Sorting Through the Regulatory Jungle

May 10th, 2012

What just happened? Banks and financial institutions just got nailed with three pieces of legislation that are revolutionary to the industry and literally dismantle parts of it. Banks worldwide are being deputized to collect U.S. taxes in legislation they don't understand with huge penalties for non compliance and there has been little they can do about it. Many are now learning how powerful and negative the final details of the legislation are as the regulations have just been published and many bankers are having difficulty in sorting through the jungle of regulations. Let us help you sort it out. Compliance, not profits, is driving banking. The end result, it may be cheaper and prudent for foreign banks to pack up and leave the United States than it is to try to do business or banking here. And they are doing so in droves, as fast as they can. Why and what are the net results? No one knows what the results will be and how to even begin to pull the information together to determine it. What is evident is that the US has ceded its position as the leader in the financial world and as the safe haven to put your life savings. Let's start at the beginning and look at what these rules are that are so imposing on the banks. There are actually four:

Patriot Act
The Patriot Act gives the US government and its agencies the right to look at anyone’s financial records and transactions. It basically requires banks to delve deeply into clients financial matters, know and document the source of all money coming in or transferred through bank and financial accounts, report those transactions to government agencies and to examine in detail the financial transactions of accounts that have any relationship to persons involved in political positions in any country, at any level. This was originally couched as a way to smoke out terrorist money, then expanded to find drug money, then political graft in all jurisdictions and now tax cheats – anywhere in the world as well but especially US cheaters. Banks are rigorously examined by the regulators for any shortfalls in their recordkeeping and for any errors that they have made in reporting. The fines have been very large, in the millions of dollars, and have induced a number of banks to cease offering accounts to a broad spectrum of individuals. It is the fines for violation of the Patriot Act, under the guise of Anti Money Laundering (AML) and violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) that has grabbed the headlines, and scant amounts of actual money laundering has been detected – and much of this has been domestic such as Medicare fraud. Billions of dollars have been spent in upgrading systems and hiring people to monitor almost every single transaction and account in a bank. Incredulously, most of the fines thus far are because these efforts have not been fast or complete or thorough enough to satisfy the regulators rather than for allowing a few scoundrels to slip through. To the best of anyone’s knowledge, no terriorists have been found.

Dodd-Frank Act
This banking legislation grabbed all the headlines and is still being implemented. It is mostly being seen by the industry as a big bank issue and hits them hard in the consumer compliance and credit card areas. The final regulations are still in progress and will add to the compliance nightmare created by the Patriot Act. The Dodd Frank Act, if it were printed out on paper, would exceed twice the height of the Empire State Building so there is still more to come. The guts of the bill deal with the "too big to fail" concept and increased capital requirements. Parallel to Dodd Frank has been an increase in capital standards under the Basel III Protocol. Banks are now adjusting to Dodd Frank and the additional capital requirements and there has been a marked improvement in this area. But it has slowed down lending and tightened credit standards which has squeezed small companies out of the credit market and made home borrowing very restrictive and paper intensive. These standards, and pressures on appraisers, who come under scrutiny as well, have hammered the commercial real estate sector. The derivative markets are still a mess and the rules are under review and confusing. In spite of all this, Dodd Frank, although important, may have a less disruptive influence on banking than the other three pieces of legislation, but all taken together, it is deadly.

NRA Accounts
What sneaked in under the radar was the decision by the Treasury Department to enforce a piece of regulation that had been dormant, reporting interest paid on Non Resident Alien Accounts (NRA) which goes into effect on January 1, 2013 and FATCA. These have hit recent headlines because the implementing legislation has just been published for both. The reaction among bankers has been serious concern. Bankers are not sure what to do. Seminars, webinars, memos, emails are in full swing and just plain frustration has set in. NRA legislation itself is not too complicated. Fundamentally, banks are required to submit information by year end to the IRS on interest paid to NRA's in excess of $10. The system for reporting is essentially in place. Foreign corporations continue to be exempt, for now. What has changed is that this information had not been required since these individuals are exempt from paying US income tax on the earnings. So why report it? What is different now is information will now be sent to the Treasury Department, on a country by country basis. Our government has stated it intends to trade that information to other governments in exchange for information on US citizens in their countries and is essential to collect FATCA information. This makes the US no longer as safe a haven for foreigners as their financial records could become public information in their home country. How much is going to be lost in deposits is anybody's guess but it could be substantial.

FATCA
Now FATCA in a nutshell. The regs consist of over 400 pages. We start with the IRS premise that any American who has a foreign bank account is ergo a tax cheat. Forget about the fact that many live abroad and need an account for living expenses. Any bank that takes such an account is aiding and abetting tax evasion. Even though Americans are required to report worldwide revenues, there are a few individuals that don’t, thus the premise that there are millions of dollars in lost tax revenues. Government estimates are much higher, but who knows and the actual sum is probably much less than the government thinks since many of the accounts are in places where confidential information is actually confidential. Having caught a dozen or so individuals who actually admitted they were cheating on their taxes, the government is convinced it is the tip of the iceberg and Americans are so sophisticated that they have squirreled away fortunes offshore on which they are not paying taxes. What does the US government have to pry open the doors in other countries? Its leverage is that the US has the largest consumer market in the world and further, foreign banks have followed their clients with a presence in the US. FATCA latches on to that toe hold and forces banks with any business here, of any kind, to not only report the names of American that have accounts with that bank anywhere in the world but also movement of funds in those accounts. The penalty for not reporting this information is equivalent to banishment from doing business in the US or doing it profitably. Compliance is not only costly it can be inaccurate and failing in proper reporting for any reason is a criminal act. Some banks have millions of transactions to monitor. This is where one of the tricky parts comes in. One large Latin American bank, with dozens of branches, reported they have found only 15 Americans in their bank. To monitor these accounts and be sure there are no more accounts it will cost them about $3 million dollars a year. The banks have to not only report the American accounts but assure that there are not accounts that they have missed or not reported at a significant cost of vigilance. How much money can they make with a small presence in the US? Is it worth it $3MM? One large international bank has set aside $125 million to fund compliance to deal with FATCA alone.

Who is an American?
Complicating the issue is determining what constitutes an American for FATCA purposes? Someone with two passports, including an American passport, or anyone born in the US is considered an American regardless of what passport he holds. Being an American includes having a US telephone number, power of attorney, a US mailing address or being born outside the US with one US citizen parent. If the bank is unaware of any of these factors are they guilty of compliancy? On the corporate side and legal side, an American trust or corporation is one in which an American has 10 % or more ownership. How much control does one have with a 10% interest and won’t the other shareholders want that person out of their hair? How many such companies and trusts are there especially when one takes into account the dual passports, wives of Americans in whose name the shares are in, and many, many more variations? FATCA also proposes and requires reporting by a bank that holds US securities. Would the government prefer that foreign banks do not hold US securities? What about a jurisdiction where the US has no leverage such as China or Russia or even possibly India? What do you do if you are a bank that has an office in Singapore where you would be breaking the law to reveal information on accounts? Do you close that office or keep presence in the US? Pass through accounts are even more complicated; that is where money is passed thru a bank that may have some sort of American connection. What must be reported and how does a bank monitor all these millions of payments? Lots of unanswered questions. Banks are being asked to sign an agreement with the Treasury Department to do all of this monitoring and reporting and failure to do so triggers a 30% withholding. To not sign an agreement automaticly forces the bank to institute a 30% withholding. To get that money back a refund must be applied for it– Good luck. Complicated stuff.

Comments
Now there is the case of HSBC. According to a recent Reuters article, they have been accused of violations on a massive scale on numerous occasions. They are on the threshold of a monumental fine from the US government for lax controls in AML and BSA on domestic issues as well. Why would anyone want to do business under these rules? And how many billions of dollars will the Swiss government come up with to satisfy the US Government of the Swiss banks role in assisting tax evaders. Most agree that something must be done to discourage tax evaders and people must pay their fair share of taxes. However, is catching a few hundred tax cheaters worth dismantling the US banking system and making the US a hostile place for foreign banks and individuals alike? How much can actually be buried in accounts that merit billions of dollars in lost balances, business, billions more and perhaps a trillion dollars in compliance costs, a shattered banking reputation and a major impact on the balance of payments and trade. People with accounts come here to do business, buy property and products and take vacations. The government is doing everything they can to say "take your business elsewhere, you are not welcome here "-and they will. They don't understand that the unintelligible regulations reaching in to everyone's back yard is costing far more in lost tax revenues on productive business than they could ever collect in running down a few hundred tax cheaters. FATCA is perhaps the most isolationist and belligerent piece of legislation ever passed by the US Congress. How? It slipped thru because it was never vetted as it was attached to another bill with the purpose of creating jobs. Middle America has no concept of what is going on and neither do their representatives. Money and jobs are being taken out of their pockets and all they are being fed is "banks are bad –they caused the recession". Does anyone care? Doesn't look like it. If solutions are to come it will have to be from a push back by a miraculous united front of foreign banks because foreign governments, apart from Switzerland, won’t as they are on the tax band wagon. Looks like FATCA and super regs are here to stay, atleast for the near future. Pull out your wallets – it is going to cost a fortune. At some point, these types of rules have a way of sorting themselves as they are too complicated to implement and enforce and, ultimately, business must go on. Hopefully it will be sooner rather than later.

On the Move

May 10th, 2012

Larry Benton former SVP REO Manager of Ocean Bank transitioned to Florida Community Bank as an SVP Director of REO. Ed Holden has recently joined Wells Fargo as an Executive Vice President. He was a leader at Mercantil Commercebank. Juan Esterripa has been named Senior Vice President at Stonegate Bank, previously with Capital Bank. Carol Ann Loo, former HR Manager at Lloyds TSB, is now the HR Vice President of Human Resources at EFG Capital International. Frances Aldrich Sevilla Sacasa has assumed the Chief Executive Officer position at Itaú Private Bank International. Gonzalo Acevedo is now the Senior Vice President and Managing Director of the Private Client Group at City National Bank. He was the past SVP of the Private Wealth Management Division of SunTrust Bank. Daniel Eggland, former President of Sunstate Bank, is now the President at the Bank of Coral Gables. Dilian Schulz has just arrived at Capital Bank as a Senior Vice President in their Corporate Lending division. Marco Tejada has been brought on board to Popular Investments as a Wealth Management Investment Advisor. Prior to this he was with SunTrust. Robert Lubin is now the Chief Risk Officer of Florida Community Bank after having been the SVP Enterprise Risk Management Officer of BankAtlantic. Bernard Adrover has moved to City National as their Senior Vice President and Director of Business Banking. Finally, David Schwartz, long time banker and most recently at Regions Bank, is now Executive director of FIBA, replacing Pat Roth who retired.

Final NRA Reporting Rules

May 7th, 2012

 The U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) issued Final Regulations (“Final Regs”), scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on April 19, 2012, regarding the reporting requirements for interest relating to deposits maintained at U.S. offices of certain depository institutions and paid to certain nonresident alien individuals (“NRAs”).

 This alert serves as a general summary of the Final Regs.  These Final Regs will affect U.S.-located financial institutions, savings institutions, credit unions, securities brokerage firms, and insurance companies that pay interest on deposits.

  •  What are the New Reporting Rules for NRA Deposit Interest? Currently, U.S. financial institutions are solely required to report annually to the IRS any U.S. deposit interest paid to U.S. taxpayers and to Canadian residents, but not to other NRAs. The Final Regs will require reporting of U.S. deposit interest (aggregating US$10 or more) paid to any NRA individual who is a resident of a country that is identified, in an applicable revenue procedure as of December 31 prior to the calendar year in which the interest is paid, as a country with which the United States has in effect an income tax or other convention or bilateral agreement relating to the exchange of tax information. Contemporaneously with the issuance of the Final Regs, the IRS published Revenue Procedure 2012-24 which contains a list of the countries with which the United States has in force such an information exchange agreement, as well as a second list identifying the countries with which Treasury and the IRS have determined that it is appropriate to have an automatic exchange relationship with respect to information collected under the Final Regs. Those countries are: Antigua & Barbuda; Aruba; Australia; Austria; Azerbaijan; Bangladesh; Barbados; Belgium; Bermuda; British Virgin Islands; Bulgaria; Canada; China; Costa Rica; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Dominica; Dominican Republic; Egypt; Estonia; Finland; France; Germany; Gibraltar; Greece; Grenada; Guernsey; Guyana; Honduras; Hungary; Iceland; India; Indonesia; Ireland; Isle of Man; Israel; Italy; Jamaica; Japan; Jersey; Kazakhstan; Korea (South); Latvia; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Malta; Marshall Islands; Mexico; Monaco; Morocco; Netherlands; Netherlands island territories: Bonaire, Curacao, Saba, St. Eustatius and St. Maarten (Dutch part); New Zealand; Norway; Pakistan; Panama; Peru; Philippines; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Russian Federation; Slovak Rep.; Slovenia; South Africa; Spain; Sri Lanka; Sweden; Switzerland; Thailand; Trinidad and Tobago; Tunisia; Turkey; Ukraine; United Kingdom; and Venezuela. However, Canada is the only country on the second list providing for an automatic exchange.
  • When Do The New Reporting Rules Go Into Effect? The Final Regs become effective for payments made on or after January 1, 2013 (reported to the IRS in 2014).
  • If the Interest is Exempt from U.S. Tax, Why Require Reporting? Treasury and the IRS have indicated that the reporting required by these regulations is “essential to the U.S. Government’s efforts to combat offshore tax evasion” for several reasons, including, facilitating intergovernmental cooperation on the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”) implementation by better enabling the IRS, in appropriate circumstances, to reciprocate by exchanging information with foreign governments for tax administration purposes. In that regard, it appears that the Final Regs are the “sacrificial lamb” being surrendered in exchange for FATCA cooperation. The IRS directly addressed the concerns expressed in comments submitted to them and at the Congressional hearing on these reporting requirements regarding the risk that the information may be misused by the foreign country and that these concerns could affect NRA investors’ decisions about the location of their deposits. Treasury and the IRS continue to take the position that these concerns are addressed by existing legal limitations and administrative safeguards governing tax information exchange, and, therefore, the Final Regs should not significantly impact the investment and savings decisions of the vast majority of nonresidents who are aware of and understand these safeguards and existing law and practice.

Observations. The Final Regs require annual reporting of U.S. deposit interest (aggregating US$10 or more) paid on or after January 1, 2013 to an NRA individual resident in certain countries which have effective information exchange agreements with the United States, but do not require reporting of U.S. deposit interest earned by foreign corporations.  Many NRA individuals place their deposits in the United States through a foreign corporation or personal investment company (“PIC”) formed in a jurisdiction outside the United States and owned by such NRA individual. The concerns of NRA depositors regarding the impact of these Final Regs may be managed by having the individual seek the advice of tax counsel who may make the individual aware of planning opportunities which may be suitable for their particular circumstances and tax residency status.

* * *

Important Disclosures. This alert does not analyze a particular factual client scenario and therefore is not meant to address or recommend solutions regarding a particular set of facts and does not constitute a legal opinion. We encourage you to discuss with your legal advisor or with us a particular set of facts surrounding a particular case so that we can appropriately advise and recommend planning opportunities based on factual situations.

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication and any attachment hereto are not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.

New FATCA Proposed Regulations

May 7th, 2012

On February 8, 2012 the Internal Revenue Services (“IRS”) issued Proposed Regulations (“Proposed Regulations”) regarding implementation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”).  FATCA enacted sections 1471 through 1474 of the US Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”).  Those provisions included a new and additional withholding tax compliance regime (statutorily effective in 2013).

FATCA withholding requires automatic withholding of 30% on “withholdable payments” to foreign financial institutions (“FFIs”) that do not enter into an agreement with the IRS (an “FFI Agreement”) and become a “participating” FFI (“PFFI”) and nonfinancial foreign entities (“NFFEs”) that do not comply with certain information reporting requirements.  “Withholdable payments” include not only US-source payments such as dividends, interest, and other types of US-source payments, but also gross proceeds from the sale of assets that can produce US-source interest or dividends.   Withholding is not necessary if certain information reporting requirements are satisfied. FATCA also sets forth a number of exceptions and exclusions from the withholding requirements.

FATCA’s provisions left many details and definitions to regulations to be issued by the IRS.  The IRS issued the first piece of guidance on August 27, 2010, in the form of Notice 2010-60.  Notice 2010-60 addressed the new withholding tax requirements enacted in FATCA and provided preliminary guidance and requested comments on their implementation.  This was followed on April 8, 2011 by Notice 2011-34, which provided additional guidance in response to several key issues identified following publication of Notice 2010-60.  Finally, on July 14, 2011, Notice 2011-53 presented the initial phased implementation timeline of the various FATCA requirements.

With changes and amendments, the Proposed Regulations embody that previous guidance. These changes and amendments appear generally to relax some of the more onerous requirements of FATCA so as to make it more administrable for FFIs in particular.  The IRS seeks comments regarding these Proposed Regulations, which will be effective only after they have been finalized.

This client alert focuses on changes and modifications of prior guidance as well as other key features of the Proposed Regulations, including:

  • Intergovernmental Agreements
  • Denial of Refund on Withholding for Nonparticipating FFI Beneficial Owners
  • Definition of Financial Account
  • Modification of Due Diligence Procedures for the Identification of Accounts
  • Passthru Payments
  • Compliance Verification
  • Transitional Rules for Affiliates with Legal Prohibitions on Compliance
  • Categories of Deemed-Compliant FFIs
  • Definition of Substantial US Owner
  • Extension of the Transition Period for the Scope of Information Reporting
  • Expanded Scope of “Grandfathered Obligations”

Intergovernmental Agreements

Accompanying the publication of the Proposed Regulations was a Joint Statement from the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom regarding an alternative intergovernmental approach to Implementing FATCA (the “Joint Statement”).  The IRS elaborated on the substantive aspects of this initiative in the Preamble to the Proposed Regulations.  It generally described the intergovernmental alternative approach under consideration as one where an FFI could satisfy the reporting requirements of FATCA if:

(1)     the FFI collects the information required under FATCA and reports this information to its residence country government; and

(2)     the residence country government enters into an agreement to report this information annually to the IRS pursuant to an income tax treaty, tax information exchange agreement, or other agreement with the United States.

Not surprisingly, the Preamble to the Proposed Regulations reiterates the potential use of agreements with foreign governments each time it discusses alternative approaches to passthru payment withholding, a subject many consider the most unworkable part of FATCA.

Denial of Refund on Withholding for Nonparticipating FFI Beneficial Owners

The Preamble to the Proposed Regulations highlights that FFIs that are not PFFIs cannot obtain refunds of or credits with respect to over-withheld amounts on payments as to which the FFI is the beneficial owner unless required by a treaty obligation of the United States. If a credit or refund is required by a treaty, it will be granted but no interest will be paid.  In contrast,

other beneficial owners are entitled to a refund of any overpayment of tax without regard to any treaty obligations.

Definition of Financial Account

Prior guidance left the definition of “financial account” ambiguous for FATCA purposes. The Proposed Regulations narrow the statutory definition of financial accounts to focus on bank, brokerage and money market accounts and interests in investment vehicles, including certain insurance contracts.  Most debt and equity securities issued by banks and brokerage firms are excluded from the definition of financial accounts.

The Proposed Regulations define a “financial account” as any (1) depository account or custodial account held at a financial institution, (2)  equity or debt interest (other than interests which are regularly traded on an established securities market) in a financial institution, or (3)  cash value insurance contract or annuity contract issued or maintained by a financial institution.

A depository account includes savings and checking accounts, certificates of deposit, and any amount held with an insurance company under an agreement to pay interest.

A custodial account includes accounts holding financial instruments or contracts on behalf of another person.

Debt or equity interests include: (i) a capital or profits interest in a partnership, (ii) an ownership or beneficial ownership interest in a trust that is a financial institution, and (iii) an interest in a financial institution primarily engaged in the business of investing or trading securities.

Insurance contracts that include an investment component, such as cash value insurance contracts or annuity contracts, are also included in the definition of financial accounts. However, insurance contracts providing pure insurance protection, e.g., term life insurance, are excluded from the definition of a financial account.

The definition of financial account also specifically excludes certain savings accounts, including retirement and pension accounts, and certain nonretirement savings accounts. The Proposed Regulations further state that these exclusions also apply in defining a “foreign financial asset” for purposes of the new foreign financial asset reporting provisions of section 6038D.

Modification of Due Diligence Procedures for the Identification of Accounts

Notice 2010-60 and Notice 2011-34 both addressed the due diligence procedures that PFFIs will be required to undertake to identify their US accounts.  The Proposed Regulations relax those requirements, in particular, by increasing the $500,000 threshold to $1 million and eliminating certain provisions that would have applied to private banking departments.  However, the knowledge and role of the “relationship manager” have become critical factors in the identification procedure rules (in respect of non-electronic due diligence and aggregation of accounts).

Preexisting Individual Accounts

Preexisting individual accounts with a balance or value of $50,000 or less and cash value insurance contracts with a value of $250,000 or less are exempt from review.

After completing electronic searches on preexisting individual accounts, a PFFI must manually review paper records only for accounts with a balance or value over $1,000,000.  Even in this case, manual review is not required if the electronically searched information contains all of the following information:

(1)     The account holder’s nationality and/or residence status;

(2)     The account holder’s current residence address and mailing address;

(3)     The account holder’s current telephone number(s);

(4)     Whether or not there are standing instructions to transfer funds in the account to an account at another branch of the PFFI or another financial institution;

(5)     Whether or not there is a current “in care of” address or “hold mail” address for the account holder if no other residence or mailing address is found for the account; and

(6)     Whether or not there is any power of attorney or signatory authority for the account.

  If a manual review of paper records is required, then the PFFI must manually review the records contained in the current customer master file and specifically:

(1)     The most recent documentary evidence on file;

(2)     The most recent account opening contract or documentation;

(3)     The most recent documentation obtained by the PFFI for purposes of anti-money laundering (“AML”) due diligence or for other regulatory purposes;

(4)     Any power of attorney or signature authority forms currently in effect; and

(5)     Any standing instructions to transfer funds currently in effect.

Preexisting Entity Accounts

Entity accounts of $250,000 or less existing on the date the FFI enters into the FFI Agreement (“pre-existing entity accounts”) are exempt from review.  However, at such time as those accounts reach a balance exceeding $1,000,000, they must be reviewed.  For the remaining pre-existing entity accounts, FFIs can generally rely on AML or know your customer (“KYC”) records and other existing account information to determine whether the entity is either an FFI, a US person, an entity excepted from the requirement to document its substantial US owners (for example, because it is engaged in a nonfinancial trade or business), or an entity that is not a financial institution and that is not a publicly-traded corporation, qualifying securities exchange, “withholding partnership,” or “withholding trust” (referred to in the regulations as a “passive NFFE”). 

In the case of pre-existing accounts of a passive NFFE with account balances that do not exceed $1,000,000, FFIs may rely on information collected for AML/KYC due diligence purposes to identify substantial US owners, unless the FFI knows that such information is not correct. 

In the case of pre-existing entity accounts of passive NFFEs with account balances that exceed $1,000,000, FFIs must obtain information regarding all substantial US owners or a certification from the passive investment entity that the entity does not have substantial US owners.

New Individual Accounts

For individual accounts opened after the FFI Agreement enters into effect, the FFI will be required to review the information provided at the opening of the account, including identification and any documentation collected under applicable AML/KYC rules.  If any US indicia are identified as part of that review, the FFI must obtain additional documentation or treat the account as held by a “recalcitrant account holder.”  The IRS believes that FFIs will generally not need to make significant changes to the information collected during the account opening process to identify US accounts, except where US indicia are identified.

New Entity Accounts

FFIs will be required to determine whether the entity has any substantial US owners upon opening a new account by obtaining a certification from the account holder.  This certification is not required, where the account is opened by another FFI (except where the other FFI was “self-documented,” see below), or by an entity engaged in an active nonfinancial trade or business, or an entity otherwise excepted from documentation requirements by the Proposed Regulations.  As a practical matter, this will tend to limit certification to accounts of passive NFFEs.

Passthru Payments

Notice 2011-53 stated that PFFIs will not be obligated to withhold on passthru payments that are not withholdable payments (foreign passthru payments) made before January 1, 2015.  The Proposed Regulations further postpone this by providing that withholding will not be required with respect to foreign passthru payments before January 1, 2017.  Until withholding with respect to foreign passthru payments applies, the Proposed Regulations require PFFIs to report annually to the IRS the aggregate amount of US-source, nonbusiness income and other financial payments (not yet defined) made to each non-participating FFI.

As noted above, the IRS would like to discuss with foreign governments practical alternative approaches to passthru payment withholding, which alternative would be embodied in a bilateral agreement with the foreign government.  If the agreement provides for the foreign government to report to the IRS information regarding US accounts and recalcitrant account holders, FFIs in such jurisdictions may not be required to withhold on any foreign passthru payments to recalcitrant account holders.  However, there will doubtless be reporting requirements placed upon them by their government to permit the government to comply with the agreement.

Definition of Substantial US Owner of an NFFE

PFFIs must also report to the IRS information on accounts held by NFFEs that have a “substantial United States owner.”  Accordingly, NFFEs must provide to the PFFI information regarding any specified USUS person that owns/holds, directly or indirectly, more than 10% of

  • the stock of an NFFE corporation,
  • the profits interests or capital interests in an NFFE partnership, or
  • the value of the beneficial interests in a so-called non-grantor trust.

The Proposed Regulations clarify that holding of a beneficial interest in a non-US trust means either the right to receive directly or indirectly (for example, through a nominee) a mandatory distribution or the possibility to receive, directly or indirectly, a discretionary distribution from the trust. 

In the case of discretionary distributions, the value of the beneficial interest equals the fair market value of the currency and other property distributed from the non-US trust to the specified USUS person during the prior calendar year.  The 10% test is met if such value is both more than $5,000 and more than 10% of the value of all distributions made by the trust during that year. 

Whether a person has a right to a mandatory distribution is determined taking into account all facts and circumstances.  The value of such right during the year is calculated based on specific valuation tables provided under the Code.  The 10% test is met if such value is both more than $50,000 and more than 10% of the value of all of the assets held by the trust during that year.

With respect to a so-called grantor trust, the determination is relatively simple because a substantial US owner is any specified USUS person that is treated as an “owner” of such trust for US federal income tax purposes.

Compliance Verification

In providing initial guidance on compliance verification procedures, Notice 2010-60 sets forth the concerns of the IRS regarding balancing compliance gains with the compliance costs of such procedures. Notice 2010-60 suggested that the verification procedure could include reporting by officers of FFIs and solicited comments. The Proposed Regulations follow that initial guidance and rely primarily on internal, rather than external, procedures to verify compliance.

The Proposed Regulations provide the basics of the verification process for a participating FFI to show compliance with its FFI Agreement. A model FFI Agreement, which will contain further details, will be set forth in a future Revenue Procedure. The Proposed Regulations include requirements that (i) the FFI adopt written policies and procedures for complying with its obligations; (ii) the FFI conduct periodic internal reviews of its compliance; and (iii) the FFI periodically provide certification of its compliance by its responsible officers. The participating FFI may at times be required to provide certain other information not specified in the regulations. Third-party audits will not be required on a regular basis to verify compliance.

If the IRS has concerns about the PFFI’s compliance based on the above reporting and certification, or if the PFFI repeatedly fails to comply, additional verification requirements may be imposed. This could include external audits of the PFFI’s compliance by IRS-approved third-party auditors. Under especially egregious circumstances, the PFFI could be determined to have defaulted on its FFI Agreement. The precise conditions of a default will be set forth in the FFI Agreement.

Importantly, if an FFI complies with the obligations set forth in its FFI Agreement, it will not be held strictly liable for failing to identify a US account.

Transitional Rules for Affiliates with Legal Prohibitions on Compliance

Notice 2011-34 stated that the Treasury Department and the IRS shall require that each FFI that is a member of an expanded affiliated group (“EAG”) must be a PFFI or deemed-compliant FFI for any FFI in the expanded affiliated group to become a PFFI.  The Proposed Regulations provide a two-year transition, until January 1, 2016, for the full implementation of this requirement. 

During the transition period, a branch or affiliate of an FFI in a jurisdiction that prohibits the reporting or withholding required by FATCA will not prevent the other FFIs within the same EAG from entering into an FFI Agreement.  The Proposed Regulations define these entities as limited branches and limited FFI affiliates.  Existing qualified intermediaries (“QIs”) that are unable to comply with the provisions of an FFI Agreement will be treated as limited FFIs during the transition.  If its jurisdiction no longer prohibits it from complying with the requirements of the FFI Agreement, the branch or limited FFI must enter into an FFI Agreement before the beginning of the third calendar quarter following the date on which the prohibition ends.  Regardless of such prohibition, on or before January 1, 2016, all members of an EAG must have entered into an FFI Agreement; otherwise, no member of the EAG will be treated as a PFFI.

In order to qualify for the transition rule for a limited branch, the FFI must, as part of its registration for FATCA:

(1)     identify the relevant jurisdiction of each branch for which it seeks limited branch status;

(2)     agree that each such branch will identify its account holders under the due diligence requirements applicable to participating FFIs;

(3)     retain account holder documentation pertaining to those identification requirements for six years from the effective date of its FFI Agreement;

(4)     report to the IRS with respect to its accounts that it is required to treat as US accounts to the extent permitted under the relevant laws pertaining to the branch;

(5)     treat each such branch as a separate entity for purposes of withholding;

(6)     agree that each such branch will not open new accounts that it is required to treat as US accounts or accounts held by non-participating FFIs; and

(7)     agree that each such branch will identify itself to withholding agents (including affiliates of the FFI) as a non-participating FFI.

PFFIs are required to withhold on withholdable payments that are considered received on behalf of the limited branch.

To qualify for limited FFI affiliate status, the FFI must agree to (2), (3), (4), (6) and (7) above.

Categories of Deemed-Compliant FFIs

Notice 2011-34 provided initial guidance on categories of FFIs which would be considered deemed compliant, i.e., they would not need to enter into an FFI Agreement with the IRS to be relieved from FATCA withholding.  While Notice 2011-34 described deemed-compliant status for certain local banks, local FFI members of participating FFI groups, and certain investment vehicles, the Proposed Regulations describe these in more detail. The Proposed Regulations also describe additional categories of deemed-compliant FFIs, including specifics concerning deemed-compliant foreign retirement plans.

The specific categories of deemed-compliant FFIs can be broken down into three major categories: registered, certified, and certain owner-documented FFIs.

Registered Deemed-Compliant FFIs

Registered deemed-compliant FFIs include:

(a)     Local FFIs;

(b)     Nonreporting members of participating FFI groups;

(c)     Qualified investment vehicles;

(d)     Restricted funds; and

(e)     FFIs that comply under an agreement between the United States and a foreign government.

Registered deemed-compliant FFIs must, as a general rule, be registered or licensed in their home country. An FFI in this category is required to (i) certify to the IRS that it meets all the requirements of its claimed deemed-compliant FFI category, in a manner to be specified by the IRS at a later date; (ii) obtain confirmation of its registration from the IRS and obtain an FFI-EIN; (iii) renew its certification every three years; and (iv) agree to notify the IRS if it becomes ineligible for its deemed-compliant FFI status.

Local FFIs – Notice 2011-34 described a category of “local banks” which would be deemed compliant. The Proposed Regulations break this down into several distinct categories with different requirements. An FFI may qualify as a deemed-compliant local FFI if:

(1)     The FFI is licensed and regulated under the laws of its country of organization as a bank or similar organization;

(2)     The FFI has no fixed place of business outside of its country of organization;

(3)     The FFI does not solicit account holders outside of its country of organization;

(4)     The FFI is required under the laws of its country of organization to either report information or withhold tax on accounts of residents;

(5)     At least 98% of the accounts of the FFI are held by residents;

(6)     The FFI implements policies and procedures to ensure that it does not open or maintain accounts for any specified US person who is not a resident;

(7)     Special review is made of accounts of non-residents opened after December 31, 2011, but before the policies and procedures described in (6) were implemented, to identify any US accounts or accounts held by non-participating FFIs and take appropriate action with respect to them (including transferring or closing the account, or withholding and reporting on it, as applicable); and

(8)     In the case of an FFI that is a member of an expanded affiliated group, each member of the expanded affiliated group is organized in the same country and meets all of the foregoing requirements.

Nonreporting members of PFFI groups – FFIs that are part of a PFFI group must meet the following requirements:

(i)       The FFI must review accounts opened before it implements the policies and procedures described below in (iii) to identify any US accounts or accounts held by non-participating FFIs;

(ii)     If a US account or account held by non-participating FFI is identified, the FFI must enter into an FFI Agreement within 90 days and either transfer the account to a participating FFI or close the account;

(iii)    The FFI must implement policies and procedures to ensure that it complies with (ii) above; and

(iv)    The FFI must implement policies and procedures to ensure that it will identify any existing account which becomes a US account or account held by a non-participating FFI due to a change in circumstances.

The Proposed Regulations state that any FFI which is deemed to comply pursuant to an agreement between the United States and a foreign government will also be treated as a registered deemed-compliant FFI.

Certified Deemed-Compliant FFIs

The second category of deemed-compliant FFIs are certified deemed-compliant FFIs. Like registered deemed-compliant FFIs, they are generally required to be local in scope and their status relies in part on local registration, licensing or oversight by the country of residence.  Certified deemed-compliant FFIs include:

(a)     Nonregistering local banks;

(b)     Retirement plans;

(c)     Non-profit organizations; and

(d)     FFIs with only low-value accounts.

Certified deemed-compliant FFIs must provide a withholding agent with certain documentation (including withholding certificates and financial statements), certifying their status as to the relevant deemed-compliant category.

Nonregistering local bank – The requirements for nonregistering local banks are similar to those for Local FFIs. However, the requirements focus more on the size of the institution and the value of accounts:

(i)       The FFI must be licensed and regulated under the laws of its country of organization only as a bank;

(ii)     The FFI must not have a fixed place of business outside of its country of organization;

(iii)    (The FFI must not solicit account holders outside of its country of organization;

(iv)    The FFI can have a maximum of $175 million in assets on its balance sheet; if the FFI is a member of an expanded affiliated group, the group may have no more than $500 million in total assets on its balance sheet;

(v)      The FFI must be required under the laws of its country of organization to either report information or withhold tax on accounts of residents; the FFI will be considered to meet this requirement if it has no accounts with a total value of more than $50,000; and

(vi)    In the case of an FFI that is a member of an expanded affiliated group, each member of the expanded affiliated group must be organized in the same country and must meet all of the foregoing requirements.

Retirement funds – The requirements for a foreign retirement fund to qualify as deemed-compliant include:

(i)       All contributions must be employer, government or employee contributions;

(ii)     No single beneficiary has a right to more than 5% of the FFI’s assets; and

(iii)    Contributions which would otherwise be taxable are deductible or excluded.

Owner Documented FFIs

Owner-documented FFIs are deemed-compliant only with respect to payments received by or accounts held with a withholding agent. Similarly to certified deemed-compliant FFIs, they are required to provide certain documentation of their status to withholding agents and they may not act as intermediaries.

Extension of the Transition Period for the Scope of Information Reporting

Notice 2011-53 provided for phased implementation of the reporting required under FATCA with respect to US accounts.  The identifying information (name, address, TIN, and account number) and account balance or value of US accounts was required to be reported in 2014 (with respect to 2013 data).  The Proposed Regulations extend this period and provide that reporting on income will begin in 2016 (with respect to 2015 data), and reporting on gross proceeds will begin in 2017 (with respect to 2016 data).  In addition, the Proposed Regulations provide that FFIs may elect to report information either in the currency in which the account is maintained or in US dollars.

Expanded Scope of “Grandfathered Obligations”

Notice 2010-60 had given a slight reprieve from FATCA withholding for any payments on obligations entered into before a certain date, so-called “grandfathered obligations.” The Proposed Regulations push back the date for grandfathered obligations to January 1, 2013, from the prior date of March 18, 2012. This more practical date should allow for easier implementation and compliance by financial institutions.

Unresolved Issues

The Proposed Regulations and the Joint Statement leave a number of issues unresolved, and we can expect additional guidance to be issued within the next year to timely implement FATCA.

In the short term, the IRS will issue a draft model FFI Agreement and draft forms relating to FATCA reporting.  While the Proposed Regulations provide the contours of the FFI Agreement, they are silent with respect to certain key details that will be fleshed out in the draft model FFI Agreement.  For example, the draft model FFI Agreement will include more detail regarding the periodic internal review and certification a PFFI must undertake so that the IRS can determine whether the PFFI has met its obligations under the FFI Agreement.  Treasury is interested in comments on the scope and content of the review, factual information and representations for the certification.  Additionally, the draft model FFI Agreement will contain a list of “egregious circumstances” that will cause a PFFI to be in default.  The draft model FFI Agreement may allow flexibility for FFIs in jurisdictions that are subject to a FATCA intergovernmental agreement as described in the Joint Statement.

There are multiple unresolved issues affecting the scope of withholding and definition of passthru payments.  The Proposed Regulations do not fully define passthru payments.  As discussed above, a passthru payment is any withholdable payment and any foreign passthru payment.  Treasury deferred the definition and scope of foreign passthru payment for another day.  A US withholding agent is required to withhold only on withholdable payments, while an FFI with an agreement is required to withhold on all foreign passthru payments.  Until foreign passthru payment is defined, the scope of such withholding is uncertain.  The Preamble states that future guidance will prevent US financial institutions (“USFIs”) from serving as blockers for foreign passthru payment reporting and withholding.  Could Treasury define foreign passthru payment to increase the scope of withholding for US withholding agents?  Or will Treasury narrow the scope of foreign passthru payments in exchange for more robust information reporting?  In any event, Treasury will continue to obtain comments from financial institutions and other governments to appropriately define the scope of foreign passthru payments and to prevent circumvention of the new reporting and withholding requirements.    

Further guidance will be required to address refund requests.  An NFFE may claim a refund if it provides information regarding the NFFE’s substantial US owners or a certification that it does not have US owners.  Treasury will need to issue guidance regarding the level of substantiation that an NFFE will need to meet to obtain a refund.  Additionally, further guidance will be required regarding the refund procedures for a recalcitrant account holder who is ultimately not subject to US tax.

The Joint Statement raises many questions.  For example, how will FATCA be implemented for FFIs in countries that enter into a FATCA Intergovernmental Agreement with the US?  The Joint Statement and the Preamble state that various aspects of FATCA will be relaxed, including in particular passthru payment withholding obligations, for such FFIs in exchange for intergovernmental cooperation.  But the details and timing of these effects remain to be revealed.  Also, what will USFIs be required to provide to foreign governments as part of this?  Will USFIs be required to look through corporate and passthru entities to determine the ultimate beneficial owner and provide gross amounts of transactions to the IRS for transmission to foreign governments?  Should USFIs apply FATCA-type rules to domestic accounts, and what is the transition for USFIs to apply FATCA-type rules to foreign account holders?  Will USFIs be required to use the same forms as FFIs for reporting?  The Joint Statement says the six countries are committed to working together “over the longer term” towards achieving common reporting and due diligence standards – does this mean that there will be a period during which different standards will have to be applied simultaneously to satisfy the requirements of the several governments? What will the process be for achieving the common standards, and how will the business community be able to provide input into that process?  To what extent will governments entering into Intergovernmental Agreements need to enact enabling legislation?  If so, how, and how soon, will FATCA-based reporting requirements be introduced into the legislation of the various countries?  As welcome as the alternative intergovernmental approach to FATCA may be, much remains to be seen about how it will progress and work in practice.

* * *

Pursuant to requirements relating to practice before the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties imposed under the United States Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another person any tax-related matter.

Tax Havens – Deserted Islands?

February 15th, 2012

The tranquility of tax havens has been shattered. Under intense international pressure and scrutiny to lift banking secrecy, tax havens are ceding ground. Are they an outdated vehicle? Switzerland, reported to have one third of the cross-border wealth, is the most heavily assaulted. The Swiss do not consider tax evasion a crime; they believe in the rights of privacy as part of their culture and consider any money received to have been laundered prior to arrival. Compared with the other “offshore” centers it also has the most at stake. This is partly because they set the rules and have the off shore business commingled with the totality of the banking and financial center. With their leading and systemic banks as an important part of their economy, with large investments on foreign soil, they are most exposed.

In response to the assault of foreign regulations on their principal banks and their own laws and regulations, including huge fines and criminal charges, the Swiss government has taken a lead role in their response. It is reported that they are negotiating with the US government to pay a fine in the many billions of dollars to settle all claims and charges against the leading 17 banks from Switzerland without admitting guilt or singling out individual banks. They are hoping such a macro deal will allow their banking system to move on under the new rules without constantly looking over their shoulders. They are signing direct deals with England and Germany as well.

The Swiss banks themselves, for their part have set an informal rule that prohibits members of their senior and wealth management business to travel to the United States, even to change planes or go to Disney World on holiday. They are closing offices in the US as fast as they can and doing everything they can to reduce their footprint. They have set up a barrier to spying and reportedly will not issue a working permit to an American to work in Switzerland for a Swiss bank. The banks are refusing to take accounts of US citizens anywhere in the world, even those who have very legitimate reasons for needing an account. Not only are the Swiss banks taking protective measures, it is almost impossible for an American to open an account with any bank, in any jurisdiction, outside the US.

Clients that consider absolute secrecy essential to their financial transactions are seeking safer jurisdictions. Given the mobility of money, strong competition is developing for funds in Singapore and Mauritius in Asia and Dubai in the Middle East. Eighty percent of US dollars held outside of the United States are held in Asia. Luxembourg and Jersey still have a foothold in Europe and Panama is growing in the Americas. There are other wealth centers as well, such as Andorra, but they are feeling the heat too. Still Switzerland is the center of attention. All these centers, and more, until just a couple of years ago seemed impenetrable. That has changed.

What has changed is that it is not only a US government tax issue. Other governments, citizens and shareholders are questioning the rationale behind the offshore centers. Does it prevent fair dividends to shareholders, who are asking lots more questions, and why should some companies be allowed to compete on a non level playing field? Why don’t people pay their taxes and how can governments fund the welfare of its citizens if the wealthiest of them and many corporate citizens don’t pay their fair share of taxes. Slight of hand accounting? Is it a game – let’s see what we can get away with? Some say it is a corporate duty to avoid taxes. Two thirds of the money that go to these havens is tax avoidance and tax planning. A good chunk of the remaining third is tax evasion, criminal or corrupt money. The pool of cash is enormous, estimated at nine trillion dollars. There are certainly some justifications for maintaining confidentiality, such as corrupt governments, and physical danger to the wealthy in the home country. But the days of carte blanche are gone and the rationale is under scrutiny. Not deserted islands yet but the rules have changed.

FATCA Has Arrived – More to Come!

February 15th, 2012

Last week, the US Treasury issued a mere 389 pages of regulations for FATCA with comments to be received by April 30, 2012. The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), passed on March 18, 2010 is slated for implementation on January 1, 2013. It requires foreign financial institutions (FFIs) to report on certain accounts or face huge penalties. They are required to identify US accounts and transmit information about those accounts to the IRS. US Treasury further ratcheted it up a notch by bringing in their friends and issued a joint statement with France, UK, Italy, Spain, and Germany regarding an intergovernmental approach to improving international tax compliance and implementing FATCA. By an intergovernmental approach they would address legal impediments to compliance and simplify implementation. In stating that the policy objective is to achieve reporting, not collect taxes, the US asserted that it is willing to reciprocate in collecting and exchanging on an automatic basis information on accounts held in US financial institutions by residents of the other countries. Among other things, the countries would agree to pursue the necessary legislation to require the FFIs in its jurisdiction to collect and report to the authorities of the FATCA partners the required information. The statement does not contemplate the exemption from FATCA for any jurisdiction. By the way, you don’t see Switzerland in the group. The US Treasury has stated they intend to use this agreement as a model to work with other countries.

On a roll, Senator Carl Levin has introduced a new bill to tighten it up reporting even more, known as the “Cut Unjustified Tax Loopholes Act.” It is aimed at cutting loopholes that encourage corporations to move jobs offshore and other tax abuses. Among other things it would allow Treasury to take special steps against foreign jurisdictions or financial institutions that impede U.S. tax enforcement, including prohibiting US financial institutions from doing business with designated foreign jurisdictions or foreign banks. So the hammer is not doing business with Swiss banks or companies or others that do not play ball with the US. There are other provisions strengthening FATCA and its detection. Levin has a practice of getting his way by attaching his bills as a provision of another bill that has to pass as the financial source for that bill as he did by sneaking the FATCA bill on the HELP bill that provided jobs. This new bill, he says, would create $155B in revenues to reduce the deficit.

The Treasury is determined to implement the NRA regulations, and is getting mild resistance in Congress. Not enough, as the NRA issue only affects only a few states. If you read the tea leaves for the recent deal the Treasury struck with the European authorities, NRA reporting is part of their master plan to swap information and the fallout be damned. Unfortunately there is no singular report of the damage this is doing to the US balance of payments or the pool of wealth and capital the US is losing to support growth and jobs. Ill conceived financial legislation is killing an industry in which the US had a huge competitive edge – the financial services industry. That industry has been dealt irreparable blows and the USA is no longer the world leader and falling fast. So, the NRA reporting requirement is going to happen – prepare for it. The end result of this barrage of regulatory requirements is a tariff by another name and will have all the effect of a tariff but on capital rather than goods.

People on the Move

February 15th, 2012

John H. B. Harriman and his collogues at Standard Chartered are moving to Banco Santander. Many of those joining John, such as Tirso Morales and Jim McGrath, are part of the team to came to American Express International Bank from Schroeder. Dario Fuentes and the rest of his staff from CAM are moving to Banco Sabadell as a result of a merger in Spain. Jorge Viera has retired from Northern Trust. Steve Cohen is now Senior Vice President/CRE Banking Manager at Sabadell United Bank. He came from American Momentum Bank in Orlando. Andrea Allen has been named First Vice President Director of client services group and William Gallagher has been named Senior Vice President and Real Estate banking relationship manager at City National Bank of Florida. Jeni Kampeas Chokron was SVP Small Business Manager at Intercredit and is now at SunTrust as a VP SBA Business Development Officer. Steven Clark is now First VP and Service Director at City National Bank; previously he was a VP Service & Member Experience Director for University & State Employees Credit Union of California. Michel Condon is now an SVP Commercial Lender at Florida Shores Bank, he was previously at BankAtlantic. Sonya Canas is V.P. Commercial Loan Officer at Mercantil Commercebank and came from Bank United. Wayne Miller is now with Marquis Bank as a Vice President and Credit Manager; he was formerly employed at Intercredit Bank.

Cutting Edge Candidates

December 9th, 2011

 

FINANCIAL ANALYST

Detail oriented professional with over 10 years in banking, extensive accounting and finance experience. Experienced in financial reporting, internal and external audits, reconcilement, process and procedures. Bachelor’s degree. Proficient with Microsoft Office, FAS, Hyperion, Globus, Miser and OLAP.

 

SENIOR OPERATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT

Specialized skills in the areas of Information Technology, Information Security, Compliance and Operational Risk. Excellent background knowledge with banking regulations, BASEL, GLBA, PCI, HIPPA, SOX, as well as competencies in Process Mapping and Emerging Risks Research. Bachelor’s degree and certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP). Proficient with Microsoft Office and applications Projects, Visio and Access, as well as Risk Analyzer Tools: SAS Risk Analyzer, Modulo Risk Manager and GRC Tool.

 

SENIOR CREDIT SUPERVISOR

Credit professional with over 10 years of experience with large regional banks. Experienced in writing credit reports that are used to approve commercial and syndicated loans ranging from $5 million up to $100 million for companies operating within a broad array of industries; such as real estate, retail, oil & gas, wholesale, air transport, durable and non-durable goods and health care. Bachelor’s degree with formal in-house credit training.

 

SENIOR COMPLIANCE OFFICER

Compliance professional experienced in Domestic/International Compliance Management (Bank and Broker/Dealer), Operations, OSJ Administration, AML and Risk Management. Maintains industry licenses (clean CRD): Finra 4, 7, 8, 24, 27, 63, 65, 87; NYSE 14 Compliance Official. Certified Regulatory Compliance Professional (CRCP) with a designation from the Wharton School of Business. Designated FINRA Arbitrator-Dispute Resolution Member. Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE)-Associate Member. Fully billingual in English and Spanish.

 

SPECIAL ASSETS OFFICER

Experienced in performing workouts involving OREO’s, as well as commercial and residential properties. In addition, strong commercial lending and credit/loan review background. Holds an MBA with a concentration in Finance.

 

PRIVATE WEALTH ADVISOR

Experiended in managing large portfolios and acquiring, retaining, and growing Wealth Management relationships. Holds professional licenses Series 7, 66, 6, 63 and Life, Health & Variable Annuity Real Estate. Owns designation as CRPC (Chartered Retirement Planning Counselor). Multilingual in four langauges: English, Spanish, French and Portuguese.

 

CORPORATE SECURITY PROFESSIONAL

With over 20 years of experience in security and risk management, investigations, training and development, and change process. Experience directing and developing regional and global plans, personnel, budget, fraud investigations, protective details, training courses, corporate security, risk control and compliance programs.

Occupy Brickell Avenue

November 17th, 2011

Are we next? Are you serious? Aren’t we the victims not the cause? What is really going on? It is not Wall Street, it is only a symbol. Everyone is feeling the relentless pressure of the economic slowdown. Another year with a skinny Christmas and no bonus. A helpless feeling of just holding on and not being able to do anything about it. Savings dwindling, if you still have any, and forget about retirement money. Everyone knows a recent grad that can’t find a job or someone a little older who lost theirs. Throw in student loans that promise a lifetime obligation and you add gasoline to the fire.

That’s what the movement is all about and it is not going away soon. Less than 10 % of the people are happy with their current government and there is worse to come. Perhaps as soon as next week when the US Congress puts on another demonstration in a dysfunctional system when they are forced to vote on more budget cuts that will lead to more layoffs and contractions which will undoubtedly lead to further stagnation. Next year does not look particularly good and the lack of leadership is appalling.

So don’t take this movement lightly. There are legitimate deep-seated grievances and hostility is looking for an escape hatch. We are at almost 15 % unemployment in this community and only 25 years ago we had serious race riots. These are not just fringe movements. People are angry, frustrated, disappointed and want change. We likely won’t see it in an invasion of Brickell Avenue but it is not just Wall Street they are angry at.

Talent Wars?

November 17th, 2011

All the publications are forecasting talent shortages. Articles are focusing on the pent up demand for linchpin employees – those who can make a difference. Talent flow is world wide and getting to the talent is eased by the World Wide Web. And it is flowing but rather than from the underdeveloped world to the developed it is the reverse. This is partly because the developed world is snubbing the talent from abroad. In addition to immigration restrictions US corporations are beginning to feel the effects of the mass boomer exodus and educational shortfalls. And we could add the unwillingness to invest money and time into training.

The result is that over half of US companies report difficulty in filling jobs and nearly half state the lack of hard skills and experience. Yet it appears as though in looking for the perfect superstar, companies are neglecting the talent they do have. US companies would be well served to get back to basics. They have lost the ability to motivate their employees and create a positive environment and culture. This is an area in which corporate America excelled just a few years ago.

Survey after survey emphasizes a vast number of workers are frustrated and disengaged with their jobs. As many as 85% of mid to high level managers and top performers at companies today would like to change jobs as soon as the opportunity presents itself. Experts believe that when the economy finally starts to rev up, there will be the most massive turnover of positions in the country’s history as disgruntled workers will bolt from their current employer and find work elsewhere. It comes as a result of how employees today are feeling overworked, unmotivated and under-appreciated by their current companies, yet they are hanging on to their jobs for dear life. Is there a shortage of talent? Maybe the flood gates are about to open.