A well known car insurance company has said that men are more likely to have a crash in the summer than woman.

Sheilas’ Wheels, which offers car insurance for woman, says that of the men they questioned, nearly one third said that they could not keep their eyes on the road if they spotted women wearing revealing summer clothes.

The research, which surveyed 1,300 men and women, revealed that in the months of June, July and August, men made nearly 20% more claims than women.

But it wasn’t just scantily clad women that worried the nation’s male drivers. They also get worked UP about the heat. One in five of the men questioned said that they became more aggressive as it got hotter.

A quarter of the men admitted that they had suffered at least one crash in the summer months in the last five years, whereas only 17% of the women questioned said they has suffered a similar summertime accident.

Sheilas’ Wheels spokeswoman Jacky Brown said:
“In the age of air conditioning, you might expect all drivers to be equally chilled out in summer, but men are significantly more likely than women to claim. We urge all motorists to keep their eyes on the road regardless of distractions.”

Well said and Donna Dawson, a behavioural psychologist, added:
“Research shows men are far more easily distracted behind the wheel than women. Distractions such as billboards or an attractive woman walking down the street can quickly take their attention away from driving. Testosterone also plays a part as it makes men more prone to aggression, especially when frustrated by a confined space such as a car – and men are quicker than women to expose such irritability in hot weather.”

The research points out that not a lot has changed since 1994 when the famous ‘Hello Boys’ posters featuring supermodel Eva Herzigova caused a number of distracted drivers to have crashes.

Guest Article by Neil Camp

President Obama has cracked the whip with Wall Street and succeeded in getting a set of major finance reforms through the US Senate by 60 votes to 39, following earlier approval by the House of Representatives.

The reforms say observers represent the largest overhaul in decades of the US finance regulatory framework. Their aim is to avert a financial crisis of the kind experienced in 2008 when the global banking system came close to a meltdown. Although undoubtedly of extreme significance, many observers believe that these finance reforms are a mere shadow of the proposals originally proposed by President Obama and come after months of intense politically haggling.

The US President said:
“Even before the financial crisis that led to this recession, I spoke on Wall Street about the need for common sense reforms to protect consumers and our economy as a whole.
“But the crisis came, and only underscored the need for the kind of reform that the Senate passed today. The kind of reform that will protect consumers when they take out a mortgage or sign up for a credit card, reform that will prevent the kind of shadowy deals that led to this crisis, reform that would never again put taxpayers on the hook for Wall Street’s mistakes.”

Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve chairman, said:
“The financial reform legislation approved by the Congress today represents a welcome and far-reaching step toward preventing a replay of the recent financial crisis.”

The new finance rules are centred on legislation which creates a new federal agency which acts an as overseer of consumer lending and keeps its eye on complex financial instruments. But a key component of the forthcoming finance initiatives is the new Volcker rule – named after the man who proposed it, Paul Volcker, the Federal Reserve Chairman – which states that banks will no longer be able to take part in proprietary trading using their own money. Proprietary trading is when banks take bets on the outcome of financial markets over a given period of time.

Only time will tell if the new finance proposals will actually be able to avoid a 2008-type crisis.

Guest Article by Neil Camp

Goldman Sachs has had a $550 million fine imposed on it to settle civil fraud charges after it was accused of misleading investors on major mortgage deals.

The huge investment bank raised concerns over the way it marketed the mortgage deals to investors at a time when the US housing market was about to enter stormy waters.

Levying the fine, said to be the biggest smack on the wrist for a bank in history, was the Securities and Exchange Commission which acts as the US finance watchdog.  The case centred on allegations that Goldman Sachs did not reveal key information when one of its clients, a firm named Paulson & Co and a major hedge fund, was party to choosing which securities were placed within a mortgage portfolio called Abacus, which was then marketed and sold to investors throughout 2007. The key information was that Paulson & Co had at the same time ‘bet’ that the value of the mortgage securities would fall.

And the securities did fall, losing the Abacus mortgage fund some $1 billion in the US housing market collapse. The $1 billion was paid to Paulson & Co, which had effectively stood on both sides of the deal as a ‘short’ investor; a fact not relayed to the investors in Abacus.

Some of the big losers in the deal will get some compensation. The Royal Bank of Scotland, which took a $840 million hit, will receive $100 million, still a huge loss, and the German bank IKB Deutsche Industriebank will get back $150 million, recouping nearly all their losses.

The US Treasury gets around $300 million of the fine proceeds when the deal is finally approved by a federal judge.

But although Goldman Sachs received the record fine, industry experts say that the investment bank got off lightly. Such is the level of the bank’s profits, that the fine would be effectively recouped in a matter of weeks. Also the Goldman Sachs share price rose nearly 5% on the news, meaning that they got a nearly one billion dollar boost to their market capitalisation.

This is unlikely to be the last chapter in the Goldman Sachs mortgage deals saga.

Guest Article by Neil Camp

The recent report from the Financial Services Association (published 13.07.10) made the point that the share of interest only mortgages has been increasing.

It said that at the peak of the market, over 30% of all mortgages taken out were interest only.

And what worries the Financial Services Association, is that many people taking out interest only mortgages do not have a suitable financial vehicle to pay them off once they are due. A large number of people rely on house inflation, or other plans (such as a windfall, or hoped for inheritance) to see them through at the end of the mortgage term.

These findings were part of a larger report which made a number of observations. Most worryingly was that nearly half of all households with a mortgage had either no money left, or indeed had a shortfall, every month after the payment of the mortgage and living costs.

This has encouraged the Financial Services Association to enforce lenders to ensure that people can actually afford the mortgage they are thinking of signing-up, has signalled the virtual ending of the self-cert mortgage (where people verify their own income) and told financial institutions to be more aware of possible problems with their borrowers should they start falling behind on payments. It stated that those borrowers with a damaged credit history were very vulnerable.

As for arrears charges for those that fall behind on their mortgage payments, the Financial Services Association conducted a review, as part of their report, and discovered that there was a wide variation in penalty fees across the market.

The Financial Services Association reminded lenders that mortgage rules exist which state that arrears charges should be based on reasonable costs incurred by the lender as a result of their customers being behind, rather than linked to punishing penalty charges. In other words, the charges should mainly cover the administrative cost of being in arrears.

The Financial Services Association is asking the mortgage industry and consumers for further views on interest only mortgages and the state of the industry in general. Responses should be completed by 16 November, 2010.

Guest Article by Neil Camp

The Engage Mutual Insurance company has released a report that says men whine more than woman when it comes to aches and pains.

This may be no surprise to most women in the UK, but it appears to have shocked this mutual insurance company into publishing the results of their new research.

One of the staggering conclusions reached by the mutual insurance company conducting the research is that although women like to complain about minor problems on a daily basis, men actually feel more sorry for themselves when they become ill. Ground shattering results.

The mutual insurance company questioned around 3,000 poor souls and discovered that over 50% of all the men exaggerate the symptoms of their illness. They may get ill less than women (five times compared to females seven times), but once they are ill, they tend to become music hall actors and ham the whole experience up. Thus flu becomes a cold, a headache become a migraine and a stomach ache becomes death (only joking on the last point).

What’s more, the mutual insurance company says that nearly 60% of men seek attention when ill, whilst a whopping 65% constantly groan and moan. But even though the histrionics are loud, most men (some 76%), prefer to go to work and moan at their colleagues, rather than seek a cure at home.

A spokesman at the Engage Mutual Insurance company said:
“Men have had a bad press concerning their tendencies towards ‘man flu’, but our findings support the belief that men do moan more and are more likely to exaggerate their symptoms. They may have fewer bouts of genuine sickness a year, five compared to the seven suffered by women, but when ill, their attention seeking behaviour makes sure their partner knows about it.

“But even though men look for maximum sympathy, they tend to struggle on, being less likely to take time off work for an illness. Minor ailments aside, it is important for men to recognise and act on any genuine health concerns. Whether taking professional advice, or seeking suitable remedies and treatments to aid recovery, it is important to address any issues in order to maintain good levels of health.

“Women score higher than men on being prepared to dole out the sympathy for an attention seeking partner, regardless of whether they believe they are genuinely ill, or not. But when it comes to doing the little things that make a partner more comfortable when they are ill, men and women seem to be more evenly matched.”

So there you are then. It’s official, according to this mutual insurance company, men are the biggest moaners. And just wait until they get their new insurance premiums, then you’ll hear them really scream.

Guest Article by Neil Camp

Gongs handed out by the 2010 Moneywise Customer Service Awards included two for M&S Money which was named not only the ‘most trusted motor insurance provider’, but also the ‘best travel insurance provider for service.’

The awards for most trusted motor insurance provider and the best travel insurance provider for service were handed out in front of nearly 300 guests at a gala dinner held in the City of London.

And the awards for most trusted motor insurance provider and the best travel insurance provider for service come from, claim the organisers, the biggest customer service survey of its type held in the UK. The figures were compiled by the Moneywise magazine and their website, Moneywise.co.uk following around 10,000 responses. These were then given to CoreData research for analysis who were used to identify those companies which, according the UK public, offer not only the best service, but also those who are the most trusted.

Apart from the main awards, M&S also walked off with two highly commended, one in the ‘most trusted travel insurance provider’ and the other, ‘best motor insurance provider for service’ categories.

On opening the gold envelopes and barely holding back the tears, a triumphant M&S Money Chief Executive said about the awards, including most trusted motor insurance provider:
“All our insurance policies are designed with the M&S customer in mind, and we are delighted that M&S Car and Travel Insurance have been recognised at the Moneywise awards.”

It also gave M&S a chance to remind people about their polices, including their role as most trusted motor insurance provider. They pointed out that their M&S Premier Car Insurance protects not just their car, but the policy holder. What’s more, it also includes RAC breakdown cover, a hire car for up to 14 days and motor legal protection.

So, when it comes to looking for the most trusted motor insurance provider, and indeed, the best travel insurance provider for service, then have a look at M&S. It’s not only good underwear they sell, but also good insurance apparently.

Guest Article by Neil Camp

The modern phenomenon of drive-texting is on the increase says a leading insurance company.

Drive-texting is when a driver at the wheel of their moving vehicle uses their mobile phone to send texts; a practice regarded by safety experts as very dangerous and one that is strictly prohibited by law, and one also causing insurance companies some concern.

And in a recent survey conducted by one of the world’s largest insurance companies, the Prudential discovered that drive-texting is on the increase. What’s more, drivers who break the law in such a way, are 23 times as likely to be involved in an accident than those that don’t indulge in drive-texting.

But what worries the experts most of all, is that when it comes to drive-texting, it doesn’t really matter if the person involved in the accident was using a handheld phone, or one with a hands-free kit. The survey statistics didn’t really see a distinction, meaning that hands-free kits are not the answer everyone thinks they are.

The guilty party behind the drive-texting accidents is incidents of divided attention and mental distractions. Which puts the blame squarely on the shoulders of the act of operating a phone which causes the distractions; it’s not a question of by what means the phone is used.

The drive-texting report, conducted by Prudential Insurance, says:
“When sending a text message, motorists travelling at 55mph could cover the length of an entire football pitch in the space of a few seconds. Combined with not looking at the road while texting, this is a lot more dangerous than making a phone call while behind the wheel.”

The Prudential Insurance is quick to remind people that those that get caught drive-texting will be liable, as a minimum, to a £60 fine and three points on their licence. Should the case be serious enough to go before a court, then this could rise to a fine £2,000 and a ban from driving.

When he was road safety minister under the previous Labour government, Paul Clark said of drive-texting:
“Tough penalties and hard-hitting campaigns have got the message through to the majority of drivers. But some are still needlessly risking their own lives and putting others in danger for the sake of a text or a call. Our message is simple: don’t use your mobile when driving.”

He may no longer be in power, but its likely the same sentiments about drive-texting will be expressed by the new Government.

Guest Article by Neil Camp

Pressure on car insurance premiums is unrelenting and one top motoring organisation has recently weighed in with the idea that older motorists need an urgent review.

The costs of car insurance does decrease with age for most people, but this new report from the RAC does raise the worrying spectre of an increasing number of older motorists using the roads.

But far from being antagonistic to such courses, the 2010 RAC Report on Motoring discovered that some 85% of questioned motorists aged 70 or over were in support of refresher driving courses. What’s more, some 70% of all motorists said they were in favour of compulsory medical checks at the age of 70 and over.

The RAC point out that over the next 20 years, the number of older drivers is set to double, to over six million.

And the RAC has won the backing of one venerable driver, Sir Stirling Moss, OBE. When talking about driving at an older age, he said:
“As an 80 year old driver, I can clearly relate to the topic of elderly motorists and I support the idea of tests for the older generation. So many things have changed since we first started driving: road layouts have been altered and the density of traffic has risen enormously, especially in the cities.

“The statistics show that although as a group we are less likely to be involved in an accident, we are more likely to be the cause of an accident, whether we are caught up in it or not – a sign that our reaction times are not what they once used to be. We do not need to give this generation a full driving test again, however, perhaps just a simple competence test every three to five years from the age of 70, to make sure we are still capable.”

The report went on to show that around 80% of people over 70 have been driving for well over 30 years, whilst some 45% have clocked up 50 years of driving experience. But of those two groupings, virtually all of them (nearly 90%), have no assessment, or other driver training, since passing their original test.

And of the 85% who thought that some form of refresher driver training was a good idea, with the most popular supplements to what’s included in the standard driving test being:

• winter weather driving (53%);
• night driving (45%);
• how to park properly (44%);
• how to drive on motorways and dual-carriageways (43%);
• how to cope with junctions (40%);
• learning about the car itself (33%).

David Bizley of the RAC said:

“The Government must consider the impact on motoring of our ageing population as part of its wider strategy for dealing with the retirement of the baby boomers. Motorists of all ages clearly believe in the value of refresher courses to improve old skills and learn new ones.
“Reviewing this now will save considerable pain in the future and continue the journey towards safer roads for everyone.

“Older motorists have the challenge of personal mobility and independence and RAC would welcome Government initiatives to help them to continue to drive safely. We need to take an evidence-based approach as to what checks should happen and at what age. Older motorists are resistant to any compulsory checks understandably, but they are also much fitter and healthier now than ever before – 70 could well be the new 60 for motorists’ health.”

So this can only be good news for all those people out there worried about car insurance costs.

Guest Article by Neil Camp

In a move which many see as the ending of self certification mortgages, the Financial Services Authority has just outlined tough new proposals on mortgage lending.

The Financial Services Authority has said that it intends to ensure that all borrowers can afford to pay back a new mortgage.

In its new super role as consumer protector and day-to-day supervisor of the financial services sector, the Financial Services Authority is overseeing mortgage companies to make sure that responsible lending is once again the order of the day.

Observers see this as a direct attack on self certification mortgages which helped fuel the economic downturn. Many people taking out new mortgages were effectively encouraged to borrow too much by being able to quantify their own earnings. This resulted in inevitable abuse as borrowers were over generous in assessing their own income levels and some actually fabricated their own figures to gain a mortgage.

The Financial Services Authority, FSA director responsible for the mortgage market, Lesley Titcomb, said:
“There is a clear link between financial overstretch and mortgage arrears and repossessions, and we are determined to protect vulnerable consumers by making sure that everyone who takes on a mortgage can afford to pay it back.

“While it is clear the mortgage market has worked well for many, we need to build a strong new framework to protect mortgage customers and to ensure that the problems we have seen in the past do not happen again, particularly as the mortgage market recovers.”

The Financial Services Authority main proposals are:

• imposition of affordability tests for all mortgages;
• enforce lenders to be ultimately responsible for assessing a customer’s ability to pay;
• insist on verifying the income of the borrower on every mortgage application, which will prevent self-certification abuse and reduce opportunities for fraud;
• create increased protection for customers who are vulnerable and suffering from poor credit histories.

Industry experts say that the Financial Services Authority is a little behind the times, as most lenders have either voluntarily tightened their lending rules, or have been forced into doing so because of the new economic realities.

The age of the self-certification mortgage is over.

Guest Article by Neil Camp

For many private and institutional shareholders, the BP oil spill share price fiasco is a nightmare.

And before the words BP oil spill resonated in the world’s media and around the dealing rooms, this was one company that truly deserved the tag blue-chip. Backing BP was almost a dead cert.

BP was not only one of Britain’s biggest company, it was one of the world’s biggest companies. Then, on 20 April, the world awoke to the BP oil spill and the share price, initially little worried, began a trip south.

The problem for the London Stock Exchange is that BP’s payout represented 15% of all dividends shelled out in 2009. So pensioners particularly are being hard hit, because many of the countries large pension funds hold huge positions in BP. Now they are facing mounting losses. The irony is of course, that with BP being 39% owned by Americans (UK shareholders account for 40%), the BP oil spill worries are not just being faced on one side of the pond.

President Obama and the senators on Capitol Hill might be justified in throwing as much verbal mud at BP chief executive officer’s Tony Hayward as his team of engineers are trying to physically throw rubbish at the broken well-head to block it, but if the company is attacked to the point of bankruptcy, then US investors are going to feel as hard hit as their British counterparts.

Since the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig, the BP oil spill share price has dropped from just shy of 650p, to now 357p (at time of writing). Which means that the company’s value has nearly been halved. What’s more, BP was always a highly rated credit risk, but has just seen its Moody’s credit rating fall to A2 from Aa2. Rating agency Moody is just one of the main agencies who have all downgraded BP stock, mainly the BP oil spill share price tumult is likely to have a negative impact on the company’s future for so many years.

The company tried to make matters better by at least quantifying its likely losses over the BP oil spill calamity, putting the cost of clean-up at $20 billion. But some experts are now putting that figure in doubt and say that the cost could reach as high as an incredible $100 billion. Obama and his administration, and most of the US politicians, now have a whipping boy for all sorts of issues and BP could almost be bled dry by years of compensation claims and litigation, in one of the world’s most litigious countries.

And such is the magnitude of the BP oil spill fiasco, that it is now said that BP, alongside its financial advisors, is working hard to raise contingency funds. The City has been reporting that BP is looking to sell some $10 billion of assets and raise nearly the same in loans.

Whichever way you look at it, the BP oil spill has been an unmitigating disaster for Britain’s largest corporate entity and even if it does survive, it will never be the same colossus as it was just days before 20 April, 2010.

Guest Article by Neil Camp