800-809-2307
Four Letters. Infinite Potential.

Matrix overdraft systems: more risk than reward?

By Richard Miller
Executive Vice President

matrix-risk_reward

Matrix-based overdraft systems have been around since the 1980’s. Originally popularized in large bank environments by a company called Earnings Performance Group (EPG), these systems automated the pay/return decisions on overdrafts based on predetermined criteria. It was a good idea at the time because many banks were making manual decisions and/or returning nearly all NSF items. By automating the process, matrix systems were responsible for increasing NSF and Overdraft (NSF/OD) revenue by at least 25%.

A matrix program is basically an old-line product that has many flaws and consequences for both consumers and your staff. One notable issue is that a matrix program is difficult for staff to explain. Worse still, it is even harder for the consumer to understand. 

Several disadvantages of matrix-based overdraft systems with “dynamic” limits have become apparent in the face of increased regulatory scrutiny on consumer-oriented financial products:

  1. Greater risk for potential compliance-related issues, including class-action lawsuits
  2. Less financial security for consumers which weakens trust and may negatively impact account holder satisfaction and retention
  3. Undisclosed and adjustable overdraft limits lack the transparency so widely desired by regulators

On average, matrix systems are generally used by less than 10% of consumers and their heavy use means those consumers are constantly at risk of charge off.

Where is your NSF/overdraft revenue coming from now? 

If you don’t have a disclosed overdraft solution, your NSF/overdraft revenue probably comes from the regular NSF/OD users, your “heavy users.” These are the folks who test the system all the time and are willing to roll the dice on your undisclosed pay/return decision. Why not allow the rest of the consumers to use the “service” by helping them to make an informed decision? Most of these consumers would use the service occasionally as a safety net, but only with full knowledge of their overdraft limit and associated fees. They are generally more conservative than the risk-takers, and they will not take a chance on you returning an item unpaid. In fact, they are the consumers who need to understand your overdraft procedure before they use it. 

These consumers may have a short-term financial need they are satisfying in some other way, most commonly, by paying late charges. Or, they may pay fees to some other outside source where they are confident they can get the money. Is that what you want your consumers to do? Pay late or pay more?

Once your bank or credit union is paying 90%-95% of items stemming from the routine NSF writers, the only way you can increase income using a non-disclosed overdraft program is to increase the NSF/OD fee or—even worse—add a new fee. Today, there are financial institutions with NSF/OD fees at or over $35 and some even as high as $40. While the increased revenue may look good at first, keep in mind that consumers often choose to avoid fee increases and NSF/Overdraft volume have proven to decline over time. Those with fees at $35 or more have measurably crippled the additional value for the overdraft service.

Let’s look at the advantages of a fully-communicated and disclosed program: 

  1. The NSF/overdraft revenue stream is no longer solely dependent on heavy users
  2. Charge-off percentages decline because the added volume is derived from a more conservative group of account holders who only use the service when it’s beneficial
  3. Account holders, with some exceptions, know they have a safety net if needed
  4. Your staff can clearly explain to account holders how the program works

It is much easier to get a Regulation E decision if your account holders understand exactly what they are opting into. Conversely, with an undisclosed matrix-based program, account holders are unclear about the overdraft service, and may not feel comfortable opting in for ATM and everyday debit fees. 

Is Regulation E important? With at least 70% of transactions occurring through ATM and everyday debit transactions, financial institutions need to accommodate overdraft fees for these channels on as many consumers as is practical. The math tells us that as check transactions continue to diminish and as electronic usage increases, consumers are more likely to experience an overdraft for a debit card transaction than for a check or ACH item. 

Take the long-term view 

It’s easy to get enamored with matrix systems with fancy sounding names and the lure of a “plug and play” program. The problem is that matrix systems are not sustainable from a service and revenue standpoint. High NSF/OD usage by routine overdrafters can easily become high charge-off rates. When a heavy user is charged off, that revenue is gone for good. 

A better approach is one where both the consumer and the financial institution are committed to occasional overdrafts by many account holders instead of heavy usage by just a few. Be the financial institution that helps consumers with occasional short-term needs instead of the one that inspires class action lawyers to troll consumers who feel they’ve been harmed by high fees for undisclosed overdraft services.

 



Learn more about disclosed overdraft programs:
The Many Benefits of JMFA Overdraft Privilege
Building Trust with Account Holders

 

 

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message:
x
account holder account holder retention account holder strategies account holder strategies; growth strategies; account holders announcement attracting talent Bank of Pacific banks batching best practices board governance board member board of directors bottom line branch profitability branding Bryan Hanks budget business culture business environment business strategies career advice Case Study CEO onboarding CFPB Charles Shanley Cheryl Lawson Chris Karstens communications Compliance compliance examinations compliance risks Consumer FInancial Protection Bureau Contract Optimizer Contract Renegotiations contract review contract staffing core processor contracts corporate culture corporate governance CPE credits credit card contracts credit cards credit unions Crissandra Fry CSS culture customer service cyber security Darin Byrd debit card contracts digital directors economy efficiency studies election employee employee retention employees EMV migration evaluation executive search expense management expense reduction expense studies expenses Federal Reserve Board fees financial services financial stability Floyd's Forum full disclosure Generating Income generating leads generation governance government hiring HR HR Consulting HR policies human capital human resources income income enhancement interview strategies interview tips IT contracts Jan Southern Jennifer Peoples Jim Griffis JMFA Academy JMFA clients JMFA News job search John M. Floyd Keith Hughey Kelly Flynn Kim Kreps leaders leadership lending program Linda Meyer loans management Mark Roe marketing Midwest Region Millennial Millennials Missouri NCUA negotiating contracts Net Operating Analysis NOA Non-Interest Income Oliver Ireland onboarding Organizational Health outsourcing overdraft compliance overdraft coverage overdraft fees overdraft practices Overdraft Privilege overdraft program Overdraft programs overdraft protection programs overdraft service overdraft strategy overdrafts Paul McFarland payday loans Pennsylvania performance improvement personnel planning Press Release Privilege Manager CRM process improvement product profitability Profitability Improvement project staffing Recruiting Recruitment Services recruitment strategies re-engineering regional director regulations regulators regulatory Retaining Employees revenue revenue enhancement Richard Miller ROI Ron Jennings senate service service agreements shareholders social media staff staff development staff spotlight staffing staffing gaps staffing studies staffing study stakeholders Strategic Planning Succession plan succession planning Susan Prell talent technology technology costs technology utilization temporary staff Tim Strandquist training UDAAP vendors Washington Westmoreland Community FCU