When you send money through Paypal, Paypal reviews the transaction to determine whether or not they think that its legitimate. If its going to an old account that has been around for years, in most cases they assume its good and let it go through. However, if the recipient is a new user, they often place excessive holds on the funds, resulting in huge delays. The average delay is 180 days, because Paypal feels that 6 months is an appropriate amount of time for people to wait.

Is it an appropriate amount of time to wait? Of course not. If your relatives are expecting to receive a payment, they don’t expect to wait 6 months for it, while still paying Paypal’s ridiculous fees. Whats worse, Paypal often then makes ridiculous demands for ID and other personal information. If you fail to provide that information within a few days, they permanently freeze your account and seize your funds.

To read more about how Paypal scams their customers, I recommend reading an excellent post on a blog that we frequently read: http://prevent-id-theft.org/?p=59

So before you consider using Paypal to send funds to family or friends, be sure that you’re aware that they’ll likely never receive them!

Sometimes it makes even less sense than usual. For example, I recently opened a new account at Scotiabank in Canada. I deposited $10,000 into the account and left it there for a few months. I then went in one day (to a different branch than my home branch) to deposit a cheque for $20. Thats right… $20. The teller informed me that because I was a new client, that they would have to put a bank on the check. They also informed me that if I wanted to prevent having holds placed on my checks in the future, I would have to make arrangements with my “home branch.” Of course, this isn’t a usual scenario and isn’t all that common among other banks in Canada and the United States, though most banks will still hold checks for a variety of reasons.

I’ve explored the system further and have determined how you can prevent your bank from holding your checks, allowing you access to your funds faster:

Deposit recurring checks to the same account – For some reason, when you deposit a check on a regular basis, the bank seems to believe that theres no way that its going to bounce. Therefore, if you have a regular payment from your employer, its best to deposit into one account and to continue depositing it into that account. After a few weeks, the bank tellers will start to notice consistency. While it may be tempting at first to take the check to a check cashing store to get access to your funds sooner, if you can just hold off, you’ll be able to prevent checks holds in the future and save tons of money in the process.

Maintain a high balance – While maintaining a high balance is difficult for many, its a great way to prevent checks from being held. Most banks (except the morons at Scotiabank) will not place a hold on checks under $5000 if you have a nice balance in your account.

Ask for a certified check – If someone is paying you with a check, you can prevent it from being held by having it certified. If the payee certifies the check prior to giving it to you, it enables the bank to confirm that it won’t bounce and prevent any risk, thus enabling them to deposit it into your account without placing a hold.

If all else fails, the only other option is to either wait until the check clears, or to visit a check cashing company. While check cashing companies often charge high fees (usually around 3%), its better to cash your check now in order to pay urgent expenses, rather than waiting and letting the bills pile up.

Unfortunately, along with that convenience and reliable comes a high price. If we look at the most popular money remittance service, Western Union, we will see that fees to send money overseas begin at $15 and increase to as much as $55. Now consider someone who sends money overseas to their family members once a week, that $20 per week ads up to $600+ in a year.

Today we will explore some of the alternative methods to send money abroad, and outline the costs as well as the pros and cons of each method.

MoneyGram – Very similar to Western Union, though the fees tend to be 25% to 50% lower. Like Western Union, Moneygram allows customers to send funds overseas, where they can easily be picked up by the receiver.

Pros – Cheaper, fast like Western Union
Cons – Fewer locations, often slow customer service, very poor website

Paypal – An online payment system that allows users to send payments to others, where they can be withdrawn to bank accounts.

Pros – Cheaper
Cons – Very slow, cannot send to many countries, requires a bank account, Paypal has a tendency to freeze accounts without warning or reason. Paypal is also not available in all countries.

Bank Wires – Bank wires are an excellent option , and often the cheapest method to send a payment when the amount exceeds $1000. Wire fees in Canada and the United States are usually $25 to $30. A wire usually takes 2-3 business days to arrive, and becomes available in the recipient’s bank account immediately upon receipt.

Pros – Cheaper, reliable
Cons – Slower, Requires recipient to have a bank account

In addition to the services mentioned above, there are literally thousands of alternate solutions that we will explore more in depth in the near future. These alternate options include methods that are capable of sending only to specific countries, as well as other online payment processors including Liberty Reserve and others. Please keep reading. Vansibel is here to help you with all of your money, loan, financing and fiduciary needs.

A quick look at Easy Home’s website reveals that you can get a computer for as low as $14 per week, a fridge for $18 per week, a new sofa set for $16 per week. This all seems pretty good doesn’t it… wrong. If you look at the total cost of the furnishings that you would purchase at these rent to home stores, its ridiculous… and I would say borders on scamming their customers.

If you have a look at an Easy Home flyer, you’re informed that the weekly rental rates are based upon an interest rate of 29.9%, which seems fair given the high risk nature of the business. However what they don’t tell you is the base rates that they’re using to calculate the 29% interest. The Flyer specifically states 29.9% interest APR based upon “product cost.” However no where are you able to find out this “Product Cost.” If you go into an Easy Home store and ask about a product cost, the employees will beat around bush without ever telling you an accurate product cost (other than a weekly rate).

For example, currently advertised on the Easy Home website is an Acer netback for $14 per week. Doesn’t seem bad… however when you multiply that by the 104 weeks of payments, it is equal to $1456. Now how much does this netback cost in Future Shop or Best Buy… it costs $199. Thats right, you’re paying 700% for this computer, meaning that their base price is something like $1200 before the interest. Other products show similar ridiculous markups.

How do they get away with this? Well basically they prey on the desperation of others and their inability to perform basic math. Is it legal? Thats where there may be an issue. In Canada, it is illegal to charge anyone more than 60% per annum interest. What Easy Home is doing is very similar to the Payday loan stores. By charging ridiculous high fees (in this case, crazy product costs) they’re able to get away with saying that their interest rate is legal.

What do you think? Easy Home or a Ripoff?

To answer this question, we’re going to look at some of the causes of the American real estate collapse

1) Interest Only Mortgages
In the US, interest only mortgages became quite popular early in the new millennium, with many families opting to purchase homes that they really couldn’t afford, with interest only mortgages. Rather than renting, they would spend roughly the same amount on owning their own home. Unfortunately, as soon as the house prices fell slightly, this caused the momentum to continue. With people holding mortgages for more than homes were worth, it was simply in their best interest to walk away from the home and cut their losses. This compounded the problem and drove already falling housing prices even lower.

In Canada: You cannot have an interest only mortgage in Canada. Most mortgages require a 25% downpayment. Therefore, unless housing prices suddenly tumble by more than 25%, this isn’t a risk

2) Failing Economy
There have recently been major issues with the US economy, particularly as manufacturing moves overseas and factories continue to close. The US economy has lagged in recent years and is projected to continue to experience slow growth for at least the next 5 years.

In Canada: While Canada’s economy was impacted by the recession of 2008, the effects have been much more minor than in the US. Canada’s economy is based heavily on natural resources, rather than manufacturing, and therefore isn’t as volatile as the American economy.

3) Failing Banks
American banks have been failing left, right and centre. The financial industry has continued to do poorly since the 2008 collapse. In fact, this is what spurred many of the widespread occupy Wall St protests.

In Canada: Canadian banks are some of the most secure in the world.

If we look at these three triggers for the American real estate collapse, we can see that a collapse in Canada of similar magnitude is highly unlikely. Furthermore, Canada has an incredibly high immigration rate, which continues to push housing prices higher in major centres. For example, in Toronto alone, more than 40,000 new dwellings are needed each year to keep up with demand.

Overall, Canadian Real Estate prices are at an all time high, and it appears that they will continue to rise for the foreseeable future.

Recently, credit card companies have been trying to get people to borrow money using their credit cards, rather than using lower interest rate options such as lines of credit, and have been running a variety of promotions to help advance their goal. The most common form of promotion to entice clients to use this type of financing is the Credit Card Check. A credit card check is a regular check, just like you would write from your checking account, but instead of coming out of your checking account, the funds are removed from your credit card in the form of a cash advance. The benefit for consumers doesn’t come from the fact that they’re offering this service, but rather from the rate that is being offered when using it.

Many banks are offering rates as low as 1.99% for the first 6 months to users who opt to use their credit card checks, with rates returning to the regular cash advance rate after the 6 month promotion period.

The question is, should you choose this method of financing over a line of credit?
The answer is Yes, but only if you have the financial discipline to pay back the loan before the 6 month promotional period is up.

Banks are banking on the fact that the majority of customers who use these checks will be unable to pay back the cash advance once the 6 month period is up, and will be able to begin collecting their regular 20+% per annum rate. However, clever consumers use this as an opportunity to borrow money at a rate below prime.

Before taking advantage of this opportunity, there are a few things to consider
- Will I be able to pay off the cash advance balance within the next 6 months
- Are there any hidden service fees (Some banks tack on a percentage or two as a service charge)
- Do I need the money? Theres no point in paying interest on it now if you don’t need it.
- When does the offer expire? If the offer is valid for a few months, hold off using the checks until the cash is needed.

Anyway, for those who are looking to get a low interest loan with no hassle, this is a great idea.

Washiington, DC, United States (AHN) – The ailing housing market in the United States has not been able to recover even with historic low interest rates, bargain-hunting American consumers or U.S. government intervention. So, the Senate is proposing a bill that would give foreigners a part in bailing out the industry.

U.S. Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sen Mike Lee (R-UT) have introduced a bill that would permit foreigners who shell out at least $500,000 on U.S. residential property to obtain visas allowing them to live in the United States.

The plan might be the boon the U.S. real estate market needs, especially in states particularly hard hit such as California and Florida, which often attract wealthy Chinese and Canadian buyers.

The National Association of Realtors reported that in the 12-month period that ended March 31 residential sales nationwide to foreigners and recent immigrants totaled $82 billion, an increase from $66 billion in the same period a year earlier.

The bipartisan proposal, part of a package that would make it easier for international tourists to visit and vacation in the United States, is similar to an existing program that puts foreigners on a fast track to a green card if they invest at least $500,000 in an American business that creates at least 10 jobs.

There are restriction in the new proposed bill. The purchase must be in cash, with no mortgage or home equity loan. And, the property would have to be purchased for more than its most recent appraised value. In addition, the buyer must live in the home at least 180 days a year, which would require paying U.S. income taxes on any foreign earnings.

The buyer would be able to bring a spouse and minor children to live in the U.S., but would need to apply for a work visa to hold a job. Neither the buyer nor the dependents would be eligible to receive Medicaid, Medicare or Social Security benefits.

Schumer and Lee, who have already secured backing for the bill from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Travel Association and the American Hotel & Lodging Association, are working to get support from the Obama administration, which received details of the bill Thursday.

View full post on Politics Stories

London, England, United Kingdom (AHN) – The Bank of England’s new Financial Policy Committee recommended on Wednesday for British banks to reduce their bonuses and shareholder dividends to strengthen their balance sheets.

The recommendation was made in anticipation of another financial crisis likely to be caused by the worsening eurozone debt contagion. The BoE also warned the banks to prepare for future shocks.

The bank did not specify how much the financial institutions should reduce their discretionary distributions, but in previous reports suggested that by limiting dividend payouts and constraining compensation ratios, the banks could raise up to $15 billion (£10 billion) a year.

The amount could be used to support $75 billion (£50 billion) of new lending to households and businesses. Although the banks cut their bonuses by 8 percent in 2010, the banks still paid out a total of $10.05 billion (£6.7 billion) to executives.

The committee also recommended cutting staff to address the anticipated strains in financial markets. For banks that have strong earnings, the committee advised them to build capital levels further.

Another impact of a second round of financial crisis is possible tighter credit in the coming months, the Bank of England said in its quarterly credit conditions survey it issued alongside the committee’s report.

The FPC also proposed more measures to improve the banks’ balance sheets, such as setting loan-to-value ratio caps for mortgage borrowers, margin requirements, maximum leverage ratios for banks, variable capital buffers, risk weightings on loans and additional transparent disclosure requirements.

View full post on Politics Stories

Washington, DC, United States (AHN) – The three-year investigation into whether mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac properly disclosed their exposure to risky subprime loans is about to end. Reports said that the regulators are near a settlement with the two companies.

A proposed settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission reportedly includes no monetary penalties for the two companies. Also being considered is no admission of fraud.

Despite these terms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s possible agreement to a settlement are tacit admissions they had a major role in the housing market crash, observers said.

The observers added that it would also be an awkward moment for the two mortgage giants because the government overseer of Fannie and Freddie filed a lawsuit last week against 17 big financial companies for luring the two to purchase troubled loans. The charges are similar to the accusations that the SEC made against Fannie and Freddie that the two companies misled investors.

The investigators are not keen on imposing a fine on the two mortgage giants because of their weak finances, with the government infusing more than $100 billion into the two companies since they came under government control in 2008.

Beginning Oct. 1, the two firms are scheduled to reduce the size of loans they buy from lenders, which would force future borrowers to enter into more expensive and difficult-to-get large loans.

The old limits of $417,000 for single-family residences were hiked in 2008 in some high-cost housing markets to boost the economy. The limits reached $729,750 in some areas, but by October the cap will go down to $625,500.

Other major lenders such as Bank of America, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase have stopped accepting new applications to ensure that those in process would reach the Sept. 30 deadline.

View full post on Politics Stories

New York, NY, United States (AHN) – The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is set to sue a dozen banks over risky mortgage-backed securities they sold and that lost value during the housing collapse, according to reports from the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. The suit alleges the banks misrepresented the securities’ quality and stability.

The suits from the FHFA, which oversees mortgage buyers Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, are expected to be filed within days.

Reports say the securities named in the suit are those sold and backed by risky and subprime loans, but classified as safe by rating agencies.

Banks said to be targeted include Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs.

View full post on Politics Stories