Fee Fighters by AnthonyT

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

I think the idea of giving the people a clear, informed choice and letting them spend their dollars where they want to is called "free market capitalism" or some such.

Odd to see Rappy come out so strongly against it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 28, 2011 6:58 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I think the idea of giving the people a clear, informed choice and letting them spend their dollars where they want to is called "free market capitalism" or some such.

Snicker snort.

I think the only role govt SHOULD provide in a free market economy is enforcement of FULL disclosure of everything they know about the product/service.

It is like making home sellers pretend they are always selling to their best friends. Make them disclose everything. (I think that is the law actually in most states.) After that, the onus is on the consumer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 2:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I think the idea of giving the people a clear, informed choice and letting them spend their dollars where they want to is called "free market capitalism" or some such.
Snicker snort.

I think the only role govt SHOULD provide in a free market economy is enforcement of FULL disclosure of everything they know about the product/service.

It is like making home sellers pretend they are always selling to their best friends. Make them disclose everything. (I think that is the law actually in most states.) After that, the onus is on the consumer.

Exactly. I've yet to be shown how and where "the govt" *mandated* that the banks make less money.

Claiming that they "mandated" something by insisting that they disclose their fees is an awful lot like saying that the banks have mandated ripping off consumers by hiding fees and charges for decades.

I'd like to know exactly what I'm paying, and as the person whose money is being used by the bank, I think I have a right to know that. After all, if I BORROW money from a bank, they want all sorts of disclosures and promises, do they not?

I really wish such disclosure applied to all services and billing. I'd love to know why a "$79" cell phone plan always ends up costing $143 per month. And I'd like to know why NOBODY at the phone company can explain it. Don't tell me what the BASE RATE is for the plan - tell me what the fucking plan is going to cost me! List ALL of the fees, taxes, and Spanish-American War recovery charges. ;)

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 4:07 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Durbin encouraged customers of banks that charge fees to "vote with their feet," but consumers were already ahead of him. Credit unions and community banks nationwide are reporting huge spikes in new accounts as consumers seek no-fee options.

"People are literally walking into branches and cutting up their Bank of America cards," Kirk Kordeleski, CEO of Bethpage Federal Credit Union in Long Island, N.Y., said last week.

The backlash hasn't gone unnoticed by other banks.

Hee, hee, hee...it's to laugh. I hope more and more people THINK about their banks and, even if they don't look into exactly what the bank is up to, move to local banks or credit unions. That would be great!

Quote:
I'd like to know exactly what I'm paying, and as the person whose money is being used by the bank, I think I have a right to know that. After all, if I BORROW money from a bank, they want all sorts of disclosures and promises, do they not?

That's always pissed me off; they've got my money for x amount of time to use, get interest off, etc., but hey, I get charged for LETTING them use my money! Given they're not exactly spreading it around these days, I'd at least like to know what/why they're charging.

Even the local banks play games...mine had a $35 charge for EVERY overdraft, as I mentioned before. Meaning if something went wrong (like PG&E changes your autopay date) and you only have enough in the bank to pay the bills, they hit you for every overdraft that happens that day (even a $10 ATM fee for med co-pay). They made good money off me a couple of times years ago. Comes along a class-action lawsuit, and hey ho! They only charge for one overdraft per day--which gives you time to see the problem and fix it!

So yeah, we can make a difference...little tho' it may be at any one time...but other than that, they've been wonderful for 35 years, and I'm glad I've hated the big guys all those years. We're still going to be urging people to move their money; the less power these guys have, the better, in my opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 4:32 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The banks are perfectly free to make their $.

Not really.

The changes in bank fees are in response to the Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. This amendment reduces the fee banks and credit unions can charge retailers every time a customer uses a debit card from 45 cents to 22 cents.

Considering that there were around 37 billion debit card transactions in 2010, that ends up being quite a bit of $ the banks can't make any more.

http://frugaldad.com/2011/10/21/what-durbins-amendment-means-for-your-
debit-card-use/

http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/credit-card-industry-facts
-personal-debt-statistics-1276.php#Purchase-transaction-volume-debit

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 4:59 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The banks are perfectly free to make their $.

Not really.

The changes in bank fees are in response to the Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. This amendment reduces the fee banks and credit unions can charge retailers every time a customer uses a debit card from 45 cents to 22 cents.

Considering that there were around 37 billion debit card transactions in 2010, that ends up being quite a bit of $ the banks can't make any more.

... and that customers will never get back. Banks are perfectly free to make their money by improving their service.
Gods - the only new buildings I see going up are either Big Insurance or more banks - what does that tell us? Isn't this the worst recession ever?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 6:29 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Recession my ass. How long had it been since it changed from "recession" to "depression", but TPTB don't want to call it that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 12:21 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
... and that customers will never get back.

Well, the Durbin Amendment plan was for the retailers to reduce prices due to their savings from reduced fees. Seen that happen yet?

Quote:
Banks are perfectly free to make their money by improving their service.

Improve their market share, maybe. The Durbin amendment will cost the banks and credit unions around $8.5 billion this year, so they have less chance of making money.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 1:56 PM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
... and that customers will never get back.

Well, the Durbin Amendment plan was for the retailers to reduce prices due to their savings from reduced fees. Seen that happen yet?

Quote:
Banks are perfectly free to make their money by improving their service.

Improve their market share, maybe. The Durbin amendment will cost the banks and credit unions around $8.5 billion this year, so they have less chance of making money.

http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/2011/durbin-amendment-explained/

Looks like we're in the early stages of The Durbin amendment's shakedown cruise:
"It just went into effect on October 1st, and already we’re seeing its ramifications. Banks have priced Durbin into their checking offerings – that means we’re seeing less and less free or rewards checking. On the other hand, retailers have yet to lower their prices as promised, perhaps because Visa and MasterCard jacked up their rates on small merchants. "

"The amendment’s supporters in Congress theorize that the wealth transfer from the banks to the merchants will result in lower prices for all consumers, as competitive forces between merchants force them to pass on lower costs to customers, in the form of lower prices."

"THeOry" - Yeah, we just started round 1.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 7:10 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"The changes in bank fees are in response to the Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. This amendment reduces the fee banks and credit unions can charge retailers every time a customer uses a debit card from 45 cents to 22 cents. "

Hello,

The banks are perfectly free to make their $. They just have to make it elsewhere. (From the customer, out in the open.) The problem banks are facing is that people do not enjoy paying what they're charging for this stuff.

I do not expect to see lower prices, though. That was a plain fallacy. People balk when you charge them more, they don't balk when they pay the same. (The retailers are earning more on each transaction, but that's invisible to the consumer.)

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2011 5:21 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The banks are perfectly free to make their $. They just have to make it elsewhere. (From the customer, out in the open.)

Still can't agree with this. If banks and credit unions are limited by government regulation in the amount they can charge for services, they aren't "perfectly free to make their $". They were making part of their $ in service fees from retailers, who are also their customers, but the government cut their ability to make $ that way in half. If they are forbidden to make $ from some of their customers (like Wal-Mart, Costco, etc.), they have to make up the $9 billion in income they've lost from others.

That'd be you.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2011 5:48 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The banks are perfectly free to make their $. They just have to make it elsewhere. (From the customer, out in the open.)

Still can't agree with this. If banks and credit unions are limited by government regulation in the amount they can charge for services, they aren't "perfectly free to make their $". They were making part of their $ in service fees from retailers, who are also their customers, but the government cut their ability to make $ that way in half. If they are forbidden to make $ from some of their customers (like Wal-Mart, Costco, etc.), they have to make up the $9 billion in income they've lost from others.

That'd be you.

You don't "make up" income that was deemed to be ill gotten. The fees were found to be excessive, they should be thankful that they got away with it as long as they did. Instead, they seem more focused on what else they can wriggle out of.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/business/a-foreclosure-settlement-th
at-wouldnt-sting.html?_r=1&ref=business

"Cutting to the chase: if you thought this was the deal that would hold banks accountable for filing phony documents in courts, foreclosing without showing they had the legal right to do so and generally running roughshod over anyone who opposed them, you are likely to be disappointed.

This may not qualify as a shock. Accountability has been mostly A.W.O.L. in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. A handful of state attorneys general became so troubled by the direction this deal was taking that they dropped out of the talks. Officials from Delaware, New York, Massachusetts and Nevada feared that the settlement would preclude further investigations, and would wind up being a gift to the banks.

It looks as if they were right to worry. As things stand, the settlement, said to total about $25 billion, would cost banks very little in actual cash — $3.5 billion to $5 billion. A dozen or so financial companies would contribute that money."

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2011 6:19 AM

In other words, "free market" capitalism supports price gouging. If there's a run on water in the wake of a hurricane, I should be able to charge $300 a gallon for the stuff, right? No harm, no foul - I'm just making up money I lost somewhere else!

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2011 7:13 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
You don't "make up" income that was deemed to be ill gotten. The fees were found to be excessive, they should be thankful that they got away with it as long as they did.

Okay. So if tomorrow the government decided your income was excessive, and reduced it by, say, 20%, you'd have no kick.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2011 8:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
You don't "make up" income that was deemed to be ill gotten. The fees were found to be excessive, they should be thankful that they got away with it as long as they did.

Okay. So if tomorrow the government decided your income was excessive, and reduced it by, say, 20%, you'd have no kick.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement for Rick Perry's 20% flat tax, whereby he's looking to reduce the income of at least 50% of the American people by 20%.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2011 10:27 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
You don't "make up" income that was deemed to be ill gotten. The fees were found to be excessive, they should be thankful that they got away with it as long as they did.

Okay. So if tomorrow the government decided your income was excessive, and reduced it by, say, 20%, you'd have no kick.

Of course I would (I'm not gouging "my customers" so the scenario is not quite equal), and I expect the Banks would be just as sympathetic with my loss as I am with theirs.
I admit I may be a little naive and unrealistic, but I still think businesses should earn their customers and their profits with better products and services and not with clever marketing or sneaky fees. I know that's not the standard, like when a business wants to give me a Customer Care Card I get testy, "yeah, right!" Obviously it's not for my benefit.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2011 2:44 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Of course I would (I'm not gouging "my customers" so the scenario is not quite equal)...

I'm sure you're not.

But a U.S. Senator thinks that you are(or at least claims to think that you are), and thinks that your best customer and his constituent, a Mr. Wally Mart, needs to pay you less and make more profit(for the good of all, of course).

BTW, there are already financial services companies out there marketing plans for how to improve business profitability based on the Durbin Amendment.
http://www.thedurbinamendment.com/

Quote:
but I still think businesses should earn their customers and their profits with better products and services and not with clever marketing or sneaky fees.

Providing the use of debit cards is a service to both customers and retailers. Buinesses like being able to provide the convenience of debit card use to customers. It costs the banks to provide that service. Shouldn't they get paid for it?

Quote:
I know that's not the standard, like when a business wants to give me a Customer Care Card I get testy, "yeah, right!" Obviously it's not for my benefit.

Although you may get benefits, such as discounts, when you use an affinity card. Sure the business is aggregating statistics on purchases, but does that harm you?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2011 3:46 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Providing the use of debit cards is a service to both customers and retailers. Buinesses like being able to provide the convenience of debit card use to customers. It costs the banks to provide that service. Shouldn't they get paid for it?

Geezer - you make it sound so benign, "providing the use of debit cards." I don't think the best marketing minds at any bank wonder "what can we do for the customer?" - that's not how their day starts. It may end with, "and how can we tie those fees to a service so we can try and maintain decent PR?"

I believe they saw an opportunity with debit cards from the fees they make with checking accounts, with over drafts, and transferring funds to cover checks written by people living on the edge, etc and wondered how they could expand that. So, Eureka, Debit cards. It's like giving people 2 ways to overdraft! And their marketing people sold them brilliantly (as in they sold a lot of them) using "convenience" (how hard is it to write a check?). And it worked, people want to whip out the plastic. They also sold phony affluence: "Can't get a credit card? Get a debit Card! Just like having a credit card!" And yet it's not just like a credit card (they want you to use it like one though, hoping like many over-stretched credit card users you won't look at the bottom line UNTIL your statement comes or until you overdraft). They are just another trap for people living close to their means. *But* it does take 2...

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Although you may get benefits, such as discounts, when you use an affinity card. Sure the business is aggregating statistics on purchases, but does that harm you?

I don't know. I know in theory a few of us will get some benefits (discounts on items that would otherwise be in the closeout bin - yea!), but they are hoping that the majority will forget they even have them and won't use them. I think if you are lucky enough to know what the game is you can avoid being gamed, you might even be able to turn it on them, but over all I know - I think we all know - their long view isn't what can they do for us. They come first.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2011 4:44 AM

STORYMARK

Nice to see the poor, downtrodden Bankers have folks like Rappy and Geezer standing up for them.

Good boys. You're betters appreciate your support.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2011 5:38 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Well, I can see Geezer’s point of view, in that he doesn’t believe in interfering with the market. When the government sets the prices of goods or services, that makes him nervous. Fair enough.

But there have long been rules for banks to follow to ensure that customers are not taken advantage of. Limits on interest (a price control) among them. There are also required disclosures to make sure the customer knows what he’s getting into, etc.

In the case of these fees, the Banks had a fancy bit of leverage. “I am a national bank. If you want access to my million customers then you will pay me this fee. If not, you lose my customers, who insist on the convenience of this debit card. I will make my fee terribly exorbitant, because what are you going to do? Cut a million customers out of your potential customer pool?”

What the law did was not to limit the earning potential of banks, as has often been insisted. Rather, it capped the fee to one customer, leaving the other customer to pick up the remainder of any fee to be charged. This caused a previously invisible fee to become visible to a customer who was largely unaware of it. “What? Five dollars for using my card? Are you serious?” To which the banks retort, “Well, we used to charge this to the vendor.” To which the customer might boggle, “Really? Doesn’t that seem a bit excessive?”

If we can imagine that when we go to the dollar store and pay for a plunger with our debit cards (as I recently did), the dollar store was only getting 60 cents from our dollar purchase, we might boggle further. I think people have been largely unaware of these fees and how they may impact the marketplace.

So, now the banks have been told they can only charge X customer so much, but they are perfectly free to charge Y customer the rest. Ideally, they lose no money. The problem is, Y customer isn’t interested in paying this money for their service. They consider it excessive. To my mind, this is just the people becoming aware for the first time what has been charged all along for their convenient debit cards. Instead of paying indirectly through the price of goods and services, they are being charged directly. The cards may suddenly seem less convenient, and people are selecting away from banks that charge this fee.

In response, market pressure is forcing banks to drop this fee, and find some other less objectionable fees to make up their profit margin.

Now, here is the lie in all of this: When the fees were capped on the vendor side, we were promised lower prices. This was a lie the moment it was conceived. Business operates on an old Ferengi axiom. “Once you have their money, you never give it back.” We are already used to paying a dollar for a plunger. We may not expect to see plungers that cost 80 cents at the dollar store. The dollar store will just keep the extra profit. You might even consider this measure a kind of ‘stimulus package’ for the non-bank businesses, who suddenly get to pocket more of their earnings.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2011 8:05 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Nice to see the poor, downtrodden Bankers have folks like Rappy and Geezer standing up for them.

Good boys. You're betters appreciate your support.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

The best part is that they don't see how this will help small businesses by putting more money in their pockets without them having to raise prices.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2011 8:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Of course I would (I'm not gouging "my customers" so the scenario is not quite equal)...

I'm sure you're not.

But a U.S. Senator thinks that you are(or at least claims to think that you are), and thinks that your best customer and his constituent, a Mr. Wally Mart, needs to pay you less and make more profit(for the good of all, of course).

In which case the Senator will simply reduce Mr. Mart's tax burden by granting him yet another property tax abatement - something which said Senator has never once offered to do for me.

Quote:

BTW, there are already financial services companies out there marketing plans for how to improve business profitability based on the Durbin Amendment.
http://www.thedurbinamendment.com/

Surprised?

Quote:

Quote:
but I still think businesses should earn their customers and their profits with better products and services and not with clever marketing or sneaky fees.

Providing the use of debit cards is a service to both customers and retailers. Buinesses like being able to provide the convenience of debit card use to customers. It costs the banks to provide that service. Shouldn't they get paid for it?

Should I have to pay the bank for letting THEM us MY money? Is that what you're asking? Hell, once upon a time they paid me for the privilege. And I got a nice toaster oven for opening an account.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 1, 2011 1:02 PM