Protection racket

Last updated on: August 6, 2007 at 4:22 pm by Fred Clark

Protection racket 2007-08-06T16:22:42-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Here’s an astonishing figure: $17.5 billion. That’s what banks collect from their customers every year in “overdraft protection” fees.

It sounds so benign — protection — like it’s there to look after your interest, but that’s not how it works. What it means is that your debit card will never again be declined due to insufficient funds. Instead, the bank will cover the difference, subtracting the full amount from your account and charging you $30 more for the service. Miscalculate your balance on a day when you’re running a handful of errands and these fees can snowball. And you may never know until you get your monthly statement. This happens often — $17.5 billion often, to the tune of roughly $58 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. each year.

Some comparison is needed to put that figure into perspective. Banks take $17.5 billion from American wallets each year in overdraft protection fees. That’s more than the annual GDP of Panama (about $17.1 billion). Think movie stars and professional athletes are overpaid? Banks collect more in overdraft protection fees each year than the combined payrolls of the NBA, the NFL and Major League Baseball plus Hollywood’s total U.S. box-office take.

Here’s Eileen Ambrose of The Baltimore Sun:

A few years ago lenders would return a check or deny an electronic transaction if you didn’t have enough money in your account. Now they make an overdraft loan — often without your consent — and charge a hefty fee averaging $34, according to a recent study by the Center for Responsible Lending.

Overdraft loan fees now reach $17.5 billion a year, the study found. That’s $1.7 billion more than the amount borrowed.

The American Bankers Association says overdraft loans help consumers avoid the embarrassment, inconvenience and merchant fees from a bounced check.

This “embarrassment and inconvenience” angle plays a big role in banks’ sales pitch for this $17.5-billion protection racket. Hence the whole sub-genre of TV ads in which we see embarrassed and inconvenienced customers suffering from not having overdraft protection. Those ads usually have a sexual subtext that makes them indistinguishable from Viagra commercials — “You don’t have to be embarrassed about your puny, flaccid account balance. For just $17.5 billion a year …” The idea there, I suppose, is to cultivate a kind of sexual shame that will make customers grateful to pay a $34 fee. Thank you, sir, may I have another?

The banker’s association, Ambrose writes, also notes that consumers ought to be able to avoid such fees, and offers some good advice on how to do so:

It is possible to avoid overdraft loan fees. Banks and credit unions might not always make it easy. The Center for Responsible Lending reveals banking practices that can increase overdrafts. But a diligent consumer can sidestep this quagmire.

One of the first steps is to find out if your financial institution offers an overdraft program, and opt out if it does, said Eric Halperin, director of the Center for Responsible Lending’s Washington office.

Or, see if your lender will allow you link your checking account to a savings account or credit card, said Jean Ann Fox, director of consumer protection for the Consumer Federation of America. This way if you overdraw, the money will be taken from savings or applied to your card. You’ll pay a fee. Plus, you’ll owe interest with the credit card.

“But when you cover an overdraft with your own money instead of the bank’s money, it tends to be somewhat less expensive,” Fox said. For instance, banks typically charge $10 to move money out of savings to checking. “That’s better than $34,” she said.

Here’s more information on the Center for Responsible Lending’s study, “Out of Balance: Consumers pay $17.5 billion per year.”

The center also endorses H.R. 946, Consumer Overdraft Protection Fair Practices Act, which would make it easier for consumers to opt out of overdraft protection schemes, would allow consumers to cancel over-balance transactions rather than triggering the fees, and would “prohibit financial institutions from manipulating the order of check clearing or delaying the posting of deposits to increase customers’ overdraft loan fees.”

That last bit there is somewhat astonishing. The bill would prohibit such practices because, apparently, it is not currently illegal for banks to manipulate the order of check clearing or to delay the posting of deposits to increase overdraft fees. That helps to explain how overdraft protection came to be a $17.5 billion a year racket.

class warfare

Previous Post

August 3, 2007

L.B.: An Inconvenient Sooth

Next Post

August 7, 2007 Pessimistic hope

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How long did it take to rebuild Jerusalem's walls under Nehemiah?

Select your answer to see how you score.

12 months 40 days 7 years 52 days