Citibank Announces New Fees For Checking Accounts

11

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The fees keep coming. Citi is the latest big bank to slap customers with a round of fee hikes. This time, on its checking accounts.

Starting in December, customers who hold its mid-level Citibank Account will be charged $20 a month if they fail to maintain a minimum balance of $15,000 in their combined accounts. Previously, account holders had to carry a minimum balance of $6,000.

At the same time, customers who have the bank’s EZ Checking account will start being charged $15 a month if they don’t carry a minimum balance of $6,000. Citi says it is phasing out the EZ Checking package, which currently carries no monthly fee, and is instead offering customers either the Citibank Account or its Basic Banking account, which also carries a fee.

Last month, Citi said it is hiking the fee on its Basic Banking account from $8 to $10. Customers will be able to avoid paying the $10 fee by either maintaining a minimum balance of $1,500 or by making one direct deposit and one automatic online payment through their checking account each month, said Citi.

Currently, account holders must make five online transactions per month in order to avoid paying the fee and there is no minimum balance requirement.

READ MORE: CNN MONEY


11 COMMENTS

  1. Why the complaining? All you need is 1 direct deposit and 1 automatic payment per month and NO minimum balance. This is an improvement over the current 5 online transactions. The direct deposit and the automatic payment could each be $1 per month. No complaints from me!

  2. Thank you Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, & of course Little Richard Durbin for creating all the rules and regulations against the banks. Why democrats continue to believe they could make rules & regulations against companies thinking these companies will eat the loss as opposed to passing it on the the customer, is beyond me. What do you expect from a bunch of eggheads!?!

  3. #3, why call them ganovim? Are the Kosher products that rip the consumer off all ganovim, or are they out to make a buck? Business is business and I have a Capital One account with zero fees and zero minimum balance. Use sense and switch to the best. Its called free enterprise

  4. So switch to a different institution. Consider a credit union. While you are at it, you might enjoy some of the fees that were reduced (due to a new law), forcing the banks to raise other fees. As with any enforced change, there are winners and losers (I believe that merchants were winners, some consumers were therefore winners as well, and people who use credit cards as credit lines were winners).

  5. 3. What makes them ganovim any more than you for charging for what you do? The democrats have places rules and regulations on them barring them for charging the stores certain fees for charges. They, like ANY other business, are there yto make a profit & report it to their Board. To expect them to eat the loss is utterly ridiculous. That would be like asking your grocer to eat the increase in his costs. This is something that socialist liberal democrats don’t understand about economics. The reason for that is because far too many of them are in academia and NOT in the real world dealing with REAL numbers & experience.

  6. it is not gnaiva for a goy to charge a jew intrest – it may actuaslly be a mitzva to pay such intrest on a deal entered into willingly. (See mfarshim on “L’Nachri Tashich”)

    The issue with some bank fees is the captive/gotcha way they are charged often for services you don’t want and have no way to opt out of (such as NSF fees that where thankfuly finally controlled through regulation.)

    Banks are not a goverment entity and are not “entitled” to charge punitive fees. They can certainly choose to do so – as long as these fees are disclosed and consumers have the choice in a free market to choose to bank elsewhere.

    When such choice is eliminated or other unethical practices become prevelant industry wide for a product or service that is non-discretionary regulations protecting consumer intrests are certainly appropriate.