3 ms·
> and managed to avoid pretty much any fees by following the guidance of very helpful employees shouldn't they not have useless fees to begin with?
by gcb0 14y ago
> and managed to avoid pretty much any fees by following the guidance of very helpful employees
shouldn't they not have useless fees to begin with?
- jmj42 14y agoI'm not sure the fees are _necessarily_ useless. Banking is a service, and services cost money to provide. I suppose an argument can be made that the fees are higher than they need to be, but then, banks aren't non-profit entities either. As for me, I've been a Chase customer since 2004 when they merged with Bank One, and a Bank One customer since 1990. I've tried a few local and regional banks, and brief stint with BOA as Bank One didn't have any branches in San Jose circa 2002. I've been quite happy with my Bank One/Chase experience to date. Far more than any other bank if tried.
- gcb0 14y agoan uncle that worked too long on banks used to tell that when he started, he would be writing mainframes applications to calculate the 'cost' of a client for the bank. Basically, the bank would give the service as an investment to get the client money, and make money investing that money. At some point banks started to charge for services and nobody could live without banks anymore, so he was writing cliper86(?) scripts to discover the 'profit' of a new client.
- aneth4 14y agoThey are not useless fees. They are how the bank generates revenue so it can at least break even on tiny accounts. Just the regulatory burden of an empty bank account is $100-$200/year, so they need a way to recover that. In general, if you do enough business, there is a way the bank can do that without charging fees, but you need to set your accounts up right.