christopher, what if I walk up to your display at the art fair, decide I want one of your works but I want to pay only 40% of the price you ask. Ridiculous, right? You've decided what the price is and (after whatever discount you might normally offer) that's that. You'd say "I'm sorry, the price is $X if you want it".

It's no different with a bank. You don't need to like the price, it's the price. Use their services or don't, it's your choice. Keep your money in your mattress if you want, no one will care.

The local bank on the corner doesn't want to act as the official cashier and change provider for the art fair down the street. I don't blame them. If you'll need singles, plan ahead and bring small change with you (that you've gotten from your own bank). If you run out, you can always go into a store and use that $20 to buy a candy bar. THEN you can ask for the change in a particular way.

Wow, a lot of snippity & stingy remarks.

We are complaining about the rules & fees of banks here!!! Sometimes the choices between banks and CUs in the area are slim, so that it's like being between a rock and a hard place! And you can't just pick up your money and leave - YOU'LL GET A FEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm glad I'm not the only one complaining about these fees!!! And the ridiculousness of asking for change and being told no!!!!! They don't do it at the grocery stores, & at one local CU I have to deal with occasionally, they won't do anything for me because I don't have a checking account there, but other accounts - those other accounts are not good enough?!?! And this same local CU also has the worst hours. It just sucks.

I mentioned the $20 transaction simply because I have done it for over 30 years throughout the Northeast. I usually bring enough change, but every now and then I run short of singles. And when I do, I NEVER had a problem going into any local bank and getting them.

"We are complaining about the rules & fees of banks here!!! "

Which everyone knows up front.

If you don't like the NSF fee, don't bounce payments.
It really is that simple....

Trying to see it from the bank's point of view ... the fee is on a checking account. Checking accounts are not loans; you are only "supposed" to write checks based on the amount of money you have in your account. If the fee's were less, say $5.00, for each time that you overdraw funds, people would likely be overdrawing a lot more often. Making the fees high is one way to make sure that people don't routinely turn their checking accounts into loan accounts.

I agree that overdraft and return check charges seem excessive, but my bank also offers some services for free that make my life easier, such as free bill pay. Perhaps they use the large overdraft fees to offset the cost of providing these other "free" services to clients. I would gladly trade a high overdraft fee (which I have some control over) for the bill pay service that doesn't cost me anything each month, and saves me money in stamps, too.

I keep a "hidden" balance in my checking account, just to makes sure I never get hit with an overdraft fee. My written balance in my checkbook is always a few hundred dollars short of what I actually have in there.

No, I do not agree that NSF fees or any other banking fees should increase the rates that they have been increasing. I am NOT definitely fine with that. The banks can increase 85% in 7 years time, whereas my income hardly budge. It is tough times for normal people like me whose incomes have not been kept up with inflation. And I doubt that any banking employee receive an 85% increase in their wages since 7 years ago unless they are in upper management. My gripe is that these banking businesses are charging outrageous fees and they are finding every reason to charge a fee to make bigger profits.

No, you don't need to vent, You just need to follow the rules and take responsibilities for your own actions.

" And I agree it is awful. Imagine if the speeding fine was $5000 for going 5mph over the speed limit. That would also cause the need to vent."

Really? If a life is lost due to some one "merely going 5mph over the speed limit" - you may wish to have the chance paying $5000 fine instead of a life.

Thank you azmom for telling someone they cannot vent a frustration. That was helpful.

Thanks everyone for your input. I just need to find a bank that has more reasonable fees structure or not banking in general. It is not my practice to do NSFs often so I certainly was shocked to learn that it has increased this much over the years. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. But you have not convinced me that it costs the bank $37 to process an NSF.

Get this straight. The NSF fee is NOT related to costs. It has nothing to do with cost. It is purely and simply a fine. A disincentive.

Don't confuse the issue by imagining any connection between the fee and costs. No such relationship exists.

" But you have not convinced me that it costs the bank $37 to process an NSF"

Good... because it doesn't.
But it SHOULD be enough to dissuade anyone from bouncing checks!.

KInda like interest rates on credit cards.... the specific amount of the interest rate does not matter to me as I never carry a balance. The fact that it would cost me my hard-earned mo0ney is enough for me to make sure of that.

Venting certain frustration may gain sympathy if the feeling is a result from performing actions that are legit, lawful, justifiable with right causes or high calling, but still could not reach resolution.

It is not the case here. What happened here is an individual who did not follow rules (that should be well understood) and received penalty. Instead of using this experience as a lesson learned, or taking business somewhere else, the individual attempted to challenge and question institution's decisions and business entity's policies and practices.

I was penalized a couple of years ago for not paying my visa bill on time. I had laid it on my desk, later laid something on it and something on top of that, so out of site out of mind. I received a notice with a $50 fine which was based on two things. I did not even question it. I did the wrong and I paid for it. My sis told me to go the to CU and whine, apologized and they would forgive it. I was not going to lower myself to her standards. I owed it, I paid it and apologized to the clerk.

"Posted by western_pa_luann (My Page) on Thu, Nov 20, 14 at 15:34
"We are complaining about the rules & fees of banks here!!! "
Which everyone knows up front.

If you don't like the NSF fee, don't bounce payments.
It really is that simple...."
----
So we're not allowed to vent in a post that says, "I NEED TO VENT"?!

Thank you azmom for telling someone they cannot vent a frustration. That was helpful.

AGREED

EmmaR, I applaud you for taking ownership of the credit card issue you wrote about, but I have to say I disagree about not contacting the Credit Card issuer for forgiveness. If you are a good customer who pays your bills in a timely manner, the issuer will be more than willing to credit the late fee and interest. It is at the issuer's discretion of course, but it is worth contacting them about. Certainly if a card user abuses this, the issuer will not offer a credit, but for that rare situation like yours, it is worth attempting.

It is an excessive amount. When free checking became the norm, banks needed another way to generate profit and that has come in the form of fees. Of course, they often also make this work in their favor by say posting the largest check first making smaller checks after that bounce as well, each garnering their own fee. Of course, the best policy is to not bounce anything but sometimes life gets in the way of that.

I disagree with the practice of charging $37 on principle and that is why we left the bank that did it. It was not a problem for us but I felt that advantage was being taken of those who could likely least afford it. Our credit union only charges $20 and first, if your savings account will cover it, they will take the extra money from there first, and not charge a fee for it. There is one bank in the area where you could choose options for your account and one of those was one NSF forgiveness per year. Many accounts give you the option of declining debit transactions if there are not sufficient funds. Then there is a decision of being embarrassed in the store if your card is turned down or paying the NSF fee to avoid the emberrassment. I pay careful attention to my account online, almost daily. I would look for a better fit for you, find out what is in the area.

I was supremely irritated once when I was paying a new credit card online. When I entered the account number, I left off a number so I was charged for rejected payment and for paying late. We got the late fee off because we had tried to pay on time and most places, the software will tell you if the numbers you have entered are invalid, but GE wanted to pad their profits. Was the mistake mine, yes, of course it was and I paid for it with the rejected payment, but were they taking advantage too? Yes they were. It may just be the way business is but it does not make it honorable or good.

âÂÂKousa owned the mistake and did not ask how to avoid the fee, the compliant was about the high cost itself.âÂÂ

"Wow, a lot of snippity & stingy remarks."

You can say that again. YouâÂÂd think from some of the comments that she tried to ROB her own bank! I wish IâÂÂd seen HALF this much vitriol (here) for the banks back in 2008 when they savaging/extorting the nation with their economy crippling, subprime loan BS. So much for sympathy to those who OWN their mistakes.

Kousa, your frustration is understandable. Banks are losing ways to rip off their customers so this is one of the ways they make it up. Have you visited the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau website yet? They might be able to help.

âÂÂThe purpose of the CFPB is to promote fairness and transparency for mortgages, credit cards, and other consumer financial products and services.âÂÂ

Perhaps you get a more sympathetic response there. I hope so.

A link that might be useful:

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/contact-us/

"So we're not allowed to vent in a post that says, "I NEED TO VENT"?!"

You are the only one who is saying that....

Anyone can say anything they want on a message board. That is how they work....

Dreamgarden, remember, back during the housing bubble the banks were instructed by Fannie and Freddie to make the loans because they were going to be sold to Freddie and Fannie. The banks had no exposure.

Millions of people got subprime loans but were smart enough to realize interest rates WILL rise so they took out straight mortgages, not adjustable.

The biggest culprits were the mortgage companies that sprung up all over. "Zero down! Get a mortgage for 125% of the value of the home!" Loans were made with no proof of income. The industry referred to these as "liars loans". They played to the greed of the home buyers. Countrywide was the biggest offender.

christopher, mortgage companies are middlemen. Salesmen to find customers. Banks make loans based upon their own assessments, a loan broker's customer's application always needs to meet the specific bank's criterion.

Blaming loan brokers for out of control lending practices would be like blaming the salesman at the car dealership when a car needs warranty work or is subject to a recall.

There's nothing wrong with variable rate loans, I've had the same one for the last 25 years and it's saved me a lot of money and trouble. The banking/real estate problem came from people buying more than they could afford, enabled by banks making irresponsible loans. These bubbles seem to happen and then burst every 15-30 years.

The banks were told to make the "irresponsible" loans by Freddie and Fannie who in turn were told to back the loans by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

The banks had no exposure to the bad loans. They sold them right away.

christopherh, let us not forget the roles also played by private investment banks and their mortgage-backed securities craze -- and, going even further back, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which set the stage in the first place. A bit of of simplification, to say the least, to put it all on Fannie, Freddie, Frank and Dodd. Agreed that allowing banks to have no exposure to their own bad loans is a bad, bad thing, as is allowing them to run rampant otherwise.

None of the Big Boys in those stinky banks went to jail, either.

And ... when the Big Boys do, infrequently, go to jail, it's usually in one much more comfortable than the ones that ordinary citizens (or even aliens) are required to endure.

ole joyful

Don't forget it took irresponsible borrowers' participation to create banking disasters that in turn hurt everyone.

Maybe bank incurs heavy fine to discourage transactions like NSF just as they are tightening up borrowing to weed out irresponsible loans.

The $45.00 fee that my bank will charge if a cheque that I've issued on presentation finds my account NSF ...

... isn't quite like being hit over the head with a 2" X 4" piece of construction lumber ...

... but seems rather close to it.

ole joyfuelled

christopherh-"Dreamgarden, remember, back during the housing bubble the banks were instructed by Fannie and Freddie to make the loans because they were going to be sold to Freddie and Fannie. The banks had no exposure."

Yes. I remember that time. When the banks conveniently 'forgot' the rules of fair and sound banking practices. Giving loans to people who could never have qualified before. Taking stupid risks with their depositers money like a high roller at a craps table.

I wonder what fearless leader of JP Morgan or Citi first said 'Now that that pesky Glass-Steagall Act has been repealed, we can pretend we forgot finance 101, and give uneducated dumb/greedy people loans they CLEARLY DON'T QUALIFY FOR or can never repay! We will show them how smart we are!!!

People who get charged predatory, ridiculously high overcharges, have a right to vent. If your going to pick on people for being stuck with an predatory overcharge, then at least save your bigger hammer for those who did it to MILLIONS and still have yet to receive justice.

At least it helps to know there are a few people out there (with character) willing to stick their necks out, even though doing so may mean they never find work again.

A link that might be useful:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-09-12/mortgage-fraud-whistle-blower-lynn-szymoniak-exposed-robosignings-sins

I'm not saying banks are blameless here. They took the loans and got the application fees. They made money from day one. As did every private mortgage broker who took a percentage of the loan amount as commission.

But we must remember that millions of people who were practical, but just normally didn't qualify, got a sub prime loan and are still in their home and making the fixed monthly payments. People who knew they could afford say, $800 a month and took out a fixed rate loan at 5%.

These were the ones who were the reason the whole thing started.

Greed played a part in this whole mess. Greed by the banks and greed by the buyers. Instead of buying what they could afford, buyers maxed themselves out with that 2% ARM. Yes, the ARM had a cap and a maximum increase of 2% a year. So when it went up that 2% max, the mortgage payment doubled.

And the spiral started.

Kousa
may I offer a suggestion. For credit unions in particular as opposed to banks, sometimes a phone call is all it takes to get the fee waived. It isn't automatic that they will waive, but if one rarely has a nsf they will sometimes do that and credit your account the amount of the fee.

Sounds like a distort logic to me.

"People who get charged predatory, ridiculously high overcharges, have a right to vent." - Yes, Only if they have done nothing wrong.

This is not OP's case. OP caused the charge and I am not sure if s/he owns the mistake since it seems s/he felt so righteous and complained on the internet. The withdrawal rule is black and white, there is no gray area. If one wants to avoid charge, don't violate the rule, it is just that simple.

Can you see the similarity between "whining complaining about charge after self initiated NSF" and "getting a loan but could not repay then blames banks for loaning out the amount". Both are not taking responsibility for ones behaviors. No one held a gun to force those idiots homeowners to over borrow, they are same guilty as those shady lending institutes since millions of people went through the same period did not get these loans.

Big institutions have not received their punishments YET does not give people a free pass to violate rules. Two wrongs does not make it right. When starting to forgive small wrongs where do you draw the line to determine the size of the Wrong is too big to tolerant?

This post was edited by azmom on Tue, Dec 2, 14 at 8:58

" Two wrongs does not make it right. When starting to forgive small wrongs where do you draw the line to determine the size of the Wrong is too big to tolerant?"

It isn't always easy to draw a bright line.
Judges draw varying lines when pondering punishments, based on varying factors such as past history, the size of the error, intent, and so on.
Yes, we should all be accountable, but I feel a rare lapse or small math error may deserve leniency in certain circumstances.

"Big institutions have not received their punishments YET does not give people a free pass to violate rules."

Why are you giving the banks a free pass? Do you work for one? Sounds like it.

Telling people not to vent about predatory banking practices, is as bad as making excuses for the banks whose criminal behavior was far more egrigious than the OP missing a payment.

History is history, it's long past time to move on.

Banks are essential to the economy. I think I get great service at very low cost from my bank, but you're welcome to think otherwise for yourself.

You can bury your money in the back yard if you want and use only cash for purchases to an extent, but don't expect to find many people who share your views.

Uh, Snidely?
The other thread showed there are plenty of people who still use cash, and still (gasp!) write checks! Remember?

My comment was directed to the continuing pouting over the lending debacle of some years ago. It happened, it's long over, some regulatory changes were made and it's time to move on.

And..... something similar will happen again. Remember the S&L crisis of the mid-80s? Greed will always motivate human action (on both the lending and borrowing sides) and it's inevitable that markets need a drastic correction from time to time. The stock and bond markets work the same way.

I (and I suppose you too, christopher) survived both crashes with no real losses. Those who like to overextend and believe there are only Good Fairies in the world take it on the chin when markets adjust. It's always easier to blame someone else.

This post was edited by snidely on Wed, Dec 3, 14 at 12:56

I do remember the S&L debacle. The runs on the banks and the closings of the local Savings and Loans.
Jimmy Carter signed the deregulation of the banking legislation.

Hello Lucille,

Your opinion regarding setting "punishment" is entire valid, which, in my mind, is a different subject.

The points I made are focus on 'cause' and 'mind set' to prevent things from happening. Determine "punishment" is for after fact. Sometimes, it could create moral hazard and open other can of worms.

dreamgarden,

The focus is about taking responsibility that also includes read, understand and abide the rules as a depositor. OP is free to take business somewhere else.

I believe people has right to vent, such as when a car comes with a defective airbag which should not be installed in a car to begin with. But it is not OP's case, s/he caused the charge.

No one ever suggested or wished to give banks a free pass if you refer to the financial meltdown. You are the one interpreted that. In fact, the disaster highlights the importance of taking responsibility either for an individual or an institution.

No, I don't work for a bank. I take your speculation as a compliment.

AZMOM, this is off topic, but you and I are in complete agreement about the airbag issue.

However, you gotta agree it was real good to see someone tell those gasbags in Congress where they could stick their demands.
There will be a recall though, I guarantee it.

A number of charities, and recently churches, want me to allow then to go into my bank account to receive an amount monthly.

While I realize that it's my responsibility to have enough money in my account to cover my obligations as they arise ... I'm getting to be an old man, and some things don't get taken care of when they should.

One of the reasons that I refuse is that, should there not be enough money in the account to cover the (small) amount - the NSF fee is to be $45.00 per item.

If three make such a request - the $135. NF fee is as much as a number of them receive from me in a whole year ...

... and if ten do it - very few get more than $450.00 per year!

And that's in addition to getting the confusion of the amounts that couldn't be collected straightened out.

ole joyful

I limit any transactions with banks. Just before Congress put in the new regulations, my credit card interest jumped to 29%. I had a perfect payment history, never missed a payment, never late. I had a balance I paid off every few months.
When I called to ask why my interest rate had been raised so high, the person answering the phone laughed and said, "Because we can."
Now I don't have credit cards or any loans from banks, When I am asked why, I say "Because I can."

This post was edited by lucky123 on Wed, Dec 10, 14 at 20:05

Did anyone else catch this????

Posted by azmom (My Page) on Fri, Nov 21, 14 at 1:01
Venting certain frustration may gain sympathy if the feeling is a result from performing actions that are legit, lawful, justifiable with right causes or high calling, but still could not reach resolution.
It is not the case here. What happened here is an individual who did not follow rules (that should be well understood) and received penalty. Instead of using this experience as a lesson learned, or taking business somewhere else, the individual attempted to challenge and question institution's decisions and business entity's policies and practices.

Posted by western_pa_luann (My Page) on Sat, Nov 22, 14 at 17:38
"So we're not allowed to vent in a post that says, "I NEED TO VENT"?!"
You are the only one who is saying that....

Anyone can say anything they want on a message board. That is how they work....

Anyone can say anything they want on a message board. That is how they work....
************
Except on the Hot Topics board. If you don't agree with the political opinions of that board's clique, you're unwelcome. So naturally I go over there to poke them once in a while.

I don't think I mean 'not allowed to vent', one definitely could vent as loud as one wants but may not get sympathy.

I don't know why banks charge such exorbitant fees for bounced checks but the cynic in me says it's just another way to make money. I might suggest talking to your local branch manager. Because we all occasionally make mistakes, they might be willing to waive the fee for a first time offender.

Banks are just another facet of capitalism. They should have been nationalized when we had the chance to in 2008. Now we're even more screwed!

A couple of things can alleviate the pain, albeit in the future. Use a locally owned community bank. Somewhere that they will recognize your name and face and maybe, just maybe waive the NSF charges when you ask politely. Don't expect this more than once.

Also, for the love of all things good, keep up with your finances and live within your means. Mint is a wonderful app for keeping up with your finances on the go. If you're serious about owning your financial life, a program such as GnuCash can help organize everything in one place. It's all about net worth, baby! ;)

What country has nationalized banks that we should use as a model?

If we were to do that, who'd bear the cost of paying the shareholders for snatching away their ownership? Don't be callous about your answer, the owners are you and me, the investing public.

More government is NOT the solution. And Capitalism has given you everything you own.
You wouldn't be living in your home unless the builder mad a profit.
You wouldn't own a car unless the automaker and dealer made a profit.
You couldn't put gas in your car if the oil company, refiner and gas station made a profit.
Our government has to come up with eighteen thousand billion dollars before we can even say we're broke, and you want them to control the banks too?

I think Nationalized and Capitalism should co-exist depending on industries and function.

There are plenty successful nationalized examples in other countries, such as education and universal health care. In both categories we spent tons and are being ranked miserably.

There are industries I still do not understand their true function/contribution to society, such as insurance. I hope some one could enlighten me. It seems it's a capitalism industry but do not play capitalism rules fairly.

Remember

Deregulating Regan

Banks make their own rules set their own fees.
And congress lets them.

Josephine, Jimmy Carter signed the Banking Deregulation legislation, not Reagan.

AZMom, one little problem with nationalizing industries here in America. Our Government can't run the Capitol Hill barber shop without it losing money. It received a $300,000 bailout in 2012. And if you want to look at what America's version of nationalized health care looks like. Take a good look at the debacle called the VA.

The idea of insurance is to "spread the risk" among policyholders. The policyholders pay into a pool, and when a claim is made, the pool pays out. As the claims become more expensive, the pool must be bigger, thus higher premiums.
The insurance companies invest the money in safe places, so they can get a return. But they also need a boatload of money in the bank to pay the claims.

Take out a pair of scissors and a nice crisp dollar bill. This represents a dollar in premium payment.
Cut 1/16 of an inch off the edge. That's "executive compensation". Not just the CEO, but all the executives in the company. Salary, bennies, etc.
Next cut 1/4 of an inch off the bill. That represents the rest of the costs of the company. Salaries, expenses, buildings, etc.
The rest of that dollar goes to pay claims. It makes no difference what kind of claim. It could be health, an auto accident, someone's house burns to the ground, a dog bit someone, etc.
Also, the Government makes it's money from the income taxes the employees pay. If the industry were nationalized, the people would be government employees, and the Government wouldn't make a dime from them.