Atlantic Business Channel

« Are Americans More Laissez-Faire, After The Meltdown? | Main | Who Led Us into the Financial Crisis? »

Sep 21 2009, 12:45 pm

Where's the Anger?

There's a smart piece in The Washington Post this morning about the effort in Congress to contain some of the more outlandish banking fees being imposed on customers. In particular, overdraft fees, which everyone knows to be high, are targeted. In this case, these are fees banks impose after all but encouraging people to overspend and not telling them that they're overdrawn. It's amazing that we've gotten to this point--trillions in bailouts, an economic collapse brought about in no small measure because of the irresponsible behavior of banks, and this is the kind of de minimus regulation that's being considered? I'm sure there's still a populist streak in American life although it seems most animated when it comes to Obama's birth certificate or hatred of Dick Cheney. But in terms of sustained anger and the actors who helped create and perpetuate the crisis that we find ourselves in, it seems sorely lacking. Have there been any protests on the Washington mall about bank lending practices from housing to student loans? Is anybody proposing a boycott of, say, Bank of America?
I recognize the moral ambiguity of the mess we're in. Banks were not the only ones at fault, and to the degree that homeowners and other greedy players got in over their heads, well, the blame can go around. Banks were not the only bad actors here and, of course, not all banks share the same degree of culpability. Still, how did we find ourselves in this place where anger at banks is at best a low grumble, a complaint rather than a call to action. We still have no serious financial regulations in shape after the crisis and a modest bill like the one being proposed about overdraft fees is about all the anger the political system can muster. Well, we wouldn't want it to distract from Joe Wilson's outburst, Obama's czars or the other real threats to the republic.

I recognize the moral ambiguity of the mess we're in. Banks were not the only ones at fault, and to the degree that homeowners and other greedy players got in over their heads, well, the blame can go around. Banks were not the only bad actors here and, of course, not all banks share the same degree of culpability. Still, how did we find ourselves in this place where anger at banks is at best a low grumble, a complaint rather than a call to action. We still have no serious financial regulations in shape after the crisis and a modest bill like the one being proposed about overdraft fees is about all the anger the political system can muster. Well, we wouldn't want it to distract from Joe Wilson's outburst, Obama's czars or the other real threats to the republic.

*This post is by Matthew Cooper from the Atlantic Politics Channel.

Comments (2)

The overdraft thing is an interesting issue, whether on debit or credit cards (overlimit penalties or whatnot). There's also the all-too-common $25 "rush payment" fee because for some reason not every financial institution will let you pay a bill online the same (or even next) day in 2009. Some others can't even properly display your real-time account balance or account activity (due to multi-day transaction clearing periods).

The issue, in my experience, would be solved by a slight regulatory prodding. Many financial institutions that are guilty of these practices rely on decades-old technology platforms, or many of them that were duct-taped together over a series of acquisitions. They have no incentive, au contraire, a disincentive to upgrade their systems though, since their current legacy systems/policies/procedures allow them, or enable them to tap the fee revenue stream. Also payment processors and inter-bank agreements/systems need to be similarly upgraded courtesy of a little regulatory prodding (this included Federal Reserve debit/check clearing standards, among others).

Really, there is absolutely no reason that in 2009 that funds can't be moved instantaneously, by default, or that clients can't see 100% real-time balances/activity.

Of course, on the other hand, I'm curious how many client's account for the bulk of overdraft fees (repeat offenders, for example) versus fees generated from selling overdraft protection.

People want free checking and never ask about overdraft fees. I had a checking account with a monthly fee, it automatically withdrew funds from savings in the case of an overdraft (no fee). Now I have a no fee checking account but I will be charged $25 for overdrafts. I like this setup better and it saves me money.


I do not need the congress writing more stupid legislation to screw things up. I was quite happy with my credit card terms, now those have all changed, because there are stupid people who can't follow the rules.


Stop the protecting the stupid, they will never learn.