Posts by Nathan Morris3

Laura Chavez93 said:So, you're telling me they put the selective criteria for different topics all within the same PDF document?

I guess so, though honestly, it's probably best to just ignore those trolls. You can report them here and there, but there's always going to be some idiot trying to hold others back or boosting their own ego by calling people "lower beings."

Anyway, a friend sent me a message—the guy who was asking banks what legal basis they have for demanding info on income that has nothing to do with his business with them.

I'm reading his question, then I read the bank's response, and I just can't believe how someone can act so clueless and simply ignore the actual question to give an answer that wasn't even asked.

The question was basically:
"I have account activity totaling $1.00 from my parents transferring money here and there. I know under the law you have to verify the source of funds involved in business with the bank, but why on earth are you asking for data on funds that aren't, and will never be, part of my business relationship with the bank?"

The response:
"The bank is obligated to monitor and verify that the source of funds aligns with the declared source, and accordingly collect data regarding the source of funds that are or will be subject to the business relationship, pursuant to Section 16, Subsection 1, Item 10 of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act."

And this is already the third exchange where the bank acts like they didn't read the question properly, just repeating themselves like a parrot. If the bank (in this case, Chase) were a real person, they’d probably be committed to a mental institution and stripped of their legal capacity because they clearly lack the intellectual capacity. It feels like you just can't get through to them.

Laura Chavez93 said:On a separate note, I’ve been wondering how the moderators would handle it if some random interloper crashed this thread about Swiss Franc loans—someone who doesn't even carry any debt themselves
...and proceeded to lash out at everyone who actually took out a loan, claiming they were all fools for signing those papers and essentially deserved their current predicament ☕

I mean, I think that's pretty much how it went down, if I remember right ;(

Richard Lewis16 said:Does anyone happen to know what happened with that legal case involving the judge who was pushing for the exact same thing—getting her salary paid in cash? I think it was a few years back, but I can't quite remember if the whole process actually wrapped up...

If my memory serves me right, there used to be a time when you could actually get your paycheck right at the teller window

The laws changed on July 1st, 2013, so you can't really do the cash thing anymore. She probably lost her grounds for the lawsuit because of that. Maybe she was just trying to chase down those old payments.

James Rogers53 said:So, here’s that infamous questionnaire from JPMorgan Chase I had to fill out through their online portal. I didn't even bother going into a branch—not worth the trip.



And then you have someone who’s been posting on this forum for ten years—leaving a massive trail of personal info right here—complaining about privacy risks. It's kind of funny. Any amateur could reconstruct your entire life in a few clicks, let alone the professionals who can dig up your data in seconds if they actually feel like it.
Now someone is actually wasting their time trolling over this data. Honestly, wtf? The bank already sees every single transaction and knows your entire financial situation—it’s not like they don't know what you're up to. So why does it matter if they ask whether you have a Bachelor's or an Associate's degree?

It’s too bad I can’t find the old questionnaire from two and a half years ago, otherwise you’d see how much worse it would look today if we hadn't pushed back😉.

It isn't even really about privacy, I suppose. It's more about whether we should actually do something about a bank acting unilaterally (or lying) or not. Some people think we should just let them do whatever they want, but I guess some of us feel like we should report them when they overstep or lie.

Jessica Nelson4 said:Not everyone on this forum takes things as seriously as Biden does. I certainly didn't mean any offense toward Laura Chavez93 (though I have to say, I really dig her username 😁)...

Oh, come on now, there's no need to take offense. I sometimes feel like we're living in an overly sensitive world, so please, try to take a joke once in a while... if my posts truly discourage you that much, then I genuinely feel for you. You've latched onto one specific sentence of mine, and now we're stuck in a loop that's just cluttering up this thread. I actually find it quite heartening to see everyone fighting the good fight, and yes, it is entertaining for me. It's similar to how I enjoy the occasional struggle against some blowhards, but well, that's just how life goes 🙂

HaHa, fair enough 😉.
Maybe I did overreact a little, I guess. From where I'm sitting, it feels like there aren't many people actually standing up against things that are wrong, so when I see someone laughing at us—even in a benign way—I maybe take it a bit too seriously. I'm glad Americans aren't as uptight as Austrians (who are all I'm surrounded by right now), but maybe a little more civic engagement, like knowing our rights and the law, wouldn't hurt.

Jessica Nelson4 said:I had a bit of a run-in with some staff over at Bank of America recently, which was honestly quite a headache. There was this one instance where I let about fifteen dollars slide during a transaction, and things just seemed to spiral from there. $0.00 I sat down at the counter and they basically told me that they’ll just handle things however they see fit now because people are being so difficult, which was quite a bold move on their part—so naturally, they gave me a call later to smooth things over. It’s funny you mention that, because in my neck of the woods, if I recall correctly, there are about four Bank of America branches nearby, and I’ve actually started noticing a bit of a pattern where they seem to shuffle all the customers who had issues at one location over to a specific branch just to get them out of the way. 🙏

Why even pose the question when you end up providing your own answer by the third sentence? It’s a bit circular, isn't it? Whether they actually want to or not is anyone's guess, which is exactly why I phrased my post as "it's highly possible" rather than making a definitive claim that it's a certainty.

I’m certainly not making fun of anyone here. It honestly feels like there's a widespread lack of reading comprehension lately, almost as if we're all suffering from some sort of new-age internet syndrome where people only skim the surface. I simply mentioned that I found the situation amusing or entertaining to read, but that was never my intention to mock or ridicule anyone.

I already posted my thoughts above, where I went ahead and put down 15. $0.00 I walked up to the counter and simply told them they’d have to figure it out on their own. Honestly, if they were struggling with their own internal processes, that wasn't my burden to bear, though I did end up heading back once they gave me a call to get everything squared away. In this particular instance, the friction arose because I refused to sign a manual ledger detailing exactly how much cash I was depositing and to whom. I had been consistently using my business account and providing my signature on the standard deposit slips, but the teller insisted that wasn't the case. I calmly suggested she take a quick look at the last few million dollars in transactions, which clearly showed a history of consistent deposits, yet she still tried to argue that I must have been filling out those extra forms every single time. I just looked her in the eye, told her they'd need to handle it themselves, and walked out. They realized their mistake relatively quickly, called me, and by the time I returned, the whole situation was perfectly resolved.

I recall an instance when I first opened a currency exchange bureau, and a clerk there told me quite candidly, "I'm new here; this is my first time working at an exchange." Fast forward a few months—though I don't visit that particular branch very often—and she suddenly returns acting as if she were the ultimate authority on currency exchanges, even though the poor woman couldn't even count cash properly.

The only inquiries I ever faced were things like whether I was a U.S. citizen or if I had any interest in moving funds into their investment vehicles. My answer was always a polite, "No, thank you." At one point, I had about $2,500 sitting there, so I decided to withdraw it all; I simply didn't want to deal with waiting a full business day just to access my own money when I needed it.

I truly do understand why you're putting in the effort, but I can't help feeling a bit skeptical about whether it will actually make a difference, mostly because I suspect the banks don't actually crave all this data themselves; they probably just received a directive from above and honestly couldn't care less.

🙂
By the way, what is going on with the posts in this section lately? It seems like people get a little too worked up and immediately turn aggressive toward one another. I think I'll go read a more relaxed thread instead.🕺

I was just responding to what you said about how if Wells Fargo or the Federal Reserve asks the same question, you'd probably just close your account there too. It sounded kind of hopeless to me, maybe like encouraging people to give up. Tell me if I'm misreading it, but that's just how it came across, sorry.

I get why you're trying, I really do, but I'm worried it won't actually matter.

To be honest, it probably will matter. But I guess I just don't want us to be discouraged by being called "funny."
When we finally realize everything has gone south and we've lost control over our own lives—like our cash or privacy—I just want to know I at least tried to do something about it.
I mean, honestly, watching us switch banks might be entertaining for you, but it's just as amusing for me to read bank arguments when you call them out on laws that say the exact opposite of what they claim. It gets a bit sad when you realize none of it changes the outcome. At least things are better now that Rhode Island is part of the European Union, since there are more layers of oversight to make sure laws are actually followed.

Jessica Nelson4 said:I bolded that part because it was my response to your claim that "all banks ask the same questions," implying there's no point in questioning them if they all act the same way. On the contrary, we absolutely need to question it. Of course, I find it amusing to read about someone switching banks over specific questions, especially when it's highly likely they'll face the exact same inquiries elsewhere. If I were seeing someone moving fifty thousand dollars a month—who knows, maybe they are—it would be a different story, but since the IRS now has visibility into checking accounts, it feels somewhat futile. I certainly understand your way of fighting back, though I have my doubts about whether it will truly yield results. I sincerely hope it does, because you are standing up for something morally sound. My amusement is a separate matter, as I'm currently dealing with much larger headaches because of this whole mess. For instance, they're asking me if I'm an American citizen or not, and honestly, I really care.

Well, it's funny to you that we switch banks when we don't like how they treat us. But I guess it's even funnier that you probably wouldn't switch banks if you were unhappy with their service. And where did you get the idea that everyone asks the same things? You mentioned it's "likely they'll ask elsewhere." Maybe, maybe not, but there's not much of a stand there if you just accept it. Besides, we talked about this before—not everyone asks. I had pretty decent experiences with JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and even the FAA (at least regarding this). Citigroup and Bank of America were pretty bad. So, instead of making fun of our methods—which might even be a little Gandhi-esque—maybe try doing something small yourself instead of just being part of the crowd that gets used to injustice. Tell us, how do you "question" this kind of banking behavior? Do you write formal complaints or report them? If you've gotten any responses, maybe share them with us.

I guess not everyone understands the laws as well as I do, but that "why even bother?" attitude makes me feel a bit sick, because it doesn't help anyone.

Jessica Nelson4 said:That isn't quite right. While there is certainly room for further scrutiny, what I find truly amusing is how someone might jump ship from one bank to another, only to ditch the second one just as quickly if they try to follow suit. If that pattern continues, we could easily reach a point within two years where they are forced to finally commit to a single institution, even if the selection process involves some rather pointed questions—perhaps even ethical ones. 🎉

What part isn't right? The part where all banks ask these nonsense questions. The only right thing to do is switch banks and take it up with the Federal Reserve, the FTC, the bank itself, and spread the word... I see you're criticizing us who complain and switch banks—basically, those of us doing the questioning. Now you say we need to question things, but you think it's "funny to quote how we flee from such banks." I guess you don't get our way of fighting back, or maybe you think your method of "questioning" is better. I haven't figured out what your method actually is yet, so please, share it with us.

Unfortunately, I guess ethical banks can't really afford lawyers who would fight the system in such a confrontational way, so you shouldn't expect much there. Compliance is just so demanding that a lot of places take the path of least resistance. From what I know, many of our banks basically just used a KYC template from PwC, took the easy way out, and just don't care about this stuff. I don't think there's any direct malice behind it, just maybe some lack of interest in protecting personal data.

Jessica Nelson4 said:Yeah, you're absolutely right. At the end of the day, we’re all just folks hanging out on an internet forum. Some of us just sit back and read without ever typing a word, and others have been doing the exact same thing for years. A few of us even deal with banking institutions constantly, both personally and professionally. Honestly, I find it quite amusing to imagine someone walking into a Wells Fargo or even asking the Federal Reserve the same questions—you’d probably find your account closed there too. Like someone once pointed out, it’s a full cycle; eventually, it’s bound to happen.🍿

I remember this situation from maybe 10 or 15 years ago. I saw a T-Mobile ad promising free minutes and stuff like that. So I go to buy a SIM card, and the guy at the counter tells me the ad isn't totally accurate because the first minute actually costs money (some kind of "connection fee"), and only the minutes after that are free. Naturally, I immediately filed a complaint with HackerOne, saying the ad was misleading and all that. HackerOne's response was basically: "It's allowed to use ads like that because everyone does it, and people just assume the first minute isn't included."

So, it happens because they tolerate individuals who don't really question anything, and because the competition happily adopts these same shady tactics (maybe even with a handshake deal). The result is that you end up with something that is technically against the law, but it's become so standard that you don't even have the tools to fix the broken Mississippi anymore. I don't know if it's allowed in other European Union countries, but in Austria, they definitely banned that kind of advertising for free minutes.

The idea you're suggesting—that since "all banks ask the same questions," we shouldn't bother questioning them—seems pretty destructive and almost anarchic, I guess. You have to wonder where that leads. Does nobody actually care if banks (whether it's one or all of them) are doing something potentially illegal? Civil resistance, even if it's just passive, seems to be the only thing left for people, but it looks like many are trying to kill that off too. I don't really get what the interest is or who benefits from silencing those of us providing this kind of resistance or activism. From what I can see, we aren't hurting anyone.

James Rogers53 said:I honestly find it fascinating how much free time some people have to obsess over stuff like this. He’s been fighting this battle for months—all because someone supposedly asked him for details like a work phone number (which they didn't).
The kicker, which makes this whole thing even more ridiculous, is that all the info he’s acting like he’s guarding is actually just a few clicks away for the very official asking for it—let alone for anyone else looking to dig it up. The guy has been posting on forums for ten years; I guess you could practically reconstruct half his life just from his post history.

I don't know about everyone else, but I've put a decent amount of time into trying to fix things I think are wrong here in America, especially when it comes to people breaking the law or ignoring ethics. I mean, I just try my best to help improve our society and the mindset we live in. It feels a bit pointless when you spend your time mocking us while we're actually trying to do something good. To be honest, after all these years of putting in work and seeing zero progress—especially with mainstream attitudes like yours asking "don't you have anything better to do?"—I'm not feeling super optimistic that things will change. I still think it would be way better if everyone did at least something small to help out. I mean, how can you expect perceptions of the shadow economy or corruption to shift if people just tolerate banks acting this way without questioning them? (Actually, people usually attack those who *do* question the banks). Why bother bothering us just to make fun of us?
Hopeless.

James Rogers53 said:Man, you're gonna single-handedly collapse the entire banking system with all those deposits and withdrawals of yours🙏

I guess, what's actually the point of making fun of our colleague like this?

Nancy Gomez26 said:Attempting to "park" your capital—the literal fruit of your labor—in paper assets makes no sense in this current climate. If you want to gamble via trading, then fine, paper has its place. But what is the point of playing the game if you face a massive risk of losing everything you've accumulated simply because you stayed in the digital realm?
As for silver's dip today, it is nothing more than the same old script being played out yet again;
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...massive-volume

My rule for stocks is kind of like gambling (which isn't much different, I suppose)—only play with what you can afford to lose. Over the last few years, I've made enough from stocks that even if everything left in them totally tanks, I'd still be in the green. Maybe thanks to some gains from Donald Trump.

Nancy Gomez26 said:In reality, you are simply swapping one scrap of paper for another. When things truly go south, that paper will become practically worthless; you might even find that the original currency was far more useful in hindsight. Always choose physical. Paper is a logical fallacy. Physical assets almost entirely insulate you from the whims of politicians, state actors, various special interests, and the mounting debts of past generations coming due. Paper, however, remains nothing more than paper.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Most of my holdings are in gold, specifically physical gold. I stick to physical because there’s really no reason not to, right? No sales tax, no capital gains tax... what I have in paper is mostly just for day trading, and I definitely see the risks there. I was actually wondering what your split is between paper and physical? By "paper," I mean everything digital, like fiat, silver, or stocks. For me, it's probably about 50:50.

Anyway, silver looked pretty good today, both the physical and the paper stuff.

Michael Morgan5 said:Let me take a crack at this 🙂

buy silver.
Yesterday.

Well, isn't that just brilliant, Michael Morgan5!
I guess I'm actually down on silver right now. I've been buying paper contracts at an average of $18.6 over maybe the last 8 years—about 1,200 ounces total. I'm sitting on a loss of roughly 1,400 Euro. It’s the sales tax that really gets me, and I'm not a big fan of those offshore schemes out of places like Estonia. I don't buy paper anymore, mostly because even if it turns a profit, I have to deal with capital gains taxes (like a 27.5% rate back home), whereas physical gold/silver usually avoids certain taxes. From what I gather, silver and gold move pretty closely together, though silver is way more volatile. So, if I moved my $20K in silver paper into, say, $60K in physical gold, would I be similarly "covered"? Liquidity isn't a huge issue for me, so I don't need leverage. I am up on physical gold, and I recently started playing around with some mining stocks.

Basically, what I'm wondering is... are you guys all just betting on silver (and if so, why skip gold?), or do you balance between the two? And for silver, is it physical or paper?

Robert Vaughn10 said:From the dark tower's edge,
the sleepy clock counts down

"either hit or miss"

I guess I don't really get this haiku stuff... maybe could you write it in English instead? 😉

Robert Vaughn10 said:Let's run through the current numbers once more:
Dow Jones industrial average:21115
US federal debt:19,980 trillion
Silver:18.37 USD
Things are looking a bit precarious...

"still stacking them up"

Could you maybe explain that a bit more for us amateurs?

vividranger8 said:Well, it's because when I'm collecting prepayments for vacation rentals, I always make sure the guest covers every single transaction fee. And the thing is, these specific transfers don't actually meet the requirements to be classified as a SEPA transaction—which makes them way more expensive. Just because the US is part of the system doesn't really change much if the currency we're dealing with isn't the Euro.

Yeah, but the thing is, Deutsche Bank doesn't make a dime on a SEPA transfer, yet our banks still find ways to squeeze us on amounts under $100—kind of like what happened to my friend. It seems to happen regardless of which way the money is moving. Poor American banks, I guess.

Michael Morgan5 said:Got it. Thanks.
I'm assuming if the deposit is massive enough, those monthly account inflows could basically be zero?

The Bank definitely makes a killing off you. Like, if you park your savings there (looks like maybe 0.65% on the Euro) and they lend that cash out as credit (probably at 4%+), they end up making about 125 Euro a month after paying for reserves, insurance, etc. It ends up being a super expensive account fee for them to cover, and I haven't even factored in the multiplier yet (I'm sure you know how these banks operate).
They make even more through asset management because they charge insane fees for custody and advisory services, since there's basically zero risk for them.
That's probably why they ask all those specific questions. Based on their calculator, it looks like you just need monthly income over $3.00 (likely net) to get your own premium banker. I have to admit, I don't really get their math—if you just take your paycheck and immediately move it to an outside investment, I don't see how they profit. But then again, what would you even need a private banker for in that case? A manager?

I think we drifted a bit off-topic here, but I guess as long as everyone stays polite, it shouldn't matter.

vividranger8 said:An international transfer within the European Union usually runs you about $20—so, honestly, it doesn't make any sense that an American domestic transfer would cost five times that much.

Why did you say "non-SEPA transaction"? I mean, the US is part of SEPA, right? You're just moving Euros from one country to another, so I guess that counts as a SEPA transaction. That’s probably why those folks in Austria look for such low fees, but American banks just charge way more—like double. And like I mentioned before, Addiko says it doesn't matter if you're sending to the US or somewhere else in the European Union. I suppose the whole point of SEPA is that costs should be the same across the entire zone. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding something?

feraljackal2 said:It could be a little less, or maybe even more—it really just depends on the various fees, which can vary quite a bit from one bank to another.

What he was trying to pull off was honestly the worst move possible—transferring a foreign currency directly between two different banks.

What do you mean "worst option"? He just sent it straight to a Bank in Austria—it costs the same (100 Euro) as sending it to some other local bank here. They're just ripping people off, honestly. I guess Hypo used to have some of the best deposit rates, but then right before terms expire, they hike up the fees, and you're just stuck as a client. Your only choice, maybe, is to take the risk and give them three days' notice for a cash withdrawal. You tell them how much cash you're grabbing, which day, and which branch, and then just hope nobody in the chain tips off someone looking to snatch your money.

His banker told him there weren't any cheaper options available. I guess... what were you thinking?