It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bank of New York Mellon Adds Fee to Deposits

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Bank of New York Mellon Adds Fee to Deposits


abcnews.go.com

Bank of New York Mellon Corp. said Thursday that it will charge its customers a fee to hold cash deposits over $50 million.

The bank said it has seen such a large increase in deposits over the last month that it will charge a 0.13 percent fee to clients with "extraordinary high deposit levels." Bank of New York Mellon, which has $23.6 trillion in client assets under its custody, said customers have moved money to cash as a safe haven in the past month as investments like stocks and bonds have become increasingly volatile.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
news.yahoo.com
www.cbsnews.com
www.thenewstribune.com
www.wrcbtv.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
World on the verge of an economic collapse says Soros
Bank of America is going down, starting tomorrow...




posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Okay, I did a search on ATS and saw no thread on this, so thought I'd start one. Banks do all kinds of things to cheat you out of your money, but this one is apparently, "unprecedented," says Dan Geller, the Vice President of a banking rates financial analysis firm called Market Rates Insight.

He didn't use the word unprecedented, I did. He said this event was "a historic precedent in the U.S. banking system.

So, this bank is going to charge .13% for deposits of $50million or more. (that's $65,000 fee for making a deposit!)

What's really going on?

Analysis? Thoughts?

AP did the original article, and I see in the mainstream media, only "yahoo news" and ABC, and CBS reporting, and apparently the story hit the net yesterday sometime.

Surprised no one here has already caught it.

abcnews.go.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 5-8-2011 by N34Li3Z because: typo on 65K



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by N34Li3Z
 


WOW!

So now it costs $65,000 to deposit 50 Million.

And these were the same people (the depositors) spending millions lobbying to avoid taxes on their wealth... yet it's OK if the private banks get it.... not the state. Funny that.

I wonder if the depositors in question are all bank board members and stake-holders?

ETA: Since when is it a liability to have liquid funds deposited?
edit on 5-8-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
So essentially they are punishing people for doing business with them?



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
My god, people who want to handle a transfer of 50 Million have to lose less than half a percent of that money? How unconscionable! Why, the banks should be paying them $65,000 to even touch the millionaires' money!



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
okay, this is a stretch, but I'm pretty sure .13 % is not an arbitrary number, it has historical symbolic significance, and I came across this site for kids: kids.niehs.nih.gov...




Above the Eagle you have thirteen stars representing the thirteen original colonies. Again, we were coming together as one. Notice that the Eagle holds an olive branch and arrows in his talons. The official meaning is that the olive branch and the arrows "denote the power of peace and war." As noted previously, the design shows the eagle facing the olive branch. This was the opposite of the the Presidential Seal, which showed the eagle facing the arrows, until President Harry Truman had it redesigned to face the olive branch in 1945." Some feel that the number 13 is an unlucky number. You will usually never see a room numbered 13, or hotels or motels with a 13th floor. But the significance of the number 13 in U.S. history is very strong. The number 13 as used on many U.S. symbols (the stripes on the flag, steps on the Pyramid, 13 stars above the eagle, 13 bars on the shield, 13 leaves on the olive branch, 13 fruits, and 13 arrows) all represent the beginning of our country, as established by the thirteen colonies. But it should also remind us of the importance of the "13th Amendment". And you can, and should, be reminded of the history of this country each time you look at a one dollar bill.


Yes, 13 prevalent throughout U.S. history, we all know that, but I like the last statement about 13 from this U.S. Government agency "National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences" concerning the 13th Amendment.

en.wikipedia.org...

"The abolition of Slavery"

These are just interesting things, speculation, no theory derived, but .13% popped up on my mental filtering radar, especially since it's an old U.S. Bank, and the number 13's symbolism in our relatively short U.S. history.

I know it's a tangent to go from a bank fee ratio to slavery, but that's a pretty common theory, is the global elite trying to essentially enslave us through economic warfare.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by N34Li3Z
 


No. Just no. I mean, numerology is arbitrary and unhelpful enough on its own, but I'm not going to debunk that. I'll make believe that you reached the slavery conclusion through some vaguely logical method of thinking, so that I can say this.

ETA: About the following paragraph: Okay, I missed the fact that there were pension funds being under the sphere of influence of this bank. rather bothersome. But do pension funds frequently make deposits of 50mil+?

Your theory might hold SOME weight if this fee were being leveled at anyone besides millionaires. This fee only takes money away from the rich! It does not affect people who deposit less than 50 million at one time which, and I'm going to go out on a limb here, is nearly everyone. Have you ever made a deposit of 50 million?

And even if it does "trickle down to consumers" -- that would be a TERRIBLE move for the banks. People wouldn't pay that premium -- everyone hates banking fees, the commercials are always telling us not to pay banking fees. This would never go over. I certainly wouldn't continue using a bank that charged me for every deposit, even if it was that small a fee.

Consider: This is a single bank doing this. If this does trickle down to the consumer, their rival banks are going to be all over that. Most people would switch banks as soon as they can. I'd be surprised if huge money market funds etc. weren't switching over anyway.
edit on 5-8-2011 by Solasis because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by N34Li3Z
 


Is that article right? 23.6 trillion?

That number seems strangely massive....

As far as charging for deposits, thats a good way to have those large deposits moved to a different bank.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by N34Li3Z
 


And they are all fools if they think the money is safe in the bank! What do they think the bank does with all those deposits? They inflate with fractional reserve fraud and loan it and invest it etc. if the markets crash it will all go away. Not that it would be worth anything under the mattress either... They should buy physical gold and silver if they want to protect thier wealth from the crash.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
unless you have 50 million plus

most people have nothing to worry about.

its not like banks have the the cash equalivent on hand for every single deposit they hold

its all electronic.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Well damn,that's a change! I thought that banks only charged deposit fee's when
laundering money for the drug cartels!



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


That is really massive. Its more than the entire US and Chinese GDPs combined.

Its also about $10 trillion more than the US national debt.

Who in the world is holding all of that money in that bank?

The three biggest corporations on earth, Walmart, Royal Dutch Shell, and Exxon Mobil, combined assets equal less than $1 trillion. Carlos Slim, the official richest man on earth, is only worth $70 billion.

Something does not add up.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


The infrstructure of the United States (gihways and bridges etc) come in close to 80 trillion in value. So the large numbers do exist, however I have never seen a bank have that much in holdings. When the bottom fell out of the banks a few years back the largest I ever saw was about 400 billion in assets by Bank of America (If I remebr right).

So unless those assets were just one segment of a larger grouping, 23.6 trillion seems to be a lot.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


key word assets cash,investments other financial instruments and vehicles and even foreign owned.


The bank's customers are mainly large pension funds and money market funds. The bank collects dividends on stocks and holds cash deposits, among other things, on behalf of such large investment funds.

edit on 5-8-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Still seems like a massive amount of assets, especially considering the world's GDP is around $50 trillion.

It makes me wonder how many other banks are sitting on such large hoards and how much revenue could be generated from a Tobin tax on financial transfers from those hoards.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   
!! .13% !!13thirteen.

hello? really, is there anybody out there?



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join