In his column “Banks keep pulling from bag of tricks,” Lazarus writes that the letters being sent to the opted-out customers say that the bank wants “to be sure that you know about available offers and that you have the opportunity to consider them.”

It’s thus giving customers until Dec. 15 to once again register their privacy preferences. “If you do not respond,” the letter says, “you may begin to receive offers in the mail about these products and services.”

Like a kid who keeps pestering his parents with the same question until he gets the answer he wants, Chase is essentially forcing customers to repeat the opt-out process under the guise of “updating our customers’ preferences.”

Banks fought hard against the law that limits their ability to market to you, and to sell your information to third parties. They succeeded to the point where you have to opt out of their marketing efforts, rather than the more consumer-friendly “opt in” approach where they’d have to get your permission.

But now it looks like Chase wants to be able to ignore what you’ve told them by requiring you to opt out twice. A Chase spokesman said it’s because the bank has a bunch of new, shiny products and services they don’t want you to miss. To which Lazarus responds:

Sure. Because you just know that people who’d take the time to opt out once from receiving unwanted marketing pitches might suddenly have a change of heart and realize how empty their lives have become without a steady stream of solicitations for various financial services.

If you get one of these letters, be sure to respond–and maybe send a copy of it to your elected representatives, along with a letter expressing your opinion of Chase ignoring your wishes.

Answer: Your bank isn’t the real problem here. Yes, banks can charge sneaky fees, and sometimes their disclosure leaves a lot to be desired. But you’re severely mismanaging your money if a $25 fee can cause this big a problem.

You should keep at least a $100 pad in your checking and keep an eagle eye on your balance to try to prevent overdrafts in the first place. If overdrafts occur despite your best efforts, then your priority should be repaying those — not writing more checks.

If you can’t manage that, then you should turn off your ability to overdraft. If you have true overdraft protection — your checking account is linked to a line of credit or credit card — ask your bank to discontinue that. You also should decline the bank’s “bounce protection,” which allows overdrafts on ATM and debit card transactions in exchange for a fee. Recurring transactions and checks can continue to trigger overdraft charges, however, so your best bet is to switch to your debit card and cash until you have a better handle on your cash flow.

Except none of that is true.

Critics are trying to make the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau out to be the job-killing Godzilla of regulators, but they’re way off the mark, as I wrote in “Banks attack consumer safeguards.”

I’ll quote at length from Elizabeth Warren’s written testimony, which she’s scheduled to submit tomorrow to the House’s Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services, and Bailouts of Public and Private Programs:

I have been told that if you say anything in Washington often enough, it is eventually treated as fact – regardless of whether it is true or false. While making baseless claims might be shrewd tactics for those who want to undermine the Bureau’s work, they are flatly wrong. The CFPB’s jurisdiction is fundamentally limited to consumer financial products and services. Even within the world of consumer finance, huge sectors, including investments and insurance, are explicitly excluded from its jurisdiction, left instead to other state and federal regulators. The scope of the CFPB’s authority is carefully limited.

False claims about CFPB’s power also ignore the structural oversight and accountability that limit the reach of the CFPB. Like all other agencies in the federal government, the CFPB is subject to the requirements and limitations of the Administrative Procedure Act. We are one of only three agencies anywhere in government (and the only banking regulator) that is required to conduct SBREFA panels, a process to gather input directly from small businesses about the potential impact of proposed rules. And we are also specifically required to consider the benefits and costs of any proposed rules to consumers and providers. The CFPB’s activities are subject to judicial review, ensuring that the CFPB operates within the constraints set by Congress and the U.S. Constitution.

In addition to being subject to judicial review, the Bureau is the only bank regulator whose rules can be overruled by a council made up of other federal agencies. In an unprecedented restriction unlike that on the authority of any other Federal financial regulator, Congress determined that a two-thirds majority of the banking regulators and other members of the Financial Stability Oversight Council can veto any rule issued by the consumer bureau if the council determines that it would put the safety and soundness of the banking system or the stability of the financial system at risk. And, of course, like with any federal agency, Congress can always overturn the Bureau’s rules if the legislature disagrees with our judgments.

The CFPB is also the only bank regulator that is expressly limited in its ability to determine its own funding levels. If the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency believes it needs more funds to hire more examiners, it can raise more through assessments on the industry. But the consumer agency’s independent funding is statutorily capped at a portion of the Federal Reserve System’s operating expenses. If the CFPB concludes that it needs additional funding, it must persuade Congress to provide that funding.

Other forms of oversight exist as well:

1)      The CFPB must submit annual financial reports to Congress.

2)      The CFPB must report to Congress twice each year to justify its budget from the previous year.

3)      The Director of the CFPB must testify before and report to Congress twice each year regarding the CFPB’s activities.

4)      The GAO must conduct an audit each year of the consumer bureau’s expenditures and submit a report to Congress.

5)      The CFPB must submit its financial operating plans and forecasts and quarterly financial reports to the Office of Management and Budget.

6)      The Inspector General of the Federal Reserve Board (and the Inspector General of the Treasury Department, during this interim period) have been charged with reviewing the CFPB’s activities to inform Congress and the public about the consumer bureau’s work.

The formal restraints over the agency are substantial, but informal restraints are significant as well. The financial services industry has substantial resources to ensure that its views about the CFPB and its work are well known and fully considered.

Recent proposals to alter the CFPB’s structure – including those that the House Financial Services Committee recently passed – overlook the many constraints already in place. The work facing the new bureau is very challenging; additional restrictions would undermine the consumer bureau before it even begins its work of protecting American families.

Proposals to change the consumer bureau have been put forward in the name of accountability. But accountability is ultimately about being responsible for getting a job done on behalf of American families. Those families know that they are held accountable every day. They have to pay their credit card bills and student loans. They see money disappear from their checking accounts when they make a mistake. And, as millions of families have witnessed first-hand in the past few years, when they default on mortgages they cannot afford, they lose their homes. American families expect to pay what they owe, but they also want to make sure that the rules are fair and followed. They want an agency that will be accountable for getting that basic job done, and, so long as it has the tools, the CFPB will be that agency.

Answer: Your teller gave you your answer. Goodwill doesn’t count for much when banks are trying to maximize revenue.

And there’s certainly no law requiring the new owner to honor the old bank’s promises. The new owners can charge new fees, alter policies and change interest rates on savings accounts and certificates of deposit.

Checking account fees are making a big comeback lately. Banks are claiming these new fees are necessary because regulators restricted one of their big sources of income: bounce fees. Starting last summer, banks were required to get customers’ permission before signing them up for “courtesy overdraft” services that allowed the banks to charge $35 or so each for over-limit transactions. When finally given the choice, many of those customers declined to opt in to the expensive programs and bounce fee income plummeted.

So banks are experimenting with other fees, but you still have options. Often the fees are waived if you maintain a minimum account balance, for example. In your case, that might be tough, so you might want to consider moving your accounts to another bank or a credit union. Credit unions are member-owned financial institutions, and many still offer free checking or have lower fees for low-balance accounts. To see which credit unions you might join, visit http://www.findacreditunion.com.

Answer: One of two things happened here. Either your friend’s funds were eaten up by account fees, or the account was declared abandoned and whatever money was left was turned over to his state’s unclaimed property office.

The amount of time that has to pass before an account is declared abandoned varies by state and can be as little as one year. Some states expect banks and other financial institutions to make some effort to track down accountholders. In other states, little or no effort is required. In any case, your friend can use the website of the National Assn. of Unclaimed Property Administrators at http://www.unclaimed.org to see if his lost account is being held by his state. While he’s there, he may turn up other unclaimed property that belongs to him, since these offices also collect utility deposits, insurance proceeds, refunds and the contents of safe deposit boxes, among other property.

Click here to learn more.

This series of money talks is hosted by Vicki Robin, bestselling author of Your Money or Your Life, one of my all-time favorite money books and a title that has transformed many people’s relationships with money. Click on the link above to register now for free, and call in during the show with your questions.

Answer: Blame the economy. Both individuals and businesses are wary about borrowing money. Less demand typically drives down the cost of a product. The product in this case is loans, and the price is the interest rate. With little demand for loans, banks don’t need to compete much for depositor funds and so aren’t paying much on their deposit accounts.

Another big factor is the Federal Reserve, which is keeping interest rates low to try to stimulate borrowing, spending and the economy. The Fed’s big fear is that higher interest rates would choke off the economy’s recovery and send us spiraling into another recession.

How long will this low-interest period last? Nobody knows. We could see higher interest rates if the economy really takes off. In that case, higher demand for loans probably would bid up interest rates and the Fed would switch its focus to containing inflation, which typically means it would try to raise rates further. Many economists are predicting a slow recovery, however, which means low savings account rates are likely to be with us for a while.

In the meantime, you can look for slightly higher rates at sites like MoneyRates (http://www.money-rates.com) and Bankrate.com. Recently the national average for one-year certificates of deposit was under 0.5%, but several financial institutions on those sites were offering rates above 1%.

If you’re being offered rates much above that level, you’re either dealing with a riskier investment or being asked to lock up your money for a considerable period. Neither is a good idea if this money is your emergency fund or you otherwise need it to be safe and accessible.

Which is what JPMorgan Chase did in an interview with American Banker about its plans to impose new checking account fees.

“We don’t want to raise fees on our customers,” a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase said Wednesday, “but unfortunately regulation is forcing us to do it, and as a result some customers may end up unbanked.” He declined to discuss how many customers would be subject to a monthly fee as a result of the changes.

The background: banks’ fee income soared in recent years as the financial institutions quietly changed their policies on over-limit transactions, particularly those made with debit cards. Instead of declining a transaction if you didn’t have the money in your account, the banks started approving them so they could charge you $30 to $35 a pop. Many banks also reordered transactions before processing them to ensure the largest ones would go through first, draining the account more quickly so subsequent transactions could generate more fees.

Banks typically imposed these “bounce protection” or “courtesy overdraft” program without asking customers’ permission, and some banks wouldn’t allow you to turn them off.

Regulators finally stepped in, requiring banks to get customers’ permission to enroll them in bounce protection. To no one’s surprise, most customers declined.

But banks had gotten hooked on the easy money, and now they’re scrambling to find other ways to ding us to get that cash flow rolling again. The bank spokesman is repeated the industry mantra that the devil (regulators) are making them do it, and that poor people will suffer.

Low-income people bore the brunt of the bounce protection programs, since their accounts were more likely to be running on fumes. That’s why many have sworn off banks. Some 9 million households in the U.S. are unbanked, including nearly 20% of those making $30,000 or less.

But FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair is convinced banks can find a way to profitably offer low-cost checking accounts by making most transactions electronic. On Jan. 1 the FDIC launched a pilot program at nine banks to test the such accounts’ feasibility.

In any case, banks have plenty of other options beyond raising their prices. They can run themselves more efficiently, build more relationships with the customers, and (heaven forbid) maybe even trim those year-end bonuses a tad.

To protect yourself from this latest round of fees, you should:

• Closely monitor your account and any communications from your bank. Many banks large and small are planning to impose monthly fees on once-free accounts.
• See if you can (or want to) change your banking behavior to avoid the fees. If you have a spare $5,000 lying around, for example, you can avoid the new fees on some accounts at Bank of America by sticking that money in a savings account linked to your checking. Your interest rate will be dismal, but rates at online banks aren’t much better, so that money may be better off sitting at BofA and helping you avoid the $15 monthly maintenance fee for your checking account (which would be like getting a 3%+ return on your money).
• If you can’t or don’t want to meet the criteria necessary to waive fees, ditch your bank. Many credit unions still offer free checking. You can find which ones you might be able to join here.

Answer: Your credit scores are based entirely on the information contained within your credit reports. If you access them (you can get a free annual look at http://www.annualcreditreport.com), you’ll notice there are no bank accounts listed — only credit accounts.

The only time your behavior with a bank account could wind up on your credit report is if you bounce checks and fail to pay the bank. In that case, your account could be turned over to collections, and that could show up on your credit reports.

Otherwise, though, your banking relationships don’t affect your scores.

The change should save customers a whole lot of money if they don’t sign up, since over-limit transactions using debit cards will simply be declined rather than generate $35-a-pop fees.

But there are still plenty of other ways your bank can gouge you. You probably know about foreign ATM fees, monthly maintenance fees and even fees to talk to a teller. But you may not know about:

Other types of overdrafts. The change requiring an opt-in for bounce protection applies only to debit card and ATM transactions. It doesn’t apply to overlimit checks or automatic payment for recurring bills, which the bank can still process and assess you with a bounce fee. So you still have to pay attention to your balance, and I’d recommend signing up for true overdraft protection, which links your checking account to a savings account, line of credit or credit card. However, you should beward:

Credit card overdraft. Linking to your savings account or a line of credit will typically be much cheaper than having your true overdraft protection linked to a credit card. That’s because overdrafts typically will be treated as a cash advance, triggering fees of 3% to 5% plus sky-high interest rates that kick in immediately with no grace period. Credit card overdraft likely still will be cheaper than bounce protection, but you’d be wise to choose one of the other two options, if available.

Excess activity fees. If you make too many withdrawals or transfers from your savings account, your bank can slap you with a fee. Banks will say this is because of federal Regulation D, which limits such transactions in savings accounts, but the reality is that banks have an option: they can charge fees, or simply refuse to honor the excess transactions. Guess which option many banks choose? Oh, and some banks have their own definition of what constitutes an “excess.” Regulation D says the limit is 6 transactions, but Bank of America starts charging you after 3 if you have less than $2,500 in your account. Know your bank’s limits and make sure you stay within them.

Overdraft fees in “closed” accounts. A bank can honor outstanding checks and recurring payments, generating bounce fees, even if you’ve closed the account and taken your money elsewhere. If you’re switching banks, follow these rules for a bounce-free transition.

Returned deposit fees. You get a check, deposit it and see the amount reflected in your balance. You start spending the money, only to get a notice from your bank that the check wasn’t good. Not only are you out the money, but you’ll likely have to pay a fee on top of that, plus deal with any overdrafts the bad check caused. It’s hard to avoid getting stiffed this way, but you might want to avoid spending any deposited money for at least a week. If you get assessed a returned deposit fee, you can add that to the amount the check writer owes you.