Regulated Out Of Banks And Credit
Meredith Whitney writes in the WSJ that millions of Americans have lost access to credit and essential banking services due to regulatory "reforms." She writes that one in four Americans were "unbanked" in 2005, but that number will reach one in three in the near future:
Excluding millions of Americans from traditional banking services is not an efficient means of commerce and will result in long-term negative consequences for our economy. The negatives include higher transaction costs, lower household savings, and the concentration of credit in the hands of the few--conditions more commonly associated with Third World countries.Banks are partly to blame for the post credit-crisis shrinkage in banking services. They have not figured out a way to reprice consumer loans effectively in a post-securitization world. For decades, banks could underprice consumer loans (mortgage, home-equity and other personal loans) because they were subsidized with the high fees from securitizations. That all ended with the collapse of the subprime mortgage market.
...But importantly, banks are not to blame for the unintended consequences of ill-planned and ill-timed regulatory reform. The Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act (CARD) essentially restricted a bank's ability to quickly reprice credit-card interest rates. It was passed in 2009 after the peak of the credit crisis, with most of the provisions going into effect in February 2010.
Since mid-2008, over $1.6 trillion in credit lines have been expunged from the system. Under the new law, banks could no longer use other credit bureau information to reprice, as decisions had to be based upon the credit experience of the issuer alone. These restrictions made it far more difficult to effectively price for the evolving risk of a consumer.
Overdraft protection ("Reg E") reform has had a similar impact on retail bank customers. By limiting the fees banks can charge customers, regulators have in effect made the expense of servicing some customers greater than the revenue they generate. In many cases, regulations have made the overall economics of branch banking uneconomic. Consequently, many bank branches have shuttered, nearly 1,500 since 2009.
Pre-paid debit cards have grown exponentially over the past few years. (Pre-paid cards are vehicles that essentially allow a consumer to borrow from themselves.) Many of these come with high fees. They are not the solution, but merely the only viable option in the current regulatory environment. Will they be the next target for well-intentioned regulatory reform?







People who are unable to avoid paying interest on credit cards are probably better off without one. So rather than have high priced credit cards for them, they are probably better off without any credit cards at all.
Redrajesh at February 24, 2012 2:41 AM
The negatives include higher transaction costs, lower household savings, and the concentration of credit in the hands of the few.
How will provision of credit result in better savings and absence of credit result in lower savings? Isn't it because they are unable to save that they use credit in the first place? And providing credit to people is just encouraging them not to save. Ultimately, you get more of the behaviour you encourage which is more of credit and less of savings.
And people are not unbanked if they do not have credit cards. They can still open bank accounts and deposit money there. No bank tells you that you cannot have a bank account if you do not qualify for a credit card
Redrajesh at February 24, 2012 3:03 AM
I'd hazzard a guess that most of the unbanked, credit-cardless have cell phones. It's less a matter of no income than no self-discipline. Savings are basically deferred consumption, which is painful when your friends have the latest toys.
In what world would providing credit to the non-credit-worthy be a good idea? If I lent money, I'd expect to be paid back. People with no credit history and no security are a risk, so they pay a premium to borrow. Loyal customers are a benefit, which is why companies will take a chance on the young. There isn't much that government can't make worse.
I suspect consolidation and automation are responsible for most if not all of the branch closings.
MarkD at February 24, 2012 5:17 AM
Funny how all of a sudded when governemnt nannyism affects their wallets the very people clamoring for more 'protection' from governement overseers get cranky and demand to be left alone
lujlp at February 24, 2012 7:43 AM
() Utopian dreams of how it should be.
() Massive federal regulation.
() "Market failure".
() Only our fair, centralized, efficient, and wise government can provide this function in our society.
Fred: Is there such a thing as "Government failure"?
Official: I don't think we have ever looked into that.
Andrew_M_Garland at February 24, 2012 10:37 AM
Leave a comment