<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Reaction to the OCC RAL Directive</title>
	<atom:link href="http://banktalk.org/2010/12/27/reaction-to-the-occ-ral-directive/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://banktalk.org/2010/12/27/reaction-to-the-occ-ral-directive/</link>
	<description>Exploring the Finances of the Unbanked</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 19:08:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam</title>
		<link>http://banktalk.org/2010/12/27/reaction-to-the-occ-ral-directive/comment-page-1/#comment-6651</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:50:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://banktalk.org/?p=3042#comment-6651</guid>
		<description>Your tax preparer should ask for proof. There is a fair amount of fraud taking place with people making false claims about the number of dependents in their household.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your tax preparer should ask for proof. There is a fair amount of fraud taking place with people making false claims about the number of dependents in their household.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rizzle</title>
		<link>http://banktalk.org/2010/12/27/reaction-to-the-occ-ral-directive/comment-page-1/#comment-6607</link>
		<dc:creator>rizzle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2011 03:41:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://banktalk.org/?p=3042#comment-6607</guid>
		<description>What should i do if my ral was denied because they wanted proof of dependents.Why is that? </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What should i do if my ral was denied because they wanted proof of dependents.Why is that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael W. Perkins</title>
		<link>http://banktalk.org/2010/12/27/reaction-to-the-occ-ral-directive/comment-page-1/#comment-5232</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael W. Perkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2010 19:09:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://banktalk.org/?p=3042#comment-5232</guid>
		<description>They do not have a RAL program. The national ad running is touting an &quot;Refund Anticipation Check&quot;. As a tax accountant offering this product, I know the common person  has this transaction only once per year, will not notice the difference. The RAC, as is known in our business, is a 10-14 day direct deposit of your refund. If you choose to pay for the tax return up front, you can direct deposit to your own bank account, to avoid additional fees, same time frame. The RAC will be used by taxpayers that do not have the cash to pay up front, or do not personally have a bank account to deposit the refund in. Tread lightly. Most independents are more competative on pricing. National advt. dollars doesn&#039;t make you a wizard. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They do not have a RAL program. The national ad running is touting an &quot;Refund Anticipation Check&quot;. As a tax accountant offering this product, I know the common person  has this transaction only once per year, will not notice the difference. The RAC, as is known in our business, is a 10-14 day direct deposit of your refund. If you choose to pay for the tax return up front, you can direct deposit to your own bank account, to avoid additional fees, same time frame. The RAC will be used by taxpayers that do not have the cash to pay up front, or do not personally have a bank account to deposit the refund in. Tread lightly. Most independents are more competative on pricing. National advt. dollars doesn&#039;t make you a wizard.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sdoggie</title>
		<link>http://banktalk.org/2010/12/27/reaction-to-the-occ-ral-directive/comment-page-1/#comment-5212</link>
		<dc:creator>sdoggie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2010 04:48:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://banktalk.org/?p=3042#comment-5212</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the update! </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the update!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: srh</title>
		<link>http://banktalk.org/2010/12/27/reaction-to-the-occ-ral-directive/comment-page-1/#comment-5144</link>
		<dc:creator>srh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Dec 2010 20:49:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://banktalk.org/?p=3042#comment-5144</guid>
		<description>republic has reached its full capacity....couldint handle block 
 </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>republic has reached its full capacity&#8230;.couldint handle block</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott </title>
		<link>http://banktalk.org/2010/12/27/reaction-to-the-occ-ral-directive/comment-page-1/#comment-5139</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott </dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Dec 2010 19:24:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://banktalk.org/?p=3042#comment-5139</guid>
		<description>Makes you wonder weather or not Block, the OCC and HSBC worked something out so Block wouldn&#039;t have to deal with investor fall out.  Wouldn&#039;t surprise me a bit in today&#039;s business/government environment.   </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Makes you wonder weather or not Block, the OCC and HSBC worked something out so Block wouldn&#039;t have to deal with investor fall out.  Wouldn&#039;t surprise me a bit in today&#039;s business/government environment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam</title>
		<link>http://banktalk.org/2010/12/27/reaction-to-the-occ-ral-directive/comment-page-1/#comment-5137</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Dec 2010 19:10:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://banktalk.org/?p=3042#comment-5137</guid>
		<description>It is only a matter of capital. Republic has a limited amount of money. They&#039;ve given a prior commitment to Liberty and Jackson Hewitt. I&#039;m not sure, but it does seem possible that Republic could purchase some brokered deposits. I believe that Pacific Capital had used brokered deposits (and not their TARP funds...ehhh) to cash flow their RALs.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is only a matter of capital. Republic has a limited amount of money. They&#39;ve given a prior commitment to Liberty and Jackson Hewitt. I&#39;m not sure, but it does seem possible that Republic could purchase some brokered deposits. I believe that Pacific Capital had used brokered deposits (and not their TARP funds&#8230;ehhh) to cash flow their RALs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://banktalk.org/2010/12/27/reaction-to-the-occ-ral-directive/comment-page-1/#comment-5133</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Dec 2010 17:55:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://banktalk.org/?p=3042#comment-5133</guid>
		<description>This may be a dumb question, but is there anything to stop Block from signing a quick contract with Republic B&amp;T (joining Liberty and Jackson Hewitt)? </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This may be a dumb question, but is there anything to stop Block from signing a quick contract with Republic B&amp;T (joining Liberty and Jackson Hewitt)?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

