Overdraft Hell Revisited

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


Felix Salmon is every bit the hater of outrageous bank fees that I am, but he goes beyond the hate and responds to today’s NYT front pager with some practical ideas for reform. Here’s the Salmon Plan:

• Banks are allowed to offer automatic overdraft protection, but only if it’s free. (They can charge an annualized interest rate on the overdraft, but no set fees.)

• If a bank wants to charge fees as well as an interest rate for overdraft protection, then that protection has to be opt-in rather than opt-out, and the fees should be prominently disclosed at the opt-in stage.

• Fees should be be capped at $20, with a limit of one such fee per day.

I’m not sure I’d agree to even that much, frankly.  For my money, overdraft fees should be regulated as short-term loans with agreed-on interest rates, and banks should simply decide for themselves how to cap them.  If they don’t trust you, the cap is zero and you can’t overdraw your account at all.  If they trust you a lot, the cap is high and you can overdraw your debit card all you want while your bank rakes in the interest payments.  And yes, of course overdraft protection should be opt-in.  It’s a sign of how fatally corrupt the finance industry is that either one of us even has to say that.

Would this make banks less profitable?  Of course not.  They’d make up for the overdraft revenue somewhere else, which is exactly what I want them to do.  I want banks to compete openly, with simple annual fees, clear interest rates, and services with plainly advertised up-front costs.  If debit cards cost the bank money, they should charge annual fees to everyone who uses them, rather than subsidizing 90% of their business with hidden fees on the 10% who are least able to afford it in the first place.  It’s a disgrace that we’ve allowed this to go on as long as we have.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest