Bank Of America - overdraft fee masters Bank overdraft rip offs Internet

will be submitted at this website soon.

Just type in 513480 to see if it is available in the consumer comments section at Ripoff Report #513480.

Thank You

***LETTER ALERT: Don't forget to type in 563072 at this site and read Frank's letter that appears in Ripoff Report #563072. Make sure to spread that Ripoff Report all over the web at sites like Twitter & Facebook!

will be submitted at this website soon.

Thank You

***DOW JONES ALERT: The Dow Jones lost 240 points on Friday September 30, 2011. It closed at 10,913 points. The Dow Jones has lost 1,656 points since July 5th 2011, when the song entitled- BROCKOMIAN RHAPSODY was posted at this website. On July 5, 2011, the Dow Jones closed at 12,569 points. Just go to Yahoo! and type in- DJI HISTORICAL PRICES DOW JONES INDUSTRIAL, and visit the related websites for proof.

12,569 - 10,913 = 1,656

Don't forget to type in 555030 at this site and go to 'Consumer Comment #12' at Ripoff Report #555030 and sing- BROCKOMIAN RHAPSODY.

Here is the last line to the song-

Very soon the Dow blows.

DOW JONES POEM

There once was this thing
It was called the Dow Jones
We used to think it was strong
But it's just broken bones
One day it's up
The next day it's down
One day you smile
The next day you frown
People losing their money
But the big-shots don't care
Banks are collapsing
So give money to Bear
Losing your job
Feeling a bit cranky
Go work for Bear Stearns
'Cause here comes Bernanke
He will help you out
If your cash-flow is low
But you better be an executive
Like a big CEO
So tell us- who's next
Which bank still needs cash
Bernanke to the rescue
No stock market crash
But guess what, big Ben
You better get on your knees
If the ones who cash-out
Are the good ole Chinese!

End.

The Dow Jones lost 242 points on March 16, 2011. It is currently up 121 points at 10:05 AM ET on March 17, 2011.

Thank You 

*Anyone can 'Google' this- THERE IS NO GAS SHORTAGE, and go to the BusinessWeek article from April 1, 2008, and then go to the comment posted on April 7, 2008 at 11:46 PM and read- "DOW JONES POEM".
(I believe that comment is on, or around, 'Page 54' in the comments section.)

**Don't forget to 'Google' this- BERNANKE'S HISTORY LESSON, and go to the BusinessWeek article from February 27, 2008, and read the comment that was posted on March 18, 2008 at 3:59 PM.

"Knowledge is power."

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

FED POEM 2

You saved me a lot of typing.

The reality is...some "critics" will never see the logic or fairness of what we expect from our banks..or they do but have too much pride to admit they see our side. Regardless, the exposure is starting to make a difference..which there is nothing I can ask for more.

If it puts a stop or delay to the lawsuits..that is really great news..as I get no pleasure making lawyers richer.

The banks are making these changes because they are smart, and perhaps running a little scared.

And yes..your analogies and comparisons were a bit extreme..but I had no problem understanding the point, it was obvious...when we are getting abused or being done wrong..there are really only 2 choices...take it..or fight it. Sure we will lose some..but real change is never made unless we fight until we win...or reach a treaty/truce.

To Edgeman and Exemployee18, yes I did realize in advance how my post might come across to some. It did cross my mind to begin the post with a disclaimer explaining the angle of the post. That's why it was titled Unplugged. If you're familiar with my posting history, you're obviously aware of my usual tone and etiquette. Let's just say it's built up disgust at cowards who think they can belittle others who have fallen on hard times, many by their own doing, but some because of sneaky, tricky and deceptive policies. I'm certainly aware that overdraft fees don't even come close to measuring up to human rights issues. Again that's why it was title Unplugged.

The majority of the post was directed at the critics. But the subliminal message to the victimized consumers is not to listen to those who try and distort things, put you down, and make it seem as if it's all your fault, all the time. Like many of you, I'm also in agreement that consistent and habitual overdrafters have no one to blame but themselves. Ok? I've said this numerous times on numerous posts. But because of unfair and deceptive tactics by banks, there are now hundreds of thousands of customers getting tricked, exploited and then buried in debt all because of one innocent mistake. One single overdraft of 50 cents leads to ten overdraft fees in one day, thanks to Re-Sequencing? Come on people! And then the s****.>

Here's the primary point of my Unplugged post. We often hear about how it's only a small minority affected by OD fees, while the majority of us know how to balance our checkbooks. Recent events by the banks this week should tell you something about that statement. Why are the banks suddently back pedalling for just a small minority of customers? Why are the banks making voluntary concessions never done before, that will cost them billions in profits, for just a small minority of customers? Think about that long and hard.

That was my point to the victimized consumers who have been vindicated this week. The human rights references were just extremely, exaggerated comparisons to get the cowardly critics to see the idiotic hallowness of their own comments. Those of you who are perfect, raise your hand.

is all you need to do!

be bombarded with commercials about- 'ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION' MEDICATION, & 'DEPRESSION' MEDICATION that air everyday on- NBC, CBS, & ABC News stations during their 30 minutes of so-called 'News', which is really the 'News' that THEY want Americans to see, get it?

Edward, I hope that you really don't believe that the debate about overdraft fees is one the same level as freeing the slaves (or any human rights struggle). Last week I completed a paper on the Vietnamese Boat People who abandoned their homes to float on the ocean without food or water. They were robbed by pirates and repeatedly beaten and raped. African-Americans were hung from trees. Women were stoned to death. You name the group and I'll tell you about the atrocities and as a reasonable fellow, I think that you'll agree that overdraft fees do not compare.

In the United States, human rights are recognized to come from a higher power (God, if you're a religious type). In theory, the federal government is supposed to recognize and not infringe upon those rights though in practice they fall a bit short.

Entering into a legal agreement with a bank is voluntary. The consumer looks at the account agreement, decides if he or she wants to open an account under these terms and depending on the decision, either signs the document or leaves. The consumer is not forced to open an account with the bank. In fact, the consumer is not required to open a checking account at any bank. In this age of prepaid credit cards that accept direct deposit and bill pay services, one does not need a checking account from the bank.

Since this is a Bank of America thread, I think that you'll agree that their terms and conditions apply here. Page 19 of my copy describes how they process electronic transactions and I ask you to refer to that page (I can copy and paste the relevant text if you wish). Put simply, Bank of America plainly informs the account holder that they may process transactions in any order, the order that they process tomorrow's  transactions may or may not be the same as the order they processed yesterday's transactions, how transactions are grouped may be changed at any time, that they do not process transactions in the order that they are made, that they process from high-to-low and that this method may generate additional overdraft fees if the account holder goes over the available balance.

The account holder can read this information before writing a single check, authorizing a debit or even agreeing to open an account. It's not buried under mountains of text, isn't too tiny to read (I have video game manuals in a smaller font than the account agreement) and is even listed in the table of contents.

Now we have an informed consumer (there is simply no excuse for not reading a legally binding agreement before signing it) with a debit card. This person can choose to expend some effort and manage their accounts so that they will not overdraft or they can choose not to and put themselves at risk of overdrafting their account.

The FDIC study shows that processing transactions from highest to lowest does not affect the vast majority of account holders. Most of us do not pay overdraft fees. The people who do pay overdraft fees tend to fall into these categories:

A. Those who do not understand when deposited funds are fully available.

B. Those who do not adequately manage their finances (if at all). This includes keeping a check register, noting automatic bill payments, etc.

C. Those who intentionally overdraft without considering how their transactions are processed.

You and I have the same goal. We would like to see people stop paying overdraft fees to the banks. Where we differ is our methods. If you want to sue the banks, then go sue the banks. You've seen me challenge people to sue the banks before and I have no problem with anybody who chooses to do so. However, the odds aren't that great. Even if a class does win, they will more or less just get a cookie while the lawyers dine on steak. The consumers will also eventually have to accept that checking accounts require management.

My method encourages personal responsibility and some basic bookkeeping, but it works. Minding your deposits and debits and making sure that you do not go over your available balance means you do not incur overdraft fees. Sure, some events are outside of your control such as merchant double charges or fraud but these are relatively rare and you have some recourse. During the Memorial Day weekend of 2008 I had a fraudulent charge on my checking account at US Bank and they refunded the overdraft fees.

Put simply, my method requires less resources than a lawsuit and the results are instantaneous.

Karl I do not know where you got that story but here is the story I saw
Sept. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Bank of America Corp ., JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Wells Fargo & Co., three of the biggest U.S. banks, reduced overdraft fees amid criticism from lawmakers that the charges were too high and assessed too often.
The three banks, which offer overdraft protection on all checking accounts, will allow consumers to opt out of the service, eliminating the potential for paying overdraft fees. JPMorgan and Wells Fargo will cancel fees for accounts overdrawn by $5 or less, according to separate statements. Bank of America will end fees on accounts that are short $10 or less, it said in a statement yesterday.
Banks and credit-card lenders have come under fire from Congress because of the fees, which are charged when customers exceed the balance on their checking accounts by writing checks or using a debit card. Customer complaints about fees on bank accounts and credit cards helped spur calls for a consumer financial protection agency.
These are positive changes, but the system has gotten completely out of whack, said Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd , a Connecticut Democrat who introduced legislation to crack down on overdraft fees last week. I will take a close look at the banks new policies as I continue work on a bill to permanently protect customers from excessive overdraft fees.
JPMorgan currently charges $25 for the first infraction in 12 months, $32 for overdrafts up to four times, and $35 after that. Bank of America levies $35 if the amount overdrawn is more than $5 and a $10 fee for shortfalls of $5 or less. Wells Fargo charges $35, while Wachovia Corp., acquired by Wells Fargo on Dec. 31, charges $22 for the first infraction in a 12-month period and $35 after that.
Three Penalties
Those who elect to continue overdraft protection at JPMorgan will pay a maximum of three penalties per day, down from six. Bank of America and Wells Fargo will cap fees at four a day, instead of 10. Wachovia didnt have a limit.
JPMorgan will apply the changes to all checking accounts, starting in the first quarter of 2010. The bank said it will deduct charges in the order theyre incurred, instead of starting with the largest amount at the end of each day. Consumers complained the existing system drove up fees.
We recognize the tremendous growth in our customers debit-card usage and were revamping our overdraft policies and posting order to be more consistent with the way they use their accounts today, Charlie Scharf , head of retail financial services at New York-based JPMorgan, said in the statement.
Bank of America, based in Charlotte, North Carolina, will introduce some changes beginning Oct. 19, while others will begin June 2010, including a limit on the number of times a customer can overdraw an account. San Francisco-based Wells Fargo didnt have a date for implementation.
Fee Revenue
The amount of lost fee revenue wasnt disclosed by any of the banks. A study by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. released in November 2008 found that customers paid from $10 to $38 to use overdraft protection. Banks earned an estimated $1.97 billion from the service in 2006, the survey said.
What we need are consistent overdraft reforms for all Americans who have or open a bank account, Representative Carolyn Maloney , a New York Democrat, said in a statement today.
Maloney has proposed legislation requiring that consumers be notified when a transaction is about to incur an overdraft fee, and that banks process the transactions chronologically instead of by size. She called the policy changes by Bank of America and JPMorgan significant improvements.
To contact the reporter on this story: Elizabeth Hester in New York at ehester@bloomberg.net .
 
Does not mean that you can go carte blanche on your account - the ONLY way to maintain a positive balance is to keep a check register, reconcile your monthly bank statements and stop relying on online balances, atm balances and phone balances
Learn to take responsibility for your own finances - If you are unable to then hire a money manager, CPA or keep your money under a mattress - Learn to BUDGET!

go into the bank and have their debit card 'turned-off', or deprogrammed so it can NO LONGER make a purchase, or a withdrawl at an ATM when the money isn't really in the account, according to a report on- 'The News Hour with Jim Lehrer'. According to the report that aired at 6:45 PM MST today, customers can now go into their Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, or Wells Fargo bank and have the ability for their DEBIT CARD to make purchases (when the money isn't really there) turned-off, or deprogrammed so it will prevent OVERDRAFTS which result in OVERDRAFT FEES.

Edward, your hopes of this having any sort of change on behavior has no basis in fact.  Just for starters, you're assigning financial intelligence to people who don't have the smarts to keep a check register and continue to use a debit card without understanding its consequences - will now be smart enough to go to a bank and ask for overdraft protection?  That's quite a leap of faith you're making.

I suspect in the end, the banks will make their $30+ billion in fees in these next years, just as they did these past years.  The reason won't be because they've reformed their resorting or processing behavior.  They'll see it because people will still not understand that using your debit card more than 23 times in one week while they're on unemployment is devastating to their financial condition.  They'll see it because people don't get the fact that overdrafts are based on available balance, and not account balance.  They'll see it because banks will simply discontinue fee free accounts for people who manage their money properly.

I still believe anyone incurring over $100 in OD fees to a bank should earn their way to a free class offered by a bank and taught by a money manager (not a bank employee) on how to avoid these fees.  After all, they paid the bank for the class through their fees - the least they could do is make certain they avoid such in the future.  Once empowered with the education, they can go forth and overdraft no more and blame someone else for it.  You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make the horse drink.

But you are comparing apples and oranges.  What you are comparing is human existence and ethical morality in regards to equality between races.  This is a business not a human rights issue.  People have the right NOT to use their debit cards.  Do banks promote this usage?  Of course they do because it generates tons and I mean tons of fee income for them.  However they do not forceably place cards in customers hands and say go to town spend everything you got we want to make our pockets richer.  That is the philosophy you all are having and it is dead wrong.  I have opened numerous accounts for customers that do not wish to have a debit card or ATM card.  They like writing checks and that is OK.  You have your so called law makers and governement officials come in and legislate debit card policies banks will have to get rid of debit cards all together which in turn will lead to extremely lower fee income, lower revenues, less jobs and therefore would put large freezes on lines of credit people need to live.  What you are suggesting would in turn nationalize the banking industry and believe me that is not what the government nor anyone wants.

Now that hell has finally frozen over, let me enlighten two groups of people. (1) Victimized customers, and (2) The high morals or holier than though critics. I really hate to group some consumer critics in with the entire group, because some of you are very intelligent, and some of you do acknowledge wrong doings by the banks. But what all of you critics have in common is that customers should just stop trying to fight the system and learn to get along. Consumers should take responsibility, act like adults and stop whining.

It was that type of thinking that tried to convince the slaves to stop whining and learn to get along with their condition and stop trying to abolish slavery and become free. Women and minorities should have stopped whining about not being able to vote and just accepted it. That rape victim should stop whining about being violated and learn not to go out in public alone, wearing that outfit. The robbery victim should stop whining and learn not to go to the supermarket alone at night.

This is the type of ludicrous advice that has been leveled at customers who were justifiably complaining about unfair bank practices. I just never understood why some of you chose to be on the wrong side of this argument from the beginning. The lawmakers have been given an earful from their constituents and those lawmakers are acting. A sign of things to come was first given last year when the Fed Reserve Board adopted sweeping regulations against Credit Card companies. Two days ago, lawmakers announced the same regulations coming soon for banks. Just one day later, two of the largest banks blink and announce their own voluntary concessions. Coincidence? Hardly!

Why would these banks do this? After all, they are For Profit business. What about their shareholders? These are additional questions dished out by consumer critics. If we're trying to bring the entire global economy back from the brink of collapse, how can that be done if you're constantly stepping on the necks of those who can make it happen? This was the writing on the wall that the banks finally saw. Helped in no small part by a very real threat from the lawmakers. The lawmakers were helped in no small part by angry feedback from their constituents, the consumers, who repated the famous quote from Peter Finch: ''I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.''

-Edward out.

Business Professor will give you the answer.

In your last post..everything you posted is true..and obvious. Ironically...some wealthy people who lived not too far from me lost their life savings from Madoffs ponzi scheme. And a Well Fargo executive was busted using their 12 million dollar foreclosed home as a weekend getaway and party house. The neighbors reported the license plate of the bank executives car..and put 2 and 2 together. We are dealing with a different breed of people here Karl..they are living in a different world then the people they rob..all of them

The thing is...other then your posts requesting everyone google this and twitter that...do you have any recommendations for a solution? Google, twitter and engine sludge apparently is not cutting it.

Hot of the presses of the New York Times today, two banks blink in response to mounting pressure from customers and certain future law regulations from Congress. Here are quotes directly from the New York Times article today:

''Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, two of the nations biggest banks, announced plans on Tuesday to drastically overhaul their debit card programs by lowering or eliminating fees, changing the way they credit transactions and allowing customers to opt out of overdraft protection.

Bank of America said it would allow current customers to turn off the ability to spend when their account hits zero, starting Oct. 19. Next June, the bank plans to limit the number of times each year that current customers can overdraw their accounts when using a debit card at a store. It will let new customers choose whether they want overdraft protection when they are opening their account.

Bank of America said it was spurred by consumer demand rather than legislative pressure to change its policy. We made the decision that we had to help customers now and help those most stretched by the economy, said Brian T. Moynihan, president of Bank of Americas consumer and small-business banking operations. They found themselves getting hit by too many fees, and they said, Help us out.

In another news article about the same story today, here's another quote:

''When asked about the reversal from the fee hikes earlier this year, [A BofA spokesperson] said .''the company is responding to the "changing needs" of customers in the difficult economic environment''.

Uh, ya think?

CORRUPT corporate sector in 2006 & 2007. The Mainstream Media was also sent information back in 2007 that came from a Harvard Business professor regarding the stock market & its 'potential' COLLAPSE, which DID eventually take place, right? The Dow Jones closed at its ALL-TIME high of 14,164 on October 9th 2007. It reached its lowest point in many, many, years on March 9th 2009 when it closed at 6,547 on that day, correct? (Simply look at all the time-lines that will follow below.) The Mainstream Media was sent information in November of 2007 about how '3rd Quarter Results' can be MANIPULATED by publicly held companies & how '4th Quarter Results' would then skew the numbers for 'Annual Sales Results', which would cause stocks & the stock market to go down substantially, which they both did starting in January of 2008. 

Regarding your last post, in the past no one could disagree with you regarding putting faith in politicians because of the bank lobbyist's massive contributions to politician's campaigns and pockets.  But Jim, it's a new day, times have changed, and it's a totally different game now. Here are a few catch phrases to show you why:

'Bailout', 'TARP', 'Bernie Madoff', 'Mortgage Crisis', 'Global Recession'.

Jim, when the entire global economy is lowered to the brink of collapse, that causes the politicians to wake up and take notice. The Federal Reserve and Congress no longer want to hear any bickering or requests for favors from the financial institutions who contributed heavily to the current events and sad state of affairs.

Don't take my word for it. Here's proof. Remember those proposed regulation changes from the Federal Reserve Board last year? You can say they had two targets, (1) Credit Card Companies, and (2) Banks. Guess what? The Credit Card regulations passed. A few of these new regulations already went into effect last month, and the remaining majority of regulations are scheduled to go into effect February of next year.

Uh oh! That's not a good sign of things to come for the banks, who are next on the radar. Times have changed Jim.

I didn't see your last post and I want to respond to it also...I know it is directed at Edward..but I believe he won't mind if I take liberty...

Let's remember it's the lobbyists for the banks that pay for the campaigns these slimeballs in Congress (and the President) run each cycle.  What will ultimately happen is that you might see reform but it will not come out anything close to what the paper said, nor will it end up anything close to what anyone hopes.  Let's all understand as well that when you dry up the revenue source through legislation like this, you only force the bank to figure out another way to make money.  When people like these idiots in Washington upset the applecart trying to punish institutions like the banks, we the consumers are the losers.

Response: This is quite accurate and I can't disagree. But regardless of the advice you often leave..or I do..it all is a means to an end..right? So regardless if your advice was heeded..it would eliminate many fees..correct...and if my advise is heeded..it will eliminate many fees....agreed? So if you really fear we "the customers" are going to lose if the banks are punished..why are you advising ways to lose the banks a lot of income? If you are being genuine and offing your advice with integrity..how does this work out to anyones favor?

Personally I do not feel the changes we ask of the banks policies are "punishment". And if for some miraculous reason there was a landslide lawsuit decision..and the banks had to return every penny in fees that were the result (hypothetically I do not think this would ever happen in my lifetime)..it still would not really be "punishment"..it would just be paying back what many feel they should not have taken to begin with.

Punishment would be if someone was jailed for the crimes..or if the banks were fined billions on top of the billions they took..but all we are asking if fair play. Honestly I can't really place 100% of this on the banks..as of course if the government allowed or approved any of the tactics...I hold them just as responsible..and herein lies a real problem for us..is the government going to sue themselves? Or press charges on themselves? I think not. But maybe..just maybe they will agree to pass some legislation

"The other thing is that when you dry up future revenues for the bank (as this bill supposedly does) it negates the effect of the bailout.  Let's remember the bailout is a LOAN - not a gift - and as such, the banks have to pay it back.  Moreover, the banks have already begun paying the loans back, so the whole argument regarding that since we gave the banks a bailout, they have to do something for us.  Well, if they pay back the loan Edward, what does the bank have?  A reduced revenue stream."

Response: So..we were not only required to bail them out with our tax dollars..but we have to help them pay it back by allowing them to continue to clean out the accounts of the already financially hurting customers that are also suffering from the lousy economic conditions? Are the bank officers giving up any meals or their car payment to help pay us back? What is their sacrifice? What are they doing to help their fellow customers during this crisis? From what I recently saw on the news it seems a Wells Fargo exec was living it up in a foreclosed property..12 million dollar home in Malibu..not too far from where I live..maybe then can invite me over for some tea and crumpets since they now own Wachovia..and Wachovia has bilked me in the past. I have no pity for them.

"Let's finally remember the bailout only took place because our own government dropped the ball on ALL of the guarantees Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and AIG made to the banks when it made these loans.  It was the first two that established the qualifying standards for obtaining a loan, and the final organization that was supposed to insure the loans if they went bad."

So..this still makes it right for the banks to rip off their customer by deception and manipulation? If I owe anyone money i try to do more business and work harder. i don't deceive anyone else to pay my loans back. Actually i am debt free..have been for years. I did it by making wise decisions and not ripping anyone off, and self sacrifice. I blamed no one else when I owed the money..and I made no one else pay my loan and asked for no additional loan to pay another loan..or any handouts. I realize there is plenty of blame to go around..but the policies of some of these banks were made by that bank..and are carried out by that bank. If they can't find an ethical fair way to pay back a loan..or profit..then yes..they will need to fail. That is the way a capitalist system is designed to work..but in a democracy we have a government by the people and for the people..where are they as well for us?

The more Congress intrudes in our lives, the worse off we are for it.

Response: Couldn't agree more..I am a staunch libertarian and a constitutionalist to the core..we don't want congress to intrude in "our" lives..but we do need them to protect us sometimes..specifically from large corporations having too much power and control..and to police themselves. And to keep us safe from enemy attack. Other then that..I have no real use for any of them.

A long while ago Edward, I had an idea (I posted it here) that banks take the money earned from OD fees, and invite their most prolific OD'ers to a free class offered periodically that would teach money management to these OD'ers.  After all, these OD'ers essentially pay for the class through their own fiscal mismanagement.  I think if you offered this idea to a bank, they would be happy to offer the class and have it be led by money managers, not bank employees.  It would have to be a requirement for the bank and the OD'ers.  If someone came to me and asked me to take 4 hrs of my time to teach a class, I would do it.  I'd even do it for a rate they couldn't refuse.

Response: Great idea actually. And we should also make every bank employee and officer attend ethics class. I would be glad to teach it for free.

It does seem however the way you are stating it is like it is a mandatory "punishment" for anyone who overdrafts. So looks like you have felt this way for a while. I guess you are pretty firm on not understanding the banks part in this..and that all overdrafts are caused by financial irresponsibility.

I wonder if many of these "Od'ers" as you refer to them..(why not just call them "criminals" if we are going to classify and judge them all the same) had not had overdraft protection..would have been saved as many..if not more fees then your class would save them. And would have prevented many of them from overdrafting in the first place.

But realistically..why would the banks want to train anyone or pay to teach anyone how to do the opposite of what they need to happen for them to make all that money? The bank does something much smarter for THEM. Issue a register..and give them mandatory overdraft protection...did the trick..didn't it?

Now that would be a solution to this.  Education:  YES.  Legislation:  NO

Well we almost agree I guess. My solution is Education, Legislation, and accountability.

Edward summed it up very well..and glad he is keeping up with the news..how many times have I stated the press is catching on to the new ways the banks are ripping people off...some of us agree it is criminal..regardless of how I or others feel..the courts and hopefully our government "by the people and for the people" will decide. And there will be plenty of battles ahead..we welcome them..because we know we are right.

Now Jim...as Edward expressed...I also feel you are genuine in wanting to help people keep hold if their hard earned money..and you always have offered sound reasonable advice, most I agree with..to a degree.

I can't speak for Edward or anyone else..but I feel the only way to make a drastic decrease in the amount of banking customers that experience the banks tactics, unaware they will be hit so hard with so many fees..and don't really understand why UNTIL it is too late..that more needs to be done then what you suggest.

I know when I drive my car I could get in an accident..so perhaps I should never drive again to hedge my bets. Now that would be a solution..right? Maybe if  hide in the house I will be safer..but then what if it catches fire and I get trapped inside?

My point being there are things in life that we have come to depend on..the banks are one..they are letting us down and endangering us with some of their tactics. If we can possibly amend any changes..should we not try?

Now yes our advise may not always be the same..but as Edward stated..we are on the same team it appears..so why fight us? Perhaps you honestly feel our methods and views are not correct or can't work...but the proof is in the pudding...yes it had failed as well sometimes..but so have the banks. The thing is to get up..wipe yourself down..and go back into battle..that is HOW you win battles, or come to a treaty..or die trying..surrender is not an option.

Let's remember it's the lobbyists for the banks that pay for the campaigns these slimeballs in Congress (and the President) run each cycle.  What will ultimately happen is that you might see reform but it will not come out anything close to what the paper said, nor will it end up anything close to what anyone hopes.  Let's all understand as well that when you dry up the revenue source through legislation like this, you only force the bank to figure out another way to make money.  When people like these idiots in Washington upset the applecart trying to punish institutions like the banks, we the consumers are the losers.

The other thing is that when you dry up future revenues for the bank (as this bill supposedly does) it negates the effect of the bailout.  Let's remember the bailout is a LOAN - not a gift - and as such, the banks have to pay it back.  Moreover, the banks have already begun paying the loans back, so the whole argument regarding that since we gave the banks a bailout, they have to do something for us.  Well, if they pay back the loan Edward, what does the bank have?  A reduced revenue stream.

Let's finally remember the bailout only took place because our own government dropped the ball on ALL of the guarantees Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and AIG made to the banks when it made these loans.  It was the first two that established the qualifying standards for obtaining a loan, and the final organization that was supposed to insure the loans if they went bad.

The more Congress intrudes in our lives, the worse off we are for it. 

A long while ago Edward, I had an idea (I posted it here) that banks take the money earned from OD fees, and invite their most prolific OD'ers to a free class offered periodically that would teach money management to these OD'ers.  After all, these OD'ers essentially pay for the class through their own fiscal mismanagement.  I think if you offered this idea to a bank, they would be happy to offer the class and have it be led by money managers, not bank employees.  It would have to be a requirement for the bank and the OD'ers.  If someone came to me and asked me to take 4 hrs of my time to teach a class, I would do it.  I'd even do it for a rate they couldn't refuse.

Now that would be a solution to this.  Education:  YES.  Legislation:  NO

Jim, some often mistake your sentiments as being the defender of the evil banks. I know that not to be true. You really have the same end objective, you just choose to approach it differently. Your common themes are credit unions and stop using debit cards and you emphasize empowerment and not falling into victimhood status. Others like myself and Ronny G have the same goal as you, which is to educate people about OD fees to help avoid them.

Our approach is different because we choose not to bury our heads in the sand and just let the financial institutions keep pissing on everyone's head and keep saying it's raining. Why stop using handy,convenient debit cards because of unfair and deceptive bank practices? Instead of trying get along with the unfair evil system, why not try and have that unfair, evil system exposed and corrected? Because Jim, I submit to you that the majority have not learned to function within the system. Why else would the Federal Reserve Board waste time with regulation changes for only a small minority of consumers? Why would Congress waste time with new legislation changes, announced just today in the Washington Post, for only a small minority of consumers?

Jim, many people are fed up with shady tactics of greedy financial institutions. And then those same financial institutions have to be bailed out by the same consumers they're ripping off....well that's the last straw, even for the Feds and Congress. By the way, in the Washington Post article today, members of Congress used words like 'criminal' and 'rip-off' when describing what's happening. No longer just the words of Edward or Ronny G. Looks like members of Congress are spending time reading the Ripoff Report.

All customers of a bank have to abide by the terms and conditions the bank establishes for all customers.  Not the customer's T&C's.  The bank's.  Since all bank's T&C's are becoming identical - for both statuatory and legal reasons - between all banks, there is no point in saying all banks are not the same.  Contractually and functionally - they are.  Since it's now our courts and legal system that have made this system so that it cannot be materially changed, we have a choice.  We can:

(1)  Switch to a credit union and hope they never function they way a bank does (looking like there's less and less hope for that these days)

(2)  Learn how to financially function within the system.  Don't use debit cards, stick to checks and cash, and keep a register - that will stick it to the banks more than anything else.

(3)  Continue to be victimized.

The point is not to be victimized.  Empowerment begins with us and working within the system the government setup.  Lawsuits don't work and waste more money.  The banks sure have learned to operate within the system and millions of others have as well....how hard could it be to learn how to financially function within the system??  The majority sure have....

our system really is: I'm sure you already 'Googled' this- KEY LAWMAKER RECEIVED COUNTRYWIDE LOANS, and read that article where Lawmaker Edolphus Towns allegedly received 'mortgage loans' with lower interest rates from Countrywide (which is now owned by BofA), correct? It seems as though Congressmen are entitled to 'special rates' that the average American citizen can't get, right?

Even when someone is mocking you in jest, you can't seem to grasp the concept...

Since you missed the point of the last post, I will s-p-e-l-l it out for you:

Banks decide how they do business, not Ronny the Delusional. If you don't like the terms and conditions a bank sets forward (even when regulators, legislators and the judiciary have approved and confirmed them), Go to another bank.

Is that clear enough, or should I draw you a picture in crayon?

Quote from Truth Detector: ''Accordingly, we should have the right to DEMAND that Bank of America change its policies to suit our irresponsible habits.''

For the record, I used to have an account with Bandits of America but I closed my account with those robbers years ago. But let's take a look at an existing customer with Bandits of America. This customer is responsible. This customer keeps a check register faithfully. But this responsible customer understands that no one is perfect. So that customer requests that BofA stop approving his debit card transactions once the balance reaches zero. You know, just in case the customer has an oversight or just in case he forgets.

The official bank policy response from Bandits of America: Can't do it. It's mandatory that we keep allowing you to spend even after your balance reaches zero. It's mandatory that we allow you to overdraft your account, even though you responsibly do not want us to do this.

So who is really the irresponsible entity here? Now, if it's mandatory that all BofA customers be allowed to overdraft their account, why don't we hear of customers overdrafting their account to the tune of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars? Do you think if a customer's bank balance is ($1,000,000) or negative -$1,000,000, that his card swipe will be approved at Walmart or Starbucks?

The answer is no because there's a limit for obvious reasons. BofA allows the customer to overdraft up to a certain limit to reap the fees, then after the loot has been stolen, that's when they cut you off at the knees, and stop approving that card......until the next direct deposit shows up.

And that's the 'irresponsible' yet clever ripoff here.

Your solution, Ronny, is far simpler than you lay out...

How about this: Open your own bank!

Yes, Ronny...it's true! At your own bank, you can charge irresponsible morons as little as you wish. Heck, you can even PAY them to overdraft! It'll be great!

When they bounce checks, YOU can pay the merchants. Of course, you won't be making enough money to buy a stick of gum, let alone run a business. But you'll be "consumer friendly", right?

Interest on loans? NONSENSE! That would be exploiting consumers for profit (Heaven forbid a business make a profit!). Every service at the First Bank of Ronny is absolutely 100% FREE. If you default on your auto loan, he won't repossess. In fact, he'll buy you new tires and fill up your gas tank right before he washes and waxes the car!

However...

Until The First Bank of Ronny is operational, other banks have every right to run their businesses in a profitable manner. For nearly every bank, this means punitive actions against those who help themselves to the bank's money without signing a loan agreement. All your Dorothy-like wishes of clicking your heels and changing the way banks do business mean SQUAT when banking regulators, legislators (Your Maloney-sponsored bill has been a dying quail for 3 years, by the way...) and the judiciary have all confirmed the legality of the ordering process.

Make sure you tell Toto and the Tin Man "hello" from those of us who live in reality and not FANTASY land...

In America, we REQUIRE banking customers to open accounts with Bank of America (Hence, the name of the bank...).

Law enforcement holds a gun to our head and FORCES us to sign in agreement with the terms and conditions of the accounts we were FORCED to open and keep.

Accordingly, we should have the right to DEMAND that Bank of America change its policies to suit our irresponsible habits. After all, we had NO choice as to who we bank with. It's not like there are other banks out there.

Wait...What's that you say?

All banks aren't the same - and we actually have a choice as to who we bank with?

We can actually tell the bank to shove it and take our business to another one?

Staying with a bank when you disagree with its policies, procedures, terms and conditions...then whining about them. THAT is the rip-off here...

Be careful Jim. I'm merely the messenger, just repeating the facts as I have heard and read.

All banks could be well on their way to adopting similar policies as the Bandits of America. But right now, BofA is the only bank that I've heard of that will not allow a customer to opt-out of courtesy overdraft. I understand that some customers have tried this at other banks and have been denied, but it's usually just the bank employees giving the customer the runaround. Classic example is Ronny G and his two attempts to get it done at Wachovia. But Ronny G was able to eventually get it done.

But it's a documented and proven fact that at BofA, it's not a runaround. Ronny G could have attempted this at BofA one million times and he would still fail. Why? Because it's BofA's official bank policy that customers have no say so about opting out of courtesy overdraft. I haven't heard or read this for any other bank. That's all I'm saying, Jim.

Now, speaking of making something true simply by repeating it, the same can be said about the false conclusions reached in only one part of the still pending Gutierrez vs Wells Fargo case. Stay tuned for the real facts about what the judge actually said in the decertification of just one class, while the other class is still certified and case still on schedule.

Back to the subject at hand. Jim, if your premise were actually true that all banks are the same and none of them allow you to opt-out of courtesy overdraft, then we have ourselves a hypocritical dilemma. The bank's position is, the customer should manage their finances responsibly and never overdraft, but the bank will enact a policy that makes it mandatory that customers be allowed to overdraft, even whey they request not to be allowed to do so.

I constantly state that many banks are now starting to adopt the same ripoff polices has s***k of America and Wackoffonya, including some smaller local community banks that at one time may have cared a little about their customers..community..remember that? I consistently warn people to check the terms of their bank..or any new bank or credit union they may join in the future.

Regardless..it still does not make it right..and in no way excuses any bank for pulling the wool over their customer eyes.

As well..it proves my point even further about use of a register being the only defense...as if banks are changing policies as they see fit at any time...perhaps there is a chance a customer can be caught off guard..possible you think? Any of these report reflect this do you think? Do you actually open your eyes when you read these..or just have homogenized generic responses like the bank does..all a crock of feces?

Now I was able to opt out when I was with Wachovia..and true it was not easy..and true it took 2 tries..the second we got in writing..because if they were to change anything..I would have thrown that in their face and demanded a refund. But I left those asshats, I was just sick of them. The tellers were always nice and I still visit a few..but the bank is run by scumbags..greedy scumbags..I DO NOT trust my money or finances with scumbags..although it is getting difficult to weed out the scumbags from the ethical institutions these days.

So no Jim, I can not concede that ALL banks are the same..but it is possible they will all become the same..unless something is done before it happens..because if they do all become the same..we will be here telling people to keep their money under their mattress as the only safe place. Actually for many that is the safest place.

Edward, posting something twice doesn't make it right - LOL.  Many banks are in the process or have already adoped the same policies as BofA and Wachovia/Wells.  In other words, even if you try to opt out, you won't be able to.

I try to keep telling people like Ronny all the time that all banks are the same and the more people say they aren't, the complaints on ROR only prove it true.

'Googling' this- FDIC CHIEF CONSIDERS TAPPING TREASURY FOR FUNDS, and reading it on the web.

Ronny G, you are correct. All banks are not the same.

Most people assume you can opt-out of Courtesy Overdraft, Overdraft Protection, or whatever you want to call it. Usually when a customer says they can't do this based on what they were told by an employee, or past experience, most people assume it's only because the bank makes it difficult to do so. The customer just has to be persistent, make several attempts to make it happen, and don't take no for an answer.

Apparently not everyone is aware of the new low that Bandits of America have stooped to. I just became aware after catching a quick mention of it on NBC nightly news during a story about debit card fees. It's still hard to find tons of evidence of this but after some research, it seems to be true that Bandits of America makes Courtesy Overdraft mandatory. Yes, MANDATORY. You cannot opt-out of it, no matter how many times you try and no matter who you talk with. That's it, end of discussion.

This is what's described in the OP here and the transaction at 7-11 and the legitimate question of why the card was allowed if the account was already overdrawn. This happened because not only is it opt-in overdraft by default, but you cannot opt-out.

No way, no how, and that's the ripoff here.

Ronny G, you are correct. All banks are not the same.

Most people assume you can opt-out of Courtesy Overdraft, Overdraft Protection, or whatever you want to call it. Usually when a customer says they can't do this based on what they were told by an employee, or past experience, most people assume it's only because the bank makes it difficult to do so. The customer just has to be persistent, make several attempts to make it happen, and take no for an answer.

Apparently not everyone is aware of the new low that Bandits of America have stooped to. I just became aware after catching a quick mention of it on NBC nightly news during a story about debit card fees. It's still hard to find tons of evidence of this but after some research, it seems to be true that Bandits of America makes Courtesy Overdraft mandatory. Yes, MANDATORY. You cannot opt-out of it, no matter how many times you try and no matter who you talk with. That's it, end of discussion.

This is what's described in the OP here and the transaction at 7-11 and the legitimate question of why the card was allowed if the account was already overdrawn. This happened because not only is it opt-in overdraft by default, but you cannot opt-out.

No way, no how, and that's the ripoff here.

But there are similarities.

And you ARE able to opt out of overdraft protection..where do all of you get your info? Or maybe all banks are not the same?? Imagine that?

But agreed..the bank does not want you to opt out (Wachovia took me 2 tries..I had to get it in writing the second time from the bank manager to use as evidence if a POS or ATM transaction is not declined to to NSF) because it works in harmony with the re-sequencing to yield all those additional fees..so of course it is NOT in the banks best financial interests to opt you out..and until some laws are changed to better regulate the bank and it's policies..people will continue being duped by this fraud and scheme they call overdraft "protection".

Now in a different bank I started to use the terms and fees are quite clear (although it states NOTHING about re-sequencing transactions and the bank themselves told me ALL transactions are processed as they come in...not manipulated, we shall see) they have 2 types of OD protection. One is the standard ripoff one that comes as a "free" service..but protects nothing but the bank and is simply called "overdraft protection"....and another is called "overdraft transfer service"..which is not perfect..but better. Basically it links to my savings account. If my balance is under $10,000 an overdraft fee will be charged..but less, $12.00. However if my account balance is over $10,000..overdraft coverage is free of charge. It states nothing about a maximum of times this can happen..the only thing I can find with maximums is they will never charge more then 7 OD fees in a day. I got it right here in front of me in black and white.

2000 years ago. He stood up against the 'leaders' of his day because the 'leaders' were making it difficult for the 'common folk' to live in peace & harmony. Unfortunately for him, the 'authorities' of his day didn't like that he was standing up & speaking out against them, so they made sure that he wouldn't cause anymore problems for them.

The charge you receive for transfer money from you savings account is a banking regulation not a B of A policy.  All banks and credit unions charge this.

You are only allowed to debit transfer up to four times per statement period.  You are allowed an unlimited number of ATM transactions.

All of this is explained in your account terms if you had bothered to read it.

Regarding your question about why you were allowed to use your debit card at 7-11 if the account was already overdrawn? It's because Bandits of America forces all accounts to use courtesy overdraft. You cannot opt-out of it, period, the end.

Now while they yell to you from their bully vault about how you should manage your finances better, your hard earned tax dollars have to bail out the Bandits of America, so they can stay afloat and continue to rip you off.

They rip you off with these shady overdraft fee policies.  And now with your tax dollars, you're paying them to rip you off. Now don't you just feel refreshed, empowered and invigorated?

But hold on. In addition to irony, we remember there's also such a thing as Karma (aka - Merrill Lynch).

...allow you to opt out of overdraft protection..for as you found out the hard way like so many others here..and that did not report here...it is a farce..it protects the bank..not you.

This type of "overdraft protection" that the bank has you enrolled in..and most likely never asked if you wanted it to begin with..works out very well for them when combined with the transaction re-sequencing they get away with..which in my opinion is nothing more then altering time. Yes the banks have figured out a way to alter time..and legally profit off it..to the tune of over 38 billion dollars in 09 alone.

Many banks do this..the problem is too many customers are unaware..until it is to late and they get hit..and hit hard.

You may be able to recover all..or some..typically half the fees you were charged if this is your only overdraft in a 12 month period..but it will take patience and consistency on your part...but keep calling and don't be rube..keep asking foe supervisors..even if you wait on hold for 45 minutes then they hang up on you..call right back...it should work.

But if you feel this can happen to you again..opt out of that scam which is a guise as a "service"...that type of overdraft protection you have protects nothing but the banks money..an insures if this happens again..they will unleash the avalanche of fees upon you.

Some of us are trying hard and working with a law firm to get some laws and bank policy changed to actually provide SOME actual protection of the consumers hard earned money..so you may be getting a letter soon.

Some will come on here and tell you to keep a register..so just do that if you don't already..it will shut them the hell up..and will help you keep better track..not that there are ways the bank will screw you regardless..but it can't hurt to hedge you bets..and online banking is another farce..inaccurate and undependable..transactions are delayed and hidden..its a hot mess.