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

Search: regulation


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 }

Art Is Not a Good Investment

This article was written by in Investing. 10 comments.

A few months ago, art and money were connected in the news when Andreas Gursky’s “Rhein II,” a photograph depicting a still river and walkway, became the highest-valued photograph sold at auction. The buyer paid $4 million to walk away with the larger-than-life print. Art is in the news again today, with one of Edvard Munch’s renditions of “The Scream.” At a recent Sotheby’s auction, “The Scream” was sold for $119.9 million. This price set a record, making “The Scream” the most expensive work of art ever sold at auction.

For those who have the money to spare, art is a popular investment. Trading masterpieces of art among a small subsection of the population, less than 1 percent, is not without criticism, however. Many artists do not live to see their works become valuable, and do not benefit from the high prices sought for their work. I addressed both the criticisms and the benefits of giving art a significant societal value in the article about “Rhein II.”

The Scream - Edvard MunchWhile it may be good for society to value art highly, is it a good investment for any one individual who has millions of dollars to spare?

Well, first of all, there is art accessible at all levels of investment. With research, you might find works available for $50 that could certainly increase in value over time at a rate better than what financial advisers offer as typical long-term stock market returns. Art is not an investment solely for the 1 percent. And with the right buying choices, your smaller investment in living artists has a more direct effect on the artist community.

Investing in art isn’t going to be right for everyone. While some consider art to be one of the best investments outside of real estate, the economy has seen would-be real estate investors struggling when the market isn’t robust. The same is true with art. The market is subject to bubbles, the latest trends play a significant role in determining prices, and you may not be able to sell your art at the price time you need the proceeds. Artists whose work have proven to appreciate and are highly recognized as masters, like Dali and Picasso, have price appreciation almost guaranteed, but the barrier to entry for investments in proven artists is too high for investors without the desire to risk large sums of money.

Outside of artists whose works have proven worth, it’s risky to invest in art with the goal of making a killing between the purchase date and the sale date. Even the best research won’t guarantee performance. To mitigate the chance of loss, when choosing art, find something you like. As long as you enjoy looking at your art collection, you won’t mind as much holding onto it until it has the ability to fetch the price you desire — which may be never. At the auction where “The Scream” sold for $119.9 million, one fifth of the pieces on the auction block failed to sell because no investors were willing to pay the asking prices.

Another problem with investing in art is the due diligence required to avoid scammers and fraud-minded people in the industry. Even experts can be wrong about forgeries. Investments in art are not subject to the same kinds of regulation that allows investors to feel generally safe and confident when investing in stocks and mutual funds.

Unless you have the financial ability to invest in artists whose names you know from high school or your college’s Art History course, you might be better off staying away from investing in art if your purpose is finding the next Rembrandt.

Photo: br1dotcom

{ 10 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 }

Today on the Consumerism Commentary Podcast, Jay Frosting and Flexo talk with Matt Schulz, Vice President of Content for InvestingAnswers.com.

They discuss the implications of a recent legal ruling that excludes credit card application fees from the limit on fees that credit card issuers can charge within the first year.

Consumerism Commentary Podcast
Credit Card Application Fees: S07E01 / 157

DownloadRSSiTunes

Table of contents

Consumerism Commentary Podcast[00:00] Introduction from Jay Frosting
[00:33] Interview with Flexo and Matt Schulz
[00:49] Challenging the 25% fee limit specified in the Credit CARD Act
[06:00] Will application fees be more pervasive now?
[07:14] Are these fees limited to those with bad credit?
[09:18] A very high interest rate is worse than almost any other option
[12:34] The CFPB is still hearing public comments on this decision
[13:41] Application fees aren’t refundable and don’t guarantee credit
[14:21] The CFPB is trying to get more done before a possible Executive Branch change (addressing Republican criticisms of the bureau)
[18:33] Reduction in debt is part frugality and part banks reducing credit
[20:02] End

Update:

We were mistaken during the recording regarding whether First Premiere refunds its application fee. Here’s what the terms and conditions say:

“Right to Reject: You may still reject this plan, provided you have not used the Credit Account or paid a fee after receiving a billing statement. If you do reject the plan, you are not responsible for any fees or charges, including any Processing Fee(s) paid prior to receipt of your Account Opening Disclosures. Any such Processing Fee(s) previously paid will be refunded upon rejection of the plan.”

It also says this:

“Refund Disclosure: We will refund your Processing Fee and initial fees (those fees that are billed at the time of account opening) if (1) you have not used your Card for a Purchase or Cash Advance; and (2) you have not paid a fee after receiving a billing statement. We will refund any partial payment of the Processing Fee if you do not open your Credit Account within 85 days of approval. We will refund any Credit Limit Increase Fee charged to your Credit Account if you notify us, within 30 days of the date of the Periodic Statement on which it appears, that you do not wish to have the credit limit increase. This will result in a reversal of the credit limit increase. Except as described in this paragraph, these fees are non-refundable.”

Here are the link for the terms and conditions.

We always welcome feedback from listeners. If you have any comments for this episode or for any other, or if you have suggestions for future episodes, please leave us comments here or email us at podcast at this domain name.

Theme music by Mindcube.

{ 1 comment }

TIAA Direct High-Yield Savings Account

by Flexo
TIAA ATM

Just when you thought the era of new online banks splashing into the market was over, TIAA-CREF is on the hunt for customers’ deposits. TIAA-CREF Trust Company, FSB was established in 1998, and the bank just began offering deposit accounts in the last month. The products, under the name TIAA Direct, are intended to compete ... Continue reading this article…

0 comments Read the full article →

More Fees for Bank of America Customers

by Flexo
Bank of America

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 ... Continue reading this article…

9 comments Read the full article →

Will You Buy the iPad 3?

by Flexo
iPad

All signs are pointing to Apple releasing the latest iteration of its popular tablet this coming week. I gave in last year and purchased the original iPad, and I made this decision just days before the iPad 2 was announced. Now, tech geeks are expecting the iPad 3 to hit to streets this week. The ... Continue reading this article…

16 comments Read the full article →

Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights

by Flexo
Facebook

Last week, the White House released a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. This isn’t a law or regulation, but a set of guidelines that could possibly underscore future actions by Congress and enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission. Private, personal information should be private and personal, but when consumers enroll for any type of service, ... Continue reading this article…

9 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 1712345···Last »