Posts by Mark Sullivan62

Terry Howard said:That’s what you’d call it if you were being all technical about it. So, I just saw that chargeback hit the statement—basically a total reversal. It’s one of those annoying little administrative hiccups that always seems to pop up right when you think everything is squared away. Just one of those things, I guess.Look, it’s not like someone just reached into an account and pulled money out—it was a transaction reversal. So, we can't even really say the bank was skimming cash from the account; they were just voiding the payment.

Look, you really have to distinguish between internal transfers and anything going outside the bank—especially when it’s gotta run through the Nationalist Party and can't happen instantly. When money gets pulled from someone's checking account, it just sits in a clearing account until it actually hits the Nationalist Party. It's not immediate.

Oh, brilliant. Really. Now why don't you walk me through the logic of how you can just "reverse" a payment once it's already been cleared and posted to the recipient's account? Makes perfect sense, right?

I remember this one time I accidentally sent $67 over to the wrong checking account, and despite me fighting with Chase for an entire month, those funds vanished into thin air—never saw them again, and they wouldn't lift a finger to help.

So, if anyone can reverse a payment, why am I stuck in limbo? Aren't we all supposed to be equal under the law? At least, that's what the textbooks say.

They told me point-blank that they couldn't touch a single cent from someone else's checking account $67 without the owner giving the green light.

And when I actually asked them who the hell owns the account so I could go talk to them myself—since the bank obviously won't help—they had the nerve to tell me that was protected by banking privacy laws.

So, tell me, who's the crazy one here?

It all depends on whether we're talking about internal transfers or moving money outside the bank

If it’s within, say, Chase—like you're using your checking account to pay bills via their own cards—everything shows up instantly, like, in the same millisecond

But beyond that, there isn't much to see; I mean, the cash is pulled from your account immediately, but once it hits the recipient's side, you're basically flying blind anyway...

And honestly, there's this one shady practice over at Chase that's just straight-up dirty:

Look, if it's Saturday at 10 PM and I pay off a bill through the Chase app, they snatch the money from my balance right then and there. If I'm sitting in the red, they'll politely slap me with interest charges for it. But the actual funds don't reach the recipient until Monday morning. So, what's the difference? Whether I pay now or wait until Monday morning, the recipient gets paid at the exact same time, nothing sooner. The only thing that changes is that the bank grabs my money earlier and pulls those little interest fees out of my pocket while it sits in limbo

Where that money actually goes during those 36 hours? Nobody knows. Not me, and certainly not the person receiving it

Thomas Fowler84 said:I hear you, but while you claim Atlantic Marine made the mistake, the bank acted as if they were the ones at fault. I understand why you didn't want to cause a scene—I wouldn't have either—but it makes me wonder what would have happened if you had actually protested.

What interests me most are the transaction dates. Based on my understanding of how these things work, if I were to deposit $33 into your account today, those $33 might show up immediately, but there would likely be two distinct dates (I assume, though I'm not sure how Chase handles it)—one for today and one for tomorrow (the "value date" or "transaction date," depending on the terminology used here). You would see a credit of +$33 today, yet the funds wouldn't truly settle until tomorrow, which is when interest starts accruing. My theory is that if Atlantic Marine messed up and transferred $33, and then caught the error instantly and voided it, your statement would simply show +100 and -100 without the $33 ever actually settling in your balance. If you have the records handy, could you tell us if the +100 and -100 occurred on the same day, and whether they carried different dates?

The initial +100 and that -100 actually share the same date, and then the deposit based on the official shareholder registry for the +100 shows up two days after the whole mess happened.

Anyway, regarding how the currency gets booked, you’ve basically got two windows—daytime and overnight.

Anything processed before 3 PM hits the books the same day, but anything after 3 PM through to 9 AM the next morning carries tomorrow's date—that’s assuming we're talking about an external wire transfer; if it's just moving money within the same bank, it should be instantaneous.

Look, the whole point of this entire mess is that we’re talking about an Atlantic Airlines blunder here, not some massive banking scandal.

The bank was just following orders—they processed everything exactly how Atlantic Airlines instructed them to. They actually went on the record admitting they were paying out dividends based on a faulty shareholder list, and they offered their apologies to everyone affected.

Besides, why on earth would a bank even have access to the official shareholder registry for a private corporation like that?

And honestly, the individual clerk at the bank didn't have any other answers for me (it took her a full week just to get back to me on that one), so she basically just told me she didn't know. I didn't want to badger her because, frankly, she was being professional enough, and it wasn't like I was personally losing sleep over it—I haven't had any issues lately with suspicious deposits or withdrawals, so I just let it go. I wasn't trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Steven Reed said:It really depends on how a specific bank decides to play it—usually, they won't move a finger without the account holder's explicit consent 🤷
Which bank are we talking about here?

Steven Reed said:Look, typically—regardless of whether they can prove it was just a clerical error (since they’ve got a wire transfer showing a typoed account number rather than yours)—they really ought to have asked for your consent first. It’s common courtesy in these situations, even if it isn't strictly mandated by the bank's official policy 😉. On the flip side, you're fully aware that the money wasn't yours to begin with 🤷—so I honestly don't see why you'd want to kick up a fuss over it?! 🤷

I went through something pretty similar recently when ExxonMobil was paying out dividends based on a faulty list... since I hold positions in both, I wasn't technically losing anything, but looking at my checking account activity, I saw a deposit, then a withdrawal, then another deposit

I sent an inquiry over to Chase and got an official response stating that because I signed off on their Basic Account bundle, Article 1 explicitly states the bank has the right to correct any bookkeeping errors without needing my approval—in fact, I basically gave them the green light to do exactly this type of thing

How are we even supposed to know if it's a bookkeeping error? Well, based on what I saw:

On my deposit history, it showed something like:

+ $33
- $33
+ $33

It was obviously an error because these weren't actual payouts—those transactions $33 didn't show up on the credit side, they were on the debit side

If they had been actual withdrawals, there wouldn't be a minus sign; it would just show the amount $33 (at least, that's how it looks on the mobile app...)

Lesson learned: read what you're signing. I signed that basic account agreement five or six years ago—I honestly have no idea where the copy is anymore, let alone what the fine print actually says🤣

But then my personal banker reached out and sent me this note:

On X, you signed the Comprehensive Account Bundle Agreement while setting up your Y package. According to Article 3.2 of that agreement:
3.2. The Account Holder authorizes the Bank to rectify errors occurring within payment processing that cause account balances to deviate from the actual payment orders issued for or against the account, without requiring additional specific authorization from the Account Holder.
Please feel free to reach out if you have any further questions.

Look, all I’m saying is that the deposit shows up instantly, 😁

But as for whether the transfer limit updates right that second? Honestly, I have no clue. I haven't really sat down to dig into the fine print, and besides, I’ve never actually been in a spot where I had to sit there sweating my eyes out wondering if my limit was going to refresh the very moment the money hit the account or not.

That's not right. If you're transferring money to the prepaid card account through E*TRADE, it shows up instantly. There’s zero waiting period, no "processing days" required, nothing.

it’s really not that big of a deal

you honestly need to see how things get down in New Orleans; I was there a few years back

around seven at night, when everyone turns toward the local soul food joints and the speakers start pumping, at least half the city is listening, and since the whole place is tucked into a basin, when that sound starts echoing through the streets......

Kate Diaz said:While the official rule for American Express is 12 months, there is some flexibility... if you are a consistent payer and maintain a higher spending volume, you might qualify sooner. For instance, my monthly American Express statements usually hover between $2,000 and $1333; I was approved in my 12th month, but I actually just applied for and received additional credit today.

On a purely mathematical note, Diners Club carries a 12% interest rate while American Express is at 10%, and Diners Club charges a 3% fee compared to American Express's 2%. That's essentially the breakdown.

But if you want the real deal, you should look at the Chase cards, like the Freedom one.

Why?

Because with the Freedom card, they only start tacking on interest based on whatever balance is left over after the due date, whereas with Amex—and I think it's the same for Diners Club too, though I could be wrong—they seem to charge you from the very moment the expense actually hits the statement.

For instance: let's say you make a purchase on 09/04/2008 - $333

The due date is 10/04/2008.

You make a payment on 10/04/2008 - $67; the remaining balance is $267

With Amex: they calculate interest on $267 starting all the way back from 09/04/2008.

With Freedom: they calculate interest on $267 starting from 10/04/2008.

Oh, right... I'm talking about revolving credit cards here...

wiredlynx28 said:Globally, Diners is known as Cirrus.
That means you can withdraw cash from any ATM displaying the Cirrus® logo.
And honestly, almost every ATM in the US and across the globe carries that Cirrus mark.
In America and Canada, Diners is just as widely accepted as Mastercard.
So, whether you're buying groceries or grabbing cash from an ATM, using Diners is basically the same as using Mastercard.

What on earth is this Diners-Cirrus thing?

Who are you even talking about here?

On my Maestro card, I see the Cirrus logo right next to the Maestro branding

And all those ATMs being mentioned—they clearly had both the Maestro/Cirrus logos on them, yet my Diners card worked perfectly fine without a hitch...

@Kate Diaz: You were talking about Europe, not Latin America...

I’d definitely suggest sticking with a Mastercard or Visa, especially if you’re planning on traveling outside the States.

Seriously, take Germany for instance—I lost track of how many ATMs I tried in Frankfurt, but not a single one would touch my Diners Club card; the only exception was some random machine at the main train station.

Then I go to a hotel and they're basically like, "Diners? Who even is that? Never heard of it... sorry, we can't help you."

Even with Amex, until pretty recently, you couldn't even use it to pay for tolls through the tunnels in Austria.

But with a Mastercard or Visa? I have never, ever had a single issue.

Kimberly Lopez65 said:Look, what if the leasing terms are actually better? Personally, I’m not one of those people obsessed with the concept of "ownership." To me, the "right to use" the vehicle is what matters. 😉 And you get that whether you finance it or lease it.

I’m curious about something else—how does registration and the title work? If the car isn't technically in my name during the lease term, does that mean I can, say, register it in San Francisco or out in the suburbs, provided I coordinate with the leasing company? 😉 It makes sense to me because I've never actually owned a car in my own name. Because of that, I don't get any insurance or registration discounts. Plus, registration and insurance fees are, for example, cheaper in the suburbs than they are in Washington, D.C., for the car I'm driving now (which is currently under my mother's name) 🙂 the difference (with the discount) is $300! It’s not a fortune over the course of a year, most would say, but I’d rather save that money or put it into an investment. 😉
Thoughts?

I highly doubt you'll find any better terms through a lease than a traditional loan.

First off, you’re going to have to shell out a down payment in cash, and let's be real, that’s definitely not going to be less than 20% of the car's value. Plus, you’ve got that residual value hanging over your head at the end of the lease term; that could easily be around 20%. Your monthly rent hike will likely be right in line with a loan payment, or maybe even higher. And don't forget, with a lease, you're only paying off about 60% of the total vehicle value over the term, whereas with a loan, you're covering the whole thing.

Also, I think you’re going to be pretty disappointed at the end of year five when the lease expires and you realize you’ve just been paying rent this whole time—just paying for that "right to use" it. Basically, once that five-year lease is up, you’ve got nothing to show for it; the car isn't yours, and you can't sell it. When you compare the sum of the lease payments against the total cost of a loan, the numbers will probably end up being very similar. But with a loan, you actually own the car, meaning you can sell it and walk away with some cash. Even if you opt for a lease-to-own setup, you still have to pay that residual value (that ~20% I mentioned), which, if you ask me, makes zero sense financially. If it were actually a good deal, considering how many cars Americans buy every year, way more individuals would be jumping on leases, but they aren't—so why do you think that is? Seriously, go grab a quote for a lease payment versus a loan payment and compare them yourself.

Furthermore, don't forget that with a lease, you’re forced to carry full comprehensive insurance for all five years. If you buy a car with a loan, you’ll probably handle the insurance yourself, but you'll likely only stick to the heavy coverage for the first year or two, right? I highly doubt anyone wants to be paying premium comprehensive coverage for a car that’s already 3-$1333 years old... people just don't do that.

And another thing: leasing companies push you hard to use their authorized dealerships for service, and man, that is expensive. As an actual owner, once your warranty expires, you get to choose exactly where you want to take your
vehicle.

Since you aren't the legal owner under a lease, you don't even get a say in where the car is registered. The car gets registered in the jurisdiction where the leasing company is headquartered. Most of them are based in major hubs like New York City. And in places like NYC, registration and insurance are the most expensive. The leasing company might give you power of attorney to handle the registration yourself, but not in the location you actually want.

Look at all those massive corporations with fleets of company cars headquartered in NYC but with branches all over the US—notice how all those vehicles have New York plates? That’s not a coincidence.

I’ve got a feeling there might be some 7-year leasing options out there somewhere

If you actually sit down and compare the monthly payments, I honestly think the leasing rates end up being higher

The thing is, for the entire duration of the lease, you aren't actually the owner of the vehicle; once the term hits its end, you’re stuck either handing the car back or coughing up more cash to buy it out.

With a standard auto loan, once you've paid it off, the car is yours to do whatever you want with—you can sell it, because it belongs to you.

Companies jump on leasing for all sorts of reasons, whether it's to keep certain liabilities off their balance sheets to make their financial health look better, or just to take advantage of that immediate tax deduction on sales tax.

Personally, I don't see any logical reason why an individual would opt for a lease, unless their credit score is absolutely trashed and they have zero other options...

neo, did you actually realize you’re replying to a post from like, a year and a half ago? 😛

Well, fine, have it your way, you Zaba fan😁

But I'm sticking with my Expert plan

I mean, honestly, I consider myself an expert too 😛 so this specific package just feels right for me

Steven Reed said:It isn't about $1.75; it's about being able to settle my bills even when I'm away from my computer... and for that convenience, I'll happily pay $20 instead of $1.75 😉
. Chase 🙏🙏is still 🙏🙏

it isn't even an issue of $1.75, it’s just the principle of the thing

they basically pressure me into paying for stuff I don't even want (and at a higher price, too), while the things I actually need

get snatched up by them

and btw, what kind of massive bills are you running that you can't even wait until you get back to your computer?

Kimberly Nguyen said:I’m honestly starting to get a little worried because nobody is even starting a thread about this...

And when exactly are they planning to scrap these packages? To be perfectly honest, it already felt weird that they weren't hiking up the fees for the legacy plans, because if you ask me, I was definitely getting shortchanged on mine (checking + power of attorney, foreign currency + power of attorney, online banking, savings accounts, one charge card plus the add-on, the basic debit, and my Visa Coca-Cola)

As for the Zaba fan thing... I don't know... apparently, Expert is changing things up $20, but they haven't included all the credit cards in the mix, so by that logic, everything should just be lumped into the Gold tier or the Family bundle... I have absolutely no use for the mobile app features and it's way too pricey for what it is... though, I suppose the travel insurance is decent enough and that home assistance service is okay

Wait, what do you mean they aren't included?

Which ones are covered and which ones aren't?

Seriously, first they tweak this, and now they're going to try and squeeze me for more fees just so I can use some pointless mobile payment feature I probably won't even use.

Michael Johnson6 said:Mark Sullivan62, the Zaba fan is actually a solid choice. Honestly, $6.75 I don't see it being much of an issue for me...

I don't need any of that, though—why on earth would I pay for (and let's face it, I'll probably be forced to) something that serves absolutely no purpose for me?

That’s a pretty solid reason you've got there, I guess.

Right now, I'm sitting on the Expert package, which runs me $13/month, and all my payments (straight from the bank) come out at just one dollar flat per transaction.

But look, a Zaba fan costs $20 and you get 15 free transactions thrown in for good measure.

So, when you actually crunch the numbers, you’re paying $1.75 more regardless of how you slice it.

Oh, sure, they’ll eventually show up with a formal notice stating you're being evicted on short notice too.

And don't even get me started on the rumors—apparently, the local homeless shelters are already bursting at the seams, and the lines at the community soup kitchens just keep getting longer by the day...

Honestly, when you start hearing about a 30% annual fund return, it starts sounding less like financial reality and more like some whimsical fairy tale written by Lewis Carroll.