Wednesday, 7 September 2011
Shaw Capital Management Online
Heads Up
Welcome to SCM Online, your sleek and no-frills alternative to the oh-so-cluttered news blogs that currently tops the search results. As a debut post, let me give you a rundown on how this whole thing works.
SCM Online conveniently groups incoming news into three categories that proves to be the most significant ones for the online community in general:
Technology. Keep tabs on the heating competition between search engine giant Google and social networking star Facebook. (Occasionally, we feature certain websites or software products and do some pros-and-cons analysis. Otherwise, anything new and newsworthy concerning consumer gadgets and the collective web.)
Lifestyle. Useful health and diet tips for those conscious with their well-being, with lots of other cool and practical stuff for everyday life thrown in for good measure.
Finance. Daily reports on the state of the market, notable fluctuations on stock prices, commodity updates, scam MOs, and several business and political factors that comes in to play.
We do host a whole lot of other stuff outside of those categories but only if they are totally interesting, amusing or informational (we don’t want to overwhelm you with useless news!).
Above all, we welcome active participation from our visitors (yeah, you!), so if you find something interesting, erroneous, terrible or inspiring, feel free to leave your two cents.
Stay tuned!
Wednesday, 6 July 2011
Shaw Capital Management Investment : Boiler Room indoor climbing gym - Animewire.org || Shaw Capital Management Equities
Indoor climbing builds flexibility, strength & balance!
40 belay stations and over 80 climbs
30 foot vertical
100 foot chimney...Canada's highest indoor climb!
Large bouldering cave
Beginners, groups and families welcome
Camps & climbing courses for kids and adults
Get your gear here!
Awesome & well trained staff! » Shaw Capital Management Investment : Boiler Room indoor climbing gym
40 belay stations and over 80 climbs
30 foot vertical
100 foot chimney...Canada's highest indoor climb!
Large bouldering cave
Beginners, groups and families welcome
Camps & climbing courses for kids and adults
Get your gear here!
Awesome & well trained staff! » Shaw Capital Management Investment : Boiler Room indoor climbing gym
shaw capital management warning tips || shaw capital management equities
Shaw Capital Management Warning Tips
Looking for a loan or credit card but don't think you'll qualify? Turned down by a bank because of your poor credit history?
You may be tempted by ads and websites that guarantee loans or credit cards, regardless of your credit history. The catch comes when you apply for the loan or credit card and find out you have to pay a fee in advance. According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation's consumer protection agency, that could be a tip-off to a rip-off. If you're asked to pay a fee for the promise of a loan or credit card, you can count on the fact that you're dealing with a scam artist. More than likely, you'll get an application, or a stored value or debit card, instead of the loan or credit card.
The FTC says some red flags can tip you off to scam artists' tricks. For example:
* A lender who isn't interested in your credit history. A lender may offer loans or credit cards for many purposes - for example, so a borrower can start a business or consolidate bill payments. But one who doesn't care about your credit record should give you cause for concern. Ads that say "Bad credit? No problem" or "We don't care about your past. You deserve a loan" or "Get money fast" or even "No hassle - guaranteed" often indicate a scam.
* Banks and other legitimate lenders generally evaluate creditworthiness and confirm the information in an application before they guarantee firm offers of credit - even to creditworthy consumers.
* Fees that are not disclosed clearly or prominently. Scam lenders may say you've been approved for a loan, then call or email demanding a fee before you can get the money. Any up-front fee that the lender wants to collect before granting the loan is a cue to walk away, especially if you're told it's for "insurance," "processing," or just "paperwork."
Legitimate lenders often charge application, appraisal, or credit report fees. The differences? They disclose their fees clearly and prominently; they take their fees from the amount you borrow; and the fees usually are paid to the lender or broker after the loan is approved.
It's also a warning sign if a lender says they won't check your credit history, yet asks for your personal information, such as your Social Security number or bank account number. They may use your information to debit your bank account to pay a fee they're hiding.
* A loan that is offered by phone. It is illegal for companies doing business in the U.S. by phone to promise you a loan and ask you to pay for it before they deliver.
* A lender who uses a copy-cat or wanna-be name. Crooks give their companies names that sound like well-known or respected organizations and create websites that look slick. Some scam artists have pretended to be the Better Business Bureau or another reputable organization, and some even produce forged paperwork or pay people to pretend to be references. Always get a company's phone number from the phone book or directory assistance, and call to check they are who they say they are. Get a physical address, too: a company that advertises a PO Box as its address is one to check out with the appropriate authorities.
* A lender who is not registered in your state. Lenders and loan brokers are required to register in the states where they do business. To check registration, call your state Attorney General's office or your state's Department of Banking or Financial Regulation. Checking registration does not guarantee that you will be happy with a lender, but it helps weed out the crooks.
A lender who asks you to wire money or pay an individual. Don't make a payment for a loan or credit card directly to an individual; legitimate lenders don't ask anyone to do that. In addition, don't use a wire transfer service or send money orders for a loan. You have little recourse if there's a problem with a wire transaction, and legitimate lenders don't pressure their customers to wire funds.
Finally, just because you've received a slick promotion, seen an ad for a loan in a prominent place in your neighborhood or in your newspaper, on television or on the Internet, or heard one on the radio, don't assume it's a good deal - or even legitimate. Scam artists like to operate on the premise of legitimacy by association, so it's really important to do your homework.
Shaw Capital Management and Financing - Advance-Fee Loan Scams: Finding Low-Cost Help for Credit Problems
If you have debt problems, try to solve them with your creditors as soon as you realize you won't be able to make your payments. If you can't resolve the problems yourself or need help to do it, you may want to contact a credit counseling service. Nonprofit organizations in every state counsel and educate people and families on debt problems, budgeting, and using credit wisely. Often, these services are low- or no-cost. Universities, military bases, credit unions, and housing authorities also may offer low- or no-cost credit counseling programs. To learn more about dealing with debt, including how to select a credit counseling service, visit ftc.gov/credit.
Looking for a loan or credit card but don't think you'll qualify? Turned down by a bank because of your poor credit history?
You may be tempted by ads and websites that guarantee loans or credit cards, regardless of your credit history. The catch comes when you apply for the loan or credit card and find out you have to pay a fee in advance. According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation's consumer protection agency, that could be a tip-off to a rip-off. If you're asked to pay a fee for the promise of a loan or credit card, you can count on the fact that you're dealing with a scam artist. More than likely, you'll get an application, or a stored value or debit card, instead of the loan or credit card.
The FTC says some red flags can tip you off to scam artists' tricks. For example:
* A lender who isn't interested in your credit history. A lender may offer loans or credit cards for many purposes - for example, so a borrower can start a business or consolidate bill payments. But one who doesn't care about your credit record should give you cause for concern. Ads that say "Bad credit? No problem" or "We don't care about your past. You deserve a loan" or "Get money fast" or even "No hassle - guaranteed" often indicate a scam.
* Banks and other legitimate lenders generally evaluate creditworthiness and confirm the information in an application before they guarantee firm offers of credit - even to creditworthy consumers.
* Fees that are not disclosed clearly or prominently. Scam lenders may say you've been approved for a loan, then call or email demanding a fee before you can get the money. Any up-front fee that the lender wants to collect before granting the loan is a cue to walk away, especially if you're told it's for "insurance," "processing," or just "paperwork."
Legitimate lenders often charge application, appraisal, or credit report fees. The differences? They disclose their fees clearly and prominently; they take their fees from the amount you borrow; and the fees usually are paid to the lender or broker after the loan is approved.
It's also a warning sign if a lender says they won't check your credit history, yet asks for your personal information, such as your Social Security number or bank account number. They may use your information to debit your bank account to pay a fee they're hiding.
* A loan that is offered by phone. It is illegal for companies doing business in the U.S. by phone to promise you a loan and ask you to pay for it before they deliver.
* A lender who uses a copy-cat or wanna-be name. Crooks give their companies names that sound like well-known or respected organizations and create websites that look slick. Some scam artists have pretended to be the Better Business Bureau or another reputable organization, and some even produce forged paperwork or pay people to pretend to be references. Always get a company's phone number from the phone book or directory assistance, and call to check they are who they say they are. Get a physical address, too: a company that advertises a PO Box as its address is one to check out with the appropriate authorities.
* A lender who is not registered in your state. Lenders and loan brokers are required to register in the states where they do business. To check registration, call your state Attorney General's office or your state's Department of Banking or Financial Regulation. Checking registration does not guarantee that you will be happy with a lender, but it helps weed out the crooks.
A lender who asks you to wire money or pay an individual. Don't make a payment for a loan or credit card directly to an individual; legitimate lenders don't ask anyone to do that. In addition, don't use a wire transfer service or send money orders for a loan. You have little recourse if there's a problem with a wire transaction, and legitimate lenders don't pressure their customers to wire funds.
Finally, just because you've received a slick promotion, seen an ad for a loan in a prominent place in your neighborhood or in your newspaper, on television or on the Internet, or heard one on the radio, don't assume it's a good deal - or even legitimate. Scam artists like to operate on the premise of legitimacy by association, so it's really important to do your homework.
Shaw Capital Management and Financing - Advance-Fee Loan Scams: Finding Low-Cost Help for Credit Problems
If you have debt problems, try to solve them with your creditors as soon as you realize you won't be able to make your payments. If you can't resolve the problems yourself or need help to do it, you may want to contact a credit counseling service. Nonprofit organizations in every state counsel and educate people and families on debt problems, budgeting, and using credit wisely. Often, these services are low- or no-cost. Universities, military bases, credit unions, and housing authorities also may offer low- or no-cost credit counseling programs. To learn more about dealing with debt, including how to select a credit counseling service, visit ftc.gov/credit.
Shaw Capital Management Headlines : Warning signs « World Headlines: Shaw Capital Management
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/analysis/in-depth/warning-signs/6514774.article
06/05/2011
A recent spate of ‘vulnerable to deterioration’ judgements has prompted grumblings that the housing watchdog is handing out tougher rulings. So is it? The Tenant Services Authority’s Jonathan Walters reveals all
Regulatory judgements are one of the key ways in which the housing regulator communicates its views about the sector and individual landlords to the wider world. The Tenant Services Authority, like the Housing Corporation before it, publishes regular judgements on providers that are regarded as key documents by a range of stakeholders including lenders, credit rating agencies, local authorities as well as the boards of providers themselves.
These documents contain the TSA’s view of whether the provider meets its governance and financial viability standard and contain separate judgements on both the viability and governance of the organisation. In recent times, some of the gradings have generated headlines suggesting that the regulator is becoming harsher in its approach to grading the sector, specifically handing out more J2 ratings, used to denote a landlord which meets expectations but is ‘vulnerable to deterioration’. This is far from the case.
The TSA uses a four-point scale when making viability judgements – J1 to J4. The first two of these confirm that the provider is meeting the regulator’s expectations, while the last two indicate a failure to meet our standards. This is the same four-point scale used by the Housing Corporation and is well understood by lenders and providers alike.
The split of judgements across the sector has remained constant for the past few years. The table shows the percentage split across the four viability judgements over the past three years. It shows that since the 2008 credit crunch, roughly a third of the sector has received a J2 viability judgement. Although the individual associations receiving a J2 will vary, the numbers are consistent.
Clear trend
The most significant change in the grading of providers came in 2008 when the number of J2 gradings rose from around 20 per cent of the sector to the current position of around a third. This was not a reflection of any change in approach by the regulator but was an inevitable consequence of the more difficult trading environment that providers faced, and have continued to face since then.
Receiving a J2 viability judgement from the TSA does not mean that the regulator regards the organisation as likely to fail. It does mean that there are a range of risks that, if not managed successfully, could have a negative impact on the provider’s viability; for example, if an organisation’s credit lines only extend for 12 months. The criteria used to reach this conclusion have been consistent for the last few years and are centred on the underlying financial strength of the organisation and how likely it is to deliver the assumptions it has used to develop its business plan.
It is very rare for a J2 rating to convert into a J3 as organisations are usually able to manage the risks involved. In the small number of cases where this is not possible the regulator is able to intervene effectively.
Spotting risks early
The reason a J2 viability judgement is considered to meet the TSA standard is that our analysis shows there is no immediate threat to the provider’s financial viability, but there are business risks above the norm which need to be managed actively. Many of these risks relate to normal business activities undertaken by providers, whether it is, for example, building new homes, engaging in regeneration activity or taking transfers of stock from local authorities. It would not be appropriate for the regulator to seek to eliminate risk from the sector; rather, we should concentrate scarce resources on robust identification and management of risk by providers.
Having a J2 viability judgement from the regulator is not a bad-ge of shame. It shows an organisation has risks it is currently managing and that the regulator is alert to that.
To maintain the confidence of stakeholders it is important the regulator keeps a consistent and robust approach to assessing organisations. This means we will always need to identify providers with additional risks and this will not change when responsibility moves to the Homes and Communities Agency next year.
Jonathan Walters is deputy director of regulatory operations at the TSA
Housing association viability judgement ratings
Judgement 2009% 2010% 2011%
J1: meets expectations 67.0 63.0 64.7
J2: meets expectations but with exposures 31.3 35.6 34.1
J3: concern 1.7 1.4 1.2
J4: serious concern 0 0 0
TOTAL 100 100 100
Case study: handling a ‘vulnerable’ ruling
Trafford Housing Trust, a 9,000-home stock transfer organisation, received a ‘vulnerable to deterioration’ judgement from the housing watchdog in February. Here, chief executive Matthew Gardiner describes his response:
‘The Tenant Services Authority’s regulatory judgement is an important document. When it was issued, it said our business “had exposures that made it vulnerable to deterioration”. But what does that really mean for a six-year-old organisation at a time of economic austerity?
‘It is a well-accepted pattern that new stock transfers always get the “vulnerable to deterioration” strapline. We knew ahead of publication that ours would again say that, despite our business plan having more headroom than ever before. We also suspected that it would gain some press coverage as a result. Despite our transfer promises to tenants being met; despite the fact we have trimmed more than £1 million from our running costs in 2010/11 (when turnover was around £35 million) and despite our programme of stock improvement achieving decent homes standards within the required timescale, we have still to reach the point where we start to repay debt.
‘Yet we don’t believe the underlying business is in any way suspect or “vulnerable” (well, no more vulnerable than any other housing association managing the potential impacts of more than 35 changes to the benefit system over the next three years). That we haven’t reached peak debt is entirely down to the fact that we work our assets hard (as successive regulators have encouraged us to do) and that as we work in an area of significant housing need, we have chosen to raise around £20 million in new debt to maintain our current development levels and build around 300 homes over the next three years.
‘So the impact of the judgement? We had to spend some time fielding calls from and making calls to key partners. For example, the local council with which we are delivering a major project of more than 1,000 new homes rang to enquire if we could continue with it.
‘Developer partners needed reassurance that our partnerships were unaffected (we watch their credit standings carefully, so it was no surprise that they do the same).
‘The press showed some, passing, interest. And within the organisation, while the board and senior team understood the judgement’s meaning, there were questions and anxieties from more junior staff to deal with.
‘Even though this was the same judgement we’ve always received, the context this time was different. For a week or so effort was diverted towards managing the message and away from delivering for customers.
‘It was a different story with our bank; being close to the trust, it understood our finances, recognised the true strength of our stock, management, balance sheet and revenue streams and came back with encouragement to borrow more money for further development.
‘So a clearer explanation of the TSA’s judgement straplines would be a good thing (as would a guaranteed week’s notice of their publication date to help get internal and external communications in place). In austere times we are all “vulnerable to deterioration”; but that’s not the test. We face a world of significantly increased risk – the real test is whether boards and executive teams have plans in place to prevent that risk from crystallising.’
06/05/2011
A recent spate of ‘vulnerable to deterioration’ judgements has prompted grumblings that the housing watchdog is handing out tougher rulings. So is it? The Tenant Services Authority’s Jonathan Walters reveals all
Regulatory judgements are one of the key ways in which the housing regulator communicates its views about the sector and individual landlords to the wider world. The Tenant Services Authority, like the Housing Corporation before it, publishes regular judgements on providers that are regarded as key documents by a range of stakeholders including lenders, credit rating agencies, local authorities as well as the boards of providers themselves.
These documents contain the TSA’s view of whether the provider meets its governance and financial viability standard and contain separate judgements on both the viability and governance of the organisation. In recent times, some of the gradings have generated headlines suggesting that the regulator is becoming harsher in its approach to grading the sector, specifically handing out more J2 ratings, used to denote a landlord which meets expectations but is ‘vulnerable to deterioration’. This is far from the case.
The TSA uses a four-point scale when making viability judgements – J1 to J4. The first two of these confirm that the provider is meeting the regulator’s expectations, while the last two indicate a failure to meet our standards. This is the same four-point scale used by the Housing Corporation and is well understood by lenders and providers alike.
The split of judgements across the sector has remained constant for the past few years. The table shows the percentage split across the four viability judgements over the past three years. It shows that since the 2008 credit crunch, roughly a third of the sector has received a J2 viability judgement. Although the individual associations receiving a J2 will vary, the numbers are consistent.
Clear trend
The most significant change in the grading of providers came in 2008 when the number of J2 gradings rose from around 20 per cent of the sector to the current position of around a third. This was not a reflection of any change in approach by the regulator but was an inevitable consequence of the more difficult trading environment that providers faced, and have continued to face since then.
Receiving a J2 viability judgement from the TSA does not mean that the regulator regards the organisation as likely to fail. It does mean that there are a range of risks that, if not managed successfully, could have a negative impact on the provider’s viability; for example, if an organisation’s credit lines only extend for 12 months. The criteria used to reach this conclusion have been consistent for the last few years and are centred on the underlying financial strength of the organisation and how likely it is to deliver the assumptions it has used to develop its business plan.
It is very rare for a J2 rating to convert into a J3 as organisations are usually able to manage the risks involved. In the small number of cases where this is not possible the regulator is able to intervene effectively.
Spotting risks early
The reason a J2 viability judgement is considered to meet the TSA standard is that our analysis shows there is no immediate threat to the provider’s financial viability, but there are business risks above the norm which need to be managed actively. Many of these risks relate to normal business activities undertaken by providers, whether it is, for example, building new homes, engaging in regeneration activity or taking transfers of stock from local authorities. It would not be appropriate for the regulator to seek to eliminate risk from the sector; rather, we should concentrate scarce resources on robust identification and management of risk by providers.
Having a J2 viability judgement from the regulator is not a bad-ge of shame. It shows an organisation has risks it is currently managing and that the regulator is alert to that.
To maintain the confidence of stakeholders it is important the regulator keeps a consistent and robust approach to assessing organisations. This means we will always need to identify providers with additional risks and this will not change when responsibility moves to the Homes and Communities Agency next year.
Jonathan Walters is deputy director of regulatory operations at the TSA
Housing association viability judgement ratings
Judgement 2009% 2010% 2011%
J1: meets expectations 67.0 63.0 64.7
J2: meets expectations but with exposures 31.3 35.6 34.1
J3: concern 1.7 1.4 1.2
J4: serious concern 0 0 0
TOTAL 100 100 100
Case study: handling a ‘vulnerable’ ruling
Trafford Housing Trust, a 9,000-home stock transfer organisation, received a ‘vulnerable to deterioration’ judgement from the housing watchdog in February. Here, chief executive Matthew Gardiner describes his response:
‘The Tenant Services Authority’s regulatory judgement is an important document. When it was issued, it said our business “had exposures that made it vulnerable to deterioration”. But what does that really mean for a six-year-old organisation at a time of economic austerity?
‘It is a well-accepted pattern that new stock transfers always get the “vulnerable to deterioration” strapline. We knew ahead of publication that ours would again say that, despite our business plan having more headroom than ever before. We also suspected that it would gain some press coverage as a result. Despite our transfer promises to tenants being met; despite the fact we have trimmed more than £1 million from our running costs in 2010/11 (when turnover was around £35 million) and despite our programme of stock improvement achieving decent homes standards within the required timescale, we have still to reach the point where we start to repay debt.
‘Yet we don’t believe the underlying business is in any way suspect or “vulnerable” (well, no more vulnerable than any other housing association managing the potential impacts of more than 35 changes to the benefit system over the next three years). That we haven’t reached peak debt is entirely down to the fact that we work our assets hard (as successive regulators have encouraged us to do) and that as we work in an area of significant housing need, we have chosen to raise around £20 million in new debt to maintain our current development levels and build around 300 homes over the next three years.
‘So the impact of the judgement? We had to spend some time fielding calls from and making calls to key partners. For example, the local council with which we are delivering a major project of more than 1,000 new homes rang to enquire if we could continue with it.
‘Developer partners needed reassurance that our partnerships were unaffected (we watch their credit standings carefully, so it was no surprise that they do the same).
‘The press showed some, passing, interest. And within the organisation, while the board and senior team understood the judgement’s meaning, there were questions and anxieties from more junior staff to deal with.
‘Even though this was the same judgement we’ve always received, the context this time was different. For a week or so effort was diverted towards managing the message and away from delivering for customers.
‘It was a different story with our bank; being close to the trust, it understood our finances, recognised the true strength of our stock, management, balance sheet and revenue streams and came back with encouragement to borrow more money for further development.
‘So a clearer explanation of the TSA’s judgement straplines would be a good thing (as would a guaranteed week’s notice of their publication date to help get internal and external communications in place). In austere times we are all “vulnerable to deterioration”; but that’s not the test. We face a world of significantly increased risk – the real test is whether boards and executive teams have plans in place to prevent that risk from crystallising.’
Monday, 21 March 2011
shaw capital management scam info:AG Warns of Internet Tax Scam
With the tax season upon us, it’s a time many scammers look to take advantage of tax payers by getting their hands on personal information. Attorney General Mike DeWine is warning Ohioans of a new electronic scam.
The Ohio Attorney General wants people to watch out for emails and letters that claim to be from the IRS, but are actually scams created to capture personal information. Jennifer Stocker, owner of the Ohio Tax Lady tax preparation company, says the IRS will never email you directly unless you have contacted them via email.
“If you ever receive an email from any government agency that you did not contact and give them your email address, don’t respond to it. Contact your tax professional,” Stocker said.
According to a release issued by DeWine, one Franklin County resident received an email that appeared to be from the IRS indicating the consumer was late submitting his W-2 form. The email instructed him to click on a link to send the updated form. Luckily, the consumer recognized that the email was a scam. Another man from Cuyahoga County reported receiving a phony 1099 form, stating he had won $61,000.
“There are some people out there that like to take advantage of people, like to steal from people, and unfortunately with modern technology, it makes it easier,” Stocker explained. “You definitely want to keep your information in a locked filing cabinet. You want to make sure you do not give out your social security number to anyone. When picking up your tax return from a tax place, you should always have your driver’s license. And if your tax preparer is not asking for that driver’s license, there should be concern there.”
The Ohio Attorney General wants people to watch out for emails and letters that claim to be from the IRS, but are actually scams created to capture personal information. Jennifer Stocker, owner of the Ohio Tax Lady tax preparation company, says the IRS will never email you directly unless you have contacted them via email.
“If you ever receive an email from any government agency that you did not contact and give them your email address, don’t respond to it. Contact your tax professional,” Stocker said.
According to a release issued by DeWine, one Franklin County resident received an email that appeared to be from the IRS indicating the consumer was late submitting his W-2 form. The email instructed him to click on a link to send the updated form. Luckily, the consumer recognized that the email was a scam. Another man from Cuyahoga County reported receiving a phony 1099 form, stating he had won $61,000.
“There are some people out there that like to take advantage of people, like to steal from people, and unfortunately with modern technology, it makes it easier,” Stocker explained. “You definitely want to keep your information in a locked filing cabinet. You want to make sure you do not give out your social security number to anyone. When picking up your tax return from a tax place, you should always have your driver’s license. And if your tax preparer is not asking for that driver’s license, there should be concern there.”
Sunday, 20 March 2011
Shaw Capital Management Scam Info:Just beware of Google Gmail Corporation Scam Email
Sometimes it’s hard to believe but true cyber criminals are going wild with technology and changing their tactics to boost their crimebusiness. No matter how it comes ,but internet is very much great short cut from which they can execute their fraud tactics and escape.
Email scams are very much common these days . Online fraudsters are using new modus operandi these days to defraud computer users . Fake notifications are sponsored through emails under most popular subject headings like that you have won a prize money of (xxxxxxx GBP) under reputed names.
One of such email fraud ,419 legal would like to highlight which is making rounds in the form of scam email notification that represents itself from GOOGLE GMAIL CORPORATION .The email says you have won a prize money of (?1,000,000.00 GBP) by Google /Rediffmail Lottery in conjunction with the GOOGLE GMAIL CORPORATION.
Infact Google which is one of the world’s leading search engine never sends any prize winning notification to it’s user. These are nothing but fraud tactics by scammers to gain personal information.
419 legal strongly recommend it’s readers and internet users to beware of such fraud email and avoid sending any personal information.
Dear Winner r
We are Pleased to inform you that you have won a prize money of (?1,000,000
.00 GBP) by Google /Rediffmail Lottery in conjunction with the GOOGLE GMAIL
CORPORATION. we collects all the email addresses of the people that are acti
ve online, Among the millions that subscribed to Yahoo, Hotmail and various
Microsoft window users, we only select thirteen people every year as our wi
nners, we are congratulating you for being one of the people selected. All p
articipants were selected through a computer balloting system drawn from Nin
e hundred thousand E-mail addresses from Canada, Australia, United States, A
sia, Europe, Middle East, Africa and Oceania as part of our international pr
omotions program which is conducted annually.
This Lottery was promoted and sponsored by Google Corporation and a
conglomerate of rediffmail and some multinational companies as part of
their social responsibility to the citizens in the communities where they
have operational base
Qualification Number: (G/4979CFV3)
However you will have to fill and submit this form to the events manager
1. Full name…………..
2. Contact Address……..
3. Age………………..
4. Telephone Number…….
5. Marital Status………
6. Sex………………..
7. Occupation………….
8. State/City:……………..
9. Country……………
Information required for payment Such as:
i. Account Holder Name:
ii. Account Number:
iii. Bank Name:
(Contact Director Lottery Deespartment)
Name: xxxxxx
Email: claimsdirector2011@live.com
Tel: +447017415089
Director Lottery Department
The Google Rediffmail Corporation.
NOTE: Always check your email inbox and spam folder for our emails as we
will be in constant correspondence with you because we are committed to
delivering your funds to you within the shortest time.
Email scams are very much common these days . Online fraudsters are using new modus operandi these days to defraud computer users . Fake notifications are sponsored through emails under most popular subject headings like that you have won a prize money of (xxxxxxx GBP) under reputed names.
One of such email fraud ,419 legal would like to highlight which is making rounds in the form of scam email notification that represents itself from GOOGLE GMAIL CORPORATION .The email says you have won a prize money of (?1,000,000.00 GBP) by Google /Rediffmail Lottery in conjunction with the GOOGLE GMAIL CORPORATION.
Infact Google which is one of the world’s leading search engine never sends any prize winning notification to it’s user. These are nothing but fraud tactics by scammers to gain personal information.
419 legal strongly recommend it’s readers and internet users to beware of such fraud email and avoid sending any personal information.
Dear Winner r
We are Pleased to inform you that you have won a prize money of (?1,000,000
.00 GBP) by Google /Rediffmail Lottery in conjunction with the GOOGLE GMAIL
CORPORATION. we collects all the email addresses of the people that are acti
ve online, Among the millions that subscribed to Yahoo, Hotmail and various
Microsoft window users, we only select thirteen people every year as our wi
nners, we are congratulating you for being one of the people selected. All p
articipants were selected through a computer balloting system drawn from Nin
e hundred thousand E-mail addresses from Canada, Australia, United States, A
sia, Europe, Middle East, Africa and Oceania as part of our international pr
omotions program which is conducted annually.
This Lottery was promoted and sponsored by Google Corporation and a
conglomerate of rediffmail and some multinational companies as part of
their social responsibility to the citizens in the communities where they
have operational base
Qualification Number: (G/4979CFV3)
However you will have to fill and submit this form to the events manager
1. Full name…………..
2. Contact Address……..
3. Age………………..
4. Telephone Number…….
5. Marital Status………
6. Sex………………..
7. Occupation………….
8. State/City:……………..
9. Country……………
Information required for payment Such as:
i. Account Holder Name:
ii. Account Number:
iii. Bank Name:
(Contact Director Lottery Deespartment)
Name: xxxxxx
Email: claimsdirector2011@live.com
Tel: +447017415089
Director Lottery Department
The Google Rediffmail Corporation.
NOTE: Always check your email inbox and spam folder for our emails as we
will be in constant correspondence with you because we are committed to
delivering your funds to you within the shortest time.
Shaw Capital Management Headlines: After a disaster, frauds pose as charities to take your card info | World Headlines: Shaw Capital Management
By Susan Ladika
Published: March 18, 2011
The scenes of devastation wrought by the earthquake and tsunami in Japan have Americans rushing to their computers, wanting to contribute to disaster relief efforts.
But before you input your credit card information on some charity’s website and hit “send,” vet the charitable organization to make sure it’s legitimate — or your money might end up feeding a scammer’s greed instead of a person in need.After a disaster, frauds pose as charities to take your card info
Just days after the disaster began to unfold, philanthropic and computer security experts were already hearing reports of fake e-mails and Facebook pages popping up, appealing for donations.
At a time like this, Americans are “very susceptible” to pleas for assistance, says Doug White, academic director of the George H. Heyman Center for Philanthropy and Fundraising at the New York University School of Continuing and Professional Studies. “People are saying, ‘What can we do to help the people of Japan?’ It’s a natural outpouring of our humanity.”
But just like any other online transaction, you need to do your due diligence about the organization where you plan to send money and the security of its website. That can protect you from credit card and identity theft — and make sure you’re not padding the pockets of a fraudster.
Check out the charity
The most important thing you can do before making a donation is to research the charity.
“A lot of fake organizations emerge after something like this,” White says.
And even if one is legit, “a charity in a situation like this needs to have an on-ground presence.” Donating to a startup that isn’t already involved in Japan “may hinder their ability to really follow through on promises,” says Bennett Weiner, chief operating officer of the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance. The organization monitors and reports on charities that solicit nationally or provide national or international services.
You can learn more about a charity you have your eye on through the Better Business website or sites such as Charity Navigator or Guide Star.
Charity Navigator has vetted 5,500 of the 1 million charities in existence, says spokeswoman Sandra Miniutti. The groups evaluated accounts for about 65 percent of all donations made and are registered with the Internal Revenue Service as 501(c)3 nonprofit organizations
The one major exception to Charity Navigator’s rating system are groups such as the Salvation Army, which are registered as churches and do not have to file an IRS Form 990, or Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax.
You can check to see if an organization is designated as a 501(c)3 at the IRS website.
In a situation such as the disaster in Japan, White recommends choosing a charity that has a long history of taking in large sums of money quickly, such as the Red Cross, World Vision or UNICEF, which should help ensure the funds are processed properly.
TIPS TO AVOID GETTING SCAMMED
* Check out a charity thoroughly. You can use sites such as the Better Business Bureau, Charity Navigator, Guide Starand the Internal Revenue Service.
* Only make donations through a charity’s website. Manually enter the domain name into the address bar.
* Be wary of e-mails requesting donations. Don’t ever click on a link included in unsolicited “charity” e-mails.
* Don’t send credit card information via e-mail or through social networking sites because they probably aren’t secure.
* Make donations via credit card, debit card or check so you can track them with your financial institution; credit card donations have the most protection.
* Donation requests via online advertising banners can be scams.
* If someone calls requesting a donation, do not divulge your credit card number. Ask them to mail you a donation envelope.
* Give only to charities, not individuals, particularly if the “individual” e-mails a sob story, ostensibly from Japan.
* If you make a donation via credit card or debit card, check your online statement or account a few days later to be sure you have been charged the correct amount.
Sources: Robert Siciliano, CEO of IDTheftSecurity.com; Wells Fargo; McAfee; Discover
Weiner says it’s important to remember “different organizations have different expertise, depending n what phase of the disaster they are involved in.” Some focus on search and rescue, others on emergency relief and others on reconstruction
If you want to deduct the donation from your taxes, your contribution must go to a U.S.-based charity, he adds.
Keep your guard up
While you probably know better than to fall prey to a Nigerian e-mail scam or a phony bank e-mail asking you to “verify” your account information, it’s easier to fall victim to an emotional appeal during a natural disaster.
“Watch out for phishing expeditions,” Weiner says. You might receive a spam e-mail claiming to link to the website of a well-known charity, and the e-mail could very well link to a phony site that’s set up to collect your personal information and use it for credit card theft or identity theft.
Instead, if you want to give money to a particular organization, Weiner recommends going directly to that charity’s website to make a donation through its secure server.
Miniutti also warns against clicking through on links posted on Facebook, even if they look legitimate.
Also be wary of people claiming to be victims of the disaster, she says. In the earthquake and tsunami devastated regions, “victims in Japan don’t have Internet, let alone your e-mail address.”
Not-so high tech
Not all scammers rely on high-tech techniques
Some will use the phone to call, claiming they represent a particular charity, and ask for your credit card number so you can make a “donation.” (Being registered on the Do Not Call List does not prohibit legitimate charities from contacting you.)
Rather than providing your credit card information, Weiner recommends writing down the charity’s information, and then checking it out online.
“People’s guards go down when it’s a charity and their emotions are involved,” he says.
Even fundraising efforts at local businesses should be scrutinized. You should ask what charity the money is going to, what percentage of proceeds is being donated and if there is a maximum or minimum amount that will be donated, Weiner says.
While these may not be scams, the efforts may be happening without the knowledge or blessing of the charity being touted.
Cash, check, charge?
The experts agree that a credit card donation is the best route to take because it gets to the recipient fastest. And the major credit card companies have announced they are waiving transaction fees for contributions to certain charities because of the disaster.
Many organizations also accept donations via text, but there may be texting fees, and delays of days or weeks before the money arrives, White says.
Donations should never be made in cash. While checks are secure, they may be more labor intensive to process.
In a statement, Wells Fargo recommends making donations by credit card, debit card or check because they can be tracked. If you see an unauthorized transaction, you should notify your financial institution immediately.
If you think you’ve fallen victim to fraud, you can contact the National Center for Disaster Fraud, set up by the U.S. Department of Justice following Hurricane Katrina. If you think you’re a victim of a cybercrime, contact the Internet Crime Complaint Center established by the FBI, or the National White Collar Crime Center.
Published: March 18, 2011
The scenes of devastation wrought by the earthquake and tsunami in Japan have Americans rushing to their computers, wanting to contribute to disaster relief efforts.
But before you input your credit card information on some charity’s website and hit “send,” vet the charitable organization to make sure it’s legitimate — or your money might end up feeding a scammer’s greed instead of a person in need.After a disaster, frauds pose as charities to take your card info
Just days after the disaster began to unfold, philanthropic and computer security experts were already hearing reports of fake e-mails and Facebook pages popping up, appealing for donations.
At a time like this, Americans are “very susceptible” to pleas for assistance, says Doug White, academic director of the George H. Heyman Center for Philanthropy and Fundraising at the New York University School of Continuing and Professional Studies. “People are saying, ‘What can we do to help the people of Japan?’ It’s a natural outpouring of our humanity.”
But just like any other online transaction, you need to do your due diligence about the organization where you plan to send money and the security of its website. That can protect you from credit card and identity theft — and make sure you’re not padding the pockets of a fraudster.
Check out the charity
The most important thing you can do before making a donation is to research the charity.
“A lot of fake organizations emerge after something like this,” White says.
And even if one is legit, “a charity in a situation like this needs to have an on-ground presence.” Donating to a startup that isn’t already involved in Japan “may hinder their ability to really follow through on promises,” says Bennett Weiner, chief operating officer of the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance. The organization monitors and reports on charities that solicit nationally or provide national or international services.
You can learn more about a charity you have your eye on through the Better Business website or sites such as Charity Navigator or Guide Star.
Charity Navigator has vetted 5,500 of the 1 million charities in existence, says spokeswoman Sandra Miniutti. The groups evaluated accounts for about 65 percent of all donations made and are registered with the Internal Revenue Service as 501(c)3 nonprofit organizations
The one major exception to Charity Navigator’s rating system are groups such as the Salvation Army, which are registered as churches and do not have to file an IRS Form 990, or Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax.
You can check to see if an organization is designated as a 501(c)3 at the IRS website.
In a situation such as the disaster in Japan, White recommends choosing a charity that has a long history of taking in large sums of money quickly, such as the Red Cross, World Vision or UNICEF, which should help ensure the funds are processed properly.
TIPS TO AVOID GETTING SCAMMED
* Check out a charity thoroughly. You can use sites such as the Better Business Bureau, Charity Navigator, Guide Starand the Internal Revenue Service.
* Only make donations through a charity’s website. Manually enter the domain name into the address bar.
* Be wary of e-mails requesting donations. Don’t ever click on a link included in unsolicited “charity” e-mails.
* Don’t send credit card information via e-mail or through social networking sites because they probably aren’t secure.
* Make donations via credit card, debit card or check so you can track them with your financial institution; credit card donations have the most protection.
* Donation requests via online advertising banners can be scams.
* If someone calls requesting a donation, do not divulge your credit card number. Ask them to mail you a donation envelope.
* Give only to charities, not individuals, particularly if the “individual” e-mails a sob story, ostensibly from Japan.
* If you make a donation via credit card or debit card, check your online statement or account a few days later to be sure you have been charged the correct amount.
Sources: Robert Siciliano, CEO of IDTheftSecurity.com; Wells Fargo; McAfee; Discover
Weiner says it’s important to remember “different organizations have different expertise, depending n what phase of the disaster they are involved in.” Some focus on search and rescue, others on emergency relief and others on reconstruction
If you want to deduct the donation from your taxes, your contribution must go to a U.S.-based charity, he adds.
Keep your guard up
While you probably know better than to fall prey to a Nigerian e-mail scam or a phony bank e-mail asking you to “verify” your account information, it’s easier to fall victim to an emotional appeal during a natural disaster.
“Watch out for phishing expeditions,” Weiner says. You might receive a spam e-mail claiming to link to the website of a well-known charity, and the e-mail could very well link to a phony site that’s set up to collect your personal information and use it for credit card theft or identity theft.
Instead, if you want to give money to a particular organization, Weiner recommends going directly to that charity’s website to make a donation through its secure server.
Miniutti also warns against clicking through on links posted on Facebook, even if they look legitimate.
Also be wary of people claiming to be victims of the disaster, she says. In the earthquake and tsunami devastated regions, “victims in Japan don’t have Internet, let alone your e-mail address.”
Not-so high tech
Not all scammers rely on high-tech techniques
Some will use the phone to call, claiming they represent a particular charity, and ask for your credit card number so you can make a “donation.” (Being registered on the Do Not Call List does not prohibit legitimate charities from contacting you.)
Rather than providing your credit card information, Weiner recommends writing down the charity’s information, and then checking it out online.
“People’s guards go down when it’s a charity and their emotions are involved,” he says.
Even fundraising efforts at local businesses should be scrutinized. You should ask what charity the money is going to, what percentage of proceeds is being donated and if there is a maximum or minimum amount that will be donated, Weiner says.
While these may not be scams, the efforts may be happening without the knowledge or blessing of the charity being touted.
Cash, check, charge?
The experts agree that a credit card donation is the best route to take because it gets to the recipient fastest. And the major credit card companies have announced they are waiving transaction fees for contributions to certain charities because of the disaster.
Many organizations also accept donations via text, but there may be texting fees, and delays of days or weeks before the money arrives, White says.
Donations should never be made in cash. While checks are secure, they may be more labor intensive to process.
In a statement, Wells Fargo recommends making donations by credit card, debit card or check because they can be tracked. If you see an unauthorized transaction, you should notify your financial institution immediately.
If you think you’ve fallen victim to fraud, you can contact the National Center for Disaster Fraud, set up by the U.S. Department of Justice following Hurricane Katrina. If you think you’re a victim of a cybercrime, contact the Internet Crime Complaint Center established by the FBI, or the National White Collar Crime Center.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)