Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Banks--- Betting on the recovery -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (976)	6/27/2010 2:30:54 PM
From: Asymmetric	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1428

Bank overdraft fees: Now it's up to the customer to accept . By Sandra Block, USA TODAY June 24, 2010 Michael Lupacchino, 22, a marketing assistant for an information technology company in Boston, occasionally visits a Sovereign Bank branch near his office to conduct transactions. On at least three recent occasions, he says, a bank employee has asked him whether he wants to sign up for overdraft services. Like millions of other bank customers, Lupacchino has a choice: sign up for fee-based overdraft protection, or risk having retail purchases or ATM withdrawals declined if he doesn't have enough money to cover the transaction. Starting July 1, banks will be required to get new customers' permission before charging them fees to cover debit card and ATM overdrafts. On Aug. 15, the rule will extend to existing customers. Customers who don't enroll could experience some awkward moments at the grocery. But they'll also avoid paying a $35 overdraft fee for a $2 cup of coffee. Lupacchino has decided he's not interested. If one of his debit card purchases is rejected at the register, he says, he'll pay with a different card. "Why pay $35 to have them give me a loan when I could use a different form of payment?" Ellen McCrea Molle, a spokeswoman for Sovereign, says the bank believes that giving customers information about overdraft protection "will help them make the appropriate decisions." Only 18% of bank customers paid overdraft fees in 2009, according to the American Bankers Association, an industry trade group. But those customers have been enormously lucrative for banks. In 2009, banks generated an estimated $38.5 billion from overdraft and insufficient fund fees, according to USA TODAY research. Consumer advocates, lawmakers and aggrieved customers say the fees are stealthy and confiscatory. Some banks charge fees before consumers overdraw by deducting a purchase when it's made, instead of when it clears. Many banks process transactions from the highest to the lowest amount, which depletes customers' accounts more quickly and triggers more overdrafts. And most banks charge a flat overdraft fee, which means even a $1 overdraft can trigger a fee of $35 or more. In addition, some customers have complained they didn't know about the service until they got the bill. How banks are responding to the new rules: •Eliminating overdraft fees.Bank of America, the USA's largest issuer of debit cards, will no longer charge overdraft fees on debit card purchases. Customers who want overdraft protection can link their checking account to a savings or other type of account. The change took effect for new customers this week and will take effect for existing customers on Aug. 13. Bank of America made the change after its customers indicated they would rather have a purchase declined than pay an overdraft fee, says Bank of America spokesman Donald Vecchiarello. Starting in September, Bank of America customers will be allowed to overdraw their accounts — for a fee — on a case-by-case basis. This option will be available only for withdrawals from Bank of America ATMs, says David Owen, payment products executive. It's designed for those who need cash in an emergency, "a flat tire, late-at-night kind of scenario," he says. •Lowering overdraft fees. Starting in August, U.S. Bancorp will lower its overdraft fee to $10 for overdraft transactions of $20 or less. The fee for overdrafts that exceed $20 will be $33. Since last fall, U.S. Bancorp has waived fees for overdrafts of less than $10. •Promoting the advantages of overdraft fees. Earlier this year, Chase sent letters to customers warning that their debit card "may not work the same way anymore, even if you just made a deposit, unless we hear from you." Consumer groups have charged that the campaign was designed to scare consumers into signing up for overdraft services. Chase sent out a revised letter in response to those concerns, Chase says. Some banks, meanwhile, are trumpeting their decision not to charge overdraft fees. ING Direct recently launched an online calculator that shows consumers how much overdraft fees could cost them. The calculator compares the cost of the average overdraft fee with the cost of interest on ING's overdraft line of credit. Not far enough? Citi has never allowed customers to overdraw their accounts with debit cards or ATM withdrawals, says Brad Dinsmore, head of retail banking for Citi's North America consumer banking business. "It's only logical that we would decline a transaction if we can see, electronically, that they don't have enough money in their account," Dinsmore says. Citi has also argued that the Federal Reserve's rules don't go far enough to prevent abusive overdraft fees. Customers who sign up for the service won't get a warning that would let them choose to use another form of payment when a debit card transaction exceeds the amount in their checking account, Dinsmore says. Consumer groups have also expressed concerns about what the rules won't do. Banks can still charge overdraft fees on overdrawn checks or automatic payment programs used for recurring bills, such as rent, mortgage payments or utilities, says Leslie Parrish, senior researcher for the Center for Responsible Lending. Even more troubling, she says: The Fed rule doesn't limit the size of fees banks can charge, which means consumers who sign up for overdraft services could still pay large fees on small overdrafts. "We think having to get consumer consent before charging overdraft fees is a great step in the right direction, but banks are still able to charge multiple overdraft fees per day and sustain fees that are out of line with the amount of credit that's extended," she says. The opt-in requirement allows consumers to decide whether the fees are reasonable, Nessa Feddis, senior counsel for the American Bankers Association, a trade group, said in a recent conference call with reporters. The ABA says its surveys show that many customers are willing to pay a fee to avoid embarrassment. Overdraft services also help customers deal with a temporary cash-flow shortage and ensure that customers can get money for an emergency, the ABA says. While there's nothing wrong with using overdraft services to cover an occasional inadvertent overdraft, they're not appropriate for consumers who are having trouble managing their finances, says Sheila Bair, chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. "Repeat use of fee-based overdraft protection doesn't make sense for anyone," she says. The FDIC doesn't prohibit the banks it regulates from charging multiple overdraft fees, but a 2005 guidance advised banks that they should suggest other options to customers who are repeat users of the service. While a guidance doesn't have the same force as a rule, the FDIC "is evaluating whether we can be more definitive on this issue," Bair says. Most financial institutions offer overdraft protection programs that allow customers to draw money from savings accounts or set up a line of credit to cover overdrafts. These programs help consumers avoid overdrafts at a much lower cost than fee-based overdraft services, Bair says. "That is a message that has not gotten out."

To: tejek who wrote (976)	6/28/2010 9:47:50 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1428

Jim Cramer Stock Outrage Randall Lane Randall Lane Mon Jun 28, 1:44 am ET NEW YORK – The stock guru’s star pupil, ex-baseball star Lenny Dykstra, secretly sold access to Cramer and stock endorsements on TheStreet.com, reveals The Daily Beast’s Randall Lane in his new book, The Zeroes. In an era of epically wrong financial predictions, boisterous Jim Cramer's declaration that "Bear Stearns is not in trouble!" a week before its March 2008 collapse, rated among the most moronic, or at least the most infamous. But in turns out that Cramer made one call far worse: He decided to make a stock-picking star out of a mumbling former Major League Baseball All-Star named Lenny Dykstra, giving him a high-profile column and ultimately a expensive "premium" newsletter on Cramer's site TheStreet.com. How did Dykstra return the favor? As I reveal in my book, The Zeroes: My Misadventures in the Decade Wall Street Went Insane, Dykstra took money—$250,000 worth of secretly issued stock—in exchange for recommending that stock to TheStreet.com subscribers. He also promised access to Cramer in exchange for the stock, which he apparently hid under his brother-in-law's name. It was Cramer's repeated endorsements—echoed by de facto validation from everyone from CNBC to me—that enabled Dykstra to pull off the scheme. Jim Cramer single-handedly created the concept of Dykstra-as-financial genius. Known mostly for his willingness to crash his body into walls or his cars into trees (nickname: "Nails"), the former New York Met and Philadelphia Phillie became an investment columnist for TheStreet.com in 2005, after sending Cramer an unsolicited email. For the next four years, Dykstra made stock picks, focusing on "deep-in-the-money calls"—a way to buy leveraged options—for tens of thousands of followers on Cramer's website. "Not only is he sophisticated, he is one of the great ones in this business," Cramer told HBO's Real Sports in 2008. "He is the one of the great ones... a guy who applied the same skills to money that he applied to sports, it's brilliant." Cramer added that there are only "four or five" people in the world he would take stock picks from—and Dykstra was one of them. Cramer, I am sure, had no knowledge of Dykstra's "pay to plug" scheme—an arrangement that could well lead to a Securities & Exchange Commission investigation. He was just a dupe. But his relentless endorsements and promotion of the ballplayer's stock-picking over the years must now surely rank as his most ill-conceived. Cramer's effusive blessing, and the fact that his highly legitimate TheStreet.com tallied Dykstra's impressive track record (at late as last year, Dykstra bragged on the site that he had picked 96 winners against only one loss) impressed everyone from CNBC to The New Yorker. It also, for a time, impressed me. I was running a company I had co-founded: Doubledown Media, which produced glossy magazines like Trader Monthly, Dealmaker, Private Air, and other titles for the rich and profligate. Lenny Dykstra called me in 2007 as randomly as he had called Cramer, and within 24 hours he hired me to produce The Players Club, a financial advice magazine for professional athletes. Dykstra introduced me to his athlete buddies, everyone from John McEnroe to Tim Brown to Keith Hernandez. But he was especially proud of his friendship with Cramer, a relationship he waved around like a magic cloak of legitimacy. He'd play me Cramer's voicemail messages, or forward me their emails back-and-forth. Given that hundreds of people were already slavishly emulating Dykstra's picks—and given how good his track record was, at least according to TheStreet.com—I suggested that he start a paid financial newsletter, an opportunity he jumped at. For six months, we developed the name, hired staff, and tested the price ($995 per year). Some $87,000 in subscription money rolled in before Dykstra even wrote his first newsletter. And then, in April 2008, he abruptly took the newsletter from us and put it under TheStreet.com's umbrella. Helped by the marketing muscle of TheStreet.com, Dykstra quickly sold roughly $1 million in newsletter subscriptions. Dykstra also left us with hundreds of thousands in unpaid bills for the magazine we were publishing for him. In the course of our ensuing legal fight—and then doing reporting for my book The Zeroes—I stumbled across his Cramer-for-sale scheme. In the late winter of 2008, an entrepreneur named Richard O'Connor, who had become Dykstra's favored adviser, introduced him to Shannon Illingworth, the founder of a publicly traded company called Automated Vending Technologies, or AVT, and the two quickly cut a deal. O'Connor told me that on March 25, 2008, Illingworth gave Dykstra roughly $250,000 worth of AVT stock in exchange for plugging the company on Cramer's website, TheStreet.com, and promising to provide a personal introduction to Cramer. O'Connor claims that Dykstra told him he knew the pay-to-plug arrangement was illegal. To avoid getting caught, O'Connor says, the former All-Star baseball player had a solution: "We can just put the stock in Keith's name," referring to his brother-in-law, Keith Peel. And so it was done. O'Connor provided me copies of stock certificates showing that on March 25, 2008, Keith Peel was issued 250,000 shares of AVT stock, which traded at roughly $1 a share. "Keith didn't know anything about it," says O'Connor, maintaining that using Peel's name was a way to stash the stock away from potential regulatory oversight. The shares were held at Dykstra's mansion, which is where O'Connor retrieved them. Just two weeks later, on June 6, 2008, Dykstra offered his premium subscribers a curious "bonus" recommendation: a plain old penny stock named AVT, "which gives investors a lot of potential upside." Dykstra droned on endlessly about the stock, with all the conviction of a prisoner of war extolling the cause of his captors for the cameras. When I contacted him shortly before The Zeroes printed, AVT founder Illingworth admitted that he hired Dykstra as a consultant for his "relationships with TheStreet.com, Cramer," and that the idea for Dykstra to tout his company's stock was "mutual." (Despite the certificates, Illingworth denied ever giving Dykstra or Peel $250,000 worth of stock; instead he claims the only money he gave to Dykstra was $15,000 to trade on his behalf, a sum that disappeared.) O'Connor claims that Illingworth was angry that he didn't get more plugs from Dykstra, or a meeting with Cramer. O'Connor also says while advising Dykstra in the first half of 2008, he saw multiple other offers from small company CEOs offering Dykstra cash in exchange for access to Cramer, though he does not know if Dykstra ever cashed in on those opportunities. Dykstra, of course, was never a market genius. When researching our lawsuit against him (he eventually agreed to pay $200,000—but later defaulted), I uncovered emails from a stock-market analyst named Richard Suttmeier, who sent Dykstra a list of "deep-in-the-money" call picks each morning. Most of "Dykstra's" picks came from this list. Several bloggers also figured out how these picks performed so phenomenally: He counted his winners, but endlessly rolled over his losers, in tallying his overall results. Yet even after I raised the Suttmeier picks in our lawsuit against him, and even after O'Connor told me in 2008 how he had called Cramer's office trying to intervene, Cramer allowed Dykstra to keep writing for his website, and continued to help him sell his newsletter, for almost a year. It wasn't until April 2009 that Cramer finally dumped him. I reached out to Cramer while I was writing The Zeroes—using a personal email address that Dykstra supplied me—but he did not respond. As noted above, I'm sure he had no idea that Dykstra was selling both access to him and the audience at his otherwise-excellent website. But it was Cramer's repeated endorsements—echoed by de facto validation from everyone from CNBC to me—that enabled Dykstra to pull off the entire scheme. Dykstra has now filed for personal bankruptcy, and last year admitted to living in his car. Based on what I detail in my book, AVT could potentially face an SEC investigation into these shenanigans. Cramer, meanwhile, continues to draw hundreds of thousands of followers, via his CNBC show Mad Money—one of the few in the industry who managed to escape the past decade unscathed. Randall Lane is editor-at-large at The Daily Beast. The former editor in chief of Trader Monthly, Dealmaker, and P.O.V. Magazines, and the former Washington bureau chief of Forbes, he is the author of The Zeroes: My Misadventures in the Decade Wall Street Went Insane.