Or I’m just being pragmatic. Do people want to have to rescue them again? No of course they don’t. But they don’t want to face what it will take for the banks not to need to be rescued again either.
And not only that but frankly it’s not as if the attitudes towards profit making enterprises I see here in relation to rescued banks is any different from the attitudes one regularly sees about un-rescued banks or other big business. So I don’t necessarily believe that’s what it’s about. Some people just want services but think that the profit that causes those services to be provided is a dirty word.
The difference is illusory. Either way the party asked to pay more can say “deal on our existing terms or not at all”. Yes, the employee might well back down and the bank very rarely will, but there is no difference in principle. I’ve told my bank to fuck off on a fee and had them do so.
And the rest of your post is a strawman since no one is suggesting any different. You are just making shit up so you can indulge in indignant rage about it.
Of course they are. Moynihan seems to think he has the “right” to earn a profit. There is no such thing. You get the “right” to offer your services, and compete for customers. If your business decisions piss off your customers, all you have the right to is declining revenues, declining stock prices and a boot in the ass on your way out the door.
If your competitors are getting by without the fees you want to charge, you have the right to fix your shitty business model before all your customers leave.
Sure it is, especially in this case. The feds limited the fees they could charge in other areas, so the “invented” this one. If your company cut back on your bonus, you might “invent” another type of payment, too.
Big bad ol’ BoA wants to charge customers $5/month to use their debit card. Deal. I think I’ve used a debit card maybe 2 times in my life.
Perhaps, but in my case I don’t wish to subsidize the banks branching out into investment services I never wanted nor needed from them. I was perfectly fine doing my relatively safe banking and loan services with my bank and having low fees, while doing my more risky investing with a brokerage house and paying correspondingly higher fees.
It is one thing to institute such fees for new services or a major change in the service provided. Quite another thing to institute fees on a service that previously had been without fees. I don’t begrudge the banks making a profit, I dislike them mining their customer base to cover loses in risky ventures and services few of those customers want or care about.
Except that debit cards had not been previously without fees. All that is changed where banks opt for charging a fee directly is how the fee is collected.
What sorts of laws are you concerned about in this situation?
I ask because my first inclination was to say that you should stop worrying, because legally you can. But then I thought you wouldn’t have phrased it like that unless there were some unusual situation that did involve a legal constraint against moving your minor daughter’s savings account to a new institution.
Why is this coinsidered reasonable? Why is is not equally reasonable for the banks to accept the reality that they are in a business that is no longer as profitable as it once was? Suck it up, and live with lower revenue.
As others have said, he almost certainly meant the bank had a right to try to earn a profit. I don’t think he actually thinks that he is legally entitled to a profit. If this nitpicking of his wording is the best you can do, your position is pretty inconsequential.
Do you simply not accept that legal limitations have been imposed on their ability to earn on debit cards through merchant fees?
It’s only not as profitable as it once was because of legislation passed by Congress. So, they’re testing the waters to see just how profitable it is. That’s the way business works. Banks are not a public utility.
He should have said, “I get incensed when I think about how those of us at the top make asinine decisions that affect all of you hard working BofA employees. But then I realize I have a couple of houses and eat my cheerios with gold flake and Champagne.”
I agree.
Do you simply not accept that the Durbin Amendment was implemented because the fees being charged were deemed to be several hundred percent more than necessary to cover operating costs? Do you believe that smaller banks not restricted by the Durbin Amendment will not follow suit?
Like the oil companies after recent crisis, I expect to see record banking profits all around in the coming fiscal year.
I talked to an idiot employee at BoA who implied it might not be possible for me do so legally last month. I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know. As I wrote when my husband have time (and when the baby stops getting up three times a night as she did last night) we will investigate this issue further.
Moving our accounts is a complicated pain in the ass. I’m not sure another bank would be any less jerkish. It’s just ridiculous to be told by an insanely overpaid asshole who runs a lousy company that, after imposing a needless fee motivated by sheer greed, that his customers are at fault getting annoyed. Researching banks is just one more thing on my seventeen page to-do list. Damn it.
You know that that’s not necessarily true, right? A lot of banks defaulted people to overdraft protection which resulted in various fees. I think there was provision in the new law that also required the banks to make that process more opt-in/transparent - but do be careful.
Then they’re analogous to notifying your boss that there will be a surcharge on your services for every month that you have to open your own office door even once. But once you apply the surcharge the first time, you’ll open your own door for the rest of the month without further surcharges.
As some of you may already know, I lean a tad leftish. I favor more change, more liberalization of just about every institution in America. But not banks. I think that was one of our biggest mistakes evah, allowing banks to become exciting, go-go-go! enterprises that encourages bright young entrepeneurs to creative financial endeavors.
Banks should be deadly dull. Staffed by anal retentives who wouldn’t pick up a nickel off the street if it didn’t belong to them, obsessed with modest returns on secure investments. In almost all cases, it is a good idea to free creative people from the restraints of outmoded thinking. Banking isn’t one of them.
Oh, and lest I forget…unleash Elizabeth Warren! And I don’t say that just because she’s hot!
Credit cards in Europe are now using chips inside to store information, and not magnetic stripes. From what I read in the Times, more and more stores in Europe no longer have equipment to read the stripes, so your information must be keyed in manually. I don’t know if this is what he meant, but it is a real problem. So we are falling behind.
20 years ago people in the AT&T factory in the Netherlands had smart card which not only paid for coffee in the coffee machine but set it to give you the type of coffee you preferred. Not common in the US yet, though my work badge does have a chip in it.
There are quite a few reasons why chip and pin has been slow to come to the U.S., but its adoption in Europe hasn’t necessarily been a consumer boon. Part of the policy that encouraged British banks, for example, to adopt pin-and-chip is that a) it reduced fraud losses, and b) allowed them to shift fraud loss liability when it did happen from themselves (and the merchant) to the card owner.
At least currently, in the U.S., regulations would prohibit shifting that liability so the bank only gets a portion of the benefit in the change that a British bank sees. Also, the chip cards are 7-10 times more expensive to produce and manage as simple magnetic cards and it would require someone paying to replace the existing POS/ATM infrastructure (each of those card readers you see in a store cost several hundred dollars, though purchase price may have been subsidized by the bank).
So the benefit of reduced (but not eliminated) fraud has to be pretty large to outweigh the increased cost of the new system. And that is a hard sell, the U.K. hasn’t so much seen a reduction in credit card fraud after changing to chip-and-pin but simply a shift in how fraud is committed (less in-store fraud, more online fraud).