Trump University, the former for-profit business education venture that has landed Donald Trump in various courts to defend himself against claims of fraud, promised to teach students the secrets of Trump’s financial success. One particular course offered by Trump U presented a particularly blunt strategy for making money: target destitute, “completely disabled” homeowners headed into foreclosure and convince them to sell their homes at a discounted price. That is, exploit disabled people for profit.
That advice comes near the end of a nearly three-hour audio lesson—paired with a workbook—that was offered by Trump University in 2006, shortly before the housing market collapsed. It was a year after the opening of Trump University, which shut down in 2010 and has prompted lawsuits against Trump from former students who allege that the school was a scam that ripped them off.
The 2006 course, titled “Real Estate Goldmine: How to Get Rich Investing in Pre-Foreclosures,” begins with a monologue by Trump, who says, “We’re not peddling get-rich-quick schemes, no blue-sky promises or an easy road to riches.” But he pledges that his course will offer a “real estate gold mine.” Then Trump University’s Jon Ward interviews real estate investment adviser Gary Eldred about the best strategies for taking advantage of homeowners facing foreclosures. Throughout the course, Eldred provides a variety of tips on spotting homes that are in pre-foreclosure—for instance, look for an owner delinquent on payments because he could be foreclosed on imminently—and he offers strategies for persuading owners to sell their homes at a discount when they’re facing foreclosure. He repeatedly notes that a buyer should be kind when approaching pre-foreclosure owners about purchasing their properties, because these potential sellers are going through a stressful time.
For the first time in nearly 50 years, a new federal bill seeks to lower how much lenders and collectors can seize from debtors through the courts, revisiting caps set in 1968 by the landmark Consumer Credit Protection Act.
The Wage and Garnishment Equity (WAGE) Act of 2016, sponsored by Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., and Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., would substantially reform protections for debtors by exempting many lower-income workers from garnishment and reducing what collectors can take from the paychecks and bank accounts of others.
As ProPublica has reported in a series of articles over the past three years, consumer debts such as medical or credit card bills result in millions of garnishments every year. But the scale of the seizures and their consequences for the poor have largely been ignored by lawmakers, in part because no one tracks how often they happen.
In their press release announcing the legislation, Cummings and Merkley cited ProPublica and NPR’s reporting that 4 million workers had wages taken for consumer debts in 2013. The garnishments hit low-income workers most frequently: Nearly 5 percent of those earning between $25,000 and $40,000 per year had a portion of their wages diverted to pay down consumer debts in 2013.
Citigroup Inc. has agreed to pay $7 million and admitted to wrongdoing to settle Securities and Exchange Commission charges the financial services firm gave the agency incomplete “blue sheet” information.
A computer coding error was in software Citigroup used from May 1999 to April 2014 to process the agency’s requests for blue sheet data. Blue sheets include the time, type, volume, and prices of trades, among other information. In using the software with the error, the SEC said, Citigroup omitted 26,810 transactions in more than 2,300 blue sheet requests.
“We are pleased to have resolved this matter,” a Citigroup spokeswoman said when asked about the situation.
“Broker-dealers have a core responsibility to promptly provide the SEC with accurate and complete trading data for us to analyze during enforcement investigations,” said Robert A. Cohen, co-chief of the SEC enforcement division’s market abuse unit. “Citigroup did not live up to that responsibility for an inexcusably long period of time, and it must pay the largest penalty to date for blue sheet violations.”
Amazing from the overpaid job holder and $27 million dollar CEO….Sorry, Jamie, you are no George Bailey!
“Wages for many Americans have gone nowhere for too long,” CEO Jamie Dimon says.
J.P. Morgan Chase will give its lowest paid employees a raise over the next two years, its chairman and chief executive Jamie Dimon wrote in an opinion piece for The New York Times on Tuesday.
The bank currently has a minimum wage of $10.15 an hour plus benefits. Over the next two years, it will raise base pay to between $12 and $16.50 an hour “depending on geographic and market factors,” Dimon writes. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, a rate that has not risen since 2009. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have minimum wages above the federal rate.
J.P. Morgan Chase’s move is the right thing for the company to do in an era when pay has not risen for most people, Dimon said.
“Wages for many Americans have gone nowhere for too long,” he wrote.
Dimon’s pay package was $27 million for 2015, a 35 percent rise from 2014.
Hat tip to Housingwire:
Count the Wall Street Journal editorial board among the supporters of the Republican-crafted plan to repeal the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
The Republican plan, championed by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-TX, would see Dodd-Frank replaced by the Financial CHOICE Act, which will “end taxpayer-funded bailouts of large financial institutions; relieve banks that elect to be strongly capitalized from ‘growth-strangling regulation’ that slows the economy and harms consumers; and impose tougher penalties on those who commit fraud as well as greater accountability on Washington regulators.”
In an editorial published on Sunday, the Wall Street Journal editorial board calls Hensarling’s plan a “promising idea” that would “promote economic growth and protect taxpayers.”
From the Wall Street Journal:
Don’t believe the shrieks that this is about “rolling back” financial reform to let the banks run wild. The financial system was heavily regulated before the 2008 panic; regulators failed to do their job (see Citigroup) and missed signals from the housing market, among other mistakes. The Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 doubled down on the same approach: Give even more power to regulators with the promise they’ll be smarter the next time.
History tells us that is a fantasy. Regulators will focus on solving the previous problem, while they miss where the excesses are really building. As Charles Kindleberger taught, the essence of a credit mania is that everyone follows everyone else and thinks it will never end. Regulators are no better than bankers.
The WSJ editorial states that Hensarling has a “better idea,” which involves opt out of some regulations in exchange for holding larger capital reserve.
Again, from the WSJ:
The Texas Congressman wants a simpler system in which private investors with money at risk decide which assets are safe. Under the Hensarling plan, banks can opt out of today’s complicated rules if they have capital equal to 10% of their assets. Their tally of assets has to include off-balance-sheet exposures. No more hiding toxic paper in conduits or structured-investment vehicles as Mr. Geithner allowed Citi to do before the financial crisis. And no more pretending that a financial instrument has no risk because a regulator says so.
Click here (or below) to read the full editorial from the WSJ, and for more on Hensarling’s plan, click here.
I’m testifying before House Financial Services tomorrow regarding the “CHOICE Act,” the Republican Dodd-Frank alternative. My testimony is here. It’s lengthy, but it doesn’t even cover everything in the CHOICE Act–there are just too many bad provisions, starting with the idea of letting megabanks out of Dodd-Frank’s heightened prudential standards in exchange for more capital, then moving on to a total gutting of consumer financial protection, and ending with a very poorly conceived good bank/bad bank resolution system executed through a new bankruptcy subchapter. The only good thing about the Bad CHOICE Act is that it has little chance of becoming law any time soon.
Reblogged from Credit Slips – Read More HERE.
Excerpt: “The CHOICE Act also has numerous provisions that make it difficult for the SEC to pursue enforcement actions and achieve meaningful relief. These provisions reduce the…
View original post 132 more words