| FIRST KANSAS BANK
 
 July 21, 2004 Robert E. Feldman Executive Secretary
 Attention: Comments/Executive Secretary Section
 FDIC
 550 17th Street NW
 Washington, DC 20429
 RE: Overdraft Protection Guidance Comment FIL 63-2004, dated June 7, 2004
 Dear Mr. Feldman We appreciate the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed 
        Interagency Guidance on Overdraft Protection Programs. Our comments on 
        the Proposal are outlined below. I. To state that discretionary
            overdraft services are "new" is not 
        accurate. Almost every financial institution in the country offers, and
            always has offered, a discretionary overdraft service. As a community
            bank, we have always provided for overdrafts based on knowledge of
            our
        customers and have established an internal set of standards designed
            to facilitate the payment of overdrafts.
 II. Even if a financial
            institution has the ability to "automate" this service,
            it is still discretionary and all financial institutions will be
            affected by regulatory changes. Therefore, the agencies are
        cautioned to make changes that can be managed by the smallest financial
            institutions as well as the largest. III. We believe that the 30-day time frame for charge off of an 
        overdraft is too short. Our experience has shown that most consumers 
        will deposit sufficient funds to cover an overdraft within 45 days. To 
        establish a charge off time period imposes a one size fits all approach 
        that is simply not prudent in community banking organization. This 
        proposal does not take into consideration well-managed discretionary 
        programs and a financial institutions ability to assess their own risk. 
        We desire the flexibility to work with our customers as individuals. IV. We disagree with reporting
            the available amount of overdraft protection as "unused commitment". As defined, "commitment" implies
            an agreement to assume a financial obligation at a future date.
        Discretionary programs do not involve written agreements and are solely
            for the accommodation of the customer. All materials and procedures
            show
        that the payment of any overdraft is purely discretionary, therefore
            no established commitment can be defined. V. It is our opinion that financial institutions are very responsible 
        regarding the disclosure and education of any program offered, including 
        the discretionary payment of an overdraft. The industry has for some 
        time been very aware of the need for proper and full disclosure. Any 
        isolated problems should be dealt with on an individual basis by the 
        examing bodies and not as part of a global regulatory change that will 
        further burden the community banks.  VI. We do not believe that a discretionary overdraft program 
        encourages irresponsible behavior on the part of the consumer. The 
        American consumer has written checks in excess of their account balance 
        for as long as banks have been in business. A discretionary program, 
        rewards customers for their banking relationship and sound financial 
        practices as the overdrafts are paid based a set of circumstances unique 
        to the customer. A well-managed program will take into account a 
        consumer's financial problems and will prevent most customers from 
        becoming overdrawn beyond their ability to repay.  VII. We have also found
            that almost all eligible accounts are provided discretionary coverage
            in community banks. We have not, nor do
        we have knowledge of any financial institution that has "targeted" a
        particular group of individuals. To say that discretionary overdraft
        programs target low-income individuals is simply not factual.  VIII. We believe that consumers are given ample disclosure to fully 
        understand the cost of writing insufficient checks. As required under 
        various banking regulations, consumers are notified of fees when an 
        account is opened, in account brochures, on periodic statements and in 
        per-occurrence notices. To require financial institutions to alter their 
        periodic statements to provide additional information would be 
        burdensome and costly, especially to community banks that have 
        outsourced data processing.  IX. We disagree that there should be a cap on overdraft fees. Each 
        item that is paid avoids a number of possible additional fees or 
        negative information that could be imposed on a consumer, such as fees 
        assessed by the payee, late charges, derogatory credit history, or 
        collection charges. The fee paid to the financial institution for a 
        discretionary overdraft allows each community bank the ability to 
        continue providing a much-needed service to their customers.  As a community bank, we appreciate the opportunity to provide 
        comments on this very important topic. Sincerely,  Beverly Martin
 |