OT - I hate my bank

[MomToOne]

Not that I am justifying anything a bank did or didn't do (I'm not a fan either), but did you by any chance "Pull" the funds this time instead of "Pushing" them on the transfer in question, when in the past you've done the opposite? Here's an article that explains the difference:

http://thefinancebuff.com/transfer-money-by-ach-push-not-pull.html

Pulling is more likely to result in a hold while pushing generally should not (assuming we are talking accounts with two different banks, not two accounts with the same bank).

 

[MamaBelle4]

Not that I am justifying anything a bank did or didn't do (I'm not a fan either), but did you by any chance "Pull" the funds this time instead of "Pushing" them on the transfer in question, when in the past you've done the opposite? Here's an article that explains the difference:

http://thefinancebuff.com/transfer-money-by-ach-push-not-pull.html

Pulling is more likely to result in a hold while pushing generally should not (assuming we are talking accounts with two different banks, not two accounts with the same bank).

I signed into the savings and initiated the transfer. It was confirmed as "sent" over 24 hours before it was applied in my checking.

 

[MomToOne]

I signed into the savings and initiated the transfer. It was confirmed as "sent" over 24 hours before it was applied in my checking.

I also found this information from one bank, explaining why transfers out can take 2 business days to show up in the receiving account:

Like most banks, when we electronically transfer money with another bank, the money goes through a secure network called the Automated Clearing House (ACH) system.

We pull our transfer requests together each day and send them off to the ACH. That system then pulls together all the daily files they receive from thousands of banks and routes the transfer to the appropriate receiving bank account and then the transfer occurs [and the receiving bank now needs to process all their transfers in]

There are actually 3 parties here: the sending bank, the ACH system, and the receiving bank. It sounds like ACH system could actually be causing a 1 day delay. I've coded file transfer systems like this (although not in banking) - depending on timing of the different file transmissions, all 3 steps could happen in one day, or each could basically take a day.

Disclaimer - I am not trying to justify your bank's actions or refusal to waive fees, just trying to give some understanding of the process to people. Information is power.

 

[aaarcher86]

So, what i'm hearing is that people would prefer smaller cheques go through first, is that correct? I say the bank is damed if they do and damed if they don't.

scenario-- you wrote 3 chqs. $10 to paper boy, $50 to IRS, $250 for your car payment. you have $250 in your account.
1)what everyone seems to think is the thing to do is to pay the first two and return the car payment.
2)what the banks would do is pay the car payment and return the two small chqs.

with the first option you have affected your credit rating. car dealers report late or nsf payments. same with mortgage companies and many other companies. next time you go to finance anything your rate will be higher. you will never even know that it is, that it had to do with the mortgage payment that was returned.

with the second option you have not hurt your credit rating at all. both the paper boy chq and irs chq will be cleared up without the credit bureau knowing about them. you just write another chq to cover the returns. that's right, even returning the irs chq will not affect your credit rating as long as you pay it right away and not have it sit. I would prefer to pay two nsf fees to keep my credit rating good but that is just me.

30 years ago it was all very easy. the bank was able to call you and ask what you would prefer. now, with automation its not that easy. if there is money in the bank and its cleared funds then there should be no issue. the bank should be able to set up an automatic transfer if you request this. then there should be no surprises. a lot of the issues today is due to the fact that so many of us need to live pay check to pay check. there is no extra money for lots of people and two nsf fees are a big deal for them. I do understand.

i'm not looking for an argument. like if said earlier, I don't know how the u.s. banking system works so I do not mean to judge in any way. I don't know anything about the 5/3 law suit being talked about. what I would say is that you really have to find a bank or credit union you are comfortable with. one that makes you feel valued as a client. it takes a long time for you and your bank to trust each other. if you decide to change banks keep in mind that until the acconts have been operating for a period of time there will be holds and new account issues. its usually best and easiest to talk it out with the bank you presently deal with and see how they can help you. explain what you expect from them and find out how they deal with the issues that are important to you, such as this one.

again, no flames please, this is JMO.

I don't want them to out the smaller ones first. I want them to out them through in the order they were charged.

And no - no late payments are reported until 30 days late in most cases. You could be 29 days late and it wouldn't show a thing besides on time.

Why would a bank care about my credit rating being affected? Again, if I have no one to blame but myself I can't fault the bank.

 

[tinkerone]

I don't want them to out the smaller ones first. I want them to out them through in the order they were charged.

And no - no late payments are reported until 30 days late in most cases. You could be 29 days late and it wouldn't show a thing besides on time.

Why would a bank care about my credit rating being affected? Again, if I have no one to blame but myself I can't fault the bank.

why wouldn't the bank care about your credit rating being affected? I worked for a bank for 30 some years and we always tried to help the client establish and keep their credit rating up.
as to late payments being reported after 30 days here's what I found.......

Think about how you've repaid the bank in the past. How often (and how recently) have you made other late payments? If you're not sure, scanning your credit reports for delinquencies should jog your memory. Making a late payment may be out of character for you, but it can still be damaging. Depending on your current FICO score, a single 30-day late payment can drop your FICO score by 60 to 110 points. (For more on this topic, see my story "FICO reveals how common credit mistakes affect scores.")

That drop can also follow a payment that's fewer than 30 days late, depending on when your bank reports your delinquency. "Be aware that when it comes to the reporting of late payments on credit reports, a payment that's late by one to 30 days is considered '30 days late,' late by 31 to 60 days is considered '60 days late,' etc.," says FICO's Paperno in an e-mail. "As a result, any payment made up to 30 days late will be treated as a '30-day late' by the FICO score."
here's the source http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/simon-credit-score-late-payment-1508.php

I know things are different in the u.s. so I wasn't sure if maybe I was wrong, that's why I did the research.
i'm not saying all banks are good but its pretty hard to say they are all bad. and our banks are not scheming to get our clients money. that i know for sure. maybe I have blinders on. what ever, I really don't care that much so i'm going to delete this thread from my watch list. i only chimed in to give the banks perspective and it looks like I didn't do a good job. for that I apologize.
good luck to the opp, I hope things work out for you.

 

[aaarcher86]

why wouldn't the bank care about your credit rating being affected? I worked for a bank for 30 some years and we always tried to help the client establish and keep their credit rating up.
as to late payments being reported after 30 days here's what I found.......

Think about how you've repaid the bank in the past. How often (and how recently) have you made other late payments? If you're not sure, scanning your credit reports for delinquencies should jog your memory. Making a late payment may be out of character for you, but it can still be damaging. Depending on your current FICO score, a single 30-day late payment can drop your FICO score by 60 to 110 points. (For more on this topic, see my story "FICO reveals how common credit mistakes affect scores.")

That drop can also follow a payment that's fewer than 30 days late, depending on when your bank reports your delinquency. "Be aware that when it comes to the reporting of late payments on credit reports, a payment that's late by one to 30 days is considered '30 days late,' late by 31 to 60 days is considered '60 days late,' etc.," says FICO's Paperno in an e-mail. "As a result, any payment made up to 30 days late will be treated as a '30-day late' by the FICO score."
here's the source http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/simon-credit-score-late-payment-1508.php

I know things are different in the u.s. so I wasn't sure if maybe I was wrong, that's why I did the research.
i'm not saying all banks are good but its pretty hard to say they are all bad. and our banks are not scheming to get our clients money. that i know for sure. maybe I have blinders on. what ever, I really don't care that much so i'm going to delete this thread from my watch list. i only chimed in to give the banks perspective and it looks like I didn't do a good job. for that I apologize.
good luck to the opp, I hope things work out for you.

Yes, but the company isn't reporting it before it hits 30 days. It's up to the company to report to the credit report and most work on a 30 day cycle.

My point about the bank was that it's MY credit score, MY choice, and MY problem. I'm just not interested in a bank that does something for their benefit under the disguise of doing me a favor. Even if they pulled the largest amount first, those smaller amounts can be payments that will bounce and effect my credit which blows the whole protecting the credit idea out the window.

I don't think all banks are bad. I've had no problems with Chase since I opened accounts with them.

 

[StuckInKS]

why wouldn't the bank care about your credit rating being affected? I worked for a bank for 30 some years and we always tried to help the client establish and keep their credit rating up.
as to late payments being reported after 30 days here's what I found.......

Think about how you've repaid the bank in the past. How often (and how recently) have you made other late payments? If you're not sure, scanning your credit reports for delinquencies should jog your memory. Making a late payment may be out of character for you, but it can still be damaging. Depending on your current FICO score, a single 30-day late payment can drop your FICO score by 60 to 110 points. (For more on this topic, see my story "FICO reveals how common credit mistakes affect scores.")

That drop can also follow a payment that's fewer than 30 days late, depending on when your bank reports your delinquency. "Be aware that when it comes to the reporting of late payments on credit reports, a payment that's late by one to 30 days is considered '30 days late,' late by 31 to 60 days is considered '60 days late,' etc.," says FICO's Paperno in an e-mail. "As a result, any payment made up to 30 days late will be treated as a '30-day late' by the FICO score."
here's the source http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/simon-credit-score-late-payment-1508.php

I know things are different in the u.s. so I wasn't sure if maybe I was wrong, that's why I did the research.
i'm not saying all banks are good but its pretty hard to say they are all bad. and our banks are not scheming to get our clients money. that i know for sure. maybe I have blinders on. what ever, I really don't care that much so i'm going to delete this thread from my watch list. i only chimed in to give the banks perspective and it looks like I didn't do a good job. for that I apologize.
good luck to the opp, I hope things work out for you.

FICO has no say in anything except for their own algorithm. They merely pull data from the credit bureaus, who are in charge of determining what does and does not get reported. Their guidelines must comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. FICO can factor in one-day-late payment all they want, but if TransUnion, Equifax and Experian won't let a creditor report a payment that is less than 30 days late, FICO will never see it.

"The three major credit bureaus – Experian, TransUnion and Equifax – allow creditors to report payments that are 30, 60 or 90 days late. But the reporting format they use, called Metro 2, which complies with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and other legislation, doesn’t let creditors report payments that are just two days past due, or even 29 days past due.

According to the credit reporting manual used by the three major credit bureaus, which outlines best practices for using the Metro 2 format, “the ‘clock’ for a 30-day delinquency starts 30 days after the due date, as opposed to the billing date.”

This 30-day window applies to all debts, including car payments and mortgages, notes Rod Griffin, a spokesman for Experian."

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs...d-payments-dont-always-hurt-your-credit-score

I would take Experian's word over FICOs and I would dispute a payment reported as 30-days past due when it is not.

 

[Mickeyluver37]

I also found this information from one bank, explaining why transfers out can take 2 business days to show up in the receiving account:

Like most banks, when we electronically transfer money with another bank, the money goes through a secure network called the Automated Clearing House (ACH) system.

We pull our transfer requests together each day and send them off to the ACH. That system then pulls together all the daily files they receive from thousands of banks and routes the transfer to the appropriate receiving bank account and then the transfer occurs [and the receiving bank now needs to process all their transfers in]

There are actually 3 parties here: the sending bank, the ACH system, and the receiving bank. It sounds like ACH system could actually be causing a 1 day delay. I've coded file transfer systems like this (although not in banking) - depending on timing of the different file transmissions, all 3 steps could happen in one day, or each could basically take a day.

Disclaimer - I am not trying to justify your bank's actions or refusal to waive fees, just trying to give some understanding of the process to people. Information is power.

I deal with this from the business side at work, and while yes, ACH's can take 2 days, wires are instant. We generally prefer to pay in ACH because wires cost money, but if we have a reason to refund a client or pay a bill instantly, we can do a wire. A wire also can't be recalled, while an ACH can. There is no reason that moving money from one's own savings to checking shouldn't be instant.

 

[robinb]

OP, did you go into the bank and talk to someone? Did they ever refund your overdraft charges?

 

[Eastern]

I have linked accounts at two banks and it still takes more than a day to clear the money. It's not instant. It would only be instant if it was the same bank.

 

[MamaBelle4]

OP, did you go into the bank and talk to someone? Did they ever refund your overdraft charges?

I am in dealings with "senior escalations" officers, not that that is getting me anywhere. The last email I received from them two days ago was "return receipt" and that was it. I insisted everything be in writing so I would have documentation for the consumer finance and attorney general.

 

[nikkistevej]

I work at M&T Bank actually(back office, not a branch), and I know the credits go in before debits, so not sure exactly what happened in your situation, BUT if you go into a branch and escalate it, they would probably refund your money. I have OD protection just for the reasons that everyone has been saying above. Don't want my stuff to bounce if there were an error.

 

[MomToOne]

I deal with this from the business side at work, and while yes, ACH's can take 2 days, wires are instant. We generally prefer to pay in ACH because wires cost money, but if we have a reason to refund a client or pay a bill instantly, we can do a wire. A wire also can't be recalled, while an ACH can. There is no reason that moving money from one's own savings to checking shouldn't be instant.

Given the information the OP has provided, I believed they were transferring money between two different banks, not just between accounts at the same bank. They haven't been completely clear on that matter, but I am basing it on the fact that they say "It was confirmed as sent" (I've never seen that sort of terminology when transferring from a savings to checking at the same bank).

But maybe I'm wrong.

ETA: Here is also an interesting article that mentions while transfers between two accounts at the same bank may APPEAR instant in that they update your balances accordingly right away, they might not actually be instant: http://www.mybanktracker.com/news/w...ur-bank-accounts-isnt-as-instant-as-you-think. That's why I use my credit union - who states they DO move it instantly (although even they have an exception for a few situations where this is not the case) - for most of my banking.

It's important to read the information on this for your specific bank. If they have processed things according to the cut off/processing times they identify, complaining to various government agencies probably won't do you much good; if they have violated their own polices, then you have a real complaint. But really read it carefully - there can be all sort of things buried in there. For example, I took a look at BofAs online banking terms (not a bank I use, I picked it at random on purpose): since I live in CA, I could move money between accounts up until 11:59 PT and have it count in my balance before any withdrawals are taken out for the day; but if I lived in WA, I would only have up to 9:59PM PT for it to be considered. Two states, same timezone, different rules. And in both cases, the agreement states that your balances will appear updated instantly, but really everything is reconciled at night: first any deposits that were in before the stated time are added to your balance from the day before, then all the checks that came in for the day are subtracted out. And of course the agreement lays this out in as confusing a way as possible...it took me 3 or 4 reads before I finally got that this is how it works!

 

[Minnie-Mickey]

Our bank, which is a Canadian bank based here has a new policy this month. Deposits and withdrawals as they come in. It is a change. I don't like it but it is what it is. They told us now it is on us to keep track. Will they make more money off people, yes. Do I need a big buffer in my account just to be sure, that is my plan. I don't think they would reverse any charges as notification went out.

 

[Disneyliscious]

Another vote for a credit union here. They instantly cash my checks (I own a small business which customers pay me with handwritten checks frequently) and I don't even have to deposit them or wait for them to clear.

 

[rigs32]

Twitter can be your friend in cases like this. When a company's normal customer service is acting obstinent, I've had success getting my issue resolved when I publically tweeted about it.

 

[SirDuff]

Our bank, which is a Canadian bank based here has a new policy this month. Deposits and withdrawals as they come in. It is a change. I don't like it but it is what it is. They told us now it is on us to keep track. Will they make more money off people, yes. Do I need a big buffer in my account just to be sure, that is my plan. I don't think they would reverse any charges as notification went out.

I'm confused why you don't like this. Isn't this (doing it in the order that you put them in) what everyone else is saying that the banks should do? How were they done before?

 

[kymom99]

I think people prefer credits first followed by debits.

 

[verleniahall]

I would look into a credit union. I started using one when I moved back home because there weren't any regional banks I wanted to use and I won't use any of the national banks any more. The credit union has good customer service and has actually worked with me when I had issues getting a check deposited because the atm wouldn't read it. I needed the money to pay a bill and they credited my account so the funds were there and then once the check posted they removed the courtesy credit. I don't know of any bank that would do that. With this credit union you just have to live in the area you don't have to work for a certain company or industry.

LOVE our credit union! They are awesome

Look into USAA. No military affiliation needed to get a bank account and they have the best customer service of any company that I have dealt with personally or professionally.

This is not true- they will ask for your miltiary affiliaton to get an account through USAA- they are founded BY military FOR military - no non military allowed.
Now - you don't CURRENTLY have to be serving - as long as you have someone who HAS served in your family, I believe that you can still get an account.
(and everyone has SOMEONE in their family who has served) -

 

[barkley]

This is exactly what I do, too. I love that your bank does unlimited transfers...we only get 6/month. Which is why I have a billion different savings accounts..

I would challenge the statement that anyone has unlimited transfers because the 6 per month is a federal law and not a bank to bank decision. No one should have unlimited transfers from savings to checking. (Unless the poster is in another country?)

the fed 6 are limited to automatic, on-line or telephone banking transactions-there's no limit on ones done at atm's, in branch (or for those with credit unions-done at shared branches).