Which bank do you prefer?

Slightly off-topic: do banks only offer safe deposit boxes--if they do at all, of course--exclusively to their clients or can you just walk in off the street and get one as if you were opening a savings or checking acct? Anyone?

Subject: ING

I don't see how 4.5% savings and 3% checking is a bait and switch.
When I do the math, it is better than 5% only. This is due to my having to keep a large amount in checking because my rent check is pretty high and is pulled out at random times. Sometimes that money sits in there all month. I can't just keep it in savings because I have no idea when the landlord will cash it. If it earns 3% while I wait the numbers work out better for me to have the 4.5 & 3 than having the 5.
Chase offers 0.4% on savings and 0% on checking, and you can only use Chase ATMs.
Washington Mutual offeres 0.1% or 0.5% for under 25K, 0% checking. Bank of America has 0.2% on savings, 0$ checking.

Depending on how much money you keep in your checking vs how much you keep in savings, for me at least, the numbers actually come out in favor of ING because of the 3%.

Everyone should do their own research and their own math, everyone has different needs and different amounts that they keep in each account, but if you, like me, have a high balance in checking due to bills that get pulled at random times, it probably works out in your favor to have interest checking too.
I certainly don't keep less in my savings because of interest checking. No bait and switch. Just simple math.

One added plus is there are no checks and they don't use paper for anything, so no monthly statements. Better for the environment, less waste.

Subject: Re: ING

Harry F. wrote: I don't see how 4.5% savings and 3% checking is a bait and switch.
When I do the math, it is better than 5% only. This is due to my having to keep a large amount in checking because my rent check is pretty high and is pulled out at random times. Sometimes that money sits in there all month. I can't just keep it in savings because I have no idea when the landlord will cash it. If it earns 3% while I wait the numbers work out better for me to have the 4.5 & 3 than having the 5.
Chase offers 0.4% on savings and 0% on checking, and you can only use Chase ATMs.
Washington Mutual offeres 0.1% or 0.5% for under 25K, 0% checking. Bank of America has 0.2% on savings, 0$ checking.

Depending on how much money you keep in your checking vs how much you keep in savings, for me at least, the numbers actually come out in favor of ING because of the 3%.

Everyone should do their own research and their own math, everyone has different needs and different amounts that they keep in each account, but if you, like me, have a high balance in checking due to bills that get pulled at random times, it probably works out in your favor to have interest checking too.
I certainly don't keep less in my savings because of interest checking. No bait and switch. Just simple math.

One added plus is there are no checks and they don't use paper for anything, so no monthly statements. Better for the environment, less waste.

Well, that's an interesting problem that I've never heard of, so I guess in your case there's a clear advantage to having an interest bearing checking account. For me (and I think most people), rent is paid on a set date, usually the 1st, of every month. So as long as I've got my rent in my checking account when I pay the rent, I'm good. Furthermore, even if a check was issued that exceeded the amount in checking, I don't think it would bounce until it was actually cashed, right? So if you check your account activity regularly you could just transfer the appropriate amount in from savings and you'd still be okay. In your case, with large sums being drawn out at constantly shifting, random times without warning (which I find somewhat shocking), then obviously this would be a hassle.

As for the math, if you keep $1000 on hand in your checking account and earn 3%, that's a whopping $30 a year, less taxes, which is about $20. Alternatively, if you compare a 5% savings account rate (which I was getting at Citi up until recently) to a 4% savings, you would only need to have $3K in savings to make up that $30 difference. If you had a larger number, like $30,000 in your savings account, that extra % yield would generate an extra $300 a year, far more than you were getting from checking.

Obviously, nobody should be accepting the tiny rates you quoted, and obviously having a great savings rate and a modest checking rate would be fantastic. And, like you said, if you have particular liquidity needs, then the deal you have is great. But you yourself said that ING offers lower savings rates than its competitors, and I was just pointing out that the greater checking yield may not compensate for that. It depends.

shishkab wrote: [quote=MichaelKeys]Slightly off-topic: do banks only offer safe deposit boxes--if they do at all, of course--exclusively to their clients or can you just walk in off the street and get one as if you were opening a savings or checking acct? Anyone?

pirate treasure, or jimmy hoffa's wallet? wink wink. nudge nudge. know what i mean? say no more!

inquiring minds want to know!
Sorry to burst your bubble, S: more along the lines of passport, lease, etc.

I've been with Washington Mutual for a few years but have only been in the neighborhood for a few months. I had to visit the new WaMu branch on Flatbush & 7th Ave a couple of weeks ago and they were really helpful and very thorough. And then what surprised me even more was that the finanacial rep who helped me sent me a thank you card afterwards.

But on the other hand, I don't know what they're like in a crisis. (knock on wood that I won't have to find out!)