FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Getting Gouged by Banks

The shoe that fits one person pinches another.

Carl Jung, Modern Man in Search of a Soul

It is easy to forget that next to dogs, banks are man’s best friend even though, from time to time, they bite. That was brought to mind this spring when it was reported that some banks in California were ignoring a California law that requires them to notify customers in credit card statements how long it would take to pay off credit card balances if only the minimum monthly payment were made. California was asking banks to put a short notice on credit card statements that would say something like: “If you continue to make the minimum payments on the above balance and the unpaid balance does not increase, this account will be fully paid in 900 months.” (Of course, the number of months will vary from account to account. Some accounts may require many more months before they are paid off depending on the interest rate, the amount owed and the minimum required payment. Banks tend to keep required payments low so that customers can continue to buy happiness with their cards.)

That was not the only disappointing news from banks in 2003. According to a report in the New York Times, at least 1,000 banks are encouraging customers with low balances to overdraw their checking accounts. That practice enables banks to skirt credit laws and collect billions of dollars in new fees from the poor. One consultant advised his bank clients to open branches in supermarkets that had middle to down market customers.

Whereas credit card credit interest charges are typically 20% or less, the overdraft fees can be hundreds of per cent, depending on the size of the overdraft. It is not unusual to find banks that impose a flat fee of $20 to $35 for each overdraft irrespective of its amount. Thus, if a $5 check creates an overdraft and a $35 fee is charged, the interest is 700 per cent on an annual basis. Since the overdraft must usually be repaid within a week or two, the rate is even higher. As bad as that may sound, it’s not being done out of malice.

According to Joe Gillen, CEO of Pinnacle Financial Strategies, which helps banks create the overdraft and other income generating programs: “It allows the consumer to have another alternative to manage their funds.” The program allows them to avoid the inconvenience of bouncing checks. In the old days banks said high overdraft fees were didactic devices that encouraged people to use their checking accounts responsibly to avoid the fees. Today the fees are described as a convenience to customers. They are not without benefit to the banks, however.

Bank fees have increased 24 per cent from 1997 to 2001. Banks will earn $30 billion in A.T.M., bounced-check and overdraft fees this year or 30 per cent of their operating profits. Banks that aggressively market the service generate as much as $150 per account in overdraft fees. Low and middle-income consumers are the ones most likely to pay the fees since they’re the ones most likely to have overdrafts. Nonetheless, news of customer gouging masquerading as institutional benevolence does not prevent the truly compassionate from feeling a touch of sympathy for banks when their own tactics are turned against them.

In early August it was reported that Bill Cooper, CEO of TCF Financial Corp., the parent of TCF bank, thought he was being held up by Visa USA Inc. He reported that Visa plans to gouge banks in a way that can fail to offend only the most insensitive among us, including banks.

Visa has advised TCF that it, and other banks, may have to pay as much as $10 to $20 million if they decide to switch to a competitor such as, for example, Mastercard. The fee is called a “settlement service fee.” Visa has promised to impose the fee on any of its largest check-card issuers whose sale volume drops by more than 10 percent within a year. According to reports, a 10% drop could only happen if a bank were to change its allegiance from one credit card issuer to another and it is such a display of disloyalty that Visa hopes to discourage. Another (but purely incidental) reason it is being imposed is because of a settlement recently entered into by Visa and MasterCard with retailers who successfully claimed that those two companies were charging excessive fees on debit card transactions. Visa is responsible for $2 billion of the $3 billion settlement and in addition to encouraging loyalty, the service fee is designed to protect it should debit card volume decline as a result of the settlement.

TCF is one of Visa’s top debit-card issuers. According to Mr. Cooper, TCF enjoys $4 billion a year in volume from 1.4 million debit cards. The settlement that the debit card issuers entered into will reduce TCF’s debit card fees by $15 million a year. Mr. Cooper does not think the fee is fair. He thinks he should have the freedom to choose. MasterCard agrees. Alan Heuer, a senior executive vice president for that company said: “Restrictions of this nature take away members’ freedom to choose and are inappropriate and antithetical to free markets.”

There is one thing to be said for imposition of the fee. It will help banks develop empathy. Now they know how we feel when we are being gouged by our banking friends. It will probably make them more sensitive.

CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI is a Boulder, Colorado lawyer. He can be reached at: brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu

 

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
William Blum
Anti-Empire Report: Unseen Persons
Lawrence Davidson
Missiles Over Damascus
Patrick Cockburn
The Plight of the Yazidi of Afrin
Pete Dolack
Fooled again? Trump Trade Policy Elevates Corporate Power
Stan Cox
For Climate Mobilization, Look to 1960s Vietnam Before Turning to 1940s America
William Hawes
Global Weirding
Dan Glazebrook
World War is Still in the Cards
Nick Pemberton
In Defense of Cardi B: Beyond Bourgeois PC Culture
Ishmael Reed
Hollywood’s Last Days?
Peter Certo
There Was Nothing Humanitarian About Our Strikes on Syria
Dean Baker
China’s “Currency Devaluation Game”
Ann Garrison
Why Don’t We All Vote to Commit International Crimes?
LEJ Rachell
The Baddest Black Power Artist You Never Heard Of
Lawrence Ware
All Hell Broke Out in Oklahoma
Donny Swanson
Janus v. AFSCME: What’s It All About?
Will Podmore
Brexit and the Windrush Britons
Brian Saady
Boehner’s Marijuana Lobbying is Symptomatic of Special-Interest Problem
Julian Vigo
Google’s Delisting and Censorship of Information
Patrick Walker
Political Dynamite: Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for a People’s Party
Fred Gardner
Medical Board to MDs: Emphasize Dangers of Marijuana
Rob Seimetz
We Must Stand In Solidarity With Eric Reid
Missy Comley Beattie
Remembering Barbara Bush
Wim Laven
Teaching Peace in a Time of Hate
Thomas Knapp
Freedom is Winning in the Encryption Arms Race
Mir Alikhan
There Won’t be Peace in Afghanistan Until There’s Peace in Kashmir
Robert Koehler
Playing War in Syria
Tamara Pearson
US Shootings: Gun Industry Killing More People Overseas
John Feffer
Trump’s Trade War is About Trump Not China
Morris Pearl
Why the Census Shouldn’t Ask About Citizenship
Ralph Nader
Bill Curry on the Move against Public Corruption
Josh Hoxie
Five Tax Myths Debunked
Leslie Mullin
Democratic Space in Adverse Times: Milestone at Haiti’s University of the Aristide Foundation
Louis Proyect
Syria and Neo-McCarthyism
Dean Baker
Finance 202 Meets Economics 101
Abel Cohen
Forget Gun Control, Try Bullet Control
Robert Fantina
“Damascus Time:” An Iranian Movie
David Yearsley
Bach and Taxes
April 19, 2018
Ramzy Baroud
Media Cover-up: Shielding Israel is a Matter of Policy
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail