In a recent Market Watch article, David Weidner commented that Citibank is attempting to create a new product, the CLX, which acts as insurance against financial collapse.  The product sounds, as Weidner deftly points out, a lot like the Credit Default Swaps that helped cause our current recession.  It involves the same risks and is being endorsed using the same shaky justifications.

The problem with financial products like the CDS or the CLX is, first and foremost, that it is unclear who covers the ‘bet.’ If financial collapse does happen, and Citibank is to make good on their CLXs, what guarantee is there that Citibank will be in a position, post-collapse, to honor its obligations?  And if it isn’t in a position to honor those obligations, who does?  What’s clear after the fallout of the CDS scandal is that the responsibility of paying off the debts of ‘too big to fail’ financial institutions inevitably falls on the American tax payer.

Nobel Prize-winning economist and Columbia Business School professor, Joseph Stiglitz argues in this interview that we are headed for another collapse.  His arguments are sound and should be listened to.

It is frustrating that American banks, post bailout, are paying out record bonuses given that many of those banks would not be in business if they hadn’t received a handout at the tax payers’ expense.  In response, President Obama is now threatening to heavily tax these bonuses to send the banking industry the message that the American people will not stand for such behavior.  The depiction of these banks in the media and by the government, however, is far too simplified.  Not all banks are the same.  Some banks simply didn’t need the bailout and other banks received aid indirectly when the government bailed out their debtors.

For a company like AIG, the issue is quite clear.  They would have failed had we not bailed them out.  As a result, we now own most of their company.  AIG clearly shouldn’t give their executives a bonus.  Moreover, as shareholders, we have every right to demand that those executives don’t get a bonus.  On the other hand, some banks didn’t need a bailout.  Capital One, for instance, was forced to take the government’s money so as to help stabilize the economic disaster.  Their cooperation helped conceal the real problem areas (i.e. Citibank and Bank of America), thus preventing investors from cutting and running on companies that desperately required the bailout to stay afloat.  Those banks which didn’t need the bailout repaid that money almost immediately and they shouldn’t be penalized.  If anything, they should be rewarded for helping the American economy stay afloat and for having a sustainable business model when, all around them, other giants of their industry were toppling.

I had a fascinating conversation with Mr. Herb Weisbaum, AKA the MSNBC.com ConsumerMan, about the scams we should all be aware of. It was an eye-opening conversation, one that I hope will save you a lot of pain and anguish.

Surprisingly, your credit card account is not on the scammers’ most-wanted list. “Con artists are trying not to use credit cards [in their scams] because the charges can be reversed,” Weisbaum said.

The board of the UK Payments Council, a body composed of England’s top banks, has voted to phase out paper checks by 2018.  With the rise of electronic bill pay, the old tried and true method of paying by check is becoming, not only obsolete, but also expensive.  According to a Reuter’s report, it costs nearly a British pound (roughly $2) to process a check.

We ought to see this as a sign of things to come for the U.S. as well.  Our banks and economy, similar to Britain’s, are moving towards greater streamlining through electronic payments.  People demand the speed and efficiency of electronic and on-line banking.  The paper check has already become obsolete for many purchases (on-line shopping, for instance), and retailers are increasingly refusing to accept personal checks as a means of payment.  Many retailers see checks as an unnecessary invitation to fraud.  Others see it as an unnecessary complication in payment processing relative to the debit card efficiency and speed.

Our government suffers from a naivete with some of its plans to resuscitate the economy which consumers simply cannot afford.  To be more specific, the current administration needs to come to terms with the fact that business practices are dictated by laws and potential for profit.  Businesses cannot, and should not, be counted on to change their policies out of the goodness of their hearts.

Last March, the Obama administration put into place its Mortgage Relief Plan to help homeowners stay out of foreclosure by urging banks to institute loan modifications for borrowers.  Renegotiation of their loans would allow borrowers to make payments on a more affordable rate, allowing them, in theory, to keep homes that would otherwise go into foreclosure.  Since its launch last March, the plan has provided permanent loan modifications to only 4% of those who have attempted to sign up.  Lenders like Bank of America have helped only .06% of the people who’ve requested a modification.

It’s almost to the point that I don’t want to read the Business section anymore. Are you with me? And cognizant as I am that “if it bleeds, it leads,” it’s time for a feel-good financial-services story. So I emailed Liz Pulliam Weston, nationally syndicated personal-finance writer and author of many books, to “get her thoughts on the best and worst financial products and services of 2009.”

Tell you what: the woman’s smart with a capital MART, but I was surprised by her answer.

Citibank is suspending foreclosures and evictions for the holiday season.  For 30 days, from December 18th through January 17th, Citibank is offering a reprieve to borrowers whose loans are owned by Citibank Corporation.  The company reports that it will help about 4,000 borrowers who are either scheduled to be evicted, or scheduled to receive notice of eviction during this period.

Citibank deserves to be commended for this act.  In the general state of the American economy as it stands right now, lending institutions are placed in a precarious position where they have to implement tough policies to keep their businesses afloat.  It seems that Americans are increasingly turning to lending institutions as a solution to this recession as well as a scapegoat for this nation’s economic troubles.  All too often we hear that either our economic crisis was the result of banks giving out bad loans (which it was), or that economic recovery depends on lenders lowering the minimum requirements for loan qualification (which it does not).

On December 14, 2009, President Obama met with CEOs of the largest banks to urge them to approve more loans, to lower interest rates, and to curb fees.  The meeting was obviously in response to Federal lawmakers’ feeling that, having bailed out the banks, the nation has a right to expect concessions from its financial institutions.  This feeling is fueled by the belief that America’s banks, having received federal funds, have since failed to adequately return to the business of loaning money.

To put this in perspective, we should remember that one of the large contributors to the current recession was the practice of giving out home loans to people whose incomes and credit histories did not justify those loans.  The assumption was, of course, that any loan was essentially a good investment since the value of the house was expected to appreciate astronomically.

Now, here at Wallet Blog we’re no strangers to high-yield, interest-bearing checking accounts. Wrote about Focus Bank back in May and yes, their offer still stands. But how could I be content, knowing that I’ve only alerted you to one 4.51% checking account? Time to rectify that situation with a few other options.

For instance: Bank of the Sierra, based in my beloved California, also offers a 4.51% yield checking account. And you don’t have to be a millionaire to enjoy their top interest rate; you can open the account with only $50, and you’ll earn 4.51% APY on balances up to $25,000, so long as you meet the minimum qualifications for that statement cycle. (Qualifications include a minimum of 12 Sierra Check Card purchases per statement cycle, minimum of one direct deposit/automatic payment monthly, one Sierra BillPay payment per cycle, eStatements, and you must open the account line.) And, if that’s not enough, there are no monthly fees, you can earn up to $25 in ATM refunds each statement cycle, and there is a beautiful picture of Sequoia redwoods on their Sierra Reward Checking Web page. Click here to learn more and to open an account. Please note that the account is available nationwide, but you must be a U.S. resident or a U.S. resident alien to apply.

Last week, we posted a blog entry that called out Bank of America for its plans to begin testing the introduction of annual fees on active credit card accounts. Relative to the October 6th media frenzy that occurred after BofA wrote letters to both Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), pledging that it would stop re-pricing its existing credit card customer base, these new annual fees are unethical and contradictory to the promise the bank made to both lawmakers and to its customers. Additionally, it is our belief that if Bank of America moves forward with its plans to raise membership fees on existing customers into 2010, it will be breaking the laws mandated under the CARD Act, which is slated to take effect in February of next year.

We knew our blog post might spark some controversy, and that it would likely circulate quite a bit. Nonetheless, we were still surprised when we were contacted by Bank of America’s corporate communications department. The spokesperson who contacted us insisted by phone that Bank of America’s letter to Sen. Dodd and Rep. Frank referred to interest rates and interest rates only, and that it made no mention of annual fees. We found the letter. Here’s what it said:

It seems that Bank of America has already reneged on the October 6th promise it made to stop raising the interest rates on the credit cards of its existing customer base.  Just a week after making this pledge, BofA announced that it would begin introducing annual membership fees, ranging from $29 to $99, to select customers next year.  Combined, these two announcements result in a net win of zero for consumers, and in an unethical bait and switch play on the part of Bank of America.  Why?  Because, according to regulation, interest rates and annual membership fees fall under the same umbrella.  They are both considered finance charges.

While BofA postured as if was taking a step towards consumer protection in making the announcement that it would stop raising rates, the introduction of new annual fees to existing credit card accounts will still result in increased finance charges for account holders, even if those finance charges are referred to and assessed by another name.  For insight, consider that the addition of an annual fee of $50, on a credit card account with $500 balance and a ten percent interest rate, would double the overall yearly finance charges associated with that card.

The Federal Housing Administration will be the next financial disaster to fall on the shoulders of American taxpayers.  Created in 1934 to help low income and first time buyers get housing loans, the agency was designed to guarantee a relatively small percentage of mortgages, for instance, two percent in 2005.  Since its inception, FHA’s budget and operational infrastructure have followed this low-ratio model, and have been designed to absorb losses without having to ask for money or help from the Federal Government.  However, the GAO is now projecting taxpayer funded subsidies for the FHA of half a billion dollars over the next three years, if no changes are made to the agency’s program.

With the housing and credit markets in dire straights, private lenders are asking for better credit scores and higher down payments.  This means fewer people are able to qualify for conventional loans.  According to the website for Housing and Urban Development (the parent organization for the FHA), the FHA’s restrictions on the kinds of loans it will guarantee are more lenient relative to conventional loans, and as such, the FHA is being called into service more and more frequently in this particular economic climate.  Up by over 1200 percent since 2005, the FHA is now expected to back one quarter of all new U.S. mortgages.

Certain economic factors, like unemployment and credit card default rates are intertwined.  So it’s absolutely natural that in an economic climate where experts are predicting a ten plus percent unemployment rate before the end of the year, credit card companies will have to change the way they do business in order to remain safe and profitable.  As we all know, most issuers have been doing this by raising interest rates on both new and existing customers.

Wells Fargo has recently joined its peers in announcing that it too will raise the rates on the credit cards it offers.  According to Kevin Rhein, group head of card services at Wells Fargo, “this is something we’ve been contemplating for quite a period of time… We had just reached the point that we don’t think we can offer credit cards at the current pricing and keep credit flowing.”  Rhein’s announcement is interesting because it seems to suggest that Wells Fargo waited as long as it could before instituting these new rates.  He states that the impetus for this change was the bank’s recognition that the flow of credit was actually in danger, which is another way of saying that the profitability of Wells Fargo’s credit card department was at risk.  This, and the fact that the rate hikes are not scheduled to go into effect until November 30, one day before Congress’ new suggested enactment date for the CARD Act, suggests that Wells Fargo really has waited until the last minute before raising rates.

Recently, Bank of America announced that it would stop raising interest rates on the credit cards of its existing customer base.  This news comes ahead of the February 22nd deadline mandated in the Credit CARD Act, and is certainly a step in the right direction.  However, there is an issue that hasn’t been raised that would put this announcement into better perspective.  How much of Bank of America’s existing credit card portfolio does this news really affect?

Even after the bank has already re-priced millions of credit card customers into higher interest rates, the national media seems to be treating BofA’s announcement as a sign that the North Carolina-based bank is falling in line with the spirit of consumer rights—that it has ended the practice of raising rates in the midst of this credit crunch.  Unfortunately, it is not at all clear what this announcement actually implies given that the media has toed the company line, and has not asked the necessary questions to put this announcement into perspective.