Substance of the R4C

[David Merrill]

Well, I might have celebrated to early.... the bank called today to ask to come in and resign the signature card....UGH! I explained (calmly) to them that it was within my rights to sign it that way, if they can cite a law that says that I can't sign it that way..then I will sign a new card or cancel the account.

All comments Welcome

If it has been more than about three days the novation sticks. The attorneys probably got that call in within the three days?

They are trying to make you cancel the account. You have agreed to verbally now (if they show you a law). I would not have done that. You can tell them you changed your mind. You like the account and the signature card the way they are. But I would not bother. Just keep on using the account like regular...

Wait a minute; is it an interest-bearing account? They might have to change that to non-interest-bearing. You are not granting the benefit of fractional lending so they should not be compelled to give you the benefit of interest. That might be what they are standing on for a cause to reject the non-endorsement.

Look at your papers and get back to us please.

[gdude]

Thanks for the reply David, No it was non-interest bearing checking, but they do make you open a savings as well...I put $25 dollars in it. I signed cards for both accounts. I opened the accounts yesterday morning, they called me in the afternoon. I felt bad for the girl I was working with, she was accommodating and apologetic, she was caught in the middle. Yes, I probably shouldn't have agreed verbally to shut the account down, as they were demanding a new sig card....live and learn.... They could not produce a law either.

[Christopher Theodore]

Wait a minute; is it an interest-bearing account? They might have to change that to non-interest-bearing. You are not granting the benefit of fractional lending so they should not be compelled to give you the benefit of interest. That might be what they are standing on for a cause to reject the non-endorsement.

They may not be able to utilize fractional lending practices, but they will certianly be able to utilize traditional lending practices.

That said, I don't think a bank has an obligation to offer anyone a cut of the interest they make from lending your money out (be it lawful money or private credit). The banks do this because they want you to bank with them and not another bank.. and you always have the option of going to another bank if you don't want to do business with them.

As more people start redeeming lawful money, there will eventualy be more competition between banks to have any money to lend, and you will see that the banks will be less willing to lose your business to another bank due to the fact they won't provide you a cut of the traditional lending interest.

Right now tho, they have plenty of uninformed people they can rely upon enabling their fractional lending practices and are trying to make the redemption of lawful money less attarctive because they can generate more interest dealing with private credit.

But consider this: If a banker can make $300,000 per year in interest loaning out someones private credit, are they really gonna wanna give up making $100,000 because people are redeeming lawful money? (thats the ratio right David? with fractional lending, they can loan out 3x what they have on hand? And with traditional lending, they can only loan out what is avaliable?)

Give it time... and don't give into the idea that you have an obligation to forfit your share of the interest banks make from loaning out your lawful money (it is actually more valuable then the private credit all things considered).


And hold fast to reality: It's not the banks doing you a favor by holding your money, its you doing them one by allowing them to make an income via loaning it out.


Magnanimously,

Christopher Theodore of the family of RHODES


P.S.

David, Nice to see you and the site are alive and well. Kindly forgive my lack of participation over the last few years, Life has kept me quite busy, and as I am sure you know, being active on these forum is quite time consuming. :-)

P.P.S. It just dawned on me this post is way off the topic of the substance of the refusal for cause. Kindly forgive that...