Occupy Denton

[Coffee and TV]

HUMDA did not come afterwards...and yes, they should definitely be upset with the legislation that followed. Have you any idea what's in that crap? The fact that BoA even tried the debit card thing is laid right at the feet of Dodd-Frank...and that's only one issue and a lessor one at that.

Bank of America would have made more money with the $5 debit fees than they ever did with the law that Dodd-Frank sought to cut down. It was a moneygrab, pure and simple. Stuff like the OWS movement and a massive amount of people moving their accounts to credit unions made them kill the idea too. A small victory for the consumers for once.

[UNTflyer]

I agree DC should feel a lot of heat for how things were handled, but I don't think it was over regulation that got us into this mess.

Regulation AND deregulation of banks and lenders, along with threats from the Clinton Justice Department and encouragement from the Bush White House, pushed a lot of the mega-banks to lower credit standards and income requirements to buy a home. Some financial instiutions were fearful of subprime mortgages, others went overboard and convinced people working at McDonald's that they could buy a 300k McMansion with no money down and payments of $500 a month. The borrowers signed the papers without thinking it through, getting into exotic mortgages they had no business signing.

There is lots of blame to go around - greed on Wall Street, AND greed on Main Street. But the housing crisis is just a symptom of the problem of lack of disclosure on Wall Street. If we need any kind of new regulation, its in reporting requirements and transparency.

And the biggest problem right now is that politicians are trying to offer quick fixes to prevent hitting the economic bottom. If we had allowed corporations to fail in 2008 rather than bailing them out, we could be in full recovery by now.

[DoubleEagle]

Bank of America would have made more money with the $5 debit fees than they ever did with the law that Dodd-Frank sought to cut down. It was a moneygrab, pure and simple. Stuff like the OWS movement and a massive amount of people moving their accounts to credit unions made them kill the idea too. A small victory for the consumers for once.

The Durbin amendment (effective Oct 1) to Dodd-Frank reduced debit card swipe fees from 44 cents to 24 cents. If the average BofA account has 25 monthly debit transactions then BofA would forego $5 in revenue from this reduction, thus the imposition by BofA of a $5 debit card fee to the consumer. The debit card fee isn't a moneygrab, it is the unintended consequence of bad legislation.

[Coffee and TV]

The Durbin amendment (effective Oct 1) to Dodd-Frank reduced debit card swipe fees from 44 cents to 24 cents. If the average BofA account has 25 monthly debit transactions then BofA would forego $5 in revenue from this reduction, thus the imposition by BofA of a $5 debit card fee to the consumer. The debit card fee isn't a moneygrab, it is the unintended consequence of bad legislation.

I'm well aware of what their stated reasoning is for charging the $5 fee. What I'm arguing is that while they lost such and such amount of $$ because of the Durbin amendment, they were more than making up for it by charging every debit card customer a $5 fee. I googled but couldn't lock down the exact numbers I remember hearing from teh newz.

[UNTflyer]

I'm well aware of what their stated reasoning is for charging the $5 fee. What I'm arguing is that while they lost such and such amount of $$ because of the Durbin amendment, they were more than making up for it by charging every debit card customer a $5 fee. I googled but couldn't lock down the exact numbers I remember hearing from teh newz.

And I say... what's wrong with that? There are lots of banks in the world from which to choose. If BoA wants to charge $5, the market has consequences. Chase decided against it because of the outcry from their customers. That will have consequences as well.

[meangreenacct]

And I say... what's wrong with that? There are lots of banks in the world from which to choose. If BoA wants to charge $5, the market has consequences. Chase decided against it because of the outcry from their customers. That will have consequences as well.

I guess they have already dropped it -

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-bank-of-america-drops-5-debit-card-fee-plan-20111101,0,7112968.story

[UNTflyer]

I guess they have already dropped it -

http://www.chicagotr...0,7112968.story

Regardless, Congress has no business setting the fees on services between two businesses. Oh, and I like how my rewards points on my cards have disappeared.

Thanks, Congress, for protecting me against myself. You jerks.

[kalebschumann]

Are they still occupying?

[Coffee and TV]

And I say... what's wrong with that?

Well there's lots wrong with it, but there is nothing illegal about it. What's cute is that they tried to turn it into 'big bad government' making us do this, when it reality it was just a way to try and fleece people through greed.

[KRAM1]

Well there's lots wrong with it, but there is nothing illegal about it. What's cute is that they tried to turn it into 'big bad government' making us do this, when it reality it was just a way to try and fleece people through greed.

Please, Sir, please tell me what's wrong with it. Seems to me that a debit card is not a mandatory part of one's life...just as a cell phone and many other items are required...they are a choice for MOST people. Yes, some folks need a cell phone for work...I get that...but debit cards and banks are choices. You can choose a bank, a credit union, etc. that fits your needs and your requirements. It;'s a CHOICE...and last time I looked free enterprise. Yes, banks have a "regulatory" piece and are charted by states or the fed, but your thinking that there is lots wrong with it smacks of either lack of knowledge or just plain "I want it free mentality just because I exist". When they start making debit cards mandatory, I'll give some thought as to whether the fees should also be regulated.

Good grief, man...lots of options out there for "free". Find it if you wish. You can thank that wonderful piece of legislation Dodd-Frank for this as well. So, go occupy Washington DC if you have a gripe.

In case you didn't realize it, BofA was actually looking for ways to rid itself of unprofitable accounts...which many small personal and business accounts are... while it looked for ways to recoup some lost income...thanks to Dodd-Frank. One way to do that is to up the fees. The accounts are either retained at a more profitable level or they go away and that helps profit and capitalization as well. Win-win.

[GreenMachine]

Well there's lots wrong with it, but there is nothing illegal about it. What's cute is that they tried to turn it into 'big bad government' making us do this, when it reality it was just a way to try and fleece people through greed.

Fleece? How were they trying to fleece anybody when they were very upfront about the fee they were going to charge?

[KRAM1]

Well there's lots wrong with it, but there is nothing illegal about it. What's cute is that they tried to turn it into 'big bad government' making us do this, when it reality it was just a way to try and fleece people through greed.

Please explain yourself.

1) What's wrong with it? Last time I looked it was called business. A for-profit business. You are free to bank with them or not...don't recall seeing BofA holding a gun to any one's head.

2) Please explain "Fleece" in the light that BofA provided full disclosure and plenty of time before the fees took effect for anyone upset about it to move their account to another institution.

Waiting........

[Coffee and TV]

Keep waiting dude. I could give a simple explanation and you'd bust out with an essay that rambles into something that patronizes my generation and how hard you worked and blah blah blah. I might be wrong about UNT Flyer, but I don't even bother with you dude.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Coffee and TV

[UNTFan23]

Keep waiting dude. I could give a simple explanation and you'd bust out with an essay that rambles into something that patronizes my generation and how hard you worked and blah blah blah. I might be wrong about UNT Flyer, but I don't even bother with you dude.

You dropped this --

[KRAM1]

Keep waiting dude. I could give a simple explanation and you'd bust out with an essay that rambles into something that patronizes my generation and how hard you worked and blah blah blah. I might be wrong about UNT Flyer, but I don't even bother with you dude.

So, as I expected...no explanation. Why am I not surprised? Your generation? ha! I have no clue what generation you claim to represent. I'd be surprised, however, if whatever generation it is, wanted you to be their spokesperson.

[Coffee and TV]

Your generation? ha! I have no clue what generation you claim to represent.

Really? When I turned down your request for the GMG b-ball game last year you didn't give me a lecture about my generation? That didn't happen? Guess I shouldn't delete my PMs then.

[UNTflyer]

I would say what BoA did was "wrong" from a PR perspective. I understand it from a pure business decision in that they are now losing revenues on debit card transactions that are needed to support those business units. But to make up for it by charging debit card fees to their customers, in this environment, was a poor strategic move.

But was it morally wrong? No. It is a for-profit business and investors have a required rate of return. Now they will just make up the lost revenues in other ways - mortgage processing fees, business account fees, etc. This move by Congress was pure window dressing because somewhere along the line consumers will still end up paying the price. There's nothing wrong with making a profit, because the marketplace will force competition to offer the best services at the lowest price.

I left BoA because of their policy on overdrafts. Back when I was scraping by and it got close to payday, I would run low on funds. If you overdrafted your account, BoA would reorder your transactions to maximize their fees. Went to Chase and couldn't be happier.

[Coffee and TV]

I would say what BoA did was "wrong" from a PR perspective. I understand it from a pure business decision in that they are now losing revenues on debit card transactions that are needed to support those business units. But to make up for it by charging debit card fees to their customers, in this environment, was a poor strategic move.

See, but if I said this I'd probably be thrown under the bus.

I left BoA because of their policy on overdrafts. Back when I was scraping by and it got close to payday, I would run low on funds. If you overdrafted your account, BoA would reorder your transactions to maximize their fees. Went to Chase and couldn't be happier.

This is why I left Compass back in the day,. But it shouldn't be about switching banks every time one implements a bad policy, it should be about having proper rules in place that don't dick over customers to begin with.

[UNTFan23]

This is why I left Compass back in the day,. But it shouldn't be about switching banks every time one implements a bad policy, it should be about having proper rules in place that don't dick over customers to begin with.

What you describe is what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act) is all about. However, when government changes the rules, businesses will alter their business strategies in an effort to continue to make the income they were once making as the legislation reduced the revenue streams of many financial institutions had in place. It doesn't mean a business will make a sound decision unlike Bank of America, who paid the price of losing customers while taking a huge PR hit.

It frustrates me that people are complaining about businesses following the rules that the government laid out for them to follow which in turn forces businesses to pass those costs onto customers. While the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 had good intentions, there were/are unintended consequences that some people warned of that have happened and will likely continue to happen as business look for new revenue streams to replace the ones that were lost as a result of the law passed.

Edited November 7, 2011 by UNTFan23

[KRAM1]

Really? When I turned down your request for the GMG b-ball game last year you didn't give me a lecture about my generation? That didn't happen? Guess I shouldn't delete my PMs then.

What does that have to do with anything? Don't recall ever giving you a lecture about your generation...I do recall you bringing up the generation thing, however.

I'll assume you will decline to participate again this year as well. But, several of whatever generation you claim to belong to will, indeed, participate. However, i don't see what relevance this is to the current discussion.

Still waiting on your reply...or are you now letting Flyer speak for you? So, the reason is that it is a PR mistake? Great. That's part of the free enterprise system that you have such disdain for as well...you make a decision you live with the consequences. Not hard to understand I wouldn't think. I do agree with Flyer. Not a good PR move on BofA's part at all. So what? That's their issue to live with, right?

Does "bad PR move" qualify in your mind as "lots wrong with it"? Just wondering.

[KRAM1]

Keep waiting dude. I could give a simple explanation and you'd bust out with an essay that rambles into something that patronizes my generation and how hard you worked and blah blah blah. I might be wrong about UNT Flyer, but I don't even bother with you dude.

But, but...in another thread you made similar comments about and to Flyer....you were against him before you were for him...I think I've got it! Flip-floppin' away...flip-floppin' away. At least stick with it a little longer than the first time someone challenges you to back up your comments...the "I'm just not going to bother responding" doesn't do much for your cause.