Topic: Chase Bank limits withdrawls, Bans international wires - page 2. (Read 7581 times)

Many small banks are following:
http://www.vystarcu.org/home/news/current/intwires

IMPORTANT NOTICE:

Outgoing International Wires Discontinued October 1, 2013

Beginning October 1, 2013, VyStar Credit Union will no longer accept and process outgoing international wire transfers.

Please Note: All incoming international wires and all domestic wires (in U.S. currency to U.S. financial institutions) are not affected by this change and will still be accepted.

We regret having to make this change; however, it is in response to increased regulation and in a cooperative effort to protect the liability of your credit union and all its members. Our action to no longer process outgoing international wire transfers is a necessary step to reduce risk.




https://www.uhcu.org/Site-Alerts/Member-Notification

International Wire Discontinuation Information
Effective October 19, 2013, United Heritage Credit Union will no longer provide wire transfer services (remittances) to locations outside the United States.

United Heritage Credit Union’s decision to discontinue outgoing international wire services is resultant from a new consumer protection regulation. United Heritage Credit Union will be able to service your international wire transfer needs until October 19, 2013 and we recommend that you use this time to research alternative means to send funds to foreign locations. Companies providing international wire services include Western Union® Consumer and Western Union® Business Solutions Online FX. Please visit westernunion.com for more details. Please review their information to determine what best suits your international wire needs.

If you have any questions, please stop by a United Heritage branch or call our Telephone Service Center at 512.435.4545, 903.597.7484 or 800.531.2328 during normal business hours.


..resultant from a new consumer protection regulation..
It usually starts like that when gov. imposes control on your money with protection regulation..

The indications are that that's exactly what's happening, other consumer banks are falling in behind JPM Chase. You can pay fees for a premium account, or course. Whats gets me is you can't even receive international payments with a standard account, those that can't pay are going to be using Western Union, MoneyGram and our beloved BTC.

Chase would not risk losing business in this manner unless they know other banks will be moving in this direction as well. Capital controls are never good. Not a great sign.

Exactly.

People need to study history of capital controls, why they come about, and how they are executed.

When real capital controls come, they will not send anyone a nice warning letter beforehand.  They will impose them overnight by executive decree, simultaneously across the entire system, not just one bank.

The United States is actually one of the biggest tax havens in the world (http://www.moneynews.com/Kleinfeld/tax-haven-US-investor/2013/07/08/id/513734).  Any hint at capital controls would kill that gold-laying goose immediately.  It is not a move that makes sense for USG to do at this time, especially given that the rest of the world is still accepting limitless USD conjured out of thin air in exchange for real products.  Capital controls are typically imposed to control the flow of foreign/hard currency, not the domestic currency issued by the government.  In fact, the USG wants foreign bagholders to receive millions of wires of worthless USDs, for as long as posssible, as long as those USD don't return to the domestic market to cause inflation.

Makes sense BurtW. 


Speculating on the "reasons" for these policy changes is anyone's guess.  Like I posted in the OP, let the speculation begin.

I haven't posted my thoughts on the subject yet.  But I do tend to believe there are (more) (economic) serious issues that we haven't even heard of yet.  I believe the government has something to do with Chase's updated policy.  If you remember the economic crisis of 2008, there was a lot of behind the scenes meddling with banks like Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley by the US government. We didn't hear about this till a few years later.  I think more meddling is in the works.

Not all FUD is false. FUD is not synonymous with untrue. I refuse to observe what InfoWars peddles, because it's always FUD, but at least some of what they come out with is true (and then the presenter starts crying and asking what all our children will say in 20 years when everyone's a robot etc).

Reddit, on the other hand, is not what it used to be. Similarly to not all FUD being false, "someone on reddit said it" is not necessarily reliably true. Reddit had a reputation for people telling uncommon truths, about 5 years ago. Now, they have Arnold Schwarzenegger posting training tips.

Yes, and some of us can actually read them.

The first shot says the account of the person who received the letter can no longer do wire transfers.

The second shot says "business SAVINGS accounts" will no longer be able to do wire transfers.  Other accounts, presumably with higher fees, can continue to do them.

So a bank is squeezing its customers and raising its fees.  It sucks but is far from the apocalypse.

Yes, it is happening.
Yes, they are sending out letters.
Yes, people are getting the letters.

Why?

If you want to be able to go over the limit and/or send the wires then you must upgrade to a more expensive account.

The FUD is all the speculation beyond that.

So you are saying the screenshots of the letters are forged or not real.  Please try to back up YOUR FUD before posting nonsense accusations.  Forum members reported this happening to them weeks before this article came out. Now we can see screenshots of the chase letters.  What additional proof or evidence do you provide that discounts this story?  (Reddit?.....oh please....tell me you are joking)



FYI

--Also the article has now been updated with additional information--

"We are now receiving reports from business partners who we know well that they are being told by their banks that similar regulations to those adopted by Chase are coming within the next few months."

We have seen some members complaining about this, but here is the proof.

http://www.infowars.com <  common , what's nexty Russia Today ?

Go to reddit there are plenty of people that explained to which type of accounts this limits apply and to which not.
Stop the FUD.

Also, I'd be willing to take you up on that bet.

The answer for me is to keep less money in the bank.  I want to be able to liquidate my entire account whenever I say so. This looks to me like an attempt to avoid bank runs. Why would a bank do that? Do they know something I don't?
I would not chance with those bozos. I would trust them with no more than I can withdraw.

Or in the form of Bitcoin, which wouldn't suck royally.

Transplanted from a different sub-forum:
----
Yup.  Capital controls.  Now I remember another big reason why Bitcoin grabbed my attention so forcefully back in 2011.

  http://iranian.com/posts/view/post/22646

I have to take exception with this article's:

  "The bottom line is that banks think your money is their money and..."

The reason that banks think that is because it is true.  Technically and legally.

Banks can use the money that the depositors gave them in more or less any way the see fit though they have to abide by certain restrictions.  The reason Glass-Stegall was repealed was to relax those restrictions so they could gamble depositor's funds on derivatives at 50-1 leverage and such through their investment banking wing.

Worse yet, as I understand things (potentially tinfoil-hat things but maybe not) the derivatives counter-parties are top tier creditors and get made whole before bank depositors in the event of a bankruptcy.  The rational is that it halt a chain reaction of institutional failures...or so the story goes.

I've also heard that the way 'they' will get around the FDIC issue is to convert deposits into shares in the bank (as a non-option.)  Then FDIC is under no obligation to save the 'investors' as the bank craters.

Who knows how much truth there is to this stuff.  It seems entirely possible to me, however, and I actually have more confidence in Bitcoin than I do in my bank deposits and I hold more value in Bitcoin than I do in banks at this point.  By a wide margin (though in fairness this is primarily attributable to the rise in BTC valuations.)

Seems we have some conflicting information here. Either it's for business reasons or regulatory ones. Unless of course new regulations allow banks to set limits only on certain types of accounts…

well that would suck royally. If you can't wire out, then money moving across country borders would either have to be in the form of credit, or in the form of cash or money order.

Sure, as long as such banks continue to exist.

I'm tempted to create a bet as to whether or not any banks will offer individuals the ability to send funds out of the US via international six months from now.

Well, if you've got a large amount, you can go to a different bank that does allow wires and move from there, right?

Also, how about international money order? Wouldn't that work? I agree this is increasing the cost of moving money, but regulation always increases prices, so  thats nothing to be excited about.

I wonder what the specific regulation that changed on 10/1/13 is, anybody have any idea how to find out?

Western Union is very expensive compared to wires, and comes with far lower limits on the amount you can transfer.