| CITY BANK August 2, 2004  Via email  FDIC – comments@FDIC.gov  RE: Inter-Agency Guidance on Overdraft Protection Programs  Gentlemen:  In regard to the proposed guidance on overdraft protection programs, 
        City Bank is concerned that the program for occasional inadvertent 
        overdrafts continues as a cost effective product for the consumer. This 
        service has become very popular for customers over the past few years. 
        It is our desire that the program not be subjected to the open end 
        credit requirements of Regulation Z, as the cost will cause the program 
        to be ineffective for financial institutions. Many customers have come 
        to rely on this product in times of need, and any increase in cost which 
        might hamper the effectiveness could deprive the customer of important 
        protection. Our current program is offered to all customers without 
        requiring a costly underwriting process. Also, this allows the product 
        to be available to persons that might not qualify for an open-end credit 
        line.  The proposed guidance indicates that overdraft balances should 
        generally be charged off within 30 days from the first date overdrawn. 
        However, it is our belief that overdraft balances should be treated as 
        any other problem consumer debt. To conform to other existing 
        guidelines, the debt should be written off only after a minimum of 
        90-120 days in overdrawn status. Our practice is to begin written 
        communication with the customer after 20 days overdrawn. Follow-up 
        letters are sent at 10 to 15 day intervals thereafter.  To require the unused balance of any overdraft protection available 
        to the entire customer base is absurd. While the program is available to 
        all customers, only a small percentage will actually use the product. To 
        report the unused balance would significantly distort regulatory reports 
        and render them useless.  With regard to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, we agree that 
        overdraft protection is a form of credit, and more specifically 
        “incidental credit.” However, we do not believe it necessary to send the 
        customer an adverse action notice if the product is revoked due to 
        abuse. Our procedures do include written communication with the customer 
        to ensure awareness of his or her new standing with the bank.  The section of the guidance which addresses Electronic Funds Transfer 
        would be next to impossible to achieve. Terminal receipts at point of 
        sale locations will not be able to provide additional disclosures of 
        Reg. E. Best Practices 
 Many of the best practices noted in the guidance have already been 
        adopted by our institution. However, several of the recommendations 
        deserve addressing.  The ability of the customer to opt out of overdraft privilege and 
        select another alternative is one of the best practices recommended. As 
        noted earlier, the cost to comply with open-end credit laws combined 
        with Reg Z would render any alternative unprofitable. The only choice 
        left is for the bank to return the check, impose the exact same fee that 
        would have been imposed under the overdraft protection plan, subject the 
        customer to the additional cost of the insufficient check by the 
        merchant, and add the potential for criminal action as well as the cost 
        of obtaining a money order to replace the item.  Requiring and affirmative consent of consumers to receive overdraft 
        protection will increase the paperwork burden. As such, this should only 
        be required for new customers and not current.  Alerting customers before a non-check transaction triggers any fees 
        is not possible. If a customer uses an off premises ATM or uses a debit 
        card, the bank has no control over the balance that is displayed by that 
        terminal or the ability to provide additional disclosures.  Placing daily limits on the number of overdrafts or the dollar amount 
        of fees that will be charged on any one day is both too costly and 
        complicated to implement. The customer should be aware of how many items 
        could be presented that might overdraw the account.  After visiting with our data processor, it was determined that the 
        ability to monitor for excessive usage is not available. Also, the 
        definition of “excessive” will differ for each customer.  In conclusion, City Bank feels the current overdraft privilege 
        program offered to our customers is working very well. It provides an 
        avenue to cover overdrafts to the masses, since not all customers would 
        qualify for an open-end line of credit.  Thank you for the opportunity to comment.  Sincerely,  Julie BeeneVice President
 City Bank
 P.O. Box 5060
 Lubbock, TX  79408
 |