Vent about Banks

Q

QuickSilver

SF VIP
Location
Midwest
I've been banking at the same branch for over 30 years. They were recently taken over by a larger bank. Suddenly, I am being charged for paper statements. $3 a month for checking, and $3 a quarter for savings. I called and complained and got it waived, but the savings account charge has gotten me riled. Even though I'm not being charged... the absolute crooked thievery has me peeved.

I keep a small savings account for emergency use. In it I have $30,000 Last year, I received my interest statement. I received a whopping $6 in interest for the privilege of keeping that money there... and letting them use it to MAKE MONEY for themselves. Then came the charge of $3 a quarter.. for a total of $12 a year to receive 4 paper savings statements. Do the math. I PAY them $12. They give me $6.. SOOOO in essence, I am paying them $6 a year to keep my money and make loans with interest.. which I am not seeing. It's cheaper to keep that money in a mattress. Is it a wonder why Elizabeth Warren and others are at war with these thieves? They are almost worse than organized crime. Something is VERY wrong with our system.
 

Yeah...the rate of return on savings at the bank is almost an insult...and then, if you Do get any meaningful interest, it has to be added to your income at tax time. What a racket! I suppose the ultimate blame for these ridiculously low interest rates has to reside at the Fed...as they are still trying to offset the damage done to our economy during the Bush years, and the stupidity that led to the Housing Bubble.
 
The thieves will have their(and your) money, it's what they do. .25%(or less) on savings is ludicrous, but putting it in a coffee can and burying it is appealing but a hassle.
 

I wasn't too infuriated about the piddley poor interest of $6. It is my emergency fund and I like having it completely accessible. So I guess there's a price to be paid for convenience.. HOWEVER, when they started charging me $12 a year for paper statements, my hair set on fire.. As if it wasn't enough to use my money to make money, I have to pay them for the privilege of letting them do so. We.. the middle class are taking it bending over and what can we do about it? It's jus wrong on so many levels.
 
One of our banks started charging for paper statements about 5 years ago...we fixed that....moved that account to another bank. I've never seen a bank that was in business to do me a favor.
 
Don M. said:
One of our banks started charging for paper statements about 5 years ago...we fixed that....moved that account to another bank. I've never seen a bank that was in business to do me a favor.
Click to expand...

That's what I threatened to do, and they waived the fees for me..
 
QS, you know, your money would earn more in a CD ladder and you can get them in varying time periods. You'd have to give up some liquidity on some of it, though.
 
Don M. said:
Yeah...the rate of return on savings at the bank is almost an insult...and then, if you Do get any meaningful interest, it has to be added to your income at tax time. What a racket! I suppose the ultimate blame for these ridiculously low interest rates has to reside at the Fed...as they are still trying to offset the damage done to our economy during the Bush years, and the stupidity that led to the Housing Bubble.
Click to expand...

You really have to go back further that the Bush years, you can also include Clinton years and maybe even some years earlier. Remember Franks was involved in much of the Freddy and Fanny problems.

http://spectator.org/articles/42211/true-origins-financial-crisis

The True Origins of This Financial Crisis

As opposed to a desperate liberal legend.
By Peter J. Wallison – From the February 2009 issue

Two narratives seem to be forming to describe the underlying causes of the financial crisis. One, as outlined in a New York Times front-page story on Sunday, December 21, is that President Bush excessively promoted growth in home ownership without sufficiently regulating the banks and other mortgage lenders that made the bad loans. The result was a banking system suffused with junk mortgages, the continuing losses on which are dragging down the banks and the economy. The other narrative is that government policy over many years--particularly the use of the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to distort the housing credit system-- underlies the current crisis. The stakes in the competing narratives are high. The diagnosis determines the prescription. If the Times diagnosis prevails, the prescription is more regulation of the financial system; if instead government policy is to blame, the prescription is to terminate those government policies that distort mortgage lending.

There really isn’t any question of which approach is factually correct: right on the front page of the Times edition of December 21 is a chart that shows the growth of home ownership in the United States since 1990. In 1993 it was 63 percent; by the end of the Clinton administration it was 68 percent. The growth in the Bush administration was about 1 percent. The Times itself reported in 1999 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were under pressure from the Clinton administration to increase lending to minorities and low-income home buyers--a policy that necessarily entailed higher risks. Can there really be a question, other than in the fevered imagination of the Times, where the push to reduce lending standards and boost home ownership came from?

The fact is that neither political party, and no administration, is blameless; the honest answer, as outlined below, is that government policy over many years caused this problem. The regulators, in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, were the enforcers of the reduced lending standards that were essential to the growth in home ownership and the housing bubble.

(And it continues on)
 
Lon said:
I love my bank because I get free checks, it's online, pays interest on balances, no monthly charges of any kind, has a great debit card with 100% reimbursement for other bank ATM's and no foreign trans action fees.
Click to expand...
ditto.gif...No charges from our bank..

I remeber reading (long ago) that some Chicago banks wanted to impose a one dollar transaction fee if you went up and used a live teller!! I believe opposition to this forced them to drop that idea..
 
Glinda said:
QS, you know, your money would earn more in a CD ladder and you can get them in varying time periods. You'd have to give up some liquidity on some of it, though.
Click to expand...


Not worried about what it earns... It's just there... I only wanted to point out how banks are robbing people blind.. and it's just so crooked. People are actually paying the bank to gamble with their money.
 
BOA charges no fees if you carry a minimum balance of specific amounts. What they do with my money is their business as I enjoy the convenience of their electronic services online and elsewhere...
 
Still using a paper system is a waste of resources. Everything is available online; paper is obsolete and should incur a surcharge for the luddites that feel they need them.
 
DoItMyself said:
Still using a paper system is a waste of resources. Everything is available online; paper is obsolete and should incur a surcharge for the luddites that feel they need them.
Click to expand...


I don't see it that way and I absolutely REFUSE to bank online... It's asking for trouble IMO.. I got the fee waived for that reason.. They DON'T need that money.
 
One service in particular was the availability of ATMs in most locations in my traveling days...
 
ATMs? I can use any ATM anywhere, and my credit union refunds the other institution's charge.

My credit union pays interest on the first $25K in checking. Has mortgage/home equity loans, auto/boat/personal loans, CDs, savings and the list goes on. They can do everything a bank can do, and it costs a lot less.

I have a small checking account in a bank in my home town in Michigan, and I can transfer money into or out of it. When I transfer money from my CR account to the bank, it's there the next morning. When I transfer money from the bank to my CR account, it comes out of the bank account the instant they get it. They can take "up to three business days" to actually deposit the money to my CR account...and they do because they can. While they have my money for those three days, they're earning interest on it.

Say 10 or 50 or 100 bank customers transfer money from my bank to another institution every day. Imagine how much money the bank makes in the three-day period between deducting it from the customers' accounts and depositing it to the designated institutions.

Yanno what? While the bank is making money on my transfer, I'm not making money on it.

Banks do this; credit unions don't.

I'm all for every business making a fair profit. I'm not all for any business making a profit that's more than fair, and using my money to do it!


ETA: Ralphy, minimum balance? My credit union doesn't require a minimum balance and charges no fees. What do you suppose your bank does with your minimum balance? What they do with your money is their business? Excuse me?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top