Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › CITIBANK warning ! What do they know ???
- This topic has 40 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
Casca.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 23, 2010 at 10:40 AM #17374April 23, 2010 at 10:49 AM #542938
SK in CV
ParticipantAccording to Citibank:
When Citibank moved to unlimited FDIC coverage in 2009, we had to reclassify many checking accounts to allow for immediate withdrawals in order to ensure all customers qualified for the additional coverage. When we moved back to standard FDIC coverage with most major banks in 2010, Citibank decided to reclassify those accounts back to make them eligible again for promotional incentives. To do so, Federal Reserve Reg D requires these accounts, called NOW accounts, to reserve the right to require a 7-day notice of withdrawal. We recently communicated this technical requirement to our customers. However, we have never exercised this right and have no plans to do so in the future.
April 23, 2010 at 10:49 AM #543053ParticipantAccording to Citibank:
When Citibank moved to unlimited FDIC coverage in 2009, we had to reclassify many checking accounts to allow for immediate withdrawals in order to ensure all customers qualified for the additional coverage. When we moved back to standard FDIC coverage with most major banks in 2010, Citibank decided to reclassify those accounts back to make them eligible again for promotional incentives. To do so, Federal Reserve Reg D requires these accounts, called NOW accounts, to reserve the right to require a 7-day notice of withdrawal. We recently communicated this technical requirement to our customers. However, we have never exercised this right and have no plans to do so in the future.
April 23, 2010 at 10:49 AM #543896ParticipantAccording to Citibank:
When Citibank moved to unlimited FDIC coverage in 2009, we had to reclassify many checking accounts to allow for immediate withdrawals in order to ensure all customers qualified for the additional coverage. When we moved back to standard FDIC coverage with most major banks in 2010, Citibank decided to reclassify those accounts back to make them eligible again for promotional incentives. To do so, Federal Reserve Reg D requires these accounts, called NOW accounts, to reserve the right to require a 7-day notice of withdrawal. We recently communicated this technical requirement to our customers. However, we have never exercised this right and have no plans to do so in the future.
April 23, 2010 at 10:49 AM #543621ParticipantAccording to Citibank:
When Citibank moved to unlimited FDIC coverage in 2009, we had to reclassify many checking accounts to allow for immediate withdrawals in order to ensure all customers qualified for the additional coverage. When we moved back to standard FDIC coverage with most major banks in 2010, Citibank decided to reclassify those accounts back to make them eligible again for promotional incentives. To do so, Federal Reserve Reg D requires these accounts, called NOW accounts, to reserve the right to require a 7-day notice of withdrawal. We recently communicated this technical requirement to our customers. However, we have never exercised this right and have no plans to do so in the future.
April 23, 2010 at 10:49 AM #543529ParticipantAccording to Citibank:
When Citibank moved to unlimited FDIC coverage in 2009, we had to reclassify many checking accounts to allow for immediate withdrawals in order to ensure all customers qualified for the additional coverage. When we moved back to standard FDIC coverage with most major banks in 2010, Citibank decided to reclassify those accounts back to make them eligible again for promotional incentives. To do so, Federal Reserve Reg D requires these accounts, called NOW accounts, to reserve the right to require a 7-day notice of withdrawal. We recently communicated this technical requirement to our customers. However, we have never exercised this right and have no plans to do so in the future.
April 23, 2010 at 10:59 AM #542948HLS
ParticipantTechnical Requirement my foot.
FDIC is BROKE. AN insurance fund with ZERO is insuring about 6 TRILLION dollars of bank deposits.
Not to worry, the federales have given them a $500 BILLION dollar line of credit to instill a false sense of security.FDIC coverage is only unlimited for certain business accounts, not personal checking.
I suppose if the CITIBANK disclosure said:
We are BROKE and may not have the funds to honor a check that you write using funds that you have deposited with us. IF you give us 7 days notice, we will do our best to figure out a way to get the money… it wouldn’t look so good.This is the classic disclosure. If we didn’t have a problem, we wouldn’t have a problem.
April 23, 2010 at 10:59 AM #543906ParticipantTechnical Requirement my foot.
FDIC is BROKE. AN insurance fund with ZERO is insuring about 6 TRILLION dollars of bank deposits.
Not to worry, the federales have given them a $500 BILLION dollar line of credit to instill a false sense of security.FDIC coverage is only unlimited for certain business accounts, not personal checking.
I suppose if the CITIBANK disclosure said:
We are BROKE and may not have the funds to honor a check that you write using funds that you have deposited with us. IF you give us 7 days notice, we will do our best to figure out a way to get the money… it wouldn’t look so good.This is the classic disclosure. If we didn’t have a problem, we wouldn’t have a problem.
April 23, 2010 at 10:59 AM #543063ParticipantTechnical Requirement my foot.
FDIC is BROKE. AN insurance fund with ZERO is insuring about 6 TRILLION dollars of bank deposits.
Not to worry, the federales have given them a $500 BILLION dollar line of credit to instill a false sense of security.FDIC coverage is only unlimited for certain business accounts, not personal checking.
I suppose if the CITIBANK disclosure said:
We are BROKE and may not have the funds to honor a check that you write using funds that you have deposited with us. IF you give us 7 days notice, we will do our best to figure out a way to get the money… it wouldn’t look so good.This is the classic disclosure. If we didn’t have a problem, we wouldn’t have a problem.
April 23, 2010 at 10:59 AM #543631ParticipantTechnical Requirement my foot.
FDIC is BROKE. AN insurance fund with ZERO is insuring about 6 TRILLION dollars of bank deposits.
Not to worry, the federales have given them a $500 BILLION dollar line of credit to instill a false sense of security.FDIC coverage is only unlimited for certain business accounts, not personal checking.
I suppose if the CITIBANK disclosure said:
We are BROKE and may not have the funds to honor a check that you write using funds that you have deposited with us. IF you give us 7 days notice, we will do our best to figure out a way to get the money… it wouldn’t look so good.This is the classic disclosure. If we didn’t have a problem, we wouldn’t have a problem.
April 23, 2010 at 10:59 AM #543539ParticipantTechnical Requirement my foot.
FDIC is BROKE. AN insurance fund with ZERO is insuring about 6 TRILLION dollars of bank deposits.
Not to worry, the federales have given them a $500 BILLION dollar line of credit to instill a false sense of security.FDIC coverage is only unlimited for certain business accounts, not personal checking.
I suppose if the CITIBANK disclosure said:
We are BROKE and may not have the funds to honor a check that you write using funds that you have deposited with us. IF you give us 7 days notice, we will do our best to figure out a way to get the money… it wouldn’t look so good.This is the classic disclosure. If we didn’t have a problem, we wouldn’t have a problem.
April 23, 2010 at 12:32 PM #543651denverite
ParticipantAs I recall, many similar restrictions were being placed on bank accounts at the height if the crisis in late 2008.
April 23, 2010 at 12:32 PM #543926ParticipantAs I recall, many similar restrictions were being placed on bank accounts at the height if the crisis in late 2008.
April 23, 2010 at 12:32 PM #543559ParticipantAs I recall, many similar restrictions were being placed on bank accounts at the height if the crisis in late 2008.
April 23, 2010 at 12:32 PM #542968ParticipantAs I recall, many similar restrictions were being placed on bank accounts at the height if the crisis in late 2008.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.