IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v37y2018i6p855-882.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analyzing Bank Overdraft Fees with Big Data

Author

Listed:
  • Xiao Liu

    (Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, New York 10012)

  • Alan Montgomery

    (Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213)

  • Kannan Srinivasan

    (Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213)

Abstract

In 2012, consumers paid $32 billion in overdraft fees, representing the single largest source of revenue for banks from demand deposit accounts during this period. Owing to consumer attrition caused by overdraft fees and potential government regulations to reform these fees, financial institutions have become motivated to investigate their overdraft fee structures. Banks need to balance the revenue generated from overdraft fees with consumer dissatisfaction and potential churn caused by these fees. However, no empirical research has been conducted to explain consumer responses to overdraft fees or to evaluate alternative pricing strategies associated with these fees. In this research, we propose a dynamic structural model with consumer monitoring costs and dissatisfaction associated with overdraft fees. We apply the model to an enterprise-level data set of more than 500,000 accounts with a history of 450 days, providing a total of 200 million transactions. We find that consumers heavily discount the future and potentially overdraw because of impulsive spending. However, we also find that high monitoring costs hinder consumers’ effort to track their balance accurately; consequently, consumers may overdraw because of rational inattention. The large data set is necessary because of the infrequent nature of overdrafts; however, it also engenders computational challenges, which we address by using parallel computing techniques. Our policy simulations show that alternative pricing strategies may increase bank revenue and improve consumer welfare. Fixed bill schedules and overdraft waiver programs may also enhance social welfare. This paper explains consumer responses to overdraft fees and evaluates alternative pricing strategies associated with these fees.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiao Liu & Alan Montgomery & Kannan Srinivasan, 2018. "Analyzing Bank Overdraft Fees with Big Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(6), pages 855-882, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:37:y:2018:i:6:p:855-882
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.2018.1106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2018.1106
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.2018.1106?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peng, Lin & Xiong, Wei, 2006. "Investor attention, overconfidence and category learning," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 563-602, June.
    2. Rust, John, 1987. "Optimal Replacement of GMC Bus Engines: An Empirical Model of Harold Zurcher," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(5), pages 999-1033, September.
    3. Hall, Robert E, 1978. "Stochastic Implications of the Life Cycle-Permanent Income Hypothesis: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 86(6), pages 971-987, December.
    4. Xavier Gabaix & David Laibson, 2018. "Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia and information suppression in competitive markets," Chapters, in: Victor J. Tremblay & Elizabeth Schroeder & Carol Horton Tremblay (ed.), Handbook of Behavioral Industrial Organization, chapter 3, pages 40-74, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Susumu Imai & Neelam Jain & Andrew Ching, 2009. "Bayesian Estimation of Dynamic Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(6), pages 1865-1899, November.
    6. Ricardo Reis, 2006. "Inattentive Producers," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 73(3), pages 793-821.
    7. Andrew Ching & Masakazu Ishihara, 2010. "The effects of detailing on prescribing decisions under quality uncertainty," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 123-165, June.
    8. Bolton, Lisa E & Warlop, Luk & Alba, Joseph W, 2003. "Consumer Perceptions of Price (Un)Fairness," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 29(4), pages 474-491, March.
    9. Victor Stango & Jonathan Zinman, 2014. "Limited and Varying Consumer Attention: Evidence from Shocks to the Salience of Bank Overdraft Fees," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 27(4), pages 990-1030.
    10. Hanming Fang & Yang Wang, 2015. "Estimating Dynamic Discrete Choice Models With Hyperbolic Discounting, With An Application To Mammography Decisions," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 56, pages 565-596, May.
    11. Raj Chetty & Adam Looney & Kory Kroft, 2009. "Salience and Taxation: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1145-1177, September.
    12. Steffen Andersen & Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2008. "Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(3), pages 583-618, May.
    13. Hanming Fang & Dan Silverman, 2009. "Time-Inconsistency And Welfare Program Participation: Evidence From The Nlsy," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 50(4), pages 1043-1077, November.
    14. David Hirshleifer & Siew Hong Teoh, 2003. "Herd Behaviour and Cascading in Capital Markets: a Review and Synthesis," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 9(1), pages 25-66, March.
    15. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    16. Nitin Mehta & Surendra Rajiv & Kannan Srinivasan, 2004. "Role of Forgetting in Memory-Based Choice Decisions: A Structural Model," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 107-140, June.
    17. Wesley R. Hartmann & Harikesh S. Nair, 2010. "Retail Competition and the Dynamics of Demand for Tied Goods," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 366-386, 03-04.
    18. Ruth N. Bolton, 1998. "A Dynamic Model of the Duration of the Customer's Relationship with a Continuous Service Provider: The Role of Satisfaction," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 45-65.
    19. Friend, Irwin & Blume, Marshall E, 1975. "The Demand for Risky Assets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(5), pages 900-922, December.
    20. Pope, Devin G., 2009. "Reacting to rankings: Evidence from "America's Best Hospitals"," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 1154-1165, December.
    21. K. Sudhir, 2016. "Editorial—The Exploration-Exploitation Tradeoff and Efficiency in Knowledge Production," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 1-9, January.
    22. Sims, Christopher A., 2003. "Implications of rational inattention," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 665-690, April.
    23. Peter Arcidiacono & Robert A. Miller, 2011. "Conditional Choice Probability Estimation of Dynamic Discrete Choice Models With Unobserved Heterogeneity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 79(6), pages 1823-1867, November.
    24. Andrew Ching & Tülin Erdem & Michael Keane, 2009. "The price consideration model of brand choice," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 393-420, April.
    25. Zhou, Yiyi, 2012. "Failure to Launch in Two-Sided Markets: A Study of the U.S. Video Game Market," MPRA Paper 42002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    26. Sendhil Mullainathan, 2002. "A Memory-Based Model of Bounded Rationality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 735-774.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jessica Fong & Megan Hunter, 2022. "Can Facing the Truth Improve Outcomes? Effects of Information in Consumer Finance," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(1), pages 33-50, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dean Karlan & Margaret McConnell & Sendhil Mullainathan & Jonathan Zinman, 2010. "Getting to the Top of Mind: How Reminders Increase Saving," NBER Working Papers 16205, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Xavier Gabaix, 2017. "Behavioral Inattention," NBER Working Papers 24096, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Naihobe Gonzalez, "undated". "How Learning About One's Ability Affects Educational Investments: Evidence from the Advanced Placement Program," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 307d565f1bf14eb8808071847, Mathematica Policy Research.
    4. Zemin (Zachary) Zhong, 2022. "Chasing Diamonds and Crowns: Consumer Limited Attention and Seller Response," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(6), pages 4380-4397, June.
    5. Raj Chetty & Adam Looney & Kory Kroft, 2009. "Salience and Taxation: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1145-1177, September.
    6. Masakazu Ishihara & Andrew T. Ching, 2019. "Dynamic Demand for New and Used Durable Goods Without Physical Depreciation: The Case of Japanese Video Games," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(3), pages 392-416, May.
    7. Sunde, Uwe & Roider, Andreas & Englmaier, Florian, 2012. "The Role of Salience in Performance Schemes: Evidence from a Field Experiment," CEPR Discussion Papers 8921, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. George Loewenstein & Zachary Wojtowicz, 2023. "The Economics of Attention," CESifo Working Paper Series 10712, CESifo.
    9. Dean Karlan & Margaret McConnell & Sendhil Mullainathan & Jonathan Zinman, 2016. "Getting to the Top of Mind: How Reminders Increase Saving," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(12), pages 3393-3411, December.
    10. Reto Foellmi & Stefan Legge & Lukas Schmid, 2016. "Do Professionals Get It Right? Limited Attention and Risk‐taking Behaviour," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0(592), pages 724-755, May.
    11. Bartosz Maćkowiak & Filip Matějka & Mirko Wiederholt, 2023. "Rational Inattention: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 226-273, March.
    12. Stefania Sitzia & Jiwei Zheng & Daniel Zizzo, 2015. "Inattentive consumers in markets for services," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(2), pages 307-332, September.
    13. Nicola Lacetera & Devin G. Pope & Justin R. Sydnor, 2012. "Heuristic Thinking and Limited Attention in the Car Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2206-2236, August.
    14. Adams, Paul & Hunt, Stefan & Palmer, Christopher & Zaliauskas, Redis, 2021. "Testing the effectiveness of consumer financial disclosure: Experimental evidence from savings accounts," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(1), pages 122-147.
    15. Emmanuel Farhi & Xavier Gabaix, 2020. "Optimal Taxation with Behavioral Agents," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(1), pages 298-336, January.
    16. Dewan, Ambuj & Neligh, Nathaniel, 2020. "Estimating information cost functions in models of rational inattention," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    17. Hunt Allcott & Nathan Wozny, 2014. "Gasoline Prices, Fuel Economy, and the Energy Paradox," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 96(5), pages 779-795, December.
    18. Andrew T. Ching & Tülin Erdem & Michael P. Keane, 2013. "Invited Paper ---Learning Models: An Assessment of Progress, Challenges, and New Developments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(6), pages 913-938, November.
    19. Blankespoor, Elizabeth & deHaan, Ed & Marinovic, Iván, 2020. "Disclosure processing costs, investors’ information choice, and equity market outcomes: A review," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2).
    20. Dmitry Taubinsky & Alex Rees-Jones, 2018. "Attention Variation and Welfare: Theory and Evidence from a Tax Salience Experiment," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 85(4), pages 2462-2496.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:37:y:2018:i:6:p:855-882. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.