Amanda Wilson

Let's create banking regulations for the entire Global Banking Industry....much like air traffic control! There are very few global standards in the world, but air traffic control has to be global to prevent crashes. In the financial banking industry, we've had the equivalent of a mid-air collusion...so let's regulate the banking industry so there are no more global mishaps!

The banks, especially after receiving taxpayer monies, have a responsiblity to be part of the solution, as well. There has been very modest, if any, increase in lending (NOT to small businesses or individuals) and now the banks are defensive about putting any new regulations in place that would prevent a future financial crisis. Banks would rather pay millions of dollar to lobbyists to make certain there are NO new regulations.

A quick background of the banking industry helps us to understand just how much the industry has gained:

• The federal government started chartering and regulating banks during the Civil War. These national banks were subjedct to state and laws unless they received an exemption from the federal regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
• Beginning in the 1980s (Reagan Administration), as the government allowed national banks to expand across state lines, the banks began pressing the government (through lobbyists and other influential powers) for more exemptions--more often.
• The banks used the expansion of exemptions as a further need to efficiency, which was supposed to result in lower prices for customers.
• And...the rise of the federal pre-exemptions were gradual.
• In 1999 (Clinton Administration), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) ruled that national banks did not need to comply with a California law limiting the fees banks could charge for ATM withdrawals.
• In 2000, it lifted a Rhode Island law limiting changes in the interest rates on credit cards.
• Finally, in 2002 (Bush Administration), the OCC lifted a Texas law that barred banks from charging check-cashing fees.
• And, then--in 2004, the OCC issued a blanket exemption, asserting sole authority to police natinoal banks. That stance has since been upheld by federal courts. The National Association of Realtors, in testimony before the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, on January 28, 2004, sharply criticized the preemption rules as twisting legal precedent, maximizing the value of the federal bankcharter at the expense of the state bank charter, and diluting consumer protections, with worsening implications if bankers are permitted to be real estate brokers and managers.

Bring back the regulations--create a new era for the banking industry in a Global Way! Let's enact a new policy much like the air traffic controllers...and by the way, let's pay the bankers the same wages as air traffic controllers make with NO bonuses, while keeping air traffic and bank traffic safe!

Raising awareness that discrimination still exists and this is is unacceptable, Teresa Henderson filed a lawsuit Thursday in U.S. District Court in Fort Lauderdale claiming a local condo association property manager and association president committed housing discrimination based on race!

In another lawsuit filed in Federal Court in Fort lauderdale, a local housing complex was named in a complaint of discrimination based on familial status. An apartment manager apparently refused to rent an apartment to a family with children under the age of 10.

Will we see more of this to come? Is this another sign of the times or just a sign of more prejudice?

Cash for Clunker for appliances program has been tentatively scheduled for 10 days in April, 2010. Retailers would offer rebates for 20% off before taxes, up to a total of $1,500 per household, on most energy-efficient appliances from April 16-25. In addition, consumers would receive an additional $75 for sending their old appliances to the landfill rather than reselling them. Only federally designated Energy Star home appliances are eligible.

How will you get your rebate? No one is sure yet...Some stores may be able to give you a rebate on site, while others may require paperwork--details are still to be worked out.

What appliances are covered? Gas and tankless water heaters, heaters, refrigerators, AC units. Some appliances will be excluded...i.e., clothes dryers, as they don't carry an Energy Star rating. Trade-ins are not required in the program. For more details, contact www.myfloridaclimate.com.

GE's quarterly profit hints at stability-as it's third quarter numbers exceeded Wall Street's expectations showing signs that orders for business may be improving. Jeffrey R. Immelt, GE's chief executive describes the company's performance as "solid" in a "global economic environment that is beginning to slowly recover." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/business/17electric.html?hp

Goldman Sach's bonus pushes the company into a public relations bind-Goldman and its employees are enjoying one of the most fruitful period in the bank's 140 year history. Goldman executives are disturbed by the resentment directed at their bank and believe this criticism is unjustified. The company finds itself having to defend their blowout profits (3.19B in the third quarter); even though, they paid back billions of taxpayers dollars. The company's top producers are expecting multi-million-dollar payouts. Goldman has set aside nearly half of its revenue to reward employees, a common practice on Wall Street, especially after such a successful quarter. Afterall, Goldman has a duty to it's employees to retain staff. In addition, Goldman Sachs may up it's charity contribution from $200M to $1B to it's own educational foundation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/business/16bonus.html?ref=business

And from Washington, DC-Bill Shields Most Banks from Review--Bowing to political pressure from community bankers, the House Financial Services Committee approved an exemption on Thursday for more than 98% of the nation's banks from oversight by a new agency created to protect consumers. This legislation would prevent the new consumer financial protection agency from conducting annual examinations of the lending practices at more than 8,000 of the nation's 8,200 banks. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/business/16regulate.html?ref=business

Bank of America's Kenneth D. Lewis agreed on Thursday to forgo his salary and bonus as chief executive, as questions emerged about the takeover of Merrill Lynch, which may have led to his downfall. Remember, Mr. Lewis abruptly announced his resignation about two weeks ago. However, Mr. Lewis, who plans to retire on December 31, 2009, still stands to collect $53.2M pension. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/business/16lewis.html?ref=business

Meanwhile, Bank of America-the nation's largest bank-is hit by bad loans and lost $2.2B in the third quarter.

Not so good news for Citigroup-their profits the third quarter slipped to a loss of $3.2B citing spiraling consumer losses. Citigroup is one-third owned by taxpayers, with no voting power. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/business/16citi.html?ref=business

This is something to think about----- The nation's largest banks may have been preserved from failure by federal aid and are racking up vast profits even though the economy struggles to advance. The results have undercut conventional wisdom that the prosperity of banks depends on the prosperity of the customers. Generally, bank profits lag behind economic recoveries as banks wait for people and businesses to start borrowing again. But the federal government has reversed that relationship by investing more than $1 TRILLION in its efforts to prop up financial institutions.

And banks (especially Goldman Sachs, since there is no Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns left) are benefiting from a ‘survivor effect.' There are fewer companies left on Wall Street; hence, there is less competition. Now, they can return to their high-risk practices again. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101504007.html

After showing my client 80 townhouses over the past year, he and his family finally decided to buy the perfect townhouse. All parties agreed to the purchase price of $470,000 and the contract was executed with a clossing date of October 19, 2009! The buyer has 20% down and is a solid candidate for bank financing...no problem there!

Then, comes the appraiser....he came in with an appraisal of $330,000 and it was very difficult to understand why he used the comps he did. Naturally, once the bank saw this appraisal, they decided NOT to lend. Here comes bank No. 2--the appraiser comes in, within one week from the 1st appraiser, with an appraised value of $516,000. No. 2 bank says, "whew, this may be too high?" Remember, Bank No. 2 was NOT aware of appraisal No. 1.

So the second appraiser was given a chance to revise the appraisal, which he did. Now, we had an appraisal at $487,000. However, Bank No. 2 still was not sure of the true value. So, Bank No. 2 said, "let's do another appraisal."

We were set to close on October 19, which will now NOT happen--and Bank No. 2 still has not sent out an appraiser for the property as of today.

Can you believe the difference in the appraisals? What are the appraisers thinking? Now, we try to wait patiently for the appraisal issue to resolve. Meanwhile, my client is ready to move in his family and the seller is ready to move on, but we must await while trying to ascertain the true value....What next?