Friends,
As many of you know I have been serving as the Executive Director of CREED – the Center of Resources for Economic Education and Development these past several years. This year we have done some exciting things with the help of our board and many of you.
We have shipped over 1000 humanitarian school kits to children in need so they can continue their education in Haiti and Belize, and we are preparing a shipment to Uganda. We helped start a micro business in Uganda at an orphanage – we provided the funds to start a pultry business, we helped build a chicken coop stocked with baby chicks and feed. This chicken coop, which will hold 500 chickens, will help provide enough money in the future to send the 27 children to school as well as help them have more food to eat. We are starting a micro-business lending project in Belize which will provide small dollar loans to several micro business owners, after approval of the borrower’s business plan and education training.
We now have a very unique opportunity: Just Give, a non-profit company, which offers non-profits such as CREED and thousands of other non-profits an easy way to donate on line, is offering a matching gift to celebrate their 10 year anniversary. For each donation of at least $10.00 they will send us an additional $10.00. This offer is only for donation made up to October 20th.
A school kit cost $10.00. So for every ten dollars donated we can send two children to school instead of one! The micro business loans will be about $400-$500 each; we are working towards four loans per month in the next 12 months.
Please make your donation by following the following link and then filling in the boxes with the following information as shown below:
www.justgive.org/10years (this special link MUST be used for the matching funds)
CREED
McKinney
TEXAS
75071
Tax ID: 87-0586965
The web page should look something like this below:
Charity Name or Keyword
On behalf of CREED and the growing number of people we serve, we thank you very much your support, it is GREATLY APPRECIATED. And we wish you the best as we press forward during these difficult times to strengthen families and homes, through self-reliance.
Thank you,
Wendell BrockExecutive Director, CREED
Please join me in sending more children to school and also help finance a micro-business with a small donation.
CREED is a registered 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
The latest words from FDIC Chairman Bair on the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act…
With the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act on July 21st of this year, the FDIC was given the tools to resolve a failing financial company that poses a significant risk to the financial stability of the United States. We now have the framework in place to resolve any financial institution, no matter how large or complex. Implementation of Dodd-Frank is designed to end "too big to fail," and the new resolution authority is a major reason why it will do so. The orderly liquidation process established under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act imposes the losses on shareholders and creditors, while also protecting the economy and taxpayer interests.
If appointed as receiver for a failing systemic financial company, the FDIC has broad authority under the Dodd-Frank Act to operate or liquidate the business, sell the assets, and resolve the liabilities of the company immediately after its appointment as receiver or as soon as conditions make this appropriate. This authority will enable the FDIC to act immediately to sell assets of the company to another entity or, if that is not possible, to create a bridge financial company to maintain critical functions as the entity is wound down. In receiverships of insured depository institutions, the ability to act quickly and decisively has been found to reduce losses to creditors while maintaining key banking services for depositors and businesses. The FDIC will similarly be able to act quickly in resolving non-bank financial companies under the Dodd-Frank Act.
This is a major new responsibility for the FDIC. As you know, on August 10th we created the new Office of Complex Financial Institutions to help ensure that we are always ready to meet this responsibility.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is one step forward in this process. The proposed rule is intended to provide greater clarity and certainty about how certain key components of the resolution authority will be implemented and to ensure that the liquidation process under Title II reflects the Dodd Frank Act’s mandate of transparency. With the US financial system now stable and healing, it is important to move ahead with rules to make clear how the orderly liquidation process would be implemented to restore greater market discipline and promote clear understanding among shareholders and unsecured creditors that they, not taxpayers, are at risk.
The FDIC is consulting with the Financial Stability Oversight Council members in accordance with the Dodd-Frank Act. In order to provide some additional time for Council members to offer their views and allow further consultation, today's meeting will provide a briefing for the Board members. We plan to ask for a notational vote next week after the FSOC has had its first meeting.
A special issue of concern during consideration of Dodd-Frank was how the FDIC might use its authority in a liquidation to pay certain creditors of a receivership more than similarly situated creditors if certain criteria are met. This proposal re-affirms that all equity share holders and unsecured creditors are at risk for loss and that the general rule will be that their claims will be processed in accordance with the priorities established under the bankruptcy code which are the same priorities that we use in our bank receiverships. The authority to differentiate among creditors will be used rarely and only where such additional payments are "essential to the implementation of the receivership or any bridge financial company." This cannot be a bail-out – that is clear from the statute. The NPR proposes to confirm that long-term bondholders, subordinated debt holders, and shareholders of a financial company will in no circumstances receive payments above their share to which they are entitled under the priority of payments in the statute. They can never be "essential" to the receivership or the bridge. This is consistent with the clear intent of the statute and we believe it is important that creditors have clarity in their treatment in a future liquidation. This is also consistent with the approach we have taken in our receivership process for banks. We have authority now to differentiate among creditors where it will maximize recoveries and have never found the need to use it except to compensate employees and other general creditors necessary to maintain essential operations.
The other issues addressed by the NPR will, likewise, clarify how we will apply the liquidation authority in key, discrete areas – and provide important clarity to the markets.
Equally important parts of the publication of the proposed rule are the background description of the orderly liquidation authority and the series of questions on which we are seeking comment for 90 days.
The background information provided in the NPR gives an overview of the powers and different options that the FDIC may use in liquidating a large, complex non-bank financial company. We think this will be helpful to market participants who are less experienced with the bank closing process on which the liquidation authority is modeled.
We look forward to comments on the broader questions posed in the NPR. Given the importance of the new liquidation authority – and the need for clarity in how it could be applied – the responses to the questions posed will inform a future, broader regulation to be proposed early next year to define key issues in the liquidation of large, complex financial institutions.
As part of our public rulemaking, this NPR will facilitate communication between the FDIC and the financial services industry, as well as the general public, on implementing the new resolution authority. I look forward to the comments.
In the recently passed legislation, the Dodd Frank Law, the FDIC is given the mandate to change the way it assesses deposit insurance premiums from banks, mostly based on risk. This will greatly impact small businesses, by limiting their access to capital through loans. Perhaps as much or more than the recent health care bill will.
First the Law
The law “defines a risk-based system as one based on an institution’s probability of causing a loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund (the Fund or the DIF) due to the composition and concentration of the institutions assets and liabilities, the likely amount of any such loss, and the revenue needs of the DIF. …allowing the FDIC to establish separate risk-based assessment systems for large and small members of the Deposit Insurance Fund.
“Over the long-term, institutions that pose higher long-term risk will pay higher assessments when they assume those risks. …should provide incentives for institutions to avoid excessive risk.” (the information quoted is found in the following paper about the new score card produced by the FDIC located at: http://www.denovostrategy.com/new-fdic-score-card/) The new assessments will be based on a performance score, which will be comprised of three main elements: 1) CAMELS Score, 30%; 2) Ability to withstand asset-related stress, 50%; and 3) Ability to withstand funding-related stress 20%. It is the asset-related stress that has the regulators concerned and if an institution has too much risk in that category, it will also affect the CAMELS rating, as the regulators will perceive that management is not doing their job – that of taking care of the bank.
The banker’s number one job now it to make sure that the bank never becomes a problem bank, that may cause the regulators to pay on deposits; everything else is now ancillary to that goal.
Small Businesses
All small businesses are risk rated, based on their credit score, (or the owners credit score), which becomes the basis for easy or difficult access to credit at a financial institution. At times bankers make loans to small businesses, because they understand the business, the risk associated with the business and they know the owner, even though the credit may be simply o.k. (not great, but not terribly bad either).
This new way of assessing deposit insurance will now cause the banker to ask the question – how will this loan affect the bank’s portfolio and ultimately it’s DIF assessment? As bankers ask this question more loans will be turned down. This is not to say, that all loans should be written as applied for, but as the bell curve moves towards safety, it will certainly leave a larger percentage of good small business loans unfulfilled and business owners without the much needed capital to continue in business or to grow. And we all know that when small businesses don’t continue, or fail to grow, then lay-offs occur and unemployment lines increase.
Did Congress and the regulators think this one through completely? Is there a better way to asses risk?
Survey Provides Insight for Serving Small Business Customers
The J.D. Power and Associates 2009 Small Business Banking Satisfaction StudySM shares insight on serving small business banking customers to create differentiation and grow revenues.
Small business customers represent revenue opportunities for banking institutions, particularly if the bank can obtain the personal banking relationship as well. The survey finds that small business owners’ average value exceeds the consumer average by $31,000 or 66 percent. Further, highly satisfied small business customers create about 20 percent more revenue for the bank relative to less-satisfied customers. The difference in annual revenue dollars, according to the survey, is $675 per customer.
Unlocking this extra revenue per small business customer requires a strong commitment to relationship management. The survey finds that higher levels of satisfaction are associated with:
- Assignment of an account manager to every small business customer
- Completion of a needs assessment
- Account managers who proactively reach out to customers throughout the year
- Account managers who focus on quick resolution to problems
- Account managers who closely manage the credit process
Economic woes weighing on small business
The survey estimates that 48 percent of small business customers are negative about the economic outlook. Downbeat business owners have special needs with respect to banking. In particular, they generally appreciate working with a proactive banker who demonstrates a thorough understanding of their business and its needs. The J.D. Power survey establishes a link between the completion of a needs assessment at the beginning of the relationship and the customer’s belief that his banker “understands” the business. Sadly, only 45 percent of small business customers report that their banker has a complete understanding of the business.
Communicate to create upsell opportunities
Proactive communication is also important. Regular interaction between the account manager and small business customer can minimize misunderstandings about fees and services. It also helps the banker identify opportunities to provide the customer with additional business or personal banking services. The goal is to help the customer manage his business and personal finances more efficiently, while creating revenue opportunities for the bank. To fulfill that goal, the banker must a trusted advisor who maintains regular contact.
Manage new loans for higher satisfaction
Many small business customers are currently concerned about obtaining the funds they need to manage through this economic downturn. The J.D. Power survey reports that account managers who focus on streamlining the loan funding process tend to score higher on small business customer satisfaction metrics. Account managers who can identify a lending need and then move the customer through the application and funding process quickly add value and generate customer loyalty.
The survey also notes that small business account managers do not have to be high-level bank employees to be effective. Lower-level service personnel are able to achieve very high satisfaction scores, particularly when they focus on communication, quick problem resolution, and efficient loan funding.
See the video overview of the J.D. Power and Associates 2009 Small Business Banking Satisfaction Survey here: http://businesscenter.jdpower.com/library/videos.aspx?localID=286679 and read the press release here: http://businesscenter.jdpower.com/news/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2009227
Many Bank’s don’t realize that the HIRE Act, signed into law in March, which was sold to promote jobs, also has implications for the banking industry. Namely, the offset provisions impose withholding and reporting requirements to expand offshore tax compliance by non US banks, thereby funding the cost of the act.
Tax penalty for failure to report
Under the new legislation, foreign financial institutions must enter into a reporting arrangement with the IRS to provide account information on U.S.-owned accounts. Institutions that refuse such an arrangement are subject to a 30% tax on any payment of interest, dividends, rents, salaries, gains, profits and other forms of income from U.S. sources. Excluded from this definition of “withholdable payments” are payments owned by publicly traded companies or businesses wholly owned by U.S. residents.
An institution may obtain a waiver of withholding by certifying to the withholding agent that it has no substantial U.S. account owners. However, withholding agents are liable for the tax and are still required to collect it if they have any reason to believe such certification is false.
Terms of reporting arrangement
The accepted reporting arrangement defined in the act requires foreign financial institutions to provide the IRS with the following information for each U.S.-owned account:
- Name, address and TIN of each account holder
- If the account holder is a U.S.-owned foreign entity, the name, address and TIN of each substantial U.S. owner of that entity
- Account number
- Account balance
- Gross receipts and gross withdrawals from the account
With respect to Number 2 above, a substantial U.S. owner is: any U.S. individual who owns 10 percent or more of the stock of a foreign corporation; any U.S. individual who owns more than 10 percent of the profit or capital interests in a foreign partnership; or any U.S. individual who owns more than 10 percent of the beneficial interests of a foreign trust.
The institution does have the option to exclude reporting on individually owned accounts where the account holder has less than $50,000 in aggregate balances at that institution.
Individual reporting requirements
The legislation also requires individuals to comply with the new reporting regime. Individuals who own certain foreign financial assets worth more than $50,000 in aggregate must include the information listed above in their personal tax returns. Foreign financial assets are defined as financial accounts, as well as stocks or securities issued by a non-U.S. person, financial instruments or contracts issued by or counterparty to a non-U.S. person, or any interest in a foreign entity. The IRS wants to know where US citizens are keeping their money and how much.
Basically, banks will chose to not to bear the risk being liable for the tax and withhold the 30 percent on all wire transfers/payments to offshore bank accounts and businesses that have not made the disclosure agreement with the IRS. If the bank makes the wire transfer and should have withheld the 30 percent but did not – they are liable to pay the 30 percent tax to the IRS. If the bank makes the wire transfer, and should NOT have withheld the 30 percent, then it is the individual’s responsibility to collect the tax from the IRS, there is no liability on the bank for the mistake.
The HIRE Act’s reporting and withholding requirements apply to payments made after December 31, 2012.
FDIC Chairman Sheila C. Bair said, "Today represents a significant milestone in the history of financial regulation in the United States. With the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a meaningful framework is now in place that addresses many of the weaknesses in our financial system that led to the financial crisis.
From the outset of this process, the FDIC has pushed for a credible resolution mechanism that provides the authority to liquidate large and complex financial institutions in an orderly way. The legislation will enforce market discipline by making clear that shareholders and creditors bear the losses for the risks they take. It also will protect taxpayers by empowering the government with the means to end Too-Big-to-Fail and providing substantial new protection to consumers and the financial system.
The responsibility now shifts to regulators to implement this law in a manner that is aligned with its principles. To this end, the FDIC will move swiftly and deliberately through the various rulemakings and studies required under the bill. We will do so in an open, transparent and collaborative fashion. In addition to a dedicated webpage where the public can track key steps in the implementation process, we will also release the names and affiliations of outside individuals and groups that meet with FDIC officials about the bill. We will webcast open Board meetings on implementation issues and provide ready access to comments received for all rulemakings.
As I have often discussed, my vision for financial reform encompasses three key pillars: resolution authority, systemic oversight and consumer protection. On resolution authority, the new law will give the FDIC broad authority to use receivership powers, similar to those used for insured banks, to close and liquidate systemic firms in an orderly manner. On systemic oversight, it creates a Systemic Risk Council — a concept originally advanced by the FDIC — to provide a macro view to identify and address emerging systemic risks and close the gaps in our financial supervisory system. Regulators will also be empowered to provide much-needed oversight to derivatives markets. On consumer protection, the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will put a new focus on the unregulated shadow financial sector by setting and maintaining strong, uniform consumer protection rules for both banks and non-bank financial firms.
I am also very pleased that the bill will strengthen the capital requirements of the U.S. banking system. For the first time, bank holding companies will be subject to the same standards as insured banks for Tier 1 capital. Excess leverage and thin capital cushions were primary drivers of the financial crisis, which resulted in severe, sudden contractions in credit and led to the loss of millions of jobs. This provision will bring stability to the financial system, allowing it to support real, sustainable, long-term growth in the real economy. Senator Susan Collins was the sponsor of this key provision, and I commend her efforts in this area.
I would also highlight the new backup authority the FDIC will have over bank holding companies, which will augment our current backup authority for insured institutions. The legislation also will improve our ability to manage our deposit insurance fund and build stronger reserves.
As I have often noted, no set of laws, no matter how enlightened, can forestall the emergence of a new financial crisis somewhere down the road. It is part of the nature of financial markets. However, what this law will do is help limit the incentive and ability for financial institutions to take risks that put our economy at risk, it will bring market discipline back to investing, and it will give regulators the tools to contain the fallout from financial failures so that we will never have to resort to a taxpayer bailout again.
I commend Chairman Dodd and Chairman Frank for their committed leadership in navigating this bill through the legislative process and look forward to the hard work ahead to implement the law."
Now there will be more regulation to absorb and implement increasing the cost to do business. We are interested in your comments about this legislation...
Creation of Safe, Affordable and Feasible Template for Small-Dollar Loans
Small-dollar loan pilot
The Small-dollar Loan Pilot Project was a study to find if it is profitable for banks to offer small-dollar loans to their customers. Small-dollar loans were created as an option to expensive payday loans, or heavy fee-based overdraft programs. This study opened up opportunities for small-dollar loans to be more affordable.
Small-dollar loans have created a way to maintain associations with current costumers and opportunities to attract unbanked new customers.
Goals: The main goal the FDIC had in mind for small-dollar loans was for banks to create long-lasting relationships with their customers using the product of small-dollar loans. Many banks had another goal in mind in addition to the FDIC’s goal. Some banks wanted to become more profitable by producing the product while other banks produced the product to create more goodwill in their community.
Where and how the study started: The FDIC found 28 volunteer banks with total assets from $28 million to nearly $10 billion to use the new product, offering of small-dollar loans. All were found in 450 offices in 27 states. Now, in the pilot study there have been over 34,400 small-dollar loans that represent a balance of $40.2 million.
Template for small-dollar loans: Loans are given with an amount of $2,500 or less, with a term of 90 days or more. The Annual Percentage Rate is 36 percent or less depending on the circumstances of the borrower. There are little to no fees and, underwriting follows with proof of identity, address, income, and credit report to decide the loan amount and the ability to pay. The loan decision will usually take less than 24 hours. There are also additional optional features of mandatory savings and financial education.
Long loan term success: Studies found that having a longer loan term increased the amount of success in small-dollar loans. This allowed the customer to recover from any financial emergency by going through a few pay check cycles before it was time to start paying the loan back. Liberty Bank in New Orleans, Louisiana offered loan terms to 6 months in order to avoid continuously renewed “treadmill” loans. The pilot decided that a minimum loan term of 90 days would prove to be feasible.
Often the bank will require the customer to place a minimum of ten percent of the loan in a savings account that becomes available when the loan is paid off.
Delinquencies: In 2009 the delinquency rates by quarter for small dollar loans were 6.2 in the fourth, 5.7 in the third, 5.2 in the second, and 4.3 in the first.
How to be most successful when producing small-dollar loans: The FDIC is reporting that the participating banks have found much success through small-dollar loans. But the most success came from long term support from the bank’s board, and the senior management. It is critically important to have strong support coming from senior management.
The small-dollar loan pilot has proven to be a great addition to bank’s loan portfolio, the FDIC hopes that it will spread to banks outside the pilot.
Profitability may depend on location: The FDIC has found the most successful programs are in banks located in communities with a high population of low- and moderate-income, military, or immigrant households. Banks in rural areas that did not have many other financial service providers also saw feasibility because of the low amount of competition.
Improving performance: Automatic repayments are a way to improve performance for all products not just the small-dollar loans.
On March 18, 2010, President Obama signed HR 2847, unbeknown to most this law has several banking implacations/regulations and new taxes, even though it is not disclosed by its name: the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act.
Much of the press and commentary about the resolution has centered on the tax benefits it affords to businesses that hire new employees between February 3 of this year and January, 1, 2011.
What has gone mostly unnoticed is how these incentives will be paid for by the Foreign Account Tax Compliance provisions known in Title V of the Act as Offset Provisions.
SUBTITLE A
Part I: Increased Disclosure of Beneficial Owners
Financial institutions that make payments, on behalf of their customers, to Foreign financial and nonfinancial institutions must withhold 30% of payments made to those institutions, unless such institutions agree to disclose the identity of such individuals and report on their bank transactions.
The bank risk for not withholding the 30% is with the financial institution that initiated the transfer of funds – in other words, the bank will be responsible to send to the IRS the 30% it should have withheld. The individual sending the money will be responsible to get a refund from the IRS on their tax return. Also denies a tax deduction for interest on non-registered bonds issued abroad.
Part II: Under Reporting With Respect to Foreign Assets
Anyone with more than $50,000 in a depository or custodial account maintained by a foreign financial institution must report it. Underpayments resulting from undisclosed foreign financial assets will incur an enhanced penalty.
Part III: Other Disclosure Provisions
U.S. shareholders of a foreign investment company must file annual returns.
Part IV: Provisions Related to Foreign Trusts
A foreign trust has a U.S. beneficiary if the beneficiary's interest in the trust is contingent on a future event or such beneficiary directly or indirectly transfers property to such trust or uses trust property without paying compensation to the trust. Owners of foreign trusts must report them in their taxes, and they will be penalized if transfers to and distributions from such trusts aren’t reported.
Part V: Substitute Dividends and Dividend Equivalent Payments Received by Foreign Persons Treated as Dividends
A dividend equivalent payment is considered a dividend from a source within the United States for purposes of taxation of income from foreign sources and tax withholding rules applicable to foreign persons.
SUBTITLE B
Delay in Application of Worldwide Allocation of Interest
Delays until 2021 the application of special rules for the worldwide allocation of interest for purposes of computing the limitation on the foreign tax credit.
SUBTITLE C
Budgetary Provisions
Increases the required estimated tax payments for corporations with assets of not less than $1 billion in specified calendar quarters. Provides criteria for compliance with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
When the European Union and International Monetary Fund bailed out Greece last month to the tune of 750 billion of fresh capital, there was no guarantee of how effective these actions would be.
And with the euro trading unpredictably, EU finance ministers are worried that it wasn't enough. The Euro's value has been up and down, at times losing as much as 12%.
As with the talk in America that our government's first bailout wasn't enough to buoy the economy, there are rumblings in Europe that more needs to be done with Greece to ensure that their problems don't spread to other European nations.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel defied German public opinion and supported the bailout. A Reuters article quotes her as saying, "We've done no more than buy time for ourselves to clear up the differences in competitiveness and in budget deficits of individual euro zone countries. If we simply ignore this problem we won't be able to calm down this situation."
Currency-wide problem
Greece, with its $236B (US) of debt, may be in the direst situation. But it certainly isn't the only EU economy that's racking up debt.
-
Portugal: $286 billion
- Ireland: $867 billion
- Spain: $1.1 trillion
- Italy: $1.4 trillion
Each country owes money to one another in a web of loans so complicated and precarious that each country is dependent on the others to stay solvent.
The New York Times elegantly illustrates the problem with a tangled web of arrows signifying the various debt obligations of each country.
In the accompanying article, Eric Fine of Van Eck G-175 Strategies says, "This is not a bailout of Greece. This is a bailout of the euro system."
Will they or won't they?
Many people-from traders to government heads to ordinary citizens-aren't sure that Greece's government will be able to implement cost-cutting measures in the wake of stiff opposition from their constituency.
In return for their first 110 billion euro bailout package, Greece was required to levy stiff wage cuts to government workers and implement hefty tax increases. The government hopes to slash its debt from 13.6 percent of GDP to 3 percent by 2013.
On May 31, Greeks took to the streets in a 24-hour protest that shut down cruise ships. Labor unions are warning that more strikes are possible as the summer progresses.
This week, Standard & Poor's posted new figures that show the domestic housing market's rebound is anything but certain, causing bankers to have cautious optimism.
Utilizing 10- and 20-city composites, the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Prices Indices data compared one-month price changes from January to February 2010, and also twelve-month prices from February to February.
January to February
In the 20-city composite, only one location-San Diego-saw a rise in prices from January 2010. The 0.6% rise, though, was slight. All other cities saw decreases that ranged from New York's -0.4% to Portland's -2.4%. The 20-city composite fell -0.9%.
What a Difference a Year Makes
A brighter picture emerges, though, in the sampled metro areas' twelve-month comparisons. San Francisco's 11.6% rise was the largest among the surveyed cities. San Diego came in second with a 7.6% increase. The 20-city composite improved 0.6%.
Las Vegas, which has endured one of the country's largest drops in home value, continues its decline with a -14.6% drop from February to February.
Writing in USAToday.com, Stephanie Armour states that prices in Charlotte, New York, Las Vegas, Portland, Seattle, and Tampa have fallen to new lows.
Home prices peaked nearly four years ago in June and July of 2006. February's average prices dropped close to their numbers from 2003's summer and early fall.
But David M. Blitzer, chairman of the Index Committee at Standard and Poor's, is cautious. "It is too early to say that the housing market is recovering," he says. "The homebuyer tax credit...is the likely cause for these encouraging numbers and this may also flow through to some of our home price data in the next few months. Amidst all the news, however, we should also pay heed to foreclosure activity, which have reached their highest level in at least the last five years."
Consumer Confidence
But even with these dismal numbers, it appears that consumers think the economy is turning a corner. The Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index shows an increase from March to April 2010.
April's Index number was 57.9, which is an improvement over March's 52.3. Providing evidence that the rebound may not be fleeting, this is the highest the Index has been since September 2008. The Index pulls its data from a survey of 5,000 American households.
Americans are also feeling good about the job market. 18% of those surveyed thought the future would bring more jobs, which is an improvement from March's 14.1%. Similarly, those who believed the number of jobs would decrease dropped from 21.1% to 20%.
In March, 45.8% of survey respondents said that jobs were "hard to get." This is a decline from February's number of 47.3. Combined with the optimistic responses to April's survey, these data could indicate a rising trend.