Citibank may lock bank accounts for 45 days if breach suspected(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Citibank may lock bank accounts for 45 days if breach suspected
https://twitter.com/saletan/status/1567315945143603204
216 comments
> Lesson learned, don't trust _ONE_ bank with your savings/banking needs!
This is generally a good advice, as a bank typically has your money and lose nothing being slow or painful.
On moving to foreign countries while keeping banking access, it's such a world of hurt.
Some banks will straight stop your account and flag it the minute they understand you've been out of the country for any specific length of time (from 1 full month to 6 months depending on the bank). Many banks will just not allow a foreign resident to keep an account.
Citibank in Japan has the funniest rule: you have to receive in person a letter sent to your residency address every month if you intend to keep your account alive. Failing to do so for whatever reason automatically locks the account and you have to come to them to prove you still meet their requirements.
This is generally a good advice, as a bank typically has your money and lose nothing being slow or painful.
On moving to foreign countries while keeping banking access, it's such a world of hurt.
Some banks will straight stop your account and flag it the minute they understand you've been out of the country for any specific length of time (from 1 full month to 6 months depending on the bank). Many banks will just not allow a foreign resident to keep an account.
Citibank in Japan has the funniest rule: you have to receive in person a letter sent to your residency address every month if you intend to keep your account alive. Failing to do so for whatever reason automatically locks the account and you have to come to them to prove you still meet their requirements.
> Citibank in Japan has the funniest rule: you have to receive in person a letter sent to your residency address every month if you intend to keep your account alive. Failing to do so for whatever reason automatically locks the account and you have to come to them to prove you still meet their requirements.
While this is annoying and is excessive to what's required in law (it must be done at least yearly, and most banks do not try to annoy foreign residents more than what's legally required), Japan does require all Japanese-domiciled bank that they verify that the owner is either a Japanese national or a long-term resident in Japan. In fact, most Asian countries do have a "must be a citizen or resident" or even the much more stricter "must be a resident" requirement.
At least it's not India, according to Mastercard and Visa India even prohibits foreign long-term residents from maintaining an account in their country of nationality (and therefore we must always certify that upon our knowledge we do not send cards, even debit, to India).
While this is annoying and is excessive to what's required in law (it must be done at least yearly, and most banks do not try to annoy foreign residents more than what's legally required), Japan does require all Japanese-domiciled bank that they verify that the owner is either a Japanese national or a long-term resident in Japan. In fact, most Asian countries do have a "must be a citizen or resident" or even the much more stricter "must be a resident" requirement.
At least it's not India, according to Mastercard and Visa India even prohibits foreign long-term residents from maintaining an account in their country of nationality (and therefore we must always certify that upon our knowledge we do not send cards, even debit, to India).
> India even prohibits foreign long-term residents from maintaining an account in their country of nationality
That is very, very excessive... Do you know what the official reasoning is for that?
That is very, very excessive... Do you know what the official reasoning is for that?
It's technically not a prohibition, but because the Reserve Bank of India regulates banks and requires a license to deal with anything banking, even if you already have an existing relationship (with other jurisdictions it only penalises marketing into their country which is understandable) with the account holder RBI could just sue us for operating without a licence, and RBI tends to just sue even if you think it's stupid. The resident is never penalised here (unless you have very large stash offshore), it's the bank.
Also, since that some may just scratch their head, here is the relevant provision from MasterCard (https://www.mastercard.us/content/dam/public/mastercardcom/n...).
Also, since that some may just scratch their head, here is the relevant provision from MasterCard (https://www.mastercard.us/content/dam/public/mastercardcom/n...).
It is not prohibited for an individual to maintain a foreign bank account in India but capital controls (FEMA) applies and banks providing services to Indian residents might need to comply with regulatory framework.
It's the same in most countries. The regulatory burden may be different but banking presence is required in the country if you are serving domestic market at scale.
Indian residents can open HSBC expat account domiciled on the jersey island as an example.
It's the same in most countries. The regulatory burden may be different but banking presence is required in the country if you are serving domestic market at scale.
Indian residents can open HSBC expat account domiciled on the jersey island as an example.
[deleted]
Just google "India" and "black money". I'm not from there, but it feels like the boogeyman of Indian politics. It seems the government is able to perpetuate some idea that India has simply unimaginable wealth, but that it was all stolen by a select few and if only they could get it back everything would be OK.
Taxation(tracking) leaps to mind.
Almost all banks are required to comply with tracking and sharing tax information due to OECD agreement at country level for tax reporting standardization.
It's the default regardless of the country unless you are sanctioned.
It's a factor but only a single one among multiple others.
It's the default regardless of the country unless you are sanctioned.
It's a factor but only a single one among multiple others.
Citibank left Japan almost a decade ago. You're dealing with Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/citi-agrees-sell-japan-retail...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/citi-agrees-sell-japan-retail...
citibank does not operate in Japan anymore. And this claim is utterly false. Former citibank client here.
My bad, I never went with Citibank for that reason and forgot they went under.
That's the explaination I got when I discussed opening an account there. To note I wasn't a permanent resident, which might have set different conditions.
Went with Mitsubishi, and they were just fine.
That's the explaination I got when I discussed opening an account there. To note I wasn't a permanent resident, which might have set different conditions.
Went with Mitsubishi, and they were just fine.
I moved abroad 5 years ago. All my 7 US bank accounts + 2 credit card issuers have my old address as physical, and VirtualMail as mailing address. No problems so far. New cards are sent to mailing address, and virtualmail forwards them to wherever I am.
I'm guessing your old address has friendlies there? Otherwise, how would you get new cards, and mail bouncing can trigger issues.
(In Canada at least, mail can be set for "no forwarding", so the post office won't redirect in said cases.)
(In Canada at least, mail can be set for "no forwarding", so the post office won't redirect in said cases.)
VirtualMail is a mail forwarding service. It's like using a PO box for your mail. You still generally need to have a physical address on file with the bank, but you can have all your cards, statements, and other mail from the bank go to the VirtualMail forwarding address and then tell VirtualMail where to send stuff.
Citibank still operate retail accounts in Japan? I thought they sold their retail business to SMBC and its now operated as Prestia almost a decade ago, alongside when HSBC pulled out of retail.
You're probably right, I wasn't a Citibank customer so didn't follow what they were doing these last years.
https://www.fdic.gov/consumers/assistance/filecomplaint.html
File a complaint with their regulator and let them know you have.
File a complaint with their regulator and let them know you have.
That was an EU bank
I did contact a regulator body once I got access to my account
1. It was difficult to use unless native
2. They're basically doing mediation, will ask feedback from me and the bank and end with the bank follow their "procedures" so my problem for "being away"
Anyway, now I'll make sure to have multiple bank accounts across multiple jurisdictions
I did contact a regulator body once I got access to my account
1. It was difficult to use unless native
2. They're basically doing mediation, will ask feedback from me and the bank and end with the bank follow their "procedures" so my problem for "being away"
Anyway, now I'll make sure to have multiple bank accounts across multiple jurisdictions
> Can't be safe unless you have multiple bank accounts, crypto, and some nice friends.
You are never 100% safe. You could be killed by a car, a falling plane or a meteorite an hour from now. Or an artillery shell or nuke just after the start of an unexpected war. Or that painful spot that you have could turn out to be terminal cancer, which could kill you within 3 months.
Also any currency and any set of stocks can go to near-zero faster than most imagine. A natural disaster can happen that simultaneously wipes out your house (if you have one) and your insurance company. (This is actually the reason I'm insuring my house with the same company that holds my mortgage, so at least I don't have to pay the mortgage if they're wiped out in such an event.)
The real question is how much risk are you willing to accept, and what costs are you willing to pay to mitigate the risks. And of the above, I think the main risk driver was to go abroad (paired with being unlucky about covid's timing).
Going abroad while depending on a domestic bank with a log-in method that would soon expire was adding to the risk.
The combination of the above put you into a small subset of the population, meaning you and people like you didn't have leverage when the disaster struck.
But you _were_ unlucky. And if luck is bad enough, you're never completely safe.
You are never 100% safe. You could be killed by a car, a falling plane or a meteorite an hour from now. Or an artillery shell or nuke just after the start of an unexpected war. Or that painful spot that you have could turn out to be terminal cancer, which could kill you within 3 months.
Also any currency and any set of stocks can go to near-zero faster than most imagine. A natural disaster can happen that simultaneously wipes out your house (if you have one) and your insurance company. (This is actually the reason I'm insuring my house with the same company that holds my mortgage, so at least I don't have to pay the mortgage if they're wiped out in such an event.)
The real question is how much risk are you willing to accept, and what costs are you willing to pay to mitigate the risks. And of the above, I think the main risk driver was to go abroad (paired with being unlucky about covid's timing).
Going abroad while depending on a domestic bank with a log-in method that would soon expire was adding to the risk.
The combination of the above put you into a small subset of the population, meaning you and people like you didn't have leverage when the disaster struck.
But you _were_ unlucky. And if luck is bad enough, you're never completely safe.
I don't think its that deep man. There's a huge difference between getting locked out of your bank account, something everyone knows happens, at a place we are all told is the best place to put our money, completely avoidable and way more common than it should be, and getting hit by a meteorite.
It wasn't luck. It was someone's decision making that he was subject to with no recourse.
It wasn't luck. It was someone's decision making that he was subject to with no recourse.
> This is actually the reason I'm insuring my house with the same company that holds my mortgage, so at least I don't have to pay the mortgage if they're wiped out in such an event.
How exactly do you think this would work? What jurisdiction is all this in?
How exactly do you think this would work? What jurisdiction is all this in?
I live in Norway, and one difference compared to the US is that here a "mortgage" or "house loan" is really a personal loan with the property as collateral. Even if the value of the collateral is destroyed, the loan remains.
So basically my idea is that to have some of my assets (insurance and some savings) with the same company that holds the mortgage, I have a hedge against the credit risk associated with my assets. If the bank goes bankrupt and cannot repay its obligations to me, I can refuse to pay my mortgage back to them, and demand that any net asset the bank would owe me would be subtracted from the liability I have with the bank.
If my assets were in another company, and that company were unable to pay, I would still be stuck with the mortgage, potentially even if the value of the property were to be lost.
As a side not, I remember working on a credit risk (Basel 2) project back in 2005-2006. Until then, inter-bank lending was (by regulators) considered to have zero-none credit risk, but from around that time, banks (at least in Europe) had to allocate regulatory capital when lending to each other. Then came 2008.
So basically my idea is that to have some of my assets (insurance and some savings) with the same company that holds the mortgage, I have a hedge against the credit risk associated with my assets. If the bank goes bankrupt and cannot repay its obligations to me, I can refuse to pay my mortgage back to them, and demand that any net asset the bank would owe me would be subtracted from the liability I have with the bank.
If my assets were in another company, and that company were unable to pay, I would still be stuck with the mortgage, potentially even if the value of the property were to be lost.
As a side not, I remember working on a credit risk (Basel 2) project back in 2005-2006. Until then, inter-bank lending was (by regulators) considered to have zero-none credit risk, but from around that time, banks (at least in Europe) had to allocate regulatory capital when lending to each other. Then came 2008.
This is actually the reason I'm insuring my house with the same company that holds my mortgage, so at least I don't have to pay the mortgage if they're wiped out in such an event.
I like this logic.
My only concern would be that, in many cases an insurer might have a clause to pay cash or rebuild, their choice. Or some other conflict which may cause issue with the mortgage holder (many mortgages can force sale in certain circumstances).
But I like your premise, and will poke at it here.
I like this logic.
My only concern would be that, in many cases an insurer might have a clause to pay cash or rebuild, their choice. Or some other conflict which may cause issue with the mortgage holder (many mortgages can force sale in certain circumstances).
But I like your premise, and will poke at it here.
I also try to diversify between currencies (at least EUR/USD/some crypto)( and "asset classes" (stocks/crypto/some sort of business)
stocks are also diversified (different segments of the economy and geographies)
but yeah, unlucky at that time!
Under normal circumstances, would be easy to fly back within 3 months
stocks are also diversified (different segments of the economy and geographies)
but yeah, unlucky at that time!
Under normal circumstances, would be easy to fly back within 3 months
I'm surprised stories like this aren't posted more in crypto threads to counter the general HN hate
Been there, now II have 15 cards from 6 different banks.
There is also problem with deposit insurance. In EU deposit in single bank is insured upto 100k euro. If bank bankrupts, you loose anything over that. So it is better to spread deposits across multiple banks, each with 100k euro deposit.
And by aware that many banks are owned by the same group, and use just different brand as front. Insurance is per bank license, not per bank brand.
There is also problem with deposit insurance. In EU deposit in single bank is insured upto 100k euro. If bank bankrupts, you loose anything over that. So it is better to spread deposits across multiple banks, each with 100k euro deposit.
And by aware that many banks are owned by the same group, and use just different brand as front. Insurance is per bank license, not per bank brand.
It's similar with FDIC insurance. Each account is insured to $250K only. You have a lifetime limit of some amount of payout as an individual from the FDIC.
I wouldn’t keep over 100k in a bank, anyway. I’d at least put it in a decently compounding mechanism like an infinite banking whole life policy (assuming Europe has such policies) and make it work for me.
This info would be even more useful if you would name that bank.
ABN AMRO
Not that it makes a difference, I see their facebook page have 1.6 stars
Not that it makes a difference, I see their facebook page have 1.6 stars
[deleted]
why don't you tell us what bank you are talking about?
This is what happens when banks don’t need your deposits anymore. You are an annoyance to them. They don’t care if you pull your money out. They no longer need it.
Things won’t be pretty once we go cashless.
Things won’t be pretty once we go cashless.
This sounds quite similar to a situation which occurred to a close relation over 20 years ago. Again, even in-person with government-issued ID at a branch of the bank, access to funds was impossible (though the account itself was not terminated). The lockout similarly occurred whilst travelling, and they were unable to access funds whilst on an extended holiday, though regained access once they'd returned home.
Another element is that many banks effectively centralise virtually all decision authority within computer systems. Patio11's recently submitted essay on branch banking addresses this in part. See <https://bam.kalzumeus.com/archive/branch-banking/> <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32679233>
Most banks, even quite large ones (though Citi might be an exception) no only centralise operations to software but use the same very small number of vendors for that software. Brian Krebs wrote an essay in 2018 giving some details on just how consolidated that market is: <https://krebsonsecurity.com/2018/03/what-is-your-banks-secur...>
Discussed on HN at the time: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16534820>
The fact that the banks have tied their own hands doesn't excuse them, though this may in part explain what's going on, and how you might choose to calibrate your expectations, risk models, and mitigations.
Another element is that many banks effectively centralise virtually all decision authority within computer systems. Patio11's recently submitted essay on branch banking addresses this in part. See <https://bam.kalzumeus.com/archive/branch-banking/> <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32679233>
Most banks, even quite large ones (though Citi might be an exception) no only centralise operations to software but use the same very small number of vendors for that software. Brian Krebs wrote an essay in 2018 giving some details on just how consolidated that market is: <https://krebsonsecurity.com/2018/03/what-is-your-banks-secur...>
Discussed on HN at the time: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16534820>
The fact that the banks have tied their own hands doesn't excuse them, though this may in part explain what's going on, and how you might choose to calibrate your expectations, risk models, and mitigations.
Seems that way with Citi. They've been getting out of retail banking in several countries lately. I have an account with them in Australia - but it's operated by an Australian Bank.
Out of sheer curiosity, what's the appeal of threadreader to you? I see a lot of threadreader noise on twitter and I can't figure out why people prefer its (ad ridden) article-ish view to simply scrolling through a thread on twitter.
I find it less distracting with all of the chrome around each tweet. It combines them into a single block of paragraphs.
Twitter on the Android app works well for reading a thread, but on the webpage it is frustratingly cluttered. Admittedly I do have an adblocker so don't see the ads on thread reader.
Twitter on the Android app works well for reading a thread, but on the webpage it is frustratingly cluttered. Admittedly I do have an adblocker so don't see the ads on thread reader.
Threadreader doesn’t have an obnoxious pop up killing my access and demanding that I download the twitter app as soon as I scroll down one tweet. Much like with Reddit, I’d rather disengage from the platform than install the app.
Pretty much the answers given by aembleton, bombcar, and abduhl.
Twitter is annoying, invasive, naggy, and surveillance tech. I've disabled JS on the site which both nudges me to alternatives and adds significant friction to reading using it.
Twitter is annoying, invasive, naggy, and surveillance tech. I've disabled JS on the site which both nudges me to alternatives and adds significant friction to reading using it.
A big one is you can’t scroll through a thread on Twitter anymore without it demanding a login for many people, and if you’re running an adblocker thread reader is easier to read.
Honestly I don't know why anyone would lock all their money up with a single bank. Accounts are so trivial to open and manage nowadays. Diversify not just your investments but also your fiat holdings.
Poor people (which generally includes young folks) simply do not have investments nor enough actual money to pay for two bank accounts. A bank account for poor people is a utility, not an investment. It keeps money a bit safer than keeping it on you at work (for example). It is only trivial when you don't need to spend all of your money each and every month.
Those same folks could easily wind up homeless if this happened to them.
Those same folks could easily wind up homeless if this happened to them.
I've been poor. Six figures in debt with less than $10 in my checking account. I know what it is like. But there are plenty of accounts in the U.S. which have no minimum balance and no fee. You can have $5 in there.
I've been poor, and no one would let me have even one bank account. On payday, two trucks would pull into the factory parking lot. One would cash my check (for 4% of it), and the other would sell me snow cones and hot dogs.
I would line up with the other poor people who were too stupid not to have multiple bank accounts, even though like me they may have had a bank branch a block from their apartment (that had already turned them down.)
I would line up with the other poor people who were too stupid not to have multiple bank accounts, even though like me they may have had a bank branch a block from their apartment (that had already turned them down.)
I'm shocked that they gave a physical paycheck instead of requiring a prepaid card to deposit money on.
But why? Getting your account randomly closed is not commonplace, and if you are poor, not having the $X in Account B when you need to pay for food from A is not just inconvenient, but also makes you pay more in overdraft fees. Yes, you can do it, but I’d say the disadvantages outweigh the benefits by a huge margin.
> but also makes you pay more in overdraft fees
Overdraft services have been opt-in only for over a decade: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/100...
Overdraft services have been opt-in only for over a decade: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/100...
Sure, not buying food at all is certainly better ;) or standing at the register and having to return items in front of everyone.
$5 doesn't pay rent, nor will it buy much food. If your main account gets closed, you probably won't get your next pay check because it takes time to switch the direct deposit. If you get something like disability, it might leave you a month without money.
You can be poor without debt, btw: I do not include debt in with poverty. Debt amount doesn't reflect your quality of life (though garnished wages sometimes might hint at it).
You can be poor without debt, btw: I do not include debt in with poverty. Debt amount doesn't reflect your quality of life (though garnished wages sometimes might hint at it).
No poor person would get a $100k loan.
In general, I agree with you and I almost typed the same. Getting a car loan is absolutely difficult, hence the existence of buy here pay here sorts of places. Predatory loans are basically the only thing available in an emergency.
But I figure some fringe cases would absolutely make someone be both poor and that much in debt, generally stemming from things like a family losing an income after buying a home and to a lesser extent, things like student loans and medical debt - though I*m not sure either go as high.
But I figure some fringe cases would absolutely make someone be both poor and that much in debt, generally stemming from things like a family losing an income after buying a home and to a lesser extent, things like student loans and medical debt - though I*m not sure either go as high.
$100k of debt for a poor person is not unrealistic, between student loans and/or medical debt.
[deleted]
This is a really odd definition of poor. Six figures of debt is almost nothing in the US, particularly if you have a real estate mortgage. You could have a six figure debt on a million dollar property for example.
Having $10 in your checking account, OK yeah that is weird. Considering just your liquid cash vs. your debt doesn't make sense. You have to take into account monthly post-tax income, monthly expenses, and the time it would take to pay off said debt using your remaining income.
Having $10 in your checking account, OK yeah that is weird. Considering just your liquid cash vs. your debt doesn't make sense. You have to take into account monthly post-tax income, monthly expenses, and the time it would take to pay off said debt using your remaining income.
It was a private student loan in the 90s with no asset backing it. I was in school so did not have to make payments at that time.
The truth is I should of never of been given the loan as my parents had very little income and no significant assets. It was ridiculous. But I was lucky enough to finish my degree in CS so eventually I was not poor and paid off the loan. But even with the CS degree and diligent saving it took almost a decade.
The truth is I should of never of been given the loan as my parents had very little income and no significant assets. It was ridiculous. But I was lucky enough to finish my degree in CS so eventually I was not poor and paid off the loan. But even with the CS degree and diligent saving it took almost a decade.
I guess I would say you were broke, but not necessarily poor. But I do understand the point you are making. Student debt is non-dischargable in the US.
Also congratulations on getting out of debt and having a career.
Also congratulations on getting out of debt and having a career.
[deleted]
> Accounts are so trivial to open and manage nowadays.
They are not. When you come back from work after a 12-hour night shift the last thing you want to do is managing your bank accounts. You just want one account to work, and to work well, if possible without the bank screwing you too much.
They are not. When you come back from work after a 12-hour night shift the last thing you want to do is managing your bank accounts. You just want one account to work, and to work well, if possible without the bank screwing you too much.
Am I an anomaly here?
We're not money savvy people particularly, however my girlfriend and I both have 3-4 bank accounts (UK based, it takes <1 hour to setup a brand new bank, from start to finish).
We have a couple of traditional banks, and then also some more modern "internet" only banking (great for travel with their zero conversion fees, and more granular tracking of spending).
This seems to be the norm between all my friends also.
We're not money savvy people particularly, however my girlfriend and I both have 3-4 bank accounts (UK based, it takes <1 hour to setup a brand new bank, from start to finish).
We have a couple of traditional banks, and then also some more modern "internet" only banking (great for travel with their zero conversion fees, and more granular tracking of spending).
This seems to be the norm between all my friends also.
I personally just don't see the point of having multiple banks manage my accounts. In the USA many of these banks require a minimum amount to avoid fees and since they can arbitrarily set those limits and they can change at any time I find that having multiple accounts ends up being a liability. On top of the non-existant interest why would I park $1000 in a bank account? Instead I can at least invest it in something. Heck even just adding that $1000 to my mortgage payment would be a vastly better investment.
> I personally just don't see the point of having multiple banks manage my accounts.
Have we gotten so deeply nested that we've forgotten the title of the thread?
Have we gotten so deeply nested that we've forgotten the title of the thread?
Also UK, mostly because it's easy to get one account, fairly easy via your phone to get a joint.
I have 3 accounts, one for salary deposits, one for bills and one for spending so that I always know bills are covered every month without thinking about it and my "fun money" being pre-allocated each month helps me be mindful of my spending.
Since moving to that system I've been able to save significantly more each month.
I have 3 accounts, one for salary deposits, one for bills and one for spending so that I always know bills are covered every month without thinking about it and my "fun money" being pre-allocated each month helps me be mindful of my spending.
Since moving to that system I've been able to save significantly more each month.
Because banks can have IT outages, and you can have no access to your money until they get resolved. They also can go bust which means you can be waiting a long time for what's left of your money.
Well I use a credit card for almost all my purchases and I don't even need access to my bank to make my monthly payment. I wouldn't split my cash equally between two banks either. That seems silly. If for whatever reason my bank went bankrupt I'd simply open a new account and change my direct deposit at work. It's not really a show stopper. Plus there's federal insurance on all accounts up to 250k.
I think having a second bank for savings/emergency can make sense for a number of reasons (harder to conflate your money, accessible if the first has an issue, etc, better rates, etc).
I have an online centered account and a local one, they serve different purposes.
I have an online centered account and a local one, they serve different purposes.
99% of FDIC receiverships happen over the weekend without a customer disruption.
Multiple accounts in use greatly increases the chance that you have the money but it’s in the wrong place.
Multiple accounts in use greatly increases the chance that you have the money but it’s in the wrong place.
Not you're not, but maybe the UK is different.
I too have multiple bank accounts, mainly because in the case of bank failure your deposits are only guaranteed up to something like £80k.
Also, in the UK basic current accounts are free, I doubt this is the case everywhere.
I still have one main account that my wages go into, and all bills come out of. The other account is just a backup.
I too have multiple bank accounts, mainly because in the case of bank failure your deposits are only guaranteed up to something like £80k.
Also, in the UK basic current accounts are free, I doubt this is the case everywhere.
I still have one main account that my wages go into, and all bills come out of. The other account is just a backup.
I think one big difference in the UK is instant payments, if you have money in the wrong account and need to move it you'll be able to do it within a few minutes. If that wasn't the case then it'd probably be a lot more stressful to have your money split up.
Opening an N26, Revolut or Bunq account (in Europe) can be done from the couch. Maybe this is much different in the US.
Revolut works in the US all right.
I suppose you are not subject to FBAR reporting
Here in Germany bank accounts are pretty expensive. In the UK you are legally only allowed 1 current account afaik
In the UK - that's simply untrue. Many accounts will stipulate in the T&Cs that you use the account to deposit your salary and 1 or 2 utility payments from, or they might levy a charge or remove benefits (free overdraft, fee free card usage abroad etc) - this is pretty easy to game though. It is fairly common for people to have more than one current account.
That's just what Nationwide told me when I was in the UK. I guess it is a common myth. If I google it, it sounds like it is
It does sound like you were mis-informed, and sadly that seems to be common with banks all over.
The only account that is legally restricted that I can think of is the ISA which offers good tax incentives for saving but with a limit to how much can be contributed in a year, and I think you can only open with one provider in a given tax year.
The only account that is legally restricted that I can think of is the ISA which offers good tax incentives for saving but with a limit to how much can be contributed in a year, and I think you can only open with one provider in a given tax year.
> In the UK you are legally only allowed 1 current account afaik
If that's anything like the truth, absolutely nobody here knows about it. In an effort to get customers, banks will often give you "introductory" rates which are better than the market, but only for a fixed amount of time (6 months or a year). I know people who have accounts at basically every major bank.
If that's anything like the truth, absolutely nobody here knows about it. In an effort to get customers, banks will often give you "introductory" rates which are better than the market, but only for a fixed amount of time (6 months or a year). I know people who have accounts at basically every major bank.
I live in the UK and have multiple current accounts.
For the UK it is the first time I hear that. I am pretty sure it's not the case.
I am in Germany, and I have several free bank accounts (I have DKB, ING, and Revolut, but I could easily also get e.g. N26 or comdirect). A quick Google search for "freies girokonto" results in a comparison between the 31 best offers here: https://www.biallo.de/girokonto/ratgeber/kostenloses-girokon... (no affiliation), so I have no idea what you mean by that.
The online banks are very risky though, but that is true they are often free. The physical banks are almost always not, unless you want the extremely basic account for people with no address registration
What do you mean by risky here? DKB is owned by the Bayerische Landesbank (mostly owned by the state of Bavaria). Their online security measures seem at least as good as my Sparkasse account, too. I use a physical TAN machine to authenticate transactions for both.
There is basically no customer support if anything goes wrong
What about N26? The UK also has a couple of options like Starling and Monzo. I know some of these "challenger" banks have their own issues but as secondary/ backup accounts they work well. They are cheap and easy to set up.
N26 is free, I think DKB might also still be (though they arbitrarily with a minor update decided to block every rooted android user, so I wouldn’t trust them). Most others require a certain influx of money every month to be free IIRC.
I don’t know where you got that from but in the UK you can have as many current (or savings or whatever) accounts a you like
Some banks try and entice people with nice offers (£100 cash, free overdraft for months etc). To get the offer, you need to start paying your salary into the account and use it for bill payments.
Without the deal, there's no restrictions.
Without the deal, there's no restrictions.
Citi is a dumpster fire that I swore off as a teen. Only company to ever send me to collections, since I refused to pay their 'fees' after closing my account, which of course accrued late fees. This was in the overdraft fee era when banks seemed to have fun finding ways to extort you.
Now, I'll churn their credit cards time to time just to feel like I'm doing my part to stick it to them.
Rant out of the way, I've had something like this happen to me. What's more, all bank security I've dealt with treat you as a liar, always condescending, and are generally not allowed to provide any information as to why they are doing what they're doing.
I highly recommend spreading some amount of cash among at least two financial institutions. No matter how great you think they are, they can turn on you in a heartbeat for some esoteric reason.
Now, I'll churn their credit cards time to time just to feel like I'm doing my part to stick it to them.
Rant out of the way, I've had something like this happen to me. What's more, all bank security I've dealt with treat you as a liar, always condescending, and are generally not allowed to provide any information as to why they are doing what they're doing.
I highly recommend spreading some amount of cash among at least two financial institutions. No matter how great you think they are, they can turn on you in a heartbeat for some esoteric reason.
In my experience only big banks are bold enough to screw their customers, and Citi is a pretty big bank operating in 19 countries.
The fact that they closed his account frankly sounds like the outcome of an AML review.
Banks are deputized by the government to check for all sorts of suspicious transaction. They get fined when their procedures are not sufficiently stringent. They're not allowed to tip you as to why your account is being suspended or closed.
At any moment, any bank can lock your account for months without informing you of anything. It's unfortunately the power we decided to give them to prevent money laundering.
Banks are deputized by the government to check for all sorts of suspicious transaction. They get fined when their procedures are not sufficiently stringent. They're not allowed to tip you as to why your account is being suspended or closed.
At any moment, any bank can lock your account for months without informing you of anything. It's unfortunately the power we decided to give them to prevent money laundering.
Yeah, thought the same. The AML team on a bank cannot disclose that the account is being investigated by the regulator, nor give any information to the client about it.
Of course, if the bank wished to do so, they could give information or unblock the funds. But the fines that the regulator can impose to the bank are disproportionate (hundreds of thousands, per individual case) to "convince" the bank to comply.
Thus, is not "the bank" who is doing that to you, it's the regulator, and the agreement between the bank and them. And this "agreement" is a requirement in order for the regulator to give a banking license, so...
Let's be clear, the bank is not gaining anything out of this, quite the opposite: they are at risk of bad reputation, having an angry customer at their offices or calling daily, etc...
It's a very frustrating situation, tho. I do understand that.
Of course, if the bank wished to do so, they could give information or unblock the funds. But the fines that the regulator can impose to the bank are disproportionate (hundreds of thousands, per individual case) to "convince" the bank to comply.
Thus, is not "the bank" who is doing that to you, it's the regulator, and the agreement between the bank and them. And this "agreement" is a requirement in order for the regulator to give a banking license, so...
Let's be clear, the bank is not gaining anything out of this, quite the opposite: they are at risk of bad reputation, having an angry customer at their offices or calling daily, etc...
It's a very frustrating situation, tho. I do understand that.
> No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
I know I'm at risk of upsetting the "private companies don't have to obey the constitution" police, but if the government is essentially acting through banks to deprive you of life, liberty or property then maybe the bank should be providing some sort of due process to you.
I know I'm at risk of upsetting the "private companies don't have to obey the constitution" police, but if the government is essentially acting through banks to deprive you of life, liberty or property then maybe the bank should be providing some sort of due process to you.
>>It's unfortunately the power we decided to give them to prevent money laundering.
"We" did no such thing, most of these regulations are created by non-elected administrative state that has far far too much power
"We" did no such thing, most of these regulations are created by non-elected administrative state that has far far too much power
Citi has flagged my account for suspicious activity three times, each with the same pattern: card gets declined on a routine transaction, followed by absolutely no notice over any electronic means, and then a letter in the mail describing the lockout. If there's a bank I would ever advise against, it's Citi, purely for the reason that they really seem to overreact to fraud signals.
Those sound like pretty routine credit card declines, to protect your card from unauthorized activity. When I was with Citi, resolving them was a simple matter of calling their telephone number, and it would take a few minutes at most. I since switched to a couple of other banks and they both have similar procedures in place.
The problem described in the Twitter thread is on another level entirely. As another commenter here pointed out, it sounds more like that one failed a KYC review of some kind.
The problem described in the Twitter thread is on another level entirely. As another commenter here pointed out, it sounds more like that one failed a KYC review of some kind.
https://www.occ.treas.gov/ - office of the comptroller of the currency. That is the agency that regulates national banks.
What I don't understand out of all these high-value horror stories is why, in the notoriously litigious US, the bank doesn't get sued.
At least in India, banks are required to pay you every day for delays to resolve major issues beyond what is considered reasonable. OP's case would likely fall under it.
It's part of RBI (Reserve Bank Of India) guidelines. The scope is expanding every few years to cover every situation.
It's part of RBI (Reserve Bank Of India) guidelines. The scope is expanding every few years to cover every situation.
I which more countries follow that...
I don't know any other country that has such rules.
If you trip some anti-money-laundering check, banks are legally required to freeze the account, often to close it, and must NOT tell you why.
You cannot sue someone for doing something they're legally required to do. Well you can, but you will lose immediately...
For what it is worth, I think a lot of AML is bullshit. But that doesn't change the fact it is the law, and many people support it because they assume it only affects drug trafficer and terrorists and billionares engaged in questionable activities. I heard this week that when AML checks on cash came in, the limit was 10kUSD for a cash transaction to be reportable. That was in the 70s, so the equivalent now would be 70kUSD today. That's per year. But the limit has not changed, so expect to raise a red flag if you sell a nicer end car or your tenant asks to pay in cash...
You cannot sue someone for doing something they're legally required to do. Well you can, but you will lose immediately...
For what it is worth, I think a lot of AML is bullshit. But that doesn't change the fact it is the law, and many people support it because they assume it only affects drug trafficer and terrorists and billionares engaged in questionable activities. I heard this week that when AML checks on cash came in, the limit was 10kUSD for a cash transaction to be reportable. That was in the 70s, so the equivalent now would be 70kUSD today. That's per year. But the limit has not changed, so expect to raise a red flag if you sell a nicer end car or your tenant asks to pay in cash...
The notorious litigiousness of the US is propaganda aimed at arbitrarily limiting judgements against industries who can afford lobbyists.
Yeah, beware of those who champion tort reform, they're just trying to make corporations legally untouchable
Banking is a heavily regulated industry, more or less an extension of the US Government at this point
They fit in the new place in law where you are not a "state actor" so you do not have to adhere to the limits placed on the state by that pesky constitution, but have been grated state like powers and authority to more or less do anything they want to individuals without any possibility of recourse.
They fit in the new place in law where you are not a "state actor" so you do not have to adhere to the limits placed on the state by that pesky constitution, but have been grated state like powers and authority to more or less do anything they want to individuals without any possibility of recourse.
Binding arbitration.
Perhaps the victims can't afford to sue.
That’s why we can’t let go of cash-
Nor cryptocurrencies.
Hear, hear!
I once was denied access to my own money over a very long weekend during which a bill popped up that I had to settle immediately. I ultimately ended up borrowing money from my family.
The reason for the denail turned out to be a clerical mistake.
The feeling of dread I experienced thanks to this tought me to always kept a small stash of cryptocurrency (and cash!) for situations like this.
In the age of uncaring mega corporations and unaccountable governments, having money not controllable by either is a necessity.
I once was denied access to my own money over a very long weekend during which a bill popped up that I had to settle immediately. I ultimately ended up borrowing money from my family.
The reason for the denail turned out to be a clerical mistake.
The feeling of dread I experienced thanks to this tought me to always kept a small stash of cryptocurrency (and cash!) for situations like this.
In the age of uncaring mega corporations and unaccountable governments, having money not controllable by either is a necessity.
How would you have used crypto to pay that bill that popped up (???) and you had to settle immediately (???)?
Or to pay for anything else, for that matter.
Or to pay for anything else, for that matter.
Here in AU there are a few companies which let you pay any bill with crypto (ie; you send them crypto and they pay the bill using conventional means).
https://www.finder.com.au/crypto-bill-payments
There are probably equivalent companies in most markets.
https://www.finder.com.au/crypto-bill-payments
There are probably equivalent companies in most markets.
I wouldn't have been able to for that emergancy bill specifically. I would have used cash.
However had I had more time to liquidate my crypto, I definitely would have used crypto. I know two people wouldn't mind buying my crypto with traditional currency.
However had I had more time to liquidate my crypto, I definitely would have used crypto. I know two people wouldn't mind buying my crypto with traditional currency.
I do the exact opposite, I use cash for everything and keep some in the bank for ordering things online. That way I dont have to really worry ababout it much at all.
Stop trying to make fetch happen.
Your fetish is another man's means of leaving.
What is fetch?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pubd-spHN-0
Basically, that thing you think is awesome will never be.
Basically, that thing you think is awesome will never be.
Haha, at first I thought you meant fetch.ai [0] (based on a quick search).
[0] https://medium.com/fetch-ai/fetch-ai-nabs-5m-in-institutiona...
[0] https://medium.com/fetch-ai/fetch-ai-nabs-5m-in-institutiona...
Yeah, crypto is great. If anybody ever gets their hands on your wallet or the seed phrase, all your money is gone, and as per the system there's absolutely zero recourse.
You get to be your own bank, including being in charge of security. Screw up once, and you're screwed.
You get to be your own bank, including being in charge of security. Screw up once, and you're screwed.
So people invented cold/hot wallets, like, 10 years ago.
Store most of the fortune encrypted and out of internet connection or on hardwallet, if you have large sums, transfer small sums (like, monthly usage) once in a while to your phone wallet and use freely.
It's not that easy to loose access, by the way, if are not dumb and don't open all shady executables you could find in the internet.
Store most of the fortune encrypted and out of internet connection or on hardwallet, if you have large sums, transfer small sums (like, monthly usage) once in a while to your phone wallet and use freely.
It's not that easy to loose access, by the way, if are not dumb and don't open all shady executables you could find in the internet.
What if you forget your credentials and the the money is still there, but can never be used?
Related question, can you pass the money to your relatives when you die?
Related question, can you pass the money to your relatives when you die?
cold wallets... kinda need to remember them right, like a key or a password or a phrase. so you store that somewhere. now that's somewhere can be compromised and you are out of your money.
I've stored those on paper in a safe and on a little plex server with local network only access. Both of those attack surfaces are very small, require immediate proximity, and one runs a substantial risk of injury or death to attempt.
Avoid all single points of failure at all times.
* Use 2 credit cards, alternate between them on a weekly basis
* keep as little money as possible in your checking account, keep a book balance of $100, transfer # from savings on a weekly basis to cover what is due.
* have at least 2 savings/MM accounts at 2 banks that are not the same bank as your checking account.
* Keep your investment portfolio in at least 2 accounts at 2 different companies
* Use 2 credit cards, alternate between them on a weekly basis
* keep as little money as possible in your checking account, keep a book balance of $100, transfer # from savings on a weekly basis to cover what is due.
* have at least 2 savings/MM accounts at 2 banks that are not the same bank as your checking account.
* Keep your investment portfolio in at least 2 accounts at 2 different companies
You should not be transferring weekly from your savings account.
Correct. At least in the US, “regulation D” restricts you from using your savings account as your “transactional” aka checking account.
A long time ago before that was a thing and interest rates were non zero, my local credit union had automatic overdraft protection that drew from your savings account with no fees. So I would just keep the checking account balance at zero and draw from my savings for every check. Apparently at some point this triggered some automated check and I could no longer do this.
Regulation D only allows you to transfer money from your savings account to checking six times per month, but apparently that rule was suspended during COVID.
A long time ago before that was a thing and interest rates were non zero, my local credit union had automatic overdraft protection that drew from your savings account with no fees. So I would just keep the checking account balance at zero and draw from my savings for every check. Apparently at some point this triggered some automated check and I could no longer do this.
Regulation D only allows you to transfer money from your savings account to checking six times per month, but apparently that rule was suspended during COVID.
Why not?
I agree with most of this, but
>keep as little money as possible in your checking account, keep a book balance of $100, transfer # from savings on a weekly basis to cover what is due.
I am not sure what the point of that is if they are in the same financial institution. Also most savings accounts pay shit for interest, and most checking accounts still pay shit but it is about double the amount of shit...
>keep as little money as possible in your checking account, keep a book balance of $100, transfer # from savings on a weekly basis to cover what is due.
I am not sure what the point of that is if they are in the same financial institution. Also most savings accounts pay shit for interest, and most checking accounts still pay shit but it is about double the amount of shit...
* keep $20k in cash hidden somewhere not in a bank
This really sucks. I don't mean to diminish it. But
> Since he was traveling and was relying on @Citibank, he was screwed.
Does anyone actually do this? I don't know anyone who'd rely on a bank. You just have like 2 or 3 credit cards. Pre-war, one of my friends was actually in Russia and lost their wallet, and Visa (yes, Visa, not the bank) actually hand-delivered him the card. Blew my mind.
> Since he was traveling and was relying on @Citibank, he was screwed.
Does anyone actually do this? I don't know anyone who'd rely on a bank. You just have like 2 or 3 credit cards. Pre-war, one of my friends was actually in Russia and lost their wallet, and Visa (yes, Visa, not the bank) actually hand-delivered him the card. Blew my mind.
The modern world is just full of dumb traps like this, and I personally doubt I know the half of them.
Don't rely on gmail/Google Drive, they might arbitrarily block you with no recourse. (This one I've known about for years, but have yet to find the time to properly address.)
Don't rely on a single bank, they might arbitrarily block you with no recourse. (This one was news to me.)
Et cetera.
The thing is, addressing each of these means first knowing about it, then deciding to act, then actually investing the energy. All of this requires technical proficiency and time that people may simply not have. What I want to know is, why have we built so many footguns, and how can we start disarming them? Why is technology moving us to a Kafka story instead of a Star Trek story?
Don't rely on gmail/Google Drive, they might arbitrarily block you with no recourse. (This one I've known about for years, but have yet to find the time to properly address.)
Don't rely on a single bank, they might arbitrarily block you with no recourse. (This one was news to me.)
Et cetera.
The thing is, addressing each of these means first knowing about it, then deciding to act, then actually investing the energy. All of this requires technical proficiency and time that people may simply not have. What I want to know is, why have we built so many footguns, and how can we start disarming them? Why is technology moving us to a Kafka story instead of a Star Trek story?
> Why is technology moving us to a Kafka story instead of a Star Trek story?
That's a problem which has nothing to do with technology itself. Technology makes providing support cheaper, so if the only changing variable was adding more technology, we would be getting better support, not worst.
The problem is cultural individualism. People give too much power to centralized entities, and don't respect the paramount importance of free market competition in accountability. A typical argument is that technology causes this centralization, but it's simply not true. For each service, there almost always exists both centralized options, and decentralized open-source ones. It's on users to go above the individualistic perspective and chose the option that's right not only for their own individual needs, but also for their community.
That's a problem which has nothing to do with technology itself. Technology makes providing support cheaper, so if the only changing variable was adding more technology, we would be getting better support, not worst.
The problem is cultural individualism. People give too much power to centralized entities, and don't respect the paramount importance of free market competition in accountability. A typical argument is that technology causes this centralization, but it's simply not true. For each service, there almost always exists both centralized options, and decentralized open-source ones. It's on users to go above the individualistic perspective and chose the option that's right not only for their own individual needs, but also for their community.
I agree that the technology is capable of creating many sorts of worlds, and that it's a series of choices that has lead us to this one and not a better one. But I disagree that it is possible for individuals to simply change their behavior and create that world using their collective purchasing power. This arrangement works well for the companies and investors that create the options consumers may choose from, and they have and continue to offer the set of options that match their preferences. To take the example of Google, and they are not unique here simply particularly egregious, it is apparent that they are completely unwilling to offer a human-powered support facility that is able to make complex decisions and accommodate unique situations. Eg, I imagine we've all seen stories on HN about Chrome extension developers being kicked off the app store and being stuck in an infinite chat loop with an AI, as they struggled to reach the _single_ human being[1] who may be able to help them.
That's not something we can fix by making different choices in the browser marketplace, which increasingly is just Chrome wearing different wigs. Even if we solved it in the case of browsers, this is a systemic issue across not only companies, but industries. Fixing this would mean something more fundamental than individuals changing their preferences to prioritize nonhostile software. It would require society at large agreeing to change it's priorities so that good options could be presented to them in the first place.
> A typical argument is that technology causes this centralization, but it's simply not true.
I think when people say this, "technology" is best understood as "the technology industry" or "technology, the social phenomenon" rather than "technology, the artifacts of engineering." I don't entirely agree that technology is amoral (not that you claimed this), but I think that's true enough for a first approximation. But when people say "technology causes centralization" (or "technology causes X" generally) they mean, "technology, as it is implemented in our society, given that it doesn't exist in a vacuum," and that has moral dimensions for sure.
[1] https://twitter.com/DotProto/status/1261155320740499456
That's not something we can fix by making different choices in the browser marketplace, which increasingly is just Chrome wearing different wigs. Even if we solved it in the case of browsers, this is a systemic issue across not only companies, but industries. Fixing this would mean something more fundamental than individuals changing their preferences to prioritize nonhostile software. It would require society at large agreeing to change it's priorities so that good options could be presented to them in the first place.
> A typical argument is that technology causes this centralization, but it's simply not true.
I think when people say this, "technology" is best understood as "the technology industry" or "technology, the social phenomenon" rather than "technology, the artifacts of engineering." I don't entirely agree that technology is amoral (not that you claimed this), but I think that's true enough for a first approximation. But when people say "technology causes centralization" (or "technology causes X" generally) they mean, "technology, as it is implemented in our society, given that it doesn't exist in a vacuum," and that has moral dimensions for sure.
[1] https://twitter.com/DotProto/status/1261155320740499456
Then we should use a less general word than "technology", because it becomes hard to reason about the problem and gives arguments to luddites who don't make the distinction. "Big tech" is short enough to be used in conversations.
> But I disagree that it is possible for individuals to simply change their behavior and create that world using their collective purchasing power. This arrangement works well for the companies and investors that create the options consumers may choose from, and they have and continue to offer the set of options that match their preferences.
With proper cultural norms, it will definitely be possible to change the current corporate technology landscape to be more user-friendly. Individual consumption habits have a huge impact, that's why the advertising industry is so big after all. Of course the necessary cultural change won't happen without a collective pain and awareness of the problem. I would say we might be half-way there in the pain dimension, and awareness of the benefits of open-source is growing everyday (what with the explosion of AI artwork thanks to the Stable Diffusion open-source release).
> But I disagree that it is possible for individuals to simply change their behavior and create that world using their collective purchasing power. This arrangement works well for the companies and investors that create the options consumers may choose from, and they have and continue to offer the set of options that match their preferences.
With proper cultural norms, it will definitely be possible to change the current corporate technology landscape to be more user-friendly. Individual consumption habits have a huge impact, that's why the advertising industry is so big after all. Of course the necessary cultural change won't happen without a collective pain and awareness of the problem. I would say we might be half-way there in the pain dimension, and awareness of the benefits of open-source is growing everyday (what with the explosion of AI artwork thanks to the Stable Diffusion open-source release).
I think we agree like 80% of the way, but that our disagreement is that I believe a political action is necessary to bring about the culture shift we're discussing, whereas you seem to believe that consumers can demand it in the marketplace. But I do agree that this movement is a nascent potential that seems to be developing and that it may well be realized.
I think there's an widely held conception, which comes from orthodox economics, that consumers demand something and then businesses respond to give them what they want. But I think that's wrong in a subtle but important way; it neglects the ability of business interests to shape what consumers demand.
For instance, I believe Facebook's pivot to Meta was precipitated by Apple's privacy update which limited FB's ability to conduct surveillance on iPhone. Presumably they feel it's an existential liability to rely on their competitor's platforms, because should a privacy-focused arms race break out between Apple and Google, it could destroy FB's ability to monetize their service. So they looked at the resources at their disposal, came up with a path forward which would result in the outcome they desired, and set about trying to convince the public they wanted a metaverse. This is a particularly ham-fisted effort, which makes it a good illustration, but I believe this is a more subtle element of many products. The key element here is that Facebook decided what product would best serve their interests, and tried to synthesize a demand, rather than responding to an organic demand for a metaverse.
This is why I don't think it's sufficient for consumers to simply change their behavior. Consumers cannot put options on the table; they can only express interests and hope they are fulfilled. Additionally business interests can collude much more easily than consumers, as there are fewer of them and their interests are better aligned. Consumers can demand nonhostile products, but at best they'll get differently-hostile products which address some of their concerns while innovating bold new ways to undermine the consumer. Something like, we've stopped shipping DRM with games because we know you don't like it, but we've also moved to a games-as-a-service model where you can't play without connecting to our servers, so we've actually ended up with even more control over your ability to play. It's sort of like a chess game where black has two rows of pawns. The only winning move is to change what game you're playing.
> Then we should use a less general word than "technology".
When it comes to language, I'm a descriptivist. I neither agree nor disagree that this is a bad word choice, my only claim is about what people mean. A framing you may appreciate more is, swapping "technology" for "the social institution of technology" (I think "Big Tech" isn't quite right to swap in, as it excludes, say, technology used by the government or intelligence agencies) is the steel man of the argument, and we ought to consider the merits of the stronger version of the argument and avoid arguing about the semantics of words.
I think there's an widely held conception, which comes from orthodox economics, that consumers demand something and then businesses respond to give them what they want. But I think that's wrong in a subtle but important way; it neglects the ability of business interests to shape what consumers demand.
For instance, I believe Facebook's pivot to Meta was precipitated by Apple's privacy update which limited FB's ability to conduct surveillance on iPhone. Presumably they feel it's an existential liability to rely on their competitor's platforms, because should a privacy-focused arms race break out between Apple and Google, it could destroy FB's ability to monetize their service. So they looked at the resources at their disposal, came up with a path forward which would result in the outcome they desired, and set about trying to convince the public they wanted a metaverse. This is a particularly ham-fisted effort, which makes it a good illustration, but I believe this is a more subtle element of many products. The key element here is that Facebook decided what product would best serve their interests, and tried to synthesize a demand, rather than responding to an organic demand for a metaverse.
This is why I don't think it's sufficient for consumers to simply change their behavior. Consumers cannot put options on the table; they can only express interests and hope they are fulfilled. Additionally business interests can collude much more easily than consumers, as there are fewer of them and their interests are better aligned. Consumers can demand nonhostile products, but at best they'll get differently-hostile products which address some of their concerns while innovating bold new ways to undermine the consumer. Something like, we've stopped shipping DRM with games because we know you don't like it, but we've also moved to a games-as-a-service model where you can't play without connecting to our servers, so we've actually ended up with even more control over your ability to play. It's sort of like a chess game where black has two rows of pawns. The only winning move is to change what game you're playing.
> Then we should use a less general word than "technology".
When it comes to language, I'm a descriptivist. I neither agree nor disagree that this is a bad word choice, my only claim is about what people mean. A framing you may appreciate more is, swapping "technology" for "the social institution of technology" (I think "Big Tech" isn't quite right to swap in, as it excludes, say, technology used by the government or intelligence agencies) is the steel man of the argument, and we ought to consider the merits of the stronger version of the argument and avoid arguing about the semantics of words.
I (and I assume many do) buy flight tickets with a credit card so at least one bank knows you are traveling. Never have I had any problem when traveling. But there is one time I wanted to wire myself from Bank1 to Bank2, got blocked, called to unblock, and got blocked again immediately after I attempt the same transaction. Have to goto a Bank1 branch and brainstorm what to do and they ended up giving me a "bank check" (what's that???) only for me to walk to a Bank2 branch to deposit.
For small but significant amounts (less than like 10k) it is significantly simpler to just get a bankers check for moving money between accounts between banks. Walk into one branch, get a check, go to the other branch, money moved! Definitely not ideal if you are doing it frequently but if you are closing an account it's very simple.
> Does anyone actually do this? I don't know anyone who'd rely on a bank. You just have like 2 or 3 credit cards.
I only have one debit card available, I'm from Europe. That's why whenever I travel I also carry cash with me.
I only have one debit card available, I'm from Europe. That's why whenever I travel I also carry cash with me.
You know 18 year olds with two or three credit cards? That seems like a different risk to me.
Hmm, I must have missed that. Makes sense to have fewer then. Though when I was traveling as a young 'un, my parents gave me straight cash which I carried appropriately secreted away.
> I don't know anyone who'd rely on a bank
Imagine suddenly all your bank accounts are blocked. Do you have a plan for this?
> . Pre-war, one of my friends was actually in Russia and lost their wallet, and Visa (yes, Visa, not the bank) actually hand-delivered him the card.
Little known, but it's actually standard feature for CC starting from some class. Used it twice - once bank blocked CC and I figured it in airport, another time I lost the CC.
Imagine suddenly all your bank accounts are blocked. Do you have a plan for this?
> . Pre-war, one of my friends was actually in Russia and lost their wallet, and Visa (yes, Visa, not the bank) actually hand-delivered him the card.
Little known, but it's actually standard feature for CC starting from some class. Used it twice - once bank blocked CC and I figured it in airport, another time I lost the CC.
He apparently was travelling inside the US, which makes the story even more absurd
I have a debit card and a credit card. The credit card is for American companies and for backups during holidays. I do everything using my single debit card, including getting money out of foreign ATMs. My credit card comes from the same company I hold a debit card with so if the bank screws me over, I'm screwed.
Yet, I do not fear getting screwed over. Every time I hear about the ways American banks will screw over their customers I'm thankful I do not live in the USA.
The American banking system is corrupted and horribly outdated to the point where consumers need to practice defensive financing (and things like tactical debt gathering to accumulate a credit score with a shady financial megacorporation), but that's not necessary in every country. With the right people-oriented regulations and incentives, banks can be better.
Yet, I do not fear getting screwed over. Every time I hear about the ways American banks will screw over their customers I'm thankful I do not live in the USA.
The American banking system is corrupted and horribly outdated to the point where consumers need to practice defensive financing (and things like tactical debt gathering to accumulate a credit score with a shady financial megacorporation), but that's not necessary in every country. With the right people-oriented regulations and incentives, banks can be better.
I don't have a credit card, which is pretty typical here, so I always travel with just cash and debit cards (I have a couple of accounts). But if what you describe is standard - i.e. you get very good service in an emergency - a credit card does sound like a good idea
I have a credit card for bonuses and certain benefits like when renting a car, but as it’s AMEX I need my debit card with me anyway as the acceptance rate is about 70% (of places even taking non-girocard cards) here in Germany. As I automatically pay it off every month and enter all transactions in YNAB, it has no drawbacks.
As an American, 2 credit cards should be the bare minimum. I carry 4 that I use regularly and a 5th that sits as a "break glass in case of emergency". They all get paid off every month, so it costs me nothing.
Nowadays I can't imagine travelling without Wise (former transferwise) card. I think Revolut also gives you cards but I have not used them personally. I'm using my bank just to pre-pay Wise account when needed
> I think Revolut also gives you cards but I have not used them personally.
Yes. I use Revolut for that exact purpose.
Yes. I use Revolut for that exact purpose.
I only have one bank with one card.
Until now I never had the need for more.
Kids usually can't even get 1 credit card in the US. Any tips?
I don't travel anywhere without Bitcoin. It saved me many times when banks created arbitrary problems. (I use travala.com and cheapair.com)
In what situations has Bitcoin saved you, and where (country, city)? The reason I ask is because I cannot recall seeing any shops which would accept bitcoin, and the last ATM that bought BTC for cash I knew of in my locale disappeared a little while ago.
I usually travel with $10000 cash with me and use Bitcoin to pay for hotels and flights. Shops accept USD at a lot of places around the world.
I travel for half year every winter to south / central america from Europe, and there have been cases when my bank cancelled my credit card because of technical problems with contactless payments even though I didn't need contactless.
Another time Revolut just blocked my access to their app for a few days until I could prove where I got the money from.
Another time a bank blocked my card because I was travelling and they thought it's a fraud.
Depending on banks for long travels far from my home is scary, so I make sure I always have enough BTC and cash to survive.
I travel for half year every winter to south / central america from Europe, and there have been cases when my bank cancelled my credit card because of technical problems with contactless payments even though I didn't need contactless.
Another time Revolut just blocked my access to their app for a few days until I could prove where I got the money from.
Another time a bank blocked my card because I was travelling and they thought it's a fraud.
Depending on banks for long travels far from my home is scary, so I make sure I always have enough BTC and cash to survive.
> Another time a bank blocked my card because I was travelling and they thought it's a fraud.
I was traveling recently and when trying to pay for a hotel room the transaction was declined. I needed to call my bank to explain that I am traveling, so they tuned down their anti-fraud alerts. Thankfully, one phone call was all it took to resolve this.
However, this block was only triggered because the transaction in question was relatively high amount ($1500), the very same card would still work perfectly for small transactions.
I was traveling recently and when trying to pay for a hotel room the transaction was declined. I needed to call my bank to explain that I am traveling, so they tuned down their anti-fraud alerts. Thankfully, one phone call was all it took to resolve this.
However, this block was only triggered because the transaction in question was relatively high amount ($1500), the very same card would still work perfectly for small transactions.
You're brave to have $10k in cash on you!
That’s a lot of cash to travel with.
Yep, I would never carry this much on me. In most countries you need to declare such amount when crossing the border, and explain why you have it. And of course in the US any cop on the street can just take it from you, with no recourse.
I would carry 500-1000 USD at most.
I would carry 500-1000 USD at most.
Exactly. Airports in the European Union have signs warning passengers about such rules for carrying large sums of cash.
When carrying €10,000 or more into or out of the European Union, you must complete a cash declaration. In practice, I'd feel uncomfortable carrying more than I'd be happy to count while hurrying for a plane, especially if the value were close to the limit and in a currency other than Euros. (Other currencies are explicitly included in the EU rules, which makes sense, not least because some EU member states use other currencies instead of Euros.) I don't know whether you can complete a cash declaration in case the exchange rate changes such that the value of your cash crosses the threshold, but if you can't then maybe carrying cash close to the limit would attract a lot of attention from customs or airport security (because it might look like you're violating the rules until the cash had been counted and the interest rate checked).
When carrying €10,000 or more into or out of the European Union, you must complete a cash declaration. In practice, I'd feel uncomfortable carrying more than I'd be happy to count while hurrying for a plane, especially if the value were close to the limit and in a currency other than Euros. (Other currencies are explicitly included in the EU rules, which makes sense, not least because some EU member states use other currencies instead of Euros.) I don't know whether you can complete a cash declaration in case the exchange rate changes such that the value of your cash crosses the threshold, but if you can't then maybe carrying cash close to the limit would attract a lot of attention from customs or airport security (because it might look like you're violating the rules until the cash had been counted and the interest rate checked).
,,When carrying €10,000 or more''
This is not true, you can carry 10000 EUR without declaration, you just neet to declare if you carry more (I look at the regulation and of course eurusd before I start my travel for winter).
This is not true, you can carry 10000 EUR without declaration, you just neet to declare if you carry more (I look at the regulation and of course eurusd before I start my travel for winter).
I stand corrected. Weirdly, the European Union website (which I didn't read carefully enough earlier) contradicts itself on that point:
"Entering or leaving the EU after 3 June 2021 with cash or certain valuable items worth over EUR 10 000? ... "all travellers entering or leaving EU territory are already obliged to complete a cash declaration when carrying EUR 10 000 or more"
https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/customs-4/prohibitions...
"Entering or leaving the EU after 3 June 2021 with cash or certain valuable items worth over EUR 10 000? ... "all travellers entering or leaving EU territory are already obliged to complete a cash declaration when carrying EUR 10 000 or more"
https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/customs-4/prohibitions...
Sure, I use fake suncream holder to hold the cash, and it's the limit that doesn't need to be declared on the border. I'm of course not the average traveler, most people stay in long term stays who go for long travels.
While traveling through Europe this summer, I noticed many small currency exchange shops process cryptocurrencies. What surprised me most is that many shops handled a wide selection of what I would call shitcoins, not just BTC and ETH.
Great trying to spend it after a value plummet I tell you what!
Everything is terrible. The US dollar is on par with the EURO though.
Everything is terrible. The US dollar is on par with the EURO though.
Fascinating! Thanks for sharing that.
I've heard people sometimes pronounce "Citibank" as if the first letter was replaced by a "SH" sound.
Reminds me of my story: I met a girl in Mexico and decided to quit my job and move in with her. Since I couldn't open a bank in Mexico, I decided I'd just wire the girl all my money. Except upon trying my bank (of America) froze my account and took around 3 months to unfreeze, of which time I had access to absolutely no money.
It's kind of why I find it funny in all the crypto threads watching people here idolize the current financial system. Yet at a whim or some internal AML flag they can effectively trash your life giving you effectively no recourse.
It's kind of why I find it funny in all the crypto threads watching people here idolize the current financial system. Yet at a whim or some internal AML flag they can effectively trash your life giving you effectively no recourse.
Hang on, how long after you met her did you quit your job and move in with her?
I've had a lot of this lately, since the introduction of mandatory "two-factor" authentication (the "second" factor is a mobile phone, so neither secure nor a second factor). We have no mobile coverage at home, so it's impossible to use this. Online purchases often don't go through. My bank's helpline is massively overloaded with often 1 or 2 hour wait times. They haven't actually banned me from my own money yet but I'm certainly looking around for other options.
Can complaining to the CFPB help in these scenarios?
You could, but the harm is already done, isn't it?
The harm is ongoing if he's still unable to access his money. Banks will often move quickly once regulators start getting involved.
How long do they take in processing the complaint? What if (s)he is traveling and thus put in a difficult situation?
According to the thread, they've already returned from their travels and visited several different local bank branches. Not sure how long the CFPB or OCC takes to respond, but they do take complaints seriously and they can cause serious problems for banks.
If you travel internationally or do any business, have a local bank and a proper international one.
A local banks follow local country laws, so in Canada, bank cards work in Cuba. However, employees are painfully useless about anything outside the country.
An international bank, because the employees aren’t clueless about internal transactions. However, they are under the strictest restrictions, cards don’t work in Cuba for example. Iran, Syria, etc will also be a problem. But I can move money between countries as easily as I move money between chequing accounts. Also, they send me my cards via DHL, not regular untracked mail like the very painfully dumb local banks.
A local banks follow local country laws, so in Canada, bank cards work in Cuba. However, employees are painfully useless about anything outside the country.
An international bank, because the employees aren’t clueless about internal transactions. However, they are under the strictest restrictions, cards don’t work in Cuba for example. Iran, Syria, etc will also be a problem. But I can move money between countries as easily as I move money between chequing accounts. Also, they send me my cards via DHL, not regular untracked mail like the very painfully dumb local banks.
As I've got a Mastercard debit card, doesn't that just work anywhere in the world that accepts Mastercard?
No. Trade embargos, sanctions, etc impact you.
Canadian HQ bank, their Mastercard and VISA work fine in Cuba.
US HQ bank or any international bank that follows US sanctions (if they want to deal in US Dollar, they do), their Mastercard and VISA do not work in Cuba.
This is just 1 example, but China have their own list. And Russia is an interesting case too.
Canadian HQ bank, their Mastercard and VISA work fine in Cuba.
US HQ bank or any international bank that follows US sanctions (if they want to deal in US Dollar, they do), their Mastercard and VISA do not work in Cuba.
This is just 1 example, but China have their own list. And Russia is an interesting case too.
What are some good “international banks”? Does Schwab count?
It wouldn't surprise me if CC companies monitored social media for reckless spending these days with all the info back doors out there.
There is something that triggered the lockout. It's best to retrace steps to be sure about what originally caused the account lockout. That might be something in common with any card provider. When I was young and dumb, I got locked out unexpectedly after losing a job. If you post that you lost a job on social media these days... Lights you can't see can go off elsewhere...
They also ALL know your bank account balance without you even telling them.
There is something that triggered the lockout. It's best to retrace steps to be sure about what originally caused the account lockout. That might be something in common with any card provider. When I was young and dumb, I got locked out unexpectedly after losing a job. If you post that you lost a job on social media these days... Lights you can't see can go off elsewhere...
They also ALL know your bank account balance without you even telling them.
Sounds like you don’t know credit card companies at all. Reckless spending is how they generate a significant portion of their income. If everyone spent wisely, no one would be paying interest any more.
Exactly, it's the opposite of what OP said. With some companies you are actually more likely to be given a credit card if you have demonstrated a shitty spending history, since that's how they make money on you. Paying everything off on time and never accruing any interest is not a way to earn any money.
…why should losing your job lock you out of your account?
Americans seems to be enamored with credit unions, when I went to one to look into it, they told me they don’t do international wires and that only big banks do it (I didn’t go check at other unions).
When I used to live in the USA I had two accounts at two different credit unions and they both did wire transfers.
But banking in the USA is so archaic to begin with. paper checks?
The benefit of credit unions of commercial banks is that they tend to be considerably less scummy. All of my banking horror stories from the USA come from commercial banks, and I always recommend Americans to use credit unions.
But banking in the USA is so archaic to begin with. paper checks?
The benefit of credit unions of commercial banks is that they tend to be considerably less scummy. All of my banking horror stories from the USA come from commercial banks, and I always recommend Americans to use credit unions.
There’s got to be something more to the story that his son isn’t sharing.
For my main bank account, I have a debit card, sure, but also an old fashioned checkbook. If I write a check, there may be no issue of proving identity to get the check cashed. If so, then go to another bank, open an account, and make a deposit via check on the old account.
Did the guy in the OP have an old fashioned paper checkbook?
Did the guy in the OP have an old fashioned paper checkbook?
I think if he was denied access to his money at the bank branch, the bank wouldn't have honored his check. The opening deposit would probably not clear.
According to the bank, the issue was being sure about his identity. Well, with a check, the check itself is identity enough. And with a check, the bank may be legally required to pay it with the funds in the account.
Never trust any Bank.
I Only use Credit Unions, and have multiple accounts, 100% of my loans, checking accounts, saving accounts etc are with various Credit Unions
I have a credit card with a non-credit union, and I have an investment account with a non-credit union, but for cash assets I want that in a credit union not a commercial bank
I Only use Credit Unions, and have multiple accounts, 100% of my loans, checking accounts, saving accounts etc are with various Credit Unions
I have a credit card with a non-credit union, and I have an investment account with a non-credit union, but for cash assets I want that in a credit union not a commercial bank
Ah, the joys of aml. We can't let you have your funds and we can't tell you why.
Yup. This is why I hang onto a fancy private banking account that is ridiculously overkill for my pedestrian needs: all their processes are geared towards human interaction
I thought these services charge exorbitant amounts that are a % of your deposited amount, unless you are in the 9 figures?
You definitely don't want your bank to decide to unmoney you.
Unfortunately, they can do so for any reason or no reason, so don't post too much wrongthink on the internet, or else
Unfortunately, they can do so for any reason or no reason, so don't post too much wrongthink on the internet, or else
It's certainly a power-imbalanced relationship, that between the banks and their individual customers.
Sounds like he should have tried authenticating by lawsuit.
Sounds like old-school PayPal (maybe even still now)
This is an excellent argument against private banks.
Financial infrastructure should not be in the hands of private corporations.
Financial infrastructure should not be in the hands of private corporations.
>Financial infrastructure should not be in the hands of private corporations.
What makes you think public banks would be any better. Have you ever been to the DMV? At least with private banks you have the chance to switch to a less shitty bank or credit union; with a public bank you have no chance.
What makes you think public banks would be any better. Have you ever been to the DMV? At least with private banks you have the chance to switch to a less shitty bank or credit union; with a public bank you have no chance.
California’s DMVs are better than many private companies. They have walk-in times posted on the web. Friendly customer service. Security. Ample seating. A lot of self-service options. I honestly like the California DMV.
This is almost assuredly caused by a private bank being forced to comply with AML laws from a public regulatory body. How would a public bank be any better?
I trust my private bank much more than I do the government to act in my best interest.
Financial infrastructure should be in the hands of private citizens, i.e. cash or cryptocurrencies.
Man discovers that when giving it to a bank, his money simply isn't his anymore.
Not news by any stretch of the imagination.
Not news by any stretch of the imagination.
Moved to a foreign country during covid
Meantime, the debit card expired, 3 months later when I try to login to mobile app/internet banking, can't do anything without the debit card.
Call the bank to send new one
3 month waiting
Call them multiple times: we can send new one but we'll cancel the one 'in-flight. Do you want to do that or wait another week?'
Eventually I requested a new one, two times
1 year waiting
The last phone call the staff admited they could be getting stolen
I've requested multiple times to send the card by Fedex or DHL they refused to do anything that didn't follow "their process"
A debit card sent by untracked letter!
Meantime they refuse to give me any alternative access to the account, move any money or make any transactions.
Lesson learned, don't trust _ONE_ bank with your savings/banking needs!
Can't be safe unless you have multiple bank accounts, crypto, and some nice friends.