Everybody who skipped Bank Transfer Day ought to read this New York Times story today on how giant banks are hitting customers with new fees.
Not so long ago, banks had a couple of multibillion-dollar rackets going that hit consumers directly via overdraft charges designed to turn a $2 overdraft into a cascade costing hundreds of dollars or used the debit-card companies’ duopoly power to gouge retailers—costs that retailers, at least in part, passed back onto their own customers.
Congress and the Fed have reformed those practices, costing the banks billions of dollars a year in high-margin revenue. Between the loss of that revenue and the decline in profitability of lending and investing deposits, banks need to make up between $15 and $20 per month from each customer to get back to past levels of profitability, the Times reports. About 60 percent of that is due to revenue lost from overdraft and swipe-fee reform.
Not that banks don’t still make money off checking accounts, despite the impression you may have gotten from the banks and other press coverage. The Times reports that most accounts are still profitable. They’re just not as profitable anymore. Here’s what the banking industry thinks about that:
“They have got to make up the income some place,” said Vernon Hill II, the founder of Commerce Bank whose retail-oriented approach transformed it into a large regional player before it was sold to TD Bank.
But that’s just not true. If past profit margins were inflated by ill-gotten revenue, it stands to reason that margins will settle at a lower number if fees are really transparent. High banking industry profit margins are not a God-given right. In fact, lower margins would be a sign that reform is actually working. Just about everyone but bankers (and even many of them concur) agrees that the financial industry has sucked way too much money out of the economy in the last few decades:

The banks’ skimmed billions subsidized an enormous expansion of their retail footprints in the last decade or so, snapping up the best commercial real estate, pushing up retail rents, and dulling street life. So the Times is good to report that banks are closing branches, which have declined 1.4 percent since 2009. Will the banks retrench even more? I’d like to see a story about that.
Meantime, this quote just about sums it all up on how the big banks think of their customers:
Banks may also be betting that consumers will not notice the quiet creep of existing fees. As Richard K. Davis, U.S. Bancorp’s chief executive, told investors on a recent conference call: “We’ll see if our customers complain and move, or just complain,” he said.
Yeah...
That's it. The banks will just lose money.
And the people that work at the closed branches? Those lost jobs?
Well, we're not talking about those.
In Chittumland, the government can make things run better... Government intervention into markets somehow saves people money.
Here is Realityland... The government can only screw things up. Government intervention always, always, always COSTS money. GOBS of money.
The debit card fees funded a safe and convenient way to spend money - a system that customers loved and that retailers tolerated. Enter the government... And? All screwed up. People pulling their money out of banks to use Walmart's check cashing services. Retailers refusing to take prepaid debit cards... Monthly fees.. Etc...
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 14 Nov 2011 at 07:12 PM
Blah blah blah thieves in Armani suits should rip off their customers and make predatory profits blah blah government should stay out of it blah blah.
Delong was right:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/12/upon-what-meat-hath-our-financial-sector-fed-to-grow-so-great.html
"Moving our economy into FIRE did not create lots of new high-paying middle-class jobs for the modern equivalent of past generations' engineers, technicians, and skilled blue-collar craft and assembly workers. Instead, we appear to have more-or-less doubled the profit margins and the pay of our financiers. The legions of bank clerks and back office workers did not see rapid pay increases nor achieve high incomes. It all went to the top...
Do not get us wrong: we do not hate service industries. But most service industries produce something of value in return for their profits."
But for banks, pain has become their product, and for some, we consumers cannot pay too much for it.
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 14 Nov 2011 at 08:16 PM
Perceived commie problem?
Banks make too much money.
Commie solution?
Get the gubmint to snatch their money.
See how easy?
In Commieland, this actually makes things better for everybody. This snatching of money doesn't cost the economy! It GROWS the economy! The Commie Money Fairy, pleased by the sacrifice to the Commie gods, sprinkles free money from the gubmint on all the "good" people.
In Commieland, people don't pull their money out of banks and give it to Walmart. In Commieland, depositors don't get stuck with fees.. Bank tellers don't get laid off... Shareholders don't lose money... Business don't stop taking prepaid debit cards from low-income buyers... Debit card rewards and incentives programs don't fold... Etc.. Etc.. The "big banks" merely tighten their belts to accept the reduced profits that the commies deem to be "fair" and everything's instantly better for everybody.
In Commieland, the solution is easy! Just stop using that bank that the commies decide is "too big" - that bank you chose to use on your own - and move your money instead to the small local bank that the commies think you should be using instead. Because in Commieland, small local banks never fail.
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 15 Nov 2011 at 02:09 PM
Commieland? Suggesting that people take advantage of smaller banks with better customer service and lower fees is a Commie plot? Sounds like classic free market incentives at work to me.
#4 Posted by Weldon Berger, CJR on Wed 16 Nov 2011 at 01:54 PM