LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

Posted: Sep. 13, 2011 | 2:00 a.m.

Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto on Monday expressed concern over a possible settlement with some of the country’s top mortgage servicers.

Masto told the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s editorial board that she wouldn’t sign any settlement that would grant the banks broad relief from continuing mortgage investigations, especially if it could affect the state’s own civil and criminal investigations.

Attorneys general from all 50 states last year launched an investigation into bank foreclosure practices after reports that faulty documents were behind banks’ decisions to seize homes.

Since then, an executive committee of 13 attorneys general has been negotiating a reported $20 billion settlement with the five largest U.S. mortgage servicers: Bank of America Corp., JP Morgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and Ally Financial Inc.

The banks want protection from additional claims stemming from their mortgage practices.

Masto said her office has filed an appeal with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to have its lawsuit against Bank of America moved back to state court. The lawsuit, first filed in December, accused Bank of America of harming Nevada homeowners by failing to help them modify their mortgages.

Masto had filed the case in state court in Las Vegas, but Bank of America succeeded in having it moved to federal court in Reno. Masto argued the case was a complaint filed by the state of Nevada and belonged in state court.

Earlier this month, she amended her original complaint to allege that the bank violated the state’s deceptive trade practices act by falsely assuring customers that their homes would not be foreclosed on while requests for modifications were pending.

She is seeking to revoke a 2009 settlement with Bank of America over loan abuses involving its Countrywide Financial Corp. unit, charging that the bank broke the settlement terms. For example, the complaint says Bank of America increased Countrywide customers’ interest rate and monthly payments even though the settlement allows only modifications that decrease consumers’ interest rates.

Masto, who attended the meeting with Assembly Majority Floor Leader Marcus Conklin, D-Las Vegas, argued that “servicing” and “robosigning” of foreclosure documents were at the center of the problems that plague Nevada’s real estate market.

Conklin said because of faulty documentation banks are “not sure who owns the property. He said efforts by Masto and others aim to streamline the foreclosure and loan servicing processes, not let homeowners get away without paying their mortgages.

Conklin said Assembly Bill 284, which Gov. Brian Sandoval signed into law, is a response to robosignings, in which low-level employees of loan servicers signed affidavits that made incorrect claims about complicated matters. As a result, some homeowners in Las Vegas have been wrongly foreclosed upon.

The new law requires a home mortgage lender to file documents when the lender sells a mortgage loan. The documents must be filed within 60 days in the county where the property is located.

Conklin said homeowners struggling to avoid foreclosure have been unable to determine who owned their loans because the documents were filed electronically in a national database and weren’t maintained as public records

“It’s about the rightful ownership of a piece of property,” he said.

On the servicing side, Masto said there was no reason a decision on whether to approve a loan modification or foreclosure couldn’t be reached in 60 to 90 days, instead of the current six to 18 months.

Contact reporter Chris Sieroty at csieroty@reviewjournal.com or 702-477-3893.

Banking Insider: Chris Sieroty

Lenders say newly mandated swipe fees will drain revenue

You might not have paid close attention to the battle between banks and merchants over debit cards, but you’ll likely notice the outcome in your wallet.

The dispute was over debit card interchange fees — the payment merchants make to banks to process customer transactions. In 2010, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act required the Federal Reserve to ensure that the fee was “reasonable.”

The Fed settled on a maximum fee of 21 cents plus 0.05 percent of the transaction amount, which works out to about 24 cents on the average debit purchase.

The new limits are much lower than the current swipe fee average of 44 cents per swipe. That cap applies only to debit transactions and not credit cards.

Rules regulating the interchange market exempted financial institutions with less than $10 billion in assets. Those with more than $10 billion in assets, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Bank of America Corp., will see interchange fees capped.

The cap is scheduled to go into effect Oct. 1. In preparation, some of the nation’s largest banks and most recognizable brands in Las Vegas have scaled back or eliminated rewards and free checking.

Many of the same banks have argued the cap would lead to multibillion-dollar losses in revenue, which would hurt their ability to lend to small businesses.

Bank of America has warned that the new regulation will cost it $1.8 billion to $2.3 billion annually. Wells Fargo just increased its estimate of the after-tax impact of lower fees to $325 million per quarter, or $1.3 billion annually, up from a previous estimate of $250 million.

Gary Kishner, a JP Morgan Chase spokesman, attributed the bank discontinuing its debit card rewards program and revamping its free checking accounts to the Fed’s decision.

He said the cap on fees could cost the bank about $1.3 billion annually.

Interchange fees collected last year were worth about $16.2 billion, roughly 80 percent of which went to the 10 largest U.S. banks, including Bank of America and Chase.

For now, smaller community banks will receive the same fee they have been receiving. The price setting of interchange fees will ultimately harm local banks.

Hanan Sabri, consultant to Service 1st Bank of Nevada, noted that demand deposit accounts are the central product offered by both large and small banks, and that debit cards allow smaller banks to offer their customers the same global transaction service that big banks provide.

“Every decrease in the fee means less revenue for us. The larger financial institutions have the ability to absorb the new fee rates,” Sabri said. “It could have an impact on a bank’s ability to lend money. It is an income loss for the bank.”

She said in the long run a two-tier interchange system would not work. Such a system places community banks at a significant disadvantage to large institutions, as merchants will be less willing to accept their higher-priced cards.

Although the new rules exempt Service 1st Bank of Nevada and other similar-sized institutions, the American Bankers Association said that competition will force community banks to offer the same fees as the large banks.

Over time, marketplace dynamics will align or merge the two tiers, severely harming consumers, community banks and the electronic payment system. Debit interchange revenues enable community banks in Nevada to provide consumers with a variety of free debt card products and services, as well as free checking.

“We are deeply troubled that the Fed did not include specific enforcement provisions in the final rule to ensure community banks receive the benefit of the statutory small-bank exemption designed to insulate the nation’s more than 7,000 community banks and their customers from decreases in interchange revenue and the subsequent increases in customer fees over time,” said Sal Marranca, chairman of the Independent Community Bankers of America.

Marranca said instead of price caps, the Independent Community Bankers of America supports set standards for determining whether interchange fees are reasonable and proportional by permitting interchange fees that cover all allowable issuer costs — including fraud prevention and fraud losses — plus a reasonable rate of return.

Sabri declined to discuss debit card transactions or revenue earned by those transactions.

But, a midsized bank, for example, that handles 16 million debit-card transactions each year, would generate $4.6 million in revenue, based in total card sales volume of $600 million on 140,00 debit cards.

That is equivalent to less than $3 per month per card, according to the American Bankers Association.

Sabri said no one really knows the impact of the new interchange fees, since they do not take effect until October. But, she cautioned that bankers are going to want to look at their books and see how they can make up the losses.

Contact Chris Sieroty at csieroty@reviewjournal.com or 702-477-3893. http://www.lvbusinesspress.com/

LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

Posted: May 22, 2011 | 12:25 a.m.

Updated: May 22, 2011 | 12:36 p.m.

With Nevada educators and some lawmakers seeking new revenue to fund public education, Democratic legislators have proposed a new 1 percent tax on a wide range of services, from hair salons to plumbing repairs, landscaping and diaper services.

And, possibly, even brothels.

The idea of a tax on services, economists and tax advocates say, was born as three-plus years of recession have battered Nevada’s traditional revenue sources — taxes on gaming, sales and property.

Some Las Vegas business owners say they’re nervous about the unknown effects any new tax would have on their firms and on a still struggling economy.

While Michael Mazerov, senior fellow with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, D.C., understands their hesitation, he says taxing services helps stabilize and neutralize a state’s tax system.

He contends that Nevada, with its dominant and growing service economy, would be better off because it would be better able to maintain financial support for education, health care and state and local governments during a recession when other state revenues decline.

Still, his insistence that broadening the tax base would actually benefit the local economy doesn’t reassure everyone.

“It’s a sluggish economy as we all know. It’s definitely going to put added strain and stress on smaller businesses,” says Nikki Musegades, owner the New York Hair Co. in Las Vegas.

With average visits ranging between $40 and $80, Musegades is concerned that regular clients, who come in twice a month, would be put off by a new tax. She says it’s too early to know whether the proposed tax would force her to raise her prices or simply pay the tax — from 40 to 80 cents for that average customer — out of her own pocket.

“We’ve seen a 15 percent to 20 percent decline in business over the last three years. It’s our existing clientele that is keeping us in business,” says Musegades, who moved to Las Vegas from El Segundo, Calif., in 2004 to open her salon.

Musegades also thinks service workers who depend on tips to supplement a minimum wage will also be affected: “Every little piece that is taken out by the tax is going to dip into what they are making.”

Pros and cons

If Democratic legislators have their way — Gov. Brian Sandoval has promised to veto any new taxes — they say the new service tax would raise about half of the $1.2 billion they are hoping to generate for education through new levies.

Some services would be exempt, including health care, day care and funerals. The tax would raise a projected $566 million in the next two years.

Sandoval and other anti-tax opponents argue that a transaction tax on services would threaten Nevada’s economic recovery and those businesses clinging to life after the recession.

But Christopher Thornberg, a founding partner and an economist with Beacon Economics in Los Angeles, says “Republican cries on taxes and prosperity are based more on faith than economic logic. Mind you at some point taxes can be bad for the economy. But the argument that the tax structure is crushing economic incentives doesn’t work.”

He says the general rule when it comes to taxes is that small taxes over a large base spread “the pain out over a large group.”

Thornberg has been advocating for a service tax in California, and maintains that a 3.5 percent tax on both goods and services would be more effective in generating revenue than a 10 percent tax on goods alone.

Regardless of the math, Democrats in the Nevada Legislature will need some Republican support to reach the two-thirds majority needed to pass tax bills and override the expected Sandoval veto.

Mike Larkin, whose Larkin Plumbing and Heating has been based in Las Vegas since 1936, says that while he understands the need for additional tax revenues, the state should first look at spending priorities.

Under the proposed legislation, he would have to charge customers the 1 percent service tax for labor in addition to the current sales tax on products associated with a repair or construction, from fixing a leaky sink to installing a new water heater. Instead of a bill for, say, $70 in labor, the charge would be $70.70.

Larkin is also concerned whether the state will be able to collect from what he says are his biggest competitors — unlicensed contractors who, by their very work, are violating state statutes.

Tax experts have urged states for decades to include more services in their tax base, but say its public support and passage depends on which services are taxed.

“Politically, taxes on services are a very tough thing to get through,” Mazerov says. “There have been more proposals than enactment of service taxes.”

But failing to recognize that consumption has been shifting from goods to services for decades, and not adjusting the tax structure, means states are “going to have serious erosion of (their) tax base,” he says.

To compensate for this trend, many states, including Nevada, have increased sales taxes. In 2009, the state’s minimum sales tax rate was temporarily increased from 6.5 percent to 6.85 percent to help close a previous budget deficit. The change was expected to raise $280 million in revenue by the end of the 2010-2011 fiscal year on June 30. Without legislative action and Sandoval’s signature, that 6.85 percent rate will sunset June 30, reverting back to 6.5 percent.

Sandoval has said he will not approve an extension of the expiring sales tax increase. Dale Erquiaga, a senior adviser to the governor, has argued that the $1.2 billion tax proposal, which includes a tax on services, was introduced too late in the session.

The ability of states to continue raising sales tax rates is constrained, however, by several factors, including the ease with which Nevada residents can shift their purchases to the Internet, where sales taxes often are not charged.

“If consumption continues to shift toward services, including services in the tax base will be essential to maintaining sales tax revenues over the long term,” Mazerov says.

Mark Robyn, staff economist at the Tax Foundation in Washington, attributes sales tax declines more to the recession than shifting trends in personal consumption: “People have been spending less and saving more, which translates into less retail spending.”

Sales taxes and rates vary

Nationally, the decline in sales tax revenues has leveled off, he says, but a modest growth rate had been expected as consumers cautiously begin spending again at the mall or on trips to Las Vegas.

In 2010, total sales taxes in the United States were $344 billion, compared with $345 billion in 2009 and $361 billion in 2008, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Some states have a single sales tax rate statewide though most permit local city and county additions to the base rate. In Clark County, for example, the sales tax rate is 8.10 percent. In Washoe County, which includes Reno, it’s 7.75 percent.

The 1.35 percent in add-ons to the state’s minimum sales tax in Clark County help fund infrastructure projects, road construction and public transportation, among other public services.

On the state level, sales tax collections are distributed between the state’s general fund, school districts and cities and counties, according to the Nevada Department of Taxation.

How much revenue is generated by a sales tax depends on the percentage tax rate and the goods and services that are taxed. Many states exempt from taxation goods viewed as necessities of life, such as food and medicine.

In fiscal year 2010, Nevada generated $2.55 billion in sales taxes.

The figure places Nevada near the bottom when compared to other states with no personal income tax, including Texas at $19.66 billion, Florida’s $18.53 billion, Washington’s $9.6 billion and Tennessee’s $6.13 billion.

Only South Dakota ($742.3 million) and Wyoming ($789.4 million) earned less than Nevada from sales taxes. Alaska and New Hampshire, two states with no personal income tax, also do not collect sales taxes.

Jeremy Aguero, principal analyst with Applied Analysis in Las Vegas, says the state’s current sales tax was among the “narrowest” as to what it applies to and “wholly dependent on the sale of goods.”

Aguero says that a progressive tax on services could include elective cosmetic surgery, accounting, architecture or even the lease of commercial buildings. He argues that sales taxes on items such as apparel or school items are regressive and a greater burden on lower-income residents.

Most states also apply selective sales taxes to particular foods and services separately from the general sales tax. The most common such taxes are on alcoholic beverages, motor fuels and tobacco.

Revenues from these taxes have been falling despite increases in rates.

Elliott Parker, professor and chairman of the Department of Economics at the University of Nevada, Reno, says the state’s sales tax system makes little sense: “We pay taxes when we purchase a DVD, but not when you rent a DVD.”

Mazerov takes it one step further, pointing out that most people don’t pay a tax to “download a movie or stream it over Netflix.”

Delayed tax plus borrowing

A number of states, including Pennsylvania, Hawaii, New Mexico, Washington and South Dakota, already tax some services.

In Pennsylvania, for example, a 5 percent tax is applied to a wide-ranging list of services that include lobbying, credit reporting, collections, secretarial, building maintenance and cleaning services.

Elizabeth Brassell, acting press secretary for that state’s Department of Revenue, says that Philadelphia (8 percent) and Allegheny County (7 percent) have approved local add-ons to the state’s tax on services.

Earlier this month, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy, a Democrat, signed a $40.1 billion budget that raises taxes on sales, income, cigarettes and corporations. The biennial plan also taxes more services, such as pet grooming, spa treatments and yoga.

UNR’s Parker says Nevada has another option at its disposal regarding a tax on services. Lawmakers could pass a service tax during the current session but hold off implementing it until 2012.

By waiting, he says that the state could securitize future revenues and issue bonds to generate immediate revenue to offset cuts in funding to higher education and K-12 in Nevada.

“It’s new revenue. We would be borrowing against future revenues,” Parker says.

The state would likely issue Tax Anticipation Notes, also known as TANs, which are short-term debt securities issued in anticipation of future tax collections. Revenue Anticipation Notes, or RANs, are similar short-term debt instruments used to meet revenue demands of municipalities and states.

Parker admits the idea might be hard for lawmakers, especially those opposed to new taxes or borrowing, to understand or approve.

“We’ve got this instinct that it’s bad to borrow,” he says. “There is good borrowing. Borrowing on secure sources of revenue would give us more certain revenue to be able to handle (deeper) recessions.”

He acknowledges that borrowing also means paying interest — money that could otherwise fund other state priorities, including law enforcement programs or education.

Mark Mathers, Nevada’s senior deputy treasurer, says there is no general authorization to issue short-term bonds backed by anticipated tax revenues or general fund revenues in Nevada.

“TANs or RANs are not authorized in state law,” Mathers says. The Legislature would have to “specifically authorize it in state law.”

Parker says some politicians, along with their constituents, need to understand the issuance of bonds can be an investment that results in long-term financial benefits.

“There is nothing bad with borrowing to build a factory or casinos,” he says. “Borrowing for consumption is what got us into this mess.”

Contact reporter Chris Sieroty at csieroty@reviewjournal.com or 702-477-3893.

Expo speaker stresses need for liquidity, the ability to offer a complete game

BY CHRIS SIEROTY

In the online poker industry, liquidity has been a popular term, but what exactly does it mean?

The short answer is it means critical mass, which can make or break a site whether it is real play or free play online poker.

Poker players want to be able to play a game at any hour of the day with the type of stakes they want. That requires having a large enough pool of players to play against.

“Liquidity is sometimes sold as the most important factor. But it’s not the only factor which is important,” said Suki Sandhu, vice president of product at IGT Interactive. “Liquidity as I see it enables you to improve the player’s experience.”

Sandhu cited Google, eBay and Facebook as companies that have been able to draw large audiences that remain loyal because of product offerings. EBay’s liquidity comes from product categories and the number of products the site offers, he said; Facebook’s liquidity comes from the site’s community.

“Liquidity is important because it allows you to offer a comprehensive site,” Sandhu told casino executives, government regulators and others during a panel discussion on the new challenges facing online poker at the iGaming North America 2011 spring conference.

The conference addressing all aspects of Internet gambling was held May 2-4 at the Monte Carlo. Panels assessed the fallout from the April 15 indictments of the founders of three major online poker sites and whether online casinos would increase business for brick-and-mortar resorts, among other topics.

Dan Michalski, of Pokerati.com, said anyone can run a single table online 24 hours a day with 300 people, if he can reach out to players and keep them coming back.

“That table will generate about $100 an hour, that’s $2,400 a day. That’s around $500,000 a year,” he said. “It takes just one person to run that table. It can be a successful business.”

Michalski said whether you have a player base of 300 or 5,000, if you offer a bad product it’s harder to attract critical mass.

“PokerStars did a great job and had some of the best tournaments out there,” he said. “Ninety percent of the people playing in those events were guaranteed to lose, yet (PokerStars) needed to make sure they had a good enough time that they (would) come back.”

Agreeing with Michalski, David Gzesh, a Las Vegas-based attorney specializing in Internet gaming law, said PokerStars was able to use its large base of customers to “do anything they wanted … well, not everything.”

The founders of the three largest online poker websites — PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker and Absolute Poker — were indicted April 15, charged with money laundering and bank fraud. Eleven executives were indicted and the companies’ domain names were seized by the federal government.

The online gaming industry has grown over the last decade, drawing an estimated 15 million Americans to bet on the World Wide Web.

But the indictments shouldn’t be considered an attack on Internet gaming itself, a defense attorney and partner in the Los Angeles-based law firm K&L Gates LLP said during an hourlong panel discussion assessing the fallout from the day of the indictments, known colloquially as Black Friday.

Fred Heather, who specializes in financial and corporate crime cases, said the government’s cases are based on financial crimes that are separate from the act of wagering money on online poker.

“The heart of this case is this collateral activity, which constitutes bank fraud and money laundering,” he said.

Paul Hugel, an attorney with Clayman & Rosenberg LLP in New York who specializes in securities fraud cases, questioned the bank fraud charges, because they don’t involve theft. He said a potential defense could be to show that bank executives knew what kind of transactions they were processing.

Both Hugel and Heather stressed that would be a difficult case to prove.

A panel of experts also told the gaming conference’s attendees that online casinos are expected to enhance business at brick-and-mortar properties, not cannibalize it.

Steve Rittvo, chairman and CEO of The Innovation Group in Basalt, Colo., said that the gaming industry, if it fails to adapt, could face a fate similar to that of the horse-racing industry, which was slow to “react as its core customer base started dying off.”

During a panel discussion focusing on Internet gaming’s effect on the casino industry, Rittvo stressed that he doesn’t “see cannibalization happening” if online poker is legalized.

“We see growth from all categories,” Rittvo said, adding that online gaming would allow companies to offer incentives to drive traffic from the Internet to casinos.

Bellagio poker operations director Doug Dalton agreed with Rittvo, saying that online poker had driven the growth of the hotel-casino’s poker offerings.

“Brick-and-mortar casinos were concerned online poker would take a lot of customers. What we found was it brought people into our poker room,” Dalton said.

Dalton said online poker allowed people to become more comfortable with the game before walking into a casino and playing for real money.

Contact reporter Chris Sieroty at csieroty@reviewjournal.com or 702-477-3893.