Re:The curious economics of being ripped off on holiday
by u10 on Friday September 27, 2019 @03:42PM
(#21095581)
There are non-trivial compliance costs with maintaining accounts, an inactive account can absolutely be a cost for a financial institution. Not to mention that the bank makes a spread on deposits, so an inactive account is generating compliance costs + not generating any revenue (not necessarily the fees).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The curious economics of being ripped off on holiday
by AnimalMuppet on Friday September 27, 2019 @03:49PM
(#21095640)
> There are non-trivial compliance costs with maintaining accounts, an inactive account can absolutely be a cost for a financial institution.
Sure. But in terms of compliance costs, an active account costs just as much, and perhaps more (if there are compliance costs per transaction, not just per account).
> Not to mention that the bank makes a spread on deposits
They make a spread on money left in the account. But I can leave money in an inactive account, too, and they make just as much money on that.
Re:The curious economics of being ripped off on holiday
by vonmoltke on Friday September 27, 2019 @04:56PM
(#21096202)
I have not heard of inactive account fees on accounts with a significant amount held in them. Typically, they charge you for keeping too little in there, sometimes regardless of activity.
Edit:
I did a little research. Bank of America has no dormant account fee that I can find. SunTrust does[1]... but only for Florida accounts, for some unknown reason. This may be a jurisdictional thing.
[1] https://www.suntrust.com/content/dam/suntrust/us/en/personal... (page 6)