To the Editor:
I disagree with Paul Nadler's view that consumer outrage over banks' ATM fees is simple "antibank bias" (Comment, Aug. 16, page 11).
According to Mr. Nadler, public "ignorance" about the role of banks in society renders consumers irrational, clamoring for reduced charges at the expense of banks' viability.
Quite the contrary, consumers accept the profit-seeking nature of banks. But between 1993 and 1995 they watched their checking account fees rise 10% as banks' profits improved from $42 billion to $48 billion. And in 1995, they witnessed banks profit by approximately $2.2 billion from customer migration to the low-cost ATM delivery system.
Consumers do not begrudge bank profits, but they want reasonable products and services at reasonable prices, and more basically, they want to know the costs of those products. If banks are unwilling to provide consumers with information about charges voluntarily, then federal action must make disclosure mandatory.
HR 2737, the ATM Fee Reform Act of 1996, would allow banks to charge ATM fees but would require them to disclose surcharges to customers at the point of sale, and would give customers the option of canceling their transactions without fee.
Though, as Mr. Nadler noted, some legislation may indeed go too far, perhaps consumers' level of concern about ATM fees is an indication to banks that they risk the public trust they have earned through years of committed service.
Rep. Charles E. Schumer
Washington
Editor's Note: Rep. Schumer, a New York Democrat and member of the House Banking Committee, is the author of HR 3727.
