A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Council chief hits back in £4m Old Trafford hotel loan row


The leader of Trafford council has fought back after criticism over a potential £4m loan to Lancashire County Cricket Club for a new hotel.

The club announced that following a £5m cash injection, the plan for the four-star 150 bedroom hotel, replacing the current one at the Emirates Old Trafford, had moved a step closer.

Bosses say the £12m project will create £1m-worth of employment a year and bring in an extra £2.3m.

Greater Manchester’s combined authority has agreed to provide the £5m loan.

But the plan hinges on another loan, for £4m, from Trafford town hall. The club has already secured the remaining £3m.

Council bosses say the loan will be secured by the town hall at a preferential rate, before the cash is passed on to the cricket club.

It will be paid back, along with the combined authority loan, with interest, by 2021.

A decision will be made by the council at the end of the month.

Opposition Labour leader Andrew Western has expressed ‘concern’ over the arrangement, arguing that the council should not be taking out loans for private businesses in times of austerity.

In 2013, the council gave the club financial backing of £21m for a regeneration project by selling land to supermarket giant Tesco.

Trafford council leader Sean Anstee

Tesco bosses, struggling to secure planning permission for an extension of their Stretford store, offered to buy an unused plot at a nearby high school for £20m more than its worth – if the cash was ring-fenced for the cricket club.

The land-deal was met with fury by Labour councillors.

Coun Western said: “Once again, the council finds itself in the position of being asked to provide financial support to Lancashire County Cricket Club just a few years after gifting some £21m to the club to furnish its recent redevelopment.

“Although I appreciate that on this occasion, we would be talking about a loan rather than a gift, it does concern me that a private business should need to come to the council once more for assistance.

“If this proposal is as sound as is being suggested, the club would be able to source a bank loan for the amount required independently.

“I do not believe the council should be expected to help them out to the tune of millions of pounds yet again at a time of continued austerity.

“I would much rather see investment in the local economy used to support small and medium-sized enterprises who are struggling to access lending in what continues to be a difficult financial climate.”

The council has to cut £21.5m from the books this year.

Leader Sean Anstee said the project will create nearly 80 jobs and bring in an extra £2.3m a year for the borough.

He highlighted that the town hall will make money thanks to interest on the loan, and that council borrowing cannot be used to mitigate service cuts.

Coun Anstee, who also highlighted that the plan is backed by Labour leaders across the region, added: “The choice isn’t whether we want to borrow to fund services.

“It’s whether we use prudential borrowing to support and boost growth. We can continue in austerity and do nothing; or we can choose to lend this money, create jobs and bring an extra £2.3m in. This will cost the taxpayer nothing.”

Lib Dem leader Ray Bowker described the deal as a ‘win-win-win’.


War Eagle Receives Cash From Sale of Tres Marias Project, Mexico

VANCOUVER, BC–(Marketwired – March 03, 2015) – War Eagle Mining Company Inc. (TSX VENTURE: WAR) (“War Eagle” or the “Company”) is pleased to report that it has received a further US$300,000 (approximately Cdn$375,000) installment of the proceeds of the sale in 2014 of the Tres Marias zinc-lead-germanium project in Chihuahua, Mexico to Contratista y Operaciones Mineras SA de CV (“Comsa”), a private Mexican mining company. Total consideration for the sale was US$5,000,000 cash which is to be satisfied by (i) loan repayments totaling US$400,000 cash (now received) plus (ii) the balance in fixed periodic loan repayments totaling $2,100,000 to be received over a period to July 2016, the next such repayment to be US$600,000 in July 2015, (iii) an additional US$400,000 if sales of product are US$20 million or more, (iv) a further US$400,000 if sales of product are US$25 million or more and (v) a 2% net smelter return royalty to a maximum of a further US$2,500,000. Accordingly, total consideration could be as much as US$5,800,000.

Comsa has numerous permits in place to facilitate mine development and has significantly advanced the final permit application to enable commercial production.

This news release was prepared by management of War Eagle, which takes full responsibility for its contents. Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

FinanceInvestment & Company InformationWar Eagle Contact:

For additional information please contact:

War Eagle Mining Company Inc.

Thomas R. Atkins
President and CEO

Malcolm P. Burke
604-689-1515 x 308



Stewart Information Services to Increase Annual Cash Dividend to $1.00


Stewart Information Services Corp. (STC) (“Stewart”), a leading provider of real estate services, including global residential and commercial title insurance, escrow and settlement services, lender services, underwriting, specialty insurance and other solutions that facilitate successful real estate transactions, today announced that its Board of Directors has approved an increase in the Company’s cash dividend payable to common shareholders from $0.10 per share annually to $1.00 per share to be paid quarterly at a rate of $0.25 per share beginning in the second quarter of this year. The Company’s existing share repurchase authorization will remain in effect and be used opportunistically based on various factors such as the Company’s stock price, operational performance and other relevant criteria.

“Today’s dividend increase highlights the solid progress we have made toward transforming Stewart and reflects our confidence in the Company’s ability to deliver solid cash flow in 2015 and beyond,” said Matthew W. Morris, Chief Executive Officer. “We continue to engage our shareholders regarding our capital return strategy. Given the continued progress in our business, we are pleased to be in a position to advance a competitive and sustainable dividend policy alongside our share repurchase program. Going forward, we will remain committed to returning meaningful amounts of capital to shareholders on a regular basis while also maintaining our ratings and a capital base that supports the growth in our business.”

The continuation of the quarterly cash dividend is subject to certain factors, including, among others, the ability to obtain excess capital from Stewart’s regulated insurance subsidiary, the performance of the Company’s business, the Company’s ratings and the capital surplus position of the Company.

About Stewart

Stewart Information Services Corp. (NYSE:STC) is a customer-focused, global title insurance and real estate services company offering products and services through our direct operations, network of approved agencies and other companies within the Stewart family. Stewart provides these services to homebuyers and sellers; residential and commercial real estate professionals; mortgage lenders and servicers; title agencies and real estate attorneys; home builders; and United States and county governments. Stewart also provides loan origination and servicing support; loan review services; loss mitigation; REO asset management; collateral valuations; due diligence for capital markets; home and personal insurance services; tax-deferred exchanges; and technology to streamline the real estate process. Stewart offers personalized service, industry expertise and customized solutions for virtually any type of real estate transaction, and is the preferred real estate services provider. More information can be found at, subscribe to the Stewart blog at or follow Stewart on Twitter @stewarttitleco.

Forward-looking statements

Certain statements in this news release are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements relate to future, not past, events and often address our expected future business and financial performance. These statements often contain words such as “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe,” “seek,” “will,” “foresee” or other similar words. Forward-looking statements by their nature are subject to various risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to be materially different than those expressed in the forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, among other things, the tenuous economic conditions; adverse changes in the level of real estate activity; changes in mortgage interest rates, existing and new home sales, and availability of mortgage financing; our ability to respond to and implement technology changes, including the completion of the implementation of our enterprise systems; the impact of unanticipated title losses or the need to strengthen our policy loss reserves; any effect of title losses on our cash flows and financial condition; the impact of vetting our agency operations for quality and profitability; changes to the participants in the secondary mortgage market and the rate of refinancing that affects the demand for title insurance products; regulatory non-compliance, fraud or defalcations by our title insurance agencies or employees; our ability to timely and cost-effectively respond to significant industry changes and introduce new products and services; the outcome of pending litigation; the impact of changes in governmental and insurance regulations, including any future reductions in the pricing of title insurance products and services; our dependence on our operating subsidiaries as a source of cash flow; the continued realization of expense savings from our cost management program; our ability to successfully integrate acquired businesses; our ability to access the equity and debt financing markets when and if needed; our ability to grow our international operations; and our ability to respond to the actions of our competitors. These risks and uncertainties, as well as others, are discussed in more detail in our documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Form 10-K, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, and our Current Reports on Form 8-K. We expressly disclaim any obligation to update any forward-looking statements contained in this news release to reflect events or circumstances that may arise after the date hereof, except as may be required by applicable law.

Trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

FinanceInvestment & Company Informationreal estate Contact:

Stewart Information Services Corp.

John Arcidiacono, 713-625-8019

Chief Marketing Officer

Nat Otis, 713-625-8360

Director-Investor Relations […]

Government Loans: Risky Business for Taxpayers

Obtaining a loan from the government now seems perfectly normal to most Americans, be the loans for education, business, healthcare, or whatever else.

Examples include Small Business Administration loans, where a potential business owner goes to the government to get startup cash, and student loans, where a college student borrows money for tuition or even living expenses. These loans can often be paid back with interest over the course of what is often several decades.

Other examples might include Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Veterans Administration (VA), or Rural Housing Services (RHS) loans, which differ from the former in the sense that they are government insured loans, yet the fundamental principle behind them remains the same: government is taking upon itself (via taxpayers) the risk behind making the loan.

Of course, private loans are also available, though those that do not employ government insurance or other subsidies usually come with higher interest rates. The higher interest rates in the purely-private sector come from the fact that the private entity making the loan must take on all the risk, instead of externalizing it to the taxpayers.

So, the reality of lower interest rates in government and government-subsidized loans means they are vitally necessary, right?

First of all, the government doesn’t “make money,” in the way that private entities do. There is only one way in which states initially accumulate revenue, and that is through taxation. This extorted wealth is originally made in the private sector. So, in order for a government to make a loan back to the private sector, that money must first be removed from the private sector via taxation.

Government Knows How To Best Spend Your Money

For private entities, however, when they make a loan and determine who qualifies for it, and at what interest rate, the private firm making the loan is basically determining at what price (i.e, interest rate) the firm feels adequately compensated for the risk of lending out this money, and for giving up direct control over that money for the duration.

To claim, therefore, that the government should be in the business of making loans because private loans are generally too costly or too inaccessible for buyers, is no different than saying that government must take individual’s money and use it in a way that the original owners (i.e., the taxpayers) themselves would determine to be reckless and irresponsible. While it is true that occasionally a government loan may be paid back with interest at the appropriate time, it would be absurd to suggest that politicians would be more knowledgeable about how a person’s money should be used than the person who originally created and owned the wealth in the first place.

But Government Should At Least Prevent Usury, Right?

Moreover, there are those who will say that private firms making loans should be restricted from charging “excessive” interest on their loans (i.e., usury). This is an example of a very well-meaning, but utterly damaging regulation. It is crucial to note the differences in time preference displayed by both the lender and the borrower. The lender’s time preference (in this case) is lower than that of the borrower’s, meaning that the lender prefers a larger sum of money in the future, and the borrower prefers a smaller sum now. To get money now, however, the borrower must pay for it in the form of interest.

This represents a healthy balance between lenders and borrowers. It is why loans are made. Laws passed that prohibit certain interest rates on loans are far more likely to hurt those who need the loans, than anyone else. As was previously stated, a firm or person making a loan must feel compensated for the risk of making the loan, and that compensation manifests itself in the interest rate. To restrict a firm from charging a certain percentage of interest on their loans will only reduce the amount of loans it gives out.

Taking Away Your Choices

If a potential borrower who is determined to be a rather high risk asks for a private loan, then their interest on that loan will be quite high, but at least in that situation, the borrower has the choice of taking the loan, or to not take the loan. In the end, the borrower will choose what he or she believes will most benefit him or her. Yes, the borrower might miscalculate and the loan might turn out to have been a bad idea, but at least the borrower had a choice.

On the other hand, if the amount of interest that could be charged on the loan were to be forced down via government regulation, then the firm or person making the loan would simply not offer the loan at all, as he or she would not feel their risk is justified by the legally-allowable interest rate.

Faced with a lack of loans, risky borrowers may then look to government and government-subsidized loans as an option, but we find here just another case of government offering itself as the (taxpayer-funded) solution to a problem it caused in the first place.

Image source: iStockphoto.

Note: The views expressed on are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.


Dranoff pays off DRPA loan for Camden building


Last updated: Tuesday, February 3, 2015, 1:07 AM
Posted: Monday, February 2, 2015, 4:59 PM

Developer Dranoff Properties has repaid a $3 million loan, with $1.28 million in interest, on the Victor Lofts luxury apartment building on the Camden waterfront, the Delaware River Port Authority said Monday.

The DRPA lent Dranoff the money in 2003 to convert the old Radio Corp. of America “Nipper” Building into 341 apartments.

The building was listed for sale last fall, but Carl Dranoff said Monday that his company might keep it.

“We’re considering our options to retain, refinance, or sell it,” he said. “It’s all still under consideration.”

The $3 million loan was part of the DRPA’s controversial “economic development” spending program, which funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into real estate, stadiums, museums, and other projects. The DRPA stopped making those grants and loans in 2011.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Philadelphia has been investigating the DRPA’s economic-development spending for nearly two years.

The Victor loan was to be interest-free until 2009, when Dranoff was supposed to start repaying it in monthly installments.

But the agreement with the DRPA stated that Dranoff’s obligation to make payments was limited to the Victor’s “available cash flow,” and Dranoff had not made any payments.

The repayment of $4.28 million announced Monday represents interest of about 3.9 percent a year over the 11 years.

“The loan was paid off on time with all interest, in accordance with the loan documents,” Dranoff said.

The money will be placed in the DRPA’s general fund, DRPA chief financial officer James White said.

In a related development, the DRPA said Monday that a $10 million loan guarantee made by the DRPA to the New Jersey Economic Development Authority in 2001 had been discharged.

That guarantee was part of a financial incentive package to retain L-3 Communications in Camden.

In December, the development authority sold the building previously occupied by L-3 to a private developer, allowing the DRPA to close the loan guarantee.

“Each of these transactions represents a significant step toward permanently concluding the authority’s involvement in economic development,” said John Hanson, chief executive of the DRPA. “Our sole focus is on our core mission – stewardship of important transportation services and facilities – namely our bridges and PATCO.”

The six-story Victor Lofts structure (not including its tower) is part of what little remains of a 58-acre industrial complex.

The building began as the headquarters of Eldridge B. Johnson’s Victor Talking Machine Co. in 1901. The company was sold to RCA in 1929, then morphed into a General Electric aerospace division in 1986.

The building then became the Victor, the commercial-and-residential venture owned by Dranoff Properties, in 2003.

More environmental cleanup is required at the 60,000-square-foot Building 8, another former RCA building awaiting redevelopment, Dranoff said.

No work will be done until additional financing is available, he said. 215-854-4587 @nussbaumpaul […]

Fitch Affirms Rhode Island Student Loan Authority 2009 Trust


Fitch Ratings affirms the ratings of the bonds issued by the Rhode Island Student Loan Authority (RISLA) 2009 Trust at ‘Asf’. The Outlook remains Stable.

A detailed list of rating actions follows at the end of this press release.

The affirmations are based on a sufficient level of enhancement to cover the applicable risk factor stresses. The collateral consists of 100% private student loans.


Adequate Collateral Quality: The trust is collateralized by approximately $147.1 million of private student loans as of September 2014. The loans were originated under the Rhode Island Family Education Loan program by RISLA. The projected rating defaults are expected to range between 9%-11% as a percentage of the current pool balance. A recovery rate of 55% was applied which was determined to be appropriate based on data provided by the issuer.

Sufficient Credit Enhancement (CE): CE is provided by overcollateralization (OC; the excess of trust’s asset balance over bond balance) and excess spread. Total parity is currently 110.36% as of September 2014. Cash may be released to the issuer until Dec. 1, 2017 provided that parity exceeds 121%.

Satisfactory Servicing Capabilities: Day-to-day servicing is provided by RISLA. Fitch believes the servicing operations are acceptable at this time.


As Fitch’s base case default proxy is derived primarily from historical collateral performance, actual performance may differ from the expected performance, resulting in higher loss levels than the base case. This will result in a decline in CE and remaining loss coverage levels available to the notes and may make certain note ratings susceptible to potential negative rating actions, depending on the extent of the decline in coverage. Fitch will continue to monitor the performance of the trust.

A comparison of the transaction’s Representations, Warranties and Enforcement Mechanisms (RW&E) to those of typical RW&Es for that asset class is available at

Fitch affirms the following ratings:

Rhode Island Student Loan Authority Series 2009

–Serial 2015 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2016 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2017 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2017* at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2018 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2019 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2019* at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2020 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2021 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2022 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Term 2030 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable.

Rhode Island Student Loan Authority Series 2010A

–Serial 2015 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2016 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2017 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2018 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2019 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2020 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2021 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2022 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2023 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2024 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2025 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2026 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable.

Rhode Island Student Loan Authority Series 2010B

–Serial 2015 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2016 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2017 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2018 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2019 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2020 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2021 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2022 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2023 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2024 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2025 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable.

Rhode Island Student Loan Authority Series 2012A

–Serial 2015 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2016 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2017 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2018 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2019 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2020 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2021 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2022 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2023 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2024 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2025 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable.

Rhode Island Student Loan Authority Series 2013A

–Serial 2015 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2016 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2017 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2018 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2019 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2020 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2021 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2022 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2023 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2024 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2025 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2026 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2027 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–Serial 2028 at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

Rhode Island Student Loan Authority Series 2014

–A(2015) at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–A(2016) at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–A(2017) at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–A(2018) at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–A(2019) at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–A(2020) at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–A(2021) at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–A(2022) at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–A(2023) at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–A(2024) at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–A(2025) at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–A(2026) at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–A(2027) at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–A(2028) at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;

–A(2029) at ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable.

Additional information is available at ‘‘.

Applicable Criteria and Related Research:

–‘U.S. Private Student Loan ABS Criteria’ (Jan. 29, 2014);

–‘Global Structured Finance Rating Criteria’ (Aug. 4, 2014);

–‘Representations, Warranties, and Enforcement Mechanisms in Global Structured Finance Transactions’ (Oct. 31, 2014);

–‘Rhode Island Student Loan Authority 2014 Senior Series A–Appendix’ (April 1, 2014).

Applicable Criteria and Related Research:

U.S. Private Student Loan ABS Criteria

Global Structured Finance Rating Criteria

Representations, Warranties and Enforcement Mechanisms in Global Structured Finance Transactions

Rhode Island Student Loan Authority 2014 Senior Series A — Appendix

Additional Disclosure

Solicitation Status


Investment & Company InformationFinanceFitch Ratings Contact:

Fitch Ratings

Primary Analyst

Charlene M. Davis


+1 212-908-0213

Fitch Ratings, Inc.

33 Whitehall St.

New York, NY 10004


Committee Chairperson

Tracy Wan

Senior Director

+1 212-908-9171


Media Relations:

Sandro Scenga, +1 212-908-0278 […]

Cash America Announces New Share Repurchase Authorization for up to 4 Million Shares


Cash America International, Inc. (CSH) announced today that its board of directors, at its regularly scheduled meeting, authorized the repurchase of up to 4.0 million shares of the Company’s outstanding common stock, par value $0.10 per share. The share repurchase authorization does not have an expiration date, and the amount and prices paid for any future share purchases under the new authorization will be based on market conditions and other factors at the time of the purchase. Repurchases under the share repurchase program will be made through open market purchases or private transactions, in accordance with applicable federal securities laws. This new authorization cancels and replaces a previous authorization to purchase up to 2.5 million shares of common stock, under which approximately 41% of the authorized shares had been repurchased as of December 31, 2014.

Repurchased shares will be held as treasury stock for general corporate purposes. As of December 31, 2014, there were approximately 29 million shares of Cash America common stock issued and outstanding; therefore, the new authorization represents approximately 14% of the currently issued and outstanding shares of common stock.

In a separate release today, the Company also announced that its board of directors increased the quarterly cash dividend to 5 cents per share from 3.5 cents per share. The dividend will be payable on February 25, 2015 to shareholders of record on February 11, 2015. See the separate press release for additional details.

About the Company

As of December 31, 2014 Cash America International, Inc. (the “Company”) operated 943 total locations offering specialty financial services to consumers, which included the following:

859 lending locations in 21 states in the United States primarily under the names “Cash America Pawn,” “SuperPawn,” “Cash America Payday Advance,” and “Cashland;” and 84 check cashing centers (all of which are unconsolidated franchised check cashing centers) operating in 12 states in the United States under the name “Mr. Payroll.”

For additional information regarding Cash America International, Inc. visit its website located at

Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995

This release contains forward-looking statements about the business, financial condition, operations and prospects of the Company. The actual results of the Company could differ materially from those indicated by the forward-looking statements because of various risks and uncertainties including, without limitation: the effect of, compliance with or changes in domestic pawn, consumer credit, tax and other laws and governmental rules and regulations applicable to the Company’s business or changes in the interpretation or enforcement thereof; the regulatory and examination authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, including the effect of and compliance with a consent order the Company entered into with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in November 2013; risks related to the separation of the Company and Enova International, Inc.; a claim relating to the terms of the Company’s 5.75% senior notes; the actions of third parties who provide, acquire or offer products and services to, from or for the Company; public and regulatory perception of the Company’s business, including its consumer loan business and its business practices; the effect of any current or future litigation proceedings or any judicial decisions or rule-making that affect the Company, its products or its arbitration agreements; fluctuations, including a sustained decrease, in the price of gold or deterioration in economic conditions; a prolonged interruption in the Company’s operations of its facilities, systems and business functions, including its information technology and other business systems; changes in demand for the Company’s services and changes in competition; impairment risk related to the Company’s goodwill and intangible assets; the Company’s ability to attract and retain qualified executive officers; the ability of the Company to open new locations in accordance with its plans or to successfully integrate newly acquired businesses into the Company’s operations; interest rate fluctuations; changes in the capital markets, including the debt and equity markets; changes in the Company’s ability to satisfy its debt obligations or to refinance existing debt obligations or obtain new capital to finance growth; security breaches, cyber-attacks or fraudulent activity; acts of God, war or terrorism, pandemics and other events; the effect of any of such changes on the Company’s business or the markets in which it operates; and other risks and uncertainties indicated in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These risks and uncertainties are beyond the ability of the Company to control, nor can the Company predict, in many cases, all of the risks and uncertainties that could cause its actual results to differ materially from those indicated by the forward-looking statements. When used in this release, terms such as “believes,” “estimates,” “should,” “could,” “would,” “plans,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “may,” “forecasts,” “projects” and similar expressions and variations as they relate to the Company or its management are intended to identify forward-looking statements. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances occurring after the date of this release.

FinanceInvestment & Company Information Contact:

Cash America International, Inc.
Thomas A. Bessant, Jr., 817-335-1100


Trying to time the market with a mortgage?


Dear Dr. Don,
We currently own a multifamily unit with two 30-year fixed mortgages. One is for $200,000 at 5.25 percent and the other is for $65,000 at 3 percent. Our home is valued at $280,000. We would like to refinance and have cash to pay down the mortgage so that we will have 5 percent equity in the house to refinance. Do you recommend using the cash to pay down the debt to refinance or waiting until the home value rises? We also want to buy another home in the next few years in addition to the one we have.

— Michelle Myriad

Compare refinance rates and lower your monthly payments

Dear Michelle,
Unless you’re having cash flow problems that you’re trying to resolve by refinancing the two mortgages into one loan, the assumption here is that the lender on the $65,000 mortgage won’t sign off on refinancing the $200,000 loan, which forces you to refinance both loans. Otherwise, you’d hold on to that 3 percent rate.

Bringing cash to closing can get you that new mortgage, but you’ll still wind up paying private mortgage insurance on a conventional mortgage with less than 20 percent down. If you live in the home, an FHA loan requires less money down, but you’ll pay mortgage insurance upfront and in your monthly mortgage payment. An FHA loan requires a 3.6 percent down payment, and you’ve got that much equity in the property now without bringing cash to closing.

I’d lean toward refinancing now versus waiting for home values to rise, just because I don’t think you’ll like where mortgage rates go if you wait. It also makes things easier by having the financing in place before shopping for your next property.

Compare the cost of a cash-in closing on a conventional mortgage with the cost of closing an FHA loan. Private mortgage insurance doesn’t last forever with a conventional loan, but the mortgage insurance premium is permanent on an FHA financing. The difference in interest rates between the two loans should be small, but that’s also important in determining which loan is right for you.


Economics Daily Digest: Regulating payday loans, a hopeful look at …

By Rachel Goldfarb, originally published on Next New Deal

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Saqib Bhatti’s proposal to allow the Fed to lend directly to municipalities is one of many ideas you can vote on in the Progress Change Institute’s Big Ideas Project. The top 20 ideas will be presented members of Congress. Voting ends on Sunday, January 11. Click here to vote!

CFPB Sets Sights on Payday Loans (WSJ)

Alan Zibel reports on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s plans to explore creating new rules to regulate predatory payday lending, the first such rules on a federal level.

Consumer-advocacy groups say the loans are deceptive because borrowers often roll them over several times, racking up fees in the process. They also criticize high annual interest rates that can range from less than 200% to more than 500%, depending on the state, according to research by the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Early this year, the CFPB plans to convene a panel of small lenders to discuss its payday-loan plans, according to the people familiar with the matter. The bureau, like other federal agencies, is required to consider input from small businesses if regulations being developed are likely to have a significant impact on them.

Follow below the fold for more.

Signs of Economic Promise Are Offering Some Hope for the New Year (NYT)

Rachel Swarns reports on the positive signs that some are seeing, including new jobs for long-term job seekers and raises and more hours for workers at retail chains like Zara.

Don’t Believe What You Hear About the U.S. Economy (AJAM)

Dean Baker says it’s not yet time to celebrate an economic comeback. Growth is still slow enough that the labor market won’t reach pre-recession numbers by the end of 2015.

Why the Democrats Need Labor Again (Politico Magazine)

Timothy Noah interviews Thomas Geoghegan on his new book, which he describes as a “last-ditch effort for the Democrats” to revive the labor movement and win elections.

California Colleges See Surge in Efforts to Unionize Adjunct Faculty (LA Times)

Larry Gordon speaks to adjunct faculty at some of the private colleges in California that are seeing union organizing on campus for the first time.

Austerity’s End Strengthens U.S. Recovery (MSNBC)

Steve Benen corrects Grover Norquist’s attempt to give Republicans credit for economic growth, pointing to small increases in public spending as proof that austerity didn’t fix anything.

The Five Major Things We Screwed Up in Inequality in 2014 (The Guardian)

Suzanne McGee’s list includes the minimum wage, which she says needs a boost at a federal level, and race and economic opportunity, an issue she says we practically ignored.


Fitch: Loan Mod Loss Reporting Not Uniform among U.S. RMBS Servicers


U.S. RMBS servicers are not uniformly reporting losses associated with principal forbearance loan modifications, according to Fitch Ratings in its latest ‘US RMBS Servicer Snapshot’ report.

Fitch found that the timing of realized loss reporting can vary for loan modifications (mods) with principal forbearance. The forborne amount is often reported as a loss at the time of the mod. However, this is not always the case. The loss realization can also be delayed until the loan is liquidated.

Principal forbearance loan mods are important tools in the suite of options available to mortgage loan servicers for working with borrowers through challenging situations. Under a principal forbearance mod, the borrower’s interest-bearing principal balance is reduced, thus lowering the monthly payment. The forborne amount is not forgiven; the borrower is still obligated to repay the full principal amount when the property is sold or the loan is refinanced. If the loan reaches maturity, the forborne amount is required to be repaid as a balloon payment.

Mortgage loans are generally modified under either the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) program, or under a ‘proprietary’ mod program outside of HAMP. Fitch estimates that roughly 1.5 million private label RMBS loans were modified between June 2009 and June 2014. Of that amount, approximately one-third received a HAMP mod, with the remaining two-thirds falling under a proprietary program.

The Treasury Department’s guidance for HAMP mods is for servicers to report to the trustee or securities administrator any forborne principal as a realized loss at the time of the loan modification. Fitch has found that servicers generally follow this reporting guidance for HAMP mods, as well as for many proprietary principal forbearance mod programs.

However, servicers may take a different reporting approach with proprietary mods. Instead of reporting the non-interest bearing deferred amounts as a loss at the time of the mod, the loss may be reported at the time the loan is liquidated. Servicers that report forborne loss amounts in this manner for proprietary mods indicated to Fitch that their approach is guided by the pooling and servicing agreement. If the borrower is eventually able to pay off the loan in full (including the forborne principal), a loss may never be reported.

Fitch’s rating analysis of seasoned transactions is governed by several factors. Among them include observed performance, cash flow analysis, deal structure, servicer practices and loss timing. The impact of delayed reporting of forborne principal losses on RMBS is that subordinate bonds do not incur a principal writedown at the time of the mod. This may allow subordinate bonds to remain outstanding longer than if the loss were realized at the time of the mod. However, Fitch believes that the high percentage of distressed ratings on legacy transactions reflect conservative cash flow assumptions and therefore delayed loss recognition will have minimal ratings pressure.

Fitch will continue to monitor servicer approaches to reporting losses related to principal forbearance on proprietary loan modifications and its impact to RMBS transactions.

‘US RMBS Servicer Snapshot’ is available at ‘‘ or by clicking on the link.

Additional information is available at ‘‘.

Applicable Criteria and Related Research:

Monthly RMBS Servicer Snapshot


FinanceInvestment & Company Information Contact:

Fitch Ratings

Natasha Aikins



Fitch Ratings

33 Whitehall Street

New York, NY 10004


Roelof Slump

Managing Director



Media Relations

Elizabeth Fogerty


New York


Media Relations

Sandro Scenga


New York […]