credit-card

Jason Alderman: Smart Uses for Your Tax Refund

April 8, 2011

Each spring, millions of Americans look forward to receiving a hefty income tax refund. And it truly is “hefty” with the average federal refund in 2010 hovering around $3,000. That’s a lot of money to be giving the government through what is essentially a year-long, interest-free loan. If you regularly receive large tax refunds, you’re probably having too much tax withheld from your paycheck. Instead, you might want to withhold less and put the money to work for you, by either saving or investing a comparable amount each month, or using it to pay down debt. Your goal should be to receive little or no refund at the end of the year. Ask your employer for a new W-4 form and recalculate your withholding allowance using the IRS’ Withholding Calculator . This is also a good idea whenever your pay or family situation changes significantly (e.g., pay increase, marriage, divorce, new child, etc.) Just be careful, because if too little is deducted, you might end up owing more tax next April, and possibly even interest or penalty fees. IRS Publication 919 can help guide you through the decision-making process. Some people received larger-than-normal tax refunds in 2009 and 2010 thanks to the Making Work Pay credit, which expired December 31, 2010. In its place, most taxpayers will see a 2 percent reduction in the amount being withheld for Social Security in 2011 paychecks as part of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. Another change this year was a U.S. Department of Treasury pilot program that offered 600,000 randomly selected low- and moderate-income families an opportunity to have their tax refunds direct- deposited into a MyAccountCard Prepaid Debit Card offered by my employer, Visa and issued through Bonneville Bank. The pilot explored ways to save the government money (a direct deposit costs 1/10th as much to process as a paper check) as well as to give people with no bank account easier and more cost-effective access to their tax refunds. If you will be receiving a large refund this year, here are ways to put it to good use: Pay down debt. By increasing your payment amount on outstanding loan or credit card balances you can significantly lower the total amount of interest paid. Say you’re paying $80 a month on a $2,000 credit card balance at 18 percent interest. By doubling your payment to $160, you’ll reduce the payoff time from 32 months to 14, and shave $295 off the total amount of interest paid. In effect, you’d be getting the equivalent of an 18 percent return on your money. Start an emergency fund . To protect your family against the impact of a layoff or other unexpected financial crisis (such as a medical emergency, car accident or theft), set aside enough cash to cover at least six months of living expenses. Save for retirement. If your debt and emergency savings are under control, add to your IRA or 401(k) accounts, particularly if your employer matches contributions; remember, a 50 percent match corresponds to a 50 percent rate of return. Invest in yourself. Enroll in college courses or vocational training to ensure you have additional skills to fall back on should you lose your job or want to change careers. And ask whether your employer will help pay for job-related education. Invest in your family’s future . Another good use for your refund is to set up a 529 Qualified State Tuition Plan or a Coverdell Education Savings Account to fund your children’s or grandchildren’s education — all while ensuring your contributions will grow tax-free until withdrawn. Visit the websites of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Introduction to 529 Plans and the IRS’s Tax Topic 310 – Coverdell Education Savings Accounts for information. Spend money to save money. If you’ve got older appliances such as refrigerators, washer/dryers or dishwashers, consider replacing them with energy-efficient models that will pay for themselves through lower utility bills. The government’s Energy Star website can help you find Energy Star products. And finally, if you want to check on the status of your refund, go to the IRS’s Where’s My Refund site. You can usually get information about your refund 72 hours after the IRS acknowledges receipt of your e-filed return or three to four weeks if you filed a paper return. This article is intended to provide general information and should not be considered legal, tax or financial advice. It’s always a good idea to consult a legal, tax or financial advisor for specific information on how certain laws apply to you and about your individual financial situation. Follow Jason Alderman on Twitter: http://twitter.com/PracticalMoney

Read the full article →

Two Top Contenders Emerge To Head Consumer Protection Agency

April 6, 2011

April 6, 2011 1:39:49 AM WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The White House is considering Federal Reserve Governor Sarah Raskin and former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm to head a new agency charged with protecting consumers of financial products, a source aware of the process said Tuesday. Raskin, who was recently named by President Barack Obama to a seat on the Fed’s board, is viewed as readily able to win the needed Senate confirmation to the office, which was created by legislation that overhauled U.S. financial regulation. Raskin, a former state regulator and former staffer on the Senate Banking Committee, is also seen by the White House as a candidate that would be acceptable to the financial services industry, the source added. Granholm, who was the first female governor of Michigan, had been mentioned last year as a potential candidate for a seat on the Supreme Court. The source did not say whether other candidates in addition to Raskin and Granholm were under consideration. Obama is under pressure from both ends of the political spectrum to name a head to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is set to open in July. The agency would be charged with reining in abuses in the financial industry, including shoddy mortgage practices and excessive credit card fees. It also would play a role regulating the so-called shadow financial industry, including pay day lenders. Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren, an outspoken consumer advocate who had championed the new agency, had been seen as a likely candidate last year. However, she would face a difficult if not insurmountable uphill struggle to confirmation because many Republicans view her as too antagonistic toward the financial industry. Warren, who has been serving as an adviser to Obama and the U.S. Treasury, has been helping to set up the agency for its formal launch. She has been actively reaching out to the industry in an effort to foster a good working relationship. (Writing by Tim Ahmann; editing by Carol Bishopric) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Largest Cable Bill Ever?

April 4, 2011

It’s easy to rack up a huge cable bill, but not $16 million easy. Lt. Daniel DeVirgilio of Beaverton, Ohio was more than stunned to learn his credit card had been rejected by Time Warner Cable . He was even more surprised when he learned just how much the company had tried to charge him. The number totalled $16,409,107, according to MSNBC . Apparently his March Madness charges had gone a bit haywire. He had been charged over $1 million for each game of the March Madness Sweet 16 he had watched, according to the Dayton Daily News . But he was humorous about the whole affair. “Had I known this I would have bought Showtime,” DeVirgilio, an engineer at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, told the Daily News . “Five bucks more for Showtime is a bit much, but heck — $16,409,112. Who cares?” The bill was ultimately attributed to human error. DeVirgilio never actually received a paper bill for the amount, and it wasn’t charged to his credit card, according to MSNBC . “We apologize for the inconvenience that it caused,” a spokesman for Time Warner said. “We are going to work with the customer to get this resolved.”

Read the full article →

Massive Hack Targets Customers From Citigroup, Walgreens, TiVo, Capitol One, HSN, College Board

April 4, 2011

(Reuters) – The names and e-mails of customers of Citigroup Inc and other large U.S. companies, as well as College Board students, were exposed in a massive and growing data breach after a computer hacker penetrated online marketer Epsilon. In what could be one of the biggest such breaches in U.S. history, a diverse swath of companies that did business with Epsilon stepped forward over the weekend to warn customers some of their electronic information could have been exposed. Drugstore Walgreens, video recorder TiVo Inc, credit card lender Capital One Financial Corp and teleshopping company HSN Inc all added their names to a list of targets that also includes some of the nation’s largest banks. The names and electronic contacts of some students affiliated with the U.S.-based College Board — which represents some 5,900 colleges, universities and schools — were also potentially compromised. No personal financial information such as credit cards or social security numbers appeared to be exposed, according to the company statements and e-mails to customers. Epsilon, an online marketing unit of Alliance Data Systems Corp, said on Friday that a person outside the company hacked into some of its clients’ customer files. The vendor sends more than 40 billion e-mail ads and offers annually, usually to people who register for a company’s website or who give their e-mail addresses while shopping. “We learned from our e-mail provider, Epsilon, that limited information about you was accessed by an unauthorized individual or individuals,” HSN, also an e-commerce operator, said in an e-mail to customers on Sunday. “This information included your name and e-mail address and did not include any financial or other sensitive information. We felt it was important to notify you of this incident as soon as possible.” Citigroup customer names and some credit card customers’ e-mail addresses — but no account information — were part of the data breach, the third-largest U.S. bank said on Saturday. The College Board, which administers the SAT admissions tests, on Saturday warned students about the breach and asked them to be cautious about receiving “links or attachments from unknown third parties,” according to two e-mails reviewed by Reuters. The not-for-profit organization is in contact with more than 7 million students, according to its website. It did not immediately return calls for comment. PROBING FOR ANSWERS Law enforcement authorities are investigating the breach, though it was unclear on Sunday how many customers or students had been exposed. Epsilon is also looking into what went wrong. “While we are cooperating with authorities and doing a thorough investigation, we cannot say anything else,” said Epsilon spokeswoman Jessica Simon. “We can’t confirm any impacted or non-impacted clients, or provide a list (of companies) at this point in time.” Capital One, which also runs a bank, and Walgreens, the largest U.S. drugstore, said the Epsilon hacker accessed its customer e-mail addresses, but no personally identifiable information. TiVo, a maker of digital video recorders, said the information that was obtained was limited to e-mail addresses and clients’ first names. The incident comes three years after hackers penetrated Heartland Payment Systems, a credit and debit card processor, in one of the biggest identity-theft cases in U.S. history. In that case, notorious hacker Albert Gonzalez led a ring that stole more than 40 million payment card numbers, and was later sentenced to 20 years in prison. On Friday, JPMorgan Chase & Co, the second-largest U.S. bank, and Kroger Co, the biggest U.S. supermarket operator, said that some customers were exposed as part of the Epsilon data breach. Citigroup announced that it had been affected on Saturday evening. Spokesman Sean Kevelighan said the bank started informing its customers of the breach on Friday through a link on its website. Some of Epsilon’s other clients include Verizon Communications Inc, Blackstone Group LP’s Hilton Hotels, Kraft Foods Inc, and AstraZeneca. (Reporting by Jonathan Spicer and Maria Aspan, editing by Maureen Bavdek, Diane Craft and Gunna Dickson) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Janet Tavakoli: Buffettgate: Berkshire Hathaway’s Problem at the Top

April 2, 2011

Suppose I took a call from a banker-friend at Citigroup on December 13, 2010, and he informed me that he had just observed other Citi bankers meeting with David Sokol, an executive of Berkshire Hathaway and possible successor to Warren Buffett, the CEO. He discovered Sokol expressed interest in a company called Lubrizol and requested a meeting with the company’s President. Buffett himself made it public that Sokol investigated a Chinese battery and electric car maker, BYD, in which Berkshire made a substantial investment. The shares subsequently soared in value. I would have no way of knowing for certain that Sokol would bring the opportunity to Warren Buffett. I would have no way of knowing for sure whether Berkshire Hathaway would invest in Lubrizol. But if I bought shares in Lubrizol the next day, I would expect that the Citi banker would be investigated by the SEC for passing along insider information, and I would be investigated for trading based on insider information.* Yet David Sokol, who bought shares in Lubrizol the day after his meeting with Citi’s bankers, told CNBC he did nothing inappropriate. His actions were absolutely inappropriate–front-running is an offense for which a banker or investment banker would be fired. “When bankers from Citigroup Inc. met David Sokol late last year to talk about potential transactions, they thought they were dealing with him as a senior executive of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., according to people familiar with the matter.” “It…came as a shock to the Citigroup bankers when they learned Mr. Sokol bought roughly $240,000 of shares of Lubrizol corp. a day after their meeting, sold them, and then purchased $10 million shares about two months before Berkshire’s $9 billin deal unveiled March 14…[T]he shares are valued at nearly $13 million now.” [It's unclear if Sokol still owns them.] Excerpt from: ” Mixed Signals Marked Sokol Meeting: Bankers Thought Pitch was for Senior Berkshire Executive, Not High-Powered Individual Investor ,” by Gina Chon and Serena Ng, Wall Street Journal , April 2, 2011. Berkshire Hathaway has a bigger problem than Sokol’s actions. Its reputation has revolved around the lip-service paid by Warren Buffett to a high standard of corporate governance. His actions and attitude to this matter raise serious questions for the future of Berkshire Hathaway. The moral tone set at the top is now being publicly questioned as well as his seeming support of Sokol’s actions. “Neither Dave nor I feel his Lubrizol purchases were in any way unlawful. He has told me that they were not a factor in his decision to resign.” Source: Berkshire Hathaway via Business Wire: ” Warren E. Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, Announces the Resignation of David L. Sokol ,” March 30, 2011. Why didn’t Buffett ask for Sokol’s resignation? Sokol’s behavior was unethical, and it may even go beyond that. There may be further inquiry to determine the legality of Sokol’s purchases. During an initial meeting with Sokol about Lubrizol, Buffett wrote that Sokol mentioned he owned shares in the company, but Buffett didn’t ask him for further information including details of the timing, price, and number of shares. Warren Buffett says he plays bridge around 12 hours per week. The first thing one does is engage in an auction in an attempt to determine the value and quantity of the cards held by one’s partner. Yet Buffett states he did not inquire further about a senior Berkshire Hathaway officer’s investment in an acquisition candidate. In isolation, investors might be willing to overlook this as misplaced loyalty on Warren Buffett’s part. But a series of issues have surfaced about Berkshire Hathaway’s practices. Most recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission wrestled with Berkshire Hathaway’s CFO to make the company take a fourth quarter write-down: “Despite [the Chief Financial Officer's] objection, the company recorded $938 million in impairment charges in the fourth quarter to reflect declines in shares of Swiss Reinsurance Co., U.S. Bankcorp and pharmaceutical firm Sanofi Aventis S.A.” ” Berkshire Wrote Down Stocks After SEC Query ,” by Erik Holm, Wall Street Journal , March 29, 2011. The SEC and the financial press may not have noticed that Berkshire Hathaway had the last word: “…such losses that are included in earnings are offset by a corresponding credit to other comprehensive income.” Berkshire Hathaway 10K for year-end 2010 (required SEC filing), Footnote p. 74. Berkshire Hathaway is a conglomerate, and the nature of accounting for conglomerates is opaque and messy. Warren Buffett’s reputation has been crucial to Berkshire Hathaway’s perceived value. Investors may now challenge their previous perceptions. * Even if Berkshire Hathaway decided not to invest, and I sold the shares I bought before the general public became aware of the lack of interest, I could avoid a potential loss if the shares went down in value on the news. Martha Stewart allegedly sold shares ahead of bad news after a tip from her stockbroker and avoided a loss of around $50,000. She went to prison for allegedly not coming clean when questioned by authorities. See also: VIDEO: ” Backdoor Dealings ,” First Business Morning News , April 1, 2011. ” Warren Buffett, Stop Using My Credit Card! ” – TSF – November 23, 2009 ” Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger: Winning the Class War ,” Huffington Post , September 21, 2010. Disclosure: I currently hold no position, long or short, in Berkshire Hathaway.

Read the full article →

Jamie Dimon Worries That Financial Regulation Will Doom Banks, Forever

March 31, 2011

As you may or may not recall, in 2008, the insane, overleveraged derivatives casino that Wall Street had built for itself came crashing down, taking the part of the economy many of us enjoyed — the part that allowed us to have “jobs” — down with it. And the reaction was swift: “Here, banks, take several trillion dollars and live, my friends! Pay yourself bonuses and hire lobbyists and feel free to mark your assets to whatever fantasy value you would like.” And no one was held responsible for any of this, except for unemployed people, who wanted “unemployment benefits” to pay for things like “some food.” Against this backdrop, there were a few naive, inexperienced and unserious people who thought, “Hey, maybe we should actually do something to prevent this from happening again? Like maybe some sort of regulation? Transparency in the derivatives market? Could we do something about predatory lending? Could we even just make a credit card agreement legible?” But those people were and are, of course, socialist monsters. Here’s Jamie Dimon, still pillorying the idea of such a regulation yesterday : Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, launched a broadside against financial regulation on Wednesday, warning that new capital rules could be “the nail in our coffin for big American banks.” …Restrictions on debit card fees charged to retailers are also coming under attack in Congress….”It basically penalises us for having debit cards,” he said. “I think it was very unfairly done in the middle of the night with no facts and analysis whatsoever. This is not the way legislation should be done.” So, Dimon sees “restrictions on debit card fees” as the final “nail in the coffin for big American banks.” Which sounds worrying until you realize that this “nail” doesn’t become dangerous until you gather some wood, plane it, sand it, assemble it into coffin shape, add hinges, upholster the interior, and put varnish and stain on the exterior, and then say, “Okay, now I better get those last few nails.” And, as Kevin Drum points out, we’re not there yet: It’s only been two years since the Great Collapse, and finance industry profits have already rebounded to their bubble-era levels. That’s a strong sign that finance industry leverage is also returning to its bubble-era levels, which in turn means the industry is about as dangerous as it’s ever been. And Dodd-Frank is a notably weak piece of regulation, about as weak as any bill could be and still be called regulatory reform in the first place. Wall Street got off easy, and Dimon knows it. The Financial Times surmises that opposition to financial regulatory reform is really starting to ramp up now that we’re years from the crisis and “anger at the financial industry” is on the wane. Drum and Matt Yglesias disagree on this. Yglesias says: ” I see absolutely no reason to believe that anger at the financial industry has subsided ,” and Drum insists: ” the fact is that the public was never really all that angry at the financial industry in the first place .” I’d split the difference on that score. Anger at the bailouts was definitely incoherent and inconsistent — witness the fact that Russ Feingold, who voted against TARP, lost his seat in the U.S. Senate to bailout-baby Ron Johnson — but it did animate people and it was lasting . At the moment, there’s a movement afoot to satiate the populist hunger for a pound of flesh by serving up teachers and public sector employees as the real “vampire squids.” Meanwhile, it’s worth reminding everyone that — at a time when Jamie Dimon is asking us to imagine a coffin — the financial services industry is well on the rebound : Three years later, the financial sector, despite coming under scrutiny for its role in the financial crisis, has returned to prominence, accounting for 29 percent — $57.7 billion — of U.S. profits during a record-breaking fourth quarter last year, notes the Wall Street Journal. That might be the highest percentage of the post-recession period, per the Commerce Department’s figures, but it’s still no where close to a historic 2001 quarter when the finance sector recorded a record-setting 46 percent of all domestic corporate profits. Before the 1990s, financial institutions rarely accounted for more than 20 percent of total corporate profits. That the financial sector is again America’s most dominant sector is even more amazing when, the WSJ notes, “the sector accounts for less than 10% of the value added in the economy.” All I can say is if this is the coffin-like environment that Dodd-Frank created, I deeply regret the fact that nobody attached the “Kill Jason Linkins Immediately Amendment” to the bill. [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .]

Read the full article →

GOP Taps Once-Bankrupt Congressman as Face of Fiscal Restraint

March 30, 2011

WASHINGTON — Democrats pounced on the man Republicans chose today to be their spokesman for fiscal restraint: a freshman Arkansas congressman who once filed bankruptcy over unpaid credit card bills. Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) was the lead signer of a letter endorsed by a pack of GOP freshmen demanding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pass a budget-cutting spending measure to fund the government for the rest of this fiscal year. “Mr. Reid, your record on spending in the Senate is one of failure,” wrote the 30 lawmakers, who also vowed to rally on the Capitol steps until the Senate passed a budget. “You have failed to pass a budget, failed to restrain spending, and failed to put our country on sound fiscal footing,” they said. But Crawford seemed an odd choice to expound on sound fiscal footing. “Really?” said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman Jesse Ferguson. “Of all the people for House Republican freshmen to pick as their front man for a stunt about fiscal responsibility, they picked Representative Rick Crawford who couldn’t even pay his own credit card bills and went bankrupt because of it,” Ferguson said in a statement. According to press accounts during Crawford’s campaign, he declared bankruptcy in 1994 over $12,611.67 in debt – mostly for credit cards. His spokeswoman did not immediately answer requests for comment, but Crawford’s representatives at the time suggested he learned from his humbling experience, went on to be a successful businessman, and didn’t want the country to suffer a similar fate. Still, Democrats thought Crawford’s past showed GOP hypocrisy. “Tells you something about how serious House Republican freshmen are about fiscal responsibility,” said Ferguson.

Read the full article →

B. Jeffrey Madoff: An Honest Bank Is Hard to Find

March 29, 2011

In the mid 1990s, Fleet Bank, originally out of Boston, aggressively pursued business in the New York City market. They got mine. In 2003 Fleet was faced with a class action suit involving a bait-and-switch credit card scam where it promised no annual credit card fees then would bill the fees a few months later. An honest bank is hard to find. I should have known better than to sign with a bank named after a bottled enema. Fleet was acquired by Bank of America in 2004. I filled out the requisite papers; my financials were sent to Rochester NY, my account representative was in Boston, the underwriter in Chicago. I had a business line of credit, like I always had, paid the fees as I always had and so it went. I never actually met anyone in person from Bank of America. I was not too big to fail; I was too small to notice. Countrywide, the largest U.S. mortgage lender, misrepresented its financial condition and the soundness of its loans in security filings, the officials said Saturday… The company was forced in August to draw down its entire $11.5 billion credit line from a consortium of banks because it could no longer sell or borrow against home loans it had made. It has laid off about 11,000 employees since the summer. ( From the New York Times , March 2008) Countrywide Financial was valued at $24 billion in 2007. It was taken over by Bank of America in 2008 for $4 billion. At the end of 2009, with the economy going badly and so many businesses doing poorly, my line was reviewed. I was fortunate to have an underwriter assigned to my account that, after several conversations and reviewing my financials, believed in my business. He approved my line, kept the fees reasonable and wished me luck going forward. The underwriter had recently come to Bank of America as a result of one of the many bank acquisitions made with TARP funds. In the fall of 2008 through the federally funded, taxpayer-backed Troubled Asset Relief Program, Bank of America received $25 billion. Bank of America, along with other banks, who also received federal funding, essentially ceased making money available to small businesses. They did go on a spending spree to diminish their competition through acquisition and increase fees on everything else. We taxpayers not only bailed out the banks, they charged us additional funds through those fees to do it. “The major credit-card lender [Bank of America] in mid-January sent letters notifying some responsible cardholders that it would more than double their rates to as high as 28%, without giving an explanation for the increase.” ( BusinessWeek , Feb. 7, 2008) It was a busy fall for Bank of America; they announced their intent to take over Merrill Lynch & Co., saving them from bankruptcy on the same day that Lehman Bros. announced theirs. The Merrill deal closed on January 1, 2009. “Bank of America Corp., the largest U.S. bank by assets, received a $138 billion emergency lifeline from the government to support its acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co. and prevent the global financial crisis from deepening. ($20 billion in TARP funds, $118 billion in government asset guarantees.)” ( Bloomberg News , Jan. 16, 2009) Although Merrill surprised its new owner by suffering a massive $15 billion loss in their fourth quarter, CEO John Thain doled out bonuses of $4 billion to Merrill executives. “The Securities and Exchange Commission filed charges Monday against Bank of America for misleading investors about billions of dollars in bonuses paid to top executives at Merrill Lynch following its purchase of the brokerage giant.” ( CNNMoney.com , Aug. 3, 2009) In August 2009, without either admitting or denying guilt, Bank of America agreed to pay a $33 million fine, to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. “Bank of America will pay $108 million to settle federal charges that Countrywide Financial Corp., which it acquired nearly two years ago, collected outsized fees from borrowers facing foreclosure. It’s the latest evidence of misconduct at Countrywide, once an industry giant that has since fallen. Last year, three top executives, including former CEO Angelo Mozilo, were charged with civil fraud and insider trading by the Securities and Exchange Commission.” ( Associated Press , June 7, 2010) By the end of 2010, my business improved substantially. I was proud of the fact that I had not laid off any employees, continued to provide health care and never missed any payments to anyone. Like my parents, who owned their own small business, surviving tough times is an accomplishment to feel good about. “Bank of America will pay $137.3 million to settle allegations that it defrauded schools, hospitals and dozens of other state and local government organizations, federal officials said Tuesday. The settlement stems from a long-running investigation into misconduct in the municipal bond business that raises money for localities to pay for public services.” ( Washington Post , Dec. 7, 2010) Don’t worry about those fines hurting Bank of America. Their global banking and markets division made $6.2 billion dollars in 2010. At the end of 2010 I received a letter from Bank of America informing me that my credit line would not be renewed. I immediately called my representative and discovered I had been assigned a new person. “How are you today?” He had an upbeat voice, in total opposition to the downbeat news he was giving me. “When I got your file”, he continued, “I couldn’t help but to notice your last name, Madoff.” He said as if performing a level of detection equal to Sherlock Holmes. “Don’t you always notice the name on your client’s file?” “Well, your name is kind of famous in financial circles.” “I go around in financial circles when I talk to bankers.” “If you don’t mind me asking; are you any relation? Not that it makes a difference.” “Then why are you asking?” “Just curious.” He said. “No, I’m not that Madoff. But I’m curious as to why you are discontinuing my line of credit.” “I’m sorry,” He said as if comforting me about someone’s death, “but it’s not up to me.” He was the messenger and had no authority to do anything other than politely show me the exit. The underwriter I had worked with last year was no longer on the account. I was informed that establishing relationships is what makes bankers susceptible to making bad decisions; the bank was trying to avoid that by constantly switching who works on what account. Maybe they learned something from their acquisitions of Countrywide and Merrill Lynch. I got on a conference call with my new representative in Boston and underwriter in Chicago. They had never met in person and most likely never will. “We assessed your metrics and parameters of your KPI, key performance indicators and made our decisions based on that,” said the underwriter. “I don’t know what that means, but does the fact that I’ve been a client for years, never missed a payment, have no debt and have increased my business with new and long term blue-chip clients in a very challenging economy mean anything?” “How do you know you won’t lose those clients?” she asked. “I don’t know. How do you know you won’t die in your sleep?” I realized the significance of the abbreviation for Bank of America: B-o-a, as in boa-constrictor, it squeezes the life out of its victims by applying constant pressure. I was told I’d get their final decision in a week. During that time I approached two banks, both of which offered me the line of credit I requested at far lower rates than Bank of America. In February of 2011, I signed with a new bank. I had my last conversation with my Bank of America representative: “We value our relationships with our clients.” He said. “If there is anything I can help you with, please don’t hesitate to ask.” An honest bank is hard to find.

Read the full article →

Nicholas Carroll: Shifting the Focus From "Strategic Default" to "Prudent Walkaway"

March 25, 2011

A “strategic default” currently means walking away from an underwater home even though the owner could afford to pay the mortgage. However, this represents far less than half of walkaways. The vast majority of foreclosures happen to people who cannot afford to pay the mortgage. Portrayals of strategic default in 2009 were typically of homeowners who “used their home as an ATM,” or “deadbeats.” Even news stories describing the positive side of default didn’t entirely shake those images. One of the earliest semi-positive stories was in the Wall St. Journal , titled ” American Dream 2: Default, Then Rent .” This article described a couple who had defaulted, cut their housing costs from nearly $4,000/month to just over $2,000/month, and were living in a bigger house with “a swimming pool with three waterfalls.” Another strategic defaulter in the same article found the benefits of default-and-rent included the discretionary income to go out to dinner more often, and hang on to his series-6 BMW. These are not the people I meet in the course of interviewing and writing about surviving tough times. The people I meet are laid off, or from two incomes down to one, or on their way to medical bankruptcy. They cannot imagine a swimming pool, much less a waterfall — they just have bills they can’t pay, one of which is the mortgage. Some are slow in adjusting to the “new normal,” and still eat out regularly, but others have already cut back to eating out four times a year. Their home may be underwater — or they may have equity. Often it doesn’t matter, when the bottom line is that they have to choose between the mortgage and medical insurance — because losing medical insurance in America is potentially lethal. For this group, it is not a matter of cunningly defaulting to maintain a latte-sipping lifestyle. It is a matter of prudently walking away from the mortgage that is dragging their family and future under the waves. The benefit for people who act both prudently and decisively can be startling. Taking a fairly typical example from people I’ve interviewed, this is the family’s financial situation: Primary income of $3,000 net per month is gone, with one laid off. Secondary income of $2,000 net is still coming in. $40,000 in cash and savings, including the 401K. $20,000 in credit card debt. One car fully paid for. Second car — $10,000 owed. They have done a careful financial projection. The total monthly expenses are $5,000, right down to the last dime — which includes $2,500/month on mortgage and credit card bills. That says that if the main breadwinner is not fully employed in 14 months, they will lose the home — and of course take a dip in their credit rating. And if the job doesn’t come until the 13th month, it had better be at the same salary as the previous job, or they’ll lose the home anyway. Scenario A: Betting on a job, and continuing to pay the mortgage (a.k.a. “doing the right thing,” according to the moralists). They guess that they will be fully employed again in time to save the home. They continue paying mortgage, car payments, and minimum monthly credit card payments. If their bet is wrong, their trajectory is shown by the red line below. Scenario B: Prudently walking away . They decide that getting a job might require a career shift or relocation, with some time and money invested in re-education. They immediately stop paying the mortgage and credit card payments. In this scenario, they cut their expenses by $2,500/month (which rises to $3,500/month when they move out and start paying rent). If there is real equity in their financed car, they sell it and buy a used car to replace it. Worksheet online in MS Excel format or PDF The difference between A and B is incredible. If the family bets the primary bread-winner will be working within the year and is wrong, they could be leaving their home without enough money to rent a decent apartment in 14 months — exhausted, frightened, and possibly running on bald tires. (People who “do the right thing” tend to leave long before they actually get legal notice to move.) The family that bets the primary bread-winner will not find a job in 13 months and stops paying the debts will be leaving their home with $33,000 cash in hand, move to a rental (usually in the same school district, if need be), and will have three years for the primary bread-winner to find a job . And that’s their worst scenario — it’s quite likely they’ll be in the house for 18-24 months without making any mortgage payments. Conclusion: when the writing is on the wall, the best plan is often a prudent walkaway — an escape to the future, equipped with enough cash to get there.

Read the full article →

Credit Card Debt Is Falling, But Only Because Of Defaults, Report Says

March 20, 2011

Credit card debt fell last year only because of consumer defaults and bank write-offs, a new study argues. In 2010, U.S. credit card debt dropped to the lowest level in eight years , according to credit reporting agency TransUnion. But there is more evidence Americans may have taken on more credit card debt than they paid off. A study by Cardhub.com of Federal Reserve data found that last year, while banks wrote off a total of $75 billion in credit card debt, the level of the debt only declined by around $67 billion. This, according to Cardhub, suggests that the “entire decrease [in overall debt] is the direct result of Americans defaulting on their debt.” “The widely-held belief is that consumers have been paying down debt,” said Odysseas Papadimitriou, CEO of CardHub.com. But, he said, as the pressures of the recession eased for some and consumer confidence improved , so did spending . Last year, for the first time since 2008, figures from the Federal Reserve also showed showed Americans accumulating more debt. Some economists insist, despite the wave of defaults and write-offs, many Americans are more wary of paying with plastic. “Charge-offs are part of the picture, there’s no doubt about that” said Gregory Daco, economist at IHS Global Insight. “But there has been a change in attitudes to credit, and paying it off,” he added, quoting a report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which found the way people used credit cards had changed significantly. “A lot of people are taking on less debt and paying off existing balances,” Daco added. Many Americans spent beyond their means in the lead-up to the financial crisis tapping the rising value of homes, stock portfolios and east credit. As the recession deepened and unemployment grew, millions of Americans found themselves struggling to pay off their balances. In 2009, as the recession was ending, consumers paid off $10 billion in debt.

Read the full article →

Americans See Their Wealth Increase — Thanks To Stocks, Not Real Estate

March 12, 2011

Thanks to a rebounding stock market, Americans’ household wealth increased by $2.1 trillion last year, even as high unemployment and a sagging real estate market weighed down the economic recovery. At the end of last year, American households saw their net worth rise 3.8 percent over the previous year to $56.8 trillion, according to figures released this week from the Federal Reserve . The stock market gains were undercut by a 1.6 percent drop in the value of Americans’ real estate holdings over the last quarter of 2010. All told real estate wealth plunge fell by $244 billion over the same period 2010, an improvement of a $629 billion drop during the prior quarter. In 2009, as the economy struggled to shake off the effects of the financial crisis, household wealth fell by 9 percent , a decrease of $5.1 trillion. This year, however, has been quite different. “The stock market is performing very well, it rebounded in the third quarter,” Greg Daco, senior economist at IHS Global Insight. “As a result, there’s been a big gain in assets for households,” he added. The value of corporate equities owned by American households, for example, increased by $1 trillion. After taking a big hit during the financial crisis, 91 percent of 401K account balances are near their 2007 level, said Jack VanDerhei of the Employee Benefit Research Institute. “Some accounts might lead you to believe everybody’s running for cover,” said VanDerhei. But there was no mass migration away from 401Ks and many accounts were recovering, he said. “Psychologically, it’s important because it gives people the reinforcement that they need that they are actually building something.” Corporate profits have risen steadily since 2009, jumping 17 percent since 2009, according to the Fed report. Businesses are also sitting on 1.9 trillion in cash and liquid assets, the highest level since 1984. Some economists argue that in order to create jobs, companies will have to start using that cash to hire new workers and expand. Many companies were not confident enough in the recovery to start spending again, said IHS Global Insight economist Daco. “Cash reserves have grown exponentially since the recovery because of the desire for companies to protect themselves in case things turn bad again,” he said. But, Daco said, this trend will come to end soon. “You can’t go on forever wringing the maximum productivity from your employees.” The decline in the official unemployment rate, which fell to 8.9 in February, has meant slowly growing optimism about jobs and salaries, economists said, leading to 4 percent increase in consumer spending in the fourth quarter of 2010, the fastest pace since 2006. But economists warn that rising food and fuel prices could slow the pace of consumer spending. Consumers also paid down debt, which fell 0.1 percent to $13.4 trillion at the end of last year, the lowest level since 2004. American households also continued to pay off mortgage debt, which fell 0.3 percent in the fourth quarter. But the total financial obligations of U.S. households rose 0.2 percent as Americans took on more auto loans and student loans. Scarred by the lessons of the financial downturn, consumers are turning away from credit cards according to Daco, who found credit card usage on a downward trend over a few years. “The mentality is shifting,” he said. “During the recession, consumers realized it wasn’t safe to take on excessive amounts of debt, so people paid off balances and took on less debt.” On a national scale, government debt expanded by 14.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2010, down from 16 percent growth in the quarter before. Municipal debt, however, expanded at a faster rate, growing 7.9 percent in the last part of 2010 compared with 5.4 percent in the quarter before, emblematic of a growing crisis in American towns and cities.

Read the full article →

David Balto: The Bankers’ New Goat

March 11, 2011

According to the Biblical story, on the day that the people were to atone for the sins committed for the year, they would send a goat off from the village to its death. The goat symbolically carried the sins of the villagers and by casting it out the villagers were cleansed and forgiven by God. So began the tradition of picking a scapegoat which has, over the years, been refined and honed into an art form. A prime example comes from U.S. banks. These banks have had many reasons to cast blame elsewhere for their shortcomings. A remarkable example is the very loud discussion of checking fees. Some might say that the concept of free checking accounts has always been a myth. In fact, a Bank of America spokesperson said just that last summer: “Customers never had free checking accounts. They always paid for it in other ways, sometimes with penalty fees.” Yet the concept of free checking has been powerful enough that banks have searched for one excuse after another to justify getting rid of it. In November 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported that “banks are responding to the troubled economy by jacking up fees on their checking accounts to record amounts.” At the same time, other news outlets reported that the banks were charging record-high service fees and customer penalties to make up for losses from bad mortgage loans. Other banks said that they would raise fees due to industry consolidation and proposed increases in FDIC rates for deposit insurance. The truth, summed up nicely by an executive from TD Bank, was: “all banks have to be looking for ways to meet the requirement of shareholders.” That pressure means banks consistently leave no stone unturned in their drive for additional revenues. In May 2009, it was time for a new scapegoat. The Financial Services Roundtable and Bank of America claimed that with higher unemployment, customers became riskier, and higher fees were necessary. One could be excused for wondering why customers giving their own money to banks in checking accounts was risky. The added irony was that American consumers had only months before put up $700 million to bail out the banks for their own “risky” practices. The next sacrificial goats were a 2009 credit card reform bill and regulations of overdraft charges. As USA Today reported , banks responded to credit card regulations by “extending some of their most profitable — and controversial — credit card practices to checking accounts.” This provided a new, and politically convenient, source of blame. An amendment from Senator Durbin now follows as the latest goat. The amendment will eventually rein in the swipe fees that banks can charge. And, though it won’t take effect until July, the bankers have wasted no time raising checking fees and casting blame. It is interesting to note that when the reform first passed, Citi CEO Vikram Pandit was quoted by the New York Times saying that the regulations would not be a problem for Citi. Sensing a scapegoat, however, the banks are now aggressively blaming the Durbin amendment for forcing them to raise fees. The current blame game ignores the banks’ cries of raising fees over and over again over the past few years. And it ignores that in their haste for the latest scapegoat, banks have raised their fees long before the regulations have gone into effect. According to CNNMoney , as of January 24th U.S. Bank was one of the last banks in the nation to offer “free checking” but “that may be about to end.” Banks are always looking for ways to make more money. The bottom line is that even if swipe fee reform were to magically disappear, the banks would do all they could to charge more fees on their customers’ checking accounts. The banks have been doing this for years, since long before the Durbin Amendment was conceived, let alone passed. The pattern is getting old and weary. Banks will raise checking fees whenever and wherever they think they can get away with it. And they will blame any convenient development for their choices. Eventually, our ancestors gave up the practice of sending away a goat to atone for their sins. We can only hope the bankers reach a similar enlightened age and stop blaming others for their own business decisions. David Balto, is an antitrust attorney and former policy director at the Federal Trade Commission.

Read the full article →

Matt Kepnes: How to Save Money for Your Next Trip

March 6, 2011

Most people never make the leap into extended travel because they don’t think they can afford it. They envision needing tens of thousands of dollars to travel well — a daunting number to save for most. I remember when I began saving for my first trip around the world. I got a rough estimate of how much money I thought I needed and thought, “Woah. How will I ever save that much?” If you also fall into that same category of thought, here are some tips for saving money for your trip around the world: Eat In! Eating out is easily a big expense for almost everyone. Instead of having $10 lunches and $20 dinners, brown bag it to work and cook dinner at night. Even if you still go out once a week, a person can survive on groceries for around $60 per week. That’s a lot less than eating out every meal. This is the biggest D’uh! Tip, and while it may be inconvenient to cook all the time, the truth is that if you really want to supercharge your savings, changing your eating habits is the best way to do it. Cut the Coffee . Love your Starbucks? Well, Starbucks doesn’t love you or your bank account. Your daily cup of coffee averages out to $150 per month ($5 for a coffee). That’s enough money to travel around Southeast Asia for a week! If you drink more than one cup of coffee a day just think of quickly it all adds up. Give up coffee, switch to tea, or brew your own java. Coffee is the little thing that quietly drains your bank account without you ever noticing. Drink Less . Alcohol is expensive. Heck, even on the road, the biggest money suck is usually a night out. It may not be appealing to spend nights inside and not out with your friends, but spending a hundred dollars or more a week will really add up. Try to cut down on your evenings out. Have friends over, see a movie, watch TV, create a travel blog, or read a book. It’s not exciting but the goal is worth the sacrifice. And if you aren’t a big “going out” person, you’re already half way there! Lose the Car . Cars cost a lot of money. If you can, get rid of yours. You ‘re probably spending hundreds of dollars each month on gas and insurance. That money can be used while abroad and it’s not like you are going to need your car when you’re backpacking India. Learn to love the bus, ride the subway, or walk. It might not be feasible to get rid of your car completely, but you can certainly cut down on the amount of driving that you do. Not having a car may be inconvenient or make your commute longer, but it will save you lots of money. Plus, walking is good exercise after all. Move Out! Get rid of that apartment or bring in some roommates. Lowering your housing costs will allow you to see huge gains in your savings. If you can, try to move in with mom and dad. Then you’ll have no housing costs! It may kill your social life but, hey, a social life costs money anyways and you’re trying to save. If moving in with the folks isn’t an option, bring in a roommate instead. Turn your living room into a spare room and have a housemate! If you’re spending hundreds per month on rent, cutting that in half or reducing it to zero will give you the biggest whole number jump in your bank account. Switch Your Bank! This is more a tip for the road but it still helps. Get a bank account at Bank of America and use their ATM partners to avoid ATM fees when you travel . Get HSBC and use their worldwide ATMs and avoid fees. Get a Capital One account and never pay fees. Fees just drain money out of your bank account. Moreover, in Schwab Bank has no ATM fees at all. As you can see, there are many ways to avoid bank fees! Get a New Credit Card . Get a travel credit card that gives you free money, free rooms, or free flights. It’s less money you’ll have to spend later on. Travel credit cards usually give you huge sign up bonuses and they provide easy ways to rack up frequent flier miles, which can give you free flights or get you into business class. I received over 100,000 miles last year from credit card bonuses. Get a High Yield Savings Account . Now that your savings is going up, make it work for you. Don’t leave it in a savings account where you get .5% a month. Even though interest rates are low, you can still get 2% with some accounts. Get an online money market and actually make some money. It won’t be a lot but a little free money is better than no free money. For online banks, I like Emigrant Direct. Capital One and Discover bank also offer good rates. Keep the Change. One thing that really helped me save money quickly when I was saving for my trip was putting my change aside. At the end of every day, I put my change into a giant container. By the end of the year, my change had accumulated into over $500 USD. That’s a lot of change. I knew a friend who used to do it with dollar bills and had over $1,000. Everyday we “bleed” money. Stopping that bleeding can get us a lot of savings that we can use for travel. While most of these tips might have you living like a hermit, the real way to save money is to not spend it. You’ll want to have some excitement in your life while you’re home, but the trick is to find the cheap alternative. Moreover, you should always make your money work for you. When I was home, I invested my savings, I used high interest savings accounts, cash back cards; whatever it took because every extra dollar was more money on the road. At the end of the day, the more you save, the longer you can be on the road. Matthew Kepnes has been traveling around the world for the past 4.5 years. He runs the award winning budget travel site, Nomadic Matt’s Travel Site . For more information, you can visit his Facebook page or sign up for his RSS feed .

Read the full article →

Jason Alderman: Insurance Reality Check

March 3, 2011

When it comes to insurance, many people face the Goldilocks dilemma: Am I buying too much coverage, not enough, or just the right amount? Unfortunately, there’s no easy way to choose; and even when you do settle on coverage levels, your needs will probably change as your living situation evolves — say when you marry, divorce, have a baby or retire. So how do you determine the proper insurance levels while ensuring that you’re not wasting money on unneeded coverage — or worse, leaving yourself and your family exposed? Here are a few considerations for some of the more common insurance types: Health insurance . Everyone needs medical insurance, even the young and healthy. One serious accident or unexpected illness could wipe out your savings and plunge you into debt or even bankruptcy. If you’re covered through your employer, carefully compare all plans offered. The one with the lowest premium may not necessarily be your best option. Consider how other factors add up — things like deductibles, copayments, allowed/disallowed benefits, out-of-network charges (important if your doctor/hospital isn’t in the network) and whether your regular medications are covered under the plans’ drug formularies. Also compare costs to cover you and your children as dependents under your spouse’s plan options, if available. Just make sure the coverage is comparable for the price, and exercise caution if you fear your spouse may be vulnerable to a layoff. If you’re not covered though your employer, you may have other options: If recently laid off, ask about COBRA continuation coverage through your former employer. If under age 26, you may be able to enroll in a parent’s plan, even if married or not living at home, thanks to the Affordable Care Act. (See HealthCare.gov for details.) High-deductible plans provide comprehensive coverage for catastrophic illnesses at much lower premiums than comparable low-deductible plans. An insurance broker can help you find appropriate private coverage — try the National Association of Health Underwriters if you don’t know one. But be aware that even minor preexisting conditions may render you ineligible. Most states provide high-risk insurance for people who don’t qualify for private insurance. It’s costly, but no one can be turned away. Visit the National Association of State Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans ( NASCHIP ) for information. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) insurance may provide coverage if your COBRA has expired and you don’t qualify for private insurance. Eligibility rules are very complicated so consult a knowledgeable insurance broker. Life insurance . This one really depends on your family situation. If you’re single with no dependents, you may get by with minimal or no life insurance — although you may want enough to cover your own funeral expenses. But if your family depends on your income, many experts recommend buying coverage worth at least five to 10 times your annual pay. A few other considerations: If you’re young and healthy you may be able to get a better deal on your own than through your employer’s plan. After your kids are grown you may be able to lower your coverage; although carefully consider your spouse’s retirement needs. Most people don’t need life insurance on their children, since children don’t have earnings to offset; but you might want spousal coverage if you depend on his or her income or would need to pay for child care to keep working full time. If you’re divorced and alimony and/or child support is included in the settlement, buy a life insurance on the person paying it, naming the receiving ex-spouse as beneficiary. SmartMoney.com has an online calculator that can help you determine how much coverage you should have. Automobile insurance . Almost every state requires insurance if you own or drive a car, and for good reason: It protects you financially should you cause an accident or be hit by an uninsured driver. Rates may vary considerably depending on such factors as: coverage and deductible levels for liability, uninsured motorist and collision; work commute; age and driving record; vehicle year and model; number of insured family members; and security features (alarm, airbags, secured parking, etc.). Ruth Stroup, a Farmers Insurance Group agent from Oakland, California sees many of her new clients coming in with ill-fitting policies. She offers a few tips for lowering car insurance costs: Shop around — rates vary widely among carriers. Increasing your deductibles from $250 to $1,000 might lower your premium by 15 to 30 percent. Ask about discounts for safe drivers, age 55+, linked homeowners/renters insurance, etc. With collision and comprehensive coverage, most carriers pay only up to the vehicle’s actual cash value, minus deductibles. Thus, some people with older cars drop this coverage, since repairs often cost more than the car’s worth. But remember: If you drop this coverage and later rent a car, you’ll need to purchase the rental agency’s collision and comprehensive coverage to be fully protected. “My biggest tip on auto insurance is to make sure your liability insurance relates to your net worth and income,” said Stroup. “It only takes one accident to wipe out your savings. Transferring this risk to an insurance company is very inexpensive for good drivers.” Homeowners/Renters insurance . Your home is probably your largest investment, so don’t risk losing it and its contents through an unforeseen disaster, accident or robbery. Renters also need insurance: Your building itself is probably insured by the owner, but your contents are not. You — not your landlord — are responsible for replacing damaged or stolen possessions. A few tips: Review your coverage periodically to adjust for inflation, home improvements, new possessions, change in marital/family status, etc. The market is competitive, so compare your rate with other insurance carriers. Make sure to get “apples to apples” quotes, since policies may have varying provisions. Replacement cost insurance is more expensive than actual cash value insurance but may be worth the difference. For example, the former would replace a stolen 10-year-old TV with a new one, whereas the latter would deduct 10 years’ of depreciation from the settlement. Buy additional coverage on expensive items like jewelry, art and computers, which may have limited coverage. Coverage you may not need . Many people opt to forego these plans: Primary mortgage insurance (PMI). As soon as the outstanding balance on your mortgage drops below 80 percent of your home’s value, federal law allows you to drop this coverage — coverage which protects the lender, not you. Extended warranties. These policies often duplicate coverage already provided in a standard warranty; plus, your credit card may provide its own warranty on purchases. Flight accident insurance. The risk of plane crashes is miniscule, and you may already be covered if you bought the ticket with a credit card — read your policy for rules. Before buying a standalone policy on a boat, RV or other big-ticket item, compare the cost of adding a rider to your homeowner’s insurance policy. Don’t forego critical coverage to save a few bucks: It’s not worth it in the long run. This article is intended to provide general information and should not be considered legal, tax or financial advice. It’s always a good idea to consult a legal, tax or financial advisor for specific information on how certain laws apply to you and about your individual financial situation. To participate in a free, online Financial Literacy and Education Summit on April 4, 2011, go to Practical Money Skills .

Read the full article →

Looking For A Credit Card? It Pays To Be Rich

February 21, 2011

NEW YORK — It pays to be rich if you need a credit card. A year after sweeping credit card regulations upended the industry, banks are showering perks and rewards on big spenders with sterling credit scores. And they’re socking customers with spottier histories with higher interest rates, lower credit limits and new annual fees. In some cases the riskiest customers are being dropped altogether. “When you look at the regulations, it’s a net positive for consumers,” says Peter Garuccio, a spokesman for the American Bankers Association. “But there have been some trade-offs.” The widening differences between how customers are treated is largely the result of new constraints on card issuers. The Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act, or the CARD Act, was signed into law with great fanfare at a time when borrowers across the country were struggling to make payments. It swept away several practices that for years had grated on cardholders. A key change is that issuers can no longer hike rates on existing balances or in the first year an account is open. The penalty charge for late payments is also capped at $25 per violation. And monthly statements must also clearly spell out the projected interest costs of making only minimum payments. The regulations are already transforming the cards on the market. To make up for the drop in revenue, banks are imposing new annual fees and hiking interest rates – but mostly for those with the lowest credit scores. The best customers are more prized than ever. Here’s how credit card offers are changing for consumers in three credit brackets: The A-list (excellent credit): A clean payment history and a healthy appetite for spending put these customers at the top of the credit pyramid. And the courtship of this group is intensifying. Prior to the recession, 44 percent of all credit card offers were mailed to this group. Now they receive 64 percent of all mailings, according to market researcher Synovate. The terms are getting sweeter too: _Customers can earn rewards at five times the standard rate with a premium card being tested by Bank of America. The acceleration applies to select purchases, and the $75 annual fee is waived for those who have at least $50,000 with the bank. _Generous balance transfer options abound. Think 0 percent interest for up to a year on new purchases, and as long as 18 months on transfers. _Foreign transaction fees are a source of annoyance for the well-to-do, who travel abroad more often. American Express, Chase and Citi have all announced they’re doing away with the fees on select cards marketed to their wealthiest customers. In other cases, banks are going all out with enhanced perks. With Citi’s new ThankYou Prestige card, customers who book airline tickets get one complimentary ticket for a companion each year. The card’s annual fee is $500. That underscores another attractive trait among these customers – the willingness to pay handsomely for premium services. This group’s propensity to spend is also attractive because issuers collect fees of 1 to 2 percent from merchants whenever their cardholders make purchases. The B-list (good to fair credit): The next swath of consumers have solid credit histories, but may have more modest spending habits or make an occasional late payment. Many of these customers are seeing an uptick in offers for rewards cards, but the terms aren’t dramatically different. A few rungs down the credit ladder, however, are those with spottier records. These customers make late payments often enough to raise red flags or regularly carry balances close to their credit limits. They may not be financial disasters, but they’re not entirely reliable either. Most of these B-listers still won’t have any trouble getting approved for a new credit card, but they’ll have to agree to higher interest rates and annual fees, even for plain-vanilla cards. Consider the following: _A new $59 annual fee is being imposed on select Bank of America customers. Notice of the fee was mailed out this month to cardholders who fit certain risk profiles, such as carrying a balance close to their credit limit or regularly making late payments. Customers were also targeted if they didn’t have any other relationship with the bank, such as a checking account or mortgage. _The move by Bank of America isn’t unusual. Most credit cards marketed to this group now have annual fees of about $39 to $59. A year ago, the same customers could easily find similar cards with no fees. _The average interest rate offered to those with merely fair credit scores is 22.57 percent, up from 19.07 percent about a year ago, according to CardHub.com. The higher prices make sense in light of the new limits on penalty fees and rate hikes, which make these B-list customers far less profitable. Consumer advocates say knowing the costs upfront is nevertheless an improvement to the bait-and-switch tactics employed before the regulations took effect. In the past, introductory interest rates could quickly escalate and catch cardholders off guard. The prices are simply more transparent now, says Ruth Susswein of Consumer Action. The D-List (poor credit): For the riskiest consumers with an established streak of defaults and late payments, the recession isn’t the only reason the options have dried up. The CARD Act means banks can no longer freely raise rates or impose fees to manage their default risk, says Dennis Moroney, a credit card analyst with TowerGroup. So when they issue cards, “they have to have their ducks in a row from a risk point of view.” There’s no doubt the riskiest customers have become toxic in this environment. In 2009 alone, banks wrote off a record $83.27 billion in credit card debt. It’s no wonder that card issuers have slashed available credit overall since 2007 by nearly a third, or $1.5 trillion, according to TowerGroup. With bigger issuers such as Capital One the choices for customers with tarnished credit are pretty much limited to secured credit cards. These cards are intended to help borrowers rebuild credit, but require deposits and offer small credit limits. There are often activation fees as well. Another telltale sign of the industry’s growing reluctance to wade into this market? First Premier, a long-time player in the subprime credit arena, is no longer offering new unsecured lines of credit. After the CARD Act took effect, the bank tested a card that charged $75 in first-year fees for a $300 credit line. It had a 79.9 percent interest rate. Those terms apparently haven’t been a success. It’s unclear whether First Premier will resume offering unsecured credit cards. If not, consumer advocates say the disappearance of such easy-to-get, high-cost cards wouldn’t be such a terrible development for those struggling to dig out of debt.

Read the full article →

Scott Gamm: Credit CARD Act One Year Later: Was it a Success?

February 21, 2011

One year ago on February 22, 2010, the epic Credit CARD Act took effect, which aimed to reform the entire credit card industry and help young people under age 21 steer clear of credit card dangers. Now one year later, was the CARD Act a success? The simple answer: yes and no. Studies published last week show how the CARD Act has benefited consumers, despite opponents who claimed the laws would only prompt banks to think of new ways to make money. Among the specifics of the CARD Act included clear and easy to understand disclosures on credit card statements. According to the Center for Responsible Lending, “an estimated $12.1 billion in previously obscure yearly charges are now stated more clearly in credit card offers.” Another component of the CARD Act dealt with minimum payments. Credit card companies must now disclose exactly how much money in interest it will cost and how long it will take consumers to get out of debt if they only pay the minimum payment. According to a survey conducted by Consumer Reports in July 2010, 23% of those of participated in the survey are now making payments greater than the minimum as a result of the warnings on the credit card bill. Interest rates on credit cards have increased. According to the Federal Reserve, interest rates on credit cards towards the end of 2010 on average were 13.44%, compared to about 12.08% in 2008. The credit card industry would argue that the increase in interest rates was due to the CARD Act and more rules and regulation. However, according to a study released last week from CardHub.com, the rise in interest rates was due to the unstable economy and not the CARD Act. CARD Act Fails to Help Students The CARD Act aimed to protect students from credit card dangers by requiring those under age 21 to have a cosigner on the account and prohibiting credit card companies from sending pre-approved credit card offers to those under age 21 via mail. According to a study released last month from the University of Houston, 76% of undergraduate students received credit card offers in the mail over the past year. While it’s still legal for companies to send credit card offers in the mail (pre-approved offers, however, are illegal and against the CARD Act), this study shows how willing credit card companies are to find any and all loopholes. Here’s a tip: if you’re a student and receive any type of credit card offer in the mail, rip it up and throw it away! Credit cards offers sent via mail are usually littered with high fees and high interest rates. Instead, apply for a secured credit card or visit CreditCardConnection.org to search for credit unions in your area. While the CARD Act was a win in terms of more transparency and disclosures, it’s up to the consumer to ensure that they are not getting ripped off by credit card companies. Best option: use cash – you won’t have to worry about what credit card companies do and you’ll never accrue credit card debt. Scott Gamm is the founder of the personal finance website HelpSaveMyDollars.com . He has appeared on NBC’s TODAY, MSNBC, Fox Business Network, Fox News, ABC News and CBS.

Read the full article →

Peggy McColl: Building Momentum for Your Membership Site

February 16, 2011

So you have created all of the features of your membership site. You have a great sales page and you have promoted it through colleagues and social media and you have some initial members. Now how do you get more traction once all of the pieces are in place? Whether your membership program has been online for 4 weeks or 4 months, there are always ways to expand your marketing reach and gain more interest. 1. Give away a downloadable bonus gift – Make is something they can’t get anywhere else unless they are a member. In exchange for the valuable content, you now have their email address and you can periodically check in with them and share some of the topics that are being discussed on your member calls, your tips sheets, or your interviews. 2. Sell the monthly membership for $1.00 instead of the regular price for one risk-free month . What that does is capture their email address and credit card information. They are now included in a payment system that will be charged the next month. Of course they can cancel at any time. 3. Offer a month for free – with credit card information . You can do the one month for free offer as well and ask for credit card information – the challenge is if you ask for credit card information upfront people become suspicious that they will get roped into something when they simply wanted to access the membership for free. 4. Offer a month for free – without credit card information. If you offer a month for free without a credit card you obviously will not convert as many of those leads into customers but you will probably get a far greater response because no payment is required. This gives people an opportunity to try it. 5. You MUST stay connected . Regardless of what method you used to earn their contact information, you must make sure you stay in touch with people. If you constantly stay in touch in reasonable increments that are all lined up and scheduled, you will be able to convert some of your free members into buyers. Make sure your auto-responder messages are inviting… “I hope you are enjoying your monthly free membership….take a look at these additional products.” “You have probably already accessed the site and taken a look at tip this month but did you know…(and highlight some other strategies, etc.)” “As a member you also get these privileges… “If you want to have access to these case studies and success stories every single month, it is only19 and you can get signed up right now….before your trial period ends….” Always be thinking about the different ways you can provide ongoing content to your potential customer – for free or for sale. Peggy McColl is a New York Times best-selling author and an internationally recognized expert in the field of personal and professional development and Internet marketing.

Read the full article →

Scott Gerber: How To Bridge Cash Flow Gaps

February 10, 2011

Q: While my company generates great total annual revenues, we often find ourselves in month-to-month cash flow crunches. What tools and strategies can I employ to bridge cash flow gaps and create a more steady cash flow? –Laura, North Dakota The following answers are provided by the Young Entrepreneur Council , an advocacy group founded by serial entrepreneur Scott Gerber that works to take action against youth unemployment by teaching young people how to build successful companies. The council’s members include Generation Y entrepreneurs and experts in a variety of fields. A: Offer Discounts For Pre-Payment The fact that you have “great total annual revenues” but sometimes struggle with monthly cash flow leads me to believe your fiscal priorities may need to be reexamined. Perhaps you are simply spending too aggressively and trying to grow too fast. Identify your overall trends (there should be some consistency) and challenge your greatest expenses to see what you can outsource on a need-to basis. –Kent Healy ( @Kent_Healy ), founder of DontGetBurnedBlog.com A: Focus on Revenue Generating Activities If you’ve been in business for a while and are growing revenue year over year, then ask your bank for a line of credit. This can be an effective way of bridging your cash flow in cyclical businesses, or businesses where there is large short-term investment happening. You’ll be surprised how easy getting a line of credit can be–if your business is a few years old and has been growing. –Eric Bahn ( @beatthegmat ), founder of Beat The GMAT A: Create a Continuity Program If you can’t get a line of credit (need 2 years tax returns with profits) from the bank to allow you to dip and pay back when times are good, you must have a month to month budget based on forecasting revenue vs expenses by using past numbers to form the budget. In the good times, you must put away more money instead of distributing it as profits. This will be used during the bad months and take away cash flow problems. –Michael Sinensky ( @msinensky ), co-founder of Fun Bars A: 0% Interest Is Your Best Friend

Read the full article →

Credit Cards Horror Stories: ‘My Credit Card Had A 79.9% APR’

February 7, 2011

Toni Riss had a credit card with a 79.9% interest rate. The 58-year-old woman from Texas thought she struck gold when she found the First Premier card, which is aimed specifically at consumers with poor credit. “I had an accident on a motorcycle, went through bankruptcy to pay for medical expenses and my credit went to hell in a hand basket, so I was looking for credit cards for people with bad credit” Riss said.

Read the full article →

US Credit Card ABS Remain Positive

February 4, 2011

Performance of US credit card assetbacked securities was positive for the second month in a row in January according to Fitch Ratings credit card ABS index

Read the full article →

CFPB May Crowdsource Payday Lender Crackdown

February 3, 2011

WASHINGTON — The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rolled out a preliminary version of its website on Thursday, and with it a few indications about the agency’s plans to crowdsource prospective regulations that may soon target shady payday lenders. The CFPB hopes to use its website at consumerfinance.gov to collect data not just from banks, but from consumers, in order to monitor trends in various lending markets. While they’re still devising specific plans, the agency hopes to have an active public presence, with a simple, closely-watched platform for borrowers to submit complaints. Elizabeth Warren, an adviser to President Barack Obama who is charged with setting up the bureau, told HuffPost in October that she hopes to use crowdsourcing to enhance the regulator’s impact. One of the agency’s crowdsourcing initiatives may involve payday lenders and check-cashing shops. Because these businesses are often small operations, they can be difficult for federal officials to track, appearing in a neighborhood only to disappear a few weeks later. Citizens could organize to take photos of new payday lending or check cashing products, and upload those photos to the CFPB website. That could help notify other members of the neighborhood about potentially-troublesome local companies, as well as helping the regulator build a list of shops to investigate. As Warren said in a speech at the University of California at Berkeley in October, “Through crowd-sourcing technology, consumers can deal collectively with those who would take advantage of them–and can reward those who provide excellent products and services.” Payday lenders provide short-term, high-interest loans to consumers that critics say are designed to be difficult to repay, often encouraging consumers to repay one payday loan with another. This can lead to a vicious — and expensive — cycle of debt. Members of the U.S. military are a particular target for high-interest lenders. A 2006 Department of Defense report concluded that payday lending was having a negative effect on military readiness and troop morale. The CFPB is yet to formally detail any specific programs, but the bureau hopes to submit new consumer-protection ideas to the public on its website and allow borrowers to voice approval or disapproval through an online voting system. The bureau’s website stresses the struggles facing borrowers. A “Protecting You” page features three stories from borrowers who have had problems with their bank, emphasizing that the CFPB hopes to respond to similar cases. The new website’s design represents a considerable change of tone from the consumer-complaint resources available from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, previously the ostensible go-to for borrowers. The OCC’s consumer call center, based in Houston, has long been criticized by state banking regulators and public-interest groups for being inattentive to consumer complaints. In December 2007 testimony before the House Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, Ed Mierzwinski, Consumer Affairs Director for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, noted that some state regulators referred to the call center as “OCC’s black hole in Houston.” The OCC, which declined to comment for this story, rolled out its helpwithmybank.gov website in 2007 in response to criticism that its call center is clunky, but many consumer advocates say the regulator remains clunky and unhelpful. The banking horror stories on the CFPB’s site are reproduced below: Karen, 32, is an airport security supervisor from Pennsylvania. When she refinanced her mortgage, her broker promised her a low fixed-rate loan but instead gave her two more expensive loans. Why? She didn’t know it at the time, but giving her both a large adjustable-rate first loan and a second smaller loan increased the fees she paid to the broker. Karen told the lender what she had in savings and her income, but the broker changed the numbers on her form. (Some brokers changed numbers in order to make borrowers eligible for higher loan amounts than they could otherwise qualify for–and to close a deal for a bigger mortgage that will give the broker bigger fees.) The broker scheduled Karen for a late-night closing and did not give her the closing documents at the time of closing, so she was not aware of these changes. The consumer bureau will work to prevent similar abuses, in part by enforcing the requirement in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that mortgage lenders document and verify a borrower’s income or assets before making a loan to ensure that the borrower can afford to repay it. Robin, 55, is a seventh-grade science teacher from Georgia. Her credit card company increased the rate on her existing credit card balance from 10.90% to 17.90%, even though she paid her account on time every month. The increase has been particularly difficult for her family because her husband’s landscaping business has been hard hit recently by the financial crisis. The consumer bureau will enforce the Credit CARD Act, which President Obama signed in 2009 to ban credit card issuers from arbitrarily raising rates on existing balances and other unfair practices. The CFPB will also be responsible for updating the credit card rules moving forward. Andrew, 62, is a retired Baltimore police officer and Vietnam veteran who manages a fitness center for seniors. Andrew had both a primary checking account and a separate “veteran’s account” in which he received $123 in benefits each month. In 2009, his bank made a mistake that caused confusion about a replacement debit card for one of his accounts. The bank had also automatically enrolled Andrew’s veteran’s account, including transactions using the debit card, in “overdraft” protection that he never asked for–a practice that has since been prohibited. When Andrew used the replacement card–expecting it to withdraw from his primary checking account–he was hit with hundreds of dollars in overdraft fees on his veteran’s account. Andrew discovered the bank’s error and explained the situation, but the bank was willing to refund only part of the fees. The consumer bureau will examine big banks to ensure that they are following the rules that now require banks to give consumers a real choice of whether to join overdraft protection programs for ATM and debit card transactions. The CFPB will update those rules to respond to changes in the marketplace over time.

Read the full article →

Zannah P. Becker: Walking Away: My Story

February 3, 2011

It has been a year since we decided to walk away from our mortgage on a condominium that was underwater financially, but also was saddled with the additional burden of a construction defect lawsuit. Our foreclosure went fairly quickly, thankfully, and it was eight months between the last payment we made and the auction date. The hard facts: We stopped paying our mortgage in December 2009 and the foreclosure went through in August 2010. We owned condominium so we continued to pay our monthly dues and our property taxes. We checked our credit score this January 2011 and the score had gone from the 700′s to 615. During the time we were in foreclosure we received twice weekly phone calls from Chase- none of which did I answer. When the first call came in I let it hit voice mail, checked the message and added that number to my phone so I always knew when they called. I received numerous letters of collection from Chase. We actually received one from the mortgage insurance company at the end of our foreclosure process urging us to make our mortgage payments. I assume this is because they did not want to have to pay the bank for the insured mortgage. I thought it was pretty funny and added their letter to the shredding pile. We attended our foreclosure proceeding, which was held outside of an office building at a picnic table. Fifty or more real estate agents with property lists and stacks of cashier’s checks circled like vultures waiting for the prime properties to be read off. Ours was not a prime property so it reverted to the bank. It was an interesting process to see in the flesh. Our foreclosure was on a Friday and on Monday a Fed-ex letter arrives from Chase again urging us to make payments. Again I thought this was pretty funny as the foreclosure was now done and over with. I mailed keys into the real estate agency that took over the management of the property from- Not Chase- but now Fannie Mae- our mortgage had been sold at some point- we were never notified. A week or so later I received a letter from an attorney- many attorneys sent us letters along with real estate agents all claiming they could help us. This letter stated if we were tenants of the unit we needed to send in our lease. Since we had moved out I sent no paperwork and ignored their letter. The next week I received another letter saying I was being taken to court for not vacating the premises and had to send a letter to them and the court by said date or face paying legal and court costs. Furious as I was considering I had sent keys to the real estate agent managing the property and had moved out in March, I filed a letter with documentation with the court and sent the same letter to the attorney. I never heard from them again so I assume it was finalized and no one had to waste any further time on the matter. We did not have difficulty renting a home during our foreclosure and have not suffered any recriminations from our creditors at this point. One credit card which ironically we had closed already and are paying off sent us a letter telling us they were lowering our credit limit. Again we thought this somewhat humorous and added it to the shred pile. I just received a tax document in the mail, which has to do with our walking away from our mortgage. I have yet to do our taxes and am hoping that it will not penalize us financially. We shall see. The condo: Our mortgage was a zero down, fixed interest rate loan from Washington Mutual with whom I had been a customer for five years or more at that time. We purchased a property that was less than the approved amount they gave us for a home loan. We sat down and did the math and figured with our debts and wanting to eat more than rice and beans what amount we could actually afford for our monthly housing payment. I was excited to finally own a piece of property, my own home, even if it was just 1,023 sq ft and a condominium to boot. My husband had wanted to keep renting but I just wanted out of that feeling of being beholden to some random landlord and their whims. Somehow being beholden to a faceless corporation did not bother me at the time. Perhaps because of my living with credit debt so long I was just used it and it was comfortable to me. Also rental rates in the area we lived in at the time were sky high as people were demanding a lot for very little. I felt we would get just as tiny an apartment renting as we would buying a place. Ideally I wanted a house but the cost was too great for us to attempt. I had also just lost my maternal grandmother who raised me, to a year long struggle with Congestive Heart Failure. I cared for her during her illness and was there with her when she passed. I was also caring for my then two year old daughter. I craved stability and a safe shelter out of the storm my life had become. At first we were fairly happy, the space was very small for us, a family of three, but it was alright. For a long time I clung to the idea it was my house, I owned it, and somehow finally I was one of those people that was not a “renter”. A respectable homeowner- that nod of approval you receive from banks, and other financial institutions when you go in to apply for a loan, buy a car, or even get a cell phone with family plan at AT&T. Somehow you are suddenly worth more in the eyes of the world. I was not a different person in any way except I paid an obscene amount of money every month on a mortgage that included mortgage insurance. Since we lived in a condominium we paid dues each month as well so we were at around $3K a month for a tiny little place in the heart of a busy neighborhood that was honestly never quiet. In the first six months of our moving into the building the condominium board had hired an attorney to proceed with legal action against the developer of the building. I was on the board and was privy to what was going on with regard to the lawsuit and the construction defects. It was then that somehow my bubble burst over my head and I thought what have we done? What have I done? What can we do to get out of this mess? Should we stick it out? Should we try to sell or rent our place? I researched our options with a feeling of dread building in my stomach. I contacted several real estate agents that told me a property in litigation has zero chance of being sold. I listed our unit for rent for several months without as much as a nibble. About this time the credit card companies started raising interest rates on customers to unjustifiable amounts. Again we always paid on time and were never late. We carried a balance, fairly high, but always we paid and on time. When the letters came out with the either or option; either you close your account and keep your lower rate and pay us off, or you pay a higher interest rate and keep using the card- we closed the accounts. It was painful because that crutch of credit we had always had available to make up the difference in expenses for groceries or needed items suddenly vanished. A crutch we should have never depended on but I am being honest here it was there and we used it, we had to eat. It was not long after the credit card rate hikes that I reviewed our property value assessment from the tax office and noted our value had dropped by about 10K The second year in the condo was the year I started getting sick. I would have bronchitis and be treated with antibiotics and be back after a day or so of being off the medication with another bout of bronchitis. I went through five of these in a row, I also had tracheitis, and severe sinus infections too numerous to count. I finally decided it was the environment I was living in since the doctors could find nothing wrong with me through blood tests and the fact that I don’t smoke or spend time around cigarette smoke. One of the owners in the building found mold in his walls when he was remodeling his unit. They found mold in a few other areas of the building but lawyers did not want to pursue this as part of the lawsuit. Financial Background : At first it was liberating to have a month, particularly being December as we celebrate Christmas, which we did not have a huge mortgage payment and little else left over. We did not spend extravagantly on gifts as some might assume. I paid bills that were due but that had been piling up a bit over the last few months, not credit debt, but those additional fees that one owes from doctor visits and other medical related expenses. It was a relief to my ever acid churning gut to put checks in the mail and get those nagging invoices out of my To Be paid file. I bought groceries and not just a few bags but the liberating feeling of filling ones pantry for a change. I did not have to walk to the market with calculator in one hand and coupons in the other and make choices between what we had to have to get by and a few simple extras like a bottle of diet soda for my husband or a small treat for our daughter. Not to say that I did not use my coupons, watch for sales and shop other stores for lower prices. Being strapped for cash for so long starts to leave a mark on you psychologically. You get in the habit of not having funds to spend on much of anything, food or otherwise. Pinching pennies becomes a way of life to the extreme. While we did get Christmas gifts it was nothing expensive, we bought things like new socks and underwear because our essentials were getting a bit threadbare. A new pair of shoes for my husband because he had worn his shoes down walking 25 minutes to and from a free park & ride, rain or shine, every day to save money on parking expenses. I can’t recall how many birthdays and other gift type holidays we skipped as far as gifts go, and how many times we had to postpone a birthday dinner for ourselves indefinitely because the funds were just not available for anything accept our debts and mortgage expenses. Neither my husband nor I grew up with much in the way of money. My family, consisting of a mother, grandmother and myself never owned anything with regard to real estate. We never even had a car when I was growing up; we took the bus or walked. I stood in food lines with my grandmother as a small child observing at that time that most of the people in line were elderly and looked just like everyone else. We all received a large block of orange Government Issue cheese, sometimes the white labeled can of mystery meat and a few other staples. Oddly I did not feel humiliated in any way. I was just there observing what went on and how people survived. We canned our fruits and vegetables, used coupons, scrimped to get by and never had any savings because there was never anything left to save. My grandmother was on disability; my mother worked full time and went to school at night. There was no support from my father. We paid the rent, utilities, grocery bills, and daydreamed because that was all we could afford to do. Actually we were really great library patrons during those years. I love to read and libraries were free. We had no credit debt at that time in my life. The experience of eviction because we could not pay the ever increasing rent fees demanded of us, the poor treatment that we received because we were “renters” and could not supply proof of income that could pay double the monthly rent and also have enough saved for first, last and deposit left a mark on me. I hate renting! I hate leasing! I hate being beholden to someone’s idea of what a good person is and that means having money. If you don’t have lots of it in savings or on your balance sheet then somehow you are less of a person than someone who does. We moved a lot — 21 times by the time I was 20. I have moved a few times since then of my own volition. I wanted to own my home for as long as I can remember. The idea was that it was mine and that I could live there safely without fear of eviction or persecution from a landlord that decided that he wanted to double the monthly rent telling us we had 30 days to get out or pay up. The truth is in this country if you are a home owner then you are an established respected individual versus the poor schmuck that has little to their name in assets, even if they are just as hard working and decent as the person who owns property. As I grew older finances in our lives improved some but we always rented apartments and never had a car. My mother got into credit debt when I was about nine years old. She did what she thought was the more responsible thing and went Chapter 13 instead straight bankruptcy. I hated her for that since again we had no money. Every month we made a trek downtown to the offices of Paul Wolf (yes that was his name and I remember it well) and made her debt payment. Trust me any time I asked for anything, dance classes, new clothes, a trip to a nearby city, a weekend matinee movie, I was always reminded where every single penny of our extra money went- to Paul Wolf and my mother’s misguided ideas of doing the right thing. She would even whip out the checkbook and show me what money we did not have and what money we had and where it was spent. I started working early, volunteer work at first, and then paid work at 16. At 17 I was standing on my own pretty well and working full time at a now defunct retailer. I was offered a credit card by Citibank. I applied for it thinking I might get $500 which would be nice as I was starting college early while I worked retail. In the mail arrives a $10,000 Visa and I thought I had hit the lottery. My grandmother had counseled me closely on finance and how I had to pay off my credit card each month, how I should save money for my future, that I should always pay my bills on time and always maintain a good credit score as this was the key to opening doors for my future financially. If I wanted a home, a car, loans, etc I had to have an excellent credit score. Well I listened to two of those pieces of advice; I listened to all of it, but ended up only following through on two items. I always paid my bills on time and always maintained a high credit score. That $10,000 was just the beginning because other credit cards seemingly appeared in my hands like magic. Not one of them had a limit under $1,000. I had reported my income honestly, which was a retail hourly income in the 1990′s. No way did I make enough to actually qualify for any of this money but there it was and here I was finally being able to buy things I wanted like new clothes more than a couple of times a year. I became like many people, a slave to my credit cards, my entire income went to the credit card payments and I lived off the available credit. A nasty hamster wheel of a cycle to live in but once you are there, there is no way out. I did not want to throw in the towel and file bankruptcy. I made the bills and felt like somehow someway I would earn the money to pay it off. I went to college at night and worked full time during the day and after eight long years earned an AA degree and managed to work my way up from a phone operator to a manager in the finance department. My debt traveled with me and I finally got to a financial point where I could start getting rid of my debts. Slowly I started paying some off and always if there was a tax refund a credit card got paid off or down. When I met my husband I was 40K in debt but managing the payments, although I had nothing in savings. I wanted to save but there was no chance of that with my bills. I went to a branch of Washington Mutual- now Chase and applied for a loan for the full amount of my debt. I wanted to pay them $800 a month on the debt and close all my credit accounts, and pay off my debt in about five years. They refused to even consider it since I had no collateral, I had not purchased a car or bought a home, but they offered me a line of credit instead. I took the line of credit and moved a higher interest amount onto it and continued to pay my bills. I paid faithfully on these debts I made for years; I still pay them every month without fail. I have never been late and never once defaulted. I made those debts and it is my responsibility to pay it off. Financial Truths: My husband purchased and read through a book entitled “Web of Debt” by E. H. Brown and wow what an eye opener it was for us. While I don’t propose to endorse the entire book and its contents, since I was never a student of economics, but the base facts of who controls our currency and the history thereof remain invaluable. We are taught to trust that banks have the funds to loan us for homes, cars and lines of credit. We are taught that they have assets that have value and that somewhere in the country is a big vault full of actual currency that belongs to the bank. When the truth is they create money out of thin air. When we opened our mortgage account with Washington Mutual they simply added an account with a dollar entry under our name. They never removed that amount of money from an existing account of available funds they had to loan. There is not enough actual physical currency circulating in the country to cover the amount of debts that are out there. It is an odd realization to find that the Federal Reserve is not a Federal Government institution. The Federal Reserve is a private corporation owned by some of the largest banks in our country. It is rather ironic that we have spent so much time and money bailing out banks that are part of the Federal Reserve, the private corporation which dictates how much money is available to us as a country and at what rate of interest we must pay for the privilege of using said currency. We are taught to feel we owe our loyalty to the financial institutions we do business with because they care about us as consumers, even as people. What I learned from my experience of homeownership and walking away from our mortgage was that it was all lie. The bank was not interested in us as consumers or as people. Even with a high credit score in the 700′s they would not consider lowering our interest rate. Somehow we did not qualify but then I don’t think there really is an average person who qualifies for the best interest rate available. To me the system as it was based on credit scores, homeownership, and responsible debt management has to be reevaluated. I have heard financial analysts try and convince people that things are like they used to be. That credit scores matter, that homeownership means something, that we should save our money and pay off our debts. Am I irresponsible for walking away from a money pit that I could never sell and could not live in and be healthy? No I am not! I chose life instead of being owned by a thing. For a brief period it gave me a false sense of security and of self worth financially. Now I look back and see the illusion that we are taught to buy into as consumers. Do I still pay our monthly credit debts? Yes I pay them their minimum payment amount every month and they can have just that until they finally go away. I am in no hurry to pay them off. Will we pay more interest over time doing this? Of course we will but then again in this economy if I take the extra we have and pay off a debt, if my husband loses his job next month then I will have nothing to live on at all. You can’t trust your credit cards to be there and you certainly can’t expect empathy from them if you are out of a job and need a month or two leniency. Do I blame the banks that gave me credit for my credit card debt? The error I see in their actions was this: giving a 17 year old a credit card for $10,000 and then other companies for sending me cards without my having solicited their product. Is it my fault I went into credit card debt? – Absolutely. Without hesitation I take full responsibility and still comply with my end of the agreement by always making my monthly payments. Credit cards gave me the means to pay for a college degree when I could not have paid it otherwise. The naysayers out there will wag their fingers, and shake their heads. “You could have saved for it,” they would say. Certainly I could have remained in a low paying job, barley getting by and tucked my pennies under my mattress hoping one day I might be able to attend college and better myself. “Student Loans,” I hear people shout at me. I considered it and even filled out the paperwork but then shredded it. Why? Because I was struggling to an AA degree paid for. I had yet to even make it to an actual University and I was contemplating taking out student loans? I thought it foolish and decided that using my credit cards was a better option. Save student loans for a bachelor’s degree at a University where the fees are truly out of reach. You ask me: I am willing to pay off my credit debt but not my mortgage why? Because I could actually pay off the credit debt and because I received something for the debt I created. I paid for my college education with those credit cards because I could not get financial aid outside of applying for student loans. With the mortgage debt I feel like the bank came out even and then some. They have the property back in excellent condition and they made money on what was basically a rental for over two years from us. They can sell that property again when the market rebounds or rent it in the interim. Plus they had us paying mortgage insurance on the property so they get payment from that as well. To me the differences in walking away from a mortgage and paying off credit debt are quite clear. I honestly see no changes in finance for our future as country. We have a definite division of class now, rich and poor. Few of us live in the middle any longer and those that do; we hang on by a thread and prayer.

Read the full article →

Steve Blank: Venture Capitalists Are Not Your Friends

February 3, 2011

One of the biggest mistakes entrepreneurs make is not understanding the relationship they have with their investors. At times they confuse VC’s with their friends. Let’s Go to Lunch At Rocket Science our video game company was struggling. Hubris , bad CEO decisions (mine) and a fundamental lack of understanding that we were in a “hits-based” entertainment business, not in a Silicon Valley technology company, were slowly killing us. One day I got a call from my two investors, “Hey Steve, we’re both going to be up in San Francisco, lets grab lunch.” I liked my two investors. I’d known them for years, they were smart, trying to figure out the video game market with me, (in hindsight a business that none of us knew anything about and shouldn’t have been in ), coached me when needed, etc. Our board meetings were collegial and often fun. We were just about to have a board meeting in another week to talk about raising another round of financing to keep our struggling disaster afloat. I had assumed that my VC’s were behind me. Thinking we were having a social call, I was completely unprepared for the discussion. (Lesson: never take a VC meeting without knowing the agenda.) “Steve, we thought we’d tell you this before the board meeting, but both our firms are going to pass on leading your next round.” I was speechless. I felt like I had just been kicked in the gut and stabbed in the back. These were my lead investors. It was the ultimate vote of no confidence. If they passed, the odds of anyone in the entire country funding us was zero. I knew they had been questioning our ability to stay afloat as a company in the board meetings so this wasn’t a complete surprise but I would have expected some offer of a bridge loan or some sign of support. (I finally got them to agree if I could find someone else to lead the round, they would put in a token amount to say they were still supportive.) “Is this about me as the CEO?” I asked. “I’ll resign if you guys think you can hire someone else you want to back.” They looked a bit sheepish and replied, “No it’s not you. You should stay and run the company. However, we realized that we’ve backed a business we don’t know much about, the company is a money sink and both our firms have no stomach for this industry.” “But I thought you guys were my friends?! You’re supposed to support me!!” I said out of utter frustration. VC’s Are Not Your Friends I had just gotten a very expensive reminder. I liked my board members. They liked me. But while I was just seeing a single board member, I was just one of twenty companies in their current fund portfolio. Their fiduciary responsibility was to manage a portfolio of investments for their limited partners. And what they promised their own investors was that they would invest money in deals that would grow in value and achieve liquidity. As much as they liked me as the entrepreneur, they couldn’t throw good money after bad when they thought the deal went south. I wish I could tell you I understood this all at the time. I didn’t. I was angry, and took it personally for a long time (past the demise of Rocket Science) until I realized they were right. While the best VC’s treat entrepreneurs like you are their most important customer , and they add tremendous value to your startup (recruiting, strategy, coaching, connections, etc.), they are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Entrepreneurs need to understand that VC’s are simply a sophisticated form of financial investors who, in turn, need to satisfy their own investors. At the end of the day, VC’s have to provide their limited partners with great returns or they aren’t going to be able to raise another fund. If you succeed, so do they. Great VC’s do everything they can to make you successful. But just like your bank, credit card company and mortgage holder, they’re not confused where their long term loyalty lies. It’s not with you. Postscript The irony is 15 years later, no longer doing startups, these two VC’s have truly become my friends. We have lunch often, teach together and swap war stories of the day they pulled my funding. It wasn’t an easy lesson. Lessons Learned: You see one VC, they see 20 CEO’s Don’t confuse your business with your VC’s business Your interests are aligned if you both see the same path to liquidity Don’t confuse being friendly with your VC’s with VC’s as your friend This post originally appeared on SteveBlank.com .

Read the full article →

Grant Cardone: Never Be Ripped off by Credit Cards Again

February 2, 2011

Use the credit card companies and don’t let them use you! It is unnecessary for anyone to ever find themselves the victim of their credit cards. Because the current credit card industry is under tremendous attack by things like the CARD Act Implementation, competition, and the threat of a shift from plastic to mobile credit, the smart consumer is in a great position today if they know how to play the game. While credit cards have gotten a bad reputation for victimizing people with late fees, penalties, and high interest rates, the informed customer is in a position to turn the tables. Here are some secrets to help you take advantage of the credit card companies rather than having them take advantage of you. 1) Be in Control: Most people get a credit card as victims and agree to being taking advantage of. Reverse this by making your decision to only use them for their convenience factor without paying to do so. I never pay interest, sign up fees or late fees on a card — I use them. They don’t use me. 2) Pay Off the Balance in Full: I never carry a balance with the credit card company no matter how attractive the rate. If you can’t pay it off at the end of the month, don’t use it. This doesn’t take just commitment, but it takes an agreement from everyone in the family that credit cards are only used as an accounting device, its convenience, and only when you can pay it off. 3) Negotiate your rate: If you are going to have a recurring balance, which I don’t recommend, call and negotiate directly with the company. You have every right, and should, call and ask to have the advertised rate lowered. Also, the better your credit and payment history, the better your chances of selling this to them. 4) Customize Your Due Date: Let’s say your paycheck comes on the 15th and 30th, but your credit card bill is due on the 5th. To improve your cash flow and not put yourself under unnecessary pressure, coordinate the due date that best fits your cash flows. You don’t need stellar credit to make this call and ask for the change. 5) Ask to Have a Late Fee or Interest Fee Removed: If you have a good history of on-time payments and then find a late fee or interest fee on the statement because you didn’t get your payment in by the due date this time, ask that it be removed. I have done this successfully on over a dozen occasions. Ask for mercy that they remove the fee to reward you for your past good behavior. If the person you speak with can’t do it, ask for a supervisor and make it clear that you are willing to close the card out if they don’t remove it. 6) Negotiate the Annual Fee: There is tremendous competition for your business today. There’s no reason for you to pay for the use of a credit card. Even a $35 fee a year over a period of 5 years is $175. I’d personally much rather spend that on my wife. Tell the issuer that you want to use their card but don’t want to pay the fee. Chances are they won’t want to lose your business. While credit cards can be seen to victimize people they can also be an asset when used correctly. They provide convenience, act as the perfect accounting for expenses, accumulate travel points and cost you nothing. As long as you can be aware and responsible of how you make use of your credit cards, you’ll find that they can be great assets to your life. With estimates of over 1 billion Visa, Mastercards and Amex cards in circulation just in the US, it would be important that you make a decision to use your credit cards to benefit your household rather than participating in the credit card company victimizing you. Grant Cardone is a NY Times Best Selling Author and Sales Training Expert.

Read the full article →

Brett King: Let’s Get Rid of Internet Banking

February 2, 2011

If you think about the way we have digital banking and web presence structured today, it is actually wrong. Most banks today already have a well developed ‘public’ presence in the form of www site, and a separate ‘secure’ portal as a transaction or services platform “behind the login” — normally called “Internet Banking.” The problem is, that this basic structure is not the optimal configuration for customers, nor for the bank moving forward. Why is it so? Largely the reason for separating public website and internet banking comes down to historical elements. The major driver is purely evolution of two separate platforms. While there had been early attempts at some sort of transactional platform for banking through dedicated networks, these largely failed until the internet provided a common infrastructure for simple online access to services. While transactional banking was an obvious fit to the IP world, when the internet emerged commercially it was more about brochureware — and thus the content was less about functionality and more about marketing and sales. Thus emerged two disparate platforms — one was functional or transactional technology, and the other was about revenue and sales. Traditionally speaking the “dot com” presence was owned by the marketing, or in some misguided cases corporate communications who mistook the home page as a staging ground for press releases and investor relations messages. Internet Banking, however, being largely about a front-end to transactional services (such as viewing a statement, getting account balances, transferring funds and paying bills) was driven by the IT teams who were in charge of integrating the browser with the bank core systems through some sort of middleware. To this day, these teams just don’t understand each other, so the hope that one day public and secure web presence could work together, is hard to visualize. The Biggest Revenue is Behind the Login The problem with these two separate views of the world, is that it no longer makes sense for the customer. 90% of daily traffic to most bank website goes to the login button, so conceivably your most attractive targets (i.e. existing customers) are ignoring all of the marketing spend on nice sales messages, flashy graphics and landing pages, and they’re going straight through to the tasks they want to complete behind the login. Behind the login, most banks adopt a quite sterile marketing environment, with very limited sales communications, largely focusing on execution. The fact is, based on these analytics, you probably need to be spending at least 90 per cent of your Web marketing budget on building offers and campaigns for existing customers through the Internet banking secure portal, but the IT guys don’t get any of that. The core advantage to selling behind the login is that the acquisition process is dead easy. You already have all the customer information (KYC), so compliance is simply a click-based existing customer acquisition, rather than copious forms or entry to provide proof of who they are, their credit risk assessment, etc. These are simply the easiest customers to convert. However, shifting marketing spend to behind-the-login is not really the answer either. Tomorrow’s web presence will be very different… The future of using IP to connect with customers is understanding that there isn’t and shouldn’t be two separate web-based platforms. The fact is that if you think about content I need everyday from the bank, stuff like my account balance, my transaction history, upcoming payments, etc — this probably doesn’t need to be subject to a full-blown, two-factor authentication model. In most cases, this information could be shown contextually into my banking experience just based on a cookie and ‘remember me’ authentication model (think hotmail.com or Facebook). Marketing journeys could start one of two ways. For example, if I come to your site as a result of a search on mortgages, the homepage needs to respond to your interest in mortgage immediately, along with recognizing if you are an existing customer. For example, if you are an existing customer, you’d see immediately what you are pre-approved for, or if you are an existing mortgage customer then you might see a refinancing option or a competitive offer for bundled home insurance. Much of the content we need is going to be contextual too. So I need you to tell me my credit card balance when I’m on a third-party credit card site, about to use my card, instead of just refusing the transaction because I’m over the limit. I need you to start getting me offers for products and services when and where I need them, not waiting for me to come back to the site or a branch. I need to have a place I can go which centralizes this relationship and defines when and we can work together, what communications I receive from you, and a place where I have a tailored view of my footprint with the bank, etc. So rather than the public site and internet banking, the future looks a little different. The future of the multi-channel content environment will be: The Customer/Bank Dashboard – beyond PFM, this is the relationship control panel Journeys – Product and service engagement opportunities that could start through mobile, search, social, and migrate to acquisition Contextual – Understanding triggers and behaviors as an opportunity to commence a journey Execution – The day-to-day functional stuff such as transferring money, paying bills, etc. Customer Dynamics – Building out the supporting processes, cross-silo metrics, IT Integration, etc This will be distributed across mobile, tablets, desktop, PC, ATM and other interfaces. This is all has the potential to happen within the next 3 years. The thing is – I can guarantee there are at least two department heads who are going to find this transition very difficult to deal with…

Read the full article →

Goldman’s Cynical Assurances Notwithstanding, The Decade is Lost Already

February 2, 2011

Step back from the ledge, America. Scotch the gloomy talk of a Japan-style Lost Decade in which we sink into decline and marinate morosely there for years. We’re back, baby! So says a cheery depiction of these times from the wizards at Goldman Sachs (a firm that, come to think of it, played a starring role in trashing our economic security). The report from Goldman’s Investment Strategy Group, and served up here as evidence of happy times by the credulous folks at Politico’s Morning Money, dismisses suggestions that the American economy might yet confront substantial problems. “The U.S. Will Not Face a ‘Lost Decade,’” declares a subheading in the report, which later calls the odds of that prospect “very remote indeed.” Instead, “America’s structural resilience, fortitude and ingenuity will carry the economy and financial markets in 2011 — and beyond.” Lest this hyperventilating prose fail to provoke the intended response, that last clause sits beneath a picture of George Washington crossing the Delaware. (Hats off to the creative geniuses inside Goldman’s public relations machine, who apparently aim to redefine doubts about the economy — and Goldman’s lucrative cheerleading — as downright un-American.) But one problem with all this soothing talk: As millions of ordinary people can readily attest, we are already deep into a Lost Decade and then some. Rescuing ourselves from this era of diminished expectations is going to require far more than disseminating rosy projections about this year’s stock market while touting the innate power of American business. It demands a serious-minded plan to get people back to work so we can wean ourselves off the investment fantasies propagated by Goldman and its Wall Street cohorts. A brief consideration of reality comes in handy here. The U.S. economy slipped officially into recession in December 2007 and remained there until June of 2009, not for nothing earning the moniker “the Great Recession.” During those 19 brutal months, the economy lost a net 7.3 million jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the year and a half since, the economy has gained back a grand total of 72,000 jobs — not even half what most economists say we need in a single month just to absorb new entrants to the labor force. And that concentrated period of pain landed on top of a so-called economic expansion that was as weak as any on record. In 2000, at the tail end of the last so-called boom, the median American family claimed annual earnings of about $61,000, according to federal data. By late 2007, as the Great Recession began, that same median family had seen its earnings dip to $60,500. Never before in the half-century during which the government has tracked such figures had the data offered up such clear evidence of declining fortunes: An expansion had run its course with the typical American family rolling backward. Add this up: Seven years of times so lean that lowered incomes became the American norm, followed by a year and a half of terrifying decline — with millions of foreclosures and trillions of dollars in lost wealth — followed by a similar interim of tepid economic growth leaving the unemployment rate above 9 percent. That’s a Lost Decade right there. Set aside the fluctuations that have made the economy manic in recent time — a technology bubble propelled by Wall Street financiers and Silicon Valley venture capitalists; the real estate bubble, pumped up by banks that turned mortgages into casino chips — and focus instead on what matters most to ordinary people: What do we bring home from work? In that context, “Lost Decade” seems like a mild description of the American experience. The data offers up the Lost Three Decades. At the end of 2010, the average weekly earnings for American rank-and-file workers sat at roughly the same level as at the end of 1979 in inflation-adjusted terms. (Have a look at the raw Labor Department data here .) A lot of caveats go into absorbing that number. Large numbers of women and immigrants entered the labor force in those years, which has tended to pull down average wages. But a central truth cannot be dismissed: More than a quarter-century has gone past — a sweep of history that has seen the personal computing revolution, two wars in the Persian Gulf, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, the integration of China into the global economy — and yet the average American worker has gotten nowhere. This while the costs of health care, education and housing have skyrocketed. You won’t encounter any of this sort of analysis in Goldman’s delightful report, which is aimed not at people who work for a living, but people who are inclined to conflate the stock market and the real economy. And the stock market, according to Goldman, is poised for a boffo 2011. Who can argue with that? Savvy U.S. corporations are making enormous sums of money by boosting their sales abroad and keeping a lid on their costs — which is to say, by not hiring people. Companies like General Electric, whose chief executive Jeffrey Immelt was just named to head a task force that is supposed to encourage job growth, have netted record profits by selling product overseas and laying off workers at home. This formula pretty much describes how the economy has grown robustly for most of the last three decades, while opportunities for working people have withered. Its perpetuation fairly ensures no need to worry about a Lost Decade if you are an executive at a multinational corporation, a shareholder seeking hefty dividends, or a Wall Street chieftain counting on a bonus. But the words at the top of Goldman’s report — “Stay the Course” — amount to a threat for the rest of the nation. The course is untenable. For most people, it leads to credit card debt, ulcer medication and, perhaps, bankruptcy. Japan imploded and then stagnated at the messy end of the real-estate speculation that filled out the 1980s by dithering about the needed fix. Tokyo tried modest stimulus spending packages, then austerity, then public works spending and then export-led growth — always too late, always inadequately and usually amid political discord over how to proceed. Here in the United States, the most striking similarity with Japan’s years of decline is the way in which political dysfunction continues to be a powerful barrier to needed action, rendering impossible the muscular investments required to pull us out of the ditch — investments in renewable energy, education and infrastructure. Goldman’s dismissal of Lost Decade fears is brazenly self-serving. When people are afraid, they tend not to hand their money to Wall Street gamblers to manage. Worse, its words heap fresh disinformation and a false dose of reassurance into a conversation that ought to be centered on an honest reckoning about where we are and how to claw our way back. We are very much lost, and have been for decades. And we will remain so for as long as influential people pay attention to the cynical assurances of Goldman, which has mastered the art of digging us deeper into a hole, all the while selling us the shovels.

Read the full article →

Elizabeth Warren: Pricing Needs To Be Clearer

January 31, 2011

WASHINGTON — No tricks. Less fine print. Clearer agreements. That’s how banks should market products to consumers, says Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard law professor in charge of setting up a new federal agency that will police credit cards, mortgages and other financial services. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created as part of the sweeping overhaul of financial regulations last year known as the Dodd-Frank Act. Proponents said such an agency could have sounded an early warning for the abusive lending practices that precipitated the economic meltdown. It’s not clear when a permanent head will be named to lead the new agency. Warren, a vocal consumer advocate who first championed the creation of the agency, is a possibility but is regarded as a contentious choice. President Obama did not need Senate confirmation when he named her in September as a special adviser to help oversee the creation of the agency. The CFPB won’t be able to exercise its rule-making powers until July 21. In the meantime, Warren has been making key appointments and meeting with banking executives and consumer groups to get the agency up and running. In an interview with The Associated Press, Warren said one of the first goals will be to make the true cost of financial products easier to understand. She said that should eventually drive down prices for consumers. Here is an excerpt: ___ Q: You’ve said improving the disclosure of credit card terms is going to be a top priority. How is the CFPB going to change what’s provided to consumers? A: Think about how long a credit card agreement has become – it’s become pages and pages and pages of largely incomprehensible fine print. In effect, it’s paperwork that says “Don’t read me,” and that’s a real problem. Because hiding in that fine print can be anything. So one of the things we want to push toward is trying to clear out that kind of shrubbery. So that if there are real changes that a company is proposing, they stand out. They’re not camouflaged by all those other words. Q: And what’s the timetable for when consumers can expect to see such changes? A: Well, it’s interesting. I think people are starting to see somewhat clearer disclosures. For example, there are a couple of major credit card issuers who – following our early conversations last fall – went back and voluntarily rewrote their own credit agreements and began to shrink them down. There have been others who’ve advertised their credit products along the lines of “No Tricks,” “Less Fine Print,” “Clearer Agreements.” This agency, even before it has its full legal authority, has driven a conversation and driven a direction for the industry. And it’s toward a better informed customer who can make apples-to-apples comparisons among products. Q: In terms of the required disclosures – do you see new forms replacing the Schumer box, which is already intended to clearly lay out the APR, fees and other terms for a credit card? A: We’re having conversations with credit card issuers right now and talking through what the Schumer box does and how it might be improved. You know, even the Schumer box has gone from smaller and skinnier to longer and more complicated. So I will readily admit it’s an uphill walk to try to get there. But I think we’re developing a path in working with the companies. In terms of a timetable, I just have to remind you. We won’t have legal authority to do anything by way of rule-making authority until after July 21. But we’ve started now with the industry and with consumer groups and with other stakeholders, investors – talking with them, showing them what we have in mind, asking for their input, asking for their data, asking for information. Q: More banks began to cut back on free checking last year in response to new regulations. Do you think further regulation by the CFPB will drive up the price of banking? A: If the consumer knows the price of a good, the risk associated with it, and can make apples-to-apples comparisons, that’s what makes markets work for consumers. They can figure out who’s offering the most expensive product and who’s offering the cheapest product. And I’m of the belief that over time, that’s going to make financial products cheaper for consumers, not more expensive. Q: Online banking is top-of-mind right now. With so many new mobile and online banking options, is the CFPB dedicating a team to ensure these options are safe? A: We’ve organized the new consumer agency to be market facing. That means that we have divisions dealing with (1) revolving debt and credit cards, (2) mortgages and installment loans, like student loans (3) with payments and deposits and (4) credit reporting and (5) debt collection. We want to be a very data driven agency around those five markets. Technology and innovation is hitting all of them. And so a big part of what we’re doing is hiring people who are technology savvy and actually deeply interested in it. Q: Another area the CFPB will be reviewing is services for people who don’t have a bank account. How do you regulate services like payday loans and still ensure people have access to small loans? A: Well you know, access to small dollar loans is critical to many families. The notion that we somehow try to eliminate that, it’s just not going to happen. It can force people into unregulated markets, including “Jimmy the Leg Breaker,” which is not where we want people to be. So it is important from a regulatory standpoint that people are not at the mercy of lenders who build business models around fooling people. They’re drawn in the front door thinking they’re going to pay one price and then beat about the head and ears, financially speaking, so that they’re paying much, much more. On the other hand, there’s a real problem. And that is how to get good, small dollar lending started in areas where there’s great need. Sometimes that’s going to be by community banks. Sometimes it’s going to be by non-bank lenders and sometimes it’s going to be innovations and new technology that’s going to open up markets for the currently underserved population. I anticipate a lot of change in this area. Q: Is the idea to bring the unbanked population into the traditional banking world? Or is there a valid place for services like check cashing? A: I think the traditional banking world concept is going to change over the next 10 years. I think technology changes it and I think the needs of an unmet population (change it). I’m going to take a little bit of a side step from the question. The basic paradigm in which we’ve thought about this is actually starting to break apart.

Read the full article →

Citigroup CEO No Longer Earning $1 Per Year

January 22, 2011

NEW YORK — Citigroup Inc. is giving its CEO a big raise. The New York-based bank is lifting Vikram Pandit’s base salary to $1.75 million from just $1 a year effective immediately, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday. The announcement comes after Citi reported its first full year of profits since Pandit took over the top job in 2007. The bank also repaid the last of its bailout money last year. Citi was one of the hardest-hit U.S. banks during the credit crisis, and received $45 billion in taxpayer aid. Pandit in 2009 pledged to take a $1 salary until the troubled bank returned to profitability. The government sold off the last of its stake in the bank in December for a profit of $12 billion. Richard Parsons, chair of Citigroup Inc.’s board, said in Friday’s filing that the board is “very pleased” with the progress that the bank has made under Pandit’s leadership. Parsons said Pandit has “worked tirelessly to put Citi back on the right track.” The raise was not a surprise. In September, when the bank doled out raises to a number of top executives, Parsons had hinted that Pandit was in store for a big payout. The base salary also does not include stocks, options and other compensation that executives typically receive as part of their pay package. Citigroup reported its fourth straight quarterly profit on Tuesday. With more customers paying their mortgages and credit card payments on time, the bank was able to reach into its reserves it no longer needed to cover loan losses. Like others in its industry, however, the bank saw revenue from trading stocks and bonds fall sharply in the quarter. Citi shares also rose 40 percent last year, making it the best-performing stock among major U.S. banks. Shares still remain far below the $50-range they traded at pre-crisis, however. Before agreeing to a $1 salary in 2009, Pandit had already received $125,000 in salary. His only other compensation that year was $3,750 in 401(k) benefits. In 2008, Pandit’s compensation package was valued at $38.2 million. But most of that pay was made up of restricted stock and stock options. Pandit still has plenty of work ahead of him. At the end of the 2010, Citi had set aside $40.7 billion or 6.3 percent of its total loans, for future losses. By comparison, its larger rival JP Morgan Chase & Co. set aside $32 billion, or 4.5 percent of its total loans, last year. That means Citi has more troubled loans than some of its peers.

Read the full article →

Odysseas Papadimitriou: The Legislative Impetus for Using a Personal Credit Card to Fund Business Spending

January 21, 2011

Ok, the holidays are over, and it’s time to get back to business. A new year has arrived, and with it have come the promise of a fresh start and the desire to make this year better than the last. Perhaps you want to expand your business, go after another client segment or launch a new product. Maybe, considering the tough times we’ve all been enduring, you just want to increase profits in 2011. Whatever the case may be, handling your expenses wisely is a necessity. While what you spend money on is the most critical decision you must make, your chosen method of payment is important as well. Many small business owners assume they should fund their companies with business credit cards simply because the word “business” is in the name of the genre. However, contrary to naming conventions, personal credit cards are actually often the best spending vehicles for small business owners. With the passage of the new credit card law (CARD Act) came the institution of a number of credit card regulations designed to protect consumers from the predatory issuer practices that persisted prior to the Great Recession. Such regulations restrict issuers from increasing the interest rate on an existing balance unless a customer becomes severely delinquent. While these changes are undoubtedly a boon for consumers in general, they only apply to personal credit cards . This means that balances held on business credit cards are vulnerable to becoming suddenly more costly because of interest rate changes. Considering that it’s common practice for credit card company executives to raise interest rates in order to quickly increase profits, this lack of protection is troubling for small business credit card users. However, this danger can easily be negated by simply opening a personal credit card and using it for all business purchases that will not be paid for in full by the end of each month. There is ultimately no good reason not to, especially since the common belief that business credit cards provide greater liability protection than do personal credit cards is, in fact, a misconception. Many people assume that the liability for any payment problems encountered with business credit cards will be at least partially assumed by their companies. However, small businesses are simply not large enough to warrant shared liability, and individuals are wholly responsible for delinquency and default with both small business and personal credit cards. There is no difference between the two in terms of individual liability protection. However, business credit cards do prove useful in other facets of business spending. They offer additional tools for tracking and reporting business expenses and allow owners to disperse individual cards with customizable limits amongst their employees and then earn rewards on their spending. For these reasons, business credit cards should still be used, yet only for purchases that will be paid for in full on a monthly basis. Establishing such a strategic method for funding your business will ultimately provide you with the cash flow stability and debt consistency that is integral to small business survival, especially in the current economic climate. So start the New Year off right by opening a personal credit card for your business expenses that will lead to a monthly balance. After all, not doing so is like gambling your company’s debt, and no one wants their livelihood to be a gamble. This article was written by Odysseas Papadimitriou, CEO and Founder of CardHub.com, an online marketplace for credit card offers and gift card exchange .

Read the full article →

Deborah Levine: Unemployment: Dispatch From Among the 9.4%

January 20, 2011

A week ago, I found myself surrounded by a room full of strangers listening to confident young man expound on the dos and don’ts of resume writing and acing a job interview. Ok, so “found myself” isn’t exactly accurate. In truth, I was required to be there by the Department of Labor, as were my classmates who, like me, had all been collecting unemployment for at least six months, most of us more. We were a diverse group, united by the fact of being out of work for longer than the higher-ups at the DOL believe we should be. A little guidance was what we needed, our Job Search Follow-Up summonses explained, in the form of a mandatory hour-long workshop on the myriad ways in which the Department of Labor is here to help — preceded by 60 minutes of waiting in an unstaffed windowless room wondering if anyone actually knew we were there. If we failed to attend, the letters said, we would risk losing our weekly unemployment benefits. The room was full. The workshop was led by a deep-voiced 30-something man in a standard-issue jacket and tie. I had to give the guy credit. Day in and day out he stands before countless representatives of the disgruntled formerly-employed and manages to maintain both professionalism and a sense of humor while doing so. Ironically, as jobs go, telling people how to get one — especially people who didn’t ask in the first place — is probably not high on anyone’s list. Among our instructor’s words of wisdom was a warning: “Showing up for an interview 15 minutes early is appropriate — showing up an hour early is desperate,” and an existential question to ponder: “People put on masks every day — to the employer, are you the true you or are you the interview you?” My classmates and I listened dutifully to our leader, hopeful that if we just sat quietly and let him do his thing, we could be out of there in less than the proscribed hour. But he wanted class participation, and so, ever covetous of our weekly $405 checks, we participated. From their replies to questions about the average length of a job interview and the proper timing of a thank you note, I learned a few things about my classmates. My neighbor to the right was a former professor of Russian history so concerned with following the letter of the law that he didn’t file his claim during the week he spent interviewing at a University in Florida because he wouldn’t be able to answer truthfully that we was “ready and able to work” in New York. On my left was a former Human Resources manager with whom the instructor frequently checked his facts, in front of her a client services type copiously taking notes, and behind me a media Jill-of-all-trades not unlike myself, a writer and editor whose position was “eliminated” in a company reorganization after I loyally and enthusiastically put in over a decade at what I had once considered my dream job. In the 19 months since I was laid off (19 and a half, but who’s counting?), I’ve experienced many “firsts”: first time filing for unemployment, first time going into double-digit credit card debt, first time dipping into my rolled-over 401K. Withdrawing from my retirement savings more than two decades before I was technically eligible was something it never occurred to me I might do, let alone do again and again. In the past year alone, overdrawn checking accounts have forced me to tap those once-taboo funds three times, diminishing my meager nest egg nearly by half. Last year’s monetary gifts from relatives earmarked for my kids’ college accounts went instead to bills and rent. On a more positive note, being “downsized” has meant not being a full-time working parent for the first time since I became a mother. This too has led to a number of unexpected firsts: first time picking up my kids at dismissal time rather than from after-school (I actually had to ask someone where in the building I would find them at 3), first time accompanying them on a field trip without nagging guilt about skipping out on work, first time staying home with a sick child without furtively checking my email while playing Connect Four. I’m 40-years-old and for the first time in my adult life I honestly have no idea what the future holds in the way of a career or overall financial security. Still, I know I’m among the lucky ones. Just as my severance was ending a year ago, my husband — who had been laid off from his own publishing job two years earlier — miraculously landed a long-term freelance assignment and is now slated to become staff. Rather than how we’ll pay the rent or make our car payments, our worries are now of the slightly less dire “How will we pay for summer camp, let alone college?” and “Will we ever get out of debt?” variety. We are resigned to having no washer-dryer, dishwasher or second bathroom for the foreseeable future. Having lost faith in the concepts of job security and financial stability, it’s the unforeseeable future we worry about now. While continuing to plug away at freelance work, peruse the industry job sites and pound the pavement for interviews, I’ve gone back to school for yet another degree. This time I’m studying to be a teacher, one of the most underrated jobs one can have in this country, but also among the most rewarding. I have no illusions that I’ll ever be able to kick up my heels and relax into retirement. But if I have to be working for a paycheck into my old age, at least as a teacher I’ll be doing something positive for the world, rather than promoting products I no longer believe in that this planet doesn’t need. Of course, no one’s hiring teachers around here right now either. But a girl’s gotta have a dream.

Read the full article →

Ian Fletcher: Libertarianism, the New Anti-Americanism

January 19, 2011

Sometimes the bad guys do us all a big favor, by openly stating what they stand for after spending years denying it. I recently received exactly this sort of favor from an economist, one Don Boudreaux, at the renowned libertarian Cato Institute, a hotbed of free-trade thinking. He wrote: Why should you or I celebrate less an improvement in the welfare of a South Korean than we celebrate a comparable improvement in the welfare of a South Carolinian? ( original here ) That’s it. So finally we have it: after years of telling us that libertarian economics — deregulate this, deregulate that, believe that the free market is always right — is best for America, they admit that, in the end, they just don’t care . This philosophy has the perverse virtue of perfect logical consistency: if you don’t care about what’s good for Americans, why not have free trade? I must grant — and the reader should, too — that the entire policy of free trade makes perfect sense if one adopts this premise. The idea of caring equally about the well-being of people all over the world sounds, of course, like a very sweet and humanitarian philosophy. And in a perfect world, maybe it would be. But there are two very big realities that get in the way: 1) We live in a world of ruthless economic rivalry, so if Americans aren’t willing to stand up for the economic interests of Americans, we just get rolled by multinational corporations and foreign powers that lack such delicate qualms. 2) Libertarianism, for all its pretensions of universalist humanitarianism, is in fact a notoriously selfish philosophy. Someone once defined a libertarian as “an anarchist with a credit card;” they were onto something. The South Korea Free Trade Agreement, America’s largest free-trade agreement since NAFTA, is back on the front burner. So when the libertarians speak up on this issue, as they will, just remember where their hearts are.

Read the full article →

Analyst: Credit Card Problems As Low As We’ve Ever Seen In December

January 18, 2011

NEW YORK — Fewer credit card accounts slipped into default in December than in any other month of 2010, and signs point to further improvement ahead. All six of the biggest card issuers Tuesday posted their lowest rates for charge-offs, or accounts written off as uncollectible. Citibank, which has had some of the highest charge-off rates over the past two years, posted the biggest decline. It wrote off 8.34 percent of its card balances in December, down from 9.4 percent in November and well below the high of 11.55 percent posted in March. Discover, Chase and Capital One also reported substantial declines. While the rates of balances companies wrote off declined consistently throughout the year, they remain high by historical standards. “There are some good improvements,” said Mike Dean, a managing director with Fitch Ratings. Fitch’s charge-off index, which tracks the industry, remains near record levels, he said. “We’ve seen some better numbers there, but nothing to say, ‘Wow!’” Dean said he expects charge-off rates to continue improving, but noted that the defaults are “highly correlated” to the unemployment rate. With the jobless rate is forecast to remain high throughout the year, it is difficult to predict when charge-offs will return to normal levels, said Jeff Hibbs, an analyst with Moody’s Investors Service. Industry wide, the charge-off rate peaked in the second quarter of last year at 10.37 percent of balances, according to the latest data from the Federal Reserve. In the two years prior to the recession, it averaged 3.82 percent, Fed records show. Credit card debt has been dropping the last two years, reflecting a combination of factors, including individuals paying down balances and credit card companies cutting the amount of available credit and writing off what they can’t collect. The elimination of many card users who could not pay their bills from the pool of borrowers through charge-offs is one reason for the lower charge-off rates. Hibbs said that the customers who have been able to keep paying their bills despite the downturn and the spike in unemployment have proven they are trustworthy borrowers. “Those left have exhibited a great deal of resilience to this stress,” Hibbs said. “They withstood the depths of the last three years.” Card companies have tightened lending standards, so people who lost access to credit during the recession have not been able to get new cards. Fed data shows that in November, total revolving debt held by U.S. consumers – which is mostly credit cards – fell to $796.5 billion. That’s about 18.5 percent below the record high reached in the third quarter of 2008, and the lowest point since September 2004. Credit reporting agency TransUnion has estimated as many as 8 million former credit card users no longer have cards, either by choice or because their banks cut their credit lines. Reflecting the strong positions that remaining credit card borrowers are in, December rates for payments late by 30 days or more also reached annual lows for all six top card issuers. That figure, also known as the delinquency rate, is considered a precursor for future defaults. “The numbers this month are as low as we have ever seen them,” Hibbs said. “That’s a strong indicator that charge-offs will continue to move steadily lower.” All issuers are participating in the industry-wide improvement, he added, noting that the first part of the year is typically the best for credit card payments, because consumers frequently use tax returns to catch up on overdue bills.

Read the full article →

Chris Birk: Special Consumer Protection Agency to Safeguard U.S. Service Members

January 14, 2011

The fight against the financial exploitation of America’s service members got a huge boost last week with the unveiling of a new consumer protection arm for military families. The Office of Servicemember Affairs aims to increase financial education for military members and better monitor and respond to problems and complaints. Part of the recently created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, this new military-focused agency will be headed by Holly Petraeus, wife of Gen. David Petraeus, current commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. While it’s still taking shape, this new advocacy and awareness entity could significantly curb the unscrupulous lending practices and financial chicanery that impact scores of military families nationwide. Studies have shown military members are more likely to be financially overburdened than civilians. That leaves them vulnerable to sales pitches and advances from companies and individuals bent on taking advantage. “Those who serve in the military should be able to focus on their jobs and their families without having to worry about getting trapped by abusive financial practices,” Elizabeth Warren, special advisor to the Treasury secretary for the CFPB, wrote last week on The White House blog . “America’s national security depends on that basic premise.” Recent online surveys found that nearly 25 percent of enlisted personnel or junior NCOs had used payday loans, auto title loans or other high-cost borrowing practices in the last five years. More than half of respondents reported only making the minimum payment on credit cards, and nearly a third said they had made a late payment in the previous year. About 15 percent of those surveyed had both a mortgage and a credit card balance of at least $10,000. These issues are far from merely financial concerns. Money problems at home can weigh heavily on military members serving abroad and even affect mission readiness. Army Secretary John McHugh wrote about this in May in response to unscrupulous auto lenders targeting military members. Defense Department surveys consistently rank finances among the leading causes of stress for most military families. “Soldiers who are distracted by financial issues at home are not fully focused on fighting the enemy,” McHugh’s letter read in part. Service members sacrifice a great deal to keep America safe. They and their families should no longer have to battle craven financial predators at home.

Read the full article →

Jason Alderman: Get the Most Out of Your Gift Cards

January 14, 2011

If someone gave you a $50 bill, you probably wouldn’t just stick it in a drawer and forget about it. But that’s essentially what happens to billions of dollars worth of gift cards people receive each year — they either lose or forget about them, or never use up their balances. Final 2010 holiday sales numbers aren’t in yet, but the National Retail Federation expected a 4 percent increase in 2010 over 2009, so chances are you got more gift cards in your stocking than in the past. Here’s a basic primer on how gift cards work. There are two basic types: Retail gift cards, which can be used to buy goods or services at a single merchant or affiliated group of merchants. Network-branded gift cards, which are issued by a bank and carry the logo of a payment card network (like Visa, MasterCard or American Express) and can be used at any location accepting cards from that network. Account information is stored in the card’s magnetic strip. If you’re not sure of the remaining balance, ask the merchant to scan the card, call the toll-free number on the card or look it up on the card issuer’s website provided. Many cards can be reloaded for multiple use; and most can be replaced if lost or stolen — although you may have to provide proof of purchase and pay a replacement fee. The Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009 changed the laws governing gift cards sold on or after August 22, 2010. It requires that: Money loaded on gift cards must not expire for at least five years from the date of purchase or after funds were last reloaded. If the card itself expires but the funds in the account haven’t, you can request a free replacement card. Inactivity and service fees may not be charged until after 12 months of inactivity; after that, only one such fee may be deducted from the balance each month. These restrictions apply to monthly maintenance or service fees, balance inquiry fees, and transaction-based fees, such as reload fees, ATM fees, and point-of-sale fees charged by the card issuer. (Fees for activation or lost/stolen card replacement are exempt.) Fees must be clearly disclosed on the card or its packaging. (However, Congress agreed to extend until January 31, 2011, the deadline for printing disclosure language on cards themselves if produced before April 1, 2010, to avoid having to destroy millions of existing cards.) If you own gift cards issued before August 22, 2010, note that prior rules may apply. Also, these new rules do not apply to other types of prepaid cards, such as reloadable prepaid cards not marketed or labeled as a gift card or gift certificate, and prepaid cards received through a loyalty, rebate, award or promotional program. Paper gift cards and gift certificates also are excluded. Here are a few tips to get the most out of your gift cards: Use them quickly; the longer you wait, the more likely you are to forget or misplace them. Use the same handling precautions as you would with cash; in addition, write down all account numbers and related toll-free numbers in case you need to report a lost or stolen card. Retain spent cards until you’re sure you won’t return purchased items — some retailers won’t accept a return without the card. Ask if the retailer will honor the card for online purchases, if that’s your preferred shopping method. Be sure to use up the entire account balance, or ask if a cash refund is available. You may be able to use multiple cards for a single purchase — for example, if you have several low-balance Starbucks cards. If you don’t care for a particular retailer, consider trading gift cards with friends. Or check out some of the websites that have sprung up where you can buy, sell or swap gift cards, such as CardHub , Plastic Jungle , and Swapagift.com . Some even allow you to donate the sales proceeds to charity. Just make sure you understand any transaction or registration fees or commissions that may be charged. A few additional safeguards to remember: If you have a retail gift card and the company goes out of business, you may forfeit the balance. Be aware that digital gift cards (e.g., for iTunes or Amazon), sometimes get caught by your computer’s spam filter, so you may not be aware they’ve been sent. Be cautious when trading cards with strangers. For example, if using a third-party exchange site, ask about their verification policies and check with the Better Business Bureau for any complaints. Avoid unsolicited offers that sound too good to be true; for example, Facebook has reported scam artists posting bogus links and fan pages that offer free cards, which, if accessed, can harvest personal information. This article is intended to provide general information and should not be considered legal, tax or financial advice. It’s always a good idea to consult a legal, tax or financial advisor for specific information on how certain laws apply to you and about your individual financial situation. To participate in a free, online Financial Literacy and Education Summit on April 4, 2011, go to Practical Money Skills .

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Which of These Banks Was 2010′s Most Shameless Corporate Outlaw?

December 30, 2010

Bankers. The red carpet’s still being rolled out for them in Washington, but if there’s a stain on it they’ll pout for days. Jason Linkins documents the latest set o f cheap white whines from very wealthy white men . This time they’re upset because nobody from the six largest banks in America was invited to the President’s CEO Roundtable. They’re offended because they didn’t meet with the President? From the looks of things they’re lucky not to be meeting with the warden . Let’s review the record for these corporate malefactors, and then decide: Which of these six banks was “America’s Most Shameless Corporate Outlaw” in 2010? #1. Bank of America Here are some recent headlines for the country’s largest bank: ” Bank of America Ends Year With Flurry of Lawsuits ” ” Arizona Sues Bank of America ” ” Arizona Wants Bank of America Held in Contempt ” ” Nevada, Arizona sue Bank of America over failed mortgage aid ” ” Allstate Sues Bank Of America For Selling ‘Toxic’ MBS ” ” Bank of America Hit With Missouri Class Action Over Loan Modifications ” Here are the details: Associated Press : “Attorneys general in Arizona and Nevada filed civil lawsuits Friday against Bank of America Corp., alleging that the lender is misleading and deceiving homeowners who have tried to modify mortgages in two of the nation’s most foreclosure-damaged states.” Courthouse News Service : “Bank of America violated a consent judgment it signed almost 2 years ago to provide loan modifications and help relocate borrowers, the Arizona attorney general claims … Bank of America has continued to misrepresent ‘to Arizona consumers whether they were eligible for modifications of their mortgage loans, when Bank of America would make a decision on their modification requests, whether Bank of America had approved their modification requests, why Bank of America declined their modification requests, and whether and when Bank of America would foreclose upon their homes.’” Consumer Affairs : “The bank is also facing at least three suits claiming that it reneged on duties it undertook by accepting $25 billion under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).” In total, Bank of America’s last annual report lists 29 pending lawsuits against the company. Lawsuits are not proof of guilt, of course. But the bank has already paid a fine for illegally concealing $6 billion in payouts to employees, and another fine for concealing major losses at its Merrill Lynch subsidiary. ( Both fines were low – not much more than a slap on the wrist – because Bank of America was on taxpayer-funded life support at the time.) BofA also confessed to committing fraud as part of a settlement this month, which the Justice Department noted was restitution “for its participation in a conspiracy to rig bids in the municipal bond derivatives market.” The Bank was also ordered to pay Lehman $590 million for illegally seizing its deposits , in violation of bankruptcy law. Bank of America has been one of the worst offenders during the foreclosure crisis, with documented case of widespread abuse and legal violations. From the Associated Press : “A document obtained last week by the Associated Press showed a Bank of America official acknowledging in a legal proceeding that she signed thousands of foreclosure documents a month and typically didn’t read them. The official, Renee Hertzler, said in a February deposition that she signed 7,000 to 8,000 foreclosure documents a month.” How generous has the taxpayer been to Bank of America? There was the TARP money, of course. And BofA, like other banks, has been suckling at the teat of Federal Reserve’s discount money window throughout the crisis. And, as Zach Carter noted, the bank was also one of two institutions that were the main beneficiaries of a special Fed program called the Primary Reserve Credit Facility. There were those cushy settlements with the SEC. BofA stock was trading at $53 at the end of 2006. As of this writing the stock is trading for $13.30. But its executives have been wasting corporate money and resources buying up 419 web URLs with insulting phrases and the names of their senior executives – most of whom nobody’s ever heard of – to protect their personal reputations. No company’s ever done that before. Bob Scully “blows” (bobscullyblows.com) and Bill Boardman “sucks” (billboardmansucks.com)? Who knew? Last year two senior executives received $9.9 million and two others received $6 million in total compensation. If they’re really worried about their reputations they should stop running their company in a way that “sucks” and “blows.” The guy who robbed a Bank of America branch in West Palm Beach is going to prison . The bank’s senior executives are hurt that they didn’t get invited to the Rose Garden for tea. Rap Sheet: BofA has probably committed more foreclosure offenses than any other single institution. It deceived stockholders, and the public, about the $6 million in bonuses it paid out (during the rescue process). It was equally deceptive about Merrill Lynch’s financial status. And it admitted to rigging bids for municipal bond derivatives. Shameless Quotes: CEO Brian Moynihan’s response toward demands that his bank comply with HAMP’s legal requirements? “Sure,” he sneered,” we’ll go back and check our homework again.” And he says he won’t accept anything but “constructive criticism.” #2. JPMorgan Chase ” We don’t think there are cases where people were evicted out of homes when they shouldn’t have been .” JPM Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. From the Washington Post : “J.P. Morgan Chase, one of the nation’s leading banks, announced Wednesday that it will freeze foreclosures in about half the country because of flawed paperwork.” As we learned recently, Jamie Dimon doesn’t feel loved or admired enough. Small wonder, given the way his bank treats customers. Even as he was making arrogant statements like this one, papers like the New York Times were telling the truth about the sleazy operation he’s running at JPMorgan Chase: “At JPMorgan Chase & Company, they were derided as ‘Burger King kids’ — walk-in hires who were so inexperienced they barely knew what a mortgage was … revelations that mortgage servicers failed to accurately document the seizure and sale of tens of thousands of homes have caused a public uproar …” Failure to accurately document home foreclosures is illegal. I’s lousy management, too. Chief Executive Dimon oversaw a sloppy operation that’s going to cost his shareholders a lot of money : “JPMorgan set aside $2.3 billion of reserves to cover mortgage repurchases or litigation expenses, including some for ‘mortgage-related matters,’ the lender said Oct. 13.” A whistleblower complaint alleges that the bank “sold to third party debt buyers hundreds of millions of dollars worth of credit card accounts. . .when in fact Chase Bank executives that many of those accounts had incorrect and overstated balances.” According to the complaint, “Chase Bank executives routinely destroyed information and communications from consumers rather than incorporate that information into the consumer’s credit card file … mass-executed thousands of affidavits in support of Chase Banks collection efforts … (and) did not have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in the affidavits.” It also claims that “when senior Chase Bank executives were made aware of these systemic problems, senior Chase Bank executives — rather than remedy the problems — immediately fired the whistleblower and attempted to cover up these problems.” There are also multiple lawsuits against Chase for allegedly manipulating the price of silver, and there is at least one report that the bank is being probed by several Federal agencies (including the Justice Department) over its trading activities in precious metals. JPMorgan Chase is also one of several banks that are being sued over the handling of Bernie Madoff funds . JPMorgan Chase “agreed to pay $25 million to settle allegations it sold unregistered securities, many of which defaulted, to the state of Florida,” as the Orlando Sentinel reported. That’s a crime. Chase was also one of several banks that paid to settle charges that it illegally propped up a failed mortgage lender . (These settlements have typically allowed the banks to “admit no wrongdoing” – a practice which should be stopped. These are crimes.) JPMorgan Chase’s behavior in Jefferson County, Alabama made Huey Long look like a piker. The bank spread more than $8 million around the county through local interediaries to secure highly lucrative deals on municipal derivatives. As Bloomberg News put it, ” JPMorgan, the second-largest U.S. bank by assets, used fees on the unregulated derivative contracts — and a trip to a New York spa for one elected official — to curry political favor, a decade after the SEC adopted rules to drive out pay-to-play from the $2.8 trillion municipal bond market.” The bank conducted this criminal behavior under Dimon’s watch. And while it “neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing,” as usual, it had to pay a three-quarters-of-a-billion dollar settlement to wrangle its way out of this snakepit of illegality. Rap Sheet: Corruption in Alabama; widespread violation of foreclosure laws; sale of unregistered securities. Also under investigation for illegal manipulation of the precious metals market; mishandling of Madoff funds; deliberate lawbreaking in credit card processing, concealment of criminality. Shameless quotes: “Judy Dimon says the crisis took a toll on him. He used to stand up to bullies who threatened his smaller twin; now he felt as if he, and bankers in general, were being bullied.” (from a New York Times profile of Dimon) 3. Citigroup Citi’s being sued for gender discrimination by its own employees. Citi settled a class action lawsuit after illegally raising rates for credit card customers . The bank’s being sued by an independent trustee for allegedly “aiding and abetting” a Ponzi schemer . Citi executives were given slap-on-the-wrist fines for lying to investors about $40 billion in subprime exposures, which is a criminal act. It should also be remembered that Citigroup paid $2.65 billion in 2004 to settle class action lawsuits over its alleged illegal actions in propping up WorldCom stocks in return for enormous fees. As Citi’s annual report notes, “Citigroup and Related Parties have been named as defendants in numerous legal actions and other proceedings asserting claims for damages and related relief for losses arising from the global financial credit and subprime-mortgage crisis that began in 2007.” Citi is still being investigated by Italian courts for possible criminal behavior in the Parmalat case, and it’s being sued by a Norwegian bank for misrepresenting its financial condition and failing to disclose material information. It’s being sued by investors for misrepresenting its underwriting of mortgage backed securities. Rap Sheet : Violation of SEC law regarding corporate disclosures; illegal rate activity toward credit card customers. Under investigation for aiding and abetting a Ponzi scheme. Shameless quotes: “Almost all of us … missed the powerful combination of forces at work and the serious possibility of a massive crisis.” (Robert Rubin) “On November 3, 2007, I sent an email to Mr. Robert Rubin and three other members of Corporate Management. In this email I outlined the business practices that I had witnessed and attempted to address. I specifically warned about the extreme risks that existed within the Consumer Lending Group.” (Former Citi exec Richard Bowen) 4. Wells Fargo They illegally laundered drug money for the Mexican cartels – and nobody went to jail. Here’s a suggestion: Read stories “War Torn Mexico: A Population in Terror ,” which begins: “Massacres, beheadings, YouTube videos featuring cartel torture sessions and even car bombs are becoming commonplace in Juarez.” Study the statistics on the violent murders – which include Federal agents , children, and “penniless immigrants ” – and then remind yourself: These are Wells Fargo’s business partners. Rap Sheet: What can anyone add to that? Shameless quotes: “We’re more of a Main Street bank than a Wall Street bank.” “”Of all the decisions I’ve had to make, few have been as difficult as cutting the dividend.” (Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf) 5. Goldman Sachs Goldman is Goldman. The SEC charged them with fraud, and they settled the suit by admitting their marketing materials contained lies – they called them “mistakes.” They were fined by Great Britain for illegally concealing US fraud investigations. Goldman has a gender discrimination lawsuit, too, and theirs comes complete with strippers and racist emails . Goldman’s being sucked for deceiving its clients over an offering its own people privately (and thanks to Sen. Levin, famously) bragged was ” a shitty deal .” Goldman paid $60 million in Massachusetts to settle charges of predatory loan practices. After mismanagement drove Goldman into impending doom, the firm was saved by TARP funds and Federal Reserve’s Emergency Liquidity Programs. Total taxpayer lending to Goldman exceeded three-quarters of a trillion dollars. Goldman also received $13 billion in backdoor payouts through the AIG liquidation (under Tim Geithner’s supervision). Rap Sheet: Fraudulent misrepresentation; predatory loan practices; illegal concealment of an investigation. And God know what else. They’re Goldman, man! S hameless Quotes: “”We’re very important … We do God’s work.” (Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein) “If I whet My glittering sword, and Mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to Mine enemies.” (God) 6. Morgan Stanley Earlier this year the Wall Street Journal reported that “U.S. prosecutors are investigating whether Morgan Stanley misled investors about mortgage-derivatives deals it helped design and sometimes bet against.” The firm’s also being sued by US Bank for fraudulently misleading it and other investors over a structured residential investment called “Tourmaline.” A group of investors in Singapore is suing the firm for designing CDOs to fail and then selling them as “conservative investments.” The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority fined Morgan Stanley this year for failing to disclose material conflicts of interest to investors. The same agency hit the firm with a $12.5 million fine in 2007 for illegally concealing emails during customer arbitration hearings. In a particularly sleazy move, Morgan Stanley claimed that the emails had been lost on 9/11, when they were all safely stored in backup copies elsewhere. MS was also sued by the EEOC for gender discrimination . The firm was able to beat back an investors’ lawsuit over bloated executive pay – it set aside 62% of net revenue for employee compensation – so its executives get to keep fat bonuses for driving the company into the ground. Greed and stupidity aren’t illegal, after all. On the other hand, their portfolio of lawsuits including one that says they defrauded nuns in Europe . Rap Sheet: Despite numerous violations and charges, Morgan Stanley is a relatively minor player compared to its bigger colleagues. On the other hand, it illegally concealed evidence from arbitrators by using the World Trade Center attack as an excuse, and six of its own employees died in that attack. That’s simply vile. On top of that, they’re being sued by nuns . Shameless Quotes: “When we think back on 2001, we are filled with deep sorrow and outrage over the events of September 11. Who among us will ever forget the shock and horror of that day?” (Morgan Stanley Annual Report, 2001) “When you come that close to really going out of business, call it near death, death experience, the end of the line, whatever you want to call it, your only focus is to make sure your company survives.” (former CEO John Mack) __________________ We rescued these six banks. They’ve all broken the law, and they’re all under a cloud of suspicion regarding even more possible illegalities. And yet they’re all pouting because they weren’t invited to the White House. Which is our most shameless corporate lawbreaker? Bank of America’s the biggest, and it has probably committed the most widespread foreclosure fraud. JPMorgan Chase has played fast and loose with the law, and Dimon’s unwarranted arrogance raises their shamelessness quotient dramatically. It’s hard to top Wells Fargo and the drug cartels (although getting sued by nuns comes pretty close). Citi had Chuck Prince and Robert Rubin, two pretty shameless individuals. And Goldman … well, as we were saying, they’re Goldman . In any normal period of history all of these organizations would be recognized as corrupt institutions, and their leaders would be ashamed to show their faces among respectable people. But these aren’t normal times, are they? Frankly I’m stumped. You guys decide. They all deserve the title as far as I’m concerned.

Read the full article →

Merchant Debit Fees: Fed Proposes 12-Cent Cap, Visa, MasterCard Could Take Big Hits

December 16, 2010

NEW YORK — The Federal Reserve on Thursday proposed a 12-cent cap on the fees banks would be allowed to charge merchants for debit card transactions, a limit that some estimate could cut up to 90 percent of the revenue collected through such fees. Shares of Visa Inc. and MasterCard Inc. slid more than 10 percent after the proposals were made public. Capping debit interchange fees, sometimes called swipe fees, would help merchants. Under the existing system, the Fed said the average fee in 2009 was 44 cents per transaction, or 1.14 percent of the transaction. When the customer signed for the purchase in the same way they would for a credit card purchase, known as signature debit, the average fee was 56 cents, or 1.53 percent of the transaction amount. The proposal also would require that merchants have a choice of unrelated networks to process transactions, like Visa and MasterCard. That could cut into revenue for those companies by allowing other networks to process transactions now handled by the two biggest players in the industry. The network giants could see further revenue hits from banks that try to extract concessions based on the sharp fee cuts, said Thomas McCrohan, an analyst for Janney Capital Markets. The networks set the interchange rates but the fees are paid to the banks that issue debit cards bearing the Visa or MasterCard logos. The revenue hit could be between 70 and 90 percent of the fees currently paid, said Jeff Tassey, executive director of the Electronic Payments Coalition, a group that represents banks, credit unions, payment networks and card processors. “It’s a massive reduction,” he said. Wall Street was expecting a 60 percent cut, said McCrohan. Bank stocks were largely unaffected by the news, but shares of Visa slid $9.75, or 12.7 percent, to close at $67.19. MasterCard shares plunged $25.73, or 10.3 percent, to close at $223.49. Fed staff members said a swipe-fee cap probably wouldn’t translate into lower prices for consumers, except in some highly competitive markets. It may, however, result in banks cutting back on debit card reward programs or searching for other ways to offset the impact of lower fees. The proposal was made to enact a provision known as the Durbin Amendment that was part of the financial regulatory overhaul bill that became law in July. The provision requires that interchange fees be “reasonable and proportional” to banks’ costs for processing transactions. Critics noted that the Fed did not allow for the costs of fraud prevention and detection in setting the cap. “For a smaller institution, fraud prevention costs and fraud costs, for the most part are the costs,” said Bill Cheney, CEO of the Credit Union National Association. The law exempts banks and credit unions with market capitalizations under $10 billion. But industry representatives questioned how the exemption would be enforced, and said it could result in merchants refusing to accept debit cards issued by smaller institutions because those transactions would cost more. The limit would not apply to interchange fees for credit cards, which were not addressed in the financial overhaul. The National Retail Federation was among merchant groups that praised the proposal, saying fee limits “would result in lower costs for merchants and could lead to discounts for their customers.” The American Bankers Association had a vastly different take, charging that the cap would “essentially relieve retailers of paying their fair share” for debit card transactions. Visa said that the Fed’s proposal of “artificial” caps on fees doesn’t take into consideration the value of merchants being able to accept debt cards and the costs of running a debit network. It added in a statement that “the proposed routing and exclusivity alternatives put retailer profits ahead of consumer protection, choice and convenience.” McCrohan, the analyst at Janney, said the portion of the proposal that could require two networks for each type of transaction would create a hugely complicated system. “That just makes people’s heads hurt,” he said. “How is that going to work exactly?” MasterCard issued a statement saying that the Fed’s proposal fails to consider the full range of costs incurred by issuers to operate their debit card programs, and that it plans to file formal comments in the coming weeks as part of the public comment period. “Experience demonstrates that consumers, not banks, or payment networks are the biggest losers as a result of this regulation,” Noah Hunt, MasterCard’s general counsel said in a statement. “This type of price control is misguided and anti-competitive, and in the end is harmful to consumers.” The Federal Reserve will accept comments on the proposed rule through Feb. 22. The proposal must be finalized by April 21, and would take effect three months later. In the meantime, the fight over interchange fees may return to Congress. “We’re deeply troubled by the approach taken and essentially the direction Congress went in,” said Kenneth Clayton, general counsel for the American Bankers Association, a lobby group. “We clearly think the issue needs to be revisited.”

Read the full article →

Tim Chen: 5 Ways To Get Denied a Loan, Despite A Stellar FICO Score

December 15, 2010

There are quite a few ways you can get declined for a loan, even if you think you have the right FICO score. The P2P lending site Lending Club offers a great deal of transparency into the world of loan origination, and lays out exactly what the triggers might be that cause you to get turned down. 1. Too Many Credit Inquiries Over The Past 6 Months You will be automatically declined for a loan if you’ve had 9 or more credit inquiries in the past six months. While this may sound like a high number, a simple home refinancing application can pull your report numerous times in the weeks leading up to your closing date, as the lender repeatedly checks to make sure that things are still OK with your credit. Throw in a couple of credit card applications or an auto loan, and you can hit nine pretty quickly. Even as few as four credit inquiries will hurt your rate. In the case of Lending Club, this can increase your rate by anywhere from 0.37% to 1.87%. It’s not a huge increase, but worth keeping in mind when you know you have a loan in your near future. 2. Short Credit History This problem affected me while I was attempting to lease a car not long after college. I could afford to pay for the car with cash if necessary, yet the loan officer refused to approve the lease because of my limited credit history . Anyone with less than a three-year history on their oldest loan product will be automatically denied at Lending Club. This is why it is so important to get a no annual fee, low APR credit card that you can keep open for years to come, even if you rarely use it, or decide to switch cards at a later date. 3. Too Few Outstanding Loans You will automatically be denied a loan if you have only had one loan account or less. This means that people who refuse to use credit cards and pay for cars and homes in cash will find it impossible to land a loan at most financial institutions. Even having as many as five past or current accounts can hurt your interest rate. Of course that probably won’t come as much of a disappointment to someone with no credit card debt to consolidate. But what happens in an emergency situation that leaves you in need of cash with nothing but illiquid investments to speak of? Or what if you need a small business credit card to help get your new idea off the ground? Well if you live without credit, don’t expect to get credit. 4. Too Many Outstanding Loans People often ask whether opening too many credit cards can hurt a credit score. We’ve already mentioned credit inquiries, but those go away after 6 months as far as Lending Club is concerned. But if you open more than 21 loan accounts in your lifetime, you become increasingly penalized for having too many lines of credit. Therefore, if you like to take advantage of teaser promotions, such as 30,000 Miles to sign up for an airline card or bonus cash back, be careful not to open more than 15-20 credit card accounts, or else your borrowing rates will suffer. Lending Club doesn’t put an upper limit on the number of accounts you can open before getting denied, but more than 26 will cause your loan rate to jump anywhere from an additional 4% to 8%. 5. Maxed Out Revolving Loan Balances And finally, there’s the measure of how much of your available credit you’re currently using, or what credit bureaus refer to as your credit utilization. Using anything more than 5% and less than 85% of your revolving credit lines won’t hurt you, but you will be denied a loan at Lending Club if your existing revolving balances are completely maxed out. Credit cards are the most common form of revolving balances for consumers, so this means that you won’t be able to get a new loan if you’ve already maxed out your credit cards. When it comes to getting approved for a loan, FICO isn’t the only measure that matters. While important, it’s also important to lenders that you fit a certain mold that tells them you won’t default. There’s a lot of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” involved in making sure you don’t have too much or too little debt, but as long as you are responsible, everything should work out in your favor.

Read the full article →

Walgreen Says Customer Email Database Breached

December 13, 2010

NEW YORK — Walgreen Co. says a list of customers’ e-mail addresses has been breached and spam may have been sent out directing customers to enter personal data into outside Web sites. The company notified customers on Friday that their e-mail had been compromised, but said no other personal information was at risk. Walgreen warned consumers to be aware of potential e-mail scams that ask for personal information. It reminded customers that Walgreen will not send e-mails asking for credit card, Social Security, or other personal identification information. The company would not disclose the number of customers affected. “We want to assure you that the only information that was obtained was your e-mail address,” the company said, in an e-mail statement to customers. “Your prescription information, account and any other personally identifiable information were not at risk because such data is not contained in the e-mail system, and no access was gained to Walgreens consumer data systems.” Walgreen was not the only company hurt by hackers. On Sunday, Gawker warned subscribers that its database had been hacked and urged them to change their passwords. The company runs a series of blogs on media, technology and other issues and allows subscribers to comment. On Monday, McDonald’s Corp. said some of its customers’ private information may have been accessed during a data breach. That information included e-mail and other contact information, birthdates and other specifics provided when customers signed up for online promotions. The compromised database did not include any financial information or Social Security numbers. McDonald’s did not detail the timing or scope of the breach but says it is working with law enforcement.

Read the full article →

Gary Shapiro: Deficit Tests Our Democracy

December 7, 2010

After a disaster we look back to see what we should have done differently. The Challenger retrospect revealed a flawed launch decision process. The failure to find Iraqi weapons of mass destruction disclosed weak and exaggerated intelligence. Katrina showed that Mother Nature, poor planning and weak design could fatally combine. 9-11 taught us that a 747 could be a weapon of mass destruction. The sub-prime mortgage fiasco popped the canard that we should overreach our income when buying homes. These crises and lessons, while horrible and painful, did not test or threaten our unique form of democracy. However, a century from now, historians may declare that our nation failed because our elected leaders did not confront and resolve our budget deficit problem. I applaud President Obama for trying. Failing to get congressional approval of a binding vote from a deficit commission, he tried a voluntary approach. He appointed a deficit commission, and they have put forward a plan to increasingly lower the annual deficit. The measures proposed are difficult but long overdue – bitter medicine to avoid grave illness. The plan, if enacted, will avoid the tougher situation we will face in the next decade: our lenders get nervous, interest rates rise, and debt consumes our budget – shriveling funding for national defense, children, elderly and the poor. The issue is not whether the Obama debt commission’s plan will work. The math paints clear choices. The issue is not even whether the plan fairly shares the pain. Yes, the entitlement crowd complains that age 65 is a sacred retirement milepost, but its historic relativity to lifespan is irrelevant. The anti-tax people protest that by some definitions the plan raises taxes without guarantees of spending cuts. Others whine that certain historic incentives like the mortgage interest deduction are divine and more important than our national health (yet, when Congress eliminated the credit- card interest deduction, somehow we kept borrowing). Rather, the big issue is whether our cleaved parties and the American people can address and avoid the impending debt crisis. The jury is out, but the tea leaves concern me. On the one hand, with roughly half of Americans receiving government payments, we may be past the tipping point of finding politicians who are willing to risk reelection by cutting largesse. With only half of Americans actually paying income taxes, the entitlement society is putting the productive society at risk. Politicians have responded by avoiding the issue, and the media and American public have been complicit in this denial. Take the 2008 presidential election. The choice was either a candidate promising bigger government and no tax increases for all but wealthy Americans, or a candidate promising no new taxes and not offering any spending cuts. After the big government candidate was elected and delivered on his promises, the 2010 voters voiced concern about government spending. Yet, even in the 2010 election, few candidates described how they would cut government spending. The earnest promise of cutting “waste, fraud and abuse” is the bi-annual electoral ruse. It avoids the challenge of saying which programs will be cut or what taxes will be raised. The only alternative to spending cuts or taxes is economic growth. Yet, no economist envisions the type of amazing growth necessary to get us out of our fiscal mess without serious cost cutting, tax increases or a combination of the two. We are not holding legislators accountable. We pay them to decide among competing priorities. Yet, because of re-election concerns or ideology, members of Congress have been unwilling to make or advocate necessary policy choices. Republicans have signed the pledge on tax increases and have shown no stomach for real cost cutting. Democrats are happy to raise taxes on jobs creators, but they also are disinterested in the tough challenge of budget cuts. American business leaders are aghast. They view budgeting as a tool for setting priorities by separating the mission critical from the requested. That’s how businesses and countries succeed. How is it that a new 2010 British government has already decided and begun executing a deficit reduction plan? Americans, sadly, are struggling to attract enough votes just to make a credible deficit commission suggestion to a Congress seemingly incapable of even addressing a unanimous report. How is it that we ask young Americans to risk life and limb abroad while legislators won’t even risk re-election to make tough decisions for our country? The board of directors of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), the organization I lead, representing 2,000 technology companies, decided years ago that nothing is more important to the health of our industry than the health of the U.S. economy. Moreover, they agreed that our long-term economic health is in danger primarily due to the actions of our government, especially the exploding deficit. Last week, the CEA board reaffirmed this view and embraced the plan of the Obama deficit commission. While no one likes the sacrifice it entails and we can debate the mix of cuts and taxes, it is our best and, at this point, only hope to avoid the long- term economic destruction of America. If we do not address the deficit, we are threatening not only the nation we leave our children, but also the viability of the representative democratic experiment that is the United States. Gary Shapiro is the president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association, which represents more than 2,000 U.S. technology companies.

Read the full article →

David Gorodyansky: Even Savvy Shoppers Can Get Scammed — Tips for the Holiday Shopping Season

December 7, 2010

Last week marked the official beginning to the holiday shopping season. More people will be buying their stocking-stuffers online than ever before this year. comScore predicts online spending this holiday season will grow by at least 9%, two times last year’s pace, and the National Retail Federation (NRF) is expecting 2010 holiday retail sales to rise by 2.3% this year to $447.1 billion, compared with a rise of only 0.4% last year. In fact, the NRF reported that 33.6% of Thanksgiving weekend sales (Thursday-Sunday) were online, the highest percentage ever. Yet as the number of Internet shoppers rises, so do the threats to both personal security and privacy. We are voluntarily putting more of our personal information out there than ever before through social channels like Facebook and Twitter and the associated purchasing mechanisms which have latched on to these communities — but are we being smart about our online activity? Not really. The average consumer remains negligent to the fact that their information is not automatically protected when online. Security breaches come in all shapes and forms, from sidejacking — where someone on your Wi-Fi network literally hijacks into your internet session to steal your info — to lesser known tactics of fake e-coupons that allow hackers to gain access to your credit card information. The recent release of Firesheep shed light on the fact that, despite some protection, we all still need to take measures to protect our personal information online. What many people don’t realize is that while your credit card numbers might be made public when shopping online, so can your behavior — which can be even more frightening. What’s even more alarming is that these privacy violations don’t just come from rogue hackers. Rather, big companies are in the practice of violating individuals’ online privacy everyday by monitoring and storing what you buy. Recently in the news there has been a resurrection of noise around Deep Packet Inspection (DPI), intrusive technologies for profiling and targeting Internet users with ads which goes beyond monitoring just Web browsing and literally tracks an individual’s behavior online. Creepy isn’t it? Even some of our favorite websites are getting into the game, such as Facebook passing your data to third party sites and Google’s Wi-Fi data collection. The point is, the general need to raise awareness around online privacy is all around us. Rest assured that not all hope is lost as there are a number of simple ways that you as a consumer can take your privacy and security into your own hands. Here are some simple tips and tricks that make it possible for anyone — tech savvy or not — to stay safe and private when hunting for the big deals and surfing the Web this holiday season: 1. Antivirus: Invest in antivirus software like McAfee, Symantec or Webroot, which helps to blocks viruses, spyware, spam and lesser known threats to consumers like trojans, worms and rootkits, encrypting critical passwords and making your PC invisible to hackers. 2. Download and be done: While antivirus technology is critical, it remains the case that only 40% of people are actually protected by their antivirus. To help ensure that you are completely secure and protected online, combine this with a tool like as Hotspot Shield, a completely free download (Virtual Private Network — VPN) which keeps you secured and blocked from outside eyes. 3. Stamp of Approval: Look for accredited seals of approval from third party entities. And wherever you enter your credit card or other personal information, make sure that there is an “s” after http in the Web address. This means that it is encrypted. 4. Lock and key: Make sure there is a tiny closed padlock in the address bar, or on the lower right corner of the window. This lets you know that the site is secure. 5. Too Legit? This one can be a bit tougher, but take a minute to look for signs that the business is legitimate. Goes without saying that the Amazons and Targets of the world are legit, but for smaller shops, double check that it’s a credible business by calling the main number or doing a quick online search for other user reviews. Online shopping provides an easy option for savvy shoppers, but make sure you’re smart about how you buy. Follow these tips and protect your identity, information and right to online privacy this holiday season.

Read the full article →

Unemployment Benefits Expire For 2 Million

December 2, 2010

Shawn Slonsky’s children know by now not to give him Christmas lists filled with the latest gizmos. The 44-year-old union electrician is one of nearly 2 million Americans whose extended unemployment benefits will run out this month, making the holiday season less about celebration than survival. “We’ll put up decorations, but we just don’t have the money for a Christmas tree,” Slonsky said. Benefits that had been extended up to 99 weeks started running out Wednesday. Unless Congress approves a longer extension, the Labor Department estimates about 2 million people will be cut off by Christmas. Support groups for the so-called 99ers have sprung up online, offering chances to vent along with tips on resumes and job interviews. Advocacy groups such as the National Employment Law Project have turned their plight into a rallying cry for Congress to extend jobless benefits. Things used to be different for Slonsky, who lives in Massillon, Ohio. Before work dried up, he earned about $100,000 a year. He and his wife lived in a three-bedroom house where deer meandered through the backyard. Then they lost their jobs. Their house went into foreclosure and they had to move in with his 73-year-old father. Now, Slonsky is dreading the holidays as his 99 weeks run out. “It’s hard to be in a jovial mood all the time when you’ve got this storm cloud hanging over your head,” he said. The average weekly unemployment benefit in the U.S. is $302.90, though it varies widely depending on how states calculate the payment. Because of supplemental state programs and other factors, it’s hard to know for sure who will lose their benefits at any given time. Congressional opponents of extending the benefits beyond this month say fiscal responsibility should come first. Republicans in the House and Senate, along with a handful of conservative Democrats, say they’re open to extending benefits, but not if it means adding to the $13.8 trillion national debt. Republicans maintain they are willing to instead use unspent money from Obama stimulus programs to foot the bill: a $12.5 billion tab for three months. Democrats argue that the extended benefits should be paid for with deficit spending because it injects money into the economy. The GOP didn’t pay any political price for stalling efforts earlier this year to extend jobless benefits that provide critical help to the unemployed – including a seven-week stretch over the summer when jobless benefits were a piece of a failed Democratic tax and jobs bill. But bad publicity because the benefits end over the holidays has long been forecast. Democrats hope that a final deal on extending Bush-era income tax cuts to the wealthy and middle class will include an agreement from Republicans to another extension of deficit-financed emergency unemployment benefits. U.S. Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., the No. 3 Republican in the House, said extended benefits must be paid for now, rather than later, if they’re going to win support from fiscal conservatives. “The fact that we have to keep extending unemployment benefits shows that the economic policies of this administration have failed,” said Pence spokeswoman Courtney Kolb. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis told The Associated Press on Wednesday that declining to extend the benefits would be a mistake for Congress. “This is a bad way to start off the new, incoming season of new politicians that said that they wanted to make government work for people in a better way,” she said. Even if Congress does lengthen benefits, cash assistance is at best a stopgap measure, said Carol Hardison, executive director of Crisis Assistance Ministry in Charlotte, N.C., which has seen 20,000 new clients since the Great Recession started in December 2007. “We’re going to have to have a new conversation with the people who are still suffering, about the potentially drastic changes they’re going to have to make to stay out of the homeless shelter,” she said. Forget Christmas presents. What the 99ers want most of all is what remains elusive in the worst economy in generations: a job. “I am not searching for a job, I am begging for one,” said Felicia Robbins, 30, as she prepared to move out of a homeless shelter in Pensacola, Fla., where she and her five children have been living. She is using the last of her cash, about $500, to move into a small, unfurnished rental home. Robbins lost her job as a juvenile justice worker in 2009 and her last $235 unemployment check will arrive Dec. 13. Her 10-year-old car isn’t running, and she walks each day to the local unemployment office to look for work. Jeanne Reinman, 61, of Greenville, S.C., still has her house, but even that comes with a downside. After losing her computer design job a year and a half ago, Reinman scraped by with her savings and a weekly $351 unemployment check. When her nest egg vanished in July, she started using her unemployment to pay off her mortgage and stopped paying her credit card bills. She recently informed a creditor she couldn’t make payments on a loan because her benefits were ending. “I’m more concerned about trying to hang onto my house than paying you,” she told the creditor. Ninety-nine weeks may seem like a long time to find a job. But even as the economy grows, jobs that vanished in the Great Recession have not returned. The private sector added about 159,000 jobs in October – half as many as needed to reduce the unemployment rate of 9.6 percent, which the Federal Reserve expects will hover around 9 percent for all of next year. For people like JoAnn Sampson, decisions made by Congress can seem very distant. The former cart driver at U.S. Airways in Charlotte and her husband are both facing the end of unemployment benefits, and she can’t get so much as an entry-level job. “When you try to apply for retail or fast food, they say ‘You’re overqualified,’ they say ‘We don’t pay that much money,’ they say, ‘You don’t want this job,’” she said. Sampson counts her blessings: At least her two children, a teenager and a college student, are too old to expect much from Christmas this year. Wayne Pittman has been telling his family not expect much for Christmas either. The 46-year-old carpenter, along with his wife and 9-year-old son, have stopped going to movies and restaurants and buying new clothes. With his $297 weekly checks gone, holiday gifts are definitely out. “It’s not in our budget,” Pittman said. “I have a little boy, and that’s kind of hard to explain to him. To try to let him know, certain things he’s not going to be getting.” ___ This report includes contributions from Associated Press writers Meg Kinnard, in Columbia, S.C.; Ray Henry, in Atlanta; Melissa Nelson, in Pensacola, Fla.; Lucas L. Johnson II in Nashville, Tenn.; Mark Hamrick in Washington; and Jeannie Nuss in Columbus, Ohio.

Read the full article →

Bryce Covert: The Beginnings of a Credit Card-Free Revolution? Maybe Not.

December 1, 2010

Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0 . Welcome to the club , eight million new people without a credit card! CNNMoney reported yesterday that credit card use is in decline, with the number of cardless people jumping up to 78 million this year from 70 million last year. In a recession where every penny counts, many consumers shredded their cards in a move to reduce their debt (and probably avoid fee hikes ). The article reports, “TransUnion said the average U.S. credit card debt fell more than 11% over the past year to $4,964 in the third quarter.” Gerri Detweiler of Credit.com called the phenomenon “unprecedented.” Consumers never abandon their plastic, she says; the numbers have “always gone up.” Perhaps a silver lining of our economic misery could be consumers moving from debt and risk to saving and building real wealth. But the drop in users isn’t all due to penny pinching and/or outrage. Part of this trend is from “charge-offs in the higher risk segments,” says TransUnion. Because the new credit card act puts a kink in card companies’ ability to jack up interest rates and impose fees, they dumped consumers who they “saw as dead weight,” the article reports. With a recession causing more defaults on debt, the companies are getting out of riskier accounts. So both consumers and companies are parting ways with risk. And with easy access to credit cards dried up, some see the opportunity to cash in by creating new products. Enter the Kardashians — because we should always take financial advice from celebrities famous only for being famous. The reality TV celebs planned to market a pre-paid debit card to young teenage girls with their faces painted across the front. While they decided to shut down the venture (after Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal questioned the legality of the card’s “pernicious and predatory fees”), they aren’t alone in trying to get in on a growing trend. Annie Lowrey reports that “the total market will double in size in the next three years, with customers loading a whopping $672 billion onto prepaid cards by 2013.” The cards are sometimes used to get money to underserved communities such as immigrants and the poor. But they are also seen as a way for banks to cash in on a new distaste for credit cards among young people and to avoid rules that could limit profits on credit and debit cards. Lowrey points out that the Kardashian Kard (yes, with a ‘K’) would have had “more fees than the Kardashians have reality shows.” On top of that, these cards don’t have “the protections or the financial-education benefits of plain-vanilla banking products,” she adds. So good news: more people converting to the non-credit card cause. Bad news: not all of those people chose to leave credit card ownership of their own accord, and financial wizardry is already on the case, filling our need for predatory products. Innovation at its best! Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

Read the full article →

David Coates: Fiddling While Rome Burns

November 15, 2010

Rome lived on its principal until ruin stared it in the face. Industry is the only true source of wealth, and there was no industry in Rome. By day the Ostia Road was crowded with carts and muleteers, carrying to the great city the silks and spices of the East, the marble of Asia Minor, the timber of the Atlas, the grain of Africa and Egypt — and the carts brought nothing out but loads of dung. That was their return cargo…. Long Beach is the Ostia of our day, the gateway to the great American market… The imports are as numerous as the sands on the nearby beach, including everything from shoes and shirts to computers, autos, advanced telecommunications gear, and photo voltaic panels for generating solar energy. The exports, though, are few, consisting mostly of scrap metal and waste paper — this millennium’s dung, you might say. -Clyde Prestowitz, principal trade negotiator for Asia in the Reagan administration, writing in his The Betrayal of American Prosperity. As Congress convenes for its lame duck session, Paul Ryan is poised to become a very important man. As the likely chairman of the House Budget Committee from January, he is determined — as he told the Financial Times immediately after the mid-term elections — to see America “turn the corner” by maintaining “a firm focus on restoring the basic foundations of growth: low taxes, sound and honest money; fair, predictable and reasonable regulations; and, of course, spending cuts and reforms.” “Mr. Obama,” he wrote, “must now move quickly to join the growing bipartisan consensus calling for at least a two year freeze on all current tax rates. He should also join us to address our shared concern with the unsustainable deficit… Our fiscal and economic problems have been decades in the making — a bad situation made much worse over the past two years [which is why the president should] enact the spending cuts proposed in House Republicans’ ‘Pledge to America’.” “We face a choice,” Ryan said, “between an opportunity society with a safety net or a cradle-to-grave social welfare state.” Clearly he prefers the former. Personally, I prefer the latter — but that is of no consequence because no such choice currently awaits us. What awaits us instead is the interesting conundrum of a Republican Party cutting taxes for the rich while decrying the scale of the federal deficit. What awaits us is a House Budget Committee chaired by a man committed to resolving our current difficulties by repeating the policies that created them. And what awaits us is a Congress preoccupied with the wrong kind of debt. We certainly have a problem of debt. Part of that debt problem is the gap between federal taxes and federal expenditures — a gap that opened up on the watch of a Republican president and congress, not a Democratic one. A federal surplus inherited in 2000 was squandered well before 2008 by the tax cuts now due to expire and by the financing of a war of choice. The federal spending is larger now because of the recession triggered by a financial collapse that also occurred while the treasury secretary was a Republican. So it is simply untrue, and entirely disingenuous, to talk of “a bad situation made much worse over the past two years”, if by that is meant to signal that the Obama stimulus package deepened the recession. It did not. Arguably, the package should have been larger, the better to lift the economy from recession more quickly and to speed the flow of tax revenue again. Companies are slow to hire now not because they are over-taxed or over-regulated. They are not hiring now because their CEOs lack confidence in demand, and they lack confidence in demand because other companies share that same lack of confidence. With private sector confidence low, demand can only be increased by more targeted public spending rather than by less. To cut the federal deficit in the long term, the last thing sensible policy requires is its cutting now. But the main debt problem which currently besets the U.S. economy — the debt problem that keeps internal demand low — is not primarily a debt problem at the federal level, no matter what Paul Ryan claims or implies. It is a debt problem at the level of people’s personal finance. One of the “fiscal and economic problems decades in the making” to which Paul Ryan ought properly to refer, but which he does not, is the generalized stagnation of American hourly wages in the decades since Ronald Reagan was president, the intensification of American poverty over the bulk of that period, and the stellar rise in income and wealth inequality that has accompanied poverty and the lack of wage growth. One third of all Americans currently live on incomes that are within one tranche of the poverty level for their size of family. Indeed, the median income of average Americans has actually fallen in the last decade — down 4.8% according to the latest Census Bureau figures. The mass and generality of American consumers have maintained their living standards for the last quarter century not by paying “low taxes [in an economy based on] sound and honest money,” as Ryan would have it, but by working longer hours, sending more and more of their family members out to work, and by maxing out their credit cards. “Research shows that credit card debt in America has quadrupled since 1989 and increased 41 percent just since 2000. American now owes more over $1 trillion in credit card debt.” Money doesn’t come much less sound and honest than that. The other debt problem that now besets the U.S. economy is debt at the international level. Over the last two decades we have become the global system’s consumer-of-last-resort. The U.S. began the post-war period (in 1945) as the global capitalist system’s major exporter and supplier of investment funds, as well as its major military protector. The military role remains and the dollar is still for the moment the global system’s major reserve currency; but U.S. export domination has entirely vanished. It is American debt, not American largesse, which now helps to sustain global economic growth. Our trade relationship with China is emblematic: a U.S. deficit that was a mere $10 billion in 1990 and $83 billion in 2000 has now soared to $268 billion in 2008 and $226 billion in 2009. In 2008, the United States main export to China was waste and scrap paper — some $7.6 billion worth — more than we exported in oilseeds and grains (but oilseeds and grains were the third largest category of goods we exported to them). So here we have the United States of America sending to China, a major trading partner, agricultural produce and waste, in exchange for manufactured goods and money loans. No wonder Arianna Huffington chose to call her latest best-seller Third World America because in many ways our trading patterns are beginning to resemble those of an imperial power in decline. As we have argued before on this website, since World War 2 the United States has known two sustained periods of economic growth. Both were based on different social settlements. Each has something to tell us about how, and how not, to go forward. The first period was that between 1948 and 1973. Abroad in those years the world was organized around a Cold War division and a nuclear stand-off. At home, prosperity was anchored in the spread of semi-automated production systems. Productivity per worker rose dramatically after 1948, as did the wages of unionized workers: north-eastern and mid-western wage militancy was crucial to the demand side of the 1950s economic equation. American manufacturing led the world, and blue-collar American living standards exceeded those of traditional middle class and professional families in Western Europe and Japan. Internal income inequality accordingly diminished: by 1970 average CEO compensation packages in Fortune 500 companies ran somewhere between 56 and 70 times higher than the median wage those companies paid. Throughout the bulk of that first growth period, the United States ran a balance of trade surplus (the world bought American goods) and a balance of payments deficit (dollars flowed out to keep global demand high), dollars distributed globally in no small measure through the placing of American military personnel abroad. It was a growth period book — ended by two wars — Korea at the outset, Vietnam at its end — military expenditure on the second of which eventually helped bring that first growth period to an end. Twenty years later, the U.S. economy experienced a second prolonged period of growth, one that was momentarily slowed in the immediate wake of 9/11 but otherwise sustained from 1992 to 2008. There was no Cold War this time: rather initially a peace dividend and then the confrontation with Islamic fundamentalism that triggered wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Afghanistan again. Productivity rose at home again as it had between 1948 and 1973, this time the consequence of computerization and the spread of new information technology. But there were no rising wages through strong trade unions in this second growth period; and no U.S. balance of trade surplus. Instead there was debt — increasingly foreign debt and personal debt — and there was greater income inequality Income and wealth distribution in this second growth period moved average CEO compensation packages in large corporations into a 200-400 percent ratio to median wage, depending on the state of the stock market, and helped fuel the credit bubble which broke so dramatically and with such serious consequences in September 2008. Paul Ryan’s “Pledge to America” proposes to take us to a third growth period by replicating the inequalities of the second. That cannot do. What this economy now needs is a scale of change far more fundamental than simply token tax cuts and the closing of federal programs. What the economy now needs is a new growth trajectory whose underpinnings more resemble the first period of post-war U.S. economic growth than they do the second. At the very least, we need somehow to scale back our global role, restore our competitive manufacturing base, and return to a lower and more functional level of social inequality. A leading Republican figure from an earlier age has recently compared the United States to Rome. Given the force of that comparison, it is hard to avoid seeing Paul Ryan, for all his new found importance, as fiddling with tax cuts for the rich while the rest of America hurts. Our economic strength is eroding and a social time bomb is ticking beneath our feet, which is why it is time to put the fiddle away and begin a proper conversation whose seriousness matches the hour. For more David Coates, read Making the Progressive Change: Towards a Stronger U.S. Economy , to be published by Continuum Books in 2011. Originally posted with full citations at www.davidcoates.net.

Read the full article →

Michael W. Hudson: My Talk With Michael Hudson, Part 2

November 12, 2010

Michael Hudson and Michael Hudson are often mistaken for each other. Along with sharing a name, they share an interest in the creative ways that some people help themselves to other people’s money. Michael Hudson the economist is the author of such books as Super Imperialism. Michael W. Hudson the reporter is a staff writer at the Center for Public Integrity and author of a new book , The Monster: How a Gang of Predatory Lenders and Wall Street Bankers Fleeced America, and Spawned a Global Crisis . This is Part 2 of an edited transcript of an email conversation between the two Michael Hudsons. See Part 1 here . Michael W. Hudson, reporter : Getting people to load up on debt required not only crooked tactics, but also changing their attitudes about debt. First, the finance industry stopped calling it debt . Debt meant you were in the hole. You owed . Calling it credit removed the stigma of going into deficit and instead replaced it with a sense that you were being conferred an admirable distinction. As a consumer attorney once told me, nobody wants to eat a horse mackerel. Call it tuna fish, and it sounds much tastier. In the 1950s and ’60s, the finance industry worried about ministers preaching about the evils of debt. It began offering seminars and educations materials to the clergy. “When the ministers stopped telling the people that credit was a sin,” a former industry lobbyist recalled, “they began to realize that this really was a way of life.” Then there were the TV commercials that slyly suggested — even as they denied it — that having a credit card could make you happier, smarter, sexier . By the Reagan years, the finance industry was inundating American homeowners with advertising campaigns designed to encourage them to borrow against their homes to take dream vacations or pay their children’s college tuition. One print ad showed a couple beaming in front of their home: “We just discovered $50,000 hidden in our house!” A former Citibank executive later recalled in the New York Times : “Calling it a ‘second mortgage,’ that’s like hocking your house. But call it ‘equity access,’ and that sounds more innocent.” Michael Hudson, economist : The marketeers did their jobs well. Throughout most of history, people tried to steer free of debt, above all when it came to “mortgaging the homestead.” This is the first time in history when people imagined that the way to get rich and rise in the world was to run into debt, not stay out of it. There is a belief that rising housing prices make people — and the economy — richer. But what they actually do is raise the access price for housing to new buyers. This obliges them to take on a lifetime of debt. And that raises their cost of living. All this makes economies with highly financialized real estate markets less competitive in world markets. My first real job on Wall Street was as an economist at the Savings Banks Trust Company from 1962 to ’64. (It was at this point that I changed my given name, Huckleberry — my father’s favorite book had been Huckleberry Finn — and took the name Michael. Somehow Huck Hudson didn’t sound weighty enough for someone working in the capital of high finance.) Savings Bank Trust was the “central” commercial bank for New York State’s savings banks. My job was charting deposit statistics and tracing how they were recycled into mortgage loans. It became clear to me that most deposits grew simply by accruing quarterly interest – and hence, growing at an exponential rate. The more savings grew, the more was lent out as home mortgages – and the banks’ receipt of interest was recycled continually. Instead of imagining that real estate prices rose simply out of inertia or because of the rising population density (the “man/land ratio” as it was called), I saw the exponentially rising credit/land ratio as being more important. What I learned on Wall Street wasn’t anything like what I’d been taught in my graduate economics courses at New York University. My “money and banking” course had been taught by an abstract professor who taught economics as if it were science fiction about a parallel universe. He followed the usual academic tendency to teach students MV=PT, relating the money supply only to consumer prices (and wages). Nobody even today relates money and credit to asset prices. That amazes me, because it is the core of “wealth creation” Alan-Greenspan-style — loading the economy down with debt to inflate asset prices. What surprised me somewhat more was that followers of Henry George likewise had little interest in understanding the dynamics that bid up property prices. In 1994 I was hired to become research director of the Henry George School of Social Science here in New York. My main job was to create a set of national income and product accounts (NIPA) statistics, IRS statistics and Federal Reserve flow-of-funds statistics to explain the role of real estate rent and capital gains. (In economic terms, “rent” is not the monthly payment from tenants to landlords, but rather the wealth that one accumulates simply by owning something.) These statistics showed that, for homeowners, most net rental income was absorbed by mortgage interest. That wasn’t something “Georgists” wanted to hear. Most members of the board were in their 80s or 90s, because the sect was dying out. I was a couple of decades too young to pal around with them. I had known of Henry George only that he popularized the Single Tax on land and, in the 19th century, had spoken out against economic inequality — not that he had moved far to the right of the political spectrum, or that his followers were mainly von Misians and the school was basically a feeder into the Ayn Rand “objectivist” cult that had been an early training ground for Alan Greenspan. They didn’t want to hear about finance, largely because George had treated the economy as if it operated on barter — and whatever errors or shortcomings he had, they felt obliged to adopt them. They still focused on rising population density as explaining real estate prices, and told me that they were uninterested in statistical analysis. As a result, I left there pretty quickly. Michael W. Hudson, reporter : My first job out of college was as a reporter at the Roanoke Times , a daily newspaper in the mountains of Virginia. It was the mid-1980s. I covered the police and courts beat. I spent my days talking to cops, prosecutors and defense attorneys. Many evenings I did what one old-time newsman once called “foot-in-the-door” reporting — showing up at the homes of victims and suspects of crimes and trying to get them talk to me and tell their sides of the story. Later, I began investigating big bureaucracies, such as Virginia’s juvenile prison system. I learned that in large institutions the best sources of information generally didn’t come from the top. Often the people in charge didn’t know what was going on, or they had a vested interest in putting a happy face on things. I found better information by talking with low- and middle-level folks working in the trenches. This experience, I think, prepared me for reporting on the rise of the subprime mortgage industry, from the end of George H.W. Bush’s term in office through George W. Bush’s second term. I talked to dozens, then hundreds, of former mortgage workers who described how their employers were using “boiler room” sales tactics to peddle mortgages with Rube Goldberg-like structures designed to obscure their true nature. I saw it more as a police story rather than a market or economic story. This was not a case of a few bad practices thriving around the margins, as the free market corrected itself. Fraud had become central to the mortgage market and its explosive growth. By tracing the practices on the ground to the financiers who were bankrolling them, I could see that lots of people on Wall Street knew, or should have known, what was going on. As far back as 2003, a civil trial in Southern California had unearthed information about the relationship between Lehman Brothers and a subprime lender called First Alliance Mortgage Co. In 1995, a Lehman vice president who checked out the lender wrote a memo describing the lender as a financial “sweat shop” specializing in “high pressure sales for people who are in a weak state,” a place where employees checked their “ethics at the door .” This didn’t bother Lehman much. Over the next few years, it helped First Alliance raise hundreds of millions of dollars to bankroll its lending.

Read the full article →

Wells Fargo ‘Nightmare’ For Homeowner Applying For Help Under Administration’s Anti-Foreclosure Program

November 12, 2010

WASHINGTON — Wells Fargo put an Illinois woman though a “nightmare of harassment, frustration, and relentless stress” when she tried to apply for a mortgage modification under the Obama administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court this week. It’s a familiar nightmare to many lured by HAMP’s promise of reduced monthly payments. More people have been bounced from the program than have received “permanent” five-year modifications, and federal auditors say the program sometimes actually causes borrowers to lose their homes. Therese Crowley of Deerfield, Ill., facing reduced income because of health problems and less demand for her broker services, first asked for a HAMP application in April 2009. Wells Fargo allegedly dragged its feet for four months before it sent one along, then denied the application in October and gave her bogus explanations when she called to complain. In November, Wells Fargo told Crowley to apply again, then denied her again the following month. A week later she called the bank and spoke to a woman named Paula, who “determined that Wells Fargo had erroneously overstated Crowley’s income by $2,800,” the complaint alleges. “Also, the file erroneously indicated that Crowley owed $2,381.07 per month on a credit card debt which in fact had been paid off in 2002. Paula agreed that with the correct information (information that Wells Fargo had during this entire process), in her opinion Crowley qualified for a HAMP loan modification.” Crowley applied again and was denied again in March. She called to complain, and was once again told she qualified. Then Wells Fargo allegedly put her in a “special forbearance period” during which she made reduced payments for three months while continuing to pursue a HAMP modification. One day, she’d be told she didn’t qualify because of her income, another she’d be told she failed HAMP’s opaque “Net Present Value” test. In August, she allegedly received the following from a Wells Fargo executive: “As indicated, your income doesn’t have anything to do with why you were actually denied for HAMP. You were denied for Net Present Value, at the time of the denial for NPV, we had been instructed to not use that as the reason because we were not prepared to explain Net Present Value denials.” Crowley’s putative class action complaint is just one of many moving through courts across the country reflecting widespread frustration with HAMP. President Obama said the program would allow three to four million homeowners to modify their mortgages and keep their homes by 2012. So far, 466,708 are in active permanent modifications, while more than 700,000 have had their modifications canceled. Eligible borrowers are supposed to have their monthly payments reduced to 31 percent of their monthly income, usually saving $500 a month. If they make the reduced payments for three months, the modification is supposed to become permanent. Wells Fargo did not immediately respond to a request for comment from HuffPost. As for Crowley, she “hangs in limbo somewhere between loan modification and foreclosure,” according to the lawsuit. “I am not just fighting for myself,” said Crowley in a statement. “I want to make sure other people won’t have to endure the same nightmare of harassment, frustration, and relentless stress that I have suffered.”

Read the full article →

Patrice Peyret: The Kardashians Launch A Prepaid Card: Check the Fine Print

November 8, 2010

Today, the Kardashian sisters are putting name and celebrity status behind a Mastercard prepaid card. The sisters, Kim, Khloe and Kourtney, are the latest in a line of celebrities who have launched branded prepaid cards, including Russell Simmons, Lil Wayne and Amar’e Stoudemire. [Disclosure: the Amar'e card is an UPside Visa Card. operated by Plastyc, where I am the CEO.] It’s good that celebrities are raising awareness of reloadable prepaid cards. These cards are a great option for people who don’t have traditional bank accounts, and their use is growing in general. They are also a good way for teenagers to handle money more responsibly than borrowing Mom’s or Dad’s credit card, provided parents can supervise and control their teen’s prepaid card account. Nearly 12 million people are expected to have one by 2014. Unlike a credit card, you can’t run into debt using them. Unlike a traditional checking account, there are no overdrafts. They use trusted payment networks such as Visa and Mastercard and most of them are federally insured. You can also receive direct deposits of salaries into these cards, a much better alternative to cashing a paper paycheck at check-cashing stores which can charge outrageous fees. I haven’t seen the Kardashian’s new card yet. It’s scheduled to be available tomorrow, November 10. But here’s how reloadable prepaid cards work in most cases: You sign up for an account online by confirming your identity with a social security number. There’s no credit check. If you are minor, a parent can sign you up. A handful of days later, a card, imprinted with your name and account number arrives in the mail. You load money onto the card in multiple ways such as having parents transfer money from their checking accounts, having paychecks direct deposited and by using cash to buy GreenDot MoneyPacks or to swipe your card at a Moneygram location. You spend money in stores or online as you would with any other piece of Visa or Mastercard plastic. You check your accounts on the Web or your cell phone. But watch out. Not all cards are created equal. Just because there’s a familiar face on the card doesn’t mean the terms are good. And be skeptical of the word “free”. Just as ATM and overdraft fees in “free” checking accounts can hurt your balance, some cards can carry high fees that leave you with a lot less to spend, if you’re not careful. Every prepaid card issuer must post a fee schedule. Here are a few items in that fee schedule that you should take a closer look at: Activation fee: this is the fee that some cards charge you just to begin using the card. Monthly fee: this is automatically charged each month to keep the account open. Some cards waive or reduce this fee with a minimum balance. ATM withdrawal fee: this is on top of any fee charged by the ATM network. Transaction or purchase fee: this is a fee that some cards charge each time you use the card, regardless of the amount of the purchase. Fees for loading money in the card from a bank account or another card of from a parent account. The best cards will have no or low fees in each of these categories. Another item to look at are features. Some cards have most of the features of a traditional bank account, including the ability to issue paper checks. Or they have features aimed at specific demographics, such as mobile payments, budgeting tools, or parental controls for teenagers. Make sure the prepaid card has the features you want. Shopaholics beware! Money and emotions are a dangerous mix. Most celebrities do not need to watch their spending, but most of the rest of us do. If you like the idea of a reloadable prepaid account but you don’t like the fees or features of the celebrity card you’re reviewing, check around. There are many, good alternatives.

Read the full article →

Don McNay: Will our new leaders encourage consumers to save?

November 6, 2010

After the recent election, are going to have a bunch of new people running the show. I wonder if they will encourage consumers to focus on saving. I once heard an economist say, Rich people accumulate wealth. Poor people accumulate things,” he said. He had a trickle up theory of economics. He felt that money burns a hole in a poor person’s pocket while wealthy people will sock it away. Poor people often spend all their income just to survive but there are some who are broke simply because they can’t handle money. There is a financial dividing line that separates savers and spenders. The savers wind up with wealth and the spenders wind up with debt. Debtors can only get bailed out if they are Wall Street banks who are “too big to fail.” Working Americans aren’t deemed “too big to fail.” The line between affluence and poor is getting bigger. For years, poor people wanting to spend had plenty of help from credit card companies, payday lenders, “buy here, and pay here” car lots and subprime lenders. Many people got in over their heads and couldn’t make payments. Companies like Citigroup bet that the fun would never stop and kept lending. They were both wrong. The economy tanked because companies and consumers put too much faith in a system of endless spending and borrowing. People on their way to wealth usually have good savings habits. People on their way to a lifelong struggles blow money on stuff they don’t need. Spending is an instant gratification, like snorting cocaine. One shopper told me that she got a high from shopping like a high from drugs. When I was growing up, I used to think some people didn’t have good jobs. They lived in run down houses and often had their cars repossessed I found out that they made as much money as my parents. The people who lived in run down houses spent money on things they didn’t use and motorboats that never made it in the water. They lent money to “family and friends” even though they should have paying their own bills first. They had no sense of long term planning. Ultimately, they had no money. Spending beyond your means is an addiction. A spending addiction is probably as hard to cure as a drug addiction. It requires changing your lifestyle. Money is a leading cause of divorce. The stress of debt pushes people to escape reality with booze or drugs. When the economy slowed down, the addiction became a crisis. People keeping the balls in the air suddenly couldn’t. They had no backup systems. I’ve frequently hired a casual laborer. He is good at his craft and for 20 years, he made really good money. None of which he saved. Whenever I saw him, he talked about skiing trips, his bass boat or his brand new trucks. Now the economy has turned. His house is being foreclosed on and they repossessed his trucks. He has no savings or credit. His focus was on accumulating possessions. Now he doesn’t have those possessions. Or any money either. If our next set of leaders truly wants to make an impact, they need to get America focused on saving.

Read the full article →

Obama Blasts Republican Economic Policies: GOP ‘Snake Oil’ Could Jeopardize Economy

October 23, 2010

With the midterm elections just 10 days away, President Barack Obama is blasting Republicans’ economic policies at rallies in support of Democratic candidates and over the airwaves. “This is a choice between the policies that got us into this mess and the policies that are going to lead us out of this mess,” Obama told a crowd of about 37,000 on Friday at a rally in Los Angeles for California Sen. Barbara Boxer. “They are clinging to the same worn-out, tired, snake-oil ideas that they were peddling before.” At a rally in Las Vegas, Obama told supporters of Nevada Sen. Harry Reid: “They’re banking on the fact that you might forget who got us in this mess in the first place.” Republicans are expected to pick up a large number of House and Senate seats in the midterm elections, but a new poll finds that Obama’s efforts may be succeeding in firing up the Democratic base. The president’s approval ratings have jumped substantially, according to the latest Newsweek poll , a sign that Democrats are closing the “enthusiasm gap” as the election nears. Early voting has also shown surprising turnout for Democrats . The president continued his attack on the GOP in his weekly address on Saturday, warning voters that Republicans seeking control of Congress would roll back his hard-won Wall Street overhaul bill. “I think that would be a terrible mistake,” he said. “Our economy depends on a financial system in which everyone competes on a level playing field, and everyone is held to the same rules — whether you’re a big bank, a small business owner, or a family looking to buy a house or open a credit card. And as we saw, without sound oversight and common-sense protections for consumers, the whole economy is put in jeopardy. That doesn’t serve Main Street. That doesn’t serve Wall Street. That doesn’t serve anyone. And that’s why I think it’s so important that we not take this country backward — that we don’t go back to the broken system we had before. We’ve got to keep moving forward. WATCH: “This was a bill designed to rein in the secret deals and reckless gambling that nearly brought down the financial system,” Obama said. “And reform included the strongest consumer protections in history — to put an end to a lot of the hidden fees, deceptive mortgages and other abusive practices.” The measure promises limits on bank overdraft fees and an end to abuses such as retroactive interest rate increases on credit card balances. It came in the wake of a $700 billion bank rescue passed in the final months of George W. Bush’s presidency. While the bailout is credited with providing stability, it’s deeply unpopular with voters angry of taxpayer money being used to help prop up huge banks. Obama promised that the measure ensures that taxpayers will “never again be on the hook for a bailout.” House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio has called for the repeal of the measure, as have top Senate Republicans. But that’s unlikely even if the GOP should take control of Congress since Obama would still wield a veto pen. In the GOP’s weekly message , Sen. John Thune of South Dakota denounced Obama’s economic stimulus bill, overhaul of the U.S. health care system and plans to allow Bush-era tax cuts for wealthier people to expire. “The Obama Experiment has failed,” he said. “We have learned the lessons not only of what hasn’t worked over the past two years, but what didn’t work the last time Republicans controlled Congress,” Thune said. “We are determined to take this country in the right direction.” WATCH:

Read the full article →

Obama Weekly Address: GOP Will Try To Repeal Wall Street Reform (VIDEO)

October 23, 2010

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is warning voters that Republicans seeking control of Congress would roll back his hard-won Wall Street overhaul bill. He says the GOP’s promised repeal of the new law would be a major setback for consumers and would bring back a financial system whose near-collapse led to the worst recession since the Great Depression. “Without sound oversight and commonsense protections for consumers, the whole economy is put in jeopardy,” Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address. “That doesn’t serve Main Street. That doesn’t serve Wall Street. That doesn’t serve anyone.” WATCH: The law, passed despite nearly unanimous Republican opposition, attempts to catch up to a financial system that has sped ahead of outdated regulation and rules that allowed banks, traders and others to take increased risks. “This was a bill designed to rein in the secret deals and reckless gambling that nearly brought down the financial system,” Obama said. “And reform included the strongest consumer protections in history – to put an end to a lot of the hidden fees, deceptive mortgages and other abusive practices.” The measure promises limits on bank overdraft fees and an end to abuses such as retroactive interest rate increases on credit card balances. It came in the wake of a $700 billion bank rescue passed in the final months of George W. Bush’s presidency. While the bailout is credited with providing stability, it’s deeply unpopular with voters angry of taxpayer money being used to help prop up huge banks. Obama promised that the measure ensures that taxpayers will “never again be on the hook for a bailout.” Obama’s address came just 10 days before midterm elections in which Republicans have a good chance of taking over the House, if not the Senate. The financial regulation measure hasn’t been a central campaign issue. House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio has called for the repeal of the measure, as have top Senate Republicans. But that’s unlikely even if the GOP should take control of Congress since Obama would still wield a veto pen. In the GOP’s weekly message, Sen. John Thune of South Dakota denounced Obama’s economic stimulus bill, overhaul of the U.S. health care system and plans to allow Bush-era tax cuts for wealthier people to expire. “We have learned the lessons not only of what hasn’t worked over the past two years, but what didn’t work the last time Republicans controlled Congress,” Thune said. “We are determined to take this country in the right direction.” Added Thune: “Are you better off today than you were two years ago?”

Read the full article →

Robert R. Ackerman, Jr.: IT Security Acquisitions Are Skyrocketing

October 11, 2010

For all the talk about a chronic shortage of exits for venture-backed companies, one segment of the venture capital technology ecosystem is poised to go from “hot” to “hotter”. IT Security — the umbrella term for technologies designed to protect the digital superhighway — is coming into its own, and in a big way. Following on the heels of repeated breaches of government and corporate networks, widespread theft of credit card records and medical records transitioning to digital storage and delivery, the security risk index on computer networks has moved from “potentially dangerous” to “we’re under siege”. With active attacks measured in the hundreds of thousands virtually daily, the old adage that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link — in this case, the computer networks that represent the fabric of commerce (and government) on a global basis – is top of mind for chief security officers around the world. Increasingly, these attacks are originated by state entities engaged in governmental and/or commercial espionage and highly organized criminal gangs. While the 13-year-old wunderkind who “hacks” for fun is still with us, the attacks today are orchestrated by the equivalent of PhDs as well educated and sophisticated as any in the world in search of treasure, whether it is commercial, intellectual or political. The attackers are well funded, highly disciplined and have the advantage. While those in charge of IT security work hard to successfully thwart every attack, the attackers only need be successful periodically. This boils down to electronic asymmetric warfare, and it is a surging frontier for innovation and investment among many of today’s entrepreneurs. Through the first nine months of the year, U.S. venture capital firms invested $9.2 billion, up from $8.9 billion in the same period in 2009, and a healthy dose of that was invested in security startups. This was predictable given a huge surge in recent months in acquisitions of IT security companies, which is highly likely to accelerate further. There were a whopping 16 IT security acquisitions in the last 100 days. They exceeded $10 billion in value by the estimation of myself and others. Here is the list in chronological order, including acquisition prices if disclosed: On July 1, IBM acquired BigFix, a private company based in Emeryville, CA, that replaces fragmented tools, including vulnerability assessment and security compliance tools, with one unified control architecture. On July 7, Boeing acquired Narus, a Sunnyvale, CA, based provider of real-time traffic and analytics software to protect against cyber attacks and threats aimed at IP networks. On July 12, Quest Software, an Aliso Viejo, CA, based maker of technology systems management software, acquired Volcker Informatix AG, a German software company that makes products that help companies manage user identities, access privileges and security. On July 13, GFI Software, a Raleigh, N.C., provider of software infrastructure products for small and medium-size companies, acquired Tampa Bay-based Sun Belt Software, a major provider of Windows-based security software. On July 22, Mobile Media Unlimited Holdings, a London-based public company specializing in the dissemination of cell phone-based advertising, acquired Enable Software, a Warkwickshire, England, based company that empowers the interception and analysis of audio communications. On July 23, Digital Barriers, a publicly held London-based maker of thermal imaging equipment for perimeter surveillance, acquired Overtis Solutions, a Berkshire, England-based maker of software that prevents malicious or fraudulent data misuse. It paid 3.2 million pounds. On July 27, Juniper Networks acquired Columbus, Ohio, based SMobile, a mobile security firm. It paid70 million. On July 27, Commtouch, a public U.S. company that supplies Internet security technology to 150 security companies and Internet service providers, acquired the antivirus division of Authentium, based in Palm Beach Gardens, FL. Only July 29, McAfee acquired Singapore-based tenCube, a provider of a mobile security service to combat the ubiquitous problem of lost cell phones. On August 9, Tektronix Communications, a Plano, Texas, provider of communications test and network intelligence solutions, acquired Arbor Networks, a Chelmsford, MA, based provider of security management solutions for global business networks. Its customers include more than 70 percent of the world’s Internet service providers. On August 4, St. Bernard Software, a San Diego based maker of web security appliances, acquired Red Condor, a Rohnert Park, CA, based purveyor of managed email security solutions. On August 19, Intel acquired McAfee, among the world’s biggest makers of antivirus software. Intel said it acquired the company because security has become a fundamental component of online computing, including mobile and wireless devices, TVs, cars, medical devices and ATM machines. Intel paid7.7 billion in stock. On August 30, CA Technologies, a public company, acquired Arcot Systems, a Sunnyvale, CA, based maker of advanced authentication and fraud prevention solutions for on-premise software and cloud computing. CA Technologies paid200 million in cash. On September 1, VMWare acquired Los Gatos, CA, based TriCipher, a provider of secure access management for cloud-hosted service-as-a-service applications. On September 13, Hewlett-Packard acquired ArcSight, a Cupertino, CA, based global provider of cyber security and compliance solutions that protect organizations from enterprise threats and risks. The price was1.5 billion in stock. On October 4, Raytheon acquired Carlsbad, CA, based Technology Associates, a provider of computing engineering for the U.S. intelligence community. Raytheon said it bought the company to expand its cyber security business. As impressive as this level of activity is, all indications suggest even a bigger spurt of security acquisitions in the months ahead. Driven by unprecedented levels of cash on the corporate balance sheets of major technology corporations and a deep-seated conviction that IT security must chronically be improved, this almost certainly will be one of the next major growth areas for technology spending. “No one argues about whether or not our IT security budget will be up,” a corporate chief security officer recently told me. The only question is up by how much? We can’t afford to be wrong or vulnerable.” Beyond the obvious reason, an acquisition frenzy will be further fueled by an unusually broad set of buyers interested in IT security. In addition to major technology companies, major systems integrators are showing significant interest to better meet the needs of their governmental customers and also to more deeply penetrate the commercial market. These systems integrators include Lockheed, Boeing and General Dynamics. Other major acquirers include telecommunications companies, which want to better secure the data, now all in IP packets, that traverses their networks. They also want to offer customers new data security services. The data and the trends once again confirm that venture-backed innovation remains alive and well, at least in select areas. This is good news for enhanced cyber security, which is essential, and for all other types of venture capital-backed innovation, which is good for the U.S. economy. Robert R. Ackerman, Jr. is the founder and managing director of Allegis Capital (www.allegiscapital.com), a seed and early-stage venture firm headquartered in Palo Alto. Ackerman has worked with more than 50 corporate investment partners over the past 20 years as both a venture capitalist and a startup executive.

Read the full article →