BANKTHINK

Competition, Not Creativity, Gets the Profitable Customer

Print
Email
Reprints
Comments (3)
Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook
Google+

A recent American Banker online survey asked what to do about unprofitable customers. Most responders said that bankers must be more "creative" and find profitable ways to keep these customers.

What a remarkably wrongheaded notion.

First, when bankers get creative, the consequences can be catastrophic. Auction rate securities were creative, as were structured investment vehicles. Most of the toxic mortgages were creative in their structure, underwriting and marketing.

With more than 6,000 financial institutions remaining, it would be enough for a few to be creative. The remainder need only have the good judgment to emulate whichever of the resulting creations — new products and pricing schemes — have lasting value.

If we surveyed bank CEOs, I doubt that many would say that creativity was always a key criterion in hiring managers. How about good judgment? How about deep understanding of customers, products and operations? How about integrity, assiduity and effective teamwork? The many who saw Jamie Dimon as our most admirable banker seldom accused him of being creative. How about Richard Davis?

Should we look to McKinsey or Visa to supply us with creativity? Should we obtain the relevant intellectual property from others? A very prominent recent example was banks' following the siren song of a firm that taught them to apply the day's debit card transactions from largest to smallest rather than first to last — to generate more overdraft fees. Whoops! Nine-figure liabilities.

By what miracle is creativity supposed to resolve the problem posed by unprofitable relationships?

For instance, most banks can't profitably serve customers who only want their paychecks cashed. For decades, non banks have offered check cashing more economically and conveniently than banks. Is creativity going to change this?

From time immemorial, banks did not undertake to serve less affluent people. That's how consumer finance companies such as Beneficial and Household prospered — lending money which they had largely borrowed from banks, but backed by their own equity. Many finance company customers got along without checking accounts, because the cost exceeded the value for them.

More recently, we've have been losing highly profitable customers.

Banks were able in the past to provide financing even to very large corporations — and to provide wealth management even to very wealthy families. Our gradual eviction from these highly profitable markets followed the growth of securities firms that are in some ways a uniquely or at least originally American phenomenon. But bank acquisition of securities firms over the last ten years hasn't led to integrated, super additive relationships with the high-asset customer groups. Combining does not generate added value.

There are other ways to lose profitable customers. Money market funds broke the unique checking account franchise, taking particularly profitable customers and balances away. Banks' countermove was to lobby state legislatures to pass laws prohibiting them. Didn't work even a single time!

Every now and then our most prominent defenders, the Fed and the FDIC(!) emit noises about making life harder for money market funds. It's happening again now. Yet, only one of these funds failed in the crisis, and, unlike banks, none of them got tangible government support. New regulations have already capped the sources of risk.

After the loss of core groups of highly profitable customers, those who remain with us are less profitable. It would be wise indeed to focus on these remaining profitable customers, retain them, sell them more and render them even more profitable — rather than worry about the allegedly unprofitable ones, or the long-term unbanked.

And, how many customers are actually unprofitable, so that if they went away then our profits would be higher? If they were numerous, we should raise prices enough for them so that they either become profitable or leave.

Every time I have analyzed at the individual bank level, I find that there is very little money to be made by getting unprofitable customers to pay more or leave. There is little money to be made by attracting customers and meeting needs that are presently being dominantly served outside banking.

Your best sources of added profit are your best current customers, and others like them. Grocery stores have to compete with other grocery stores, and super markets. Banks have to compete primarily against other banks. It's not us against the world.

Despite the ABA, it's us against each other, competing to capture the profitable customers and increase our share of their wallets. Focus on being more efficient and a better judge of risk.

Andrew Kahr is a principal in Credit Builders LLC, a financial product development company, and was the founding chief executive of First Deposit, later known as Providian. He can be reached at akahr@creditbuilders.us.com.

 

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

(3) Comments

SEE MORE IN

RELATED TAGS

Who's Who in Auto Lending Investigations
As U.S. auto lending has boomed, the industry especially its subprime sector has become a growing target for a slew of prosecutors and regulators. Here are seven government agencies to keep an eye on.

(Image: Bloomberg News)

Comments (3)
Mr. Kahr is doing quite a bit of rambling here, but if his main point is "squeese 'em some more" then I'm afraid I can't agree. That stragegy often ends up as nickel and diming and nothing will run off good customers quicker than that. In my opinion the focus should be capturing market share among a select group and if you are successful at that and your pricing is fair you will get your share. Also, I propose to my clients a "household" approach rather than a product approach. Old school thinking maybe but it works!
Posted by tcommmkting | Friday, December 02 2011 at 10:41AM ET
I think that banks need to get back what has been lost to the NON banking industry. Banks NEED to learn how to sell, not just offer "frre checking"...Follow the money
Posted by Chairman | Friday, December 02 2011 at 11:54AM ET
I'd like to understand what an unprofitable customer looks like before proposing an approach or solution. Are we talking about a high net worth individual with a DDA only and little debit card use or someone with $20 to their name; or someone else?
Posted by Devonk | Wednesday, December 07 2011 at 9:40AM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.
Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.