Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Wells Fargo charging $84 a year for checking accounts!!!!

Posted 2 years ago on July 9, 2012, 5:19 p.m. EST by WarmItUp (301)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Haven't been on forums in a while. I just learned that Wells Fargo will be charging its customers $84 a year, $7/month, to access their own money. I thought we already fought this fight and won. We got Bank of America to stop the $5 charge, which led all the other banks to not go through with the charge. Now Wells Fargo is back at that old game again. We beat them once. We can do it again! Many of us are not interested anymore since we have already changed banks, but there are still many people out there who are unaware of these issues. We must fight Wells Fargo even if we don't have a bank account with them. You can be sure if this works with Wells Fargo....All the others will follow suit including the smaller banks.

7 Comments

7 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

According to this site it's as much as $108 a year. Sure hope people move their accounts. Tyranny spreads from bank to bank like a cancer when we allow it to.

http://www.mybanktracker.com/bank-news/2012/06/21/wells-fargo-raised-checkingaccount-fee-slashed-billpay-fee/

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

So don't have a checking account with WF. Right? I mean you mention yourself that BOA does not charge and there are countless local banks and credit unions that do not charge anything either. I really don't think it is worth protesting - just let people speak with their wallets.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I had to beg another costumer for 38 cents before wells fargo would let me close my account

[-] 1 points by WarmItUp (301) 2 years ago

Yes most of us have changed banks, that is not the point. If Wells Fargo gets away with this all the other little banks we switched to will follow suit. Charging people to access their own money should not become the norm. you are already giving hte banks virtually a free loan by letting them use your money for investing. now they want to charge you for it. We must fight this type of obscene greed. $7 does not sound like a lot but when everyone who has money ina bank has to pay $7 that adds up to many billions. More money equals more power to the big guys and less to the people. We must continue to fight the banks where it counts, the little fees add up to billions

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4480) 2 years ago

Agree.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I disagree. There are much more meaningful things to spend time and energy fighting. What a private bank charges for their services is completely up to them. If it becomes too obscene they will loose business. As you pointed out, they invest your money and profit off of it. BOA did not drop the fee because of protesting, they did it because they were loosing customers to smaller banks and credit unions and therefore loosing money.

Competition is so stiff among banks that one will always be willing to undercut the other on something like service charges if it means they can steal another bank's customers.

Maybe WF feels that if you don't keep $1500 in your account (which would waive the $7 fee) or if you don't pay that $7 monthly, you aren't worth having around as a customer. That's fine too.

[-] 1 points by WarmItUp (301) 2 years ago

Um lets not forget so many people pulle dout of BOA because of the occupy Banks protest, that started educating people that there were many other options...I was one of those people that changed banks based on the education I got through the protests...so yeah the protests WERE the real reason (at least a big part) why so many people dropped the bank.

[-] -1 points by Groupthink5 (-21) 2 years ago

Exactly. It's another wet-paper-bag problem complained about by the most helpless, responsibility-ducking generation we've ever produced. Find another bank, wow, tough huh?

[Removed]

[Deleted]

[Removed]