The Commonwealth Bank has unveiled major changes to one of its main everyday account offerings that will see some customers charged $3 to withdraw their own money. Customers taking money out at bank branches, post offices or by phone are charged $3 per withdrawal.
The withdrawal fee is only waived for customers who are under 18 or have an aged, disability or war veterans' pension.
I am not with ANZ, but Westpac does not charge any fees when withdrawing money at a branch. https://www.westpac.com.au/help/ways-to-bank/
Funny, this article says at the bottom that Westpac charges a $3 fee to withdraw. It was clearly written by a clown who relied on AI because Google Gemini says Westpac and NAB both charge a $3 fee but it also mentions for business accounts.
NAB doesn't either - don't know about business accounts.
Pathetic nine news
@arcticmonkey: I've been noticing an increase in mistakes in news articles due to a lack of attention to detail. I guess it's just too easy to ask ChatGPT to write something for you these days. AI is just going to make people more stupid on average.
@Ghost47: It's funny, they're speeding up they're redundancy.
It's like a taxi driver having his driverless car show up to work without him.
I hope they spend their newly available time to reskill.
Just ditch Commonwealth bank.
Look what the pubs company did with removing Australia Day celebrations. They were super quick to backflip when they saw the backlash from "the people".
Give Commbank some of the same medicine!
It works!!!
Even they said they won’t do it now but still leave because they will reintroduce it in 6 months. We gotta walk with our money before the bastards think it is ok to charge us to take our own money.
This doesn't apply to ATMs.
for now. They'll get around to those too, no doubt.
If they haven't shut them all down by then, sure.
Frankly most of the "branches" I've seen open lately don't look like any human would be able to process a cash transaction anyway, fee or no
I didn't realise it didn't apply to ATM's. That being the case, I am unclear why people are up in arms about it, especially as the main demographics relying on tellers are exempted from the fees.
I withdraw money so rarely that my card was declared "expired" a year ago (Bankwest disables your card if you don't use it for 2 years). Pay electronically practically everywhere.
Because the clickbait articles don't make it clear.
Very true.
Good for you.
People have their reasons about why they are up in arms. I'm unclear why anyone sides with banks.
So what? Are you trying to normalise it?
No, I'm not. I'm just adding the most important sentence that op left out.
The more available ways, the better.
Sadly, ATM's are definitely next.
Don't most banks do this and have for some time? It's not for ATM transactions, just assisted over the counter ones with a teller. The account effected also has a flat $6 fee per month already so customers will likely actually save money.
What, I have done number of teller services, withdraw, deposit, account change, account inquiry, new service, and none of these charges a fee, so is my saving account on a per month basis. The only time I recall them charging a fee is when I needed a bank cheque, a $10 fee was about charge, but that quickly got waived by my relationship manager at the branch. How on earth CBA charge people for $3 withdraw fee at ATM even at their CBA branch.
You've been paying the fee the whole time, just not directly.
Either way, the person standing behind the computer needs to be paid to be your keyboard button pusher.
At least this way, the cost is borne people who actually use the keyboard button pushing service.
Sure, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about fees that get visibly deducted either from your Smart Access or everyday account. I myself haven't seen this charged to my account as well.
Agree - I'd never sees the need to withdraw cash from a teller, post office or phone - I'd rather customers that do this user-pays then it be a general cost passed onto customers in other general fees or interest rate charges. Although I guess it will mainly impact pensioners so that's not great.
CBA net profit: 9.5 billion for 23-24
They do not need to be charging fees for teller transactions. 9.5 billion in NET profit!!! they are raping everyone who banks with them already.
@webmonkey: 9.5 billion… so what? That number on its own is meaningless.
Imagine if Apple made $9.5 billion AUD net profit. Tim Cook would be laughed out the door.
Even if they are raking in huge profits, I don't see why that matters. You're free to choose another bank.
@webmonkey: And raping the public by closing branches, offshoring services and opening for very limited hours
Do you know how banks work? They take your deposit money, invest it to make money and when you want to access your money it is not ok to charge you.
I don't think anyone in this thread has actually read the article. They're not charging for ATM withdrawls.
They don’t let reality get in the way of confected outrage. The dog whistle has sounded they have to bark.
Not sure if that's directed at me, but my comment implies that people who make self-serve withdrawals (i.e. ATM) would no longer need to bear the cost of assisted withdrawals.
"Australia isn't going backwards, we are still better than a lot of other countries."
Quotation marks?
I was taking the piss out of the other thread where people were comparing us to countless other countries overseas instead of us 20-30 years ago.
Yeah I figured you were memeing something that someone might have said somewhere but didn’t know exactly from where.
Btw it’s still astounding to see you act all redpilled like this.
@Gervais fanboy: I'm just tired of the increasing amount of silliness in this country all for the sake of profits. As if the banks weren't making enough money they need to eke more money out of their customers when they want to withdraw their money. Matt Comyn needs his 83rd investment property I guess.
@Ghost47: It's not just about eke-ing more money out of customers, it also serves the purpose of guiding people into going cashless/digital.
@Ghost47: It's your money
It's their bank
If you want extras most people don't - extras that require them to keep a bunch of buildings open with paid staff inside waiting for you to rock up because ATMs are hard - then I guess you can pay for them
If your idea of going backwards is a $3 ATM fee you must be very tightly wound.
It's not an ATM fee. Did you even read the story? And it's more about the principle of it all, not the dollar figure.
I don't even use that as an example of going backwards
Of course you don't because you're new to the country and you can only compare it to the place you grew up in. You objectively cannot see how it's changed compared to how it was 20-30 years ago because your frame of reference is extremely limited.
I understand that the state government is out of money and needs a cash cow.
Holy crap you just don't get it do you? Government at all levels are extremely wasteful when it comes to spending taxpayer money. Saying "she'll be right" and happily giving more money to them when they screwed up is idiotic when they should learn to control their spending and become more efficient ffs.
Imagine thinking that losing a few dollars a year (literally) is evidence of somehow a society crumbling.
Imagine thinking that houses going to 10-11x income makes sense when we have an abundance of land. An economy that has simplified over decades to become even more simple than Uganda's. Manufacturing disappearing into nothingness over the course of 30 years. Aussie companies being bought by foreign countries. Politicians who themselves have massive property portfolios and seem to only care about pumping them rather than making the country a better place for everyone. A PM who said he didn't back the LNP's mass migration plan of 160k people per year yet imports 500k per year instead. Workers from multiple industries (e.g. nurses, police, logistics/warehousing) striking because their paycheck no longer supports a modest living. Selling gas to countries overseas only to experience a gas shortage here and as a result people paying more for it. Blackouts in the Sydney CBD because of ageing infrastructure. I don't know what country you came from but I don't think any of this should be acceptable for this country.
There are legitimately so many issues in this country that are appearing and that will get worse over time. Your "she'll be right mate, at least we aren't [insert wherever you came from]" attitude only acts to further enable the backward slide instead of improvement. People like you who think we can just import 500k people a year and that it's somehow objectively good for everyone only want to destroy the country further for your own benefit than for the benefit of the actual fkn country. You said in another comment something along the lines of "more people = more reward for those who succeed" which is seriously short-sighted and quite frankly, absolutely stupid. If there's more people around it means employers get a larger labour pool to choose from (do you know what supply and demand is?). It means if the pie doesn't grow everyone gets a smaller slice (our GDP is doing great isn't it?). It means the gov needs to expand infrastructure faster and when they do that they stuff up and spend carelessly which means you have to give them $2.5k a year. If you found a nice quiet place to fish, why would you go around telling absolutely everyone you know about it and inviting them all to go fish there?
What a bloody snowflake you are.
Why am I not surprised you had to resort to a personal attack. Here I am calling out a bullshit move from the biggest bank in Australia and all you can do is lizard brain and resort to personal attacks.
Look justworld, we clearly don't agree on anything and it's obvious we won't come to an agreement so why don't you stop replying to my comments? It's pointless for us both.
Oh and by the way, there are wealthy people out there who can see the problems with this country too. So assuming the reason I'm complaining is because I'm poor or have no money is just stupid and ignorant and it is pathetic to stereotype people who complain as only being poor, there are people who just want things to be better for everyone in this country. So unlike you I actually just care about the direction this country is headed in and am concerned about it because I have no interest in abandoning it (even if life gets harder) like how you abandoned yours.
I've lived in the country for 30 years. Long enough to see that it's gotten better and more equal and more diverse over time.
Yeah, sure you have.
Here's the thing. If someone - let's call him Bob - can't make it in this country - it's because Bob is too dumb, too lazy or too (profanity) inept to make it. It's Bob's fault, and he should take responsibility for it.
It's so cute you think that we live in a meritocracy. Your own experiences have completely blinded you as to how the world actually works. Same reason why you said "more people = more reward for those who are successful", it's just sheer stupidity.
Do you sympathise for me there? Doubt it.
I never would based on the way you conduct yourself here. You have zero sympathy for others. You assume just because people haven't made it it's because they didn't try hard enough. Sure, in some sort of Hollywood-movie universe I can imagine entitled people crying because they tried a bit, failed and then wanted stuff for free, but that's obviously a fairytale land. The reality is that people complain when they work hard and the goal posts just keep getting moved further away from them because of policies implemented by those in power.
Lmao, houses in woop woop are still cheap. Houses in good suburbs are expensive because high earners can afford them. If Bob doesn't like it, please rent. Get in line in the rental queue please Bob m'kay.
Ah yes, what a short-sighted and completely stupid take. If I go and buy a house regionally, out of pure selfishness (because that's what investing, especially in property in this current day and age, is really about) that means people in the regions can't afford housing. It's clear to me you are completely unable to think long-term.
Your figures are all wrong but essentially, if Bob can't beat someone who doesn't have the linguistic and socio/cultural capital Bob started off with, Bob just got wrecked.
And there are plenty of immigrants who move here with money, but as I said, your experience proves that you live in a bubble where all immigrants who come here come from disadvantaged backgrounds and don't speak English and somehow all of them contribute greatly to this country.
Good. More people means more spoils to the winners. You get to choose if you're a winner or a loser.
One day when someone smarter than you comes to this country they'll outdo you, then you'll be the snowflake. Oh and by the way, I'd rather be a snowflake than a sack of shit.
Oh and just to prove I'm right in complaining, CBA postponed this decision due to the backlash because they realised it was idiotic. Everyone knows this is just a greedy move but you can't see it because you're asleep. Just a good little imported citizen who keeps comparing Australia to his home country instead of what it was 30 years ago, although really back then you probably saw the place as nice and shiny compared to where you came from.
@Ghost47: "One day when someone smarter than you comes to this country they'll outdo you,"
News flash. Smarter people than me are all around.
Unlike people like you, I'm not insecure about competition. Happy to compete with smarter and dumber people.
Answer this honestly: if I can come here with no parental money, no connections, no language skills, no cultural skills - and build all that up from scratch as a kid and an adult - why can't anyone make it? Most people had an easier starting point than me. For those people to complain just shows their indolence and lack of work ethic/ability.
News flash. Smarter people than me are all around.
That's right, I am smarter than you.
Unlike people like you, I'm not insecure about competition.
Not yet anyway. Time will tell that I'm right.
Answer this honestly:
Nah, I'm not going to waste more time replying to you when you can't reply to every point I make when I've done that for you. Stop replying to my comments, it's obvious you're not a reasonable person.
@Ghost47: "Nah, I'm not going to waste more time replying to you when you can't reply to every point I make when I've done that for you. Stop replying to my comments, it's obvious you're not a reasonable person."
I've asked you the question multiple times, and you've never provided a straight answer. I didn't have any advantages over others - I simply worked harder, and smarter. Anyone who couldn't manage the same wasn't good enough - end of story.
It's not hard to achieve a very modest degree of success, like being in the top 1-5% of any endeavour. People who can't manage it have one person to blame…I'll let you guess who that is.
"Not yet anyway. Time will tell that I'm right."
I'll be fatfired in a few years with a handful of tenants paying off my retirement. No need to worry about working past my early 40s.
I've asked you the question multiple times, and you've never provided a straight answer. I didn't have any advantages over others - I simply worked harder, and smarter. Anyone who couldn't manage the same wasn't good enough - end of story.
Just like how you've never acknowledged the role that luck played in your success. The fact you've never acknowledged it tells me that you probably benefitted from it a lot more than you think you have.
I'll be fatfired in a few years with a handful of tenants paying off my retirement. No need to worry about working past my early 40s.
A meaningless existence isn't my kind of thing but you do you.
@Ghost47: Next you will tell me that someone who can barely read and who gambles on Sportsbet all day is just a victim of bad luck infecting all his choices. Heheh.
"A meaningless existence isn't my kind of thing but you do you."
Ah of course. Only working for the capitalist system can give one's life real meaning. Well, enjoy working for a living.
It's not an ATM fee. Did you even read the story? And it's more about the principle of it all, not the dollar figure.
Personally I like the principle of it. Expensive services should be user pays. Banks are a business and like it or not they are there to make a profit, I much prefer them to put a price on the services that are extremely expensive then spread the cost to the rest of us. If they put this on ATM's or electronic transactions then I would be peeved, but on completely avoidable services I say go for it.
Banks are a business and like it or not they are there to make a profit
Instead of just accepting they are businesses there to make a profit, ask yourself whether they should be.
Instead of just accepting they are businesses there to make a profit, ask yourself whether they should be.
absolutely they should be. Otherwise it is back to the bad old days of the government running it in it usual expensive, slow and inefficient ways.
absolutely they should be.
So corporations are lean, green, efficient machines & the best option for customers? Ever consider the argument you've cited is essentially corporate propaganda? Governments certainly can be inefficient, but they can also be run well. But when everything is corporatized, with pretend regulatory structures in place that protect them, who are you going to complain to when something seems wrong to you?
@mrdean: of course corporations aren't perfect. But compared to government yeah they are lean green efficient machines. I work with various government departments and corporations every day, The tax payer waste is horrendous. I have never seen a single government agency that is more efficient than a for profit and there is a good reason for that, government departments have no incentive to save money and be efficient where a for profit does. Hell the way governments do budgets for departments it actually gives them incentive to waste money and penalises them for saving it.
@mrdean: Why would I not want a business to be user-pays? From a shareholder point of view it makes sense. From a market point of view it also makes sense. I get great interest rates from CBA as well as a free relationship manager, because my business is worth something to them. They recoup the fees by charging people with low-value, high-cost demands like in-house cash withdrawal. Makes sense to me. If you spread the fees among everyone equally then preferred customers will be forced to subsidise non-preferred customers.
Expensive services should be user pays.
Sure, but how hard is it for a teller to complete a withdrawal? It's not like they're a financial adviser writing up a financial plan for someone is it? Or a lawyer looking at a potential lawsuit is it?
Should supermarkets start charging $3 for everyone who goes to a cashier instead of using the self-serve checkouts? Should cafes start charging an extra $3 for coffees because of the baristas services? I think you should voluntarily pay $3 for these things, after all you seem to think they are "expensive" services.
@Ghost47: supermarkets are already charging everyone for the cashier, they are spreading the cost and including it in their costs. lawyers absolutely charge if not up front then in higher fees for the case. That teller will be costing them in the order of $100 an hour, if people want branches to remain then those costs need to be passed on and personally I think it should be passed on to those that use those services. Cafes ALREADY charge you 2-3$ for the barista service or do you reckon they all do this out of the goodness of their hearts?
@gromit: It seems your logic is based on the teller only conducting withdrawals. They don't just conduct withdrawals, they do other things for customers too.
What's the logic behind saying that supermarkets spread the cost of cashiers across their products as if banks don't do the same with their staff and the cost of their products like how much interest they charge for savings accounts and home loans?
Cafes ALREADY charge you 3$ for the barista services.
For one thing, that's not how it really works. Labour costs are incorporated into the price of a coffee (or piece of cake, or burger etc.) but it is not a "set" $3 per cup. There is a difference between explicitly charging a service fee and incorporating the cost of labour into your products. If a barista makes 60 cups of coffee in a three-hour shift, by your logic they're paid $180 for that shift ($60 p/h). If they make 20 cups of coffee in a three-hour shift they're paid $60 ($20 p/h). Nope, they are paid a set wage and on quiet days the manager will often let them go home early (have you ever worked in hospitality before? Because I have and that's how it works). The cost for labour varies based on how many are coffees sold, and cafes often need to take a loss when times are quiet like during COVID.
Anyway, I wasn't even talking about the labour costs that are calculated into product prices because that's not a logical comparison. I'm talking about cafes saying "We're going to charge you an EXTRA THREE DOLLARS for your cup of coffee" because that is what CBA have done, this is a charge they have introduced. If they were to do it in a sneakier way they would've either dropped savings rates or hiked mortgage rates. Do you see what the difference is?
@Ghost47: banks have many customers that cost them money and a good portion of those are people that do over the counter withdrawals so you can never spread the cost to them as they are just dead weight. As for labour costs incorporated into the price, that is EXACTLY what the banks are doing here. With a barista you also are paying for the machine, the shop rent/space. I guessing you have never in your life actually run a business.
As for labour costs incorporated into the price, that is EXACTLY what the banks are doing here.
What part of introducing a $3 fee on top of everything else do you not understand?
With a barista you also are paying for the machine, the shop rent/space.
What part of my comment did you not understand for you to have to explain this?
I guessing you have never in your life actually run a business.
I'm guessing you didn't understand my comment.
That’s because 20-30 years ago they were living in those countries, not Australia.
Only benefit I am enjoying from them is the More Telecom discount lol. Time to ditch them
is the More Telecom discount lol
I saved even 'more' by switching to Superloop
Superloop have 50/20 for less than $55.20?
Superloop have 50/20 for less than $55.20?
I'm on a 250 plan, but the CBA customer price from me for 50/20 on More is $73.60(12mths)/$82.80, not $55.20
@jv: Not if you have Everday benefits plus (30+ transactions per month required). Paying ~$59 for 50/20 .
Just get your cash at the supermarket (for now anyway). Or swamp the banking ombudsman with complaints. Or swap your accounts to a credit union/building society. Or is that part of their plan?
"In the 2023 financial year, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) reported a cash net profit after tax of AUD 10.16 billion, reflecting a 6% increase compared to the previous year. This growth was driven by higher income from lending and improvements in the bank’s net interest margin due to rising interest rates."
The banksters are making bank and the peasants just bend over and take it.
Have you ever complained about long lines at the bank?
I suspect this is to encourage more people to handle their money digitally.
No, I don't have a chance to visit a branch since it only opens for 3 hours a day, 4 days a week. I live in a regional area. The elderly and even middle-aged people here rely on the local branch for their transactions. I doubt how they are going to cope with the charges if they don't have a pension card.
The alternative ends up being the branches close as over the counter transactions are getting more and more expensive to provide. CBA sucks in so many ways but I don't see them just continuing to eat the costs in these areas and provide the branches (even if at reduced services).
I suspect this is to encourage more people to handle their money digitally.
Not everybody can use an ATM, eg. lots of elderly people…
Define elderly. Most elderly people I know, including 80 year olds, can use an ATM. I’ve even seen ATMs with braille on them. Something I found concerning with the American drive through ATM.
Probably just a standard design and would cost the bank more to specify an ATM without the braille
Elderly people are exempt from the $3 fee.
Not every elderly is on age pension
Yeah in my case I complain about the long lines at the bank because they severely under staff them. To the point my local branch is randomly shut on certain days with a handwritten sign saying to go to one in another suburb.
I don't even live regionally ffs! I am in Brisbane
So how do ATM's fit into this, as the are non existant day by day? as are many other bank brands are also AWL?
Just use another bank?
Doesn’t bother me!
Freshly minted username checks out.
Just use the ATM? Easy as.
If you can find one!
As opposed to an in-person bank branch?
The one closest to me just shut down and took the ATMs with it. 3km to the next closest branch, which is also the location of the next closest ATMs
The article I read says it applies to ATM withdrawals too
The standard of modern journalism is rather low unfortunately.
Commonwealth Bank of Australia has expanded its support for customers over the past financial year, using its strong balance sheet to provide a range of assistance measures to help people with the current cost of living pressures at the same time as keeping them safer from fraud and scams.
https://www.commbank.com.au/articles/newsroom/2024/08/cba-fu…
14 August 2024
Wonder if they were plotting this before the 14th Aug.
What if I only have a $1 in my account and want to withdraw that?
you owe them $2.
It costs me more than what my money is worth?
You could transfer it electronically.
Yes. Do you have any other questions?
I'm sure this has been around for a while with with Westpac or ANZ?
This doesn't apply to ATM's.