/PRNewswire/ -- The following is being released by www.ProtectOurElections.org:
Today, www.ProtectOurElections.org asked the Justice Department to bring criminal charges against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for making false statements on his AO 10 Financial Disclosure forms every year since 2003 by falsely swearing under criminal penalty that his wife Virginia had no non-investment income. (http://www.velvetrevolution.us/images/Clarence_Thomas_DOJ_Letter.pdf) Justice Thomas signed these forms under oath after certifying that the information in them was true and accurate. The forms include a specific warning that false statements will subject the signer to "civil and criminal sanctions."
Virginia Thomas worked at the Heritage Foundation from 2003 through 2007 and earned at least $120,000 each year according to the foundation's IRS Form 990s. She is now working for Liberty Central in a paid position according to its CEO Sarah Field. Last Friday, Common Cause wrote to the Administrative Office of the Courts about this matter which was reported by the Los Angeles Times on Saturday. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-thomas-disclosure-20110122,0,2413407.story)
"We are asking that the Department of Justice bring criminal charges against Justice Thomas for his knowing and willful false statements under oath, not just once, but at least seven times," said attorney and campaign spokesman Kevin Zeese. "Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be role models for legal conduct, behavior and ethics, yet Justice Thomas appears to believe that he is above the law. But just as Bill Clinton was charged for making a false statement while serving as President, no one is above the law, especially not one who knows the law and sits in judgment of others who have committed similar violations. If Justice Thomas is allowed to merely amend his forms and pay a civil fine, it will make a mockery of financial disclosure law, undermine respect for the law, and create the appearance that those in powerful positions can violate the law with impunity."
Showing posts with label financial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label financial. Show all posts
Monday, January 24, 2011
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
What Happens Now? Questions on the Passage of the Dodd-Frank Financial Bill
/PRNewswire/ -- The following statement is attributed to Tom O'Grady, CEO, Pro Teck Valuation Services.
Pro Teck Valuation Services applauds the passage of the Dodd-Frank Financial Bill. It incorporates the best of HVCC, provides overdue protections to consumers and limits the financial exposure firms can maintain while investing.
Now comes the hard part.
During the next 90 days the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration Board and the Federal Housing Finance Agency will be drafting the regulations, rules, interpretive guidelines and general statements of policy - a daunting task. With so many moving parts, interdependencies and constituents, drafting the regulation should prove more difficult than passing the bill.
As an AMC, Pro Teck hopes that common sense prevails while drafting regulation. Most notably, we look forward to clarification on AMC appraiser registration fees and the definition of "customary and reasonable" fees paid to appraisers.
Part of the Dodd-Frank bill was a yearly $25 per appraiser per AMC registration fee (which may be adjusted to a maximum of $50 per appraiser per year). While Pro Teck understands the need to finance the new regulation, the way it is now written looks to be excessive.
Currently there is no cap on the fee an AMC can pay.
As an example, let's say there is an appraiser in California who works with 10 different regional and national AMCs (there are 350 registered AMCs in CA). The government would now receive $250 in fees for that one appraiser. If you estimate that approximately 40,000 appraisers are on at least one AMC panel, the cost to AMCs, including registration fees to comply with various State AMC registration and regulation laws, are likely to be in excess of $10,000,000.
These increased costs of doing business will eventually be passed onto the consumer.
Also in the bill it says that "customary and reasonable" fees will be determined by a study, excluding the fees that are "customary and reasonable" when an appraiser works with an AMC. Because of the reach of national lenders and their need for a national appraisal solution, 70% of appraisals in 2010 are being performed through AMCs.
How can you exclude 70% of the market in a study to determine market rates?
A good AMC adds value by investing in technology, data, quality control and customer service - all leaving the appraiser more time to appraise. AMCs also finance receivables, do all sales and marketing and manage workflow and orders.
Isn't it reasonable that the AMC would share some of the fee for what it provides the client and appraiser?
A recent experience of mine made the absurdity of these provisions come to light. What experience? Buying a dishwasher.
I bought the dishwasher at Sears, but it just as easily could have been Home Depot, Best Buy or any other national chain. I paid Sears the "customary and reasonable" fee to have the dishwasher delivered and installed by a licensed master plumber. The fee was the same as if I went to a plumber myself. The plumber took less from Sears for the customer service, marketing, billing, back office and planning they provide. I'm happy with my dishwasher, the plumber was happy for the business and Sears was happy with the sale.
Now, what if Sears had to register each plumber they use? What if each chain had to do the same? What if the government came in and told the chains how much they had to pay the plumber?
Sears needs the plumbers, so they will pay the added cost, but who is ultimately going to pay? The consumer.
Same is true in this. I know installing a dishwasher and appraising a piece of property are two totally different things, but the free market dynamics, wholesale versus retail, and responsibilities of the contractor and managing companies are the same.
Large national lenders are still going to work with AMCs because most banks do not want to become AMCs. They don't want the added cost, overhead and it's not a core competency. So who is going to pay?
The consumer.
For more than 30 years banks, servicers, investors and independent appraisers have seen the value of doing business with AMCs like Pro Teck. The need is there, the positive track record is clear, yet the bill in its current form does not reflect these truths.
Pro Teck Valuation Services sees the need for AMCs, lenders, appraisers, investors, consumers and the federal government to work together to guarantee efficient and effective commerce. We believe that if those writing the Dodd-Frank regulations share this belief, then common sense will prevail.
Pro Teck Valuation Services applauds the passage of the Dodd-Frank Financial Bill. It incorporates the best of HVCC, provides overdue protections to consumers and limits the financial exposure firms can maintain while investing.
Now comes the hard part.
During the next 90 days the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration Board and the Federal Housing Finance Agency will be drafting the regulations, rules, interpretive guidelines and general statements of policy - a daunting task. With so many moving parts, interdependencies and constituents, drafting the regulation should prove more difficult than passing the bill.
As an AMC, Pro Teck hopes that common sense prevails while drafting regulation. Most notably, we look forward to clarification on AMC appraiser registration fees and the definition of "customary and reasonable" fees paid to appraisers.
Part of the Dodd-Frank bill was a yearly $25 per appraiser per AMC registration fee (which may be adjusted to a maximum of $50 per appraiser per year). While Pro Teck understands the need to finance the new regulation, the way it is now written looks to be excessive.
Currently there is no cap on the fee an AMC can pay.
As an example, let's say there is an appraiser in California who works with 10 different regional and national AMCs (there are 350 registered AMCs in CA). The government would now receive $250 in fees for that one appraiser. If you estimate that approximately 40,000 appraisers are on at least one AMC panel, the cost to AMCs, including registration fees to comply with various State AMC registration and regulation laws, are likely to be in excess of $10,000,000.
These increased costs of doing business will eventually be passed onto the consumer.
Also in the bill it says that "customary and reasonable" fees will be determined by a study, excluding the fees that are "customary and reasonable" when an appraiser works with an AMC. Because of the reach of national lenders and their need for a national appraisal solution, 70% of appraisals in 2010 are being performed through AMCs.
How can you exclude 70% of the market in a study to determine market rates?
A good AMC adds value by investing in technology, data, quality control and customer service - all leaving the appraiser more time to appraise. AMCs also finance receivables, do all sales and marketing and manage workflow and orders.
Isn't it reasonable that the AMC would share some of the fee for what it provides the client and appraiser?
A recent experience of mine made the absurdity of these provisions come to light. What experience? Buying a dishwasher.
I bought the dishwasher at Sears, but it just as easily could have been Home Depot, Best Buy or any other national chain. I paid Sears the "customary and reasonable" fee to have the dishwasher delivered and installed by a licensed master plumber. The fee was the same as if I went to a plumber myself. The plumber took less from Sears for the customer service, marketing, billing, back office and planning they provide. I'm happy with my dishwasher, the plumber was happy for the business and Sears was happy with the sale.
Now, what if Sears had to register each plumber they use? What if each chain had to do the same? What if the government came in and told the chains how much they had to pay the plumber?
Sears needs the plumbers, so they will pay the added cost, but who is ultimately going to pay? The consumer.
Same is true in this. I know installing a dishwasher and appraising a piece of property are two totally different things, but the free market dynamics, wholesale versus retail, and responsibilities of the contractor and managing companies are the same.
Large national lenders are still going to work with AMCs because most banks do not want to become AMCs. They don't want the added cost, overhead and it's not a core competency. So who is going to pay?
The consumer.
For more than 30 years banks, servicers, investors and independent appraisers have seen the value of doing business with AMCs like Pro Teck. The need is there, the positive track record is clear, yet the bill in its current form does not reflect these truths.
Pro Teck Valuation Services sees the need for AMCs, lenders, appraisers, investors, consumers and the federal government to work together to guarantee efficient and effective commerce. We believe that if those writing the Dodd-Frank regulations share this belief, then common sense will prevail.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Seniors: 'Unlimited' Bailout of Nuclear Power Under Climate Bill is as Bad or Worse Than Wall Street Bailout
/PRNewswire/ -- If your Member of Congress says he or she opposes more bailouts and then turns around and supports the Senate climate bill released today, they are simply not telling you the truth, according to the independent and nonprofit Alliance for Generational Equality (AGE), which represents seniors as well as Americans in other generations.
AGE wants all seniors to know that the Senate climate bill contains $54 billion in loan guarantees for new reactors, in addition to 20 years of unlimited loan guarantee authority for new reactors established in the referenced Senate energy bill (S.1462) that would leave taxpayers on the hook for what would likely be huge sums. Of particular concern: the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the default rate on new reactors will be "very high - well above 50 percent."
AGE Vice President and CEO Dave Herman said: "This is not about whether you support or you oppose nuclear power. For elected officials, it is about whether they are being sincere in saying no more federal bailouts. Whether it's for banks, car companies, investment firms or nuclear reactors, a bailout is a bailout is a bailout. In fact, this is even worse than the earlier bailouts since the nuclear loan guarantees are unlimited, meaning there is literally no limit to how deeply the industry could reach into taxpayers' pockets."
Herman added: "How can Republicans in the Senate who are opposing financial reform legislation because of the fear of potential bailouts, then turn around here and dole out what are explicit bailouts for another industry? Federal loan guarantees for new reactors encourage utilities that are currently financially sound to take enormous risks and promise in advance to bail out them out with U.S. taxpayer dollars when the bets go bad. Federal loan guarantees that put U.S. taxpayers directly on the hook in advance are not only a huge drain on federal tax dollars waiting to happen, but they actually somehow manage to do the impossible by making the earlier bailouts look like good deals."
Herman concluded: "We need a little less socialism from Washington and a lot more faith in the wisdom of the marketplace. We don't care if the nuclear power industry wants to build more nuclear reactors. This is a very profitable industry with extensive foreign ownership that already makes a guaranteed profit in most states under utility regulation. If these companies controlled by French, Japanese and U.S. interests want to finance new reactors and find investors who want to support that, they have our blessing. But we are not prepared as taxpayers to allow seniors and other Americans to be ripped off by yet another multi-billion-dollar bailout for another industry."
-----
AGE wants all seniors to know that the Senate climate bill contains $54 billion in loan guarantees for new reactors, in addition to 20 years of unlimited loan guarantee authority for new reactors established in the referenced Senate energy bill (S.1462) that would leave taxpayers on the hook for what would likely be huge sums. Of particular concern: the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the default rate on new reactors will be "very high - well above 50 percent."
AGE Vice President and CEO Dave Herman said: "This is not about whether you support or you oppose nuclear power. For elected officials, it is about whether they are being sincere in saying no more federal bailouts. Whether it's for banks, car companies, investment firms or nuclear reactors, a bailout is a bailout is a bailout. In fact, this is even worse than the earlier bailouts since the nuclear loan guarantees are unlimited, meaning there is literally no limit to how deeply the industry could reach into taxpayers' pockets."
Herman added: "How can Republicans in the Senate who are opposing financial reform legislation because of the fear of potential bailouts, then turn around here and dole out what are explicit bailouts for another industry? Federal loan guarantees for new reactors encourage utilities that are currently financially sound to take enormous risks and promise in advance to bail out them out with U.S. taxpayer dollars when the bets go bad. Federal loan guarantees that put U.S. taxpayers directly on the hook in advance are not only a huge drain on federal tax dollars waiting to happen, but they actually somehow manage to do the impossible by making the earlier bailouts look like good deals."
Herman concluded: "We need a little less socialism from Washington and a lot more faith in the wisdom of the marketplace. We don't care if the nuclear power industry wants to build more nuclear reactors. This is a very profitable industry with extensive foreign ownership that already makes a guaranteed profit in most states under utility regulation. If these companies controlled by French, Japanese and U.S. interests want to finance new reactors and find investors who want to support that, they have our blessing. But we are not prepared as taxpayers to allow seniors and other Americans to be ripped off by yet another multi-billion-dollar bailout for another industry."
-----
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Most Americans Support Holding Wall Street and Corporate Wrongdoers More Accountable to Investors by Bolstering Investors' Legal Rights
Most Americans Support Holding Wall Street and Corporate Wrongdoers More Accountable to Investors by Bolstering Investors' Legal Rights, an Opinion Research Corporation Survey Finds
/PRNewswire/ -- Sixty-two percent of Americans believe Wall Street executives were not honest with the public during the recent financial meltdown and 59 percent of Americans do not believe corporate CEOs and financial officers provide accurate information in financial statements. And, most Americans favor additional legal rights for investors that would allow them to seek compensation for loss from any deceptive conduct by Wall Street or corporate officers -- even if it did not involve a public misstatement.
These are among the findings of a national Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) survey of public attitudes toward financial fraud and investor protection. The telephone survey, conducted December 10-13, and sponsored by the National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys (NASCAT), also found that nearly all Americans feel that those who commit fraud should be held accountable to investors who lose money as a result of the fraudulent behavior. Similarly, nearly all Americans think that those who engage in fraud but do not admit it publicly should still be held accountable to investors.
"The survey findings reveal that the public is very aware that financial and corporate officers have been engaged in conduct that is not just reckless, but that has been deceptive and dishonest before and during the financial meltdown," explained Ira Schochet, Esq., NASCAT's president. "Americans understand that Congress and the Administration must substantially increase accountability in our financial markets in order to protect investors and reduce the likelihood of another systemic crisis."
As reported by Opinion Research Corporation, some of the key findings are explained below:
-- ORC explained to survey respondents that the law allows investors to seek compensation from executives who knowingly make misrepresentations to the public. They were then asked if there was a need for additional legal rights that allow investors to sue for compensation from executives who knowingly engage in any form of deceptive conduct, even if it does not involve a public misstatement. Three-fourths (74%) agree that investors should have these additional rights. One-in-five (21%) do not.
-- Practically every respondent (94%) feels that those who commit fraud should be held accountable to investors who lose money as a result of those fraudulent actions. Only 5% do not think they should be held accountable.
-- Support is also strong for keeping executives accountable to investors when they perpetrate financial fraud even if they do not publicly admit their wrongdoing. Nine-in-ten (90%) support this idea with only 7% saying no.
-- Ninety percent of Americans believe people who participate in financial fraud - such as knowingly engaging in a sham transaction or telling others how to prepare fake financial statements or otherwise deceive investors - should be held accountable to investors. Only 7 percent oppose, while 2 percent had no opinion.
-- And, respondents were asked about the current ability of corporate managers to avoid accountability to shareholders by limiting disclosure of a wrongdoing. When asked, only a quarter (25%) agree that this should happen while 73% disagree.
Findings Support Congressional Action on Anti-Investor Court Decisions
"These findings show overwhelming public support for Congress to restore liability to investors for those who aid and abet fraud and those who can currently escape liability by manipulating public disclosures," NASCAT's Ira Schochet continued. "Congress can accomplish these goals by rolling back two radical Supreme Court decisions (Central Bank in 1994 and Stoneridge in 2008), which eliminated private liability for aiding and abetting securities fraud; and, clarifying another Court decision (Dura in 2005), which inadvertently empowered some conservative lower courts to throw out valid investor fraud claims whenever sophisticated executives and their professional advisers disguise the impact of wrongdoing by manipulating the timing and content of news releases."
Investor Demographics and Survey Methodology
About half of American adults own stock and half do not. A typical owner is older, wealthier and better educated than someone who does not own stock. Stock owners are just as likely to have the investment as a result of an employer plan as to own it on their own without any employer involvement.
These findings are from a telephone survey conducted of 1,017 adults comprising 509 men and 508 women. Interviewing for this survey was completed during the period December 10-13, 2009. The results have a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points among the total sample. Opinion Research Corporation, based in Princeton, NJ, conducted the fieldwork.
The National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Law Attorneys is a nonprofit organization comprised of about 100 law firms representing consumers and investors - including pension funds and individuals - in cases of securities fraud and other forms of "white collar" wrongdoing and criminal activity.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
/PRNewswire/ -- Sixty-two percent of Americans believe Wall Street executives were not honest with the public during the recent financial meltdown and 59 percent of Americans do not believe corporate CEOs and financial officers provide accurate information in financial statements. And, most Americans favor additional legal rights for investors that would allow them to seek compensation for loss from any deceptive conduct by Wall Street or corporate officers -- even if it did not involve a public misstatement.
These are among the findings of a national Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) survey of public attitudes toward financial fraud and investor protection. The telephone survey, conducted December 10-13, and sponsored by the National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys (NASCAT), also found that nearly all Americans feel that those who commit fraud should be held accountable to investors who lose money as a result of the fraudulent behavior. Similarly, nearly all Americans think that those who engage in fraud but do not admit it publicly should still be held accountable to investors.
"The survey findings reveal that the public is very aware that financial and corporate officers have been engaged in conduct that is not just reckless, but that has been deceptive and dishonest before and during the financial meltdown," explained Ira Schochet, Esq., NASCAT's president. "Americans understand that Congress and the Administration must substantially increase accountability in our financial markets in order to protect investors and reduce the likelihood of another systemic crisis."
As reported by Opinion Research Corporation, some of the key findings are explained below:
-- ORC explained to survey respondents that the law allows investors to seek compensation from executives who knowingly make misrepresentations to the public. They were then asked if there was a need for additional legal rights that allow investors to sue for compensation from executives who knowingly engage in any form of deceptive conduct, even if it does not involve a public misstatement. Three-fourths (74%) agree that investors should have these additional rights. One-in-five (21%) do not.
-- Practically every respondent (94%) feels that those who commit fraud should be held accountable to investors who lose money as a result of those fraudulent actions. Only 5% do not think they should be held accountable.
-- Support is also strong for keeping executives accountable to investors when they perpetrate financial fraud even if they do not publicly admit their wrongdoing. Nine-in-ten (90%) support this idea with only 7% saying no.
-- Ninety percent of Americans believe people who participate in financial fraud - such as knowingly engaging in a sham transaction or telling others how to prepare fake financial statements or otherwise deceive investors - should be held accountable to investors. Only 7 percent oppose, while 2 percent had no opinion.
-- And, respondents were asked about the current ability of corporate managers to avoid accountability to shareholders by limiting disclosure of a wrongdoing. When asked, only a quarter (25%) agree that this should happen while 73% disagree.
Findings Support Congressional Action on Anti-Investor Court Decisions
"These findings show overwhelming public support for Congress to restore liability to investors for those who aid and abet fraud and those who can currently escape liability by manipulating public disclosures," NASCAT's Ira Schochet continued. "Congress can accomplish these goals by rolling back two radical Supreme Court decisions (Central Bank in 1994 and Stoneridge in 2008), which eliminated private liability for aiding and abetting securities fraud; and, clarifying another Court decision (Dura in 2005), which inadvertently empowered some conservative lower courts to throw out valid investor fraud claims whenever sophisticated executives and their professional advisers disguise the impact of wrongdoing by manipulating the timing and content of news releases."
Investor Demographics and Survey Methodology
About half of American adults own stock and half do not. A typical owner is older, wealthier and better educated than someone who does not own stock. Stock owners are just as likely to have the investment as a result of an employer plan as to own it on their own without any employer involvement.
These findings are from a telephone survey conducted of 1,017 adults comprising 509 men and 508 women. Interviewing for this survey was completed during the period December 10-13, 2009. The results have a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points among the total sample. Opinion Research Corporation, based in Princeton, NJ, conducted the fieldwork.
The National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Law Attorneys is a nonprofit organization comprised of about 100 law firms representing consumers and investors - including pension funds and individuals - in cases of securities fraud and other forms of "white collar" wrongdoing and criminal activity.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)