Speaking of Washington Mutual, this comes from their 99 consolidated statement of income.
Depositor and other retail banking fees: 763,586 up from 568,376(98)
Securities fees and commissions: 271,329 up from 192,126(98)
Insurance fees and commissions: 43,085 up from 42,254(98)
I am glad you are posting on this thread, DeadBeef, your experience in banking is really interesting.
That is a lot of money. However, on just one of the bankruptcy issues I am working on, institutional lenders are owed somewhere between $2 billion and $4 billion. A handful of banks and one insolvent company have eaten up the entire nation’s ATM fees.
I think elasticity is a bigger issue, but upon reflection, perhaps it only applies to urban areas where people can walk two minutes and use another ATM.
Thank you, Green Bean, for your spirited defense. It has been way too long since I’ve seen you and Jeff.
Ace and I have had some ugly disagreements in the past. If I had been able to contain more of my sheer aggravation with him, I would be standing on much firmer moral ground. But I honestly don’t mind the potshots, because they make my questionable rhetoric look better by comparison. 
Of course they are making more money in fees, their business is expanding.
Maeglin: You’re experience in banking appears to be more in-depth and lengthy than my own as mine arose out of supporting the IT functions for a large institution and its’ branches. I had the fortunate (?) experience of having a behind the scenes look at how the bank I worked for was planning to make money off the customers through fee income. This money was to be used primarily to offset bad decisions made by higher ups that never paid the fees in the first place (see private banking). I’m not sure if I’m supporting NutMagnets’ OP but my two cents has been spent and I’ll move on.
For those who are interested in the history of how ATM fees came to be (only one opinion), see the following – it’s not a bad read.
**It’s more complicated than this.
Let’s say bancostupido makes some bad loans and the borrowers default. (Bancostupido will probably not lose 100% of these loans because there is usually some collateral.) Because of these loan losses, bancostupido finds it no longer meets the solvency ratios prescribed by the FDIC (banks must maintain a certain percentage of their assets in liquid assets and must have certain “scores” when the value of their assets in various categories are totaled). As its asset value deteriorates, bancostupid may borrow from the Fed but, usually before its assets have negative value, the FDIC will step in to force a sale or liquidation of the bank (as a highly-regulated entity bancostupido makes monthly reports of its financial position to the FDIC and its other bank regulators). If its assets are not negative, a sale is arranged and nobody loses any money except for bancostupido’s shareholders. If it cannot be sold for more than it owes its depositors, then the FDIC will pay off any shortchanged depositors up to $100,000 per account (this is the safety net Lib is referring to). While this liability of the FDIC can be large, it is like insurance–all banks pay into a fund that is there for this purpose and no taxpayer money is involved.
Only in the actually pretty unusual case of “too big to fail” or an exhaustion of the insurance fund because of multiple losses in a single year does a government/taxpayer “bailout” occur. “Too big to fail” means the bank cannot be sold and the regulators decide it is cheaper to continue to operate it despite its lack of technical solvency (by providing more capital) or that failure would seriously spook the markets and would be a public policy mistake. “Too big to fail” was Continental Bank in the late '80s(?). FSLIC, the S&L insurance fund, was nearly exhausted by the multiple S&L failures of the late '80s. Since FSLIC (like the FDIC) is a government entity, it is backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government, and taxpayer money will replenish it if necessary (the safety net for depositors, as indicated).
So, yes, there have been scandals, there is such a thing as “too big to fail,” and payouts from the insurance funds do occur. Currently, however, government/taxpayer bailouts that go beyond the insurance funds are rare. Remember that the shareholders will always lose in a bank failure, but the taxpayers will not necessarily lose (except to the extent that banks end up paying higher FDIC insurance fund contributions to replenish and such fees get ultimately passed on to consumers).
Hey, Maeglin likes that kind of thing.
Also, I could post chapter and verse detailing who wronged whom, but in truth, it’s all water under the bridge. I corrected my ‘potshot’ at Maeglin and he seems to have taken it under some consideration; as I will with your thoughts.
-Ace
Hmm. Stick this up there at the end of the first sentence would you? → 
Thanks ever so.
Thing is, I like it only when I am actually wrong.
What exactly is the justification for charging the customer twice for the same transaction?
Excellent question and I honestly don’t know other than it’s a damn good way of making more money. See the following URL for more info: http://www.stopatmfees.com/newpage3.htm
This link does a better job of telling the story than I can.
Cheers.
:smack:
FYI - Cerowyn is out of the country right now and may not be able to respond.
Then again, he simply may not want to respond to the OP, as it seems somewhat misdirected and over the top.
Or he may be covered in naked oiled Japanese sex slaves and not give a shit about this thread, period.
Al Franken ran for President - and won! - on the very idea that NutMagnet is espousing, so don’t knock it.
Poor Cerowyn, he’ll be heartbroken if he misses his first pitting! I hope he has access at his office.
Oh well, I guess I’ll just have to find some naked oiled sex slaves to console him when we meet up.
Well, I guess this would be the appropriate moment to notice my first Pitting. Cool.
Nah, Una’s right.
So, Sublight, I’m thinking this kinda means Shinjuku or Roppongi rather than Harajuku this time. I mean, for the naked oiled Japanese sex slaves. 
Good for you. You could have left out the $12M figure, though. It’s not very impressive.
Huh? Are you dense?
Are you using this excerpt because of the word “provisions”? Do you think it equals “fees”? What is meant here, is that Bank One increased their “Penny for a rainy day”-fund, so to speak. They did so by using some of their profit to increase said reserve. It has nothing to do with the fees they charge their clients, which may have gone down for all I know. There’s no way to tell from this information.
First of all, Bank of Montreal’s decrease in profit cannot be attributed to defaulted loans alone.
Secondly, as within every corporation, a bank’s management wants to make all services profitable. No use providing a service if it’s done at a loss, right? Well, guess what: antiquated cash transactions like cashing a cheque are fucking expensive. You claim it doesn’t cost the bank $20 - I’m telling you that it probably costs even more.
Thirdly, if you really DID work in banking, you must not have been paying a lot of attention. Yeesh, the ignorance.
You guys are gonna make some of those sex slaves male, for me, right?
Hey, if you’re gonna join us, I’ll see what I can find!
Btw, as for the oil, there’s a place in Ikebukuro we can go to that uses olive instead of the usual baby oil. The smell’s a bit strong, but it goes nicely with the dinner service.
Coldfire
It wasn’t meant to be impressive. It was meant to be informative. Leaving it out might have given you the impression I was attempting to inflate my experience. Admittedly, it’s not extensive. Nor by the way, is it recent.
No. I’m not dense. I didn’t present it in reference to their fees. I presented it as evidence that an increase in provisions for bad loans indicates that more bad loans were made - a result of ineptitude. In retrospect, I agree this doesn’t present a strong case.
is correct. It’s about 70%. The accompanying links states:
is not true in all cases. There are such things a loss leaders in retail. Banks historically gave out toasters and other crappy “gifts” to entice you into opening an account. There are other examples, but your point is taken, they’re in business to make a profit.
I agree, but why look to the customer to offset this cost? Why not look to the profit center? Isn’t this akin to a manufacturer looking to its suppliers to offset a drop in sales? Doesn’t this seem misdirected?
My original statement was:
First of all, I did not condemn the entire banking industry.
Secondly, just because I didn’t present the annual statement of every fucking bank, doesn’t mean there is not a wealth of evidence that many banks have lost moeny, gone broke, or engaged in bad business practices as a result of ineptitude.
Does no one remember the Harken scandal and the Stephens Bank?
or Security Pacific
http://www.fredlaw.com/articles/banking/bank_0008_jgk.html
or Lincoln S&L
http://www.netmagic.net/~franklin/SK2.html
How about the '90s bank crisis, and the bailout by the Fed?
http://www.spotlight.org/02_25_01/Greenspan_Stuck_Taxpayers_With/greenspan_stuck_taxpayers_with.html
and
http://csf.colorado.edu/debt/1999/msg00252.html
I stand by my statement that most banks are inept in the practise of the investing their depositors’ money prudently and wisely and I maintain that the implementation of outlandish fees is both misdirected and an attempt to cover losses from operations.
But I don’t know what “evidence” will suffice for both these positions. I obviously haven’t convinced anyone, so there we are.
GreenBean Yeah OK. I used plotz as a “he spewed shit…” sorta thing.
Maeglin pardon my knee-jerk reaction to your post supporting my position, but it was a little hard to see past the “schmuck” lead in. Thanks, :wally
dantheman Mort Furd is correct. And the reason I suggested Maeglin “stay out of it” was that he stated that the thread “stunk”.
Miller Yeah. I forgot to link to the thread in the OP. I did add it later.
And the “evidence” for my postion is largely empirical. Banks have been in the news for the last few years stating losses, experiencing scandals and the like. Additionally, I see increases in the number and amounts of fees both personally, among friends and in the news. The connection between the two is, in my mind, linked.
So to the dissenters who actually have an opion, not those who have driven by to sling a few epithets, what is your position?
Are bank fees not rising? Are they rising reasonably? Unreasonably? Does it have anything to do with their investment acumen? Are banks doing a bang up job of investing?
Please present cites, documented experiences, and your qualifications for having an opinion.
why should we? you were the one making an assertion, 'tis up to you to prove it. especially since you called some one out for the audacity for asking for proof. and after all this, you sum it up with (essentially) ‘banks have been in the news lately and stuff’
NutM, I have some sympathy for your rant about high fees. BUT, please let’s get the facts right and ditch the conspiracy theories. Geez.
** I checked Bank of Montreal’s website. They do not appear to mean anything unusual by “investment banking.” This is their securities business. These losses are not from loans, but from stock market and similar investments, as well as securities market services.
No, it’s not. Bank customers are not only depositors; they also purchase services from the bank. The analogy is not exact enough.
Agreed–but geez, why didn’t you stop there? Your cites are jokes. The first one accuses Greenspan of lowering interest rates in 1991 to make Citibank profitable for its new owner. Pure conspiracy theory/no hard evidence. The second howls about how the public is deceived because the FDIC insurance fund only has cash assets equal to less than 1% of all bank deposits, that there will be a great depression any day now and that all depositors will lose their money in the meltdown. There is no attempt to discuss FDIC loss history or the asset/liability ratios that are designed to make this level of funds actuarially sound. Link number 3 is to a book review. Link 4 is a facially partisan discussion of George Bush’s involvement with an oil company.
“Most?”
Why is it important to you to link scandal, ineptitude, politics, loan losses or anything else to fees? Surely the more cynical and accurate view is that banks will charge high fees whenever they can do so profitably (i.e., even when their making boatloads of money on loans and investments)?