Subscribe via RSS Feed Network with Will on LinkedIn

Ethics of Where You Bank

There has been much debate lately about Arianna Huffington’s “Move Your Money” campaign, where she asserts:

If enough people who have money in one of the Big Six banks (the four we mentioned earlier, plus Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley) move it into smaller, more local, more traditional community banks, then collectively we, the people, will have taken a big step toward re-rigging the financial system so it becomes again the productive, stable engine for growth it’s meant to be.

Martha White concludes “This is a great example of populist indignation made practical” and Yvette Kantrow feels that Huffington is “turning the decision on where to bank into a moral choice, like being green or buying organic.” She further adds “Banks make their money in a lot of ways, such as by collecting fees. For instance, banks are projected to collect $38.5 billion in overdraft fees this year, some 90 percent of which is paid by only 10 percent of the customer base.”

Mike Konczal shows us mathematically how a few poorer customers subsidize the costs of the non-revolving ‘prime’ customers in credit cards, and the same can generally be said for deposit and savings account as the “non-revolving ‘prime’ customers” also antidotal pay fewer overdraft fees.

Assume three things for a moment: (1) that you are a subsidized customer, (2) you feel the need to support a non-“Too Big to Fail” institution, and (3) like organic foods you are only willing to ‘pay’ 20% more (or receive 20% less) than the generic product. What is the moral, financially savvy customer to do? Is it wrong to continue to benefit from a system you believe is morally bankrupt?

If you are legitimately a subsidized customer paying less than fifty dollars in fees and interest, keeping low cash balances and paying your credit card in full every month, moving to a smaller institution may have a negative net benefit for that institution as the costs to service your account outweigh the benefit to the institution. But if you remain at a “Too Big to Fail” institution you are enabling a way of business that you don’t morally agree with.

I only see one strategy for dealing with this scenario; stop viewing it as a zero sum game. Here’s how:

  1. Move your profitable (for the bank) accounts to the smaller institutions – generally your CDs, your term loans and your business accounts. Long term money such as CDs give the smaller institution money to make good loans to the local community. Term loans are typically profitable – it is the other side of the equation for how banks make money. Business accounts are also typically more profitable for the institution and you are more likely to be willing to pay fees for essential services on these accounts and not receive interest.
    • This also saves you the big hassle of “changing banks” for your most frequently used accounts, which is arguably the biggest hurdle
    • Also, don’t use brokered deposits (i.e. CDs you would buy through your stock broker) as they are unhealthy for the system and promote inorganic growth and/or bubbles.
  2. Support legislation that levels the playing field between large and small institutions. Right now “Too Big To Fail” institutions enjoy a significantly lower cost of funds that smaller institutions, even adjusting for risk of failure, because of the implicit government guarantee. There isn’t any up for a vote now, and any movement for reform is quickly losing steam, but Megan McArdle and I agree how it should be done.

What is your view?

Disclaimer: The views presented herein are uniquely my own and do not represent the views of any current or past employer. They are reflective of only publicly available information and should not be viewed as inside information.

Tags: , , , ,

Category: Lifestyle Design, Op-Ed

About the Author: Hello, I'm Will Dearman. I'm a data-focused consultant, aspiring strategist, and dad. I love experiments, big data, bigger ideas, adventures, and solving problems. I'm an INTJ. Find me on Twitter or Google+ If you liked this post, please subscribe to this blog.

  • http://www.taylordavidson.com/writing/ Taylor Davidson

    The ethical side is interesting; I agree with Umair that ethics can be a source of corporate competitive advantage.

    Is ethics all about size? Can a large financial institution “act ethically”?

    Will the move to regulating credit cards level the playing field?

    (I haven't paid enough attention to these issues since leaving Big Credit Card Company, interested in your thoughts)

  • http://thestrategyblog.com Will Dearman

    I don't think ethics is necessarily related to size. From the business perspective, I believe businesses are being ethical if they are fulfilling their obligations to the stakeholders while abiding in the letter and spirit of regulation. For large banks this means ensuring excess returns to shareholders, being honest with customers, and fair with employees. The equation is the same for small banks, but different for credit unions. As you know for credit unions, customers are the shareholders and excess returns flow to them. From my perspective, the only reasons small banks (excluding credit unions) did not become as embroiled in toxic financial products is that they did not have the scale and financial/operational sophistication to participate. Credit unions lacked those as well, but without the excess returns mandated by shareholders they are most likely to invest in the communities they serve.

    Beyond the obvious obligations to stakeholders described above, I think it is the responsibility of customers (through market effects) and citizens (through regulation) to ensure that their ethics are reflected in the banks and businesses operating. After all, all ethics is eventually subjective. So on a literal level I respectfully disagree with you and Umair; I don't think ethics are a new competitive advantage. Building a long term relationship of trust with your customers and clients has always been essential for a viable long term enterprise. A large contributor to the economic collapse of 2008 was a loss of trust; a renewed emphasis on building trusted relationship is the system trying to right itself. After all large degree of trust is required for Locke's Social Contract to function, and that is not a new idea.

    Finally, I do not believe the credit card reforms will effect a large scale change in the industry. The terms along with the economic may shift some, but the incentives for the issuers have not changed. The card industry still extracts its value from getting in the way (via interchange fees) and getting and keeping people in debt. Of note, there was a great post on transactional vs. revolving credit that you might be interested in; it is sparking some ideas for me. I like to think that the eventual evolution of the system will: separate transactional credit from revolving credit and allow for near instantaneous settlement in a peer to peer manner eliminating the card interchange network (and the corresponding fees).

    I've been putting some thoughts together on what the financial system might look like in the future (inspired by “Innovation and the Future Proof Bank” by @bankervision). Maybe we can collaborate on that some.

    • http://www.taylordavidson.com/writing/ Taylor Davidson

      In the marketplace, ethics need not be subjective. Consider an objective measure: $$ flowing to companies, products, organizations that are ethical.

      Ok, perhaps it's not a “new” competitive advantage; in fact, that's what I said: “This isn’t a new concept: in fact, it’s a return to our roots, an retreat from the aberration of the industrial revolution.”

      (btw, you'll be interested in Matt's comments on that post)

      I'll check out the transactional v. revolving credit article; balancing the two in a single account creates some interesting trade-offs for credit card companies, as we both know. Curious what you're cooking up, of course…

      • http://www.hellodelight.com matthewbward

        Yes, those comments are the first time I've argued against ethics. :)

        Is “ethics” the new “digital”? Has the word come to be so all-encompassing that it means nothing?

  • http://www.sweetbrowndog.com/ Scott Bravard

    If the goal is to avoid banks that are “too big to fail,” will this strategy make small banks more attractive acquisition targets for big banks? Thereby making them even more “too big to fail?” Legislatively leveling the playing field, I think, offers more potential.

  • http://www.hellodelight.com matthewbward

    I can't help but think more simple institutions would help. Even going beyond Glass-Stegal, what about a return to banks that do deposits and loans and nothing more? I've read about private banks popping up with this simple agenda; I'm curious what effect you think this would have at scale. I know the big trend is on disintermediation, and thus growth of services at these banks, but maybe more specialty would help.

    • http://thestrategyblog.com Will Dearman

      I'm actually in agreement with you, Matt. In their most basic forms, banks are nothing more than custodians of value and some good could be done in the industry by reflecting upon that. Per James Gardner's “Innovation and the Future Proof Bank” I'm starting to brainstorm about my 'Futurebank' — what sort of organization I envision being successful in the industry 10+ years from now. I haven't yet fleshed out my ideas (or finished the book), but I envision an ecosystem of lean, specialized organizations interconnected through open data standards for the consumer's benefit. I'm not sure how or if we'll get there, but it is something that is on my mind.

      I think the 'new' model (for lack of a better term) would scale as efficiencies could be gained through greater specialization. This hypothetically wouldn't lead to a Too Big To Fail scenario because (1) their specialization would prevent a large-scale economic collapse, and (2) the open standards would lead to more transparent and expedient resolution. As you can imagine, I'm in favor of the originally proposed non-watered-down OTC exchange for derivative contracts as an early step in this direction.

  • http://www.taylordavidson.com/writing/ Taylor Davidson

    In the marketplace, ethics need not be subjective. Consider an objective measure: $$ flowing to companies, products, organizations that are ethical.

    Ok, perhaps it's not a “new” competitive advantage; in fact, that's what I said: “This isn’t a new concept: in fact, it’s a return to our roots, an retreat from the aberration of the industrial revolution.”

    (btw, you'll be interested in Matt's comments on that post)

    I'll check out the transactional v. revolving credit article; balancing the two in a single account creates some interesting trade-offs for credit card companies, as we both know. Curious what you're cooking up, of course…

  • http://www.hellodelight.com/ matthewbward

    I can't help but think more simple institutions would help. Even going beyond Glass-Stegal, what about a return to banks that do deposits and loans and nothing more? I've read about private banks popping up with this simple agenda; I'm curious what effect you think this would have at scale. I know the big trend is on disintermediation, and thus growth of services at these banks, but maybe more specialty would help.

  • http://www.hellodelight.com/ matthewbward

    Yes, those comments are the first time I've argued against ethics. :)

    Is “ethics” the new “digital”? Has the word come to be so all-encompassing that it means nothing?

  • http://thestrategyblog.com Will Dearman

    I'm actually in agreement with you, Matt. In their most basic forms, banks are nothing more than custodians of value and some good could be done in the industry by reflecting upon that. Per James Gardner's “Innovation and the Future Proof Bank” I'm starting to brainstorm about my 'Futurebank' — what sort of organization I envision being successful in the industry 10+ years from now. I haven't yet fleshed out my ideas (or finished the book), but I envision an ecosystem of lean, specialized organizations interconnected through open data standards for the consumer's benefit. I'm not sure how or if we'll get there, but it is something that is on my mind.

    I think the 'new' model (for lack of a better term) would scale as efficiencies could be gained through greater specialization. This hypothetically wouldn't lead to a Too Big To Fail scenario because (1) their specialization would prevent a large-scale economic collapse, and (2) the open standards would lead to more transparent and expedient resolution. As you can imagine, I'm in favor of the originally proposed non-watered-down OTC exchange for derivative contracts as an early step in this direction.

  • http://bimwell.scifichrome.info N25an

    the strategic mind of a herd is not based on logic but the whims of opportunity, advertising and fads… the average joe just won't move his money unless he finds a big name alternative thats grinding the offending big name banks into the ground… and any such big name alternative will eventually become like the offending big name banks in question with time and an opportunity to exploit his account holders… in other words, it sounds pretty on paper. But reality leaves a lot to be desired…