Quote: A POS purchase can be declined. Try using the debit card linked to your OD account to buy gas sometime. As for the NSF fees, they can and will be charged for each transaction that results in a negative account balance. Once a transaction is approved at POS, it cannot be refused. But, the transaction does not have to be approved.
I was so sure that was an out right lie. Why would this guy tell me such a thing. I even said, you mean I could just go out shopping away and not be declined and he said, yes, but there would be a charge. I don't understand why he said such a thing.
I have read through all of these threads and couldn't help but chime in. REALITY CHECK: The number one reason to offer the bounce protection program is totally related to the increase in NSF/OD fees AND THEN for the "service" that would be provided to the customer knowing their check would be paid when an "inadvertent" overdraft occured. But in reality, if an overdraft is "inadvertent" those checks have almost always been paid anyway.
In order to make the program most profitable the order checks are paid must be larget to smallest. Next, the bank must decide to increase their risk exposure and pay items for customers they might not have before, including those who habitually overdraw their account. As long as they make a deposit within 30 days to cover it, they can start over again the next month. So, based on this, here are the facts of how the program really works: Joe thinks he has $60.00 in his account, but his wife forgot to tell him about the $30.00 she withdrew at the ATM. On the same day she uses the ATM, he buys a $32.00 hammer, buys $10.00 of gas and then writes 6 $3.00 checks for school party and PTA dues (silly - but work with me ) The bank charges a $25.00 fee per check paid or returned. All of the checks hit on the same day, and of course the ATM transaction has already cleared. The $32.00 item is paid since it is the largest causing all other items to be NSF. This would cost Joe $200.00 in fees but save him the embarassment of all those returned items. But wait, had the bank paid the items smallest to largest then only one check for $32.00 would have been NSF and Joe would have only been chgd $25 more. Or, even if they pay largest to smallest, the $32.00 item could have been returned and all of the other items would have paid. Joe would have been charged one $25.00 fee by the bank and a fee by the merchant (if they charged for items not yet ran through twice) So, is the bank really doing Joe a favor by paying ALL of the items and by deciding the largest check is the most important item to pay?
The bounce protection programs are only profitable because more items are paid rather than returned, not because customers are actually writing more bad checks. The more items paid plus the fee means a larger overdraft balance leading to more NSF fees for subsequent items that might have paid had only one of the larger items been returned.
For this, consumers have a right to complain!
And BTW IMO, those small community banks that are picking and choosing the order of pay by deciding which check is most important per customer is only asking for a problem of a different kind!
Quote: I have read through all of these threads and couldn't help but chime in. REALITY CHECK: The number one reason to offer the bounce protection program is totally related to the increase in NSF/OD fees AND THEN for the "service" that would be provided to the customer knowing their check would be paid when an "inadvertent" overdraft occured. But in reality, if an overdraft is "inadvertent" those checks have almost always been paid anyway.
In order to make the program most profitable the order checks are paid must be larget to smallest. Next, the bank must decide to increase their risk exposure and pay items for customers they might not have before, including those who habitually overdraw their account. As long as they make a deposit within 30 days to cover it, they can start over again the next month. So, based on this, here are the facts of how the program really works: Joe thinks he has $60.00 in his account, but his wife forgot to tell him about the $30.00 she withdrew at the ATM. On the same day she uses the ATM, he buys a $32.00 hammer, buys $10.00 of gas and then writes 6 $3.00 checks for school party and PTA dues (silly - but work with me ) The bank charges a $25.00 fee per check paid or returned. All of the checks hit on the same day, and of course the ATM transaction has already cleared. The $32.00 item is paid since it is the largest causing all other items to be NSF. This would cost Joe $200.00 in fees but save him the embarassment of all those returned items. But wait, had the bank paid the items smallest to largest then only one check for $32.00 would have been NSF and Joe would have only been chgd $25 more. Or, even if they pay largest to smallest, the $32.00 item could have been returned and all of the other items would have paid. Joe would have been charged one $25.00 fee by the bank and a fee by the merchant (if they charged for items not yet ran through twice) So, is the bank really doing Joe a favor by paying ALL of the items and by deciding the largest check is the most important item to pay?
The bounce protection programs are only profitable because more items are paid rather than returned, not because customers are actually writing more bad checks. The more items paid plus the fee means a larger overdraft balance leading to more NSF fees for subsequent items that might have paid had only one of the larger items been returned.
For this, consumers have a right to complain!
And BTW IMO, those small community banks that are picking and choosing the order of pay by deciding which check is most important per customer is only asking for a problem of a different kind!
I see you get it!!!! Yes!! Finally!! Now, could you contact me please. We need to speak. email me at luvin8racin@aol.com ASAP Thank you.
Quote: I was told today by a customer rep of Republic Bank that if you used your debit card for any POS purchase, it was NEVER be declined and if it OD'd your account, you would be charged an OD fee. My question is, is this true? I don't remember that being the case in the past.
This may have been mis-stated. The banker may have been trying to explain that once the debit transaction had been authorized, it would not be denied. Many times, the balance in an account is sufficient for a purchase at the time of authorization, but as checks come in, the balance may become insufficient by the time the merchant sends in their batch. The debit transaction would not be declined.
_________________________
You can never get enough of what you don't need to make you happy.~ Eric Hoffer
For the record, not all banks pay checks "Largest to smallest". My bank, for example, pays them in check number order. Sure, we still make money on fees, but we are paying checks, prsumably, in the order which the customer wrote them. In response to the above anon post, I will say that many banks do pay the larger checks first in order to ensure that rent, for example, is paid and not returned. I prefer check number order, myself. It seems the most logical and unassuming.
_________________________
"Droplets of Yes and No in an ocean of Maybe."--Faith No More
Quote: I was told today by a customer rep of Republic Bank that if you used your debit card for any POS purchase, it was NEVER be declined and if it OD'd your account, you would be charged an OD fee. My question is, is this true? I don't remember that being the case in the past.
This may have been mis-stated. The banker may have been trying to explain that once the debit transaction had been authorized, it would not be denied. Many times, the balance in an account is sufficient for a purchase at the time of authorization, but as checks come in, the balance may become insufficient by the time the merchant sends in their batch. The debit transaction would not be declined.
They is probably what the guy was trying to say. That is understandable. Evidently he didn't communicate it very well.
_________________________
What Choice is right for you?
Accounts
Article
Q&A
Podcast
Video
Blog
Discussions
PDF
Powerpoint
Reply
Quote
Quick Reply
Quick Quote
) The bank charges a $25.00 fee per check paid or returned. All of the checks hit on the same day, and of course the ATM transaction has already cleared. The $32.00 item is paid since it is the largest causing all other items to be NSF. This would cost Joe $200.00 in fees but save him the embarassment of all those returned items. But wait, had the bank paid the items smallest to largest then only one check for $32.00 would have been NSF and Joe would have only been chgd $25 more. Or, even if they pay largest to smallest, the $32.00 item could have been returned and all of the other items would have paid. Joe would have been charged one $25.00 fee by the bank and a fee by the merchant (if they charged for items not yet ran through twice) So, is the bank really doing Joe a favor by paying ALL of the items and by deciding the largest check is the most important item to pay? 
Previous Topic
Index