NDP calls for ban on ATM fees

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Hakan

But yes, lets keep sticking up for our right to be gouged. Keep it up!

yes, we are being gouged. thats the right of the bank as they are providing a service.

you have that right as well. open up a business and create a demand for your product and charge what you want. if people pay it, even after you add more and more to the rate, then you can gouge as well.

the premise being, if you provide a service, you are entitled to charge for it. even if providing the service costs you nothing, you can still charge (as much as you want) for it. if people dont pay it, you will change your price.

whats your problem?

[Sample00]

Originally Posted by JimmytheT

Please find me an example of ATB "making the rules up as they go along" after the year 1997. As I said before, ATB now has a board of directors and an independent executive that runs to the standards of any bank listed on the TSX.

purchase of a commerical building. in most cases chartered banks or credit unions require a 35% downpayment when purchasing said commercial building.
ATB will do financing for 20-25% down and typically at a rate that is 1-1.5% lower than charters or credit union. it creates a greater exposure for the ATB should the building mortgage go into default. commercial properties typically dont move the same way in valuations than residential properties. there tends to be a great fluctuation than residentials.
great for the consumer, no doubt, but not exactly on the same level playing field as the other financial institutions.
ATB will typically pay more for term deposits, whether regular or RRSP's. again not on the same playing field.
As a consumer its great, but as a taxpayer I have issues with this.
they are a provincially governed financial institution and I dont believe that the government should be involved in business, no matter if its financial institutions or any other business.
Governments are meant to govern, not compete with other businesses.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Sample00

purchase of a commerical building. in most cases chartered banks or credit unions require a 35% downpayment when purchasing said commercial building.
ATB will do financing for 20-25% down and typically at a rate that is 1-1.5% lower than charters or credit union. it creates a greater exposure for the ATB should the building mortgage go into default. commercial properties typically dont move the same way in valuations than residential properties. there tends to be a great fluctuation than residentials.
great for the consumer, no doubt, but not exactly on the same level playing field as the other financial institutions.
ATB will typically pay more for term deposits, whether regular or RRSP's. again not on the same playing field.
As a consumer its great, but as a taxpayer I have issues with this.
they are a provincially governed financial institution and I dont believe that the government should be involved in business, no matter if its financial institutions or any other business.
Governments are meant to govern, not compete with other businesses.

Being a person who worked at ATB for 8 years of my life they definatly seemed to be playing on a level playing field with the big banks. I can't really comment on the business side of the loans that you said, however, they follow the same rules as the big banks. However, here are some examples of how they are playing on a level playing field with the big banks:

1. In order to have a conventional mortgage and avoid paying CMHC fees you must put 25% down (they didn't follow this prior to 1997).

2. I attempted to get deposits and loans from customers but was not able to bring their money into the bank because other banks were able to beat the rate I was offering. In fact they do not tend to give higher rates on deposits or discounts on loans unless a person has most of their business with ATB, which is very similar to the other banks.

3. When I was a lender I would have people approach me for loans which I turned down in a lot of cases because they thought they could do it just because of their collateral. However, ATB follows the same philosophy as the big banks in which you need to have collateral, good credit rating, and the cash flow to pay the loans.

4. Finally they are very profit driven and set quite agressive budgets for growth. Prior to 1997 ATB was losing money do to shady deals and plain bad business deals, however, since 1997 they have recorded a profit in every quarter. They are doing what they can to be independently financially viable because they are probably wanting to privatize so they are not restricted to operating in Alberta.

Don't get me wrong I don't believe government should be in business either. However, when it comes down to it the Alberta government has to be willing to let ATB privatize. My suspicion is that when ATB was losing money the government wanted to turn its fortunes around and distance itself from it, hence the crown corp in 1997, however, now that it is making so much money they are reluctant to let go of such a cash cow. That is just my take on the ATB.

As for what Taliban Jack is saying, it just seems stupid to me.

[Sample00]

Rockin Flames:
I wont argue with you here. You have obviously worked for them, but let me give you a current example.
My investment group and I are purchasing a commercial building right now.
PP $1.2M.
All other financial institutions that we spoke to and that included the RB and local credit union, required that we put down 35% and were offered a rate of 7.5%. dont recall the term.
ATB allowed the following. and my numbers may be off here as I have them at my office, a first mortgage at 75% of pp, with the vendor taking a second at prime +2 for 20% of the PP and us coming up with 5%. Plus they gave us a five year rate of 6.25%. And no we are not clients of the ATB
level playing field, I think not. Charters and local credit union wouldnt allow the vendor take back and they definately wouldnt go in on the deal with less than 35% down.
Our commitment to this deal is so little how, as consumers, how could we not take that deal with ATB?
Great for us, but in MY HUMBLE OPINION, its not a level playing field.

However, I still maintain, that the government should govern and not be involved in business.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

yes, we are being gouged. thats the right of the bank as they are providing a service.

you have that right as well. open up a business and create a demand for your product and charge what you want. if people pay it, even after you add more and more to the rate, then you can gouge as well.

the premise being, if you provide a service, you are entitled to charge for it. even if providing the service costs you nothing, you can still charge (as much as you want) for it. if people dont pay it, you will change your price.

whats your problem?

The problem is that this is not an open market. Your arguement works for most businesses because there is competition that balances things out. That is the situtation that banks in the States have.

Here we only have a small handful of banks, and therefore not a fair market system that can regulate itself.

IMO, because of that they should not have the right to gauge you. Right now the banks are getting the double benefit of very little competition and no regulation.
If they don't want government to get involved, then government shouldn't protect them from competition either.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Marginal cost will NOT be zero. They will need to refill the machine more frequently, as well as the receipt paper amd increased use = increased maintenance. The costs per unit are small but they are definitely not zero.

Now take a look at the other side of the coin. How much revenue does a bank get from a non-client? Unless they charge a fee, it is zero. Why should they allow other bank's customers to use the machines they set up and maintain, for free?

fair enough. But what about your bank charging you to use another machine?
In that case, you are saving them receipt paper, armoured car costs, gas, maintenance and you're wasting the resources of their competition instead.

If anything, my bank should pay me to use someone elses machine since I'm saving them the costs.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

The problem is that this is not an open market. Your arguement works for most businesses because there is competition that balances things out. That is the situtation that banks in the States have.

Here we only have a small handful of banks, and therefore not a fair market system that can regulate itself.

IMO, because of that they should not have the right to gauge you. Right now the banks are getting the double benefit of very little competition and no regulation.
If they don't want government to get involved, then government shouldn't protect them from competition either.

i didnt claim it was an open market. i said they are providing a service and therefore are entitled to charge for it. if it was an essential service, i would agree with your position, but its an optional service and the service charge is 100% avoidable by the consumer.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by fotze

I agree the bank SHOULD do that but they don't. Women SHOULD also not ever need to get an abortion but I still don't want the government getting involved in that decision either.

I know you don't want the government involved and I understand that.
Government involvement is one factor of this issue and understandably people will disagree on it.

The other factor is whether or not the fees are necessary and that's what I was argueing against.
Certain people are claiming these fees are necessary to support the system, yet can't explain why your bank would charge you for using anothers machine.
If it really costs a bank anything near $1.50 per transaction to opperate their machines, they would gladly let you use everyone elses for free.