Are There Any Banks with Minimal Hoops That Do NOT Force You onto "App-Only" Access?

Geekomatic on 25/10/2024 - 17:33

I had messaged MeBank weeks ago about their "plan" to go app-only access. They said then that they were working on a way to include/retain internet banking. I have never banked on my phone and prefer not to. I honestly didn't think a bank would insist it's customers use an app, especially with all of the hacking/exploits constantly popping up in Android, I'm surprised they're even allowed to force you into this.

I feel much safer on Linux and my desktop when I bank.

I need a minimal hoop bank (I only work part-time so don't deposit often as I'm usually paid in cash, which mainly goes directly to the grocery shops). Right now, I only have to tap to pay 4 times a month and no other hoops. I do have savings which is earning 4.25%, which only increases due to interest earned.

Is there a bank you could recommend?

Thanks everyone

Financial

Comments

  • sumyungguy on 25/10/2024 - 17:37
    +4

    Financial transactions are more secure on a phone/device app thanks to biometric security which hardly any desktops have.

    • Geekomatic on 25/10/2024 - 17:40
      -3

      https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-lm&q=new+bank…

      I use multi-factor on my desktop and prefer sitting at a full screen with a keyboard.

      Is there a bank you could recommend?

      • sumyungguy on 25/10/2024 - 17:43
        +1

        Biometric is more secure than MFA/2FA. I prefer the banks with the biggest but shrinking ATM networks; CBA, Westpac (incl sub-brands), ANZ, NAB

        • Screamingeagle on 25/10/2024 - 18:20
          +6

          Not always.

          At least MFA and 2FA can be changed.

          • sumyungguy on 25/10/2024 - 18:20
            +1

            @Screamingeagle: Article more than 9 years old. Phones have capacitive sensors so can't read documents or deceased persons fingerprints.

          • KangaDrew on 25/10/2024 - 23:42

            @Screamingeagle: MFA and 2FA is easily bypassed with a little bit of social engineering, aka SIM jacking. Biometrics and passkeys will always be more secure.

            • rumblytangara on 27/10/2024 - 19:47

              @KangaDrew:

              MFA and 2FA is easily bypassed with a little bit of social engineering, aka SIM jacking. Biometrics and passkeys will always be more secure.

              Uh… certainly not always. Let's say you're in the wrong jurisdiction then face or fingerprint unlock can get you into a whole load of trouble with what passes for the law.

              I know a whole lot of people who have disabled fingerprint or facial recognition on their phones for this reason, and they are not operating out of unfounded paranoia. They happen to be in the… wrong… country.

        • Ryk on 26/10/2024 - 07:55
          +1

          banks with the biggest but shrinking ATM networks; CBA, Westpac (incl sub-brands), ANZ, NAB

          Westpac (incl sub-brands), with free access to atmx and precinct
          ANZ, with free access to atmx
          Suncorp, with free access to atmx
          Macquarie, refund all domestic ATM fees

        • CommuterPolluter on 27/10/2024 - 18:35

          Biometrics aren’t mandatory in phones either. I don’t use faceID on my iPhone.

          • payless69 on 06/11/2024 - 13:11

            @CommuterPolluter: My iphone has faecal recognition, plenty of biomass to sort out!
            never lost a cent with it

    • AndyC1 on 25/10/2024 - 20:55
      -3

      Yeah right…. blue tooth walk by attacks….. No way on the phone….

    • rumblytangara on 27/10/2024 - 09:46
      +1

      That is completely irrelevant to the OPs concerns, which are to do with OS level security and vulnerabilities and not with UI access.

      • eug on 27/10/2024 - 10:06

        The vast majority of desktop users use Windows.
        The vast majority of mobile users here use iOS or Android (using the Play Store).

        Which would you say has a higher real-world probability of being infected by a virus?

        • rumblytangara on 27/10/2024 - 10:46
          +2

          We're not talking 'majority of users' here, it's very specifically about the OP who seems fairly in control of his desktop environment and has a moderately high level of tech paranoia.

          From what he's written so far, he seems fairly well informed and thoughtful, rather than a tin foil hatter.

          (BTW do you seriously trust the vetting process of the Google Play store?)

          • eug on 27/10/2024 - 10:56
            +1

            @rumblytangara:

            We're not talking 'majority of users' here, it's very specifically about the OP who seems fairly in control of his desktop environment and has a moderately high level of tech paranoia.

            OP says he is surprised a bank is allowed to insist its customers use an app.

            Banks make decisions based on the majority of users, not people who use Linux.

            Hence sumyungguy's comment saying it's because a mobile is safer than a desktop.

            • rumblytangara on 27/10/2024 - 11:18
              +2

              @eug: Fair enough there.

              Though I think that banks are making decisions not based on security, but on how to reduce costs. In this case, cutting the funding for a website devs and going phone-app only.

              Kind of like how some banks seem to have ditched physical branches- I'd never do that because my fallback to busted comms or a serious problem is to walk into a physical location and deal with a human face to face, rather than rely on phone queues or instant messenger chats.

              • eug on 27/10/2024 - 11:58
                +2

                @rumblytangara:

                Though I think that banks are making decisions not based on security, but on how to reduce costs.

                Security costs money so one way of reducing costs is to reduce the attack surface.

                A mobile is a lot tighter than a typical desktop, and seeing that mobile internet use is steadily climbing, I'm not surprised that some new platforms are focused on mobile only.

                It does look like they're implementing a new platform. I think if you were developing a new platform today that might end up getting used for the next 30 years, there is some merit in only allowing access through one secured app rather than supporting any uncontrolled random browser that could be vulnerable to any number of attacks or session hijacks.

                Of course nothing will be 100% secure as phones can be hacked too (hello NSO); going app-only is about reducing attack vectors. I'm sure we can all agree that browsers would have a much larger attack surface than a well-designed banking app.

          • Assburg on 27/10/2024 - 13:05

            @rumblytangara: Yeah probably a little problematic to equate his genuinely founded concerns any certain level of paranoia. He's just privacy focused and probably has a far higher quality of life for it..

            We should all be more like this 😔

            • rumblytangara on 27/10/2024 - 15:01
              +1

              @Assburg: Paranoia is a good thing and agree with OP. I use physical hardware tokens for authentication, not half-arsed phone biometrics.

              • Assburg on 28/10/2024 - 09:08

                @rumblytangara: Yeah wasn't having a go at you.. I just think we're being brainwashed to regard having an interest in our own privacy and cyber security as being "paranoid", as if we have some sort of underlying illness driving our behaviour.

                What's worse is hearing some "experts" in the field talk about how it's not that bad, and that it's convenient that things like advertising, feeds, short videos are more targeted.

  • Bruskey on 25/10/2024 - 18:00
    +3

    I think unfortunately, the way our society is moving is that what you are looking for a "minimal hoops, non-app access" bank will start to become more difficult to find as more banks shift their focus on what the majority of their customers do and want and thats access to their account on mobile devices. My bank actually has less features on their web access than in the mobile app now and it seems as though they prioritise development and maintenance on the app over the website. We are already seeing this with access to cash through physical banks and ATM access, retirement of cheque facilities etc.

    You mentioned all the "hacking/exploits constantly popping up on Android" but as sumyungguy said, with biometric access on mobile devices, and assuming you keep your device updated it would be more secure than a traditional desktop using a web browser.

    I do feel that if you silo your options you will be missing out on better offers such as the 4.25% interest rate you are currently getting which is not that great when compared to other offerings from other banks. Now might be a good idea to become more open to banking apps as over the next few years it may become the only way to keep up in the banking world and have access to decent interest rates and fees on your account.

    • Geekomatic on 25/10/2024 - 19:05
      +6

      My system is secure. I live with three family members, so there's never any time that someone isn't at home. I use a password manager & MFA from my desktop. Pretty secure set up. I also appreciate my monitor, KB, and the way I file my receipts on my Linux Mint desktop PC when making transactions.

      Meanwhile, the idea that banks should force customers into a specific mobile device, which can be lost or stolen much more easily, is just crazy. And of course banks want it— it allows them to do less, but the customer doesn't see anything from this loss, only the bank makes money (& can lay off more staff) or they wouldn't do it. The very same thing with limiting cash. Let's ask the people who just got mowed down world-wide by recent storms how that debit card/app is working for them with no power or electricity.

      In other words, just because (& especially because) banks are pulling this doesn't mean it shouldn't be pushed back against. When people walk with their money somewhere else giving their reason, things change. Many grocers/shops in the US are returning to checkouts at grocers after finding self-checkout essentially failed.

      PS: just this week, my daughter (BOQ) couldn't get her bank app to send money to me (& MeBank IS BOQ!). Both tries were unsuccessful, so she had to send it from her Bendigo acct. There's an example of banking apps failing, and it wasn't even a scam or hack— just another poorly implemented app.

      • p1 ama on 25/10/2024 - 23:50
        +1

        The very same thing with limiting cash. Let's ask the people who just got mowed down world-wide by recent storms how that debit card/app is working for them with no power or electricity.

        I never get why people keep bringing up this point like it's some sort of "gotcha", I mean, I lived through a time before the use of credit / debit cars were common - most people carried way less than $100 in their wallet on a day-to-day basis. It's not like people had stacks of cash under their mattress.

        On any random given day back then, I would probably have like a $20 and a $10 or a few $5s in my wallet, plus some random change.

        If a random storm were to hit, the cash I had on hand would hardly be enough for more than a day or two before I would have to go to the ATM anyway. The idea that somehow if we were to "normalise" paying for daily coffee with cash instead of a card that we'd be more resilient to natural disasters is just ridiculous.

        • OzzyBrak on 26/10/2024 - 00:05
          +2

          Sounds like you were poor back then. $20 - $35 at any time wasn’t typical in the cash era. Most people were rolling a couple hundred daily, how else were they paying for fuel, groceries, dinner out etc.

          • p1 ama on 26/10/2024 - 00:24
            +1

            @OzzyBrak:

            Sounds like you were poor back then. $20 - $35 at any time wasn’t typical in the cash era.

            Depends on what you mean by the "cash era", are you referring to the 1950s, or the 1980s / 1990s?

            Most people were rolling a couple hundred daily, how else were they paying for fuel, groceries, dinner out etc.

            Again, not sure what "era" you're referring to, but most big purchases could already be made by card (remember, swipe, hit "savings"…etc.) in the 80s-90s. For anything where you could not pay by card, there was always an ATM nearby.

            Either way, my point remains - if you're advocating for going back in time by 40-50 years just because "storms", then that's just a silly position to have.

            • OzzyBrak on 26/10/2024 - 00:58

              @p1 ama: You only have to go back 10 - 15 years to have cash being a major payment method. No one is talking about the 50s here.

        • Ryk on 26/10/2024 - 08:00
          +2

          a time before the use of credit / debit cars were common - most people carried way less than $100 in their wallet

          before credit / debit cards were common people were paid in cash, they had their entire weekly wage, in cash, in an envelope in their pocket.

          • dtc on 26/10/2024 - 10:28

            @Ryk: I’ve been working since the 1980s and have never ever been paid in cash. You are talking literally 40-50 years ago, which is the time frame mentioned in the comment you are responding to.

            • Ryk on 26/10/2024 - 18:59

              @dtc: I guess it depends when you think credit / debit cards became common.

              • dtc on 27/10/2024 - 09:51

                @Ryk: Well they were around in the 1970s and I had one automatically with my CBA account as soon as I turned 18 in the late 80s.

        • Psdsoft on 26/10/2024 - 08:08
          +1

          Also if a storm hits hard enough to take out the eftpos system it’s unlikely the atm will work either way. As you say it’s barely an argument.

      • Daabido on 27/10/2024 - 13:23

        Good points.

        BOQ systems in general are absolutely useless. There are a lot of complaints about systems and branch processes online.

  • FoxJump on 25/10/2024 - 18:22
    +3

    how about an Android emulator on your computer?

    • Geekomatic on 25/10/2024 - 18:50

      Have you used one/any? What was your experience with it?

      • FoxJump on 25/10/2024 - 19:27

        i used one maybe 6yrs ago. for 7/11 fuel lock
        can't remember

  • Bredo on 25/10/2024 - 18:56
    +7

    First time I've heard about a bank going app only?

    All the below have website access:
    - Bankwest
    - ING
    - NAB
    - Bendigo Bank
    - ANZ
    - UBank
    - Macquarie

    • Aureus on 25/10/2024 - 19:04
      +4

      Up Bank doesn't. Maybe some other Neo banks don't.

      • Bredo on 25/10/2024 - 19:07
        +2

        Woow that's indeed disappointing

        • EFC94 on 26/10/2024 - 06:25
          +6

          I mainly use Up Bank and it's honestly been the most pleasant banking experience of my life. Granted everyones circumstances are different, but it does everything I need it to do and makes it easy for me. Would 10/10 recommend.

      • soan papdi on 25/10/2024 - 20:43
        +1

        I plan to move my home loan to them and had to write in to confirm. Home Loan applications are via the phone app, mind bending.

      • Ryk on 26/10/2024 - 08:04
        +2

        86400 also didn't, nab added a minimalist quickie when rebranding to ubank.

    • eug on 25/10/2024 - 19:37
      +1

      ANZ's Plus account is app-only. They offer a higher interest rate too.

    • soan papdi on 25/10/2024 - 20:44
      +1

      ING still uses a 4 digit passcode on the website, no 2FA. Shocking that we've not heard of a breach yet.

      • Ryk on 26/10/2024 - 08:02

        and a user ID, not your fav email address, and time limited attempts.

    • payless69 on 06/11/2024 - 13:13

      ya forgot Commbank, really has lowest security if used from Commsec.

  • Bredo on 25/10/2024 - 19:13

    HSBC and Westpac used to have website access too, but haven't banked with them for many years so you'll need to check that they still have them

    • kerfuffle on 28/10/2024 - 10:02

      Westpac still has website access. They removed cardless cash though recently if that's of any importance to the OP

  • SmiTTy on 25/10/2024 - 20:46
    +4

    Macquarie bank
    5% on savings accounts. Web access available
    No fees on overseas withdrawals when U to overseas

    • Daabido on 27/10/2024 - 13:25
      +1

      I should restrict access to my Macquarie by U2.

  • p1 ama on 25/10/2024 - 23:43
    +8

    Not sure if you're being dense on purpose.

    Literally every other bank has internet banking. You can easily go to the banks' websites and check for yourself.

  • OzzyBrak on 26/10/2024 - 00:10

    Go with Macquarie bank. Good website, they do use their own separate app for authentication. It may work without it with low limits. 5% interest, no hoops.

  • screensaver on 26/10/2024 - 07:21

    HSBC also gives 2% back on tap and go

  • Mugsy on 26/10/2024 - 08:30

    I like Macquarie as much (or more) than the next guy but there's some caveat…

    1. They don't support EFTPOS on their cards… note that this doesn't mean you can't use tap or card payments. It'll just be routed through Mastercard instead but it does mean getting cash out at the supermarket or instant Medicare rebates aren't an option.

    2. Bugger all support if you want to deposit cash or cheques.

    But they do have a 5.5% intro rate for 4 months with their savings accounts before reverting to 5%. Their authenticator app is also one of the best ones I've seen.

    If maximising your interest rate is important, ubank would be the way to go but whilst they have an internet banking portal, joining is via app first and you will likely need to keep your app installed to avoid issues given all the talk atm about ubank pushing people onto passkeys and internet banking requiring an SMS OTP every time (no option for trusted devices for some).

    But I would also consider a combination of mobile and web banking… especially where you have an authenticator app to avoid SMS OTPs. But you'll want more than one device with an authenticator… for authenticators that can be installed on more than one device (such as Macquarie's) you don't need a second phone or a tablet, you could go with an Android emulator on the PC.

    • noz on 27/10/2024 - 22:32
      +1

      Just mentioning - you can get cash out at an ATM with Macquarie. In fact they refund all ATM fees.

  • DingoBilly on 26/10/2024 - 09:37

    Not sure I understand. I haven't used a single bank that has a mobile-only approach. I always bank on desktop across at least 4 different banks. I would have thought app-only is the exception not the rule.

    • Mugsy on 27/10/2024 - 06:49

      There's a few mobile only banking platforms. Virgin Money for there non-credit card products and ME Bank's current products are the two that come to mind.

      Even ubank requires new accounts to be opened on mobile first.

  • bobbieb on 26/10/2024 - 10:28
    +2

    Most of the larger banks still maintain fairly good traditional desktop internet banking.

    Yeah, for folks like us who actually prefer to manage their finances on a desktop, recent years have been frustrating. I suspect a lot of smaller "digital" banks will stay focused on mobile, but as it becomes easier to build web applications that work well on both mobile & desktop, it should hopefully get better in the short term.

    There will always be a handful of functions that only make sense on mobile (eg. tokenisation for mobile payments by definition is mobile only & far superior security-wise than carrying the actual card plastic around.)… my main wish right now is that the banks would pull their proverbial fingers out and adopt FIDO/passkeys instead of sticking with SMS for OTP's.

  • Tim-A on 26/10/2024 - 11:22

    Bank Australia can be used through the website, I'm not aware of features that are app only.

  • psdillon on 26/10/2024 - 12:09

    Do all of these apps work on tablets without 4g/5g? I hate doing banking on a tiny screen without a keyboard, so a tablet with a keyboard cover might be a good investment for me.

  • md333 on 26/10/2024 - 12:19

    I think ME Bank announced a web platform for ME Go just last week, so you probably don't need to move at all.
    That said, UBank have less hoops (just a $500 deposit per month, no transaction or balance increase requirements, so the $500 can just go out to another bank and back if not paid that month).
    They are insisting on passkey setup for new customers, and I think you need to do that on the phone before you can log in on desktop, but the desktop option is there.

    Your points about "your" desktop being secure are irrelevant to the bank, as if they allow your desktop/browser access, they are also allowing anyone else's.

  • Stingo on 26/10/2024 - 12:36

    ME Bank introduced Internet Banking for the Go account platform last week. There are other accounts that pay more interest with Internet banking access than your current account though. In order of least to most interest they are: Macquarie, AMP, UBank, ING and ME Bank HomeME. Macquarie has no hoops at all, AMP and UBank have a simple hoop of requiring a deposit each month which can be immediately withdrawn, HomeME has a grow your balance hoop, while ING has all of these hoops plus 5 card transactions per month, Macquarie, AMP and ING (5 only per month) provide ATM rebates. The ME Go transaction account, SpendME which legacy ETA accounts may be transitioned to in the future does not. Other than UBank the hoops need to be jumped in the current month to qualify for the higher rate the following month. This is preferable in my opinion and apart from AMP they apply bonus interest in your first month. Macquarie's product is quite decent provided you don't mind the lower interest rate on savings (though higher on their transaction account) but their card is Mastercard only which means no EFTPOS cash out and possibly a higher surcharge e.g. 0.5% at Aldi while eftpos Savings is not surcharged.

    • Mugsy on 27/10/2024 - 01:05
      +1

      That's a pretty good lowdown.

      I would add… HSBC Everyday Global debit card for the 2% cashback on card taps. It's a great way to offset card surcharges and often still come out ahead.

      Assuming multiple cards is an option, my pick for best setup…

      • HSBC everyday global for card taps under $100 (I send $500 to this card each week)
      • Macquarie for rebated ATM withdrawals
      • for a savings account, either ubank if one doesn't expect to meet the growth requirement every month, or ME Bank if one is confident in meeting the growth requirement every month. Their debit cards support bank@post for cash deposits when the previous two don't.

      All cards with these banks have no international transaction fees either making them great for online purchases and travel.

  • GettingThePlus190s on 26/10/2024 - 12:53
    +3

    Not sure why you're getting downvoted, completely agree. Much easier to do invoices, multiple transactions etc with a keyboard and mouse than a touchpad

  • Mugsy on 27/10/2024 - 06:46
    +1

    FYI, on the matter of ME Go's internet banking platform being online now, apparently it's in a half baked state. Things lke managing payees still don't work apparently.

    I only just got transitioned over. Haven’t set up ME Go yet so cannot confirm. But OP looks like they definitely need to move.

  • Cheap Gamer on 27/10/2024 - 09:43
    +1

    They said then that they were working on a way to include/retain internet banking.

    Yeah, sure they will. They already had a good website system. Why scrap it for a bloody app? I emptied my accounts soon after getting notice of this ridiculous change. I recommend you change to Macquarie Bank.

  • Daniel Plainview on 27/10/2024 - 09:50
    +2

    @Geekomatic

    FWIW I have near identical banking preferences to yourself (preferring desktop, linux user, avoiding doing on phone) - I moved to Macquarie a while back from Ubank and I have say I regret not doing many moons ago.

    Macquarie's product offering is excellent, very refined and inline with what you'd expect traditionally from a bank. There's good app side too - excellent overall security which you can adjust to your needs, I've zero complaints about them and would recommend. :-)

  • howsthat on 27/10/2024 - 14:22
    +1

    It is sad that the bank has forced members to use an app now to access their own money. I also used the internet banking and was comfortable with that, but now, it is no longer available, well….only through the new ME Go app now. Plus the pre-existing debit card is no longer usable, since downloading the app and logging in, it automatically re-issues a new card for the associated account.

  • kaleidoscope on 27/10/2024 - 17:50
    +2

    I honestly didn't think a bank would insist it's customers use an app, especially with all of the hacking/exploits constantly popping up in Android

    Disagree.
    Been using up banking app since their launch and couldn’t have been happier. So much easy, everything is right there and its 1st class support.

  • Nereosis on 04/11/2024 - 13:22
    -1

    If you think you're safer on your Linux desktop then you really don't know much about Cybersecurity.

    I agree that I think App-Only sucks but not because of cybersecurity but due to ease of use.

  • BuzzBuzzBuzz on 04/11/2024 - 16:07

    Realistically, any of the big 4 are always going to have a web portal - because they'll always support business accounts.

  • Dennis Denuto on 04/11/2024 - 17:09
    +1

    People install all sorts of apps and games onto their phones.

    I have a separate device which is dedicated to banking and a brand which endeavours to have the latest security updates pushed as soon as possible…

    A desktop computer is almost certainly more secure than a phone because you just need to use a LiveCD or have a different SSD you swap in and out to do your banking. Windows/Linux distributions will usually automatically push the latest security updates, without having to wait for vendor related patches. However, I always update my desktop computer before doing banking even if it takes another few minutes. This is also where an Apple device essentially puts Android to shame.

    • eug on 04/11/2024 - 17:12

      This is also where an Apple device essentially puts Android to shame.

      I think I hear NSO laughing in the background. :)

      • Dennis Denuto on 04/11/2024 - 17:17

        I think I hear NSO laughing in the background. :)

        Android is targeted by the NSO as well…

        Given the same risks for both platforms, Apple gets patched much quicker than Android, provided they able to identify the exploit. There is also no issue with fragmentation of vendor rolled patches as explained above, but if we compare Pixel with Apple devices, I guess they are equivalent; but the average person doesn't have a Pixel.

        Unless, I am missing something important, e.g. Apple has closer ties to the NSO than Google does?

        • eug on 04/11/2024 - 17:42

          Unless, I am missing something important, e.g. Apple has closer ties to the NSO than Google does?

          Apple's great marketing makes everyone believe iPhones are secure - so much so that the people who really need the security simply get an iPhone and believe they are protected because Apple says so.

          In reality iPhones are definitely vulnerable to being hacked, as shown many, many, many, many times - even way back in 2016. Apple's brilliant marketing actually puts those people's lives at risk.

          So when someone says Apple device security puts Android devices to shame, NSO Group (amongst others) are just laughing in the background as they thrive on that belief. They can absolutely attack both platforms successfully.

          • Geekomatic on 04/11/2024 - 20:55

            @eug: Small market share, as with Linux distro's, doesn't pay as well.

  • Geekomatic on 04/11/2024 - 21:03
    +1

    Mobile banking apps have been experiencing a pile of security issues, so I can't quite believe when I get dissed for preferring my Linux desktop? It's locked down & up-to-date + I can be at a full desktop screen, not a tiny phone screen.

    Regardless, that is my prerogative. The trouble is desktops being cut-off from more and more services and the non-paid, corporate-cheerleaders showing up for…what?? Pats on the head?

    IDK? I feel we're in a corporate cattle chute and we have our own whipping us into it instead of boycotting.

    Tine to fight back against "normalization" that only robs us of services, whilst hiking fees.

    Imho.

    • Stingo on 04/11/2024 - 22:55
      +2

      The banks don't care about the relative few who prefer alternatives to the mainstream. They never have. Banking applications stated out Windows only, People who wish to use web banking rather than a mobile app are probably the wrong demographic anyway. Too old to take out a loan, savers rather than potential borrowers.

      For some products you just have to cave in. Do you want higher interest or web banking? UBank who offer barely adequate web banking can't even be arsed to provide web sign up for new customers. Shows you how important they regard that demographic. It would appear they only retained web banking for their existing customers but it perhaps it might have more merciful to not bother given the hell they put their existing customers through to arrive at a poorer product purchased at huge expense and subsequent feature removal.

      I wonder if there will be a charge for physical debit cards in the future?

  • Geekomatic on 05/11/2024 - 05:57
    -2

    Boycotts work if people unite.

  • jlien on 13/11/2024 - 11:33

    I've been a bankwest customer for a long time. Their zero product is very much no-frills; but there's no fees and you can access the CBA atm network for free.

    Downside is there are very few actual bankwest branches on the east side of Australia, if you ever need to visit a branch.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join