RetirEd said
My primary point above is that:

The overwhelmingly vast majority of Canadians have zero stake in bank profits.
In fact, more that half of Canadians have zero savings, let alone investments.

And...If there's no ATM around for your institution, you face the fees.  

That may be true for banks but CU members have a stake in CU profits, at least indirectly through presumably more competitive rates. I would think most members should thus welcome efforts to reduce costs (service levels) rather than be distressed about them....which is what is happening in this case.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of Canadians have zero stake in bank profits.
In fact, more that half of Canadians have zero savings, let alone investments.

And...If there's no ATM around for your institution, you face the fees.

So yes, there are those on the margin who are 'shut out' so to speak. In which case, some brick and mortar presence is necessary. However, it does not mean service levels need to be as high as they are today (hours, branches, et al) which was triggered initially by post #19. I suspect many of the brick and mortar branches in my city will disappear in the next 10 years. A few storefront operations here and there would suffice for those that actually need physical service.

Proprietary ATMs do not charge for transactions, e.g. RBC ATMs for those with RBC accounts. I agree white label ATMs are a different animal. Most people are well served by brand (proprietary) ATMs if they don't want to do online banking.

Anecdote: The last time I 'had' to go in to a physical branch was to get a bank draft in 2020 to complete a vehicle purchase. I am not aware of what other transactions would need to be initiated at the physical branch level.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of Canadians have zero stake in bank profits.

In fact, more that half of Canadians have zero savings, let alone investments.

There are large numbers of Canadians who either cannot access the internet or are forbidden by law from doing so.

Proprietary ATMs charge ludicrous fees, typically $3 or higher but certain to increase. They have limited functions, too.

Initiating many transactions and identifications must be in person. Documentation for many functions requires presence.

AlbertaRed, I don't want to repeat this discussion in the wrong place, but your arguments should not stand unchallenged.

everhopeful said

It would for sure hit their reputation hard. But if really bad days arrived and they don't have enough funds to cover everyone's deposits, would they prioritize covering Manitobans first before out-of-province depositors?  

I think they would find a way to honour their liabilities at the expense of government services.

What is not to like sharing in increased profits from FIs we likely (almost certainly) have an ownership in? Imagine the windfall with an FI with no physical presence and no employees run solely by AI (a stretch but potentially close to being achievable some day).

* stand alone or as holdings in a mutual fund or ETF.
** usually higher yields for deposits and lower loan servicing costs than 'for profit' banking competition.

RetirEd said
AltaRed: Basic banking services are not "goodies."  

We have had this debate a number of times. Online banking along with ATMs (for those still insisting on cash and depositing cheques) is now the basic banking service.

It is my view brick and mortar will continue to decline as foot traffic continues to disappear. In our city of about 50,000, there is at most one brick and mortar branch left for each FI (including local CUs by the way). There is rarely anyone beyond business banking in these empty shells and rarely more than one teller station staffed. I fully expect we will see most of these stand alone buildings be vacated for small bays in a strip mall over the next 10-20 years. More and more of the proprietary ATMs are now located in gas stations, convenience stores, etc.

Swimming against the tide is futility. Embrace it, just as we transitioned from horse and buggy to automobiles.

cgouimet said

Not honouring any DGCM coverage is not likely in my view as it would do harm to Manitoba's financial reputation and future ability to attract deposits. My opinion for what it's worth ...  

It would for sure hit their reputation hard. But if really bad days arrived and they don't have enough funds to cover everyone's deposits, would they prioritize covering Manitobans first before out-of-province depositors?

everhopeful said
I still use Hubert as my extended emergency fund... l keep about a months worth of expenses liquid in HISAs, and I have about a years worth of expenses in a Hubert quarterly redeemable GIC. I find it comforting that I can redeem it anytime and have the funds in just days, yet still earn interest just below the top earning fixed GIC's (at other FI's) that I have laddered for long term expenses. It uniquely meets this need the best.

What keeps me from investing significantly with Hubert (& other Manitoba CU's) is that they are backed by the DGCM rather than CDIC. If things really went to heck and the DGCM's funds were depleted, there is probably little incentive for the Manitoba government to step in and cover my deposits, since I do not reside (or vote) there.  

Not honouring any DGCM coverage is not likely in my view as it would do harm to Manitoba's financial reputation and future ability to attract deposits. My opinion for what it's worth ...

RetirEd said
I mean that services are being cut, branches closed, phone hours reduced. More cuts to force people to on-line banking and get blamed for any oopsies they suffer. Note what doug said.  

Any FI that is not reducing costs to be competitive with their peers in rates will be abandoned by the online crowd and eventually lose ground. 'Goodies' cost real money.

RetirEd said
Welcome to enshittification.  

Does that mean Outlook ain't so good?