[KSMountain]

Even though it might have sounded like I was defending them earlier, I definitely hate BofA. I second the recommendation for credit unions.

I think I (like someone else here) got transferred to BofA after Security Pacific went away. It was a happy day when I realized I could just dissociate myself from them.

Have had Schwab since ’95. I use them for brokerage, not banking, but they’ve always been upfront.

[KSMountain]

Even though it might have sounded like I was defending them earlier, I definitely hate BofA. I second the recommendation for credit unions.

I think I (like someone else here) got transferred to BofA after Security Pacific went away. It was a happy day when I realized I could just dissociate myself from them.

Have had Schwab since ’95. I use them for brokerage, not banking, but they’ve always been upfront.

[KSMountain]

Is this an example of what you’re talking about brian?

http://www.firstcommunity.com/accounts/overdraft.html

Isn’t this something the customer opts-in to?

[KSMountain]

Is this an example of what you’re talking about brian?

http://www.firstcommunity.com/accounts/overdraft.html

Isn’t this something the customer opts-in to?

[KSMountain]

Is this an example of what you’re talking about brian?

http://www.firstcommunity.com/accounts/overdraft.html

Isn’t this something the customer opts-in to?

[KSMountain]

Is this an example of what you’re talking about brian?

http://www.firstcommunity.com/accounts/overdraft.html

Isn’t this something the customer opts-in to?

[KSMountain]

Is this an example of what you’re talking about brian?

http://www.firstcommunity.com/accounts/overdraft.html

Isn’t this something the customer opts-in to?

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]Would it not be simpler to force them to decline the transactions of people who have no money in the bank?[/quote]
Again, I’m not sure every EFT purchase is preceded by a balance inquiry.

It might be that the database/network costs to do that in the kind of access time we’ve come to expect (approx 3 seconds) would be prohibitive.

I suppose though, we could mandate that behavior and performance, and mandate free checking to say anyone who made less than say $100k, and then pass *all* the costs on to those bastards who make more than $100k.

Or we could nationalize the banks and get the money for all this infrastructure via taxes on the “rich”.

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]Would it not be simpler to force them to decline the transactions of people who have no money in the bank?[/quote]
Again, I’m not sure every EFT purchase is preceded by a balance inquiry.

It might be that the database/network costs to do that in the kind of access time we’ve come to expect (approx 3 seconds) would be prohibitive.

I suppose though, we could mandate that behavior and performance, and mandate free checking to say anyone who made less than say $100k, and then pass *all* the costs on to those bastards who make more than $100k.

Or we could nationalize the banks and get the money for all this infrastructure via taxes on the “rich”.

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]Would it not be simpler to force them to decline the transactions of people who have no money in the bank?[/quote]
Again, I’m not sure every EFT purchase is preceded by a balance inquiry.

It might be that the database/network costs to do that in the kind of access time we’ve come to expect (approx 3 seconds) would be prohibitive.

I suppose though, we could mandate that behavior and performance, and mandate free checking to say anyone who made less than say $100k, and then pass *all* the costs on to those bastards who make more than $100k.

Or we could nationalize the banks and get the money for all this infrastructure via taxes on the “rich”.

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]Would it not be simpler to force them to decline the transactions of people who have no money in the bank?[/quote]
Again, I’m not sure every EFT purchase is preceded by a balance inquiry.

It might be that the database/network costs to do that in the kind of access time we’ve come to expect (approx 3 seconds) would be prohibitive.

I suppose though, we could mandate that behavior and performance, and mandate free checking to say anyone who made less than say $100k, and then pass *all* the costs on to those bastards who make more than $100k.

Or we could nationalize the banks and get the money for all this infrastructure via taxes on the “rich”.

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]Would it not be simpler to force them to decline the transactions of people who have no money in the bank?[/quote]
Again, I’m not sure every EFT purchase is preceded by a balance inquiry.

It might be that the database/network costs to do that in the kind of access time we’ve come to expect (approx 3 seconds) would be prohibitive.

I suppose though, we could mandate that behavior and performance, and mandate free checking to say anyone who made less than say $100k, and then pass *all* the costs on to those bastards who make more than $100k.

Or we could nationalize the banks and get the money for all this infrastructure via taxes on the “rich”.

[KSMountain]

Yeah I was just starting to answer, meadanale, I’ll go ahead anyway…

The term “bounced check” is not new, and it has always had a negative connotation. There is a reason for that.

I was probably aware of the term and the implications even as a 9 year old in the 60’s. It wasn’t that hard of a thing to figure out.

As I recall, the fee has *always* been something like $10 per check, so counting inflation, $20 in 2010 ain’t bad.

Brian, how long do you think it would take folks to figure out not to do that again?

Further, your $20 on $2 purchase example is an almost worst-case scenario. Say it’s on a $70 tank of gas, or even a nice meal somewhere. There is a cost to loan that money, extra paperwork, extra network transactions, sarbannes-oxley likely, extra software, risk of never recouping the money, etc.

[KSMountain]

Yeah I was just starting to answer, meadanale, I’ll go ahead anyway…

The term “bounced check” is not new, and it has always had a negative connotation. There is a reason for that.

I was probably aware of the term and the implications even as a 9 year old in the 60’s. It wasn’t that hard of a thing to figure out.

As I recall, the fee has *always* been something like $10 per check, so counting inflation, $20 in 2010 ain’t bad.

Brian, how long do you think it would take folks to figure out not to do that again?

Further, your $20 on $2 purchase example is an almost worst-case scenario. Say it’s on a $70 tank of gas, or even a nice meal somewhere. There is a cost to loan that money, extra paperwork, extra network transactions, sarbannes-oxley likely, extra software, risk of never recouping the money, etc.

[KSMountain]

Yeah I was just starting to answer, meadanale, I’ll go ahead anyway…

The term “bounced check” is not new, and it has always had a negative connotation. There is a reason for that.

I was probably aware of the term and the implications even as a 9 year old in the 60’s. It wasn’t that hard of a thing to figure out.

As I recall, the fee has *always* been something like $10 per check, so counting inflation, $20 in 2010 ain’t bad.

Brian, how long do you think it would take folks to figure out not to do that again?

Further, your $20 on $2 purchase example is an almost worst-case scenario. Say it’s on a $70 tank of gas, or even a nice meal somewhere. There is a cost to loan that money, extra paperwork, extra network transactions, sarbannes-oxley likely, extra software, risk of never recouping the money, etc.

[Author]

Posts