Podcasts about lending act

This Day in Legal History: President Johnson Vetoes Civil Rights Act of 1866On March 27, 1866, President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, an extraordinary move that underscored his deep hostility to racial equality and his resistance to Reconstruction efforts. The bill, which Congress had passed in the wake of the Civil War, aimed to grant full citizenship to formerly enslaved people and guarantee their basic civil rights. Johnson, a Southern Democrat who remained loyal to the Union, used his veto power to block progress for freedmen, claiming the bill infringed on states' rights and unfairly favored Black Americans over whites. His justification was steeped in racism, couching white supremacy in the language of constitutional interpretation.Johnson's veto message argued that Black Americans were not yet qualified for citizenship and that extending such rights would “operate in favor of the colored and against the white race.” He blatantly ignored the atrocities of slavery and the urgent need for federal protections, given the widespread violence and oppression freedmen faced in the South. His opposition wasn't just a political miscalculation—it was a moral failure and a betrayal of the Union victory. Johnson actively emboldened white supremacist groups and Southern legislatures seeking to reassert control through Black Codes and racial terror.Fortunately, Congress overrode his veto—marking the first time in American history that a major piece of legislation was enacted over a presidential veto. This moment laid the groundwork for the 14th Amendment, which enshrined birthright citizenship and equal protection under the law. Johnson's veto, however, remains a stark example of how executive power can be wielded to delay justice and reinforce structural racism.The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) plans to revoke a controversial interpretive rule that applied certain credit card protections to “buy now, pay later” (BNPL) products. This move follows a lawsuit filed by the Financial Technology Association (FTA), which represents major BNPL providers like PayPal, Klarna, Block, and Zip. In a joint court filing, the CFPB and FTA asked a federal judge to pause litigation while the agency works on rolling back the rule.The rule, issued in May 2024, treated BNPL plans like credit cards under the Truth in Lending Act, requiring providers to offer billing statements, handle disputes, and process refunds. It officially took effect in July, but the CFPB allowed a grace period for compliance. The FTA argued the CFPB overstepped its authority by reclassifying pay-in-four products—short-term, no-interest loans—without formal rulemaking or understanding the distinct nature of BNPL.Despite some early industry cooperation and encouragement from the CFPB for other regulators to follow suit, fintech firms claimed the rule created regulatory confusion by misapplying standards meant for revolving credit. House Republicans tried to overturn the rule legislatively last year but failed.The case, Financial Technology Association v. CFPB, remains on hold while the CFPB prepares formal steps to rescind the rule.CFPB Plans to Revoke Buy Now, Pay Later Rule Fintechs Fought (1)A federal judge in Washington, Beryl Howell, denied the Justice Department's attempt to disqualify her from overseeing Perkins Coie v. U.S. Department of Justice, a case challenging a Trump executive order targeting the law firm. The DOJ accused Howell of bias, pointing to remarks she made in public settings that criticized Trump and referenced his ties to Fusion GPS. In their motion, DOJ officials claimed she showed “partiality” and “animus” toward the president, citing her characterization of Trump having a “bee in his bonnet” over past political investigations.Howell sharply rebuked the motion, calling it an “ad hominem” attack intended to undermine judicial integrity rather than engage with the legal merits. She emphasized that the parties would receive fair treatment and dismissed the disqualification effort as an attempt to preemptively discredit an unfavorable outcome.The case stems from a Trump executive order aimed at punishing law firms perceived as politically hostile, including Perkins Coie, by restricting their federal building access and terminating government contracts with their clients. Perkins Coie argued the order caused immediate and severe business harm, including the loss of a long-standing client. Trump has since issued similar orders against other firms, such as Jenner & Block.The DOJ's attempt to remove Howell reflects a broader pattern of politicized efforts to delegitimize judicial rulings unfavorable to Trump. Meanwhile, a prior ethics complaint against Howell, filed by Rep. Elise Stefanik over earlier comments she made about the erosion of truth in public discourse, is still pending.Judge Rejects Trump Bid to Oust Her From Perkins Coie Fight (2)A federal appeals court has refused to pause a lower court ruling requiring the Trump administration to reinstate over 17,000 federal workers fired during a mass purge of probationary employees across six government agencies. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the administration had not shown that the district judge erred in finding the firings were likely unlawful. At issue is the role of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which Judge William Alsup said overstepped its authority by ordering the firings despite lacking the legal power to do so.The affected agencies include the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Interior, and Treasury. Some agencies claimed to have fired only a few hundred employees, while others—such as the Treasury and Agriculture Departments—terminated thousands. The fired employees were mostly probationary workers, often with less than two years in their roles, though some had longer federal service.The ruling doesn't prevent agencies from terminating probationary workers entirely, but it criticizes the centralized, OPM-directed method used. The Trump administration said it is working to reinstate the workers, placing them on paid leave for now, and has asked the Supreme Court to intervene.This case parallels another decision out of Maryland, where a judge ordered 25,000 similar reinstatements across 18 agencies, though on different legal grounds. That ruling has also been allowed to stand while under appeal.Appeals court won't pause ruling that forced US to reinstate federal workers | ReutersIn a piece I wrote for Forbes this week, Italy is attempting to tax the illusion of “free” on the internet—and I wrote about why that's a dangerous turn in VAT policy. In this piece, I walk through a recent move by Italian tax authorities to treat signing up for social media accounts as taxable barter transactions. The core claim is that when users hand over their personal data in exchange for access to a platform like Facebook or LinkedIn, a “supply for consideration” has occurred under EU VAT law. That would make the transaction taxable—even though no money changes hands.I argued that while user data undeniably has value, the theory stretches the purpose of VAT well beyond its policy design. VAT is supposed to be a consumption tax on goods and services, not a levy on intangible exchanges of attention or personal information. If this theory holds, Italy wouldn't just be taxing social media—it would be opening the door to taxing nearly every online interaction where data changes hands.I also pointed out that VAT requires a tax base, and valuing user data at the point of account creation is speculative at best. The market value of data depends on aggregation and use over time, not on the individual transaction. Plus, data isn't “consumed” in the way goods or traditional services are—it's copied, repurposed, and monetized indefinitely. That doesn't sit comfortably with the core logic of a consumption tax.Finally, I highlighted how this approach could ripple across the EU, creating regulatory chaos. If a cookie consent or an email sign-up becomes a taxable event, we risk converting the very architecture of the internet into a VAT trap. Italy's frustration with digital tax avoidance is understandable—but this isn't the right solution.​​Italy—Where Creating A Social Media Account May Be A Taxable Event This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Let's talk about government and Customer Experience. It might surprise you that government and Customer Experience have a tighter relationship than you think.  Many organizations, particularly in the private sector, recognize the importance of providing great experiences to keep customers satisfied and loyal. But should governments do the same for their citizens? Can a well-run government improve societal well-being by focusing on efficiency, transparency, and user-friendly services? In this episode, we explore the government's role in delivering experiences to citizens through essential services or regulatory actions that impact organizations and their customers. Historically, a poorly managed experience with the government has significant consequences (cue: the Boston Tea Party). But beyond extreme cases, day-to-day interactions with government agencies also influence our quality of life. We start by asking why government agencies should care about CX at all. Using real-world examples, such as the surprisingly smooth process of renewing a passport or the convenience of services like Global Entry at airports, we see how an efficient government improves employee morale and public satisfaction. Plus, efficient government departments can save money, attract top talent, and increase citizen trust. Beyond service delivery, governments play a vital role in regulating experiences for private companies. Markets can become exploitative without proper regulations, leaving customers vulnerable to poor practices. We look at examples of beneficial regulations, like the Truth in Lending Act, which protects consumers from misleading financial products, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which ensures accessibility for all.  However, regulation is a delicate balance. Too little oversight can lead to exploitation, while too much can stifle competition and innovation. Some laws—like those that mandate thousands of training hours for hairstylists or forbid self-service gas stations—seem overly restrictive and detrimental to the customer experience. Finding a middle ground that protects consumers without creating unnecessary barriers is key. Join us as we discuss governments' critical role in shaping experiences and why every government, like a business, should aim to improve the CX it delivers to its citizens. More Key Moments in the Discussion:  How efficient government services influence national life satisfaction. The impact of "bad profits" in the financial sector and their regulatory solutions. Why governments can't afford to ignore inefficiency for long. Examples of overregulation stifling innovation in U.S. states. The link between government CX and economic growth. How the White House's consumer protection initiatives aim to improve daily life.

Let's talk about government and Customer Experience. It might surprise you that government and Customer Experience have a tighter relationship than you think.  Many organizations, particularly in the private sector, recognize the importance of providing great experiences to keep customers satisfied and loyal. But should governments do the same for their citizens? Can a well-run government improve societal well-being by focusing on efficiency, transparency, and user-friendly services? In this episode, we explore the government's role in delivering experiences to citizens through essential services or regulatory actions that impact organizations and their customers. Historically, a poorly managed experience with the government has significant consequences (cue: the Boston Tea Party). But beyond extreme cases, day-to-day interactions with government agencies also influence our quality of life. We start by asking why government agencies should care about CX at all. Using real-world examples, such as the surprisingly smooth process of renewing a passport or the convenience of services like Global Entry at airports, we see how an efficient government improves employee morale and public satisfaction. Plus, efficient government departments can save money, attract top talent, and increase citizen trust. Beyond service delivery, governments play a vital role in regulating experiences for private companies. Markets can become exploitative without proper regulations, leaving customers vulnerable to poor practices. We look at examples of beneficial regulations, like the Truth in Lending Act, which protects consumers from misleading financial products, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which ensures accessibility for all.  However, regulation is a delicate balance. Too little oversight can lead to exploitation, while too much can stifle competition and innovation. Some laws—like those that mandate thousands of training hours for hairstylists or forbid self-service gas stations—seem overly restrictive and detrimental to the customer experience. Finding a middle ground that protects consumers without creating unnecessary barriers is key. Join us as we discuss governments' critical role in shaping experiences and why every government, like a business, should aim to improve the CX it delivers to its citizens. More Key Moments in the Discussion:  How efficient government services influence national life satisfaction. The impact of "bad profits" in the financial sector and their regulatory solutions. Why governments can't afford to ignore inefficiency for long. Examples of overregulation stifling innovation in U.S. states. The link between government CX and economic growth. How the White House's consumer protection initiatives aim to improve daily life.

Patty Wilson & Scott Cowart sit down with local Tallahassee attorney Robert Churchill for a candid and engaging conversation. Robert is running for Leon County Judge, bringing a wealth of experience in various areas of litigation to the table.

NCUA Chairman Todd M. Harper's Written Testimony Before the House Financial Services CommitteeNCUA Chairman Todd M. Harper testifying before the House Financial Services Committee in 2023.Chairman McHenry, Ranking Member Waters, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to discuss the work of the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).The NCUA insures deposits at federally insured credit unions, protects credit union members, and charters and regulates federal credit unions. The NCUA also protects the safety and soundness of the credit union system by identifying, monitoring, and managing risks to the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (Share Insurance Fund). In my testimony today, I will discuss the state of the credit union system, recent efforts by the agency to strengthen the system, and several legislative requests.State of the Credit Union SystemThe credit union system over the last year has remained largely stable in its performance and relatively resilient against economic disruptions. However, during the last few quarters, the NCUA has seen growing signs of financial strain on credit union balance sheets and in household budgets. Economists are also forecasting an economic slowdown as the lagged effects of elevated interest rates take hold. Each of these developments could affect credit union performance in the coming quarters.Over the same period, the NCUA has also seen growing stress within the system because of a rise in interest rate and liquidity risks. In fact, this financial stress is reflected in the increasing number of composite CAMELS code 3, 4, and 5 credit unions.1 Assets in composite CAMELS code 3 institutions increased sizably in the second quarter, especially among those complex credit unions with more than $500 million in assets. Such increases may well continue in future quarters. We have additionally seen more credit unions fall into the composite CAMELS code 4 and 5 ratings during the second quarter.Credit Union System PerformanceAs of June 30, 2023, the system's net worth ratio stood at 10.63 percent. There was continued year-over-year growth in assets and lending, with system assets surpassing $2.2 trillion and outstanding loans at more than $1.5 trillion. Although insured shares and deposits decreased slightly compared to the previous quarter, they stood almost 2 percent higher than one year earlier.Second quarter data also demonstrate some indications of growing consumer financial stress. The delinquency rate for loans rose slightly to 63 basis points, although it remains below historic averages. Credit cards and automobile loans, however, show increased delinquency levels at 154 and 67 basis points, respectively. Additionally, net charge-off levels have risen over the last year, returning to pre-pandemic averages.Additionally, funding costs for credit unions have increased significantly in the rising interest rate environment. Credit unions have increased their issuances of time deposits, leading to total interest expenses growing substantially over the year. However, the industry's return on average assets remains sound at 79 basis points. Together, these numbers show the credit union system continues to rest on a solid footing.External Factors Affecting the SystemThe NCUA is closely monitoring the financial markets and the economy as the current environment has created challenges for some consumers and credit unions. Inflation and interest rates are affecting household budgets, which could lead to an increase in credit risk in future quarters. In addition, the prevalence of hybrid work environments has placed pressure on commercial real estate lending. While the credit union system overall has modest exposure to this type of lending, the NCUA is closely monitoring individual credit unions with material exposure to commercial real estate.The rise in interest rates has also increased liquidity and interest rate risks in the credit union system, including at several of the 421 federally insured credit unions with more than $1 billion in assets. Accordingly, the NCUA has emphasized the importance of liquidity risk management and contingency planning in its industry communications and will continue to ensure credit unions conduct liquidity and asset-liability management planning to address current challenges and future uncertainties.With respect to all these risks and to protect the Share Insurance Fund against potential losses, the NCUA will continue to vigilantly monitor credit union performance through the examination process, offsite monitoring, and tailored supervision. The NCUA will also, when appropriate, take action to protect credit union members and their deposits.Share Insurance Fund PerformanceBacked by the full faith and credit of the United States, the Share Insurance Fund provides insurance coverage for individual accounts at federally insured credit unions up to $250,000.2 As of June 30, 2023, the Share Insurance Fund insured $1.7 trillion in deposits and shares. Notably, the Share Insurance Fund protects nearly 92 percent of total share deposits in the credit union system. In comparison, uninsured shares and deposits equaled approximately $160 billion in the second quarter or 8 percent of total share deposits.The Share Insurance Fund continues to perform well, with no premiums currently expected. As of June 30, 2023, the Share Insurance Fund reported a year-to-date net income of $79 million, a net position of $20.3 billion, and an equity ratio of 1.27 percent.3 The NCUA projects that the equity ratio of the Share Insurance Fund will end the year at 1.27 percent, which is sufficient but below the 1.33 percent normal operating level target set by the NCUA Board.Given the liquidity events in 2023, economic conditions, and the growing stress in the credit union system from liquidity and interest rate risks, the NCUA Board decided to build up the liquidity position of the Share Insurance Fund to a targeted amount of $4 billion. The Share Insurance Fund reached that target in September. The NCUA Board continues to monitor liquidity in the Share Insurance Fund.State of the Central Liquidity FacilityThe COVID-19 pandemic, inflationary pressures, interest rate volatility, and liquidity risk have all underscored the importance of the NCUA's Central Liquidity Facility (CLF).4 The CLF is an important tool and acts as a shock absorber when unexpected liquidity events occur.Under the NCUA's regulations, credit unions with assets more than $250 million must have access to a federal emergency liquidity source as part of their contingency funding plans. This federal emergency liquidity backstop can be the CLF, the Federal Reserve's Discount Window, or both. Credit unions with less than $250 million in assets are not required to have membership with a contingent federal liquidity source; however, they must identify external sources as part of their liquidity policy.5As of September 30, 2023, the CLF had 399 consumer credit union members, providing $19.8 billion in lending capacity. These credit unions range in asset size from less than $50 million to more than $10 billion. Their access to the CLF helps protect approximately $360 billion in credit union members' assets.The more members the CLF has, the more effective it is as a liquidity facility. As of December 2022, the CLF had a much greater total membership of 3,673 consumer credit unions with a combined $537 billion in member assets and a lending capacity of $27.5 billion. This rapid decline in membership assets followed the expiration of the temporary statutory enhancements that: Increased the CLF's maximum legal borrowing authority; Permitted access for corporate credit unions, as agent members, to borrow for their own needs; Provided greater flexibility and affordability to agent members to join the CLF to serve smaller groups of their covered institutions; and Gave the NCUA Board the clarity and flexibility about the loans it can approve by removing the phrase, “the Board shall not approve an application for credit the intent of which is to expand credit union portfolios.” Among other benefits, these statutory provisions facilitated agent membership of corporate credit unions. These enhancements, however, ended on January 1, 2023, resulting in 3,322 credit unions with less than $250 million in assets losing access to the CLF. Consequently, the CLF's borrowing capacity has decreased by almost $10 billion.To address this expiration and growing liquidity risks, the NCUA Board has unanimously requested that Congress allow corporate credit unions to purchase capital stock in the CLF to help smaller credit unions access to the facility. This change would make the CLF more affordable for corporate credit unions subscribing for a subset of their members. The Congressional Budget Office has scored the CLF reforms at no cost to taxpayers.6NCUA's Efforts to Protect and Strengthen the Credit Union SystemIn recent months, the NCUA has undertaken several actions to respond to cybersecurity risk; support minority depository institutions; enhance the credit union system's and the NCUA's diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts; and consider and adopt new rules to strengthen the system.Enhancing CybersecurityCybersecurity threats within the financial services industry are high and expected to remain so for the foreseeable future. To maintain vigilance against these threats, the NCUA is committed to ensuring consistency, transparency, and accountability in its cybersecurity examination program and related activities.Earlier this year, the NCUA deployed its updated, scalable, and risk-focused Information Security Examination (ISE) procedures. The ISE examination initiative offers flexibility for credit unions while providing examiners with standardized review steps to facilitate advanced data collection and analysis. Together with the agency's voluntary Automated Cybersecurity Evaluation Toolbox maturity assessment, the new ISE procedures will assist the NCUA in protecting the credit union system from cyberattacks.In addition, the NCUA's recently implemented cyber incident reporting rule has proven to be helpful to the agency and credit union industry.7 The final rule requires a federally insured credit union to report a substantial cyber incident to the NCUA as soon as possible but no later than 72 hours after the credit union reasonably believes a reportable cyber incident has occurred. In the first 30 days after the rule became effective, the NCUA received 146 incident reports, more than it had received in total in the previous year. More than 60 percent of these incident reports involve third-party service providers and credit union service organizations (CUSOs).The NCUA also actively communicates with credit unions about the increased likelihood of cyberattacks resulting from geopolitical and other cyber events. Credit unions of all sizes are a part of the U.S. critical infrastructure and should implement appropriate controls in the technology they use to deliver member services.Maintaining Consumer Financial ProtectionAn important part of the NCUA's mission is to examine credit unions with less than $10 billion in assets for compliance with consumer financial protection laws. The agency's consumer compliance efforts are integral to maintaining a safe-and-sound credit union system.In 2023, the agency's consumer financial protection supervisory priorities have included overdraft protection, fair lending, residential real estate appraisal bias, and Truth in Lending Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act compliance. The NCUA also prioritized examining credit union compliance with the Flood Disaster Protection Act, including disclosure requirements.In addition, the agency increased its review of overdraft programs and non-sufficient funds fee practices at credit unions to assess whether providing those services and charging the fees are potentially unfair practices. The NCUA's supervision of the services aims to create a more equitable system that supports financial stability for credit union members, improves transparency, and advances the statutory mission of credit unions to meet the credit and savings needs of their members, especially those of modest means.8Furthermore, the NCUA conducts targeted fair lending examinations and supervision at federal credit unions to assess compliance with federal fair lending laws and regulations. These reviews are critical to identifying discrimination and fostering financial inclusion. In August 2023, the NCUA encouraged the industry to review and comply with previously issued guidance addressing prohibited discriminatory practices in automated underwriting systems. Specifically, the agency encouraged credit unions to review system parameters to ensure compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and its implementing regulation.In addition to appraisal bias oversight examinations, the NCUA joined with the other Federal Financial Institution Examination Council agencies in June to issue proposed guidance for reconsideration of value for residential real estate valuations. The proposed guidance advises on policies that financial institutions may implement to allow consumers to provide information that may not have been considered during an appraisal or if deficiencies are identified in the original appraisal.As part of its consumer financial protection efforts, the NCUA's Consumer Assistance Center also resolves consumer complaints against federal credit unions with total assets up to $10 billion and, in certain instances, federally insured, state-chartered credit unions. In 2022, the Consumer Assistance Center responded to 10,589 written complaints, 1,842 inquiries, and 30,232 telephone calls from consumers and credit unions concerning consumer financial protection regulations.Finally, the NCUA regularly presents webinars promoting financial literacy and financial inclusion. Over the past year, the agency has hosted webinars on appraisal bias, elder financial abuse, and minority depository institutions. In addition, the agency participates in national financial literacy initiatives, including the interagency Financial Literacy and Education Commission.Supporting Minority Depository InstitutionsSupporting minority depository institution (MDI) credit unions is a longstanding priority for the NCUA. MDI credit unions represent approximately 10 percent of federally insured credit unions, and there are presently 498 such credit unions. These MDIs have more than five million members and exceed $66 billion in assets.In 2015, the NCUA established its MDI Preservation Program and has since sought new ways to assist MDI credit unions, their members, and the communities they serve. In 2022, the NCUA launched the Small Credit Union and MDI Support Program, allocating resources to assist MDIs in addressing operational challenges such as staff training, examinations, and improving earnings. In 2023, the NCUA allocated 10,000 staff hours across its three regional offices for the program.This year, the agency also issued customized guidance to examiners to provide insights into MDIs' unique business models and members' needs. The guidance assists examiners in understanding MDIs' distinct business model compared to other mainstream financial institutions by providing instruction on how to use MDI peer metrics instead of traditional peer metrics.Notably, while MDIs tend to be smaller institutions, they have relatively strong financial performance. As of the end of the second quarter of this year, MDIs averaged about $133 million in total assets, yet their return on average assets and net worth ratios were higher than federally insured credit unions overall and equal to credit unions with assets exceeding $1 billion. Meanwhile, their charge-off levels were consistent with the levels reported for both larger credit unions and credit unions overall.Congress recently authorized all MDIs to be eligible for Community Development Revolving Loan Fund grants and loans. Previously, MDIs required the low-income credit union designation to qualify. In the 2023 grant round, 42 MDIs received more than $1.4 million in technical assistance grants. The amount of funding MDIs received was a five-fold increase from the level of funding provided in 2022.Finally, the NCUA in October hosted an MDI Symposium that discussed how the agency can better serve these institutions. The MDI Symposium brought together MDI credit unions and industry stakeholders to learn about the challenges faced by MDIs. Sessions included case studies of successful MDI business models for replication. The NCUA plans to leverage this information to further support its MDI Preservation Program. And, as part of the NCUA's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Summit for credit unions in early November, the NCUA held a session that discussed MDI challenges and strategies for success.Advancing Diversity, Equity, and InclusionThe NCUA is fully committed to fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within the agency and the credit union system.The agency uses data from the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, including the Office of Personnel Management's Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility index, to inform its data-driven DEI strategies and activities.9 The agency's internal practices to promote DEI are also wide-ranging. For example, the NCUA's employee resource groups serve more than 30 percent of agency staff, surpassing the industry standard membership goal of 10 percent. Further, the NCUA's special emphasis program educates staff on cultural diversity and provides dedicated support for employees and managers with disabilities.In addition, the NCUA routinely recruits employees with diverse backgrounds and seeks to ensure broad applicant pools for vacancies. These diversity recruitment efforts are aimed at attracting and retaining highly qualified individuals from underrepresented groups, including Hispanics and candidates with disabilities. In 2023, the NCUA conducted a targeted barrier analysis to identify hiring and retention challenges for women and Hispanic employees. In addition, the agency has consistently exceeded the federal employment rate goals for employees with disabilities and targeted disabilities since 2017.10 Slightly more than 59 percent of the NCUA's managers are women.The NCUA has additionally built a diverse supplier network to obtain innovative solutions and the best value, particularly in technology and IT solutions. During 2022, the agency awarded $32.8 million of reportable contract dollars to minority and women-owned businesses. That figure represents 45 percent of the agency's contracting dollars, an increase of 8 percentage points from the prior year.Credit unions may also assess their DEI policies and programs through a voluntary credit union diversity self-assessment offered annually.11 Credit union submissions of their self-assessment have no bearing on their CAMELS rating, and examiners cannot access the data. The NCUA reports credit union diversity data only in the aggregate. The agency encourages credit unions to use this tool to support their DEI efforts.In 2022, 481, or 10 percent of all credit unions, submitted a self-assessment. The figure represents an all-time high for submissions to the NCUA. Of those submissions, 302 were federally chartered credit unions, 178 were federally insured and state-chartered, and one was a non-federally insured, state-chartered credit union. The number of CUDSA responses in 2022 is twice as much as the 240 self-assessments submitted in 2021.Finally, to support credit union accomplishments in DEI and provide further guidance, the NCUA hosted its fourth DEI Summit in Washington, D.C., in early November. This now annual event provided a forum for hundreds of credit union stakeholders to network, share best practices, and meet with thought leaders on ways to expand their DEI efforts. The event also highlighted the importance of allyship in helping to achieve the NCUA's and credit unions' DEI goals and improve the financial prospects and futures of families across the country.Rulemaking ActivitiesSince May, the NCUA Board has engaged in several rulemakings on topics like MDI preservation, member expulsion, financial innovation, fair hiring, and charitable donations. These rulemakings have aimed to implement laws required by Congress and strengthen the credit union system.In May, the NCUA Board approved a proposed rule that would add “war veterans' organizations” to the definition of a “qualified charity” that a federal credit union may contribute to using a charitable donation account. The NCUA Board approved the proposed rule noting the attributes of “veterans' organizations” as defined by section 501(c)(19) of the Internal Revenue Code are aligned with the purposes of the current charitable donation account rule. A “qualified charity” is a section 501(c)(3) entity defined by the Internal Revenue Code and must be both a non-profit and be organized for a charitable purpose. The final rule will be considered on November 16.In June, the NCUA Board approved proposed changes to the interpretive ruling and policy statement on the agency's Minority Depository Institution Preservation Program. The proposal would amend an existing interpretive ruling and policy statement to update the program's features, clarify the requirements for a credit union to receive and maintain an MDI designation, and reflect the transfer of the MDI Preservation Program administration from the agency's Office of Minority and Women Inclusion to its Office of Credit Union Resources and Expansion. Proposed amendments to the interpretive ruling and policy statement also include incorporating recent program initiatives, providing examples of technical assistance an MDI may receive, establishing a new standard for MDIs to assess their designation periodically, and updating how the NCUA will review an MDI's designation status, among other changes. This rule is pending.Additionally, the Board finalized a rule in July to implement requirements of the Credit Union Governance Modernization Act of 2022.12 This regulation streamlines procedures for credit unions to expel a member in cases of serious misconduct.In September, the NCUA Board approved a financial innovation final rule that provides flexibility for federally insured credit unions to utilize advanced technologies and opportunities offered by the financial technology sector. The final rule specifically provides credit unions with options to participate in loans acquired through indirect lending arrangements and financial technology. With the adoption of this final rule, the limits previously found in the NCUA's regulations are replaced with policy, due diligence, and risk-management requirements that can be tailored to match each credit union's risk levels and activities.Lastly, the NCUA Board in October approved a proposed rule that would incorporate the NCUA's Second Chance Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement, and statutory prohibitions imposed by Section 205(d) of the Federal Credit Union Act into the agency's regulations. This proposed rule would allow people convicted of certain minor offenses to work in the credit union industry without applying for the NCUA Board's approval. It would also amend requirements governing the conditions under which newly chartered or troubled federally insured credit unions must notify the NCUA of proposed changes to their board of directors, committee members, or senior executive staff. The comment period closes on January 8, 2024.Legislative RequestsWhile the credit union system continues to perform well overall, several amendments to the Federal Credit Union Act would provide the NCUA with greater flexibility to effectively regulate the credit union system and protect the Share Insurance Fund in light of an evolving economic environment, a changing marketplace, and technological advancements.Central Liquidity Facility ReformsAs noted previously, the NCUA Board unanimously supports a statutory change to restore the ability of corporate credit unions to serve as CLF agents on behalf of a subset of their member credit unions. Such legislation would better allow the CLF to serve as a shock absorber for liquidity events within the credit union system.On February 28, 2023, lawmakers introduced bipartisan legislation that would allow corporate credit unions to purchase CLF capital stock on behalf of a subset of their members.13 This legislation would permit corporate credit unions to contribute capital to provide coverage for smaller members with less than $250 million in assets. Liquidity risks within the credit union system are rising, and timely consideration of this bill would better protect the credit union system from future liquidity events.Restoration of Third-Party Vendor AuthorityThe risks resulting from the NCUA's lack of vendor authority are real, expanding, and potentially dangerous for the nation's financial infrastructure. Other independent entities, including the Government Accountability Office, the Financial Stability Oversight Council, and the NCUA's Office of Inspector General, have identified this deficiency as inhibiting the NCUA from fulfilling its mission to safeguard credit union members and the financial system. And, it is the NCUA Board's continuing policy to seek third-party vendor authority from Congress.14The agency is working within its current authority to address this growing regulatory blind spot, but it is evident that additional authority is needed. There has also been a shift in credit union leaders' understanding of the value of the NCUA having the same vendor authority as the federal banking agencies. The benefits include credit union access to NCUA examination information when conducting due diligence of vendors, fewer requests from the NCUA to credit unions to intervene with vendors experiencing problems, and fewer losses to the Share Insurance Fund.The potential for such resulting losses to the Share Insurance Fund is real. The NCUA's Office of Inspector General stated that between 2008 and 2015, nine CUSOs contributed to material losses to the Share Insurance Fund. The report noted one of the CUSOs caused losses in 24 credit unions, some of which failed. According to NCUA staff calculations, at least 73 credit unions incurred losses between 2007 and 2020 as losses at CUSOs roll onto credit union ledgers and lead to liquidations.15The absence of third-party vendor examination authority limits the NCUA's ability to assess and mitigate potential risks associated with these vendors. Vendors typically decline these requests or refuse to implement recommended actions. This limitation exacerbates any exposure credit unions have to the operational, cybersecurity, and compliance risks that can arise from these relationships. Without the authority to enforce recommended corrective actions, the NCUA is unable to effectively protect credit unions and their members.Furthermore, the growing reliance on third-party services in the credit union industry poses a systemic risk to the credit union system. Five core banking processors, for example, handle more than 90 percent of the credit union system's assets. A failure of one of these critical third parties could cause hundreds of credit unions and potentially tens of millions of their members to lose access to their funds simultaneously. Such a vendor failure, in turn, may result in a loss of confidence in the financial sector. Ensuring proper oversight is imperative, as CUSOs and third-party vendors are poised to capitalize on financial institutions' growing appetite for artificial intelligence and real-time payment services.If granted third-party vendor authority, the NCUA would implement a risk-based examination program focusing on services that relate to safety and soundness, cybersecurity, Bank Secrecy Act and Anti-Money Laundering Act compliance, consumer financial protection, and areas posing significant financial risk for the Share Insurance Fund.Additional Flexibility for Administering the Share Insurance FundThe recent turmoil in the banking sector, growing liquidity risks within the credit union system, and rising interest rate risk all highlight the need for the NCUA to have additional flexibility for administering the Share Insurance Fund.Specifically, the NCUA requests amending the Federal Credit Union Act to remove the 1.50 percent ceiling for the Share Insurance Fund's equity ratio from the current statutory definition of “normal operating level,” which limits the ability of the Board to establish a higher normal operating level for the Share Insurance Fund. A statutory change should also remove the limitations on assessing Share Insurance Fund premiums when the equity ratio of the Share Insurance Fund is greater than 1.30 percent and if the premium charged exceeds the amount necessary to restore the equity ratio to 1.30 percent.16Together, these amendments would bring the NCUA's statutory authority over the Share Insurance Fund more in line with the FDIC's authority as it relates to administering the Deposit Insurance Fund. These amendments would also better enable the NCUA Board to proactively manage the Share Insurance Fund by building reserves during economic upturns so that sufficient money is available during economic downturns. This more counter-cyclical approach to managing the Share Insurance Fund would better ensure that credit unions will not need to impair their one percent contributed capital deposit or pay premiums during times of economic stress, when they can least afford it.ConclusionThe NCUA stands ready to address the impact of the evolving economic and business cycles within the credit union system. The NCUA will continue to monitor credit union performance and coordinate with other federal financial institution regulators, as appropriate, to ensure the overall resiliency and stability of our nation's financial services system and economy.Thank you again for the invitation to testify about the NCUA's programs and operations. 

In this episode of Commitment Matters, Mary speaks with Attorney David Friend, who has two decades of experience including TILA and RESPA regulation at the CFPB and HUD. You can contact David via email. During their conversation, David or Mary mentioned: The CFPB website has links and resources covering the Payday Lending Rule, including FAQs, ruling summaries and other references.Read about the fifth circuit's decision on finding the CFPB's funding unconstitutional, as opposed to the second circuit's decision. David defines this as a circuit split. Here's a breakdown of Regulation Z and Regulation X as well as TILA (Truth in Lending Act) and RESPA (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act), which David is very familiar with in his experience.The Administrative Procedure Act ensures that there's opportunity for public comment on government processing and rulemaking.The 3/7/3 Rule.The ATR/QM Rule.The Dodd-Frank Act is mentioned multiple times throughout this conversation. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission website hosts many related resources including official rules, frequently-asked questions, guides, forums and much more, all of which are related to the Dodd-Frank Act.You can now reach the Commitment Matters Podcast via phone! Got a topic or guest idea you want featured? Leave us a voice message at 214.377.1807 or email us at podcasts@ramquest.com. Don't forget to subscribe, rate, and review this podcast on Apple Podcast, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts, or visit RamQuest.com/podcast to download the latest episode. Lastly, we love to see when and how you're listening. Share our posts, or create your own and tag them: #CommitmentMattersPodcast

Military academy cadets and midshipmen are eligible for MLA benefits thanks to a recent change to the MLA database. That means cadets from West Point, Naval Academy, Air Force Academy, Merchant Marine Academy, and Coast Guard Academy are eligible for American Express and Chase credit cards with no annual fees. Learn how to get your annual fees waived on premium credit cards from American Express and Chase in the Ultimate Military Credit Cards Course at militarymoneymanual.com/umc3. The Platinum Card® from American Express and the American Express® Gold Card waive the annual fee for active duty military servicemembers, including Guard and Reserve on active orders over 30 days. The annual fees on all personal Amex cards are also waived for military spouses married to active duty troops. If you have a question you would like us to answer on the podcast, please reach out on instagram.com/militarymoneymanual or email podcast@militarymoneymanual.com. If you want to maximize your military paycheck, check out Spencer's 5 star rated book The Military Money Manual: A Practical Guide to Financial Freedom on Amazon at or at shop.militarymoneymanual.com. I also offer a 100% free course on military travel hacking and getting annual fee waived credit cards, like The Platinum Card® from American Express, the American Express® Gold Card, and the Chase Sapphire Reserve® Card in my Ultimate Military Credit Cards Course at militarymoneymanual.com/umc3.

每日英語跟讀 Ep.K448: What to know about ‘buy now, pay later' Since the start of the pandemic, the option to “buy now, pay later'” has skyrocketed in popularity, especially among young and low-income consumers who may not have ready access to traditional credit. If you shop online for clothes or furniture, sneakers or concert tickets, you've seen the option at checkout to break the cost into smaller installments over time. Companies like Afterpay, Affirm, Klarna, and Paypal all offer the service, with Apple due to enter the market later this year. 自疫情開始以來，「先買後付」的選項變得大受歡迎，尤其對可能無法獲得傳統信貸的年輕及低收入消費者而言更是如此。若上網購買衣服或家具、運動鞋或音樂會門票，會在結帳時看到分期付款的選項。Afterpay、Affirm、Klarna和Paypal等公司都提供這種服務，Apple將於今年稍晚進軍此市場。 But with economic instability rising, so are delinquencies. Here is what you should know: 但隨著經濟不穩定的狀況加劇，拖欠率也在上升。以下是該知道的幾件事： HOW DOES BUY NOW, PAY LATER WORK? 「先買後付」如何運作？ Branded as “interest-free loans,” buy now, pay later services require you to download an app, link a bank account or debit or credit card, and sign up to pay in weekly or monthly installments. Scheduled payments are then automatically deducted from your account or charged to your card. The services generally don't charge you more than you would have paid up front, meaning there's technically no interest, so long as you make the payments on time. 被「先買後付」標榜「無息貸款」，要求使用者下載應用程式，綁定銀行帳戶或借記卡，或者信用卡，並註冊以每週或每月分期付款。然後，預定的付款會自動從您的帳戶中扣除或記入您的卡。這些服務通常不會收取比您之前所付款項更多的費用，這表示只要您按時付款，從技術上來講是沒有利息的。 But if you pay late, you may be subject to a flat fee or a fee calculated as a percentage of the total you owe. If you miss multiple payments, you may be shut out from using the service in the future, and the delinquency could hurt your credit score. 但若逾期付款，可能會需要支付一筆金額固定的費用，或是按欠款總額百分比所計算的費用。如果有多筆款項未繳，未來可能無法使用該服務，且拖欠可能有損您的信用評分。 ARE MY PURCHASES PROTECTED? 我的購買有保障嗎？ In the US, buy now, pay later services are not currently covered by the Truth in Lending Act, which regulates credit cards and other types of loans (those paid back in more than four installments). 在美國，「先買後付」服務目前並不在《誠實貸款法》的管轄範圍內，該法所監管的是信用卡和其他類型的貸款（分四期以上還款的借貸）。 That means you could find it more difficult to settle disputes with merchants, return items, or get your money back in cases of fraud. Companies can offer protections, but they don't have to. 這表示您可能會發現要解決與商家的糾紛、退貨，或遇到詐欺要把錢取回來會更難。公司可以提供保障，但並無此義務。 WHY DO RETAILERS OFFER BUY NOW, PAY LATER? 零售商為何提供「先買後付」？ Retailers accept the backend fees of buy now, pay later services because the products increase cart sizes. When shoppers are given the option to pay off purchases in installments, they're more likely to buy more goods in one go. 零售商接受先買後付的後端費用，因為先買後付增加了顧客的購物量。若購物者有分期付款的選項，就更可能一次購買更多商品。 WHO SHOULD USE BUY NOW, PAY LATER? 誰該使用「先買後付」？ If you have the ability to make all payments on time, buy now, pay later loans are a relatively healthy, interest-free form of consumer credit. 若您有能力按時支付所有款項，現在購買，以後支付貸款是一種相對健康、免息的消費信貸形式。 But if you're looking to build your credit score, and you're able to make payments on time, a credit card is a better choice. The same goes if you want strong legal protections from fraud, and clear, centralized reporting of loans. 但是，如果您希望建立自己的信用評分，且有能力按時付款，那麼信用卡會是更好的選擇；若您想要強有力的法律保障以避免詐欺，以及清楚、集中的借貸報告，也是如此。 If you're uncertain whether you'll be able to make payments on time, consider whether the fees charged by buy now, pay later companies will add up to higher charges than the penalties and interest a credit card company or other lender would charge. 如果您不確定是否能按時付款，請考慮先買後付公司所收取的費用是否會比信用卡公司或其他貸方收取的罰款和利息加起來更高。Source article: https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/lang/archives/2022/09/20/2003785582 歡迎留言告訴我們你對這一集的想法： https://open.firstory.me/user/cl81kivnk00dn01wffhwxdg2s/comments Powered by Firstory Hosting

Please join Consumer Financial Services Partner Chris Willis and his guest and fellow Partner Tony Kaye for this latest podcast episode as they discuss the Military Lending Act and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, including the differences between the two, their state analogues, and several key issues in the consumer finance industry surrounding servicemembers.Consumer Financial Services Partner Tony Kaye counsels financial services providers on compliance issues, including military lending laws; defends clients facing government investigations, examinations, and enforcement actions; and defends individual and class-action lawsuits brought by consumers.

Welcome to the LI Law Podcast.  We feature legal issues and developments which affect Long Island residents and business owners.  I am your host, Zehava Schechter. Our guest on this 60th episode is Abraham Kleinman, Esq., whose office is in Uniondale, New York. Abraham's practice is concentrated in developing appropriate strategies for consumers who are overwhelmed by debt and are either being contacted by debt collection agencies or debt collection attorneys OR face negative and derogatory entries on their consumer credit reports and/or medical credit reports (MIB).  His practice also helps consumers who have claims pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, The Fair Credit Reporting Act, The Fair Credit Billing Act, the Consumer Leasing Act and the New York State General Business Law §349 and §350 concerning Unfair Practices and Advertising. Our topics of discussion: How a consumer should respond to a creditor's demand letter or telephone call; What a consumer can do if harassed by a creditor; NYS and federal laws providing protection to consumers…and Much More… Abraham Kleinman's Contact Information: 626 RXR Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556-0626 Telephone: (877) 522-2621 (516) 522-2621 Website: https://www.kleinmanllc.com/ Abraham, welcome to the podcast! Please contact us with your general questions or comments at LILawPodcast@gmail.com.  Zehava Schechter, Esq. concentrates her practice in estate planning, administration and litigation; real estate law; and contracts and business law. Her law practice is located on Long Island and covers New York City and Westchester County. No podcast is a substitute for competent legal advice.  Please consult with the attorney of your choice concerning specific legal questions you may have.

An assignment is a legal term used in the context of the law of contract and of property. In both instances, assignment is the process whereby a person, the assignor, transfers rights or benefits to another, the assignee. An assignment may not transfer a duty, burden or detriment without the express agreement of the assignee. The right or benefit being assigned may be a gift (such as a waiver) or it may be paid for with a contractual consideration such as money. The rights may be vested or contingent, and may include an equitable interest. Mortgages and loans are relatively straightforward and amenable to assignment. An assignor may assign rights, such as a mortgage note issued by a third party borrower, and this would require the latter to make repayments to the assignee. A related concept of assignment is novation wherein, by agreement with all parties, one contracting party is replaced by a new party. While novation requires the consent of all parties, assignment needs no consent from other non-assigning parties. However, in the case of assignment, the consent of the non-assigning party may be required by a contractual provision. Procedure. The assignment does not necessarily have to be in writing; however, the assignment agreement must show an intent to transfer rights. The effect of a valid assignment is to extinguish privity (in other words, contractual relationship, including right to sue) between the assignor and the third-party obligor and create privity between the obligor and the assignee. Liabilities and duties. Unless the contractual agreement states otherwise, the assignee typically does not receive more rights than the assignor, and the assignor may remain liable to the original counterparty for the performance of the contract. The assignor often delegates duties in addition to rights to the assignee, but the assignor may remain ultimately responsible. However, in the United States, there are various laws that limit the liability of the assignee, often to facilitate credit, as assignees are typically lenders. Notable examples include a provision in the Truth in Lending Act and provisions in the Consumer Leasing Act and the Home Ownership Equity Protection Act. In other cases, the contract may be a negotiable instrument in which the person receiving the instrument may become a holder in due course, which is similar to an assignee except those issues, such as lack of performance, by the assignor may not be a valid defense for the obligor. As a response, the United States Federal Trade Commission promulgated Rule 433, formally known as the "Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Preservation of Consumers' Claims and Defenses", which "effectively abolished the doctrine in consumer credit transactions". In 2012, the commission reaffirmed the regulation. Assignment of contract rights After the assignment of contractual rights, the assignee will receive all benefits that have accrued from the assignor. For example, if A contracts to sell his car for $100 to B, A may assign the benefits (the right to be paid $100) to C. In this case, Party C is not a third-party beneficiary, because the contract was not made for C's benefit. Assignment takes place after the contract was formed; they may not precede them. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Ngā mihi o te tau hou pakeha (Happy New Year) and welcome to the first podcast for 2022. Nick and Kelvin are back from their respective summer breaks and there's no time to waste, with the lending environment under particular scrutiny. Changes to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA) are hogging the headlines, but tightening of the LVR limits, bank introduction of debt-to-income limits and increasing interest rates will also be having an impact so Nick and Kelvin provide their take, off the back of all the latest lending and Buyer Classification data.REINZ' release for December data was also hot off the press prior to recording so the guys give their quick take on that prior to Kelvin wrapping the latest economic releases (building consents and filled jobs).The major thing to watch for this week is the Stats NZ rental index but everyone seems to have hit the ground running so there are plenty of other releases to be aware of. As mentioned here's Kelvin's now regular '5 things to know' about property this week.Note, for the next three weeks the podcast will be out on Tuesdays (navigating holidays and leave) before returning to the usual Monday afternoon release date from Feb 14.Check out all our regular CoreLogic research insights at https://www.corelogic.co.nz/research-news and get in touch on LinkedIn, twitter @NickGoodall_CL or @KDavidson_CL or send us an email on nick.goodall@corelogic.co.nz or kelvin.davidson@corelogic.co.nz 

Unions are legally allowed to lie to workers when unionizing them. Why? According to National Labor Relations Board doctrine, "Employees are generally able to understand that a union cannot obtain benefits automatically by winning an election but must seek to achieve them through collective bargaining." In this episode of Union Free Radio, host Peter List explores the legal background of unions deceiving workers, as well as ponders the question: Instead of Congress and the NLRB looking at ways to make it easier for unions to unionize workers through deception, shouldn't Congress should really be considering a bill to require unions to be more honest with workers? There is a Truth in Lending Act; there are all kinds of consumer protection laws… Why not a Truth in Union Organizing Act? Articles and resources cited in this episode: PROMISES, PROMISES: Rethinking the NLRB's Distinction Between Employer and Union Promises During Representation Campaigns (in PDF) AFL-CIO's New President Breaks With Trumka, Supports Secret Ballot in Union Elections For other episodes of Union Free Radio, click here. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/unionfreeradio/support

On this episode, Maxwell Goss interviews Troy Doucet, a leading foreclosure defense attorney, law entrepreneur, and accomplished author. Troy has written a book called The Art of War for Lawyers, which takes insights from the classic text The Art of War and applies them to modern litigation. Troy talks about developing a winning strategy, and expounds on the five factors every litigator needs to master to get great results for clients. Troy also talks about his foreclosure practice and his new legal eLearning venture. ---------- “If you are able to keep your strategy secret, but you figure out what the other side's is, then you are able to focus all of your energies on one point, whereas the other side has to attack or defend all points.” -Troy Doucet ---------- 00:19 – Introduction 01:25 – Troy Doucet's foreclosure defense practice 03:34 – Troy's life before practicing law 09:44 – Troy's e-learning venture 13:53 – The Art of War for Lawyers 15:44 – Sun Tzu's The Art of War 21:45 – The 5 factors for success in battle 29:01 – Strategy in warfare and litigation 37:18 – Secrecy and litigation 44:23 – Where to find Troy online ---------- Troy Doucet opened his law firm in 2010, immediately after graduating law school. Law is a second career for him, after extensive work in the mortgage industry. He works hard for his clients and has always maintained a philosophy that you should not have to be rich to hire a good lawyer. Troy has litigated hundreds of cases and dozens of appeals in his career, with several notable decisions that shape consumer law for the benefit of people at the Sixth Circuit federal appellate court. He is licensed in Ohio and Florida and admitted to practice in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of Ohio, the Southern District of Ohio, and the Southern District of Florida, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States. Due to Troy's years of work in the mortgage industry, he has a unique and comprehensive understanding of mortgage financing and foreclosure defense. He published a 440-page book about litigating foreclosure cases in 2008, titled, 23 Legal Defenses to Foreclosure: How to Beat the Bank, and then published an integrated copy of Regulation Z in 2009, titled Regulation Z of the Truth in Lending Act: 12 C.F.R. Part 226. In 2014, he published The Art of War for Lawyers. He regularly speaks on the topic of foreclosure and consumer law and has taught numerous CLE courses for other lawyers. ---------- https://www.loanlawyer.law/staff-view/troy-doucet/ (About Troy Doucet) https://www.amazon.com/Art-Lawyers-Troy-Doucet-Esq/dp/0692207600 (The Art of War for Lawyers) https://www.elearning.law/ (eLearning.Law) ---------- https://www.thelitigationwarroom.com/ (Show Website) https://twitter.com/LitWarRoom (Twitter) https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-litigation-war-room-podcast/ (LinkedIn) https://www.facebook.com/The-Litigation-War-Room-Podcast-111235441143108 (Facebook)

During this show, you'll discover … ● How to handle a credit card limit decrease ● Steps to take as a business when your business credit card limit is reduced ● How lenders are changing the way they do things ● They are lending less ● Some changes are positive for borrowers ● Some changes are negative for borrowers ● Lenders are monitoring business accounts for risky behavior ● And some are even reducing existing credit card limits based on perceived risky behavior ● The Credit CARD Act of 2009 does not protect from this ● Neither Does the Truth in Lending Act of 1968 ● What should you do if your business credit card limit is decreased? ● How to monitor your personal and business credit ● Why you shouldn't close accounts with decreased card limits ● How to look for options to bridge the gap ● Options like the Credit Line Hybrid ● What is the Credit Line Hybrid? ● What benefits does the Credit Line Hybrid offer? ● Why you need expert help to guide you through the business financing process ● How to get expert help on how to handle a credit limit decrease

Dana Wiggins and Jay Speer of the Virginia Poverty Law Center meet with the Transition Team to discuss how the Fairness in Lending Act reformed predatory loan practices targeting minority communities.They walk the transition team through how the payday lending industry destroys community wealth, and their efforts over the years to reform the practices.Sponsorships available at www.transitionva.com/sponsor.

Visa reported positive first-quarter earnings with 700 million Visa Direct transactions, and CFPB sued Citizens Bank for violating the Truth in Lending Act.

Since the Truth in Lending Act does not apply to small business, instant loans to small businesses is a major rip off area around the country. There’s no requirement to disclose junk fees or interest rates on these loans. As a small business owner, Clark receives about 10 offers a week. Though there are ethical lenders, there are too many bad players out there taking advantage of small business cash flow needs, charging gigantic interest rates for quick money. If you’re a small business owner, do NOT bite on these loan offers until you know the fees and rates. If you can’t get a straight answer, stay away. While Congress lies about how much they care about small business, they ONLY care about their corporate contributors. Nobody’s looking out for the small business owners, with no laws governing proper disclosure of loan terms. Also, the Supreme Court ruled that states can charge sales tax to small businesses selling across state lines online. For big retailers, that’s no big deal, but for small business, compliance is a nightmare. They need a simplified tax procedure in place governing online sales below a designated threshold. Candidates should come up with real agendas for small business. Big company lobbyists feeding in cash are the only ones heard. When can we get leaders who represent the people of the U.S. in the people’s White House? Christa reads listener posts about how Clark has missed the mark in his advice this week. If you have a "Clark Stinks" to share you can leave it here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the Infinite Wealth Podcast.  On this episode we cover: How Anthony J. Faso become a "Recovering" CPA How Cameron Christenson went from founding his own company to the co-host of this podcast. The 5 Pillars of Wealth 1. Invest in Yourself-no investment will produce better results than investing in yourself 2. Your Own Business-invest in business that you own, control and are an expert in. 3. Real Estate-creates passive income with tax advantages.  4. Lending-Act like a bank and collect interest from others, with collateral fo course 5. Infinite Banking Concept-use high cash value whole life insurance protects your cash from Creditors, Predators, and SENATORS. Plus you can leverage your policy to invest in the other 4 pillars. You can learn more at www.InfiniteWealthCourse.com & www.InfiniteBanking.org 

Case or No Case, Face Recognition Software Lawsuits, US Truth and Lending Act and Wells Fargo

Scott Tucker wanted to build a scalable business since he was young. This is the fourth episode in our series on Billionaire Preparing for Prison. In the first episode, we learned why authorities chose to prosecute Scott Tucker. He build the payday loan industry. The business he built grew to employ thousands of people. He generated billions in financial revenues and taxes. He created enormous wealth. But authorities didn't like the model. Some people felt that he was earning too much money from people who could not afford to pay. Scott saw things differently. People in the marketplace were telling Scott that they needed liquidity. They just needed a bridge loan to help them get across the hump. They may have suffered from car trouble. They may have had an illness. They may need a short loan. Banks refused to lend to those people. Scott created a company that would fill the void. There was a lot of risk for that business. Many people chose to borrow money but they would not repay the loan. Scott didn't sue them. Instead, he just wrote off the loan. He created a system that would scale, expecting to cover the losses by operating at a scale. Scott's company launched the entire industry because he was innovative. He leveraged technology. With the Internet, he could provide people with short-term loans in a matter of minutes. Yet the interest rates he charged exposed him to problems. All that is clear at this stage is that a jury convicted scott of violating the Truth in Lending Act. As a result of the conviction, he faces multiple decades in federal prison. We recorded this fourth episode just before Christmas, in 2017. He is scheduled for sentencing on January 6, 2018.

Billionaire Prepares for Prison, Episode 2   Scott Tucker is well known for building the Payday Loan industry. In the previous episode, we learned how Scott started this industry from scratch. Through hard work and building great teams, he built his company into mega organization. It employed thousands of people. His business generated billions in annual revenues. He earned hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Despite that success in business, Scott told us in episode 1 about his problems. He lost a case to the Federal Trade Commission. That case resulted in a judgment against him of more than $1 billion. Then a judge froze his assets. Without financial assets, Scott didn't have resources to pay for his attorneys at trial. A jury convicted him of violating the Truth in Lending Act. Since his conviction, Scott has been on home confinement. Living on home confinement has been a struggle for Scott. He spoke about the ways that he has been preparing for the journey ahead. He exercises relentlessly. Sometimes he rides his stationary bicycle for 60-mile durations. The commitment to fitness helps Scott deal with the stress of an upcoming sentencing hearing. Scott told us that the federal government has asked that he serve a sentence of more than 100 years. The probation officer recommended that lengthy sentence because she said that Scott's business generated more than $6 billion in losses. It's important to learn more about the criminal justice system. That's why we're grateful to Scott for sharing his story.

I’m calling this episode “Consulting the Source.” My guest would be the first to say he is not the source of our consumer financial protection rules -- that would be Congress. Still, no one has had more to do with translating law into regulatory form than Leonard Chanin. When Leonard left the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for his current position at the law firm Morrison & Foerster LLP, it was big news. American Banker wrote: “Morrison & Foerster can’t say it hired the attorney who wrote the CFPB’s rulebook. But it picked up the guy who started the job.” Actually, Leonard has been involved in the crafting of pretty much all the consumer financial regulations since 1985. And for years he led the legal teams – first at the Fed and then at the CFPB – that wrote them. I consider him the single most expert person in the world on how to write consumer protection regulation in finance. His deep knowledge of the field and his great sense of humor led to a really fun and animated discussion about the challenges of financial regulation. In fact, our conversation continued for nearly another hour after we turned off the microphone. I often find that, after the recorded part of the podcast, my guests go on to say things even more interesting. In Leonard’s case, he said something I’ve been thinking about ever since, and I got his permission to share it. He said, “The only solution is to blow it all up. If we just take what we have and try to improve it, we will fail.” Our regular listeners know I’m at Harvard this year writing a book about modernizing consumer financial protection for the innovation age. I think most people in the financial field agree that the system we have hasn’t worked well. And yet, the course we’re on is exactly the one Leonard says won’t work – taking what we have and just trying to improve it at the margins. The CFPB, of course, is adding vigor and rigor to the effort and having many impacts. Still, this is a good time to examine the basic questions of what works, and whether we could do better. I met with Leonard in his office in Washington, and we explored it all. Can disclosure ever really be effective? What should we do about information overload?  Is it impossible for regulations to be both simple, and clear, at the same time, or do we have to choose between those two goals?  Should we rely more on principles-based regulations instead of detailed rules? When should the law just ban practices, instead of requiring them to be disclosed?  Should we have a regulatory sandbox? Is it worth trying to do better, given the enormous costs the industry incurs every time the rules change? What could we do better now that people can get information instantly on their cell phones? Should government try to protect people from their own mistakes, or just prevent deception and let consumers make their choices? I recently spoke at a conference where I said I think disclosure has largely failed as a consumer protection strategy in finance. Someone afterwards said to me that he thinks it was never meant to work – that it was just the industry’s strategy for preventing tougher regulation. I was involved in a lot of those early efforts, and as I say to Leonard in our talk, it seemed like a good idea at the time, to me. It seemed worth trying. But today, it’s time to think again. (For an interesting analysis of the ineffectiveness of disclosure, see this article by Temple University’s Hosea Harvey. Leonard is currently Of Counsel in the Financial Services group at Morrison & Foerster LLP. He advises clients on issues relating to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, Truth in Lending Act, Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Truth in Savings Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Before rejoining Morrison & Foerster, he was the Assistant Director of the Office of Regulations of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, heading the agency’s rule-making team of nearly 40 lawyers. He also provided legal opinions to Bureau supervisory and enforcement offices on federal consumer financial protection laws. Prior to that, he was Deputy Director of the Division of Consumer and Community Affairs at the Federal Reserve Board. His role there included providing legal opinions and policy recommendations to the Board and the Division on federal consumer financial services laws, negotiating rules and policies with the other federal banking agencies and providing legal views on enforcement actions against state member banks. Leonard’s law degree is from Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, where he served on the board of the Washington University Law Review. He is a currently a fellow of the American College of Consumer Financial Services Lawyers. So, please enjoy my conversation with Leonard Chanin. And…try my new video series, Regulation Innovation! And be sure to come to my new site, www.RegulationInnovation.com, and sign up for my new series of video briefings!  I’ve posted a short trailer (EMBED?) explaining the videos as a roadmap for navigating through the two toughest challenges facing every financial company – how to thrive on all this regulatory and technology. You can try it out and get started very easily. If you enjoy our work to bring together thought provoking ideas and people please consider a contribution to support the site. Support the Podcast Please subscribe to the podcast by opening your favorite podcast app and searching for "Jo Ann Barefoot", in TuneIn, or in iTunes.   

Buying a home? Click here to perform a full home searchSelling a home? Click here for a FREE Home Value ReportToday I have Rick Pantoga with me, my local mortgage lending expert here in Chicago. He's going to be explaining some important changes that the real estate market will be experiencing this year. He's been in the business for 29 years, so he's seen both the good and the bad.On October 3rd of this year, the real estate market saw some big changes. What exactly happened?It's because of the recent changes that came to the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (TRID), and this will affect everyone involved in real estate, from consumers to Realtors to lenders. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a final rule amending regulations the Truth in Lending Act as well as the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.So, what does this mean for you? The TILA-RESPA rule consolidates four disclosures for closed and credit transactions secured by real property into two different forms.One of these forms is a loan estimate that must be delivered or placed in the mail no later than the 3rd business day after receiving the consumer's application. A closing disclosure must be provided to the consumer at least three business days prior to consummation.These new disclosures must be provided by a creditor or mortgage banker that receives an application from a consumer for a closed end credit transaction.The TILA-RESPA rule includes some new restrictions on certain activity prior to consumers receiving the loan estimate. These restrictions include imposing fees on a consumer before the consumer has received the loan estimate, or requiring submission of documents verifying information related to the consumer's application before providing the loan estimate.Please don't hesitate to contact us with any questions about this issue. We understand that it may seem a little confusing or overwhelming. We would be happy to clear up any misconceptions that you may have!

.embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; height: auto; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; } Looking for More Information? Search All Our Informational Flyers and e-BooksWould You Like an Estimated Quote? Put Our Title Rate Calculators to UseThe real estate market has been seeing some big changes lately. Why is this?It's because of changes to the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (TRID), and this will affect everyone involved in real estate, from consumers to Realtors to lenders. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a final rule amending regulations to the Truth in Lending Act as well as the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.So, what does this mean for you? The TILA-RESPA rule consolidates four disclosures for closed and credit transactions secured by real property into two different forms.One of these forms is a loan estimate that must be delivered or placed in the mail no later than the 3rd business day after receiving the consumer's application. A closing disclosure must be provided to the consumer at least three business days prior to consummation.These new disclosures must be provided by a creditor or mortgage banker that receives an application from a consumer for a closed-end credit transaction.The TILA-RESPA rule includes some new restrictions on certain activity prior to consumers receiving the loan estimate. These restrictions took effect on August 1, 2015 regardless of whether an application was received on that date. These restrictions include imposing fees on a consumer before the consumer has received the loan estimate, or requiring submission of documents verifying information related to the consumer's application before providing the loan estimate.Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions about this issue. I understand that it may seem a little confusing or overwhelming. I would be happy to clear up any misconceptions that you may have!

.embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; height: auto; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; } Looking to buy a Roseville home? Get a full Home SearchSelling your Roseville home? Get a free Home Price EvaluationToday I have Marc Brinitzer with me, and he's going to explain some important changes that the real estate market will be experiencing this year.On October 3rd of this year, the real estate market saw some big changes. Why is this?It's because of changes coming to the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (TRID), and they will affect everyone involved in real estate, from consumers to Realtors to lenders. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a final rule amending regulations in the Truth in Lending Act as well as the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.So, what does this mean for you? The TILA-RESPA rule consolidates four disclosures for closed and credit transactions secured by real estate property into two different forms.One of these forms is a loan estimate that must be delivered or placed in the mail no later than the 3rd business day after receiving the consumer's application. A closing disclosure must be provided to the consumer at least three business days prior to consummation.These new disclosures must be provided by a creditor or mortgage banker that receives an application from a consumer for a closed end credit transaction. However, creditors will still be required to use the current Good Faith Estimate, HUD 1 and Truth in Lending forms for applications received prior to August 1, 2015. After that date, these forms will no longer be used.The TILA-RESPA rule includes some new restrictions on certain activity prior to consumers receiving the loan estimate. These restrictions took effect on August 1, 2015, regardless of whether an application was received on that date. These restrictions include imposing fees on a consumer before the consumer has received the loan estimate, or requiring submission of documents verifying information related to the consumer's application before providing the loan estimate.Please don't hesitate to contact us with any questions about this issue. We understand that it may seem a little confusing or overwhelming. We would be happy to clear up any misconceptions that you may have!

In Segment 1, AAO general counsel Kevin Dillard and host Pam Paladin discuss the U.S. Truth in Lending Act and how it applies to orthodontic practices. In Segment 2, Dr. Gary Baughman, Speaker of the House of Delegates, discusses the upcoming meeting in San Francisco.