PayPal relaunched a peer-to-peer payment Facebook app today that some news outlets are misinterpreting as a partnership between the two companies. I’ve confirmed with Facebook that it’s not. It’s just a standard application on the platform, and Facebook couldn’t really do anything to stop PayPal. But why hasn’t Facebook built its own way for friends to send money to each other using its virtual currency Credits? Because of significant fraud risks and its focus on making Credits work better for virtual goods purchases where it earns 30%.
The first incarnation of Send Money was launched in December 2009. It lets you pay friends through a credit card or your PayPal account. What’s new is that you can now also opt to include a digital greeting card, good for sending money on birthdays and other holidays. The only Facebook data the app needs is your friend list, and even then you still have to hunt down a payment recipient’s email address before you can transfer funds. Send Money doesn’t integrate with Facebook’s own payment system, it doesn’t require any secret data or APIs, and I’ve heard it wasn’t even built inside PayPal.
Facebook has its own payment system that lets users receive its virtual currency Credits in exchange for money paid through credit cards, PayPal, and other means. Users spend the Credits in social games for power-ups or extended game time, and the developers redeem these Credits for 70% of their worth while Facebook keeps its 30% tax.
The primary reason Credits can only be spent in games and apps, not sent to other users, is fraud. There are several ways for users to earn Credits instead of paying for them, such as completing on-site offers, or making off-site purchases that are incentivized with Credits rewards through companies like ifeelgoods. If users could transfer Credits to someone else, the occupation of “Credits Miner” would emerge. These people would earn Credits any way they could and sell them to others for more than they cost to earn but less than Facebook sells them for. This would essentially create a secondary market for Credits and undermine Facebook’s ability to make money on them.
P2P Credits transfers would also make users a more lucrative target for hackers. Someone could steal your account info and dump your existing balance of Credits into their own account, or even buy more Credits in your name and send them to themselves. When Facebook originally developed Credits, it correctly determined that it could significantly reduce its risk of fraud by disallowing P2P transfers.
The other main reason there’s no Credits P2P payments is because it not Facebook’s focus, due to a mix of developer ecosystem politics, long-term monetization, and Facebook’s lean startup style. Facebook and PayPal are close. They’re strategic partners, with PayPal helping the social network process Credits purchases, and PayPal’s founder Peter Thiel is an early investor and advisor to Facebook. Moving into P2P payments could upset this partnership, and lead PayPal to remove itself as a Credits purchasing method.
To be competitive, Facebook would only be able to take a few percent on transactions, and still it wouldn’t have the base of merchants PayPal cultivated through eBay. Instead, Facebook is focusing on Credits as its platform’s mandatory virtual goods payment processor for developers, where it earns its juicy 30% cut. That business is growing thanks to gaming giants like Zynga, so there’s no need to move into a risky sector such as P2P payments that’s outside its core competencies and dominated by incumbents.
Facebook is still a relatively small company. It needs its Credits team optimizing payment flows and fostering partnerships to milk the virtual goods market. It also needs to make Credits as a better payments processor for apps, through which more content companies are selling digital media like film rentals.
Right now, Facebook simply doesn’t have the resources to divert attention to P2P payments, and there’s no indication that such a need isn’t already being met off-site by PayPal, even if the Send Money app didn’t exist. One day that could change, especially if social ecommerce takes off and it allows Credits to be used to purchase physical goods from approved merchants. For now, Facebook is making the same smart choice about P2P payments as it made about virtual gifts, social games, music, and brand management — leave it to third-parties and concentrate on improving its core infrastructure.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Mortgage giant Fannie Mae is asking the federal government for $7.8 billion in aid to cover its losses in the July-September quarter.
The government-controlled company said Tuesday that it lost $7.6 billion in the third quarter. Low mortgage rates reduced profits and declining home prices caused more defaults on loans it had guaranteed.
The government rescued Fannie Mae and sibling company Freddie Mac in September 2008 to cover their losses on soured mortgage loans. Since then, a federal regulator has controlled their financial decisions.
Taxpayers have spent about $169 billion to rescue Fannie and Freddie, the most expensive bailout of the 2008 financial crisis. The government estimates that figure could reach up $220 billion to support the companies through 2014 after subtracting dividend payments.
Fannie has received $112.6 billion so far from the Treasury Department, the most expensive bailout of a single company.
Michael Williams, Fannie's president and CEO, said Fannie's losses are increasing for two reasons: Some homeowners are paying less interest after refinancing at historically low mortgage rates; others are defaulting on their mortgages.
"Despite these challenges, we are making solid progress," he said. For example, Fannie's rate of homeowners who are late on their monthly mortgage payments by 90 days or more has decreased each quarter since the beginning of 2010, he said.
When property values drop, homeowners default, either because they are unable to afford the payments or because they owe more than the property is worth. Because of the guarantees, Fannie and Freddie must pay for the losses.
Fannie said lower mortgage rates contributed to $4.5 billion in quarterly losses. While those losses are large, they are temporary and should ease in future earnings reports, said Mahesh Swaminathan, mortgage strategist at Credit Suisse.
"They are accounting losses on their books rather than economic losses," he said.
Fannie's July-September loss attributable to common shareholders works out to $1.32 per share. It takes into account $2.5 billion in dividend payments to the government. That compares with a loss of $3.5 billion, or 61 cents per share, in the third quarter of 2010.
Last week, Freddie requested $6 billion in extra aid — the largest request since April 2010 — after it reported losing $6 billion in the third quarter.
Washington-based Fannie and McLean, Va.-based Freddie own or guarantee about half of all mortgages in the U.S., or nearly 31 million home loans. Along with other federal agencies, they backed nearly 90 percent of new mortgages over the past year.
Fannie and Freddie buy home loans from banks and other lenders, package them with bonds with a guarantee against default and sell them to investors around the world. The companies nearly folded three years ago because of big losses on risky mortgages they purchased.
The Obama administration unveiled a plan earlier this year to slowly dissolve the two mortgage giants. The aim is to shrink the government's role in the mortgage system, remaking decades of federal policy aimed at getting Americans to buy homes. It would also probably make home loans more expensive.
Exactly how far the government's role in mortgage lending would be reduced was left to Congress to decide. But all three options the administration presented would create a housing finance system that relies far more on private money.
carpet cleaning atlantacarpet cleaning atlantacarpet cleaning atlantacarpet cleaning atlanta carpet cleaning atlanta carpet cleaning atlanta carpet cleaning atlanta carpet cleaning atlanta carpet cleaning atlanta carpet cleaning atlanta carpet cleaning atlanta PayPal relaunched a peer-to-peer payment Facebook app today that some news outlets are misinterpreting as a partnership between the two companies. I’ve confirmed with Facebook that it’s not. It’s just a standard application on the platform, and Facebook couldn’t really do anything to stop PayPal. But why hasn’t Facebook built its own way for friends to send money to each other using its virtual currency Credits? Because of significant fraud risks and its focus on making Credits work better for virtual goods purchases where it earns 30%.
The first incarnation of Send Money was launched in December 2009. It lets you pay friends through a credit card or your PayPal account. What’s new is that you can now also opt to include a digital greeting card, good for sending money on birthdays and other holidays. The only Facebook data the app needs is your friend list, and even then you still have to hunt down a payment recipient’s email address before you can transfer funds. Send Money doesn’t integrate with Facebook’s own payment system, it doesn’t require any secret data or APIs, and I’ve heard it wasn’t even built inside PayPal.
Facebook has its own payment system that lets users receive its virtual currency Credits in exchange for money paid through credit cards, PayPal, and other means. Users spend the Credits in social games for power-ups or extended game time, and the developers redeem these Credits for 70% of their worth while Facebook keeps its 30% tax.
The primary reason Credits can only be spent in games and apps, not sent to other users, is fraud. There are several ways for users to earn Credits instead of paying for them, such as completing on-site offers, or making off-site purchases that are incentivized with Credits rewards through companies like ifeelgoods. If users could transfer Credits to someone else, the occupation of “Credits Miner” would emerge. These people would earn Credits any way they could and sell them to others for more than they cost to earn but less than Facebook sells them for. This would essentially create a secondary market for Credits and undermine Facebook’s ability to make money on them.
P2P Credits transfers would also make users a more lucrative target for hackers. Someone could steal your account info and dump your existing balance of Credits into their own account, or even buy more Credits in your name and send them to themselves. When Facebook originally developed Credits, it correctly determined that it could significantly reduce its risk of fraud by disallowing P2P transfers.
The other main reason there’s no Credits P2P payments is because it not Facebook’s focus, due to a mix of developer ecosystem politics, long-term monetization, and Facebook’s lean startup style. Facebook and PayPal are close. They’re strategic partners, with PayPal helping the social network process Credits purchases, and PayPal’s founder Peter Thiel is an early investor and advisor to Facebook. Moving into P2P payments could upset this partnership, and lead PayPal to remove itself as a Credits purchasing method.
To be competitive, Facebook would only be able to take a few percent on transactions, and still it wouldn’t have the base of merchants PayPal cultivated through eBay. Instead, Facebook is focusing on Credits as its platform’s mandatory virtual goods payment processor for developers, where it earns its juicy 30% cut. That business is growing thanks to gaming giants like Zynga, so there’s no need to move into a risky sector such as P2P payments that’s outside its core competencies and dominated by incumbents.
Facebook is still a relatively small company. It needs its Credits team optimizing payment flows and fostering partnerships to milk the virtual goods market. It also needs to make Credits as a better payments processor for apps, through which more content companies are selling digital media like film rentals.
Right now, Facebook simply doesn’t have the resources to divert attention to P2P payments, and there’s no indication that such a need isn’t already being met off-site by PayPal, even if the Send Money app didn’t exist. One day that could change, especially if social ecommerce takes off and it allows Credits to be used to purchase physical goods from approved merchants. For now, Facebook is making the same smart choice about P2P payments as it made about virtual gifts, social games, music, and brand management — leave it to third-parties and concentrate on improving its core infrastructure.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Mortgage giant Fannie Mae is asking the federal government for $7.8 billion in aid to cover its losses in the July-September quarter.
The government-controlled company said Tuesday that it lost $7.6 billion in the third quarter. Low mortgage rates reduced profits and declining home prices caused more defaults on loans it had guaranteed.
The government rescued Fannie Mae and sibling company Freddie Mac in September 2008 to cover their losses on soured mortgage loans. Since then, a federal regulator has controlled their financial decisions.
Taxpayers have spent about $169 billion to rescue Fannie and Freddie, the most expensive bailout of the 2008 financial crisis. The government estimates that figure could reach up $220 billion to support the companies through 2014 after subtracting dividend payments.
Fannie has received $112.6 billion so far from the Treasury Department, the most expensive bailout of a single company.
Michael Williams, Fannie's president and CEO, said Fannie's losses are increasing for two reasons: Some homeowners are paying less interest after refinancing at historically low mortgage rates; others are defaulting on their mortgages.
"Despite these challenges, we are making solid progress," he said. For example, Fannie's rate of homeowners who are late on their monthly mortgage payments by 90 days or more has decreased each quarter since the beginning of 2010, he said.
When property values drop, homeowners default, either because they are unable to afford the payments or because they owe more than the property is worth. Because of the guarantees, Fannie and Freddie must pay for the losses.
Fannie said lower mortgage rates contributed to $4.5 billion in quarterly losses. While those losses are large, they are temporary and should ease in future earnings reports, said Mahesh Swaminathan, mortgage strategist at Credit Suisse.
"They are accounting losses on their books rather than economic losses," he said.
Fannie's July-September loss attributable to common shareholders works out to $1.32 per share. It takes into account $2.5 billion in dividend payments to the government. That compares with a loss of $3.5 billion, or 61 cents per share, in the third quarter of 2010.
Last week, Freddie requested $6 billion in extra aid — the largest request since April 2010 — after it reported losing $6 billion in the third quarter.
Washington-based Fannie and McLean, Va.-based Freddie own or guarantee about half of all mortgages in the U.S., or nearly 31 million home loans. Along with other federal agencies, they backed nearly 90 percent of new mortgages over the past year.
Fannie and Freddie buy home loans from banks and other lenders, package them with bonds with a guarantee against default and sell them to investors around the world. The companies nearly folded three years ago because of big losses on risky mortgages they purchased.
The Obama administration unveiled a plan earlier this year to slowly dissolve the two mortgage giants. The aim is to shrink the government's role in the mortgage system, remaking decades of federal policy aimed at getting Americans to buy homes. It would also probably make home loans more expensive.
Exactly how far the government's role in mortgage lending would be reduced was left to Congress to decide. But all three options the administration presented would create a housing finance system that relies far more on private money.
http://catalog-constructii.ro/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=445358;sa=summary http://www.christianteenforums.com/member.php?25901-hamton88 http://chromespot.com/forum/members/hamton88.html http://www.cmstorm.com/forum/member.php?u=28137 http://www.cobizmag.com/member/55130/ http://www.coinscatalog.com/forums/member.php?u=14406 http://www.coithienthai.com/forum/member.php?u=125475&vmid=455#vmessage455 http://community.thegooddrugsguide.com/members/hamton88.html#vmessage2313 http://dalailamafilm.com/community/member.php?u=6522&vmid=4058#vmessage4058 http://deverell.com/blog.php/member/123997/ http://www.eighthgeneration.com/index.php/member/42221/
