Also, as far as greedy Wall Street people “gaming” the system, I don’t have a problem with them doing anything they can come up with short of fraud - and I mean REAL fraud, the legal definition of it and not what you subjectively think is “fraud” because you don’t like it.
I do have a problem, as others have pointed out, with them expecting a bailout every time the downside risk hits them too hard. They took the risk to make huge returns, they can take it up the ass when it doesn’t work, like the big boys that they think they are.
And what? The fact that you get charged an overdraft fee for OVERDRAWING YOUR ACCOUNT is some great mystery or travesty? It’s common knowledge, it’s common practice, it’s right there in your account agreement, and it’s AVOIDABLE.
So yes, the reply of “don’t spend money you don’t have” is a perfectly good one. If you are so daft that you find yourself regularly overdrawing via your debit card and getting hit with an "unfair’ overdraft fee, then cash your paycheck and stuff it in your mattress instead so you can see exactly how much money you have and avoid the problem entirely.
Yes, that’s sort of the idea behind EVERY business, isn’t it? I don’t really see that as a problem. The problem is that lenders got too eager to lend and too lax about the people to whom they extended credit, and now we have banks folding and cries for government help. So yes, it’s their fault, but they are definitely eating huge losses now.
Why would the fed gov bail them out?
Now the “referee” is also playing the game.
I lost money too, but I don’t want the fed gov anywhere near my retirement savings!
As much respect as I have for your opinion most of the time, I am clueless as to where you are coming from here. This man works in the industry and he is speaking absolute fact. I don’t work in it, yet I will verify almost every word via first hand experience. Yet you see no issue whatsoever? In fact we can no make a fool of him for shedding light on a situation that absolutely exists?
Maybe just one question for you, counsel. If I may, of course. Is it ok for any financial industry, this as a whole, to strategically take advantage of those who have made an accounting error or are already down financially? This via sneaky tactics?
Example: Joe Johnson has $350 in his checking account, yet has a minor problem. Out of perceived necessity, he wrote out $370 in checks to his various utility companies. One was for maybe $200, one for $100 and the other $70. The bank gets all 3 in the same day and does the math.
Well, Mr. Johnson is $20 short, so what will we (the bank) do about his rare mistake? Remember, this as the financial institution who’s very existence depends on such folks entrusting us with their monies. And this so we can then use their money as our leverage via other loans.
Instead of doing what hopefully you or I would, which is simply pay the the checks that are covered without issue, they would rather assess them as a group resulting in all 3 being returned with overdraft fees.
Now you tell me, what is the overall, long term benefit to taking such un-necessary, deplorable actions against Mr. Johnson? Their long time customer who’s funds in fact make up their very fabric?
I agree entirely that it’s a “fact” that many banks will charge you if you overdraw your account. That’s not in dispute here. No, I don’t see an issue. You agree to it in your account agreement, you are or should be aware of it, and you can avoid it by:
Not overdrawing your account
Getting a small overdraft line of credit (I’ve had one for years, even when I was a student and had no real income or credit to speak of)
Maintaining a savings account with an automatic overdraft protection link to your checking account.
Maybe just one question for you, counsel. If I may, of course. Is it ok for any financial industry, this as a whole, to strategically take advantage of those who have made an accounting error or are already down financially? This via sneaky tactics?
Pretty loaded question there. Aren’t you taking advantage of the bank when you take an unauthorized loan from them by overdrawing your account?
What is “sneaky” about an overdraft fee when it’s right there in the account agreement you signed and listed on the bank’s brochures and website under their terms and fees?
Example: Joe Johnson has $350 in his checking account, yet has a minor problem. Out of perceived necessity, he wrote out $370 in checks to his various utility companies. One was for maybe $200, one for $100 and the other $70. The bank gets all 3 in the same day and does the math.
Joe Johnson needs to not overdraw his account and not “play the float” on checks, or not be surprised when he gets overdrawn or one of them bounces.
If you have a problem with your bank’s policies, feel free to shop around. There’s more than one retail bank out there, you know, and perhaps some are more lenient than others.
Well once again you are conveniently missing the boat, as I specified that most banks will in fact specifically look for and excuse to not only return all submitted items, but also charge a fee for them.
This is completely unnecessary and the absolute equivalent of a softened “Fuck-you, but hope you deposit more money for us to utilize for our lending profit soon! And don’t let the door hit you in the ass as you walk out justifiably frustrated, good sir.”
What a pathetic joke. Can’t believe anyone of intellect would support such garbage. But then again attorneys are often well paid for minimal work per case, this as they often comment on their own clients idiocy and do little to proactively help them beyond textbook tactics. No surprise here I suppose, but surely some very justifiable disappointment.
So? It’s not “looking for an excuse” when your account agreement says that this will happen.
This is completely unnecessary and the absolute equivalent of a softened “Fuck-you, but hope you deposit more money for us to us to utilize for our lending lending/profit soon! And don’t let the door hit you in the ass as you walk out justifiably frustrated, good sir.”
No, it’s more like a term in a contract you signed, and it’s there to discourage you from trying to take unauthorized loans. You’re also free to take your money elsewhere (including your mattress if you want) or arrange various means of overdraft protection. I guess you’d rather just bitch about the big bad bank keeping you down, though.
I get so tired of this populist, proletariat bullshit. Overdrawing your bank account is a FUCK UP. YOUR fuck up. It’s avoidable in so many different ways and the consequences are spelled out for you in an agreement that you sign. It could not be any clearer. It’s astonishing to me that anyone of intellect would think that being irresponsible is the bank’s fault. I always thought that overdrawing your bank account was an embarassment, like having to file for bankruptcy, and that you should be the one apologizing and making things right.
What a pathetic joke. Can’t believe anyone of intellect would support such garbage. But then again attorneys are often well paid for minimal work per case, this as they often comment on their own clients idiocy and do little to proactively help them beyond textbook tactics. No surprise here I suppose, but surely some very justifiable disappointment.
Yeah, we don’t spend lots of money and time going to school or work long hours enforcing and protecting things like contract rights, something you seem to find offensive when you don’t like the terms.
By the way, where can I find this “well paid for minimal work per case?” Also, where can I get a big book of these clients who will pay me lots of money to call them idiots and do nothing of value? Perhaps these are the same people who overdraw their accounts and then bitch about the fees instead of going and finding a new bank?
If you really worked in banking as you say you should know that if multiple items come in to be paid and there is not enough money in your account to pay them all that the bank can’t pick and choose which to pay.
It is either a computer recognized pay order of high to low or low to high, and it is consistent for all customers as the compute has to be coded for one routine or the other. Some banks choose low to high and and some choose high to low.
The premise for high to low, the routine that you are ranting against, is that the larger checks on average are more important to the customer than the smaller checks and thereby more important to pay first.
Using your own example above, but changing the largest item to an amount of $2000, which is a mortgage payment. What if you have enough in the bank to barely cover your mortgage payment, but not cover the other 4 small checks. Do you honestly expect me to belive you would want the bank to pay the 4 small checks thereby bringing your balance below the $2,000 and then return your mortgage payment for NSF? Or your car payment?
And, as dbrown says, if someone wants to avoid the charges, all they have to do is keep enough money in the bank so that it doesn’t happen. Or make other arranges for credit to cover such events.
I am by no means rich and I have never had a late payment charge or NSF check in my life. It is call personal responsibility and living within one’s means.
This classless, heartless reply speaks for itself. Congratulations on the accomplishment.
No big bank is keeping me down, stop looking to make yourself appear smarter than you evidently are. I mean really, where are you finding this simplistic garbage? You apparently lack business ethics, yet since you are an attorney I suppose so it’s no big surprise to anyone.
This absolutely elitist comment is as shallow and simple as it is deplorable. You are breaking all kinds of records tonight.
How typical coming from a trail attorney. This is why you folks earn your bad names.
Elementary fact: Any institution that values their clients does their best to respect them while working with them fairly. Not fuck them over when the opportunity arises for profit. I suppose Law school stripped you of this viewpoint, like many before you.
I now have less respect for attorneys overall than I did before thanks to your input this evening. But I always appreciate valuable insight, so thanks for that anyhow.
I’m not even going to bother responding to this nonsense, except to say that one of the cornerstones of “business ethics” is understanding and honoring basic terms of a contract - like not overdrawing your bank account or paying the penalties if you do.
While I do believe that the “system” is a failure, I want Barry O’Bomber to keep up with the verbal shenanigans…as he who speaks with a sharp tongue is apt to slit his own throat. His random “topic of the day” propaganda bitch fests are entertaining.
At times perhaps, but that does little to do with my discussion of relevant facts right here and now. And really, my heart is not bleeding this evening ZDL, I am clarifying predatory business practices that I have experienced as well as heard about from numerous clients. My current financial situation is just fine, sir.
Now this simply incorrect. I have given common, relevant examples that happen to good banking customers every day. Yet they are ignored by most here. But that’s OK, I don’t and never had to need to go with anyone’s flow just because they believe I should.
I’ve experienced these shyster tactics myself and I know they are both real as well as wrong. In fact I have also spoken to bank employees such as HK who feel very much the same, but they need their paycheck so they play the game regardless.
And by the way, what is HK’s motive for sharing this common knowledge (if you have been paying attention to the banking world) with us? Doesn’t sound like he is or was down on his luck financially. Just sounds a bit disgusted and even feeling guilty for being part of the very real problem.
This thread is/was about Obama and his socialist viewpoints. All of which I could not agree with more. I want the man gone from office yesterday.
But to condone banks who gouge both because they can due so via strict adherence to fine print that they hope no one will read (for good reason, since it’s border’s on the unethical) as well as flat out being able to kick a man when he is down via that trash print, is no noble cause to take up to this length.
Lastly, anybody ever heard of cutting a good fucking customer a break once in a while, or are we too hard and superior here to consider such things?
I agree. The guys that work on Wall Street are the best students from the best schools. Other people don’t make the grade, literally.
They aren’t stupid and they don’t go risking huge sums of money without an idea of what can go wrong.
What has gone wrong is that the Federal Government is eliminating moral hazard for their classmates at Goldman Sachs. Ever heard of Lehman Brothers? Yeah, they are out of business because they weren’t Paulson’s classmates. Crony capitalism is as bad or worse than socialism.
dbrowne1 has a harsh way of delivering is view, but I believe he is correct.
I have lived by his basic “code” for my enitire life, no matter how rich or poor. I have never bounced a check or overdrafted, and have an outstanding credit score. I don’t spend money that I don’t have, and I don’t expect anyone to let me do that for free.
This accomplishment involved things like walking to work instead of making car repairs or purchasing a car when I really wanted to, and eating PB&J instead of take-out. Some people might get screwed, but the majority could prevent it.
My only disclamer is that I did choose to stay single until I was stable. Having to go through that with kids would be painful.