Bank of America website disrupted for 4th day in a row | Hacker News Reader

Bank of America website disrupted for 4th day in a row

theregister.co.uk

51 pointschailatte29 comments

> Friday's disruption came the same day that BofA said it would begin charging customers $5 per month for purchases billed to their debit card.

Does anyone have more details on this? The units don't seem to match in "per month for purchases" - like, $5 per purchase? $5 a month? $5 a month, but only on months in which you make at least one purchase?

And for heaven's sake, why?

Five dollars a month, for any month in which you use your debit card for purchases.

As for the "why", the immediate reason is because there have been some legal changes vis a vis how much they can charge to the merchant for the benefit of running this transaction.

More generally, because they want to incentivize people to use their credit cards instead of debit cards. And for those who can't or don't want to get credit cards -- to incentivize them to take their business elsewhere, because the bank really doesn't make any money off people who just have checking accounts. Checking accounts are merely a gateway drug to more expensive banking products.

Doesn't bother me, I get 1% cash back on my credit card and am not dumb enough to spend more than I earn on it, so I already have no incentive to use my debit card for purchases.

Checking accounts used to be a cash cow for BofA back when they could milk them for overdraft fees, but that's no longer as easy. They are also hurting from all of the mortgage pain they've been dealing with lately. They are desperate for revenue.

Additionally, this isn't the whole of it, they've raised/instituted monthly fees for checking/savings accounts that don't meet certain minimum balance/deposit requirements. I have accounts with them that I got for free years ago that I haven't used in well over a year, they want to charge me nearly $400 a year for the privilege of keeping those accounts.

Meanwhile, the account I use now is at a local credit union. They don't charge me crazy fees, they don't treat me like crap, and they don't look likely to be going out of business in the next few years because of crazy financial decisions.

I'm annoyed at this, but I probably won't switch. I rarely use my debit card to make purchases, since I have a BoA credit card with reward points - and I've heard that debit card fraud is more difficult to combat.

Do most people shop with their debit card?

I used to own a small retail (discount) store. More than half of all sales were with debit cards.

Probably the people who use debit cards now are the same people who used to use checks? I actually don't know why. It may also be that note when you get a checking account you get a 'check card' for free, but checks cost money and are not hardly accepted anymore.

Also some majore discount chains such as WinCo don't accept credit cards. Debit or cash.

I would theorize that debit cards are most popular among lower-income people and those with bad credit or who know they have spending problems and therefore avoid credit cards.

When I don't have cash on-hand, I use my debit card. I always use a debit transaction, rather than a credit card transaction, because I like changes in my balance to post immediately. It sometimes takes days for CC transactions to post, and while I keep immaculate transaction records myself, it bothers me all the same that CC purchases don't show up immediately when I visit my checking account online.

In Canada we do.

I think the reliance on credit cards is largely an American phenomenon.

In Canada, people don't use Visa or Mastercard Debit cards. They use Interac, a Canadian financial network that only charges a flat fee of ~0.25 per debit card transaction. You can't use them for online purchasing although. Most Canadian's are surprised when you can use a debit card like a credit card for online purchases.

The phrasing of your last two sentences is unclear, but to clarify for those reading, you can indeed use Interac debit cards for online payments.

I am in Canada and while Interac is indeed widely accepted, people are using it noticeably less and less in favor of reward credit cards, which are - practically speaking - delayed-payment debit cards with really good benefits.

Interac's latest slogan is "Paying with Interac just feels right." When you are down to a feeling as a card benefit, you know there's a problem. Credit cards effectively won, and merchants are paying :)

I refuse to have credit cards.

EDIT: I have a corporate CC - but for personal, I dont have any CC - and only pay cash for that which I want. I have zero debt.

How {do, did, do you intend to} own a house?

You can either pay 100% cash or you can get manual underwriting. Manual underwriting is harder/takes longer, but is possible.

- Put at least 20% down on your home.

- Choose a 15-year, fixed-rate conventional mortgage.

- Have a strong employment history and personal income to support the loan.

- Demonstrate 4–6 trade lines that span 18–24 months. These are just regularly recurring expenses such as rent, electric bills, water bills, cell phones, etc.

[1] http://www.daveramsey.com/article/the-truth-about-your-credi...

[2] http://www.churchillmortgage.com/info/no-credit-score.aspx

What bostonOU said, also get a car loan or two? I recently got my first car loan without a cosigner. I have no credit history and only student loans since I'm just a college student, yet I have a decent-paying job and I also have better credit than ~35% of Americans according to the score report.

But, he said pay everything with _cash_, and something about zero debt. Loans aren't cash and produce debt

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/business/banks-to-make-cus...

Because fuck you, that's why.

> Because fuck you, that's why.

No:

The round of new charges stems from a rule, which takes effect on Saturday, that limits the fees that banks can levy on merchants every time a consumer uses a debit card to make a purchase.

Given the low rate of fraud on debit card purchases, banks were previously making a killing on from debit card fees; with those fees reduced, they need to find an alternative revenue stream. US banks aren't exactly doing well these days, so their need to replace that revenue with something else is understandable.

Sure, just like a lion's need to eat zebras is understandable. But the zebra is still going to be pissed, and will probably switch to another bank or credit union.

And the zebra won't miss it at all, because the zebra wasn't making the lion any money.

This metaphor is severely broken at this point, but you get the idea.

You folks are so blindly enamored with the "free market" that you'll keep singing them praises even as they go about skinning you alive. Pavlov would be proud.

I don't consider myself a heavy supporter of traditional free market idealism, but it's clear to me that the credit and banking industry has long been in bed with the government. The government says X so company does Y, the government says don't do Y so company does Z, and they're all probably winking and nodding behind closed doors. With a government separated from such industries, I believe we'd actually have some decent choices instead of "Visa or MasterCard?" and "BoA or Wells Fargo?" (Of course there are credit unions but they're only bandaids.)

I don't know of anyone who supports free market ideals saying you should let sociopaths skin you alive, let alone singing praise. Some of the meaner people in the crowd do say "let the stupid people be exploited, it's their own fault if they don't realize they're being skinned and their stupidity keeps these things in power." I don't particularly agree with that sentiment, though it is rooted in another one: if customers are truly pissed, they'll go somewhere else [in the absence of government/monopolistic forces preventing them from doing so].

Yes, and now instead of making a killing, debit card purchase fees are merely very profitable. I don't see how limiting these fees required BoA to institute a new monthly charge, nor do I assume that they wouldn't have added it anyway.

Something like 75% of Americans don't have $2,000 to their name. So the bank isn't making money in the ways that they traditionally did (lending deposits).

Basic banking services are not profit centers for banks at all. They only offer those services at low cost because the government forces them to. Basically, the upside to a checking account for a bank is that the bank has a platform to spam you for loans and other services.

This is a typical response from someone with the social skills of a child. But this seems too common these days..

FYI: I don't know where their mobile app is pointing too but it works perfectly fine

For me, it's always been incredibly slow, and stateless - e.g., if I use it to find a nearby ATM, and switch over to the Google Maps app, and go back to the BoA app - it forces me to start all over - it takes about 3 minutes for it to finally find an ATM near me.

I've given up and just started searching for 'bank of america' in the Maps app.

(iPhone app, 3gs.)

> if I use it to find a nearby ATM, and switch over to the Google Maps app, and go back to the BoA app - it forces me to start all over

They fixed this is the latest release. It now will keep you logged in as long as the app hasn't been kicked out of memory (which is not up to them). On a 3GS that might be sooner than you'd like, but has been working for me on my 4.

oh man. so they use he.net, too?

(I kid, but it's been a pretty horrible week for DoS attacks there, too.)

First bank e-run ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com