So what have the credit card companies been doing? They’ve been flooding the mailboxes of regular non-business consumers, offering them “professional cards”! Yep, all you teachers and nurses and newspaper reporters out there, you may have actually wondered why you received an offer from Chase asking you to sign up for their Ink Card which is geared for small business owners. Well the answer is that the bank is trying to avoid giving you the protections that you deserve!
The Wall Street Journal reported that in the first quarter of this year 47 million professional card offers were sent out, which is a 256% increase since the same time last year. WHAT?!
And to make matters worse, Chase Bank has made it even easier for a non-business consumer to sign away their rights, just by checking a simple box. From the same WSJ article:
In January, mailings for the card asked prospective cardholders to provide the name of their company, the nature of the business, its address and its federal employer identification number. In the July mailing cardholders merely had to check a box that said "Yes, I am a business owner" or "Yes, I am a business professional with business expenses."
"We are always looking for ways to simplify our application," says Ms. Rossi, the Chase spokeswoman. "All applicants are required to confirm they are a small-business owner or someone who is authorized to charge expenses to the business."
Senator Chuck Schumer sent a letter to the Fed today, demanding they require banks to verify that a consumer is a business owner by providing a fed tax ID. There’s a lot of work to do to make sure that bank’s don’t take advantage of this already large loophole.
In the meantime, we want to hear from you. Have you received any of these solicitations or accidentally signed up for a business card when you don’t own a business? If so, tell us about it here. Also fax, email or mail your professional card solicitations so we can monitor what the banks are really saying. Make sure to black out any personal info and account numbers!
Attention: Finance Team Organizer
Email: money@defendyourdollars.org
Fax: 415-431-0906
Mail: Consumers Union, 1535 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA, 94107.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
]]>Here are some of the latest solicitations and incentives students should be wary of as they return to campus this fall:
Overdraft Programs
This fall many students will be signing up for their first bank account, but they should be aware of all the fees that come with it. When you open a new account the bank will ask you to make a very important choice; whether you want “overdraft protection”. If you choose to sign up for debit overdraft coverage, the bank will allow you to use your debt/ATM card to spend more money then you have in your account. Each time the bank covers your overdrafts, they charge you a high fee around $35. For those of you who already have bank accounts, the banks are advertising heavily to encourage people to sign up for these over-priced programs. Watch Out!
It is more cost-effective to be turned down at the checkout if you are short on cash rather than pay a $35 overdraft fee. If you feel like you need coverage, choose a less-expensive option such as opening a small savings account and linking your checking to your savings to cover overdrafts.
Prepaid Cards
They look like debit cards, but most prepaid cards must be purchased for a fee, and sometimes you have to pay a fee to add money to the card. Although these cards function much like a debit card linked to a bank account, they do not have the same guaranteed consumer protections. More companies are marketing these cards using images popular with students – such as The Twilight Movie prepaid card -- to encourage their use. But be sure to check the fine print for a list of the fees that come with the card, or better yet, get a normal bank account with a debit card.
Credit Cards
The CARD Act, which went into effect this year, placed some restrictions on how students and people under the age of 21 get credit cards. A person under 21 must either have a cosigner or show they have the means to repay any credit given. In addition, limits were placed on how credit cards are advertised on college campuses. You may notice these changes this year, but remember, credit card companies are notorious for finding ways to trick and trap people of all ages into credit cards.
If a student of any age is considering getting a credit card here are some tips to help avoid the credit card trap on campus:
If you are over 21 do not co-sign for your friends. Co-signing for your best friend or anybody else is a bad idea. Their mistakes can ruin your credit.
Don’t get a credit card until you are ready to pay in full every month. Make sure you can really afford to borrow money with a credit card. Before you apply for a credit card, ask yourself whether you really need one and how you’re going to pay for the money you borrow when the bill comes due. In most cases, a better alternative is to set up a bank account with a debit card. Just be sure to keep an eye on your balance to make sure you have sufficient funds on hand to avoid high overdraft fees.
Don’t fall for the credit card companies’ slick marketing campaigns. Under the CARD Act credit card companies are prohibited from offering freebies in exchange for students signing up with their card. But the companies will still be on campus in full effect. Just remember, they can’t make you fill out the form in order to get that free t-shirt!
If you decide to get a credit card, shop carefully and make sure you understand your contract. Not all credit cards are created equal. Learn about the card’s penalty interest rate and how they can be triggered. Also most credit card companies can change the terms of your contract but must give you 45 days notice before raising your interest rate on future purchases and tell you why they are doing so.
Look for a card with a low fixed Annual Percentage Rate (APR) and a low or no annual fee. Learn about the card’s penalty interest rate and how you can face higher interest charges on the money you already borrowed if you miss two payments. For new purchases a higher rate can be imposed if you are just one day late making your payment.
Don’t be tricked by the teaser rate. Credit card issuers might offer you a low interest rate to sign up for a card but after 6 months your interest can go up. Also, if the required minimum payment is not received within 60 days after the due date you may trigger much higher penalty rates and additional fees.
Don’t use your credit card to finance your education: Credit cards can be one of the most expensive sources of funds. Avoid using your credit card to finance your tuition, room and board, fees, books, transportation, and health insurance expenses.
Use your card wisely. Pay off your balance monthly and make all of your payments on time. Set up for automatic payments to pay off more than your minimum balance. Pay attention to your balance to avoid going over your credit limit. If you manage your credit card online, you can set up email alerts that keep you informed. Don’t take cash advances because they typically come with high interest rates.
“The bank’s dominant, indeed sole, motive was to maximize the number of overdrafts and squeeze as much as possible”
The court told Wells Fargo to give back $203 million in fees. The judge said Wells’ conduct was all about increasing fees, by saying, “the supposed net benefit of high-to-low resequencing is utterly speculative. Its bone-crushing multiplication of additional overdraft penalties however, is categorically assured.”
We are calling on Wells Fargo to finally do the right thing for once: End All Automatic Enrollments Into Overdraft Programs!
Consumers should not be saddled with expensive short-term loans they did not ask for. Consumers Union along with a strong coalition of organizations and consumer activists were successful in getting the Federal Reserve Board to end the most egregious part of automatic enrollment in overdraft programs by making it illegal for a bank to enroll you in overdraft for your debit cards unless you ask for that. However, checks and automatic withdrawals, such as bill pay and recurring payments, are not covered by this new law.
We are calling on Wells Fargo to stop putting their customers into overdraft programs they don’t ask for.
What do you think? Tell us in the comments.
Click here for our letter to Wells Fargo and here for the judges decision(PDF).
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
]]>
Providers to Abide by Strong Consumer Protections
SAN FRANCISCO, CA -- Recent news stories have highlighted how consumers in the U.S. soon will be able to pay for products and services with a wave of their smart phones. But while mobile payment technologies may offer a convenient new way to pay for goods and services, consumers could be at risk of losing money when mistakes are made by merchants and processors or as a result of fraud, according to Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports.
“As mobile payments systems come to the U.S., product providers and regulators need to make sure that they are at least as safe for consumers to use as traditional credit card and debit card payments,” said Michelle Jun, staff attorney for Consumers Union. “It is critical that mobile payment systems are covered by strong rules to protect consumers from losing money because of fraud, processor error or a dispute with a retailer.”
Federal law protects consumers in the event that their credit card or debit card is lost, stolen or misused. But current protections are badly fragmented and don't apply to all new types of payments.
Credit cards carry a $50 limit on consumer responsibility for unauthorized use, but fraud on debit cards can expose cardholders to $500 or more in liability, depending on how soon consumers report it. Voluntary payment network "zero liability" policies offered by debit card issuers contain significant loopholes. Prepaid cards where funds are pooled from many cardholders may lack even the protections that apply to traditional debit cards.
Consumer rights involving disputes with merchants can be even more confusing. Credit cards provide protections in case of bank errors, unauthorized use, and disputes with merchants, but debit cards provide only protections for bank errors and unauthorized use, not for disputes with the merchant.
These varying protections make it difficult for customers to determine what protections apply to new payment services. If mobile payment transactions are backed by a credit card and appear on the credit card bill, then consumers are entitled to all available protections. If the transaction amount is deducted from the consumer's deposit account with a financial institution like with a debit card, it should receive the same protections as any other electronic fund transfer. This means consumers receive a legal right to get back money for errors and theft, but not for a dispute with a merchant about the goods and services.
However, if the transaction is funded by a prepaid card, even the protections for unauthorized use may be missing, and there also will be no legal guarantee of protection in the event of a dispute with a merchant. If the payment service is provided directly by the mobile carrier and the charges appear on the customer's cell phone bill, the way it is done in Japan and South Korea, the product might escape consumer protections entirely. If the cell phone company asks the consumer to make a prepaid deposit to the phone company to cover future charges, protections also will be missing unless the contract provides them.
“Consumers should not be expected to figure out what protections apply to each competing new payments venture,” said Jun. “Regardless of the technology or business organization involved, the same high level of consumer protections should be guaranteed by law and contract for any payment service. Now that mobile payment ventures are emerging in the U.S., it’s time to harmonize and extend consumer protections for all payment services.”
Consumers Union called on companies offering mobile payment systems to include in their contracts the full consumer rights provided under existing federal law for both debit and credit cards, and to provide true voluntary "zero liability" assurance for consumers without loopholes. The consumer group also noted that regulators need to use their current statutory authority to ensure that existing consumer protections are applied to all new payment methods. For example, the Federal Reserve Board should apply full debit card protections to payments backed via a prepaid card through a simple interpretation of Regulation E.
If the Federal Reserve Board fails to act, Consumers Union noted that the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created under the recently passed financial reform legislation has the authority to address unfair payment practices.
For Consumers Union’s tips for mobile payment users, see:
http://www.defendyourdollars.org/2009/06/consumers_unions_tips_for_mobi.html
Michael McCauley – 415-902-9537 (cell) or Kristina Edmunson – 202-462-6262
]]>John G. Stumpf
President and CEO
Wells Fargo
Corporate Offices
420 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104
Dear Mr. Stumpf:
On August 11, 2010, the U.S. District Court issued an order in Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo finding that Wells Fargo manipulated the order in which it processes checks and debits to maximize the number of overdrafts your customers incur and therefore number of overdraft fees your customers pay. The court said, “[t]he supposed net benefit of high-to-low resequencing is utterly speculative. Its bone-crushing multiplication of additional overdraft penalties however, is categorically assured.”
Regardless of the next developments in the legal proceeding, the facts recited by the court in this case show that Wells Fargo has not lived up to the statement in its 2009 Annual Report, where Wells states: “[w]e want to satisfy all our customers’ financial needs and help them succeed financially.” We ask that you begin now to help your customers succeed financially by ending all overdraft programs for checks and for all types of debits except where a consumer affirmatively requests that overdrafts be paid on the account.
No customer should be loaned money without affirmatively requesting a credit feature on his or her account, and without even knowing that a loan is being made. This is the essence of an automatic fee-based overdraft program. We ask Wells Fargo to move to full “opt in” before overdraft fees will be assessed for covering overdrafts for all types of payments, including checks, recurring debits, and ACH debits.
And for customers who do choose to participate in these expensive overdraft programs make the programs safe and fair. Stop fighting in court to preserve a system which is inconsistent with basic principles of fairness.
Thank you,
Lauren Bowne
Staff Attorney
Consumers Union
Jean Ann Fox
Director of Financial Services
Consumer Federation of America
The new regulations implement a number of important consumer protections, including:
Limits on the size of late fees: Credit card issuers will no longer be allowed to charge you a late payment fee that is larger than your minimum payment. Banks also cannot charge a late fee higher than $25 unless one of your last six payments has been late or if the bank can show that the costs associated with the late payment justify a higher fee.
Ban on multiple penalty fees for single violations: You cannot be charged more than one penalty fee for a single violation of your credit card agreement. For example, you cannot be charged both a late fee and a returned payment fee based on a single botched payment.
Ban on inactivity fees: Card issuers will no longer be allowed to charge you a fee for failing to use your account enough or for terminating your account. Your account can still be closed for inactivity by your card issuer.
More information about why your rate is going up: Since August 2009, card issuers have been required to give 45 days notice before raising your interest rate on future purchases. Now they must notify you of the reason they are imposing a rate hike, such as market conditions or a reduced credit score.
Interest rate increases must be re-evaluated: Interest rate increases dating back to January 1, 2009 and into the future must be periodically re-evaluated. When a card issuer raises your interest rate, it must review the increase every 6 months and reduce the rate in certain circumstances.
For most accounts, card issuers choose which factors to consider during the review. Card issuers must reduce the rate if the factors leading to the rate increase are no longer present or if they are not being applied when setting the APR for new accounts.
For consumers who experienced a rate hike because of market conditions between January 1, 2009 and February 21, 2010, card issuers must reduce the rate unless the increase can still be justified using the factors currently being applied to determine APRs for new accounts.
The first rate review must be completed by February 22, 2011. A rate review is not required when rates are hiked because of a change in the variable rate or when a promotional rate expires.
Millions of you saw your interest rates jump through the roof in recent years, even when you always paid your bills on time. While the new regulations require a review of rate hikes, they give banks too much leeway that will allow them to continue gouging us by keeping high rates in place.
In addition to the new credit card protections, the new regulations will help limit fees on gift cards. Under the new regulations, you cannot be charged a fee if you have used your gift card within the past 12 months. If a gift card remains unused for 12 months, gift card issuers can charge only one fee per month. There are no limits on the amount of the fee and you can still be charged a one-time fee for purchasing a gift card.
All funds on gift cards purchased beginning on August 22 cannot expire before five years. Beginning January 31, 2011, gift card issuers will be required to provide consumers with improved disclosures about these protections.
"Charging people a fee for using their debit cards to pay for goods and services will soon be illegal, if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs a bill narrowly approved by the state Assembly on Thursday."
The fact is Californians shouldn’t be penalized for using their debit cards. After all, debit cards use cash that you already have – a smart thing to do in this treacherous economy.
Yet every time you use your debit card in California, merchants in the state can add a ‘surcharge’ to your bill. So if you are a California resident take a moment and drop the Governor a line at:
916-445-2841
Tell him to sign SB 933 into law and close the loophole on debit card surcharges.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Starting August 22, new regulations will go into effect that will help limit credit card and gift card fees and require banks to periodically re-evaluate credit card interest rate hikes to see if higher rates are still justified. The new regulations implement consumer protections required under the CARD Act passed by Congress last year.
“Consumers are tired of getting stung by unreasonably high fees and getting penalized for such dubious reasons as not using their credit card enough,” said Pamela Banks, Senior Policy Counsel for Consumers Union. “These new protections will prohibit so-called inactivity fees and help put an end to excessive credit card fees that unfairly penalize consumers when they are late making a payment.”
The new regulations implement a number of important consumer protections, including:
Limits on the size of late fees: Credit card issuers will no longer be allowed to charge you a late payment fee that is larger than your minimum payment. Banks also cannot charge a late fee higher than $25 unless one of your last six payments has been late or if the bank can show that the costs associated with the late payment justify a higher fee.
Ban on multiple penalty fees for single violations: You cannot be charged more than one penalty fee for a single violation of your credit card agreement. For example, you cannot be charged both a late fee and a returned payment fee based on a single botched payment.
Ban on inactivity fees: Card issuers will no longer be allowed to charge you a fee for failing to use your account enough or for terminating your account. Your account can still be closed for inactivity by your card issuer.
More information about why your rate is going up: Since August 2009, card issuers have been required to give 45 days notice before raising your interest rate on future purchases. Now they must notify you of the reason they are imposing a rate hike, such as market conditions or a reduced credit score.
Interest rate increases must be re-evaluated: Interest rate increases dating back to January 1, 2009 and into the future must be periodically re-evaluated. When a card issuer raises your interest rate, it must review the increase every 6 months and reduce the rate in certain circumstances.
For most accounts, card issuers choose which factors to consider during the review. Card issuers must reduce the rate if the factors leading to the rate increase are no longer present or if they are not being applied when setting the APR for new accounts.
For consumers who experienced a rate hike because of market conditions between January 1, 2009 and February 21, 2010, card issuers must reduce the rate unless the increase can still be justified using the factors currently being applied to determine APRs for new accounts.
The first rate review must be completed by February 22, 2011. A rate review is not required when rates are hiked because of a change in the variable rate or when a promotional rate expires.
“Millions of consumers saw their interest rates jump through the roof in recent years, including many consumers who always paid their bills on time,” said Lauren Bowne, Staff Attorney for Consumers Union. “While the new regulations require a review of rate hikes, they give banks too much leeway that will allow them to continue gouging consumers by keeping high rates in place.”
New Gift Card Protections
In addition to the new credit card protections, the new regulations will help limit fees on gift cards. Under the new regulations, you cannot be charged a fee if you have used your gift card within the past 12 months. If a gift card remains unused for 12 months, gift card issuers can charge only one fee per month. There are no limits on the amount of the fee and you can still be charged a one-time fee for purchasing a gift card.
All funds on gift cards purchased beginning on August 22 cannot expire before five years. Beginning January 31, 2011, gift card issuers will be required to provide consumers with improved disclosures about these protections.
“A gift card shouldn’t lose its value just because a consumer doesn’t use it right away,” said Michelle Jun, Staff Attorney for Consumers Union. “Now consumers won’t have to rush out to use their gift cards just to avoid seeing the value of their gift rapidly disappear.”
Michael McCauley: 415-431-6747, ext 126, or David Butler or Kristina Edmunson: 202-462-6262
]]>WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Under new “opt-in” overdraft rules that go into effect on Sunday, banks will have to get consent from their customers in order to charge fees for debit and ATM overdrafts. The new Federal Reserve rule will provide additional consumer protections, says Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports magazine.
“The days of the $2 cup of coffee that winds up costing you $39 are now over,” said Pam Banks, Senior Policy Counsel for Consumers Union. “This new rule puts the power back in consumers’ pocket books. It means, unless you ask for overdraft protection, your card will be denied if you don’t have enough money. Now your latte may still be expensive, but it won’t end up costing you the price of a pair of shoes.”
Under the new “opt-in” rule, which goes into effect on August 15, banks will no longer allow ATM or debit charges to go through if there is not enough money in the account and the consumer hasn’t given the bank permission. However, if a consumer opts in to overdraft loan programs, the bank will still be able to assess a high fee, which averages $39 per overdraft.
“These new rules mean consumers will finally have control over whether they are enrolled in expensive overdraft loan programs. Your bank can no longer charge you a fee for spending more than you have with your debit card unless you give them permission to allow debit overdrafts,” said Lauren Bowne, Staff Attorney with Consumers Union.
Consumers Union noted that there are cheaper alternatives for consumers who want to allow overdrafts on their debit cards. Most banks allow customers to link checking accounts to a savings account, credit card, or a line of credit. When an overdraft occurs, the bank will automatically transfer money to cover the transaction from the linked account. The FDIC has concluded that the fees assessed for these other types of programs are significantly lower than for automatic overdraft loan programs.
While the opt-in rule provides important protections for consumers, those who do opt for overdraft loan programs may find there are still opportunities for banks to make mischief. A federal judge in California recently ruled that Wells Fargo gouged consumers by manipulating the order in which it processed transactions, which triggered more overdrafts and generated more fees.
Consumers Union had urged the Federal Reserve to address this unfair practice when it was developing the new overdraft regulations but the agency chose not to do so. The consumer group supports legislation introduced in the House and Senate that would prohibit banks from manipulating the processing of transactions to increase overdrafts and provide consumers with additional protections against unfair overdraft policies.
David Butler or Kristina Edmunson - 202-462-6262 or Michael McCauley - 415-431-6747
]]>
Honorable Jay Rockefeller, Chairman
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
U.S. Senate
531 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Honorable Mark Pryor, Chairman
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance
U.S. Senate
255 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
RE: “Data Security and Breach Notification Act of 2010”
Dear Chairman Rockefeller and Chairman Pryor:
We are writing to thank you for your leadership on consumer data security and for your work on the “Data Security and Breach Notification Act of 2010.” We strongly support many of the provisions of the bill, and thank you for your ongoing efforts to provide consumers with increasing control over the way their electronic information is collected, transmitted, and stored.
This legislation represents a significant step forward in the effort to ensure that consumers’ privacy is protected.
We applaud the bill’s notification provisions, which require covered entities to provide notice of security breach within 60 days of the breach. The situations in which a covered entity may exceed this deadline are appropriate and narrowly tailored. The exemption in the bill, allowing covered entities to avoid the bill’s requirements to give notice of breach only as long as there is “no reasonable risk of identity theft, fraud, or other unlawful conduct,” is also narrowly tailored, although we note that a stronger breach standard is already in place in several large states.
We also support the bill’s definition of “personally identifiable information,” which
includes not only an individual’s name, in combination with one data element from the listed categories, but also an individual’s address or phone number, combined with one of the listed data categories. We believe including address and phone number is important due to the use of reverse search directories, which can reveal an individual’s name as long as an address or phone number is provided.
We are particularly pleased that the bill includes a focus on the activities of information brokers, defined as commercial entities whose business is to collect, assemble, or maintain personal information concerning individuals with the purpose of selling such information to unaffiliated third parties. The provisions requiring information brokers to submit their security policies to the FTC, as well to undergo a potential FTC post-breach audit, are particularly strong.
In addition, we support the provision instructing the FTC to promulgate regulations that would require information brokers to keep an audit log of all accessed and transmitted information.
These requirements give the Commission the tools necessary to monitor compliance and enforce the goals of this bill.
The prohibition on pretexting by information brokers is another important segment of the bill. Information brokers should never be able to obtain any personally identifiable information from consumers through unlawful or deceptive practices, and they should not be able to use other individuals to obtain information in this manner.
The provision allowing state Attorneys General and other state officials to bring civil actions on behalf of the residents of the State when there is reason to believe that the requirements of the bill have been breached is yet another strong feature of the bill. This provision increases the likelihood that non-compliant entities will be held responsible for the consequences of their data security practices, and will be required to pay restitution and damages to individuals harmed by their actions.
There are additional ways in which the bill could further secure computerized sensitive consumer personal information. For example, the bill could establish incentives for covered entities to minimize data collection and to destroy personal data after a specified period of time.
We would also like to note that some state laws go further in protecting consumer data security. As a result, we caution against including too much state pre-emption in the bill. The bill as currently drafted does preempt state laws to some degree, but we appreciate that it is reasonably narrowly tailored.
We would like to thank you again for your work on consumer privacy issues, and hope to work together with you in support of consumer privacy legislation.
Regards,
Ioana Rusu
Consumers Union
But for all of you, who have considered opting into these programs, BEWARE. The new rule did not address the fact that banks often manipulate the order that transactions process (clearing them from highest to lowest) to maximize the number of overdrafts and fees that customers incur. If you opt in, you are not protected from this practice.
We’ve been screaming about this for a long time. We asked the Fed to ban this practice in its rule and it flatly refused. There have been bills introduced in Congress that would address this unfair practice, but they have not yet moved. And the banks’ respond in the same way by claiming that consumers want their transactions approved from high to low to ensure their important bills get paid first. Well think again…
On Tuesday, a district court judge wrote a scathing decision which found that Wells Fargo “acted in bad faith” by clearing transactions in a way which generated more fees and revenue at the expense of depositors. Here are some of the best quotes which do a wonderful job of summing up the decision:
“…this order finds that gouging and profiteering were Wells Fargo’s true motivations…”
“…no credible evidence was presented at trial to support the bank’s argument that high-to-low resequencing was deployed [because] customers wanted or benefitted from it.”
Wells Fargo and other banks always insist that overdrafts are the consumer fault. Consumers need to keep track of their transactions better and be more responsible with their finances. They need to maintain a check register and write down all their transactions. Well this is what the court had to say about that:
“The Court has studied [the Platintiffs] account statements and find that it was impossible for her or anyone else to reconstruct how the bank came up with its number of overdrafts.”
“Even if [the Plaintiff] had meticulously maintained a chronological check register of all her transactions (as Wells Fargo insists that she and other customers should), it could not have accurately reflected or predicted…that she was at risk of incurring four overdraft fees…”
Despite the fact that Wells Fargo has now truly been exposed, with internal memos showing that they gouge their customers, the bank wants to file an appeal. So who knows what’s going to happen with this case. But for now, customers should ignore the solicitations from the bank asking you to opt into overdraft “protection” and go tell your bank to be better than Wells Fargo!! If you want to move your money to a bank that’s better to you, make sure to use our tips.