As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

Search: abandoned

If you enter into an agreement with a company, and that company does something to wrong you, most of the time you can avail yourself of the American judicial system to correct the problem. This happens frequently, with both individual lawsuits and class action lawsuits. For example, Bank of America is dealing with several lawsuits stemming from shady fee practices and other policies enacted by Countrywide Financial, a company Bank of America acquired.

In order for bank to protect themselves from problems and major expenses like these is to take away their customers’ rights to a trial with a jury or a judge. This is legal, and you don’t even need to sign these rights away. Companies can change these terms of your banking agreement, and your continued patronage implies that you agree and are willing to waive your rights for the benefit of remaining a customer.

Wells FargoI make it a point to thumb through the mailed statements because banks will occasionally update terms and change fees, and it’s easy to miss this information if I were to only check my account online or in my Quicken software. A few days ago, I received my statement from Wells Fargo in the mail, and discovered a notice informing me that by remaining a customer at Wells Fargo beyond February 15, 2012, I would never be able to be included in a class action lawsuit or sue the bank myself. Any disputes would go through a binding arbitration process.

Binding arbitration has its benefits. It is often less costly, and businesses can generally get a sense for the result before moving forward. The benefits, plainly one-sided, end there.

Binding arbitration is usually detrimental to consumers. The costs for an individual often outweigh the potential reward, and potential rewards are low because binding arbitration often favors the large company over the individual, unlike juries and most judges. It’s easy to see why arbitrators favor big businesses; arbitration is a business, and if they favor a large corporation, that corporation will likely bring more business to the arbitrator.

A consumer initiating arbitration through the American Arbitration Association, the administer Wells Fargo identifies in its new terms, would be subject to fees, such as:

  • $250 for telephone consultation if the claim is less than $75,000, higher otherwise
  • $750 for in-person consultation of the claim is less than $75,000, higher otherwise
  • Up to $125 in additional fees if the claim is less than $10,000, up to $375 if the claim is less than $75,000, higher otherwise

The business would be subject to fees higher than those listed above for the consumer, but the total expense for a corporation could still be considerably less than dealing with a lawsuit. Not every arbitration organization follows the same pattern for fees, though. In some cases, the consumer could spend more money initiating arbitration than filing his or her own suit.

Also a detriment to the consumer, arbitrators are not required to follow an established process. This uncertainty can limit the consumer’s ability to argue. For example, arbitration does not include a discovery process, making it difficult for consumers to present evidence to support their cases. Also, the consumer does not have the ability to choose the arbitrator. The business selects the arbitrator, so it’s clear that this could easily be a biased approach to settling a disagreement.

Binding arbitration is reviled so much that Congress has been inspired to take action to determine whether binding arbitration clauses can be considered legal — in cellular phone contracts, only. So far, this effort has failed to produce any results beneficial for the consumer.

Bank of America and other banks have been the subject of a class action lawsuit alleging they have forced customers into mandatory binding arbitration agreements. The Supreme Court has ruled 5 to 4 in favor of companies’ options to put binding arbitration into customer agreements.

What a consumer can do about binding arbitration clauses

I’ve been a customer of Wells Fargo or its predecessors for most of my life. I’ve had my primary checking and savings accounts at this bank. But with this change, I am not wasting any more time in moving my money out of this bank. It’s not that I anticipate having any problems that require a lawsuit or arbitration, and if I am included in any class action lawsuit, I don’t expect to gain much.

Businesses and employers force binding arbitration on customers when the customers or employees are in a weaker position than the larger entity. For example, with unemployment high, many Americans feel lucky to have jobs. They’re willing to waive rights in order to be employed, and most do. Most customers will be unaware that by continuing to hold their accounts they waive their rights. Others will be aware and not consider this to be an issue worthy of going through the process of closing their accounts. Very few will use this as an incentive to move money elsewhere.

Banking institutions are everywhere, however, and customers have choices. For example, I could move all of my money held at Wells Fargo to Chase Bank. At one point, Chase included binding arbitration in its customer contracts for credit cards but has recently abandoned this approach. There is always a danger that the terms will change, particularly as more big banks want to protect the revenue they earn from fees. With a Chase branch within walking distance to me, this move makes sense, but it still isn’t a perfect solution.

I would prefer to switch to a credit union, but I’ve researched my options many times, and there are no credit unions convenient for me. Additionally, one of the largest and most popular credit unions, USAA, is as bad as Wells Fargo when it comes to members’ rights: USAA requires customers to waive their rights to a trial by judge or jury, just like the bank I intend to leave.

I’ll be moving my money out of this bank as soon as possible.

If you decide to move your business to a company that does not limit your rights, be sure to let the company know exactly why it is lowing your business. Unfair fee practices and binding arbitration could be only two of many reasons you’d be better off being a customer elsewhere.

Read the entire Wells Fargo notice below. Read the full article →

{ 32 comments }

Many Wal-Mart locations around the country now have Money Center departments. These developments create an incredibly convenient way to take your paycheck into the store, have it cashed at the Money Center, and use your cash for your shopping trip. With Wal-Mart’s trend to become a one-stop shop for all household needs, including groceries, each Wal-Mart location is becoming its own small mall — or even village.

The Wal-Mart Money Centers are not full banks. They offer check cashing services, bill payments, outgoing wires, and reloadable debit cards. There are no checking accounts or savings accounts. Wal-Mart abandoned its plans to become a bank, and in doing so, is able to offer certain financial services while not being held to the same regulations as Chase, Bank of America, or your local bank branch. On the spectrum of financial institutions, Wal-Mart Money Centers are closer to establishments like payday loan companies and check cashing storefronts, who charge high fees and cater to lower-income communities and the unbanked population, than the centers are to banks.

Wal-MartCheck cashing fee. The good news is that the fees for cashing your paycheck or government check are generally much lower than the fees at shadier establishments. At the Wal-Mart Money Center, you can cash your check for a 1 percent fee with a maximum fee of $3. Of course, you can cash your checks for free at a bank.

Prepaid debit card fee. The fee to reload and maintain your prepaid debit card is lower than fees for prepaid debit cards elsewhere. Wal-Mart uses GreenDot prepaid debit cards, but at reduced rates of $3 to load and $3 per month to maintain. This is a system designed to charge people with low credit scores or a poor history with banks fees to use their own money. These are fees that middle-income banking customers doesn’t need to pay, particularly now that big banks have backed away from charging monthly debit card fees.

According to Wal-Mart’s own survey, 60 percent of the customers using the Money Center have bank accounts. These customers are most likely more interested in the convenience, and willing to accept the fees in exchange for getting access to their money at the same location they shop. The remaining 40 percent must be the reason Wal-Mart chose to offer its own check cashing service rather than extending a potentially lucrative contract to a bank that could theoretically operate a branch in every Wal-Mart location.

Are these new services good for the people of Wal-Mart? I’m having trouble finding a significant drawback. I believe it would be better if Wal-Mart were to offer more traditional banking services, but this system is more profitable. The temptation to spend more money when you receive cash from your employer’s paycheck in the store where you’ll be spending money could be an invitation to spend more than necessary, but if you’re spending with cash, at least you’ll be limited to spending only what you have on hand. At the same time, Wal-Mart’s Money Centers offer a better choice than payday loans and check cashing storefronts for lower-income families or the 40 percent of customers who do not have bank accounts, and could possibly help these households transition to a bank in the future.

I do not see Wal-Mart centers as an alternative to banks for most existing banking customers. There is anger towards Wall Street and the banking system, and initiatives like Bank Transfer Day encourage people to move away from the big banks towards credit unions and community banks. The Wal-Mart Money Center is not a replacement for a big bank, and moving a family from managing finances through a bank to managing finances on an all-cash basis through an outfit like these could be detrimental to long-term financial stability.

Photo: aforero
New York Times

{ 9 comments }

Update: The Buffett Rule, if implemented, could help pay for the American Jobs Act.

As long as the public holds the general impression that economy isn’t favorable, and that’s certainly the case, for example, when unemployment is high or after a stock market crash, political leaders will propose stimulus plans to help move the country in a more favorable direction. The focus of the 2011 stimulus package is jobs, with unemployment a lagging factor in today’s economy. President Obama has pitched his 2011 stimulus plan with a total cost of $447 billion and is looking for Congress to quickly sign off on the plan to boost the economy.

There are politics at work here, of course, with an election looming next year and one political party eager to blame the other for the inevitable fact that the economy won’t look great by the time citizens in the United States head to the polls.

Dollar - 2011 Stimulus PackageThere is no stimulus check for American citizens this time, but here is what is included in the $447 billion 2011 stimulus package called the “American Jobs Act.”

  • Cut the payroll tax in half. Today, employees pay 4.2% on the first $106,800 of wages, an already-reduced rate from the normal 6.2%. The 2011 stimulus proposal would reduce the payroll tax to 3.1%. The proposal would also reduce the payroll tax rate paid by businesses to 3.1% on the first $5 million paid in wages.
  • Payroll tax exemptions for new hires and raises. Any new hire will be exempt from payroll taxes, both from the employee and the business side. The same is true for any employee who receives a raise; they will be continue to be taxed on their old salary.
  • Tax credit for business that hire the unemployed. If a business hires an individual who has been unemployed for over six months, the business will be able to claim a tax credit of $4,000.
  • Deductions for companies that invest in infrastructure. Companies that spend capital on equipment and plants will be able to deduct certain expenses from their taxes.
  • Creation of an infrastructure bank. After a round of federal funding, a new facility will be able to offer loans to help fund local infrastructure improvement projects. Once the infrastructure bank is operational, it should pay for itself through interest collection on the loans.
  • Transportation improvement projects. In addition to the infrastructure bank, the 2011 stimulus plan includes immediate funding for highways, mass ground transportation, and aviation.
  • Modernize schools. Part of the stimulus package will include spending to repair, rebuild, or outfit 35,000 public schools.
  • Fix vacant property. The federal government will dedicate funds for fixing up properties, residential or businesses, that have been foreclosed or abandoned.
  • Extend unemployment benefits. Although employee benefits have already been extended to 99 weeks, the stimulus proposal would extend benefits even further. For unemployed individuals who choose to build their skills through job training, the plan would extend benefits as well as provide a stipend.
  • Fund teachers and first responders. Obama would send $35 billion in federal money to local communities to help hire and keep public school teachers and emergency personnel.
  • Offer more home refinances. The President has already proposed extending mortgage refinancing at today’s low rates to more homeowners.

How to pay for the 2011 stimulus

The total cost of the tax cuts in the 2011 stimulus package is $254 billion and the total cost of the spending measures is $194 billion. To pay for the tax cuts and spending, Obama’s plan for the most part is to raise taxes on individuals with incomes over $200,000 (or $250,000 for couples filing jointly). These are the adjusted gross income values, which are often much lower than gross revenue from a job or a business. For business owners, adjusted gross income is the resulting number after business expenses are deducted; for all individuals, adjusted gross income is the resulting income after most retirement contributions are removed from the number.

Much of the following is part of the Buffett Rule proposed by President Obama on September 19, 2011.

  • Cap itemized deductions at a rate of 28%, not affecting anyone other than those in the top two income tax brackets. For every $100 in deductions, the most any America would be able to receive back is $28. Those who use major charitable donations to reduce taxable income, for example, could see a significantly higher tax bill.
  • Tax carried interest at ordinary income rates. Hedge fund managers and others in the financial industry have benefited from the long-term capital gains rate of 15%. When a compensation is paid out of investment returns, it can qualify as carried interest. The stimulus plan would combined carried interest with ordinary income and the total would be subject to the tax bracket calculation, with a rate as high as 39.6%.
  • Repeal oil subsidies. The oil industry has benefited from help from the government at a time when the industry seemed to be successful regardless of the subsidies. Paying for the stimulus plan could be assisted by removing these subsidies and allowing the industry to flourish on its own.

Obama’s proposal for the 2011 stimulus package has little chance of being approved by the Congress in its current form. There will likely be competing priorities between Republicans and Democrats to be settled first, and competing bills between the House of Representatives and the Senate in need of a compromise. As the situation changes, this article will contain the latest details.

What do you think about the 2011 stimulus package in its current form? Will it help to push the economy in the right direction? Is it completely unnecessary?

{ 34 comments }

The Myth of Ownership

This article was written by in Consumer. 23 comments.

Who really owns all of your stuff? It’s comforting to think that everything that we have in our possession, acquired by legal means, belongs to us. That’s not always the way it works, however.

The myth of ownership is expected to apply to people who buy their possessions with credit and can’t afford to keep up with the debt payments. Default on your car loans, and the bank will come and repossess the car — that the bank owns, not the driver. Ignore your mortgage payments for long enough, and the bank will foreclose on your house. The typical American dream of owning a piece of property is rarely achieved because so few families truly own their homes.

Putting aside debt, there are situations when even full ownership doesn’t guarantee you can keep what is yours. The myth of ownership applies even when no debt is involved.

The first example is the process of escheatment by your state. Property considered abandoned can be claimed by the state in which you live or in which the property resides. Savings accounts and insurance policies are some of the more common financial items escheated. If a bank or insurance company can’t contact the owner, they will hand over the funds to the state.

The owner has a chance to recover the funds from the state, but it involves a process initiated by the owner who may not even be aware that the property exists. If you think there might be something of yours out there, start the process here. Most unclaimed property will remain unclaimed — and the states count on this when they plan their budgets and spending plans.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that states can exercise eminent domain in any situation where the state can prove that doing so would provide an economic benefit, and states can transfer that power to a private entity to exercise on its behalf. The result is that even homeowners who have no debt could find that the state will encourage them to leave. The state would offer reimbursement, but would act without the owner’s consent. Traditionally, highways and utilities are the reasons cited for seizure through eminent domain, but in the current legal environment, homes could be seized to make way for malls and sports arenas.

Eminent domain is one of the biggest examples of how our property doesn’t necessarily belong to us. On a smaller scale, New Jersey is now going after unused gift cards. Merchants and gift card issuers like Visa and American Express love unused gift cards. They’ve received the cash and haven’t had to provide any product. They have the most to lose by the state’s legislative decision to require issuers to forfeit the balance on unused cards after a relatively short time period. This decision was overturned in court, but the state is appealing that decision.

When our property can be relatively easily be taken from us by the state, is it really our property?

Hat tip: Darwin’s Money

{ 23 comments }

A Return to the Gold Standard

by Flexo

Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank, is concerned about the future of our global monetary system. Once upon a time, every dollar in the United States needed to be backed by gold and silver because these metals were said to have intrinsic value. If the world is losing faith in the U.S. dollar as ... Continue reading this article…

78 comments Read the full article →

The Savings and Interest Rate Paradox

by Flexo

The Federal Reserve recently announced that consumer debt declined in July for the sixth straight month. The continuing elimination of personal debt is a positive development on an individual level. Consumers are buying less of what they don’t need and saving money whenever possible. At the same time that savings account balances are increasing throughout ... Continue reading this article…

12 comments Read the full article →

Inactive Savings Accounts Can Be Turned Over to Your State

by Flexo

The state will take your money if you’re not vigilant. I received a warning the other day that I’m in danger of having the funds in one of my savings accounts handed over to the state of New Jersey. I’ll explain why in a moment. First, I should explain that rather than keeping a simplified ... Continue reading this article…

0 comments Read the full article →

Bank of America Seizes Parrot, Owner Sues for $50,000

by Flexo

Bank of America is controlling the news cycle lately. First, the bank eliminated overdraft fees for debit card purchases. Now, the bank has apologized to a woman for seizing her parrot. Back in October, Bank of America believed Angela Iannelli was defaulting on her mortgage and she had abandoned her house. The bank ordered a ... Continue reading this article…

9 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 3123