater, religious studies or art history. But dream schools or ideal occupations aside, Kantrowitz also sees recent graduates encountering a harsh reality once they enter the job market. Specifically, when debt at graduation exceeds their starting salary. It’s a phenomenon of which Angello is well acquainted. After graduating from college last May, Angello returned home to her native Rochester, N.Y., where she moved back in with her mother and worked as a server at two local restaurants in order to get by. Her mother works as an administrative assistant. Angello, a scrupulous saver, finally moved to New York City earlier this year, where she began work as a full-time, paid intern. It currently pays $12.50 an hour. Her hope is that it might transition into a permanent job — with benefits. Currently, the bulk of Angello’s weekly paycheck goes toward splitting the rent with a roommate and a few basic utilities, but not much else. Her mother pitches in where she can, but Angello’s contribution is hardly enough to begin paying down the vast sums of student loan debt. The monthly payments on her private loans, while manageable for now, will only increase when interest rates begin rising again. So far, while her debt has yet to fundamentally realign the direction of her eventual career path, Angello says that she’s now willing to take any permanent offer that comes her way, so long as it’s in her related field, rather than hold out for the possibility of something better coming along. “My mom has assured me that she’s not going to let me go hungry,” explains Angello, during a recent lunch break. Her monthly rent is more than her mother’s mortgage. “I guess what I didn’t expect is that it’d be a year later and it’d still be so difficult just to get by.”

Read the full article →

Bank Of America Makes Easy Profits Off Fed While Depositors Get Shortchanged

April 21, 2011

Households are earning so little from their bank accounts that Bank of America, the largest U.S. lender, has pocketed about twice as much cash this year parking money at the Federal Reserve than it has paid to savings-account holders. The North Carolina-based bank paid U.S. depositors a 0.43 percent interest rate last quarter, according to earnings documents the company released last week. Savings-account holders took home even less, with total interest on their accounts reaching just $32 million for the three-month period ending in March. Meanwhile, Bank of America raked in $63 million simply by stashing cash at the Fed. The nation’s central bank only recently began compensating commercial banks for storing their money at the Fed as part of its response to the financial crisis. Thanks to Fed policy and banking industry consolidation, the largest banks are booking easy profits as households and businesses plow record amounts of cash to lenders despite a record-low rate of return. Rather than lending that cheap money out to consumers or small businesses, banks are either investing it or hoarding it at other institutions, where they earn a much higher rate than what they pay their own customers. Bank of America’s $1 trillion in deposits worldwide cost the firm just 0.33 percent last quarter, down from 0.46 last year, including non-interest bearing accounts. Americans stored about $713 billion at JPMorgan Chase as of March 31, but the second-largest U.S. bank only paid a 0.53 percent rate on interest-bearing deposits, a figure that shrinks to about 0.3 percent when all deposits are considered. Citigroup, the third-largest bank, continued to reduce the rate it paid its depositors even though the yield it earned from its own deposits continue to rise, while Wells Fargo, ranked fourth in total assets, lowered the amount it paid depositors to just $615 million, a figure eclipsed by the $1 billion in service fees it charged those very same customers. All the while, deposits at these four firms continue to increase as consumers “hoard powder for a rainy day,” said Greg McBride, senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com. Analysts at Barclays Capital call it “lazy” money, according to an April 8 research note for clients. Charles H. Noski, chief financial officer at Bank of America, told analysts last week that the lender’s commercial customers “continued to prefer to hold rather than invest cash.” The amount of readily deployable cash sitting idle in U.S. accounts reached a record $5.9 trillion in March, according to Market Rates Insight, a California-based data provider. That cash, which doesn’t include certificates of deposit, was earning an average of less than 0.5 percent interest, the research firm said. Asked last week how his bank funded an increasing amount of investments in various securities, which led to increased earnings, JPMorgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon pointed to rising deposits. Dimon’s firm saw the rate it earned from other banks for deposits nearly double to 1.11 percent over the past year, company records show. During the first quarter of 2010, the rate it earned versus the rate it paid its own depositors differed by just 0.09 percent. In a year, that spread increased six-fold. Record deposits have enabled banks to reduce their costs to record lows. Deposits now make up about 80 percent of the industry’s liabilities, up from 72 percent in 2007, according to Market Rates Insight. For the first time since 1962, banks last year paid less than 1 percent annually for their funds, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation data show. In 2007, banks paid 2.76 percent. The biggest banks paid even less. Lenders with at least $10 billion in assets paid just 0.77 percent for their funds during the three-month period ending in December, nearly half a percentage point less than banks with fewer than $1 billion in assets, according to the FDIC. Experts point to increased consolidation in the banking industry and the rise of so-called Too Big to Fail banks. As of Dec. 31, the nation’s four largest banks held 48 percent of the industry’s assets, Federal Reserve data show. In 2001, it took 16 banks to achieve such a grip over the industry. Today, banks boast about their low cost of funds. Bank of America said its “solid deposit growth” coupled with what it termed “disciplined pricing” enabled it to bring down its overall deposit rates to 0.33 percent, a point it highlighted in a presentation to analysts. Wells Fargo told analysts about its “continued strength in attracting low-cost deposits,” which has enabled the nation’s largest home-loan lender to bring down its overall cost of deposits to just 0.30 percent interest. “The deposit growth continues to be beyond our expectations and we’re really, really pleased with that growth,” said Timothy J. Sloan, Wells Fargo’s chief financial officer. Deposits averaged about $841 billion last quarter, up 4.6 percent since the same period last year. For Wells Fargo, that increased cheap funding has resulted in higher returns. About 60 percent of the lender’s $1.1 trillion in interest-earning assets is funded by interest-bearing deposits that yield just 0.38 percent. Those assets include credit card accounts that yield 13.2 percent, mortgage-backed securities that yield 9.7 percent, and municipal obligations that generate about 5.5 percent in interest. At Bank of America, surging deposits enabled the lender to earn $88 million in interest last quarter for the cash it parked at other banks. While depositors at the lender have seen their rates slide, BofA has been earning more for its own deposits at other institutions. Last quarter, BofA earned 1.14 percent on its own cash at other banks, up from 0.89 percent during the same period last year.

Read the full article →

Odysseas Papadimitriou: Why Credit Card Branding Is Costing Small Business Owners

April 20, 2011

So, what’s the difference between business credit cards and regular consumer credit cards? This might at first seem like a stupid question, but think about it and try to come up with the answer. Is it that a business credit card is opened under a corporation’s name and used only for business spending while anyone can get a consumer credit card and use it for anything? Is it that an individual is held liable for the misuse of a consumer credit card while a business credit card shields both a small business owner and his employees from personal liability? Perhaps the difference simply lies in how each type of card is reported to the major credit bureaus. According to a study by CardHub.com , however, none of these seemingly-plausible reasons actually hold water. Business and consumer credit cards are actually more similar than they are different, the study says, a contention which therefore begs the question, should the Credit CARD Act of 2009 apply to business credit cards? In order to truly answer this question, we must take a closer look at the law itself. As it turns out, Congress made a distinction between the two card segments, structuring the CARD Act so that it applies to “open-ended consumer agreements” and directing the Federal Reserve Board of Governors to study the law’s future applicability to the business credit card market. In case you’re wondering, an open-ended consumer agreement is legally defined as credit extended to a natural person for the purpose of making personal, family or household-related transactions. Thus, it’s pretty clear that the protections enumerated in the CARD Act do not apply to business credit cards, right? Wrong. According to the Card Hub study, every major business credit card issuer holds the individual who opens such a card liable for use in addition to the small business he represents. Six of the 10 largest issuers in the U.S. also report usage information to the individual cardholder’s credit reports (Wells Fargo, HSBC, and U.S. Bank refused to be transparent about their practices, so this number might actually be even higher). And any prospective business credit card user must provide personal financial information on his application. It’s therefore obvious that credit is extended to a natural person, and since a small business owner uses his credit card to provide for his family and earn a living, it would seem that so-called business credit cards qualify as open-ended consumer agreements under the language of the law and should therefore be extended protection under the CARD Act. Either that or personal credit cards should not receive these protections when used for business spending. Ultimately, the answer to the original question about the nature of the difference between business and consumer credit cards therefore seems to be branding. There is no fundamental difference between the two. Eligibility for both is based on an individual’s credit history and income; both can be used to make the same types of purchases; both have individual liability; both relay information to an individual’s credit reports. One simply has the label “business” attached to its name and the other does not. As a result, the Fed must remove the wool from before its eyes, forget about labels and apply the CARD Act with some sort of consistency. In order words, either all consumer-based credit cards receive its protections, or none do; either every card used for business spending is exempt, or none are. Until this happens, small business owners can simply exploit the imbalance of the law’s application by using personal credit cards to fund any business purchases that will not be paid for in full by the end of the month. Odysseas Papadimitriou is the founder of Card Hub, a website that helps consumers and small business owners find the best credit card deals .

Read the full article →

Kit Yarrow, Ph.D.: Soaring Prices No Match for Empowered Consumers

April 19, 2011

Americans are paying more for just about everything these days. The double whammy of higher oil prices and poor weather conditions have resulted in rising manufacturing costs, which are passed along to consumers in the form of price jumps (often Olympic-sized). As the U.S. economy strengthens, many fear these price increases will snuff out the fragile flame of consumer optimism and spending. However, in my research I’ve found the recession has created a more resilient and rational consumer — one that is still wary but much more empowered and informed than before the Great Recession. Weather Woes Volatile weather wreaked havoc on harvests, which in turn has affected the price of fruits, vegetables, wheat, grains and cotton — otherwise known as groceries and clothing. It’s also resulted in higher insurance premiums for consumers. Fruits and vegetables cost about 23% more today than they did three months ago. And that means everything from juice to ketchup will cost more too. Higher grain prices make it more expensive to feed a cow, so beef and fast food are pricier too. Clothing manufacturers are trying things like sewing cotton garments with synthetic thread to keep prices down. Still, consumers can expect a 10% increase in apparel prices this spring. The price of cotton has doubled in the past year because of poor weather conditions in China and restrictions on exports from India. Oil Increased international demand and political unrest in the Mideast have increased the price of oil, which means transportation and anything that requires shipping costs more. The average American drives 13,476 miles a year in a vehicle that gets 24 miles per gallon. The average cost of gas a year ago this week was $2.86 — today it’s $3.81. That means the average car owner is paying about $45 a month more for gas today than they were a year ago. Pricier gas is also partly responsible for a 22% increase in airfare and public transportation fares in the past six months. The Big Question The big question, of course, is whether these inflationary trends will drive down consumer spending. Since the economic health of the country is so firmly tied to consumer spending, it’s a serious question. I believe, the the answer is a qualified “no.” While many will certainly cut back on discretionary spending to compensate for higher priced basics there will not be an irrational “freak out.” Why? American consumers have been through a huge learning curve over the past several years while the recession rolled through the economy. Rather than be felled by the recession, the American consumer has emerged empowered. They have new ways of shopping and more resilience than ever. They’re more conscious of how they spend, more resourceful, and more demanding of retailers. In interview after interview consumers told me that they felt better about their spending habits following the recession. “Control” was the theme I heard more often than any other. “I feel more in control of my finances and so my future,” and “I’m never going to let my credit card debt get out of control again.” New Tricks Consumers shop differently now than they did before the recession. What might have started as a desperate hunt to get more for less turned into greater mastery of the marketplace. Aided by technology, consumers learned new research, bargaining and bartering skills. For example, many bid adieu to familiar retailers in favor of small online merchants they found on eBay and Etsy. Others explored things like online coupons and mobile price comparison shopping. And they’ve come to rely on each other more than the assumed expertise of businesses. Consumer reviews, blogs and ratings sites have skyrocketed in popularity. Which is why despite higher prices for groceries and apparel, retail sales increased last month for the ninth month in a row. Historically, gas prices are linked to consumer confidence. But not this time around. Consumer confidence actually rose this month despite a 5.6% increase in gas prices. This time around our newly empowered consumers have decreased their gas consumption 3.6%. It took consumers nearly a year to adjust their driving habits the last time we had a spike in prices. When consumers drive more slowly, keep their tires inflated and think twice about when they use their cars, they gain some control over what they pay at the pump. Mastery = Control = Confidence = Less Reactivity It’s time to reconsider the economists’ view of the American consumer as fragile, irrational and fickle. It’s going to take more than price increases to fell the American consumer. There are plenty of things that will, like unemployment. But that’s hardly irrational. Bonus Stat: With all these price increases is anything that’s less expensive? Computers and hotel stays.

Read the full article →

Lynn-Ann Gries: Websites Connect Startups With Investors, But Won’t Replace The Real Thing

April 15, 2011

The financial crisis caused a great deal of damage to the capacity of entrepreneurs to access traditional sources of funding, such as bank credit, credit card debt and home equity loans. And “friends and family,” another common source of startup capital, are as financially stressed as the founders themselves. To help fill the gap in funding, online platforms have emerged in recent years to connect entrepreneurs with investors. These Internet-age “yentas” extend entrepreneurs’ reach and enable them to access resources well beyond their geography. As a result, startups in more rural communities or in places with a dearth of venture investors will benefit from the geographic neutrality of the Internet. Indeed, they also benefit investors. A recent piece by Michael Arrington on TechCrunch , ” Venture Capitalists May Hate AngelList, But They’re Still Using It ,” asserts that despite some public backlash, well-known venture firms are requesting introductions to companies via AngelList. In the article, Josh Stein, Managing Director at Draper Fisher Jurvetson , praises AngelList’s efficiency, saying, “I’m presented with a clear, crisp ‘elevator pitch’ in the introductory email and further have access to a detailed summary with a single click.” But while these online investment matchmaking tools enhance traditional venture investing — they won’t replace it. Before explaining why, here’s a rundown of some popular online “yentas” available to the startup world: • IdeaCrossing , my own venture development organization’s online community, features a proprietary matching algorithm that automatically connects entrepreneurs and investors based on their profiles. Matches are communicated to the parties in real-time and investors can privately view their matches and reach out to entrepreneurs with whom they want to engage. • AngelList lets entrepreneurs upload their business summary, search for angels registered on the site, and push their plans out to them. In addition to receiving pitches from entrepreneurs, investors can browse entrepreneurs on the site and get matched to startups based on location. • CapLinked doesn’t seem to have made investment connections its primary offering, although that functionality is there through some partnerships. The bigger focus seems to be helping entrepreneurs communicate with their existing investors by combining the social community aspects of a site like LinkedIn with the customer-management offerings of Salesforce. The next few sites all use crowd-funding as the basis for their offering. Crowd-funding allows entrepreneurs to post a business idea or project, share it through social networking sites, and have investors pledge money. On some sites, investors receive nothing in return, investing because they want to help out a friend, family member, or cause. On other sites, investors pledge money in exchange for some pre-determined equity stake, a return or free products. Most sites have some sort of success fee to help sustain them. • On ProFounder , entrepreneurs create their pitches and draft investment terms before they start sharing their investment opportunity online. Entrepreneurs have 30 days to reach their investment goals. • Peerbackers considers all pledges goodwill donations and allows pledges as small as $5. Entrepreneurs have to reach 80% of their funding goal before they get the money. • Kickstarter doesn’t fund businesses, just creative arts projects. Every project has a funding goal, which can be any dollar amount, and must be raised in full before the set time limit. A recent article in VentureBeat talked about whether or not the SEC will let this kind of community funding to continue, saying that, while crowd-funding “could be a cheap source of cash, competing with angel investors who specialize in giving seed rounds to start-ups… the trick will be in protecting the public from scammers who have no intention of following through on promises.” But even with the growing popularity of online investment matchmaking, I still believe that most significant angel investing will remain offline. Why? First, entrepreneurs tend to have the most success accessing angel investors through personal connections or referrals. And for many angels, an in-person meeting with an entrepreneur is critical, as it allows them to fully assess the team they’re betting on. Second, the investment is only the start of a relationship, not the finish. After all, angels are often investing in startups at a point when the risks are large and the changes are frequent and micro-managing a portfolio company is much easier when an entrepreneur is near-by. In the crop of emerging social networks connecting startups to angels and venture capitalists, I think we’re all eager to find out who will peel away from the pack to become the Match.com or the eHarmony of investing. I hope that the sites that win big emerge as clear, trusted leaders in this space by having robust functionality and the largest, most diverse user base of both investors and entrepreneurs.

Read the full article →

Bryce Covert: Attacks on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are Attacks on the Middle Class

April 14, 2011

Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0 . The GOP won lots of concessions in the deal to avert a shutdown late Friday night, but one of them might at first seem surprising: a requirement that the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau be audited annually and studied by the Government Accountability Office. While it might seem weird to tack this on to a budget deal, the agency has become a point of focus for many in the Republican Party. On the Wednesday before the shutdown deal, House Republicans unveiled a host of legislation aimed to weaken it. Among their proposals is replacing the single job of director with a five-member committee, making it easier to overturn and veto its new rules, and preventing it from using its powers until it has a permanent director. All of this is likely to slow down the reforms and regulations that the agency has been tasked with creating in order to ensure a financial marketplace that works for consumers. The GOP’s attacks couldn’t come at worse time for middle class Americans. While many studies look at life below the poverty line, a new study tried to figure out how much money is needed to simply attain financial stability. Its findings about how much it costs to meet basic needs without government support are stark: According to the report, a single worker needs an income of $30,012 a year — or just above $14 an hour — to cover basic expenses and save for retirement and emergencies. That is close to three times the 2010 national poverty level of $10,830 for a single person, and nearly twice the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. A single worker with two young children needs an annual income of $57,756, or just over $27 an hour, to attain economic stability, and a family with two working parents and two young children needs to earn $67,920 a year, or about $16 an hour per worker. Stack that up against the fact that median real income fell over the past decade for the first time. The median American family saw earnings fall from $52,388 a year in 2000 to $47,127 in 2010. If that family has two young children, it won’t be able to meet the standard set by the study for economic stability. It will have to look beyond paychecks to make ends meet. And when there’s not enough cash coming in to pay for the necessities, families have to turn to debt. Americans who carry large debt loads aren’t spending on clothes and toys but on necessities: health care , childcare, transportation, higher education , housing, you name it. As explained in ” Up To Our Eyeballs :” “A typical two-earner family today spends about 80 percent more on housing, 74 percent more on health insurance, and 42 percent more on transportation than did a typical one-earner family in the early 1970s. Many families spend thousands of dollars on childcare, a largely nonexistent expense a generation ago.” And they’re taking on debt to do so. Two-thirds of all students graduate with student loan debt, compared to just half in 1993, with a total likely to top $1 trillion this year. Total mortgage debt is at $13 trillion, up from $6 trillion in 1999. Families who have to use credit cards to pay for medical expenses owe more than those who don’t — they have an average of $11,623 in credit card debt, versus $7,964 who didn’t use it to pay those bills. This is where the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Elizabeth Warren’s tireless efforts on behalf of consumers come into play. If Americans are taking on so much more debt in the face of falling wages, they open themselves up to the predatory practices these companies use to keep them mired in debt they can’t pay off. But if Warren has her way, lenders will be forced to write agreements in plain language, give notice (and a reason) for raising interest rates and tacking on fees, and offer simple products that help consumers. While more has to be done to support wages that help families find financial stability, undermining this crucial step to make their safety net safer is plain irresponsible.

Read the full article →

Paul Carr: The Strip Diary, Day Eight: I’d Rather Be Abused at the Riviera Than Set Foot in Donald Trump’s Hotel

April 11, 2011

Day Eight: The Riviera ($109 a night) I am, dear reader, a man of my word. When I say I’ll do something, I will — barring hell or high-water — do it. This month the thing that I have said I will do is to stay a single night in every hotel on the Las Vegas strip, starting with the cheapest and working my way to the most expensive. And true to my word, I’m writing these words from room 2627 of the Riviera Hotel Casino . Frankly, I’d prefer hell or high-water. Before I get going, let me be clear that my room is delightful; a one-bedroom suite, complete with its own (fortunately unstocked) bar, and a balcony looking out over some aspect of Las Vegas. I mean, yes, I did book a nonsmoking room, as opposed to this one which smells more pungent than Philip Morris’ tongue. And, yes, the furnishings — including, I fear, the bedding — haven’t been updated in the past 40 years; but I just keep telling myself that I’ve been upgraded to the status of a 1970s millionaire. A phone next to the toilet! Such opulence! No, the problem with the Riviera is not the rooms, but rather the service. It’s awful. Not sloppy, not surly: awful. Rudely, angrily, terrifyingly awful. I shared the elevator to registration with a classically-attired (red coat, shiny pants) bellman, who couldn’t have been a lick under 70-years-old. “We’ll be here for a while,” he muttered as the doors closed, “half of the elevators here are busted, and the ones that aren’t are slow.” The car began to creep upwards. “We’re lucky: we picked a slow one.” At first, I was charmed: this place has character! Unfortunately, as any real estate agent will tell you, character is a euphemism that swings both ways. Moments later, I was ready to kill someone; possibly myself. The Riviera, I was both surprised and delighted to discover, has installed a row of automated check-in terminals to make guest registration a breeze. Having spent the best part of a year and a half waiting to check-in at Circus Circus , it was with some swagger that I swiped my credit card and tapped in my preferences – no smoking, two keys, charge this credit card… oh! a free upgrade to a suite! “Sir, check-in doesn’t begin until noon…” An angry woman wearing Sarah Palin glasses had appeared behind the terminal. I looked at my watch. It was 11:55am. “Oh, I’m terribly sorry I said. The terminal said I could check in, and it’s just given me two keys…” “Well, I’m going to go ahead and cancel those,” she replied, through the same forced smile that Governor Palin used when Katie Couric had the gall to ask her about newspapers, “I’ve just told you — sir — check-in is at noon. So I’m going to cancel your keys and you can come back at noon, ok?” “But noon is in five minutes,” I half-clarified-half-pleaded, “and your machine has just charged my credit card and given me keys.” “And we’ll fix that at noon, won’t we?” And then she walked off. Amazing. And worse, while Dienstsleiter Palin and I had been chatting, a sad little line of tired and huddled travelers had built up at the check-in line, behind a black plastic rope, and guarded by another elderly gentleman in red. “You people are always so keen to check in right on noon,” he said to no one, and everyone. Yeah, screw us guys. Twenty minutes later, I was back with Oberleutnant Palin. Apparently the check-in terminals were just for show, because she was now checking everyone in manually. “We’re having those things removed,” she told the guest in front of me, “most guests aren’t smart enough to use them.” Deep breath, Paul, deep fucking breath. I slid my room keys across the desk and summoned the cheeriest voice I could. “Hello! Just hoping you could reactivate my keys.” She looked at me blankly. Then, with a half-smile of recognition, took my keys and then — immediately — slid them back across the desk. “You’re all set. Thank you for waiting, sir.” Gern geschehen. At the Riviera, the staff doesn’t seem to be having a bad day, so much as a bad decade. When I related my experience on Twitter , a few people replied to suggest that they’re either grossly underpaid, or are so un-fire-ably unionized that they don’t have to worry about their jobs. Whatever the cause, the anger, and bitterness and frustration drips from the walls; the front desk snaps at the guests, the housekeepers snap at the front desk (in the hallway outside my room, I heard a maid apologizing to a guest for his unmade room — “it’s the front desk’s fault, they always send people up before we’re ready” and the bartenders and bellhops snap at everyone. I tipped two dollars to leave my bag for half an hour and — I swear this is true — the bellman looked at the bills in his hand and walked away muttering “he screwed me.” In any other situation, I’d have walked out of the hotel and checked in somewhere else: there are roughly a hundred billion hotel rooms in Las Vegas and life is just too short to put up with that kind of nonsense. But as I say, I’m a man of my word and no matter how surly the service, or how smelly the room (refer to this video of my Saturday night at the Imperial Palace), I’m staying the night. And — you know what — it could have been far worse. I could have been forced to stay at Trump . Just a block off the strip — so, thankfully, outside my zone of obligation — lies the glittering monstrosity that is the Trump Hotel Las Vegas; a 64-story, 24-carat-gold-plated monument to American capitalism, emblazoned with its founder’s name in obscenely high letters (the same name that can be found on those hideous shirts, ties and other overpriced products for the undiscerning jerk). At dinner last night, a Vegas local explained to me that when the main tower was being completed, Trump personally decreed that the letters be erected left to right, lest the tower be temporary labeled “RUMP”. Good thinking, Donald, but your hotel still screams “ass”. When I first wrote about my trip, I explained that, for me, Las Vegas represents all that is good and bad about the American dream. It is beyond appropriate, then, that Donald Trump should own at least small chunk of the town’s real-estate. After all, until recently, Trump was the ultimate representative of a wonderful — if slightly brash — aspect of American life: unashamed, balls-out capitalism. Trump’s wealth, his preposterous power-dressing, his TV show — “YOU’RE FIRED!” — if you loved America, you had to love Donald Trump. Today though, Trump has “matured” into a very different, far more ugly kind of American cliche: the birther . Which, for those of you living under a rock in Kenya, is the name claimed by those who “think” that President Obama was not born in America. Of course, I don’t believe for a second that Trump has legitimate doubts about the President’s citizenship. After all, when even Glenn Beck is calling you out on your disingenuous bullshit, it’s pretty certain that you’re full of it. But it’s that fact: that Trump does know better, and is simply posing as a birther — and a serious presidential candidate — in order to promote himself, his TV show and his preposterous ties and shirts, that makes his rhetoric so utterly vile. If the election of Barack Obama reminded foreigners like me why we fell in love with America in the first place, then the reinvention of Trump-as-pseudo-birther reminds us of another amazing thing about the land of the free: if you have enough money, you can spout whatever crap you like — and people will put you on television. Hell, if you spout it loudly and convincingly enough, people might actually vote for you. Fortunately, as with those real estate euphemisms, freedom cuts both ways. Thanks to the First (and to my mind, best) Amendment, Trump is free to lie and insinuate about the President in order to promote his personal agenda, while applying a spray-tan-like sheen of legitimacy to the grubby racism of the birther movement. Likewise, thanks to that same Amendment, I’m free to encourage you — and the millions of other people who visit Vegas every year — to join me in boycotting anything associated with the man; starting with avoiding his landscape-blotting hotel. After all, if Mr Trump wants to align himself with the worst kind of disingenuous, and dangerous, bullshit in order to pack his own wallet, it’s only right that the rest of us — Americans and foreign visitors alike — use our hard-earned dollars to show him how we feel about his baseless rhetoric and the conspiracy nuts it panders to. Actually, it’s more than right: it’s the American way.

Read the full article →