Have We Forgotten about Those Consumers Hurt by the Recession?

Here's a powerful article that appears in Fortune magazine by Sheila Bair, the former head of the FDIC. We recommend you read it because we think her points are right on and problems still persist!

Thomas Hinton,

President 

American Consumer Council

By Sheila Bair

I told myself I wasn't going to do a "Lehman" column given the media frenzy over this month's five-year anniversary of that institution's bankruptcy. But in researching a new book I am writing for young adults about the 2008 financial crisis, I have been uncomfortably reminded of the hardship so many families encountered because of the crisis, particularly their kids.

Their plight has been largely forgotten in the power politics that have overcome financial reform. It's all about winners and losers, with regulators and reform advocates pitted against a powerful industry lobbying machine, oiled by political money and the grease of revolving door jobs. The objective of protecting the public from another recession brought on by an unstable financial sector seems lost in the Washington shuffle.

So let me recount the heartbreaking memories of the families I have interviewed. They bear tragic similarities. Their problems usually started with a steeply resetting mortgage payment, or job loss or cutback, frequently combined with an unexpected health problem not covered by insurance. Whatever the catalyst, it is almost always followed by high levels of stress for the family, sleepless nights for parents and kids, deteriorating grades at school, lost hope as savings are depleted, and finally the loss of a home. The kids give up their rooms, their pets, their schools, their neighborhoods, and will always live with the traumatic memories of their forced dislocation.

MORE: Are we ready for the next meltdown?

To be sure, many of the parents I have interviewed bear some responsibility for their troubles. As home prices escalated, they repeatedly refinanced their houses to pull out cash. When the housing market turned, they were left with unaffordable mortgage debt, which far exceeded the value of their homes. But these cash-out refis were not always done to pay for fancy vacations or flat screen TVs as apologists for Wall Street would have you believe. Rather, more typically, the money was used to pay for college tuition, medical bills, or simply to help make ends meet.

Several of the families I interviewed never participated in the housing craze. They had traditional 30-year, fixed rate mortgages that they could no longer pay when they lost their jobs or suffered pay cuts. They did nothing wrong except live in a country where we temporarily deluded ourselves into thinking that a "self-regulating" financial sector tethered to a housing asset bubble could provide a solid foundation for prosperity.

These families are now clawing their way back. Many are living in apartments or spartan rental homes. Most have regained employment, but at significantly lower wages. Several have managed to start rebuilding their savings. Their kids have grown to accept getting by with less. Some have foregone college, as their parents depleted their college accounts in a desperate attempt to hold onto their homes. Instead, they join the military or try to find work in a teen labor force which has a 24% unemployment rate. Others go to college by borrowing heavily. They graduate, then move back home, taking a low-paying job. As young people, they should be filled with hope and optimism. Instead, they confront limited job opportunities, reduced standards of living, and mountains of student debt.

MORE: Government banks $15 billion on Citigroup bailout

Their lives, like so many across the country, are improving only after years of personal struggle. Protecting them from another crisis should be regulators' highest priority.

Some say that the people who participated in the bailouts five years ago (and I was one) are "heroes" because we "saved the system". But it didn't take heroism to throw trillions of government cash at big financial institutions. The true heroes are those regulators who can show the courage to tame the system against the fierce lobbying of the very institutions that benefited from the government's largesse.

As the Lehman bankruptcy assumes its place in the annals of our financial history, it saddens me to think how historians will characterize the timid reform effort that has followed so far. With the Dodd-Frank financial reform law barely one-third implemented, regulators still have the opportunity to make the post-Lehman era their finest hour. I hope they rise to the occasion.

Sheila C. Bair, the chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from 2006 to 2011, is the author of Bull by the Horns: Fighting to Save Main Street From Wall Street and Wall Street From Itself released in paperback this month

In Response to Keith Legget's Credit Union Watch Blog dated July 10, 2013

Keith:

Your recent Blog, which referenced the American Consumer Council (ACC), has several errors and inaccuracies that need to be corrected.  For the record, the American Consumer Council is a non-profit consumer education organization with over 140,000 members nationwide. Our focus is consumer advocacy, financial education and corporate social responsibility. Our common bond is very clearly stated in our bylaws and literature.

For you to suggest that consumer-members of ACC should not be eligible to join a credit union is arrogant and discriminatory. It smacks of the typical “Big Bank” gobbledygook that is offensive and condescending to most American consumers. And, let’s be candid here, it’s the reason why so many banks are reviled by consumers. Simply stated, banks have lost our trust.

Consumers haven’t forgotten that is was Big Banks – not credit unions – that betrayed consumers and largely caused the Great Recession with their shady practices and “wheeling n’ dealing” that devastated our retirement and savings accounts. It was Big Banks that deceived consumers with mortgage deals and then illegally foreclosed on millions of consumers’ homes.

At a time when banks have all-but-deserted the average American consumer, credit unions are more vital to the financial success of our members, entrepreneurs and small businesses than ever before. We proudly stand with our credit union partners because they do an outstanding job serving the financial needs of consumers.

So, Keith, let me help you get your facts right. As with every non-profit organization, ACC has membership eligibility criteria which is listed in our bylaws and on our website. Therefore, it’s misleading for you to suggest that “anyone can join a credit union [or our organization] by checking a box on a credit union application.”  That’s just not true.

Consumers join our organization by completing a membership application and paying the appropriate dues. Every individual who wants to join ACC must meet our membership criteria in order to become a member.  We also provide scholarships to a segment of the consumer population that cannot afford our annual dues.

Also, we actively support many areas of the country where there are large numbers of under-served consumers. Unlike banks, which have closed branches in under-served regions and “blacklisted” many consumers because of simple mistakes they made during their banking transactions (as recently reported in the New York Times), credit unions have been a strong, reliable financial partner with ACC by delivering value-added services at competitive rates to these under-served consumers and regions.

Finally, it’s ludicrous for you to suggest that because a credit union enrolls members of the American Consumer Council that they are somehow “straying from their charter.”  Every credit union is strictly regulated by the NCUA or its state regulator. We have found that the men and women who work tirelessly for the NCUA are dedicated, competent people who follow the letter of the law. This is why ACC must adhere to the same guidelines that every other Select Employer Group (SEG) must adhere to when we put forward a request to have a credit union represent or enroll our members. It’s a cheap shot on your part to blame regulators for doing their job… and a good job at that!

It’s unfortunate your perspective is so lop-sided simply because you work for the American Bankers Association, a good organization but one that really doesn’t embrace the traditional American values of competition and capitalism. How ironic.

Also, it’s obvious from your own blog postings, articles, and statements which I’ve read, that you seem hell-bent on destroying credit unions, which only represent 6% of the financial market; and, in the process, the “little guy.” Certainly, there must be a more enlightened way for you to communicate your views than by knocking the “little guy” – the average American consumer who feels abandoned by the very banks you represent.

While your position at the ABA does give you a platform to espouse your views towards credit unions, it doesn’t give you the right to misstate the facts. Nor, should it give credence to your lop-sided idea that consumers should be denied the right to choose their financial relationships; or, have the right to become members of credit unions; or, suggest that credit unions not be able to legally partner with organizations like the American Consumer Council, whose mission is to help our consumer-members obtain the financial services they need to live their dreams.

Thomas Hinton 

President & CEO

American Consumer Council

www.americanconsumercouncil.org 

A Simple Cure for the Banking System

by Margaret Heffernan

This article is reprinted from the Huffington Post. Visit www.huffingtonpost.com

 

We bailed out the banks because we couldn't afford not to. We award absurd salaries and bonuses to bankers because we think we can't function without them. In any other context, being made to do something you know is wrong is a crime called blackmail; in banking it appears to be normal. But it doesn't have to be this way. 

We feel ourselves to be at the mercy of the banks because they are so big. But that is also why they go wrong. So why don't we just make them smaller?

A recent study, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Global Alliance for Banking on Values (GABV) compared the performance between 2007 and 2010 of 17 values-based banks with 29 Globally Systemically Important Financial Institutions (GSIFI) as defined by the Financial Stability Board. The value banks are smaller, mission-focused banks like credit unions, Triodos and Handelsbank. The globally significant banks are 'too big to fail' and include Bank of America, JP Morgan, Barclays, Citicorp and Deutsche Bank. 

And guess what they found? The value banks did more for their customers and were financially stronger. "Values-based banks were twice as likely to invest their assets in loans, lending more than 70% of their assets during this period on average. The values-based banks also appear to be stronger financially with both higher levels of, and better quality, capital. The BIS 1 Ratio, an important measure of a bank's solvency, averaged over 14% during the period studied, compared with under 10% for the mainstream banks. The sustainable banks also had an average Equity/Asset ratio of over 9% while the GSIFI banks averaged just over 5% during the period covered." In other words, the smaller banks were less likely to fail. 

Even more important, the smaller banks also delivered better returns: "Return on Assets, the measure increasingly considered most relevant for judging a bank's financial performance, averaged above 0.50% while the big banks earned an average of just 0.33%. Values-based banks also had returns on equity averaging 7.1%, compared to 6.6% for the GSIFI banks."

The report argues that what accounts for the success of the values-based banks is their values. They're embedded in their communities, have transparent governance, enjoy long term relationships with clients and pursue a triple bottom line that won't trade off performance for social impact. And it argues that having these values at the heart of the organization makes them stronger and better. 

I couldn't dispute any of that but I think the report overlooks something so obvious it's easy to miss. These values-based banks are not huge. They are small. That means that the values they pursue are not just statements posted in reception and left to gather dust. It means that personal relationships - between employees and reaching out to customers - are up close and personal. It means that oversight is actually feasible. And it means that titanic, market-shifting deals are impossible. 

Many of the problems posed by the banks derive from their sheer scale. Because they are so vast they can move markets. Because they're huge, they reap enormous profits which then fuels big salaries and giant bonuses. Because the institutions are so mighty, the people running them feel themselves to be immensely powerful. The money and the power both change the way that people think and both work to move leaders ever further away from engagement with society. 

The executives who go astray inside these institutions don't start off as market manipulators; the money and power that size brings changes them. It's easy to cast stones but the truth is that most of us, given the rewards, status and flattery that surround these positions, would find it impossible not to start believing that we were gifted, brilliant and virtuous; it would require the psychological defenses of an elephant not to. The institutions make these people, not the other way around. 

Much has been said and written about the need to change the culture of high street banks. I think these motherhood statements are naïve at best and disingenuous at worst. Everyone in business knows that culture is the hardest thing in the world to change. Think about it: most fat people want to get thin and can't. Most people want to save and don't. Changing human behavior is so unbelievably difficult that there is an argument as to whether it is possible at all. The idea that a vast institution the size of Barclays or RBS or HBOS can change the behavior of every individual it employs is a fantasy.

You cannot achieve cultural change without structural change. This is the central truth that everyone - bankers, regulators, politicians, economists and pundits - have been willfully blind to now for years. It's about time we stopped fooling ourselves and put an end to this painful economic fiasco. Rules won't change banks. A few resignations won't change banks. Inquiries won't change banks. And cultural change is beyond us. Break the banks up and they won't be too big to fail; they will - finally - be small enough for success.

 About the Author:  Margaret Heffernan is the British author of Willful Blindness: Why We Ignore the Obvious at Our Peril and How She Does It: How Women Entrepreneurs Are Changing the Rules of Business Success. Both books are available on Amazon.com

Why Kellogg's Kashi Cereals are in Trouble with Consumers

Apparently, Kellogg’s Kashi cereals are not as natural as their advertising and website says they are. Last week, after a Rhode Island green grocer pulled Kashi cereal from his store shelf and posted a note explaining to consumers that Kashi used genetically engineered, non-organic ingredients, hundreds of consumers protested claiming Kellogg was misrepresenting its products’ contents.

Kashi’s general manager, David DeSouza, responded by saying, “The FDA has chosen not to regulate the term natural.” Kellogg defines natural as “food that’s minimally processed, made with no artificial colors, flavors, preservatives or sweeteners.”

Sorry, Mr. DeSouza, but that wobbly explanation just won’t cut it with today’s sophisticated green consumers. The problem for Kellogg and Kashi is not with how the FDA defines the term natural. Rather, the problem is with how consumers interpret natural and, certainly, it doesn’t include genetically engineered soy in cereals. This is something any 8th grader would understand let alone a large corporation like Kellogg.

So, yes, Kellogg and Kashi now have a growing credibility problem with their once-loyal consumers because – as Roger Nyhus of Nyhus Communications suggested – they fudged on some very basic terminology used in their advertising and packaging. Natural is natural. It cannot include genetically engineered products or by-products.

If Kashi wants to restore its trust with consumers, they need to move fast and correct the problem by changing the language on their cereal products, apologizing for getting it wrong and provide an incentive to green consumers to come back to their brand. And, let this be a lesson to other companies that play with terminology and language in order to mislead consumers into thinking they too are naturally green.  

About the Author: Thomas Hinton is president & CEO of the American Consumer Council, a non-profit consumer education organization with over 125,000 members. Contact: info@americanconsumercouncil.org

Returning America to its Capitalism Roots

by Thomas Hinton

It should come as no surprise that consumers are frustrated and downright angry at corporate America. We’re especially angry with big banks and big oil. After five years of economic hardship and financial carnage not much has improved for the average consumer. America’s economic forecast is cloudy at best.

There’s a lot of blame to go around for the economic mess we’re in, but at the root of our financial problems is the growing culture of greed that permeates Corporate America and, specifically, big oil and big banks. The One Percenters, as they’ve been labeled by the Occupy Wall Street movement, have grossly misinterpreted what American capitalism is all about.

The corporate vultures do not represent the best economic interest of our nation, nor the world. In fact, they represent what is blatantly wrong with America, and their behavior is both disgusting and criminal. I do not use the word criminal lightly. Their misdeeds and governance actions have undermined the basic freedoms guaranteed to every American as prescribed in our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, our nation’s two most sacred documents. When the basic rights of Americans – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – are compromised by corporate malfeasance under the pretense of a company’s right to make a profit, government has both a responsibility and obligation to protect the interests of its citizens. Regrettably, this is not happening because our elected officials have been unduly compromised by lobbyists and brainwashed into believing a big bank, insurance company or automaker is too big to fail. Such thinking further undermines the basic tenets of American capitalism.

We all know who these corporate culprits are. Their corporate names are household words. Their signage and logos adorn skyscrapers and buildings in every major city across the nation. Many of these companies are led by unindicted crooks who knowingly endorsed programs, schemes and policies that undermined the housing industry – the most sacred cornerstone of the American Dream, created epic levels of unemployment and under-employment, and stripped millions of American of their financial dignity by manipulating investment markets that eroded retirement plans and savings accounts.

All of this happened under the blind eye of our federal government and elected officials. Our federal and state governments have done little to hold these corporate leaders accountable for their brazen abuses or protect consumers from another financial meltdown. While the nation’s attorneys general should be applauded for their efforts to sue big banks in an effort to help distressed homeowners, President Obama and the Congress continue to reward these corporate culprits with government bailouts and gentle slaps on the wrist. Is it any wonder that so many Americans have lost faith in their leaders and their ability to initiate meaningful change? Is it any wonder that consumers are frustrated, angry and bitter about their dwindling economic prospects let alone the economic prospects of our children?

Five years after the financial debacle was perpetrated by big banks with the approving nod of the Federal Reserve, SEC and other federal agencies, millions of Americans remain mired in the economic mud created by investment houses and big banks. It continues to be a very slow and painful financial recovery for millions of consumers; and, all of this is happening while big banks and big oil amass outrageous profits at the expense of struggling America’s consumers.

Can consumers do anything to stop this harmful trend besides transferring their bank accounts to credit unions and limiting their driving so they buy less gas? I think the answer is a resounding yes! Consumers ultimately control the power of the purse and the economic fortunes of a nation because we can choose where and how to spend our money. We can also choose to dethrone those elected officials who contributed to our economic misfortunes. In the final analysis, consumers can regain control of their economic destiny by standing up for what is right with America and demand big banks and big oil honor the true spirit of American Capitalism – making a fair profit while raising the fortunes of society.

About the Author:
Thomas Hinton is president of the American Consumer Council, a non-profit consumer advocacy and financial education organization with over 126,000 members. He can be reached at tom@americanconsumercouncil.org

Why Aren't Southwest and Spirit Airlines Aboard with the New Truth-in-Advertising Rules?

This week, Ray LaHood, the Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation, announced new rules that require domestic airlines to include all taxes and fees in airline ticket prices. These new rules are common sense and are good for consumers.

Surprisingly, Southwest, Allegiant and Spirit Airlines are resisting this “truth in advertising” policy by suing the US-DOT over the new rules. The airlines are arguing that the new requirements make the rules for the airline industry more stringent than any other. That’s utter nonsense! The fact is consumers are fed-up with the airlines lousy service, unfair pricing rules, non-disclosure of upfront costs for baggage, meals and ticket changes. This is why Secretary LaHood and US-DOT should resist any changes to their new rules. Consumers deserve honesty and full disclosure from the airlines.

Frankly, I’m surprised by Southwest Airlines’ involvement in the lawsuit. As one who regularly flies Southwest, I think it might tarnish their otherwise sterling reputation. Southwest Airlines has been an industry leader and a role model for domestic airlines in many ways – their consistent profitability, a very strong safety record, low fares, free baggage, customer-friendly flight attendants who know how to make passengers smile and laugh during the safety announcements, and the most user-friendly website in the industry, bar none.

On the other hand Spirit Airlines has earned a reputation for nickel-and-diming its passengers for everything! So, their position in the lawsuit is understandable. They want to continue to lure prospective passengers onto their website by disguising low fares before hammering them with various fees and charges after passengers have purchased the ticket. These are the very types of unfair pricing tactics that Secretary LaHood is trying to stop.

In fact, Spirit Airlines and AirTran Airways, which is owned by Southwest, were fined a combined $90,000 for violating the pricing rules in advertisements such as emails, tweets and on their websites. Allegiant Airlines was fined in 2009 for not including a convenience fee in initial fare quotes. Need I say more?

The airlines have had their way for too many years. They have consistently practiced unfair and devious pricing schemes to lure passengers onto their flights and making record profits in the process. But, a growing number of complaints by consumers prompted the U.S. Department of Transportation to implement new rules which are based on fairness, truth-in-advertising and full disclosure. Frankly, these new rules are long overdue and the airlines ought to quit their pouting and do the right thing by consumers.

The turbulence surrounding the new Department of Transportation rules amounts to little more than belly-aching from the airlines that must now be honest and forthright with consumers. It’s one more reason why a strong government watchdog agency like the U.S. Department of Transportation is necessary. Without such rules in place, airlines would continue to use unfair pricing tactics and unscrupulous methods to lure travelers onto their planes. Am I exaggerating? Not at all! Just read what the lobbying group, All Airlines for America (A4A) stated in the legal brief they filed with the D.C. Court of Appeals in support of the lawsuit by Spirit, Allegiant and Southwest Airlines.

In its legal filing, A4A said, "ATA members share DOT’s stated objective of ensuring that customers are treated fairly and consistently, receiving the products and services for which they have paid on the basis advertised to them. But ATA members do not share DOT’s unstated, but apparent, goal of holding airlines to much higher standards of conduct than prevail in other deregulated industries."

In other words, the airlines don’t like being held accountable to the same common sense practices and fairness standards that American consumers expect from every other industry. Are you kidding me? And, remember, folks this is the same industry that has gutted its workforce, stripped its talented and dedicated employees of fair wages and benefits and moved to decertify its unions. No wonder consumers are frustrated and outraged at the questionable pricing practices used by so many of our nation’s airlines. Perhaps, the airlines should simply mind their Ps and Qs and be lucky Secretary La Hood isn’t pushing for re-regulating the airlines!

About the Author:
Thomas Hinton is president of the American Consumer Council, a non-profit consumer education organization with over 120,000 members. He can be reached at tom@americanconsumercouncil.org

American Consumers Will Continue to Drop Banks for F.E.E.S.

by Thomas Hinton

In an era when consumers are frustrated with Wall Street and big banks, it’s not surprising that more than 675,000 people responded to the social media movement known as Transfer Day to drop their banking relationships in favor of credit unions and small community banks. What is surprising is this. Anyone with a checking account – and that’s about 200 million Americans -- knows that changing financial institutions is not a simple process. It takes time and the process requires a small mountain of forms, paperwork, documentation and signatures in order to complete the process.

But, when you consider how upset and angry consumers are with banks for threatening to raise debit card fees and charging for traditional services that were once free, it’s not surprising that consumers are walking across the street to start new banking relationships with credit unions and smaller community banks.

We refer to this consumer syndrome as “FEES” which stands for “Feeling the Economic Effects.” There’s no question consumers are in financial pain and their response to the insensitivity of big banks has been to pull their accounts in favor of small community banks and credit unions that are renowned for their customer service and friendly banking terms.

While the percentage of new customers that have made the switch from major banks to credit unions and community banks since October 1 is very small – less than one-half percent according to the American Consumer Council -- and their deposits represent less than $5 billion, the switch of that many customers in a six-week period should send a clear distress signal to major banks and their trade associations that consumers have had enough! Banks need to change their policies and customer relations practices if they want to stop the bleeding and start to win back disaffected consumers.

The American Consumer Council forecasts that one percent of consumers, approximately two million people, ultimately will switch their banking relationships to credit unions and community banks in the next 90 days. Such a dramatic shift by consumers will certainly help credit unions and community banks raise their visibility and improve their low-profile image among middle-class consumers who have suffered the most economic pain since 2008. It will also put credit unions on the radar screen with millions of disenfranchised consumers who have yet to make the switch, but are now talking to friends and relatives about their financial frustrations.

What else do the Transfer Day numbers tell us? Well, when you consider that the number of consumers who have already switched to credit unions is nearly double the number predicted by the organizers of the Transfer Day movement, that’s significant. What it tells me – and the American Consumer Council agrees – is that future anti-bank social media campaigns will continue; and, subsequent campaigns will morph into much larger movements that will attract more consumers to credit unions and community banks at the expense of large banks.

It also tells me that there is a major under-current gaining strength in the United States that will embolden consumers to take on bigger fish such as the oil giants, pharmaceutical companies, lobbyists, trade associations and even local, state and national governments that are grossly out-of-touch with millions of consumers who feel as though the American Dream is slipping away from them and their children. The harsh reality is this. It is slipping away, and consumers are not going to lay down and allow that to happen.

About the Author. Thomas Hinton is president and chief executive officer of the American Consumer Council, a non-profit consumer education organization with more than 116,000 members and 44 state consumer council affiliates. For more information: tom@americanconsumercouncil.org