Page 1 of 1

#1 Fed Bans Overdraft on ATM and Debit transactions.

Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:59 pm
by SirNitram
Link
Flexing newfound muscle as consumer protector, the Federal Reserve today banned overdraft fees on automated teller machine and debit-card transactions unless consumers have actively opted for an overdraft protection service.

The new rules mean that banks will be required to get their customers' permission before charging fees when debit-card and ATM transactions trigger an overdraft. Customers who don't elect to have overdraft coverage will see their charges rejected if they put their bank accounts into the red.

Consumer advocates lauded the move as long overdue but said stronger measures contained in pending legislation introduced by Democrats were needed as well.

The Fed's rule, which takes effect July 1, does not cover fees for overdrawn checks or overdraft charges from recurring debit transactions, such as automatic payments for bills. The proposed laws would cover those transactions as well.

"The Fed should be applauded," said Lauren Bowne, staff attorney for Consumers Union, which had argued that the overdraft charges were really a form of high-interest loans. "Soon, banks will have to persuade their customers that these overdraft programs are beneficial compared to other lower-cost alternatives."

But other research and consumer groups were disappointed.

"We appreciate that the Fed chose to implement the strongest overdraft reform rule it was considering," said Eric Halperin, head of the Center for Responsible Lending's Washington office. "But this improvement is undermined by the Fed's failure to propose or enact necessary safeguards against a host of unfair practices."

Over the protests of consumer groups, service charges on bank-deposit accounts have been an increasing profit center for banks in recent years, totaling about $182 billion in the five years through 2008, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

In the first six months this year, such fees raked in $21.5 billion, nearly as much as the $22.1 billion total for all of 1999, the FDIC tally shows.

Under former Chairman Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve had maintained a hands-off attitude toward regulations designed to protect consumers, with Greenspan arguing that free-market competition would work to benefit the public.

But current Chairman Ben Bernanke has adopted a more consumer-friendly stance following the Fed's failure to rein in mortgage lending, which is widely blamed for helping to create the global financial crisis, and the response in Congress, where some legislative proposals challenge the central bank's authority.

"The final overdraft rules represent an important step forward in consumer protection," Bernanke said.

The Fed's move toward consumer protection comes as the Obama administration is trying to strip the agency and three other bank regulators of such powers and place them with a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

The Fed's mission, originally defined as promoting full employment and maintaining price stability, was expanded to consumer protection in the 1960s when Congress tapped it to oversee enforcement of the landmark Truth in Lending Act.

The central bank was further given the authority to write rules governing home lending in 1994 but never did so until last year, after the collapse of the mortgage and housing markets had occurred.

"Their failure to act to rein in mortgage lending ultimately triggered the collapse of the economy," said Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) has introduced legislation limiting bank overdraft fees, and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) has introduced a similar bill in the House.

Advocacy groups say consumers would rather have a debit-card transaction denied than pay substantial overdraft fees. According to the Center for Responsible Lending, the average shortfall is $17 for an overdraft triggered by a debit-card transaction -- and the fees for covering the transaction can cost twice as much.

The group also contends that most banks manipulate their debit-clearing systems so that high-dollar transactions are debited first each day, which also can drive up fees.
Woohoo!

Cautionary note: This ban goes into effect July 1st.

#2

Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:06 pm
by General Havoc
Well this is certainly welcome news.

#3

Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:21 pm
by LadyTevar
Wish they'd done this back when ATMs first came out. I'd have saved a lot of money :evil:

#4

Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:14 pm
by The Cleric
Why don't people keep track of how much money they have to spend? Seems awfully simple to me :/.

#5

Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 5:40 pm
by Comrade Tortoise
The Cleric wrote:Why don't people keep track of how much money they have to spend? Seems awfully simple to me :/.
I have had issues when a check that I think will clear by the weekend takes over a week. Bought lunch, a few school supplies and WHAM cascading overdraft and negative balance fees put me 300 in the hole. All of that with a check that should have cleared several days ago that would have covered the charges.

#6

Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 5:46 pm
by SirNitram
That's been on purpose for ages. If a whole bunch of withdrawls and deposits come, do all the withdrawls first, to rack up the best possible overdraft fee. THEN apply the deposits, paying off the overdraft fees first. Which means you'd not have as much as your checkbook records. Wash, rinse, repeat.

#7

Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 6:28 pm
by B4UTRUST
Now if they could get rid of ATM fees nation wide it would be great...

#8

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 11:02 am
by Destructionator XV
SirNitram wrote:That's been on purpose for ages. If a whole bunch of withdrawls and deposits come, do all the withdrawls first, to rack up the best possible overdraft fee. THEN apply the deposits, paying off the overdraft fees first. Which means you'd not have as much as your checkbook records. Wash, rinse, repeat.
And, naturally, the evil ones will do the withdrawls in the order most likely to screw you over: take out the big one first so you bounce the 5 little ones, instead of the little ones first so only the big one bounces.

One thing I really like about my local bank is they don't do this kind of thing. Their debit cards decline the transaction if there are insufficient funds, and they do withdrawls in the order they are timestamped. Deposits sometimes have a lag, but not really a malicious one.

The national banks seem far more evil than the local banks I've done business with, but this is anecdotal.



Anyway, I'm amazed that this kind of thing wasn't illegal already under usury laws. It's about time the banks got reminded of their proper place.

#9

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 11:45 am
by SirNitram
Pfft. When Usury laws were last brought up a year or so ago, a Republican lashed out 'From which? The Bible or the Qu'ran?'. Apparently, the Torah was unavailiable.

#10

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 1:08 pm
by General Havoc
I'm afraid I don't understand the above.

#11

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:18 pm
by SirNitram
General Havoc wrote:I'm afraid I don't understand the above.
Alright.

Usury laws in the states set a strict limit on how much interest you can charge.

In an attempt to bring federal ones, so no banks can just incorporate in a state with no such, a bill was introduced into the Congress.

A GOPer began to rant about 'Christian or Islamic' Usury laws. Because he is not a smart man.

#12

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:40 pm
by frigidmagi
There's something ironic about a Repub doing that. Usury laws are a good idea in anycase. If nothing else it can prevent people from being locked into an neverending debt.

#13

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:17 pm
by Destructionator XV
SirNitram wrote:Usury laws in the states set a strict limit on how much interest you can charge.
As a note, in New York (I don't know about other states), fees are also included in the percentage for usury. So the lender can't get out of it by saying "oh that's not interest, it's a monthly finance fee" or nailing you with late fees instead of interest.

Sadly though, there are some states with no such laws at all, or limits so unrealistically high that no one would ever hit them (like 50% annual interest limit - lol).

And ever since banks were allowed to issue credit cards from across state lines, guess where all the credit card companies moved to?

That's the kind of thing the bill Nitram's talking about would have addressed, but I guess we can't have the Federal government regulating interstate commerce, can we?!


Also, this is something to keep in mind whenever a politician says he wants to "increase competition" by allowing something across state lines. When you hear that, look at your next credit card bill before deciding to support it.