A16 EZ RE THE WASHINGTON POST.WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 7 , 2019
your file to grant new credit. A
freeze will not prevent companies
providing credit m onitoring f rom
checking your f iles a nd sending
you a lerts, according to all three
credit b ureaus.Q : My c redit card company
provides m onitoring. So I went
for t he $125, totally m issing the
“up t o” piece o f the d eal. C an I
change my m ind?
A : You still h ave a chance t o
switch to free credit m onitoring.
Once the court a pproves the
Equifax settlement, y ou’ll be
contacted. A t that time, you c an
let the settlement a dministrator
know you’ve had a change o f
preference.Re aders may write to Michelle
Singletary at The Washington Post,
1301 K St. NW, Washington, D.C.
20071 or
[email protected].
To read previous Color of Money
columns, go to http://wapo.st/
michelle-singletary.cont ractors, a nd t heir family a nd
friends was compromised.
OPM h as since been offering
free credit m onitoring f or those
affected. The service also i ncludes
monitoring at t he three major
credit b ureaus. Last y ear, OPM
announced it was extending the
monitoring services through
fiscal year 2 026.
Like those affected b y the O PM
data breach, you m ay a lready b e
receiving f ree credit m onitoring
from another hack. However,
make sure the service c overs a ll
three major credit b ureaus. If it
doesn’t, then I would recommend
getting the f ree credit monitoring
offered in the Equifax deal.
Also, check how long you’ll be
getting the f ree monitoring. If it
runs out before the c overage
offered by Equifax ends, grab t he
extra protection.Q : If I have credit monitoring,
can I still get a credit freeze?
A : With a credit f reeze in place,
potential lenders can’t r eviewWhat it does i s send you alerts
about activity t hat could be
fraudulent. Because we live in a
time when lenders c an grant
credit i n a matter o f minutes, y ou
might get a notification o nly after
a card has b een issued and used.
But t he sooner you’re informed
about some nefarious a ction, t he
quicker y ou can move to close a
fraudulent a ccount i n your name.Q : As a government employee,
I was a ffected by the h acks s everal
years a go a t the Office of
Personnel Management. So I have
free credit m onitoring f rom the
OPM. Thus, I am on t he fence
about getting the a dditional
credit m onitoring. Would t he
extra monitoring services b e
redundant?
A : In 2 015, the O PM d isclosed
that it had b een hacked twice. T he
personal information — birth
dates, home addresses and S ocial
Security numbers — of at l east
22.1 m illion current and f ormer
federal government e mployees,Still, even though it’s f ree, a lot
of people are not s ure the
monitoring offer i s worth i t. Here
are some questions I’ve received
from concerned readers, and my
responses:
Q : Why would I sign up for
credit m onitoring w ith a
company t hat had a significant
breach i n its security?
A : Under the s ettlement,
Equifax won’t b e providing the
three-bureau monitoring for t he
first four y ears. Instead, the
company w ill pay its competitor,
Experian, to provide the s ervice.
Equifax will h andle the additional
six y ears o f monitoring, but t he
company h as agreed t o not upsell
or directly m arket o r advertise its
fee-based p roducts or services
during that time.Q : What a ssurances do I have
that credit m onitoring wouldn’t
subject m e to further
vulnerability to fraud and theft?
A : Credit monitoring does not
prevent fraud or identity t heft.However, not long after
announcing the c ash o ption, the
FTC had t o walk i t back b ecause
of the stampede o f people looking
to receive the b enefit and the
limited p ool o f money — just
$31 m illion — that had been set
aside.
The push is n ow t o get people
to sign up instead f or the f ree
credit m onitoring b eing offered
by Equifax. T his option c omes
with four y ears of credit
monitoring at E quifax and t he
two other major credit bureaus,
TransUnion and Experian.
Consumers can request a n
additional six years of free
monitoring of just their E quifax
credit report.
Considering that most people
who still make a claim will g et
substantially l ess than $ 125, you
may as well take the c redit
monitoring instead.
Paying f or the three-bureau
monitoring would cost you about
$30 a month. Over f our years,
that would come to $1,440.Be mad.
Without your
consent, credit
bureaus collect
information a bout
your personal
finance history —
whether you pay
your loans on
time, h ow much
debt you carry, etc.
This is their
business model, a nd it allows
lenders to assess a customer’s
credit r isk.
Then there was t he 2017 h ack
at E quifax. The personal data of
about 147 m illion people was
exposed. Now the c ompany is
trying to make amends i n a
settlement with the Federal Trade
Commission.
But o ne of the t outed remedies
has p eople in a towering rage.
And they should be.
Under the d eal, if your d ata
was e xposed a nd y ou chose to get
credit m onitoring o n your own,
you w ere o ffered “up t o” $ 125.
Economy & Business
INTERNET
Court strikes down
Google settlement
A federal appeals court on
Tuesday struck down Google’s
class-action settlement meant to
resolve claims it invaded the
privacy of millions of computer
users by installing “cookies” in
their browsers but paying those
users nothing for their troubles.
In a unanimous decision, the
Court of Appeals for the 3rd
Circuit in Philadelphia said it
could not tell whether the
$5.5 million deal was fair,
reasonable and adequate and
said a lower-court judge should
revisit the case.
Google, owned by Alphabet,
had been accused of exploiting
loopholes in Apple’s Safari and
Microsoft’s Internet Explorer
browsers to help advertisers
bypass cookie blockers.
The settlement approved in
February 2017 by U.S. District
Judge Sue Robinson in Delaware
called for Google to stop using
cookies for Safari browsers and
to pay the $5.5 million mainly to
the plaintiffs’ lawyers and six
groups, including some with
prior Google ties, to research and
promote browser privacy.
But in Tuesday’s decision,
Judge Thomas Ambro said the
settlement raised a “red flag” and
possible due-process concerns
because it broadly released
claims for money damages. He
also called the awards to the
privacy groups “particularly
concerning.” The case was
returned to the Delaware court.
— ReutersRETAILBarneys New York
files for bankruptcyBarneys New York has filed for
bankruptcy protection from
creditors and laid out plans to
shutter most of its department
stores after getting squeezed by
rising rents and fewer visitors to
its luxury fashion stores.
The Chapter 11 filing in New
York allows the retail chain to
stay open while it seeks to sell a
slimmed-down business and
negotiate with landlords.
The company, owned by
billionaire investor Richard
Perry, said it has secured
$75 million from affiliates of
Hilco Global and Gordon
Brothers Group to help meet its
financial commitments.
“Like many in our industry,Barneys New York’s financial
position has been dramatically
impacted by the challenging
retail environment and rent
structures that are excessively
high relative to market demand,”
chief executive Daniella Vitale
said in a statement.
Barneys’s proposed
bankruptcy loan would allow it
to repay $50 million of debt and
provide $25 million to help
facilitate a sale in the next 60
days, court papers show.
— ReutersLENDINGN.Y. joins probe of
payroll advance firmsThe payroll advance industry
is under investigation by New
York’s financial regulator and
other states over whether its
companies are charging usurious
interest rates and engaging in
potential violations of payday
lending laws, the regulator said.
New York, joined by financial
regulators from 10 other states
and Puerto Rico, sent letters to
payroll advance companies
requesting information, the New
York Department of Financial
Services said.
Payroll advances are a type ofloan that gives consumers access
to wages they have earned ahead
of when they receive their
paychecks.
Some of the companies, which
operate through websites and
apps, appear to charge
membership fees, “tips” and
other types of fees that add up to
the equivalent of usurious andother illegal interest rates, the
regulator said.
— ReutersALSO IN BUSINESS
Mastercard agreed to buy a
payments platform owned by
Denmark-based Nets for
$3.19 billion, using its biggest-ever acquisition to help extend a
push into faster payments. With
the purchase, Mastercard is
getting an electronic billing
platform and clearing and
instant payment services,
according to a statement. The
company said the purchase will
hurt profit for as long as two
years after it is completed, which
is expected in the first half of
2020.An Apple software subsidiary
said it is changing its name and
has made an acquisition. The
unit known as FileMaker, whose
tools help business users make
custom apps without having to
write as much computer code as
a from-scratch app, will now be
called Claris International. Claris
has been an Apple subsidiary
since the 1980s. Claris also said it
has acquired Stamplay, an Italian
start-up that helps app makers
weave data from cloud-based
programs such as Slack and Box
into their custom applications.
— From news reportsCOMING TODAY
3 p.m.: Federal Reserve releases
consumer credit data for June.Earnings: CVS Health, Lyft.DIGESTTOLGA AKMEN/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
Promoters dressed as Star Wars stormtroopers drink beer as they
take a break Tuesday during the Great British Beer Festival in
London. Organized by the Campaign for Real Ale, the festival features
hundreds of ales, international beers, ciders and perries.
DOW 26,029.
UP 311.78, 1.2% NASDAQ 7,833.
UP 107.23, 1.4% S&P 500 2,881.
UP 37.03, 1.3% GOLD $1,484.
UP $7.70, 0.5% CRUDE OIL $53.
DOWN $1.06, 2% 10-YEAR TREASURY
DOWN $0.50 PER $1,000;
1.71% YIELDCURRENCIES
$1=106.49 YEN; EURO=$1.BY RACHEL SIEGELFour former Fed chairs warned
that the central bank must be able
to act independently and “free of
short-term political pressures” —
an admonition apparently aimed
at President Trump, who has rou-
tinely criticized the Federal Re-
serve Board and its current chair-
man for not doing enough to stim-
ulate the economy.
In an op-ed published Monday
in the Wall Street Journal, Paul
Volcker, Alan Greenspan, Ben
Bernanke and Janet L. Yellen
wrote that the world’s most pow-
erful central bank must be re-
lieved from “the threat of removal
or demotion of Fed leaders for
political reasons.”
Though the article did not
name Trump, it was clear in its
message: The Fed’s decisions are
“better for being the product of
nonpartisan, nonpolitical assess-
ments based on analysis of the
longer-run economic interests of
U.S. citizens rather than being
motivated by short-term political
advantage.” The authors served
across a nearly 40-year span be-
ginning in 1979 and were appoint-
ed and reappointed by six presi-
dents, both Republicans and
Democrats.
Last week, the Fed reduced the
benchmark interest rate for the
first time in more than a decade,
lowering it by a quarter-point to
just below 2.25 percent. The move
was an effort to bolster the U.S.
economy amid early signs of a
global slowdown.
But the announcement also
spurred confusion about the Fed’s
plans, rumbling t he stock market.
Fed Chair Jerome H. Powell em-
phasized that the decision was
“not the beginning of a long series
of rate cuts.”
Trump has publicly criticized
the Fed since last summer, even
while he appointed the majority
of its board, including Powell, a
former investment banker. After
the Fed cut interest rates last
week, Trump took to Twitter to saythat “as usual, Powell let us down.”
“What the Market wanted to
hear from Jay Powell and the
Federal Reserve was that this was
the beginning of a lengthy and
aggressive rate-cutting cycle
which would keep pace with Chi-
na, The European Union and oth-
er countries around the world,”
Trump tweeted.
The rebuke was fairly typical,
leaving Powell to weigh the presi-dent’s very public demands for
more rate cuts against the advice
of economists, who say the central
bank shouldn’t be cutting rates to
stimulate growth.
The op-ed asserted that the
central bank’s nonpartisanship
doesn’t preclude it from account-
ability: Fed leaders testify before
Congress, explain their views on
the economy and speak regularly
in public.“A robust public debate helps
make monetary policy better,”
they wrote.
History, the former chairs ar-
gued, shows that the economy
functions best when the central
bank is removed from short-term
pressures and relies solely on
sound economic principles and
data. Worse economic outcomes
can ensue when public confi-
de nce in the central bank is un-dermined, they wrote.
To help bolster nonpartisan
monetary policy, Congress estab-
lished the Fed as an independent
agency with limits on how long
board members can serve. Gover-
nors, including the chair and vice
chair, can be removed only for
breaking the law or similar bad
behavior — “not for policy differ-
ences with political leaders,” the
op-ed said.
More than a year before the
2020 election, Volcker, Green-
span, Bernanke and Yellen wrote
that “elections have consequenc-
es,” including when it comes to
the Fed. When Powell’s four-year
term as chair ends in February
2022, the president c an reappoint
him or choose someone new. T hat
nomination requires Senate rati-
fication.
“We hope that when that deci-
sion is made, the choice will be
based on the prospective nomi-
nee’s competence and integrity,
not on political allegiance or ac-
tivism,” t he former leaders wrote.
“It is critical to preserve the Fed-
eral Reserve’s a bility to make deci-
sions based on the best interests
of the nation, not the interests of a
small group of politicians.”
[email protected]Heather Long contributed to this
report.Fe d must be free of political pressure, ex-chairs warn
SARAH SILBIGER/REUTERS
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell, appointed by President Trump, has been a frequent target of the president on Twitter. Recently,
Trump has complained that Powell and the Fed aren’t cutting interest rates aggressively enough.Four former leaders
respond to Trump’s
criticism of central bankAfter the data hack, can Equifax’s credit monitoring o≠er be trusted?
Michelle
Singletary
THE COLOR
OF MONEY
The Fe d’s decisions are
“better for being the
product of nonpartisan,
nonpolitical
assessments.”
Paul Volcker, Alan Greenspan,
Ben Bernanke and Janet L. Yellen,
in a Wall Street Journal op-ed