Comments on: You’re going to lose fifteen basis points in ROA

By: unintended consequences

unintended consequences — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:16:41 +0000

For CUs without overdraft protection on their debit cards, opt-in isn’t even an option. If funds are available when the authorization is approved, but unavailable when then the debit is processed, the debit is still required to be processed. Opting in would only be opting into the fee, who would do that? Extended holds are the only way to go in this case, but then there’s the member service aspect of that. Hopefully the Federal Reserve will reconsider this poorly thought out rule.

By: To Opt In, Or Not To Opt In — That Is the Question! | The Raddon Report

To Opt In, Or Not To Opt In — That Is the Question! | The Raddon Report — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:13:34 +0000

[...] You’re going to lose fifteen basis points in ROA [...]

By: Rule Loving

Rule Loving — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:46:17 +0000

I see this problem as more of a lack of customer response when bank requests OPT in than of a large number of OPT out responses. Less than 5% of checking customer base accounts for 95% of income so if there is a focused program to contact these customers who currently use the service with follow up to non-responders, the loss of fee income can be mitigated. Most accounts will be contacted but it is the 5% that drive fee income. If Congress would hurry up and pass the legislation so we could start the process sooner rather than later, we can better deal with those that do not respond. July 1, 2010 is a watershed date. The more time we have to follow up with non-responders the lower the loss of income. Now if there is a cap on fees or prohibition on card transactions, all bets are off for fee mitigation. Back to monthly flat fees or transaction fees for 35-45% of accounts.