Tag: consumer protection
Banks Gouging Their Customers Face Tough New Regulation Under Biden

Banks Gouging Their Customers Face Tough New Regulation Under Biden

Junk fees and checking account overdraft fees are on the run now that President Joe Biden has appointed regulators who are looking out for bank customers instead of just bankers.

Such fees can result in a cup of coffee that costs $40 — five bucks for the java and a $35 bank overdraft fee because the debit card purchase came to pennies more than the customer had on deposit.

The Biden administration is reviving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the brainchild of Sen. Elizabeth Warren that Trump and his cronies tried to shut down.

Before Trump, and now under Biden, the board is recovering for consumers many times its annual budget. Under Trump CFPB enforcement shriveled as $1 fines for bank misconduct became common.

In a much more tentative way, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency may be recovering some regulatory backbone after being weakened under the predatory banker Stephen Mnuchin when he was Trump’s Treasury Secretary.

Ending Junk Fees

These two agencies are pushing to end junk fees and reduce overdraft fees. The Comptroller has even proposed specific reforms on overdraft fees.

A dozen large banks, recognizing the days of easy profits from gouging customers with junk and overdraft fees were unlikely to survive a Biden administration, reduced or eliminated them last year, the trade publication American Banker reported. Its reporting showed “how quickly a longtime mainstay of the consumer banking business has fallen into disfavor.”

If you haven’t heard about that, it’s not surprising. The actions have gained hardly any mention in America’s major news organizations with a few exceptions.

For decades I’ve noted that newspaper business pages and cable financial news channels typically report on banking issues through the eyes of bankers instead of the vastly larger audience of bank customers.

The nonprofit National Consumer Law Center has long been at the forefront in working for policies that reduce or eliminate overdraft and junk fees. Center lawyer Chi Chi Wu says that fees for overdrafts or insufficient funds on deposit “are one of the leading reasons that people are unbanked, either because past overdrafts put the consumer on an account screening lists that prevent them from opening new accounts, or because the fees make it too costly to maintain an account.”

Account screening can also be seen as an anti-consumer measure designed to give banks an excuse to reject service. It’s a key factor in the public banking movement to make low-cost banking services universal.

Whitewashing Banking History

Sadly, the banking industry is busy trying to erase the real history of its price gouging, dishonest mortgage lending, and reckless risk-taking as banks mixed the staid business of retail banking (checking and savings accounts; auto, credit card, and mortgage loans) with the risky but often more profitable businesses of underwriting stocks and bonds, trading securities and commodities and insurance.

A revealing example of this comes from the web pages of the Consumer Bankers Association which has a mildly Orwellian name. The trade group is not about consumers, but retail banks that serve them. You can get a flavor of its real interest from articles it reprints. For example: Fewer People Are Paying Overdraft Fees and Banks are Hurting.

Orwellian is a strong term, but then note this February 10 announcement, paying close attention to the words “understand” and “attack.”

“The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) last month launched a new initiative to better understand fees charged by banks and other financial institutions, with a specific emphasis on overdraft fees. The launch marked the latest attempt by the CFPB to attack the banking industry with extreme rhetoric…”

Using understanding and attack as synonyms is not just Orwellian, it's Trumpian.

Actual Banking History

Here’s some perspective on why a federal agency dedicated to protecting consumers from predatory banking practices would be interested in such fees:

Overdraft fees per American adult averaged $687 in 2008 (the equivalent of $915 in today’s money) with a total cost to bank customers of almost $200 billion in today’s money. Fewer than 10 percent of bank customers incur more than 90 percent of bank overdraft fees, most of them poorly paid workers.

Those fees have now fallen 77 percent to $158 per American, the Consumer Bankers Association says, a burden still borne mostly by the poorly paid. But the association focuses on how this “hurts” banks, not the consumers they exist to serve.

Here’s another association claim that would make Orwell smile: “America’s leading banks engage in rigorous underwriting practices.”

“Arts and Crafts”

Failure to underwrite mortgages, including the brazen fabrication of documents in “arts and crafts” rooms at Countrywide Mortgage to justify mortgages to unqualified buyers, was half the reason for the Great Recession in 2008. The other half was dishonest ratings by Wall Street. Journalist Michael Hudson was onto this as early as 2005 while most news reports praised the glories of mortgage lenders who were neck-deep in fraud against their customers and buyers of mortgage-backed securities.

All this is documented in the report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. From page 23 of its report:

“This report catalogues the corrosion of mortgage-lending standards…. Many mortgage lenders set the bar so low that lenders simply took eager borrowers’ qualifications on faith, often with a willful disregard for a borrower’s ability to pay. Nearly one-quarter of all mortgages made in the first half of 2005 were interest-only loans. During the same year, 68 percent of ‘option ARM’ loans originated by Countrywide and Washington Mutual had low- or no-documentation requirements.”

By the way, no error has ever been found in the inquiry commission report.

Keep all this in mind as the Consumer Finance Protection Board and the Comptroller move to make new regulations that protect customers from the worst behavior by bankers.

David Cay Johnston is the Editor-in-Chief of DCReport. He is an investigative journalist and author, a specialist in economics and tax issues, and winner of the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for Beat Reporting.

Reprinted with permission from DCReport
U.S. Consumer Financial Agency Could Be Defanged Under Trump

U.S. Consumer Financial Agency Could Be Defanged Under Trump

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, already in legal limbo after an October court decision, could find its powers scaled back by President-elect Donald Trump and a Republican-led Congress, according to members of both political parties, lobbyists and lawyers.

That may mean the end of many of the agency’s rule-making actions that have enraged critics, including a proposal to stop companies from blocking customers from class action lawsuits and another one to limit payday lending.

Creation of the CFPB was authorized in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law enacted in the aftermath of the 2007-09 financial crisis. The agency began operations in 2011.

An agency to protect consumers’ finances was the idea of liberal Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Its creation is considered one of Democratic President Barack Obama’s top domestic policy achievements.

A Trump administration is expected to be hostile to the agency as it is currently formulated.

“The election spells very bad news for the CFPB,” said Alan Kaplinsky, head of the Consumer Financial Services Group at law firm Ballard Spahr.

Many Republicans opposed the agency’s creation. They now say they dislike its structure and believe it oversteps its authority in enforcement.

“It’s a very fragile thing. It was birthed in controversy and is under constant attack,” said consumer attorney Deepak Gupta, who worked at the CFPB in its early days. “It may not survive the way we know it through this administration.”

A single director leads both rule-making and enforcement, and can be dismissed only for cause. Furthermore, the agency is funded by the U.S. Federal Reserve system, which means it is not dependent on the typical congressional appropriations process.

The Republican-led House of Representatives Financial Services Committee in September passed legislation without any Democratic votes that would change the name and structure of the agency and would create a five-member commission to govern it.

Republicans also have pushed for the agency to receive funds from Congress to make it accountable to elected leaders.

Both of those proposals would greatly weaken the power of Richard Cordray, the agency’s original and current director.

Obama has blocked these Republican efforts with veto threats.

Trump, though he has not directly addressed the CFPB, has said he wants to roll back parts of Dodd-Frank. Trump could, if he wanted to, fire Cordray on the first day of his presidency, especially following an October ruling by a three-judge federal appeals court panel that found the agency’s structure unconstitutional and that the president should be able to dismiss the director at will.

That ruling was put on hold while the CFPB decides whether to petition the entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for a review or appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The agency has until Nov. 25 to decide. Trump’s administration could withdraw any appeal, letting the decision stand.

Cordray, appointed in 2013, is halfway through his five-year term.

Few in the banking industry think the entire agency will be eliminated. Democrats who support the agency will have a large presence in the Senate. Warren, who was Obama’s first choice to head the agency, has promised that Democrats will fight efforts to defang it.

Even some bankers want to see it stay. Richard Hunt, president of the Consumer Bankers Association, said his group would fight to maintain the CFPB in some form because it consolidates consumer banking rules under one regulator.

A DIFFERENT DIRECTOR

Trump takes office on Jan. 20. Cordray could be replaced early in 2017, said Mark Calabria, an economist at the libertarian Cato Institute think tank. Trump’s transition team is already looking into Cordray replacements, he said.

The law allows for the president to terminate a director over inefficiency, malfeasance or neglect of duty, which leaves room for Trump to find cause regardless of what the appeals court decides, Calabria added.

Cordray has set precedent with enforcement cases that Calabria and other critics have called backdoor rule-making.

“Cordray has left the CFPB vulnerable to what his successor may want done because he didn’t hardwire rule-making,” Calabria said.

If Cordray quits or is removed, statute calls for his deputy to step into the job temporarily. Acting Deputy Director David Silberman, also a strong consumer advocate, would likely continue to carry out the current agenda, said Quyen Truong, a partner at Washington law firm Stroock & Stroock & Lavan. Truong was the assistant director and deputy general counsel for the CFPB until earlier this year.

The CFPB did not respond to requests for comment on Cordray’s possible departure or the fate of current rule-making actions.

(Additional reporting by Emily Stephenson; Editing by Linda Stern and Will Dunham)

IMAGE: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Director Richard Cordray answers questions at the Reuters Washington Summit in Washington, DC, U.S. October 23, 2013. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

Clinton Expected To Hit Wells Fargo In Speech On ‘Bad Corporate Actors’

Clinton Expected To Hit Wells Fargo In Speech On ‘Bad Corporate Actors’

 

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (Reuters) – U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Monday will unveil a plan to make it easier for consumers to take legal action against “bad corporate actors,” citing Wells Fargo & Co and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, according to a campaign official.

While campaigning in Ohio, the Democratic nominee will explain how she would, if elected on Nov. 8, curb the prevalence of contractual clauses that require consumers, employees and other individuals to resolve legal disputes in private arbitration proceedings instead of in courts, her campaign said. Mandatory arbitration clauses sometimes require that claims be pursued on an individual basis instead of on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals. Consumer advocates say this makes it prohibitively expensive to take legal action.

Clinton will call on the U.S. Congress to give agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Labor the authority to restrict the use of arbitration clauses in consumer, employment and antitrust agreements, according to a preliminary plan reviewed by Reuters.

Clinton will also discuss how she believes that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other agencies already have the authority to curb the use of such clauses under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. The planning document said she would urge the Securities and Exchange Commission to exercise its authority to make related rules authorized by the financial reform law. Wells Fargo is expected to be in the crosshairs when Clinton discusses how she would curb mandatory arbitration clauses.

For years, the bank’s employees opened as many as 2 million checking, savings and credit card accounts without the customers’ permission in order to meet sales quotas. Wells Fargo reached a $190 million settlement with federal regulators earlier this month.

When Wells Fargo chief John Stumpf testified before Congress recently about the unauthorized accounts, he said he did not expect the bank to waive a clause signed by its customers in order to open their authorized accounts. The clause said they would arbitrate disputes instead of suing Wells Fargo in court.

Democratic lawmakers in Congress, including Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, have called on Wells Fargo to toss out the mandatory arbitration clause and allow customers to sue.

Clinton is also expected to criticize Mylan for sharply raising without justification the price of EpiPens, which deliver life-saving drugs to those with allergies. The criticism will be part of a larger push to curb excessive market concentration and encourage competition that benefits consumers, her campaign said.

(Editing by Lisa Von Ahn)

IMAGE: Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton boards her campaign plane in Charlotte, North Carolina, United States October 2, 2016.  REUTERS/Brian Snyder