Anyway the problem with $5 debit transaction fees is it's no longer free banking practically. It's the same thing as an additional finance charge, and besides, if you allow the creation of a new fee system where there was none before, you can imagine getting a letter in the mail saying "we're going to increase the fee from $5 to $7.50, and if you don't like it, quit," and then where would you be?
the other problem is that even if it doesn't affect people with good income personally, it does make it that much harder for poor people to manage their accounts, and it encourages people to use the credit system even if they should not really be using the credit system. Down the line it will increase the number and severity of people in credit card debt, which is just fine for banks but no good for society.
The bottom line is banks are a-ok with people not fiscally responsible losing most of their money to fees and fines, and no steps are taken at all to ensure the wealth of those that use their service. Since banks redirect fees to the consumers first, they show us that consumers are nothing more than a cash cow.
I can't remember the last time the bank sent me a letter saying "hey, because of some corporate restructuring/a really good year, we're going to reduce fees in this whatever! Aren't you glad you banked with us?" You know that the debit card fee is going to be permanent, and that any good you see out of the law will not be due to the actions of the bank. That's the problem.
BoA is laying off 3500 people, with another 30-40k in eliminating empty positions/not re-hiring/layoffs in the works over the next couple years. This is a desperation move.
Now that I think about it I also can't think of any time any business has sent me a check at the end of the year.
You want money back from BoA go buy 200 shares of stock, As long as they pull a 8c dividend you should recoup your $5 fee. They have 57 million customers and 10.13B shares outstanding so 177 means you should own 1/57,000,000th of the bank. And its a steal right now at only 5.53 a share(9.6% cheaper than this morning).
Also I'm sure most off the major banks offer financial planning services, but really how much advice is needed for "don't over draw your account".
none of this applies to poor people
Also I did partake in BofA's investment service until recently, when introduced fees for small fund accounts completely wiped out the small profit I was making. In fact, if I don't cancel the account right now, I'll be at a net loss.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Banks don't really need/want poor customers. We've covered this several times, but when your costs per account are static and your earnings per account are percentage based constantly near-empty accounts are money losers. In all likelihood, a poor customer probably cost the bank more, as stuff like over-drafts do cost the bank some amount of money, and that's where most of the overdrafts/bounced checks etc happen.
Honestly, Walmart check cashing really seems like a straight forward choice. $78 a year for cash checking(26 checks) + $36($3/month) if you want a Visa debit card. If you aren't saving any money, whats the point of having a bank account?
1. The risk thing is very much real. Check Fraud is actually something that happens and while 98% of all check transactions go through smoothly, it's a pretty silly idea to cash a check drawn on an external account to a dude off the street that just showed up with an ID.
2. First you have to decide whether or not you want to call someone without an account at the bank a "customer" or a "non-customer". After you do that, I trust you'll kindly explain your thoughts on why a bank couldn't charge check cashing fees to non-customers.
They can, but they don't for the reasons outlined in my original post. It's not worth the headache.
"External account"? What are you talking about? If I walk into Acme Bank with a check drawn on an Acme Bank customer's checking account, how is that an "external check"?
There is always a risk of check fraud no matter what the transaction is. Somebody could fake an ID and walk into a branch of my bank where the tellers don't know me and cash a check on my account. They could do one of the multiple 'fake check' scams (where you deposit a check for goods that turns out to be bogus) and never set foot in a bank. They could simply cash the check at a sleazy check-cashing place, or launder it through an account elsewhere.
But when you walk into a bank to cash a check, they can request your ID. They can require you to fingerprint the check, as you'd know if you've ever actually done this. (I have cashed five-figure checks at banks where I didn't have an account. It took a while, but they did it.) They can require you to fill out a Currency Transaction Report (if it's over $10K they're actually required to). They can compare the signature on the check to the signature on file in the branch. They can confirm that the amount of money requested on the check is in fact available.
And no, you don't have to decide whether the person cashing the check is or isn't a customer. The customer is the person who wrote the check. Banks do not charge non-customers a check cashing fee because it is "risky as hell" for them to cash a check and the $5 somehow magically offsets that. They charge a fee because they're trying to pressure you to open an account with them.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
They are money losers if you consider their input and output as a static amount in vacuum. The effect of the compound interest earned on even $10 is way more than just the $10 itself, simply from the fact that banks pool this money together.
It's not so much as they need their business so much as it's an integral part of society and needs to be super regulated. Like the post office. The post office is pretty much the only government service guaranteed by our constitution. Who gives a fuck if it operates at a loss, it's a service that should be provided to its citizens in some fashion or another. And it's not like the banks are really operating at a loss here, let's be fucking serious about it.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
@mythago they are referring to me. I have an account from bank A and was semi-stranded without a working ATM card on vacation. Bank B told me if I wrote a check to myself (From bank A) they'd cash it if I paid a fee and gave ID. They didn't, and wouldn't. Bank A actually was willing to call them and verify that I had the funds to write myself a check for. Bank B basically told me to get lost and drive almost an hour up a road to the nearest check cashing place that isn't a bank.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
1. The risk thing is very much real. Check Fraud is actually something that happens and while 98% of all check transactions go through smoothly, it's a pretty silly idea to cash a check drawn on an external account to a dude off the street that just showed up with an ID.
2. First you have to decide whether or not you want to call someone without an account at the bank a "customer" or a "non-customer". After you do that, I trust you'll kindly explain your thoughts on why a bank couldn't charge check cashing fees to non-customers.
They can, but they don't for the reasons outlined in my original post. It's not worth the headache.
"External account"? What are you talking about? If I walk into Acme Bank with a check drawn on an Acme Bank customer's checking account, how is that an "external check"?
There is always a risk of check fraud no matter what the transaction is. Somebody could fake an ID and walk into a branch of my bank where the tellers don't know me and cash a check on my account. They could do one of the multiple 'fake check' scams (where you deposit a check for goods that turns out to be bogus) and never set foot in a bank. They could simply cash the check at a sleazy check-cashing place, or launder it through an account elsewhere.
But when you walk into a bank to cash a check, they can request your ID. They can require you to fingerprint the check, as you'd know if you've ever actually done this. (I have cashed five-figure checks at banks where I didn't have an account. It took a while, but they did it.) They can require you to fill out a Currency Transaction Report (if it's over $10K they're actually required to). They can compare the signature on the check to the signature on file in the branch. They can confirm that the amount of money requested on the check is in fact available.
And no, you don't have to decide whether the person cashing the check is or isn't a customer. The customer is the person who wrote the check. Banks do not charge non-customers a check cashing fee because it is "risky as hell" for them to cash a check and the $5 somehow magically offsets that. They charge a fee because they're trying to pressure you to open an account with them.
1)The account was with another Bacne bank. Bowen walked into Acne bank want to cash it, therefor it was an external account.
2) Your right it doesn't offset the risk, it offsets the IDing, Fingerprinting, signature matching, CTR form, and everything else that needs to be done to actually get you money. Banks don't want to be a walk in cash checking business, so they charge fees to discourage you using them as one.
They are money losers if you consider their input and output as a static amount in vacuum. The effect of the compound interest earned on even $10 is way more than just the $10 itself, simply from the fact that banks pool this money together.
It's not so much as they need their business so much as it's an integral part of society and needs to be super regulated. Like the post office. The post office is pretty much the only government service guaranteed by our constitution. Who gives a fuck if it operates at a loss, it's a service that should be provided to its citizens in some fashion or another. And it's not like the banks are really operating at a loss here, let's be fucking serious about it.
BoA is at net income: -16 Billion dollars over the last 4 quarters. fucking serious.
(8,826,000) 2,049,000 (1,244,000) (7,299,000) = Q4 '10 through Q3 '11
Also the post office is a terrible example. 1/2 of what they send is junk mail, and they are unable to adapt their model to the changing reality (6 day a week mail, why?, post office in every podunk town, what for?)
@mythago they are referring to me. I have an account from bank A and was semi-stranded without a working ATM card on vacation. Bank B told me if I wrote a check to myself (From bank A) they'd cash it if I paid a fee and gave ID. They didn't, and wouldn't. Bank A actually was willing to call them and verify that I had the funds to write myself a check for. Bank B basically told me to get lost and drive almost an hour up a road to the nearest check cashing place that isn't a bank.
Bank B sounds like a bunch of douchecanoes for saying they'd cash your check and then didn't, but that's a very different situation than if, say, I had written you a check on Bank B, and Bank B told you "sorry, she's an account holder and you're not, so we won't cash that."
Deebaser, fees do not offset fingerprints, ID checking and all that, which for a check less than a ton of money takes no longer than the normal ID procedures for cashing a check at your own bank. It is, as you say, just there to goose you into opening an account with them.
I know that there used to be a regulation prohibiting banks from doing this a long time ago (because I remember celebrating when the bank where I cashed my paychecks had to stop charging me $3 a pop), but apparently they got that removed.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
1. The risk thing is very much real. Check Fraud is actually something that happens and while 98% of all check transactions go through smoothly, it's a pretty silly idea to cash a check drawn on an external account to a dude off the street that just showed up with an ID.
2. First you have to decide whether or not you want to call someone without an account at the bank a "customer" or a "non-customer". After you do that, I trust you'll kindly explain your thoughts on why a bank couldn't charge check cashing fees to non-customers.
They can, but they don't for the reasons outlined in my original post. It's not worth the headache.
"External account"? What are you talking about? If I walk into Acme Bank with a check drawn on an Acme Bank customer's checking account, how is that an "external check"?
Do me a favor. Try and figure this out before you post next time. Your tangent has nothing to do with the situation we were discussing and your initial response was quite rude.
Deebaser on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
2) Your right it doesn't offset the risk, it offsets the IDing, Fingerprinting, signature matching, CTR form, and everything else that needs to be done to actually get you money. Banks don't want to be a walk in cash checking business, so they charge fees to discourage you using them as one.
Truth...
...or they just don't allow people without accounts to cash checks written by other banks.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
They are money losers if you consider their input and output as a static amount in vacuum. The effect of the compound interest earned on even $10 is way more than just the $10 itself, simply from the fact that banks pool this money together.
It's not so much as they need their business so much as it's an integral part of society and needs to be super regulated. Like the post office. The post office is pretty much the only government service guaranteed by our constitution. Who gives a fuck if it operates at a loss, it's a service that should be provided to its citizens in some fashion or another. And it's not like the banks are really operating at a loss here, let's be fucking serious about it.
BoA is at net income: -16 Billion dollars over the last 4 quarters. fucking serious.
(8,826,000) 2,049,000 (1,244,000) (7,299,000) = Q4 '10 through Q3 '11
Also the post office is a terrible example. 1/2 of what they send is junk mail, and they are unable to adapt their model to the changing reality (6 day a week mail, why?, post office in every podunk town, what for?)
You keep quoting that. This is there Cash Flow sheet for that time. Does it look to you like they are loosing money from their operating activities (like being a bank, with customers who save money and have checking accounts) or does it look like they are loosing money in the financial activities. Financial activities they spent huge amounts of money lobbying congress to be able to offer at retail banks.
They are money losers if you consider their input and output as a static amount in vacuum. The effect of the compound interest earned on even $10 is way more than just the $10 itself, simply from the fact that banks pool this money together.
It's not so much as they need their business so much as it's an integral part of society and needs to be super regulated. Like the post office. The post office is pretty much the only government service guaranteed by our constitution. Who gives a fuck if it operates at a loss, it's a service that should be provided to its citizens in some fashion or another. And it's not like the banks are really operating at a loss here, let's be fucking serious about it.
BoA is at net income: -16 Billion dollars over the last 4 quarters. fucking serious.
(8,826,000) 2,049,000 (1,244,000) (7,299,000) = Q4 '10 through Q3 '11
Also the post office is a terrible example. 1/2 of what they send is junk mail, and they are unable to adapt their model to the changing reality (6 day a week mail, why?, post office in every podunk town, what for?)
The Post Offices problem is they haven't decided on if they are a buisness or service. They can't make changes like a buisness because they have to go through congress for stuff like that, but then they are expected to pay for themselves with the least profitable pieces of mail left. Basically they're fucked if it stays status quo.
They are money losers if you consider their input and output as a static amount in vacuum. The effect of the compound interest earned on even $10 is way more than just the $10 itself, simply from the fact that banks pool this money together.
It's not so much as they need their business so much as it's an integral part of society and needs to be super regulated. Like the post office. The post office is pretty much the only government service guaranteed by our constitution. Who gives a fuck if it operates at a loss, it's a service that should be provided to its citizens in some fashion or another. And it's not like the banks are really operating at a loss here, let's be fucking serious about it.
BoA is at net income: -16 Billion dollars over the last 4 quarters. fucking serious.
(8,826,000) 2,049,000 (1,244,000) (7,299,000) = Q4 '10 through Q3 '11
Also the post office is a terrible example. 1/2 of what they send is junk mail, and they are unable to adapt their model to the changing reality (6 day a week mail, why?, post office in every podunk town, what for?)
The Post Offices problem is they haven't decided on if they are a buisness or service. They can't make changes like a buisness because they have to go through congress for stuff like that, but then they are expected to pay for themselves with the least profitable pieces of mail left. Basically they're fucked if it stays status quo.
The problem with the post office is that Bush purposefully tried to kill it by making them prepay like 75% of their retirement benefits up front. This is something no other company has to do.
They are money losers if you consider their input and output as a static amount in vacuum. The effect of the compound interest earned on even $10 is way more than just the $10 itself, simply from the fact that banks pool this money together.
It's not so much as they need their business so much as it's an integral part of society and needs to be super regulated. Like the post office. The post office is pretty much the only government service guaranteed by our constitution. Who gives a fuck if it operates at a loss, it's a service that should be provided to its citizens in some fashion or another. And it's not like the banks are really operating at a loss here, let's be fucking serious about it.
BoA is at net income: -16 Billion dollars over the last 4 quarters. fucking serious.
(8,826,000) 2,049,000 (1,244,000) (7,299,000) = Q4 '10 through Q3 '11
Also the post office is a terrible example. 1/2 of what they send is junk mail, and they are unable to adapt their model to the changing reality (6 day a week mail, why?, post office in every podunk town, what for?)
The Post Offices problem is they haven't decided on if they are a buisness or service. They can't make changes like a buisness because they have to go through congress for stuff like that, but then they are expected to pay for themselves with the least profitable pieces of mail left. Basically they're fucked if it stays status quo.
The problem with the post office is that Bush purposefully tried to kill it by making them prepay like 75% of their retirement benefits up front. This is something no other company has to do.
it was 100% and for the next 75 years. They would basically be breaking even otherwise. Removing Saturday service and getting rid of the ridiculous benefit prepay would probably put them in the black. We had a whole thread on this like a week ago
Banks don't really need/want poor customers. We've covered this several times, but when your costs per account are static and your earnings per account are percentage based constantly near-empty accounts are money losers. In all likelihood, a poor customer probably cost the bank more, as stuff like over-drafts do cost the bank some amount of money, and that's where most of the overdrafts/bounced checks etc happen.
Yes, and you continue to miss the point. Banks don't want poor customers. But poor people need banking services.
It's an essential service you goose. Without it, they are forced to resort to getting reemed but unscrupulous fucks.
Honestly, Walmart check cashing really seems like a straight forward choice. $78 a year for cash checking(26 checks) + $36($3/month) if you want a Visa debit card. If you aren't saving any money, whats the point of having a bank account?
Oh look, a perfect example of the above. Let Wal-Mart reem you out, lovely.
Also the post office is a terrible example. 1/2 of what they send is junk mail, and they are unable to adapt their model to the changing reality (6 day a week mail, why?, post office in every podunk town, what for?)
Because the postal service is also an essential service goosehead.
Speaking of "don't overdraw your account" I'm sitting in that position because my bank is holding checks almost a week after they're deposited. Kind of hard not to overdraw your account on the first of the month when rent is due and they're bullshitting with a half month of "post" time.
Yeah, they're pulling that selective draw horseshit on me right now.
I still have a $1 hold on a gas station from Friday. Yet, I have charges that go through over the weekend, but not the gas I put in. Why? Who the fuck knows!
It can't be a "business posted after 8" thing, either, as it was midnight (i.e BEFORE 8pm Friday). It just inexplicably has not charged me more than the hold.
I also like to note that the idea that banks don't make money off poor people was true in the past, but that was when banks made their money by investing their customers' deposits, often by loaning them to other customers' money at a reasonable rate.
Now, banks have made fees on accounts their huge profit center. That means that the accounts of those poor people are now huge cash centers, as they know that the poor are always close to the line and have devised a host of fees to make sure that they stay that way.
And they invest the money in all sorts of fun and exciting ways on the international markets, which is why they're not lending to their clients as much anymore.
Reading this thread has made me so happy I changed from BoA to my credit union a few years ago. I think the only thing they required to not have a service fee was like $500 in a savings account. Which at the time was pretty reasonable to me, since I knew I was going to keep most of my cash in the checking account anyway.
Do me a favor. Try and figure this out before you post next time. Your tangent has nothing to do with the situation we were discussing and your initial response was quite rude.
"You brought up a relevant tangent on a PA thread that I already started to discuss! And your tone was stern! HOW DAR U!"
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Reading this thread has made me so happy I changed from BoA to my credit union a few years ago. I think the only thing they required to not have a service fee was like $500 in a savings account. Which at the time was pretty reasonable to me, since I knew I was going to keep most of my cash in the checking account anyway.
Word. My credit union doesn't even hold huge-ass out-of-state checks for a whole week, they don't scam me with fees, and they're competent.
I quit BofA a while back when my monthly statement kept turning up with errors of a couple of cents off - a check for $30.06 would be $30.08, that kind of thing. The first time it happened I decided not to bother with it (thinking it might be my handwriting, although it looked pretty clear to me). When it happened for the THIRD month in a row, I went into the bank, canceled check in hand, to have them fix it. They were such [SEXIST GENDERED INSULT REFERRING TO GENITALS]s about it, acting like I was wasting their precious time because they only stole a little from me every month, geez lady, that I closed my account.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Do me a favor. Try and figure this out before you post next time. Your tangent has nothing to do with the situation we were discussing and your initial response was quite rude.
"You brought up a relevant tangent on a PA thread that I already started to discuss! And your tone was stern! HOW DAR U!"
Actually, it was irrelevant. Every bank I know of will cash a check drawn on that bank for a non-customer. So he was arguing about something that did not happen because he didn't understand the issue that was actually being discussed.
Speaking of "don't overdraw your account" I'm sitting in that position because my bank is holding checks almost a week after they're deposited. Kind of hard not to overdraw your account on the first of the month when rent is due and they're bullshitting with a half month of "post" time.
Yeah, they're pulling that selective draw horseshit on me right now.
I still have a $1 hold on a gas station from Friday. Yet, I have charges that go through over the weekend, but not the gas I put in. Why? Who the fuck knows!
It can't be a "business posted after 8" thing, either, as it was midnight (i.e BEFORE 8pm Friday). It just inexplicably has not charged me more than the hold.
Do me a favor. Try and figure this out before you post next time. Your tangent has nothing to do with the situation we were discussing and your initial response was quite rude.
"You brought up a relevant tangent on a PA thread that I already started to discuss! And your tone was stern! HOW DAR U!"
Wow, Bowen explained it to you on this page and you had no idea we were talking about banks cashing checks drawn off external accounts and you still think that your point was "relevant"?
8->
Also the post office is a terrible example. 1/2 of what they send is junk mail, and they are unable to adapt their model to the changing reality (6 day a week mail, why?, post office in every podunk town, what for?)
I take it you didn't read the recent thread we had on the post office, in which it was revealed that the issue the USPS has is less "changing reality" and more "GOP goosery".
@Deebaser yeah and ~3 days prior my debit card was compromised so I had to cancel it. I think I had gotten my new card the day I went on vacation and retard me forgot to write down my new pin number. Though I think my bank was a bit of a dick to not help me out by resetting it in some way, I can't believe there's not a system in place if I faxed them my photo ID to do a hard reset of the PIN. The nearest branch was like 3 hours away.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
My mom is a loan officer for a local bank here in town. They have had literally hundreds of people come in to move their accounts from Regions and BofA in the last 2 weeks due to their fee shenanigans.
It certainly is. It's almost like someone higher up planned this to happen with the fee reduction, like they knew BoA would be an asshat and smaller banks would profit from it. There's a massive influx of people moving to local banks and credit unions here, it was in the news last night and a lot of people are pissed off at BoA (the only large bank in the area... used to be fleet).
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
It certainly is. It's almost like someone higher up planned this to happen with the fee reduction, like they knew BoA would be an asshat and smaller banks would profit from it. There's a massive influx of people moving to local banks and credit unions here, it was in the news last night and a lot of people are pissed off at BoA (the only large bank in the area... used to be fleet).
One theory I heard espoused on NPR last weekend postulated that BofA was purposefully trying to drive smaller customers either off of debit cards or into other banks. Which kind of makes sense to me -- as BofA sheds thousands of jobs, it was going to have a hard time servicing all of their existing customers to begin with, so it might be better to shed some of their smaller customers now in a way that isn't irksome to larger customers.
My local credit union wants $3 a month for a checking account. Nuts to that. Guess I'll split my business between them and Schwab (which by the by are an awesome big bank in my experience).
My local credit union wants $3 a month for a checking account. Nuts to that. Guess I'll split my business between them and Schwab (which by the by are an awesome big bank in my experience).
Usually they do that when there's no minimum balance, or you need to have both a savings and checking account linked together and maintain a $25 minimum in the savings.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
My local credit union wants $3 a month for a checking account. Nuts to that. Guess I'll split my business between them and Schwab (which by the by are an awesome big bank in my experience).
Usually they do that when there's no minimum balance, or you need to have both a savings and checking account linked together and maintain a $25 minimum in the savings.
Yea... I was about to move a lot of cash and that was not the case. Oh well.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
You know what would be really funny? If enough customers left BofA that they started to fail and they had to be bailed out.
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
I doubt this will do that. I doubt it very strongly.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
I doubt this will do that. I doubt it very strongly.
They lost 9,000 accounts in Seattle alone, I think it was. I posted the link to the article in this thread.
BoA is going to lose a TON of customers.
Steam and CFN: Enexemander
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I don't actually think it's going to happen, but I was amused at the thought.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
They don't need those customers. I strongly suspect that if the people that left were the people that the fee would have impacted, they barely even want those customers.
Regardless, BoA doesn't make most of it's money from what most of us would consider "banking".
They don't need those customers. I strongly suspect that if the people that left were the people that the fee would have impacted, they barely even want those customers.
Regardless, BoA doesn't make most of it's money from what most of us would consider "banking".
There is zero data to back up that claim. First of all, Seattle is fairly liberal.
I'm not going to disclose my finances over the inter webs, but I keep a pretty penny in the bank in both checking and savings at all times. I would leave my bank in a heartbeat if a similar fee ever made it's way onto my bank statement. I did, in fact, have a discussion with the bank manager today about that very fact and was assured it wouldn't happen.
I'm still looking into credit unions just in case.
I do not think I'm a unique snowflake in this. In fact, an older lady looking very presentable came in to close her account for the same reason. She wasn't willing to wait to see.
[edit] Also, just for those wondering, it's not difficult to transfer direct deposit and direct bill withdrawl to a new bank. You just tell the new bank about it when you're setting up your account and they will take care of it for you.
Derrick on
Steam and CFN: Enexemander
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Which claim?
My suspicion about the demographics? Yeah, I'm not claiming there is any data, it's just a hunch.
My suspicion about the demographics? Yeah, I'm not claiming there is any data, it's just a hunch.
I think it's a decent hunch. Look, as low as Fed interest rates are right now, the number of individual savings or checking accounts, as well as the size of each account, probably doesn't matter all that much to BofA or any bank. Beyond what's mandated by the federal government's rules about the amount of capital they're able to raise, they don't need your money when they can borrow as much as they draw about as much as they want from the Federal Reserve for almost no cost.
Posts
none of this applies to poor people
Also I did partake in BofA's investment service until recently, when introduced fees for small fund accounts completely wiped out the small profit I was making. In fact, if I don't cancel the account right now, I'll be at a net loss.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Honestly, Walmart check cashing really seems like a straight forward choice. $78 a year for cash checking(26 checks) + $36($3/month) if you want a Visa debit card. If you aren't saving any money, whats the point of having a bank account?
"External account"? What are you talking about? If I walk into Acme Bank with a check drawn on an Acme Bank customer's checking account, how is that an "external check"?
There is always a risk of check fraud no matter what the transaction is. Somebody could fake an ID and walk into a branch of my bank where the tellers don't know me and cash a check on my account. They could do one of the multiple 'fake check' scams (where you deposit a check for goods that turns out to be bogus) and never set foot in a bank. They could simply cash the check at a sleazy check-cashing place, or launder it through an account elsewhere.
But when you walk into a bank to cash a check, they can request your ID. They can require you to fingerprint the check, as you'd know if you've ever actually done this. (I have cashed five-figure checks at banks where I didn't have an account. It took a while, but they did it.) They can require you to fill out a Currency Transaction Report (if it's over $10K they're actually required to). They can compare the signature on the check to the signature on file in the branch. They can confirm that the amount of money requested on the check is in fact available.
And no, you don't have to decide whether the person cashing the check is or isn't a customer. The customer is the person who wrote the check. Banks do not charge non-customers a check cashing fee because it is "risky as hell" for them to cash a check and the $5 somehow magically offsets that. They charge a fee because they're trying to pressure you to open an account with them.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
It's not so much as they need their business so much as it's an integral part of society and needs to be super regulated. Like the post office. The post office is pretty much the only government service guaranteed by our constitution. Who gives a fuck if it operates at a loss, it's a service that should be provided to its citizens in some fashion or another. And it's not like the banks are really operating at a loss here, let's be fucking serious about it.
1)The account was with another Bacne bank. Bowen walked into Acne bank want to cash it, therefor it was an external account.
2) Your right it doesn't offset the risk, it offsets the IDing, Fingerprinting, signature matching, CTR form, and everything else that needs to be done to actually get you money. Banks don't want to be a walk in cash checking business, so they charge fees to discourage you using them as one.
BoA is at net income: -16 Billion dollars over the last 4 quarters. fucking serious.
(8,826,000) 2,049,000 (1,244,000) (7,299,000) = Q4 '10 through Q3 '11
Also the post office is a terrible example. 1/2 of what they send is junk mail, and they are unable to adapt their model to the changing reality (6 day a week mail, why?, post office in every podunk town, what for?)
Bank B sounds like a bunch of douchecanoes for saying they'd cash your check and then didn't, but that's a very different situation than if, say, I had written you a check on Bank B, and Bank B told you "sorry, she's an account holder and you're not, so we won't cash that."
Deebaser, fees do not offset fingerprints, ID checking and all that, which for a check less than a ton of money takes no longer than the normal ID procedures for cashing a check at your own bank. It is, as you say, just there to goose you into opening an account with them.
I know that there used to be a regulation prohibiting banks from doing this a long time ago (because I remember celebrating when the bank where I cashed my paychecks had to stop charging me $3 a pop), but apparently they got that removed.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Do me a favor. Try and figure this out before you post next time. Your tangent has nothing to do with the situation we were discussing and your initial response was quite rude.
Truth...
...or they just don't allow people without accounts to cash checks written by other banks.
That blows.
You keep quoting that. This is there Cash Flow sheet for that time. Does it look to you like they are loosing money from their operating activities (like being a bank, with customers who save money and have checking accounts) or does it look like they are loosing money in the financial activities. Financial activities they spent huge amounts of money lobbying congress to be able to offer at retail banks.
The Post Offices problem is they haven't decided on if they are a buisness or service. They can't make changes like a buisness because they have to go through congress for stuff like that, but then they are expected to pay for themselves with the least profitable pieces of mail left. Basically they're fucked if it stays status quo.
The problem with the post office is that Bush purposefully tried to kill it by making them prepay like 75% of their retirement benefits up front. This is something no other company has to do.
Yes, and you continue to miss the point. Banks don't want poor customers. But poor people need banking services.
It's an essential service you goose. Without it, they are forced to resort to getting reemed but unscrupulous fucks.
Oh look, a perfect example of the above. Let Wal-Mart reem you out, lovely.
Because the postal service is also an essential service goosehead.
Yeah, they're pulling that selective draw horseshit on me right now.
I still have a $1 hold on a gas station from Friday. Yet, I have charges that go through over the weekend, but not the gas I put in. Why? Who the fuck knows!
It can't be a "business posted after 8" thing, either, as it was midnight (i.e BEFORE 8pm Friday). It just inexplicably has not charged me more than the hold.
BoA!
Now, banks have made fees on accounts their huge profit center. That means that the accounts of those poor people are now huge cash centers, as they know that the poor are always close to the line and have devised a host of fees to make sure that they stay that way.
And they invest the money in all sorts of fun and exciting ways on the international markets, which is why they're not lending to their clients as much anymore.
"You brought up a relevant tangent on a PA thread that I already started to discuss! And your tone was stern! HOW DAR U!"
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Word. My credit union doesn't even hold huge-ass out-of-state checks for a whole week, they don't scam me with fees, and they're competent.
I quit BofA a while back when my monthly statement kept turning up with errors of a couple of cents off - a check for $30.06 would be $30.08, that kind of thing. The first time it happened I decided not to bother with it (thinking it might be my handwriting, although it looked pretty clear to me). When it happened for the THIRD month in a row, I went into the bank, canceled check in hand, to have them fix it. They were such [SEXIST GENDERED INSULT REFERRING TO GENITALS]s about it, acting like I was wasting their precious time because they only stole a little from me every month, geez lady, that I closed my account.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Actually, it was irrelevant. Every bank I know of will cash a check drawn on that bank for a non-customer. So he was arguing about something that did not happen because he didn't understand the issue that was actually being discussed.
and BB&T and PNC. Probably others too
Wow, Bowen explained it to you on this page and you had no idea we were talking about banks cashing checks drawn off external accounts and you still think that your point was "relevant"?
8->
I take it you didn't read the recent thread we had on the post office, in which it was revealed that the issue the USPS has is less "changing reality" and more "GOP goosery".
@Deebaser yeah and ~3 days prior my debit card was compromised so I had to cancel it. I think I had gotten my new card the day I went on vacation and retard me forgot to write down my new pin number. Though I think my bank was a bit of a dick to not help me out by resetting it in some way, I can't believe there's not a system in place if I faxed them my photo ID to do a hard reset of the PIN. The nearest branch was like 3 hours away.
This is a good thing.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
One theory I heard espoused on NPR last weekend postulated that BofA was purposefully trying to drive smaller customers either off of debit cards or into other banks. Which kind of makes sense to me -- as BofA sheds thousands of jobs, it was going to have a hard time servicing all of their existing customers to begin with, so it might be better to shed some of their smaller customers now in a way that isn't irksome to larger customers.
Usually they do that when there's no minimum balance, or you need to have both a savings and checking account linked together and maintain a $25 minimum in the savings.
Yea... I was about to move a lot of cash and that was not the case. Oh well.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
They lost 9,000 accounts in Seattle alone, I think it was. I posted the link to the article in this thread.
BoA is going to lose a TON of customers.
Regardless, BoA doesn't make most of it's money from what most of us would consider "banking".
There is zero data to back up that claim. First of all, Seattle is fairly liberal.
I'm not going to disclose my finances over the inter webs, but I keep a pretty penny in the bank in both checking and savings at all times. I would leave my bank in a heartbeat if a similar fee ever made it's way onto my bank statement. I did, in fact, have a discussion with the bank manager today about that very fact and was assured it wouldn't happen.
I'm still looking into credit unions just in case.
I do not think I'm a unique snowflake in this. In fact, an older lady looking very presentable came in to close her account for the same reason. She wasn't willing to wait to see.
[edit] Also, just for those wondering, it's not difficult to transfer direct deposit and direct bill withdrawl to a new bank. You just tell the new bank about it when you're setting up your account and they will take care of it for you.
My suspicion about the demographics? Yeah, I'm not claiming there is any data, it's just a hunch.
I think it's a decent hunch. Look, as low as Fed interest rates are right now, the number of individual savings or checking accounts, as well as the size of each account, probably doesn't matter all that much to BofA or any bank. Beyond what's mandated by the federal government's rules about the amount of capital they're able to raise, they don't need your money when they can borrow as much as they draw about as much as they want from the Federal Reserve for almost no cost.