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

Search: judges


I’ll be thirty-six years old this month, officially closer to forty than thirty. I’ve never owned real estate. Once in a while, someone judges this as a failure on my part, or a reluctance to “grow up” or enter a more sophisticated stage of development, as if maturity was somehow related to the ownership of property. I live in a nice apartment for a good monthly cost, and owning a house in the area where I live would cost more than twice as much to own and have additional maintenance costs.

When I returned to New Jersey thirteen years ago, I never intended to stay in the state. Yet, I’ve spent my adult life here. I’ve had the flexibility to move from sharing a small apartment with three roommates to a comfortable living space. Thirteen years ago, I would never have been able to afford a house of my own, so I don’t regret my choices.

House for saleSince my financial situation has improved, I’ve also delayed buying a house. I see buying real estate as a more permanent decision, and I always assumed that I’d be starting a family before making a financial decision whose effects are more permanent. It’s a decision that should be shared in a family; otherwise, I might buy a house today and discover soon that the decision is incompatible with someone else.

From the financial perspective, though, signs point towards making that decision soon, even if it is on my own. Thirteen years ago, I thought that mortgage interest rates were low when real estate values were high, and interest rates were high when values were low. It seems that today’s economy features both low interest rates and low home values. There’s lower demand in real estate now mostly because those who already own are reluctant to sell for a loss, more people like me who are choosing renting over the high cost of buying, and the effects of the wave of new construction throughout the last decade that was intended to supply an ever-growing demand for real estate that never took place.

At the same time, there are more homes being sold for a loss and more foreclosures, keeping the value comparable homes down. The cost of buying and owning a home over 30 years hasn’t changed much, though. Maintenance and improvements cut into an owner’s return on investment. While these expenses are said to be priced into the monthly rent for those who choose not to purchase the home they live in, renting is often the better deal despite the hard work of a real estate agents’ industry group’s attempting to convince the public that it’s better to own. (Whether you’re buying or selling, the timing is supposedly always right.)

This doesn’t change the fact that there is a “nicer” selection of real estate available to buy than there is available to rent. If someone is planning to own at some point in the future, and has the funds available, the coordination of low interest rates mixed with historically low overall prices is the perfect combination. Sellers’ desperation right now, with the lack of demand for real estate, could make it easier to find negotiable deals.

Would you use today’s economy as an opportunity to move from renting to owning a home? Would you wait until your personal life was in the form you’d like before making a financial decision that would effect the next fifteen to thirty years of your life? Is any decision really permanent?

{ 18 comments }

February 14, 2012 update: The change in terms described here goes into effect tomorrow. It’s not too late to switch banks.

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 →

{ 34 comments }

Two interesting articles caught my eye recently. First, on Get Rich Slowly, J.D. Roth asks when it is okay to judge someone else for their financial behaviors. J.D. describes his encounters with two friends — one friend more frugal than he is, who judges J.D.’s spending choices, and the other friend struggling financially, trying to improve, but not making the choices J.D. would like to see.

The second article is on the blog My Journey to Millions. The author, Evan, expresses how people who refuse to change drive him nuts. His buddy is admittedly miserable but hasn’t made strides lately to improve his condition, and this is touching one of Evan’s nerves.

Both articles made me consider a person’s obligation to help improve someone else’s life by offering advice. First of all, I make an effort not to judge other people, and if I judge their decisions, I generally keep my opinions to myself. If a friend asks, I will gladly share my thoughts to an extent, but I will do so with caveats and disclaimers, just short of asking him to sign a release form.

I wrote about this earlier this year, offering suggestions for handling requests for financial advice.

When I see a friend making financial choices that could significantly hurt him or his family, I might offer some suggestions in a non-judgmental way, but I would only share at an appropriate time if I see that the friend might be open to some discussion. It is best to approach the subject as a concerned friend, not as a “financial expert.”

I don’t expect people to change. Major behavioral change requires a shift in approach or philosophy, and that’s not something that everyone is prepared to do immediately. Some people just like to express their frustration without looking for a solution, and I am fine listening for a while without outlining a path for them to follow. Even after hearing the same complaints for years, I won’t let myself be significantly affected by their decisions. It’s often not my business.

Adults are free to make their own decisions. I don’t control anyone’s choices but my own, so I try not to get upset if someone doesn’t follow my suggestions or doesn’t work to improve their condition even after expressing their dissatisfaction. While I would be thrilled to see my friends as happy and successful as they want to be, I would not want to be so far involved that their disappointment becomes my disappointment.

I can control the choices I make, so that is where I focus. Aside from the decisions I make that can improve the world in some small way, I try to accept the things in the world I can’t change.

{ 8 comments }

I have a fascinated/disgusted relationship with targeted advertisements. On one hand, I’ve seen enough Playtex commercials in my lifetime that I could probably draw you their logo from memory, and I’ve never been in the position to decide, “should I buy the Playtex version, or a different brand?” All those ads in my face have been a complete waste of my time, and the advertiser’s dollars. So, I think it would be really neat if I only saw advertisements that would interest me.

On the other hand, even though I’m blessed with A.D.D. and therefore daydream my way through most ads, I’ve read enough studies about how ads work, and I know that in some cases I’m more likely to buy a brand I’ve heard of. In other cases, a simple Google search will suffice, and the recommendation from people I trust is worth more than a hundred well-produced ads.

Privacy LatchSince the seminal work on the subject—Minority Report—came out in theaters, I’ve been waiting to see just how close we’ll get to individually-targeted ads. And this morning I see that Germany is beginning to place video cameras inside of street-level billboards, designed to recognize people’s emotional reaction to specific ads. If the advertisers sees that more people are smiling, or at least interested, than sneering, they’ll feel encouraged to keep the ad going.

Granted, this is quite far from a commercial that speaks to you or knows your habits, as in “Hey, Bill Braskey, it’s been 8 days since your last vanilla latté. Don’t you think you deserve one?” And I’m thankful for that. At present, I don’t feel like an advertisement that judges my emotional state is an invasion of privacy, but if they start to recognize my identity, I certainly will.

We do, however, already see ads based on our habits. Google and its advertising partners have the ability to show you ads that other visitors won’t see, because your Internet browsing habits are not exactly private. They call it “interest-based advertising”, and because Google is Google, they were very open and up-front about it, and have provided permanent methods for anybody to opt-out of the program.

Billboards shouting out your name aren’t a reality yet for a couple important reasons: 1) recognizing an individual face isn’t foolproof yet, and 2) advertisers don’t have access to a database of, say, driver’s license photos. Although, there may be a way around that last requirement, if Facebook starts selling access to names tagged in photos. In any event, you can rest assured that we’ll keep on top of this for you and help you protect your brain.

Big Brother is watching you shop, Michael Fitzpatrick, BBC News, Oct. 2, 2009

Photo credit: rpongsaj

{ 6 comments }

FNBO Direct Giving Away $25,000 to Customers

by Flexo

Liz Pullliam Weston, author and personal financial columnist, has teamed up with FNBO Direct (the online savings arm of First National Bank of Omaha) to sponsor a contest called “Pay Yourself First” in which five winners will each receive $5,000. Those who wished to participate sent in a one-minute video about why they save money ... Continue reading this article…

0 comments Read the full article →

Fall Has Ended For Me

by Flexo

This has been the final weekend scheduled for me to volunteer with a certain organization. Since the end of September, one day a weekend — sometimes two days — was spent running marching band competitions for various high schools throughout New Jersey and New York. Normally I get a lot of personal satisfaction from organizing ... Continue reading this article…

Read the full article →