financialservices.house.gov
Not interested enough to read. The easy solution is don’t overdraft……. Btw, you see reports of $4.7 trillion in spending with no way to track where it went. And something like 12 million folks over 120 years old getting SS checks. What about the $20 billion Bidens folks stuck in a bank last minute to hideGotta love it
Hill, Scott Lead Effort to Roll Back Biden-Era CFPB Overdraft Rule | Financial Services Committee
I demand you cover my bad checks. And I refuse to pay you more than $5 for doing it. Typical liberal attitude.This is a problem, only if you have no idea what you're talking about. It's about three things:
1. Preserving consumer access to financial services
2. Avoiding unintended consequences
3. Reducing/correcting CFPB authority
-- Capping overdraft fees at $5 or subjecting them to stringent lending regulations could discourage banks from offering overdraft protection altogether
-- For the 20% of Americans without access to traditional credit, overdraft services act as an emergency safety net, allowing them to cover essential expenses during short-term budget shortfalls
-- Rolling back the rule ensures that banks can continue providing this flexibility without fear of regulatory overreach or unprofitable compliance burdens and keeps consumers within the regulated banking system rather than pushing them toward riskier alternatives like payday loans.
-- The rule’s one-size-fits-all approach ignores the wide range of consumer needs and the competitive innovations already underway in the banking sector
-- Banks have independently reduced overdraft fees in recent years, down from an estimated $12.6 billion in 2019 to $8-9 billion annually
-- Market-driven changes suggest that competition, not heavy-handed regulation, is effectively addressing consumer concerns
-- CFPB’s rule stifled this progress by imposing rigid price controls, which could freeze innovation and limit banks’ ability to tailor services to their customers
-- Rolling back the rule would allow market forces to continue shaping overdraft offerings, potentially benefiting consumers more than a blanket cap.
-- The rule represents an overstep of the CFPB’s authority and a misapplication of consumer protection laws.
-- The overdraft fees are not loans, but discretionary services governed by account agreements
-- The Biden-era rule’s attempt to reclassify overdrafts as credit subject to TILA disclosures and interest rate caps lacks clear statutory backing and deviates from decades of regulatory precedent
-- By rolling back the rule, lawmakers would reaffirm that such significant policy shifts should come from Congress, not an agency acting unilaterally (especially under a departing administration’s “midnight rulemaking” push)
-- The impact could harm both consumers and financial institutions, particularly smaller banks and credit unions indirectly affected by market ripple effects
-- CFPB’s own estimates show overdraft revenue is a significant income stream for many institutions, especially those serving low-income communities
-- Capping fees at $5 (or forcing costly compliance with loan-like disclosures) might lead banks to raise other fees, restrict account access, or exit certain markets, disproportionately hurting vulnerable consumers
-- Rolling back the rule would protect the financial ecosystem’s stability, ensuring that banks can sustain services without passing hidden costs onto customers
But, I'm sure you considered all of this before bitching about it, right? Or is it just because "TRUMP, BAD!?!?"
This is a problem, only if you have no idea what you're talking about. It's about three things:
1. Preserving consumer access to financial services
2. Avoiding unintended consequences
3. Reducing/correcting CFPB authority
-- Capping overdraft fees at $5 or subjecting them to stringent lending regulations could discourage banks from offering overdraft protection altogether
-- For the 20% of Americans without access to traditional credit, overdraft services act as an emergency safety net, allowing them to cover essential expenses during short-term budget shortfalls
-- Rolling back the rule ensures that banks can continue providing this flexibility without fear of regulatory overreach or unprofitable compliance burdens and keeps consumers within the regulated banking system rather than pushing them toward riskier alternatives like payday loans.
-- The rule’s one-size-fits-all approach ignores the wide range of consumer needs and the competitive innovations already underway in the banking sector
-- Banks have independently reduced overdraft fees in recent years, down from an estimated $12.6 billion in 2019 to $8-9 billion annually
-- Market-driven changes suggest that competition, not heavy-handed regulation, is effectively addressing consumer concerns
-- CFPB’s rule stifled this progress by imposing rigid price controls, which could freeze innovation and limit banks’ ability to tailor services to their customers
-- Rolling back the rule would allow market forces to continue shaping overdraft offerings, potentially benefiting consumers more than a blanket cap.
-- The rule represents an overstep of the CFPB’s authority and a misapplication of consumer protection laws.
-- The overdraft fees are not loans, but discretionary services governed by account agreements
-- The Biden-era rule’s attempt to reclassify overdrafts as credit subject to TILA disclosures and interest rate caps lacks clear statutory backing and deviates from decades of regulatory precedent
-- By rolling back the rule, lawmakers would reaffirm that such significant policy shifts should come from Congress, not an agency acting unilaterally (especially under a departing administration’s “midnight rulemaking” push)
-- The impact could harm both consumers and financial institutions, particularly smaller banks and credit unions indirectly affected by market ripple effects
-- CFPB’s own estimates show overdraft revenue is a significant income stream for many institutions, especially those serving low-income communities
-- Capping fees at $5 (or forcing costly compliance with loan-like disclosures) might lead banks to raise other fees, restrict account access, or exit certain markets, disproportionately hurting vulnerable consumers
-- Rolling back the rule would protect the financial ecosystem’s stability, ensuring that banks can sustain services without passing hidden costs onto customers
But, I'm sure you considered all of this before bitching about it, right? Or is it just because "TRUMP, BAD!?!?"
LOVE IT!This is a problem, only if you have no idea what you're talking about. It's about three things:
1. Preserving consumer access to financial services
2. Avoiding unintended consequences
3. Reducing/correcting CFPB authority
-- Capping overdraft fees at $5 or subjecting them to stringent lending regulations could discourage banks from offering overdraft protection altogether
-- For the 20% of Americans without access to traditional credit, overdraft services act as an emergency safety net, allowing them to cover essential expenses during short-term budget shortfalls
-- Rolling back the rule ensures that banks can continue providing this flexibility without fear of regulatory overreach or unprofitable compliance burdens and keeps consumers within the regulated banking system rather than pushing them toward riskier alternatives like payday loans.
-- The rule’s one-size-fits-all approach ignores the wide range of consumer needs and the competitive innovations already underway in the banking sector
-- Banks have independently reduced overdraft fees in recent years, down from an estimated $12.6 billion in 2019 to $8-9 billion annually
-- Market-driven changes suggest that competition, not heavy-handed regulation, is effectively addressing consumer concerns
-- CFPB’s rule stifled this progress by imposing rigid price controls, which could freeze innovation and limit banks’ ability to tailor services to their customers
-- Rolling back the rule would allow market forces to continue shaping overdraft offerings, potentially benefiting consumers more than a blanket cap.
-- The rule represents an overstep of the CFPB’s authority and a misapplication of consumer protection laws.
-- The overdraft fees are not loans, but discretionary services governed by account agreements
-- The Biden-era rule’s attempt to reclassify overdrafts as credit subject to TILA disclosures and interest rate caps lacks clear statutory backing and deviates from decades of regulatory precedent
-- By rolling back the rule, lawmakers would reaffirm that such significant policy shifts should come from Congress, not an agency acting unilaterally (especially under a departing administration’s “midnight rulemaking” push)
-- The impact could harm both consumers and financial institutions, particularly smaller banks and credit unions indirectly affected by market ripple effects
-- CFPB’s own estimates show overdraft revenue is a significant income stream for many institutions, especially those serving low-income communities
-- Capping fees at $5 (or forcing costly compliance with loan-like disclosures) might lead banks to raise other fees, restrict account access, or exit certain markets, disproportionately hurting vulnerable consumers
-- Rolling back the rule would protect financial system stability, ensuring that banks can sustain services without passing hidden costs onto customers
But, I'm sure you considered all of this before bitching about it, right? Or is it just because "TRUMP, BAD!?!?"
Don't overdraft. Winning.Gotta love it
Hill, Scott Lead Effort to Roll Back Biden-Era CFPB Overdraft Rule | Financial Services Committee
Well this got put to bed really quick? LMAOGotta love it
Hill, Scott Lead Effort to Roll Back Biden-Era CFPB Overdraft Rule | Financial Services Committee
