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

Search: unfair

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 }

Bank of America can’t catch a break. A whistleblower, Eileen Foster, brought fraud at Countrywide Financial Corp. to the attention of Countrywide’s Employee Relations Department shortly after Bank of America acquired the company. Bank of America then allegedly fired the whistleblower in retaliation, although the bank claims the termination was due to the employee’s management style, not the fact she led an investigation that uncovered fraud.

The U.S. Department of Labor says Bank of America must reinstate the employee and pay her $930,000 for lost income, interest, damages, and attorney fees.

Countrywide specialized in subprime loans, and the employee’s investigation uncovered wire, mail and bank fraud at the company, as a matter in the course of doing business. Countrywide used predatory lending tactics and falsified loan documents.

As a result of the investigation, six branches of Countrywide in Boston closed. After the closings, Countrywide agreed to pay $3.1 million to Massachusetts and $3 billion in loan modifications. According to the Department of Labor, also as a result of the investigation, Bank of America retaliated by firing Foster.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Countrywide then initiated an investigation into allegations of harassment and misconduct by Foster, the report says. The report says Foster wasn’t initially informed of the investigation but several employees were interviewed for it. One employee who was interviewed went to the general counsel and the chief operating officer of Bank of America to express concern Foster was unfairly targeted, the report says.

An employee told the Department of Labor the investigators asked “leading questions and had a profoundly biased view” of Foster.

Foster was fired in September 2008. An executive said she engaged in “inappropriate and unprofessional conduct with your staff and displaying poor judgment as a leader,” according to an email cited in the government’s report.

Bank of America will repeal the Department of Labor’s decision.

Despite protections for whistleblowers, many who believe they witness unethical activities in an organization may not raise the issue to the appropriate authorities. The culture of an organization plays a larger role in decisions to go against co-workers and superiors than documented protections. Even though retaliation is not permitted, the fear is great enough to keep most people silent. Particularly when the unemployment rate is high, employees are willing to stay silent and keep their jobs. The Department of Labor is charged with ensuring that employees are not afraid to speak out when there is evidence of wrongdoing.

In addition to this issue for employees, consumers should also pay attention. While Countrywide Financial (Bank of America Home Loans) is not the same entity that provides savings accounts and credit cards within Bank of America, it is part of the larger organization. Interest rates and customer service tend to be the biggest drivers for the choice of banks, but the attitude of the larger corporation can legitimately play a role in these decisions, as well.

While Bank of America may not be continuing any possible retaliation, they are appealing the decisions. Of course, this is the only possible course of action because in the end, the company must answer to its shareholders who expect the company to avoid any unnecessary expenses if possible. When shareholders’ priorities are different than customers’ priorities, it may be time to consider alternatives, like credit unions and mutual insurance companies.

Wall Street Journal

{ 9 comments }

As a continuation of President Obama’s jobs proposal (economic stimulus) for curbing spending and increasing federal government revenue, the administration is taking a cue from famous investor, Warren Buffett. On many occasions, Buffett has claimed that wealthy Americans do not pay a fair share of the tax burden relative to their means to do so. In his famous example, Buffett describes his effective tax rate as being lower than his secretary’s.

Many wealthy people earn income through investing returns, not ordinary income, which are taxed at a rate of 15 percent rather than a marginal rate schedule with a maximum of 35 percent in 2011.

Warren BuffettCritics of Buffett’s outspoken desire to reform the tax code say that Buffett can help reduce the deficit by donating a portion of his net worth to the U.S. Treasury, as the government allows for such donations. Those who feel that Buffett’s comments, if they influence policy, could hurt them today or in the future say that Buffett could voluntarily not take deductions that lower his tax liability, but like a good capitalist, Buffett will continue to take advantage of every avenue the tax code provides his for saving money.

Economists have crunched the numbers to show that tax law changes fashioned after Buffett’s statements would not raise enough revenue to cover the gap between government spending and revenue, but there doesn’t seem to be any implication by the plan’s supporters that this would be the case; cutting back cable television service won’t allow a poor family to afford a house, but it’s still a beneficial change.

People who once respected Buffett’s investing prowess now call him a socialist, despite the fact he’s one of the most successful capitalists the modern world has seen. I have no interest in defending Buffett’s philosophies, but he is a literal capitalist, as through his company Berkshire Hathaway he provides the means in the form of capital for other companies to thrive. Like a good capitalist, Buffett invested $5 billion in a struggling bank, with conditions only he could negotiate, such as a significant discount on the investment and influence among management for operational decisions.

To take advantage of Warren Buffett’s name, the president is informally calling his tax-related measures the “Buffett Rule.” If I were Warren Buffett, I wouldn’t my name attached to a politically-charged discussion even if I believe in the core aspects of the proposal. Buffett doesn’t mind that his name is being used in such a manner and is publicly supporting the measure.

What’s included in the Buffett Rule

Simply put, the Buffett Rule is a minimum tax on taxpayers with an income over $1 million. This would replace the misdirected Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The original purpose of the AMT was similar: wealthy households should pay a fair share of taxes. Over time, though, as the income range for middle class grew, the AMT was not automatically adjusted. The AMT began to hit an increasing number of families who would not consider themselves wealthy.

In addition, the Buffett Rule would limit the tax deductions available to families in this income range and end subsidies to major corporations such as oil companies.

Another key to the revenue portion of Obama’s proposal is to let the tax cuts enacted under President Bush expire for couples with incomes over $250,000. That’s not necessarily part of the Buffett Rule, and the proposal has been making the rounds since at least the beginning of Obama’s presidency.

A Congress unfriendly to tax increases will make passage of the Buffett Rule difficult. Wealthy families believe they are already paying their fair share of the tax burden and want to see low-income families pay more. According to the U.S. Census, the gap between the top and the bottom of the income scale has expanded to its widest point in history, and a situation in which both the rich and the poor feel the government unfairly discriminates against them will not lead to a solution.

The desired outcome in this case would be enough revenue to cover the government’s obligations plus the feeling among the systemically lower class that they have a fair opportunity to succeed and a feeling among the wealthy that they have an obligation to pay for a representative bulk of the country’s expenses.

Photo: Aaron Friedman

{ 38 comments }

The comparison of owning a home in New Jersey or Long Island with owning a home in New York City shows that the city has one financial advantage: property taxes. In New Jersey, it’s hard to discuss the cost of owning a home without talking about property taxes. With high property tax rates, it’s worthwhile to take as many actions as possible to reduce those rates. When filing personal income tax returns, taxpayers look for every deduction and credit, saving hundreds or thousands of dollars, but most homeowners accept what they owe for property taxes, even though that could easily be a bigger bill than income taxes.

With home prices on average having dropped in the past few years, now is a perfect time to take a look at these taxes. The amount of property tax you owe is based on an assessed value of your house, and depending on where you live, that assessment could have occurred when the market was at its peak. On average, assessments lag behind current values by three years.

Homeowners could save thousands of dollars with a successful appeal. We’d like to think our home values continue to increase because we want to feel that the decision to buy a home will result in a good investment over time. When it comes to assessments for tax purposes, it’s better to have the lowest value possible. Review your recent assessment, and consider these factors for appeal:

  • Comparable home prices. Look at actual sales of houses in your area. Knowing the current market is a key to determining a fair assessment for your house.
  • Age of the assessment. If the assessment is from over a year ago, comparable homes in your area might have sold for less money more recently.
  • Room count and layout. Most assessments are accomplished without definite knowledge of your house’s layout. There could be mistakes in your assessment that result in a higher value on paper, like too many bedrooms. If your basement is unfinished, you could argue for a lower assessment.
  • Amenities. When assessments are based on comparable home prices, if your home does not have the same amenities as your neighbors’ houses, you could be unfairly assessed. If you don’t have a pool like the houses surrounding yours, you shouldn’t have the same property tax bill.

After you receive notice of your newest assessment, review it quickly and repeal right away. Review the property record card and look for inaccurate details. Take photographs of relevant features of your house. Look at documentation for comparable home sales in your neighborhood. When you have your hearing, bring all the documentation to support your case. Authorities are aware that most assessments are inaccurate, but they won’t do anything unless owners speak up, and some who are unsuccessful with the first appeal give up. The savings from a successful appeal could be substantial, so don’t give up until your home’s value is accurately assessed.

Wall Street Journal

{ 7 comments }

Write a Guest Post for Consumerism Commentary

by Flexo

Out of the hundreds of emails I receive every day, a strong percentage of requests I receive are from writers who would like to contribute to Consumerism Commentary in some form, such as a blog guest post. Many bloggers, particularly those whose websites are popular, can attest to receiving similar requests. They come from a ... Continue reading this article…

0 comments Read the full article →

Personal Balance Sheet, June 2011 ($379,354, +1.4%)

by Flexo

Happy Independence Day to all Consumerism Commentary readers in the United States! I’m celebrating my financial independence, as I do every month, with my regular net worth updates. These monthly reports have been a mainstay of Consumerism Commentary, with only a few lapses early on in the history of this website. For the most part, ... Continue reading this article…

19 comments Read the full article →

Paying Children for Good Grades

by Flexo

I always encourage parents to find interesting ways to teach their children about responsible money management. When I do, I always lean toward behavior modeling. Children who, even at an early age, see their parents engaging in a positive relationship with money will subconsciously take what they observe to heart more than any explicit lessons ... Continue reading this article…

37 comments Read the full article →

Government Blocks Merger of H&R Block and TaxACT

by Flexo

The Department of Justice filed an anti-trust lawsuit against H&R Block. This second-largest income tax preparation service intended to acquire the company that owns third-largest income tax preparation service, TaxACT. Based on the number of customers who used these companies’ services to self-file 2010 tax returns, the combined company would still be a distant second ... Continue reading this article…

11 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 512345