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.

Business

Ties between California and Venezuela go back more than a century with Chevron

Published

on

Ties between California and Venezuela go back more than a century with Chevron

As a stunned world processes the U.S. government’s sudden intervention in Venezuela — debating its legality, guessing who the ultimate winners and losers will be — a company founded in California with deep ties to the Golden State could be among the prime beneficiaries.

Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves on the planet. Chevron, the international petroleum conglomerate with a massive refinery in El Segundo and headquartered, until recently, in San Ramon, is the only foreign oil company that has continued operating there through decades of revolution.

Other major oil companies, including ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil, pulled out of Venezuela in 2007 when then-President Hugo Chávez required them to surrender majority ownership of their operations to the country’s state-controlled oil company, PDVSA.

But Chevron remained, playing the “long game,” according to industry analysts, hoping to someday resume reaping big profits from the investments the company started making there almost a century ago.

Looks like that bet might finally pay off.

Advertisement

In his news conference Saturday, after U.S. Special Forces snatched Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in Caracas and extradited them to face drug-trafficking charges in New York, President Trump said the U.S. would “run” Venezuela and open more of its massive oil reserves to American corporations.

“We’re going to have our very large U.S. oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country,” Trump said during a news conference Saturday.

While oil industry analysts temper expectations by warning it could take years to start extracting significant profits given Venezuela’s long-neglected, dilapidated infrastructure, and everyday Venezuelans worry about the proceeds flowing out of the country and into the pockets of U.S. investors, there’s one group who could be forgiven for jumping with unreserved joy: Chevron insiders who championed the decision to remain in Venezuela all these years.

But the company’s official response to the stunning turn of events has been poker-faced.

“Chevron remains focused on the safety and well-being of our employees, as well as the integrity of our assets,” spokesman Bill Turenne emailed The Times on Sunday, the same statement the company sent to news outlets all weekend. “We continue to operate in full compliance with all relevant laws and regulations.”

Advertisement

Turenne did not respond to questions about the possible financial rewards for the company stemming from this weekend’s U.S. military action.

Chevron, which is a direct descendant of a small oil company founded in Southern California in the 1870s, has grown into a $300-billion global corporation. It was headquartered in San Ramon, just outside of San Francisco, until executives announced in August 2024 that they were fleeing high-cost California for Houston.

Texas’ relatively low taxes and light regulation have been a beacon for many California companies, and most of Chevron’s competitors are based there.

Chevron began exploring in Venezuela in the early 1920s, according to the company’s website, and ramped up operations after discovering the massive Boscan oil field in the 1940s. Over the decades, it grew into Venezuela’s largest foreign investor.

The company held on over the decades as Venezuela’s government moved steadily to the left; it began to nationalize the oil industry by creating a state-owned petroleum company in 1976, and then demanded majority ownership of foreign oil assets in 2007, under then-President Hugo Chávez.

Advertisement

Venezuela has the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves — meaning they’re economical to tap — about 303 billion barrels, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

But even with those massive reserves, Venezuela has been producing less than 1% of the world’s crude oil supply. Production has steadily declined from the 3.5 million barrels per day pumped in 1999 to just over 1 million barrels per day now.

Currently, Chevron’s operations in Venezuela employ about 3,000 people and produce between 250,000 and 300,000 barrels of oil per day, according to published reports.

That’s less than 10% of the roughly 3 million barrels the company produces from holdings scattered across the globe, from the Gulf of Mexico to Kazakhstan and Australia.

But some analysts are optimistic that Venezuela could double or triple its current output relatively quickly — which could lead to a windfall for Chevron.

Advertisement

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Business

‘Stranger Things’ finale turns box office downside up pulling in an estimated $25 million

Published

on

‘Stranger Things’ finale turns box office downside up pulling in an estimated  million

The finale of Netflix’s blockbuster series “Stranger Things” gave movie theaters a much needed jolt, generating an estimated $20 to $25 million at the box office, according to multiple reports.

Matt and Ross Duffer’s supernatural thriller debuted simultaneously on the streaming platform and some 600 cinemas on New Year’s Eve and held encore showings all through New Year’s Day.

Owing to the cast’s contractual terms for residuals, theaters could not charge for tickets. Instead, fans reserved seats for performances directly from theaters, paying for mandatory food and beverage vouchers. AMC and Cinemark Theatres charged $20 for the concession vouchers while Regal Cinemas charged $11 — in homage to the show’s lead character, Eleven, played by Millie Bobby Brown.

AMC Theatres, the world’s largest theater chain, played the finale at 231 of its theaters across the U.S. — which accounted for one-third of all theaters that held screenings over the holiday.

The chain said that more than 753,000 viewers attended a performance at one of its cinemas over two days, bringing in more than $15 million.

Advertisement

Expectations for the theater showing was high.

“Our year ends on a high: Netflix’s Strangers Things series finale to show in many AMC theatres this week. Two days only New Year’s Eve and Jan 1.,” tweeted AMC’s CEO Adam Aron on Dec. 30. “Theatres are packed. Many sellouts but seats still available. How many Stranger Things tickets do you think AMC will sell?”

It was a rare win for the lagging domestic box office.

In 2025, revenue in the U.S. and Canada was expected to reach $8.87 billion, which was marginally better than 2024 and only 20% more than pre-pandemic levels, according to movie data firm Comscore.

With few exceptions, moviegoers have stayed home. As of Dec. 25., only an estimated 760 million tickets were sold, according to media and entertainment data firm EntTelligence, compared with 2024, during which total ticket sales exceeded 800 million.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Tesla dethroned as the world’s top EV maker

Published

on

Tesla dethroned as the world’s top EV maker

Elon Musk’s Tesla is no longer the top electric vehicle seller in the world as demand at home has cooled while competition heated up abroad.

Tesla lost its pole position after reporting 1.64 million deliveries in 2025, roughly 620,000 fewer than Chinese competitor BYD.

Tesla struggled last year amid increasing competition, waning federal support for electric vehicle adoption and brand damage triggered by Musk’s stint in the White House.

Musk is turning his focus toward robotics and autonomous driving technology in an effort to keep Tesla relevant as its EVs lose popularity.

On Friday, the company reported lower than expected delivery numbers for the fourth quarter of 2025, a decline from the previous quarter and a year-over-year decrease of 16%. Tesla delivered 418,227 vehicles in the fourth quarter and produced 434,358.

Advertisement

According to a company-compiled consensus from analysts posted on Tesla’s website in December, the company was projected to deliver nearly 423,000 vehicles in the fourth quarter.

Tesla’s annual deliveries fell roughly 8% last year from 1.79 million in 2024. Its third-quarter deliveries saw a boost as consumers rushed to buy electric vehicles before a $7,500 tax credit expired at the end of September.

“There are so many contributing factors ranging from the lack of evolution and true innovation of Musk’s product to the loss of the EV credits,” said Karl Brauer, an analyst at iSeeCars.com. “Teslas are just starting to look old. You have a bunch of other options, and they all look newer and fresher.”

BYD is making premium electric vehicles at an affordable price point, Brauer said, but steep tariffs on Chinese EVs have effectively prevented the cars from gaining popularity in the U.S.

Other international automakers like South Korea’s Hyundai and Germany’s Volkswagen have been expanding their EV offerings.

Advertisement

In the third quarter last year, the American automaker Ford sold a record number of electric vehicles, bolstered by its popular Mustang Mach-E SUV and F-150 Lightning pickup truck.

In October, Tesla released long-anticipated lower-cost versions of its Model 3 and Model Y in an attempt to attract new customers.

However, analysts and investors were disappointed by the launch, saying the models, which start at $36,990, aren’t affordable enough to entice a new group of consumers to consider going green.

As evidenced by Tesla’s continuing sales decline, the new Model 3 and Model Y have not been huge wins for the company, Brauer said.

“There’s a core Tesla following who will never choose anything else, but that’s not how you grow,” Brauer said.

Advertisement

Tesla lost a swath of customers last year when Musk joined the Trump administration as the head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency.

Left-leaning Tesla owners, who were originally attracted to the brand for its environmental benefits, became alienated by Musk’s political activity.

Consumers held protests against the brand and some celebrities made a point of selling their Teslas.

Although Musk left the White House, the company sustained significant and lasting reputation damage, experts said.

Investors, however, remain largely optimistic about Tesla’s future.

Advertisement

Shares are up nearly 40% over the last six months and have risen 16% over the past year.

Brauer said investors are clinging to the hope that Musk’s robotaxi business will take off and the ambitious chief executive will succeed in developing humanoid robots and self-driving cars.

The roll-out of Tesla robotaxis in Austin, Texas, last summer was full of glitches, and experts say Tesla has a long way to go to catch up with the autonomous ride-hailing company Waymo.

Still, the burgeoning robotaxi industry could be extremely lucrative for Tesla if Musk can deliver on his promises.

“Musk has done a good job, increasingly in the past year, of switching the conversation from Tesla sales to AI and robotics,” Brauer said. “I think current stock price largely reflects that.”

Advertisement

Shares were down about 2% on Friday after the company reported earnings.

Continue Reading

Trending