Archive for the ‘Consumer Protection’ Category

An Exit Strategy

Thursday, February 25th, 2010

Any intervention by the government in our world economy will inevitably end.  As such the Fed’s (and other central banks) plan to exit their intervention in this financial mess has come to fruition, amidst the scrutiny of many high-ranking officials.

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, attacked the Fed along with the European Central Bank and the Bank of England for their “loose” policies.  The Fed has done the best it can to quell long-term interest rates, which has unfortunately failed.  It has failed because although interest rates were lowered temporarily, in that time, the public bought up assets (regardless of risk) , which flows money out of the treasuries and makes bond yields increase.  These bond yields are also an enemy to economic equilibrium, so the Fed creates money in order to balance out these yields.  Now the increase of the quantity of currency in the market itself makes investors nervous about inflation.  To which the Fed reacts by printing more money to reduce bonds. Keeping this cyclical nature of how the Fed operates, how viable is the Fed’s exit strategy.  Because it began the action of reducing interest rates the way it did, it is hard to believe that the Fed will get out of this crisis without leaving some kind of inflationary effect.

For more on the article from the Economist.com, click on this link.

Notes on GM’s bankruptcy…..

Thursday, February 25th, 2010

Although many auto industry experts predicted the inevitable collapse of GM several months to a year early, it still does not erase the fact that it was the biggest industrial collapse in history. The 101 year old company produced over 9 million cars in 34 different countries. It employed nearly a quarter million people worldwide, 91,000 jobs were in America. The problem behind a company this big was that against its 82.2 billion in assets, GM had liabilities of 172 million.

Fritz Henderson. the  CFO of GM a year ago, realized that GM was losing money and attempted to organize several bonds or shares to put up for sale in order to raise 3 billion. Eventually the collapse of Lehman Brothers led Henderson to sell non-core assets as well. But this attempt was also in vain. This situation in combination with an economic situation where there were no lenders willing to support their assets at a level where they could do business.

GM’s bankruptcy is one in a long line of “quick-rinse” bankruptcies that the government believes is necessary for stakeholders to renounce their claims. This poses the question, although GM is essential for American financial growth, to what degree is temporary fix bankruptcy going to preemptively prevent the causes of GM’s downfall? Because if this quick-fix will inevitably lead to economic problems in the near future for GM, what is the excuse for filing Chapter 11?

For more information, an article by the Economist.com sheds light on the situation.

Connecticut AG Investigates Foul Play in Foreclosure Law Firms

Thursday, February 25th, 2010

Connecticut AG Richard Blumenthal has asked Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (along with other organizations) why only a couple of law firms in Connecticut are handling foreclosures.  In a June 4th letter to the companies that were suspect, Mr. Blumenthal had reason to believe that consumers were being charged excessive fees on foreclosure actions and that marshals were being charged extensively in connection to the foreclosures.

In a statement Blumenthal said:

“Dominance over foreclosure service by a few select law firms and marshals has spurred complaints about improper or illegal practices: wrongfully allocating work to non-marshals, forging papers, failing to serve papers, and making kickbacks..A scarce few are spinning foreclosures into fortunes, and perhaps deepening homeowner despair.”

This is a story we will be hearing about in other states as well.  When one or two firms control huge portions of an industry that is called competition, wait, it is called oligopoly…not the best thing in these trying times.

For more on the story…click here.

New York AG’s Debt Collection Industry Investigation Will Hopefully Increase Accountability

Thursday, February 25th, 2010

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo closed down two debt collection companies in Western New York.  The two Buffalo-based firms engaged in a variety of illegal activities to achieve their ends, through various forms of harassment. The Attorney General’s office have delivered subpoenas to over 15 collection agencies due to complaints received in the wake of this investigation.

Debt Collection agencies that engage in illegal means of collection often use coercion and harassment to collect money that sometimes a customer might not even owe.  These two Buffalo firms, for example, allegedly forced individuals to pay debts that they didn’t even owe.

This issue has achieved nationwide importance, as the Federal Trade Commission has received three times the amount of complaints regarding debt collection agencies in 2008 in comparison to 2002.  There is no doubt that this investigation will lead to the downfall of more debt collection agencies that engage in illegal means to collect.

Tough business this debt collection – significant rules about their activities, serious penalties if they get it wrong.  I am sure that most are on the up and up and are aware of the costs of dropping the ball.  As in any industry, a few bad apples can ruin the whole thing.  The bad ones should be shut down but the good ones do provide a valuable service.

For more on this investigation…click here.

One Bank Regulator?

Thursday, February 25th, 2010

I applaud the Obama Administration’s attempt to gain some control over the hodgepodge of regulatory agencies that apparently did not work in overseeing the banks. I am, however, concerned that one super-regulatory agency could monitor all it needs to monitor. Monolithic bureaucracies can sometimes do no more than get in their own way. Hopefully this single regulator, if it comes to be, has the ability to be effective. Now if we could have something like this to protect individual investors from the few bad brokers out there we’d be doing something! The current regulatory scheme for investors is, in many instances, too weighted towards the industry.

Madoff Trustee Thinks He Found More Illegal Profits

Thursday, February 25th, 2010

The Fairfield Greenwich Group is the latest target of the trustee’s clawback lawsuits. This time he is looking to get back $3.2 billion from the fund which was one of the biggest investors in the Madoff ponzi with more than $7 billion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/business/19madoff.html?ref=business

Trustee Going After Madoff Profits – sues hedge fund and a charity

Thursday, February 25th, 2010

While trustee ostensibly won’t be going after the principal invested by those who got out of Madoff’s ponzi scheme before it collapse, they are going after profits in ‘claw back’ suits. This type of fraud and similar types of stock fraud are all too common and the problem is you just don’t know when or where the next one will be. Stock fraud claims against broker dealers are potentially easier to pursue because often the broker dealer has some liability.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/business/13madoff.html?_r=1

Stanford Group’s Chief Investment Officer Indicted

Thursday, February 25th, 2010

Well, another supposedly strong and trustworthy company is being revealed as a ponzi scheme. This one ‘only’ involved about $8 billion and she was ‘only’ indicted for conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Is it just me or does it seem like the ones you should be able to trust in the financial markets you can’t trust.

Danny Pang’s Charges

Thursday, February 25th, 2010

The SEC charged Pang with structuring charges for his scheme to make many transactions just below federal reporting requirements to gain access to huge sums of money without telling the government.  Apparently kept the cash at his house until he bought gold bars with it (really!).  The SEC is also alleging that he ran a huge ponzi scheme.

Bank of America Takes the Chair from the Chairman

Thursday, February 25th, 2010

B of A shareholders voiced their view today by removing Ken Lewis as chairman of the board of directors. He remains as CEO. Time will tell if he stays as CEO given the resounding vote of ‘no confidence’ the shareholders gave him as chairman.  This is an interesting turn of events for a high-flyer who really seemed to have a chance to make B of A the next Citigroup (but is that a good thing or a bad thing?).
American business cycle includes periods of time when companies gather other businesses under their umbrella to gain ’synergies’ and create a whole more valuable than the sum of its parts and then when the synergies don’t show up on cue guess what? They break up the company because the parts are worth more than the whole.