ext_90803 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2011-09-30 12:57 pm
badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2011-09-30 12:57 pm
Entry tags:
A Lesson in Unnecessary Regulation
By now, you've probably heard about Bank of America's plan to begin charging $5/month on the customer side for debit card usage. What you probably haven't heard of is why:
This follows many banks ending free checking in large part to the regulations in the Dodd-Frank bill limiting debit overdraft fees. This will likely not be the last time we see banks making more adjustments, either.
Regulations matter. The negative impact of regulatory action when it's not needed only ends up hurting the rest of us in the long run. In a misguided rush by the left to "protect" the population from evil, predatory banks, all you've done is now made it harder for those who you profess to represent and care about the most to use banking services. Congratulations on another job well done.
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Bank of America Corp. (BAC), the largest U.S. bank by assets, plans to charge customers a $5 monthly fee for making debit card purchases starting early next year, according to an internal memo sent to bank executives Thursday.
...
Bank of America is trying to cushion revenue losses it expects to incur from new caps on the fees merchants pay when a customer uses a debit card at their stores. In June, the Federal Reserve Board finalized rules capping such fees at 24 cents per transaction, compared with a current average of 44 cents.
...
Other banks have introduced or are testing new fees in response to the debit fee caps, which stem from a provision known as the Durbin amendment in last year's Dodd-Frank financial regulation overhaul legislation.
This follows many banks ending free checking in large part to the regulations in the Dodd-Frank bill limiting debit overdraft fees. This will likely not be the last time we see banks making more adjustments, either.
Regulations matter. The negative impact of regulatory action when it's not needed only ends up hurting the rest of us in the long run. In a misguided rush by the left to "protect" the population from evil, predatory banks, all you've done is now made it harder for those who you profess to represent and care about the most to use banking services. Congratulations on another job well done.
no subject
Yeah, that was my fault. I'm at work, so I skimmed. Sorry about that.
As for the swipe fees, there was never a need for the government to get involved with it.
Then why did they? What does the government have to gain from doing this? They don't just regulate because they're mad about regulations. Clearly this was intended to help small businesses who get raped by riduculous swipe fees. Even the cap that was placed on them is still a huge difference from the actual cost of a transaction.
such overdraft fees cannot be made any clearer by the banks
Charging someone $39 for going $2 over because they thought a deposit was made to cover it (or any of the other bajillion scenarios) is not fair. Again, why would they regulate this if there wasn't significant demand for such regulations?
When the market is allowed to work, yes.
This is how the market works. It works both ways. The people, via their representatives, have a say as well. That's how capitalism has always worked. There's no such thing as a pure free market, and there likely never will be.
Edit: It's been suggested that this move was meant to change consumer behavior away from debit to credit, since these regulations don't apply to that. People have been moving away from credit for years. The simple workaround is switch to your credit card, and pay off the balance before interest accrues.
no subject
The politicians want to look like they're fighting for the little guy.
They don't just regulate because they're mad about regulations. Clearly this was intended to help small businesses who get raped by riduculous swipe fees. Even the cap that was placed on them is still a huge difference from the actual cost of a transaction.
Right, and it was a foolish, foolish move that clearly was not considered in a significant way. The pro-regulation folks are not so much concerned about what might happen if they enact a regulation, they're only concerned at solving a problem in a vacuum.
Charging someone $39 for going $2 over because they thought a deposit was made to cover it (or any of the other bajillion scenarios) is not fair. Again, why would they regulate this if there wasn't significant demand for such regulations?
I was unaware of any real demand. Even significant demand does not make a need for a regulation exist.
I also disagree that it's unfair to hold people to an agreed-upon result. Just like people can leave BoA now for the debit fee, nothing forced them to take a debit card to begin with.
This is how the market works. It works both ways. The people, via their representatives, have a say as well. That's how capitalism has always worked. There's no such thing as a pure free market, and there likely never will be.
Accepting for the sake of argument, when is the pendulum going to shift back away from the government, then? If it's simply government v. business, where do individuals fit into the role? Why have a marketplace at all?
The simple workaround is switch to your credit card, and pay off the balance before interest accrues.
Which is likely what I'll do if my bank goes along with this nonsense.
no subject
That's part of the problem, though. It wasn't always agreed upon. Many people were opted in to "overdraft protection" programs without their consent. These are the programs that would automatically charge $25 to $40 for even the smallest of overdrafts. Dodd-Frank requires these programs to be opted-in by the consumer now. According to the Federal Reserve, there were enough complaints to warrant this regulation.
when is the pendulum going to shift back away from the government, then? If it's simply government v. business, where do individuals fit into the role? Why have a marketplace at all?
I think this is an overreaction. The pendulum was very much on the side of the banks. If anything, it's more balanced now.
Also, it's not "government v. business", it's "consumer v. bank." The net benefit of Dodd-Frank goes toward small businesses that process hundreds (or thousands) of debit transactions per day.
Which is likely what I'll do if my bank goes along with this nonsense.
I'm looking into credit unions. From what I can tell, they aren't interested in screwing over their customers like the major banks are since they aren't profit driven.
no subject
They didn't have the option to not bank at BoA? Always an option.
These are the programs that would automatically charge $25 to $40 for even the smallest of overdrafts. Dodd-Frank requires these programs to be opted-in by the consumer now. According to the Federal Reserve, there were enough complaints to warrant this regulation.
It doesn't matter if there are 100% complaints - this is basic role of government stuff here. The government shouldn't be intervening in basic agreements like this. At some point the consumer needs to be expected to protect him or herself.
I think this is an overreaction. The pendulum was very much on the side of the banks. If anything, it's more balanced now.
I strongly disagree. The government has been in control for a while, and we only keep making it worse. It's why we see reactions like BoAs.
Also, it's not "government v. business", it's "consumer v. bank." The net benefit of Dodd-Frank goes toward small businesses that process hundreds (or thousands) of debit transactions per day.
There is no battle between the consumer and the bank here. The battle exists solely in the world of policy.
no subject
This is probably true, and makes it even worse. People should be moving away from credit. The gov't should not be encouraging people to use credit.
no subject