December, 22 2008, 01:34pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jean Ann Fox (CFA): 928-772-0674
Chi Chi Wu (NCLC): 617-542-8010
Edmund Mierzwinski (USPIRG): 202-546-9707
Gail Hillebrand (CU): 415-431-6747
Kathleen Day (CRL): 202-253-4883
Jury's Out on Regulators' New Proposal to Address Abusive Overdraft Loans
WASHINGTON
Federal banking regulators yesterday withdrew proposed rules that would have largely failed to protect consumers from astronomically high-cost, unsolicited overdraft loans. The Fed then immediately issued a new proposal containing two alternative approaches. The impact the new proposal will have on abusive fees depends primarily on which approach the Fed ultimately chooses.
Consumers pay $17.5 billion per year in overdraft fees that banks charge after routinely allowing consumers to overdraw their accounts by checks, ACH transactions, ATM withdrawals and debit card purchases. This exceeds the $15.8 billion banks extend in the overdraft loans themselves. Banks automatically enroll consumers in their most expensive overdraft programs, but surveys have found that accountholders overwhelmingly want a choice about whether or not to participate.
Representatives from the Consumer Federation of America, Center for Responsible Lending, Consumers Union, U.S. PIRG, and the National Consumer Law Center are pleased that the weak rule issued by the Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) wasn't made final as originally proposed. That proposal failed to require banks to obtain consumers' affirmative "opt-in" before enrolling account holders in their overdraft programs.
In its new proposal, the Fed focuses only on ATM and certain debit transactions. The good news is that the Fed has acknowledged that overdraft fees on these transactions are especially abusive because consumers don't expect to be able to overdraw their accounts at an ATM or debit terminal. Overdraft loans from debit and ATM transactions are astronomically expensive-a CRL study found that the typical overdraft loan triggered by a debit card, incurring a $34 fee, is only $17.
"Debit card overdrafts are costing consumers billions of dollars a year," said Eric Halperin, DC director of the Center for Responsible Lending. "Consumers should have the right to decide whether they want to pay a $35 fee to buy a $5 hamburger."
The Fed's proposal asks for comments on two different approaches. The first maintains the status quo by requiring banks only to permit consumers to opt out of these extremely expensive loans, allowing continued abuses. The second approach would require banks to get consumers' permission before covering their ATM and most debit transactions for a fee. We urge the Fed to adopt this second, significantly stronger approach, known as opt-in. Consumers who believe the Fed should adopt the stronger approach should let the Fed know during its open comment period.
"We applaud the Fed for proposing that consumers be given the right to opt-in to use overdraft loans, but are dismayed that the Fed did not go further in protecting consumers from what are essentially payday loans," said Jean Ann Fox, director of financial services for CFA.
For instance, the proposed rule does not require that consumers be provided with federal truth-in-lending disclosures about the APR of overdraft loans. A recent FDIC study noted that charging a $27 overdraft fee for a $20 debit card transaction would be the equivalent of a 3,520% APR if the overdraft is repaid in two weeks.
Gail Hillebrand, Consumers Union Financial Services Campaign Manager, added, "Requiring banks to get the opt-in permission of consumers for overdraft fees on debits is a good step forward, but the new proposal seeks comment on whether to impose this common-sense requirement."
Even if it adopts the second approach, the Fed's rule should have gone further still. While the Fed proposed to prohibit most overdrafts caused solely by debit card "holds"-when a hold by a merchant exceeds the actual amount charged-it did not address check holds, when banks intentionally delay the availability of deposits, or banks' ability to manipulate the order in which transactions are cleared in order to maximize overdrafts.
A recent FDIC study confirmed years of previous research on overdraft practices: Banks automatically enroll consumers in the most expensive overdraft option; debit card transactions are the most common trigger of overdraft fees; and lower-income account holders are more likely to pay overdraft fees, stripping what little money they have from their accounts and driving them further into the red.
"Overdraft fees disproportionately affect the most vulnerable consumers, including low-income and young consumers," said Chi Chi Wu, National Consumer Law Center. "Addressing overdraft fees related to ATM and debit transactions is a move in the right direction toward protecting them and all consumers. But we need to do more. Much more."
The FDIC study also found that consumers pay the most overdraft fees when their banks allow overdrafts for ATM and debit transactions and clear transactions in order from highest to lowest to maximize fees.
"Consumers find themselves financially squeezed like never before, " said Edmund Mierzwinski, Consumer Program Director for USPIRG. "While the Fed could have done more, the opt-in proposal, if adopted, would provide some measure of relief for consumers who are essentially being forced to take out payday loans."
LATEST NEWS
Russia's Putin Secures Another Term
The controversial leader won a record number of votes for a post-Soviet candidate even as opponents organized a protest at noon on the election's third and last day.
Mar 17, 2024
Despite protests on Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin won reelection with more votes than any candidate since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Exit poll the Public Opinion Foundation (POF) put the final tally after three days of voting at 87.8%, the Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM) at 87%, and Russia's Central Election Commission (CEC) at 87.3%. Putin will now serve another six-year term, meaning he will have been at the helm of the Russian state for longer than any leader since Catherine the Great, surpassing Josef Stalin.
The election comes less than a month after the second anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and is likely to lead to more tensions between the Russian and U.S. governments.
"It gives me some hope to see how many people are not happy with the dictatorship, the war, with what's happening in Russia."
"For a U.S. administration that hoped Putin's Ukraine adventure would be wrapped up by now with a decisive setback to Moscow's interests, the election is a reminder that Putin expects that there will be many more rounds in the geopolitical boxing ring," Nikolas Gvosdev, director of the National Security Program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, told the Russia Matters project.
With most of Putin's prominent opponents either dead, imprisoned, or in exile, the elections results were considered a foregone conclusion by both friends and foes of his administration.
A Putin spokesperson said in 2023 that the election was "not really democracy" but instead "costly bureaucracy," according to CNN. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the White House National Security Council said the election was "obviously not free nor fair."
However, Russian opponents of Putin did find a way to demonstrate their position with a protest called "Noon Against Putin." The protest was called for by St. Petersburg politician Maxim Reznik, according to The Guardian. Participants were instructed to head to a polling place at noon and cast a paper ballot for one of the candidates running against Putin, or to write-in another candidate or spoil their ballot.
Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny had endorsed the protest before his death last month in a Russian prison, leading the Independent Novaya Gazeta newspaper to dub it "Navalny's political testament."
The action drew crowds to polling places both in Russian cities like Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg and at Russian embassies around the world.
"This is the first time in my life I have ever seen a queue for elections," one woman waiting in line in Moscow told
CNN. Russian journalists reported that the lines at some stations within the country reached the thousands, according to Reuters.
Navalny's widow, Yulia Navalnaya, who had also endorsed the protest, voted at the embassy in Berlin, while several protesters gathered outside the embassy in London.
"I expected there to be a lot of people, but not this many," London-based participant Maria Dorofeyeva told The Guardian, adding, "It gives me some hope to see how many people are not happy with the dictatorship, the war, with what's happening in Russia. And we want to stop it."
Ruslan Shaveddinov of Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation told Reuters:
"We showed ourselves, all of Russia and the whole world that Putin is not Russia (and) that Putin has seized power in Russia."
"Our victory is that we, the people, defeated fear, we defeated solitude—many people saw they were not alone," Shaveddinov said
Keep ReadingShow Less
Van Hollen Says Netanyahu Spreading 'Flat Out Lies' About UNRWA
The Maryland senator defended the organization on CBS and said there was no evidence that it was a "proxy for Hamas."
Mar 17, 2024
U.S. Senator for Maryland Chris Van Hollen continued his defense of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and its work in Gaza in an appearance on CBS News' "Face the Nation" on Sunday.
"The claim that Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu and others are making that somehow UNRWA is a proxy for Hamas are just flat out lies, that's a flat out lie," he told journalist Margaret Brennan.
The U.S. was one of many Western countries that paused funding for UNRWA after the agency announced in January that it had fired 12 staffers over Israeli allegations that they had been involved in Hamas' October 7 attack on Israel. However, some countries including Canada, Sweden, the European Union, and Australia have since restored funding. A report has also emerged that Israel tortured UNRWA staffers into falsely confessing to involvement in the Hamas attack.
"Netanyahu has wanted to get rid of UNRWA because he had seen them as a means to continue the hopes of the Palestinian people for a homeland of their own."
Van Hollen's remarks on Sunday come days after he argued for the restoration of UNRWA funds on the floor of the U.S. Senate and criticized Republican legislators who wanted to permanently end funds for the organization that supports some 6 million Palestinian refugees in countries across the Middle East, including around 2 million in Gaza.
During his speech, he pointed out that the Netanyahu government had not shared the underlying evidence that UNRWA staffers participated in October 7 with either UNRWA itself or the U.S. government. He also urged his colleagues to read a classified Director of National Intelligence report on Netanyahu's claims of UNRWA complicity with Hamas.
On "Face the Nation," Van Hollen said that the person in charge of operations on the ground in UNRWA was a 20-year U.S. Army veteran.
"You can be sure he is not in cahoots with Hamas," the senator told Brennan.
He also repeated claims that Netanyahu has wanted to eliminate UNRWA entirely since at least 2017.
"Netanyahu has wanted to get rid of UNRWA because he had seen them as a means to continue the hopes of the Palestinian people for a homeland of their own," Van Hollen said, adding that the right-wing Israeli leader's "primary objective" was preventing the formation of a Palestinian state.
However, the dismantling of UNRWA would be especially catastrophic amid Israel's ongoing bombardment and invasion of Gaza, which has killed more than 31,000 people and put the survivors at risk of famine. No other organization has the infrastructure in place to distribute the necessary aid.
"If you cut off funding for UNRWA in Gaza entirely, it means more people will starve, more people won't get the medial assistance they need, and so it would be a huge mistake," Van Hollen said.
He also said that only 14 of the agency's 13,000-strong staff in Gaza had been accused of participating in the October 7 attack.
"We should investigate it, we should hold all those people accountable, but for goodness' sake, let's not hold 2 million innocent Palestinian civilians who are dying of starvation... accountable for the bad acts of 14 people."
Van Hollen also repeated his call for President Joe Biden to condition the sale of offensive military weapons to Israel on the country obeying international law and allowing aid into Gaza. While Israel sent the U.S. a letter saying it was in compliance with the law, "the day it was signed, clearly the Netanyahu government is not in compliance, because we see that they're continuing to restrict humanitarian assistance," he told Brennan.
Also on "Face the Nation" Sunday, United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) Chief Executive Catherine Russell described the impact that a lack of aid was having on the children of Gaza.
"We know now that children are dying of malnutrition in Gaza," she told Brennan.
Russell said that not enough aid was reaching those who needed it, calling both air drops and sea deliveries "a drop in the bucket."
She also called for greater transparency into what was actually happening in Gaza and the difficulties of delivering aid.
"The world should be able to see what's happening and make their own judgments about what's going on," Russell said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gore Calls Out Fossil Fuel Industry 'Shamelessness' in Lying to Public
"They are continuing to do similar things today to try to fool people and pull the wool over people's eyes just in the name of greed," the former vice president said.
Mar 17, 2024
In reflecting on nearly 50 years of climate advocacy, former Vice President Al Gore said that he had "underestimated" the greed of the fossil fuel industry.
The remarks came in an interview published in USA Today on Sunday. When asked if he had any regrets, Gore responded that he had "put every ounce of energy" he had into climate advocacy, but added:
"I was pretty slow to recognize how important the massive funding of anti-climate messaging was going on. I underestimated the power of greed in the fossil fuel industry, the shamelessness in putting out the lies."
"They are continuing to do similar things today to try to fool people and pull the wool over people's eyes just in the name of greed," Gore continued.
"What's at stake is so incredible."
Gore, who tried to raise awareness about the climate crisis in the U.S. House of Representatives as early as 1981 and brought the issue to national attention in 2006's documentary An Inconvenient Truth, has taken a harsher tone against oil, gas, and coal companies in recent months. In August 2023, he said that the "climate crisis is a fossil fuel crisis," and in September, he implored the industry to "get out of the way." In December, he lamented that the industry had "captured the COP process," referring to the appointment of the United Arab Emirates national oil company CEO Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber to preside over the United Nations' COP28 climate conference in that country.
In the USA Today interview, Gore also named the fossil fuel industry when asked about his greatest frustration.
"Well, that we haven't made more progress," Gore answered, "and that some of the fossil fuel companies have been shameless in providing, continuing to provide lavish funding for disinformation and misinformation."
"What's at stake is so incredible," he added.
However, Gore told USA Today that he tried not to focus on his anger, but instead on continuing to raise awareness about the crisis and what can be done about it. And he remained hopeful that his grandchildren would live in a world in which people had come together and acted in time.
"We've got all the solutions we need right now to cut emissions in half before the end of this decade," he said. "We've got a clear line of sight to how we can cut the other 50% of emissions by mid century."
He also encouraged more people to get involved with the climate movement.
"I would say the greatest need is for more grassroots advocates because the most persuasive advocates are those in your own community," he said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular