Slovakia, the Central European country that didn’t exist before 1993, looked set on Tuesday to reject the expanded eurozone bailout upon which global investors were pinning their hopes for world financial stability.

Slovakia is the final country in the 17-member euro area to vote on the retooled bailout, known as the European Financial Stability Facility. Every member must ratify the bailout in order for it to be approved, which means that this nation of 5.5 million people has veto power over the Continent’s plan for economic salvation. The bailout is intended to prevent Europe’s sovereign debt crisis — largely confined right now to the Mediterranean nations of Greece and Spain — from spreading and causing a general downtown, the effects of which could ripple across the Atlantic and lead to a U.S. recession.

Europe’s economic fate became entangled with the domestic politics of Slovakia when Prime Minister Iveta Radicova tied a vote on the bailout to a confidence vote in her own shaky government, trying to encourage members of her four-party coalition to support the €440 billion ($600 billion) bailout fund. One member, the Freedom of Solidarity Party, remains opposed.

The country’s largest opposition party has said it would support the bailout in a second vote if Tuesday’s session resulted in the collapse of the government. If that comes to pass, the enhanced bailout fund would have majority support in the Slovak parliament, meaning the measure would in fact be approved.

Stocks were mixed Tuesday on anxiety over the Slovak vote after the largest four-day rally in worldwide equities. Two Greek banks fell to record lows.

Germany and France, the economic powerhouses of the eurozone, have been leading the effort to shore up Greece, which is teetering on the edge of default, and to recapitalize European banks that have significant exposure to Greek debt. Slovakia, however — “with average salaries still below those in Greece,” according to Bloomberg — has been less enthusiastic about extending further financial support to previously profligate eurozone members.

The news that the EFSF is likely to be approved in Bratislava one way or another should calm investors’ nerves somewhat, though uncertainty will linger, given the lack of a set date for a second vote, should it be needed. Some political wrangling over cabinet positions will have to occur first.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Slovakia, the Central European country that didn’t exist before 1993, looked set on Tuesday to reject the expanded eurozone bailout upon which global investors were pinning their hopes for world financial stability.

Slovakia is the final country in the 17-member euro area to vote on the retooled bailout, known as the European Financial Stability Facility. Every member must ratify the bailout in order for it to be approved, which means that this nation of 5.5 million people has veto power over the Continent’s plan for economic salvation. The bailout is intended to prevent Europe’s sovereign debt crisis — largely confined right now to the Mediterranean nations of Greece and Spain — from spreading and causing a general downtown, the effects of which could ripple across the Atlantic and lead to a U.S. recession.

Europe’s economic fate became entangled with the domestic politics of Slovakia when Prime Minister Iveta Radicova tied a vote on the bailout to a confidence vote in her own shaky government, trying to encourage members of her four-party coalition to support the €440 billion ($600 billion) bailout fund. One member, the Freedom of Solidarity Party, remains opposed.

The country’s largest opposition party has said it would support the bailout in a second vote if Tuesday’s session resulted in the collapse of the government. If that comes to pass, the enhanced bailout fund would have majority support in the Slovak parliament, meaning the measure would in fact be approved.

Stocks were mixed Tuesday on anxiety over the Slovak vote after the largest four-day rally in worldwide equities. Two Greek banks fell to record lows.

Germany and France, the economic powerhouses of the eurozone, have been leading the effort to shore up Greece, which is teetering on the edge of default, and to recapitalize European banks that have significant exposure to Greek debt. Slovakia, however — “with average salaries still below those in Greece,” according to Bloomberg — has been less enthusiastic about extending further financial support to previously profligate eurozone members.

The news that the EFSF is likely to be approved in Bratislava one way or another should calm investors’ nerves somewhat, though uncertainty will linger, given the lack of a set date for a second vote, should it be needed. Some political wrangling over cabinet positions will have to occur first.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

A round-up of news from across the financial world:

o. “In a grim sign of the enduring nature of the economic slump” — and a mark of just how useless official macroeconomic determinations can sometimes seem to those on the ground — The New York Times reports that “household income declined more in the two years after the recession ended than it did during the recession itself.” According to one of the researchers behind the report, the 9.8% fall in income from the recession’s start through this June represents “a significant decline in the American standard of living.”

o. Harvard economist Martin Feldstein sounds a related note, calling the recovery “about as bad an expansion as I’ve ever seen” and insisting that there’s a “nontrivial” chance of another recession. Bloomberg, on the other hand, argues that “the U.S. has likely dodged a recession for now, even though it’s too early to sound the all-clear for the economy.”

o. Reuters reports that European leaders claim to have devised a new plan to stabilize the eurozone by the end of the month, sending global stocks and the euro higher, though German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicholas Sarkozy were vague on the details of how they would solve Greece’s sovereign debt crisis and recapitalize the continent’s banks.

o. Netflix kills its much-derided Qwikster plan before the DVD service has even launched:

o. Free texting apps threaten to undermine the profits of wireless carriers, “an industry that makes most of its money from services that are high priced and low bandwidth, like texting.”

Permalink | Email this | Comments

While thousands of Americans unleash their anger at big banks in protests around the country, many more are registering their dissatisfaction at their keyboards.

In the wake of Bank of America’s announcement that it is adding a new $5 monthly fee for debit card use, online-only banks are seeing a wave of new business.

On Friday PerkStreet Financial had twice as many new customers sign up as usual. The next day even more users signed up.

“The Bank of America news woke everyone up and spurred change,”
said Perk Street’s CEO Dan O’Malley in a phone interview.

PerkStreet, which launched in late 2009, is part of a new breed of online-only bank–all aiming to capture consumers looking to escape fee increases at more established banks.

Bank of America (BAC) isn’t the only institution to come under fire after raising fees. In a recent mailing to its customers Citibank said it would double the monthly service charge on EZ Checking accounts from $7.50 to $15, in November.

Citibank said it has been encouraged by the response of its customers and is using the opportunity to help them understand the diversity of account options, including no fees on debit cards or online services, said Citibank spokesperson Catherine Pulley. On Wednesday, Bank of America’s CEO defended the bank’s new $5 fee saying the bank has a right “to make a profit.”

In contrast, a PerkStreet’s no-fee checking account is free to open with a $25 minimum and earns debit-card rewards, including free coffee, music or cash. Online-only ING Direct’s (ING) free Electric Orange Account earns .24% interest on accounts of up to $49,999. Free interest checking accounts at online Ally Bank have variable interest rates based on monthly balance, and no monthly fees.

Big banks defend the new fees and hikes as necessary to recoup revenues lost due to recently enacted consumer protection laws, but the consumer zeitgeist is quickly changing, as evidenced by the Occupy Wall Street protests. O’Malley said he thinks this moment will be remembered as a turning point for consumer banking. The American Bankers Association is pointing the finger at government regulations as being a root cause of its fee increases, even as the general perception on Main Street is that the new fees are just revenue grabs by greedy bankers.

Brick-and-mortar banks are seeing large numbers of customers shift to online banking, which has had an effect on the popularity of branch banking. For the first time since 1995, the number of branch storefronts in the United States dropped last year, according to the American Bankers Association. A recent ABA survey showed that 62% of banking customers prefer online transactions — a huge increase from the 32% who felt that way in 2009. Spokespeople at Bank of America and Citibank couldn’t be reached immediately for comment for this article.

Brick and Mortar Still Has Advantages

Online banks like PerkStreet, ING Direct and Ally Bank, all face certain common challenges, such as how to deal with actual paper checks, and how to give a human touch to customer service. Customer reviews on MyBankTracker, an open forum for customers to review financial products, showed that deposit turnaround and customer service are two of the biggest sources of complaints for online banks in general.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

In the current cloudy economy, finance experts and everyday folks are constantly hunting through the news and statistics for silver linings. So it would surely seem a good thing that in the first nine months of this year, personal bankruptcy filings decreased 10% compared to a year earlier, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute — but experts say hold the applause.

While we might want to take some comfort in the fact that bankruptcies declined from last year — which had the highest number of filings since 2005 — truth is, it’s not necessarily good news.

“People file bankruptcy because of financial distress,” explains David Leibowitz, co-chair of the Consumer Bankruptcy Committee of the ABI. “They are afraid of losing their houses, getting their wages garnished or losing their personal property. If the personal property is exempt, as is often the case for people who have little in the way of assets, if they no longer own their own home as is more and more frequently the case, if the home has no equity, which is very often the case, or if they are unemployed, then people who owe money for credit cards, medical bills and the like are said to be judgment-proof. There’s no need for them to file bankruptcy.”

Then too, once you file a bankruptcy case, you can’t file again under Chapter 7 for eight years. With well over 10 million bankruptcy cases in the past eight years, that’s a lot of people who are ineligible to file again, says Leibowitz.

“The fact is, bankruptcy cases continue to be filed at high levels. This is reflective of the very poor economy and does not necessarily reflect a leading economic indicator of better times to come,” says Leibowitz.

A Range of Economically Unhealthy Explanations

Something else could be going on too. Creditors are working with consumers more than they ever have in an effort to just collect something. “I see a lot of people at all income levels that are a paying a fixed monthly payment on credit cards which they negotiated better rates with the credit card companies,” says Julie Murphy Casserly, president of JMC Wealth Management.

Also, she says, consumers are able to easily walk away from bad home purchases though short sales or foreclosures, either of which can shore up their financial position a lot. And thanks to the sheer volume of home loans in default, homeowners are able to skip paying their mortgages for 18 to 24 months before a bank gets around to kicking them out.

David McClough, assistant professor of economics at Ohio Northern University, certainly sees nothing in the numbers to cheer about either. “Consider, for example, how the financial crisis, recession, housing crisis, and jobless recovery undoubtedly moved forward many bankruptcies that would have been delayed,” he says. “In this case, the decline implies that more people declared bankruptcy sooner and thus have struggled with the consequences longer. This is not a good thing.”

The 2005 Bankruptcy Act, made it more difficult for individuals to file personal bankruptcy and see a full discharge of their debts. Consequently, many who file will have to pay some of their debts over time. That means filing bankruptcy is no longer the golden parachute it once was.

“This could discourage the greater number of filers,” points out Jeffrey Verdon, a tax and estate planning attorney with the Jeffrey M. Verdon Law Group. He has another suspicion: “The extension of unemployment benefits may have had an affect on the number of those who file for personal bankruptcy.”

Others suggest the dip may be temporary. “As foreclosure filings again reach lofty levels, the bankruptcy filings will again spike as people file to slow down the foreclosure sale,” predicts Ted Connolly, a bankruptcy lawyer with Duane Morris and author of Road Out of Debt.

Simply put, there are better tea leaves for reading the economy than the bankruptcy numbers. “Mortgage foreclosures and depressed real estate values continue to be a drag on the economy,” says the ABI’s Leibowitz. “The best indicator of better times to come is the level of unemployment, which remains persistently high. Interestingly, temporary employment is increasing. This might be a leading indicator of better times to come.”

Connolly, keeping it real, says: “The decrease in filings is too insignificant to portend an improving economy. Instead, the filing numbers continue to show a weak economy, teetering on the brink of a downward fall.”

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Last week, Bank of America (BAC) ignited a firestorm of controversy in choosing to start charging its customers $5 a month to use their debit cards. Now, an angry consumer group has called for a federal investigation over the practice.

Is the move overkill or a smart response to what could be a budding disaster for the bank — and taxpayers?

Yesterday, Consumers Union, a division of Consumer Reports that does public policy and advocacy work, asked Congress and financial regulators to look at the new fee. The group cited bad timing in forcing cash-strapped customers to pony up $60 a year in extra fees. In addition, it pointed to the inevitable loss of customers resulting from the fee as endangering the bank’s delicate recovery from the financial crisis three years ago.

Balk or Bail?

Bank fees have gotten a lot of attention lately, and with good reason. Having to spend dozens or even hundreds of dollars in such fees over the course of a year can make a huge difference in your personal finances.

The easiest thing to do when your bank imposes a fee you don’t like is simply not to pay it — either by changing what you do or finding another bank without the fee.

The problem, though, is that with federal bailouts of banks such as Citigroup (C), Wells Fargo (WFC), Goldman Sachs (GS), and B of A, everyone now has a stake in seeing the banks survive.

It’s Our Bank, Too

Ordinarily, when dumb moves put a company out of business, no one suffers but its shareholders. But if B of A alienates its customers so badly that it ends up requiring yet more assistance from taxpayers, everyone stands to lose. No one wants to see that happen.

No matter what happens on this particular issue, you have to be prepared to see banks try to raise income in countless new ways. Now more than ever, choosing a financially secure bank or credit union that treats its customers right will pay off with big dividends in cost savings.

Motley Fool contributor Dan Caplinger believes that voting with your feet is more powerful than siccing the feds on someone. You can follow him on Twitter here. He doesn’t own shares of the stocks mentioned in this article. The Motley Fool owns shares of Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup, and has created a ratio put spread position on Wells Fargo.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Last Friday, after Bank of America’s (BAC) announcement of new fees on debit cards, retired postal worker Victoria Lee took her adult daughters to her local USPS Credit Union. “[My daughters opened] free checking accounts with no charges for the use of debit cards,” Lee said. Like many Americans who are carefully watching every dollar, the Florida resident said she was grateful to have an alternative to retail Wall Street banks.

Meanwhile, a record-breaking 3,200 new checking accounts were opened over the weekend at the Navy Federal Credit Union, the world’s largest credit union with 3.7 million members and nearly $48 billion in assets. The weekend surge — which crushed the previous high of 2,500 — fits into a larger trend for the credit union, which serves the Department of Defense and active duty military. It has had annual growth between 6.3% and 6.7% since 2007, and is on track to record a 14% uptick in membership this year, said Tisa Head, the senior vice president of savings products. In addition to its fee-free debit cards and accounts, another driver for the year’s projected double-digit membership increase has been the credit union’s willingness to post pay early for active duty members who use the Active Duty Checking account.

“You can’t help but draw some lines to current economic growth,” said Nancy DeDona, vice president of membership.

Amidst the financial chaos on Wall Street in the last few years, and with the biggest names in retail consumer banking getting monthly, if not weekly, black eyes, credit unions have been steadily gaining ground. Since 2007, the credit union membership in the United States has increased from 86.8 million to more than 91 million, according to figures from National Credit Union Association. Total assets have increased from $755 billion to more $942.5 billion at more than 7,290 credit union organizations.

Patricia Briotta, a spokeswoman for National Association of Federal Credit Unions, attributes the recent growth to people’s rising desire to find alternatives to dealing with Wall Street.

“[The growth] mirrors the time when people were looking and giving [credit unions] greater value. This is a Main Street option,” she said. The organization launched an online credit union search engine called CU Lookup in 2008, which allows consumers to search for local organizations.

Technology Reduces the Stigma of Smallness

The 55-year-old NAFT Federal Credit Union, an acronym for Neighbors and Families Together, in Pharr, Texas, is another of the thousands of credit unions dotting the American financial landscape. It has grown steadily to a membership of nearly 9,000 members and assets of $57 million. That’s small by industry standards, but NAFT does what these nonprofit financial institutions do best: It caters the needs of its local community, providing a high level of personalized customer service. Five locations, two of which are at local high schools to promote financial literacy, serve the hard-working community.

“We are not trying to grow assets but we are trying to take in new members,” said credit union president Suzy Brinkman-Doughty.To do that, her credit union is focusing on attracting younger clients. “We have to meet needs of younger people. They want to do online banking and have convenience and immediacy.” As a result, the Texas credit union has a basic online banking platform; there is no mobile app or fancy advertising campaign. But the credit union gets the job done, without a fee.

Credit unions are nonprofit, member-owned institutions and were created at the national level under the 1934 Federal Credit Union Act. Originally, most credit unions were associated with labor or worship affiliations, but today, many are open to all. They don’t do commercial lending, but generally offer no- or low-fee checking accounts, low-minimum balances to open account and lower interest rates for small loans and credit cards, capped by law at 18% for federal credit unions.

The historical drawbacks to credit unions include fewer locations, smaller ATM networks, and eligibility requirements. With their emphasis on saving, many credit unions also require a nominal deposit into a share account — the credit union term for a savings account. But the stigmas surrounding credit unions’ accessibility are fading as technology and more diverse financial services allow them to compete for the 24/7 customer who values mobility. The Navy Federal Credit Union has nearly 200 locations around the world, and its ATM network stretches all the way to the tiny African nation of Djibouti.

“In 1979, I closed my checking account at a bank and I have never regretted it,” said NAFT’s Brinkman-Doughty. “If you really don’t want to pay a fee, you don’t have to. [Retail banks'] goal is to make money for stockholders. That is not our goal.”

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Over the weekend, we heard from more than 1,300 DailyFinance readers who said they’re considering switching banks in light of increased fees at some of the nation’s largest financial institutions. As consumers, we do an increasing amount of our personal banking with debit cards, and many of us have an elaborate system of direct deposits and automated payments in place. So if your savings margin is thin, switching banks requires some forethought and planning to ensure that you are not placing yourself at risk of an overdraft while you migrate your account. Richard Barrington, a personal finance expert for MoneyRates.com, shared his expertise with this five-step process on how to handle a bank swap.

1. Find the right bank or credit union for you. The financial institution that works best for your brother may not be the best one for you, so do your own research. It comes down to a matrix of three things for each customer, says Barrington: services, fees and locations.

Ask yourself: How do I use my bank? Do I use a debit card and ATMs? Do I prefer mobile banking and online transactions, or do I prefer paper checks and statements? Is international access important to me? If you’re moving a checking and savings account together, compare the interest rate earned on the savings account with the service charges on the checking account.

“You want to closely scrutinize the the fee structure,” he says. “Start with the monthly maintenance fees.” Take this example from Personal Finance for Dummies: If you plan to keep $2,000 in a savings account and earn 2% interest, you will earn $40 in interest over a year. Meanwhile, your checking account charges a monthly $9 fee (or $108 a year) for a low balance. Would that extra $2,000 bump your checking account balance above the requirement and cancel out the monthly fee? Calculate if you can avoid a higher fee in place of smaller earnings. (Note: This strategy only works if you can resist spending that extra money when it’s sitting in your checking account.)

Also, take a look at this primer on how to choose the right bank. Other online tools, including Google Adviser, MoneyRates.com and Bankrate.com, offer easy side-by-side comparisons of checking account services or find a credit union.

2. Open a new account, but leave the old one open. Create overlap between the accounts to make sure bills get paid while the new account starts to build a capital reserve. It may be useful to create an inventory or calendar of all the automatic credits and debits to the account to plan when to start moving the money. Barrington recommends leaving a statement cycle’s worth of overlap in the old account.

3. Shift your direct deposits to the new account. The next move is to redirect any direct deposits, like your paycheck, into your new account. This requires speaking to your employer’s payroll department — or whichever part of the organization handles your checks — and giving them your new account information. Wait a pay cycle before taking the next step.

4. Move all the automatic payments. Contact the organizations doing direct billing and advise them of your new bank account. This could also be an opportunity to reschedule payments so that they are evenly spread through out the month, rather than in the first half. Another strategy for credit-card holders is to use a dedicated credit card to pay monthly bills, then pay that sum in full from the checking account.

5. Write a letter to the old bank to close the account. Emptying your old account of all the money doesn’t close it automatically. Even worse, you could get maintenance fees on that zero-balance account, which could land you with overdraft fees. So, write an old-fashioned letter to your ex-bank specifying the date the account is to be officially shut down.

Catherine New is a staff writer with DailyFinance. You can reach her at catherine.new@huffingtonpost.com.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Bank of America’s (BAC) announcement this week that it would start charging a monthly $5 fee for using a debit card to make purchases is the latest in banking industry upcharges for services. In addition to debit fees, ongoing hikes in overdraft and ATM charges mean fewer fee-free options for banking services, and increased balance requirements to get them. The bottom line is that consumers are now paying more to use their own money.

Other large U.S. banks, including Wells Fargo (WFC), J.P. Morgan Chase (JPM) and SunTrust (STI) are testing or planning monthly debit fees, according to Reuters. Citibank (C) has not announced a plan to charge for debit card use, but it has increased fees for checking accounts with low balances, and increased balance requirements for free services. For example, starting in November, holders of Citibank’s EZ Checking accounts will have to maintain a balance of $6,000 across linked accounts or pay a $15 monthly fee.

Free checking accounts are increasingly rare. Two years ago, 76% of non-interest checking accounts were free. That figure has now dropped to only 46%, according to a recent survey by Bankrate.com. The survey also reported that overdraft fees are now an average of $30.83 and the average out-of-network ATM fee is $3.83.

The rising fees reflect the big consumer banks’ efforts to offset billions in predicted losses due a fee-cap on merchant-processing fees under the Durbin Amendment. The new law goes into effect on Saturday, and caps interchange fees at 24 cents a swipe, previously that averaged 44 cents.

The net effect of higher fees for consumers, whether for debit card use or banking services, is especially troubling for younger people with lower incomes, says Andrew Schrage, 25, a personal finance blogger at MoneyCrashers. “These fees can severely hamper workers’ ability to accomplish essential goals like saving for retirement or working to build an emergency savings fund,” he said.

But the fees may not be a game changer for the debit card business, said Greg McBride, senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com. At least not yet.

“Fees are an exception, not a rule, and savvy consumers are not going to stand for new fees and higher fees,” he says. “A lot of consumers will do a different method of payment or take their business elsewhere.” His theory is that consumers will move to smaller or online banks, with lower fees, or use cash more often to avoid debit card and other fees.

According to the FDIC there more than 6,350 commercial banks in the United States. The debit swipe fee changes only affect institutions with at least $10 billion in assets — less the 2% of them.

For consumers trying to navigate the new minefield of higher debit charges, the options include switching back to cash, using credit cards, or changing to a bank with lower or no fees. At DailyFinance, we’d like to know how these fees affect you, or if they’ve caused you to change your spending habits. Please share your experience in the comments section.

Catherine New is a staff writer with DailyFinance. You can reach her at catherine.new@huffingtonpost.com.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Bank of America (BAC) plans to start charging customers a $5 monthly fee for using their debit card to make purchases.

The fee will be rolled out starting early next year.

A number of banks have already either rolled out or are testing such fees. But Bank of America’s announcement carries added weight because it is the largest U.S. bank by deposits.

Anne Pace, a Bank of America Corp. spokeswoman, said Thursday that customers will only be charged the fee if they use their debit cards for purchases in any given month. Customers won’t be charged if they only use their cards at an ATM.

The fee will apply to basic accounts and will be in addition to any existing monthly service fees. For example, one of the bank’s basic accounts charges a $12 monthly fee unless customers meet certain conditions, such as maintaining a minimum average balance of $1,500.

A fee for using debit cards is still a novel concept for many consumers and was unheard of before this year. But there are signs it may soon become an industry norm.

SunTrust, a regional bank based in Atlanta, began charging a $5 debit card fee on its basic checking accounts this summer. Regions Financial, which is based in Birmingham, Ala., plans to start charging a $4 fee next month.

Chase and Wells Fargo are also testing $3 monthly debit card fees in select markets. Neither bank has said when it will make a final decision on whether to roll out the fee more broadly.

The growing prevalence of the debit card fee is alarming for Josh Wood, a 32-year-old financial adviser in Amarillo, Texas.

Wood relies entirely on debit cards to avoid interest charges on a credit card. If his bank, Wells Fargo, began charging a debit card fee, he said he would take his business to a credit union.

If a debit fee became so prevalent that it was unavoidable, Wood said he’s not sure how he’d react.

“I might use all cash. Or go back to writing checks,” he said.

The debit card fee isn’t the only unwelcome change for checking account customers are seeing either. The banking industry has been raising fees and scaling back on rewards programs as they adjust to new regulations that will limit traditional revenue sources.

Starting Oct. 1, a regulation will cap the fees that banks can collect from merchants whenever customers swipe their debit cards. Those fees generated $19 billion in revenue for banks in 2009, according to the Nilson Report, which tracks the payments industry.

There is no similar cap on the fees that banks can collect from merchants when customers use their credit cards, however. That means banks may increasingly encourage customers to reach for their credit cards, reversing a trend toward debit card usage in the past several years.

An increasing reliance on credit cards would be particularly beneficial for Bank of America, which is a major credit card issuer, notes Bart Narter, a banking analyst with Celent, a consulting firm.

“It’s become a more profitable business, at least in relation to debit cards,” Narter said.

This summer, an Associated Press-GfK poll found that two-thirds of consumers use debit cards more frequently than credit cards. But when asked how they would react if they were charged a $3 monthly debit card fee, 61 percent said they’d find another way to pay.

If the fee were $5, 66 percent said they would also change their payment method.

Bank of America’s debit card fee will be rolled out in stages starting with select states in early 2012. The company would not say which states would be affected first.

Bank of America shares rose 9 cents, or 1.5 percent, to $6.25 in afternoon trading.

Permalink | Email this | Comments