SavvySugar

Best letter ever written to a bank

Monique Marie — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 14:16:41 -0800

This is an actual letter written to bank manager by an old lady who got her check bounced by the bank due to lack of funds. it was first published in the New York Times in 2006.
Dear Sir,
I am writing to thank you for bouncing my check with which I endeavored to pay my plumber last month.
By my calculations, three nanoseconds must have elapsed between his presenting the check and the arrival in my account of the funds needed to honor it.
I refer, of course, to the automatic monthly deposit of my entire pension, an arrangement which, I admit, has been in place for only eight years. You are to be commended for seizing that brief window of opportunity, and also for debiting my account $30 by way of penalty for the inconvenience caused to your bank. My thankfulness springs from the manner in which this incident has caused me to rethink my errant financial ways.
I noticed that whereas I personally answer your telephone calls and letters, - when I try to contact you, I am confronted by the impersonal, overcharging, pre-recorded, faceless entity which your bank has become.
From now on, I, like you, choose only to deal with a flesh-and-blood person. My mortgage and loan repayments will therefore and hereafter no longer be automatic, but will arrive at your bank, by check, addressed personally and confidentially to an employee at your bank whom you must nominate.
Be aware that it is an offense under the Postal Act for any other person to open such an envelope. Please find attached an Application Contact which I require your chosen employee to complete. I am sorry it runs to eight pages, but in order that I know as much about him or her as your bank knows about me, there is no alternative. Please note that all copies of his or her medical history must be countersigned by a Notary Public, and the mandatory details of his/her financial situation (income, debts, assets and liabilities) must be accompanied by documented proof. In due course, at MY convenience, I will issue your employee with a PIN number which he/she must quote in dealings with me.

I regret that it cannot be shorter than 28 digits but, again, I have modeled it on the number of button presses required of me to access my account balance on your phone bank service. As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Let me level the playing field even further.
When you call me, press buttons as follows:
IMMEDIATELY AFTER DIALING, PRESS THE STAR (*) BUTTON FOR ENGLISH
#1. To make an appointment to see me.
#2. To query a missing payment.
#3. To transfer the call to my living room in case I am there.
#4. To transfer the call to my bedroom in case I am sleeping.
#5. To transfer the call to my toilet in case I am attending to nature.
#6. To transfer the call to my mobile phone if I am not at home.
#7. To leave a message on my computer, a password to access my computer is required. Password will be communicated to you at a later date to that Authorized Contact mentioned earlier.
#8. To return to the main menu and to listen to options 1 through 7.
#9. To make a general complaint or inquiry. The contact will then be put on hold, pending the attention of my automated answering service.
#10. This is a second reminder to press* for English. While this may, on occasion, involve a lengthy wait, uplifting music will play for the duration of the call.
Regrettably, but again following your example, I must also levy an establishment fee to cover the setting up of this new arrangement. May I wish you a happy, if ever so slightly less prosperous New Year?
Your Humble Client

Tyra Bank’s stalker arrested and released

justingirl1989 — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:53:21 -0700

Former supermodel/reality star/talk show host Tyra Banks has definitely hit the big time- she even has her own extra-creepy stalker. Homeless nutjob Brady Green, who has been sending Tyra weird letters and packages and calling her for the last couple of months, actually started showing up at the studio where she tapes her talk show.

Cops finally busted the burly ex-con drifter Tuesday for allegedly stalking Banks from coast to coast, but he was released without bail - an act that has added to her anxiety.

Brady Green, 37, has hounded Banks with multiple letters and phone calls since early January, cops and prosecutors said.

He then started sending her flowers and showing up in person at her Los Angeles TV studio, they said.

The Dublin, Ga., native then took a bus to New York with the idea of visiting the studio where “The Tyra Banks Show” is taped. He arrived in the lobby at 4:23 p.m. on Tuesday, asking to speak to the former supermodel, the authorities said.

Green was carrying a large duffel bag stuffed with magazine write-ups about Banks and notes to himself about his various attempts to reach her, they said.

Cops were called to the scene, where Banks said she feared for her safety. Green was cleared from the premises.

But at 7:22 p.m., Green was back - sitting across the street in a window seat at a McDonald’s, drinking coffee and flipping through one of his magazines…

Green told police he was homeless, although he appeared clean and dressed in neat, casual clothing, they said. Cops arrested him in the restaurant and charged him with stalking, harassment and criminal trespass.

The next morning, Green appeared in Manhattan Criminal Court and pleaded not guilty to the charges. No bail was requested, despite Green not having provided a New York address. Judge Anthony Ferrara released him on his own recognizance - but issued an order of protection for Banks…

Staff at the Chelsea studio are worriedly anticipating Green’s return. “There’s no security at this building,” said a producer at 225 W. 26th St., where photos of Green were still being handed out on Friday with a warning to stay away from him. “It’s very scary.”

[From NY Post]

Yikes! I sure hope they’ve stepped up security at that building given the situation. I wonder if Tyra will do an episode on stalkers on her talk show now? Celebrity stalking has become a serious problem- as recent cases like Steven Spielberg’s and Catherine Zeta Jones’ have shown. John Lennon’s killer, Mark David Chapman, reportedly stalked him for months before shooting him dead in front of his home. And with instant access to celebrities’ favorite hangouts, it’s easier than ever for unstable people like this to track their victims.

scary

source: celebtichy.com

Despite aid, many banks fail to revive lending

mydiadem — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:11:54 -0800

Decline in loans twice as sharp among firms that accepted federal help
By Binyamin Appelbaum
The Washington Post
updated 5:48 a.m. ET, Tues., Feb. 3, 2009
The federal government has invested almost $200 billion in U.S. banks over the last three months to spark new lending to consumers and businesses.

So far, it hasn't worked. Lending has declined, and banks that got government money on average have reduced lending more sharply than banks that didn't.

Consider the case of Bethesda's EagleBank, which received $38.2 million from the Treasury Department in early December.

The company, which focuses on lending to local businesses, was delighted to get the money, executives said. Its nine-member board convened an impromptu conference call during the week of Thanksgiving to approve the deal.

But EagleBank used roughly half the money to digest the acquisition of Fidelity & Trust Bank, a Bethesda rival with financial problems.

And it has struggled to use the rest to increase lending.

Shrinking deposits
The government investment boosted EagleBank's capital, a cash reserve that regulators require banks to hold as a cushion against losses. More capital meant EagleBank could make more loans, but the company has not been able to take advantage. Lending also requires deposits, the money that banks give to borrowers, and EagleBank's deposit base shrank over the past three months.

"You look around and everyone is saying, 'Banks are not lending,' " said Ronald Paul, EagleBank's chairman. "Well, we'd like to. I could grow my loan base considerably if I just had the deposits."

EagleBank's struggles are part of a broader national pattern and illustrate the complexity of the government's attempt to prop up the economy. Rather than investing in the banks best equipped to increase lending, the government invested disproportionately in banks that needed money to solve problems. Those banks often were ill-equipped to increase lending because of financial limitations such as a lack of deposits.

Senior administration officials have said, though, that they are largely satisfied with the results of the first round of investments. They say the true achievement is something that did not happen: The banking system did not collapse.

But the volume of loans outstanding from U.S. banks fell about 1 percent during the last three months of the year, according to Federal Reserve data. The decline was more than twice as large among banks that accepted taxpayer funds, according to an analysis of fourth-quarter financial reports from 115 companies. The Fed reported yesterday that most banks have continued tightening lending standards.

'Can't just snap your fingers'
Some of the first banks to get funding, such as Citigroup and J.P. Morgan Chase, have reported the sharpest drops in lending. In the face of public pressure to use the money, Citigroup plans to announce today that it will spend $36.5 billion on increased lending because of the government's investment in the company.

"You can't just snap your fingers and make this happen," said William Beale, chief executive of Virginia-based Union Bankshares, which got $59 million from the government in mid-December after trying to raise private capital for more than a year. "It's going to take some time for us to raise deposits," Beale said, "and then we can deploy some loans."

Several recipient banks in the Washington area are digesting acquisitions. Bank of Essex, a subsidiary of Community Bankers Trust of Glen Allen, Va., for example, has bought two failed banks from regulators, including a deal announced Friday for Suburban Federal Savings Bank of Crofton.

Others are dealing with problems of their own making. Recipients of government investments in Virginia and Maryland -- no District bank has received money -- on average had lower capital levels than banks that have not received money. Community Financial of Staunton, Va., said the government's money restored its status as a "well-capitalized" bank.

The local pattern is a miniature of the national. Taxpayer money made possible the mergers of Merrill Lynch into Bank of America and National City into PNC Bank, among others. Citigroup was sick enough to need a second helping, and, without taxpayers, Wells Fargo would not be "well-capitalized."

The Obama administration is preparing to deploy the second half of the $700 billion rescue plan. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is expected to detail those plans in a speech early next week.

Members of Congress from both parties and several agencies appointed to oversee the program have argued that the government should force increased lending, in part by tracking how banks use the money they get.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday that he expected the Obama administration to push banks harder to increase lending. He said the initial government bailout should have come with a tighter condition that they do so. Frank, who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, plans to hold hearings on the subject today.

But some banking regulators and administration officials continue to oppose such measures, saying that banks could be forced into risky lending and that the government should not run banks. Regulators have not instructed banks on how to use the money, local executives said.

"They have not given us any guidelines on how the money should be used," said Thomas Bevivino, chief financial officer at Severn Bancorp. The Maryland company got $25 million from the government, then raised an additional $7.5 million from investors to further bolster its capital reserves. The company said its lending has remained basically flat.

The Capital Purchase Program was announced in October after then-Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. forced nine of the nation's largest banks to accept $125 billion in capital. Paulson said that the rest of the nation's 8,300 banks could apply for a portion of the remaining $125 billion. More than 300 have since received investments.

'It's a war out there'
From the start, Treasury officials took pains to describe the program as focused on "healthy, viable banks" and to proclaim the stated purpose repeatedly: "Increasing the flow of financing available to small businesses and consumers."

Even during a recession, local banks say that loan demand remains strong. And deposits are flowing into the banking system, a pattern that financial analysts attribute to a flight from riskier investments. Federal Reserve data show that deposits in U.S. banks rose strongly in the fourth quarter.

But in the Washington area, the banks that got federal investments mostly were not those that reaped the deposits.

The deposits flowed disproportionately to the strongest banks and the weakest. The strongest banks, which tended not to apply for government money, attracted customers seeking safety, and customers seeking loans, by demanding that borrowers also become depositors. The weakest banks attracted customers by offering eye-catching interest rates. National companies called deposit brokers funnel money to the banks that offer the highest rates, and executives say competition in recent months has been fierce.

"It's a war out there right now," said W. Moorhead Vermilye, chief executive of Shore Bancshares in Easton, Md., which expanded its deposits by less than 1 percent. "It's very, very difficult, but what we're doing is insisting that borrowers bring all their deposits to the bank. If you're going to bank with us, you need to bank with us."

Companies such as EagleBank were caught in between, neither strong nor weak enough. The bank held about $1.1 billion in deposits at the end of September and slightly less at the end of December. About a third of banks nationwide that received a government investment in the fourth quarter also reported a decline in deposits.

Paul, EagleBank's chairman, said he regularly hears from board members who know someone who wants a loan. Increasingly, the conversations don't end productively. The supplicants facing the longest odds are residential and commercial developers and landlords, bank executives said.

Debbie Shumaker, EagleBank's director of business development, said the bank's sales force keeps lists of clients they can't help right now. They send keep-in-touch notes and plan to circle back once the bank has more money to lend. But she acknowledged that it's hard to build a relationship from a rejection.

"It's very frustrating," Shumaker said. "Someday banks are going to go back to these clients, and they're not going to forget these hard days."

How to Detoxify the Banks (Separating the wheat from the chaff. )

Grandpa — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:06:17 -0700

How to Detoxify the Banks
Separating the wheat from the chaff.
by Jim Prevor (founder and CEO of Phoenix Media Network, Inc)

The Bush and Obama administrations have shared an unwillingness to see any of the major banks go under, hence the problem we have in solving the current banking and financial crisis. Though both presidents pointed to an alleged systemic risk to the economy owing to the size of the big banks, it is probably also true that any administration would be sensitive to the enormous weight these institutions carry as symbols of American prosperity, influence, and power. A collapse of Citigroup, for example, would be seen by many as an economic equivalent to the collapse of the World Trade Center.
At the same time, there is no great constituency in America for nationalizing banks in America, and there is obvious risk that, if nationalized, such banks would be run for political purposes. Other proposals--to launch new banks, for example--are not serious responses to the scale of the problem.
Happily, there is actually wide consensus on what needs to happen, and the solution is simple. In fact, Hank Paulson almost had it right. Since there is no stomach for seeing giant banks fail, the need is to separate the "toxic waste," or the damaged assets these banks carry on their books, from the good assets. This was the idea behind the original Paulson plan, the Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP.
The Paulson plan foundered on this unavoidable fact: If the Treasury bought damaged assets from the banks at fair market value, the banks would be revealed as insolvent; if the Treasury overpaid for the assets, so as to make the banks solvent, the shareholders would unfairly benefit.
To avoid this Gordian Knot, Paulson made equity investments in the banks. This, however, didn't solve the problem because nobody could be certain that the amount invested was sufficient. It also was a solution that had its limits. As bank stock prices swooned, the Treasury would acquire a majority stake--becoming the owner of the banks, if it put in enough cash to make the institution solvent.
Indeed, in the latest bailout for Citigroup, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner overpaid for common stock. The main reason he did so? To keep the U.S. Treasury from becoming the majority owner.
The stock market tumbled when Geithner unveiled the Obama bank bailout, to no small extent because the plan was exceedingly vague. Undoubtedly this is because it has come up against the same problem as the Paulson Plan--there is no way to price the toxic assets in a way that saves the banks and avoids bailouts for their shareholders.
The way to cut the Gordian Knot is to leave the toxic assets where they are and focus instead on setting up a mechanism to purchase the "good" assets. To be more precise, leave the financial assets where they are and buy the operating assets.
Here is a simple four step process:
(1) A troubled bank is given an opportunity to set up a wholly owned subsidiary. The subsidiary then buys from the parent company all the operating assets. From the name and logo, to the branches, accounts and employees, the profitable parts of the bank are sold at fair market value. Because banks, branches, and deposits are sold fairly frequently, there are metrics readily available to enable us to price these assets.
2) The federal government funds the subsidiary with both enough money to buy the operating assets and sufficient capital to operate the bank and have it function as a lending institution. The funding would come in the form of a cumulative preferred stock. Cumulative means that the new bank need not pay dividends if it can't spare the cash, but those dividends will accrue. The rate can be discussed; in the federal bailout of Chrysler in 1979, Chrysler paid one percentage point over the government's cost of funds.
(3) The bank would spin off the newly capitalized subsidiary to its shareholders. The old banks that contained the toxic assets would be renamed and operate as closed-end mutual funds working to unwind all the financial positions. The cash from the sale of the operating assets would give these funds money to unwind positions in an orderly way.
(4) Though public shareholders would own both corporations, nothing could be taken out of the "old bank" until all positions are unwound and liabilities paid off. Nothing could be taken out of the new operating bank until the government's preferred stock was brought current and bought back from the government.
When the spin-off is completed we have a rock-solid bank, with no toxic assets, no liabilities, and total transparency ready to serve its role in commerce, and we have a closed-end mutual fund gradually unwinding its toxic positions.
Of course it is reasonable to ask why this hasn't been proposed already. If the solution is so simple, why haven't bright people like Larry Summers, the head of the White Houses National Economic Council, pushed the idea?
There seem to be three reasons: First, the banking crisis really is not getting the degree of attention it requires. Massive stimulus packages, omnibus reconciliations and a host of political priorities seem to have obscured the centrality of this issue and the necessity of fixing the banks. Second, the S & L crisis of the 1980s and early '90s, in which the Resolution Trust Corporation served as a "bad bank" seems to have conditioned everyone to think in the mode of the government taking over distressed securities. This proposal requires a paradigm shift to focus on buying the good assets. Third, and perhaps most important, Wall Street isn't pushing such a proposal on government officials because investors in the "old banks" could lose money.
Although the new banks will be perfectly sound--and those Citigroup signs around the world perfectly safe--there is no guarantee that the "old" corporation will have enough assets to pay all its liabilities.
This brings us to what the real purpose of the government's efforts in this area should be.
That the government needs to act to ensure adequate lending capacity, a normal flow of commerce and even to maintain the national prestige will win wide agreement--certainly during a crisis. But the administration's current efforts go far beyond this. By putting equity into the banks, the government is taking a junior position to every bondholder, in effect transforming bank bonds into Treasury bonds.
This is neither necessary nor desirable. Banks are not the government and their bonds are not Treasury bills. Lending to private banks entails all the risk of lending in the private sector.
Increasingly the question is whether the Obama administration is prepared to stand up to those who made imprudent investments so it can move to clean up the financial system or whether it will try to muddle through, constantly having one crisis after another, constantly infusing cash into the banks, all to make sure that no bondholder ever has to experience the consequences of his decisions.

Internet Banking Accounts

Princess Rebecca — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 06:27:51 -0800

Today I was wondering how many of you have tried online banks? Banks that don't have offices or counters.
I did some research on online banks (for my region of course, I live in Belgium) and
I found out that they are very safe and (!) give double the intrests normal banks do.

All those big, natinonal banks charge you all sorts of costs (some don't until you reach the age of 26)
and you get, something in return if you are lucky. That online bank gives me the double!
Which is unbelievable but true.

Then again I know saving and having a bankaccount is less popular in the USA then in Europe...

AP study finds $1.6B went to bailed-out bank execs last year

stephley — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:51:39 -0800

By FRANK BASS and RITA BEAMISH, Associated Press Writers Frank Bass And Rita Beamish, Associated Press Writers 6 mins ago
Banks that are getting taxpayer bailouts awarded their top executives nearly $1.6 billion in salaries, bonuses, and other benefits last year, an Associated Press analysis reveals.

The rewards came even at banks where poor results last year foretold the economic crisis that sent them to Washington for a government rescue. Some trimmed their executive compensation due to lagging bank performance, but still forked over multimillion-dollar executive pay packages.

Benefits included cash bonuses, stock options, personal use of company jets and chauffeurs, home security, country club memberships and professional money management, the AP review of federal securities documents found.

The total amount given to nearly 600 executives would cover bailout costs for many of the 116 banks that have so far accepted tax dollars to boost their bottom lines.

Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services committee and a long-standing critic of executive largesse, said the bonuses tallied by the AP review amount to a bribe "to get them to do the jobs for which they are well paid in the first place.

"Most of us sign on to do jobs and we do them best we can," said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. "We're told that some of the most highly paid people in executive positions are different. They need extra money to be motivated!"

The AP compiled total compensation based on annual reports that the banks file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The 116 banks have so far received $188 billion in taxpayer help. Among the findings:

_The average paid to each of the banks' top executives was $2.6 million in salary, bonuses and benefits.

_Lloyd Blankfein, president and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, took home nearly $54 million in compensation last year. The company's top five executives received a total of $242 million.

This year, Goldman will forgo cash and stock bonuses for its seven top-paid executives. They will work for their base salaries of $600,000, the company said. Facing increasing concern by its own shareholders on executive payments, the company described its pay plan last spring as essential to retain and motivate executives "whose efforts and judgments are vital to our continued success, by setting their compensation at appropriate and competitive levels." Goldman spokesman Ed Canaday declined to comment beyond that written report.

The New York-based company on Dec. 16 reported its first quarterly loss since it went public in 1999. It received $10 billion in taxpayer money on Oct. 28.

_Even where banks cut back on pay, some executives were left with seven- or eight-figure compensation that most people can only dream about. Richard D. Fairbank, the chairman of Capital One Financial Corp., took a $1 million hit in compensation after his company had a disappointing year, but still got $17 million in stock options. The McLean, Va.-based company received $3.56 billion in bailout money on Nov. 14.

_John A. Thain, chief executive officer of Merrill Lynch, topped all corporate bank bosses with $83 million in earnings last year. Thain, a former chief operating officer for Goldman Sachs, took the reins of the company in December 2007, avoiding the blame for a year in which Merrill lost $7.8 billion. Since he began work late in the year, he earned $57,692 in salary, a $15 million signing bonus and an additional $68 million in stock options.

Like Goldman, Merrill got $10 billion from taxpayers on Oct. 28.

The AP review comes amid sharp questions about the banks' commitment to the goals of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), a law designed to buy bad mortgages and other troubled assets. Last month, the Bush administration changed the program's goals, instructing the Treasury Department to pump tax dollars directly into banks in a bid to prevent wholesale economic collapse.

The program set restrictions on some executive compensation for participating banks, but did not limit salaries and bonuses unless they had the effect of encouraging excessive risk to the institution. Banks were barred from giving golden parachutes to departing executives and deducting some executive pay for tax purposes.

Banks that got bailout funds also paid out millions for home security systems, private chauffeured cars, and club dues. Some banks even paid for financial advisers. Wells Fargo of San Francisco, which took $25 billion in taxpayer bailout money, gave its top executives up to $20,000 each to pay personal financial planners.

At Bank of New York Mellon Corp., chief executive Robert P. Kelly's stipend for financial planning services came to $66,748, on top of his $975,000 salary and $7.5 million bonus. His car and driver cost $178,879. Kelly also received $846,000 in relocation expenses, including help selling his home in Pittsburgh and purchasing one in Manhattan, the company said.

Goldman Sachs' tab for leased cars and drivers ran as high as $233,000 per executive. The firm told its shareholders this year that financial counseling and chauffeurs are important in giving executives more time to focus on their jobs.

JPMorgan Chase chairman James Dimon ran up a $211,182 private jet travel tab last year when his family lived in Chicago and he was commuting to New York. The company got $25 billion in bailout funds.

Banks cite security to justify personal use of company aircraft for some executives. But Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., questioned that rationale, saying executives visit many locations more vulnerable than the nation's security-conscious commercial air terminals.

Sherman, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, said pay excesses undermine development of good bank economic policies and promote an escalating pay spiral among competing financial institutions - something particularly hard to take when banks then ask for rescue money.

He wants them to come before Congress, like the automakers did, and spell out their spending plans for bailout funds.

"The tougher we are on the executives that come to Washington, the fewer will come for a bailout," he said.

___

On the Net:

SEC Filings & Forms: http://www.sec.gov

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act: http://www.treas.gov/initiatives/eesa/

Magic Piggy Bank with Optical illusions

Foxman — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:27:21 -0800

Optical illusions can be fun. This coin eating piggy bank with a frog sitting in it is a pleasure to watch. Kids will love it so much, you will be out of change. Place a coin in it and see how the frog swallows the coin.

Like magic, coins dropped in appear to vanish without a trace. Nevertheless, attempts to punish the greedy animal will prove futile. Perfect for forming a saving habit in your children, driven by an unstoppable urge to feed the frog.

Source

British banks revolt against Obama tax plan

Cassandra57 — Mon, 25 May 2009 11:06:06 -0700

* PUBLIC POST *

British banks and stockbrokers may refuse to take on American clients if new international tax proposals outlined by President Obama are passed.

By Louise Armitstead
Last Updated: 12:02AM BST 24 May 2009

The decision, which would make it hard for Americans in London to open bank accounts and trade shares, is being discussed by executives at Britain's banks and brokers who say it could become too expensive to service American clients. The proposals, which were unveiled as part of the president's first budget, are designed to clamp-down on American tax evaders abroad. However bank bosses say they are being asked to take on the task of collecting American taxes at a cost and legal liability that are inexpedient.

Andy Thompson of Association of Private Client Investment Managers and Stockbrokers (APCIMS) said: "The cost and administration of the US tax regime is causing UK investment firms to consider disinvesting in US shares on behalf of their clients. This is not right and emphasises that the administration of a tax regime on a global scale without any flexibility damages the very economy it is trying to protect."

One executive at a top UK bank who didn't want to be named for fear of angering the IRS said: "It's just about manageable under the current system - and that's because we're big. The danger to us is suddenly being hauled over the coals by the IRS for a client that hasn't paid proper taxes. The audit costs will soar. We'll have to pay it but I know plenty of smaller players won't."

The British Bankers Association (BBA) and APCIMS had a meeting with European counterparts 10 days ago to discuss the crisis. A delegation is set to meet the US Treasury's Internal Revenue Service on 16th June to demand they drop the reforms.

Ahead of the meeting APCIMS, whose members manage £400bn of Britain's wealth and employ 25,000 people, has sent a letter to the IRS complaining that the "unfair" proposals represent "no benefit but... significant cost" to its members.

President Obama's proposals are built on the so-called Qualified Intermediary system which was intended to ensure Americans paid the correct tax wherever they were domiciled. Foreign financial institutions that handle American money have to fill in a US tax form on behalf of the client that has to be audited too. In return, the banks receive a QI seal of approval as a qualified intermediary.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/5374095/...

US Loses Power to Appoint World Bank President ((Public))

stephley — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:25:10 -0700

Published on Monday, October 13, 2008 by the Guardian/UK

WASHINGTON - The US is to lose its power to appoint the president of the World Bank after the UK's development secretary, Douglas Alexander, brokered a deal to throw open the post to candidates from any country.

World Bank President Robert Zoellick attends the opening plenary of the annual International Monetary Fund-World Bank meeting in Washington October 13, 2008. The US is to lose its power to appoint the president of the World Bank after the UK's development secretary, Douglas Alexander, brokered a deal to throw open the post to candidates from any country) Backed by European governments and developing countries, Alexander overcame resistance from the US and Japan to secure a reform he described last night as "a significant step forward".

Washington has had the right to hand-pick the president of the World Bank since the institution was founded after the second world war, with Europe choosing the managing director of the International Monetary Fund.

Alexander said: "The agreement provides the opportunity for candidates to be nominated regardless of nationality. It will ensure that the best-qualified candidate is selected."

Developing countries have grown increasingly frustrated at the stranglehold of rich nations on the two Washington-based multilateral bodies, with pressure for change accelerating after the controversial presidency of Paul Wolfowitz, who was forced to step down after a scandal involving his partner's promotion.

Alexander said that more changes were needed: "It is a significant step forward, albeit on a much longer journey."

The bank's development committee yesterday was dominated by concerns that poor countries would fall victim to the global financial crisis. It backed proposals that will give countries from sub-Saharan Africa a third seat on its 25-strong governing board.

The bank's president, Robert Zoellick, urged rich countries not to forget their pledges of financial support to the developing world. The bank believes the number of malnourished will increase by 44 million this year.

Donor countries were also discussing whether to release a multibillion-dollar reconstruction package to Zimbabwe. Alexander said the tests a new Zimbabwean government would have to meet included respecting human rights and allowing charities into the country to deliver aid.

Bank Robber Leaves His Resume

miss-britt — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:16:28 -0700

This one is a keeper in my opinion!!!
Bank Robber Left His Resume, Photo At Scene

By ELAINE SILVESTRINI | The Tampa Tribune
Published: August 16, 2007
TAMPA - He told the teller not to do anything stupid.
Too bad the bank robber didn't take his own advice.

Ortiz Booking Photo
After he robbed a Bank of America on West Hillsborough Avenue last December, court records say, Etni Ortiz left his resume behind -- dropped it, actually, when the bank's dye pack exploded. Police found it outside the bank in a pile of dye-stained money. There were also photos, one of Ortiz. The picture, too, was stained with red dye.
Nine days later, Ortiz robbed First State Bank at 5700 Clark Road in Sarasota, according to documents on file in U.S. District Court.
That time, he gave the teller a note threatening to shoot if she did anything stupid. The teller gave him $1,860, and he fled.
Using surveillance photos, police determined Ortiz was the robber of both banks. They issued an alert.
On Jan. 9, the day after the Sarasota bank was robbed, the Florida Highway Patrol arrested Ortiz in St. Lucie County. He was driving an SUV that had been stolen in a Massachusetts carjacking in October. The owner of the vehicle told authorities Ortiz was the thief.
Inside the SUV, Tampa Police found a cap they say Ortiz wore during the second robbery. Beneath the rear passenger seat, they found paperwork stained with red dye.
They also found a note: "This is a robbery. Do not do anything stupid or I'll shoot you first. Give me all $100, $50, $20. No smoke bombs or I will shoot you."
They also found a suitcase stuffed with $1,969 in cash.
Ortiz pleaded guilty in May to two counts of bank robbery and one count of transporting a stolen vehicle.
This morning, U.S. District Judge Susan Bucklew sentenced him to 8 1/2 years in federal prison to be followed by three years of probation