Don’t forget, you can deposit checks into your Schwab account from your iPhone, just take a picture of it, it’s deposited.
Missed Edit: the problem is, while I love my CU, it has about six ATMs. BoA has a million. The Mrs and I may end up deciding to pay $5 a month to keep our BOA account.
Doesn’t work with cash, though. 
What is this “cash” you speak of?
This happened over a year ago, and it still amazes me. I loaned a friend some money, he paid me back with a check, stuck it in my pocket. Happened to be next to the bank the check was written on, so, what the heck, go cash the check.
They wanted five dollars. To cash a check drawn on their bank, with oodles of ID. So, OK, fuck 'em, deposit the thing in my own bank. Still, stuck in my craw and sticks in my mind.
Chase does this as well.
I’m not ripping on credit unions, if you are happy with your services then good for you. The question was asked earlier about why people bank with Chase, BofA, Well, etc. I gave my answer, I’m a banking consumer that demands convenience through technology. I never, ever want to have to go into a branch or call the call center if I don’t have to.
Everything you’ve listed is pretty basic “minimum standards” I’d expect a bank or credit union to provide with the exception of free ATM transactions at another institution. Even many banks now refund them as standard offerings so this isn’t that unique. I have all of the above at Chase, PNC, and Ally Bank (the major banks where I hold accounts) However to answer your question:
Does your credit union offer external transfers between your CU accounts and non-CU accounts (say to/from an account you hold at Chase) within the free online banking?
Does your credit union offer P2P payment capability?
Does your credit union offer truly functional mobile banking, and I don’t mean SMS-text informational mobile banking. I mean full functioning mobile apps that allow transfers (internal and external), P2P payments, bill pay, remote deposit capture (photograph a check to deposit), geo-location services for locating branches/ATMs?
I don’t need to worry about other FI ATMs as my bank IS national and has ATMs damn near everywhere. My mobile banking app with locate the nearest ones to me using GPS. I also use non-Chase ATMs from time-to-time and don’t mind paying 2.00 to do so, I just make sure I withdrawal enough so that I don’t have to go back while in a city without Chase ATMs.
Does your credit union offer small business banking services like B2C and B2B payment capabilities? How about electronic invoicing and payments?
These are the things important to me as a consumer. If I found a credit union that offered them and had a decent amount of ATMs in my area, I’d consider opening an account there. I’ve never said that CU’s don’t offer said services, there are some out there. However several of the large banks, Chase, PNC, Ally Bank to name a few, really lead the way in innovative technology solutions for customers.
MeanJoe
What I mean is that consumer facing technology is the most important aspect of where I bank. I want immediate access to the services my bank offers me, whether I’m in my car, at a hotel, or sitting at home on my computer. I want a bank that provides those services in applications that fit my lifestyle. I don’t want to have to go into a bank branch to deposit a check or open a new account. I don’t want to have to write a paper check to my friends/family to pay them back for some miscellaneous item. I don’t want to have to drive way out of my way to find an ATM. I don’t want to have to be at home or work at my computer to check my balances or pay bills or see if transactions cleared. These are just some common examples.
A bank that provides technology solutions to my banking needs gets my money. Today Chase does that and they have the majority of my accounts. I have opened accounts at PNC and Ally Bank as well to check out their services and although not quite as comprehensive as Chase they are appealing enough to consider moving my relationships there.
Oh, and I’m smart enough that I don’t spend more than my account balance and if I ever did by error I’d be grown-up enough to not piss and moan that the bank charged me heavily for being irresponsible.
MeanJoe
No, I wouldn’t support such a law. I would distinguish the two situations by noting that banking is a commercial enterprise, while message boards are not. However, where the association takes on a more commercial flavor, such as places of public accommodation or the provision of housing, I am fine with our laws that do restrict who may lawfully be excluded.
With respect to banking in particular, I also note that a robust system of financial institutions is vital to the economic functioning of the country as a whole, thus amply providing a toehold for regulation in the public interest. In particular, inadequate consumer protection tends to amplify the information assymetry between the relatively unknowledgeable consumer depositor and the vastly more sophisticated banking institution. Failing to regulate conspicuously in the consumer’s interest will lead to fewer depositors than is optimal in light of that asymmetry. And as you know, deposits are the fuel of our banking industy. While banks may suffer some loss of revenue from the regulation, this is outweighed by the social benefit (some of which redounds to those banks themselves) of a more transparent, more trusted banking system and the greater level of economic activity that such a system fosters.
I’ve been pretty dirt poor.
I deliberately overdrafted exactly once, to pay for car repairs when it was that or lose my job. The very next thing I did was actually get a credit card and then never use it except for life-or-death circumstances.
At the time, though, I DID look at it as essentially a payday loan I didn’t have to apply for, at 35% interest or so.
I absolutely agree that, especially when a counter-intuitive model like this is used, banks must warn their customers before applying fees based on their let’s-max-our-profit system. I would absolutely support a law forbidding banks from imposing any charges at all based on any system at all that was not fully dislcosed to customers first.
But I doubt that you can show me an example of a bank imposing fees under this “unfair” system where there was no warning.
That’s exactly what they are doing. They are beginning to monetize (charge fees) for services they didn’t previously in order to make up the revenue short-fall caused by the changes in regulation. Glad you agree with it. :rolleyes:
Honestly, I’m a very happy Wells customer. I’m not great at planning ahead, so the convenience of several ATMs where I live, work, and play is a big plus. Their online support has never disappointed me, and I’m protected from overdrafts in three different ways. I might be able to get the same thing at a credit union, but why? My bank does none of the things that people in this thread seem bothered by.
If they started charging me to have a debit card, then I’d be out the door. Until they do something to make me angry, I may as well stay put.
Nowhere really. They could have decided to run the cards at a loss, or, to do away with them completely.
I’ll explain the biggest piece of the problem to you. A debit card used for purchases is effectively no different from a credit card that is paid off in full at the end of the month. In fact, many debit cards contain a feature that delays debit of charges until the end of the month to offer the same benefit of the float as a credit card.
You pay for the convenience of these cards in terms of higher prices at merchants who kick back a small piece of the transaction to the credit card companies who issue these cards. Some of that money goes to covering the costs of administering the cards (which is not inconsiderable). Some of it comes back to you in terms of benefits, free checking accounts, rewards points, etc. Some of it is profit.
You get this whether the card is a debit card or a credit card.
Now what the government has done is to decide that these substantive different from credit cards, and that therefore merchants shouldn’t be charged the same fees for using them. This reflects a lot of ignorance on the part of the government which has failed to understand the convergence of consumer debt instruments.
What this means to the issuing companies is that debit cards used for purchases will run at a loss after September 30 when the Durbin act goes into existence.
There is no cash for the rewards programs to run, or for the free checking accounts to run, and their is no cash to cover the cost of administering the card. These things are all a big deal, but they are not the big deal.
The big deal is fraud. Legally you enjoy the same protections on a debit card as you do on a credit card. That is, your personal liability for fraudulent use of your card is limited to 50 bucks. Credit card fraud runs in the tens of billions annually.
The credit card companies can give you these protections, and handle the fraud out of the profits they make onthe cards.
Now, not only do these cards not pay the issuer, they produce liability. There is. No upside to the issuer.
What this means to the consumer is that they will be getting screwed. They are already paying higher prices that support credit card purchases, but now debit card users will be paying an additional layer of fees to support the protections and benefits they are already paying for.
Really, the person who gets screwed is the little guy. People with large net worths are going to get these features bundled into the financial devices they are receiving.
The guy who is relatively poor, or just starting out, or can’t get a credit card is the person who will be paying these higher fees. These are the people who can least afford it.
Before, things were progressive. The smaller customer wad reaping debit card benefits made possible by the larger customers. Now it has become regressive. The debit card purchaser is forced intothe same set of protections as the credit card purchaser, but the source that funded is cut off (even though the customer is already paying for them in the form of higher prices). Now the debit card consumer must pay again for them.
All this because the government is too stupid to see the benefits that lower income households were getting from debit cards that were receiving benefits funded by high end credit cards.
So no, this absolutely fucks the poor guy.
Does that answer your question?
Well, I tend to think the good definition of dick is somebody who not only has no idea what they are talking about, but who also compounds that ignorance by being snarky.
It is precisely because the Durbin act unfairly penalizes the poor and causes them to pay for the same protections twice that I think sucks.
So, you can take your smug wise assed ignorance and…
Have a nice day
Scylla. Champion of the poor and downtrodden. Working class Hero. I’m ready now, Lord. Pretty much seen it all. I’ll just lay down over here.
nm
Just to be clear, by “source that funded” you’re referring to the high overdraft penalties that were in place before the act, correct? This is what is screwing the little guy? The fact that banks can no longer subsidize what you claim is the high cost of debit cards with these penalty charges?
What’s weird is that banks used to be able to make money without these high fees. It’s strange that it’s no longer possible. Oh well, I guess they have no choice but to rob the working man to make ends meet. 
It really does piss me off. The little guy could get free checking, reasonable service, and a debit and ATM card free or at very la cost (if they shopped around, obviously some banks would fuck you,) that was largely funded by merchant card fees that they were already paying for in terms of higher prices. Now they will still pay the higher prices, just not get the benefit (or have to pay for it all over again)
It’s bad legislation that hurts lots of people and helps no one.
So packaging mortgages and selling them around the world did not matter? And selling swaps(which was insurance on the crappy mortgages ) did not cause the banks to lose money?
That is what cause the financial crisis. Now they are trying to recoup by sticking it to their customers. They jacked interest rates out of sight and then did the same thing with fees.
The government gave the thieves free money and they kept it . Instead of lending it out to small business and stimulating the economy as it was planned, they bought Tbills to make sure and easy money. They of course kept the high salaries and fabulous bonuses that failing miserably as bankers was owed to them.