Nobody likes paying fees. A fee, however, is a transparent way to reflect the price of something. And in a market economy, prices convey vital information that consumers and producers use to make good decisions. A rise in the price of apples tells producers that consumers want more apples. This prompts more apple production (and eventually, lower prices). And so when political interference keeps prices from fluctuating freely, the result is inefficiency and waste.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), calling the prices of bank overdraft protection “junk fees,” now proposes to interfere with these prices.
We’ve been down this road before. Last year, the CFPB proposed capping credit card late fees at $8 as part of President Joe Biden’s populist appeal to consumers who dislike this cost, which is obviously everyone. The problem, as I and many others explained at the time, is that late fees encourage timely payment, and their practical elimination leaves lenders unable to offset the risk of working with people who have lower credit.
The result will be fewer lines of credit available to those who need credit the most. But that’s a difficult outcome for most to see compared to the tangible benefit of lowering fees. Even consumers denied credit won’t know what or who to blame, so it’s no surprise that CFPB is expected to finalize the late fee rule any day now.
The next CFPB price control scheme would cap overdraft fees at levels as low as $3 per overdraft transaction. Commenting on this rule, Biden sounded perfectly populist: “For too long, some banks have charged exorbitant overdraft feessometimes $30 or morethat often hit the most vulnerable Americans the hardest, all while banks pad their bottom lines.” He added, “Banks call it a serviceI call it exploitation.”
I get it. I remember the annoyance I felt when I was charged such fees. However, I reminded myself that it was the price to pay for not having one of my checks bounce or a debit card payment declined. It’s fair to wonder whether most of the people proposing these rules have ever had a checking account balance low enough to need the overdraft cushion.
In fact, overdraft protection is an optional, opt-in service that allows consumers to spend money they don’t have at the bank’s expense. Purchases are approved that would otherwise be declined for lack of funds. For low-income consumers, this service is sometimes vital. And indeed, consumers report by wide margins that they are glad it exists even though it naturally comes at a cost.
Thankfully for all of us, CFPB bureaucrats agree that banks should charge a fee. Unfortunately, they think they know best what these fees should be. They think they know the exact costs of honoring charges for customers with negative balances better than the banks do. And remember, because banking is competitive, any bank that charges excessive overdraft fees will lose customers to banks that don’t. That $30 fee per overdraft transaction is the price that emerged among the competitive forces that keep prices lower than they could be.
Because of bureaucratic interference, many who see overdraft protection as preferable to other short-term credit options, such as payday lending or high credit card balances, will have fewer choices as some banks decide that the service isn’t worth offering at the price deemed appropriate by government officials.
Banks might go even further. Given the slim profit margins they earn on small bank accounts, it’s possible that the loss of overdraft protection revenue results in some simply abandoning the very customersthe least well offwhom interventionists claim to be protecting.
This frequent political problemfailing to consider how policy interventions alter incentives in ways that produce bad outcomesextends well beyond the realm of finance. The United States education system, for instance, is collapsing in part because school boards across the country have decided that graduation rates were the most important metric to track success and are now frequently used to determine funding. So school administrators responded by boosting graduation rates in the simplest and most obvious manner: by making it all but impossible for students to fail. Students, in turn, have largely stopped trying. Graduation rates are up, but learning is down.
Politicians and bureaucrats appear not to be learning much, either. When planners make ham-fisted attempts to alter complex systems or intervene in markets, results rarely match their expectations.
A judge has ruled that nearly £20m is to be paid out to 16 survivors of the Manchester Arena bombing who were children at the time of the tragedy.
Twenty-two people were murdered and hundreds injured in the suicide bombing at an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena on 22 May, 2017.
Amounts of between £2,770 and £11.4m were agreed at a hearing on Thursday at the Manchester Civil Courts of Justice for 16 youngsters, all aged under 16 at the time of the attack.
The total amount to be paid comes in at £19,928,150.
Some of the youngsters suffered “catastrophic” and life-changing injuries, and others suffered psychological damage after 22-year-old Salman Abedi detonated a backpack bomb leaving the concert.
The claims were made against, and will be paid by, the defendants in the case – those responsible for the safe and secure running of the arena event.
Image: People hold a minute of silence in a square in central Manchester, on 25 May 2017. Pic: AP
Those contributing to the settlement include: SMG Europe Holdings, which managed the venue; Showsec International Ltd, responsible for crowd management; and British Transport Police (BTP) and Greater Manchester Police (GMP), responsible for policing the area.
A public inquiry into the bombing, led by Sir John Saunders, found that chances to prevent the attack had been missed, and also noted “serious shortcomings” in security and individual failings.
On Thursday, Judge Nigel Bird approved the 16 claims – agreed between their lawyers and the defendants – as they all involved children or those without mental capacity.
The 16 survivors and their families cannot be identified, due to a court order.
It is understood that following the hearing, claims by another 352 people, all adults deemed to have capacity, including the families of the 22 who lost loved ones, will now be agreed between lawyers for the claimants and the defendants.
Those agreements have been made out-of-court, so no details of any public money to be paid out by public bodies BTP and GMP have been made public.
Image: Pic: AP
The four organisations have apologised to the bereaved families and to the survivors, lawyers for the claimants said, and have admitted their failures.
Judge Bird told the hearing: “Each of these cases has a common link, that is injuries and loss suffered, arising out of a single and unimaginable act of terrorism committed on the evening of May 22 2017 at the end of a concert attended by very many young people and their families.”
“The love and care a parent gives to an injured child is beyond monetary value,” he added.
Judge Bird also paid tribute to the “courage, dedication and fortitude” of the families involved in each case, adding: “Each through their quiet determination has brought about promises of change in the hope that in the future, other families need not go through what they have been through.”
After the hearing, a joint statement was issued from the legal teams at Hudgell Solicitors, Slater & Gordon and Broudie Jackson Canter, the three main firms representing the claimants.
Image: Figen Murray, mother of 29-year-old victim Martyn Hett. Pic: PA
The statement said: “This is not a day of celebration. It is a moment to acknowledge the mistakes that were made and the unimaginable suffering our clients have endured over the past eight and a half years.
“We now expect all parties to honour their commitment to do what they can to prevent those same mistakes from happening again.”
Martyn’s Law, named in memory of Martyn Hett, 29, who was killed in the attack, has since been implemented, to better protect public venues from terror attacks.
Pribula, who spent this season at Missouri after transferring from Penn State, has informed the Tigers’ coaching staff that he plans to enter the transfer portal, sources confirmed to ESPN on Thursday.
Pribula doesn’t plan to play for the Tigers (8-4) when they take on No. 19 Virginia (10-3) in the TaxSlayer Gator Bowl on Dec. 27 (7:30 p.m. ET, ABC), sources told ESPN’s Pete Thamel.
Pribula, a senior from York, Pennsylvania, helped the Tigers to a 6-1 start this season, with the only loss coming against then-No. 8 Alabama. But then he was hurt early in the third quarter of a 17-10 loss at Vanderbilt on Oct. 25. His left ankle was placed in an air cast and trainers carted him off the field.
Doctors determined that Pribula dislocated the ankle but didn’t fracture it. He missed two games before returning to play in a 17-6 loss at then-No. 8 Oklahoma. He also played in the Tigers’ 31-17 win at Arkansas in Missouri’s regular-season finale.
In 10 games, Pribula completed 67.4% of his passes for 1,941 yards with 11 touchdowns and nine interceptions. He also ran for 297 yards with six scores.
Pribula battled Sam Horn for the starting job in training camp, and both quarterbacks were expected to play in the opener. Horn, however, suffered a fractured right leg on his first play of the game in a 61-6 win against FCS program Central Arkansas and missed the rest of the season.
Freshman Matt Zollers ran the offense when Horn and Pribula were sidelined, and coach Eli Drinkwitz said Thursday that Zollers will start in the Gator Bowl.
Pribula, who was ranked the No. 8 dual-threat quarterback in the class of 2022 by ESPN, spent his first two seasons at Penn State. He left the Nittany Lions before their CFP first-round game in December 2024 after starter Drew Allar announced he was returning in 2025.
CBS Sports first reported Pribula’s intention to transfer.
All four starters have signed deals with the school to return under new coach Pete Golding next year, a source told ESPN, ahead of the Rebels’ first-ever College Football Playoff game.
The Rebels are working to retain their key returning players amid former coach Lane Kiffin’s move to LSU and the impending opening of the transfer portal window on Jan. 2. Kiffin is taking several assistant coaches and staffers with him to Baton Rouge.
Echoles earned second-team All-SEC honors and leads all Power 4 defensive tackles with 26 pressures this season, according to ESPN Research. Perkins was a third-team All-SEC selection in 2024 after recording a team-high 10.5 sacks.
The Rebels are also attempting to bring back star running back Kewan Lacy, the SEC’s second-leading rusher, and starting quarterback Trinidad Chambliss has said he’ll weigh his options if he receives an NCAA waiver for an additional season of eligibility.
Kiffin left for SEC rival LSU on Nov. 30 and will not coach Ole Miss in the CFP. Golding, the Rebels’ defensive coordinator for the past three years, was promoted to permanent head coach.
The No. 6 seed Rebels host No. 11 Tulane on Saturday (3:30 p.m. ET, TNT/HBO Max/truTV) in their first-round game, a rematch of a nonconference meeting the Rebels won 45-10 on Sept. 20.