Banks admit they clear largest checks/debits first

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: dullard
So YOU violate the law, in what is often a criminal offense. And then YOU complain about the order that the bank processes your illegal activities. I think you need to reconsider the priorities here. Be glad that the bank only gives you fees.

Clarification: Often there is a small dollar limit for where you can be arrested. If they processed the small checks first and then just bounced the large checks, you will most likely be bouncing checks that are big enough for you to be arrested and charged with criminal theft. Instead, they process the big ones first, so that you only bounce small checks that are not big enough to justify an arrest (but you could still be sued and lose).

As for the length of time for deposits, it is again federal law that dictates the amount of time they have. If you want to change it, petition your congressmen - that way it can be altered. Petitioning ATOT will accomplish nothing.

Just because You CAN be charged for crimes doesnt mean you WILL be.
Case in point, 2 weeks ago I was over 1000 in the hole. While I had a few charges, I wasnt charged with any crimes.

Ge....Guess that shoots your point all to hell doesnt it.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Just because You CAN be charged for crimes doesnt mean you WILL be.
Case in point, 2 weeks ago I was over 1000 in the hole. While I had a few charges, I wasnt charged with any crimes.

Ge....Guess that shoots your point all to hell doesnt it.

Not in the least. The amount varies by state. I had a relative that was arrested for a $400 bounced check in Nebraska (5 months after the check was written). She was pulled over for a traffic ticket and arrested on the spot due to the arrest warrant. In Nebraska, Class IV felony for a $300-$1000 bad check. Note it isn't a misdemeanor, but a felony. I see your profile shows that you are from NE too.

They don't just see you bounced a check and put on a sting to arrest you right away. Plus, the cops have to be reported. You might very easilly not be reported.

Gee that shoots your rebutted all too hell.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Just because You CAN be charged for crimes doesnt mean you WILL be.
Case in point, 2 weeks ago I was over 1000 in the hole. While I had a few charges, I wasnt charged with any crimes.

Ge....Guess that shoots your point all to hell doesnt it.

Not in the least. The amount varies by state. I had a relative that was arrested for a $400 bounced check in Nebraska (5 months after the check was written). She was pulled over for a traffic ticket and arrested on the spot due to the arrest warrant. They don't just see you bounced a check and put on a sting to arrest you right away. Plus, the cops have to be reported. You might very easilly not be reported.

Gee that shoots your rebutted all too hell.

did the check ever clear ?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
did the check ever clear ?

In her case, no. But that was many years ago before banks switched to the "cover your butt and instead charge fees" business model. Of course a bank can do you a favor and still clear the check and charge you tons of fees for the service. That will avoid the criminal or civil cases that you might face. However, that is my point. Be glad the bank is just charging you a fee and covering your butt.

 

[TravisT]

It is sad to see that so many people live paycheck to paycheck that htey have to worry about what check will go through first. I can't say I don't do it too, but in all reality, this shouldn't be of huge concern.

 

[AaronB]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: daniel1113
So? I'm pretty sure dealing with the bigger transactions first is a pretty common business practice, period. There's nothing to see here folks. Move along.

the p;oint is you can end up paying 175.00 in fees for what can only be 4.00 - 5.00 in transactions. The bank should deny electronic debits which will put you into the red and it knowingly does not. My credit union will not let me go into the red with debit card/atm withdrawals it simply denies the transaction just like a credit card would. These large banks knowingly allow you to spend more than you have just so they can rape you with charges.

On a slightly different subject, someone once posted about how to keep your bank from authorizing small charges after your balance reaches zero. Does anyone remember this?

It had something to do with the bank automatically authorizing anything below a very small amount, like $1 or $5 or something like that no matter how much was in your account. You had to call them and tell them to set this amount at zero for your account. I'm sure someone remembers that thread.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: AaronB

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: daniel1113
So? I'm pretty sure dealing with the bigger transactions first is a pretty common business practice, period. There's nothing to see here folks. Move along.

the p;oint is you can end up paying 175.00 in fees for what can only be 4.00 - 5.00 in transactions. The bank should deny electronic debits which will put you into the red and it knowingly does not. My credit union will not let me go into the red with debit card/atm withdrawals it simply denies the transaction just like a credit card would. These large banks knowingly allow you to spend more than you have just so they can rape you with charges.

On a slightly different subject, someone once posted about how to keep your bank from authorizing small charges after your balance reaches zero. Does anyone remember this?

It had something to do with the bank automatically authorizing anything below a very small amount, like $1 or $5 or something like that no matter how much was in your account. You had to call them and tell them to set this amount at zero for your account. I'm sure someone remembers that thread.

That still wont help in this case because they are authorizing debits but are not adjusting your balance. so they will let you charge thousands of dollars of debits when you only have 50 bucks in your account as long as each charge is 50 dollars or less. a good bank will adjust your balance after each debit(a "virtual" hold on funds) regardless of whether or not the merchant settled the transaction.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: MrMaster

Originally posted by: SpecialEd
Anytime I make a deposit (even if its cash), the banker tells me the deposit will post at midnight that night. Good management is all you need to avoid such fees.

It has nothing to do with good management. So your bank has next day funds availability. That has very little to do with this situation at hand where they are using discretionary practices to decide to pay the big checks causing you to have multple NSFs.

This is where they make most of their money, banks today are no better than the banks of the early 1900's. They make their money off of the poor. People that live paycheck to paycheck are the ones that get screwed by banks.

I had a check not clear because I transposed a number when balancing my account. The check was like $4 more than what I really had. The kicker is, I got charged for a $30 NFS TWICE. Washington Mutual says they (the vendor) can submit the check 2 times, so each time you get charged a fee by the bank. I believe it' sjust a way for the bank to make some extra money. I can raise a helluva stink when mad so I got the second one taken off after I called the bank manager a F***ing thief that steals from the poor all the while a lobby full of people listened in.
Then you get kicked in the nuts by the vendor for their $25-$30 returned check fee. So in essence, being off by a few bucks can cost you damn near $100, which for a struggling family can be the difference between eating normal food, or eating ramen noodles for a month.

Edit:Forgot to mention. I have my savings account set to cover my checking if it ever does get overdrafted. As explained by the rep on the phone and in the store front bank, it's Overdraft protection, the scam is ( at least at Washington Mutual) is you don't get charged the $30 overdraft fee, you get charged a $20 funds transfer fee. If that isn't some slimy sh!t right there I don't know what is.
With all the advertising they do and make it out to be this great thing, all it really is, is a smaller finger they shove up your @ss.

 

[d3n]

Policies at many banks are different. Everyone can shop around. In the day an age of the internet I do not even have a local bank. I couldn't find one that didnt have the mess of service charges that everyone is talking about.

I have two out of state banks though. One is great for loans and stuff, the other credits all foreign ATM fees back into my account (up to 15$ a month) and clears my mail deposits in 3 days for normal mail, next day for overnight deposit mailings, and can do the check by phone deposit for instant cash.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: CollectiveUnconscious
I'm saying, if I deposit my paycheck at 8am on a Thursday morning, then pay my bills, electronically, at 5pm Thursday evening, they will take money out of my account for bills before they clear my paycheck, even though they have had it for a full business day. I don't understand this practice.

Banks have a policy on when funds are available when deposited - if is before a certain time, it is usually available immediately. At most banks if you depot at 8am, it is available immediately and would cover any checks hitting that day. If it didn't, you can generally call the bank and have the fees dropped.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: SpecialEd
Anytime I make a deposit (even if its cash), the banker tells me the deposit will post at midnight that night. Good management is all you need to avoid such fees.

See my post above - your bank sucks

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Just because You CAN be charged for crimes doesnt mean you WILL be.
Case in point, 2 weeks ago I was over 1000 in the hole. While I had a few charges, I wasnt charged with any crimes.

Ge....Guess that shoots your point all to hell doesnt it.

Not in the least. The amount varies by state. I had a relative that was arrested for a $400 bounced check in Nebraska (5 months after the check was written). She was pulled over for a traffic ticket and arrested on the spot due to the arrest warrant. In Nebraska, Class IV felony for a $300-$1000 bad check. Note it isn't a misdemeanor, but a felony. I see your profile shows that you are from NE too.

They don't just see you bounced a check and put on a sting to arrest you right away. Plus, the cops have to be reported. You might very easilly not be reported.

Gee that shoots your rebutted all too hell.

Again i say, you CAN be charged but that doesnt mean you WILL be.
Your own example points it out. ONE person you know is arrested ONCE for a bounced check.
How many thousands of bounced checks do you think are written every day that could land people in jail.

The banks dont give a damn one way or the other about filing a police report on you for bounced checks unless your thousands in the hole and have disappeared. The banks DO care about wringing you for everything they can. Hence, why not run the largest first to clean out your account and hit you on the smaller ones.

Its their rules and they can do as they see fit, but the banking industry is the biggest bunch of crooks I've ever seen in my life.

 

[erub]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
This is where they make most of their money, banks today are no better than the banks of the early 1900's. They make their money off of the poor. People that live paycheck to paycheck are the ones that get screwed by banks.

Nobody ever said banks are a charity. They do, however, disclose every fee required by law. Don't like it? Don't bounce checks. You shouldn't live paycheck to paycheck.

Also, banks make plenty of money off of people with money. Its called SAVINGS accounts. Yep, they hold your money, and then lend it out for a couple point margin (for a bank like ING), or for even more (larger banks). Also, they can lend out your money in checking accounts too, of which even the highest balances rarely get more than 1%.

The average poor consumer has it much better than they used to, they used to be charged a MONTHLY FEE for low balances, and sometimes a fee for check writing..now with so many places with free checking, how do you expect them to be able to pay for those expensive buildings in high traffic locations that everybody demands? You think ATM rental spaces are free?

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: Mike

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: Mike

Originally posted by: Mwilding
The banks are providing a service: An expensive lesson in how not to be a jerk off with your bank balance.

Hardly

ok, keep paying the services fees and seeking commiseration on discussion boards...

I do neither, but your original logic is flawed at best.

My logic is not flawed in the least. Life is filled with harsh lessons. If you choose to learn from them, you are a better person. I took it in the *** several times when I was young and bad at financial management. I didn't like the feeling, so I saved up and started maintaining a buffer in my account - problem solved and lesson learned.

 

[slsmnaz]

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: Mike

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: Mike

Originally posted by: Mwilding
The banks are providing a service: An expensive lesson in how not to be a jerk off with your bank balance.

Hardly

ok, keep paying the services fees and seeking commiseration on discussion boards...

I do neither, but your original logic is flawed at best.

My logic is not flawed in the least. Life is filled with harsh lessons. If you choose to learn from them, you are a better person. I took it in the *** several times when I was young and bad at financial management. I didn't like the feeling, so I saved up and started maintaining a buffer in my account - problem solved and lesson learned.

:thumbsup:

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: erub

The average poor consumer has it much better than they used to, they used to be charged a MONTHLY FEE for low balances, and sometimes a fee for check writing..now with so many places with free checking, how do you expect them to be able to pay for those expensive buildings in high traffic locations that everybody demands? You think ATM rental spaces are free?

*sheds a tear for the cash strapped banks*

 

[BornStar]

We were just discussing how this should work for our bank recently. Originally we had it set to go smallest amount to largest amount however there were recommendations to change it to largest first. Basically what it all comes down to is there's no one best way for the checks to clear. People are going to have a problem with no matter what banks chose.

Smallest to Largest: The smallest items will clear first including checks written to cover babysitters, small things at the grocery store and so on, however all of these small items may deplete the checking account enough that a rent or mortgage payment check won't clear. We find those checks to be a little more important as they can cause a problem for the customer if they aren't paid. The advantage for the customer is that the greater quantity of checks will be paid first so they won't get as many fees from the bank although they also won't get the big ticket items paid.

Largest to Smallest: The big items get paid first (rent and mortgage payments) but could cause a problem for the smaller items. Generally there will be more fees for the customer although they'll have a place to live or a car to drive.

Check order: This seems like the best way to go but there are still problems. Many couples have multiple checkbooks so the checks written by one spouse would clear before the checks for the other spouse (the husband has checks numbered 500-550 and the wife has checks numbered 900-950 so the husbands checks would clear first). This can also cause problems for the customer but not in any clearcut cases.

Customers need to be aware of what's going on in their checking accounts at all times. Banks can only do so much for their customers and if the customer doesn't have funds available, they're going to get charged a fee. My bank has started a new program that will allow customers to overdraw their account up to $500 (customers will still get a fee for every overdrawn check however no check will get returned thus avoiding fees from retailers).

 

[jlbenedict]

Anyone ever notice how the banks will "rearrange" transactions" sometimes a week later?

For instance:

Transaction gets posted on November 1st, but then you go and check your transaction log and the bank moves it back a whole week or more to manipulate everything and throw your whole goddamn balancing out of wack.. Wachovia does this alot

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: Mike

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: Mike

Originally posted by: Mwilding
The banks are providing a service: An expensive lesson in how not to be a jerk off with your bank balance.

Hardly

ok, keep paying the services fees and seeking commiseration on discussion boards...

I do neither, but your original logic is flawed at best.

My logic is not flawed in the least. Life is filled with harsh lessons. If you choose to learn from them, you are a better person. I took it in the *** several times when I was young and bad at financial management. I didn't like the feeling, so I saved up and started maintaining a buffer in my account - problem solved and lesson learned.

Life's lesson here is that big banks scrape customers accounts with whatever tactics possible whenever they can get away with it. Your life's lessons from previous poor financial management seem quite displaced into sympathy for corporate greed. There's absolutely no reason why someone who has tighter finances than you should be blamed nor punished, nor exploited, which is what's happening here imo.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Again i say, you CAN be charged but that doesnt mean you WILL be.

Exactly my point. You CAN be charged. Thus, be happy they are helping you avoid that possibility. I never said you absolutely will be charged.

Also, it isn't just the banks. The business where you bounced the big check can press the charges.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: BornStar18
We were just discussing how this should work for our bank recently. Originally we had it set to go smallest amount to largest amount however there were recommendations to change it to largest first. Basically what it all comes down to is there's no one best way for the checks to clear. People are going to have a problem with no matter what banks chose.

Smallest to Largest: The smallest items will clear first including checks written to cover babysitters, small things at the grocery store and so on, however all of these small items may deplete the checking account enough that a rent or mortgage payment check won't clear. We find those checks to be a little more important as they can cause a problem for the customer if they aren't paid. The advantage for the customer is that the greater quantity of checks will be paid first so they won't get as many fees from the bank although they also won't get the big ticket items paid.

Largest to Smallest: The big items get paid first (rent and mortgage payments) but could cause a problem for the smaller items. Generally there will be more fees for the customer although they'll have a place to live or a car to drive.

Check order: This seems like the best way to go but there are still problems. Many couples have multiple checkbooks so the checks written by one spouse would clear before the checks for the other spouse (the husband has checks numbered 500-550 and the wife has checks numbered 900-950 so the husbands checks would clear first). This can also cause problems for the customer but not in any clearcut cases.

Customers need to be aware of what's going on in their checking accounts at all times. Banks can only do so much for their customers and if the customer doesn't have funds available, they're going to get charged a fee. My bank has started a new program that will allow customers to overdraw their account up to $500 (customers will still get a fee for every overdrawn check however no check will get returned thus avoiding fees from retailers).

Thanks for the informative post. Those are legitimate scenarios - not that the analysis of which has ever affected big banks choice to go with the most profitable option.

Sounds like your bank has weighed the options carefully and chose a policy that may be less costly for some customers, yet of course still maximizes its own profit on overdrafts. Btw which option is it going with for clearing order?

 

[BornStar]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: BornStar18
We were just discussing how this should work for our bank recently. Originally we had it set to go smallest amount to largest amount however there were recommendations to change it to largest first. Basically what it all comes down to is there's no one best way for the checks to clear. People are going to have a problem with no matter what banks chose.

Smallest to Largest: The smallest items will clear first including checks written to cover babysitters, small things at the grocery store and so on, however all of these small items may deplete the checking account enough that a rent or mortgage payment check won't clear. We find those checks to be a little more important as they can cause a problem for the customer if they aren't paid. The advantage for the customer is that the greater quantity of checks will be paid first so they won't get as many fees from the bank although they also won't get the big ticket items paid.

Largest to Smallest: The big items get paid first (rent and mortgage payments) but could cause a problem for the smaller items. Generally there will be more fees for the customer although they'll have a place to live or a car to drive.

Check order: This seems like the best way to go but there are still problems. Many couples have multiple checkbooks so the checks written by one spouse would clear before the checks for the other spouse (the husband has checks numbered 500-550 and the wife has checks numbered 900-950 so the husbands checks would clear first). This can also cause problems for the customer but not in any clearcut cases.

Customers need to be aware of what's going on in their checking accounts at all times. Banks can only do so much for their customers and if the customer doesn't have funds available, they're going to get charged a fee. My bank has started a new program that will allow customers to overdraw their account up to $500 (customers will still get a fee for every overdrawn check however no check will get returned thus avoiding fees from retailers).

Thanks for the informative post. Those are legitimate scenarios - not that the analysis of which has ever affected big banks choice to go with the most profitable option.

Sounds like your bank has weighed the options carefully and chose a policy that may be less costly for some customers, yet of course still maximizes its own profit on overdrafts. Btw which option is it going with for clearing order?

We decided to move to clearing checks largest to smallest and the change will occur when we finish implementation of our new overdraft program (Wednesday).