Richard Wolf

 

Recent Posts by Richard Wolf

  • Why is this country so hostile to users of consumer financial products?

    Oct 9, 2009Richard Wolf

    people-150The establishment of the CFPA would protect consumers from dubious financial products and services.

    people-150The establishment of the CFPA would protect consumers from dubious financial products and services.

    This country's economy is predicated on individual consumerism. Indeed, with America's 217 million adults and 116 million households, individual consumption represents as much as 70% of this country's economy. Consumerism creates jobs. Individual households thrive when jobs are aplenty, and the country prospers when households thrive.

    Much of that consumption is supported by consumer loans in the form of home mortgages, home equity lines of credit, auto loans, student loans, and of course, ubiquitous credit card loans. There is nothing intrinsically bad or dangerous about credit as long as it is used wisely and prudently. People would not want to return to the ‘good old days' when one could only purchase a big ticket item like a house or car after saving a satchel full of cash to pay for it. Consumer credit facilitates the modern economy. (In fact, in the past bankers used to even call consumer loans ‘credit facilities'.)

    Unfortunately, the market for consumer credit products is broken. It is broken because consumers lack trust and confidence. The system is unnecessarily complex and opaque. Loan agreements now consist of incomprehensible fine print and legalese burying a wide assortment of potential tricks and traps. While lenders offer low teaser rates to win more market share, they hide the numerous fees and practices, their real profit-makers, in the fine print -- where the consumer can't find or understand them. Consumers are unable to easily compare products or choose the ones with the lowest cost or lowest risk. "Financial innovation" now centers around the invention of new incomprehensible fees rather than better serving consumer preferences.

    Because the true cost of credit is now so badly distorted, consumers use too much credit. And the government's approach to oversight is presently unwieldy, complex, costly, and ineffective. This has resulted in a consumer credit market that is broken, dangerous, and, because left unchecked, has greatly contributed to the current economic meltdown.

    Fortunately, this situation may be about to change. There is an initiative being debated in Congress to establish a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). The CFPA would be a dedicated advocate for users of financial products in this country. Its scope would encompass consumer financial products and services including selling practices, advertising and underwriting. It would establish minimum federal standards by product, so consumers could compare various offerings more easily and have confidence in their decisions. Lenders would all face the same set of guidelines and disclosure rules. They wouldn't be able to escape regulation by changing their corporate charters, geographic location, or regulatory supervisor as is the case now.

    America's Consumer Product Safety Commission has long been established and has the authority to develop uniform safety standards for physical products, order the recall of unsafe products, and ban products that pose unreasonable risks. This is similar to the FDA's authority over food and pharmaceuticals. It is long overdue for John Q. Public to have uniform protection and standards for financial products.

    A CFPA would concentrate the review of financial products in a single location but would not limit competition among lenders. Lenders would still evaluate risk, set prices, and design marketing campaigns and activities. However, a CFPA would focus primarily on expanding consumer safety rather than corporate profitability.

    Unfortunately, there is an oft unstated fact that financial transactions are far riskier for consumers today than even a mere ten years ago. As complexity and opacity have increased with these financial products, with the advent of practices like immediate cross default, penalties with no notice, myriad nuisance fees, and the devilish practices of double-cycle billing, and with the evolution of a much smaller safety net, consumers are much less secure than they once were. Consumers need -- and deserve -- an advocate and a level playing field.

    Richard Wolf has 29 years experience in business administration, risk management, and professional development and training in the financial services industry.

     

    Share This

  • It's time to use the clawback

    Sep 21, 2009Richard Wolf

    claw-200In one courtroom, finally, the little guy gets a victory.  Richard Wolf explains.

    claw-200In one courtroom, finally, the little guy gets a victory.  Richard Wolf explains.

    An important brouhaha is brewing and includes some hallowed names like Bank of America (this nation’s largest bank), Merrill Lynch, and the U.S. government’s very own Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Not incidentally, it also involves John Q. Public, if one owns publicly traded securities, has a 401k, or receives a pension.

    A federal district judge last Monday boldly overturned a settlement between the Bank of America and the SEC over bonuses paid to Merrill Lynch executives just before the bank took over Merrill last year.

    The judge acted boldly in that these types of suits are generally just perfunctory. The SEC investigates, finds a transgression, fines the transgressing company, and the company quietly capitulates. Both the company and the SEC then go about their respective business again and life continues. But this time the judge interrupted this little dance and ruled in favor of the suing shareholders, whose money was redirected without notification or permission.

    This case is symptomatic of a general arrogance and greed by corporate management toward shareholders in particular and the public generally.

    In a nutshell, corporate management took care of themselves rather than its shareholders. They used money that rightfully belongs to shareholders and paid themselves instead. Some people might call that a misguided business judgment or an abrogation of fiduciary responsibility -- others might call it stealing.

    And this situation happens all the time in business. Corporate officers are technically working for shareholders who provide the company’s capital. Yes, they have a lot of responsibility, and yes, they work long hours to guide their companies to success in a very competitive world. In return, these people get compensated handsomely for their efforts.

    However, too often these corporate officers run the company as their own personal fiefdoms. They make decisions daily using corporate resources that enhance their personal lives. Business lunches at the best restaurants, business breakfasts, business trips that morph into golf outings and vacations. It may be a purchasing a corporate car (and driver perhaps) or corporate jet. Remember, this is all on the company’s dime i.e. using the shareholders' money. And one should never forget how senior management manipulates its own compensation. Selecting the compensation committee of the company's board, or lobbying for a favorable "independent" compensation consultant to advise that committee, or the common practice of favorably "amending" stock options are all common techniques to undercut shareholders by rediecting monies away from the company and to the senior officers.

    Actually, Merrill Lynch provides a vivid example of this corporate arrogance. It was discovered soon after Merrill’s acquisition by Bank of America that Merrill CEO John Thain had contracted to install a lavish bathroom, spending an estimated total $1,000,000 for his personal office. Well, he might say he works hard and long hours, maybe even while seated on the toilet, but using $1,000,000 of someone else’s money?

    So it is good to hear the judge’s ruling in this latest case. He is correct. The shareholders were not just deceived but robbed. In a just world, there would be clawback from the corporate officers and corporate directors involved to reimburse the shareholders.

    Richard Wolf has 29 years experience in business administration, risk management, and professional development and training in the financial services industry.

    Share This