no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

Stupid Banking Regulations

August 6th, 2010

I received a letter in the mail from one of my banks today, consisting of what is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever read:

Federal regulations limit the number of transactions allowed on savings accounts during a 12-month period, and we are required to monitor your account to ensure it does not exceed the mandated number of transactions.

According to the regulations, you can make unlimited deposits or withdrawals to your account in person, by mail or ATM, but by law, you are limited to not more than six pre-authorized, automatic, online or telephone transfers or withdrawals per month…

Your account has exceeded the legal transaction limit in a 12-month period for the first time. Once that limit is exceeded three times within the same 12-month period, we will have no choice but to close your account.

WTF? Of course like so many inane “regulations” that plague our daily lives, nobody is ever aware of this one until they happen to violate it.

bank_error_in_your_favorIs this supposed to be some sort of consumer protection law?  Because I can’t (for the life of me!) figure out how this regulation could possibly be in the best interest of anyone besides the banks — who of course charge a fee if you exceed six “pre-authorized, automatic, online or telephone transfers or withdrawals” in a month. Its ridiculousity is compounded by the fact that there is no limit on the number of permissible transfers — as long as you make those transfers in person, by mail, or by ATM (i.e., the three most inconvenient manners of making withdrawals or transfers).

Now, I’m not particularly concerned about losing my bank account (it probably won’t happen again) and I could give to sh!ts about a “savings account” which pays a paltry .25% interest. It’s just idiotic. That is all.



  • KipEsquire says on: August 6, 2010 at 9:32 am


    My business got one of those letters when I paid the IRS [sic!] from the savings account rather than the payroll account.

    The idea is simple rent-seeking coercion: forcing people & businesses to hold money in zero-interest checking accounts rather than interest-bearing (such as that is these days) savings accounts. This despite the fact that there is no meaningful difference anymnore between “checking” and “savings” accounts.

  • Don says on: August 6, 2010 at 9:59 am


    Reality is limited to what it is but idiocy as no limits as we are all experiencing now everywhere and the banks are no exception.

    In 2000 a bank I had had a business account with for years *lost* a $7,000.00 deposit for 23 days and could not give me a reason for it. In the meantime I had 30 checks bounce because of this, so when I they finally *found* my deposit I drained the account of all but $100 and walked to another bank.

    6 years later I move to another state and try to open an account at a bank and I’m told no bank anywhere will open an account for me until I pay an outstanding balance for bank fees at that bank that lost my deposit. WTF???

    It took weeks to run all of this down and get it squared away and it cost me $400 to clear it all up, then the collection agency *penalized* me by not giving me the legal document stating it was cleared for another 90 days. Man I was steamed.

    Now that the gov’t pwns all the banks you can bet your bottom dollar the number od *hidden* rules, regulations and fees has went into the stratosphere.

    All of these things cause sane people to find alternative ways to do what they want to do in spite of the obstacles. After all, people are made of 90% water and water seeks the path of least resistance. Its only natural.

  • Matt says on: August 6, 2010 at 4:08 pm


    More proof that the levers of power are controlled by the hands of the few. “The few” of course being private corporate interest. The people do not govern this country as we were all taught to believe in grade school. Instead, we are ruled by banks and monopolies.

  • Brad says on: August 10, 2010 at 5:27 pm


    What bank is that Dave?

    • David Z says on: August 10, 2010 at 6:28 pm


      This specific case, Flagstar. Although if the message they send is accurately portraying the regulations, it would apply to all of them.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics