On 22nd December 2011, we purchased petrol worth Rs.100 from an Indian Oil fueling station in Bombay using an ICICI Bank debit card. The receipt suggested that we could have saved a fuel surcharge of 2.5% had we used an Indian Oil Citibank credit card. Upon seeing this message, we asked the cashier at the petrol pump if we would be charged 2.5% over and above the Rs.100 that we paid for the fuel. The cashier assured us that only Rs.100 would be debited from the account linked to the card. The chargeslip and the receipt were:

The chargeslip

The receipt

A couple of days later, we viewed the account statement online and found that the relevant transaction had been recorded. A full week later, we observed that an additional charge of Rs.11.03 had been
debited from the account for the same vendor. Not only was the entry unusual, the charge did not match the 2.5% figure which was mentioned on the transaction receipt:

The statement

We wrote to the bank asking them to explain the transaction. The bank explained that for fuel purchased at non-HPCL petrol pumps, a surcharge of 2.5% of the fuel cost or Rs.10 (whichever is higher) would be levied. A service tax would be levied additionally.

There is a consumer protection issue here. After the account had been debited, and up until we sought a clarification from the bank, we were not made aware of the surcharge. The chargeslip gave a false impression of the amount being paid.

Upon delving further, we find various websites where people have complained about this surcharge being confusing. Further investigation revealed an interesting combination of participants:

1. The surcharge on fuel is mentioned in the fine print in Terms and Conditions of a debit card.
2. The bank that deploys the POS machine (acquiring bank being Citibank in our example), at the end of day, surcharges the higher of 2.5% or Rs.10 and sends it to the customer’s bank (issuer bank being ICICI Bank in this case).
3. The issuing bank then creates a separate debit in the customer’s account for the surcharge
4. The acquiring bank shares much of this surcharge back to Oil Marketing Company (Indian Oil in this example).
5. Contrast this with typical debit card processing fees in India around 1.5%. In most cases, merchants will inform a customer before surcharging, and the value on the chargeslip is what the
   customer pays.
6. Many banks apply these surcharges weeks or months after the transaction actually occurs, which helps ensure that most customers do not understand what is going on.

When paying for fuel in India with a debit card, the customer pays the surcharge by being misled, the Oil Marketing Company makes higher profits, the charge is administered in a non-transparent way, and is posted late when the customer may not even recall the
transaction. Thus, Government owned companies and banks have created a perverse incentive, whereby customers prefer to use cash rather than pay electronically.

For people that would like to have the convenience of a credit card, but are unable to obtain one due to the reasons listed above, or don’t want to have additional credit shown on your credit report, prepaid debit cards like the Green Dot card are an excellent choice.  They offer many of the same consumer protections as credit cards, like the ability to use the card at any place where Visa and Mastercard are accepted, protection for your balance if the card is lost or stolen, and the ability to use the card without paying any fees.  They also can provide the same benefits as debit cards, like no-fee cash withdrawals at in-network ATMs, and the fact that you can’t charge more than the amount of money you have on the card, preventing the temptation to get into debt.

Another group that can benefit from the use of pre-paid debit cards is parents.  It is easy to load an allowance on a pre-paid debit card for a teen or college student without having to worry about whether they will overspend and put themselves into debt, or lose track of how much money is left in their account and rack up numerous overdraft charges, which can cost over $25.00 each. Setting up a pre-paid debit card with a recurring direct deposit allows a person to automatically provide a fixed amount of cash to a child, ensuring that they have access to enough money to spend without worrying about the downsides of using traditional credit or debit cards.

So, whether you are unable to obtain a credit or debit card due to changes in the financial sector, you are unwilling to jump through the hoops put in place by banks and credit card providers to obtain a card, or you want to provide a fixed amount of money for a specific purpose without having to monitor an account for activity, a pre-paid debit card could be for you.

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

While there are advantages to the consumer in 2010, the act may also adversely affect the economy, according to some analysts. However, conclusions are anything but cut and dried. For those that need a little more information, here are some details about the way the first serious credit card reform in history may affect you—and the economy at large—in 2010 and beyond.

WHAT IS H.R. 627 – THE CREDIT CARD ACT OF 2009

H.R. 3639 The Expedited Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2009, also known as H.R. 627 The Credit CARD Act of 2009, will dramatically affect regulations on credit cards beginning in 2010. The act aims to improve transparency between credit card companies and the American public, many of whom hold credit cards, under what the government calls an “open-end consumer credit plan.”

The act requires first and foremost for credit card companies to give consumers a month and a half (45 days) of notice if any increases in interest rates are going to be enacted. It also gives card owners the right to cancel their credit cards and pay any outstanding balances once these hikes are enacted.

Credit card companies are prohibited from retroactively increasing their interest rates for cardholders in good standing with the company, and the act does not allow credit card companies to arbitrarily change their agreement with cardholders. Finally, the act prevents companies from imposing unfair or excessive fees on cardholders, which will likely effect those with subprime and secured credit cards.

In summary, the bipartisan measure is meant to protect cardholders from unfair or unclear actions on the part of credit card companies and the big banks like Bank of America (BAC), JP Morgan Chase (JPM), Citigroup (C), Wells Fargo (WFC), and etc. along with their nefarious cohort Visa (V).

POSITIVE EFFECTS OF H.R. 627

It is no secret that some credit card companies and big banks have been acting unfairly for years, like Monex, and that the fees they collect from the general public are not clear and reasonable. Unfair fees and interest adjustments have been banned, meaning that consumers will be given information on how credit card companies are changing their terms at least 45 days in advance.

“Overdraft” coverage will also be opt-in instead of opt-out, which means that over limit charges may not be incurred automatically due to consumer unawareness, and that the card may be denied if you are over the limit and this may have a positive effect with credit cards and identification with potential credit report issues.

The terminology of credit card companies must be made clear in advance, with promotions being disclosed in plain and simple language, and terms that do not change during the first year of a contract. Terms of credit cards marketed to youths and college students must be plainly stated by both the company and the university. Finally, fees may not be placed on store credit cards and gift cards which have not been used for a period of time.

NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF H.R. 627

Unfortunately, as with any piece of legislation the CARD act is not without its drawbacks. The reason that companies are able to keep interest rates so low is that they are not accountable to a governing body for the terms of the contracts and promotions that they use to entice customers. Under the credit card act, it is likely that interest rates will rise substantially. This will make new credit cards unobtainable for many individuals with poor or no credit.

No-fee credit cards will likely disappear as a result, and credit score checks, especially on the best credit cards, will probably become stricter, limiting the number of individuals who can apply for new cards. Although many Americans expect a freeze on interest rates until the act takes effect, most credit card companies will continue to raise rates until they are prohibited by law.

The result may be a slowing economy—many individuals expect to buy and borrow on credit; if they cannot, they will not buy at all. Without consumer purchases stimulating economy, the slump could last longer and consumers could end up frustrated with the lack of options. Less spending means less stimulus, and less spending may be the result of the act.  This is a good example of credit contraction.

IMPACT ON BANK EARNINGS

Andrew Martin of The New York Times recently wrote an extremely high quality article about the ginormous fees Visa (V) charges and nefarious practices in the credit card industry between Visa, Mastercard and the banks.  He wrote:

Competition, of course, usually forces prices lower. But for payment networks like Visa and MasterCard, competition in the card business is more about winning over banks that actually issue the cards than consumers who use them. Visa and MasterCard set the fees that merchants must pay the cardholder’s bank. And higher fees mean higher profits for banks, even if it means that merchants shift the cost to consumers.

Seizing on this odd twist, Visa enticed banks to embrace signature debit — the higher-priced method of handling debit cards — and turned over the fees to banks as an incentive to issue more Visa cards. At least initially, MasterCard and other rivals promoted PIN debit instead.

As debit cards became the preferred plastic in American wallets, Visa has turned its attention to PIN debit too and increased its market share even more. And it has succeeded — not by lowering the fees that merchants pay, but often by pushing them up, making its bank customers happier.

In an effort to catch up, MasterCard and other rivals eventually raised fees on debit cards too, sometimes higher than Visa, to try to woo bank customers back.

“What we witnessed was truly a perverse form of competition,” said Ronald Congemi, the former chief executive of Star Systems, one of the regional PIN-based networks that has struggled to compete with Visa. “They competed on the basis of raising prices. What other industry do you know that gets away with that?”

Visa has managed to dominate the debit landscape despite more than a decade of litigation and antitrust investigations into high fees and anticompetitive behavior, including a settlement in 2003 in which Visa paid $2 billion that some predicted would inject more competition into the debit industry.

The Visa, Mastercard and the big banks like Bank of America, Citigroup, etc. are profiting tremendously while charging outrageous fees to merchants and consumers.  The populist call is to “Starve the vampire squids!” and that is precisely what this legislation is intended to do.  But legislation has an interesting way of working unintended consequences.

This act will likely contribute to a decline in fees and profits for the large banks like Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, etc. while also increasing their exposure to credit risk with debtors that are carrying balances and interest rate risk by not being able to maneuver as efficiently in response to interest rate increases by the Federal Reserve.  According to Bloomberg Wells Fargo already raised rates while sacrificing about $1B on a bet that interest rates will rise.

CONCLUSION

The banking industry and credit card companies are facing a public relations nightmare; after all, they get to privatize the gains with massive bonuses while socializing the losses through multi-billion dollar bailouts.  Matt Taibbi described it best:

The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.

H.R. 627 and H.R. 3639 are intended to be the Nanny State coddling the American public and protecting them from the evil big banks.  But this type of legislation will most likely have unintended consequences such as raising the cost of credit, decreasing its availability and preventing the savers, not that there are any real savers and producers in the economy anymore as they have all left for Galt’s Gulch, from being able to efficiently allocate their capital to the entrepreneur.

While I am no fan of the big banks and their vampire squid blood funnel there is an easier way to blunt their beak and starve them while at the same time providing a sound foundation for the American economy: buy gold, silver or platinum, use them as currency and pass H.R. 4248 The Free Competition In Currency Act of 2009 which would repeal the capital gains on the precious metals that is the major deterrent to their circulating as currency in ordinary daily transactions.

DISCLOSURES: Long physical gold and silver with no interest in BAC, JPM, WFC, C, V or the problematic SLV, Streettracks Gold ETF Trust Shares or the platinum ETFs.

Those two solvent, reputable, dare I say creditworthy institutions Bank of America and Citi are reportedly

starting to charge fees to reliable customers in response to a slew of new credit card industry regulations that will limit when banks can hike interest rates. Cardholders who get a new annual fee notice in the mail will be in a no-win situation.

“They can either pay that fee or they can close the account, and if they have had the account for a while and they close it, they are potentially going to hurt their credit card score,” said Woolsey (Director of Consumer Research at CreditCards.com).

This response to government intervention provides great insight into the problems with regulations the government claims will help the consumer. By preventing banks from increasing their rates in response to a lack of creditworthy borrowers in the markets, those who have proved creditworthy customers over time will be forced to subsidize those less reliable to make up the difference, proving yet again that there is no such thing as a free lunch. We could examine the further consequences for the macroeconomy of these creditworthy people being incentivized to become less creditworthy or if nothing else losing purchasing power as a result of this policy, but the above synopsis should do.

This policy reflects what happens every time the government tries to set prices – in this case the price of credit. Some people are aided, while others lose as a consequence. Further, as with the way in which government seems to favor the debtor over the creditor today, here the less responsible is favored over the more responsible. Adding insult to injury, the more responsible cardholder must subsidize the less responsible one. In essence, this is the basis of the welfare state. Those who generate more wealth must have a significant percentage of it expropriated to help out those who do not create as much wealth. We can argue over whether wealth generators are more responsible than the indigent, but I think you understand my point.

As I have mentioned before though, this liberal system in the end devours itself. First, it is economically unsustainable. At some point, those continually forced to subsidize the reckless and feckless will either go broke or go Galt. As a consequence, so too will the whole system (go broke that is). Second, from a moral perspective, the values engendered in rewarding people for being unproductive and penalizing those who create will pervert society, leading to its malaise.

As I have harped on continually here, the problem with the development of a capitalist system is that if not constantly fought for on both economic and perhaps more importantly moral grounds, it ends up sowing the seeds of its own destruction. Wealth begets wealth until it begets redistribution of wealth. Redistribution of wealth destroys the mechanisms that create it in the first place and weakens the moral fiber of a society. Much like organisms in nature that grow beautiful and strong only to decay in old age, capitalism seems to grow great only to end in grief.

Tax the rich
Feed the poor
Til’ there are no, rich no more

The 777 point plunge in the Dow Jones Industrial Average after the defeat of the House $700 billion rescue package was dramatic and scary. By most accounts, about $1 trillion was lost in a single afternoon. I personally lost a quarter of my 401(k). The very next day, however, more than half of that loss was recouped on the mere hope that some kind of bill would in fact pass by the end of the week, even though it was impossible to know what kind of bill that might be.

Meanwhile, radio talk shows were busy interviewing everyone who had ever held any kind of opinion about anything related to finance, and some of it was not just misleading, it was nuts.

For instance, at one point I heard the crisis described as something that would “…make it harder for people to get car loans and would also cause small businesses to have to use their credit cards instead of lines of credit with their banks.” At the other end of the spectrum was a semi-hysterical comment by a cable news pundit who said, “People want to know if they will be able to use their ATMs by the end of the week!”

Both of these remarks are misleading.

First of all, the ATM issue is not an issue. Sometimes ATMs don’t work even when there isn’t a credit crisis. The things actually run out of money sometimes, often on Sundays, and on top of that they are subject to computer software glitches, mechanical breakdowns, and all sorts of other gremlins that are just part of life. Stuff happens with ATMs, and the credit crisis is not the kind of “stuff” that happens to them. It’s not related at all. You have no more reason to worry about your favorite ATM now, this week, than you ever have.

So calm down.

The other remark is just as misleading though. If auto loans are harder to get and business trips are put off, that’s bad for the economy, certainly. But explaining the credit crunch this way gives the impression that it is something that will just make people tighten their belts a bit, and tightening our belts is something that the overwhelming majority of us feel is long overdue and probably a good thing. I have noticed a real effort on the part of the media not to scare people. Fine. But let’s be honest at least.

The real scare with a credit crunch has nothing to do with your purchasing habits and everything to do with the fact that so many businesses, including big banks, run on short term credit. By short term I mean a day, a week, sometimes a month. A business needs this credit to even out cash flow so it can function properly. So, for instance, the garden center where you work as a clerk probably makes about 80% of its money in May and June. The rest of the year, your paycheck is likely written on a line of credit from the bank. This is true of many businesses, especially retail and construction. Profit is not spread evenly over twelve months.

Free flowing credit is good for business because, over the course of a year, if a business still makes lots of money during that May and June flower frenzy, they will turn a profit and stay current on their short term lines. The bank stays happy, the business stays happy, and you stay employed and get paid in checks that don’t bounce. You take those good checks to your bank and spend the money on stuff, and the world goes round and round like it should.

When credit gets too tight, it’s like throwing a wrench into the gears of that whole system, and commerce grinds to a halt. When commerce grinds to a halt we get a recession, or worse.

That is the fear that is behind the current attempt to “rescue” the U.S. financial system fast, but it is just abstract enough to be a non-issue for the average person. We all see that DJIA looping up and down like an out-of-control hang glider, and we think, that’s nuts. Those guys deserve to fail.

What is harder to understand is that, if those guys fail, they will retire to their homes in Martha’s Vineyard and Connecticut and Vale, and we will lose our jobs and wait in line to buy milk because, if you don’t buy it on the day it comes in, you don’t get any.

I believe that the truth is that that might happen anyway, no matter what Congress does or doesn’t do. But I also think part of the problem right now is the complexity of the situation and opaque nature of the mess our economy is currently in. The stock market is only the thermometer, and it seems to be a broken thermometer at that: One that works sometimes and other times seems completely, psychotically detached from any day-to-day reality.

The excesses of the financial world and the real estate bubble have left us with a loss of trust in our leaders and our business, and they in turn have all lost trust in each other. Nothing good happens financially in an environment in which there is no trust, and once lost, trust is a very hard commodity to lay one’s hands on.

So it’s no wonder that the American people are overwhelmingly against any government intervention in this historic economic mess. What is frightening is that by the time people do realize that this mess is going to hit them personally, and hit them hard, it may well be too late.

]]> http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2008/10/08/whats-a-credit-crunch-and-why-should-we-care/feed/ 3 http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2008/08/29/fdic-adds-twenty-seven-more-banks-to-troubled-list/ http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2008/08/29/fdic-adds-twenty-seven-more-banks-to-troubled-list/#comments Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:02:20 +0000 Evelyn Black http://www.amateureconomists.com/blogs/?p=250 On August 26, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation increased the number of banks it considers in danger of failure from 90 to 117 and responded indirectly to concerns about its ability to insure money on deposit at retail banking institutions. The FDIC is considering increasing the fee it charges retail banks to insure their . . . → Read More: FDIC Adds Twenty-Seven More Banks to “Troubled” List]]> On August 26, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation increased the number of banks it considers in danger of failure from 90 to 117 and responded indirectly to concerns about its ability to insure money on deposit at retail banking institutions. The FDIC is considering increasing the fee it charges retail banks to insure their deposits to 14 cents for every 100 dollars of insured deposit money this October. A serious fight from the banking industry is expected since banks are already struggling to survive. The fee increase could not come at a worse time for them, and yet without functional FDIC deposit insurance, bank runs become all too likely all over again.

In the immediate aftermath of the recent failure of IndyMac Bank in California, FDIC officials were all over the media assuring a skittish public that the situation was well in hand and that the number of banks on the troubled list is actually lower than it was in the 1990s. What was not said, possibly because it defeated the whole point of going on TV to reassure the public, was that the size and scope of the banks currently facing failure is far beyond anything the FDIC has had to face since the Depression.

IndyMac was the third largest bank failure in history, and it is but one of a large number of major regional banks that are currently struggling to stay above water. Earnings at banks and thrifts declined a whopping 86% from April to June and are currently down to $4.96 billion from $36.8 billion only a year earlier. At the same time, the credit crisis appears to be spreading to lending products that were not really of concern only six months to a year ago. Credit cards, auto loans, and other types of retail consumer debt are beginning to go into default a higher and higher rates, and already institutions are experiencing a rapid increase in late payments.

Small business credit lines, which insure the smooth operation of daily life in many cities, are already getting much tighter as underwriting departments react to a steady drop in the value of business capital due to the housing crisis. While it is true that more homes sold this July than expected, the drop in housing values for June was the largest on record. Many of those sales were “short sales” on foreclosures.

As home prices continue to plummet, both personal and small business customers have fewer and fewer options for securing needed credit. Already many homeowners are “upside down” on their mortgages; that is, they own more on their homes than their homes are currently worth. When this happens to customers who have home equity lines at retail banks, the lines are frozen and credit is no longer available.

Sadly, many customers are tapping their unsecured credit cards to fill the gap and are consequently having a harder and harder time managing those payments now too. The high cost of gasoline and the rise in foreclosures has also resulted in an increase in voluntary defaults on auto loans. Banks don’t really want or need a wave of people calling in to “give back” their SUVs right now since, with gasoline still closer to $4 a gallon than $3, those vehicles are incredibly hard to sell at any price.

Many analysts fear a second huge waive of defaults on credit cards, HELOCs, and auto loans that will hit banks harder than they can stand to be hit right now. The FDIC currently provides up to $100,000 per customer in insurance for checking and savings accounts and up to $200,000 for married couples, per financial institution. However, much of that promise depends on the FDIC never having to actually deliver on that promise in a truly huge way.

Even in the wake of the single IndyMac failure, some multinational banks were refusing to cash checks issued by the FDIC on IndyMac acccounts, putting extensive holds on the deposited items or refusing them altogether, hoping to shuffle these customers off to another bank before anything went to court. It’s hard to imagine the chaos that might be caused by multiple simultaneous bank failures, so we don’t see a lot of open discussion about that possibility.

That lack of discussion doesn’t mean the possibility isn’t out there, it just means the topic of simultaneous multiple bank failures has become “the elephant in the living room.” Banks, federal regulators, and some customers see the danger quite clearly, but no one knows quite what to do about it. Add to that the concern about not causing panic and you have a truly uncomfortable situation for all concerned.

The financial crisis that has gripped the U.S. since last November as the subprime loan mess began to hit full force has been like that all along: a series of choices between difficult options both of which might have major negative consequences. For example, when the Fed cut the interest rate for the funds banks lend each other daily from from 5.25% to 2% over the course of less than a year, it probably saved credit markets from freezing up completely. On the other hand, it almost certainly fueled inflation, which is now at record levels.

If the FDIC draws undue attention to itself by increasing the fee it charges retail banks to insure their customers’ deposits, it will almost surely provoke the very reaction it wants to avoid: runs on the most troubled banks. If the FDIC does not increase this fee, it risks having inadequate resources to actually provide the money for the insured deposits should more banks fail. That’s a devil versus the deep blue sea sort of decision, and right now, there’s really no avoiding it.

The year 2009 promises to be as difficult, if not more difficult, for retail banks and the Federal Reserve as the year 2008 was. At the bottom of the whole mess is a lot of American consumer debt, a huge tremendous amount of debt, much of it probably bad debt, that no one is quite sure how to manage. The economy can’t recover without spending, people can’t spend without credit, and banks really can’t afford to extend any more credit given the current economic conditions.

That’s a recipe for disaster (for the banks at least), but in the long run, if it provokes a broader discussion of debt and the American consumer lifestyle, it might not be such a bad thing. This mess didn’t create itself: a lot of bad decisions at the level of individual people and banks themselves got us into this. I don’t think we can really get out of it without a long, hard discussion of those bad decisions and how to avoid them in the American’s economic future.

In the meantime, if you still have unsecured credit available to you, you may want to pay it down or off as soon as possible. Already major banks are slashing credit limits even on good customers in anticipation of further problems. If you have $5000 charged on a card with a $10,000 limit and your limit is reduced suddenly to $5100, your credit score instantly plummets, making it harder for you to get a mortgage or conventional secured loan.

All of which puts the banks into one of those lose/lose situations too: reduce unsecured lending and banks reduce credit card losses but also credit card profits, right at a time when profit is dropping like an SUV off a Minneapolis bridge.

One last thought: if you’re losing your house, now might not be the best time to sleep under a bridge either.