PaymentsJournal
No Result
View All Result
SIGN UP
  • Commercial
  • Credit
  • Debit
  • Digital Assets & Crypto
  • Digital Banking
  • Emerging Payments
  • Fraud & Security
  • Merchant
  • Prepaid
PaymentsJournal
  • Commercial
  • Credit
  • Debit
  • Digital Assets & Crypto
  • Digital Banking
  • Emerging Payments
  • Fraud & Security
  • Merchant
  • Prepaid
No Result
View All Result
PaymentsJournal
No Result
View All Result

We Need to Evaluate Prepaid on Value, Not Cost

By Tim Sloane
March 12, 2012
in Mercator Insights
0
0
SHARES
0
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedIn
Woman's hand holding a smart phone.

Woman's hand holding a smart phone.

If delivering financial services to the low and moderate income(LMI) community was easy, banks would already be satisfying thatmarket without the regulators forcing that action through communitydevelopment initiatives.

But it isn’t easy and it is expensive and so most banks, with somevery recent exceptions, have avoided the LMI market. The productsthat do satisfy the needs of this market, Prepaid FinancialServices (PFS) products, are condemmed by regulators and consumergroups because they cost more than free checking. But cost isirrelevant if the product doesn’t meet the needs of theconsumer.

The LMI community has voted against bank products and for PFSproducts with their hard-earned dollars. It is about time wefocused on this value proposition that drives adoption rather thanthe price that is higher than free.

I contend in my upcoming report “Grasping the Benefits of PrepaidFinancial Services: A Battle Plan for Banks” that the key benefitsthat drive adoption by the LMI community are Liquidity, Convenienceand Cost, and in that order.

Liquidity

The inability to access the funds locked in the check could mean adisappointing dinner for the family tonight; the inability to getmore minutes on the mobile phone needed to get the next job; orlate fees on a utility bill.

The report identifies how this urgent need for liquidity is theweakest aspect traditional retail financial institutions offeringsand that this is the primary driver that sends the LMI consumer toPrepaid Financial Services and to alternative financial servicesproviders despite the higher cost.

The report investigates liquidity as it relates to three financialservices: withdrawals, deposits, and check cashing. But suffice itto say that is where traditional financial institutions fall short;Prepaid Financial Services deliver, especially from the perspectiveof service availability.

Convenience

The most common method for evaluating convenience is to look at thenumber of ATMs and branches available for withdrawals and depositsin a specific geography, in this case a geography where the LMIcommunity works and lives.

In this report, Mercator selected three zip codes in Stockton,California that represent the core of the Stockton low incomeneighborhood. Within these three zip codes we found that Bank ofAmerica is represented with 2 ATMs and 1 branch, where as a GreenDot cardholder has access to 5 MoneyPass ATMs and 8 retail outletsthat include Walgreens, K-Mart, 7-Eleven, Rite Aid, Radioshack, andQuick Stop Markets.

Note that in conducting this research, Mercator also looked forATMs and branches participating in the CO-OP network and the CreditUnion 24 (CU24) network, but found only three ATM locations, noneof which were surcharge free even to members. The LMI consumer thatlives or works in Stockton will discover that dealing with a creditunion is very inconvenient.

Mercator also plotted the addresses for all of the above financialservices providers against the transit map of Stockton. Thisexercise makes the benefits of the Prepaid Financial Services evenclearer because it delivers a higher value to the LMI community.The resulting map clearly indicates that if a consumer uses masstransit they will find that a Prepaid Financial Services product ismuch more convenient.

Cost

First, recognize that several Prepaid Financial Services productstoday already come very close to satisfying the FDIC’s Safe modeldesigned to establish criteria for how well a financial servicesproduct meets the needs of the LMI community.

That said, the Safe model does not evaluate liquidity orconvenience which are the top two issues that Mercator believeswill determine the acceptability of a PFS product for the LMIcommunity. Cost, after all, is a relative issue. If all competingproducts offered equal liquidity and convenience, then the lowestcost product would win, assuming equal brand awareness and the lackof additional features or services. But it is never thatsimple.

There will always be a wide range of issues associated withliquidity and convenience as well as with brand awareness. One cardmight be very convenient to the apartment, the other moreconvenient to work. One card may cost more to use at the ATM, butchecks can be deposited as cash onto the card at the retail storeacross the street from work. Or perhaps the liquidity andconvenience are exactly equal, but one card costs a little more butalso includes a savings account, a pharmaceutical discount, oroffers discounts for local merchants. When contemplating eachvariance, a very complex decision matrix evolves, and price israrely the top consideration.

0
SHARES
0
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedIn
Tags: Banking ChannelsCompliance and RegulationDebitMerchant AcquiringMobile PaymentsPrepaidSelf Service and ConvenienceSocial Media

    Get the Latest News and Insights Delivered Daily

    Subscribe to the PaymentsJournal Newsletter for exclusive insight and data from Javelin Strategy & Research analysts and industry professionals.

    Must Reads

    payment api

    Open Banking Has Made Payment APIs a Burgeoning Revenue Stream

    June 12, 2026
    payment card innovation

    Serving a Segment of One: The Race to Stay Top of Wallet

    June 11, 2026
    healthcare payments

    The Healthcare Payments Industry Has a Perception Problem

    June 10, 2026
    continuous KYC

    The Future of KYC Is Layered—and Data-Driven

    June 9, 2026
    tokenized deposits

    As Crypto Challengers Emerge, Banks Turn to Tokenized Deposits

    June 8, 2026
    physical digital debit

    Whether Physical or Digital, Debit Cards Are a Payments Mainstay

    June 5, 2026
    agentic commerce

    Separating Hype from Reality in Emerging Payment Trends

    June 4, 2026
    agentic commerce

    Searching for Trust in Agentic Commerce

    June 3, 2026

    Linkedin-in X-twitter
    • Commercial
    • Credit
    • Debit
    • Digital Assets & Crypto
    • Digital Banking
    • Commercial
    • Credit
    • Debit
    • Digital Assets & Crypto
    • Digital Banking
    • Emerging Payments
    • Fraud & Security
    • Merchant
    • Prepaid
    • Emerging Payments
    • Fraud & Security
    • Merchant
    • Prepaid
    • About Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Sign Up for Our Newsletter
    • About Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Sign Up for Our Newsletter

    ©2026 PaymentsJournal.com |  Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

    • Commercial Payments
    • Credit
    • Debit
    • Digital Assets & Crypto
    • Emerging Payments
    • Fraud & Security
    • Merchant
    • Prepaid
    No Result
    View All Result