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
Wednesday, 6 July 2011
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.’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)