The piece even has humor, though of the unintentional sort, in the form of industry defenses of their overdraft practices:

Davis of Strunk & Associates says courtesy overdraft is a “value (consumers) are very willing to pay for”…

Fox says the industry shouldn’t apologize for strategies that benefit shareholders: “Let’s not be naïve. Banks are doing things to make money.”

Spokeswoman Anne Pace says the bank wants to help customers but must adjust policies if costs rise.

Scott Talbott, chief lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable, representing large banks, says it’s “unfortunate that low- and moderate-income Americans find themselves (using) overdraft services more often.”

Moebs fears that if banks are restricted from charging overdrafts, some may go out of business while others could bounce overdrafts, marring consumers’ credit records.

Yeah, that would be a real shame if companies built on abusive lending go out of business. The only real defense here is that by covering overdrawn accounts, banks protect their customers from point-of-sale fees. But, correct me if I’m wrong, that seems to me at best a wash.

One of the very few things USA Today doesn’t address is how many overdrafts are checks and how many are debit charges. My guess is that the vast majority come from debit cards and that the vast majority of people would rather have their cards declined than pay $30 because they overdraw their account by fifteen cents. Credit cards have also gotten into the overdraft action, too.

But that’s not to take away from this great story. This is really fantastic journalism by Chu and USA Today. More like this, please.


  • 1
  • 2