Connect with us

Business

Overdraft fees would be slashed under new Biden administration rule. What you need to know

Published

on

Overdraft fees would be slashed under new Biden administration rule. What you need to know

If your bank account regularly flirts with negative balances, or you’re just bad at keeping track of your debit card swipes, you’ve probably felt the sting of one of the banking industry’s favorite charges: overdraft fees.

Thanks to a rule finalized Thursday by the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, those fees could drop sharply next year — provided the rule isn’t overturned by Congress or the courts before it goes into effect Oct. 1.

U.S. banks and credit unions opposed the rule, and four of their trade groups filed suit to block it hours after the final rule was announced. One of the groups, the American Bankers Assn., asserted the rule will prompt banks to offer less overdraft protection, which prevents overdrawn checks from bouncing and debit card transactions from being declined.

That protection comes at a price, though, in the form of overdraft fees of about $27 each time a customer withdraws more than their checking account could bear, Bankrate.com reported in August. Last year, according to the CFPB, banks collected about $5.8 billion worth of fees for overdrafts and non-sufficient funds — that is, when a check bounces or a payment is declined.

The CFPB rule is one of several efforts by the Biden administration to attack the estimated $90 billion collected annually in “junk” fees, or hidden charges that have no relation to the costs incurred. Others include a CFPB rule to cut late fees on credit card payments, a Transportation Department rule limiting fees on airline tickets and a Federal Trade Commission proposal taking broad aim at fees charged by ticketing companies, hotels and other service providers.

Advertisement

Under the overdraft rule, large banks and credit unions would have three options when setting fees: They could charge an amount based on the cost of the service, including losses from it; they could charge $5 per overdraft; or they could charge an amount that would generate a profit, but only if they disclosed the interest rate and other terms in advance and sent periodic statements to customers. The third option treats overdraft protection as a form of short-term lending, which technically it is.

Banks and credit unions with $10 billion or less in assets are exempt from the rule.

According to the CFPB, overdraft protection began decades ago as a courtesy that banks offered to customers who had to wait days for paper checks to clear. But as debit cards became more prevalent, banks and credit unions started generating significant profits from those charges. In California, state data show that some credit unions generate more than half their net income from overdraft fees.

A view of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in Washington, D.C., on April 3, 2021.

(Graeme Sloan / Associated Press)

Advertisement

Consumer advocates have been pushing for limits on “predatory” overdraft fees for decades. The fees are coming “overwhelmingly from low-income and a little bit from moderate-income consumers,” who are “by and large living paycheck to paycheck,” said Robert Herrell, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California. “That’s what we find just wholly unacceptable.”

The CFPB has found that less than 10% of consumers pay nearly 80% of the fees, incurring 10 or more charges a year. Since the pandemic began in 2020, though, banks’ revenue from those fees and “non-sufficient funds” charges — incurred when a bank refuses to cover an overdraft — has dropped sharply, partly because of regulators’ scrutiny.

All the same, the bureau estimates that the rule could save consumers up to $5 billion a year, or $225 per household that incurs overdraft fees.

“In practice, overdraft fees have functioned as high-cost credit, so it only makes sense to regulate excessive fees as such,” said Mike Litt, director of the Public Interest Research Group’s consumer campaign. “The CFPB’s rule makes overdraft fees more reasonable and in line with the actual costs to banks.”

Advertisement

The bankers association was not so sanguine, saying the bureau should have held off until the Trump administration takes over. In former President Trump’s first term, his appointees at the CFPB vastly scaled back its rulemaking efforts.

“By taking this action, the Bureau has once again chosen to prioritize demonizing highly regulated and transparent bank fees over its mission to help consumers,” Rob Nichols, president and chief executive of the American Bankers Assn., said in a statement. “This rule, and the government price controls that accompany it, will make it significantly harder for banks to offer this valuable service to their customers, including those who have few other options to cover essential payments.”

Two seated people speak on a stage.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen speaks to American Bankers Assn. President and Chief Executive Rob Nichols on March 21, 2023.

(Manuel Balce Ceneta / Associated Press)

Nichols said Americans have made it clear in surveys that they don’t want overdraft protection to go away. He also argued that the bureau didn’t have the legal authority to cap the price of overdraft fees, adding that the rule “should not be allowed to go into effect.”

Advertisement

Nadine Chabrier, senior policy and litigation counsel at the Center for Responsible Lending, responded that banks can continue offering overdraft protection as a form of credit, but they’ll have to comply with the same rules that apply to other types of credit. According to Chabrier, the new rule keeps pace with the change in overdraft protection as paper checks have been replaced with instant debits.

The lawsuit from the banks and credit unions, which was filed in Mississippi, claims the CFPB exceeded its statutory authority in applying the federal Truth in Lending Act to overdraft protection services. It also argues that several key aspects of the rule are arbitrary and capricious, and asks the court to declare the rule illegal in its entirety.

Another test for the CFPB rule is likely to be from the Republican-controlled Congress. Under the Congressional Review Act, members will have 60 days after the rule is formally submitted to introduce a resolution to disapprove it. The resolution cannot be filibustered, and needs just a simple majority in the House and Senate to pass.

Other protections previously adopted by the CFPB will remain in place regardless of what happens to the new rule. An important one is that consumers must opt in to overdraft protection, so they will know that overdrafts will be allowed — but will carry a fee. Another is guidance issued in 2022 instructing banks not to process debit-card transactions and deposits in an order that would generate unexpected overdrafts.

California lawmakers enacted two measures this year to provide further protection for consumers against overdraft and non-sufficient funds fees. Senate Bill 1075 limits state-chartered banks and credit unions from charging overdraft fees larger than the amount set by the CFPB or $14, whichever is lower. If the CFPB’s rule is blocked, that law will continue to apply to state-chartered institutions.

Advertisement

Another law, Assembly Bill 2017, bars state-chartered banks and credit unions from charging non-sufficient funds fees on debit-card transactions that are declined because the account is overdrawn.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

Nike to Cut 1,400 Jobs as Part of Its Turnaround Plan

Published

on

Nike to Cut 1,400 Jobs as Part of Its Turnaround Plan

Nike is cutting about 1,400 jobs in its operations division, mostly from its technology department, the company said Thursday.

In a note to employees, Venkatesh Alagirisamy, the chief operating officer of Nike, said that management was nearly done reorganizing the business for its turnaround plan, and that the goal was to operate with “more speed, simplicity and precision.”

“This is not a new direction,” Mr. Alagirisamy told employees. “It is the next phase of the work already underway.”

Nike, the world’s largest sportswear company, is trying to recover after missteps led to a prolonged sales slump, in which the brand leaned into lifestyle products and away from performance shoes and apparel. Elliott Hill, the chief executive, has worked to realign the company around sports and speed up product development to create more breakthrough innovations.

In March, Nike told investors that it expected sales to fall this year, with growth in North America offset by poor performance in Asia, where the brand is struggling to rejuvenate sales in China. Executives said at the time that more volatility brought on by the war in the Middle East and rising oil prices might continue to affect its business.

Advertisement

The reorganization has involved cuts across many parts of the organization, including at its headquarters in Beaverton, Ore. Nike slashed some corporate staff last year and eliminated nearly 800 jobs at distribution centers in January.

“You never want to have to go through any sort of layoffs, but to re-center the company, we’re doing some of that,” Mr. Hill said in an interview earlier this year.

Mr. Alagirisamy told employees that Nike was reshaping its technology team and centering employees at its headquarters and a tech center in Bengaluru, India. The layoffs will affect workers across North America, Europe and Asia.

The cuts will also affect staffing in Nike’s factories for Air, the company’s proprietary cushioning system. Employees who work on the supply chain for raw materials will also experience changes as staff is integrated into footwear and apparel teams.

Nike’s Converse brand, which has struggled for years to revive sales, will move some of its engineering resources closer to the factories they support, the company said.

Advertisement

Mr. Alagirisamy said the moves were necessary to optimize Nike’s supply chain, deploy technology faster and bolster relationships with suppliers.

Continue Reading

Business

Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes

Published

on

Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes

A bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to homeowners who take steps to reduce wildfire risk on their property died in the Legislature.

The Senate Insurance Committee on Monday voted down the measure, SB 1076, one of the most ambitious bills spurred by the devastating January 2025 wildfires.

The vote came despite fire victims and others rallying at the state Capitol in support of the measure, authored by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena), whose district includes the Eaton fire zone.

The Insurance Coverage for Fire-Safe Homes Act originally would have required insurers to offer and renew coverage for any home that meets wildfire-safety standards adopted by the insurance commissioner starting Jan. 1, 2028.

Advertisement

It also threatened insurers with a five-year ban from the sale of home or auto insurance if they did not comply, though it allowed for exceptions.

However, faced with strong opposition from the insurance industry, Pérez had agreed to amend the bill so it would have established community-wide pilot projects across the state to better understand the most effective way to limit property and insurance losses from wildfires.

Insurers would have had to offer four years of coverage to homeowners in successful pilot projects.

Denni Ritter, a vice president of the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., told the committee that her trade group opposed the bill.

“While we appreciate the intent behind those conversations, those concepts do not remove our opposition, because they retain the same core flaw — substituting underwriting judgment and solvency safeguards with a statutory mandate to accept risk,” she said.

Advertisement

In voting against the bill Sen. Laura Richardson, (D-San Pedro), said: “Last I heard, in the United States, we don’t require any company to do anything. That’s the difference between capitalism and communism, frankly.”

The remarks against the measure prompted committee Chair Sen. Steve Padilla, (D-Chula Vista), to chastise committee members in opposition.

“I’m a little perturbed, and I’m a little disappointed, because you have someone who is trying to work with industry, who is trying to get facts and data,” he said.

Monday’s vote was the fourth time a bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to so-called “fire hardened” homes failed in the Legislature since 2020, according to an analysis by insurance committee staff.

Fire hardening includes measures such as cutting back brush, installing fire resistant roofs and closing eaves to resist fire embers.

Advertisement

Pérez’s legislation was thought to have a better chance of passage because it followed the most catastrophic wildfires in U.S. history, which damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures and killed 31 people.

The bill was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and Every Fire Survivor’s Network, a community group founded in Altadena after the fires formerly called the Eaton Fire Survivors Network.

But it also had broad support from groups such as the California Apartment Association, the California Nurses Association and California Environmental Voters.

Leading up to the fires, many insurers, citing heightened fire risk, had dropped policyholders in fire-prone neighorhoods. That forced them onto the California FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, which offers limited but costly policies.

A Times analysis found that that in the Palisades and Eaton fire zones, the FAIR Plan’s rolls from 2020 to 2024 nearly doubled from 14,272 to 28,440. Mandating coverage has been seen as a way of reducing FAIR Plan enrollment.

Advertisement

“I’m disappointed this bill died in committee. Fire survivors deserved better,” Pérez said in a statement .

Also failing Monday in the committee was SB 982, a bill authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, (D-San Francisco). It would have authorized California’s attorney general to sue fossil fuel companies to recover losses from climate-induced disasters. It was opposed by the oil and gas industry.

Passing the committee were two other Pérez bills. SB 877 requires insurers to provide more transparency in the claims process. SB 878 imposes a penalty on insurers who don’t make claims payments on time.

Another bill, SB 1301, authored by insurance commissioner candidate Sen. Ben Allen, (D-Pacific Palisades), also passed. It protects policyholders from unexplained and abrupt policy non-renewals.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Published

on

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.

Politicians in Washington and the reporters who cover them have an often adversarial relationship.

But on the last Saturday in April, they gather for an irreverent celebration of press freedom and the First Amendment at the Washington Hilton Hotel: The White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

Hosted by the association, an organization that helps ensure access for media outlets covering the presidency, the dinner attracts Hollywood stars; politicians from both parties; and representatives of more than 100 networks, newspapers, magazines and wire services.

While The Times will have two reporters in the ballroom covering the event, the company no longer buys seats at the party, said Richard W. Stevenson, the Washington bureau chief. The decision goes back almost two decades; the last dinner The Times attended as an organization was in 2007.

Advertisement

“We made a judgment back then that the event had become too celebrity-focused and was undercutting our need to demonstrate to readers that we always seek to maintain a proper distance from the people we cover, many of whom attend as guests,” he said.

It’s a decision, he added, that “we have stuck by through both Republican and Democratic administrations, although we support the work of the White House Correspondents’ Association.”

Susan Wessling, The Times’s Standards editor, said the policy is a product of the organization’s desire to maintain editorial independence.

“We don’t want to leave readers with any questions about our independence and credibility by seeming to be overly friendly with people whose words and actions we need to report on,” she said.

The celebrity mentalist Oz Pearlman is headlining the evening, in lieu of the usual comedy set by the likes of Stephen Colbert and Hasan Minhaj, but all eyes will be on President Trump, who will make his first appearance at the dinner as president.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump has boycotted the event since 2011, when he was the butt of punchlines delivered by President Barack Obama and the talk show host Seth Meyers mocking his hair, his reality TV show and his preoccupation with the “birther” movement.

Last month, though, Mr. Trump, who has a contentious relationship with the media, announced his intention to attend this year’s dinner, where he will speak to a room full of the same reporters he often derides as “enemies of the people.”

Times reporters will be there to document the highs, the lows and the reactions in the room. A reporter for the Styles desk has also been assigned to cover the robust roster of after-parties around Washington.

Some off-duty reporters from The Times will also be present at this late-night circuit, though everyone remains cognizant of their roles, said Patrick Healy, The Times’s assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust.

“If they’re reporting, there’s a notebook or recorder out as usual,” he said. “If they’re not, they’re pros who know they’re always identifiable as Times journalists.”

Advertisement

For most of The Times’s reporters and editors, though, the evening will be experienced from home.

“The rest of us will be able to follow the coverage,” Mr. Stevenson said, “without having to don our tuxes or gowns.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending