Writer's CD submission to RBA sent 8 Dec 2011            Defined Terms and Documents  

5 Ronald Avenue

Freshwater  NSW  2096

8 December 2011

PLEASE INSERT (TO A PC WITH WINDOWS) ONE OF THE THREE ENCLOSED CDs
 WHICH AUTO-OPEN AT THIS LETTER AND CLICK ON THE URLs THEREIN
If you receive the below warning upon inserting a CD, click 'Yes' or 'No', it doesn't matter as there is no harmful
scripts, ActiveX components etc:
'Active content can harm your computer or disclose personal information.
Are you sure that you want to allow CDs to run active content on your computer?'

Ms. Sharon van Etten
Public Relations Officer, Media & Public Relations Office

Reserve Bank of Australia

65 Martin Place

Sydney  NSW  2000

Dear Sharon

*           Request to the Reserve Bank of Australia, hereinafter the RBA, to implement the same "competitiveness and efficiency" that it has overseen in the Wholesale Supply Side of the debit and credit cards products to the Retail Supply Side of credit cards, because banks profits from credit cards are not derived from the User Pays Principle

*           All users should pay the cost of their credit card transactions, and not some "unlucky" users paying a disproportionate burden which has further gapped the "Haves" from the "Have Nots" 

I refer to -

(i)         my initial email to RBAInfo sent Tues, 25 Oct '11 19:35 which noted 'inter alia' that "After retiring from a 37 year career at CBA, where I dealt with former RBA colleagues in the late ‘70s at what was then known as Note Issue, I now spend part of my time pursuing causes with Govt and bureaucracy that I think have merit";

(ii)        your email response sent Thurs, 10 Nov '11 2:27pm;

(iii)       my holding response to RBA from a camp ground in Berry NSW sent 11 Nov 1;15pm; 

(iv)       my email to RBA sent Fri, 16 Dec '11;  and

(v)        my email to RBA sent Tues, 20 Dec '11

1.         Summary of eight Attachments

Attachment 'A' is an Excel file which opens at worksheet 'Low Interest Credit Cards' from www.australia.creditcards.com with separate worksheets that set out many of Australia's most popular credit cards under different criteria (ie. 'Top 10 Best Credit Cards',  'Low Annual Fee Credit Cards', 'Low Interest Credit Cards') with -

(A)        'annual interest rates' for an interest free period of 55 days -

              *         as low as  10.99%  -     674 basis points above the RBA Official Interest Rate  - 4.25% as at 6 Dec '11; and

              *         as high as 20.99% on purchases and 21.74% on cash advances  - 1,674 basis points and 1,749 basis points respectively, above the RBA Official Interest Rate  - 4.25% as at 6 Dec '11.  

(B)        'annual fee' for an interest free period of 55 days -

              *         as low as    $45; and

              *         as high as $700.  

(c)         'loyalty reward points' -

              *         as low as no points for every $1 spent; and

              *         as high as 2½ points for every $1 spent.

All of the 'annual interest rates' in (A) above are on 'an on-going (no honeymoon/no introductory rate) basis'.

 

Attachment 'B' is titled Pertinent extracts from the below three payments system/credit card reports provided in Sharon van Etten's (Media & Public Relations Office) email to Phil Johnston sent Thurs, 10 Nov '11 2:27pm:

 

1.  Strategic Review of Innovation in the Payments System: Results of the Reserve Bank of Australia’s 2010 Consumer Payments Use Study June 2011,

2.  Payment, Clearing and Settlement Systems in the CPSS Countries – Volume 1 (The Red Book)
3.  Payment Systems in EMEAP Economies (EMEAP Red Book July 2002)

Attachment 'C' is the RBA's "Our Role" which "is directed to the greatest advantage of the people of Australia and that the powers of the Bank ... are exercised in such a manner as ...........................will best contribute to...............the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia."

 

Attachment 'D' is the Payments System Board's Responsibilities and Powers, 'et al'  which notes that -

*         "The Reserve Bank Act 1959, as amended, gives the Payments System Board responsibility for determining the Reserve Bank's payments system policy........ in a way that will best contribute to ......promoting the efficiency of the payments system; and promoting competition in the market for payment services, consistent with the overall stability of the financial system."

*          "Increasingly, central banks are being given explicit authority for payments system safety and stability, but the Board's legislative responsibility and powers to promote efficiency and competition in the payments system are unique. This responsibility has broadened the Bank's traditional focus on the high-value wholesale payment systems which underpin stability, to encompass the retail and commercial systems where large transaction volumes provide scope for efficiency gains."

*         "The Bank's wide-ranging powers in the payments system are set out in the Payment Systems (Regulation) Act 1998. It may .....'designate' a particular payment system as being subject to its regulation.......determine rules for participation in that system, including rules on access for new participants. Since access is inextricably linked to efficiency the Bank works closely with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) set standards for safety and efficiency for that system. These may deal with issues such as technical requirements, procedures, performance benchmarks and pricing;

*          The Payment Systems (Regulation) Act 1998 also gives the RBA "extensive powers" to "...gather information from a payment system or from individual participants."

 

*         "The Reserve Bank Act 1959 provides a clear delineation between the Payments System Board, which has responsibility for the Bank's payments system policy, and the Reserve Bank Board, which has responsibility for the Bank's monetary and banking policies and all other policies except for payments system policy.  Instances of conflict over policies should therefore be rare. However, if a conflict were to arise, the view of the Reserve Bank Board would prevail to the extent that there was any inconsistency in policy."

 

Attachment 'E' is the Joint Press Release from the Treasurer and the Minister for Financial Services & Superannuation for the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Home Loans and Credit Cards) Bill which informs that there are some 15 million credit-card accounts in Australia - many families have 2 or 3 different cards - and asserts that the below five reforms which only apply to new credit cards taken out after 1 July 2012 "will stamp out lender practices that see consumers pay more interest than they should":

  • Force credit card lenders to allocate repayments to clear higher interest debts first;

  • Stop lenders from bombarding consumers with pre-approved, tick 'n flick offers to increase their credit limits;

  • Prevent lenders charging fees to customers who go over their credit limit unless they've expressly asked for this service;

  • Make it mandatory for credit-card application forms to include a clear summary of key account features;

  • Require all lenders to clearly warn consumers on their monthly credit statement of the consequences of only making minimum repayments.

Attachment 'F' is an unrequested invitation from ANZ Bank dated 14 Nov 11 to my 90 year old mother in an envelope which notes "Sick of paying a high interest rate on your credit card".  The enclosed letter offered 2.9% p.a. interest on the balance transferred for first 12 months and mentions other peripheral benefits for its ANZ First Visa card.  The very high interest rate on purchases and the even higher interest rate on cash advances is hidden in the fine print.  The ANZ's envelope falsely asserts that its First Visa card has a low interest rate, and combined with its enclosed letter, constitutes predatory, deceptive, misleading and unconscionable marketing, but probably no more so than most Credit Card Issuers.  

Attachment 'G' snapshots 'inter alia' that:

  • There were an estimated 16 million credit cards in circulation in Australia in 2009.

  • Australians spent $19.19 billion on credit and charge cards in the month of October 2009.

  • The average credit card account balance was $3,141 in October 2009.

  • Total credit and charge card balances outstanding stood at $45.153 billion in October 2009.

Attachment 'H' titled All Smoke and Mirrors provides an unfortunate testament of the prudential role performed by the bank -

            (i)         entrusted to be banker and financial agent for the Commonwealth; and

            (ii)        with a charter to protect "....the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia".

if CreditCards.com (parent site of australia.creditcards.com) is being paid by some or all of Our Bank/Issuer Partners (ANZ, Aussie, Bank Mecu, Bankwest, citi, NAB, St George, Virgin, Westpac) for providing links to those banks' websites credit card products at , because some like NAB's Low Interest Credit Card, Bank mecu's Low Interest Rate Credit Card and Bankwest's Breeze MasterCard are patently deceptive.

Attachment 'I' is a report from the Melbourne Institute released 17 June 2010 which noted that “Credit card debt overtook mortgage debt as the main form of household debt in June, 36.6 per cent compared to 33.9 per cent.  This is the first time since November 2006 that households nominate credit card and not mortgage debt as their main form of debt.”

2.       Comments on your email sent Thurs, 10 Nov '11 2:27pm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 'B' and (I.), (II.) and (III.) below highlight that the RBA "has taken a number of steps to improve the competitiveness and efficiency" of the Wholesale Supply Side of the debit and credit card products which look to be priced reasonably for "the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia": 

 

(I.)       In 2006 PSB prescribed the interchange fee standard (paid by transaction acquiring institutions, hereinafter Merchants to Credit Card Issuers to be no higher, on a weighted average basis, than a cost-based benchmark.  Interchange fees in the Visa and MasterCard systems are paid by the Merchants to Credit Card Issuers and are subject to regulatory caps - a weighted average of -
*        50 basis points for credit card transactions, and
*        12 cents for Debit Card transactions. 

(II.)       Around 2006, PSB removed restrictions on Merchants charging surcharge fees (which may differ in percentage) to customers for use of credit cards according to the fee charged to the Merchant by the Credit Card Issuers. 

(III.)      The RBA undertook reforms to the EFTPOS system for proprietary debit cards and the debit card system operated by Visa in Sept 2006. MasterCard provided a voluntary undertaking to comply with the Visa Debit Standards.
These reforms -
 i)         capped the level of scheme debit interchange fees;

             ii)         set a cap and floor to bilateral EFTPOS system interchange fees;

             iii)        removed the requirement that Merchants accepting scheme credit cards also accept scheme debit cards;

             iv)        allowed Merchants to surcharge customers using scheme debit cards for payment; and

             v)         liberalised access arrangements for the EFTPOS system,

             in conjunction with an EFTPOS Access Code developed by APCA. 

            

            From January 2010, the RBA established a separate cap for multilateral EFTPOS interchange fees.
The BPAY biller's financial institution pays a wholesale cost-based benchmark fee to the BPAY payer's institution of -

             *           45.1 cents for a BPAY payment from a deposit account, or

             *           40.7 cents (plus 0.297% of the transaction value) for each BPAY payment from a credit card account.

 

The above interchange fee standard, allowance of Merchant fee surcharges and BPAY fee structure are testaments to the application of "cost-based benchmarks" on the Wholesale Supply Side.

 

   

Perhaps a lot of Argy Bargy amongst the following lobby groups over supply/demand impacts and cost-based benchmarking of services/funding costs have contributed to the "competitiveness and efficiency" on the Wholesale Supply Side of the debit and credit card systems in Australia:

  1. Visa, MasterCard, Amex, Diners Club
    ePal - part-owned by the four pillar banks and also Coles and Woolworths

  2. Australian Payments Clearing Association

  3. AMA
    The Pharmacy Guild
    Retail Traders Association

  4. Australian Newsagents Federation

  5. other Merchant special interest groups
    TYRO Payments Limited

Based on my dealings with the RBA in the late '70s, and my understanding why Commonwealth Bank of Australia was divested of it central bank functions in 1959 (refer Section 3 below), and having considered Attachment 'C' and Attachment 'D', I am unable to comprehend your contention that "The Payments System Board of the Reserve Bank has no regulatory power over these aspects of credit cards."  I understand that the RBA has "...extensive powers..." to  "......encompass the retail and commercial systems where large transaction volumes provide scope for efficiency gains.....to gather information from a payment system or from individual participants" and is therefore authorised to request:

"All the banks to provide monthly (or quarterly) data on:

1.       Number of cards that repaid total indebtedness and aggregate dollar amount of those repayments.

2.       Number of cards that repaid > or =50% of total indebtedness and aggregate dollar amount of those > or = 50% repayments.

3.       Number of cards that repaid<50% but >5% of total indebtedness and aggregate dollar amount of those <50% but >5% repayments.

4.       Number of cards that repaid <=5% of total indebtedness and aggregate dollar amount of those <=5% repayments."

If the RBA has to create a new regulation(s), then it has the authority and charter to do so.

 

Attachment 'E' National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Home Loans and Credit Cards) Act contains some useful reforms which will come into effect from 1 July 2012 - 7 months away.  However, the Press Release WRONGLY asserts that the five reforms "will stamp out lender practices that see consumers pay more interest than they should".  This Act does not to stop the existing 15 million credit card accounts being burdened with very high interests rates (up to 20.99% on purchases and 21.74% on cash advances) and perhaps even higher, that are materially higher than the Credit Card Issuers' cost of funds.  (The RBA Official Rate is presently 4.25%.  NAB's Low Rate Visa Card charges a competitive 13.49% after the 55 days interest free period for purchases and has an annual fee of only $59.  It even offers a very cheap 2.99% on purchases for the initial 12 months and 4.99% for 6 months on balance transfers.  The interest-free period for up to 55 days only applies "on purchases if you pay your account in full by the due date each month.".  Many other cards are charging 750 basis points higher than NAB's Low Rate Visa Card for purchases with higher annual fees.)  NAB's Low Rate Visa Card does charge a very high 21.74% p.a. for cash advances.

 

The National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Home Loans and Credit Cards) Act does NOT ensure that the existing 15 million credit-card accounts will not continue to be burdened with very high interests rates, as acknowledged by PM, Julia Gillard "These changes will apply to new credit cards" - top of pg 4.  The existing 15 million credit-card accounts will continue "....to pay more interest than they should".  Hopefully the Act will reduce predatory, deceptive and misleading marketing as evidenced in Attachment 'F' above. 

3.         Commonwealth Bank of Australia lost its central bank functions in 1959

Prior to 1959 Commonwealth Bank of Australia ("CBA") performed the central bank functions in Australia; CBA was banker and financial agent for the Commonwealth.  Those central banking functions were separated from the CBA's commercial activities with the Reserve Bank Act of 1959.  On 14 January 1960, the Reserve Bank of Australia opened for business with Dr H.C. Coombs as the first Governor of the RBA. 

The RBA was established to ensure that CBA -

(i)         did not enjoy a competitive advantage from the other Australian banks (ie. Bank of New South Wales, National Bank of Australia, Commercial Banking Company of Sydney, Rural Bank of NSW, ES&A Bank and National Bank of Australasia, 'et al'); and

(ii)        Australia's central bank functions were not conflicted because the RBA would remain "at arm's length" so as to comply with its role.

4.         Australia's central bank should best contribute to the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia by regulations that -

            a)         acknowledge that -

                         *        all humans are not born with the same literacy and numeracy skills, and

                         *        other "unlucky" Australians may purchase property immediately prior to a property slowdown and get caught in a credit squeeze exacerbated by higher energy, fuel and food prices, colloquially known as "the new poor"; and

            b)         ensure Australia's payments system treats all Australians equally by ensuring that the interest rates on 'purchases' and 'cash advances' are based on the real cost of funds and quantifiable credit default risk

Homo Sapiens are born with a variety of skills, talents and cogitative powers which are increasing and evolving.  A very small proportion can run 100m in under 11 seconds.  Some with brilliant minds are socially or sporting inept.  Some are more intelligent than others.  Many of the less intelligent, less educated, struggle with managing their personal finances.  Some had parents who meticulously taught them money management skills from an early age, and were encouraged to do chores to earn their pocket money and likely had jobs over Christmas at Macca's, a petrol station or a supermarket from age 14.  Many other humans were not so "lucky".  They simply drew parents who could not manage money themselves.

Gene lines of humans that have better adapted to life on terra firma generally live in the higher socio-economic suburbs and enjoy a higher quality and duration of life.  A lot of "luck", and "bad luck", applies to being born a human.  Humans who enjoyed good parenting, and were passed on good genes, are "lucky" humans.  It seems that many "lucky" humans are too often not disposed to help those who, through no fault of their own, have been "unlucky" with the gene line and intellect that they inherited.  In fact, the survival of the fittest instinct that Homo Sapiens required to survive over a hundred thousand years ago still exists in too many aspects of life and business today, even though those threats largely no longer exist, particularly in The Lucky Country.  When Homo Sapiens first began appearing in East Africa approx 150 thousand years ago our direct descendants had to feed, clothe and house themselves when most of animal life around them were much stronger and larger.  These included Neanderthal, at times a brutal carnivore who sometimes hunted and ate the weaker and more vulnerable, Homo Sapiens.  There should be no place for a survival of the fittest mentality today, especially over the task of managing personal finances which "up to half of Australian adults" struggle with.

 

 

The Productivity Commission's report Links Between Literacy and Numeracy Skills and Labour Market Outcomes dated Aug 2010 utilised data from a 2006 survey on the literacy and numeracy skills of the Australian adult population which lamentably revealed that literacy and numeracy skills for nearly half of the population were assessed at either levels 1 (the lowest level) or 2, both of which are below the minimum level deemed necessary to participate in a knowledge-based economy (level 3).

 

SMH 'Business Day' article "Middle class hit by debt - Huge mortgage repayments and credit cards bills are taking their toll" dated 21 Jan 2009 interviewed Tony Devlin, Head Financial Counsellor, Salvation Army's Moneycare service.  Tony commented that "There are far more middle-income earners seeking a way out of the desperate cycle of huge mortgage repayments and mounting credit card debt.........And people try to keep the ship afloat by using more credit cards." 

The writer spoke to Tony Devlin on Wed 7 Dec '11.  Tony told him "It is not uncommon to meet people in financial trouble who had significant debts on between 6 and 10 credit cards." 

How can this be if -

i)          Baycorp Advantage (formerly Credit Reference Association of Australia) holds credit details on all of us; and

ii)         all credit card applications require the Credit Card Issuers to obtain a Credit Reference Report from Baycorp Advantage?

iii)        does a Credit Reference Report factor in cards held by a partner at the same address?

Brian Harvey, chairman of the Financial and Consumer Rights Council in Victoria who manages seven financial counsellors for the Good Shepherd program on the Mornington Peninsula said "the demographics have changed in the past 18 months.  As well as people on pensions, we are seeing middle-income earners overcommitted on mortgage repayments and credit card debt and struggling with big price jumps for food and petrol."


Tony Devlin, Head Financial Counsellor
Salvation Army's Moneycare service

Perusal of item 3 Payment Systems in EMEAP Economies (EMEAP Red Book July 2002) in Attachment 'B' indicates that none of the East Asian Pacific credit card systems reviewed therein have adopted a User Pays Principle on the Retail Supply Side of credit cards.  However, because of our heritage and high standard of living, by all the standard measurements, Australia has a higher sense of community than many of those countries.  Australia is ideally placed to lead the way in heeding the warnings of the WEF (refer Section 5 below) and other august international organisations to put in 'checks and balances' to facilitate all people being treated equally, as well as mitigate 'Compulsive Buying' substance addiction (refer Section 6 below).   Attachment 'C' carries a responsibility in The Lucky Country for the RBA to perform the parenting role for those "unlucky" parents who were not born with the skills to teach their siblings money management skills, by prosecuting the case against the other powerful lobby groups, in particular Credit Card Issuers, on behalf of the 'unlucky" humans to provide A) to H) of Section 8 below.   Commonwealth Bank 'lost the gig' in 1959 because Bank of New South Wales, National Bank 'et al' argued 'inter alia' that the central bank must always be 'at arms length' in performing its role to "...... best contribute to.... the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia."

When survival of the fittest was the law of the jungle, there were no safety nets for the weaker.  But there are now, whereupon the fiscal burden of collateral damage from the following all cost the public purse billions of dollars annually:

(i)         depression, physical and other mental health problems;

(ii)        increased health care and social welfare costs;

(iii)       diminished productivity and associated foregone tax contributions; and

(iv)       widening generation gap/diminished family unit cohesion.  

Conversely, a plethora the published writings by health experts, psychologists and economists attest to the synergies and economies that flow when members of a community believe that they are all being treated equally and fairly, where each person is paying his/her own way, and no one is scamming the system.  Communities with those attributes are often labelled "Happy Towns" for their 'Eminent Sense of Community', loyalty and self-belief.

In 2004, the Commonwealth Bank Foundation commissioned research to investigate peoples' ability to make informed and responsible financial decisions and examine the relationships between financial literacy and its impact on individuals.   Lower financial literacy scores were directly related to respondents having been unable to pay their mobile phone, utility and credit card bills in the last 10 years.  Below is its 'Profile of the least financially literate':

The research shows that the 10 per cent of people with the lowest financial literacy levels are more likely to:

1.    be aged 16 to 20 years old (38.6 per cent)

2.    be male (55.6 per cent)

3.    be unemployed (7.1 per cent) or students (29.6 per cent)

4.    have lower education levels (15 per cent of those not currently studying had some high school education and 20 per cent of those not currently studying had completed Year 12)

5.    have lower annual personal income (34 per cent reported annual personal income under $10,000)

6.    have lower annual household income (44 per cent reported annual household income under $50,000)

7.     have never worked in paid employment.

Hence, the bank with "extensive powers" to regulate interest rate caps, as it did until 1979 for investment deposits held by banks (Section 9 below) is compelled to exercise those "extensive powers" for "the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia", in particular to protect those between 16 and 20 years old - as addressed in Section 8 B) (b) below.  

5.         The gap between rich and poor is widening and regulators are unwilling to act despite the mounting evidence

The World Economic Forum ("WEF") publishes a comprehensive series of reports which examine the broad range of global issues.  WEF seeks to address with stakeholders its mission to improve the state of the world.  The WEF's Global Risks 2011 [Sixth Edition] highlighted the below two primary mega trends with the potential to inject significant disruption into global systems: 

  • "Economic disparity and global governance failures both influence the evolution of many other global risks and inhibit our capacity to respond effectively to them," the forum's Global Risks report for this year's conference notes.

  • "In this way, the global risk context in 2011 is defined by a 21 Century paradox: as the world grows together, it is also growing apart."

Watch 2 min 'You Tube' re "Economic Disparity & Global Governance Failures".

Mike Carlton's recent SMH article "For never let us hold their banner, sigh" opines 'inter alia' that "And America? There is now a Grand Canyon of disparity between rich and poor, with the savings of the middle class plundered by the thieves of Wall Street, and millions out of work."  Australia is not exempt from the widening gap between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots".

Last Friday, the Guardian wrote that the 'Occupy movement' gained initial momentum from camps in Madrid, Athens, Santiago and Malaysia.  The latest city to witness a protest is Chile.  These antecedents have in common with the 'Occupy movement' a reliance on social media and electronic messaging to circumvent the authorities, as well as the belief that financial institutions, corporations, and the political elite have been avaricious in their behaviour toward youth and the middle class.  Patently a growing groundswell of citizens want their democratic governments - elected by the people, drawn from the people, to serve the people - to redress unfair imbalances. 

The Wall Street Journal reported last Thursday that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the new U.S. government agency charged with enforcing federal consumer financial laws, plans to use consumer complaints to inform its oversight of the nation's largest credit-card issuers which includes Bank of America Corp, American Express Co, Citigroup Inc, Capital One Financial Corp, and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

SMH article "Most Australians worried about debt" 19 Dec '11 reports that a "...biannual survey by data intelligence company Veda, found 82 per cent were worried about their ability to meet debt repayments in the future, up from 75 per cent a year ago" - 9.33% deterioration.

The Consumer Action Law Centre, which provides a category under 'Consumer Issues' for Credit and Debit, seems Australia's legal agency vested to pursue consumer issues (which have widened the gap between rich and poor) at a governmental level, in the media, and throughout the community directly. 

Financial Counselling Australia (FCA) [nee Australian Financial Counselling and Credit Reform Association] is the peak body for financial counsellors in Australia.

6.         Compulsive Buying is a substance addiction which 'prima facie' many of the banks are exploiting to the detriment of vulnerable "unlucky" Australians   

Federal independent MP Andrew Wilkie and Senator Nick Xenophon are seeking drastic changes to poker machines to reduce the adverse effects of poker machine gambling addiction.  Other common addictions include nicotine and alcohol which according to Access Economics reports, each wreak an enormous burden upon the Australian economy. 

Estimated Prevalence of Compulsive Buying Behavior in the United States (published by The American Journal of Psychiatry) written by Dr Lorrin Koran, Professor of Psychiatry, School of Medicine and Director of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder Clinic Stanford University, California USA, and other eminent Behavioural Scientists, forecasts that 'Compulsive Buying' (uncontrolled urges to buy, with resulting significant difficult consequences) adversely effects 1.8% to 16% of the adult U.S. population.  The US. National Institute on Drug Abuse has considered behavioural addictions (such as Compulsive Buying) to be "cleaner" and more homogeneous models of substance addictions.

In 2008 Curtain University WA carried out research to investigate money attitudes and credit card usage between compulsive and non-compulsive buyers of young Australians.  In its finding it recommended that "Marketers and policy makers are recommended to incorporate consumer education programs for young adults to build skills to counter financial problems."

 

Casual empiricism of Attachment 'A' indicates that Credit Card Issuers are exploiting suffers of 'Compulsive Buying' substance addiction.  Attachment 'F' is merely one example of a major Australian bank deploying predatory marketing to induce "unlucky" Australians, some who suffer from 'Compulsive Buying' substance addiction, to take a credit card with a high interest rate (approaching 20.99% pa for purchases and 21.74% for cash advances) which would prove more profitable to the Credit Card Issuers.

7.         Questions that Australia's central bank should be able to answer

1.     Does the statistic that 61 per cent circa of credit card users pay off the closing balance of their credit card bill in full by the due date ‘every month’ support my view that the credit card system does not follow the User Pays Principle?  Almost every person that I know either has a periodical debit set up to repay their monthly credit card indebtedness prior to expiry of the interest free threshold or diarises to repay their full indebtedness, so as not to pay exorbitant interest rates.  

2.     Why "At the other end of the spectrum, around one-quarter of credit card users pay off their credit card in full ‘not very often’ or ‘hardly ever/never’"?

3.    Why does Australia's central bank have very little idea of the profitability of the credit card system on a demographic socio-economic basis when the RBA Board's proclaimed duty, within the limits of its "...extensive powers..." under 'inter alia' the Payment Systems (Regulation) Act 1998 are "to ensure that the monetary and banking policy of the Bank is directed to the greatest advantage of the people of Australia .......will best contribute to...... the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia."?

4.     Why are Australia's major banks announcing record profits?  Why are executive bonus schemes reaching new zeniths each year?

5.     Were the riots in England 6 months ago a reaction by the 'Have Nots' to the excesses of the 'Haves'?  If the gap was narrower, would the riots have been smaller? 

6.     What is the primary "biff" of the 'Occupy Wall Street' movements?

7.     In light of the RBA's role to "....best contribute to...... the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia.", why is the Retail Supply Side of the credit card system so bereft of similar "competitiveness and efficiency"?

8.     Is the RBA conflicted with the major banks over its role to ensure that the credit card system is directed to the -
*        greatest advantage of the people of Australia; and
*        economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia?

9.     Is the Payments System Board conflicted with the major banks over its role to promote competition in the market for payment services, consistent with the overall stability of the financial system, when 39% circa of credit card users do not pay off the closing balance of their credit card bill in full by the due date ‘every month’ and one-quarter of credit card users pay off their credit card in full ‘not very often’ or ‘hardly ever/never’"? 

10. Why did the Treasurer and the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation issue a Joint Press Release in July 2011 which falsely asserted that the changes in the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Home Loans and Credit Cards) Bill will "stamp out lender practices that see consumers pay more interest than they should" for "some 15 million credit-card accounts in Australia." when the changes from 1 July 2012 will have little or no impact on the excessively high interest rates that many of the 15 million credit-card accounts in Australia continue to incur? 

8.         Philip Johnston asks the RBA to -

            a)         accept that unlike the powerful lobby groups noted in Section 2 above, Credit Cardholders do not have access to a powerful lobby group to protect their interests; and

            b)         provide A) to H) below so that the credit card system is paid for by its users on a "User Pays basis", and not by many who can least afford it, because they were not "lucky" enough to be born with, or taught, requisite money management skills or take on a hefty mortgage during a period when the property market continued to appreciate 

 

Attachment 'B' provides an impressive array of achievements by the RBA in administering the credit and debit card systems.  In doing so, the RBA provides precedent for this letter requesting the RBA to rely upon the Payment Systems (Regulation) Act 1998 which gives the RBA "extensive powers" to -

A)       "gather information from payment system participants and operators" by proceeding to obtain data for a particular month (or quarter) from over 70 issuers for the 330 different types of cards that are available which shows:

1.       Number of cards that repaid total indebtedness and aggregate dollar amount of those repayments.

2.       Number of cards that repaid > or =50% of total indebtedness and aggregate dollar amount of those > or = 50% repayments.

3.       Number of cards that repaid<50% but >5% of total indebtedness and aggregate dollar amount of those <50% but >5% repayments.

4.       Number of cards that repaid <=5% of total indebtedness and aggregate dollar amount of those <=5% repayments;

B)       "determine rules for participation in a payment system and set Standards for safety and efficiency, incl issues such as performance benchmarks" by proceeding to implement "cost-based  benchmarks" [akin to (I.), (II.) and (III.) in Section 2 above] by -

            (a)        setting a regulatory cap for all the 330 different types of cards which fall under the jurisdiction of the RBA of -

                         i)        850 basis points above the RBA Overnight Cash Rate as the maximum annual on-going interest rate charged by Credit Card Issuers in Australia for Purchases, where Credit Card Issuers can reach, but not exceed, this Purchase Interest Rate Cap;

                         ii)       950 basis points above the RBA Overnight Cash Rate as the maximum annual on-going interest rate charged by Credit Card Issuers in Australia for Cash Advances, where Credit Card Issuers can reach, but not exceed, this Cash Advance Interest Rate Cap - refer 50% cap on cash advances in D) below; and

                         iii)      $90 for the maximum Annual Credit Card Fee that a Credit Card Issuers can charge (in 1993 restrictions on annual fees for credit cards were removed, so it is not unreasonable to introduce a cap, particularly as some cards charge inordinately high annual fees to provide 'inter alia' high loyalty points which surprisingly avoid income and FBT taxes.)

                         

            (b)        learning from point 1. of CBA's research in Section 4, set an 'Access Regime' that each credit card issued in Australia to a person who has not previously owned a credit card be a Provisional Charge Card, hereinafter PCC, with a conservative credit limit where the owner of the PCC is required for the initial 12 months to repay the outstanding balance on the PCC in full by the due date (9 days from the Issue Date and 7 days from the normal receipt date for postal delivery) or be subject to severe late fees and restrictions on future PCC use, with deferment of receiving a traditional credit card until the PCC owner complies with the PCC repayment obligations for 12 months without breach.   

C)        reduce the non-interest period from 'up to 55 days' to 'up to 40 days' to reduce the cost burden on Credit Card Issuers because electronic payments enable Credit Cardholders to pay their monthly repayments within a few days of notification of the final monthly balance.   

D)        continue to sanction the market practice of not providing a non interest period for Cash Advances, but restrict the limit for Cash Advances to 50% of the total Credit Card Limit because as Wikipedia explains -
*        "
a credit card is a small plastic card issued to users as a system of payment"; and
*         the original cards "
required the entire bill to be paid with each statement".

E)        increase the minimum repayment required from 2.5% to 25% of the outstanding debit balance which shouldn't faze >60% of Credit Cardholders and will materially reduce the interest burden on the remaining <40%.

F)        allow Credit Card Issuers to levy -

             a)        an explicit 'Lost Card Fee' for -

                         *          placing a stop on an account; and/or

                         *          issuing a replacement credit card(s) commensurate with the cost to the Credit Card Issuers of issuing a replacement credit card(s); and

             b)        a 'Fraud Provision Fee' upon each credit card user each month based on the quantum of transactions and the outstanding undrawn indebtedness (eg. for a credit card user with a $5,000 credit limit, who made 10 purchases in a month, with an outstanding undrawn balance of $3,000 (vulnerable to fraudulent access) the 'Fraud Provision Fee' for that month would be say 10 @ 0.15c = $1.50 + say $3,000 @ 0.0003c = $0.90 for a total monthly 'Fraud Provision Fee' of $2.40 for enjoying the convenience of using a credit card for 10 transactions with a $5,000 credit limit.  

G)        establish a uniform credit evaluation methodology that all Credit Card Issuers must observe similar to NAB's Microenterprise Loans because to many Australian adults are obtaining credit cards with excessive interest rates which would be lower if the defaults were lower due to a robust standard credit analysis methodology.

H)        prosecute the case on behalf of the "unlucky" Australians with Baycorp Advantage 'et al' and the Credit Card Issuers to establish and regulate protocols and systems so "unlucky" Australians cannot obtain between 6 and 10 credit cards, as evidenced by Tony Devlin, Head Financial Counsellor, Salvation Army's Moneycare service, in Section 4 above.  

Attachment 'C' and Attachment 'D' provides authority for the RBA Board and the PSB to -

 I.          pursue A) to H) above; and

 II.         inform the Government that the RBA's monetary and banking policy needs to regulate to implement B)(a) and B)(b) above "for the economic prosperity and welfare of (ALL) the people of Australia" and not merely the "lucky" ones.

 

9.         Our previous Prime Minister called for more regulation to mitigate the causes of the GFC

In Feb 2009, "The Monthly", published an essay by the then PM, Kevin Rudd, titled "The Global Financial Crisis" which made a palpable case that the neo-liberalism ideology, which the essay argued had prevailed amongst the 'Financial Market' from 1973 to 2008, had -

a)         failed unequivocally; and

b)         must be replaced by social democracy to 'inter alia' "..........prevent liberal capitalism from cannibalising itself"  and  ".....also devising a new regulatory regime for the financial markets of the future." 

That essay contained the words -

*          'social democracy' (a central role for government in the regulation of markets and the provision of public goods) 21 times; and

*          'neo-liberalism' (unrestrained free-market ideology) 13 times. 

It was a significant admonishment of the flaws and failings of the latter financial markets ideology from a Prime Minister of Australia.

Below is one pertinent extract:

"The intellectual challenge for social democrats is not just to repudiate the neo-liberal extremism that has landed us in this mess, but to advance the case that the social-democratic state offers the best guarantee of preserving the productive capacity of properly regulated competitive markets, while ensuring that government is the regulator............ and that government offsets the inevitable inequalities of the market with a commitment to fairness for all."

The thrust of this letter is for the inequalities of credit cards available from Credit Card Issuers to be corrected with a commitment to "user pays" -

*          "...to achieve fairness for all"; and

*          ".....to rebuild confidence in properly regulated markets."

In "slamming" neo-liberalism, Kevin Rudd highlighted Alan Greenspan's public mea culpa admission.  Alan Greenspan had recently conceded in testimony before Congress that his ideological viewpoint was flawed, and that the "whole intellectual edifice" of modern risk management had collapsed.  Chair of the Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Henry Waxman, questioned Greenspan further: "In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right; it was not working?"  Greenspan replied, "Absolutely, precisely." 

 

10.       Our current Prime Minister is committed to credit card reform

Our current PM, Julia Gillard is also committed to -

*          help give hard working Australians a better deal when it comes to credit cards; and

*         "...delivering reforms that strengthen protections for consumers and give regulators the tools they need to enforce the law." - pg 4

 

Seemingly from the below indented extract our current PM is in favour of ASIC exercising its rights under The National Consumer Credit Protection Reform Package where "....civil penalties for licensee misconduct ..... enable ASIC to seek heavy fines of up to $220,000 for an individual and $1.1 million for a corporation."

 

"Under the new national code, credit providers face possible imprisonment for up to two years for serious breaches of the responsible lending conduct requirements or heavy fines of up $220,000 for an individual and $1.1 million for a corporation." - pg 5

11.       Regulation v De-regulation

This letter seeks the RBA to prosecute the case against the other powerful lobby groups (particularly the Credit Card Issuers) on behalf of the "unlucky" Australians (nearly half of the population with either level 1 (the lowest level) or level 2, both below the minimum level deemed necessary to participate in a knowledge-based economy (level 3) so Credit Card Issuers employ the User Pays Principle with -

i)          an annual interest rate (for indebtedness beyond the interest free period) that reflects the real cost of funds and real credit risk; and

ii)         an annual fee that reflects the marginal cost of providing the card and servicing the account.  

The naysayer would argue that the RBA would be creating a nanny state. 

Sections 9 and 10 above which followed Alan Greenspan's public mea culpa is just one example of a litany of regulatory reform across Western economies where regulators ultimately opted for greater regulation after the 'free market' had become too greedy or rendered economies too unstable. 

The swings between laissez-faire and 'robust regulation' are as common as big organisations swinging between spreading power/decision making authority away from the centre (Head Office) to local branches (decentralisation) because they contend that one size doesn't fit all and perceive economies.  And then 5 or 10 years later a new management recentralises control because they perceive economies.

History evidences that some de-regulation is beneficial and some not so.  The financial sector regulations which operated through the '70s restricted competition among the banks and diverted some of the resulting cartel profits to cross subsidise lending to home owners - providing a cheap pool of funds for discounted home finance which evidenced Australians to have a very high level of home ownership.  But the cartelisation of the banks eventually led to an expansion of banking activities by NBFIs, so that the regulations which had once boosted bank profits ended up restricting their ability to compete with NBFIs.  Consequently the banks were not hostile to many aspects of the proposed deregulation of the financial system, and accepted others, e.g. the opening of the sector to new entrants, as an inevitable price to be paid for being allowed to compete aggressively with the NBFIs.  During my brief exposure to working in CBA branches between 1970 and 1974, I recall that the banking acts regulated the maximum interest rate that any bank could offer at -

*           6½% on savings investment accounts (minimum account balance of $500, deposits and withdrawals must be $100 or greater and 7 days written notice to the bank for all transactions); and

*           a paltry 3¼% on passbook accounts. 

Building societies, credit unions and other NBFIs were offering materially higher investment rates and drawing monies away from the banks.  Initially, regulators looked at bringing these NBFIs under the same regulations.  However, in 1979 the Campbell Committee opted to remove the caps on bank investment deposits.

Some assert that deregulation of the housing finance market in the USA under the Clinton administration was a catalyst to the GFC. 

Restrictions on annual fees for credit cards were removed in 1993 which enabled increased application of the User Pays Principle.

Some deregulation is generally beneficial, whereas some proves to be otherwise.  Presently, as pointed out above the Wholesale Supply Side appears adequately regulated, whereas the Retail Supply Side is bereft of prudential regulation, whereupon 'caveat emptor' is the only safeguard.  Alas, as the afore-mentioned 2010 Productivity Commission's report found nearly half on Australia's 22.8 million population are "unlucky" Australians who do not possess requisite literacy and numeracy skills to be 'aware buyers' not just of consumer goods, but also credit card offers akin to the ANZ First Visa card, particularly "unlucky" Australians who suffer from 'Compulsive Buying' substance addiction.  

Australia's healthcare system is heavily regulated, politically contested and subject to considerable media and public scrutiny.  Australians enjoy a highly cost-effective health care system by world standards.  The downside is that professionals in health, ranging from doctors, dentists, optometrists, pharmacists etc., do not receive the same level of remuneration than counterparts in the USA, Canada, France, UK etc.  By comparison with the enormous focus on cost containment in health care servicing across Australia, alas the Retail Supply Side of the credit card system lacks "cost-based benchmarks".

It wasn't regulation, but a 'class action' brought by Maurice Blackburn that has evidenced all banks materially reduce their late-penalty fees for credit cards, and abolish or reduce dozens of other fees over the past two years.  Seemingly banks have over-priced their credit card 'late payment fees' relative to the economic cost suffered due to holders' late payments.

12.       Conclusion

The arguments presented above -

(i)         establish that literacy and numeracy skills for nearly half of the population were assessed at either levels 1 (the lowest level) or 2, both of which are below the minimum level deemed necessary to participate in a knowledge-based economy (level 3) as ascribed by the Productivity Commission's report Links Between Literacy and Numeracy Skills and Labour Market Outcomes dated Aug 2010;

(ii)        bestow a 'proxy role' on the RBA to be the lobbyist for "unlucky" Australians, many of whom do not possess requisite skills to manage their personal finances, nor do they enjoy the negotiating acumen of some of the powerful lobby groups in the Wholesale Supply Side (listed in Section 2 above) to press their own case for the interest rates on credit cards to be based on the cost of funds and credit default risk, not set 1,600 to 1,700 basis points above the RBA Official Cash Rate; and

(iii)       behove the RBA's Board to -

            (a)       regulate the Retail Supply Side of the credit card system to apply "cost-based benchmarks" to achieve a "user pays" structure as requested in Section 8 above; and

            (b)       inform the Government, pursuant to section 11 "Differences of opinion with Government on questions of policy" of The Reserve Bank Act 1959, as amended, that the RBA's monetary and banking policy needs to regulate to implement B)(a) and B)(b) above "for the economic prosperity and welfare of (ALL) the people of Australia" and not merely for "lucky" Australians who are proficient to participate in a knowledge-based economy because they are assessed to be level 3 and do not over-commit immediately prior to an economic slowdown. 

13.       Postscript

Whilst the need to adopt the User Pays Principle in the Retail Supply Side of the credit card system is palpable, it is more difficult to expect one country in particular to similarly 'pay for what it uses'.  The US central bank issues Federal Reserve Notes to raise capital to fund its federal expenditure and to retire maturing debt (notes).  The RBA does similarly by issuing Commonwealth Government Bonds.  However, it seems dishonest for the U.S. to apply the misnomer of 'quantitative easing' (the practice doesn't 'ease' the quantity of money, it increases the quantity) by merely printing more 'green backs' ex nihilo to retire debt which looks horribly like stealing from other countries who 'pay for what they use'.  But the G7 and the G20 are silent to the injustices upon the rest of debtor, and indeed creditor, countries of this practice as the US contemplates QE3.  Perhaps because the Gs recognise that if the USA (350m of 7b global population = 5% of global population, but accounting for up to 25% of global emissions from consumption) became insolvent, the consequences would be a global meltdown which could be 10 times more catastrophic than the Great Depression.  But does that still make it OK for the US to print money to avoid 'paying for what it uses' when "not living within its means"?  Our Federal Treasurer has called for EU countries such as Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain to accept austerity measures to live within their means.  Why isn't Wayne Swan beseeching the US to do likewise?  If I was to print Aust $10 notes to pay my debts, the RBA, and perhaps a few other federal agencies, would be down on me 'like a ton of bricks' with seemingly valid righteous resolve.  But I would only be doing what the US does to the rest of the world. 

 

The US has enjoyed a 'privileged ride' because of Bretton Woods.  The Gs should be looking to reduce the impact of global hedge funds pushing up the USD each time there is a financial crisis, perhaps by having more large transactions written in Euros or GBP and any other mechanism at their disposal including increased regulation and financial reporting.  On the face of it regulation of hedge fund managers and registered schemes by ASIC in Australia is far-reaching comparable to other jurisdictions.  Seemingly, US hedge funds are not governed by the same regulations as other US managed investments or mutual funds. The majority of hedge fund managers are domiciled in the US where hedge funds are not supervised like Securities and Exchange Commission registered mutual funds, as hedge funds are not currently required to register with the SEC.

 

Just as Alan Greenspan conceded before the US Congress that his ideological viewpoint that free markets shunning certain regulations was flawed and Maurice Blackburn had caused the banking sector to reprice its fees, the writer of this letter believes that central banks have similarly 'got it wrong' by being too close to Credit Card Issuers to the detriment in this country of many "unlucky" countrymen.  I am sure that the WEF would agree (Section 5 above).  Alas, the problem is universal across the Western World.  The Lucky Country can lead the way to reform through regulation because banks continue to report excessive profits.  The 'mature' industry of banking, with high barriers to entry, should not be reporting record profits, with the senior executive and board members remunerated excessively, relative to the other 99% of their employees. 

 

 

The focus on addressing the adverse effects of climate change is a return to pre-1990 emission levels.  A similar parallel exists in the distribution of remuneration with pie charts of the remuneration of major banks between 1990 and today highlighting an alarming injustice trend.  The piece of the pie which feeds exec. management, the board and a few 'whiz kid' dealers is getting wider and wider, with the rest of the pie to feed the remaining 99% of banks' employees commensurately narrower.  What has changed to justify exec. management, boards and a few money market manipulators earning between 3 and 13 times more than they did 21 years ago? 

 

 

SMH 'Business Day' article "Middle class hit by debt - Huge mortgage repayments and credit cards bills are taking their toll" alludes to the social problems resulting from excessive credit card debt and the financial counselling involved in seeking to mitigate the fallout.  Merit patently exists in the bank chartered with "....the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia" treating the cause of the problem rather than counsellors attempting to put bandaids on the all too often horrendous effects.

NB:      In 1985 when I worked in Representational Network at CBA, the then Chief Manager, Deposit Services, Peter Andrews, asked me to write a paper on CSB introducing explicit fee pricing for the traditional passbook accounts because customers were increasingly depositing cheques into their passbook accounts, thereby reducing fee income from CTB cheque accounts and increasing servicing costs on savings accounts.  Coupled with this, the implicit interest margin between where CBA bought money through savings investment accounts (capped by regulation @ 6½%  'til 1980) and deposits into savings accounts (capped by regulation @ 3¼% 'til 1980) and where it sold (lent) money through loans was eroding due to NBFIs (building societies, credit unions, Estate Mortgage Trusts, Equiticorp 'et al') attracting a lot of previously high balance savings account balances.  A month later after reading copious banking journals from the USA and the UK about how their banks addressed the same problem, my 15 foolscap pages titled "The Application of Fee Based Income to CSB Passbook Accounts" which sought to apply the User Pays Principle went up to Peter Wilson, Chief General Manager, Retail Banking HO.  I was told later that Peter Wilson had supported my paper, but thought it better for one of the other Pillar Banks to be the first to introduce such fees which would be politically sensitive, and Commonwealth Bank was still viewed by Australians as the peoples bank.  The need for 'fee-based income' re-surfaced in CBA in 1987 whereupon I sent my memo submission to the new Chief Manager, Deposit Services, Jim O'Ryan, who sent back a thank your response note after reading it.  I retain a copy of that submission paper. 

            Times have changed with bank fees these day applying the User Pays Principle scrupulously, except to the Retail Supply Side of credit cards which is All Smoke and Mirrors.

Yours sincerely

Philip Johnston