0
()
submitted a long while ago by @ to c/@
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 months ago

Pretty sure this was (is?) standard practice for every major bank, bc Citizens did the same thing to me. With no regulation, why wouldn't a bank fuck its most vulnerable customers as hard as possible?

[-] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Exactly. What's worse is that it's almost justifiable if you consider how a bank makes money: float. If a huge swath of your account holders are maintaining as close to a $0 balance as possible, they're costing you money to manage all the related overhead. I say "almost" because if they, oh I don't know, made savings accounts attractive for small timers (say 4% interest on balances below $200), it might not require a collections department to gather forcibly extracted fictitious income.

this post was submitted on 01 Jan 0001
0 points (NaN% liked)

0 readers
0 users here now

founded a long while ago