Banking For Americans In Thailand 101

[Pib]

I've had my CapOne Mastercard since mid Jan 2011, it has been used almost exclusively in Thailand (many, many Lotus, Big C, HomePro, gas station, etc., type buys) as I haven't been out of the country for several years but I have used it also for online buys via PayPal link, never had a rejected/disapproved transaction, and I have never talked to CapOne about a travel notification. In fact, I've never talked to CapOne Customer Service about anything since getting the card since I haven't had any problems (knock on wood...my head).

Last week I finally decided to order an image card (free) where you select the image from a library of images or upload you own image to go on the card...it's in the mail as we speak...guess I want to hand the Lotus checkout clerk a unique looking credit card...hopefully the clerk won't think it's a fake card since I don't think Thai credit cards offer image cards....they only offer the typical looking credit card.

[Pib]

Other than Cap One, Pentagon Federal Credit Union, which despite its name does allow the general public to become members, has recently changed all of its credit cards to be no foreign currency fee varieties... And their interest rates too are very attractive. But... at least for right now, I don't believe PFCU's online banking will allow outbound domestic ACH transfers.

I called PenFed tonight to ask a couple of questons with one of them being about the outbound ACH capability and the customer service rep said they hope to have the capability implemented in Feb/Mar 12.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Thanks Pib... I knew it was supposed to be coming, just wasn't sure when.

It sounds like you didn't inquire of whether those outbound ACHs with PenFed would be free or a fee per transaction?

[Pib]

Thanks Pib... I knew it was supposed to be coming, just wasn't sure when.

It sounds like you didn't inquire of whether those outbound ACHs with PenFed would be free or a fee per transaction?

Honestly, I can't remember now if I phrased the question as "free outbound ACH transactions" or "outbound ACH transactions." Last night I continued on to open a PenFed joint shares/savings account and apply for their Platinum Visa no foreign transaction fee" credit card. I was approved for both...and not to give an exact amount but the credit line given was significantly north of $10K. This card will be compliment/backup my CapOne Mastercard that also has no foreign transaction fee. Did all of this with my APO address. I called PenFed a few minutes ago to reconfirm everything was approved and I also got my PIN number issued in order to establish online banking...I'll do that tonight along while evaluating the PenFed benefits in more depth...but right now I've got some honey-do list items to do today. Big thanks for pointing me toward PenFed.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

From the initial/quick look at the PenFed credit cards I'm leaning toward the Platinum or Gold Visa card...one offers some cash rewards while another has free travel/auto rental insurance.

Just fyi, I got a letter in the mail recently from PenFed announcing that they were lowering the standard interest rate on their Platinum Cash Rewards VISA card from 13.99% variable down to 9.99% variable APR, effective Jan. 15, 2012.

But to accomplish that, they also said they're reducing the rewards associated with that card from 1% previously to the new rewards rate of 0.25% effective Feb. 1, 2012 for non-gas purchases. Gas station purchases with that card will continue to earn 5%. Those rewards are automatically credited as cash to your share account.

But meanwhile, they also now seem to be offering a PenFed Platinum [NO CASH] Rewards Card with various points allocations, 5 points per dollar on gas purchases, 3 points per dollar on supermarket purchases and 1 point per dollar on all other purchases. I haven't gone into the detail for that card yet to see how the points convert upon redemptions for things like VISA prepaid cards, gift cards, merchandise, etc.

In comparison, I was going through my bills and financial paperwork today, and noticed that the interest rate on my Cap One VISA Cash Rewards card (1% cash back with yearly bonus) is now down to 9%... But the PedFed Promise Card, which has no rewards, has a rate of 7.49% APR for the first three years, and 9.99% thereafter.

I guess I should have added... all of the above U.S. credit cards have no foreign currency fees.

Edited January 28, 2012 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Pib]

Yea, I saw on their web site when signing up that the Platinum 1% reward was going to 0.25% on 1 Feb 12 but the 5% on fuel paid at the pump remains in effect. But I really only wanted the card as a no foreign transaction fee backup to my CapOne Mastercard which provides a 2%/1% cash...much of the stuff I buy like all my Lotus, Big C, fuel buys, etc., buys fall in the 2% category.

Once I get the PenFed card I will try it at the gas station when I refuel to see if I get 5% cash back or the standard 0.25% cash back --I don't expect this will meet the paid at the pump requirement which I assume to mean you slide your card into a self service fuel pump. I've never seen such a fuel pump in Thailand...all I've seen is the regular pumps with attendants fueling your vehicle and then taking payment/charging your credit card via a POS machine close to the fuel pumps. But hey, I won't know for sure until I try...but getting 5% cash back on fuel buys would be sweet. If I get the expected 0.25%, I'll just revert to using my CapOne card which pay 2% for gas station fuel buys.

Actually, in terms of card extras like travel insurance, rental car insurance, warranty extension, etc., the PenFed credit cards aren't that impressive. Yes, they are on the lower end for interest charges and have no annual fee which is good (I pay my balance off monthly), but the cards are weak in the extra benefits provided. The Gold Visa card provides travel and rental card insurance but no cash back; the Platinum card does not provide travel/rental insurance but provides some cash back; and the Promise cards doesn't provide anything extra. But I have other cards that provide those extra benefits...benefits I would probably only use when traveling back to the U.S....but with the exception of the CapOne card and the inbound PenFed card, all of them charge a foreign transaction fee. If I was living in the U.S. full time and didn' have to worry about healthy size foriegn transaction fees personally I wouldn't get a PenFed card since there are many other cards which beat the PenFed cards in terms of extras provided and have similar interest rates.

Wouldn't it be nice if you could fine one bank that provided all the good/low fee benefits for bank accounts, funds transfers, debit/credit cards, and other services versus needing to have multiple accounts at multiple banks to get the best, all around deal. Oh well, that's the financial world we live in....a financial world that is becoming more fee-hungry/fewer benefits provided everyday.

[Pib]

FYI regarding ACH transfers by using the PenFed online banking. As noted in some of the above posts, they don't offer outbound ACH transfers yet but that capability is supposedly coming soon. While setting up my PenFed online banking for external bank/non-PenFed account inbound transfers (which was real easy) I noticed the limit is only $50 (yeap, I said fifty dollars) per transfer. I thought to myself, that's really,really low. Did some googling on the subject and found several posts on other blogs confirming the online limit for the first 6 months of a new account...it's like an online probationary period. A partial quote/cut and paste from one blog post which supposedly was taken from a PenFed email answering a new account member question about the $50 limit went like this:

Partial Quote/Cut and Paste

Deposit limits on memberships open 6 months or less:

Account Type Limit

Share $50.00

Checking/MMSA $50.00

Money Market Certificates $25,000.00

Deposit limits on memberships open MORE than 6 months:

Account Type Limit

Share $5,000

Checking / MMSA $5,000

Money Market Certificates No limit

End Quote

So, it looks line when it comes to "pulling" money into your PenFed account via their online banking for the first 6 months you would have to $50 yourself to death. This is not a big issue with me since I can just do an ACH transfer to my PenFed account from my other banks which don't have such a low inbound or outbound limit for new or old members. Man, $50 is just ridiculously low in this day.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Another thing to note about the PenFed share accounts -- and this is a limit applicable a lot of credit union share accounts -- is a limit of no more than 6 of certain kinds of debits to the account per month. That limit applies to external ACHs and bill pay debits from external sites.

I believe that limit stems from a federal regulation on certain kinds of deposit accounts... I went over the limit for a couple months...because I'd forgotten about it...and I got a warning letter from PedFed reminding me of the restriction. It doesn't, however, apply to ATM withdrawals using their debit card, as best as I recall.

[Pib]

Another thing to note about the PenFed share accounts -- and this is a limit applicable a lot of credit union share accounts -- is a limit of no more than 6 of certain kinds of debits to the account per month. That limit applies to external ACHs and bill pay debits from external sites.

I believe that limit stems from a federal regulation on certain kinds of deposit accounts... I went over the limit for a couple months...because I'd forgotten about it...and I got a warning letter from PedFed reminding me of the restriction. It doesn't, however, apply to ATM withdrawals using their debit card, as best as I recall.

Yea, there is a federal law/regulation that applies the 6 debt transaction limits to all "savings-type " accounts which includes Money Market accounts which is just another type of savings account like a credit uinion shares account. I expect savings accounts are suppose to be more stable in terms of monthly transaction and banks pay higher interest rates than checking accounts in order to use a large part of savings account monies in other investments, loans, etc., compared to checking accounts which can have lots of transactions going requiring the banks to keep a lot of checking monies available for quick payout.

Also found out last night when setting up my PenFed online banking that my account was identified as an "Individual Account" although my online signup was as a joint account with the wife. So I called again and they said all accounts are initially setup as an Individual Account until they get a certain form signed by the other account owner....that form to sign and mail back is supposedly in the welcome package being mailed to me. I think I found the form in their forms download area but I will wait and get the welcome package to ensure there aren't other forms for either of us to sign and mail back.

Many banks seem to have some new member/sign up/other quirks. I remember with Schwab that when setting up external funds transfer links I could do this all online for the checking account, see the links online, and initiate transfers online, but to setup the external transfer links on the Schwab saving account I had to fill out a paper form and mail/fax it in to setup the link, but the link still would not sonlinenine to initiate a external transfer....I had to call them to initiate a transfer. Since the Savings external links don't appear online a person just needs to remember what links he has established. But a person could get around this by just doing an online internal bank transfer of funds from Savings to Checking and then do an online external transfer from checking. Additionally, the Savings acct still uses monthly, mailed statements (no electronic/online statement capability yet be the Checking account has the electronic/online statement capability. When I called and asked Schwab about the electronic statement capability on the Savings acct as I didn't want them to waste a stamp in mailings, they said they are still working toward the capability for the savings account....that answer was close to a year ago...I still get the monthly statements in the mail and haven't see any online changes yet. I just thought this to be so strange...they have capability for their checking accounts but not savings accounts...I'm sure there is a good story/reason behind that. But some of Schwab Banking activities are still very much paper-based, but a person can easily work around these issues.

Also, when I first opened my USAA account any ACH transfer I did into the bank had around an approx 7 calendar day holding period before "all" of the funds would post to my account; until that holding period expired only around 10% of the transfer was immediately made available. But I noticed that on each additional inbound transfer I did, the amount immediately made available to my account upon accomplishing the transfer got larger...the holding period for the remaining amount stayed the same. But after 6 transfers over the first month or so all of that went away....now when I do an ACH transfer-in (pull money from another bank) I get the full amount immediately made available to my account balance. I don't know if maybe USAA had a 30 day probationary period for ACH transfers or maybe 6 successful transfers. Just one of those new accounts things I guess.

Yeap, the initial setup of some bank accounts can raise cause "what the heck" type questions to come to mind, drive a few calls/emails to their customer service to find out what is really going on, may take a little bit of waiting as paperwork goes back and forth, but it's well worth it to setup an account with good bank with a low fee structure, good online banking capability, and excellent customer service. I place USAA, Schwab, and State Farm banks in that excellent category based on my personal experience. Will need to evaluate PenFed more and hopefully their online banking capability will indeed allow outbound ACH transfers pretty soon, but at this point in time my real interest is in their no foreign fee Visa credit card. Time will tell. Cheers.

[Pib]

FYI regarding ACH transfers by using the PenFed online banking. As noted in some of the above posts, they don't offer outbound ACH transfers yet but that capability is supposedly coming soon. While setting up my PenFed online banking for external bank/non-PenFed account inbound transfers (which was real easy) I noticed the limit is only $50 (yeap, I said fifty dollars) per transfer. I thought to myself, that's really,really low. Did some googling on the subject and found several posts on other blogs confirming the online limit for the first 6 months of a new account...it's like an online probationary period. A partial quote/cut and paste from one blog post which supposedly was taken from a PenFed email answering a new account member question about the $50 limit went like this:

Partial Quote/Cut and Paste

Deposit limits on memberships open 6 months or less:

Account Type Limit

Share $50.00

Checking/MMSA $50.00

Money Market Certificates $25,000.00

Deposit limits on memberships open MORE than 6 months:

Account Type Limit

Share $5,000

Checking / MMSA $5,000

Money Market Certificates No limit

End Quote

So, it looks line when it comes to "pulling" money into your PenFed account via their online banking for the first 6 months you would have to $50 yourself to death. This is not a big issue with me since I can just do an ACH transfer to my PenFed account from my other banks which don't have such a low inbound or outbound limit for new or old members. Man, $50 is just ridiculously low in this day.

I sent an email to PenFed yesterday about the $50 inbound/pull ACH limit thing; just got an email reply that said the same as above cut and paste. So, for the first 6 months of your membership/account there will be certain financial transaction limitations. As I mentioned above this is not a biggie as I can just push/send ACH transfer from my other banks to my new PenFed account if required.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Was just reading news tonight of a new regulation adopted by the U.S. federal government that is supposed to require new and clear disclosure of exchange rate and other fee information on international funds transfers originating in the U.S..... such as wiring funds from the U.S. to Thailand, for example.

The regulation was issued Jan. 20 by the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that was created by the Obama Administration, and the bureau has already predictably been drawing heat from Republicans in Congress, who also have refused to confirm the new director of the bureau, leading the president to put the director in place through what's called a recess appointment. But that's all politics...

Here's the substance of what the bureau will now require, though I can't quite tell from the announcement when the actual effective date of the regulation is supposed to be, though they appear to be talking about giving the banks a one-year implementation period... :-( :

January 20, 2012

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau adopts rule to protect consumers sending money internationally

Rule will increase transparency and reliability of remittance transfers

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today adopted a rule that will increase protections for consumers who transfer money internationally. Under the new rule, remittance transfer providers will generally be required to disclose the exchange rate and all fees associated with a transfer so that consumers know exactly how much money will be received on the other end. The rule also requires remittance transfer providers to investigate disputes and remedy errors.

“People sending money to their loved ones in another country should not have to worry about hidden fees,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “With these new protections, international money transfers will be more reliable. Consumers will know the costs ahead of time and be able to compare prices. Transfer providers will also be held accountable for errors that occur in the process.”

Consumers transfer tens of billions of dollars from the United States to foreign countries each year. These transactions can involve undisclosed fees and exchange rates that result in less money for the intended recipients. Those sending the money may not know how much the recipient will actually receive because the fees and exchange rates can be obscured in the transfer.

Prior to the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, international money transfers were generally excluded from existing federal consumer protection regulations. To remedy this, the Dodd-Frank Act expanded the scope of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to provide protections for senders of remittance transfers, and mandated that rules implementing certain provisions of the new protections be issued by January 21, 2012.

Under the Bureau’s rule, remittance transfer providers must disclose the fees, the exchange rate, and amount to be received by the recipient. Disclosures must generally be provided when the consumer first requests a transfer and again when payment is made. Consumers will generally have 30 minutes after payment is made to cancel a transaction.

Dodd-Frank transferred authority to implement the new requirements from the Federal Reserve Board to the CFPB in July 2011. The Federal Reserve Board issued a proposed rule in May 2011. The final rule provides for a one-year implementation period. In issuing the final rule, the CFPB considered the Federal Reserve Board’s proposed rule and comments that were received.

The Bureau will publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking along with the final rule. The Notice seeks comment on whether to make a few additional adjustments to the final rule, including setting a threshold that would minimize the impact of the rule on community banks, credit unions, and other companies that do not normally process these transactions. The Bureau will act on an expedited basis to make any further changes prior to the effective date of the final rule.

The Bureau will continue to work actively with consumers, industry, and other regulators in the coming months to follow up on the rule. In coming months, the Bureau also expects to develop a small business compliance guide and engage in dialogue with industry regarding implementation issues.

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/pressrelease/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-adopts-rule-to-protect-consumers-sending-money-internationally/

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Here's a link to the actual rule itself and related materials.... and indeed, they're proposing a January 2013 implementation date... a year away....

http://www.consumerf...t-regulation-e/

And here's some further elaboration of what would be covered by the rule:

Coverage

The rules apply to remittance transfers if they are:

• More than $15,
  
• Made by a consumer in the United States, and
  
• Sent to a person or company in a foreign country.
  

This includes many types of transfers, including wire transfers.

The rules apply to most companies that offer remittance transfers, including:

• Banks,
  
• Thrifts,
  
• Credit unions, and
  
• Money transmitters.
  

Interesting question - would the rule they're proposing cover and include an American in Thailand who's performing an online or otherwise directed wire transfer from the U.S. to another country?

Edited January 31, 2012 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[JimGant]

"Under the Bureau’s rule, remittance transfer providers must disclose the fees, the exchange rate, and amount to be received by the recipient. Disclosures must generally be provided when the consumer first requests a transfer and again when payment is made. Consumers will generally have 30 minutes after payment is made to cancel a transaction."

Another example of ill-thought out Federal gunk.

Most here reading this know that: 1. The best exchange rate is by sending dollars to Thailand, to be converted to baht in Thailand, and 2. There's no way of knowing what this rate will be before the time the money arrives (1, 2, 3, even 4 days hence); so 3. The only way to comply with "providing the consumer with exchange rate and amount to be received" is by converting to baht at the time the transfer is initiated. Thus, getting the horribly Stateside discounted conversion rate, something akin to the Dynamic Currency Conversion screw-job offered on the other side of the pond. (Actually, the thought process behind the consumer should know "exactly what his conversion rate should be," says DCC could become the law of the land.......AAAAAAAAA)

That they would provide for signing a waiver to this consumer protection being offered, with something like: "I understand you're trying to provide consumer protection, but I beg off, in favor of knowing I'll do better 99% of the time without your help" wouldn't probably fly (he said, with a smirk). So, we'll be stuck with 'You get a worse conversion rate, but the Federal Government is proud to announce that at least you know ahead of time exactly how much baht you'll get." Thanks a lot.

Christ, most of us here could have provided enough insight to thwart such siliness. So, now what amount of bureaucratic paperwork will unnecessarily take place -- with, you know who, paying.

In this information age, with Google et al, "let the consumer beware" has much less immediacy. Just search Thai Visa to know the real costs of money transfer, and how to minimize.

And " Consumers will generally have 30 minutes after payment is made to cancel a transaction."

Are these phuckin' bureaucrats serious? Nothing more need be said about this, as these Washington asswipes have never wired/ACHed money abroad. Geez.

(Can you tell I'm annoyed?)

[Pib]

Hopefully the end result is the Sending bank will just have to more clearly disclosure what the exchange rate/fees will be...and the bank's exchange rate would not automatically be forced on a transaction...just clear identification of what it would be "if" the customer chooses to let the Sending bank convert the currency before sending. I can understand why financial institutions don't like clearly identifying all costs/fees at the time of the transaction versus leaving the costs/fees vaguely identified in the fine-print---it's because it's a real money maker, cash cow for them!!!

This is similar to the new U.S. airlines ticket cost rules going in effect in the U.S. which require the airlines to clearly show all costs and they have to now include those costs/advertise the "total" cost versus just advertising the basic ticket cost before all the fuel surcharges, fees, taxes, etc., are also added in. Of course the airlines are screaming about this new rule also since they know many price conscious customers will baulk at clicking Submit/Buy when seeing the true, total cost...they just may shop around some more. And if I remember right even after the customer clicks Submit/Buy they have up to 24 hours to cancel the ticket as long as the travel date is more than 7 days out....this would give consumers a few more hours to look for a better deal.

Yeap, those businesses that get a lot of their revenue from add-on charges/fees, which are often vague and/or hidden during the purchase, don't like having to be upfront and clear on these charges/fees.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

My my Jim... Someone got up on the wrong side of Thailand, this morning...

I'm with Pib on this one...in that... I don't read anything into this proposed regulation that would REQUIRE the sending party to have the U.S. bank perform the currency conversion at their end, which seems to be the jag you're off on.

Rather, the exchange rate (if used) and any fees would have to be disclosed. I don't have any problem about that...and in fact think it's a good thing generally speaking...

And despite the financial wisdom found here on ThaiVisa, I suspect that are a lot of Americans who send money abroad in various ways and DON'T know that having the U.S. bank do the exchange is a bad deal...and the U.S. banks are happy to accommodate that. So why not require the banks in those situations to disclose the crappy exchange rates they're offering? It might help awaken senders to how badly they're getting screwed in those cases.

Also, for a lot of Americans who do traditional wire transfers, you get into issues of intermediary banks getting involved and adding on fees, on top of the origination fee charged by the sending bank. And I'll say from personal experience and lots of reports here... customers almost never are told ahead of time what those intermediary bank fees are going to be.

Just like it took litigation some years ago to require credit card companies and banks to begin clearly disclosing foreign currency conversion fees, I think it's likewise proper that banks ought to disclose their international transfer fees and what the ultimate amount of funds to be received will be.... pertaining to whatever kind of transfer the client is requesting.

Edited February 1, 2012 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Pib]

From scanning through the full text of the proposed rule and doing some specific words searches it appears no where in the rule does it require currency to be exchanged by the Sending bank...the rule is focusing on giving the best possible estimate to the customer as to how much money will be received on the receiving end whether the money is converted by the Sending bank or the Receiving bank. Quite a bit of the document talked about how most everyone seemed to agree it would be very hard to determine what the exact exchange rate and fees would be in many foreign countries. Therefore, the new rule included an exception which goes like this:

Partial Quote from Page 178 of Full Text:

The second exception is in EFTA section 919(c]. It provides that if the Bureau

determines that a recipient country does not legally allow, or the method by which transactions

are made in the recipient country do not allow, a remittance transfer provider to know the

amount of currency that will be received by the designated recipient, the Bureau may prescribe

rules addressing the issue. EFTA section 919 [c] further states that if rules are prescribed, they

must include standards for the remittance transfer provider to provide: (i) a receipt that is

consistent with EFTA sections 919(a) and (b] ; and (ii) a reasonably accurate estimate of the

currency to be received. The second exception (the “permanent exception”) does not have a

sunset date.

End Quote.

I think when the dust settles this will probably be a good thing for consumers although the financials organizations will scream about it...full disclosure of costs hurts them...especially when full disclosure can impact one of their cash cow fees. But I will be the first to admit some financial organizations may want to raise their transfer fees because they will say it's driven by regulatory compliance....some companies always use that angle that it's because of the big, bad govt rules that they have to raise their fees, but competition and customer feedback will determine if they can raise fees or not.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

One of the news reports I read last night, I believe, had some banking reps complaining the new rule was going to cost them 25 cents per $100 transferred in compliance handling... Not sure how they came by that estimate...

There was also a big fuss going on with Republicans in Congress about small banks and CUs that don't do a lot of international transfers, and making some kind of accommodation for them...which supposedly the federal agency is supposed to consider in the final rule version.

Amid all the noise, the fact remains, if a customer is sending money internationally, they ought to have the right to know with some reasonable level of accuracy what the terms of the transfer are going to be.

[Pib]

One of the news reports I read last night, I believe, had some banking reps complaining the new rule was going to cost them 25 cents per $100 transferred in compliance handling... Not sure how they came by that estimate...

There was also a big fuss going on with Republicans in Congress about small banks and CUs that don't do a lot of international transfers, and making some kind of accommodation for them...which supposedly the federal agency is supposed to consider in the final rule version.

Amid all the noise, the fact remains, if a customer is sending money internationally, they ought to have the right to know with some reasonable level of accuracy what the terms of the transfer are going to be.

25 cents per $100...sounds like a nice number they pulled out of their ass.

There were two exceptions in the new rule....the one I posted about above and the other one was for small financial companies/CU but this exception has a sunset of 21 July 2015 but can actually be extended 21 Jul 2020.

Partial Quote/Cut and Paste Starting From Page 177 of Rule Full Text:

The statute provides two exceptions to the requirement to disclose the amount of

currency that will be received by the designated recipient. The first exception is in EFTA section

919(a)(4). It provides that, subject to rules prescribed by the Bureau, disclosures by insured

depository institutions or credit unions regarding the amount of currency that will be received by

the designated recipient will be deemed to be accurate in certain circumstances so long as the

disclosure provides a reasonably accurate estimate of the amount of currency to be received.

Under the statute, a remittance transfer provider may use this exception only if: (i) it is an

178 insured depository institution or insured credit union (collectively, an “insured institution” as

described in more detail below) conducting a transfer from an account that the sender holds with

it; and (ii) the insured institution is unable to know, for reasons beyond its control, the amount of

currency that will be made available to the designated recipient. See EFTA section 919(a)(4).

This exception (the “temporary exception”) expires five years after the enactment of the Dodd-

Frank Act, on July 21, 2015. If the Bureau determines that expiration of the exception would

negatively affect the ability of insured institutions to send remittances to foreign countries, the

Bureau may extend the exception to not longer than ten years after enactment (i.e., to July 21,

2020). See EFTA section 919(a)(4)(B].

End Quote.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Pib

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

fyi... I''m excerpting the relevants parts here from a much longer article to comply with fair use...

CFPB taken to task over transfer fees, bank costs

12:48 pm ET 01/31/2012 - MarketWatch Databased News

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday sparred with the chief of the new consumer agency over the way it adopted rules seeking to hike protections and eliminate hidden fees on U.S. consumers who transfer money internationally.

At issue are regulations released Jan. 20 by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau requiring institutions to disclose the exchange rate and all fees associated with a transfer of money internationally, including the amount of money to be delivered.

The regulation is expected to add a compliance burden on banks and money-transfer firms. According to the text of the regulation, the 155 financial firms regulated by the CFPB that the rule affects would each have to commit many thousands of employee hours of work annually because of the rule.

...

"In this market for people who send money over seas, typically to loved ones, they are entitled to consumer protections too," according to Cordray. Based on the agency's analysis, the rule will cost 25 cents for every $100 of remittance transfers, a "small price to pay" for consumer protection.

...........

The Independent Community Bankers of America, the trade group for small banks, is seeking an exemption from institutions that have initiated less than 1,200 remittance transfers during the prior calendar year. Paul Merski, ICBI's chief economist, said that if the rule is too costly and onerous for community banks they would be forced to drop the service, hurting consumers.

WASHINGTON, Jan 31 (Reuters) - Senate Republicans took pot shots at the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Tuesday, saying it would require more than 7.6 million man hours alone to comply with a rule on international money transfers.

The ranking republican on Senate Banking Committee, Richard Shelby, criticized the rule passed by the CFPB earlier this month that required banks and other institutions to disclose more about the fees and exchange rates associated with international money transfers known as remittances.

"Things are not getting better, just bigger and more unaccountable," Shelby said at a hearing examining the CFPB. "In fact, our financial regulators have become bureaucracies that are now too big to oversee and it is only getting worse under Democrat rule."

Because this is a public forum, I won't say what I really think about the bankers who make these kinds of claims...

Edited February 1, 2012 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Pib]

Heck, bankers are already figuring out how they are going to profit from the rule changes while publicly whining against the changes. I'm sure each bank has their Fees-R-Us Department working overtime to pull a cost number out of their ass, whether there is any real cost involved or not. Once they decide on a number they will then reverse engineer that number into a stack of justification (a.k.a., whine & fee support documents).

[JimGant]

I suspect that are a lot of Americans who send money abroad in various ways and DON'T know that having the U.S. bank do the exchange is a bad deal...and the U.S. banks are happy to accommodate that. So why not require the banks in those situations to disclose the crappy exchange rates they're offering? It might help awaken senders to how badly they're getting screwed in those cases.

Obviously, if disclosure involves a comparison -- "this is what you'd get if you converted your dollars with us vs. this is what you'd get based on the latest buying TT rate," then, yes, the consumer would have some valuable information. Obviously, the disclaimer 'your mileage may vary' would have to be inserted, due to transaction delays and constantly moving exchange rates. But, at least the consumer could see the trend, if not the exactness.

But, as originally written, it sounds like banks would only be required to give the figures based solely on their current exchange rate. For the consumer who already knows it's better to convert abroad, this is useless information, akin to knowing exactly what the dollar cost is with a DCC transaction -- without comparative cost info based on the latest Visa/MC exchange rate. For the educated consumer, he just knows to cancel the DCC transaction -- as he already knows, if the comparative info were printed on the slip, what it would indicate, at least from a trend standpoint. For the uneducated consumer, he just remains clueless, gladly accepting the instant conversion to dollars.

So, unless the banks are required to give comparative info, just giving their exchange rate, and what, exactly, that converts to in foreign currency, after all the fees -- is worthless information to the uninformed. He needs a comparison for an informed decision.

And for those of us who are already informed, at least when it comes to thinly traded currency like the baht, it's still useless information 'cause we know not to convert on the US side of the pond. Might be good for a chuckle -- same as when you compare the DCC offer with what the Visa/MC site is showing.

Anyway, I hope they get this right. But the first draft seems to indicate it was written by the uninformed.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Jim, indeed, you made a good point originally noting that telling the U.S. consumer only what the U.S. banks offer as their foreign currency exchange rate is a pretty useless piece of info by itself -- because anyone having them do the foreign exchange is already too far gone down the river...

But I'm hopeful the language in the proposed reg about the banks being required to disclose what the expected amount of funds to be received by the recipient won't only pertain where the U.S. bank itself is doing the conversion... Or at least, even if the U.S. bank isn't doing the conversion on a traditional wire transfer, that they'll have to disclose the fees of whatever intermediary banks may be involved -- something they don't do now.

We'll have to see how it all plays out in the end. The goal is worthwhile, and that is, giving consumers useful information about the costs and fees of international funds transfers... But the usefulness of the info certainly will depend on how the disclosures are mandated and implemented in the end.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Some nice features being offered now by PedFed for their credit cards/customers, particularly for anyone who's carrying a balance on any of their credit cards:

Promotional APR Balance Transfers - A Great Rate for a Limited Time Only!*

Enjoy a low promotional balance transfer rate of 1.99% APR for 24 months on transfers made to PenFed Premium Travel Rewards American Express®, Platinum Cash Rewards, MasterCard, Gold, and Classic cards from Jan. 1, 2012 until March 31, 2012. During the promotional period the transfer fee will be reduced from 3% to only 1% (Min - $10 to Max $250).

They've often had zero fee and 4.99% interest for two years balance transfer offers in the past... This one has a lower interest rate, but adds a 1% xfer fee.

But by comparison, in the past few months, I've also seen 1% fee and zero interest for one year offers from both Chase and Barclays.

Lower Credit Card Rates on All PenFed Rewards Cards

Now you can have all the benefits and value of PenFed rewards cards with a lower APR. Starting January 15, 2012, you can enjoy a variable 9.99% purchase APR on all new purchases, capped through June 30, 2014. This means the rate will never go higher than 9.99% APR for two years and will only adjust down, if Prime Rate decreases.

For existing PenFed Premium Travel Rewards American Express cardmembers and PenFed Platinum Cash rewards cardholders, the 9.99% APR will go into effect at the start of your first billing cycle after January 15, 2012, for new purchases only.

Edited February 2, 2012 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[vagabond48]

Off the topic, I am wondering where is the OP jfc. He hasn't been on TV for 4 months. I hope he is alright.

[Pib]

He's still here and as smart as ever...just uses a different ThaiVisa nickname now...old nickname is deactivated which makes it look like he gone. See post number 135 for more details.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Pib

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Came across a very interesting CNBC article today on who actually holds the U.S.'s nearly $16 trillion national debit...or to be more precise, who are the largest holders of that debt... And it's not who you might think, generally speaking.... By and large, it's Americans, including various parts of our own government, who hold most of that debit, according to the article... Interesting reading...

http://finance.yahoo...gov-t-debt.html

And on the same subject, CNBC also has a slideshow on the world's largest debtor nations, ranked by total debt compared to gross domestic product. The U.S. ranked 20th on the list, with its national debit about equal to its GDP...

But countries on the list with larger debt ratios included Australia, Germany, Hong Kong, France, Norway, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium #5, Netherlands #4, Switzerland #3, the UK #2, and Ireland #1.

The UK has a total national debt more than 4 times its GDP, and debt equaling almost $147,000 per capita... whereas the U.S. has total debit just slightly larger than GDP (101%) and per capita debt of a bit over $48,000.

http://www.cnbc.com/...0308959?slide=1

Edited February 3, 2012 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Fed approves Capital One-ING Direct deal

By Ronald D. Orol

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - The Federal Reserve on Tuesday approved Capital One's $9.2 billion bid to buy ING Groep NV's U.S. online banking unit.

"The board's action directed Capital One to take specific steps to ensure that its risk management systems, including compliance, are commensurate with its new size and complexity," the central bank said in a statement.

The ING-Capital One COF +2.75% deal is the first major bank merger to be considered under new requirements that regulators consider costs to the financial system if the combined firm were to fail.

The combined company would create the fifth-largest bank in the United States, when measured by U.S. deposits, and the 11th largest institution by asset size with over $300 billion in assets.

ING Direct is the U.S. online banking unit of Dutch ING Groep NV ING +3.71% , which is being required by the European Commission to divest the division as a condition of the rescue it received from Holland. Capital One expects the deal to close in the first quarter of 2012.

MORE:

Edited February 15, 2012 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[ianguygil]

Came across a very interesting CNBC article today on who actually holds the U.S.'s nearly $16 trillion national debit...or to be more precise, who are the largest holders of that debt... And it's not who you might think, generally speaking.... By and large, it's Americans, including various parts of our own government, who hold most of that debit, according to the article... Interesting reading...

http://finance.yahoo...gov-t-debt.html

And on the same subject, CNBC also has a slideshow on the world's largest debtor nations, ranked by total debt compared to gross domestic product. The U.S. ranked 20th on the list, with its national debit about equal to its GDP...

But countries on the list with larger debt ratios included Australia, Germany, Hong Kong, France, Norway, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium #5, Netherlands #4, Switzerland #3, the UK #2, and Ireland #1.

The UK has a total national debt more than 4 times its GDP, and debt equaling almost $147,000 per capita... whereas the U.S. has total debit just slightly larger than GDP (101%) and per capita debt of a bit over $48,000.

http://www.cnbc.com/...0308959?slide=1

These are totally misleading numbers which include the banking sectors for countries which host the headquarters of major international banks or are in themselves offshore banking centers. Do you really believe that Switzerland is in so much worse relative financial shape than the US?

While some poorly run banks have caused their governments and polulations headaches over the past few years, particularly in Ireland, the UK and Iceland, these numbers are misleading and do not illustrate the relative health of the various economies.

I won't get futher into it and recommend that Forum members read the actual reports not the CNBC comicbook summaries. They should state the context for these numbers and not just put it into a pretty picture slideshow for entertainment rather than information.

[vagabond48]

I have the PFCU Visa and BOA Visa CC. I am thinking of getting the Mastercard Cap One Cash CC since it also but I was wondering if the foreign exchange rate for Mastercard is the same as Visa. I have always heard that the conversion rate you get for MC's DC was far worse than Visa's DC.

The one thing I don't like about the BOA is that unlike the PFCU which gives you the cash back at the end of each statement, with the BOA CC, you get the cash back after you've earned $25.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I have the PFCU Visa and BOA Visa CC. I am thinking of getting the Mastercard Cap One Cash CC since it also but I was wondering if the foreign exchange rate for Mastercard is the same as Visa. I have always heard that the conversion rate you get for MC's DC was far worse than Visa's DC.

The one thing I don't like about the BOA is that unlike the PFCU which gives you the cash back at the end of each statement, with the BOA CC, you get the cash back after you've earned $25.

Assuming all of the cards in question have no foreign currency fee, the VISA cards will have somewhat better exchange rates than the MC counterparts... though the difference isn't quite "far worse" as you put it....

Obviously, the VISA and MC networks are each setting their exchange rates day to day... and those vary over time... But member Jim Gant's research here has shown that VISA pretty consistently has a slight edge over the MC network in terms of Thai-$ exchange rates.