BANKTHINK

It's Time to Regulate Prepaid Cards as Bank Accounts

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

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are concerned these days about two related trends: the rising numbers of "unbanked" Americans and the proliferation of prepaid debit cards issued by companies like NetSpend and GreenDot that are popular with people who don't use traditional checking accounts.

On its face, these trends appear both complementary and worrisome. People abandoned or poorly served by traditional banks often rely on alternative financial tools, like check-cashing services and pawn shops, notorious for high fees and gotcha penalties. And prepaid products have also for years been criticized for high fees and predatory marketing.

Happily, the overall picture today is not so grim. Newer prepaid offerings are increasingly indistinguishable from traditional bank accounts, even though they are not commonly understood — or regulated — that way. Which means the number of unbanked consumers is actually not rising.  It also means that a maturing prepaid industry can help provide all Americans with plentiful access to non-predatory financial services, even if they don't live near a bricks-and-mortar branch, or would rather not set foot in one.  

But in order for that future to come to pass, policymakers and regulators need to start treating prepaid accounts as the bank accounts they effectively are, and supervise them accordingly. Regulating prepaid cards as distinct from bank accounts runs the risk of creating loopholes, or allowing companies to game the regulatory system and elude oversight.

As the 2008 financial crisis demonstrated, this kind of regulatory arbitrage can encourage bad behavior and prevent regulators from noticing systemic risks. Instead, we should have comparable regulations for bank accounts and prepaid cards. Consumer-focused regulations, in general, should reflect what financial products actually do, not the technicalities of who issues them or what legal status they hold.

First, some background.

A Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. survey this year found there are about 17 million "unbanked" U.S. adults, up from 14 million in 2009. Meanwhile, the share of American households using prepaid cards remained virtually unchanged from 2009 to 2011, at around 10%. What's changed is that prepaid cards have rapidly penetrated the unbanked market.

For those without traditional bank accounts, the percent of prepaid cardholders increased from 12% to 18%. And among people who used to have a traditional bank account but no longer do, known as the "previously banked," prepaid use surged from 19% to 27%. (Prepaid usage did decline among "fully banked" households from 8.1% to 7.3%.)

These trends—rising numbers of unbanked and rising prepaid use among them—are canceling each other out. About three million people without traditional bank accounts now manage their money with prepaid cards, which have come a long way from their gift-card roots. And yet the FDIC still counts these people as unbanked. That doesn't make sense in a world where prepaid cards increasingly offer all the features of a checking account—and, in fact, are bank accounts.

"We keep talking about the prepaid cards as if it's a separate, distinct animal," NetSpend CEO Daniel Henry told a Senate panel in March. "It's a bank account." Likewise, Jennifer Tescher, president of the nonprofit Center for Financial Services Innovation, told the panel that "at the end of the day, the prepaid card is a bank account."

After all, the money "loaded" onto a prepaid card doesn't actually sit on the card. It's typically deposited into a bank, often into an FDIC-insured account. At its core, the prepaid card does what a bank account does: Give customers access to bank deposits.

Indeed, you can these days do with modern prepaid cards pretty much anything you can with a checking account debit card: withdraw cash from ATMs, pay bills online, make electronic transfers between accounts, receive direct deposit and even deposit paper checks using a mobile phone. Meanwhile, banks are expanding "checkless checking" accounts and the FDIC has even tested a model bank account for unbanked consumers that's card-based.

So how should regulators respond to the convergence of prepaid card accounts and traditional bank accounts? For one, there should be a unified consumer protection regime that doesn't distinguish between types of personal banking products. That is, consumers should get the same protections whether they bank with Chase or with its prepaid offering, the Chase Liquid card.

There are already positive movements in this direction. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has received over 200 letters on its request for comment on prepaid card features, a first step in possibly writing new regulations. And in September, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency cracked down on the use of prepaid cards as vehicles for payday loans.

Acknowledging that prepaid cards are effectively bank accounts raises other questions. Must we burden prepaid providers with checking account regulations that are arguably outdated or ineffective, such as the monthly statement requirement? If a prepaid card comes with FDIC insurance through a sponsoring bank, does the card's program manager (such as NetSpend) also need safety and soundness oversight?  And should we allow prepaid cards to do without deposit insurance entirely, as in the case of American Express' new Bluebird card, which offers all the features of a virtual bank account, but operates under a money transmitter license?

There are no easy answers to these questions, but a first step to ensuring good answers is for regulators to ask the right questions. And the first question regulators should ask, then, is: Is there any good reason to treat prepaid operators and bank operators differently, now that they are essentially offering the same product? 

Gadi Dechter is managing director of economic policy at the Center for American Progress. Joe Valenti is director of asset building at the Center for American Progress.

 

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

(3) Comments

SEE MORE IN

RELATED TAGS

Legal Bills Pile Up at Banks
Each quarter banks report their worst-case estimates of costs tied to lawsuits and regulatory probes. Some banks reported lower figures in recent quarters, but others are braced to spend more to resolve legacy issues. New legal threats loom, too.

(Image: Fotolia)

Comments (3)
You need to understand that the Deregulation of Banking in 1982 was designed to help the poor become poorer and the rich become richer. It worked! The removal of Regulation Q eliminated the cap on interest paid for deposits and this unleashed the efforts of the banks to raise interest rates and to become exempt from the banking laws of other states.
So today, banks like US Bank and Wells Fargo can legally charge interest rates from 100-365% (that is correct!) on their payday loans. Isn't that wonderful! Wells Fargo directors recently told shareholders that they support the rates which are not related in any manner to losses. And the OCC does not care. While you would think that Dodd-Frank would be a wake-up call for banks, it has not worked. More is coming to make the lower classes poorer. Do you hear any bankers objecting to renegades in their industry earning over 1000% return on equity on payday loans? No! The Consumer Bankers Association refuses to address it so there is no forum for self-regulation and The Retail Financial Services Symposium has booked the CEO of Wells Fargo to be a key speaker and he can educate the attendees on how to "Talk the talk but not do the Walk" as the OCC sits in lala land. So you can regulate all you want but do not count on the regulators to really act. They appear to be play actors at regulating. They need to have a prepaid card emergency to get them to act - which of course will be after the fact.
Posted by frankarauscher | Thursday, November 29 2012 at 5:31PM ET
What makes you think they are not regulated? Greendot and Netspend are just program managers. The cards are issued by FDIC insured banks and are under their jurisdiction, as well as the jurisdiction of the banks charter issuer.
Posted by PTO | Friday, November 30 2012 at 3:21PM ET
This is targeted at the American Express Bluebird card despite it not being mentioned even once.
Posted by Jim Jackson | Friday, November 30 2012 at 7:07PM 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.