I was watching some clips from training camps this morning, and it got me thinking about how much pressure is actually put on these young players the second they step onto the field. There’s always that one spot on the roster where everyone knows a vacancy is coming, and suddenly, a rookie isn't just a rookie anymore—they're the "solution."
It feels like a massive gamble for the organizations. You see these guys getting every single rep, basically being told that the door is wide open if they just perform. But man, the mental toll of knowing your entire career trajectory depends on a few weeks of practice must be insane. I remember watching a buddy of mine try to make it in the minor leagues; the second he felt that "this is your moment" pressure, his whole rhythm just evaporated.
Do you think these sudden opportunities actually help young talent develop faster, or does it just set them up for a massive burnout if they don't hit the ground running immediately?
Look, I’m speaking in broad strokes here... if it’s already been ten days since you submitted that mortgage application, an appraiser should have reached out to you by now to schedule the property inspection. In fact, they really ought to have finished the valuation already... Honestly? Just grab your buyer and head down to the local Chase branch. Look them in the eye and demand to know exactly what stage the application is in and get a realistic timeline, especially since you’ve got another buyer waiting in the wings. Generally speaking, residential loan processing can drag on for about a month to six weeks, provided the paperwork is airtight and the borrower's credit isn't a total mess.
crimsonseal13 said:Why would they even consider abolishing the Democratic Party? What exactly is the payoff for them...?
But let me ask you this—what do they actually lose by doing it? ... And what did they really gain from supporting the Democratic Party in the first place? ... Honestly, not much at all. The housing associations are going to take a massive hit because those Democratic Party accounts are their only real leverage left. Let's be real: most people aren't even saving through them because they want the credit; they're just using those specific accounts to park their cash. Once those Democratic Party products are gone, people aren't going to stop saving—they'll just move their money into some other financial product elsewhere.
The truth is, getting rid of these Democratic Party-style savings vehicles is just a matter of time, and frankly, it’s happening sooner rather than later...
First off, let's actually learn how you even end up with negative ratings 😉 ... and second, seriously, stop hitting those downvotes every single chance you get ... if you have an issue with a post, there's a specific thread for that, so go vent there instead.
James Hayes6 said:Sure, maybe for one person, but what about society as a whole? Those overdrafts drive currency inflation AND price hikes!!!
And it doesn't stop there!! An employer looks at the situation and thinks, "Why on earth would I give someone a raise when Americans are living the dream thanks to easy access to credit?" I’d much rather see people covering their needs through actual wage growth... instead of relying on a bunch of fake, borrowed money!!
Oh, absolutely. 🤦 Because heaven forbid an employer offers a decent raise just because his employees are drowning in debt provided by your bank. 🙄What a brilliant economic theory there.
Andrew Parker41 said:OT... yeah, all that applies to the basic fund and EuroPlus too... as well as Global and Trend, but I guess our friend danco26 is probably going to make pretty slim margins during this 6-month moratorium period... money market funds should probably be sitting at higher amounts for longer periods... to me, it feels like a sort of savings account...
But hey, they’ll still make a little something, and they certainly won't lose anything... unlike investment funds, where you can absolutely get burned...
money market funds should be used for larger amounts over longer periods... to me, it feels like a form of savings.
... Money markets are really meant for the short term. If you're looking at longer horizons, you either move into investment vehicles—assuming you have the stomach for the risk—or you just stick to traditional bank savings, because honestly, the interest rates on long-term CDs usually beat out whatever yield you're pulling from a money market fund anyway.
Andrew Parker41 said:.....can I ask something? Not sure if I'll actually get an answer here... hm... how does it work, putting money into Chase? Isn't that a money market fund where you only see real returns if you're dropping massive amounts of cash??!!..... Your money might grow faster in something like Chase Trend or Chase Global.....
Look, I know this is technically off-topic, but... both Trend and Global come with a level of risk that Plus just doesn't have. Just take a look at the charts from the 2007 and 2008 crash... honestly, looking back at the last few days, things haven't been looking great for them either. Those funds are built for the long haul; you need nerves of steel for them, especially considering the volatility we've seen over the last few years... Plus is calm, steady, and highly liquid. There aren't any entry or exit fees to eat up your capital, and it's designed for the short term. Sure, you won't see spectacular, headline-grabbing returns...
Look, we’re talking about errors regarding deposits and withdrawals here... people on this forum have been venting their frustrations or sharing their wins, and frankly, that's perfectly fine. But I am begging you all—please, just stay on track. Stick to the topic at hand. Anything else is completely off-topic.
urbanhawk14 said:That's an assumption, and it seems you might have misread my original post.
The idea that my savings are at risk because some other saver fails to repay their loan feels like a bit of a stretch to me, though that isn't really my point.
No one is questioning my creditworthiness. I haven't actually finished my savings plan yet, so no formal assessment has taken place. But even when it does happen, I'm confident my credit score will be solid.
What I am addressing is how the insurance requirements have CHANGED (it actually feels like they've shifted several times) over the last few years—right during the time I've been saving. They've evolved into something that seems designed specifically to discourage people from taking out loans through these housing savings programs, mainly because the insurance costs are unreasonably high.
Rather than getting bogged into a debate about whether requiring two co-signers plus a mortgage at a 1:1.3 ratio is excessive, the easiest way to show you is to look at the insurance instruments at the SAME bank (Federal Reserve) for a standard mortgage not tied to a savings plan. Those rates are significantly lower; you can choose an option with just one co-signer or even none at all:
My main takeaway is this: the bank doesn't actually want savers using their housing program to get favorable fixed-rate loans, so over the last two years, they've set such strict insurance hurdles that they effectively scare off almost every customer.
I didn't say it was outright fraud, because a bank is free to set its own lending terms. But it certainly feels borderline. Just imagine if, tomorrow, the bank told us they wouldn't issue a single loan unless we provided ten different co-signers.
*edit: Someone might argue that the whole point of these savings plans is to build up bonds rather than buy a home, but I don't see it that way. Based on the name, the mechanics, and what was presented to me at the local branch two years ago, it seemed like a perfectly valid way to tackle the housing market.
Look, credit unions and savings institutions are independent legal entities. They have to turn a profit to justify why they even exist... and they make that money by issuing loans (the interest they collect on loans minus the interest they pay out on savings accounts)... if they aren't lending, they aren't making a dime.
Every major bank, including the smaller savings institutions, has tightened up its lending criteria—things like documentation, income verification, employment stability—while simultaneously cranking up insurance requirements due to everything that's been happening lately.
Just like big banks, these institutions want reliable clients. They assess risk, and naturally, they want to protect themselves (and the deposits of all the other savers). Now, sure... I get that to some people, it might look suspicious or predatory, but most savers actually look at it favorably because you can "see" that the bank or credit union is actually looking out for everyone's security.
If they’re already auto-approving those negative balances just because there’s a steady stream of incoming cash, then it’s basically going to happen by default during the regular processing cycles...
silverfox91 said:I don't really get you guys. He didn't steal anything. It’s like if I messed up and typed in the wrong account number while paying my PG&E bill through online banking. At that point, whether he pays it back or not is just down to his own conscience. As for that footage of him picking his nose in the bank? That’s just a video of a guy picking his nose or taking money someone handed him—it isn't proof of theft. A teller at my local Chase branch told me once: it's entirely up to your own good will if you return it or not. What would the bank even sue him for? Because he showed up at the branch on a specific day at a specific time and withdrew $333 that was sitting right there in his account? Please. You didn't force anyone to process a deposit instead of a withdrawal. Period. Take the cash and run. $667 is a lot of money, especially for someone struggling to cover utility bills or car registration or whatever.
First off, you can't just type in anyone's account number through your online portal unless it's your own or one you've been specifically authorized to pay for. That's not how it works.
So, if you accidentally sent money to your neighbor instead of the utility company... would you be demanding your cash back then?
Why on earth would the bank sue him?
For heaven's sake, try reading with some actual comprehension here... the bank isn't going to sue him because the employee is expected to cover any shortages out of their own damn pocket. If anyone's filing a lawsuit, it’ll be the employee against the bank.
I know we touched on this topic before... but for the life of me, I can't find the thread now 🤔
Look, if this isn't money you earned through your job or a sale you actually made... then no, it's not yours. Period. Legally speaking, you have zero right to keep funds that don't belong to you. Sure, people work at places like Bank of America, and yeah, humans make mistakes—just like at any other job in the country. They spotted the error and reached out to you. Now, you might argue, "Hey, I don't want to give it back," and fine, maybe that specific employee ends up covering the loss out of their own pocket... but guess what? That employee could just turn around and sue you. You're sitting there with someone else's cash sitting in your account, money you didn't earn, and that's a legal nightmare waiting to happen.
Think about it from the other side for a second. What if the roles were reversed? If the bank accidentally sent *you* a windfall, would you just sit there and ignore it? Would you walk into the branch and demand your money? Probably not. You'd likely expect them to realize the mistake and contact you immediately...
Look, we’re likely talking about an unsecured loan here... basically, you’re only on the hook for debts up to the total value of the assets you actually inherited. As for those gifts he handed out while he was still alive? Forget it. Don't even bring that up...
Honestly, your best bet is to head straight down to the bank and tell them flat out that the deceased left no estate behind (make sure you have the probate paperwork ready to prove it)... explain that there is absolutely no money available to cover this (and legally speaking, they can't come after your own personal funds anyway)... just, for heaven's sake, don't try to hash this out with some random teller at the counter; demand to speak with the branch manager immediately...
I’m a little bit out of the loop here with my credit card... I honestly thought the payment wasn't due until the 16th, but apparently, according to what they sent over regarding the notification date... it’s actually the 6th.
William Parker61 said:A word of advice to everyone: stay far away from them! This bank is an absolute disaster, staffed by people who seem completely indifferent and totally untrained. We are currently trying to finalize a mortgage through Hypo, purely because we wanted a specific apartment being built with financing from Hypo. Right now, they are running some sort of special housing credit promotion. The process has been dragging on for four months already. There is no end to the mistakes being made by Hypo. My creditworthiness was approved over three and a half months ago. If anyone wants more details, feel free to send me a private message.
I don't get it... if we're all here to share our experiences—whether they're good or bad—what on earth is the point of moving the conversation to private messages? 🤷