If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo) Asinine The Wall Street Journal trolls OWS supporters   (finance.yahoo.com) divider line 75
More: Asinine  
•       •       •

4964 clicks; posted to Business » on 08 Nov 2011 at 11:38 AM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



75 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-11-08 08:50:25 AM
Moebs Services Inc., a research firm in Lake Bluff, Ill., estimates that it costs the giant banks about $350 to $450 per year to maintain a checking account.

Is that like the street cost of pot confiscated by police?
 
2011-11-08 09:27:57 AM
I don't get it.
 
2011-11-08 10:04:41 AM
sigdiamond2000: I don't get it.

Clearly, the right's definition of "trolling" has to be as elastic as their definition of "comedian" must be to include Dennis Miller and Victoria Jackson.
 
2011-11-08 10:47:50 AM
"Credit unions poach clients"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHEADDESK
 
2011-11-08 11:41:29 AM
"While the Bank Transfer Day movement acknowledges the enthusiasm from Anonymous and Occupy Wall Street, the Bank Transfer Day movement was neither inspired by, derived from nor organized by Anonymous or the Occupy Wall Street movement, and the Bank Transfer Day movement does not endorse any activities conducted by Anonymous or Occupy Wall Street" - from BTD FB page

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2011-11-08 11:49:04 AM
Moebs Services Inc., a research firm in Lake Bluff, Ill., estimates that it costs the giant banks about $350 to $450 per year to maintain a checking account.

Considering the fact that banks now pay diddly-sh*t in interest to the account holders for the privilege of using those account holders money to make assloads more money for themselves through loans and other investments at much higher interest rates, I'd say the banks are full of sh*t.
 
2011-11-08 11:50:41 AM
sigdiamond2000: I don't get it.

Check this out:

poach
Verb:

Illegally hunt or catch (game or fish) on land that is not one's own or is under official protection.


Are a bunch of folks who willingly left a bank and signed up at the first CU that would take them being "hunted"? How about "illegally hunted"?
 
2011-11-08 12:05:06 PM
gameshowhost: "Credit unions poach clients"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHEADDESK


I know. Everyone knows that clients are much better cooked over low heat for several hours.
 
2011-11-08 12:08:54 PM
I like how the banks are trying to spin this: "we don't want those people, it costs money to keep them, and we have to have things like overdraft fees to make up the difference"

Reality: "We make a shiatload off those people in overdraft fees. It sucks that they're leaving, it was like free money to us. Let's claim it's a good thing they're leaving so they don't think they're 'sticking it to the man' and maybe the groundswell won't turn into a tsunami."
 
2011-11-08 12:27:17 PM
Only 0.2% of all Americans opened an account at a credit union... last month.
 
2011-11-08 12:30:57 PM
impaler: Moebs Services Inc., a research firm in Lake Bluff, Ill., estimates that it costs the giant banks about $350 to $450 per year to maintain a checking account.

Is that like the street cost of pot confiscated by police?


I thought the same thing.

But I think it's actually closer to the value of an item that insurance is reimbursing. Why yes... that bobblehead Snoopy is an antique. It's worth $350-$450.
 
2011-11-08 12:41:12 PM
FTA:Many banks also have done away with free checking, unless customers maintain a minimum balance and meet other criteria. But with the average checking account containing $5,200, according to research firm Raddon Financial Group in Lombard, Ill., many customers can't avoid the monthly charges.

Don't most banks do free checking with direct deposit? And if not I'm sure $5200 is way more than any minimum amount needed to get free checking. But then again....
 
2011-11-08 12:51:18 PM
rewind2846: Moebs Services Inc., a research firm in Lake Bluff, Ill., estimates that it costs the giant banks about $350 to $450 per year to maintain a checking account.

Considering the fact that banks now pay diddly-sh*t in interest to the account holders for the privilege of using those account holders money to make assloads more money for themselves through loans and other investments at much higher interest rates, I'd say the banks are full of sh*t.


In which case all of these account desertions must really be hurting them and their executives are making preparations to plummet to their deaths from the windows of their palatial office suites. Anything that kills a banker is good, right? So what's the problem if they engage in a little fantasy and spin before they merge with the infinite?
 
2011-11-08 12:52:00 PM
Let's see.

Average account size: 5,200

Loaning out 90%: 4,680

Assume a 10% APR on that loan: $468 interest per year

0.1% APY on the checking accounts: $5.20

So, they make more in interest than the cost of the account at a 10% APR, even with them paying interest on the checking account... And that's without any additional fees. I'm not sure what the current deposit to lending ratio is at the moment, hence going with the 90/10 split.
 
2011-11-08 12:52:22 PM
There are situations where you want to "fire" your customers - mainly if they're a hassle or a money loser. Here, I'm being told that these customers were only slightly profitable so it' s OK to lose them. I can't agree with that, and neither did BofA seeing as how they backtracked to stem the loss of customers.
 
2011-11-08 01:03:09 PM
BoA will rack in 2 or 3 buck ATM fees when these new CU customers hit their old BoA ATM. I'll smile if they have the technology to recognize if they are an old customer and charge them double.
 
2011-11-08 01:06:09 PM
estimates that it costs the giant banks about $350 to $450 per year to maintain a checking account. In contrast, smaller banks incur costs of $175 to $250 a year per checking account

How is this possible. I would think that the giant banks would get lower cost with more customers.

I do not understand the charge that CUs do not pay taxes. I thought they tried to zero out the profit for the year by giving dividends to the members. I usually get a dividend statement at the end of year by my CU. If there is no profit where is the tax supposed to come from.
 
2011-11-08 01:12:09 PM
You keep saying the use of "poach" is the troll, but check out this subtle awesomeness:

Executives at large banks have shown few signs of worry that depositors might walk out the door. One reason: People who gravitate to credit unions tend to be unprofitable for giant banks because of the small balances they keep on deposit, low number of products they buy and the relatively high account-maintenance expenses at big financial firms.

In other words, you poor people with pitiful deposits won't be missed, just like you won't miss much from the difference in interest amounts.
 
2011-11-08 01:16:06 PM
moothemagiccow: sigdiamond2000: I don't get it.

Check this out:

poach
Verb:

Illegally hunt or catch (game or fish) on land that is not one's own or is under official protection.

Are a bunch of folks who willingly left a bank and signed up at the first CU that would take them being "hunted"? How about "illegally hunted"?


Wut. No the definition they were using is

To cook in a boiling or simmering liquid
 
2011-11-08 01:26:42 PM
impaler: Moebs Services Inc., a research firm in Lake Bluff, Ill., estimates that it costs the giant banks about $350 to $450 per year to maintain a checking account.

Is that like the street cost of pot confiscated by police?


It's like the "World Cup viewing costs global companies $47 trillion in lost productivity" rectalmations we get every 4 years.
 
2011-11-08 01:37:15 PM
Like I'd believe any estimates from a research firm located in "Lake Bluff".
 
2011-11-08 01:39:36 PM
If there were a credit union within walking distance from my house I'd gladly switch, but there isn't.
 
2011-11-08 01:48:11 PM
The argument that CUs don't pay taxes as compared to banks gives me a chuckle. I do believe a fair number of large banks paid absolutely no taxes whatsoever.
 
2011-11-08 01:50:21 PM
tznnmp: BoA will rack in 2 or 3 buck ATM fees when these new CU customers hit their old BoA ATM. I'll smile if they have the technology to recognize if they are an old customer and charge them double.

Why would they use a BoA ATM? Share branching means CU customers get free atm use all over the country with no service charges.
 
2011-11-08 01:58:53 PM
rohar: tznnmp: BoA will rack in 2 or 3 buck ATM fees when these new CU customers hit their old BoA ATM. I'll smile if they have the technology to recognize if they are an old customer and charge them double.

Why would they use a BoA ATM? Share branching means CU customers get free atm use all over the country with no service charges.


The institution operating the ATM still receives a fee for the transaction whether or not the end-user pays for it.
 
2011-11-08 02:07:55 PM
dustlesswalnut: rohar: tznnmp: BoA will rack in 2 or 3 buck ATM fees when these new CU customers hit their old BoA ATM. I'll smile if they have the technology to recognize if they are an old customer and charge them double.

Why would they use a BoA ATM? Share branching means CU customers get free atm use all over the country with no service charges.

The institution operating the ATM still receives a fee for the transaction whether or not the end-user pays for it.


Obviously the instalation and maintainance of the ATM is a cost to the hosting CU, a rather small anual fee is paid to the Sared Branching service to make sure the costs are shared among the CUs but the member never sees a fee when using Shared Branching Services. Since there are 6,700 Shared Branching locations, and only about 4,800 BoA locations, it's much more likely a BoA customer will use a Shared Branching ATM and charged a fee. Strangely that fee is often used to pay for the ATMs so the Credit Unions and their members don't incur the costs at full value.
 
2011-11-08 02:22:43 PM
tricycleracer: impaler: Moebs Services Inc., a research firm in Lake Bluff, Ill., estimates that it costs the giant banks about $350 to $450 per year to maintain a checking account.

Is that like the street cost of pot confiscated by police?

It's like the "World Cup viewing costs global companies $47 trillion in lost productivity" rectalmations we get every 4 years.


It's like the 'wages for the middle class have been stagnant since 1980' whine we hear all the time.
 
2011-11-08 02:27:29 PM
EighthDay: Let's see.

Average account size: 5,200

Loaning out 90%: 4,680

Assume a 10% APR on that loan: $468 interest per year

0.1% APY on the checking accounts: $5.20

So, they make more in interest than the cost of the account at a 10% APR, even with them paying interest on the checking account... And that's without any additional fees. I'm not sure what the current deposit to lending ratio is at the moment, hence going with the 90/10 split.


10% APR!!! That's a pretty good yield. How do you get 10% when mortgage rates are under 5%? Volume? Do you really think banks earn 10% on their assets, after accounting for credit losses (which are a necessary part of any risk free lending strategy, including mortgage, car, or credit card loans)?
 
2011-11-08 02:29:09 PM
Debeo Summa Credo: 10% APR!!! That's a pretty good yield. How do you get 10% when mortgage rates are under 5%? Volume?

Nope. Leverage.
 
2011-11-08 02:29:36 PM
Does Subby just not know what "troll" means? Like how Republicans don't understand racism?
 
2011-11-08 02:30:28 PM
kcoombs69: FTA:Many banks also have done away with free checking, unless customers maintain a minimum balance and meet other criteria. But with the average checking account containing $5,200, according to research firm Raddon Financial Group in Lombard, Ill., many customers can't avoid the monthly charges.

Don't most banks do free checking with direct deposit? And if not I'm sure $5200 is way more than any minimum amount needed to get free checking. But then again....


We still have our main accounts with US Bank (some auxiliary accounts in a credit union), and not long ago we got a letter saying we'd lose free checking unless we "qualified" to keep it by doing one of a few things. One of them was at least one direct deposit per month. Another was a minimum balance of something like $2500 (averaged or somesuch; I don't remember exactly). There were one or two other items too. We qualified in a couple of different ways, so we still aren't paying for checking.

I was surprised TFA says a $5200 or so balance in checking is "small." Sure, it isn't exactly Rockefeller money, but for the vast majority of people it's not a great idea to have tens of thousands of dollars in a checking account. Interest is usually better in a money market account, and although you're more limited in transaction amounts, you can just transfer in or out once or twice per month, leaving an operating balance of two or three thousand in the checking.

And heck, for a lot of people, the thought of having two grand cash in checking is a dream... there's no shortage of people having to check the bank balance before buying groceries.
 
2011-11-08 02:59:59 PM
FTFA:
Moebs Services Inc., a research firm in Lake Bluff, Ill., estimates that it costs the giant banks about $350 to $450 per year to maintain a checking account.

I believe this. Those checking accounts eat more than you expect. And then there's the vet bills.

The banks and a the K-12 education system should have a death match to decide who gets to go up against dry cleaners for the world championship of fail.
 
2011-11-08 03:09:33 PM
The article starts with "LOL banks don't care because poor people cost them money", and ends with

"Some bankers complain that credit unions have outgrown their status as a lender of last resort to poor and rural communities, and should be forced to pay taxes just like for-profit banks.

"At a time when state and local governments are struggling with lower revenue, why should some of these credit unions be subsidized if they are not going to provide those services?" said David Locke, chief executive of McFarland State Bank in McFarland, Wis. The bank has about $500 million in assets but is having trouble competing with nearby credit unions, he added."
 
2011-11-08 03:25:14 PM
rohar: tznnmp: BoA will rack in 2 or 3 buck ATM fees when these new CU customers hit their old BoA ATM. I'll smile if they have the technology to recognize if they are an old customer and charge them double.

Why would they use a BoA ATM? Share branching means CU customers get free atm use all over the country with no service charges.


It's 10 miles to my nearest CU ATM...i pass up 5 big banks on the way. I don't belong to a big bank, I dump my money in a smaller 7 branch local bank. but I'm willing to bet most people don't plan ahead.
 
2011-11-08 03:37:56 PM
impaler: Debeo Summa Credo: 10% APR!!! That's a pretty good yield. How do you get 10% when mortgage rates are under 5%? Volume?

Nope. Leverage.


LOL. Perhaps you can get a 10% ROE (or even higher) using leverage, but your not getting an APR or a yield of 10% on your loan portfolio, which is what the previous poster was stating when he complained that banks only pay .1% in interest but earn 10% on investing the deposits.
 
2011-11-08 03:40:25 PM
"At a time when state and local governments are struggling with lower revenue, why should some of these credit unions be subsidized if they are not going to provide those services?" said David Locke, chief executive of McFarland State Bank in McFarland, Wis. The bank has about $500 million in assets but is having trouble competing with nearby credit unions, he added."

Um, what services? TFA wasn't talking about any services that only banks provide before dropping this quote in.

Maybe Mr. Locke should consider re-chartering the small banks he runs -- about 1/4 the size of the credit union I belong to -- so that it's a credit union, too. Y'know, because credit unions are getting such preferential treatment.
 
2011-11-08 04:04:22 PM
tznnmp: rohar: tznnmp: BoA will rack in 2 or 3 buck ATM fees when these new CU customers hit their old BoA ATM. I'll smile if they have the technology to recognize if they are an old customer and charge them double.

Why would they use a BoA ATM? Share branching means CU customers get free atm use all over the country with no service charges.

It's 10 miles to my nearest CU ATM...i pass up 5 big banks on the way. I don't belong to a big bank, I dump my money in a smaller 7 branch local bank. but I'm willing to bet most people don't plan ahead.


Your anticipated schadenfreude appears to be predicated on the idea that everybody is as stupid and irresponsible as you.
 
2011-11-08 04:13:33 PM
I highly doubt BoA or any other of the Monster banking corporations gave a rat's ass about losing these depositors. When you can afford to live in a tent in some park and demand hand outs because you are too poor and lazy to make it on your own, you likely aren't closing an account with much money in it.

I'm friends with my local banks manager and I chatted him up yesterday about the November 5th "bank transfer day". He said they had seen a small uptick in account terminations but made a point of stating "most of the people doing this are in their 20's, clueless, unemployed and in poverty. It's almost a good thing to drive that type of customer away from your reputable business".

I doubt he'd share this opinion with just any customer, but he's right, and we had a hearty little chuckle together on that one. The banks will only notice if large depositors leave or millions upon millions of nobodies move their .002 cents (literally) to a CU.

Not gonna happen.
 
2011-11-08 04:16:52 PM
HotWingConspiracy: The article starts with "LOL banks don't care because poor people cost them money", and ends with

"Some bankers complain that credit unions have outgrown their status as a lender of last resort to poor and rural communities, and should be forced to pay taxes just like for-profit banks.

"At a time when state and local governments are struggling with lower revenue, why should some of these credit unions be subsidized if they are not going to provide those services?" said David Locke, chief executive of McFarland State Bank in McFarland, Wis. The bank has about $500 million in assets but is having trouble competing with nearby credit unions, he added."


Are the Republicans going to start beating the "Remove tax exempt status from credit unions" drum soon?
 
2011-11-08 04:20:06 PM
PrinceofFark: I doubt he'd share this opinion with just any customer, but he's right, and we had a hearty little chuckle together on that one.

Was the shiat sooooo cash?

/"I'm friends with my bank's manager!" == "I have no friends!"
 
2011-11-08 04:21:43 PM
PrinceofFark: move their .002 cents (literally)

Literally! He has one of those coupons that has a face value of 0.002 cents and that's all he has in his account!

Literally!
 
2011-11-08 04:22:55 PM
LouDobbsAwaaaay: PrinceofFark: I doubt he'd share this opinion with just any customer, but he's right, and we had a hearty little chuckle together on that one.

Was the shiat sooooo cash?

/"I'm friends with my bank's manager!" == "I have no friends!"


I consider him a friend. We talk off the record, as evidenced above. Not sure what your post is supposed to mean but i'll take it you are a supporter of the OWS crowd, or you simply relate to them as you too, like most Americans, are poor and educated.

Regardless, because I carry a healthy balance with my bank I am treated much better than someone who simply wastes the banks resources.
 
2011-11-08 04:24:53 PM
PrinceofFark: I highly doubt BoA or any other of the Monster banking corporations gave a rat's ass about losing these depositors. When you can afford to live in a tent in some park and demand hand outs because you are too poor and lazy to make it on your own, you likely aren't closing an account with much money in it.

I'm friends with my local banks manager and I chatted him up yesterday about the November 5th "bank transfer day". He said they had seen a small uptick in account terminations but made a point of stating "most of the people doing this are in their 20's, clueless, unemployed and in poverty. It's almost a good thing to drive that type of customer away from your reputable business".

I doubt he'd share this opinion with just any customer, but he's right, and we had a hearty little chuckle together on that one. The banks will only notice if large depositors leave or millions upon millions of nobodies move their .002 cents (literally) to a CU.

Not gonna happen.


Yeah, the banks are flush with so much cash they are looking at ways to discourage large depositers from moving their savings to them.

"Though financial institutions are not yet turning away customers at the door, they are trying to discourage some depositors from parking that cash with them. With fewer attractive lending and investment options for that money, it is harder for the banks to turn it around for a healthy profit. " Link (new window)

They don't care really, because the account do cost them money, and they have bigger things to worry about, like they can't actually loan money because they've tightened their standards a bit too tight.
 
2011-11-08 04:27:06 PM
LouDobbsAwaaaay: PrinceofFark: I doubt he'd share this opinion with just any customer, but he's right, and we had a hearty little chuckle together on that one.

Was the shiat sooooo cash?

/"I'm friends with my bank's manager!" == "I have no friends!"


This also goes to show you that the WLS reflects the popular opinion of the "well to do" people. That is, "if you aren't rich, you aren't important". I would have thought the banks would be trembling in fear of November 5th, but it turns out they are actually feeling pity for the small fry who has no money to make a statement with.

If even 5% of the accounts closed had a balance of over $10,000.00, the banks would care. When you are pulling out your unemployment cheque's worth each month, you are probably embarrassing yourself by revealing just how insignificant you are more than you are getting the Banks to take notice of you.

Sucks for the poor but that is the definition of being a nobody, "it sucks".
 
2011-11-08 04:27:08 PM
PrinceofFark: Regardless, because I carry a healthy balance with my bank I am treated much better than someone who simply wastes the banks resources.

Right, because they are your friends.
 
2011-11-08 04:27:52 PM
PrinceofFark: I consider him a friend. We talk off the record, as evidenced above. Not sure what your post is supposed to mean but i'll take it you are a supporter of the OWS crowd, or you simply relate to them as you too, like most Americans, are poor and educated.

It means a guy who has to count someone who is financially obligated to talk to him as a "friend" is someone who has no actual friends. I see people like you "chatting up" bank tellers and grocery store clerks and it makes me slightly annoyed that you are wasting everybody's time in order to get your social-interaction fix, and slightly saddened that there are people that lonely in the world.
 
2011-11-08 04:31:10 PM
LouDobbsAwaaaay: PrinceofFark: I consider him a friend. We talk off the record, as evidenced above. Not sure what your post is supposed to mean but i'll take it you are a supporter of the OWS crowd, or you simply relate to them as you too, like most Americans, are poor and educated.

It means a guy who has to count someone who is financially obligated to talk to him as a "friend" is someone who has no actual friends. I see people like you "chatting up" bank tellers and grocery store clerks and it makes me slightly annoyed that you are wasting everybody's time in order to get your social-interaction fix, and slightly saddened that there are people that lonely in the world.


The manager stopped me to ask how I was doing. If you need to spin this as "it's his job to have a conversation with a wealthy account holder" then you aren't likely ever going to admit you know jack squat about this situation.

I live in a small town so most of us know each. This may be hard for you to grasp but when you have money, you are important. When you come off like it bugs you that i'm rich on Fark.com, it usually means you are poor.
 
2011-11-08 04:36:45 PM
HotWingConspiracy: PrinceofFark: Regardless, because I carry a healthy balance with my bank I am treated much better than someone who simply wastes the banks resources.

Right, because they are your friends.


I play poker with the guys brother, i'd say i am in the "good old boys club" around my parts. Pretty much everyone in town needs the bank for something, a loan for their business, for school, for a car, etc.

When everyone in town is indebted to you, they become your friend through usury. My only objection to the whole thing is how blatant some of these guys are about hosing over the people in town to the point where the ban is now foreclosing on some of my friends homes in town : (

When I tell you my neighbor of 20 years is about to lose his home to the bank and the Managers response is "tell him to start up a looking for rent site, maybe he can squirrel enough away to pay his overdraft fees next time", you have a problem I think.
 
2011-11-08 04:37:01 PM
PrinceofFark: The manager stopped me to ask how I was doing. If you need to spin this as "it's his job to have a conversation with a wealthy account holder" then you aren't likely ever going to admit you know jack squat about this situation.

I know people who work in banks are required to be friendly and ask you how you are doing. I also know that this does not constitute a "friendship" in the eyes of any normal person who actually has daily social interaction with people who like him.

This may be hard for you to grasp but when you have money, you are important. When you come off like it bugs you that i'm rich on Fark.com, it usually means you are poor.

See, now you're over-extending. This doesn't come off as smug, it comes off as defensive, because you realize how ridiculous your "I'm friends with the manager, he talks to me and everything!" story sounds. You know who else thinks anyone who suffers through a conversation with them is their friend?

Retarded people.
 
2011-11-08 04:41:21 PM
LouDobbsAwaaaay: PrinceofFark: The manager stopped me to ask how I was doing. If you need to spin this as "it's his job to have a conversation with a wealthy account holder" then you aren't likely ever going to admit you know jack squat about this situation.

I know people who work in banks are required to be friendly and ask you how you are doing. I also know that this does not constitute a "friendship" in the eyes of any normal person who actually has daily social interaction with people who like him.

This may be hard for you to grasp but when you have money, you are important. When you come off like it bugs you that i'm rich on Fark.com, it usually means you are poor.

See, now you're over-extending. This doesn't come off as smug, it comes off as defensive, because you realize how ridiculous your "I'm friends with the manager, he talks to me and everything!" story sounds. You know who else thinks anyone who suffers through a conversation with them is their friend?

Retarded people.


Heh, no wonder I side with the Manager on most issues. If liking to socialize with like minded people of the same wealth ladder makes me a bad guy, then so be it. I detest the poor more and more I see this OWS crap.

We use to herd all of the poor into ghetto's and keep them away from the elite. I think we need to revisit this type of system in America if the unwashed masses start to feel a bit too important and entitled to anything more than working their ass to the bone for someone much better than them.

"bullshiat, just because someone has more money than me doesn't mean they are better than me"

Right, sure it doesn't. That's why you are working for them, and not the other way around.
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »