| That's a ridiculous argument by the bank. 1. A person has many payments to make, some very large ones, but also some very small ones - and yet the variance in utility of making many of the payments is a lot smaller than the variance in the size of the payments to be made. 2. The utility of a creditor in receiving the majority of their payments is a lot higher than the utility of a creditor in receiving none of their payments. A person requires BOTH shelter and food. This month, your payments are: 1. The food payment is $20.
2. The rental payment $1000.
Let's say you have only $1000 for the month, and overdraft is turned off.If the rental payment goes through, you have zero dollars remaining for food, leaving you hungry for the month, and will starve to death without assistance. If the food payment goes through, you have $980 left. Send the $980 to the landlord and apologise and promise $20 will be sent the next month. Your landlord won't kick you out. Ergo, largest payments should not go through above smaller ones, if we want to order in a way for the customer's benefit. Therefore, taking into account of both parties, utility is maximised when a couple of percent of a large payment is skipped rather than when the entire amount of a small payment is skipped. From the point of the view of the bank where they are usually the ones receiving the largest payments in mortgages and car loans, they will require a lot more customer support staff if there are lots of instances where people pay only 98% of their payments, because that's not a good reason to foreclose on somebody and at the same time they don't want them to continue skipping 1-2% of their payments. What the bank is saying: Largest payments should go through above smaller ones, for the benefit of the bank! |