Much like the Energizer Bunny, it’s the extension that just keeps on going.
Slated to be enforced on June 1, the Federal Trade Commission has pushed back its Red Flags Rule deadline to Dec. 31, 2010, while Congress contemplates legislation that “would affect the scope of entities covered by the Rule,” according to the commission.
The Rule, which requires creditors to implement written identity theft prevention programs, has already been delayed numerous times.
“Congress needs to fix the unintended consequences of the legislation establishing the Red Flags Rule – and to fix this problem quickly. We appreciate the efforts of Congressmen Barney Frank and John Adler for getting a clarifying measure passed in the House, and hope action in the Senate will be swift,” FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said in a statement. “As an agency we’re charged with enforcing the law, and endless extensions delay enforcement.”
The Red Flags Rule became effective on Jan. 1, 2008. Its first enforcement deadline was slated for Nov. 1, 2008.
Read more about the rule
here.
Much like the Energizer Bunny, it’s the extension that just keeps on going.
Slated to be enforced on June 1, the Federal Trade Commission has pushed back its Red Flags Rule deadline to Dec. 31, 2010, while Congress contemplates legislation that “would affect the scope of entities covered by the Rule,” according to the commission.
The Rule, which requires creditors to implement written identity theft prevention programs, has already been delayed numerous times.
“Congress needs to fix the unintended consequences of the legislation establishing the Red Flags Rule – and to fix this problem quickly. We appreciate the efforts of Congressmen Barney Frank and John Adler for getting a clarifying measure passed in the House, and hope action in the Senate will be swift,” FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said in a statement. “As an agency we’re charged with enforcing the law, and endless extensions delay enforcement.”
The Red Flags Rule became effective on Jan. 1, 2008. Its first enforcement deadline was slated for Nov. 1, 2008.
Read more about the rule
here.
As a percent of the total I do not expect to see a higher incidence of delinquencies and defaults. From what I understand, the quality of paper was above what it normally is. A spike in unemployment might have an impact, but I don’t expect unemployment to get much higher until it begins to recede. I’ve seen no evidence that C4C buyers were inordinately skewed toward first time buyers. A larger than normal percentage might have been folks who bought new vehicles for the first time, but that doesn’t necessarily indicate their payments were appreciably higher than for pre-owned buyers. Their conservative nature might have caused them to feel guilty about using taxpayer money for their purchase and/or for purchasing new instead of pre-owned. I don’t think it is a big deal at all. I don’t understand the part about the insurance spike. In many cases, the additional safety and anti theft systems on new vehicles moderates insurance premiums. At any rate, I don’t see that as a big deal either. I suspect Mr. Hoppe wrote his piece based on his own perceptions rather than on any real data or personal experience.