Posts by George Barrett35

A sticker card is its own distinct thing, even if the underlying goal remains the same.

http://paypal.com/

Banks can shut down business relationships whenever they feel like it without offering a single shred of justification, because at the end of the day, they have total discretion over who they choose to do business with. Their only real legal obligation is to give the client a heads-up, so I honestly don't see any basis for trying to drag them into court over it.

The FATCA questionnaire has absolutely nothing to do with the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing questionnaire.

Just so we’re all clear once and for all, the FinCEN questionnaire isn't strictly defined by statute—in fact, no specific form is—but rather by the Hub based on guidelines issued by FinCEN.

A few relevant sections from the law:

Customer Due Diligence Measures
Section 8.
(1) Unless otherwise provided by this Act, customer due diligence includes the following measures:
1. identifying the customer and verifying their identity based on documents, data, or information obtained from a reliable, dependable, and independent source,
2. identifying and verifying the identity of the customer's beneficial owner,
3. collecting data regarding the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship or transaction, along with other data required under this Act,,
...

Data Collection
Section 25.
(1) As part of customer due diligence, when establishing a business relationship under Section 9, subsection 1, point 1 of this Act, the obligated entity collects data pursuant to Section 16. subsection 1, points 1, 4, 5, 7. and 8 of this Act.
...

Obtaining Data by Obligated Entities
Section 16.
...
7. data concerning the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship, including information about the customer's business activities;;
...

Section 7.
...
(2) The obligated entity is required to conduct a risk analysis and, using that analysis, determine the risk rating for a specific group or type of customer, business relationship, product, or transaction relative to potential abuses related to money laundering or terrorist financing.

So, look, just basic identifiers (name, address, SSN, place of birth...) aren't nearly enough for due diligence or for categorizing a client into a risk group; you also need additional data regarding the intended purpose and nature of the business relationship.

That is exactly what this Questionnaire is for:
I don't know about other banks, but at Chase, the questionnaire covers exclusively this type of data.

Obviously, you can always refuse to give the bank the information they ask for, but they can refuse to open an account or unilaterally terminate the business relationship with the client (and they probably will).

Refusal of Business Relationships and Transactions
Section 13.
(1) An obligated entity that cannot carry out the measures set forth in Section 8, subsection 1, points 1, 2, and 3 of this Act, shall not establish a business relationship or execute a transaction, specifically...is forced to terminate an existing business relationship.

You're going to need the pay stubs because your wife has to be a co-signer on this; without a co-signer, you aren't getting approved for that loan restructuring.

Melissa Ortiz8 said:Got it, thanks. That clears things up.
So, using Bank of America as an example, the requirements would look like:
1. A 1.10 LTV mortgage
2. An insurance policy—maybe around $200 a year?

I also have a general question about loans through the High School program:
When it mentions a savings amount of 5% of the agreed housing savings total...
Does that mean:
a) I pay 5% ($1,500) upfront, interest accrues on it, and then after five years it chips away at my principal?
b) I pay 5% upfront, plus I have to keep paying 5% of the annuity amount every month for five years, and then at the end, it all hits the principal at once?
c) This 5% at the start isn't actually linked to the housing savings portion used for interim financing, and I should be paying some other percentage instead?

Exactly.

Melissa Ortiz8 said:Got it, thanks. That clears things up.
So, using Bank of America as an example, the requirements would look like:
1. A 1.10 LTV mortgage
2. An insurance policy—maybe around $200 a year?

I also have a general question about loans through the High School program:
When it mentions a savings amount of 5% of the agreed housing savings total...
Does that mean:
a) I pay 5% ($1,500) upfront, interest accrues on it, and then after five years it chips away at my principal?
b) I pay 5% upfront, plus I have to keep paying 5% of the annuity amount every month for five years, and then at the end, it all hits the principal at once?
c) This 5% at the start isn't actually linked to the housing savings portion used for interim financing, and I should be paying some other percentage instead?

a

Aha, life insurance is a completely different animal altogether.

A 1:1.10 mortgage ratio basically means the appraised market value of the property you're putting up as collateral needs to hit at least 110% of the loan amount—so, in your case, we’re looking at $33,000. If the valuation falls short of that mark, though it obviously can't be less than the loan itself, the bank is going to demand a co-signer, an extra deposit, or a life insurance policy to bridge the gap.

Now, property insurance is what covers you against fire and those other standard risks, and the coverage amount—which dictates your annual premium—is tied directly to the estimated replacement cost of the building.

Melissa Ortiz8 said:Can someone run the numbers for me? I'm trying to figure out what the cheapest monthly or yearly cost would be if I pick up life insurance.

It's for my first mortgage through Wells Fargo (though I could also go with JPMorgan Chase). The loan is $30,000 over 13 years.

Why on earth do you even need life insurance for this?

From what I can gather, First High School doesn't actually require it as a secondary security measure, unless you're using it to bypass a traditional mortgage lien. And if that's the case, a new policy isn't going to do you much good anyway since it won't have the necessary cash surrender value.

And if you're actually thinking about accident insurance rather than life insurance, just so you know, Bank of America doesn't require that either.

rapidskipper12 said:If that’s the case, then why am I still getting hit with a fee from $2.25?

Because it’s pretty clear you don't have either one, so were you ever even a student cardholder with American Express?

Let me clear this up once and for all because there’s a massive difference between a student account and a student banking package. A student package carries a monthly fee of $1.75 and bundles together a checking account, an overdraft facility, a student Amex, online banking, Bank of America mobile app access, and so on...
A basic student account is a completely different beast. It isn't some bundled deal; it’s just a straightforward checking account that comes with zero monthly maintenance fees, though you won't find any of those extra premium services that usually carry a recurring charge.

Boki, if that year in your username is accurate, you aren't even eligible for the student package since that's strictly reserved for students up to age 27, whereas I'm pretty sure the basic student account doesn't have an age cap.

It’s the truth. Even though that first installment doesn't actually hit your account until a month after you buy it, the bank won't even authorize the installment plan unless you have at least enough cash on hand to cover that first payment right away. Feel free to check for yourself..

You can definitely opt for installments, but there's a catch—your monthly payment can't exceed $67. Essentially, when you're setting up an installment plan, you need to have enough cash sitting in your account to cover that very first payment upfront.

It isn't explicitly spelled out, but I’m pretty sure they only take the ones listed in the examples: Amex, Discover, Mastercard, and Visa.

From what I can tell on the Apple site, they don't list Microsoft cards as an accepted payment method.

😁

These would essentially be the processing fees for handling transfers or deposits, which basically means they're charged to the account holder.

Actually, any deposits made into non-resident accounts are handled via wire transfer protocols and are treated almost identically to international transfers, so depending on which bank you're using, the fees are pretty much the same.

We can go in circles like this forever, really. My stance hasn't budged: there's simply no way that employee called her privately, and she absolutely had no authorization to be poking around in those files in the first place.

Nicole Long28 said:I guess if a client isn't even physically present at the branch to request a specific service from Bank of America, then some unprofessional staffer trying to "fix" things by snooping through their private data just isn't authorized. Maybe it's just my opinion, but that's definitely not right.

I guess I don't really know what specific authority that employee actually has, but I highly doubt JP Morgan Chase is such a disorganized mess that tellers can just surf through private data like that. It’s especially strange since nothing in the general terms and conditions mentions anything about a situation like this.

The employee was essentially left out on a limb here. It really shows how the bank refuses to back its people up with an official memo that would actually bring this dirty laundry to light; instead, they just left the staffer standing there in the wind to deal with it however they can. The bank simply doesn't care. They’re cold, rigid, and heartless, yet they sure know how to collect their fees. What if she just takes that amount from her own pocket? That's going to cause a massive headache. She might as well dig through the data for them since they aren't losing a dime. And if a client notices and reports it, I guess the bank will just pin it all on her and play dumb.

Regarding official protocols, there's such a thing as an official phone or a work mobile, but an "official call" doesn't really exist. We all know what constitutes civilized, professional communication, I suppose.

Let's try a slightly clumsy analogy here just so I can hedge against any criticism and make sure we don't end up involving the FBI. Imagine a hospital employee—say, a surgeon performing an operation—who loses a patient and then calls the family to say: "Look, I'm calling because of my mistake; your relative passed away, it doesn't matter how it happened, you aren't getting any paperwork from us, so please just get over it immediately and come pick up the body because that's our problem now." Such a "doctor" would be branded even worse than Mengele, and everyone would absolutely crucify them for their conduct, their attitude, and their lack of basic manners. But when someone at Bank of America does the exact same thing? Suddenly, everything is fine. It's enough to make your head spin. We all make mistakes, obviously not on purpose, but man, behaving like a bull in a china shop just isn't the way to go.

The second you enter into a business relationship with a bank, you’ve essentially handed over your entire life on a silver platter, giving them unconditional permission to use and trade your personal data however they see fit.
Like I said before, every single employee represents Bank of America, which means they all have the authority to access that data.
Internal authorizations within a bank are governed strictly by internal protocols and have absolutely nothing to do with the client. It’s quite simple, really—those rules don't touch the customer at all, just like how an employee's salary, their vacation days, or their specific working hours aren't part of the general terms and conditions of service.
Unauthorized data access would be something like an employee snooping around just to see how much her friend is making and then gossiping about it with the rest of the group, but that’s clearly not what we're dealing with here.

Nicole Long28 said:I guess if a client isn't even physically present at the branch to request a specific service from Bank of America, then some unprofessional staffer trying to "fix" things by snooping through their private data just isn't authorized. Maybe it's just my opinion, but that's definitely not right.

I guess I don't really know what specific authority that employee actually has, but I highly doubt JP Morgan Chase is such a disorganized mess that tellers can just surf through private data like that. It’s especially strange since nothing in the general terms and conditions mentions anything about a situation like this.

The employee was essentially left out on a limb here. It really shows how the bank refuses to back its people up with an official memo that would actually bring this dirty laundry to light; instead, they just left the staffer standing there in the wind to deal with it however they can. The bank simply doesn't care. They’re cold, rigid, and heartless, yet they sure know how to collect their fees. What if she just takes that amount from her own pocket? That's going to cause a massive headache. She might as well dig through the data for them since they aren't losing a dime. And if a client notices and reports it, I guess the bank will just pin it all on her and play dumb.

Regarding official protocols, there's such a thing as an official phone or a work mobile, but an "official call" doesn't really exist. We all know what constitutes civilized, professional communication, I suppose.

Let's try a slightly clumsy analogy here just so I can hedge against any criticism and make sure we don't end up involving the FBI. Imagine a hospital employee—say, a surgeon performing an operation—who loses a patient and then calls the family to say: "Look, I'm calling because of my mistake; your relative passed away, it doesn't matter how it happened, you aren't getting any paperwork from us, so please just get over it immediately and come pick up the body because that's our problem now." Such a "doctor" would be branded even worse than Mengele, and everyone would absolutely crucify them for their conduct, their attitude, and their lack of basic manners. But when someone at Bank of America does the exact same thing? Suddenly, everything is fine. It's enough to make your head spin. We all make mistakes, obviously not on purpose, but man, behaving like a bull in a china shop just isn't the way to go.

Wait, who exactly is this "Bank" entity? Is she only considered part of Bank of America if she sends you an official letter, or does she just cease to exist otherwise?

Let me ask you something... if some server called you up out of the blue in a situation like that and just went absolutely ballistic, tearing you apart and screaming every insult under the sun, would you actually go and report her to her bosses?

Nicole Long28 said:I guess if a client isn't even physically present at the branch to request a specific service from Bank of America, then some unprofessional staffer trying to "fix" things by snooping through their private data just isn't authorized. Maybe it's just my opinion, but that's definitely not right.

I guess I don't really know what specific authority that employee actually has, but I highly doubt JP Morgan Chase is such a disorganized mess that tellers can just surf through private data like that. It’s especially strange since nothing in the general terms and conditions mentions anything about a situation like this.

The employee was essentially left out on a limb here. It really shows how the bank refuses to back its people up with an official memo that would actually bring this dirty laundry to light; instead, they just left the staffer standing there in the wind to deal with it however they can. The bank simply doesn't care. They’re cold, rigid, and heartless, yet they sure know how to collect their fees. What if she just takes that amount from her own pocket? That's going to cause a massive headache. She might as well dig through the data for them since they aren't losing a dime. And if a client notices and reports it, I guess the bank will just pin it all on her and play dumb.

Regarding official protocols, there's such a thing as an official phone or a work mobile, but an "official call" doesn't really exist. We all know what constitutes civilized, professional communication, I suppose.

Let's try a slightly clumsy analogy here just so I can hedge against any criticism and make sure we don't end up involving the FBI. Imagine a hospital employee—say, a surgeon performing an operation—who loses a patient and then calls the family to say: "Look, I'm calling because of my mistake; your relative passed away, it doesn't matter how it happened, you aren't getting any paperwork from us, so please just get over it immediately and come pick up the body because that's our problem now." Such a "doctor" would be branded even worse than Mengele, and everyone would absolutely crucify them for their conduct, their attitude, and their lack of basic manners. But when someone at Bank of America does the exact same thing? Suddenly, everything is fine. It's enough to make your head spin. We all make mistakes, obviously not on purpose, but man, behaving like a bull in a china shop just isn't the way to go.

Look, this isn't even up for debate here, and I have absolutely no intention of wasting my breath trying to justify someone acting unprofessional or being downright rude, because quite frankly, there's no excuse for it.

Nicole Long28 said:The issue is specifically that it was unauthorized. It’s controversial because that data is protected by banking privacy laws. My question for you and anyone else working in the banking sector is this: have you ever just snooped through the accounts of politicians, business moguls, or athletes out of pure curiosity when they weren't even your clients? I bet you haven't, because you know if an audit catches you, you're getting fired on the spot.

When I provide my information, I do so under specific terms. Also, I highly doubt any board of directors at any major bank operating in the USA would ever pass an internal policy stating, "If an employee makes a mistake that costs them personally, they are allowed to access a client's account to fix the mess themselves."

It’s not about lacking time; it’s that sending a formal notice would force them to admit the error. If everything is settled over the phone, the client ends up with zero proof of the bank's blunder. Not to mention the inconvenience. With a formal letter, you can take 3, 5, or 8 days to respond with a cool head, whereas someone might catch you off guard on the phone.

I wouldn't want to talk about the method either. What shocks me is that someone used an unofficial channel at all. Banks usually love everything to be official, documented, verified, and notarized... unless it doesn't serve their interests. In those cases, a phone call works just fine.😁

And how exactly do you know it was unauthorized? Are you intimately familiar with this employee's specific job description, or are you just assuming because someone once made a similar scene?

Nicole Long28 said:The issue is specifically that it was unauthorized. It’s controversial because that data is protected by banking privacy laws. My question for you and anyone else working in the banking sector is this: have you ever just snooped through the accounts of politicians, business moguls, or athletes out of pure curiosity when they weren't even your clients? I bet you haven't, because you know if an audit catches you, you're getting fired on the spot.

When I provide my information, I do so under specific terms. Also, I highly doubt any board of directors at any major bank operating in the USA would ever pass an internal policy stating, "If an employee makes a mistake that costs them personally, they are allowed to access a client's account to fix the mess themselves."

It’s not about lacking time; it’s that sending a formal notice would force them to admit the error. If everything is settled over the phone, the client ends up with zero proof of the bank's blunder. Not to mention the inconvenience. With a formal letter, you can take 3, 5, or 8 days to respond with a cool head, whereas someone might catch you off guard on the phone.

I wouldn't want to talk about the method either. What shocks me is that someone used an unofficial channel at all. Banks usually love everything to be official, documented, verified, and notarized... unless it doesn't serve their interests. In those cases, a phone call works just fine.😁

I certainly have, provided it was necessary for business purposes...

Nicole Long28 said:It isn't a bank mistake; it’s an individual mistake. There is a massive difference.

He didn't receive it (since it was just "dumped" into his account) and he didn't keep it (because the bank sent it onward due to a garnishment).

If I hadn't advised him otherwise, I wouldn't have (by the way, the man can't return it, and he wants to, but that same bank already forwarded the funds due to a garnishment), but I am now encouraging him to file a complaint about the privacy breach. We aren't pushovers who should be afraid of the bank like the devil.

They can use it for official business related to the client-bank relationship or by court order, not to fix an employee's private problems.

He’s just stuck here. He didn't get a choice in whether to accept the deposit, just like he can't stop a garnishment because he doesn't have that option. Ideally, he would just pay it back if he could, but the teller wants him to return it even if it means hitting an overdraft and getting hit with God knows how much interest. I guess it feels like the bank expects people to just "take it on the chin" when they make a mistake instead of making these arrogant, high-handed demands.

A Bank of America employee on the clock *is* the bank. Or do you honestly believe there is some mythical Mr. or Ms. Bank who stands alone as the sole representative of the entire institution?
No matter how you try to spin it—likely based on the idea that an employee is personally liable for shortages—she was calling him in her official capacity as a staff member. She wasn't calling him to sell him Tupperware; she was calling to fix a mistake made during work hours, and making mistakes is just part of the job.

There are about fifty posts here spinning in circles about some refund process that, from what I can tell, isn't even what the original poster is asking for.
From reading the very first post, my understanding is that FIFA pulled $500 from the account to cover an enforcement action, and now the bank can't just reverse the error because doing so would push the balance into the red. The guy was asked to sign a request for a refund—or some similar paperwork—not to wire money back. Anything else just doesn't make sense.

As for this whole "unauthorized access to data" thing, I don't see why anyone is making a fuss about it. You handed over your private info to the bank voluntarily. Whether they have the authority to use it is strictly an internal matter for the bank to handle.

That’s why the entire more than 50% of the bill
needs to be accounted for.