Quantcast
BANKTHINK

Bank Experts Clash Over True Cost of 'Free' Checking

DEC 20, 2011 3:35pm ET
Print
Email
Reprints
(5) Comments

What is the true cost of free checking?

Earlier this month I reported that the average checking account costs banks about $350 annually, including company overhead, according to research firm Moebs Services Inc.

But whether banks should use that $350 estimate in determining individual customer profitability remains up for debate, at least according to some feedback I've gotten on the story.

Do you think banks are correctly accounting for the costs of checking? Please comment below.

Many of our readers argued that banks should be looking at the marginal cost of adding a new checking account customer, not at the average cost of that account. Marginal costs are the variable costs that each new customer adds. Those costs exclude certain fixed costs, like overhead.

"If all of the 'unprofitable' customers were eliminated, very little overhead would be eliminated. So overhead doesn't belong in the equation," said one reader of the original story, who identified himself as Jeff P.

According to the estimates I gathered from Moebs and other industry members, overhead accounts for about 20% of each account's average costs. For the hypothetical account costing $350, taking out overhead would bring the cost of the account down to about $280, thereby making a far larger group of customers appear profitable.

"Banks should calculate individual customer profitability on whether or not the customer covers their truly marginal costs," such as processing and sending customers monthly statements, Jeff P. added. "Overhead belongs in the analysis to calculate branch-level or bank-wide profitability — not individual customer profitability. For a customer what matters is if they contribute something towards overhead."

That makes sense to a point, especially if some of the bank's checking customers bring in revenue well above their total costs -- including overhead. Those people can essentially subsidize additional bank customers who bring in less revenue.

But Mike Moebs of Moebs Services stands by his original estimate. While he does not discount the importance of marginal costs, he argues that bankers looking to recoup their checking account expenses should be wary of focusing exclusively on those costs.

"Here's the problem with marginal costs: it's a very short-term focus," says Moebs. "The focus on marginal costs cannot go much beyond a three-month to six-month timeframe."

In the longer term, a business needs to recoup both indirect functional costs, like equipment costs and managers' salaries, and overhead, which includes executive pay and the cost of utilities, he says.

"You've got to adjust [the equation] somehow. Either raise prices or lower direct and indirect functional costs, because we've got to at least contribute to overhead at a minimum," he says.

New regulations, including caps on overdraft and debit swipe fees, have altered key revenue streams for the banks — making it more difficult for high-revenue customers to subsidize the lower-revenue ones.

"In the past, free checking masked a host of issues. I could bring customers in and with debit card revenue and overdraft fees and cross-selling, eventually people would become profitable," says Hank Israel, a partner at New York-based consulting firm Novantas LLC.

Now "banks are going to have to find a new normal," he says, adding that retail bankers may have to try to reduce some fixed costs through methods including layoffs or branch closings.

Israel says that banks do not necessarily need to ditch customers who do not bring in a certain amount of revenue -- but they do need to increase the revenue that those customers bring in, by charging them for using a checking account or by selling them additional, higher-margin bank products.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

(5) Comments

SEE MORE IN

RELATED TAGS

 

 
The Week's Best Quotes: Holder's 'Too Big to Jail' Cop, Big-Bank Influence

The most notable quotes from American Banker stories of the previous week. Readers are encouraged to add their own observations in the Comments fields at the bottom of each slide. (Image: Fotolia)

Comments (5)
Neil Weinberg, Editor in Chief, American Banker: Ignoring fixed costs in calculating what banks shell out to provide checking accounts makes no sense. Considering only marginal costs is akin to saying you'll lose money on every account and make it up on volume. It's true that incurring losses in the short-term can be good long-term business. A loss-making customer in year one might be a gold mine by year five. But if the bank doesn't account for, and cover, its fixed costs in the meantime, it won't be around in year five to find out.
Posted by Neil Weinberg | Tuesday, December 20 2011 at 4:09PM ET
This is the classic airline seat problem. You sell the last airline seat for a bargin since you already have the plane flying - anything over marginal cost on that flight goes to the bottom line. The next flight all the customers find out you have a bargin price and they all want it, that's where the pricig problem really starts. You can't use the same model for this flight that you used for the last flight. So the article's comment on short-term view using marginal cost is right on point.

The other thing to remember is that all costs are variable. They may be fixed in short time periods or increments, but ultimately they all can go away.
Posted by mthompson | Wednesday, December 21 2011 at 10:47AM ET
It's interesting that short-term costs present a problem, since western business is completely shackled to quarterly reports: all of their strategies are based on what happens every three months. Long-term for a corporation is 18 months.
Posted by RSE Journal | Wednesday, December 21 2011 at 2:12PM ET
While the analysis done by Michael Moebs is a helpful benchmark, it is only a benchmark. The average cost of $350 for a checking account depends on the channel(s) used by the customer and the delivery network/efficiency of the bank.

In addition, using the cost provided as a 'threshold' that needs to be exceeded for new account acquisition neglects the reality that the majority of accounts generated by most banks simply represent 'portfolio replacement' accounts. If a new account is not generated for every one lost, the allocation of costs needs to be spread across a smaller portfolio which will increase the cost of remaining accounts (assuming shrinking of overhead and related costs can't be achieved). Alternatively, the growth of the portfolio (up to a certain level) can be absorbed by the current infrastructure and will actually reduce the cost of each account in the portfolio.

Finally, if a bank decides that the 'cost of checking' is too high and does not continue to acquire new customers, the remaining portfolio of households becomes 'stale' with lower potential. Alternatively, if acquisition is done in a non-focused way, too many of the new accounts attrite, increasing the costs to the bank.

It is not that the costing done by Michael was wrong. It is important not to view in a vacuum and to understand the dynamics of fixed, variable and marginal costing.
Posted by James M | Wednesday, December 21 2011 at 5:56PM ET
Understanding costs and revenues associated with customers (not accounts) is essential for Banks. If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve performance.

The reality is that most customers acquired by Community Banks will generate operating losses for the entire duration of their relationship. Community Banks' customer base is heavily lopsided toward the unprofitable customer --- so much so that less than 20% of the customer base generates 140%+ of profits (of which 40% are erased by the 80%).

Focusing bank strategy and the supporting marketing campaigns on the profitable customer is essential should Community Banks wish to grow, and generate profitability.

Economics 101 indicates that the use of marginal cost might be appropriate for a fast growing enterprises. Unfortunately, most Community Banks are lucky to post mid-single digit growth results. In part of this reason, the use of marginal cost is misleading at acquisition and injurious at month-end reconciliation.
Posted by Serge Milman | Optirate | Friday, December 23 2011 at 3:32PM ET
Add Your Comments:
You must be registered to post a comment.
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.

Email Newsletters

Get the Daily Briefing and the Morning Update when you sign up for a free trial.

TWITTER
FACEBOOK
LINKEDIN
Marketplace
Fiserv is a leading global provider of information management and electronic commerce systems for the financial services industry.
Learn More
Informa Research Services is the premier provider of competitive intelligence, mystery shopping, and compliance testing services to the financial industry.
Learn More
CSC is a leader in private-label, third-party loan servicing with 30+ years of proven experience in delivering effective, cost-effective solutions.
Learn More
Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.