It’s a very important decision when choosing a credit counseling company to handle your unsecured debts. After all you can’t do anything in this country with out good credit. It’s also important for you to know your credit score is how lenders determine what your interest rates will be. Therefore, the credit counseling agency that you choose to work with can have a major impact on your credit score. Below are very good questions and suggestions that you should follow to make sure you have chosen the right agency.
• Check out the agency with the Better Business Bureau, Attorney General’s Office and, your Local Consumer Protection Agency
• Make sure the agency is accredited by an independent agency such as ISO-BSI 9001-2000
• Ask if the agency’s counselors are certified by the Center For Financial Certifications
• Ask how often the agency disburses payments ( you want to make sure they disburse daily) Not monthly! If they disburse monthly you are at a high risk of being late each month
• Make sure the agency is Licensed and Insured
• The agency should provide you with free on going education on how to manage your debts and become debt free
• The agency should provide you with a FREE debt consultation
This may seem like a lot of work but trust me its well worth your time. You don’t want to get yourself into a worse situation. The idea is to get out of debt not fall further into debt. Remember, YOUR CREDIT IS YOUR LIFE!
Monday, August 9, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
TIPS ON HOW TO REBUILD YOUR CREDIT
Rebuilding credit
Here are a few tips on how to get back in the good graces of the credit agencies. Remember that no matter what your financial situation, it’s important that all bills be paid in a timely fashion.
• If you did file bankruptcy, make sure that the reaffirmed pre-bankruptcy debts are paid in a timely fashion. Although a bankruptcy filing will stay on one’s credit report ten years (chapter 7) and (seven years for chapter 13), new credit history has greater weight than old history.
• Open a checking or savings account, as this will show creditors that you can handle money responsibly.
• Apply for a gasoline card, as this is relatively easy to obtain. Always make sure the charges are paid off monthly as to show a record of responsible bill paying and so that the monthly interest fees don’t add up.
• Apply for a secured credit card. This type of credit card is secured by a deposit account owned by the cardholder. Typically, the cardholder must deposit, and keep a balance of between 100% and 200% of the total amount of credit desired.
It’s important that you know its ok to use that newly acquired credit card. Minimal use can prove to be beneficial for small purchases that can easily be paid off in full. Not only does this show responsibility, bills paid in full and one time will look real good on the credit report. And by all means make sure you live within your means!!!
Here are a few tips on how to get back in the good graces of the credit agencies. Remember that no matter what your financial situation, it’s important that all bills be paid in a timely fashion.
• If you did file bankruptcy, make sure that the reaffirmed pre-bankruptcy debts are paid in a timely fashion. Although a bankruptcy filing will stay on one’s credit report ten years (chapter 7) and (seven years for chapter 13), new credit history has greater weight than old history.
• Open a checking or savings account, as this will show creditors that you can handle money responsibly.
• Apply for a gasoline card, as this is relatively easy to obtain. Always make sure the charges are paid off monthly as to show a record of responsible bill paying and so that the monthly interest fees don’t add up.
• Apply for a secured credit card. This type of credit card is secured by a deposit account owned by the cardholder. Typically, the cardholder must deposit, and keep a balance of between 100% and 200% of the total amount of credit desired.
It’s important that you know its ok to use that newly acquired credit card. Minimal use can prove to be beneficial for small purchases that can easily be paid off in full. Not only does this show responsibility, bills paid in full and one time will look real good on the credit report. And by all means make sure you live within your means!!!
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Automated Debt Collection Lawsuits Engulf Courts
Article from the New York Times:As millions of Americans have fallen behind on paying their bills, debt collection law firms have been clogging courtrooms with lawsuits seeking repayment.
Few have been as prolific as Cohen & Slamowitz, a Woodbury, N.Y., firm that has specialized in debt collection for nearly two decades. The firm has been filing roughly 80,000 lawsuits a year.
With just 14 lawyers on staff, that works out to more than 5,700 cases per lawyer.
How is that possible?
The answer to that question is at the heart of a growing debate over the increasing use of the nation’s legal system to collect on bad debts.
Like many other firms, Cohen & Slamowitz relies on computer software to help prepare its cases. While many of the cases represent legitimate claims, critics say the lawsuits are too often based on inaccurate or incomplete information about the debtor or the amount owed.
Already, some state legislators and judges have tried to crack down on collection lawsuits, and on Monday, the Federal Trade Commission weighed in, saying the system for resolving disputes over consumer debts was broken and in need of “significant reforms.”
The commission, which says debt collection is its top consumer complaint, proposed that states require collectors to include more information about debts in their lawsuits, including a breakdown of the current balance by principal, interest and fees, and the relevant terms of the original credit contract, if not the contract itself.
The agency also urged states to adopt measures to make it more likely that consumers would show up in court to defend themselves; currently, most do not, resulting in default judgments.
“We are pushing very hard to make certain that debt collectors have sufficient substantiation, particularly when a consumer challenges the debt,” said David Vladeck, director of the commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.
The commission, which has limited authority to write debt collection rules, urged states to take action because most collection cases are filed in state courts.
The litigation boom has been propelled by fundamental changes in the way debts are collected, particularly for credit cards. In recent years, credit card companies have increasingly sold off debt they have considered uncollectible to debt buyers, usually for 5 cents or less on the dollar.
The debt buyers, in turn, may try to collect the debt themselves using traditional practices like sending letters or making phone calls to a consumer to try to arrange a payment plan. Increasingly, they are choosing to sue instead.
Collection law firms are able to handle such large volumes of cases because computer software automates much of their work. Typically, a debt buyer sends a law firm an electronic database that contains various data about consumers, including name, home address, the outstanding balance, the date of default and whether interest is still accruing on the account.
Once the data is obtained by a law firm, software like Collection-Master from a company called Commercial Legal Software can “take a file and run it through the entire legal system automatically,” including sending out collection letters, summonses and lawsuits, said Nicholas D. Arcaro, vice president for sales and marketing at the company.
No group has definitive statistics on debt collection lawsuits, but federal regulators, collection lawyers and judges say the numbers have increased and are straining the court system.
Most consumers fail to show up in court, and those who do rarely have a lawyer. A court judgment gives debt buyers the ability to collect on the debt through actions like wage or property garnishment.
“What they are hoping to recover is the full dollar on some of it,” said Robert J. Hobbs, deputy director of the National Consumer Law Center, an advocacy group. “On most of it, they are hoping to recover 40 or 50 cents on the dollar. And they are hoping to do it with as little work as they can.”
Critics say the business model for some debt buyers and law firms relies on such huge volumes of legal actions that mistakes and abuses are inevitable, in part because the lawsuits are often based on little more than a defendant’s name, address and alleged balance.
“It’s the factory approach to practicing law,” said Richard Rubin, a New Mexico lawyer who represents consumers against debt collectors.
Lawsuits are sometimes filed against the wrong people, critics say. Other times, they say, the amount owed is incorrect or includes questionable fees and interest that has been added to the balance.
In addition, it is not always clear if the debt buyer filing suit legally owns the debt, since debt portfolios are often sold several times.
Some collection lawyers complain that new requirements being imposed are holding them to higher standards than even the original creditors.
“In actuality, it’s impossible to comply with,” said Pedro Zabala, a North Carolina lawyer, speaking of a law passed last fall that requires more documentation to file suit.
Fred N. Blitt, the president of the National Association of Retail Collection Attorneys, which represents more than 700 law firms, said the increase in collection cases was an inevitable result of the huge number of people who are not paying their bills. Given the volume of cases, Mr. Blitt maintained that mistakes were few.
“The reality is, if people owe the money, they should pay it,” he said.
Cohen & Slamowitz declined to be interviewed for this article. In a 2009 deposition for a case accusing Cohen & Slamowitz of pursuing a debt that had already been paid, a partner at the firm, David A. Cohen, said the firm had 14 lawyers, though it also hired numerous outside lawyers to appear in court on a per diem basis. It also employed 30 to 40 legal secretaries and paralegals and about 60 people trying to collect debts, he said.
The firm filed 59,708 cases in 2005, 83,665 in 2006, 87,877 in 2007 and 80,873 in 2008, records from the lawsuit show.
As the case load has increased, some state legislators and judges have started to demand more information on the debt.
In addition to the new law in North Carolina, which requires third-party debt collectors to provide more proof of the debt, like an itemization of charges and fees, some local judges are challenging lawyers who are not prepared to back up their claims.
At a civil court hearing in Brooklyn in March, Judge Noach Dear demanded documents from Cohen & Slamowitz supporting its claim that Herman Johnson of Brooklyn owed $3,797.27 in credit card debt. Mr. Johnson disputed the claim.
“What proof did you have that this is the true gentleman that you were trying to pursue?” the judge asked David Robinson, a lawyer for Cohen & Slamowitz, according to a transcript.
“Just his Social, his date of birth, and his address and the account,” Mr. Robinson said.
“That’s all you have?” the judge said. “So if you have somebody’s Social number, date of birth and address, you could sue them without any other information?”
Mr. Johnson’s case was dismissed, and Judge Dear last month issued an order requiring, among other things, that Cohen & Slamowitz provide further proof of a debt if a defendant challenged the firm’s claim.
In an interview, Judge Dear said he did not think the order would necessarily result in a large drop-off in lawsuits. But, he said, given Cohen & Slamowitz’s size, he hoped it would persuade other law firms to follow suit.
“I think personally it will weed out the cases that are no good, and then we’ll get the defendants that truly do owe a debt,” he said.
Few have been as prolific as Cohen & Slamowitz, a Woodbury, N.Y., firm that has specialized in debt collection for nearly two decades. The firm has been filing roughly 80,000 lawsuits a year.
With just 14 lawyers on staff, that works out to more than 5,700 cases per lawyer.
How is that possible?
The answer to that question is at the heart of a growing debate over the increasing use of the nation’s legal system to collect on bad debts.
Like many other firms, Cohen & Slamowitz relies on computer software to help prepare its cases. While many of the cases represent legitimate claims, critics say the lawsuits are too often based on inaccurate or incomplete information about the debtor or the amount owed.
Already, some state legislators and judges have tried to crack down on collection lawsuits, and on Monday, the Federal Trade Commission weighed in, saying the system for resolving disputes over consumer debts was broken and in need of “significant reforms.”
The commission, which says debt collection is its top consumer complaint, proposed that states require collectors to include more information about debts in their lawsuits, including a breakdown of the current balance by principal, interest and fees, and the relevant terms of the original credit contract, if not the contract itself.
The agency also urged states to adopt measures to make it more likely that consumers would show up in court to defend themselves; currently, most do not, resulting in default judgments.
“We are pushing very hard to make certain that debt collectors have sufficient substantiation, particularly when a consumer challenges the debt,” said David Vladeck, director of the commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.
The commission, which has limited authority to write debt collection rules, urged states to take action because most collection cases are filed in state courts.
The litigation boom has been propelled by fundamental changes in the way debts are collected, particularly for credit cards. In recent years, credit card companies have increasingly sold off debt they have considered uncollectible to debt buyers, usually for 5 cents or less on the dollar.
The debt buyers, in turn, may try to collect the debt themselves using traditional practices like sending letters or making phone calls to a consumer to try to arrange a payment plan. Increasingly, they are choosing to sue instead.
Collection law firms are able to handle such large volumes of cases because computer software automates much of their work. Typically, a debt buyer sends a law firm an electronic database that contains various data about consumers, including name, home address, the outstanding balance, the date of default and whether interest is still accruing on the account.
Once the data is obtained by a law firm, software like Collection-Master from a company called Commercial Legal Software can “take a file and run it through the entire legal system automatically,” including sending out collection letters, summonses and lawsuits, said Nicholas D. Arcaro, vice president for sales and marketing at the company.
No group has definitive statistics on debt collection lawsuits, but federal regulators, collection lawyers and judges say the numbers have increased and are straining the court system.
Most consumers fail to show up in court, and those who do rarely have a lawyer. A court judgment gives debt buyers the ability to collect on the debt through actions like wage or property garnishment.
“What they are hoping to recover is the full dollar on some of it,” said Robert J. Hobbs, deputy director of the National Consumer Law Center, an advocacy group. “On most of it, they are hoping to recover 40 or 50 cents on the dollar. And they are hoping to do it with as little work as they can.”
Critics say the business model for some debt buyers and law firms relies on such huge volumes of legal actions that mistakes and abuses are inevitable, in part because the lawsuits are often based on little more than a defendant’s name, address and alleged balance.
“It’s the factory approach to practicing law,” said Richard Rubin, a New Mexico lawyer who represents consumers against debt collectors.
Lawsuits are sometimes filed against the wrong people, critics say. Other times, they say, the amount owed is incorrect or includes questionable fees and interest that has been added to the balance.
In addition, it is not always clear if the debt buyer filing suit legally owns the debt, since debt portfolios are often sold several times.
Some collection lawyers complain that new requirements being imposed are holding them to higher standards than even the original creditors.
“In actuality, it’s impossible to comply with,” said Pedro Zabala, a North Carolina lawyer, speaking of a law passed last fall that requires more documentation to file suit.
Fred N. Blitt, the president of the National Association of Retail Collection Attorneys, which represents more than 700 law firms, said the increase in collection cases was an inevitable result of the huge number of people who are not paying their bills. Given the volume of cases, Mr. Blitt maintained that mistakes were few.
“The reality is, if people owe the money, they should pay it,” he said.
Cohen & Slamowitz declined to be interviewed for this article. In a 2009 deposition for a case accusing Cohen & Slamowitz of pursuing a debt that had already been paid, a partner at the firm, David A. Cohen, said the firm had 14 lawyers, though it also hired numerous outside lawyers to appear in court on a per diem basis. It also employed 30 to 40 legal secretaries and paralegals and about 60 people trying to collect debts, he said.
The firm filed 59,708 cases in 2005, 83,665 in 2006, 87,877 in 2007 and 80,873 in 2008, records from the lawsuit show.
As the case load has increased, some state legislators and judges have started to demand more information on the debt.
In addition to the new law in North Carolina, which requires third-party debt collectors to provide more proof of the debt, like an itemization of charges and fees, some local judges are challenging lawyers who are not prepared to back up their claims.
At a civil court hearing in Brooklyn in March, Judge Noach Dear demanded documents from Cohen & Slamowitz supporting its claim that Herman Johnson of Brooklyn owed $3,797.27 in credit card debt. Mr. Johnson disputed the claim.
“What proof did you have that this is the true gentleman that you were trying to pursue?” the judge asked David Robinson, a lawyer for Cohen & Slamowitz, according to a transcript.
“Just his Social, his date of birth, and his address and the account,” Mr. Robinson said.
“That’s all you have?” the judge said. “So if you have somebody’s Social number, date of birth and address, you could sue them without any other information?”
Mr. Johnson’s case was dismissed, and Judge Dear last month issued an order requiring, among other things, that Cohen & Slamowitz provide further proof of a debt if a defendant challenged the firm’s claim.
In an interview, Judge Dear said he did not think the order would necessarily result in a large drop-off in lawsuits. But, he said, given Cohen & Slamowitz’s size, he hoped it would persuade other law firms to follow suit.
“I think personally it will weed out the cases that are no good, and then we’ll get the defendants that truly do owe a debt,” he said.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Americans Credit Scores sink to New lows
According to FICO,The credit scores of millions more Americans are sinking to new lows.
Figures provided by FICO Inc. show that 25.5 percent of consumers — nearly 43.4 million people — now have a credit score of 599 or below, marking them as poor risks for lenders.http://www.nwcdr.com/financial_warning_signs.htm It’s unlikely they will be able to get credit cards, auto loans or mortgages under the tighter lending standards banks now use.
Because consumers relied so heavily on debt to fuel their spending in recent years, their restricted access to credit is one reason for the slow economic recovery.
“I don’t get paid for loan applications, I get paid for closings,” said Ritch Workman, a Melbourne, Fla., mortgage broker. “I have plenty of business, but I’m struggling to stay open.”
FICO’s latest analysis is based on consumer credit reports as of April. Its findings represent an increase of about 2.4 million people in the lowest credit score categories in the past two years. Before the Great Recession, scores on FICO’s 300-to-850 scale weren’t as volatile, said Andrew Jennings, chief research officer for FICO in Minneapolis. Historically, just 15 percent of the 170 million consumers with active credit accounts, or 25.5 million people, fell below 599, according to data posted on Myfico.com.
More are likely to join their ranks. It can take several months before payment missteps actually drive down a credit score. The Labor Department says about 26 million people are out of work or underemployed, and millions more face foreclosure, which alone can chop 150 points off an individual’s score. Once the damage is done, it could be years before this group can restore their scores, even if they had strong credit histories in the past.
On the positive side, the number of consumers who have a top score of 800 or above has increased in recent years. At least in part, this reflects that more individuals have cut spending and paid down debt in response to the recession. Their ranks now stand at 17.9 percent, which is notably above the historical average of 13 percent, though down from 18.7 percent in April 2008 before the market meltdown.
There’s also been a notable shift in the important range of people with moderate credit, those with scores between 650 and 699. The new data shows that this group comprised 11.9 percent of scores. This is down only marginally from 12 percent in 2008, but reflects a drop of roughly 5.3 million people from its historical average of 15 percent.
This group is significant because it may feel the effects of lenders’ tighter credit standards the most, said FICO’s Jennings. Consumers on the lowest end of the scale are less likely to try to borrow. However, people with mid-range scores that had been eligible for credit before the meltdown are looking to buy homes or cars but finding it hard to qualify for affordable loans.
Workman has seen this firsthand.
A customer with a score of 679 recently walked away from buying a house because he could not get the best interest rate on a $100,000 mortgage. Had his score been 680, the rate he was offered would have been a half-percent lower. The difference was only about $31 per month, but over a 30-year mortgage would have added up to more than $11,000.
“There was nothing derogatory on his credit report,” Workman said of the customer. He had, however, recently gotten an auto loan, which likely lowered his score.
Studies have shown FICO scores are generally reliable predictions of consumer payment behavior, but Workman’s experience points to one drawback of credit scoring: the automated underwriting programs lenders use can’t always differentiate between two people with the same score. Another consumer might have a 679 score because of several late payments, which could indicate he or she is a bigger repayment risk. But a computer program that depends just on score won’t consider those details.
On a broader scale, some of the spike in foreclosures came about because homeowners were financially irresponsible, while others lost their jobs and could no longer pay their mortgages. Yet both reasons for foreclosures have the same impact on a borrower’s FICO score.
In the past too much credit was handed out based on scores alone, without considering how much debt consumers could pay back, said Edmund Tribue, a senior vice president in the credit risk practice at MasterCard Advisors. Now the ability to repay the debt is a critical part of the lending decision.
Workman still thinks credit scores alone play too big a role. “The pendulum has swung too far,” he said. “We absolutely swung way too far in the liberal lending, but did we have to swing so far back the other way?”
Figures provided by FICO Inc. show that 25.5 percent of consumers — nearly 43.4 million people — now have a credit score of 599 or below, marking them as poor risks for lenders.http://www.nwcdr.com/financial_warning_signs.htm It’s unlikely they will be able to get credit cards, auto loans or mortgages under the tighter lending standards banks now use.
Because consumers relied so heavily on debt to fuel their spending in recent years, their restricted access to credit is one reason for the slow economic recovery.
“I don’t get paid for loan applications, I get paid for closings,” said Ritch Workman, a Melbourne, Fla., mortgage broker. “I have plenty of business, but I’m struggling to stay open.”
FICO’s latest analysis is based on consumer credit reports as of April. Its findings represent an increase of about 2.4 million people in the lowest credit score categories in the past two years. Before the Great Recession, scores on FICO’s 300-to-850 scale weren’t as volatile, said Andrew Jennings, chief research officer for FICO in Minneapolis. Historically, just 15 percent of the 170 million consumers with active credit accounts, or 25.5 million people, fell below 599, according to data posted on Myfico.com.
More are likely to join their ranks. It can take several months before payment missteps actually drive down a credit score. The Labor Department says about 26 million people are out of work or underemployed, and millions more face foreclosure, which alone can chop 150 points off an individual’s score. Once the damage is done, it could be years before this group can restore their scores, even if they had strong credit histories in the past.
On the positive side, the number of consumers who have a top score of 800 or above has increased in recent years. At least in part, this reflects that more individuals have cut spending and paid down debt in response to the recession. Their ranks now stand at 17.9 percent, which is notably above the historical average of 13 percent, though down from 18.7 percent in April 2008 before the market meltdown.
There’s also been a notable shift in the important range of people with moderate credit, those with scores between 650 and 699. The new data shows that this group comprised 11.9 percent of scores. This is down only marginally from 12 percent in 2008, but reflects a drop of roughly 5.3 million people from its historical average of 15 percent.
This group is significant because it may feel the effects of lenders’ tighter credit standards the most, said FICO’s Jennings. Consumers on the lowest end of the scale are less likely to try to borrow. However, people with mid-range scores that had been eligible for credit before the meltdown are looking to buy homes or cars but finding it hard to qualify for affordable loans.
Workman has seen this firsthand.
A customer with a score of 679 recently walked away from buying a house because he could not get the best interest rate on a $100,000 mortgage. Had his score been 680, the rate he was offered would have been a half-percent lower. The difference was only about $31 per month, but over a 30-year mortgage would have added up to more than $11,000.
“There was nothing derogatory on his credit report,” Workman said of the customer. He had, however, recently gotten an auto loan, which likely lowered his score.
Studies have shown FICO scores are generally reliable predictions of consumer payment behavior, but Workman’s experience points to one drawback of credit scoring: the automated underwriting programs lenders use can’t always differentiate between two people with the same score. Another consumer might have a 679 score because of several late payments, which could indicate he or she is a bigger repayment risk. But a computer program that depends just on score won’t consider those details.
On a broader scale, some of the spike in foreclosures came about because homeowners were financially irresponsible, while others lost their jobs and could no longer pay their mortgages. Yet both reasons for foreclosures have the same impact on a borrower’s FICO score.
In the past too much credit was handed out based on scores alone, without considering how much debt consumers could pay back, said Edmund Tribue, a senior vice president in the credit risk practice at MasterCard Advisors. Now the ability to repay the debt is a critical part of the lending decision.
Workman still thinks credit scores alone play too big a role. “The pendulum has swung too far,” he said. “We absolutely swung way too far in the liberal lending, but did we have to swing so far back the other way?”
Monday, June 28, 2010
CONSUMER SPENDING , INCOMES RISE IN THE MONTH OF MAY
WASHINGTON,--U.S. consumer spending rose slightly more than expected in May even as savings touched their highest level in eight months, a government report showed on Monday.
The Commerce Department said spending edged up 0.25% after being flat in April. Analysts polled by Reuters had expected consumer spending to rise 0.1%.
Consumer spending is being closely watched to gauge the strength of the economic recovery after the government lowered estimates for the first quarter, holding back gross domestic product growth during that period.
A government report on Friday showed consumer spending, which normally accounts for 70% U.S. economic activity, rose at a 3% pace in the January-March quarter -- slower than the 3.5% the government had estimated last month.
Spending adjusted for inflation increased 0.3% last month after being flat in April. Real spending on services increased 0.3%, while spending on goods rose 0.2%, reversing the prior month's 0.1% decline, the Commerce Department said.
Personal income increased 0.4% after gaining 0.5% in April. Markets had expected income to rise 0.5% last month.
Real disposable income climbed 0.5% following a 0.6% increase the prior month.
The saving rate rose to 4.0% from 3.8% in April. Savings increased to an annual rate of $454.3 billion, the highest level since September. The report also showed the personal consumption expenditures price index, excluding food and energy, rising 1.3% in the 12 months to May.
The index, a key inflation measure monitored by the Federal Reserve, increased 1.2% in April.
The Commerce Department said spending edged up 0.25% after being flat in April. Analysts polled by Reuters had expected consumer spending to rise 0.1%.
Consumer spending is being closely watched to gauge the strength of the economic recovery after the government lowered estimates for the first quarter, holding back gross domestic product growth during that period.
A government report on Friday showed consumer spending, which normally accounts for 70% U.S. economic activity, rose at a 3% pace in the January-March quarter -- slower than the 3.5% the government had estimated last month.
Spending adjusted for inflation increased 0.3% last month after being flat in April. Real spending on services increased 0.3%, while spending on goods rose 0.2%, reversing the prior month's 0.1% decline, the Commerce Department said.
Personal income increased 0.4% after gaining 0.5% in April. Markets had expected income to rise 0.5% last month.
Real disposable income climbed 0.5% following a 0.6% increase the prior month.
The saving rate rose to 4.0% from 3.8% in April. Savings increased to an annual rate of $454.3 billion, the highest level since September. The report also showed the personal consumption expenditures price index, excluding food and energy, rising 1.3% in the 12 months to May.
The index, a key inflation measure monitored by the Federal Reserve, increased 1.2% in April.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
DEBT IS EVERYWHERE AND COUNTING
http://www.nwcdr.com/what_is_debt_consolidation.htm Our nation’s debt is staggering – over $13 trillion and counting – but the level of consumer debt is just as concerning, and is rising each day due to foreclosures, job loss and unexpected expenses. In fact, each American citizen’s share of the national debt is over $42,000 – and that’s on top of the personal debt they’ve already accrued. http://www.nwcdr.com/what_is_debt_consolidation.htm
States also have their own debt. According to data collected in the 2008 census, Massachusetts, Alaska and Rhode Island topped the list of most debt-ridden states, based on debt per capita. The three states with the least amount of debt are Tennessee, Georgia and Texas – but today’s numbers reflect that California is the most debt-ridden state, with more than $29 trillion in debt.
Totaling your personal debt – through credit cards, mortgages and other loans – can seem overwhelming. However, there are many ways for getting out of the red, and into the black.
Whether it’s credit counseling, debt settlement or bankruptcy, there are alternatives to living a life filled with calls from collectors. Seek help from a debt relief professional, and do what you can to take control of your finances. It may take a while – months, even years – but the accomplishment of living a debt-free life, or at least one where finances are controlled and budgets are adhered to, is well worth the effort.
States also have their own debt. According to data collected in the 2008 census, Massachusetts, Alaska and Rhode Island topped the list of most debt-ridden states, based on debt per capita. The three states with the least amount of debt are Tennessee, Georgia and Texas – but today’s numbers reflect that California is the most debt-ridden state, with more than $29 trillion in debt.
Totaling your personal debt – through credit cards, mortgages and other loans – can seem overwhelming. However, there are many ways for getting out of the red, and into the black.
Whether it’s credit counseling, debt settlement or bankruptcy, there are alternatives to living a life filled with calls from collectors. Seek help from a debt relief professional, and do what you can to take control of your finances. It may take a while – months, even years – but the accomplishment of living a debt-free life, or at least one where finances are controlled and budgets are adhered to, is well worth the effort.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Money Management
Money management address the concepts of cash flow (a.k.a., budgeting), personal net worth and financial goal setting. Adults should be able to create a budget, analyze their net worth, and set short-term and long term financial goals.
Its all about managing cash flow. Generally speaking there are six components to a budget: Income, Taxes, fixed expenses, Varibale Exspenses, Periodic expenses and discretionary Expenses. Each part of the budget is essential to piecing together your entire financial picture. Leave one part out and there’s a gaping hole.
Budgeting includes three basic steps:
1. Listing income and expenses;
2. Evaluating where changes need to be made in the event the budget dosen’t balance.
3. Following through to maintain the budget.
There will be more info regarding this topic in the next few days.
Its all about managing cash flow. Generally speaking there are six components to a budget: Income, Taxes, fixed expenses, Varibale Exspenses, Periodic expenses and discretionary Expenses. Each part of the budget is essential to piecing together your entire financial picture. Leave one part out and there’s a gaping hole.
Budgeting includes three basic steps:
1. Listing income and expenses;
2. Evaluating where changes need to be made in the event the budget dosen’t balance.
3. Following through to maintain the budget.
There will be more info regarding this topic in the next few days.
Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo of NY
BUFFALO, N.Y. (October 15, 2009) – Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo today announced that his office has won a lawsuit against a national debt settlement company, barring the company from doing business in New York state unless it posts a $500,000 performance bond to protect consumers. The decision also levies nearly $200,000 in penalties against the company for defrauding thousands of New Yorkers who looked to the company to negotiate reductions in their personal debt.
You should look into debt consolidation credit counseling before considering debt settlement. http://www.nwcdr.com/what_is_debt_consolidation.htm
As a result of the lawsuit filed in May, the Hon. Patrick H. NeMoyer in Erie County Supreme Court issued a decision that bars Nationwide Asset Services, Inc. (NAS), based in Phoenix, Arizona, along with its affiliates, from doing business in New York state unless it files a $500,000 performance bond to protect consumers. Additionally, Cuomo’s office obtained a civil penalty of $198,100 after the court determined that nearly 1,981 consumers were defrauded.
The court found that the majority of NAS customers were promised a 25 to 40 percent reduction in their outstanding debt but never saw such reductions. Only one-third of one percent of consumers received such savings. The other customers suffered continued harassment and lawsuits by creditors and had their credit ratings destroyed.
“This company made promises to people who were searching for financial help and trying to turn their lives around,” said Attorney General Cuomo. “But the promises never came true and, in many cases, New Yorkers were left in worse condition than when they started. Thanks to this ruling, the company has to put its money where its mouth is with a performance bond if it wants to do business in New York.”
The court’s decision also orders NAS to compute restitution for 180 consumers who successfully completed the program but actually paid more in fees and settlements than the amount originally due on their debts. NAS has been ordered to compute this consumer restitution and the specific amounts will then be verified by the Attorney General’s Office and the court.
The Attorney General’s investigation and suit determined that NAS and its affiliates, ServiceStar LLP and Universal Debt Reduction, LLC, and its marketer, FGL Clearwater, Inc. d/b/a American Debt Arbitration, based in Florida, engaged in fraudulent and deceptive business practices and false advertising and made significant profits by selling misleading debt settlement plans that very rarely delivered the promised benefits to consumers dealing with debt.
Debt settlement companies represent that they can substantially reduce consumer debt by negotiating directly with creditors, on behalf of their customers, to pay off outstanding balances at less than the amounts owed. However, Attorney General Cuomo’s Office has found that many of these debt settlement plans are often flawed and, based upon complaints, often mislead consumers about the nature of their services. The debt settlement plans are generally premised on consumers’ aggregating savings, over one to three years, from which both the payment of the company’s fees and any negotiated settlement are to be made. Yet most consumers who are targeted by these companies are unable to meet the savings requirements because of their already-precarious financial situation.
In addition, the companies often take their substantial fees up-front and keep these fees even when they do not provide the promised services. As a result, many consumers find themselves worse off financially because of these debt settlement plans.
As part of his broad investigation of the debt settlement industry, Cuomo issued subpoenas to multiple debt settlement companies and affiliated businesses. The investigation has sought to uncover how these companies structure their fees, how many people have actually benefited from their services, and what kinds of relief are the companies actually providing.
Many consumers may benefit more from working directly with their creditors, seeking credit counseling, or consulting an attorney about filing for bankruptcy. Additionally, even when enrolled in a debt settlement plan, consumers are often still subjected to collection efforts and lawsuits filed by their creditors. Consumers are even told not to discuss their debt situation with creditors.
Earlier this year, Cuomo launched a Web site – www.NYDebtHelp.com – that explains consumer rights, allows victims of debt settlement companies quick access to the Attorney General’s office to file complaints, and outlines the stages of the Attorney General’s investigation. Consumers who believe they are being defrauded by a debt settlement company are urged to contact the Attorney General’s office at 800-771-7755 800-771-7755 or www.oag.state.ny.us.
The lawsuit against Nationwide Asset Services, Inc. was handled by Assistant Attorney General James Morrissey under the supervision of Russell T. Ippolito, Assistant Attorney General-in-Charge of the Attorney General’s Buffalo Regional Office and J. David Sampson, Deputy Attorney General for Regional Affairs
You should look into debt consolidation credit counseling before considering debt settlement. http://www.nwcdr.com/what_is_debt_consolidation.htm
As a result of the lawsuit filed in May, the Hon. Patrick H. NeMoyer in Erie County Supreme Court issued a decision that bars Nationwide Asset Services, Inc. (NAS), based in Phoenix, Arizona, along with its affiliates, from doing business in New York state unless it files a $500,000 performance bond to protect consumers. Additionally, Cuomo’s office obtained a civil penalty of $198,100 after the court determined that nearly 1,981 consumers were defrauded.
The court found that the majority of NAS customers were promised a 25 to 40 percent reduction in their outstanding debt but never saw such reductions. Only one-third of one percent of consumers received such savings. The other customers suffered continued harassment and lawsuits by creditors and had their credit ratings destroyed.
“This company made promises to people who were searching for financial help and trying to turn their lives around,” said Attorney General Cuomo. “But the promises never came true and, in many cases, New Yorkers were left in worse condition than when they started. Thanks to this ruling, the company has to put its money where its mouth is with a performance bond if it wants to do business in New York.”
The court’s decision also orders NAS to compute restitution for 180 consumers who successfully completed the program but actually paid more in fees and settlements than the amount originally due on their debts. NAS has been ordered to compute this consumer restitution and the specific amounts will then be verified by the Attorney General’s Office and the court.
The Attorney General’s investigation and suit determined that NAS and its affiliates, ServiceStar LLP and Universal Debt Reduction, LLC, and its marketer, FGL Clearwater, Inc. d/b/a American Debt Arbitration, based in Florida, engaged in fraudulent and deceptive business practices and false advertising and made significant profits by selling misleading debt settlement plans that very rarely delivered the promised benefits to consumers dealing with debt.
Debt settlement companies represent that they can substantially reduce consumer debt by negotiating directly with creditors, on behalf of their customers, to pay off outstanding balances at less than the amounts owed. However, Attorney General Cuomo’s Office has found that many of these debt settlement plans are often flawed and, based upon complaints, often mislead consumers about the nature of their services. The debt settlement plans are generally premised on consumers’ aggregating savings, over one to three years, from which both the payment of the company’s fees and any negotiated settlement are to be made. Yet most consumers who are targeted by these companies are unable to meet the savings requirements because of their already-precarious financial situation.
In addition, the companies often take their substantial fees up-front and keep these fees even when they do not provide the promised services. As a result, many consumers find themselves worse off financially because of these debt settlement plans.
As part of his broad investigation of the debt settlement industry, Cuomo issued subpoenas to multiple debt settlement companies and affiliated businesses. The investigation has sought to uncover how these companies structure their fees, how many people have actually benefited from their services, and what kinds of relief are the companies actually providing.
Many consumers may benefit more from working directly with their creditors, seeking credit counseling, or consulting an attorney about filing for bankruptcy. Additionally, even when enrolled in a debt settlement plan, consumers are often still subjected to collection efforts and lawsuits filed by their creditors. Consumers are even told not to discuss their debt situation with creditors.
Earlier this year, Cuomo launched a Web site – www.NYDebtHelp.com – that explains consumer rights, allows victims of debt settlement companies quick access to the Attorney General’s office to file complaints, and outlines the stages of the Attorney General’s investigation. Consumers who believe they are being defrauded by a debt settlement company are urged to contact the Attorney General’s office at 800-771-7755 800-771-7755 or www.oag.state.ny.us.
The lawsuit against Nationwide Asset Services, Inc. was handled by Assistant Attorney General James Morrissey under the supervision of Russell T. Ippolito, Assistant Attorney General-in-Charge of the Attorney General’s Buffalo Regional Office and J. David Sampson, Deputy Attorney General for Regional Affairs
New York Times press coverage from the USOBA conference
NY press coverage from the USOBA conference !
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/business/economy/19debt.html?pagewanted=1&emc=eta1
MUST READ THIS ARTICLE!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/business/economy/19debt.html?pagewanted=1&emc=eta1
MUST READ THIS ARTICLE!
Thursday, June 10, 2010
God Debt VS. Bad Debt
Many of you may have had a negative experience related to debt. You may have even vowed to never to use credit again. Yet, it’ important that you know that credit has a valuable role in our economy, and frankly it can be impossible to perform some activities- like renting a car or booking an airline ticket, not to mention buying a home- with out credit.
Basically debt can be considered good when it’s used as an investment to improve your life or livelihood, such as a mortgage to buy a home or a student loan to advance ones education. Debt can also be considered good if it’s as a spending tool for smaller purchases, but only when it can be paid off over a short period of time, such as by the end of the month.
Bad debt includes credit card debt that accumulates and doesn’t get paid off monthly, which results in high interest costs and perhaps even late fees. If you used a credit card to pay for dinner at a restaurant and the balance is still outstanding after a year, that’s definitely bad debt. Another bad debt is known as Payday Loans. With this form of credit a borrower writes the Payday lender a check postdated to the borrower’s next pay day and then receives the check amount minus interest can be as high as 400 percent!
Basically debt can be considered good when it’s used as an investment to improve your life or livelihood, such as a mortgage to buy a home or a student loan to advance ones education. Debt can also be considered good if it’s as a spending tool for smaller purchases, but only when it can be paid off over a short period of time, such as by the end of the month.
Bad debt includes credit card debt that accumulates and doesn’t get paid off monthly, which results in high interest costs and perhaps even late fees. If you used a credit card to pay for dinner at a restaurant and the balance is still outstanding after a year, that’s definitely bad debt. Another bad debt is known as Payday Loans. With this form of credit a borrower writes the Payday lender a check postdated to the borrower’s next pay day and then receives the check amount minus interest can be as high as 400 percent!
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
FTC Sues to stop Deceptive Credit Card Calls
WASHINGTON — The Federal Trade Commission said Tuesday it has filed lawsuits against three groups allegedly offering worthless credit card interest rate reduction programs through illegal automated calls.
The FTC said it is the second major law enforcement effort this year against telemarketers.
The cases announced Tuesday were filed in federal courts in Florida, Georgia and Illinois. They name Economic Relief Technologies LLC; Dynamic Financial Group (U.S.A.) Inc., and JPM Accelerated Services as defendants. Several affiliated companies and individuals were also named.
The FTC alleges the firms made illegal prerecorded automated calls to consumers claiming credit card interest rates could be lowered if consumers would pay upfront fees ranging from $495 to $1,495.
After getting the money, the FTC says the companies did not try to negotiate lower fees for the consumer and, although they told consumers they could get a refund if their card rates weren’t lowered, few refunds were actually paid.
The FTC asked the court in each case to issue an order temporarily halting the automated calls pending trial.
In May, the FTC filed two cases that led to court orders stopping other telemarketers from using robocalls with deceptive claims about extended auto warranties.
Since Sept. 1, virtually all robocalls have been illegal, unless the recipients have provided written authorization to receive the prerecorded calls.
The FTC’s recently released “National Do Not Call Registry Data Book for Fiscal Year 2009,” says more than 191 million telephone numbers have been placed on the Do Not Call registry.
The FTC said it is the second major law enforcement effort this year against telemarketers.
The cases announced Tuesday were filed in federal courts in Florida, Georgia and Illinois. They name Economic Relief Technologies LLC; Dynamic Financial Group (U.S.A.) Inc., and JPM Accelerated Services as defendants. Several affiliated companies and individuals were also named.
The FTC alleges the firms made illegal prerecorded automated calls to consumers claiming credit card interest rates could be lowered if consumers would pay upfront fees ranging from $495 to $1,495.
After getting the money, the FTC says the companies did not try to negotiate lower fees for the consumer and, although they told consumers they could get a refund if their card rates weren’t lowered, few refunds were actually paid.
The FTC asked the court in each case to issue an order temporarily halting the automated calls pending trial.
In May, the FTC filed two cases that led to court orders stopping other telemarketers from using robocalls with deceptive claims about extended auto warranties.
Since Sept. 1, virtually all robocalls have been illegal, unless the recipients have provided written authorization to receive the prerecorded calls.
The FTC’s recently released “National Do Not Call Registry Data Book for Fiscal Year 2009,” says more than 191 million telephone numbers have been placed on the Do Not Call registry.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Ignoring credit report is not like cutting class
Dear Money101:
I am a recent college grad and started my own IT consulting business. I have a car loan from about two years ago and my cellular and utility bills are my only expenses. However, when I look at my credit report none of these are indicated on it. What should I do to make sure the correct info is there? Any tips on how to boost my score?
- K. Bryant
We’ve seen those commercials on TV with the songs about your credit score and how to get your credit report information. It’s understandable if you change the channel—those jingles can stay in your head for hours on end. However, knowing your way around your credit report and score is essential to a healthy financial future.
To begin, your credit score is a result of a mathematical equation that crunches facts and a whole lot of statistical information from your credit report. The information is tracked by your social security number and most of it is financial — to whom you owe money, how quickly you pay off debts, the balances in your bank account, any debt turned over to collection agencies and any recent bankruptcy. Also included is your history of employment, marital status, lawsuits, arrests and convictions.
Knowing this FICO score, or Fair Isaac Company score, is vital. It can range between 300 and 850. The higher the score, the better it is for you in getting attractive interest rates. It is used by lenders, such as banks or credit unions, to determine how big a risk you are in terms of loaning money. You can get your annual, free report from each of the three main credit bureaus — Experian, Equifax and TransUnion.
Unless you’ve recently been a victim of identity fraud, you should check your credit score only once or twice a year. If you check it more frequently, this can send red flags to lenders and actually make your score go down because it makes you seem like a bigger risk.
What should you do if you get your report and see wrong information?
“If you see that there are mistakes, you definitely want to contact the credit bureau and … get it removed from your report,” said Scott Scredon, the public relations director.
Steve Bucci, author of Credit Repair for Dummies, said don’t give up. It may take a few attempts before the report is corrected.
“You can dispute any information that you believe is an error or is too old and they will investigate,” Bucci said.
“Sometimes you’ll have to go thru this process more than once, so don’t be discouraged.”
If your score is low but not on account of any errors, fear not, free help is available.
“No matter where you live in the country, there are non-profit credit agencies that speak to people for free and give them advice,” said Scredon. “If you have too much credit card debt or you’re in trouble on your mortgage, you can get a free, one hour session with a counselor for recommendations.”
So while you can ignore annoying commercials with a flip of your remote, your credit history is something that deserves your undivided attention. It would be a bummer if down the road you were to miss out on owning a home or starting your own business because of mistakes you made when you were young.
“This is not like cutting class,” said Bucci. “Credit history is affected by big changes in score [made] by relatively small things.”
I am a recent college grad and started my own IT consulting business. I have a car loan from about two years ago and my cellular and utility bills are my only expenses. However, when I look at my credit report none of these are indicated on it. What should I do to make sure the correct info is there? Any tips on how to boost my score?
- K. Bryant
We’ve seen those commercials on TV with the songs about your credit score and how to get your credit report information. It’s understandable if you change the channel—those jingles can stay in your head for hours on end. However, knowing your way around your credit report and score is essential to a healthy financial future.
To begin, your credit score is a result of a mathematical equation that crunches facts and a whole lot of statistical information from your credit report. The information is tracked by your social security number and most of it is financial — to whom you owe money, how quickly you pay off debts, the balances in your bank account, any debt turned over to collection agencies and any recent bankruptcy. Also included is your history of employment, marital status, lawsuits, arrests and convictions.
Knowing this FICO score, or Fair Isaac Company score, is vital. It can range between 300 and 850. The higher the score, the better it is for you in getting attractive interest rates. It is used by lenders, such as banks or credit unions, to determine how big a risk you are in terms of loaning money. You can get your annual, free report from each of the three main credit bureaus — Experian, Equifax and TransUnion.
Unless you’ve recently been a victim of identity fraud, you should check your credit score only once or twice a year. If you check it more frequently, this can send red flags to lenders and actually make your score go down because it makes you seem like a bigger risk.
What should you do if you get your report and see wrong information?
“If you see that there are mistakes, you definitely want to contact the credit bureau and … get it removed from your report,” said Scott Scredon, the public relations director.
Steve Bucci, author of Credit Repair for Dummies, said don’t give up. It may take a few attempts before the report is corrected.
“You can dispute any information that you believe is an error or is too old and they will investigate,” Bucci said.
“Sometimes you’ll have to go thru this process more than once, so don’t be discouraged.”
If your score is low but not on account of any errors, fear not, free help is available.
“No matter where you live in the country, there are non-profit credit agencies that speak to people for free and give them advice,” said Scredon. “If you have too much credit card debt or you’re in trouble on your mortgage, you can get a free, one hour session with a counselor for recommendations.”
So while you can ignore annoying commercials with a flip of your remote, your credit history is something that deserves your undivided attention. It would be a bummer if down the road you were to miss out on owning a home or starting your own business because of mistakes you made when you were young.
“This is not like cutting class,” said Bucci. “Credit history is affected by big changes in score [made] by relatively small things.”
Securties and Exchange Commision has sent a whish list
The Securities and Exchange Commission has sent a “wish list” to Capitol Hill of 42 changes it would like made to federal securities law.
This list, obtained by FOX Business from a person on Capitol Hill, contains proposed alterations that the SEC believes would help strengthen regulation of the financial-services industry. The proposals likely wouldn’t be brought up as legislation on their own, but could possibly be attached to a larger bill at some point.
See our SEC page for the latest videos and news on the commission.
Below are about a dozen of those suggestions.
•Authorize the SEC to pay awards to individuals who provide information to the agency leading to the successful enforcement of the federal securities laws.
•A regulated person who violates the securities laws in one part of the securities industry — for example, a broker-dealer who misappropriates customer funds — should be barred from access to customer funds in another part of the industry.
•Authorize the SEC to pay awards to individuals who provide information to the agency leading to the successful enforcement of the federal securities laws.
•Authorize expanded access to grand jury materials when such information is critical to SEC cooperative investigations (with potential attendant safeguards to insure that the Commission maintains the confidentiality of the information) similar to access available to banking regulators.
•Authorize the SEC to obtain records from financial institutions in the same manner as it does from other third-party record holders.
•Amend numerous provisions of the federal securities laws to make it explicit (clarify or confirm) that the SEC has the authority to bring actions against persons formerly associated with a regulated or supervised entity for misconduct that occurred during that association.
•Clarify U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction under antifraud provisions of securities laws, overwriting disparate judicial tests by combining both (effects and conduct). U.S. courts would have jurisdiction over “conduct occurring outside the United States that has a foreseeable substantial effect within the United States.”
•Authorize the SEC to set illiquid security limits for mutual funds because of the redeemability requirement.
•Give Public Company Accounting Oversight Board authority to inspect auditors of broker dealers.
•Give the SEC the same authority to examine “all” records of registered investment companies that it has had for other registered entities, including broker-dealers and investment advisers, since 1975.
•Amend Exchange Act to permit exchanges and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or FINRA, to go to court on their own behalf to enforce compliance with fully litigated disciplinary sanctions, including fines and restitution.
•Amend Sarbanes-Oxley 806 to make clear that subsidiaries and affiliates of issuers may not retaliate against whistleblowers.
•Provide clarity for the SEC and provide greater ability to regulate the stock loan market.
•The amendment would require the personnel of registered securities information processors, national securities exchanges, and national securities associations to be fingerprinted.
Here’s the full list of 42 items:
Title of Provision Brief Description
1 Beneficial Ownership Reporting Amend Exchange Act Section 13(d) to give the Commission the authority to accelerate the deadline for initial Schedule 13D filings. Amend Exchange Act Section 16(a)(2)(B: 11.91, 0.25, 2.14%) to make parallel changes to the reporting deadline for beneficial ownership reports of officers, directors and ten percent owners. These changes would help the markets receive more timely information concerning interests int he issuer that may be important for the purposes of accurate pricing of any listed securities. Finally, Congress should delete the requirements in Exchange Act Sections 13(d)(1), 13(d)(2), 13(g)(1), 13(g)(2) and 16(a)(1) to send initial and amended beneficial ownership reports on Schedules 13D and 13G and Section 16(a) reports to the issuer and the national securities exchange where the security is traded. These provisions impose an unnecessary burden on investors to disseminate reports that are already required to be publicly filed with the Commission.
2 Securities Whistleblower Incentives and Protection Act To authorize the Securities and Exchange Commission to pay awards to individuals who provide information to the agency leading to the successful enforcement of the federal securities laws, and for other purposes.
3 Collateral Bars A regulated person who violates the securities laws in one part of the industry, for example a broker-dealer who misappropriates customer funds, should be barred from access to customer funds in another part of the securities industry. Passed by the House in Sec. 6 of the Securities Act of 2008.
4 Nationwide Service of Supboenas Provide that nationwide service of process/subpoenas is available in civil SEC actions filed in federal courts, which is consistent with the SEC’s investigative powers and federal court subpoena power in criminal actions. Passed by the House in Sec. 19 of the Securities Act of 2008.
5 Expanded Access to Grand Jury Materials Authorize expanded access to grand jury materials when such information is critical to SEC cooperative investigations (with potential attendant safeguards to insure that the Commission maintains the confidentiality of the information) similar to access available to banking regulators per Federal Rule of Criminal Practice 6(e)(3)(iii) and 18 USC §3222.
6 PCAOB – Share confidential work papers with foreign counterparts Amend Section 105(b)(5) (15 USC 7215(b)(5)) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to allow the PCAOB to share its workpapers with its foreign counterparts. This will resolve international conflicts of law issues that have been impairing the PCAOB’s ability to fulfill its statutory obligation to inspect non-US registered public accounting firms.
7 Expand Scope of Audit Documentation to be Produced Clarify the application of Section 106 of Sarbanes-Oxley (Production of Foreign Audit Documentation); expand the scope of audit documentation to be produced; and provide for service of process. [NOTE: If this provision is not coupled with # 6 (amending SOX 105 to allow the PCAOB to share workpapers with its foreign counterparts), it is likely to upset the European and other foreign regulators.]
8 Amendment to Financial Right to Privacy Act Replace Section 21(h) of the Exchange Act with a general exemption from the Right to Financial Privacy Act, which would authorize the SEC to obtain records from financial institutions in the same manner as it does from other third-party record holders.
9 Clarification to knowledge requirement for aiding and abetting provisions Amendment to aiding and abetting provisions to clarify that knowledge requirement can be satisfied by recklessness.
10 Civil Obstruction of Justice Authorize the Commission to bring civil actions to obtain civil remedies, including penalties, against persons who obstruct SEC investigations.
11 Aiding and Abetting Under the Securities Act and the Investment Company Act In 1995, Congress gave express aiding and abetting authority to the Commission for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the rules and regulations thereunder. The addition of similar provisions for the other securities laws enforced by the Commission would assist the Commission’s enforcement program.
12 Authority to Impose Penalties in Aiding Abetting Actions Under the Investment Advisers Act Fixes a technical anomaly or oversight in Advisers Act so as explicitly to allow district courts to impose penalties on aiders and abettors in injunctive actions.
13 Authorize Commission to order penalties in cease-and-desist proceedings Would give SEC uniform authority to seek civil penalties in cease and desist proceedings (appealable). Would amend 33 Act, 34 Act, ICA, and IAA. Clarity and efficiency objectives. Similar provision passed by House as Sec. 2 of Securities Act of 2008.
14 Amendment to clarify authority over persons formerly associated Amend numerous provisions of the federal securities laws to make it explicit (clarify or confirm) that the SEC has the authority to bring actions against persons formerly associated with a regulated or supervised entity for misconduct that occurred during that association. Similar provision passed by House as Sec. 3 of Securities Act of 2008.
15 Extraterratorial jurisdiction of the antifraud provisions Clarify US extraterritorial jurisdiction under antifraud provisions of securities laws, overwriting disparate judicial tests by combining both (effects and conduct). US courts would have jurisdiction over “conduct occurring outside the United States that has a foreseeable substantial effect within the United States.”
16 Protection of Certain Privileges Authorize the Commission to communicate with domestic and foreign securities authorities and law enforcement authorities without potential waiver of any privileges that would otherwise protect information provided or received. Similar provision passed by House as Sec. 16 of Securities Act of 2008.
17 Interested Person Definition Grant SEC authority to define who can be an independent director.
18 Elmination of PUHCA Exclusion Eliminates exclusion for companies registered under PUHCA. Similar provision passed by House as Sec. 18 of Securities Act of 2008.
19 Fidelity Bonding Clarifies fidelity bonding requirements for funds.
20 Elminate Retail Price Maintenance Repeal 22(d) which prohibits BDs from competing on price when selling fund shares.
21 Illiquid Securities Authorize the SEC to set illiquid security limits for mutual funds because of the redeemability requirement.
22 Sec. 205 Inapplicability to State-Registered IAs Clarifies that Sec. 205 of the Advisers Act (performance fees and advisory contracts) does not apply to state-registered IAs. Similar provision passed by House as Sec. 13 of Securities Act of 2008.
23 Recordkeeping by Custodians Authorize the SEC to require fund and IA custodians to maintain records and inspect them.
24 Elimination of 210(c) Eliminates a prohibition on obtaining information about about an IA’s clients, including hedge funds.
25 Defining Terms Authorize the SEC to define terms in the IA Act.
26 PCAOB authority to inspect auditors of broker dealers Give PCAOB authority to inspect auditors of broker dealers. Already introduced by Rep. Kanjorski in HR 1212.
27 Enhanced Authority to Conduct Surveillance and Risk Assessment Amend the 1934 Act and both 1940 Acts to clarify that the SEC has authority to collect information for surveillance or risk assessment purposes and keep it confidential.
28 Correcting an Anomaly in the SEC’s Authority to Examine Investment Companies Amend Investment Company Act Section 31(b) to give the Commission the same authority to examine “all” records of registered investment companies that it has had for other registered entities, including broker-dealers and investment advisers, since 1975.
29 Expanded Streamlined Hiring Authority Since 7/03, SEC has had streamlined hiring authority to hire accountants, examiners, and economists. Proposal would extend that authority to to all agency positions in the competitive service, including industry experts that the SEC needs. The current prolonged hiring process lengthens the amount of time it takes to bring new staff in these categories on board, acts as a disincentive for many financial professionals considering whether to apply for SEC jobs, and prevents SEC hiring managers from being able to select from the total pool of qualified applicants.
30 Authority of SROs to Enforce Compliance with Final Disciplinary Sanctions Amend Exchange Act to permit exchanges and FINRA to go to court on own behalf to enforce compliance with fully litigated disciplinary sanctions, including fines and restitution (rather than rely on SEC to enforce under sec. 21(e)(1)). Would create an efficiency, as courts have held SROs now lack this authority.
31 Repeal of Requirements to Fix Hearing Date Repeal provisions of securities laws that set rigid requirements for setting hearing dates in orders instituting cease and desist proceedings. Our Office of General Counsel believes these provisions are unnecessary. (One respondent invoked them to force dismissal of cease and desist proceedings.)
32 Amendment to Sec. 31, Exchange Act Technical changes will ensure that in making mid-year Sec. 31 fee adjustments, Commission has fee data for first 5 months of FY (per Sec. 31(j)(2) of Exch. Act); will also clarify effective date of mid-year fee adjustments.
33 Whistleblower Protection Against Retaliation by a Subsidiary of an Issuer Amend SOX 806 to make clear that subsidiaries and affiliates of issuers may not retaliate against whistleblowers (i.e., extending protections), eliminating a defense often raised by issuers in actions brought by whistleblowers.
34 Fair Fund Amendment Amend SOX 308 so SEC may place penalties in a fair fund for the benefit of victims even in situations where the SEC hasn’t also obtained disgorgement from defendant (e.g., because defendant did not benefit from its securities law violation that harmed investors).
35 Control Person Liability Clarify that SEC may rely on Exchange Act Sec. 20(a) to seek to impose joint and several liability on control persons. Would override two recent court decisions that held only private parties could rely on Sec. 20(a).
36 Municipal Securities Enhance the independence of the MSRB by requiring that the number of public representatives would at all times exceed the total number of broker-dealer and bank representatives.
37 Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA: undefined, undefined, undefined%) Update SIPA items including borrowing of funds, distinction between securities and cash insurance, portfolio margin, and liqudation.
38 Regulation of Stock Lending Provide clarity for the Commission and provide greater ability to regulate the stock loan market, potentially enhancing market transparency, limiting collateral exposure/risk, and governing potential conflicts of interest in the stock loan and stock borrowing process.
39 Lost and Stolen Securities Program The amendment would expand the scope of securities that must be reported to the Commission or its designee under the Lost and Stolen Securities Program. Similar provision passed by House as Sec. 11 of Securities Act of 2008.
40 Fingerprinting Personnel The amendment would require the personnel of registered securities information processors, national securities exchanges, and national securities associations to be fingerprinted. Similar provision passed by House as Sec. 12 of Securities Act of 2008.
41 Equal Treatment of SRO Rules Exchange Act Section 29(a) voids any condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person to waive compliance with any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and any exchange rule. Proposed change would apply this requirement to any self-regulatory organizations rule instead of just any exchange rule.
42 Enhance Application of Anti-fraud Provisions Amendments to Sections 9, 10, and 15 of Exchange Act to enhance the applicability of anti-fraud provisions.
This list, obtained by FOX Business from a person on Capitol Hill, contains proposed alterations that the SEC believes would help strengthen regulation of the financial-services industry. The proposals likely wouldn’t be brought up as legislation on their own, but could possibly be attached to a larger bill at some point.
See our SEC page for the latest videos and news on the commission.
Below are about a dozen of those suggestions.
•Authorize the SEC to pay awards to individuals who provide information to the agency leading to the successful enforcement of the federal securities laws.
•A regulated person who violates the securities laws in one part of the securities industry — for example, a broker-dealer who misappropriates customer funds — should be barred from access to customer funds in another part of the industry.
•Authorize the SEC to pay awards to individuals who provide information to the agency leading to the successful enforcement of the federal securities laws.
•Authorize expanded access to grand jury materials when such information is critical to SEC cooperative investigations (with potential attendant safeguards to insure that the Commission maintains the confidentiality of the information) similar to access available to banking regulators.
•Authorize the SEC to obtain records from financial institutions in the same manner as it does from other third-party record holders.
•Amend numerous provisions of the federal securities laws to make it explicit (clarify or confirm) that the SEC has the authority to bring actions against persons formerly associated with a regulated or supervised entity for misconduct that occurred during that association.
•Clarify U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction under antifraud provisions of securities laws, overwriting disparate judicial tests by combining both (effects and conduct). U.S. courts would have jurisdiction over “conduct occurring outside the United States that has a foreseeable substantial effect within the United States.”
•Authorize the SEC to set illiquid security limits for mutual funds because of the redeemability requirement.
•Give Public Company Accounting Oversight Board authority to inspect auditors of broker dealers.
•Give the SEC the same authority to examine “all” records of registered investment companies that it has had for other registered entities, including broker-dealers and investment advisers, since 1975.
•Amend Exchange Act to permit exchanges and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or FINRA, to go to court on their own behalf to enforce compliance with fully litigated disciplinary sanctions, including fines and restitution.
•Amend Sarbanes-Oxley 806 to make clear that subsidiaries and affiliates of issuers may not retaliate against whistleblowers.
•Provide clarity for the SEC and provide greater ability to regulate the stock loan market.
•The amendment would require the personnel of registered securities information processors, national securities exchanges, and national securities associations to be fingerprinted.
Here’s the full list of 42 items:
Title of Provision Brief Description
1 Beneficial Ownership Reporting Amend Exchange Act Section 13(d) to give the Commission the authority to accelerate the deadline for initial Schedule 13D filings. Amend Exchange Act Section 16(a)(2)(B: 11.91, 0.25, 2.14%) to make parallel changes to the reporting deadline for beneficial ownership reports of officers, directors and ten percent owners. These changes would help the markets receive more timely information concerning interests int he issuer that may be important for the purposes of accurate pricing of any listed securities. Finally, Congress should delete the requirements in Exchange Act Sections 13(d)(1), 13(d)(2), 13(g)(1), 13(g)(2) and 16(a)(1) to send initial and amended beneficial ownership reports on Schedules 13D and 13G and Section 16(a) reports to the issuer and the national securities exchange where the security is traded. These provisions impose an unnecessary burden on investors to disseminate reports that are already required to be publicly filed with the Commission.
2 Securities Whistleblower Incentives and Protection Act To authorize the Securities and Exchange Commission to pay awards to individuals who provide information to the agency leading to the successful enforcement of the federal securities laws, and for other purposes.
3 Collateral Bars A regulated person who violates the securities laws in one part of the industry, for example a broker-dealer who misappropriates customer funds, should be barred from access to customer funds in another part of the securities industry. Passed by the House in Sec. 6 of the Securities Act of 2008.
4 Nationwide Service of Supboenas Provide that nationwide service of process/subpoenas is available in civil SEC actions filed in federal courts, which is consistent with the SEC’s investigative powers and federal court subpoena power in criminal actions. Passed by the House in Sec. 19 of the Securities Act of 2008.
5 Expanded Access to Grand Jury Materials Authorize expanded access to grand jury materials when such information is critical to SEC cooperative investigations (with potential attendant safeguards to insure that the Commission maintains the confidentiality of the information) similar to access available to banking regulators per Federal Rule of Criminal Practice 6(e)(3)(iii) and 18 USC §3222.
6 PCAOB – Share confidential work papers with foreign counterparts Amend Section 105(b)(5) (15 USC 7215(b)(5)) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to allow the PCAOB to share its workpapers with its foreign counterparts. This will resolve international conflicts of law issues that have been impairing the PCAOB’s ability to fulfill its statutory obligation to inspect non-US registered public accounting firms.
7 Expand Scope of Audit Documentation to be Produced Clarify the application of Section 106 of Sarbanes-Oxley (Production of Foreign Audit Documentation); expand the scope of audit documentation to be produced; and provide for service of process. [NOTE: If this provision is not coupled with # 6 (amending SOX 105 to allow the PCAOB to share workpapers with its foreign counterparts), it is likely to upset the European and other foreign regulators.]
8 Amendment to Financial Right to Privacy Act Replace Section 21(h) of the Exchange Act with a general exemption from the Right to Financial Privacy Act, which would authorize the SEC to obtain records from financial institutions in the same manner as it does from other third-party record holders.
9 Clarification to knowledge requirement for aiding and abetting provisions Amendment to aiding and abetting provisions to clarify that knowledge requirement can be satisfied by recklessness.
10 Civil Obstruction of Justice Authorize the Commission to bring civil actions to obtain civil remedies, including penalties, against persons who obstruct SEC investigations.
11 Aiding and Abetting Under the Securities Act and the Investment Company Act In 1995, Congress gave express aiding and abetting authority to the Commission for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the rules and regulations thereunder. The addition of similar provisions for the other securities laws enforced by the Commission would assist the Commission’s enforcement program.
12 Authority to Impose Penalties in Aiding Abetting Actions Under the Investment Advisers Act Fixes a technical anomaly or oversight in Advisers Act so as explicitly to allow district courts to impose penalties on aiders and abettors in injunctive actions.
13 Authorize Commission to order penalties in cease-and-desist proceedings Would give SEC uniform authority to seek civil penalties in cease and desist proceedings (appealable). Would amend 33 Act, 34 Act, ICA, and IAA. Clarity and efficiency objectives. Similar provision passed by House as Sec. 2 of Securities Act of 2008.
14 Amendment to clarify authority over persons formerly associated Amend numerous provisions of the federal securities laws to make it explicit (clarify or confirm) that the SEC has the authority to bring actions against persons formerly associated with a regulated or supervised entity for misconduct that occurred during that association. Similar provision passed by House as Sec. 3 of Securities Act of 2008.
15 Extraterratorial jurisdiction of the antifraud provisions Clarify US extraterritorial jurisdiction under antifraud provisions of securities laws, overwriting disparate judicial tests by combining both (effects and conduct). US courts would have jurisdiction over “conduct occurring outside the United States that has a foreseeable substantial effect within the United States.”
16 Protection of Certain Privileges Authorize the Commission to communicate with domestic and foreign securities authorities and law enforcement authorities without potential waiver of any privileges that would otherwise protect information provided or received. Similar provision passed by House as Sec. 16 of Securities Act of 2008.
17 Interested Person Definition Grant SEC authority to define who can be an independent director.
18 Elmination of PUHCA Exclusion Eliminates exclusion for companies registered under PUHCA. Similar provision passed by House as Sec. 18 of Securities Act of 2008.
19 Fidelity Bonding Clarifies fidelity bonding requirements for funds.
20 Elminate Retail Price Maintenance Repeal 22(d) which prohibits BDs from competing on price when selling fund shares.
21 Illiquid Securities Authorize the SEC to set illiquid security limits for mutual funds because of the redeemability requirement.
22 Sec. 205 Inapplicability to State-Registered IAs Clarifies that Sec. 205 of the Advisers Act (performance fees and advisory contracts) does not apply to state-registered IAs. Similar provision passed by House as Sec. 13 of Securities Act of 2008.
23 Recordkeeping by Custodians Authorize the SEC to require fund and IA custodians to maintain records and inspect them.
24 Elimination of 210(c) Eliminates a prohibition on obtaining information about about an IA’s clients, including hedge funds.
25 Defining Terms Authorize the SEC to define terms in the IA Act.
26 PCAOB authority to inspect auditors of broker dealers Give PCAOB authority to inspect auditors of broker dealers. Already introduced by Rep. Kanjorski in HR 1212.
27 Enhanced Authority to Conduct Surveillance and Risk Assessment Amend the 1934 Act and both 1940 Acts to clarify that the SEC has authority to collect information for surveillance or risk assessment purposes and keep it confidential.
28 Correcting an Anomaly in the SEC’s Authority to Examine Investment Companies Amend Investment Company Act Section 31(b) to give the Commission the same authority to examine “all” records of registered investment companies that it has had for other registered entities, including broker-dealers and investment advisers, since 1975.
29 Expanded Streamlined Hiring Authority Since 7/03, SEC has had streamlined hiring authority to hire accountants, examiners, and economists. Proposal would extend that authority to to all agency positions in the competitive service, including industry experts that the SEC needs. The current prolonged hiring process lengthens the amount of time it takes to bring new staff in these categories on board, acts as a disincentive for many financial professionals considering whether to apply for SEC jobs, and prevents SEC hiring managers from being able to select from the total pool of qualified applicants.
30 Authority of SROs to Enforce Compliance with Final Disciplinary Sanctions Amend Exchange Act to permit exchanges and FINRA to go to court on own behalf to enforce compliance with fully litigated disciplinary sanctions, including fines and restitution (rather than rely on SEC to enforce under sec. 21(e)(1)). Would create an efficiency, as courts have held SROs now lack this authority.
31 Repeal of Requirements to Fix Hearing Date Repeal provisions of securities laws that set rigid requirements for setting hearing dates in orders instituting cease and desist proceedings. Our Office of General Counsel believes these provisions are unnecessary. (One respondent invoked them to force dismissal of cease and desist proceedings.)
32 Amendment to Sec. 31, Exchange Act Technical changes will ensure that in making mid-year Sec. 31 fee adjustments, Commission has fee data for first 5 months of FY (per Sec. 31(j)(2) of Exch. Act); will also clarify effective date of mid-year fee adjustments.
33 Whistleblower Protection Against Retaliation by a Subsidiary of an Issuer Amend SOX 806 to make clear that subsidiaries and affiliates of issuers may not retaliate against whistleblowers (i.e., extending protections), eliminating a defense often raised by issuers in actions brought by whistleblowers.
34 Fair Fund Amendment Amend SOX 308 so SEC may place penalties in a fair fund for the benefit of victims even in situations where the SEC hasn’t also obtained disgorgement from defendant (e.g., because defendant did not benefit from its securities law violation that harmed investors).
35 Control Person Liability Clarify that SEC may rely on Exchange Act Sec. 20(a) to seek to impose joint and several liability on control persons. Would override two recent court decisions that held only private parties could rely on Sec. 20(a).
36 Municipal Securities Enhance the independence of the MSRB by requiring that the number of public representatives would at all times exceed the total number of broker-dealer and bank representatives.
37 Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA: undefined, undefined, undefined%) Update SIPA items including borrowing of funds, distinction between securities and cash insurance, portfolio margin, and liqudation.
38 Regulation of Stock Lending Provide clarity for the Commission and provide greater ability to regulate the stock loan market, potentially enhancing market transparency, limiting collateral exposure/risk, and governing potential conflicts of interest in the stock loan and stock borrowing process.
39 Lost and Stolen Securities Program The amendment would expand the scope of securities that must be reported to the Commission or its designee under the Lost and Stolen Securities Program. Similar provision passed by House as Sec. 11 of Securities Act of 2008.
40 Fingerprinting Personnel The amendment would require the personnel of registered securities information processors, national securities exchanges, and national securities associations to be fingerprinted. Similar provision passed by House as Sec. 12 of Securities Act of 2008.
41 Equal Treatment of SRO Rules Exchange Act Section 29(a) voids any condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person to waive compliance with any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and any exchange rule. Proposed change would apply this requirement to any self-regulatory organizations rule instead of just any exchange rule.
42 Enhance Application of Anti-fraud Provisions Amendments to Sections 9, 10, and 15 of Exchange Act to enhance the applicability of anti-fraud provisions.
The differance betweeen secured and unsecured credit
Secured and Unsecured Credit
Over the years I have been asked by many consumers what is unscured debt and secured debt. ( whats the differance in the two)? So I have decide to explain this in my blog.
Secured credit is backed by pledging an asset(collateral) as a guarantee you will repay the money owed. For that reason secured credit typically has a lower interest rate than unsecured credit. Examples of secured credit ,mortgages, equity loans, auto loans, mobile home loans, pass book loans and secured credit cards.(secured credit cards are attached to a personal bank account of equal value).
Unsecured credit means that there is no collateral backing the loan- just good faith; for that reason this type of credit typically carries higher interest rates. Examples of unsecured credit are unsecured credit cards (not tied to a bank account), store charge cards,student loans, and personal loans. You can find out more at http://www.nwcdr.com/what_is_debt_consolidation.htm
Over the years I have been asked by many consumers what is unscured debt and secured debt. ( whats the differance in the two)? So I have decide to explain this in my blog.
Secured credit is backed by pledging an asset(collateral) as a guarantee you will repay the money owed. For that reason secured credit typically has a lower interest rate than unsecured credit. Examples of secured credit ,mortgages, equity loans, auto loans, mobile home loans, pass book loans and secured credit cards.(secured credit cards are attached to a personal bank account of equal value).
Unsecured credit means that there is no collateral backing the loan- just good faith; for that reason this type of credit typically carries higher interest rates. Examples of unsecured credit are unsecured credit cards (not tied to a bank account), store charge cards,student loans, and personal loans. You can find out more at http://www.nwcdr.com/what_is_debt_consolidation.htm
This article according to the Chicago Times:
We have all seen the tan-talizing ads promising economic salvation. For the indebted among us, they are oh so tempting.
" Be completely Debt Free in 12-36 months!
" Debt Settlement can help you save thousands!
" Picture yourself debt free!
Your gut is right on this one: Its almost to good to be true.
Much of the so called debt settlement industry in Illinois, and across much of the country, resembles the wild west. The industry- which , for a significant fee, works with credit card companies and other creditors to reduce debt for consumers drowning in it-has exploded in the last few years.
And it faces almost no regulation in Illinois. There are no licensing requirements , no caps on fees, no rules forbidding deceptive advertising practices. That must change, which is why we support , in concept a bill backed by Attorney General Lisa Madigan that tightly regulates the industry. The bill has passed the Illinois House and now faces uncertain prospects in the senate.
We like much about the bill , including its strict approach on licensing requirements, refund requirements, public disclosure and its band on deceptive advertising promises. But we fear it goes to far in limiting the fees debt-settlement companies can collect.
The debt-settlement industry worries this will put legitimate firms out of business. We don't think the industry is crying wolf.
We have all seen the tan-talizing ads promising economic salvation. For the indebted among us, they are oh so tempting.
" Be completely Debt Free in 12-36 months!
" Debt Settlement can help you save thousands!
" Picture yourself debt free!
Your gut is right on this one: Its almost to good to be true.
Much of the so called debt settlement industry in Illinois, and across much of the country, resembles the wild west. The industry- which , for a significant fee, works with credit card companies and other creditors to reduce debt for consumers drowning in it-has exploded in the last few years.
And it faces almost no regulation in Illinois. There are no licensing requirements , no caps on fees, no rules forbidding deceptive advertising practices. That must change, which is why we support , in concept a bill backed by Attorney General Lisa Madigan that tightly regulates the industry. The bill has passed the Illinois House and now faces uncertain prospects in the senate.
We like much about the bill , including its strict approach on licensing requirements, refund requirements, public disclosure and its band on deceptive advertising promises. But we fear it goes to far in limiting the fees debt-settlement companies can collect.
The debt-settlement industry worries this will put legitimate firms out of business. We don't think the industry is crying wolf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
