|
Finances / Finanzen » uk.finance » Banks ordered to slash fees for late credit card payments and overdrafts
| Banks ordered to slash fees for late credit card payments and overdrafts [message #378006] |
So, 09 April 2006 21:15 |
|
|
http://money.guardian.co.uk/news_/story/0,,1747819,00.html
|
|
|
| Re: Banks ordered to slash fees for late credit card payments and overdrafts [message #378008 ] |
So, 09 April 2006 21:30 |
|
"Janet Stone" <jstone [at] nospam.com> wrote in message
news:l3d_f.206743$zk4.116276 [at] fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> http://money.guardian.co.uk/news_/story/0,,1747819,00.html
>
So this |will save me 300M a year. Now what can I
spend it on?
tim
|
|
|
| Re: Banks ordered to slash fees for late credit card payments and overdrafts [message #378012 ] |
So, 09 April 2006 21:30 |
|
Janet Stone <jstone [at] nospam.com> wrote
>http://money.guardian.co.uk/news_/story/0,,1747819,00.html
>
>
"Credit card companies defended their charges. Capital One, with 4
million customers, said: "We continue to believe that our charges are
fair and lawful." Others warned they may be forced to reintroduce annual
charges and raise interest rates to compensate for the loss of income.
Banks may also start charging customers for running a current account,
even if it is in credit, if default charges are axed".
Great stuff! I assume then that those of us who do not "forget" to
pay up on time, and do not "accidentally" run into overdraft will be
subsidising those who do. :-(
--
Gordon Harris
|
|
|
| Re: Banks ordered to slash fees for late credit card payments and overdrafts [message #378165 ] |
So, 09 April 2006 23:56 |
|
> "Credit card companies defended their charges. Capital One, with 4 million
> customers, said: "We continue to believe that our charges are fair and
> lawful." Others warned they may be forced to reintroduce annual charges
> and raise interest rates to compensate for the loss of income. Banks may
> also start charging customers for running a current account, even if it is
> in credit, if default charges are axed".
>
>
> Great stuff! I assume then that those of us who do not "forget" to pay
> up on time, and do not "accidentally" run into overdraft will be
> subsidising those who do. :-(
>
Rubbish! No customer is subsidising any other customer these days.
Products are designed to be self financing. As soon as they stop being that
then banks pull the plug on them. The only thing that is being subsidised
by these extortionate fees are the banks, their ever hungary shareholders
and the executive directors with their fat pay checks.
|
|
|
| Re: Banks ordered to slash fees for late credit card payments and overdrafts [message #378167 ] |
Mo, 10 April 2006 00:48 |
|
"Wodger" <gu47otu [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qqf_f.31$zf1.11 [at] newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> > "Credit card companies defended their charges. Capital One, with 4
million
> > customers, said: "We continue to believe that our charges are fair and
> > lawful." Others warned they may be forced to reintroduce annual charges
> > and raise interest rates to compensate for the loss of income. Banks may
> > also start charging customers for running a current account, even if it
is
> > in credit, if default charges are axed".
> >
> >
> > Great stuff! I assume then that those of us who do not "forget" to
pay
> > up on time, and do not "accidentally" run into overdraft will be
> > subsidising those who do. :-(
> >
>
> Rubbish! No customer is subsidising any other customer these days.
> Products are designed to be self financing. As soon as they stop being
that
> then banks pull the plug on them. The only thing that is being subsidised
> by these extortionate fees are the banks, their ever hungary shareholders
> and the executive directors with their fat pay checks.
What about shareholders from Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and the rest
of Eastern Europe?
Marcus
|
|
|
| Re: Banks ordered to slash fees for late credit card payments and overdrafts [message #378170 ] |
Mo, 10 April 2006 02:15 |
|
Gordon <Gordon [at] g3snx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Janet Stone <jstone [at] nospam.com> wrote
>>http://money.guardian.co.uk/news_/story/0,,1747819,00.html
> "Credit card companies defended their charges. Capital One, with 4
> million customers, said: "We continue to believe that our charges are
> fair and lawful." Others warned they may be forced to reintroduce annual
> charges and raise interest rates to compensate for the loss of income.
> Banks may also start charging customers for running a current account,
> even if it is in credit, if default charges are axed".
> Great stuff! I assume then that those of us who do not "forget" to
> pay up on time, and do not "accidentally" run into overdraft will be
> subsidising those who do. :-(
How do you work that out? Someone who has a charge card or credit card
and pays off the entire sum each month subsidises nobody.
Being charged 15 quid as I was last month for being about 2 quid short
on a payment (an accident as I had asked somebody else to make the payment
and the amount had been misread) is subsidising nobody except the bank.
Anyway those people running an overdraft are actually subsidising those
people who run a current account in credit and pay no bank charges.
Axel
|
|
|
| Re: Banks ordered to slash fees for late credit card payments and overdrafts [message #378172 ] |
Mo, 10 April 2006 09:28 |
|
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 22:48:04 GMT, "Marcus Fox"
<please-reply-via-newsgroup-th [at] -i-posted-to.com> wrote:
>
>"Wodger" <gu47otu [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:qqf_f.31$zf1.11 [at] newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
>> > "Credit card companies defended their charges. Capital One, with 4
>million
>> > customers, said: "We continue to believe that our charges are fair and
>> > lawful." Others warned they may be forced to reintroduce annual charges
>> > and raise interest rates to compensate for the loss of income. Banks may
>> > also start charging customers for running a current account, even if it
>is
>> > in credit, if default charges are axed".
>> >
>> >
>> > Great stuff! I assume then that those of us who do not "forget" to
>pay
>> > up on time, and do not "accidentally" run into overdraft will be
>> > subsidising those who do. :-(
>> >
>>
>> Rubbish! No customer is subsidising any other customer these days.
>> Products are designed to be self financing. As soon as they stop being
>that
>> then banks pull the plug on them. The only thing that is being subsidised
>> by these extortionate fees are the banks, their ever hungary shareholders
>> and the executive directors with their fat pay checks.
>
>What about shareholders from Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and the rest
>of Eastern Europe?
Wouldn't they be included in the "ever hungary shareholders" category
mentioned above?
Chris
|
|
|
| Re: Banks ordered to slash fees for late credit card payments and overdrafts [message #379886 ] |
Mo, 10 April 2006 19:03 |
|
<axel [at] white-eagle.invalid.uk> wrote in message
news:rsh_f.50775$wl.39391 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Gordon <Gordon [at] g3snx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Janet Stone <jstone [at] nospam.com> wrote
> >>http://money.guardian.co.uk/news_/story/0,,1747819,00.html
>
> > "Credit card companies defended their charges. Capital One, with 4
> > million customers, said: "We continue to believe that our charges are
> > fair and lawful." Others warned they may be forced to reintroduce annual
> > charges and raise interest rates to compensate for the loss of income.
> > Banks may also start charging customers for running a current account,
> > even if it is in credit, if default charges are axed".
>
> > Great stuff! I assume then that those of us who do not "forget" to
> > pay up on time, and do not "accidentally" run into overdraft will be
> > subsidising those who do. :-(
>
> How do you work that out? Someone who has a charge card or credit card
> and pays off the entire sum each month subsidises nobody.
It may force the banks to make up for the lack of penalty charges by
increasing interest rates and charging an annual fee for everyone.
> Being charged 15 quid as I was last month for being about 2 quid short
> on a payment (an accident as I had asked somebody else to make the payment
> and the amount had been misread) is subsidising nobody except the bank.
It means they don't have to increase other aspects of their charges for
everyone, such as interest rates, etc.
>
> Anyway those people running an overdraft are actually subsidising those
> people who run a current account in credit and pay no bank charges.
Yep, that's right. But if the banks found out that for some reason they
couldn't charge a high rate of interest on an overdraft, they'd have to make
the money up in other ways, such as annual fees, transaction fees and lower
rates of in credit interest.
Marcus
|
|
|
| Re: Banks ordered to slash fees for late credit card payments and overdrafts [message #379888 ] |
Mo, 10 April 2006 13:18 |
|
axel [at] white-eagle.invalid.uk wrote
>Gordon <Gordon [at] g3snx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Janet Stone <jstone [at] nospam.com> wrote
>>>http://money.guardian.co.uk/news_/story/0,,1747819,00.html
>
>> "Credit card companies defended their charges. Capital One, with 4
>> million customers, said: "We continue to believe that our charges are
>> fair and lawful." Others warned they may be forced to reintroduce annual
>> charges and raise interest rates to compensate for the loss of income.
>> Banks may also start charging customers for running a current account,
>> even if it is in credit, if default charges are axed".
>
>> Great stuff! I assume then that those of us who do not "forget" to
>> pay up on time, and do not "accidentally" run into overdraft will be
>> subsidising those who do. :-(
>
>How do you work that out? Someone who has a charge card or credit card
>and pays off the entire sum each month subsidises nobody.
>
If they introduce an annual charge, as mentioned above, I will!
I have moved CC companies to avoid that in the past.
--
Gordon Harris
|
|
|
| Re: Banks ordered to slash fees for late credit card payments and overdrafts [message #379892 ] |
Mo, 10 April 2006 14:41 |
|
"Gordon" <Gordon [at] g3snx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vGj1xMUviWOEFw+a [at] g3snx.demon.co.uk...
> Janet Stone <jstone [at] nospam.com> wrote
>>http://money.guardian.co.uk/news_/story/0,,1747819,00.html
>>
>>
> "Credit card companies defended their charges. Capital One, with 4 million
> customers, said: "We continue to believe that our charges are fair and
> lawful." Others warned they may be forced to reintroduce annual charges
> and raise interest rates to compensate for the loss of income.
No they don't. They need to stop chasing rate tarts with
loss making deals on interest free credit transfers and
cashback.
For most people these two things make no difference to
their ownership of a card, but there is a very small minority
who manipulate the rules to their advantage. I would wager
that the credit card companies make an overall loss on these
items. If that is the case they have no place in the market
and most certainly shouldn't be subisidised by default
charges or compulsory annual fees
> Banks may also start charging customers for running a current account,
> even if it is in credit, if default charges are axed".
I'm fairly sure that this won't happen. Banks make
more then enough to cover their costs using the interest
margin that the have.
> Great stuff! I assume then that those of us who do not "forget" to pay
> up on time, and do not "accidentally" run into overdraft will be
> subsidising those who do. :-(
You're already subsiding the rate tarts, personally I'd rather
subsidise the forgetful, one day that will be me.
tim
|
|
|
| Re: Banks ordered to slash fees for late credit card payments and overdrafts [message #379927 ] |
Mo, 10 April 2006 23:55 |
|
Looking at the egg.com site they say that from May they will not have a
minimum balance transfer fee.
At the moment its 2% with a £50 max but from may there is no max...
Might make some money out of peope transferring loads of dosh.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Do Feb 9 01:56:26 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,03756 Sekunden |
