ReportWire

Tag: Financial industry regulation

  • Trump or Harris? Here are the 2024 stakes for airlines, banks, EVs, health care and more

    Trump or Harris? Here are the 2024 stakes for airlines, banks, EVs, health care and more

    Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris face off in the ABC presidential debate on Sept. 10, 2024.

    Getty Images

    With the U.S. election less than a month away, the country and its corporations are staring down two drastically different options.

    For airlines, banks, electric vehicle makers, health-care companies, media firms, restaurants and tech giants, the outcome of the presidential contest could result in stark differences in the rules they’ll face, the mergers they’ll be allowed to pursue, and the taxes they’ll pay.

    During his last time in power, former President Donald Trump slashed the corporate tax rate, imposed tariffs on Chinese goods, and sought to cut regulation and red tape and discourage immigration, ideas he’s expected to push again if he wins a second term.

    In contrast, Vice President Kamala Harris has endorsed hiking the tax rate on corporations to 28% from the 21% rate enacted under Trump, a move that would require congressional approval. Most business executives expect Harris to broadly continue President Joe Biden‘s policies, including his war on so-called junk fees across industries.

    Personnel is policy, as the saying goes, so the ramifications of the presidential race won’t become clear until the winner begins appointments for as many as a dozen key bodies, including the Treasury, Justice Department, Federal Trade Commission, and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    CNBC examined the stakes of the 2024 presidential election for some of corporate America’s biggest sectors. Here’s what a Harris or Trump administration could mean for business:

    Airlines

    The result of the presidential election could affect everything from what airlines owe consumers for flight disruptions to how much it costs to build an aircraft in the United States.

    The Biden Department of Transportation, led by Secretary Pete Buttigieg, has taken a hard line on filling what it considers to be holes in air traveler protections. It has established or proposed new rules on issues including refunds for cancellations, family seating and service fee disclosures, a measure airlines have challenged in court.

    “Who’s in that DOT seat matters,” said Jonathan Kletzel, who heads the travel, transportation and logistics practice at PwC.

    The current Democratic administration has also fought industry consolidation, winning two antitrust lawsuits that blocked a partnership between American Airlines and JetBlue Airways in the Northeast and JetBlue’s now-scuttled plan to buy budget carrier Spirit Airlines.

    The previous Trump administration didn’t pursue those types of consumer protections. Industry members say that under Trump, they would expect a more favorable environment for mergers, though four airlines already control more than three-quarters of the U.S. market.

    On the aerospace side, Boeing and the hundreds of suppliers that support it are seeking stability more than anything else.

    Trump has said on the campaign trail that he supports additional tariffs of 10% or 20% and higher duties on goods from China. That could drive up the cost of producing aircraft and other components for aerospace companies, just as a labor and skills shortage after the pandemic drives up expenses.

    Tariffs could also challenge the industry, if they spark retaliatory taxes or trade barriers to China and other countries, which are major buyers of aircraft from Boeing, a top U.S. exporter.

    Leslie Josephs

    Banks

    Big banks such as JPMorgan Chase faced an onslaught of new rules this year as Biden appointees pursued the most significant slate of regulations since the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

    Those efforts threaten tens of billions of dollars in industry revenue by slashing fees that banks impose on credit cards and overdrafts and radically revising the capital and risk framework they operate in. The fate of all of those measures is at risk if Trump is elected.

    Trump is expected to nominate appointees for key financial regulators, including the CFPB, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that could result in a weakening or killing off completely of the myriad rules in play.

    “The Biden administration’s regulatory agenda across sectors has been very ambitious, especially in finance, and large swaths of it stand to be rolled back by Trump appointees if he wins,” said Tobin Marcus, head of U.S. policy at Wolfe Research.

    Bank CEOs and consultants say it would be a relief if aspects of the Biden era — an aggressive CFPB, regulators who discouraged most mergers and elongated times for deal approvals — were dialed back.

    “It certainly helps if the president is Republican, and the odds tilt more favorably for the industry if it’s a Republican sweep” in Congress, said the CEO of a bank with nearly $100 billion in assets who declined to be identified speaking about regulators.

    Still, some observers point out that Trump 2.0 might not be as friendly to the industry as his first time in office.

    Trump’s vice presidential pick, Sen. JD Vance, of Ohio, has often criticized Wall Street banks, and Trump last month began pushing an idea to cap credit card interest rates at 10%, a move that if enacted would have seismic implications for the industry.

    Bankers also say that Harris won’t necessarily cater to traditional Democratic Party ideas that have made life tougher for banks. Unless Democrats seize both chambers of Congress as well as the presidency, it may be difficult to get agency heads approved if they’re considered partisan picks, experts note.

    “I would not write off the vice president as someone who’s automatically going to go more progressive,” said Lindsey Johnson, head of the Consumer Bankers Association, a trade group for big U.S. retail banks.

    Hugh Son

    EVs

    Electric vehicles have become a polarizing issue between Democrats and Republicans, especially in swing states such as Michigan that rely on the auto industry. There could be major changes in regulations and incentives for EVs if Trump regains power, a fact that’s placed the industry in a temporary limbo.

    “Depending on the election in the U.S., we may have mandates; we may not,” Volkswagen Group of America CEO Pablo Di Si said Sept. 24 during an Automotive News conference. “Am I going to make any decisions on future investments right now? Obviously not. We’re waiting to see.”

    Republicans, led by Trump, have largely condemned EVs, claiming they are being forced upon consumers and that they will ruin the U.S. automotive industry. Trump has vowed to roll back or eliminate many vehicle emissions standards under the Environmental Protection Agency and incentives to promote production and adoption of the vehicles.

    If elected, he’s also expected to renew a battle with California and other states who set their own vehicle emissions standards.

    “In a Republican win … We see higher variance and more potential for change,” UBS analyst Joseph Spak said in a Sept. 18 investor note.

    In contrast, Democrats, including Harris, have historically supported EVs and incentives such as those under the Biden administration’s signature Inflation Reduction Act.

    Harris hasn’t been as vocal a supporter of EVs lately amid slower-than-expected consumer adoption of the vehicles and consumer pushback. She has said she does not support an EV mandate such as the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act of 2019, which she cosponsored during her time as a senator, that would have required automakers to sell only electrified vehicles by 2040. Still, auto industry executives and officials expect a Harris presidency would be largely a continuation, though not a copy, of the past four years of Biden’s EV policy.

    They expect some potential leniency on federal fuel economy regulations but minimal changes to the billions of dollars in incentives under the IRA.

    Mike Wayland

    Health care

    Both Harris and Trump have called for sweeping changes to the costly, complicated and entrenched U.S. health-care system of doctors, insurers, drug manufacturers and middlemen, which costs the nation more than $4 trillion a year.

    Despite spending more on health care than any other wealthy country, the U.S. has the lowest life expectancy at birth, the highest rate of people with multiple chronic diseases and the highest maternal and infant death rates, according to the Commonwealth Fund, an independent research group.

    Meanwhile, roughly half of American adults say it is difficult to afford health-care costs, which can drive some into debt or lead them to put off necessary care, according to a May poll conducted by health policy research organization KFF. 

    Both Harris and Trump have taken aim at the pharmaceutical industry and proposed efforts to lower prescription drug prices in the U.S., which are nearly three times higher than those seen in other countries. 

    But many of Trump’s efforts to lower costs have been temporary or not immediately effective, health policy experts said. Meanwhile, Harris, if elected, can build on existing efforts of the Biden administration to deliver savings to more patients, they said.

    Harris specifically plans to expand certain provisions of the IRA, part of which aims to lower health-care costs for seniors enrolled in Medicare. Harris cast the tie-breaking Senate vote to pass the law in 2022. 

    Her campaign says she plans to extend two provisions to all Americans, not just seniors: a $2,000 annual cap on out-of-pocket drug spending and a $35 limit on monthly insulin costs. 

    Harris also intends to accelerate and expand a provision allowing Medicare to directly negotiate drug prices with manufacturers for the first time. Drugmakers fiercely oppose those price talks, with some challenging the effort’s constitutionality in court. 

    Trump hasn’t publicly indicated what he intends to do about IRA provisions.

    Some of Trump’s prior efforts to lower drug prices “didn’t really come into fruition” during his presidency, according to Dr. Mariana Socal, a professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

    For example, he planned to use executive action to have Medicare pay no more than the lowest price that select other developed countries pay for drugs, a proposal that was blocked by court action and later rescinded

    Trump also led multiple efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, including its expansion of Medicaid to low-income adults. In a campaign video in April, Trump said he was not running on terminating the ACA and would rather make it “much, much better and far less money,” though he has provided no specific plans. 

    He reiterated his belief that the ACA was “lousy health care” during his Sept. 10 debate with Harris. But when asked he did not offer a replacement proposal, saying only that he has “concepts of a plan.”

    Annika Kim Constantino

    Media

    Top of mind for media executives is mergers and the path, or lack thereof, to push them through.

    The media industry’s state of turmoil — shrinking audiences for traditional pay TV, the slowdown in advertising, and the rise of streaming and challenges in making it profitable — means its companies are often mentioned in discussions of acquisitions and consolidation.

    While a merger between Paramount Global and Skydance Media is set to move forward, with plans to close in the first half of 2025, many in media have said the Biden administration has broadly chilled deal-making.

    “We just need an opportunity for deregulation, so companies can consolidate and do what we need to do even better,” Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav said in July at Allen & Co.’s annual Sun Valley conference.

    Media mogul John Malone recently told MoffettNathanson analysts that some deals are a nonstarter with this current Justice Department, including mergers between companies in the telecommunications and cable broadband space.

    Still, it’s unclear how the regulatory environment could or would change depending on which party is in office. Disney was allowed to acquire Fox Corp.’s assets when Trump was in office, but his administration sued to block AT&T’s merger with Time Warner. Meanwhile, under Biden’s presidency, a federal judge blocked the sale of Simon & Schuster to Penguin Random House, but Amazon’s acquisition of MGM was approved. 

    “My sense is, regardless of the election outcome, we are likely to remain in a similar tighter regulatory environment when looking at media industry dealmaking,” said Marc DeBevoise, CEO and board director of Brightcove, a streaming technology company.

    When major media, and even tech, assets change hands, it could also mean increased scrutiny on those in control and whether it creates bias on the platforms.

    “Overall, the government and FCC have always been most concerned with having a diversity of voices,” said Jonathan Miller, chief executive of Integrated Media, which specializes in digital media investment.
    “But then [Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter] happened, and it’s clearly showing you can skew a platform to not just what the business needs, but to maybe your personal approach and whims,” he said.

    Since Musk acquired the social media platform in 2022, changing its name to X, he has implemented sweeping changes including cutting staff and giving “amnesty” to previously suspended accounts, including Trump’s, which had been suspended following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection. Musk has also faced widespread criticism from civil rights groups for the amplification of bigotry on the platform.

    Musk has publicly endorsed Trump, and was recently on the campaign trail with the former president. “As you can see, I’m not just MAGA, I’m Dark MAGA,” Musk said at a recent event. The billionaire has raised funds for Republican causes, and Trump has suggested Musk could eventually play a role in his administration if the Republican candidate were to be reelected.

    During his first term, Trump took a particularly hard stance against journalists, and pursued investigations into leaks from his administration to news organizations. Under Biden, the White House has been notably more amenable to journalists. 

    Also top of mind for media executives — and government officials — is TikTok.

    Lawmakers have argued that TikTok’s Chinese ownership could be a national security risk.

    Earlier this year, Biden signed legislation that gives Chinese parent ByteDance until January to find a new owner for the platform or face a U.S. ban. TikTok has said the bill, the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which passed with bipartisan support, violates the First Amendment. The platform has sued the government to stop a potential ban.

    While Trump was in office, he attempted to ban TikTok through an executive order, but the effort failed. However, he has more recently switched to supporting the platform, arguing that without it there’s less competition against Meta’s Facebook and other social media.

    Lillian Rizzo and Alex Sherman

    Restaurants

    Both Trump and Harris have endorsed plans to end taxes on restaurant workers’ tips, although how they would do so is likely to differ.

    The food service and restaurant industry is the nation’s second-largest private-sector employer, with 15.5 million jobs, according to the National Restaurant Association. Roughly 2.2 million of those employees are tipped servers and bartenders, who could end up with more money in their pockets if their tips are no longer taxed.

    Trump’s campaign hasn’t given much detail on how his administration would eliminate taxes on tips, but tax experts have warned that it could turn into a loophole for high earners. Claims from the Trump campaign that the Republican candidate is pro-labor have clashed with his record of appointing leaders to the National Labor Relations Board who have rolled back worker protections.

    Meanwhile, Harris has said she’d only exempt workers who make $75,000 or less from paying income tax on their tips, but the money would still be subject to taxes toward Social Security and Medicare, the Washington Post previously reported.

    In keeping with the campaign’s more labor-friendly approach, Harris is also pledging to eliminate the tip credit: In 37 states, employers only have to pay tipped workers the minimum wage as long as that hourly wage and tips add up to the area’s pay floor. Since 1991, the federal pay floor for tipped wages has been stuck at $2.13.

    “In the short term, if [restaurants] have to pay higher wages to their waiters, they’re going to have to raise menu prices, which is going to lower demand,” said Michael Lynn, a tipping expert and Cornell University professor.

    Amelia Lucas

    Tech

    Whichever candidate comes out ahead in November will have to grapple with the rapidly evolving artificial intelligence sector.

    Generative AI is the biggest story in tech since the launch of OpenAI’s ChatGPT in late 2022. It presents a conundrum for regulators, because it allows consumers to easily create text and images from simple queries, creating privacy and safety concerns.

    Harris has said she and Biden “reject the false choice that suggests we can either protect the public or advance innovation.” Last year, the White House issued an executive order that led to the formation of the Commerce Department’s U.S. AI Safety Institute, which is evaluating AI models from OpenAI and Anthropic.

    Trump has committed to repealing the executive order.

    A second Trump administration might also attempt to challenge a Securities and Exchange Commission rule that requires companies to disclose cybersecurity incidents. The White House said in January that more transparency “will incentivize corporate executives to invest in cybersecurity and cyber risk management.”

    Trump’s running mate, Vance, co-sponsored a bill designed to end the rule. Andrew Garbarino, the House Republican who introduced an identical bill, has said the SEC rule increases cybersecurity risk and overlaps with existing law on incident reporting.

    Also at stake in the election is the fate of dealmaking for tech investors and executives.

    With Lina Khan helming the FTC, the top tech companies have been largely thwarted from making big acquisitions, though the Justice Department and European regulators have also created hurdles.

    Tech transaction volume peaked at $1.5 trillion in 2021, then plummeted to $544 billion last year and $465 billion in 2024 as of September, according to Dealogic.

    Many in the tech industry are critical of Khan and want her to be replaced should Harris win in November. Meanwhile, Vance, who worked in venture capital before entering politics, said as recently as February — before he was chosen as Trump’s running mate — that Khan was “doing a pretty good job.”

    Khan, whom Biden nominated in 2021, has challenged Amazon and Meta on antitrust grounds and has said the FTC will investigate AI investments at Alphabet, Amazon and Microsoft.

    Jordan Novet

    Source link

  • Fed sparking irrational market optimism over potential rate cuts, former FDIC Chair Sheila Bair warns

    Fed sparking irrational market optimism over potential rate cuts, former FDIC Chair Sheila Bair warns

    Market optimism over the potential for interest rate cuts next year is dangerously overdone, according to former FDIC Chair Sheila Bair.

    Bair, who ran the FDIC during the 2008 financial crisis, suggests Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell was irresponsibly dovish at last week’s policy meeting by creating “irrational exuberance” among investors.

    “The focus still needs to be on inflation,” Bair told CNBC’s “Fast Money” on Thursday. “There’s a long way to go on this fight. I do worry they’re [the Fed] blinking a bit and now trying to pivot and worry about recession, when I don’t see any of that risk in the data so far.”

    After holding rates steady Wednesday for the third time in a row, the Fed set an expectation for at least three rate cuts next year totaling 75 basis points. And the markets ran with it.

    The Dow hit all-time highs in the final three days of last week. The blue-chip index is on its longest weekly win streak since 2019 while the S&P 500 is on its longest weekly win streak since 2017. It’s now 115% above its Covid-19 pandemic low.

    Bair believes the market’s bullish reaction to the Fed is on borrowed time.

    “This is a mistake. I think they need to keep their eye on the inflation ball and tame the market, not reinforce it with this … dovish dot plot,” Bair said. “My concern is the prospect of the significant lowering of rates in 2024.”

    Bair still sees prices for services and rental housing as serious sticky spots. Plus, she worries that deficit spending, trade restrictions and an aging population will also create meaningful inflation pressures.

    “[Rates] should stay put. We’ve got good trend lines. We need to be patient and watch and see how this plays out,” Bair said.

    Disclaimer

    Source link

  • Florida lawmakers set to meet on ailing insurance market

    Florida lawmakers set to meet on ailing insurance market

    TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The Florida Legislature will meet next week for a special session on property insurance and property tax relief in the wake of damage caused by Hurricane Ian, officials announced Tuesday.

    The leaders of the Florida House and Senate issued the proclamation convening the Legislature from Dec. 12 to 16.

    Lawmakers will be tasked with reforming elements of the state’s troubled property insurance market, providing tax or other financial relief related to damage from Hurricanes Ian and Nicole, and creating a toll credit program for frequent Florida commuters.

    The session comes as Florida’s property insurance market has dealt with billions of dollars in losses, rising prices for consumers and insurer insolvencies, even before the powerful Hurricane Ian slammed into the state in September and caused widespread damage.

    Next week’s special session will be the second time the Florida Legislature met this year to address issues in the property insurance market.

    Lawmakers in May passed legislation creating a $2 billion reinsurance program, offering grants to homeowners who retrofit properties to be less vulnerable to hurricane damage and limiting various attorney fees in some insurance-related lawsuits.

    The legislative package was seen by many in the statehouse as a meaningful first step in repairing the market, though some said it did not do enough to immediately lower rates for homeowners.

    The insurance industry blames overzealous litigation for problems in the market. Florida law allows attorneys to collect high fees in property insurance cases. State insurance regulators say the state accounts for almost 80% percent of the nation’s homeowners’ insurance lawsuits but just 9% of all homeowners insurance claims.

    Attorneys’ groups have argued insurers are also to blame for refusing to pay out claims, saying homeowners file suit as a last resort.

    The turmoil has caused the industry to see two straight years of net underwriting losses exceeding $1 billion each year. A string of property insurers have become insolvent, while others are leaving the state entirely.

    Homeowners unable to get coverage or priced out of plans have flocked to the state’s public insurer of last resort, Citizens Property Insurance, which this summer topped 1 million policies for the first time in almost a decade.

    Citizens Property Insurance was created by the state in 2002 for Floridians unable to find coverage from private insurers.

    Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis in October signed an executive order extending the deadline for property taxes for homes and businesses destroyed or left uninhabitable after Ian and said lawmakers would meet this year to address additional issues related to the storm.

    The governor’s office in a statement Tuesday said DeSantis “expects the legislature to rein in the costs of excessive litigation and ensure the property insurance market in Florida is both attractive to insurers and more competitive for consumers.”

    Source link

  • ‘Zombie Debt’: Homeowners face foreclosure on old mortgages

    ‘Zombie Debt’: Homeowners face foreclosure on old mortgages

    Rose Prophete thought the second mortgage loan on her Brooklyn home was resolved about a decade ago — until she received paperwork claiming she owed more than $130,000.

    “I was shocked,” said Prophete, who refinanced her two-family home in 2006, six years after arriving from Haiti. “I don’t even know these people because they never contacted me. They never called me.”

    Prophete is part of a wave of homeowners who say they were blindsided by the start of foreclosure actions on their homes over second loans that were taken out more than a decade ago. The trusts and mortgage loan servicers behind the actions say the loans were defaulted on years ago.

    Some of these homeowners say they weren’t even aware they had a second mortgage because of confusing loan structures. Others believed their second loans were rolled in with their first mortgage payments or forgiven. Typically, they say they had not received statements on their second loans for years as they paid down their first mortgages.

    Now they’re being told the loans weren’t dead after all. Instead, they’re what critics call “zombie debt” — old loans with new collection actions.

    While no federal government agency tracks the number of foreclosure actions on second mortgages, attorneys aiding homeowners say they have surged in recent years. The attorneys say many of the loans are owned by purchasers of troubled mortgages and are being pursued now because home values have increased and there’s more equity in them.

    “They’ve been holding them, having no communication with the borrowers,” said Andrea Bopp Stark, an attorney with the Boston-based National Consumer Law Center. “And then all of a sudden they’re coming out of the woodwork and are threatening to foreclose because now there is value in the property. They can foreclose on the property and actually get something after the first mortgages are paid off.”

    Attorneys for owners of the loans and the companies that service them argue that they are pursuing legitimately owed debt, no matter what the borrower believed. And they say they are acting legally to claim it.

    How did this happen?

    Court actions now can be traced to the tail end of the housing boom earlier this century. Some involve home equity lines of credit. Others stem from “80/20” loans, in which homebuyers could take out a first loan covering about 80% of the purchase price, and a second loan covering the remaining 20%.

    Splitting loans allowed borrowers to avoid large down payments. But the second loans could carry interest rates of 9% or more and balloon payments. Consumer advocates say the loans — many originating with since-discredited lenders — included predatory terms and were marketed in communities of color and lower-income neighborhoods.

    The surge in people falling behind on mortgage payments after the Great Recession began included homeowners with second loans. They were among the people who took advantage of federal loan modification programs, refinanced or declared bankruptcy to help keep their homes.

    In some cases, the first loans were modified but the second ones weren’t.

    Some second mortgages at that time were “charged off,” meaning the creditor had stopped seeking payment. That doesn’t mean the loan was forgiven. But that was the impression of many homeowners, some of whom apparently misunderstood the 80/20 loan structure.

    Other borrowers say they had difficulty getting answers about their second loans.

    In the Miami area, Pastor Carlos Mendez and his wife, Lisset Garcia, signed a modification on their first mortgage in 2012, after financial hardships resulted in missed payments and a bankruptcy filing. The couple had bought the home in Hialeah in 2006, two years after arriving from Cuba, and raised their two daughters there.

    Mendez said they were unable to get answers about the status of their second mortgage from the bank and were eventually told that the debt was canceled, or would be canceled.

    Then in 2020, they received foreclosure paperwork from a different debt owner.

    Their attorney, Ricardo M. Corona, said they are being told they owe $70,000 in past due payments plus $47,000 in principal. But he said records show the loan was charged off in 2013 and that the loan holders are not entitled to interest payments stemming from the years when the couple did not receive periodic statements. The case is pending.

    “Despite everything, we are fighting and trusting justice, keeping our faith in God, so we can solve this and keep the house,” Mendez said in Spanish.

    Second loans were packaged and sold, some multiple times. The parties behind the court actions that have been launched to collect the money now are often investors who buy so-called distressed mortgage loans at deep discounts, advocates say. Many of the debt buyers are limited liability companies that are not regulated in the way that big banks are.

    The plaintiff in the action on the Mendez and Garcia home is listed as Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, “not in its individual capacity but solely as a Trustee for BCMB1 Trust.”

    A spokeswoman for Wilmington said it acts as a trustee on behalf of many trusts and has “no authority with respect to the management of the real estate in the portfolio.” Efforts to find someone associated with BCMB1 Trust to respond to questions were not successful.

    Some people facing foreclosure have filed their own lawsuits citing federal requirements related to periodic statements or other consumer protection laws. In Georgia, a woman facing foreclosure claimed in federal court that she never received periodic notices about her second mortgage or notices when it was transferred to new owners, as required by federal law. The case was settled in June under confidential terms, according to court filings.

    In New York, Prophete is one of 13 plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit claiming that mortgage debt is being sought beyond New York’s six-year statute of limitations, resulting in violations of federal and state law.

    “I think what makes it so pernicious is these are homeowners who worked very hard to become current on their loans,” said Rachel Geballe, a deputy director at Brooklyn Legal Services, which is litigating the case with The Legal Aid Society. “They thought they were taking care of their debt.”

    The defendants in that case are the loan servicer SN Servicing and the law firm Richland and Falkowski, which represented mortgage trusts involved in the court actions, including BCMB1 Trust, according to the complaint. In court filings, the defendants dispute the plaintiff’s interpretation of the statute of limitations, say they acted properly and are seeking to dismiss the lawsuit.

    “The allegations in the various mortgage foreclosure actions are truthful and not misleading or deceptive,” Attorney Daniel Richland wrote in a letter to the judge. “Plaintiff’s allegations, by contrast, are implausible and thus warrant dismissal.”

    ———

    Associated Press writer Claudia Torrens and researcher Jennifer Farrar in New York contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • ‘Zombie Debt’: Homeowners face foreclosure on old mortgages

    ‘Zombie Debt’: Homeowners face foreclosure on old mortgages

    Rose Prophete thought the second mortgage loan on her Brooklyn home was resolved about a decade ago — until she received paperwork claiming she owed more than $130,000.

    “I was shocked,” said Prophete, who refinanced her two-family home in 2006, six years after arriving from Haiti. “I don’t even know these people because they never contacted me. They never called me.”

    Prophete is part of a wave of homeowners who say they were blindsided by the start of foreclosure actions on their homes over second loans that were taken out more than a decade ago. The trusts and mortgage loan servicers behind the actions say the loans were defaulted on years ago.

    Some of these homeowners say they weren’t even aware they had a second mortgage because of confusing loan structures. Others believed their second loans were rolled in with their first mortgage payments or forgiven. Typically, they say they had not received statements on their second loans for years as they paid down their first mortgages.

    Now they’re being told the loans weren’t dead after all. Instead, they’re what critics call “zombie debt” — old loans with new collection actions.

    While no federal government agency tracks the number of foreclosure actions on second mortgages, attorneys aiding homeowners say they have surged in recent years. The attorneys say many of the loans are owned by purchasers of troubled mortgages and are being pursued now because home values have increased and there’s more equity in them.

    “They’ve been holding them, having no communication with the borrowers,” said Andrea Bopp Stark, an attorney with the Boston-based National Consumer Law Center. “And then all of a sudden they’re coming out of the woodwork and are threatening to foreclose because now there is value in the property. They can foreclose on the property and actually get something after the first mortgages are paid off.”

    Attorneys for owners of the loans and the companies that service them argue that they are pursuing legitimately owed debt, no matter what the borrower believed. And they say they are acting legally to claim it.

    How did this happen?

    Court actions now can be traced to the tail end of the housing boom earlier this century. Some involve home equity lines of credit. Others stem from “80/20” loans, in which homebuyers could take out a first loan covering about 80% of the purchase price, and a second loan covering the remaining 20%.

    Splitting loans allowed borrowers to avoid large down payments. But the second loans could carry interest rates of 9% or more and balloon payments. Consumer advocates say the loans — many originating with since-discredited lenders — included predatory terms and were marketed in communities of color and lower-income neighborhoods.

    The surge in people falling behind on mortgage payments after the Great Recession began included homeowners with second loans. They were among the people who took advantage of federal loan modification programs, refinanced or declared bankruptcy to help keep their homes.

    In some cases, the first loans were modified but the second ones weren’t.

    Some second mortgages at that time were “charged off,” meaning the creditor had stopped seeking payment. That doesn’t mean the loan was forgiven. But that was the impression of many homeowners, some of whom apparently misunderstood the 80/20 loan structure.

    Other borrowers say they had difficulty getting answers about their second loans.

    In the Miami area, Pastor Carlos Mendez and his wife, Lisset Garcia, signed a modification on their first mortgage in 2012, after financial hardships resulted in missed payments and a bankruptcy filing. The couple had bought the home in Hialeah in 2006, two years after arriving from Cuba, and raised their two daughters there.

    Mendez said they were unable to get answers about the status of their second mortgage from the bank and were eventually told that the debt was canceled, or would be canceled.

    Then in 2020, they received foreclosure paperwork from a different debt owner.

    Their attorney, Ricardo M. Corona, said they are being told they owe $70,000 in past due payments plus $47,000 in principal. But he said records show the loan was charged off in 2013 and that the loan holders are not entitled to interest payments stemming from the years when the couple did not receive periodic statements. The case is pending.

    “Despite everything, we are fighting and trusting justice, keeping our faith in God, so we can solve this and keep the house,” Mendez said in Spanish.

    Second loans were packaged and sold, some multiple times. The parties behind the court actions that have been launched to collect the money now are often investors who buy so-called distressed mortgage loans at deep discounts, advocates say. Many of the debt buyers are limited liability companies that are not regulated in the way that big banks are.

    The plaintiff in the action on the Mendez and Garcia home is listed as Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, “not in its individual capacity but solely as a Trustee for BCMB1 Trust.”

    A spokeswoman for Wilmington said it acts as a trustee on behalf of many trusts and has “no authority with respect to the management of the real estate in the portfolio.” Efforts to find someone associated with BCMB1 Trust to respond to questions were not successful.

    Some people facing foreclosure have filed their own lawsuits citing federal requirements related to periodic statements or other consumer protection laws. In Georgia, a woman facing foreclosure claimed in federal court that she never received periodic notices about her second mortgage or notices when it was transferred to new owners, as required by federal law. The case was settled in June under confidential terms, according to court filings.

    In New York, Prophete is one of 13 plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit claiming that mortgage debt is being sought beyond New York’s six-year statute of limitations, resulting in violations of federal and state law.

    “I think what makes it so pernicious is these are homeowners who worked very hard to become current on their loans,” said Rachel Geballe, a deputy director at Brooklyn Legal Services, which is litigating the case with The Legal Aid Society. “They thought they were taking care of their debt.”

    The defendants in that case are the loan servicer SN Servicing and the law firm Richland and Falkowski, which represented mortgage trusts involved in the court actions, including BCMB1 Trust, according to the complaint. In court filings, the defendants dispute the plaintiff’s interpretation of the statute of limitations, say they acted properly and are seeking to dismiss the lawsuit.

    “The allegations in the various mortgage foreclosure actions are truthful and not misleading or deceptive,” Attorney Daniel Richland wrote in a letter to the judge. “Plaintiff’s allegations, by contrast, are implausible and thus warrant dismissal.”

    ———

    Associated Press writer Claudia Torrens and researcher Jennifer Farrar in New York contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Fed’s top financial regulator urges ‘guardrails’ for crypto

    Fed’s top financial regulator urges ‘guardrails’ for crypto

    WASHINGTON — The top U.S. banking regulator at the Federal Reserve is urging Congress to pass legislation that would impose regulation on crypto currencies in the wake of the swift collapse last week of FTX, a leading crypto exchange.

    Michael Barr, the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, said in prepared testimony released Monday that “recent events in crypto … have highlighted the risks to investors and consumers associated with new and novel asset classes and activities when not accompanied by strong guardrails.”

    Barr, who took office in July, is scheduled to testify before Congress Tuesday for the first time as vice chair. He did not refer specifically to FTX in his written remarks.

    Yet his appearance comes after FTX, the third-largest crypto currency exchange, formerly led by Sam Bankman-Fried, filed for bankruptcy Friday. The fall of FTX has rippled throughout the crypto world, with lender BlockFi pausing customer withdrawals.

    Barr said “some financial innovations offer opportunities, but as we have recently seen, many innovations also carry risks.” Those include runs on deposits, collapsing asset values, misuse of customer funds, fraud, theft, manipulation, and money laundering, he said.

    “These risks, if not well controlled, can harm retail investors and cut against the goals of a safe and fair financial system,” Barr said.

    The collapse of FTX occurred outside the banking system, Barr noted, a focus of his oversight.

    “But recent events remind us of the potential for systemic risk if interlinkages develop between the crypto system that exists today and the traditional financial system,” he said.

    Regarding the banking system overall, most large banks have healthy levels of cash reserves, Barr said, beyond even what is required by regulation.

    But with the economy slowing as the Fed rapidly lifts interest rates, banks may come under more stress, he said.

    The “economic outlook has weakened,” increasing uncertainty, Barr said. “A weaker economy could put stress on households and businesses and, thus, on the banking system as a whole.”

    Source link

  • As Israel’s far right parties celebrate, Palestinians shrug

    As Israel’s far right parties celebrate, Palestinians shrug

    RAMALLAH, West Bank — The apparent comeback of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the dramatic rise of his far-right and ultra-Orthodox allies in Israel’s general election this week have prompted little more than shrugs from many Palestinians.

    “It’s all the same to me,” Said Issawiy, a vendor hawking nectarines in the main al-Manara Square of Ramallah, said of Netanyahu replacing centrist Yair Lapid and poised to head the most right-wing government in Israel’s history.

    Over the past month, Issawiy had struggled to get to work in Ramallah from his home in the city of Nablus after the Israeli army blocked several roads in response to a wave of violence in the northern West Bank. “I’m just trying to eat and work and bring something back to my kids,” he said.

    Some view the likely victory for Netanyahu and his openly anti-Palestinian allies, including ultranationalist lawmaker Itamar Ben-Gvir who wants to end Palestinian autonomy in parts of the occupied West Bank, as a new blow to the Palestinian national project.

    The sharp rightward shift of Israel’s political establishment pushes long-dormant peace negotiations even further out of reach and deepens the challenges facing 87-year-old President Mahmoud Abbas, whose autocratic Palestinian Authority already seemed to many Palestinians as little more than an arm of the Israeli security forces.

    “If you want to use the metaphor of a ‘nail in the coffin of the Palestinian Authority,’ that was done earlier,” said Ghassan Khatib, a former Palestinian peace negotiator and Cabinet minister. “This election is another step in that same direction.”

    During his 12 years in power, before being voted out in 2021, Netanyahu showed scant interest in engaging with the Palestinians. Under his leadership, Israel vastly expanded its population of West Bank settlers — now some 500,000 — and retroactively legalized settler outposts built on private Palestinian land. The measures have entrenched Israel’s occupation, now in its 56th year since Israel captured the territory during the 1967 Mideast war.

    Palestinians see successive Israeli governments as seeking to solidify a bleak status quo in the West Bank: Palestinian enclaves divided by growing Israeli settlements and surrounded by Israeli forces.

    “We had no illusion that this next government would be a partner for peace,” said Ahmad Majdalani, a minister in the Palestinian Authority. “It’s the opposite, we see a campaign of incitement that began more than 15 years ago as Israel drifted toward extremism.”

    The Gaza Strip’s militant Hamas rulers said the election outcome would “not change the nature of the conflict.”

    But for the first time, surging support for Israel’s far right has made the Jewish supremacist party of Ben-Gvir the third-largest in the Israeli parliament.

    Ben-Gvir and his allies hope to grant immunity to Israeli soldiers who shoot at Palestinians, deport rival lawmakers and impose the death penalty on Palestinians convicted of attacks on Jews. Ben-Gvir is the disciple of a racist rabbi, Meir Kahane, who was banned from parliament and whose Kach party was branded a terrorist group by the United States before he was assassinated in New York in 1990.

    On the campaign trail, Ben-Gvir grabbed headlines for his anti-Palestinian speeches and stunts — recently brandishing a shotgun and encouraging police to open fire on Palestinian stone-throwers in a tense Jerusalem neighborhood.

    Some Palestinians have found reason for optimism. After Tuesday’s elections, they say, Israel will no longer present to the world the telegenic face of Lapid. A win for extremism in Israel, some say, could bolster the moral case for efforts to isolate Israel, vindicating activism outside the moribund peace process.

    “It will lead to some international pressure,” said Mahmoud Nawajaa, an activist with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, or BDS, which calls for an economic boycott of Israel as happened to apartheid-era South Africa in the 1980s.

    “Netanyahu is more honest and clear about his intentions to expand settlements. The others didn’t say it, even if it was happening,” Nawajaa added.

    Lapid and his predecessor, Naftali Bennett, a former settler leader who rebranded himself as a national unifier, had presided over a wobbly coalition of right-wing, centrist and dovish left-wing parties, including the first Arab party to ever join a government.

    Foreign leaders who shunned the divisive Netanyahu embraced what appeared to be a less ideological government. Bennett became the first Israeli leader to visit the United Arab Emirates after the countries normalized ties — an honor repeatedly denied to Netanyahu. President Joe Biden, who had a rocky relationship with Netanyahu, basked in Lapid’s warm welcome during his visit to Israel last summer.

    But even as Lapid voiced support for the two-state solution during his address to the U.N. General Assembly in September, Palestinians saw no sign he could turn words into action. They watched Israel approve thousands of new settler homes on lands they want for a future state.

    Israeli military raids in the West Bank have also surged after a series of Palestinian attacks in the spring killed 19 people in Israel. More than 130 Palestinians have been killed, making 2022 the deadliest since the U.N. started tracking fatalities in 2005. The Israeli army says most of the Palestinians killed have been militants. But stone-throwing youths protesting the incursions and others not involved in confrontations have also been killed.

    “In terms of violence, the Lapid government has outdone itself,” said Nour Odeh, a Palestinian political analyst and former PA spokeswoman. “As far as new settlements and de facto annexation, Lapid is Netanyahu.”

    Many young Palestinians have given up on the two-state solution and grown disillusioned with the aging Palestinian leadership, which they see as a vehicle for corruption and collaboration with Israel. Hamas and Fatah, the Palestinian party that controls the West Bank, have remained bitterly divided for 15 years.

    A mere 37% of Palestinians support the two-state solution, according to the most recent report from Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki. In Israel the figures are roughly the same — 32% of Jewish Israelis support the idea, according to the Israel Democracy Institute.

    “There is no horizon for a political track with the Israelis,” Odeh said. “We need to look inward … to re-legitimize our institutions through elections, and stand together on a united political platform.”

    But on the crowded, chaotic streets of Ramallah on Wednesday, there was only misery and anger over the daily humiliations of the occupation.

    “I hate this place,” said Lynn Anwar Hafi, a 19-year-old majoring in literature at a local university. “It’s like the occupation lives inside me. I can’t think what I want to. I can’t go where I want to. I won’t be free until I leave.”

    Source link

  • Why did Elon Musk just spend billions to take over Twitter?

    Why did Elon Musk just spend billions to take over Twitter?

    Elon Musk has taken over Twitter and fired its CEO and other top executives. Trading in company shares was suspended Friday on the New York Stock Exchange and the stock will be officially delisted early next month, according to a filing with securities regulators. So now what?

    WHY DID MUSK BUY TWITTER?

    One reason why Musk bought Twitter this week is because he had little choice. The world’s richest man spent months trying to back out of the $44 billion purchase agreement he originally signed in April. But the uncertainty was so disruptive to Twitter’s business that it sued him in the Delaware Court of Chancery to force the deal’s completion, and a judge gave a Friday deadline to complete the deal or face a November trial that Musk was likely to lose.

    As for why Musk wanted to own Twitter in the first place, the reasons are more complicated. “There has been much speculation about why I bought Twitter and what I think about advertising,” he said in an open letter Thursday to companies that sell ads on Twitter, which is how the company makes money. “Most of it has been wrong.”

    HOW DID MUSK BUY TWITTER?

    It’s not yet clear how Musk secured all of the financing to close his $44 billion agreement to buy the company and take it private. But many of the commitments to the Tesla CEO were pledged back in the spring.

    A group of banks, including Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, signed on earlier this year to loan $12.5 billion that Musk needed to buy Twitter and take it private. Solid contracts with Musk bound the banks to the financing, although changes in the economy and debt markets since April have likely made the terms less attractive.

    Investors who would get ownership stakes in Twitter were also expected to chip in billions. Musk’s original slate of equity partners included an array of parties ranging from the billionaire’s tech world friends with like-minded ideas about Twitter’s future, such as Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, to funds controlled by Middle Eastern royalty.

    Billionaire Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal said Friday that he and his Kingdom Holding Company rolled over a combined $1.89 billion in existing Twitter shares, making them the company’s largest shareholder after Musk. Another equity investor, the cryptocurrency exchange Binance, confirmed Friday that it put in $500 million.

    The more equity investors kicked in for the deal, the less Musk would have had to pay on his own. Most of Musk’s wealth is tied up in shares of his electric car company. Since April, he has sold more than $15 billion worth of Tesla stock, presumably to pay his share.

    Source link

  • Why did Elon Musk just spend billions to take over Twitter?

    Why did Elon Musk just spend billions to take over Twitter?

    Elon Musk has taken over Twitter and fired its CEO and other top executives. Trading in company shares was suspended Friday on the New York Stock Exchange and the stock will be officially delisted early next month, according to a filing with securities regulators. So now what?

    WHY DID MUSK BUY TWITTER?

    One reason why Musk bought Twitter this week is because he had little choice. The world’s richest man spent months trying to back out of the $44 billion purchase agreement he originally signed in April. But the uncertainty was so disruptive to Twitter’s business that it sued him in the Delaware Court of Chancery to force the deal’s completion, and a judge gave a Friday deadline to complete the deal or face a November trial that Musk was likely to lose.

    As for why Musk wanted to own Twitter in the first place, the reasons are more complicated. “There has been much speculation about why I bought Twitter and what I think about advertising,” he said in an open letter Thursday to companies that sell ads on Twitter, which is how the company makes money. “Most of it has been wrong.”

    HOW DID MUSK BUY TWITTER?

    It’s not yet clear how Musk secured all of the financing to close his $44 billion agreement to buy the company and take it private. But many of the commitments to the Tesla CEO were pledged back in the spring.

    A group of banks, including Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, signed on earlier this year to loan $12.5 billion that Musk needed to buy Twitter and take it private. Solid contracts with Musk bound the banks to the financing, although changes in the economy and debt markets since April have likely made the terms less attractive.

    Investors who would get ownership stakes in Twitter were also expected to chip in billions. Musk’s original slate of equity partners included an array of parties ranging from the billionaire’s tech world friends with like-minded ideas about Twitter’s future, such as Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, to funds controlled by Middle Eastern royalty.

    Billionaire Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal said Friday that he and his Kingdom Holding Company rolled over a combined $1.89 billion in existing Twitter shares, making them the company’s largest shareholder after Musk. Another equity investor, the cryptocurrency exchange Binance, confirmed Friday that it put in $500 million.

    The more equity investors kicked in for the deal, the less Musk would have had to pay on his own. Most of Musk’s wealth is tied up in shares of his electric car company. Since April, he has sold more than $15 billion worth of Tesla stock, presumably to pay his share.

    Source link

  • Executives could forfeit some compensation under new rule

    Executives could forfeit some compensation under new rule

    Securities regulators wants to make sure publicly traded companies recover any executive compensation that’s awarded based on financial statements that are found to contain errors.

    The Securities and Exchange Commission said Wednesday that it has adopted a rule that calls on national securities exchanges to require the companies whose stock they list to comply with the new compensation clawback policy.

    Companies will have to disclose any instance when they recovered erroneously awarded incentive-based compensation, whether from a current or former executive. The rule applies to compensation paid out up to three years before the date when a company is required to disclose an accounting statement.

    The rule complies with a requirement in Wall Street reform law known as the Dodd-Frank Act, which was enacted in 2010 following the financial crisis.

    The policy will officially kick in 60 days following publication in the Federal Register.

    SEC Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, who was appointed to the commission in 2018 during the Trump administration, voted against the rule, arguing that, in some cases, it “could impose costs on shareholders greater than the benefits they derive from the clawbacks.”

    Source link

  • Australian health insurer says data of all customers hacked

    Australian health insurer says data of all customers hacked

    CANBERRA, Australia — Australia’s largest health insurer said on Wednesday a cybercriminal had hacked the personal data of all its 4 million customers, as the government introduced legislation that would increase penalties for companies that fail to protect clients’ private information.

    Medibank said “significant amounts of health claims data” had also been accessed in the breach, which was reported to police a week ago when trade in the company’s shares was halted.

    The thief has demanded ransom and has reportedly threatened to expose the diagnoses and treatments of high-profile customers.

    Medibank said its priority was to discover the specific data stolen in relation to each customer and to share that information with those customers.

    The company had previously said the breach was thought to be limited to its subsidiary AHM and foreign students.

    “Our investigation has now established that this criminal has accessed all our private health insurance customers’ personal data and significant amounts of their health claims data,” Medibank chief executive David Koczkar said in a statement to the Australian Securities Exchange.

    “This is a terrible crime – this is a crime designed to cause maximum harm to the most vulnerable members of our community,” Koczkar added, with an apology to customers.

    The government has been planning urgent legislative reforms on cybersecurity regulation since a hacker stole the personal data of almost 10 million current and former customers of Optus, Australia’s second-largest wireless telecommunications carrier.

    Optus became aware on Sept. 21 that personal data of more than one-third of Australia’s population of 26 million had been stolen.

    In introducing amendments to the Privacy Act to Parliament on Wednesday, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus mentioned both companies and MyDeal, an online retail intermediary that lost the data of 2.2 million customers in a hack revealed two weeks ago.

    “As the Optus, Medibank and MyDeal cyberattacks have recently highlighted, data breaches have the potential to cause serious financial and emotional harm to Australians, and this is unacceptable,” Dreyfus told Parliament.

    “Governments, businesses and other organizations have an obligation to protect Australians’ personal data, not to treat it as a commercial asset,” Dreyfus added.

    The government is critical of companies that amass more customer data than necessary to make money from it in ways unrelated to the services for which the information was provided.

    The penalties for serious breaches of the Privacy Act would increase from 2.2 million Australian dollars ($1.4 million) now to AU$50 million ($32 million) under the proposed amendments.

    A company could also be fined the value of 30% of its revenues over a defined period if that amount exceeded AU$50 million ($32 million).

    Medibank said on Wednesday it did not have cyber insurance and estimated the hack would reduce its earnings by between AU$25 million ($16 million) and AU$35 million ($22 million) by early next year.

    The Medicare trading halt was lifted on Wednesday and shares slid more than 14% in early trading.

    Source link

  • Hawaii won’t cooperate with states prosecuting for abortions

    Hawaii won’t cooperate with states prosecuting for abortions

    HONOLULU — Hawaii Gov. David Ige signed an executive order Tuesday that aims to prevent other states from punishing their residents who get an abortion in the islands and stop other states from sanctioning local doctors and nurses who provide such care.

    “We will not cooperate with any other state that tries to prosecute women who receive abortions in Hawaii. And we will not cooperate with any other state that tries to sanction medical professionals who provide abortions in Hawaii,” Ige, a Democrat, said at a news conference.

    Ige is the latest Democratic governor to take such a step in response to conservative states that have adopted bans and tight restrictions on abortion. The push for more abortion restrictions accelerated after the U.S. Supreme Court in June overturned Roe v. Wade which had guaranteed a federal right to abortion for nearly 50 years.

    Ige’s order takes effect immediately.

    Hawaii law allows abortion until a fetus would be viable outside the womb. After that, it’s legal if a patient’s life or health is in danger. The state legalized abortion in 1970, when it became the first in the nation to allow the procedure at a woman’s request.

    Hawaii officials don’t expect many people will travel to the islands solely to get abortions, given how far it is from the continental U.S. and how expensive it is to fly here.

    Even so, Dr. Reni Soon said since the Supreme Court’s ruling, she has already provided abortions to residents of Texas, Georgia and Louisiana.

    She noted Hawaii gets a large number of tourists. The order could also protect college students and military personnel and their dependents who maintain residency in other states while they are in Hawaii temporarily.

    State Rep. Linda Ichiyama expressed concern about moves by other states to sanction or discipline doctors and nurses who are licensed in multiple states. Hawaii medical professionals targeted in this way could lose their ability to practice in the islands.

    Soon said this could have a chilling effect and deter medical professionals from providing abortion care to anyone in Hawaii.

    “This is actually about protecting our access here for both in-state and out-of-state patients,” Soon said.

    Ige’s order directs the state Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs work with professional licensure boards to ensure no one loses a license for providing reproductive health care so long as the services provided were lawful and consistent with standards for good professional practice in Hawaii.

    The order prohibits executive agencies and departments from sharing medical records, billing and other data to other states in relation to reproductive health services legally provided in Hawaii. Ige said Hawaii also wouldn’t provide information about family members or friends who help people get abortions.

    Democratic governors of Colorado and North Carolina in July issued executive orders to protect abortion providers and patients from extradition to states that have banned the practice.

    California’s governor last month signed more than a dozen new abortion laws, including a measure that empowers the state insurance commissioner to punish health insurance companies that divulge information about abortions to out-of-state entities.

    Source link

  • Hurricane Ian floods leave mess, insurance questions behind

    Hurricane Ian floods leave mess, insurance questions behind

    NORTH PORT, Fla. — Christine Barrett was inside her family’s North Port home during Hurricane Ian when one of her children started yelling that water was coming up from the shower.

    Then it started coming in from outside the house. Eventually the family was forced to climb on top of their kitchen cabinets — they put water wings on their 1-year-old — and were rescued the next day by boat.

    After the floodwaters had finally gone down Barrett and her family were cleaning out the damp and muddy house. On the front lawn lay chairs, a dresser, couch cushions, flooring planks and a pile of damp drywall. Similar scenes played out across the block as residents tried to clear out the soggy mess before mold set in.

    North Port is about 5 miles (8 kilometers) inland and the Barretts – like many of its residents – live in areas where flood insurance isn’t required and therefore, don’t have it. Now many wonder how they’ll afford much-needed repairs.

    “Nobody in this neighborhood has flood insurance because we are a nonflooding area,” she said. “But we got 14 inches of water in our house.”

    Many people associate hurricanes with wind damage — downed power lines, shingles or roofing materials ripped off, trees blown over into homes or windows smashed by flying objects, and Hurricane Ian’s 150-mph (241-kph) winds certainly caused widespread damage.

    But hurricanes can also pack a massive storm surge as Ian did in places like Naples or Fort Myers Beach.

    Heavy rains from hurricanes can also cause widespread flooding far from the beach. Ian dumped rain for hours as it lumbered across the state, sending waterways spilling over their banks and into homes and businesses far inland from where Ian made landfall. People were using kayaks to evacuate their flooded homes, and floodwaters in some areas have still not gone down a week after landfall.

    “This is such a big storm, brought so much water, that you’re having basically what’s been a 500-year flood event,” said Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

    But flooding is not covered by a homeowner’s insurance policy.

    It must be purchased separately — usually from the federal government. Although most people have the option of purchasing flood insurance, it is required only on government-backed mortgages that sit in areas that the Federal Emergency Management Agency deems highest risk. Many banks require it in high-risk zones, too. But some homeowners who pay off their mortgage drop their flood insurance once it’s not required. Or if they purchase a house or mobile home with cash they may not opt for it at all. And flooding can and does happen outside those high risk areas where flood insurance is required.

    There have long been concerns that not enough people have flood insurance especially at a time when climate change is making strong hurricanes even stronger and making storms in general wetter, slower and more prone to intensifying rapidly. According to the Insurance Information Institute, only about 4% of homeowners nationwide have flood insurance although 90% of catastrophes in the U.S. involve flooding. In Florida that number is only about 18%.

    “We have experienced catastrophic flood events across the U.S. this year, including in Kentucky and Missouri, where virtually no one had flood insurance,” said the Institute’s Mark Friedlander.

    Hurricane Ian caused extensive flooding in areas outside of the high-risk zones. According to the consulting firm Milliman, roughly 18.5% of homes in counties that were under an evacuation order had federally issued flood insurance. In areas under an evacuation order that were outside of high-risk zones, 9.4% of homes had a policy.

    Last year, FEMA updated its pricing system for flood insurance to more accurately reflect risk called Risk Rating 2.0. The old system considered a home’s elevation and whether it was in a high-risk flood zone. Risk Rating 2.0 looks at the risk that an individual property will flood, considering factors like its distance to water. The new pricing system raises rates for about three-quarters of policyholders and offers price decreases for the first time.

    FEMA has long said the new ratings would attract new policyholders. However, a FEMA report to the treasury secretary and a handful of congressional leaders last year said far fewer people would buy flood insurance as prices rise. Since the new rating system has gone into effect in Florida, the number of polices in the state has dropped by roughly 50,000 since August 2021.

    After a federally declared disaster, homeowners with flood insurance are likely to receive more money, more quickly, to recover and rebuild than the uninsured.

    After major flooding in Louisiana in 2016, for example, the average payment to a flood insurance policyholder was $86,500, according to FEMA. Uninsured homeowners could get individual assistance payments for needs like temporary housing and property damage, but they averaged roughly $9,150.

    Congress sometimes provides additional aid after major disasters although that can take months to years to arrive.

    “Unless you have flood insurance, the federal government is not going to give you enough assistance to rebuild your home,” said Rob Moore, water and climate team director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

    In the North Port neighborhood that was cleaning up from Ian, Ron Audette wasn’t sure whether he would get flood insurance going forward because of the cost. The retired U.S. Navy sailor was cleaning up his one-story home on a corner lot after floodwaters buckled the laminate flooring, swelled wood furniture and left the leather reclining sofa where he watched Patriots games a muddy, watery mess.

    “I don’t think we could live here if we had to buy flood insurance,” he said.

    But down the street, his neighbor Barrett was definitely planning to get it.

    “Get flood insurance even if it’s not required,” she advised. “Because we definitely will now.”

    ———

    Phillis reported from St. Louis, Missouri.

    ———

    The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment

    Source link

  • Ian threatens Florida’s already unstable insurance market

    Ian threatens Florida’s already unstable insurance market

    TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Florida’s property insurance market was already in peril. Now comes Hurricane Ian.

    The massive storm that barreled into southwest Florida delivering catastrophic winds, rain and flooding is likely to further damage the insurance market in the state, which has strained under billion-dollar losses, insolvencies and skyrocketing premiums.

    The scale of the storm’s destruction will become more clear in the coming days but there is concern it could exacerbate existing problems and burden a state insurance program that has already seen a sharp increase in policies as homeowners struggle to find coverage in the private market.

    “Florida’s property insurance market was the most volatile in the U.S. before Hurricane Ian formed and will most likely become even more unstable in the wake of the storm,” said Mark Friedlander, communications director at the Insurance Information Institute.

    The private insurance industry has lost more than $1 billion in each of the last two years and hundreds of thousands of Floridians have had their policies dropped or not renewed. Average annual premiums have risen to more than $4,200 in Florida, triple the national average.

    More than a dozen companies have stopped writing new policies in the state, and several have closed shop this year. One company was declared insolvent and placed into receivership this week, as Ian was churning toward Florida.

    Homeowners unable to get coverage or priced out of plans have flocked to the state’s public insurer of last resort, Citizens Property Insurance, which this summer topped 1 million policies for the first time in almost a decade. Citizens Property Insurance was created by the state legislature in 2002 for Floridians unable to find coverage from private insurers.

    State regulators and insurers have long blamed lawsuits by homeowners as a major culprit in the state’s crisis. They say state law makes it highly profitable for lawyers to sue insurance companies even if the amount won is relatively small. In the last half of the 2010s, Florida accounted for about 8% of all homeowners’ claims in the U.S. but almost 80% of all homeowners’ lawsuits against insurers in the U.S., according to a letter from the state Office of Insurance Regular.

    In May, with hurricane season approaching, the state legislature convened for a special session to address the insurance crisis. In three days, with little public input or expert analysis, lawmakers approved sweeping legislation with bipartisan support that many in the statehouse regarded as a meaningful first step in repairing the market.

    Among the provisions was the creation of a $2 billion reinsurance program that insurers could buy into to help insulate themselves from risk, so long as they reduced rates for policyholders. The law offers grants of up to $10,000 to retrofit homes so they are less vulnerable to hurricane damage. It also moves to limit various attorney fees in insurance-related lawsuits.

    Even so, Florida’s primary rating agency, Demotech, this summer threatened downgrades to around two dozen companies. But concerns about their creditworthiness faded somewhat after the administration of Gov. Ron DeSantis agreed to allow the state to back up the insurers.

    DeSantis, during news conferences ahead of the storm, noted that flood claims could be a leading problem from Ian.

    Home insurance policies — including those in Citizens — do not include flood coverage, which is handled under a federal program and is separate issue from the insurance market. The federally-backed flood insurance is generally mandated for mortgaged homes in flood zones, but people who fully own their homes sometimes decline to get it and it’s less common in areas not usually prone to flooding.

    “We are looking at a lot of flood claims,” the governor said when asked about the potential for claims to overrun Citizens Property Insurance. “I’m not saying there’s not going to be a lot of wind damage, I mean it’s a hurricane so you’re likely to see that.

    “There’s more that I want to do in terms of the wind insurance and that will be something we’re going to address. I mean look, at the end of the day we’ve got to make sure folks are taken care of, and so we will do that, whatever we need to do.”

    DeSantis, at a news conference Wednesday, said Citizens Property Insurance should be in solid shape even after claims from Hurricane Ian, given that the state-backed company has billions of dollars in surplus. A spokesman for Citizens said it estimates 225,000 claims and $3.8 billion in losses from Ian, though he noted those projections were made before the storm made landfall and would likely change as damaged is fully assessed.

    “Their modeling, based on paying out a lot of money in claims for this, was that they would still have between 4 and 5 billion in surplus. So they view themselves as being able to weather this,” DeSantis said.

    More than 2.5 million people in Florida were under mandatory evacuation orders when Ian made landfall Wednesday afternoon. Some residents left their homes, hoping for minimal damage upon their return.

    “I just don’t see the advantage of sitting there in the dark, in a hot house, watching water come in your house,” said Tom Hawver, a handyman in Fort Myers, who evacuated his home Wednesday. “And I can’t do anything about the wind or the water, so I’ll go back in a couple of days and assess it.”

    Source link