[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Radio Paradise Comments - miamizsun - Jan 30, 2025 - 6:08am
 
NYTimes Connections - Proclivities - Jan 30, 2025 - 6:08am
 
Wordle - daily game - miamizsun - Jan 30, 2025 - 6:07am
 
Republican Party - islander - Jan 30, 2025 - 5:40am
 
Trump - rgio - Jan 30, 2025 - 4:58am
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - Coaxial - Jan 30, 2025 - 4:42am
 
Things You Thought Today - Antigone - Jan 30, 2025 - 3:28am
 
China - R_P - Jan 30, 2025 - 1:03am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - Alchemist - Jan 29, 2025 - 10:43pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - Red_Dragon - Jan 29, 2025 - 7:23pm
 
NY Times Strands - geoff_morphini - Jan 29, 2025 - 7:19pm
 
Art Show - oldviolin - Jan 29, 2025 - 6:08pm
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - sunybuny - Jan 29, 2025 - 5:22pm
 
Radio Paradise saved my life. - sunybuny - Jan 29, 2025 - 5:18pm
 
TMI - R_P - Jan 29, 2025 - 4:25pm
 
Derplahoma! - Red_Dragon - Jan 29, 2025 - 3:37pm
 
Questions. - Red_Dragon - Jan 29, 2025 - 3:34pm
 
Democratic Party - R_P - Jan 29, 2025 - 3:17pm
 
Musky Mythology - R_P - Jan 29, 2025 - 2:54pm
 
Little known information... maybe even facts - miamizsun - Jan 29, 2025 - 2:11pm
 
New Music - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 29, 2025 - 2:06pm
 
Buddy's Haven - buddy - Jan 29, 2025 - 2:05pm
 
Artificial Intelligence - R_P - Jan 29, 2025 - 1:53pm
 
Infinite cat - Proclivities - Jan 29, 2025 - 1:38pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - black321 - Jan 29, 2025 - 1:32pm
 
RightWingNutZ - miamizsun - Jan 29, 2025 - 12:03pm
 
January 2025 Photo Theme - Beginnings - Isabeau - Jan 29, 2025 - 11:02am
 
Israel - R_P - Jan 29, 2025 - 10:28am
 
RADIO 2050 - black321 - Jan 29, 2025 - 10:15am
 
USA! USA! USA! - R_P - Jan 29, 2025 - 9:44am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 29, 2025 - 7:45am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jan 29, 2025 - 6:44am
 
Climate Change - R_P - Jan 28, 2025 - 10:03pm
 
What the hell OV? - buddy - Jan 28, 2025 - 9:26pm
 
Immigration - R_P - Jan 28, 2025 - 5:22pm
 
Two sexes or ? Gender as a non-binary concept - R_P - Jan 28, 2025 - 3:56pm
 
Breaking News - islander - Jan 28, 2025 - 12:38pm
 
Hungary - gmaarton - Jan 28, 2025 - 3:45am
 
Name My Band - GeneP59 - Jan 27, 2025 - 8:38pm
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Jan 27, 2025 - 6:56pm
 
Tweaking My Favorites Mix - handyman56 - Jan 27, 2025 - 12:30pm
 
I'm Thankful For.. - Isabeau - Jan 27, 2025 - 12:25pm
 
Are you ready for some football? - rgio - Jan 27, 2025 - 8:30am
 
Celebrity Face Recognition - Red_Dragon - Jan 26, 2025 - 2:37pm
 
Brian Eno - Steely_D - Jan 26, 2025 - 2:00pm
 
Business as Usual - R_P - Jan 26, 2025 - 11:40am
 
Bluesky - instead of Twitter - haresfur - Jan 26, 2025 - 12:53am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - mccarty.richard - Jan 25, 2025 - 8:44pm
 
Great Old Songs You Rarely Hear Anymore - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 25, 2025 - 8:13pm
 
Things We Shouldn't Have To Say - oldviolin - Jan 25, 2025 - 9:36am
 
How's the weather? - GeneP59 - Jan 25, 2025 - 8:26am
 
Would you drive this car for dating with ur girl? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 25, 2025 - 6:40am
 
This is the main mix - Thebiglebowski - Jan 25, 2025 - 4:52am
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Jan 24, 2025 - 11:27am
 
Joe Biden - VV - Jan 23, 2025 - 3:45pm
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 23, 2025 - 2:40pm
 
2024 Elections! - black321 - Jan 23, 2025 - 1:56pm
 
Old Dog, New Trick - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 23, 2025 - 12:40pm
 
The Grateful Dead - black321 - Jan 23, 2025 - 10:59am
 
Demons in Church - Red_Dragon - Jan 23, 2025 - 8:27am
 
Spambags on RP - miamizsun - Jan 23, 2025 - 7:14am
 
Rock Movies/Documentaries - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 22, 2025 - 4:58pm
 
Banksters - R_P - Jan 22, 2025 - 4:47pm
 
Fires - miamizsun - Jan 22, 2025 - 2:46pm
 
Social Media Are Changing Everything - R_P - Jan 22, 2025 - 11:29am
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Jan 22, 2025 - 11:20am
 
Other Medical Stuff - farhantaimoor373 - Jan 22, 2025 - 8:33am
 
tunes! - sahlman - Jan 22, 2025 - 5:48am
 
Now & Zen - miamizsun - Jan 22, 2025 - 5:25am
 
The Obituary Page - GeneP59 - Jan 21, 2025 - 4:04pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - Isabeau - Jan 21, 2025 - 1:31pm
 
Favorite Quotes - oldviolin - Jan 21, 2025 - 10:43am
 
2 questions. - miamizsun - Jan 21, 2025 - 4:56am
 
Canada - R_P - Jan 20, 2025 - 10:10pm
 
What The Hell Buddy? - oldviolin - Jan 20, 2025 - 5:57pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Banksters Page: 1, 2, 3  Next
Post to this Topic
R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 22, 2025 - 4:47pm


Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Gilead


Posted: Apr 9, 2020 - 8:48am

Wall Street firm dangled up to 175% returns to investors using U.S. aid programs
R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 6, 2019 - 4:00pm

Bring out the big 'uns...
Billionaire JP Morgan chief attacks socialism as 'a disaster'
  • Jamie Dimon: socialism leads to ‘corruption and favouritism’
  • America’s top banker, paid $31m last year, defends capitalism
The world’s most powerful banker has attacked socialism, saying it produces “stagnation, corruption and often worse”.
Jamie Dimon, spare us your crocodile tears about inequality
Robert Reich
JP Morgan chief executive Jamie Dimon took aim at socialism in his annual letter to shareholders, and warned it would be “a disaster for our country”.

Dimon, who was paid $31m last year as the head of America’s largest bank and who is estimated by Forbes to be worth $1.3bn, took his swipe as a new wave of left politics has emerged in the US. (...)

R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 6, 2019 - 1:31pm

But the sycophancy in this case mashed up with Mnuchin’s other main trait: He’s a rather dim gentleman. Anyone who doesn’t recognize the implications of springing on the public an announcement that banks most certainly have ample liquidity isn’t operating with a shed full of all the tools needed to do this job. And, sadly for the country, this is part of a pattern.

R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 9, 2018 - 7:32pm

No worries, it'll trickle down...
The Trump Administration Just Found a New Way to Hand Big Banks Even More Money
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 14, 2018 - 2:43pm

 islander wrote:
I mostly agree. But some people, especially very poor people, have very limited choices. These often amount to a Hobson's choice of take it or leave it. Sure they can leave it, but there are no, or very limited alternatives.   Maybe Amazon's offer will be a viable option, but I don't think for a second it has anything to do with helping anyone who is not Amazon.  
 

i don't know enough about amazon's intentions for the poor, banking or otherwise to make a call

i read a blurb about partnering with, not preying on the current heavyweights

banking/transferring money is going to get somewhat disrupted by some really efficient players coming out of asia

most of africa and asia are "poor" by our standards but they're going to use mostly mobile tech to trade and transact

what is that going to look like?

not sure, but it will happen (maybe grameen and others will streamline and simplify the process)

there's a big effort to bring a few billion people online sooner rather than later

exciting stuff

sending money here now?

a couple of taps and it's done


Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Gilead


Posted: Mar 14, 2018 - 9:32am

Corporate America's undertakers prepare for feast after lean years
islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 14, 2018 - 7:45am

 miamizsun wrote:

there's been a lot written on money, banking and finance (these are really important tools)

and arguably one of the first and most important political captures ever (epic corruption)

but when we get down the retail/individual stuff, it's just simple electronic transactions

if we know how banking/checking works and we do and how banks need those deposits

they should be rolling out the red carpet and giving you a toaster for opening an account

the more important point here is this: power

so why would something work better if it was in the private sector?

for conversational purposes there are two types of power

political power and economic power

political power is all about coercion, force, the threat of force and having a monopoly on the initiation of violence on peaceful people

you're not allowed to say no to political power (because violent consequences)

economic power is all about voluntary transactions

you vote with your choices/money

someone in the private sector offering a you shitty deal? don't take it

you can say no and walk and find a better or more acceptable deal

regards


 
I mostly agree. But some people, especially very poor people, have very limited choices. These often amount to a Hobson's choice of take it or leave it. Sure they can leave it, but there are no, or very limited alternatives.   Maybe Amazon's offer will be a viable option, but I don't think for a second it has anything to do with helping anyone who is not Amazon.  
islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 14, 2018 - 7:41am

 kurtster wrote:

We agree !

 
On occasion. 
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 14, 2018 - 6:09am

islander wrote: 

  I have a friend who is a banker. We have discussed this several times. I think the general gist is correct that regulations make it incredibly difficult to manage low balance/low transaction customers. But their model of accounting for these costs is flawed (usually done as total cost/total customers), they don't have a good feel for what it costs to do compliance for an individual customer, and I argue that the small balance / typical small customer is a low risk for the money laundering problems and can be managed more cost effectively (even automated).   Even my banker buddy will admit that they have missed the mark on the business model and are relying too much on generic fees because it became the easiest thing to do following the 2007 problems and subsequent regulation. We both agree that there is a better model, especially with interest rates at record lows to empower poorer people with loans and to make money servicing those loans, and getting growth from those customers as they grown and interest rates return to traditional norms.  There would be some losses, but again with proper management those could be handled and in aggregate would work out. But this would also take a shift in consumer behavior, and getting the low end customers to borrow money for investment rather than unproductive spending.  Our system is set up to keep people away from knowledge and power, and this is just another component of it. It's very expensive to be poor. This leads to my last point:

This is a bad idea. Free services aren't free. If you aren't paying for what your using, you are the product, not the customer. If you are the product, you have no leverage, and the people making decisions are looking for ways to maximize profit off of you, not looking for ways to improve your customer experience or help you out. You are just part of the value being created for the real (paying) customers, and you aren't getting a fair slice of that value.  More free stuff doesn't help people get off of government services and become self dependent, so why would it work better just because it comes from the private sector?
==============================================================================
i was a banker, but i wouldn't admit it unless someone was holding a gun on me

there's been a lot written on money, banking and finance (these are really important tools)

and arguably one of the first and most important political captures ever (epic corruption)

but when we get down the retail/individual stuff, it's just simple electronic transactions

if we know how banking/checking works and we do and how banks need those deposits

they should be rolling out the red carpet and giving you a toaster for opening an account

the more important point here is this: power

so why would something work better if it was in the private sector?

for conversational purposes there are two types of power

political power and economic power

political power is all about coercion, force, the threat of force and having a monopoly on the initiation of violence on peaceful people

you're not allowed to say no to political power (because violent consequences)

economic power is all about voluntary transactions

you vote with your choices/money

someone in the private sector offering a you shitty deal? don't take it

you can say no and walk and find a better or more acceptable deal

regards



kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 13, 2018 - 8:22am

 islander wrote:

I did business with Amazon for years (until fairly recently). They have only one motive - their profit. They won't even participate with others if it means they have to share profit. They are ruthless in how they handle every transaction, and they have no regard for any other party - they set the price and you have to figure out how to deal with it.  They do *Nothing* just for good intentions.

I respect their model and did very well under it. But I don't like it, and I would much rather have better customers (hence my current world). I don't believe them when they say they are trying to help anyone other than themselves. 

 
We agree !
islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 13, 2018 - 8:18am

 kurtster wrote:
 islander wrote:

...

Our system is set up to keep people away from knowledge and power, and this is just another component of it.

It's very expensive to be poor.
 

This leads to my last point:


This is a bad idea. Free services aren't free. If you aren't paying for what your using, you are the product, not the customer. If you are the product, you have no leverage, and the people making decisions are looking for ways to maximize profit off of you, not looking for ways to improve your customer experience or help you out. You are just part of the value being created for the real (paying) customers, and you aren't getting a fair slice of that value.  More free stuff doesn't help people get off of government services and become self dependent, so why would it work better just because it comes from the private sector?
 
Being poor is extremely expensive.  Nearly everything costs more just due to proximity and mobility.  Toss in the cost of security and it gets worse.

Its not a bad idea if (remember I already made a comparison to company stores) ...

Amazon's intentions really are good and stay that way. 

Amazon is making a dramatic shift towards the poor.  It now has a discount Prime membership rate for those on Medicaid.  This empowers the poor to have access to items that they would not normally find at the corner mom & pop convenience store and at far better prices if they were.  No longer where you live or what kind of transportation you have keeps you from the good stuff and the good prices.  This will allow the poor to be less stressed about just simply getting their basic needs and getting them home, let alone paying for them.  This brings stability to a stressed out environment.  It does require paying attention and educating yourself so you don't fall into expensive predictable patterns.

Then what about Food Stamps ?  I don't know how they fall into this, but that could be a win - win for the users and the taxpayers.  They would be used for only authorized items and less subject to illegal conversion.

This falls into the realm of benevolent dictator / monopoly.  Dangerous and overall a bad idea, because the downside abuses are more likely in the long term as everyone gets lulled into complacency.

You are absolutely right.  Nothing is free or without cost.  It's a risk / reward proposition dependent upon good intentions, and we all know how that plays out over time.

 
I did business with Amazon for years (until fairly recently). They have only one motive - their profit. They won't even participate with others if it means they have to share profit. They are ruthless in how they handle every transaction, and they have no regard for any other party - they set the price and you have to figure out how to deal with it.  They do *Nothing* just for good intentions.

I respect their model and did very well under it. But I don't like it, and I would much rather have better customers (hence my current world). I don't believe them when they say they are trying to help anyone other than themselves. 
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 13, 2018 - 7:47am

 islander wrote:

...

Our system is set up to keep people away from knowledge and power, and this is just another component of it.

It's very expensive to be poor.
 

This leads to my last point:


This is a bad idea. Free services aren't free. If you aren't paying for what your using, you are the product, not the customer. If you are the product, you have no leverage, and the people making decisions are looking for ways to maximize profit off of you, not looking for ways to improve your customer experience or help you out. You are just part of the value being created for the real (paying) customers, and you aren't getting a fair slice of that value.  More free stuff doesn't help people get off of government services and become self dependent, so why would it work better just because it comes from the private sector?
 
Being poor is extremely expensive.  Nearly everything costs more just due to proximity and mobility.  Toss in the cost of security and it gets worse.

Its not a bad idea if (remember I already made a comparison to company stores) ...

Amazon's intentions really are good and stay that way. 

Amazon is making a dramatic shift towards the poor.  It now has a discount Prime membership rate for those on Medicaid.  This empowers the poor to have access to items that they would not normally find at the corner mom & pop convenience store and at far better prices if they were.  No longer where you live or what kind of transportation you have keeps you from the good stuff and the good prices.  This will allow the poor to be less stressed about just simply getting their basic needs and getting them home, let alone paying for them.  This brings stability to a stressed out environment.  It does require paying attention and educating yourself so you don't fall into expensive predictable patterns.

Then what about Food Stamps ?  I don't know how they fall into this, but that could be a win - win for the users and the taxpayers.  They would be used for only authorized items and less subject to illegal conversion.

This falls into the realm of benevolent dictator / monopoly.  Dangerous and overall a bad idea, because the downside abuses are more likely in the long term as everyone gets lulled into complacency.

You are absolutely right.  Nothing is free or without cost.  It's a risk / reward proposition dependent upon good intentions, and we all know how that plays out over time.
islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 13, 2018 - 7:12am

 miamizsun wrote:

The Government Killed Free Checking—Can Amazon Save It?

Government regulations have driven many people out of their checking accounts, but maybe innovative solutions can help.

Banking has become prohibitively expensive over recent years, especially for the poor. The number of people with free checking accounts has hit a new low, while overdraft fees continue to rise. Whereas it used to be part of the American Dream to maintain a healthy bank account, around 35 million households no longer have regular access to traditional financial services.

It wasn’t long ago that banks would provide valuable financial products to an ever-widening margin of low-income consumers—and make a profit doing so. In 2009, 76 percent of banks offered free checking accounts. Today, that number is only 38 percent. Likewise, overdraft fees in the year 2000 were around $18. Today they are over $30.

So what changed? Critics like to blame big banks for putting “profit over people.” But as easy as it is to point the finger at Wall Street, the real problem isn’t the banks. It’s the government.

Regulations Are Increasing Costs

It turns out that it’s incredibly expensive to extend financial products to the poor. According to the economic research firm Moebs Services, each checking account costs banks $349 on average, while the average revenue is only $268. A substantial portion of these costs come from the thousands of pages of regulations that banks must abide by just to be able to open an account.

Take anti-money laundering (AML) and “know your customer” laws. The AML regime costs have risen by some 50 percent over recent years. This costs banks around $8 billion annually in compliance but leads to remarkably few convictions. A conservative analysis of the law estimates that each AML conviction costs over $7 million.

Meanwhile, as the cost of maintaining a checking account for banks has risen, the main revenue source of these accounts dried up. An amendment to the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act from Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) imposed price controls on debit card “swipe fees.” The Durbin Amendment capped the price that banks could charge merchants when a customer used a bank’s debit card to purchase something from the merchant. These fees largely covered the bank’s cost of maintaining a checking account and provided the incentive for banks to issue more debit cards. But seeing that a significant and dependable source of revenue was to dry up, banks looked to cut costs and raise fees elsewhere in order to make up for it.

The cumulative effect of regulation raising costs and reducing revenue was to push low-income consumers out of the formal financial system. At the time of the Durbin Amendment’s implementation, JP Morgan estimated that the new regulations would make 70 percent of customers with less than $100,000 unprofitable. Recent history can attest to that. Around one million people have exited the banking system because of the Durbin Amendment alone. For banks like Bank of America who recently canceled their free checking program, it simply doesn’t make sense to offer these checking accounts to low-income consumers when the account barely breaks even.

A Possible Solution

For the last eight years, the trend has been toward the death of free checking. But that tide might be turning, as innovative companies like Amazon look to enter the market, in partnership with banks like JPMorgan and Capital One.

Amazon’s proposal focuses on creating a product for the unbanked—those very people who have been pushed out of the banking system by regulation. The key is that Amazon is uniquely positioned to turn the usual business model of checking accounts on its head. Whereas banks tend to rely upon overdrafts or interchange fees for revenue, Amazon may be able to leverage something even more valuable—consumer data.

Amazon has an enormous data platform which it relies on to tailor products to its consumers. Integrating a customer’s checking account into their broader commercial infrastructure would allow the firm to analyze a customer’s shopping patterns and financial data to better tailor their products. In combination with its payment system, it would also make purchases at Amazon’s marketplace much cheaper and easier for both the customer and the firm.

In this way, the checking account wouldn’t necessarily need to be profitable, as long as it drives more retail sales for the company, with reports suggesting that Amazon could include a checking account as part of its Prime subscription service. For a further discussion of the advantages Amazon has over its competitors, see this Bain & Co. report.

The move into co-branded checking accounts may, therefore, be less about disrupting the financial services marketplace as it is about increasing consumer engagement with Amazon’s own platform. As for the product’s outlook, Bain and Co. predict that the service could grow to more than 70 million customers over the next five years. This is the same as the third-largest bank, Wells Fargo.

All of this spells good news for currently under-served consumers, who often rely on relatively expensive financial services such as payday lending or check cashing. While government regulation may have just about killed free checking, a new wave of innovative tech firms like Amazon may be able to save it.  



 
I have a friend who is a banker. We have discussed this several times. I think the general gist is correct that regulations make it incredibly difficult to manage low balance/low transaction customers. But their model of accounting for these costs is flawed (usually done as total cost/total customers), they don't have a good feel for what it costs to do compliance for an individual customer, and I argue that the small balance / typical small customer is a low risk for the money laundering problems and can be managed more cost effectively (even automated).   

Even my banker buddy will admit that they have missed the mark on the business model and are relying too much on generic fees because it became the easiest thing to do following the 2007 problems and subsequent regulation. We both agree that there is a better model, especially with interest rates at record lows to empower poorer people with loans and to make money servicing those loans, and getting growth from those customers as they grown and interest rates return to traditional norms.  There would be some losses, but again with proper management those could be handled and in aggregate would work out. But this would also take a shift in consumer behavior, and getting the low end customers to borrow money for investment rather than unproductive spending.  Our system is set up to keep people away from knowledge and power, and this is just another component of it. It's very expensive to be poor.  This leads to my last point:

This is a bad idea. Free services aren't free. If you aren't paying for what your using, you are the product, not the customer. If you are the product, you have no leverage, and the people making decisions are looking for ways to maximize profit off of you, not looking for ways to improve your customer experience or help you out. You are just part of the value being created for the real (paying) customers, and you aren't getting a fair slice of that value.  More free stuff doesn't help people get off of government services and become self dependent, so why would it work better just because it comes from the private sector?


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 13, 2018 - 6:34am

 miamizsun wrote: 
Outside the box.  Walmart tried to do something like this awhile ago but it didn't takeoff.  Prolly just because it was Walmart.  I think they tried to buy their own bank or did, but their brand just wasn't warm and fuzzy enough to get people to give them their money without buying something.

I've been very fortunate to be with the bank that I use.  Been with them since the 80's.  Somehow they have avoided being bought up and just recently started buying other banks.  And they still have free checking.  Even better, they give you free 24 hour overdraft protection on your checking account.  Who does that ?  They give you 24 hours to move money into your account to cover it and let it slide.

This Amazon thing is spooky though.  It kinda sounds reminiscent of the old company store in rural mining towns and the like.  Your money and the store have the first relationship.  Kinda makes it easier to keep it all in house and inhibit spending elsewhere.  Sneaky yet very smart for Amazon. 

Imagine going to your checking account and finding a message that you are low on something that you purchase at a regular interval and here's a handy one click link to order more !  More often than not, it'll get the click without any concern over price cuz its apparently already been mentally accepted as the price you like.  Conditioning ... convenience ... mindlessness ... brilliant ...

Meanwhile, Amazon has got various cities bending over backwards to give them tax incentives to bring in a company that is so flush with cash that it would be the least in need or deserving of any tax breaks.  Amazing.


miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 13, 2018 - 5:32am

The Government Killed Free Checking—Can Amazon Save It?

Government regulations have driven many people out of their checking accounts, but maybe innovative solutions can help.

Banking has become prohibitively expensive over recent years, especially for the poor. The number of people with free checking accounts has hit a new low, while overdraft fees continue to rise. Whereas it used to be part of the American Dream to maintain a healthy bank account, around 35 million households no longer have regular access to traditional financial services.

It wasn’t long ago that banks would provide valuable financial products to an ever-widening margin of low-income consumers—and make a profit doing so. In 2009, 76 percent of banks offered free checking accounts. Today, that number is only 38 percent. Likewise, overdraft fees in the year 2000 were around $18. Today they are over $30.

So what changed? Critics like to blame big banks for putting “profit over people.” But as easy as it is to point the finger at Wall Street, the real problem isn’t the banks. It’s the government.

Regulations Are Increasing Costs

It turns out that it’s incredibly expensive to extend financial products to the poor. According to the economic research firm Moebs Services, each checking account costs banks $349 on average, while the average revenue is only $268. A substantial portion of these costs come from the thousands of pages of regulations that banks must abide by just to be able to open an account.

Take anti-money laundering (AML) and “know your customer” laws. The AML regime costs have risen by some 50 percent over recent years. This costs banks around $8 billion annually in compliance but leads to remarkably few convictions. A conservative analysis of the law estimates that each AML conviction costs over $7 million.

Meanwhile, as the cost of maintaining a checking account for banks has risen, the main revenue source of these accounts dried up. An amendment to the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act from Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) imposed price controls on debit card “swipe fees.” The Durbin Amendment capped the price that banks could charge merchants when a customer used a bank’s debit card to purchase something from the merchant. These fees largely covered the bank’s cost of maintaining a checking account and provided the incentive for banks to issue more debit cards. But seeing that a significant and dependable source of revenue was to dry up, banks looked to cut costs and raise fees elsewhere in order to make up for it.

The cumulative effect of regulation raising costs and reducing revenue was to push low-income consumers out of the formal financial system. At the time of the Durbin Amendment’s implementation, JP Morgan estimated that the new regulations would make 70 percent of customers with less than $100,000 unprofitable. Recent history can attest to that. Around one million people have exited the banking system because of the Durbin Amendment alone. For banks like Bank of America who recently canceled their free checking program, it simply doesn’t make sense to offer these checking accounts to low-income consumers when the account barely breaks even.

A Possible Solution

For the last eight years, the trend has been toward the death of free checking. But that tide might be turning, as innovative companies like Amazon look to enter the market, in partnership with banks like JPMorgan and Capital One.

Amazon’s proposal focuses on creating a product for the unbanked—those very people who have been pushed out of the banking system by regulation. The key is that Amazon is uniquely positioned to turn the usual business model of checking accounts on its head. Whereas banks tend to rely upon overdrafts or interchange fees for revenue, Amazon may be able to leverage something even more valuable—consumer data.

Amazon has an enormous data platform which it relies on to tailor products to its consumers. Integrating a customer’s checking account into their broader commercial infrastructure would allow the firm to analyze a customer’s shopping patterns and financial data to better tailor their products. In combination with its payment system, it would also make purchases at Amazon’s marketplace much cheaper and easier for both the customer and the firm.

In this way, the checking account wouldn’t necessarily need to be profitable, as long as it drives more retail sales for the company, with reports suggesting that Amazon could include a checking account as part of its Prime subscription service. For a further discussion of the advantages Amazon has over its competitors, see this Bain & Co. report.

The move into co-branded checking accounts may, therefore, be less about disrupting the financial services marketplace as it is about increasing consumer engagement with Amazon’s own platform. As for the product’s outlook, Bain and Co. predict that the service could grow to more than 70 million customers over the next five years. This is the same as the third-largest bank, Wells Fargo.

All of this spells good news for currently under-served consumers, who often rely on relatively expensive financial services such as payday lending or check cashing. While government regulation may have just about killed free checking, a new wave of innovative tech firms like Amazon may be able to save it.  


R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 7, 2018 - 11:17am

Gary Cohn: Mission Accomplished
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 26, 2017 - 5:56am

 R_P wrote:
Trump Swamp Redux...
Goldman Sachs alum Gary Cohn, head of President Donald Trump’s National Economic Council, is planning a weakening of financial regulations via executive order.

Executive orders set to be issued on Friday would direct regulatory agencies to review new rules adopted under the Dodd-Frank Act, a sweeping reform of the financial sector that was passed after the Great Recession. The orders would also repeal a Department of Labor rule that requires retirement advisers to operate solely in the best interests of their clients.

“Americans are going to have better choices and Americans are going to have better products because we’re not going to burden the banks with literally hundreds of billions of dollars of regulatory costs every year,” Cohn, the former chief operating officer of Goldman Sachs, told the Wall Street Journal on Friday. “The banks are going to be able to price product more efficiently and more effectively to consumers.”

Cohn left Goldman for the White House last month, cashing in on bonuses and stock options worth hundred of millions of dollars. He’s among three alumni from the iconic Wall Street firm (the others are Treasury nominee Steve Mnuchin and Steve Bannon as chief White House strategist) to be serving in this administration, a sharp departure from a campaign in which the president criticized financial elites.


 
a lot of this is lather, rinse, repeat

that dol rule is a politically friendly rule to the mega-companies (and attorneys)

in essence it will squeeze out the small guy due to compliance/legal expenses and the giants will mop up

the fees/costs to the clients and taxpaying livestock?  well....

at least the govt regulatory framework will grow/benefit

what is it they say about the road to hell?  {#Money-mouth}

 
R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 25, 2017 - 8:42pm

Government by Goldman
Gary Cohn Is Giving Goldman Sachs Everything It Ever Wanted From the Trump Administration
R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 4, 2017 - 1:03am

Trump Swamp Redux...
Goldman Sachs alum Gary Cohn, head of President Donald Trump’s National Economic Council, is planning a weakening of financial regulations via executive order.

Executive orders set to be issued on Friday would direct regulatory agencies to review new rules adopted under the Dodd-Frank Act, a sweeping reform of the financial sector that was passed after the Great Recession. The orders would also repeal a Department of Labor rule that requires retirement advisers to operate solely in the best interests of their clients.

“Americans are going to have better choices and Americans are going to have better products because we’re not going to burden the banks with literally hundreds of billions of dollars of regulatory costs every year,” Cohn, the former chief operating officer of Goldman Sachs, told the Wall Street Journal on Friday. “The banks are going to be able to price product more efficiently and more effectively to consumers.”

Cohn left Goldman for the White House last month, cashing in on bonuses and stock options worth hundred of millions of dollars. He’s among three alumni from the iconic Wall Street firm (the others are Treasury nominee Steve Mnuchin and Steve Bannon as chief White House strategist) to be serving in this administration, a sharp departure from a campaign in which the president criticized financial elites.

Page: 1, 2, 3  Next