<p>They sent our economy into recession with their irresponsible and risky behavior. To shore them up, we bailed them out. They used our money to pay themselves extravagant bonuses, splurge on million-dollar office redecoration, and lobby against banking reform which would curb their abuses. Their employees and customers didn’t fare quite so well; layoffs and foreclosures continue unabated to the present time. B of A laid off 30,000 workers just last month, a move designed to save $5 billion – but that money must go to Brian Moynihan’s bonus. So the most tone-deaf member of the tone-deaf banking industry has come up with a new scheme: a $5 charge on debit card users (unless, of course, you’re wealthy). </p>
<p>This isn’t going to hurt us parents much, although our students might feel the pinch. But when is enough enough for these people?</p>
<p>Or, just vote with your feet and change banks. I don’t get the uproar. If you think a vendor charges too much, you go somewhere else. No one is wedded to BoA.</p>
<p>I’m doing both. I’m going to end my 22-year relationship with B of A.</p>
<p>For me, part of the “uproar” is that I’m not willing to contribute to the coffers of a company that is so enthusiastic about pushing people out of their homes even as it pays its CEO a $9 million bonus.</p>
<p>I heard about this last week. I personally have no dealings with BoA , though my daughter had an account with them at one time ( found their customer service just awful ) What I want to know , are they charging $5 per transaction on is this yet another monthly fee ? I’d drop them if I had accounts , no doubt</p>
<p>I’ve used BoA for 20 years. I’m done. I use this card for everything. I’m not paying for it. TD Bank here I come!
You know, when they came out with debit cards, they did everything in their power to get people to use them, including charging you if you used a teller instead electronics. Now that everyone is accustomed to using them and most don’t even carry checks, they decide to charge. I hate everything Big Banks stand for. No wonder my grandfather hid his money under his mattress. :)</p>
<p>You are completely and absolutely wrong. Banks were complying with laws and regulations forcing them to lend to deadbeats. They were attempting to provide services to their customers and grow their business. Bof A and other banks didn’t send us into recession. It is simply ridiculous to blame banks for sending us into recession.</p>
<p>With new regulations, B of A can’t operate its debt card at a profit. It must raise fees otherwise we will have to bail it out again. If you don’t like it switch.</p>
<p>It’s also ridiculous to expect a bank to give you free services. Like all businesses they have to pay for their employees, buildings, equipment and other costs.</p>
<p>Changing banks is unlikely to have the result you’re desiring. Eventually, all banks will be adding fees for debit transactions. What did you expect would happen when the government institutes rules that limit ways in which banks can earn revenue? Of course they’re going to find other ways to earn that revenue. If the business owners aren’t paying the fee, the customer will be.</p>
<p>razor- they sold products because they made money on them not because the government forced them to sell those products. If they were unable to package loans to be resold they would have never written the mortgage in the first place. It begins and ends with credit agencies not rating loans properly. The credit agencies did that because they also wanted to make money.</p>
<p>“Of course they’re going to find other ways to earn that revenue.”</p>
<p>It looks like B of A screwed this up too. Any institution as well-connected at that “too big to fail” entity should have gotten Congress to pass a law requiring all citizens to have a B of A debit card.</p>
<p>Deadbeats went to banks and claimed to have more income than they actually had and falsely claimed they would repay their debts. Banks were forced to accept their loans by regulations preventing discrimination and regulations intended to provide easy money to the economy. </p>
<p>Of course banks were trying to make money. That is what businesses do. To suggest that banks caused the crisis while ignoring that they are the most heavily regulated business in america and ignoring all the deadbeats who effectively stole money from then, is simply outrageous. Bank of America did nothing to cause the recession.</p>
<p>When banks can lend prudently, we have what we have now. Only credit worthy people get loans and the economy suffers.</p>
<p>I have no problem with banks saying they do not intend to be fooled twice.</p>
<p>razor- I reviewed those liar loan applications against tax returns. Those types of loans were written since at least 1980 when I started working. By the way the vast majority of those loans were not submitted by minority candidates but by white businessmen.</p>
<p>Banks will only lend prudently if they are required to hold the mortgage. Once loans are allowed to be packaged and sold all bets are off. The government has nothing to do with it.</p>
<p>We dumped B of A years ago, after over 2 decades, because of their horrible customer Service and predatory business practices. We now bank with a local bank and credit union and are quite happy. I will never pay to use my debt/ATM card.</p>
<p>razorsharp, it is not so much the initial loans that are the problem–although, if you believe that the recipients were out there en masse scamming the poor, innocent, lenders I have a bridge to sell you–but the repackaging of mortgage-backed securities and rating of them as investment worthy. </p>
<p>The perpetrators in this whole mess were many. Yes, people took out loans that a prudent individual who did not listen to the come-ons of mortgage brokers, realtors, and bankers would not have. Mortgage brokers and bankers invented the no-income-required loan, not those taking them out. The government and the borrowers did not invent the process of immediately selling the loans, which has of course been going on for many decades. And they certainly didn’t invent mortgage-backed securities, nor did they have any input into the gross incompetence of rating agencies at the managerial level. I can assure you that the analysts at Moody’s and Standard and Poor were pressured and berated by management into coming across with the ratings that the big investment houses/banks wanted. (My H was an analyst at several rating agencies years ago, and I have some insight into how they operate.) Then we have the likes of Goldman Sachs, who KNOWINGLY packaged and sold worthless securities and then bet against their own clients, whom they had just defrauded.</p>
<p>The problem is at all levels of this game is that you have greedy, arrogant jerks who want to see themselves as “players,” and who scorn the more cautious as fools and marks.</p>
<p>I was fortunate to start work with a company with a credit union in the early 1980s. The company is long gone but the credit union is still around. I read about all of the stuff that the banks pull and wonder why anyone would still use a bank.</p>
<p>I used to own a mortgage brokerage in the late 80s and early 90s. Profits were limited by the regulations that existed at that time and by actions of the federal reserve. After I got out of the business, regulations were changed so that lenders were forced even more to lend to deadbeats with the goal of expanding housing ownership. The result was what we got - deadbeats borrowing money they could not repay because it was free. </p>
<p>Blaming banks for lending money to people who promised to repay is outrageous. Blaming bank of america for raising its fees to cover its costs resulting from new poorly drafted “consumer” regulations is also outrageous. Expecting a bank to give you something for free is also outrageous and when banks were giving away free loans you can see the result.</p>