Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on September 30, 2011, 08:25:38 AM
-
The Dick Durbin Bank Fees
WSJ ^ | SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 | TODD ZYWICKI
This Saturday, government price controls on debit card interchange fees (which card issuers charge to merchants) go into effect. The controls are the result of the Durbin amendment to last year's Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation. They were enacted at the behest of big-box retailers such as Wal-Mart and Walgreen's, which stand to gain a multimillion-dollar windfall. But the controls are already transforming the retail banking landscape.
The Durbin amendment tasked the Federal Reserve with establishing the allowable maximum interchange fees. It originally intended to slash them by 70%-80%. In response to a firestorm of criticism, the Fed cut the fees about in half, to about 24 cents per transaction from an average of 44 cents per transaction, including a one-penny allowance for fraud prevention. The new fee limits apply to any bank with more than $10 billion in assets.
Faced with a dramatic cut in revenues (estimated to be $6.6 billion by Javelin Strategy & Research, a global financial services consultancy), banks have already imposed new monthly maintenance fees—usually from $36 to $60 per year—on standard checking and debit-card accounts, as well as new or higher fees on particular bank services. While wealthier consumers have avoided many of these new fees—for example, by maintaining a sufficiently high minimum balance—a Bankrate survey released this week reported that only 45% of traditional checking accounts are free, down from 75% in two years.
Some consumers who previously banked for free will be unable or unwilling to pay these fees merely for the privilege of a bank account. As many as one million individuals will drop out of the mainstream banking system and turn to check cashers, pawn shops and high-fee prepaid cards, according to an estimate earlier this year by economists David Evans, Robert Litan and Richard Schmalensee. (Their study was supported...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
BUMP for Team KENYA! ! ! ! !
Helping the little guy right you pieces of shit?
-
The Dick Durbin Bank Fees
WSJ ^ | SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 | TODD ZYWICKI
This Saturday, government price controls on debit card interchange fees (which card issuers charge to merchants) go into effect. The controls are the result of the Durbin amendment to last year's Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation. They were enacted at the behest of big-box retailers such as Wal-Mart and Walgreen's, which stand to gain a multimillion-dollar windfall. But the controls are already transforming the retail banking landscape.
The Durbin amendment tasked the Federal Reserve with establishing the allowable maximum interchange fees. It originally intended to slash them by 70%-80%. In response to a firestorm of criticism, the Fed cut the fees about in half, to about 24 cents per transaction from an average of 44 cents per transaction, including a one-penny allowance for fraud prevention. The new fee limits apply to any bank with more than $10 billion in assets.
Faced with a dramatic cut in revenues (estimated to be $6.6 billion by Javelin Strategy & Research, a global financial services consultancy), banks have already imposed new monthly maintenance fees—usually from $36 to $60 per year—on standard checking and debit-card accounts, as well as new or higher fees on particular bank services. While wealthier consumers have avoided many of these new fees—for example, by maintaining a sufficiently high minimum balance—a Bankrate survey released this week reported that only 45% of traditional checking accounts are free, down from 75% in two years.
Some consumers who previously banked for free will be unable or unwilling to pay these fees merely for the privilege of a bank account. As many as one million individuals will drop out of the mainstream banking system and turn to check cashers, pawn shops and high-fee prepaid cards, according to an estimate earlier this year by economists David Evans, Robert Litan and Richard Schmalensee. (Their study was supported...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you blame Obama and the Democrats for Bank of America raising fees??? Fact of the matter is that they were going to do it anyway because they are no longer cashing in on ATM fees due to businesses accepting debit cards.
BOA or any other banks doesn't see people as customers, they simply see us as cash cows...and they don't give a shit if they take us cows out to the slaughter. ::)
BTW, I use Wells Fargo so I could care less.....for now
-
Oh fucking please. BOA came straigh out and said that this new regulation that the communists put in is going to be offset by customer fees.
Another example of the communist democrats helping the small guy right moron?
-
So you blame Obama and the Democrats for Bank of America raising fees??? Fact of the matter is that they were going to do it anyway because they are no longer cashing in on ATM fees due to businesses accepting debit cards.
BOA or any other banks doesn't see people as customers, they simply see us as cash cows...and they don't give a shit if they take us cows out to the slaughter. ::)
BTW, I use Wells Fargo so I could care less.....for now
wells fargo is worse, they'll probably charge 10 bucks or more after BOA did it.
-
Debit Durbin
American Spectator ^ | 9-30-11 | John Berlau
As I detailed here in February in "Dick Durbin Is Stealing Your Free Checking," thanks to price controls on debit card transactions from the Durbin Amendment of the 2010 Dodd-Frank "financial reform" law, free checking is going the way of the dodo bird. The Durbin price controls on interchange fees -- the so-called "swipe fees" that retailers pay to bank and credit unions that process debit card transactions, go into effect this Saturday, October 1, and are already showing more dire effects than originally predicted. Not only is free checking disappearing at a rapid pace -- a new Bankrate.com survey detailed in USA Today found that only 45% of non-interest bank checking accounts are free, down from 65% in 2010 and 76% two years ago, and that the average monthly fee for non-interest checking accounts is $4.37, up 75 percent from last year -- but ordinary Americans will soon be hit by new monthly fees for using their debit cards. And new evidence shows that the price controls may be causing thousands of job losses as well.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
________________________ ________________________ ____
Good job you democrat morons. Typical results from the warped belief system you fools buy in to.
-
There is more than one way to bank. If someone is willing to pay $5 then so be it. You are making the assumption that Americans are stupid and can not make a decision about whether the $5 is worth it or not.
-
wells fargo is worse, they'll probably charge 10 bucks or more after BOA did it.
Oh wait, just got a letter stating that they are going to charge 3 dollars a month. That "for now" didn't last too long
-
Oh fucking please. BOA came straigh out and said that this new regulation that the communists put in is going to be offset by customer fees.
Another example of the communist democrats helping the small guy right moron?
Even if those regulation were not imposed, BOA still would have hit everyone up with these fees anyway. That's what banks do....they simply take, take, and take. They can blame someone else but banks have been screwing over people for decades. They don't give a shit about you or me or anyone else.
-
Free Market working its magic.
-
Free Market working its magic.
Dodd Frank is not Free market - its Democrat BS as always.
-
Dodd Frank is not Free market - its Democrat BS as always.
Right. Because its not Bank Of America`s fault for wanting to make more profit just like its not the Health Insurance companies fault for denying Health Coverage. ::)
-
Right. Because its not Bank Of America`s fault for wanting to make more profit just like its not the Health Insurance companies fault for denying Health Coverage. ::)
Free Market does not involve hacks like Durbin getting in the middle of fee disputes between banks and card companies resulting in higher fees to consumers. That's called Democrat bullshit - not free market.
-
the legislation doesn't apply to bank with smaller asset base ( I think it's < 10 billion) or something
anyone is free to shop around for lower rates and fees
frankly, I dont't know why anyone would do business with BofA
Anyone who doesn't understand that banks are out to charge you fees for anything and everything that they can is just uninformed
Banks have been looking to increase "fee based income" for the last few years
nothing new here
-
i don't get it.
if you don't like it, change banks.
-
People still have bank accounts with BOA? They've been a zombie bank for a while. Look how desperate for capital they are.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Thank Dodd-Frank For That Fee
IBD Editorials ^ | September 30, 2011 | Staff
Posted on September 30, 2011 8:18:31 PM EDT by Kaslin
Politics: Damned as an "outrage" in the press, Bank of America's just-announced $5 monthly fee for ATM use was a logical and predictable result of a Dodd- Frank financial bill that fixed prices. Guess who gets to pay for it?
Throwing their weight around at the height of the banking crisis, House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut vowed to stick it to banks. They blamed them for the mess to cover up the fact that they forced banks to lend to favored constituencies who could not repay.
The two Democrats pushed through the much-vaunted Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which President Obama signed and touted as one of the signature accomplishments of his presidency.
That act, which included a micromanaging amendment on fees, carried a $2.9 billion implementation cost for that alone over five years, according to the Government Accountability Office.
It was nothing but the same old pandering to special interests. Named after Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, the amendment limited fees that banks can collect from sellers when their customers make debit card purchases — cutting 44 cent fees to 21 cents.
That little bomb is now why battered Bank of America has no choice but to impose a $5 monthly fee — $60 a year — to consumers to make up for lost revenue.
The "economics of offering a debit card have changed with recent regulations," a bank spokeswoman told ABC News Friday.
BofA says it stands to lose $2 billion from the arbitrary Durbin price-fixing amendment and now has no choice but to make up for the lost revenue some other way.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Helping the little guy right you demo marxists?
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Thank Dodd-Frank For That Fee
IBD Editorials ^ | September 30, 2011 | Staff
Posted on September 30, 2011 8:18:31 PM EDT by Kaslin
Politics: Damned as an "outrage" in the press, Bank of America's just-announced $5 monthly fee for ATM use was a logical and predictable result of a Dodd- Frank financial bill that fixed prices. Guess who gets to pay for it?
Throwing their weight around at the height of the banking crisis, House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut vowed to stick it to banks. They blamed them for the mess to cover up the fact that they forced banks to lend to favored constituencies who could not repay.
The two Democrats pushed through the much-vaunted Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which President Obama signed and touted as one of the signature accomplishments of his presidency.
That act, which included a micromanaging amendment on fees, carried a $2.9 billion implementation cost for that alone over five years, according to the Government Accountability Office.
It was nothing but the same old pandering to special interests. Named after Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, the amendment limited fees that banks can collect from sellers when their customers make debit card purchases — cutting 44 cent fees to 21 cents.
That little bomb is now why battered Bank of America has no choice but to impose a $5 monthly fee — $60 a year — to consumers to make up for lost revenue.
The "economics of offering a debit card have changed with recent regulations," a bank spokeswoman told ABC News Friday.
BofA says it stands to lose $2 billion from the arbitrary Durbin price-fixing amendment and now has no choice but to make up for the lost revenue some other way.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Helping the little guy right you demo marxists?
333 - your point is that this is Obama/Dems fault ?
-
333 - your point is that this is Obama/Dems fault ?
1000000 percent, and will be followed by most other banks.
-
1000000 percent, and will be followed by most other banks.
I'm sure there wil be many banks, credit unions, etc.. who will continue to have no fee or a lower fee
BofA is just trying to replace income they used to charge to merchants and the legislation doesn't apply to smaller banks and ANY bank can choose not try to recapture the lost merchant revenue from the customer
The announcement comes after legislation was passed last year to regulate the financial industry. One provision directed the Federal Reserve to cap so-called swipe fees that banks could charge merchants when customers use debit cards. The Fed set that cap at 21 cents per transaction, which will go into effect tomorrow. That's a big cut from the previous average of 44 cents per transaction, fees that yielded $19 billion for banks in 2009
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec11/bankfees_09-30.html
-
Oh wait, just got a letter stating that they are going to charge 3 dollars a month. That "for now" didn't last too long
yea, got that too and that's just the a pilot program. They'll at least do 5 if not more later.
-
www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-durbin-20111001,0,6136347.story
chicagotribune.com
Get ready to pay the Durbin Fee
What happens when government picks who will profit
October 1, 2011
Sen. Dick Durbin must be forgetting that once you've dug yourself into a deep hole, you'd best stop shoveling.
How else to explain the Illinois Democrat's blustery reaction to the $5 a month that Bank of America Corp. plans to charge some of its customers who use debit cards? The charge, which other banks are likely to adopt, is a direct result of his lawmaking. Call it the Durbin Fee.
Last year, Durbin pushed an amendment to the Dodd-Frank financial regulation package that imposes a sharp cut in interchange fees, which banks charge retailers every time a customer swipes a bank debit card to buy something. That rule goes into effect Saturday. In essence, this strips money from banks and hands it to retailers, who will pay sharply lower fees. There's no guarantee that retailers will pass the savings on to customers.
Bankers told Durbin and his fellow lawmakers last year that the interchange fees subsidize free checking accounts and other services, including the convenient practice of making purchases with debit cards at no charge to the buyer. Slash fees to retailers, the banks said, and they would likely recoup the lost revenue by charging their customers for use of the cards. That's exactly what's happening now.
Durbin claimed that a cut in interchange fees would translate into lower prices and better service at Walmart and 7-Eleven. Funny, but no one's handed us a free Slurpee yet. In fact, the chief financial officer of Home Depot told Wall Street analysts in a conference call earlier this year that she expected Durbin's efforts to result in a $35 million annual "benefit" to the retailer.
Having picked sides in a high-stakes business deal—retailers over banks—Durbin denounced Bank of America for the widely telegraphed result. "Bank of America is trying to find new ways to pad its profits by sticking it to its customers," he said.
Shockingly, banks seek to be profitable. Durbin sought to transfer some profits from banks to retailers. The banks are trying to recoup the lost earnings.
Result of the government intervention: Retailers win, banks lose, and you get to pay the Durbin Fee.
Copyright © 2011, Chicago Tribune
DEMOCRAT = FUCKING OVER AVERAGE GUY IN THE NAME OF "FAIRNESS"
-
Citibank hits checking accounts with fee
UPI ^ | 10/1/11
U.S. banking giant Citigroup Inc. said this week it would charge $15 per month for checking account holders who kept a balance below $6,000.
The firm's move comes on the heels of Bank of America's announcement this week that it would charge $5 for most debit card holders and sparked at least one desertion, the Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.
Cheryl Holt of Burbank, Calif., said she was "on my way out the door right now … off to start a new account at my nearest credit union."
"Should have done it years before," she added.
Holt said she received a letter with an "absurd salutation," that said, "Customers like you have told us that what they want from their banks are simple options and great rewards. We heard you and are writing to let you know that we are making some changes to your EZ Checking Package."
That said, the bank dropped the $180 per year bomb.
(Excerpt) Read more at dalje.com ...
THANK YOU DEMOCRATS - YOU PIECES OF GARBAGE.
-
333 - the legislation doesn't apply to smaller banks so move your account and STFU
I've told you many times the banking legislation sucks but your constant bitching and moaning is pathetic
-
This is capitalism at its finest.
The creative company will always increase revenue.
-
This is capitalism at its finest.
The creative company will always increase revenue.
This is Dodd frank imposed regulatory costs, not capitalism.
-
This is Dodd frank imposed regulatory costs, not capitalism.
Yes and it's capitalism that has allowed Bank of America and other Banks to reach out and recoup the money they feel they lost.
-
Yes and it's capitalism that has allowed Bank of America and other Banks to reach out and recoup the money they feel they lost.
and? So what?
-
and? So what?
I have no issue with it... It's capitalism and I'm all for it.
People can leave those banks if they don't like their practices. 5 bucks extra a year for me is nothing for the ability to walk into any bank almost anywhere in the nation and get service on my account if I need it.
-
I have no issue with it... It's capitalism and I'm all for it.
People can leave those banks if they don't like their practices. 5 bucks extra a year for me is nothing for the ability to walk into any bank almost anywhere in the nation and get service on my account if I need it.
It's no capitalism and it's not 5 dollars a year. It's 60 dollars a year and it's going to be all banks soon.
It's you getting fucked because of democrat commie fucks like durbin. If you are cool e that fine, more power to you.
-
It's no capitalism and it's not 5 dollars a year. It's 60 dollars a year and it's going to be all banks soon.
It's you getting fucked because of democrat commie fucks like durbin. If you are cool e that fine, more power to you.
That's citibanks decision, not BOA. I'm wouldn't say I'm getting fucked either... I can always do business with someone else.
That's the American way.
-
Yes and it's capitalism that has allowed Bank of America and other Banks to reach out and recoup the money they feel they lost.
with a healthy dose of socialism too
at least the losses were socialized
too bad none of the profits got the same treatment
-
It's no capitalism and it's not 5 dollars a year. It's 60 dollars a year and it's going to be all banks soon.
It's you getting fucked because of democrat commie fucks like durbin. If you are cool e that fine, more power to you.
how is a discretionary fee charged by ANY company not an example of capitalism
it's their choice to charge it and hope they'll make more in the long run from the customers they retain than the ones they lose
it's the same for any business anywhere
-
with a healthy dose of socialism too
at least the losses were socialized
too bad none of the profits got the same treatment
I agree... Those banks should have never gotten bailouts at all.
Capitalism would have dictated that they failed, and they should have.
-
I agree... Those banks should have never gotten bailouts at all.
Capitalism would have dictated that they failed, and they should have.
I still think the Govt should break up BofA and probably Citi as well
We bailed out Goldman Sachs at 100 cents on the dollar for their CDS with AIG and those fuckers were a big cause the problem
-
33,
Do you think private company BoA shouldn't be able to charge whatever they want for their services?
Do you favor MORE REGULATION? :)
-
33,
Do you think private company BoA shouldn't be able to charge whatever they want for their services?
Do you favor MORE REGULATION? :)
Dodd frank ! Lmfao.
-
Dodd frank ! Lmfao.
I'm okay if BoA charges $100 per transaction. Charge whatever you want. people will leave and go elsewhere.
-
I'm okay if BoA charges $100 per transaction. Charge whatever you want. people will leave and go elsewhere.
Either you are too stupid or too uninformed to realize that these fees are a a direct result of dodd frank.
-
Either you are too stupid or too uninformed to realize that these fees are a a direct result of dodd frank.
direct result ?
some things to keep in mind:
banks could have charged a fee for a debit card prior to DF
DF does not require a fee for a debit card
banks can still choose to not charge a debit card fee post DF
you're the only one that is getting hysterical about it
-
33 is mad - why?
Wait a second - dodd frank are owned by the big banks... and now the big banks like boA are victims of dodd frank policy?
it can't be BOTH, dude Either the banks own the dems, or the dems are destroying the banks with their policy. No such world exists where the dems are bought and paid for by the banks (something for you to cry about) but dodd/frank are also destroying the banks (another thing for you to cry about).
unless the banks are so goddarn stupid they continue buying off politicians who are destroying them - in which case you are crying for morons who deserve to lose their money for bribing dem bags of shit.
Which is it?
-
???
The dems are owned by the banks.
The dems are destroying the banks.
IMO, the banks are some dumbshits if they keep paying off politicians who are destroying them, no? ????????????
-
???
The dems are owned by the banks.
The dems are destroying the banks.
IMO, the banks are some dumbshits if they keep paying off politicians who are destroying them, no? ????????????
Go read confidence men
-
The Durbin Fee : Amendment to Dodd-Frank Will Cost Debit Card Users. Hold on to your wallets.
National Review ^ | 10/03/2011 | The Editors
Posted on October 3, 2011 1:04:02 PM EDT by SeekAndFind
Hold on to your wallet: The Durbin Amendment goes into effect Saturday. The once-obscure amendment to the Dodd-Frank financial-reform bill limits “interchange fees,” which banks charge to merchants for providing the service that allows stores to accept debit-card payments. The fees were cut by some 80 percent, which makes it less profitable for banks to offer debit-card services. So the banks have done the natural thing and begun to transfer the fee from merchants to their customers, with Bank of America announcing a new $5-per-month fee for debit-card users.
Naturally, the amendment’s author, Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) is in a rage, complaining that the banks are “sticking it” to consumers. He ought not be surprised: What is happening is precisely what was predicted by industry experts and by the banks themselves. Running a debit-card network costs money, and banks are not going to do it for free or suffer reduced profits gladly. As is usually the case, what we have here is one special-interest lobby (retailers) using its political clout to prevail over a marketplace rival (the banks) to secure for itself a bigger piece of the action. Mr. Durbin, being a senator and a Democrat, cannot resist the urge to stick his nose into controversies better left to the marketplace. Not coincidentally, one of the nation’s largest retailers, Walgreens, is located in his state, and the firm’s CEO lobbied hard for the new federal price controls on debit-card fees.
The new fees are a textbook example of the unintended consequences of regulation — unintended, yes, but not unforeseeable.
Indeed, they were almost universally foreseen. In the Michigan state legislature — hardly a hotbed of free-market fundamentalism — a resolution calling for abandoning the Durbin amendment was passed unanimously by both houses. Sen. Darwin Booher, who sponsored the Michigan resolution, said at the time: “I sponsored this resolution to send a strong message to Congress: Stop any rules from being adopted that would harm our community banks, credit unions, and the millions of Michigan consumers that use them. As currently proposed, the rules would force credit unions and community banks to absorb the costs of fraud and data security. That would result in less credit available for job providers, increased fees, and the ending of popular services like free checking.”
Free checking accounts were the first casualty, with almost every major bank in the country restricting that popular option to larger accounts and imposing new fees on customers who keep lower balances. Again, Bank of America was the first mover, a position it was impelled to take in no small part by the fact that the new regulation forced it to suffer a $10 billion writedown of future earnings. “I’ve seen more regulation in last 30 months than in last 30 years,” Robert Hammer, a banking expert, told the Associated Press. “The bottom line for banks is shifting enormously, swiftly and deeply, and they’re not going to sit by twiddling their thumbs. They’re going to change.” Unintended, not unforeseeable.
Dodd-Frank is a bad piece of legislation, and the Durbin Amendment may not even be the worst part of it. But when Americans start seeing those $5 monthly fees on their bank statements (and if you get a paper bank statement, expect a fee for that, too), we should thank Senator Durbin, who did it all to save us money.
-
This is a good one 3333. You are blaming someone else for the bank charging people.. God forbid the bank being blamed for trying to increase profits.. you go and blame govt...
You act like its a nationalized bank or something.. if you dont like the fee.. switch to a smaller bank... switch to a community bank... but to get mad at a bank for fees and blame it on the govt.. that shows you dont know the first thing about capitalism and the free market...
dumb ass...
Its like being mad at a car company for having to pay to maintain a car you purchased.. if the maintenance is too much... buy a different car...
WTF man... "The weather is bad.. its 10000000000% Obama's fault..."
fuckin dumbass
-
This is a good one 3333. You are blaming someone else for the bank charging people.. God forbid the bank being blamed for trying to increase profits.. you go and blame govt...
You act like its a nationalized bank or something.. if you dont like the fee.. switch to a smaller bank... switch to a community bank... but to get mad at a bank for fees and blame it on the govt.. that shows you dont know the first thing about capitalism and the free market...
dumb ass...
Its like being mad at a car company for having to pay to maintain a car you purchased.. if the maintenance is too much... buy a different car...
WTF man... "The weather is bad.. its 10000000000% Obama's fault..."
fuckin dumbass
I know you are generally little more than a leftist drone, but seriously - have you ever heard of Dodd Frank? The durbin Amendment? interchange Fees?
Read below and getting a freaking clue.
________________________ ________________________ _________________
...Thank Wal-Mart for your new bank card fee
by Timothy P. Carney Senior Political Columnist
Exterior of Walmart in San Jose, Calif., Wednesday, Aug. 13, 2008. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)
When Bank of America announced last week that it would charge $5 a month to customers who make purchases with their debit card, customers railed against the bank.
Many conservatives and libertarians said the anger should be aimed at Congress and the Obama administration, which, through last year's Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill, effectively outlawed the old debit card business model, spurring Bank of America to make this change.
But the real culprit is Walmart and the retail lobby, which used government to squeeze banks and fatten their own bottom line. Walmart won, banks lost, and now customers are stuck with a new monthly fee.
Here's the background: Whenever you use a credit card or debit card to buy something at a store, the credit card processor (like Visa or Mastercard) and the issuing bank (like Bank of America or Chevy Chase Bank) both take a cut. The store may only get $9.70 on a $10 purchase.
How is that rate -- the "interchange fee" -- set? Until this year, it was set by market forces. Visa and Mastercard offer stores a service that facilitates sales and brings in more business. In return, they demand a cut of the sale. Walmart and Joe's Corner Store aren't required to accept debit cards or credit cards, but they do, which means that they decided the price was worth it.
Retailers, of course, wish the card issuers and processors would provide this service for free. Businessmen are always looking for a better deal. The businessmen in this case decided to employ regulatory robbery to get their way. Led by Walmart and the Retail Industry Leaders Association, retailers pushed for a federal cap on interchange fees.
When the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill came up, Sen. Dick Durbin introduced an amendment giving the Federal Reserve the authority to cap the interchange fee on debit cards (but not credit cards). Durbin, in the misleading populist mold of his fellow Illinoisan, Barack Obama, painted himself as the scourge of the special interests, because he was battling against the banks. But some other special interests were firmly in Durbin's corner: the big retailers.
Melissa Merz, a former press secretary for Durbin, lobbied for Walmart on the financial regulation bill, as did former Durbin legislative aide Donni Turner. The Durbin alumna were both at the Podesta Group, and the firm's lobbying filings indicate both lobbied on "Senate financial services regulatory reform legislation."
At the same time, these retail lobbyists were helping fund Durbin's campaign. Daily Caller reporter Jonathan Strong wrote "one month after the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill passed, both of those former aides, Melissa Merz and Donni Turner, attended an Aug. 10 fundraiser for Durbin hosted by the Podesta Group. A group of lobbyists mostly from the Podesta Group gave Durbin $5,000 on Aug. 10 and a $5,000 check from Walmart's PAC cleared shortly afterward, on Aug. 27."
The returns to the retail industry were huge. As the Federal Reserve prepared its rules setting the maximum per-purchase interchange fee, a Home Depot executive told investors on a conference call "Based on the Fed's draft regulations, we think the benefit to the Home Depot could be $35 million a year."
That $35 million Home Depot gain is a $35 million loss for banks and credit-card processors. Their interchange revenue was central to the business model that allowed banks to offer free checking and free debit-card use.
That business model is now illegal, and so Bank of America has switched to the model they find second best. If they can't make the stores cover the costs of debit cards, make the consumers pay a share. The American Bankers Association calls Bank of America's $5-a-month charge "the Durbin fee."
Durbin, needless to say, doesn't like being blamed for this highly unpopular new fee. He blasted B of A for instituting the fee, calling it "unfair." Other liberals say B of A is just making excuses for fleecing their customers. But Bank of America was always free to charge a monthly fee to debit card customers. It didn't because it thought it could get more customers by charging the stores instead.
Debit-card users don't have the lobbying clout of Walmart and the retail industry. Bank of America customers can't get together and hire Durbin's old staffers.
It's the standard tale of government intervention in the economy: The guy with the best lobbyists wins, and the little guy -- this time, the consumer -- loses.
Timothy P.Carney, The Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at tcarney@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Monday and Thursday, and his stories and blog posts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/thank-wal-mart-your-new-bank-card-fee?utm_source=TEMPLATE:%20Washington%20Examiner%20Political%20Digest%20-%2010/03/2011&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20Political%20Digest
-
are u forced to bank with bofa?
-
are u forced to bank with bofa?
uuuggghhhh - this fee hits all banks who issue debit cards and all banks are starting to up the costs to compensate for Durbins corruption on behalf of Walmart.
more examples of Democrats sticking it to the average guy with higher costs, regulation, etc, and then blaming someone else. No different than energy, health care, etc.
-
uuuggghhhh - this fee hits all banks who issue debit cards and all banks are starting to up the costs to compensate for Durbins corruption on behalf of Walmart.
more examples of Democrats sticking it to the average guy with higher costs, regulation, etc, and then blaming someone else. No different than energy, health care, etc.
not my bank
-
not my bank
Yet - Citi and others already also announced that they are upping fees on accounts to pay for this.
-
uuuggghhhh - this fee hits all banks who issue debit cards and all banks are starting to up the costs to compensate for Durbins corruption on behalf of Walmart.
more examples of Democrats sticking it to the average guy with higher costs, regulation, etc, and then blaming someone else. No different than energy, health care, etc.
false
I've told you that at least 3 times now
-
uuuggghhhh - this fee hits all banks who issue debit cards and all banks are starting to up the costs to compensate for Durbins corruption on behalf of Walmart.
more examples of Democrats sticking it to the average guy with higher costs, regulation, etc, and then blaming someone else. No different than energy, health care, etc.
That's not true dude... This fee is something that only the largest banks are using.
Here's the real secret to it... It's not because of any regulation at all.
I'll use myself as an example.
I bank with BOA... So now, there's ATMs all over the country of MY bank... That means that if I go to an ATM or use my check card, that I don't pay any fees what so ever.
When there were fewer banks (before 2008) then odds are I might have to go to another bank just to use an ATM, which would get them a 3 dollar fee on a transaction here and there... That doesn't happen anymore.
The banks are companies... corporations... They want to turn a profit and make money.
The only reason why BoA is doing it now is because they are in the worst financial position of anyone and need the capital now.
I might switch to another bank who doesn't have the fees who is also very large and nationwide.
This really has nothing to do with Dodd Frank at all.
-
When the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill came up, Sen. Dick Durbin introduced an amendment giving the Federal Reserve the authority to cap the interchange fee on debit cards (but not credit cards). Durbin, in the misleading populist mold of his fellow Illinoisan, Barack Obama, painted himself as the scourge of the special interests, because he was battling against the banks. But some other special interests were firmly in Durbin's corner: the big retailers.
Melissa Merz, a former press secretary for Durbin, lobbied for Walmart on the financial regulation bill, as did former Durbin legislative aide Donni Turner. The Durbin alumna were both at the Podesta Group, and the firm's lobbying filings indicate both lobbied on "Senate financial services regulatory reform legislation."
________________________ ___________________
WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR SOME OF YOU TO GRASP?
HHHMMMM? ? ? ? ?
-
I don't even have a debit card.
I worked at Wells Fargo in the early 1990's when they first came out and I could see right away the danger of these cards.
Why would I want a card that allows anyone who has my card to remove funds from my account without the need for a code?
I only have an ATM card and credit cards
I never had and will never have a debit card
-
When the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill came up, Sen. Dick Durbin introduced an amendment giving the Federal Reserve the authority to cap the interchange fee on debit cards (but not credit cards). Durbin, in the misleading populist mold of his fellow Illinoisan, Barack Obama, painted himself as the scourge of the special interests, because he was battling against the banks. But some other special interests were firmly in Durbin's corner: the big retailers.
Melissa Merz, a former press secretary for Durbin, lobbied for Walmart on the financial regulation bill, as did former Durbin legislative aide Donni Turner. The Durbin alumna were both at the Podesta Group, and the firm's lobbying filings indicate both lobbied on "Senate financial services regulatory reform legislation."[/size]
________________________ ___________________
WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR SOME OF YOU TO GRASP?
HHHMMMM? ? ? ? ?
right back at you
direct result ?
some things to keep in mind:
banks could have charged a fee for a debit card prior to DF
DF does not require a fee for a debit card
banks can still choose to not charge a debit card fee post DF
you're the only one that is getting hysterical about it
-
WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR SOME OF YOU TO GRASP?
HHHMMMM? ? ? ? ?
How can you not get that it's every company's job to try to generate revenue by some means?
The banks aren't loaning out money for interest repayments, so they are being creative.
-
How can you not get that it's every company's job to try to generate revenue by some means?
The banks aren't loaning out money for interest repayments, so they are being creative.
They are raising this fee to compensdate for the loss of revenue on the other side of the transaction w the retailer and passing those costs on to the consumer directly as a result of the Durbin amend in Dodd Frank.
This really is not that complicated.
-
They are raising this fee to compensdate for the loss of revenue on the other side of the transaction w the retailer and passing those costs on to the consumer directly as a result of the Durbin amend in Dodd Frank.
This really is not that complicated.
So do you think consumers are better off with this rate or ridiculously high interest rates at the whim of the banks themselves?
In either case, a person can simply move to another bank.
-
They are raising this fee to compensdate for the loss of revenue on the other side of the transaction w the retailer and passing those costs on to the consumer directly as a result of the Durbin amend in Dodd Frank.
This really is not that complicated.
All banks have been focusing on increasing "fee based" income for YEARS
nothing new here and nothing in the legislsation that requires them to do this
they will try to pass along the fee their customers and customers are free to do business elsewhere
The legislation does not apply to banks, credit unions, etc.. with assets of less than 10 billion and there will surely be some banks who are > than 10 billion who will not charge the fee and use that a a way to try to attract more customers
Let's face is 333 - you just need someting on a daily basis to bitch and moan about.
You're a perpetual victim and a cry baby
Soon enough you'll find something else to cry about
-
So do you think consumers are better off with this rate or ridiculously high interest rates at the whim of the banks themselves?
In either case, a person can simply move to another bank.
Yes they can, but Dodd Frank applies to all of these banks and these fees will all be standard fare before long. Citi announed it is hiking fees as a result to a few days ago on many accounts for the regulatory capture.
-
All banks have been focusing on increasing "fee based" income for YEARS
nothing new here and nothing in the legislsation that requires them to do this
they will try to pass along the fee their customers and customers are free to do business elsewhere
The legislation does not apply to banks, credit unions, etc.. with assets of less than 10 billion and there will surely be some banks who are > than 10 billion who will not charge the fee and use that a a way to try to attract more customers
Let's face is 333 - you just need someting on a daily basis to bitch and moan about.
You're a perpetual victim and a cry baby
Soon enough you'll find something else to cry about
Nah, between Solyndra , Fast n Furious, LightSquared, ObamaCare, etc - there is plenty enough as it is.
-
Straw knows more than Forbes Magazine on this of course. ::) ::)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2011/10/04/bank-of-america-debit-card-fees-slammed-as-durbin-tax/?feed=rss_home
-
Yes they can, but Dodd Frank applies to all of these banks and these fees will all be standard fare before long. Citi announed it is hiking fees as a result to a few days ago on many accounts for the regulatory capture.
the fee cap on swipe fees (ironic name) does not apply to bank with assets less than 10 billion
NO BANK is required to charge a fee for a debit card
my advice to you would be to get rid of your debit card altogether and only use a credit card in circumstances where you would have used your debit card
-
Straw knows more than Forbes Magazine on this of course. ::) ::)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2011/10/04/bank-of-america-debit-card-fees-slammed-as-durbin-tax/?feed=rss_home
just read it
nothing in that article refutes anything I've said
-
Nah, between Solyndra , Fast n Furious, LightSquared, ObamaCare, etc - there is plenty enough as it is.
but that won't stop your 24/7 cry-fest will it?
-
but that won't stop your 24/7 cry-fest will it?
When Bama is sent to Jail - I will stop.
-
When Bama is sent to Jail - I will stop.
So you're never gonna stop crying then?
-
When Bama is sent to Jail - I will stop.
Seriously, when was the last time a President of the United States went to jail?
-
Seriously, when was the last time a President of the United States went to jail?
Always time for a 1st right? ;D ;D
I would be happy at this point if Bama gave the infamous LBJ speech.
-
Always time for a 1st right? ;D ;D
I would be happy at this point if Bama gave the infamous LBJ speech.
To me it all depends on who the Republicans put up... With Christie officially out, if they don't nominate Paul... Who, while having issues, seems, at his core, to be saying what he believes, then there's no hope for the Republicans I'm afraid.
-
They are raising this fee to compensdate for the loss of revenue on the other side of the transaction w the retailer and passing those costs on to the consumer directly as a result of the Durbin amend in Dodd Frank.
This really is not that complicated.
If that's the case, wouldn't this be a good thing?
At least we can see the costs, shop banks for better rates, etc.
Of course, big retailers have more negotiating muscle to deal with the banks, so that could've been helping to keep rates low.
I'm not sure on this one.
-
Wall Street Protester: "You're A Bum Jew..Go Back To Israel"
The Blaze ^ | 10/4/2011 | Jonathon M. Seidl
We’ve been reporting on the Occupy Wall St. protesters for some time now, but we haven’t seen any signs of racism. Until now. But are they the ramblings of a disturbed man?
National Review correspondent Charles Cooke posted video Tuesday of a young man berating an older Jewish man, calling him a bum (it seems in response to being called the same term), mocking him by asking him if he speaks English, and telling him to “go back to Israel.”
Cooke describes the exchange:
Moments after I arrived, I saw a Jewish gentleman being berated when he criticized a protester. (Shortly after my video camera was switched off, he (inexplicably) shouted the N-word at the same man.)
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
-
If that's the case, wouldn't this be a good thing?
At least we can see the costs, shop banks for better rates, etc.
Of course, big retailers have more negotiating muscle to deal with the banks, so that could've been helping to keep rates low.
I'm not sure on this one.
The customer always gets fucked. This shifted the cost from the merchant to the conusmer in the transaction basically.
-
Why Your Bank Is Charging More Fees
National Review ^ | 10/05/2011 | John Berlau
There are many observations that can be made about President Obama’s remark Monday to ABC News that businesses “don’t have some inherent right just to get a certain amount of profit if your customers are being mistreated.” In and of itself, this comment reveals much about his beliefs and knowledge (or lack thereof) on economics, consumer choice, and the private sector in general.
But in the context in which it was made — Bank of America, Citi, and other banks’ recently announced debit-card and checking-account fees for consumers, which they are charging to recoup losses from the Dodd-Frank financial-overhaul law’s price controls on debit-card fees charged to retailers — what must first be said is that he was lecturing the wrong set of Fortune 500 corporations. The price controls were added to the law by an amendment from Senate majority whip Dick Durbin (D., Ill.).
If he really wanted to point the finger at the big companies that have mistreated consumers and are reaping illicit profits, he should have addressed not Bank of America, but Walmart, Walgreens, and Home Depot. These big retailers are making a killing from the price cap — regulatory corporate welfare that they lobbied vigorously on behalf of — yet so far have not passed on any of their estimated $19 billion in savings to consumers. And even many Democrats can see what’s going on.
For example, consider this quote: “Consumers suffer when the government regulates interchange fees. . . . Merchants are able to offload their fees onto consumers[, and] retailers have no intention of passing along any savings to consumers. . . . We should not allow the federal government to dictate the terms of a private transaction — particularly in a case such as this, where government intervention would drastically harm [consumers].”
What firebreathing free-market zealot made these proclamations? None other than Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.), the president’s own handpicked chairman of the Democratic National Committee, in a letter co-written with Rep. Kenny Marchant (R., Texas). Similar sentiments were reflected in a letter signed by 71 Democrats and 60 Republicans in June 2010 urging House-Senate conferees to strip the price controls from the final Dodd-Frank bill. Likewise, Dodd-Frank co-author Barney Frank (D., Mass.) has said repeatedly that this is the only part of Dodd-Frank he doesn’t like, and he’s offered to work with both parties to repeal it.
To be sure, there were defectors in the other direction, too: 17 Republican senators voted for the Durbin Amendment, though all but three of them would vote against Dodd-Frank at the end. And the GOP’s “Durbin Dozen” in June of this year voted against a measure by Jon Tester (D., Mont.) to delay the price controls, depriving it of the 60 votes needed to clear the Senate.
Some of these Republicans were simply hypocritical. Georgia GOP senators Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss are co-sponsoring a bill to repeal Dodd-Frank, yet both voted twice in favor of these price controls, arguably the law’s most intrusive measure. Their sudden conversion to government price-setting seems to have something to do with heavy lobbying in favor of Durbin’s handiwork from Atlanta-based Home Depot, a firm that American Banker described as “on the warpath” against interchange fees. According to the New York Times, “Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia, told SunTrust, the largest bank in his state, that this time he planned to vote against the bank and with . . . Home Depot.”
But alas, the president didn’t take the opportunity to bring up any of this history as a path forward to reform this rule.. Instead, Obama expressly took ownership of a regulation that favors the millionaires and billionaires of the retail industry at the expense of consumers and small entrepreneurs who depend on their debit cards and checking accounts.
From the very beginning, Durbin tipped his hand that his efforts were on behalf of the retail fat cats. When he introduced his amendment to Dodd-Frank in May 2010, Durbin said on the Senate floor that his measure came about after Walgreens’s CEO called him to complain that the transaction fees the company pays to process debit and credit cards were “the fourth largest item of cost for their business.”
Yet in this era of the “Buffett Rule” and bashing “millionaires and billionaires,” Durbin and other liberal proponents of these price controls never quite explained why Congress should be concerned with the routine costs of doing business for a retail chain such as Walgreens, which makes $2 billion in annual profits. Or for that matter, other retail behemoths such as Walmart or Home Depot — or Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, with retail units from Dairy Queen to Nebraska Furniture Mart — that will benefit from this regulation-driven corporate welfare.
Going back to the president’s remarks discussing whether there is an “inherent right to get a certain amount of profit,” it’s important to note that the Durbin Amendment does not give banks and credit unions the right to reap any amount of profit from the retail side of a debit card transaction, or even to cover their costs. Unlike price controls under utility-rate regulation that mandate a “reasonable rate of return,” Durbin’s provision in Dodd-Frank demands that interchange fees be “proportional to cost,” and that the Federal Reserve only consider “incremental costs” in setting the price caps.
Thus the Fed, concerned with stability of the banking sector, almost invited banks and credit unions to engage in cost shifting to consumers, “helpfully” pointing out that “the interchange fee standard would not limit the ability of an issuer to earn revenue from other sources, such as charging fees to cardholders.” The Fed’s final rule set the fee for debit cards at 21 cents per transaction, with up to an additional five cents for fraud cost in some cases, no matter how large the transaction is. This is much less draconian than the 12-cent cap the Fed had set in an earlier proposal, but a number that still does not cover variable costs, let alone the fixed costs of the technology infrastructure. According to comments to the Fed of a group of banking associations, incuding those representing community banks and credit unions, the costs alone of authorization, clearing, and settlement come to 27 cents per transaction.
And so far, retailers have advertised few if any “Durbin discounts” to offset these new consumer fees. Politico reports that “the savings for consumers on the retail side continue to be mostly theoretical” and quoted the general counsel of the National Retail Federation as saying merely that “companies are exploring it.” Don’t hold your breath waiting for retailers to lower prices. A study by the U.S. Congress’s Government Accountability Office noted that after Australia enacted interchange price controls for credit cards, retailers saved $1.1 billion — but also noted the Reserve Bank of Australia’s concession that “it would be very difficult to provide conclusive evidence of the extent to which these savings have resulted in lower retail prices because so many factors affect such prices at any one time.”
There are many reason why most consumers won’t see an equivalent retail savings to match the new bank fees. For all the talk about credit-card networks’ being anticompetitive, many retail sectors — dominated by big-box stores — are hardly paragons of perfect competition themselves. A recent study co-authored by Robert Litan, an antitrust official in the Clinton-administration Department of Justice who is now a vice president at the Kauffman Foundation, concludes that there should be “no presumption that all or most of the merchants and retailers that would receive the debit-card interchange fee reductions operate in the sorts of intensely competitive product and geographic markets that would tend to drive the full pass through of cost changes.” The fact that both banking and retail have big players is not itself a call for antitrust action, but it does mean that policy makers should be extra wary of regulation that could entrench a dominant firm.
And then there is the fact that price controls lead to lower quality, and in this case, could mean less innovation in security measures. If there is more fraud and theft due to a slowed improvement in technology, costs would rise for retailers and consumers. Even if there are some savings passed on, there is no guarantee they will be of the kind most consumers want. The letter from Wasserman Schultz and Marchant noted that one retail lobbyist said that some stores may provide free gift wrapping. “Free gift wrapping? Thanks, but no thanks,” the letter proclaimed. “Our constituents would prefer that interchange fees be used to pay for valuable services, like free access to checking.”
Obama and others who think it’s good politics to simply bash banks for debit-card fees, while giving giant retailers a free pass, may be in for a surprise. American citizens have become educated over the past year about the Durbin price controls. In addition to criticism of the Durbin Amendment from a substantial chunk of his own party in Congress, 33 activists and leaders of center-right organizations — from fiscal groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Americans for Tax Reform to the Christian Coalition — signed on to an April letter decrying the price controls and corporate welfare. These groups represent a grassroots of millions.
And representatives of respected smaller financial institutions — such as the Credit Union National Association and the Independent Community Bankers of America – have warned customers about the dire effects of the Durbin Amendment on financial institutions of all sizes, even the small banks and credit unions that are exempt.
It may be only a matter of time before of broad swath of citizens decides to “occupy” the offices of giant retailers and the politicians who support their quest for regulatory corporate welfare. Or find some other way of holding them accountable.
— John Berlau is director of the Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs at the Competitive Enterprise Institute
Vote Democrat - it beats working for a living.
-
333 - you've spent 3 pages bitching and moaning about a $5 bank fee
WTF is wrong with you life that you have the time to spend on something so f'ng trivial
-
333 - you've spent 3 pages bitching and moaning about a $5 bank fee
WTF is wrong with you life that you have the time to spend on something so f'ng trivial
Its not just the $5 fee - its the entire obama/demo agenda as epitomized by Dodd Frank / ObamaCare / Cap Trade / Stim Bills / etc
-
Its not just the $5 fee - its the entire obama/demo agenda as epitomized by Dodd Frank / ObamaCare / Cap Trade / Stim Bills / etc
that's what is IS INSIDE YOUR HEAD
to the rest of the sane world it's just a discretionary $5 fee that the bank is hoping is small enough that they'll get a net gain after some customers decided to close their acounts.
do you even have a debit card with BofA?
-
that's what is IS INSIDE YOUR HEAD
to the rest of the sane world it's just a discretionary $5 fee that the bank is hoping is small enough that they'll get a net gain after some customers decided to close their acounts.
do you even have a debit card with BofA?
Not really - when you and your communist buddies are sent to the dust bin of history next year in a historical landslide - you will know why.
-
Not really - when you and your communist buddies are sent to the dust bin of history next year in a historical landslide - you will know why.
yes, everyone is a commie
-
333 - this is no joke so don't laugh
-
I have a health savings account with Patelco Credit Union and just got this email today
I expect more banks, CU's, etc.. will be using this as a marketing tool
Dear Member,
Bank of America just announced that it will begin charging its customers $5 a month to use their debit cards for purchases—and that’s on top of monthly checking account fees that can range from $12 to $25, depending on whether you satisfy certain deposit and balance conditions.
And while the other big banks will likely do the same, we wanted to let you know that Patelco has no intention of charging you a debit card fee and our Free Checking account is just that: FREE
No monthly debit card or account fees with no conditions or restrictions
Free Online and Mobile Banking with BillPay
Free Overdraft Protection from your Patelco savings account
28,000+ free ATMs nationwide including those at Costco, 7-Eleven, and all Bank of the West locations
You already know the value of Patelco Credit Union for other products and services so what is stopping you from moving your checking account to Patelco today? We have everything the big banks do, except the fees.
-
I have a health savings account with Patelco Credit Union and just got this email today
I expect more banks, CU's, etc.. will be using this as a marketing tool
Dear Member,
Bank of America just announced that it will begin charging its customers $5 a month to use their debit cards for purchases—and that’s on top of monthly checking account fees that can range from $12 to $25, depending on whether you satisfy certain deposit and balance conditions.
And while the other big banks will likely do the same, we wanted to let you know that Patelco has no intention of charging you a debit card fee and our Free Checking account is just that: FREE
No monthly debit card or account fees with no conditions or restrictions
Free Online and Mobile Banking with BillPay
Free Overdraft Protection from your Patelco savings account
28,000+ free ATMs nationwide including those at Costco, 7-Eleven, and all Bank of the West locations
You already know the value of Patelco Credit Union for other products and services so what is stopping you from moving your checking account to Patelco today? We have everything the big banks do, except the fees.
My bank's pimping something similar because they don't charge any of those fees either. I can't imagine why anybody would bank with BofA.
-
My bank's pimping something similar because they don't charge any of those fees either. I can't imagine why anybody would bank with BofA.
I moved all my accounts from chase to a local bank which I really like. I wont deal with those massive banks because they treat you like crappola. however, they do tell me Dodd Frank is a disaster of biblical measure.
-
I moved all my accounts from chase to a local bank which I really like. I wont deal with those massive banks because they treat you like crappola. however, they do tell me Dodd Frank is a disaster of biblical measure.
Yeah, my local bank is great. Good hours, no fees - no problems!
-
I moved all my accounts from chase to a local bank which I really like. I wont deal with those massive banks because they treat you like crappola. however, they do tell me Dodd Frank is a disaster of biblical measure.
1) i did that last year.. Pacific Western Bank.. Awesome
2) Disaster of biblical measure? .... really bro..
-
If BoA had balls they would put "Dick Durbin Tax" on everyone's monthly statement.
-
If BoA had balls they would put "Dick Durbin Tax" on everyone's monthly statement.
it would be kind of hard to explain since the Durbin ammendment doesn't require BofA to charge anything for a debit card. That's something they chose to do to try to collect more $'s. I thought that fact was already clearly established in this thread
-
it would be kind of hard to explain since the Durbin ammendment doesn't require BofA to charge anything for a debit card. That's something they chose to do to try to collect more $'s. I thought that fact was already clearly established in this thread
::)
Swing and a miss. Par the course for you.
-
::)
Swing and a miss. Par the course for you.
yet you can't say what part is not true
you should learn when to fold when you have a losing hand
-
yet you can't say what part is not true
you should learn when to fold when you have a losing hand
You think that BoA is going to act out of some misplaced sense of far-left "justice" and not pass the lost revenues onto the customer with Dicky Durbin's ill-thought tax. I'm not even going to take into account that BoA is in a massive liquidity crunch and desperate for cash, making it 100% guaranteed that they would do something like this. The world only works like that in that naive little Bay Area bubble that you live in.
You should learn when to fold when you haven't the faintest idea what card game you're playing.
-
You think that BoA is going to act out of some misplaced sense of far-left "justice" and not pass the lost revenues onto the customer with Dicky Durbin's ill-thought tax. I'm not even going to take into account that BoA is in a massive liquidity crunch and desperate for cash, making it 100% guaranteed that they would do something like this. The world only works like that in that naive little Bay Area bubble that you live in.
You should learn when to fold when you haven't the faintest idea what card game you're playing.
really - now you're just going to try to repeat the thing that I just said to you
I like your tactic of ignoring the facts (BofA needs cash, BofA does not have to charge this fee, etc.) just to support your own stupid comment that it's a tax by Dick Durbin
if you want to have a pissing contest can't you at least do it about something relevent if not actually based in fact
-
really - now you're just going to try to repeat the thing that I just said to you
I like your tactic of ignoring the facts (BofA needs cash, BofA does not have to charge this fee, etc.) just to support your own stupid comment that it's a tax by Dick Durbin
if you want to have a pissing contest can't you at least do it about something relevent if not actually based in fact
Bubble boy here thinks that any business isn't going to pass on extra costs to their consumers.
Maybe you should go back to school and take a basics economics course. Would do you a world of good, Mr. "We need to spend another $5 trillion".
No one gives a fuck about your economic analysis, slick. You shot your credibility wad when you argued in favor of spending trillions more on stimulus. :-*
-
Bubble boy here thinks that any business isn't going to pass on extra costs to their consumers.
Maybe you should go back to school and take a basics economics course. Would do you a world of good, Mr. "We need to spend another $5 trillion".
No one gives a fuck about your economic analysis, slick. You shot your credibility wad when you argued in favor of spending trillions more on stimulus. :-*
3 posts and still doing nothing more than proving the point that this is a discretionary fee that BofA chooses to charge
like I said 3 posts earlier......learn when to fold
-
3 posts and still doing nothing more than proving the point that this is a discretionary fee that BofA chooses to charge
like I said 3 posts earlier......learn when to fold
Yes, yes, discretionary fee. We get it. Most people also know that it was 100% guaranteed it was going to be passed on. Dicky Durbin knew it. That's why he's trying to save face now by crying for a bank run on BoA. What better way to bury your mess than by collapsing the entire financial system?
I can't help but laugh every time you try to talk economics given the fact that you think the stimulus should have been a few trillion dollars larger. It's pretty embarrassing, to be honest.
-
Yes, yes, discretionary fee. We get it. Most people also know that it was 100% guaranteed it was going to be passed on. Dicky Durbin knew it. That's why he's trying to save face now by crying for a bank run on BoA. What better way to bury your mess than by collapsing the entire financial system?
I can't help but laugh every time you try to talk economics given the fact that you think the stimulus should have been a few trillion dollars larger. It's pretty embarrassing, to be honest.
I laugh when you try to talk about any topic
there is no tax hence it would be stupid and false for BofA to put "Dick Durbin Tax" on everyone's statement
I know you were just trying to be funny and honestly I can't believe I've wasted my time even talking to you about it
you seem to be one of the kids on this site that just love to have pissing contests about nothing
-
Yes, yes, discretionary fee. We get it. Most people also know that it was 100% guaranteed it was going to be passed on.
True. Never did get why people were so hell bent on taxing businesses. It's going to get passed off onto the consumer in one form or another.
-
http://theweek.com/article/index/233833/is-the-era-of-free-checking-accounts-over
Obama lied free checking died
-
Isn't bank of america a private company?
In a capitalist society, any company can charge anything it wants for its products or services.
If BoA believes the market will support it, they charge $5 on debit ccards.
If the consumer rejects it, they will go elsewhere and boA will lose money.
What's the issue here?
-
Isn't bank of america a private company?
In a capitalist society, any company can charge anything it wants for its products or services.
If BoA believes the market will support it, they charge $5 on debit ccards.
If the consumer rejects it, they will go elsewhere and boA will lose money.
What's the issue here?
Go talk to your banker about Dodd Frank before spouting off such nonsense
-
Go talk to your banker about Dodd Frank before spouting off such nonsense
??? Explain why I'm wrong.
if BoA wants to charge for this service, people will pay it, or they'll leave.
I don't think the govt should be regulating what private firms charge. Customers will happily leave for other banks, who will advertise "We DONT charge $5 like BoA does..."
-
??? Explain why I'm wrong.
if BoA wants to charge for this service, people will pay it, or they'll leave.
I don't think the govt should be regulating what private firms charge. Customers will happily leave for other banks, who will advertise "We DONT charge $5 like BoA does..."
They are raising the fees to off set NEW costs imposed by NEW regulations. The costs don't go away just because they dont raise the fees on an ATM card - they raise it somewhere else costing the consumer who always ends by being the victim of the govt.
-
They are raising the fees to off set NEW costs imposed by NEW regulations. The costs don't go away just because they dont raise the fees on an ATM card - they raise it somewhere else costing the consumer who always ends by being the victim of the govt.
Change banks.. free market..
-
They are raising the fees to off set NEW costs imposed by NEW regulations. The costs don't go away just because they dont raise the fees on an ATM card - they raise it somewhere else costing the consumer who always ends by being the victim of the govt.
point 1-
I thought bankers had WAy too much influence on the Obama adminstration, that he was a tool of Wall Street... Why did they allow him to charge them so much
point 2-
aren't they still making insane profits? Despite the world economy being in a huge slump, Bank of America posted a $1.6 billion 4Q income, eked out profit for 2011, after paying everyone's giant salary.
point 3-
why is BoA the only company that needs to raise prices? How is my bank able to contend with the same govt regulations and not charge $5? The consumer here chooses to be a victim by choosing the one bank that charges $5 for this service.
I await your 3 point response, 333386.
-
Change banks.. free market..
LOL!!!!
You think other banks are not affected by Dodd Frank ?
Go talk to your banker and bring up Dodd Frank and see what they say.
Personally I keep my accounts at a smaller local bank since the TBTF banks make me sick, but this is just an example of do gooder liberal panzie asses kicking the consumer right in the balls.
-
point 1-
I thought bankers had WAy too much influence on the Obama adminstration, that he was a tool of Wall Street... Why did they allow him to charge them so much
point 2-
aren't they still making insane profits? Despite the world economy being in a huge slump, Bank of America posted a $1.6 billion 4Q income, eked out profit for 2011, after paying everyone's giant salary.
point 3-
why is BoA the only company that needs to raise prices? How is my bank able to contend with the same govt regulations and not charge $5? The consumer here chooses to be a victim by choosing the one bank that charges $5 for this service.
I await your 3 point response, 333386.
-
LOL!!!!
You think other banks are not affected by Dodd Frank ?
WHy haven't the other banks added a $5 fee? BoA isn't as efficient as them? Sounds like the market will finish off BoA and other banks will step in. More efficient banks with smaller payrolls maybe.
-
You are being charged in other areas if not the ATM fees.
http://theweek.com/article/index/233833/is-the-era-of-free-checking-accounts-over
point 1-
I thought bankers had WAy too much influence on the Obama adminstration, that he was a tool of Wall Street... Why did they allow him to charge them so much
point 2-
aren't they still making insane profits? Despite the world economy being in a huge slump, Bank of America posted a $1.6 billion 4Q income, eked out profit for 2011, after paying everyone's giant salary.
point 3-
why is BoA the only company that needs to raise prices? How is my bank able to contend with the same govt regulations and not charge $5? The consumer here chooses to be a victim by choosing the one bank that charges $5 for this service.
I await your 3 point response, 333386.
-
point 1-
I thought bankers had WAy too much influence on the Obama adminstration, that he was a tool of Wall Street... Why did they allow him to charge them so much
point 2-
aren't they still making insane profits? Despite the world economy being in a huge slump, Bank of America posted a $1.6 billion 4Q income, eked out profit for 2011, after paying everyone's giant salary.
point 3-
why is BoA the only company that needs to raise prices? How is my bank able to contend with the same govt regulations and not charge $5? The consumer here chooses to be a victim by choosing the one bank that charges $5 for this service.
I await your 3 point response, 333386.
They tried it... people bitched... They didn't do it.
-
They tried it... people bitched... They didn't do it.
Right but they are finding other ways to pay for this. This is like the casino - the house rarely if ever loses.
http://theweek.com/article/index/233833/is-the-era-of-free-checking-accounts-over
-
You are being charged in other areas if not the ATM fees.
my bank charges me no fees. Their fee is the use of my money when i'm not using it. If I have $X sitting in there, they get to use it for lending and investing.
-
my bank charges me no fees. Their fee is the use of my money when i'm not using it. If I have $X sitting in there, they get to use it for lending and investing.
Actually you are paying a fee thanks to Bernake and Obama, and bush before him keeping rates at zero.
-
Average ATM Surcharge Reaches New High
Published: Wednesday, 26 Sep 2012 | 10:54 AM ET Text Size By: Ann Carrns, The New York Times Twitter
via CNBC
It’s getting more important to consider the size and scope of your bank’s network of A.T.M.’s if you use them frequently.
An annual analysis of checking accounts from Bankrate.com finds that the average A.T.M. surcharge — the fee charged by the machine’s operator to a noncustomer — rose 4 percent to a new record of $2.50.
This is the eighth consecutive year that the average surcharge has increased. And, for the first time, all of the banks surveyed by Bankrate.com for the report charge noncustomers to use their A.T.M.’s.
The increases are part of an overall attempt by banks to replace fee revenue lost because of new caps on the amount they can charge retailers for debit-card transactions.
The surcharge gets even more expensive when your own bank gets into the act, charging you — its customer — for using a competitor’s machine. This fee rose 11 percent, to $1.57.
For a customer encountering both fees, the average total of $4.07 is also a new record. It is up almost 7 percent from last year.
What steps do you take to avoid A.T.M. surcharges? And what’s the biggest one you’ve ever paid?
-
Average ATM Surcharge Reaches New High
Published: Wednesday, 26 Sep 2012 | 10:54 AM ET Text Size By: Ann Carrns, The New York Times Twitter
via CNBC
It’s getting more important to consider the size and scope of your bank’s network of A.T.M.’s if you use them frequently.
An annual analysis of checking accounts from Bankrate.com finds that the average A.T.M. surcharge — the fee charged by the machine’s operator to a noncustomer — rose 4 percent to a new record of $2.50.
This is the eighth consecutive year that the average surcharge has increased. And, for the first time, all of the banks surveyed by Bankrate.com for the report charge noncustomers to use their A.T.M.’s.
The increases are part of an overall attempt by banks to replace fee revenue lost because of new caps on the amount they can charge retailers for debit-card transactions.
The surcharge gets even more expensive when your own bank gets into the act, charging you — its customer — for using a competitor’s machine. This fee rose 11 percent, to $1.57.
For a customer encountering both fees, the average total of $4.07 is also a new record. It is up almost 7 percent from last year.
What steps do you take to avoid A.T.M. surcharges? And what’s the biggest one you’ve ever paid?
youre mad at what a private company does!!!@
-
youre mad at what a private company does!!!@
Idiot - the caps were placed on by the Durbin Amendment you incompetent! The banks are now pushing THAT NEW COST THEY DID NOT PREVIOUSLY HAVE on to the consumer.
-
Also know as the law of unintended consequence