Does President Obama really think the banks will lower their executive’s bonuses instead of charging their customers? Come on! I see the end of free checking and more fees coming to the commoner if this happens.
I’m confused…didn’t the large banks (BofA, Wells, JPM) pay back the TARP money plus a hefty return? From what I can tell, the big losses that the govt is being handed are from AIG and the auto companies. What am I missing?
^Read the article I just posted regarding the financial responsibility fee. Ridiculous.
trek7000 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Come on! I see the end of free checking Little tangent: The irony in this statement is that fee based checking would actually be a lot MORE fair than the current fee based system for overdrafts. You think banks are stupid? I personally know people who are right now crunching the data to figure out the best placement and amount to cause the greatest revenue from customers. Fee based would actually be awesome. Banks are supposed to be in the business of lending at a rate higher than their borrowing rate, not figuring out how to maximize fees on checking accounts. Checking accounts should be charged a nominal annual admin fee and purchases/cash withdrawals should be rejected if there are insufficient funds, rather than just allowing it and charging mad fees for what is basically a small loan from the bank.
Annual fees are gone forever. I don’t know what banking world you guys live in, but it’s not 1970 anymore.
steph96 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I’m confused…didn’t the large banks (BofA, > Wells, JPM) pay back the TARP money plus a hefty > return? > > From what I can tell, the big losses that the govt > is being handed are from AIG and the auto > companies. What am I missing? Well Goldman still has how many billions of FDIC insured bonds out there? Also, their prop desk takes crazy risks each day. And when/if they blow up, who will bail them out? Us. They should not be allowed to be a “bank-holding company”. They are a f’ing casino basically. We do not need the current banks for a stable economy, just a banking system. Rant over.
justin88 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Annual fees are gone forever. Forever is a long time.
eureka Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > trek7000 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Come on! I see the end of free checking > > Little tangent: The irony in this statement is > that fee based checking would actually be a lot > MORE fair than the current fee based system for > overdrafts. You think banks are stupid? I > personally know people who are right now crunching > the data to figure out the best placement and > amount to cause the greatest revenue from > customers. Fee based would actually be awesome. > Banks are supposed to be in the business of > lending at a rate higher than their borrowing > rate, not figuring out how to maximize fees on > checking accounts. Checking accounts should be > charged a nominal annual admin fee and > purchases/cash withdrawals should be rejected if > there are insufficient funds, rather than just > allowing it and charging mad fees for what is > basically a small loan from the bank. This is incorrect. Banks are in the business to make money, and fees are one of the biggest sources of revenues for banks. Last time I checked, this was the United States of America, not 1970s China under Mao.
This is a politically motivated and calculated move to appeal to the populist notion of “Banks are bad.” As an actual tax this legislation has zero to negative merit (much in line with everything else that this administration has done thus far) since the main objective should be to get credit to small business, this tax will only serve to to hamper this objective. Steph don’t forget the GSEs those are the biggest losers by far.
adavydov7 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is a politically motivated and calculated > move to appeal to the populist notion of “Banks > are bad.” As an actual tax this legislation has > zero to negative merit (much in line with > everything else that this administration has done > thus far) since the main objective should be to > get credit to small business, this tax will only > serve to to hamper this objective. > > Steph don’t forget the GSEs those are the biggest > losers by far. You’re correct – I forgot the GSEs since they barely get mentioned…gee, I wonder why!
Classifying income as fees rather that interest income helps banks. It also helps them avoid the disclosure of interest rates. If the can have a IRR generated by pure interest vs. one by fees and interest, they will choose the latter. Problem is, this muddies the water when viewing this from a legal rate of interest perspective. Fee on an $100 overdraft = $30 say for 1 week. Interest rate on an overdraft 25% * 7/360 = $0.49. Cost of funds the same. Which looks like a better profit to you? Which is regulated by interest rate legislation? Net effect on the consumer who is the voter/taxpayer that is lender of TARP funds? Math looks pretty simple here.
steph96 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You’re correct – I forgot the GSEs since they > barely get mentioned…gee, I wonder why! I wish I could make this a bumpersticker. God save the sheeple.
@Biz: I actually prefer the high OD fees etc, it teaches people to be mindful and diligent with their finances, something that is sorely lacking in this country.
While the GSEs have some culpability, they have no direct financial transactions with the consumer and exist to the benefit of banks. Banks want them to purchase their assets so that banks are able to raise capital when needed. The practice of using them for the sole purpose of “brokering” loans is not the intended function to create liquidity to the financial system and should have never been as out of control as it was. It was Wall Street and the private sector that circumvented the GSEs and got into the practice of buying questionable loans direct from mortgage brokers/banks where fraud was rampant and selling the securities to pension funds, china, even customers of large banks as an alternative to MMAs in the form of ARS. Several banks were sued for this practice.
^So was it Wall Street too that forced the GSEs to buy mortgages that didn’t meet their specifically set mandate and then lie about it saying the mortgages were prime?
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is incorrect. Banks are in the business to > make money, and fees are one of the biggest > sources of revenues for banks. Last time I > checked, this was the United States of America, > not 1970s China under Mao. I’m just saying what I would like to see. Obviously this forum is biased, but it helps banks in the current climate to think about why people hate them generally. A lot of banks are actually gaining customers doing that.
Well if it was for the FASB with the suspension of mark to market all these banks would be out of business. So screw these sham bonuses
Ok, I just want to say as a former GSE employee, the GSEs are probably the most culpable of any of the institutions in our financial collapse. Their insatiable appetite for loans, their poor economic and financial models, their deep, thorough ties to incompetent congressmen, and their bullsh*t “affordable housing” targets led to the greatest increase in real estate liquidity of all time, rivaled only by Bolivia’s real estate boom sparked by the legalization of cocaine.
^Thank you!
^^^Definitely agree on the GSEs. But, we’re back to the obvious begining: The government was responsible, the fed was responsible, the GSEs were responsible, the mortgage brokers were responsible, the banks were responsible, the homebuyers were responsible. What happens when everyone is responsible? Then no one is.