GOVERNMENT AND COMMITTEE SHOULD NOT BUY BANKS’
CLAIMS ABOUT FEES AND SERVICES -- AUDIT NEEDED AS U.S. HAS DONE FOR MORE
THAN 20 YEARS TO ENSURE ALL CANADIANS SERVED WELL AT FAIR PRICES
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
OTTAWA - Today, at a hearing of the House of Commons Finance Committee,
the Canadian Community Reinvestment Coalition (CCRC) called on federal
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and the Committee to ignore the half-truths
and irrelevant claims of Canada’s big banks concerning their fees and services
and, finally, enact accountability measures passed more than 20 years ago
in the U.S. to ensure all Canadians are well served by banks at fair prices.
“If Conservative Finance Minister Flaherty and all federal political
parties are actually interested in holding the banks accountable they must
require them to undergo an audit on fee and service patterns for the past
15 years, and annually in the future, with a rollback of any fee that amounts
to gouging,” said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch and
Chairperson of the CCRC. "Talk is cheap, cheaper than many bank
fees, and many finance ministers and politicians in the past 20 years have
talked about holding banks accountable but unlike the U.S. government they
haven’t done enough to ensure banks serve all Canadians fairly and well
with fair prices and interest rates."
“In fact, the federal government has essentially allowed gouging
of all customers and the creation of a two-tier banking system, with wealthy
people receiving personal, full-service banking in branches and less wealthy
people pushed to use bank machines or gouging cash-chequing outlets,”
said Conacher.
The banks have provided lots of information to the Finance Minister
and the Finance Committee, but have withheld the key information of what
it costs them to provide each service and product, and this information
is needed to determine whether their prices are fair (To see the
Canadian Bankers Association submission to the Finance Committee, click
here (PDF format)). All of the banks’ arguments are either half-truths
or irrelevant, as follows:
-
The banks claim their fees are fair -- this can only be proven if the banks
disclose the revenues they obtain from each service and product fee vs.
the costs of providing each service and product so that each bank’s profit
margins can be calculated (and the banks refuse to disclose their exact
revenues and costs even though they have admitted that they know them exactly
and do not cross-subsidize the costs of any division of their operations);
-
The banks claim they only charge a so-called “convenience fee” to use another
bank’s machine or a non-bank-owned machine -- in fact, the banks charged
the Interac network access fee of $1.50 up to 2000, and then added the
$1 to $1.50 convenience fee, essentially doubling the cost of serving yourself
at another machine (as a result, the banks’ claim that cutting the convenience
fee would be like one workout gym letting a customer of another gym use
its machines for free is a completely false claim, because the banks would
still be charging the Interac fee);
-
The banks claim fees are comparable to other countries -- in fact, fees
in 8 countries are lower overall (including the Netherlands at 66% lower
(and banks there also have a lower interest spread) -- even if fees were
comparable, Canadian banks could still be gouging Canadian customers if
their costs were lower than banks in other countries;
-
The banks claim non-bank-owned machines are competitors -- in fact, such
machines are partners with the banks as they only facilitate customers
accessing their bank account (in the same way gas stations are partners
with oil company refineries), and the banks save money because they pay
no operating costs for these other machines;
-
The banks claim they are serving Canadians well -- in fact, banks have
shut down full-service branches in many neighbourhoods and communities
across Canada and fired thousands of staff (and saved whose knows how much
money doing so (the banks refuse to disclose their cost savings), and as
a result it is highly questionable whether full banking service is at all
accessible to many Canadians;
-
The banks claim competition works so regulation is not needed - if competition
worked, at least one of the banks would have lowered or cut the so-called
“convenience fee” in the past six years (none have), and in any case banks
will never compete for the business of people with low incomes because
profit levels are low in this sector -- given the protections and privileges
the federal government has granted the banks for decades (allowing them
to become as big, powerful and profitable as they are), and given that
banking is an essential service, regulation is not only needed but also
is a completely justifiable way to ensure they are serving all Canadians
well at fair prices.
“Banks have very strong market control of essential banking services
in many parts of Canada, and they need to be required, as similarly powerful
utility and telecommunication companies are, to prove that all of their
prices are fair through annual audits and public hearings,” said Conacher.
The banks have made it clear that if they cut the so-called “convenience
fee” for using another banks’ machine, they will just add another fee or
increase other fees to make up the lost revenue from cutting the so-called
“convenience fee.”
As a result, the only solution to protect consumers, hold banks accountable,
and to ensure gouging is stopped completely, is a full audit of the following
for the past 15 years, and annually in the future (To see the 10
questions such an audit should aim to answer, click
here):
-
the annual revenues the banks have received from each fee for each service
and product;
-
the annual costs the banks have paid to provide each service and product,
and;
-
the annual savings the banks have had from withdrawing full-service banking
(by closing branches and firing staff) and the effects on competition across
Canada, and;
-
the overall profit margins for each product and service.
In any service or product area the audit finds that the banks are obtaining
a gouging level of profit (ie. a profit unjustifiably higher than the average
corporate profit margin of 15%), the banks should be required to lower
the fee for that service or product, and wherever lack of competition or
service is found banks should be required to open at least basic service
branches.
The U.S. government has conducted similar audits of not only bank’s
services, but also their lending and investment patterns and practices,
for more than 20 years under the Community Reinvestment Act and
related laws, and banks are required to establish special programs to ensure
are customers are well-served (To see details about the Community
Reinvestment Act (CRA), click
here -- To see details about the $4.2 trillion in reinvestments
that have resulted from the CRA since 1977 (in a PDF-format document),
click
here -- To see the CCRC's position paper describing how
this bank accountability system should be established and word in Canada,
click
here).
- 30 -
For more information contact:
Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch
Chairperson of the CCRC
Tel: (613) 789-5753
|