ABA Banking Journal
No Result
View All Result
  • Topics
    • Ag Banking
    • Commercial Lending
    • Community Banking
    • Compliance and Risk
    • Cybersecurity
    • Economy
    • Human Resources
    • Insurance
    • Legal
    • Mortgage
    • Mutual Funds
    • Payments
    • Policy
    • Retail and Marketing
    • Tax and Accounting
    • Technology
    • Wealth Management
  • Newsbytes
  • Podcasts
  • Magazine
    • Subscribe
    • Advertise
    • Magazine Archive
    • Newsletter Archive
    • Podcast Archive
    • Sponsored Content Archive
SUBSCRIBE
ABA Banking Journal
  • Topics
    • Ag Banking
    • Commercial Lending
    • Community Banking
    • Compliance and Risk
    • Cybersecurity
    • Economy
    • Human Resources
    • Insurance
    • Legal
    • Mortgage
    • Mutual Funds
    • Payments
    • Policy
    • Retail and Marketing
    • Tax and Accounting
    • Technology
    • Wealth Management
  • Newsbytes
  • Podcasts
  • Magazine
    • Subscribe
    • Advertise
    • Magazine Archive
    • Newsletter Archive
    • Podcast Archive
    • Sponsored Content Archive
No Result
View All Result
No Result
View All Result
ADVERTISEMENT
Home Compliance and Risk

Don’t underestimate regulatory scrutiny of overdraft programs

September 21, 2023
Reading Time: 5 mins read
Don’t underestimate regulatory scrutiny of overdraft programs

As regulatory attention to overdraft practices changes and intensifies, experts advise banks to dig deep in reassessing insufficient funds programs to improve and strengthen their processes and management.

By Christopher Delporte

The current bank overdraft policy environment is one of intense scrutiny, according to Jonathan Thessin, ABA’s VP and senior counsel, regulatory compliance and policy. Regulatory agencies are scrutinizing overdraft and nonsufficient funds fees and encouraging banks to reevaluate their overdraft programs, homing in on those banks where these fees comprise, according to regulators, a disproportionate amount of the banks’ fee revenue, experts say.

CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said earlier this year that his bureau will act against “large financial institutions whose overdraft practices violate the law” and will prioritize examination of banks that are “heavily reliant” on overdraft. Acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael Hsu took a similar though softer tone, cautioning banks: “You don’t want to be the last bank with a traditional overdraft system.”

rightwards arrow
View more
risk and compliance articles.

During ABA’s recent Risk and Compliance Conference, Thessin, along with fellow panelist Aaron Rykowski, EVP, chief compliance officer of WesBanco, headquartered in Wheeling, West Virginia, described the scrutiny of specific overdraft practices and how banks should reassess their overdraft programs.

The most common practices targeted by regulatory bodies for lawsuits and enforcement actions are nonsufficient funds fees on re-presented transactions and overdraft fees resulting from “authorize positive, settle negative” transactions. With NSF fees, financial institutions may charge a nonsufficient funds fee on a transaction (such as a check) that is re-presented due to nonpayment the first time the transaction is initiated. The transaction is resubmitted by the merchant and presents again against a negative balance, for which the bank charges a second NSF fee.

With APSN, a first transaction is authorized on positive funds. In the meantime, a second transition posts to the customer’s account, which lowers the available balance. When the first transaction posts, it does so against negative funds and the customer incurs an overdraft fee.

Sufficient processes for nonsufficient fees

With NSF, agencies have said that they are examining banks for both deception and unfairness in banks’ practices. In spring 2022, the FDIC issued supervisory highlights that said charging multiple NSF fees when the same transaction is presented multiple times for payment against insufficient funds in a customer’s account could be “deceptive” or “unfair” under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. To Thessin’s knowledge, the FDIC has cited banks for deception, not unfairness, related to this practice. Under a Financial Institution Letter issued in August 2022, the FDIC stated its expectation that banks will self-identify and correct violations. Examiners will generally not cite unfair or deceptive acts or practices violations that have been self-identified and fully corrected prior to the start of a consumer compliance examination. The FDIC also accepted a two-year “lookback period” for restitution in examinations. (Significantly, three days after this panel discussion, the FDIC revised its FIL to remove the lookback expectation unless there is a “likelihood of substantial consumer harm.”)

More recently, the CFPB and OCC entered into separate but related consent orders with a large bank in which the agencies stated that the bank’s practice of charging multiple NSF fees for represented transactions was an unfair practice—a finding that went beyond the FDIC’s focus on deception.

During the panel, Thessin recommended that banks review their account agreements to determine if they need to be strengthened to avoid a deception finding. To avoid an unfairness finding—which turns on whether the second NSF fee was “reasonably avoidable”—Thessin recommended banks provide multiple means for customers to check account balances and review the bank’s processes for advising customers of NSF fees.

“It’s in your interest to look at your processes for notifying customers of a low account balance, notifying of an NSF fee,” he said. “Most [banks] send letters, but also use text alerts and email.” Thessin continued: “If you’re scrutinized by regulators, you have all these ways to notify the customer that they’ve been assessed an NSF fee.” Thessin also stated that banks should “explain to examiners the significant logistical challenge of conducting a look-back.”

Regulators justify the potential unfairness finding by stating that the customer doesn’t know when a merchant is going to reprocess the transaction, Rykowski explained, but banks may not have that intel either.

“Banks don’t know either, right?” Rykowski said. “It could be a couple of days. It could be four days—or four weeks. We really don’t know when they’re going to send it back or how. The merchant could try to send it through as a paper check the first time and convert it to an ACH the second time. Logistically, we don’t necessarily know that’s the same transaction.”

APSN: All about disclosures

For APSN, the approach taken by regulatory agencies has evolved over the last few years. Going back to 2015-2016, regulators—the OCC, FDIC and CFPB—described the issues as one involving potential deception—that the agencies will cite a bank for deception if customers are not given proper disclosures of when they will be assessed an overdraft fee. In 2016, the Federal Reserve Board took a different approach and described it as matter of unfairness, in that the customer cannot “reasonably avoid” these overdraft fees. In 2022, the CFPB entered a consent agreement with a large bank and two weeks later issued a circular in which the agency took the position that these authorized positive, settle negative overdraft fees are unfair. The FDIC and OCC followed this spring, stating that APSN is an unfair practice, using language very similar to the CFPB.

“The clear takeaway is that regulators are pushing banks to bring on solutions so that you don’t charge the customer [an overdraft] fee under these fact patterns,” Thessin said, urging banks to look into current vendor solutions. “I will caution any of you who have tried to implement a solution: It’s a lengthy process. It takes more than weeks and months. And so, as you talk to your regulators, if you’re receiving scrutiny, emphasize that this is not a simple fix. I’ve talked to bankers who said, ‘It knocks out custom coding; it’s a multi-month—if not more than a yearlong—process to implement the solution.’ So that’s a real point to emphasize to your regulator. The takeaway from all four regulators is that banks need to be changing their practices now.”

Rykowski emphasized the continued importance of accurate disclosures. It’s important, Rykowski noted, that while there needs to be a modicum of personal responsibility on the part of the consumer, from a practical standpoint, looking at it from the banks and regulator perspective, it’s about disclosure. The FDIC, the Fed and OCC still focus more on disclosure and account agreements, and explaining to consumers how their account is going to function, he added.

“We’ve revamped our disclosures based on all the guidance over the past several years, so that we’re describing in detail in our account agreement how an APSN transaction could potentially occur,” he explained. “This is how you can be overdrawn. This is how we will assess a fee. And we did that in concert with our overdraft program disclosure. The CFPB doesn’t focus as much on disclosure; they just think the practice is inherently unfair because of that inability to avoid the fee.” But, Rykowski continued, “We know it’s completely avoidable through proper account management of different types of alerts and different types of account management tools. But disclosure really goes a long way.”

Being diligent about what disclosures say and making sure they line up with actual practices is “the biggest thing” to address from a risk-management perspective, Rykowski advised, adding that regulators are reviewing these issues based on current bulletins, circulars and advisory opinions. Rykowski noted that, in a few years, “if there’s a change in the White House, or a change in [an agency] director, by the stroke of a pen, these can all go away. So, from a disclosure perspective, do yours accurately describe what these transactions are going to do when they hit your customer’s account?”

ADVERTISEMENT
Tags: CFPBOCCOverdraft protection
ShareTweetPin

Author

Christopher Delporte

Christopher Delporte

Christopher Delporte is a senior editor for the ABA Banking Journal and vice president of editorial strategy for member communications at the American Bankers Association.

Related Posts

The ever-expanding role of chief risk officer

The ever-expanding role of chief risk officer

Human Resources
July 7, 2025

'A new era has emerged in which CROs faced greater nonfinancial risk amid pressure to boost the bottom line.'

OCC releases Q3 bank trading revenue report

OCC report: Banking system sound, key risks highlighted

Compliance and Risk
June 30, 2025

The strength of the federal banking system remains sound, the OCC reported in its most recent semiannual risk perspective report. The report covers risks facing national banks, federal savings associations, and federal branches and agencies based on data...

2025 bank marketing trends

ABA Viewpoint: Toward a smarter framework for bank asset thresholds

Compliance and Risk
June 30, 2025

Indexing regulatory thresholds for growth makes sense. Here’s how to do it most effectively.

Fighting fraud on the frontline

Fighting fraud on the frontline

Compliance and Risk
June 30, 2025

Customer inquiries and complaints are important tools for detecting scams, but structural barriers in the bank may prevent them from being fully utilized.

Treasury names FinCEN director

Banking agencies allow banks to collect CIP data from third parties

Compliance and Risk
June 27, 2025

The order permits banks to obtain TIN information from a third party rather than the customer as long as the bank otherwise complies with the customer identification program rule.

Mutuals Ion Bank, NVE Bank plan merger

ABA Viewpoint: Banking has changed, and so should the rules around bank mergers

Compliance and Risk
June 27, 2025

Three decades on, the test for bank mergers no longer reflects the competitive marketplace.

NEWSBYTES

Survey: High interest rates make bank customers want to spend less

July 7, 2025

Texas Bankers Foundation creates donations page in aid of Texas flood victims

July 7, 2025

OCC allows Texas banks affected by flooding to close

July 7, 2025

SPONSORED CONTENT

Navigating Disruption in Ag Lending – Why Tariffs Are Just the Tip of the Iceberg

Navigating Disruption in Ag Lending – Why Tariffs Are Just the Tip of the Iceberg

July 1, 2025
AI Compliance and Regulation: What Financial Institutions Need to Know

Unlocking Deposit Growth: How Financial Institutions Can Activate Data for Precision Cross-Sell

June 1, 2025
Choosing the Right Account Opening Platform: 10 Key Considerations for Long-Term Success

Choosing the Right Account Opening Platform: 10 Key Considerations for Long-Term Success

April 25, 2025
Outsourcing: Getting to Go/No-Go

Outsourcing: Getting to Go/No-Go

April 5, 2025

PODCASTS

Podcast: Inside ABA’s new Treasury Check Verification System API

June 25, 2025

Podcast: Staying close to clients amid tariff-driven volatility

June 18, 2025

Podcast: Old National’s Jim Ryan on the things that really matter

June 12, 2025
ADVERTISEMENT

American Bankers Association
1333 New Hampshire Ave NW
Washington, DC 20036
1-800-BANKERS (800-226-5377)
www.aba.com
About ABA
Privacy Policy
Contact ABA

ABA Banking Journal
About ABA Banking Journal
Media Kit
Advertising
Subscribe

© 2025 American Bankers Association. All rights reserved.

No Result
View All Result
  • Topics
    • Ag Banking
    • Commercial Lending
    • Community Banking
    • Compliance and Risk
    • Cybersecurity
    • Economy
    • Human Resources
    • Insurance
    • Legal
    • Mortgage
    • Mutual Funds
    • Payments
    • Policy
    • Retail and Marketing
    • Tax and Accounting
    • Technology
    • Wealth Management
  • Newsbytes
  • Podcasts
  • Magazine
    • Subscribe
    • Advertise
    • Magazine Archive
    • Newsletter Archive
    • Podcast Archive
    • Sponsored Content Archive

© 2025 American Bankers Association. All rights reserved.