US Bank OVERDRAFT FEES EXORBITANT Internet

And anyone in the world can 'Google' the following and watch them on the web-

So I shall respond here.

You last comment...


"So by all means, continue to spew your poor advice and incorrect information on this issue. Those of us who "get it" will continue to debunk your lies and be there with the TRUTH, every step of the way."

Kindly post any poor "advice" I gave regarding the "issue". Kindly post any "incorrect" information I have stated.

Otherwise..this remains here for all to see...an accusation with no merit. A fraudulent statement.

If you do so..you have my word. If you are correct, I will agree to it. If you are wrong or post nonsense..I will verily debunk it.

Thank You.

TRUTH DETECTOR STATED:

"First, I must apologize to Ronny G. I called him a doofus earlier.

In reality, you are a first-class turd sandwich."

Do I take offense to this statement? Perhaps. But since it is coming from someone who is simply out of ammo...I expect it. Kind of like if two little children were arguing a point...and one has got the other outsmarted...the LOSER will start crying..and make fun of the opponents mother..or insult their cloths...anything but except defeat and graciously concede.

"I have a brother like you, Ronny. I could mix yellow and blue together. He could see with his own eyes the resulting color is green. However, until he is blue in the face, he would proclaim that the color really isn't green, but orange."

I am surprised you have the foresight to know what I am like in person..impressive perception..but in reality you DO NOT know anything about me. In typical BANK DEFENDER fashion..you base everything on assumption, presumption, prejudgment, belittling, insulting, twisting fact and bending truths, and resorting to going off topic when you are losing a debate. No surprise here really.

Am I guilty of resorting to insult and name calling when I get frustrated by the bank defenders constant vicious and attacks against me personally..and the defamation..yes, guilty as charged. But who really has a more noble cause here? Those who insult and belittle just about every banking customer that comes here to lodge a complaint..and HAS every RIGHT to do so since this IS the appropriate site to lodge complaints as per the terms and purpose of this site..and due to the first amendment of the US constitution...or myself and Edward, that subject ourselves to attack for simply agreeing with some of these customers..and helping to expose the banks tactics..and pointing them to the lawsuits and other pertinent information?

"Why? Because in his puny little mind, he is ALWAYS RIGHT - even when it is patently obvious to even a child that he is WRONG. This is the affliction that is plaguing you on this and every other thread."

False statement. I demand proof. I have on occasion admitted if I was wrong..and even on a few cases have apologized for rude or improper behavior. I am human..I can make mistakes...I can fess up to them..and I can forgive others for the same thing as well.

Now explain where I am wrong about anything substantive..or not. And this time base it on fact...and on anything I actually posted, stated, argued, debated..or posted fact, evidence and documentation thereof.

Otherwise..you lose this one by defaut.

"The entire educated world knows that keeping accurate records and managing your finances like a responsible adult will make overdraft charges disappear. Even semi-intelligent people also understand that you cannot spend more money than is available in your account, lest you be charged for your incompetence."

I never argued this point so you are just blowing smoke. I agree 100% that keeping an accurate register is a great way to prevent fees. I also know due to all the complaints..that whether you like it or not..the EXACT changes in bank policies to make things more fair..to give the customers the choice on how they wish to protect their account..and to those who may overdraft from error or any other reason due to any "attempt to steal the banks money" as you put it..is going into effect by choice of the banks.

I am very responsible with my money..but have been victim to circumstances and the banks trying to get over on me. I have been charged overdraft fees in the past..but I NEVER once paid one..the funds were always returned to my account because of my persistence..and my exposing of the banks policies.

I will say this again...I do not condone personal irresponsibility. If I see a complaint here where a customer was FULLY aware of the banks tactics..and chose to overdraft out of intent, I will be right beside the bank defenders defending the bank. I see both sides, not just one. The bank defenders come here to abuse and verbally insult virtually every complaint..and automatically assume and imply they are a deadbeat..I choose the innocent until proven guilty philosophy..unless I feel the complaint is unreasonable.

In reality...this all has little to do with who is wrong or right regarding the bank defenders vs. Edward and I...it just has to do with fairness and forgiviness. When a bank of any business has complaints against it..how it handles the comaplnits tells us a lot about the business. Now granted I do not see anyone actually from these banks coming here to rebut...but it is quite apparent the banks are starting to makes some changes....the EXACT changes Edward and I have been harping on since day one. So what really is the problem? No one is forcing anyone to come here..and no one is forcing anyone to constantly defame, insult and attack Edward and I. That is your choice and as you can see..we stand our ground quite competently.

"Yet you sit there and blame BANKS for the DEADBEAT spending habits of morons who are unwilling or unable to exercise 4th grade mathematics skills with regards to their checking accounts."

Well this is one of your assumptions. You seem very disturbed over it. Maybe you need a vacation from this website to regain composure?

"The sad thing is, you actually believe that most readers agree with you on this - when in fact, the VAST majority of checking account holders get the concept of responsible checking account management and avoid the fees that accompany deadbeat behavior like the plague."

Read the FDIC report and the reports here. Google ANY bank name with the suffix "complaints"..I have no further need here to post evidence on how many customers have been effected..and the dollar amounts..it's getting old.

Ashley, my only reason of reminding you that you said you were done on this thread long ago, was to make my familiar point about 'bank defenders'. Many of you throw hints that ''you're done'', hoping your opposers will follow suit. If we have the impression that you're done, no reason for us to post any contradiction after your post because you have indicated ahead of time you won't respond any further. So if we take the bait and don't respond to your last post, this leaves your last post there as 'the gospel' without any counter point to show how off it is. Ashley, I could care less whether you keep posting. Actually I appreciate it, as the holes in your logic become ever more clear with every keystroke. Please continue as I show you how:

Moebs Services surveyed 2,014 banks. From these 2,014 banks Moebs concluded the average overdraft fee increased from $25 in 2008 to $26 in 2009. Since the average increased Ashley, this would mean the majority of banks indicated their OD Fee is higher this year than it was last year. That's the only explanation for the higher average. Ashley, using your logic, if the banks 'lied' on the survey, this means their real OD Fee is actually $25 but they 'lied' and said it's $35. This means many banks 'lied' indicating their fees are higher than they really are. Let's all think about that logic for a second before we conclude how stupid it is. If the banks are going to take the effort to 'lie', wouldn't it make better sense for them to 'lie' and say their fees are lower than they really are? To present themselves in a better light? Why would they 'lie' indicating their fees are higher presenting themselves in a darker light? Yeah, that makes good business sense, doesn't it.

Any of us could do what Moebs did, if we wanted to take the time and effort. Every bank documents its fee in their Deposit Agreement. Any of us could review thousands of these Deposit Agreements and conduct our own research from their published fees. Ashley, chances are we'd all end up with the same results as the Moebs Services survey. Ashley you said it best earlier when you said ''I have no need to support my things with fact. They are all in the various bank contracts that I'm sure you have read.''

You're exactly right Ashley. Even though we all know it's not true, even if we assumed the banks 'lied' on the survey about their fee, we can easily verify this because, as you said, ''They are all in the various bank contracts''. So why would the banks lie on a survey which will be documented and kept for posterity, if they know anyone can easily see that they lied. MORE IMPORTANTLY, why would they lie making their fees to appear higher than they are? Now I'm really intrigued about how you can explain that using your logic.

ANIMAL KINGDOM.

Perhaps this can end this argument once and for all.

I have copied and pasted the last line of this posters complaint..and I quote..

"post on here so we can all STOP the banks from ripping us off!!!"

Many posters want policy changes that are more fair and less of a ripoff. You and other banks defenders typically belittle them with the same canned generic response "grow up..learn to use a register, the bank did nothing wrong" etc.

That advice will not stop the banks or change the policies. Sure if no one ever overdrafted again we would not be here now..but you yourself have stated to me that we can't expect that to ever happen..so again..where is the point to the bank defenders side? Am I correct in stating that you just enjoy making people feel bad?

What has made a difference is all the EXPOSURE of the banks part in this..the endless complaints, the pending lawsuits, and pressure from congress.

The banks that have not decided to make changes on their own..or not change enough..will most likely be doing so in the future. Call that a theory if you'd like..but we will all see if that statement is true in the future..no need to argue that here.

Now unless you can explain any other reason why the banks are starting to change these polices on their own..and why the lawsuits are continuing..and why congress is working on legislation..I think it best for the bank defenders to end this here and now.

All the diversions and smoke screening and word play and blame and defamation and belittling has done nothing to help the customers...or help the banks...so you tell me...what is the point to continuing this debate? And what is the point to keep attacking Edward and I for pointing out and exposing the obvious?

First, I must apologize to Ronny G. I called him a doofus earlier.

In reality, you are a first-class turd sandwich.

I have a brother like you, Ronny. I could mix yellow and blue together. He could see with his own eyes the resulting color is green. However, until he is blue in the face, he would proclaim that the color really isn't green, but orange.

Why? Because in his puny little mind, he is ALWAYS RIGHT - even when it is patently obvious to even a child that he is WRONG. This is the affliction that is plaguing you on this and every other thread.

The entire educated world knows that keeping accurate records and managing your finances like a responsible adult will make overdraft charges disappear. Even semi-intelligent people also understand that you cannot spend more money than is available in your account, lest you be charged for your incompetence.

Yet you sit there and blame BANKS for the DEADBEAT spending habits of morons who are unwilling or unable to exercise 4th grade mathematics skills with regards to their checking accounts.

The sad thing is, you actually believe that most readers agree with you on this - when in fact, the VAST majority of checking account holders get the concept of responsible checking account management and avoid the fees that accompany deadbeat behavior like the plague.

So by all means, continue to spew your poor advice and incorrect information on this issue. Those of us who "get it" will continue to debunk your lies and be there with the TRUTH, every step of the way.

Apparently none of you understand it.

'Google' this- YOUTUBE PETER GABRIEL DIGGING IN THE DIRT, and watch it on the web!

Here are the other THREE questions that are way back on the post where I originally ask them. All the hostility and nonsense and insults didn't make it too hard for me to scroll back and find them. They ALL had questions marks at the end...no typos and perfect spelling.

(copied and pasted from previous post EXACTLY as posted)

Why are some banks deciding, on their own, without legislation or lawsuit decision..to change some policies?


If anyone but me has noticed....seem the banks are "attacking" so called "good" customers  as well with extra fees. Does anyone besides me think this is only going to get worse?

How are the bank defenders going to reply here when the "good" customers start lodging complaints against the bank. Who will they belittle and blame then?

Now I don't really care if you answer them, since I would expect the answers to be quite ignorant. I am simply posting them here as "evidence". Perhaps you need the definition of the word. I will post it for you.

¹evidence

Have a cookie. I am done with you on this thread. We both said enough, it is going full circle and you are starting to bore me.

As I stated...listen to the news. Regardless of what you post here..Edward and I have NOT been wrong yet. You calling our facts and evidence nonsense or theory falls on deaf ears.

Thank You.

This should be too easy to debunk...regardless of punctuation or grammar...the point comes across to intelligent people, even average intelligence. I wasn't aware that this was an English exam or a paper that is being graded for school...but there is a common situation where when someone is losing a debate and looking stupid..they RESORT to insulting due to typos, grammar and punctuation....more COWARDLY tactics...but it does nothing to discredit me..I make my points quite clearly and will not go out of my way to correct every typo, grammar or punctuation error to appease an ignorant nut job.

I am glad you found the time in your productive day to read my responses and questions with enough care to even count the number of periods I use to represent "pauses" in speaking...but why not answer any questions?

Notice there is a question mark. If you have trouble with basic English comprehension you might consider night school or some tutoring. I have not noticed too many problems with anyone else understanding what I post...I try not to use big words. When I do, I generally post the definitions since I am considerate.

So continue insulting bank customers and myself...The only one showing ignorance and anger is YOU..I am cool as a cucumber my friend. God Bless.

ONE WEEK AGO and counting, Ashley said: ''So, Ronnie, Edward, Good luck on your campaign. I"ve said my 2 cents on this thread, and don't feel the need to go over my points 600 more times.''

ONE WEEK LATER and counting, after numerous other posts from Ashley, Ashley now says: ''Same with edward, his facts that he just posted from Moebys cannot be verified through peer reviewed scientific literature.

That same Moebs Services survey was also endorsed by Dow Jones also by the way. But nevertheless, here we go again, or should I say, here we continue again.

Don't confuse the word 'survey' to mean they asked the banks for their opinions. They simply collected factual data already disclosed and used by the banks. For example, they called US Bank, asked them how much they charge for OD fees. Next, they called Bandits of America, asked them how much they charge for OD fees. And they write down each response on their little survey paper. These same fee amounts are publicly available to all of us in those Terms and Conditions the 'bank defenders' harp on. But of course the survey can be done much quicker by making mass phone calls with quick responses as opposed to tracking down more than 2,000 different Deposit Agreements. 

So Ashley, if I were to make the statement that US Bank and BofA both charge $35 for OD fees, your logic is to say, ''well Edward, what scientific research did you perform to support your finding?'' Huh? What? My scientific research was to call the banks and ask them or read their published Deposit Agreements. After Moebs did that, they then took all of the DOCUMENTED and PUBLICLY AVAILABLE fee amounts, averaged them together to get the national median. Which revealed for the first time in 40 years, bank OD fees increased during a recession. Any of us could do the same thing if we wanted to call over 2,000 banks or read over 2,000 Deposit Agreements.

But here's the most important point Ashley. If you're that 'concerned' about it, why don't you call them and ask for the 'scientific research' yourself and follow the advice on their website where they say ''For more information call......'' Or follow the advice of your own and other 'bank defenders' to overdrafters about using a little effort to pick up the phone, call the bank, ask for a copy of the Terms and Conditions to help eliminate OD fee issues. Well, why don't you practice what you 'preach' Ashley?

FACT: That quote was posted when the Dow Jones was above 13,000 points and hadn't yet reached its all-time high about a month later. (On 10/9/2007 the Dow closed at its all-time high of 14,164.) To read that quote, simply 'Google' this- RIP OFF REPORT GM CREDIT CARD SERVICES, and go to Betty's Ripoff Report about her interest rate going from 10.99% to 32.44%, then read the '1st Update' to her Report. It's right there, isn't it?

R: Not only was truthdetectors answer as ignorant..or maybe more-so then I expected..but I could swear that i asked 4 questions...why was only one answered?

TD: Two words for you, Ronny: GRAMMAR BOOK

R: Now you can call me a doofus, I could care less...because you are a cowardly person and calling me a name does not hurt me.

TD: Say it with me, Ronny: Punctuation is my FRIEND.

R: The reason I asked the question...you know..the only ONE you chose to answer..is because many feel, myself included that the banks played a major part in the economic downfall..and were bailed out by the very people that are choosing to hurt...at a very bad time. Now i don't expect an ignoramus to understand logic or reason...but it would seem to me that at least part of the 700 billion in TARP funds should be allocated to provide a little relief for their customer as well. I mean sure they need million and billions in bonuses...that is a given..but how do the banks themselves expect to survive once their customer are all broke?

TD: I would expect even an "ignoramus" to know that the end of a sentence only has ONE period, not three.

R: Because make my words..if the economy keeps going the way it is..the rich and more well off will suffer as well..because who will be able to spend without money oe credit. Surely even an imbecile like you can see where this is heading.

TD: Mark (or is it "Make"?) my words: Run-on sentences are not grammatically correct just because you place a few dots between them.

R: Of course even a "doofus" like me knows the bank is a business and is out for a profit...but it doesn't mean that the financial institutions of this country bear no responsibility for it's economic survival considering the banks needed a bailout from these very customers they now a*s rape sans Vaseline.

TD: That last remark is an insult to those who have suffered REAL rapes. You owe them an apology, Ronny.

R: Apparently you continually choose to speak out of your a*s...why don't you read anything I post before you respond and put your foot in your mouth. I never said anyone should bounce checks. I ALWAYS said that if opted out of OD protection you can get fees if you bounce a check. This is the way it always has been so why are you posting things that have always been this way..no revelation here.

TD: Perhaps more of us would answer your questions if you would bother placing QUESTION MARKS after them.

R: The purpose of allowing opt out of overdraft protection is not for the dinosaurs that still use checks in a time of instant electronic paperless transactions. It is to PROTECT the bank for allowing transactions to continue after the account reaches ZERO..by declining the transaction at a point of sale..or at an ATM if the funds are truly unavailable..whether due to fraud, error, mistake, deadbeat..whatever..the point is it actually offers true protection to those who need it most. I have never said this allows anyone to be irresponsible...those types of people will probably chose not to opt out anyhow...this is simply added protection that for many years the banks were refusing to allow...and "automatically" enrolling customers in this service that either did not want it..or when the time came that they found out they had it....it was too late. Is that so hard to understand? Should I type slower so the morons understand too?

TD: Perhaps instead of typing slower, you could take the time to actually type out sentences correctly and formulate them into some coherent form. That second sentence is an insult to the English language.

R: So take your checks to the museum where the people who live in this century can see what it looks like..because if you are perceptive enough to notice..I have never come to the defense of check bouncers. I hate checks..why would I use something that anyone can cash...can get lost in the mail..or that the banks place 7-10 day or longer holds on for no apparent reason other then to hedge their bets an overdraft will occur. I was born at night, but not last night. Those who bounce checks should get fees...although most who bounce a check by accident are not going to jail since they make good...the ones who do this with intent of stealing money..or paying for goods with money they do not have..I will never defend that. I am about fairness..not free rides.

TD: Again, if you want your questions answered try putting QUESTION MARKS after them. Remember also that NSF fees for declined transactions transcend checks alone. ACH, debit, and ATM transactions that are declined (but not paid) are subject to (wait for it...) OVERDRAFT FEES. You might know that if you had bothered to read your TERMS AND CONDITIONS. But then again, that sort of reading material doesn't have PICTURES, so it's understandable that you might have passed on it.

You have taken to whining and crying like a little girl because I'm not answering your questions.

Hey, newsflash hero: Everyone here isn't beholden to answering your dopey little questions to satisfy some narcissistic fantasy you have about being more important than anyone else. I wrote the TRUTH about the realities of what you are promulgating with regards to overdrafts and opt out. If people opt out, they will STILL pay overdraft fees because the fees do not stop when the bank ceases to pay the overdrafts. All you have accomplished is to add legal and/or civil repercussions to the equation.

If you don't like the FACTS being presented, you can feel free to disagree with them (however wrong you may be). But don't come on ROR and blubber about people not answering your questions. Your questions are no more important to anyone here than a sack of cat turds.

Oh, and about your back and forth with this young lady regarding dictionary terms, citations, etc.: Why don't you proofread your posts before publishing your frequent, grammar-deficient nonsense and making an a** out of yourself. My young daughter even recognized the errors of your grammar with regards to punctuation - and she's in SECOND GRADE.

I have no need to support my things with fact. They are all in the various bank contracts that I'm sure you have read.

I'm listening to the news for stories about new government laws. Too bad congress is only focusing on bankrupting us with new health care laws right now.

You stated....

"I think truth detector just gave you your answer. If the bank voluntarily change their policy and keep the government out of it, then they will keep more profit than if the government stepped in."

First of all Truth detector never said anything like that. He didn't answer that question..bank defenders do not like to touch that one. He is harping on the checks like all bank defenders do. I guess they still bounce checks if they are so concerned.

Anyhow... that is YOUR answer to why the banks are changing policy voluntarily. So this answer implies that the banks are afraid the government will step in? You think? Oh..you can bet. You are correct regardless..the banks are keeping more profit then "if" the government steps in...but their real concern is "when" the government steps in...because too little too late is not going to cut it for many. And if you think this is "theory"..you need to learn to read...well not even..you can listen to the news at the lab...right?

Not only was truthdetectors answer as ignorant..or maybe more-so then I expected..but I could swear that i asked 4 questions...why was only one answered?

Now you can call me a doofus, I could care less...because you are a cowardly person and calling me a name does not hurt me.

The reason I asked the question...you know..the only ONE you chose to answer..is because many feel, myself included that the banks played a major part in the economic downfall..and were bailed out by the very people that are choosing to hurt...at a very bad time. Now i don't expect an ignoramus to understand logic or reason...but it would seem to me that at least part of the 700 billion in TARP funds should be allocated to provide a little relief for their customer as well. I mean sure they need million and billions in bonuses...that is a given..but how do the banks themselves expect to survive once their customer are all broke?

Because make my words..if the economy keeps going the way it is..the rich and more well off will suffer as well..because who will be able to spend without money oe credit. Surely even an imbecile like you can see where this is heading.

Of course even a "doofus" like me knows the bank is a business and is out for a profit...but it doesn't mean that the financial institutions of this country bear no responsibility for it's economic survival considering the banks needed a bailout from these very customers they now a*s rape sans Vaseline.

"Why have the banks not come up with any "tactics" to actually help out any taxpaying customers a little during a recession? Why are they only concerned with their bonuses?"

"By the way, make sure you tell all these nice readers that "opt out" doesn't mean continuing your deadbeat ways and bouncing checks, debit transactions, ACH transactions, etc. won't continue to result in per-transaction fees. Banks don't just charge fees when they pay the deadbeat's overdrafts. They can and will charge you when you attempt to spend money that isn't yours."

Apparently you continually choose to speak out of your a*s...why don't you read anything I post before you respond and put your foot in your mouth. I never said anyone should bounce checks. I ALWAYS said that if opted out of OD protection you can get fees if you bounce a check. This is the way it always has been so why are you posting things that have always been this way..no revelation here.

The purpose of allowing opt out of overdraft protection is not for the dinosaurs that still use checks in a time of instant electronic paperless transactions. It is to PROTECT the bank for allowing transactions to continue after the account reaches ZERO..by declining the transaction at a point of sale..or at an ATM if the funds are truly unavailable..whether due to fraud, error, mistake, deadbeat..whatever..the point is it actually offers true protection to those who need it most. I have never said this allows anyone to be irresponsible...those types of people will probably chose not to opt out anyhow...this is simply added protection that for many years the banks were refusing to allow...and "automatically" enrolling customers in this service that either did not want it..or when the time came that they found out they had it....it was too late.

Is that so hard to understand? Should I type slower so the morons understand too?

So take your checks to the museum where the people who live in this century can see what it looks like..because if you are perceptive enough to notice..I have never come to the defense of check bouncers. I hate checks..why would I use something that anyone can cash...can get lost in the mail..or that the banks place 7-10 day or longer holds on for no apparent reason other then to hedge their bets an overdraft will occur. I was born at night, but not last night. Those who bounce checks should get fees...although most who bounce a check by accident are not going to jail since they make good...the ones who do this with intent of stealing money..or paying for goods with money they do not have..I will never defend that. I am about fairness..not free rides.

Now on to Ashely again because she just WILL NOT go away as she said she was..

I do not care if you use Oxford, Websters, Or Cocksford..I am a college grad..I know what words mean..and I know that you and the other banks defenders have to use wordplay to make points..but sorry..I won't work with those who already understand the English language. Oxfords definition of "theory" means the same thing as anyone's else so give it a rest...

So instead of coming to defend yourself by stating we are using "theory"..regardless of which dictionary you use...you need to back things up with fact...like Edward and I always do..otherwise...you are just posting "nonsense" and "whatever"..you can post that on Jerry Springers website..it has no place here.

And since you think this thread is so "ridiculously useless"  why do YOU keep trying to get the last word in?

Just leave it alone unless you have something to add other then absurdity, babble, balderdash, baloney, bananas, bombast, bull, bunk, claptrap, drivel, fatuity, flightiness, folly, foolishness, gibberish, hogwash, hooey, hot air, imprudence, inanity, irrationality, jazz, jive,ludicrousness, madness, palaver, poppycock, prattle, pretense, ranting, rashness, rot, rubbish, scrawl, scribble, senselessness, silliness, stupidity, thoughtlessness, trash and tripe.

That ought to keep you busy with your Oxford online dictionary for a while.

Ronny wrote: "Why have the banks not come up with any "tactics" to actually help out any taxpaying customers a little during a recession? Why are they only concerned with their bonuses?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't two major banks announce changes to their overdraft policies? Didn't one bank announce that they would process transactions in the order they are made?

Didn't BofA announce earlier this year that an overdraft of only $5 (or was it $10?) result in a much smaller fee?

It seems to me that a couple of banks did adopt policies that did/will help out their customers.

I'll stick with the oxford english dictionary, thanks. It tends to be the "official" dictionary.

theory

   noun (pl. theories) 1 a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. 2 an idea accounting for or justifying something. 3 a set of principles on which an activity is based.

and what you and edward have are just that, theories.

I think truth detector just gave you your answer. If the bank voluntarily change their policy and keep the government out of it, then they will keep more profit than if the government stepped in.

Edward:

Yes, this thread is priceless. Its up there on my top 5 of most ridiculously useless threads on this site.

Ronny, you asked:

"Why have the banks not come up with any "tactics" to actually help out any taxpaying customers a little during a recession? Why are they only concerned with their bonuses?"

Answer: Because banks are not the Red Cross, doofus. They are in business to produce (gasp!) PROFITS.

By the way, make sure you tell all these nice readers that "opt out" doesn't mean continuing your deadbeat ways and bouncing checks, debit transactions, ACH transactions, etc. won't continue to result in per-transaction fees. Banks don't just charge fees when they pay the deadbeat's overdrafts. They can and will charge you when you attempt to spend money that isn't yours.

Oh, and those lawsuits/criminal charges as a result of bouncing checks after you "opt out"? Yeah, they're still waiting for you - as is a life on Chexsystems and the glorious distinction of using check-cashing services instead of banking in the adult world.

I know you like when Edward and I provide the sources of where we get some of our "nonsense" from.

My definition for "theory" was pasted from one of the many definitions of the word "theory"..and all the uses are there..as well as the history of the word.

That is "dictionary.com"

Here is a list of the sources they use so if you have a problem with the definition I posted....rebut it with one of these sources..it is not my definition..it is theirs...You can find this list on THEIR website..at the bottom..the link that says "about".

Thank you.

The dictionaries that appear on Dictionary.com include:

• Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1), Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2006.
• Webster's New Millennium Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.6) Copyright 2003-2006 Dictionary.com, LLC
• Dictionary.com Word of the Day
• Dictionary.com Crossword Solver
• The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
• The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. Copyright 1997 by The Christine Ammer 1992 Trust. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
• The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary Copyright 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
• WordNet 2.0, 2003 Princeton University
• Investopedia.com. Copyright 1999-2005 - All rights reserved. Owned and Operated by Investopedia Inc.
• Wall Street Words: An A to Z Guide to Investment Terms for Today's Investor by David L. Scott. Copyright 2003 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
• Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
• Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
• Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
• The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, 1993-2005 Denis Howe
• Jargon File 4.2.0
• U.S. Gazetteer, U.S. Census Bureau

This is a grueling one...but is giving me a laugh so I can hang with it..

Still...I have asked a simple question several times to the bank defenders...and not one has ever answered it....

Why are some banks deciding, on their own, without legislation or lawsuit decision..to change some policies?

(if you wish to know which banks are changing which policies..simple google "banks changing policies" and you can read for yourself)

I await the answer with great anticipation.

And while we are asking questions..here is a few more..

Why since the taxpayers have bailed them out again..700 BILLION in Tarp funds this time..have the banks not come up with any "tactics" to actually help out any taxpaying customers a little during a recession? Why are they only concerned with their bonuses?

If anyone but me has noticed....seem the banks are "attacking" so called "good" customers  as well with extra fees. Does anyone besides me think this is only going to get worse?

How are the bank defenders going to reply here when the "good" customers start lodging complaints against the bank. Who will they belittle and blame then?

BTW if Ashely is still around..this is not nonsense or theory (which your definition means the same thing as mine..obviously a different dictionary..but you do not know what the words in my definition mean apparently, nothing I can do about that)

...on October 16th on this thread when you said:

''Man. This thread is priceless.''

And I want to thank you tremendously for the vast amount of ammunition, uh hmm, I mean information you have provided. :)

The US banker and American banker are magazines. Still part of the media. Quote me some peer reviewed journals supporting this research firm.

You can't.

Who cares if the bank respects the findings? Look at the debate over global warming. Scientists overwhelmingly believe in climate change, but there is news story aafter news story saying it isn't occurring. You can't believe what the media spoon feeds you without verifying the results. What sources did this research firm use?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scholarly_journals_in_economics

Why don't you go through those journals and the information. THEN I will listen to you. Notice your precious moebs does not appear on this list. That's just a SMALL list of the peer reviewed literature available

Also you might find this interesting:
http://www.moebs.com/ServicesandProducts/Overdraftservices/tabid/62/Default.aspx

The same company you are quoting offers services to INCREASE overdraft fees for banks. So on one hand they say the fees are increasing, and they offer services to help banks keep increasing them.

So this "independent consulting firm" is running a racket for the banks to increase bank profit from overdraft fees. Great company to use as an example.

Even though THE MAJORITY of names on that list are financial publications, still I'll play Devil's advocate with you and throw out some of them. But that still leaves one problem. Also on the list is Dow Jones. We're going to question them to? Are you kidding me? But wait I'm not done yet. Also on the list is American Banker and US Banker. BANKING PUBLICATIONS THEMSELVES!. The BANKS THEMSELVES recognize the indisputable facts presented by Moebs Services. Yes, I conclude you have to be kidding me. You should have followed your own advice long ago when you said, ''So, Ronnie, Edward, Good luck on your campaign. I"ve said my 2 cents on this thread, and don't feel the need to go over my points 600 more times.''

Ashley, there was probably a pretty good reason that out of all the prior economic recessions in history, the national median for bank overdraft fees NEVER WENT UP BEFORE DURING ANY OF THEM. It's probably that same reason all of the bank CEOs are now collectively saying WHOOPS!

As they all back pedal from these very Ripoff Policies here.

This post is for informational purposes only, for the record. Regarding the information presented in this post, by all means, anyone please feel free to respond but in no way feel obligated to respond.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO BE TRUE, CORRECT?

Prices went up in a recession? The nerve or some companies. Lets see, gas has gone up. My groceries have gone up. The amount I'm paying for healthcare has nearly doubled this year. All my medications are more expensive. My taxes have increased in the last year. How dare the banks increase their fees! I mean, I need that money that I don't have to pay to pay all these other things that I do have to pay.

BTW:

• The New York Times
  
  
• Usa Today Money
  
  
• ABC News
  
  
• The Washington Post
  
  
• The Wall Street Journal
  
  
• Dowjones
  
  
• Bloomberg
  
  
• Chicago Tribune
  
  
• New York Post
  
  
• CNN
  
  
• CNN Money
  
  
• American Banker
  
  
• Credit Union Times
  
  
• US Banker

Ashley,

Your response about doubting the science and the theory behind the Moebs Services survey was so predictable it's really not even worth mentioning. And yes, let's also discount the fact that Moebs has been doing this since, oh, 1983. And yes, let's also ignore the fact that Moebs has been recognized by the following:

• The New York Times
  
  
• Usa Today Money
  
  
• ABC News
  
  
• The Washington Post
  
  
• The Wall Street Journal
  
  
• Dowjones
  
  
• Bloomberg
  
  
• Chicago Tribune
  
  
• New York Post
  
  
• CNN
  
  
• CNN Money
  
  
• American Banker
  
  
• Credit Union Times
  
  
• US Banker

Yeah sure. Let's ignore all of these organizations, and let's still question the science of that survey which stated, the national median for overdraft fees increased from $25 in 2008 to $26 in 2009. The first time it's gone up during a recession in more than 40 years. So, out of all the of numerous recessions this country had in the past, somehow this is THE FIRST TIME IN 40 YEARS that banks had the GAUL to raise overdraft fees. How great is that? Yep. That will stimulate that economy alright!

But let's continue to bury our heads in the sand and not worry about that so much. Maybe this is why all of the bank CEOs are in such a rush to undo their ripoff policies. They now realize they have gone where NONE have ever gone before them. They realize it, The Federal Reserve Board realizes it, Congress realizes it, and the Moebs survey does nothing more except CONFIRM what many of us knew long ago and have been saying for a long time.

That's the ripoff here, confirmed by factual history, endorsed by the organizations above.

Rubin, & others instead.

Ronny G,

You are part of the rebel alliance and a traitor! Take him away!

"

In a survey conducted earlier this year, it was confirmed this is the first time that bank overdraft fee profits have increased during a recession in more than 40 years.

That's not my opinion, nor is it a conspiracy theory. That's a fact from the research company Moebs Services. You'll have to take up your complaint with them. But keep in mind it's not their opinion either. They're just documenting what has happened in history. "

In a survey? Surely a survey could NEVER be wrong. What method of sampling did they use? What is the standard deviation of their sampling pool? Has an independant third party verified their results?

Unless you can show my the science they use, it is just a thoery that they have put forth.

Also the quote from their website is: " This is the first time overdraft fees have increased in a recession. "

So your statement is a mash up between that statements and this one, also from their website:

"44.5% of all banks and credit unions have overdraft income greater than net income. "

So, you should double check your own facts. I don't dispute the fact that these fees are a rip off. My point is that a consumer can chose not to overdraft. Its a simple matter of keeping track of their own money. No one is forced to be charged an overdraft fee, if you keep track of your own money carefully, you will never be charged an overdraft fee,

Hey Ashley,

Your previous quote not to long ago: ''So, Ronnie, Edward, Good luck on your campaign. I"ve said my 2 cents on this thread, and don't feel the need to go over my points 600 more times.''

Uh Ashley, no one has addressed you recently. So why are you still here voluntarily? But while I have your attention, here's another tidbit for you.

In a survey conducted earlier this year, it was confirmed this is the first time that bank overdraft fee profits have increased during a recession in more than 40 years.

That's not my opinion, nor is it a conspiracy theory. That's a fact from the research company Moebs Services. You'll have to take up your complaint with them. But keep in mind it's not their opinion either. They're just documenting what has happened in history.

This post is for informational purposes only, for the record. Regarding the information presented in this post, by all means, anyone please feel free to respond but in no way feel obligated to respond.

""The definition of "theory" is..."speculation" or"conjecture".

The definition of "conspiracy" is...the act of conspiring together or an "agreement among conspirators". ""

I'm not sure what dictionary you are using, but that is not the definition of a theory. being a scientist, I do work with theories on a regular basis.

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption  c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

So yes. The facts all of you quote come together to form this theory about how you believe the banking industry works. I have on theory, You, Karl, and edward have a different one.

Your definition of conspiracy is sound. You state that the banks all change their rates and procedures together. That sure sounds like an "agreement amongst conspirators" and since you have this theory that they are doing all of this to rip the american consumer off, that would make it a conspiracy theory. Just saying.

And karl: Google this: Crazy internet troll posts ridiculous things to google. People didnt care.

BECOMES A FACT.

I don't need to speak for Edward..he seems to be quite informed. But I only ask you to post any "theories" or "conspiracies" he has posted here regarding the "banking industry".

Seems to me he has simply stated fact.

The definition of "theory" is..."speculation" or"conjecture".

The definition of "conspiracy" is...the act of conspiring together or an "agreement among conspirators".

Show us where Edward has stated any speculation regarding the "banking industry" or anything which is not based on historical evidence, sound logic, common sense or fact.

As far as conspiring...I don't see anywhere that Edward stated the banks are conspiring...but I have seen him state based on historical fact...that the banks tend to follow one another when there is a policy change.

As far as getting any money back..that is and always has been between the customer and their bank...nothing anyone here says other then to be persistent..will help recover any funds lost due to bank policy , tactics or manipulation.

But if in the worst case the customers do not receive anything back from the lawsuits..or not near as much as they should....at least the changes in policy give a fair chance to see a reduction in excessive fees due to manipulations and forced courtesy OD protection....now how is this "theory"???...if a customer can not overdraft...or if they choose to..or do so out of error or any reason..the bank can no longer manipulate and re-sequence transactions to maximize fees and thereby can NOT charge for illegitimate overdrafts..how in your back assward thinking is this "speculation"????

Now I know you have expressed previously there is no way we are going to change your mind....and that is all well and good....but, if you are going to continue to rebut us... why instead of backing up your accusations with sound evidence..do you just choose to say things like "we are posting nonsense", "theory" or "conspiracies" ...yet you refuse to back that up with any sound evidence or factual data.

"Whatever" does not cut it once you are out of the second grade...and it certainly holds no weight or substance in a legitimate debate regarding a ripped off bank customer...or any topic regarding a ripoff for that matter.

It seems to me cream rises to the top..and s**t always sinks....just nature taking it's inevitable course.

" The title of your last post ''Whatever''. Wow, that's spoken like a true professional."

Professional what? I've never claimed to be a professional anything. I work in a chemistry lab.

Good luck with all your theories and conspiracies about the banking industry. I'm sure the OP is comforted by the fact that some banks are lessening their fees. I'm sure this will help him get his money back.

The bank defenders must hate this...but their advice would not have worked.

There advice and response in most cases..and by most of them regarding this issue..has been to tell the poster to "use a register..pay the fees..chock it up as a loss...and learn from it...the banks did nothing wrong".

But still in all the bank defenders infinite wisdom, knowledge of banking..and their flawless advice..the reports still come flooding in...almost hourly.

Lots of people complained..and now imagine this...the BANKS THEMSELVES are making changes and stopping some of these tactics....even before legislation is passed...and before any pending lawsuits are settled or lost.

It kind of makes you wonder if the banks are so sure they were "doing nothing wrong".

Or is this all nonsense that Edward and I concocted?

To Jake. I regret that some people are reluctant to comment and offer their $.02 for fear of being attacked, based on the pattern they've observed on a thread. The problem is many of the newcomers do not know the long history with some of 'the usual suspects' and their well established track record.

I've said before and will now say again, I always welcome opposing opinions from anyone, including the 'bank defenders'. I've stated numerous times that I appreciate the availability of some individuals coming and posting under the title of Employee, because the inside information they provide is valuable. I'm not one to take offense just because an opposing opinion doesn't support my view point. The ultimate goal should always be to get to the truth, help the OP, and help everyone else learn something in the process.

The truth? If you overdraft, you will get a fee, deservedly so in most cases. Are the fees to high? Maybe so, maybe not. It's a matter of opinion. Are some of the overdraft fee policies 'Unfair and Deceptive'? You would have to ask the Federal Reserve who has banking regulations with that exact name. If there were no banking policies that were 'Unfair and Deceptive', why the need to have laws in place with that name, with the sole purpose of preventing them?

Hey Jake. The reason this back and forth has gotten ridiculous is because the 'bank defenders' can't stand to read counter points to their insulting advice, so they feel compelled to keep posting, hoping the rest of us will just bury our heads in the sand, accept their opinion as 'the gospel' and simply go away. Ain't happening.

This post is for informational purposes only, for the record. Regarding the information presented in this post, by all means, anyone please feel free to respond but in no way feel obligated to respond.

is available in the comments section at the 'BANK OF AMERICA' page of this site.

To Ashley,

The title of your last post ''Whatever''. Wow, that's spoken like a true professional. You're starting to sound like some of the OP's who respond out of frustration at some of the insulting comments from the 'bank defenders'. And then the 'bank defenders' come down on them for immature response to their advice.

Quote from your last post: ''So really, whats the point? None of this bickering is actually helping the ordinal poster.''

Actually Ashley, you must have skipped over the first two or three sentences in my previous post, where I gave you the reason. I'm positive the OP has been helped by the revelation on this thread that US Bank CEO Richard Davis is voluntarily abolishing some of his ripoff overdraft fee policies. I'm positive the OP has been helped by the revelation on this thread that the Federal Reserve Board just announced last week to prevent banks from auto-enrolling customers into overdraft programs without their knowledge or consent. I don't see how that logic is flawed. Those are not my opinions. Those are facts, that I'm merely repeating.

This post is for informational purposes only, for the record. Anyone, please feel free to respond to anything stated in this post, but please do not feel obligated to respond.

a woman, named Brooksley Born, sounded 'The Warning' back in the 1990's and alerted President Clinton, Congress, & others of what she saw coming in the USA? She was right, wasn't she? You can 'Google' this- THE WARNING: FRONTLINE PBS, and watch it on the web.

"

Now that people like Ronny G and myself take the liberty to counter everything with rock solid logic of our own, with cool heads, and without stooping to the level of returning the insults, well this has all of you guys up in arms. You can dish it out, but you can't take it. "

I don't now what it is that I cant take. I keep posting so that you can rant some more insane ideas at me. The problem is, no matter how much you explain your postition to me I think your logic is flawed. No matter what example I might use to show you that, you will never believe me. The reverse is true, no matter what logic or example you show me will convince me that your point is true.

So really, whats the point? None of this bickering is actually helping the orginal poster. Its probably just confusing them more.

So, Ronnie, Edward, Good luck on your campaign. I"ve said my 2 cents on this thread, and don't feel the need to go over my points 600 more times.

I understand your sentiment that most customers did not overdraft. But honestly..in your heart..do you feel this makes it right for a banks tactic to cause one PENNY extra in additional fees that were brought on by this tactic..and which all but one of the overdraft fees were caused by any error or intent? If this even happens to ONE customer..it is one too many.

Now...according to the FDIC report..and you can google it if you need further proof...the banks will collect in these types of fees for 2009...over 38 BILLION dollars...that is B, as in Billion...so..either 38 billionaires each overdrafted a billion dollars each worth of fees...or quite a lot of people overdrafted...would you agree?

Now...if the banks themselves were so perfect....would we need to wonder why the taxpayers had to bail them out with TARP funds...totaling 700 BILLION dollars....again..that is B, as in Billions. Think about it.

And you have every right to draw your own conclusion. But are you really "reading" all the posts...or skimming through them to draw a conclusion.

Because yes..you are correct that the fees are a bit high...as if you were to convert those "fees" to interest rate..they would be well into the 4 digits...but the cost of a fee per say itself is not what this debate is about.

The debate is about the banks tactic of combining forced mandatory automatic "courtesy" overdraft protection...with the manipulations and re-sequencing of transactions from highest to lowest.

Now I could not agree more..that if a customer does not overdraft ..they would not incur any fees. As far as to all the ways overdrafts can occur...there is plenty of information regarding that on other reports...but to keep it simple..this is what I see happening with the way banks were operating...

A customer incurs an overdraft...perhaps this is the first time ever. Some customers have stated they did not know why the bank allowed the debit to go through if the account was at or below zero..but nevertheless..it went through. Now...lets say (and we see this often), the customer realizes they overdrafted...and they are aware the bank charges a 35 dollar fee for this. So the customer say to him/her self "oh well, I guess I messed up...I am going to have to make a deposit to cover the transaction..and pay the 35 dollar fee...my bad"

Now if it ended right there...most likely we would not even know about it..because it was a legitimate overdraft fee charged for a legitimate overdraft. The only complaint the customer might have in this case..is why wasn't the card declined at point of sale.

But this is not the end..it's only the beginning. Since the bank re-ordered this customers transactions at the end of the day....the largest transaction will be "processed" first. Do you know what this does Jake??  Allow me to explain..

..the largest transaction wipes out the account...and any transaction the banks list after that due to re-sequencing..has a 35 dollar fee attached to it for overdrafting...even though all of those transactions had the funds available at the time if the transaction..and were cleared. In addition...older transactions that were mysteriously "held" from days ago..might pop up the next day..and guess what?? Those get fees as well.

So in a nutshell..what happened was due to ONE legitimate overdraft that was the fault of the customer in this hypothetical situation..no argument there...due to manipulation by the bank..that apparently the customer was not aware could happen or we would not be here now...they, instead of having a SINGLE $35.00 fee for the SINGLE legitimate overdraft...and the customer is willing to pay the overdraft fee as per their understanding and agreement with the bank,,,comes to find their next 2 weeks worth of paychecks..is going to line the banks pockets..and they won't have any recourse..Keep in mind there was no intent of malic on the customers part in this case..just an error or carelessness...no crime was committed.

And THIS is one of the reason the banks are changing this policy. Let the punishment fit the crime..right? Well not that overdrafting is a crime..since the banks not only allowed it....but automatically signed their customers up with intent of allowing it..The way I see it...a fee charged for a service provided is one thing.... 10 fees charged for a bank"tactic" provided is another.

Wow. This back and forth has gotten ridiculous! There's probably less arguing in the U.N! Just want to throw in my two cents here. Please don't feel obligated to attack me.

I think what this really comes down to is that everyone is correct to some extent. Bank "defenders" are correct in saying that most overdrafters either don't bother to learn the system or simply don't care about their spending habits. The other side is also correct in saying that the fees are very high and can get out of control quite quickly. I have to admit that I'm kind of siding with the bank defenders a little bit. It's been said that most overdrafts come from a small segment of the customer population, so that tells me that the system isn't difficult to master and the bank does tell you that if you overdraft they're going to hit you hard. I don't agree with the dollar amounts of the fees or how often you can get hit with them, but they did tell us about them. Maybe if they'd lower them to about $15 that would make both sides happy?

God Bless,

Jake

might be available soon at the 'BANK OF AMERICA' page of this site. It was posted as a comment about an hour ago.

First to Edgeman. When I disappeared for a while, I did so only after discussions on various threads ended with no new updates from anyone. But this doesn't mean I stopped reading the reports. In my occasional browsing of reports, there was simply a lull of activity where there was nothing really to write home about. But the key is, I never simply vanished, smack dab in the middle of a discussion without some sort of closure or hint that I was done. For example, if you and I are in an ongoing discussion and you post a rebuttal directly to me, asking me a question, and then six months or a year go by without a response, that's a disappearing act. I've never done that. And that's what I'm saying the 'bank defenders' are smartly doing now.

Now to Ashely. The back and forth opinions are not always with the intent of persuading the mind of the other person. Many of us know that's impossible. The real intent is that when the 'bank defenders' post their opinion, Ronny G and I take the liberty to post a counter point of view only for the record.  Not for your sake, but for the sake of everyone else reading the thread, mainly the OP. The problem is many of you 'bank defenders' have been spoiled. Years ago on this site, the 'bank defenders' were living it up, throwing around insults and meaningless advice to all of the OP's with not a peep of opposition or anyone to provide counter points. Now that people like Ronny G and myself take the liberty to counter everything with rock solid logic of our own, with cool heads, and without stooping to the level of returning the insults, well this has all of you guys up in arms. You can dish it out, but you can't take it.

Back to Edgeman. I'll return the favor of your subtle, sarcastic cleverness I referenced in the past. As I mentioned earlier I didn't label you a 'bank defender' with the others earlier. But now that you have inadvertently removed your own sheep's clothing, please explain how labeling you a 'bank defender' is insulting? If you're emphasizing consumer responsibility, and you don't think the bank's policies are unfair, please enlighten me on what in the world we should call it?

Thank You.

I think you are wrong ronnie. You think I am wrong. No amount of examples, questions, or counter points will ever convince the other person that they are wrong. So i'm done. I'll post what I have to say to the OP, you can post whatever nonsense you want to, and that will be that. You seem to think, I have some sort of malicious intent on this website.

As fo your questions, I really dont think the bank would start charging new fees right and left if we all stopped overdrafting. This is a purely hypothetical question though, as we both know this will never occur. If everyone stopped and they started charging all sorts of ridiculous fees for having a checking account, well then I would just stop having one. Go back to dealing with cash.

I do HOPE that your idea of changing the opt-out for OD protection works. That would be great. I know that it will accomplish nothing though.

As far as your response to Edward...changing opt out rules WILL cause people to overdraft less. If they choose to opt out. ...and I still can't believe we are still on this gas pump. Did the over 38 billion dollars in fees this year come from a gas pump? Have you read any complaints here about a gas pump charging excessive overdraft fees?

 Because I have opted out of courtesy OD protection long ago..with much resistance from the bank. And as I stated...if my balance is below a certain amount..the card will not process at the pump. The screen at the pump says "transaction can not be completed..please see attendant inside"...so do you think by any chance this issue is being dealt with?

Besides..if the customer is opted out of OD protection..and the bank allows a swipe at a gas pump..it is partially the banks fault. I am sure the bank has a defense set up for this sutuation. I do know I would realize it was my fault if I was able to pump more in gas then was in my balance..and I would pay the OD fee regardless..as I stated before..if this is the worst we have to read on ROR after the changes are in effect...we can live with it...non-issue.

As far as no more free checking..or fee hikes...well what do you think would happen if everyone followed yours and the other bank defenders advice to the letter..and never overdrafted again? What would the banks do?? Bank defenders do not like this question and I will tell you why...because it would PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt..without debate needed..that they truly are talking out of both sides of their mouth..and Edward is correct.

Now Ashley, you state  that your "guess" is the bank would raise all of the other fees. So..if this bothers you so much..why do you consistently "teach" all these wicked evil irresponsible overdrafters how to use a register and to read the contracts? Since if they actually listen to you..all the other fees will go up. So do you want to take the blame for that? Do any other bank defenders who offer all this great advice..and consistently belittle customers who were victim to tactics...do any of those wish to step up and take the blame for all the possible future fee hikes if overdrafting was a thing of the past due to YOUR advice?

I await a good answer. I will drink a 35 dollar cup of coffee while I wait. (kidding of course...just had to throw that in).

 If not...then you should be VERY happy your advice is not working...and ours can actually help some customers.

Since with "our" way..the bank will still be able to charge for OD fees...the difference being from the way things are now..that most of the fees will actually be LEGITIMATE fees..so what is so wrong with this?

I still await a good answer. I will eat a 35 dollar big mac while I wait.  (kidding again)

I agree that those who wish to opt into courtesy overdraft protection after the changes are in effect...and still CHOOSE to habitually overdraft..that of course they will need to pay the fees. However..if you take the unnecessary often debunked re-sequencing and manipulations out of the equation..then at least the customer will know what they are being charged for..and have very little to complain about...since the overdrafts will be legit.

And as I stated..if after the changes are in effect a customer still opts in..and still overdrafts..and comes on this site to blame the bank..I will be there along side the other bank defenders..because fair is fair. Yes..can you believe it?..some of us still believe "fairness" is a value.

I'm sure you recall how I once called out your subtle sarcastic comments before now. You know, with your cheerleading of lawsuits and constantly coming back later asking how the lawsuit was going, pretending to care. I caught on to it, called you out on it, and then you pretty effectively convinced me there was nothing wrong. You pretty effectively convinced me that you were trying to help everyone else out by asking for the docket numbers and updates to keep everyone informed. Remember how clever I said you were? That's a compliment. What are you whining about?

Well, it appears my instinct was as good as I thought. Because first of all, ever since this incident, I've had no concern or second thought for you or any of your comments. In my previous post, when addressing the 'bank defenders', I didn't even include you in that group. Simply continue reading up just a little bit higher on this thread to my previous post titled ''The Evidence That Someone Is Lying'' where I name names. Notice that your name isn't listed. Trust me. If you were on my radar, you would know it, and there wouldn't be any second guessing. You know I'm not one to be shy or mince words.

Contrary to your belief, I don't have a problem with any of you who advocate personal responsibility. But I do have a problem with the insuation that the policies are completely innocent with no hidden agenda, tricks, traps, or otherwise. Yeah right. That's what I have a problem with and the insults that come with it. That's the reason for the Feds having regulations titled ''Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act''. The same policies the Feds are now updating, not me.

Let me directly address your other point. Not all of these customers have signed on the dotted line, agreeing to these policies. A lot of them were existing customers at these banks or customers of other small town banks which were bought out. Then when the large national banks swoop in with their new ripoff policies, that's when these long time, loyal customers cry foul. Yes, it's true the customer can leave at any time, and many of them do, once they discover the new ripoff policy.

But they still have to right to label it a ripoff, all while at the same time walking out the door with their money from their closed account, as they tell the bank what they can do with their new policy.

Edward wrote:

P.S. Hey Ronny G, if you haven't already noticed, pretty soon it will just be you and me kid, left to ourselves on the playground as our bank defending playmates continue to disappear as fast as those Wachovia reports. They're frustrated and embarrassed with us shooting down theory after theory, insult after insult. And we do it with sound logic, without having to stoop to their level with off subject, baseless insults of our own.

I'm sorry to say that I'm not going anywhere, Edward. You haven't driven anyone away. I'm sorry if my working full time and being a full time student somehow led you to believe that you are driving people away. I post when I have time. As I recall, you disappeared for quite a while yourself. Nobody assumed that they had driven you away.

And I'm afraid that your last line is also incorrect. You do resort to insults (unless you think "bank defender" is a compliment) and you frequently ignore one very sound argument:

Simply staying within one's available balance, being familiar with the bank's funds availability policies and actually keeping accurate records of their finances will virtually eliminate overdraft fees. Anybody can do that right away without having to wait for a lawsuit or a politician who pretends to care. The fact that the vast majority of account holders do not overdraft despite being exposed to the same processing methods  supports this.

You also haven't addressed the fact that when a customer authorizes a bank to process transactions in any order, puts his or her signature down on that agreement and still overdrafts, that customer has a difficult time being credible while crying, "Ripoff!"

I've made this point before and it appears that I should make it again. We both have the same goal - we desire to see customers pay less or no overdraft fees to the bank. The difference is that you seem to have a problem with people such as myself who advocate personal responsibility and you go so far as to resort to name calling. If you really think about it, we're on the same side but you are the one who sees a conflict.

The gas pump arguements are still flawed. Having managed a gas station for 7 years, I have seen many an account get overdrafted because of pay at the pump. My station would only charge 1$ to the account. The next day when I processed the transactioned we would post whatever dollar amount they purchased. In some cases that could be a full 24 hours that someone could respend that money on accident.

This does not occur inside because when we submit the card for approval we have the total to submit. The gas pump does not know how much gas you are going to get, nor does it know how much you have in your account. All it checks is to see if the account is active and that the 1$ will clear.

" .what do YOU think the banks will do to make up for all the lost revenues that they would not receive in overdraft fees?

I await your answer with much anticipation...

Next you state..."it is going to be harder to get a checking account for some consumers". Okay..lets say that is true...then why should it be any easier the way the policies are now??

I await this answer as well.... "

What do i think the banks would do if all revenue from overdraft fees went away? raise all of their other fees. My guess would be starting with the interest rate on credit cards. They would probably pay less interest on savings accounts and CDs.

Why would it be easier now? Well, if we start implemeting account setup fees, and monthly maintence fees, then less people would be able to afford getting an account. Much like what is happening with credit cards. The government forced more rules upon banks for credit cards, so they became more discriminatory on whom they wanted as a customer.


Also Edward: I'm not defending any sort of bank. I definately am not defending resequencing. Please don't put words in my mouth. I have stated that resequencing is legal and that banks have it in their customer agreement. If you don't like it then don't bank with that bank. One should always read contracts you sign. If people would read their bank agreements and understand what was occuring it would cut down on their overdrafts.  Do I think resequencing is the RIGHT thing for a bank to do? No I dont. I think it is designed to rip off the consumer. I would rather transactions be posted in the order they are recieved by the bank. There's a big difference between what I think is right, and what is legal by the banks.

My beef with overdraft protection is this: It doesn't matter if you have it or not. You will still overdraft. It might stop a few, but if you already have a problem controlling your money you will still find ways to overdraft without the overdraft protection.

That is a different issue. Simply changing the opt out rules on a bank account will not cause people to overdraft less.

I stand by my statement. Letting people opt-out of overdraft protection will not lessen reports here. They will increase as people complain about their free checknig accounts no longer being free and other fee hikes.

Does anyone remember the very long, ongoing debate several months ago about the Unavailable Funds Fee? Does anyone remember where that debate started?

The Unavailable Funds Fee debate started many months ago, on all of those Wachovia threads which came flooding in daily, by the dozens. At first, many people, including myself, didn't recognize what the customers were complaining about. Then after much contemplation, the light finally came on for me, and I did my level best and succeeded at enlightening others. Some of the enlightened were even bank defenders who admitted they too recognized the complaint now but they still towed the line of emphasizing consumer responsibility, which is fine.

Now to my point. Can anyone tell me what has happened to all of those Wachovia reports? They're no longer flooding in by the dozens on a daily basis. Here's a quick lesson in Cause-And-Effect.

Cause: Wells Fargo bought Wachovia. Wells Fargo never has and still does not charge the ripoff Unavailable Funds Fee.

Effect: The Wachovia reports dropped off the face of the earth. And no Wells Fargo reports have surfaced in their place.

Ashley, there's the concrete proof to your ''We will see'' comment regarding the upcoming bank policy changes and what will happen with complaints.

P.S. Hey Ronny G, if you haven't already noticed, pretty soon it will just be you and me kid, left to ourselves on the playground as our bank defending playmates continue to disappear as fast as those Wachovia reports. They're frustrated and embarrassed with us shooting down theory after theory, insult after insult. And we do it with sound logic, without having to stoop to their level with off subject, baseless insults of our own.

I believe Exemployee18's response was meant for Edward..and not Robert. But either way..whomever is correct...it still will not matter when the policy changes go into effect. Because once the customers account is depleted..any further transactions will be declined..hence no additional OD fees can occur. Most people can live with a single fee for a single overdraft..however..in these rough times...incurring 10 fees due to a SINGLE overdraft..can be devastating.

And as well..without the re sequencing scam...if the customer is charged a fee for going over at the gas pump..as I stated earlier..it won't cause any additional fees but the one overdraft that occured at the pump..since if that transaction overdraws the account..the card will be declined for further use..and as well will give the customer fair chance to investigate why they are overdraft..instead of the bank simply allowing the card to charge 35 dollar cups of coffee..These changes are simply about fairness...not about punishing the banks..as they have been doing to their customers.

It is going to end whether Ashely likes it or not..so she may need to start bashing the banks instead of the banks customers..since the banks apparently are choosing to make these changes as their own decisions...would you not agree?

I'll get to the gas pump debunking last.

You state that checking account fees will go up..and perhaps they will. But you also constantly give advice for anyone who overdrafted..for any reason..and no matter how the banks unnecessary manipulations brought on all the excessive unnecessary fees..that YOUR way is a surefire guaranteed way to stop overdrafting for good. Okay then..  so tell us Ashely...if everyone followed YOUR advice..and it worked..and no one EVER overdrafted again..what do YOU think the banks will do to make up for all the lost revenues that they would not receive in overdraft fees?

I await your answer with much anticipation...

Next you state..."it is going to be harder to get a checking account for some consumers". Okay..lets say that is true...then why should it be any easier the way the policies are now??

I await this answer as well....

Then you state.."the banks will be less forgiving when an overdraft does occur". So does this imply they have been very forgiving now? Tell that to all the customers who contributed not only to the over 38 BILLION dollars the bank will take in this year..but to the taxpayers who are bailing these very banks out in their time of need.

Lastly you state.."and it will not stop the vast majority of overdraft fees" That is a pretty bold statement..but I ask you this then. If it does not stop the vast majority of fees..then why are you concerned about anything you posted previously?

Now in closing..the gas pump debunkage..this is a long one so get comfortable. If you feel anything stated is wrong..please post the corrections so we can learn.

Thank you..


My response to Robert in a previous post...

Robert posted...

"I really am curious in a few months as to what side you will take when an account holder opts-out.  They then get hit with a $35 overdraft fee, because they pumped $40 in gas with $5 in the account, since they "thought" that it should have been stopped"


Again you with the freaking gas pump. I will state this again very CLEARLY..and this applies to gas pumps or any pump...IF the overdraft is LEGITIMATE...there will be a fee. IF the customer complains about a LEGITIMATE fee..I will be there with you defending the bank. Because if this is what it all has to come down to in our debate... you want to narrow this whole issue down to a gas pump so be it....if the customer is using their debit card as a credit card..they need to be aware that it will be possible to overdraft..or as they call it with a credit card..going "over limit".

I have not read too many complaints here that a customer who was opted out of OD protection was allowed to pump more gas then they had available in their balance..but if this is the worst of the complaints we see here after the changes are put into effect..I think we can live with it. Now I do not know if all banks do this..but once I opted out of OD protection with my bank..I noticed if my balance is below a certain amount..if I swipe the card at the pump...it tells me "the transaction can not be completed..please see associate inside". So perhaps the banks already thought about this? I don't know but either way to me it is a non issue and involves no under-handedness on the banks part..hence no legitimate rip off could be lodged.




Edward response to Robert in a previous post...


Falsehoods About Gas Pump Holds

Ronny G, you found a way to sum up all of these infinite exceptions the bank defenders often throw out:

''I have not read too many complaints here that a customer who was opted out of OD protection was allowed to pump more gas then they had available in their balance..but if this is the worst of the complaints we see here after the changes are put into effect..I think we can live with it''.

Most of the recent fallout against all of these fees is when many banks began the new practice of charging fees for holds. Most banks refer to it as the Unavailable Funds Fee. While a transaction is sitting there ON HOLD, PENDING and UNPOSTED, the bank charges fees for all of the other ten or twenty transactions that post while the 'Available' balance is negative, because of the single, PENDING transaction. The reason the gas pump hold is a non-issue is because gas pump holds NEVER show up as pending transactions. Is that clear enough to end this often used fallacy?

If your Available Balance is $50, and you swipe your card at Walmart for $75 that leaves your Available Balance negative ($25). If you have five small transactions that post while the Walmart transaction is PENDING, all five will be charged a fee, even though your real Posted Account Balance was sufficient to cover all of them.

If you substitute a gas pump transaction for the Walmart transaction in the example above, none of the posting transactions will be charged a fee while the gas pump transaction is on hold because it doesn't show up as PENDING and doesn't affect the Available Balance. Is that clear enough to end this often used fallacy?



Exemployee18..(an actual bank employee's) response to Robert in a previous post...

whoa there Robert
Robert I am afraid you are quite mistaken there buddy.  I can tell you since I have managed quite  a few banks that in fact it does affect your available balance.  If a customer has $20 in their account and they go to the gas station and pay at the pump normally the merchant places a hold of some type normally $1-$75 against their available balance.  So if the customer went out and bought $15 in gas but the merchant held the $75 the customers account would be -$55 and anything else that posted against it would incur an overdraft fee even if they had the money in their account.  Now I can tell you I do not agree with this policy mainly because a customer who kept a good record would have no idea where the fees would be coming from.  But to rebut your last statement yes gas pumps, bars, hotels and rental places DO affect your available balance.

The banks themselves, their employees and their defenders often cite one very important statistic for their side. The vast 'majority' of checking account holders never have any problems with overdrafts. It's only a very small percentage of customers who suffer with chronic overdraft issues. This means someone has been lying to us all this time.

Candidate #1: Several years ago the banks conducted a survey which supposedly indicated 'the majority' of their customers prefer the largest items paid first because those are the important items like mortgages and auto loans. Thus re-sequencing was born. If it's true that 99% of customers have no problems with overdrafts, this means the banks have been lying to us, because why would this 'majority' even care about re-sequencing if they never overdraft with their flawless check registers and overflowing bank accounts?

Candidate #2: If the banks are telling the truth with this survey, this means we have a lot of lying hypocrites. The bank defenders who typically argue in favor of re-sequencing like I am the law, Robert, Ashley, Karen, and Stacey, are also quick to 'suggest' or 'imply' that they know how to keep and balance their check registers like 'the majority' of customers. But if these bank defenders are in favor of re-sequencing because they are truly concerned about the mortgage check getting bounced in favor of that cup of coffee, this means their accounting habits or their check registers are not as impeccable as they claim. Why the need for concern? This is a contradiction.

So, either the banks lied to us about that phantom survey, or some of these bank defenders are lying to us, proven by their own contradicting statements.

I'm not sure how you debunked the gas pump thing. The gas station i always buy gas from will only charge my card 1$ at the time of purchase. The full amount is charged the next day usually. Which will cause issues all around.

Why there will be more complaints: Checking account maintenance fees will go up. Its going to be harder to get a checking account for some consumers. The banks will be less forgiving when an overdraft does occur, and it will still not stop the vast majority of overdrafts.

But I don't see how you could win..it is theoretically impossible to lodge a legitimate rip off report regarding this topic once these changes are put into effect..I will explain...

Now as far as the typical complaints we read here one after the other piling in on an hourly basis...I truly can not imagine why those will not decease substantially. Since most of the complaints are not regarding legitimate overdraft fees..only ADDITIONAL fees that occurred by the unnecessary and un-requested re-sequencing of transactions. So once the banks stop that tactic...I can't imagine how it will be possible for any fees to result due to the banks manipulations...any and all overdrafts caused by INTENT of the customer...will not be able to be considered a rip off per day..since although a customer may feel the fee is too high if they were to overdraft..they can not with any credibility accuse the banks of using any tactics,manipulations..or deception to have caused any fees to occur..since it will be IMPOSSIBLE for that type of fee(s) to occur.

Now....any customer who chooses to opt in to the courtesy overdraft protection service..and then complains about receiving an overdraft in the event of an overdraft..better have a VERY good story..because since the banks will either be asking if the customer wants the service...and/or not "automatically" enrolling them in it...well who could they possibly blame if they overdraft the account?..and receive a fee for it. If they did complain here...we could politely state.."ask your bank to opt you out of OD protection..and then it won't happen again"  viable solution.

Scenario 3 is a customer chooses to opt out...or does not request to opt in if the bank does not automatically enroll them anymore...so now the worst complaint can only be something like this...."I went to use my card to pay for a doctors visit..and the card was declined...can you imagine that..I CHOSE to opt out of overdraft protection..and the bank had the NERVE to decline the card when the balence went below zero"...

Do you see how silly that sounds Ashely? Now sure..some people will complain no matter what..nobody is claming these changes are expected to please everyone..nor stop a complaint against the banks from ever happening again. But if this has been enough of a problem to drive the BANKS THEMSELVES into making these changes..to finally get congress off their lazy gridlock asses and FINALLY do something for the poor and working class..like they have been promising for 50 freaking years, a give some customers more choices on how THEY see fit to protect their money...personal responsibility..right Ashely?? Then I really can't see how in all logic...these changes can possibly lead to more complaints.

So I am glad you take my bet..and I will be here to collect..whatever it may be.just an "I told you so" ..but do you care to explain to me how the reports against the banks can possibly increase after the changes are made, and what these complaints can be regarding? And please don't use the gas pump nonsense..we debunked that one a while ago. Until I ever see a single customer complain that any customer who CHOSE to opt out of OD protection..and were allowed to fill the tank past balance for a fee regardless... it is a non issue.

To I am the law, from the Kangaroo Court:

Through all of your numerous posting ramblings, you have consistently failed to indicate if you have put as much effort into writing letters to the US Bank CEO Richard Davis, and your local Congressional Delegation, as you have done posting on this thread. After all, they're the ones with the power to do something about it. In fact, all of them are doing something about it. Your CEO Richard Davis, Congress and the Federal Reserve Board are all taking steps to crack down on abusive overdraft fee policies. In a much anticipated ruling before years end, the Federal Reserve Board just announced this week, that they will soon be enacting new rules preventing banks from auto-enrolling customers into Overdraft Protection programs by default, without the customers consent. From now on, customers will have to opt-in.

FACT: Re-Sequencing doesn't matter for the bank or the customer thanks to all of the mandatory Overdraft Protection and Courtesy Overdraft. It doesn't matter if banks post transactions from smallest to largest, largest to smallest, inside out, upside down, or sideways. Since everything will be paid and nothing returned, the posting order is now irrelevant.

FACT: Thanks to mandatory overdraft protection, when your debit card is lost or stolen, not only does the thief get to wipe out the $1,000 in your account, but even after all the money is gone, the thief gets to keep on spending for thousands more. Yeah, that sure helped the customer out didn't it? What a courtesy. And the customer didn't even ask for it.

No need to respond with a 'Yay, I won' comment. That's too petty and it's really not about winning or losing. I tend to let my unchallenged statements speak for themselves (on the record), which is why you're so paranoid about it. Psychology studies indicate that paranoia is probably more of a reflection of yourself, same as your infatuation with druggies, losers, unclean homes, and hygiene, all of which have nothing to with the discussion. But you're the only one constantly introducing it, not anyone else. It's also kind of ironic, since you're also the one who chides customers for not wanting to ''follow the rules''. Seems you're abusing your own policy when it comes to debating.

Ronnie: I guarantee that there will be MORE posts after this change than before about banks ripping people off. The more the government interferes, the worse it gets. 

1) IF no one was to ever overdraft again..for any reason..what would the banks do to make up for all the revenue brought in by said overdraft fees? If you do not know the staggering amount they brought in so far this year alone..read the FDIC report.."anyone" can 'google" it.

2) IF no one is ever expected to overdraft ...why would the banks find it necessary to re-sequence our transactions?

3) IF overdrafting is so irresponsible and such a bad thing..why do/did the banks continue to enroll us in the forced mandatory "automatic" courtesy overdraft protection service?

So here I am..repeating the same thing over and over..which is.. Speaking for myself..I have nothing against the banks charging a fee for overdrafting or bounced checks..never did...never will. Especially if the overdraft or bounced check was done with intent. There are those that feel the fee itself is way too high considering it cost the bank nothing really if a deposit is quickly made to cover the transaction..but since I do believe in fair play..that if the bank tells you they charge a $35.00 fee for OD or NSF...and you incur that by intent..you pay the fee and move on..can not blame the bank or accuse them of any tactics for that...it was the customers fault all the way.

Now on the other hand..if a customer overdrafts with intent..and only expected to pay the fee as per agreed to by the bank...but then is hit with many additional overdraft fees that were charged to transactions that had the funds at the time of transaction..but due to the BANKS manipulations..it was "falsely" created and charged as an overdraft.

Now surely even the most unreasonable clod can tell this customer did not expect all those additional fees...so there was no "intent" on the customers part to overdraft the transactions that the banks tactics caused..not the customer. And this is why my friends...the feds needed to step in. Because it is theft, scam, deception, manipulation, rip pff, pilfering, fleecing and just plain wrong..for any BS reason the bank tells us they re-sequence OUR account for, or have the audacity to call this "con"..a courtesy.

Next example...A customer does not wish to have overdraft protection..because maybe they lost their job..keep a low balance..fear fraudulent activity..never use checks...it is in THEIR best interest NOT to have overdraft protection. So what is so wrong about the banks allowing opt out?...or simply not "automatically" enrolling a customer in the service without consent and approval?

I guess it is not wrong..since the banks themselves are making these changes soon..so I won't be needed here nearly as much..and those who are unhappy with the changes since they won't have near as many banking customers to bash, kick around and blame here..may even consider a better hobby then being assholes to banking customers who were legitimately RIPPED OFF...because in my world..any fee charged that was caused by a bank manipulation...is an overcharge..which is considered by it's very definition .... has a classic rip off.

A legitimate fee for a legitimate overdraft on the other hand??? Totally fair and in that case I take the banks side if someone was to lodge a complaint regarding that.

Thanks for a great response - Seems we are back to the me me me society - blame everyone and everything for problems that we created ie: overdrafting your account and blaming the bank

Grow up, maintain a check register, reconcile your monthly bank statement and stop using your debit card as if it were a credit card - Simple but complicated to some - If you cannot manage your finances then hire someone to do it or keep your money in a jar - Jees

I await Karl and his "google this" crap

I find it interesting that those of us that know how to manage a simple checking account & subsequent check register don't seem to have a problem with NSF fees or any other supposed shady or suddenly changed bank business practices.  How a bank processes your transactions is not an issue as long as you are not spending money you don't have.

Stop crying, learn from your mistakes, take some personal responsibility like a grown adult, stop using your debit card, use a check register AND balance your account EVERYDAY, live within your means, stop the instant gratification purchases, and VOILA,  somehow those banks seem a whole lot nicer. 

Banks Change Overdraft Fee Policies - Video - FOXBusiness.com

HEY GOOGLE THIS:

BANK DEFENDER TEACHES PEOPLE HOW TO USE A CHECK REGISTER


You will see how OBAMA is going to stop the EVIL banks from charging fees.

YOU SHOULD WRITE HIM A LETTER AND LET HIM KNOW THAT YOU AREN"T GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE.

Man. This thread is priceless.

Ronny G and Edward: Classic examples of people that don't know when they've been beaten (by me or life in general). Their response to constantly being proven wrong is false facts, lies, deviating off of the point and a misplaced comment of "NO, WE BEAT YOU!". Very mature. (See previous posts.) Seems to me like the ones who got stuck with overdrafts due to their own stupidity were the ones that were beaten. Oh well....

I'm bored trying to argue logically with these nitwits. God himself could come down from Heaven and back me up and they'd still whine that they're right. No sense in trying to continue. I'm sure that they're going to fire back with a "Yay! We won!" comment. I'm not even going to respond. It's a waste of my time. I'm just going to smile when I look at my bank balance and know that I never have and never will pay an overdraft fee like those two chumps. I am kind of sad, though. I figure if they can't even follow a few simple rules to maintain a bank balance, you can imagine what their lives must be like. Their homes must be filthy, their children and their own bodies uncared for, and they must have a stack of unpaid bills a mile high. They probably can't hold jobs either due to their reluctance to play by the rules. They probably abuse drugs and get welfare, too. Most overdrafters do. It's kinda sad.

Good luck in all of your endeavors, overdrafters. May I suggest a Google search for "How to avoid overdrafts" or "How to keep an accurate check register"? I hope you clean up your lives. 

To I am the law, in the Kangaroo Court:

Okay, we have Exhibit A against US Bank CEO Richard Davis where he makes the boneheaded business decision to throw away (B)illions of dollars in overdrat fee profits with the policy changes, all for a bunch of druggies and losers. And now you're telling us we have Exhibit B where their business savvy is highly suspect again.

Quote #1: ''Businesses try to predict what they're going to earn and lose each quarter (or year)''.

Quote #2: ''So basically, if enough idiots overdraft their accounts and then bail on the bank (very, very common with overdrafters),...''

Quote #3: ''Anything sustained over and above their expected their losses gets passed onto the customers in some form or another.''

So, it's very very common that overdrafters are going to bail, but then when they do, it's all of sudden unexpected and out of left field? The banks have more losses than what they expected even though it's very very common? I suspect you're placing too much faith in the powers that be at US Bank. But I'll play devil's advocate with you. Of course if a bank suffers more losses from one area, they will make up for it with profits from another area.

You mean like when all of the overdraft ripoff policies began to surface several years ago, coincidentally, when interest rates began to fall? Oh, and please, please keep ignoring me. I take at it as the highest compliment possible. You should have quit while you were behind. ;)

"Wrong again. This is not a communist dictatorship here. It is a democracy."

"Sorry but you are mistaken.  The U.S is NOT a democracy.  The U.S. is a democratic republic-there is a HUGE difference between a democracy and a democratic republic.  We have a (nowadays so-called) representative government.  Once these clowns are in office, they seem to be able to pretty much do what they wish legislatively."

Well I certainly didn't expect this to become a political discussion..but I should have expected you to take things that literally..well anything in attempt to discredit a banking customer defender..all is fair..right? Touche'

Well we are in it now..and I have to admit that some statements here you posted have merit...some, may be debatable. But I will add that perhaps it isn't supposed to be that way..but you have to admit, this is what we have become..like it or not..

Or what Thomas Jefferson says about the subject..."A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine"

So was I that "mistaken" in stating this is a Democracy has opposed to a Communist dictatorship?? It appears we are quite a bit more like a Democracy...which my only implication in using that term was to prove a simple point. That if injustice is being done (remember the Boston tea party?)..Americans fight to make change, we do not sit idle and take it...guess it wasn't apparent to you what I meant so I hope this cleared it up for you.

"Further, we are being transformed into a socialist state at an increasing speed of late. At the current pace of the democratic party (with some help from the Republicans) we should be the United Socialist States of America by 2015."

Robert??? Are you Glen Beck?  Kidding aside..he is a bit of an alarmist..but I am a fan. I am open to all views and all sides of the issues..and I side for what I feel is right for myself and my Country...best made decisions when you are open to all sides..I don't judge a person by any labels or what party they a registered under..I judge them by the content of their character..that was very Martin Luther King"esk"..but I think it is the right way to live..it's about fairness.

Now..am I happy we are heading toward socialism?? No..not really. But my sister lives in Norway and I have a lot of family there. Now I would not like to live there..I am American to the core..but my sister and her family are very happy..and it is nice to visit a country that bases it policies and foundation on FAMILY and COMMUNITY..and not just greed..Robert..it is kind of refreshing..in short to medium doses.

"The government currently OWNS half of the U.S. auto industry and one third of the U.S. banking industry.  Currently the government is moving to control/own the medical industry.  Our government also owns a good portion of the housing industry and Congress is making noises about purchasing even MORE."

Everything the Government invests in..is doomed to failure. Well they invested in GM..a failing company...the banks..all failures..so I expect soon a visit to the hospital will be more akin to a visit to the Post Office..so as you can tell..I am not a big fan of any Government meddling in our health care system..I have no problem with it personally. The insurance companies on the other hand...well lets just say it can use some looking into. Not to say there is not plenty of fraud going on against the insurance companies too...but we are talking peoples health here..perhaps both parties can put a little greed aside?

Now next time my GM vehicle has troubles..which is quite often as it is built like a piece of manure..I will be sure to pull it into the White House and request Obama warranty the defect for me.

"Also, it's only a matter of time before Obama's Army of Czars controls everything.  It's only a matter of time before his "corporate compensation czar" gets around to DICTATING corporate officer compensation to the little corporations (self-employed folks as I) with as few as three folks on the payroll. "

I have been more afraid of the banks for a while..then I have of Obamas Czars. Once the bank issues are sorted out...hopefully the next president will be able to do something to bring back prosperity and entrepreneurship..which this country needs...but still protect the average working and less well off  from corporate greed. This Country can thrive without corruption..regardless of what Karl believes..and one day the world can and will look up to us again..and want to be like us,...not kill us.

Ronny G, I hope you don't ever own your own business because it would be bankrupt in a month.

Let me explain a little something to you about the nature of profit and business. You keep quoting that banks made some ungodly amount of profit this year in each of your ROR's. (38 billion if memory serves me.) My response to that is: so what? That figure is totally irrelevant.

Businesses try to predict what they're going to earn and lose each quarter (or year). Anything sustained over and above their expected their losses gets passed onto the customers in some form or another. This is true of any business. So basically, if enough idiots overdraft their accounts and then bail on the bank (very, very common with overdrafters), that loss is made up for by the bank decreasing payouts on CD's and savings accounts, increasing loan, credit card, and mortgage interest rates, and imposing or increasing fees for other services. So, good customers get stuck footing the bill for the bad ones. It doesn't matter if the bank made a gazillion dollars this year, this action would still occur because people are causing the bank to go over their expected losses.

In the nutshell, overdrafters are the reason that overdraft fees are so high and why customer benefits are going in the crapper. If you're fine with that situation, you have some severe mental problems. Quit making excuses for irresponsible people.

Get your verbs right, Ronny G.

When I did a Google search for USB requesting TARP, I found nothing. When I did a more general search, "US BANK Tarp", I found the article that I posted in my previous ROR.

Basically, you claimed that USB ASKED for Tarp funds. They did not. Check the article. You obviously lied. USB was FORCED to take Tarp funds. Asked for versus  being forced.. big difference... ask your wife. 

Debunk that, overdrafter.

"Wrong again. This is not a communist dictatorship here. It is a democracy."

Sorry but you are mistaken.  The U.S is NOT a democracy.  The U.S. is a democratic republic-there is a HUGE difference between a democracy and a democratic republic.  We have a (nowadays so-called) representative government.  Once these clowns are in office, they seem to be able to pretty much do what they wish legislatively.

Further, we are being transformed into a socialist state at an increasing speed of late. At the current pace of the democratic party (with some help from the Republicans) we should be the United Socialist States of America by 2015.

The government currently OWNS half of the U.S. auto industry and one third of the U.S. banking industry.  Currently the government is moving to control/own the medical industry.  Our government also owns a good portion of the housing industry and Congress is making noises about purchasing even MORE.

Also, it's only a matter of time before Obama's Army of Czars controls everything.  It's only a matter of time before his "corporate compensation czar" gets around to DICTATING corporate officer compensation to the little corporations (self-employed folks as I) with as few as three folks on the payroll. 

To I am the law in the Kangaroo Court,

Well now you only have two letters to write, as the effort is now too late for the Federal Reserve, so don't bother sending that letter to them. Their minds are made up.

The Federal Reserve Board Governor, Daniel K. Tarullo, told a US Senate subcommittee on Wednesday that the Federal Reserve will 'most likely' enforce new rules requiring that consumers opt-in to any form of overdraft protection before the banks can open their flood gates with fees.

This is the much anticipated ruling the Federal Reserve Board said they would make before the end of the year. It had become increasingly clear in recent months the Feds would enact some form of new rules surrounding OD protection. But the unresolved question centered around which way it would be enforced. Should it be opt-in, where the banks couldn't do anything without the consumers expressed consent in advance? Or should it be opt-out, where the banks could do whatever they wanted by default, but then give the consumer the option to say no thanks afterwards. Well, it appears the Feds have decided on the opt-in choice. Another hint about how the tide is tilting around ripoff bank fees. And don't forget these are bankers themselves. How's that as a vote of confidence?

Nothing left now but to dot all of the i's and cross all of the t's and wait for the ink to dry. But

Plain and simple, banks and its customers can be summed up in two very easy statements:

1.) Banks are a business, and as a business they look to make profits. These profits come from many different areas. One being Interest differentiation on credit accounts and deposit accounts. And, of course another one being on fees.

2.) We live in a society that expresses itself with how much you own, what you drive, what clothes you wear. So not only do people have to try to keep up if they have the money, people who do not have the money try to keep up as well. Its simple, people spend more money than they have and that is one way banks make a profit. On people's own stupidity to outspend each other. If you make $700 a week, save some of it and buy something nice if you really need it. Don't spend $800 a week and say, "Well, I have overdraft protection so it is okay."

The man claiming to be the law is right. Banks offer overdraft protection because they know people are going to use it. Either way, that person is going to o/d their account because they are going to spend more than they have. We live in a capitalist economy and it is smart to offer the protection, because yes, it is a great service to people who always overdraft their account. It saves them money. So they can spend even more than they have. It's brilliant.

All banks have their special ways they do overdraft protection. Chase bank actually includes your protection in your available balance. And yes, it is difficult to get overdraft protection because it is a service which requires a customer to have a fairly decent credit score. If you have a horrible credit score, it just means you will use it and obviously default on yet another credit obligation. I feel as if the law might not have the best credit and I am sorry but that is your own d**n fault. I believe a monkey could have a credit score of at least 600 because to attain that score all you have to do is pay your bills by the date it is due. Tough concept.

The banking industry will never change. No matter who complains and sues, the policies will never change, at least not drastically. They clearly state out how to balance a register, when funds are available, what days are considered a business day, and which days are holidays. I do not understand how people overdraw their account and believe it is the banks fault. The only thing that is "shady" is when certain banks pay the highest sum first (which is usually the most important) which then may result is overdraft fees for smaller amounts. I am not saying balancing an account is easy, it's just that people are lazy. There are certain months when I am close, but I just tighten up and only spend on necessities. I don't care for o/d protection because one day I might want to dip into it. It is your money people, take account for it. It is not the banks job to monitor every account and balance every register to make sure you do not overdraw your account. That is where overdraft protection comes in. For the lazy. For the over spenders. For the people who don't care.

All in all, a system is a system. And if you don't want to live in this system then please, get the hell out. Go to Canada, play with their money.

To I am the law in the Kangaroo Court,

Your earlier quote: ''I couldn't find anything on Google to support your claims, so you're both lying''.

Now your current quote: ''look at what I found. This is a piece of an article about federal bailout money from Twin Cities BizJournals''.

When anyone types the words 'US Bank Tarp' in Google, the TOP FIVE searches all pull from this same article that you reference. Funny how you missed this so easily before. But very good. You get a cookie. Now try the same trick with the words 'Kangaroo Court' and see what you find as the #1 result at the TOP OF THE LIST! It's neat isn't it. Almost magical.

You're a fraud, as has been proven time and time again. No not by my doing. By your own doing, as I have to hold back Abe Lincoln and Mark Twain who are itching to let loose again.

What's the status of those letters to US Bank CEO Richard Davis, the Federal Reserve, and the Ohio Congressional Delegation? Oh wait. My bad. It's no longer Ohio but now it's the Illinois Congressional Delegation you should be complaining to.

You see ladies and gentlemen. The Kangaroo Court has no borders or boundaries. It's reach is limitless. Where will it hold court next? Stay tuned.....

Hey Ronny Girl, since you're fan of internet searches, look at what I found. This is a piece of an article about federal bailout money from Twin Cities BizJournals. I've underlined the really important things for you. Read on...

...U.S. Bank was told, not asked, to participate in the program, which is a Darwinian attempt to synthesize weaker banks into stronger banks through consolidation, Davis said at the forum, held at Thrivent Financial for Lutherans in Minneapolis. U.S. Bank (NYSE: USB) sold $6.6 billion in preferred stock with warrants to the U.S. Treasury in November through its capital purchase program.

A spokesman for U.S. Bank later said that Davis meant the banking industry as a whole was pressured to participate in TARP.

Once the countrys other large banks announced they were participating in the program, that forced U.S. Bank to participate from a competitive standpoint, said U.S. Bank spokesman Steve Dale.

Nine of the nations largest banks, including local U.S. Bank competitor Wells Fargo & Co., had announced their participation in TARP at the end of October. U.S. Banks TARP transaction was recorded on Nov. 14, along with TCF Financial Corp., which sold $361 million in preferred stock as part of the program.

Theres no A, R or P in TARP, Davis said, adding that troubled is the only word in the phrase thats accurate. The asset relief program has yet to occur.

The problems with the U.S. Treasury Departments program are that its goals and rules have changed since its inception last fall, its poorly defined and its caused collateral damage to healthy banks.

Davis said he would be darned if Minneapolis-based U.S. Bank would suffer collateral damage from the governments sloppy attempt at nationalizing the [banking] industry.

The Twin Cities is lucky to have large, strong, healthy banks such as U.S. Bank, Wayzata-based TCF Financial Corp., St. Paul-based Bremer Bank and Wells Fargo & Co., which is based in San Francisco but has a large Minnesota presence, Davis said.

Other cities have tried to lure U.S. Bank away from Minneapolis, but Davis said that as long as hes leading the company, it will keep its headquarters in the Twin Cities.

So, as I stated before, this bailout money idea was REJECTED by USB from the beginning. It wasn't asked for. I'm also seeing words such as "strong" and "healthy" to describe USB. So, that being said, you've been shown up again. Keep responding, it's entertaining for me to see what nonsense you'll come up with next.

I mean really? Are you seriously kidding me? I must really be bored by continuing this discussion, when there are countless other ROR threads with intelligent, meaningful and productive financial discussions going on. So why am I still here, except for gut wrenching laughs and entertainment at this point.

Not sure if you included the search for Kangaroo Court in your unsuccessful search claims, but just for the record and clarity, anyone with [and I quote] ''the brain of a stale Pop-Tart can type'' the phrase 'Kangaroo Court' on Google and find the VERY FIRST entry for Wikipedia with a detailed description, followed by the SECOND SEARCH RESULT and subsequent search results all with dictionary definitions. Anyone with [and I quote] ''the brain of a stale Pop-Tart can type'' the phrase 'US Bank TARP' on Google and discover the more than 600,000+ search results from various news articles. Yes, you have to be kidding.

So, if one cannot do either of these, then we're to conclude that said person doesn't even have [and I quote], ''the brain of a stale Pop-Tart''. Don't look now, but not only is Robert 100% behind you [waaaay behind you], but now your partner in crime [Yes, pun intended] IamGood is sneakily backing away as well. Where's old Abraham Lincoln or Mark Twain when you need them? Oh here they are, just in time and right on cue.

''It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. (Mark Twain/Abraham Lincoln)

I will now do what I've often criticized others for when I say, this will be my last post here. But I will qualify this statement by saying, I withhold the right to return, once a meaningful and productive financial discussion resumes. Otherwise it's a waste of precious resources. You've done enough damage to yourself without my continued assistance.

I mean really? Are you seriously kidding me? I must really be bored by continuing this discussion, when there are countless other ROR threads with intelligent, meaningful and productive financial discussions going on. So why am I still here, except for gut wrenching laughs and entertainment at this point.

Not sure if you included the search for Kangaroo Court in your unsuccessful search claims, but just for the record and clarity, anyone with [and I quote] ''the brain of a stale Pop-Tart can type'' the phrase 'Kangaroo Court' on Google and find the VERY FIRST entry for Wikipedia with a detailed description, followed by the SECOND SEARCH RESULT and subsequent search results all with dictionary definitions. Anyone with [and I quote] ''the brain of a stale Pop-Tart can type'' the phrase 'US Bank TARP' on Goggle and discover the more than 600,000+ search results from various news articles. Yes, you have to be kidding.

So, if one cannot do either of these, then we're to conclude that said person doesn't even have [and I quote], ''the brain of a stale Pop-Tart''. Don't look now, but not only is Robert 100% behind you [waaaay behind you], but now your partner in crime [Yes, pun intended] IamGood is sneakily backing away as well. Where's old Abraham Lincoln or Mark Twain when you need them? Oh here they are, just in time and right on cue.

''It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. (Mark Twain/Abraham Lincoln)

I will now do what I've often criticized others for when I say, this will be my last post here. But I will qualify this statement by saying, I withhold the right to return, once a meaningful and productive financial discussion resumes. Otherwise it's a waste of precious resources. You've done enough damage to yourself without my continued assistance.

Ronny G and Edward (who else but the Kangaroo Court?)

I couldn't find anything on Google to support your claims, so you're both lying. Anyone with the brain of a stale Pop-Tart can type things on ROR that look like legitimate research articles.

Remember when I said that OD fees were for stupid people? Well, considering the titanic amount of spelling and grammar errors in your respective blogs, I think I've proven my point. See that little check icon with the letters above it? That's a spell checker. Use it.

Hmm..seems after 30 seconds of "googling"..and it really wasn't that hard..there seems to be a discrepancy with US bank "not" receiving TARP funds. Oh..they did..and they want to repay it..guess they are doing well enough...

but wait...what about all the "druggies" at the bank causing all the loss by leaving accounts negative?? Seems this bank doesn't want the Tarp funds so they won't be so "scrutinized" by the executives HUGE ginormous bonuses...wow, the druggies and slacked jawed devil worshipers at that bank must be doing something right for that bank...well here is some "made up statistics" or better yet..an ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT from an interview with US bank and ABC news... ...anyone can "google" this if they think I made it up... I am the Kangeroo.

US BANCORP
Received $6.6 billion in TARP funds
1.Since you received TARP funds has there been an increase in lending activity by your
bank, if so by how much?
We will be announcing our fourth quarter and full year 2008 results on Wednesday,
January 21st. Our earnings release and conference call will include details about our
lending activity during the fourth quarter. Until then, it would be inappropriate for us to
comment.
2. What amount of TARP funds have been used to help homeowners who are behind on
their payments or facing foreclosure?
We have been pro-actively reaching out to our mortgage customers who have, or may
have, issues or problems regarding their mortgages for some time. As of September 30,
2008, we reported total restructured loans of $1,180 million, $589 million of which were
residential mortgages and $412 million were credit card loans. As we have previously
indicated, we expect those numbers to increase in 2009. In addition, we recently
announced the acquisition of the Banking operations of Downey Savings and Loan and
PFF Bank and Trust from the FDIC. As part of these transactions, U.S. Bank will modify
the terms of certain acquired residential mortgage loans in accordance with the FDIC
Mortgage Loan Modification Program. The objectives of this program are to improve
affordability, increase the probability of performance, and allow borrowers to remain in
their homes. This program could potentially impact 35,000 borrowers.
3. Does your bank need the TARP infusion; if not have you considered returning the
funds?
We will refer you back to U.S. Bancorp's press release announcing our participation in
the Capital Purchase Program and the reasons why we decided to participate. We
cannot comment on any future actions regarding the program.
4. What will be the total amount awarded in bonuses at your institution this year?
Executive bonus and incentive decisions are reviewed and approved by the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors each January following final yearend
results. They are based on performance and comparisons to stated plan objectives
and peer group performance. Executive salaries and bonuses -- and all related
disclosure -- will be reported in 2009 Proxy Statement, which should be published in
early March.
5. If Congress passes retroactive compensation requirements for TARP Capital Purchase
Program participants, will your bank give back the money?
We cannot comment on any future actions regarding the program.

But wait..there's more:


Meanwhile, U.S. Bancorp recently made moves to free money that could be used to repay its $6.6 billion TARP funds. The Minneapolis-based bank cut its dividend 88% to .05 cents on Wednesday, which would preserve $2.6 billion of capital per year.

U.S. Bancorp president and chief executive officer Richard K. Davis said in a press release the dividend reduction was not done from a position of weakness but "from a position of strength and a desire to continue to invest in and expand our business."

Returning the money would naturally mean they would no longer have to worry about constant criticism from politicians and taxpayers, who have been very vocal, deriding corporate strategies of some banks that received TARP money that include spending on bonuses or making recent M&A deals. Such restrictions may encourage other banks to follow Northern Trust's and U.S. Bancorp's leads. - Gerald Magpily

Well isn't that nice. I am the law and IamGood. Otherwise known as Frick and Frack.

Quote from I am the law also known and Frick: ''Fees are for stupid people''. Yes indeed, fees are for stupid people who at least know what a Kangaroo Court is, or at least smart enough to Google it before defeatedly admitting they don't know what it is. Don't have the smarts or wits to take all of 30 seconds to Google or look up something, but you would have everyone believe you have read your Terms and Conditions pamphlet from cover to cover. Yeah.......sure.

Quote from IamGood also known as Frack: ''We need the revenues....'' Yes we know your bank needs the revenues, after making all of those flawlessly wise decisions with mortgages, derivatives, credit default swaps, and such. Don't look now but it's not the fees paying your bonuses, it's the tax dollars of millions of hard working americans who had to come to the rescue of fiscally irresponsible banks like yours.

Bailout funds are for stupid banks!

IamGood? Not sure if that's a legit ROR or not, but it's very funny.

"I work for a Bank, and we live for the NSF and O/D Fees..."

Me too, man. Me too. It benefits me by keeping my free account free. Fees are for stupid people.  

IamGood? Not sure if that's a legit ROR or not, but it's very funny.

"I work for a Bank, and we live for the NSF and O/D Fees..."

Me too, man. Me too. It benefits me by keeping my free account free. Fees are for stupid people.  

Ronnie:

I love it when people make transactions when they dont have the funds to cover them.  It pays for my bonuses every year,.  We at the bank call it the stupid person tax.

I would like to add something about O/D protection.  You are right, if you initiate a transaction without the proper funds in your account your account will be charged 35.00 and you have 7 days to pay the overdraft, and the amount they paid out....

Without OD protection, the transaction would have been bounced by the bank, and you still would  have been charged 35.00, plus the vendor would probably send the check back through and you would be charged 35.00 more.  Plus you would probably end up owing the vendor another 35.00.

P L E A S E      D O N T   S T O P   D O I N G   T H I S..... 

We need the revenues, and it shows us how stupid most people are.

Ronny G,

You're not going to change my opinion of overdrafters, so give it up. They'll all a bunch of drug using, uneducated, slack-jawed, devil worshiping, losers that whine about something that they signed up for and a situation that they created. Customers, by law, must sign a document stating that they have read, understand, and agree to ALL terms of the account before it can be opened. True? So what's your angle here? Where's your legal foundation? Don't like it? Don't sign it. Seems pretty simple to me. USB is breaking NO LAWS with their account policies. Their signatures are on file, partner, so good luck with that court case. Contract law wins, overdrafters lose. Politics and your made up statistics mean nothing. I agree that the overdraft fees are high, but it's so easy to avoid them that anyone that gets one should be euthanized so they don't contaminate the gene pool.   

In addition, I hope you realize that the bail out money USB was offered was REJECTED by the bank. So, yeah, you might want to do some research on things like that before you open your mouth.

To I am the law, from the Kangaroo Court:

First a quick educational lesson, since you can't keep up. I combined your screen name with your persistent opinions about overdrafters, labeling all of them druggies and losers without merit, and I came up with the sarcastic, yet brilliant analogy of Kangaroo Court. By definition it is ''A sham legal or court proceeding that denies due process and the outcome is determined in advance''. In a Kangaroo Court you're guilty until proven innocent, but you never get a chance to prove your innocence. You should be ashamed that overdrafting druggies would be familiar with this, but not a financially impeccable, brilliant mind like yourself. Back to the subject at hand:

FACT: Re-Sequencing doesn't matter for the bank or the customer thanks to all of the mandatory Overdraft Protection and Courtesy Overdraft. It doesn't matter if banks post transactions from smallest to largest, largest to smallest, inside out, upside down, or sideways. Since everything will be paid and nothing returned, the posting order is now irrelevant.

Please feel free to respond as often as you like to any of my posts. But at the same time, please also do not feel compelled to do so. I'm not responding directly to you looking for a response. I'm responding to your comments only for the record, to give everyone else a different view point. This is the reason you now have to end all of your posts by trying to preempt our rebuttals, because you know you're fighting a losing battle. Notice how Robert is still behind you......way behind you. You should have followed his lead long ago, if you were really as smart as you claim.

''You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em'' -Kenny Rogers

To I am the Law..apparently you still don't get it...

"Oh man, we're back on the resequencing issue again."

It's not so much that we're "back" on re-sequencing again, because it is still occuring (although B of A is stopping soon voluntarily)..but it is a problem when combined with mandatory "courtesy" OD protection. Perhaps because you never had an overdraft..you were not victimized by it. Now..I couldn't agree more..that if someone does not have an overdraft, re-sequencing wouldn't matter..but since people do overdraft..and the bank ENCOURAGES it by giving mandatory "courtesy" overdraft protection to all of it's customers..then it really does become an issue..because whether you like it or not..overdrafts WILL occur if the BANKS continue to ALLOW and ENCOURAGE them to take place.

Now..where I will agree customer negligence comes into play..is a customer who was not on to the scam..and was banged with many additional excessive fees that resulted from a SINGLE legitimate overdraft....and then does it again. Fool me once..shame on you..fool me twice..shame on me. However..this does not imply that anyone who is strapped for cash is a junkie..nor does it imply anyone who overdrafts is an idiot..but if a person overdrafts with INTENT once they know what the bank will do by re-sequencing..then at that point they have to take blame.

It's like if you were a kid and walked home from school and on a particular block and a bunch of bullies would kick your a*s. Now the first time you didn't expect the a*s whopping..so you have no one to blame but the bullies. HOWEVER, if you walk home the same way the next day..and the same bullies beat your a*s..then yes..you were not too smart to repeat the same action and expect a different result. At the same time..this does NOT excuse the bullies for beating a kid up..it's still wrong..even though the victim was aware it might happen again.

"FACT: Resequencing doesn't mean a thing if you have enough money to cover all of the items presented to the account that business day! This isn't quantum mechanics here. Your bank could run transactions through based on amount, time of receipt, alphabetical order, color, flavor, religious affiliation, WHATEVER! AND IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU HAVE A SUFFICENT BALANCE! Overdrafts are assigned if a customer completes a BUSINESS DAY with a negative available balance."

FACT: Re-sequencing wouldn't mean a thing IF the banks didn't force mandatory courtesy overdraft protection onto it's customers..because even though you think the millions upon millions of customer who incurred overdrafts for one reason or the other are junkies...it doesn't change the fact that when many additional fees were applied for transactions that HAD the funds at the time of the transaction..were applied an additional fee to these transactions as if the funds were unavailable. Now this would be IMPOSSIBLE to occur if not for the banks manipulations..and I know next you talk about why the banks do this..and I am going to de-bunk that as well...quite effortlessly I might add..no quantum mechanics or physics required.

"FACT: Banks typically run transactions through in this order: credits first (I would love to see someone whine about that.), then larger debits to smaller ones. This is because larger debits are typically more important. You really can't argue that. If you were short money, wouldn't you rather have your mortgage check considered first instead of your cable check? Silly me, but I'd rather have a roof over my head than HBO any day."

FACT: Now Edward has also effortlessly de-bunked this reasoning several times..but I will add to it.

First of all..if the customer has overdraft protection..the bank will cover overdrafts...right? Now..if a 1000 dollar transaction overdrafts the account by 50 dollars..the bank will cover it and charge a fee..right? AND if the customer has a 100 dollar transaction and overdrafts the account by 50 dollars..the bank will cover that too..right? So where on earth does your logic come in? As well..how does the bank know the $1000 is not for a night in Vegas..and the $100.00 is not for heart medication? How on Gods green earth do they know?..or have a right to make this assumption without asking the customer first? And it doesn't matter anyway...if the customer has overdraft protection..both of those transactions are going to be covered...right? So where is the logic? Sounds to me more like a tactic to yield additional fees..does it not?

And even if your last reply made any sense..which it does not...if a mortgage check was to bounce do you really think you would lose the roof over your head because of it? It takes a lot more then that to force a foreclosure on a homeowner..do some research before you post there buddy.Unless the customer actually is how you call them ..a "junkie loser"..then they may not care about losing the house. But in the real world..the customer will make a deposit to cover the mortgage and pay the fees for overdrafting. Now on the other hand..If 9 other fees are on there as well from transactions that had the funds at the time..and were cleared, but due to re-sequencing are suddenly considered overdrafts as well..then yes they are going to be pissed off and probably lodge complaints and reports..I can't really blame them for that.

Now sure if the customer does not have OD protection..the check would not be covered if there were not enough funds..and yes..the customer would recieve 2 fees possibly..OD and NSF..but this is not near as bad as 3 or 4 hundred dollars in fees because the bank continues to allow the card to be used after the funds are depleted. I mean how does the bank not know the card was stolen..what precautions do they take to actually "protect" our money? apparently NONE..unless it profits them..

"Well, I'd imagine right now my good friends Edward and Ronny G and preparing a rebuttal filled with bogus stats that support the negligence of the average overdrafter, so I'll wrap this up..."

Can you produce any bogus stats that Edward or myself ever used? Because if not..then correct..it is perhaps overdue time you wrapped it up.

"Overdrafters: get sober, learn to read what you're signing, and take responsibility for your lives. Stop blaming other people for your mistakes. Get off of welfare and get a job and finally, quit being a burden to society."

I have a strange feeling you may be drunk or on drugs..or both. because this statement is COMPLETELY 100% indisputably BOGUS...and once again..you did it..a 10.5 on the Richter scale for ignorance. How does this report have anything to do with welfare? If anything..the banks have needed quite a bit of "welfare"..would you not agree? I am sure the unemployed are really impressed with your d****ebaggedness..and wish there were jobs out there during a recession..maybe you want to hire someone? You do know that unemployment goes up during a recession..right? You know businesses shut down or cut hours...heck..look how many people the wonderful banks have laid off..have you read a freaking newspaper recently?

And read the information posted..you will find that the banks made PLENTY of profit from overdraft fees. So perhaps you have ONE point from all your ignorant blathering...and that is if no one ever overdrafted..it would really get back at the banks. Since chances are a few would have been long gone if not for all the fees. But then I am the LAW..tell us...tell us in your infinite wisdom..what would the banks have done to make up

That you are a very, very silly person.

So..I guess the banks are changing these policies to appease 1 out of 10 customers..and all those customers are druggies? I guess the ignorant judge from the KANGAROO court has determined that anyone having financial struggles during a recession..is hereby decreed a junkie loser?...nice..but proves your ignorance to all who read this even more so then it has already.

Wow, looks like the banks are burning you pretty bad for a few million druggies.

I don't have to post any "phony" statistics..all the statistics have already been posted..and were copied and pasted directly from the FDIC report so if you have issue with any of the stats...give em a call, I am sure they want to hear your side.

Get ready I am the law...no more free checking soon...and expect your interest rates to start sucking. And don't forget to blame the druggies for that (even though the report states most of them have paid all the fees)..and don't put any blame on the banks..because the banks are our friend..remember..we the American taxpayers were nice enough to lend them 700 BILLION dollars... because they are so perfect.

Just to set the record straight, overdrafters worship the Devil, too.

Oh man, we're back on the resequencing issue again.

FACT: Resequencing doesn't mean a thing if you have enough money to cover all of the items presented to the account that business day! This isn't quantum mechanics here. Your bank could run transactions through based on amount, time of receipt, alphabetical order, color, flavor, religious affiliation, WHATEVER! AND IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU HAVE A SUFFICENT BALANCE! Overdrafts are assigned if a customer completes a BUSINESS DAY with a negative available balance.

FACT: Banks typically run transactions through in this order: credits first (I would love to see someone whine about that.), then larger debits to smaller ones. This is because larger debits are typically more important. You really can't argue that. If you were short money, wouldn't you rather have your mortgage check considered first instead of your cable check? Silly me, but I'd rather have a roof over my head than HBO any day.

Well, I'd imagine right now my good friends Edward and Ronny G and preparing a rebuttal filled with bogus stats that support the negligence of the average overdrafter, so I'll wrap this up...

Overdrafters: get sober, learn to read what you're signing, and take responsibility for your lives. Stop blaming other people for your mistakes. Get off of welfare and get a job and finally, quit being a burden to society. 

Ok, first of all, Edwardo, I have no idea what a "kangaroo court" is, so please try to avoid using terms that only overdrafting druggies use.

In my last post, I was just trying to say that if USB's policies were so geared against the customer, you wouldn't get statistics like that. Apparently, most of the stupidity of overdrafting lies with 1 out of every 10 people. That tells me that reasonably intelligent and vigilant people can manage to follow the rules of funds availability. If the bank was "out to get you", that statistic would be like 7 or 8 out of 10.

Edward, quit making excuses for these losers. Quit enabling negligent behavior.  

To I am the law, from the Kangaroo Court:

Thanks for proving what point? Your point where you said, and I quote, ''That's typically the class of people that get overdrafts; druggies and losers''.  Any logical thinking person can conclude that's by far not what the article insinuated. Just one example is group of millions of Americans included in the 9.5% unemployment rate. I'm willing to bet a vast majority of those in that group are probably cash-strapped right about now, but that doesn't logically translate to druggies and users. But I'm also willing to bet a vast majority of the cash-strapped within this unemployment group are probably getting hit with more OD fees, compared with others fortunate enough to still have a job.

P.S. Thanks for proving my point in my last post to yourself and Robert where I said ''That should answer all of your questions''. I guess I was right, since you didn't bother to address it any further. Well, nothing further Your Honor. This session of the Kangaroo Court is adjourned.

To I am the law, from the Kangroo Court:

Thanks for proving what point? Your point where said, and I quote, ''That's typically the class of people that get overdrafts; druggies and losers''.  Any logical thinking person can conclude that's by far not what the artical insinuated. Just one example is group of millions of Americans included in the 9.5% unemployment rate. I'm willing to bet a vast majority of those in that group are probably cash-strapped right about now, but that doesn't logically translate to druggies and users. But I'm also willing to bet a vast majority of the cash-strapped within this unemployment group are probably getting hit with more OD fees, compared with others fortunate enough to still have a job.

P.S. Thanks for proving my point in my last post to yourself and Robert where I said ''That should answer all of your questions''. I guess I was right, since you didn't bother to address it any further. Well, nothing further Your Honor. This session of the Kangaroo Court is adjourned.

Ronny G, your last post quoted an article that stated,

"...The most cash-strapped customers are the hardest hit by such fees,
with 90 per cent of overdraft revenues coming from 10 per cent of the
130m checking accounts in the US."

Thanks for proving my point. The average, intelligent customer (9 out of 10 people) can avoid overdrafts with a minimal amount of effort. And, the reason these other people are so cash-strapped is because they don't follow a few simple rules. 

Want to stick it to the bank, you 1 out of 10? Follow the banks rules and they won't make a penny off of you, at least in terms of fees.

 It started with a discussion regarding how much it actually costs the bank to process an overdraft, vs. what they take in fees. No one knows the answer to that..but this article is very informative nonetheless... I highlighted the areas where I "misquoted" from... The financial Times .. seems I used the term "low income" when the article uses the term "most cash - strapped"..so I was more or less on base according to this article but it is easy to understand my misinterpretation when you see the actual statement.. I also highlighted some other interesting facts at the end. What is disappointing is that this FT article failed to indicate
what costs the banks incur in processing overdrafts. Although this
activity is presumably very profitable, it would be nice to know by how
much.
From the Financial Times :
US banks stand to collect a record $38.5 BILLION in fees for
customer overdrafts this year, with the bulk of the revenue coming from
the most financially stretched consumers amid the deepest recession
since the 1930sThe fees are nearly double those reported in 2000
The Federal Reserve is working on rules on overdraft fees, and
rules on customer charges could be a priority of the Obama
administrations proposed Consumer Protection Agency if approved by
Congress.
Data from Moebs Services, a research company, show that the crisis
has prompted many banks to lift charges on overdrafts and credit cards
in order to boost profits.
The median bank overdraft fee has this year rose from $25 to $26,
according to Moebs, the first time it has gone up in a recession for
more than 40 years..
Overdraft fees accounted for more than three-quarters of service fees charged on customer deposits
The most cash-strapped customers are the hardest hit by such fees,
with 90 per cent of overdraft revenues coming from 10 per cent of the
130m checking accounts in the US.
Banks say that the fees compensate for the risk they incur when they
pay on behalf of customers who do not have enough money in their
accounts.
The highest overdraft fees were charged by the largest banks, said
Mr Moebs. At banks with assets greater than $50bn a group including
Citigroup, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo the median
overdraft fee is set at $33.
At BofA, a customer overdrawn by as little as $6 could trigger a $35
penalty. If the customer does not realize they have a negative balance
and continue spending, they could incur that fee as many as 10 times in
a single day, for a total of $350. Failing to repay the overdraft
within a few days results in an additional $35 penalty.
Chase has tiered overdraft fees the first overdraft within a
12-month period is charged at $25, the second to fourth at $32 and the
fifth at $35.
Consumer advocacy groups point to very low loss rates on overdrafts
for all banks and argue that overdrafts are the least risky form of
credit, while being the most expensive for consumers.
Eric Halperin, director of the Center for Responsible Lending said:
The banks own your pay check before you do, so the only way you can
default on your overdraft is if you choose to open another account and
deposit your income elsewhere. The last paragraph relates to something I have said over and over when bank defenders like "I am the Law" claim these over-drafting "deadbeats" pull out of the bank owing money. Sure a very small percentage might not mind to ruin their credit rating and face possible charges to prove a point...but keep in mind many customers use direct deposit for their paychecks and other income...and even if they chose to default..it takes 2 weeks to change banks where the direct deposit will go. By that time the bank already took the overdraft..and all related fees...in essence the customer really has no control..which is the same as mandatory courtesy overdraft protection and re-sequencing do as well. Sure if you were to never overdraft this would not be a concern..but overdrafts will happen..how much does the bank need to make off each one to be happy? Apparently they were taking too much or we wouldn't be here now.

To Robert and I am the law,

Thanks to I am the law's last post, I was reminded of the primary reason for the customers demanding these new policy changes and the reason for the distinction between debit cards and checks. It's because of the new way of charging fees by the banks based solely on debit card usage. First implemented by Wachovia years ago, then the flood of all other banks following suit last year, including US Bank. And that is the Unavailable Funds Fee, where OD Fees are pre-determined to be charged, even before the transaction has ever posted.

There's no need for the banks to spend any new money to implement anything. They've already spent the money, because that's what enabled them to implement the new ripoff Unavailable Funds Fee. In the past, you were never charged a fee until a transaction posted and it overdrew your Posted Account Balance. But now, as soon as you swipe the card at Walmart, overdrawing your Available Balance, you're charged a fee. In the past, when this happened, while the transaction was still pending, you were able to go to the bank and beat the transaction with a deposit. This was based on the bank's policy at that time. If the deposit posted before the transaction, the end result was no fee. No harm no foul.

Banks caught on to this, and changed their policies. [This is where they spent that money, I am the law]. To implement the Unavailable Funds Fee. Now it doesn't matter if you beat the transaction back to the bank with a deposit. Even if your Posted Account Balance never goes negative, you're still charged a fee because your Available Balance went negative, even if it was only negative for ten minutes before you made a deposit before cut-off. With this new technology that they spent money to implement, if the banks are able to determine at the point of sale each time you overdraw your Available Balance, allowing them to charge the ripoff Unavailable Funds Fee, this means that same technology allows them to warn you in advance of this action, or it allows them to decline the transaction. There you have it guys. That should answer all of your questions.

So we're confining the argument to debit card transactions, are we? Fine...

I'm sure the technology exists where SOME of the time the bank could warn a member at the point of purchase that a transaction could POTENTIALLY put them in an overdraft situation.

But, the question remains... Why should the bank have to spend time, money, and staff on equipment to reinforce a customer's laziness? In some form or another, the bank is going to pass that expense on to the customers. (Please no "banks made 38 billion dollars last year" comments. You and I both know that the expense would fall on us.) So, right now, you have six ways to check your balance. Five of these are available to you 24 hours a day. What good is a seventh form? Negligent people are still going to overdraft. Overdrafters don't care or else they'd use one of those five options and/or elect overdraft protection.

Robert, I am glad to see you have been following along and have chimed in. As I stated in my previous post, I will grant you the logical argument that consumers are trying to selectively have it both ways. To be honest with you, I was literally stunned when I read the wording of the Federal Reseve proposals where they proposed that opt-out would not affect ACH, checks, or bill pays. Now Robert, what does that tell you? These are the Fed's proposals, not mine. The Federal Reserve are bankers themselves, and they're the ones proposing this, not me. Just wanted to make that clear.

Now to answer your question. The reason for the difference is because we're comparing apples and oranges. Consider the argument surrounding re-sequencing. You have often heard customers argue for posting items in the order they occur or the order they're received. One of the common rebuttal arguments made by bank supporters is how can the bank know of any outstanding checks written by the customer? The answer is they don't know. So when this check comes in to post that the bank didn't know about, do they pay it or return it? The bank couldn't prevent it upfront but still the bank has a decision to make. Either way, there will still be a fee no matter whether it's paid or returned.

Well Robert, we have come full circle as I now turn that argument back against the banks and their supporters. For debit card purchases, the bank does indeed know about these when they occur. The bank knows immediately about that card swipe at Walmart, and the bank knows the Available Balance at that precise moment in time. Therefore the bank is able to alert the customer of the overdraft, giving the customer the option to cancel if they don't want the fee. Or the bank is able to decline the purchase itself, if the customer has opted-out. For checks, this cannot be done because banks don't know about them until they're already presented. No matter if the check is returned or paid, it still results in a fee either way. But with debit cards, the bank is able to help prevent the fee altogether by declining the transaction or giving the customer the option to decline the transaction.

if they VOLUNTARILY CHOSE to opt out of OD protection..and received 2 fees instead from a bounced check that they caused. How can they blame the bank for that?

Well Edward pointed out that the regulations state that this "opt-out" would NOT apply to checks or ACH transactions.  It would only apply to Debit and ATM transactions.  So the question remains..

Why does the level of responsibility change between the two forms of payments?

Or do you agree that it should be an All or nothing choice on Opt-In/Opt-Out of the "Courtesy" Overdraft privilege?

Just one other point of correction.

It's public knowledge that 90% of the 38.5 BILLION+ dollars in OD fees this year came from low income customers

- Actually you mis-quoted the article.  The report stated that 90% of the 38.5 Billion in fees came from just 10% of the customers.  There was nothing about the income status.  In fact it stated that it was a mix of rich and poor, men and women.

The same information was posted in several feeds and sites.  This particluar one was from the CNN Money Article of Aug 10 2009 titled "Bank overdraft fees to total 38.5 Billion"(just in case the link gets redacted)

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/10/news/companies/bank_overdraft_fees_Moebs/

If you have a different report showing different information please let us know.

It's public knowledge that 90% of the 38.5 BILLION+ dollars in OD fees this year came from low income customers..you know..they maintain a low balance.

And while it is true no policy is perfect for everyone..I am sure that most customers who suffered additional hardship from $300.00 in fees resulting from a single overdraft for WHATEVER reason..is not going to cause near as many complaints as if they VOLUNTARILY CHOSE to opt out of OD protection..and received 2 fees instead from a bounced check that they caused. How can they blame the bank for that?

Now with that said..once the re-sequencing issue is dealt with..and the new policies limiting the amount of overdrafts...and minimum amounts that will be covered..in that case OD protection may not be such a bad idea..of course combined with personal responsibility of ones account. Sure nothing can stop fraud and error from causing an unintentional OD from occurring..but if the banks played fair..there would be no reason or need to lodge a report AGAINST the banks here over it.

It's really so simple..why is anyone arguing these points or having trouble comprehending?? The banks are already in process of making the appropriate changes so this argument is really becoming moot.

..if...number one, the customer has a choice to opt out...and two..the bank does not "automatically" enroll a customer in the service. And as Edward stated..and what we have been talking about all this time..is "courtesy" overdraft protection...not a transfer overdraft service..2 different animals as we uncover the fact that in MOST cases..courtesy overdraft protection was neither courteous..nor any form at all to actually "protect" one penny of the customers money.

Congress in also going to push that at the time of a transaction...if the customers account is about to overdraft..that the customer is notified..and can be given the CHOICE if they want the transaction declined..or accept the fee...sounds MORE then fair to me.

Now before you go off on one of your deadbeat junkie loser tangents..and spewing "don't spend more then you have yada yada blah blah eat me"...first realize that of the over 38 BILLION dollars in fees the banks took in this year, 90% of those customers were low income. Now I know you have no compassion and assume anyone with low income is a deadbeat junkie..but has we have witnessed posted on ROR..this is not the case...they simply keep a low balance..many due to the current economic crisis if you hadn't noticed...so if a simple human error....or a check that was held longer then usual...or by merchant fraud or error..well I could list DOZENS of possible ways a customer may not realize they are overdrafting (and the online statement often is misleading even if they were to check it first)...so they innocently go shopping and the next day due to a single overdraft WITHOUT INTENT..have hundreds of dollars in fees. Now I know you would call this person a deadbeat junkie loser...but WHO do you think has paid 90% of the over 38 BILLION dollars the banks took in??? They did..it's a statistical public fact...so in a sense without them..the banks would have had to earn that money some other way..right??...Like for example no more free checking..interest rate adjustments etc..you know the game I am the law. Lets review your post to me now and I will answer..

"Question for Ronny G and Edward. I'm going to use an example here.... 

Situation: You have $100 in your account. A check is presented to the bank for $120. In addition, let's say that you have no form of overdraft protection at all.

The bank has two ways to handle this situation:

Option 1: The bank decides that they'll risk honoring the check. End result: a negative $20 balance and an overdraft fee. Depending on how long you leave your account negative, you could start getting a daily fee, as well. (I think it's $7 a day after four days. It's somewhere in that neighborhood.)

Option 2: The bank decides that they don't want to risk honoring the check. Endresult: no balance change, but a returned item fee. The party you wrote the check to will most likely charge you a fee of their own. (very common with creditors.) 

So basically, no matter what course of action USB takes, you're going to get a fee of some sort. (perhaps more than one.) So, I can't understand why you guys are complaining about USB trying to enroll people in overdraft protection. It's free unless you use it. Again, I actually have this product attached to my checking account. Wouldn't you rather pay a few cents a day (or a few dollars based on how far you went negative) instead of a bunch of $35 fees? Why are you screaming about choice? The bank is trying to protect overdrafters from their own negligent ways! "

Why do you always have to end your replies with a degrading remark..you know you almost start to sound reasonable..but you can't hold the ignorant insults back..and that is why I come down on you so hard.

And speaking of "negligent"....once AGAIN...we are not talking about the type of OD protection that you pay for, like a transfer service or account linking..why are you not comprehending the posts you are rebutting?? Courtesy overdraft protection is provided free of charge..that is until you actually need some "protection"..then it does nothing but fleece you dry.

But this has been discussed in detail by Edward and myself so no need to keep repeating it.

Edward and I BOTH understand there are cases where the bank will charge fees. We have NEVER said we do not want the bank to charge fees...so why do you argue this over and over..it is redundant and boring. If an overdraft is to occur...the bank will charge a fee..no one EVER disputed that...and if a check comes in NSF...the customer will be charged a fee from the banks..and possibly another NSF fee from whom the check was issued to...so..this is WHY we want the customers to have a choice..

For many people that have a savings account link..and CHOOSE to pay for a transfer service..that is fine.good for them. For people who live paycheck to paycheck and in most cases do not have a savings account..they can not afford the excessive fees that a single overdraft can cause when courtesy OD protection is combined with re-sequencing....they would rather have 2 NSF fees..or risk embarrassment at a point of sale....then be charged 350 dollars for coffee and diaper purchases...is that so difficult to understand?

Our government and the banks themselves seem to understand..and are making the appropriate corrections..the gravy train off the backs of the hardest hit Americans during this crisis is coming to an end..period..no if's and's or but's...

...so if you don't like it..write a letter to your congressman..or the bank..you may have a better chance of getting your way with that..then coming here arguing about the wrong subject..or calling hard working honest struggling American people names like deadbeats and junkies.

I will grant you that whenever you introduce a written check into the equation, no one will argue with the fact that any form of OD protection is preferred. No customer ever wants a check returned because it would result in two fees (one from the bank and one from the merchant).

WHAT??? All we seem to get from a few people is "opt out".."opt out".."opt out"..  If the bank does not stop a person from writing a check and they cash it on an overdrawn account.  Why should a bank stop a person from using their debit card?  Both are attempts by the account holder to spend money they don't have in their account.  Why does the level of responsibility change between the two forms of payments? 

Oh and yes a majority of the fees come from people using debit cards, so I will give you that one.  But this is because that is the form of payment they are using.  Before debit cards people would use cash or check.  If a person wrote more than 10-15 checks a MONTH they were a heavy check writer, and it was very rare if more than one or two came in per day.  For their daily expenses they used CASH.  Today there are people that are using their Debit card 10-15 times a WEEK(for some people that is a day), in addition to the few checks that they still write for various reasons.  So just in the quantity of transactions a person that is going to overdraft is going to get "hit" with more fees. 

I personally don't see a problem with the All or Nothing approach.  If for no other reason to hopefully get people to realize they have to manage their account.  I would hope that the first time a person get's their check returned, after blaming the bank for returning the check and the merchant for charging another fee.  It may actually sink in that they need to maintain their accounts better.  Which for some reason does not happen with Debit Cards.

It's a gotcha for the customer either way.

No it comes back to the fact that the account holder MUST be responsible for their own account.  If they maintain their balance there is NO gotcha because they won't be hit with fees.

And you can try and argue the "bank or merchant error" all day long, but as has been stated many times.  In those cases the bank and/or merchant should be responsible for ALL fees that were caused.  Keeping in mind that with very few exceptions all of the reports on overdraft fees have to do with the person not maintaining their account rather than a bank or merchant error.

Yes, it would seem the customer is trying to have it both ways. I can't disagree.

Well at least you appear to still have some common sense left to see this. 

I will grant you that whenever you introduce a written check into the equation, no one will argue with the fact that any form of OD protection is preferred. No customer ever wants a check returned because it would result in two fees (one from the bank and one from the merchant). But the majority of the customer complaints involve the use of Debit Cards only. However, the clever tactics by banks is to take advantage of this situation and exploit it to the fullest. So you want to ensure that no checks are returned, huh? Well of course we'll give it to you. But that also means all of those card swipes will also be allowed even after zero balance. And let the fee profits start rolling on in, after each swipe.

Once again the Federal Reserve has recognized reality and logic in their proposals. Part of the Federal Reserve's proposal for allowing customers to opt-out of mandatory OD protection is that it would only affect ATM and debit card purchases. Yes, this is stated in the proposals. Consumer testing by the Fed revealed that customers would not opt-out of mandatory OD protection if that also means their written checks and bill pay items would be returned. Of course, the evil banks have voiced their opinion also. They want the Fed's proposals to make the opt-out a 'blanket' decision. It's all or nothing. If the customer opts-out, yes that means checks and bill pay would also be returned. If they opt-in, yes that means the card would be allowed at zero balance. It's a gotcha for the customer either way.

Yes, it would seem the customer is trying to have it both ways. I can't disagree. But the customers are only in this strong negotiating position because of the banks digging their own graves with all of their previous unfair and deceptive policies. They have themselves to blame for having zero sympathizers in Washington these days.

Just want to mention one other thing here. What USB signs new customers up for for OD protection isn't a savings account or credit card (unless they want one), it's a basic line of credit.

Question for Ronny G and Edward. I'm going to use an example here.... 

Situation: You have $100 in your account. A check is presented to the bank for $120. In addition, let's say that you have no form of overdraft protection at all.

The bank has two ways to handle this situation:

Option 1: The bank decides that they'll risk honoring the check. End result: a negative $20 balance and an overdraft fee. Depending on how long you leave your account negative, you could start getting a daily fee, as well. (I think it's $7 a day after four days. It's somewhere in that neighborhood.)

Option 2: The bank decides that they don't want to risk honoring the check. End result: no balance change, but a returned item fee. The party you wrote the check to will most likely charge you a fee of their own. (very common with creditors.) 

So basically, no matter what course of action USB takes, you're going to get a fee of some sort. (perhaps more than one.) So, I can't understand why you guys are complaining about USB trying to enroll people in overdraft protection. It's free unless you use it. Again, I actually have this product attached to my checking account. Wouldn't you rather pay a few cents a day (or a few dollars based on how far you went negative) instead of a bunch of $35 fees? Why are you screaming about choice? The bank is trying to protect overdrafters from their own negligent ways! 

To I am the law, from the Kangaroo Court:

Apparently you don't know what you're talking about, as you make the same mistake that many others make. Confusing Courtesy Overdraft with Overdraft Protection. Until recently, the only form of Overdraft Protection was a Savings account or Credit Card linked to your checking account. When transactions posted and you didn't have a sufficient balance, the bank pulls the funds from your Savings or Credit Card. You're still charged a fee, but it's much less than $35. And more importantly, no matter how many transactions there were, it would only be one fee, for the single transfer, not multiple fees for each transaction. Hence the key word 'Protection'. This traditional form of OD Protection is not feasible for some customers who don't have Savings accounts or Credit Cards.

That's where Courtesy Overdraft came in, where the bank allows you to overdraw your account, up to a certain limit. Hence the key word 'Courtesy'. But the big difference is you are charged a $35 fee for each transaction. This is the new program that many banks are enrolling new customers into by default, without the customer's consent. Think about it. How can the bank auto-enroll a new customer into OD Protection linked to Savings or Credit Card, when the new customer has neither? Some customers like having Courtesy Overdraft and don't mind paying the multiple fees.

But then you have other customers who don't want this at all. Even though they don't have Savings or Credit Card which prevents OD protection, these same customers still do not want Courtesy Overdraft either. They prefer their card be denied when the balance is zero. This is what the article is referring to.

p.s. Welcome Back. :)

This article that you pasted here is stating that USB will no longer automatically sign up new customers for credit lines to protect their account from overdrafting. Did you actually read this? 

So, you're advocating that the bank NOT take automatic steps to prevent overdraft fees from occuring on your account? Um, ok. I guess that's what you wanted.

Now, before you spout off with the "you don't know what you're talking about" speech, let me tell you that I have this product attached to my checking account. As for the fee info itself, big deal, they dropped from a max of six overdraft fees per day to three. Well, whoop-dee-doo! That's like saying "I was only shot in the head three times instead of six." You're still going to be punished for your negligence. So, that would drop the max amount of fees that you could incur per day from $210 to $105? (roughly). Still seems like a lot of money to me. But, I guess that $105 difference could buy a decent amount of meth for these overdrafting lowlifes.

Copied from recent news reports...

Last week, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo said they would no longer automatically enroll customers for overdraft protection.

Here is a breakdown of the proposed changes:

• Bank of America will eliminate fees for customers if overdrafts are less than $10 within one day. BOA will also collect no more than four items of overdraft per day (previously it was 10 items per day).
• J.P. Morgan will stop charging fees for customers if overdrafts are less than $5 in one day.
• Wells Fargo & Co. plans to stop charging fees if overdrafts are less than $5 a day and also plan to collect fees on no more than four items per day.

Effective during the first quarter of 2010, U.S. Bank will:

• Eliminate overdraft fees when a customers account is overdrawn by less than $10, regardless of the number of overdraft transactions that may have occurred.
• Limit the number of overdraft fees to no more than three per day.
• Offer opt out ability to customers who prefer that the bank decline or return any transaction on their account, whenever possible, when they are presented against insufficient funds.
• Continue to offer free mobile, email and Internet banking alerts to customers so that they can become more aware of their available balance and manage their spending accordingly.
• Provide new customers the ability to opt in to overdraft privileges with U.S. Bank. This choice allows customers to define how they prefer transactions to be handled by the bank when there are insufficient funds in their account.
• Establish an annual cap on the amount of overdraft fees that can be assessed on any single account at the bank.

To I am the law, from the Kangaroo Court:

Another clue of an adversary's utter frustration is when they seek any meaningless point they can exploit and then solely address that single point, all while cleverly skipping over all other relevant points without so much as a knowing nod. I regret the reference of the word 'defeat' because I hate it when a meaningful discussion takes an unproductive turn. I withdraw the comment.

Since you didn't indicate whether you have done so already, or whether you will do so, and to show how fair I am, I will write those letters for you, myself, to the US Bank CEO, Richard Davis, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Ohio Congressional Delegation. I will express my frustration with all of their stupid decisions, bending over backwards all for a bunch of druggies, losers, deadbeats, whiners, and cry babies. But I will cut Richard Davis some slack because apparently he's not the only bank CEO dufus. Apparently all of the other bank CEOs are making the same stupid decisions to throw away (B)illions of dollars in profits also. What is the world coming to? Something in the banking water?

Well, that about wraps it up for this session of the Kangaroo Court. :)

     Well guys, I don't know why you think that I've been "defeated" in this argument, or "owned" or "served" or whatever it is the kids of today are saying. It seems to me like the chumps that got the overdraft fees were the ones defeated.

     It's obvious at this point that neither one of us is going to change the other one's mind. That's fine, this is America. We have a right to express our opinions. My opinion is that almost every single time, overdrafts can be easily avoided by the customer. It's also my opinion that most people that overdraft are usually from the lower element in society. I feel that the bank is doing nothing wrong in terms of their fee structure, posting order, or funds availability because they told me what those terms were. If I didn't like the terms of that legal contract, no one was forcing me to sign it. I was raised to take responsibility for my actions. Obviously, that's a nearly extinct concept here in America, so I'm sorry if that offends you.  

    Guys, it's silly to blame the bank. This whole "corporate conspiracy" theory is getting old. I would imagine that credit card companies, health insurance companies, and loan agencies get the same bad rap. Customers agree to the company's policies when they open the account, sign off on them, and then complain about it when the rules of the agreement take shape. They act like no one told them. This type of behavior is deplorable. I would compare that to someone getting a driver's license. When you get a driver's license, you agree to and signing that document that says that you will follow the state driving laws or risk penalty. Then you cry about how you're being picked on by the police for getting a speeding ticket for going 55 MPH in a 35 MPH zone. You were warned and you ignored the rules. The same logic applies here. I don't care how much money the bank makes annually from overdraft fees, rules are rules. 

    Go ahead and file your rebuttals. Don't worry, I won't respond. You're boring me and frankly, I don't want to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. I'll just be at home watching my new TV that I could afford because I haven't paid my bank a dime in overdraft fees in the eight years I've had an account with them.   

To I am the law, at the Kangaroo Court:

I always find it funny how obvious the signs are when adversaries recognize defeat, and predictably deviate to personal insults and off topic subject matter that has nothing to do with the issue we were so professionally and maturely debating. But dont' feel bad. You're are certainly not the first to fall victim to this circumstance.

Let me give you a suggestion. Your angst is terribly misguided. Ronny G and myself are nothing more than two strangers posting our opinions here on the ROR. We have zero influence on policy making at your precious US Bank. You would be much better served doing the following:

1. Write a letter to Richard Davis (US Bank CEO), asking what is he thinking by changing his OD Fee policies (like all other banks), throwing away (B)illions of dollars in profits, all for a bunch of druggies, losers, deadbeats, whiners, and.....what else? Oh yeah, cry babies. I think I covered them all, according to you.

2. Submit your Request for Comments to the Federal Reserve Board, which was accepting such feedback from everyone. Surely they will listen to your insight as they debate their own proposal changes at these ripoff policies.

3. Write a letter to your local Congress Rep and Senator, asking them why they're wasting your tax payer dollars by contemplating law changes aimed at these same ripoff policies.

4. And finally, in each of these three letters, don't forget to ask why all of them are doing this for just 0.000001% of bank customers who have issues with OD fees. What sense does that make? How did the CEO Richard Davis, the Fed Reserve Board members, and Congressmen all get to where they're at by making such stupid decisions?

Gentlemen,

"Choice" is the issue here. Will the bank allow you to go a bit over your balance, yes. No argument there. But you two keep screaming about customer choice, so let me say this. The customer CHOSE to overdraft their account. The customer CHOSE to not pay attention to their balance without using any of the SIX possible ways to check it. The customer CHOSE to not sign up for the numerous forms of overdraft protection. The fact that the bank will let you slightly exceed your balance is completely moot if you don't spend what you don't have available! I am subject to the same bank rules and regulations as you two. That being said, the fact that I've never had an overdraft proves my point: There is no hidden conspiracy at USB to make the customers overdraft. If there was, I would've gotten them as well. Case closed. Move on.

Resequencing is also moot. They could run transactions in alphabetical order for all intents and purposes and it wouldn't matter if you maintain a sufficient balance and don't end a business day with a negative available balance. This isn't difficult. It's third grade math. Do you need me to write in crayon for you so you can understand it? 

So go ahead with your childish insults and your insane banter. Keep looking to the horizon for political change to support your negligent ways. Nothing will change. If you two can't even pay attention to your bank balance, I shutter to think of what your homes look like and how you raise your children. Are you this negligent with your personal hygiene as well? 

I am the law,

You're almost there. Now here are the next points to show the flaw in your recent arguments. First, you will not find one single report here on the ROR or anywhere else where overdrafting customers are complaining that they shouldn't be charged any fee, period. The complaints are against the banks using unfair and deceptive tactics to trick and then exploit situations into multiple, s****.>

Ok, good example Edward, but again, why you'd try to charge $75 on your card when you only have $50 in the account is beyond me. But, I'll play along.

Let's say in your example, that the customer is being intentionally negligent. They should get a fee. Period. 

Now let's try this. Let's say, starting today, that the bank adopted a policy where your debit card wouldn't allow you to exceed your current available balance. Let's also say that an emergency came up and the customer needed to overdraft their account. Maybe the person needs to pick up some life sustaining medications at the store's pharmacy. In that case, that same member who would whine that the bank would "let" them overdraft last week would file yet another ROR about how USB is heartless because they couldn't let the customer go a bit over their balance for their medications. My point is, whichever policy the bank adopts, a handful of people will whine about it. It's a no-win situation for USB.

There's also the constant issue of unforeseen debits that "surprise" the customer's account (usually auto debits and paper checks.) As long as those types of transactions are around, debit card transactions can only be approved by the available balance AT THE VERY SECOND OF PURCHASE. To illustrate my point, here's one final example. If you have $100 in your account and you buy something at Target for $90, but ten minutes after you leave the store, I go to USB and cash a check that you wrote to me for $50, you will still get a fee. Whichever transaction through resequencing causes it is moot. You were short funds. It's basic math.

Final thought: If you maintain your balance, you won't get a fee. You, as the customer, signed a legal document stating that you have read, understand, and agree to all terms of the account including funds availability and their fee structure. You, as the customer, are liable for the balance, NOT THE BANK. If you feel that USB is doing something illegal, by all means, be a whistle blower. Until then, shut up and keep a check register, you bunch of deadbeat crybabies.   

Again to I am the law, from the Kangaroo Court:

Yes I read your examples. Sure there are exceptions to everything. But just because there are exceptions doesn't mean it can't be done period. That's the type of argument you're trying to make: banks can not prevent overdrafts ever, period. Well now it's my turn to show an example of my own.

Your Available bank balance is $50. You go to Walmart and the cashier rings up $75 worth of merchandise. You swipe your card. That swipe traverses electronic wiring and computer systems all the way back to your bank account. Your bank's computer receives the request to process, hold, or deduct $75 from your bank account. Your bank's says, Hmmm.. The customer only has $50. The customer doesn't have enough money for this purchase to be approved. What normally happens in these cases, is a message sent back from the computer system over that same electronic wiring and it shows up on the terminal at the register. Transaction Denied or Transaction Declined.

But instead, what's happening now is the bank's computer system is receiving this $75 purchase request, comparing it with a $50 balance and allowing it. Even more, many banks have mandated that all accounts have to be setup this way and the customer cannot request their account not to be setup this way even if they want to.

Again, the bank CAN NOT stop the customer from overdrafting! Read my report above this for examples! (About two above at this point)

Take responsibility America. Quit blaming the bank for your self created prison.

You don't know when to quit, do you Ronny G?

Banks don't "allow" overdrafting. The member does it to themselves.

Here's an example. Let's say that you have $100 in your account. You use your debit card to buy something for $90. Obviously, this leaves $10. At the same time, you have an outstanding paper check for $50. This gets presented to the account and presto! A negative $40 account balance. Now explain to me how this is the bank's fault and how the bank "allowed" you to overdraft. (Whether the bank honors the check or not, a fee still incurs.) and by the way Newsflash!: banks can't predict that there's an outstanding paper check until it's presented to the account.

Here's another example. You have $50 dollars in your account. You take someone to a sit down dinner and the waiter brings you your check. It's $45. You give your debit card to the waiter, he runs it for $45. Then, he comes back to your table to give you your card and the receipt to sign. You add a $7 tip on the receipt. (Total, this is $52). So, the transaction pends on your account for $45, but when the restaurant presents their signed receipt to the bank, they get the $52. Again, explain to me how this is the bank's fault and they "allowed" you to overdraft.

I could go on and on with examples, but you see my point. Overdrafts are penalties for a blatant disregard of the available balance. You can whine, scream, file class action lawsuits, and call people names all you like. It doesn't change one thing: confirming your balance before you spend your money is the only way to avoid that fee, (aside from the numerous forms of overdraft protection USB offers.) Don't be fooled, there is no "savior" legislation on the horizon. Do you think the government would cheat themselves out of billions generated by overdraft fees? Overdrafters, you will lose all class action suits, because you agreed to the fee when you opened the account. Fees will only go higher and higher. Ha ha ha! Welcome to the poorhouse you irresponsible cretins!

To I am the law, at the Kangaroo Court:

With your shoplifting example, you have inadvertently clarified the point that myself and Ronny G have made numerous times. Yes, shoplifting is bad and stores lose money when shoplifters make off with items they didn't pay for. Therefore, the stores take every measure and precaution to prevent it, as opposed to encouraging it. That's why that beeping noise goes off when you walk out that door with that item in your pocket. The have every right to be upset when they do lose, because they can say they did everything in their power to prevent it!!

Now let's look at banks. You say the banks are in the same predicament because of overdrafters. Well let's look at what banks do to protect themselves like stores. Do the banks stop approving that card swipte at zero balance? No. Do the banks display a warning to the customer advising them they're about to overdraft with that purchase? No. Conversely the banks not only allow the customers to do this, but in many cases they mandate this to happen, without even allowing the customer to opt-out of it themselves. Wow, those banks really suffer from overdrafters, don't they. Those banks really went out of their way to protect themselves, didn't they.

Now to Re-sequencing. Years ago before the days of mandatory overdraft protection, we were told that banks re-sequence transactions to ensure those larger, more important payments like mortgages and car loans get paid. Even though many of us were smart enough not to buy this, still we said ok, whatever. Well now with mandatory overdraft protection where everything gets paid and nothing gets returned, that would logically imply that re-sequencing is no longer needed.

So just to confirm, why does the customer need mandatory overdraft protection? To prevent duplicate NSF fees from the merchants and to ensure that nothing gets returned (including those important mortgages and car payments). But then why do banks need to re-sequence transactions? To ensure those important mortgage and car payments don't get returned. But aren't those payments covered by mandatory OD protection anyway? Well.......don't worry about that so much.

..then why do the banks offer the "service"?  why do they call it a "service"? why do so many banks (but not for much longer) require OD protection as "mandatory'? Why did so many banks not ask the customers if they want this 'service" when they joined the bank. Why did the banks not offer an "opt out"? Why did the banks not have the customer sign specifically for this "service" if the banks look at an overdraft as "pre-authorized"? Why just because you are so special and never overdraft do you assume 99.9% of those who do to be a deadbeat? (Oh I can answer that..you are an ignoramus). Are the banks actually making it ok to "shoplift" from them...encouraging a crime you say??

This would seem to me the bank is encouraging "shoplifting" would it not?

I don't expect an answer from you that makes any sense... as you are an ignoramus..that's right..I called you a name..but it is not meant as an insult alone..it is evident by your words that you are messed up in the head pretty severely.

Now..if the banks did not allow overdrafting...and actually declined a transaction when funds were not available..perhaps this would prevent all the "deadbeats" from overdrafting..since your name calling and presumptions have not seemed to help the problem..right??

Well this is about to happen soon...so enjoy your interest rates while you can. If the banks can't find a way to profit other then fee-ing all the deadbeats into oblivion..then perhaps they need to find another way to make money..right? Besides you are the genius that claims all these deadbeats (none of whom I have EVER seen report here) that abandon the bank with a negative balance..well if the bank didn't allow the deadbeats to overdraft to begin with..would this not be a solution? Or do you think your solution will work....which is??? Calling them deadbeats on ROR is not really working out for you..is it??

And your last post about re-sequencing...get used to the fact that the banks are one by one going to stop that TACTIC...because it is now common knowledge that the re-sequencing..when combined with the BANKS POLICY of FORCED "COURTESY" overdraft protection service...is causing more fees then the junkies and deadbeats expected, and can't afford to cover so they abandon the account..and ruining your interest rates..I mean isn't this what YOU yourself keep implying?

So unless you have a solution other then being Mr. "Holier then thou" know it all...offer something of use..or keep getting served.

Stop the resequencing argument, intentional overdrafters; it's moot.

Let's get a few things straight.

1. USB does and should take all your transactions in the day and post them in this order: Credits first, then high debits to low debits.

2. This isn't done to hurt the customer.

Ok, now that that's out of the way, let me explain why USB and any other bank (as far as I know) does this. First of all, I can't see anyone arguing posting credits first. If you do, you need your head examined. Second, larger debits are typically more important than smaller ones. Can we agree on that? So, if you don't have enough money in your account and a large number of debits trying to post, eventually the bank will stop accepting them and start turning them away. That being said, if your account was short, wouldn't you rather have your mortgage payment go through first versus a $10 check you wrote to the grocery store? Granted, because people have many more small debits than large ones, this can cause more fees than if it was sequenced small to large debits. Still, having a roof over my head is more important to me than whatever these smaller debits are for.

Final thought: If your account is short, it's short. If you have a sufficient balance in your account, resequencing means nothing. Quit blaming the bank, deadbeats. 

Fine, Ronny G, live in your fantasy world.

For all your talk and all of your insulting, it comes down to one thing: overdrafters 99.99% of the time made their own prison and its detriment to the bank effects everyone. The nearest thing I could compare that to is shoplifting. When items get stolen from the store, the store jacks up the prices for customers to cover their loss. Yes, the store obviously still generates a profit, just like the bank does when they get taken advantage of by the intentional overdrafters of the world. But still, that loss is passed on. If you can't admit this, whatever, that's your problem.

Second, if USB was really manipulating the system to force people to overdraft, why haven't I gotten one? The easy answer to that question is is that I pay attention to my available balance. But, you obviously can't grow up and accept responsibility for when you screw up. When people make mistakes, they should own up to them...

Case in point. About four years ago, I was involved in a minor fender bender. Thankfully, no one was hurt and it was just one of those "act of God" things. Much to my dismay, it took this incident to make me realize that I have neglected to put collision coverage on my policy. I got stuck with a $4300 bill. It was my fault for not paying attention to what I was signing up for. That being said, you don't see me filing a ROR on Geico screaming and whining about starting a class action suit or calling them evil, now do you?

Kind of puts your pathetic little overdraft fees into perspective, doesn't it?

In your last post you stated this at the end...


"Whatever. Good, hardworking people like me are sick to death of supporting you out of control social leeches. Every time you get an overdraft and then permanently leave your account negative, that effects me. See, the bank will try to recoup those lost funds from their current customers in some way. They'll pay less interest on CD's and savings accounts, jack up rates on loans, credit cards and mortgages, and impose fees for regular services. So, wouldn't you be upset if someone's actions cost you money?"


I feel this needs addressing..as it is probably one of the most arrogant and IGNORANT statements I have ever heard..even coming from you. Let me ask you..where do you get this information from? Have you ever actually read ANYTHING? Or just live in fantasy land where anything you make up in your mind..is somehow a fact...

Lets break this down line by line...

The first line seems to imply that anyone who has ever had an overdraft is assumed not to be hardworking..and somehow you are supporting them? And they are some kind of social leeches? Do you think overdraft protection is some form of publicly funded welfare? You are seriously brain damaged my friend..do you wear a sheet and a hood as your work uniform? first of all...since you seem to be getting all your information from "the white trash daily"..the banks have PROFITED quite nicely off overdraft fees...projected to be well over 38 billion dollars this year alone..does that sound like a loss to you?

However..if you are a taxpayer and NOT societies leech..you pay taxes right? Well how do you feel about your part in the 700 BILLION dollar bailout that we the people had to "lend" to the bank..seems in reality the banks are asking for "welfare" since they made some poor business decisions and "overextended" themselves a little..wouldn't you agree?....but that to you is okay?  Someone who overdrafts is a leech?

Your next brilliant line stating "every time you get an overdraft and then permanently leave your account negative, that effects me"...is this really a problem? I mean if it is I have never heard about this anywhere on the ripoff reports..so where is the data to back this up? You see..if you ever actually read or understood most of these reports..not only are they willing to make good and pay the fees for overdrafting..but most have direct deposit these days..the banks are getting the money whether you wanted to pay them or not. Another thing you need to consider is most of the money the banks are charging...ARE not actually anything they are laying out....but just excessive fees...the banks are not actually "losing" any money if a customer bails...they just are not going to collect the fees at all...or may collect them in the future by taking the customer to court of other measures.

Now as far as the "type" of people you use an an example all the time..and is NOT the type of person I have ever came to the defense of..is these so called junkie drunk loser chronic leech overdrafters...okay..so lets assume all the banks are filled with these types..and not just yours. So...what is your solution??? Shoot them all? In what world that you live in thinks by coming onto a forum like this..and then calling the people who report here insulting names..and then talking about freeloaders and chronic overdrafters when the posters displayed no evidence of this being the case..well how is this going to help save "you" all this money you think you are losing at your bank? I don't see a point to your actions..and your words here do nothing but make you sound like an old angry fool from the 50's or 60s....like you are still fighting commies or hippies or something..you need some help buddy.


"See, the bank will try to recoup those lost funds from their current customers in some way."

Again..what lost funds? Seems to me they are making money. Now if they are having all these problems with druggies and losers at YOUR bank branch..perhaps the bank needs to use better judgment on who they are handing out debit cards to. Most people can handle them fine. Many people that lodge reports here did nothing with intent to cause all the fees..they just didn't understand the way the bank operates...or that some manipulations, error, fraud or polices and tactics changed that contributed to an overdraft, and many additional excessive fees ..and they feel ripped off...which the very definition of a rip off is when someone feels they were charged more then they should be...does that make someone a drug addict or a loser? I guess it does to you because you see the world as all these leeches out to get you...but the banks are the ones leeching much worse.


"They'll pay less interest on CD's and savings accounts, jack up rates on loans, credit cards and mortgages, and impose fees for regular services. So, wouldn't you be upset if someone's actions cost you money?"

A lot of bank customers are upset..because the BANKS actions are costing them so much money as well.

Now try to understand this..I will type this very slowly...

It is fact MOST people are going to pay the fees and stay with the bank..or just go to another. Many people will learn their lesson..and many people that report here have only had this happen to them once or twice..they are not looking to rip off the bank..and they are working people and business owners, not welfare recipients.

Now..if you are REALLY so concerned about your CD's and savings account....how is this for a plan...

Instead of the banks charging so many fees to these so called intentional habitual drug addicted overdrafters...why not instead of manipulations and re-sequencing (which BTW if you read..you will note banks are going to stop this soon)..then they can pay the fee for the legitimate overdraft..and they won't be forced to leave the bank due to owing them way more money in "FEES" then they will ever be able to repay..would that not be a little help?

As far as someone who CHOOSES to enroll in "courtesy" overdraft..then abuses it with INTENT to rip off the bank...well that person is a criminal..agreed. So..what is your solution to stop all these criminals from ripping off the bank and causing your precious interest rates to be lowered? And what does that have to do with any of these ripoff reports..unless you are reading some imaginary ones from the ripoff report in fantasy land??

Now I understand your are very upset...and you may have a right to be..but why take it out on the wrong parties?

I will respond to your responses directed at me...

"..you should note that just because someone signed a document..does not always make everything legal.."

Sure, if it's for a contract killing or something. USB is not breaking any laws with their contracts. In fact, opening an account for a customer and not making them sign the terms and agreement document would be illegal. So, too bad Mr. Overdrafts, you made your bed, now sleep in it. Try your "just because I signed for it doesn't make it legal" mumbo jumbo on your mortgage company and watch them boot you out of your home. Do you know anything about basic contract law?

You missed the point of my statement..either by choice..or ignorance. Now I am not the one that compared the banks T&C to a hit contract..or a mortgage..you did...but ANY contract that has terms proved to be in violation of the law..can and often does become null and void in the eyes of the law...so perhaps you need to do some research. Now if the banks a deemed innocent of any wrongdoings..that is one thing..but the fact that changes are starting to be made by the banks that better favor the customer would imply to any reasonable person that there is good reason for it to be happening now..would you not agree?

"Also, you asked why checks can't clear instantly. Seriously? You're actually asking this? Ok, my friend, let me ask you this. How could the bank possibly predict that some other transaction (possibly a larger one) won't offset the account in the same business day? Answer: they can't. Banks do not have people on staff with the ability to predict the future."

Actually if you go back and read what I really asked..and this time read it enough until you can comprehend the question...was.. what is going on while the check is being "held".

"If you don't know basic math, don't have an account. It's that easy, it's that cheesy."

Okay Mickey Mouse...why not post stuff like this on a report where the poster claims they intentionally overdrafted..or where a math error caused the overdraft..what is the relevance of stating the obvious here when it is not the topic of discussion or debate? Now that to me..seems easy.

I don't really know what your motive is Mr. lover of bank policies..but as far as I understand..it is not a crime to overdraft...so stop making the stupid analogies about drug addicts and other nonsense..it's a waste of space.

The banks are changing polices...ever wonder why? As far as any other deception, manipulations or whatever they do unethical..shady..or as yet to be seen questionably "legal"...we will let the courts and congress make the final decision. I can't  determine the legal outcomes..I can only state what I feel the banks are doing wrong in some cases..and I can state the fact that the banks ARE starting to change some policies to be more fair and hopefully to protect our money better..especially for low income and people who have recent hardship due to the economic crisis...and your nonsense certainly holds no bearing whatsoever.

Yes..checks can be verified instantly rocket scientist. We have the technology..the banks just don't use it to our benefit.

So let me save you from typing...

It is established..if you spend more then you have in the bank..you get an overdraft fee if the bank covers it....so no need to keep reminding everyone of the obvious.

We all know this juice box so enough already. Nobody ever argued this fact as far as I have seen.  Your skull is too thick..or you are not reading posts but just coming here to make yourself look like a tool.

People frequently ask me on ROR why I'm so tough on overdrafters.

Basically, it's because they're one of the many types of people in this country that don't accept responsibility for their actions. They blame someone else for their stupidity. It's frankly sickening.

Don't you get tired of hearing...

"I do drugs because my parents abused me."

or

"I can't pay attention to my finances right now because of work stress."

or

"I act this way because I have Oppositional Defiant Disorder, not because I'm a bad person."

or

"I didn't overdraft! There's some person at USB secretly manipulating the records so I can't get a correct balance." (see how dumb that sounds?)

Whatever. Good, hardworking people like me are sick to death of supporting you out of control social leeches. Every time you get an overdraft and then permanently leave your account negative, that effects me. See, the bank will try to recoup those lost funds from their current customers in some way. They'll pay less interest on CD's and savings accounts, jack up rates on loans, credit cards and mortgages, and impose fees for regular services. So, wouldn't you be upset if someone's actions cost you money?

Robert, Pardon the interruption, but just a few quick points.

1) Merchant Disputes. Surprisingly Bank of America is one bank in particular that will stick up for the consumer, when the merchant is at fault. At least they used to when I banked there. Simply file a dispute with the bank and they immediately credit back the charges and fees in question until the dispute process is completed. If the dispute is upheld and you're determined not to be at fault, nothing else needs to be done, because you already received your own money back ahead of time. If the dispute determines the customer was indeed at fault, then they deduct the charges and fees again. Case closed.

Now that's customer service if you ask me. Especially since you're holding my money. I'm entrusting you with my money for safe keeping. Robert, if you give an evelope full of cash to your friend to hold for you, and then that friend willingly gives up that cash to a stranger, who do you take to court and sue, the stranger or your friend? Who's responsibility was it to hold your cash for you?

2) Re-sequencing. Right now it's a confirmed list of one bank that does not do this. Although the footnote is, they haven't started yet. Chase Bank has announced that in the first quarter of next year, they will return to the practice of posting items in the order they are received. And if we're to believe that all banks are the same because they all copy each other, then it's a matter of time for the others, right?

Ronny G, is this a serious statement?

"..you should note that just because someone signed a document..does not always make everything legal.."

Sure, if it's for a contract killing or something. USB is not breaking any laws with their contracts. In fact, opening an account for a customer and not making them sign the terms and agreement document would be illegal. So, too bad Mr. Overdrafts, you made your bed, now sleep in it. Try your "just because I signed for it doesn't make it legal" mumbo jumbo on your mortgage company and watch them boot you out of your home. Do you know anything about basic contract law?

Also, you asked why checks can't clear instantly. Seriously? You're actually asking this? Ok, my friend, let me ask you this. How could the bank possibly predict that some other transaction (possibly a larger one) won't offset the account in the same business day? Answer: they can't. Banks do not have people on staff with the ability to predict the future.

If you don't know basic math, don't have an account. It's that easy, it's that cheesy.

Not unlike I am the Law..posting here about intentional and chronic overdrafting when  the subject is regarding anything but.

As far a merchants..the bank would not need an entire department to sick up for customers..all they need to do is change a few simple policies to better protect their customers money..like they used to do. I remember several years ago my friend and I were out very late at night living it up. He was using his debit card..it was Sunday morning..and an employee from the club we were at tells my friend he has a phone call. So I was like "who the hell knows we are here?" Ends up it was his bank calling to make sure everything was okay..imagine that? Someone at the bank on a Sunday morning was there to protect his money...

I stated in another post I will not list banks here until or if I am defrauded..I have my reasons..but any person can ask the bank or credit unions questions..the key is by reading all these reports and reading the papers..watching the news..they will now know the right questions to ask..and see if the financial institution is really protecting their money..or out to take it ALL. My current bank claims not to re order a single transaction..all will be posted as they are processed..I just got the debit card. If they do not stick to their word..or change any policies mid stream as others have done..it will quickly be reported here.

The car scratch analogy bears no reality to what the banks are supposed to do to protect our money. Unless...if the car wash scratched the car, and the dealership charged to fix the scratch.. then charged to fix 10 more scratches..then I would say it is a fair analogy. And the dealer does nothing to encourage scratching the car..and it is common sense that physical damage is not covered under any standard warranty Robert..we are not talking about things people should know because they are so apparent and obvious..we are talking about things that people are unaware of until it is too late..and things that happened by no fault of their own, and the bank taking no real effort to explain some consequences..but do plenty to encourage overdrafting..and any tactics they can use to maximize fees..you really don't understand this..or simply choose not to? What is your true motive Robert?

The reason I used the word "may" or "will" is because I believe the bank "may" wiggle out of some of the charges..or a technicality may hurt the plaintiffs case...but you are the one playing word games again...and digging though every nuance with a microscope in hope of the bank defenders "holy grail"...a contradiction. Regardless..it changes nothing..it does not change the fact that the banks are CURRENTLY changing some policies ..and it does nothing to prevent the lawsuits from occurring..and it does nothing to help anyone to avoid possible financial loss..so if it is just a feeble attempt to discredit me...well we will let the people decide..a handful of bank defenders vs..thousands of reports...odds stacked a little against you..and the banks apparently.

I understand what you explained about the check clearing...but it's still a little confusing...I hate checks altogether..it should go the way of the dinosaurs in my opinion..no real need for them anymore..at least I feel that way. But for some people I guess they trust mailing and depositing a check rather then other faster forms..or cash..so be it..they may eventually pay a price for it.

As far as your last statement...

In regards to I am the Law's comments, you stated.

Now maybe because you are so perfect and nothing unforeseen ever happens to you..and you can understand every bit of the legal jumbo in your banks contracts,

- Personally if you were to quiz me(and most people) on ALL of the "legal jumbo" people probably wouldn't do so well.  However, at least I know enough to know that you are not supposed to spend more than is available.  If I do I am subject to various fees.  If I don't agree with the fees than I don't spend more than is available.  If people would grab that basic concept 95% of the issues would go away almost overnight.

"or had a merchant do something shady and the bank didn't "protect" jack sh*t"

- Again that is a problem with the MERCHANT.  In a perfect world it be great if every bank had an entire department that did nothing but stick up for the consumer in the case where the consumer claims a mistake.  But if you know of a bank that does this please let us know.  I believe we are still waiting on your list of banks that don't resequence transactions or hold deposits.

This "protection" argument is like having a car wash scratch your new car.  Is it your fault that the car got scratched..NO.  Is it something you intentionally did..NO.  Did the dealer cause the problem..NO.  But you blame the dealer, because they are making you pay $350 to have it fixed when you think it is under warranty.  Even though there is fine print that states that scratches are not covered, you still blame the dealer for not coming to your defense against the car wash. 

and some polices may or WILL be proved unlawful and/or unethical..making said "legal" contract about as useful as toilet paper. Mark my words on this.

- They are so marked.  I do like the "outs" you gave yourself.  Not only saying that they may, but in saying some policies.  You don't even need this to happen at all, or if it does all you need is a couple and you could consider that statement true.   Gee your almost sounding like a politician.  Perhaps you should actually make a run for an office, running on this platform.  If there are as many people "suffering" at the hand of the "evil" bank as you think you may win by a landslide.

As to your comments about "checks clearing".  It is not inconsistant and you actually have misused a very common term that a lot of people do confuse.  It can take a bank anywhere from 10-14 days to "clear" a check, especially ones through different Federal Reserve Branches.   But banks are required through the Expedited Funds Availability Act to make the funds "available" within specific times.  Before this act came into play there was actually was no standard and it was very inconsistant.  This is where the scams come in.  They know that a bank must make the funds available several days before a check would actually clear.  If you pull the EFAA up and watch your accounts and when your checks clear, you will find that the bank is following the guidelines on a very consistant basis.  Keep in mind the guidelines take into account the Federal Reserve Branch of the bank, the type of check and the amount of the check, as well as a couple other factors that they do list.  You also have to take into account weekends and holidays that do not count, as well as the cut-off time for deposits at your bank.  Which is probably where you are seeing the "inconsistancy".  But with the exception of the cut-off time has nothing to do with your bank but the banking regulations that ALL banks must follow.

As to why they don't clear deposits instantly.  Well your fraudulent check comment explains that.  The number of people trying to scam this "instant" clearing would make these fake check scams look like child's play.

Well to many it is becoming apparent that "consistency" is the banks enemy. Because the more inconsistencies and changes they make..of course in all logic the better the chance for an overdraft to occur..and make the banks money.

What I don't really understand is with the speed that electricity travels..that why can't checks clear instantly? For example when I insert a customers check in my reader..if the check is good, it clears..if not..it is declined..this transaction and verification take seconds.

Now how long would it really take the bank if they so choose..to verify the check deposit with the bank it is from..and clear it instantly..or decline it if it is NSF? As well..if the check is post dated that would be a reason to "hold" it..however they don't..regardless of the date..they process it.

What I have noticed by several reports here..and it makes you go "hmmmm..." is if you have a fraudulent check..they cash it on the spot. But with a paycheck..nope..got to wait for it to clear. I know with most checks I deposit in my bank..they clear in a day..2 max...but sometimes longer...inconsistency..remember it is good for the bank and not for us..and 99.9% of the time..everything works out in the banks favor only...hmmm.

Your posts are very provoking and insulting..as well as presumptuous. And..you are defending the banks regarding chronic overdrafters and completely ignoring how the banks tactics are actually encouraging overdrafts, and often this can negatively effect honest decent people..not every overdrafter is a junkie or an idiot.

Now I agree..if someone intentionally overdrafts and was to be charged the overdraft fee has provided by the banks "service"..and a massive bucket of additional fees brought on by manipulations, re-sequencing etc...and then does it again..your analogy with the hole makes sense.

But what if lets say..the county digs a hole and put up a sign. (which a sign and knocking on your door is not quite the way the banks explains how their tactics work to their customers..nor when the banks makes changes are customers always aware) but regardless for this example we will assume. With the banks and judging by all these complaints..it appears many people are not aware of the consequences of the banks actions (with deceptive terminology for example "Protection" and "courtesy" and available etc) until it is too late.

So since the example I will use is not regarding chronic overdrafters..or junkies..I will apply this to MOST of the people who report to this sight..it is more like that bank is digging holes all over the place..deep ones, moving them around..forcing you to enroll in their "hole protection" service"..and then when you fall in one they blame you, and in addition...throw a bunch of boulders on top once you fall in one of the holes. Now they didn't put up a sign really..but yes they gave you a T&C booklet 5 years ago which tell you that you have "hole protection" and encourage you to check online all the time..where they are consistently changing the locations of where they dug said holes.

Now maybe because you are so perfect and nothing unforeseen ever happens to you..and you can understand every bit of the legal mumbo jumbo in your banks contracts, and you never made an error or had a merchant do something shady and the bank didn't "protect" jack sh*t...well until this happens to you..you won't truly get the point. But it is important if you are going to comment or offer advice to help..that you base said replies on reality..and on the topic..which is NOT chronic overdrafters or the drug addicts and drunk trailer trash that you always see in your bank branch.

And in closing..you should note that just because someone signed a document..does not always make everything legal...and which may be why the banks are starting to "voluntarily" (with a little "encouragement" from Congress and the President), change some policies. Because the banks are not stupid..they know d**n well the gravy train is quickly approaching it's last stop..and some polices may or WILL be proved unlawful and/or unethical..making said "legal" contract about as useful as toilet paper. Mark my words on this..read the papers once in a while.

To I am the law from the Kangaroo Court,

I see where you have branched out from your precious US Bank threads and started to add your $.02 to other bank threads now, such as National City, Bank of America and others. Here's a quote from you earlier on this thread:

''It's amazing to me that these same degenerate overdrafters will spend hours, perhaps days, researching things like finding the best loan rates or trying to find the best deal on groceries, but they won't spend THIRTY SECONDS checking their balance before they blow all of their money on something (probably cheap booze or crack).''

That was actually quite a good line. I give you credit. But in return let me say it's amazing how a bank supporter can spend all of this wasted time arguing with so called negligent, dead beat, druggie, loser customers.

I hope you sent in your comments and suggestions during the Request For Comment period by the Federal Reserve for their proposed regulation changes. I hope you have written letters to your Congress rep. I hope you have written letters to Richard Davis (CEO of US Bank) and all of the other bank Execs, advising them how dumb they must be to throw away (B)illions of dollars in profits by cancelling their predatory overdraft fee policies.

Can we please get one thing straight?

Deposited checks DO NOT AND MOST LIKELY NEVER WILL clear the same day that you deposit them. The only current deviation to that is if the bank makes a one time exception manually. (Some banks do this for tax refund checks if you stop in a branch and deposit it that way.) Checks shouldn't clear the same day, as the bank needs 24 business hours to confirm that the check is good. (Silly me, I'd like to confirm that it's a good check before I start spending that money. But obviously the intentional overdrafters of the world think that that's unreasonable.) Very large checks take more time than that. By law, the bank has to tell you how long that will be.

If you negligent overdrafters would refer to the terms and agreement book THAT YOU SIGNED FOR, you'll notice that this policy is clearly stated. 

Ronny G,

I'm perfectly calm. I'm not angry, I'm just stating the facts. Someone would have to be under the influence of something if they're warned of a danger and then they blatantly and intentionally put themselves at risk.

Here's an example that I could compare to the average overdrafter's stupidity. Let's say the county dug a hole in the street for fixing the sewer line. They put up signs and whatever to warn you of that danger. They knock on your door and tell you about the hole. They make you sign a document that says that you were informed of the danger. You sign it and go about your business.

Later on, you are walking down the street and intentionally fall into the hole. You break your leg. You get a lawyer and try to sue the county for your injury. The case is dismissed because of the county putting up warning signs and because of the document that you signed stating that you were informed about the hole.

The same situation applies here. The bank tells you their funds availability, they tell you their fee structure, they tell you their cut off points for deposits. YOU SIGNED A LEGAL DOCUMENT STATING THAT YOU READ, UNDERSTAND, AND AGREE TO ALL TERMS OF THE ACCOUNT. In addition, this bank has multiple ways to inform you of your balance and multiple forms of overdraft protection (like the signs in my example). You have no case. You lost. Admit fault, pay the fee and move on with your life. No one shoved you into the hole!

Gee, I'm sorry, Edward. I didn't know that you were so sensitive about the plight of the downtrodden USB customer.

Think what you want about me, but at least I still have every dollar that I've put into my account. No overdrafts here because I'm a responsible person who doesn't spend what I don't have in my account. Whine all you like about your bank conspiracy theories, it won't change a thing and never will. Personally, I hope the fees get higher so I, as a model customer, can enjoy more free services while you intentional overdrafters get sued back to the Stone Age for blatantly mismanaging your account.

It's amazing to me that these same degenerate overdrafters will spend hours, perhaps days, researching things like finding the best loan rates or trying to find the best deal on groceries, but they won't spend THIRTY SECONDS checking their balance before they blow all of their money on something (probably cheap booze or crack).

Overdrafters, you lose.  

Ok, so we've got someone saying that USB's automated phone line, ATM's,and website post incorrect balances intentionally. 

Let's visit Imaginationland for just a moment and pretend that this statement is even close to being true. (cough, cough) That would mean that USB would be committing a FEDERAL CRIME thousands of times a day. Do you have any concept of what kind of fine that would incur? Do you realize how this bank would be punished by the SEC? Rest assured, it would bankrupt US Bank.

P.S. A note to our author friend... any company would most likely change their name when they get bought out. There's nothing sinister involved there.

Personal politics aside, defenders of overdrafters, if the bank was really set up to make the average person overdraft, why haven't they gotten me?

Simple: Because I check my balance before I spend my money. Obviously you people don't do that. Trust me, conspiracy theorists, there's no maniacal mastermind at USB manipulating the system so that you can't avoid overdrafting.  

Take responsibility, people. We're talking third grade math here.

Robert, you are exactly right the new voluntary bank policy changes will make it difficult for new lawsuits in the future. But with respect to the current class-action lawsuits already filed, how can the banks argue their policies were not unfair, when they now have changed those same policies?

One current case often referenced as a benchmark is Gutierrez vs Wells Fargo. For this case, the Including-And-Deleting Class represents deceptive online information. The Re-Sequencing Class represents largest first posting order. The lawyers had a good thing going for both groups, but then they got greedy and tried to up the anty and change the rules in the middle of the game for the first class group. Here are quotes from the Judges official ruling:

''...plaintiffs expert assumed that every time any customer accessed his or her account online, or via an ATM, or in person (by visiting a teller window), he or she would have then learned and relied on the then available balance....It is easy to use an ATM without obtaining ones balance. It is easy to make a teller transaction without obtaining the balance. It is possible to consult an account online for reasons other than obtaining ones balance''

''This claim was originally sold to the Court as one in which the bank customer consulted the available balance between steps 1 and 2, noticed that a specific item had been subtracted, and then later consulted the available balance between steps 2 and 3 and relied on it without realizing that it looked larger than it really was due to the backed-out items. Now, however, plaintiffs seek to skip the first part and to broaden the claim to depositors who merely consulted the online balance between steps 2 and 3, whether or not they consulted it between steps 1 and 2. The damage study thus wholly ignores the very scenario that formed the basis for class certification.''

''For all of the foregoing reasons, the including-and-deleting class is hereby DECERTIFIED and shall not proceed as a class claim.''

The plaintiff lawyers over reached by trying to broaden the scope of who might be affected from their original claim. The ruling had nothing to do with a check register or lack of customer responsibility. It was the fault of the lawyers. Then the Judge upheld the certification of the second class group and that class-action suit is still moving forward. For the first class group, had the lawyers stuck with their original claim and not over reached in the middle of the game, it's likely that BOTH class-action suits would still be in progress. And think about how that case is impacted now with the banks backing out of a lot of those very policies in question in the case.

Even though you could not remember some of the pertinent details of your overdrafting circumstance..I appreciate your honest and sincere effort, and it did in my opinion ad validity to your previous statement.

Now I don't need to speak for Edward...but something you stated actually concurs what he has implied to you...

"And yes I even read where Wachovia(Wells Fargo) is going to stop charging any overdraft fees on people who overdraft by less than $5.  Again that is great but I can guarantee you that a majority of the people that overdraft do so by more than $5.  So this will stop the fees of the people who do make an occasional error in their register, but will do nothing to the cronic overdrafter who has no idea how much they have or are are spending.  Again a good PR move but in reality does not change the problem when the account holder is not responsible."

Myself and Edward have both stated this as well. And it is the reason you do not have to be too concerned. The chronic overdrafter...and it is safe to assume they will not understand any of their part in it..nor take any steps such as opting out of overdraft protection..the one defense that may actually help them hold on to their money..  will continue to accrue excessive fees..and regardless of where they complain..and whomever to..it will evidently be their own fault. I hope you never got the impression that I want the banks to be responsible for chronic overdrafters..I just want fairness in T&C..and better protection against fraud and error. I see too many reports here that assuming the poster is being forthright..that the bank in many cases share much of the blame...as evident by the fact that the bank is starting to change some policies.

Surely you do not believe the banks are doing ANY of this to better protect chronic overdrafters..which is their bread and butter right now. The problem was you could say that many innocent customers were caught unfairly in the cross fire..and many did NOT deserve the many fees they had to pay..and the fact that the banks proved to not to be a very safe place to keep our money..nor to trust in them. Their tactics proved or will be proved to be unfair, misleading and perhaps unethical and questionably legal...bottom line. And you don't have to take myself or Edwards word for it..just read the newspapers.

First Ronny..While I don't usually like to give too personal information, but if you think it is pertnant a bit more information on your question as it probably can be used as a learning experience.

Regardless..when did you overdraft? - Late 90's

What was the circumstances and your banks policies at the time? - Similar but can not tell you if they are exact to now.  That is I knew they cover up to a certain amount as a "courtesy", but didn't know all of the in's and out's of it.  As a result I got "hit" with several overdraft fees over about a week. 

Did you incur any fees on transactions that had the funds at the time of the transactions? - Yes at least as far as I remember, because even then I knew you shouldn't spend more than you have.  It wasn't so much Debit Card(they were just starting to come into use) but ATM and Checks

Had you been opted out of OD protection would you have avoided a fee or any additional fees associated..or would it have made no difference?  - Honestly couldn't tell you as 1) I didn't opt out and can't even remember if I was ever told that was an option because 2) It was quite a while ago.

Would a register have prevented it? - 100% Yes.

or a shady merchant placed charges on the card the the so called protection allowed..and instead of the bank coming to the defense of their customer when disputed..just added a whole bunch more fees...so in that case...why would a person not feel victimized?

- Ronny would it be nice if the bank came to your defense in the case of a merchant..Of course.  Is it a RipOff if they don't..NO.  Your issue is with the merchant and if they did something wrong that caused any fees they should be held 100% responsible for ALL fees incurred.  Just as if the bank makes a mistake they should be held accountable for all fees as well.  And yes I do have problems with banks when they make an legitimate(I mean outside their terms) error and only refund the fee as a direct cause of the error and not the others that were caused as well.

Now Edward.  Time will tell what effect these changes will have.  Will there be less people getting fees...probably.  Will that be a significant number..doubtfull.  Because, all it does is give the person another option for their account making them MORE accountable.  If you really think this is any admission by the banks that they were wrong, then their PR departments are really on their toes.

If anything this is going to make it harder for any suits or claims because they are coming right out and giving the person the option to opt-in or opt-out.  So not not only are they signing saying that they agree to the terms of the account.  But they are in addition saying that they either do or do not want this Overdraft courtesy.  If they opt-in then it is going to be next to impossible for any lawyer to make a legitimate argument that they didn't know.  If they opt-out the bank is covered because it only covers them if they are currently at $0, and has been shown that can not be guaranteed. 

And yes I even read where Wachovia(Wells Fargo) is going to stop charging any overdraft fees on people who overdraft by less than $5.  Again that is great but I can guarantee you that a majority of the people that overdraft do so by more than $5.  So this will stop the fees of the people who do make an occasional error in their register, but will do nothing to the cronic overdrafter who has no idea how much they have or are are spending.  Again a good PR move but in reality does not change the problem when the account holder is not responsible.

Quote from I am the law c/o the Kangaroo Court:

''That's typically the class of people that get overdrafts; druggies and losers.''

Well that's just great! The executive big whigs at all of these banks including US Bank, just made the decision to throw away (B)illions of dollars in profits all for a bunch of 'druggies and losers'? How stupid can those bank executives be? If I'm a shareholder, SELL, SELL, SELL!

No need for any heated responses. Enjoying you doing a much better job on your own.

''It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. (Mark Twain/Abraham Lincoln)

That's right. I said it.

Overdrafting your account should be a considered a crime.

Now, before all the heated responses flare up, let me explain my position. 99% of all overdrafters did it to themselves. They overdrafted their account intentionally out of a blantant disregard for the rules or through their own negligence. Every time I go into my local USB branch, there's some piece of drugged up ghetto trash making a scene about overdrafts THAT THEY CAUSED. That's typically the class of people that get overdrafts; druggies and losers. 

Well, let me tell you something, chronic and intentional overdrafts of the world, YOU ARE COSTING GOOD CUSTOMERS LIKE ME MONEY. It's a well known fact that the more a customer leaves their account in the negative, the more likely it is that the customer isn't going to replenish it. Thus, the bank has to make up for this loss by passing it on to good customers. This means higher interest rates on loans and credit cards, and less money paid to the customer on CD's, checking accounts and savings accounts.

USB offers many ways for the average customer to check their balance. You've got a call center, their website, their branches, ATM's, text and email alerts. All of those options are free and all of them, with the exception of going into a branch, are available 24 hours a day. USB also offers many forms of overdraft protection at a nominal fee. My credit line costs me NOTHING unless I have to have it activate; then it's just few cents per day.

Overdrafters, YOU ARE OUT OF EXCUSES. It's easy; check your balance before you spend. If you can't follow this one simple rule, I'd advise not having an account.

Quote from myself in my earlier post:

''Shall we expect US Bank to follow suit? Well if precedence is any indicator, look at how all banks followed suit when they all started implementing these ripoff practices.''

Not surprisingly, one day later, of course US Bank has fallen in line, lock step with the others, as the Overdraft Fee house of cards continues to come a tumbling down.

Removing overdraft protection only goes so far. With the way the debit system works, certain types of holds like fuel or restaurant purchases cannot be relied upon to be totally accurate. Throw some paper checks into the mix and you still have a great potential for fees.

 Relying on an online balance spells trouble (as can be easily seen on this site). Relying on your debit card to stop putting through transactions when it thinks you're out of money has less potential financial risk, but comes nowhere near eliminating the problem (as Robert succinctly explained above). Taking control of your finances, reducing debit card transaction to a minimum, and keeping a current and accurate record of credits and debits will reduce the likelyhood of an overdraft fee to nearly zero.

 Why is there so much resistance to this? I last got burned by an overdraft fee over 10 years ago, because I wasn't aware of how the system worked. That's the day I started keeping a register religiously. I also began my habit of withdrawing an amount of cash that would pay for incidental expenses throughout the week, rather than using the debit card. This meant that even if I did screw up my register, there would not be a dozen $3 debit transactions to haunt me. Adopting such practices would eliminate 90% of the bank complaints on this site, which is why I so strongly advocate them. It's worked for me and there's no reason it shouldn't work for anyone else, no matter where they bank.

First of all if what you posted is true that is a good thing to give people the choice.  However, it does not fix the underlying issue of people not managing their accounts, and could actually backfire on the account holder by giving them a false sense of security.  There was nothing in that report that says they were going to lower the fee.  There was nothing that you wrote that says that the banks are going to change the order they process transactions.

I suspect that once these get put into place, the people that overdrafted will still overdraft.  Because according to what you wrote it will only stop them if they are currently at $0.  It does not take into account items such as checks(which I imagine they are now going to return), or places such as Gas Stations that only authorize $1. 

For example.  If someone has $40 in their account which they spend $30 at 3 places.  Then they go to the gas station.  The station only authorizes $1(which since they have $10 is approved).  But they pump $35 and will overdraw the account.  These are debit card transactions and as you are aware the bank can not decline them.  For argument's sake lets say that these got posted on different days to only cause 1 OD fee.  Now, the account holder was under the impression that the bank is supposed to stop this from happening.  So when they get hit with the one overdraft fee they claim "RipOff".  So you have the bank giving them the option to opt-out, this case it is impossible for the bank to stop it, and they only got hit with one OD fee.  So who is at fault, the bank or the account holder?

I also imagine we will get an entirely new set of "RipOffs".  Instead of talking about the fees they are charging.  They will complain about how their card was declined at the local Fast Food restaurant so they couldn't buy food for their 3 starving kids who haven't eaten two days.

By the way sorry Ronny I didn't realize that I mis-typed the spelling on your name until it was too late.

This is in response to sylver8248 who said: ''I think EVERYONE here agrees, that there are changes that the banks can make, policy-wise, that would be far more gentle to those who make banking errors (such as not posting purchases highest to lowest, lowering the dollar amount of the fee), but, frankly, I don't see that happening.  It is what it is.''

From the Associated Press yesterday:

''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.

''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''.

Shall we expect US Bank to follow suit? Well if presendence is any indicator, look at how all banks followed suit when they all started implementing these ripoff practices.

Also you should note that many of the bank defenders here claim they NEVER had an overdraft.

I don't know about the many you talk about.  While I have seen others talk about how they don't get hit with any overdraft fees anymore, I can not recall anyone saying that they have NEVER received one.  Although I am sure if there is one you will let us know.  In my case I have stated on more than one occasion that I did overdraft in the past.  The difference is that instead of automatically blaming the bank and latching onto people who want to enable the "victim" mentality.  I went through and figured out what I need to do to avoid them in the future.

I am far more embarrassed paying 35 dollars for a cup of coffee then if the coffee shop handed me back the card declined.

- Okay Ronnie let me first say if people want to opt-out, or you change it to where they are required to opt-in to any sort of protection I have no problem with that.  But again you seem to be suggesting that there is really no penalty possible for having your card declined.  As they would just hand the card back to you.

So let's just say you opt-out(or don't opt-in).  Let's now change the coffee shop to a sit down restaurant.  Since no one is perfect you mis-calculated your balance in the register which you know to keep.  You hand the waitress/waiter your card at the end of your meal and it comes back declined.  You already ate the meal but now can't pay for it because you don't have access to any other cards or cash.  What do you do then?  Would you be thanking the bank for saving you $35?  Probably not, because I can tell you what the restaurant would do.  They would call the local police department. 

Now as you stated,,,no one is perfect..(well the banks are according to some)..

- I don't think anyone has ever said that the banks are perfect.  But the vast majority of reports on here do not involve bank error.  They involve a lack of management on the account holders part.

I cannot bite my tongue on this one.  I cannot believe the number of grown adults that whine and complain and refuse to take any personal responsibility for their actions.

This whole argument is getting really really old.  I think EVERYONE here agrees, that there are changes that the banks can make, policy-wise, that would be far more gentle to those who make banking errors (such as not posting purchases highest to lowest, lowering the dollar amount of the fee), but, frankly, I don't see that happening.  It is what it is.

The BEST way to fight this issue, is to learn from your mistakes.  Yes, people live paycheck to paycheck, have medical bills, go through divorces, are students, are elderly, etc...but if you open the account, YOU, are ultimately responsible for it.  No excuses.

...Very few here ever do..other then the people posting the ripoff report.


Also you should note that many of the bank defenders here claim they NEVER had an overdraft.

But I find it strange that you would rather pay an overdraft fee then be "embarrassed" that you were not accurate with your bank ledger? Why would that embarrass you? As far as I am concerned embarrass me all day..just don't take my money..please. But to each his/her own..which is why overdraft protection service should be a choice..and everyone should fully understand the consequences if they are given the option to enroll in it or not.

You see to save yourself from being embarrassed..one day you may think you are only overdrafted by one transaction in an emergency, or a mistake..or an unexpected fee..or a merchant overcharge or error..or some billing system that changes it's time without your consent..hundreds of possible causes..but you may be racked by a dozen fees at 35 dollars a pop..and when you go to the bank to dispute it..they will hand you a register and tell you to go pound sand...if you don't believe me you truly do not know how the banks operate these days.

And talk about the fee greater then the charge....how about 35 dollars for a cup of coffee?..and you will say to the bank "why on earth would I have used the card if I thought the coffee would cost me a 35 dollar fee", and they will tell you to go jump off a bridge..you can't reason with them..it is futile. I am far more embarassed paying 35 dollars for a cup of coffee then if the coffee shop handed me back the card declined. I would thank the bank in that case...saved me 35 bucks and that ain't peanuts these days.

Now as you stated,,,no one is perfect..(well the banks are according to some)..and the world is not a perfect place. If it was we would all be paid in cash..and be able to send cash in the mail to pay our bills..and be able to walk around with all our checking account money in our pockets..and not be required to show a debit or credit card to rent a car and so many other things we have to do to get around..well the reality is we need banks...but more important is we need to trust them..or need regulations that can convince them to be trustworthy. Until that time..I highly suggest to keep a ledger...and protect yourself by opting out of overdraft protection..or using a different form such as a transfer service if you have a savings account to link to. It's not perfect...but it's better then the standard so called protection they force on us..especially when we come to find out it hurt us bad..but protected the bank quite effectively.

All banks and credit unions have longer hold times for the first thirty days of any new account.  That would have been detailed in your account agreement had you read it.  A 4 day hold is not bad.  They can hold them up to 10 days on a new account.

Also be aware that if you decide to close the account an use a different bank, you may also be charged a fee for closing so soon after opening it (I think it is 90 days but I am not sure).

We all get excited and think if we deposit a check that the money is there. 

I know we probably all have had an overdraft charge.  I personally would rather pay the fee than be embarrassed that I was not accurate with my bank ledger.  It hurts especially when the fee is greater than the charge.  But if you don't like those rules, cash the check and do everything in cash and you'd have no extra hidden fees.  I am not perfect, nor is anyone else.  But the terms of your bank account are there..we are just as a society that's sign happy and forget to read the fine fine small small blah blah blah legal disclaimers.

Work with cash.  Its safer and you know how much you can spend and how much you can't.

...but..you really should have made sure the check cleared before spending it. If the funds are truly unavailable at the time of a transaction..and the bank covers it..then it gets a fee..and you have to admit you did sign to an agreement..

I don't know which class action suit you are referring too..there are quite a few pending. If there are any that are trying to sue for the charges being too high I am unaware. The issue we have is with certain terms and disclosures..and any ADDITIONAL fees that occur due to any manipulation by the bank. There are other factors as well still in discussion and under investigation.

Some suits we are working on deal with tactics the banks are using which we feel are unethical..and may be in violation..but the courts will decide.

The only way in your case where you MAY have a leg to stand on is the fact that you apparently have some type of overdraft protection..otherwise the transactions that did not have the funds available when using the card would have been declined...correct? And ..do you feel the deposit was "held" for an unreasonable amount of time for the sole purpose of the bank encouraging you to overdraft?..be honest. Would you have preferred the transactions with the card that were covered by the bank (a "loan" in a sense of the word) to have been declined rather then the bank covering them and charging you a fee for the "service"? These are questions you honestly have to ask yourself and answer with integrity.

So, did the bank offer you to opt out of overdraft protection? Did the bank ask you to sign specifically for this or any other type of overdraft protection? Does your bank require you to enroll in overdraft protection against your will? Did the bank explain how the overdraft protection works?

Where some of us believe is part of the unfairness and contradictions SOME banks are performing is that they charge steep penalties for overdrafting..and in many cases charge fees for transactions that had the funds available according to their registers and bank statement. The bank will place all the blame on the customer for overdrafting and causing all the fees. And then tell us we must not have used a register or this all could have been avoided. Bear in mind your case is not about register usage..but deposit holding or processing time, and overdraft protection

The thing is wouldn't you think the bank is encouraging overdrafting if they not only offer this protection..but make it mandatory or very difficult to opt out..then issue a resister which is supposedly to prevent the very thing that the protection they are forcing us to take will cause or lead some into thinking it is okay to overdraft because the are presumably "protected"? See how this works?

So yes...the customer is often responsible for an overdraft occurring..and they pay the fees for doing so..but do you think the bank perhaps in some cases.. plays a part in causing or encouraging this in any way?

Now some bank defenders may come here and try to discredit me personally..or the actions I suggest..and twist things around. I just want them to be aware in this case..and many others I not placing all the blame on the bank..and I am not saying the customer is not at fault. What I am saying is there is a chance the bank does hold some blame and MAY be using tactics that are unethical..unfair, unreasonable and possibly illegal...BUT bear in mind...the courts will decide this in the long run..not us going back and forth debating, bickering and insulting each other. The issue is between the customers who feel victimized..and THEIR banks..soon to be plaintiff vs defendant.

The results are to be seen..nobody can predict the outcome..because outcomes tend to differ over time and through persistence. If any laws are to be changed to better protect consumers...this is where it starts..I am not happy about it either but the system is the system..we are stuck with it.

When you open an account, BY LAW, the bank must inform you of their hold policies and their fee structure. You signed a legal document stating that you read, understand, and agree to all terms of the account. You just don't want to accept the fact that you were negligent.

If I am reading this correctly the problem is not with the Bank but with your lack of knowledge of how banks process transactions.

Weekends and Holidays are NOT a banking days and no transactions will POST, this is the same for any bank.  Deposits(unless there is an extended hold) are posted at the end of the next banking day and available the day after that.  In your case you deposited it on Saturday.  The next banking day is Monday, making the funds available on Tuesday morning.  Saturday to Tuesday is 4 days and would the the first day the funds would be available, so there was no additional hold.  It does not matter what bank you went with, they all would have been the same.

You will probably hear people talking about resequencing, but in your case you would have been hit with the fees no matter what as your available was $0.  Unlike the posting order which is often farther down in the the "fine print", the fee schedule and funds availability is readily available and usually made to stand out in the terms.  Just as it is your responsibility to understand the rules of the road when you drive, it is your responsibility to understand the terms of your account with the bank.

You also will hear some people talking about how keeping a register would not have helped.  In this case they are right.  But not because of anything the bank did that is outside of standard procedure.  In fact I do not recall even any talk of suits about banks not posting on Weekends or Holidays.  Also, even if they declined your card and returned the check you still would have complained for one reason, you would be upset that you think they held a check that "is always good".

I don't know why you talked to a "loan officer' about your overdraft fees.  I would suggest that you go back to your original branch and ask for the branch manager.  Explain to them how you mis-understood and see if they can waive the fees(or at least some of them).  While I won't guarantee that they will do anything.  Your chances are a lot better if you go in and be professional about it, rather than starting off by screaming RipOff or that you are going to sue them.