Please pull your money out of Citibank if you bank there

[AllentownJake]

Here is how corporate America works. One company will test float something. See how the public responds and the others follow quickly behind if they get little push back.

The same that is done with a new product, is done with something like we reserve the right to not honor a check unless you give us 7 days notice.

If Citibank implements it, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo will soon follow, and than your smaller regional banks. Before you know it, it is an industry standard policy.

Citibank needs to be punished economically for this anti-consumer tactic. It is the only thing they will understand, and their competitors need to see Citibank suffer.

Thank you.

[hobbit709]

1. I keep my money(what little there is) in my CU

I don't even have a Shitibank credit card.

[geckosfeet]

2. Two words worth repeating ad infitum: Credit Union

[vi5]

3. Wait....what?

Sorry, I haven't seen anywhere else what you are referencing so I don't know what they are implementing that is bad.

Is it the 7 days notice on a check thing? What does that mean?

[AllentownJake]

5. They have changed the terms on their checking accounts

They reserve the right not to honor checks unless you give them 7 days notice that you are taking money out of the account.

[Raven]

4. Here is why people don't do this:

First, I had a conversation with 2 friends on Friday about this issus. Both of them had bounced checks because of how the bank had posted their automatic deposit paychecks. One had to pay $210, the other $70 in penalties. I'm with a local community bank and asked them why they had not done that. Here is why...

People have their paychecks automatically deposited, they have bills automatically paid through their checking accounts. Very clever of these banks because once the bank has them, inertia sets in and it can be challenging to figure out how to get out.

Then, you have to contact all your accounts to get the payment system changes. Again, daunting to people.

We decided that the thing to do was to open a small account at a local bank and gradually transfer things over from the big bank. Slowly, I think they will do that and be happy they did. Make a list of your automatic accounts, schedule the transfers over. Keep track and before you know it you'll be in the clear and not bleeding $.

[AllentownJake]

6. Yeah I stopped that automatic payment thing

8 years ago, when I moved to Indiana for 4 years and First Union at the time sent me a threat to put me on Chex systems because they honored a payment of an automatic payment after I closed my account.

People still get paper checks from me.

People need to stand up for their rights, if they are unwilling to do so, I don't want to hear bitching when Citibank declines a check card payment on a big item at Best Buy and embarrasses them because they didn't give the 7 days notice they were going to purchase it.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. Covered in several prior threads, and the news, and it's not what you think...

Citibank is just following a few Federal regulations requiring them to advise you that the law allows, and might require, 7 day notice for withdrawals from demand deposits. Savings accounts have always had this printed in the the bankbooks or statements. They do not intend to put this into effect.

But, go ahead and tell everyone else what they should do-- never let an inconvenient fact get in the way of a righteous rant.

[AllentownJake]

9. Nope

I simplified this for mass readership but since you want to be a bank defender which the party of Roosevelt and Jackson seems to have been infiltrated with a lot of these days I'm going to hit you with the facts.

Checking accounts are not saving accounts.

What Citibank is doing is ridding themselves of their DDA accounts which is a Demand Deposit Accounts.

What is a DDA?

It is an account which the holder reserves the right to, and the bank agrees to comply with, demand any and all good collected funds in the account at any time up to the entire balance.

They are changing what the accounts were originally set up as, and yes that is news for consumers.

[TreasonousBastard]

10. Wrong on almost all counts...

I know the difference between account types, and I said this was always the way for savings accounts.

Checking accounts ARE demand deposits, and in the event of a run on the banks, could be subject to similar rules as savings accounts. They are not changing anything-- you are getting hysterical over nothing.

Citibank, one of the largest retail bankers, getting out of retail banking? Could be, but the way they'd do it isn't by scaring their customers with phony threats.

Again-- they were required to send some sort of notice by the regulators, and something got screwed up in how they sent the notice out.

[AllentownJake]

11. In the event of a bank run

The federal government steps in. Stop playing coy, I'm suspect of your motives in defending this institution.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. Suspect my motives all you want, but you're still wrong...

the good news is that most DUers who heard about this are on your side, facts be damned. The last DU thread I saw about this had people absolutely apopleptic, even though they had no idea what it was all about.

However, should you be at all interested in tha facts of the matter, here's someone who actually bothered to follow up on it:

http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2010/02/citi-warns-of-withdrawal-gate

<...>
"I called Citi about it and they said the warning applies only to customers in Texas and that the notification had been mistakenly included on statements nationwide. Whatever the explanation, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in Citi. I've got nothing against Citi as a general matter -- I have friends who work there, and know some account holders who are generally satisfied customers. But it's hard to believe a bank would be sending out a notice like that on its statements.

Update: Citibank has now released the following statement by way of explanation: "When Citibank moved to unlimited FDIC coverage in 2009, we had to reclassify many checking accounts to allow for immediate withdrawals in order to ensure all customers qualified for the additional coverage. When we moved back to standard FDIC coverage with most major banks in 2010, Citibank decided to reclassify those accounts back to make them eligible again for promotional incentives. To do so, Federal Reserve Reg D requires these accounts, called NOW accounts, to reserve the right to require a 7-day notice of withdrawal. We recently communicated this technical requirement to our customers. However, we have never exercised this right and have no plans to do so in the future."

<...>

It's absolutely none of your business where I bank, but I will admit that it's not Citi. Nor do I have any other dealing with Citi, or any other banks aside from a few small accounts. I do, however, have some reasons other than this silliness why I would never give Citi a nickel, but you would need a course in finance to understand them.

[laughingliberal]

18. +1 nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

17. The potential problem with a 7 day notice

is this:
DDA accounts are essential for the ordinary flow of commerce. There must be an option available to consumers and businesses alike in which they can place custody of funds they may need, up to the entire balance of that account, at any point in time without prior notice. Without this ability you are literally at the mercy of the financial institution in question, which can cause you to incur hideous "bounced check" and other similar charges as well as potentially exposing you to criminal liability for "uttering" (writing bad checks.)
Thanks to Denningr for that insight.

Citibank says it has not in the past and has no intentions at the moment to change DDA account status.
It does not say it will never do this, tho.

I see no reason to think the Big Banks are my friend.

[laughingliberal]

19. Imagine having to notify the bank a week ahead you are going to buy groceries

I don't trust 'em as far as I can throw them. I can see them issuing their calming statement now and, when everyone has forgotten about it, wham! Is there anything in the history of these institutions to suggest they won't use any means at their disposal to screw us?

[dixiegrrrrl]

29. We are hearing a warning.

The first warning was back when money market funds threatened to break the buck, to reduce the value of what you held. ( I moved out of money market the next day).
Then money market funds said they reserved the right to not honer withdrawal requests
"if necessary".
Now Citi is saying the same thing.
You don't put a trigger in the game unless you think you will need to pull it.

There will be those who will ignore this, and even those who will try to get others to ignore this.
But I have learned over half a century of experience and much much reading of history that
if something smells fishy, it probably is.
Except this time around, the financial powers are actually being not very covert at all.
Being suspicious, in this case, is a good thing.

[rucky]

8. You're 100% correct.

This is the best way to combat their shenanigans. Good luck waiting for congress to close the loopholes they're bound to exploit.

[bluhoodie]

12. Got a new letter from Citibank yesterday & already made plans

to close my account. I haven't used the account in a long time, so I had to jump through hoops to renew my login. By the way, I too got the letter notifying of that 7-day advance notice warning and thought WTF?!) and then read here at DU that other people felt the same way. I have wondered though if, like TreasonousBastard said, it was really just part of the new federal regulations and they're advising us of the possibility (in certain – rare – occasions, like a run on the bank). (Maybe Citibank is ahead of the other banks in letting its customers know???)

Okay, there’s that to consider. So now, a week later, I get another letter, and here's what it says (its awkward wording has had me confused):

Why We Are Writing To You

We are writing to you as a reminder that effective February 1, 2010, your monthly service fee and monthly per check fees are no longer waived for having direct deposit or two qualifying online bill payments.* However, when you maintain $1,500 in combined checking, savings, money market and CD balances each month the monthly service and per check fees will be waived.

What Has Changes

For the period through January 31, 2011, in each month that you have direct deposit or do two qualifying online bill payments the monthly per check fees will now be waived.

(Wow, despite a close reading previously, it took typing that out to actually FINALLY see what Citibank is saying! – guess I’m not as good a reader as I thought.) Despite legislation mandating banks to make their disclosures clearer, to write in plain English, they still convolute as much as possible with “legalese.” -- In other words, why can’t they simply say “We’re going to be charging you fees unless you maintain a certain amount in combined accounts – and here are the guidelines.” Instead they say they’re “NOT going to WAIVE fees... However,…” --double-negative legalese--and then the actual charges are listed way down at the bottom, crashing into the copyright footer so it doesn’t stand out, with an asterisk. “*Monthly service fee of $7.50 with the first 10 checks at no charge and $1.00 per check thereafter.”

Incidentally, can somebody tell me WHY a bank has to charge a service fee – per month – when they don’t do anything that isn’t fully automated – when my money is just sitting there? Say I have $1,250 in the account and I’m not writing checks, not depositing or withdrawing, not getting interest. WHAT “service” am I paying for??? If a friend wants to store a jar full of money in a hole in my backyard, should I charge that friend a service fee for each month it’s buried underground – because it’s in MY yard?

BTW, I went online and checked my accounts. I have a combined $6,000 sitting there, so I should be okay – per their new rules. But all the same, why should Citibank get the benefit of using my money? I’m closing this account and moving that money to my credit union.

(When I opened the Citibank account several years ago, it was because I could get interest of 4.5% on an e-savings account. Ha! What good reason is there to stay with Citibank TODAY?)

Bye bye, Citibank. :hi:

[dana_b]

16. bluhoodie - I think you answered yor own question

there is no good reason to stay with them. Worse than that, they don't give a shit if they lose you as a customer. I closed my B of A account a couple of weeks ago (well, sort of. we're still battling) and they didn't ask why or give a damn. They don't care about our measly bit of money, it appears. They want the business accounts and big loans. I really think they are deliberately trying to get rid of the little guys.

[lonestarnot]

14. And how long do they require you to leave your money in account when you waltz in to close?

3 years? 5 years? :rofl: These clowns should be shut down.

[Dr.Phool]

22. I read about a woman in Florida who tried to close a BOA account.

She had a savings account for her school aged son, who died recently, and they tried to charge her a $100 fee to close the account.

[lonestarnot]

28. Sons of bitches! Dog fuckers!

[RB TexLa]

15. On specific accounts with certain DIC coverage. That's always been the rule, no one enforces it.

[TreasonousBastard]

21. By the tone of this and other threads on Citibank...

no one cares for the truth.

It's enough to just hate banks.

[sendero]

20. I don't bank with Citibank....

.... but I do a lot of credit card biz with them.

I want to stop doing business with them, but I'm having trouble finding a smaller bank that actually does credit cards.

All of the online research I have done shows that most cards, including affinity cards and the like, all wind up being run by one of the big banks.

If anyone has any advice about how to get a credit card that isn't with one of the big banks I'm listening :)

[dixiegrrrrl]

23. Maybe a halfway solution..

I have a credit card from a community bank, have had it since 1994.
Even when I stopped banking there the card was still good.
It is a VISA, true, but....the interest rate has never changed.
Still 9%.
I always pay off the balance. I pay a 20.00 year fee, which
was common for a card like that.
The 20.00 annual fee has never changed.
Not yet, anyhow.
Meanwhile my Citi Card started out as a Visa, same year, went thru dozens of changes and offers
and names and interest rates, now 24%.
Since I never carry a balance, I expect to get the letter announcing a steep fee, at which time I will
stop using it and close it by letter.
( Always close your card accounts by letter)

You might try bankrate.com or bankfox.com to search for a good bank in your area, or a good credit card deal, but I think that all CC cards ARE a monopoly.

[xchrom]

24. Recommend

[Raineyb]

25. Isn't Citibank also planning on charging people an annual fee if they don't

charge 2400 a year on their credit cards?

[Greyhound]

26. Unfortunately I have avoided them since the 80s, but I will continue! K&R.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. I used to have a Citibank, which I opened in the mistaken belief that

it was easier for Japanese customers to wire money to Citibank than other banks, since Citibank has branches in Japan.

That turned out to be wrong.

However, inertia kept me there until last spring, when suddenly, my account was overdrawn, even though I had been very careful to keep a balance at all times. (And yes, I always subtracted the ATM and wire transfer fees.)

Looking at my account online, I saw that they had suddenly decided to charge "miscellaneous fees," otherwise unexplained. These fees were exactly enough to make my account overdrawn, and then, of course, Citibank got to charge overdraft fees.

I paid the overdraft fees, made sure my balance was zero, cut up my Citibank debit card, and mailed back the little tiny pieces with a letter asking to close my account.

[Earth_First]

30. Credit unions, credit unions, credit unions...

At least for the time being.