How Checking Account Fees and Terms Vary by State

October 10, 2012, 4:10 pm

By ANN CARRNS

No one likes to pay bank fees. And they are even more annoying when it is clear that the amount and variety of fees can vary depending not only on where you bank, but also on the state where you live.

The Pew Safe Checking in the Electronic Age project, part of the Pew Charitable Trusts, recently analyzed the fees and terms offered to consumers in the 50 states, using the country's 12 biggest banks by deposits. (The 12 are Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, U.S. Bank, PNC Bank, TD Bank, SunTrust, BB&T, HSBC Bank USA, Regions Bank and Capital One. Together, these banks held nearly half of the country's deposits as of October 2011.)

The center created a tool that allows comparison of what is paid in one state with national medians. (Each state was evaluated based on the banks that had a retail presence there; no state has all 12 banks.)

Nationally, for instance, Pew found that 89 percent of checking accounts had a monthly fee. The median fee was $12, and the median minimum balance amount necessary to avoid the monthly fee was $2,000. The median length of a bank disclosure, meanwhile, was 69 pages. And the median number of “extra” fees - categories beyond the 12 most common fees charged by many banks - was 26.

But a quick look at Pew's state-by-state map finds significant variation in those numbers. Arkansas, where I live, pretty much tracks the national median, except for the minimum balance requirement. (It's higher here, at $2,500.) And it's a bit more fee heavy, with 34 extra types of charges.

Compare that with Massachusetts, which has a median minimum balance requirement of $6,000 - the highest amon g the states - but fewer additional sorts of fees (11).

In both of those states, the most you could pay in a single day from an overdraft - that is, overspending an account - is $140. But the “worst case” situation, which occurs when you don't cover the shortage within a certain period of time and incur extended overdraft fees, is very different: $1,015 in Arkansas, versus $1,420 in Massachusetts.

South Dakota and Alaska, meanwhile, top the list for the median length of disclosures (129 pages and 148 pages, respectively).

How does your bank compare with those in your state, and with big banks nationally?

How Checking Account Fees and Terms Vary by State

October 10, 2012, 4:10 pm

By ANN CARRNS

No one likes to pay bank fees. And they are even more annoying when it is clear that the amount and variety of fees can vary depending not only on where you bank, but also on the state where you live.

The Pew Safe Checking in the Electronic Age project, part of the Pew Charitable Trusts, recently analyzed the fees and terms offered to consumers in the 50 states, using the country's 12 biggest banks by deposits. (The 12 are Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, U.S. Bank, PNC Bank, TD Bank, SunTrust, BB&T, HSBC Bank USA, Regions Bank and Capital One. Together, these banks held nearly half of the country's deposits as of October 2011.)

The center created a tool that allows comparison of what is paid in one state with national medians. (Each state was evaluated based on the banks that had a retail presence there; no state has all 12 banks.)

Nationally, for instance, Pew found that 89 percent of checking accounts had a monthly fee. The median fee was $12, and the median minimum balance amount necessary to avoid the monthly fee was $2,000. The median length of a bank disclosure, meanwhile, was 69 pages. And the median number of “extra” fees - categories beyond the 12 most common fees charged by many banks - was 26.

But a quick look at Pew's state-by-state map finds significant variation in those numbers. Arkansas, where I live, pretty much tracks the national median, except for the minimum balance requirement. (It's higher here, at $2,500.) And it's a bit more fee heavy, with 34 extra types of charges.

Compare that with Massachusetts, which has a median minimum balance requirement of $6,000 - the highest amon g the states - but fewer additional sorts of fees (11).

In both of those states, the most you could pay in a single day from an overdraft - that is, overspending an account - is $140. But the “worst case” situation, which occurs when you don't cover the shortage within a certain period of time and incur extended overdraft fees, is very different: $1,015 in Arkansas, versus $1,420 in Massachusetts.

South Dakota and Alaska, meanwhile, top the list for the median length of disclosures (129 pages and 148 pages, respectively).

How does your bank compare with those in your state, and with big banks nationally?

After Week of Big Political News, the Big Loser? Liberal Bias

October 10, 2012, 3:48 pm

By DAVID CARR

Back when Barack Obama seemed to be in command of the race and had the poll numbers to back it up - that was just a week ago, wasn't it? - there were abundant suggestions that the fix was in, that a compliant, genetically liberal media was smoothing the way for the re-election fo the Democratic incumbent. Rep. Paul Ryan complained on Fox News Sunday about liberal bias, various conservatives signed a letter suggesting that coverage of the race had been corrupted by a pro-Obama media agenda, and there were even charges that the polls themselves were skewed by political motives.

Ben Smith, editor of Buzzfeed, said simple political thermodynamics were at work. When the numbers aren't working for a campaign, the campaign tends to blame the data rather than the message.

“The side that's losing typically gets obsessed with unskewing the polls, and maybe it was Mitt Romney's long, long time spent losing that made it so extreme this cycle.”

But after a remarkable performance by Mitt Romney in last week's debate and a remarkably bad one by the incumbent, a poll by the Pew Research Center showed that Mr. Romney had not only made up ground, but was four points ahead of President Barack Obama among likely voters. (And a Gallup poll seemed to support the notion that Mr. Romney was surging.)

So, did the mainstreamâ€" and allegedly liberal - media attempt to knock down the new numbers? Hardly. Most reveled in the turn of events because reporters, regardless of their own political affiliations, are always in favor of news. In stories all over the newsstand and the web, Romney “Galloped” to a lead, Democrats were “demoralized” as Mr. Obama' s edge was “erased” and Mr. Romney “surged.”

Keyboards clacked and adjectives flew because the poll numbers signaled that the last month of the campaign, which had been looking a bit dreary, was going to be a horserace and reporters headed to the rail with renewed enthusiasm. As Joseph Weisenthal, the Business Insider writer and tweet machine known as @TheStalwart, put it, “If you know want to know the big bias in media (of which I am guilty) it's storyline bias.” The headlines reflected not disappointment, but excitement that the game was on.

Slate “Was Romney's Debate Win the Most Convincing in History? It Looks That Way”

The Los Angeles Times: “Romney won debate and, more importantly, the media narrative”

The New York Times: “Romney Erases Obama's Convention Bounce in Forecast”

MSNBC: “Romney sprinting into the lead”

Reuters: “U.S. presidential race now a dog fight as Romney surges”

I sent e-mails to a few people involved in campaign coverage asking whether the charge of liberal bias was overstated. Tucker Carlson, the founder of The Daily Caller said that liberal bias hasn't gone away, it's just been drowned out by a convincing Romney victory in the debate.

“The lesson is that the press doesn't control poll results. It's possible to get elected even if the media are rooting for your opponent, as both Reagan and George W. Bush proved.

It's also true that reporters get bored with the existing storyline, which until last week was that Romney had already lost. So they welcome a chance to talk about something else.

But none of this proves there's no bias. I don't think any fair person who has watched carefully could claim Romney and Obama have been held to the same standard by the press. They haven't.”

Reporter like, desire and concoct action, anything that makes them feel like they are in the middle of something large and elections brings out both the most craven and noble aspects of that imperative. The nobler component reflects an understanding that picking the people in charge matters a great deal. But it's often craven in execution because journalists will turn any crack in a campaign into a chasm and a slip in the numbers into a spiral. It creates not only the illusion of movement, but of relevance. Matt Labash, a writer for the Weekly Standard, explained as much.

“I think what campaign journalists, conservative or liberal, always crave more than actual fairness, are twists. Then, each side gets its turn to whine about something. Which is fairness once removed, I suppose.

As for polls, these kinds of swings give journos an important opportunity to entertain themselves by analyzing what undecideds, who can't seem to make up their minds after two solid years of campaigning by both sides think at the precise moment of a fleeting news cycle that will likely become obsolete seconds after the clueless swing voter hangs up the phone with their pollster.

Then of course, once swing voters read about how they've changed their minds, they will only be further confused, thus providing a perfect and endless feedback loop of uncertainty and drama which will need to be further interpreted by the media, thus making us feel relevant, even as our industry is dying.”

This election has made clear, as in Hollywood, nobody knows anything. But if the media is putting a thumb on the scale, its usually one that points toward anything more exciting than what they are already covering.

My Lesson in the High Cost of Drugs for Pets

October 10, 2012, 1:27 pm

By ANN CARRNS

Recently, my husband and I caved to relentless pressure from our children and adopted a dog from the local animal shelter. A probable schnauzer cross, she is a delightful pet - cute, loyal and not too rambunctious - most of the time, anyway.

What she isn't, though, is cheap.

Yes, we saved money by adopting a shelter mutt instead of a pedigreed dog. But pet health care has evolved since my childhood, when I last owned a dog. I recently learned that drugs for dogs can cost as much as drugs for people. In 2011, about two-thirds of American households owned a pet, and Americans spent nearly $7 billion for prescription and over-the-counter pet medications, according to the Federal Trade Commission.

I've now added my bit to the total for this year. When our adopted pet's regular flea medication wasn't doing the trick, our veterinarian recommended a new combination drug, called Trifexis, that dogs can take once a month both to kill fleas and prevent heartworms, a deadly canine scourge.

I happily took home a single dose to try. She seemed to tolerate it - that is, she didn't barf it up immediately after she gobbled it down. So I went to a local pet store to buy a longer-term supply. I was told the store didn't carry it. Nor did a local veterinary supply outlet. So I returned to the vet to buy it, and was taken aback when I learned a six-month supply was $115, or $19 per pill. (A long-acting collar to ward off ticks was another $45.) I paid the bill, shaking my head about the surprisingly high cost of dog ownership while wondering how a drug for a pet could rival the cost of prescriptions for people.

That's just the question being co nsidered by the Federal Trade Commission, which last week held a workshop on pet medications and is soliciting comments from veterinarians, consumers and others about the state of the animal drug industry. Unlike human drugs that are primarily sold through pharmacies, many pet medications are sold by the veterinarians who prescribe them. And some drug manufacturers allow their wares to be distributed only by vets.

This has led to concern that consumers are paying unnecessarily high prices for some medications. There is a bill pending in Congress (H.R. 1406, the Fairness to Pet Owners Act) that would require veterinarians to write prescriptions for all pet drugs, so owners can take them elsewhere and shop around for better prices if they want.

Numerous veterinary groups submitted testimony arguing that the proposed House bill is unnecessary and adds extra cost to veterinarians' practices. They say most states require veterinarians to write prescriptions upon reque st anyway, and most do regardless of the law, based on the profession's ethics. If the drug is needed right away, buying it from the veterinarian - who knows the animal and can safeguard the quality of the drug - is the best option, they say. (It appears unlikely the bill will be acted on this year, but it may be reintroduced next year, according to a spokesman for the American Veterinary Medical Association, which opposes the measure as “redundant.”)

The F.T.C. has already received reams of comments on the issue, and is accepting consumer submissions until Nov. 1.

I could have paid a bit less, it appears, by buying my drugs online from 1-800-PetMeds, which sold a six-month supply of Trifexis for $99.74 and offered free shipping. A prescription from the veterinarian is required. (My dog's pills did come with a $20 mail-in rebate. And the drug is quite effective, at least - no fleas to be seen.)

Do you buy medication for your pets? How do you save money?

Willie Geist Is Named Co-Host of 9 a.m. Hour of \'Today\'

October 10, 2012, 8:00 am

By BRIAN STELTER

NBC's “Today” show on Wednesday welcomed Willie Geist, the MSNBC newsman and occasional comedian, as the new co-host of its 9 a.m.
hour.

The network confirmed that Mr. Geist would become a permanent presence on “Today,” where he has regularly filled in for Matt Lauer this year.
His impending appointment was first reported last month.

Mr. Geist is currently the host of the irreverent 5:30 a.m. newscast “Way Too Early” and a co-host of the 6-to-9 a.m. “Morning Joe” on MSNBC, a favorite of political junkies. He said in an interview that he will continue co-hosting the 6 a.m. hour of “Morning Joe” because he “wanted to keep a foot in the ‘Morning Joe' political world.'â €

Then, he said, “I'll jog across the street and finish prepping for the 9 a.m. hour.” (The “Today” studio is in a building across 49th Street from MSNBC's studio, both at Rockefeller Center in Midtown Manhattan.)

“Way Too Early,” which was conceived by Mr. Geist three years ago, will continue, but with a new host. He or she has not been chosen.

Mr. Geist's appointment on “Today” will begin Nov. 12, the Monday after the presidential election. He will replace Savannah Guthrie, the previous 9 a.m. host, who was promoted to co-host the flagship 7-to-9 a.m. hours earlier this year after NBC removed Ann Curry from the position.

Mr. Geist's transition is intended to be a smooth one, unlike Ms. Curry's. He appeared on the show on Wednesday morning to talk about his promotion, and he'll continue to show up in advance of the appointment date. “I do expect there will be some Halloween hazing, although they won't tell me what it is yet,” he said in the interview, referring to the show's annual Halloween costume episode.

Jim Bell, the executive producer of “Today,” said in a statement: “We are thrilled to add Willie to the ‘Today' team. He brings a solid news background with a keen sense of creativity and humor. From politics to pop culture, Willie is a skilled and versatile reporter who will make a great addition at 9 a.m. and contribute to the entire broadcast.”

Mr. Geist will continue to fill in for Mr. Lauer, who has been the co-host of the 7-to-9 a.m. hours since 1997. Mr. Lauer recently renewed his contract at “Today.”

He'll also continue to contribute to the NBC Sports Network, where he anchored some Summer Olympics coverage earlier this year.

But his main job will now be the 9 a.m. hour of “Today,” which was created in 2000 as an extension of the morning show franchise. He'll be joined by Al Roker and Natalie Morales, two members of the 7-to-9 a.m. ensemble who a lready co-host the 9 a.m. hour.

Of the 9 a.m. program, Mr. Geist said, “it's going to become more of its own hour.”

Already “Today” has taken some steps toward becoming more of a talk show. Earlier this fall it added a conversational segment called “Take Three,” where the co-hosts and a guest talk about hot topics of the day.

“Loose, smart with a sense of humor is a great combination,” Mr. Geist said.

For more than 15 years “Today” was the No. 1 morning show in the United States, but it has fallen behind ABC's “Good Morning America”
in the ratings this year. Mr. Geist is the second fresh face, after his friend Ms. Guthrie, who has joined the cast since “G.M.A.” started winning.

“Right now I see a moment of great opportunity,” Mr. Geist said, “and the great news is that everybody over there at the ‘Today' show feels the same way too.”

Wednesday Reading: Ten Travel Web Sites Worth Bookmarking

October 10, 2012, 8:02 am

By ANN CARRNS

A variety of consumer-focused articles appears daily in The New York Times and on our blogs. Each weekday morning, we gather them together here so you can quickly scan the news that could hit you in your wallet.