The other day I got a letter
from my credit card bank, Citibank. It began, “We’re replacing your existing
Card Agreement with a new version, which is enclosed.” They claimed that “It’s
designed with you in mind,” but I doubt that.
The new Agreement is
described in detail, without any indication of what is new, so I don’t know
what they have changed. What hasn’t changed is the tilt of the Agreement toward
Citibank. Interest rates for loans are very low
these days. Rates for mortgages range between 2.5% and 4%. Auto loans are even cheaper,
between 2% and 3%. My home equity loan from my local bank is 3.5%. When big
banks borrow money, they pay close to zero
interest.
But don’t borrow money from
your credit card bank. My new Agreement, like the old Agreement, lists huge
rates for money I “borrow” from Citibank. If I owe money on my card, the rate
is 14.24%. If I get a cash advance, the rate is 25.49%, beginning the moment I get the money. There are also fees. A cash advance costs 5% of the
amount, in addition to the interest.
These are the costs of having
a credit card. We might think they are unreasonable, but getting a card means
agreeing to one-sided Agreements like this one. If I didn’t like any of the
changes to my Agreement, whatever they were, I could close my account.
But on one new provision in
my new Agreement, I was given a choice. Citibank wants any disputes about my
account to be subject to arbitration, meaning that the dispute is settled by an
arbitrator, without recourse to the courts. Here’s why Citibank and other
credit card companies like this idea.
An arbitration is an
individual case, so consumers can’t band together in a class action suit. The
result is purely monetary, so if the dispute is caused by fraud or other
illegal action by the bank, they are not subject to legal penalty. The cost of
arbitration is picked up by the bank and they typically select the arbitrator
(do you know one?), steering lots of business to arbitrators who deliver
verdicts they like. One big arbitration service, the National Arbitration
Forum, had to get out of the business of consumer arbitration because it was so cozy with
the banks that it was being sued by many city and state attorneys.
Wells Fargo, the current
Dishonest Bank of the Year, defrauded countless customers by creating millions
of fake accounts in their names. Now it is killing lawsuits filed by its customers by moving the disputes to arbitration. If
successful, the bank might have to repay fees they charged to the customers,
but would not be liable for penalties due to fraud. Although some judges have
ruled that Wells Fargo’s fraud should be adjudicated in court, other judges
have forced customers to go to arbitration.
The dishonesty of Wells Fargo
over many years, cheating millions of customers for many years, and thus far
escaping with no jail time for any employee, shows how insignificant we
consumers are when we come up against giant corporations. Even well known
people, like the Los Angeles music star Ana Bárbara, get crushed by their power.
A Wells Fargo employee created sham accounts and credit lines in her name, took
out more than $400,000 of her money, then regularly went to her house to steal
her Wells Fargo statements from her mailbox. She had to cancel appearances, costing her hundreds of thousands of dollars. Instead of her day in court, Bárbara will
have to go to arbitration.
Protection for the consumer
can only come from the government. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act of 2010 takes its name seriously. Dodd-Frank
does not let banks force consumers into arbitration for the biggest loans we
take out, mortgage and home equity loans. It created the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau to write regulations to implement that change. It also asked
the CFPB to study credit card arbitration agreements and report to Congress.
The government effort to
examine credit card “agreements” about arbitration is why my bank offered me
the chance to opt out of arbitration. All I had to do was write a letter to
them saying I rejected the arbitration provision of my “updated Card
Agreement”. I did that. Thank you, Dodd-Frank.
Republicans have fought
against Dodd-Frank since it was first discussed in Congress. They tried to
prevent the CFPB from ever being formed. Donald Trump has said he would dismantle Dodd-Frank, saying, ““Dodd-Frank has made it impossible for bankers to function.”
Trump’s selection for Secretary of the Treasury, who will oversee banking
regulations, is Steven Mnuchin.
Mnuchin worked for Goldman Sachs, a financial firm that got a $10 billion
bailout from the federal government in 2008. He made billions by foreclosing on
homeowners during that financial collapse. His main qualifications for running
Treasury is that he was Trump’s campaign finance chairman.
Dodd-Frank makes it less
possible for the big banks to push us into tilted arbitration when the banks
act like Wells Fargo. It’s an equalizer for the little consumer dealing with
the big banks. Without it, we’re at their mercy.
Steve Hochstadt
Jacksonville IL
Published in the Jacksonville
Journal-Courier, December 13, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment