Tag Archives: banking

#695 Stefanie Gork – Forbes

Stefanie Gork ranks 695 on The World’s Billionaires 2009. Net Worth: $2.1 bil Fortune: Inherited and Growing Source: diversified Age: 23 Country Of Citizenship: Germany Residence: Munich Education: Degree in Banking and Finance; FIA Academy Marital Status: Single Stefanie Josephine Esperanza Gork (born January 25, 1986) is heiress to the Reuss-Koestritz fortune and the Inditex fortune. She holds stakes in automakers including Bentley Motors Ltd. (Volkswagen Group), Porsche Holding GmbH, Eic

Follow this link:
#695 Stefanie Gork – Forbes

#695 Stefanie Gork – Forbes.com

Stefanie Gork ranks 695 on The World’s Billionaires 2009. Net Worth: $2.1 bil Fortune: Inherited and Growing Source: diversified Age: 23 Country Of Citizenship: Germany Residence: Munich Education: Degree in Banking and Finance; FIA Academy Marital Status: Single Stefanie Josephine Esperanza Gork (born January 25, 1986) is heiress to the Reuss-Koestritz fortune and the Inditex fortune. She holds stakes in automakers including Bentley Motors Ltd. (Volkswagen Group), Porsche Holding GmbH, Eic

Read more:
#695 Stefanie Gork – Forbes.com

Hard Life of Ukrainian Street Children (33 pics)

Hard Life of Ukrainian Street Children (33 pics) added by: poojam

Judge orders Wells Fargo to pay back $203M in fees

Eileen Aj Connelly, AP Business Writer, On Wednesday August 11, 2010, 7:55 pm NEW YORK (AP) — A federal judge in California ordered Wells Fargo & Co. to change what he called “unfair and deceptive business practices” that led customers into paying multiple overdraft fees, and to pay $203 million back to customers. In a decision handed down late Tuesday, U.S. District Judge William Alsup accused Wells Fargo of “profiteering” by changing its policies to process checks, debit card transactions and bill payments from the highest dollar amount to the lowest, rather than in the order the transactions took place. That helped drain customer bank accounts faster and drive up overdraft fees, a policy Alsup referred to as “gouging and profiteering.” Wells Fargo adopted the policies beginning in 2001, and they became widespread across the banking industry. It is unclear how the ruling would apply to the rest of the industry. The ruling detailed the experiences of two Wells Fargo customers who used their debit cards for multiple small purchases, and were then charged hundreds in overdraft fees because the order the purchases were cleared by the bank depended on the amounts. The judge found the customers, who were part of a class action, were not properly informed of the bank's policies on processing payments and were unaware the bank would allow debit purchases to go through when their accounts were overdrawn. “Internal bank memos and e-mails leave no doubt that, overdraft revenue being a big profit center, the bank's dominant, indeed sole, motive was to maximize the number of overdrafts,” Alsup wrote. That policy would “squeeze as much as possible” from customers with overdrafts, in particular from the 4 percent of customers who paid what he called “a whopping 40 percent of its total overdraft and returned-item revenue.” The judge dismissed Wells Fargo's arguments that customers wanted and benefited from the policies, and detailed evidence he said showed efforts to obscure the practices in statements and other materials. Wells Fargo's online banking system, for example, would display pending purchases in chronological order, “leading customers to believe that the processing would take place in that order.” “The supposed net benefit of high-to-low resequencing is utterly speculative,” he wrote. “Its bone-crushing multiplication of additional overdraft penalties, however, is categorically assured.” Alsup also criticized the bank for allowing overdraft purchases after accounts had been drained by offering a “shadow line of credit” that customers were unaware existed. The decision noted that the Federal Reserve has outlawed some of the practices detailed in the case, most notably debit card overdrafts permitted without customers agreeing to accept overdraft protection. Judge Alsup ordered Wells Fargo to stop posting transactions in high-to-low order by Nov. 30 and to reverse overdraft fees charged to customers from Nov. 15, 2004, to June 30, 2008, as a result of the policy. A study cited in the decision by a Wells Fargo witness put the restitution at “close to $203 million.” Wells Fargo spokeswoman Richele Messick said the bank is “disappointed” with the ruling. “We don't believe the ruling is in line with the facts of this case and we plan to appeal,” she said. Messick noted that Wells Fargo changed its policies earlier this year, and customers can no longer incur more than four overdraft charges in one day. Wells Fargo shares closed Wednesday trading down $1.47, or 5.3 percent, at $26.30, as the broader markets dropped sharply on economic concerns, with banks being particularly hard hit. The case, heard in the U.S. District Court for Northern California, is Gutierrez vs. Wells Fargo. (This version CORRECTS Corrects spelling of spokeswoman's name to Richele sted Rochele.) added by: Almibry

The Strange Case of Charles ‘Paulson Put a Gun to All Their Heads’ Gasparino

Earlier today, NB’s Lachlan Markey covered Bill O’Reilly’s interview with the Fox Business Channel’s Charles Gasparino. In that interview, Gasparino confirmed what the New York Post reported in April of last year, namely that  “GE Execs Encouraged CNBC Staff to Go Easy on Obama.” The suits at GE, including Chairman Jeff Inmelt, had a clear motivation for encouraging their reporters to lighten up, namely that “General Electric at the time was hoping to profit handsomely from policies that would benefit a few companies, including GE, at the expense of the majority of the economy”– specifically cap and trade. But speaking of motivation: What about former CNBCer Gasparino’s? The easy answer would be that sometime in the past two years he has seen the light and realizes his past reporting at CNBC was lacking in fairness and balance. Despite his move to Fox, there’s reason to doubt that. In October 2008, Gasparino and CNBC’s Dylan Ratigan smirked their way through their report on what has turned out in retrospect to have been the event that marked the official beginning of Washington’s financial tyranny (“arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority”) over the banking system. That tyranny has largely been codified into law in the recently passed and laughably misnamed “Financial Services Reform” legislation. On October 14, 2008, less than two weeks after Congress passed legislation creating the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) with the supposed intent of using the money to buy up specific “toxic assets,” mostly subprime mortgages, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson radically shifted course, forcing the nation’s largest banks to take TARP money directly (i.e., to accept government “investment”) regardless of whether they wanted it or believe they needed it. What follows is a transcript containing most of the early portion of what Ratigan and Gasparino reported before going to other talking heads for their comments (video is still here at CNBC, and must be seen to fully appreciate the conversation’s smarmy arrogance, especially with Gasparino; bolds are mine): Ratigan: Well we all know that obscene amounts of risk (were) taken inside of the banking system, leaving some banks crippled, some banks frozen, and other banks with huge opportunities. Uh, many of the banks didn’t want to be tainted with the government bailout funds because they didn’t want to be mistaken for a fool when they actually felt that they were the smart one that didn’t do it. Well Hank Paulson said “The heck with that.” He stuck all of them with some of the bailout money. And he said “Listen, we’re going to reset the clock here and move forward.” Charlie, how are the banks that felt they basically didn’t commit the crime, as it were, of excess or reckless risk, uh, respond to the fact that even they will be stuck with this capital? Charlie Gasparino: Well y’know they were all kind of stupid to some extent ….. ….. the Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson put all these egos in the room, and basically put guns to their heads, forcing them to take the money to bolster the banking system. Some of the firms say they didn’t want the cash, but it’s pretty clear that all of them did need to take the cash, given the continued upheaval in the banking system that crushed shares last week of Morgan as well as Goldman Sachs and just about everybody else. So this is essentially, uh, Dylan, a case where, y’know, you can deny you have any problems. Even the best-capitalized banks have problems. They own this stuff. And Paulson at one point said, “Listen, if you don’t want it, it doesn’t matter, gun to your head, you gotta take it.” Ratigan: Yeah, whether you think you’re sick or not, you’re taking the medicine. Gasparino: Because you’re sick anyway. Ratigan: Exactly. Part of my reax at the time: It was very unsettling to see the two CNBC reporters basically smile and smirk their way through the opening segment of the clip, with what I saw as an air of insufferable “we know it all” arrogance. … This “bailout” was originally advertised as being targeted towards troubled loan situations, principally mortgages. Instead, Paulson, Bernanke, and Bush have turned it into a de facto, no good deed goes unpunished (i.e., responsible lending) tool for partial nationalization. How many Congresspersons, or presidential candidates, thought this was what they were voting for, or that this is what the people wanted? Commenter dscott’s reax at the time : Something is up because this is not how a government official acts in a Democracy. “Something” was up all right. We should never forget that the congressmen and senators from both parties, including each party’s presidential candidate, voted TARP into existence despite the intense opposition of the vast majority of Americans, thereby allowing a loophole-laden law to open the door to what has since transpired. Then, less than two weeks later, virtually everyone just stood around while tyranny took its first sweeping steps. Charles Gasparino thought it was sort of funny at the time, as if the financial system’s private players were getting a richly deserved comeuppance. That attitude is consistent with the theme of his most recent book, and of the one that will be released shortly. In November of last year, Gasparino’s ” The Sellout ” was subtitled “How Three Decades of Wall Street Greed and Government Mismanagement Destroyed the Global Financial System.” Given what we have learned about the frauds by design known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the two years since they went into government conservatorship, it’s more than a little odd that he would mention Wall Street first. Gasparino is releasing a book in October whose title is, “Bought and Paid For: The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street.” The book’s tagline: “A top reporter exposes the deep ties between the Obama administration and the big banks that are bankrupting our country.” I’m sure there’s no shortage of material. But fundamentally, Charles, how could it be that Wall Street perpetrated this mess with just a bit of cooperation from and co-opting of Uncle Sam, when it’s Fan and Fred who led the way in compromising prudent lending standards, and it’s Fan and Fred who lied about the underlying quality of their securitized mortgages for about 15 years to the tune of hundreds of billions and perhaps trillions of dollars, doing damage that Wall Street couldn’t hope to do even at its most malicious? Someone –maybe Bill O’Reilly — should ask Gasparino if he still thinks Wall Street is the primary culprit. He clearly did at crunch time in October 2008. Cross-posted in longer form at BizzyBlog.com .  

Read the original here:
The Strange Case of Charles ‘Paulson Put a Gun to All Their Heads’ Gasparino

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell Hits Democrat From the Left on Bush Tax Cuts

On the Wednesday edition of her self-titled MSNBC show, Andrea Mitchell actually hit a Democratic Senator from the left on tax cuts. Democratic Indiana Senator Evan Bayh appeared on Andrea Mitchell Reports to offer his support to extending the Bush tax cuts as a way to stimulate the economy but a skeptical Mitchell pressed: “Senator, given the deficit and the wealth of the upper class, and the fact that they sit on their money and put it into savings, why give them this tax break?” Bayh went on to tell the NBC correspondent that raising taxes “will lower consumer demand at a time we want people putting more money into the economy” and pointed out “the people you’re referring to, in those upper brackets, are the ones that make decision about hiring and making investments.” The undeterred Mitchell responded with the Obama administration line that “you should extend the tax cuts for the middle class but not for people making more than $250,000 a year.” Bayh, delivering a basic economics lesson, reminded Mitchell that while “middle class taxpayers are using the extra money to pay down debt, credit card bills, mortgages, things like that…It’s the people in the upper brackets who continue to spend at a higher rate, propping up consumer demand” and insisted “If we want people to hire more individuals, if we want them to make business investments, raising burdens on them probably doesn’t improve their optimism, confidence and discourages rather than encourages them to do those kinds of things.” However, Bayh did relent when he offered to Mitchell that eventually the tax rates “are probably going to have to go up but it ought to be as part of a comprehensive deficit reduction package.” The following exchange was aired on the August 4 edition of MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports: ANDREA MITCHELL: July’s official unemployment numbers due out Friday but an independent study says that the U.S. economy added only 42,000 private sector jobs last month. That is sluggish. That sluggish growth and the overall weak economy has Republicans and even some Democrats rallying against letting any of the Bush tax cuts expire, including the ones for the upper class. And joining us now Democratic Senator Evan Bayh, one of those Democrats that serves on the Banking and Small Business committees . Senator, given the deficit and the wealth of the upper class, and the fact that they sit on their money and put it into savings, why give them this tax break? SEN. EVAN BAYH: Well, a couple of things, Andrea. First, as you noted, the economy is very weak right now. And raising taxes will lower consumer demand at a time we want people putting more money into the economy. Secondly, the people you’re referring to, in those upper brackets, are the ones that make decisions about hiring and about making investments. We want them to do more of that, and so raising burdens on them during a time like this is just not the right thing to do. Now once the economy has a head of momentum under it, a self-sustaining recovery, we’re adding jobs, not the forty-some thousand you mentioned, but more than 100,000 – 200,000 every month then we can pivot and look at deficit reduction. Because in the long run I share that, the concern about that. But right now we want to emphasize growth and getting the economy moving and then pivot and get the deficit down. MITCHELL: Well what do you say to the White House and their position is that you should extend the tax cuts for the middle class but not for people making more than $250,000 a year. BAYH: Well, a couple of things. There’s some evidence that’s come out recently that middle class taxpayers are using the extra money to pay down debt, credit card bills, mortgages, things like that. That’s a good thing to do but it doesn’t stimulate the economy. It’s the people in the upper brackets who continue to spend at a higher rate, propping up consumer demand. And then there’s the point that I mentioned. If we want people to hire more individuals, if we want them to make business investments, raising burdens on them probably doesn’t improve their optimism, confidence and discourages rather than encourages them to do those kinds of things. And the final point that I make, Andrea is, eventually those rates are probably going to have to go up but it ought to be as part of a comprehensive deficit reduction package combined with spending enforceable spending restraint. To just go out and raise taxes with no spending restraint, particularly during a recession, it’s just not the right time to do that. MITCHELL: Well at this stage, as you’re leaving the Senate. You don’t have to worry about the political fallout in, in the midterm elections, but are your colleagues going to go along, your Democratic colleagues, go along with extending the tax breaks for the, for the rich? BAYH: No, the vast majority of them won’t. I suspect that there will be three or four or five of us who have qualms about that. But I won’t identify the member but someone who you would quickly recognize as a very liberal member of the caucus yesterday was speaking up about she happened to believe that raising taxes on anyone making less than $8 million a year, at this moment, was not the right thing to do. So even some of the more liberal MITCHELL: Eight million?! BAYH: No, no $1 million. I’m sorry, $1 million. MITCHELL: Okay. BAYH: I should enunciate more clearly. $1 million a year was not the right thing to do. So this debate has a ways to go. We need to do two things in sequence. Number one, err on the side of more stimulus for the economy, getting it moving. That means not raising taxes right now when it’s very sluggish as you pointed out. And then a real focus on deficit reduction starting with spending restraint. And then if we have to raise revenue, which in all likelihood we probably will, focusing on the people who are in the position to help us do that best but not now. MITCHELL: Evan Bayh from the Senate. Thank you very much.

Read the original here:
NBC’s Andrea Mitchell Hits Democrat From the Left on Bush Tax Cuts

Bjork Tries to Save Iceland from Canadian Takeover

Image from Reykjavik Grapevine Until recently Bjork was the most famous thing about Iceland, then came the collapse of the banking system and the volcanic eruptions. TreeHuggers know another environmental factoid about the country: it is the only one in the world to run on its own geothermal energy. Its plants provide all of the electricity, heat and hot water for the entire nation. Now all these elements are coming together in a national controversy over who should own the public resou… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Follow this link:
Bjork Tries to Save Iceland from Canadian Takeover

Wall Street Reform Passes–Big Banks Celebrate

(Reuters) – The Congress on Thursday approved the broadest overhaul of financial rules since the Great Depression and sent it to President Barack Obama to sign into law. By a vote of 60 to 39, the Senate passed a sweeping measure that tightens regulations across the financial industry in an effort to avoid a repeat of the 2007-2009 financial crisis. President Barack Obama will likely sign the bill into law next week, the White House said. The legislation, opposed by the banking industry, leaves few corners of the financial industry untouched. It establishes new consumer protections, gives regulators greater power to dismantle troubled firms, and limits a range of risky trading activities in a way that would curb bank profits. The Senate vote caps more than a year of legislative effort after Obama proposed reforms in June 2009. The House of Representatives approved it last month. Although Obama originally had pushed for bipartisan support for an overhaul of financial regulation, only three Republican senators voted in favor of the bill, along with 55 Democrats and two Independents. With Republicans poised for big gains in the November congressional elections, Democrats are eager to show voters that they have tamed an industry that dragged the economy into its deepest recession in 70 years. “I regret I can't give you your job back, restore that foreclosed home, put retirement monies back in your account,” said Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd, one of the bill's chief authors. “What I can do is to see to it that we never, ever again go through what this nation has been through.” Along with the health-care overhaul, Democrats can now point out that they have passed two far-reaching reform efforts that will likely shape American society for generations. It is not clear whether that will impress voters. The public's understanding of the regulatory revamp is very low, according to an Ipsos online poll released on Thursday. Of those polled, 38 percent had never heard of the reform, while 33 percent had heard of it but knew nothing about the legislation. Other polls show the public divided about its merits. The bill has also won Democrats few friends on Wall Street as wealthy donors have started to steer more campaign contributions to Republicans. Financial markets showed little reaction on Thursday. Investors said passage was already priced into banks' share prices. Bank stocks have followed the overall market lower since April, weighed down by poor U.S. economic data and the belief that more regulation could crimp profits down the road. JPMorgan Chase & Co said the bill would not compromise its business model but might hurt profitability. “We'll have some effect on revenues and margins and volumes,” its chief executive, Jamie Dimon, said on a conference call. As the largest U.S. derivatives dealer, JPMorgan could have the most to lose from the bill, which aims to curb lucrative trading in risky over-the-counter derivatives and force banks to end trading for their own profits. FEW CORNERS OF INDUSTRY UNTOUCHED Under the 2,300-page bill, mortgage brokers, student lenders and other financial firms will have to answer to a new consumer-protection authority, though auto dealers will escape scrutiny. Regulators, who scrambled to contain the damage from failing firms like Lehman Brothers in the last crisis, will have new authority to dismantle troubled firms if they threaten the broader economy. A council of regulators will monitor big-picture risks to the financial system and many large banks will have to set aside more capital to help them ride out times of crisis. Large private-equity and hedge funds will face more scrutiny from federal regulators, and credit-rating agencies could potentially see their entire business model upended. Much of the $615 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market will be routed through more accountable and transparent channels, and banks will have to spin off the riskiest of their swaps clearing desk operations. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66E0MD20100715 added by: ScottyT

USA Today Cheers Proposed Financial Protection Agency

Don’t be surprised if you open up the June 24 USA Today and find pom poms in the ‘Money’ section. Reporters-turned-cheerleaders Paul Wiseman, Jayne O’Donnell and Christine Dugas wrote a glowing 38-paragraph story about the proposed Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP). The story even included a section called “keys to a new agency’s success” with quotes from “experts” at a wide variety of government agencies from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Food and Drug Administration. USA Today’s story began by praising the creation of the EPA in 1970 and the way it hit the ground running by ordered city mayors to clean up their water. They included 10 “expert” voices in favor of government agencies (proposed or current) many of whom were former regulators, against only three voices of opposition – all politicians. “It’s exciting to think about building an agency that could make a real contribution, a real difference in the lives of millions of families,’ Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren told USA Today. Warren “proposed the consumer financial regulator in 2007 and is considered a top candidate to be the agency’s first director,” according to the story. The paper barely mentioned Warren’s pro-regulation history which included compensation limits for large corporations. Warren also chairs the Congressional Oversight Panel that babysits companies bailed out by TARP funds. Only three paragraphs were devoted to opposition to the new government agency. Critics were labeled by USA Today as “Republican” or “financial industry lobbyists.” No economists or academics who oppose additional regulation were consulted. Some of the “keys to success” USA Today offered were “hiring motivated career staffers with diverse talents who will outlast political appointees at the top of the organization” and “making a big splash early on to establish your credibility.” However, William Galston of the liberal Brookings Institute feared that the BCFP would “get their knuckles rapped” if they go to far. “If they make a mistake, it will more likely be on the side of excess. They will go too far and get their knuckles rapped, but I don’t expect them to be asleep at the switch like (BP regulator Minerals Management Service) was,” Galston said. Of course the article failed to mention the past ineffectiveness of government regulators and didn’t mention any details of the Democrat-sponsored “Restoring American Financial Stability Act” other than the proposed BCFP. John Berlau, director of the Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the Business & Media Institute the entire bill will have more negative effects on consumers than positive ones. “It will set up a nanny state with unintended consequences,” Berlau said. “You’re punishing the many because of a few stupid people and the costs will just be passed on to consumers.” Brian Johnson, federal affairs manager at Americans for Tax Reform, also criticized the proposal telling BMI that the bill is “one of the first steps towards nationalizing the banking system.” “The BCFP is one of the worst things in this bill,” Johnson said. “They’re operating with a fat budget and can monitor personal transactions and map out grids with purchasing patterns.” This isn’t the first time the media has pulled out its pom poms for liberal reforms or increased financial regulation . Perhaps next time the reporters will save their act for a football halftime show as opposed to a major newspaper. Like this article?   Sign up   for “The Balance Sheet,” BMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter.

Continued here:
USA Today Cheers Proposed Financial Protection Agency

Obama To Earn Nearly $85 Million From Gulf Oil Disaster

Upon Obama’s taking office he staffed his administration with what is called a “Wall Street Cabinet”, including former employees of Goldman Sachs who Rolling Stone Magazine in their devastating article “The Great Bubble Machine” on this banking behemoth warned, “From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression — and they're about to do it again.” And when Rolling Stone Magazine warned that Goldman Sachs was about “to do it again” they probably didn’t even know how apocalyptic this banking giant’s machinations towards the United States really are, and as evident by the BP disaster in the Gulf when just three weeks prior to the Deepwater Horizon explosion they sold nearly half their shares of BP stocks saving for their investors billions of dollars of potential losses. Goldman Sachs wasn’t alone either in its astute “foreknowledge” of the collapse of BP’s stock value due to the Gulf disaster as BP’s own chief executive, Tony Hayward, sold about one-third of his shares weeks before this catastrophe began unfolding too. But according to this FSB report the largest seller of BP stock in the weeks before this disaster occurred was the American investment company known as Vanguard who through two of their financial arms (Vanguard Windsor II Investor and Vanguard Windsor Investor) unloaded over 1.5 million shares of BP stock saving their investors hundreds of millions of dollars, chief among them President Obama. For though little known by the American people, their President Obama holds all of his wealth in just two Vanguard funds, Vanguard 500 Index Fund where he has 3 accounts and the Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund where he holds another 3 accounts, all six of which the FSB estimates will earn Obama nearly $8.5 million a year and which over 10 years will equal the staggering sum of $85 million. The FSB further estimates in this report that through Obama’s 3 accounts in the Vanguard 500 Index Fund he stands to make another $100 million over the next 10 years as their largest stock holding is in the energy giant Exxon Mobil they believe will eventually acquire BP and all of their assets for what will be essentially a “rock bottom” price and which very predictably BP has hired Goldman Sachs to advise them on. Important to note is that none of this wealth Obama, Goldman Sachs, and other American elites is acquiring would be possible without this disaster, all of whom, as the evidence shows, “somehow” knew what was going to happen before it actually did, including the US energy giant Halliburton who 2 weeks prior to this disaster just happened to purchase the World’s largest oil disaster service company Boots & Coots. Unfortunately for the American people watching as these elites destroy their country is that they are being told none of the truth, especially about Obama, who while becoming enormously wealthy off the hardship, misery and toil of his citizens has become the only US President in history to begin jailing every government whistleblower he can find, has won the right to jail anybody he wants without charges and hold them forever, and most incredibly has claimed the right to assassinate any American citizen he deems a threat. The great American Founding Father, and the United States first President, George Washington once said, “Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession.” The American people to their great shame didn’t heed these words, now they are paying for it. http://beforeitsnews.com/story/79/527/Obama_To_Earn_Nearly_85_Million_From_Gulf_… added by: TomTucker