IBJNews

Agency: Opting for overdrafts means higher fees

Associated Press
June 11, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A U.S. agency says consumers who opt for overdraft coverage on their checking accounts pay higher fees and are more likely to have their accounts closed than those who decline it.

A report by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released Tuesday says it's hard for consumers to anticipate and avoid overdraft charges. It found that the cost for "opting in" for overdraft coverage varies widely from one bank to the next.

Customers of some banks paid average charges of $298 annually, while those at others paid $147.

The CFPB has been investigating overdraft fees, which are a major source of banks' revenue. The agency has said its examination could result in new rules.

The Consumer Bankers Association, which represents large U.S. banks and regional banks, urged the CFPB against adopting any policy that it said could push consumers toward financial firms outside the banking industry which are less strictly regulated by the government and offer costlier alternatives.

"Consumers have the right to choose the products and features which best provide for their family's daily financial needs," Richard Hunt, the group's president and CEO, said in a statement Tuesday. "Fortunately, the marketplace for checking accounts is extremely competitive and banks make every effort to educate their customers about the options available to them."

Banks charge overdraft fees when customers try to spend more money than they have in an account.

Banks will allow the transaction and then charge the customer a penalty of as much as $35.

Consumer advocates say overdraft fees hurt the people who can least afford them because poorer customers are more likely to drain their checking accounts to close to zero.

"Consumers need to anticipate and avoid unnecessary fees on their checking accounts," CFPB Director Richard Cordray said in a statement. "But we are concerned that some overdraft practices may increase consumer costs beyond reasonable expectations."

In 2010, the Federal Reserve barred banks from automatically enrolling customers in so-called overdraft protection programs for debit card or ATM transactions. Banks must obtain a customer's consent, or "opt-in." Without overdraft protection, a transaction is declined if the customer can't cover it. The rule didn't apply to checks, online bill payments or recurring debits, such as a monthly cable bill. It also didn't limit how much banks can charge for the overdraft service.

Banks have responded by marketing overdraft protection aggressively.

Negative account balances can lead to involuntary closures of accounts, which can leave a black mark on a consumer's record and make it hard to open a new account, the report noted. It found that involuntary closure rates at some banks were over 2.5 times higher for customers who had opted for debit and ATM overdraft coverage.

The overdraft fees are complicated, the report said, varying among banks with regard to the number of overdrafts that can be incurred in a single day, for example. The maximum amount that a bank is willing to advance to a customer as protection can vary widely based on many factors.

The order in which check, debit card and other transactions are posted to an account can affect the number of overdraft fees, and the report found widely varying posting practices among banks.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • I agree with Hogwash
    It's not hard to anticipate and avoid overdraft charges, just don't debit and write checks when you don't have the money in your account! This isn't rocket science and I believe that 80% of all bank customers never pay an overdraft charge. So why do we need a government regulation to protect people too dumb to manage thir own money?
  • Hogwash
    "A report by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released Tuesday says it's hard for consumers to anticipate and avoid overdraft charges." Hogwash, but thank you to the nanny state.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. These liberals are out of control. They want to drive our economy into the ground and double and triple our electric bills. Sierra Club, stay out of Indy!

  2. These activist liberal judges have gotten out of control. Thankfully we have a sensible supreme court that overturns their absurd rulings!

  3. Maybe they shouldn't be throwing money at the IRL or whatever they call it now. Probably should save that money for actual operations.

  4. For you central Indiana folks that don't know what a good pizza is, Aurelio's will take care of that. There are some good pizza places in central Indiana but nothing like this!!!

  5. I am troubled with this whole string of comments as I am not sure anyone pointed out that many of the "high paying" positions have been eliminated identified by asterisks as of fiscal year 2012. That indicates to me that the hospitals are making responsible yet difficult decisions and eliminating heavy paying positions. To make this more problematic, we have created a society of "entitlement" where individuals believe they should receive free services at no cost to them. I have yet to get a house repair done at no cost nor have I taken my car that is out of warranty for repair for free repair expecting the government to pay for it even though it is the second largest investment one makes in their life besides purchasing a home. Yet, we continue to hear verbal and aggressive abuse from the consumer who expects free services and have to reward them as a result of HCAHPS surveys which we have no influence over as it is 3rd party required by CMS. Peel the onion and get to the root of the problem...you will find that society has created the problem and our current political landscape and not the people who were fortunate to lead healthcare in the right direction before becoming distorted. As a side note, I had a friend sit in an ED in Canada for nearly two days prior to being evaluated and then finally...3 months later got a CT of the head. You pay for what you get...

ADVERTISEMENT