Walmart Serves Underserved and Unbanked Customers with Everyday Low Banking Fees
YAHOO FINANCE -- "Four years ago, Wal-Mart abandoned its plans to obtain a long-sought federal bank charter amid opposition from the banking industry and lawmakers, who feared the huge retailer would drive small bankers out of business and potentially conflate its banking and retail operations. Ever since, Wal-Mart has been quietly building up à la carte financial services, becoming a force among the unbanked and “unhappily banked,” as one Wal-Mart executive put it.
Jennifer Tescher, chief executive at the Center for Financial Services Innovation, which focuses on finding financial services for those not well served by banks, said Wal-Mart brought much-needed competition — and lower fees — to financial services.
“I think it’s one of the best things that has happened in the last 10 years for underserved consumers,” she said. “There is now much more choice in the marketplace for consumers, where they can vote with their feet.”
Even before the recent outcry against banks, the services had become popular with cash-poor customers, many of whom never had a bank account and found the services more affordable than traditional check-cashing operations. Now newcomers to the ranks of the banking disaffected are helping to swell the numbers, Wal-Mart officials said."
MP: Gotta love Walmart for improving the lives of millions of low-income Americans on a daily basis.
MP: Gotta love Walmart for improving the lives of millions of low-income Americans on a daily basis.
37 Comments:
MP: Gotta love Walmart for improving the lives of millions of low-income Americans on a daily basis.
I agree with previous postings on this site. Give the company the Peace Prize. It is well deserved.
Who didn't want Wal-Mart to bank? Other banks.
Who doesn't want high-rise condos in Newport beach? Other homeowners.
Who doesn't want oil drilling off of Florida? The Bush Bros.
Google Trend for: Wal-Mart.
The slope of the trendline could indicate underserving in Wal-Mart's future.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Another trend
The slope of this line could indicate chronic misspelling in the blogosphere.
Hey Kevin, nice work on Walmart vs. Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart has morphed into Walmart as the common spelling - not Sam Walton's Wal-Mart anymore. This must have changed after Sam, and his Buy American prodcuts, perished from Walmart. Anyway, good catch.
Ahhh pseudo benny you just can't stop yourself can you?
You have a pathological drive to say the dumbest things...
Are you trying to be the next Joe Biden?
This praise of Walmart for helping the poor should be tempered by acknowledging that they have made many people poor by pushing suppliers to move jobs outside the country. It is unlikely that Walmart is a net benefit to the poor.
Here is a picture of founder Sam Walton in a Wal-Mart hat. Sam's stores were Wal-Mart but his heirs own nearly half of Walmart.
This praise of Walmart for helping the poor should be tempered by acknowledging that they have made many people poor by pushing suppliers to move jobs outside the country. It is unlikely that Walmart is a net benefit to the poor.
Sure it has been a benefit. It has provided a huge number of jobs and lowered the prices of goods that the poor had a hard time purchasing.
People complain about bank fees but energy prices are pushing this country back into recession. The government is nickel and dime-ing people on their utility bills. People pay outrageous amounts for cable TV and cell phones. It's all perception and stupidity.
"This praise of Walmart for helping the poor should be tempered by acknowledging that they have made many people poor by pushing suppliers to move jobs outside the country. It is unlikely that Walmart is a net benefit to the poor."
Even if you were right (which you are not), you forgot the word "American" in front of poor. You leftist really only care about the poor in the developing world when it comes to pooring aid over them.
James: "they have made many people poor by pushing suppliers to move jobs outside the country"
Low-skilled manaufacturing jobs were moved out of the U.S. long before Walmart abandoned its "Buy America" policy. What Walmart did is push manufacturers to reduce costs even lower. The beneficiaries of Walmart's drive to lower costs are the hundred million households which shop there.
So, James, what would you propose for those low-skilled workers who lost manufacturing jobs many years ago?
Even if you were right (which you are not), you forgot the word "American" in front of poor. You leftist really only care about the poor in the developing world when it comes to pooring aid over them.
'Lefties' don't care about the world's poor. They do not think about all of the jobs that Wal-Mart created abroad that lifted people out of poverty. They don't even care about America's poor. All they care about is their own desires and beliefs and finding a way to impose them on others.
This praise of Walmart for helping the poor should be tempered by acknowledging that they have made many people poor by pushing suppliers to move jobs outside the country. It is unlikely that Walmart is a net benefit to the poor.
this is a nonsense argument.
they have made far more people less poor in real terms by offering lower priced goods.
that leaves them more money to spend on other things which, wait for it, creates jobs.
this is just another flawed argument against trade.
the net consumer surplus from trade ALWAYS exceeds the loss to domestic industries.
Talk about nickle and dime-ing people to death, did you hear about Obama's new Christmas Tree Tax?
Taxing Christmas has got to be one of the most egregiousness acts of this president.
bob-
i did see that. i sent in in to mark this AM.
looks like the federal government is going to tax christmas trees in order to, wait for it, market christmas trees.
this is just absurd make-work to keep ag employees busy. it's also a terrifying precedent. the federal government now decides if and how much marketing money you need to spend and compels it through an unelected bureaucracy?
what happens when they think tomatoes need a better image? why not any product?
doesn't this pretty much make the federal government the marketing arm in potentia (and coercively) of any and all products? the hubris that they know better than the growers and sellers how much marketing and how to best market Christmas trees is pretty breathtaking.
and Christmas trees, seriously? could they have picked a worse test case? they already have a great image. that said, they are a religious symbol. shall they tax and market menorahs as well? kwanza mats? this is absurd.
wow. just wow.
b-
looks like they are calling it off.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/obama-administration-to-delay-new-15-cent-christmas-tree-fee/
This comment has been removed by the author.
the net consumer surplus from trade ALWAYS exceeds the loss to domestic industries.
Not to mention the benefit from lifting so many workers in other nations from poverty. No foreign aid has ever been as effective at helping the world's poor as Wall-Mart's pursuit for market share and profit.
"looks like they are calling it off."
Hmm. It looks like this fee was requested by the National Christmas Tree Association in 2009. Crony capitalism at it's finest.
"Got Christmas Tree?"
I agree with previous postings on this site. Give the company the Peace Prize. It is well deserved.
Not going to happen as long as they provide financial support to despotic regimes like China.
the net consumer surplus from trade ALWAYS exceeds the loss to domestic industries.
Until you actually account for the losses.
"Not going to happen as long as they provide financial support to despotic regimes like China."
Do you ever shop at Walmart or buy anything made in China?
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Not going to happen as long as they provide financial support to despotic regimes like China."
what a ridiculous statement.
they do nothing of the sort.
the provide the jobs and wealth that let citizens live better despite such regimes.
you might as well blame mother theresa for propping up corruption in calcutta.
Not going to happen as long as they provide financial support to despotic regimes like China.
Since when is trade with companies the same as providing financial support for despotic regimes? And on what planet would your ignorance of economic and trad issues pass as knowledge?
Until you actually account for the losses.
Your ignorance is showing again. As the man said, "the net consumer surplus from trade ALWAYS exceeds the loss to domestic industries."
they do nothing of the sort.
They deal with a country that only whitewashes over its despotism. Instead of the government directly acting, they're called upon to house arrest, imprison, kill, or dissappear critics of the government-run "companies" that you mistake as a private sector.
By their contracting with the People's Republic of China in such large quantities at the detriment of the US, they have supported despotism - and would otherwise meet definitions of terrorism. Even if it is labeled otherwise, a company in China is effectively a branch of the Chinese government.
seth-
how does paying a higher wage than would otherwise be available to chines people harm them and make them more subject to despotic rule?
it doesn't.
it gives them more money, more choices, and a better standard of living.
you seem to be mistaking chinese citizens for the chinese government.
what is ti you propose to do? not trade? not open factories?
look at all the good that policy has done for the cuban and north korean citizenry.
a larger middle class not beholden to chinese politicians for their livelihoods will do more to bring down/change a despotic regime than any amount of embargo.
that just strengthens the control of the despot by giving them control of more of the resources.
They deal with a country that only whitewashes over its despotism. Instead of the government directly acting, they're called upon to house arrest, imprison, kill, or dissappear critics of the government-run "companies" that you mistake as a private sector.
A country does not make TVs. People who work in companies do. Wal-Mart buys TVs from these companies and provides good jobs for the people who make them. And you write a lot out of ignorance. There are many critics of these companies in China, mostly from disgruntled employees, managers, or shareholders of the companies. One of my pals led a walkout in one of these companies that actually had a big government presence in management. He and his fellow employees were pissed off because they were not allowed to buy as many shares as they wanted during the IPO. There was no major punishment. The workers who walked out lost the pay they would have earned during their time off and the 'leaders' got an extra week of unpaid time. All discipline was done by the company because the government had no business meddling in its affairs.
By their contracting with the People's Republic of China in such large quantities at the detriment of the US, they have supported despotism - and would otherwise meet definitions of terrorism. Even if it is labeled otherwise, a company in China is effectively a branch of the Chinese government.
Chinese companies are not more branches of the Chinese government than American companies are of the US government.
V: "Chinese companies are not more branches of the Chinese government than American companies are of the US government."
Hmm...let me think about that one for a moment. :)
sethstorm
Do you ever shop at Walmart or buy anything made in China?
Chinese companies are not more branches of the Chinese government than American companies are of the US government.
The PRC's funding and influence are a lot more tightly bound in China than the US. Lenovo and Huawei being examples of the state-funded and influenced Chinese "company".
In the US, being the correct family won't make you immune from meaningful prosecution. In China, it means you will get a mock execution at worst. That'd be like giving Madoff a conviction, then quietly walking him out of jail when the cameras went away.
Do you ever shop at Walmart
No, as I've treated that place as enemy territory. Sam's heirs have turned it into a very US-hostile entity.
Chinese companies are not more branches of the Chinese government than American companies are of the US government.
The 51% rule would have you mistaken.
Feel free to make all the apologies for China that you want. I won't.
Hmm...let me think about that one for a moment. :)
That was the intent. Of course, if you think clearly you will find that in the case of the US the government has far more control over domestic private production than China does. Think Fannie, Freddie, GM, Citi, BoA, the Defense Sector, etc., etc., etc. The US federal government regulates the toilet tank size that companies have to use for their customers. It regulates working conditions, health care options, hiring and firing policies, promotion policies, etc. The Chinese federal government is lucky to be able to get the managers in companies that it has some control over to do what it wants. Go ask the president of SAIC how much attention he pays to the AVIC people that are supposedly his superiors.
The PRC's funding and influence are a lot more tightly bound in China than the US. Lenovo and Huawei being examples of the state-funded and influenced Chinese "company".
Legend is not owned by the Chinese government. Its seed money partially came from the Chinese Academy of Sciences but it owns very little of the shares at this time. The company is run by its owners, not the government. You can't say the same thing about GM, Fannie, Freddie, etc.
Huawei is a private company that is very innovative, respected, and profitable. No government can run a company in that way. Like I said, you need an education in economics because you still believe in the power of central planning.
In the US, being the correct family won't make you immune from meaningful prosecution. In China, it means you will get a mock execution at worst. That'd be like giving Madoff a conviction, then quietly walking him out of jail when the cameras went away.
I think that you have to look more carefully. The US legal system has much more power to convict the innocent than the Chinese system. The government has all the power and money on its side and prosecutors get to be elected to higher office when they get convictions regardless of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The Chinese system is much more concerned about getting it right even though you and I may question some of the laws.
Feel free to make all the apologies for China that you want. I won't.
I am not making 'apologies'. I am simply pointing out your ignorance.
"Do you ever shop at Walmart?
No, as I've treated that place as enemy territory. Sam's heirs have turned it into a very US-hostile entity."
Yes, it's very US-hostile to provide jobs and inexpensive products to poor people.
How about buying products made in China, do you ever do that?
Post a Comment
<< Home