Paying your bank to allow you to deposit your money – will you do it?

[midas]

How many people here would be willing to pay their bank to keep their money for them instead of the bank paying you interest?

This week the European Central Bank cut its deposit rate for banks from zero to -0.1%, economist Martin Armstrong warns that negative interest rates will also be seen in the United States, meaning that Americans will also be forced to pay just to keep their money in the bank.

Read the New York Times article here.

The first is “zero interest-rate policy,” the strategy for trying to stimulate economic growth that the United States has undertaken for the last five and a half years (and the Bank of Japan much longer than that). The second is “negative interest rate policy.” And that’s what the European Central Bank put in place on Thursday for the 18 nations that use the euro currency.

That makes this a good moment for the curious mental exercise of pondering what a negative interest rate even means, and why it’s something that monetary policy mavens have been talking about more than they would like over the last half-decade.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/05/upshot/europe-likely-to-get-negative-interest-rates-what-does-that-even-mean.html?_r=1

Edited June 7, 2014 by midas

[Pib]

How many people here would be willing to pay their bank to keep their money for them instead of the bank paying you interest?

A lot of people have been basically doing that for years by paying an account maintenance fee while the bank was basically paying close to zero interest earned....the monthly account maintenance fee was significantly more than the interest earned monthly. I'm sure some banksters are thinking right now how they can make money on negative interest....maybe, just up the account maintenance fee and blame it on the central bank banksters.

Now I don't pay any monthly account maintenance fees on any of my bank accounts, but if I did have to start paying the bank to keep my money I would definitely be doing some new bank shopping, reducing cash in hand by investing more probably in mutual funds, etc. Sure all investment companies like mutual fund companies could just up their admin fees to take advantage of negative interest rates, so completely avoiding a hit to your pocket in one way or another/from one fee or another may be impossible but I'd would probably make some adjustments in my financial savings to minimize/offset any new fees caused by negative interest. I just hate giving banksters any of my money since I know they are already making money off my money...folks like me are basically paying their paycheck.

[Gsxrnz]

It all sounds like a good idea to me, provided they do it to lending at the same time.

I wouldn't mind an overdraft with a negative interest rate. Just wait long enough and the bank will pay it for you.

Borrow $1,000,000 at -10% p.a, don't pay the sods a cent, and in less than 10 years with the compunding effect, you're debt free - AWESOME!

Edited June 7, 2014 by Gsxrnz

[midas]

How many people here would be willing to pay their bank to keep their money for them instead of the bank paying you interest?

A lot of people have been basically doing that for years by paying an account maintenance fee while the bank was basically paying close to zero interest earned....the monthly account maintenance fee was significantly more than the interest earned monthly. I'm sure some banksters are thinking right now how they can make money on negative interest....maybe, just up the account maintenance fee and blame it on the central bank banksters.

Now I don't pay any monthly account maintenance fees on any of my bank accounts, but if I did have to start paying the bank to keep my money I would definitely be doing some new bank shopping, reducing cash in hand by investing more probably in mutual funds, etc. Sure all investment companies like mutual fund companies could just up their admin fees to take advantage of negative interest rates, so completely avoiding a hit to your pocket in one way or another/from one fee or another may be impossible but I'd would probably make some adjustments in my financial savings to minimize/offset any new fees caused by negative interest. I just hate giving banksters any of my money since I know they are already making money off my money...folks like me are basically paying their paycheck.

Well it's going get to a stage very soon where people in the UK in particular will need to have their head examined for keeping any decent amount in a bank.

First, you've got this issue of banks expecting the customer to pay them, then you've got the British Chancellor pushing like crazy to introduce legislation in UK to allow the tax department to simply dip into your bank account if they suspect that you owe them money and then let's not forget the prospects for a good old “ bail in “ (another Cyprus situation).

Are they just testing to see how far customers can be pushed before they start withdrawing their money and keeping it in a safe at home?

[Pib]

I'm going to buy a mattress with a zipper and zipper lock...a mattress stuffed full of cash gives you a good night's sleep until the burglar wakes you up demanding the key to the mattress lock.

[Loptr]

If you think beyond the effect of this new regulation on individual depositors and how it will impact finance / banking around the world, it is not a positive direction. It only proves that the western banking cabals have lost control and that economic conditions around the world are not improving, but in fact getting worse. The fractional reserve banking system was not intended to allow banks to only maintain a 3% margin on deposits.

[davejones23]

How many people here would be willing to pay their bank to keep their money for them instead of the bank paying you interest?

A lot of people have been basically doing that for years by paying an account maintenance fee while the bank was basically paying close to zero interest earned....the monthly account maintenance fee was significantly more than the interest earned monthly. I'm sure some banksters are thinking right now how they can make money on negative interest....maybe, just up the account maintenance fee and blame it on the central bank banksters.

Now I don't pay any monthly account maintenance fees on any of my bank accounts, but if I did have to start paying the bank to keep my money I would definitely be doing some new bank shopping, reducing cash in hand by investing more probably in mutual funds, etc. Sure all investment companies like mutual fund companies could just up their admin fees to take advantage of negative interest rates, so completely avoiding a hit to your pocket in one way or another/from one fee or another may be impossible but I'd would probably make some adjustments in my financial savings to minimize/offset any new fees caused by negative interest. I just hate giving banksters any of my money since I know they are already making money off my money...folks like me are basically paying their paycheck.

Well it's going get to a stage very soon where people in the UK in particular will need to have their head examined for keeping any decent amount in a bank.

First, you've got this issue of banks expecting the customer to pay them, then you've got the British Chancellor pushing like crazy to introduce legislation in UK to allow the tax department to simply dip into your bank account if they suspect that you owe them money and then let's not forget the prospects for a good old “ bail in “ (another Cyprus situation).

Are they just testing to see how far customers can be pushed before they start withdrawing their money and keeping it in a safe at home?

What you say is completely untrue. The possible new law regarding taking the tax you owe directly from your bank account is a last resort after you have ignored all HMRC payment letters. It's not if they 'suspect' you owe money. It's because you do owe money and have failed to pay.

The negative interest rate is meant to make banks more likely to lend money and nothing to do with seeing how far customers can be pushed.

But why let facts get in the way of the nonsense you write.

Edited June 7, 2014 by davejones23

[Asiantravel]

i would not be keeping money in a bank that charges me

Edited June 7, 2014 by Asiantravel

[rijb]

I'm not giving back the free toaster!

[worgeordie]

How many people here would be willing to pay their bank to keep their money for them instead of the bank paying you interest?

A lot of people have been basically doing that for years by paying an account maintenance fee while the bank was basically paying close to zero interest earned....the monthly account maintenance fee was significantly more than the interest earned monthly. I'm sure some banksters are thinking right now how they can make money on negative interest....maybe, just up the account maintenance fee and blame it on the central bank banksters.

Now I don't pay any monthly account maintenance fees on any of my bank accounts, but if I did have to start paying the bank to keep my money I would definitely be doing some new bank shopping, reducing cash in hand by investing more probably in mutual funds, etc. Sure all investment companies like mutual fund companies could just up their admin fees to take advantage of negative interest rates, so completely avoiding a hit to your pocket in one way or another/from one fee or another may be impossible but I'd would probably make some adjustments in my financial savings to minimize/offset any new fees caused by negative interest. I just hate giving banksters any of my money since I know they are already making money off my money...folks like me are basically paying their paycheck.

Well it's going get to a stage very soon where people in the UK in particular will need to have their head examined for keeping any decent amount in a bank.

First, you've got this issue of banks expecting the customer to pay them, then you've got the British Chancellor pushing like crazy to introduce legislation in UK to allow the tax department to simply dip into your bank account if they suspect that you owe them money and then let's not forget the prospects for a good old “ bail in “ (another Cyprus situation).

Are they just testing to see how far customers can be pushed before they start withdrawing their money and keeping it in a safe at home?

What you say is completely untrue. The possible new law regarding taking the tax you owe directly from your bank account is a last resort after you have ignored all HMRC payment letters. It's not if they 'suspect' you owe money. It's because you do owe money and have failed to pay.

The negative interest rate is meant to make banks more likely to lend money and nothing to do with seeing how far customers can be pushed.

But why let facts get in the way of the nonsense you write.

You sound like a banker,are you? Once you could trust the banks,but excessive and uncontrolled greed,put an end to that.

regards Worgeordie

[midas]

A lot of people have been basically doing that for years by paying an account maintenance fee while the bank was basically paying close to zero interest earned....the monthly account maintenance fee was significantly more than the interest earned monthly. I'm sure some banksters are thinking right now how they can make money on negative interest....maybe, just up the account maintenance fee and blame it on the central bank banksters.

Now I don't pay any monthly account maintenance fees on any of my bank accounts, but if I did have to start paying the bank to keep my money I would definitely be doing some new bank shopping, reducing cash in hand by investing more probably in mutual funds, etc. Sure all investment companies like mutual fund companies could just up their admin fees to take advantage of negative interest rates, so completely avoiding a hit to your pocket in one way or another/from one fee or another may be impossible but I'd would probably make some adjustments in my financial savings to minimize/offset any new fees caused by negative interest. I just hate giving banksters any of my money since I know they are already making money off my money...folks like me are basically paying their paycheck.

Well it's going get to a stage very soon where people in the UK in particular will need to have their head examined for keeping any decent amount in a bank.

First, you've got this issue of banks expecting the customer to pay them, then you've got the British Chancellor pushing like crazy to introduce legislation in UK to allow the tax department to simply dip into your bank account if they suspect that you owe them money and then let's not forget the prospects for a good old “ bail in “ (another Cyprus situation).

Are they just testing to see how far customers can be pushed before they start withdrawing their money and keeping it in a safe at home?

What you say is completely untrue. The possible new law regarding taking the tax you owe directly from your bank account is a last resort after you have ignored all HMRC payment letters. It's not if they 'suspect' you owe money. It's because you do owe money and have failed to pay.

The negative interest rate is meant to make banks more likely to lend money and nothing to do with seeing how far customers can be pushed.

But why let facts get in the way of the nonsense you write.

You say I write nonsense but with regards to what I wrote about the UK tax department is based on information from an article that appeared in the Daily Telegraph. If you are insinuating that concerns even the UK Treasury Select Committee have expressed can easily be dismissed I would be very interested I'm sure others would be interested to hear your theories why.

It's not only about that " you do owe money " as you say and you have failed to pay- its more the fact that as the Treasury Select Committee it leads to the possibility of abuse of power by the tax department who the Select Committee say has a history of mistakes.

And if they do take the money from your bank account wrongly without a court order how cost effective is it then going to be for the average person to hire a lawyer to try to recover such money?

The Treasury select committee warned that allowing HM Revenue and Customs to remove cash from bank accounts without court orders is "very concerning" because of its history of mistakes.

The committee said that taxpayers could suffer “serious detriment” if officials are able, either by mistake or through an “abuse” of power, to take money from people who have done no wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/10819885/David-Cameron-Taxes-will-rise-unless-we-can-raid-bank-accounts.html

I notice you also didn't address the real risk of bail in’ either and a number of countries have already passed legislation to provide for this even including New Zealand.

Edited June 7, 2014 by midas

[midas]

" I notice you also didn't address the real risk of bail in’ either and a number of countries have already passed legislation to provide for this even including New Zealand."

Cyprus-Style Wealth Confiscation Is Now Starting To Happen All Over The Globe

Cyprus is being used as a template for establishing bail-in procedures in New Zealand, Canada and all over Europe. It is only a matter of time before we see this exact same type of thing happen in the United States as well. From now on, anyone that keeps a large amount of money in any single bank account or retirement fund is being incredibly foolish.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/cyprus-style-wealth-confiscation-is-now-happening-all-over-the-globe

Edited June 7, 2014 by midas

[pgardiner]

Things are getting out of hand. The idea of having money in the bank is for safe keeping and an interest however small which the bank re-invests for a larger percentage- no problem. But to charge customers for withdrawing their own money plus fees for depositing is now becoming outrageous. Be careful banks or you will find a massive instance of very unhappy customers who will take things in to their own hands, be warned!

[scooterboy]

Yes - Barclays (probably just one bank of many) charge their offshore customers a tenner a month for the privilege of having an account with them. Interest paid on a normal account is zero and you are really paying them just to keep your money.

Should you require some of your own money from another country, you are charged fees that appear to be well above many other banks.

Much as I many years ago had respect for this bank, that respect has long ago vanished - as my account has, hopefully along with many other customers that feel that they are being ripped off. I see that they are now yet again reducing staff - hmmmmm....

Still, at some time or other, the idea of having to pay a bank to look after your money will probably reach these shores, too.....

I'm sure that a new bank that only accepted deposits and lent out money (no ATM cards, no credit cards.no fancy stuff) could be a big hit - and quite profitable for all - in some areas...

[ezzra]

I'm going to buy a mattress with a zipper and zipper lock...a mattress stuffed full of cash gives you a good night's sleep until the burglar wakes you up demanding the key to the mattress lock.

Pib... I have copy rights on this idea of keeping your money under the mattress few days

ago, next time it will cost you royalties.... :-)

[Naam]

Things are getting out of hand. The idea of having money in the bank is for safe keeping and an interest however small which the bank re-invests for a larger percentage- no problem. But to charge customers for withdrawing their own money plus fees for depositing is now becoming outrageous. Be careful banks or you will find a massive instance of very unhappy customers who will take things in to their own hands, be warned!

caused by your warning bankers are already sh1tting in their pants

[CharlieH]

The likes of Paypal and other that have sprung up in the last 10-15 years or so, have been doing it for years, and they have millions of customers globally. They may not charge a maintenance fee but look at the hideous charges for just about anything else, transaction fees, withdrawal fees, currency conversion fees etc etc.

Maybe the mainstream banks are just following them.

[Baerboxer]

How many people here would be willing to pay their bank to keep their money for them instead of the bank paying you interest?

A lot of people have been basically doing that for years by paying an account maintenance fee while the bank was basically paying close to zero interest earned....the monthly account maintenance fee was significantly more than the interest earned monthly. I'm sure some banksters are thinking right now how they can make money on negative interest....maybe, just up the account maintenance fee and blame it on the central bank banksters.

Now I don't pay any monthly account maintenance fees on any of my bank accounts, but if I did have to start paying the bank to keep my money I would definitely be doing some new bank shopping, reducing cash in hand by investing more probably in mutual funds, etc. Sure all investment companies like mutual fund companies could just up their admin fees to take advantage of negative interest rates, so completely avoiding a hit to your pocket in one way or another/from one fee or another may be impossible but I'd would probably make some adjustments in my financial savings to minimize/offset any new fees caused by negative interest. I just hate giving banksters any of my money since I know they are already making money off my money...folks like me are basically paying their paycheck.

Well it's going get to a stage very soon where people in the UK in particular will need to have their head examined for keeping any decent amount in a bank.

First, you've got this issue of banks expecting the customer to pay them, then you've got the British Chancellor pushing like crazy to introduce legislation in UK to allow the tax department to simply dip into your bank account if they suspect that you owe them money and then let's not forget the prospects for a good old “ bail in “ (another Cyprus situation).

Are they just testing to see how far customers can be pushed before they start withdrawing their money and keeping it in a safe at home?

It does make you wonder who really is governing, the governments or the bankers.

Financial crisis, miss selling, mismanagement, financial imprudence, insider trading, illegal LIBOR manipulations, illegal FOREX fixing etc etc etc. Yet not many have been investigated and charged with anything. Few fines, look big but peanuts to the banks, to make it look like something was done. And all the big boys still enjoy massive salaries and whopping bonus payments, whilst others have had their savings and investments decimated.

The ECB is a good example of federalist bureaucratic governance that some would love to impose throughout the EU. And, they wonder why the voters are voting against the traditional political parties more and more.

The UK is scandalous now. A police state with all 3 main political parties blurring into much the same - control the people, remove civil rights, centralize control, and neuter the public's ability to protest - a virtual police state.

[Suradit69]

How many people here would be willing to pay their bank to keep their money for them instead of the bank paying you interest?

A lot of people have been basically doing that for years by paying an account maintenance fee while the bank was basically paying close to zero interest earned....the monthly account maintenance fee was significantly more than the interest earned monthly. I'm sure some banksters are thinking right now how they can make money on negative interest....maybe, just up the account maintenance fee and blame it on the central bank banksters.

Now I don't pay any monthly account maintenance fees on any of my bank accounts, but if I did have to start paying the bank to keep my money I would definitely be doing some new bank shopping, reducing cash in hand by investing more probably in mutual funds, etc. Sure all investment companies like mutual fund companies could just up their admin fees to take advantage of negative interest rates, so completely avoiding a hit to your pocket in one way or another/from one fee or another may be impossible but I'd would probably make some adjustments in my financial savings to minimize/offset any new fees caused by negative interest. I just hate giving banksters any of my money since I know they are already making money off my money...folks like me are basically paying their paycheck.

Yes, my US bank and I have reached an accord where they pay me no interest and I pay them no bank fees (generally).

On the other hand, if I keep a balance on my credit cards I pay them a fairly small premium to the LIBOR rate which (surprise, surprise) British banksters have been fiddling for years, when they weren't busy fiddling the pricing of gold. And one of the Bozo's responsible for all the fiddling at Barclays is getting a load for his trouble.

Bob Diamond could receive £30 million payout despite being forced to resign as Barclays chief executive

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bob-diamond-could-receive-30-million-payout-despite-being-forced-to-resign-as-barclays-chief-executive-7905494.html

My money market funds pay me a rate so low that it probably costs them more for the electricity to run the computer to calculate it than what they actually pay me.

When the banks were discovered to be essentially stealing money from the public the government propped them up and ensured the biggest criminals got obscene salaries and severance packages. Now the banks are looking for new ways to steal from you.

Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns collapsed. They no longer operate. The management who engineered their demise collected nearly $2.5 billion in pay for the great job they did. Guess whose pocket that money came out of.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Suradit69

[midas]

I don't know if anyone clicked on the link in the New York Times article, which leads to an argument being put forward by Miles Kimball (an economics professor at the University of Michigan). He argues cash should be eliminated and only electronic money should exist.

eliminating paper money entirely would make it possible for the Fed to stimulate the economy with negative interest rates whenever it needed to. He was encouraged, no doubt, by the popularity of the idea among techies of a “cashless society,”

I don't like the idea of that one bit .

Even just from the point of view that every transaction will be capable of being monitored.Privacy will be out of the window.

Is the banksters sole agenda to steer us towards a cashless society?

http://qz.com/21797/the-case-for-electric-money-the-end-of-inflation-and-recessions-as-we-know-it/

Edited June 8, 2014 by midas

[Asiantravel]

How many people here would be willing to pay their bank to keep their money for them instead of the bank paying you interest?

A lot of people have been basically doing that for years by paying an account maintenance fee while the bank was basically paying close to zero interest earned....the monthly account maintenance fee was significantly more than the interest earned monthly. I'm sure some banksters are thinking right now how they can make money on negative interest....maybe, just up the account maintenance fee and blame it on the central bank banksters.

Now I don't pay any monthly account maintenance fees on any of my bank accounts, but if I did have to start paying the bank to keep my money I would definitely be doing some new bank shopping, reducing cash in hand by investing more probably in mutual funds, etc. Sure all investment companies like mutual fund companies could just up their admin fees to take advantage of negative interest rates, so completely avoiding a hit to your pocket in one way or another/from one fee or another may be impossible but I'd would probably make some adjustments in my financial savings to minimize/offset any new fees caused by negative interest. I just hate giving banksters any of my money since I know they are already making money off my money...folks like me are basically paying their paycheck.

Well it's going get to a stage very soon where people in the UK in particular will need to have their head examined for keeping any decent amount in a bank.

First, you've got this issue of banks expecting the customer to pay them, then you've got the British Chancellor pushing like crazy to introduce legislation in UK to allow the tax department to simply dip into your bank account if they suspect that you owe them money and then let's not forget the prospects for a good old “ bail in “ (another Cyprus situation).

Are they just testing to see how far customers can be pushed before they start withdrawing their money and keeping it in a safe at home?

It does make you wonder who really is governing, the governments or the bankers.

Financial crisis, miss selling, mismanagement, financial imprudence, insider trading, illegal LIBOR manipulations, illegal FOREX fixing etc etc etc. Yet not many have been investigated and charged with anything. Few fines, look big but peanuts to the banks, to make it look like something was done. And all the big boys still enjoy massive salaries and whopping bonus payments, whilst others have had their savings and investments decimated.

The ECB is a good example of federalist bureaucratic governance that some would love to impose throughout the EU. And, they wonder why the voters are voting against the traditional political parties more and more.

The UK is scandalous now. A police state with all 3 main political parties blurring into much the same - control the people, remove civil rights, centralize control, and neuter the public's ability to protest - a virtual police state.

" It does make you wonder who really is governing, the governments or the bankers."

http://truth-out.org/news/item/12605-its-the-interest-stupid-why-bankers-rule-the-world

[davejones23]

Yes. Many people already pay.

Suppose you're currently paying $10 a month for your account, and have an average of $1,200 in your account. If you're currently not getting interest on your money, then you're paying 10% for them to hold your money. i.e. $120 per year on $1,200 deposit.

Edited June 9, 2014 by davejones23

[shirtless]

This is getting way out of Hand, These banks get money from federal reserve banks for a really low rate then lend it out to you on say a mortgage 6%, They give depositors low interest and some like in England zero interest on their deposits, but thats not enough they charge fees and are now going into negative interest , If these pricks cant make money with all these advantages shut them down let the reserve banks loan direct .

Do they want a cashless society or a cash strapped society .These guys are just crooks in suits.

[Naam]

"they" are not "going into negative interest". "they" are also not able to shell out long term loans and long term mortgages on the basis of zero interest from central banks which are overnight rates that can change any day.

if you don't understand the basics, please refrain from making ignorant and ridiculous comments.

[midas]

Even one year ago when this was move was still being considered by the ECB the Economist magazine said doing this could “ do more harm than good “ and could exacerbate “ continuing doubts about the soundness of banks in southern Europe “

As one reader then replied “The real problem is the viability of southern European banks”

introducing negative interest rates would be counter-productive. Banks could try to make up for the new expense by raising their lending rates, hurting rather than helping the economy.

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21578697-would-charging-banks-leave-funds-central-bank-help-or-hurt

Edited June 9, 2014 by midas

[midas]

"they" are not "going into negative interest". "they" are also not able to shell out long term loans and long term mortgages on the basis of zero interest from central banks which are overnight rates that can change any day.

if you don't understand the basics, please refrain from making ignorant and ridiculous comments.

" These guys are just crooks in suits."

but you do agree to this - yes ?

[Naam]

"they" are not "going into negative interest". "they" are also not able to shell out long term loans and long term mortgages on the basis of zero interest from central banks which are overnight rates that can change any day.

if you don't understand the basics, please refrain from making ignorant and ridiculous comments.

" These guys are just crooks in suits."

but you do agree to this - yes ?

yes i agree that these guys are crooks as every business man is a crook because he wants to sell his goods or services for the highest possible price.

[NoshowJones]

I waited in a Bangkok Bank branch in Pattaya recently to deposit 15.000 Baht in to my account which is not in Pattaya, they then wanted 30 Baht for depositing this money, I told them to get lost, and paid it into my local bank when I got home.

It was not the money, it was the principal. I hate those thieving banks.

[Naam]

I waited in a Bangkok Bank branch in Pattaya recently to deposit 15.000 Baht in to my account which is not in Pattaya, they then wanted 30 Baht for depositing this money, I told them to get lost, and paid it into my local bank when I got home.

It was not the money, it was the principal. I hate those thieving banks.

right you are! i'm sure your principle gave the thieves a sleepless night

[NoshowJones]

I waited in a Bangkok Bank branch in Pattaya recently to deposit 15.000 Baht in to my account which is not in Pattaya, they then wanted 30 Baht for depositing this money, I told them to get lost, and paid it into my local bank when I got home.

It was not the money, it was the principal. I hate those thieving banks.

right you are! i'm sure your principle gave the thieves a sleepless night

If everyone else had the same principle, it might do something, just like refusing to use your foreign bank card to withdraw money from a thieving Thai bank, and getting it transferred instead.