WASHINGTON-The comparative bank fee study report commissioned by the Federal Reserve and prepared by Moeb's $ervices of Lake Bluff, Illinois, has been canceled and there is little hope of it being continued (CU Times, Feb. 2). The Federal Reserve is said to be disinterested in providing the information contained in the report, despite it having become a useful guide for individual consumers, consumer groups, small independent community banks and the credit union industry. Because the survey is the only independently amassed, thorough and comprehensive analysis of the fees charged by banks across the country, it was often cited by the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, the Credit Union National Association, (CUNA) and the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU) as an example of how banks, and particularly large, interstate banks, have earned record profits by charging more and higher fees for standard bank services. Credit unions and small banks and thrifts have historically fared much better in the report, a matter which has been noticed by many members of Congress, who have continually had it extended. The Fed, surprisingly, has stated that the cost of the report is the reason for its cancellation, but that official statement hasn't convinced many observers. The report, officially titled the "Annual Report to the Congress on Retail Fees and Services of Depository Institutions," costs $81,720. The Fed's statement about the cancellation found that "While these data are used in research projects at the Board, such projects cannot by themselves justify the additional year's expenditure by the Board. Thus, it would seem appropriate to allow the report to sunset..." The House of Representatives has passed legislation to extend the report, but it has been bottled up in the Senate and may lack support on the Senate Banking Committee, which is headed by Senator Phil Gramm (R-Texas). A Senate Banking Committee staffer told Credit Union Times that the Chairman "was sympathetic to the Fed's decision to cancel this costly project, particularly because there are other private sources for this information." While there may be other anecdotal sources that might be cobbled together to approach the size and scope of the Moebs' generated data, it would be questioned as possibly biased and certainly incomplete-and therefore dismissed- while the Fed's promulgation of such information is taken to be above reproach, without a tilt to any particular type of institution and statistically accurate. CUNA lobbyist John McKechnie acknowledged that the trade was disappointed but vowed to keep lobbying not just for the extension of the report, but also for having credit unions included in the basic research. That had been a long-desired wish, he said. (CU trades had compared industry statistics compiled through NCUA reports and other surveys and compared them with the banks' statistics.) McKechnie said that CUNA is trying to get some members of the Senate Banking Committee interested in stepping up to the plate for the report. If they should find solid sponsorship and support, it's not likely that Gramm would impede the report's continuation, he said. -
caburger@cutimes.com
