Bank Of America BANK FEES San Diego California

Once again Ken you make more good points. However, you indicate Overdraft Protection is a PRIVELEGE and 'the bank' is under no obligation to provide it to customers. There's just one problem with 'the bank' using that as a defense. It's 'the banks' who VOLUNTARILY shove it down customer's throats when the customer hasn't even requested it. And when customers get angry about it and say they do this SOLELY for profit, the banks claim their doing it for the customer's benefit to prevent the customer from embarrassment and having their card declined at the point of sale. Then on the other hand, when confronted with situations where these SAME BANKS return a check for no explainable reason, these SAME BANKS will borrow your wording and logic and say Overdraft Protection is a privelege they are not required to offer. Ok, so which is it?

Regarding the Partial Opt-Out, you're correct that when transactions are batched in, it would be difficult to selectively apply OD protection for some types and not all at that point, AFTER the transaction has occurred. But this is not difficult to do for specific transaction types BEFORE they occur. Prevent the transaction from even being made, if there is not sufficient funds. That should be an easy program change. Program the system to apply OD protection or not for ALL pre-authorizations (ATM, Point-of-Sale). Then apply OD protection or not during nightly processing for ALL posting transactions batched in (Checks, ACH, Debits). I'm sure the Feds have considered this, in fact they even say so in the Proposal document that SOME banks may have difficulty doing this.

But you can be sure the Feds are not dummies and they're not just going to sheepishly listen to all banks so 'nope, can't do it'. That's not going to fly. Especially not from big banks like Bandits of America. With all those record breaking massive profits? Are you kidding?

Bank software doesn't work (generally speaking) in this manner. When the bank updates at night all items have been batched and hit the account from the same channel. When they hit, either OD protection applies or it doesn't. It isn't likely that banks will spend millions to re-write their systems to change this, and if they do choose to, it will be years in design and implementation. So the outcome will be that if someone opts out, the bank will revoke all overdraft privileges. And take note of the word privilege... the bank is under no obligation to provide this protection to a depositor, it is a marketing and competition tool more than anything else.
No where is the legislation does it say that a bank MUST provide overdraft privileges, so you can rest assured that if you opt out of one, you will be opting out of all.

Maybe your two year old won't get a birthday party, or presents...
but your World of Warcraft account is paid for!

It's all about priorities.

we are having the same problem too.we have tried to talk to the bank and its no use so we filed a report with bbb.org and the states attorneys office in our state and its being looked at .maybe if everyone thats been took by bank of america would do the same we could get them back for the way they treat us.

As noted above, debit cards usually are credit cards that in reality are checking account substitute usage.

However my comment is about cost...
If you are paying anything for the having of a debit card you are being ripped.
Most banks offer debit cards to existing checking accts for free.
Also, if you are ever using the debit card as a real credit and not paying attention to your balance...you should never have a debit card.

I use debit cards soley to avoid carrying around a chkbook or blank chks which to me is much more dangerious.

Also all these socalled debit cards (ie; put $$ on it, gift debit cards) are a trap for those who dont know better.

Reality is, fees will occur on overages one does on a debit card and you should also have a 'overdraft' protection, which in my case is a 'real credit card'.

upon each transaction you agree to pay the vendor the full specified amount. When you sign the slip, it says:

"i agree to pay in full etc etc"

youre promising to legally pay for the goods you have received.

However, Banks have lost some degree of morality (now) when in the past they:

DECLINED THE TRANSACTION because the processor would check your account; you would also remember that after swiping your cards it would take 10-15 seconds for the computer to check your funds.

Bank of America has generated its cash cow, while downgrading its' own morality by 'enabling' transactions to post irrespective if the funds are in the accounts or not. BOA doesnt care, it would rather you bounce as many transactions possible.

You are better off carrying cash- to pay for your transactions. You are hurting credit card companies and banks by carrying cash because each transaction holds a 1-3% transaction fee.

Stop blaming the bank for bouncing your transactions, you are the one who did it. You have to take extreme responsibility in this regard because banks engineer big transactions to post first, then small ones, or in the reverse depending on your transactional history and patterns.

Banks use algorithmic probabilities to determine when and what transactions to post, enabling a higher probability that the big transaction(s) you purchased will bounce using your patterns from the month before and the year before.

This behavior/practice is unamerican, and has really put Ken Lewis (money grubbing d******e) and others to shame. Bank of America should use a vulture as its mascot because that's exactly what they are, vultures, big ugly a*s vultures that look like ken Lewis

Truth Detector, you under estimate the cleverness of the Feds, as I previously pointed out to Ken, and others. The Federal Reserve might not have EVERY SINGLE scenario or exception covered. But it's obvious they have put a LOT OF THOUGHT into this and they have tried to cover what they consider the major situations and exceptions. And the reason for the Request for Comment period was to see what everyone thought about their proposals and also listen to other situations maybe they had not already considered.

To your point of those who OVERDRAFT their account when they have OPTED OUT of overdraft protection. You give a perfect example of fuel purchases. The customer only has a $5 balance. The pump will only place a $1 hold. No problem so far. But if the customer proceeds to run up $60 of gas, what happens when the payment comes in, overdrafting their account and the customer has OPTED OUT of Overdraft Protection? Yet again I direct you back to those clever Feds and the EXACT wording directly from their proposal:

----------
Exceptions - Section .32(a)(3)

In some cases, an institution may not be able to avoid paying a transaction that overdraws the account. Under the proposal, if the institution does pay an overdraft, the consumer's decision to opt out of the institution's overdraft service would not prohibit institutions from paying overdrafts in all cases.

Section .32(a)(3)(i) would permit an institution to charge an overdraft fee for a debit card transaction if the purchase amount presented at settlement by a merchant exceeds the amount that was originally requested for pre-authorization.
----------

I'm telling you, when you think about it, the Feds have basically come up with several proposals that seek to ensure ALL BASES are covered. And the exceptions will take care of themself when it's all said and done.

If the Feds enact regulatory measures to allow consumers to opt out of having overdrafts paid by the bank, then this whole debate over overdraft fees will soon become obsolete. In my estimation, from a money standpoint that can and will INITIALLY benefit those who have difficulty managing their finances.

However...

Keep in mind that this sort of regulatory change will have some very real unintended legal and financial consequences.

Financially, the banks will be losing a great deal of effortless profit every day. Now, I do not point this out to suggest that any of us shed a tear for these crooks. But consider the fact that the remaining 90% of consumers who do not overdraft their accounts will probably end up paying for accounts that were previously free. In the grand scheme of things, this turn of events is probably more equitable for the low-income class - as this class is far more likely to live and spend near the baseline than those who do not overdraft. Still, it seems a bit odd that the irresponsible are rewarded with no fees while the responsible account holders are made to pay the difference. In keeping with my consistent position, however, I must say that if federal regulators enact the changes, I will support them 100% as they would constitute the law of the land.

Now from a legal standpoint, those who opt out of overdraft payment could be in for a world of trouble when they start initiating transactions in excess of what they have in their account. Imagine an account holder initiating a pay-at-the-pump for $50-60 when they have $5-6 to spend. The pump will let them complete the transaction, but when the merchant batches the transactions, the bank will decline to pay. Locally, I suppose the merchant could simply send a threatening bill for the price of the transaction and returned payment costs to the offending party. However, what if this scenario plays out on a road trip? Frankly, in either case the merchant could file charges against the consumer either in criminal or civil court. The same will hold true if the proposed legislation is allowed to include checks. You may escape the overdraft fees that you despise - only to discover that the legal and financial costs of dealing with returned transactions and/or checks could be catastrophic beyond anything that the present system promises.

Just a little food for thought folks...

Excellent point Ken! But most people are only aware of the GENERAL proposals. Unless you read the entire proposal document, you miss out on a lot of additional details. Most of what you hear or read in the news are just summaries. The general summary is you'll be able to OPT OUT of Overdraft Protection, as you stated. But after the Feds open the discussion of the general OPT OUT Rule in Section .32(a)(1), the document continues on to say:

----------
Partial Opt-Out - Section .32(a)(2)

Some consumers may want their institution to pay overdrafts by check and ACH, but do not want overdrafts paid in other circumstances, such as for ATM withdrawals and debit card transactions at a point-of-sale. Thus, the proposed rules requires institutions to provide consumers with the option of opting out only of the payment of overdrafts at ATMs and for debit card transactions at the point-of-sale.
----------

You see Ken. As I said earlier, they've got you covered. Everyone gets EXACTLY what they want and everyone goes home happy. Now why couldn't the banks think of this LONG AGO? Well, I'm sure we all know the answer to that question. $$

The latest version of this legislation provides for the depositor to opt out of Overdraft Protection. This means that if they opt out, an overdraft will be declined on a debit transaction, an ATM withdrawal, an ACH transaction, and most importantly a check. This has an impact on people who want the card declined when they don't know if they have funds, but would like their rent check to overdraw and take the hit on the fee there. It appears that it will be all or nothing, you won't be able to choose when to allow an overdraft.
Personally, I'd rather have my check paid and take the overdraft fee, than have my check returned and pay the overdraft fee, and the merchant returned check charge.

It's not guaranteed but laws may be forthcoming as you allude to. You hit on all of the key elements in your OP. With two card users, it's hard to keep up to THE SECOND with who's doing what, especially in cases of emergency. Yet you also admit your own responsibility, which is certainly true. But the main point of your OP, which is so sadly true, is often times bank policies are meant solely to kick a person when they're down and bury them. With record numbers of Americans losing their homes, high gas prices, economy on the brink of recession, times are just bad for EVERYONE. The LAST thing anyone in these situations want is for the banks and their merciless supporters to poor salt in the wound. I certainly know how you feel but I digress.

At any rate, the Federal Reserve now agrees with you. Enough is Enough! The help that is possibly on the way is the ability for consumers to OPT IN or OPT OUT of certain policies. No more blanket policies for EVERYONE. If you want your card APPROVED even when the balance hits zero because of embarrassment, then you can OPT IN to that policy. But if you want your card DENIED at zero balance, then you can OPT OUT. The same for posting order. If you want your Mortgage paid first (post largest transactions first) you can OPT IN to that policy. If you're SMART enough not to risk bouncing your mortgage check and you prefer your transactions be paid in the order they're received, then you can OPT OUT of the largest-first posting order policy.

For so long these have been two COMMON debates. Those who want their cards approved when the balance hits zero and those who don't. Those who want their larger checks posted first and those who don't. Both sides have VALID arguing points, so which side is right, or which side does the bank ultimately go with? Well the Federal Reserve has come up with the idea of letting EACH customer selectively choose for themselves. What a GENIOUS idea. See how easy that is? Everyone goes home happy! Brilliant! Simply Brilliant!

The debit card is a replacement for writing a check. No one ever rushed out to stop you from writing a check when there aren't funds in the account, so always operate under the assumption that no one will stop you from using a debit card.

To carry the analogy further, you should only use a debit card in a situation where you (at one time) would have written a check. To be using a debit card at McDonalds for purchases of less that $3 is just madness. Think of how much money you would have saved if you had just withdrawn $25 in cash and made those small purchases with cash instead.

You would do yourselves a huge favor by cutting up the debit cards and reverting to using cash and checks for your purchases.

At one point you say you have 5 kids and then you say that you have 4 kids. Did one move out while you were writing the report?

It's not the bank's responsibility to manage your account balance. You agreed to the fees when you opened the account.

At one point you say you have 5 kids and then you say that you have 4 kids. Did one move out while you were writing the report?

It's not the bank's responsibility to manage your account balance. You agreed to the fees when you opened the account.

At one point you say you have 5 kids and then you say that you have 4 kids. Did one move out while you were writing the report?

It's not the bank's responsibility to manage your account balance. You agreed to the fees when you opened the account.

Usually we don't see this kind of detail from a poster.

But your summary shows the swipe date for each transaction. And the only one that wasn't swiped on 7/28 or earlier was a World of Warcraft payment which was probably a pre-existing withdrawal, so that is kind of like a check.

You spent money you didn't have with checks outstanding nonetheless! Making the deposit in the middle of it didn't help because they will post the deposit after the withdrawals. Even then, it was deposited on the 29th - after all of the swipes!

I don't see a ripoff here.