Posted on 10/02/2011 5:03:42 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Citibank is next with a new banking fee
The Bank of America rival says it will begin charging for checking accounts unless customers keep more on deposit.
By E. Scott Reckard, Los Angeles Times
September 30, 2011, 6:12 p.m.
Another day, another new bank fee.
As the uproar swelled over Bank of America Corp.'s planned $5 monthly charge for debit card use, megabank rival Citigroup Inc. was notifying many Citibank customers that they soon would have to start paying for their checking accounts unless they maintained significantly higher balances.
Letters are going out across the country alerting Citi customers of account changes, said the bank's retail banking chief, Stephen Troutner. In many cases, that means customers will have to maintain fatter balances to avoid fees, although Troutner said a basic account option makes dodging charges easier.
Higher fees are the new reality in retail banking, where regulations adopted in the aftermath of the bank bailouts have reduced revenue from several controversial fees by billions of dollars. At the same time, banks have seen their lending income decline due to the sluggish economy and low interest rates.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
P!
If you don’t “need” a mega bank, switch to a smaller local one. Most of the smaller banks are in good shape, don’t have the huge overhead the megas have and many don’t charge or charge less for credit or debit cards. SHOP and SAVE!
One time withdrawal....pay with cash for everything. Maybe time consuming but I can’t I afford that extra fee. Those that refuse cash will not get my business.
>>Most of the smaller banks are in good shape,
Correctomundo WellyP.
There were some banks and credit unions who took their responsibility to perform due diligence seriously, recognized the subprime fraud for what it was early on, exercised fiduciary responsibility to their depositors, and steered clear of the sub-prime a$$paper machete iceberg.
Others, not so much — Citigroup and Ricar(D)o Perry’s Texicostan Enterprise Fund, for example.
>>every Bank has to charge this fee
Incorrect. The fee is not mandated by Dodd-Fwank.
It’s something predators like Citigruop have cooked up all by themselves — and it’s time the American People gave THEM a cashectomy.
When the Democrats added the provision to Dodd-Frank that put price controls on the fees that banks could charge merchants for transactions, I thought, “This is just going to come back and bite consumers in the butt. They’ll have to start charging for debit cards.”
I figured it was an oversight or a mistake by the Democrats.
Now, after watching how the press has successfully spun this into another story about Evil Capitalists instead of Evil Democrats, I’m not so sure it was a mistake. Even Freepers are falling for it. “The Democrats bought us a free lunch, and if we don’t get the free lunch, it’s because of greedy banksters.” Yeah, right.
This fee is not mandated.
What is mandated is lower rates levied on merchant accounts.
So the banks have to hike fees elsewhere to make up the loss.
[the banks have to hike fees elsewhere to make up the loss.]
They don’t have to. They’re free NOT to. It’s still a market where consumer choice exists. So some will implement fees and others won’t, and the market will respond accordingly.
You s’pose Wall Mart is really going to pass on to the consumer a cut of the debit card fees their boy’s legislation will redirect into their coffers?
I don’t.
Meanwhile, predators like Citibank will continue with its credit card bidness whilst smaller institutions, for whom those debit fees represent a larger portion of gross revenues, will have to adjust.
Screw Citigroup and the Royal Saudi Horse it’s riding upon.
No, but they will likely hire more workers.
Bank of America is already struggling. Any fees loaded on them by the Gov't will be passed on to the consumer to prevent them from having to fire more people.
I own a struggling business. You can bet that if the Gov't mandates a cost to me my first though is how to pass it on. It's either that or tighten my belt further which means possibly going out of business.
Big Business is bleeding employees. It's a good thing to NOT want to see it continue through increased regs/fees, despite the socialists cheering for that very thing.
Not so fast there Mr Third Eye. This has more to do with Visa and Mastercard logo’d debit cards. Banks do have costs from that. Which go up all the time to cover losses from fraud. A bank issuing it’s own debit card would not have to increase anything.
Most of them are not increasing the fees for ATM cards, which are the same thing as a "bank issuing its own debit card." (In the absence of one of the transaction-clearing networks like Visa or MC, there's no way to transfer money from the bank to the merchant).
The so-called "Durbin Amendment" to the Dodd-Frank bill mandated a reduction in fees charged to merchants for a debit card transaction from an average of 44 cents to 12 cents. That's a $16 billion hit to the banks. Only a Democrat like Durbin would expect that to just disappear into the ether. Anyone else would have seen an end to free checking accounts, fees for using debit cards, and more nickel-and-diming until the $16 billion is made up.
>>Bank of America is already struggling.
Well, maybe they shouldn’t of eaten all that CountryWide A$$paper.
They and Citigroup evidently missed the double entente meaning of ESAD - the lesser known being if you do, you will.
Bon appetit to both of them.
Maybe not...and maybe it would have helped had the Gov't not pushed banks into sub-primes.
Regardless...they are struggling now and consumers suffer when they do.
Let’s hate the banks like the Lefties already do. And admit that they (the Communists) have always been right about those perfidious dirty Rothchilds.)
The Chicago socialist Dick Durbin never met a bank regulation he didn't like.
That's a huge loss for the banks and so clear to those who understand economics that the cost would be passed on.
[they are struggling now and consumers suffer when they do.]
Nobody is forcing consumers to do business with BoA/Countrywide.
If consumers are suffering because of that voluntary relationship, then they should take their business elsewhere - to one of the smaller banks and credit unions who exercised due diligence and didn’t screw their depositors/stockholders with fiduciary negligence.
Consumers suffer because credit tightens, not to mention decreased employment rolls. Trickle down is real.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.