For years, you filed your tax return, waited a few weeks, then got a check in the mail. If you're expecting a return on state income taxes in Oklahoma, there will be something different showing up in your mail box.
"Oklahoma has issued a new debit card. It's for people who do no have a banking account," explained tax professional Jamie Burkhart.
If you do have a bank account, the money will be deposited directly into your account, but Oklahoma hopes the option of a debit card will take care of everyone.
"They're feeling that this is more convenient for the taxpayers. They don't have to worry about issuing checks, checks getting lost, and you can replace your debit card for four dollars," said Burkhart.
Jamie Burkhart prepares taxes at Liberty Tax Services in Ardmore. She has already seen the plastic option gain popularity.
"There are a lot of people who don't have or choose not to have a debit card. Students, stuff like that, it's easier to just take a debit card with them, that way they don't have to worry about mom and dad cashing their check for them," Burkhart said.
For added convenience, multiple cards can be issued for one return.
"Each individual gets a card, so if they choose to do married filing jointly and they have that deduction, they both will get a card," Burkhart explained.
Unlike check cashing services that charge extra for putting money on a prepaid debit card, there is no initial cost for choosing plastic. Of course, like all cards, there can be extra charges.
"It's just like a check, but they issue it on a card. The only charge is the standard merchant charge for using a debit or master card, which is usually around a dollar fifty," said Burkhart.
The State of Oklahoma is hoping the new program cuts down on waste as well as hassle.
2012年2月20日 星期一
2012年2月19日 星期日
Funny business of a football club
WHEN Lawrence Marlborough announced, in November 1988, he had sold his controlling stake in Rangers Football Club for 6 million, a plaintive cry went round my newsroom. “Who is this guy David Murray? Anyone ever heard of him?” I was the only journalist around that day who had.
A few years earlier I had been sent to do an in-depth interview with Murray at his then-headquarters in an old West Lothian mansion. He had won the Scottish Business Achievement Award and the trust that organised this annual ceremony liked to include a major profile of the previous winner in the following year’s programme. Murray’s was a colourful, poignant and inspiring story. He had been sent to board at Fettes by his father, an Ayrshire coal merchant but had had to leave in his early teens when his father’s heavy gambling brought his business to its knees. David talked about his own early entrepreneurial instincts, selling anything he could create demand for to his fellow pupils, then starting his own metals trading business in his early twenties. He also talked about the day, aged 23, when, coming home from playing rugby in his Lotus sports car, he hit a tree and lost both his legs.
Our first encounter was lively and engaging. I stayed in touch as his business interests developed into areas like property and sub-assembly for the electronics industry. I knew he had tried and failed to buy the football club he supported as a boy, Ayr United. But when the news came through that he was buying Rangers, I was as astonished as everyone else.
Some three years on, with the early 1990s recession beginning to bite, my editor called me into his office. “I’ve heard there are serious problems with David Murray’s property interests. Could you check it out?” he suggested. I talked to my contacts and checked out the relevant company accounts. It rapidly became clear there were problems. They were big ones.
The auditors had qualified their opinion on some of the accounts. Drilling into the numbers it was easy to see that these businesses, covering everything from a big spread of development land around Edinburgh airport to a landmark building in Charlotte Square, were only still able to trade because Bank of Scotland had pumped very big loans and additional equity into the businesses.
And this was happening at the same time when a recently-acquired Rangers’ overdraft had tripled in the space of a year. All in all, my editor’s whispers had substance. This was a story of considerable significance for both the bank and for the credibility of David Murray’s growing business empire.
When the stories on what I had found appeared, he went ballistic. There were demands I be sacked. I have never spoken to David Murray from that day to this. I once found myself in his company, tried to broker a peace and was right royally snubbed for my pains.
I’m telling you all this because it illustrates how the events of recent days – plunging one half of the Old Firm into ignominious administration and threatening its very existence in its present form – have been incubating for a very long time indeed. Craig Whyte will have to account for his stewardship of Rangers since last May. What happened to the Ticketus millions? Why, since last May, 9m in taxes wasn’t remitted to HMRC but used to pay for club operating costs instead?
However the idea that the way to run a sustainable football club is to pay whatever it takes to buy success on the field, leverage the business as high as the highest tier in the stands and trust that the bank will still be standing right behind you if it all goes wrong was already there, in Rangers’ case, the day David Murray did that deal nearly a quarter of a century ago.
This whole saga also exposes some of the malign forces and the crony relationships that led us to the great banking crash of 2008 and the protracted slump that has followed.
In the boom years we had bankers who thought they were entrepreneurs. And entrepreneurs who thought the special relationships they built up with individual bankers would see them through the ups and downs of the economic cycle, no matter how much they owed.
David Murray revelled in being one of the chosen highly-leveraged few. At the beginning of the 1990s, when his property interests already had 40m in overdraft facilities and a further 11.5m in equity from Bank of Scotland to keep them afloat, he explained away his “exceptional” treatment as being down to “sixteen years of never letting the bank down”.
But that bank, in essence, brought itself down because of its vast exposure to commercial property lending in businesses like Murray’s, when the tide turned. Bank of Scotland has paid a very heavy price. Today it is little more than a brand name within the wider Lloyds Banking Group, itself still 43 per cent state-owned. Once that happened David Murray must have known the party was finally over. He too will have to account for why he saw fit to sell Rangers on, in the way he did, to Craig Whyte.
Scottish politicians, clamouring to get a early settlement between HMRC and the administrators so that another part of the institutional “fabric of the Scottish nation” doesn’t go the way of Bank of Scotland should reflect a little more on some of the other lessons to be learned from this debacle.
A leading Scottish bank, a leading Scottish entrepreneur and a leading Scottish football club have all, in their own ways, been consumed by this crisis. What does that say about how we do business in Scotland? What are the shortcomings? What should we be doing differently?
Motherwell FC is another Scottish Premier League club that has tasted administration in recent times. When Motherwell’s owner John Boyle decide to stand down he gifted control of his shares to the Motherwell board.
A few years earlier I had been sent to do an in-depth interview with Murray at his then-headquarters in an old West Lothian mansion. He had won the Scottish Business Achievement Award and the trust that organised this annual ceremony liked to include a major profile of the previous winner in the following year’s programme. Murray’s was a colourful, poignant and inspiring story. He had been sent to board at Fettes by his father, an Ayrshire coal merchant but had had to leave in his early teens when his father’s heavy gambling brought his business to its knees. David talked about his own early entrepreneurial instincts, selling anything he could create demand for to his fellow pupils, then starting his own metals trading business in his early twenties. He also talked about the day, aged 23, when, coming home from playing rugby in his Lotus sports car, he hit a tree and lost both his legs.
Our first encounter was lively and engaging. I stayed in touch as his business interests developed into areas like property and sub-assembly for the electronics industry. I knew he had tried and failed to buy the football club he supported as a boy, Ayr United. But when the news came through that he was buying Rangers, I was as astonished as everyone else.
Some three years on, with the early 1990s recession beginning to bite, my editor called me into his office. “I’ve heard there are serious problems with David Murray’s property interests. Could you check it out?” he suggested. I talked to my contacts and checked out the relevant company accounts. It rapidly became clear there were problems. They were big ones.
The auditors had qualified their opinion on some of the accounts. Drilling into the numbers it was easy to see that these businesses, covering everything from a big spread of development land around Edinburgh airport to a landmark building in Charlotte Square, were only still able to trade because Bank of Scotland had pumped very big loans and additional equity into the businesses.
And this was happening at the same time when a recently-acquired Rangers’ overdraft had tripled in the space of a year. All in all, my editor’s whispers had substance. This was a story of considerable significance for both the bank and for the credibility of David Murray’s growing business empire.
When the stories on what I had found appeared, he went ballistic. There were demands I be sacked. I have never spoken to David Murray from that day to this. I once found myself in his company, tried to broker a peace and was right royally snubbed for my pains.
I’m telling you all this because it illustrates how the events of recent days – plunging one half of the Old Firm into ignominious administration and threatening its very existence in its present form – have been incubating for a very long time indeed. Craig Whyte will have to account for his stewardship of Rangers since last May. What happened to the Ticketus millions? Why, since last May, 9m in taxes wasn’t remitted to HMRC but used to pay for club operating costs instead?
However the idea that the way to run a sustainable football club is to pay whatever it takes to buy success on the field, leverage the business as high as the highest tier in the stands and trust that the bank will still be standing right behind you if it all goes wrong was already there, in Rangers’ case, the day David Murray did that deal nearly a quarter of a century ago.
This whole saga also exposes some of the malign forces and the crony relationships that led us to the great banking crash of 2008 and the protracted slump that has followed.
In the boom years we had bankers who thought they were entrepreneurs. And entrepreneurs who thought the special relationships they built up with individual bankers would see them through the ups and downs of the economic cycle, no matter how much they owed.
David Murray revelled in being one of the chosen highly-leveraged few. At the beginning of the 1990s, when his property interests already had 40m in overdraft facilities and a further 11.5m in equity from Bank of Scotland to keep them afloat, he explained away his “exceptional” treatment as being down to “sixteen years of never letting the bank down”.
But that bank, in essence, brought itself down because of its vast exposure to commercial property lending in businesses like Murray’s, when the tide turned. Bank of Scotland has paid a very heavy price. Today it is little more than a brand name within the wider Lloyds Banking Group, itself still 43 per cent state-owned. Once that happened David Murray must have known the party was finally over. He too will have to account for why he saw fit to sell Rangers on, in the way he did, to Craig Whyte.
Scottish politicians, clamouring to get a early settlement between HMRC and the administrators so that another part of the institutional “fabric of the Scottish nation” doesn’t go the way of Bank of Scotland should reflect a little more on some of the other lessons to be learned from this debacle.
A leading Scottish bank, a leading Scottish entrepreneur and a leading Scottish football club have all, in their own ways, been consumed by this crisis. What does that say about how we do business in Scotland? What are the shortcomings? What should we be doing differently?
Motherwell FC is another Scottish Premier League club that has tasted administration in recent times. When Motherwell’s owner John Boyle decide to stand down he gifted control of his shares to the Motherwell board.
2012年2月16日 星期四
Payment fraud is organised, so what do you do?
When your merchant processor calls to inform you that the card associations have flagged your company as falling within their criteria for a fraudulent operation, the threat of having to close your doors for the very last time can take on awesome proportions. Is this scenario a real possibility, and what can you do to prevent it from ever happening to you?
Seasoned risk management professionals will tell you that payment fraud today is very sophisticated and well organised. Where there is money involved, the criminal element of our society has focused their efforts on various schemes that will conveniently and easily transfer its value to their coffers.
Their primary objective, as if directed from some planning division, is to create a steady flow of income beneath the radar screen of detectability. For this reason, one can never eliminate fraud completely, but you must manage it down to an acceptable and predictable ‘cost-of-doing-business' level.
This frightful call situation happens more frequently than we would like, even under today's highly electronic and terminal-driven payment environment. Card payment fraud can come from many sources, but one prevalent method is to force a number of fraudulent transactions through a single merchant portal, fence the goods and then disappear.
It may take days for consumers to object, but investigators quickly assemble data and look for a common point of purchase (CPP), in card payment parlance. A call follows to notify you that your merchant system has been breached.
How can you prevent this call from ever taking place in your situation? Unfortunately, systems today are extremely complex. Even highly sophisticated and large merchants with ample resources devoted to fraud prevention have suffered from breaches in their networks.
In response, the card associations came together as one to fight crime by developing the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards (PCI-DSS) that has been an ongoing effort for the past five years.
The world of merchant account payment options can be very daunting, especially for smaller merchants, but processors have typically developed a cadre of experts to assist merchants in their respective compliance activities.
Navigating through these turbulent waters requires experience on a daily level with the variety of attacks that can transpire between the point of sale and the eventual posting of a transaction to a consumer account. If your processor does not provide support of this nature, then it may be a good time to switch your allegiances.
After a breach has occurred, the first step is to secure with the assistance of your processor, who should be a capable PCI forensic investigator. This individual will determine where and how your system was breached and recommend changes to prevent any further data compromises from happening down the road.
The changes may be as simple as upgrading your operating software to the next release, or may require a major overhaul of your entire method of doing business. Either way, it is a costly procedure.
To avoid larger costs in the future, the prudent way to go is to review your merchant account payment options and determine where the weaknesses in your present system of controls exist. PCI standards are very specific, especially in their encryption requirements of personal consumer and card data during every step in your internal processing regimen.
Due to its inherent complexity, your processor may require an outside auditor to confirm your PCI compliance before accepting larger volumes of transactions from your merchant network. Compliance levels do vary according to size so you need to be aware of when critical levels are on the horizon.
The card associations continually update merchant processors on their level of PCI compliance and issue fines when the facts warrant. If the processor can justify his position and find fault with your PCI status, he will most likely deduct the fines from your daily deposit stream. The time to act is before the breach, not after.
Seasoned risk management professionals will tell you that payment fraud today is very sophisticated and well organised. Where there is money involved, the criminal element of our society has focused their efforts on various schemes that will conveniently and easily transfer its value to their coffers.
Their primary objective, as if directed from some planning division, is to create a steady flow of income beneath the radar screen of detectability. For this reason, one can never eliminate fraud completely, but you must manage it down to an acceptable and predictable ‘cost-of-doing-business' level.
This frightful call situation happens more frequently than we would like, even under today's highly electronic and terminal-driven payment environment. Card payment fraud can come from many sources, but one prevalent method is to force a number of fraudulent transactions through a single merchant portal, fence the goods and then disappear.
It may take days for consumers to object, but investigators quickly assemble data and look for a common point of purchase (CPP), in card payment parlance. A call follows to notify you that your merchant system has been breached.
How can you prevent this call from ever taking place in your situation? Unfortunately, systems today are extremely complex. Even highly sophisticated and large merchants with ample resources devoted to fraud prevention have suffered from breaches in their networks.
In response, the card associations came together as one to fight crime by developing the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards (PCI-DSS) that has been an ongoing effort for the past five years.
The world of merchant account payment options can be very daunting, especially for smaller merchants, but processors have typically developed a cadre of experts to assist merchants in their respective compliance activities.
Navigating through these turbulent waters requires experience on a daily level with the variety of attacks that can transpire between the point of sale and the eventual posting of a transaction to a consumer account. If your processor does not provide support of this nature, then it may be a good time to switch your allegiances.
After a breach has occurred, the first step is to secure with the assistance of your processor, who should be a capable PCI forensic investigator. This individual will determine where and how your system was breached and recommend changes to prevent any further data compromises from happening down the road.
The changes may be as simple as upgrading your operating software to the next release, or may require a major overhaul of your entire method of doing business. Either way, it is a costly procedure.
To avoid larger costs in the future, the prudent way to go is to review your merchant account payment options and determine where the weaknesses in your present system of controls exist. PCI standards are very specific, especially in their encryption requirements of personal consumer and card data during every step in your internal processing regimen.
Due to its inherent complexity, your processor may require an outside auditor to confirm your PCI compliance before accepting larger volumes of transactions from your merchant network. Compliance levels do vary according to size so you need to be aware of when critical levels are on the horizon.
The card associations continually update merchant processors on their level of PCI compliance and issue fines when the facts warrant. If the processor can justify his position and find fault with your PCI status, he will most likely deduct the fines from your daily deposit stream. The time to act is before the breach, not after.
2012年2月15日 星期三
Controversial Telemarketing Empire Puts Focus on South Florida Couple
A South Florida man and his wife are at the center of criminal investigations, and allegations of widespread fraudulent telemarketing targeting people and their bank accounts nationwide.
But several of Michael Mouyal's own telemarketers say victims might not even notice.
The chicken is getting grilled at El Fogon restaurant, but the busy small business owner says he’s getting burned, by telemarketers.
“And they have my bank information and everything," complains owner Edgar Rodriguez. "And I don’t even know how they got it.”
Rodriguez says telemarketers from “Smart Merchant Services,” which has a professional looking website, have been calling his employees twice a week for years claiming to be his business equipment vendor. They are not. His bank shows small monthly withdrawals, listed only as “key components,” without permission and no actual service provided at all.
"It’s unbelievable that these people are still out there doing what they’re doing," he says. "And it’s ridiculous.”
And telemarketers who have spoken to NBC Miami say there are many other small businesses being targeted nationwide. For example, a tiny Mexican restaurant in Brawley, California, another one in Los Angeles, another in New Jersey, at least one branch of a Texas bank.
Sometimes the businesses end up receiving rolls of paper for their office equipment, but often nothing at all.
We spoke with four telemarketers for "Smart Merchant Services" who say they work in a building in a Miramar, Florida corporate office park. Two of them agreed to do on camera interviews, but asked that their faces and voices be hidden due to fear of retaliation.
"Yea. There’s no service provided,” said one of them about the telemarketing businesses for which he makes sales calls.
“There’s no service provided at all?” a reporter asked.
“No.”
“So just charge a monthly fee for absolutely nothing?”
“Exactly.”
“For as long as you can get away with it?”
“For as long as you can get away with it.”
The second telemarketer described their sales strategy.
“Usually when I call, I make them think I’m someone else. I make them think that this is not 'Smart Merchant Services.' This is…a company from the insurance company, and they’ll say, ‘oh, from Allstate?’ ‘Yeah, it’s from Allstate.’ And then they’ll give me their information.”
But it goes far beyond "Smart Merchant Services." NBC Miami has learned from telemarketers, law enforcement, and state records that a dozen or so affiliated companies are selling “extended warranties” to repair your office equipment ("Smart Merchant Services"), your car ("Auto Members of America"), cell phone ("Mobile Assurity"), appliances ("Home Assure"), and more. Other companies sell insurance for medical ("OnCallMD"), travel("Travel Insurance Program"), unemployment ("Constant Paycheck"), even identity theft ("Identity Assurance"). Telemarketers we interviewed say the companies can bring in potentially millions of dollars from small monthly bank withdrawals but providing little or no service in return.
They all have one thing in common.
Michael Mouyal.
He goes to work most days in the same South Florida offices those telemarketers say the call center is based.
“He’s the mastermind in all this and we’re all his puppets,” says a telemarketer. He was asked, “You feel badly doing this?”
“Do I feel bad? I mean, I don’t know what else to do. I mean, I know it’s bad. I know what he’s doing is bad but I mean it’s the only income I have.”
NBC Miami tried to talk with Mouyal, and his wife. Neither wanted to talk about their telemarketing business.
Business must be good. Miami Dade County records say Mouyal and wife Kasey Crouch Mouyal live in an estate in Pinecrest.
NBC Miami has learned Mouyal, his wife and his operation are being investigated by law enforcement authorities. That follows an extensive investigation more than a decade ago by Florida state investigators who received more than 150 consumer complaints, according to the lead state investigator on that case and news accounts at the time.
But Mouyal's biggest troubles came in Canada where court records say he did much the same thing there.
In 2007, armed police raided Mouyal’s offices in Montreal, Toronto and St. Johns. The Queen’s Court accepted Mouyal’s guilty plea to false or misleading telemarketing from 1994 to 2001.
"They’re aggressive and they’re out there to make money. And they’ll do it any which way they can,” Gus LeForge, Phonebuster Police Unit told the Canadian Broadcasting Company several years ago.
News accounts in Canada and in Barbados reported workers for Mouyal in Barbados rioted after not getting paid at his offshore call center there, where one unhappy worker yelled "where's my money!" into a TV news camera.
The Canadian government says Mouyal grossed $137 million back then, but fined him $1 million.
One former Mouyal telemarketer, who also asked that his name not be published, said he can hardly believe Mouyal appears to be at it again in America.
"I was really surprised he did not get any jail time" in Canada.
One of Mouyal’s South Florida telemarketers says he recently put pulled his phone out and started recording a sales meeting as Mouyal chastised them.
Some excerpts:
“How can you do this job and not write orders? It’s, it’s depressing….It’s something in the approach that you’re not doing….You have to make you’re an actor! You’ve got to create problems for them!...Because I’m smarter than them!...I’m telling them what’s going on. I’m not asking them. I TELLING them. You guys are all calling and you’re ASKING people!”
In the same recording, we hear an actual attempt to get a bank account number out of an employee at Chavelo’s Restaurant in tiny Buda, Texas.
“And we’ll bill it to your account that we already have in our system. And I’m just trying to, which we’ll have obviously, uh, and I’ll call you back just to verify it one more time so that I get the right banking information so that we’re properly debiting you correctly.”
The Internet is full of people angry at Mouyal and his companies. One of them, Metropolitan Benefits Group, was reviewed by the Southeast Florida Better Business Bureau and given an “F.”
Rodriguez, the El Fogon Restaurant owner, says he lost $200 or so. It’s not the amount that bothers him. He’s says it’s simply dishonest. "These people still making millions out there and they’re still, you know, free.”
But several of Michael Mouyal's own telemarketers say victims might not even notice.
The chicken is getting grilled at El Fogon restaurant, but the busy small business owner says he’s getting burned, by telemarketers.
“And they have my bank information and everything," complains owner Edgar Rodriguez. "And I don’t even know how they got it.”
Rodriguez says telemarketers from “Smart Merchant Services,” which has a professional looking website, have been calling his employees twice a week for years claiming to be his business equipment vendor. They are not. His bank shows small monthly withdrawals, listed only as “key components,” without permission and no actual service provided at all.
"It’s unbelievable that these people are still out there doing what they’re doing," he says. "And it’s ridiculous.”
And telemarketers who have spoken to NBC Miami say there are many other small businesses being targeted nationwide. For example, a tiny Mexican restaurant in Brawley, California, another one in Los Angeles, another in New Jersey, at least one branch of a Texas bank.
Sometimes the businesses end up receiving rolls of paper for their office equipment, but often nothing at all.
We spoke with four telemarketers for "Smart Merchant Services" who say they work in a building in a Miramar, Florida corporate office park. Two of them agreed to do on camera interviews, but asked that their faces and voices be hidden due to fear of retaliation.
"Yea. There’s no service provided,” said one of them about the telemarketing businesses for which he makes sales calls.
“There’s no service provided at all?” a reporter asked.
“No.”
“So just charge a monthly fee for absolutely nothing?”
“Exactly.”
“For as long as you can get away with it?”
“For as long as you can get away with it.”
The second telemarketer described their sales strategy.
“Usually when I call, I make them think I’m someone else. I make them think that this is not 'Smart Merchant Services.' This is…a company from the insurance company, and they’ll say, ‘oh, from Allstate?’ ‘Yeah, it’s from Allstate.’ And then they’ll give me their information.”
But it goes far beyond "Smart Merchant Services." NBC Miami has learned from telemarketers, law enforcement, and state records that a dozen or so affiliated companies are selling “extended warranties” to repair your office equipment ("Smart Merchant Services"), your car ("Auto Members of America"), cell phone ("Mobile Assurity"), appliances ("Home Assure"), and more. Other companies sell insurance for medical ("OnCallMD"), travel("Travel Insurance Program"), unemployment ("Constant Paycheck"), even identity theft ("Identity Assurance"). Telemarketers we interviewed say the companies can bring in potentially millions of dollars from small monthly bank withdrawals but providing little or no service in return.
They all have one thing in common.
Michael Mouyal.
He goes to work most days in the same South Florida offices those telemarketers say the call center is based.
“He’s the mastermind in all this and we’re all his puppets,” says a telemarketer. He was asked, “You feel badly doing this?”
“Do I feel bad? I mean, I don’t know what else to do. I mean, I know it’s bad. I know what he’s doing is bad but I mean it’s the only income I have.”
NBC Miami tried to talk with Mouyal, and his wife. Neither wanted to talk about their telemarketing business.
Business must be good. Miami Dade County records say Mouyal and wife Kasey Crouch Mouyal live in an estate in Pinecrest.
NBC Miami has learned Mouyal, his wife and his operation are being investigated by law enforcement authorities. That follows an extensive investigation more than a decade ago by Florida state investigators who received more than 150 consumer complaints, according to the lead state investigator on that case and news accounts at the time.
But Mouyal's biggest troubles came in Canada where court records say he did much the same thing there.
In 2007, armed police raided Mouyal’s offices in Montreal, Toronto and St. Johns. The Queen’s Court accepted Mouyal’s guilty plea to false or misleading telemarketing from 1994 to 2001.
"They’re aggressive and they’re out there to make money. And they’ll do it any which way they can,” Gus LeForge, Phonebuster Police Unit told the Canadian Broadcasting Company several years ago.
News accounts in Canada and in Barbados reported workers for Mouyal in Barbados rioted after not getting paid at his offshore call center there, where one unhappy worker yelled "where's my money!" into a TV news camera.
The Canadian government says Mouyal grossed $137 million back then, but fined him $1 million.
One former Mouyal telemarketer, who also asked that his name not be published, said he can hardly believe Mouyal appears to be at it again in America.
"I was really surprised he did not get any jail time" in Canada.
One of Mouyal’s South Florida telemarketers says he recently put pulled his phone out and started recording a sales meeting as Mouyal chastised them.
Some excerpts:
“How can you do this job and not write orders? It’s, it’s depressing….It’s something in the approach that you’re not doing….You have to make you’re an actor! You’ve got to create problems for them!...Because I’m smarter than them!...I’m telling them what’s going on. I’m not asking them. I TELLING them. You guys are all calling and you’re ASKING people!”
In the same recording, we hear an actual attempt to get a bank account number out of an employee at Chavelo’s Restaurant in tiny Buda, Texas.
“And we’ll bill it to your account that we already have in our system. And I’m just trying to, which we’ll have obviously, uh, and I’ll call you back just to verify it one more time so that I get the right banking information so that we’re properly debiting you correctly.”
The Internet is full of people angry at Mouyal and his companies. One of them, Metropolitan Benefits Group, was reviewed by the Southeast Florida Better Business Bureau and given an “F.”
Rodriguez, the El Fogon Restaurant owner, says he lost $200 or so. It’s not the amount that bothers him. He’s says it’s simply dishonest. "These people still making millions out there and they’re still, you know, free.”
2012年2月14日 星期二
Taxpayer wearing whiff of failure
So much money has been lost in finance companies and high risk property lending that large chunks have disappeared without exciting much comment.
How much has gone? Is it less than $100 million? Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
Yet as time ticks by Chalkie continues to stumble over flotsam from the wrecks of those financial rustbuckets, some of it involving quite a lot of money.
One finance company still owes many millions to taxpayers after its collapse two years ago.
Like others of its ilk, it had become embroiled in unfortunate transactions, in this case complicated by an Inland Revenue investigation. The situation was so toxic, it seems, there were concerns it could taint the good name of a respectable retirement village operator, currently mulling an initial public share offer.
The finance company, Vision Securities, eventually called in the receivers on March 31, 2010.
At the time it owed debenture investors $28.9m, all of whom got their money back courtesy of the Government, which had agreed to guarantee Vision's deposits back in December 2008.
The Government looks likely to take a bath on the deal, however. Two months ago receivers sent a cheque to the Treasury for about $4.5m in the first repayment so far, representing a return of 15c in the dollar. That's more than the 9c they initially expected, but it's doubtful how much more is in the pot.
Vision Securities was a specialised property lender set up in 2001 by the founders of retirement village operator Vision Senior Living, Peter Bourke and Bob Foster.
Although it did lend money to retirement village developments run by Vision Senior Living and other related parties, those deals were a minority of the loan book.
It was readily apparent from the prospectus that the lending was high risk - there were few loans, 15 or 16, and almost all were backed by second ranking security on property development projects. As a finance company, this one was admirably frank about the nature of its business.
Among the loans was one to an ambitious retirement village project in Auckland being developed by Paul Webb and Andrew Tauber, collectively known as Honk Group.
The idea was to build a 200-unit village on 3 hectares next to Selwyn College in the eastern suburb of Kohimarama. The land was on a 150-year lease acquired by Tauber and Webb's company Education Holdings from owner Ngati Whatua O Orakei Trust Board in September 2006.
Education Holdings financed the scheme through Capital & Merchant Finance and Chalkie understands Vision Securities took a slice of this debt, one of several deals it did with CMF. Companies Office records show Vision Securities registered a general security agreement over Education Holdings' assets in September 2006.
It was a transaction Vision came to regret.
What happened next is somewhat murky, but Education Holdings transferred the lease in December 2008 to a new company, Education Holdings (2008), with Tauber and Webb relinquishing 75 per cent of their ownership to interests associated with Vision Securities.
This was a curious transaction in several respects, particularly from the Inland Revenue's point of view. After Tauber and Webb moved to liquidate the old Education Holdings a few months later, the IRD obtained a court order revoking the liquidation and reinstating it to the register pending its own investigation. Liquidators' reports indicate the investigation is ongoing - presumably part of the wider IRD probe that triggered the famous raid on Honk-related premises by tax officers last year.
The amount of debt racked up on what was still bare land was also surprising. One document suggests CMF's loan to Education Holdings amounted to $10.6m, for a lease with a council value of $4.7m, plus a 450sqm section acquired for $600,000.
At the time, the project was still to obtain the council rezoning required to build a retirement village on the site.
The size and structure of CMF's lending to Education Holdings is understood to have attracted scrutiny from regulators, who wanted to know whether CMF's principals had undisclosed interests in the project. Three CMF directors - Neal Nicholls, Wayne Douglas and Owen Tallentire - currently face charges laid by the Serious Fraud Office relating to transactions allegedly in breach of the trust deed. Nicholls and Douglas also face charges alleging undisclosed related-party lending.
Chalkie should make clear at this point that there is no suggestion Vision had any knowledge of, or involvement in, the matters of concern to the SFO.
How much Vision committed to the original Education Holdings deal is not clear, but by March 2009 its loans to Education Holdings (2008) totalled $5.7m, disclosed as a related-party loan because three Vision directors were on the company's board.
Companies Office documents show the loan ranked behind lending from HSBC.
No mention was made in the accounts of Vision Securities' 75 per cent stake in Education Holdings (2008), held through Kohimarama Trust, a company whose ownership is shrouded from the public by a lawyer's trustee firm.
The $5.7m loan was due for repayment on December 2, 2009, but it is not clear whether the money was recovered. The size of Vision's liabilities at receivership would suggest not.
However, it appears there were enough looming troubles at Vision Securities for its sister company Vision Senior Living to become concerned. In December 2009, Vision Senior Living approved a new constitution requiring Vision Securities, as a shareholder, to stop using the Vision name and "remove any references or suggestions in its branding to any business or commercial relationship with ".
The reek of Vision Securities was clearly something to back away from.
Meanwhile, the Kohimarama project continues to hang around. Last year the land was marketed for sale. Among interested potential buyers was Vision Senior Living, but it apparently found the price too steep and the land failed to sell.
Oddly, although property and company records suggest Vision Securities was still the majority owner, Tauber fronted as vendor and Vision Senior Living executives were apparently unaware of the sister company's stake. Anyway, Chalkie reckons the high asking price means the debt is more than the property is worth and somebody will have to take a haircut if the property is ever to be developed.
How much has gone? Is it less than $100 million? Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
Yet as time ticks by Chalkie continues to stumble over flotsam from the wrecks of those financial rustbuckets, some of it involving quite a lot of money.
One finance company still owes many millions to taxpayers after its collapse two years ago.
Like others of its ilk, it had become embroiled in unfortunate transactions, in this case complicated by an Inland Revenue investigation. The situation was so toxic, it seems, there were concerns it could taint the good name of a respectable retirement village operator, currently mulling an initial public share offer.
The finance company, Vision Securities, eventually called in the receivers on March 31, 2010.
At the time it owed debenture investors $28.9m, all of whom got their money back courtesy of the Government, which had agreed to guarantee Vision's deposits back in December 2008.
The Government looks likely to take a bath on the deal, however. Two months ago receivers sent a cheque to the Treasury for about $4.5m in the first repayment so far, representing a return of 15c in the dollar. That's more than the 9c they initially expected, but it's doubtful how much more is in the pot.
Vision Securities was a specialised property lender set up in 2001 by the founders of retirement village operator Vision Senior Living, Peter Bourke and Bob Foster.
Although it did lend money to retirement village developments run by Vision Senior Living and other related parties, those deals were a minority of the loan book.
It was readily apparent from the prospectus that the lending was high risk - there were few loans, 15 or 16, and almost all were backed by second ranking security on property development projects. As a finance company, this one was admirably frank about the nature of its business.
Among the loans was one to an ambitious retirement village project in Auckland being developed by Paul Webb and Andrew Tauber, collectively known as Honk Group.
The idea was to build a 200-unit village on 3 hectares next to Selwyn College in the eastern suburb of Kohimarama. The land was on a 150-year lease acquired by Tauber and Webb's company Education Holdings from owner Ngati Whatua O Orakei Trust Board in September 2006.
Education Holdings financed the scheme through Capital & Merchant Finance and Chalkie understands Vision Securities took a slice of this debt, one of several deals it did with CMF. Companies Office records show Vision Securities registered a general security agreement over Education Holdings' assets in September 2006.
It was a transaction Vision came to regret.
What happened next is somewhat murky, but Education Holdings transferred the lease in December 2008 to a new company, Education Holdings (2008), with Tauber and Webb relinquishing 75 per cent of their ownership to interests associated with Vision Securities.
This was a curious transaction in several respects, particularly from the Inland Revenue's point of view. After Tauber and Webb moved to liquidate the old Education Holdings a few months later, the IRD obtained a court order revoking the liquidation and reinstating it to the register pending its own investigation. Liquidators' reports indicate the investigation is ongoing - presumably part of the wider IRD probe that triggered the famous raid on Honk-related premises by tax officers last year.
The amount of debt racked up on what was still bare land was also surprising. One document suggests CMF's loan to Education Holdings amounted to $10.6m, for a lease with a council value of $4.7m, plus a 450sqm section acquired for $600,000.
At the time, the project was still to obtain the council rezoning required to build a retirement village on the site.
The size and structure of CMF's lending to Education Holdings is understood to have attracted scrutiny from regulators, who wanted to know whether CMF's principals had undisclosed interests in the project. Three CMF directors - Neal Nicholls, Wayne Douglas and Owen Tallentire - currently face charges laid by the Serious Fraud Office relating to transactions allegedly in breach of the trust deed. Nicholls and Douglas also face charges alleging undisclosed related-party lending.
Chalkie should make clear at this point that there is no suggestion Vision had any knowledge of, or involvement in, the matters of concern to the SFO.
How much Vision committed to the original Education Holdings deal is not clear, but by March 2009 its loans to Education Holdings (2008) totalled $5.7m, disclosed as a related-party loan because three Vision directors were on the company's board.
Companies Office documents show the loan ranked behind lending from HSBC.
No mention was made in the accounts of Vision Securities' 75 per cent stake in Education Holdings (2008), held through Kohimarama Trust, a company whose ownership is shrouded from the public by a lawyer's trustee firm.
The $5.7m loan was due for repayment on December 2, 2009, but it is not clear whether the money was recovered. The size of Vision's liabilities at receivership would suggest not.
However, it appears there were enough looming troubles at Vision Securities for its sister company Vision Senior Living to become concerned. In December 2009, Vision Senior Living approved a new constitution requiring Vision Securities, as a shareholder, to stop using the Vision name and "remove any references or suggestions in its branding to any business or commercial relationship with ".
The reek of Vision Securities was clearly something to back away from.
Meanwhile, the Kohimarama project continues to hang around. Last year the land was marketed for sale. Among interested potential buyers was Vision Senior Living, but it apparently found the price too steep and the land failed to sell.
Oddly, although property and company records suggest Vision Securities was still the majority owner, Tauber fronted as vendor and Vision Senior Living executives were apparently unaware of the sister company's stake. Anyway, Chalkie reckons the high asking price means the debt is more than the property is worth and somebody will have to take a haircut if the property is ever to be developed.
2012年2月13日 星期一
Shylock – to ban or not to ban?
Wait, what? There were no less than 50 productions of The Merchant of Venice in Nazi Germany during Hitler’s first six years in power. Understandably, the fuhrer saw it as a powerful tool for advancing anti-Semitism. With its portrayal of the cruel and wily Shylock, the Jewish money-lender who lusts for “a pound of [Christian] flesh,” the play in some ways encourages the worst medieval anti-Jewish stereotypes.
Not everyone sees it that way, of course. Actor Yossi Gerber, who portrayed Shylock in an earlier Israeli production of the play, says that Merchant – with its famous Shylock monologue about Jews being human like everyone else – is “anti-anti- Semitic.” Ilan Ronen, who will direct the new Habima version in London, says it “allows us to attack the hatred of Jews and fear of strangers.”
As it happens, the opponents of the new production are upset not by the choice of Merchant but by the fact that the organizers of a London-based Shakespeare festival invited an Israeli troupe to participate. According to their web site, the protesters, known as Boycott from Within, regard Israel as “evil” and “an apartheid state,” and use the Arabic word for “catastrophe,” nakba, to characterize the creation of Israel in 1948.
It would not have been a complete shock, though, if they had supported the choice of Merchant, when one notes how the Shylock slur has been used by some Arab denouncers of Israel. In a sermon last year, Muhammad Badi, leader of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, cited Shylock as revealing “the true character” of Jews, while Hafez Barghouti, editor of the Palestinian Authority newspaper Al- Hayat Al-Jedida, has described Israel as “the Shylock of the lands and settlement” and Israeli banks as “Shylockstyle banks that empty our pockets.”
American Jewish defense organizations have long been concerned about the impact of the stereotypes in The Merchant for Venice, and for good reason. Shylock references abound in American literature going back to the 19th century and even seeped into the political arena.
Just weeks after General Ulysses Grant expelled all Jewish merchants from Union-occupied areas of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky in 1862, Confederate Tennessee congressman Henry Foote declared that unless the Confederacy took similar steps, “the end of the war would probably find nearly all the property of the Confederacy in the hands of Jewish shylocks.”
As early as 1912, the Central Conference of American [Reform] Rabbis urged the College Entrance Examination Board to remove Merchant from its lists of plays “to be intensively studied” as a prerequisite to college admission. The Anti-Defamation League in 1917 launched a campaign to ban the study of Merchant in American high schools on the grounds that “Shylock is erroneously pictured as typical of all Jews.” Several hundred schools acceded to the ADL’s request.
After World War II, perhaps reflecting the fact that American Jews now felt more secure in American society, the ADL changed its position. When parents in Brooklyn in 1950 tried to force the New York City Board of Education to drop The Merchant of Venice (and Oliver Twist, with its repulsive Jewish villain, Fagin) from high school curricula, the ADL likened the effort to “book-burning.”
There is, however, a middle ground between banning a controversial play and presenting it, unvarnished, to audiences that might not appreciate the context or implications of what they are viewing. Perform the play, but have a historian speak before it begins, and have a panel discussion when it concludes. In classrooms, use The Merchant of Venice as a teachable moment, just as teachers confront issues of racial stereotyping when their students read, for example, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
Bernard Weinraub’s hit off-Broadway play, The Accomplices, stirred its share of controversy in 2007-2010, with its frank account of President Franklin Roosevelt’s indifference to the Holocaust and the efforts by the Bergson Group activists to shake America’s conscience. I was invited to take part in a post-performance “Talkback” on stage, along with the playwright, several of the actors, and Dr. Rebecca Kook, Peter Bergson’s daughter. The discussion helped clarify historical and moral issues that the play raised.
A similar approach to The Merchant of Venice, whether in London or anywhere else, might help make the best of an otherwise bad situation.
Not everyone sees it that way, of course. Actor Yossi Gerber, who portrayed Shylock in an earlier Israeli production of the play, says that Merchant – with its famous Shylock monologue about Jews being human like everyone else – is “anti-anti- Semitic.” Ilan Ronen, who will direct the new Habima version in London, says it “allows us to attack the hatred of Jews and fear of strangers.”
As it happens, the opponents of the new production are upset not by the choice of Merchant but by the fact that the organizers of a London-based Shakespeare festival invited an Israeli troupe to participate. According to their web site, the protesters, known as Boycott from Within, regard Israel as “evil” and “an apartheid state,” and use the Arabic word for “catastrophe,” nakba, to characterize the creation of Israel in 1948.
It would not have been a complete shock, though, if they had supported the choice of Merchant, when one notes how the Shylock slur has been used by some Arab denouncers of Israel. In a sermon last year, Muhammad Badi, leader of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, cited Shylock as revealing “the true character” of Jews, while Hafez Barghouti, editor of the Palestinian Authority newspaper Al- Hayat Al-Jedida, has described Israel as “the Shylock of the lands and settlement” and Israeli banks as “Shylockstyle banks that empty our pockets.”
American Jewish defense organizations have long been concerned about the impact of the stereotypes in The Merchant for Venice, and for good reason. Shylock references abound in American literature going back to the 19th century and even seeped into the political arena.
Just weeks after General Ulysses Grant expelled all Jewish merchants from Union-occupied areas of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky in 1862, Confederate Tennessee congressman Henry Foote declared that unless the Confederacy took similar steps, “the end of the war would probably find nearly all the property of the Confederacy in the hands of Jewish shylocks.”
As early as 1912, the Central Conference of American [Reform] Rabbis urged the College Entrance Examination Board to remove Merchant from its lists of plays “to be intensively studied” as a prerequisite to college admission. The Anti-Defamation League in 1917 launched a campaign to ban the study of Merchant in American high schools on the grounds that “Shylock is erroneously pictured as typical of all Jews.” Several hundred schools acceded to the ADL’s request.
After World War II, perhaps reflecting the fact that American Jews now felt more secure in American society, the ADL changed its position. When parents in Brooklyn in 1950 tried to force the New York City Board of Education to drop The Merchant of Venice (and Oliver Twist, with its repulsive Jewish villain, Fagin) from high school curricula, the ADL likened the effort to “book-burning.”
There is, however, a middle ground between banning a controversial play and presenting it, unvarnished, to audiences that might not appreciate the context or implications of what they are viewing. Perform the play, but have a historian speak before it begins, and have a panel discussion when it concludes. In classrooms, use The Merchant of Venice as a teachable moment, just as teachers confront issues of racial stereotyping when their students read, for example, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
Bernard Weinraub’s hit off-Broadway play, The Accomplices, stirred its share of controversy in 2007-2010, with its frank account of President Franklin Roosevelt’s indifference to the Holocaust and the efforts by the Bergson Group activists to shake America’s conscience. I was invited to take part in a post-performance “Talkback” on stage, along with the playwright, several of the actors, and Dr. Rebecca Kook, Peter Bergson’s daughter. The discussion helped clarify historical and moral issues that the play raised.
A similar approach to The Merchant of Venice, whether in London or anywhere else, might help make the best of an otherwise bad situation.
2012年2月12日 星期日
App helps small fry get square
That’s what Indiana merchants are saying about Square Inc., which offers a service to bypass expensive credit card transaction fees by basically using an iPad, iPhone or Android device as a cash register.
There are other firms like it, but San Francisco-based Square has been around since 2009 and is gaining popularity among small businesses in northeast Indiana.
“It’s great,” said Ann Barile, owner of Zia’s Italian Café and Tea House, located inside the Lamplight Inn senior facility, 300 E. Washington Blvd. “I’m a small-business person and don’t have a lot of money. When I found out about Square, I was kind of skeptical at first.”
The businesswoman began using the gadget last summer and expects to save $700 a year. Barile simply plugs the “Square” into her iPhone. The adapter device has a prong that connects to a headphone jack. Customers can swipe a credit card through the Square’s slit and use their finger to sign for purchases on the iPhone’s touch screen. Receipts are emailed or text-messaged to patrons.
Instead of paying for equipment and associated fees, Barile is only assessed a flat 2.75 percent charge per swipe. As for other charges, there is no activation, annual, monthly or refund fees that come with using some credit cards.
On average, bank card charges are between 2 percent and 3 percent per swipe. That might not sound like much in comparison to Square’s fees. However, Craig Shearman, vice president of governmental affairs for the National Retail Federation, said major retailers fetch lower rates because they have more customers than Mom-and-Pop operations.
“The higher the volume of purchases, the lower the rate that merchants have to pay,” he said. “So, what you have is smaller retailers being among the highest to pay.”
This is why Barile turned to Square.
“They sent me the Square for free, and any time I need a new one they ship it for free,” Barile said, adding that the company recoups its cost through the swipe fees. “It’s really convenient, and the customers think it’s neat and new.”
More than 600 companies in Fort Wayne use Square, company officials said.
Swipe fees cost merchants and their customers nearly $50 billion annually – triple the $16 billion assessed in 2001, according to the retail federation. The charges are hidden from consumers because card company practices keep the fees from showing up on receipts. Credit card firms and banks also don’t reveal the charges on cardholders’ monthly statements.
The fees cost the average U.S. household nearly $430 a year because retailers typically pass the cost on to consumers.
“That’s what’s been at the center of the fight for the past several years,” Shearman said.
That’s not to say that the industry has taken the issue sitting down. Retailers and proponents were behind a congressional push to address swipe fees that began several years ago.
At least nine hearings on credit and debit swipe fees have been held since 2006, and in 2008 two bills were introduced.
In June , the Federal Reserve said banks can charge retailers no more than 21 cents each time they swipe a debit card. Banks previously had no limit and charged an average of 44 cents per swipe.
Now that the debit card reform is in place, retailers plan to press for legislation that will tackle credit card swipe fees as well.
Until then, those costs are passed on to the consumer.
“You don’t ever want to do that, so that’s why Square is so great,” Barile said.
Such praise pleases Square officials. Founded by Twitter creator Jack Dorsey, Square Inc. processes $2 billion in payments annually. Spokeswoman Lindsay Wiese said the company has found a niche.
“The Square app and hardware are free,” Wiese said.
Square also doesn’t require a “merchant account,” which new business owners often don’t qualify for based on their revenue, she said. Many find the application process complicated and expensive anyway, Wiese added.
Officials at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in Minneapolis are intrigued by Square. The non-profit is a small business advocate. They say a level playing field needs to exist between the Macy’s and Mom-and-Pops of the world.
“The bigger retailers can afford (credit card fees), but smaller businesses can’t,” said Stacy Mitchell, a senior researcher for the institute. “It really has become one of the biggest costs for small businesses, and they don’t have a choice about it. They’re at the mercy of the big banks and Visa and Mastercard.”
So, for merchants who haven’t discovered Square or operations like it, “it’s not a competitive market,” Mitchell said. “We need some regulators to step in and put some rules in place because these small companies out there are getting gouged.”
Help could be on the way. The U.S. Government Accountability Office is aware of the situation. Alicia Puente Cackley is director of financial markets and community investment at the agency. She said credit card transaction fees “are an understandable concern.”
Cackley said not much has changed since her office studied the issue in late 2009. It found “that fees merchants pay to accept credit cards have risen over time.”
To offset the transaction charges, small merchants do indeed pass the costs to customers, Cackley said.
That was one of reasons Mabel on the Move went with Square. The Indianapolis business is owned by Kate McKibben, who said her mobile food truck specializes in organic and health food.
“The Square was cost effective for me because nobody carries cash like they used to,” said McKibben, who worked private events during the Super Bowl. “I just use my iPad and it becomes my cash register. People love the technology.”
Where does that leave credit card companies like Visa? Well, actually, it is an investor and, according to a Visa spokeswoman, Square’s success “hasn’t taken anything away” in terms of lost revenue. That’s because now Visa is able to reach smaller merchants who previously wouldn’t have qualified to accept credit cards.
Barile is just glad her expenses are down.
“It’s nice,” she said. “The amounts they charge might not seem like a lot, but for a small business it adds up.”
There are other firms like it, but San Francisco-based Square has been around since 2009 and is gaining popularity among small businesses in northeast Indiana.
“It’s great,” said Ann Barile, owner of Zia’s Italian Café and Tea House, located inside the Lamplight Inn senior facility, 300 E. Washington Blvd. “I’m a small-business person and don’t have a lot of money. When I found out about Square, I was kind of skeptical at first.”
The businesswoman began using the gadget last summer and expects to save $700 a year. Barile simply plugs the “Square” into her iPhone. The adapter device has a prong that connects to a headphone jack. Customers can swipe a credit card through the Square’s slit and use their finger to sign for purchases on the iPhone’s touch screen. Receipts are emailed or text-messaged to patrons.
Instead of paying for equipment and associated fees, Barile is only assessed a flat 2.75 percent charge per swipe. As for other charges, there is no activation, annual, monthly or refund fees that come with using some credit cards.
On average, bank card charges are between 2 percent and 3 percent per swipe. That might not sound like much in comparison to Square’s fees. However, Craig Shearman, vice president of governmental affairs for the National Retail Federation, said major retailers fetch lower rates because they have more customers than Mom-and-Pop operations.
“The higher the volume of purchases, the lower the rate that merchants have to pay,” he said. “So, what you have is smaller retailers being among the highest to pay.”
This is why Barile turned to Square.
“They sent me the Square for free, and any time I need a new one they ship it for free,” Barile said, adding that the company recoups its cost through the swipe fees. “It’s really convenient, and the customers think it’s neat and new.”
More than 600 companies in Fort Wayne use Square, company officials said.
Swipe fees cost merchants and their customers nearly $50 billion annually – triple the $16 billion assessed in 2001, according to the retail federation. The charges are hidden from consumers because card company practices keep the fees from showing up on receipts. Credit card firms and banks also don’t reveal the charges on cardholders’ monthly statements.
The fees cost the average U.S. household nearly $430 a year because retailers typically pass the cost on to consumers.
“That’s what’s been at the center of the fight for the past several years,” Shearman said.
That’s not to say that the industry has taken the issue sitting down. Retailers and proponents were behind a congressional push to address swipe fees that began several years ago.
At least nine hearings on credit and debit swipe fees have been held since 2006, and in 2008 two bills were introduced.
In June , the Federal Reserve said banks can charge retailers no more than 21 cents each time they swipe a debit card. Banks previously had no limit and charged an average of 44 cents per swipe.
Now that the debit card reform is in place, retailers plan to press for legislation that will tackle credit card swipe fees as well.
Until then, those costs are passed on to the consumer.
“You don’t ever want to do that, so that’s why Square is so great,” Barile said.
Such praise pleases Square officials. Founded by Twitter creator Jack Dorsey, Square Inc. processes $2 billion in payments annually. Spokeswoman Lindsay Wiese said the company has found a niche.
“The Square app and hardware are free,” Wiese said.
Square also doesn’t require a “merchant account,” which new business owners often don’t qualify for based on their revenue, she said. Many find the application process complicated and expensive anyway, Wiese added.
Officials at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in Minneapolis are intrigued by Square. The non-profit is a small business advocate. They say a level playing field needs to exist between the Macy’s and Mom-and-Pops of the world.
“The bigger retailers can afford (credit card fees), but smaller businesses can’t,” said Stacy Mitchell, a senior researcher for the institute. “It really has become one of the biggest costs for small businesses, and they don’t have a choice about it. They’re at the mercy of the big banks and Visa and Mastercard.”
So, for merchants who haven’t discovered Square or operations like it, “it’s not a competitive market,” Mitchell said. “We need some regulators to step in and put some rules in place because these small companies out there are getting gouged.”
Help could be on the way. The U.S. Government Accountability Office is aware of the situation. Alicia Puente Cackley is director of financial markets and community investment at the agency. She said credit card transaction fees “are an understandable concern.”
Cackley said not much has changed since her office studied the issue in late 2009. It found “that fees merchants pay to accept credit cards have risen over time.”
To offset the transaction charges, small merchants do indeed pass the costs to customers, Cackley said.
That was one of reasons Mabel on the Move went with Square. The Indianapolis business is owned by Kate McKibben, who said her mobile food truck specializes in organic and health food.
“The Square was cost effective for me because nobody carries cash like they used to,” said McKibben, who worked private events during the Super Bowl. “I just use my iPad and it becomes my cash register. People love the technology.”
Where does that leave credit card companies like Visa? Well, actually, it is an investor and, according to a Visa spokeswoman, Square’s success “hasn’t taken anything away” in terms of lost revenue. That’s because now Visa is able to reach smaller merchants who previously wouldn’t have qualified to accept credit cards.
Barile is just glad her expenses are down.
“It’s nice,” she said. “The amounts they charge might not seem like a lot, but for a small business it adds up.”
2012年2月9日 星期四
New POS technology available to retailers in 2012
There are a variety of new technologies that will become available throughout 2012 to small business owners looking for ways to process credit and debit cards. In the past, business have had to rely on costly terminals purchased from merchant account providers who charged not only for the equipment, but also for the processing of the cards used by a business’ customers.
This year, however, there will be a number of new technologies introduced on the market that will make the old system of credit card processing obsolete. POS or point-of-sale technologies have been getting a lot of press coverage because of how these technologies will change the way small business operate.
Perhaps the most talked about advance in POS technology is the use of mobile card readers. These devices are usually given away for a small fee or for free by merchant account providers and easily connect to a smartphone or tablet computer. These card readers are typically less than two inches long by two inches wide, making them easy to carry and connect. The devices are capable of scanning the magnetic strip of any credit or debit card run through the device, essentially making a card reader out of any mobile device.
An application that is downloaded onto the mobile device allows a small business owner to send the card information to a credit card processor, store the purchase information for later, and even provide his or her customer with a receipt. Since the devices are used with mobile technology, they can process cards anywhere the device can connect to a network. This means that a business such as landscapers and plumbers can collect payments from customers in the field. Businesses that routinely operate from different locations, such as traveling craft fairs, will be able to accept credit card payments from customers at every stop along their tour routes.
The fees that are charged to businesses utilizing this technology can offer significant savings over traditional point of sale units. Rather than pay high fees every month or year for equipment rental and access to the processing system, many of these devices simply charge businesses a flat percentage fee of the total amount of the transaction. This means that businesses whose customers do not often use credit cards can still offer their customers this payment options without running the risk that their investment will not pay off in the long run. Furthermore, flat percentage pricing allows smaller and newer businesses the ability to accept credit cards without having to make large up front investments in credit card equipment.
Another much talked about point-of-sale technology is the rise of mobile payments. To use this technology, both the business and the consumer download an application to their respective mobile devices that allows them to transmit and receive payments from customers. Once installed, a customer is able to enter the payment and recipient information into his or her smartphone or tablet computer, and transmit the payment to the business. Both the business and customer will receive instant confirmation of the purchase, along with a receipt detailing the items and/or services that were bought.
This technology will allow businesses to receive payments from customers who do not have a credit card or who simply do not want to give their credit card information to a new business. The fees charged for the service will be in line with current fees charged on credit card transactions. While the business can receive the money almost instantly, a customer will have the option of having charges appear on his or her credit card statement or being added to his or her cell phone bill at the end of the month.
This year, however, there will be a number of new technologies introduced on the market that will make the old system of credit card processing obsolete. POS or point-of-sale technologies have been getting a lot of press coverage because of how these technologies will change the way small business operate.
Perhaps the most talked about advance in POS technology is the use of mobile card readers. These devices are usually given away for a small fee or for free by merchant account providers and easily connect to a smartphone or tablet computer. These card readers are typically less than two inches long by two inches wide, making them easy to carry and connect. The devices are capable of scanning the magnetic strip of any credit or debit card run through the device, essentially making a card reader out of any mobile device.
An application that is downloaded onto the mobile device allows a small business owner to send the card information to a credit card processor, store the purchase information for later, and even provide his or her customer with a receipt. Since the devices are used with mobile technology, they can process cards anywhere the device can connect to a network. This means that a business such as landscapers and plumbers can collect payments from customers in the field. Businesses that routinely operate from different locations, such as traveling craft fairs, will be able to accept credit card payments from customers at every stop along their tour routes.
The fees that are charged to businesses utilizing this technology can offer significant savings over traditional point of sale units. Rather than pay high fees every month or year for equipment rental and access to the processing system, many of these devices simply charge businesses a flat percentage fee of the total amount of the transaction. This means that businesses whose customers do not often use credit cards can still offer their customers this payment options without running the risk that their investment will not pay off in the long run. Furthermore, flat percentage pricing allows smaller and newer businesses the ability to accept credit cards without having to make large up front investments in credit card equipment.
Another much talked about point-of-sale technology is the rise of mobile payments. To use this technology, both the business and the consumer download an application to their respective mobile devices that allows them to transmit and receive payments from customers. Once installed, a customer is able to enter the payment and recipient information into his or her smartphone or tablet computer, and transmit the payment to the business. Both the business and customer will receive instant confirmation of the purchase, along with a receipt detailing the items and/or services that were bought.
This technology will allow businesses to receive payments from customers who do not have a credit card or who simply do not want to give their credit card information to a new business. The fees charged for the service will be in line with current fees charged on credit card transactions. While the business can receive the money almost instantly, a customer will have the option of having charges appear on his or her credit card statement or being added to his or her cell phone bill at the end of the month.
2012年2月8日 星期三
European Maritime and Other Freight and Logistics Sector Jobs Subject
The men who served the merchant marine in time of war were remembered yesterday in a touching memorial service in the harbour at Aberdeen as North Sea Trades Unions and affiliates to the International Transport Workers Federation (ITF) made their point regarding ‘Social Dumping’ in an industry they witness being devalued despite EU recommendations to halt the practice. A resolution adopted last year by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)admitted that the various freight sectors of transport in the EU, including road haulage and short sea and ocean shipping had been ‘severely affected’ and outlined methods by which the situation could be ameliorated and unions insist that action must be taken immediately.
The ITF affiliated unions representing Norway, Denmark, and the UK are concerned about the increasing number of ‘Flag of Convenience’ (FOC) and so-called “national” registered vessels operating on a regular basis in the North Sea. The impact of this is dramatically reduced opportunities for traditional national seafarer jobs, as companies employ and exploit low cost labour from countries such as Lithuania, Latvia, India, Romania and the Philippines.
In addition, Vessels registered in the Norwegian 1st registry (NOR) are now being reflagged, as a consequence of the unfair competition from other registers. They continue with regular operations on the Norwegian Continental Shelf but are replacing Norwegian Seafarers with other nationalities on wages and working conditions far below Norwegian standards, more details of the unions’ dispute with Norwegian ship owners was given in an article of ours in November last year.
The ITF case is directed particularly at the moment toward the North Sea Offshore Oil and Gas Industry but is applicable in some degree to other facets of maritime cargo transport and the ITF says it is deeply concerned that in the near future there will no longer be any Norwegian flagged vessels on the Norwegian Continental Shelf and consequently no Norwegian Seafarers on board offshore supply and service vessels operating in Norway.
This is clearly the type of practice frowned upon in the EESC’s recommendations and Captain Hans Sande of the Norwegian Officers’ Union pointed out that the process of reflagging is simplicity itself with a list of several second registers for owners to ‘shop amongst’ creating a situation in which the traditional registers cannot compete. The captain emphasised that this is also a problem facing Danish and British seafarers’ with regard to North Sea energy activities but in fact can be extrapolated to a far wider employment sector.
The opinions expressed in the report prepared by the Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society covers all modes of freight and passenger transport and were formally adopted in full by the European Economic and Social Committee by 150 votes to 2 with 8 abstentions on the 15th June last year and can be read in full HERE. A short précis relevant only to the maritime sector however is as follows:
The transport sector accounts for 4.4 % of the total EU workforce and further legislation on compulsory training and continuous training for all modes of transport is required to ensure acceptable standards and that the maritime sector should promote the move from rating positions to officer status. Further steps towards employment liberalisation, if any, should be proposed only after serious analysis of the social consequences of previous liberalisation steps, a meaningful social impact assessment and with an inbuilt guarantee that competition is not based on cheaper labour costs but on the quality of the services.
The EESC recommends introducing additional legislative measures on manning standards on board maritime and inland waterway vessels in order to guarantee quality and safety plus better and stricter use of State Aid Guidelines (SAG) schemes and sector-specific health and safety legislation for the different transport modes.
Proper legislation is needed in order to avoid "flagging-out" of work contracts and the EU needs to establish a Social, Employment and Training Observatory in the transport sector, which should provide substantial information for a better assessment and ex-post evaluation of the social impact of transport policy measures and, as stated above, transport employment in was severely affected by the economic crisis in 2008 and 2009, particularly in the freight sector.
A major criticism is that when the internal market was established the high mobility of mobile workers, which facilitates delocalisation of transport jobs and social dumping practices to a higher degree than in other sectors, insufficient attention was paid to social legislation, accompanying social measures and measures to safeguard and avoid social dumping practices.
The EESC made a special point that freedom of establishment and open transport markets are often used in inland waterways, road transport or the maritime sector, to establish companies in EU countries with lower labour costs, lower social security contributions and/or tax advantages without offering services in these countries. They exploit social and wage differences between countries for competitive advantage resulting in difficulties in tracing work contracts, ensuring social security schemes, and controlling and enforcing health and safety rules. In order to avoid social dumping it is necessary to ensure that the host country principle is applied, which means the application of the social conditions of the country in which the service is carried out.
The resolution continues: The major challenge in the maritime transport sector is the long-term decline in the employment of European seafarers with the associated loss of European maritime know-how. Flags of convenience (FOC’s) and low-cost crews from developing countries are still being used. International trade by European-owned and controlled vessels is dominated by an almost entirely non-domiciled crew, particularly for ratings, and the report refers to its conference report of March 2010 which highlights the need to upgrade the merchant marine professions.
The ITF affiliated unions representing Norway, Denmark, and the UK are concerned about the increasing number of ‘Flag of Convenience’ (FOC) and so-called “national” registered vessels operating on a regular basis in the North Sea. The impact of this is dramatically reduced opportunities for traditional national seafarer jobs, as companies employ and exploit low cost labour from countries such as Lithuania, Latvia, India, Romania and the Philippines.
In addition, Vessels registered in the Norwegian 1st registry (NOR) are now being reflagged, as a consequence of the unfair competition from other registers. They continue with regular operations on the Norwegian Continental Shelf but are replacing Norwegian Seafarers with other nationalities on wages and working conditions far below Norwegian standards, more details of the unions’ dispute with Norwegian ship owners was given in an article of ours in November last year.
The ITF case is directed particularly at the moment toward the North Sea Offshore Oil and Gas Industry but is applicable in some degree to other facets of maritime cargo transport and the ITF says it is deeply concerned that in the near future there will no longer be any Norwegian flagged vessels on the Norwegian Continental Shelf and consequently no Norwegian Seafarers on board offshore supply and service vessels operating in Norway.
This is clearly the type of practice frowned upon in the EESC’s recommendations and Captain Hans Sande of the Norwegian Officers’ Union pointed out that the process of reflagging is simplicity itself with a list of several second registers for owners to ‘shop amongst’ creating a situation in which the traditional registers cannot compete. The captain emphasised that this is also a problem facing Danish and British seafarers’ with regard to North Sea energy activities but in fact can be extrapolated to a far wider employment sector.
The opinions expressed in the report prepared by the Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society covers all modes of freight and passenger transport and were formally adopted in full by the European Economic and Social Committee by 150 votes to 2 with 8 abstentions on the 15th June last year and can be read in full HERE. A short précis relevant only to the maritime sector however is as follows:
The transport sector accounts for 4.4 % of the total EU workforce and further legislation on compulsory training and continuous training for all modes of transport is required to ensure acceptable standards and that the maritime sector should promote the move from rating positions to officer status. Further steps towards employment liberalisation, if any, should be proposed only after serious analysis of the social consequences of previous liberalisation steps, a meaningful social impact assessment and with an inbuilt guarantee that competition is not based on cheaper labour costs but on the quality of the services.
The EESC recommends introducing additional legislative measures on manning standards on board maritime and inland waterway vessels in order to guarantee quality and safety plus better and stricter use of State Aid Guidelines (SAG) schemes and sector-specific health and safety legislation for the different transport modes.
Proper legislation is needed in order to avoid "flagging-out" of work contracts and the EU needs to establish a Social, Employment and Training Observatory in the transport sector, which should provide substantial information for a better assessment and ex-post evaluation of the social impact of transport policy measures and, as stated above, transport employment in was severely affected by the economic crisis in 2008 and 2009, particularly in the freight sector.
A major criticism is that when the internal market was established the high mobility of mobile workers, which facilitates delocalisation of transport jobs and social dumping practices to a higher degree than in other sectors, insufficient attention was paid to social legislation, accompanying social measures and measures to safeguard and avoid social dumping practices.
The EESC made a special point that freedom of establishment and open transport markets are often used in inland waterways, road transport or the maritime sector, to establish companies in EU countries with lower labour costs, lower social security contributions and/or tax advantages without offering services in these countries. They exploit social and wage differences between countries for competitive advantage resulting in difficulties in tracing work contracts, ensuring social security schemes, and controlling and enforcing health and safety rules. In order to avoid social dumping it is necessary to ensure that the host country principle is applied, which means the application of the social conditions of the country in which the service is carried out.
The resolution continues: The major challenge in the maritime transport sector is the long-term decline in the employment of European seafarers with the associated loss of European maritime know-how. Flags of convenience (FOC’s) and low-cost crews from developing countries are still being used. International trade by European-owned and controlled vessels is dominated by an almost entirely non-domiciled crew, particularly for ratings, and the report refers to its conference report of March 2010 which highlights the need to upgrade the merchant marine professions.
2012年2月7日 星期二
Dwolla raises $5 million, stays in Des Moines
Dwolla founder Ben Milne heard the question more than once while crossing the country pitching his tech startup to potential investors: Will you move the company from Iowa?
Milne said no. While he acknowledges his defense of Des Moines might have cost his company money, the 30-year-old entrepreneur says finding a good match for the company was more important to him.
“We were told more than once, ‘This is a tough one for us because of where you are (located),’ ” he said. “But it’s good to grow a company where it is; why would you want to move that? If an investor wants to take that away, it’s not a good investor at all and not someone you should let invest in your company.”
Dwolla will announce today that it has raised $5 million in a second round of fundraising, known as Series B funding. The money will help the company bolster product development and the technology that supports its mobile payment services. This means more products could be on the way and the service can be built to handle a larger volume of transactions as its user base grows.
Dwolla allows users to use a mobile phone to transfer money and buy goods and services, and it allows merchants to avoid credit card fees.
Company leaders insist they will grow within Des Moines. They signed a multiyear lease Monday that moves them from the Midland Building on downtown’s “Silicon Sixth Avenue” to larger offices a half-block away at the Wells Fargo Financial Center. The company employs about 20 people, and Milne said they hope to double that within the next year.
The company’s $1 million first round of investments came from two Iowa-based financial institutions. All of the new money this round comes from outside of Iowa, led by Union Square Ventures. The New York City-based firm has invested in tech heavyweights Foursquare and Twitter.
Union Square partner Albert Wegner will join Dwolla’s board of directors. Los Angeles-based Paige Craig of Betterworks, Pennsylvania’s Artist and Instigators and New York’s Village Ventures and Thrive Capital round out the list of investors to be announced today.
“I don’t remember the last time an Iowa company got a syndicate with those kinds of names,” DeWaay Investment Banking managing director Adam Claypool said. “It shows investors that a company in the state of Iowa can produce a top-quality management team to attract these kinds of venture investors. It tells me they have made a lot of progress in a short amount of time.”
Milne founded Dwolla in 2008 and launched the service nationally in late 2010. The company says it moves between $30 million and $50 million per month in transactions from its 80,000 individual accounts and 7,500 merchant accounts. Dwolla grew out of Milne’s frustration at credit card fees, and his goal has been to simplify those fees and make transactions safer.
Milne said the lead partnership between Dwolla and Union Square almost fizzled thanks to what Milne called a “philosophical disagreement” he declined to discuss.
“Any time you are looking at doing a business deal or partnership, there are always going to be disconnects,” Milne said. “Albert and me, we had a strong disconnect. I misunderstood what he was saying and said, ‘It’s a dead deal.’ ”
But Wegner saw the potential in Dwolla and wanted to fix the relationship. He reached out and before Milne could respond, he boarded a flight from New York to Des Moines. Wegner said it was important that he meet Milne face to face.
“Misunderstandings without a history of knowing each other are difficult to overcome by phone or email,” Wegner said. “I felt that an in-person trip was the right way to build trust.”
Union Square has a portfolio of heavy tech hitters. Along with Foursquare and Twitter, the firm has invested in social gaming leader Zynga, entertainment social network GetGlue and online craft market giant Etsy. Wegner said he sees similarities between the early trajectory of Dwolla and some of his firm’s other investments.
“We really like the level of engagement among Dwolla’s early adopters, especially in Iowa,” Wegner said. “It reminds us of other companies that seem to have struck some kind of nerve with people, such as Etsy.”
Village Ventures has built a close relationship with Iowa’s Fund of Funds, which seeks national venture capital funds to invest money in Iowa. The fund invested $5 million in Village Ventures in October 2007. Matt Harris of Village Ventures said the timing for Dwolla’s rise could prop up the rest of the Iowa tech community.
“I think this is a real moment in Des Moines, and Iowa more broadly,” Harris said. “The way the community has embraced Dwolla’s success, and Dwolla has, in turn, focused attention on the community, has led to a virtuous feedback loop. ”
Milne said no. While he acknowledges his defense of Des Moines might have cost his company money, the 30-year-old entrepreneur says finding a good match for the company was more important to him.
“We were told more than once, ‘This is a tough one for us because of where you are (located),’ ” he said. “But it’s good to grow a company where it is; why would you want to move that? If an investor wants to take that away, it’s not a good investor at all and not someone you should let invest in your company.”
Dwolla will announce today that it has raised $5 million in a second round of fundraising, known as Series B funding. The money will help the company bolster product development and the technology that supports its mobile payment services. This means more products could be on the way and the service can be built to handle a larger volume of transactions as its user base grows.
Dwolla allows users to use a mobile phone to transfer money and buy goods and services, and it allows merchants to avoid credit card fees.
Company leaders insist they will grow within Des Moines. They signed a multiyear lease Monday that moves them from the Midland Building on downtown’s “Silicon Sixth Avenue” to larger offices a half-block away at the Wells Fargo Financial Center. The company employs about 20 people, and Milne said they hope to double that within the next year.
The company’s $1 million first round of investments came from two Iowa-based financial institutions. All of the new money this round comes from outside of Iowa, led by Union Square Ventures. The New York City-based firm has invested in tech heavyweights Foursquare and Twitter.
Union Square partner Albert Wegner will join Dwolla’s board of directors. Los Angeles-based Paige Craig of Betterworks, Pennsylvania’s Artist and Instigators and New York’s Village Ventures and Thrive Capital round out the list of investors to be announced today.
“I don’t remember the last time an Iowa company got a syndicate with those kinds of names,” DeWaay Investment Banking managing director Adam Claypool said. “It shows investors that a company in the state of Iowa can produce a top-quality management team to attract these kinds of venture investors. It tells me they have made a lot of progress in a short amount of time.”
Milne founded Dwolla in 2008 and launched the service nationally in late 2010. The company says it moves between $30 million and $50 million per month in transactions from its 80,000 individual accounts and 7,500 merchant accounts. Dwolla grew out of Milne’s frustration at credit card fees, and his goal has been to simplify those fees and make transactions safer.
Milne said the lead partnership between Dwolla and Union Square almost fizzled thanks to what Milne called a “philosophical disagreement” he declined to discuss.
“Any time you are looking at doing a business deal or partnership, there are always going to be disconnects,” Milne said. “Albert and me, we had a strong disconnect. I misunderstood what he was saying and said, ‘It’s a dead deal.’ ”
But Wegner saw the potential in Dwolla and wanted to fix the relationship. He reached out and before Milne could respond, he boarded a flight from New York to Des Moines. Wegner said it was important that he meet Milne face to face.
“Misunderstandings without a history of knowing each other are difficult to overcome by phone or email,” Wegner said. “I felt that an in-person trip was the right way to build trust.”
Union Square has a portfolio of heavy tech hitters. Along with Foursquare and Twitter, the firm has invested in social gaming leader Zynga, entertainment social network GetGlue and online craft market giant Etsy. Wegner said he sees similarities between the early trajectory of Dwolla and some of his firm’s other investments.
“We really like the level of engagement among Dwolla’s early adopters, especially in Iowa,” Wegner said. “It reminds us of other companies that seem to have struck some kind of nerve with people, such as Etsy.”
Village Ventures has built a close relationship with Iowa’s Fund of Funds, which seeks national venture capital funds to invest money in Iowa. The fund invested $5 million in Village Ventures in October 2007. Matt Harris of Village Ventures said the timing for Dwolla’s rise could prop up the rest of the Iowa tech community.
“I think this is a real moment in Des Moines, and Iowa more broadly,” Harris said. “The way the community has embraced Dwolla’s success, and Dwolla has, in turn, focused attention on the community, has led to a virtuous feedback loop. ”
2012年2月6日 星期一
Eurex to offer full segregation in March launch of OTC clearing
Eurex Clearing, the central counterparty belonging to Frankfurt-headquartered Deutsche Borse, will launch over-the-counter interest rate swap clearing for both dealers and clients at the end of March. The clearing house will be the first to offer full physical segregation, meaning client collateral is held in individual accounts, separately from the CCP member firms that handle those assets – which Eurex hopes will be an advantage in the post-MF Global environment.
“Clients have recognised in the past few months that individual segregation secures their collateral and ensures portability after a default of their clearing member. That is one of the most important aspects of the segregation offering,” says Jens Quiram, project manager for client asset protection at Eurex Clearing in Frankfurt.
The OTC offering is an extension of the CCP’s existing individual segregation model, which was made available to users of Eurex Exchange and Xetra, Deutsche Borse’s electronic securities trading system, last August, but users will have a choice of three different levels of segregation.
In the late second or early third quarter, the CCP plans to roll out a net omnibus approach, comparable to the existing futures model. Under this model, all client collateral is pooled by the clearing member, which posts the net margin requirement across the entire portfolio, to the clearing house. That should reduce margin costs, but leaves clients sharing risk with other users of the omnibus account – if one of them collapses, other members of the pool will see their collateral eaten into .
“There was special appetite in the UK market for this service, and we plan to introduce it following the client assets rules of the Financial Services Authority (FSA),” Quiram says.
The third option is known as gross omnibus segregation – analogous to the legally segregated/operationally commingled (LSOC) approach endorsed in the US by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission last month – in which client margin is passed directly from clearing member to CCP without netting across client positions. In theory, this approach provides less protection than individual segregation, but is more robust than the net omnibus model. Eurex plans to add it as an offering towards the end of 2012.
The CCP says the roll-out is in response to a surge of client interest in full physical segregation. “The demand for segregation increased in particular after the bankruptcy of MF Global,” says Matthias Graulich, the CCP’s head of clearing initiatives. As in the US, clients with a fiduciary duty to protect their assets and investments are leading the charge: “Fund managers should preferably use the individual clearing model, as the omnibus model does not offer them full protection and timely portability. In an omnibus model their assets are to a certain degree at risk if a clearing member fails, which is problematic for fund managers given their fiduciary role,” he adds.
But Basel III, which offers a rock-bottom 2% risk weight to cleared exposures under certain circumstances, has also had a hand in nudging European clients towards the highest level of segregation they can get. “Under Basel III, small and medium-size banks, for instance, can receive the preferential 2% risk weight for their cleared portfolios, even if they are clients rather than direct clearing members. They can get that preferential treatment through our individual clearing model, because full protection and portability is ensured,” says Graulich.
Attempting to provide this assurance is why Eurex is backing full physical segregation. “In the individual clearing model, client assets are segregated in an account to which we have an entitlement, so it’s not like in the US where assets are segregated at the futures commission merchant level. This is a prerequisite to ensure timely portability. As the CCP, we have full access and clarity about client positions and the collateral attached to them, which enables us to transfer them to another clearing member without interference with the defaulting clearing member or administrators,” says Graulich.
But the CCP’s enthusiasm for full physical segregation is undercut somewhat by clearing members’ reluctance to embrace it – potentially restricting clients’ access to the model. When pushed, dealers say they will consider offering full physical segregation under a set of provisos – including a full transfer of their costs to the end client – but none seem keen.
Dealers pin this to the prohibitive cost of the full physical segregation model – the International Swaps and Derivatives Association has estimated it would be almost 10 times more expensive operationally for clearing members to offer full segregation than LSOC.
And it’s not just dealers that think greater segregation means steeper costs. “Under full physical segregation, there are additional accounts, and there are as many of those as there are clients who want to take advantage of the service,” says Kim Taylor, president and managing director of CME Group’s clearing house. “There will also be additional transactions as a result. It is likely those costs will be passed on to the client – they will have a chance to make a decision about whether or not they want to bear those costs relative to the additional protection they’re getting.”
“Clients have recognised in the past few months that individual segregation secures their collateral and ensures portability after a default of their clearing member. That is one of the most important aspects of the segregation offering,” says Jens Quiram, project manager for client asset protection at Eurex Clearing in Frankfurt.
The OTC offering is an extension of the CCP’s existing individual segregation model, which was made available to users of Eurex Exchange and Xetra, Deutsche Borse’s electronic securities trading system, last August, but users will have a choice of three different levels of segregation.
In the late second or early third quarter, the CCP plans to roll out a net omnibus approach, comparable to the existing futures model. Under this model, all client collateral is pooled by the clearing member, which posts the net margin requirement across the entire portfolio, to the clearing house. That should reduce margin costs, but leaves clients sharing risk with other users of the omnibus account – if one of them collapses, other members of the pool will see their collateral eaten into .
“There was special appetite in the UK market for this service, and we plan to introduce it following the client assets rules of the Financial Services Authority (FSA),” Quiram says.
The third option is known as gross omnibus segregation – analogous to the legally segregated/operationally commingled (LSOC) approach endorsed in the US by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission last month – in which client margin is passed directly from clearing member to CCP without netting across client positions. In theory, this approach provides less protection than individual segregation, but is more robust than the net omnibus model. Eurex plans to add it as an offering towards the end of 2012.
The CCP says the roll-out is in response to a surge of client interest in full physical segregation. “The demand for segregation increased in particular after the bankruptcy of MF Global,” says Matthias Graulich, the CCP’s head of clearing initiatives. As in the US, clients with a fiduciary duty to protect their assets and investments are leading the charge: “Fund managers should preferably use the individual clearing model, as the omnibus model does not offer them full protection and timely portability. In an omnibus model their assets are to a certain degree at risk if a clearing member fails, which is problematic for fund managers given their fiduciary role,” he adds.
But Basel III, which offers a rock-bottom 2% risk weight to cleared exposures under certain circumstances, has also had a hand in nudging European clients towards the highest level of segregation they can get. “Under Basel III, small and medium-size banks, for instance, can receive the preferential 2% risk weight for their cleared portfolios, even if they are clients rather than direct clearing members. They can get that preferential treatment through our individual clearing model, because full protection and portability is ensured,” says Graulich.
Attempting to provide this assurance is why Eurex is backing full physical segregation. “In the individual clearing model, client assets are segregated in an account to which we have an entitlement, so it’s not like in the US where assets are segregated at the futures commission merchant level. This is a prerequisite to ensure timely portability. As the CCP, we have full access and clarity about client positions and the collateral attached to them, which enables us to transfer them to another clearing member without interference with the defaulting clearing member or administrators,” says Graulich.
But the CCP’s enthusiasm for full physical segregation is undercut somewhat by clearing members’ reluctance to embrace it – potentially restricting clients’ access to the model. When pushed, dealers say they will consider offering full physical segregation under a set of provisos – including a full transfer of their costs to the end client – but none seem keen.
Dealers pin this to the prohibitive cost of the full physical segregation model – the International Swaps and Derivatives Association has estimated it would be almost 10 times more expensive operationally for clearing members to offer full segregation than LSOC.
And it’s not just dealers that think greater segregation means steeper costs. “Under full physical segregation, there are additional accounts, and there are as many of those as there are clients who want to take advantage of the service,” says Kim Taylor, president and managing director of CME Group’s clearing house. “There will also be additional transactions as a result. It is likely those costs will be passed on to the client – they will have a chance to make a decision about whether or not they want to bear those costs relative to the additional protection they’re getting.”
2012年2月5日 星期日
Don’t let plastic cards melt hard-earned cash
Imagine if you are at a shop in a big mall and find yourself without enough paper currency to pay for your purchase. So, you open your wallet, purse or your handbag to sift through the plastic payment cards, of which you have at least a couple or more and, which comprise of at least one credit card and at least one debit card. To your shock and dismay, you realise that your debit card, only one or one of multiple, is missing. The last time you used your plastic – debit or credit – card was more than 10 days back.
Such a scenario is indeed possible with more than one card users. If you are not the kind of banking customer who is receiving SMS alerts of transactions on your debit card and credit card, then the scenario will very likely stand exposed to the grave risk of fraudulent purchases (online or offline). If it happens on your debit card then the entire balance from your savings account can be wiped out. Daily purchase limits will also not help if you notice your card loss after many days and fraudulent use occurs to every day in that period.
The biggest risk in all plastic cards, debit or credit, arises when a customer loses the card and his or her signature is there on the card to be easily forged and misused at merchant shops. It may be difficult to eliminate the risk of fraud altogether but here are a few things you can do to mitigate it. To begin with, consider the credit limit available on your credit card as the amount at risk and set the maximum credit limit as per your comfort level even though it may be much lower than what your credit card-issuing bank is willing to give you.
Unfortunately, the feature of maximum drawable limit on purchases is not there in debit cards as it is not provided by either Visa, MasterCard or any of their card-issuing banks. You, or another person who steals your debit card or finds your lost debit card can effect purchases up to the amount you have in your debit card-issuing bank’s saving account.
This makes debit cards inherently riskier than credit cards. In the current scenario where a couple of banks are offering a high interest rate of 7 per cent on their savings account, it is likely you may have more than one savings bank account.
If this is the case, do not opt to receive debit-cum-ATM cards from all banks. Tell the bank you need only a pure ATM card for the purpose of ATM-related transactions only, such as withdrawals and mini-statement. Subject to Reserve Bank of India's rules, your bank does not have a strong case to insist on giving you a debit-cum-ATM card, which increases the risk of losing money for you.
If you are still stuck with multiple debit-cum-ATM cards then register yourself for receiving SMS-based alerts on debits in you savings account as any debit card transaction results in a debit of your savings account. This way, a fraudulent transaction on your debit will send a SMS to you, which you can see to be one not authorised by you and take action immediately.
Such a scenario is indeed possible with more than one card users. If you are not the kind of banking customer who is receiving SMS alerts of transactions on your debit card and credit card, then the scenario will very likely stand exposed to the grave risk of fraudulent purchases (online or offline). If it happens on your debit card then the entire balance from your savings account can be wiped out. Daily purchase limits will also not help if you notice your card loss after many days and fraudulent use occurs to every day in that period.
The biggest risk in all plastic cards, debit or credit, arises when a customer loses the card and his or her signature is there on the card to be easily forged and misused at merchant shops. It may be difficult to eliminate the risk of fraud altogether but here are a few things you can do to mitigate it. To begin with, consider the credit limit available on your credit card as the amount at risk and set the maximum credit limit as per your comfort level even though it may be much lower than what your credit card-issuing bank is willing to give you.
Unfortunately, the feature of maximum drawable limit on purchases is not there in debit cards as it is not provided by either Visa, MasterCard or any of their card-issuing banks. You, or another person who steals your debit card or finds your lost debit card can effect purchases up to the amount you have in your debit card-issuing bank’s saving account.
This makes debit cards inherently riskier than credit cards. In the current scenario where a couple of banks are offering a high interest rate of 7 per cent on their savings account, it is likely you may have more than one savings bank account.
If this is the case, do not opt to receive debit-cum-ATM cards from all banks. Tell the bank you need only a pure ATM card for the purpose of ATM-related transactions only, such as withdrawals and mini-statement. Subject to Reserve Bank of India's rules, your bank does not have a strong case to insist on giving you a debit-cum-ATM card, which increases the risk of losing money for you.
If you are still stuck with multiple debit-cum-ATM cards then register yourself for receiving SMS-based alerts on debits in you savings account as any debit card transaction results in a debit of your savings account. This way, a fraudulent transaction on your debit will send a SMS to you, which you can see to be one not authorised by you and take action immediately.
2012年2月2日 星期四
Next Street, Citi create $30M small-biz lending fund
The merchant bank Next Street has partnered with financial services company Citigroup Inc. to create Next Street Opportunity Fund, a $30 million pool of lending capital for inner-city, high-performing small businesses.
Citigroup will contribute $25 million. The Baltimore-based nonprofit Enterprise Community Partners will kick in $2.5 million, and the balance will come from Next Street and a group of high net-worth investors, according to Next Street's founding partner and president, Ron Walker. Next Street, based in New York City and Boston, specializes in working with urban small businesses across the U.S.
Only small-business clients of Next Street in New York City and Boston will be able to qualify for the Opportunity Fund. Existing and potential clients can apply through Next Street or Citi. Decisions about loans will be made by Next Street, which provides advisory services as well as cash to small businesses.
“Our model is to provide both high-level strategic advice and growth capital,” Mr. Walker said. “We believe the advice and guidance is as important, if not more important, than the capital. We have a staff of business consultants, marketing experts and organizational development specialists that work with each small business.”
Next Street, whose cofounder is Tim Ferguson, has about 50 employees. Since its launch six years ago, the bank has worked with about 100 small businesses in New York and Boston.
To qualify for Opportunity Fund money, a small business must be in growth mode, with revenues between $5 million and $60 million, and have a business checking account at a retail bank. “They have to be somewhat successful already,” Mr. Walker said. “This isn't a micro-loan program or a program for troubled companies. We are targeting small businesses that are 5 to 15 year old.” The goal is to help these city-based businesses grow so they can create jobs and help with economic recovery. Next Street would not disclose interest rates, but Mr. Walker said they will be commensurate with risk.
The creation of the Next Street fund comes at a time when access to capital is still a big problem for small businesses. For the third quarter of 2011, the Small Business Association reported that all loans under $1 million were down 1.2%, continuing a yearlong slide. Even loans by megalenders—those with $50 billion or more in assets—remained relatively flat from the second quarter to the third quarter of 2011.
But small-business lending may on its way back. Citi announced separately in September that it was committing $24 billion in small business lending over three years, from 2011-2013. The bank surpassed its $7 billion lending commitment to small business by more than $900 million in 2011, a 30% increase over its small business lending in 2010. This year Citi has stated it is working to surpass its $8 billion small business lending commitment.
Other big banks are stepping up lending, too. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. reported this month that it lent $17 billion to U.S. small businesses in 2011, up 52% from 2010. The bank made 45 % more loans in 2011 than it did in 2010. And this week, Bank of America Corp. reported it had loaned $6.4 billion to U.S. small businesses in 2011, a 20% increase over 2010.
As a small business itself, Next Street gains credibility by partnering with banking giant Citi. “It's a validation of our model,” Mr. Walker said.
Citigroup will contribute $25 million. The Baltimore-based nonprofit Enterprise Community Partners will kick in $2.5 million, and the balance will come from Next Street and a group of high net-worth investors, according to Next Street's founding partner and president, Ron Walker. Next Street, based in New York City and Boston, specializes in working with urban small businesses across the U.S.
Only small-business clients of Next Street in New York City and Boston will be able to qualify for the Opportunity Fund. Existing and potential clients can apply through Next Street or Citi. Decisions about loans will be made by Next Street, which provides advisory services as well as cash to small businesses.
“Our model is to provide both high-level strategic advice and growth capital,” Mr. Walker said. “We believe the advice and guidance is as important, if not more important, than the capital. We have a staff of business consultants, marketing experts and organizational development specialists that work with each small business.”
Next Street, whose cofounder is Tim Ferguson, has about 50 employees. Since its launch six years ago, the bank has worked with about 100 small businesses in New York and Boston.
To qualify for Opportunity Fund money, a small business must be in growth mode, with revenues between $5 million and $60 million, and have a business checking account at a retail bank. “They have to be somewhat successful already,” Mr. Walker said. “This isn't a micro-loan program or a program for troubled companies. We are targeting small businesses that are 5 to 15 year old.” The goal is to help these city-based businesses grow so they can create jobs and help with economic recovery. Next Street would not disclose interest rates, but Mr. Walker said they will be commensurate with risk.
The creation of the Next Street fund comes at a time when access to capital is still a big problem for small businesses. For the third quarter of 2011, the Small Business Association reported that all loans under $1 million were down 1.2%, continuing a yearlong slide. Even loans by megalenders—those with $50 billion or more in assets—remained relatively flat from the second quarter to the third quarter of 2011.
But small-business lending may on its way back. Citi announced separately in September that it was committing $24 billion in small business lending over three years, from 2011-2013. The bank surpassed its $7 billion lending commitment to small business by more than $900 million in 2011, a 30% increase over its small business lending in 2010. This year Citi has stated it is working to surpass its $8 billion small business lending commitment.
Other big banks are stepping up lending, too. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. reported this month that it lent $17 billion to U.S. small businesses in 2011, up 52% from 2010. The bank made 45 % more loans in 2011 than it did in 2010. And this week, Bank of America Corp. reported it had loaned $6.4 billion to U.S. small businesses in 2011, a 20% increase over 2010.
As a small business itself, Next Street gains credibility by partnering with banking giant Citi. “It's a validation of our model,” Mr. Walker said.
2012年2月1日 星期三
Lenders to convert Air India loan into NCDs with govt guarantee
After the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) rejected the proposal to provide an ‘SLR’ status to bonds, lenders have now agreed to convert Air India’s loan into non-convertible debentures (NCDs). But, there is an important caveat: the government must guarantee the entire loan and the interest rate, so that there is no additional provisioning requirement.
According to bankers, a fresh proposal has been forwarded to SBI Caps — the merchant banker for the debt recast exercise — which will meet the Air India management and the government to discuss the proposal.
An instrument guaranteed by a sovereign carries zero risk. Hence, higher provisioning is not required. However, if converted into NCDs, mark-to-market risk will still be there, since banks will not be able to put it in the hold-to-maturity category.
According to RBI norms, standard asset provisioning of 0.4 per cent will still be applicable to the loans, even after restructuring. If any standard asset is restructured, though it continues to remain standard, the provisioning requirement increases to two per cent from 0.4 per cent. If the government guarantees the Air India loan, banks can continue with standard asset provisioning and higher provisioning due to restructuring will not be required.
The coupon rate the NCDs will carry is likely to emerge as the critical point in finalising the deal. Bankers are still taking a tough stand, saying they will not take any hit. While restructuring a debt, banks have to make provision for the sacrifice made if the net present value come down. Such a situation can only be avoided if interest rates are kept at a high level.
“If the loan is converted into NCDs with a maturity of 10 years, then the interest rate may be say, 10 per cent. However, if the NCD maturity period is 15 years, then the coupon rate will also go up to say 14 per cent,” said a top official from a public sector bank with significant exposure in the troubled airline.
Earlier, banks had agreed to convert the debt into bonds which could be used for calculating statutory liquidity ratio. However, for bonds to have ‘SLR status’ would require RBI’s approval, which the regulator rejected.
Banks are looking for an early resolution to the Air India debt recast, as the Air India management has told them it would not be able to service the interest rate after December. Bankers said they want to settle the issue by March-end. If Air India does not pay interest from January, then the account will become non-performing from April.
Of the Rs 43,000-crore debt of Air India, restructuring for Rs 22,500 crore is proposed. A consortium of 26 lenders, with State Bank of India as the lead bank, has exposure to the troubled airline. If the entire amount becomes an NPA, then banks may face the grim possibility of a rating downgrade.
In October last year, Moody’s Investors Service downgraded SBI’s financial strength rating, based on the banking entity’s capital situation and deteriorating asset quality.
According to bankers, a fresh proposal has been forwarded to SBI Caps — the merchant banker for the debt recast exercise — which will meet the Air India management and the government to discuss the proposal.
An instrument guaranteed by a sovereign carries zero risk. Hence, higher provisioning is not required. However, if converted into NCDs, mark-to-market risk will still be there, since banks will not be able to put it in the hold-to-maturity category.
According to RBI norms, standard asset provisioning of 0.4 per cent will still be applicable to the loans, even after restructuring. If any standard asset is restructured, though it continues to remain standard, the provisioning requirement increases to two per cent from 0.4 per cent. If the government guarantees the Air India loan, banks can continue with standard asset provisioning and higher provisioning due to restructuring will not be required.
The coupon rate the NCDs will carry is likely to emerge as the critical point in finalising the deal. Bankers are still taking a tough stand, saying they will not take any hit. While restructuring a debt, banks have to make provision for the sacrifice made if the net present value come down. Such a situation can only be avoided if interest rates are kept at a high level.
“If the loan is converted into NCDs with a maturity of 10 years, then the interest rate may be say, 10 per cent. However, if the NCD maturity period is 15 years, then the coupon rate will also go up to say 14 per cent,” said a top official from a public sector bank with significant exposure in the troubled airline.
Earlier, banks had agreed to convert the debt into bonds which could be used for calculating statutory liquidity ratio. However, for bonds to have ‘SLR status’ would require RBI’s approval, which the regulator rejected.
Banks are looking for an early resolution to the Air India debt recast, as the Air India management has told them it would not be able to service the interest rate after December. Bankers said they want to settle the issue by March-end. If Air India does not pay interest from January, then the account will become non-performing from April.
Of the Rs 43,000-crore debt of Air India, restructuring for Rs 22,500 crore is proposed. A consortium of 26 lenders, with State Bank of India as the lead bank, has exposure to the troubled airline. If the entire amount becomes an NPA, then banks may face the grim possibility of a rating downgrade.
In October last year, Moody’s Investors Service downgraded SBI’s financial strength rating, based on the banking entity’s capital situation and deteriorating asset quality.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)