Anyone know the incident between Late OTC with SM Goh
-
What the hell is this?$500 not money ah?If according from what ur friend say,our bank should impose the "below $500 fine $2" policy long tome ago already,why wait until recent years then impose?I bet it is becoz our government foreign investment lose money,thats why our government everything must talk money with us!!!Originally posted by Tuatau:Remembered a friend working in a bank explained something like this:
The current interest rate for DBS savings accounts with less than S$3000 is 0.125%. For an account with savings of $500, the interest per annum generated only 63 cents. That works out to be about 5 cents per month.
Interest rates are interesting because they are an indication of how much profit the bank can generate from customers' savings. To a big bank like DBS, $500 is really "kacang putih" peanuts compared to what they could use to invest. And as reflected in the rates, currently profits from investments are so low that ultimately the bank is losing money when offering banking services (eg. ATM, online banking) to such "kucing kurap" small-time accounts. That is why the $2 penalty had to come in.
Since DBS is not a people's bank like what POSBank was, they are accountable to shareholders. From a shareholder's point of view, savings accounts of $500 or below are simply not worth the waste of time and resources. The staff could be better deployed to serve the "bigger fishes" and keep those account holders happy. -
By the way,why every bad things happen in Lao Goh's times ah?Why Lao Goh so many problems one?
-
The worst is almost coming, appetizer of the day is transport fare increases.Originally posted by drawer:By the way,why every bad things happen in Lao Goh's times ah?Why Lao Goh so many problems one? -
Originally posted by drawer:
I do not know what the presidents in the banks would think, but for discussion's sake, we could come up with a few possible reasons what the banks' public communications executives would reply with if the question was posted in the press.
What the hell is this?$500 not money ah?If according from what ur friend say,our bank should impose the "below $500 fine $2" policy long tome ago already,why wait until recent years then impose?I bet it is becoz our government foreign investment lose money,thats why our government everything must talk money with us!!!
Perhaps the banks didn't have that many customers in the past, as many old folks were still hiding their stash under their pillows, in biscuit tins and the like. So they could not impose that policy while trying to lure customers to deposit savings in the banks with relatively higher interest rates. (That also means the banks are saying if you don't have more than $500 to deposit, you should save them the trouble by stashing it under your pillow, in biscuit tins and the like.)
Perhaps the value of money was higher in the past (based on the Consumer Price Index, the value of $500 in 2004 was about the same as that of $160 in 1961), so the $500 account holders at those times were not considered "kucing kurap" small-time customers.
Perhaps the banks did not provide so many value-added services in the past, like GIRO, online banking and easy access to ATMs, and the charges that the banks have to bear on each customer for these services were lower those days.
Perhaps the bank staff -- without high-flying foreign talent CEOs like Jackson Tai -- weren't paid so much in the past, so overheads were lower.
All in all, banks just want to make money. That's how they survive. The closure of many POSBank branches, to the inconvenience of customers was a good example of how much the profit margins mean to DBS now. Thus if they feel that they would make a loss to keep that $500 for a customer, instead of telling the customer to get lost, they'd just politely inform him or her that they would have to take away $2 for their trouble to keep that money.
In other words, you can give them money to keep. But if one's money is too little, you'd have to pay them to take your money. -
Rumours has it that the gov lost quite a bit of $ in a foreign investment linked to Temasek. In order to save DBS who boro the bulk of the $ to Temasek POSB was to be merged with DBS. After that, they followed the $2 penalty to collect even more $. Else what's the point of implementing that when POSB had been trust upon by Singaporeans for decades to keep accounts of few bucks at no cost? If DBS and POSB merged by right their equity and assest will be so strong $2 is peanuts to them man... Accountability to the public? looks like it on the surface but if they can't save somebody *sses by rescusing DBS the accountability will be one big pile of sh!t that no on can hold... Heard this also leads to one of the reason why Ong TC chiong with Gov on transparency of usage of reserves...Originally posted by drawer:What the hell is this?$500 not money ah?If according from what ur friend say,our bank should impose the "below $500 fine $2" policy long tome ago already,why wait until recent years then impose?I bet it is becoz our government foreign investment lose money,thats why our government everything must talk money with us!!! -
Believe me when I tell you that this $2 is really small as compared to other banks. For example, UBS in Switzerland charges its customers a hefty CHF 7 (about S$ 10) for balances under CHF 10000 (about S$ 14000) every month. So if you compare this to our local banks, do you not think this is already very low?
Would you agree, that banks are not charitable organisations, and as such they need to make profits?
I agree that not everyone will have $500 in the account, but if you do need a bank account, then it is simply a matter of paying the bank to maintain your account, because truly, it is not economical to service small accounts.
So what can you do to avoid this $2 fee? Save up more! Saving money is a good virtue anyway!
-
Even if the worst is coming,it is also Lao Goh who install "that person" one mah,he want to blame who?Us ah?Originally posted by trueno86:The worst is almost coming, appetizer of the day is transport fare increases. -
First of all,other than Switzerland,did any other western countries banks also got impose such ridiculous regulations?Secondly,in western countries,how much do their workers generally earn per month so that they can cope with these kind of bank charging rules?We workers in Singapore are not earning much u know or not?Originally posted by loudmonkey:Believe me when I tell you that this $2 is really small as compared to other banks. For example, UBS in Switzerland charges its customers a hefty CHF 7 (about S$ 10) for balances under CHF 10000 (about S$ 14000) every month. So if you compare this to our local banks, do you not think this is already very low?
Would you agree, that banks are not charitable organisations, and as such they need to make profits?
I agree that not everyone will have $500 in the account, but if you do need a bank account, then it is simply a matter of paying the bank to maintain your account, because truly, it is not economical to service small accounts.
So what can you do to avoid this $2 fee? Save up more! Saving money is a good virtue anyway!
And thirdly,What is the percentage of the middle n high income families occupies in western countries?As we all know,under Lao Goh rules,many high income families have "downgraded" into middle income families,and middle income "downgraded" to low income,so u cannot simply quote one Switzerland example and hope to convince everyone here.Hey,we Singaporeans are not stupid ok!!! -
One more thing i want to add,our government always use the same tactics which is whenever they impose a policy which is hard to accept by their ppl,they always quote an example that other country is also doing the same thing.But they have forgotten,other countries never impose all the "harsh" policies altogether.They may impose 1 "riduculous" policy but they have many other "lenient or humanlike" policies which their ppl can enjoy!!!
And many a times,other countries politicians only suggested their ideas in the parliament,not really implemented yet,still have to go for voting,and our government immediately "quote the example" n say "so-n-so" policy also implemented in the other countries!!!I mean WTF is this?Other countries is not like Singapore government so dictatorial ok.Whatever things their politicians suggestion still have to go through voting in the parliament,and also still have to observe the reaction of their own citizens to see if the plan can be implemented or not!
Not like our government,whatever policy discuss in our parliament,they immediately implemented liao,so dictatorial!!! -
Originally posted by drawer:
In answer to your first question, yes there are banks in the U.S., U.K. and Australia that impose monthly maintenance fees for savings accounts which do not fulfill the minimum monthly balance requirements. I could point you to their websites if you wish. To their credit, some of these banks do provide account services without minimum monthly balance requirements, but they are generally current or checking accounts which do not generate interest.
First of all,other than Switzerland,did any other western countries banks also got impose such ridiculous regulations? Secondly,in western countries,how much do their workers generally earn per month so that they can cope with these kind of bank charging rules?We workers in Singapore are not earning much u know or not?
Since there are so many Western countries, it would take time to tabulate the GDP per capita of each country in answer to your second question. However, to give a general idea, from latest statistics in the CIA World Factbook, Singapore is ranked 29th in the top 15% percentile among a list of 232 independent economies. That is top in South East Asia and 3rd in Asia after Hong Kong and Japan. Many banks in Hong Kong and Japan already have this "ridiculous" practice of charging monthly maintenance fees for savings accounts, so it is only a matter of time the Singaporean banks followed suit.
Singaporeans may feel their purchasing power diminishing and that they are not earning much, but the bottomline is: Banks don't care about that. They only care about profits and shareholder stakes. They could raise the minimum deposit amount, but that would create a negative discriminatory image, so they instead just politely tell customers they would impose a service fee if the monthly balance is too low.
Everybody is entitled to his own opinion, nobody is really trying to convince anyone here. You don't have to be convinced by what others have posted here -- they are just thoughts, nothing more. I could jolly well join you in the mud-slinging campaign, but I doubt it'd make the thread any more interesting than it is now anyway.
P.S. Speaking of which, my apologies to babymac13 for diverting from the original topic of the thread. -
I notice that u say "there are banks" in U.S,U.K n Australia that are imposing monthly maintenance fees,BUT,does "all the banks" in these countries impose such regulations?One thing u have to understand u know or not,our situation is "all the banks" are implementing such ridiculous rules,not just "a few" or "many",it is "ALL".We Singaporeans have no escape,we cannot go to other banks which didnt have such policy to deposit our "peanuts but hard earn money".Originally posted by Tuatau:In answer to your first question, yes there are banks in the U.S., U.K. and Australia that impose monthly maintenance fees for savings accounts which do not fulfill the minimum monthly balance requirements. I could point you to their websites if you wish. To their credit, some of these banks do provide account services without minimum monthly balance requirements, but they are generally current or checking accounts which do not generate interest.
Since there are so many Western countries, it would take time to tabulate the GDP per capita of each country in answer to your second question. However, to give a general idea, from latest statistics in the CIA World Factbook, Singapore is ranked 29th in the top 15% percentile among a list of 232 independent economies. That is top in South East Asia and 3rd in Asia after Hong Kong and Japan. Many banks in Hong Kong and Japan already have this "ridiculous" practice of charging monthly maintenance fees for savings accounts, so it is only a matter of time the Singaporean banks followed suit.
Singaporeans may feel their purchasing power diminishing and that they are not earning much, but the bottomline is: Banks don't care about that. They only care about profits and shareholder stakes. They could raise the minimum deposit amount, but that would create a negative discriminatory image, so they instead just politely tell customers they would impose a service fee if the monthly balance is too low.
Everybody is entitled to his own opinion, nobody is really trying to convince anyone here. You don't have to be convinced by what others have posted here -- they are just thoughts, nothing more. I could jolly well join you in the mud-slinging campaign, but I doubt it'd make the thread any more interesting than it is now anyway.
P.S. Speaking of which, my apologies to babymac13 for diverting from the original topic of the thread.
And u also mention about "many banks" in Hong Kong n Japan are also practising such service fees.But once again,does it mean "ALL"?
And lastly,the statics about how well our economy is doing is really meaningless.Becoz no matter how well the statics show,we citizens can still feel the impact of our poor economy right now.We dont care about statics,we care about reality,what we have experience of our economy down-turn,thats what we care!!! -
The substance of the matter is, that banks are moving toward the trend of imposing monthly maintenance fees for low balances. I believe this is becoming a global trend. It won't matter if there is only one bank charging the fees, or all banks charging the fees. The reality is, banks need to make money.Originally posted by drawer:I notice that u say "there are banks" in U.S,U.K n Australia that are imposing monthly maintenance fees,BUT,does "all the banks" in these countries impose such regulations?One thing u have to understand u know or not,our situation is "all the banks" are implementing such ridiculous rules,not just "a few" or "many",it is "ALL".We Singaporeans have no escape,we cannot go to other banks which didnt have such policy to deposit our "peanuts but hard earn money".
And u also mention about "many banks" in Hong Kong n Japan are also practising such service fees.But once again,does it mean "ALL"?
And lastly,the statics about how well our economy is doing is really meaningless.Becoz no matter how well the statics show,we citizens can still feel the impact of our poor economy right now.We dont care about statics,we care about reality,what we have experience of our economy down-turn,thats what we care!!!
I can understand though, how it is like to have $2 deducted from my bank account every month. Being a student, and one who cant depend on my folks for money all the time, I just accept the fact that I need a bank account to pay my handphone bills and to keep my money safe instead of keeping it at home.
And the cost of NOT having a bank account will be MUCH higher, I can say for sure, especially the convenience factor. So the $2 fee is something that I have grown to accept, and I can appreciate the rationale for this fee, since I have worked in a bank before. Not that I like it very much, but it is something beyond my control to change, and I do not think kicking up a fuss over this matter will be very productive, as it is not likely to change anything. Talking and no action is useless.
The other alternatives are, if you do not want to pay the $2, simply put in $500 and keep it there, or not have a bank account at all. It is as simple as that. -
Originally posted by drawer:
1. It was too time-consuming to check with every single bank in the countries mentioned whether they imposed monthly maintenance fees. I could only say that ALL the banks that I've checked up has the monthly maintenance fee and I welcome any reference to the banks in those countries without such charges.
I notice that u say "there are banks" in U.S,U.K n Australia that are imposing monthly maintenance fees,BUT,does "all the banks" in these countries impose such regulations?One thing u have to understand u know or not,our situation is "all the banks" are implementing such ridiculous rules,not just "a few" or "many",it is "ALL".We Singaporeans have no escape,we cannot go to other banks which didnt have such policy to deposit our "peanuts but hard earn money".
And u also mention about "many banks" in Hong Kong n Japan are also practising such service fees.But once again,does it mean "ALL"?
And lastly,the statics about how well our economy is doing is really meaningless.Becoz no matter how well the statics show,we citizens can still feel the impact of our poor economy right now.We dont care about statics,we care about reality,what we have experience of our economy down-turn,thats what we care!!!
2. Statistics may be meaningless to you, but you asked for them, indirectly, when you wanted to know the average wages earned by citizens of different countries. And the fastest (not necessarily most accurate) way of capturing those figures was by GDP per capita. You are welcome to offer other indices for the average wage calculations, if you wish. -
It does matter if only a few banks or ALL the banks are imposing the monthly maintenance fees.If it is only a few banks that are charging the fees,the ppl in their country can still shift their saving to those which did not have such regulation.But if it is ALL the banks are charging the fees,then it will show that our government is made up of a group of very selfish politicians,who care only for themselves n neglect his own ppl.There is a big difference there........Nevertheless,i dont want to argue about this subject anymore as i dont wish to be an attention seeker here.And one more thing,my original post lost again after i press the "submit" button.......ALAMAK!!!!Originally posted by loudmonkey:The substance of the matter is, that banks are moving toward the trend of imposing monthly maintenance fees for low balances. I believe this is becoming a global trend. It won't matter if there is only one bank charging the fees, or all banks charging the fees. The reality is, banks need to make money.
I can understand though, how it is like to have $2 deducted from my bank account every month. Being a student, and one who cant depend on my folks for money all the time, I just accept the fact that I need a bank account to pay my handphone bills and to keep my money safe instead of keeping it at home.
And the cost of NOT having a bank account will be MUCH higher, I can say for sure, especially the convenience factor. So the $2 fee is something that I have grown to accept, and I can appreciate the rationale for this fee, since I have worked in a bank before. Not that I like it very much, but it is something beyond my control to change, and I do not think kicking up a fuss over this matter will be very productive, as it is not likely to change anything. Talking and no action is useless.
The other alternatives are, if you do not want to pay the $2, simply put in $500 and keep it there, or not have a bank account at all. It is as simple as that. -
The debates between DRAWER & LOUDMONKEY reflect 2 interesting sides. I will go to the extent of saying that it could also be a mirror of typical Singaporeans.
On one hand, we have a group like Loudmonkey who might not agree with everything the government is doing but accepts it as a matter of 'Bridge under Water' & would rather adopt the positive attitude to live with it & get on with it. This behaviourial pattern is understandable due to our conditioning: ie. how many times have we voiced out before but to no avail; the results are still the same. We are told, have seen & experienced repeatedly that once a decision has been made, it is final. We will have to learn to accept it & move on. No lives will be lost & no families will be broken . Even if there is, so what? the negative impact are by far less critical compared to the positive impact, especially on the economic gain. This is LIFE. Reality is CRUEL. It is not for us to say we like it or not or whether we can accept it or not. IT is for us to face it. The earlier we realise this, the better will be our chances of survival (really?)
On the other hand, Drawer represented another group who have grown to be disgrunted about decisions that were made mostly based on economic gains, especially at our expense. Even though the likelyhood of a decision reversal is near impossible, what is wrong with questioning it & critizing about it. Why should we keep silent about something that affects us negatively but yet have to accept it without much choice. What happens to our rights as citizens, as voters, as human beings (are we talking rights or priviledges?)
In my humble (sure or not?) opinion, both arguments are right in its own way. While we need to raise issues that can impact us, we also need to prepare for the worst & be ready to ride on the crisis. Remember, Life should be what we want it to be (fat hope!).
Disclaimer:
No offence to the thread starter for out of topic. Any remarks made are purely food for thoughts & you may choose to igore it if you disagree with it