THE HILL
 

New Fed rule to end overdraft fees for the majority of Americans

By Tony Romm - 11/12/09 12:28 PM ET

The Federal Reserve on Thursday announced new rules that will soon limit the overdraft fees banks can charge their customers.

The new policy, which begins July 1, puts an end to the $25-or-more penalties banks can levy on consumers who spend more than they have. Buyers now will have to consent to those fees before banks can charge them — or they will lose the ability to spend even a penny more than their accounts contain.

“The final overdraft rules represent an important step forward in consumer protection,” the Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said in a statement. “Both new and existing account holders will be able to make informed decisions about whether to sign up for an overdraft service.”

Thursday's news was hardly unexpected: Provisions to change overdraft rules were already part of the financial regulatory reform bills pending in both chambers of Congress.

The idea first gained political momentum after Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) suggested a version of the reform that would limit overdraft fees to just once a month.

The Fed's policy, however, takes that one step further and virtually eliminates all penalties for Americans who consent to the change. But the rule will not apply to checks written for an amount exceeding an account holder's balance.

Consumer groups are still likely to hail the Fed's announcement this week, as they have long fought what they thought were abusive overdraft punishments. But the banks are sure to balk at the rule, as overdraft charges account for billions in revenue they take in every year.

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/67539-fed-rule-to-end-overdraft-fees-for-most-americans

Comments (26)

If it doesn't apply to checks, what good is it? Debit cards? Can you even overdraft a debit card? That would be an easy fix . . . .BY HUH? on 11/12/2009 at 18:23
I say bill the banks - Let the Feds tax at 95 percent ANY charges a bank makes over what it costs them.Thus if an overdraft costs the bank two dollars and they charge forty dollars then the government would get ninety five percent of thirty eight dollars.BY Joe Mostowey on 11/12/2009 at 20:00
Sounds good and I wish it were that simple. Its dems trying to make us feel good. These fees will show up somewhere else. I have to hand it to the Washington who***, they do know how to get votes. It will only cost us more and get worse.BY PL on 11/12/2009 at 20:55
So, now all the responsible people will have to pay for the idiots who overdraw their accounts.BY Joe on 11/12/2009 at 22:07
@Huh? It doesn't apply to checks because it obviously can't. Yes you can overdraft with a debit card no problem, and people do it all the time.@Joe Mostowey That's a really really bad idea, and I'm confident the government isn't allowed to do that sort of thing. Government being able to tax revenue would be a terrible terrible idea, and no just because you took out the cost to the bank doesn't make it profit, that's not how accounting works.@PL You're probably right that banks will find new fees to levy, but part of the result from this will be taking away banks revenue from sources other than loans and investments, which takes away an offset for bad loans/investments, so banks would be encouraged to invest/loan more conservatively, making problems like this less likely.@Joe This statement doesn't really make any sense. If it is more difficult for people to overdraft their accounts it will impact banks less, so even if you were somehow "paying for it" it would be less of a problem with this change. The only way this even kinda makes sense is the idea that banks will make different fees to replace the revenue and apply them to everyone instead of just people who overdraft with their debit cards. If this is the argument, then it was the people who were overdrafting that were "paying" for everyone who didn't overdraft, and now it's simply being spread to everyone. Bottom line is that no one is paying for anyone else in this situation, the bank was simply making it easy for people to overdraft and charging large fees for it, and if the bank tries to make that money back by shifting to some different form of fee, then it is purely on them, not anyone who overdrafts their account.Overall I think this is a pretty good idea as far as banking regulations go, and that's because the fed stepped in and wrote it. If Dodd's plan had gone through it would have horrible consequences for banks because people would have no incentive not to overdraft multiple times, in fact limiting it to only charging once a month would seem to encourage people to overdraft more than once since the penalty is the same. Chris Dodd is a moron and should be put as far away from banking regulation as possible.BY Guy on 11/13/2009 at 03:03
I tried to read the article and was going to recommend it to friends but the f'n ad pop ups made reading the article impossible. Thanks for bringing me the news and not a cash grab scheme. thanks.BY website blows on 11/13/2009 at 07:49
These fees are a courtesy to let people overdraft their accounts, coming from a financial institution standpoint. It's going to be very embarrasing for people at merchants to have their charges declined from a debit card. If you don't have the money, don't try to spend it.BY Superdave on 11/13/2009 at 09:14
Q. Isn't the TARP fund a courtesy to banks for overdrafting and what are the fees. If the banks don't pay fees why should I.BY rob  on 11/13/2009 at 09:53
@Superdave: The issue isn't if you don't have the money, because a lot of times you don't honestly know. The banks pull tricks like paying large online payments earlier than you schedule, they re-order your transactions so they clear largest to smallest instead of chronological order specifically to drive these fees. You end up with somebody paying $40 for a cup of coffee because the bank ran their mortgage payment a day early, held the coffee purchase a day later, and then rammed them through before your paycheck hits, all the while the bank shows a positive balance at the ATM because all these pending transactions don't count against your balance until they clear.BY Andrew on 11/13/2009 at 09:55
I see it working like the old days. If you don't have the money, your card will be denied. If you write a bad check, it will bounce. The banks can still collect bounce fees. Agree with superdave, don't spend money you don't have. Problem solved. But in defense of reason, if you read .15 as .18 and went over 3 cents, I hardly think it's good sport for a bank to screw you. After all, most banks are only in business today thanks to taxpayer bailouts. So who owes whom money here?BY Chuck on 11/13/2009 at 09:57

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

Key Blogs

What they are saying today …
Drudge Report
"Punch will stun West," reads the headline above the fold on Drudge this Tuesday. The line refers to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent, vague promise this week to somehow "punch the arrogance" of the West on February 11. Also above the fold: A slew of weather-related links, including a report from the National Weather Service that predicts more snow for the already buried Capitol.… Read More »
The Huffington Post
"Healthcare theatrics" reads the banner atop The Huffington Post, which links to an AP story on the White House's struggle to bring GOP leaders to the table for a televised healthcare summit. The AP questions whether the event may have any utility outside of immediate personal politics. Below, reporter Sam Stein reports Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) plans to vote against the White House's nominee for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Craig Becker.… Read More »
Red State
Moe Lane this morning summarizes the latest back-and-forth between the White House and congressional GOP leaders over healthcare. The White House wants Republicans to join Democrats for a televised healthcare summit in the coming days, but GOP leaders do not want Democrats' bill to be the basis for those talks. Meanwhile, Brian Darling takes on NYT columnist Paul Krugman's latest piece, in which he rails on the filibuster (and the GOP's use of it). "He is clearly way outside of his area of expertise when talking about Senate procedure, because his analysis is laughable," Darling writes.… Read More »
The Washington Independent
Spencer Ackerman leads The Washington Independent this morning with a post about William Lietzau, a top Obama White House appointee first installed during President George W. Bush's tenure. Lietzau handled the military commissions the Supreme Court later found unconstitutional, and Ackerman reports that he will soon become Deputy Assistant Secretary for Detainee Affairs.Earlier, David Weigel shared Defense Secretary Robert Gates' thoughts on the passing of Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha (D). Noted Gates: "In our dealings over the years, Jack and I did not always agree, but I always respected his candor, and knew that he cared deeply about the men and women of America’s military and intelligence community." … Read More »
AMERICAblog
John Aravosis points out that Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) has dropped most of his unprecedented blanket hold on most of the White House's nominees -- except a few defense posts, which remain tied up as Shelby seeks two lucrative military contracts for his home state. Later, Aravosis reports that the Department of Health and Human Services has opened an investigation into the California Blue Cross health insurance program, following reports that premiums there have increased 39 percent recently.… Read More »
The Corner
News that Iran may have started enriching uranium has prompted The Corner's Mike Potemra to issue the Middle Eastern state a warnining: "It’s not too late for Iran to turn back from such a disastrous course: Even evil regimes — regimes that systematically violate the rights of their own people — have the use of intellect." Also, gues blogger Ralph Reed offers his thoughts on former Gov. Sarah Palin's national political aspirations. Ultimately, he calls her a "bridge" between Tea Party activists and the GOP establishment.… Read More »
Blog Summaries Archive »

Briefing Room Blog Roll

The Hill
ABC News: The Note
AMERICAblog
Barack Obama
Beat The Press
Bill Press
BuzzFlash
Capitol Briefing
Capitol Games
The Caucus (NYT)
Clive Crook
Comments From Left Field
CNN Political Ticker
The Corner (NRO)
Crooks and Liars
The Daily Beast
Daily Caller
Daily Kos
DCCC: The Stakeholder
DNC: Kicking Ass
DSCC: From The Roots
Drudge Report
Eschaton
Extreme Mortman
Ezra Klein
firedoglake
FishbowlDC
The Fix (WashPost)
The Foundry
Gkenn Greenwald
Hendrik Hertzberg
Hillary Clinton
Hot Air
Hotline on Call
Huffington Post
Human Events
Instapundit
James Fallows
John McCain
Judicial Watch: Corruption Chronicles
Kaus Files
Left Coaster
Lefty Blogs
Majority AP
Marc Ambinder
Matt Lewis
Matthew Yglesias
Megan McArdle
Michelle Malkin
Minority Report
The Moderate Voice
MSNBC First Read
MyDD
The Nation
National Review
The New Republic
NewsBusters
Newsmax
The NRCC Blog
NRSC Blog
Open Left
Page (Mark Halperin)
The Plank (TNR)
Political Animal
Political Wire
Politicker
Politico's Ben Smith
Politico's Jonathan Martin
Politico's The Crypt
Power Line
Reason
RedState
Right Wing News
RNC Blog
Ross Douthat
Rush Limbaugh
SCOTUSblog
Senate Guru
The Stump (TNR)
The Swamp (Tribune)
Swampland
Swing State Project
Talk Left
TalkingPointsMemo
TAPPED
Tech Policy Summit
techPresident
TechRepublican
The Right Angle
Think Progress
Top of the Ticket (LA Times)
Townhall
TPMCafe
TPMMuckraker
The Trail (WashPost)
Truthdig
USA Today On Politics
U.S. Chamber of Commerce Blog
VF Daily
Washington Wire (WSJ)
Weekly Standard
Wonkette
Yeas and Nays

Briefing Room Blog Topics

 Blog Summaries »   Technology »
 Day's End Round-Up »   Telecom and IT »
 Energy & Environment »   Trade and Agriculture »
 Midday Blog Roundup »  Lobbying »
 Morning Read »   Administration »
 News »   Campaigns »
  Campaigns »   Civil Rights »
   Administration »   Corporate Governance »
   Civil Rights »   Defense »
   Congressional Campaigns »   Economy & Budget »
   Corporate Governance »   Energy & Environment »
   Defense »   Foreign Policy »
   Economy & Budget »   Healthcare »
   Foreign Policy »   Homeland Security »
   Healthcare »   Immigration »
   Homeland Security »   Labor »
   Immigration »   Lobbyists »
   Labor »   Technology »
   Law and Courts »   Telecom and IT »
   Lobbyists »   Trade and Agriculture »
   Presidential Campaigns »  Other »
   Technology »   Administration »
   Telecom and IT »   Campaigns »
   Trade and Agriculture »   Civil Rights »
  Energy & Environment »   Congressional Campaigns »
  Lawmaker News »   Corporate Governance »
   Administration »   Defense »
   Campaigns »   Economy & Budget »
   Civil Rights »   Energy & Environment »
   Corporate Governance »   Foreign Policy »
   Defense »   Healthcare »
   Economy & Budget »   Homeland Security »
   Energy & Environment »   Immigration »
   Foreign Policy »   Labor »
   Healthcare »   Lobbyists »
   Homeland Security »   Presidential Campaigns »
   Immigration »   Technology »
   Labor »   Telecom and IT »
   Lobbyists »   Trade and Agriculture »
   Technology »  Oversight »
   Telecom and IT »   Administration »
   Trade and Agriculture »   Campaigns »
  Legislation »   Civil Rights »
   Administration »   Corporate Governance »
   Campaigns »   Defense »
   Civil Rights »   Economy & Budget »
   Corporate Governance »   Energy & Environment »
   Defense »   Foreign Policy »
   Economy & Budget »   Healthcare »
   Energy & Environment »   Homeland Security »
   Foreign Policy »   Immigration »
   Healthcare »   Labor »
   Homeland Security »   Lobbyists »
   Immigration »   Technology »
   Labor »   Telecom and IT »
   Lobbyists »   Trade and Agriculture »
You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.