May 24, 2012

Reform Reading: Banks Prepare for Stress Tests, Possible Rise in ATM Fees

A roundup of news and commentary to help consumers monitor the transparency and accountability of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.

More Stress-Testing for Banks

Remember the 19 big banks that underwent “stress tests” two years ago? The Fed says those same banks must again demonstrate how well their balance sheets could withstand another potential downturn in the economy before they can boost dividends to shareholders. Also included in the stress-testing: how the Dodd-Frank law affects a bank’s risk profile and business strategy. Big banks must submit the new capital plans to the Fed by Jan. 7 as part of this round of stress-testing, whether they plan to raise dividends or not.

JPMorgan, Wells Fargo & Co., U.S. Bancorp, and PNC Financial Services Group Inc. are among the big banks that may raise dividends, reports Bloomberg’s Michael J. Moore and Dakin Campbell. As part of the new capital plans, banks must also eventually triple their holdings of so-called Tier 1 — or highest-quality capital — from the current 2 percent requirement. Some are already well above the new requirement: Bank of America Corp. had a Tier 1 common equity ratio of 8.45 percent on Sept. 30, JPMorgan had 9.5 percent, Wells Fargo 8 percent, and Citigroup Inc. 10.3 percent, Bloomberg said.

Higher ATM Fees on Horizon

Banks are bracing for a reduction in interchange fees – the fees paid by store merchants to swipe a consumer’s credit or debit card – and looking for ways to offset the loss of revenue. And that could mean higher ATM fees, reports The Street’s Joe Mont. “A lot of the things have been free, because that is how banks were able to get customers through the door. A lot of that is going to be rolled back. You have a massive revamp of products and pricing that is going on,” Gwenn Bezard, a research director with Boston-based Aite Group, told Mont.

During the Dodd-Frank bill debate, banking lobbyists killed a proposal by Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa to cap ATM fees at 50 cents per transaction. The senator argued that the national average ATM fee was $2.50, even though actual processing costs were 50 cents or less.

Banks Face $5 Billion Cost of Reforms

The financial services industry will spend an estimated $3 billion to $5 billion over the coming three years to fully adopt all the requirements of the Dodd-Frank reform law, according to a new report by consulting firm Accenture. The biggest banks will spend up to $200 million each, the firm says, adding that those same banks “could also see profits fall between 20 percent and 30 percent.”

But there may be some upside to requirements triggered by the law. For example, if a bank must build a new database to meet the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s mandate to track fees and transactions, the bank could use the same customer activity data in-house to help develop new product ideas, Accenture says.

Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Deputy Editor

Julie Vorman joined the Center in 2010 after more than 20 years as a correspondent, bureau chief, and editor at Reuters. As the Washington company news editor, she guided Reuters’ coverage of federal multi-billion-dollar bailouts to U.S. banks and automakers after the 2008 financial meltdown, the healthcare industry’s influence as Congress attempted to reform healthcare, and changes within the Securities and Exchange Commission after the Madoff investment fraud scheme. Vorman led the Reuters team that won the “Best in Business Breaking News” award from the Society...

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.