Wells Fargo to charge $7 fee on more checking accounts
Source: CNN Money
Wells Fargo to charge $7 fee on more checking accounts
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Wells Fargo will start charging $7 a month for checking accounts in six more states, expanding on its efforts to do away with free checking accounts altogether.
While Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500) stopped offering free checking accounts to new customers in 2010, existing customers were able to hold onto their free accounts. But then last year, the bank transitioned a group of existing customers -- mainly in Western states -- to the same $7-a-month accounts that it provides new customers. And now existing customers in six more states are about to be hit with the fee.
The states where customers will be affected include Georgia, New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, New York and Pennsylvania, Wells Fargo said Thursday.
The $7 monthly service fee will be assessed on the bank's Essential Checking account. Customers can waive the fee by maintaining a $1,500 minimum daily balance or making direct deposits of $500 or more each month. They can also get a $2 discount on the fee by opting to only receive online statements. The monthly fee will be effective May 4 in the six states, and will begin showing up on June statements (if the requirements for getting the charge waived aren't met).
The bank, which has branches in 39 states and Washington D.C., declined to comment on whether this will mark the end of its rollout.
<snip>
Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/07/pf/wells-fargo-checking-fee/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Let them fail. That would have cleaned out the filth in the system.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)
harun
(11,348 posts)of theme were then or are now.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)Why didn't we let them sink or swim?
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Allowed to fail.
no_hypocrisy
(46,150 posts)if Congress approves cut to 5 days a week, longer lines, likely higher fees . . . .
arcane1
(38,613 posts)
FBaggins
(26,754 posts)They want to see how it goes over and then have the opportunity to tweak it (or how it's trained/sold/etc) before the larger rollout.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)
lastlib
(23,259 posts)
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)
SomeGuyInEagan
(1,515 posts)
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)
Justice wanted
(2,657 posts)INdemo
(6,994 posts)to credit union..have direct deposit that goes in same date at midnight..but they will run all outstanding debits through first before credit in hopes of getting sc on deficit balance ..this has happened before...their system is programed that way as admmitted by employee......
more service charges would speed up that switch..
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)...to earn them interest, as they keep it longer (waiting for checks to "clear"
for the float?
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)and with some additional tax breaks they managed to purchase Wachovia outright. Between TARP from taxpayers to WF and the way they did the accounting on the Wachovia purchase, they managed to buy Wachovia for nothing. Not pennies on the dollar, but absolutely nothing.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)They were shoved it down their throats.
I do not remember them getting Wachovia for free. I remember it being 15.1 Billion.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/SmartHome/story?id=5946486&page=1
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)We don't want 'em.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)From the Motley Fool
http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2008/10/21/why-wells-fargo-really-wanted-wachovia.aspx
Motley Fool also says that after the re-arranging of the balance sheets, WF acquired Wachovia for NOTHING. But then, what does Motley Fool know - they are after all, merely professionals who blog about such things as bank acquisitions for a living.
####
Another article for your consideration
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/02/10/18707072.php?show_comments=1
printable version - fixed-width version
U.S. | Global Justice and Anti-Capitalism
Foreclose on Wells Fargo: So Many Reasons to Divest
by Jim Macdonald
Friday Feb 10th, 2012 10:10 PM
<snip>
I think everyone knows that Wells Fargo took over $35 billion in bailout money and is neck deep in the housing crisis – most recently being a party to a $26 billion settlement for a lawsuit brought by all 50 states regarding improprieties with foreclosures. What people don’t necessarily know, however, is Wells Fargo’s poor record on the environment, its ownership stake of corporations in the private prison industry, and charges it faces of discriminatory lending to African Americans and discriminatory practices against people with disabilities. Wells Fargo also spends a lot of the money it makes from your accounts on lobbying and political contributions.
<snip>
Let us take a look at some of the reasons why you should divest from big banks in general and Wells Fargo in particular. Wells Fargo Bank, headquartered in San Francisco, is the fourth largest bank in the United States and is the country’s largest mortgage provider. Last year, Wells Fargo’s net income was approximately $15 billion from $73 billion in gross profits.
Whatever you feel about profit, the bank ultimately is there not to serve its customers but to provide a profit for its shareholders. Therefore, there are often incentives for a bank to take actions that are not necessarily to the benefit of many of the bank's own customers.
<snip> In fact, in July 2011, the Federal Reserve levied an $85 million fine, the largest ever of its type, against Wells Fargo for falsifying documents and pushing borrowers to the high-interest subprime loans. Worse than that, there are charges that Wells Fargo has specifically targeted poorer, particularly African American, borrowers for these bad mortgages. The charges are serious enough that the Department of Justice is currently investigating Wells Fargo on those charges.
<snip>Wells Fargo received $36.9 billion in the bailout. Then, the government arranged the sale of Wachovia - a bank that was failing - to Wells Fargo in a sweet deal of about $1 per share. There were also relatively few legal consequences. An $85 million fine is nothing for a company that nets over $15 billion a year. Even a $4 billion share in a $26 billion settlement comes out to only $2,000 per person - a small consolation for ruining people's lives. It only amounts to one quarter of profits, and it was money the bank had already saved and accounted for.
The recent $26 billion settlement has to do with how Wells Fargo and other big banks dealt with foreclosing the properties of people who could no longer afford their homes because of high interest rates, a precipitous drop in home values, a lack of buyers, and the subsequent loss of jobs. Wells Fargo and other big banks often falsified foreclosure documents and repossessed homes with either fraudulent or incomplete documentation. WF has also been very slow at working with homeowners on reducing their mortgage payments - part of a federal program in which Wells Fargo is supposed to be participating called HAMP (Home Affordable Modification Program).
When Wells Fargo finally forecloses on a home, many of these homes sit vacant as real estate owned properties (REOs). While Bozeman Montana has a great shortage of space available for rent and a problem with affordable housing, Wells Fargo and other REOs sit vacant. Others are up for auction, and still others sit there with their owners waiting to be repossessed.
Most people, however, have some knowledge that Wells Fargo has been a big bank that's continued to profit despite hurting customers, particularly related to its mortgage business. However, there are even more things to consider that are less well known. <snip>
Let's start with Wells Fargo's record on the environment. When we think of banks, we do not typically think of environmental impact; nevertheless, because banks finance all kinds of projects, we can see what kinds of projects that Wells Fargo finances. <Snip> Wells Fargo is a large financier of the coal industry, a distinction that led one report to list Wells Fargo as the 19th worst polluting bank in the world. The Rainforest Action Network has criticized Wells Fargo for financing illegal logging projects in Indonesia. On the issue of natural gas hydraulic fracturing (or fracking), Wells Fargo has funded Chesapeake Energy all while being one of the leading lenders who will not give mortgages for homes with gas leases. They seem to know a home where fracking occurs is a bad investment all while funding the practice.
Wells Fargo also has the distinction of having an ownership stake in two private prison corporations. They have $120 million in investments in the GEO Group and the Corrections Corporation in America. If all that is not enough, last year Wells Fargo settled a case brought by some disabled customers. The suit brought by people who were deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech disabilities alleged that Wells Fargo refused to accommodate them in telephone services. This suit was settled for $16 million.
More at the URL printed in the article
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)Understand how the tax code works. Even if we took this at face value, a tax write-off does not mean you pretty nothing. It's like people who mistakenly believe that you pay nothing out of your pocket when you donate to charity.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Of knowledge regarding tax code, bank acquisitions and other fundamental financial key points.
Let me know when your site is up.
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)For decades, they did it just fine without a zillion more fees. This is just one more source of profit for the owners, it has nothing to do with providing a service.
you mean the way they charge tons of interest for loans and .02 for savings? 
SemperEadem
(8,053 posts)they make a ton of money in the fees they charge already.
This is nothing but bald-faced greed. Period.
sudopod
(5,019 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's just not possible that anyone could be that obtuse.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)You think it costs less than that to maintain an account?
MADem
(135,425 posts)The more you have, the more you make. Ask Mitt Romney.
This is usurious conduct, and anyone who says otherwise is ill informed.
Isn't it amazing how credit unions can pay interest on savings AND checking accounts, not charge anyone a dime, and still manage to make payroll, build new shiny buildings, open up branches hither and yon, offer mortgages, college loans, and pay their board of directors a generous salary.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)If I am investing my own money in a business and put it all at risk, I am NOT utilizing a model that allows me to break even just because someone else has a not-for-profit. And, when you look at the costs incurred for EACH account (for instance, mailing statements to each account every month), no amount of increases to the numbers of accounts will reduce the cost of paper and postage.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Most people do the paperless thing. Hell, I'm old and a slow adapter, and even I do that.
Many banks have gone to a quarterly statement model (TD Bank, for example) so that monthly thing is an antiquated paradigm.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Problem solved
MADem
(135,425 posts)
Delphinus
(11,840 posts)I am asking seriously, because I do not know. Both are financial institutions.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I get interest on my savings account.
I also get interest on my CHECKING account.
Minimum balance? Five bucks.
What do they charge customers for? Checks. They're pretty cheap, too, if you get the plain ones--you want fancy, with bells and whistles or kitties or flags on 'em? You'll pay a few dollars more.
Want a debit card? Free. Bank credit card? Free.
They offer car loans, mortgages, college loans, CDs, IRAs...all the usual financial instruments.
Been a member for decades. Wouldn't switch for anything.
SharonAnn
(13,777 posts)they should be making money on these accounts.
And it certainly doesn't cost anywhere near $7 a month to "service" an inactive or low-balance account.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)And banks don't need to be charging $ 33 to $ 36 a pop for NSF fees either. Banks in Oregon in the early nineties were able to live with a law stating that they could only charge three dollars per NSF item. Banks weren't going under on account of the law w at all.
The NSF fees hit the poorest in our society the hardest. Most middle income people only bounce one or two checks a year. While poor people account for the crowd that bounces the most checks, allowing banks to reap over 38 billions of dollars a year.
TheFarseer
(9,323 posts)How else are they supposed to make money without money to loan out? Of course in the Corporate States of America, the government gives the banks money to loan out so they don't want depositors. It's time for the government to STOP catering to the banks so they will have to provide free checking and a decent rate on CD's and savings. I feel for retired people that can't get any interest on their money. What other choice do people have besides taking their chances in the stock market? I think it's creating a bubble frankly and all because we have to keep record profits and bonuses at the banks.
marmar
(77,084 posts)........ banking needs a retrofit.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)If you had $1500 in a savings account you wouldn't get $7 per month interest on it. That's 5.6% interest, unheard of in these times.
And if every bank charged you $7 per month in checking account fees, and you had no other choice, it would make sense to keep the money in your checking account.
However this isn't the case. There are a lot of local banks that don't act like they're doing you a big favor by letting you give them your money to invest. And I don't know of any credit union that would pull this kind of bullshit.
Didn't B of A get their corporate weenie wacked for trying to institute some kind of fee like this awhile back? Is Wells Fargo dumber than them? That'd be hard to do.
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)trekbiker
(768 posts)Checking is free at credit unions. I have a Visa card thru my credit union that pays me back 5% on all gas purchases, 3% on all grocery purchases and 1% on everything else. No annual charges, 9.99% interest (which I never pay). I dropped my Wells Fargo account 20 years ago and never looked back.
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)for over 15 years and have never had any problems. In fact, the bank has been very fair to me. Once I left my ATM card in the ATM because I was in a hurry. Someone behind me drew out $100 from my account. After I reported the card missing, they reimbursed me. My math is very bad and I overdrew on my debit card. I was going to be charged overdraft fees on 3 bounced checks. I called the bank and they cancelled the fees. So, I have no complaints against Bank of America.
SemperEadem
(8,053 posts)plenty of other people, however do... especially those who had the police called on them for wanting to close their accounts:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/10/19/st-louis-police-reportedly-barricaded-bank-of-america-wouldnt-allow-customers-to-withdraw-money-or-close-accounts/
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)I doubt that the police would be called on me if I closed my account.
SemperEadem
(8,053 posts)it has a tendency to run out when most inconvenient.
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)I should not have any problems. and I have plenty of money with Bank of America. Maybe that's why they treat me so fairly. Plus, I am not about to switch banks. I have a Bank of America around the corner from me and another a mile down the road. Switching to a credit union would be extremely inconvenient. The closest credit union bank is about 10 mile from me and since there are times I have to go into the bank in person, it would be hassle because it would mean driving through heavy traffic.
crunch60
(1,412 posts)moving your account to another bank after you read this.
http://fthebanks.org/matt-taibbi-on-bank-of-america/
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)To separate the working poor from her money.
Last April 24th, while doing business at WF, I watched from my chair outside the cubicle where a young woman was opening her checking account.
The financial officer opening the account gave a pitch for this woman to 'do the smart thing" and to open up a checking account that "encourages savings."
And the whole sad deal is that what this "checking account to encourage a person to save money" does is that once a month, it throws $ 75 from your checking into a savings account.
The woman in question was wearing a thread bare bare of jeans and a stained teeshirt. She looked like someone who works two jobs, or one job and then care gives others (kids, a sick parent, who knows.)
How in the heck is she going to compensate for the fact that she doesn't make enough money to afford to have the seventy five dollar a month roll over from checking over to somewhere else/.
She will end up spending more than $ 75 on the NSF fees.
virgogal
(10,178 posts)savings was frozen for a period of time? Would she have been able to just withdraw it right away?
I've been a CU client for about 40 years so I know nothing about this stuff.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)When it was my turn to open an account, they started in on the Big Push for the 75 dollar roll over into savings, and I refused anything but basic old fashioned checking. I added if they no longer had that, to forget it and I'd go with the spouse's credit union.
I do know that banks love to play these games of having direct withdrawals hit your account on the one day of the month you can least afford it. That's how they make 38 billin dollars a year from the poorest of the poor. (Most middle income people with steady jobs only bounce one or two checks a year. Most of the profit to banks from NSF fees comes from very poor people.)
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Or as many such fees as possible by playing with the order in which they process deposits and withdrawals to make sure the deposits are handled last in marginal cases.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Most normal human beings profile people all the time.
Ever go to a meet up-bar? Did you automatically go over and hang out with someone you found unattractive because attractiveness is only skin deep?
If you car breaks down in a very bad neighborhood, would you accept help from the older couple who looks like they are going to get their groceries, or do you roll down your windows and accept help from a group that looks like they are on their way to a gang banging?
I know "profiling" doesn't always work - I have numerous times gotten lost in a bad neighborhood and had someone who was rather scarey come up to my car window to help - And they were actually helpful and a really sweet person, despite being dressed like a biker, covered with tattoos, and looking rather nasty. But I will say my heart was racing just the same.
Most people in our society know poor looking poor people. Not someone who is slumming it, someone who is very poor.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)I'm going to leave next paycheck. Start the transition over to a credit union. I'm tired of this bullshit.
Record profits, record executive payouts and bonus, billions in bailout money, exorbitant interest rates on loans and lines of credit... 
asfghjkyu
(10 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)getting harder and harder to find a bank with no fees.
one local one in NJ just added fees after saying they never would when I signed up about 5 months ago.
would they care to honor that statement?
TheFarseer
(9,323 posts)They can get it free from the government so they'd prefer you piss off and stop annoying them. But would you like a home equity loan?
MADem
(135,425 posts)Oh joy--you lose your job, and then you're socked with a seven buck a month "bill" because you're not putting enough in their fucking bank?
Boycott.
Anyone having anything to do with them should STAMPEDE out of there, ASAP.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)
RobinA
(9,894 posts)I started out 45 years ago with a Wells Fargo predecessor. I've stuck with them through probably seven name changes because I never had a problem with my bank (whoever it was at the time). Probably never had a problem because all they had was my checking and savings, but when I had my debit card stolen they were fine. My family all chagned to various "local banks" because they were "local," but soon found themselves mergered into being part of various big banks. Now don't get me wrong, I think big banks are scam artists, I just never have a problem and I'd always been granfathered into a no-fee situation. I did, however, open a credit union account three years ago in anticipation of the need to switch.
Well, the time has come. Good by, Wells Fargo, I hate your logo anyway. Moved most of my money today, leaving only some in to cover any outstanding checks. Once they all clear I'll transfer the rest and close down the checking. I'm a little sad, because I feel like I'm abandoning good old Peoples Bank, the long time local that gave me my first savings account..
villager
(26,001 posts)had my first checking account in one, in my jejune youth.
Also absorbed into other banks, then bigger banks, etc...
When I had to split accounts when my divorce came, I went straight into a credit union. Been quite happy there....
pitohui
(20,564 posts)you guys do notice that all you have to do is have your paycheck or social security check direct deposited to your checking account and the fee is waived?
what's cruel about the fee is that it deliberately targets the unemployed
from those who have the least even that little will be taken away...i guess wells fargo was paying attention in sunday school but they took a sick moral from that story!
