The question is, what did you think were going to do dumba$$? Durbin sponsored an amendment to the massive Dodd-Frank bill capping debit card fees banks could charge merchants thereby reducing revenue in their card units. Of course they are going to seek alternative sources of revenue It's the merchants that benefit now at the expense of the banks and consumers. Why is this idiot railing against the banks, specifically singling out B of A? Why is he not railing against the merchants for not passing along their windfall to the consumer? The unintended consequences of central government meddling and in this populist war, the banks are at fault......that dumba$$ did it! They are absolutely clueless...... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65038.html
Yeah I don't quite get all the outrage over 5$ a month to use something like a debit card. It's a service the banks provide, it cost's them money to offer that service. If you don't think it's a fair fee, fine I am going to guess that if other banks see an opportunity to grab customers they will do just that. Banking is pretty competitive. BTW: You don't have to have a debit card, you could just go back to carrying an old fashion checkbook with you....but wait those nasty banks actually charge you for your checks...oooh the horror.
This I have absolutely no problem with. It's a service that everyone uses and the costs can be distributed amongst all users. What I had a problem with was the rate action taken by BOA about three months before the Credit Reform Act was passed and a year before it was to take effect where BOA jacked up my credit card interest rate on existing balances arbitrarily and without provocation. They stole from me in effect. Better they get revenues for actual services performed using legitimate fees than selectively steal thousands from fewer people.
Sure....I guess it's stealing if and only if you believe that telling somebody they could take an action and they take the action that you authorized them to take is stealing....sure, I guess that's stealing in some societies, just never one that I've ever encountered.
As I understand it, the fee is charged only on the basic (smaller balance) accounts and not across the board. Within 1 mile of my home there are 11 bank offices. If Bank of America's lower-balance depositors want to look elsewhere, they have a plethora of choices. Unlike the oligopolistic hold that the oil companies have on the public (BT, :wink: ), banking is truly a free-market industry. Transferring bank accounts is an easy and painless process. Time will tell if this becomes the norm.
I'm a customer of BOA and will be looking at alternatives. They have been actively steering customers to debit card use for years and now they spring the trap. But how else can they pay for all the stupid decisions they have made ? Some body has to cover their ass.
:idea: It was Dick Durbin who wrote this new law which shifted the burden of credit card fees from the merchants to the customers. He was warned not to do it; now he's feigning outrage when the worst case scenario has come to pass...
That's ******** Krebsie....what trap did they spring? Central planners arbitrarily cut in half the revenue they are able to receive from merchants whenever a consumer chooses to use a debit card using the networks and infrastructure the banking industry invested millions to develop, secure and scale. Now, merchants using the benefits of the network built by the banking industry now receive a windfall in lower transaction costs whenever their customers buy their products and the banks lose in aggregate $6 billion in revenue......the merchants benefit to the tune of $6 billion annually, the banks attempt to recoup their investment by charging for the usage of their network and it's the bankers spring a trap. Nonsense..... If the central government capped the prices on your merchandise at almost 1/2 of the going rate, what would you do to stay in business and generate a return on your investment? Would you characterize that action as spring ing a trap..... This is just a classic case of central government meddling and it's unintended consequences.....the big box merchants using the benefit of the banking industry-built infrastructure benefit at the expense of the the consumer......well done Mr President, well done Mr Durbin.....you're way too smart to fall for that nonsense Krebsie.....it's absurd.
As I stated....I have no issue with reasonable and appropriate charges for services performed. Just because someone is able to rape you with exorbitant interest charges and get away with it does not make it reasonable, ethical or acceptable in a decent society.
You stated that it was stealing.....none of those is stealing. If you find any of their fees or charges unreasonable, unethical or unacceptable, there still remains in this country THOUSANDS of other providers......take your business to an alternative
Sounds like we need to nationalize the banks!! I mean the post office is such a model of how you don't cheat or screw the customers and yet still make a solid profit that is not to big or not to small...just right. Oh wait that's the 3 Bears...never mind.
Not a big fan of the banking industry at the moment, BT. We bail them out, they operate with free money, throughout the whole mess, which they mainly created, they continue to bonus themselves while jacking fees, tightening the credit spigot to a dribble and investing offshore. Have to part ways with you on this topic.
You don't have to be a fan to recognize the absurdity of Durbin's position and the outrageous action of singling out an individual company for his ire on the Senate floor.....BobA acted quite rationally in response to he and his party's central planners naive meddling.... an action that is consistent with one that any prudent businessman would take. Re: credit spigot.....Krebsie don't underestimate the hand of the central government and their omnipotent regulators in limiting the available supply of credit. The notion that the country's bankers have decided unilaterally to tighten credit and underwriting standards is not an accurate portrayal of the current credit environment....
Suit says veterans charged extra mortgage fees BY GREG BLUESTEIN - THE ASSOCIATED PRESS | POSTED : TUESDAY OCT 4, 2011 18:40:15 EDT ATLANTA — A whistle-blower lawsuit launched in 2006 and unsealed Tuesday in federal court in Atlanta claims several large banks and mortgage companies defrauded military veterans and taxpayers out of hundreds of millions of dollars in a “brazen scheme” to hide illegal fees. The lawsuit, brought under the Federal Claims Act by two mortgage brokers, claims the 13 banks and mortgage firms over-charged veterans who were applying for special home loans guaranteed by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Federal rules allow the lenders to charge “reasonable and customary” fees and taxes, the lawsuit said, but they are barred from charging them attorneys’ fees and settlement closing costs for the loans. The firms skirted the rules by charging attorneys’ fees by hiding them as “title examination” or “title search” fees, it said. Veterans were ultimately saddled with “excessive and illegal fees at closing,” the complaint said. The lawsuit targets several firms, including Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Bank of America. Several of the firms did not immediately return messages late Tuesday seeking comment on the lawsuit. A Bank of America spokesman declined to comment. The banks have denied the allegations in related court documents. The lawsuit was initially filed in 2006, but attorneys say it’s common for these types of complaints to remain sealed for years while they are being investigated. It seeks to recover damages and penalties on behalf of the federal government, which said in court records that it wouldn’t intervene. More than 1.2 million of the refinanced loans have been made to veterans and their families over the past decade, and up to 90 percent of them were tainted with the fraud, plaintiff’s attorneys said. The firms collected $300 to $1,000 with each deal, which could amount to “massive damages” to the federal government, the complaint said. “This is a massive fraud on the American taxpayers and American veterans,” said James E. Butler Jr., one of the attorneys who brought the case. “Knowing they weren’t allowed to charge the fees, the banks and mortgage companies inflated allowable charges to hide these illegal fees without telling the veterans who were the borrowers or the VA they were doing so.”
Ok, big surprise the government passes a law that has unintended consequences. However I personally have no intention of paying a monthly fee to get money taken out of my account immediately. I'll write checks or use credit cards that I pay off in full at the end of the month and even get rebates. I did read earlier today if people start using credit cards instead of debit cards the banks will make more money. Whatever, I won't pay to use a debit card.
I agree Bill whatever reason is given for the charge. My question is cash so out of date that people will pay the charge on debit cards... I am in the process of opening up a fruit stand/gift shop as an investment opportunity and we are going to have a credit card machine in the store even though I would rather not but it supposedly increases sales by 50%. It seems that the generation after mine (I'm 47) does not "do" cash and demands the chance to purchase on credit or debit...
I'm with Bill. I have used a debit card for over 10 years. From the beginning, I have used it as a credit card, always specifying "credit card" when given the choice. If my bank ever decides to bill me for its use, I will move to a bank that does not charge. Like I said earlier, there are 11 bank offices within a mile of my home. I'm certain that one or more of them will see an opportunity to take business away from the competition by not following the lead of the big boys. Mark my words. The hubris of the banking giants will lead to their downfall in terms of market share. The debit card issue is just the beginning.
Like so many attempts at government-imposed price controls, the unintended consequences will result in hurting those for whom it was intended to assist......this should come as no revelation at anyone familiar with prior efforts. It won't work, it has never worked, it cannot work.....it's just stupid politics and bad public policy.....central planning with political intentions at it's worst.... :roll:
I am sure Warren Buffet will have a few things to say to the President (his best buddy) after he just sunk all that money into Bank of America I am sure he wont be happy with what this is doing to his stock investment. Especially since its downfall is being caused by his fellow Democrates . I hope he loses it all... :wink: