Banking UP

Payday Lending ... no more

In a recent article published by the Huffington Post, I argued that the days of abusive payday lending might be numbered, now that new online services like BillFloat are appearing at a fraction of the cost.

I also lamented that some prepaid card suppliers were cozying up a bit too much to the payday lenders…
Guess what: this week, prepaid card providers NetSpend and AccountNow are finding themselves sans the iAdvance short-term lines of credit with 3 digit yearly APRs that they were tackling to some of their cards.

The Office of Thrift Supervision asked MetaBank, the originator of the iAdvance product  to stop  offering it.

It is difficult to rejoice when your industry neighbors and competitors are getting hit, because the whole industry gets blemished.
As always, market players should always improve by taking the initiative to create better and cheaper products rather than by shedding existing bad products only when forced to.

Last week, Consumers Union (the non-for-profit publishers of Consumer Reports) provided an update to their September 2009 study of Prepaid Cards, somewhat provocatively entitled “Prepaid Cards: Second-Tier Bank Account Substitutes?”
Click here to download the new report.

What this report articulates overall is: even new, born-in-the-21st-century, financial services and products (like prepaid cards) can be more expensive and less people-friendly than they need to be, jeopardizing their potential to be a replacement for 19th-century services like checking accounts.

The report does not analyze the cause for this, but it is really what I have been talking about time and again on this blog: a lot of financial services suppliers are both greedy and incompetent.
Too many fat cats unwilling or unable to use innovation to improve the performance-over-price ratio of what they deliver.

If it was not for poor execution by many companies, here is why prepaid cards are actually a good substitution for checking accounts:

Pay by card

I do have a few specific issues with the Consumers Union report. In the interest of full disclosure, I run a company that provides prepaid cards, and am evidently disappointed that our product (the UPside Visa Prepaid Card) was not mentioned in it. I guess when you want to make a point that products are too expensive and not consumer-friendly enough, leaving out the lowest cost and most complete products available helps strengthen that point.
But, hey, product reviewers have to select a manageable subset and can’t include everybody. And why would I complain that our product is not listed in a rather negative report?

Back to what I think is not entirely justified in the Consumers Union report, in reference to their Policy Recommendations in paragraph V:

• Fees: for sure they ought to be limited and transparent. Overdraft and dormancy fees which are mostly punitive should go away (we don’t have any on UPside cards). However, requesting that paper statements be always provided at no fee or a nominal fee makes little sense in the days of Internet and increasing postage costs. Almost no cardholder is asking for paper statements.
• Rights to re-credits in case of lost or stolen cards: here Consumers Union is confusing the theory – i.e. what Terms & Conditions have to legally say- and the practice – i.e. what companies really do-. Most issuers will re-credit an account that was previously suspended following a loss or theft, rather than risking to lose the cardholder by waiting too long to do it. So most incidents are resolved well beyond what the T&C’s of a cardholder agreement typically say. Requesting that re-credits be systematic, generalized and the same as with bank accounts that often rely on minimum balances and other fees to cover operational costs, is unrealistic.
• Reduce Loss Cap to $50 on all cards, including prepaid. Same as above: most issuers will actually waive loss caps rather than losing a customer, even though they have a lot less headroom to do so with a prepaid card than with a debit or credit card. Forcing alignment of all cards without understanding the underpinning differences in profitability and business models will not work.
• Chargeback Protection. Well, this is not even discussed in the report, so not sure why that point is there, besides juste making the list longer. I am not aware that prepaid card issuers are behaving any differently than issuers of debit cards linked to a checking account.
• FDIC protection. What they mean here is what is called “pass-through” protection, i.e. making it clear that the protection applies to cards individually rather than all the cards in aggregate at the issuer. I agree with this, but let’s remember that no prepaid card reviewed in the report nor any prepaid card that I know of in the US, can exceed a balance of a few $1,000′s. So demanding a $250,000 protection per card is somewhat extreme. I am not sure what the Anti Money Laundering enforcers would think about prepaid cards with balances of up to a quarter million dollars…

Overall, the prepaid card industry has some progress to make and Consumers Union does a good job of keeping stakeholders on their toes. However, giving the impression that all prepaid cards are ‘second tier’ compared to bank accounts, is somewhat unfair to those of us who are trying hard to do better than checking accounts at a lower cost and without the risks of overdrafts.

For the sake of transparency, here is what the UPside Visa fee schedule, as formatted by Consumers Union in Appendix A of their report would have looked like if they had included it: (click on the image to download in PDF format)
And here is the same for the evaluation of the monthly cost: (click on the image to download in PDF format)

Try this:

• go to the Student Cards section of the Visa website
• pick a card
• click on the Apply button

Do you get any hint that you are not eligible if you are less than 21 and don’t have a co-signer on the card or can’t prove that you can repay the debt?
No.
In spite of the CARD Act being in effect since February 22, 2010, banks are just looking the other way. To be fair, maybe they are actually filtering people less than 21 out after enrollment. I did not go all the way through a full enrollment to check.

Wouldn’t the banks have a lot to gain by being upfront and claiming loud and clear that they are OK with not dragging students less than 21 year old further into debt and being happy to comply with the new law?

Instead, it is business as usual for the big banks. Consumer protection? Not their cup of tea. Demonstrating good will and compliance? Naaahh…

I predict a massive consumer exodus from these inconsiderate corporate giants in favor of fair and transparent services offered by innovators.

Russell Simmons was all over the press last week, doing damage control about his RushCard prepaid card and its plethora of fees. He was reacting to journalists highlighting that, while he was in front of cameras in Washington fighting against the Durbin amendment about debit card interchange fees, his company UniRush was busy gouging its cardholders with an unbelievable array of fees.

Simmons accused journalists of mis-reading the table of fees listed in the terms and conditions of the card on the RushCard website and of mixing up fees for the “pay as you go” card with the fees of the “pay monthly” program to make the card appear more expansive than it really is.

Well, he missed the irony that both plans are charging “as you go”, and that there is no option to pay upfront for all services, contrary to his allegation that his cardholders could opt to buy up the card, like car shoppers would just buy a car upfront and not have to may for a monthly lease or loan reimbursement.

He even asked for a correction to be published by those publications.

Anyone can check the fee table for themselves at http://www.rushcard.com/cardholder.aspx

Here is what Robert Schmidt and Patrick O’Connor of  Bloomberg Business Week wrote in their article “How Russell Simmons Out-Lobbied Big Banks“:

Unmentioned are the fees Simmons’ company imposes for its cards, including:

• a $9.95 monthly charge (correct: pay monthly plan)
• a $3 activation fee (correct: pay monthly plan)
• $1 for every purchase if a PIN is used (correct: pay monthly plan)
• $1 for online bill paying (correct: pay monthly plan; the journalist was generous enough not to mention that just enrolling for bill payment is $2)
• $0.50 to check your balance at the ATM (correct: pay monthly plan)

So the list of fees reported by Business Week is 100% correct, and they have not attempted to mix fees from various plans to make the cards appear more expansive than they really are.

Simmons also acted as if he was being insulted by his product being called a “prepaid card”. Well, the very title of the product’s website is:

“RushCard | Prepaid card | Prepaid Debit Card | Prepaid Visa | Prepaid Credit Card”

So, dear Russell Simmons, you certainly have excellent intentions, but the folks at UniRush are doing a terrible job with one of the most expansive products in the marketplace. No amount of spinning efforts on your part will change the fact that your card is among the worst choices for the very people you claim to be helping.

Start by cleaning up shop in Cincinatti.

A relatively new site called GetDebit provides information about “non-credit” card products.

In the US, debit cards that are linked to a bank account, and prepaid cards that are not, get both categorized as “debit” products and have that word printed on the front of the card.  So, GetDebit actually deals with both debit cards and prepaid cards. (In Europe, prepaid cards do not have the word “debit” printed on them, and have other differences like not being necessarily embossed).

GetDebit stands out in its editorial approach: they do write articles about specific products and services without seeking advertising dollars from the companies behind them. This is worth noting in a world where infomercials are almost impossible to distinguish from genuine articles.

Granted, their business model is indeed to advertise products and place the highest bidders at the top of the pages, but they also mention products and do in-depth analysis without asking for ad dollars.

Evidently, we are praising them because they wrote a piece about the API that our company, Plastyc, released last week. And we have never paid them any advertising dollars.