http://news.yahoo.com/illinois-teen-learns-bank-fees-hard-way-154654489.html
QuoteMelinda Ganziano of McCullom Lake, Ill., wanted to introduce her son to the basics of banking, but he ended up with $229 in fees in two weeks with a balance of just $4.85.
Ganziano, a 55-year-old mother of five children, encouraged her fourth child, Daniel, 18, to set up a savings account at a nearby TCF Bank "out of convenience" due to its location.
Ganziano and her son discovered that the bank offered little convenience due to the growing number of bank fees, as first reported by the Chicago Tribune.
After he put money into the savings accont from his job, Daniel Ganziano's balance eventually fell to $4.85 and with such a small amount, he ignored it.
However, TCF sent him a letter on Oct. 12 informing him that it had charged him a $9.95 monthly maintenance fee six days earlier because the account had a low balance. That led to an overdrawn account by $5.10, which then led to a $28-a-day overdraft fee. The account was 10 cents over the $5 threshold for which the daily fee kicks in. Young Ganziano's account was now overdrawn by $33.10.
Ganziano, who works in the nonprofit sector, and her son went to the bank that weekend to close his account, the Tribune reported. But they first had to pay the accumulated fees, which totaled $229.10.
Ganziano, who banks elsewhere, asked for the fees to be waived, but the bank would eliminate only one of the $28 daily charges.
"They would just not cooperate," Ganziano told ABC News. "We were trying to teach him the right thing. If he had overdrawn by himself I would have made him pay the fees, but it wasn't him."
She also learned that her older son, who had a balance of $0, would also be charged a monthly fee so they closed his account, too. Daniel Ganziano wanted to fight it by not paying the fees.
"But we said we have to take care of it and get out," his mother said.
She decided to pay the $229.10 in fees for Daniel's account and was told a regional supervisor would call her. After not hearing from TCF by mid-November, Ganziano contacted Jon Yates, a reporter who writes the "What's Your Problem" column at the Chicago Tribune.
Soon, a TCF representative called Melinda Ganziano and agreed to send her a check for the $229.10.
Jason Korstange, a spokesman for TCF said the bank recently switched from charging people $35 for every overdraft to $28 per day for up to 14 days when an account has insufficient funds.
"If we had done it by hand, someone probably would have said, 'Oh it's just 10 cents, let's not worry about it,'" Korstange told the Chicago Tribune. "But we process millions of transactions a day, and there has to be a cutoff number."
Korstange said if the Ganzianos had gone to another branch, a different TCF worker might have refunded the overdraft fees when they first visited. TCF told ABC News it had no additional comment.
Ganziano said her older son learned "banks are not the way they used to be."
"You have to check them out really well," she said.
Hmm. So while I do feel sort of bad for the kid - especially the ridiculous fees. I'm not sure the takeaway should be that banks are evil but rather you have to pay attention to the terms you sign up for. You can't just ignore bank accounts.
Banks are certainly not your friends. That is why you check the terms carefully.
I have little to no sympathy.
Nah, that's pretty evil. Fees closing an account? Shitty, but fine. Fees overdrafting an account? That's abominable. This is completely within the power of the banks to not do, and it is purely a method of preying upon the most vulnerable people in society. It's crazy that it's even legal.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 13, 2011, 12:38:12 PM
Nah, that's pretty evil. Fees closing an account? Shitty, but fine. Fees overdrafting an account? That's abominable. This is completely within the power of the banks to do, and it is purely a method of preying upon the most vulnerable people in society. It's crazy that it's even legal.
What about my college bank account that came with a credit card? Unbeknownst to me, the credit card was used if there was an overdraft on the checking account. The checking account was also setup to autopay the credit card. Long story short and a 12 cent overdraft turned into $200 worth of fees when unwatched over a few months. I couldn't even fight that they'd obscured that fun feedback loop from me as the original handler of my account no longer worked there. Lesson learned. -_-
Quote from: Ideologue on December 13, 2011, 12:38:12 PM
Nah, that's pretty evil. Fees closing an account? Shitty, but fine. Fees overdrafting an account? That's abominable. This is completely within the power of the banks to not do, and it is purely a method of preying upon the most vulnerable people in society. It's crazy that it's even legal.
There is something pretty messed up about charging a fee on low balances that is basically designed to overdraw them.
Quote from: Valmy on December 13, 2011, 12:34:10 PM
Banks are certainly not your friends. That is why you check the terms carefully.
Or not all that carefully. All they had to check was the minimum balance to avoid a fee.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 13, 2011, 12:37:35 PM
I have little to no sympathy.
You, sir, are worse than Hitler.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2011, 12:41:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 13, 2011, 12:34:10 PM
Banks are certainly not your friends. That is why you check the terms carefully.
Or not all that carefully. All they had to check was the minimum balance to avoid a fee.
Yeah although unfortunately us youth today have no concept of personal finance. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2011, 12:41:54 PM
Or not all that carefully. All they had to check was the minimum balance to avoid a fee.
Well I would have made that mistake. I have tons of crap to take care of, I am not checking my damn balance every day. The fucking anal retentive miniscule bullshit you have to keep track of just to not be screwed just drives me nuts.
Oh your balance is only $4.85? Enjoy your fine of hundreds of dollars. Sucks to be you.
Meh. Sure that would be 'all you had to do' if we did not have five hundred other 'all you had to do' to do also. Do you have unlimited time to blow on bullshit every day Yi?
That is why when I open an account I make damn sure there will be no overdrafting or any of that. Where do they get the right to just assume I want them to loan me money? And then charge me for the privilege? That is called stealing in my book. The very fact I have to request a bank not steal from me is absurd.
Stupid Fees.
:(
Quote from: Valmy on December 13, 2011, 12:50:58 PM
Well I would have made that mistake. I have tons of crap to take care of, I am not checking my damn balance every day. The fucking anal retentive miniscule bullshit you have to keep track of just to not be screwed just drives me nuts.
Oh your balance is only $4.85? Enjoy your fine of hundreds of dollars. Sucks to be you.
Meh. Sure that would be 'all you had to do' if we did not have five hundred other 'all you had to do' to do also. Do you have unlimited time to blow on bullshit every day Yi?
That is why when I open an account I make damn sure there will be no overdrafting or any of that. Where do they get the right to just assume I want them to loan me money? And then charge me for the privilege? That is called stealing in my book. The very fact I have to request a bank not steal from me is absurd.
They didn't have to watch their balance every day. Although most people with checking accounts seem to do that without the ferocious angst you seem to be feeling. All they had to do was find out--from a teller, from a brochure, whatever--what the minimum balance requirement on the account was. They didn't bother doing that.
Just because some people aren't paying attention doesn't mean that you're entitled to play "gotcha" games with them. I think these kinds of low balance fees and daily overdraft fees are highly unconscionable and unjustified, and banks pull that shit make payday loan places and mafia loan sharks looks like Ben Bernanke.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2011, 01:03:01 PM
They didn't have to watch their balance every day. Although most people with checking accounts seem to do that without the ferocious angst you seem to be feeling. All they had to do was find out--from a teller, from a brochure, whatever--what the minimum balance requirement on the account was. They didn't bother doing that.
Yeah right. I have yet to meet anybody who doesn't hate these sorts of banking fees. It is not angst it is just being annoyed by the garbage I have to put up with. At best they are a annoyance.
Until this thread I had never heard anyone bitch about a minimum balance fee.
Suggestion : try being less poor. :)
Quote from: Caliga on December 13, 2011, 01:57:19 PM
Suggestion : try being less poor. :)
He's a teenager just starting out in adult life, how could he not be of modest means ?
Unless of course you're championing people from wealthy backgrounds as being the right and proper order of things ?
Quote from: Caliga on December 13, 2011, 01:57:19 PM
Suggestion : try being less poor. :)
Fee breaks for the rich! :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2011, 01:35:46 PM
Until this thread I had never heard anyone bitch about a minimum balance fee.
Ok I guess I am the only person in the country who doesn't love bean counting and having my money taken from me without my knowledge. :rolleyes: Seriously dude what is wrong with you? You honestly have no idea where I am coming from here?
But as garbon said the kid did learn a lesson here.
Quote from: mongers on December 13, 2011, 02:02:21 PM
Unless of course you're championing people from wealthy backgrounds as being the right and proper order of things ?
Hmm...
Quote from: Valmy on December 13, 2011, 02:08:09 PM
Ok I guess I am the only person in the country who loves bean counting and having my money taken from me without my knowledge. :rolleyes:
But as garbon said the kid did learn a lesson here.
Jesus Christ. How many beans do you have to count to open a bank brochure and find out the minimum balance requirement?
Quote from: Caliga on December 13, 2011, 01:57:19 PM
Suggestion : try being less poor. :)
Tried. Didn't take.
Quote from: Valmy on December 13, 2011, 02:05:52 PM
Quote from: Caliga on December 13, 2011, 01:57:19 PM
Suggestion : try being less poor. :)
Fee breaks for the rich! :P
:yes:
What's I find dispiriting is, despite the rhetoric, that both the US and the UK have surprisingly poor social mobility by many measures.
It's a bank. Of course it's your enemy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2011, 02:09:59 PM
Jesus Christ. How many beans do you have to count to open a bank brochure and find out the minimum balance requirement?
If that was the only little detail you had to manage in your life I would agree. Of course there are terms and conditions and details to manage in tons of areas in every person's life so yes you have to be quite a bean counter to know the precise terms and conditions of everything you are involved in. But even if you are aware there is a minimum balance you are supposed to just know they are going to fine you hundreds for it? How does that make logical sense? I would presume they would just take my money and close the account.
Quote from: Valmy on December 13, 2011, 02:15:25 PM
If that was the only little detail you had to manage in your life I would agree. Of course there are terms and conditions and details to manage in tons of areas in every person's life so yes you have to be quite a bean counter to know the precise terms and conditions of everything you are involved in. But even if you are aware there is a minimum balance you are supposed to just know they are going to fine you hundreds for it? How does that make logical sense? I would presume they would just take my money and close the account.
No, you're not supposed to just know they are going to fine you hundreds for it.
You are supposed to know the minimum balance requirement and the monthly fee if you don't maintain the minimum. You're supposed to know that if your balance gets below zero bad things will happen. IF you think your balance might get below zero you're supposed to find out exactly how bad those things are.
Quote from: Valmy on December 13, 2011, 02:15:25 PM
I would presume they would just take my money and close the account.
Bad presumption. Particularly if you've been handed a fee disclosure that spells it all out. And the kid was 18-- it's not as if he had checking, mortgage, escrow, insurance, and other accounts to keep track of. Sounds like he just had a savings account.
Most culpable person in this case is his mom. Parents usually get first shot at teaching personal finance to their kids. She dropped the ball in a big way, and if I were her I'd be too embarrassed to talk to anyone about it, let alone ask the newspaper to publish an article about it.
I don't know anything about this particular bank, but I'd be surprised if the new accounts person didn't emphatically point out the minimum balance and charges on the disclosure when he/she opened his account. Any time I've opened an account at a bank, they practically beat me over the head with it.
Yeah, I've got to add my voice to the "he learned the hard lesson of growing up - you have to pay attention to your finances" crowd.
Quote from: fahdiz on December 13, 2011, 03:41:21 PM
Yeah, I've got to add my voice to the "he learned the hard lesson of growing up - you have to pay attention to your finances" crowd.
Kind of a weird society were the base assumption is you have to be prepared for everyone and every institution will try and rip you off.
Wouldn't a better life lesson for the teenager be, if you act responsibly, try and save money, the society will reward you with the ability to make financial gains and help in your transition to a productive adult member of society ?
It might be easier if these particular banks were subject to regulations, banning this sort of 'daylight robbery' and in return they're allowed to make profits from their customers in more 'legitimate' or socially useful ways ?
What legitimate and socially useful ways of making a profit are there on a $10 savings account?
Quote from: fahdiz on December 13, 2011, 03:41:21 PM
Yeah, I've got to add my voice to the "he learned the hard lesson of growing up - you have to pay attention to your finances" crowd.
I dunno - sounds pretty petty of the bank to me.
You have a teenager with whom you can hopefully build a lifelong, and very profitable, customer relationship, who accidentally accumulated $200 in fees. I would think the smart thing to do would be to waive the fees and tell the client how to avoid accumulating them in the future.
Or you can sit there, demand the mother pay you $200, and never earn a nickle in business from the kid for his entire life.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2011, 04:15:14 PM
What legitimate and socially useful ways of making a profit are there on a $10 savings account?
[Mono]
compound interest.
[/Mono]
I don't understand the rationale for overdraft fees on debit card purchases. Can't they just be declined at the point of sale if the balance doesn't cover it? I overdrafted a few times over the course of a day or two on one debit/credit card (when I had changed jobs and mixed up which account was being direct deposited to) and racked up something like $60 in fees on $7 of overdraft coverage. Whereas I've also had a regular credit card just declined because I was a buck or two over my limit. I'm not sure if the mechanics of debit and credit are different or what?
The other element here is that generally the people getting screwed from overdrafts and minimum balance requirements tend to be the people who suffer the most from it (almost by definition with the minimum balances)...
My bank recently made overdraft protection opt-in, including on debit cards. I had a debit card transaction declined for NSF a few months ago.
Quote from: mongers on December 13, 2011, 04:13:33 PM
Kind of a weird society were the base assumption is you have to be prepared for everyone and every institution will try and rip you off.
I'm not sure that's the base assumption. To me the base assumption is that if you sign up for a bank account, you ought to make yourself familiar with what happens if you fail to maintain the minimum balance, what happens when you overdraft, etc etc - and if at all possible take steps to make sure you don't end up in that situation. I don't expect the bank to manage my money for me. I expect them to hold my deposits and issue funds when I ask them to issue funds.
Here is the way I sees it:
Mom nags kid to open bank account
Goes to first bank nearby
Doesn't read the fee schedule
Being a lazy cunt, she doesn't keep an eye on kid's account
Acts surprised when bank anally rapes her kid's account
Writes angry letter to newspaper/TV station
Fuck her and the cunt horse she rode in on.
Quote from: fahdiz on December 13, 2011, 04:34:14 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 13, 2011, 04:13:33 PM
Kind of a weird society were the base assumption is you have to be prepared for everyone and every institution will try and rip you off.
I'm not sure that's the base assumption. To me the base assumption is that if you sign up for a bank account, you ought to make yourself familiar with what happens if you fail to maintain the minimum balance, what happens when you overdraft, etc etc - and if at all possible take steps to make sure you don't end up in that situation. I don't expect the bank to manage my money for me. I expect them to hold my deposits and issue funds when I ask them to issue funds.
Well it sounds like it's you base assumption.
Quote from: mongers on December 13, 2011, 04:37:25 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 13, 2011, 04:34:14 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 13, 2011, 04:13:33 PM
Kind of a weird society were the base assumption is you have to be prepared for everyone and every institution will try and rip you off.
I'm not sure that's the base assumption. To me the base assumption is that if you sign up for a bank account, you ought to make yourself familiar with what happens if you fail to maintain the minimum balance, what happens when you overdraft, etc etc - and if at all possible take steps to make sure you don't end up in that situation. I don't expect the bank to manage my money for me. I expect them to hold my deposits and issue funds when I ask them to issue funds.
Well it sounds like it's you base assumption.
I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't see why anyone should assume anything different. The point of a bank isn't to be your personal finance manager, at least not where retail banking is concerned. If they laid out the terms and kid didn't pay attention, then by definition they didn't rip him off. Now if the bank misled him that's a different story altogether. I highly doubt they did.
Quote from: fahdiz on December 13, 2011, 04:46:03 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 13, 2011, 04:37:25 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 13, 2011, 04:34:14 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 13, 2011, 04:13:33 PM
Kind of a weird society were the base assumption is you have to be prepared for everyone and every institution will try and rip you off.
I'm not sure that's the base assumption. To me the base assumption is that if you sign up for a bank account, you ought to make yourself familiar with what happens if you fail to maintain the minimum balance, what happens when you overdraft, etc etc - and if at all possible take steps to make sure you don't end up in that situation. I don't expect the bank to manage my money for me. I expect them to hold my deposits and issue funds when I ask them to issue funds.
Well it sounds like it's you base assumption.
I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't see why anyone should assume anything different. The point of a bank isn't to be your personal finance manager, at least not where retail banking is concerned. If they laid out the terms and kid didn't pay attention, then by definition they didn't rip him off. Now if the bank misled him that's a different story altogether. I highly doubt they did.
Well except that's how they advertise themselves - come to us for personal financial advice.
At the same time - they did rip him off. I mean the cost to them to keep his 5 bucks was pretty negligible and then they charged him a lot with no benefit to himself.
I'm also not sure how clearly banks lay out their terms and conditions. Better than the software or cell phone boilerplate, but still probably a bit obscure to the average person, especially if it's been a while since you opened the account.
Quote from: fahdiz on December 13, 2011, 04:34:14 PM
I don't expect the bank to manage my money for me.
I do, because of this:
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2011, 04:49:02 PM
Well except that's how they advertise themselves - come to us for personal financial advice.
I even get phonecalls from my bank to warn me if an account is running low.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 13, 2011, 05:02:04 PM
I'm also not sure how clearly banks lay out their terms and conditions. Better than the software or cell phone boilerplate, but still probably a bit obscure to the average person, especially if it's been a while since you opened the account.
The information on minimum balances and monthly fees is about as opaque as the instructions on a coin operated laundry machine.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2011, 05:08:31 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 13, 2011, 05:02:04 PM
I'm also not sure how clearly banks lay out their terms and conditions. Better than the software or cell phone boilerplate, but still probably a bit obscure to the average person, especially if it's been a while since you opened the account.
The information on minimum balances and monthly fees is about as opaque as the instructions on a coin operated laundry machine.
Yeah they do typically put it in the brochures they give you when you open an account. I even remember discussing it with a couple bankers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2011, 05:08:31 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 13, 2011, 05:02:04 PM
I'm also not sure how clearly banks lay out their terms and conditions. Better than the software or cell phone boilerplate, but still probably a bit obscure to the average person, especially if it's been a while since you opened the account.
The information on minimum balances and monthly fees is about as opaque as the instructions on a coin operated laundry machine.
:huh: I've had the same credit union account for 7 years now and done a variety of things with it, but right now I have no idea what the minimum balance or monthly fee is. Whereas I've got at least a rough idea of how to work the laundromat.
EDIT: I don't mean it's not easy to figure out if you want to, but how present is it in the minds of generic checking account holders?
In Canada at least, there exists a criminal rate of interest - that is, interest on a loan cannot total more than a certain percentage.
Short-term "payday" loan outfits got hammered by the courts in class actions for using fees and charges to effectively raise the loan rate higher than this "criminal' rate.
I dunno why the same analysis cannot apply to overdraft fees. The bank is essentially loaning you the money. Why should it be able to charge you more than the principal per day, and call it a "charge" rather than "interest"?
Cunt Mom would take a loan with Western Sky and then complain about the interest.
http://www.westernsky.com/TermsOfUse.aspx
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 13, 2011, 05:12:27 PM
EDIT: I don't mean it's not easy to figure out if you want to, but how present is it in the minds of generic checking account holders?
Back when I had a minimum balance requirement it loomed HUGE in my mind. On the money I was making the monthly fee was not something I could afford to ignore.
Edit: never mind, I looked at the provision and it excludes overdraft charges.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 13, 2011, 05:12:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2011, 05:08:31 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 13, 2011, 05:02:04 PM
I'm also not sure how clearly banks lay out their terms and conditions. Better than the software or cell phone boilerplate, but still probably a bit obscure to the average person, especially if it's been a while since you opened the account.
The information on minimum balances and monthly fees is about as opaque as the instructions on a coin operated laundry machine.
:huh: I've had the same credit union account for 7 years now and done a variety of things with it, but right now I have no idea what the minimum balance or monthly fee is. Whereas I've got at least a rough idea of how to work the laundromat.
EDIT: I don't mean it's not easy to figure out if you want to, but how present is it in the minds of generic checking account holders?
Again they tell you when you get your account. My credit union doesn't have one but Bank of America and Wells Fargo sure did.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2011, 05:19:19 PM
Back when I had a minimum balance requirement it loomed HUGE in my mind. On the money I was making the monthly fee was not something I could afford to ignore.
Now that I look, I don't have a minimum balance requirement, so I guess that's why I've never worried about it. My bank has three tiers of checking accounts, and the higher two have minimums of $1000 and $10,000 with monthly fees of $10 and $25 respectively.
Right, and if there's no minimum balance then you forget about it. 100 quatloos says that describes Mihali's account.
p.s. You posted before I could submit but I'll put this up anyway for the decadent thrill of being right.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2011, 05:25:43 PM
Right, and if there's no minimum balance then you forget about it. 100 quatloos says that describes Mihali's account.
p.s. You posted before I could submit but I'll put this up anyway for the decadent thrill of being right.
^_^
When you had a minimum balance, would your bank alert you if you went under it, or just collect the fees silently?
None of my bank accounts have monthly fees, and as a precautionary measure I maintain overdrafts on two of them, just in case. :ph34r:
Quote from: Malthus on December 13, 2011, 05:15:10 PM
In Canada at least, there exists a criminal rate of interest - that is, interest on a loan cannot total more than a certain percentage.
Short-term "payday" loan outfits got hammered by the courts in class actions for using fees and charges to effectively raise the loan rate higher than this "criminal' rate.
I dunno why the same analysis cannot apply to overdraft fees. The bank is essentially loaning you the money. Why should it be able to charge you more than the principal per day, and call it a "charge" rather than "interest"?
Yeah, I thought about usury laws as well, but ultimately that's not really the wrong being done. The wrong being done is to lay out a trap for a client, and hope he falls in it.
I'm really dismayed that majority of posters don't have an issue with that. Just because it takes carelessness to fall into a trap doesn't mean that it's fine for the trap to exist, or that it's even legal. Good faith in conducting business means something.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 13, 2011, 05:28:01 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2011, 05:25:43 PM
Right, and if there's no minimum balance then you forget about it. 100 quatloos says that describes Mihali's account.
p.s. You posted before I could submit but I'll put this up anyway for the decadent thrill of being right.
^_^
When you had a minimum balance, would your bank alert you if you went under it, or just collect the fees silently?
Mine sends me alerts both via e-mail and written. BofA that is.
Quote from: BVN on December 13, 2011, 05:02:42 PM
I even get phonecalls from my bank to warn me if an account is running low.
That is a cool service.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 13, 2011, 04:18:30 PM
I don't understand the rationale for overdraft fees on debit card purchases.
Believe it or not, for most banks the main purpose is not revenue. They'd prefer you to maintain a balance in the account and the fees are meant to hurt a little so that you'll be conditioned to make sure your account is in good standing. In the long run, you're worth more to them if you don't overdraw your account.
Now there are a few banks that want as much fee income as they get and they don't care how they get it, but that's the minority.
QuoteCan't they just be declined at the point of sale if the balance doesn't cover it?
Yep. But it was only fairly recently that everyone had to opt in to overdraft privilege, as sbr mentioned.
But there are other scenarios where you could potentially overdraw your account. You could have a check post to the account before the actual settled debit card transaction posts.
Some gas stations out there still only pre-authorize for $1 if you use the "credit" option at the pump, and the actual purchase amount may not post until a day or two later. So you could have a $1 hold on your account for an actual purchase of $60. If you only had, say, $10 in the account then obviously you're going to overdraw when that $60 posts. This is supposedly being addressed by Visa & MasterCard, but these things always take a long time to fix.
QuoteI overdrafted a few times over the course of a day or two on one debit/credit card (when I had changed jobs and mixed up which account was being direct deposited to) and racked up something like $60 in fees on $7 of overdraft coverage. Whereas I've also had a regular credit card just declined because I was a buck or two over my limit. I'm not sure if the mechanics of debit and credit are different or what?
They work pretty much the same on the front end, but on the back end there are quite a few differences.
QuoteThe other element here is that generally the people getting screwed from overdrafts and minimum balance requirements tend to be the people who suffer the most from it (almost by definition with the minimum balances)...
But you don't have to be rich to be financially responsible.
Quote from: DGuller on December 13, 2011, 05:29:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 13, 2011, 05:15:10 PM
In Canada at least, there exists a criminal rate of interest - that is, interest on a loan cannot total more than a certain percentage.
Short-term "payday" loan outfits got hammered by the courts in class actions for using fees and charges to effectively raise the loan rate higher than this "criminal' rate.
I dunno why the same analysis cannot apply to overdraft fees. The bank is essentially loaning you the money. Why should it be able to charge you more than the principal per day, and call it a "charge" rather than "interest"?
Yeah, I thought about usury laws as well, but ultimately that's not really the wrong being done. The wrong being done is to lay out a trap for a client, and hope he falls in it.
I'm really dismayed that majority of posters don't have an issue with that. Just because it takes carelessness to fall into a trap doesn't mean that it's fine for the trap to exist, or that it's even legal. Good faith in conducting business means something.
:yes:
Which is one of the areas where the Anglo-American school of business seems to be failing in.
Quote from: fahdiz on December 13, 2011, 05:32:43 PM
Quote from: BVN on December 13, 2011, 05:02:42 PM
I even get phonecalls from my bank to warn me if an account is running low.
That is a cool service.
I had a credit card link to a phone and it sent real-time text messages for each and every transaction on the card; rather useful.
Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2011, 05:09:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2011, 05:08:31 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 13, 2011, 05:02:04 PM
I'm also not sure how clearly banks lay out their terms and conditions. Better than the software or cell phone boilerplate, but still probably a bit obscure to the average person, especially if it's been a while since you opened the account.
The information on minimum balances and monthly fees is about as opaque as the instructions on a coin operated laundry machine.
Yeah they do typically put it in the brochures they give you when you open an account. I even remember discussing it with a couple bankers.
They're required to do so, per multiple federal regulations. Plus most (if not all) places have an easy to read comparison chart listing all fees & requirements for their different account products.
Quote from: derspiess on December 13, 2011, 05:47:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2011, 05:09:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2011, 05:08:31 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 13, 2011, 05:02:04 PM
I'm also not sure how clearly banks lay out their terms and conditions. Better than the software or cell phone boilerplate, but still probably a bit obscure to the average person, especially if it's been a while since you opened the account.
The information on minimum balances and monthly fees is about as opaque as the instructions on a coin operated laundry machine.
Yeah they do typically put it in the brochures they give you when you open an account. I even remember discussing it with a couple bankers.
They're required to do so, per multiple federal regulations. Plus most (if not all) places have an easy to read comparison chart listing all fees & requirements for their different account products.
Which is why I loathe lazy cunt mom.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 13, 2011, 05:49:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 13, 2011, 05:47:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2011, 05:09:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2011, 05:08:31 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 13, 2011, 05:02:04 PM
I'm also not sure how clearly banks lay out their terms and conditions. Better than the software or cell phone boilerplate, but still probably a bit obscure to the average person, especially if it's been a while since you opened the account.
The information on minimum balances and monthly fees is about as opaque as the instructions on a coin operated laundry machine.
Yeah they do typically put it in the brochures they give you when you open an account. I even remember discussing it with a couple bankers.
They're required to do so, per multiple federal regulations. Plus most (if not all) places have an easy to read comparison chart listing all fees & requirements for their different account products.
Which is why I loathe lazy cunt mom.
He wasn't a small child - he was 18! If he can't be bothered to pay attention to the materials he received when opening the account...!
I blame her. She nagged him, she takes the blame.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 13, 2011, 05:52:16 PM
I blame her. She nagged him, she takes the blame.
He's technically a man. If he hasn't figured out by that age how to combat his mother - fault is on him.
Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2011, 05:50:52 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 13, 2011, 05:49:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 13, 2011, 05:47:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2011, 05:09:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2011, 05:08:31 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 13, 2011, 05:02:04 PM
I'm also not sure how clearly banks lay out their terms and conditions. Better than the software or cell phone boilerplate, but still probably a bit obscure to the average person, especially if it's been a while since you opened the account.
The information on minimum balances and monthly fees is about as opaque as the instructions on a coin operated laundry machine.
Yeah they do typically put it in the brochures they give you when you open an account. I even remember discussing it with a couple bankers.
They're required to do so, per multiple federal regulations. Plus most (if not all) places have an easy to read comparison chart listing all fees & requirements for their different account products.
Which is why I loathe lazy cunt mom.
He wasn't a small child - he was 18! If he can't be bothered to pay attention to the materials he received when opening the account...!
Maybe he isn't a bright as you were at that age, but he still wants to be a functional member of society ?
Quote from: DGuller on December 13, 2011, 05:29:05 PM
Yeah, I thought about usury laws as well, but ultimately that's not really the wrong being done. The wrong being done is to lay out a trap for a client, and hope he falls in it.
I don't think that happens as often as you think it does. Banks that try to live off of that type of fee income do not last very long.
And if banks couldn't charge these fees, you'd see a lot of low-income people being shut out of banking altogether. They're a risk to the bank, and fees help mitigate that risk.
Quote from: DGuller on December 13, 2011, 05:29:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 13, 2011, 05:15:10 PM
In Canada at least, there exists a criminal rate of interest - that is, interest on a loan cannot total more than a certain percentage.
Short-term "payday" loan outfits got hammered by the courts in class actions for using fees and charges to effectively raise the loan rate higher than this "criminal' rate.
I dunno why the same analysis cannot apply to overdraft fees. The bank is essentially loaning you the money. Why should it be able to charge you more than the principal per day, and call it a "charge" rather than "interest"?
Yeah, I thought about usury laws as well, but ultimately that's not really the wrong being done. The wrong being done is to lay out a trap for a client, and hope he falls in it.
I'm really dismayed that majority of posters don't have an issue with that. Just because it takes carelessness to fall into a trap doesn't mean that it's fine for the trap to exist, or that it's even legal. Good faith in conducting business means something.
Another way to look at it is that generally speaking under the common law "penalty provisions" that are not "genuine pre-estimates of liquidated damages" are not enforcable. Here's a short article on that:
http://www.tresscox.com.au/resources/resource.asp?id=128
If that applies to overdraft charges and the like ...
Quote from: derspiess on December 13, 2011, 05:56:19 PM
And if banks couldn't charge these fees, you'd see a lot of low-income people being shut out of banking altogether. They're a risk to the bank, and fees help mitigate that risk.
Seems like a bit of an over-mitigation to me.
Quote from: mongers on December 13, 2011, 05:42:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 13, 2011, 05:29:05 PM
I'm really dismayed that majority of posters don't have an issue with that. Just because it takes carelessness to fall into a trap doesn't mean that it's fine for the trap to exist, or that it's even legal. Good faith in conducting business means something.
:yes:
Which is one of the areas where the Anglo-American school of business seems to be failing in.
I wouldn't necessarily say that. Bad faith can and does get punished or rebuffed in courts all the time, AFAIK. I also wouldn't assume that the bank in question is in the clear charging $28 per day for 14 days for overdrafts.
Quote from: mongers on December 13, 2011, 05:54:20 PM
Maybe he isn't a bright as you were at that age, but he still wants to be a functional member of society ?
Then he read the terms on the brochure. I'm not saying he has to read the legal jargon. As D said, many major banks call out the fees in a table.
I agree that people should be responsible for understanding the minimum balance requirements on their bank accounts, and also the service charges that can apply--and if you don't, it's your fault--but IMO there's no justification for maintenance fees on low account balances in the first place--it costs a bank essentially nothing to keep an account open. And I agree that charging an overdraft fee on an account that's only overdraft because of a maintenance fee is abominable.
It was especially bad in this case because it wasn't just a monthly overdraft fee, or a one-time charge, but a daily fee. There's no excuse for that.
This is pretty shocking.
Sure, they should have read the terms, they're lazy idiots, etc....
But the bank should not have been allowed to screw them over quite this much.
Quote from: dps on December 13, 2011, 07:06:03 PM
I agree that people should be responsible for understanding the minimum balance requirements on their bank accounts, and also the service charges that can apply--and if you don't, it's your fault--but IMO there's no justification for maintenance fees on low account balances in the first place--it costs a bank essentially nothing to keep an account open. And I agree that charging an overdraft fee on an account that's only overdraft because of a maintenance fee is abominable.
It was especially bad in this case because it wasn't just a monthly overdraft fee, or a one-time charge, but a daily fee. There's no excuse for that.
I agree - the issue is not that the guy did not understand the fees, but that the fees have no legitimate function.
In the legal jargon, in this jurisdiction they are unenforcable penalties, not "genuine liquidated damages" (which is just a fancy way of saying they are a fine to punish people who have overdrafts and provide profits to the bank, not a realistic pre-estimate of what the breach of the agreement - by having an overdraft - actually costs the bank).
Quote from: dps on December 13, 2011, 07:06:03 PM
but IMO there's no justification for maintenance fees on low account balances in the first place--it costs a bank essentially nothing to keep an account open.
How do you figure that? Who's supposed to pay for the branches and the branch staff? The ATM machines? The monthly statements? The deposit insurance?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2011, 07:16:53 PM
Quote from: dps on December 13, 2011, 07:06:03 PM
but IMO there's no justification for maintenance fees on low account balances in the first place--it costs a bank essentially nothing to keep an account open.
How do you figure that? Who's supposed to pay for the branches and the branch staff? The ATM machines? The monthly statements? The deposit insurance?
What? They opened up extra branches, hired extra staff, and installed some new ATM machines just to service this one guy's account?
Quote from: dps on December 13, 2011, 07:18:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2011, 07:16:53 PM
Quote from: dps on December 13, 2011, 07:06:03 PM
but IMO there's no justification for maintenance fees on low account balances in the first place--it costs a bank essentially nothing to keep an account open.
How do you figure that? Who's supposed to pay for the branches and the branch staff? The ATM machines? The monthly statements? The deposit insurance?
What? They opened up extra branches, hired extra staff, and installed some new ATM machines just to service this one guy's account?
I agree, the issue would be whether the fee or charge was a reasonable pre-estimate of the actual cost to the bank created by this fellow's account activity.
I'm guessing that the actual proportion of maintenance costs attributable to this guy's account activity would be some minute fraction of a cent.
Quote from: Malthus on December 13, 2011, 07:21:08 PM
I agree, the issue would be whether the fee or charge was a reasonable pre-estimate of the actual cost to the bank created by this fellow's account activity.
I'm guessing that the actual proportion of maintenance costs attributable to this guy's account activity would be some minute fraction of a cent.
:yeahright:
You think the wages they paid the teller for the time he/she was processing his new account come to a fraction of a cent?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2011, 07:24:24 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 13, 2011, 07:21:08 PM
I agree, the issue would be whether the fee or charge was a reasonable pre-estimate of the actual cost to the bank created by this fellow's account activity.
I'm guessing that the actual proportion of maintenance costs attributable to this guy's account activity would be some minute fraction of a cent.
:yeahright:
You think the wages they paid the teller for the time he/she was processing his new account come to a fraction of a cent?
Are you saying that fees and penalties totalling $229 can be attributed to the actual cost to the bank of the teller's time in processing a form? :hmm:
Damn, that's one expensive teller.
Quote from: Malthus on December 13, 2011, 07:34:02 PM
Are you saying that fees and penalties totalling $229 can be attributed to the actual cost to the bank of the teller's time in processing a form? :hmm:
Damn, that's one expensive teller.
Are you saying that the only two possible answers are a fraction of a cent and $229?
Quote from: dps on December 13, 2011, 07:18:46 PM
What? They opened up extra branches, hired extra staff, and installed some new ATM machines just to service this one guy's account?
I was operating under the assumption that there might be more than one person in the world who would maintain a low balance account in the absence of minimum balance requirements.
Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2011, 05:50:52 PM
He wasn't a small child - he was 18! If he can't be bothered to pay attention to the materials he received when opening the account...!
18 is the new 12.
Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2011, 12:31:00 PM
I'm not sure the takeaway should be that banks are evil but rather you have to pay attention to the terms you sign up for. You can't just ignore bank accounts.
No, the takeaway is that banks are evil, and there's nothing anybody can do about it. Except blowing them up.
Quote from: mongers on December 13, 2011, 04:13:33 PM
Kind of a weird society were the base assumption is you have to be prepared for everyone and every institution will try and rip you off.
Wouldn't a better life lesson for the teenager be, if you act responsibly, try and save money, the society will reward you with the ability to make financial gains and help in your transition to a productive adult member of society ?
It might be easier if these particular banks were subject to regulations, banning this sort of 'daylight robbery' and in return they're allowed to make profits from their customers in more 'legitimate' or socially useful ways ?
Stop smoking so much fucking dope.
Melinda Ganziano's PR firm did an admirable job.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 13, 2011, 05:18:07 PM
Cunt Mom would take a loan with Western Sky and then complain about the interest.
http://www.westernsky.com/TermsOfUse.aspx
LOL They even say in their commercials it's pretty fucking expensive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=183C9NM4XMg&feature=related
And good for them, too.
Quote from: DGuller on December 13, 2011, 05:29:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 13, 2011, 05:15:10 PM
In Canada at least, there exists a criminal rate of interest - that is, interest on a loan cannot total more than a certain percentage.
Short-term "payday" loan outfits got hammered by the courts in class actions for using fees and charges to effectively raise the loan rate higher than this "criminal' rate.
I dunno why the same analysis cannot apply to overdraft fees. The bank is essentially loaning you the money. Why should it be able to charge you more than the principal per day, and call it a "charge" rather than "interest"?
Yeah, I thought about usury laws as well, but ultimately that's not really the wrong being done. The wrong being done is to lay out a trap for a client, and hope he falls in it.
I'm really dismayed that majority of posters don't have an issue with that. Just because it takes carelessness to fall into a trap doesn't mean that it's fine for the trap to exist, or that it's even legal. Good faith in conducting business means something.
I have an issue with that, but you have to remember here you're dealing with a shit ton of pull-yerself-up-by-yer-bootstraps snot-nosed white and half-Korean Clarence Thomases.
ITS NOT OUR FAULT WERE EXPLOITING YOU ITS YOUR FAULT FOR LETTING US LOLOLOLOLOLOL HOHOHOHOHOHO GOPGOPGOPGOPGOP
That one had to take you more than 30 seconds.
Riddle me this then, Clarence: banks have minimum balance fees, designed to punitively pile on charges on the poor sucker that can't maintain the minimum balance...but what's the maximum balance fees? Where do they hit people without economic handicaps?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 13, 2011, 08:26:04 PM
Riddle me this then, Clarence: banks have minimum balance fees, designed to punitively pile on charges on the poor sucker that can't maintain the minimum balance...but what's the maximum balance fees? Where do they hit people without economic handicaps?
The maximum balance fees are the interest they earn by loaning out the money on deposit. They hit people without economic handicaps (as well as those with) through deposit-lending spreads.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 13, 2011, 08:26:04 PM
Riddle me this then, Clarence: banks have minimum balance fees, designed to punitively pile on charges on the poor sucker that can't maintain the minimum balance...but what's the maximum balance fees? Where do they hit people without economic handicaps?
The maximum balance fee, or more precisely the positive balance fee, is the ass-rapery of an interest rate you get when holding money in a bank.
I'm guessing that next we'll get something from Seedy about Jewy McShylock.
Quote from: DGuller on December 13, 2011, 08:28:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 13, 2011, 08:26:04 PM
Riddle me this then, Clarence: banks have minimum balance fees, designed to punitively pile on charges on the poor sucker that can't maintain the minimum balance...but what's the maximum balance fees? Where do they hit people without economic handicaps?
The maximum balance fee, or more precisely the positive balance fee, is the ass-rapery of an interest rate you get when holding money in a bank.
Yes. How punitive.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2011, 07:50:04 PM
Quote from: dps on December 13, 2011, 07:18:46 PM
What? They opened up extra branches, hired extra staff, and installed some new ATM machines just to service this one guy's account?
I was operating under the assumption that there might be more than one person in the world who would maintain a low balance account in the absence of minimum balance requirements.
Sure, and it costs the bank essentially NOTHING to maintain those accounts.
QuoteYou think the wages they paid the teller for the time he/she was processing his new account come to a fraction of a cent?
Well, it was probably an account manager rather than a teller. If it was a teller, given the wages that tellers are normally paid, and the amount of time it generally takes to open an account, the wages involved probably came to about 3-5 bucks. I dont know what account managers make, but I suspect that it's not a whole lot more than tellers. Call it double, so 6-12 bucks. And those wages would have been paid whether or not anyone opened an account at the time, and wouldn't change if the person opening the account kept $1 in it, or $1 million.
Quote from: Valmy on December 13, 2011, 12:41:38 PMThere is something pretty messed up about charging a fee on low balances that is basically designed to overdraw them.
Thread winner.
Quote from: fahdiz on December 13, 2011, 05:32:43 PM
Quote from: BVN on December 13, 2011, 05:02:42 PM
I even get phonecalls from my bank to warn me if an account is running low.
That is a cool service.
Indeed. But I'm not really happy with the way they handle it. The phonecall is just a computerized voice screaming: GIVE US MORE MONEY, CHEAPO!
Wow, British banks are good at something after all. Most current accounts come with a free overdraft up to a certain amount (usually about £400) and you can arrange favourable terms if you contact them when you know you're going to go over. This plus juggling interest-free credit cards = free money win. I think they hope people will get overexcited and bust these generous limits, which obviously happens a lot otherwise I wouldn't be tripping over bankers lying in the gutter drunk on magnums of champagne after their bonuses roll in.
Quote from: BVN on December 14, 2011, 04:16:22 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 13, 2011, 05:32:43 PM
Quote from: BVN on December 13, 2011, 05:02:42 PM
I even get phonecalls from my bank to warn me if an account is running low.
That is a cool service.
Indeed. But I'm not really happy with the way they handle it. The phonecall is just a computerized voice screaming: GIVE US MORE MONEY, CHEAPO!
Used to be common, thirty years ago or so, that if you were about to go overdraft, someone at the bank (a person, generally someone who actually knew you personally, not a computer), would call you and say something along the lines of, "Hey, this check is going to overdraft your account. We can hold it for a couple of days--can you come in and make a deposit so we don't have to return it and charge you an overdraft fee?", especially if you had had a fairly long-term relationship with the bank. But that's largely gone out as local banks have gotten bought up by chains and transactions have gotten more automated.
You're lucky to still be doing business with a bank that extends that courtesy, even if it's in the form of an annoying pre-recorded message.
Quote from: Stonewall on December 13, 2011, 10:18:51 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 13, 2011, 12:41:38 PMThere is something pretty messed up about charging a fee on low balances that is basically designed to overdraw them.
Thread winner.
How dare you question capitalism. You should be questioning people who can't maintain minimum balances; anything else is simple secular-socialism.
Quote from: dps on December 13, 2011, 08:59:46 PM
Sure, and it costs the bank essentially NOTHING to maintain those accounts.
It does indeed cost the bank essentially nothing in variable costs to service those accounts. Or in fact any kind of deposit account. But the bank has to find some way to cover its fixed costs too.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2011, 07:52:55 AM
Quote from: dps on December 13, 2011, 08:59:46 PM
Sure, and it costs the bank essentially NOTHING to maintain those accounts.
It does indeed cost the bank essentially nothing in variable costs to service those accounts. Or in fact any kind of deposit account. But the bank has to find some way to cover its fixed costs too.
Yeah, charging interest on loans.
But you americans complain the mouth full, just open an account in a fee-less coop.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 14, 2011, 07:58:43 AM
Yeah, charging interest on loans.
Or charging fees.
QuoteBut you americans complain the mouth full, just open an account in a fee-less coop.
I agree 100%. You're supposed to bitch about government services and other monopolies, because you have no choice but to use that provider or forego the service. There are thousands and thousands of banks and credit unions you can take your business to if you think one is ripping you off.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2011, 08:04:35 AM
I agree 100%. You're supposed to bitch about government services and other monopolies, because you have no choice but to use that provider or forego the service. There are thousands and thousands of banks and credit unions you can take your business to if you think one is ripping you off.
Sure; except for one tiny little detail: what this bank did is the rule, not the exception. Bank of America does it, TD Bank does it (though their overdraft is a wee bit more forgiving- it allows several days to get out of the hole before hitting you again); I have yet to find a bank that doesn't snowball fees in this manner.
Hell, I had this happen to me when a check from my grandmother bounced while I was unemployed and doing work for her- I had to close a bank account because, within a week, it snowballed to ~$400 over, just from fees.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 14, 2011, 09:00:36 AM
Sure; except for one tiny little detail: what this bank did is the rule, not the exception. Bank of America does it, TD Bank does it (though their overdraft is a wee bit more forgiving- it allows several days to get out of the hole before hitting you again); I have yet to find a bank that doesn't snowball fees in this manner.
Hell, I had this happen to me when a check from my grandmother bounced while I was unemployed and doing work for her- I had to close a bank account because, within a week, it snowballed to ~$400 over, just from fees.
If it's the rule, perhaps the lesson is that this is the cost to the bank of providing that service.
If I go to supermarket after supermarket after supermarket in the belief that they're ripping me off by charging more than 10 cents for a loaf of bread, maybe after I've looked for a while I should conclude that the fair price of that loaf is in fact more than 10 cents.
Or maybe it could be that banks don't generally compete on gotcha fees, because they're hidden by design.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2011, 07:36:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 13, 2011, 07:34:02 PM
Are you saying that fees and penalties totalling $229 can be attributed to the actual cost to the bank of the teller's time in processing a form? :hmm:
Damn, that's one expensive teller.
Are you saying that the only two possible answers are a fraction of a cent and $229?
No, I'm saying that the 'we need that money for the cost of servicing your account' explaination has to be wrong in this specific case, because whatever that cost was, there os no way in the world it could possibly amount to the $229 charged in this particular case.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2011, 09:06:22 AM
If it's the rule, perhaps the lesson is that this is the cost to the bank of providing that service.
If I go to supermarket after supermarket after supermarket in the belief that they're ripping me off by charging more than 10 cents for a loaf of bread, maybe after I've looked for a while I should conclude that the fair price of that loaf is in fact more than 10 cents.
If a customer had an unlimited source of cash, I'd agree with you- my problem isn't with the fact that they do this, it's the fact that it's designed to hit the very people who can't afford it.
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2011, 09:33:19 AM
Or maybe it could be that banks don't generally compete on gotcha fees, because they're hidden by design.
Your reasoning seems a little circular. If the DGuller Bank hides monthly fees by design to trap customers, the Yi Bank should be able to lure customers away by doing not hiding monthly fees designed to trap customers and announcing the fact. There's nothing about your hidden fees that forces me to follow suit.
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2011, 09:50:33 AM
No, I'm saying that the 'we need that money for the cost of servicing your account' explaination has to be wrong in this specific case, because whatever that cost was, there os no way in the world it could possibly amount to the $229 charged in this particular case.
Which I didn't respond to. I responded to your post about servicing costs being a fraction of a cent.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2011, 08:04:35 AM
I agree 100%. You're supposed to bitch about government services and other monopolies, because you have no choice but to use that provider or forego the service. There are thousands and thousands of banks and credit unions you can take your business to if you think one is ripping you off.
Indeed. That is what I do. I do not trust banks or Credit Unions at all. I make it very clear exactly how I want things to go and if they give me any crap about it I leave.
But um why can I not complain about banks that have shitty service? You seem to be working awfully hard to justify and protect shitty business practices.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 14, 2011, 09:51:41 AM
If a customer had an unlimited source of cash, I'd agree with you- my problem isn't with the fact that they do this, it's the fact that it's designed to hit the very people who can't afford it.
Not sure what your point is.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2011, 09:56:03 AM
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2011, 09:50:33 AM
No, I'm saying that the 'we need that money for the cost of servicing your account' explaination has to be wrong in this specific case, because whatever that cost was, there os no way in the world it could possibly amount to the $229 charged in this particular case.
Which I didn't respond to. I responded to your post about servicing costs being a fraction of a cent.
So you agree that these fees are not linked to a legitmate business expense? If so, seems your whole line of argument is a red herring, is it not?
Who cares how much it actually costs to service an account - if the fees are not proportinate to that cost in some manner? A fraction of a cent, or a few bucks, makes no difference because it isn't a factor.
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2011, 10:01:37 AM
So you agree that these fees are not linked to a legitmate business expense? If so, seems your whole line of argument is a red herring, is it not?
Who cares how much it actually costs to service an account - if the fees are not proportinate to that cost in some manner? A fraction of a cent, or a few bucks, makes no difference because it isn't a factor.
I have throughout been arguing in defense of minimum balance requirements and monthly fees for low balance accounts.
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2011, 09:56:18 AM
But um why can I not complain about banks that have shitty service?
Depends what the point of the complaining is.
QuoteYou seem to be working awfully hard to justify and protect shitty business practices.
Not at all.
Dunno why you dudes are bothering. Yi does not care about exploitative practices so long as they meet the very minimal standard of involving obligations freely entered into. E.g., it's okay to cheat people if they failed to read, or failed to understand, binding contract provisions.
Now, an absolutist stance on the freedom of contract is a nice, simple idea, but let's be clear: as an independent datum, this does nothing to bolster one's faith in contract absolutism if one has not yet joined the ranks of the converted. Quasi-involuntary transfers from poor people to banking institutions that reduce the amount of consumer goods and services poor people can by, sometimes sharply, thus doing their part to reduce demand for jobs that provide such goods and services is not likely to inspire many plaudits outside of people who think any freely-negotiated contract, regardless of actual bargaining power imbalance, advances civilization.
I suppose one might argue that the bank takes the money and does equally useful things with it, but I think we all know by now that this relies just as much on blind faith as a belief in the fundamental goodness of a binding contract.
Quote from: dps on December 13, 2011, 08:59:46 PM
Sure, and it costs the bank essentially NOTHING to maintain those accounts.
What is the basis of your assertion here?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2011, 10:56:19 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2011, 09:56:18 AM
But um why can I not complain about banks that have shitty service?
Depends what the point of the complaining is.
QuoteYou seem to be working awfully hard to justify and protect shitty business practices.
Not at all.
But you told me everybody else was cool with these sorts of shitty fees and horrible service and all I had to do was check my account all the time. That if I have to pay hundreds in overdraft fees it is entirely my fault for my own crappy inability to spend all my time checking contracts and balances.
Must have been a different Yi. Do you have an evil twin?
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2011, 11:07:51 AM
Dunno why you dudes are bothering. Yi does not care about exploitative practices so long as they meet the very minimal standard of involving obligations freely entered into. E.g., it's okay to cheat people if they failed to read, or failed to understand, binding contract provisions.
Now, an absolutist stance on the freedom of contract is a nice, simple idea, but let's be clear: as an independent datum, this does nothing to bolster one's faith in contract absolutism if one has not yet joined the ranks of the converted. Quasi-involuntary transfers from poor people to banking institutions that reduce the amount of consumer goods and services poor people can by, sometimes sharply, thus doing their part to reduce demand for jobs that provide such goods and services is not likely to inspire many plaudits outside of people who think any freely-negotiated contract, regardless of actual bargaining power imbalance, advances civilization.
I suppose one might argue that the bank takes the money and does equally useful things with it, but I think we all know by now that this relies just as much on blind faith as a belief in the fundamental goodness of a binding contract.
Does the US have the common law notion that penalty clauses in contracts (as opposed to liquidated damages clauses) are not enforcable?
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2011, 11:19:21 AM
But you told me everybody else was cool with these sorts of shitty fees and horrible service and all I had to do was check my account all the time. That if I have to pay hundreds in overdraft fees it is entirely my fault for my own crappy inability to spend all my time checking contracts and balances.
Must have been a different Yi. Do you have an evil twin?
I don't think a monthly fee on an account that drops below a minimum balance requirement is a shitty fee or horrible service. I don't think a minimum balance requirement is shitty service. I know exactly one person that doesn't bother balancing her check book (my mom) and she gets my dad to do it for her. I confess I haven't surveyed a wide range of people to see if they bother balancing their check book, I just assumed everyone did. Maybe in fact it is an incredibly onerous task that many or most people shirk, and these people are constantly paying overdraft fees.
I don't feel I can assess how reasonable any given overdraft fee is. But it does make sense that if you're the kind of person who has no idea what their account balance is at any given time to look for a bank or credit union which does not charge a daily overdraft fee. Or to purchase overdraft protection if that's an option.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2011, 11:07:51 AM
Dunno why you dudes are bothering. Yi does not care about exploitative practices so long as they meet the very minimal standard of involving obligations freely entered into. E.g., it's okay to cheat people if they failed to read, or failed to understand, binding contract provisions.
Now, an absolutist stance on the freedom of contract is a nice, simple idea, but let's be clear: as an independent datum, this does nothing to bolster one's faith in contract absolutism if one has not yet joined the ranks of the converted. Quasi-involuntary transfers from poor people to banking institutions that reduce the amount of consumer goods and services poor people can by, sometimes sharply, thus doing their part to reduce demand for jobs that provide such goods and services is not likely to inspire many plaudits outside of people who think any freely-negotiated contract, regardless of actual bargaining power imbalance, advances civilization.
I suppose one might argue that the bank takes the money and does equally useful things with it, but I think we all know by now that this relies just as much on blind faith as a belief in the fundamental goodness of a binding contract.
I have a conception of fraud which is independent of income.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2011, 11:40:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2011, 11:19:21 AM
But you told me everybody else was cool with these sorts of shitty fees and horrible service and all I had to do was check my account all the time. That if I have to pay hundreds in overdraft fees it is entirely my fault for my own crappy inability to spend all my time checking contracts and balances.
Must have been a different Yi. Do you have an evil twin?
I don't think a monthly fee on an account that drops below a minimum balance requirement is a shitty fee or horrible service. I don't think a minimum balance requirement is shitty service. I know exactly one person that doesn't bother balancing her check book (my mom) and she gets my dad to do it for her. I confess I haven't surveyed a wide range of people to see if they bother balancing their check book, I just assumed everyone did. Maybe in fact it is an incredibly onerous task that many or most people shirk, and these people are constantly paying overdraft fees.
I don't feel I can assess how reasonable any given overdraft fee is. But it does make sense that if you're the kind of person who has no idea what their account balance is at any given time to look for a bank or credit union which does not charge a daily overdraft fee. Or to purchase overdraft protection if that's an option.
I try to avoid checkbooks when possible. I haven't balanced a checkbook in years.
Does anyone write checks anymore? I can check my bank account on the net, I don't need to actually do the balancing. I remember learning how to write checks and balance checkbooks when I was in grade school. Who knew it would turn into such a useless skill.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2011, 12:47:32 PM
Does anyone write checks anymore? I can check my bank account on the net, I don't need to actually do the balancing. I remember learning how to write checks and balance checkbooks when I was in grade school. Who knew it would turn into such a useless skill.
I do for my rent. That's about it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2011, 07:52:55 AM
Quote from: dps on December 13, 2011, 08:59:46 PM
Sure, and it costs the bank essentially NOTHING to maintain those accounts.
It does indeed cost the bank essentially nothing in variable costs to service those accounts. Or in fact any kind of deposit account. But the bank has to find some way to cover its fixed costs too.
Isn't that what a maintenance fee is supposed to cover?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2011, 12:47:32 PM
Does anyone write checks anymore? I can check my bank account on the net, I don't need to actually do the balancing. I remember learning how to write checks and balance checkbooks when I was in grade school. Who knew it would turn into such a useless skill.
My kids' school/day care only accepts checks. Very annoying to have to remember to write one every Monday morning before I take them. They don't accept credit/debit card & don't do any kind of automatically deducted (ACH) payment right from your checking account.
I got excited when I saw a card swipe machine with buttons at the front door a couple weeks ago, but found out it's only for the cards used by the state of Ohio for subsidized day care assistance or whatever. Which surprised me that anyone uses that; no parents I see there ever look poor & almost all seem to drive nicer cars than I do.
Checks. :lol:
Sometimes I forget how weirdly backward you people are.
Quote from: Iormlund on December 14, 2011, 01:41:05 PM
Checks. :lol:
Sometimes I forget how weirdly backward you people are.
Good, another "cheque" snob. :rolleyes:
I don't really care how you choose to spell it, it's the method of payment that amuses me.
Quote from: Iormlund on December 14, 2011, 01:34:21 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2011, 07:52:55 AM
Quote from: dps on December 13, 2011, 08:59:46 PM
Sure, and it costs the bank essentially NOTHING to maintain those accounts.
It does indeed cost the bank essentially nothing in variable costs to service those accounts. Or in fact any kind of deposit account. But the bank has to find some way to cover its fixed costs too.
Yup.
Isn't that what a maintenance fee is supposed to cover?
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2011, 11:27:32 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2011, 11:07:51 AM
Dunno why you dudes are bothering. Yi does not care about exploitative practices so long as they meet the very minimal standard of involving obligations freely entered into. E.g., it's okay to cheat people if they failed to read, or failed to understand, binding contract provisions.
Now, an absolutist stance on the freedom of contract is a nice, simple idea, but let's be clear: as an independent datum, this does nothing to bolster one's faith in contract absolutism if one has not yet joined the ranks of the converted. Quasi-involuntary transfers from poor people to banking institutions that reduce the amount of consumer goods and services poor people can by, sometimes sharply, thus doing their part to reduce demand for jobs that provide such goods and services is not likely to inspire many plaudits outside of people who think any freely-negotiated contract, regardless of actual bargaining power imbalance, advances civilization.
I suppose one might argue that the bank takes the money and does equally useful things with it, but I think we all know by now that this relies just as much on blind faith as a belief in the fundamental goodness of a binding contract.
Does the US have the common law notion that penalty clauses in contracts (as opposed to liquidated damages clauses) are not enforcable?
Yes, actually.
I'm going to assume, given their prevalence, that either they do not apply to bank overdraft fees, or fees leading to an overdraft (which is my bigger concern), either by statutory modification of the common law rule or because they have been held not to be penalty clauses. Interesting take on it, though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2011, 12:26:12 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2011, 11:07:51 AM
Dunno why you dudes are bothering. Yi does not care about exploitative practices so long as they meet the very minimal standard of involving obligations freely entered into. E.g., it's okay to cheat people if they failed to read, or failed to understand, binding contract provisions.
Now, an absolutist stance on the freedom of contract is a nice, simple idea, but let's be clear: as an independent datum, this does nothing to bolster one's faith in contract absolutism if one has not yet joined the ranks of the converted. Quasi-involuntary transfers from poor people to banking institutions that reduce the amount of consumer goods and services poor people can by, sometimes sharply, thus doing their part to reduce demand for jobs that provide such goods and services is not likely to inspire many plaudits outside of people who think any freely-negotiated contract, regardless of actual bargaining power imbalance, advances civilization.
I suppose one might argue that the bank takes the money and does equally useful things with it, but I think we all know by now that this relies just as much on blind faith as a belief in the fundamental goodness of a binding contract.
I have a conception of fraud which is independent of income.
I don't see where fraud comes into it. I'm not accusing banks of fraudulent practices, or anything unlawful. (At least, not today. -_- )
I'm accusing them of predatory and exploitative practices. Morally wrong and socially and economically damaging. But not illegal--that's actually my whole point, that such practices should be illegal, but are not. :mellow:
You accused them of cheating.
In a manner of speaking. I didn't accuse them of being dishonest. I accused them of playing an unequal game. At the least, leveraging the expectations of low-balance accountholders that they can maintain either a minimum balance, or at least will not become so in arrears that fees can overdraft them. Or by renegotiating the terms of an account after the account has been open and used for years and it requires an onerous number of actions for the accountholder to disentangle themselves from that bank.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2011, 03:16:18 PM
Or by renegotiating the terms of an account after the account has been open and used for years and it requires an onerous number of actions for the accountholder to disentangle themselves from that bank.
:huh: Banks are required to send change in terms notices to account-holders at least 21 days in advance of the change, which should give the account-holder adequate time to opt-out & close the account.
But I guess in today's fast-paced world, nobody should be expected to read anything.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2011, 07:52:55 AM
Quote from: dps on December 13, 2011, 08:59:46 PM
Sure, and it costs the bank essentially NOTHING to maintain those accounts.
It does indeed cost the bank essentially nothing in variable costs to service those accounts. Or in fact any kind of deposit account.But the bank has to find some way to cover its fixed costs too.
Earlier in this thread, minimum balance requirements and substantial service fees were justified as a means to protect banks from the (unspecified) risks associated with having customers who keep low account balances by detering people from keeping low account balances. Now you're justifying them as a means of covering the banks' fixed costs. These 2 justifications seem mutually exclusive--if the requirements deter people from keeping low balances, then they aren't going to provide any income, but if they are actually providing the banks with income, they aren't being effective in detering people from keeping low balance accounts.
And if a bank has smart customers who don't let their accounts go under the minimum and thereby avoid the fees, by your argument, the bank wouldn't be able to cover its fixed expenses. This is belied by the fact that some banks don't require minimum balances nor charge high fees, yet they are able to remain in business.
Quote from: derspiessQuote from: dpsSure, and it costs the bank essentially NOTHING to maintain those accounts.
What is the basis of your assertion here?
Common sense, and the fact that the people in this thread who defend the banks' practices haven't provided any argument otherwise. In facy, Yi, the strongest defender of minimum balance requirements and high service fees, agrees my assertion.
Quote from: dps on December 14, 2011, 07:37:04 PM
Earlier in this thread, minimum balance requirements and substantial service fees were justified as a means to protect banks from the (unspecified) risks associated with having customers who keep low account balances by detering people from keeping low account balances. Now you're justifying them as a means of covering the banks' fixed costs. These 2 justifications seem mutually exclusive--if the requirements deter people from keeping low balances, then they aren't going to provide any income, but if they are actually providing the banks with income, they aren't being effective in detering people from keeping low balance accounts.
What do you mean by substantial service fees? Overdraft charges or monthly account fees?
QuoteAnd if a bank has smart customers who don't let their accounts go under the minimum and thereby avoid the fees, by your argument, the bank wouldn't be able to cover its fixed expenses. This is belied by the fact that some banks don't require minimum balances nor charge high fees, yet they are able to remain in business.
Well, no. As has been mentioned several times already, the bank generates revenue also by lending out deposits. At some point accounts become large enough so that the interest revenue can cover the fixed and variable expenses. Below that break even point either the bank can charge a fee or it can lose money.
The fact that some banks don't have minimum balance requirements doesn't belie that, just as the fact that some airlines don't charge for checked bags means it costs them nothing to handle and haul your bag.
QuoteCommon sense, and the fact that the people in this thread who defend the banks' practices haven't provided any argument otherwise. In facy, Yi, the strongest defender of minimum balance requirements and high service fees, agrees my assertion.
Well, no. Not as long as banks have fixed costs.
And when did I ever defend high service fees? Is anything above zero now a high service fee? And zero is a reasonable fee?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2011, 07:48:07 PM
What do you mean by substantial service fees? Overdraft charges or monthly account fees?
In this particular case, more the
daily overdraft charges, and the fact that the overdraft was only created by a service fee for a low account balance in the first place. I don't have a problem with a one-off overdraft charge when someone actually overdraws their account.
QuoteQuoteCommon sense, and the fact that the people in this thread who defend the banks' practices haven't provided any argument otherwise. In facy, Yi, the strongest defender of minimum balance requirements and high service fees, agrees my assertion.
Well, no. Not as long as banks have fixed costs.
If you don't agree, why did you post this:
QuoteIt does indeed cost the bank essentially nothing in variable costs to service those accounts. Or in fact any kind of deposit account.But the bank has to find some way to cover its fixed costs too.
Quote from: dps on December 14, 2011, 07:37:04 PM
Common sense, and the fact that the people in this thread who defend the banks' practices haven't provided any argument otherwise. In facy, Yi, the strongest defender of minimum balance requirements and high service fees, agrees my assertion.
Common sense? So you're just making assumptions. I see at least some of the costs banks bear-- my company bills some items on an account residency basis, in addition to the 'fixed' costs which actually tend to increase as a bank grows their customer base.
Here's an estimate on the cost of opening & maintaining a checking account. The savings account cost is going to be less, but a lot of the factors listed for checking accounts will also apply.
http://www.aba.com/aba/documents/press/CostofCheckingAccountsJune2010.pdf
FWIW, I actually agree with those who say the branch manager (or whomever made the decision) should have just eaten the fees and try to keep the kid's business. I just don't think the bank deserves the majority of the blame for the situation.
Quote from: derspiess on December 14, 2011, 11:24:38 PM
Quote from: dps on December 14, 2011, 07:37:04 PM
Common sense, and the fact that the people in this thread who defend the banks' practices haven't provided any argument otherwise. In facy, Yi, the strongest defender of minimum balance requirements and high service fees, agrees my assertion.
Common sense? So you're just making assumptions. I see at least some of the costs banks bear-- my company bills some items on an account residency basis, in addition to the 'fixed' costs which actually tend to increase as a bank grows their customer base.
Here's an estimate on the cost of opening & maintaining a checking account. The savings account cost is going to be less, but a lot of the factors listed for checking accounts will also apply.
http://www.aba.com/aba/documents/press/CostofCheckingAccountsJune2010.pdf
FWIW, I actually agree with those who say the branch manager (or whomever made the decision) should have just eaten the fees and try to keep the kid's business. I just don't think the bank deserves the majority of the blame for the situation.
I don't buy those figures, if just 100 million Americans have an average of 2 accounts each that would mean according to them, based on their lowest figure, it would cost the banking industry at least $50 billion annually in basic account maintance cost. :hmm:
Quote from: dps on December 14, 2011, 08:51:02 PM
In this particular case, more the daily overdraft charges, and the fact that the overdraft was only created by a service fee for a low account balance in the first place. I don't have a problem with a one-off overdraft charge when someone actually overdraws their account.
I never argued for overdraft fees as a means of covering fixed costs.
QuoteQuoteQuoteCommon sense, and the fact that the people in this thread who defend the banks' practices haven't provided any argument otherwise. In facy, Yi, the strongest defender of minimum balance requirements and high service fees, agrees my assertion.
Well, no. Not as long as banks have fixed costs.
If you don't agree, why did you post this:
QuoteIt does indeed cost the bank essentially nothing in variable costs to service those accounts. Or in fact any kind of deposit account.But the bank has to find some way to cover its fixed costs too.
I don't see the inconsistency. Both of those posts of mine talk about overlooked fixed costs.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2011, 11:40:26 AM
I don't think a monthly fee on an account that drops below a minimum balance requirement is a shitty fee or horrible service. I don't think a minimum balance requirement is shitty service. I know exactly one person that doesn't bother balancing her check book (my mom) and she gets my dad to do it for her. I confess I haven't surveyed a wide range of people to see if they bother balancing their check book, I just assumed everyone did. Maybe in fact it is an incredibly onerous task that many or most people shirk, and these people are constantly paying overdraft fees.
I don't feel I can assess how reasonable any given overdraft fee is. But it does make sense that if you're the kind of person who has no idea what their account balance is at any given time to look for a bank or credit union which does not charge a daily overdraft fee. Or to purchase overdraft protection if that's an option.
Having to spend all my time working very hard to make sure I do not get fucked over doesn't sound like great service to me. But maybe that is how it is to do business in Yi world: screw the customer over unless they watch me like a hawk. And in what universe is every charge on your account a fucking check? Yes if it was just a matter of me writing checks I would understand your: 'but it is fair and fantastic service for banks to fuck you over' message. But e-debits could hit my account at any time. Especially since banks think it is awesome to take days to process a deposited check (fortunately not an electonically deposited one) but debit your account immediately for a debit. I check my balance often enough but I get paid once a month Yi. Sometimes something may sneak through right before the month ends. I am not crazy about the idea of having my budget busted because some asshole just decided to process the charge and not deny it. LIKE I EXPLICITELY TELL THEM TO DO. I mean how hard is it to remember to not debit an account that has insufficient funds? Pretty hard it seems. Funny how forgetting to do that always benefited the bank.
And purchasing overdraft protection? LOL. I am not a sucker.
Actually I am feeling pretty good about my credit union right now. I deposited a $200.00 check late last month and stopped to make a purchase a few days later and they hadn't, you know, actually credited my account yet and instead of just taking the charge and charging me fucking overdraft fees...THEY REJECTED THE CHARGE. Hallelujah. Keep that up and I will stay your customer UFCU. You would think that would be standard. Like how if an account has a low balance I would expect it to be standard to just close the account and take the money and not start charging people hundreds of dollars, but I am not familiar with the Yi values of customer service.
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 09:13:04 AM
Having to spend all my time working very hard to make sure I do not get fucked over doesn't sound like great service to me.
I don't think balancing a check book is me spending all my time working very hard to make sure I don't get fucked over, but if you do then maybe we should just disagree. It's getting repetitive at this point.
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 09:13:04 AM
Having to spend all my time working very hard to make sure I do not get fucked over doesn't sound like great service to me. But maybe that is how it is to do business in Yi world: screw the customer over unless they watch me like a hawk. And in what universe is every charge on your account a fucking check? Yes if it was just a matter of me writing checks I would understand your: 'but it is fair and fantastic service for banks to fuck you over' message. But e-debits could hit my account at any time. Especially since banks think it is awesome to take days to process a deposited check (fortunately not an electonically deposited one) but debit your account immediately for a debit. I check my balance often enough but I get paid once a month Yi. Sometimes something may sneak through right before the month ends. I am not crazy about the idea of having my budget busted because some asshole just decided to process the charge and not deny it. LIKE I EXPLICITELY TELL THEM TO DO. I mean how hard is it to remember to not debit an account that has insufficient funds? Pretty hard it seems. Funny how forgetting to do that always benefited the bank.
The bank will debit your account when they get charged by the network for the transaction. That's only fair-- they cannot return card transactions the same way they can with an NSF check. They should not *authorize* purchases that would overdraw your account unless you have opted into an overdraft privilege or protection-type service.
But occasionally certain "force posted" transactions may come through and post to your account without having been recently pre-authorized by the bank (subscription-type services will do this sometimes-- DirecTV is the worst offender from what I've seen). Or you may have a charge that comes through and posts to your account a few days after the 2-3 day pre-authorization hold has expired (again the fault of the merchant). Plus the gas station purchase scenario I mentioned earlier.
QuoteAnd purchasing overdraft protection? LOL. I am not a sucker.
ODP fees/interest are usually a lot lower than flat-out overdraft fees.
QuoteActually I am feeling pretty good about my credit union right now. I deposited a $200.00 check late last month and stopped to make a purchase a few days later and they hadn't, you know, actually credited my account yet and instead of just taking the charge and charging me fucking overdraft fees...THEY REJECTED THE CHARGE. Hallelujah. Keep that up and I will stay your customer UFCU. You would think that would be standard. Like how if an account has a low balance I would expect it to be standard to just close the account and take the money and not start charging people hundreds of dollars, but I am not familiar with the Yi values of customer service.
Awesome-- just keep in mind that credit unions can't really do any more than banks to keep certain transactions from coming through.