Don Lampe的动态

This is great news, if I am understanding correctly. There are a great deal of common working class folks, maybe even single parents with low income, as I once was, that can't get ahead because of astronomical fees such as the overdraft fee. The overdraft could be, no fault of your own, due to someone charging your account that shouldn't have. By the time you realize your account is overdrawn, even by $1 or less, you have been charged 3+ charges. For someone with low income, this could be detrimental and very difficult to recover from. I wonder if this will also apply to the fees they charge customers for garnishment processing? Currently, when we send a garnishment to the bank, even if they decline to pay the garnishment for insufficient funds etc, they still charge the customer $125-$150 fee. If they did not pay us for the garnishment, the most work they did was 1. review the bank account for funds 2. Reply by fax, email, or letter to us stating the reason they are not paying us. That is it! 10 minutes of work should not be charged a $125-$150 fee. My thoughts are you only charge if you actually do the work of processing the garnishment, and it is no more work than processing an overdraft so charge the same fee.

A new rule released today caps overdraft fees to $5 for large banks, absent treating them like loans with APY disclosures, according to American Banker. "Under the final rule, large banks can cap their overdraft fees at $5, a level commensurate with what the CFPB estimates would be necessary to cover the service's cost to banks. Alternatively, banks can cap their fees at an amount that covers costs and losses, rendering overdraft a "convenience service rather than a profit center." #Overdraft has long been under scrutiny by the CFPB, with increasing limitations on the amount of fees that can be charged in single day, strong suggestions regarding the use of de minimis fees, and overdraft protection becoming a target for #UDAAP findings. For those who offer #overdraft services or charge NSF fees, an uptick in class action lawsuits tied to disclosures has caused them to reconsider the offering of the functionality altogether, with potential consequences to consumers who may rely on the float. It will be interesting to see how many more #financialinstitutions may choose to opt out to avoid increased risk if the rule avoids legal challenge and later repeal. https://lnkd.in/dXUXFf3R #regulatorychange #compliance #banking #fintech

CFPB’s New Rule on Overdraft Fees: A Win for Consumers and Accountability" Is it Really? The CFPB has announced a groundbreaking rule to regulate overdraft fees, aiming to promote transparency and fairness in banking practices. This move is expected to save consumers billions while pushing financial institutions toward more ethical fee structures. As a banker, I see this as a missed opportunity for the industry to build trust and innovate customer-focused solutions. I worked for a profit and process improvement company that one of our focusses was overdraft privilege or courtesy pay. We suggested a maximum fee of $20 and waiving fees if it was for small amounts.?We sent information on budgeting to help customers avoid the situation in the first place. How do you set the fee? Based on some internal cost structure? Looks messy to me. We built strong brand loyalty not a fee experience. #BankingInnovation #OverdraftFees #CFPB #ConsumerProtection #FinancialRegulations #BankingEthics #Leadership #Transparency #CustomerExperience

CFPB to consider broader ban on declined payment fees The CFPB withdrew a rule proposal barring bank fees on certain declined transactions. Its plan for a “more comprehensive approach” faces an uncertain future. https://buff.ly/4hrsMVi #FinTech #FinServ #Banking #Payments #PayTech

No sooner than I posted about #NCUA's latest letter regarding #overdrafts, #APSN and #NSF fees than #CFPB issues a final rule regarding overdraft fees for FIs over $10b. The rule requires these FIs to implement an overdraft program that either a) caps the fee at $5, b) caps the fee to an amount that covers the FIs actual costs and losses or c) offer a compliant overdraft lending program.

Revolutionizing Overdraft Fees: A Win for Consumers or a New Challenge for Banks? The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) latest move to cap overdraft fees at $5 is poised to reshape the banking landscape. This bold regulation, set to take effect in October 2024, is a game-changer for consumers, significantly reducing the financial strain of overdraft fees that have traditionally averaged $30. According to estimates, this change could save households approximately $225 annually—a meaningful relief for many. However, this shift comes with challenges. While the intention is to promote financial fairness, some banks argue it could inadvertently restrict access to overdraft services, impacting the very consumers it aims to help. This brings up a critical question: how can financial institutions strike the right balance between affordability and service accessibility? For banks and credit unions, the opportunity lies in innovation—rethinking fee structures, leveraging technology, and enhancing transparency to create solutions that work for both the institution and the customer. What are your thoughts on this move by the CFPB? Will it drive innovation or create unforeseen challenges for consumers and financial institutions alike?

Banks vs. CFPB: The Overdraft Fee Battle Heats Up! What happens when regulators take a stand against "junk fees"? A legal showdown, of course! The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently capped overdraft fees at $5—a move hailed as a win for consumers but challenged fiercely by the banking industry. Major banks and trade groups have filed a lawsuit, arguing that this cap could: Limit consumer access to essential overdraft services Push consumers toward more expensive financial alternatives Interfere with free market pricing strategies The stakes are high. For banks, this cap could mean a significant hit to fee-based revenue streams. For consumers, the cap promises savings but raises questions about the long-term availability of overdraft options. For the CFPB, this case could set a critical precedent for how far it can go in regulating fees. Here’s what we should all be asking: Will consumers truly benefit, or will costs shift elsewhere? How will this impact financial inclusion and accessibility for those relying on overdraft services? Is this the beginning of a larger regulatory trend targeting other bank fees? One thing’s for sure: this battle isn’t just about overdraft fees—it’s about the future relationship between financial institutions and consumer protection. What’s your take? Are overdraft fees a relic of the past, or do they serve a necessary role in modern banking? #Banking #CFPB #ConsumerProtection #OverdraftFees #FinancialRegulation #FutureOfFinance

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) said it plans to pursue rulemaking aimed at increasing the availability of deposited funds at banks and bringing larger non-bank personal lenders under the agency’s supervision. The intention for rulemaking responds to a 2022 petition for rulemaking and a 2023 request submitted by a Brookings Institution fellow. After the CFPB released its plan, President Donald Trump’s executive order, titled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” directs federal agencies to stop all rulemaking activity pending within the agency and to consider all rules already published as paused for 60 days. Learn more in this #GTAlert written by Tonya M. Esposito and Shirin Afsous: https://bit.ly/3PS0Kqj. #CFPB #FinancialServices #Banking #ConsumerProtection

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)?took action?to close an outdated overdraft loophole that exempted overdraft loans from lending laws. There are strong opinions on both sides of this debate. Some questions I have: Will this proposed rule ever make traction? If implemented, will you see financial institutions drop overdraft protection and simply return items for the customer to take up with the merchant? It has been argued that overdraft protection has been used like a "payday loans"- will we now see an uptick in that industry? Thoughts? "The agency’s final rule on overdraft fees applies to the banks and credit unions with more than $10 billion in assets that dominate the U.S. market. The reforms will allow large banks several options to manage their overdraft lending program: they can choose to charge $5; to offer overdraft as a courtesy by charging a fee that covers no more than costs or losses; or continue to extend profit-generating overdraft loans if they comply with longstanding lending laws, including disclosing any applicable interest rate. The final rule is expected to add up to $5 billion in annual overdraft fee savings to consumers, or $225 per household that pays overdraft fees." https://lnkd.in/eY5BqSBA

Banks to refund $28m after high-fee controversy In a controversy that has been described as systematic, ASIC revealed that ANZ, Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, CBA, and Westpac kept at least 2 million low-income Aussies in high-fee accounts. These banks will return over $28 million in fees to victims over the next 12–18 months. This will include $24.6 million to be refunded to ABSTUDY payments and those in areas with large First Nations populations. It’s reported that many of the victims were relying on Centrelink payments. ASIC said the drama has caused “financial distress through avoidable fees and complicated bank processes, often creating barriers for regional and remote consumers.” “Banks knew that many of these customers on low-incomes were in inappropriate high-fee accounts, and it has taken ASIC’s intervention to force them to act,” said ASIC commissioner Alan Kirkland. “Before our review, most banks only provided their customers with difficult ‘opt-in’ processes for switching to low fee banking options, including forcing some consumers to travel hundreds of kilometres to their nearest bank branch.” In light of the review, the banks have moved over 200,000 customers into low-fee accounts. This is reportedly saving them a combined $10.7 million in future yearly savings. “This is the second report from ASIC in the last two months that highlights where banks have failed to put customers’ needs at the heart of their operations,” Kirkland said. ASIC has slammed the banks for failing to put customer needs first. Did you know that it is a legal requirement for brokers to put the needs of their customers first? If you have a loan and you are concerned about the rate and fees, why not drop me a line – its free and might save you some money. It’s your money, you work hard for it, let me help you keep more of it.???? ? [email protected] ? This article is not intended to provide specific legal or financial advice and the content contained therein is subject to change. Martin Bailey is a Credit Representative (522104) of Buyers Choice Licencing Pty Ltd ACN 626 172 281 (Australian Credit Licence Number: 509484)