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

Search: class-action


In discussing unbanked and underbanked American consumers, we tend to focus on low socioeconomic status communities. The mainstream opinion is that building wealth and long-term financial stability relies on the use of traditional banking and investing products and the knowledge to use these products effectively. The financial industry tends to avoid low socioeconomic status communities for a variety of reasons, but the bottom line is that these customers have not been proven to be profitable. Taking the place of these mainstream institutions are check-cashing facilities and payday loan outfits, designed to be very profitable while providing the immediate services required in these communities.

These “low-class” financial product purveyors are part of a growing industry. As with any burgeoning industry, there is beginning to be more research into its consumers. The unbanked and underbanked consumer is becoming better defined, and traditional banks see this as an opportunity to create products that directly compete with the successful check-cashing and payday loan market.

Check CashingWith this new research comes some interesting findings. Prepaid debit cards are products designed for consumers with low or no credit scores, a condition that is more common among low-income households, though there are many reasons anyone in any income bracket could have damaged or undefined credit. Think Finance has determined that the use of prepaid debit cards is the same regardless of income level. Among the consumers surveyed, a representative sample of the Millennial generation, someone earning up to $74,999 a year is just as likely to use a prepaid debit card as someone earning less than $25,000 a year.

The statistics pertaining the check-cashing services show a similar trend. For a fee of usually 1 to 4 percent, a check-cashing storefront can immediately give you cash. So can any bank branch, but you often need to open an account first, and that requires patience, the willingness to share your personal information and submit to a ChexSystems verification, and the openness to endless marketing. In many cases, it’s just easier to just pay the fee. 34 percent of Millennials with the lowest income make use of check-cashing services outside of traditional banks, only 5 percentage points higher than those with the highest income.

An article in USA Today addresses what might representative of the fact that the status of unbanked or underbanked is pervasive in this age group regardless of income:

Ammy Orozco, 30, who works as an executive assistant at a Check Cashing USA branch in Miami, has a checking and savings account with Bank of America but often chooses to cash checks at work instead. She says she’d rather pay to cash a check immediately than pay for gas to drive to the bank. She has also taken out payday loans in emergencies. She’s tried to get a loan from the bank, but it was “stressful.”

“They wouldn’t confirm right away… You’re there sitting and you need the money, and you’re like, is this going to happen or not?”

Millennials expect instant gratification and are willing to look past fees and unnecessary expenses in order to feed this desire, regardless of income. For a generation whose defining economic moment has been the Great Recession, the credit crunch, and high unemployment, as well as the media environment dominated by stories about bank executives behaving badly, poor use of taxpayers’ money, and class-action lawsuits pertaining to anti-consumer practices, it’s understandable that a mistrust of the mainstream financial industry keeps people away from banks regardless of income. Half of Americans are not saving for retirement, and while unemployment certainly plays a role, lack of trust in the industry and in markets in general is an important factor.

With the proliferation of services targeted to the unbanked and underbanked reaching a wider set of customers — that is, popularity and use has moved beyond low socioeconomic status communities — regulators have begun to take notice. (In other words, these products and their negative effects were acceptable when they took advantage of only the poor and whoever you might assume is more likely to live in poor neighborhoods, but now that the middle class is targeted, it’s an issue worthy of consideration.) The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is looking into designing regulations for these products. Meanwhile, traditional financial institutions are taking advantage of this regulatory grey area to create products that compete with check-cashing storefronts and payday loan issuers, and to use these products as profit centers with the intent of eventually mainstreaming these customers into other profitable services.

Are you a Millennial who prefers immediate services like check cashing, payday loans, and prepaid debit cards instead of checking accounts, bank loans, and credit cards? This is not the primary audience of this website, but I’d love to hear some feedback from the millions of Americans who fit this description.

Photo: Daquella manera
USA Today

{ 13 comments }

Banks are still struggling with the decisions executives made to maximize profit from overdrafts by rearranging the order of withdrawals to customers’ detriment. By December last year, Bank of America settled a class-action lawsuit related to overdrafts and was expected to pay $410 million. That decision is being appealed by a plaintiff, so it will still be a long time before the results are determined and class members receive compensation, if any.

Earlier this year, JP Morgan Chase settled a related class action lawsuit for $110 million.

Citizens Bank is the latest bank to come to terms with the way it took advantage of customers. This bank has agreed to pay $137.5 million to settle.

For the most part, banks continue to engage in the process of reordering withdrawals processed on the same day (whether the withdrawals be through checks, electronic direct debits, or ACH transactions) to optimize the possibility of collecting multiple overdrafts. The largest withdrawal is processed first, and subsequent withdrawals are processed from largest to smallest. Banks offer a reason for this order. They claim that the largest withdrawals are often the most important, such as rent or mortgage payments, and want to ensure these payments have the strongest possibility of being processed. That explanation doesn’t hold up for customers with overdraft protection, though, because this service allows all withdrawals to be processed — for a fee.

Furthermore, banks at the time of the lawsuit often allowed for multiple overdraft fees on a single day. With a $200 bank balance and withdrawals of $20, $50 and $300 in one day, the customer could be charged three different overdraft fees of $35. This is obviously more profitable for the bank than allowing the smaller transactions to be processed ahead of the larger withdrawal. Since the media attention surrounding the lawsuit, some banks have changed their policy to allow for only one overdraft fee per day, but many banks continue this practice.

So far, the only new regulation regarding overdraft fees requires banks make the service optional. Customers can opt to have transactions declined when the funds are not available to cover the withdrawal. Banks still steer customers towards overdraft protection as they feel it is a better experience for the customer, and, of course, a significantly profitable approach for banks.

Are you a customer of Citizens Bank? Have you ever had problems with Citizens Bank’s overdraft fees and policies?

{ 9 comments }

Just when you thought it was safe, Bank of America and other large, national banks, are still finding ways to charge customers new fees. Only a few months ago, word of a new $5 monthly fee for debit card users sent Bank of America customers into a frenzy, threatening to move money away from the financial giant. Bank Transfer Day was largely a success, despite the complicated process of switching banks in today’s automated banking environment.

Hundreds of thousands of customers enrolled in credit unions, smaller organizations that are generally more consumer- and community-friendly than national institutions. Fees like Bank of America’s $5 debit card fee hit mainstream news outlets, bringing personal finance into the consciousness of the public once again. Bank of America eventually dropped its proposal for the new fee, but the bank didn’t stop looking for more methods of extracting funds out of its customers.

Bank of AmericaFor the last generation, customers have grown accustomed to free or mostly-free checking and savings. These are considered deposit accounts. Depositing your money with a bank is more beneficial for the bank than for the customer. Doing business with a bank does the company a favor. The institutions should be paying customers for the banks’ benefit of holding the customers’ money. Sometimes banks do pay consumers, through interest on savings accounts, which as most people know have been at pathetic rates for the last few years.

With money on deposit, banks can go out and offer loans to businesses and individuals, earning money on the interest charged on those loans. That’s where banks should make money from their customers. Savings and checking customers are doing banks a favor.

Lately, the problem has been that banks aren’t making as much money from lending as they had previously, and shareholders demand consistently growing profits. That pressure results in even more fees. And banks are now counting on the fact that last year’s outrage has subsided, and the public is now willing to live with the idea that basic banking is not free. Additionally, it’s fair to say that the cost for a bank to manage checking and savings accounts may have increased, due to research and development into technology to provide all the banking conveniences (online access, mobile apps, person-to-person payments, etc.) that consumers have come to expect, although one could argue the lowered reliance on tellers and live customer services representatives should offset that cost.

Furthermore, the latest round of fees are designed to hurt lower income households more than those with higher net worth amounts. It’s been true in investing for a while that the better rates and lower fees are available to those with higher balances. This is due to the attempt to convince customers to invest as much money as possible with any one particular institution or brokerage. The same is true with fees; the more money you have, the more leverage you have to demand lower costs for the services you buy.

This leaves low-income families in a tough spot. If you can’t maintain a minimum balance in your checking account, a monthly fee will reduce that low balance even further, possibly even below zero, so you end up owing money to the bank or the bank decides to close your account. While the balance minimums encourage customers to leave more of their money with one institution, not all customers have more money to deposit.

Here are a few recent examples of how the latest round of new fees from big banks penalize those without the means to deposit more.

  • Some Wells Fargo customers have been subject to a new $15 monthly fee if unable to maintain a $7,500 balance. And they’ve recently changed policies to prevent customers from suing the bank or being part of a class-action lawsuit.
  • Citibank increased its minimum balance to avoid a $20 monthly fee from $6,000 to $15,000.
  • Bank of America is testing new monthly fees of $6 to $25 in three states (Arizona, Georgia and Massachusetts).

At the same time, an informal poll of fans of Consumerism Commentary on Facebook and followers on Twitter indicates most engaged Consumerism Commentary readers, who generally earn more than the average internet user according to basic demographic research, pay nothing for their checking account, though some are still subject to a minimum balance or enrolling in direct deposit to avoid a fee. Finding free checking is still possible, especially with credit unions, but non-students still need to occasionally jump through hoops with major banks.

New regulations are often cited by the financial industry as the trigger for punishing low-income customers for handing their money to banks for safekeeping and lending. Others see these new fees as a way for banks to increase profits while using regulation as a convenient scapegoat. Of course, opinions on the matter are generally divided along political party lines as well as between industry lobbyists and consumer advocacy groups.

Low-income families might continue to avoid the banking industry, which may be the unstated goal of financial institutions in the first place. Unfortunately, that leaves little choice for low socio-economic status communities other than turning to non-bank financial products, like expensive payday loans and check cashing services. Not only do these communities need better financial role models (education alone will never solve the financial literacy problem), but they need to be guided toward better products and services.

There’s a real market opportunity for better products and services, for smart entrepreneurs who are looking to make a difference. In the mean time, here’s how to close your Bank of America savings or checking account when walking into the branch won’t work for you.

Photo: MoneyBlogNewz
KVAL / AP

{ 9 comments }

A group of fresh, unemployed lawyers have banded together to sue law schools. 73 alumni have filed at least fifteen class-action lawsuits, alleging the schools inflated employment figures and salary data to attract students and increase rankings. The real goal of the lawsuits seems to be to effect systemic change in the education industry and associations that accredit law schools, like the American Bar Association.

Schools are in the business of generating alumni, and to a great extent, use as many marketing tricks that any company uses in order to influence public opinion. It’s true that a 90% graduate employment rate looks better than a 75% rate on paper, and I’d be more inclined to choose a school with a higher employment rate, with all other factors being equal. But a 90% graduate employment rate doesn’t guarantee that I would receive the job I want after graduation, even if I were in the top 10% of the class.

Furthermore, I’ve come to the conclusion over the years that any statistic used for marketing purposes is subject to manipulation in an attempt to further the goals of marketing. Hard numbers give the impression of fact. From an early age, we’re trained to believe that one plus one equals two, in all circumstances, and numbers are truth. Statistics can be misleading in many ways, and are used more often to try to convince others of a point of view rather than quantify facts in reality.

Law school graduationThe group of lawyers probably can’t prove that the blame for their unemployment situation rests with the law schools. There are many factors that contribute to unemployment, including the overall economy, local job markets, and the effort, skills, and self-marketability of each alumnus. It doesn’t appear as if the former students are suing to have the schools compensate them for the lack of expected income from working, but they are suing to enlighten the public to the issue of misleading statistics throughout the educational industry.

Mutual funds must advertise that “past performance does not guarantee future results.” Even if a graduate employment rate were perfectly measured and accurately reflected exactly what a potential student understood the number to be, a good rate today is no indication that the rate will continue to be high by the time the school awards a degree or certification. If my index mutual fund returned 12% last year and lost 8% this year, I can’t sue the fund manager or the stock market for not providing the dividends I was hoping for. If fraud was involved, it might be a different situation. Perhaps misleading statistics like graduate employment rates are somewhat fraudulent, but I don’t see a parallel as schools do not typically promise that students will be employed at the level they’d like after graduation — and in the case of lawyers, after passing the bar exam.

There might be better ways of raising the issue of misleading statistics in the marketing endeavors in which institutes of education engage. Using the courts to make a point is only one tool that’s available to increase awareness of an issue. When you’re a hammer, though, everything looks like a nail.

Several years ago, while I was completing my Masters in Business Administration degree, I considered attending law school. Ultimately, I decided not to pursue a law degree and to focus my energy on my business instead. I think I made the right decision.

Photo: CubanRefugee
WNYC

{ 23 comments }

10 Tips for Avoiding Overdraft Fees

by Flexo
Nickel and Dime

Bank of America is settling the overdraft fee class-action lawsuit that alleges the bank knowingly manipulated customers’ deposits and withdrawals in order to maximize the fees they would receive. Although the banks aren’t completely to blame for the proliferation of overdraft fees, policies were so much of a problem that the government and regulators needed ... Continue reading this article…

12 comments Read the full article →

Bank of America Paid Warren Buffett $1.4 Billion for a $5 Billion Investment

by Flexo

If you’ve been reading the financial news today, you might have heard that veteran investor and market-mover Warren Buffett invested $5 billion into the battered Bank of America. For this $5 billion investment, Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway receives preferred shares, a type of investment that’s beyond the reach of most other investors. These shares come with ... Continue reading this article…

12 comments Read the full article →

Bank of America Settles Overdraft Fee Lawsuit

by Flexo
Bank of America Lawsuit

If you qualify for the Bank of America overdraft lawsuit settlement, you may have already received a postcard in the mail from the bank. Here is information on the overdraft lawsuit, only one of many class action lawsuits against Bank of America. If you recently received a check from Bank of America for about $98, ... Continue reading this article…

1,037 comments Read the full article →

Citibank Changes Overdraft Procedure: Fewer Fees

by Flexo

At the end of March, Fifth Third Bank changed its procedure for dealing with overdraft fees. When a customer has many debits (withdrawals) posting on the same day, and they are not real-time debits, banks often start with the largest amount. Ordering the debits from largest to smallest ensures that customers who do not have ... Continue reading this article…

6 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 212