Oh, and here is the guy's even more blatantly promotional site for added background. I don't actually know if the story is true because I was too lazy to check.
Well, I read the goddamn thing and I have to tell you he's a bit of a fame hound and a self-congratulatory schnook. Basically, you're looking at at three paragraph story inflated into a Atlantic article. By PJ O'Rourke.
And that ain't good.
Still, an interesting post; just an uninteresting guy.
Completely agree, forks. That was way too long. I could not help thinking about adverts for self-help videos/books whilst reading it (which admittedly is what the bloke is doing professionally). Every little thing is seemingly of universal importance and every statement seemingly so incredibly meaningful.
Bah! Did I mention it was way too long?
Well, I enjoyed it. Although he's a bit too self-congratulatory for my tastes, I thought the story interesting.
"I don
I'm pretty sure I stumbled across this tale some time ago (maybe on the blue? possibly elsewhere) His attitude seems to have changed since the original post (which was a much less sophisticated website). He came across as a bit scared having been hounded by bank officials and the cops ... now he's a lot prouder of the whole thing ...
I found it strange how he never seemed to think about negative consequenses before someone else pointed them out to him. That is a man with a positive attitude :)
Having dealt with horrible banking screw-ups that were no fault of my own (once my entire paycheck was deducted from my account instead of credited) where the customer service was less than helpful and the burden of proof was placed on me, I relished this story with a certain amount of glee. My glee would have been increased if the guy wasn't such a doof and the story was shortened by about 5000 words.
All these problems would be solved if they would just outsource banking to a more cheaper effecient work force.
"If Woody had only gone to the police, none of this would have happened..."
The guy's pic is annoying.
(a) How about a bill of rights for banking customers that fits on a 8.5 x 11" sheet of paper. Then all parties know where they stand at all times in regard to deposits and payments.
(b) When one presents a check, why can't the money be moved immediately? There should not be multiple-day waits in today's information age. The whole Federal Reserve system has the air of a 19th century system updated with numerous layers of technology.
Roly, there are a number of reasons why it's still that way. Mainly it's that banks like to actually have the document in their hands so that they can do things like verify that the check isn't altered or forged or counterfeit. It's just a safety precaution. If you hand me a check to cash from an out-of-state bank, I (the teller) could theoretically contact that bank and verify the routing number, account number, and amount. But unless they see the check, they can't verify signatures and look for evidence of tampering or forgery. This is especially a big problem in the era of sophisticated home desktop publishing and MICR ink cartidges. But banks are constantly looking for ways to streamline the process (e.g., giving customers incentives to use direct deposits, online bill pay, and automatic drafts). It's more secure for them, AND cheaper.
This bank of his was absolutely stupid, though. I don't care how long this guy had been banking with them, there's NO WAY they should have given him credit so quickly on a deposit so unusually large. Under the law, they could have automatically placed a two-week hold on the funds from that check, and if they had cause (which they did here), they could have placed an extended Reg CC hold on the check. Add to that the fact that both the teller(s) who ran the ATM transactions for the day and the proof department both missed the "non-negotiable" heading, and this is just one big snafu on their part. They deserved the trouble that they got for this -- there should have been better safeguards in place.
Not rooting for him, though. He's a tool who intentionally caused trouble for his own amusement and self-promotion.
I actually work in fraud prevention at a midsize financial, so this guy reminds me of all the jerks I have to deal with on a day to day basis.
Rolypolyman, google for "check 21" and you'll see that there are big changes in the works regarding the check payment system. Later this year laws will be taking effect which will allow banks to exchange electronic images of checks instead of actual pieces of paper. This should allow checks to be paid from your account the same day they are negotiated and will eliminate "float" time.
It's far too convenient, rolypolyman. I was astonished when working in England to discover how long interbanlk transfers and the like take (in New Zealand, it's always the next business day; in England it was three working days).
I was working at a bank, so I asked if this were some limitation of their systems; no, they explained, it was that they could get away with debiting one account on day one, crediting the other three days later, and having ownership of the money (and any income it could be used to generate) on the days in between. It would not change, nor would the even longer cheque clearances, because it was worth billions of pounds annually.
I believe the principle reason we have it better in New Zealand is principally a matter of law.
So...very...long.
He's also a dork. While I'd love to see $95K right now, it's not THAT much money. Near the end he's looking at all the vaults and wondering if his has the most. No, Patrick, it doesn't.
I also think some of it has got to be fixed...the parts about the "World Wide Web" and the fact it was on the day of the O.J. verdict...I dunno. He's also a piss-poor writer, and plays way too heavily on "wow banks have money I don't they are so powerful repeat ad nauseum" blah blah.
All that said, I did read the whole thing, so I suppose I'm the sucker. ;)
middleclasstool, I'm sorry but I have to take issue with what you said about placing a two-week hold on the check.
Round about the time that this incident happened, I was a bank teller. The laws at that time (can't comment about now) were that a bank could place up to a three-day hold on any check not drawn on the bank that it was being deposited at, and that they could place a one-day hold on a check drawn on the same bank. I believe there was also a provision to allow a one-week hold on out of state checks, not drawn on the same bank. They were only allowed to hold amounts greater than the amount already in the account, or in the case of some banks with better customer service, an amount greater than the customer's combined balance from all accounts.
I agree with you though about the teller and the proofer. Between the two of them, they should have caught this hands-down.
Bad writing or not, it helped kill the last hour of my boring Friday night shift.
Incidentally, I doubt this could even get published in the Atlantic.
I was referring more to the length than the quality.
Well, I'm a teller, have been for a couple of years now at a couple of different banks, and ten-business-day check holds are quite common. The Expedited Funds Availability Act does set rules to get customers their money quicker, but it does allow for OOS checks not drawn on the depositor's bank for that long (standard is five business days, but banks are allowed two-week holds or even longer for cases such as these). When I worked for US Bank, they'd do that for all new account deposits.
cheapereffecient work force.