“We applaud the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s rule expanding consumer protections for prepaid cards. Americans will be better off because of the enhanced rights in case of loss, theft, and unauthorized charges, and the simple, clear fee disclosures the Bureau has put in place.”
“Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on Monday said she’ll crack down on increasingly common ‘fine print’ consumer agreements that insulate companies such as Wells Fargo from lawsuits related to consumer abuses… The clauses typically force customers to use the arbitration firm and arbitrator selected by the company, says Amanda Werner, arbitration campaign manager for Americans for Financial Reform.”
“New Defense Department rules against predatory consumer lending to military personnel and their families take effect today. With proper enforcement, they should go a long way toward closing the loopholes that for nearly a decade have allowed some high-cost lenders to evade the 36 percent annual interest-rate limit of the Military Lending Act.”
“Alexis Goldstein of Americans for Financial Reform said Clinton’s use of the term ‘clawback’ is a good sign and that she thinks it may be an endorsement on Clinton’s part of stricter rules regarding executive pay. ‘The amount of the fine by the three regulators, which is $185 million total, should be paid for out of executive bonuses, specifically Stumpf’s and one executive, Carrie Tolstedt,’ Goldstein added.”
“[P]erhaps the most shocking aspect of this story is that no executive under whose watch it occurred has been forced to return any compensation. While over 5,000 front line, mostly customer service employees have been fired, former consumer banking chief Carrie Tolstedt, who oversaw their work, recently retired with a $125 million compensation package. It is unclear if Wells Fargo plans to take back any of this pay package. There is similarly no clear indication that Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf will have to return any of the almost $100 million in bonus pay he received for the years in which the violations were occurring.”
“How did Wells Fargo get away with it for so long? A big part of the story: Wells Fargo contract provisions blocked consumers from suing the bank in court. It’s past time to prohibit the “ripoff clauses” that prevent consumers from enforcing their most basic legal rights… The problem isn’t just that aggrieved consumers don’t have access to a remedy. Keeping cases out of court means abuses are kept out of the spotlight. That’s exactly what happened with Wells Fargo, and why the abuses could go on so long.”
“If the regulators finish the rule soon, the Wells Fargo incident will be fresh in their minds. Marcus Stanley, policy director for Americans for Financial Reform, is counting on Wells Fargo acting as a shield against bank lobbying. ‘I think it will make it more difficult,’ Stanley said. ‘What I’m hoping is that it’ll make it easier for us to lobby to make it tougher.’”
“Two top institutional shareholders in the world’s most valuable bank by market capitalisation have demanded answers over payments to Carrie Tolstedt, who headed the division where the episode took place… Brian Simmonds Marshall, policy counsel at Americans for Financial Reform, said: ‘Those who are responsible for the misconduct should not be getting bonuses for costing their shareholders and their customers money.'”
“This is not a serious piece of legislation. It is, however, a sad reminder of the Financial Services Committee’s apparent willingness, under its current leadership, to do Wall Street’s bidding with breathtaking disregard for the costs to consumers and to the safety of the financial system as a whole.”
“As the consent orders highlight, Wells Fargo’s egregious violations of consumers’ rights were fueled by sales quotas imposed on front-line bank workers. These settlements underline the importance of strong consumer protection enforcement from federal and local regulators. They highlight the particular importance of attention to bank compensation practices, including the need to make sure banks are not pushing their employees to harm consumers and break the law by requiring them to meet otherwise unattainable sales goals.”