FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W764863709> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W764863709 startingPage "38" @default.
• W764863709 abstract "I sometimes use my five siblings--none of them bankers--as my own personal focus group, to gauge consumer perception of a bank practice or product. I can be assured of a frank, genuine opinion, unadulterated by in-depth knowledge of consumer banking--and for that matter, unfettered by concerns about diplomacy or tact! This time, I went to my engineer sister, a frequent guinea pig as she lives nearby and is especially, shall we say, forthcoming in her opinions. I brought up the issue generally of bounced checks and banks' practice of paying overdrafts under some circumstances. She launched into a tirade about a check she had recently bounced. She acknowledged her mistake and wasn't terribly concerned about the fee. She was, however, furious that the bank had not paid the check as it had in the past. had caused terrible inconvenience and taken time to straighten out. I expressed my sympathy and surprise. And then I mentioned that some banks offer a service called protection. She recollected receiving information about such a program, one which required her to sign up. I gently probed why she hadn't. It sounded fishy, she said. Notwithstanding her suspicion of banks, my sister clearly expected--and valued--the practice of paying overdrafts for established customers. My sister's opinion, however, is at odds with consumer activists' views. The activists allege that the programs promoted today amount to unconscionable payday lending. These critics complain that low-income accountholders, especially, are enticed into overdrawing accounts, sometimes without even knowing they are overdrawing, paying multiple excessive fees that in fact amount to four-digit interest rates. How can one reconcile these allegations of predatory lending with the opinion of my sister--and perhaps most consumers--who clearly want and expect banks to pay inadvertent overdrafts and are willing to pay for the service? Damnation for a handful's sins? Over the decades that I've been working on consumer banking issues, I've found that it is often the actions of a few institutions--pushing the envelope with an otherwise legitimate and valuable product or service--that tend to bring down the wrath of legislators on the banking industry. Often, the legislative and regulatory solutions that result reach far beyond the scope of the perceived abuse and affect the industry more broadly--and rarely in a positive manner. One example is the Truth in Savings Act, passed in the early 1990s. Even consumer activists conceded that banks were already adequately disclosing account fees. What was difficult to defend was the practice of paying interest on the investable balance, that is, the balance minus reserve requirements. Consumers were predictably unaware of the practice and unable to compare effective interest rates. Ultimately, it was that practice that kept the Truth in Savings Act legislation alive and what pushed it into law. The bounce protection services controversy has many of the same earmarks. Indeed, at the close of 2002, the Federal Reserve Board requested information about bounce protection programs and questioned whether they should be covered under the Truth in Lending Act and its implementing regulation, Regulation Z. Paints of confusion Part of the problem in the press is the confusion about the details of the various bounce protection programs. In fact, most programs are simply a variation of banks' long tradition of paying overdrafts under certain circumstances. The main differences are that the decision is automated and the practice and protocols for decisions are sometimes disclosed to customers. The automation of this historical practice reduces costs associated with manual intervention and ensures consistent treatment of customers so that some customers are not inadvertently favored based on inappropriate factors. …" @default.
• W764863709 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W764863709 creator A5067049272 @default.
• W764863709 date "2003-04-01" @default.
• W764863709 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W764863709 title "Will We Kill a Useful Service? Don't Let the Fee-Income Possibilities of Bounce Protection Distract You from the Importance of Serving Customers Well, and Fairly. If You Do, Reg Z Could Be Your Reward. (Cover Report)" @default.
• W764863709 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W764863709 type Work @default.
• W764863709 sameAs 764863709 @default.
• W764863709 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W764863709 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W764863709 hasAuthorship W764863709A5067049272 @default.
• W764863709 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W764863709 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W764863709 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W764863709 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W764863709 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W764863709 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W764863709 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W764863709 hasConcept C2777106239 @default.
• W764863709 hasConcept C2777179996 @default.
• W764863709 hasConcept C2779115301 @default.
• W764863709 hasConcept C2780378061 @default.
• W764863709 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W764863709 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W764863709 hasConceptScore W764863709C144024400 @default.
• W764863709 hasConceptScore W764863709C144133560 @default.
• W764863709 hasConceptScore W764863709C15744967 @default.
• W764863709 hasConceptScore W764863709C162853370 @default.
• W764863709 hasConceptScore W764863709C17744445 @default.
• W764863709 hasConceptScore W764863709C190253527 @default.
• W764863709 hasConceptScore W764863709C199539241 @default.
• W764863709 hasConceptScore W764863709C2777106239 @default.
• W764863709 hasConceptScore W764863709C2777179996 @default.
• W764863709 hasConceptScore W764863709C2779115301 @default.
• W764863709 hasConceptScore W764863709C2780378061 @default.
• W764863709 hasConceptScore W764863709C39549134 @default.
• W764863709 hasConceptScore W764863709C77805123 @default.
• W764863709 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W764863709 hasLocation W7648637091 @default.
• W764863709 hasOpenAccess W764863709 @default.
• W764863709 hasPrimaryLocation W7648637091 @default.
• W764863709 hasRelatedWork W123919009 @default.
• W764863709 hasRelatedWork W174265101 @default.
• W764863709 hasRelatedWork W2164601568 @default.
• W764863709 hasRelatedWork W221245033 @default.
• W764863709 hasRelatedWork W222185787 @default.
• W764863709 hasRelatedWork W222854822 @default.
• W764863709 hasRelatedWork W2328315496 @default.
• W764863709 hasRelatedWork W232913436 @default.
• W764863709 hasRelatedWork W233850557 @default.
• W764863709 hasRelatedWork W284601506 @default.
• W764863709 hasRelatedWork W294629350 @default.
• W764863709 hasRelatedWork W300535898 @default.
• W764863709 hasRelatedWork W3125937347 @default.
• W764863709 hasRelatedWork W332610928 @default.
• W764863709 hasRelatedWork W344202478 @default.
• W764863709 hasRelatedWork W344387734 @default.
• W764863709 hasRelatedWork W34615800 @default.
• W764863709 hasRelatedWork W349734681 @default.
• W764863709 hasRelatedWork W87533840 @default.
• W764863709 hasRelatedWork W128948885 @default.
• W764863709 hasVolume "95" @default.
• W764863709 isParatext "false" @default.
• W764863709 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W764863709 magId "764863709" @default.
• W764863709 workType "article" @default.