Sorry, you're not getting $125 from the Equifax settlement, FTC says
Remember that $125 you could have gotten from the Equifax Inc. data-breach settlement? Yeah, never mind.
The Federal Trade Commission announced Wednesday that, due to an overwhelming response, cash payments aren't going to be anywhere near $125 each, and urged consumers to sign up for the free credit monitoring offered as an alternative.
About 147 million people were affected by the 2017 Equifax EFX, -0.64% breach, but only $31 million was set aside for payments as part of the $700 million settlement, announced last week. A quick bit of math shows that for everyone to have gotten $125 from that pot, there would have to be only 248,000 claimants. While the FTC didn't give a number, they said there were already "an enormous number of claims filed."
"A large number of claims for cash instead of credit monitoring means only one thing: each person who takes the money option will wind up only getting a small amount of money," the FTC said in a blog post Wednesday.
"So, if you haven't submitted your claim yet, think about opting for the free credit monitoring instead," the FTC said. "Frankly, the free credit monitoring is worth a lot more."
[...] The agency noted that consumers who had to pay out-of-pocket expenses due to the breach are still entitled to reimbursement if they submit a claim, as that money comes from a separate fund.
To get more information, or to find out if your data was exposed in the breach or file a claim, go to ftc.gov/Equifax.
Another quick bit of math reveals that if every one of the 147 million people affected opted for the $125 payout, the settlement pool would have needed to contain $18.375 billion; the payout fund totaled 0.17% of that: $31 million. Putting it another way, they set aside $0.21 for each potential claimant.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 02 2019, @05:42PM (19 children)
In a free market equifax would be sued to bankruptcy, this "fine" is just moving money from one pocket to the other of the people who control the government and equifax.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 02 2019, @05:45PM
And look at Equifax stock price, it is practically at all time highs...
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday August 02 2019, @06:04PM (1 child)
Marked you insightful, but in this case it wouldn't have needed to be sued with the settlement proposed. I put down below the stats from Yahoo! Finance (here [yahoo.com]) - the numbers should still be OK despite being Yahoo.
What they show is that the proposed settlement would have been enough to tank the company many multiple times over.
Should it have been fined into nonexistence? Well, different question.
But sued? First you tell me what the value of the data stolen was per person. What was the actual damage done to the claimants in real dollars, and how much do you want for emotional pain?
I'd have to say I'm far more distressed that there was a $700 MILLION settlement and the actual compensation was only $31 million. Wonder how much of that was eaten up in lawyer's fees but too lazy to check. Oh wait, I'm not. [equifax.com] $380 Million of that was apparently for settlements and lawyers fees. The numbers might be wrong but the way I read that the people get $31 million and the lawyers got $350 million. Yep. That sure seems fair.
Equifax Inc. (EFX)
NYSE - Nasdaq Real Time Price. Currency in USD
Visitors trend2W10W9M
137.78 -0.42 (-0.30%)
As of 1:52PM EDT. Market open.
Currency in USD
Valuation Measures
Market Cap (intraday) 5 16.66B
Enterprise Value 3 19.63B
Trailing P/E N/A
Forward P/E 1 22.70
PEG Ratio (5 yr expected) 1 8.55
Price/Sales (ttm) 4.90
Price/Book (mrq) 6.55
Enterprise Value/Revenue 3 5.78
Enterprise Value/EBITDA 6 29.45
Trading Information
Stock Price History
Beta (3Y Monthly) 1.43
52-Week Change 3 9.87%
S&P500 52-Week Change 3 4.47%
52 Week High 3 144.03
52 Week Low 3 88.68
50-Day Moving Average 3 136.53
200-Day Moving Average 3 121.13
Share Statistics
Avg Vol (3 month) 3 866.31k
Avg Vol (10 day) 3 1.12M
Shares Outstanding 5 120.82M
Float 120.07M
% Held by Insiders 1 0.44%
% Held by Institutions 1 88.67%
Shares Short (Jul 15, 2019) 4 3.98M
Short Ratio (Jul 15, 2019) 4 5.4
Short % of Float (Jul 15, 2019) 4 3.68%
Short % of Shares Outstanding (Jul 15, 2019) 4 3.29%
Shares Short (prior month Jun 14, 2019) 4 4.55M
Dividends & Splits
Forward Annual Dividend Rate 4 1.56
Forward Annual Dividend Yield 4 1.13%
Trailing Annual Dividend Rate 3 1.56
Trailing Annual Dividend Yield 3 1.13%
5 Year Average Dividend Yield 4 1.18
Payout Ratio 4 N/A
Dividend Date 3 Jun 14, 2019
Ex-Dividend Date 4 May 23, 2019
Last Split Factor (new per old) 2 1/2
Last Split Date 3 Dec 18, 1995
Financial Highlights
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year Ends Dec 31, 2018
Most Recent Quarter (mrq) Jun 30, 2019
Profitability
Profit Margin -12.52%
Operating Margin (ttm) 10.16%
Management Effectiveness
Return on Assets (ttm) 2.96%
Return on Equity (ttm) -14.31%
Income Statement
Revenue (ttm) 3.4B
Revenue Per Share (ttm) 28.14
Quarterly Revenue Growth (yoy) 0.40%
Gross Profit (ttm) 1.97B
EBITDA 666.5M
Net Income Avi to Common (ttm) -425.1M
Diluted EPS (ttm) -3.52
Quarterly Earnings Growth (yoy) -53.90%
Balance Sheet
Total Cash (mrq) 135.8M
Total Cash Per Share (mrq) 1.12
Total Debt (mrq) 3.01B
Total Debt/Equity (mrq) 116.40
Current Ratio (mrq) 0.54
Book Value Per Share (mrq) 21.04
Cash Flow Statement
Operating Cash Flow (ttm) 565.4M
Levered Free Cash Flow (ttm) 829.54M
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Friday August 02 2019, @06:29PM
But you must have missed this*:
There's still not much information there; I'd better follow that link...
Well, it looks like that other fund is not included in the $380M. I suppose the $700M is a theoretical number, as well, including the retail value of credit monitoring and the cap on out-of-pocket reimbursements. Overall, I'd say this was a good day for all the lawyers involved.
* I retract this statement.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday August 02 2019, @06:28PM (15 children)
I'm really confused by this comment. I'm even more confused about why it was repeatedly labeled "insightful." Here are a few concerns:
(1) I have absolutely no clue what this has to do with "socialism."
(2) While we have a regulated market in the U.S., it is definitely quite "free" compared to a lot of the world.
(3) I'm not sure what a "free market" has to do with suing anyone. "Free markets" vs. socialism have to do with economic management. "Suing" has to do with legal rights and court standing.
(4) Individuals still CAN sue Equifax if they wish. If they do not "opt out" by a certain date, they will lose standing to do so and will be subsumed into the class action. But you can definitely still bring an individual action for damages against Equifax. If everyone affected did this, Equifax may in fact "be sued to bankruptcy," though I doubt many people will take the time and money for little gain.
(5) Not sure who is pocketing the money among "the people who control the government and Equifax," but as pointed out in another post already, a lot of this money will go to lawyers. Also evil, I agree. But again, I'm not sure what they has to do with "socialism."
In sum, I completely agree that the settlement against Equifax is bad. I completely agree that it's unjust. I would go further and say that in a fair world, Equifax should not just be sued into bankruptcy -- anyone who was in an supervisory role and didn't take adequate precautions to safeguard this most sensitive content of consumer financial data should go to jail. That's the only way we'd begin to see any changes in consumer protections in the U.S.
But I still don't see what any of this has to do with socialism or free markets, or why this was modded insightful... perhaps someone can explain.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 02 2019, @07:13PM (9 children)
If you are so ignorant about how the world works I doubt some comments on here can help you. This story is about a government agency doing what the free market should be doing, very, very poorly to the detriment of all except the connected insiders who either own or are on the boards of corporations like equifax and have the bribed regulators and politicians in their pockets.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 02 2019, @08:15PM (3 children)
oh man, that is some funny shit
so tell us! we have obviously all had the wool pulled over our eyes by Red Rosa and the bolsheviks! what is capitalism?
bonus round: what is property?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 02 2019, @10:04PM (2 children)
I'm sure your entirely incorrect worldview has lead to great success.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 02 2019, @11:07PM (1 child)
It has, thank you. Yours?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 02 2019, @11:23PM
BS, prove it.
Post the amount here then send btc from one address to the other to prove it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Friday August 02 2019, @10:53PM (4 children)
So the story is about Fascism (according to B. Mussolini's definition).
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 02 2019, @11:26PM
Yes, fascism is socialism...
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday August 03 2019, @01:45AM (2 children)
Exactly. Fascism is, in a nutshell, a union between big business and the government. Add a bit of nationalism to it and it will be Nazi.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @04:00AM
Thank you. I don't know why this is such a hard concept for many around here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @12:48PM
Look up the policies of the nazis and compare to democratic party platform... In particular the newest developments such as modern monetary policy and the green new deal.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday August 02 2019, @07:14PM (4 children)
I could well be wrong, but I associated the "socialism" aspect with class action status. It forces a shared risk and reward that may not be justified, all because the court system does not want to be overwhelmed by individual actions. Instead of permitting each and every defendant their day in court, instead all the claims are mushed together into a single action. It seems to feed the lawyers far more than it gets justice for the damaged. (Although one could question if the legal fees involved would really be lesser if it was millions of claimants each with their own lawyer suing, but no one law firm would hit a mega-jackpot of expense reimbursement, either.) That's just my assumption.
The other half is that Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion are collectively far too important to the financial system to allow any of them to fail. It is not a free market in this regard at all. There is also a low likelihood of any other agency breaking into the game (though I'd think both Google and Facebook could have a reasonable shot at it given the data they command).
The very action of requiring an "opt out" to lose legal standing to sue individually means that by default one has been incorporated into the social mass of claimants. A non-socialist culture would have class actions be "opt in" affairs and one retains one's right to sue individually if one hasn't opted in.
I modded the parent insightful because as with so many class actions it does extremely little in terms of actually providing the aggrieved with a remedy that is proportionate. In some cases this means people get something when they have suffered no real damage, and in others it means that the losses received will never be recovered because there are too many hands in a pie that is already too small. Often times whichever plaintiff is the initial filing winner (the plaintiff whose firm is chosen as chief counsel of the action) gets a preferential part of the settlement aside from all the other yokels in the class, again resulting in an unfair distribution of the damage awards. Yet the lawyers get theirs, the government often gets its, and the companies are permitted to continue operations and the degree the court-ordered fixes (oh yes we'll protect people's data better!) actually end up fixing the originating problems instead of being the purest lip service never really comes to light in retrospect.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday August 02 2019, @07:32PM (1 child)
Class action lawsuits never force people to join the class. There is always, by both law and long-standing precendent, an opt-out period after settlement, where you can choose to sue separately, even if you're one of the original litigants of the class action case.
Failure-to-inform should be(and I think is) a crime.
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday August 03 2019, @01:51AM
They do force. Similar to privacy settings we are familiar with, it has to be opt-in period and anybody who did nothing still have a right to do anything as if the settlement never happened.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday August 03 2019, @02:17AM (1 child)
For the record, I completely agree with pretty much all of this. Our modern system of class action lawsuits is horrible. But I'd hardly call it "socialism" in any usual sense of the term. Note that the original idea behind class action suits was noble: most individuals can't or don't have the time and monetary resources to bring forth an action by themselves. Class action at its heart is a tool used by individuals to combat larger bodies that they can't fight individually, an essential tool in a free market, along with things like boycotts, petitions, protests, strikes, etc. Can such things be used for or even beget "socialist" ends? Sure. But they originate from a need for individuals to assemble when they wish to fight a greater foe.
Of course, the class action system (as you rightly note) has been corrupted and used for all sorts of purposes in the modern U.S., and it mostly serves to pay lawyers big fees now, as well as dispensing with individual actions from those who do not "opt out" in time.
But, as already noted in a reply, a default "opt in" in most cases can only occur after a legal notification, usually officially by mail. I've received quite a few of these over the years for various suits that may have concerned me. It's not perfect, but in cases like this, it's about the only way to effectively create a useful "class" that can be settled with.
For heaven's sake, why? I've examined my credit reports with them generally annually for at least the past decade, and as far as I can tell, all three pretty much have duplicate information. If one of them "failed," what precisely would be lost or disrupted except for business deals with said bureau for reports that would have to be renegotiated with the other two bureaus? I'm pretty sure Experian and Transunion would gladly take the new business.
It's pretty stupid that we have these businesses that hold so much sway over our lives to begin with. They should already be much more heavily regulated in my opinion (and yes, maybe some of that perspective is more "socialistic"). But as far as I can tell, all three of them tend to hold consumers hostage with equally poor service, so it's not like there's effective competition with the three anyway. I'm not saying having only two would be better, but having serious consequences for such a business might actually change something.
I thank you for explaining, though I will admit I still have no clue what this has to do with "socialism." If anything, what you seem to be describing -- excepting perhaps the "opt-in" situation -- is more a combination of unfettered regard for businesses to continue to act in the most ruthless capitalist environment combined perhaps with government irresponsibility/kleptocracy.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday August 05 2019, @03:48PM
Surely, and well said. Perhaps I should have said that I'm not entirely convinced that GP's observation of it being socialism is accurate, and of course I'm trying to define what someone else has said - always a risky occupation at best. (And indicating why I modded it).
Perhaps the class action system is the best possible compromise available given our current legal system. It would be far more punitive in legal fees for a single plaintiff to lodge a claim, fight it out, and then upon verdict give a precedented judgment that every other person in similar circumstances could cite and use with their own case. Of course the initial lead counsel would be in the best position to take on additional plaintiffs, and one would likely effectively end up with the same conditions as a class action anyway. Except that now the defendant can pay the legal fees of each and every claimant separately. The biggest challenge to enabling such a system would be that allowing settlements to occur confuses this - there would be no precedent for others to follow. Forcing someone to follow through on a suit goes against much established legal procedure (nope - the action won't be dismissed - you filed it you must try it). On the other hand, I wonder how much of jurisprudence overload comes from judges who keep kicking the cans of cases down the line attempting to strongarm (or at least influencing the possiblility) that settlements would occur. Anyway, all this is just meandering speculation - it's not like the system will magically change and morph into a justice butterfly.
As to ensuring tighter regulations, I don't think that's socialism by the common definitions even if it does ensure society as a whole a greater degree of control. Now if the credit reporting agencies were nationalized and became akin to Amtrak or the Postal Service....
This sig for rent.