🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 7, 12:43 pm, "SpammersDie" <x...@xx.xx> wrote:
> <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c1f774e3-94de-4c23-9924-32b208533d23@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Aug 5, 8:00 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> I find that hard to believe the way you keep playing the victim card
> >> on behalf of these incompetent money managers.
>
> > There is a fine banking tradition of refusing to honor withdrawals
> > after a sufficient lapse of time -- "stale-dated" checks. All my
> > dividend checks have a date on them beyond which they will no longer
> > be honored. After that, the payee must go groveling back to the maker
> > to get a replacement check. If a giant corporation is not required to
> > keep sufficient funds in its checking account for eternity, neither
> > should Joe Consumer be.
>
> > Banks should have treated these withdrawals as if they were stale-
> > dated checks.
>
> Where did it say in the article that the banks honored aged EFTs?
>
> It sounds more like the vendor spit out the merchandise and waited months to
> initiate the EFT.

The vendor does not initiate the EFT, the customer does when he sticks
his debit card in the vendor's machine. Inserting the debit card is
the same as writing the check and mailing it. If vendors could
initiate EFTs they could suck your balance dry at any time. The
vendor's lackadaisicalness is not the customer's responsibility. Per
Scott, "[the CTA's] system
queued up a few months' worth of customers' charges, and then sent
them through all at once." That would be like me accumulating two
years' worth of dividend checks, then cashing them all at once. The
bank would kick the stale date checks back to me, not process them for
payment.