• Tag Archives government
  • The Government Killed Free Checking—Can Amazon Save It?

     

    Banking has become prohibitively expensive over recent years, especially for the poor. The number of people with free checking accounts has hit a new low, while overdraft fees continue to rise. Whereas it used to be part of the American Dream to maintain a healthy bank account, around 35 million households no longer have regular access to traditional financial services.

    It wasn’t long ago that banks would provide valuable financial products to an ever-widening margin of low-income consumers—and make a profit doing so. In 2009, 76 percent of banks offered free checking accounts. Today, that number is only 38 percent. Likewise, overdraft fees in the year 2000 were around $18. Today they are over $30.

    So what changed? Critics like to blame big banks for putting “profit over people.” But as easy as it is to point the finger at Wall Street, the real problem isn’t the banks. It’s the government.

    Regulations Are Increasing Costs

    It turns out that it’s incredibly expensive to extend financial products to the poor. According to the economic research firm Moebs Services, each checking account costs banks $349 on average, while the average revenue is only $268. A substantial portion of these costs come from the thousands of pages of regulations that banks must abide by just to be able to open an account.

    Take anti-money laundering (AML) and “know your customer” laws. The AML regime costs have risen by some 50 percent over recent years. This costs banks around $8 billion annually in compliance but leads to remarkably few convictions. A conservative analysis of the law estimates that each AML conviction costs over $7 million.

    Meanwhile, as the cost of maintaining a checking account for banks has risen, the main revenue source of these accounts dried up. An amendment to the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act from Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) imposed price controls on debit card “swipe fees.” The Durbin Amendment capped the price that banks could charge merchants when a customer used a bank’s debit card to purchase something from the merchant. These fees largely covered the bank’s cost of maintaining a checking account and provided the incentive for banks to issue more debit cards. But seeing that a significant and dependable source of revenue was to dry up, banks looked to cut costs and raise fees elsewhere in order to make up for it.

    The cumulative effect of regulation raising costs and reducing revenue was to push low-income consumers out of the formal financial system. At the time of the Durbin Amendment’s implementation, JP Morgan estimated that the new regulations would make 70 percent of customers with less than $100,000 unprofitable. Recent history can attest to that. Around one million people have exited the banking system because of the Durbin Amendment alone. For banks like Bank of America who recently canceled their free checking program, it simply doesn’t make sense to offer these checking accounts to low-income consumers when the account barely breaks even.

    A Possible Solution

    For the last eight years, the trend has been toward the death of free checking. But that tide might be turning, as innovative companies like Amazon look to enter the market, in partnership with banks like JPMorgan and Capital One.

    Amazon’s proposal focuses on creating a product for the unbanked—those very people who have been pushed out of the banking system by regulation. The key is that Amazon is uniquely positioned to turn the usual business model of checking accounts on its head. Whereas banks tend to rely upon overdrafts or interchange fees for revenue, Amazon may be able to leverage something even more valuable—consumer data.

    Amazon has an enormous data platform which it relies on to tailor products to its consumers. Integrating a customer’s checking account into their broader commercial infrastructure would allow the firm to analyze a customer’s shopping patterns and financial data to better tailor their products. In combination with its payment system, it would also make purchases at Amazon’s marketplace much cheaper and easier for both the customer and the firm.

    In this way, the checking account wouldn’t necessarily need to be profitable, as long as it drives more retail sales for the company, with reports suggesting that Amazon could include a checking account as part of its Prime subscription service. For a further discussion of the advantages Amazon has over its competitors, see this Bain & Co. report.

    The move into co-branded checking accounts may, therefore, be less about disrupting the financial services marketplace as it is about increasing consumer engagement with Amazon’s own platform. As for the product’s outlook, Bain and Co. predict that the service could grow to more than 70 million customers over the next five years. This is the same as the third-largest bank, Wells Fargo.

    All of this spells good news for currently under-served consumers, who often rely on relatively expensive financial services such as payday lending or check cashing. While government regulation may have just about killed free checking, a new wave of innovative tech firms like Amazon may be able to save it.

    Reprinted from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.


    Daniel Press

    Daniel Press is a policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, where he focuses on financial regulation, international development and trade.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.



  • The Government Is Lying to Us About Cybersecurity

    In a press conference, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein stated that the “absolutist position” that strong encryption should be, by definition, unbreakable is “unreasonable.”

    The DOJ is lying about three things:

    First

    The US government works against the security of businesses. Just this week, I had to tell Apple that my iPhone app did not have certain kinds of encryption that the U.S. government has export control on. Encryption export controls cripple the security and innovation of software products made by American businesses.  

    Furthermore, the U.S. government hoards software exploits so it can hack into your computer rather than publish them that so companies can patch their products. The NSA intentionally sneaks weaknesses into protocols and bribes businesses to add holes to security products so it can steal the data of their customers.

    When businesses want to improve the security of their products, they offer rewards for exploits – Microsoft pays up to $250,000 per exploit, Facebook has paid $40,000, and so on. The NSA purchases millions of dollars of exploits from hackers and uses them to spy on the entire world, including U.S. citizens. Unfortunately, the NSA is incompetent at keeping secrets, so it lost their exploit database and caused millions of computers to be infected and hijacked with the exploits they hoarded.

    The hardware and software pieces of both the Internet and individual user’s computers are made by private companies. There is nothing the U.S. government can do to improve “cybersecurity” other than prosecuting criminal behavior.  However, the U.S. government prosecutes a minuscule proportion of cybercrime.  Whether it is unable or unwilling to punish criminals, the reality is that the only “cybersecurity” that the government cares about is its ability to conduct surveillance and attacks on foreign and domestic political targets.

    Second

    The idea that “strong security” is compatible with a government backdoor is a lie. Any security expert can tell you that a backdoor leaves your product vulnerable, even if you trust the government agency with the key. Previous backdoors advocated by the US government have been blown wide open by security experts. There is near-universal agreement among security experts that government backdoors and security are not compatible – a reality that the DOJ continues to ignore.

    Third

    It is not true that the government wants to weaken American’s security to protect against crime or terrorism. Their real motivation has always been power and money: they want to monitor the flow of information in order to prevent people from hiding their wealth and use their secret keys and vulnerability stash to intimidate and blackmail other countries into compliance with U.S. policies. This is why the U.S. intelligence budget of over $75 billion did not prevent most American’s personal details from being leaked, but U.S. citizens who do not report foreign bank accounts (under FACTA) can be fined $250,000 or 5 years in jail even if they have never stepped foot in the USA.

    Reprinted from The Ungoverned


    David L Veksler

    David Veksler is the Director of Marketing at FEE.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.




  • What John Oliver Could Learn from Mises

     

    I usually enjoy watching John Oliver’s show, Last Week Tonight, because it is funny and informative at the same time. His latest episode on corporate consolidation was, alas, not one of the better ones.

    The segment has Oliver talking about how certain industries are being dominated by a handful of firms and how that is bad for consumers. He particularly focuses on the airline and telecommunications industries. So far so good.

    Everyone agrees that a lack of competition in the market is bad. Oliver then goes on to blame a lack of regulation for this and calls for the more aggressive application of antitrust laws.

    Capitalism, Amirite?

    This reminded me of one of my favorite Mises quotes:

    As a rule, capitalism is blamed for the undesired effects of a policy directed at its elimination. The man who sips his morning coffee does not say, “Capitalism has brought this beverage to my breakfast table.” But when he reads in the papers that the government of Brazil has ordered part of the coffee crop destroyed, he does not say, “That is government for you”; he exclaims, “That is capitalism for you.”

    Corollary: Government regulation leads to calls for more government regulation to fix the problems created by previous regulation.

    Mises wrote this outstanding paragraph right in the preface of his brilliant and insightful book Interventionism: An Economic Analysis, which I recommend to everyone.

    Oliver’s segment on corporate consolidation is a case in point. He takes a problem created by government, namely oligopoly, and calls for more government control to fix it.

    Government-Caused Oligopolies

    Let us take the case of airlines. Why are there only four major airlines in the US? Robert W. Poole Jr., of the Reason Foundation, wrote way back in 2000 that the main obstacle to competition is the difficulty in obtaining gates at airports.

    Large airlines sign long-term leases with airport authorities, which gives them exclusive access to gates at airport terminals, shutting out competition from new entrants. It also gives airlines monopolies over certain routes. This, Poole shows, is due to the airports being government owned, and thus risk averse. A long-term lease gives them a steady revenue stream.

    He compares it with Europe, where airports are run privately. Since these airports are for-profit businesses, they lease gates by the hour to individual airlines, thus preserving competition in the market.

    More recently in 2016, David R. Henderson defended the merger of American Airlines and US Airways along similar lines, saying that the main constraint was gates, and not the number of airlines. He also pointed out that in Europe foreign airlines were allowed to provide domestic flights, unlike in the US.

    If a socialist cesspool like Europe has more, better, and cheaper airlines, clearly a lack of regulation is not the problem.

    This is not just restricted to airlines. Every monopoly or oligopoly that has been sustained over a large time period has been aided by government regulations and subsidies. For instance, there is the telecommunications industry, where government backs monopolies for firms like AT&T. The health insurance market in the US lacks competition because insurers were, until very recently, prevented from competing across state lines.

    It is deeply troubling, then, that people blame free markets for problems created by government. As I write this on the eve of Mises’s birthday, I feel that there is an ever greater need to highlight the evils of government intervention; to direct people’s anger at the real source of trouble. During such times, brilliant minds like Mises will be sorely missed.


    Jairaj Devadiga

    Jairaj Devadiga is an economist who illustrates the importance of property rights and freedom through some interesting real-world cases. When he is not doing research, he enjoys reading about medicine, astronomy, computers, and law among other things. Readers may email him at jairajdevadiga@gmail.com with questions, suggestions, feedback etc.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.