Online Savings Accounts & Current Rates

[kilcher]

HSBC Direct lowered theirs from 4.25 to 3.80%. Thankfully I'm still getting 4.50% from my credit union. Not sure how much longer that'll last.

[claudius753]

ING down from 3.65 to 3.40

It is almost as if ING says, "Whatever the lowest rate offered by our competitors is, we'll go lower!"

Ah well...

Wasn't ING one of the pioneers in the online savings field? They were the first online savings banks that I ever heard of.

But now it seems that they are always one of the lowest offerings any time I look at rates. I wonder why they always seem to be outpaced by nearly every other bank? Because they are a foreign bank?

[kilcher]

Wasn't ING one of the pioneers in the online savings field? They were the first online savings banks that I ever heard of.

But now it seems that they are always one of the lowest offerings any time I look at rates. I wonder why they always seem to be outpaced by nearly every other bank? Because they are a foreign bank?

My guess is people don't know any better. ING is one of the best known online savings account providers. If people were pulling their money or not depositing money they'd have to be more competitive.

[poundwise]

I got from ShoreBank Email ... as of February 1, 2008, our high-yield savings account will earn 4.15% APY

Thanks.

Updated.

[poundwise]

Wasn't ING one of the pioneers in the online savings field? They were the first online savings banks that I ever heard of.

But now it seems that they are always one of the lowest offerings any time I look at rates. I wonder why they always seem to be outpaced by nearly every other bank? Because they are a foreign bank?

I think the answer is as simple as they don't need to offer a higher rate.

Apparently, most of their customers are content to accept the lower rate. Also, they still spend quite a bit advertising on TV and in magazines. This, coupled with the bonus money they offer for sign-ups, must provide them with enough influx of new customers.

On another forum, some of the members actually get miffed if you suggest that ING is a poor choice among the online savings options. Part of this is because some of these people make quite a bit of scratch from referring others but, most likely, the majority of these folks are simply brand-loyal, for whatever reason.

For the record, I have no problem if someone prefers ING or has an account there and doesn't want to hassle with changing. That's their decision. I only suggest that, for people who do not have an account and/or are looking for a new online savings account, that ING is clearly not a top choice.

[Ima saver]

No, it is not. I opened an account to get the free $25, but I only put in $1000 and I will not add any more cause I can get better rates elsewhere.

[anonymous_saver]

https://www.emigrantdirect.com/EmigrantDirectWeb/index.jsp

Emigrant went down to 4.05%.

[Aleta]

Ima: Why do you leave that much money in ING? You only need to leave $1. You could be making so much more somewhere else. I can understand those that are getting the $25 bonus's and referralsas to reasons whey they stay in.

[savingtaker]

Sucks about Shorebank. At least I'll get the $25 sign up bonus.

SavingsSquare has been holding up well. I should try them.

[BTC]

I can't believe OneUnited is still at 5.3% APY. What are they doing with their money, running moonshine?

[sweeps]

I can't believe OneUnited is still at 5.3% APY. What are they doing with their money, running moonshine?

Maybe it's because they're not playing by the rules?

[Ima saver]

$1000 is usually the minimum I put anywhere.

[poundwise]

Maybe it's because they're not playing by the rules?

This only has to do with the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) and only pertains to their dealings in the state of Florida.

Essentially, the complaint is that they didn't (as of December 2006) make enough loans and provide enough other services to "low-and moderate income individuals and businesses in their service areas." The CRA requires banks to do this.

"The FDIC gave OneUnited CRA ratings of satisfactory for its overall business and for Massachusetts, and outstanding for California. The FDIC report told OneUnited to make improvements in Florida..."

[sweeps]

Maybe it's because they're not playing by the rules?

Essentially, the complaint is that they didn't (as of December 2006) make enough loans and provide enough other services to "low-and moderate income individuals and businesses in their service areas." The CRA requires banks to do this.

In other words, they're not playing by the rules.

[poundwise]

In other words, they're not playing by the rules.

Rules regarding the CRA in Florida as of December 2006? Yes.

However, that has nothing to do with their financial strength, compliance with banking and reporting regulations, or their rate offering. (Or even with their overall CRA rating.)

I thought that should be clarified.

Though, ultimately, I too am befuddled as why they continue to offer, steadily, that 5.30% rate. Especially given the fact that no one else I am aware of is offering anywhere near that.