Wells Fargo’s hopes that a $142 million June

The New York Times broke the story after obtaining an internal audit that showed more than 800,000 people who took out vehicle loans from the San Francisco-based banking giant “were charged for auto insurance they did not need, and some of them are still paying for it … . The expense of the unneeded insurance, which covered collision damage, pushed roughly 274,000 Wells Fargo customers into delinquency and resulted in almost 25,000 wrongful vehicle repossessions.”

Wells Fargo executives interviewed by the Times vowed to fully reimburse anyone adversely affected by its policy, but another class-action lawsuit with a massive payout seems likely. While bank executives suggested they deserved credit for having “self-identified” the problem, the size of the scandal seems likely to have a far-reaching effect on a company that has gone from being a stock analyst darling for its considerable long-term growth to a symbol of a banking industry seen as villainous by many Americans for its role in the economic meltdown that began in 2007.

In the previous scandal, besides the class-action payout, the company was fined $185 million by federal regulators in September 2016. CEO John Stumpf abruptly resigned soon afterward, voluntarily giving up $41 million in bonuses he was scheduled to receive.

Wells Fargo initially appeared to have shrugged off the scandal. While its stock price fell under $44 after Stumpf left, it topped $59 in March. Its market value remained well north of $250 billion, its profits were strong and it had a significant presence in all 50 states, employing nearly 270,000 workers.

Of late, however, Wall Street has soured on the company – even before the new scandal emerged. On July 21, CNBC reported a respected analyst predicted a more than 30 percent drop in Wells Fargo’s stock price, then in the $55 range. It plunged 2.6 percent Friday after the Times report came out and is now under $53.

Were wrong workers punished for first scandal?

The new scandal is likely to not only prompt regulators to take close looks at every aspect of Wells Fargo’s business but to re-examine how they dealt with the previous scandal.

Wells Fargo’s CEO may have left, but the company was partially successful in deflecting the idea that the setting up of unwanted new accounts by employees eager to meet quotas was the fault of the employees – not those who set the aggressive quotas. The company fired more than 5,000 mostly low-level workers who had set up the accounts, but the vast majority of managers were unaffected.

This was even though the initial Los Angeles Times investigation in 2013 that broke the scandal depicted the later-fired workers as doing the bidding of their mid-level bosses, who were facing pressure from their top-level bosses – suggesting the wrong people were paying the price for the scandal. The auto loan scandal only adds to the narrative that Wells Fargo’s ethical problems begin from the top down.

The New York Times report on the new scandal said the internal report only looked at “insurance policies sold to Wells customers from January 2012 through July 2016.”

This is likely to prompt calls for regulators and journalists to look back far earlier than 2012. Perhaps the biggest complicating factor in the $142 million settlement of the unwanted accounts scandal was the evidence offered by some plaintiffs’ attorneys that the scandal began in 2002, not 2011. They argued that the high-range estimate of  unwanted accounts created by Wells Fargo agents was far too low and should have been 3.5 million, not 2.1 million.

By Dave Roberts

Proposition 33 is either a common sense way to increase competition in the auto insurance market, thus lowering rates for many drivers, or a ploy to raise rates on those who can least afford to pay. Those were the main arguments in the Prop. 33 debate at last month’s hearing of the joint Assembly/Senate Insurance Committee.

There’s potentially a lot of money at stake if Prop. 33 passes. California had a $21 billion auto insurance market in 2011, accounting for 40 percent of all premiums collected by insurers in the state, according to legislative analyst Jeremy Fraysse. Insurance companies paid about $500 million of that into the state General Fund for the privilege of selling insurance in California.

Since 1988, insurance companies have been regulated by Proposition 103, which requires the state insurance commissioner to review and approve rate changes. Three main factors are considered in rate-setting: the driver’s safety record, the number of miles driven each year and the number of years the person has been driving. There are also 16 other optional rate-setting factors that companies may consider, one of which is a discount for motorists who remain with a company for an extended period of time.

Prop. 33 essentially does one thing: it allows drivers to switch from one insurance company to another and retain their continuous coverage discount with the new company. Currently the discount expires when the driver leaves his insurance company.

The measure also allows the discount to apply to certain motorists who have allowed their insurance to lapse based on the following criteria:

* Anyone whose insurance lapse was not more than 90 days in the previous five years for any reason.

* A lapse of not more than 18 months in the previous five years for those who are employed due to a layoff or furlough.

* Any lapse, regardless of how long, for those in active military service.

The continuous insurance discount could also be provided on a proportional basis based on the number of years in the previous five years that the driver was insured. For example, if a motorist had coverage for three of the past five years he could receive 60 percent of the continuous coverage discount.

The proponents say that Prop. 33 will be a boon to the average motorist looking to save on car insurance.

Discounts

“Consumers love discounts,” said Michael D’Arelli, executive director of the American Agents Alliance. “As an independent agent, I love to be able to pit carriers against each other to drive prices down. Under current law, companies cannot give you a discount for having prior insurance with another company. We think that’s wrong. We think consumers should be rewarded for following the law [requiring auto insurance]. And if they follow the law, they should be offered a discount. Companies should be able to lure you from your current company by offering you something better. We believe in that competition.

“Current law punishes the military. If you lapse your policy for a single day for any reason, you lose the discount. How does that help consumers? We also reached out to children living at home with their parents. Fifty percent of kids graduating from college can’t get work. What happens? They move home with mom and dad. They are probably still on their [family] policy in the first place. When they do leave the nest and get their own policy, under current law they don’t qualify for a persistency discount at all. Our initiative allows them to capture the same discount that the parents are entitled to, giving them a fresh start when they get out on their own.”

Helping the poor

Although opponents criticize Prop. 33 for hurting the poor, D’Arelli argued that many of the poor actually will be helped by the measure. Eighty-five percent of California drivers have auto insurance. About half of the remaining 15 percent have insurance for a while, then let it lapse, he said.

“As an insurance agent, I had a lot of customers who were very low income, and they would come in and pay cash every month dutifully. And often times these customers are making hard choices: Do I pay my auto insurance premium or do I feed my family? It’s understandable that they come in and out of coverage. Those people will be given a proportional discount. We thought we needed to create an inducement for people who have lost their insurance to come back in the marketplace. If they had insurance two of the last five years, they’ll get two-fifths of a discount. Today they get zero. They have no incentive, other than to comply with the law, to get insurance. We wanted to create an incentive for people who are currently uninsured to get service credits for the insurance that they actually did have in the last five years. That’s a marked improvement over current law.”

But the opponents aren’t swayed by that argument. They consider it a smoke screen for what they believe Prop. 33 actually does: remove the ban on insurers from charging higher rates to drivers who have not had insurance coverage.

“This was a specific provision that was a central anti-discrimination provision of Prop. 103,” said Carmen Balber, representing Consumer Watchdog. “Because insurance companies were using that factor alone to deny coverage for drivers or to price them out of the market. What isn’t justified, and what proponents haven’t been able to show, is that there is in fact any sort of reduced risk for drivers simply because of a history of prior insurance coverage.”

Playing the race card

Richard Marcantonio, representing Public Advocates, implied that Prop. 33 is racist.

“The provision in Prop. 103 that Prop. 33 seeks to overturn was put in place to end rampant redlining in many low-income communities of color back in the 1980s,” he said. “And weakening that provision will definitely bring that discrimination back. There are estimated to be 3.5 to 4 million uninsured California drivers. About 50 percent of them live in just two percent of the state’s zip codes, according to a report by the California Department of Insurance. Those are characterized by very low median incomes and by minority populations of 65 percent or greater. So any burden on uninsured drivers as a group is going to fall disproportionately on the lowest income drivers of color.

“Proposition 103 [mandates that] you can’t exclude drivers just because they have previously been uninsured, and you can’t charge them more for that reason. That protection will be lost if Prop. 33 passes. And that is why this is an issue of such great importance to many civil rights groups that remember that history.”

Marcantonio also argued that insurance companies will have to raise rates on the uninsured because they will need to recoup the lost revenue from the discounts they are expanding to continuously insured motorists.

“By expanding the pool of those eligible for the discount, the impact on those two percent of California communities who have long been plagued by this redlining practice is going to be even worse that it would under Prop. 17.”

Prop. 17 was a precursor to Prop. 33, which did not expand the discounts as widely as Prop. 33 and which was rejected by voters.

But Steve Lehmann, an actuarial consultant for the Yes on Prop. 33 campaign, refuted the allegation that insurance companies would have to raise rates on previously uninsured drivers. He said that an insurance company’s lost revenue from expanding discounts for those with prior coverage would be offset by the reduced risk of loss that those motorists provide.

“This company has to go to the California Department of Insurance and file statistics to justify that those people who have a long history of continuous coverage have lower losses and present a lower risk to the insurance company,” he said. “They will have a decrease in their premiums, but they will also have a decrease in their losses to charge those rates.”

That resonated with committee member Sen. Ted Gaines, R-Roseville, who argued that Prop. 33 will actually be fairer to motorists who play by the rules and obtain insurance.

“I think what’s happened as the result of Prop. 103 is that the cost shift has gone to the 85 percent who are insured in order to reduce the rate to the 15 percent who are not,” he said. “Even if the statistical risk is higher for the 15 percent who are not [insured]. If you’ve got a good driving record and are developing a discount that can be proven actuarially as a result of keeping your coverage in effect for periods of time, why shouldn’t you have that ability to shop the market and get the most competitive rate amongst your competition?”

An Oct. 11 California Business Roundtable poll shows Prop. 33 winning handily 54-34 percent with 12 percent unsure.

By Katy Grimes

Should your good driver discount follow you when you change insurance companies? Proposition 33 will allow insurance companies to offer discounts to new customers who can prove they were continuously covered by any licensed auto insurance company over the previous five years. Known as “persistency discounts” and “loyalty discounts,” under current California law, insurance companies can only offer them to existing customers.

Opponents of Prop. 33 say it would raise drivers’ costs by as much as 40 percent.

Currently, when a good driver switches insurance providers, the continuous coverage discount does not follow. This was dictated by Proposition 103, written by Harvey Rosenfeld and passed by voters in 1988, which, according to Balletpedia.org, specifically prohibits insurers “from using the the absence of a prior policy as a factor in rate-setting.”

Prop. 33 would allow for the “transference” of loyalty discounts when customers switch insurance providers, bringing the absence/continuous presence of a policy into direct play as a factor in rate-setting.

Drivers who do not have auto insurance or who have had a lapse in coverage would not be eligible for the loyalty discount, but there are a few exceptions: 

* If the lapse was 90 days or less over the past five years;

* If the lapse was no more than 18 months in the past five years because of unemployment due to layoff or furlough;

* If the lapse was due to active military service.

Prop 33 will not help most people who have had a long break in auto insurance coverage.

Follow the money

George Joseph, the chairman of large insurer Mercury General, is the largest donor to the “yes” on Prop 33 campaign. Joseph and Mercury were behind Proposition 17 in 2010, a similar ballot measure.

Currently, Joseph has given more than $8 million of his own money to the campaign. Along with Joseph, the Del Sol Group, Inc. has given $15,000; Abernathy Insurance Agency has donated $14,000; Calgard Associates has donated $10,000; and Rancho Simi Insurance Agency has donated $10,000.

The “no” on Prop. 33 campaign is being led by Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit organization founded in 1985.

Founded by Rosenfeld in 1985, Consumer Watchdog has had its own public problems, staunchly refusing to reveal who its funders are. According to Democratic political consultant Steve Maviglio,  Consumer Watchdog has been raking in millions of dollars for itself from a “self-serving intervenor fee provision it inserted into a ballot initiative.” Rosenfield wrote the ballot measure from which Maviglio claims he benefits.

Consumer Watchdog was recently exposed as collecting more than $5.6 million in fees from an intervenor program in the California Department of Insurance. “Under Commissioner Dave Jones, who has hitched his political wagon to the group, Consumer Watchdog has been the only group in the state to receive intervenor fees,” Maviglio wrote.

Contributions to the “no” on Prop. 33 campaign are substantial as well:  Consumer Watchdog has donated $40,616, the Campaign for Consumer Rights donated $30,000, Consumer Federation of California donated $17,430, and Los Angeles philanthropist Chic Wolk donated $5,000.

 ‘Yes’ on Prop 33 campaign states:

“California law requires all drivers to buy automobile insurance. Approximately 85 percent of California drivers follow the law and buy insurance. If you follow the law and maintain continuous automobile insurance coverage, you are currently eligible for a discount, but only if you stay with the same insurance company. Current law punishes you for seeking better insurance or trying to get a better deal by taking away your discount for being continuously insured. Prop 33 would correct this to allow drivers to shop for competitive insurance pricing, without losing the good driver discount.

Other points:

* Prop. 33 encourages uninsured drivers to obtain insurance, because it makes it easier for them to earn the continuous coverage discount. This makes our roads safer.

* Prop. 33 will result in more competition between insurance companies, resulting in better insurance rates.

* If you are laid off or furloughed, Prop. 33 allows you to keep your status as a continuously covered driver for up to 18 months.

‘No’ on Prop. 33 campaign states:

* Prop. 33. deregulates the insurance industry, making big insurance companies less accountable.

* Prop. 33 unfairly punishes anyone who stopped driving for a good reason but now needs insurance to get back behind the wheel.

* Prop. 33 raises insurance rates for students completing college who now need to drive to a new job.

* It leads to higher premiums and hurts California’s middle-class families.

* It leads to more uninsured motorists because the financial surcharge applied to those who don’t qualify for the discount discourages people from buying insurance.