Banks define common words differently from us “mere mortals”. Look at the way banks (and large institutions in general) use terms like “honest,” “fair,” “reasonable,” and “transparent,”
These words in common usage carry strong moral and ethical connotations. Yet banks can manipulate or interpret these words more loosely when applied in the context of corporate behavior.
So how are we average folks, to know banks define common words differently? Let’s start with “honest,” “fair,” “reasonable,” and “transparent.”
Honest
“Honest” implies telling the truth, being upfront, and not deceiving or misleading others.
While a bank may technically avoid outright lying, its communication can be misleading to downplay important information.
Banks use phrases like “may” or “up to,” which could technically be true, but give a false impression of what’s actually happening. Fine print and complex jargon are common ways banks may obscure the full truth.
In these cases, they could claim to be “honest” in a narrow, technical sense, but not truly transparent in how they communicate important details.
Fair
“Fair” means equitable, impartial, and just. It’s about treating everyone equally and providing what is due.
Banks claim that their policies are fair, but the reality often shows otherwise.
Fees, interest rates, and terms are typically structured to favor the bank.
For example, offering “low” rates or “fair” charges might still be subject to hidden conditions that disproportionately impact certain customers. Their definition of fairness can be skewed in their favor, especially when it comes to how they assess risks, fees, and penalties.
Reasonable
Something “reasonable” is fair, logical, and based on what’s appropriate under the circumstances.
The bank might consider a high penalty fee or interest rate reasonable based on their internal policies. But this can feel anything but reasonable to a customer.
For instance, a $35 late fee on a $50 balance might be reasonable in the bank’s eyes as a penalty. But for the customer, it’s disproportionate to the actual amount owed and can seem unreasonably punitive.
In this context, “reasonable” is often framed in a way that benefits the institution more than the consumer.
Transparent
When we think of “transparent,” we imagine openness, clarity, and easy access to information. If a process is transparent, all relevant facts should be visible and understandable.
Banks often use “transparent” to describe their policies or products, but this transparency is frequently selective.
For example, a bank might provide some high-level details about their terms and conditions. Often they bury the more critical, potentially inconvenient details (like fees or terms) in fine print or complex language.
So, while they may technically provide information, it’s not always accessible or easy to understand, leading to confusion or misunderstanding.
We think of a clear-glass window as something that’s physically transparent. It allows light to pass through, and we can see through it.
But here’s a problem with something that’s transparent. Just because it’s see-through doesn’t mean we’re always aware of its presence. There’s many incidents of people injuring themselves falling through and smashing a window they didn’t see.
And banks might claim to be “transparent” with their terms and conditions. Many times the transparency they claim is more like a window you don’t see until you’ve bumped into it.
They might offer a document with all the necessary information (like fine print or complex jargon). But unless you’re actively looking for it, it’s easy to miss.
So, in this sense, “transparent” really can be invisible.
Which is the exact opposite of what you would expect from a company that should be fully open and clear about their practices.
Why Does This Happen?
Banks, as for-profit institutions, are primarily focused on maximizing their own profits. This often leads them to adopt definitions that serve their own interests.
For example, a fee might be “reasonable” from the bank’s perspective in the sense that it adds to their bottom line. But it’s harsh from a customer’s perspective.
Legal and Regulatory Loopholes
Many times, banks craft policies or wording that technically comply with regulations. But they don’t reflect the spirit of fairness or transparency that most customers would expect.
Banks rely on legal definitions and corporate language to operate within the law, without necessarily acting in a way that feels ethical or just.
Complexity and Obfuscation
Terms like “transparent” or “reasonable” become diluted when hidden behind layers of complex terms and conditions or fine print. They know that most consumers don’t fully read or understand them anyway.
This makes it easier for banks to claim that they’ve been transparent or fair. Even when they haven’t truly communicated things in an accessible or honest way.
A Real-World Example:
Take, for example, the fees on a credit card. The bank might claim that their fees are “reasonable.” But when a customer looks at a $39 late payment fee, it can feel excessive. Especially when the cost to the bank for that late payment is negligible in comparison.
The bank might argue that the fee is reasonable given industry standards or to cover administrative costs. But this still might not feel fair to the customer.
Moreover, the terms might be presented in a way that makes it difficult for customers to fully understand the true cost of borrowing.
In such cases, banks may argue that they’ve been “transparent” because they’ve disclosed the information somewhere in the fine print. But the actual disclosure may be hard to find or comprehend without expert knowledge.
This creates the illusion of transparency without truly delivering it.
Banks Define Common Words Differently
It’s taken many years of trusting banks “to do the right thing,” before discovering they define common words differently.
Most ordinary men and women you meet in the street still have a moral compass. They’re smart enough to know “right” from “wrong”.
Banks know that people make assumptions and presumptions. The fun starts when you begin to question everything.
If a bank is truly transparent and honest, they should be able to provide clear, direct answers.
Ask loaded questions that no bank actors want to answer, questions that contain controversial assumptions (e.g., a presumption of guilt).
(Such a question may take the format: “Have you stopped beating your dog?”)
Because they’ll compromise their position is they admit it, and they’ll compromise their position if they deny it. Yet, silence is acquiescence.
Which could explain why the bank’s customer fairness officer is silent in response to the request to define fairness, honesty, or transparency. These are words in the bank’s advertising material, and banks define common words differently.
“Unconscionable conduct” defies fairness and morality, and “fairness” means equitable, respectful treatment.
The “reasonable person test” evaluates actions for reasonableness to judge conduct in the eyes of ordinary men and women. Whether a person’s conduct would be considered reasonable by an ordinary person in similar circumstances.
Yet the definitions of “reasonable” and ““Unconscionable conduct” are very vague, and offer a smorgasbord of word-salad for moolah-chasing lawyers.
This may explain how banks can manipulate language and legally deceive customers.
After three years of silence, and no evidence from the bank’s actors to support the bank’s claim of mortgage delinquency…
Nothing is what it appears. Admit nothing. Deny everything. As DWM says, they know they’re committing fraud. You just have to be able to prove it. And you can start right here.
Got Something To Say: