Say goodbye to traditional free checking

Say goodbye to traditional free checking

finance.yahoo.com

NEW YORK (AP) -- Free checking as we know it is ending.

The days when you could walk into a bank branch and open an account with no charges and no strings attached appear to be over. Now you have to jump through some hoops -- keep a high balance, use direct deposit or swipe your debit card several times a month.

One new account at Bank of America charges $8.95 per month if you want to bank with a teller or get a paper statement.

(visit the link for the full news article)

"I've seen more regulation in last 30 months than in last 30 years," said Robert Hammer, CEO of RK Hammer, a bank advisory firm. "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."

So apparently commercial banks in the United States are tightening their belts and standing tall against the regulations imposed against them. They feel their bottomless wallets beginning to shrink and they don't like it, so they will invent new ways to get their cash.

Free checking was a good thing, and it seemed to be one of the only perks of going commercial with banks, along with convenience. Now, however, those days are over. Oh, and you might find this interesting. According to Bank of America spokeswoman Anne Pace, "Customers never had free checking accounts. They always paid for it in other ways, sometimes with penalty fees."

Thanks for being honest.

Now you will have to pay monthly fees and have a quota of debit card uses, or else you will be penalized greatly. I don't like this at all.

finance.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Sign up with a credit union. Sure, you pay $25 to get in the door.. but you're getting a membership. I'm going to check but I don't think they're changing anything.

Credit Unions are the way to go! Not all have the surcharge to join. I really think this is a stupid move by the banks, more people are going to stop using them and switch to credit unions so I really don't see the logic in their added fees.

I agree join a CU I belong to 2 of them one local and one where my business is. I just borrowed 50k$ over the phon to work on my house. Was in my account 4 days after starting the process

reply to post by Modern Americana


Paying for a bank statement?

This sounds pretty absurd seeing as you can go online to check your statements, no need for a paper statement!!

It's all in the name! Band of America people.

If they had all the world's holdings it would still be enough for them.

jessejamesxx. jrod. A star to both of you and OP with flag to the thread.

Credit union are the way to go. They're "people" people. Down with BofA.

For all the complaining, people should recognize that banks incur costs with you having something like a checking account, and when the costs outweigh the income (the interest that they can earn on the money that you leave in the account) they're going to make it up in fees.

The feds just changed and limited (sensibly, in my mind,) the amounts and types of fees that can be charged, so it's not surprising that "free" checking and the like would be going away. Most people leave minimal amounts of money in their checking account, and with interest rates at or below one percent, that's not sustainable.

We're all (I assume) in general agreement that outrageous overdraft fees and the like are unfair, but this sort of thing, giving a service away, is to be expected. Though it depends on the circumstance -- I have accounts at two banks, one charges me $9 a month, the other is free, but that's related to the amount of money and accounts at each bank. If memory serves, the one is free because I agreed to take their credit card (which I never use) for $24 a year, so that one's not "free" either, but $2 a month.

who cares about banks man all we need them for is chasing checks anyway.
and that is free as long as the check has that banks name on it.
you can get lones or any thing else a bank does other ways so why if i may ask do you still kiss there feet?

Originally posted by adjensen
For all the complaining, people should recognize that banks incur costs with you having something like a checking account, and when the costs outweigh the income (the interest that they can earn on the money that you leave in the account) they're going to make it up in fees.

The feds just changed and limited (sensibly, in my mind,) the amounts and types of fees that can be charged, so it's not surprising that "free" checking and the like would be going away. Most people leave minimal amounts of money in their checking account, and with interest rates at or below one percent, that's not sustainable.

We're all (I assume) in general agreement that outrageous overdraft fees and the like are unfair, but this sort of thing, giving a service away, is to be expected. Though it depends on the circumstance -- I have accounts at two banks, one charges me $9 a month, the other is free, but that's related to the amount of money and accounts at each bank. If memory serves, the one is free because I agreed to take their credit card (which I never use) for $24 a year, so that one's not "free" either, but $2 a month.

See, your post is part of the problem.
You're a fraudulent banking scheming apologist, and that is quite sad.

If you actually knew what the word "sustainable" meant you might actually grasp what
is going on and has allowed to go on since a central bank was allowed to overpower
everyone and every system known to any town, state/country.

Conversely I don't foresee people actually getting upset that they have to pay...
ASSUMING the banks would "also have to pay."

Before you say, "nothing is free, everything has a cost..." -you would normally be correct
IF there were an exchange of consideration for services offered/rendered or received.

Banks do not *pay* they incur an expense, that is then allowed to be paid with:
-credit
-charge accounts
-ANYTHING but actual money.


So until the banks actually take responsibility for what they have done AND
have been held accountable (both metaphorically and verbatum) Nobody can really read
your opinion and take it seriously with a modicum of understanding of our system
and what it has done to people as a species.

reply to post by adjensen


No offense, but I think you are getting ripped off.

Banks should be able to make enough of a profit through loans, credit cards, and other investments to sustain themselves. You and a bunch of other people deposit money into a bank, that bank then invests that money wisely to make their profit. We're talking about millions even billions to invest. Anyone who isn't greedy or incompetent should have no problem turning a profit.

hopefully this will usher in a period of people NOT using banks. the quicker we stop using them, the quicker we can free the republic.

Originally posted by adjensen
For all the complaining, people should recognize that banks incur costs with you having something like a checking account, and when the costs outweigh the income (the interest that they can earn on the money that you leave in the account) they're going to make it up in fees.

The feds just changed and limited (sensibly, in my mind,) the amounts and types of fees that can be charged, so it's not surprising that "free" checking and the like would be going away. Most people leave minimal amounts of money in their checking account, and with interest rates at or below one percent, that's not sustainable.

We're all (I assume) in general agreement that outrageous overdraft fees and the like are unfair, but this sort of thing, giving a service away, is to be expected. Though it depends on the circumstance -- I have accounts at two banks, one charges me $9 a month, the other is free, but that's related to the amount of money and accounts at each bank. If memory serves, the one is free because I agreed to take their credit card (which I never use) for $24 a year, so that one's not "free" either, but $2 a month.

The problem isn't the free checking. It is the laughably atrocious business model. You cannot, year after year, give out bonuses that exceed the annual incomes of employees. it is not sustainable.

Before it is all said and done, i would hope people would walk away from banks. Force them to make cuts in the ridiculous bonuses before cutting service. Let the free market rule.

edit to add: why are more people not going prepaid? if you pay bills by credit card, just load the cash onto a prepaid card. The cost is on par, and is virtually risk free (unless you lose your card).

Just like cell phones....why not stop paying 100 a month for limited service? Just to get the coolest new phone? Boost can give you a blackberry for 60 a month, unlimited. Virgin has similar.

I don't get why people keep giving money to companies that crap on them.

Originally posted by jrod
reply to post by adjensen

 

No offense, but I think you are getting ripped off.

Banks should be able to make enough of a profit through loans, credit cards, and other investments to sustain themselves. You and a bunch of other people deposit money into a bank, that bank then invests that money wisely to make their profit. We're talking about millions even billions to invest. Anyone who isn't greedy or incompetent should have no problem turning a profit.

Which of the two banks do you think is ripping me off? Ironically, I think that the $2 a month is the one that is, though for reasons I'm not going to publicly declare, lol. That one is a national / international bank, while the $9 a month one is a non-profit local.

There are a myriad of problems with banks, and I'm in no way a "bank apologist" as the guy with the tirade above you says, but it really comes down to your statement of "invests that money wisely", because wisdom is too often trumped by greed, and there are few, if any, businesses that don't suffer from the same shortcoming. Banks are essentially brokers who connect people who want to borrow money with people who want to lend it, though the bank is the one with the risk, not you (up to a point.) If I put $100,000 in the bank and they borrow it to you to buy a house and then you default on the loan, the bank has to suck up the loss, they can't just tell me "oops" and stick me with it.

Again, not particularly in favour of banks, just trying to lend (har har) a bit of pragmatism to the discussion.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by adjensen
For all the complaining, people should recognize that banks incur costs with you having something like a checking account, and when the costs outweigh the income (the interest that they can earn on the money that you leave in the account) they're going to make it up in fees.

The feds just changed and limited (sensibly, in my mind,) the amounts and types of fees that can be charged, so it's not surprising that "free" checking and the like would be going away. Most people leave minimal amounts of money in their checking account, and with interest rates at or below one percent, that's not sustainable.

We're all (I assume) in general agreement that outrageous overdraft fees and the like are unfair, but this sort of thing, giving a service away, is to be expected. Though it depends on the circumstance -- I have accounts at two banks, one charges me $9 a month, the other is free, but that's related to the amount of money and accounts at each bank. If memory serves, the one is free because I agreed to take their credit card (which I never use) for $24 a year, so that one's not "free" either, but $2 a month.

The problem isn't the free checking. It is the laughably atrocious business model. You cannot, year after year, give out bonuses that exceed the annual incomes of employees. it is not sustainable.

Before it is all said and done, i would hope people would walk away from banks. Force them to make cuts in the ridiculous bonuses before cutting service. Let the free market rule.

This is getting a bit off topic, but I made an observation many years ago which is applicable, perhaps, to your question. It came out of working with a number of large corporations, and struggling to understand the decisions that they made, which seemed rather counter to those I made, as an entrepreneur.

The free market, one which requires capital investment, demands constant rates of increase in revenue, and, to a lessor extent, profitability. You will never see a company publicly state "we want our earning to decrease or level off for a bit," no company that wants to stay in business, anyway.

This is, of course, unsustainable, and everyone knows it, but they want to enjoy the ride as long as they can for personal reasons. The CEO wants to eke as many bonuses as he can, the middle manager wants to rise to a salary that he can use to demand a similar salary at another firm, the investor wants to keep getting returns from a rising stock price.

So the result is that no one ever, seemingly, makes a decision that has an impact beyond the time frame that equals their own personal gain. If I want to switch jobs in six months, I'm going to maximize my results in the next six months, and sod anything after that. If I'm a salesman, I'll tap my accounts this quarter and let next quarter, which I've just decimated, worry about itself.

Because of this, you will likely never see a CEO say "I'm refusing my bonuses to encourage better moral and service", except in the rare instance where the CEO is a significant owner or oddly altruistic. Ben & Jerrys (the ice cream guys) used to have a rule that no one in the company could make more than seven times anyone else, but had to give it up once they got to a certain size because, fair or not, the type of person who runs a big company demands a salary more than seven times that of the guy who sweeps up.

As for your suggestion that people stop using banks, well, at a certain point, it becomes impractical NOT to use a bank. Then it's just a matter of choosing the least annoying and wasteful one.

Originally posted by adjensen
There are a myriad of problems with banks, and I'm in no way a "bank apologist" as the guy with the tirade above you says, but it really comes down to your statement of "invests that money wisely", because wisdom is too often trumped by greed, and there are few, if any, businesses that don't suffer from the same shortcoming. Banks are essentially brokers who connect people who want to borrow money with people who want to lend it, though the bank is the one with the risk, not you (up to a point.) If I put $100,000 in the bank and they borrow it to you to buy a house and then you default on the loan, the bank has to suck up the loss, they can't just tell me "oops" and stick me with it.

Again, not particularly in favour of banks, just trying to lend (har har) a bit of pragmatism to the discussion.

Might want to reevaluate your choice in words.
Anger isn't in the least bit a part of my post to yours.

You are a bank apologist. Protip: look up the word apologist.
Note your defensive approach (in your post) to a business model replete with erroneous
accounting.

Banks don't *lend* money.
They create it (for starters)

And consider your scenario.
They lose out $100,000 but have you considered the Trillions in
money they all make out with as PURE profit just on the principal of the loan.

Then add up the interest for that loan.

The truth is the banks aren't "losing" anything.
The illusion is that they are, and people buy this hook------line------and sinker.

reply to post by Chinesis


Well, again, I'm not an apologist, but (among other things) I'm an accountant, so I understand how money works, and your perception is a bit off (though not entirely.) You don't like banks, got that. I'm not a big fan, either, but for me, at least, they are a necessary evil.

You claim that a checking account costs the bank no money. From an accounting and pragmatic standpoint, that is impossible. Does my $9 a month account cost them more than they make from it in fees and interest? Probably not, but your claim is that, even if they earn nothing from it, it still costs them nothing.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Chinesis

 

Well, again, I'm not an apologist, but (among other things) I'm an accountant, so I understand how money works, and your perception is a bit off (though not entirely.) You don't like banks, got that. I'm not a big fan, either, but for me, at least, they are a necessary evil.

You claim that a checking account costs the bank no money. From an accounting and pragmatic standpoint, that is impossible. Does my $9 a month account cost them more than they make from it in fees and interest? Probably not, but your claim is that, even if they earn nothing from it, it still costs them nothing.

I apologise for mislabeling you (twice as one)
However you must know I don't "hate the player" -the bank at all.
It is their practices that create a disdain.


On one hand you have cost as a real world expense based on goods.
Name-tags, paper, printers, networks, chairs, lease space etc...all have tangible
designations of value.

Did the bank pay with cash (albeit a fiat currency) Or with an account credit/charge?

I hope as an accountant you know the differences between

-Cash
-Credit
-Promissory notes

A bank has the power to convert a promissory note to actual currency.
They (ALL) cook their books *fact* OR could never disclose how they created
monies out of thin air....Yet they do it daily.

You seem to be knowledgeable, but knowledge isn't enough here.
Due diligence and actually knowing is different that research.

Personal Intuition ranks higher than any dissertation or document.



To answer your question *all* fractional reserve banking institutions
prepaid for all "free" checking accounts. All of your transactions/activities
were already accounted for when you signed up for a free account.

Therefore one could easily extrapolate what is going on here.

So, YES is the answer.
It is called "the cost of doing business."

Originally posted by Chinesis
Did the bank pay with cash (albeit a fiat currency) Or with an account credit/charge?

If a bank purchases something or pays someone, they pay in "money", just like you do. Probably not in cash, but I'm sure if you were, say, an employee, and demanded being paid in cash, if they wanted you enough, they'd figure something out, and even if not, you can take your check to the cashier's till and get cash, so not a big deal.

I hope as an accountant you know the differences between

-Cash
-Credit
-Promissory notes

Yes, of course I do.

A bank has the power to convert a promissory note to actual currency.

Remember, a bank is a broker. If I bring a check drawn on a US Bank account to my local bank, they may or may not convert it to cash, depends on what my relationship with the bank is. They might make me deposit it and hold the funds for a couple of days to ensure that the check is good. But, eventually, I can get cash out of the transaction, yes.

If I go to US Bank and present a check drawn on a US Bank account, if the funds are present in the account, I believe (wouldn't swear to it, but I've never heard otherwise) that they are legally required to cash said check, provided that I can prove I am the person to whom it is written.

Checks, credit cards, lines of credit, yada yada yada are just convenience methods of dealing with money, just like cash is. "Cash" has no real value, beyond what other people agree it is worth -- fortunately, most people are in concordance with what twenty dollars is worth :-)

Doesn't matter what currency you want to cite -- cash, checks, gold, fish, stone tablets -- it's all nothing more than a way to simplify the bartering system that is at the root of our economy.

They (ALL) cook their books *fact* OR could never disclose how they created
monies out of thin air....Yet they do it daily.

See, here's where you lose me, because you're either confusing the Federal Reserve Bank with "banks" in general, or you're mistaken. My local bank cannot just "create money" out of thin air. If banks were allowed to do this, the economy would be a shambles, because when a bank ran into its lending limit (banks are not allowed to loan out more than a certain percent of their assets) they'd just manufacture more money, and pretty soon we'd have hyper-inflation.

The low rate of inflation in the United States is sufficient evidence to show that your statement about creating money out of thin air isn't correct.

Personal Intuition ranks higher than any dissertation or document.

Well... sometimes it does, but believing something to be correct does not make it so. In this case, both practically and theoretically, you cannot be right.

Originally posted by adjensen
Checks, credit cards, lines of credit, yada yada yada are just convenience methods of dealing with money, just like cash is. "Cash" has no real value, beyond what other people agree it is worth -- fortunately, most people are in concordance with what twenty dollars is worth :-)

They are not the same thing when you compare then to *cash*

Originally posted by adjensenDoesn't matter what currency you want to cite -- cash, checks, gold, fish, stone tablets -- it's all nothing more than a way to simplify the bartering system that is at the root of our economy.

Barter, interesting word you used there.
While on one hand one or more items you listed are derived from inherent value...
(gold, fish, stone tablets) Credit...is not, not at all.

Since you are an accountant, I am not surprised you would lump credit
with actual items you can barter with that actually have value.
Even Cash is debt, just given to someone else which makes them a party to the
fraud, which in turn creates "joinder" between you and the state.

Originally posted by adjensenSee, here's where you lose me, because you're either confusing the Federal Reserve Bank with "banks" in general, or you're mistaken. My local bank cannot just "create money" out of thin air. If banks were allowed to do this, the economy would be a shambles, because when a bank ran into its lending limit (banks are not allowed to loan out more than a certain percent of their assets) they'd just manufacture more money, and pretty soon we'd have hyper-inflation.

Who is your local bank, a credit union?
When a personal loan is taken out, a person might get *cash*
When a person takes out a loan on a home....Do they ever have the option to get the cash? (No)

Why not? This is my point.
There is ZERO consideration for your signature.
In fact the signature created the promise to pay via a contract that never
fully disclosed the particulars of what just happened.

At the end of your 30year term I will guarantee you, you will not
ever get the original debt instrument back, ever. There is a reason for it as well.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that when a person wants to buy a home (which NEVER happens)
that the bank will actually show a ledger that shows the actual money being taken out
(from where) and then deposited (where?)

Originally posted by adjensenWell... sometimes it does, but believing something to be correct does not make it so. In this case, both practically and theoretically, you cannot be right.

Please, then please tell me how people have been able to discharge their "debt"
by not even paying it, but by asking for the original debt instrument -which the institution could
never present or offer? They only offered up a drawn up copy (forgery) ?