There has been a significant increase in ODP fees over the last few years, as has been widely reported by pro-consumer groups such as the Center for Responsible Lending. What is also true is that much of what we used to call “regular service charges” have decreased while ODP fees increased, so the true increase in fees paid by consumers is less than consumer advocates assert. Furthermore, using statistics from the American Bankers Association, almost 82%—eighty two percent—of consumers never incur an ODP fee and would be happy to pay it if they did because they would avoid the embarrassment of having a check returned. In another study by the FDIC, almost 75% of consumers had no non-sufficient funds occurrences in a year, and another 12% had between one and four NSF items, meaning that about 87% of consumers had less than four NSFs in a year.
Now, NSF transactions trigger fees. Either the bank charges a fee for paying the item into overdraft (OD requires extra management time and risk-taking) or it will charge a fee for returning the item marked NSF (which also requires extra labor and expense). Sometimes there is a daily fee if an account remains in overdraft, because it is the consumer’s responsibility to clear overdraft conditions immediately. But consumers who do not write NSF checks or conduct ATM or POS transactions without enough money in their accounts do not pay any extra fees. What’s unreasonable about that?
So, what to do? I say fight back by getting the facts out! The media and certain consumer-rights groups have way overblown the “Big Mac” or “cup of coffee” OD charge. Most community banks have never done that, and even for those who might still do it actual occurrences are few and far between. Furthermore, since most regulatory guidance on ODP dates from early 2005, community bankers have been doing for nearly five years what the big banks are just now getting around to figuring out—following regulatory guidance and taking care of customers responsibly. Does Too Big to Fail also mean Too Big to Care About Regulatory Guidance? It would appear so, and community bankers need to distance themselves from the TBTF crowd.The truth of the matter is that the changes these big banks are making would not generate significant revenue declines for community institutions that have been pragmatic all along—which I believe most have been.
Back in the 1970s, when I was a programmer maintaining a DDA system in COBOL in a multi-bank data processing center, one of the changes I personally installed was to add an “OD Leeway Amount” to the DDA system’s bank control file, so that a small amount (typically $5.00) was automatically added to the balance of an account when posting checks. This was done specifically to eliminate NSF/OD charges on small transactions. Later on, in the 1980s, we capped the number of NSF or OD charges that any one customer would incur in a day—at three items. The TBTF folks have now figured out what our little community bank knew over 25 years ago.
Consider the history of NSF and OD processing for a moment. First, consumers who write hot checks have had to pay someone for many, many years. When a check is returned NSF, in addition to the bank charges merchants charge a fee for handling that NSF check. It typically costs the consumer more to pay the bank NSF fee and the merchant’s hot check charges than for the bank to just pay the NSF item into overdraft. But when was the last time you read an article about how the bank SAVED a customer money by paying the item so that only one fee was assessed? Consider it further: Writing an NSF check is against the law. When was the last time you read an article about banks helping customers avoid legal trouble by paying their NSF checks instead of returning them?
Let’s discuss the sequence in which checks are paid. Thankfully, transaction posting sequence does not appear to be affected by any new regulation currently under consideration. That’s good news, because transaction posting sequence DOES make a difference—but even here the differences are not what one might expect.
First, a little more banking history. Back before there were computers, the paper transactions were generally posted in the sequence in which they were presented. Checks cashed at the teller line were posted first, since the bank had given out cash in exchange for the check, then other items were manually posted all through the day in the sequence in which they came into the bank. When computers first arrived on the scene, it became common practice to sort the “captured image” of these paper transactions into sequence by account number, transaction type and amount and post them electronically all at once overnight. Due to machine restrictions (storage limitations and computer processing power) and due to the extra manual effort required to retrieve the paper NSF items corresponding to the electronic captured images that were NSF, it was more efficient to post the smallest items first so that fewer paper items had to be handled manually the next morning.
As technology advanced and capabilities such as computerized exception item pulls were developed (where the paper NSF items were pulled out of the trays and trays of non-exception items with check sorters instead of manually retrieving them one-by-one) it became feasible to sort items in such a manner as to post the (fewer) larger items first and handle the (more numerous) smaller ones as NSFs or ODs. In my experience, that’s when the trend toward paying large-to-small began to occur, because it was now feasible to process a large volume of small-dollar paper NSF items.
Back in those days, just as today, most consumers preferred to have small checks returned rather than have large checks bounced. Its one thing to tick off Joe the Grocer and quite another to miss the deadline on one’s mortgage payment, which will cost a lot more than an NSF fee.
As part of the research for our 1980s-era changes, additional due diligence was performed. This is what we found:
So, what we discovered was that when banks first automated check processing they unwittingly began posting items in the worst possible sequence from a fee income perspective even though it was in the best possible sequence from the perspective of minimizing labor cost. As technology improved, it became possible to move back toward the way items were posted before automation.
ATM and POS transactions are different. In the FDIC study approximately half of NSF/OD transaction took place at ATM and POS terminals. Since the bank is approving these transactions in real-time, it has the option to decline an NSF transaction before it even occurs. This is where the big banks, and some smaller organizations, have lost the PR war. With paper or ACH the bank does not have the option to decline the transaction on-the-spot—it is forced to handle it as an exception, with the associated additional handling expense. A bank is well within its rights to return a check (or to charge something for NOT returning it) in this instance.
But when a customer is at an ATM, and enough money is not in the account, and the bank approves the transaction anyway, that smacks of greed—Yes! Get that OD fee! The argument can be made that consumers should check their balance before making an ATM withdrawal, but I believe that banks should simply decline those transactions, particularly when they are for small amounts. In my experience, most consumers agree.But what to do about POS? To decline a transaction at a POS terminal is to embarrass a customer publicly in a restaurant or at a store (as opposed to turning down an ATM transaction, which offers some privacy). I believe most consumers would prefer to have a POS transaction paid, but the research I’ve seen lumps ATM and POS transactions together (even though they are very different from a customer service and privacy perspective), so consumer preference in this area is not clear.
Here is the message community bankers need to get out:
Proposed new regs may require an explicit opt-in or opt-out provision. It’s hard to argue that that’s unfair or unreasonable. If the FDIC survey is correct, over time 87% or more of customers will opt in.
The goodwill associated with implementing most of the other “Final Guidance” promulgated on February 18, 2005 is way more valuable than the revenues foregone, and those few community bankers who haven’t done so should get behind that.
To quote a good friend who recently called me for an old-fashioned rant: “Community banks have been stupid to let the media get so much PR traction on such an insignificant issue.” We need to get the word out that ODP fees are 100% avoidable and a valuable service when they do occur. The 87% of consumers who manage their affairs responsibly will agree.
-bm
According to The Cornerstone Report 2007: Benchmarks and Best Practices for Mid-Size Banks, “Even with flat debit usage per card and declining ATM volumes, banks saw very solid growth in retail fee income between 2005 and 2007. … Clearly, the biggest reason for fee income growth was OD/NSF fees. … Most banks are not anticipating the percentage growth of OD/NSF income that they experienced in 2006/2007 – most, instead, are recognizing that the income from these programs may plateau and are budgeting accordingly.”
Here are two Fee Income Best Practices tips from The Cornerstone Report.
Cornerstone Advisors firmly believes “you cannot improve that which you don’t measure.”
Benchmarking lies at the heart of measurement and accountability and forms the crucial foundation for any financial institution initiative that involves process improvement, strategic planning, the implementation of best practices, efficient staffing and budgeting, and profitability improvement.
Contact Cornerstone or visit our Web site to learn about our Best Practices and Process Improvement services.
Excellent. Now make the politicians understand this, and we’ll be set. I’ve tried explaining these things to more than one, and they just DON’T GET IT!
One major problem with core systems, a POS can get an approval with positive funds but can clear as a debit or a signature based transaction several days later. It may take several days for a merchant to submit an approved POS transaction on a signature based purchase. Theoretically, the core would place a “hold” on the approved amount and match the amounts and approval codes when the transaction clears the institution. This rarely is the case. Many times the institution is forced to drop the hold before the POS clears and the heavy user NSF customer will spend the money a second time. Keeping extended hold creates bad customer service for that 80-90% who never overdraw. Merchant errors (e.g. duplicate approvals) can cause holds for transaction that are never clear. How does the institution know when to drop this “hold”?
Those few customers who play the NSF game know this and will use the system to “double dip” on funds and overspend the available balance in the account.
Until Visa and MasterCard change rules to set short (1-2 days) expirations on approvals, this will be a problem. I don’t see the core systems finding a solution.
This is another PR problem.
You’re research reports that posting in check number sequence (which I agree is the least contraversial and most “logical” to a consumer)generates about 60% of the income of small-to-large posting. But, you do not report how check # sequence posting compares to large-to-small posting (the most contraversial method?), from an income generation stand-point. Do you have this research?
No, I do not have those statistics. I’d recommend doing some financial modeling which matches your specific circumstrances anyway.
You’re wrong about posting order not being under consideration. Check out H.R. 946:
https://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.946:
Rob, I have reviewd H.R. 946 and it has nothing to do with ODP or transaction posting sequence. The current proposed reg changes (which are changes to Reg. E, the EFT Act) do not address posting sequence.
The newest legislation from both the Senate and the House (H.R. 3904) both contain specific language which prohibits the manipulation of posting i.e. re-ordering of transations which would maximize fees
H.R. 3904 dated 10/22/2009 and S.1799 dated 10/19/2009 DO contain language addressing posting sequence. Both have been referred to committee and, while they are scary, they are just beginning the legislative process. There are no regs that I can find where FRB, OCC, FDIC, NCUA, or OTS address posting sequence at this time.
Darryl, this is PROPOSED legislation. It is outrageous, too–it allows charging for one overdraft fee per month and six per year. I doubt it will pass in this form, but the purpose of the article was a call-to-arms for bankers to tell their side of the story.
This issue is not as one-sided as some of the sound bites we’re hearing from consumer advocates who do not seem to understand that these fees are not incurred by the vast majority of consumers, who handle their accounts responsibly.
Glad to see you guys finally get it!!!!!
I have only had a problem with overdrawing my account maybe twice in the past 5 years. The last time it happened, I had almost $200 in fees because the bank paid my items from largest to smallest. If they had paid them in the order received, I would have paid about $35 in fees.
I have a problem with these two practices:
First is Large-to-small posting order. It only serves to make more fee income for the financial institution. It is not fair and I do not believe that consumers would prefer this posting order to “avoid bouncing their mortgage payment”. I know when I pay my mortgage that I will have enough money in my account. However, I may not realize when I’m using my debit card at Wal Mart that I have made an error and overdrawn my account.
Second is authorizing my ATM/POS transaction even when the bank knows I don’t have the money. I would prefer to be declined. If I’m in a restaurant, I can always give them a credit card instead of paying the NSF fee.
Now when it comes to paying my checks… I have no problem with paying the bank a little extra to avoid sending the check back to the merchant and incurring an additional fee. As for POS items that were authorized when my account had funds and then cleared several days later after I spent that money on something else… it is completely reasonable to charge me a fee.
I agree up to ATM. Customer has access to balances and can make a choice. Only about 7% of income is from ATM but the % of transactions presented against NSF funds is still .4% to .7% – same as checks and ACH. I also think you should put on the table the percent of items that are presented against NSF – well under 1%. Also, some banks do not allow minors into program, also we monitor abuse and remove those who should not be in the program. In Massachusetts, seniors are only charged $5.00 per item. Very real benefit to them. There shold be more public discussion and not allow the politicians unfettered access to the public airways.
Bill, I think you’ve missed one point – and it’s a big one. The outrage is not about overdraft fees, it’s about excessive overdraft fees. Last week, my college student son ran out of money the evening before his generous biweekly stipend was posted. He made these charges on his debit card which were happily accepted by Chase without feedback: Walgreens $14.84, 7/11 $1.49, McDonalds $13.81, causing an overdraft of $14.23. For this he was charged $132 by Chase. This is 927%. This is an outrage. A $25 fee for going over $14.23, still over 100%, would have been apprppriate – even one of Chase’s #35 OD fees would have been acceptable. No reasonable person can argue that a 927% fee is justified. It’s just plain old greed. Since the banks cannot comprehend this absurdity and/or refuse to be reasonable, they’re behavior will have to be adjusted by law.
And at a time when banks need to need to be improving their image, this behavior, which apparently you endorse, and the recent nonsense with changing credit card rates by huge amounts seems oddly out of place in today’s environment.
Mike Y., I do not defend too-big-to-fail Chase (that’s one of the points of the article) and POS transactions are problematic, as the article suggests. But government price controls are not the answer, either. The marketplace, not Congress, should decide how much is too much.
Furthermore, most community institutions would have handled your son’s account differently–if this was the FIRST time he messed up. But I have to ask: have you counseled your son on HIS responsibility to not spend money he does not have yet? Those purchases do not appear to be emergency transactions.
Bill,
As a commenter above said, the issue is not the number of people who find the service of benefit and only use it on occasion, a few times a year. The issue is the overwhelming amount of money the 15-20% of people are paying. These people are the least able to manage their own affairs – students, poor, mentally ill, substance abusers, etc.
My own son was charged nearly $200 in fees for just a few transactions, 1/2 of the fees in a moment of bi-polar mania. The discipline of the market is not enough to protect these people.
To paraphrase what Jim Blaine, President of NC SECU, said in CU Times, the benefits of current overdraft practices for some do not justify the damage it causes.
Thad
Respectfully, I do not agree. The unfortunate fact that there are individuals who are unable to manage their affairs responsibly is no justification for government price-fixing or intrusion into the marketplace.
Absolutely, bankers must be responsible corporate citizens and must never take advantage of ANY person or group, particularly those with compromised judgement. But having a checking account is not a right, it is a privilege, and banks have the right to charge a market-driven fee for any services rendered. When a bank realizes it has an irresponsible customer on its hands the account should be closed. That is a best practice which in my experience most community institutions adhere to carefully.
We have some mental illness in my family and I am all-too-familiar with the individual situation you describe. One solution which is fair to all parties would be a savings account with an ATM card attached–there’s no chance of NSF checks, overdrafts or OD fees that way, and individual dignity (and privacy) is retained.
Passing laws which disadvantage the many responsible account-holders and their bank to compensate for the irresponsible few is not the answer.