This post is from GRS Staff Writer Adam Baker. In addition to writing for Get Rich Slowly, Baker blogs over at Man vs. Debt, where he often discusses traveling and the cost of living abroad.
A couple weeks ago, the New York Times featured an article entitled “Overspending on Debit Cards is a Boon for Banks“. While I usually favor personal finance blogs over the larger online media networks (call me partial), this piece was particularly compelling to me. It does an excellent job of shedding light on a topic that is positioned to be the next major debate in our government’s quest for banking reform.
27 billion reasons the banks want you to overdraft
As many other sectors of the banking industry continue to under-perform, debit cards have stepped up to become an essential profit center for banks. Fees associated with overdrafting checking accounts are expected to exceed $27 billion this year. In comparison, the article predicts only $20.5 billion in credit card fees, which is likely to drop even further in the years ahead as recent government reform will require consumers to opt in to over-the-limit charges.
While the majority of the article is fantastic, in spots The New York Times tends to go out of its way to demonize debit cards as compared to credit cards. For example:
According to [a 2008] FDIC study, a $27 overdraft fee that a customer repays in two weeks on a $20 debit purchase would incur an annual percentage rate of 3,520 percent. By contrast, penalty interest rates on credit cards generally run about 30 percent.
The math here is a little foggy. They calculate the APR assuming that the $27 overdraft is based only on the one $20 purchase, while basing the credit card fees on the entire balance on the card. Of course, if you went over the limit on your credit card on a $20 purchase and got charged $27 fee, the percentage would be very similar (usually even more with interest).
Fuzzy math aside, there’s little doubt that the nature of these fees can be steep. The most severe problems tend to be when multiple smaller charges are allowed to pass through and each slapped with the same fee. The resulting chain of fees can quickly add up to hundreds of dollars.
The “benefits” of overdrafting.
The banking industry continues to take the stance that the ability to overdraft is offered as a convenience or a benefit. They claim that allowing you to overdraft could actually prevent you from violating a contract, paying higher interest, or being charged with late-payment fees. In addition, you would avoid the embarrassment or hassle that could come with having your debit card rejected at the point-of-sale. From the New York Times article:
“Everyone should know how much they have in their account and manage their funds well to avoid those fees,” said Scott Talbott, chief lobbyist at the Financial Services Roundtable, an advocacy group for large financial institutions.
I completely agree that the end responsibility rests solely on the consumer. If I overdraft my account, I am the one responsible. We shouldn’t be searching for a scapegoat or shifting the blame.
At the same time, the issue becomes much more complicated when consumers are required to have overdrafting enabled on their accounts. Many are simply wanting the banks to be more clear and upfront with their fees, allow consumers to opt out of the so-called “benefits” of overdrafting, or at least be informed when making a purchase that the account has been overdrafted.
Should the government intervene?
Many point to the recent Credit CARD Act of 2009, which stipulates that consumers will soon have to opt in to allow the limits of their credit cards to be exceeded (and incur the fees). They suggest similar legislation should mandate that consumers be required to opt in to the process of overdrafting. At the very least, they want all banks to offer consumers the opportunity to opt out.
On the flip side, The New York Times provides evidence from economists who suggest that tighter government restrictions could cause a serious ripple effect in the banking industry. For a large percentage of banks, their profit margin is less than the amount they collect in fees related to overdrafts. Any restriction on collecting these fees would force banks to immediately make up this revenue elsewhere, and many have suggested monthly fees on checking accounts would be an inevitable result.
The problem seems to be primarily concentrated within a small percentage of the consumers who take advantage of these products:
Ninety-three percent of all overdraft charges come from 14 percent of bank customers who exceeded their balances five times or more in a year, the FDIC found in its survey.
Should the 86% of consumers that use debit and checking products responsibly pay monthly checking fees to support the individuals who struggle? Should we allow the banks to prey on the 14% who are struggling to handle their accounts responsibly, so that we can obtain the benefits of these products for free? Obviously, there is no simple answer.
Scummy banking practices
The New York Times article also details the practice of banks reordering transactions in situations when an overdraft occurs. For example, many banks will change the order of purchases to prioritize the largest transactions. The banks claim that many consumers would rather their larger bills, such as car, house, or utility payments, be paid first. However, there are ample cases in which tacking the smallest charges on last dramatically increases the number of overdraft charges. In fact, this practice actually maximizes the amount of fees the banks can collect.
In addition, last week The New York Times ran a follow-up article, “Hurry Up and Credit My Account“. This latest piece details the current regulations on how long and how often banks can hold your incoming deposits. Many accuse the larger institutions of taking advantages of loopholes to hold back deposits longer, thereby increasing the potential for overdraft fees.
In the two specific cases above, I have no problem with government intervention. I would support legislation that required banks to process all expenses in the order they were received (for better or worse) and required increased transparency and consistency on the placement of holds for incoming deposits.
Is debit the new credit?
I continue to return to one thing in this discussion. For me, once debit cards enable you to spend more than is available in your checking account, they become credit cards. It’s really that simple, right? What happened to actual debit cards along the way?
Here in New Zealand, I have a true debit card. There is no Visa or Mastercard logo. I can’t use it for online purchases. However, it is accepted at all point-of-sale vendors (and ATMs). What happens if I try to charge something for which no funds exist? It’s rejected! Gasp!
I find the debit card situation here refreshing — both in theory and practice. What about you? What do you think about overdraft fees being such an essential profit-center for banks? Is this another industry where you would support government intervention? Share your thoughts below!
This article is about Credit Cards, News
SEARCH FOR RECENT ARTICLES




I don’t agree with the comments that place all the blame on “personal responsibility”. I consider myself very aware of my finances and very conscientious. I don’t overspend and I budget. However, I have been charged overdraft fees before.
I usually get paid on a Thursday and so on Wednesday night I transfer all but a few dollars of any unspent money into a separate “rainy day” savings account (I also “pay myself first” the day I get paid to my main savings account). However, on this particular Thursday my office manager was sick and so put my salary payment through on Friday (I was not aware of this at the time). As Monday was a public holiday the payment didn’t appear in my account until Wednesday (it takes 2 business days to appear). My rent automatically comes out on Tuesdays.
I was charged a $50 overdraft to save me the “inconvenience” of not paying my rent on time. However, if my rent doesn’t get paid on time all I get is an email or SMS from my real estate agent about a week later with a friendly reminder – not a $50 charge (or eviction). In this situation I would have much rather had the transaction queued until sufficient finds were in my account than be charged $50 – the $50 fee was very “inconvenient”.
Even if I was not a responsible person I would still feel that overdraft fees were wrong. I think that using a debit (as opposed to credit) card is already the responsible thing to do. If I choose a payment type where I have elected my own money I expect to only have access to my own money. I shouldn’t have to track every penny I spend. I have an expectation that when my funds run out my transaction is declined – that is exactly how I would like it – just as though I opened my purse and realised that I didn’t have enough cash to make a purchase.
loading....
“On the subject of legislation – as expected the gov’t has, continues to, and always will screw it up. Credit, debit – what’s the difference…. to retailers, or banks?”
Here is an explanation of why it makes a huge difference to the banks and retailers which you choose:
http://banking.about.com/od/checkingaccounts/a/debitvscredit.htm
What is really old is blaming government for decisions because, after listening to testimony from all points of view, they didn’t make the decision we would make without that input and understanding.
Elected officials may make bad decisions because they are venal, giving enormous weight to the interests and concerns of the rich and powerful people who help get them elected. But they generally do that with open eyes, not because they are all stupid. When they do something truly stupid, its usually because they are all following public opinion instead of making an informed decision on the merits.
loading....
I found out about this when trying to get a debit card for my step-daughter. We wanted to setup a bank account for her to help her learn about managing her money. However, they wouldn’t refuse a debit card transaction if she’d run out of money. The only options were to run up overdraft fees or they would helpfully transfer the funds from one of my accounts, defeating the whole purpose.
And this was a credit union! The bank that we had before was even worse.
loading....
“I continue to return to one thing in this discussion. For me, once debit cards enable you to spend more than is available in your checking account, they become credit cards. It’s really that simple, right? What happened to actual debit cards along the way?
Here in New Zealand, I have a true debit card. There is no Visa or Mastercard logo. I can’t use it for online purchases. However, it is accepted at all point-of-sale vendors (and ATMs). What happens if I try to charge something for which no funds exist? It’s rejected! Gasp!”
This is how debit cards work in Canada too. I really don’t understand how the practices in the USA started, with debit cards having the MC/Visa logo. WTF? Mine is just my bank card. I can use it at an ATM and in a store. I can’t use it online*, and I can’t take out any money that I don’t have in the account unless I opt-in for overdraft protection.
I did need the overdraft protection while I was in school, because you can’t not eat and you can’t not pay rent, but it sucked and I killed it as soon as I was able to.
I also approved of the system of charging the largest debits first. I would have been totally screwed if my rent cheque bounced because I bought a bag of milk first, but if the rent came out first I could just wait a couple of days for the milk and drink water instead. That said, it never happened to me where there were multiple overdrafts at any one time. I was stone broke, but I was as careful as I could be.
*= Ok, so you can use debit cards online in Canada, but only with Canadian merchants that accept Interac Online (Interac is the Canadian debit system) and even then, funds only get transferred if they are in your account.
loading....
Slightly related to this topic…
Banks will indeed try to get you to spend in fees, or lose in interest. For instance, in my bank, when I transfer money from my chequing account to my saving account, the money is taken away right away, but put in the other account after a few days.
If you do a transfer between two accounts with interest, your money gets no interest whatsoever in that time period. It’s on neither of your accounts.
It might sound like nothing, but if it’s a big chunk of money and your interest is calculated daily (or, worse, monthly, but on that specific day), you lose interest money.
loading....
Normally, I would be all for banks being able to do business as they please and it staying the responsibility of the consumer not to go over.
The problem we’re facing now, though, is that it is almost impossible to do anything in the modern world without some kind of electronic money system. Some local utilities have places I can go and pay my bills with cash in person, but that’s not always convenient or possible. I could never pay something like my Apple Credit account with cash because there’s no where to go to do it and I can’t send cash in the mail. That leaves paying money for a money order or having a checking account.
Either an option needs to exist for people to make electronic payments for free, or all financial entities need to offer their customers the ability to pay locally in person with cash, or assign a vendor to accept cash on their behalf without fee.
People should not have to spend additional money just to pay their bills.
loading....
“Should the 86% of consumers that use debit and checking products responsibly pay monthly checking fees to support the individuals who struggle?”
While I enjoyed the post overall, I found the quoted line horrifying. Let it be clear that the 86% of people will NOT be paying monthly checking fees to support individuals who struggle. They will be paying them so that the bank can pay their bills (paychecks, rent, etc). The 14% of customers have been victimized by the banks for years, but that doesn’t mean that the other 86% is in some way going to be supporting them.
loading....
Though furious about the bank’s nastry practice, I have to say that the banks do not put a gun to anyone’s head when he brings business to a different bank.
At the same time, the Roundtable consultant mentioned in the NYT article is a scumback to say the it is avoid embarrassing a bank’s customer. Well then, give them a choice to opt out. I value embarrassment much less than a overdraft protection fee!!!
loading....
I don’t understand the whole Debit Card thing to begin with. I fought with my bank to retain my old ATM card. I use a credit to pay for everything and get the rebate, then pay off the card each month. If someone was to compare the the two forms of payment (credit vs. debit) I cna not believe they would use anything but the credit card. it takes the same amount of self control to pay off the credit card as it does to not over draft the debit card. I also believe my protection is better with a credit card.
BTW I only write two checks a month also (one to church and the other for a business expense).
loading....
“The 14% of customers have been victimized by the banks for years, but that doesn’t mean that the other 86% is in some way going to be supporting them.”
I agree, but lets be clear that many of the 86% are being victimized as well. If you looked at how many bank customers ever pay a fee, the percentage would be much higher than 14%. That 14%-86% construction was carefully drawn, and probably tested based in focus groups, to elicit the response “why should I pay for those suckers’ mistake” and oppose regulation to end the practice. Its not an accident that some people are responding that way.
loading....
“Any restriction on collecting these fees would force banks to immediately make up this revenue elsewhere, and many have suggested monthly fees on checking accounts would be an inevitable result.”
Or they can trim the fat internally?
loading....
Again, I’ve probably had one or two overdraft fees in 36 years so I think I can safely consider myself a “responsible person”. And I do believe that banks should charge overdraft fees to prevent people from being irresponsible. But sometimes people make mistakes or are just plain foolish. Does this mean that banks should order the checks in such a way as to get multiple bank charges rather than one? Banks made a huge amount of money from fees. It is in their interest (or has been until very, very recently) to maximize fees. Shouldn’t the government regulate the fees? I can see high fees if they were meant to be a deterrent, but the fact that customers have to opt out of overdraft protection says that overdraft fees are an enticement. So is the fee reasonable – ie. connected to the amount of time that the bank spends on resubmitting (electronically) a bounced check? Apparently the $39.00 fee that Bk of America was more than reasonable because B of A was able to lower it just last week. Also, when an industry leader puts up fees, other banks usually follow & so it is easier said than done to switch banks. I’m old enough to remember when banks didn’t allow overdrafting. I am for individuals being responsible & for banks being responsible corporate citizens.
loading....
I agree with the concept that banks are in business to make money. If I overdraft my account, then yes, they should turn a profit, backing me on that. It is a short term high interest loan, in effect.
I disagree with reordering.
One instance comes to mind. I over drew my account by eight cents. It was a clerical error on my part. I screwed up. Pay the price and move on. But the bank reordered things.
There was one large, and several small charges to my account that I made. If they had been taken in the order they were made, I would have been charged $35, for one over draft. The way my bank reordered things, I was charged $350.
If I tried that sort of thing, I would be in jail. It’s criminal action, and needs to be held as a criminal action.
loading....
The comments so far seem to be centred around personal responsibility vs government intervention. But, I have a different take on the problem. The psychological aspects of having a large overdraft.
An overdraft is a loan, it is money you don’t have, and it must be paid back. No mater what you call it. If you’re living paycheck to paycheck, as my fiance currently has to do through circumstances that are not entirely his fault then it is quite insidious.
To me this is worse than a credit card. If you decide that clearing your credit card debt is a primary goal then you can cut up your credit card, you can decide on a regular amount to pay on the balance and refuse to put more on it so you can balance the expenses in your life.
An overdraft is a big money hole that you pour your salary into and so you have a reduced chance of knowing how you’re tracking against it until the next pay period. Psychologically this is much, much more difficult. It can easily become all or nothing in terms of restriction of spending, leading to a cycle of “I must’nt spend anything, it’ll affect my overdraft balance” “oh, I’m still behind, screw it I might as well buy that thing I’ve been denying myself”. Too easy to spend, not enough control, utter madness!
I know there are ways to get around this, and we’re working on them. But it is the difference in psychology in paying off the overdraft that strikes me as the biggest issue here.
Overall, thanks for the interesting article. It finally inspired me to write a blog article on the differences between banking practices in Australia and England that’s beenkicking around in my head.
I’ve recently immigrated to the UK and debit cards are standard here, they come with the account, you don’t get asked, they just are. The article is here if you want to read it: http://verdarun.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/things-that-are-weird-3-banks/
loading....
We have opted out of overdraft protection at our credit union. I think I can handle getting “declined” if it ever happens (sometimes I’m spotty on my meager allowance account balance.)
loading....
I see both sides of the debit card issue. A great article on this is one you can look up called “Why you should never own a debit card”
Yes, there are a lot of tactics that banks use to get people to overdraft. I realize that it is a person’s responsibility to keep track, but that doesn’t make what the banks are doing ethical.
Drug dealers can’t get out of going to jail by saying that “People should know better than to smoke”
Now if the government intervenes on everything else and forces people to do things “for their own safety” then the question must be asked… Why don’t they ever mess with the banks?
loading....
I can admit that I screwed up. I always use debit, not the credit button because supposedly those come out immediately. I ended up with about $400 in overdraft fees when my bank put through a large amount 75 dollars first, even though it was actually the last thing I purchased. I had $1,$6, 8$, $3, 5$, &9, &$2 dollar purchases. Which one did they put first, the $75 dollar one. I even showed them the time receipts and said this purchase was a whole day later how is it first. They said that it all depends on how the store sends them in. I can admit my mistake, but God, to reorder is ridiculous. So now, I just let my paycheck go in, and then, pull all of money out. They won’t draw a dime of interest off my money anymore.
loading....
Debit cards are issued by banks to allow them to track what you spend your money on. They are inherently evil. Banks are not in business to help you, but rather to ROB you. Cash is king, more so now than ever.
loading....