ReportWire

Tag: Financial Regulation

  • What the media didn’t tell you in 2025

    [ad_1]

    This week, editors Peter SudermanKatherine Mangu-Ward, and Matt Welch are joined by Reason senior editor Robby Soave to share the stories they believe didn’t receive sufficient media attention in 2025. Each panelist selected a story from 2025 in the categories of politics, private industry, global affairs, and culture that deserves a closer look as we head into 2026.

     

    0:00—Political stories that deserved more attention

    11:14—The year’s underreported economic stories

    25:56—Global stories the media overlooked in 2025

    37:19—Cultural moments that flew under the radar

     

    Mentioned in This Podcast

    The Trump Admin Wants Western Union and MoneyGram To Report on Immigrants,” by Matthew Petti

    Treasury Department Surveillance at the Southern Border Faces Fourth Amendment Challenges,” by Tosin Akintola

    Taking $200 Out of an ATM Should Not Trigger Federal Financial Surveillance,” by Joe Lancaster

    Banks Are Narcing on You Because Congress Forces Them To,” by Nicholas Anthony

    How Trump’s Travel Crackdown Is Hurting Americans at Home and Abroad,” by Matt Welch

    Nepal’s Socialist Government Banned Social Media, So Activists Plotted a Revolution—on Discord,” by Matthew Petti

    Biden Strengthened the Refugee Resettlement System. Will Trump Undo It? by Fiona Harrigan

    Worldwide Refugee Population Hits All-Time High, U.S. Intake Reaches All-Time Low,” by Matt Welch

    [ad_2]

    Peter Suderman

    Source link

  • German Crackdown Pushes Dutch ATM Bandits Towards Austria

    [ad_1]

    FRANKFURT (Reuters) -For years, it was a common occurrence: Dutch bandits would drive to Germany and in the dead of night blow up ATMs, grab cash and speed back home on the Autobahn. 

    Now, a crackdown is bearing fruit.

    ATM attacks have dropped to 115 so far this year, less than a quarter of their peak of more than one a day – 496 – in 2022, according to German police data provided to Reuters.

    The spree of explosions has terrorized residents throughout Germany, where – in contrast to other countries – cash remains popular and ATMs are often built directly beneath apartments and in pedestrian zones. The damage has amounted to more than 400 million euros ($466.48 million) since 2020.

    “The threat level in Germany remains high, particularly in light of the use … of extremely unstable explosives,” according to a September report by Germany’s top crime-fighters at the federal criminal police, or BKA. 

    Now the gangs are driving a bit further to Austria, where using cash is still widespread. Attacks in Austria have doubled this year in what the BKA told Reuters was likely “a squeezing-out effect from Germany”. Dutch police have suspected hundreds of men are responsible, working in ever-evolving groups as new recruits replace those caught.

    GERMANS STILL LOVE TO USE CASH

    Underscoring the shift to Austria, prosecutors said a Dutchman who stole 220,000 euros from cash machines near Frankfurt in 2023 blew up ATMs in Vienna earlier this year, getting away with 89,000 euros in booty and causing 1.5 million euros in damage.

    The person was taken into custody on a European arrest warrant and is awaiting trial.

    Over the years, this modern twist on the old-fashioned bank heist arose out of two distinctly German factors, investigators say.

    First, Germany is a wealthy nation whose residents love to use cash for purchases, meaning ATMs are aplenty. And second, Germany’s famous highway network makes for a quick getaway.

    German banks have also invested more than 300 million euros in security in recent years, according to the most recent figures from Deutsche Kreditwirtschaft, an umbrella group for financial institutions, a drop in the ocean for a sector where profits collectively top 50 billion euros annually.

    The measures include mechanisms that blow a thick fog when machines are tampered with or emit dyes that render bills unusable. Many banks now lock lobbies around ATMs at night.

    The thefts are less sophisticated than many online scams, where law enforcement in Germany and across the globe are battling a surge.

    Last week, Germany announced arrests after a years-long probe of fraudsters who – with the help of German payment providers, sham websites and fictitious companies – stole more than 300 million euros from people in 193 countries.

    CASES FALL IN GERMANY, RISE IN AUSTRIA

    Cases fell this year in all but three of Germany’s 16 states, according to police statistics.

    The state of North Rhine-Westphalia, which borders the Netherlands, was one of the hardest hit in 2022 with 182 attacks. So far this year, they are down to just 25.

    Despite the decline, collateral damage is still significant, police there pointed out, with one attack in January near Cologne causing 1.8 million euros in damage.

    Police credit cooperation with Dutch investigators to locate and nab suspects. The majority of culprits have been Dutch, but some are German, French and Moldovan. Dutch police did not respond to questions from Reuters but in the past have acknowledged the trend.

    Police in the state of Hesse, home to Germany’s banking capital Frankfurt, created a tool that generates a probability forecast of an ATM getting hit, based on make, location and other variables. 

    Last week, Germany’s parliament voted to increase prison sentences for such attacks.

    In Austria, cases have risen to 29 so far this year, up from 13 in 2024, according to figures from the interior ministry, which said they first detected the Dutch gangs in 2023.

    Austrians have the highest preference for paying in cash in the euro zone, a 2024 European Central Bank study found, meaning plenty of ATMs.

    Police there said they are cooperating closely with the police in Germany and the Netherlands.

    (Reporting by Tom Sims; Editing by Tommy Reggiori Wilkes and Andrew Cawthorne)

    Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

    Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Reuters

    Source link

  • MoneyLion, CFPB Agree to Settle Biden-Era Allegations of Unfair Charges on Military Personnel

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and MoneyLion have reached an agreement to resolve allegations made under the prior administration that the company imposed illegal and excessive charges on military service members and their families, according to court papers.

    The agency and the company “have reached an agreement in principle to fully resolve this action, including injunctive andmonetary terms,” lawyers for both sides said in a letter filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

    (Reporting by Douglas Gillison in Washington; Editing by Nia Williams)

    Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

    [ad_2]

    Reuters

    Source link

  • Crypto Race to Tokenize Stocks Raises Investor Protection Flags

    [ad_1]

    By Hannah Lang and Elizabeth Howcroft

    NEW YORK/PARIS (Reuters) -A race by crypto companies to sell tokens pegged to stocks is raising alarm bells among traditional financial firms and regulatory experts who warn that the fast-growing novel products pose risks to investors and market stability.

    Buoyed by President Donald Trump’s pro-crypto stance and his administration’s push for friendly regulations, the crypto industry is rushing to capitalize on a global surge in enthusiasm for the sector. 

    Robinhood, Gemini and Kraken among others have launched tokenized stocks in Europe, while Coinbase, Robinhood and startup Dinari are seeking approval to launch similar products in the United States. Nasdaq, meanwhile, last month became the first major exchange to propose offering tokenized shares. 

    The industry says tokenized shares — blockchain-based instruments that track traditional equities — could revolutionize stock markets by allowing shares to be traded 24/7 and settled instantly, boosting liquidity and reducing transaction costs. The combined value of tokenized public stocks geared toward retail investors as of September grew to $412 million, compared with just a few million dollars 12 months ago, according to tokenization tracker RWA.xyz.

    Although many products are marketed like stocks, they rarely offer the same rights, disclosures and protections as traditional equities. Instead, they more closely resemble riskier derivatives, according to a Reuters review of several products and interviews with a dozen industry executives and legal experts. That increases the hazards for investors, while tokenization more broadly could undermine market integrity and fragment liquidity if left unsupervised, critics say.

    “You’re buying exposures to those shares through creating some sort of synthetic instrument,” said Diego Ballon Ossio, a partner at law firm Clifford Chance in London. “A lot of the burden gets shifted on you to understand what exactly it is that you’re buying.”

    A few companies have issued their own experimental stock tokens on the blockchain – software that acts as a shared digital ledger – but most tokenized shares are pegged to public companies and issued by third parties like Ondo Global Markets and Dinari. Some tokens are backed 1:1 by underlying stocks, while others provide economic exposure through derivatives. 

    The industry is divided over which regulations apply to stock tokens, and investor rights and protections vary. Often, the products provide no ownership, voting rights or traditional dividends, while creating counterparty risk exposure to the token issuer. 

    For example, there are multiple tokens pegged to Nvidia and Tesla with a range of structures and terms and conditions.

    “The fact that different tokenized offerings have different rights and different disclosures … that’s a real big worry,” said Gabriel Otte, CEO of Dinari, which offers 1:1 collateralization. 

    Robinhood in June launched trading in tokens pegged to public companies and said it plans to offer tokenized stocks of private companies. To promote the launch, it gave away tokens pegged to OpenAI. Those tokens are derivative contracts backed by Robinhood’s ownership of fund units in a special-purpose vehicle that holds OpenAI convertible notes, according to its terms and conditions. The announcement drew pushback from OpenAI, which said it had not blessed the offering. It also prompted scrutiny from Robinhood’s European regulator.

    Johann Kerbrat, general manager of Robinhood Crypto, said the company clearly flags that its tokens are derivatives.

    “It’s just one step forward to be able to have the benefits of no longer having multiple days to settle,” he added. 

    While Robinhood is issuing public company tokens on the blockchain, it is not yet settling the trades on the blockchain, a spokesperson said.

    Gemini declined to comment.

    CORE INVESTOR PROTECTIONS

    In Europe, Robinhood, Kraken and others operate under the “MiFID” derivatives rules but some legal experts say that law is insufficient to oversee the novel products. Trump’s crypto-friendly chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Paul Atkins, has indicated the agency plans to grant would-be issuers exemptions from securities rules. 

    That plan is facing opposition from powerful Wall Street players including Citadel Securities and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, which say such major structural changes should go through a formal rulemaking process. 

    “Just because a security is represented on blockchain, that doesn’t change the core investor protections and other provisions that apply to securities,” said Peter Ryan, head of international capital markets at SIFMA. 

    In a July letter to the SEC, Citadel Securities raised concerns that tokenization would siphon liquidity away from public markets. 

    Spokespeople for the SEC declined to comment, while Citadel Securities did not provide comment beyond the letter. 

    A spokesperson for the European Securities and Markets Authority, which helps oversee MiFID, said it was aware of the potential risks of tokenization and was monitoring developments. 

    The World Federation of Exchanges recently urged regulators to crack down on tokenization, citing insufficient investor protections and liquidity fragmentation, although the group told Reuters it supports Nasdaq’s proposal because it would treat tokens like traditional stocks.

    Coinbase is also in talks with the SEC about launching tokenized securities that would similarly grant investors the full legal rights and benefits associated with conventional stocks, according to a source familiar with the matter.

    Other issuers said they hew closely to traditional securities, anti-money laundering, bankruptcy protections and other rules. 

    Mark Greenberg, Kraken’s global head of consumer, said the company offered the “gold standard” including 1:1 collateralization and investor disclosures, while dismissing derivative offerings as “IOUs.”

    “Done right, tokenization enhances investor protections, rather than eroding them,” said Ian De Bode, chief strategy officer at Ondo Finance. 

    (Reporting by Hannah Lang in New York and Elizabeth Howcroft in Paris; Editing by Michelle Price and Matthew Lewis)

    Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

    [ad_2]

    Reuters

    Source link

  • Trump wants to end a half-century-old mandate on how companies report earnings | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump wants corporations to “no longer be forced” to report earnings every quarter.

    In a Truth Social post on Monday, he said companies should instead only be required to post earnings every six months, pending the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s approval. This change would break a quarterly reporting mandate that’s been in place since 1970. 

    “This will save money, and allow managers to focus on properly running their companies,” Trump wrote.

    Trump added that China has a “50 to 100 year view on management of a company,” as opposed to U.S. companies required to report four times in a fiscal year. China’s Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEX) allows companies to submit voluntary quarterly financial disclosures, but only requires them to report their financial results twice a year.

    During his first term, Trump publicly asked the SEC on X, then still known as Twitter, to study shifting company disclosures from a quarterly to semiannual basis, stating business leaders felt less frequent reporting would allow for greater flexibility and long-term planning. 

    He told reporters at the time that he got the idea from CEOs.

    “It made sense to me because, you know, we are not thinking far enough out,” Trump said in 2018. “We’ve been accused of that for a long time, this country. So we’re looking at that very, very seriously.”

    No change came from the SEC.

    A revived debate

    “President Trump has revived an old idea emphasizing the costs of quarterly filings, the distraction from long-term goals, and how they reinforce Wall Street’s obsession with beating short-term expectations,” Usha Haley, a professor at the Barton School of Business at Wichita State University, told Fortune.

    For his part, SEC Chair Paul Atkins has explicitly called for more transparency as he’s taken control of the regulatory body this year.

    But companies keep pushing back. Last week, the San Francisco-based Long Term Stock Exchange said it planned to petition the SEC to end its quarterly reporting requirement. The exchange lists companies focused on long-term goals.

    Critics of the move argue that it might reduce transparency for investors.

    Chad Cummings, a CPA and attorney at Cummings & Cummings Law, told Fortune semiannual reporting enables companies to hide “red flags” like deteriorating cash flows or abrupt changes in auditor language, which can lead to unsavory practices like concealment of liquidity crises, accounting fraud, and whistleblower retaliation.

    “Removal of quarterly earnings sabotages valuation models and tilts power to insiders,” Cummings, who has active bar admissions in the U.S. Tax and Bankruptcy courts, added.

    SEC approval would face internal resistance, statutory barriers, and potential litigation, as the SEC’s investor protection mandate requires “reasonably current” disclosure, Cummings said.

    If regulators stopped requiring companies to report earnings every quarter without having clear legal authority, the decision could be challenged in court under the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that governs how U.S. administrative agencies create regulations, he warned.

    Meanwhile, Haley also said Trump’s nod to China’s financial disclosure mandates misses the point.

    “The United States is not China,” she said. “Our markets derive their strength and global dominance through transparency, investor protections, and a long tradition of disclosures… Weakening those guardrails, while invoking efficiency risks, undermines investors’ confidence, the foundation of U.S. capital markets, which China does not have.”

    Fortune Global Forum returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of business. Apply for an invitation.

    [ad_2]

    Nino Paoli

    Source link

  • Trump fires Fed governor Lisa Cook, opening new front in fight for control over central bank

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump said Monday night that he’s firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, an unprecedented move that would constitute a sharp escalation in his battle to exert greater control over what has long been considered an institution independent from day-to-day politics.Trump said in a letter posted on his Truth Social platform that he is removing Cook effective immediately because of allegations that she committed mortgage fraud.Cook said Monday night that she would not step down. “President Trump purported to fire me ‘for cause’ when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so,” she said in an emailed statement. “I will not resign.”Bill Pulte, a Trump appointee to the agency that regulates mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, made the accusations last week. Pulte alleged that Cook had claimed two primary residences — in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Atlanta — in 2021 to get better mortgage terms. Mortgage rates are often higher on second homes or those purchased to rent.Trump’s move is likely to touch off an extensive legal battle that will probably go to the Supreme Court and could disrupt financial markets. Stock futures declined slightly late Monday, as did the dollar against other major currencies.If Trump succeeds in removing Cook from the board, it could erode the Fed’s political independence, which is considered critical to its ability to fight inflation because it enables it to take unpopular steps like raising interest rates. If bond investors start to lose faith that the Fed will be able to control inflation, they will demand higher rates to own bonds, pushing up borrowing costs for mortgages, car loans and business loans.Cook has retained Abbe Lowell, a prominent Washington attorney. Lowell said Trump’s “reflex to bully is flawed and his demands lack any proper process, basis or legal authority,” adding, “We will take whatever actions are needed to prevent his attempted illegal action.”Cook was appointed to the Fed’s board by then-President Joe Biden in 2022 and is the first Black woman to serve as a governor. She was a Marshall Scholar and received degrees from Oxford University and Spelman College, and she has taught at Michigan State University and Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.Her nomination was opposed by most Senate Republicans, and she was approved on a 50-50 vote with the tie broken by then-Vice President Kamala Harris.Questions about ‘for cause’ firingThe law allows a president to fire a Fed governor “for cause,” which typically means for some kind of wrongdoing or dereliction of duty. The president cannot fire a governor simply because of differences over interest rate policy.Establishing a for-cause removal typically requires some type of proceeding that would allow Cook to answer the charges and present evidence, legal experts say, which hasn’t happened in this case.”This is a procedurally invalid removal under the statute,” said Lev Menand, a law professor at Columbia law school and author of “The Fed Unbound,” a book about the Fed’s actions during the COVID-19 pandemic.Menand also said for-cause firings are typically related to misconduct while in office, rather than based on private misconduct from before an official’s appointment.”This is not someone convicted of a crime,” Menand said. “This is not someone who is not carrying out their duties.”Fed governors vote on the central bank’s interest rate decisions and on issues of financial regulation. While they are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, they are not like cabinet secretaries, who serve at the pleasure of the president. They serve 14-year terms that are staggered in an effort to insulate the Fed from political influence.No presidential precedentWhile presidents have clashed with Fed chairs before, no president has sought to fire a Fed governor. In recent decades, presidents of both parties have largely respected Fed independence, though Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson put heavy pressure on the Fed during their presidencies — mostly behind closed doors. Still, that behind-the-scenes pressure to keep interest rates low, the same goal sought by Trump, has widely been blamed for touching off rampant inflation in the late 1960s and ’70s.President Harry Truman pushed Thomas McCabe to step down from his position as Fed chair in 1951, though that occurred behind the scenes.The Supreme Court signaled in a recent decision that Fed officials have greater legal protections from firing than other independent agencies, but it’s not clear if that extends to this case.Menand noted that the Court’s conservative majority has taken a very expansive view of presidential power, saying, “We’re in uncharted waters in a sense that it’s very difficult to predict that if Lisa Cook goes to court what will happen.”Sarah Binder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said the president’s use of the “for cause” provision is likely an effort to mask his true intent. “It seems like a fig leaf to get what we wants, which is muscling someone on the board to lower rates,” she said.A fight over interest ratesTrump has said he would only appoint Fed officials who would support lower borrowing costs. He recently named Stephen Miran, a top White House economic adviser, to replace another governor, Adriana Kugler, who stepped down about five months before her term officially ended Aug. 1.Trump appointed two governors in his first term, Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman, so replacing Cook would give Trump appointees a 4-3 majority on the Fed’s board.”The American people must have the full confidence in the honesty of the members entrusted with setting policy and overseeing the Federal Reserve,” Trump wrote in a letter addressed to Cook, a copy of which he posted online. “In light of your deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter, they cannot and I do not have such confidence in your integrity.”Trump argued that firing Cook was constitutional. “I have determined that faithfully enacting the law requires your immediate removal from office,” the president wrote.Cook will have to fight the legal battle herself, as the injured party, rather than the Fed.Trump’s announcement drew swift rebuke from advocates and former Fed officials.Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., called Trump’s attempt to fire Cook illegal, “the latest example of a desperate President searching for a scapegoat to cover for his own failure to lower costs for Americans. It’s an authoritarian power grab that blatantly violates the Federal Reserve Act, and must be overturned in court.”Trump has repeatedly attacked the Fed’s chair, Jerome Powell, for not cutting its short-term interest rate, and even threatened to fire him.Forcing Cook off the Fed’s governing board would provide Trump an opportunity to appoint a loyalist. Trump has said he would only appoint officials who would support cutting rates.Powell signaled last week that the Fed may cut rates soon even as inflation risks remain moderate. Meanwhile, Trump will be able to replace Powell in May 2026, when Powell’s term expires. However, 12 members of the Fed’s interest-rate setting committee have a vote on whether to raise or lower interest rates, so even replacing the chair might not guarantee that Fed policy will shift the way Trump wants.__Associated Press writer Fatima Hussein contributed.

    President Donald Trump said Monday night that he’s firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, an unprecedented move that would constitute a sharp escalation in his battle to exert greater control over what has long been considered an institution independent from day-to-day politics.

    Trump said in a letter posted on his Truth Social platform that he is removing Cook effective immediately because of allegations that she committed mortgage fraud.

    Cook said Monday night that she would not step down. “President Trump purported to fire me ‘for cause’ when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so,” she said in an emailed statement. “I will not resign.”

    Bill Pulte, a Trump appointee to the agency that regulates mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, made the accusations last week. Pulte alleged that Cook had claimed two primary residences — in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Atlanta — in 2021 to get better mortgage terms. Mortgage rates are often higher on second homes or those purchased to rent.

    Trump’s move is likely to touch off an extensive legal battle that will probably go to the Supreme Court and could disrupt financial markets. Stock futures declined slightly late Monday, as did the dollar against other major currencies.

    If Trump succeeds in removing Cook from the board, it could erode the Fed’s political independence, which is considered critical to its ability to fight inflation because it enables it to take unpopular steps like raising interest rates. If bond investors start to lose faith that the Fed will be able to control inflation, they will demand higher rates to own bonds, pushing up borrowing costs for mortgages, car loans and business loans.

    Cook has retained Abbe Lowell, a prominent Washington attorney. Lowell said Trump’s “reflex to bully is flawed and his demands lack any proper process, basis or legal authority,” adding, “We will take whatever actions are needed to prevent his attempted illegal action.”

    Cook was appointed to the Fed’s board by then-President Joe Biden in 2022 and is the first Black woman to serve as a governor. She was a Marshall Scholar and received degrees from Oxford University and Spelman College, and she has taught at Michigan State University and Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

    Her nomination was opposed by most Senate Republicans, and she was approved on a 50-50 vote with the tie broken by then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

    Questions about ‘for cause’ firing

    The law allows a president to fire a Fed governor “for cause,” which typically means for some kind of wrongdoing or dereliction of duty. The president cannot fire a governor simply because of differences over interest rate policy.

    Establishing a for-cause removal typically requires some type of proceeding that would allow Cook to answer the charges and present evidence, legal experts say, which hasn’t happened in this case.

    “This is a procedurally invalid removal under the statute,” said Lev Menand, a law professor at Columbia law school and author of “The Fed Unbound,” a book about the Fed’s actions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Menand also said for-cause firings are typically related to misconduct while in office, rather than based on private misconduct from before an official’s appointment.

    “This is not someone convicted of a crime,” Menand said. “This is not someone who is not carrying out their duties.”

    Fed governors vote on the central bank’s interest rate decisions and on issues of financial regulation. While they are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, they are not like cabinet secretaries, who serve at the pleasure of the president. They serve 14-year terms that are staggered in an effort to insulate the Fed from political influence.

    No presidential precedent

    While presidents have clashed with Fed chairs before, no president has sought to fire a Fed governor. In recent decades, presidents of both parties have largely respected Fed independence, though Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson put heavy pressure on the Fed during their presidencies — mostly behind closed doors. Still, that behind-the-scenes pressure to keep interest rates low, the same goal sought by Trump, has widely been blamed for touching off rampant inflation in the late 1960s and ’70s.

    President Harry Truman pushed Thomas McCabe to step down from his position as Fed chair in 1951, though that occurred behind the scenes.

    The Supreme Court signaled in a recent decision that Fed officials have greater legal protections from firing than other independent agencies, but it’s not clear if that extends to this case.

    Menand noted that the Court’s conservative majority has taken a very expansive view of presidential power, saying, “We’re in uncharted waters in a sense that it’s very difficult to predict that if Lisa Cook goes to court what will happen.”

    Sarah Binder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said the president’s use of the “for cause” provision is likely an effort to mask his true intent. “It seems like a fig leaf to get what we wants, which is muscling someone on the board to lower rates,” she said.

    A fight over interest rates

    Trump has said he would only appoint Fed officials who would support lower borrowing costs. He recently named Stephen Miran, a top White House economic adviser, to replace another governor, Adriana Kugler, who stepped down about five months before her term officially ended Aug. 1.

    Trump appointed two governors in his first term, Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman, so replacing Cook would give Trump appointees a 4-3 majority on the Fed’s board.

    “The American people must have the full confidence in the honesty of the members entrusted with setting policy and overseeing the Federal Reserve,” Trump wrote in a letter addressed to Cook, a copy of which he posted online. “In light of your deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter, they cannot and I do not have such confidence in your integrity.”

    Trump argued that firing Cook was constitutional. “I have determined that faithfully enacting the law requires your immediate removal from office,” the president wrote.

    Cook will have to fight the legal battle herself, as the injured party, rather than the Fed.

    Trump’s announcement drew swift rebuke from advocates and former Fed officials.

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., called Trump’s attempt to fire Cook illegal, “the latest example of a desperate President searching for a scapegoat to cover for his own failure to lower costs for Americans. It’s an authoritarian power grab that blatantly violates the Federal Reserve Act, and must be overturned in court.”

    Trump has repeatedly attacked the Fed’s chair, Jerome Powell, for not cutting its short-term interest rate, and even threatened to fire him.

    Forcing Cook off the Fed’s governing board would provide Trump an opportunity to appoint a loyalist. Trump has said he would only appoint officials who would support cutting rates.

    Powell signaled last week that the Fed may cut rates soon even as inflation risks remain moderate. Meanwhile, Trump will be able to replace Powell in May 2026, when Powell’s term expires. However, 12 members of the Fed’s interest-rate setting committee have a vote on whether to raise or lower interest rates, so even replacing the chair might not guarantee that Fed policy will shift the way Trump wants.

    __

    Associated Press writer Fatima Hussein contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ron DeSantis misleads by calling Citizens’ ‘not solvent’

    Ron DeSantis misleads by calling Citizens’ ‘not solvent’

    [ad_1]

    As Floridians continue to grapple with a state property insurance crisis, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has warned that the state-backed insurer of last resort for disaster damage is insolvent.

    Over the past year, several major insurance carriers have left the state, citing Florida’s high risk of a costly weather calamity. Loose regulations and repeated hurricane damage have left residents paying the highest average property insurance premiums in the country — about $6,000 a year, or more than triple the national average.

    This squeeze has pushed more homeowners to explore insuring with Citizens Property Insurance Corp., which holds about 1.2 million policies. The company is considered the “insurer of last resort” because it offers policies to customers who are seen as high risks because their properties are particularly vulnerable to damage, making them unattractive to conventional insurers.

    Insurers of last resort do not have to agree to cover properties they consider too risky, and they may require potential policyholders to adhere to certain conditions for protecting a property before offering a policy.

    During the legislative session, DeSantis touted efforts to improve Florida’s insurance market, saying new companies have entered the state. 

    On Feb. 27 on CNBC’s “Last Call,” DeSantis said the companies that recently entered the Florida market “have taken out hundreds of thousands of policies from this Citizens Property Insurance, which was created decades ago. 

    “It is not solvent,” DeSantis said of Citizens, “and we can’t have millions of people on that because if a storm hits, it’s going to cause problems for the state.”

    DeSantis has repeated the claim several times over the last year — catching Washington, D.C.’s attention. In a Nov. 30 letter to Florida officials and Citizens, U.S. Senate Budget Committee Chair Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said his committee began investigating Citizens’ finances “in light of the state’s acknowledgment of Citizens’ potential insolvency.” Whitehouse outlined concerning implications for the Florida insurance market, state taxpayers and the potential of a federal bailout.

    However, the company’s financial data undermines DeSantis’ use of “not solvent.” Financial experts said that term is inaccurate for the situation.

    Citizens’ latest financial report, from December 2023, shows that the insurer had a $5 billion surplus at the end of 2023. The company expects a $6.3 billion surplus by the end of 2024. (A surplus is the amount of money or resources an organization has that is not immediately being used to pay expenses.)

    Additional state funding, and the company’s ability to draw funds from Florida taxpayers in a pinch, brings the insurer’s total reserves to about $17.8 billion, according to the report.

    Jeremy Redfern, the governor’s press secretary, told PolitiFact that Citizens was never meant to accommodate as many policies as it currently does, and, therefore, “at its current growth rate, Governor DeSantis is correct.” 

    But this is not what “insolvency” means — it means that an entity can no longer meet its financial obligations today. Citizens could be considered insolvent if its debts exceeded the value of its assets, economics experts said.

    If the company can now pay out claims and other expenses it isn’t insolvent. This remains true even if Citizens had to offload its expenses onto policyholders, which is allowed by Florida law, but would likely be unpopular.

    “Citizens has the capacity to levy surcharges on property insurance policies,” said Hakan Yilmazkuday, an economics professor at Florida International University. “In other words, Citizens can never be ‘insolvent’ in technical terms.”

    Redfern acknowledged that Citizens can’t run out of money to pay claims.

    “Citizens is structured so that it will always be able to protect its policyholders and pay claims,” Redfern said. “But this comes at the expense of all Florida insurance policy holders.” These charges can be levied on nearly every type of property and casualty policy in Florida, including homeowner, renter, auto, boat and pet insurance policies.

    Citizens CEO Timothy Cerio made a point similar to Redfern’s in a Dec. 15 reply to Whitehouse, writing the senator’s concern about insolvency showed “a fundamental misunderstanding” of how the company operates and its ability to pay claims. 

    He told PolitiFact in an email that DeSantis has been “consistent and clear” in his concern that, if there were a major storm or series of storms and Citizens exhausted its surplus and reinsurance, Florida law would require the company to levy an emergency charges on state policyholders — “83% of whom are not even Citizens’ customers.”

    “Although Citizens’ assessment authority means that it will always be able to pay claims. Citizens’ rates are currently actuarially unsound,” Cerio wrote. “It is critical that Citizens be able to charge actuarially sound rates to help minimize the risk of such assessments on the people of Florida.” (Citizens said “actuarially unsound” means charging rates that inadequately cover potential losses.)

    Cerio further explained to Politico’s E&E News that the company’s premiums are 55% below their actuarially sound level and, in some areas, 40% below rates charged by insurance companies. The Insurance Information Institute verified the data with PolitiFact.

    With a major storm, Citizens may not have enough resources to pay its customers. It would then need to rely on financial assistance from the state, and that would mean a hit to Florida taxpayers. 

    “If certain property insurance policies are transferred to multiple private policy companies, the stress on each company would be easier to handle … without any impact on the Florida State budget,” Yilmazkuday said.

    Still, he said that DeSantis inaccurately defined Citizens’ fiscal position in the CNBC interview. DeSantis could have described Citizens as financially stressed, financially vulnerable, under financial strain, or a state budget risk, Yilmazkuday said. 

    Efforts to shift policies from Citizens to other insurers have led to some small results. The number of Citizens’ policies declined from 1.4 million in September to about 1.2 million in January. That’s still about three times more Citizens policies than the company had in 2019.

    Our ruling

    DeSantis said that Citizens Property Insurance is “not solvent.” 

    Insolvency means a company cannot pay its bills today. That’s not so with Citizens, which has a $5 billion surplus and expects a surplus of more than $6 billion by the end of 2024.

    Citizens faces significant financial challenges and must worry about one or more massive storms pressuring those surpluses. If that happens, the company can rely on backstopping from taxpayers under state law. That would be unpopular, but is different from insolvency.

    We rate the statement Mostly False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – What’s behind Republicans’ claim that Joe Biden received $40,000 of ‘laundered Chinese money’?

    PolitiFact – What’s behind Republicans’ claim that Joe Biden received $40,000 of ‘laundered Chinese money’?

    [ad_1]

    Republicans investigating President Joe Biden’s family business dealings have focused on a $40,000 check written to Joe Biden before he was president.

    “BREAKING → @GOPoversight has uncovered a $40,000 payment of laundered Chinese money directly to Joe Biden himself,” Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., wrote Nov. 1 on X, formerly Twitter. “Joe Biden isn’t just implicated in his family’s corruption scheme — he’s a key financial beneficiary.”

    This claim comes from a check House Republicans made public on Nov. 1, along with a memorandum of bank records — the fourth memo released during the investigation — that they said “traced payments from Chinese companies to Joe Biden.”

    These bank records show that the money in question appears to have originated with a Chinese business that Biden’s son Hunter had engaged. But the best information we have suggests Scalise overreached by not providing proof of a crime.

    “Money laundering” is a legal term that assumes the money was obtained through illegal means; there’s been no illegal activity shown. The $40,000 came to Joe Biden in a check written by his sister-in-law for what it says was a “loan repayment.” 

    Neither Scalise nor the Republicans’ House Oversight Committee spokesperson responded to PolitiFact’s request for comment. But we dug into Scalise’s claim to learn what is and is not known about the $40,000 payment — the latest piece of evidence Republicans have pointed to in a range of accusations over Biden family finances.

    In September, after years of investigating the Bidens’ foreign business dealings, Republicans opened an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden. The evidence Republicans have provided so far, including during the impeachment inquiry, has not proved Joe Biden engaged in wrongdoing. House Republicans on Nov. 8 issued subpoenas for Hunter Biden and Joe Biden’s brother, James, as part of the inquiry.

    Here’s what we know.

    House Republicans on Nov. 8 issued subpoenas for Hunter Biden (right) and Joe Biden’s brother, James (left) as part of their impeachment inquiry. (AP) 

    A $40,000 check to Joe Biden

    The Republicans’ Nov. 1 bank memo outlines a web of transactions that involve a Chinese company, Hunter Biden’s businesses, and Joe Biden’s brother and sister-in-law. The Republicans’ framing is that Biden’s sister-in-law sent Joe Biden money that originated from sources linked to China.

    • On Aug. 8, 2017, Northern International Capital wired $5 million to an account for Hudson West III LLC, a company Hunter Biden formed with a Chinese business associate that aimed to help CEFC, a Chinese energy company, establish liquefied natural gas contracts in the U.S. That $5 million was the only money in the Hudson West III account then. The memo describes Northern International Capital as “a Chinese company affiliated with CEFC.” 

    • Also on Aug. 8, 2017, Hunter Biden wired $400,000 from Hudson West III to Owasco P.C., Hunter Biden’s professional corporation. Owasco P.C. already had $100,000 in it from a wire transfer from CEFC Infrastructure, another company linked to China, bringing the account’s balance to $500,832.

    • On Aug. 14, 2017, Owasco P.C. transferred $150,000 to an account for Lion Hall Group, a consulting company linked to Joe Biden’s brother James. That account’s balance was $151,965.

    • Sara Biden, James Biden’s wife, withdrew $50,000 from the Lion Hall Group bank account on Aug. 28, 2017. That same day, either Sara or James Biden deposited $50,000 into their personal account. Sara Biden also withdrew $1,000 from the personal account, bringing the balance to $49,047 as of Aug. 28, 2017. 

    • On Sept. 3, 2017, Sara Biden signed a $40,000 personal check to Joe Biden. The check’s memo section said it was for “loan repayment.”

    In summary: In 2017, Biden’s sister-in-law sent Joe Biden money that originated from sources linked to China, according to the Republicans’ memo. 

    Available bank records contain no evidence of wrongdoing by the president, nor do they provide evidence that Joe Biden knew where the $40,000 originated.

    “The President, when he was a private citizen, loaned his brother money, and his brother promptly paid him back,” said Ian Sams, a White House spokesperson. Sams said bank records in Republicans’ possession show that the check was repayment for a loan and cited a press release that Oversight Committee Democrats released Oct. 20.

    In it, ranking committee member Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., described the transactions as “personal transactions of the President’s family members that have no relevance to any legitimate congressional inquiry.” 

    PolitiFact reviewed the records for two bank wires, one for $40,000 and one for $200,000, from an account linked to Joe Biden to James Biden. The records were not explicit documentation of outgoing loans. 

    Checks the Oversight Committee released show that James Biden then appeared to repay his brother in full, without interest, within two months of each alleged loan. 

    Republicans also released a $200,000 check Sara and James Biden had written to Joe Biden on March 1, 2018; it also said “loan repayment” on the memo line. But because it was sent the same day Americore Health LLC, a company that manages rural hospitals across the U.S., wired a $200,000 loan to James Biden, Republicans have claimed it proves Joe Biden benefited from his family’s “shady influence peddling of his name.” FactCheck.org covered it here.

    “It’s certainly plausible” that the $40,000 check was a loan repayment, said Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., the House Oversight Committee’s chair. But even if it were, he said, “it still shows how Joe benefited from his family cashing in on his name — with money from China, no less.”

    On Nov. 1, House Oversight Committee Republicans released this personal check dated Sept. 3, 2017, from Sara Biden to Joe Biden. (House Oversight Committee)

    What is money laundering? 

    By definition, money laundering involves efforts to obscure the source of money that is obtained illegally, according to government agencies, legal sources and experts. 

    “In order to have money laundering, you have to have a predicate crime — an initial crime that creates illegal profits,” said Ross Delston, an attorney who specializes in anti-money laundering. “People throw the term ‘money laundering’ around a lot.”

    A link to China does not mean that money was obtained illegally, Delston said. And unless it’s illegally obtained, it would not be considered money laundering.

    The bank memo Republicans released Nov. 1 included no new information that would prove the money Hunter Biden received from Northern International Capital or CEFC Infrastructure was obtained illegally. 

    Thus far, none of the memos have provided evidence that the money paid to Biden family members and associates was illicitly obtained.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • George Santos Funds Legal Defense By Selling Official Ray-Bans For 90% Off

    George Santos Funds Legal Defense By Selling Official Ray-Bans For 90% Off

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON—Reeling in the wake of his indictment on 13 federal charges, including wire fraud and money laundering, Rep. George Santos (R-NY) revealed Thursday that he would fund his legal defense by selling official Ray-Bans for 90% off. “These are the real deal and going for much, much cheaper than market price,” the embattled representative said in a fundraising email to his constituents, which included a 500-character-long hyperlink ending in a .tz domain name. “One day only, tell you friends [sic]. I had a buddy and apparently they just fall off his truck. There’s nothing wrong with them. See, the picutres [sic]. These are the real deal w/ frames and lenses. Color your choice. Just input your info and social. They ship in twenty weeks.” The email went on to say that if supporters acted quickly in helping Santos defeat the charges, he could throw in a “Guci [sic] bag” at a massive discount.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Entrepreneur’s Comprehensive Guide to Navigating Legal Changes | Entrepreneur

    The Entrepreneur’s Comprehensive Guide to Navigating Legal Changes | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    In an ever-changing landscape of regulations, staying ahead of legal and regulatory changes is critical to safeguarding your business’s success. It can be daunting to navigate the legal complexities, so read along for essential advice to help you stay on top of legal and regulatory changes, avoid potential pitfalls and ensure your business stays on the path to success.

    Why keep track of changing laws?

    Entrepreneurs benefit greatly from keeping track of changing laws as it is critical for the success and sustainability of their businesses. Regulations and laws affect every aspect of business operations, from hiring and firing employees to product development and marketing.

    Staying informed about these changes is vital for businesses to avoid potential legal pitfalls and penalties for non-compliance. Failure to comply with new regulations could result in costly fines, damage to reputation, legal disputes and even a loss of business. Being aware of new laws and regulations enables businesses to effectively adapt and adjust their operations accordingly, which can help them to gain a competitive advantage and grow their businesses.

    Here is how entrepreneurs can navigate legal and regulatory changes:

    1. Stay informed

    Keeping up to date with regulatory changes is crucial in ensuring that you are operating your business well within the guidelines. Regularly reviewing government websites, consulting with legal experts, subscribing to industry newsletters and attending conferences and seminars relevant to your industry are some of the tried-and-true ways to stay on top of changing regulations.

    You can also consider joining a professional association or networking group for your industry to stay informed on regulatory changes. Monitoring the websites and social media sites of government agencies is one of the best ways to stay informed about the most current changes that may occur. Going directly to the source of changing information is more reliable than solely relying on the media and news outlets.

    Related: What Business and Government Should Do When Innovation Outpaces Regulation

    2. Monitor your business practices

    Consistently monitor your business practices to ensure your business is compliant with regulatory changes. Regular internal audits can help businesses identify areas of non-compliance and take corrective actions. Entrepreneurs can develop an audit checklist to review their operations regularly and ensure that their business practices and processes are current with current regulations. Documenting compliance with the regulations can also help you avoid costly errors. Maintain accurate records to track compliance with regulatory requirements and ensure that all relevant employees understand and follow the new regulations.

    3. Embrace technology solutions

    Leveraging technology solutions can help streamline regulatory compliance. Software solutions can help automate and track compliance requirements by providing the necessary insight to manage your compliance obligations. Some technology solutions can automatically monitor legal and regulatory updates and even provide insights into changes that could potentially impact your business. Tools like Visualping.io, Social Mention, Evernote, RSS Feed Reader and Feedly are each excellent examples of technology solutions that can help entrepreneurs streamline the monitoring process.

    Related: Never Underestimate How Easy It Is to Screw Up When Deploying New Technology

    4. Seek professional advice

    In the case that you are uncertain about compliance updates and how they will impact your business, consult with legal and regulatory experts. They will provide insights into the implications of the changes for your business and advise you on how to comply with the new regulations. Seeking professional advice from lawyers, accountants and regulatory experts can provide peace of mind and reduce overhead costs. By partnering with an experienced legal team, businesses of any size can access the legal expertise they need to ensure they are in compliance with regulations.

    Related: Know When to Trust Your Gut and When to Seek Outside Advice

    5. Stay compliant!

    Navigating legal and regulatory changes can be challenging, but it’s fundamental for entrepreneurs to ensure that their businesses are compliant. Remember, compliance is not optional – it’s essential to the success of your business.

    [ad_2]

    Ken Wisnefski

    Source link