Overdraft Fees: Mend ‘Em, Don’t End ‘Em

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

More noodling this morning. I’ve mostly been sleeping since I wrote last night about Bank of America’s decision to end overdraft protection on its debit cards, but I’ve also been thinking about it a bit more. And I remain…..skeptical.

First things first: I’ve been slagging banks for years about their overdraft fees, and now that BofA has boldly eliminated overdraft protection entirely I’m about to slag them for that. Am I just unappeasable?

I don’t think so. Here’s the thing: overdraft programs themselves have never been the problem. They’re a genuine customer convenience. The problem has been the massive abuse of overdraft programs by big banks: high fees, multiple fees per day, reordering of fees, advertising campaigns that encourage customers to think of overdraft protection as a virtual line of credit, etc. So when a BofA executive says, “What our customers kept telling me is ‘just don’t let me spend money that I don’t have,’ ” I don’t believe them. I don’t doubt that some customers are saying that, but it’s vanishingly unlikely that even a majority want overdraft protection to end completely, let alone most of them. What their customers want is fairer overdraft protection, and BofA’s choices weren’t limited to either having overdraft fees or eliminating them entirely. There are lots of good intermediate measures. For example:

  • The law now says that customers have to opt in to overdraft protection. BofA could have simply implemented this.
  • They could give customers the option of opting for overdraft protection only for purchases over a certain amount. This way your major purchases would always go through but you wouldn’t accidentally end up paying $40 for a cup of coffee.
  • They could simply reduce overdraft fees from their current ridiculous level to, say, $5 with a limit of one fee per day. This would still be profitable, would be a genuine customer service, and wouldn’t be transparently exploitive.
  • Even better: they could implement a sliding scale of overdraft fees: say, $2 for purchases up to $20, $5 up to $100, etc.
  • Even better still: they could simply treat overdrafts as high-interest loans. Charge a small administrative fee (a dollar or two) plus 30% interest until the overdraft is paid off.

But BofA didn’t do any of these things.1 They just eliminated overdraft protection entirely even though many of their customers would probably benefit from it. Why?

Well, call me suspicious, but I can’t help but think that they’re hoping for a backlash of some kind. I honestly don’t know what they might have in mind, but it just doesn’t make sense to eliminate overdraft protection entirely. Other alternatives are simpler, better for consumers, and more profitable for Bank of America. Something just doesn’t smell right here.

1The best alternative, of course, would be for consumers to be asked at the point of purchase if they want overdraft protection to kick in. Unfortunately, current technology doesn’t allow that. The card swipers in most retail outlets just don’t have the capability to do this.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly 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