Big Banks Taking it up the crapper

[bluehenbillk]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/03/pf/move ... ?hpt=hp_t1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Since BOA came out with new debit card fee (which they took back due to consumer pressure) at the end of September more Americans have moved their money out of banks & into credit unions than typically do in a year's time. And the date publicized to do it by hasn't occured yet...

[TwinTownBisonFan]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/03/pf/move ... ?hpt=hp_t1

Since BOA came out with new debit card fee (which they took back due to consumer pressure) at the end of September more Americans have moved their money out of banks & into credit unions than typically do in a year's time. And the date publicized to do it by hasn't occured yet...

good.

[Ivytalk]

AZGF just bought a Lamborghini.

[hank scorpio]

AZGF just bought a Lamborghini.

[AZGrizFan]

AZGF just bought a Lamborghini.

AZGrizFan did NOT, in fact, buy a Lamborghini.

And, for the record: AZGrizFan supports B of A's right (and any OTHER bank's right) to charge whatever the fuck fees they want, WITHOUT government interference, strongarming or pressure. Just like the consumer has a right to NOT do business with them because of said fees. This is typical media myopia: This issue here is NOT the fee B of A (and others) said they were going to charge but ultimately backed out of. The issue (TOTALLY MISSED BY THE MEDIA, by the way) is the fact that our government engaged in price-fixing, removing a revenue stream (under the pretense of "consumer protection"), and then publicly criticized the banks and financial institutions for having the gall to attempt to replace that revenue stream with a different revenue stream.

The government fixed something that wasn't broken (debit interchange), and under the auspices of "consumer protection" will end up costing consumers MORE money. Banks (and to a large degree, credit unions) impacted by the debit interchange rules and other onerous regulations WILL find a way to replace the income. It may not be as noticable or as public as the $5 debit card fee, but they WILL replace it. And the loss of revenue from debit interchange, which was supposed to be passed onto consumers in the form of cost savings at retailers will NEVER happen. All Durbin did with his poorly misguided amendment was beef up the bottom line of retailers at the expense of the consumer and force the banks/financial institutions to find some other way to replace that revenue.

Here's a newsflash, folks: banks and CU's HAVE TO MAKE MONEY to survive. It's required. It's required to build capital. It's required to be considered "safe and sound". A bank with too little capital and/or too little earnings is in danger of being liquidated or merged out of existence. And with loans being a commodity and operating expenses at all-time highs, there's very few avenues left for financial institutions to earn sufficient revenue to keep the doors open.

Bitch all you want, and let your feet do the talking, but anyone who thinks the banks are the devil here (at least on thsi particular issue) are missing the real enemy in the room. By a LONG SHOT.

[AZGrizFan]

All that ^^^^^^ being said, I'll NEVER understand why ANYONE does business with any of the big banks anyways. Way too many fees, piss poor service, etc., etc., etc. With online banking, online bill pay, shared branching, shared (FREE) ATM networks, mobile banking, etc., etc. CU's and small community banks have got EVERYTHING big banks have, without the pissy employees and big fee structure.

IMHO, this is a no brainer. Apparently you have to kick SOME people in the teeth before they'll listen, though.

[Bronco]

These guys have balls

The Durbin Fee : Amendment to Dodd-Frank Will Cost Debit Card Users. Hold on to your wallets.
National Review ^ | 10/03/2011 | The Editors



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.

[89Hen]

AZGF just bought a Lamborghini.

AZGrizFan did NOT, in fact, buy a Lamborghini.

And, for the record: AZGrizFan supports B of A's right (and any OTHER bank's right) to charge whatever the fuck fees they want, WITHOUT government interference, strongarming or pressure. Just like the consumer has a right to NOT do business with them because of said fees. This is typical media myopia: This issue here is NOT the fee B of A (and others) said they were going to charge but ultimately backed out of. The issue (TOTALLY MISSED BY THE MEDIA, by the way) is the fact that our government engaged in price-fixing, removing a revenue stream (under the pretense of "consumer protection"), and then publicly criticized the banks and financial institutions for having the gall to attempt to replace that revenue stream with a different revenue stream.

The government fixed something that wasn't broken (debit interchange), and under the auspices of "consumer protection" will end up costing consumers MORE money. Banks (and to a large degree, credit unions) impacted by the debit interchange rules and other onerous regulations WILL find a way to replace the income. It may not be as noticable or as public as the $5 debit card fee, but they WILL replace it. And the loss of revenue from debit interchange, which was supposed to be passed onto consumers in the form of cost savings at retailers will NEVER happen. All Durbin did with his poorly misguided amendment was beef up the bottom line of retailers at the expense of the consumer and force the banks/financial institutions to find some other way to replace that revenue.

Here's a newsflash, folks: banks and CU's HAVE TO MAKE MONEY to survive. It's required. It's required to build capital. It's required to be considered "safe and sound". A bank with too little capital and/or too little earnings is in danger of being liquidated or merged out of existence. And with loans being a commodity and operating expenses at all-time highs, there's very few avenues left for financial institutions to earn sufficient revenue to keep the doors open.

Bitch all you want, and let your feet do the talking, but anyone who thinks the banks are the devil here (at least on thsi particular issue) are missing the real enemy in the room. By a LONG SHOT.

[travelinman67]

AZGF just bought a Lamborghini.

AZGrizFan did NOT, in fact, buy a Lamborghini.

And, for the record: AZGrizFan supports B of A's right (and any OTHER bank's right) to charge whatever the fuck fees they want, WITHOUT government interference, strongarming or pressure. Just like the consumer has a right to NOT do business with them because of said fees. This is typical media myopia: This issue here is NOT the fee B of A (and others) said they were going to charge but ultimately backed out of. The issue (TOTALLY MISSED BY THE MEDIA, by the way) is the fact that our government engaged in price-fixing, removing a revenue stream (under the pretense of "consumer protection"), and then publicly criticized the banks and financial institutions for having the gall to attempt to replace that revenue stream with a different revenue stream.

The government fixed something that wasn't broken (debit interchange), and under the auspices of "consumer protection" will end up costing consumers MORE money. Banks (and to a large degree, credit unions) impacted by the debit interchange rules and other onerous regulations WILL find a way to replace the income. It may not be as noticable or as public as the $5 debit card fee, but they WILL replace it. And the loss of revenue from debit interchange, which was supposed to be passed onto consumers in the form of cost savings at retailers will NEVER happen. All Durbin did with his poorly misguided amendment was beef up the bottom line of retailers at the expense of the consumer and force the banks/financial institutions to find some other way to replace that revenue.

Here's a newsflash, folks: banks and CU's HAVE TO MAKE MONEY to survive. It's required. It's required to build capital. It's required to be considered "safe and sound". A bank with too little capital and/or too little earnings is in danger of being liquidated or merged out of existence. And with loans being a commodity and operating expenses at all-time highs, there's very few avenues left for financial institutions to earn sufficient revenue to keep the doors open.

Bitch all you want, and let your feet do the talking, but anyone who thinks the banks are the devil here (at least on thsi particular issue) are missing the real enemy in the room. By a LONG SHOT.

Here's a clue, Mr. Potter...

...if they put capital back in the market...

...i.e., competition...

...the Fed will have to raise rates.

The Fed WON'T raise rates until there's demand.

The Banks regain their revenue...

...and the market is recapitalized.


I know you understand banking, but sometimes you forget the market.

[kalm]

AZGrizFan did NOT, in fact, buy a Lamborghini.

And, for the record: AZGrizFan supports B of A's right (and any OTHER bank's right) to charge whatever the fuck fees they want, WITHOUT government interference, strongarming or pressure. Just like the consumer has a right to NOT do business with them because of said fees. This is typical media myopia: This issue here is NOT the fee B of A (and others) said they were going to charge but ultimately backed out of. The issue (TOTALLY MISSED BY THE MEDIA, by the way) is the fact that our government engaged in price-fixing, removing a revenue stream (under the pretense of "consumer protection"), and then publicly criticized the banks and financial institutions for having the gall to attempt to replace that revenue stream with a different revenue stream.

The government fixed something that wasn't broken (debit interchange), and under the auspices of "consumer protection" will end up costing consumers MORE money. Banks (and to a large degree, credit unions) impacted by the debit interchange rules and other onerous regulations WILL find a way to replace the income. It may not be as noticable or as public as the $5 debit card fee, but they WILL replace it. And the loss of revenue from debit interchange, which was supposed to be passed onto consumers in the form of cost savings at retailers will NEVER happen. All Durbin did with his poorly misguided amendment was beef up the bottom line of retailers at the expense of the consumer and force the banks/financial institutions to find some other way to replace that revenue.

Here's a newsflash, folks: banks and CU's HAVE TO MAKE MONEY to survive. It's required. It's required to build capital. It's required to be considered "safe and sound". A bank with too little capital and/or too little earnings is in danger of being liquidated or merged out of existence. And with loans being a commodity and operating expenses at all-time highs, there's very few avenues left for financial institutions to earn sufficient revenue to keep the doors open.

Bitch all you want, and let your feet do the talking, but anyone who thinks the banks are the devil here (at least on thsi particular issue) are missing the real enemy in the room. By a LONG SHOT.

Here's a clue, Mr. Potter...

...if they put capital back in the market...

...i.e., competition...

...the Fed will have to raise rates.

The Fed WON'T raise rates until there's demand.

The Banks regain their revenue...

...and the market is recapitalized.


I know you understand banking, but sometimes you forget the market.

BofA is a zombie bank propped up by the tax payers and the fed. Markets, competition, government intervention.

[AZGrizFan]

AZGrizFan did NOT, in fact, buy a Lamborghini.

And, for the record: AZGrizFan supports B of A's right (and any OTHER bank's right) to charge whatever the fuck fees they want, WITHOUT government interference, strongarming or pressure. Just like the consumer has a right to NOT do business with them because of said fees. This is typical media myopia: This issue here is NOT the fee B of A (and others) said they were going to charge but ultimately backed out of. The issue (TOTALLY MISSED BY THE MEDIA, by the way) is the fact that our government engaged in price-fixing, removing a revenue stream (under the pretense of "consumer protection"), and then publicly criticized the banks and financial institutions for having the gall to attempt to replace that revenue stream with a different revenue stream.

The government fixed something that wasn't broken (debit interchange), and under the auspices of "consumer protection" will end up costing consumers MORE money. Banks (and to a large degree, credit unions) impacted by the debit interchange rules and other onerous regulations WILL find a way to replace the income. It may not be as noticable or as public as the $5 debit card fee, but they WILL replace it. And the loss of revenue from debit interchange, which was supposed to be passed onto consumers in the form of cost savings at retailers will NEVER happen. All Durbin did with his poorly misguided amendment was beef up the bottom line of retailers at the expense of the consumer and force the banks/financial institutions to find some other way to replace that revenue.

Here's a newsflash, folks: banks and CU's HAVE TO MAKE MONEY to survive. It's required. It's required to build capital. It's required to be considered "safe and sound". A bank with too little capital and/or too little earnings is in danger of being liquidated or merged out of existence. And with loans being a commodity and operating expenses at all-time highs, there's very few avenues left for financial institutions to earn sufficient revenue to keep the doors open.

Bitch all you want, and let your feet do the talking, but anyone who thinks the banks are the devil here (at least on thsi particular issue) are missing the real enemy in the room. By a LONG SHOT.

Here's a clue, Mr. Potter...

...if they put capital back in the market...

...i.e., competition...

...the Fed will have to raise rates.

The Fed WON'T raise rates until there's demand.

The Banks regain their revenue...

...and the market is recapitalized.

Do you have any idea how few people/businesses out there that are still lendable to?

[bluehenbillk]

CNN is famous for it's "fact checker" that they use after political debates, how about their editors fact check their own stories:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/07/pf/move ... ce=cnn_bin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bank of America, for example, has 58 million retail and small business accounts.

Problem with that is, as of 2009, there were only 27.5 million retail or total businesses, large and small, in the US. Granted, BOA is doing business internationally too, but they don't work with all of those 27.5 million to begin with.

Yes, the point of the article is correct, when you or I move our money it means nothing to them - when a million of us do - then it means something, but edit your stupid articles.

[AZGrizFan]

CNN is famous for it's "fact checker" that they use after political debates, how about their editors fact check their own stories:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/07/pf/move ... ce=cnn_bin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bank of America, for example, has 58 million retail and small business accounts.

Problem with that is, as of 2009, there were only 27.5 million retail or total businesses, large and small, in the US. Granted, BOA is doing business internationally too, but they don't work with all of those 27.5 million to begin with.

Yes, the point of the article is correct, when you or I move our money it means nothing to them - when a million of us do - then it means something, but edit your stupid articles.

Bill: "Retail" in this sense isn't what you're thinking of. Big banks call the individual customer side of banking "retail banking".

There's "retail" banking and there's "business" banking.

[Mr. Potter]

Here's a clue, Mr. Potter...

...if they put capital back in the market...

...i.e., competition...

...the Fed will have to raise rates.

The Fed WON'T raise rates until there's demand.

The Banks regain their revenue...

...and the market is recapitalized.


I know you understand banking, but sometimes you forget the market.

Look at you. You used to be so cocky. You were going to go out and conquer the world. You once called me "a warped, frustrated, old man!" What are you but a warped, frustrated young man? A miserable little clerk crawling in here on your hands and knees and begging for help. No securities, no stocks, no bonds. Nothin' but a miserable little $500 equity in a life insurance policy.

Confound it, man...with as much money as has been put into the system by QE1 and QE2, when inflation rears its ugly head, the Fed won't have any choice but to raise rates to stop the runaway inflation that's simmering under the surface.