Cited page

Citations are available only to our active members. Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

X X

Cited page

Display options
Reset

Can Your Bank Forestall New Regs?

By: Griffin, Lucy | ABA Banking Journal, October 1999 | Article details

Look up
Saved work (0)

matching results for page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?
While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.

Can Your Bank Forestall New Regs?


Griffin, Lucy, ABA Banking Journal


Yes, by understanding what consumers perceive to be unfair or deceptive practices

The legal definition of an unfair or deceptive trade practice is found in the Federal Trade Commission Act. But an easier way to understand the concept is to look at practices from the customer's perspective. A practice may be unfair or deceptive when what the customer expects will happen is different from what the vendor intends will happen.

Classic examples of unfair or deceptive practices include bait and switch techniques in advertising and selling; hiding important contract conditions in small print; or simply saying one thing and doing another. There are numerous examples of banking practices that consumers have considered unfair over the years. In fact, most of the bank compliance laws and regulations deal with practices that could be seen as unfair or deceptive.

History furnishes a ready example. When interest rates skyrocketed in the early 1980s, lenders designed the "discounted variable rate loan." Because there was--at that time--no explicit guidance in the Official Staff Commentary to Regulation Z, lenders disclosed an APR based on 30 years at the initial discounted or "teaser" rate. As a result, borrowers had no idea what their loan would really cost.

The official commentary now instructs lenders to prepare a blended-rate APR using the teaser rate for only the period of time that the loan would be discounted and the market rate for the remainder of the loan.

Deposit practices have also led to compliance regulations. Again, history holds the lesson. When some banks instituted the technique of paying interest only on the investable balance of deposit accounts, both customers and Congress got angry. The Truth in Savings Act, with its ban on the investable balance practice, is the direct result.

And, then, the Expedited Funds Availability Act responded to customer frustration with what they considered to be excessive holds placed on their deposits by banks.

History repeats itself

Why is this walk through Compliance Memory Lane important for bankers today?

The industry faces rising consumer concerns about practices old and new that consumers consider unfair and deceptive. When consumers don't like a banking …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Select text to:

Select text to:

  • Highlight
  • Cite a passage
  • Look up a word
Learn more Close
Loading One moment ...
Highlight
Select color
Change color
Delete highlight
Cite this passage
Cite this highlight
View citation

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?