Information about Overdraft

An overdraft occurs when withdrawals from a bank account exceed the available balance which gives the account a negative balance - a person can be said to have gone "overdrawn".

If there is a prior agreement with the account provider for an overdraft protection plan, and the amount overdrawn is within this authorised overdraft, then interest is normally charged at the agreed rate. If the balance exceeds the agreed terms, then fees may be charged and higher interest rate might apply.

History of the Overdraft

The first overdraft was awarded in 1728 when merchant William Hog was allowed to take out £1000, almost £65000 today, more than he had in his account. The overdraft was awarded by The Royal Bank of Scotland which had opened in Edinburgh the previous year. It soon began to offer interest on money paid in.

Overdraft protection in the United Kingdom

Banks in the UK often offer a basic overdraft facility, subject to a pre-arranged limit (known as an authorised overdraft limit). However, whether this is offered free of interest, subject to an average monthly balance figure or at the bank's overdraft lending rate varies from bank to bank and may differ according to the account product held.

When a customer exceeds their authorised overdraft limit, they go into unauthorised overdraft which often results in the customer being charged one or more fees, together with a higher rate of lending on the amount by which they have exceeded their authorised overdraft limit. The fees charged by banks can vary.

A customer may also incur a fee if they present an item which their issuing bank declines for reason of insufficient funds, that is, the bank elects not to permit the customer to go into unauthorised overdraft. Again, the level and nature of such fees varies widely between banks.

In 2006 the Office of Fair Trading issued a statement which concluded that credit card issuers were levying penalty charges when customers exceeded their maximum spend limit and / or made late payments to their accounts. In the statement, the OFT recommended that credit card issuers set such fees at a maximum of 12 UK pounds [1]. In the statement, the OFT opined that the fees charged by credit card issuers were analogous to unauthorised overdraft fees charged by banks. Many customers who have incurred unauthorised overdraft fees have used this statement as a springboard to sue their banks in order to recover the fees. It is currently thought that the England and Wales county courts are flooded with such claims [2]. Claimants tend frequently to be assisted by web sites such as the The Consumer Forums which includesThe Consumer Action Group. To date, many banks do not appear in court to justify their unauthorised overdraft charging structures and many customers have recovered such charges in full [3]. However, there have been cases where the courts have ruled in favour of the banks and alternatively struck out claims against customers who have not adequately made a case against their bank(see BBC article).

In response to claims by customers to recover their charges, some banks have closed customer accounts, on the basis that those accounts have not been operated within the terms and conditions [4] which the customer consented to when the account was opened.

Overdraft protection in the United States

Overdraft protection is a financial service offered by banking institutions primarily in the United States. Overdraft or courtesy pay program protection pays items presented to a customer's account when sufficient funds are not present to cover the amount of the withdrawal. Overdraft protection can cover ATM withdrawals, purchases made with a debit card, electronic transfers, and checks. In the case of non-preauthorized items such as checks, or ACH withdrawals, overdraft protection allows for these items to be paid as opposed to being returned unpaid, or bouncing. However, ATM withdrawals and purchases made with a debit or check card are considered preauthorized and must be paid by the bank when presented, even if this causes an overdraft.

Ad-hoc coverage of overdrafts

Traditionally, the manager of a bank would look at the bank's list of overdrafts each day. If the manager saw that a favored customer had incurred an overdraft, he had the discretion to pay the overdraft for the customer. Banks traditionally did not charge for this ad-hoc coverage. However, it was fully discretionary, and so could not be depended on. With the advent of large-scale interstate branch banking, traditional ad-hoc coverage has practically disappeared.

Overdraft lines of credit

This form of overdraft protection is a contractual relationship in which the bank promises to pay overdrafts up to a certain dollar limit. A consumer who wants an overdraft line of credit must complete and sign an application, after which the bank checks the consumer's credit and approves or denies the application. Overdraft lines of credit are loans and must comply with the Truth in Lending Act. As with linked accounts, banks typically charge a nominal fee per overdraft, and also charge interest on the outstanding balance. Some banks charge a small monthly fee regardless of whether the line of credit is used. This form of overdraft protection is available to consumers who meet the creditworthiness criteria established by the bank for such accounts. Once the line of credit is established, the available credit may be visible as part of the customer's available balance.

Linked accounts

Also referred to as "Overdraft Transfer Protection", a checking account can be linked to another account, such as a savings account, or to an existing line of credit such as a credit card or home equity line of credit. Once the link is established, when an item is presented to the account that would result in an overdraft, funds are transferred from the linked savings account or linked credit account to cover the overdraft. A nominal fee is usually charged for each overdraft transfer, and if the linked account is a credit card or other line of credit, the consumer may be required to pay interest under the terms of that account.

The main difference between linked accounts and an overdraft line of credit is that the a dedicated overdraft line of credit typically requires a new credit application and the opening of a new credit line, as opposed to using an existing savings account, credit card, or other line of credit.

Bounce protection plans

A more recent product being offered by some banks is called "bounce protection."

Smaller banks offer plans administered by third party companies which help the banks gain additional fee income.^[1] Larger banks run similar plans, which they usually disclose in their account opening terms.

Under the plans, the bank may choose to cover overdrawn items at their discretion and charge an overdraft fee, the amount of which may or may not be disclosed. As opposed to traditional ad-hoc coverage, this decision to pay or not pay overdrawn items is automated and based on objective criteria such as the customer's average balance, the overdraft history of the account, the number of accounts the customer holds with the bank, and the length of time those accounts have been open. However, the bank does not promise to pay the overdraft even if the automated criteria are met.

These plans have some superficial similarities to overdraft lines of credit and ad-hoc coverage of overdrafts, but tend to operate under different rules. Like an overdraft line of credit, the balance of the bounce protection plan may be viewable as part of the customer's available balance, yet the bank reserves the right to refuse payment of an overdrawn item, as with traditional ad-hoc coverage. Banks typically charge a one-time fee for each overdraft paid. A bank may also charge a recurring daily fee for each day during which the account has a negative balance.

Critics argue that because funds are advanced to a consumer and repayment is expected, that bounce protection is a type of loan. Because banks are not contractually obligated to cover the overdrafts, "bounce protection" is not regulated by the Truth in Lending Act, which prohibits certain deceptive advertisements and requires disclosure of the terms of loans. Bounce protection can be added to a consumer's account without his or her permission, and without informing the consumer.

In May 2005, Regulation DD of the Truth in Savings Act was amended to require that banks offering "bounce protection" plans provide certain disclosures to their customers. These amendments include requirements to disclose the types of transaction that may cause bounce protection to be triggered, the fees associated with bounce protection, separate statement categories to enumerate the number of fees charged, and restrictions on the marketing of bounce protection programs to deter misleading advertisements.

Costs

As a source of revenue, banks have the option of charging a fee for every use. Fees vary widely depending on the bank and on the kind of overdraft protection used.

Banks process all transactions in the same manner, so customers can incur these fees even with ATM or debit card transactions. Compounding the issue, a bank authorizes transactions in such a way that a single purchase, made with available funds, can trigger multiple overdraft fees.

Banks collected $17.5 billion in overdraft fees in 2006; up from $10.3 billion in 2004.

Transaction processing order

Most US banks use a "biggest check first" posting order, by which items posting to a customer's account post according to the amount of the item, as opposed to the transaction date. The "Biggest Check First" policy is common among large U.S. banks, such as Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Wells Fargo and Wachovia. Banks argue that this is done to prevent a customer's most important transactions (such as a rent or mortgage check, or utility payment) from being returned unpaid. This also has the effect of maximizing fee income since the larger items deplete the account balance causing multiple overdrafts by smaller items that present on the same day. Consumers have attempted to litigate to prevent this practice, arguing that banks use "Biggest Check First" to manipulate the order of transactions to artificially trigger more overdraft fees to collect.

Here is an example of how processing order affects overdraft costs: A customer has $100 in her account. On Tuesday, using her debit card, she buys coffee for $3, a small amount of gas for $15, and $25 worth of groceries. The $43 she spent is immediately placed on hold, and her available balance decreases to $57. If Tuesday's merchants fail to settle their transactions before Friday (assuming a 3 business day hold), the $43 shows up on the account as available, bringing her account back to $100. On Friday, she deposits an additional $500 check. On Saturday her ATM and online balance tells her she has $600 available, and she withdraws this $100 from an ATM. As of Sunday night, her account shows exactly $500 remaining available.

On Monday evening, all three of last week's merchants settle their transactions, the check clears, and the ATM transaction is processed. The bank first deducts the ATM transaction, clears the debit purchases from largest to smallest, and then credits the deposit. The customer is charged three overdraft fees. The customer is naturally confused, as she had not overdrawn her account when she made any of these purchases, and she never spent more than the bank told her she had available. However, because all five transactions clear on Monday, and the bank clears largest items first before crediting the deposit, Tuesday's purchases are all listed after the $100 ATM withdrawal that occurred four days later. The customer is charged three overdraft charges total rather than zero or one.

Bank representatives claim that the "biggest check first" processing order benefits customers as larger transactions (such as mortgage or car payments, etc) are usually more important. However, customers do not have a say in this policy. Bank deposit agreements usually provide that the bank may clear transactions in any order, at the bank's discretion.^[2]

Benefits and risks

If corrected in a timely manner, the costs of overdraft protection are typically lower than the fines incurred for bouncing a check. For a bounced check, the bank will charge the customer a nonsufficient funds fee (NSF) and the cashing institution will charge a returned check fee, sometimes in addition to the amount of the check. This package of fines may be dramatically higher than the single overdraft protection fee.

For checks, overdraft protection also prevents the cashing institution from knowing that the person is low on cash which can serve to protect the customer's reputation.

If the overdrawn state is not corrected within a short period of time, however, the costs of overdraft protection increase. If using an overdraft line of credit which isn't paid back, the interest can accumulate, and in severe cases the line of credit can be charged off and reported to credit reporting agencies. A similar scenario can also occur if the bank charges a daily fee for having an overdrawn account.

The costs of overdraft protection are typically far higher than the costs of attempting make a purchase with a debit card or make an ATM withdrawal from an account with insufficient funds. In the absence of overdraft protection, such ATM withdrawals and debit purchases are refused without a fee. The consumer then may choose to cancel the transaction or to borrow money from a less-expensive source.

Proposed legislation

H.R. 946, introduced in the US Congress on February 8, 2007, would increase regulation of overdraft loan programs. The proposed legislation would Amend the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) to clarify that overdraft fees are covered, require written consent before enrollment in the overdraft loan program, require financial institutions to warn the customer when an ATM withdrawal will trigger a fee, and prohibit financial institutions from changing the order of check clearing or delaying the posting of deposits solely to increase overdraft fees.

References

See also

• Current accounts
• Banks
• Building societies
• Credit
• Authorization hold