| VENTURE BANK July 20, 2004
         Robert E. FeldmanExecutive Secretary
 Attention: Comments
 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
 550 17th Street, NW
 Washington, DC 20429
 Re: Interagency Guidance on Overdraft Protection
 comments@fdic.gov
 RE: Proposed Guidance on Certain Overdraft Protection Programs  Dear Mr. Feldman:  I am writing on behalf of Venture Bank (“Bank”) to comment on the 
        agencies’ proposed guidance on overdraft protection. We recognize the 
        amount of effort that has gone into preparing this guidance. We 
        respectfully submit our comments below.  The Bank has offered its customers an Overdraft Protection Program (“ODP”) 
        for the last two and a half years; approximately 17% of the Bank’s 
        customers use the ODP. The Bank has managed the risk for this program in 
        an appropriate manner mitigating losses while providing a valued service 
        to its customers. The Bank already complies with a substantial majority 
        of the proposed guidelines as well as best practices.  Throughout the proposed guidance overdraft protection programs are 
        labeled as a “credit service”; we find this label troubling and entirely 
        inaccurate. Regulation Z applies when all four of the following 
        conditions are met: (i) the credit is offered or extended to consumers; 
        (ii) the offering or extension of credit is done regularly; (iii) the 
        credit is subject to a finance charge or is payable by a written 
        agreement in more than 4 installments; and (iv) the credit is primarily 
        for personal, family or household purposes. Our ODP is not offered 
        regularly it is simply provided as a service to our customers at the 
        time of account opening where they are provided an opportunity to opt 
        out from the service. We do not assess a finance charge, nor is this 
        service payable by written agreement in more than 4 installments. 
        Payment of the overdraft is expected at the time the account is 
        overdrawn. The Bank’s ODP is a discretionary service; we are not 
        obligated to pay any item presented for payment if an account does not 
        maintain sufficient funds. The ODP is simply a more efficient NSF 
        processing system. Our ODP provides an automated system for making 
        pay/return decisions allowing for more efficient use of our resources 
        and quicker processing. Our ODP is of benefit to our customers because 
        not as many items are returned and therefore, they are not charged as 
        much in fees by merchants and are saved the embarrassment of returned 
        checks. No written agreement is entered into at the time of account 
        opening and we may approve reasonable overdrafts as a non-contractual 
        courtesy. We feel it is essential that the final guidance eliminate the 
        term “credit service.”  The guidance establishes a clear safety and soundness standard that 
        overdraft balances must be charged off within 30 days from the date 
        first overdrawn. Further, it is stated that the existence of a repayment 
        plan would not extend the charge-off determination period beyond the 30 
        days measured from the date of the overdraft. We feel our ODP does not 
        pose a safety and soundness concern. The risk of this program has been 
        identified and accepted by the Bank’s board of directors and is managed 
        by senior management. A notice is sent to the customer upon the first 
        use of the ODP reminding them that repayment is expected immediately, 
        follow-up letters are sent at 10 day intervals and the overdraft 
        privilege is discontinued at the 30 day mark with customer letters used 
        for further collection. Bank procedures provide for the charge off of 
        the overdrawn balance at 60 days, at which time additional collection 
        efforts are made. A longer charge off period is also more favorable to 
        the customer since no damage would be done to depositors by the 
        premature reporting of charged off accounts to the credit bureaus.  The proposed guidance states that “When an institution routinely 
        communicates the available amount of overdraft protection to depositors, 
        these available amounts should be reported as “unused commitments” in 
        regulatory reports.” Unused commitments in the call report are defined 
        as “unused portions of commitments to make or purchase extensions of 
        credit in the form of loans or participations in loans, leases or 
        similar transactions.” Overdraft protection programs do not fit this 
        definition and thereby should not be included in unused commitments for 
        regulatory reporting. ODP’s as previously discussed are a discretionary 
        service not a credit product. There is no commitment to advance monies 
        or any written agreement with the customer. The Bank is not obligated to 
        pay any overdrafts and may cancel the service at any time. This 
        reporting requirement should only be reserved for contractually binding 
        obligations such as traditional overdraft lines of credit or other 
        formal credit facilities.  The proposed best practices includes a suggestion that all financial 
        institutions involved with ODP’s monitor excessive consumer usage, which 
        may indicate a need for alternative credit arrangements or other 
        services and inform consumers of these available options. Several 
        concerns are raised by this suggested “best practice.” First would be 
        the definition of “excessive consumer usage” this is a broad statement 
        and we feel not easily defined; what may be considered excessive for one 
        customer may not be for another. Second, we do not feel it is the Bank’s 
        responsibility or in the best interests of the customer to restrict use 
        of this product; customers want this product as evidenced by the volume 
        of transactions.  In Conclusion:  
• Generally, we are in agreement with many elements of the proposed 
        ODP guidance. Many of the best practices suggested have already been 
        implemented by our institution. • We disagree with the regulatory agencies’ requirement for charge off 
        of overdraft balances at 30 days as well as the suggested practice of 
        monitoring excessive consumer usage and classification of unused 
        commitments in regulatory reporting.
 • Finally, we feel it is very important that the agencies take out all 
        references that ODP’s are a credit service, previous discussion shows 
        that this is a discretionary deposit product service.
 
 
 Sincerely, Jon M. JonesPresident
 Venture Bank
 |