Nosy banks

If the terms of service state that the client questionnaire is mandatory, then it’s non-negotiable.
If someone isn't on board with that, they can just take their business elsewhere.

So, come on, just point me to where it says this specific set of questions is absolutely mandatory and non-negotiable.

I mean, I don't want to waste anyone's time trying to build a business relationship only to end up wandering around and waiting in line at banks that aren't even a good fit for us.

What's the actual deal here? Like, why won't banks just be upfront and say they have this policy if they really do? Why keep it under wraps when you're telling me we can't even work with them because of it?
I just don't get it. The whole thing feels totally illogical to me.😁

-Steve

I honestly don't get why you guys are even bothering to tackle these questions—it feels like you're just grasping at straws here. Look, if you aren't prepared to be blunt and honest about what's actually happening, then just walk away. It’s that simple. Once you give them the straight truth, they'll just take that data, shuffle it into some corporate spreadsheet for "household services" or "personal loan eligibility," and call it a day. They'll file it away, and you probably won't hear from them again anyway, which—let's be real—is likely exactly how you want it.

Gary Reed9 said:I honestly don't get why you guys are even bothering to tackle these questions—it feels like you're just grasping at straws here. Look, if you aren't prepared to be blunt and honest about what's actually happening, then just walk away. It’s that simple. Once you give them the straight truth, they'll just take that data, shuffle it into some corporate spreadsheet for "household services" or "personal loan eligibility," and call it a day. They'll file it away, and you probably won't hear from them again anyway, which—let's be real—is likely exactly how you want it.

Well, yeah, that's just how this topic goes. That's the whole point, I guess. 😁

Quinn:

You all agree that you'd rather just lie and say goodbye.

I mean, I'm not totally sure if lying in situations like this is really something people can just brush off so easily.

Maybe most people do, but I just don't see the point in taking that risk, personally.

-Steve

wiredlynx28 said:Not necessarily, but if a bank like Chase considers a specific piece of information a "must-have," they simply won't open an account or maintain a relationship with a client who refuses to provide it. They'll just close or freeze accounts—either because the government mandates it or because it's just their own internal policy.
The truth is, they ask for these details to get a better profile of the client and to beef up their relationship through tailored product offerings. For example, if someone has children, it’s reasonable to assume they’ll need more liquidity, so banks might offer pre-approved higher credit limits or other services based on those specific life stages and financial capacity. Otherwise, quite frankly, the bank couldn't care less how many kids someone has.

I’m not sure if you realize that even in a job interview, an employer isn't allowed to ask a woman if she's married, in a relationship, has kids, or plans to have them soon... having an existing bank account is a far more benign issue than that.
Good grief, it’s as if we’re being interrogated by the FBI... 🙂

wiredlynx28 said:Not necessarily, but if a bank like Chase considers a specific piece of information a "must-have," they simply won't open an account or maintain a relationship with a client who refuses to provide it. They'll just close or freeze accounts—either because the government mandates it or because it's just their own internal policy.
The truth is, they ask for these details to get a better profile of the client and to beef up their relationship through tailored product offerings. For example, if someone has children, it’s reasonable to assume they’ll need more liquidity, so banks might offer pre-approved higher credit limits or other services based on those specific life stages and financial capacity. Otherwise, quite frankly, the bank couldn't care less how many kids someone has.

Look, if I actually need a loan, I will be the one researching which bank offers the best rates... I won't sit there and let a bank harass me with credit offers I never asked for.🙂
Do you truly grasp how counterproductive this is for banks? If they block someone's account, that person will just withdraw their funds and close everything... the bank ends up with absolutely nothing from all that harassment.🙂

wiredlynx28 said:Steve, in my experience, once I checked in with my managers at Wells Fargo, things like professional qualifications and residency status were strictly mandatory requirements. If I weren't already in this industry, I would have thought they were optional 👍
Just because those specific questions were required there doesn't mean every other institution operates the same way.
They actually walked me through their system to show me exactly what was required versus what wasn't, so I highly doubt Chase wouldn't have similar mandates. Not everything handled internally by a bank is voluntary; some things are simply non-negotiable 👍
If these weren't mandatory, you can bet they wouldn't be sending out notices to clients or freezing accounts—that serves absolutely no one's interest.

Looking at those European Union laws coming into effect soon:

Data controllers are required to inform you when they collect personal data about you. You have the right to know the name of the controller, what the processing is going to be used for...

Man, I am seriously curious to see how banks are going to justify asking for your college degree or even how many kids you have... 🙄

briskjackal5 said:Well, yeah, that's just how this topic goes. That's the whole point, I guess. 😁

Quinn:

You all agree that you'd rather just lie and say goodbye.

I mean, I'm not totally sure if lying in situations like this is really something people can just brush off so easily.

Maybe most people do, but I just don't see the point in taking that risk, personally.

-Steve

Look, if you have two kids and you don't want to mention them, you just say you don't—and goodbye. If you're married and want to stay under the radar, you just say you aren't, and let them go check the official records later if they actually care. Or maybe your job is one thing, but you claim to be a CEO—you can say whatever you want. Realistically, anything they ask about, if they were actually serious about investigating, they could find out in a heartbeat. These Questionnaires are just bureaucratic nonsense—some half-baked idea someone floated, someone high up liked it, and now they've secured their job for another year by implementing it. It's highly unlikely anyone is actually cross-referencing what you wrote. And I’m not talking about the official stuff—tax policies, major wire transfers, or political affiliations—I mean all this other trivial junk... whether you're single or married, if you have kids, if they're minors, social security status, etc.
The biggest mistake is getting worked up and arguing about it. It doesn't matter to you... and it certainly doesn't matter to the clerk behind the desk. The only person who cares is some middle-manager somewhere, busy filling out a spreadsheet about "user profiles" so he can justify future advertising campaigns, credit structures, or student card offers.

vividranger8 said:Looking at those European Union laws coming into effect soon:

Data controllers are required to inform you when they collect personal data about you. You have the right to know the name of the controller, what the processing is going to be used for...

Man, I am seriously curious to see how banks are going to justify asking for your college degree or even how many kids you have... 🙄

Look, the bank just informs you exactly what type of data they need and why, then you simply check a box to say whether you consent or not. 👍

For the hundredth time, they can ask these questions if their internal policies mandate that specific Questionnaire, but it’s ultimately up to the client whether they want to provide that info. If they refuse—and if it's mandatory—the bank won't open the checking account, period. They can just go to another bank that doesn't require it. Simple as that.

wiredlynx28 said:Look, the bank just informs you exactly what type of data they need and why, then you simply check a box to say whether you consent or not. 👍

For the hundredth time, they can ask these questions if their internal policies mandate that specific Questionnaire, but it’s ultimately up to the client whether they want to provide that info. If they refuse—and if it's mandatory—the bank won't open the checking account, period. They can just go to another bank that doesn't require it. Simple as that.

Oh, sure! Like they're actually gonna sit there and tell a client, "Hey, we're using your data to build a profile on you just so we can target you with more ads and sell you more services"? Yeah, right... I'd love to see them try that one.

vividranger8 said:Oh, sure! Like they're actually gonna sit there and tell a client, "Hey, we're using your data to build a profile on you just so we can target you with more ads and sell you more services"? Yeah, right... I'd love to see them try that one.

In the client Questionnaire, there's a consent section with a yes/no option where you specify whether you want your data used for marketing purposes or not, etc.

Direct copy from JPMorgan Chase:
Personal data listed in this Questionnaire (hereinafter: Data) is collected and processed by JPMorgan Chase (Bank) for the purpose of establishing and maintaining the client's business relationship with the Bank and, additionally, if the Data is collected for the needs of establishing and maintaining a business relationship with another party, for the needs of that other party (e.g., Goldman Sachs, etc.). Accordingly, the term "data controller" in the following section of this Questionnaire refers to the Bank and any other party for whose needs the Bank collects the Data.
Data from specific points in this Questionnaire is collected and processed based on:
a) The Bank Secrecy Act and its implementing regulations, for the purpose of performing
enhanced due diligence on the client and fulfilling obligations arising from said regulations (Data from points 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Questionnaire),
b) OFAC regulations and European Union decisions regarding the application of international restrictive measures and their implementing regulations, for the purpose of fulfilling obligations arising from said regulations (Data from points 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the Questionnaire), c) The General Tax Code and/or other tax regulations, for the purpose of fulfilling enhanced due diligence obligations and the data controller's reporting obligations
to tax authorities (Data from points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Questionnaire),
d) Client consent provided by signing the Questionnaire for the purpose of enhanced due diligence and the data controller's reporting obligations
to tax authorities in accordance with the agreement between the USA and America regarding the improvement of international tax compliance and the implementation of FATCA (hereinafter: FATCA) and Directive 2014/107 EU amending Directive 2011/16 EU regarding mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation (Directive 2014/107 EU) (data from points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Questionnaire).
The client may request to review their Data and correct inaccurate Data via written notice or by visiting a branch in person.
In cases where specific Data is processed for a specific purpose based on client consent, the client may withdraw that consent by notifying the data controller in writing or by visiting a branch in person. Except for Data specified in this Questionnaire as non-mandatory, all other Data is required so that the data controller can fulfill legal and regulatory obligations and establish a business relationship with the client. If a client refuses to provide mandatory Data or provides inaccurate information, the data controller may refuse to establish a business relationship or terminate an existing business relationship with the client.

So, what does that Questionnaire actually look like?
What exactly falls under the "mandatory" category here?
And where, specifically, in the disclaimer does it mention marketing and sales—you know, the part mentioned in the (quoted!) vividranger8's post?
Why is it that they just tack on those famous little "purpose-specific" addendums requiring consent right alongside FATCA and the Directives? 😁

-briskjackal5

And then you have the people complaining about being asked if they have kids. Just wait until fingerprint-secured cards become the standard—technology that’s already being rolled out in the modern world where a client physically holds the card against a sensor during a transaction to authorize it. When that happens, they'll be the ones leading the revolution. 🤣

briskjackal5 said:So, what does that Questionnaire actually look like?
What exactly falls under the "mandatory" category here?
And where, specifically, in the disclaimer does it mention marketing and sales—you know, the part mentioned in the (quoted!) vividranger8's post?
Why is it that they just tack on those famous little "purpose-specific" addendums requiring consent right alongside FATCA and the Directives? 😁

-briskjackal5

Just ask the bank.
The stuff about marketing and other fluff is just simple yes or no questions at the very end of the Questionnaire.
If a client is confused, they should always ask for help. They shouldn't just wing it based on some "I think I've got this" attitude—usually, people act like they know everything when they really don't, and they end up being wrong.

wiredlynx28 said:And then you have the people complaining about being asked if they have kids. Just wait until fingerprint-secured cards become the standard—technology that’s already being rolled out in the modern world where a client physically holds the card against a sensor during a transaction to authorize it. When that happens, they'll be the ones leading the revolution. 🤣

I don't think there's really any comparison between how authorization works and the questions you're bringing up here. 😁

wiredlynx28 said:Just ask the bank.
The stuff about marketing and other fluff is just simple yes or no questions at the very end of the Questionnaire.
If a client is confused, they should always ask for help. They shouldn't just wing it based on some "I think I've got this" attitude—usually, people act like they know everything when they really don't, and they end up being wrong.

Your reply doesn't make much sense without actually having that data.

You didn't even really address vividranger8's post, to be honest. 😁

-briskjackal5

briskjackal5 said:I don't think there's really any comparison between how authorization works and the questions you're bringing up here. 😁

Your reply doesn't make much sense without actually having that data.

You didn't even really address vividranger8's post, to be honest. 😁

-briskjackal5

To authorize something via fingerprint, you need an actual fingerprint, right?
And if they refuse to provide info about their children, I guarantee the fingerprint will easily 🤣

I honestly think the real issue here is the government—they just haven't stepped up to handle their own responsibilities properly. This whole FATCA Questionnaire mess should have been managed at the federal level, through the IRS or whatever agency handles anti-money laundering compliance. If they really wanted cooperation, they could just freeze accounts or block things like tax refunds and vehicle registrations until people comply. Then everyone would be rushing to finish the paperwork—but instead, we have everyone taking their frustrations out on bank tellers? It’s not fair to lash out at employees who are just doing their jobs; they don't care about anyone's personal life, but they have to ask those specific questions because it's on the form. Some of these questions feel incredibly blunt—almost ridiculous—like asking if you've ever even thought about terrorism, but hey, if that's what the higher-ups demand, that's what you get.

feraljackal2 said:I honestly think the real issue here is the government—they just haven't stepped up to handle their own responsibilities properly. This whole FATCA Questionnaire mess should have been managed at the federal level, through the IRS or whatever agency handles anti-money laundering compliance. If they really wanted cooperation, they could just freeze accounts or block things like tax refunds and vehicle registrations until people comply. Then everyone would be rushing to finish the paperwork—but instead, we have everyone taking their frustrations out on bank tellers? It’s not fair to lash out at employees who are just doing their jobs; they don't care about anyone's personal life, but they have to ask those specific questions because it's on the form. Some of these questions feel incredibly blunt—almost ridiculous—like asking if you've ever even thought about terrorism, but hey, if that's what the higher-ups demand, that's what you get.

Exactly. 👍

wiredlynx28 said:To authorize something via fingerprint, you need an actual fingerprint, right?
And if they refuse to provide info about their children, I guarantee the fingerprint will easily 🤣

Authorization just confirms that you're actually you. That's really all there is to it! Nothing else, I guess.
He isn't giving away any of his private info.
So, I mean, honestly? That whole analogy just doesn't really hold water. It's kind of a stretch, I guess!

I mean, getting that kind of Authorization around here? It’s such a massive uphill battle, honestly. Just a total trek to get anything moving. But hey, the surveyors are actually on-site today, so maybe things might finally start looking up!
It’s honestly just like those constant little attempts you make to manipulate the thread. Seriously! 😁

feraljackal2 said:I honestly think the real issue here is the government—they just haven't stepped up to handle their own responsibilities properly. This whole FATCA Questionnaire mess should have been managed at the federal level, through the IRS or whatever agency handles anti-money laundering compliance. If they really wanted cooperation, they could just freeze accounts or block things like tax refunds and vehicle registrations until people comply. Then everyone would be rushing to finish the paperwork—but instead, we have everyone taking their frustrations out on bank tellers? It’s not fair to lash out at employees who are just doing their jobs; they don't care about anyone's personal life, but they have to ask those specific questions because it's on the form. Some of these questions feel incredibly blunt—almost ridiculous—like asking if you've ever even thought about terrorism, but hey, if that's what the higher-ups demand, that's what you get.

I mean, I guess that really only applies to FATCA.

We’ve actually talked about this plenty of times before—how the staff here basically get caught in this impossible tug-of-war. On one side, you've got their bosses breathing down their necks, and on the other, you've got clients who they're trying to nudge toward certain products under the guise of "necessity." It’s like they try to play the FATCA card or bring up anti-terrorism and money laundering laws just to make it seem mandatory, when really, they're just trying to close a deal. I guess it's just how they operate!

I mean, honestly, who cares if some chubby guy she’s seeing is a total loser? It’s really none of my business what a bank teller does in her private life!

Who cares about her? Honestly! I mean, besides that, do you even use mobile banking or something else—like some specific "product" they’re just dying to pitch you and charge you for?

But honestly, they’re probably going to grill you about it, just because the higher-ups are basically forcing their hand.

Hey there! I guess I should probably start by saying... wow! Just, wow. I mean, I’ve been thinking about this for a bit, and honestly? It’s just a lot to process. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I really feel like we need to dive deep into this. I'm just so excited to get the conversation moving! Anyway, let's get into it!

@ briskjackal5

It’s absolutely comparable.
To me, a fingerprint is an intensely private matter; I wouldn't just hand that over without a second thought.
If your analogy leads you to believe this is pointless, then clearly a fingerprint isn't as vital to you as knowing whether someone has children or not.
That’s some serious nonsense, honestly. 🙂

I don't see why it's so hard to grasp that a bank operates under its own internal policies in addition to federal regulations.
If you aren't comfortable sharing that data, then don't share it and just move on.

wiredlynx28 said:@ briskjackal5

It’s absolutely comparable.
To me, a fingerprint is an intensely private matter; I wouldn't just hand that over without a second thought.
If your analogy leads you to believe this is pointless, then clearly a fingerprint isn't as vital to you as knowing whether someone has children or not.
That’s some serious nonsense, honestly. 🙂

I don't see why it's so hard to grasp that a bank operates under its own internal policies in addition to federal regulations.
If you aren't comfortable sharing that data, then don't share it and just move on.

Well then, just don't give it to them! 😁

-Stipe