overdraft fees

[BornStar]

Originally posted by: kranky

Originally posted by: ZippyDan
how is this legal/ethical/tolerated?

Because they tell you that in the terms and conditions when you opened your account. They believe that processing the largest transactions first is better for the customer, because for most people the largest ones are the most important (mortgage payment, insurance, car payment) and customers are better off not bouncing a mortgage check in order to process a $15 check to the dry cleaners, etc.

Not saying that it IS best, but that's their justification.

I work at a bank and that's exactly the reason we do it that way. Also, not that it really matters but we don't just order checks that way when there's an overdraft, they're always ordered that way.

To use an example, let's say we order checks the way most banks do (high to low). You've written a $600 check for your mortgage and 5 $20 checks for random other things but you only have $699 in your account. Ordering the checks high to low means that you pay your mortgage and 4 of the other checks but incur an overdraft on the last one (we allow you to overdraw $500 so you won't bounce it). If we ordered low to high you'd pay your 5 $20 transactions but we'd bounce your mortgage payment (we look at the total amount for the payment, either you overdraw the whole check or you overdraw none of the check) and also charge a bounce fee.

We spent a lot of time agonizing over this decision and decided the way we're doing it is in the best interest of the customer.

 

[Casawi]

I usually go into the nearest branch and asked them to reverse all the charges except one. In college my account was - a few time and I was only charged one over draft fee regardless of number of transaction. One time I met with the bank manager and told him that I would no longer be a customer if these fees aren't waived off, I got away with it.

 

[jandrews]

Originally posted by: BornStar

Originally posted by: kranky

Originally posted by: ZippyDan
how is this legal/ethical/tolerated?

Because they tell you that in the terms and conditions when you opened your account. They believe that processing the largest transactions first is better for the customer, because for most people the largest ones are the most important (mortgage payment, insurance, car payment) and customers are better off not bouncing a mortgage check in order to process a $15 check to the dry cleaners, etc.

Not saying that it IS best, but that's their justification.

I work at a bank and that's exactly the reason we do it that way. Also, not that it really matters but we don't just order checks that way when there's an overdraft, they're always ordered that way.

To use an example, let's say we order checks the way most banks do (high to low). You've written a $600 check for your mortgage and 5 $20 checks for random other things but you only have $699 in your account. Ordering the checks high to low means that you pay your mortgage and 4 of the other checks but incur an overdraft on the last one (we allow you to overdraw $500 so you won't bounce it). If we ordered low to high you'd pay your 5 $20 transactions but we'd bounce your mortgage payment (we look at the total amount for the payment, either you overdraw the whole check or you overdraw none of the check) and also charge a bounce fee.

We spent a lot of time agonizing over this decision and decided the way we're doing it is in the best interest of the customer.

I dont understand who has checks that bounce though? I could overdraft a check for a 1000 dollars and my bank wouldnt reject it, I would just have to go down there and pay the money. That is the thing I dont understand.

 

[BornStar]

Originally posted by: jandrews

Originally posted by: BornStar

Originally posted by: kranky

Originally posted by: ZippyDan
how is this legal/ethical/tolerated?

Because they tell you that in the terms and conditions when you opened your account. They believe that processing the largest transactions first is better for the customer, because for most people the largest ones are the most important (mortgage payment, insurance, car payment) and customers are better off not bouncing a mortgage check in order to process a $15 check to the dry cleaners, etc.

Not saying that it IS best, but that's their justification.

I work at a bank and that's exactly the reason we do it that way. Also, not that it really matters but we don't just order checks that way when there's an overdraft, they're always ordered that way.

To use an example, let's say we order checks the way most banks do (high to low). You've written a $600 check for your mortgage and 5 $20 checks for random other things but you only have $699 in your account. Ordering the checks high to low means that you pay your mortgage and 4 of the other checks but incur an overdraft on the last one (we allow you to overdraw $500 so you won't bounce it). If we ordered low to high you'd pay your 5 $20 transactions but we'd bounce your mortgage payment (we look at the total amount for the payment, either you overdraw the whole check or you overdraw none of the check) and also charge a bounce fee.

We spent a lot of time agonizing over this decision and decided the way we're doing it is in the best interest of the customer.

I dont understand who has checks that bounce though? I could overdraft a check for a 1000 dollars and my bank wouldnt reject it, I would just have to go down there and pay the money. That is the thing I dont understand.

That's something that's really up to us. We have a day to decide what we're going to do with an NSF check. For some customers we'll pay it and severely overdraw their account, for other customers we'll bounce the check. If you're responsible with your account, we're far more likely to pay the check.

 

[alkemyst]

most of us have overdraft protection...not all of us do.

In regards to the high low scheme on bounces, with overdraft protection...in these cases it is a direct benefit to the bank ESPECIALLY when nothing would have bounced save the last check.

With ATM/Debit/Credit things get timestamped. I have known people that got hit with $400 in overdrafts due to auto deposits not hitting. Usually the bank has agreed to recalculate based on the timestamps.

I believe in all these cases the rest of the overdrafts were covered by the company that did not get their deposits in on time.

 

[bearxor]

Originally posted by: BornStar

Originally posted by: kranky

Originally posted by: ZippyDan
how is this legal/ethical/tolerated?

Because they tell you that in the terms and conditions when you opened your account. They believe that processing the largest transactions first is better for the customer, because for most people the largest ones are the most important (mortgage payment, insurance, car payment) and customers are better off not bouncing a mortgage check in order to process a $15 check to the dry cleaners, etc.

Not saying that it IS best, but that's their justification.

I work at a bank and that's exactly the reason we do it that way. Also, not that it really matters but we don't just order checks that way when there's an overdraft, they're always ordered that way.

To use an example, let's say we order checks the way most banks do (high to low). You've written a $600 check for your mortgage and 5 $20 checks for random other things but you only have $699 in your account. Ordering the checks high to low means that you pay your mortgage and 4 of the other checks but incur an overdraft on the last one (we allow you to overdraw $500 so you won't bounce it). If we ordered low to high you'd pay your 5 $20 transactions but we'd bounce your mortgage payment (we look at the total amount for the payment, either you overdraw the whole check or you overdraw none of the check) and also charge a bounce fee.

We spent a lot of time agonizing over this decision and decided the way we're doing it is in the best interest of the customer.

I understand the reasoning behind this. It does't hold water though. You say so yourself that you'll pay all of them. Now, if you bounced that last $20 check, it's a different story. That's what pisses me off about the bank stacking checks like this. You must wokr at a smaller bank (regarding your comments a couple of posts below ths one) but larger banks don't bounce any of the charges. In this case, stacking the order of charges serves no purpose but to give the bank a higher overdraft fee.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

It made it legal for the bank to hold your ACH deposit for an in state deposit for 3 to 5 days but allows instant debits on your account by creditors. For out of state deposits they can hold your money for 11 days.

It's legal thievery no matter what you call it

That's a little misleading there, Dave. Doesn't surprise me much. They can't typically hold your money for 11 days:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...Funds_Availability_Act

Go ahead.

Try and get your $3,000 of your money out of your bank from out of state.

They will hold it for 11 days.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

It made it legal for the bank to hold your ACH deposit for an in state deposit for 3 to 5 days but allows instant debits on your account by creditors. For out of state deposits they can hold your money for 11 days.

It's legal thievery no matter what you call it

That's a little misleading there, Dave. Doesn't surprise me much. They can't typically hold your money for 11 days:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...Funds_Availability_Act

Go ahead.

Try and get your $3,000 of your money out of your bank from out of state.

They will hold it for 11 days.

Dave, do you have any idea what you're talking about? First it's deposits, now they're holding WITHDRAWALS for 11 days? :laugh:

 

[BornStar]

Originally posted by: bearxor

Originally posted by: BornStar

Originally posted by: kranky

Originally posted by: ZippyDan
how is this legal/ethical/tolerated?

Because they tell you that in the terms and conditions when you opened your account. They believe that processing the largest transactions first is better for the customer, because for most people the largest ones are the most important (mortgage payment, insurance, car payment) and customers are better off not bouncing a mortgage check in order to process a $15 check to the dry cleaners, etc.

Not saying that it IS best, but that's their justification.

I work at a bank and that's exactly the reason we do it that way. Also, not that it really matters but we don't just order checks that way when there's an overdraft, they're always ordered that way.

To use an example, let's say we order checks the way most banks do (high to low). You've written a $600 check for your mortgage and 5 $20 checks for random other things but you only have $699 in your account. Ordering the checks high to low means that you pay your mortgage and 4 of the other checks but incur an overdraft on the last one (we allow you to overdraw $500 so you won't bounce it). If we ordered low to high you'd pay your 5 $20 transactions but we'd bounce your mortgage payment (we look at the total amount for the payment, either you overdraw the whole check or you overdraw none of the check) and also charge a bounce fee.

We spent a lot of time agonizing over this decision and decided the way we're doing it is in the best interest of the customer.

I understand the reasoning behind this. It does't hold water though. You say so yourself that you'll pay all of them. Now, if you bounced that last $20 check, it's a different story. That's what pisses me off about the bank stacking checks like this. You must wokr at a smaller bank (regarding your comments a couple of posts below ths one) but larger banks don't bounce any of the charges. In this case, stacking the order of charges serves no purpose but to give the bank a higher overdraft fee.

How would you prefer we ordered them? They have to come through in some order, so which would you like?

 

[Pantoot]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Go ahead.

Try and get your $3,000 of your money out of your bank from out of state.

They will hold it for 11 days.

How would you do this? Are you trying to cash a check at a bank that isn't yours? Any bank will tell you to pound sand, let alone make you wait for 11 days.

If you try and deposit an out of state check over 5k then yes, the amount over 5k may be held for 11 days. Is that what you are thinking of?

 

[SSSnail]

The most fucked up thing that banks do is delay your electronic deposits, yes on purpose. This one time I was in Vegas and sensed that I would need more money in checking, I transfered some money from ING to Wamu checking. In my ING record, it states that Wamu received the money on a certain date, but the fund wasn't available to me two days later. Needless to say, them fuckers at Wamu had fun with overdraft. When question, they gave me some BS about it needs to clear some BS, they had the fund the entire time.

They DO structured transactions so that they will hit you with the most OD as possible, with the OD charges, CC interest rates, etc... they're bleeding the consumers dry. I'm prudent and never had to worry much about how much money is in my checking account, but there are times where you kinda forget what you have spent, or in situation like I've mentioned, this is where they screw with you, hard.

 

[ZippyDan]

Originally posted by: BornStar

Originally posted by: kranky

Originally posted by: ZippyDan
how is this legal/ethical/tolerated?

Because they tell you that in the terms and conditions when you opened your account. They believe that processing the largest transactions first is better for the customer, because for most people the largest ones are the most important (mortgage payment, insurance, car payment) and customers are better off not bouncing a mortgage check in order to process a $15 check to the dry cleaners, etc.

Not saying that it IS best, but that's their justification.

I work at a bank and that's exactly the reason we do it that way. Also, not that it really matters but we don't just order checks that way when there's an overdraft, they're always ordered that way.

To use an example, let's say we order checks the way most banks do (high to low). You've written a $600 check for your mortgage and 5 $20 checks for random other things but you only have $699 in your account. Ordering the checks high to low means that you pay your mortgage and 4 of the other checks but incur an overdraft on the last one (we allow you to overdraw $500 so you won't bounce it). If we ordered low to high you'd pay your 5 $20 transactions but we'd bounce your mortgage payment (we look at the total amount for the payment, either you overdraw the whole check or you overdraw none of the check) and also charge a bounce fee.

We spent a lot of time agonizing over this decision and decided the way we're doing it is in the best interest of the customer.

heres a hypothetical:

$30 balance

$40 charge
$10 charge
$7 charge
$6 charge
$5 charge

putting it through in this order is wrong for 3 reasons:

1. not even the $40 "important" charge will clear, you will get an overdraft for every single item. if you put the smaller ones in first, you only get 1 overdraft

2. $40 is clearly not a rent or mortgage or even a car payment

3. you dont even return any of the charges anyway. they are all paid! the order you put them through does not affect the customer in ANY way except for the ridiculous fee stacking!

 

[BornStar]

Originally posted by: ZippyDan
heres a hypothetical:

$30 balance

$40 charge
$10 charge
$7 charge
$6 charge
$5 charge

putting it through in this order is wrong for 3 reasons:

1. not even the $40 "important" charge will clear, you will get an overdraft for every single item. if you put the smaller ones in first, you only get 1 overdraft

2. $40 is clearly not a rent or mortgage or even a car payment

3. you dont even return any of the charges anyway. they are all paid! the order you put them through does not affect the customer in ANY way except for the ridiculous fee stacking!

I asked this question before and didn't get an answer so I'll ask you. How would you prefer we order them? They have to go through in some order. Typically the three options are highest to lowest, lowest to highest, and check number.

 

[bearxor]

Originally posted by: BornStar

Originally posted by: ZippyDan
heres a hypothetical:

$30 balance

$40 charge
$10 charge
$7 charge
$6 charge
$5 charge

putting it through in this order is wrong for 3 reasons:

1. not even the $40 "important" charge will clear, you will get an overdraft for every single item. if you put the smaller ones in first, you only get 1 overdraft

2. $40 is clearly not a rent or mortgage or even a car payment

3. you dont even return any of the charges anyway. they are all paid! the order you put them through does not affect the customer in ANY way except for the ridiculous fee stacking!

I asked this question before and didn't get an answer so I'll ask you. How would you prefer we order them? They have to go through in some order. Typically the three options are highest to lowest, lowest to highest, and check number.

Sorry, I've been out for a few days. I'll answer for you now.

In the order in which they are charged and recieved by the bank. If you get them all at once, say in some midnight batch job or something, the should be ordered in the way they were charged to the customers check card not rearranged as a "service" to the customer in a way that nets the bank the greatest possible fee. I mean, if you can rearrange them at will, why not clear them in the order from least to greatest and send the customer a reminder about overdrafting?

 

[BornStar]

Originally posted by: bearxor

Originally posted by: BornStar

Originally posted by: ZippyDan
heres a hypothetical:

$30 balance

$40 charge
$10 charge
$7 charge
$6 charge
$5 charge

putting it through in this order is wrong for 3 reasons:

1. not even the $40 "important" charge will clear, you will get an overdraft for every single item. if you put the smaller ones in first, you only get 1 overdraft

2. $40 is clearly not a rent or mortgage or even a car payment

3. you dont even return any of the charges anyway. they are all paid! the order you put them through does not affect the customer in ANY way except for the ridiculous fee stacking!

I asked this question before and didn't get an answer so I'll ask you. How would you prefer we order them? They have to go through in some order. Typically the three options are highest to lowest, lowest to highest, and check number.

Sorry, I've been out for a few days. I'll answer for you now.

In the order in which they are charged and recieved by the bank. If you get them all at once, say in some midnight batch job or something, the should be ordered in the way they were charged to the customers check card not rearranged as a "service" to the customer in a way that nets the bank the greatest possible fee. I mean, if you can rearrange them at will, why not clear them in the order from least to greatest and send the customer a reminder about overdrafting?

I'm only talking about checks here. We don't see the order the checks were written on and they all show up at the same time for a given day. If we get more than one check in on a day we have to put those checks in some sort of order. Like I said, we can order them from least to greatest, greatest to least, or check number.

As I said before, you have better luck with us overdrafting your account with a small check than one that gets kicked out of our automatic overdraft system. If your check is over our $500 limit, we bounce the thing unless you're a great customer.

 

[bearxor]

Then we are talking about two different things. The majority of these problems from overdrafts come from debit card purchases.