4 ms·

ah, you mean there are still more than two banks customer can choose from? and for how long?

by AshamedCaptain 2y ago

stronglikedan 2y ago
Unless you have a very narrow use case, there has always been a plethora of banks to choose from.
- bob1029 2y ago
  Banking with a more local institution can make all of the difference in the experience. It would probably blow your mind if you've never done it. Maybe try a mid-size bank that operates in a few states if you are concerned with going too small. If you are banking with Wells Fargo or BoA, you are getting exactly what you signed up for. A customer base so large that they have no choice but to treat you like a row in a database (i.e., a piece of shit).
  - mindslight 2y ago
    > Maybe try a mid-size bank that operates in a few states if you are concerned with going too small I disagree with this. Medium/regional banks often have the same dynamic where the people in the branches have to call in to centralized help lines to get anything done, rather than employees being empowered to exercise judgement and act. But yet their systems can be way less polished than the megabanks. And from what I've seen their fees are often higher and less forgiving (not that you should be paying fees anywhere though, as an individual retail customer) My main combo is local bank/creditunion for cash/notary/medallion/safedepositbox/cashierschecks and then online-only large bank because it pays real interest and has a less janky UI. (although with the ever-ratcheting SMS login nags, I'm starting to question that last bit). Both refund third party ATM fees. On the larger topic, I'm disappointed to see this regulatory push has very little to do with making sure users can get frequent automated access to their own transaction data. Continually verifying the transactions on your account is basically the necessary and sufficient condition for preventing the bank making you responsible for their being defrauded.
- koolba 2y ago
  There's four banks with over $1T in assets, eight with over $500B, nineteen with over $200B, and 29 with over $100B: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/lbr/current/ https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/lbr/current/ I'd argue there's exactly four banks to choose from if you plan on holding more than the FDIC limits at any one bank as I'm not as confident the rest would have an implicit "too-big-to-fail" guarantee.
  - barryrandall 2y ago
    Most of those banks' customers would be better off at one of the thousands of credit unions in the US.
  - naniwaduni 2y ago
    - If you demand more than an FDIC limit of liquidity in cash, you're not really in the same market for banking services as most natural persons. If the off-the-shelf banking products don't do it for you, you should probably be shopping around and negotiating. - Private insurance is stil a thing. Banks are like some of the most underwriter-legible institutions known to man. - Four is a bigger number than two anyway.
  - kasey_junk 2y ago
    If you are going to hold more than the fdic limits you should use one of the myriad of products designed for that rather than using hope as a risk management technique. They’ve been around for decades and are a normal part of any wealth protection strategy. For better or worse US governmental policy is to encourage myriad amounts of banks, and it’s worked given we have more than any other nation by a long stretch. In fact a lot of the disfunction in our banking system comes from the fact that we have too many banks. No knowledgeable person thinks Americans lack for choice in banking.
    - TheCoelacanth 2y ago
      People who have more than the FDIC limits probably have the most choice of banks because they are such desirable customers.
  - deleted 2y ago

ah, you mean there are still more than two banks customer can choose from? and for how long?

stronglikedan 2y ago

Unless you have a very narrow use case, there has always been a plethora of banks to choose from.

bob1029 2y ago
Banking with a more local institution can make all of the difference in the experience. It would probably blow your mind if you've never done it. Maybe try a mid-size bank that operates in a few states if you are concerned with going too small. If you are banking with Wells Fargo or BoA, you are getting exactly what you signed up for. A customer base so large that they have no choice but to treat you like a row in a database (i.e., a piece of shit).
- mindslight 2y ago
  > Maybe try a mid-size bank that operates in a few states if you are concerned with going too small I disagree with this. Medium/regional banks often have the same dynamic where the people in the branches have to call in to centralized help lines to get anything done, rather than employees being empowered to exercise judgement and act. But yet their systems can be way less polished than the megabanks. And from what I've seen their fees are often higher and less forgiving (not that you should be paying fees anywhere though, as an individual retail customer) My main combo is local bank/creditunion for cash/notary/medallion/safedepositbox/cashierschecks and then online-only large bank because it pays real interest and has a less janky UI. (although with the ever-ratcheting SMS login nags, I'm starting to question that last bit). Both refund third party ATM fees. On the larger topic, I'm disappointed to see this regulatory push has very little to do with making sure users can get frequent automated access to their own transaction data. Continually verifying the transactions on your account is basically the necessary and sufficient condition for preventing the bank making you responsible for their being defrauded.
koolba 2y ago
There's four banks with over $1T in assets, eight with over $500B, nineteen with over $200B, and 29 with over $100B: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/lbr/current/ https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/lbr/current/ I'd argue there's exactly four banks to choose from if you plan on holding more than the FDIC limits at any one bank as I'm not as confident the rest would have an implicit "too-big-to-fail" guarantee.
- barryrandall 2y ago
  Most of those banks' customers would be better off at one of the thousands of credit unions in the US.
- naniwaduni 2y ago
  - If you demand more than an FDIC limit of liquidity in cash, you're not really in the same market for banking services as most natural persons. If the off-the-shelf banking products don't do it for you, you should probably be shopping around and negotiating. - Private insurance is stil a thing. Banks are like some of the most underwriter-legible institutions known to man. - Four is a bigger number than two anyway.
- kasey_junk 2y ago
  If you are going to hold more than the fdic limits you should use one of the myriad of products designed for that rather than using hope as a risk management technique. They’ve been around for decades and are a normal part of any wealth protection strategy. For better or worse US governmental policy is to encourage myriad amounts of banks, and it’s worked given we have more than any other nation by a long stretch. In fact a lot of the disfunction in our banking system comes from the fact that we have too many banks. No knowledgeable person thinks Americans lack for choice in banking.
  - TheCoelacanth 2y ago
    People who have more than the FDIC limits probably have the most choice of banks because they are such desirable customers.
- deleted 2y ago