Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,831,906 times
Reputation: 6438
Advertisements
The move comes as banks continue to crank up new fee opportunities in reaction to regulatory changes that have cost them billions in overdraft fee revenue. In early January, for example, Bank of America announced a new four-tiered fee structure for checking accounts with fees ranging from $6 to $25 per month.
B of A redefines (http://redtape.msnbc.com/2011/01/un-grace-ful-mortgage-payers-face-grace-period-fee.html - broken link)
What we need.. is less government intrusion, people. If we just let the bankers handle things on their own, they wouldn't have to invent new fees to get money. They could just take the money from people like they used to. Thanks a lot, Obama! I bet that's real fun and all, making things tough for the bankers to gouge their customers. But what if I was a banker? I wouldn't like you very much, I don't think. Yes, we must consider bankers and their feelings as well. The more money they get, the happier they will be right? And we all need a shot of happy, every day.
Banks still trying to collect overdraft fees - MSN Money
With a median overdraft price of $26, banks and credit unions pulled in $37.1 billion in 2009. Roughly half that amount was from ATM and debit transactions.
*********************
Look at those numbers.. that's ~ 1.5 billion times someone had an overdraft.
The move comes as banks continue to crank up new fee opportunities in reaction to regulatory changes that have cost them billions in overdraft fee revenue. In early January, for example, Bank of America announced a new four-tiered fee structure for checking accounts with fees ranging from $6 to $25 per month.
B of A redefines (http://redtape.msnbc.com/2011/01/un-grace-ful-mortgage-payers-face-grace-period-fee.html - broken link)
What we need.. is less government intrusion, people. If we just let the bankers handle things on their own, they wouldn't have to invent new fees to get money. They could just take the money from people like they used to. Thanks a lot, Obama! I bet that's real fun and all, making things tough for the bankers to gouge their customers. But what if I was a banker? I wouldn't like you very much, I don't think. Yes, we must consider bankers and their feelings as well. The more money they get, the happier they will be right? And we all need a shot of happy, every day.
Banks still trying to collect overdraft fees - MSN Money
With a median overdraft price of $26, banks and credit unions pulled in $37.1 billion in 2009. Roughly half that amount was from ATM and debit transactions.
*********************
Look at those numbers.. that's ~ 1.5 billion times someone had an overdraft.
37/26 = 1,423,076,923
Overdraft fees are incurred when people STEAL from the bank. People used to go to jail for "check kiting".
"Barack Obama's fiscal reform has cost bankers billions in overdraft fees."
Those poor, poor bankers.
I suggest that if folks don't like all those fees they find banks that don't charge them. I bank a fairly large bank that hasn't ended my free checking, doesn't charge a fee to use the ATM and otherwise continues to provide the same services that it always had. I suggest that if a bank depends on overdraft fees to make a profit that they find another line of profit.
Overdraft fees are incurred when people STEAL from the bank. People used to go to jail for "check kiting".
Trying to use a debit card against an account without sufficient funds is hardly "stealing". It's more like fiscal irresponsibility. It can't be stealing because the bank doesn't have to allow it. Instead the bank allows it and charges a modest fee for the privilege.
In the case of checks, the bank wins either way - they allow the overdraft and charge for it, or they disallow the overdraft and still charge for it.
"Barack Obama's fiscal reform has cost bankers billions in overdraft fees."
Those poor, poor bankers.
I suggest that if folks don't like all those fees they find banks that don't charge them. I bank a fairly large bank that hasn't ended my free checking, doesn't charge a fee to use the ATM and otherwise continues to provide the same services that it always had. I suggest that if a bank depends on overdraft fees to make a profit that they find another line of profit.
In time those banks that don't charge may not exist due to his "reform".
Trying to use a debit card against an account without sufficient funds is hardly "stealing". It's more like fiscal irresponsibility. It can't be stealing because the bank doesn't have to allow it. Instead the bank allows it and charges a modest fee for the privilege.
In the case of checks, the bank wins either way - they allow the overdraft and charge for it, or they disallow the overdraft and still charge for it.
The bank "allows it" so as to not drag the innocent merchant into the dispute. The theft is between the customer and the bank. The transaction should be declined at the POS, but some stores don't have a real-time connection to the bank. They pool all the transactions and transmit them at the end of the day.
Overdraft fees are incurred when people STEAL from the bank. People used to go to jail for "check kiting".
You have a strange definition of stealing. If anything, the banks are out to rob people.
Ever heard of bounced checks? Why did they get bounced? Now, apply that logic to how overdraft works, and you just might start noticing the culprits.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.