|
More site info...
Deposits and Payments | Forum profile
|
|
Forum profile page for Deposits and Payments on http://www.bankersonline.com.
This report page is the aggregated overview from a single forum: Deposits and Payments, located on the Message Board at http://www.bankersonline.com.
This forum profile page summarizes the general forum statistics such as: Users Activity, Forum Activity, and Top Authors, which are reported in either a table or graph below for a given reporting time period.
Additional forum profile information for "Deposits and Payments" on the Message Board at http://www.bankersonline.com is also shown in the following ways:
1) Latest Active Threads
2) Hot Threads for Last Week
Warning: These statistics are generated using 'best efforts' and can experience delays and reporting errors at times. Please note that such statistics do not constitute a forum's popularity and/or exact posting volumes at any given reporting period.
|
|
|
|
|
Posting activity on Deposits and Payments:
|
|
Week
|
Month
|
3 Months
|
|
Threads:
|
56
|
183
|
390
|
|
Post:
|
127
|
367
|
862
|
|
|
Deposits and Payments Posting activity graph:
|
Top authors during last week:
user's latest post:
Reg CC Change and Nonproprietary...
Published (2009-11-09 15:12:00)
That is a fair assumption to make. That is, unless the Fed amends that section of the regulation.
user's latest post:
New Account Subject to Backup...
Published (2009-11-09 16:35:00)
Can you decline - yes. Must you decline - no - but you must backup withhold.
user's latest post:
New Account Subject to Backup...
Published (2009-11-09 16:35:00)
You may decline to open the account, but the IRS will be dissappointed - they want their money!
user's latest post:
Check Amt Altered - Bankers Online
Published (2009-11-05 15:18:00)
In my opinion, you should be sending this to your local DA to go after the check casher. However, you are only out $200, that is what your adjustment is for.
user's latest post:
Net banking and savings accounts...
Published (2009-11-03 16:56:00)
We allow it - we have some people (senior citizens) that only have a savings account and want their financial caretaker to pay their bills online. We monitor the transactions and convert to a non-interest account if they exceed their maximum allowed. I've never had any issues with the savings accounts.
user's latest post:
Lifetime Irrevocable Trust -...
Published (2009-11-05 12:29:00)
Sorry, "they" are senior officers of the bank. Thank you. I think I will have them put something in writing that they are approving the account to be opened this way. I feel like I am the only one against it. I want to protect the bank but also protect me. =D
user's latest post:
Funds Availability Disclosure -...
Published (2009-11-09 10:32:00)
There are two additional disclosures that I recommend all banks incorporate into their disclosures just in case they are ever needed. There is a hold for cashing a check, but allowing a hold to cover the funds until collected and for accepting a check deposit into one account but placing the hold on another account. These are good to have in your hold "arsenal" to protect the bank while possibly keeping a customer happy.
user's latest post:
Earnings Credit Rate - Bankers...
Published (2009-11-03 15:18:00)
Let me be a little more specific than Happy. What Earning Creidt rate are you asking about? 1. The funds your bank keeps at The Fed or some correspondent bank will receive int at some rate. How the Fed sets this rate is just based on the current rate conditions / yield curve. 2. Your bank gives your commercial deposit customers credit (at a determined rate) for the avg they keep on deposit & then uses this credit to offset the expenses...
|
|
|
|
Latest active threads on Deposits and Payments::
Started 1 week, 1 day ago (2009-11-02 18:48:00)
by Ken_Pegasus
It sounds like your customers just made this up...it does not make any sense at all. Is an attorney involved?
Started 1 day, 10 hours ago (2009-11-09 15:37:00)
by rlcarey
We use to just run the credit and debit half through proof for $.01. No
additional tracking was needed and out of order transactions could still be
easily spotted.
Started 1 day, 10 hours ago (2009-11-09 16:35:00)
by Ken_Pegasus
You may decline to open the account, but the IRS will be dissappointed - they want their money!
Started 1 day, 11 hours ago (2009-11-09 15:12:00)
by John Burnett
That is a fair assumption to make. That is, unless the Fed amends that
section of the regulation.
Started 5 days, 9 hours ago (2009-11-05 17:04:00)
by John Burnett
No, they do not. There was no limit on new account holds for checks subject
to 229.12 before, and there is no announced change to section 229.13(a),
which provides for the new account hold.
Started 1 day, 17 hours ago (2009-11-09 09:27:00)
by Tocomply
Bump. This issue came from a regulator that is saying banks must switch and if not pay out the difference. I just want to know what others did for 2008.
Started 4 days, 7 hours ago (2009-11-06 18:58:00)
by crowman3
Using the large dollar exception, you must make $5,000.00 available next business day and hold $3,100.00 for either 7 or 11 business days depending on local/non-local of the check. You can also use a case-by-case hold to hold $4,900.00 for either 2 or 5 business days.
Started 4 days, 11 hours ago (2009-11-06 14:53:00)
by John Burnett
Your disclosure should reflect your policy and your actual practice. If you
don't apply holds, you should not disclose that you do. However, be aware
that if you don't disclose up front that you may place holds, you'll be in
violation of the regulation if you decide at some time to place one.
Started 6 days, 9 hours ago (2009-11-04 17:16:00)
by rlcarey
What is "next day availability - use statutory list" ?? Are you a case-by-case bank?
|
|
Hot threads for last week on Deposits and Payments::
Started 1 week ago (2009-11-03 14:23:00)
by HappyGilmore
what are you looking for? a comparative of what banks charge? how to set it? how FRB sets theirs?
Started 1 week, 1 day ago (2009-11-02 18:48:00)
by Ken_Pegasus
It sounds like your customers just made this up...it does not make any sense at all. Is an attorney involved?
Started 4 days, 11 hours ago (2009-11-06 14:53:00)
by John Burnett
Your disclosure should reflect your policy and your actual practice. If you
don't apply holds, you should not disclose that you do. However, be aware
that if you don't disclose up front that you may place holds, you'll be in
violation of the regulation if you decide at some time to place one.
Started 1 week, 1 day ago (2009-11-02 11:41:00)
by John Burnett
No. As yet, there is no regulatory requirement that banks provide opt-in or -out provisions relating to the payment of overdrafts; there is only a proposed amendment to Regulation E. That proposal, if adopted with an opt-out requirement, would provide a 30 day waiting period after providing an opt-out disclosure, during which time you could not impose an overdraft fee on ATM or certain POS debits...
Started 2 weeks, 4 days ago (2009-10-23 14:38:00)
by Duchess Skittles
We treat all holds as local items now, which does make it much easier. However, we don't really put on a lot of them.
Started 1 week ago (2009-11-03 09:58:00)
by ktac MITCH
Started 6 days, 9 hours ago (2009-11-04 17:16:00)
by rlcarey
What is "next day availability - use statutory list" ?? Are you a case-by-case bank?
Started 4 days, 7 hours ago (2009-11-06 18:58:00)
by crowman3
Using the large dollar exception, you must make $5,000.00 available next business day and hold $3,100.00 for either 7 or 11 business days depending on local/non-local of the check. You can also use a case-by-case hold to hold $4,900.00 for either 2 or 5 business days.
Started 1 week ago (2009-11-03 08:55:00)
by Ken_Pegasus
My opinion is that people who believe this kind of stuff left the party early, before the Kool-Aid was served. Your concern is whether extraneous language in an endorsement affects the collectibility of the item. I'm having trouble identifying a circumstance where that might happen...
Started 5 days, 9 hours ago (2009-11-05 17:04:00)
by John Burnett
No, they do not. There was no limit on new account holds for checks subject
to 229.12 before, and there is no announced change to section 229.13(a),
which provides for the new account hold.
|
|