Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
How do you see that as helping the big banks?Big Banks Lose Billions On
Looks like yes. The OWS movement encouraged people to move their money from big banks ot credit unions in order to hurt the banks and instead ended up helping them.
Another win for capitalism and freedom of choice.
from the linked pieceHow do you see that as helping the big banks?Big Banks Lose Billions On
Looks like yes. The OWS movement encouraged people to move their money from big banks ot credit unions in order to hurt the banks and instead ended up helping them.
Another win for capitalism and freedom of choice.
By removing hundreds of small-time accounts with low balances, they would actually be saving money on their premiums. Housel explains:
. . . in the past banks could earn money [from customers with lower balances] from overdraft fees and debit interchange fees and a lot of that has been scaled down through recent regulations
People are going to be moving to credit unions, and thats good for them because theyre going to have lower fees, theyre going to have better service, theyre going to have the feeling that they are investing in their community.
And then the banks are going to be better off because they are getting rid of their least-profitable or not profitable clients.
Big Banks Lose Billions On
Looks like yes. The OWS movement encouraged people to move their money from big banks ot credit unions in order to hurt the banks and instead ended up helping them.
Another win for capitalism and freedom of choice.
Big Banks Lose Billions On
Looks like yes. The OWS movement encouraged people to move their money from big banks ot credit unions in order to hurt the banks and instead ended up helping them.
Another win for capitalism and freedom of choice.
Looks like I was right. http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/192888-nov-5-and-8is-dump-your-bank-day.html#post4367090
Big Banks Lose Billions On
Looks like yes. The OWS movement encouraged people to move their money from big banks ot credit unions in order to hurt the banks and instead ended up helping them.
Another win for capitalism and freedom of choice.
from the linked pieceHow do you see that as helping the big banks?Big Banks Lose Billions On
Looks like yes. The OWS movement encouraged people to move their money from big banks ot credit unions in order to hurt the banks and instead ended up helping them.
Another win for capitalism and freedom of choice.
By removing hundreds of small-time accounts with low balances, they would actually be saving money on their premiums. Housel explains:
. . . in the past banks could earn money [from customers with lower balances] from overdraft fees and debit interchange fees and a lot of that has been scaled down through recent regulations
People are going to be moving to credit unions, and thats good for them because theyre going to have lower fees, theyre going to have better service, theyre going to have the feeling that they are investing in their community.
And then the banks are going to be better off because they are getting rid of their least-profitable or not profitable clients.
======================================Banks aren't the enemy. Banks lend money to small businesses to become big businesses. Banks have always been the backbone of America's prosperity until the early 90's when a democrat majority under a pervert president forced banks to make bad loans. The federal government actually threatened banks with civil rights litigation if they refused to make risky loans. The Fannie Mae private sector/federal government monstrosity guaranteed the bad loans until Fannie went under during a democrat majority in congress.
Big Banks Lose Billions On
Looks like yes. The OWS movement encouraged people to move their money from big banks ot credit unions in order to hurt the banks and instead ended up helping them.
Another win for capitalism and freedom of choice.
No they aren't. That's why people are pissed at them.Banks aren't the enemy. Banks lend money to small businesses to become big businesses.
That's not even true. The federal government threatened banks who refused to make loans to black people with equal or better qualifications than the whites that the banks did made loans to. There's a big difference.Banks have always been the backbone of America's prosperity until the early 90's when a democrat majority under a pervert president forced banks to make bad loans. The federal government actually threatened banks with civil rights litigation if they refused to make risky loans.
I don't believe in guilt by association.
Not for people, and not for banks, either.
This clueless painting of all corporations and all of Wall Street with broad brush strokes is one of my major complaints about the OWS movement.
Bank of America Plaza becomes Atlanta's priciest repo - Bank of America Plaza, the South’s tallest skyscraper and an Atlanta skyline icon, was taken back by its lender at a foreclosure auction at the Fulton County Courthouse.
Bank overdraft fees were considered a plague among customers but a boon to financial institutions. And while the overdraft fees trended down in the immediate aftermath of the Dodd-Frank reform, overdraft fee revenue is on the rise again. A report out from Moebs Services shows overdraft fee revenue rising 2.1% through the first half of 2012, to $31.5 billion, a rise of $700 million. Do consumers never learn? Bank overdrafts have made a strong comeback this year due to demand from consumers who see the fees as not as onerous as they used to be, according to the Lake Bluff, Ill.-based economic analysis firm.
In June 2008, Moebs says bank overdrafts accumulated $36.8 billion in revenues for financial institutions. But by June 2011, overdrafts had fallen to $30.8 billion. Banks aimed to make up lost overdraft revenue by adding fees to ATM transactions, checking and savings accounts, and cutting debit and credit card rewards programs. Consumers should not expect banks to curb their account fees or add perks to card rewards programs just because overdraft fees are rising. Don't expect banks to rein in overdrafts, either, even though Congress and consumer advocacy groups are watching closely, Moebs says.
"It is important to notice this ... is playing out against the backdrop of increased scrutiny of overdrafts by the government and consumer advocates," explains Michael Moebs, economist and CEO of Moebs Services. "Despite regulation and legislation, such as 2008's Truth in Savings, 2010's Reg E opt-in requirements and the 2011 overdraft guidelines issued by the FDIC, consumers' use of overdrafts shows no indication of going away." Moebs also reports that the median cost of a bank overdraft rose by $1, to $28 per overdraft -- still way lower than what so many saw on bank statements back in 2008 and 2009.
Geography counts, too. The Moebs data says bank consumers in Green Bay, Wis., paid, on average, $8 per checking account overdraft, while consumers in Gainesville, Fla., were socked with overdraft fees as high as $45. Most banks stick customers with overdraft fees of between $20 and $29 (51% of all U.S. banks, Moebs says). But 43% are also in the $30 to $39 range. The data suggests that consumers have more power than they think if they shop around. "Price diversity allows the consumer to opt for a low price overdraft service with a financial institution which has a safety net approach, as opposed to choosing a more expensive approach at a depository whose policy is to treat overdrafts as penalties," Moebs says.
Source
