Complaint Review: Wachovia - Atlanta Georgia

Where is the picture on web site?

Well since logic is being ignored about Wachovia charging overdrafts that should NEVER have occured, I've taken the liberty of posting a snapshot to show exactly what they're doing. Good luck showing how Wachovia's right on that one. Also, I love how Wachovia goes by hold dates on debit transactions, yet when I make a deposit the same policy does not occur. What an awesome bank! And yes, I am sure that most banks share a lot of these same policies. My suggestion, MAKE THEM ILLEGAL. Defend these banks all you would like, but the bottom line is this BS is going to have to change. Check out the picture. [IMG]http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i208/r_frost2002/Wachovia.jpg[/IMG] http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i208/r_frost2002/Wachovia.jpg

This is so redundant Striderq, but what I've stated many times is it DOES NOT MATTER what Wells Fargo's Deposit Agreement says. What matters is what they actually do. The same was true with BofA, where prior to 2008, it didn't matter their Deposit Agreement wording was SIMILAR to that of Wachovia's. This DID NOT prove that BofA charged the Unavailable Funds Fee. And now we have confirmation with BofA's new policy in 2008. Why the need for them to send out new policy disclosures for something they were ALREADY DOING and already stated in the old policy? It's because they weren't doing it before, even though the previous Deposit Agreement wording could have been twisted to suggest they were. And now I'm stating the same is true with Wells Fargo. Do you understand this point now? And here's the proof, EXACTLY like it was with BofA. Look at this timing. On this very thread in one of my earlier posts I made the following comment, 'I cannot find ONE SINGLE Wells Fargo report that matches yours. NOT ONE. And I stopped once I got to the year of 2006'. I made this comment on this thread in my post dated 12/26/2008. Why is this important? Because that was a true statement at that time. Notice how no report numbers were produced to contradict me. And now, conveniently you produce the report # 420342. Anyone notice the date of this report? Anyone? Yes, it's dated 2/4/2009. The very first one on record and posted after my claim back on 12/26/2008! Hmmmm..... I'll answer your other question but first here's a DIRECT REQUEST to you. I can provide HUNDREDS of Wachovia reports numbers about the Unavailable Funds Fee. So far you have only produced ONE Wells report. I'm willing to bet you cannot produce NOT ONE ADDITIONAL report number that substantiates your claim. Notice I didn't ask you to produce FIVE or TEN, even though I can produce that many PER DAY for Wachovia. But if you can reveal additional Wells reports, I will certainly acknowledge it. Remember I subsequently acknowledged it with BofA, AFTER they BEGAN to do it. To answer your final question. I'm sure you've heard of the word BOYCOTT. This is how my advice helps. Of course we all know if you overdraw your account you will be charged a fee. Everyone gets that and I've said it many times. The problem is UNETHICAL and SHADY practices that seek to UNFAIRLY step on the customer's neck. My point to these customers is that not all banks use these CRIMINAL policies and they can certainly take their business elsewhere. Of course if they overdraw their account at their NEW bank they will also be charged a fee. The key difference is, it will only be ONE fee, not TWO or MORE fees for other transactions that never overdrew the account. That's how my advice helps. Now I'll take a page out of your book and state if you choose to respond to any of this, please don't forget to include those Wells report numbers. We'll be waiting.....

Man even I have trouble believing that you do not accept the Wells Fargo terms and conditions as evidence that they charge the unavailable funds fee. One of your first complaints about Wachovia was that they did not specifically state that teh fee would be chrged on a negative AVAILABLE balance. Now you have Wells which secifically states that and you still don't want to accept it. There are reports on Wells that state OD fees when my balance was positive, OD fees when only the fees took me negative and other indicators of the unavailable funds fees. Now we have a report specifically saying they charge an unavailable funds fee and you still want to deny it. As far as your 'hope' that Wells won't charge this fee after integration, well let's look at that: The bank is in business to make money. This fee is a money maker. They charge the fee now. How in the world can you even begin do think they are going to do away with it??? As far as the reports saying unavailable funds fees: those specific words weren't being used until myself and other bank employees began educating people as to what was going on so that they could understand how to avoid the fees. If you don't understand why something is happening, you can't avoid it from happening. However after you understand why, you decide to continue the behavior tahe leads to the fee then you've accepted the fee. At this point there is no one to blame but yourself. In my last post, I described three type of people. I guess by your response that you have definately put yourself into the third catagory. That of the people that WON't understand. Fine by me. By the way you still have not answered one question that I have asked you several times. I will ask one last time. My explaination of the fees has been to try to help people avoid the fee. What, exactly has any of your advice done to help avoid the fee? Answer: Nothing, it has just help defend the 'victimhood' of the people being charged these fees. Helping them feel that they have done nothing wrong and leading them to continue the same financial mismanagement that will lead to them continuing to pay these fees.

Exhibit A. On numerous posting order reports, I tried to discreetly alert everyone that not all banks post in order of largest to smallest. I simply tried to get the OP to review the evidence themselves and do their own research. My argument was the absence of any complaint reports against certain banks. Many questioned how I could reach such a conclusion simply from the absence of any reports. That doesn't prove anything. Yes, that's true. But in fact, the absence of the reports was only CONFIRMATION of what I already knew with 100% certainty, from the EMPLOYEES themselves. When I finally revealed the name, WAMU, everyone was free to go back and review the evidence as I previously suggested. No mystery to what everyone found. Exhibit B. When I first began this rant against Wachovia in 2007, I made the point that NO OTHER banks use this UNBELIEVABLE RIPOFF, not even BofA. You Striderq used the same arguments back then as you do here with Wells. You referred me to BofA's Deposit Agreement. Yes, I agreed BofA's Deposit Agreement wording was exactly identical to Wachovia's. Neither of them mentioned charging fees for holds. So in essence, BofA's PROCEDURE matched it's POLICY. Just like with WAMU, I pointed to the absence of the complaint reports. Then lo and behold in 2008 BofA implements a new policy and releases a new Deposit Agreement that CLEARLY stated they would NOW BEGIN charging fees for holds. From THAT POINT, the BofA reports start flooding in like the Wachovia reports. But prior to that point, NO REPORTS. Why? Because they weren't doing it, contrary to what you Striderq tried to infer from their Deposit Agreement wording. Now after reviewing these 'allegedly false' arguments, you can do the rest with Wells Fargo. Jim, you are partially correct. The Unavailable Funds Fee is certainly more wide spread now than before, but that still doesn't mean that ALL banks use it, including Wells Fargo. This is the same argument I made with WAMU and posting order. And we all know how that turned out.

Edward, this isn't something unique to this bank any longer; they're now all doing it and it's now in their agreements. The problem I see is that people believe so long as their account balances don't go into the negative - then they're fine. They are not. The issue becomes what is available and when. Unless a consumer hones the timing down to a science, it forces consumers to keep an excess balance in their accounts if they're going to play with debit cards. The convenience of a debit card will cost you money - even if that money doesn't get taken by a bank; it's the cost of money you can't use in order to keep from overdrafting. It's why I always say to stay away from debit cards. When consumers finally do, and they return to sound practices for managing their money, then they will minimize the opportunity of overdrafting.

to ignore the evidence that all banks, Wachovia, Wells, BOA, etc charge the unavailable funds fee. I've posted the terms and conditions from Wells where it quite plainly says they will charge a fee when your available balnace goes into the negative. I've given you a report that quite plainly says Wells posted a fee when the available balance went into the negative. Since they're charging it now I would have to beleave that they would continue to charge it after full integration. But that's okay, I've come to expect selective belief from you. You tell people not to interpret/change what the OP says, but you are willing to do it when the OP doesn't help your side. There's basically three types of people on this situation: the people who understand it; the people who don't understand it but can be educated and then the people who won't understand it. So sorry to burst the bubble about your shining knight Edward, but they do charge the unavailable funds fee as well as the fee for continuous days overdrawn (which not even Wachovia charges now but probably will after integration). So go ahead and reply but your arguments have been proven false.

Yes I did go and read the Wells Fargo report you referenced. And yes, I will grant you that all of the symptoms seem identical to the Wachovia reports. Here's the problem. You and I have already played this song and dance before. It was with BofA. They too had past eports that SEEMED to indicate the charging of an Unavailable Funds Fee. But these reports were filed BEFORE BofA actually did begin this practice at the beginning of 2008. I will use the same arguments now as I did back then. This is ONE SINGLE Wells Fargo report. Why are these reports not FLOODING in, like Wachovia reports? Also, keep in mind the WF report you reference mentions a pending deposit. The WF report does not reveal the detailed transaction history like NEARLY ALL of these Wachovia reports. But most importantly, notice the date the WF report was filed, 2-4-2009. Is there a subliminal message I see in there which answers my question from my earlier post, 'it will be interesting to see whether they ADOPT or ABANDON this ripoff here? ' Hmmm.....

like you are having deposit holds placed on your deposits. The deposit made after 2 will post to your account the next business night at midnight but may not be available for your use due to a deposit hold. Look at your statements and see when the deposit was credited to your account and I believe you will see the availablity may have been held a weel but the deposit was not.

I have been with wachovia since 2004. I have only had an overdraft once and that was completely my fault. (went over 4.76) So I paid the fee . It was my fault not wachovias. But Wachovia does have a strange practice when depositing money. It states that any money deposited after 2:00pm will be posted the next business day. I have see this not done many , many times. So I just don't spend the money until it posts. I know for a fact I have made purchases and wachovia will hold the money for up to 1 week. (I know its a bit long but I suppose this is how they do things). On my account right now I have made a few charges and they are still sitting in the hold place and its been 5 days. Of course there was sat and sunday. I do agree with some of wachovias practices are a little off. Then again I make sure the money has posted both my phone and online. Good luck to you.

Edward please read Wells Fargo report #420342. It quite specifically states that the OP was charged OD fees for items that were pending, unavailable funds fees. And to let you know, yes Wachovia is now part of Wells Fargo but the integration has not occurred. meaning both banks are still operating as separate businesses. The only changes have been you can now use the other banks ATM at no non-bank fee and if you hold an account at one of the banks, you can cash a check drawn at the other bank at that bank with no non-account holder fee. So this means the unavailable funds fee is something that Wells has been charging as indicated in their terms and conditions. There are other reports here about this, but you clearly can not refute the report by interpretation of the OP.

Edward please read Wells Fargo report #420342. It quite specifically states that the OP was charged OD fees for items that were pending, unavailable funds fees. And to let you know, yes Wachovia is now part of Wells Fargo but the integration has not occurred. meaning both banks are still operating as separate businesses. The only changes have been you can now use the other banks ATM at no non-bank fee and if you hold an account at one of the banks, you can cash a check drawn at the other bank at that bank with no non-account holder fee. So this means the unavailable funds fee is something that Wells has been charging as indicated in their terms and conditions. There are other reports here about this, but you clearly can not refute the report by interpretation of the OP.

Edward please read Wells Fargo report #420342. It quite specifically states that the OP was charged OD fees for items that were pending, unavailable funds fees. And to let you know, yes Wachovia is now part of Wells Fargo but the integration has not occurred. meaning both banks are still operating as separate businesses. The only changes have been you can now use the other banks ATM at no non-bank fee and if you hold an account at one of the banks, you can cash a check drawn at the other bank at that bank with no non-account holder fee. So this means the unavailable funds fee is something that Wells has been charging as indicated in their terms and conditions. There are other reports here about this, but you clearly can not refute the report by interpretation of the OP.

To Ken and to the OP, here is a detailed representation of what I tried to summarize in my earlier post (the 2nd post on this thread in response to Edgeman). Date......Item......Amount..Posted Bal....Available Bal 12-08....Deposit..$300.00..$316.84........$291.10 12-09....Debit.....$25.74...$291.10.........$291.10 12-12....Debit.....$52.34...$238.76.........$199.87 12-15....Deposit..$150.00..$388.76........$199.75 12-15....Debit.....$38.89...$349.87.........$160.86 12-15....Debit.....$9.00.....$340.87........$151.86 12-16....Debit.....$178.20..$162.67........$106.67 12-16....Debit.....$10.81...$151.86........$95.86 12-17....Deposit..$2080....$2231.86.......$2094.77 12-17....Debit.....$6.00.....$2225.86......$2088.77 12-18....Debit.....$2100....$125.86........$90.91 12-18....Debit.....$50.00...$75.86..........$40.91 12-18....Debit.....$43.06...$32.80.........($2.15) 12-18....Debit.....$17.27...$15.53.........($19.42) 12-18....Debit.....$9.08....$6.45...........($28.50) 12-18....Fees......$105.....($98.55).......(-203.55) 12-19....Debit.....$23.52...($122.07).....($238.50) 12-19....Debit.....$6.41....($128.48).....($238.50) 12-19....Debit.....$5.02....($133.50).....($238.50) 12-19....Fees......$105.....($238.50).....($238.50) The Available balance is negative after the final three transactions post on the 18th. This is why Wachovia charges three Unavailable Fees on the 18th. The posted balance is negative when the three transactions post on the 19th, so THREE MORE fees are charged, except these are OVERDRAFT fees this time. Overdraft fees are charged when you don't have enough funds in your account to cover a transaction ITSELF. Unavailable Funds Fees are charged when a posting transaction doesn't leave enough funds to cover OTHER pending holds, which may not post for days, IF AT ALL. Here's a different way to see the Ripoff here. Using this same ledger, focus on the FINAL THREE transactions that posted (Boston Market, American Wings, DD/BR). These transactions were actually made on the 17th. But for the sake of argument, let's say they were the LAST THREE transactions made, period. Let's assume they were made LAST and they post LAST. If these FINAL three transactions overdraw the Available balance, a fee will be charged for them, no problem there. The problem is with the PREVIOUS transactions. When the card was swiped at Target, USPS, and Walgreen, the Available balance was STILL POSITIVE. And when they post, the posted balance is also positive. Yet the Target, USPS and Walgreen transactions are each charged a fee ALSO. Why? Because of the final three transactions which were OCCURRED aftewards and POSTED afterwards. DOUBLE FEES. Get it? Very few banks charge fees this way and you can probably count them on one hand. Wells Fargo is not one of them and it will be interesting to see whether they ADOPT or ABANDON this ripoff here.

OK, here's what I think happened: On 12/17 the account had a balance of $151.86. A check was deposited for $2080.00. Reg DD dictates that $100 be immediately available, so the available balance becomes $251.86, and the ledger balance is $2,231,86. The same day a $6 cleared, giving us $245.86 and $2,225,86. On 12/18 ING pulled out $2,100, leaving a negative available balance of $1,855 and a ledger balance of 125.86. It goes downhill from there. The subsequent uncollected funds charge and following five transactions all increased the negative amount. This all hinges on the deposit of $2,080 being a check. If it was, it all fits. If not, then sorry, I can't explain it either.

Leave it to a Wachovia employee to need a book with pictures to comprehend simple meaning. Did I say anything about a government bailout? The entire conversation we have engaged in has centered on your willingness to hypocritically lecture your customers on responsibility when your pitiful bank couldn't even manage its own finances - thus leading to your being rescued and indeed BAILED OUT by Wells Fargo. Had they not stepped in, your company would have been forced to endure a fate far larger than an overdraft fee - so stop trying to pass off some canned response to a fictional statement. Keep digging, Striderq...everyone sees and comprehends your hypocrisy and lack of credibility on this subject. That is why your puppet defenders have all mysteriously scurried away to their respective holes...

http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/eesa/docs/12-29-08.pdf Lists the banks that have asked for and received bailout money. wells Fargo is on the list but wachovia is not on the list. So TD, how's your argument now???

For the OP: Yes, unfortunately an overdraft of $4.04 can lead to OD fees of $140. This indicates that you got 4 fees, 4 items posted to the negative. In your contract (terms and conditions) you agreed to an OD fee of $35 per item that posts negative. Unfortunately you may have expected one but four were legally charged. For TD: Again completely off topic. You can view in anyhow you like but you are drifting farther and farther from the truth you say you can detect. Exactly what excuses have I made for the decisions of the Board of Directors? What I have done is help people understand how they can avoid fees. If you have a problem with that, then the problem is yours. If you want you can continue with personal attacks bit I will stay on topic and continue to try to help educate people how to avoid the fees. All you seem to do lately is complain but offer no advice. By the way, please post your proof that Wachovia or Wells Fargo asked/received any of the bailout money. On another report here, an employee says we didn't ask/receive any. So what proof do you have that we did?

You quipped: 'For TD: Actually I'm not a hypocrite as you would like to label me. What I've been posting is personal responsibility not victimhood. In the case of the OP and almost all others posting here on ROR about OD fees, it comes down to they did not take the personal responsibility to keep an accurate register.' Once again, who are YOU to lecture ANYONE on personal responsibility? You have done nothing but make excuses for Wachovia's LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY by running their books into the RED. YOUR company ran itself into DEBT, and then was BAILED OUT on the tail end of its irresponsibility. Wachovia takes a BAILOUT, and then has the unmitigated gall to lecture ITS OWN CUSTOMERS regarding RESPONSIBILITY? The credibility issue here is so simple a child can comprehend it, Striderq. YOU work for a company that swims in a sewer of debt, begs to be BAILED OUT of the justifiable consequences of its POOR CHOICES and an inability to PROPERLY MANAGE ITS FINANCES, yet you hypocritically lecture YOUR CUSTOMERS about irresponsibility. I, on the other hand, do not maintain my employment as a result of a BAILOUT - yet I advocate on behalf of THE WORKING CONSUMER. The reading audience can make up its own mind as to who has credibility in this argument...

I was charged $140 for a one time overdraft of $4.04. I agreed to a $35 dollar fee in my contract. The truth is self evident. The point is: Is this practice of absorbent overcharge for service, acceptable or allowed by law in any other business entity? Furthermore will all the top CEO's of AIG and other perpetrators of credit meltdown be forced to attend credit counseling? Yet in effect they did precisely what average credit default people do, speculate.

For TD: Actually I'm not a hypocrite as you would like to label me. What I've been posting is personal responsibility not victimhood. In the case of the OP and almost all others posting here on ROR about OD fees, it comes down to they did not take the personal responsibility to keep an accurate register. Did Wachovia post the loss? Yes and that is due to the personal responsibility of the Board of Directors not making sure everything was done properly. Just as I have no control over the customer, I have no control over the Board of Directors. If you look at the reports here on ROR, I've posted to reposrts on many banks trying to help educate the account owner as to why the fees happened and how to avoid them. By your line of thinking, I should be here telling them that it's just a mistake, don't worry about it' it won't happen again, while trying to get more OD fees accessed. By your line of reasoning, if someome voted for Obama in the election and then after he's in office he does something that is upsetting, then the person who elected him can not say anything about the incident. Sorry, doesn't work that way. As it's been pointed out the OD fees and Wachovia's write off are not apples to apples and to bring in up in a report that's about OD fees is taking the report off focus. If you wanted to file a report about the write off and discuss your feelings there, it be great. But in diverting the focus of the report, you have lost credibility.

JG, you may want to consult the definition of a concept before you mindlessly toss it out there for digestion... This is not an attempt to change the subject. No one here disputes that overdrafters should pay a penalty. The issue here is the credibility of a soapbox responsibility preacher standing behind a (-)$23.9 billion pulpit. I heard arguments like yours when companies went bust after the dot.com boom of the 1990s. Your "value of paper" whining does not negate the FACT that Wachovia made POOR decisions that sent them drastically into the RED - thus making the aggregate organization as guilty as the common overdrafter, but on a far larger scale. Now, Striderq is a self-described representative of Wachovia. When he posts, he does so as a WACHOVIA EMPLOYEE. He cannot post under that banner when things are great, then subsequently dissociate himself from the disgrace that is his company. That, JG, is called HYPOCRISY - and it doesn't fly on ROR. BTW, your subjective assertion that Striderq is "very intelligent" is irrelevant to the indisputable FACTS of the central argument here. Striderq is preaching responsibility from the Wachovia pulpit. Ergo, he has NO credibility when he attempts to talk down to overdrafters when he suggests that they "keep an accurate register". FYI, I do not overdraft my checking account - nor do I work for a slovenly company that runs its mouth while it sits $23.9 billion in the RED. Therefore, your comment regarding my 'credibility' is equally irrelevant since I do not have a pony in the race. I am simply pointing out flaws in your thinking because it is my right to do so.

So everyone is right. How's that? Jim, JG, and Truth Detector all make very good points. Like Jim, I had reservations about diving into some of this. While it's true that Striderq cannot and should not be held responsible for the actions of his superiors, it just gives a bad impression. I mean, honestly, if I were a Wachovia teller, I would feel STUPID looking customers in the eye, telling them these things with a stratight face. But that's just me. As Jim and JG pointed out, Wachovia's downfall has nothing to do with keeping a check register. But STILL, Wachovia made BAD FINANCIAL decisions. And here's where Truth Detector is right. When the customer complains and whines and wants their money back because of their own BAD DECISIONS, they're DENIED. But on the other hand, when Wachovia makes BAD DECISIONS, which drives them into the dirt, they are BAILED OUT. For the bank customer and Wachovia, the CAUSE of their ruin is not the same, and not the issue. It's the difference of the RESOLUTION for each. That's the HYPOCRISY. Now, getting back to the issue in the OP, as JG mentions credibility, let's wait and see if Striderq PROVES his with Wells Fargo ROR numbers, the way I ultimately did with WAMU and posting order. I already have a suspicion of the Wells Fargo reports that Striderq is referring to for comparison, and I can tell you in ALL cases, it's not what he's trying to make it out to be. Just like it wasn't for BofA, remember? Sound familiar?

So everyone is right. How's that? Jim, JG, and Truth Detector all make very good points. Like Jim, I had reservations about diving into some of this. While it's true that Striderq cannot and should not be held responsible for the actions of his superiors, it just gives a bad impression. I mean, honestly, if I were a Wachovia teller, I would feel STUPID looking customers in the eye, telling them these things with a stratight face. But that's just me. As Jim and JG pointed out, Wachovia's downfall has nothing to do with keeping a check register. But STILL, Wachovia made BAD FINANCIAL decisions. And here's where Truth Detector is right. When the customer complains and whines and wants their money back because of their own BAD DECISIONS, they're DENIED. But on the other hand, when Wachovia makes BAD DECISIONS, which drives them into the dirt, they are BAILED OUT. For the bank customer and Wachovia, the CAUSE of their ruin is not the same, and not the issue. It's the difference of the RESOLUTION for each. That's the HYPOCRISY. Now, getting back to the issue in the OP, as JG mentions credibility, let's wait and see if Striderq PROVES his with Wells Fargo ROR numbers, the way I ultimately did with WAMU and posting order. I already have a suspicion of the Wells Fargo reports that Striderq is referring to for comparison, and I can tell you in ALL cases, it's not what he's trying to make it out to be. Just like it wasn't for BofA, remember? Sound familiar?

So everyone is right. How's that? Jim, JG, and Truth Detector all make very good points. Like Jim, I had reservations about diving into some of this. While it's true that Striderq cannot and should not be held responsible for the actions of his superiors, it just gives a bad impression. I mean, honestly, if I were a Wachovia teller, I would feel STUPID looking customers in the eye, telling them these things with a stratight face. But that's just me. As Jim and JG pointed out, Wachovia's downfall has nothing to do with keeping a check register. But STILL, Wachovia made BAD FINANCIAL decisions. And here's where Truth Detector is right. When the customer complains and whines and wants their money back because of their own BAD DECISIONS, they're DENIED. But on the other hand, when Wachovia makes BAD DECISIONS, which drives them into the dirt, they are BAILED OUT. For the bank customer and Wachovia, the CAUSE of their ruin is not the same, and not the issue. It's the difference of the RESOLUTION for each. That's the HYPOCRISY. Now, getting back to the issue in the OP, as JG mentions credibility, let's wait and see if Striderq PROVES his with Wells Fargo ROR numbers, the way I ultimately did with WAMU and posting order. I already have a suspicion of the Wells Fargo reports that Striderq is referring to for comparison, and I can tell you in ALL cases, it's not what he's trying to make it out to be. Just like it wasn't for BofA, remember? Sound familiar?

So everyone is right. How's that? Jim, JG, and Truth Detector all make very good points. Like Jim, I had reservations about diving into some of this. While it's true that Striderq cannot and should not be held responsible for the actions of his superiors, it just gives a bad impression. I mean, honestly, if I were a Wachovia teller, I would feel STUPID looking customers in the eye, telling them these things with a stratight face. But that's just me. As Jim and JG pointed out, Wachovia's downfall has nothing to do with keeping a check register. But STILL, Wachovia made BAD FINANCIAL decisions. And here's where Truth Detector is right. When the customer complains and whines and wants their money back because of their own BAD DECISIONS, they're DENIED. But on the other hand, when Wachovia makes BAD DECISIONS, which drives them into the dirt, they are BAILED OUT. For the bank customer and Wachovia, the CAUSE of their ruin is not the same, and not the issue. It's the difference of the RESOLUTION for each. That's the HYPOCRISY. Now, getting back to the issue in the OP, as JG mentions credibility, let's wait and see if Striderq PROVES his with Wells Fargo ROR numbers, the way I ultimately did with WAMU and posting order. I already have a suspicion of the Wells Fargo reports that Striderq is referring to for comparison, and I can tell you in ALL cases, it's not what he's trying to make it out to be. Just like it wasn't for BofA, remember? Sound familiar?

Companies report a loss when they lose money. Example: You buy something for $100. You keep it for a year. The government and accounting rules says that well, you can't expense it, you have to capitalize it, so let's say, 5 years. So you "expense" $20 the first year. Well, year 2, you want to sell it. But now the marketplace says it's only worth $50. You've lost $30 (since you expensed $20 in year 1 for depreciation). And it has nothing to do with keeping an accurate check register! They wrote down value of goodwill (which is another subject for the upcoming accounting debates of the next few years) and wrote down the value of the Golden West loan company that they bought a few years back. Keeping a register has nothing to do with it! What if you had to write down your own checkbook? Because the value of the dollar went down? Most people look at their financials on cash basis, which basically only looks at the checkbook to determine if you made money or not, but big businesses have to account for their finances via accrual accounting, Sarbanes-Oxley, etc. etc. Striderq is very intelligent (I can tell from the postings) but I've never read a post where he/she claimed to represent the company as a whole. Yes, some *SENIOR* management of the company messed up big time, along with the people who owned IndyMac, or heck even anyone who invested with Madoff. Or even Oprah Winfrey, who has been duped *twice* by an author claiming that the story is non-fiction.....should we take her show of the air because she obviously can never be trusted again? Ad hominem attacks are pointless and don't prove your point, in fact, it serves to undermine any creditability you may have.

TD - the article you cite regarding the write-down has nothing to do with cash; it's a paper-write-down of its intangible assets (non-cash and non-tangible assets) parked on the Balance Sheet because one of its acquisitions was a disaster and the goodwill no longer added value to Wachovia. That entire episode has absolutely nothing to do with how Wachovia tracks its cash, keeping a register, or anything else you most recently alluded to. What it has to do with is someone at Wachovia not doing enough due diligence on an acquisition prior to the acquisition moving forward, something I suspect all of us have done at one time or another. The question is whether anyone at Wachovia could have stopped that disaster before it actually moved forward? I suspect highly unlikely. The rest of their losses are primarily related to sub-primes, which also have nothing to do with a check register..... I won't comment on the rest......I just had to throw that out there to clarify.

...sort of. There's just one very important difference between your reason for withholding information, compared with mine. When I voluntarily chose to withhold the name of a bank (WAMU) that did not EVER post items from largest to smallest, I did this so I wouldn't be falsely accused of being a secret WAMU supporter? Does this seem far fetched? Before you answer that question, simply look on this VERY THREAD at your ACCUSATION of my SECRET 'shining knight revealed' and the insinuation. Now do you get it? Seems like my hunch in the WAMU defense was spot on doesn't it? I'm not an employee, or supporter of ANY bank in particular. I just call each case like I see it. Case in point - My DEFENSE of my #1 Nemesis BofA, BEFORE they actually DID implement this same practice just this year. On the other hand your situation is different. You're not defending Wells Fargo, and you have ALREADY made it known that you think they have something similar to the Unavailable Funds Fee. And you have already SAID SO, calling Wells Fargo out BY NAME. So, unlike in my situation, there's no other reason on your part not to disclose ROR report numbers backing your claim. That is, unless NONE EXIST, as we continue to wait. But Touche! Point taken. During the WAMU debate, I ACTUALLY DID have information to back up my claim and I actually did WANT to disclose it. I just knew it would be taken the wrong way and twisted. You know, like you did with your Wells Fargo 'shining knight revealed' comment. Got it? By the way, we'll keep waiting on those Report numbers, probably for a very long time. Here's another bit of history. Eventually I did mention WAMU by name to back up my claim. Why? To prove my credibility and SILENCE my accusers. And you Mr. Employee? ......

You wrote: "TD: with truth in your name, you've sure lost the ability to see it. wachovia did not go begging anyone to take them over. Seems we were still in good enough shape that two different companies wanted us. But again, liberals try to change the focus of the debate. The debate here is about OD fees. How do you avoid them? By keeping an accurate register, quite simple." Good shape? Wells Fargo bought a NAME, not a successful business. If you think operating in the RED and at a $23.9 BILLION loss in ONE FISCAL QUARTER represents being in "good enough shape", then you need a remedial course in high school economics. It seems you have left reality and joined Toto and the Tin Man in THE LAND OF OZ, Striderq... Let's review Wachovia's "good shape" credentials, shall we? - $23.9 billion third-quarter loss - Wrote off $6.6 billion in credit losses - Disastrous purchase of Golden West Financial in 2006 - Red ink is unlikely to end soon Notice that last point: RED INK UNLIKELY TO END SOON. Gee, isn't that overdrafting your account, Striderq? Now, tell us all because we're dying to know: Why we should lend your words advocating responsibility ANY credibility when you openly admit you represent a company that cannot even manage its own books? Oh, and BTW...you never addressed my earlier challenge: When will Wachovia start using its own CHECKBOOK REGISTER and stop operating in the RED? How does Wachovia avoid a $23.9 billion quarter loss? In your own words, "by keeping an accurate register, quite simple". Don't spend money that is not available in your account. Quite simple indeed...

TD: with truth in your name, you've sure lost the ability to see it. wachovia did not go begging anyone to take them over. Seems we were still in good enough shape that two different companies wanted us. But again, liberals try to change the focus of the debate. The debate here is about OD fees. How do you avoid them? By keeping an accurate register, quite simple. Edward: As I've said there are reports here with the keywords 'fee while balance was positive'. All you have to do is look. By the way this is your own medicine returned to you. When you maintained that at leats one major bank posted smallest to largest and people asked you for proof, you kept saying look for yourself. Likewise the reports are here indicating WF does charge the unavailable funds fee. So look for yourself. Or better yet, reread the disclosure from their website that if your availabvle balance goes into the negative you will get a fee. That evidence is pretty hard to dispute.

Hey Striderq, we've played this game before, remember? It was with Bank of America. Prior to this year, BofA had wording in its Deposit Agreement that was strikingly similar to Wachovia's. And you tried to infer that BofA MUST charge fees the way Wachovia did. But in fact, BofA DID NOT start this practice until THIS YEAR, even though THE WORDING in their Deposit Agreement could have lead anyone to believe they've been doing it for years. That's your M.O. Truth Detector can certainly fill you in on my many rantings against BofA, yet I defended them....up until they started doing what Wachovia has done for years. Now we start the same game again with Wells Fargo. Deja vu. You insist that WE ALL simply look at Wells Fargo's Deposit Agreement wording. They MUST in fact be doing exactly what Wachovia is doing, based on their WORDING. In other words, Wells Fargo has something similar to Wachovia's Unavailable Funds Fee. Wait a minute! Don't look now. But yet ANOTHER Wachovia report # 405755, hot of the presses, submitted just TODAY, as they continue to mount. And how many for Wells Fargo? Where are ALL of the reports for Wells Fargo? Still waiting....... There was no TRICK QUESTION in my last post Mr. Employee. Ignore the key words DOUBLE FEES, or anything else for that matter. I'll simplify it for you even more. There are no Wells Fargo reports PERIOD where the customer was charged fees for transactions that cleared the account balance, NO MATTER how the report is WORDED. How's that? And if you were to be so kind as to provide any ROR report numbers as evidence, I would be so kind to explain to you THE DIFFERENCE. The problem is, you cannot provide any report numbers for Wells Fargo because none exist like this Wachovia ripoff here.

"...if the account holder keeps an accurate regiter and doesn't overspend their account they will not get any fees charged." Tell us, Striderq, why should ANYONE listen to account management advice from an employee of the same Wachovia that begged Wells Fargo for rescue after it obviously didn't "keep an accurate register" of its own finances? At what point should Wachovia stop preaching to overdrafters and start practicing some financial responsibility of its own? Check out this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/business/23wachovia.html?_r=1&em Wachovia Reports $23.9 Billion Loss for Third Quarter By ERIC DASH Published: October 22, 2008 The Wachovia Corporation announced a $23.9 billion third-quarter loss on Wednesday as it prepared to be taken over by Wells Fargo. The bank took an $18.7 billion charge to write down the value of good will and wrote off $6.6 billion in credit losses tied largely to its disastrous purchase of Golden West Financial in 2006. And the red ink is unlikely to end soon.

trying to frame the debate. Edward, since you say you have checked the WF reports going back to 2006 and can find no reports that mention 'double fees' then I will take you at your word and accept that the are no reports that say 'double fees'. However, from WF's own website they say they will charge fees if something posts to the negative of the available balance. Also there are reports her that say WF charges fees when the balance was in the positive. Again evidence of unavailable funds fees. But now you want to say if the reports don't have your currently selected magic words then the fees aren't charged. Again you continue to want to play semantics in response to a math problem. By the way real mature and grown up to ask the OP to tell me anything. I guess we've finally seen the real Edward. Immature and has a trabished 'shining knight' that he hopes will save the day. Gee not that long ago all your faith was in the federal government changing the rules. My fiath in overcoming this problem remains cinstant: if the account holder keeps an accurate regiter and doesn't overspend their account they will not get any fees charged. So what's your new position, Edward???

To Striderq since you obviously didn't read my entire last post, I will place this comment at the beginning so maybe you'll catch it this time. What you WILL find on many Wells Fargo reports is me giving my two cents about some of their RIPOFF practices (like fees for daily negative balance). Now back to the OP Jcroody here. As you have seen Striderq and I go back and forth, I suggest you do your own research. I've already done it and I cannot find ONE SINGLE Wells Fargo report that matches yours. NOT ONE. And I stopped once I got to the year of 2006. Now it's certainly logical that I may have overlooked them. But I submit to you that if Wells Fargo did indeed implement this practice, why would these reports be so difficult to find. Before the First Union/Wachovia merger, Wachovia didn't have reports like this. Then once they DID begin this practice three years ago, suddenly these reports start flying in left and right. Prior to just THIS YEAR, you did not see BofA complaints about this in the past, and I pointed this out to Striderq AT THAT TIME. I DEFENDED BofA of all banks! Now BofA reports are coming left and right mirroring the Wachovia reports. (Hint: BofA began their policy of doing this at the beginning of this year). Are you starting to see the pattern here? So let's carry it one step further. Why do we NOT see Wells Fargo reports falling all over each other about this same complaint? Remember to look for the KEY symptoms. Phrases like DOUBLE FEES or better yet, simply look for reports LIKE THIS ONE where the OP posts their sample statement showing where they were charged fees for transactions where the POSTED balance was positive. Even the BofA reports are now starting to reveal the same thing. I have not found ONE SINGLE Wells Fargo report like this? To the OP, I suggest you ask Striderq to provide ROR report numbers of two or three to find out the TRUE answer. But let me also suggest not to hold your breath waiting.

I'm not assuming anything. By the information from WF's website, they will charge a fee if an item posts to the negative of the available balance. And they will certainly charge a fee if the item takes the account balance negative. gee sounds familiar, this is the complaint happening about all banks on overdraft fees. And I notice you chose not to try to defend the fee per day that the account is overdraft. Again, you must think that fee is okay, but not a fee for each item that posts to the negative balance. Oh well, to each their own. Your posts continue to have no valid help or advice for the consumer, just a validation of their self victimization.

I'm not assuming anything. By the information from WF's website, they will charge a fee if an item posts to the negative of the available balance. And they will certainly charge a fee if the item takes the account balance negative. gee sounds familiar, this is the complaint happening about all banks on overdraft fees. And I notice you chose not to try to defend the fee per day that the account is overdraft. Again, you must think that fee is okay, but not a fee for each item that posts to the negative balance. Oh well, to each their own. Your posts continue to have no valid help or advice for the consumer, just a validation of their self victimization.

I'm not assuming anything. By the information from WF's website, they will charge a fee if an item posts to the negative of the available balance. And they will certainly charge a fee if the item takes the account balance negative. gee sounds familiar, this is the complaint happening about all banks on overdraft fees. And I notice you chose not to try to defend the fee per day that the account is overdraft. Again, you must think that fee is okay, but not a fee for each item that posts to the negative balance. Oh well, to each their own. Your posts continue to have no valid help or advice for the consumer, just a validation of their self victimization.

I'm not assuming anything. By the information from WF's website, they will charge a fee if an item posts to the negative of the available balance. And they will certainly charge a fee if the item takes the account balance negative. gee sounds familiar, this is the complaint happening about all banks on overdraft fees. And I notice you chose not to try to defend the fee per day that the account is overdraft. Again, you must think that fee is okay, but not a fee for each item that posts to the negative balance. Oh well, to each their own. Your posts continue to have no valid help or advice for the consumer, just a validation of their self victimization.

... or actually follow the complaint trail and it will surely lead you to the source. It is certainly true that First Union was the pioneer of the Unavailable Funds Fee and this was FORCED on Wachovia after the merger. Just one of many factors that helped First Union RUIN Wachovia's once STELLAR name. Now look at it. Striderq's documents WF's verbage about fees and Available balance, but then he fairly makes an assumption that THE WAY Wells Fargo does it might not be the TWIN of Wachovia's Unavailable Funds fee. That's a smart assumption because you probably already realize the two are indeed NOT the same. I do not dispute that most banks charge fees when you overdraw the Available balance. The KEY difference is other banks ONLY charge a fee for the LONE TRANSACTION that CAUSED it. Using this OP, here's the KEY difference. I'm not saying things occurred in this order. This is just a hypothetical example for explanation purposes, to make clear what Striderq is wrongly trying to intermingle. On the 17th, the OP swipes their card at Target, Walgreen, Boston Market and American Wings, in that order. After each of these card swipes, the Available balance is still positive, so no fees. THEN on the 18th, the OP swipes their card at USPS. This SINGLE and FINAL transaction causes the Available Balance to go negative. THE DIFFERENCE is Wells Fargo will only charge you ONE fee for THAT LAST transaction that overdrew the balance. Compare this with Wachovia who in addition to the fee charged for the transaction that CAUSED the overdraft, they will ALSO charge you a fee for EACH transaction that posts, NOW that the Available balance has been made negative. It doesn't matter that these OTHER transactions were already made PREVIOUSLY and the Available balance was POSITIVE when they were made. That's the KEY difference! Hence the phrase 'double fees' as this OP mentions and commonly found in MANY of the Wachovia reports. You will NOT find WF reports with phrases or complaints like this. But what you WILL find on many Wells Farge reports is me giving my two cents about some of their ripoff practices (like fees for daily balance), as I do with all banks. So no hidden agenda or revelation as Striderq tries to allude to. Simply do your research.

So, Edward is looking forward to Wells Fargo riding to the rescue. gee, let's take a look at a few items about Wells Fargo. From ROR: many reports of WF charging a fee for each day that the account is in the negative (Wachovia doesn't do that). Many reports of WF charging when the account balance is positive (classic description of unavailable funds fees). From WF website on overdrafts: Overdraft is a term used to indicate when an Item such as a check, Check Card purchase, or other transaction presented for payment is paid even though the available balance in your deposit account is less than the amount of the Item, thereby creating an Overdraft (or negative balance) in your account. An Overdraft fee will apply. Key phrase: even though the available balance in your deposit account is less than the amount of the Item, thereby creating an Overdraft (or negative balance) in your account. Gee, this sounds like an unavailable funds fee to me. But looking at this other side, let's assume that this is not the 'dreaded' unavailable funds fee. Let's remember that Wachovia didn't use it until the merger with First Union. There's a possibility that WF will start using this fee after the merger (if they don't already). So I guess Edward is okay with the bank charging you each day the account is in the negative, just doesn't think it's fair to charge the fee when the available balance, not the account balance, goes into the negative. Personally, if I overspend, I would rather only be charged per item and not have the daily charge. But to each their own. Interesting to finely see Edward's shining knight revealed.

Very nice try Edgeman. But this is Wachovia's infamous Unavailable Funds Fee. And as the OP states, it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE by design to make sense of it afterwards. You have to know ahead of time how it works. The problem is with the FINAL THREE transactions that posted on the 18th. As you can see the POSTED balance is positive when these transactions post. The problem is there were probably transactions made AFTER these. All it took was ONLY ONE final transaction to be made to take the AVAILABLE balance negative. Therefore, when these final three transactions posted on the 18th, they posted while the Available balance was negative. This is the LOGIC that Wachovia uses to charge the three fees. Another way to put it, Wachovia has created a convoluted formula that states for each transaction that posts, the POSTED balance afterwards has to be enough to COVER any outstanding holds. So it doesn't matter that these three transactions on the 18th cleared the Available balance when they were made and the Posted balance when they posted. The problem is each of these three transactions did not leave enough money to cover PENDING HOLDS which have YET to be made or YET to come in and post. Confused yet? If so, then job well done on Wachovia's part. My guess is the Knight in shining armor, Wells Fargo, will most likely drop this Ripoff practice. It doesn't fit their style.

Very nice try Edgeman. But this is Wachovia's infamous Unavailable Funds Fee. And as the OP states, it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE by design to make sense of it afterwards. You have to know ahead of time how it works. The problem is with the FINAL THREE transactions that posted on the 18th. As you can see the POSTED balance is positive when these transactions post. The problem is there were probably transactions made AFTER these. All it took was ONLY ONE final transaction to be made to take the AVAILABLE balance negative. Therefore, when these final three transactions posted on the 18th, they posted while the Available balance was negative. This is the LOGIC that Wachovia uses to charge the three fees. Another way to put it, Wachovia has created a convoluted formula that states for each transaction that posts, the POSTED balance afterwards has to be enough to COVER any outstanding holds. So it doesn't matter that these three transactions on the 18th cleared the Available balance when they were made and the Posted balance when they posted. The problem is each of these three transactions did not leave enough money to cover PENDING HOLDS which have YET to be made or YET to come in and post. Confused yet? If so, then job well done on Wachovia's part. My guess is the Knight in shining armor, Wells Fargo, will most likely drop this Ripoff practice. It doesn't fit their style.

Very nice try Edgeman. But this is Wachovia's infamous Unavailable Funds Fee. And as the OP states, it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE by design to make sense of it afterwards. You have to know ahead of time how it works. The problem is with the FINAL THREE transactions that posted on the 18th. As you can see the POSTED balance is positive when these transactions post. The problem is there were probably transactions made AFTER these. All it took was ONLY ONE final transaction to be made to take the AVAILABLE balance negative. Therefore, when these final three transactions posted on the 18th, they posted while the Available balance was negative. This is the LOGIC that Wachovia uses to charge the three fees. Another way to put it, Wachovia has created a convoluted formula that states for each transaction that posts, the POSTED balance afterwards has to be enough to COVER any outstanding holds. So it doesn't matter that these three transactions on the 18th cleared the Available balance when they were made and the Posted balance when they posted. The problem is each of these three transactions did not leave enough money to cover PENDING HOLDS which have YET to be made or YET to come in and post. Confused yet? If so, then job well done on Wachovia's part. My guess is the Knight in shining armor, Wells Fargo, will most likely drop this Ripoff practice. It doesn't fit their style.

Very nice try Edgeman. But this is Wachovia's infamous Unavailable Funds Fee. And as the OP states, it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE by design to make sense of it afterwards. You have to know ahead of time how it works. The problem is with the FINAL THREE transactions that posted on the 18th. As you can see the POSTED balance is positive when these transactions post. The problem is there were probably transactions made AFTER these. All it took was ONLY ONE final transaction to be made to take the AVAILABLE balance negative. Therefore, when these final three transactions posted on the 18th, they posted while the Available balance was negative. This is the LOGIC that Wachovia uses to charge the three fees. Another way to put it, Wachovia has created a convoluted formula that states for each transaction that posts, the POSTED balance afterwards has to be enough to COVER any outstanding holds. So it doesn't matter that these three transactions on the 18th cleared the Available balance when they were made and the Posted balance when they posted. The problem is each of these three transactions did not leave enough money to cover PENDING HOLDS which have YET to be made or YET to come in and post. Confused yet? If so, then job well done on Wachovia's part. My guess is the Knight in shining armor, Wells Fargo, will most likely drop this Ripoff practice. It doesn't fit their style.

It looks like the problem is based on the 12/17 deposit of $2,080. What time was the deposit made? Was it cash or a check? Were the funds available when the $2,100 auto payment was deducted? I'm guessing that the funds were not available yet and that caused the other transactions that came in that day to overdraft. The next day three additional transactions came in and without the funds available to cover them, you were charged other fees. It doesn't look like double charging. It appears to be one fee per occurrence.