- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Link
First, in the past eight years I've only had one overdraft fee, which was kind of only half my fault, and it got reversed.
That said, when it's spelled out as Denninger does, it's hard to see how these are still allowed. I know a smart consumer avoids them--most people reading this post are not hit by them because we are in that category (right?
), but I've read other numbers on this that there are a great many people in the country who regularly hit a few of these per month at the $39 or whatever it is.
Local banks that we actually have our paychecks with and debit cards make a very substantial portion of their money on overdraft fees, ATM fees, and the like.
A nasty statistic:
Banks make $38 billion a year from overdraft fees.
Now let's look at the internals on that statistic:
3/4 of all accounts have not had an overdraft in the last 12 months. This means that one quarter of all accounts are responsible for basically all of this.
Of the remaining quarter, half of those account for nearly all (90th percentile plus) of the overdrafts. This means that roughly 12.5% of consumers are bearing the entire brunt of these fees.
70% of the overdrafts happen at a POS terminal or ATM, not by writing a check.
The last statistic is the clear one: There is no reason whatsoever for anyone to take such a hit. The bank knows before they approve the transaction that the money isn't there in the account.
This is not the same thing as a check, which the bank has no way to warn you about before you write it, as there is no "connection" between your checkbook and their computer.
IF we had honest regulators it would be strictly unlawful for a bank to intentionally approve a debit transaction which it knew you did not have the funds to settle unless you had an established overdraft line of credit (at a reasonable APR.)
In fact, it was not all that long ago, in the 1980s and early 1990s, when this was the case: If you went to the ATM and tried to withdraw $100, but didn't HAVE $100, the transaction would be declined.
Every time.
But then the banks came to realize that if they let the transaction go through they could make an unregulated loan for that $100 to you, charging you $30 or more for the privilege - an annualized interest rate of thousands of percent!
This is clearly-predatory behavior. Nobody with half a brain would knowingly sign up for a "service" that would cover a POS or ATM withdrawal at 5,000% interest, yet that is exactly what nearly every bank in the land will currently do by default when you open a new account. They bury the "disclosure" in their terms and conditions, but nowhere do they state these "fees" in equivalent annual percentage rate terms.
It gets better: Banks will intentionally "sort" transactions from a given day to produce the maximum overdraft fee. They sort withdrawals to debit them largest-amount-first, because the fee is assessed per item. An example:
$1,000 in your account.
You write checks for $20, $50, $100, $1,000 and all are presented on the same business day.
How many checks will hit you with an overdraft fee?
THREE - every time. The bank will re-order the transactions so that the $1,000 check is processed first, guaranteeing that the $20, $50 and $100 checks overdraw, thereby generating three overdraft charges. If they processed the transactions "largest item LAST" you'd generate one overdraft fee - on the $1,000 check.
It gets better.
You have $1,000 in your account.
It is after 2:00 PM, the cut-off for a business day.
You go to the mall and use your debit card four times to buy a $5 Latte, $15 lunch, a $40 pair of pants and $25 for a couple of movie tickets.
The next morning a $1,000 check hits your account.
The bank processes the $1,000 check first, even though in terms of actual presentation time the debit card withdrawals were approved first, and whacks you for four overdraft fees instead of the one legitimate fee on the $1,000 check. That Latte just cost you as much as $45!
This sort of predation is responsible for nearly $40 billion dollars a year in pure "profit" for the banks, it is directed specifically at those who have the least in resource to cover it, and it relies on lack of clear disclosure and intentionally-predatory "sorting rules" to get past what would otherwise result in a howl of protest by consumers and lawmakers alike.
This sort of practice should be absolutely outlawed, and if we had anything approaching an honest Congress and Federal Reserve it would have been years ago.
Say thanks to Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and of course BenDover Bernanke when you're bent over the table and repeatedly violated by the banksters as a consequence of this "little" scam.
After all, its only $40 billion dollars.
First, in the past eight years I've only had one overdraft fee, which was kind of only half my fault, and it got reversed.
That said, when it's spelled out as Denninger does, it's hard to see how these are still allowed. I know a smart consumer avoids them--most people reading this post are not hit by them because we are in that category (right?
Local banks that we actually have our paychecks with and debit cards make a very substantial portion of their money on overdraft fees, ATM fees, and the like.