KeyCorp | Racial Impact of Overdraft Policies and Practices at KeyCorp

Status
Withdrawn
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Resolution details
Company ticker
KEY
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Social
ESG sub-theme
  • Diversity, equity & inclusion (DEI)
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Financials
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Shareholders request the Board complete a report to shareholders (prepared at reasonable cost, omitting proprietary/confidential information, and within a reasonable time) evaluating the racial impacts that its overdraft policies and practices have on Black and other racial minority customers.
Whereas clause
KeyBank charges a flat USD33 fee when it pays a customer's check, ATM withdrawal, or certain other electronic transactions, even though the customer's account lacks sufficient funds to cover the charges (if the customer opts-in). In 2019, this resulted in KeyBank collecting over USD148 million in overdraft/NSF fees. This represented over 7% of its non-interest income and 44% of its service charge income.

According to 2018 and 2020 Center for Responsible Lending reports:

account holders incurring large numbers of overdraft fees are more often low-income, single, non-white, and renters;
customers often pay more in overdraft fees than the overage amount; and
many consumers who opted into fee-based overdraft coverage for debit card transactions after the 2010 change to the Federal Reserve's Regulation E did so as a result of aggressive or deceptive marketing.
The CFPB found the majority of customers that frequently overdraft are more financially vulnerable than those who are not. Pew research has shown approximate 70% of heavy overdrafters earn less than USD50,000/year. A 2020 Bankrate survey found that Blacks and Hispanics reported facing higher monthly fees, including overdraft fees, than white customers typically do.[1]

KeyBank's flat overdraft/NSF fee does not appear to bear any relationship to the cost or risk of covering an overdraft, which casts doubt on its reasons for imposing the fee and raises reputational risks. There may be a tension if a bank sees the fee as a desirable source of revenue while also justifying it as a way to penalize certain spending behaviors.

The flat fee means that almost regardless of the size of the overdraft, the fee is the same - e.g. the cost to the customer is the same whether she is USD50 over her balance or USD500 over her balance. This is concerning since a 2014 CFPB study found customers were paying a median overdraft fee of USD34 for debit card payments of USD24 or less. The Washington Post has reported that this is the equivalent of a loan with a 17,000 percent annual rate.

In comparison, Citibank does not charge overdraft fees for point of sale or ATM withdrawals.

To address these concerns, U.S. Senator Cory Booker has introduced the Stop Overdraft Profiteering Act, which would prohibit banks from imposing overdraft fees on debit card or ATM transactions. Furthermore, it would limit the number of overdraft fees that could be levied on check-based transactions and includes nondiscrimination provisions.

In the wake of the Black Lives Matters protests, there has been increasing attention paid to the ways in which systemic racism exists in many institutions, including banks, and their impacts on society.

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minorities-report-paying-higher-banking-fees-than-white-people-bankrate-survey-says/

DISCLAIMER: By including a shareholder resolution or management proposal in this database, neither the PRI nor the sponsor of the resolution or proposal is seeking authority to act as proxy for any shareholder; shareholders should vote their proxies in accordance with their own policies and requirements.

Any voting recommendations set forth in the descriptions of the resolutions and management proposals included in this database are made by the sponsors of those resolutions and proposals, and do not represent the views of the PRI.

Information on the shareholder resolutions, management proposals and votes in this database have been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable, but the PRI does not represent that it is accurate, complete, or up-to-date, including information relating to resolutions and management proposals, other signatories’ vote pre-declarations (including voting rationales), or the current status of a resolution or proposal. You should consult companies’ proxy statements for complete information on all matters to be voted on at a meeting.