Bank responsibility for scams

There was an interesting column in the media recently suggesting that the banks ought to take more responsibility where customers are scammed.    The suggestion was made that the banks are good at picking up the tab if the fault lies with their systems, that is, if the bank has been “hacked”, but that it’s much harder to get recompense out of a bank if the customer has made an “error”.    One area identified in the piece was where a “pay anyone” payment is made to an account set up by a scammer.

I can’t speak from personal experience (touch wood), but seemingly the banks are less forthcoming with assistance where a customer makes a payment to a fraudulent account as a result of being misled by a scammer.    The point made was that the banks don’t “match numbers with account names in transactions”.   Consumer groups are suggesting that this ought to occur.

But I think the message that banks display when setting up such payments has acted as a bit of a “lightning rod” for these groups.  Typically, you get a message along these lines –   “Account names aren’t used for payments so a wrong BSB or account number may mean the wrong account is paid and the funds can’t be recovered.” 

Now many of us find that “pay anyone” is a convenient function, and I’m not sure it would be possible for banks to match all the details each time (NAB actually state they they “cannot” check these details, suggesting that there’s an inability to do so), unless they insisted that  the payer include the exact name of the account to receive payment as part of the transaction.   This could be extremely cumbersome and I’m not sure that it would solve the problem.   Perhaps wider adoption of the “pay ID” system is needed?

However, all this needs to be seen in the context that there are already a number of safety features in the “pay anyone” system, such as the banks seeking a second verification when the payment is to be made is to be made to a new payee.   

Perhaps there’s scope for improvement in the “follow up” by banks when  a customer finds that they’ve duped into making an error.     Speed is of the essence in such cases, so as to track down any fraudulent accounts that may have been set up by scammers.    I don’t think it’s too much to ask banks to follow up if payment has been made to a “fraudulent” account.

Self service checkouts

I’m basically OK with selfserve checkouts at the supermarket.    But I don’t usually have a full trolley of groceries, and I’m OK with keeping an eye on the screen to make sure I don’t scan things twice.

I wondered why all the vans were outside Coles

But in a discussion with friends the other day, it seems that people are noticing there are fewer “full service” lanes open at some supermarkets.    And indeed at our local Coles, most of the “full service” lanes have now been replaced by self-service lanes.   The new aisles are better designed to cater for trolley loads.

But later in the day, most of the lanes that previously had an operator had gone, replaced by self-service lanes (better able to cater for trolleys than the initial self-service machines)

It seems that are supermarkets really are going the same way as petrol stations, where the person who once put fuel into your car is but a distant memory.

No doubt the supermarkets wish to encourage us to do our transactions in a way that best suits them.    For them, the cost of handling cash is probably greater than the fees on cards.

Most of the machines are very close together at Woolworths Metro, making a trolley very hard to use

Remediation

I get that companies need to remediate past mistakes, but I wonder if it goes too far.  First it was ANZ, and recently it was CommSec.   I received a cheque for just over $40 from them.    There wasn’t much of an explanation, but seemingly it related to transactions on an account that had been closed in 2011. 

Just what “error” had occurred back then was not clear to me.    I certainly don’t recall having any issues.

An added complexity was that the original account was a joint account, and the cheque was made out to the the joint holders.   This created some issues with having the bank accept the cheque, but I’m pleased to say that, with a little explanation, ANZ were prepared to be a little flexible and accept the cheque as a deposit into an account in my name, not in the name of all the original holders.

Banknotes

I’ve posted previously about the possible demise of cash and the related issue of the  number of high-value banknotes in circulation.

A report a few days back said that in recent months there had been a big increase in the number of high-value notes placed into circulation, but a decrease in the number of lower value notes.  The message seems to be that as consumers move to cashless transactions, there’s less need for low value notes, but in uncertain times, people hoard money in the form of high value notes. 

In fact, the Reserve Bank in its synopsis of the “banknote” part of its 2020 Annual Report said that it “drew on its extensive stocks to meet increased public demand for high-denomination banknotes as a store of value and for precautionary purposes, a development that is common during periods of acute economic and financial uncertainty”. 

I know I’m old-fashioned, but I haven’t yet got to the stage of stashing cash under the bed!

Charitable Appeals

It’s that time of year again – the requests for donations turn up in the mail just before the end of the tax year.  I think many of us have developed “charity fatigue”, and have become immune to the numerous emotive requests that arrive so regularly.

This year, there are some new spins – supporting students, who have been affected by the virus, and providing food for the “hungry”.  I’m sure that these are worthy causes, and hopefully the money raised will in each case be put to good use.

 

Just the same, given that we need to make a choice, I’m supporting only the relatively modest number of charities that we’ve decided in previous years to support.  Our decision has been thought through, and I’d like to think that we’ve been quite generous.  In fact, I think the causes we already support handle issues that these very specific “new” (to us) charities  say that they’re dealing with.  Hence, my conscience doesn’t trouble me that we don’t respond on an ad hoc basis to the emotive appeals that continue to arrive.

Westpac’s woes

Yes, Westpac does seem to have failed big time in it obligations to report foreign exchange transactions.  True, the idea of the “LitePay” system was to enable foreign remittances to be made relatively cheaply so it was probably good for most of those who used it (especially people working in Australia sending money home to their families), but obviously this came about at the cost of proper monitoring and reporting.

Clearly there was been no sympathy for Westpac.   This is the bank that virtue-signalled that it wouldn’t finance the Adani project, even though it hadn’t been asked.  And there seem to be plenty of highly paid people  in the Westpac organisation.

 

But, to me, the bigger issue is, what will the fall out be?   Will the cost of small scale remittances increase?  Perhaps they will move out of the banking system?  I think I saw that in recent years, the number of smaller, less well known remittance services (often ethnically based) had declined considerably;  perhaps these will be revived?

As for the big amounts of “black” money (drugs?  terrorism?), presumably it will just retreat even further into cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and other such hard-to-trace “currencies”.

The new $5 note

The new $5 note has been around for a few weeks now but I only came across it a couple of days back.   Even though I was aware of its design in general terms, I was somewhat taken aback by just how distinctive the transparent strip is. It seems to divide the note into two.  It took me a moment to realise that this is intentional and that I hadn’t received a note held together by sticky tape!

 

High value currency notes

I see that the ABC picked up the theme that there are a lot of high value currency notes on issue but most of us rarely see them.   As one of the articles linked below states, “Similar to possums in the daytime, we know $100 notes are there somewhere; we just can’t find them”.

As per my earlier post, in spite of the fact that in some ways we seem to be moving towards a “cashless” society – although there’s some way to go yet! – the value of currency notes in circulation is increasing.

Not unsurprisingly, this fact has not escaped the authorities’ notice!   There have been calls (and here) in the EU and USA for high-value notes to be phased out, that is, no more would be printed.

Apparently RBA figures showing there are now 11 per cent more $100 notes in circulation than in 2014, a growth rate of almost twice the banknote average. Together, the $50 and $100 notes account for 92 per cent of the value of all banknotes in circulation.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that ceasing to issue $100 just because it’s suspected that some of them are being used for purposes that aren’t quite “right” is a bit heavy-handed.   I suspect that tradies will be equally satisfied with $50 notes!  However, if negative interest rates become the norm (even though they’re probably not likely for us mums-&-dads), then maybe we’ll need lots of large denomination notes to store under our bed?

And in the longer term, perhaps cryptocurrencies (similar to bitcoin, but perhaps with refinements to make transactions even more difficult to track) will be used to preserve anonymity where this is desired.  If so,  Austrac may have its work cut out for it.

Buying currency

Although we’re not travelling for a couple of months, I thought it would be useful to buy some euros to avoid having to buy too many at the last minute.  And it spreads the exchange risk (yes, I know this can work both ways….).    We’re going to need euros in Serbia (not the official currency but desirable especially if you’re going to a wedding), and our plans are to go on to Greece.  Who knows what we’ll need in Greece, but my working hypothesis is that euros will still be OK for the next few months……   Since we’re not spending any time in a country that uses euros before reaching Serbia, it seems best to take some with us and not rely on finding an ATM during our short transit stop in a euro-zone country (although my research shows that there is one there).

You can get euros from the bank, including ANZ’s ATM on the corner of Elizabeth and Collins Streets – but the rates aren’t great (although not in the “rip-off” category) and there’s a transaction fee.   In the past, euros have been readily available from the United people, usually at the best rates around town.  But in recent weeks, they’ve had very few to purchase.   And the currency-booth scene has changed in recent months.   The Travel Money Oz chain (owned by Flight Centre) has moved in, and, frankly, their rates aren’t all that great (the general principle is, the shinier the booth, the worse the rates are).    So I’ve investigated a couple of the even smaller booths around town.

At one, I got an acceptable deal, but then I made a big mistake by trying out another!   Warning bells should have sounded when the gentlemen from the sub-continent gave me a figure for the number of Euros I’d get for the amount I nominated.

Then he improved his offer a bit.  My mental calculations got slightly confused, and what I thought was an acceptable deal turned out, with the benefit of a calculator later on (in the absence of a print out at the end of the transaction!!), to be quite a long way off the mark!

Fortunately, because for me it was a trial transaction with him, the “discrepancy” wasn’t large in absolute terms.  Just the same, lesson learned: be wary who you deal with, and think about how much you’re expecting before doing the transaction, not afterwards! (Note to self:  there’s a calculator on the phone).