Sunday, September 7, 2008

Silver State Bank taken over by FDIC

The Nevada Financial Institutions Division (FID) today announced that it has taken possession of Silver State Bank and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver.

"It's very important that Nevadans know that their insured deposits are secure," said FID Commissioner George E. Burns. "Bank customers should remember that their deposits are insured by the FDIC for up to $100,000 per depositor, per type of account ownership, and up to $250,000 for certain retirement accounts, such as IRAs (Individual Retirement Accounts)."

The Financial Institutions Division is the regulator for all Nevada state-chartered depository institutions including banks, credit unions, thrifts, and trust companies. "Silver State Bank's demise is of significant concern to our state's financial industry, and because of its condition, it was necessary to take possession of the bank and appoint the FDIC as receiver," said Commissioner Burns. "Our goal is to protect depositors, minimize disruption to business and to preserve employees' jobs as much as possible."

"I'm confident that the action taken today by the State's Financial Institutions Division is the best option for protecting Nevadans' deposits in Silver State Bank," said Governor Jim Gibbons. "It's always troubling when a financial institution fails, but the people of Nevada can be sure the State is working diligently to protect their interests."

Silver State Bank customers will continue to have access to banking services over the weekend, and normal business hours and access to banking services will continue on Monday, September 8, 2008, under the control of the FDIC. Customers may phone the Financial Institutions Division at (702) 486-4120 for additional information regarding Silver State Bank.

Customers of Silver State Bank may phone the FDIC at 1-877-275-3342 or 1-866-806-5919 for additional information regarding the receivership or the bank. To determine if your account is fully insured, visit .

"We will continue to work closely with the FDIC to manage this situation as smoothly as possible," said Commissioner Burns. "Despite the challenges the financial industry is currently facing, the banking system continues to be fundamentally safe and sound," commented Commissioner Burns. "As always, depositors should make informed financial decisions, but I remain confident in the regulatory systems in place to protect the public interest at federally insured institutions."

Saturday, September 6, 2008

U.S. Rescue Seen at Hand for 2 Mortgage Giants

Senior officials from the Bush administration and the Federal Reserve on Friday called in top executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants, and told them that the government was preparing to place the two companies under federal control, officials and company executives briefed on the discussions said.

The plan, which would place the companies into a conservatorship, was outlined in separate meetings with the chief executives at the office of the companies’ new regulator. The executives were told that, under the plan, they and their boards would be replaced and shareholders would be virtually wiped out, but that the companies would be able to continue functioning with the government generally standing behind their debt, people briefed on the discussions said.

It is not possible to calculate the cost of any government bailout, but the huge potential liabilities of the companies could cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and make any rescue among the largest in the nation’s history.

The drastic effort follows the bailout this year of Bear Stearns, the investment bank, as government officials continue to grapple with how to stem the credit crisis and housing crisis that have hobbled the economy. With Bear Stearns, the government provided guarantees, and the bulk of its assets were transferred to JPMorgan Chase, leaving shareholders with a nominal amount.

Under a conservatorship, the common and preferred shares of Fannie and Freddie would be reduced to little or nothing, and any losses on mortgages they own or guarantee could be paid by taxpayers. Shareholders have already lost billions of dollars as the stocks have plunged more than 80 percent this year.

A conservatorship would operate much like a pre-packaged bankruptcy, similar to what smaller companies use to clean up their books and then emerge with stronger balance sheets. It would allow for uninterrupted operation of the companies, crucial players in the diminished mortgage market, where they are now responsible for nearly 70 percent of new loans.

The executives were told that the government had been planning to announce the decision as early as Sunday, before the Asian markets reopen, the officials said.

For months, administration officials have grappled with the steady erosion of the books of the two mortgage finance giants. A fierce behind-the-scenes debate among policy makers has been waged over whether to seize the companies or let them work out their problems. Even after the companies are put under government control, debates will continue over whether they should be independent and how they should operate over the long term.

The declines in the housing and financial markets apparently forced the administration’s hand. With foreign governments increasingly skittish about holding billions of dollars in securities issued by the companies, no sign that their losses will abate any time soon, and the inability of the companies to raise new capital, the administration apparently decided it would be better to act now rather than closer to the presidential election in two months.

Just five weeks ago, President Bush signed a law to give the administration the authority to inject billions of dollars into the companies through investments or loans. In proposing the legislation, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said that he had no plan to provide loans or investments, and that merely giving the government the authority to backstop the companies would provide a strong shot of confidence to the markets. But the thin capital reserves that have kept the two companies afloat have continued to erode as the housing market has steadily declined and the number of foreclosures has soared.

As their problems have deepened — and the marketplace has come to expect some sort of government rescue — both companies have found it difficult to raise new capital to absorb future losses. In recent weeks, Mr. Paulson has been reaching out to foreign governments that hold billions of dollars of Fannie and Freddie securities to reassure them that the United States stands behind the companies.

In issuing their quarterly financial statements last month, the two companies reported huge losses and predicted that home prices would fall more than previously projected.

The debt securities the companies issue to finance their operations are widely owned by mutual funds, pension funds, foreign governments and big companies.

Officials said the participants at the meetings included Mr. Paulson, Ben S. Bernanke, the chairman of the Fed, and James Lockhart, the head of both the old and new agency that regulates the companies. The companies were represented by Daniel H. Mudd, the chief executive of Fannie Mae, and Richard F. Syron, chief executive of Freddie Mac. Also participating was H. Rodgin Cohen, the chairman of the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, who was representing Fannie.

Officials and executives briefed on the meetings said that Mr. Mudd and Mr. Syron were told that they would have to leave the companies.

Spokesmen at the two companies did not return telephone calls seeking comment.

Friday, September 5, 2008

EECB Scores Direct Hit On Best Buy After They Sell Used Phone As New



Obviously, stores sell items that has been returned by other customers as "open box" merchandise, but before reader David left the store, he specifically asked if the phone he was buying was "new" and was told it was. When he got home and found addresses saved on the phone and a few scratches he was understandably annoyed. He launched an EECB on Best Buy and after a little negotiation, he got a $120 gift card. Now he's writing to compliment Best Buy on the way they handled his complaint.

David writes:

Long story, short:

Bought 2 (brand new) Instinct phones from Best Buy. One of them turned out to be used. I know this because it had scratches on it, and already had personnel locations stored in the GPS. Found an email address using Consumerist. Hours after sending the email out they call me up and offer me a $50 gift card for my inconvenience. I say 'no', and will talk to them further via email when I get back to town, as I'm on vacation. Email a lot back and forth... and finally get a $120 gift card (the price of the new phone). I used the gift card to pay for the broken phone. Happy endings all thanks to you. I also have to admit, that besides the ass hats that actually work in the store, Best Buy really handled this well.

Hey, that's great to hear!

Here's the email David sent to Best Buy:

Dear Mr. Anderson,

My wife and I just purchased two "brand new" Samsung Instinct phones from the Best Buy in Pentagon City, VA. We were told that even though one was missing the plastic, and had some small defects, that it was brand new, never used. It became clear once it was activated that it was used. In fact, it had addresses stored in the GPS. I am a long time Best Buy customer, but I will be returning the phones and I will buy them directly because I was blatantly lied to.

Sincerely,

David

Best Buy responded with an offer of a $50 gift card, to which David responded:

Thank you for responding to my concern and offering me the $50 gift card. However, at this time I cannot accept this offer. I cannot accept because I do not believe these terms corrects the situation. Let me explain briefly what I have to do because Best Buy has lied to me and my wife: I have to use up my Saturday morning to go to the metro, pay $5 (round trip) and ride the metro approx 30-45 minutes to Pentagon City, walk to the Best Buy - approx 15-20 minutes, and return the used cell phone Best Buy sold me ( who know how long that will take). Then, hopefully the Best Buy is Pentagon city will have another Samsung Instinct (we bought the last one the previous time we were there, which probably explains why they sold us the used one) for us to purchase. And then, I have to get ahold of Sprint to port the number from the previous account to the new cell phone which took 2.5 hours(!) last time. Then return home via walking, and metro.

So that will be my Saturday morning August 23, 2008.

I understand that you had no fault in this matter and that you are only trying to help. I believe that a credit of $120 (the amount I paid for the phone) to my credit card account would right this wrong. It is not all about the money. It's about Best Buy lying directly to my face, causing unneeded stress, and wasting my time and money.

I thank you again for helping.

Best Buy responded:

Thank you for taking the time to follow up with me. I am so sorry that the situation transpired in the manner it did and am still working internally with the Pentagon City store management team to find out why a store associate provided you with incorrect information regarding the phone.

Given the circumstances, I would be happy to send you a $120 gift card to cover the cost of the phone. You can still opt to return the phone to the store within the thirty day return and exchange period to acquire a refund to your credit card, or if it's easier, you are welcome to mail the phone to my attention at the address referenced below and upon its receipt, I will credit your account. I will still send you the gift card given the inconvenience this issue continues to cause you.

Way to go David! We're so proud.