(no subject)

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Here is one example of stupid banking regulations. This is a notice about my normal savings account.

The following types of transactions are limited to a combined total of 6 per calendar month. Federal law requires us to enforce these limits. If you exceed the limits, we must either close your account or convert it to another account type without transaction limits.

Types of Limited Transactions:
Online banking transfer
Mobile banking transfer
Preauthorized transfer to another payee or institution (includes ACH or wire)
Automatic transfer to a Union Bank deposit account
Savings Overdraft Protection Plan transfer
Telephone transfer
ATM card purchase or payment

Types of Unlimited Transactions:
ATM machine transaction
In-person transaction
Automatic transfer to make a Union Bank loan payment
Deposit of any type

There is no rational reason to allow unlimited ATM or in-person transactions and yet limit you to 6 transactions using the online banking. There's nothing special about online banking that I'm aware of that would cause the federal gov't to need this kind of regulation. Nor is there some evil that I could perpetrate by moving my money between my savings and checking account more than 6 times a month using the online banking. It just forces me to go to an ATM to do it. Why does the federal government need to have a say in this?

Comments

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Interesting. It's because there is a 0% reserve requirement on a savings account (because it's assumed the money doesn't move very frequently), whilst there is a 10% reserve requirement on a transaction account (because it's assumed you're going to be using that money fairly regularly).

I'm not up to deciding whether it's a good or a bad regulation; perhaps all accounts should have a 10% reserve requirement, or perhaps they should have none at all (Australia has none, and our banking system is amongst the most solid in the world). I'm all for strict regulation of the banking industry, but not just regulation for regulation's sake. This regulation is ignoring the reality of online banking.

It would seem, however, that if this is an issue for you it's because you're using a savings account as a transaction account.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

It would seem, however, that if this is an issue for you it's because you're using a savings account as a transaction account.

Given that, this regulation doesn't seem so stupid.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Why does that somehow make it less stupid? If a bank doesn't want you using your savings account as a transaction account, why do they need the government to dictate it?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

It would seem, however, that if this is an issue for you it's because you're using a savings account as a transaction account.

Since they aren't giving me any interest, I have no reason not to. But no, it's a checking overdraft account. I just happen to be needing to move money to and from it a few times a month. It's silly that I have to move it in larger chunks less often just because I'm doing it online.

[surferelf.livejournal.com]

is it meant to protect small businesses

Nothing the Federal government does is meant to protect small businesses. Neither of the parties look out for small business interests because there's nothing in it for them.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I assume this notice is just for the savings account.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Man, that's some crap regulation.

Mind you, as anfalicious mentioned, Australia doesn't have those rules, but is has other good rules and regulations for banking.

I'm beginning to see why folk in the US are against rules: the ones they have are shit, and any attempt to introduce proper functioning and wise regulation gets tarred with the same brush as the rules you already have, which in this case appear to be frankly laughable. And when you do have good rules like Glass-Steagall, you get rid of them to appease the folk who dislike rules on principle or who have other reasons for wishing the rules absent.

In the UK we have all sorts of rules and regulations in all areas (not just banking) which are rubbish. A lot of the time we blame the EU or Europe Commission, when actually, it's ourselves and our own bureaucracies kow-towing to various home-grown pressure groups and vested interests who formulate the rubbish rules….and then we blame Europe. This is of course, convenient for the popular press and politicians, and magnificently Orwellian.

And it seems that the US has similar problems with bad regulation. I wonder how Australia has managed to remain sensible given that they are also an Anglo-Saxon culture?

I'd suggest you need wise regulation: but that requires wise government. Maybe even a government that doesn't bend and spread for any and all vested interests that come waving an open chequebook at it.

As if.

In Oz

[brockulfsen.livejournal.com]

We see the Government as our employees. The budget issue of the quality broadsheets has a print run something like double the usual size as people peer over the government's shoulder.

Only about 10% of the population live in areas dense enough to support most services as commercial enterprises. 10% live in places that even the government has trouble mobilizing the resources to provide services. 80% live in vast tracts of suburban wasteland, not dense enough to provide a lucrative market.

Re: In Oz

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

We see the Government as our employees.

Well, Oz has got that right. All governments should be the employees of the people, and should (that awful word) legislate on behalf of the people, who are the government's employers.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

See: the Internet in general.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

Didn't some EU comission just completed multi-year study that determined that water doesn't help with dehadration?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

There's all sorts of communication issues when talking about rules to get rid of and deregulation, etc.

Dropped context.

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

The objection is not to rules, per se, but to a set of "rules" imposed by an agency claiming a monopoly on the use of violence to enforce them.

I'd suggest you need wise regulation: but that requires wise government.

No, it does not require "government," in the traditional, political sense; it requires organizations whose functioning does not allow some parties to impose the cost of their own economic tradeoffs onto other parties without consent.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

My memory might be shot, but didn't this come into play after 11 September as a way to curb constant movement of money?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I have no idea, but it doesn't curb that, since I can do unlimited transactions at the ATM. This just makes it inconvenient to move money.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Governments in all countries that deal with the internet have hideously draconian laws regarding what goes on online, or even worse a lot of countries simply had no laws on the books with regards to online crimes until the late 2000s.

I don't see this as the federal government being unreasonable as much as laws being written by 60 year old men who don't know what computers are.

[korean-guy-01.livejournal.com]

IMO, they're using federal law like "legislation was passed unfavorably to us, so we're doing this to you to limit our account maintenance costs."

Kinda like the vague terminology "security concerns."

[surferelf.livejournal.com]

Given the extent of regulatory capture of the federal government by the banking system, I would guess that these regulations exist because the banking lobby demanded them.

Congratulations. You found a stupid regulation.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

That clearly means that your usual tip of 'all regulation iz bad' is correct.

Re: Congratulations. You found a stupid regulation.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Congratulations, you used a strawman, again.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

If you exceed the limits, we must either close your account or convert it to another account type without transaction limits.

My bank charges me $35 dollar fee if I exceed six per month, but there is no threat of a closed account.

I presumed it was so they could invest with my money better.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Convert to another type without transaction limits doesn't sound like a scary threat to me, is there something sinister about that?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-12431.htm