OT: Why is my bank pushing so hard to get me to sign up for overdraft protection on my debit card?


I'm sure recent changes in legislation is behind this but I keep getting spam
emails and
popups when accessing my banking website trying to get me to sign up for
overdraft
protection.
IIRC, the legislation was designed to just have an underfunded card declined.
Am I
missing something? It really doesn't matter since having rode out a employer
that was
working its way in to Chapter 7, my checking zero balance I record and use as a
reference
still has 3G left in the account. Nothing like depositing a worthless paycheck
once to
change what you think you checking account balance should be at all times.
Is it as I suspect an attempt to get those that live on the edge to get back
into the
banks grips when they don't keep track of when their deposits post?
Wes
Reply to
Wes
Loading thread data ...
Some weeks ago, I was listening to the Clark Howard radio show. He was saying that the banks LOVE over draft protection on credit cards, cause of the $39 or higher fee per inidenent. Used to be, the card would come up declined (and not generate any fees) when it was over limit.
Clark suggests we all write our credit card companies, and decline the overdraft protection.
Reply to
Stormin Mormon
========= This thread inspired me to dig a little deeper. What I discovered inspired me to send the following email to my Congressmen. If anyone wants to use this email as a template or even use the whole thing for their letter, feel free to do so. REMEMBER -- ITS OUR MONEY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
To locate your Senators and Representative and accesses their webmail see
formatting link
sure and bookmark their webmail urls for easy nagging in the future.
--- start of email ---
IT'S TIME TO STOP PLAYING "WHACK-A-MOLE" ON THE TAXPAYERS' TAB!
formatting link

In the United States, with a few exceptions generally involving serious health and safety issues e.g. FDA, the regulatory philosophy has been "whatever is not explicitly forbidden, is allowed."
The actions of the American banking industry in introducing significant numbers of new "fees," products, and services, even before the recently enacted legislation restricting a few of their more flagrant abuses has become effective, clearly shows that it is now necessary to replace this permissive regulatory philosophy or policy, at least in the banking and financial services sector e.g. credit cards, with the far more restrictive construct "What ever is not specifically permitted is forbidden," and require that any new "fee," product or service must be approved by the regulatory agency before it is implemented or introduced to the market.
To be sure such a revision in regulatory policy will limit "innovation," which is exactly what is intended, as the record shows that the large majority of new financial/banking products, services and "fees" over the last two decades have been largely cons, grafts, scams, schemes, grifts, ploys, ruses, etc. which greatly enriched the bankers and others in the financial services sector, with minimal benefit and generally serious economic loss to the average consumer, customer and depositor.
To assist the regulatory agency, and reduce the risk of regulatory capture, it is suggests that a checklist be included in the legislation revising the banking/financial regulatory policy, which should include such common sense requirements as: (1) Does this proposed product or service provide any significant or general benefit to the general public/society? (2) Does this proposed product or service expose the general public/society to undue or excessive risk? (3) Does the public benefits of the proposed product/service outweigh its total projected aggregate cost to the general public, allowing for a reasonable profit for the bank? (4) Are the proposed "fees" reasonable and related to the actual cost of providing? ( ) Are the proposed fees for a new service or simply an Are the proposed fees for a new service or simply an effort to charge for an existing service? If for an existing service, justify the need for the fee.
As part of any legislation revising the banking/financial regulatory philosophy, it is suggest that language be included specifically stating that none of the existing financial products, services, "fees," practices, etc. are "grand fathered" in any way, and are fully subject to agency review/approval using the same checklist requirements as used for new products, services, practices and fees, although evaluation may be delayed because of the volume of approvals requested and/or the need for extensive collection/evaluation of data.
The howls from the bankers will be earsplitting and heart rending, but they brought it on themselves, and it is now a choice between "business as usual" for the banks, and the long-term survival of the Republic as we know it.
--- end of email --- -- Unka George (George McDuffee) .............................. The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author. The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
Reply to
F. George McDuffee
Yes. Its opt in now instead of opt out (assuming you can make your way through the web page or telephone maze).
If the card is declined, you'll know there's a problem right away. If there's a fee per overdraft, dozens of checks and debit card transactions will go through before you catch it and fix the problem.
Reply to
Paul Hovnanian P.E.

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.