It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Absolutely not taking any particular "side" here, but the way that I read the substance of the above is that by dividing a portfolio into seven specific groups of dissimilar securities, one can achieve a good return over a long period of time."It consists simply of splitting your investment portfolio into 7 equal amounts, and investing one apiece in U.S. large-company stocks (the S&P 500 SPX, +2.28% ), U.S. small-company stocks (the Russell 2000 RUT, +2.26% ), developed international stocks (the Europe, Australasia and Far East or EAFE index), gold GC00, +0.04%, commodities, U.S. real-estate investment trusts or REITS, and 10 year Treasury bonds TMUBMUSD10Y, 3.562%."
Yes @Derf. I remember it well.I had an investment with Dodge a number of years ago, but left when they carried a heavy load of financial & got toasted in 07-08 .
https://russellinvestments.com/-/media/files/us/funds/income-dividend-distributions-004519958.pdfThe last distribution of the year in mid-December may vary from other monthly distributions more significantly. This distribution reflects actual income received by the fund for part of the month of December plus an estimate for the remainder of the month of December. Also included in these distributions are tax adjustments and adjustments required as a result of the audit of financial statements, reflecting the full year of operations of a fund. Therefore, these adjustments may significantly increase or decrease the mid-December distributions relative to other monthly distribution
Plz tell me what "Level 3 assets" are? Thanks...... Just checking up on JRSH. Not for the first time, I notice extreme bullshit activity in that stock with the effing "shorts." Overnight, the price is driven up, then it will crash during market-hours. Just like my ill-fated foray into Chilean utility company last year: ENIC. I don't need that shit. I'll look for an opportune moment, then get out. 52 week low today. I'll put that money to better use elsewhere. Prospects just discovered: CMTV, a small chain of banks in northern Vermont. HQ is right on the border with Quebec, in Derby. Also: NRIM. Bank out of Anchorage, offices spread all over the State. Wait for a pullback on that one.
I'm not a fan of bank stocks, but CMTV looks kind of nifty, actually. Their annual report, upon first glance, was rather readable. No Level-3 assets on the books, either!
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-108shrg93889/html/CHRG-108shrg93889.htmIn March [2004], Visa and MasterCard announced that they will not service Canadian mail order pharmacies because they have been under pressure from the FDA to cease their support of payment processing. They cited pressure from the FDA and have warned their member financial institutions to avoid so-called ``illegal'' transactions.
And lots of computer engineers tweeted and emailed to be like “no, actually, it is a hard problem of computer science to have a big database of who has what, and to update it instantly and reliably to reflect transactions from many different sources.” And I was like, sure, fine, I guess. I still feel like I was entitled to be right: A bank is, at its heart, a computer for keeping track of who has money, and for updating its ledger as people send and receive money. And at a high level you and I could describe how we’d expect that computer to work — “if I deposit $100 in an ATM, the bank will increase the number in my account by $100,” that sort of thing — and we will be disappointed if it doesn’t work that way, if the bank loses track of who has the money or how much they have, or if it doesn’t update its ledger promptly or process transactions in the right order. If the bank messes up and says “look I am sorry but keeping track of money is a hard job and you can’t expect us to do it with 100% accuracy,” we will say things like “yes we can” and “that is literally exactly what we expect of you” and “if keeping track of the money is too hard for you then maybe you should not be a bank” and “now you have to pay an enormous fine.” And yet, sure, empirically, banks do sometimes mess it up. It’s not as easy as it sounds.If you have U.S. dollars in a bank account at JPMorgan Chase & Co., and I have U.S. dollars in a bank account at JPMorgan Chase & Co., and I want to send you 100 of my dollars, what we do is I tell JPMorgan to subtract 100 from the number of dollars in my bank account and add 100 to the number of dollars in your bank account. This gets dressed up in a lot of procedures, because it would be bad if JPMorgan got the math wrong or if it moved money from one account to another without getting the proper authorizations, but as a matter of, like, computer science, it is dead easy. JPMorgan keeps a list of people and how many dollars they have, and you and I both trust JPMorgan to keep that list (that’s what it means that we bank there!), and so we just tell JPMorgan to update the list to reflect the transaction between us.
Here is the CFPB’s consent order from yesterday, which is basically just a litany of “Wells Fargo’s computers messed up.” For instance:The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is ordering Wells Fargo Bank to pay more than $2 billion in redress to consumers and a $1.7 billion civil penalty for legal violations across several of its largest product lines. The bank’s illegal conduct led to billions of dollars in financial harm to its customers and, for thousands of customers, the loss of their vehicles and homes. Consumers were illegally assessed fees and interest charges on auto and mortgage loans, had their cars wrongly repossessed, and had payments to auto and mortgage loans misapplied by the bank. Wells Fargo also charged consumers unlawful surprise overdraft fees and applied other incorrect charges to checking and savings accounts. Under the terms of the order, Wells Fargo will pay redress to the over 16 million affected consumer accounts, and pay a $1.7 billion fine, which will go to the CFPB's Civil Penalty Fund, where it will be used to provide relief to victims of consumer financial law violations.
If you owe Wells Fargo money on a car loan, and you don’t pay it, and you have a payment deferment, they won’t charge you a fee, but if you don’t have a payment deferment they will. But if you have a payment deferment, but they don’t write it down in the right place, they will also charge you the fee, and then they will get in trouble. In some sense this is profit-maximizing behavior by Wells Fargo: If they agree to defer payments, and then charge you the fees anyway, they will make more money in fees. But it doesn’t seem intentional, and the CFPB doesn’t think it was. (Why say you agree to the deferment, and then charge the fees?) It seems like a failure of systems, of “technology, audit and compliance”: Wells Fargo did not do a good job of keeping track of deferments, so it sometimes charged fees by mistake.Respondent also assessed borrowers erroneous fees and interest because of technology, audit, and compliance failures. As an example, from at least 2011 until at least March 2019, Respondent sometimes incorrectly entered the effective date of a payment deferment in, or omitted it from, its servicing system-of-record, which resulted in $26.5 million in erroneously assessed late fees to more than 688,000 borrower accounts.
(Continued)Or:
From at least 2011 through 2022, Respondent experienced other types of servicing errors, which had the potential to contribute to a borrower’s delinquency, and in some cases led to improper repossessions. For example, Respondent repossessed vehicles despite the borrower having made a payment or entering into an agreement to forestall the repossession.
(Text emphasis added)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Consumer banking giant Wells Fargo agreed to pay $3.7 billion to settle charges that it harmed customers by charging illegal fees and interest on auto loans and mortgages, as well as incorrectly applying overdraft fees against savings and checking accounts.
Wells was ordered to repay $2 billion to consumers by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which also enacted a $1.7 billion penalty against the San Francisco bank Tuesday. It’s the largest fine ever leveled against a bank by the CFPB and the largest yet against Wells, which has spent years trying to rehabilitate its image after a series of scandals tied to its sales practices.
Regulators made it clear, however, that they believe Wells Fargo has further to go on that front. “Put simply: Wells Fargo is a corporate recidivist that puts one out of three Americans at risk for potential harm,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, in a call with reporters.
The bank’s pattern of behavior has made it necessary for regulators to take additional actions against Wells Fargo that go beyond the $3.7 billion in fines and penalties, Chopra said.
The violations impacted more than 16 million customers, the bureau said. In addition to improperly charging auto loan customers with fees and interest, the bank wrongfully repossessed vehicles in some cases. The bank also improperly denied thousands of mortgage loan modifications for homeowners.
Wells Fargo has been sanctioned repeatedly by U.S. regulators for violations of consumer protection laws going back to 2016, when employees were found to have opened millions of accounts illegally in order to meet unrealistic sales goals. Since then, executives have repeatedly said Wells is cleaning up its act, only for the bank to be found in violation of other parts of consumer protection law, including in its auto and mortgage lending businesses.
Wells paid a $1 billion penalty in 2018 for widespread consumer law violations, the largest against a bank for such violations at the time. Wells remains under a Federal Reserve order forbidding the bank from growing any larger until the Fed deems that its problems are resolved. That order, originally enacted in 2018, was expected to last only a year or two.
CEO Charles Scharf said in a prepared statement Tuesday that the agreement with the CFPB is part of an effort to “transform operating practices at Wells Fargo and to put these issues behind us.”
While Wells Fargo tried to frame the agreement with the CFPB as a resolution of established bad behavior, CFPB officials said some of the violations cited in Tuesday’s order took place this year.
“This should not been seen as Wells Fargo has moved past its problems,” Chopra said.
And that was a crisis that was resolved before any default took place.The crisis sparked the most volatile week for financial markets since the 2008 crisis, with the stock market trending significantly downward. Prices of government bonds ("Treasuries") rose as investors, anxious over the dismal prospects of the US economic future and the ongoing European sovereign-debt crisis, fled into the still-perceived relative safety of US government bonds.
@sven
I think it is possible for a hacker to impersonate your phone SIM card and break the two factor authentication.
I use LastPass but not for financial sites.
Does anyone knw any more about LastPass hack? second time this year but company says no passwords were compromised.
Anybody think 1Password etc any better? Anyone other than @Observant1 have experience with KeePass?
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla
