Bangkok Bank Charges A Fee For Me To Give Them My Money.

[SantiSuk]

It's not really that stupid. There is a transaction cost to a bank in making any transaction, deposit or withdrawal. It's only our western conventions that dictate that banks should be grateful to get our money that makes it seem odd.

Edited November 10, 2011 by SantiSuk

[PattayaParent]

^the liquidity ratio that banks are legally required to maintain in UK is 12.5%, divide 100 by 12.5 and you get 8. So they are only required to maintain 1/8th of the money actually in cash that they lend out.

Credit cards may have very high write offs, but they also have very high APRs (15% ~ 23%) to pay for this risk and are risk adverse in handing them out. The CC divisions are also a separate part of the banking system, so how does that justify banks charging customers to deposit money into their standard personal account, especially as your CC provider might not even be your bank eg. Virgin?

Exactly my point on the credit card that we charge/price for risk. Secured credit like home mortgages have commensurately lower interest rates. I am glad we agree there.

I have no idea why you are quoting the UK again. This is Thailand ......

Our Credit Card division is part of the Bank. Not separate apart from internal organizational considerations. You seem to be talking about the UK environment, not Thailand, again. We run our own issuer and acquiring network.

I'm quoting the UK because I was answering Daveroc's post comparing the Thai banks charges to the bank charges in his home coutry, which I assume is UK.

My point about the credit cards was that while you may charge/price for the risk, why should there also be a charge to deposit money into a standard personal account at a bank which may not even be the one that you hold a credit card with, so I doubt we are agreeing?

[PattayaParent]

It's not really that stupid. There is a transaction cost to a bank in making any transaction, deposit or withdrawal. It's only our western conventions that dictate that banks should be grateful to get our money that makes it seem odd.

So SantiSuk, if you would kindly give me US$10,000 I will give you interest of 0.05% and only charge you US$150 for the priviledge of giving me the money.

That doesn't sound odd at all does it?

[samran]

It's not really that stupid. There is a transaction cost to a bank in making any transaction, deposit or withdrawal. It's only our western conventions that dictate that banks should be grateful to get our money that makes it seem odd.

So SantiSuk, if you would kindly give me US$10,000 I will give you interest of 0.05% and only charge you US$150 for the priviledge of giving me the money.

That doesn't sound odd at all does it?

It is only going to cost you $150pa to keep that $10K secure, insured, and have the IT and human resources all set in place so I can access it anytime I want?

Sounds like a reasonable deal to me.

[melvinmelvin]

not strange at all having a wee fee for a cash deposit

the absolutely most expensive service a bank can offer is the handling of cash,

that being deposit or withdrawal or foreign currency exchange or denomination exchange

the handling of cash is COSTLY for any bank

why shouldn't they charge for it

Melvin Melvin... you sound like a thai business owner stuck in the past, it is convoluted thinking like yours that prolongs Thai banks and business' thinking that they are doing you a favor by letting you buy their products or deposit your money in their bank. They convinced the gullible masses of this and it was common practice here when they had a captive market but that is slowly changing. They begin to learn when we take our money or business elsewhere. It is a slow process but in this Global economy they will find out that 'the times they are a changing'.

I transfered my money from one province BB to another province and the BB manager couldn't cancel all fees fast enough when I got up and started to walk out.

He said "no charge for ATM card or for deposit money, no charge anything". Now I was depositing a large sum I grant you but the more people vote

with their feet the sooner Thai business will wise up and realize that we are doing them a favor by shopping with them not visa versa. Their elitist attitude always leaves me wondering why the thai people haven't seen thru this <snip> years ago.

How many depositors do you think a bank would get right now if it offered free services to the general public? Such a bank would force the other banks to become competitive.

Well, I'd like to disagree with your entry.

Charging fees for using costly services in a bank is not a thing of the past or oldfashioned. I consider this is a thing of the future. And its growing.

And, it is not limited to any old fashioned Thai thinking.

It is coming more and more in Europe.

I also see bank branch offices popping up that offer all bank related services except any handling of cash.

Cash handling is quite simply costly.

The thinking is of course that customers using costly services should carry more of the burden than the customers not using costly services.

I think that is reasonably sound thinking if you want to keep customers in the long run.

[ianguygil]

^the liquidity ratio that banks are legally required to maintain in UK is 12.5%, divide 100 by 12.5 and you get 8. So they are only required to maintain 1/8th of the money actually in cash that they lend out.

Credit cards may have very high write offs, but they also have very high APRs (15% ~ 23%) to pay for this risk and are risk adverse in handing them out. The CC divisions are also a separate part of the banking system, so how does that justify banks charging customers to deposit money into their standard personal account, especially as your CC provider might not even be your bank eg. Virgin?

Sorry, I was in a meeting when I typed the response.

The ratio you refer to is Capital Adequacy. It is not a ratio of Deposits to Loans, it is ratio of the Bank's Capital to Loans (acually all Assets). So your calculation is about Capital, it is nothing to do with liquidity.

[Lifer]

As a Banker I guess I will never win the argument on fees. Interesting that Doctors, Dentists, Accountants Lawyers Surveyors Mechanics etc all charge for their services and we pay without comment. Banking is a commercial operation that requires considerable investment in Bricks and mortar, staffing, IT frameworks, Capital requirements and with Shareholders to consider.

In support of the Thai Banking system in relation to my home country the fee structure here is very cheap. At home I would pay the equivalent of minimum 4000 baht in bank fees per year just to run a standard personal account. I can avoid most of this if I care to leave equivalent 125,000 baht in the non interest paying account.

In Thailand, I pay no account fees and am only required to have 500 baht to open the account. I pay 200 baht a year for my ATM card.

If the services I chose to use are considered expensive, I have the choice of not using them, but then have to consider the cost of finding an alternative i.e. driving to the provincial area to pay over some money.

In the case of BBL if my account remains inactive for 12 months and the balance is below 2000 baht an inoperative fee of 50 baht a month will apply.

Let the debate continue

as a banker I would expect that your account with the bank you work for incurs no fees?

And would also expect that you would easily be able to find out which banks don't impose monthly or yearly fees on a standard personal account.

As for comparisons with fee charging professionals banks make money from the money that is deposited with them. They are able to loan out 8X the amount deposited, at interest rates 10X higher than they pay. That they also want to charge the depositor to allow him to provide the bank with the means that it needs to make this vast profit is unconscionable.

That's exactly right! They take our money and loan it out at a higher rate than they pay us. I have no problem with paying a bank to transfer money or other such services I use, but to pay any bank for the privilege of letting you give them money is something else. Having money in three banks here, and having had accounts in banks around the world, I have never encountered that ruse until Thailand. That does not imply that other banks aren't doing it too. However, TV users will never be able to agree on anything, no matter the topic.

[SantiSuk]

It's not really that stupid. There is a transaction cost to a bank in making any transaction, deposit or withdrawal. It's only our western conventions that dictate that banks should be grateful to get our money that makes it seem odd.

So SantiSuk, if you would kindly give me US$10,000 I will give you interest of 0.05% and only charge you US$150 for the priviledge of giving me the money.

That doesn't sound odd at all does it?

It is only going to cost you $150pa to keep that $10K secure, insured, and have the IT and human resources all set in place so I can access it anytime I want?

Sounds like a reasonable deal to me.

You beat me to it Samran. People better get used to the fact that banks have woken up to the idea that they haven't been making money on current accounts and on-demand savings accounts where the amounts held per customer are small. I'm afraid that $10,000 is chicken shit these days PP

[janverbeem]

It's not really that stupid. There is a transaction cost to a bank in making any transaction, deposit or withdrawal. It's only our western conventions that dictate that banks should be grateful to get our money that makes it seem odd.

Well my bank in Europe has been free for the past 30 years.Even international transfers are free.And you know what ,the interest they pay is even slightly higher than the average of banks that charge a fee for everything.

If this is impossible,how they can survive for more than 30 years already.

Ooooh,I know..................Maybe their CEO doesn't earn 30.000.000 $ a year.

[PattayaParent]

It's not really that stupid. There is a transaction cost to a bank in making any transaction, deposit or withdrawal. It's only our western conventions that dictate that banks should be grateful to get our money that makes it seem odd.

So SantiSuk, if you would kindly give me US$10,000 I will give you interest of 0.05% and only charge you US$150 for the priviledge of giving me the money.

That doesn't sound odd at all does it?

It is only going to cost you $150pa to keep that $10K secure, insured, and have the IT and human resources all set in place so I can access it anytime I want?

Sounds like a reasonable deal to me.

But don't forget I'll charge you any time you want to access it as well.

[PattayaParent]

^the liquidity ratio that banks are legally required to maintain in UK is 12.5%, divide 100 by 12.5 and you get 8. So they are only required to maintain 1/8th of the money actually in cash that they lend out.

Credit cards may have very high write offs, but they also have very high APRs (15% ~ 23%) to pay for this risk and are risk adverse in handing them out. The CC divisions are also a separate part of the banking system, so how does that justify banks charging customers to deposit money into their standard personal account, especially as your CC provider might not even be your bank eg. Virgin?

Sorry, I was in a meeting when I typed the response.

The ratio you refer to is Capital Adequacy. It is not a ratio of Deposits to Loans, it is ratio of the Bank's Capital to Loans (acually all Assets). So your calculation is about Capital, it is nothing to do with liquidity.

That's not what I learnt in Economics, the 12.5% had to be liquid to meet calls for cash.

[samran]

It's not really that stupid. There is a transaction cost to a bank in making any transaction, deposit or withdrawal. It's only our western conventions that dictate that banks should be grateful to get our money that makes it seem odd.

So SantiSuk, if you would kindly give me US$10,000 I will give you interest of 0.05% and only charge you US$150 for the priviledge of giving me the money.

That doesn't sound odd at all does it?

It is only going to cost you $150pa to keep that $10K secure, insured, and have the IT and human resources all set in place so I can access it anytime I want?

Sounds like a reasonable deal to me.

But don't forget I'll charge you any time you want to access it as well.

Fine, as long as you keep it safe.

The other option is under the bed. I'd prefer a bank. I don't have enough money to build a private bank myself, so I'd rather pay someone to keep it safe, and I'll be judicious with how I handle transactions to minimise the cost to myself.

Edited November 11, 2011 by samran

[Lifer]

You might say posters have gotten their money's worth on this overly long topic. I'm glad we at least have a choice of banks and Bangkok Bank is not a monopoly. Cheers.

[PattayaParent]

It is only going to cost you $150pa to keep that $10K secure, insured, and have the IT and human resources all set in place so I can access it anytime I want?

Sounds like a reasonable deal to me.

But don't forget I'll charge you any time you want to access it as well.

Fine, as long as you keep it safe.

The other option is under the bed. I'd prefer a bank. I don't have enough money to build a private bank myself, so I'd rather pay someone to keep it safe, and I'll be judicious with how I handle transactions to minimise the cost to myself.

So do I, I have nothing against banks, I have accounts in many.

It's just taking the piss when they want to charge you deposit fees to allow them to use your money to make millions and pay their directors huge bonuses.

[ianguygil]

^the liquidity ratio that banks are legally required to maintain in UK is 12.5%, divide 100 by 12.5 and you get 8. So they are only required to maintain 1/8th of the money actually in cash that they lend out.

Credit cards may have very high write offs, but they also have very high APRs (15% ~ 23%) to pay for this risk and are risk adverse in handing them out. The CC divisions are also a separate part of the banking system, so how does that justify banks charging customers to deposit money into their standard personal account, especially as your CC provider might not even be your bank eg. Virgin?

Sorry, I was in a meeting when I typed the response.

The ratio you refer to is Capital Adequacy. It is not a ratio of Deposits to Loans, it is ratio of the Bank's Capital to Loans (acually all Assets). So your calculation is about Capital, it is nothing to do with liquidity.

That's not what I learnt in Economics, the 12.5% had to be liquid to meet calls for cash.

This is my absolute last post on this thread as I am busy - in meetings this weekend...

Capital Adequacy Ratio (the one you mentioned) ensures that the banks have some of their own money in the equation when they lend / trade and can absorb losses without putting depositors funds at risk. Hereare links. There are lots you can research yourself.... ..

http://www.investope...p#axzz1dNT7jclE

http://en.wikipedia...._adequacy_ratio

Liquidity and the Loan to Deposit Ratio - this is where companies like Northern Rock got themselves in trouble, and Lehman. They were highly leveraged and the borrowed hugely in the short term markets. Once they started to have troubles nobody wanted to lend to them, or only would at hugely high rates. This is comparable of what is happening to Italy and Greece from the Sovereign Debt but some of these banks were literally financing huge amounts every day.....As an Economics graduate, which I am not I am a propeller head in Computer Science - you will understand this well and how this directly relates to liquidity.

http://www.financefo...osit-Ratio.html

Most of the major banks in Thailand, particularly us or at least last time I looked, are on the conservative end of this and have slightly more deposits than assets, hence are net providers of liquidity. Some of the smaller banks are about 1.5 times assets to deposits and borrow.

Over and out...:jap:

Edited November 11, 2011 by ianguygil

[tpiety2]

not strange at all having a wee fee for a cash deposit

the absolutely most expensive service a bank can offer is the handling of cash,

that being deposit or withdrawal or foreign currency exchange or denomination exchange

the handling of cash is COSTLY for any bank

why shouldn't they charge for it

Melvin Melvin... you sound like a thai business owner stuck in the past, it is convoluted thinking like yours that prolongs Thai banks and business' thinking that they are doing you a favor by letting you buy their products or deposit your money in their bank. They convinced the gullible masses of this and it was common practice here when they had a captive market but that is slowly changing. They begin to learn when we take our money or business elsewhere. It is a slow process but in this Global economy they will find out that 'the times they are a changing'.

I transfered my money from one province BB to another province and the BB manager couldn't cancel all fees fast enough when I got up and started to walk out.

He said "no charge for ATM card or for deposit money, no charge anything". Now I was depositing a large sum I grant you but the more people vote

with their feet the sooner Thai business will wise up and realize that we are doing them a favor by shopping with them not visa versa. Their elitist attitude always leaves me wondering why the thai people haven't seen thru this <snip> years ago.

How many depositors do you think a bank would get right now if it offered free services to the general public? Such a bank would force the other banks to become competitive.

Such a bank would need to raise revenue in another way. An increase in the NIM (Net Interest Margin), i.e. the spread between deposits and lending, for example. This would imply lowering deposit rates and/or increasing lending rates.

As Dave said it is strange that the fees charged by all other service providers are acceptable but some seem to feel that banks should not charge fees. We are a commercial enterprise, we are not state owned like so many UK and US banks.

We provide a service and we charge for it in a competitive and regulated market. As AURELIUS said, the regulators are looking at fees and banks need to comply with any changes they impose. We do listen to customers and especially in these challenging times of flooding we are making accomodations to try to help the Thai public. Please see the attached link, we, along with all members of the TBA (Thai Bankers Association) are waiving inter-regional ATM Withdrawal fees during this period to help those impacted by the flood who have had to travel to other provinces.

http://www.bangkokba...elease2nov.aspx

I do think that the term "scam" should be looked at by the moderators as that is a complete insult to the Bank an implies immoral and illegal activities. That is just silly. Posters should be more responsible.

Ian

Sorry about the scam comment perhaps I should just say people need to remove their blinders.

BTW Banks in the US are privately held not government owned and if you read the US news you know that Bank of America tried to implement a $5 monthly

ATM service fee and thought better of it after the public outcry and because of thousands of people switching their accounts to other institutions.

These fees disproportionately hurt the small depositor much more than the well off, how do you justify that? I am all for private enterprises making money but

I am also a big believer in competition like the mechanic or the dentist or Big C has to compete with in the market place.

You imply that the bank is not making money unless they charge depositors fees for so kindly letting them deposit their money with the bank.

If they can not make a profit by lending and investing the depositors money and the fees they charge business' when we use their plastic to make purchases then maybe they are doing something wrong.

I would like to see a breakdown of the profits. How much the profits are and by percentage how they were generated.

This cannard about other business' charging a fee is completely different and is not applicable to banks. The dentist or mechanics or the plumber do not continue daily to make money off of you because you used their product or services. Banks on the other hand (if they are well run) make handsome profits

on our money whether we ever use their ATM or transfer etc. banking services. How long would Big C stay in business if they initially charged you 300 baht to shop with them (open an acct.) and then 30 baht every subsequent time you wanted to buy their products (use their services) like the banks do???

I happen to believe the banks are doing fine and that the cost of ATM's and transfers etc.(which are electronic not labor intensive) are the cost of doing business. I think profits from bank fees pale in comparison to the profits generated by the use of the depositors money and the fees they charge business when depositors use their bank cards to make purchases plus the many other ways banks generate income.

I have been wrong before but it'll take some powerful convincing to change my thinking, however I have an open mind so let's see what ya got.

[haveaniceday]

This is one of the reasons why people pull large amounts of cash out and drive it to another province.

A totally retarded fee.

[Nana Cowboy]

Bangkok Bank is a great company and a great bank. They offer services that no other Thai banks do. The main benefit for me is that they have a NYC branch and a US bank routing number so that I can make regular transfers by computer to that NY branch and they plop that cash into my bkk bank acct here in thailand using the onshore exchange rate. No other Thai banks offer this simplicity. Also they send an SMS when the transfer is done with all details: how much in USD, the echange rate (a decent one) and how much in baht. I am very pleased with Bangkok bank. The fees for that service is $5 to the NY bank and 200 baht minimum fee or 500 max to bkk bank in thailand. It adds up because my US bank limits transfers to $2000 per time but that's not bkk bank's fault. The US bank charges $3 for the transfer so it ends up being $15 which stings a little bit but it's super convenient. Also if you wanted to do direct deposit of monthly checks, you could do it direct to that NY branch and same fees would apply but again bkk bank is the only bank that has this service. I think it kicks butt myself. It sure beats going to the ATM and withdrawing a $500 limit daily and depositing to bkk bank. I think they rock

[PattayaParent]

The ratio you refer to is Capital Adequacy. It is not a ratio of Deposits to Loans, it is ratio of the Bank's Capital to Loans (acually all Assets). So your calculation is about Capital, it is nothing to do with liquidity.

That's not what I learnt in Economics, the 12.5% had to be liquid to meet calls for cash.

This is my absolute last post on this thread as I am busy - in meetings this weekend...

Capital Adequacy Ratio (the one you mentioned) ensures that the banks have some of their own money in the equation when they lend / trade and can absorb losses without putting depositors funds at risk. Hereare links. There are lots you can research yourself.... ..

http://www.investope...p#axzz1dNT7jclE

http://en.wikipedia...._adequacy_ratio

Liquidity and the Loan to Deposit Ratio - this is where companies like Northern Rock got themselves in trouble, and Lehman. They were highly leveraged and the borrowed hugely in the short term markets. Once they started to have troubles nobody wanted to lend to them, or only would at hugely high rates. This is comparable of what is happening to Italy and Greece from the Sovereign Debt but some of these banks were literally financing huge amounts every day.....As an Economics graduate, which I am not I am a propeller head in Computer Science - you will understand this well and how this directly relates to liquidity.

http://www.financefo...osit-Ratio.html

Most of the major banks in Thailand, particularly us or at least last time I looked, are on the conservative end of this and have slightly more deposits than assets, hence are net providers of liquidity. Some of the smaller banks are about 1.5 times assets to deposits and borrow.

Over and out...:jap:

Sorry to disagree with you again Ian but I was in no way referring to Capital Adequacy, only liquid assets as described here

http://www.investorwords.com/2840/liquidity_ratio.html "For a bank this is the cash held by the bank as a proportion of deposits in the bank."

and here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_Requirement "In the United States, a reserve requirement (or liquidity ratio) is a minimum value, set by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, of the ratio of required reserves to some category of deposits held at depository institutions.."

and here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_liquidity_ratio "Statutory liquidity ratio is the amount of liquid assets, such as cash, precious metals or other approved securities, that a financial institution must maintain as reserves other than the cash with the Central Bank"

See also section V here http://www.bancocentral.tl/Download/Regulations/CPO-2000-3.pdf which gives examples of the liquid assets that may be accounted for.

and seems to be a common definition among many countries, except Thailand it seems.

Edited November 11, 2011 by PattayaParent

[tpiety2]

Bangkok Bank is a great company and a great bank. They offer services that no other Thai banks do. The main benefit for me is that they have a NYC branch and a US bank routing number so that I can make regular transfers by computer to that NY branch and they plop that cash into my bkk bank acct here in thailand using the onshore exchange rate. No other Thai banks offer this simplicity. Also they send an SMS when the transfer is done with all details: how much in USD, the echange rate (a decent one) and how much in baht. I am very pleased with Bangkok bank. The fees for that service is $5 to the NY bank and 200 baht minimum fee or 500 max to bkk bank in thailand. It adds up because my US bank limits transfers to $2000 per time but that's not bkk bank's fault. The US bank charges $3 for the transfer so it ends up being $15 which stings a little bit but it's super convenient. Also if you wanted to do direct deposit of monthly checks, you could do it direct to that NY branch and same fees would apply but again bkk bank is the only bank that has this service. I think it kicks butt myself. It sure beats going to the ATM and withdrawing a $500 limit daily and depositing to bkk bank. I think they rock

Yea I initially chose Bangkok Bank for the same reason and I agree they do a great job. You ought to check out some other US banks. At Wells Fargo I can transfer 10k or 15k at a time depending on it being a one day or 5 day transfer.

[puck2]

As a Banker I guess I will never win the argument on fees. Interesting that Doctors, Dentists, Accountants Lawyers Surveyors Mechanics etc all charge for their services and we pay without comment. Banking is a commercial operation that requires considerable investment in Bricks and mortar, staffing, IT frameworks, Capital requirements and with Shareholders to consider.

In support of the Thai Banking system in relation to my home country the fee structure here is very cheap. At home I would pay the equivalent of minimum 4000 baht in bank fees per year just to run a standard personal account. I can avoid most of this if I care to leave equivalent 125,000 baht in the non interest paying account.

In Thailand, I pay no account fees and am only required to have 500 baht to open the account. I pay 200 baht a year for my ATM card.

If the services I chose to use are considered expensive, I have the choice of not using them, but then have to consider the cost of finding an alternative i.e. driving to the provincial area to pay over some money.

In the case of BBL if my account remains inactive for 12 months and the balance is below 2000 baht an inoperative fee of 50 baht a month will apply.

Let the debate continue

I appreciate your knowledge and your comments, but this time you missed the point.

You defend the relative inflated bank fees by comparing them with those in the US. Yes, it's a bankers view, you concede it.

In many EU-countries nearly all normal services are free of charge, such as money transfers within the home country, credit cards, (ATM)-withdrawals. This is why they are interested to have you as a customer, who also opens a savings account, wants a loan, who wants this and that for his/her money. The banks are working with the customers money. This is winning money, so that they don't need the primitive kind of heavy fee charging. The profits of the bank fees account only for a few percents.

The bank fees here in Thailand are very high in relation to the peoples income. Some time before I read that the revenue of Thai banks consist of 20 to 30% by fees.

Guess why???

[PattayaParent]

Fine, as long as you keep it safe.

The other option is under the bed. I'd prefer a bank. I don't have enough money to build a private bank myself, so I'd rather pay someone to keep it safe, and I'll be judicious with how I handle transactions to minimise the cost to myself.

Who said banks have to keep you money safe?

Failed banks in USA - warning, it's a long list http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html

UK banks almost failed (several did, Nothern Rock, RBS, Barings, Bradford & Bingley, Scarborough) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1127278/Revealed-Day-banks-just-hours-collapse.html

Not to mention headline hitters like Barings, Lehmanns, and Friedlander.

[Nana Cowboy]

Bangkok Bank is a great company and a great bank. They offer services that no other Thai banks do. The main benefit for me is that they have a NYC branch and a US bank routing number so that I can make regular transfers by computer to that NY branch and they plop that cash into my bkk bank acct here in thailand using the onshore exchange rate. No other Thai banks offer this simplicity. Also they send an SMS when the transfer is done with all details: how much in USD, the echange rate (a decent one) and how much in baht. I am very pleased with Bangkok bank. The fees for that service is $5 to the NY bank and 200 baht minimum fee or 500 max to bkk bank in thailand. It adds up because my US bank limits transfers to $2000 per time but that's not bkk bank's fault. The US bank charges $3 for the transfer so it ends up being $15 which stings a little bit but it's super convenient. Also if you wanted to do direct deposit of monthly checks, you could do it direct to that NY branch and same fees would apply but again bkk bank is the only bank that has this service. I think it kicks butt myself. It sure beats going to the ATM and withdrawing a $500 limit daily and depositing to bkk bank. I think they rock

Yea I initially chose Bangkok Bank for the same reason and I agree they do a great job. You ought to check out some other US banks. At Wells Fargo I can transfer 10k or 15k at a time depending on it being a one day or 5 day transfer.

Actually I use well fargo and they limit me to $2000 per transfer using the ACH transfer and they limit me to $6000 per 30 days. I also have Suntrust and they have the same $2000 limit per transfer but $10,000 per 30 days. Both charge $3 per transfer. So this method is convenient but ends up costing close to $15 after paying all 3 parties to transfer $2000 max each time. I don't really care because of the convenience of it all and the exchange rate is not bad. I have a brokerage account but they won't allow transfers to passbook savings accounts. That's too bad because with them there's no limits and no fees for transfers but for some reason they have a problem with passbook savings account transfers. Oh well

Edited November 12, 2011 by Nana Cowboy

[samran]

Fine, as long as you keep it safe.

The other option is under the bed. I'd prefer a bank. I don't have enough money to build a private bank myself, so I'd rather pay someone to keep it safe, and I'll be judicious with how I handle transactions to minimise the cost to myself.

Who said banks have to keep you money safe?

Failed banks in USA - warning, it's a long list http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html

UK banks almost failed (several did, Nothern Rock, RBS, Barings, Bradford & Bingley, Scarborough) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1127278/Revealed-Day-banks-just-hours-collapse.html

Not to mention headline hitters like Barings, Lehmanns, and Friedlander.

Even more reason I guess to stick my $10K with you then....

[Tywais]

A post with profanities and defamation has been removed.

6) Not to post comments that could be reasonably construed as defamation or libel.

3) Not to post in a manner that is vulgar, obscene or profane .

[ianguygil]

The ratio you refer to is Capital Adequacy. It is not a ratio of Deposits to Loans, it is ratio of the Bank's Capital to Loans (acually all Assets). So your calculation is about Capital, it is nothing to do with liquidity.

That's not what I learnt in Economics, the 12.5% had to be liquid to meet calls for cash.

This is my absolute last post on this thread as I am busy - in meetings this weekend...

Capital Adequacy Ratio (the one you mentioned) ensures that the banks have some of their own money in the equation when they lend / trade and can absorb losses without putting depositors funds at risk. Hereare links. There are lots you can research yourself.... ..

http://www.investope...p#axzz1dNT7jclE

http://en.wikipedia...._adequacy_ratio

Liquidity and the Loan to Deposit Ratio - this is where companies like Northern Rock got themselves in trouble, and Lehman. They were highly leveraged and the borrowed hugely in the short term markets. Once they started to have troubles nobody wanted to lend to them, or only would at hugely high rates. This is comparable of what is happening to Italy and Greece from the Sovereign Debt but some of these banks were literally financing huge amounts every day.....As an Economics graduate, which I am not I am a propeller head in Computer Science - you will understand this well and how this directly relates to liquidity.

http://www.financefo...osit-Ratio.html

Most of the major banks in Thailand, particularly us or at least last time I looked, are on the conservative end of this and have slightly more deposits than assets, hence are net providers of liquidity. Some of the smaller banks are about 1.5 times assets to deposits and borrow.

Over and out...:jap:

Sorry to disagree with you again Ian but I was in no way referring to Capital Adequacy, only liquid assets as described here

http://www.investorw...dity_ratio.html "For a bank this is the cash held by the bank as a proportion of deposits in the bank."

and here

http://en.wikipedia....rve_Requirement "In the United States, a reserve requirement (or liquidity ratio) is a minimum value, set by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, of the ratio of required reserves to some category of deposits held at depository institutions.."

and here

http://en.wikipedia....liquidity_ratio "Statutory liquidity ratio is the amount of liquid assets, such as cash, precious metals or other approved securities, that a financial institution must maintain as reserves other than the cash with the Central Bank"

See also section V here http://www.bancocent.../CPO-2000-3.pdf which gives examples of the liquid assets that may be accounted for.

and seems to be a common definition among many countries, except Thailand it seems.

OK. I'll bite.....

This whole discussion on ratios started when you posted "They are able to loan out 8X the amount deposited, at inteest rates 10X higher than they pay". You were directly referring to a ratio of the amount lent to the amount deposited. So how does this relate to the liquidity ratios you posted above?

Edited November 13, 2011 by ianguygil

[4evermaat]

This is one of the reasons why people pull large amounts of cash out and drive it to another province.

A totally retarded fee.

So you would take out 100,000 and burn 500-1500 baht in gas round trip to move some money around and save a little on fees? If you were going in that direction, I suppose it might be justified. But solely to save a few baht in fees?

Or pay 10baht per 10,000 baht (maybe online transfers there is a cap on fees on some circumstances?), and not have to walk around with cash, and have it credited to the account receiving account instantly?

Banking is surprisingly efficient in thailand. Nearly 24-hr service ATM/CDM machines and large daily limits for deposit and withdrawal, and mall branch locations opened 6-7 days a week 9-10 hours a day. In USA, depositing money at branch opened in the same state and usually, if cash it is usually credited immediately or end of biz day. Checks can be immediate, end of business day, or up to 5 business days for out of state checks depending on your relationship with your bank. Atm deposits are limited to the one linked to the atm card used, and only BofA has machines with scan technology. Some banks, like Regions do not have ATM deposits at all, so once the branch closes, you're waiting until the next business day You have to find same-bank atm in order to avoid the fee when withdrawing. Unless you bank with BofA, Chase, or Wells Fargo, that's extremely difficult. So you end up getting charged TWICE if you do not use your own(from atm card's bank + the atm itself). Outside of specialty banks in USA such as USAA, military/fed affiliated banks, you do not get any reimbursement for withdrawing from non-same bank atms. With BofA, even walking into bank to do anything other than deposit can result in fees as they encourage people to go to ATM.

The fee compared with the flexibility available is very reasonable, imo. Sure was cool though when i went to Malaysia and didn't have to pay 150 baht at any of their major banks to withdraw funds . Didn't have to search around for an AEON, either.

[samran]

This is one of the reasons why people pull large amounts of cash out and drive it to another province.

A totally retarded fee.

So you would take out 100,000 and burn 500-1500 baht in gas round trip to move some money around and save a little on fees? If you were going in that direction, I suppose it might be justified. But solely to save a few baht in fees?

Or pay 10baht per 10,000 baht (maybe online transfers there is a cap on fees on some circumstances?), and not have to walk around with cash, and have it credited to the account receiving account instantly?

Banking is surprisingly efficient in thailand.

You are forgetting that most people who complain about this fee probably live here on the smell of an oily rag. They also probably don't understand the concept of 'opportunity cost' which you've effectively explained in your previous post.

My guess is that the majority of the complainers are from the UK. While I'd like to use the 'whinging Pom' tag here , it would be unfair. During my time living in the UK (coming from Australia) I was rather surprised by the lack of banking charges for day to day transactions. On the other hand, I did have to put up with a relatively archaic and somewhat sluggish banking system (especially when it comes to internet banking). The point is though, they are rather unused to fee's, so any they see in Thailand would strike them as unfair.

Again, coming from Australia where you are generally charged $2 to $2.50 (ie GBP 1.3 to 1.8) to use a ATM outside of your network, or how bank charge fees on top of fees, the Thai banking system is rather refreshing with low fee's and a level of technology and convenience (ATM's EVERYWHERE) that would be hard pressed to find in Australia. So 10 baht for an intra-province transaction? Dead cheap if you ask me.

Edited November 13, 2011 by samran

[electau]

This is one of the reasons why people pull large amounts of cash out and drive it to another province.

A totally retarded fee.

So you would take out 100,000 and burn 500-1500 baht in gas round trip to move some money around and save a little on fees? If you were going in that direction, I suppose it might be justified. But solely to save a few baht in fees?

Or pay 10baht per 10,000 baht (maybe online transfers there is a cap on fees on some circumstances?), and not have to walk around with cash, and have it credited to the account receiving account instantly?

Banking is surprisingly efficient in thailand.

You are forgetting that most people who complain about this fee probably live here on the smell of an oily rag. They also probably don't understand the concept of 'opportunity cost' which you've effectively explained in your previous post.

My guess is that the majority of the complainers are from the UK. While I'd like to use the 'whinging Pom' tag here , it would be unfair. During my time living in the UK (coming from Australia) I was rather surprised by the lack of banking charges for day to day transactions. On the other hand, I did have to put up with a relatively archaic and somewhat sluggish banking system (especially when it comes to internet banking). The point is though, they are rather unused to fee's, so any they see in Thailand would strike them as unfair.

Again, coming from Australia where you are generally charged $2 to $2.50 (ie GBP 1.3 to 1.8) to use a ATM outside of your network, or how bank charge fees on top of fees, the Thai banking system is rather refreshing with low fee's and a level of technology and convenience (ATM's EVERYWHERE) that would be hard pressed to find in Australia. So 10 baht for an intra-province transaction? Dead cheap if you ask me.

Very well written, some people just do not understand that there is no such thing as a "free lunch". In other words the end user pays for the service.

Australia has one of the best banking systems in the world, with excellent internet banking. Our banking and ATMs are on a national basis.

In Australia EFTPOS is widely used when paying for products and services.

If you use your own bank ATM the $2 is not charged.

　

　

[cardholder]

As a Banker I guess I will never win the argument on fees. Interesting that Doctors, Dentists, Accountants Lawyers Surveyors Mechanics etc all charge for their services and we pay without comment. Banking is a commercial operation that requires considerable investment in Bricks and mortar, staffing, IT frameworks, Capital requirements and with Shareholders to consider.

In support of the Thai Banking system in relation to my home country the fee structure here is very cheap. At home I would pay the equivalent of minimum 4000 baht in bank fees per year just to run a standard personal account. I can avoid most of this if I care to leave equivalent 125,000 baht in the non interest paying account.

In Thailand, I pay no account fees and am only required to have 500 baht to open the account. I pay 200 baht a year for my ATM card.

If the services I chose to use are considered expensive, I have the choice of not using them, but then have to consider the cost of finding an alternative i.e. driving to the provincial area to pay over some money.

In the case of BBL if my account remains inactive for 12 months and the balance is below 2000 baht an inoperative fee of 50 baht a month will apply.

Let the debate continue

I appreciate your knowledge and your comments, but this time you missed the point.

You defend the relative inflated bank fees by comparing them with those in the US. Yes, it's a bankers view, you concede it.

In many EU-countries nearly all normal services are free of charge, such as money transfers within the home country, credit cards, (ATM)-withdrawals. This is why they are interested to have you as a customer, who also opens a savings account, wants a loan, who wants this and that for his/her money. The banks are working with the customers money. This is winning money, so that they don't need the primitive kind of heavy fee charging. The profits of the bank fees account only for a few percents.

The bank fees here in Thailand are very high in relation to the peoples income. Some time before I read that the revenue of Thai banks consist of 20 to 30% by fees.

Guess why???

Also as a former banker I support the right to charge reasonable fees.

In the UK we were spoiled by so many services being provided for free.

The "It's my money" argument just does not hold water. If it is your money then, of course, (for free) you can look after it and you can take to the electric company, water company, local authority, sports club, supermarket etc etc to make payment when you want something. Some people do just that. I suggest it is because they come from a cash culture and because they are tight-&lt;deleted&gt;.

The banks' have a huge cost in capital investment that enables us to get our money out via ATM's 24 hours a day - similarly with Internet Banking (that I pay nothing for) I have just paid a bill online that the beneficiary will see when they get up in 5 hours time.

Now, as a customer - rather than being on the inside - I will make sure that I do not pay unnecessary fees. I will research the best banking options for me and I will gladly pay any reasonable fees that become due as part of that. I will not pay GBP 30 for a SWIFT transfer when I can pay GBP 4.50, I will not pay a $5 ATM fee in Cambodia when I can use Canadia Bank without fee, I will not pay overdraft fees by making sure I keep to any agreed facilities. I will pay inter-province fees for Thai banks if that is there system - I will avoid them if an alternative exists.

A little imagination sometimes helps - a few of us often transfer monies from the UK in one SWIFT payment and then distribute from Kasikorn Bank to Kasikorn bank via K-Cyber banking - free of charge.