Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The most profitable source of income for banks? Overdraft fees

loannow.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 223 posts

Re: The most profitable source of income for banks? Overdraft fees

#31

Post by munin »

goldenkey wrote: post #5
stephengillie wrote: post #2

This is one of the financial barriers that severely impacts the ability of poor people to amass monetary wealth, but is invisible to the rich. Before they were overdraft fees, they were Non-Sufficient Funds fees for overdrafting, and these NSF fees still exist for those who can't even get the "overdraft loan". > Banks originally offered clients this service as a courtesy. Banks originally opted in at-risk customers.…

A different angle. But probably for the same reason. You kinda wonder why these poor communities don't have community-owned businesses. Crowdfunded works so well, why not in ghettos? It doesn't help when most people don't have any spending money to contribute because they are drained dry by the banks...

> You kinda wonder why these poor communities don't have community-owned businesses. Crowdfunded works so well, why not in ghettos?

They do: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0674030710

Is the service better? Unclear.

Re: The most profitable source of income for banks? Overdraft fees

#32

Post by [deleted] »

some-guy wrote: post #12

About five years ago I worked at Wells Fargo as a teller while in college. During that time Congress passed a law prohibiting debit transactions from going through if there weren't enough funds in the account. Shortly after that we were told to start telling our customers about a new service called Debit Card Overdraft Service which was marketed as a "convenience" for customers when they were in a bind. When I asked…

[deleted]

Re: The most profitable source of income for banks? Overdraft fees

#34

Post by Bud »

Touche wrote: post #20
staunch wrote: post #6

The pain overdraft fees cause poor people is truly hard to comprehend unless you've been there. It's incredibly evil. You've got $16 left for food and then then the Flickr account you forgot to cancel gets charged to your account, putting your balance at -$9. Now you have to pay $35/day until you get enough money to cover the overdraft fees. You end up paying $100+ for a $9 forced loan. The bank could have just decli…

> They know exactly what they're doing. They're rich bankers robbing poor people. I can understand thinking that the "correct" thing to do here is to simply not allow a transaction when there aren't sufficient funds, but this language goes overboard. It's not robbing a person because they were unable to keep track of how much money they own and adjust accordingly.

No. Emphatically, no. It IS robbery. Have you ever been a poor person? Have you ever been overwhelmed with depression and the panic of a lost job, a few dozen bills you probably can't pay, the shame of asking friends and relatives for help, and in so doing, risking your relationships with those people and your own self-esteem?

What you're missing here is that poor people KNOW that they are poor and right on the edge. They are already making a lot of adjustments that you probably can't even conceive of. They have a daily, hourly even, intellectual load from financial panic that more privileged people cannot even imagine.

The banks are the guilty party, here. They know that some of their customers are near the edge and in trouble, and they are strategically choosing to exploit them. Period, paragraph.

Re: The most profitable source of income for banks? Overdraft fees

#35

Post by hrehhf »

Touche wrote: post #15
stevewepay wrote: post #9

This is a quote from Michael Lewis' The Big Short, I'll never forget it: Obsessing over Household [Finance Corporation], he attended a lunch organized by a big Wall Street firm. The guest speaker was Herb Sandler, the CEO of a giant savings and loan called Golden West Financial Corporation. “Someone asked him if he believed in the free checking model,” recalls Eisman. “And he said, ‘Turn off your tape recorders.’ Eve…

> form of fines for overdrawing their checking accounts. Why in the world shouldn't you be fined for overdrawing your checking account? A checking account is not a loan, am I wrong in thinking this quote is B.S.?

Because the bank should just deny the charge to the account instead, and have no fine. You are right that a checking account is not a loan--so the bank should not treat it as if it is!

Re: The most profitable source of income for banks? Overdraft fees

#36

Post by Touche »

selectodude wrote: post #28
Touche wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> form of fines for overdrawing their checking accounts. Why in the world shouldn't you be fined for overdrawing your checking account? A checking account is not a loan, am I wrong in thinking this quote is B.S.?

The charge should be declined, no different than a credit card. Allowing it to go through and then charging usurious fees is wrong.

Fine, say it's wrong. Don't say it's a "tax". You have no choice with regard to taxes; you have a choice to not overdraw your account.

Re: The most profitable source of income for banks? Overdraft fees

#37

Post by kelnos »

Touche wrote: post #20
staunch wrote: post #6

The pain overdraft fees cause poor people is truly hard to comprehend unless you've been there. It's incredibly evil. You've got $16 left for food and then then the Flickr account you forgot to cancel gets charged to your account, putting your balance at -$9. Now you have to pay $35/day until you get enough money to cover the overdraft fees. You end up paying $100+ for a $9 forced loan. The bank could have just decli…

> They know exactly what they're doing. They're rich bankers robbing poor people. I can understand thinking that the "correct" thing to do here is to simply not allow a transaction when there aren't sufficient funds, but this language goes overboard. It's not robbing a person because they were unable to keep track of how much money they own and adjust accordingly.

If the customer had set up the overdraft "loan" feature, then sure, I'd agree with you. But they didn't. How is it sane (and legal) to automatically loan someone money to pay something, without their permission, when you can set whatever repayment terms you want? Declining for insufficient funds is the only correct thing to do in that case. And yes, banks will usually charge a fee for that, too, but at least it'll only be a one-time fee.

Re: The most profitable source of income for banks? Overdraft fees

#38

Post by ssimpson »

staunch wrote: post #6

The pain overdraft fees cause poor people is truly hard to comprehend unless you've been there. It's incredibly evil. You've got $16 left for food and then then the Flickr account you forgot to cancel gets charged to your account, putting your balance at -$9. Now you have to pay $35/day until you get enough money to cover the overdraft fees. You end up paying $100+ for a $9 forced loan. The bank could have just decli…

USAA also batches their debts and payments differently than other banks, to help their members minimizes any fees incurred. Their customer service saying is "assume positive intent" and they have amazing service. I will probably be a customer for life.

Re: The most profitable source of income for banks? Overdraft fees

#39

Post by Touche »

cookingrobot wrote: post #27
Touche wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They know exactly what they're doing. They're rich bankers robbing poor people. I can understand thinking that the "correct" thing to do here is to simply not allow a transaction when there aren't sufficient funds, but this language goes overboard. It's not robbing a person because they were unable to keep track of how much money they own and adjust accordingly.

It's a not consensual extraordinarily high interest loan. Robbery is a fine label to use for that.

It's absolutely consensual; it only happens if you overdraw your account.

Re: The most profitable source of income for banks? Overdraft fees

#40

Post by twistedpair »

noonespecial wrote: post #3
stephengillie wrote: post #2

This is one of the financial barriers that severely impacts the ability of poor people to amass monetary wealth, but is invisible to the rich. Before they were overdraft fees, they were Non-Sufficient Funds fees for overdrafting, and these NSF fees still exist for those who can't even get the "overdraft loan". > Banks originally offered clients this service as a courtesy. Banks originally opted in at-risk customers.…

The most egregious example that has happened to me: I had a checking account with a hidden $5 fee if the balance went below $5000 in a given month. I made a big purchase, left the account with about $3 in it and scheduled a transfer from savings for the next day... you know how it played out: $5 fee on the low balance, $50 charge to "borrow" the $2 all taken from the transfer the next day. They call that a "service".…

I had a similar fee for not having a transaction into my checking account for the month. I visited the branch to contest it. They waived the fee, and I asked the branch manager, "So I just need 'a deposit' each month, right? How about $0.01?" She didn't answer me, but I setup my ADP account at work the next day and BofA's been getting $0.01 into checking every month for years now.

And you know what? I'm pretty sure it costs them more than $0.01 to process that direct deposit. ;)

Post reply on HN