[tomder55]

Here was my earlier posting on this subject . I link to a USA Today Article that illustrates the issue.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/financ...on-258042.html

Debit card overdraft fees hit record highs - USATODAY.com

[spitvenom]

I got charged an overdraft fee of 25 bucks from Wachovia one time when I was a dollar over. Basically I checked my account at like 7:00pm on a Thursday there was x numbers of dollars. Me being impatient thought oh good this check didn't get processed yet and My check will be deposited at midnight. So I will go buy whatever I was buying.

Well the Check got processed at 12:01 am which in turn caused an overdraft then my check was deposited at 12:05am (same day) still got charged an overdraft fee. I understand I should have wait but come one I was overdrawn for 4 minutes literally. After spending an hour on the phone with them I got my 25 dollars back. I understand banks have to make money but that is some BS.

[Curlyben]

ET I have an example for you.
Now this happened to me a few months back.

A payment of sub £20 was charged to my account which took it into overdraft. This happened on a Thrusday evening and I was visiting family so no internet access to check my account. The first I knew of this and transfers funds was the following Tuesday.

For this transgression I was charged £84!!
There was absolutely nothing I could have done about this as it was over a weekend, banks being shut and any transfer I did make would have only taken effect on Monday morning. So I would have been heavily stung either way.
Yes, you could say it was my fault for not budgeting correctly, but if this payment was due to take me into overdraft, why didn't the bank simply bounce it for a £25 on off fee, rather than charging me a "set up" fee and further daily amounts!!

That's what I mean by disproportionate and this is the action we in the UK are currently attempting to redress.

[excon]

Look at it from our point of view...

Hello again, El:

Wow. From a free marketeer, you sure like the "taxes" you charge. Why do you need to charge these "fees" again?? To rain in abuses?? Dude. When I have a customer who abuses me, I fire him. I don't rip him off back.

Besides, what happened to the old fashioned way for a bank to make money? That would be interest, of course. If interest rates are low, like you complained about, do what most industries do when they can't make a profit. CLOSE. They don't try to stay alive by ripping off their customers...

But, when you ALL collude together to rip us off, that's illegal. It's called price fixing. Do you remember those private prisons you were telling me about?? Be sure to write.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Is that true ? Check out the complaints online . From my daughter's perspective the OD was minimal and the fees were $35 /per transaction...much more than a 25% fee .

As I said in my first post, Tom, I'm not going to try to justify bad behavior. My gut reaction is that the suit against SunTrust is justified. Yeah, they overcharged their customers and they are going to pay the price. (And given the current disregard and dislike of banks in the environment, I wouldn't be surprised if that price is high indeed.)

I can't speak to every bank, but if you have OD protection, you are NOT supposed to be hit for the OD fee. THat's the point of OD protection... well, that and also to make sure your checks don't get kicked back. An interest charge for use of the credit line is justified. PERHAPS a processing fee can be justified, if you want to push the edges of the relationship. But I can't for the life of me figure out how an OD fee can be justified if you have OD protection.

But what do I know?

Elliot

[Skell]

Yes, try and see it from the banks point of view. While everyone else is going broke they should be allowed to continue to make billions in profit.

Why can't you all understand that!?

[ETWolverine]

Yes, try and see it from the banks point of view. While everyone else is going broke they should be allowed to continue to make billions in profit.

Why can't you all understand that!?!

I see... so your solution to economic strife is that EVERYONE should go broke... even if it means the complete destruction of the financial system for the USA and by extension the entire world.

Hmmm... Despite a degree in economics and 15 years of hands-on experience in finance, I have never seen that philosophy pushed as a solution to an economic downturn. I never knew that "Misery loves company" was an impetus for economic recovery.

Hate to tell you this, Skell, but if banks go under, YOU are going to lose your money. The government cannot possibly uphold its guarantees of every deposit in all FDIC insured banks throughout the USA. Which means that if the banks fail because you don't want them to make a profit when you don't, it's YOUR money that will be lost, regardless of the FDIC insurance.

Way to think ahead, Skell.

[Skell]

I see... so your solution to economic strife is that EVERYONE should go broke... even if it means the complete destruction of the financial system for the USA and by extension the entire world.

Hmmm.... Despite a degree in economics and 15 years of hands-on experience in finance, I have never seen that philosophy pushed as a solution to an economic downturn. I never knew that "Misery loves company" was an impetus for economic recovery.

Hate to tell you this, Skell, but if banks go under, YOU are going to lose your money. The government cannot possibly uphold its guarantees of every deposit in all FDIC insured banks throughout the USA. Which means that if the banks fail because you don't want them to make a profit when you don't, it's YOUR money that will be lost, regardless of the FDIC insurance.

Way to think ahead, Skell.

Elliot where did I say I want banks to go broke?? Big difference between going broke and making multi-billion dollar profits whilst customers are lumped with hefty fees and charges.

Way to over-exaggerate, Elliot.

[ETWolverine]

Well then, Skell, what is an acceptable level of profitability that banks should be allowed? What is too much? Is ANY profitability acceptable? Who decides?

You see, without the possibility of profitability, banks WILL close down. And if there are limitations on what profits can be made, banks will close down even sooner, because the rewards, meager and/or limited as they are, will simply not justify the risks of running a bank.

Elliot

[Curlyben]

Profits are fine, and we aren't bemoaning that fact at all. They are after all a private business
But when they are continually abusing their fiduciary duties in the way they are then a line MUST be drawn.

The model needs to change and hopefully the current climate should force that.

[ETWolverine]

Profits are fine, and we aren't bemoaning that fact at all. They are after all a private business

Skell seems to be bemoaning just that.

But when they are continually abusing their fiduciary duties in the way they are then a line MUST be drawn.

By whom? Who decides what is and isn't appropriate? Are you seriously willing to rely on those corrupt whores in Congress to decide on propriety with regard to financial matters?

The model needs to change and hopefully the current climate should force that.

I agree that we need a change. But it isn't the one you and Skell are looking for. What we need is LESS government intervention and more responsibility by the consumers instead of consumers relying on the government to get them out of their messes.

I am not saying that SunTrust didn't do anything wrong. They most likely did. They probably charged fees up the wazoo, and consumers paid them because they didn't know any better. SunTrust was wrong and bad, and evil. But if the government would get out of the way and let people suffer the consequences of their errors, they would quickly learn to avoid those errors and become more savvy consumers. What eventually would happen is that consumers would leave SunTrust Bank for other banks that have lower charges, and either SunTrust would have to lower their fees to something more reasonable, or they would go out of business.

In a REAL free-market system, without government intervention, the market eventually corrects itself for bad behavior. It is only when the government tries to shield the consumer from the consequences of their actions that the consumer is unable to protect himself and remains uneducated and vulnerable to deceit.

So yes, we need to reform the system... but not with more "protections" for the consumers and more regulations on businesses.

Elliot

[Curlyben]

I agree that we need a change. But it isn't the one you and Skell are looking for. What we need is LESS government intervention and more responsibility by the consumers instead of consumers relying on the government to get them out of their messes.

I think you might be surprised there.
What I would really like is a return to "real" customer driven Banking, a lot like you already practice as mentioned earlier. Stop treating the customers as a means to the next bonus and actual advise us in a way that would benefit BOTH parties in the long haul, rather than short term gains. Admittedly my perceptions are skewed to the UK Banks, but I'm sure it's not so divorced in the US.

In a REAL free-market system, without government intervention, the market eventually corrects itself for bad behavior. It is only when the government tries to shield the consumer from the consequences of their actions that the consumer is unable to protect himself and remains uneducated and vulnerable to deceit.

Sorry, but I disagree with you on this.
If the government hadn't stepped in in the current climate then we would have had complete financial melt down. The drive for bigger bigger profits was seen as the ultimate goal. This needs to be tempered and quashed before it causes the threats we have witnessed. So some for of oversight and/or regulation is required, if nothing more than to sound the alarm bells and put an early break on an over extended market.

Unfortunately what is really lacking in the system is a modicum of common sense. If this had been utilised then the realisation that this model was unworkable might of tempered the market before the bubble burst in such a catastrophic manner, but I digress.

[excon]

Stop treating the customers as a means to the next bonus and actual advise us in a way that would benefit BOTH parties in the long haul, rather than short term gains.

Hello again:

Nailed it! And, it's even bigger than just the banks.

There was a time when corporations considered their customers to be their partners in the free market system. They would provide a valuable service, and the consumer would pay for it... Elliot thinks that's still happening, and he is a great spokesperson for the status quo...

The problem with the status quo, is that somewhere along the way toward the American/British Dream, the corporations began making money OFF the backs of their customers instead of the old fashioned way. The idea that everybody is going to benefit from the relationship evaporated. I don't know when, but I certainly know it's nowhere to be found. It's THEM against US. It probably began to dawn on them that they could make MORE money by lobbying congress to change the rules, than they could the old fashioned way, and that's exactly what they did.

The Sixty Minute piece last night about how the public was ripped off by the hidden fees imposed upon them by their 401K managers was astounding - absolutely astounding...

excon