As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

Search: bailout

Just last month, Bank Transfer Day encouraged disgruntled consumers across the country to move money out of their bank accounts and deposit the funds in credit unions and smaller, community banks. Partly as a result of this successful campaign, hundreds of thousands of American large-bank customers opened credit union accounts since the day the campaign was founded.

Another idea, though it hasn’t gained nearly as much traction with fewer than 600 Facebook fans signed on, is to leave the large credit card issuers behind by transferring outstanding balances to lower-interest cards, like those offered by credit unions. In an ideal world, customers would, on December 11, apply for a zero-interest, zero-fee credit card and include in the application instructions to transfer a balance from a higher rate card.

To figure out who’s behind Balance Transfer Day, you’ll need to trace it through several different initiatives and apparent organizations, but at the root, this effort was organized by a for-profit company whose primary business is an affiliate-based credit card application website. I’m wary about seriously promoting a movement that, when you look layers deep, is organized for the financial benefit of the parent company. Unlike Bank Transfer Day, organized by a woman with no ties or endorsement by the financial industry, the founders of Balance Transfer Day can be easily but not obviously traced to a site called credit-land.com, which has a “Student Credit Card Education Initiative.” This is not a non-profit organization, it is designed to promote the products of the parent website.

Balance Transfer DayThere is no association between this organization and the Occupy movement, though they attempt to make it appear there is a connection by using the Guy Fawkes mask in the Balance Transfer Day initiative logo and using “Occupy” language.

It’s also worth noting that the Twitter handle for the movement is “OccupyBankRate” — a company called BankRate just happens to be a competitor of the organizers. An article on Huffington Post identifies the founder of the movement, Michael Germanovsky, as a laid-off architect, but the writer conveniently neglects to mention that he is also the editor-in-chief of credit-land.com.

Michael Germanovsky

For Michael Germanovsky’s response, please see the comments below the article.

Regardless of who organized this movement and how the organizers are promoting it, individuals should always do what’s best for their finances. In some cases, that could include transferring balances from high rate cards to cards with 0% introductory APRs for balance transfers. There are potential traps, though. And the big issuers just happen to have been improving these offers recently, eliminating or reducing fees to entice more customers.

  • If you do not pay off the entire transferred balance within the introductory period, you will be subject to higher interest rates, and you could be paying more total interest than you would have if you had left the balance on the original card.
  • If you apply for or open many 0% APR card offers around the same time, your credit score could be negatively affected.

The rationale for the transfer from a anti-industry perspective is that since the large banks receive benefits from the government, like a facility to borrow money at 0% APR, it isn’t right that the banks charge even higher rates to their customers who borrow money. By bailing out Wall Street, the government supposedly intended banks to pass the savings to customers in the form of lower rates encouraging borrowing, but the banks decided to use the funds to keep cash on hand to improve their appearance of financial condition for the benefit of their shareholders. Interest rates have been higher since the bailout than they had been in recent years, but there are less expensive options for borrowing than these major issuers.

At the same time, the best zero-balance transfer introductory offers are still promoted heavily by the major issuers. If you look at the website for the underlying company that organized the movement, they promote Citi, Capital One, and Discover as being the best cards for balance transfers. This is despite the movement’s apparent goal to recommend credit unions and small banks.

As a movement, Balance Transfer Day won’t gain as much traction as Bank Transfer Day. The back story isn’t compelling enough, and the motivation, though well-buried, is profit and promotion for the underlying company.

Will this movement inspire you to transfer a high credit card balance from one card to a zero-interest offer on a different card?

{ 19 comments }

More Banks Drop Debit Card Fees

This article was written by in Banking. 3 comments.

Consumer outrage and backlash does work, apparently. Wells Fargo Bank and Chase Bank have been testing debit card fees in a small number of locations within the United States, but due to the anger unleashed after the largest bank, Bank of America, announced it would add a $5 debit card fee in 2012, the two smaller (but still very large) banks backpedaled. Wells Fargo and Chase are unwinding their test plans, and the bank executives have decided not to continue charging more customers for the benefit of accessing their own funds on deposit.

Chase BankA customer who deposits cash in a checking or savings account has been traditionally doing the banks a favor by allowing them to initiate loans based on the funds held in deposit. In return of this favor, banks paid depositors interest. With banks not lending as much as they have in the past, banks are in no rush to acquire depositors. Thus, they can pay much less interest and increase fees. They’re happy to drive customers away.

Bank spokespeople also cite new regulations as rationalization for new fees. Particularly, the interchange fees banks charge retailers for accepting debit cards at the point of sale are now limited. In effect, banks are switching revenue-generation from retailers to depositors. With this new swipe fee regulation, retailers are now more protected than consumers.

Bank of America’s new debit card fee policy stirred public unrest, and from a public relations standpoint, Chase and Wells Fargo would do well to avoid more public outrage. That won’t be the end of this story for Wells Fargo and Chase. Corporations need to answer to their shareholders, and investors will not want to see a bank willingly part with revenue potential. While the banks are still making great profits in a “post-bailout” environment, expect the executives to tap another source. Be on the look-out for new fees now that certain banks are avoiding debit card fees.

Related: See my article, “The Bank-Fee Wake-Up Call,” on US News & World Report’s “My Money” blog.

Update: In response to the announcements from Wells Fargo and Chase, Bank of America offers a response. The bank will revamp its debit card fees, presumably by lowering the $20,000 minimum to avoid the monthly debit card fee. The bank has not made a decision, though, and unless the bank sees a mass exodus, expect the $5 debit card fee in 2012.

Second update: The finance industry, minus Bank of America, is continuing to listen to customers. SunTrust and Regions Bank have announced that their customers will no longer be subject to the new debit card fees. This leaves Bank of America on its own. Will the largest bank buckle?

Photo: neoliminal
Reuters

{ 3 comments }

We know about TARP, the program that used taxpayer money to lend to the biggest Wall Street banks tin an effort to prevent the collapse of the financial industry. The Federal Reserve loaned more money to Wall Street, however, in secret. The details are only coming out now thanks to the Freedom of Information Act and an act of Congress.

Besides TARP, banks received $1.2 trillion in federal loans, the details of which have been sorted through by Bloomberg. The programs include the Term Auction Facility, Commercial Paper Funding Facility, Primary Dealer Credit Facility, Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF), Single-Tranche Open Market Operations, Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility, and Discount Window.

  • The Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility gave loans to banks so they could meet withdrawal demands of customers invested in money market mutual funds.
  • The Commercial Paper Funding Facility helped companies sell short-term bonds (with maturities less tan 270 days) to find their operations.
  • The Discount Window allowed for more loans to banks to meet consumers’ withdrawal demands at a low borrowing rate.
  • The Primary Dealer Credit Facility allowed brokerages to qualify for TARP-type loans, which were originally intended for banks, not brokerages.
  • The Single-Tranche Open Market Operations created an auction for banks, using mortgage-backed assets as collateral.
  • The Term Auction Facility was another set of loans for banks who feared the negative market reaction to using the Discount Window, loans of last resort.
  • The Term Securities Lending Facility allowed banks to swap toxic assets for U.S. Treasuries.

The loans were not limited to American companies. In one of the most interesting cases, a German commercial property lender received $28.8 billion, double the amount the bank received from its own country, amounting to $21 million per employee. Like most companies taking advantage of these Federal Reserve lending facilities, this company did not make the details of the borrowing known until the program itself became public.

What kind of precedent does this set for future recessions? First, Federal Reserve lending comes at a cost to taxpayers. In some cases, government money has been exchanged for share ownership, and there’s a potential for the public to profit when that company recovers. It’s a risky investment for public money, and the public has very little influence in how their tax revenues are invested and spent. Keeping the $1.2 trillion in loans hidden from view might have been the only way the plan would have survived, with public opinion turning away from assisting Wall Street with more bailouts. Nevertheless, many economists believe these loans were necessary to prevent the destruction of the global financial industry.

Thanks primarily to the internet and the abundance of informational sources, you would think transparency is greater and that organizations would have a difficult time keeping major programs secret. While many people were aware of the existence of these programs, they weren’t nearly in the public eye as much as TARP was, and the extent of these programs and the affected companies were for the most part unknown until recently.

It’s worthwhile to note that $1.2 trillion is the peak amount of the loans. As some institutions paid back earlier loans, the proceeds were then available for new loans. The “same dollar” could have been used in several loans to several different companies at different times.

Bloomberg, Bloomberg

{ 5 comments }

GE Capital May Buy ING Direct

This article was written by in Banking. 9 comments.

Update: Capital One has purchased ING Direct.

A few weeks ago I mentioned that Ally Bank was considering buying ING Direct, the United States deposit bank arm of the Dutch ING Group. In exchange for a European bailout, ING was forced to agree to sell ING Direct by 2013. As the date nears, more rumors are circulating about the nature of interested buyers.

I’d like to see the bank purchased by a company that would recognize ING Direct’s overall philosophy when it comes to dealing with consumers and mix the philosophy with a higher interest rate product for savers. Consolidation could prove to be bad for consumers who end up with fewer banking choices, but there are enough banks around to keep strong competition among the best online savings accounts.

The latest company to neither confirm nor deny their intent to acquire ING Direct’s deposits is GE Capital. GE Capital deals mainly with business clients, not retail banking customers, so this would be a move into uncharted territory. Compare this with Ally Bank, where a consolidation would probably prove to be smoother from a business perspective, which, down the line, is usually better for the consumer.

According to the CNN video, other interest parties include Capital One and CIT Group. You may remember CIT Group from the recent financial meltdown when the company’s stock was frozen on the New York Stock Exchange and the company soon after filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Who do you think would be the best buyer for ING Direct?

Photo: yonathansantana
CNN

{ 9 comments }

Federal Reserve’s Secret Bailout Helped Banks Profit During Crisis

by Flexo
1422847855_a0b53f1582_b[1]

While the Federal Reserve was publicly providing money to member banks at interest rates of up to 0.5 percent during the financial meltdown of 2008, a different, less public program bailed out Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, and Royal Bank of Scotland with short-term loans with an interest rate of only 0.01 percent. Those banks received the bulk ... Continue reading this article…

10 comments Read the full article →

Goldman Sachs Will Tie Bonuses to Long-Term Performance

by Flexo

A big criticism of Wall Street bonuses throughout and after the collapse of the financial industry has been the idea that executives were awarded over-sized bonuses while their companies fell apart. Wall Street fought back against this criticism, usually with the explanation that bonuses were paid in accordance to contracts that were signed before the ... Continue reading this article…

5 comments Read the full article →

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Takes Shape

by Flexo

In July, the federal government passed a sweeping new law to reform the financial industry. One of the biggest and most hotly contested aspect of this new law is the establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. President Obama has tapped Elizabeth Warren to oversee the development of this new agency. The new director won’t ... Continue reading this article…

10 comments Read the full article →

Your Opinion: Will You Buy GM Stock or Cars?

by Flexo

In April, I noted that General Motors repaid taxpayers for the company’s government-initiated bailout loans in full. There has been quite a discussion about this repayment, but the main points are that the loans accounted only for a small portion of the bailout, and one could consider that the loan repayment was possible only due ... Continue reading this article…

25 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 812345···Last »