BANK TALK
Exploring the Finances of the Unbanked

MetaBank Concedes: “No RALs in 2011″

December 03rd, 2010

On Thursday afternoon, MetaBank made it official that they will not offer tax-related products for the upcoming tax season.

The OTS issued a directive earlier this year that forced MetaBank to suspend its i-advance loans. The OTS also said that the bank would have to have permission before they could provide tax products like refund anticipation loans (RALs) and refund anticipation checks (RACs).

While it remains possible that the OTS will eventually grant the permission to provide those RACs and RALs, time has run out for the 2011 tax season. In an 8-K released after the bell on Thursday, MetaBank told investors that they would not participate in the upcoming year.

Following these Supervisory Directives, management of MPS has been in discussions with various third parties regarding the structure and fees of tax-related programs which could be submitted to the OTS for approval. In light of requirements imposed on MPS for any proposed programs to be submitted for OTS approval and the timeline for expected OTS review, MPS has concluded that it is unlikely to offer these tax-related programs during the upcoming 2011tax season. MPS has been in discussions with one of its primary program managers of the tax-related programs regarding a mutual agreement to terminate the program agreement for the 2011 tax season. During the pendency of those discussions, that program manager provided MPS its notice of termination on November 30, 2010.

I imagine that the program manager in question is Santa Barbara Tax Products Group. SBTPG has already said that they will not provide RALs this year, but they have been seeking a means to provide refund transfers. The impact of the MetaBank 8-K on SBTPG is purely speculation on my part, though.


Filed under: unbanked | Tags: , ,
December 03rd, 2010 06:39:39

Wells Fargo: Financier to the RAL Business

June 04th, 2010

While BankTalk goes to great length to excoriate (big word!!!) the immediate providers of refund anticipation loan dollars, there are other financial institutions that make RALs possible.

Wells Fargo, for instance, is providing the credit lifeline that keeps Jackson Hewitt in business.  On April 30th of this year, Wells entered into a new definitive material agreement to restructure $200 million of debt to Jackson Hewitt. A key fact, in my mind, is that the loan specifies that Wells’ willingness to finance JTX is dependent upon the RAL business.

A source from a New York investment firm tipped me off on this.  He said that Wells has a (more…)


Filed under: Refund Anticipation Loans,unbanked | Tags: , , , , , ,
June 04th, 2010 10:44:25

Mo’ Money Costs More Money

January 18th, 2010

I  visited Mo’ Money Taxes twice over the weekend.  My conclusion is that Mo’ Money is exactly what it claims to be.  Mo’ Money costs more money.

Indeed, when I went into the Mo’ Money in a strip mall on one of Raleigh’s outer suburbs, the staff was more than able to give me an estimate.  Their estimate was simple and straightforward. Although it was based upon several moving parts (the amount of my refund, the projected cost for the tax prep, and my RAL fees), the preparer seemed both certain and giddy that I’d be better off in short order.

I am not sure why he was so certain.  Indeed, all I had done was bring in a pay-stub from August. That was all they told me that I would need when I called on the phone.  Maybe he was certain because we were in a real office, and he was using a real computer.  He was definitely giddy. He seemed so thrilled to be a part of my sudden fortune.

I could feel the rush. Money was coming my way fast. He made a few mouse clicks, sent a page to his printer, and gave me the good news: Mo’ Money would have a check for me (once I brought in my W-2s) of $2992.85 in no more than 48 hours. It was a bit odd, because this rush of fortune was such a contrast to the placelessness of this office. There were two desks, each with a flat top screen, a few folding chairs, and not much else.  There was only one item adorning the wall: an 8 by 11 sheet of paper with a list of tax prep fees.  The office had a back room. I could see that there was a half gallon of milk sitting out on a shelf, next to a box of envelopes and some Glade.

He pulled the sheet out of the printer and handed it to me.  My one page estimate, which was actually IRS Form 8879 (for IRS E-File Signature Authorization) said that I would get a refund of $3415.  The difference, according to my tax preparer, was ‘fees’?”

“Could you break that down for me,” I asked. “Am I getting a loan? Is that part of those ‘fees’?”

“Yes, he said. “It’s all in there.”

Since “it” was not really an answer that satisfied my need for clarity, I had to push back. That was as close as he could come to explaining my cost structure. I wanted more of answer. He called his co-worker over.  She knew a bit more about how to operate the computers, and it seemed as if she had some experience.  She began to work through some screens. In the silence, my tax prep helper ventured to offer his insight on how I might maximize my situation.

“Let me offer you some advice,” he said. “Don’t file jointly. File on your own.  Jointly is costing you a lot.”

He relaxed in his chair, smiled, and leaned toward me, held his hands together wish his thumb and pinkie extended but his other fingers rolled up against his palms. It was sort of a horizontal “hook-em horns” kind of expression.

“That is my advice.”

Indeed, he pointed out that if I filed on my own, claiming my children and leaving my spouse to cover her income without the benefit of any dependents, then I could walk out with $5021.06! Oh yeah! I could hardly wait! I was going to get Mo’ Money!

Then I realized that this would be incredibly wrong.

It was at that moment when his co-worker summoned us back to the computer screen. She had the answers for me, and although neither one knew how to make the printer print this page, she could show me the specific elements of the costs that would be taken out against my refund. It turned out that my fees for tax prep came to $315. The RAL fee would be $103.  The RAL came with four parts:

  • technology fee ($15)
  • e-file fee ($29)
  • Bank fee ($32)
  • Federal Bank Product Application Fee ($27).

The other costs would be made up by the interest on my RAL.

My intent, I said, was to see where I could get the best deal. Getting price clarity had not been easy.  I find it hard to believe that anyone would go to the trouble to find out how much they paid, especially if they were in a room with twenty other people waiting in line for a chance to work with their tax “advisor.” It took me an hour.

“Tell me about your training,” I asked.

“We finished our training on Dec. 27th,” he said. “I had to get it in before school started.”

Turns out my preparer is a first semester student at a local for-profit technology training institute.  He has a high school degree, four months at a for-profit school, and some over-the-break training session at Mo’ Money.  Gee…if I went to a VITA, couldn’t I get better advice, and for free?

The rest of the cost came from the short-term interest on my loan product. That loan, incidentally, came from Chase.


Filed under: Consumer Finance | Tags: , ,
January 18th, 2010 08:27:29

Mo’ Money Taxes – OMG!

January 14th, 2010

[youtube ]

I can’t make this stuff up.  If you wonder why the IRS  says that it needs to make sure that tax preparers need to meet some kind of professional standard, then look no further.

Mo’ Money Taxes is a medium-sized tax preparation company. They have over 100 locations in the Mid-South. Most of their firms are in Tennessee and Mississippi.  They have 10 locations in North Carolina.  I called an office to see if I could get my money fast. They said it was no problem.  “Bring in your paycheck, we’ll get you an estimate.”

The staffer in Raleigh indicated that they partner with Chase for their tax refund anticipation loans.

I saw a reference to the Household hotline for loans. That would suggest Household Finance, a division of HSBC. In 2007, the Commercial-Appeal said the same thing: “Mo’ Money’s is HSBC.”  HSBC is the partner with H&R Block for Block’s refund anticipation lending. Block has kept its RAL prices relatively low. This year, they are charging a handling fee of $29.95 for each RAL.

That is not the case with Mo’ Money, where RALs cost more money. HSBC says that a $3,000 RAL would come with a $62 fee.  NOTE: Chase is the partner for Mo’ Money. HSBC could have been the partner in 2007, as the Commercial-Appeal suggests, but they are no longer providing funds for RALs offered at Mo’ Money. Just to be sure, I went to a second Mo’ Money Store on Saturday. It was Chase there, as well.

[youtube nolink]

Hard to believe.  These ads should provoke some problems. Guess what? They are winning awards. Indeed, the Memphis Commercial-Appeal reports that Mo Money Taxes have won awards for their advertising. In 2004, they won a Telly (like Oscars, but for television advertisement) for their Dukes of Hazard-themed ad.

It would be hard to ignore how this makes a statement on race.

[youtube nolink]

In these advertisements, there is no claim to the quality of the tax prep. The main reason to go to Mo’ Money is to get your cash in 24 hours.


Filed under: Consumer Finance | Tags: , ,
January 14th, 2010 12:52:28

OCC Turns Off RAL Spigot at Pacific Capital

December 30th, 2009

Mainstream tax prep customers will be less likely to use a refund anticipation loan this year, an outcome that reflects a new awareness by regulators at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Perhaps it was meant to stay under the public radar, or maybe it was just a gift to the consumer advocates that have fought this battle, but PCBC announced the OCC’s instruction on Christmas Eve in a short 8-K.

This is very good news.  Pacific Capital, a Santa Barbara bank that operates Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, announced in a filing on December 24th that the OCC had asked it to cease its tax refund business. I get a kick out of how the people at Pacific Capital tried to spin this event:

  • “It will help return Pacific Capital Bancorp to its roots of being a pure community bank….” George Leis, CEO
  • “The tax refund loan business is a sort of niche business that falls outside of what would be considered core banking operations…” Tony Rossi, spokesman, PCBC

This spells big trouble for Jackson Hewitt, a national tax prep chain that was counting on Pacific Capital to fund at least part of its RAL activity in the upcoming tax season. Jackson Hewitt shares immediately fell by 25 percent. JTX has made some plans for alternative partnerships with Iowa’s MetaBank.  However, MetaBank is a small institution. It can fund RALs, and it will provide a loan product in tandem with any RALs that Jackson Hewitt offers, but it cannot replace Pacific Capital.

The OCC had meetings with advocates in December about the ongoing RAL program at PCBC.

Not all good news

This would be a great victory for consumers, except that it is not. Pacific Capital is going to sell its tax refund business. A few stories indicate that the new owner will be a private equity firm.  Pacific Capital released an announcement to that effect, promising that the sale would go through within one week.  This is incredibly problematic. Moving to a private equity framework will mean that there is even less supervision of this activity.  The OCC had an ability to put a stop to RALs at PCBC. No one except the private equity firm’s investors will have a say about what happens to the business if this sale goes through.


Filed under: Consumer Finance | Tags: , , , , ,
December 30th, 2009 07:07:37