Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FIRE's 14% Solution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FIRE's 14% Solution

    September 9, 2009

    The Card Game

    Overspending on Debit Cards Is a Boon for Banks

    By RON LIEBER and ANDREW MARTIN

    When Peter Means returned to graduate school after a career as a civil servant, he turned to a debit card to help him spend his money more carefully.

    So he was stunned when his bank charged him seven $34 fees to cover seven purchases when there was not enough cash in his account, notifying him only afterward. He paid $4.14 for a coffee at Starbucks — and a $34 fee. He got the $6.50 student discount at the movie theater — but no discount on the $34 fee. He paid $6.76 at Lowe’s for screws — and yet another $34 fee. All told, he owed $238 in extra charges for just a day’s worth of activity.

    Mr. Means, who is 59 and lives in Colorado, figured employees at his bank, Wells Fargo, would show some mercy since each purchase was less than $12. In addition, a deposit from a few days earlier would have covered everything had it not taken days to clear. But they would not budge.

    Banks and credit unions have long pitched debit cards as a convenient and prudent way to buy. But a growing number are now allowing consumers to exceed their balances — for a price.

    Banks market it as overdraft protection, and the fees it generates have become an important source of income for the banking industry at a time of big losses in other operations. This year alone, banks are expected to bring in $27 billion by covering overdrafts on checking accounts, typically on debit card purchases or checks that exceed a customer’s balance.

    In fact, banks now make more covering overdrafts than they do on penalty fees from credit cards.

    But because consumers use debit cards far more often than credit cards, a cascade of fees can be set off quickly, often for people who are least able to afford it. Some banks further increase their revenue by manipulating the order of a customer’s transactions in a way that causes more of them to incur overdraft fees.

    “Banks will let you overspend on your debit card in a way that is much, much more expensive than almost any credit card,” said Eric Halperin, director of the Washington office of the Center for Responsible Lending.

    Debit has essentially changed into a stealth form of credit, according to critics like him, and three quarters of the nation’s largest banks, except for a few like Citigroup and INGDirect, automatically cover debit and A.T.M. overdrafts.

    Although regulators have warned of abuses since at least 2001, they have done little to curb the explosive growth of overdraft fees. But as a consumer outcry grows, the practice is under attack, and regulators plan to introduce new protections before year’s end. The proposals do not seek to ban overdraft fees altogether. Rather, regulators and lawmakers say they hope to curb abuses and make the fees more fair.

    The Federal Reserve is considering requiring banks to get permission from consumers before enrolling them in overdraft programs, so that consumers like Mr. Means are not caught unaware at the cash register.

    But with so much at stake, the banking industry is intent on holding its ground.

    Bankers say they are merely charging a fee for a convenience that protects consumers from embarrassment, like having a debit card rejected on a dinner date. Ultimately, they add, consumers have responsibility for their own finances.

    “Everyone should know how much they have in their account and manage their funds well to avoid those fees,” said Scott Talbott, chief lobbyist at the Financial Services Roundtable, an advocacy group for large financial institutions.

    Some experts warn that a sharp reduction in overdraft fees could put weakened financial institutions out of business.

    Michael Moebs, an economist who advises banks and credit unions, said Ms. Maloney’s legislation would effectively kill overdraft services, causing an estimated 1,000 banks and 2,000 credit unions to fold within two years. That is because 45 percent of the nation’s banks and credit unions collect more from overdraft services than they make in profits, he said.

    “Will they be able to replace it with another fee?” Mr. Moebs said. “Not immediately and not soon enough.”

    They will certainly try. For instance, some banks have said they might slap a monthly fee of between $10 to $20 on every free checking account. At the moment, people who pay overdraft fees help subsidize the free accounts of those who do not.

    Many of the nation’s banks have found that overdraft fees are easy money.

    According to a 2008 F.D.I.C. study, 41 percent of United States banks have automated overdraft programs; among large banks, the figure was 77 percent. Banks now cover two overdrafts for every one they reject. In all, $27 billion in fee income flows from covering overdrafts from debit card purchases, A.T.M. transactions, checks and automatic payments for bills like utilities; an additional $11.5 billion arrives from bounced checks and other instances in which banks refuse to pay overdrafts, Mr. Moebs said.

    By contrast, penalty fees from credit cards will add up to about $20.5 billion this year, according to R. K. Hammer, a consultant to the credit card industry. For instance, customers incur penalties for paying their bills late or by spending beyond the credit limit the bank has set for them. Banks also make billions in interest from credit cards.

    Most of the overdraft fees are drawn from a small pool of consumers.
    Ninety-three percent of all overdraft charges come from 14 percent of bank customers who exceeded their balances five times or more in a year, the F.D.I.C. found in its survey. Recurrent overdrafts are also more common among lower-income consumers, the study said.

    Advocacy groups say banks are making a fortune because consumers are unaware of the exorbitant costs of overdraft services. And banks, they argue, have an incentive to keep it that way.

    That is what Mr. Means found when he approached his Wells Fargo branch in Fort Collins, Colo., to redress the $238 in fees he was billed. An employee explained that her ability to waive fees had been revoked by the bank because she had refunded fees for too many customers, Mr. Means said she told him.

    Rory Foster, a former branch manager in Illinois, said that Wells Fargo based its compensation for managers in part on overall branch profitability. Fee income, including that from overdrafts, is part of the calculation.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/yo...ef=todayspaper

  • #2
    Re: FIRE's 14% Solution

    Up to half of a bank's revenue that it receives on its deposits can come from overdraft fees. This number comes from me working at and consulting with banking clients for almost 10 years. Used to be that overdraft fees were seen as an embarrassment for a bank given that the fees are punitive and fall on a disproportionate minority of customers. The goal was to attract customers who could bring large balances so you could earn "real" revenue off of the net interest income (i.e. the difference between what you pay for the deposits vs. what you can lend them out for). However, I guess times do change. Seems many banksters have given up all pretense of screwing their customers by stealth and now require them to drop their pants and bend over every time they visit a branch or use any of their products or services. :eek: If the only thing keeping many of these places in business is what they are collecting in overdraft fees, then buh bye and good riddance. Maybe if they had made smarter lending decisions in the first place they could actually still pretend that they like their customers beyond whatever can be sucked from their wallets.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: FIRE's 14% Solution

      Originally posted by bcassill View Post
      Up to half of a bank's revenue that it receives on its deposits can come from overdraft fees.
      I use cash in all my transactions now for multiple reasons. Depending on the situation, I will usually go to the ATM first, and then go out and get what I need (say groceries, gas, etc).

      1) Taking cash out at the ATM puts strains on a bank's currency reserves. If enough people did this, there wouldnt be enough currency in the system and the banks would fail.

      2) You can't spend what you dont have. If you dont have enough cash in your pocket, then you can't buy what you wanted (which helps save money in the long run) and you never have to deal with overdraft fees.

      3) Privacy: You dont have an electronic transaction of everything that you are purchasing. In today's era of consumer theft and fraud, one can pinpoint your movements for weeks at a time just by looking at your debit card transactions.

      4) Better tracking of how much you are spending. When you are physically handing over bills to someone, you are physically counting cash instead of waiting for an approval code. It makes the transaction more "real" in terms of what you are actually spending.
      Every interest bearing loan is mathematically impossible to pay back.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: FIRE's 14% Solution

        Originally posted by bcassill View Post
        Up to half of a bank's revenue that it receives on its deposits can come from overdraft fees. This number comes from me working at and consulting with banking clients for almost 10 years. Used to be that overdraft fees were seen as an embarrassment for a bank given that the fees are punitive and fall on a disproportionate minority of customers. The goal was to attract customers who could bring large balances so you could earn "real" revenue off of the net interest income (i.e. the difference between what you pay for the deposits vs. what you can lend them out for). However, I guess times do change. Seems many banksters have given up all pretense of screwing their customers by stealth and now require them to drop their pants and bend over every time they visit a branch or use any of their products or services. :eek: If the only thing keeping many of these places in business is what they are collecting in overdraft fees, then buh bye and good riddance. Maybe if they had made smarter lending decisions in the first place they could actually still pretend that they like their customers beyond whatever can be sucked from their wallets.
        Your comments frame the transition of banking from a vital lending production economy member to a rentier fee-extraction incubus. Your conclusions are on the mark.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: FIRE's 14% Solution

          I think this is a rewrite of an article that was posted here not to long ago, also from the New York Times.

          And I hate to be the bad guy again, but when it comes to individuals and their debit cards - the problem almost every time is the failure to balance the account.

          It is the bank's fault? Maybe if they misrepresented the availably of a deposit, but almost every article in the msm on this subject sympathizes with the customers that "checks the balance online" instead of balancing an actual checkbook as if that is an excuse for overspending.

          I also only check the balance online and have lived paycheck to paycheck for long segments in the past. Every time I've overdrafted it's been my fault due to a lack of balancing or it was actually done on purpose.

          None of you have ever broke enough to deposit an empty envelope at the ATM with the full intention of paying them back one or two days later?

          Massive overdraft "protection" fees (sounds like the mafia) are the next step in the evolution of the game.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: FIRE's 14% Solution

            Originally posted by babbittd View Post
            Every time I've over-drafted it's been my fault due to a lack of balancing or it was actually done on purpose.
            Debit cards were meant to be different. You try to charge a bottle of wine at the grocery store, but you don't have enough in your account, your card is rejected and you put the wine back and walk out.

            People opted away from credit cards to debit cards so they couldn't live beyond their means and didn't have to balance their checkbooks.

            The fees are ridiculous and should be illegal, and used to be illegal.

            The absurd interest rates and penalties were written into law to bail out banks several recessions ago.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: FIRE's 14% Solution

              Originally posted by babbittd View Post
              And I hate to be the bad guy again, but when it comes to individuals and their debit cards - the problem almost every time is the failure to balance the account.
              The article states that he actually made a deposit, but it took days to be credited to his account. I myself have been in this situation. There was a problem with a check that I had that didnt get deposited in the correct timeframe. The ATM agreement states that if you deposit a check before 4pm, it will be credited the same business day at midnight. Well, I deposited a check to cover some online billpays well before 4pm. Once I saw the check didnt make it in time I tried to call the bank 1) for an explanation and 2) to try and stop some of the billpays I knew were going to overdraft my account.

              The bank summarily informed me that they have no control over deposits and 3rd party checks and also said they couldnt stop the online billpays that had been authorized. That I would have to call the merchant and have them track down the payments before they cashed them. Well I had sent out 4 or 5 bills to various companies (large and small) and it would have been nearly impossible to get ahold of the Accounts Receivables departments for all of them. I couldn't do anything but wait. I got dinged 5 times for $35 (there were 1 or 2 debit transactions in there for like $3.50 or something too). Overall, the bank refunded me 3, but refused the other 2.

              Ever since then I refuse to use debit cards in this way because the banks *will* find a way to screw you regardless if you balance your checkbooks or not. Their whole business model is based on theft (ie fractional reserve banking and loan impossibility), so why would you expect otherwise and contribute your money to this thieving enterprise?
              Every interest bearing loan is mathematically impossible to pay back.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: FIRE's 14% Solution

                Originally posted by ricket View Post
                The article states that he actually made a deposit, but it took days to be credited to his account. I myself have been in this situation. There was a problem with a check that I had that didnt get deposited in the correct timeframe. The ATM agreement states that if you deposit a check before 4pm, it will be credited the same business day at midnight. Well, I deposited a check to cover some online billpays well before 4pm. Once I saw the check didnt make it in time I tried to call the bank 1) for an explanation and 2) to try and stop some of the billpays I knew were going to overdraft my account.

                The bank summarily informed me that they have no control over deposits and 3rd party checks and also said they couldnt stop the online billpays that had been authorized. That I would have to call the merchant and have them track down the payments before they cashed them. Well I had sent out 4 or 5 bills to various companies (large and small) and it would have been nearly impossible to get ahold of the Accounts Receivables departments for all of them. I couldn't do anything but wait. I got dinged 5 times for $35 (there were 1 or 2 debit transactions in there for like $3.50 or something too). Overall, the bank refunded me 3, but refused the other 2.

                Ever since then I refuse to use debit cards in this way because the banks *will* find a way to screw you regardless if you balance your checkbooks or not. Their whole business model is based on theft (ie fractional reserve banking and loan impossibility), so why would you expect otherwise and contribute your money to this thieving enterprise?
                The worst is when a merchant accidentally double charges you for an item and it sends you into overdraft. It's nearly impossible to get it fixed through the bank. I almost always use cash but sometimes you need to use a debit or credit card. Credit card companies aren't much better though with how bills accidentally get lost in the mail.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: FIRE's 14% Solution

                  I still think the easiest thing is to use a credit card and pay it off every month. ;)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: FIRE's 14% Solution

                    My former bank (which shall remain unnamed) tried to charge me £500 in bank charges.

                    As Im a lawyer and come from a country where people are only willing to pick up a fight at a moment's notice, I got into a very long argument with them. I was hostile, extremely extremely rude and completely ruthless with them. I told them that I was a lawyer and I would contest all the charges and if they wanted to see me in Court, they were welcome to sue me. I was more than happy to go to Court and contest every single penny they wanted to charge.

                    In the end we settled all claims for £24. I closed the account and told them I didn't want to do business with scum.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: FIRE's 14% Solution

                      Originally posted by flintlock View Post
                      I still think the easiest thing is to use a credit card and pay it off every month. ;)
                      That is how I operate, and I've never had a problem. But then, I've always had the money available in my bank account to pay the monthly credit card bill.

                      This line from the article stands out to me:

                      Ninety-three percent of all overdraft charges come from 14 percent of bank customers who exceeded their balances five times or more in a year, the F.D.I.C. found in its survey.
                      These are people who cannot manage their money. Of course for most of them that's probably because they are living from meager paycheck to paycheck. I agree with those who feel these fees are excessive and in some cases ethically questionable, and inevitably this income stream seems to be preying on the poor, but at the same time, I don't think we should expect the banks to be charitable towards people who repeatedly spend more than they have in the bank.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: FIRE's 14% Solution

                        Originally posted by Thailandnotes View Post
                        Debit cards were meant to be different. You try to charge a bottle of wine at the grocery store, but you don't have enough in your account, your card is rejected and you put the wine back and walk out.

                        People opted away from credit cards to debit cards so they couldn't live beyond their means and didn't have to balance their checkbooks.

                        The fees are ridiculous and should be illegal, and used to be illegal.

                        The absurd interest rates and penalties were written into law to bail out banks several recessions ago.
                        Exactly... Banks dont seem to understand that if i use a debit card, its bc i made a conscious decision to not use a CC... Don't extend me credit and then charge me loan shark rates and using the "embarrassment" issue as a cover for $40.00 charge for a 6 dollar purchase... If you do offer the extended credit, it better damn well be a well publicized thing and not a fine print issue.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: FIRE's 14% Solution

                          Originally posted by ricket View Post
                          The article states that he actually made a deposit, but it took days to be credited to his account.
                          Yes I mentioned that too, i.e. people with legitimate deposit complaints.

                          And the article goes on, like every other one in the Times on the subject, to talk about customers that lose track of their balances while shopping.

                          Ralph Tornes, who lives in Florida, is pursuing a lawsuit against Bank of America for charging him nearly $500 in overdraft fees in 2008 after it rearranged his purchases from largest to smallest. In May 2008, for instance, Mr. Tornes had $195 in his account when he made two debit purchases for $8 and $13; the bank also processed a bill payment of $256.

                          He claims that Bank of America took his purchases out of chronological order and ran the biggest one through first. So instead of paying $35 for one overdraft fee, he was stuck with three, for a total of $105.
                          Love how that part in bold is written in a way that the reader is supposed to forget that Mr. Tornes, using the bank's software, instructed the bank to process the bill payment.

                          Debit cards were meant to be different. You try to charge a bottle of wine at the grocery store, but you don't have enough in your account, your card is rejected and you put the wine back and walk out.
                          We're going in circles now, but that changed in response to customers that abused the system. Banks realized they could recoup the losses and than some in response to ATM "borrowers" and people that deliberately or just stupidly don't pay attention to their balances.

                          The evolution of the game...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: FIRE's 14% Solution

                            The salient point so well illustrated in the piece, and not made consciously by the Times I would bet, is the fundamental shift in banking from productive lending to fee sucking. bcassill nailed that early in this thread.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: FIRE's 14% Solution

                              Originally posted by Kadriana View Post
                              The worst is when a merchant accidentally double charges you for an item and it sends you into overdraft. It's nearly impossible to get it fixed through the bank. I almost always use cash but sometimes you need to use a debit or credit card. Credit card companies aren't much better though with how bills accidentally get lost in the mail.
                              They do that stuff with online payments and things too. I used to use Discover for the 2% cashback. I guess they got sick of paying me the 2% on transactions without the chance to charge me interest so they "lost" the online payments twice within a few months.

                              Cash is the way to go except I hate having to open a wallet full of $20s to pay for gas with a methed-out lottery player waiting in line behind me.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X