What is the goal of this protest? The people want to make an impact on Wall Street and the banks that creates change in the current practices.

They are going about it all wrong.

The only way to make an impressionable impact on a bank is to hit them in the wallet.

The IRS requires that EVERY cash withdrawal over $10,000 be reported to the IRS. There is substantial paperwork involved in each of these transactions. The banks try to avoid these cash transactions because of the labor required to report these transactions every day until the end of the year. If one transaction occurs on January 1st, the transaction must be properly reported everyday (365 days) until the end of the year.

BEAT THEM AT THEIR OWN GAME.

SO if people want to impact a banks bottom line and overwhelm them with expenses, PEOPLE should withdraw $10,000 and then re-deposit the money. Then the next day, withdraw $10,000 and the next day re-deposit the funds. Keep doing this and the banks not only have to report the transaction once, but they have to report the same transaction again and again.

After one has withdrew and deposited 50 times, the bank will have to report these 50 transactions every day until the end of the year. This will keep a bank employee busy for hours each day just dealing with these 50 transactions well after a person has permanently left the bank.

This will force the banks to change or GO Broke.

Think about it.

If one million people exercise their right to withdraw their money over and over, there would be 50 million transactions requiring extensive paperwork every single day. 50 mllion x 365 = 18,250,000,000 transactions that have lengthy IRS reporting requirements.

Now that is leveraging your money.

Not through charging intrest and the fractional reserve system they dont. Its theft. People used to be hung for this.

Perhaps everyone should just go back to writing paper checks. No doubt the banks hate them and they cause quite a bit more paperwork for all involved.

No one has the inherent "right" to make a profit. How they run their business determines whether or not they do make a profit. Writing millions of fraudulent loans, ripping off savings and checking customers, scrambling deposits in order to produce overdraft and late fees, etc are not the things that will make you a profit in the end. So since BOA did this they have no right whatsoever to make a profit nor do they deserve to make a profit. They deserve to be broken apart and nothing less than that. Their investors deserve and have earned the "right" to lose all their money. There are plenty of institutions do deserve a profit, and I think they would all be willing to pick up where BOA left off.

Maybe $0.44 fee per transaction made sense back 25 years ago, but clearly, these days it's just fleecing.

Not really. This is $0.44 on average for a typical $38 debit transaction. So, taken in its proper context, the fee is approximately 1.16% of the transaction. It's not a straight $0.44 on every transaction.

As someone else so eloquently explained earlier, these fees are complicated depending on a whole host of factors (including how the card is actually processed itself), and the retailer does have the power to negotiate with the processor.

My whole thing about this issue is that people pay $100+ annual fees all the time to keep their favorite credit card. This is essentially no different. If you like your debit card, and enjoy using it, then you pay an annual fee. If you don't want to pay the fee, then pay cash. No harm done.

To call it "fleecing", however, is over the top. Banks have overhead. Anyone running a business understands that there is a cost for doing business, and in today's day and age, it's not cheap for banks to keep the lights on, meet their payroll, and stay in business. You just have to look at the hundreds of banks that have failed in recent years to understand that few banks understand the concept of cost structure and value.

Banks that give away everything for free are usually the first ones to go belly-up because they don't have a handle on their true cost structure.

Large banks, for all of the complaints about fees, at least understand that there is a cost to doing business with the bank, and a bank's products and services have an inherent price tag. You have to credit Bank of America with being transparent about the cost to do business, and being up front about those costs.

Every consumer loves free - Who doesn't? But there is a heavy price tag to pay for tellers, computers, bank buildings, ATM machines, etc. -- all of the expenses associated with running a traditional brick and mortar bank.

Funny enough, all of these credit unions are so hyper ecstatic that they are taking clients away from the big banks. In reality, they are taking all of the clients that are low profit, freebie-seekers, and high complaint "toxic" customers. The big banks are more than happy to unload these unprofitable clients to a credit union, I am sure, and retain the high value, profitable clients that keep the big banks in business.

PEOPLE should withdraw $10,000 and then re-deposit the money. Then the next day, withdraw $10,000 and the next day re-deposit the funds. Keep doing this and the banks not only have to report the transaction once, but they have to report the same transaction again and again.

Creative? Yes, and it sure makes for a fun comment in a forum like this. But not advisable from a practical level. These rules are in place to catch bad guys doing bad stuff.

I'm also looking forward to the demise of BofA and other big players who are sure to follow suit.

The big banks got big because they found a way to be more profitable than their competitors -- gobbling up competitive banks because they had the profits to do so. Profits. Capitalism. (I know these are foreign concepts around here, but hey, it's worth a shot.)

These big banks are here to stay. Only the power of the Federal Government could force these banks to break-up into smaller banks. Ultimately, at the current pace of bank acquisitions, we will ultimately have only a single banking institution in this country.

No one has the inherent "right" to make a profit.

True. It must be earned.

So since BOA did this they have no right whatsoever to make a profit nor do they deserve to make a profit. They deserve to be broken apart and nothing less than that.

Opinion. BOA is very profitable, aside from the Countrywide Mortgage acquisition, which has drained profitability. All of there other divisions are doing quite well.

When did these banks get it twisted and start thinking they were doing US a favor by letting them hold our money?
No one ever needed to use a bank. Ever.

Closed my account with Skank of America a long time ago. Will never look back

When did these banks get it twisted and start thinking they were doing US a favor by letting them hold our money? No one ever needed to use a bank. Ever.

When did consumers begin thinking that they had an inherent right to be lent money with no down payment, for a house they couldn't afford in the first place? And since when did consumers start thinking that all bank products and services should always be free?

If you don't like banks, then don't use them. Better yet, go work for a bank, and see if you can change the "system" from within if you feel that strongly about it. You might have a completely different perception if you personally witnessed the banking industry from the other side of the fence. You would get to witness firsthand that not every bank client is as angelic as you might think.

Closed my account with Skank of America a long time ago. Will never look back

With all due respect, I am sure that in most cases, the feeling was mutual. After all the collection calls, overdrafts, charge-off's, unreturned phone calls, and vociferous complaints about "fees", ad nauseum - all amounting to losses and not profits for the bank -- I am sure the bank was more than happy to see another "toxic customer" take a walk to another institution. (Don't take it personal. I am sure your case was "different".)

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
When did consumers begin thinking that they had an inherent right to be lent money with no down payment, for a house they couldn't afford in the first place?

What does it have to do with the topic of this thread? Seriously?

If you don't like banks, then don't use them.

Is that the usual thing to say to whitewash price gouging? Because charging $0.44 per simple, 100 byte transaction does seem like a case of unabated gouging. I do realize that's the network like VISA etc doing this and not necessarily the bank itself, but still.

You might have a completely different perception if you personally witnessed the banking industry from the other side of the fence. You would get to witness firsthand that not every bank client is as angelic as you might think.

Been there, done that... Still, what does "angelic" have to do with anything? You seem to have a knack for posting irrelevant insinuations.

With all due respect, I am sure that in most cases, the feeling was mutual. After all the collection calls, overdrafts, charge-off's, unreturned phone calls, and vociferous complaints about "fees", ad nauseum - all amounting to losses and not profits for the bank -- I am sure the bank was more than happy to see another "toxic customer" take a walk to another institution. (Don't take it personal. I am sure your case was "different".)

Again and again, what does "toxic customer", whatever you meant by this, have to do with topic at hand???

If the customer does not meet his/her obligations as legally defined, they sure are due to get some heat from the bank and maybe law enforcement. But it's 100% irrelevant in the framework of what fees get charged.

I also notice that you included 'vociferous complaints about "fees"' in your ad-hoc definition of "toxic customer". Wow, just wow.

I'm about as angelic a customer as any bank will ever hope to get. I keep tons of $$$ in my account (for real) and let the bank loan these monies to someone else at a considerable APR, and I really don't get any cut off that since the interest is close to zero on consumer accounts. But same goes for any customer, really, even if they only have $1100 to their name. You seem to indicate that people by and large are losers who deserve to be charged $0.44 per simple card swipe, you really are going out of your way to try and prove that people are swine and deserve any gouging that comes their way. I despise that kind of attitude.

What does it have to do with the topic of this thread? Seriously?

Because there are 2 sides to this debate. First, the side of the "disgruntled" consumer that is claiming foul play against the banks by alleging "gouging of fees" for use of a debit card. The second side is the side of the bank, who is being gouged by the nefarious Durbin Amendment, which interferes with the private marketplace by dictating the profit margin between 2 private parties - the bank and the retail vendor.

Banks stand to lose tens of billions of dollars due to the Durbin Amendment and its interference in the marketplace. Some are estimating the banks stand to lose as much as $36 Billion over the next couple of years.

We certainly have heard from the "consumer" loud and clear. There are 2 sides to every debate. In the interest of fairness and a level debate, the other side's viewpoint should not be kept silent.

Is that the usual thing to say to whitewash price gouging? Because charging $0.44 per simple, 100 byte transaction

Erroneous on all accounts. The bank isn't charging $0.44 on all transactions. Do your research, or read my prior retort to this falsehood. The $0.44 number is the average fee charged for the average $38 debit card transaction.

That's a fraction over 1 percent, or a penny on every dollar transaction. Hardly price gouging.

Contrary to popular opinion, it actually costs money to issue debit cards, process transactions, maintain computer infrastructure, provide fraud protection on debit cards, send out marketing literature, maintain a web site, etc. There is a cost structure, and the retailers aren't going to cover that cost structure anymore due to the Durbin Amendment.

Banks, therefore, are doing the only sensible thing they can: simply passing on the cost structure to the consumer - If you like the debit card, you pay an annual or monthly fee. Don't like the fee? Pay cash. Simple enough.

Customers that are upset, will leave. Most of these will be unprofitable clients to the bank anyways, because they want every bank product and service for free. Like any good business, the banks are more than happy to rid themselves of freeloading clients that are unprofitable.

Been there, done that... Still, what does "angelic" have to do with anything? You seem to have a knack for posting irrelevant insinuations.

The gentleman bragged that he walked away from the bank. I was simply noting that, oftentimes, the bank is all too happy to rid itself of "toxic" clients that are both unprofitable, but also ridiculously expensive to keep. Not all customers are created equal.