Maeglin: People have a harder time agreeing with you if they think you’re being rude to them at the same time. I don’t mean to be guilty of the same thing, so let me rephrase:
Your inimitable “plus I think he’s a schmuck,” sardonic phrasing detracts from your points, and causes even those (not just me) on your side of the argument to bridle and consider you a crank. Totally unsurprising, that’s all I meant to say. Hope you take this in the spirit it’s sent – I won’t call you a crank again if it bothers you so.
I do take your remarks in the spirit they are sent, Ace.
Honestly, I dish out contempt where I feel it is merited. I can live without people agreeing with me. I can live with people bridling and thinking I am a crank. If anything, I think it’s fun and amusing. So no, calling me a crank has never bothered me. Quite the reverse, in fact, since it highlights our substantial differences.
So, any particular reason you couldn’t have put your cites and reasoning in the original thread, so people wouldn’t think you were a “dumb shit parroting moronic prejudice about a subject they know less than nothing about”? I ask because you seem to have neglected to link to the thread that got your panties all bunched up.
You are right about one thing, though. Cerowyn doesn’t know you. Neither do I, nor Maeglin, nor anyone else around here. Why should we assume that you have expertise in this field when you’ve done nothing (until this thread, at least) to show that you do, in fact, know what the fuck you’re talking about?
Well, he still hasn’t supported his claim. These two assertions — (1) banks are inept at investing and use fees to mitigate their losses, and (2) these two banks lost some money — are not the same. And although Maeglin attempted to help with knowledgable testimony about bad loans, that still doesn’t speak either to investing generally or recouping losses.
Frankly, I thought that government itself was the safety net for bank losses.
Okay, I’m going to jump in here, neophyte posting experience and all.
I worked for a medium sized S&L a few years back (VP of IT) and had a close working relationship with the bank president. We would sometimes go to lunch and he’d tell me about how the holding company had been directing the bank into making low income housing loans to shady builders who often times went bankrupt only to come back under a different name. The OTS auditors caught wind of it and forced to close us down if we didn’t increase our loan loss reserves to cover the bad loans being made. Guess what we did to help offset some of that needed revenue? Yep, we raised fees to just a hair under what the national banks were charging and continued to tell our customers that we offered more ‘personal’ service. We’d process debits before credits and charge overdraft fees when we knew damn well that the deposit made earlier that day would have covered the debits coming through that evening. Some customers complained and left us for credit unions but the majority swallowed hard and kept on doing business with us.
:eek:
The idea that banks use fees to mitigate their losses, for the record, makes no sense to me as well. They charge fees simply because they can. Since you, me, and most other people will use ATMs regardless, they can get away with them. Commercial lending and consumer banking have very little to do with each other, in my experience. Such as it is.
Well, I tend to deal with banks like Morgan Chase, Citigroup, CSFB, et al. To my knowledge, there is no way they could offset bad commercial loans with fees. They are practically out billions of dollars due to bankruptcy and fraud.
quote:
The idea that banks use fees to mitigate their losses, for the record, makes no sense to me as well. They charge fees simply because they can. Since you, me, and most other people will use ATMs regardless, they can get away with them. Commercial lending and consumer banking have very little to do with each other, in my experience. Such as it is.
Actually, I would disagree with you that commercial lending and consumer banking have little to do with each other. While that may not be the case at all banks, it was the case for the one I worked for. Banks use fees to mitigate their losses because they can! They raise their fees because they can. We pay these fees because we, in many ways, need their services (i.e. direct deposit, consumer loans, commercial loans, et al). Laws of supply and demand apply - see the ever changing price of gasoline if you’re in doubt. Funny thing is that insurance companies (e.g. State Farm, METLife) are getting into the business of offering banking services now and guess what, their fees are very low - just like banks used to be 10 years ago. Go figure…
When ATM charges first came into being, I do recall the banks claiming that they have to cover their losses on running their ATMs. It’s quite the silly lie, since most folks will gladly pay for the convenience factor, rather than stand in line at the branch.
How this relates to Banking Loan losses I can’t begin to fathom.
Those losses are usually covered by bail-outs from their respective governments and the public dollar. See “privitized gains and socialized losses,” also “too big to fail.”
What about the ATM fees that get you both ways, in which you get charged a fee for using another bank’s ATM and a fee by your own bank for using the other bank’s ATM?
quote:
Those losses are usually covered by bail-outs from their respective governments and the public dollar.
public dollar
Gee that sounds like fee income coming from consumers who bank with that bank, huh? When all else fails and you cannot screw your customers out of more money (fees) to the point that you’ll frighten them away, THEN go ask for help from your respective government. Be sure to make a really big mess of things such that it can become a campaign issue for the local politicians.
Losses come and go very quickly, too, and they can strike at any time.
I would argue that the elasticity of demand for for ATM services is pretty high. If, say, Chase wanted to make up for $1billion it tossed down the Enron toilet, it couldn’t just raise its ATM fees by a quarter, because then me (and every other New Yorker) would walk a half a block to use a different ATM. Fee revenues slashed. Furthermore, commercial banking right now appears to be booming, so lots of banks are slashing fees and providing more services. I am sure every other New Yorker who doesn’t live in the East River has noticed the Washington Mutual blitz this year. Free this, free that, etc.
That’s partly true, and I can see how it would grate. But the fact is, that’s what the money is there for. Banks are always going to write bad loans, hence they are always going to be diluting their own exposure by borrowing from the central bank. We don’t really lose a whole lot when ordinary (and by ordinary I mean multimillion dollar) borrowers default.
But when they all default at once or the defaulters are preposterously huge, problems arise.
<snip> Last year ATM users paid fees that poured an estimated $4 billion into financial institution coffers.
I haven’t lived up east for awhile now but I sure do miss some of the scenery in upstate New York. I get to travel that way sometimes and it’s always nice to visit the Big Apple.
NutMagnet: I don’t know squat about banking, but I do know that you used the word “plotz” incorrectly in your OP. It means “to explode.” Sometimes it means “to shit,” but only in the sense of exploding. “I’m so excited I could plotz!” or whatever.
Ace: You seem to be unhappy that some dopers, who liked you when they met you, have come to dislike you. (I’ll dig up a cite if you want, but you know it’s the truth). But how can people like you when you go around taking potshots at people? I don’t know what “history” you have with Maeglin, but I do know that you jumped into this thread just to take shots at him. I like Maeglin a lot, and I don’t like it when you take potshots at him. If you disagree with him, fine. Make your case. Nobody will hold that against you. But don’t be surprised if people don’t like you when you go around taking unwarranted shots at their friends.
Decaf?