[pebers]

> Today banks uses fee for everything and everyone is ok with that

They actually don't. Most ATM fees and inter-bank payments (at least in the UK / Europe) are swallowed by the banks rather than exposed to customers.

> So yes, it is very possible to make a profit by not only having those things but having that without fees.

How? As far as I can tell you're describing a bank that runs deposit accounts but doesn't loan the money back - that is not obviously a profitable enterprise. Something in the whole scheme has to make some money to pay for the employees, the infrastructure, and all the other fixed costs.

[gcbw2]

AH, Europe. In the US you pay around $1.5 to $4 per withdraw, because the ATM network is a private enterprise not owned by the banks.

You will get there, unfortunately.

And you completely missed the point. Loaning/re-investing with volume is a very sure way to make money, and was what banks used 30+ years ago. now they pad it with fees for everything.

[pebers]

The ATM network here is also not owned by the banks (similarly FASTER payments, they are members of the scheme but there's a third-party that administers the network). They pay for access, but don't pass that cost on.

And I did not miss that point, thank you. I just disagree with it. I don't think banks make their primary income from fees; current accounts are still basically a loss leader.

[cryoshon]

maybe by buying inflation indexed bonds on a rolling basis. nab something like 1-2% interest on the customers' money in an extremely safe investment vehicle, then return most of that to the customer after paying off infrastructure costs. (does this work? i have no idea whatsoever)