Banks and their fees

[LexiaFira]

What I did mind was Chase adding on $10/month "service fee" simply because my balance dropped too low. There is nothing about my account that makes it any more expensive to manage than when I have lots of money in it. It's a fee for poor people, basically. So I just closed that account. They don't have a branch in my area anyway (they bought out my WaMu account, which I kept when I left California because their customer service was so good).

Last time i spoke with a chase rep I was told that the account my husband and I have has been grandfathered in and we get to keep what we have because they no longer have it. That means that as long as we use our debit/cred card at least four times or make four withdrawls/deposits we are good and the service fee is waived. fine with me. have an automatic deposit amount that goes every time his check is direct deposited that goes to savings. we don't use other atm's and try to plan ahead when we will need cash specifically for something and withdraw at latest 24 hours in advance.

past that the card pays for most everything. we do not have over draft protection, so that can happen BUT if we do go over whats in our main account it pulls from savings to cover it but if there is nothing in either we do go negative. that only happened once when we had barely had the savings account a month before the first deposit hit it. i think we still have the balance must be so much a month but that changed? or that was what came when they offered the account we have? not sure i need to ask again.

not saying chase is great or without flaws, what banks or credit unions aren't but BoA has gone down bad

[MadMike]

Times like this, I'm glad to be with a credit union. I actually closed my account that I had with an actual bank, and that was over a small fee they were charging for nothing having their "minimum balance" in my account. I guess a lot of other people were doing the same thing, because they tried to get me to stay by telling me they could have the minimum lowered. Well, unless they could beat zero, which is what I had with the credit union, they were out of luck.

I'd say I hope these banks all crash and burn, but the fucking government will just bail them out again.

[HYHYBT]

The more I read this, the more I love my bank. They have a big sign on the side of their building which reads "TOTALLY FREE CHECKING!" and they mean it. The minimum balance is $0. Now, of course this may change any time, but I've had my account there since 1994 or 5 and have only had to pay if I ordered new checks, bounced one, or $1 for using someone else's ATM which I never do anyway. (Or, I found out recently, if I want reprints of old statements. For that, they charge what seems to me quite a lot, seeing as I'd have needed two years' worth including scanned checks. It would have cost about $300, all together... but turns out I don't need them after all.)

[Andara Bledin]

Here's a question for all of you:

Since the Federal Reserve has slashed the amount retailers have to pay to accept debit cards, and the banks are making changes to cover the money they'll no longer be receiving, that means that the retailers who are no longer paying those fees will pass that savings down to us... or at least pay their employees better, right? After all, they're going to be saving hundreds of thousands of dollars - millions for larger companies - so they should be able to pass that savings on to... someone other than their stockholders.

The only retailer I can see changing anything to reflect this change is Arco/BP, who already pass the charge directly to their customers and so will be changing how much they charge to the new limit after it goes into effect.

^-.-^

[insertNameHere]

I have never been of fan of banks that do the "because you don't have money you should pay us money" granted the reason they give people with money, more money is because they use the rich as capital for others and since for the most part they have their money sitting there for years without touching it is easy to save.

I am much more comfortable with a min $200 balance than I am these ones that want $15K. As very few people, espeically my age have that kind of moeny sitting there. The only reason I don't have stocks is I don't feel I know enough right not to invest in the market and don't want to risk losing it so I will stick with the shit 1% interest or no interest in some accounts. Actually, because I shoot I buy handgun ammo, it has been consistently going up 10-20% as it mostly metal and i will reliably use it before it ever reaches a point of being "expired" or questionable to shoot.

Recently because I turned 24, Key bounced me off free student checking, and now i have min balances or transfer requirements. Which I notice more and more want direct deposit over allowing you to physically go in.

[Panacea]

Here's a question for all of you:

Since the Federal Reserve has slashed the amount retailers have to pay to accept debit cards, and the banks are making changes to cover the money they'll no longer be receiving, that means that the retailers who are no longer paying those fees will pass that savings down to us... or at least pay their employees better, right? After all, they're going to be saving hundreds of thousands of dollars - millions for larger companies - so they should be able to pass that savings on to... someone other than their stockholders.

In theory, yes. In practice, probably not. Retailers are paying other increased costs that they've been trying not to pass along to consumers for fear that spending will slow even more: fuel costs for shipping being a prime example. They will also try to recover a bit from what they've been losing over the years paying these usurious costs to the banks. However, prices should stablize and when the economy recovers, retailers may be able to cut prices in order to pull in customers.

So it's a wait and see game. But what the banks were doing was unsustainable and I'm glad it stopped. It was driving mom and pop businesses out of business.

I am much more comfortable with a min $200 balance than I am these ones that want $15K. As very few people, espeically my age have that kind of moeny sitting there. The only reason I don't have stocks is I don't feel I know enough right not to invest in the market and don't want to risk losing it so I will stick with the shit 1% interest or no interest in some accounts. Actually, because I shoot I buy handgun ammo, it has been consistently going up 10-20% as it mostly metal and i will reliably use it before it ever reaches a point of being "expired" or questionable to shoot.

You're smart to wait a bit before investing in stocks. The first time I invested, I didn't know what I was doing, and BoA literally ripped me off. I lost about 6K before I wised up and pulled out.

Then I spent about 10 years reading up on the markets, watching the markets, and learning about how they work. I have money invested now and am doing pretty well. I have a 403b and a Roth IRA that a broker manages for me; his company has done a pretty good job of weathering the bad economy. I also have some stock I got when my insurance company went public, and a TD Ameritrade account where I pick and choose my own stocks.

I made some good picks and some bad picks but they've all made money.

Stocks are a better investment than handgun ammo

[daleduke17]

Maybe banks wouldn't need to charge crazy fees if they didnt:

A- build magnificent structures with all sorts of extras that aren't needed (you're a bank, not the state capitol building...why do you need a dome?).
B- pay their leadership hundreds of thousands of dollars in salary each.
C- Always give out free give-a-ways. Yeah, a few times a year, but not everyday for every single new patron.

[HYHYBT]

Banks build impressive buildings because people expect them to look like they have money. Would you feel comfortable doing business with a bank housed in a doublewide?

Actually, we used to have one of those here. Two new banks opened up around the same time, maybe two years before the failures really got going. One of them set up a doublewide, and the other built a replica of Monticello. Yes, really; looks just like the back of a nickel, only of course it's not metal The one with the fancy building collapsed. (Not the building; it's still there. The bank, though, was one of the first to go under.) The other one... I don't know how well it's doing, but it's survived, and built a new, more traditional bank-type building next door.

[Andara Bledin]

I can't remember the last time I saw a dome on any building built in the last century, much less a bank. Every one I've been to in the last couple of decades has been the same block business building as every other block business building.

^-.-^

[mikoyan29]

Gee, Banks wonder why people are pissed off at them? First they nearly collapse the economy, then they get a bailout and do they use that bailout to get the economy going? Nope, they sit on it and pay their executives huge bonuses. NOw they start these fees...Meanwhile, Bank of America is paying 11 million to a couple "stellar" executives that were forced out.

[Andara Bledin]

BofA also paid their bailout money back.

^-.-^

[Canarr]

BofA also paid their bailout money back.

^-.-^

I don't like debating with you, Andara; you use all o' them fancy, confusing facts...

[mikoyan29]

BofA also paid their bailout money back.

^-.-^

I'll give you that but the fact that they needed bailout money in the first place should be an indication that their executives shouldn't have gotten bonuses. but whatever....

[Rapscallion]

Over here the banks flounced and said that they were contractually obligated to give the bonuses, so gave them anyway. Issue for me with that is that those bonuses should be linked to performance.

At least one of the main UK banks is owned mostly by the taxpayer now, due to the bailouts, so what becomes of that is going to be interesting.

Rapscallion

[Dreamstalker]

Issue for me with that is that those bonuses should be linked to performance.

Agreed completely.

However, nowadays that would never work in the US, where there are people's precious egos to worry about...recall how some schools did away with actual competitive sports, with red pens and grades because "it could damage self-esteem". Too many people equate money with status and (perceived) self-worth. I'd love to make six figures, but it doesn't make me feel like less of a person that I don't.

There's also a certain religious view (I think it's been linked to Calvinism, but I could be wrong) that says that only those who have tons of money will be saved/loved by God. Or something like that.