Revenge of the Gougers!

Gerald · 10-08-11, 10:47 AM

The hardest part about writing about Bank of America’s dunderheaded plan to impose a $5-a-month fee on debit card users is deciding which of the many juicy angles to pursue. “Have Bank of America’s Managers Lost Their Minds?” asked The American Banker earlier this week. That’s one good angle. Then there’s the “are we really supposed to start using cash again?” angle. Or the Durbin angle — Senator Dick Durbin being the Illinois senator whose amendment to the new financial reform law, imposing a steep reduction in bank interchange fees, “forced” banks to search for ways to make up for the lost revenue. There’s even a presidential angle, with President Obama saying on Monday that banks didn’t have “some inherent right” to a certain level of profits — and then more or less withdrawing the remark the next day. Me, I’m going with the gouging angle. The revenue that Bank of America, and many other banks, is seeking to replace with its new fees is lucre that a more honorable profession would never have touched in the first place. Indeed, 30 years ago, banks themselves would have turned their backs on it. Of course, back then, banks viewed customers as people to be helped, not marks to be taken advantage of. It was, to be sure, a different world then, with regulated interest rates, the Glass-Steagall Act preventing banks from getting into lucrative trading and a sleepy business model that valued a steady dividend over a highflying stock price. As interest rates were deregulated, Glass-Steagall abolished and investors demanding that bank stocks perform like Internet stocks, that ethos changed. Banks began looking in some dark corners for new revenue; this is when hidden fees began to creep into credit-card agreements, for instance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/08/op...ml?ref=opinion

Note: October 7, 2011

Gerald · 10-08-11, 11:05 AM

And Steed, will NOT be glad

soopaman2 · 10-08-11, 11:10 AM

That little 5 dollar charge is only for the "little customers".

I bet you manage to scrap up a half a million in a saving account you don't touch, take out 2 loans from them, and let them use your money to butter their shareholders and CEO......Or lose it on the stockmarket, then get a payout from the fed.

You don't even want to know how much money they dump into lobbying and campaign contributions.

I blame the filthy, unwashed pinko,commie,Obama voting, Iraq and Afghanistan war starting, overspending, MSNBC watching liberal kids down on Wall Street personally.

Edit/// I forgot unpatriotic and Hippie

vienna · 10-08-11, 12:30 PM

mookiemookie · 10-08-11, 01:41 PM

Banks are free to charge whatever stupid fees they like, so long as their customers have another option. I'm with Chase, only because I still have my employee account grandfathered in, but the minute they try this BS, I'm bolting to a credit union and giving them the finger over my shoulder as I walk out the door. (Which would be the second time in my life I did that to Chase.

)

The article got it right though - banks got so used to absolutely gouging the public over the past few years that they now feel entitled to that level of profit. Unbelievably arrogant. It's like a thief who embezzled millions of dollars and got caught complaining that his jail cell doesn't have the caviar he's used to.

Repealing the Glass Steagall Act, which had the effect of allowing depository banks to take risks and act like investment banks, was one of the worst things to happen to this country in the past 50 years. It's one of the prime enablers of the financial crisis, and why no one's seriously considered reinstating it is beyond me.

Tchocky · 10-08-11, 01:43 PM

I'm guessing credit unions aren't doing this?

*remembers that his BoA account is still open*

Oh dear.

mookiemookie · 10-08-11, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I'm guessing credit unions aren't doing this?

Do your research. There are good credit unions and bad ones. In general, they charge lower fees and have lower loan interest rates as they're member-owned nonprofit institutions not subject to federal tax.

krashkart · 10-08-11, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soopaman2

I blame the filthy, unwashed pinko,commie,Obama voting, Iraq and Afghanistan war starting, overspending, MSNBC watching liberal kids down on Wall Street personally.

Edit/// I forgot unpatriotic and Hippie

May I add "beret wearin', beard growin', cigar chompin' bourgeois Komsomolets"?

Jimbuna · 10-08-11, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krashkart

May I add "beret wearin', beard growin', cigar chompin' bourgeois Komsomolets"?

You may...well added

vienna · 10-10-11, 03:30 PM

Quote:

I blame the filthy, unwashed pinko,commie,Obama voting, Iraq and Afghanistan war starting, overspending, MSNBC watching liberal kids down on Wall Street personally.

Edit/// I forgot unpatriotic and Hippie

frau kaleun · 10-10-11, 06:58 PM

Like Mookie I'm with Chase - only cuz through a series of buyouts and mergers they ended up owning the bank where I'd had my accounts for 15-20 years. But I've never had any real problems with them.

At the moment I'd be charged a monthly fee for using their website to pay my bills, but I dodge that by paying anything that can be done electronically at the payees' sites - since they're the ones who want to get paid, they seem perfectly happy to handle the transactions from their end without charging me anything. But I do pay a monthly "service fee" on my checking account, against which I write two - count 'em, TWO - checks a month. Everything else is an electronic transaction of some kind, and I really only use the debit card when I need cash back at the till or to withdraw it directly from a Chase ATM. If they want to charge me an *extra* fee just for that, then I'm gonna have to start wondering what the current service fee is for - the untold toil and sweat that goes into handling my two paper checks a month?

The real question for me is whether or not the smaller institutions and credit unions around here have caught up in offering online banking. Some family have had their accounts at one of the bigger local credit unions for years, and it's only been in the past few years that they actually had access to an ATM that wasn't INSIDE the bank lobby and therefore unavailable when the bank was closed. How convenient!

So I guess what I'm saying is, if there's not a better alternative that will still give me all the conveniences I have now with Chase, I'd probably just suck it up and pay the darn fee.

10-08-11, 10:47 AM	#1
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	Revenge of the Gougers! The hardest part about writing about Bank of America’s dunderheaded plan to impose a $5-a-month fee on debit card users is deciding which of the many juicy angles to pursue. “Have Bank of America’s Managers Lost Their Minds?” asked The American Banker earlier this week. That’s one good angle. Then there’s the “are we really supposed to start using cash again?” angle. Or the Durbin angle — Senator Dick Durbin being the Illinois senator whose amendment to the new financial reform law, imposing a steep reduction in bank interchange fees, “forced” banks to search for ways to make up for the lost revenue. There’s even a presidential angle, with President Obama saying on Monday that banks didn’t have “some inherent right” to a certain level of profits — and then more or less withdrawing the remark the next day. Me, I’m going with the gouging angle. The revenue that Bank of America, and many other banks, is seeking to replace with its new fees is lucre that a more honorable profession would never have touched in the first place. Indeed, 30 years ago, banks themselves would have turned their backs on it. Of course, back then, banks viewed customers as people to be helped, not marks to be taken advantage of. It was, to be sure, a different world then, with regulated interest rates, the Glass-Steagall Act preventing banks from getting into lucrative trading and a sleepy business model that valued a steady dividend over a highflying stock price. As interest rates were deregulated, Glass-Steagall abolished and investors demanding that bank stocks perform like Internet stocks, that ethos changed. Banks began looking in some dark corners for new revenue; this is when hidden fees began to creep into credit-card agreements, for instance. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/08/op...ml?ref=opinion Note: October 7, 2011 __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie

10-08-11, 11:05 AM	#2
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	And Steed, will NOT be glad __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie

10-08-11, 11:10 AM	#3
soopaman2 Der Alte Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 3,316 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 0	That little 5 dollar charge is only for the "little customers". I bet you manage to scrap up a half a million in a saving account you don't touch, take out 2 loans from them, and let them use your money to butter their shareholders and CEO......Or lose it on the stockmarket, then get a payout from the fed. You don't even want to know how much money they dump into lobbying and campaign contributions. I blame the filthy, unwashed pinko,commie,Obama voting, Iraq and Afghanistan war starting, overspending, MSNBC watching liberal kids down on Wall Street personally. Edit/// I forgot unpatriotic and Hippie __________________ If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons. -Winston Churchill- The most fascinating man in the world.

10-08-11, 01:41 PM	#5
mookiemookie Navy Seal Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 9,404 Downloads: 105 Uploads: 1	Banks are free to charge whatever stupid fees they like, so long as their customers have another option. I'm with Chase, only because I still have my employee account grandfathered in, but the minute they try this BS, I'm bolting to a credit union and giving them the finger over my shoulder as I walk out the door. (Which would be the second time in my life I did that to Chase. ) The article got it right though - banks got so used to absolutely gouging the public over the past few years that they now feel entitled to that level of profit. Unbelievably arrogant. It's like a thief who embezzled millions of dollars and got caught complaining that his jail cell doesn't have the caviar he's used to. Repealing the Glass Steagall Act, which had the effect of allowing depository banks to take risks and act like investment banks, was one of the worst things to happen to this country in the past 50 years. It's one of the prime enablers of the financial crisis, and why no one's seriously considered reinstating it is beyond me. __________________ They don’t think it be like it is, but it do. Want more U-boat Kaleun portraits for your SH3 Commander Profiles? Download the SH3 Commander Portrait Pack here.

10-08-11, 01:43 PM	#6
Tchocky Navy Seal Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 5,874 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	I'm guessing credit unions aren't doing this? remembers that his BoA account is still open Oh dear. __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

10-08-11, 12:30 PM	#4
vienna Navy Seal Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Anywhere but the here & now... Posts: 7,711 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0

10-10-11, 06:58 PM	#11
frau kaleun Rear Admiral Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Skyri--oh who are we kidding, I'm probably at Lowe's. Again. Posts: 12,706 Downloads: 168 Uploads: 0	Like Mookie I'm with Chase - only cuz through a series of buyouts and mergers they ended up owning the bank where I'd had my accounts for 15-20 years. But I've never had any real problems with them. At the moment I'd be charged a monthly fee for using their website to pay my bills, but I dodge that by paying anything that can be done electronically at the payees' sites - since they're the ones who want to get paid, they seem perfectly happy to handle the transactions from their end without charging me anything. But I do pay a monthly "service fee" on my checking account, against which I write two - count 'em, TWO - checks a month. Everything else is an electronic transaction of some kind, and I really only use the debit card when I need cash back at the till or to withdraw it directly from a Chase ATM. If they want to charge me an extra fee just for that, then I'm gonna have to start wondering what the current service fee is for - the untold toil and sweat that goes into handling my two paper checks a month? The real question for me is whether or not the smaller institutions and credit unions around here have caught up in offering online banking. Some family have had their accounts at one of the bigger local credit unions for years, and it's only been in the past few years that they actually had access to an ATM that wasn't INSIDE the bank lobby and therefore unavailable when the bank was closed. How convenient! So I guess what I'm saying is, if there's not a better alternative that will still give me all the conveniences I have now with Chase, I'd probably just suck it up and pay the darn fee.