The New York prosecutor subpoenaed American bank Goldman Sachs to investigate the institution’s role into the credit crisis. The court summons is in relation to the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation’s report that accused Goldman Sachs of misleading buyers of mortgage-linked investments as one of the reasons behind the collapse of the financial markets.

View full post on Banking Stories

Last Vegas, NV, United States (AHN Sports) – Frank Mir won a unanimous decision over Roy Nelson in a battle of heavyweight contenders at UFC 130 Saturday night in Las Vegas.

Mir dominated on his feet and on the ground as Nelson tired quickly in the three round fight.

The two fighters exchanged punches in the early going as the fight looked to be an entertaining brawl. Nelson charged in early and scored the first takedown of the bout before Mir quickly reversed.

As Nelson tried to throw punches, Mir tied him up against the cage and battered Nelson’s body and head with knees.

“How many times did I knee him in the face?” Mir asked after the fight. “What’s with that guy’s chin?”

Much like Nelson’s previous fight–a loss against Junior Dos Santos–he took a great deal of punishment but impressed observers by continuing to come back for more.

As Mir’s knees sapped Nelson’s energy, Mir began to score takedowns against the former winner of The Ultimate Fighter, almost at will.

He finished round one with a trip takedown, then scored a half dozen more in the last two rounds of the fight.

“I expected to win the grappling aspect,” Mir said. “It went even better than I’d planned. I won every aspect of the fight.”

“Wrestling was my main focus in camp, and I think it worked out well for me tonight,” Mir added.

Nelson appeared to be fatigued by the end of the second round, and his punches had very little power on them. Mir also seemed to tire as the final round wore on, but the former UFC champion kept taking Nelson down, and Nelson, to his credit, kept battling back to his feet.

“His wrestling was something I wasn’t expecting, and I just got tired,” Nelson said.

Scores were 30-27, 30-27, and 30-26. AHN’s unofficial scorecard had it 30-27.

Mir won his second straight and improved to 15-5. Nelson lost his second straight, dropping to 15-6.

Mir was taken to the hospital afterward, reportedly because of a possible broken jaw.

On the undercard, Travis Browne scored the Knockout of the Night over Stefan Struve in a battle of skyscrapers.

The 6’7″ Browne is usually the tallest man in the cage, but he faced someone four inches taller Saturday night.

Browne got an early takedown, then fought off two Struve choke attempts as they grappled on the mat.

When the fighters returned to their feet, Browne finished the fight with a right-handed Superman punch that landed squarely on Struve’s chin. Struve was out before he hit the canvas, and the fight ended at 4:11 of the first round.

Browne’s ninth career knockout was also his sixth straight win by knockout. He moved to 11-0-1. Struve dropped to 21-5. Four of his five losses have been by knockout.

Browne’s performance probably cost Brian Stann the Knockout of the Night bonus, although Stann’s second round TKO of Jorge Santiago was named Fight of the Night.

Stann nearly finished the fight in the first round, as he dropped Santiago with a left hook, but the round ended before he could get the stoppage.

In the second, Stann landed an uppercut that appeared to hurt Santiago. He dropped Santiago with another power shot and finished the bout with ground and pound. The fight was stopped at 4:29 of the second.

Stann earned his second straight knockout and eighth of his career. He won his third straight and moved to 11-3. Santiago, a former Sengoku champion, lost his UFC debut, dropping to 23-9 on his career.

View full post on All Stories

Washington, DC, United States (AHN) – The U.S. State Department on Tuesday barred seven firms from trading with the U.S. because they supplied oil to Iran in violation of 1996 sanctions against the Islamic country.

Sanctioned were Venezuela’s state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, Ofer Brothers Group of Israel, Petrochemical Commercial Company International (PCCI) of the United Kingdom, Royal Oyster Group and Speedy Ship of the United Arab Emirates, Tanker Pacific of Singapore and Associated Shipbroking of Monaco.

Petroleos was found to have delivered $50 million worth of petroleum products to Iran between December 2010 and March this year.

Under the sanctions, the firms cannot bid for government contracts, obtain export licenses, and obtain export-import financing.

The department also sanctioned more than 15 people and companies in China, Iran, North Korea, Syria and elsewhere for illicitly trading in missile technology and weapons of mass destruction. They were banned from vying for U.S. government contracts and from buying and selling U.S. defense articles.

View full post on Economy, Business And Finance Stories

Arlington, TX, United States (AHN Sports) – Curtis Granderson hit two home runs and rookie pitcher Ivan Nova delivered a gem of an outing to lift the New York Yankees to a 4-1 victory over the Texas Rangers Friday night at Rangers Ballpark in Arlington.

Granderson went deep in both the first and seventh innings, each time into the upper deck, and added three RBI for the American League East-leading Yankees, who snapped a three-game losing streak. Granderson now has 10 home runs on the year, which leads the AL.

For the Rangers, who didn’t get back in town until 6 am after a 3-1 loss at Seattle Thursday night and fell out of first place in the AL West for the first time since April 21, it was their ninth loss in their last 12 contests.

It was the first meeting here since the Rangers defeated the Yankees in Game 6 of the ALCS back on Oct. 22, en route to their first World Series appearance.

Nova (3-2) was outstanding, taking a one-hitting into the sixth inning and keeping the Rangers off balance all night, tossing a career-high 7.1 innings, allowing one unearned run on just two hits while striking out one and walking one.

After Rafael Soriano relieved Nova, Julio Borbon drove home Mike Napoli with a single to right field to snap the shutout and pull to within 4-1.

Texas starter Matt Harrison (3-4) struggled early, surrendering three runs in the first two innings, but rebounded to retire 13 of the next 15 batters, finishing with just three earned runs allowed on four hits, while walking five and fanning three.

The Yankees continued their early-inning success, which has seen them outscore their opponents 55-21 through the first two innings this season, by bolting out to a 3-0 lead.

After Derek Jeter led off the contest with a bloop single to right, Granderson launched a blast into the upper deck in right-center field to give the Yankees a very early 2-0 lead.

Harrison got into more trouble in the second inning, walking the first two batters. Then, one out later, after stopping Jeter’s hard grounder at the mound, Harrison proceeded to toss the ball away into right field, allowing Russell Martin to score from second.

To his credit, though, after walking Granderson to load the bases with one out, Harrison retired former Rangers Mark Teixeira and Alex Rodriguez in succession to minimize the damage.

Harrison settled down after that, retiring 10 in a row before Rodriguez singled in the fifth, but still lost his fourth straight start.

Reliever Ryan Tucker took over in the seventh and surrendered Granderson’s second of the night, a one-out solo shot to right.

View full post on All Stories

Washington, D.C., United States (AHN) – Concern and criticism are rising from abroad as difficulties of the U.S. government in controlling its debt threaten international markets.

So far this week, the Russian prime minister accused U.S. economic planners of “hooliganism” and the chief economist for the International Monetary Fund criticized Congress for lacking a “credible” plan for escaping more than $14 trillion in debt.

On Tuesday, China urged the U.S. government to take “responsible” steps to control its debt. China owns more U.S. debt than any other country.

On Monday, the credit rating service Standard & Poors downgraded the U.S. government’s credit from stable to negative.

Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats are fighting over whether to raise the nation’s debt ceiling.

The debt ceiling refers to the highest amount of debt the U.S. government can assume under the law.

At the current rate, the U.S. government will reach its $14.3 trillion debt ceiling on May 16, according to the U.S. Treasury.

Republican leaders said again Thursday they will agree to raise the debt ceiling only if they get guarantees of drastic spending cuts for the federal budget.

Democrats are reluctant to make cuts to programs such as Medicare and Social Security, which they say are vital to many households.

The unresolved dispute prompted International Monetary Fund Chief Economist Olivier Blanchard to tell the French magazine Le Monde, “There are reasons to be worried.”

“The United States lacks a credible plan, for the medium term, to reduce its budget deficit,” Blanchard said in the magazine interview.

“The ideological gap is huge between Democrats and Republicans on how to deal with the problem,” Blanchard said.

An International Monetary Fund report last week said U.S. debt could reach 100 percent of its gross domestic product by 2015 without drastic budget cutbacks.

Even harsher criticism came from Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who said during his annual address to parliament that “everything is not so good for our friends in the States.”

The U.S. economy is teetering as a result of a huge trade imbalance between imports and exports and growing annual budget deficits, he said.

Russia does not “have the luxury for such hooliganism,” Putin said.

He also accused the United States of flooding international markets with cash that lacks value because of the high debt.

The Treasury Department is buying back $600 billion in government securities in an effort to pump up the value of the dollar.

Mexican economists say the U.S. government’s inability to control its debt will result in increased cash flow into Mexico, an appreciation in the value of the peso, volatility in its stock market and higher unemployment.

Mexico’s economic trends are closely tied to the U.S. economy.

Gabriel Perez del Peral, an American University economist, said an increased value for the peso would slow Mexico’s exports.

“The change in perspective for U.S. debt will generate a greater appreciation of currencies for emerging markets and will complicate unemployment,” Perez told the Mexican news media.

He urged the Bank of Mexico to adopt cautious policies to protect the value of the country’s currency.

“The peso’s appreciation will generate greater unemployment and the economy will overheat, which will increase commodity prices,” Perez said.

View full post on All Stories

London, United Kingdom (AHN) – Just a day after Iceland rejected a referendum on repayment plan, the British and Dutch governments have decided to take the Nordic country to the court to recover their $578,000,000, which was lost when Icelandic savings bank Icesave collapsed.

The British and Dutch governments had asked their depositors to bail out the money to Iceland, however, the collapse prompted them to demand their money back. Only 40.9% votes were in favor and 59.1% were against it.

Responding to the vote, the British government said that Iceland’s vote disappointed them, while the Dutch government said that this ended the time for negotiations.

Danny Alexander, UK’s Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that they would take Iceland to the international court.

Speaking on the Andrew Marr program, Alexander said, “It’s obviously disappointing… We tried to get a negotiated settlement. “We have an obligation to get that money back, and we will continue to pursue that until we do… We have a difficult financial position as a country and this money would help,” Alexander added.

Dutch Finance Minister Jan Kees de Jager said that his government would discuss what actions should be taken with Britain, adding that the European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority would finally resolve this matter.

“I am very disappointed that the Icesave agreement did not get through. This is not good for Iceland, nor for the Netherlands. The time for negotiations is over. Iceland remains obliged to repay. The issue is now for the courts to decide,” De Jager said in a statement.

Meanwhile, Iceland’s Finance Minister Steingrimur Sigfusson said that it would take at least 12 months to resolve this matter in the court. Talking to the BBS, Sigfusson said that the bankrupt bank is still able to pay out 90% of the British and Dutch claims. Iceland’s Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir said that the rejection of the plan had divided the country.

View full post on All Stories

Orlando, FL, United States (AHN Sports) – Martin Laird has had two previous 54-hole leads on the PGA Tour. Neither resulted in a victory.

Laird hopes to reverse that trend over the final 18 holes of the Arnold Palmer Invitational. Laird was locked in a head-to-head duel with playing partner Spencer Levin Saturday and took a two-shot lead when he made birdie at the par five 16th and Levin made bogey.

Laird’s 70 gave him a 54-hole total of 205, 11-under par at the Bay Hill Club. Levin’s 71 left him alone in second at nine-under and will once again go head-to-head with the long-hitting Laird on Sunday.

Levin is two shots clear of Bubba Watson and Steve Marino who finished at seven-under. He’s three ahead of Rickie Folwer and David Toms who finished at six-under.

Laird got off to a great start with birdies at four, five and six. He got to 12-under quickly and led by four. Levin stayed close and was impossible to shake for most of the day. The two were tied at 10-under after Laird bogeyed the 14th and 15th holes and Levin went par-bogey.

At the 16th, Levin ran into tree trouble with an errant drive that sailed right. His recovery hit a tree and fell into a fairway bunker. From 163 yards out, his ball hit on the bank of the green and back into the water hazard.

Laird hit a beautiful drive and was just right of the green from 190 yards with his second shot. He got up and down for birdie to get to 11-under while Levin made a bogey six and dropped back to nine-under.

Both parred in and face each other again in the final round.

“I’m going to have to hit it better and think better,” he said, looking forward to the final round where he will attempt to win his first PGA Tour event. “I have to drive the ball in the fairway. I’m two back. Who knows? We’ll see.”

Laird thought back to his previous third round leads and was quick to know what he has to do to win. “I have to go out and concentrate as hard as I can. This is the first year I’ve come out and played well early,” said Laird, who has one PGA Tour victory.

Watson got his day going with an eagle at the par five sixth hole and didn’t have much happen for him after that until he holed a 25-footer for birdie at the 18th that got him a 68, one of the day’s best rounds.

Marino was even par for his round when he holed out a greenside bunker shot at the par three 17th that enabled him to post a one-under par 71.

Fowler could have been closer to the leaders. He made three birdies early but hurt himself when he drove in the water at the par five sixth and ended up with a double-bogey seven. But he fought back and posted a 70.

Tiger Woods started the day in position to contend but once again found his game to be erratic when he needed it to be steady. Woods was one-over for the day and did nothing inspiring until he launched a 325-yard drive at the par five sixth then hit a five-iron from 208 yards just inside 12-feet and rolled the putt in for eagle.

It was the first eagle for Woods in the United States since the final day of the 2010 Masters when he eagled the 15th hole at Augusta National.

Woods didn’t keep any momentum. He bogeyed the eighth and turned in even par 36. On the back nine he hit two balls in the water. The first at the short par four 13th that resulted in a double-bogey and the other at the 16th that gave him a bogey and he’d finish with a two-over par 74 and is one-under through 54 holes, tied for 29th.

View full post on All Stories

United States (ProPublica) – by Marian Wang

A provision within the financial reform bill that would regulate debit card transaction fees could be postponed by a year or two following fierce objections from banks. Specifically, banks large and small are objecting to a Fed proposal to limit what are known as interchange fees — the fees they collect from merchants every time a customer uses a bank-issued debit card to make a purchase.

Lawmakers in both houses of Congress last week drafted legislation to postpone writing new debit interchange rules for one to two years. According to Dodd-Frank, the rules were supposed to be finalized by April 21 and to go into effect by July 21.

Consumer groups have decried the delay, saying it would postpone much-needed reform to a system that is “uncompetitive, non-transparent and harmful to consumers” . At the same time, these groups voiced concerns that if interchange reform passes, banks will levy other charges on consumers — something many banks have warned they may do.

Given the controversy, we’re taking a closer look at how interchange works and what’s at stake for banks, for businesses and for consumers.

How interchange works

Many consumers are only vaguely aware of the existence of the interchange fees — or “swipe fees” — but they’re still paying for them because the costs are ultimately passed on to consumers in the form of higher retail prices. The fees often cause retailers to offer discounts for cash or set minimums for credit and debit purchases.

Aside from the argument that paying with plastic is convenient for both consumers and merchants, the justification for interchange fees is partly that banks assume some risk in these transactions, particularly with credit purchases. But because debit transactions are simpler — a matter of moving money from one account to another — some have argued that debit interchange fees are unjustifiably high.

The Dodd-Frank financial reform bill takes aim at only these debit interchange fees. It tasked the Federal Reserve with adopting standards to determine whether interchange fees are “reasonable and proportional” to the cost of processing the transaction.

What the Fed came up with was a plan to cap debit interchange fees at 12 cents per transaction — a proposal that banks appear to uniformly hate. They currently get about 1 to 2 percent of each debit transaction, which averages out to about 44 cents.

The exact numbers are squishy here and are negotiated between merchants and payment networks like Visa and Mastercard, but generally fees for credit cards are higher than for debit cards — and they get even higher if the cards have fancy reward programs. (The card networks also collect their own “network fees”from merchants, which they keep, but as the New York Times has noted, those fees are smaller, and they’re not particularly controversial.)

Some have pointed out that this means merchants—and customers, in the form of higher prices—essentially subsidize the purchases and perks of card-users. According to an analysis released last year by the Boston Federal Reserve, such subsidies average more than $1000 for card-using households each year.

It’s also worth noting that debit card payments with PIN numbers are less costly for merchants than debit card payments with signatures. The larger fees are why some banks have tried to encourage customers to use signature debit instead of entering their PINs, even though PIN transactions are more secure and cost businesses less.

The debit transaction themselves, as the Washington Post has pointed out, only cost a few pennies each to conduct if you don’t count the infrastructure costs. (As it happens, the Fed isn’t counting infrastructure costs in calculating the fee cap. Costs like network connectivity or overhead costs, “cannot be attributed to any particular transaction, given that they could not be avoided if any particular transaction did not occur,” Federal Reserve Governor Sarah Bloom Raskin testified last month.)

As Reuters columnist Antony Currie points out in his handy FAQ, Visa Europe has capped its debit card interchange fees at 0.2 percent of each transaction, and U.S. interchange rates currently average about six times that.

Billions at stake for banks, which in turn warn of impact on consumers

In their lobbying pitches to regulators, banks and merchants have both argued their positions by citing the effect of the proposed rule on consumers.

“The concerns that we have raised revolve around how this is going to impact basic free checking accounts, particularly for low-income Americans,” a spokesman for the American Bankers Association recently told the St. Petersburg Times.

The banks’ professed concern for the low-income is interesting: As financial blogger Mike Konczal has pointed out, there really is no such thing as “free” checking. There’s just “a monthly fee that is waived if you do certain things” and meet certain requirements, like a direct deposit or minimum balance—which low-income people are the least likely to be able to meet, anyway.

The big banks—whose cards account for 80 percent of debit transactions—stand to lose billions in revenue each year. (The amount has been pegged at anywhere from $12 billion to $20 billion.) The New York Times points out that debit transactions are forecasted to overtake cash purchases by 2012.

Many banks say they will forced to cut rewards programs or eliminate services such as free checking. Some, like JPMorgan Chase, are even considering putting a cap on the size of debit purchases.

Despite an exemption, community banks say they’re concerned too

Big banks aren’t the only ones complaining. Even though the Fed’s proposal exempts banks with less than $10 billion in assets from the interchange cap and Visa has said it will implement a two-tier system to protect small banks, community banks have argued that the exemption won’t work because merchants will discriminate and refuse to accept their cards, forcing them to lower their fees in order to remain competitive with the big banks.

“This rule will unquestionably lead to more consumer fees, fewer product choices and greater consumer confusion regarding card acceptance,” the trade group Independent Community Bankers of America has stated.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has said “it is possible” that the exemption won’t work, but Sen. Richard Durbin—who proposed the community bank exemption in the Dodd-Frank law—has said Bernanke is wrong. He pointed to “very strong” rules by card companies that bar merchants from refusing cards within their networks.

Some advocates of interchange fee reform, including Durbin, suspect the bigger banks are manipulating the community banks and credit unions to raise their objections. Durbin called it “one of the most active lobbying efforts I’ve ever seen.”

“The fact is credit unions and smaller banks are just more effective spokesmen on this issue right now,” Politico quoted an anonymous executive at a large bank as saying.

Retailers argue current system gives banks and card networks too much power

The National Retail Federation, a trade group for retailers, has argued that the current payment system is not competitive, and that Visa and Mastercard—the two major networks in the debit world—have too much power to control and inflate fees.

And while banks have argued that competition between Visa and Mastercard is strong and enables merchants to apply pressure to drive down fees, a piece in the New York Times from January suggests the competition actually goes the other way: Payment networks compete to keep the banks happy with higher fees. From the Times:

As debit cards became the preferred plastic in American wallets, Visa has turned its attention to PIN debit too and increased its market share even more. And it has succeeded — not by lowering the fees that merchants pay, but often by pushing them up, making its bank customers happier.

In an effort to catch up, MasterCard and other rivals eventually raised fees on debit cards too, sometimes higher than Visa, to try to woo bank customers back.

Even the federal government—which some have argued should be able to negotiate rock-bottom interchange fees because the risk the banks front for the feds is next to nothing—has had trouble controlling the millions it pays in fees deducted from debit and credit transactions.

“Some federal entities have attempted to negotiate with the card networks to lower interchange rates applicable to their transactions, but with limited success,” read a 2010 Government Accountability Office report. An earlier GAO report found that non-government merchants also had little success.

Merchants promise they’ll pass savings onto consumers

Small business owners and major retailers have argued that the Fed plan to cap interchange fees is a pro-consumer move, according to Bloomberg, which reported that about 170 small business owners recently flew into D.C. to relay that message.

Several retailers supporting the cap have promised to share their savings. Here’s the Wall Street Journal:

Retailers maintain that most of their fee-cut windfall would be shared with customers. Home Depot, among those lobbying most aggressively for the cuts, said: “Any relief as it pertains to these fees will give the Home Depot the ability to reduce our cost of doing business…Such benefits are likely to include lower prices and investment in the business to better serve customers.”

There’s nothing in the proposed rule or in Dodd-Frank, however, to ensure that savings are passed on.

A 2009 government report found that even if interchange fees were to be capped, “the ability of merchants to pass on their savings from lower interchange fees would depend heavily on the respective merchants’ size and market share.”

The fight continues as lawmakers consider a time-out

In addition to heavy lobbying on Capitol Hill, banks have taken their pleas directly to consumers by setting a website called Don’t Make Us Pay. It warns consumers that “Congress and the Federal Reserve want to force YOU to pay more to use your debit card.”

“NO MORE REWARDS,” “MORE RESTRICTIONS,” “HIGHER FEES,” “END OF FREE CHECKING,” the website warns. “TELL CONGRESS NO!” (Hat tip to Slate for flagging the site.)

The group behind the website is the Electronic Payments Coalition, whose members include the major banks, bank trade groups, and both Visa and Mastercard. Politico reported that the coalition has also been running television ads and placing ads in D.C. subway cars.

The Hill reported that merchant groups have also taken out ads to promote interchange fees, though between banks and merchants, NPR notes that banks have the edge in the fight based on financial heft:

Commercial banks, credit unions, and Visa and MasterCard — who run the biggest debit card networks — spent a combined $75 million lobbying on all issues in Washington last year, nearly double the retail industry’s $40 million, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks such spending.

Financial firms’ campaign contributions during the 2009-2010 cycle also were twice those of merchants, according to NPR.

View full post on All Stories

Complaints about banks failing to refund money lost in fraudulent transactions have not reduced in number – in spite of a reported fall in credit and debit card fraud

View full post on All Stories

Dhaka, Bangladesh (AHN) – In a surprise move, the Bangladesh high court on Tuesday rejected the petition of Professor Muhammad Yunus and found that his dismissal by the central bank was legal.

Nine of the 12 directors of the micro-lending behemoth also appealed to the same court challenging the removal on the grounds that his reappointment in 1999 as the managing director had not been done with prior approval of the central bank.

Officials of Grameen, or “village,” Bank expressed disappointment over the high court dismissing Yunus from the position of managing director. Defense lawyers Tuesday evening told local TV networks said they would appeal the verdict Wednesday.

In a statement issued Tuesday afternoon, Jannat-E-Quanine, Grameen Bank general manager for information and mass media coordination, hoped that in the meantime, “nothing will jeopardize the stability of Grameen bank.”

Hundreds of employees, members and borrowers of Grameen Bank formed a human chain to protest the dismissal of Yunus, who jointly received the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2006 with Grameen Bank, which he founded.

In his ruling, the judge said Yunus was working long past the mandatory retirement age and that the founder of the bank had been improperly reappointed.

The judge told the court that Yunus had been continuing in his office with no legal basis since 1999, violating one of the statutes of the partially state-owned bank. Such a claim could have jeopardized his hope to receive the Nobel prize.

Yunus, 70, was unceremoniously relieved of his duties last Wednesday through a Bangladesh Bank letter sent to the Grameen Bank corporate office.

Grameen Bank provides credit to the poorest of the poor in rural Bangladesh and claims to reach 97 percent of villages and 8.35 million borrowers throughout the country that is one of the poorest in Asia.

Breaking a long silence, Yunus on Monday lambasted what he called political moves of the Bangladeshi government to grab Grameen Bank and turn it into a political “Vote Bank.”

Addressing a microcredit conference in Washington via video link, Yunus said “We hope we can survive and keep the character of the bank and keep the independence of the bank.”

“They want to put their own person at the chair of the bank, a political person,” Yunus said, adding, “The government today wants to take control of the board of the bank so that it becomes fully at their disposal.”

View full post on All Stories