By the way, I left you the bill on American Express...
...Anyway, back to business...
I’ve been at Vanguard for six full years now. Honestly, the pay isn't even that bad. But I just don't get the people who quit their jobs and then immediately show up at the bank asking if they can withdraw their funds from Vanguard... 😕 Like, did nobody tell them how that works? Or are they just playing dumb... 😕
Honestly, what do you guys think? Is there any chance JPMorgan Chase pulls off the highest returns again this year? I know they say you can't judge a book by its cover, but a whole year is a long time, and those early results from January might not mean a damn thing in the long run... 🤷
Honestly, if God would just give us bigger paychecks and maybe a little more common sense when we pull out our wallets, life would be easier. So, look, I’ve got this Diners Club card that’s switching over to revolving credit in about a month. Since I’m basically using it just to cover groceries—and given what I actually bring home—here’s how the math shakes out: over three months, I’d hit my credit limit. But, I’d at least $167 make a payment every single month. In those three months, I'll have three paychecks plus some extra bits coming in, and the balance on the card will top out at $67. Once you factor in that revolving interest rate (around 4%, minimum $33), the debt won't actually exceed the limit itself. If I stick to the plan and live strictly off the card without going over the limit while still paying my regular bills, I’ll still have a decent chunk of cash left in my checking account. That way, for three months, all the household bills are paid on time from my salary—which is the most important part to me!!!—and there's still money left over. After those three months are up, I clear the whole revolving balance with Diners Club, and I’m left with slightly less than one full paycheck in my account. Don't come at me here; I'm speaking from actual experience regarding my own spending habits. Believe me, I'm using this card for essentials, not for blowing money on junk or luxury items.
You're spot on. Seriously, I'm just counting down the days until next month so I can switch my Diners Club over to a revolving line... if my math is right, I should be out of this hole in maybe three months...
Look, sure, plenty of shops offer interest-free financing, but you gotta ask yourself one thing; do you really want to go buying a computer at Walmart, a place that doesn't even bother with quality control and just tosses whatever they have onto the shelves...??? Or maybe at Starbucks, where they keep all their tech gear sitting in some damp, moldy warehouse...???
ironsurfer10 said:That isn't actually the case. My limit is $1333, and I bought a laptop for $2667 using an installment plan, and everything went through perfectly fine.
Yeah, but that’s only because every credit card actually has two different limits. You've got one for immediate purchases, and then there's another one specifically for installment plans that isn't tied to the first. Basically, if you tried to buy a laptop from $2667 using an Applebee's card for an instant charge, of course it wouldn't clear. But once you tell them you want to pay in installments, they trigger an authorization for the installment limit instead, and boom—it goes through.
I feel a bit silly starting a new thread now, but I’m hoping someone might actually see this...
So, I have a student credit card that expires this April since it's tied to my standard American Express account. They’ll be sending out the new cards toward the end of March—both the regular one and the student credit card.
As of February 12th, my available credit is at zero, so I can still make purchases, but I was wondering if I could put something on a three-month installment plan? My reasoning is that the third payment would fall in April, right when my new cards arrive.
Does that change anything? I've been trying to call American Express all day, but nobody is picking up the phone. 😠
It doesn't matter, really, because your spending limit is tied to your main card anyway, so you're fine. As for Applebee's and their phone line, they changed their numbers. Try calling 4929-555 on a weekday between 8 AM and 8 PM. They're kind of behind the times when it comes to returning calls, so I guess you just have to be a bit more persistent...
Look, I wasn't even trying to insult you or anything, and sorry if I made it sound like I was only talking about my own Chase account, but you kind of generalized the whole thing. I just think there should be a distinction made between different banks, you know? Like, maybe name a specific one. Because the way you're putting it makes it seem like every single bank is exactly the same, which totally misses the point that people actually choose where they do their business for a reason. And yeah, sure, we have certain regulations, but they don't hit revenue quite the way you think they do. That was just the part I wanted to highlight... 😉
Around here, you’ve got credit advisors, personal bankers, wire transfer folks, and tellers. The credit guys don't see any connection between the IMF or FEMA and loans—not even remotely. Meanwhile, the tellers get this "assignment" throughout the year to try and "sell" IMF or FEMA products to a specific number of people just because the bank offers them. But it's not like it's a requirement for anything! 👋
And yeah, I guess you could call the tellers the "grunts" since they end up doing all the heavy lifting and the worst jobs...
wiredotter16 said:It looks like we’re just playing word games now. When I mentioned a bank official, I was specifically referring to a loan officer. This whole back-and-forth only happened because I was building on that question miST posted back on December 12th.
"Conditioning" feels like such a harsh, heavy-handed word... as if they’re just walking up and forcing it on you. In reality, they execute it much more subtly than that.
Could someone please tell me which 401(k) fund you’re currently enrolled in? I’d love to offer some recommendations, as I actually have some firsthand information on this. Our specific fund delivered an XY return this past year, and I genuinely suggest you give it some serious thought. Even a tiny 1% difference in annual returns might seem negligible now, but over a 30-year horizon, that spread translates into a massive difference in interest—we're talking about potentially doubling your retirement nest egg. And what exactly is the client supposed to say? Let’s be real: most of them don't have the slightest clue which specific 401(k) fund they’re even enrolled in, let alone how the entire retirement system actually functions.
Do you seriously think people aren't worried about their retirement savings until someone asks if they want to switch to a specific investment firm? 🤷 And for the last time, I'm telling you this from direct experience: not one single loan officer at my branch has EVER mentioned an investment fund or the Democratic Party in relation to a loan. And don't forget, there are tons of tellers and clerks at banks who just handle loan payments and stuff—they don't deal with loans or terms at all. That’s what the actual loan officers are for. According to your logic, those guys would be out of a job... ☕
Look, here in the States, a loan officer usually suggests switching your mortgage just for one simple reason: lower interest rates. If the client isn't interested in that, they pivot to other stuff—maybe a life insurance policy, a savings account, or just grabbing a co-signer. But I swear, not a single loan officer at my bank has ever—and I mean never—even brought up a 401(k) fund or a DMF as an option, let alone tried to make it a requirement for getting the loan.
wiredotter16 said:Hey everyone, this is my first time jumping into this thread. The topic caught my eye, so I figured I’d weigh in. Regarding the claim that banks force you to switch to their specific fund when applying for a loan—that isn't entirely accurate. Bank employees operate under all sorts of quotas, like how many loans they need to close in a certain window or how many premium credit cards they have to issue. Part of their job description includes migrating people into their funds. Honestly, the data being presented by ironsurfer10 is a bit off. If you work directly for a fund, the gross pay for converting someone from one fund to another is pretty much a known figure, though some people pull in significantly more. When someone joins a fund for the first time, the gross amount is slightly lower, but those payout examples refer to people employed directly by the fund. As for bank staff, they only see an extra bump in their paycheck if they hit their team targets; usually, that bonus is capped at about 10% of their base salary. To circle back to this whole "requirement" thing—it would be more accurate to call it a "recommendation" from the teller. Of course, the employee isn't to blame if the client perceives it as a mandatory condition for getting the loan. Then again, most people are desperate enough for the credit that this "condition" doesn't even feel like a hurdle; they'll do whatever it takes just to get approved. It’s the same deal with people looking for loans through classified ads. The "requirement" to join a fund comes from the people working for the agency processing the loan. These folks don't actually live off loan commissions; they make their money through life insurance policies and by moving people into funds. Let's be real here: you are taking out a loan because you desperately need it, and I doubt it matters much to you which fund you end up in. Your only priority is getting that money. Since you likely can't get a traditional loan at a major bank like Chase or Bank of America due to a bad credit score or a bankruptcy filing, you're essentially paying a middleman for the service of getting the loan realized. That commission is actually up to five times smaller than what someone working directly for an investment firm would earn. Sorry if I went on a bit of a rant here. Cheers.
Look, I’ll tell you right now—you aren't right. You're partially right, sure, but on completely different points... I can't really explain why without breaking some rules here, but overall, you're way off base...
wiredotter16 said:Hey everyone, this is my first time jumping into this thread. The topic caught my eye, so I figured I’d weigh in. Regarding the claim that banks force you to switch to their specific fund when applying for a loan—that isn't entirely accurate. Bank employees operate under all sorts of quotas, like how many loans they need to close in a certain window or how many premium credit cards they have to issue. Part of their job description includes migrating people into their funds. Honestly, the data being presented by ironsurfer10 is a bit off. If you work directly for a fund, the gross pay for converting someone from one fund to another is pretty much a known figure, though some people pull in significantly more. When someone joins a fund for the first time, the gross amount is slightly lower, but those payout examples refer to people employed directly by the fund. As for bank staff, they only see an extra bump in their paycheck if they hit their team targets; usually, that bonus is capped at about 10% of their base salary. To circle back to this whole "requirement" thing—it would be more accurate to call it a "recommendation" from the teller. Of course, the employee isn't to blame if the client perceives it as a mandatory condition for getting the loan. Then again, most people are desperate enough for the credit that this "condition" doesn't even feel like a hurdle; they'll do whatever it takes just to get approved. It’s the same deal with people looking for loans through classified ads. The "requirement" to join a fund comes from the people working for the agency processing the loan. These folks don't actually live off loan commissions; they make their money through life insurance policies and by moving people into funds. Let's be real here: you are taking out a loan because you desperately need it, and I doubt it matters much to you which fund you end up in. Your only priority is getting that money. Since you likely can't get a traditional loan at a major bank like Chase or Bank of America due to a bad credit score or a bankruptcy filing, you're essentially paying a middleman for the service of getting the loan realized. That commission is actually up to five times smaller than what someone working directly for an investment firm would earn. Sorry if I went on a bit of a rant here. Cheers.
First off, a loan officer at a bank isn't the same thing as a teller at a window, and I'm saying this again: nobody ever mentioned switching to a specific 401(k) fund as a condition or perk for getting a loan.
wiredotter16 said:Hey everyone, this is my first time jumping into this thread. The topic caught my eye, so I figured I’d weigh in. Regarding the claim that banks force you to switch to their specific fund when applying for a loan—that isn't entirely accurate. Bank employees operate under all sorts of quotas, like how many loans they need to close in a certain window or how many premium credit cards they have to issue. Part of their job description includes migrating people into their funds. Honestly, the data being presented by ironsurfer10 is a bit off. If you work directly for a fund, the gross pay for converting someone from one fund to another is pretty much a known figure, though some people pull in significantly more. When someone joins a fund for the first time, the gross amount is slightly lower, but those payout examples refer to people employed directly by the fund. As for bank staff, they only see an extra bump in their paycheck if they hit their team targets; usually, that bonus is capped at about 10% of their base salary. To circle back to this whole "requirement" thing—it would be more accurate to call it a "recommendation" from the teller. Of course, the employee isn't to blame if the client perceives it as a mandatory condition for getting the loan. Then again, most people are desperate enough for the credit that this "condition" doesn't even feel like a hurdle; they'll do whatever it takes just to get approved. It’s the same deal with people looking for loans through classified ads. The "requirement" to join a fund comes from the people working for the agency processing the loan. These folks don't actually live off loan commissions; they make their money through life insurance policies and by moving people into funds. Let's be real here: you are taking out a loan because you desperately need it, and I doubt it matters much to you which fund you end up in. Your only priority is getting that money. Since you likely can't get a traditional loan at a major bank like Chase or Bank of America due to a bad credit score or a bankruptcy filing, you're essentially paying a middleman for the service of getting the loan realized. That commission is actually up to five times smaller than what someone working directly for an investment firm would earn. Sorry if I went on a bit of a rant here. Cheers.
I'm only going to focus on the part where you say people are blocked from getting loans by blacklists or credit scores; so how exactly do you think people who are on a blacklist for some bullshit actually get loans...? Every bank has collateral, meaning they have specific assets used to finance a certain number of people who are actually just trying to dig themselves out of a hole with a loan so they can finally pay off everything they owe to the banks...
P.S. Hey, shoutout to Mark Sullivan62, Kimberly Nguyen, and ironsurfer10!
Henry Parker7 said:a) You can't even admit it to your mom, your dad, your kid, or yourself without getting slapped with a fine... b) And just like that, they won't.
As far as I recall, you can carry out a max of about $3,000 from the US without needing some bank certification. But when you're crossing into the USA, you absolutely, positively, hands-down have to declare it any amount that tops $10,000.
If you actually know what you're talking about, welcome to the discussion.
Leaving the US, you can carry up to $3,000 without anyone breathing down your neck, or send money to someone as a gift or help (meaning, don't try to act like you're paying a bill for some person or business!) as an individual resident (basically, a local citizen!). For anything else, you need an invoice, and you aren't allowed to pay for things like insurance or gambling abroad or whatever else I can't think of right now. There’s a tiny exception for loan payments or insurance, but even then, you’d probably need approval from the Federal Reserve. A non-resident (aka a foreign individual!) can send as much money out of the country as their heart desires, and nobody is going to ask them a single question. Opening a foreign currency account is possible if you have dual citizenship, but you can only open an account in the country where you hold citizenship (so, our banks here, their banks there!) but under no circumstances can you, as a domestic resident, send money to yourself in a foreign account in another country. That’s just what I know, anyway, so I guess that's my contribution to the discussion... 😉
darkmaker94 said:I’ve got an account open at JPMorgan Chase along with their online banking, and when I logged in today, I saw they took out 0.69 EUR ($1.75) for service fees. At the same time, they credited me 0.03 EUR (it says "interest credit"). What’s the deal with that? Is it just because I have money sitting in the account?
Your monthly fee for online banking is $1.75, assuming you're just using a foreign currency account—if you are, they'll just pull the equivalent from your main balance. As for that $0.03 credit? I guess that's probably just some tiny bit of interest the bank tosses onto accounts at year-end, depending on how much cash was sitting there when they did the math.
Mark Sullivan62 said:Look, if you were working back before the modern systems were fully established, you were essentially putting away 20%—not 15%—to support the current generation, all based on the assumption that someone would eventually do the exact same thing for you.
But nowadays, instead of that 20% going toward others, you’re only putting 15% toward them while keeping 5% for yourself, all under the shaky assumption that someday, nobody will be pulling anything out of their paycheck to cover your retirement.
The reality is that nobody is going to step in and fund your retirement for you—you're on your own. That's why the math works out to a 20% advantage for you in my specific example.
The bottom line is that you have the CIA, private savings, and various insurance options available, and you absolutely ought to be using them to carve out some kind of nest egg, because if you rely solely on this secondary tier system, you’re going to end up starving.
I’ve been officially employed since January 1st, 2002. So, let me get this straight... basically, what you're saying is that one day, when I finally retire, those severance payouts at the end of my career will go exclusively to me? Is that how I'm reading this...? Look, it’s obvious to me that if we just rely on Social Security, our retirement income is going to be absolute garbage... but is it actually smarter to put money into life insurance or a 401(k)? Kokoshka claims the 401(k) offers multi-layered security, but honestly, I’m pretty skeptical. I mean, the government is already screwed anyway, and who knows if we’ll even make it to 50? I do know you can start pulling from a 401(k) after age 50, which sounds pretty decent since you can grab the cash whenever you need it...
ironsurfer10 said:As for Social Security, I'm not entirely sure, but it would probably be covered by the government through special funds, just like Edgar mentioned, though I can't say for certain...🤷
Regarding the comparison between life insurance and a 401(k), it really comes down to what you're actually aiming for—do you want a lump sum payout plus returns, or are you looking to secure a monthly annuity once you hit 50 or 60? Personally, I don't think a 401(k) is inherently risky; in fact, it might actually be less risky than life insurance. Your assets are protected through multiple layers: by the fund itself, the custodian bank, the regulatory agencies, and ultimately, federal oversight. Even if the investment firm managing your 401(k) were to go under, your money wouldn't get swallowed up in bankruptcy proceedings because it's held separately by the custodian bank.
So that's the catch!?!? But my funds and cost of living are supposedly guaranteed, right...? Or am I missing some kind of restriction somewhere... 🤷 But what if the custodian bank goes under??? I know there’s basically some level of insurance for almost all investments here in the States (though I guess that doesn't count mutual funds or whatever...) but isn't the whole point that if these options fail one by one, you just end up broke in your 401(k)? Because that's voluntary savings, right? It's not like, I don't know, something mandated by the government like Social Security... 🤷
That's me. Honestly, my big question is... who's gonna fund my retirement down the road if the ratio actually hits 0:20? Like, really? And once we finally agree on what even goes into calculating a pension, I think I’d be better off just putting money into life insurance—God forbid, but you know—so at least in 20 years I have some guaranteed cash. The 401(k) feels way too risky for that kind of long-term play, especially since there's zero guarantee for these funds. If the whole thing collapses, everything just goes up in smoke!
Nicholas Turner said:As if! Once a bank starts sinking, they immediately tip off their main pillars—the millionaire savers—so they can pull the rug out from under them and save themselves—because honestly, who gives a damn about the bank? 😁 🙄
Read the post again and again until you actually wrap your head around what I said, then maybe—just maybe—you can comment... 😠 Look, I said "private bankers," not the bank itself. There's a huge difference. When you have people managing millions for certain individuals, they get close to those clients. They’re going to try to keep that clientele happy—if not for the sake of the firm, then at least for their own skin and future career moves. I mean, just imagine how you'd even begin to thank someone for saving your life savings... and then suddenly finding yourself in a position where you're basically indebted to them. It's a messy spot to be in. 😠
Look, just go back and read that last post again. Seriously. Read it one more time, just to be absolutely sure...
P.S. When I was a kid, I had some savings sitting in JP Morgan Chase, and I even knew a neighbor who worked there... so, what do you guys think? Why on earth am I not in a legal battle with them today...? ☕
I’m totally lost on one thing here; is OMF basically just extra retirement money that gets paid out alongside whatever we get from the government once we finally retire, or am I just completely tripping...? Since we're on the subject, maybe Lioness could walk me through how the final payout actually works? I mean, if you even know, obviously. It depends on gross income, the OMF contribution, and total years worked, right? Or am I way off...? 🤷
Btw, if I'm totally wrong, please feel free to rip me apart, but I'm honestly pretty clueless when it comes to this stuff...