Home arrow Credit Issues arrow In The News arrow CFPB Going After Checking Account Overdraft Fees
User Login





Lost Password?
No account yet? Register
Guard My Credit Menu
Home
- - - THE ISSUES - - -
Videos
Fraud and Scams
Credit Issues
Identity Theft
Privacy Issues
Our Children
Politics & Politicians
- - ACTION CENTER - -
Guard My Credit Links
Helpful Pamphlets
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
About ACCESS
Contact Us
About Our Site
Join the Fight
ACCESS is a non-profit, tax exempt consumer advocacy group.

Donations are tax deductable.

Guard My Credit Hits
11418742 Visitors
CFPB Going After Checking Account Overdraft Fees PDF Print E-mail

February 23, 2012 - Twenty five years ago, if you wanted to have overdraft protection on your checking account, you actually needed to have good credit. Banks used to issue Check Guarantee Cards that you would show a merchant when you were writing a check. Just imagine that. You actually had to be a responsible enough individual to warrant bank protection before the bank would guarantee your checks. And if I recall correctly, if you overdrew your account more than once in a 12 month period, the bank would cancel your guarantee card and end the protection. But all that changed when banks figured out that they could make more money by charging fees for bounced checks than they could for rewarding responsible customers. Now, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is taking a closer look at those fees. 

Image

Overdraft protection on checking accounts is one of the last unregulated frontiers when it comes to bank fees. On average, banks charge consumers around $35 for every check that uses overdraft protection.

The benefit of overdraft protection is that consumers don't have to worry about bouncing a check; something that is illegal and can result in costly late penalties and ruined credit. For those who habitually bounce checks, overdraft protection can even help prevent prosecution.

But the downside of the protection is the cost. Overdrawing your account when you have multiple checks outstanding can run up hundreds of dollars in fees in very short order.

The protection has been abused by both consumers and banks. It is not uncommon for people to pay an important bill knowing that they don't have the money in their account. They view the fee as being the more palatable of two bad alternatives.

But banks have also abused the service. For instance, when they process checks the bank may process the largest check first and each subsequent check in descending value. This practice results in unnecessarily high fees for consumers and the greatest possible profit for the banks.

Consumers who use debit cards now have to opt in to overdraft protection. And banks are now limited on the amount they can charge consumers for either overdrafts using a debit card, or purchase denials for consumers that have decided they don't want overdraft protection on their debit cards. A similar mechanism could be used with checking accounts but that is not what the CFPB is planning on.

Instead, the CFPB is considering a "penalty box" on bank statements. The box would contain in large print, the amount of overdraft fees that you have paid over the past month. While not an ideal solution, it may be better than following the route used on debit cards. The limitation and reduction of collected fees on debit card transactions has led banks to eliminate some services and to start charging for others which had been free in the past. The penalty box solution would not eliminate or cap fees, but it just might make account holders realize that it pays to balance their check books every single month. 

Note: When posting a comment, please sign-in first if you want a response. If you are not registered, click here. Registration is easy and free.

Follow me on Twitter:

 

TwitterCounter for @jmalmberg

 

Follow ACCESS

Comments
Search
Jay  - CFPB     |From:65.96.166.xxx |2012-02-24 15:35:03
There is a difference between overdraft protection on check and bill payments and the one on card transactions. A missed bill payment can do real damages, such as a penalty or some other adverse action. On the other hand, a declined card transaction would only prompt the cardholder to use another card or cash for payment. The point is that, if only one of these protections would have to be made optional, that should be the one on card transactions, which is in fact the case.

Still, I don't think that banks should force their overdraft protection on check and online bill transactions on us, but the right thing should be to let consumers decide whether to opt into it or not. However, if you do opt in, you should be prepared to pay for it, because an overdraft is, after all, spending someone else's money and that has never been free. For a closer analysis: http://blog.unibulmerchantservices.com/the-cfpb-penalty-boxes-highlighting-and-the-issue-with-overdraft-fees
jmalmberg  - RE: CPFB     |2012-02-24 17:16:10
We agree with you that these protections should be opt-in in nature. With regard to the fees, consumers are likely to get hit with fees whether they are for using overdraft protection or for bouncing checks. There are going to be fees either way.
Only registered users can write comments!

3.25 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

 
Guard My Credit Polls
#1 - Why did you visit our site today?
 
.•*´¯☼ ♥ ♥ Your Support of These Links Is GREATLY Appreciated ♥ ♥ ☼¯´*•.
Advertisement
 
Go to top of page
Home | Contact Us |About Us | Privacy Policy
eXTReMe Tracker
11/24/2024 11:14:10