Biaya transaksi di perbankan masih mahal (Rampok)

[kullatiro]

JAKARTA. Perbankan menolak
dianggap tidak fair menetapkan biaya
kliring nasional (SKN) dan real time
gross settlement (RTGS). Bankir
beralasan, telah menginvestasikan
dana dalam jumlah besar untuk
pengadaan teknologi (TI) dan
perawatan sistem. Bank juga
mengeluarkan ongkos rutin seperti
gaji pegawai, listrik, kertas hingga fee
untuk bank penerima. Maka itu, kata
bankir, terlihat wajar jika tarif ke
nasabah jauh lebih tinggi ketimbang
komisi yang disetorkan bank ke Bank
Indonesia (BI).
Selama ini, bank rata-rata menggetok
tarif antara Rp 20.000 hingga Rp
30.000 per transaksi RTGS. Sedangkan
tarif SKN berkisar Rp 5.000 hingga Rp
7.500. Bandingkan dengan setoran
bank ke BI yang hanya Rp 1.000 untuk
transaksi SKN dan antara Rp 7.000 –
Rp 15.000 untuk RTGS.
Direktur Ritel Bank Permata Lauren
Sulistiwati, mengatakan biaya SKN
maupun RTGS antara satu bank dan
bank lain berbeda-beda lantaran
struktur biaya juga berbeda. Bank
yang jumlah nasabah dan memiliki
mesin ATM berlimpah tentu lebih
efisien.
Di samping itu bank harus membayar
biaya ke BI, biaya tenaga kerja, biaya
teknologi informasi serta biaya
overhead lain. "Oleh karena itu, biaya
transaksi yang dikenakan ke nasabah
umumnya lebih tinggi dibandingkan
biaya yang dibebankan BI ke bank,"
katanya, Kamis (12/7).
Presiden Direktur OCBC NISP, Parwati
Surjaudaja, mengatakan rencana BI
membatasi tarif RTGS dan SKN akan
mendorong bank lebih efisien. Bank
akan mencari cara menggenjot
transaksi agar biaya menjadi lebih
murah. "Bank berlomba-lomba
memberikan nilai tambah untuk
nasabah," kata Parwati.
Ketua Perhimpunan Bank-Bank Umum
Nasional (Perbanas), Sigit Pramono,
menyarankan BI berkoordinasi dengan
perbankan, perusahaan penyedia jasa
dan asosiasi dalam mengkaji rencana
pemangkasan biaya SKN dan RTGS.
"BI perlu meminta pendapat sekaligus
mencarikan solusi bagi perbankan,"
katanya.
Pelaku industri mengaku bisa
memaklumi sepak terjang BI dalam
mengatur bisnis perbankan, karena
bank menghimpun dana masyarakat.
Namun, bankir juga berharap, BI
melakukan sosialisasi yang cukup agar
industri tidak kaget dengan
pemberlakuan kebijakan baru.
Dalam kajian, BI akan mematok batas
maksimal SKN antara Rp 2.500 - Rp
3.000 per transaksi. Sedangkan biaya
RTGS masih dalam kalkulasi.
Rencananya, BI mulai menerapkan
batas tarif pada tahun 2013 bersama
penerapan seluruh sistem
pembayaran melalui konsep National
Payment Gateway (NPG) sebagai
langkah efisiensi dalam sistem
pembayaran.

http://mobile.kontan.co.id/news/biaya-transaksi-di-perbankan-masih-mahal/2012/07/13

Lebih layak di sebut perampok (kata tidak fair tuh terlalu halus bahasanya)

[kullatiro]

BI akan batasi biaya transfer
antarbank

SURABAYA. Demi meringankan
nasabah bank, Bank Indonesia (BI)
akan mengatur biaya sistem kliring
nasional (SKN) dan real-time gross
settlement (RTGS). BI menilai biaya
transfer antarbank bisa lebih murah
dibandingkan yang berlaku saat ini.
Saat ini, bank mematok fee mulai Rp
5.000 - Rp 7.500 per transaksi lewat
SKN. Sedangkan biaya RTGS antara Rp
20.000 - Rp 30.000, tergantung nilai
dan waktu transaksi. "Kami ingin
membatasi biaya SKN dan RTGS,"
tandas Deputi Gubernur BI, Ronald
Waas.
Padahal, bank hanya membayar
komisi ke bank sentral sebesar Rp
1.000 per transaksi SKN, dan Rp 7.000
sampai Rp 15.000 per transaksi lewat
transaksi RTGS. Padahal, untuk
pengadaan sistem maupun perawatan
teknologi, bank sentral menjadi pihak
yang mengeluarkan biaya terbesar.
Makanya, untuk menentukan biaya
transaksi ideal, BI telah melakukan
survei ke perbankan. Mayoritas bank
mematok biaya sebesar Rp 5.000
sampai Rp 7.500 untuk SKN. Namun,
ada satu bank yang membebankan
biaya hingga Rp 15.000 untuk sekali
transfer. BI juga sudah meminta
keterangan bank yang mengenakan
biaya tinggi itu.
Dalam proses audiensi, bank juga
wajib menjelaskan komponen biaya.
Antara lain biaya mesin, listrik,
teknologi informasi, kertas hingga
komisi untuk bank penerima transfer.
Komisi bisa membebani jika transfer
berlangsung antarbank yang berbeda
jaringan switching.
Menurut BI, semua biaya itu bisa
ditekan jika bank saling terkoneksi.
"Kami berharap bank-bank lain yang
belum terkoneksi dapat terjalin, sebut
saja Bank Central Asia (BCA) dan Bank
BNI, ini langkah efisiensi," katanya.
Dari kajian itu, BI akan mematok batas
maksimal SKN Rp 2.500 - Rp 3.000 per
transaksi. Sedangkan biaya RTGS
masih dalam kalkulasi. Rencananya, BI
mulai menerapkan batas tarif pada
tahun 2013 mendatang.
Ketua Asosiasi Sistem Pembayaran
Indonesia (ASPI), Budi Gunadi Sadikin,
menjelaskan biaya transfer antarbank
yang masih satu jaringan diatur oleh
perusahaan switching. Jika berbeda
jaringan, bank bergantung BI, yang
juga memiliki switching.
Direktur Ritel Bank Permata, Lauren
Sulistiwati, mengatakan pengaturan
biaya transfer masih dalam kajian.
Tujuannya, meningkatkan konektivitas
antarbank sekaligus menurunkan
biaya transaksi. Menurut dia, jika ide
itu berhasil diimplementasikan,
dampaknya akan positif. "Transaksi
bisa cepat dengan biaya lebih murah.
Volume transaksi juga meningkat dan
penggunaan tunai pun berkurang,"
kata Lauren.
Menurut Lauren, pengaturan ini tidak
akan menurunkan fee based income.
Soalnya, biaya transaksi yang
dikeluarkan bank juga lebih murah
lantaran volume transaksi ikut
meningkat.
http://mobile.kontan.co.id//news/bi-akan-batasi-biaya-transfer-antarbank

[adi lim]

kok teriak rampok ! emang siapa yang merampok ? korbannya siapa ?

Wong nasabahnya transaksi bayar sesuai dengan ketentuan kok ! tidak ada nasabah yang dipaksa harus transaksi transfer, mau tarik tunai, kirim sendiri juga boleh.
jika keberatan bayar transfer fee, tarik tunai pindahin ke bank lain sendiri tapi resiko tanggung sendiri, bisa-bisa dirampok benaran. 

andai bro diamond pemilik bank, mungkin tidak teriak rampok, tapi ... 

[kullatiro]

Libor scandal
Scale of the scandal
This dwarfs by orders of magnitude
any financial scams in the history of
markets. [1][2]
"
"
Andrew Lo , MIT Professor of Finance
The Libor scandal is a series of
fraudulent actions connected to the
Libor (London Interbank Offered Rate)
, and the resulting investigation and
reaction. The Libor is an average
interest rate calculated through
submissions of interest rates by major
banks in London. Libor underpins
approximately $350 trillion in
derivatives . It is controlled by the
British Bankers' Association (BBA). [3]
The banks are supposed to submit
the actual interest rates they are
paying, or would expect to pay, for
borrowing from other banks. The
Libor is supposed to be an overall
assessment of the health of the
financial system because if the banks
being polled feel confident about the
state of things, they report a low
number and if the member banks feel
a low degree of confidence in the
financial system, they report a higher
interest rate number.
Because mortgages , student loans ,
financial derivatives, and other
financial products often rely on Libor
as a reference rate, the manipulation
of submissions used to calculate
those rates can have significant
negative effects on consumers and
financial markets worldwide.
Early reports of Libor manipulation
Libor manipulation to lower rate
Hi Guys, We got a big position in 3m
libor for the next 3 days. Can we
please keep the lib or fixing at 5.39 for
the next few days. It would really
help. We do not want it to fix any
higher than that. Tks a lot. [emphasis
added]
"
"
Barclays Bank trader in New York to
submitter,
13 September, 2006 [4]
On 29 May 2008, The Wall Street
Journal (WSJ) released a controversial
study suggesting that some banks
might have understated borrowing
costs they reported for Libor during
the 2008 credit crunch that may have
misled others about the financial
position of these banks. [5] They
further reported in March 2011 that
regulators were focusing on Bank of
America Corp., Citigroup Inc. and UBS
AG. [6] In response the BBA claimed
that Libor continued to be reliable
even in times of financial crisis. Other
authorities contradicted The Wall
Street Journal article saying there was
no evidence of manipulation. In its
March 2008 Quarterly Review, The
Bank for International Settlements
stated that "available data do not
support the hypothesis that
contributor banks manipulated their
quotes to profit from positions based
on fixings." [7] Further, in October
2008 the International Monetary Fund
published its regular Global Financial
Stability Review which also found
that "Although the integrity of the U.S.
dollar Libor-fixing process has been
questioned by some market
participants and the financial press, it
appears that U.S. dollar Libor remains
an accurate measure of a typical
creditworthy bank's marginal cost of
unsecured U.S. dollar term
funding." [8]
In November 2008, the Governor of
the Bank of England , Mervyn King,
described Libor to the UK Parliament
saying "It is in many ways the rate at
which banks do not lend to each
other, ... it is not a rate at which
anyone is actually borrowing." [9][10]
On 28 February 2012, it was revealed
that the U.S. Department of Justice is
conducting a criminal investigation
into Libor abuse. [11] Among the
abuses being investigated are the
possibility that traders were in direct
communication with bankers before
the rates were set, thus allowing them
an unprecedented amount of insider
knowledge into global instruments.
One trader's messages indicated that
for each basis point (0.01%) that Libor
was moved, those involved could net
"about a couple of million dollars".
[12]
What may still seem to many to be a
parochial affair involving Barclays, a
300-year-old British bank, rigging an
obscure number, is beginning to
assume global significance. The
number that the traders were toying
with determines the prices that people
and corporations around the world
pay for loans or receive for their
savings. It is used as a benchmark to
set payments on about $800 trillion-
worth of financial instruments,
ranging from complex interest-rate
derivatives to simple mortgages. The
number determines the global flow of
billions of dollars each year. Yet it
turns out to have been flawed. [13]
"
"
The Economist
On June 13, 2012, at the request of
Representative Randy Neugebauer ,
Chairman of the House Financial
Services Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations, the New York
Federal Reserve released documents
dating back to 2007 which showed
that they were aware that banks were
lying about their borrowing costs
when setting Libor, and chose to take
no action against them at that time.
[14][15] In one 2008 document a
Barclays employee told a New York
Fed analyst, "We know that we're not
posting um, an honest LIBOR, and yet
we are doing it, because, um, if we
didn't do it, it draws, um, unwanted
attention on ourselves." [15]
The documents also show that in early
2008 a memo written by then New
York Fed President Tim Geithner to
Bank of England chief Mervyn King
looked into ways to "fix" Libor. [16][17]
While the released memos suggest
that the New York Fed helped to
identify problems related to Libor and
press the relevant authorities in the
UK to reform, there is no
documentation that shows any
evidence that Geithner's
recommendations were acted upon
or that the Fed tried to make sure that
they were. In October 2008, several
months after Geithner's memo to
King, a Barclays employee told a New
York Fed representative that Libor
rates were still "absolute rubbish." [15]
Barclays Bank fined for
manipulation
Libor manipulation to raise rate
Pls go for 5.36 libor again, very
important that the setting comes as
high as possible ... thanks. [emphasis
added]
"
"
Barclays Bank trader in New York to
submitter,
29 July, 2007 [4]
On 27 June 2012, Barclays Bank was
fined $200m by the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission
,[18] $160 million by the United States
Department of Justice [19] and £59.5
million by the Financial Services
Authority [20] for attempted
manipulation of the LIBOR and
EURIBOR rates. [21] The United States
Department of Justice and Barclays
officially agreed that "the
manipulation of the submissions
affected the fixed rates on some
occasions". [22][23]
Barclays manipulated rates for at least
two reasons. Routinely, for years,
traders sought particular rate
submissions to benefit their financial
positions. Later, during the 2007–2012
global financial crisis , they artificially
lowered rate submissions to make
their bank seem healthy. [19]
On 2 July 2012, Marcus Agius
chairman of Barclays, resigned from
the position following the interest rate
rigging scandal.[24] Bob Diamond, the
chief executive officer of Barclays,
resigned on July 3, 2012. Marcus
Agius will fill his post until a
replacement is found. [25][26] Bob
Diamond was questioned by the
Parliament of the United Kingdom
regarding the manipulation. He said
he was unaware of the manipulation
until that month, but revealed
discussions with Paul Tucker, deputy
governor of the Bank of England .[27]
Tucker then voluntarily appeared,
seeking to clear his name. He said he
had never encouraged manipulation
of Libor, and that other self-
certification mechanisms like Libor
should be reformed.[28]
Breadth of scandal becomes
apparent
By 4 July, 2012 the breadth of the
scandal was evident and became the
topic of analysis on news and financial
programs that attempted to explain
the importance of the scandal.[29]
Two days later, it was announced that
the U.K. Serious Fraud Office had also
opened a criminal investigation into
manipulation of interest rates. The
investigation was not limited to
Barclays. [30][31] It has been reported
since then that regulators in at least
seven countries are investigating the
rigging of the Libor and other interest
rates. [32]
The United States Congress began
investigating on 10 July. Senate
Banking Committee Chairman Tim
Johnson (D., S.D.) said he would
question Treasury Secretary Timothy
Geithner and Federal Reserve
Chairman Ben Bernanke about the
scandal during scheduled hearings.
Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R., T.X.)
chairman of the House Financial
Services Committee , wrote New York
Federal Reserve (New York Fed)
President William Dudley . He was
seeking records of communications
between the New York Fed and
Barclays between August 2007 and
November 2009 related to Libor-like
rates. [33]
The Canadian Competition Bureau
was reported on 15 July to also be
carrying out an investigation into price
fixing by five banks of the yen
denominated Libor rates. Court
documents filed indicated that the
Competition Bureau had been
pursuing the matter since at least
January 2011. The documents offered
a detailed view of how and when the
international banks allegedly colluded
to fix the Libor rates. The information
was based on a whistleblower who
traded immunity from prosecution in
exchange for turning on his fellow
conspirators. In the court documents,
a federal prosecutor for the bureau
stated that the "IRD (interest-rate
derivatives) traders at the participant
banks communicated with each other
their desire to see a higher or lower
yen LIBOR to aid their trading
positions". The alleged participants
are the Canadian branches of the
Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC ,
Deutsche Bank , JP Morgan Bank , and
Citibank, as well as ICAP (Intercapital) ,
an interdealer broker. [34]
Appearing before Parliament on 16
July, Jerry del Missier, a former senior
Barclays executive, said that he had
recieved instructions from Robert
Diamond to lower rates after
Diamond's discussions with bank
regulators. He said that he had
received information of a
conversation between Diamond and
Paul Tucker, deputy governor of the
Bank of England , in which they had
discussed the bank's financial position
at the height of the 2008 financial
crisis. It was his understanding that
senior British government officials had
instructed the bank to alter the rates.
Mr. del Missier's testimony followed
statements from Diamond in which he
denied that he had told his deputies
to report false Libor rates. Speaking
before Parliment the previous week,
Tucker stated that he had shared
concerns regarding Barkley's Libor
rates because the markets might view
Barclays to be at risk if its Libor
submissions continued to be higher
than those of other international
banks. In the midst of the Lehman
Brothers collapse, there was concern
the bank might need to be bailed out
if the financial markets perceived it
was a credit risk. Tucker told the
committee, "I wanted to make sure
that Barclays' day-to-day funding
issues didn't push it over the cliff."
[35]
Impact on banking regulation in
Europe and the US
US experts such as Former Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig
Roberts have argued that the Libor
Scandal completes the picture of
public and private financial institutions
manipulating interest rates in order to
prop up the prices of bonds and
other fixed income instruments, and
that "the motives of the Fed, Bank of
England, US and UK banks are
aligned, their policies mutually
reinforcing and beneficial. The Libor
fixing is another indication of this
collusion." [36] In that perspective
they advocate stricter bank regulation,
and a profound reform of the Federal
Reserve System .
Mainland European scholars have also
discussed the necessity of far-
reaching banking reforms in light of
the current crisis of confidence,
recommending the adoption of
binding regulations that would go
further than the Dodd-Frank Act:
notably in France where SFAF and
World Pensions Council (WPC) banking
experts have argued that, beyond
national legislations , such rules
should be adopted and implemented
within the broader context of
separation of powers in European
Union law, to put an end to anti-
competitive practices akin to exclusive
dealing and limit conflicts of interest.
[37][38] This perspective has gained
ground after the unraveling of the
Libor scandal, with mainstream
opinion leaders such as the Financial
Times editorialists calling for the
adoption of an EU -wide "Glass
Steagall II" [39]
Reactions
In a July 14 editorial in the Guardian,
Naomi Wolf suggests that only a short
time ago the "notion that the entire
global financial system is riddled with
systemic fraud – and that key players
in the gatekeeper roles, both in
finance and in government, including
regulatory bodies, know it and choose
to quietly sustain this reality – is one
that would have only recently seemed
like the frenzied hypothesis of tinhat-
wearers". Looking at the fact that Tim
Geithner went on to be promoted to
Treasury Secretary . Wolf commented,
"It is very hard, looking at the
elaborate edifices of fraud that are
emerging across the financial system,
to ignore the possibility that this kind
of silence – "the willingness to not
rock the boat" – is simply rewarded by
promotion to ever higher positions,
ever greater authority. If you learn
that rate-rigging and regulatory
failures are systemic, but stay quiet,
well, perhaps you have shown that
you are genuinely reliable and deserve
membership of the club."lok

[kullatiro]

but stay quiet, well, perhaps you have shown that
you are genuinely reliable and deserve
membership of the club." [40]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal

kejahatan perbankan kadang tidak di ketahui atau sadar hingga ada penyelidikan dan fakta fakta tertentu terungkap ke publik

[kullatiro]

Top U.S. bank Wells Fargo is to pay $
175 million to resolve allegations that
it charged African-American and
Hispanic borrowers higher fees and
interest rates than whites, the Justice
Department said Thursday.
The bank is accused of engaging "in a
pattern or practice of discrimination
against qualified African-American
and Hispanic borrowers in its
mortgage lending from 2004 through
2009."
Customers were also steered toward
riskier sub-prime loans, while their
white peers received standard loan
terms, according to the Justice
Department.
"An applicant's creditworthiness, and
not the color of his or her skin,
should determine what loans a
borrower qualifies for," said Deputy
Attorney General James Cole.
The San Francisco-based bank denies
the claims, according to a statement
Wednesday, but said it was settling to
avoid litigation.
The bank will pay $125 million in
compensation to around 4,000
customers who paid higher fees than
white borrowers. It will also pay $50
million in direct aid to communities
hard hit by the housing crisis. Raw
Story
HIGHLIGHTS
"Today's settlement with Wells Fargo is
the second largest fair lending
settlement in the department's
history," Assistant Attorney General
Thomas E. Perez announced.
The city of Baltimore, Maryland had
filed a lawsuit against Wells Fargo in
January 2008. Under the terms of the
settlement announced on Thursday,
the city will dismiss the suit.
Digitaljournal.com
Wells Fargo currently originates more
than a third of all U.S. mortgages,
more than the combined total of the
next seven biggest home lenders. In a
statement Thursday, it denied the
government's claims and said it was
settling the case to avoid prolonged
litigation with the Justice Department.
LA Times
This is at least the third time in the
past year that a major bank has
settled with the Feds to resolve
allegations of racist practices. In May,
SunTrust Bank's mortgage subsidiary
settled for $21 million. In December,
Bank of America paid $335 million
because of reported discrimination by
Countywide Financial, which it
purchased in 2008. sfweekly.com

http://unitymedianews.com/2012/07/14/wells-fargo-racist-lender-lending-rats-based-on-blacks-and-whites-hispanics-lendingbankingusa/

[kullatiro]

NEW YORK — Visa, MasterCard and
major banks agreed to pay retailers at
least $6 billion to settle a long-running
lawsuit that alleged the card issuers
conspired to fix the fees that stores
pay to accept credit cards. As part of
the settlement, announced late Friday,
stores from Rite Aid to Kroger will be
allowed to charge customers more if
they pay using a credit card.
The pact, which is being called by
lawyers involved in the case the
largest antitrust settlement in U.S.
history, is seen as a major victory for
merchants that have long complained
about the billions of dollars in so-
called "swipe" or "interchange" fees
that they pay to banks for purchases
made using plastic. But at a time
when shoppers increasingly are using
credit and debit cards, merchants will
face a dilemma: Whether to charge
shoppers extra for using plastic, and if
so, how to do so without angering
them.


Personal Post
Marilyn Landis, who was last year's
chairman of the National Small
Business Association, said that the
settlement is a victory for small
businesses across the country
because it could ultimately lead to
banks lowering the fees they charge
stores for customers' credit card
purchases.
Landis, who owns Pittsburgh-based
financial services firm Basic Business
Concepts, said that would be a big
relief. She's now paying 3.75 percent
each time a customer pays with a
credit card. If bank card companies
reduce the fees they charge her to
2.75 percent, she would save a dollar
on every $100 in sales.
"That's huge," she said.
According to the National Retail
Federation, the nation's largest retail
group, swipe fees costs for stores total
about $30 billion per year. Mallory
Duncan, senior vice president and
general counsel for the group, said
the settlement is a step in the right
direction.
"What we need are changes in the
rules that bring about transparency
and competition that would be here
for years to come," he said.
The dispute between stores and banks
dates back to 2005. That's when large
retailers, including Kroger Co.,
Safeway Inc. and Walgreen Co. began
filing price-fixing lawsuits against Visa,
MasterCard and other banks.
The retailers claimed the credit card
issuers worked together to fix the fees
that stores pay to accept credit and
debit cards. The fees, which vary
depending on the type of store and
the type of card issues, average about
2 percent of the price of a purchase.
Visa and MasterCard make money on
the fees that stores pay for each
customer that uses credit or debit
cards for their purchases. The fees are
set by card processing networks but
collected by, and split with, the banks
that issue the cards.
The card companies long have
defended the fees they charge stores.
They say stores benefit from being
able to accept credit and debit cards
from customers, who often spend
more when they're using plastic
instead of cash or checks.
Retailers fought to charge customers
who use plastic for their purchases
extra. They've argued that the ability
to charge customers who use plastic
more for their purchases would
reduce their costs for accepting the
cards.
But up until now, Visa and MasterCard
have banned stores from charging
customers who use credit cards
more. Merchants, however, have
been allowed to offer customers
discounts if they pay with cash. Some
gas stations do this, for example.
As part of the settlement, credit card
companies have agreed to reduce
swipe fees for eight months. The
temporary reprieve on fees is valued
at $1.2 billion. The settlement does
not apply to debit cards, which have
grown in popularity for small-value
transactions.
"These new rules will give merchants
the tools they need to put pressure
on the credit card networks to lower
interchange or swipe fees, which are
the second-or third-highest cost of
doing business for many retailers,"
said Patrick J. Coughlin, senior trial
counsel at Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, and one of the lawyers for
the plaintiffs.
Joseph W. Saunders, chairman and
chief executive of Visa Inc., said in a
statement Friday that he's comfortable
with the agreement, which he believes
will not affect the company's earnings
outlook.
"We believe settling this case is in the
best interests of all parties," he said.
Noah Hanft, MasterCard Inc.'s general
counsel, said in a separate statement
on Friday that the decision to settle
"was based on our belief that
MasterCard and our stakeholders are
best served by an amicable
resolution."
"Although we have strong defenses to
all claims, a settlement avoids years of
litigation and uncertainties that are
inherent in such cases," he said. "We
believe that today's settlements
should resolve all issues with the
merchant community."
Visa and MasterCard stock both
jumped in after-hours trading. Visa
climbed 2.8 percent, and MasterCard
rose 3.7 percent.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/industries/visa-mastercard-and-banks-reach-6b-settlement-over-card-fees/2012/07/13/gJQAWtkuiW_story.html

denda (fine) ini terjadi karena ada nya perlawanan hukum dari beberapa toko dan jaringan besar. coba toko toko kecil macam kita tinggal terima pasrah saja terhadap ketidak adilan macam ini.

[kullatiro]

Berbagai media Barat menyebut
skandal Libor ini sebagai ulah para
bankster. Mereka yang berjabatan
bankir tapi berkelakuan gangster.
Gangster beroperasi dalam kelompok
solid untuk menghalalkan segala cara
demi mencapai keuntungannya
sendiri.

.

http://mobile.kontan.co.id//news/ulah-bankster-mengguncang-industri-perbankan-dunia

[adi lim]

jangan pakai jasa bank aja, beres toh.
jangan juga menuding bahwa para bank yang mengenakan fee transfer kemudian dibilang mahal dan dikatakan sebagai 'rampok' lagi

[kullatiro]

Saat ini, bank mematok fee mulai Rp5.000 - Rp 7.500 per transaksi lewat SKN. Sedangkan biaya RTGS antara Rp 20.000 - Rp 30.000, tergantung nilai dan waktu transaksi. "Kami ingin membatasi biaya SKN dan RTGS," tandas Deputi Gubernur BI, Ronald Waas.
Padahal, bank hanya membayar
komisi ke bank sentral sebesar Rp 1.000 per transaksi SKN, dan Rp 7.000
sampai Rp 15.000 per transaksi lewat
transaksi RTGS. Padahal, untuk
pengadaan sistem maupun perawatan teknologi, bank sentral menjadi pihak yang mengeluarkan biaya terbesar.

aku rasa yang aku quote sudah jelas bahwa bank sentral merasa fee transfer sudah kelewatan hingga perlu membatasi agar tidak liar hingga fee transfer di temukan ada yang tinggi sekali hingga mencapai Rp 15.000,- sekali transfer (skn)

[adi lim]

aku rasa yang aku quote sudah jelas bahwa bank sentral merasa fee transfer sudah kelewatan hingga perlu membatasi agar tidak liar hingga fee transfer di temukan ada yang tinggi sekali hingga mencapai Rp 15.000,- sekali transfer (skn)

masalahnya dikenakan biaya lebih tinggi dari seharusnya, tapi bukan 'rampok'
tapi memang ada bank yang mengharapkan fee base income tinggi, bagaimana pula ? wong namanya bisnis !

[Mas Tidar]

kasus ini seperti halnya SMS interchange antara operator.
pemerintah hanya menerapkan biaya pengiriman SMS sebesar Rp. 50; tapi pada kenyataannya biaya tersebut jauh melambung tinggi (500, 250, 125).

para operator Telko berargumen bahwa ada biaya interchange antar sistem operator, biaya maintenance hardware, investasi dll
dan sekarang operator malah meng-obralkan SMS karena mulai terdesak oleh layanan online: YM, BBM, Facebook dll.
Walaupun layanan online memiliki keterbatasan koneksi internet yang masih bisa diatasi oleh SMS dengan jangkauan lebih baik.


kembali ke laptop,
hal ini juga perlu diperhatikan oleh pemerintah atau lebih tepatnya dikontrol/diawasi secara ketat kecuali pemerintah ikut main bawah meja, minta komisi.
Jangan sampai institusi diluar pemerintah lepas kendali seperti kejadian SMS premium & RBT otomatis berlangganan.

Saat ini, bank mematok fee mulai Rp5.000 - Rp 7.500 per transaksi lewat SKN. Sedangkan biaya RTGS antara Rp 20.000 - Rp 30.000, tergantung nilai dan waktu transaksi. "Kami ingin membatasi biaya SKN dan RTGS," tandas Deputi Gubernur BI, Ronald Waas.
Padahal, bank hanya membayar
komisi ke bank sentral sebesar Rp 1.000 per transaksi SKN, dan Rp 7.000
sampai Rp 15.000 per transaksi lewat
transaksi RTGS. Padahal, untuk
pengadaan sistem maupun perawatan teknologi, bank sentral menjadi pihak yang mengeluarkan biaya terbesar.

[Liuthakngo]

Perampk lvel laen???

[sanjiva]

Kelihatannya semua pemegang mata rantai ekonomi penting di Indonesia cenderung jadi 'rampok'.

-  Jalan tol, pemerintah sudah kembali modal setelah bertahun2 memungut uang toll, tapi tetap saja menarik uang buat penggunanya bahkan tiap tahun tiket toll naik. Di  luar negeri, setelah biaya pembangunan jalan impas dari tiket tol, jalan tersebut digratiskan.  Menjadi jalan umum.

-  Telekomunikasi, SMS dan voice masih mahal sekali.  Sempat diturunkan karena ada saingan internet unlimited gratis.  Sekarang semua unlimited internet operator dihentikan, diganti dengan kuota.  Pemakaian data melebihi kuota akan memakan pulsa telpon. SMS naik jadi Rp 150/SMS.

-  Pajak kendaraan / STNK utk jalan dan asuransi kecelakaan, sementara jalan semakin hancur, kecelakaan juga repot klaimnya dan tidak seberapa gantinya.

Masih banyak yg lain pastinya.