Sorry!! The article you are trying to read is not available now.
Thank you very much;
you're only a step away from
downloading your reports.

Don't Look Now: Checking Fee Hikes Are Next for Banks


Are free accounts a thing of the past?

First, terms on credit cards got harsher. Now some people are seeing higher fees on their checking accounts.

(C) customers with Access or EZ checking accounts will now be charged a $7.50 monthly fee unless they maintain a $1,500 balance. Previously, the monthly fee was waived if customers set up direct deposit for paychecks or two automatic bill payments.

Those measures will no longer automatically qualify customers for the fee waiver. The change takes effect in February; customers will be notified this month.

Natalie Riper, a Citi spokeswoman, said the change will "impact a relatively small percentage of our customers" since most people maintain the $1,500 balance. She declined to give specifics on how many people would be affected.

Meanwhile, Bank of America (BAC) raised its monthly fee on checking accounts to $8.95 in June, up from $5.95. The North Carolina-based company will continue to waive fees for customers who set up direct deposit, maintain a $1,500 monthly balance, or open accounts online.

The change by Citi comes as Congress considers legislation that would limit banks' ability to levy overdraft fees on checking accounts. In recent years, it has become the industry norm to automatically enroll customers in overdraft programs.

Consumer advocates say the programs are misleading because most people assume they can't spend more than they have with debit cards. Fees for overdrawing an account can be as much as $35 per violation.

The scrutiny over bank fees in the past year has led to a sense in the banking industry that "free checking as most of us know it can no longer exist," said Bob Meara, a senior analyst at Celent, a Boston-based financial research firm.

That's because overdraft programs have been a critical source of revenue for the industry. In 2007, banks earned about $29 billion from overdraft fees, according to Oliver Wyman, the parent company of Celent. However, only about 5 percent of customers accounted for 68 percent of those fees; 74 percent of accounts didn't incur any overdraft fees.

That means a small slice of customers were essentially underwriting the cost of providing free checking accounts to the majority of people. So clamping down on overdraft fees means banks "have to absorb the costs by other means," Meara said.

Already, a spate of large banks have announced plans to make their overdraft programs more consumer friendly. Many now plan to require customers to opt into the programs and are lowering or capping penalty fees.

If stricter legislation passes, however, banks may be forced to adjust checking account policies.

To provide a safety cushion against overdrafts, for instance, banks may start requiring minimum balances, said Nessa Feddis, a retail banking expert with the American Bankers Association, an industry group based in Washington, DC.

The crackdown on overdraft fees could also limit the ability of those with poor credit histories to get checking accounts, Feddis said.

"It's the only reliable predictor of whether someone might overdraw," Feddis said. For now, the changes by Bank of America and Citibank seem isolated. Representatives from Chase (JPM), PNC Financial (PNC) and Wells Fargo (WFC) said no changes had recently been made to their checking accounts, and declined to speculate about future strategies.

"Citibank's move is somewhat pre-emptive -- it's laying out a position to see how other banks react," Meara said.

Of course, deeper troubles may be prompting Citi's change.

The bank was one of the hardest hit by the economic downturn and has reported massive losses in the past two years. It received $45 billion in loans from the US government, which now owns a 34 percent stake in the bank.

Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Register For Minyanville's Holiday Festivus '09 Here
< Previous
  • 1
Next >
No positions in stocks mentioned.

The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.

Copyright 2011 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Videos