# Chase's overdraft fee scam ( now resolved but interesting discussion )



## jtr1962 (Mar 8, 2010)

Just when I thought banks couldn't get any more sleazy it turns out I'm wrong. Some years ago my mom had opened a checking account with Chase which had "free" $3000 automatic overdraft protection. I'm not sure what the terms were when she originally opened the account, but as things stand at present I'm stunned by what I learned. My mom generally doesn't write checks for more than is in her account. She claims to have used the overdraft only a few times, although I think the terms were different than now. I think for a while the overdraft protection didn't have any fees or finance charges on account of my mom having other large accounts with the bank. Anyway, the problems began in July. Her account started off at around $1200. In early July she went into the hospital for hip replacement surgery. She wrote a bunch of checks to cover bills coming due when she would be hospitalized. The checks totaled roughly $100 more than the total of what she had in her account, plus the pension check she would be getting towards the end of the month. Keep that $100 figure in mind. I'm not sure if she realized she would be short or not, or whether or not she had intended to rely on overdraft protection. In any case, what happened next is beyond belief. Sure, some of the checks obviously needed to be covered by overdraft protection. However, the pension check she would be receiving towards the end of the month would have pretty much wiped out most of the negative balance _if not for the exorbitant fees Chase charged_.

The odd thing is the July statement never gave any indication of overdraft fees or finance charges, or I can _guarantee_ my mom would have called the bank to find out what the heck was going on. It turns out whatever fees Chase charged made the checking account balance negative the following month, even as my mom thought she was covering all her checks according to her checkbook. Suspiciously, her monthly checking account statements simply had a starting and ending balance of $0, not a negative balance which might have aroused suspicion. I'm sure anyone reading this is starting to get the big picture. On account of whatever fees Chase added in July, it caused the account balance to remain negative despite my mom adding more than enough money to cover the checks she wrote in the subsequent months. End result is _every check written since this nonsense started was on overdraft_. Even worse, the monthly statements never said what the fees were, what checks they were for, or allowed any other way for us to account for them! From what I've read online some say Chase charges $35 for every check covered by overdraft. Can this possibly be true?

Things may have gone on this way forever except this month my mom received a noticed of a bounced check, apparently because the negative balance in her account exceeded the $3000 protection limit! As roughly as I can determine, over the last seven months the discrepancy between what she thought she had in her account, versus what was actually in it, is close to $3000! For example, according to her checkbook, a deposit of $1500 on February 9 showed an account balance of about $1670. An overdraft account statement ( which they only started sending in October ) from the same date showed a balance of about $1200. Note that the balance on the overdraft statement is similar to the balance on a credit card statement, namely that it shows what is owed, not what you have in the account. So this is close to $3000 in fees and finance charges over this time period. And Chase couldn't even be bothered to break down these fees for us.

Now my next question is obviously going to be how can we get out of this. This in my opinion is so misleading as to warrant a class action lawsuit. I've learned that banks make a large amount of their profits with these types of fees. The part which is misleading and deceiving is to represent what they're doing as a "free" service when it's anything but that. Making it worse is the fact that they don't even notify the customer of any of these fees, thus allowing your account to become more and more negative. We plan to go to the bank this week to straighten it out. I really need any advice anyone can give me. Frankly, I'm so mad right now it's likely I might do something at the bank which will land me in prison if they turn out to be uncooperative.

Also, anyone aware of any class action lawsuits pending for this? This certainly warrants one. Between misrepresenting what they're giving you, and then not informing you of fees, it's easy to dig yourself into a major hole in no time.

*Situation resolved* - see this post


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 8, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

That is really disgusting, but with the regulations passed last fall by Congress, yet giving the banks time to make adjustments before they went into effect, you are going to see less and less exceptions and compassionate adjustments being made. 

If you haven't already, I would first make sure you look carefully at all the pages of statements going back a year. I doubt in today's environment where all the financial institutions are under close scrutiny that they technically violated the terms of her account. However, if the running bank fees are not shown on the monthly statements of account balance summary, that sounds like a legitimate basis for a "bad faith" claim.

The only recourse people are going to have is to do their banking with smaller "home town" banks, S&L's, credit unions. There is always flexibility for making adjustments, but most of the big banks are not going to show the compassion your mother deserves. 

I don't think most people balance their checkbook to the penny on a daily basis, using a program like Quicken, but they should now more than ever. It only takes me a couple minutes to reconcile my actual Quicken balance with monthly statements, and I'm still using Quicken 2001 version.


----------



## TriChrome (Mar 8, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

Bank of America also likes to screw you with their bounced check fees as well, and there's a class action lawsuit in the works against them (which I'm sure all the "plaintiffs" will get something like $7 each if they win).

My horror story was when they deducted my transactions out of order. Regardless that my $300 purchase was made a full week before 12 other transactions, they deducted the $300 first, and charged me $37 each for 12 transactions = $444 in bounced check fees; instead of charging me a single bounced check fee of $37 for the $300 transaction like they should have (which was overdrawn by $7 mind you).

It's simply big business. They have no soul.


----------



## Beamhead (Mar 8, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

I never pay any fees, even normal monthly service fees, but I keep my accounts balanced at all times. Writing checks or making debit card purchases with a negative balance is against the law in most jurisdictions so if a bank covers someone's a$$ and charges a fee IMHO its better than being charged with a crime.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Mar 8, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

Wow, this sucks. Sometimes they will put ()...example ($1670)...meaning a negative balance. They also will pay the larger checks out first if several are on the same day. For example...if you have $500 in the account and several checks to be paid out on the same day....$400 (house payment) $120 (elect) $60 (water) $50 (cable TV) $ 30 (credit card). They pay out from largest to smallest to increase their fees. In this example they pay the $400...and everything after that gets a $35 fee...4 x $35 = $140.

If they had payed out from smallest to largest...only 1 payment would be subject to a fee (house payment in this example)...so only $35.

You may be able to argue that it was not clear from the monthly statements that there were any problems. Perhaps they might let some fees go.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 8, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

I found this class action suit which makes for interesting reading.

I seems for a while banks were offering overdraft protection totally for free to their customers in good standing. This may and most likely was the case with mom. I can't say for certain as she has no statements going back that far. What they may have done in the interim is change terms, and perhaps bury this change of terms on page 41 of some 200 page legalease document they send you which nobody bothers to read ( and most couldn't understand even if they did ). Obviously then most people wouldn't have been aware of any changes, and would continue to assume overdraft worked as before.

Second, even if the terms were changed to allow charging these exorbitant fees, the fact remains that there is absolutely no paperwork indicating what fees were charged and when. Moreover, my mom does in fact balance her checkbook, and never knowingly relies on overdraft. What happened in July was an anomoly. She was in the hospital, had expected to be there for up to the end of the month, and therefore wanted to make sure her bills coming due were covered. I can't say whether she had intended to rely on overdraft that month, or just assumed some checks would not be cashed until later in the month when her pension check was deposited. Nevertheless, it wasn't her intention to start running a negative balance. And despite the fact that she has since maintained a positive balance, at _least according to her checkbook_, the fees have caused a continual negative balance. Had she known in advance what the fees were, she never would have mailed those checks. And had Chase detailed the fees on her monthly statement, she would have been able to fight them and/or account for them when figuring out her balance in future months. It seems for one slip up amounting to a net deficit of about $100 the end result has been close to $3000 in fees. Moreover, she can't pay her bills now because any checks she writes would be on overdraft, adding yet more fees. So now we face the prospect of having the electric, phone, Internet, etc. shut down in the not too distant future for lack of any means of paying them.

Regardless of whether fees like this are legal ( and they shouldn't be because $30 or $35 or whatever fee they charge doesn't represent the bank's risk here ), the fact remains that to this day we don't know what fees were charged, and when. How can you possibly balance a check book when a bank charges unknown fees? This is way different than the class action suits where banks reordered transactions from highest to lowest in order to extract the most overdraft fees ( another practice which should be illegal ), but at least let customers know what fees they were being charged. What Chase has done here has to be illegal. It's unprecedented to charge fees but not inform the customer how much the fees are, or what they were for. I can guarantee if the monthly statement for July had lines like "Check 2020 $35 overdraft fee" things never would have gotten to this point.

Any advice for when we go to the bank ( maybe Wednesday )? Should I pose as my mom's lawyer, and perhaps record the conversation? And bring along a copy of the class action lawsuit I linked to above just to let the bank personel know I'm aware of what's going on? The plan for now it to ask for a detail of all fees charged since July, and for a waiver of all those fees ( although it might be acceptable to levy finance charges only for the short time in July when the checking account balance was negative as that was a legitimate loan on their part ). If that doesn't happen, you may well be reading about this in the papers. Chase deserves all the bad publicity I can give it, starting with this thread.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Mar 8, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

Try to relax a bit. Chances are things will not be as bad as you are thinking right now. Don`t try to pretend your are anything but her concerned son. The bank may very well forgive many of the fees...they probably want to keep your mother as a customer...and since she does not have a history of bouncing check will work with her. Just take it easy.


----------



## Greg G (Mar 8, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

Talk to the bank manager and explain it all in a nice way. He or she has the power to fix it. How you talk will make all the difference.

There is no way I would start talking class action lawsuits, or posing to be a lawyer. Once it gets to that point you'll be referred to their legal department and the manager has nothing to say. 

Good luck with it.


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 9, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

I've not figured out why banks get away with the overdraft policies.

In essence, they participate in the writing of bad checks, and they profit handsomely in the process.

In Calif, you are not allowed to write a check for more than you have in your account. That's a crime. But the banks routinely aid and abet you in that crime by cashing the check and charging you a fee. The fact that it drives the account negative allows them to pile on hundreds of dollars in fees when subsequent checks bounce because of the very fees that they charged for the bounced check that they cover.

So here's my question: How do we get the banks prosecuted for aiding and abetting criminal activity? Since they do it on such a wide scale, the RICO act should apply since it rises to the level of racketeering.

I wish.


Daniel


----------



## Beamhead (Mar 9, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



gadget_lover said:


> I've not figured out why banks get away with the overdraft policies.
> 
> In essence, they participate in the writing of bad checks, and they profit handsomely in the process.
> 
> ...


 
Are you serious? They are only providing a service not enabling criminal activity. I watched the recent hearings before our glorious congress regarding said fees and it boiled down to 2 camps, one that says banks should stop offering this service and let the customers go to jail and the other was they shouldn't be allowed to profit from ones inability to run their finances correctly and floating checks/debit purchases due to stupidity. Plus what about the returned check fees the bank saves the ill prepaired customer by covering the debt? Then they would whine about the returned check fees retailers charge. :shrug:
The bank honors the debt which is what a check/debit purchase is resulting in a measured amount of risk and more processing so why shouldn't they be allowed to recoup that outlay with profit?

I personally believe that the practice should be halted and let those who can't manage their affairs suffer the consequences with one exception, any person with the financial common sense to have a savings type account with constant balance of funds linked to the primary checking account so that any overdraft has the funds available and immediately collected.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 9, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Beamhead said:


> Plus what about the returned check fees the bank saves the ill prepaired customer by covering the debt? Then they would whine about the returned check fees retailers charge. :shrug:


In this case a returned check fee would have been preferable. Once it happened my mom would have realized she had insufficient funds in her account, and taken care of it ( and likely not even questioned the fee as she would have realized it was her fault ). Instead, the bank covered for what was essentially an honest mistake, charged a per check fee which likely would have been about the same as a bounced check fee ( although I still have no idea how much they charged as it was never put on any statements ). And by their covering the check and adding fees, the account balance remained negative, allowing them to charge fees on every subsequent check since despite my mom adding more than enough to the account to cover all her subsequent checks, all without making my mom aware of exactly what they were doing.

As for the bank covering their risk by charging these fees, what they are essentially doing with overdraft is offering a credit line. Funny how banks are happy to offer people a credit card where simply charging 21% or 28% or whatever interest on the unpaid balance is considered sufficient to cover their risk, yet here they feel the need to also tack on what is essentially a per transaction fee ( and an exorbitant one at that ) _in addition to similar interest rates on the unpaid balance_. Had they simply only tacked on a finance charge, then we may have only been talking about a few hundred dollars here, not close to $3000. What they did was to charge an unreasonable fee relative to their risk ( remember that my mom has not had a habit of bouncing checks ). They charged fees that amount to usury, and caused the situation which will be impossible to get out of, all without giving one inkling of what they were doing.

Bad enough doing this on a checking account, but it's inexcusable on a debit card. With a debit card, if you try to do a transaction that would bring your balance negative, very simple answer is the bank should refuse and say insufficient funds like they did before someone got the bright idea of offering customers this "courtesy". Either that or say if we process this transaction the fee will be xx dollars plus interest. People would get the idea that they can't spend more than they have when that cup of coffee suddenly will cost $38. It's really cute how the banks "cover" for people's mismanaging of their finances, not tell them how much it will cost them ( except in fine print buried in pages of hard-to-read legalease ), and let it continue to literally months. My biggest question in all this is why weren't the fees broken down on statements we received? Even if one agrees the banks are in the right charging these kinds of fees, how can not informing a customer of the fees possibly be legal? That fact alone makes it essentially impossible to balance your checkbook once it goes into overdraft. 

As it stands now, the banks are not only enabling people's irresponsible spending habits, but also profiting handsomely from it, and digging a hole for these people which they will find impossible to get out of. I think bounced check fees and "insufficient funds" on debit cards are preferable. No argument from me that it's high time the populice learned to live within their means. The irony is that my mom has been doing exactly that her entire life, and yet she is treated the same as someone who thinks nothing of going into debt for their morning coffee.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 9, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Greg G said:


> Talk to the bank manager and explain it all in a nice way. He or she has the power to fix it. How you talk will make all the difference.


The plan is to be reasonable so long as they're reasonable. If it seems they have their minds set on letting things stand, only then will it be time to get nasty. By that I mean doing things like possibly calling the local news stations and also writing letters to politicians. Not that I'm a fan of politicians, but many would welcome this as a photo op to show "how much they care for the common person". And the embarrassment to the bank might actually cause them to rethink their bad decision. But yes, I'll play nice, at least at the start. After that, the ball is in their court. As leverage, I do have a substantial amount myself on deposit with Chase in both a savings account and IRAs. I could threaten to take my banking elsewhere if they refuse to make an adjustment, but I'll only do so after asking them nicely with no threats. Let's just hope we have a sympathetic bank manager. I would hope keeping two long-time customers in good standing ( I've never bounced a check and always pay my credit cards in full each month ) is more important to them than a few thousand in fees.


----------



## Jay R (Mar 9, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

Two things to say about this.

 We had a huge lawsuit going on over here about unfair bank charges and It was decided to do a test case which dragged on for nearly 2 years. During this time all other similar lawsuits were put on hold till the outcome was decided. This is the good bit.. During this 2 years the banks were still allowed to charge exorbitant fees but no customers were allowed to apply against unfair fees and have them removed till the outcome of the test case.
 The outcome, after two years the court decided that the Office Of Fair Trading who brought the test case, didn’t have the authority so we all went back to the way it was. Fat load of good that did.

Secondly, I can’t believe that you still use cheques so much over there. The Romans used cheques over 2 thousand years ago and in some countries in Europe such as Denmark, personal cheques don’t even exist anymore. I have a chequebook but I haven’t used any for years. I don’t think I’ve even carried or paid *cash* for anything in at least a year.
 What is the American love affair with cheques ?


----------



## TriChrome (Mar 9, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

I don't think all of us are talking about checks exclusively, I'm certainly not (I write a single check a month for rent, and that's it, ever).

Our ATM/Mac cards are issued by our banks, and can be used at any place that accepts Visa or MasterCard, and since it's linked to our bank account, if you overdraft on that Visa/MasterCard you're charged a bounced check fee (although in many/most cases it's not a check).


----------



## Beamhead (Mar 9, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



jtr1962 said:


> InThe irony is that my mom has been doing exactly that her entire life, and yet she is treated the same as someone who thinks nothing of going into debt for their morning coffee.


 
Does she reconcile the account(s) every month?


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 9, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

Be polite when you visit the bank. But if they don't do the right thing, consult with an attorney. Banks respond to money. (And to the possibility of losing a chunk of it to a lawsuit.)


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 9, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Jay R said:


> Secondly, I can’t believe that you still use cheques so much over there. The Romans used cheques over 2 thousand years ago and in some countries in Europe such as Denmark, personal cheques don’t even exist anymore. I have a chequebook but I haven’t used any for years. I don’t think I’ve even carried or paid *cash* for anything in at least a year.
> 
> What is the American love affair with cheques ?


Well, how do you pay for things over there? I'm asking because while it is possible to set up certain things to be paid electronically, it's by no means universal. The closest you can come is to pay for everything via a credit card, and then pay the credit card electronically. However, certain things can't be paid via CC for whatever reason such as electric bills, phone bills, cable bills, taxes, and probably a whole lot more. Granted, it may be possible to set some of those up for electronic transfer. Problem is there's a lot more to doing so than most people care to get involved with.

I personally make online purchases via CC or CC Paypal, then pay my CC electronically in full each month. Everything else, which is mostly small day-to-day items, gets paid in cash. My student loan is the only thing I make a check out for, although it's looking soon like that might be a moot point as legislation is pending to forgive student loan debt over 20 years old.

I'll also add that I generally prefer to be paid by check from my customers unless the amount is very small. The only alternative ( Paypal ) means fees of around 3%. It would be the same if I set myself up to accept credit cards.

As for my mom, she's not computer literate, and pays so many different bills that setting them up electronically would be nightmare, even for me. No argument from me that checks should eventually go the way of the dinosaur, but for some transactions there's just no reasonable alternative. We basically need some electronic equivalent of cash which can be freely exchanged without the burden of fees imposed by CC companies or Paypal in order to completely get rid of checks. In fact, if such a mechanism existed, I really wouldn't even need a CC.


----------



## JohnR66 (Mar 9, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

You do business with a big bank, you are asking for problems. Find a community bank or credit union. Their policies tend to be fair. They tend not to try to fleece you with stupid policies and outright scams.

When I listen to the Clark Howard talk show, there is always someone calling in and bitching about some big bank.

You can setup about all of your reoccurring bills for electronic bill pay. You just login, enter ammounts and click the mouse, nothing to it. Just get out of that scam house bank first.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 9, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Beamhead said:


> Does she reconcile the account(s) every month?


Yes, she does but things got screwed up in July on account of her being in the hospital. Also, I've been going over the last 7 months of checking account statements, and now I'm not sure exactly what is going on. The situation might not be exactly as I first thought it was. She has made minor errors in the past balancing her checkbook, but I've always been able to sort those out before it led to any problems. Her checkbooks from early August through now all look to be OK. Something may have happened in July, perhaps she wrote in a check and then added the check amount to the balance instead of subtracting it. She had done that once or twice in the past. Don't forget that in July she was right off of hip replacement surgery, not in the best state of mind, in pain, and of course it was the height of hot weather ( which she and I both dislike with a passion ). I was busy with business matters and/or running household errands at the time, and thus not really able to help double check her figures ( and she didn't ask for help anyway ).

Anyway, she may have thrown away those checkbooks so I might never know exactly what happened. She had a balance forward of $1500+ in the checkbook starting in early August. I honestly think she may have added a large check instead of subtracting it but without the physical checkbook I've no way of knowing. It's also possible she made a deposit to her account but was never credited for it. Again, no way of knowing unless we find her checkbook for July. Anyway, reconciling the July statement ( which would have ended about $100 in the red not assuming any bank fees and also not assuming that there were uncredited deposits ), and continuing on to the last statement, I ended up with the account being about $1500 in the red. The overdraft statements showed a balance of something like $1700 and change for the same date. So it appears that yes, things have been on overdraft since mid July, but the only fee being charged is interest of 20.9% on the outstanding balance. There are not per check fees as I initially thought.

At this point then I don't think a visit to the bank is needed. I based my initial post on the assumption that my mom's checkbook reflected the true state of her account. This was indeed the case up until mid-July but after that something happened. We may never know what happened, but the fees imposed by the bank to cover the overdrafts these last seven months are apparently less than $300 in interest. It's fair and I'm not even going to argue it. Henceforth I'm going to do my mom's checking account with the same software I've been using for my own accounts. No chance of math errors that way. I also advised her to put enough into the account soon to bring it into the black, and then we'll keep it that way.

Nevertheless, I think this thread serves a valid purpose in that there have been quite a few instances of things happening exactly as I initially described it. A person falls a little short one month, bank covers it but debits large fees from the account, and then account remains perpetually in the red, eliciting continual fees every month. Unless you can get an overdraft protection like my mom's checking account has, where you only pay interest on the outstanding balance, then don't do it. Those $35 fees can quickly bankrupt you.

Sorry all if I got things wrong. It turns out in reality that the situation wasn't as bad as I initially made it out to be, but it took me the better part of a day to sort it all out. It's still not completely sorted out, but at least now I know the bank didn't take my mom for ride to the tune of close to $3000.


----------



## Jay R (Mar 9, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



jtr1962 said:


> Well, how do you pay for things over there?...
> 
> However, certain things can't be paid via CC for whatever reason such as electric bills, phone bills, cable bills, taxes, and probably a whole lot more.


 
Do you not have Debit Cards over there? My Visa is a debit card that comes with my bank account. The funds come directly from my bank account. Having said that, I also have a Matercard credit card that I also use though I pay it off every month. So far I haven't come across anything that I can't pay with either. Pretty much everyone who has a bank account gets a debit card with it.


----------



## Beamhead (Mar 9, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

Glad to hear it is not as bad as you thought, I had to set my Father up with Quicken when he was ailing but quickly learned it was easier for me to just have him make sure he entered every transaction in a register then I would enter that into Quicken and reconcile it every month.

I have Qdata going back to 1994 and its scary to see what one has spent over the years. :tinfoil: Prior to that I did the reconciling the old fashioned way each and every month, guess I am a tad AR when it comes to money.

Hope your Mom is feeling better now.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 9, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Jay R said:


> Do you not have Debit Cards over there? My Visa is a debit card that comes with my bank account. The funds come directly from my bank account. Having said that, I also have a Matercard credit card that I also use though I pay it off every month. So far I haven't come across anything that I can't pay with either. Pretty much everyone who has a bank account gets a debit card with it.


Yes, we have debit cards. I have one. I never use it because it debits my checking account, not my savings account. I only add enough to my checking account each month to cover whatever bills I'm paying ( generally my CC if I have a balance and my student loan ). I can't be bothered to keep track of small purchases so as to make sure my checking account remains in the black while I'm using my debit card. And I'm not going to keep a large amount in my checking account as it's non-interest bearing ( not that my savings account is much better these days ). Easier just to take out $20 or $40 cash from savings via the ATM whenever my money runs low.

Debit cards are exactly the one big way people in this country have gotten into trouble with overdraft fees. Almost nobody is going to bother keeping a ledger of the small purchases they use their debit cards for. End result is a lot of people end up with buying things without enough in their account to cover it. In the past this just resulted in the debit card being declined due to insufficient funds. Now the banks cover the shortage, and impose hefty fees. No thanks, I'll stick to cash. It's pretty obvious when I'm running low, and the ATM is a few blocks from most of the stores I use cash in.

What we really need is some sort of electronic currency which works like a debit card, but has a real-time balance remaining displayed right on the card. Same as cash, and with no banks or fees involved. I really don't like carrying cash ( don't get me started on pennies  ), but for some things at this point in time nothing beats the user-friendliness or convenience.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 9, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Beamhead said:


> Glad to hear it is not as bad as you thought, I had to set my Father up with Quicken when he was ailing but quickly learned it was easier for me to just have him make sure he entered every transaction in a register then I would enter that into Quicken and reconcile it every month.


I'll probably do something similar. I'll just copy my mom's figures in her register into my software and see if the figures match. At this point in time I wouldn't trust her to enter the figures herself.



> I have Qdata going back to 1994 and its scary to see what one has spent over the years. :tinfoil: Prior to that I did the reconciling the old fashioned way each and every month, guess I am a tad AR when it comes to money.


Same here about being AR with money. I make sure all my accounts balance to the penny compared to what the bank says I should have. So far so good, and I've been doing this since 1989.



> Hope your Mom is feeling better now.


She is but we're both still wondering exactly what happened. It's likely a math error as I said, but there's a remote possibility she entered a deposit into her checkbook, then either never made it, or wasn't credited with it ( the former is obviously much more likely ). It's been an adjustment for her taking care of the bills since Dad passed away. Incidentally, in all the years he took care of the bills, I never once remembered his checkbook not balancing or bills not being paid on time.

Also, yes, it's scary looking at how much money one spends over the years.


----------



## Beamhead (Mar 9, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

Another thing I did when my Father was nearing the end of his journey here was to get my name on the account and take care of it myself.
I hope you are far from this point though. Just a thought for the future.


----------



## burgessdi (Mar 9, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



TriChrome said:


> I don't think all of us are talking about checks exclusively, I'm certainly not (I write a single check a month for rent, and that's it, ever).



Likewise!!! I only write one when institutions don't accept electronic transactions...

I agree on the big bank comment. I prefer smaller ones. The big ones see you more as figures on paper while smaller ones tend to be more personal. I like walking to a teller not having to show my ID


----------



## dano (Mar 9, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

Why is it always the evil bank's fault? 

All the fees, policies, etc are given to the account holder. I get these fee & policy change notices all the time, and I READ THEM. The fees aren't a surprise.

Class action lawsuits? By the time it gets to any sort of trial, you'll be ten years older, and if it wins, will get a free toaster and a Chase Bank t shirt, while the Lawyers get a few million.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 9, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



dano said:


> Why is it always the evil bank's fault?


If you read through the link to the class action lawsuit you can see that the banks basically have policies which both encourage irresponsible behavoir, and also maximize their profits from such. I'm not against banks charging realistic fees to recoup their costs and cover their risks when they loan people money. In fact, I'd rather they charge the people who are greater risks more so those who are responsible don't have obnoxious things like annual fees on credit cards or checking accounts, whether they use them or not. What I don't like is charging fees out of all proportion to the cost or risk, and/or reordering transactions so as to maximize the number of overdrafts.



> All the fees, policies, etc are given to the account holder. I get these fee & policy change notices all the time, and I READ THEM. The fees aren't a surprise.


You're one of the few who does. Also, the few times I've even attempted to read these notices ( many of which are dozens of pages of legalease ) I frankly don't understand 1% of it ( and I have a degree in engineering from an Ivy League school ). Unless you're a lawyer, or well versed in legal jargon, these documents are mostly incomprehensible, similar to the language in the link I mentioned ( I don't understand most of that, either, except where the main points are outlined in plain language ). Besides, these notices are usually thrown in with a bunch of other papers, most ads, that the bank sends, along with the usual overwhelming plethora of junk mail from other sources. I'll bet good money 99% throw it in the garbage same day without bothering to read it, which is exactly what the banks are counting on. How about the banks printing major changes to fees and terms in PLAIN, SIMPLE ENGLISH, and right on the front page of your monthly statement? Again, I'll bet good money they won't unless forced to do so by law. There's a good reason changes in law will soon mean customers are automatically opted out of overdraft protection unless they choose otherwise. The banks depend upon deception to collect these fees. They represent what they're doing as one thing, and in fact the terms of the agreement are something much more onerous. I don't know of anyone, for example, who would prefer that a debit card transaction for coffee goes through if it means a $35 fee.



> Class action lawsuits? By the time it gets to any sort of trial, you'll be ten years older, and if it wins, will get a free toaster and a Chase Bank t shirt, while the Lawyers get a few million.


If you read my next to last post prior to this one, I've pretty much determined that the way my mom's overdraft worked is that they only charge interest on the outstanding balance. Granted, it's rather high interest, but there are no per transaction fees as seems to be the norm with these types of things. So there is nothing to contest here. It comes to under $300 if I did my math right. In my book, the bank charged a more or less reasonable fee for covering about 7 months of checks. Now had the fees been close to $3000 as I originally thought, I would have felt otherwise. Problem is the type of overdraft my mom has is no longer offered by Chase. Now it's the more onerous kind with per transaction fees plus interest, the kind any sane person should run, not walk, away from.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 9, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



dano said:


> Why is it always the evil bank's fault?
> 
> All the fees, policies, etc are given to the account holder. I get these fee & policy change notices all the time, and I READ THEM. The fees aren't a surprise.
> 
> Class action lawsuits? By the time it gets to any sort of trial, you'll be ten years older, and if it wins, will get a free toaster and a Chase Bank t shirt, while the Lawyers get a few million.



Agreed. You see the knee-jerk villification even before the facts are known--demonstrated repeatedly. 

It's in vogue to hate and assume the worst with Wall Street, banks, and insurance companies.  I'm just glad you brought lawyers into the picture.


----------



## Beamhead (Mar 9, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

Don't get me wrong, there are many things big banks do that pi$$ me off, don't even get me going on the top dog in all this mess the FRBS and it's secret monetary policies and flat out chicanery..........


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 10, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Beamhead said:


> Are you serious? They are only providing a service not enabling criminal activity. I



It's not really a service unless you ask for it. If they were providing a service, they would do so in a way that minimizes the charges. They actually maximize them.

My bank has in its rules "Checks will be debited before deposits are credited. The order in which the checks are debited is up to the bank."

Here's how that played out for my son:

Deposited pay check Friday after 5. It was not processed till the batch of the next business day (Monday night). Had a balance of $1050 plus his paycheck.

Gave 1100 to his landlord. Bought groceries and several other purchases for under $50 each. I think there were 4 checks altogether.

The landlord deposited the check Monday. So did the others.
The bank chose to pay the $1100 check, leaving a $50 deficit and a $35 fee. Then it processed the other 4 checks, bouncing them and charging a $35 fee each time. Now he's down $175. The bank then credits the paycheck. And they are nice enough to send him the overdraft notice in the US mail, first class. 

By the time he gets the letter, he has mailed the rest of his bills, thinking that he has $150 left over after all are paid. Instead, he finds that several more have bounced and he loses another $100.

The bank made more than $250 by manipulating the deposits and debits to their advantage.

Even if the deposit was not valid or was delayed, they could have bounced the first one and paid all the rest, resulting in a single overdraft. Mind you, they bounced all the others and only paid the first, which set up the cascading penalties.

Yes, I'm serious. It's criminal what they get away with.


----------



## Epic Win (Mar 10, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

They stole over 300 dollars in one month alone due to overdrafts (look up their new debt card scam)


----------



## Epic Win (Mar 10, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



gadget_lover said:


> It's not really a service unless you ask for it. If they were providing a service, they would do so in a way that minimizes the charges. They actually maximize them.


Yes, if they were a service, they would work for "tips" like all other service industry professionals do. Chase, for one, is the bank I hate most. I'll make sure I repeat the stories in this thread to everyone I meet in the future.


----------



## TorchBoy (Mar 10, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



jtr1962 said:


> As it stands now, the banks are not only enabling people's irresponsible spending habits, but also profiting handsomely from it, and digging a hole for these people which they will find impossible to get out of.


I've heard that before somewhere... as one of the main reasons for the latest economic crash. And it's still happening. :ironic:


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 10, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



dano said:


> Why is it always the evil bank's fault?
> 
> All the fees, policies, etc are given to the account holder. I get these fee & policy change notices all the time, and I READ THEM. The fees aren't a surprise.



You probably have not read them all. I say this because my ex was in banking. The agreements always reference the "rules of the bank" and there is such a document. At her bank it was a volume several inches thick. Your agreements include the rules via some language in the fine print. Ask where it says that they can take your daughter's savings account to satisfy your debt. They can do that, and have. It's in the book.

The big banks are, by and large, greedy and they hold all the power in your transactions with them. They are not evil. Only people can be evil.


Daniel


----------



## Beamhead (Mar 10, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



gadget_lover said:


> It's not really a service unless you ask for it. If they were providing a service, they would do so in a way that minimizes the charges. They actually maximize them.
> 
> My bank has in its rules "Checks will be debited before deposits are credited. The order in which the checks are debited is up to the bank."
> 
> ...


 
My bank makes available any deposits under 10k immediately.
Did he speak to the manager? Perhaps he should wait 36-48 hrs before mailing any checks against his deposit? In this day and age of on line banking and seeing your balance and pending activity at any time and usually in real time, I find it hard to blame only the bank.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 10, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Beamhead said:


> My bank makes available any deposits under 10k immediately.
> Did he speak to the manager? Perhaps he should wait 36-48 hrs before mailing any checks against his deposit? In this day and age of on line banking and seeing your balance and pending activity at any time and usually in real time, I find it hard to blame only the bank.



And if a person is not "online," almost all banks give you a complete listing of activity, deposits, checks, bank fees, ATM withdrawals, etc. by phone. I cannot imagine anyone writing a check so close to a deposit, without first verifying that funds are available which is easy to find out.


----------



## Beamhead (Mar 10, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

They can check their on line banking with their smart phones.


----------



## Jay R (Mar 10, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



jtr1962 said:


> What we really need is some sort of electronic currency which works like a debit card


 
We have something a bit like that. It’s a card that you ‘load’ with cash and can then use it like a debit/credit card. When the cash load runs out, you can’t use it anymore. Works a bit like a prepay mobile phone. Only thing is, it has no display of the balance you have to get this from the ATM.


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 10, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Beamhead said:


> My bank makes available any deposits under 10k immediately.
> Did he speak to the manager? Perhaps he should wait 36-48 hrs before mailing any checks against his deposit? In this day and age of on line banking and seeing your balance and pending activity at any time and usually in real time, I find it hard to blame only the bank.



My bank makes MY deposit available too, but I have a hefty balance that will cover them. Even then, the bank reserves the right to take that money back without notice.

The people hit by these practices are not the ones that have lots of money. They are the ones who have very little and who live paycheck to paycheck. The balance in their account on payday is likely to be less than $100. Much less.

They may or may not be sophisticated and online. Until they are hit by such practices, they do not realize how bad it can get.

It's really a scam.

On a realted note, I'm glad that most of the banks are stopping the practice of allowing debit cards to be used as credit cards (via overdrafts) with huge ($35 ) transaction fees. That is a step in the right direction.

Daniel


----------



## Beamhead (Mar 10, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

I find it odd that the masses are miffed at banks for something that has been status quo for years yet no one rails against the "payday loan check into blah blah" local loan shark establishments that are littering our fair towns and burbs.


----------



## Brigadier (Mar 10, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Beamhead said:


> Writing checks or making debit card purchases with a negative balance is against the law in most jurisdictions so if a bank covers someone's a$$ and charges a fee IMHO its better than being charged with a crime.


 
Too bad we can't turn that around on congress.


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 10, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Beamhead said:


> I find it odd that the masses are miffed at banks for something that has been status quo for years yet no one rails against the "payday loan check into blah blah" local loan shark establishments that are littering our fair towns and burbs.


 
Those places cater to folks who either can't even do a [email protected]$$ed job of managing their money, or folks who have an unexpected expense and can't get help from anyone else.

Sure the interest rates at those PayDay establishments are high as Hell. But if your car breaks down, and you need it to get to work; what are you going to do if your credit is in the toilet? Lose your job or go to one of those PayDay places? The former will cost a lot more in lost income than the latter. Those places don't twist anyone's arm. And unlike a real Loan Shark, they don't break arms either. Ask a friend, family member, neighbor, or bank for the money. Ask the boss for an advance. If everyone turns you down, it's nice not having to deal with a criminal Loan Shark in order to get the money. In the past, that was the only option.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 10, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Beamhead said:


> I find it odd that the masses are miffed at banks for something that has been status quo for years yet no one rails against the "payday loan check into blah blah" local loan shark establishments that are littering our fair towns and burbs.


I think Congress is going to take aim at those places next. No arguments from me that people should take responsibility for their affairs, not spend more than they have, nor expect others to cover for them. However, it just irks me when some take advantage of other people's irresponsiblity. I actually had the opportunity recently to loan an acquaintance several hundred dollars, and in return he would have paid me $100 interest for a week. He said it would have been a better deal than those payday loan places, and it probably was. Assuming I could have trusted him, I could have made an easy $100. He even offered to leave an expensive watch as collateral in case he defaulted. That's how desperate he was. I refused him flat out. I told him a better plan was to just somehow make do without those few hundred dollars for the next week. Doing that, he would save on whatever fees he would have paid me or the local loan sharks, um, payday loan people. Come payday, he would have extra cash in his pocket which he wouldn't have otherwise had, so he could take that cash, and put it aside for a rainy day. I even offered to hold the cash for him if he felt he lacked the discipline to keep from spending it. Guess what? The guy told me I was a jerk for not "helping" him, and went off to the payday loan place ( or so he said ).

From what I know, it wasn't like he needed this money for expenses ( he lives with his parents ). Rather, it would have been for the usual going out with friends, drinking, cruising around aimlessly, buying yet more crap he doesn't need. And for this he was enthusiastically willing to drop $100.

Seeing the spending habits of him and others I've known ( one of my mom's cousins works at Home Depot but shops only at Lord & Taylor ), I really can't feel sorry for these people. I'm only glad that there will be fewer opportunities for others to profit off of their lack of discipline. And maybe if these people can no longer spend more than they make, the message will finally get through.

On another note, I _will_ enthusiastically loan money to my siblings or my mom _interest-free_ for legitimate emergency expenses if they're short. I do this knowing that indirectly I'm screwing the banks out of the usurious interest they would charge if these expenses were put on CC, and paid off a little at a time.


----------



## Beamhead (Mar 10, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



jtr1962 said:


> I think Congress is going to take aim at those places next. ................ I'm only glad that there will be fewer opportunities for others to profit off of their lack of discipline. And maybe if these people can no longer spend more than they make, the message will finally get through.


 What next, retailers for returned check fees?


----------



## Brigadier (Mar 10, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Beamhead said:


> They can check their on line banking with their smart phones.


 
I use Bank of America, and Mobile Banking is STILL not available in my state. So no, not everyone can do that.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 10, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Beamhead said:


> What next, retailers for returned check fees?


I doubt it-that's a legitimate business expense. The retailer has no control over whether or not someone sends them a bad check, so they have to be free to cover their expenses should it occur. The banks ( and payday loan places ) are free to loan or not loan money to irresponsible people. If we limit the fees these places can charge to the point where it doesn't cover their risk, then these types of loans will disappear. Given that the bulk of payday loans or overdraft enables continuing irresponsible behavior, this can only be a good thing. I've already found that the only way some people learn control over their finances is when others, whether they be banks, payday loan places, or relatives, stop bailing them out.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 10, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

Sorry, but the current environment of protecting people from their own irresponsibility through legislation or regulation, only results in their being more irresponsible since they now have a sugar daddy to cover their antics.

What's more, the sugar daddy that everyone is depending on is out of candy, and on his final days of life support.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Mar 10, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

I think the days of paper checks are coming to an end. Myself...I haven`t written a check in...so long I can`t even remember...more than 10 years maybe.

I hate being held up in line with some check writing dinosaur. Ever notice how they wait to the very last moment to ask...What store is this? It`s Walmart mam...How do you spell that? Same as yesterday...W A L M A R T...make it out for $1.49...for your soda. Oh my. My pen doesn`t seem to write, do you have one? ...thanks, How do you spell that again?


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 10, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



LuxLuthor said:


> Sorry, but the current environment of protecting people from their own irresponsibility through legislation or regulation, only results in their being more irresponsible since they now have a sugar daddy to cover their antics.


You're missing my point. I couldn't care less about protecting people from their own stupidity. I just don't think large institutions should enable it and even profit by it. If someone is hell bent on spending more than they have, and the banks or payday loan stores no longer oblige them, maybe they'll go to a loan shark. Eventually, they'll either miss a payment and end up in a dumpster, or decide this is not a good way to live. Problem solved either way. A fair number will just reign in their spending habits once the ready sources of cash disappeared.

The point is right now a lot of these people, many of whom would never think of going to a real loan shark, have a sugar daddy to cover their antics, namely the institutions I mentioned. Same with all those who charge to the hilt, then declare bankruptcy. Who do you think pays for all that? You and me in the form of much lower interest rates on our deposits. If banks let virtually anyone borrow money, sure, they have to cover their risks. But fact is continuing to lend people unable to pay back is not sustainable over the long haul. We've already seen some of the end results of this policy with the mortgage meltdown. Once the bank's hands were tied on mortgages, they simply switched to another mechanism to lend money to people who can't afford to pay it back. I'm glad the banks are being reigned in. Not so much for the sake of the irresponsible people doing the borrowing, but because it will likely prevent another meltdown scenario.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 10, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Badbeams3 said:


> I hate being held up in line with some check writing dinosaur. Ever notice how they wait to the very last moment to ask...What store is this? It`s Walmart mam...How do you spell that? Same as yesterday...W A L M A R T...make it out for $1.49...for your soda. Oh my. My pen doesn`t seem to write, do you have one? ...thanks, How do you spell that again?


I haven't seen that in a long time. Now instead I get people holding up the line with debit cards. "Oh, what button do I press after I enter my PIN" "Is there any way to check if I have enough in my account to cover this" Follow this with excrutiatingly slow hunt and peck entering PIN. "It's not going through, what's wrong" "Oh, invalid PIN" Another wait as customer slowly reenters PIN. Finally!

In the time it takes a lot of people to pay with debit cards I could count out pennies to pay for my purchase. Exactly what is so bad about using cash for small purchases these days? It's obvious when you're low, you don't need a PIN, everyone accepts it.


----------



## EndOfTheTunnel (Mar 10, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Jay R said:


> So far I haven't come across anything that I can't pay with either.



Same here, almost. Most retailers frown upon using your debit card for small sum purchases, like a pack of gum, for example. We use the Interac debit system here, which apparently also charges a fee - some retailers won't accept debit on purchases under a certain amount. I've seen 'minimum debit purchases' of $5, $10 and even $20. Also, there are plenty of places that still accept cash only (mostly restaurants, on account of the lunch rush).

Cheques, though - I don't think I've ever used a cheque to pay for something retail. Monthly rent, and the occasional charitable donation. My checkbook lasts at least 2 years before I have to swap in a new one.


Anyway, our banks are now required by law to fully and prominently print the interest rates and fees they charge you on each monthly statement. Though, most banks showed this information anyway prior to this legislation, though it was usually in the form of a line item on the statement. They must also inform you at least 2 months in advance of any interest rate changes or fee changes they're planning (except rates based on the prime rate, of course).


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



jtr1962 said:


> You're missing my point. I couldn't care less about protecting people from their own stupidity. I just don't think large institutions should enable it and even profit by it. If someone is hell bent on spending more than they have, and the banks or payday loan stores no longer oblige them, maybe they'll go to a loan shark. Eventually, they'll either miss a payment and end up in a dumpster, or decide this is not a good way to live. Problem solved either way. A fair number will just reign in their spending habits once the ready sources of cash disappeared.
> 
> The point is right now a lot of these people, many of whom would never think of going to a real loan shark, have a sugar daddy to cover their antics, namely the institutions I mentioned. Same with all those who charge to the hilt, then declare bankruptcy. Who do you think pays for all that? You and me in the form of much lower interest rates on our deposits. If banks let virtually anyone borrow money, sure, they have to cover their risks. But fact is continuing to lend people unable to pay back is not sustainable over the long haul. We've already seen some of the end results of this policy with the mortgage meltdown. Once the bank's hands were tied on mortgages, they simply switched to another mechanism to lend money to people who can't afford to pay it back. I'm glad the banks are being reigned in. Not so much for the sake of the irresponsible people doing the borrowing, but because it will likely prevent another meltdown scenario.



OK, well I agree with all that, except I do not believe the Govt is able or will adequately "reign" in anyone or anything. If they were, they would start with their own houses. As bad as they are, I at least trust a corporate institution that is accountable to stockholders way more than politicians who at best, are manipulated pawns.


----------



## turbodog (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



jtr1962 said:


> If you read through the link to the class action lawsuit you can see that the banks *basically have policies which both encourage irresponsible behavoir, and also maximize their profits from such*. ...




Welcome to the real world. Why don't you stay a while...


----------



## turbodog (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



gadget_lover said:


> It's not really a service unless you ask for it. If they were providing a service, they would do so in a way that minimizes the charges. They actually maximize them.
> 
> My bank has in its rules "*Checks will be debited before deposits are credited. The order in which the checks are debited is up to the bank."*
> 
> ...



I am surprised nobody has mentioned the bank's take on this. Would you rather bounce a $10 charge to the grocery store or your rent/mortgage? The latter will screw up your credit which will end up costing you MUCH more than overdraft fees will.


----------



## turbodog (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Beamhead said:


> They can check their on line banking with their smart phones.



You can also enable it where you get an email/etc when the balance falls below a certain point. I get weekly emails on what the balance is.


----------



## turbodog (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



jtr1962 said:


> I doubt it-that's a legitimate business expense. The retailer has no control over whether or not someone sends them a bad check, so they have to be free to cover their expenses should it occur. The banks ( and payday loan places ) are free to loan or not loan money to irresponsible people. If* we limit the fees these places *can charge to the point where it doesn't cover their risk, then these types of loans will disappear. Given that the bulk of payday loans or overdraft enables continuing irresponsible behavior, this can only be a good thing. I've already found that the only way some people learn control over their finances is when others, whether they be banks, payday loan places, or relatives, stop bailing them out.



This will be offset by increases in fees/etc elsewhere. Banks/business ARE going to make their profit. Consumer pays for all. Net effect is negative as it costs time/$ to lower one fee and increase another. Likely better off staying put.


----------



## turbodog (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

Wake up folks! Ditch the plastic. Keep a reserve in the account. Live beneath your means! Be fiscally responsible.

Now... I'm sitting back and waiting for all those who advocate fiscal responsibility for congress/wall street/enron/worldcom/etc to rail about how they are different and can't cope.

And holy crap... don't throw away check registers and account statements! Toss them in the attic in a box, but keep them.

I mean I agree. Fees are high and don't always reflect true cost in that area of banking. So what? That subsidizes area where banks are expected to offer stuff for free. Enjoying that free checking and that subsidized $20/year safety deposit box rent?

I've got the overdraft thing also, was included with multiple accounts. They transfer $ from one to another if needed. And I automatically assume then if ever used I will likely get raped by fees/etc, just because that's the way most places are. However, that will come with the benefit of having my transactions clear and not bounce.

Man up. Realize they will screw you if given the chance. Don't give it to them.

As Woody says: Nut up or shut up...


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



turbodog said:


> I am surprised nobody has mentioned the bank's take on this. Would you rather bounce a $10 charge to the grocery store or your rent/mortgage? The latter will screw up your credit which will end up costing you MUCH more than overdraft fees will.




I get the feeling that turbodog has never experienced any of this first hand, either through good money management or just enough cash in the bank that it is never overdrawn. These policies hurt people who do not have reserves to pull from.

When the bank charges you for overdrafts that ALSO goes against your credit score. Ask me which I prefer, a bounced mortgage check? Cascading bounced check fees that eat up 1/10 of a paycheck that is already too small? I'd rather bounce the one and make it good as soon as the bank releases the hold on the deposit.

The bank's take on it has nothing to do with what is good for the consumer. Their focus is maximizing profit for the shareholders. 

Daniel


----------



## Beamhead (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



gadget_lover said:


> I get the feeling that turbodog has never experienced any of this first hand, either through good money management or just enough cash in the bank that it is never overdrawn. These policies hurt people who do not have reserves to pull from.


 
Class envy/warfare much?





gadget_lover said:


> The bank's take on it has nothing to do with what is good for the consumer. Their focus is maximizing profit for the shareholders.
> 
> Daniel


This cracks me up, do you have any idea who the stock holders are these days? It's granny's IRA or juniors state employee pension fund or your 401k.


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

Once upon a time, it was considered immoral and wrong to take advantage of a person's ignorance in a specialized field like loans and credit. There were Usury laws that at least gave a person a chance to keep from being shafted if a bank got greedy. Banks were not allowed to make loans that they knew would fail. They were not allowed to charge huge fees.

A while back (i believe it was during Regan's administration) those laws were weakened, and are now virtually gone.

It's still not right to take advantage of people, and a suggestion to "man up" sounds like it's in support of the right to rip off people. That just does not sound right on CPF. 

Daniel


----------



## Beamhead (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

GL you get an invite. :laughing:


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



turbodog said:


> This will be offset by increases in fees/etc elsewhere. Banks/business ARE going to make their profit. Consumer pays for all. Net effect is negative as it costs time/$ to lower one fee and increase another. Likely better off staying put.


I'm not disagreeing that they won't try. We see what already happened when the credit laws were changed. The banks basically said since we won't be able to make as much money in the future we'll have to make up for it now, and then put through all kinds of interest rate increases prior to when the laws took effect.

However, what they made on credit pales next to what they made on overdraft fees. I think it was close to $40 billion for 2009. I don't see how they can make up for that with other fees. There's only so much you can charge for checking or a CC before the customer will jump ship. Then again, maybe they don't have to collect as much in fees if they reduce their expenses. By just not allowing people to spend more in their accounts with their debit cards, they're lowering their exposure to risk, and their expenses, quite a bit. I'll hazard a guess that the banks will make just as much in 2010 despite the changes in overdraft laws _without_ relying much on other fees. That same 14% or whatever that paid most of the overdraft fees likely cost the banks nearly as much in defaults. How many probably just walked away from their accounts once they became negative by four figures? Sure, the bank can try to collect, but for the most part they're dealing with people who have low, sporadic income, sometimes off the books. Lots of luck getting anything. In fact, lots of luck even finding a lot of these people given how often many on the low end of the income scale move.


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Beamhead said:


> Class envy/warfare much?


 
I sincerely doubt that I have any reason to envy your income or your class.  But I do remember what happened when I was young and barely getting by.

Besides, you missed the point. If you have never seen your grocery money for the month disappear due to arbitrary banking practices like these, then it's much easier to be uncaring about the problems and suffering it causes.



> This cracks me up, do you have any idea who the stock holders are these days? It's granny's IRA or juniors state employee pension fund or your 401k.




The stock holders are a bit of everyone, including other businesses. But that does not matter. If granny gets slapped with hundreds of dollars in fees, she will not get that back from her IRA. The big investors are not hit with those fees, so that's where the money ends up.

Daniel


----------



## Beamhead (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



gadget_lover said:


> I sincerely doubt that I have any reason to envy your income or your class.  But I do remember what happened when I was young and barely getting by.


Oh I am familiar with getting by.



gadget_lover said:


> Besides, you missed the point. If you have never seen your grocery money for the month disappear due to arbitrary banking practices like these, then it's much easier to be uncaring about the problems and suffering it causes.


 
Don't live beyond your means.






gadget_lover said:


> The stock holders are a bit of everyone, including other businesses. But that does not matter. If granny gets slapped with hundreds of dollars in fees, she will not get that back from her IRA. The big investors are not hit with those fees, so that's where the money ends up.
> 
> Daniel


Again, class envy/warfare? FTR I am NOT for "too big to fail bail outs". Let them fall like all irresponsible fools but that will definitely harm more than the "big investors".


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



gadget_lover said:


> Once upon a time, it was considered immoral and wrong to take advantage of a person's ignorance in a specialized field like loans and credit. There were Usury laws that at least gave a person a chance to keep from being shafted if a bank got greedy. Banks were not allowed to make loans that they knew would fail. They were not allowed to charge huge fees.
> 
> A while back (i believe it was during Regan's administration) those laws were weakened, and are now virtually gone.
> 
> It's still not right to take advantage of people, and a suggestion to "man up" sounds like it's in support of the right to rip off people. That just does not sound right on CPF.


I agree wholeheartedly here. Unfortunately that era passed with the passing of the founders of these institutions, and also the changes on Wall Street. The standards for what Wall Street considers a profitable business have changed from 30 years ago. The banks and every other publicly traded company has had to adjust to the new standards. IMO, the standards are unrealistic and not conducive to long-term stability. Expecting year after year of growth, even from large companies with a large market share, makes for short-sighted management. End result is companies make money any way they can, even if it means taking advantage of someone's ignorance. I don't like it any more than you do. I think it diminishes us. Even from a business standpoint I think it's foolhardy. Extracting money from people who ultimately will go bankrupt is not a sustainable business plan. We saw it with the sub-prime loans. We'll see it with the credit card and overdraft business as well.


----------



## Beamhead (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



jtr1962 said:


> End result is companies make money any way they can, even if it means taking advantage of someone's ignorance. I don't like it any more than you do. I think it diminishes us.


So these poor ignorant fools are not responsible for their actions?
That is the exact reason some not all but some banks are being squeezed, you have a guvment bent on class warfare demanding ninja mortgages be issued then they freeze all foreclosures forcing said banks to carry dead assets while the poor ignorant fools live in houses without paying. WOW!


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

I would like to see how all the people protesting bank abuses would behave if they all got together, pooled all their own personal assets, and formed their own bank. Then we could see how things would work out with their being all nice and compassionate to each other after bouncing checks and overdrafting their ATM cards.


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



jtr1962 said:


> You're missing my point. I couldn't care less about protecting people from their own stupidity. I just don't think large institutions should enable it and even profit by it. If someone is hell bent on spending more than they have, and the banks or payday loan stores no longer oblige them, maybe they'll go to a loan shark. Eventually, they'll either miss a payment and end up in a dumpster, or decide this is not a good way to live. Problem solved either way.


 
Wow . . . That's a bit heartless.

Some folks have gambling addictions. Some as bad as alcohol addiction. If they have to turn to the local Loan Sharks for money because PayDay offices are shut down, then yes; they will indeed end up in a dumpster. Then some homicide detective has to go to the addict's home and tell his wife, mom, children, or other loved ones that they found him in a dumpster.

As bad as PayDay offices are, someone's loved one won't end up in a dumpster if they fall behind.


----------



## Beamhead (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

I just want to thank the the staff for allowing us this leeway and those who have been conducting a sensitive and impassioned debate with respect.
I don't mean to sound harsh in my posts but truth be told I am harsh, but I want to say that I respect all who have taken part even if we don't see eye to eye. :thumbsup:


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Beamhead said:


> Don't live beyond your means.


I don't think GL is saying you should live beyond your means. Rather, when you're on the low end of the income scale things are very tight. Through error or even occasionally necessity you might end up trying to spend more than you have. Instead of the bank declining the purchase they let it go through, then reorder other transactions made prior to the transaction resulting in default so as to collect the most fees. End result is that a person who may have only been short $5 now has to contend with $175 in fees, putting them in the hole before they even get their next paycheck. In this day of instant electronics funds transfer and automated calling, why can't the bank give the customer an automated call if their account is in default, and give them until the close of the next business day to deposit the defaulted amount before charging fees? Perhaps charge a fee of a few dollars for this service to cover their expenses which also must be deposited along with the defaulted amount? At least this way the customer is given half a chance to fix things. If they choose not to, well, here come the fees.

The way things work now if you go one cent into default it could easily trigger hundreds of dollars in charges.

All that being said, if someone knowingly and habitually counts on overdraft to cover their bills, then they deserve every fee the bank charges them. My only sympathy is with the person who falls a few bucks short once in a while either due to oversight or just plain not making enough.



> That is the exact reason some not all but some banks are being squeezed, you have a guvment bent on class warfare demanding ninja mortgages be issued then they freeze all foreclosures forcing said banks to carry dead assets while the poor ignorant fools live in houses without paying. WOW!


Well, my answer is the bank never should have loaned money to these people to begin with. And if the government forced them to, then that same government should be willing to cover the bank's risks making loans to bad prospects.

Really, my beef isn't about banks charging high fees to cover their risks loaning money to bad prospects. They're entitled to do that, no arguments. Rather, it's the fact that they enable fiscal irresponsibility by making these loans in the first place. Covering an overdraft of a few dollars once in a while is one thing. Covering for people who overspend daily is quite another. Like I said earlier, many only learn fiscal responsibility when the money tap is turned off. Same thing with a gambling addiction. If you're out of money and nobody gives you any more, it's pretty hard to gamble.

And guys, can we please tone it down a bit? This class envy stuff has nothing at all to do with anything. Remember that this thread was initially about some issues with my mom's checking account. In the end I found out the bank hadn't charged the fees I thought it did, so if anything the experience actually improved the way I see banks. Nevertheless, I also realize after researching the subject that many don't have as positive an outcome.

It's important to see both sides. Occasionally people make mistakes. This is what happened to my mom. We found the checkbook for July. Turns out after her balance was close to zero she called the bank on the phone, and wrote the available overdraft protection ( around $2100 ) as her balance. She knew she was working with overdraft at the time, and likely had intended to add enough to the account soon to bring it into the black. Unfortunately she carried the balance forward into the next checkbook in August, somehow forgot she was working with overdraft, and that brings us to today. She was NOT in a good frame of mind at the time just coming off the hip surgery. I probably should have been more vigilant and double-checked her finances but I didn't. I had issues of my own at the time ( business, running errands for my mom, and lack of energy issues ). So that's the story. One big mistake in over 30 years of keeping a checkbook. I'm just glad the banks didn't take her to the cleaners for it. That's really how I expect banks to be. Don't throw the book at someone first time they screw up. If they do it repeatedly, then hit them with whatever fees or penalties you want. Lesson learned for my mom ( and me ). I'll be more vigilant of her finances. She'll make sure to know whether she's working with overdraft or her own money.



> I just want to thank the the staff for allowing us this leeway and those who have been conducting a sensitive and impassioned debate with respect.
> I don't mean to sound harsh in my posts but truth be told I am harsh, but I want to say that I respect all who have taken part even if we don't see eye to eye.


Thank you and I do see where you're coming from. Differences of opinion are why forums exist. Everyone here has kept it fairly respectable for the most part. I wrote the "can we please tone it down part" above prior to reading this but I thank you now for your above words. Let's use this thread as an example of how we can discuss controversial material while still remaining civil to each other.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Monocrom said:


> Wow . . . That's a bit heartless.
> 
> Some folks have gambling addictions. Some as bad as alcohol addiction. If they have to turn to the local Loan Sharks for money because PayDay offices are shut down, then yes; they will indeed end up in a dumpster. Then some homicide detective has to go to the addict's home and tell his wife, mom, children, or other loved ones that they found him in a dumpster.
> 
> As bad as PayDay offices are, someone's loved one won't end up in a dumpster if they fall behind.


Sorry if this comes across as heartless. It annoys me on many levels when someone's bad habits are enabled, whether by banks or Payday places or loan sharks or family. If I found a person this desperate who needed money, I might ask them what they needed the money for. If they said rent or food, then I might say, fine, I'll go and pay your rent for you, or go to the store and buy you food. But there's no way on Earth I'm handing that person a dime. They obviously can't be trusted to manage their money. I'm not helping them get deeper into the hole by giving them money to gamble away. Until they conquer their addiction someone else who can be trusted should handle all the money.


----------



## Beamhead (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



jtr1962 said:


> Well, my answer is the bank never should have loaned money to these people to begin with. And if the government forced them to, then that same government should be willing to cover the bank's risks making loans to bad prospects.


They wrote fannie and freddy a blank check on Christmas eve, they protect the quasi-guvment end while squeezing the truly private banks.



jtr1962 said:


> And guys, can we please tone it down a bit? This class envy stuff has nothing at all to do with anything. Remember that this thread was initially about some issues with my mom's checking account. In the end I found out the bank hadn't charged the fees I thought it did, so if anything the experience actually improved the way I see banks. Nevertheless, I also realize after researching the subject that many don't have as positive an outcome.


In that spirit perhaps you should rename this thread, do you still feel you were scammed? 



jtr1962 said:


> Thank you and I do see where you're coming from. Differences of opinion are why forums exist. Everyone here has kept it fairly respectable for the most part. I wrote the "can we please tone it down part" above prior to reading this but I thank you now for your above words. Let's use this thread as an example of how we can discuss controversial material while still remaining civil to each other.


Thank you and you are welcome.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Beamhead said:


> In that spirit perhaps you should rename this thread, do you still feel you were scammed?


I was thinking of doing this. The thread has taken two directions. The first was about the issues with my mom's checking account which have been resolved to my satisfaction, and I noted that I considered the fees reasonable. That part is known pretty early in the thread ( post 19 specifically ). I edited the first post to note the situation was resolved, and linked to post 19.

The second and more interesting part was and is a discussion about overdraft fees in general, not just those applying to Chase. I think changing the first part of the title might cause people to lose track of the thread, so I simply added "now resolved but interesting discussion" after it.


----------



## Beamhead (Mar 11, 2010)

:thumbsup:


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



jtr1962 said:


> Sorry if this comes across as heartless. It annoys me on many levels when someone's bad habits are enabled, whether by banks or Payday places or loan sharks or family. If I found a person this desperate who needed money, I might ask them what they needed the money for. If they said rent or food, then I might say, fine, I'll go and pay your rent for you, or go to the store and buy you food. But there's no way on Earth I'm handing that person a dime. They obviously can't be trusted to manage their money. I'm not helping them get deeper into the hole by giving them money to gamble away. Until they conquer their addiction someone else who can be trusted should handle all the money.


 
Agreed.

I know of folks who'll hand gift cards to fast food places when the Homeless ask them for money to get something to eat. You'd be amazed how often they refuse to take the gift card, or even become angry at the person trying to give it to them. 

Food and rent is one thing. Money to just hang out and drink with friends is another. Gambling falls into the latter category. But paying off a Loan Shark to prevent a severe injury; that's a bit harder to gauge. Definitely a grey area. Perhaps a beating will cause some addicts to finally wake up and get help. But with a Loan Shark, there's no telling how far he'd be willing to go.


----------



## LowBat (Mar 11, 2010)

I don't know if this was mentioned or not, but banks and credit unions are now allowed more time to hold deposits before posting them to your account. With my credit union it used to be three business days if depositing into a co-op ATM (I don't live anywhere near the few branches my credit union has so I regularly use the co-op network). Last year I find out the hard way the three business day hold was extended to five business days (basically 1 week). I'm told the additional waiting period is needed to crack down on check fraud. My deposit wasn't even a check, but cash, which I assumed could be easily verified and posted to my account. Instead I got an overdraft fee that my credit union was kind enough to reverse based on having a good history with them. Now I watch my account online daily and keep a minimum balance to act as a buffer in case there are anymore "minor changes" in how deposits are handled.


----------



## LowBat (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Monocrom said:


> I know of folks who'll hand gift cards to fast food places when the Homeless ask them for money to get something to eat. You'd be amazed how often they refuse to take the gift card, or even become angry at the person trying to give it to them.


Doesn't amaze me at all. With some exceptions, most of those people are simply bums working the sympathy angle. Homeless, maybe, but that is a symptom of being a bum and not the root problem as we are supposed to believe. I was once asked for gas money by a woman who said she ran out of gas a few blocks away. I produced a full gas can from the back of my truck and offered to help. She gave me a dirty look, said forget it, and walked away. At a nearby intersection I regularly see a man holding his cardboard sign. He has a bicycle too, but I now see he hides it in the bushes as he now sports a pair of crutches. I suspect he fished the crutches out of the dumpster from the hospital a block away. I remember a contractor who handed out his business cards and an offer of work. He said not one ever shows up. I'm not without sympathy for those who are struggling to get by and need a helping hand, I just wish passing motorists would stop being so naive and hand out money. Hand out food or hand out a list of shelters or places to get help, but don't ever hand out cash!

Sorry for going off topic.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Monocrom said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I know of folks who'll hand gift cards to fast food places when the Homeless ask them for money to get something to eat. You'd be amazed how often they refuse to take the gift card, or even become angry at the person trying to give it to them.


My grandfather told me stories like that. A homeless person would ask him for money to buy coffee, so instead he would offer to buy the person coffee. They always flat out refused. No surprise I guess as most also reeked of alcohol.

Another thing my grandfather did when "blind" people on the subways begged for money was to go into his pocket as they were passing by. Needless to say, given how loud those old subway trains were, the noise of him fishing in his pocket was inaudible over the racket the train made. If the "blind" person stopped in front of him, waiting for money, he knew they were trying to scam people. It seems to be a cottage industry in NY where some people try to get the day's lunch money by begging on the trains while going to work. Granted, in some cases it's legit, but it seems to be more scam artists than genuine cases.


----------



## kitelights (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*

I've got to agree with the call for personal responsibility and accountability, but there are issues with some banks that are even beyond ethical, entering the realm of illegal. 

Some years ago I had a CapitalOne credit card that I used for small amounts (like gas). Anytime that it was used, the balance was paid in full. Over about a two year period I had several late fees charged. I would call and they would reverse the charges. I adjusted the time that I made my payment (by mail) to make sure that even if the USPS screwed up, I would still be OK. I still got zapped with late charges and they told me that they would no longer reverse them. 

I started to drive to the CapitalOne corporate office here in Richmond where they had a window to drop off payments. I still got late fees.

My calls were futile and I told them to go screw themselves. My account ended in arrears with an over $200 balance on an account that had been paid in full on time.

A few years later I was at the library researching Consumer Reports for a purchase we were making for my infant grand daughter (may have been a car seat) and I noticed an article in CR about a Class Action lawsuit involving CapitalOne. 

It seems that one of things they were accused of was intentionally delaying processing payments that they had in order to create late fees and interest charges.


----------



## turbodog (Mar 12, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Beamhead said:


> ...
> 
> This cracks me up, do you have any idea who the stock holders are these days? It's granny's IRA or juniors state employee pension fund or your 401k.



Exactly.


----------



## turbodog (Mar 12, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



gadget_lover said:


> Once upon a time, it was considered immoral and wrong to take advantage of a person's ignorance in a *specialized field like loans and credit*. There were Usury laws that at least gave a person a chance to keep from being shafted if a bank got greedy. Banks were not allowed to make loans that they knew would fail. They were not allowed to charge huge fees.
> 
> A while back (i believe it was during Regan's administration) those laws were weakened, and are now virtually gone.
> 
> ...



With the way the world is getting more complex, while people have a finite attention span and ability, everything is turning into a specialty.

That said... banking's not much different than any service business.

In short... be as zealous in protecting yourself as others are in trying to screw you.


----------



## turbodog (Mar 12, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



jtr1962 said:


> I'm not disagreeing that they won't try. We see what already happened when the credit laws were changed. The banks basically said since we won't be able to make as much money in the future we'll have to make up for it now, and then put through all kinds of interest rate increases prior to when the laws took effect.
> 
> However, what they made on credit pales next to what they made on overdraft fees. I think it was close to $*40 billion for 2009. I don't see how they can make up for that with other fees.* There's only so much you can charge for checking or a CC before the customer will jump ship. Then again, maybe they don't have to collect as much in fees if they reduce their expenses. By just not allowing people to spend more in their accounts with their debit cards, they're lowering their exposure to risk, and their expenses, quite a bit. I'll hazard a guess that the banks will make just as much in 2010 despite the changes in overdraft laws _without_ relying much on other fees. That same 14% or whatever that paid most of the overdraft fees likely cost the banks nearly as much in defaults. How many probably just walked away from their accounts once they became negative by four figures? Sure, the bank can try to collect, but for the most part they're dealing with people who have low, sporadic income, sometimes off the books. Lots of luck getting anything. In fact, lots of luck even finding a lot of these people given how often many on the low end of the income scale move.



That's only $133 per person in the US.


----------



## turbodog (Mar 12, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Beamhead said:


> I just want to thank the the staff for allowing us this leeway and those who have been conducting a sensitive and impassioned debate with respect.
> I don't mean to sound harsh in my posts but truth be told I am harsh, but I want to say that I respect all who have taken part even if we don't see eye to eye. :thumbsup:



Surprising it went this far w/o a fistfight breaking out.

Agreed.


----------



## bstrickler (Mar 12, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



jtr1962 said:


> The way things work now if you go one cent into default it could easily trigger hundreds of dollars in charges.



I can testify to that. I just had a similar situation to that happen.

I bought something online about 2 weeks ago, and ended up going $5 over what I had, and got charged a $25 overdraft fee... Want to know whats really jacked up?? I have over $50 in my savings account with that bank, for that reason! Why the hell didn't they just pull the $5 from my savings account, then tell me that that happened? That's royally screwed up.


I went into the bank today, and asked why that happened... Their excuse? That $50 is an investment in the bank, and you cannot use it, unless you close your savings account, which closes your whole account with us... 

WHAT THE HELL?!! I can't use my own money!? I was never informed of this when I got an account with them! 

Reminds me of that JG wentworth commercial (not that I'd ever use them, unless I had no choice)... Its MY money, so I should be able to use it when I NEED it!

I wouldn't care if they charged a $5-$10 fee for my own stupidity, and having to draw money from my savings account. I just don't get this whole thing about requiring me to have $50 invested in them that I can't even use, in situations like that.

At least there's 1 nice thing about the way they're set up... Once you overdraft, you can't use your debit card anymore, until you pay off the charges, and bring your balance back to the positives.

I'm going to steer away from using my bank account, and just use one of those pre-paid debit cards, instead, and reload the card whenever I need to use it. Keeps me from screwing up

~Brian


----------



## Beamhead (Mar 12, 2010)

What bank, did they reverse it, they should link your savings to your checking with overdraft protection included for free as long as the savings has enough.
If not then use another bank.


----------



## bstrickler (Mar 12, 2010)

Beamhead said:


> What bank, did they reverse it, they should link your savings to your checking with overdraft protection included for free as long as the savings has enough.
> If not then use another bank.




Hughes, and no, they didn't reverse it. I'll pay it off when I sell my P60L, and some other things, on CPFMP. Thankfully, there's no interest fee's with that, so I can take care of that when I get the money.

This probably wasn't the best idea, but I ended up opening an account with Chase after I went to Hughes (before I even came upon this thread), because I hate that your savings account cant be tapped into if its at the $50 mark (I forgot to mention that if its over $50, they'll use your savings account, sorry), and that you can't use any ATM you want (there's only a few of their ATM's around here that I know of), while Chase allows you to use any ATM you want (I know they charge a fee for non-Chase ATM's, but that doesn't bother me. I only use ATM's when they place I'm at doesn't accept debit cards, or checks, which I'm surprised still exist).

I'm probably complaining about something that I shouldn't, but I just needed to rant some (hasn't been my year so far)

~Brian


----------



## Beamhead (Mar 12, 2010)

I think your rant is justified.


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 12, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Beamhead said:


> So these poor ignorant fools are not responsible for their actions?
> That is the exact reason some not all but some banks are being squeezed, you have a guvment bent on class warfare demanding ninja mortgages be issued



I've heard this asserted many times, but have never found a law that forced banks to make bad loans. What was the law or regulation that required that they make bad loans that result in such horrendous foreclosure rates?

OTOH, banks make a great SHORT TERM PROFIT from making marginal loans, and the executives make multi-million dollar bonuses and profits from inflated stocks. Until they deregulated the banking industry, they were not allowed to make such loans.

Daniel

P.S. I AM the establishment. I don't know why class envy/warfare keeps cropping up. It's almost a nonsense term in this context.


----------



## Beamhead (Mar 12, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



gadget_lover said:


> I've heard this asserted many times, but have never found a law that forced banks to make bad loans. What was the law or regulation that required that they make bad loans that result in such horrendous foreclosure rates?
> 
> OTOH, banks make a great SHORT TERM PROFIT from making marginal loans, and the executives make multi-million dollar bonuses and profits from inflated stocks. Until they deregulated the banking industry, they were not allowed to make such loans.
> 
> ...


CRA circa the 70's and truly pushed since the second term of Bill Clinton (google franklin reins, jamie gorelick, barney frank, chris dodd.....) and you were arguing from a class envy/warfare point of view, others are free to agree or disagree with me but reread some of your posts.


----------



## Empath (Mar 12, 2010)

Hughes Federal Credit Union in Tucson isn't a bank. Credit unions are owned by their users, and the primary qualifying investment is through the earmarked "unusable" minimum placed into the savings account. If your credit union stipulates a $50 minimum investment, then you have to leave the $50 untouched.

Credit unions are a great resource. You are a shareholder. If you think there's a change needed in how they work, then start attending the shareholder's meetings, and make your voice heard. 

Chase? I was Chase a user for a short period of time after they took over Washington Mutual. I removed myself from their clutches as quickly as possible.


----------



## Beamhead (Mar 12, 2010)

I have been with Wells Fargo for 25+ years and have been nothing but happy.


----------



## bstrickler (Mar 13, 2010)

Empath said:


> Hughes Federal Credit Union in Tucson isn't a bank. Credit unions are owned by their users, and the primary qualifying investment is through the earmarked "unusable" minimum placed into the savings account. If your credit union stipulates a $50 minimum investment, then you have to leave the $50 untouched.
> 
> Credit unions are a great resource. You are a shareholder. If you think there's a change needed in how they work, then start attending the shareholder's meetings, and make your voice heard.
> 
> Chase? I was Chase a user for a short period of time after they took over Washington Mutual. I removed myself from their clutches as quickly as possible.



That's some good information there, Empath. The problem is, I was never told that the $50 was unusable, until then. If I had known that ahead of time, I would have thrown more money into my savings account. That is both my fault for not asking if there were any limitations, and their fault, for not informing me of that.

I most likely will not close my account at Hughes, though, because it is nice that if I overdraw my bank account, it freezes it, to prevent me from screwing myself even further, but, it would be nicer, if they would design something for people who have limited, or no steady income, and have it so if you don't have the funds in your account, when doing a debit card purchase, it won't allow you to buy whatever you are trying to buy. That would save people a lot of money, and earn them a good reputation (and in turn, potentially earn even more customers).

I just won't use my Hughes account until I am able to find a job, and can have a fair amount of padding in there, for emergencies/unexpected purchases. I don't want to screw up again, when it can be avoided by paying more attention to my balance, and making sure I really need that item at the time. Plus, their hours & location (along with the lack of ATM's, for emergencies or whatever) do not cooperate with my schedule (I'm either asleep, or in one of my classes on the other side of town, when they're open), while Chase is right by my house, and I can head there if I need to sort something out, or check up on things.


~Brian


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 13, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



Beamhead said:


> CRA circa the 70's and truly pushed since the second term of Bill Clinton (google franklin reins, jamie gorelick, barney frank, chris dodd.....)



Ahh. The Community Reinvestment Act. The one that specifies that SOUND loans should be made without discrimination. The one that has as it's only penalty... not allowing new branches or mergers. I imagine that would really scare a CEO into running his/her bank into the ground.



Daniel


----------



## KD5XB (Mar 13, 2010)

Chase stinks!


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 13, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



gadget_lover said:


> Ahh. The Community Reinvestment Act. The one that specifies that SOUND loans should be made without discrimination. The one that has as it's only penalty... not allowing new branches or mergers. I imagine that would really scare a CEO into running his/her bank into the ground.
> 
> Daniel



Take the time to read this link. Then you will understand how it evolved over time, and was used by regulators to force lenders to do things they should not have. You may still disagree, but you will understand. After this happened, the whole Ponzi scheme using derivatives and credit swap fiasco where worthless (i.e. subprime) paper was dilluted with more valuable assets and resold as a package--but done again over and over so dilluted any real asset value, it became the trigger. The bankers, investment firms, insurers (AIG), accounting firms, all became complicit with irresponsibly throwing more fuel on the fire. The first step of doing an initial mix of the crappy loans into a package with valued assets made reasonable sense. It was the repeated dillution that "screwed the pooch." At the heart of the problem however, was the liberalizing changes with bank lending brought on by increasing regulator pressures using the Community Reinvestment Act.


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 13, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



LuxLuthor said:


> Take the time to read this link. Then you will understand. You may still disagree, but you will understand.




OK. Read it. Still disagree. The CRA did not make bad loans as attractive to banks as the low interest rates and the profits to be made from refinancing loans for more than the property was worth.

Corporate greed combined with consumer ignorance combined with consumer optimism created that whole financial meltdown.

But that is so far off topic that it should not be pursued. 

The good news is that BoA and Chase are both appearing to abandon the lucrative practice of paying bad checks and then charging cascading fees. That's a GOOD thing.

Daniel


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 13, 2010)

*Re: Chase's overdraft fee scam*



gadget_lover said:


> OK. Read it. Still disagree. The CRA did not make bad loans as attractive to banks as the low interest rates and the profits to be made from refinancing loans for more than the property was worth.
> 
> Corporate greed combined with consumer ignorance combined with consumer optimism created that whole financial meltdown.
> 
> ...



I respectfully suggest you re-read it, and my post again. It is not as simple as "Corporate greed combined with consumer ignorance combined with consumer optimism created that whole financial meltdown." I also did not ignore the impact of corporate irresponsibility in my post, but the cascade started with the CRA.

There is also nothing I have read that says that BOA &/or Chase are changing *check *or credit card overdraft charges. The only step I have read about so far only applies to Debit Bank cards.


----------



## burgessdi (Mar 19, 2010)

We have found a company WORSE than Chase... it's Citifinancial Auto...

Never saw such a effed up company in my life!!!


----------



## bstrickler (Mar 20, 2010)

burgessdi said:


> We have found a company WORSE than Chase... it's Citifinancial Auto...
> 
> Never saw such a effed up company in my life!!!


Please, do tell.

~Brian


----------



## burgessdi (Mar 21, 2010)

They have always had trouble processing payments. They would take a payment over the phone and then call and harrass and state there wasn't enough money in the bank even though there was. 

On March 11, they took a payment and we got a confirmation number. On March 12 they called again saying the March 11 payment never took, even with a confirmation number. It wasn't anywhere in their system!! So we said ok, and made another payment and also got a confirmation number. 

Two days ago, the bank, State Bank, (God Bless Em) informed us that two checks from Citi Auto were clearing and they put a stop payment on one check. Let's see how Citi likes it 

I guess it is a RARITY when we get someone who speaks understandable English, knows how to work their computer, knows how to take a payment and give a confirmation number and process the dang payment. 

Not to mention their website for paying via web doesn't work!!

We started to take everything in writing especially the names and filed complaint with FTC for the harassing calls and threatening to wreck our credit.

They said we had anger issues so we said no, you need to stop pissing us off!


----------



## burgessdi (Mar 21, 2010)

oops ...


----------



## C.F.Burgess Battery (Mar 21, 2010)

I asked for someone that knew how to do their job to call me ... still waiting ... :tired: :sleepy:


----------

