orangeblock

Banks ignore price warnings

20 August 2008 | | Gareth Stokes

The feature story in this week’s Finweek magazine focuses on the attitude of South Africa’s big four banks to banking fees. The article concludes that banks have done little to lighten the consumer fee burden since the gauntlet was thrown down some four years ago. For the most part fees at the countries major banks have been on the rise in recent years, often at rates well in excess of inflation.

The problem is one of competition. Local consumers are limited in choice to one of four main-stream banks: ABSA, First National Bank, Nedbank or Standard Bank. And complex pricing structures for transactions, products and services make it very difficult for consumers to choose between them.

Comparing charges for the fictional family

Finweek conducts there annual comparison of banking charges by creating a fictional family. This family uses the following banking products, all held at the same bank:

· Two current accounts

· Each current account has a debit card with an overdraft limit of R10 000 and annual card protection

  •  Each current account has a cheque book
  •  Two garage cards, with card protection fees
  •  Two credit cards, with card protection fees
  •  One internet banking account
  •  Mortgage debt of R500 000
  •  Two car loans of R150 000

This basket is probably not an accurate profile of the average South African bank customer; but that’s not the intention. What the survey aims to do is compare fees for product and services across South Africa’s main banks to get an idea of which offers the most competitive ‘overall’ pricing structure...

The survey throws up some alarming results. The first is that it’s extremely difficult to get accurate pricing details for some of these services. Finweek reveals that they often had to make repeat telephone calls to the bank’s respective customer support centres to make sure of the relevant fees. And the second is that despite mounting pressure on banks to reduce fees and increase transparency the majority of options show increases year-on-year since 2005.

ABSA emerges as the most expensive bank

According to Finweek “ABSA has emerged as South Africa’s most expensive bank in 2008…” This follows year-on-year increases of 31% for ‘pay-as-you-go’ services and 23% for a ‘package’ solution. These price movements are based on the fees incurred by the aforementioned fictional family were they to use ‘pay-as-you-go’ or ‘package’ fee models from this bank.

On a three year view (since 2005) the ‘pay-as-you-go’ fees are higher at three of the banks surveyed. Standard Bank is 17% higher, ABSA (+32%) and First National Bank (+11%). Nedbank managed a moderate fall in this category, with fees reducing by some 12% over the three years. Fees for ‘package’ solutions are higher too… Standard Bank packages are up 60% since 2005… ABSA (+30%) and FNB (+0.1%) follow suit, while Nedbank has again managed to reduce charges in this area by 47% over the same time frame.

And here’s the clincher. Despite spending more than 40 hours on researching banking fees, Finweek struggles to determine which bank account represents the best ‘value’ option for their fictional family. The conclusion was that products from the Nedbank stable would be best… It’s slightly counter intuitive because there’s a perception that Nedbank is an expensive option…

Websites don’t help

So the magazine turned to comparison websites like www.thinkmoney.co.za and www.justmoney.co.za. These services provided quick answers but left the consumer with many ‘unanswered’ questions… The sensible solution for a family hoping to cut down on banking fees is to consolidate accounts, cut out on expensive luxuries like chequebooks and move most of their transactions to the bank’s online facilities. And remember – cheap banks like Capitec, Integer and Bidvest and cell phone banks like MTN Money and Wizzit are affordable and convenient; but offer limited services.

Editor’s thoughts:
It’s not too difficult to work out why banks are resisting transparency where fees are concerned. They put shareholders above customers: profit remains the primary business objective. This situation will persist for as long as the domestic banking environment is dominated by four or five large players. Do you think it’s time to open the South African market to UK and US banks? Add you comments below, or send them to gareth@fanews.co.za

Comments

Added by Disgruntled and disillusioned, 10 Sep 2008
An issue slightly off the subject of Bank charges but still pertaaining to banks and the practices undertaken by them on the basis of an environment that is essentially monopolistic. I am an ex bank employee employed in the industry for 32 years 22 of these with Nedbank. I left the industry 2 years ago having got totally disillusioned by the lack of service and the fact that clients best interests are totally ignored. With a number of colleagues we set up an asset finance brokerage with the aim of supplying the lacking service to the clients. The existance of so called business originators in the asset finance industry go back as far as I can remember banking. These people have provided the clients with an excellent service reacting with speed and due to the knowledge and skill levels they are able to package the credit application in shorter time and respond to clients needs quicker than the bank personnel. Income is earned by the originator by selling the deal at an acceptable rate to the client and then selling the deal at a rate acceptable to the bank earning the difference in commission on an upfront present value basis. This has proved to be low cost business for the banks as acquisition costs are born by the originator. During August and September, ABSA, Wesbank and Nedbank have taken the route to cancel originator facilities across the board. These were done without consultation or notification or adequate reasoning. This was preceded by a lot of collusion among these banks and all took place within weeks of each other. Whilst the banks have the right to do business with whom they choose, the socio economic impact of this certainly played no part in the decision as neither did common business sense. The industry employs around 400 people and has a direct impact on the lives of at least 1500 people who rely on this business to live and survive. Many of these people actually bank with and have debt to the banks who have made these decisions. They can produce no economic business reason for this approach except for the usual bully tactics employed by these huge companies. It is about time that collusion and uncompetetive practices are closely looked at in this industry especially where the banks have so called JV companies and Alliances with suppliers of capital goods. In these instances they have created an environment of exclusion of competition through the strategies and tactics employed.
Report Abuse
Added by GA, 21 Aug 2008
I hate to say this but the South African consumer as been screwed over and over throughout the years. I tend to like the big banks from a point of view that they are stable and have been around a long time so it engenders trust which is hard to find nowadays too. One will always pay a higher price for great service, no matter where you go. Unlike our Saambou debacle where Nelson Mandela’s Children Fund battled to get their money out after their demise. The issue with little UK and USA banks is that there is always a tendency to a monopoly from a pure economics viewpoint so it’s a matter of time before the niche players are taken out. As the poor consumer bears the brunt of the loss they will always side on the strength of the brand. The logic that my father banked there, and my grand father and so on. That’s just how it is. From a charges point of view, I do feel they are somewhat expensive however these banks have huge networks to run.
Report Abuse
Added by Financial Virgin, 20 Aug 2008
Have you ever read an article about the advertising rates of the magazines and newspapers of Nasionale Pers?--they have conistently been above inflation even though there readership figures have been declining for several years now. Advertisers are now paying substanitally more in real terms than they did ten years ago, but beause it has a monopoly and controls what goes into their publications you will NEVER see such an article appear in any newspaper or magazine.
Report Abuse
Added by Frugal, 20 Aug 2008
Why are small banks not included in this survey? Capitec bank is quietly doing its own thing and beating the big boys as far as banking fees are concerned! Do yourself a favour and investigate Capitec's fees compared to the Big Four Major Rip-Off!
Report Abuse
Added by SilverFox, 20 Aug 2008
The issue of opening the SA market to international banks could assist with competition, but those fees are also going up. I have had an account with Barclays bank int he UK for 8 years. For seven of those years I never paid one cent in bank charges. Recently though they introduced bank fees throughout the board for all accounts. There is a monthly management fee of 5 Pounds and then transaction fees included. Furthermore if you don't have funds in excess of 20 000 pounds in the account, you can't keep it open. May I just add as an aside that when I tried to sort this issue out, I found out quickly that their service compares very favourably with that of local banks, in that it is just as poor!!
Report Abuse
Added by Vida, 20 Aug 2008
The more the merrier, competition should result in a reduction of bank charges. But some of these banks like ABSA and Standard Bank, are they not the international players in the US and UK? Maybe the legislators should do something to enforce the reduction of bank charges then.
Report Abuse
Added by DM, 20 Aug 2008
YES WITHOUT DOUBT. SA BANKS GIVE INADEQUATE SERVICE, ARE BLOODY INEFFICIENT, REALLY EXPENSIVE, THEIR MANAGERS ARE PAID FAR TOO MUCH, THEY GET HUGE ANNUAL BONUSES, AND THEY PAY THEIR GENERAL STAFF (I.E. NOT MANAGERS) PEANUTS.
Report Abuse

Comment on this Post

Name*

Email Address*

Comment*

quick poll
Question

Discovery’s 2024 data highlights suicide and motor vehicle accidents as leading causes of unnatural death claims. Which of these insurance planning priorities do you find most relevant in practice?

Answer