Federal investigation boosts concerns over debt-relief firms

Kim Geiger, LA Times

A new report by undercover government investigators bolsters longstanding concerns that companies promising to help consumers overwhelmed by credit card and other debts often turn out to be financial predators that charge high fees but deliver little or nothing in return.

When investigators for the Government Accountability Office posed as distressed consumers seeking help, so-called debt management companies gave them wildly exaggerated descriptions of the firms’ success rates and sometimes promised savings of as much as 50 cents on the dollar, Gregory Kutz, the GAO official who ran the investigation, told Congress on Thursday.

But after paying big up-front fees, often running to several thousand dollars, many consumers end up deeper in debt than they were before seeking help, Kutz said.

Such practices — deemed “fraudulent, deceptive and abusive” by the GAO — have caused complaints about debt relief companies to more than double since 2007, according to the National Assn. of Attorneys General.

Also “particularly despicable,” Kutz said, was that three of the companies used Christianity to target customers. Investigators visited one of those companies, A New Beginning Financial located in a strip mall in Orange, where an agent told them that it was a nonprofit ministry, with profit funding missionary trips overseas.

The Federal Trade Commission is considering new rules to prevent debt settlement companies from charging up-front fees and giving inaccurate information about their programs.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.V.), who ordered the GAO investigation, called the practice “appalling beyond words.”

“These debt settlement companies are kicking people when they are down,” Rockefeller said Thursday at a hearing of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which he chairs.

Read more here: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-debt-scams-20100423,0,955289.story

Share

Unpaid Water Bills Could Lead To Condemnation in Michigan

I usually don’t post articles about Landlord/Tenant cases but buried in this article is something that could cost lenders a lot of money after a foreclosure.

Anne Schieber, WOOD-TV, Grand Rapids, MI

Renters who lose their utilities because their landlords went into foreclosure may have little recourse other than to move.

Compelling a landlord to pay utility bills could be nothing but a headache, and much of what happens depends on the lease and a renter’s ability to check out the landlord before they sign the lease.

But it might be difficult for prospective tenants to check utility payments. The city water department said a person must file a request for a specific landlord under the Freedom of Information Act.

The case of Todd Bialis is an example. He and his wife, Christine, own multiple properties. At two of them, his tenants have been without water because he hadn’t paid the water bill .

Official with the city water department told 24 Hour News 8 water will be shut off three months after an unpaid quarterly bill. The city said it sends plenty of warnings to the property owner, and a notice to tenants. If the owner doesn’t respond and the water is shut off, the next step is up to the tenant.

“That may be paying the bills themselves and then deducting the money from the rent or if that’s not going to cover it, maybe a small claims action against the landlord,” said Karen Merill Tjapkes of Legal Aid of Western Michigan .

But property owners aren’t totally off the hook. The city can condemn an occupied property with no water and undoing that action will take more than simply paying the bill.

“We require that that property be brought up to, once it’s condemned, brought completely 100% up to code before it can be occupied again,” said Virginia Million with the Grand Rapids Housing Commission.

That means everything up to code, from electricity to structure, often a tall task on an older property. Because violating the housing code is a crime, landlords could find themselves “paying fines and even jail time,” she said.

Property owners may also have to pay tenant relocation fees if the property is condemned.

Lawyers who represent tenants say the best solution is to avoid the problem in the first place.

Read leases carefully.
Check payment history of utilities if the property owner promises to pay those bills.
Opt for a month to month lease.

Be on the alert for red flags, such as outsiders taking pictures of the building, or a property owner seeking early payment of rent and coming in person to pick it up.

Lawyers say unscrupulous landlords may call your bluff, hoping the stakes will be too small for tenants to seek court action.

“If your instincts are telling you there’s a problem,” Tjapkes said, “then it’s probably best to walk away.”

Share

Way Too Big to Save

Simon Johnson, Huffington Post

Listening to US officials, talking to legal experts, and waiting for an intense Senate debate on financial reform to begin, you can easily form the impression that “too big to fail” adequately describes our most serious future systemic banking problems. It does not.

In September 2008, the large banks and quasi-banks at the heart of our financial system faced failure — and they were saved in the most immediate sense through actions taken by the Federal Reserve, but TARP (passed by Congress and run Treasury) also played a significant supporting role.

The Bush administration threw a small fiscal stimulus into the mix in early 2008, hoping to stave off recession; the Obama administration committed a much larger package at the start of 2009, aiming to prevent anything like a Second Great Depression. This fiscal policy response was in direct reaction to problems caused by the overextension and near failure of the financial system

Do not make the mistake — for example of Secretary Geithner, talking to the New Yorker — of thinking (or implying) that “saving the financial system” did not involve spending a lot of taxpayer money to support the real economy. Remember that if the economy crashes, asset prices fall, and banks’ problems become even more severe.

And try to avoid three further mistakes that are currently common.

Read more hear: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-johnson/way-too-big-to-save_b_491325.html

Share

Smart Banks With Dumb Customers Don’t Exist

Commentary by Roger Lowenstein, Bloomberg

March 8 (Bloomberg) — Republicans and Democrats in Congress have been squabbling about whether the new financial consumer-protection agency should be housed within the Federal Reserve or as part of an independent body.

The new watchdog, wherever it goes, is the linchpin of the emerging financial-reform bill, and its premise is that greedy bankers exploiting dumb consumers essentially caused the credit crisis. Stop bankers from selling toxic mortgages and other harmful loans and we won’t have any more meltdowns.

Even though bankers were greedy, and many borrowers were naive, this is a simplistic way of viewing the financial crisis and one that misses its underlying cause. Since mortgage bankers make money from loans, it’s tempting to think of them as parasites that prey on customers. But there is no such thing as a smart bank with a dumb customer; if the loan turns sour, the banker was dumb, too. And in the mid-2000s, scads of them were.

Foreclosures by consumers heavily weighed on the economy, but what triggered the credit crunch was the failure (or near- failure) of the banks that issued (or acquired) the mortgages. In short, the root cause of the meltdown wasn’t that customers borrowed too much; it’s that banks lent too much.

This isn’t to deny that many subprime loans were exploitative, and that customers often didn’t understand repayment terms. Nor is it a bad idea to police banks, preventing them, for instance, from charging unreasonable fees.

Bank Self-Harm

Yet a sound economy needs healthy financial institutions. Rather than stop lenders from hurting consumers, the first priority should be to keep the banks from harming themselves. In the short run, solvency is often at odds with what consumers want (or with what they think they want). We should remember that for every mortgage customer that was hosed, others were willingly grabbing all the unsound mortgages they could get.

Before the bust, champions of the new consumer agency, such as Representative Barney Frank, were consistent advocates of more loans to subprime borrowers. That’s hardly surprising; it’s in the nature of folks to want more credit. As Warren Buffett once reminded a person in his employ, it’s the job of the banker to screen out loans with a low probability of repayment.

The aim of regulators should be to force banks to do what is in their own and society’s interests: to practice sound banking. No consumer watchdog can do this because systemic risk aggregates at the level of the lender. The surest solution is to limit the leverage of financial institutions. Regulators have already moved against dicey products such as no-documentation mortgages (“liar loans”), and ones in which borrowers get 100 percent financing. And well they should.

Read more here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a2y1wcOYyFQc

Share