Fed: banks need customer consent on overdraft fees

Same here, but you have to qualify for it at mine (US Bank). Also, it's like .15/day until you've paid it off, so it can add up if you didn't notice you over drafted.

WDH, that is true. But the darn banks charge a fee for that just to have the money transferred from your savings to your checking in order to cover the check amount or debit transaction. It's a no-win situation with these banks. Why should I be charged a fee to have my money transferred from my savings to my checking? Does that make any sense to anyone? Because it sure doesn't make sense to me.

WDH: My bank has a program where if you over draw your checking account they'll transfer money from your savings account to cover it for you

Wow! Which bank is this?

most banks also offer the over-draft protection against your credit card (those transactions could vary as well, but are far less than the overdraft penalties).

nonetheless, this will not solve all overdraft fees. some business (such as gas stations) will not charge the full amount on your debit card. instead, they place a hold on it, and withdraw only $1. then, they'll take the rest of the funds in the next day or two.

for example:

so, it is very possible that you could have $100 in your checking account, you go out to fill up your SUV (costing about $50), and then immediately head to the grocery store, and buy $65 worth of food. the grocery store will not recognize the lack of funds, and allow you to complete the purchase.

thus, although this law is great for the consumer, it does not act as a fail-safe for people who do not know how to manage their money properly.

Bottom line: If you don't want to pay over-draft fees, keep better track of your money and spending!

Jaker,

How does some one know that they only have $100.00 in their checking account and still fill up the old SUV for $50 and buy groceries for another $65 and not expect an overdraft fee on their accounts? Are they that brain dead?

It seems all these folks cheering for the reform have computers or access to one...why are they not aware of the balance in their checking accounts? It take two minutes to check on that balance, which if they are living that close to the edge, then they should be checking every morning.

If you don't want to pay overdraft fees, don't spend more money than you have in your account...simple!

agreed sjayne....

most folks do not know what their balances. only the efficient ones know a ballpark of what their balances.

I can't believe people will sit here and defend this practice. What is so difficult about a bank and debit system denying the transaction?

Nothing is. They used to do it all the time, then greed overtook the notion of customer service and they began taking advantage of those that believed the NSF denial was still a common practice.

It's sickening to me that people feel the banks can charge $35 plus on over drafts that sometimes amount to less than a dollar. Get real, have some empathy and quit blaming the average consumer for predatory banking practices.

sjayne2355

It take two minutes to check on that balance, which if they are living that close to the edge, then they should be checking every morning.

A person cannot depend entirely on what their balance says on the computer or if they go to an ATM to check their balance because if a charge has not hit their account yet it will not be reflected in that balance and people think they have more money than they actually do.

Someone mentioned about gas stations and I think that is ridiculous, they should be able to deduct what you spent not over the amount.

Why is it people blame the bank for their overdrafts??? This "take care of me" crap because I don't feel I should be responsible for my actions and it's always someone elses fault needs to stop. And these people are having children? OMG!

The $1 hold typically occurs when you use a debit card for a credit transaction. If you do a debit, it should appear immediately.

pockets,

How can you not know what is pending...I just don't get it. That is the height of irresponsibility! Don't people keep track of what they spend and either enter it in their checkbook register or in their accounting program? How can you not know?

This is the same irresponsibility that causes homes to be foreclosed and outlandish credit card balances.

You should know what the penalties for over draft are at the time you open your checking account. Banks also send notices of changes to your accounts. If you don't like the terms, go find another bank. Community banks and credit unions are typically more forgiving, but if you fail to maintain a positive balance they dun you!

Take responsiblity, people!

jaker023 wrote:

most folks do not know what their balances. only the efficient ones know a ballpark of what their balances.

I really have no sympathy for people who overdraw their accounts.

Unless one can't add and subtract, it's just not that difficult to keep a checkbook register up to date.

With the possible exception of things like pending direct credits and debits (direct deposits, automatic bill payments, etc.), it really doesn't take rocket science to know precisely the balance in an account.

And, even then, if one has authorized those direct deposits and withdrawals, it's not hard to strike an approximate balance until those transactions clear.

Wow! Which bank is this?

It's locally owned and run. Pretty nice alternative to the big boys.

sjayne2355

Why are you having such a snit.

How can you not know what is pending...I just don't get it.

What I tried to say is one cannot just look at their account online or at an ATM and expect THAT to be the absolute true balance in their account.

The reason I bring this up is I know someone who banked this way, (would go to the ATM do a balance inquiry and assume that's how much money they had in their account) and needless to say they ended overdrawn on their account.

Yes I called them a MORON.

Wow! Which bank is this?

I'm with Wells Fargo and they do it. They charge $10 to transfer from savings to checking to cover an overdraft.

What really chapped my ass was the time that I had seven overdrafts because one transaction was run twice. So that was $35 a pop, plus $10 a pop for each overdraft past the first one. $305. I about had a freakin heart attack when I logged into my mobile banking a few months back and saw that my account was overdrawn by hundreds of dollars. So I matched my ledger up to the online one and found the double transaction. But when I went into the local branch to have it fixed, they told me that they couldn't do anything about it and I would have to call customer service. I did that and was put on infinite hold, so I e mailed them instead. Two days later they gave me back my money and took care of everything.

The only reason I am with them at all is because of my mortgage. And that's all I have with them after that round of BS. My mortgage payments are direct deposited out of my paycheck and the rest of my money is in coffee cans buried under my porch. ;)

I don't understand people who can't balance their accounts. Basic addition and subtraction, right? If you write it all in your register then you should know WTF is going on. My ex was bad about that. He never wrote anything down, wrote checks, and then freaked when they bounced. "But babydoll, the ATM said........." Um, yeah. The ATM can't account for pending transactions. And while the online banking does, it's not accurate either. The best way to avoid problems is to balance your checkbook. It's basic math.

Pockets, your argument in favor of the banks would hold more water if the information systems weren't capable of managing information to the cent as timely as they are. The banks limit information available and controls ALLOWING people to walk into overdraft fees similar to any other type of predatory lending practice, going after people without bottomless pockets.

All this development does is make the banks share information that they've always had. I think overdrafts are eliminated by this because shareholders won't appreciate the banks giving out instant loans otherwise. They've been getting away with predatory lending, no matter how you look at it.

BoA, had a computer program made in the early 90's, that held your checks up to 3 days to get as many in the service as they could and then they cleared the largest down to the smallest to get you you overdraft faster, to insure they get more fees on the smaller transaction...

sick of them huh, I have NEVER banked with them. and NEVER will

Roy-933464

Did I say I was in favor of the banks? What I was saying I'm not in favor of people thinking just because their account says they have a certain amount they should not take it as gospel, they need to keep track of what they are spending, keep a ledger so they will not receive an overdraft charge for money they spent and did not have.

Isn't taking something that is not yours considered stealing? Or because it is a bank they are dealing with then it's okay.

Do I think maybe banks charge excessive amounts for an overdraft, probably but once again when you put your money in the bank at start using the card or check it becomes your responsibilty to follow the rules (which they have given you) or pay the price.

All this development does is make the banks share information that they've always had. I think overdrafts are eliminated by this because shareholders won't appreciate the banks giving out instant loans otherwise. They've been getting away with predatory lending, no matter how you look at it.

Sorry I do not understand that statement. Not sure how charging overdraft fees relates to instant loans.

How can you not know what is pending...I just don't get it. That is the height of irresponsibility! Don't people keep track of what they spend and either enter it in their checkbook register or in their accounting program? How can you not know?

It would be nice if it was simple as that. Case in point, about 10 years ago i used to bank with 5/3rd. I got direct deposit into my checking account, meaning money was pending in my account. I made a purchase the same morning because i knew it was going to be covered. Do you know what they did? They let my purchase go through that day, but held my DIRECT deposit until the next day. I got dinged for a 35$ overdraft fee even though my money and my purchase was pending in my account.

about a month or so later, i went in to deposit cash into my account, that weekend went shopping. Found out monday i had an overdraft charge. Turns out, they didn't deposit the money into my account, they put it in the wrong account. Another 35 bucks. But on top of that they charged 7 bucks a day for each day you are over. So that was another 21 bucks because i didn't find out until monday.

Went in spoke with the bank, they put my money back in, but did not reverse the overdraft charges. In order to do that i had to speak with the manager, who was out of the office until friday. Meanwhile i'm getting charged 7 bucks a day while i wait for her to come in. She gets in and then i had wait to speak to the DISTRICT manager to get my charges reversed.

In the end, after THEIR mistake and weeks of waiting: all they did was split the charges with me. I lost over 150 bucks on a bank error, paid it off and then took my business else where.

Moral of the story: you can sit and balance your budget all you want, but if you get caught at a s'itty bank they WILL screw you.

they cleared the largest down to the smallest to get you you overdraft faster, to insure they get more fees on the smaller transaction...

The larger checks are usually for things like mortgage payments, vehicle payments, etc. Wouldn't you rather have those go through prior to a bunch of $20 lunches? I'd much rather have an overdraft or returned checked on lunch than my mortgage payment.

Oh those evil banks!

Pockets, my computer won't let me quote for some reason, so bear with me. The main point against you implying that overdrafting is stealing is mute because of the manipulation of the information systems by the bank. You "steal" what's profitable for them to have you "steal". If you see my tale below, that's a different scenario to consider as well.

Don't people keep track of what they spend and either enter it in their checkbook register or in their accounting program? How can you not know?

Whether some people realize it or not, there is a LARGE amount of people today who do not have checks, and do not keep a register or accounting program. Therefore, they can't really balance their checkbook if they don't keep it. I'm not saying that is an intelligent way to do business, but it doesn't really matter.

In addition to that, you have some people who have joint accounts, and while one might be a strickler when it comes to finances and keeping track of the accounts, the other may not. My wife isn't very attentive when it comes to things like this, and due to that we've overdrafted my account on one or two occasions. Usually it is an issue of her not remembering when certain things are drafted automatically (such as my gym membership) and things like that, but there are times where she will spend money, forget to tell me, and I'll overdraft thinking I had more money in the account.

I don't have a check register because I don't use checks, but I can (and regularly do) keep track of my money usually within 10 cents. The ONLY time I have ever been thrown off is when my wife spends money and doesn't tell me about it. I've been banking like this for about eight years now, and have never had any issues myself.

There are issues such as gas purchases and such that will show differently from one day to the next. It also depends on when the establishment sends the charge to the bank. If you made a charge on tuesday, by thursday you figure the money has came out of your account. Some cases, you will find establishments that do not send the charge but once a week, so it will be a week or longer for the money to come out.

Just showing a few different reasons why people might overdraft. Of course, you still have those that take advantage of the situation (knowing they have 10 bucks in the account, they go buy two packs of cigarettes and then fill the tank up...) but there will always be loopholes if you know how to find them.

Wow! Which bank is this?

I bank with two banks now, one Huntington, charges 10 bucks a pop for a transfer, the other is my local credit union. There you have an open line of credit with them and they charge you interest when they transfer.

IMHO, they are both scams and i dont participate in either.

zanilth wrote:

My wife isn't very attentive when it comes to things like this, and due to that we've overdrafted my account on one or two occasions. Usually it is an issue of her not remembering when certain things are drafted automatically (such as my gym membership) and things like that, but there are times where she will spend money, forget to tell me, and I'll overdraft thinking I had more money in the account.

I had the issue with a former spouse many years ago.

Separate checking accounts solved the problem.

Banks are entertaining human rights?

Amazing.

I had the issue with a former spouse many years ago.

Separate checking accounts solved the problem.

The sad thing is, we DO have separate checking accounts. I make the money in our relationship, but my bank is USAA, they aren't a 'local branch' type of bank, and my wife doesn't have direct deposit for her work. She needs access to my accounts to bay bills and such (I'm in the military, sometimes we are in the field and such.) So since she has access to my account, and I make more net per check than she does gross a month, she spends out of mine on occasion.

The simple solution for some isn't always possible for others.

Indeed, zanilth, yours is an unusual situation, much more difficult to manage.

zanilth,

USAA has the feature called "Home Deposit"...you wife can have her own account and deposit her pay check via an at home scanner. We use that from Italy and it is a breeze. Look into it and maybe save your marriage!

Thanks for your service!

USAA has the feature called "Home Deposit"...you wife can have her own account and deposit her pay check via an at home scanner. We use that from Italy and it is a breeze. Look into it and maybe save your marriage!

Hrm, I've never heard about that (although I just discovered the credit check program that USAA has, I've been using freecreditreport.com paying 15 a month, and my bank offers the same for 10 bucks cheaper lol.)

Thanks for letting me know! ::goes to his bank website to look up some info::

And thanks for yours as well. :)

Um... Something that's happened to me is just simply adding 2 and 2 and somehow getting 5.

While I'll admit that it's only happened once- and because finances were, indeed that tight- but it's still aggravating to think you've got just enough money in the account only to discover that you've overdrafted by 20 cents....

Which is now $30 dollars.... and is getting hit for more every day that it takes for you to wait out your next paycheck.

And, I know that if it's happened to me, then I cannot be the only one with a story like that so, frankly? I think that anything that keeps banks from taking advantage of people in a situation like that- and making what is already a tenuous situation even worse is a good thing.

Explain to me how the bank took advantage of you when you spent more money than you had at the time (even if it was an honest mistake). When you went to the bank and setup your account, you got a bunch of "reading material", right? In that paperwork was information about what happens when you overdraw your account.

It seems to me that many of you are trying to take advantage of the bank, by borrowing money from them without asking (pretty much stealing from them). And now you are pissed because they charged you for doing so!

Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot. Empathy and compassion are outmoded concepts- particularly having come from prior experience.....

Nevermind....

Please, continue on as you have and may you continue to receive all that which you have put forth....

This is a good rule. Now just add personal responsibility and we may have a winner.

.

Many accounts, nowadays, have more than one card attached to them. So there are multiple people (like a wife and the husband) making withdrawals and deposits. That makes the "checkbook" concept a thing of the past unless you want to call each other and try to do a full two-column reconciliation...

Sorry, even BANKS don't keep reconciling with every transaction, but you expect people with far less fiduciary experience to do such a thing?

Nextly, it's actually impossible to know how much is in your account. You can call the bank but what would you ask of them?

Some say, get the balance? Well, which balance? There's the available balance, but there could be a float affecting liquid availability. Is that float incoming or outgoing?

If you are staying at a hotel, then they could HOLD the deposit on the room. When you check out, that hold doesn't clear right away. Go ahead, ask the hotel, they can prove they cleared the transaction and it's even cleared their account and your bank reflects that. But it's not yet in your account.

So, do you want the available balance, the account balance, a floated balance, or what?

Does your ATM show each type of balance? Mine will show a "balance" of $2600 (well, maybe more) every other Thursday around 1 AM... but I can typically pull out $20-80 of that until 1-4 PM later that day. It still shows the same "balance".

Sorry, but the responsible thing to do is simply have the bank NOT permit the transaction to clear.

If the banks can't give the customers a simple answer as to how much they've got in the account, where there money is right now, why the money I released from my savings into my checking doesn't clear immediately (though it disappears from savings in a bloody flash), then it's clear that BANKS can't even keep track.

Do you know why banks used to close early (around 3-ish PM)? It's because it took that long to do reconciliations, each and every day. Even after banks went digital, they still held on to the "banking hours". In fact, they still base "funds availability" on the "banking hours" principle because keeping track of money isn't something they do entirely "at run", but rather "in batch".

Banks should really be more responsible with handling our money. There is NO reason they can't give a simple answer to "balance" and can't simply do what we, the customer want. Their behaviour is quite simply indefensible, but they will often cite the parochial defense "it's the customer's job to" basically do what the bank is incapable of.

Maybe the bank should tell you how to you can spend your money too since you want them to be responsible to keep track of your daily spending and be your personal accountant. Learn to do the math and keep a ledger on paper or on the computer.

Maybe the government should make it mandatory for everyone to take a class to learn how to keep track of their own money before they can get a credit card of bank account and maybe have a fee (I know they like fees instead of taxes) of like $100. or so.

Code Sculptor, you want banks to be more responsible, with which I agree, yet you make other excuses to shrug off any personal responsibility which is ridiculus. If you have multiple card holders and/or are living so close to a zero balance that one or two mistakes can shove you in the negative, you had better start gathering and cutting up the cards and deal in cash. See comment #2 also.

Although I'm sure some banks are "sneaky", it's up to each consumer to know how much she/he has in the bank.

I remember in high school we had a class in which we learned how to write checks, balance checkbooks, calculate interest on savings, etc. I think it was part of 9th grade "Civics" or something like that.

I'd say if you can't balance a checkbook, you shouldn't have a checking account.

Third, what I am saying is that there is no actual 'balance' to keep track of.

It has nothing to do with math.

Many seem to think that if you deposit 2000 on Monday, and write a check on that next Friday for $750, then that's ok. The problem is, you can't know that the check is really ever there.

If you get a balance on Thursday morning, then even if it says ACCOUNT BALANCE : $2000, then it doesn't mean you've got $2000.

It has nothing to do with math, and all to do with arbitrary bank policies.

Now, if you go to CompUSA and buy a laptop, but they charge you twice, by accident, assuring you they've immediately cleared the second purchase, then they really have. But your bank won't put that money right back -- because they don't have to.

Simple math would, in all of those cases, screw you over, but you seem to agree that such a thing is ok, right?

If you want to make it simple, make it simple.... all banks must immediately post transactions. There is absolutely no excuse in 2009 for any transaction to take more than a millisecond! None.

You give the teller a check for $400 from your uncle and it's endorsed and everything -- should clear before the teller can hand you the receipt - NO exceptions.

If a hotel or rental car company has a reserve deposit, when they clear it, it should not be held by any bank for any period longer than 10 seconds. EVER!

Until that happens, the "simple math" and book-keeping excuse means nothing.

You give the teller a check for $400 from your uncle and it's endorsed and everything -- should clear before the teller can hand you the receipt - NO exceptions.

The problem is, what if your uncle doesn't have $400? Then your bank is out $400, which in turn means that you are going to be out the $400 plus whatever overdraft fees result in your spending of the $400. And it takes days for a bad check to be returned to your bank.

If a hotel or rental car company has a reserve deposit, when they clear it, it should not be held by any bank for any period longer than 10 seconds. EVER!

The problem here is that the rental car companies bank is more than likely not your bank. What if the rental car company didn't have enough money to pay back your deposit? Then the bank is out that deposit, which in turn means that you are going to be out that deposit.... sound familiar?

While I agree that in 2009 with all the technology that is available, banks could do a better job with these types of things. It's just not feasible for EVERY bank to be setup to automatically debit and credit accounts in real-time.

kalashnicovdude I am not a banker. I don't even like bankers.

CodeSculptor, I do see where you are coming from, and am glad there is at least a little cracking down on the predatory practices.

I guess I was reflecting on people I know that share cards, never attempt tp keep up and rarely have the money they know they are putting on their card.

Personally, I have gotten into the habit of almost always paying cash, unless its an emergency and I have to whip out the debit card. I do not and will not own a credit card.

Amen!

KyleN, Every portfolio doesn't look the same. It depends on where you have your money. I personally have a story with overdraft, and I'm by far no welfare case! My bank rolled in on one of my checking accounts AFTER making some adjustments of their own in the form of ATM fees, ATM fee refunds, service charges, etc. A debit transaction ("instant" withdrawal) I made AFTER verifying my balance first (no service adjustments posted) was tagged with an overdraft after they applied service adjustments that night. The service adjustment amounted to $1.25. The overdraft was $25.00. I called them back and said, "you'll be giving that back right away," and they did.

Many people wouldn't have made the call, and that's what they count on. If that's not predatory, then I don't know what is. The same fat cats drawing bonuses from stimulus money are the brains who devised these money making fees for the banks (hence the bonuses). Why are people defending them here?

But why post a $35 charge to my account when they don't honor the transaction?

Then, don't forget the fee from the place where the charge was returned from. I do think this is predatory, if the bank won't cover the charge, they shouldn't charge the fee.

I honestly think having a fee FOR covering the NSF isn't necessarily a bad thing, just maybe not so steep (those who are getting pinged on a regular basis apparently aren't learning anything, so just take a few bucks each time and make your money...)

If the typical American consumer has no money and isn't smart enough to know that then we as a country are doomed.

I think however that the typical American is neither broke nor stupid but that's just me.

Give me a break. I've been charged $35 dollars on a $2 dollar overdraft. It's disgusting. Sure it was my mistake, but I went over by two dollars. I don't ever know the exact figures in my account, I ball park it.

Besides, at the time, I was still under the impression that the debit transaction would have been denied with NSF had I gone over. I was wrong.

I think however that the typical American is neither broke nor stupid but that's just me.

People can be smart and rich and still be bad with money, KyleN. As doomed as we are, we're not allowed to give up on ourselves. Regardless, there is no excuse for this kind of usury.

There are many excuses made for why government should help people too stupid to help themselves. This is an interesting case of government helping people to continue to be stupid and not help themselves.

I would be very surprised if there are many smart rich people who overdraft checking accounts. If you are rich and yet not concerned with your banking then you'll likely have all that money sitting in one fat checking around. If you move it to lots of accounts for investment reasons you probably then know what you are doing. Either way you aren't likely to mess it up.

I would say voting to have the government cover for stupidity is a form of giving up on yourself. How else would you interpret requiring a rule to keep people from abusing your willful negligence? However as I said before, I don't believe this applies to most American's regardless.

If you are rich, that would imply you have a surplus of money which would A. Make the overdraft difficult because you have money and B. Make the fee negligible.

These fees are terribly regressive.

Kyle, I agree with you in many respects to this issue, however, maybe a $5 penalty would make more sense. Or maybe a penalty that is based on the amount or number or times you overdraw.

As it sits, it's usury and only hurts the poorest of citizens.

This is an interesting case of government helping people to continue to be stupid and not help themselves.

KyleN, banks do not charge overdraft fees to educate people, they do it to make money; they have no incentive to encourage financial self-help. The fees people are paying relative to the amount of overcharges the banks cover is completely out-of-proportion, they practically define usury. As stupid as people may be, you can't cure stupid thru punishments.

MTH, that's just it. The banks don't want to help people with their financial problems because there is so much money to be made by people making those mistakes.

More Than Happy, rarely do I come to the defense of banks, but well it is a lesson in itself. Don't want an over-draft fee? Pay attention and don't spend beyond what's in your account.

Yes only governments charge people to educate them, ala tobacco taxes or the new popular sin tax, carbon taxes :)

I'm not saying the banks are doing it out of some weird civic motive, just that the logic behind taxation to modify behavior should hold here as well. If people are burned enough they should learn to avoid the flame. The beauty of a true market system is motives do not have to match in order for outcomes to end up socially good. In this case government will prevent individuals from feeling a real lesson and thus their self destructive behavior can continue. Kinda like giving money to failed businesses but that's another story.

MTH, that's just it. The banks don't want to help people with their financial problems because there is so much money to be made by people making those mistakes.

I'd be willing to bet that the majority of a banks income does not come from overdraft fees. There income comes from people like me that deposit lots of money in the bank, then they can use that money to loan to other people.

If you are rich, that would imply you have a surplus of money which would A. Make the overdraft difficult because you have money and B. Make the fee negligible.

These fees are terribly regressive.

Kyle, I agree with you in many respects to this issue, however, maybe a $5 penalty would make more sense. Or maybe a penalty that is based on the amount or number or times you overdraw.

As it sits, it's usury and only hurts the poorest of citizens.

Most people didn't get rich overnight!

You know how we did it, we lived within our means, saved money, actually knew the balance of our accounts and never spent money before we earned it.

Why business sense does it make for a bank to cover your over spending? Why does a $5 fee or penalty teach you? Nothing, you are going to keep over spending and will forever be poor.

I suppose the next thing you are going to tell me is that they are racist fees and penalties.

It's time for you to grow up and have some personal responsibility for YOUR actions, after all, nobody is forcing you to spend money you don't have!

I'd be willing to bet that the majority of a banks income does not come from overdraft fees. There income comes from people like me that deposit lots of money in the bank, then they can use that money to loan to other people.

$25-$38 billion is fees is the current estimate. With that said, I never said a majority of their money came from such fees. I could careless how much they make on these fees. That's not the point.

It's time for you to grow up and have some personal responsibility for YOUR actions, after all, nobody is forcing you to spend money you don't have!

Is it broken record Thursday?

Why business sense does it make for a bank to cover your over spending? Why does a $5 fee or penalty teach you? Nothing, you are going to keep over spending and will forever be poor.

I'm not asking them to cover my spending. Jesus Christ... They could just deny the transaction, the way they used to. Instead, they allow to overdraw and charge an outrageous fee for "your convenience". Is it really that difficult to understand?

Why does a $5 fee or penalty teach you? Nothing

What does a $25.00 fee teach the person who overdrafts their account on a regular basis? Nothing. Either they aren't good enough with numbers and continually make mistakes or something, or they don't care.

The one time overdrafters aren't really the ones complaining so much about the fee, since they rarely if ever see it. The ones who really should be doing most of the complaining are the ones who pay the fees regularly. For one reason or another, they continue to do it, hence their complaining.

My question is if

Banks earn as much as $25 billion to $38 billion annually from overdraft fees

Where does that go? Into the CEOs pockets, so they are taking from ME to loan to YOU for a few days, then give the money to their BOSS. (The overdraft is usually covered through the total bank balance, effectively charging EVERYONE who has an account there for the overdraft... Sure the money is 'replaced' but the fee goes to the uppers... Thats kinda jacked up, don't you think?) Of course, that last statement goes into very advanced numbers, such as a bank not having enough money on the premesis to cover every account and such, but that is a very simplified version of it.

Is it broken record Thursday?

Well, apparently some people were not taught personal responsibility.

Coming from the Investment Banking Industry..... I will inform all that the money center for profits within the Industry is from Fees! More than 20 years ago, we were all told that although the profits from our service related work did bring in money to the bottom line, the greatest, and the area of growth, was coming from fee based business of the Industry.

That is why fees on mortgage writing, loan origination fees, overdraft fees, transfer fees are the profit to the banks.... When you have thousands of accounts all overdrafting their accounts at one time or another, the fees being processed and made amount to millions upon millions annually.

And yes, there are plenty who use the system as a short term loan, and yes it is bad management of ones money, but it is there, and too easy to use.... so for those who are responsible(one being my fiance) good for them, but there is a vast number of good people out there who for one reason or another are not responsible, and they pay for it.... often those who can least afford to be un-responsible.

So what if someone steals your debit card and overdraws it. Remember, its the consumer's responsibility to defend the non charge.

If you report the theft of a debit card within 48 hours, your loss is limited to $50, much like a stolen credit card.

That might be true, but guess what the money is still out of your account. You may have to wait a long time to get it back.

Steve-485394 said:

Coming from the Investment Banking Industry..... I will inform all that the money center for profits within the Industry is from Fees! More than 20 years ago, we were all told that although the profits from our service related work did bring in money to the bottom line, the greatest, and the area of growth, was coming from fee based business of the Industry.

That is why fees on mortgage writing, loan origination fees, overdraft fees, transfer fees are the profit to the banks.... When you have thousands of accounts all overdrafting their accounts at one time or another, the fees being processed and made amount to millions upon millions annually.

And yes, there are plenty who use the system as a short term loan, and yes it is bad management of ones money, but it is there, and too easy to use.... so for those who are responsible(one being my fiance) good for them, but there is a vast number of good people out there who for one reason or another are not responsible, and they pay for it.... often those who can least afford to be un-responsible.

true. however, don't forget that financial institutions (especially banks) make additional money on float (i.e. the overnight fed funds rate plus a little something extra for cash sitting on their books).

thus, when folks overdraft, the bank has to fork up the difference out of their own pocket, thus the money comes out of their profits. now, granted that a $25 overdraft charge of only $0.20 may seem excessive, but that is just their standard practice even if you overdraft by $5,000.

also granted that float today is very low, but still, with banks, every penny adds up.

And yet these stupid students and pay check to pay check folks continue to over draw their accounts. You would think they would learn after the first time.

The next grip is coming when these same idiots use their debit cards at the gas station or grocery store and it is denied. Just wait, it's coming....

You would think they would learn after the first time.

Yeah, well, they don't; welcome to the real world. Rewards and punishments make up the lowest form of education, and this legalized usury has got to end.

This is a good start, the fee-collecting business has got to be curbed

Tell that to the governmwnt who is getting ready to slam everyone with a FEE for health care or go to jail. Banks aren't the only guilty ones.

When the hell did we ever have those things in the first place?

Sometimes while handling your responsibilities, which may include bills, rent, groceries and other necessities may run you over what you are actually bring in. There have been a few times my mother has overdrawn her account to pay bills and buy food. We do not have luxury items.

LadyLis, I don't want to sound rude but if you take note of your budget and plan ahead, overdrawing should not be an issue. Of course there are exceptions such as life that can make this a bit complicated.

LadyLis -

We do not have luxury items.

Not to be rude, but, do your mother have a cell phone, does she have cable TV, does she have a flat panel tv, how often does she eat out?

Those are things that I would consider to be luxury items.

Beyond those things, how old of a vehicle does she own, how big is her house/apartment?

I agree with AMphoto, take note of your budget and plan ahead. Hell, go to the library and check out Dave Ramsey's books. Go to one of his classes in your area. I'd be willing to bet you'll find money if she budgeted better.

Not to be rude, but, do your mother have a cell phone

FYI, a cellphone can be less expensive than a home phone in many areas, and almost necessary due to mobility issues. Yes, people made due without them 30 years ago, but TODAY, which is the time we live in, they are a necessity to 70% or more of the people who have them. I don't have a home phone, I have a cellphone. My bill is less than what a home phone would cost me, and it IS a necessity as I have a 2 year old daughter that I might need to take an emergency call about, or any one of my Soldiers might need me to go get them from the bar, or any number of other things that I wouldn't be able to do if I didn't have a mobile phone.

OK, fine, I'll rephrase. Does she have both a cell phone and a home phone?

The bigger point is that many people that run paycheck to paycheck or say that they don't make enough money to pay their bills, often have simple luxuries like the things I listed above.

Prophat247

Yes, I'll agree that is the case in some (perhaps most) of the case. However, I do know quite a few people who that isn't the case with. They live paycheck to paycheck, don't have a phone period half of the time (the option is power, phone, or food.... One or more has to go...) Don't have big TVs, new cars, or anything special. My mother is on a fixed income and disabled. She has a phone (necessity, with her medical conditions... whipple procedure, COPD, pancreatic cancer, a few others but that is enough for now) a 1989 car with over 200k miles on it (that needed to be put in a dumpster about five years ago) a TV that was given to her, a laptop that I bought her for a present (she likes casino games, and those are free... she doesn't have internet btw.) I still end up helping her almost every month so she can avoid overdrafting her account. She doesn't eat out at all (can't eat at most places anyway) and doesn't spend 10 bucks a month on herself.

So while you are correct in saying that there are some who DO abuse the system, and have skewed priorities, let us not forget that there ARE some who are unfortunate and really don't have much of anything (as we say it in the south, they don't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of...)

You are right zanilth there are those that are in dire straights. However, many people out there that live paycheck to paycheck do that because of a lack of planning and/or budgeting.

Many people are living paycheck to paycheck because the cost of living has far surpassed the earnings scale! What is this BS oversimplification and lecturing about balancing one's checkbooks. I personally have had numerous overdrafts due to late processing of deposits and margins that were pennies short of my balance and still got levelled with $35 nsf fees. Please, have more consideration for people in dire financial straits who are trying to make ends meet week to week, month to month and still get the shaft because of these wholly unfair policies. Congress isn't changing these laws for no reason. There is a systematic case of abuse and people have had enough. So instead of focusing on the spending habits of poor people, let's look the wrongdoings of rich bankers. Stop defending the banks and start defending the common customer!

Congress isn't changing these laws for no reason

Remember there are elections next year and they want you to vote for them. See how many times they mention this in their vote for me speeches when the time comes.

However, many people out there that live paycheck to paycheck do that because of a lack of planning and/or budgeting.

Also many people either aren't really intelligent enough to fully comprehend the idea behind balancing a checkbook and such. I know it seems a stretch, something that seems so easy that someone would have a problem with. Just remember that just because it is easy for you, doesn't mean it is easy for everyone else.

Someone said earlier that it is responsible for the banks to not draft the overdraft, to deny the charge. I am a consumer, and if I have issues with bouncing my account, the RESPONSIBLE thing for me to do would be to learn better financial habits, but another RESPONSIBLE thing I can do is opt out of the bank covering my overdraft in the first place. That ensures that the bank isn't giving me a 'temporary loan' and that I'm not oweing more money than I have. Wouldn't you consider a person taking steps to ensure they don't overdraft responsible? So if one of those steps is telling the bank that if you don't have the money, don't pay it, why is it a bad thing?

Zanilth,

Why don't I give everyone with problems how to keep up with their money? Here goes...

Get a notebook, divide a page into four columns. Name the columns Date, Where Spent, Amount Spent and Balance.

Start with the most current balance in your account, call the bank and subtract, say $25 - $50 from that balance to be on the safe side. Enter that number under the heading that says Balance.

Now, everyday, collect all the receipts for the money you spent that day and record them in your note book. Every check you write, every ATM withdrawal and all debit purchases. Also enter every automatic withdrawal and deposit on the day that they happen. Don't forget bank service charges if these apply. If you have a joint account, have that person submit all of their receipts as well.

If you do this at the end of every day, you will always know how much money you have. Another side benefit of this practice is suddenly, you know where your money is going and maybe you can make some changes in your life and save some money as well.

My parents taught me this when I was 15 and got my first job. That was over 40 years ago. I have never bounced a check in my life...I still do this every day but now it goes on the computer.

sjayne2355

You know, they have economics class and such in school now where they teach you how to balance a checkbook, or various other ways of how to track finances and such. I went to school (graduated in 2001) with a guy who when it came to anything BUT math and numbers, he was brilliant. If numbers were involved though, he locked up. He had to repeat EVERY math class in high school he took (ended up doing summer school the last two years of high school so he COULD graduate since he had such a problem with anything involving numbers...)

My point is like I have said already... What is simple for one person isn't always simple for another. People take for granted what they do without thinking, and not everyone CAN do that. I can completely disassemble, clean, and reassemble my motorcycle without really any thought. Can you? Sure, it isn't as simple as dealing with numbers, but my point is it is a strength I have, that some might not. The same goes for math, and numbers, which is involved with balancing a checkbook (or even a notebook.)

Oh, and to point out the flaw of your reasoning...

If you do this at the end of every day, you will always know how much money you have.

Sure you will, at the end of each day. That doesn't help you during the day, it doesn't help your spouse during the day, it doesn't help when your spouse loses, forgets or doesn't get a receipt, or any number of things.

There is NOTHING WRONG with a consumer being RESPONSIBLE enough to opt out of overdraft coverage for a fee. Everyone here is making a big deal about people NOT overdrafting. Guess what people, it is GOING TO HAPPEN. There are some people who will NOT change how they are, or cannot. You can preach personal responsibility until you are blue in the face. The Fed recognizes that there are a large amount of people who for one reason or another won't change, and they are trying to protect them, and make it easier for them to recover and NOT continually overdraft.

Alright, Zanilth, and every one else with a problem with my thought process...opt out of the banks overdraft programs (you can already do that with every bank in the country, by the way). But, please, don't expect to not be embarrassed when your check is returned or you are denied use of your debit card by a vendor.

You do know you can still incur overdraft fees if you write checks or a debt clears before a check does? This still will not save you from irresponsibility.

By the way, I can't do a motorcycle, but I am hell with my '67 Mustang...

Also many people either aren't really intelligent enough to fully comprehend the idea behind balancing a checkbook and such. I know it seems a stretch, something that seems so easy that someone would have a problem with. Just remember that just because it is easy for you, doesn't mean it is easy for everyone else.

Ignorance is never an excuse.

Ignorance is never an excuse.

To you maybe, but to those who have never learned, or don't know better, then yes it is something that gives weight.

There is nothing irresponsible about telling the bank that if you try to charge an overdraft, to not honor it. That is actually responsible actions, ensuring that you have a fail-safe just in case.

You do know you can still incur overdraft fees if you write checks or a debt clears before a check does?

Yes, I know that. No one ever said this system would be perfect, just like no one ever said the system that is in place now is perfect. If certain people were capable of learning from their mistakes, then the banks would never have more than one overdraft per account. This obviously isn't the case, therefore people obviously aren't learning from it.

To you maybe, but to those who have never learned, or don't know better, then yes it is something that gives weight.

Still, ignorance is no excuse.

How far do you think you'd get with ignorance in our legal system?

• Sorry judge, I didn't know what the speed limit was.
• Sorry judge, I didn't know that drinking and driving was illegal.
• Sorry judge, I didn't think shooting him in the head would kill him
• Sorry judge, I didn't know that cocaine, crack, marijuana, etc were illegal.

Prophat247

Since we aren't talking about the legal system, your example has no merit. They aren't similar entities, they don't operate the same, and you can't compare them.

You really should quit holding the general public to the standard that you hold yourself. All that accomplishes to you is a headache, and pissed off at most people 24/7. I know, I used to do the same thing. I couldn't figure out exactly why something so easy to do, someone could jack up, or similar. It is pretty simple once you think about it. When it comes to things like this, some people get it, and others just simply don't. You can't penalize ignorance in this aspect and expect it to fix itself, because ignorance is fixed by either education, or removal from the need to know. Since they cannot have money taken from them and someone else put in charge of it, then you educate them. If education doesn't work, then you deal with the ignorance the best you can.

Why is there not a product out there for 10-15% for those of us with good credit?

Because there are so many with bad credit who don't pay at all.....

I realize that but those with good credit should not have to pay the price! There are tiered mortgages, car loans, personal lines of credit, etc. Why not tier credit card programs based upon your application, credit rating and continuing pay record?

Because there are so many with bad credit who don't pay at all.....

Yeah and we know how the honest the FICO score is *rollz eyes*

only in America can your your credit score drop a few points for paying off an account early. lol!

I always thought that if you have a debit card, the transaction will process at midnight....wrong! the overdraft charge will go in automatically even though you have a direct deposit on the same day! what a crock of s**t! No wonder more people are hiding their money in their mattresses now!

Wachovia always tells me "the deposit will be in by 4pm.", if done by noon. Don't trust it. I always prepare to wait 24 hrs and check my balance online before going out for the day. Remember, this was a failed bank. Love many, trust few.

It's always good to go online or call and check your balance, especially on payday if you have direct deposit. There could be times that the money's not there. That happened at my company about four years ago. Direct deposit payday is always on every other Wednesday. But for whatever reason, the deposits didn't post. We had one guy out here go spend hundreds of dollars that day, thinking that he had the money, and he racked up some serious overdraft charges.

I put myself $500 in the hole once, because social security never mailed a "mandatory" survey to the correct address. So when they didnt get a completed survey back, one day they suspended my account without further notice. Never even bothered checking to see if I got their damn survey in the first place! I go to pay bills, thinking my monthly check went in. All of a sudden I'm getting debit charges denied when I went to use an M&T card! Took me 6 months to straighten things out. Of course SSA won't help me get the overdraft amount back. Our government at work, hand in hand with these failed banks.

So what if someone steals your debit card and overdraws it. Remember, its the consumer's responsibility to defend the non charge.

If some one steals my debit card, I would immediately call the bank...why what would you do?

Not even use a debit card, and make sure I have no overdraft protection. Anyone who uses overdraft protection is an idiot. To be financial responsible is not just making sure your check book is sound, but also you have a enough firewalls to prevent access to funds that are not authorized.

Plus the money is out of your account and will take forever to get it back.

Pure NSF denials are the best way to accomplish that.

So Rob, all those homeowners that go Chinese drywalls should suffer in their home, because it was their person responsibility to get a home inspector to make sure the drywall was good.

Personal responsibility does happens, but its impossible to manage when you have all the cards stacked against you.

Only took me a phone call from the bank and the money was replace right away.

I had my ATM card skimmed. Within 2 hours, the thieves had taken over $700 out of my account. The bank called me, I filed a fraud report and they immediately replaced the funds. Piece of cake!

I'd rather have my debit or credit card stolen than cash or God forbid, checks. I never carry either for the simple reason I can immediately stop cards. Can't quite do the same with cash or checks.

I would love to know how the cards are stacked against you. Its simple you have $100 that is all you can spend. Its your responsibility to not spend more than that. Its called being an adult.

I never use a debit card, I have had a credit card stolen twice because I travel in business, but as sjayne stated so well it is our responsbility.

It is simple people if were adults, I get the feeling we have a bunch of people in America that are of age but are not adults.

What is more frightening to me than the lack of personal responsibility that is so apparent in this thread is the overwhelming desire to throw all freedom of choice over to the government. People would rather have the government restrict their choices with regulations that reduces competition than put on their gown up panties and take care of themselves.

I have seen more ridiculous excuses for not knowing the balance in your banking account. How do you not know how much money you have? How do you do that?

A checking account is basically a product you buy from the bank. You sit down with a banker and apply for that account. When you are doing this is the time to ask about terms and fees. If you don't like the terms then go somewhere else. And if you proceed with the account, don't whine when you fail to abide by the terms of the contract.

Take responsibility people! If you don't, then you will always be broke, stupid and bewildered.

First of sjayne the fact you use a debit card shows me out irresponsible you are with your money.

sjayne, there shoud never be a case when you go to civil courts since any wrong done to you is your personal responsibility that you should have prevented.

Amazing how no one argued my Chinese drywall argument.

Obviously i have won this debate.

Obviously i have won this debate.

That's laughable.

Nav,

I don't get your point, I'm sorry. A debit card holds no particular liability, in fact, I believe it is safer than checks.

Your civil court bit is unintelligible, but I think you are trying to say that if I take care to check out what it is I'm getting into, then I should not have any grounds for a legal action. Well, most of the time you would be correct. But, there are times I run into fools who don't take responsibility themselves or breach a contract that I have entered into and may cause me harm. Then, if it can't be resolved without litigation, civil court here I come! Still practicing responsibility....

As to the Chinese dry wall, why wouldn't you get a home inspector to check the drywall? Aren't they inspecting everything else when you purchase a home? And if you contract with a builder, would you not know the source of the drywall they are using? I would, but then that's just me.

So in other sjayne

There is no reason to have civil courts in the US except for maybe divorce court. A tort law is not needed and caveat emptor is the norm. Since its your personal responsibility to make sure the people you deal with are on the up and up. You have no ground to stand on since contract law is void now.

And yes, I do have home inspections, but lets say if its a newly built home with a track home developer. Do you feel comfortable with the fact that most likely the home developer did their due diligence.

Nav,

I'll skip over all the legal stuff, I don't care...

Okay, a newly built home with a track home developer...you bet I'd have a home inspection, if I was borrowing money, the lender would require it in most states. Trust but verify!

And if you contract with a builder, would you not know the source of the drywall they are using? I would, but then that's just me.

Have you dealt with this before? More often than not, contractors will tell you that they got it from Home Depot, or this supplier or that supplier. Are you going to that supplier to find out where they got their products from? Are you going to look at the drywall and find a name before it is installed, and do research on it yourself? I'm sorry, if you say you do those, then I'm calling you a liar.

Zanilth,

Ask for the receipt from the contractor....

It isn't a big problem to check on the quality of drywall. Even if it is installed, just remove a switch plate and look at the stuff. It should be of a certain thickness. If it is soft and crumbles easily, its no good.

You may call me a liar, but at least I am a well informed one....

sjayne2355

I know how to check drywall to see if it is any good. That isn't what we are talking about here. The issue we are talking about is a contractor installs drywall somewhere, you and no one else is going to go ask the contractor who their supplier is, contact that supplier and find out where they got their drywall from, etc.

The point behind this entire example is that no matter what you do, there are always possibilities for something to happen beyond your control.

So you beleive if you spend more money than you have that it should be interest free? wow another entitlement just what we need.

Is it really that hard to be responsible??????? Were allegedly adults, I wonder.

The Federal Reserve really is a piece of work, expand their balance sheet, devalue the dollar by printing money 24/7, and do not worry about being accountable. In May 2009 the Federal Reserve could not account for 9 trillion, that we eventually have to pay but no one is upset about that and our wonderful government rewards them with more power. I guess irresponsibility does pay.

You don't read to well...All I said was the banks advertise...Free Checking but its Not. you have to pay one way or another..But if you have been around their was a time that the FBI went after the mafia for load sharking but today the banks are doing just that..Do you see the FBI Going after them,.. an apple by another name is still an APPLE.

I apologize you are correct. It's just this type of stuff gets my bolld boiling.

I meant blood

how is it making the consumer more responsible?

how is it making the consumer more responsible?

Because if the banks start NOT allowing the overdrafts, then the consumer has no choice but to be more responsible, wouldn't you think? Sure, it isn't the consumer being more responsible per se, it is the bank making sure they are 'responsible', but either way less overdrafts would occur if people opted out of the overdraft cover and charge program.

Read the fine print before you agree...either way the banks will fine another way to make money before you sign the dotted line and it will make the banks another 2bil before the feds can do something about it.

how is it making the consumer more responsible?

IMHO, it is by getting the consumer on the record of a mutual agreement. It is also getting the bank to be more transparent with their agreements.

I have been with my current bank for about 10 years, and believe you me, its been about 5 or 6 times since they've changed their policies regarding overdrafts. This allows the consumer the opportunity to disagree with these changes. Similar thing to the recent credit card legislation that went through.

The Banks speak with a fork tong..I'm not agreeing with anything...Back to Postal Money Orders for me.

OhioGal the bank lives up to their end of the bargin already, if you do not overdraw your account you do not pay fees!!! In this case this is a consumer thus a personal responsibility issue, where the bank basically now cannot charge you for overdrawing your account without your consent. So this is going to cost those of us who do not overdraw their accounts more, because the banks will spread these fees. So it is a responsibility issue, it is your responsbility to not overdraw your account just like it is mine. If you overdraw your account it is your responsbility to pay the overdraft fees, not mine.

kalashnicovdude it is your responsibility to make sure that does not happen. It is simple, you have $100 to spend do not spend more than that!!!! We cannot be that irresponsible out here if we are this country is in big trouble.

You have to be an adult I know it is hard but that what were allegedly supposed to be. I know exactly how much I have all the time, with on-line banking, etc it is not that difficult. I run my own business and have never overdrawn that either. I get tired of hearing its the bank's fault, it's the fault of who people see in the mirror every morning.

People who do not overdraw their accounts should not have to pay for those who do.

When CARD was signed into law what happened? The Credit Card companies did the following.

1) I have a credit score over 800 my interest rate went up 3% even though I pay my bill on time every month.

2) I got hit with a $110 activity fee.

Why? because someone ran their charge cards up and now does not want to pay. That is the Crock!!!

People who do not overdraw their accounts should not have to pay for those who do.

Bitch to the companies about this, not the people.

You know, this is very similar to the argument that having guns available makes people use them to commit crimes. Yes, that is the case, but if those people are going to commit crimes, they will do it with whatever they have available. You aren't going to change the criminal, only the weapon they use... Just like you aren't going to change the people who habitually bounce checks and have NSF fees, only the manner in which they can do it. You having to pay for their mistakes isn't their fault just like you having to bring your dog to the vet when it gets worms. It is GOING to happen, so if you want to fix the problem, don't address the people, address what you CAN fix.

You won't have to pay for John Smith's overdraft if he doesn't overdraft. Which is the easier fix, making it so he can't overdraft as easily, or asking him to take better care of his finances? You choose.

I made the personal decision to own a dog, I did not make a personal decision to let John Smith overdraw his account. This is about people and people dodging their responsibility.

The late great Paul Harvey said it best self-government does not work without self-disclipne and we have lost our self-discipline because its easy and in America we now want to take the easy way out of everything because we feel were entitled to it.

Again, if John Smith overdrafts and the banks has to have his consent to charge him and he doesn't who will pay? You got it those of us who do not overdraft. Come on you cannot beleive that the banks won't pass this off in other fees. To be honest I am tired of paying for my neighbor, what if everyone out here decided to do the same thing we would all be screwed. It is their fault. It is their responsibility to not do it. I should not have to pay nor should you period. How hard is this for people to understand.

You have $100 that is all you can spend!!!!!!

We cannot be that dumb out here we really can't.

Again, if John Smith overdrafts and the banks has to have his consent to charge him and he doesn't

Dude, you are COMPLETELY MISSING THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE CONVERSATION!!!!!

If John Smith DOESN'T give his PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT for charges in an NSF situation, then the bank will DENY PAYMENT, therefore NOT overdrafting his account. Banks CAN deny credit charges, they CAN deny debit charges, and they CAN deny checks. If John Smith opts OUT of the NSF situation, and has 100 in his account. He goes to the gas station and puts 50 in the tank, then goes to the store and spends 65. The 65 is out then, leaving a 44 balance. When the 50 for gas tries to clear, he will not have the balance in his account, and his bank will DENY THE CHARGE. He still has 44 in his account, and now he owes the company he got fuel with 50 bucks PLUS their NSF fee. That is the way it USED to be done, and still is done with paper checks in some places. The business that he overdrafted with deals with him, and the banks don't have to charge ANYONE ANYTHING, because THEY DIDN'T PAY THE DEBIT.

So instead of a $30 over draft fee you are proposing that they pay a $30 deadbeat fee to a collection agency.

So instead of a $30 over draft fee you are proposing that they pay a $30 deadbeat fee to a collection agency.

Would you rather foot the bill? That is the way the program is set up, banks used to operate like this (as early as seven years ago, my first ex found herself in deep water because of this...) In addition to that, there were criminal prosecutions for such actions as habitual overdrafting. With the banks 'footing the bill' more and more here lately (so they can make money) that hasn't been the case so much. If a person wants to ruin their credit, that is on them. This keeps the banks from losing money on overdrafts, keeps customers happy who have accidents (which I'm willing to bet that is the majority of overdrafts anyway, not habitual overdrafters) and also provides more money and more job opportunities by funding collection agencies.

So you foot the bill, or the collection agency. Your pick, although it doesn't matter because that is the rules that have been made now. You don't have to foot the bill, and now neither does the bank.

OhioGal the bank lives up to their end of the bargin already, if you do not overdraw your account you do not pay fees!!!

No they don't. Or do you not read your change in policies when they send them in the mail? When you open you account you agreed to those terms, when the bank changes hands, or even whims, they are allowed to change their terms of agreement without your consent. They are allowed to do so, because there is nothing that has leveled the playing field to keep them from doing so.

In this case this is a consumer thus a personal responsibility issue, where the bank basically now cannot charge you for overdrawing your account without your consent

Pay more attention. The overdraft fees are considered short term loans by the bank. This new law will be an agreement between the lender and lendee to be more transparent as they do with any other loan.

So this is going to cost those of us who do not overdraw their accounts more, because the banks will spread these fees

Apparently . . . you don't know what you are talking about. How is it going to cost you more?

Currently overdraft fees, and other fees, are a profitable, low risk way for the bank to gain revenue. If it is profitable to the bank, that means there is no loss occurred by bank, and no need for other consumers to cover. The simple fact you don't know this speaks volumes.

What this current law does is allows consumers to opt out of overdraft fees, prohibiting the short term loans for those who don't want them. As a person who hasn't had an overdraft fee since i left my last bank nearly 10 years ago, I think its excellent that I get to opt out of a service that i never use.

So it is a responsibility issue, it is your responsbility to not overdraw your account just like it is mine.

I'll said it above but i'll repeat it again. I don't have overdraft fees. I have personally seen a family member get dinged for overdraft fees because his identity got stolen. If he was able to opt out of overdraft fees, then his account would have stopped the minute the perp over spent. During a month long investigation, he struggled to deal with a negative account, when he could have dealt with an account that was at zero. The bank eventually paid him his money back, but not until much later.

If you overdraw your account it is your responsbility to pay the overdraft fees, not mine.

You don't pay for anyone's overdraft fees. my god, this isn't insurance! no one pools their money to cover to cover the NSF of others! lmao!

The idea of people paying others paying for overdrafts is a non-issue if the banks would just decline the transactions...

This is stupid really. Anyone that thinks overdraft fees are reasonable is an idiot. Anyone that thinks people overdrawing their accounts effects them is more unreasonable.

all the personal responsibility people want anarchy.

That's not hardly the case Nav. If a doctor botches a diagnosis, it wasn't your fault. If you have Chinese drywall, it was YOUR fault, you didn't do research on that before YOU purchased it.

There does have to be some form of consumer advocacy, but a consumer advocacy group for people over spending? There is something wrong with that picture, don't you think?

That's not hardly the case Nav. If a doctor botches a diagnosis, it wasn't your fault. If you have Chinese drywall, it was YOUR fault, you didn't do research on that before YOU purchased it.

Why do corporations get a pass? If you hired a contractor to install drywall in your house with the expectation of a job well done, and the stuff falls apart, how is that on the consumer? Why is the financial institution you trust your money with any different than the drywall company? I feel business should make it's money by looking out for it's costumers, not taking them to the cleaner because that customer made a mistake or was not informed in such a way that they understood what they were purchasing.

If you read your mortgage, your health insurance policy or your account contract, the laymen could hardly be expected to understand many of the terms in said document. Are we expected to hire a lawyer to interpret every line of every document we ever sign?

Consumer advocacy has disappeared from many institutions in this country because of greed. The less the people know, the more likely they are to slip up.

That's not hardly the case Nav. If a doctor botches a diagnosis, it wasn't your fault. If you have Chinese drywall, it was YOUR fault, you didn't do research on that before YOU purchased it.

Technically with that same logic it is your fault if you go to a bad doctor.

Why didn't you take the time to research what school your doctor went to, or if s/he had a malpractice suit, or if they are board certified, if they overcharge their patients, etc?

How many people truly know these things about their physician?

We have protective laws in this country for a reason, to keep the playing field leveled. A doctor shouldn't be practicing if they are not up to standard, neither can a company sell drywall that isn't either. You are not responsible if you buy a can and open it up and out pops botulism spores, or if you buy a babyswing for your baby and there is a malfunction in it.

You also can't be a knowledgeable consumer if the research for you bank isn't out there to be researched. Do you remember the Senate hearings on these overdraft practices? The damn bank people couldn't even tell the senators what their OWN practices and regulations were, or how bank changes were enacted, or who is charged what and when, etc.

How can you expect the consumer to research if their bank, itself, is having problems researching its own information!

ohiogal -

Obviously if you choose to go to a bad doctor and they screwed something up, it would be on you. But if you choose to go to a doctor with a good reputation that never made a mistake and they screwed something up on you - it's a little different isn't it.

malpractice suit, or if they are board certified, if they overcharge their patients

All things I check when finding a doctor.

You are not responsible if you buy a can and open it up and out pops botulism spores, or if you buy a babyswing for your baby and there is a malfunction in it.

Obviously.

You also can't be a knowledgeable consumer if the research for you bank isn't out there to be researched. Do you remember the Senate hearings on these overdraft practices? The damn bank people couldn't even tell the senators what their OWN practices and regulations were, or how bank changes were enacted, or who is charged what and when, etc.

How can you expect the consumer to research if their bank, itself, is having problems researching its own information!

I have never done business with a bank that couldn't tell me what the overdraft fees or transfer fees were. Are you honestly saying that you didn't know what the overdraft fees or transfer fees were at your bank? Did you ask your banker those questions?

I'm not defending the banker that testified in the Senate hearings, but in general most CEOs (of large companies) cannot give you specifics on company policies or product or service level pricing. That just isn't their job.

MartinEZ

Why do corporations get a pass? If you hired a contractor to install drywall in your house with the expectation of a job well done, and the stuff falls apart, how is that on the consumer?

People get screwed by contractors all the time. Generally because they don't research the company they are hiring to do the work for them. I've dealt with a lot of contractors over the years, and I never hired one that didn't offer references. I actually called the references and had the contractor take me over there to see there work. There is also this little thing called the Better Business Bureau that fields complaints about businesses.

Why is the financial institution you trust your money with any different than the drywall company?

They shouldn't be, but I still fail to see where the bank took advantage of you or misled you by charging you $30 for overdrawing your checking account!

I feel business should make it's money by looking out for it's costumers, not taking them to the cleaner because that customer made a mistake or was not informed in such a way that they understood what they were purchasing.

If you read your mortgage, your health insurance policy or your account contract, the laymen could hardly be expected to understand many of the terms in said document. Are we expected to hire a lawyer to interpret every line of every document we ever sign?

As a matter of fact, you should always have attorney review your mortgage before you sign it. Most attorneys will do so for less than $500 which is pretty cheap considering the consequences of purchasing a bad house or signing a bad mortgage.

The bottom line is that you SHOULD understand the document before you sign it. To sign it, and then complain about it later when it doesn't suit you simply shows a lack of personal responsibility. If you don't understand how your health insurance works, ask your provider questions. If you don't understand how your bank's fee schedule operates, as them how it works. It seems pretty damn simple to me.

Consumer advocacy has disappeared from many institutions in this country because of greed. The less the people know, the more likely they are to slip up

And who's fault would it be if you didn't ask questions to get the answers to something you don't understand?

Would you blame McDonalds for not telling you how many calories there are in one of their menu items or would you simply ask them how many calories were in it?

I have never done business with a bank that couldn't tell me what the overdraft fees or transfer fees were.

Hosnestly, I lost track the third or fourth time my bank changed their rules. Personally i don't have them, so i truthfully i can't tell you what they are.

But you again like many others, are making a straw man argument. This is not about personal responsibility of the consumer, or researching a product, this is about a law that allows a consumer to opt out of overdraft fees.

What is wrong with the bank and the consumer making a mutual agreement on fees? You have managed to argue everything in the book from doctors to drywall, but why that is a bad idea not so much a peep.

For the several times my bank changed owners, staff, polices, etc, i have stuck to my side of the agreement, but they constantly get to change theirs.

I personally keep my checking and loan accounts at two different banks for that very reason. . I would never tie my checking account to any bank that does a major loan with me. Why? because depending on your bank, are you are locked into that account for the long haul, no matter how many times they decide to change policy on you and you are stuck.

So if they decide to change rules or when you sign with a new bank, again, what is wrong with me or any other consumer getting a choice in the polices they want to engage in?

Prophat247

Well, it sounds like you are the perfect example of frugal personal responsibility. Great for you, are you still waiting on your award from some random entity?

Not everyone IS as responsible as they SHOULD be. Some people weren't raised that way, some people aren't as intelligent as they could (or should) be, and some people just don't care. This new thing allows those who want an extra fail-safe to have it... Whether you keep track of your account or not, @!$%# happens sometimes. This will make it less financially hard when that big pile of @!$%# drops on someone's back. It doesn't hurt you, so why make the big deal about it?

Generally because they don't research the company they are hiring to do the work for them.

So what happens when the GOOD contracting company gets a different supplier, or something beyond them? Is it now YOUR fault that this GOOD company purchased inferior supplies because their NOT SO GOOD purchaser didn't inspect the goods, or the new supplier lied about the quality or such? This isn't quite so cut and dry as you make it seem. There is stuff that goes on that is outside a person's ability to see and prevent.

Not everyone IS as responsible as they SHOULD be. Some people weren't raised that way, some people aren't as intelligent as they could (or should) be, and some people just don't care. This new thing allows those who want an extra fail-safe to have it... Whether you keep track of your account or not, @!$%# happens sometimes. This will make it less financially hard when that big pile of @!$%# drops on someone's back. It doesn't hurt you, so why make the big deal about it?

Yeah, @!$%# happened and YOU OVERDREW YOUR OWN BANK ACCOUNT!

It could financially hurt me and other responsible members of our society. Where or how do you think that the bank is going to make up those fees?

Your argument is tired and weak. I'd rather see the banks help these irresponsible people setup a budget and teach them how to be personally responsible for the finances than any other solution that is out there!

If our society keeps catering to the most irresponsible of people, where are we going to be left?

It wouldn't surprise me if some libs advocate for a single-bank system controlled by the federal government!

Where or how do you think that the bank is going to make up those fees?

If everyone became perfect and no one overdrafted, where or how do you think the bank will make up those fees? Since this isn't an option of "We'll cover you, you choose whether you pay or not" it is a case of "If you choose to pay, we'll cover, but if you choose to NOT pay, we WON'T cover", then your argument has NO MERIT. YOU won't have to pay for an overdraft that John Smith doesn't do because the bank denies the charge. Is that so hard to understand?

You seem to be pretty ample to balance your checkbook, but you can't understand that if John Smith says no charge, that the bank will DENY the transaction? There won't BE an overdraft charge.

You are correct in the aspect that the banks will lose money from NOT collecting fees (even though they aren't losing money from paying anything) therefore charge more so they are still making that much profit. That is the nature of economics and business though, it has nothing to do with people overdrafting their accounts.

Zanilth,

We all know that John Smith is an idiot...he's the guy with $100 in his account and spends over. He will still bonce checks and still get hit with NSF fees. He will still screw it up and cost money for everyone, the vendor that took his worthless check, the bank who has to process it and the people in line who are waiting to check out behind him while he argues with the clerk that his card it good because he has money in the bank!

He will still bonce checks and still get hit with NSF fees.

Yep, but his NSF fee and bounce and such will all be from the vendor, not the bank. It won't cost the bank anything to deny the transaction, and the only way he would be declined at the register is if he didn't have money to cover it anyway. The banks won't cover a static charge that will put you in the negative (which means if you have 50, and try to buy 60 in groceries, the bank will deny...) So there won't be a sudden increase in declinations at the register.

No one has said that John Smith isn't an idiot, and no one has said he isn't causing more issue than he should be. What is common sense is that if people aren't doing the right things now, are getting penalized for it, and still doing the wrong things, then apparently they aren't learning from the mistakes. They are deciding to stop penalizing those who only do it on accident once or twice in their lifetime, as well as to STOP the banks from having to cover the overdraft anyway.

Exactly. Passed experience tells you this will happen...good post

ok, I don't see the problem. What ever happened to balancing your check book and only spending what you have?

And what is wrong with having an extra 'fail safe' just in case something happens, so you don't overdraft and get charged?

The point is that if you know what you have and you never say, " screw it I really, really want that shiny bobble, I'll kite a transaction anyway"....Then you'll never have to worry about paying these fees in the first place......Its a little thing ADULTS call PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!!!!

And what is wrong with having an extra 'fail safe' just in case something happens, so you don't overdraft and get charged

and whats wrong with me having to opt out of overdraft fees?

still not an clear agrument on why this is NOT a good idea.

Zanilth they want to keep aruging the personal responsibility with you because they want to get on a soap box. but this has nothing to do with personal responsibility and everything to do with a mutual agreement between the consumer and the bank!

ohiogal,

You are correct when you say that this issue involves a mutual agreement between you and the bank. The responsible consumer would have known that information when the agreement was made.

See it still comes down to personal responsibility. No soap box needed!

The point is that if you know what you have and you never say, " screw it I really, really want that shiny bobble, I'll kite a transaction anyway"....Then you'll never have to worry about paying these fees in the first place

No, thats false. I filled my bike up, knowing that I had 30 bucks in my account and it took 10 to fill up. I DIDN'T know my wife had spent 25 bucks earlier that day, so when I pulled up to the pump and filled my bike up, it went through, but two days later guess what? I had an overdraft from my gas. I knew what I had, or at least thought I did. This wasn't my issue since my wife didn't bother to tell me, although it has been addressed since.

The point actually is this is a fail-safe measure that customers can either say "Yes, if I overdraft I want you to cover it and charge me a fee" or "No, I won't want you to cover an overdraft if I make it. I won't be charged a fee from the bank, the bank will decline the transaction and I will have to deal with the vendor that the overdraft was to."

and whats wrong with me having to opt out of overdraft fees?

Absolutely nothing.

but this has nothing to do with personal responsibility and everything to do with a mutual agreement between the consumer and the bank!

The actions leading up to the requirement for this to take place are actions of personal responsibility. A person intentionally bouncing a check, or overdrafting their account, is normally their issue that they need to pay more attention. However, instating this requirement to the banks is a way for consumers to take MORE responsibility of their money, just in case.

Yes, I do agree that people just want to hear themselves on a soap box, especially since the two main arguers I've been discussing with seemed to completely lose the concept of the program. I had to put two or three times on here that the bank wouldn't cover the purchase if you overdrafted but opted out. For some reason, Mr. and Mrs. Perfect money thought that the bank would still cover it, and the other account holders would have to pay the NSF fee. It is surprising how someone can preach about something all day long that in all reality has nothing to do with the actual topic.

I know zanith, its like talking to a bunch of parrots. They just repeat the same thing.

No, thats false. I filled my bike up, knowing that I had 30 bucks in my account and it took 10 to fill up. I DIDN'T know my wife had spent 25 bucks earlier that day, so when I pulled up to the pump and filled my bike up, it went through, but two days later guess what? I had an overdraft from my gas. I knew what I had, or at least thought I did. This wasn't my issue since my wife didn't bother to tell me, although it has been addressed since.

OK so using your example, you would still have to pay the $30 fee to somebody. I don't see how this legislation would have changed anything in your example other than who you are going to pay.

See it still comes down to personal responsibility. No soap box needed!

Great! so if i take my personal responsiblity and say thanks, but no thanks, to a service i never use then there is nooooooo problem right?

As far as i see it, the bank is more likely to make an error, or my identity is more likely to be stolen, before i will have an overdraft charge. To me, its a great security measure to ensure that the bank doesn't f'ck up.

This law is a great idea, glad we are in agreement.

The law is fine, but I don't understand the need for a law. Why must we always invite the government in to take care of stuff we can take care of ourselves with a little work and study on our part.

If your bank is making you unhappy, find another bank. Keep doing that until you find a bank or credit union who will treat you as you wish to be treated.

So as you can see, we are not in agreement, but I'll give you the law to protect stupid people from themselves. Or until they bounce the next check....

My point was, if you do not want to pay a fee for over draft, don't over draw your account.

If I ran a bank people would pay a fee for everytime they used over draft. My bank automatically transfers 100 from my savings if I over draw. I am also charged a fee of like $25. Then there is an daily interest rate (like a credit card) for every day it take me to pay it back. I know this because I read the info the bank provided. If I do not want to pay these fees I can have no over draft and the bank will simply deny any charge that would over draw my account.

So the bottom line is, either pay the fee or do not over draw. If your bank does not give you an option...change banks. A law is not necessary to make banks compete. They already do.

The law is fine

no its not.

, but I don't understand the need for a law

I know you don't. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean that no else does.

This has only been debated for years, more seriously since the market crash and the bail outs. Its more serious than just some costumers overdrafting some accounts. If you don't understand that then the best thing to do is to research it, not knee jerk negate it.

Why must we always invite the government in to take care of stuff we can take care of ourselves with a little work and study on our part

Because you have not taken the time to research the situation, you obviously think its something that can be handled locally. I assure you, we have banks with international investors. You are in a global economy, the international market can set the ability for you to do those things. If there are no jobs here, no competitive schools, no fair banks, what are you going to do? You say go somewhere else, but many people don't live in cities with a plethera of banks.

Other country's governments level for them, in these situations, and that funnels all the international- less-than-honest bank investors and not-at-all-honest bank theives our way. After a year, we are only now getting to the point where our gov't is doing what everyone else nipped in the bud.

So as you can see, we are not in agreement,

I know, you were this close to being right.

but I'll give you the law to protect stupid people from themselves. Or until they bounce the next check....

yep. thats what its about, stupid people bouncing checks. I think you are standing on your soap box again. lol!

My point was, if you do not want to pay a fee for over draft, don't over draw your account.

And my point is, why not have the opportunity to opt out of a service you never use. That unregulated part of our accounts is cat nip to identity thieves.

So the bottom line is, either pay the fee or do not over draw

or opt out of it so you never overdraw and don't pay a fee.

Everybody wins!

ohiogal, holy cow. How do people become so needy? There are thousands of banks competeing with eachother. When I became displeased with Keybank, I switched. That is how easy it is. I picked up the phone, called another bank and then set up some accounts. It is even easier now with the internet.

If the bank forces you to take overdraft protection...SWITCH BANKS. Do not ask the government to write a new law to protect you from your self.

Next thing you know people will want the gov write a law saying the utility companies cannot charge late fees unless customer agree to the late fees to begin with...HELLO did you read the little packet you recieved when you agreed to having the account opened? YOU DID AGREE TO IT! If you did not read the term of agreement it is not the banks fault. It is your fault.

Personal Responsibility....GET SOME!

Nick don't you read, its not a service if you don't have the ability to opt out of it.

Trnasferring money from savings to checking in order to cover overdrafts has always been an option. Your choice when you open the checking account. But as usual most people don't read what they sign and want to blame someone else.

Or maybe they read but don't comprehend the implications. Most agreements that people sign are always in major favor of the company. But most people think "that will never happen to me". My friend paid for a rental car because he agreed to fine print terms.

Fine then Rob then there is no reason for you to ever go to civil court, because anything you did wrong is or bad happened to your, its your personal responsibility that it shouldn't have happened.

To make such a blanket statement is the mark of stupidity.

Nav - there are obviously things that are indeed out of your control, that you have NO personal responsibility for. That said, there are however many civil cases that are purely a case of not taking personal responsibility for something.

Take for example, the woman who spilled coffee on her lap in the McDonalds drive through. She sued McDonalds because the coffee was hot, and they "negligence" caused her injuries. How many cups of coffee does McDonalds serve per day without someone spilling on THEMSELVES! Hell, how many cups of coffee are served through a drive-thru window without incident?

Then you can't use the personal responsibility argument, because its too broad of a brush to use.

I can easily beat you on any argument based on using that term. So don't use it.

Nav

Do you really beleive that you have no responsibility when you overdraw your account and that I should have to pay for you doing that? I cannot beleive that.

If you want the government to control your life that is fine I perfer to define my own destiny.

It really is as simple as I have been stating if you have $100 then that is all you can spend if you spend more the only person to blame for anything that happens is you!!!

Oh BTW I am not stupid, I am responsible.

Rob - I guess you and I know who has personal responsibility for their actions, and we know it isn't Nav!

I can easily beat you on any argument based on using that term. So don't use it.

Nav - As a matter of fact, you can't, you haven't been able to beat my argument or Rob's argument based on personal responsibility.

Prophat how difficult is it to see you do not spend more than you have and if you do its your responsibility, the thing that scares me is there are more of Nav's than you and I.

and that I should have to pay for you doing that?

If Nav tries to purchase something that would overdraft his account, and his bank declines the transaction, how do you have to pay for anything?

That is what you (Rob) Prophat and sjayne don't seem to understand. If Nav does not opt into the overdraft fee agreement, then the bank will NOT cover the charge, therefore NOT letting his account become overdraft. The bank does NOT have to honor ANY charge that is applied to your account if it will bring it into a negative balance. So like I said, HOW DO YOU PAY IF A CHARGE IS DECLINED?

Please explain it to me, since you three are so intelligent that you've never overdrafted your accounts?

Zanilth,

If you are only dealing with debit cards, okay, charge declined not NSF fee. But what if you wrote a check for your rent or car payment, go to the corner gas station and fill up your bike. The gas charge is approved because at that moment the rent and car payment haven't cleared, and your wife went to the grocery store and wrote anther check for the purchase. Oh, no, there wasn't quite enough left to cover the car payment! That's my point...

I get it that with a debit card at the point of purchase it can be denied and no harm is done, but most folks don't exclusively use a debit card for all their bank transactions. And if they are not keeping up with their balances, they could still get hit with the NSF fees.

By the way, did you find the Home Deposit site on USAA?

The problem zanith is that the solution is so simple that financially irresponsible people like Prophat and Rob don't understand.

Charge the damn fee if you want, but I will take the fee only if I authorize the LOAN!!!!

First of all Rob,

I am probably more financial responsible then most of the personal responsible mantra riff raff on this message board. The difference is that I know usury fees when I see them and this is a loan that is equivalent of a loan shark.

Furthermore, I have easily beaten you two and I had to barely lift a finger. You two are probably the same type that yell out tort reform will bring down prices. Even though that has proven over and over again that never happens. Its tough to watch two pathetic people who have no clue about the laws of the US.

I have not overdrafted my account because I do not spend more than I have. It is really simple zanith. If you do not spend more thant you have you do not overdraft. I hope you understand that much.

How we will pay is as follows. Wheather you or Nav want to beleive this, it does cost a bank when you overdraft your account. I know that banks are evil institutions but if you overdraft your account basically the bank is giving a loan for free if they pay. So to make it a deterrent to do this they charge a fee. If you opt out of being charged a fee, like the law states how do you think the bank will recover these? By charging more in other fees to people like me who have never overdrafted.

I do not understand how this is so hard for you and Nav to understand. If your irresponsible someone pays normally not the irresponsible one but those who are not.

Nav - anybody that feels that they have spout off about how "financial responsible" they are on some blog, probably isn't that financially responsible.

Rob is correct in his comment in #25.11 above. Can you answer his question or are you just going to engage in more silly name calling?

You know this whole thing is really getting me tired. I beleive in personal responsibility and from what I have seen there are many who do not and blame everyone but themselves for their lives problems. It is never going to change, and I do have a business to run.

I have $1500 in debt because I follow rules and only pay my business expenses every 15th and 30th of a month when we all get paid. I then pay my credit card on time everytime.

I have 5 years of work left and will retire at 55, without any problems.

I own my house mortage free

I pay all my bills there on time everytime

I was able to create 3 jobs this year in a recession

I grew up in poverty and worked my way out of it by working smart and saving

So Nav if you want a challenge I am up for it. You cannot compete with me

Oh, no, there wasn't quite enough left to cover the car payment!

So the check bounces, the bank returns it, and your car note place contacts you letting you know that your check was no good. You bring them a money order for the amount of the payment plus their fee, and bingo, done. Bank isn't out of any money becauce they did not cover the check.

I get it that with a debit card at the point of purchase it can be denied and no harm is done, but most folks don't exclusively use a debit card for all their bank transactions

A pre-approved credit transaction can be declined. If you go to the gas station and hit credit, it runs your debit as a credit card, charging a dollar to your account (to verify the account is active, not to take any money specifically.) Two or three days later, the bank will send it to your bank, and it clears. If you don't have the 30 bucks in your account that the bank charged, then the bank CAN deny the CREDIT transaction.

By the way, did you find the Home Deposit site on USAA?

I honestly haven't even looked yet. I think my wife prefers her bank to be local, so chances are she wouldn't be interested in ditching her account anyway. Plus it is easier for her with it here once I leave, which is in January.

It is really simple zanith. If you do not spend more thant you have you do not overdraft. I hope you understand that much.

Yes, I do understand that. If you have 100 bucks, spending 99 will not get you overdrafted. I've had that understanding since I was able to understand. I've never said that wasn't the case either. :)

it does cost a bank when you overdraft your account.

If they cover the charge (therefore overdrafting your account) then yes, it does cost the bank. However, if they deny the charge (your account isn't overdrafted if they deny the charge) then it doesn't cost them a penny.

If you opt out of being charged a fee, like the law states how do you think the bank will recover these?

They won't have to, because if you opt out, they won't pay the charge that would overdraft your account. No overdraft = no fee, no fee = no need to pay.

I do not understand how this is so hard for you and Nav to understand.

It isn't hard for anyone to understand. I am saying that if you opt out, then the bank will NOT overdraft your account because they will not pay the charge that would bring your account into the negative. ANY charge, whether it be point of sale debit, point of sale credit, timed credit, check, e-check, paypal draft, or any other way of moving money out of your account can be denied if you do not have the full amount in your account to cover it. The bank does NOT have to pay whatever the charge is, thereby NOT overdrafting your account.

You are saying that if the bank DOES cover the charge and your account is now negative, and you don't pay the fee, then other people get charged for that fee. Yes, that is truth, but it isn't the case because the bank WON'T pay the charge to make the account negative.

If your irresponsible someone pays normally not the irresponsible one but those who are not.

If your irresponsibility causes a company to charge you a fee, then you get to pay that. If you don't and they send it to the collections agency, you still get to pay that. If the bank pays the bill that puts your account into the negative and then charges other customers, then that is the BANK being irresponsible. Since I highly doubt many people would stand up for something like that, and it is so common sense to see that (especially since that is the angle that you and prophat are taking) then it stands to reason that instead of charging the other customers and risk losing their business, they will just refuse to pay whatever would put the account in negative. No one loses money but the person who made the charge that will put the account into negative.

Way to go Nick I have not either.

So in reality your son was personally responsible for 1 of them really. The bank was literally being a crook for the first 2.

but my son made a mistake

Repeat over and over until it sinks in. Yes banks take money out for pending transactions they always have. It is the standard practice. This allows the merchant that accepted your credit card to get their money. You see the world is not as nice as you and somepeople would charge all day with no money in the account. So the penalty is stiff. I bet he won't do it again! Some lessons are hard to swallow.

Nick are you stupid, did you actually read the transactions. The bank was over drafting on pending transactions when they didn't need to. They held all the transactions up and then when the amount was over the balance they started overdrafting. That is being a crook literally.

You just don't get it, do you Nav.

Merchants are guaranteed payments by the issuing bank of a debit or credit card. These merchants have to pay a fee to process ANY debit or credit card which they agreed to do when they signed the contract! The reason they are willing to pay that fee is that they know that they are guaranteed to receive the funds if the card is approved. They are guaranteed nothing when somebody pays with a check, unless they run it has an electronic check, and in that case it functions the same as using a debit or credit card.

Oh wow this is rich, so in other words the banks priority to pay the merchant even if I don't have money in my account. Do you know know how stupid that logic is.

Nav that is how it works, no amount of arguing from you is going to change that.

In the example that concerned_mom gave in #26, the bank already guaranteed payment for the transactions. Her son, should have to pay at least one NSF charge, but three of them? The bank in that case is taking advantage of her son, in my opinion. And I would find a different bank if they didn't reverse two of the NSF charges.

Take the example that zanilth gave in #22.5. According to the credit card machines, they both had enough money in the account to cover the charges.

How is ANY of this legislation going to change the outcome of his scenario? Remember, the bank already guaranteed payment to the merchant, so it is too late to deny the charge.

Merchants are guaranteed payments by the issuing bank of a debit or credit card.

So who got paid first? The bank with its overdraft fees or the merchant? Just because something is guaranteed by the bank, it does not make it automatic from the bank. It also matters if you swipe your card debit or credit. These are two different ways the bank pays the merchant.

Basically, the bank made a profit over a transaction that they did not pay yet.

The bank was over drafting on pending transactions when they didn't need to.

Yep. You pretty much summed it up.

concerned_mom-

I don't know where you live or if you have access to other banks, if so, tell your son to run! The same thing happened to me when i was in college, i got dinged a NSF fee on a purchase i made the same day i had a direct deposit pending. Some banks will charge you for a pending transaction purchase, even with money pending in your account.

TG not every bank practices this, your son should seriously move on. Esp. if they are double charging him fees.