Quote of the Day: Overdraft Follies

Here is reason #1 from an OCC letter explaining why it approved a bank’s request to adopt a routine policy of largest-to-smallest check posting:

Projections showing that revenue is likely to increase as a result of adopting a high-to-low order of check posting.

Can’t argue with that! If I have $50 in my checking account, and I buy lunch for $5 followed by a new pair of shoes for $70, I’ll incur an overdraft fee for the shoes. But if the bank posts the shoe purchase first, then my account is immediately overdrawn and lunch triggers a second overdraft fee. Ka-ching!

But why does a bank regulator consider that a reason to favor the practice? Answer: because bank regulators aren’t tasked with caring about consumers, they’re tasked with ensuring bank soundness. And if a bank makes money, that makes it sound. This is why we need an independent CFPA that is tasked with caring about consumers.

And as long as we’re on the topic, here’s reason #4 for allowing banks to post checks and debit card transactions in whichever order is most lucrative:

The Bank states its belief that a high-to-low order of posting is consistent with the majority of its customers’ preferences. The Bank surmises that the intended order, which will result in a customer’s largest bills being paid first, will have the consequence of the customer’s most important bills (such as mortgage payments) being paid first. The Bank thus concludes that a high-to-low order is aligned with the majority of its customers’ priorities and preferences.

This is all via Felix Salmon, who notes that while “surmising” is all well and good, nobody ever bothers to actually ask customers if they prefer this. But it’s even more ludicrous than that. The whole point of overdraft protection is that all your overdrafts get paid. Your largest bills are going to get paid regardless of what order they go in. The only exceptions are the very rare occasions when your cumulative spending goes beyond your overdraft limit and the bank really does have to choose which checks to honor. But the vast, vast bulk of overdrafts are small, so this is rarely a genuine issue and could be easily solved with a phone call. Unfortunately, that would halt the gravy train for the 99% of transactions that don’t go over the limit and are being reordered solely to rip off consumers.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is your bank regulators at work. Any questions?

One More Thing

And it's a big one. Mother Jones is launching a new Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on the corruption that is both the cause and result of the crisis in our democracy.

The more we thought about how Mother Jones can have the most impact right now, the more we realized that so many stories come down to corruption: People with wealth and power putting their interests first—and often getting away with it.

Our goal is to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We're aiming to create a reporting position dedicated to uncovering corruption, build a team, and let them investigate for a year—publishing our stories in a concerted window: a special issue of our magazine, video and podcast series, and a dedicated online portal so they don't get lost in the daily deluge of headlines and breaking news.

We want to go all in, and we've got seed funding to get started—but we're looking to raise $500,000 in donations this spring so we can go even bigger. You can read about why we think this project is what the moment demands and what we hope to accomplish—and if you like how it sounds, please help us go big with a tax-deductible donation today.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate