|
|
Post by ~*Young $ Money*~ on Apr 17, 2012 21:31:53 GMT -5
Anyone else here about it? You either have to keep 1500$ in your account or deposit 500$ within every statement period or get charged 7$ a month. I am planning on closing my account there. 7$ is  in absurd. |
|
|
|
Post by Y3RP: LA MARAVILLA!!! on Apr 17, 2012 22:02:15 GMT -5
Anyone else here about it? You either have to keep 1500$ in your account or deposit 500$ within every statement period or get charged 7$ a month. I am planning on closing my account there. 7$ is in absurd. but thats all banks.......... u gotta keep mininum amount to avoid fees or have direct deposit. so dunno why u gonna close ur account for unless u dont have a job.........   |
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 19, 2024 0:24:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2012 22:43:47 GMT -5
Ya for checking accounts only.
|
|
anxietydestroys
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Nov 30, 2011 21:35:08 GMT -5
Posts: 431
|
Post by anxietydestroys on Apr 17, 2012 23:47:56 GMT -5
At TD there is a $100 minimum balance in your checking account if you go below that they charge you more than $7. Anyone with a job or even collecting unemployment should have no problem depositing $500 a statement period which is probably a month but might be 3... since it's $1500 minimum.
Only way to avoid stuff like that is a credit union...but I'm sure that has it's disadvantages too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Apr 17, 2012 23:55:52 GMT -5
ASK YOURSELF WHY THIS IS HAPPENING
Is it because Wells Fargo is trying to gouge people, or is it because they had increased regulations put on them that cost them more money and they had to increase their prices in order to sustain their existing profit margins?
|
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Apr 18, 2012 5:46:47 GMT -5
I'll be exempt from the fees for deposits, so not a big deal to me. Honestly, depositing only $500 a month is a pretty low requirement.
|
|
|
|
Post by ~*Young $ Money*~ on Apr 18, 2012 7:42:43 GMT -5
At TD there is a $100 minimum balance in your checking account if you go below that they charge you more than $7. Anyone with a job or even collecting unemployment should have no problem depositing $500 a statement period which is probably a month but might be 3... since it's $1500 minimum. Only way to avoid stuff like that is a credit union...but I'm sure that has it's disadvantages too. 100$ isn't bad, but how many people have 1500$ to sit in a bank. Yerp I don't put my whole paycheck in the bank |
|
|
|
Post by Y3RP: LA MARAVILLA!!! on Apr 18, 2012 8:31:41 GMT -5
At TD there is a $100 minimum balance in your checking account if you go below that they charge you more than $7. Anyone with a job or even collecting unemployment should have no problem depositing $500 a statement period which is probably a month but might be 3... since it's $1500 minimum. Only way to avoid stuff like that is a credit union...but I'm sure that has it's disadvantages too. 100$ isn't bad, but how many people have 1500$ to sit in a bank. Yerp I don't put my whole paycheck in the bank then u shouldnt worry about it...... direct deposit already helps u avoid fees. if u really scared, talk too office desk worker  tell them u want to change your account to a college account. i believe they do this aswell, being i have chase aswell. so i have an college account with them to avoid fees. all u have to do is be 18-25 and get an account for 5yrs straight & avoid all fees! theirs lots of loop holes to avoid fees, hell u dont even need to have a lot of money in your account. if u use any other service with them helps u avoid fees. so dunno why u gonna close your account for........ |
|
|
|
Post by OverTheEdge on Apr 18, 2012 9:41:22 GMT -5
ASK YOURSELF WHY THIS IS HAPPENINGIs it because Wells Fargo is trying to gouge people, or is it because they had increased regulations put on them that cost them more money and they had to increase their prices in order to sustain their existing profit margins? You make an interesting point, but allow me to play devil's advocate here. So you're saying the latter makes the former acceptable? Regardless, they're still attempting to charge people for something that they clearly didn't need to charge them for before. Now, I understand that they're a business and all that good stuff, but it doesn't make it any more ethical. I'm sure there are other ways to increase profits that wouldn't effect its members. So ask yourself this: if they are indeed hurting from increased regulations, who's fault is it that those regulations exist and who should be financially responsible? The bank itself or the people who use it? |
|
|
|
Post by robinsonben36 on Apr 18, 2012 10:11:47 GMT -5
This will basically only affect people that don't have jobs or any kind of income. Otherwise, depositing $500 per billing statement is going to be pretty automatic.
|
|
|
|
Post by ~*Young $ Money*~ on Apr 18, 2012 10:36:07 GMT -5
I don't use this bank as my primary bank. I go there bc it's Around the block to me and they have 24 hr banking. It isn't worth 7$ a month to go there. If enough people withdraw their account they will drop it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Apr 18, 2012 10:49:08 GMT -5
You make an interesting point, but allow me to play devil's advocate here. So you're saying the latter makes the former acceptable? Regardless, they're still attempting to charge people for something that they clearly didn't need to charge them for before. Now, I understand that they're a business and all that good stuff, but it doesn't make it any more ethical. I'm sure there are other ways to increase profits that wouldn't effect its members. So ask yourself this: if they are indeed hurting from increased regulations, who's fault is it that those regulations exist and who should be financially responsible? The bank itself or the people who use it? Wells Fargo, like any smart business, has one goal in mind - making a profit. This makes their stock more desirable to investors. No one is going to invest in a company that is losing money. Can we agree on that? If so, let's move on... - Increased regulations cost businesses more money. Of course, it depends on what the regulation is, but if it increases the amount of work for the business, they obviously will need to hire new employees to handle the increased workload. There are also regulations which flat-out break into the business' profits. For example, if the government says, "the maximum you can charge businesses for using debit cards is 21 cents transaction," whereas the previous regulations maxed it out at 44 cents per transaction, you can see how this would cut into Wells Fargo (and other banks') profit margin.
- If Wells Fargo's profit is cut by these new regulations, they only have a few options if they want to continue to turn a profit for their investors... They can either:
1) Cut costs by firing employees, decreasing employee pay and/or cutting benefits.
2) Offer less services for the same cost to customers.
3) Increase the price of their services.
Those really are the only ways to continue making a profit.
- You asked whose fault it is that these regulations exist and I would point you right to the U.S. Government and the Federal Reserve Bank who created them. We can argue until we're blue in the face on whether these regulations are NECESSARY, but the end result doesn't change whether they're necessary or not -- the customer ALWAYS pays for things like this.
So in the end, I always like to remind people -- when you see a law passed that regulates an industry like banks, you need to consider the consequences. Someone is going to pay for the cost of the regulation. The bank might eat part of it, as Wells Fargo is in this case, but the one who gets screwed the most in the end is you, the consumer. |
|
|
|
Post by Wato Stan Account on Apr 18, 2012 18:51:55 GMT -5
This is why I use a credit union, they never with me and they don't operate like a business. They operate to keep my money as I want it kept. |
|
jakksking1
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 2, 2011 14:45:41 GMT -5
Posts: 2,843
|
Post by jakksking1 on Apr 18, 2012 19:01:33 GMT -5
ASK YOURSELF WHY THIS IS HAPPENINGIs it because Wells Fargo is trying to gouge people, or is it because they had increased regulations put on them that cost them more money and they had to increase their prices in order to sustain their existing profit margins? You make an interesting point, but allow me to play devil's advocate here. So you're saying the latter makes the former acceptable? Regardless, they're still attempting to charge people for something that they clearly didn't need to charge them for before. Now, I understand that they're a business and all that good stuff, but it doesn't make it any more ethical. I'm sure there are other ways to increase profits that wouldn't effect its members. So ask yourself this: if they are indeed hurting from increased regulations, who's fault is it that those regulations exist and who should be financially responsible? The bank itself or the people who use it? I don't see anything "unethical" about it. Banks provide a pretty solid service in keeping your money safe, and generally haven't charged until this point for the most part (obviously outside of loans). Like others have said, $500 every cycle is pretty much a given if you have even a part-time job. That's actually not terrible, most banks require you to have a minimum amount in the bank at anytime, under this rule you can deposit it, then take it all out later without a penalty. |
|
|
|
Post by ~*Young $ Money*~ on Apr 19, 2012 7:30:31 GMT -5
This is why I use a credit union, they never with me and they don't operate like a business. They operate to keep my money as I want it kept. Yea my friend goes there. He has no fees and has to keep only 5$ in there. Can't argue that. |
|
|
|
Post by sean™ on Apr 19, 2012 11:33:46 GMT -5
Simple solution. Get a job with direct deposit. Assuming you get paid twice a month at the least, you're taken care of. As kliq said, the banks that are doing this are either card issuers or card processors and these fees are meant to recapture the funds lost due to the Durbin Amendment.
It sucks but it's completely legal and no different than any retail business altering pricing because costs of something went up or down.
|
|
