"Fee Banking", Not "Free Banking": The Shameful Overdraft Saga Continues

Readers will recall that UK retail banks are self-regulated when it comes to overdrafts. They lost control of deposits, savings and payments in 2009, but kept control of lending (bizarrely, given the over-extension of credit in the lead up to the crash). They continued to battle savagely against the OFT's attempt to assess the 'fairness' of their overdraft charges for many years before finally offering to charge a bit less in late 2009. By 2013, however, the banks felt the heat was off, and were congratulating themselves on having found "no breaches" of their own Lending Code. Yet in 2014, the FCA found that "overdraft prices were high, complex, confusing and poorly understood". Now a new report reveals:

"Not only are unarranged overdrafts expensive, but in many cases they cost significantly more than [payday] loans. Many consumers are also unaware either that they have used an unarranged overdraft or of the cost implications even if they do."

The FCA's latest analysis suggests there are about 42m current accounts, about 27% of which are in arranged overdraft for 1 to 12 months (staying within a pre-set credit limit) while 10% operate as unarranged overdrafts for 1 to 12 months (no right to be overdrawn at all or in breach of the credit limit). The FCA's analysis "shows that a quarter of people that used unarranged overdrafts used them in four or more months during 2016. Nearly 10% of unarranged overdraft consumers used them for 10 or more months."

The banks' Lending Code does not require a creditworthiness assessment, yet the FCA found that "overdraft users typically have lower credit scores than consumers with current accounts... [and] consumers using unarranged overdrafts have noticeably lower credit scores than the overall population of current account and overdraft users." The FCA adds that it is "concerned that consumers who repeatedly using unarranged overdrafts are being given access to a service that seems unsuitable for them, and which may be contributing to potential financial distress."

This sounds like a clarion call to the claims management industry 

to switch from seeking refunds of PPI premiums

to seeking refunds of unagreed overdraft charges.

No doubt the banks will continue to resist interference with their dastardly overdraft arrangements, claiming that it would mean the end of "free-banking" (which industry insiders refer to as "fee banking" because banks rely on fees arising from the mismatch between actual customer needs and poorly aligned/understood products).

Banks claim that overdrafts are a feature of current accounts, so the FCA should wait to see how the recent attack on those by the competition regulator pans out before taking further action.

But, as the figures show, not all current accounts come with an overdraft, although my sense is that overdrafts are actually a side-effect of shortcomings in banks' legacy technology - the systems can't maintain real time balances, so the bank has no way of knowing the actual account balance or whether an overdraft limit will be breached when each transaction comes through. But that's the banks' problem.  Overdrafts do constitute a form of "credit", whether they are "arranged"  or "unarranged" and the fact they are still self-regulated as 'lending' speaks volumes (current accounts are regulated as "payment accounts" under the Payment Services Regulations).

Lloyds has already lost its nerve, however, and moved to a new charging structure that the FCA says "does not allow a consumer to use unarranged facilities and does not charge a daily fee if they do."

The banks certainly have plenty of cause for alarm. 

In 2014, the FCA took over regulation of the comparatively tiny 'payday lending' market - 1.6m customers borrowing £3bn at its peak in 2013 - and imposed rules that reduced volumes by 42%. But in this case, the FCA is sounding the death knell of unarranged overdrafts entirely:

"Based on the evidence we have to date, we believe there is a case to consider fundamental reform of unarranged overdrafts and consider whether they should have a place in any modern banking market."

Avoiding The Dire Strait of Retail Banking

So, competition in banking has worsened, according to research cited by the FT this week, and Which? is back on the warpath against "complicated and exorbitant" unauthorised overdraft charges.

Accenture's research found that in 2011 only 11% of customers switched at least one product and only 6% switched their current account - and 90% of us "had no desire to change providers". 

Financial services consultancy Oliver Wyman chipped in with this gem:

"if [banks] made their charging structures completely transparent, no one would want to pay them."

Forrester, the research firm, found that less than 25% of UK customers thought "their bank put their interests above the desire to generate profits."

Yet more reasons for levelling the playing field between banks and alternative finance models.

How We All Pay For Card Payments

Few people are aware that when you pay using a credit or debit card, your 'issuing' bank charges the retailer's 'acquiring' bank an "interchange fee". The rate is either agreed directly between the banks, or is imposed via a card scheme, like Visa or MasterCard. Nobody outside the banks and card schemes really sees this fee. The retailer receives your money for the purchase price, less a service charge. A little bit of that service charge is kept by the retailer's bank as a payment processing fee, but most is kept by your bank as its interchange fee.

Like any other retail overhead, these charges need to be accounted for in retail pricing. So, even if you aren't paying by card, interchange fees are a significant drag on your personal economy. The European Retail Round Table, a network of large retailers, has found that "the average European household pays €139 per year on interchange fees". And, according to the European Commission, "in the EU, over 23 billion payments, exceeding a value of €1350 billion, are made every year with payment cards." In other words, retailers have no real choice but to accept payments by card.

But who benefits? The ERRT cites a 2006 report found that only 13% of the fees go toward your bank's processing cost, while 44% of interchange fees pay for cards reward programmes - which of course only benefit cardholders. That leaves a healthy profit for issuing banks. In their defence, Visa and MasterCard claim that interchange fees are essential to investment in systems, marketing and anti-fraud efforts. Which is what banks must do themselves, anyway, to meet their own anti-money laundering and prudential requirements. The schemes also suggest that interchange fees may be cost-neutral to retailers if savings on the acceptance of cash and reduced check-out times for card payments are factored in (which has not been accepted in Europe).

Looking at the situation from the consumers' standpoint, non-cardholders get no benefit from card loyalty schemes at all. And even cardholders themselves might prefer the equivalent of interchange fees being spent in ways that directly improve their retail experience.

The card schemes argue that because retailers say they have no choice but to pass on interchange costs to consumers, the measure of whether interchange fees are really too high is whether retailers would actually lower their prices - and they would not. That doesn't hold water. Firstly, all of a retailer's costs are ultimately accounted for in its prices. So it would be wrong of retailers to say that all consumers are not paying for interchange, unless the retailers specifically imposed a specific interchange-related fee only on those paying by card. Secondly, as I commented earlier on Digital Money, the card schemes' assertion rests on the assumption that the only way retailers should reasonably differentiate themselves from each other is in terms of price. So the card schemes would have it that every time a retailer cuts any of type of cost, including interchange fees, the retailer should take the ultimately suicidal step of always reducing prices to the consumer, rather than, say, investing in increased selection, improved customer experience or expansion to achieve economies of scale. That's an unrealistic position in itself, let alone one that would support the assertion that if retailers do not cut prices to consumers on the back of lower interchange fees, they are somehow behaving just as anti-competitively as the card schemes are alleged to be in imposing them. The retail markets are distinct from the market for payment services. Lack of competition in retail markets can be - and is frequently - addressed on its own merits and action taken accordingly.

So it's no surprise that competition regulators have given a lot attention to how interchange fees are set and imposed. The Reserve Bank of Australia has perhaps been the most progressive. It was the first to impose a standard rate for interchange fees in July 2003 and has maintained downward pressure ever since. In December 2007, the European Commission ruled as anti-competitive interchange fees on cross-border MasterCard and Maestro branded debit and consumer credit cards. The EC later accepted certain undertakings to settle proceedings for alleged breach of the ruling. European Commission action in relation to Visa Europe's interchange fees has culminated in a reduction of debit interchange fees. But importantly that decision "does not cover MIFs for consumer credit and deferred debit card transactions which the Commission will continue to investigate. The proposed commitments are also without prejudice to the right of the Commission to initiate or maintain proceedings against Visa Europe's network rules such as the "Honour All Cards Rule", the rules on cross-border acquiring, MIFs for commercial card transactions, and Inter-Regional MIFs."

The battle is also raging in the US, where three bills were put before Congress in 2009 to regulate interchange fees. The Federal Reserve is consulting on proposals to limit debit card fees from July 2011 "one that would base fees on each issuer’s costs, and one that would set a cap of 12 cents per transaction", as explained here by Jean Chatsky, and discussed on Digital Money. Potential implications for bank stocks are discussed here.

Ultimately, however, the outcome of all this depends on which payment services best facilitate the end-to-end activity in which a payment is being made. The winners will not be those who insist on viewing consumers' activities through the lens of their own payment product.


Image from GAO report on interchange.

Cheap Working Capital For Small Business

Over at Oikonomics, we are discussing how to balance the relative importance of what happens inside the bubble of the City with what happens in the 'real' economy.

From a regulatory standpoint, the credit crunch should have taught us to acknowledge the links between the wholesale and retail markets and regulate them both as part of a whole.

Excessive investment banking fees and bonuses are a direct result of a regime that reserves the job of matching investment funds and opportunities to a privileged few. "Democratising" the financial markets, or opening them up to public participation via simple, transparent products and 'thin' intermediaries who charge proportionate fees could break this stranglehold and result in a more inclusive, reliable financial system.

Artificially separating consumer and small business credit from the FSA's narrow remit has also allowed giant banking groups to 'shade' their unduly high margin downstream distribution activities from regulator sunlight, even though they feed the wholesale markets for CDO's etc. Left to fend for itself as 'independent', the OFT has not had the clout to constrain the likes of high bank charges and  card interchange fees (it's failure to clean up mortgage lending became so embarrassing it lead to the creation of the FSA's 'high street firms' division). Even now, lending to the 4.3m small businesses in the UK is pretty much unregulated and banks are getting away with all the old tricks in that market. Yet improving SME access to affordable working capital must be a top priority if we are to grow our way out recession.

So these things should all receive the same regulatory sunlight as the mis-selling of endowments, mortgages and payment protection insurance. Limiting bank margins to appropriate levels in the 'forgotten' markets would encourage competition from simple low cost products distributed by 'thin' intermediaries. Again, this would result in a more inclusive financial system and cheaper working capital for small business.

SME's Shun Bank Finance Offerings

Interesting report today that "less than half SMEs have taken action [to address cashflow pressures] with 11pc hiring an in-house credit controller, 9pc using invoice discounting and 8pc factoring". There are over 4.7 million SMEs in the UK (see demographics below).

According to the Telegraph:

"Peter Ibbetson, chairman of NatWest and RBS small business operations, is concerned that so few SMEs are using banking services to alleviate the problem but small business organisations believe companies are reluctant to incur extra charges after their bank borrowing experiences."

In other words, it appears SMEs would rather leave debt on their books, taking any loss and resulting income tax deduction, than become hog-tied by a bank at rates of about 36%APR in consumer finance terms - at least that's the rate we estimated Zopa lenders would have to beat to offer attractive trade finance. That's because you should factor in (excuse the pun) the charges on any additional accounts you're required to hold as part of the finance deal, the holding cost of any deposit held as a guarantee, as well as fees and the interest rate on any overdraft, loans, letters of credit and/or factoring. SME owners are also increasingly required to take a commercial credit card, which doesn't benefit from protection from all the old dirty tricks that are gradually being weeded out under consumer banking and finance regulation.

Yet more evidence the time is ripe for an alternative source of SME trade finance?

The most recent UK government statistics (published Oct '09) show that, at the start of 2008, there were 4.8 million UK private sector enterprises of which 99.3 per cent had 0 to 49 employees. Only 27,000 (0.6 per cent) had 50 to 249 employees and 6,000 (0.1 per cent) employed 250 people or more.

Gordon: Retail Bankers' Hero To The End

Funny that Gordon Brown has chosen the last possible minute before his last ditch General Election to announce that UK banks will finally allow credit cardholders to repay their highest rate charges first - especially when President Obama let this cat out of the bag in May 2009.

When finally implemented, this long overdue requirement will apparently save UK cardholders up to £500 million a year. So it's far less amusing that Gordon Brown appears to have been rather passive on the issue of excessive bank overdraft charges, worth £2.6bn a year. The 20% of overdraft customers with a claim have had to wait years while the Office of Fair Trading has fumbled around in the courts at taxpayers' expense before meekly announcing a 'wait and see' approach to the problem earlier today. No last minute offer of regulation from Gordon there.

Of course, the end of 'negative payment hierarchy' on credit cards is an affordable goodwill gesture for banks. They aren't really in the business of lending money anyway, as the Bank of England found in its February Trends in Lending Report. They're in the business of hoarding it to 'repair their balance sheets' (which largely seems to involve paying bonuses and lobbying for regulatory restraint). By the same token, however, now is not a good time to lose billions in overdraft fee income, regardless of the fact that cash-strapped customers need it more, or that it's a rounding error on the bailout costs to date.

In other words, Gordon Brown is not really committed to ensuring fairness, even when there's a General Election on the line.

Banks To Raise Prices By 33%?

JP Morgan concludes that banks must raise the prices of all their retail, commercial and investment services by 33% to cover the cost of regulation, if they are to meet current profit forecasts.

The readiness to advance this conclusion highlights the critical lack of competition across the banking sector. Ironically this is a product of the current regulatory framework. Currently, financial regulation funnels investment opportunities and funds into a zone where  relatively few firms are permitted to operate, enabling them to charge excessive fees. In other words, regulation designed to protect the consumer is actually underwriting "fat banking".

The cabal will only be broken up by opening the financial markets to everyone. The clear objective of the financial regulatory regime should be to deliver simple, low cost financial products that are accessible to us all.  Regulators should foster the growth of low cost 'facilitators' in the commercial and investment banking markets, to unleash the same trend that has enabled us to unbundle travel packages, music albums and personal loans to create our own personalised, lower cost alternatives.

The cartoon appears here.

At Last A Bank That's Fair?

At long last one bank has broken ranks with the gang that's trying to avoid having their overdraft fees assessed for fairness by the OFT.

RBS has announced it will halve its fee for paying an item when overdrawn to £15 per day(!), and slash the fee for returning a cheque, direct debit or standing order to £5 (from £38!).

Why it's taken so long to at least make this concession, and why other UK banks with substantial state ownership continue to delay, is anyone's guess. But it's a great start.

Will RBS now refund to affected customers the difference between the revised fees and what it has been charging them to date?

Will White Paper Deliver Green Shoots for Consumers?

To clear their desks ahead of the summer (and clutter ours to no useful purpose), UK officials responsible for Business, Innovation and Skills have recently released a white paper outlining the government's approach to consumer policy, presumptively entitled "A Better Deal for Consumers".

It appears the paper has been prompted by the "downturn" and "the way consumer markets are changing because of the effects of globalisation, and the increasing use of technology by consumers and business to buy goods and services." Which should read: "a dog's breakfast of either previously announced or 'new' but belated attempts to help the vulnerable, tinker with consumer credit, and update enforcement powers and some consumer law."

Don't get me wrong. There's some good stuff in here. But it's beyond me, for example, why it's taken until 2009 to call for a quicker solution to the saga of the bank charges litigation (we've owned some of the key defendants for some time), or to begin the no doubt lengthy process of banning unsolicited credit card cheques, restricting the basis on which credit card issuers can reprice cards after issuing them or ensuring that credit cardholders' repayments are credited towards the most expensive aspect of their card bills first. And, while anything to help those who are overly indebted is to be applauded, we've already heard about the £290m of government funded loans in the budget. And, in the vast scheme of things it's hardly worth mentioning that the government "will invest a further £300,000 in free face to face debt advice [which] will give an immediate boost to debt advice capacity for six months and enable the equivalent of 12 full-time debt advisers to help an extra 1,200 people struggling with crisis debt."

The 'meat', if there is any in this paper, is simply a reference to the unfortunate process of gold-plating the Consumer Credit Directive, and "bringing forward, in due course, a new Consumer Rights Bill which will [no doubt gold-plate] the proposed EU Consumer Rights Directive". The latter exercise has of course been rather undermined by the lack of any real evidence of detriment (see the EC's Consumer Markets Scoreboard).

Guess it's a case of hurry up and wait for that better deal.

Here's an extract of the menu in more detail:

Helping the vulnerable:

• Help to support homeowners and social housing tenants in arrears, and better legal protection for mortgage holders and tenants
  

• ”Breathing space” relief for consumers overburdened with arrears on their utility bills and other unsecured debts
  

• A new debtors’ guide to help those with debt problems understand their options
  

• A new self-help debt advice toolkit to support debtors who want to negotiate repayment proposals with their creditors themselves
  

• A Money Guidance service in the North West and North East of England to help people make better financial decisions and avoid problem debt
  

• A new dedicated NHS helpline to offer healthcare support to those experiencing recession-related stress and anxiety
  

• Improved guidelines for health and social care workers to support people with mental health problems and overburdened with debt
  

• Reviews into how effectively energy and water suppliers protect vulnerable customers from disconnection and help customers with problem debt
  

• Swift enforcement action against debt write-off scams and against firms who exploit the vulnerable in debt
  

• Measures to ensure more responsible debt recovery practices by debt collectors and bailiffs
  

• Programmes to reduce household energy bills.

Tinkering with consumer credit:

• A review of the regulation of credit cards and store cards, including a ban on the sending of unsolicited credit card cheques
  

• Ensuring consumers can access impartial support on choosing and managing credit cards and other consumer credit products
  

• [Gold-plating] the Consumer Credit Directive, including new requirements on all lenders:
• to explain their products to consumers adequately before they enter into a contract, including the consequences of any failure to repay
• to check the credit worthiness of consumers before they lend to them to follow guidance from the OFT to tackle irresponsible lending practices
  

• A review by the OFT of high cost credit markets
  

• A continuing programme of reforms to make the credit market work effectively for consumers and lenders.
  

Updating enforcement powers:

• A series of pilot projects to test the use of new powers to deliver compensation for consumers
  

• A new national strategy and specialist team for internet enforcement on consumer issues
  

• A central “Fighting Fund” to tackle rogues operating on a big scale
  

• A new Consumer Advocate who will co-ordinate work to educate consumers and be a champion for groups of consumers who have suffered a loss at the hands of a business
  

• A mechanism for consumers to get money back that has been recovered from overseas scams
  

• Support for product safety testing of imported goods at major ports
  

• Stronger penalties for rogue traders through new banning orders
  

• Simplifying the confusing array of sources of information and advice to ensure consumers can more easily find the support they need
  

• A new Consumer Rights Campaign.
  

Updating some consumer law:

• Developing rules on new “digital” products to ensure the core principles of consumer protection apply
  

• Looking at how the law on misrepresentation and duress can be made simpler, more transparent and accessible to business and consumers
  

• Reforming consumer law and simplifying weights and measures legislation without diluting consumer protection
  

• Modernising Trading Standards powers to help them deal more effectively with modern trading conditions
  

• Bringing forward, in due course, a new Consumer Rights Bill which will [no doubt gold-plate] the proposed EU Consumer Rights Directive, the lack of any evidentiary basis for which is illustrated in the EC's Consumer Markets Scoreboard.
  

Posted via email from Pragmatist's Posterous

The Bank That's Fair

Speaking of Black Swans and risk in retail financial services, I just happened across What Were the Credit Card Companies Thinking? on the Harvard Business Review blog. HBR emphasises the point that you can choose to keep ripping people off, but it's inevitable that your business practices will be rendered unsustainable by regulation or customer revolt.

Some might say the predictability of that means it's no longer a "black swan", but the card issuers seemed oblivious or in denial. Like the turkey that's expecting another meal after being fed for 1000 days, only to get eaten. Or like an MP preparing to file another expense claim...

My bet is that this process of exposure and elimination will happen faster and faster as the social media continue to grow and the ripples of influence become more pronounced.

Which reminds me, the House of Lords is due to hear the latest appeal in the bank charges litigation later this month... Will the banks battle on to their death, or see the value in conceding customers' entitlement to refunds?

Black Swans and Risk in Retail Financial Services

In a recent speech, the EU Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, Meglena Kuneva, signaled 5 current priorities in relation to retail financial services:

1. Address the way investment products are designed, described and marketed to consumers; and ensure that new proposals in relation to the sale of credit and mortgages "meet the high standards of modern consumer policy".
   


2. Strengthen the strict rules and enforcement on the misselling of retail investment products, in the light of "clear indications that the laws that are meant to protect consumers were insufficient and may have been repeatedly violated."
   


3. Complete by the end of the summer an in-depth study of banking fees and charges to consumers which appear to be unfairly hitting consumers.
   


4. "Start with regulators a new debate on the correct balance of risk and reward on Main Street. It seems that in recent years, risk has been significantly outsourced to unwary consumers. The question is what amount of risk and toxic products are we willing to tolerate in the retail financial market?"


5. Start a serious discussion on the regulatory oversight structure that is needed to generate accountability to consumers and to ensure consumer protection principles are consistently implemented across retail markets.

The nub of all these priorities lies in the highlighted question. I'm equally fascinated by it, even though the answer to it must surely be "nobody knows." It's part of the process of democratising the financial markets. However, as a starting point for the discussion, I'd be more comfortable with the statement that risk has simply landed on unwary consumers (and taxpayers, more importantly), rather than that it was somehow "outsourced" to them, implying intent and activity on the part of someone else. Otherwise we risk focusing on who outsourced the risk, and how, which is necessarily facing the past, not the future. Nailing those who broke the law should not be part of this debate. The fact is, the law failed to protect consumers and taxpayers from risk in the financial markets.

To put it another way, it was a mistake for us ever to have believed that we had successfully outsourced our own personal financial risk to banks, employers and governments.

The credit crunch is a Black Swan event - a surprise event that has a major impact and is [being] rationalised by hindsight, as if it had been expected. Inquiry into the why's and how's is therefore largely academic, albeit tantalizingly so. To take a counterfactual approach, one might ask whether it would have occurred if the CDO had been strangled at birth in 1987. The CDS also played a role, so we might consider the implications of it's death on a whiteboard in 1997. And we might ask the same in relation to Gordon Brown's rhetorical adoption of the so-called Golden Rule - that the government would only borrow to invest rather than to fund current spending, and in doing so it was "prudent" to maintain debt levels below 40% of GDP (implying it was also prudent to borrow up to that limit).

But we will never really know the cause of the credit crunch. And nothing we do will necessarily prevent another one.

Yet it seems likely and perfectly natural that we consumers and taxpayers will continue to rein in our expenditure, and take steps that we believe will maximise the sustainability of our income, for as long as it takes for us to feel we are able to survive another major financial disaster. As markets seem to "recover" in parallel, it will become harder and harder not to become lulled into thinking that our self-discipline is working, and that, at some ominous peak, we are finally safe...

So the real challenge is: how can we ensure that we consumers and taxpayers always understand that each of us personally bears the risk of financial disaster?

You are on your own. Pay less. Diversify more. Be contrarian!

UK Bank Charges Assessable For Fairness

Breaking news in the bank charges saga: the Court of Appeal ruled today that certain allegedly excessive current account charges can be assessed for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.

There'll be no further delay on that little issue, as the banks' request to drag it into the House of Lords was refused. [The House of Lords subsequently granted leave to the banks to appeal, due to be heard in June 2009]

So now, either (a) customers must endure another delay while the banks pompously trot out their evidence as to why the OFT was wrong to challenge their fees as unfair, or (b) the new significant shareholder in many of the banks can put an end to much of this nonsense by insisting they refund what was alleged to be excessive as a "fiscal stimulus".

Of course, a "fair" bank could always demonstrate real leadership on the issue, by simply issuing the refunds of its own volition. But it seems each bank believes that just wouldn't be fair on the others.

Oh, look, this post comes hard on the heels of the one where the European Commission says:

"in the banking sector switching is low and offers difficult to compare. The substantial variation in bank fees between Member States is not explained by differences in expenditure levels". In the first half of 2009, the EC will "assess the problems consumers face resulting from a lack of transparency in retail financial services."

Nasty!

EC's Consumer Markets Scoreboard

Meglena Kuneva, the EC's Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, appears to be trying hard to compile meaningful data on "how markets ultimately perform and deliver to citizens".

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard - only in its second edition - provides data on prices, complaints, degree of satisfaction, switching rates and safety. However, it finds that "more quality data are needed to develop a solid consumer evidence base... The current evidence... is still not enough to draw definite conclusions."

Nevertheless, the report makes a series of "observations", including:

• "consumers are less satisfied and experience more problems with services than with goods markets. The most problematic surveyed sectors are energy, transport (bus and rail) and banking services."
  
  
• "in the banking sector switching is low and offers difficult to compare. The substantial variation in bank fees between Member States is not explained by differences in expenditure levels". In the first half of 2009, the EC will "assess the problems consumers face resulting from a lack of transparency in retail financial services."
  
  
• higher switching rates (e.g. in the market for car insurance) means "consumers are less likely to report price increases". Though I'd observe that the number of TV ads for the plethora of price comparison web sites focused on car insurance suggests there is still plenty of fat in that market - 25% of consumers reportedly switch, but prices are reported as steady.
  
  
• "Cross-border retail trade is stalling. The proportion of consumers shopping cross-border has not increased since 2006, while the proportion of retailers selling across borders has declined. Nevertheless, while 25% of consumers have shopped cross-border in the last 12 months, 33% are considering doing so in the next year. If harmonised consumer regulations were put in place across the EU, 49% of retailers would be interested in selling cross-border. This would be a significant improvement compared with the 20% that currently sell cross-border. Online shopping is becoming more widespread but cross-border e-commerce is not developing as fast as domestic online shopping."
  
  
• "While complaints data are important to detect malfunctioning, the absence of complaints does not always mean that there are no problems... in some markets consumers have a low tendency to complain even though they experience problems, for example, in bus and rail and some food markets such as fruit and vegetables." Source: IPSOS consumer satisfaction surveys 2006 and 2008.
  

The report cites the following "Action points for 2009:

• A market study on the retail electricity market.

• A chapter on online geographical market segmentation in the retail market study which will analyse the problems consumers have when shopping online across borders.

• A communication on enforcement which will set out a global strategy to ensure the effective enforcement of the consumer acquis.

• Development of a regular collection of average prices of comparable consumer products and services by Eurostat and the national statistical offices.

• Development of a voluntary harmonised methodology to classify consumer complaints.

• Work to develop appropriate indicators to measure enforcement and empowerment with national stakeholders."

Banks Bow to Pressure on PPI

Finally, the Great PPI Robbery is over. The news from various high street banks effectively concedes it was too difficult for them to sell this little-used insurance policy in a compliant manner to enough customers to make a fast buck.

It was a long overdue concession, only wrung out of them after years and years of expensive market reviews, inquiries, regulation, more inquiries, and heavy fines - culiminating in the record £7m fine imposed on Alliance & Leicester last October.

Will they capitulate on bank charges next?

Government to End Bank Charges Litigation?

With the government now such a significant shareholder in so many UK current account providers, it could save taxpayer's money and boost the (alleged) victims' finances by requiring an end to the expensive saga of bank charges litigation, and the refund of fees that the OFT alleges are excessive.

Note the finding by Mr Justice Smith (at para 415) that "information provided by the Banks suggests that in 2006 [alone] the Banks between them received £2.5 billion from Relevant Charges on an average daily unarranged overdraft balance of £0.6 billion."

Another judgment in the saga is due tomorrow morning (21 January 2009) at 10 a.m.

Update: the 21 January judgment held that only certain NatWest terms are capable of being a penalty. Whether or not they do constitute a penalty is phase two of the saga, and phase one is yet to conclude.

Phase one is held up because the banks appealed the first instance decision that both their current terms and their historic terms are capable of being assessed for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations. Judgment on the current terms is expected soon, whereupon the banks' appeal in relation to the historic terms will begin.

Of course, the Court of Appeal's decision on both sets of terms could go to the House of Lords, meaning several years' further delay.

Meanwhile, the lower courts won't hear cases pending the outcome of the higher court proceedings. And the Financial Services Authority is also preventing anyone getting their money back via the banks' own complaints procedures. Similarly, the Financial Ombudsman Service (where complaints to the banks utlimately go) won't process complaints until the court proceedings are over.

This is no way to treat the nation's consumers, especially when the consumers' own watchdog is involved.

If the banks won't act fairly on their own initiative, then it must be part of the government's "fiscal stimulus" package, to insist that all banks that took bail-out money immediately refund the element of bank charges which the OFT has complained are excessive.

The Bank That's Fair

To keep up my professional development points, I'm currently groaning under more than just the weight of the judgments in the UK overdraft charges litigation against the 7 institutions who've cornered the current account market.

Here's some context for the case:

• UK overdraft users - and particularly those who incur fees - essentially pay for everybody's personal current account service. Mr Justice Smith found in his April judgment that interest on credit balances as well as overdraft interest and fees are relied upon by banks to provide "free-if-in-credit banking" (para 53). The fees "are not set by reference to the costs of activities which give rise to them, but... to support the personal current accounts service as a whole" (para 54).
  

• Further, consumers have no real choice in the market for current accounts. So they're stuck with the current pricing situation. In July the OFT reported that:
  

"The complexity and lack of transparency of personal current accounts makes it extremely difficult for individual customers to compare their bank account with other offers. There is thus little incentive for consumers to switch - especially as people generally believe that it is complex and risky to switch accounts. Also, when the switching process does go wrong consumers can find themselves bearing a significant proportion of the resulting costs. The result is that only six per cent of customers we surveyed had switched in the last 12 months - one of the lowest switching rates in Europe."

While I'm interested in the judicial reasoning to date, you'll be aware the case is frustratingly inconclusive on whether or not the charges can even be assessed for fairness, let alone whether they are actually fair or not. In the current economic circumstances, I agree with Which? that such uncertainty is "piling on the misery" for those affected - and as Mr Justice Smith found in his April judgment (at paras 56, 57), that's roughly 20% of current account customers with an overdraft facility. The Financial Ombudsman Service is awaiting the outcome of proceedings before processing any more complaints and this has encouraged various opportunists to bury their snouts into the trough of despair.

In the midst of all this, you may recall that Barclays recently launched its "Personal Reserve" - an 'over-overdraft', as it were. It's obviously an attempt by the bank to dig its way out of the litigious mess. But as this slew of Google search results demonstrates: when you're in a hole, stop digging.

Personal Reserve is supposed to be a very "simple and transparent" "service" in itself. Trouble is it's targeted at overdraft customers on an opt-out ony basis. And surely one can infer that it is intended to address a key issue with the underlying overdraft - what happens when you exceed the limit. In that sense it could be seen as a feature of the overdraft, rather than a service in itself. Further, a trawl through the multiple web pages describing the feature alone suggests that it is some distance from being either simple or transparent. It's less than clear what happens if you opt out - I can't even find a link to an explanation of the ordinary unarranged overdraft situation, if that still applies. And the fact that there are many different circumstances which can trigger additional charges makes it just as tough to forecast the potential cost of a 'bad month' as with any overdraft - something that's never been what you'd call "simple" or "transparent". Finally, it just doesn't smell right that one could be charged £22 every 5 days that you use as little as £1 of your "Personal Reserve" (see FAQ #7).

I'll spare you further detail, save to say that the feature does rather whet one's appetite for a whole new merry-go-round of analysis as to how well it really complies with the myriad technical requirements of the law related to fees, interest rates, advertisements and consumer contracts, including the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (the subject of the current litigation) and the brand new Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regs. Indeed, it will be interesting to see how this feature, and overdraft charges generally stack up as "treating customers fairly" etc., etc., under the FSA's reforms to the retail banking regime, whenever those might take effect.

But as the current inconclusive litigation demonstrates, the legal niceties don't transmit to the coal face very quickly, if at all.

So surely there's a golden opportunity for one of the members of the current account collective to break ranks and genuinely distinguish itself from the others. It could start by submitting to an independent assessment of the fairness of its charges. Then it might capitalise on the pleasant surprise by diverting the money it spends on TV ads claiming to have the personal touch towards actually engaging with customers to produce something that they buy into as fair.

Anyone for first-mover advantage?

Too Many Snouts in the Bank Charges Trough

Some bank customers are understandably frustrated when it comes to refunds of what they regard as excessive charges. So the last thing they need is to pay needlessly to have their complaint resolved. Yet that is precisely what some customers are at risk of doing.

The Financial Ombudsman Service offers a financial services dispute resolution service that is free of charge to consumers. Thanks to some sensible increases in its remit, FOS can handle virtually all consumer financial services complaints these days, including those related to consumer credit.

True, the banks have diverted the specific issue of excessive overdraft charges to the courts, and are now dragging the whole process to the House of Lords. That means a long wait for most of the customers affected. But the Financial Ombudsman will still deal with complaints about overdraft fees for those customers in financial difficulty, and the delay doesn't affect complaints about other types of charges - like credit card default fees - which FOS is still handling.

So it's troublesome to see certain claims managers and law firms, advertising themselves as able to recover these charges for a fee, without any reference that I could see to the free service offered by the Financial Ombudsman Service. A bit rich from claims managers in particular, considering that they are responsible for 18% of claims referred to the Financial Ombudsman! Note, too, that in February 2008 there were 427 claims managers operating in the "financial products" space, with a total turnover of £68m - all additional cost and friction that the Financial Ombudsman is designed to avoid.

And watch out for the fine print. One claims manager debits its customer's credit card for all their "Service Charges" as soon as any amount of refund is obtained. Is it possible that a customer could owe more in service charges to the claims manager than the amount of the refund?

Time, you would've thought, for some joined up activity from the Ministry of Justice (which now regulates claims managers), the Office of Fair Trading (which regulates consumer credit) and the Solicitors Regulatory Authority (does what it says on the tin). These complaints should be resolved at minimum cost to the consumer. The best escalation path for any complaint should be from the bank's own complaints process to FOS. Heaven forbid the lawyers need to get involved, but we are here as a last resort. I don't see what value "claims managers" add in this sector.

Preparing Britain for the Future

Alarmed by the loose wheel nuts on this New Labour machine we're all riding in, I've been delving under the seats in a desperate attempt to find anything that might tell me where we're headed and just how dangerous it might get.

This evening, I found the Government's legislative proposals for 2008-09 under a jumbo crisp packet and the greasy remains of a cornish pasty in the rear of the cab.

Apart from the smell, the first thing that slaps you in the face is that these guys plan to do an awful lot - too much, one senses, if they are to really achieve much. This government is a great one for gallons of policies, tapping the brakes and U-turns. Not good if you're prone to motion sickness.

Second, while there are no funding details, of course, all this planning feels really expensive in terms of consultants, and additional civil servants to staff all the new agencies. In other words, boiling an ocean consumes a lot of gas. And all the chat about better regulation, only seems to mean more regulation, if only to gather the existing regulation into neat and tidy piles for lawyers to sift through (page 72). The words "Titanic" and "deckchairs" spring to mind.

Third, and most importantly, there's absolutely no sign that this government is remotely concerned about reducing public sector costs, eliminating waste, enhancing productivity or educating civil servants to work smarter rather than hiring extra "special advisers" to get things done around them. This can't end well.

Anyway, here are 7 things that shone at me out of the rubble:

1. We're going to get a a "Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" (p. 65), so be prepared to call Radio 4 to argue for outrageously generous personal rights and extremely high expectations of others.
   
2. A "community empowerment" bill (p. 66) will make it lawful to lynch local councillors for squandering our council taxes if we can only lobby hard enough.
3. Business rates will increase 2% to fund some kind of local authority "economic development" budget (p.12). Does this mean that local authorities are better at economic development than local businesses?
4. 8 million low income earners will be forced to take bank accounts to qualify for The Saving Gateway, a scheme that matches government handouts with individuals' own savings (p. 29). No mention of bank fees, or savings rates that will apply, but this is chum in the water for the retail banking sharks. You can already see their fins on the surface. Also a nice way to ensure that people lend to banks while the banks are refusing to lend it to each other (or anyone else, for that matter).
   
5. At last we are going to get 3 new, additional, extra education agencies - to regulate tests, skills funding and apprenticeships for some reason (pp 14-15). These agencies are vital, as they act as human shields for Ministers against citizens and the media.
6. An oddly named "Bureaucracy Champion" will be appointed to cut red tape the for the police (p. 18). Why can't the police find the people who created the red tape in the first place and beat them with truncheons until it's all removed?
7. Great news for IT vendors - a new Communications Data Bill will increase police access to our personal communications data, which will mean lots more IT kit to record and store it all. Really securely.

Remember: don't drink the Kool-Aid.

Credit Crunch Reveals Just How Much the Banks are in it for Themselves

The credit crunch is doing a great job of opening up opportunities that the banks can't service because they're too busy lining their own pockets rather than focusing on the consumer.

Resigned to the fact that retail banking “...is going to be less profitable than it is and is going to be growth constrained,” as the Chairman of HSBC put it last November, now the banks have been asking their otherwise idle credit teams to use your credit data in reviewing the current and likely future profitability of their customers.

The results? Rising fees and the withdrawal of products from low risk but unprofitable customers.

Nice one guys.

No wonder Gartner has warned banks "not to attempt to copy social banking practices, unless they can clearly establish a strategic intent centered on social welfare, as opposed to traditional commercial return."

Of course, it's not news that banks are more intent on their own profitability than solving their customers' critical needs. Until 2000, they enjoyed comparative immunity on this front because some of their activities are key to our economic stability. Then the FSA was given powers which reflecting society's concern that banks must minimise consumer detriment as well as systemic risk.

The problem for banks is that Web 2.0 'consumer empowerment' and the run on Northern Rock have unleashed our expectations when they are least able to cope.

Time is Right to Innovate in Retail Financial Services

Two reports this week confirm it for me.

The first was from MoneyExpert.com, as reported in the FT:

"Since the revised banking code made it easier for customers to change their current account provider in 2005, more customers have taken advantage of the option. Over a six-month period to the end of October 2007, the number of clients changing provider rose from 1.8m to 2.3m. “The switching index shows that around 300,000 people a month are choosing to change their current account provider, and overdraft facilities are an important component for choosing an account,” said Sean Gardner, chief executive of MoneyExpert.com."

... Customer dissatisfaction over bank overdraft fees, as well as concerns over financial security prompted by the problems of Northern Rock, have accelerated the number of switches made recently, according to Mike Naylor at personal finance website uSwitch.com."

The second was from the Bank of England, to the effect that unsecured lending to households and small businesses is suffering a large reduction, and spreads between savings and unsecured lending have widened and are likely to widen further during Q1 2008. In other words, banks are helping themselves to more of consumers' cash as a result of their exposure to the credit crunch.

So, customers are adjusting to recent banking shocks and making alternative arrangements. And, while the banks need to offer incentives to retain or attract those customers, their hands are tied when it comes to anything really substantial.

The timing is great for innovation and new entrants to the retail financial services marketplace.

Yet the key to how retail financial services should develop is how consumers actually view and use money. Today's products and infrastructure are generally designed to suit the banks and other product providers, and they are ill-equipped to innovate from the consumer's standpoint. I reiterate my November prediction for 2008. And for my money, the essential characteristics of Financial Services 2.0 will mean that banks retreat from "owning" customer relationships to back-office service provision.

PS 7 Jan '08: First Direct's recent offer of simply paying people £100 to switch current accounts and receive the same old products, underlines the lack of real innovation amongst retail banks. Note the requirement to take an extra product or maintain a balance of £1500 in a nil interest account in order to avoid a £10 a month fee. The only real competition amongst retail banks is in the size of their marketing budgets.

PPS 21 Jan '08: The proportion of Britons still getting their financial advice from high street banks has declined from 28% in 2003 to just 4%.