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

Search: cellular

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 }

Earlier this year, AT&T announced its plans to acquire T-Mobile, a plan that would change the landscape of wireless service in the United States and pave the way for an industry dominated by two large players: the new AT&T and Verizon Wireless. Today, the U.S. Justice Department stepped in, issuing a complaint to block the acquisition.

T-Mobile is currently a lower-cost option for wireless service, and the acquisition would most likely result in less competition and higher prices. Earlier this year, the Department of Justice blocked a merger between H&R Block and TaxAct, and the move was questioned when deals like the one between AT&T and T-Mobile were allowed to continue. As we can see now, the government is attempting to take the anti-duopoly approach across industries.

The Comcast acquisition of NBC was a different type of acquisition, and the Department of Justice did not seek to block it. The unified company can now control media from their creation to delivery, and this type of vertical integration seems to not be seen as anti-competitive, even though it could result in increased cost for the consumer and content exclusivity where none existed before. Deals like the one between AT&T and T-Mobile or between H&R Block and TaxAct take a marketplace and offer the consumer fewer choices.

Cell PhoneSprint, the distant fourth player in wireless, lobbied the Department of Justice to block the merger. While the block may be in the best interest of consumers, it’s definitely in the best interest of Sprint, likely to be pushed out of the market after the proposed acquisition. If the shoe were on the other foot, and AT&T were to buy Sprint, T-Mobile would be the company seeking to block the deal on behalf of consumers.

Consolidations and acquisitions can be good for the economy when there are major inefficiencies. Capitalists, for the most part, don’t want the government stepping in to block he progress of business and the growth of corporate empires. In theory, if one company gets so large that the consumer is left with poor choices, the market will eventually correct itself with new players willing to meet the neglected needs of the consumer. But when the cost of becoming a large enough presence in a market dominated by one or two companies is prohibitive, as it most likely is for offering cellular service due to the necessary infrastructure, blocking an acquisition might be a better solution than waiting a decade, a generation, or more for new competitors to re-shape the consumer landscape.

In its own words, the Department of Justice explains the decision:

The Department filed its lawsuit because we believe the combination of AT&T and T-Mobile would result in tens of millions of consumers all across the United States facing higher prices, fewer choices and lower quality products for their mobile wireless services.

Consumers across the country, including those in rural areas and those with lower incomes, have benefitted from competition among the nation’s wireless carriers, particularly the four remaining national carriers. This lawsuit seeks to ensure that everyone can continue to reap the benefits of that competition.

This isn’t the only acquisition of concern recently; Capital One was the winning bidder for ING Direct. Although the deal would make Capital One “only” the sixth largest bank in the United States when measured by deposits, the government and regulators are not taking this deal lightly, seeking more comments from the public.

Do you think the Department of Justice should block the AT&T acquisition of T-Mobile?

Photo: whiteafrican
Department of Justice

{ 11 comments }

The concept of multitasking, for a person, is a myth. When someone says they are multitasking, they are quick task shifting. We can move our attention quickly from one task to the next, and shift back again, but it’s practically impossible to focus on two different things at the same time. To excel at anything requires undivided attention. Just ask an athlete who performs at world-class levels; the intense focus required to achieve at high levels doesn’t allow for multitasking.

It doesn’t take an Olympic athlete’s training and dedication to be successful when paying off debt, though. A solid debt repayment plan does not require 100% of someone’s focus. Should is require 100% of someone’s cash flow, though? To focus on paying off debt, should households suspend other financial goals like saving for retirement and setting up an emergency fund?

Saving in an emergency fund

An emergency fund is so important that it should be at least started before embarking on a plan to aggressively pay off debt. Without an emergency fund, if an emergency were to befall a household while all extra cash is designated for paying off debt, the only option for meeting the needs of that emergency might be going further into debt. With an emergency fund, you may have delayed the target date for being fully debt-free, but if an emergency occurs you’ll be able to handle at least part of the financial problem. A cash cushion will make paying off debt easier and will reduce stress levels.

If you can save just $1,000 in a high-yield online savings account, you’ll start a debt reduction plan from a much more stable position. It would be even better to have one month’s expenses saved away, with the rule that these funds would not be touched unless faced with a true emergency. Although the Debt Snowball and the Debt Avalanche prescribe putting all extra cash flow to paying off debt, establishing an emergency fund should be a parallel goal.

Saving for retirement

Read the full article →

{ 11 comments }

Ink℠ Classic Business Card

This article was written by in Credit. 1 comment.

You may have noticed that I’ve reviewed a few different versions of the Chase Ink℠ small business product line, including a charge card designed for ultimate purchasing power and a cash back card offering big bonuses for maximum spending. The Ink℠ Classic Business Card is a rewards business card offering bonus points in addition to the rewards.

Ink(SM) ClassicCardholders earn 25,000 bonus points after making just one purchase using the Ink℠ Classic Business Card, and those points can be redeemed for $250 towards travel, gift cards, merchandise and more. In addition to these bonus points, cardholders earn rewards points for every dollar spent at the following rates:

  • 5X points for every dollar spent on the first $25,000 spent annually on office supply store purchases, cellular/landline phone service, and cable services*
  • Two points for every dollar on the first $25,000 spent annually on fuel and lodging*
  • One point for every dollar spent on all other purchases

The card adds an introductory APR of 0% for six months on purchases and balance transfers for all Ink℠ Classic Business Card cardmembers. The standard APR will be 13.24%. Every small business will also receive perks like free cards for additional employees and the ability to set limits by card, so owners aren’t hit with exorbitant bills. Don’t worry about having to pay an annual fee, because the Ink℠ Classic Business Card doesn’t have one.

In addition to the rewards, the benefit of using a credit card for small businesses is the ease of financial record-keeping. When it’s time to file taxes and look for deductions, you can use your credit card statements to find appropriate expenses. If your business is in need of a credit card and you are looking for a low introductory rate and rewards consider the Ink℠ Classic Business Card.

{ 1 comment }

Verizon Wireless Kills “New Every Two” Discount

by Flexo
2581948931_7e1999502e_b[1]

The year 2000 was not an easy one for me. I had hardly any money thanks to a low-paying non-profit job and student loan debt. Even when not spending much beyond the necessities, I wasn’t improving my financial condition. I was moving around from apartment to apartment; by 2004 I would had lived in seven ... Continue reading this article…

39 comments Read the full article →

The Best Small Business Credit Cards, February 2012

by Flexo

Small businesses often require a substantial line of credit early on to survive the start-up stage. In a perfect world, everyone would have the cash to fund their start-up but it’s not always that easy. These days, finding a bank that can lend to small businesses is extremely difficult, so one of the alternatives is ... Continue reading this article…

4 comments Read the full article →

Chase Credit Cards and Blueprint Review

by Flexo

Chase is offering a number of popular credit cards, notably the Chase Freedom® MasterCard, Chase Sapphire and Slate from Chase, which now include a set of features the company calls “Blueprint.” The Blueprint features give the credit cardholder some flexibility in organizing and paying off the various expenses he or she charges to the card. ... Continue reading this article…

9 comments Read the full article →

FCC Considering Regulation to Stop Surprise Phone Bills

by Flexo

As the story goes, I was about fifteen when I started getting involved with online communities. At that time, however, being online meant using a slow modem to dial various bulletin boards over a regular telephone line. My problem was that I didn’t realize that I was dialing long distance phone numbers. My parents weren’t ... Continue reading this article…

10 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 3123