# Vent about Banks



## QuickSilver (Mar 31, 2015)

I've been banking at the same branch for over 30 years.  They were recently taken over by a larger bank.  Suddenly, I am being charged for paper statements.  $3 a month for checking, and $3 a quarter for savings.   I called and complained and got it waived, but the savings account charge has gotten me riled.  Even though I'm not being charged... the absolute crooked thievery has me peeved.  

I keep a small savings account for emergency use.  In it I have $30,000    Last year, I received my interest statement.  I received a whopping $6 in interest for the privilege of keeping that money there... and letting them use it to MAKE MONEY for themselves.  Then came the charge of $3 a quarter.. for a total of $12 a year to receive 4 paper savings statements.   Do the math.    I PAY them $12.  They give me $6..   SOOOO  in essence, I am paying them $6 a year to keep my money and make loans with interest.. which I am not seeing.   It's cheaper to keep that money in a mattress.  Is it a wonder why Elizabeth Warren and others are at war with these thieves?   They are almost worse than organized crime.   Something is VERY wrong with our system.


----------



## Don M. (Mar 31, 2015)

Yeah...the rate of return on savings at the bank is almost an insult...and then, if you Do get any meaningful interest, it has to be added to your income at tax time.  What a racket!  I suppose the ultimate blame for these ridiculously low interest rates has to reside at the Fed...as they are still trying to offset the damage done to our economy during the Bush years, and the stupidity that led to the Housing Bubble.


----------



## tnthomas (Mar 31, 2015)

The thieves will have their(and your) money, it's what they do.   .25%(or less) on savings is ludicrous, but putting it in a coffee can and burying it is appealing but a hassle.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 31, 2015)

I wasn't too infuriated about the piddley  poor interest of $6.  It is my emergency fund and I like having it completely accessible. So I guess there's a price to be paid for convenience..   HOWEVER, when they started charging me $12 a year for paper statements, my hair set on fire..  As if it wasn't enough to use my money to make money, I have to pay them for the privilege of letting them do so.    We.. the middle class are taking it bending over and what can we do about it?  It's jus wrong on so many levels.


----------



## Don M. (Mar 31, 2015)

One of our banks started charging for paper statements about 5 years ago...we fixed that....moved that account to another bank.  I've never seen a bank that was in business to do me a favor.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 31, 2015)

Don M. said:


> One of our banks started charging for paper statements about 5 years ago...we fixed that....moved that account to another bank.  I've never seen a bank that was in business to do me a favor.



That's what I threatened to do, and they waived the fees for me..


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 31, 2015)

I hate all banks but my favorite one to hate is Bank of America for many reasons.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 31, 2015)

I don't trust any of them.  But I don't want to keep money in my mattress so I hold my nose.


----------



## Lon (Mar 31, 2015)

I love my bank because I get free checks, it's online, pays  interest on balances, no monthly charges of any kind, has a great debit card with 100% reimbursement for other bank ATM's and no foreign trans action fees. 

http://content.schwab.com/web/retail/public/get-started/checking/


----------



## Glinda (Mar 31, 2015)

QS, you know, your money would earn more in a CD ladder and you can get them in varying time periods.  You'd have to give up some liquidity on some of it, though.


----------



## BobF (Mar 31, 2015)

Don M. said:


> Yeah...the rate of return on savings at the bank is almost an insult...and then, if you Do get any meaningful interest, it has to be added to your income at tax time.  What a racket!  I suppose the ultimate blame for these ridiculously low interest rates has to reside at the Fed...as they are still trying to offset the damage done to our economy during the Bush years, and the stupidity that led to the Housing Bubble.



You really have to go back further that the Bush years, you can also include Clinton years and maybe even some years earlier.   Remember Franks was involved in much of the Freddy and Fanny problems.

http://spectator.org/articles/42211/true-origins-financial-crisis

*The True Origins of This Financial Crisis*

         As opposed to a desperate liberal legend.
By Peter J. Wallison – From the February 2009 issue

Two narratives seem to be forming to describe the underlying causes of the financial crisis. One, as outlined in a _New York Times_  front-page story on Sunday, December 21, is that President Bush  excessively promoted growth in home ownership without sufficiently  regulating the banks and other mortgage lenders that made the bad loans.  The result was a banking system suffused with junk mortgages, the  continuing losses on which are dragging down the banks and the economy.  The other narrative is that government policy over many  years--particularly the use of the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie  Mae and Freddie Mac to distort the housing credit system-- underlies  the current crisis. The stakes in the competing narratives are high. The  diagnosis determines the prescription. If the _Times_ diagnosis  prevails, the prescription is more regulation of the financial system;  if instead government policy is to blame, the prescription is to  terminate those government policies that distort mortgage lending.

 There really isn’t any question of which approach is factually correct: right on the front page of the _Times_ edition of December 21 is a chart that shows the growth of home ownership in the United States since 1990. In 1993 it was 63 percent; by the end of the Clinton administration it was 68 percent. The growth in the Bush administration was about 1 percent. The _Times_  itself reported in 1999 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were under  pressure from the Clinton administration to increase lending to  minorities and low-income home buyers--a policy that necessarily  entailed higher risks. Can there really be a question, other than in the  fevered imagination of the _Times_, where the push to reduce lending standards and boost home ownership came from?

 The  fact is that neither political party, and no administration, is  blameless; the honest answer, as outlined below, is that government  policy over many years caused this problem. The regulators, in both the  Clinton and Bush administrations, were the enforcers of the reduced  lending standards that were essential to the growth in home ownership  and the housing bubble.

(And it continues on)


----------



## Ken N Tx (Apr 1, 2015)

Lon said:


> I love my bank because I get free checks, it's online, pays  interest on balances, no monthly charges of any kind, has a great debit card with 100% reimbursement for other bank ATM's and no foreign trans action fees.


...No charges from our bank..

I remeber reading (long ago) that some Chicago banks wanted to impose a one dollar transaction fee if you went up and used a live teller!! I believe opposition to this forced them to drop that idea..


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 1, 2015)

Glinda said:


> QS, you know, your money would earn more in a CD ladder and you can get them in varying time periods.  You'd have to give up some liquidity on some of it, though.




Not worried about what it earns...  It's just there...  I only wanted to point out how banks are robbing people blind..  and it's just so crooked.  People are actually paying the bank  to gamble with their money.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Apr 1, 2015)

BOA charges no fees if you carry a minimum balance of specific amounts.  What they do with my money is their business as I enjoy the convenience of their electronic services online and elsewhere...


----------



## DoItMyself (Apr 1, 2015)

Still using a paper system is a waste of resources.  Everything is available online; paper is obsolete and should incur a surcharge for the luddites that feel they need them.


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 1, 2015)

DoItMyself said:


> Still using a paper system is a waste of resources.  Everything is available online; paper is obsolete and should incur a surcharge for the luddites that feel they need them.




I don't see it that way and I absolutely REFUSE to bank online...  It's asking for trouble IMO..  I got the fee waived for that reason..  They DON'T need that money.


----------



## GeorgiaXplant (Apr 1, 2015)

Two words: credit unions!


----------



## Ralphy1 (Apr 1, 2015)

Credit unions do not have the scope of services that I find convenient...


----------



## GeorgiaXplant (Apr 1, 2015)

scope of services? for instance?


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 1, 2015)

I don't use a bank for anything but checking and a small emergency fund..


----------



## Ralphy1 (Apr 1, 2015)

One service in particular was the availability of ATMs in most locations in my traveling days...


----------



## QuickSilver (Apr 1, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> One service in particular was the availability of ATMs in most locations in my traveling days...



Believe it or not... I have never used an ATM... nor do I plan to.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Apr 1, 2015)

Strange, very strange...


----------



## GeorgiaXplant (Apr 1, 2015)

ATMs? I can use any ATM anywhere, and my credit union refunds the other institution's charge. 

My credit union pays interest on the first $25K in checking. Has mortgage/home equity loans, auto/boat/personal loans, CDs, savings and the list goes on. They can do everything a bank can do, and it costs a lot less.

I have a small checking account in a bank in my home town in Michigan, and I can transfer money into or out of it. When I transfer money from my CR account to the bank, it's there the next morning. When I transfer money from the bank to my CR account, it comes out of the bank account the instant they get it. They can take "up to three business days" to actually deposit the money to my CR account...and they do because they can. While they have _my_ money for those three days, they're earning interest on it. 

Say 10 or 50 or 100 bank customers transfer money from my bank to another institution every day. Imagine how much money the bank makes in the three-day period between deducting it from the customers' accounts and depositing it to the designated institutions.

Yanno what? While the bank is making money on my transfer, I'm _not_ making money on it.

Banks do this; credit unions don't.

I'm all for every business making a fair profit. I'm not all for any business making a profit that's _more_ than fair, and using my money to do it!


ETA: Ralphy, minimum balance? My credit union doesn't require a minimum balance and charges no fees. What do you suppose your bank does with your minimum balance? What they do with your money is their business? Excuse me?


----------

