Conference 7.286::dcu

       No thanks DCU, as usual you're too late and won't tell us enough.
    I'll keep my new{checking account thank you!
                                                    Denny

  Hmm... Sounds like we gotem on the run!!!  I'll bet they finally started to
see the trend in closing of accounts.

  Don't quit beating them up now!!!  They may be waiting for this to all
blow over....  I sure am not going to close my new account elsewhere!  I
guess it's time to enter a holding pattern.

    
    [Permission to forward and re-post this note is granted.
     Please be aware of the fact that many of the statements and
     evaluations contained in this reply are my personal statements and
     evaluations.]

    
    WE, DCU MEMBERS, HAVE ACHIEVED A VICTORY!  There is NO other
    description for it.  While it is only a temporary reprieve from
    checking fees, WE HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE.  I am thrilled to see the new
    DCU president agrees with our position, for now.  I am very
    disappointed the BoD did not realize their mistake(s) sooner.  They
    have caused many DCU members much time and trouble to shop around. 
    Some have found better and left DCU already.  Some are in the process
    of leaving.  I will take a lot to get them back as customers, if it is
    even possible.  A real shame because they never wanted to leave in the
    first place.
    
    We all must continue to do exactly what we are doing, only MORE so. 
    There are more basic problems with DCU than the $2 checking fee.  The
    checking fees are a symptom of a much larger problem; BoD judgement,
    credibility, accountability, priorities, direction and policies.  These
    are the REAL problems we must all work to resolve so we aren't back in 
    the same boat in a year.  Remember, it took the new President of DCU to 
    convince the current BoD of the err of their ways.  He could see our
    side and the folly of the checking fees.  He could convince the BoD to
    reverse itself.  They did not do it because of us and the number of
    people leaving (not that many according to them).  I don't expect the
    BoD to come out and say we are right.  They don't need to.  This action
    is acknowledgement enough.
    
    One of my concerns with this 3-4 month delay and evaluation period is that
    the new checking fees and 'choices' will reappear as a recommendation
    of the new DCU President, instead of as a recommendation of the BoD. 
    He will still have to convince us why a credit union that made over $4
    million in 1990 WITH FREE CHECKING, needs additional income from new
    fees.
    
    My second concern is a 3-4 month time period will give many time to 
    forget what has transpired at DCU over the last 5 years.  Time for the 
    storm to blow over.  If we let that happen, then we deserve all that 
    follows.
    
    Remain WATCHFUL, remain ACTIVE, remain DCU OWNERS.  But in the
    meantime, congratulations to all that contributed to our first victory.
    
    Phil

    What they said ... also, this is a concession on PRINCIPLE and not of
    TANGIBLES!  The tangible item is FREE CHECKING.  The principle is that
    members should be consulted before diddling with fees.  By giving us
    the principle, they are satisfying any sense of outrage at losing,
    without say, the one thing that makes some folks want to participate with 
    DCU (free checking).  BUT, if things continue as they are heading and 
    folks do not participate in affecting the decision making processes of
    the DCU, then FREE CHECKING *will* go away.
    
    What needs to happen is for shareholders to SPEAK UP and to participate
    in an occasional meeting with the BoD.  The DCU can survive and provide
    services that are better than any bank can do IF they take the right
    steps, such as incorporating better accountability in the BoD and
    placing more emphasis on just the basic services with unbeatable rates.
    But, they can't do it without hearing the voices of the shareholders.
    
    Steve

    
    I am not happy with the inconviniences they(BOD) caused to all of us.
    Could we trust them?? No way. Please don't forget this BODs come
    election time. I won't vote for them(none of them).
    
    Bharat Shah

We should all keep in mind that interest paid to credit unions members
equals 
   [interest earned on money loaned out + fees] - [operating expenses].

If fees gone down with no other off setting changes, interest paid out
must also go down.

Gim

    re:  .6   (zero sum game)  	
    
    Bingo!  You have cracked the code!
    
    As long as any financial institution allows depositors/members to
    maintain accounts with low balances or in some other way allows the
    cost of maintaining that account to exceed the return on that account,
    they will lose money --- money that will have to be made up elsewhere.
    
    Thus, the people with economically sufficient balances, people who
    borrow money, people who buy CDs, etc.,  will all be subsidizing those 
    other members --- and they should not stand for it.
    
    (BTW, the alternative to this system is faring poorly after some 80
    years of experimentation in various parts of the world.)
    
    This is not an idle gripe or a defense of any policy.  But if you have
    an inactive account, you should either be willing to pay the freight or
    close the account.  If you have an account that is economically
    sensible for the CU, then I agree it should remain fee-free.
    
    That is my opinion.
    \Gary

    
    Re: .7
    
    > ... But if you have an inactive account, you should either be
    > willing to pay the freight or close the account.
    
    Absolutely, but that is precisely one of the gripes.  Why should
    all 88K members pay fees because about 10% of that number own the
    accounts that are causing the problem?  DCU should be figuring out
    a way to charge the members who are causing the problem.
    
    If they had gone through a process of explaining the problem to
    the membership and asking for suggestions they may have been given
    some very good ideas about how to handle this without ticking so
    many of us off.
    
    Steve
    
    

They may have a problem with small or inactive accounts.  However, their
fees affected a great number of people not in that category!  People with
LARGE IRA or RSVP balances still had to pay the fee.  Even worse, people
were required to have a checking account (that they didn't even use) in
order to obtain home equity loans (and maybe other types of loans, too,
I'm not sure).  The DCU could have eliminated these "unwanted" checking
accounts.  They could have charged a fee for checking accounts without
any activity in the last quarter.  They could have charged fees, but
waived them for people who had direct deposit.  But they didn't (and
now, they've delayed the fees temporarily anyway).

Tim

     	 I think the checking account fees will come back in the future 
     but will be modified.  The balance to avoid fees will be more 
     reasonable, say $250.00.  Or combined deposits in any financial 
     instrument could waive the fee.  I've asked other people who have 
     credit union accounts at other instutions in New Hampshire and 
     Maine and the trend is towards a small fee for a checking account 
     but the balance to waive the fee is much lower.
     
     	 I'm glad the checking account fees were rescinded because I 
     would rather not close out my credit union account and start all 
     over again at another bank.  I was within two days of going to a 
     local bank opening a new account and closing out all business with 
     the credit union.
       
     	 Definately a vote against all the incumbent directors is wise.  
     These people  are incompetant when it comes to running a Credit 
     Union are causing much harm to its reputation.
     	 
     	 I hope that employees of the Credit Union whether they are the 
     BoD, senior management, or tellers would watch this notes 
     conference to get a general feel of what the owners/members of the 
     Credit Union want.
     
     
     
     Bryan

    The thing that bothered me was that the whole thing was done so
    arrogantly and without flexible choices....I keep plenty of cash in
    my checking account, don't use it a lot, but DON'T want to have to
    have direct deposit to DCU...I use a Baybanks Account that returns my
    checks every month...why couldn't they have said either $1000 minimum
    OR direct deposit....... Man, these folks have just got a real ATTITUDE
    problem and have had for years......just look at their phone
    system...it's possible to call DCU reach an extension or two or three
    and NEVER talk to a real person!!!!  And when you do, they act as if
    you're bothering them....or you get put on hold and blasted with tacky
    excerpts from DCU commericals......the whole DCU house needs cleaning!!

    re:  .8
    
    >>>     ... that is precisely one of the gripes.  Why should all 88K
    members pay fees because about 10% of that number own the accounts that
    are causing the problem?  DCU should be figuring out a way to charge
    the members who are causing the problem. <<<
    
    I couldn't agree more. Thank you. (Hopefully that is being done now.)
    
    As a matter of fact, I use DCU exclusively for savings now that I have
    relocated to a remote office in Michigan from eastern Mass... this
    recent flurry of activity caused me to close out not one but 2 inactive
    accounts, saving the CU and all of us $.  So I view it positively.
    
    Reasonable fees for going below reasonable minimums are not too much to
    pay/ask.  And, I agree, as one cannot be "too rich", a credit union
    cannot "communicate too well" to its members.
    \Gary

    My sharedraft account that I used for business was FAR from a zero
    balance.  I deposited my traveletters weekly and wrote a check to
    American Express Monthly.  
    
    As I was in to withdraw the last of the money and fill out an account
    closing card, I saw the sign notifying the membership of the rescinded
    fees.  To little, too late, was my reaction.
    
    When I got home, and was asked on the form why I was closing my
    account, I wrote " Lifestyles Checking prompted me to investigate my
    other credit union membership, therefore I am moving, for the
    free checking and higher interest rates."
    
    The BOD *really* blew it on this one.  Enough was enough.
    

    
    RE: last few
    
    I just can't believe what I'm hearing in this discussion.  The checking
    accounts fees have NOTHING to do with low balance accounts.  DCU NEEDS
    MONEY BECAUSE IT LOST MILLION$ ON BAD PARTICIPATION LOANS.  They opted
    for the broadest revenue generating option they could find.  Their
    Equity has fallen 20% in the last year.  Do you know what that does to
    their almighty capital-to-asset ratio?  It *severely* impacts it.
    
    We have all been paying for checking right along!  It just hasn't been
    in the form of a monthly fee.  It was in the form of a high minimum
    balance and in the fact that DCU has been keeping millions of dollars
    of "net income" each year that should have gone towards higher
    dividends or lower loan rates.
    
    DCU made over $4 million last year, WITH the old checking structure. 
    How much money do they have to take from us?
    

    
    Re: .16
    
    > I just can't believe what I'm hearing in this discussion.
    > The checking accounts fees have NOTHING to do with low balance
    > accounts.  DCU NEEDS MONEY BECAUSE IT LOST MILLION$ ON BAD
    > PARTICIPATION LOANS.
    
    No one is saying that low balance accounts are the only factor
    or that your argument is not valid.  Lighten up a little and take
    it easy.
    
    Steve
    

         Low-balance accounts are not a relevant factor at all.

    
    RE: .17
    
    I'm lightened up.  Sorry if you think otherwise.  I'm just trying to
    say, stop looking at and debating the trivia while the real reason goes
    untouched.  There are many fires here.  Let's put out the 10 alarm
    one first.
    
    

What, pray tell, can we do about the participation loans other than make
sure it doesn't happen again?  Do you think that even the *current* BoD
will touch future participation loans with a ten-foot pole?  DCU should
be looking at ways to reduce costs without driving away profitable accounts.
Imposing fees on inactive accounts is one way of doing this.

    From the point of view of the BoD, if I understand it correctly, there
    is nothing more that needs to happen with regards to the participation
    loans as far as DCU is concerned.  The action is with the lawyers going
    after the money.  The expected $8M loss has already mostly been written off
    (last year about $4M, though it only appeared as a reserve increase and
    was only drawn attention to in the auditor's notes) and another $3M has
    already been written off this year.
    
    The BoD was asked if the directions DCU is now taking would be any
    different had the Mangone incident not happened.  The response was
    effectively that there would be no or little or no difference, as I
    recall.
    
    There was some mention of a new procedures in place, probably
    recommended by the NCUA.  Something about requiring dual signatures for
    something.  I didn't get the details.
    
    So, the answer to -.1, according to the impressions I got from the BoD, is 
    that the steps have already been taken to keep it from happening again.  
    These steps, curiously, do not involve making the auditor's notes
    generally public.  That would have provided an early sign to the public
    of the problem.  I suppose a disclosure of investments approved by the
    BoD would also have provided an early sign.  But, a statement was made
    that they felt that the only information that should be released to the
    public should be that which the law requires. 
    
    Steve

	What can be done about the participation loans?

	Well,  they've  done  about all they can do regarding the current
	ones, as -1 points out.

	However, what I'm concerned about is future ones.   I'd  like  to
	see  something  Really  Official  happen that prevents DCU, ever,
	under any circumstances, from entering into  participation  loans
	without  the  direct  consent  of  the shareholders.  This means,
	among other things, that we need to get language put into the DCU
	Bylaws  (or  someplace)  that  spells  out  what  loans are, what
	investments are, and what types of activity are allowed.

	I hate to think that we have to  tell  our  Board  this  type  of
	stuff, but the past often fortells the future.

/Chris

The new president said that the big loss should result in nothing dramatic
in fees.  The result is a lower capital to asset ratio, which requires the
CU to be extra conservative while waiting for the ratio to improve over
time.  If this is true (I'm dubious), then the issue of fees is still one
of equitably recovering the costs of doing business.  (Obviously checking
accounts incur costs which must be recovered in some way.)

Part of the purpose of fees is to encourage economical behavior, like not
keeping zero balance checking accounts.  We can help by coming up with
suggestions for ways to reduce costs without reducing services.  For this
it would help if we understood where the majority of the costs are.

Apparently one significant cost is the sending of statements.  My family
has three checking accounts at DCU.  I would consider it an additional
SERVICE if they all arrived in one envelope with only one set of inserts.
I have the feeling that this would eliminate most of the extra statement
cost of the two extra accounts.

Clearly combining statements that way can't be done automatically.
Instead, what I would propose is:
- allow an account to be optionally attached to some other account for
  purposes of statement mailing and all other mailed communications.
  Consider an account and all those attached to it a group.  (This group
  could include both checking and other sorts of accounts.  In that sense
  we already have such groups.)
- impose a monthly fee for each group, rather than each individual acct.

The purpose of the grouping is obviously to give members a way to
voluntarily reduce demand for costly and unneeded services.  Similarly the
requirement for unnecessary accounts should be eliminated.

Clearly there are other costs which must be recovered, such as processing
regular deposits, other teller transactions, check processing, ATM
transactions, direct deposits, etc.  Ultimately it may be most equitable to
charge fees for each of these, but at the same time pay fair interest on
all funds deposited.  (After all, the lost interest on $1000 deposited for a
year is over $4/month.)  Direct deposit might then look good because its
cost might be ~$0.00, while the cost of depositing four checks might be
$1.00.  DCU ATM transactions *might* be cheaper than check processing
costs, or maybe they wouldn't be, however it turns out. 

    
    Re: accounts and groups
    
    It would probably cost even more, because many factors would have
    to be taken into account that it would be near impossible to
    automate the process.
    
    Remember there can be quite a number of individuals entitled to DCU
    membership because of their relationship to a Digital-employed DCU
    member i.e. parents, siblings, children, spouses, inlaws, etc.  Many of
    them might not live in the same place or even the same part of the
    country. Also in my own case my ex-wife still has an account where I
    directly deposit my child support payments.  I would not like to risk a
    screwup where she gets my statement or I get hers! That could cause
    quite a hassle :^)!
    
    Steve
    
    

    
	RE: .21

>    From the point of view of the BoD, if I understand it correctly, there
>    is nothing more that needs to happen with regards to the participation
>    loans as far as DCU is concerned.  The action is with the lawyers going
>    after the money.  The expected $8M loss has already mostly been written off
>    (last year about $4M, though it only appeared as a reserve increase and
>    was only drawn attention to in the auditor's notes) and another $3M has
>    already been written off this year.
    
	Yes.  DCU holds $3 million in land and property for the $18 million
    it loaned out.  So a potential loss of $15 million exists.  The Bod and
    their lawyer think they will collect $6 million on the bond for
    Mangone.  When?  Who knows.  That leaves about $9 million in losses. 
    To recoup that, DCU is sueiing Mangone for $10 million.  There may be
    others added to the suit.  Now, we must realize, many of these same
    people are also named in a $47 million lawsuit filed by the NCUA in the
    Barnstable CU mess.  Now who gets how much when is VERY fuzzy.  There
    is NO certainty here.
    
>    The BoD was asked if the directions DCU is now taking would be any
>    different had the Mangone incident not happened.  The response was
>    effectively that there would be no or little or no difference, as I
>    recall.
    
    Amazing.  DCU made over $4 million last year (if they didn't suffer all
    these losses).  That's money they made on us and kept.  And they need
    more of our money?  Maybe we should start paying an annual membership
    fee to them?  ;-)
    
>    There was some mention of a new procedures in place, probably
>    recommended by the NCUA.  Something about requiring dual signatures for
>    something.  I didn't get the details.
    
    Yes.  There is an aspect of the Mangone case which is not entirely
    known that instigated these changes.  My question concerning this was
    one of the few times that the lawyer interjected that I found his
    reasons for interjecting appropriate.    
    
>    So, the answer to -.1, according to the impressions I got from the BoD, is 
>    that the steps have already been taken to keep it from happening again.  
>    These steps, curiously, do not involve making the auditor's notes
>    generally public.  That would have provided an early sign to the public
>    of the problem.  I suppose a disclosure of investments approved by the
>    BoD would also have provided an early sign.  But, a statement was made
>    that they felt that the only information that should be released to the
>    public should be that which the law requires. 
    
    Openness and candor has not been a BoD trait in the past, nor do I
    expect it to be in the future (of this BoD, that is).
    

Unfortunately, rescinding the checking fees is too-little too-late.

I spoke to Mary Madden on September 4th (I think, may have been the third.)
I asked if there was any wat to cancel the fees.  She told me that there was no
chance of this happening.  So, I said I was closing my checking account.  I
had a question about when the Visa fee would hit since I got my card in August.
Mary told me that the fee hits next year, so I can cancel my Visa Gold with
impugnity.

On September 6th, my wife and I opened checking, savings, visa (not gold), and
overdraft at Security Service Federal Savings.  Visa rate = 13.9% Overdraft =
16.9%  These were approved Monday September 9th.

September 10th, I filed the form with the DCU to stop automatic deposits of my
check.

As soon as I am sure that all account activity has quiesced, I will cancel my
DCU Visa, DCU CRT, and (probably) close my checking account.  The net result is
that I have taken an active account and made it an inactive one - just the
opposite of the DCU's stated reasons for instituting "Lifestyle Checking."

The two reasons I am doing this are that the rescinding of the checking fee
came too late and the other fees are not being rolled back.

BobW

    Where is Security Service Fed. Savings?

       I think Bob, who wrote .26 is in Colorado Springs. So I imagine his
    bank is there too.
                                         Denny

    Situation: have $5 in relatively inactive sharedraft account, period.
    Also have DCU VISA, but always paid off.
    
    Walk into DCU.  Indicate I want to close account due to fees; "I'm the
    one you want to get rid of".  Teller says "Haven't you heard... no
    fees for now, new president.", and encourages me to keep $5 account,
    which I do.  Perhaps they've lost enough members already that even the
    $5 ones (albeit with active credit card) are looking good again?  -kb    

    
    Unfortunately, DCU learned the hard way not to bite the hand of the
    ones who feed it.  Us.  Sometimes there is just no getting around using
    a rolled up newspaper in certain extreme situations.  In this case, a
    lot of flat, completed withdrawal cards seemed to do the trick!
    
    Would like to know how many DCU members they lost with this fiasco.  If
    these 'choices' reappear in a few months, the DCU may do serious,
    permanent damage to itself IMO.

Great .. the fees are dead.  Seen it in writing? I haven't. No flier to
the house, no note tacked up in the branch at ZKO, nothing except this note.

I'm not from Missouri (Show_me_state), but this time I'm going to act like 
I am. I'm stuck with DCU until I move to NH from MA, but after I move this
bank that calls itself a credit union gets a serious look as to it's
services. And if it still has the attitude that "I'm DCU and your not" then my
money walks..

/jon

Ok, so they've stayed the $2/month account charge.  What about the other fee
changes that were to take effect on Sept. 1 (e.g. the ludicrous, regardless of
their excuse, $15 stop payment fee)?  Are those changes still in effect?

    
    RE: fees
    
    We were told at the "informal discussion" with the BoD (where no
    official DCU business was to be conducted) by new DCU President Chuck
    Cockburn that the checking fees have been DELAYED.  DELAYED 3-4 months
    to him time to develop a long-term plan.
    
    So the fees are not currently rescinded.  Please check the wording on
    the postings in DCU branches.  Also ask the tellers.  Or call DCVU HQ.
    

    
    I can tell you for sure the $15 stop payment fee is there... I had to
    use it yesterday...
    
    John
    

$15 for a stop payment is not out of the ordinary.

$15 may not be out of line for a bank but it is out of line for a credit union.

More importantly, this is another fee change that came with the whole fiasco
and should not be implemented without proper justification.  I don't believe
that any of the fee changes have been adequately justified to the owners of
DCU yet.

    
    
    The cost of $15 wasn't the point...  I have seen higher at other banks..
    I put it in because I wanted to show someone further back that yes, the
    stop payment charge is still there..  That it happened to be my mortgage 
    check to another bank is another story that really pissed me off...
    
    
    John
    

    The wording on the signs posted at the NRO branch was that the fee
    increases for lifestyle checking would not be implemented at this time. 
    I still haven't seen anything at the HLO branch.

    
    
    The following may be a reason why the stop payment is going up.
    
    Last year I had purchased a "1/2 cord of wood" from a person which
    was selling wood house to house.  I gave him a post dated check for
    $60.00 which he would deposit 14 days later...  Well after he left
    I looked a the pile of wood which he had given me and called around
    to find out what the actual measurement of a cord of wood would be.
    He had given me 1/4 a cord. I tried 3-4 times during the week to 
    call him but he would never answer.  So I requested that DCU take
    and place a stop payment for the check that was issued to him.
    I gave them the persons name, date of the check, amount and #.
    They kindly went and stoped a payment of $250.00 to American Express
    insteed.  When I called DCU they had taken and cashed the post-dated
    check 10 days in advance of its date.  After a few calls they agreed
    to take and credit my account for the $60.00 minus the $5.00 for
    the stop payment. They also agreed to send a letter of appology to 
    American Express for stopping their check.
    
    
    Ben,
    

    
    
    Kindly explain how I wrote a bad check??
    
    Ben,
    

    "a deal too good to be true"???

    where I live, a 1/2 cord would not cost $60....for
    $60 I would clearly expect a 1/2 of a FULL cord!
    (and stacked, and it better be REAL dry, etc. etc....)
    bob

	The date on a check refers to the date the check was made out.
	If you intentionally put a date on a check that is not
	the same as the date the check was made out, the check is 
	fraudulent.

					Tom_K

    Re .44:
    
>   Kindly explain how I wrote a bad check??
    
    The check was post-dated.  That meant it was worthless at the time you
    presented it in payment for the wood.  Some courts would hold that you
    had not actually paid for the wood and had therefore attempted to
    defraud the seller.  Without some kind of WRITTEN documentation (such
    as an I.O.U. even) that you and the seller had agreed to this mode of
    payment, you would have no defense if the seller pressed for immediate
    payment (and any additional damages to which he might be entitled).
    
    Post-dated checks are bad business, whether or not they're actually
    illegal.  You may think they're a clever means of protecting yourself
    against nonperformance, but they can easily backfire.  I haven't
    browsed through the Uniform Commercial Code lately (nearly every state
    incorporates the UCC into their state laws), but there could EASILY be
    a section defining pre/post-dated checks as fraudulent.

            <<< Note 282.47 by ULTRA::KINDEL "Bill Kindel @ LTN1" >>>

>but there could EASILY be
>    a section defining pre/post-dated checks as fraudulent.


	I don't believe that there is anything "fraudulent" about a 
	post dated check if the vendor knows it's post dated. But
	if you do post date a check it is no longer a "check" in the
	normal sense. It is a promissory note for payment at a later
	date.

Jim

    
    >Some courts would hold that you had not actually paid for the wood
    	and therefore attempted to defraud the seller.
    
      Can you cite a specific precedent?  (From any state?)
    
      If the other party agreed as part of the "contract"  to accept
    a post dated check,  wouldn't this simply become part of the
    bi-lateral obligations on the contract?  (I.e.  equivalent to
    the seller granting "Net N day"  payment terms?)
    
      In any event,  I don't see how a post dated check which is
    openly represented as such  could be considered fraud...
    
    
    					-al
    

    
    Don't mean to throw water on this but what does the price of a half
    cord of wood and post dating checks have to do with the topic of this
    note?
    
    A classic notes digression that is quickly turning into another
    classic notes rat-hole...
    
    Isn't their a LEGAL notes file anywhere???

    
    
      Re -.1
    
      Ojection sustained...  :^)
    
    
    						-al
    

	The new fees gave me slightly less than 1 month to figure out my 
options. I found a bank whose services are comparable to DCU's with free 
checking if I have direct deposit. I switched over with direct deposit 
starting on 9-26. Now that DCU has postponed the fees, I will keep my DCU
checking account open with small balances transfered from the bank to DCU
so I can burn up the approximately 300 unused DCU checks I have.
	I will not be jerked around. I now have 200 checks from the new
bank that I plan on using. Too late for DCU.... not only have they lost my 
direct deposit but there is a much lower balance in my accounts. 

						Mike
    

    Re: .50
    
    C'mon, can't you see the relevence? 
    
    We got this guy going door to door selling wood to people who don't
    know how it's supposed to be measured. He says, "It's a good deal. 
    Trust me."
    
    He encounters a mark (oops, I mean customer) that says "Yeah, but I'll
    have to pay by check." and "Don't worry, the check is good 'cause it's
    from DCU. Trust me." 
    
    Now, the "customer" not trusting the merchant (or realizing that there
    is less than enough money in the account to cover the less than 1/2
    cord) post dates the check. But is foiled by DCU paying less than full
    attention to the date.
    
    The whole story seems like it belongs in DCU's story book. Trust me!
    :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)

>    But is foiled by DCU paying less than full attention to the date.

	I have read that no bank will fail to cash a check because it
	is postdated. Don't know how true that is...

					Tom_K

       <<< Note 282.54 by TOMK::KRUPINSKI "Repeal the 16th Amendment!" >>>

>	I have read that no bank will fail to cash a check because it
>	is postdated. Don't know how true that is...

	No bank is SUPPOSED to cash a post-dated check. It is not a
	legal instrument until the date listed.

	They get cashed anyway because no one at the bank looks at the
	dates. Note: Check clearing is just about completely automated.

	BTW, This applies to signatures as well.

Jim

   Many years  ago,  I  wrote out two checks, one to pay the electric bill,
   and  one  to pay a gas bill.  I accidently swapped the checks, so I sent
   the  gas  check to the electric company, and visa versa.  One noticed it
   and sent it back.  The other processed the check and credited the amount
   on the check to my account resulting in an under or over paid account.

	FWIW, I read an article recently about check postdating.  I am in
	MA, and I don't know if it was specific to MA.

	The article stated that a check must be redeemable for cash at the
	time that it is signed.  The date on the check is NOT part of the
	contract between the issuer and the receiver of the check.  An
	attempt to delay payment based on postdating constitutes fraud.

	Sorry, I don't have the source.  You could, of course, arrange with
	the receiver to not cash the check until a later date, but the
	bank cannot refuse to cash the check if it is presented for payment.
	Unless, of course, you have executed a stop payment order.  

re: .57

That is also the law in Texas.

Bob

    
    
    The person selling the wood requested that I post date the check.
    
    It was not my idea.  I was not going to buy the wood for lack of 
    
    funds, at the time and he requested that the check be post dated.
    
    Ben,
    

    When the "Choices" program was announced I opted for the plus checking
    since I do have a CD.  As most of you know, the plus was buyer
    protection and a personal credit line.  I received a letter in the mail
    yesterday restating that the fees and minimums were rescinded.  It also
    said the buyer protection will be longer be available after Dec. 31,
    1991, and I will be able to keep my credit line if I was approved for
    one.

    What happens to those who bought a CD to avoid the fees. Now the fees
    are gone, they're stuck with a CD?

    How are you "Stuck" with a CD?  The money is still yours and you are
    earning a higher interest payment on  it than having that money in any
    other account in DCU.  You might not have access to it right away, but
    it certainly shouldn't be hurting you.

Ah, but it is hurting.  You could take the money to the friendly bank down the
street and be earning between .4 and .5% more on it in a plain, dumb old
passbook savings account.  I did just that.

-r

Like some previous noters said (and possible even me), when the checking fees 
were announced, I changed my direct-deposit of net pay to a bank that would not
charge me fees, and would pay me interest on my entire balance, i.e. no minimum
balance to receive interest.

I'm now in a building that has a DCU branch, and DCU checking interest rates are
higher.  But I can't seem to get myself to switch my direct deposit back over,
all because of the $1000 minimum balance for interest.  When times were good, the
minimum was $500.  I never had a problem with that (although others might still
object).

What I'd like to know is how much would it cost DCU to waive the minimum balance
(and have no fees) for checking accounts that have direct deposit?  This would be
a much more pleasant product.  One thing I like about the "direct deposit" rule
is that someone can benefit no matter what their income level or cash flow.

Of course the bank I now deposit to doesn't let me withdraw against it on
Wednesday, so the float probably covers the interest paid...

Elaine

I'll ask louder this time...

How much would it cost DCU to waive the minimum balance to receive interest (and 
have no fees) for checking accounts that have direct deposit?

Thanks.

Elaine

    I don't know the numbers but if there were 10,000 members with balances
    under $1,000 and each had about $500 in the account, DCU is saving 
    	10,000 x $500 x 0.03 = $150,000.
    
    The effect that is hard to predict is impact on those with more
    than $1,000 in their accounts.  I suspect that those members would tend
    to maintain a lower account balance. This may have other ramifications.
    
    Gim
    

re: .66

>>    I don't know the numbers but if there were 10,000 members with balances
>>    under $1,000 and each had about $500 in the account, DCU is saving 
>>    	10,000 x $500 x 0.03 = $150,000.
    
Or, using the current interest rate (2.38%), $119,000.

I guess that's significant, with greater impact as the interest rate rises.

I wonder how close this is?

Elaine    

Sorry, I'll pass along your question to Chuck. I've asked him for some real
data that I can post awhile back, but I guess he hasn't gotten around to it
yet. I can't give you numbers off the top of my head, but let's make up a
(probably too high) number that says that if you have less than $800 in
your account, the money that DCU makes on the money in your account (after
paying interest) does not fully offset the cost to DCU to handle your account.

What should DCU do? If it pays you interest on *any* amount, DCU will be
losing money on you and other members will be subsidizing you. On the
other hand, keeping you happy is a good thing
and maybe when you need money in the future you will borrow from DCU.
On the third hand, DCU can't make it precisely "fair" for everybody, all
we can do is make it mostly fair for most people.

Questions such as these are strategic questions and will be addressed by
the board in the near future when Chuck's proposals for pricing are
reviewed (I don't know when that will be).