vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
You can't both enforce saving and have access to the money -- from what you say, it's clear that if you can access the money you will spend it. Can you find an account that allows one withdrawal every six months but no more, which should help to cut down on the impulse buys but still let you get at your money in an emergency?
"Since the last time savings account interest rates were meaningful banks have made relationships much ""stick-ier."" By that I mean that the online services and all the auto-pay systems in place put up a significant barrier for people to leave their bank. This results in people no longer shopping their banking business around to the bank with the best account interest rates. So no cartel or other devious behavior from banks, but rather just customer apathy (as you pointed out was an option)."
Maybe in front office. My wife has now worked for three big banks in various asset management roles and her current place (one of the largest European banks) just upgraded to Outlook/MS suites in 2016. Before that it was Lotus. The transition took a year and was horribly managed. Her whole department's IT consists of one guy supported by their Indian global centre which is (apparently) not very good.  Similar horror stories at her last place, one of the Japanese giants.
Bank accounts?  It is worse than that.  People are afraid to invest in bank accounts. Did you see the bit when German government bonds hit a negative interest rate recently? (As in you buy a bond and in five years time the government promises to give nearly all of it back)
The negative effects of multiple hard inquiries in a short span of time don't stack, they're treated as a single inquiry (and inquiries aren't *that* bad anyway, the only ding you by a few points).  The bigger problem here is the **other** reason your bank gave you - Too many overdrawn accounts.  If you don't believe you currently have any overdrawn accounts, you need to pull your credit report *now* and make sure it's accurate.  Maybe there's a mistake on your credit, maybe you're a victim of identity theft.  That said, 1.5 years isn't really very long in credit terms for managing to keep your record clean, so maybe your credit just needs a few more years to heal.  But *definitely* pull your credit report to rule out the worst possibilities.
I use another solution: debit card with an account kept empty most of the time and another account in the same bank without any card. I keep the money on the second card-less account, and when I want to buy something, I instantly transfer the appropriate amount to the account with the card and pay. That way money is on the account tied to a debit card only for a minute before payment, and normally it is empty - so even if someone would try to fraudulently use my card number - I don't care - the transaction will be rejected. I think its the perfect solution - no fraud possible, and I don't have to worry about possibly having to bother calling my bank and requesting a chargeback, which is stressful and a waste of time and harmful to peace of mind (what if they refuse the chargeback)? I prefer to spend a minute before each transaction to transfer the money between the two accounts, and that time is not a waste, because I use it to reconsider the purchase - which prevents impulse-buying.
"My wife and I are paid every two weeks. I go on line see the exact deposit, add it to register, and see what checks cleared. In effect, I reconcile twice per month, and the statement can't be different that what their system tells me. Since the online site shows ""last statement balance"" I feel there's no need to bother with the paper, nothing left to reconcile."
There is a possibility of misuse. Hence it should be shared judiciously. Sharing it with large / trusted organization reduces the risk as there would be right process / controls in place. Broadly these days PAN and other details are shared for quite a few transactions, say applying for a Credit Card, Opening Bank Account, Taking a Phone connection etc. In most of the cases the application is filled out and processed by 3rd party rather than the service provider directly.  Creating Fake Employee records is a possibility so is the misuse to create a fake Bank account in your name and transact in that account. Since one cannot totally avoid sharing PAN details to multiple parties... It helps to stay vigilant by monitoring the Form 26AS from the Govt website. Any large cash transactions / additional salary / or other noteworthy transactions are shown here. It would also help to monitor your CIBIL reports that show all the Credit Card and other details under your name.
Also, most people have a checking account as well as savings account, the percent with ""checking and savings"" was 75.8% while those with ""checking only"" were 22.2% (page 25, PDF page 31 of 88). It's possible in some surveys people keep all their money in checking, but given other data sources, and the original claim this fails to hold up. If the concern was interest rates it makes no sense to keep money in checking which seldom pays interest. This survey also directly addresses the issue of ""emergency savings"": &gt; *""Overall, 56.3 percent of households saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months.""* (page 37, PDF page 43 of 88) Furthermore: &gt;*""Figure 7.2 shows that among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts:* **more than four in five (84.9 percent) kept savings in one of these accounts.** *About one in ten (10.5 percent) households that saved maintained savings in the home, or with family or friends.""* Emphasis added. * [Why don't people have wealth in different asset classes? Well they don't save money.](http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/savings-rates-by-wealth-class.png) This is further supported by the OECD data: * [Americans ""currency and deposits"" are 13% vs 5.8% for ""securities and other shares"" as % of total financial assets.](https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-financial-assets.htm) Additionally: * [Interest earning checking accounts: 44.6% of american households (second image)](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) * [""Among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts..."
"Other responses have focused on getting you software to use, but I'd like to attempt your literal question: how are such transactions managed in systems that handle them? I will answer for ""double entry"" bookkeeping software such as Quicken or GnuCash (my choice). (Disclaimer: I Am Not An Accountant and accountants will probably find error in my terminology.) Your credit card is a liability to you, and is tracked using a liability account (as opposed to an asset account, such as your bank accounts or cash in your pocket). A liability account is just like an asset except that it is subtracted from rather than added to your total assets (or, from another perspective, its balance is normally negative; the mathematics works out identically). When you make a purchase using your credit card, the transaction you record transfers money from the liability account (increasing the liability) to the expense account for your classification of the expense. When you make a payment on your credit card, the transaction you record transfers money from your checking account (for example) to the credit card account, reducing the liability. Whatever software you choose for tracking your money, I strongly recommend choosing something that is sufficiently powerful to handle representing this as I have described (transfers between accounts as the normal mode of operation, not simply lone increases/decreases of asset accounts)."
Allowing others to share access to your Bank Account; i.e. giving then the login id and password has its risks;
"(I'm a bit surprised that nobody talked about the impact of multiple inquiries on a loan, since OP is concerned with credit building. Probably an answer as opposed to a comment is justified.) Yes. In fact when you shop for auto loan you are expected to have your credit score/report be pulled by different banks, credit unions, and/or the financing arm of the car manufacturer or the dealership, so that you can hopefully get the best rate possible. This is especially true if the dealer is requesting quotes on rates on your behalf, as they would probably use a batch process to send out applications to multiple financial institutions all at once. Yes, and a bit unusual - CALVERT TOYO (your dealer) pulled your report twice on the same day. Presumably they are not getting any new information on the second pull. Maybe a fat finger? Regardless, you should not worry about this too much (to be explained below). I would say ""don't bother"". The idea behind hard inquiries lowering credit score is that lenders see the number of hard inquiries as your desire for credit. Too high a number is often viewed as either ""desperate for credit"" or ""unable to qualify for credit"".  But as explained above, it is very common for a person to request quotes for multiple financial institutions and thus to have multiple hard inquiries in a short period of time when shopping for loans. To account for that, the credit bureau's model would usually combine hard inquiries for a same type of loan (auto, mortgage, etc.) within 30 days. Hence a person sending quote request to 3 banks won't be rated higher for credit than if he were to request quotes from 5 banks.  Therefore in your case your credit profile is not going to be different if you had been pulled just once. my credit score goes down for 15 points I'm assuming you are talking about the credit score provided by Credit Karma. The score CK provided is FAKO. The score lenders care about is FICO. They are well correlated but still different. Google these two terms and you should be able to figure out the difference quickly. You can also refer to my answer to a different question here: Equifax credit score discrepancy in 1 month, why?"
On a summary level, there are three conceptual ways of clearing money electronically. Immediate clearing, where banks (often, but not necessarily) with support of the supervisory entities, send immediate drawing rights against their own cash reserves, and dedicate this right to the account of the receiving customer. This is rather expensive, as it limits the banks ability to use their cash reserves for their own banking operations (crediting etc). This is often the only way to wire significant (in comparison to the bank size) amounts of money.  Internal clearing, where the money actually never leaves the bank - it's just moved between accounts of two different customers of the same bank. It's usually free, as the bank is still free to use your money to do it's banking, and it's usually immediate since nothing actually needs to happen besides a change in the banks entries.  Batch clearing, where banks submit outstanding requests against each other, and calculate the net settlement. Basically, when you from bank A wire money to me in bank B, there is a high chance that a similar amount of money is wired between two other users it the opposite direction. After a bit of accounting the net imbalance is computed (and often drawn via immediate clearing) but the bulk of the money actually never leaves any of the banks, it just is reassigned between each banks customers as per agreed books.  There are also additional ways where companies decide to open accounts in each of the banks and provide some sort of immediate clearing backed by the operators cash reserves rather than the banks.. and so on.. How does it happen in Indonesia? I have no idea, but I think a good overview of how it happens around the world is a publication by a partner entity of ours; http://pymntsreportstore.com/products/global-wire-transfer-choices If you are really curious, I'd research under what legal form does Paypal Indonesia operate (it should be somewhere in the archives) and figure out what other wiring options are available.
"I agree -- personally, at the expense of some of the convenience you speak of, I use credit unions exclusively. However, my credit union more than makes up for that with   1) online check deposit (only thing you ever need to go to a bank for) 2) ATM fee reimbursement  With those two amenities, I don't need a branch on every corner. I am pretty disappointed with BofA's practices (profiting off of those who are ""less responsible"" -- to me it's wrong to profit off of people's 'stupidity'), so I would never bank with them. It's just a personal preference because 1) I don't need them and 2) I wouldn't want to indirectly support their business. I can understand why people stick with them, and frankly don't really care, to be honest... I just think they're a fundamentally bad company through and through and would rather keep my money away from them."
Also people don't disable overdraft. Or after they get hit with the fee, they don't change their behavior.   Although that being said, I never balance my checkbook. But then again I never use debit cards and I usually only ever have 1 check outstanding at a time.
Sure of course you can do balance transfers like this but you are way late to the party and it has gotten to be pretty challenging finding new cards to transfer balances to. Before the current financial crisis in the US you could get enormous amounts of credit (2-5 times a person's annual income) and transfer balances to your bank account to collect interest . There were a bunch of ways to the transfer everything from direct deposit to your bank account to a balance transfer check payable to yourself to overpaying another credit card and requesting a refund. Over paying another account sets off a lot of red flags now days but other methods still work. The financial atmosphere has changed a lot and there are very few available cards with no balance transfer fees or capped fees and the interest rates are a lot lower now so it really isn't worth doing.
Obviously, there are many approaches. I’ll describe what we do and why we think it is successful. I have seen many couples having disagreements and even divorce over money; it seems that this is a typical reason to fight and sometimes fight badly. The realization is that different people have different preferences what to spend their money on, and if you are not rich, it continuously leads to disagreements - ‘did you really need another pair of shoes?’, etc. Our solution is a weekly allowance. First, all our money goes into one pot and is considered equal. Many couples find that a difficult step, but I never thought twice about it - I trust my spouse, and I share my life with her, so why not my money? From this, we agree on an ‘allowance’ that is used to cover any non-common cost; this includes all clothing, dining out, buying things, etc. The amount was chosen to match about what we spent for those things anyway, and then adjusted annually. The main point is that there is no critique allowed about what this is spent on - you can blow it all on shoes, or buy books, or wine and dine, or gamble it away, whatever. We are doing this since 23 years now, and we are very happy with the results; we never have financial ‘fights’ anymore. Disadvantages are the effort - you need to keep track of it somehow. Either you use a separate credit card, or hand it out in cash, or have a complete accounting (I do the latter, because I want to). Regarding all other spend, we use the accounting to plan ahead for at least a year on all cost and income that are expected, and that shows us the available cash flow and where it might get tight. It also shows you where the money goes, and where you could cut if cutting is needed (or wanted). Again, there is some effort in collecting the data, but it is worth it (for us).
You mentioned BoA. I have had BoA accounts for about ten years. All of my transfers between accounts are immediate. I have never had to wait with BoA.  Scottrade Accounts are the worst in this respect. Once I had to wait 8 days. PayPal come in a close second for making you wait.
"&gt; This seems like correlation and not causation… somebody who'll never overdraw their account won't bother getting overdraft protection.  I would actually say that makes it a causation rather than merely a correlation.  Why? Because people who sign up for overdraft protection are LESS likely to be careful/conscientious about their account balances or their spending habits (see they have ""overdraft protection"" so why worry?) ... and therefore more likely to overdraw their accounts (and to do so frequently).  By contrast people who do *not* have (or reject) overdraft protection are more likely to monitor their account balances and control/limit their spending in order to maintain a healthy balance.  BTW, I highly doubt this is ""news"" to the banks: they are almost certainly well aware of the phenomenon... which is one reason they promote their ""overdraft protection"" thingees."
"If you ask ten different couples what they do, depending on a variety of factors, you'll get anywhere between two and ten different answers. One personal finance blogger that I read swears by the fact that he and his wife keep their finances totally separate.  His wife has her own retirement account, he has his.  His wife has her own checking and savings, he has his.  They pay fifty-fifty for expenses and each buy their own ""toys"" from their own accounts.  He views this as valuable for allowing them to have their own personal finance styles, as his wife is a very conservative investor and he is more generous. My spouse and I have mostly combined finances, and view all of our money as joint (even though there are a smattering of accounts between us with just one name on them as holdovers from before we were married).  Almost all of our purchasing decisions except regular groceries are joint.  I couldn't imagine it any other way.  It leaves us both comfortable with our financial situation and forces us to be on the same page with regards to our lifestyle decisions.  There's also the ideological view that since we believe marriage united us, we try to live that out.  That's just us, though.  We don't want to force it on others. Some couples find a balance between joint accounts and his and her fun money stashes.  You might find yet another arrangement that works for you, such as the one you already described. What's going to be important is that you realize that all couples have the same six basic arguments, finances being one of them.  The trick is in how you disagree.  If you can respectfully and thoughtfully discuss your finances together to find the way that has the least friction for you, you're doing well.  Some amount of friction is not just normal, it's almost guaranteed."
You need to find out exactly  how the two accounts are titled. If an account  is an UGMA (Uniform Gifts to Minors Act) account that is in your name with your mother/father as custodian, then you are entitled to all the money in the account when you become an adult. If the account is indeed a UGMA account,  the bank is supposed to not let the custodian operate the account once the  child becomes an adult, but this does not always happen.  There was a  question earlier on money.SE (which I cannot find at this time) in which  the 25-year-old person asking the question claimed that  his father was still buying and selling shares in his UGMA brokerage  account and the IRS was asking why the profits and losses from these transactions were not being reported on the 25-year-old's tax return. Money in an UGMA account is not supposed to be used for payment of household expenses, food, etc. which is the parent's responsibility during the minority, but this can well be abused. As to whether money was taken out and then restored (or possibly not restored, as you seem to suspect), it is possible to sue the custodian for improper handling of the UGMA account and recover the funds, but whether one wants to sue a parent over what might be a relatively small sum is another matter. Consider whether most of what is recovered might go to pay legal fees or other costs of the recovery process, and will likely ruin a family relationship. If the accounts are titled as joint accounts, then either party can empty the account without informing the other. But doing so would need information about the account number etc. which you may not have. For tax purposes, there is also the issue of whose Social Security  Number is listed on the account, yours or your parent's. See also this answer  for a view of what happens from the other side.
I don't think you understand the multiplier effect.  The multiplier effect does not allow a bank to loan out more money than they have.  The multiplier effect is the theory that when a bank loans out money, that money will come back to the bank in the form of a deposit, which they can loan out again.  With this banking idea, if there were enough popularity, then when they loan out money, they could be getting it back in the form of deposits, that they can lend out again.
Unless you are a client with boatloads of money, I don't think service like you are asking about is very common. And I kind of assume that if you did have the boatloads of money, you would already have had such a relationship with a brokerage or accountant or similar financial professional. When I have taken money from brokerage accounts, I have had to call them to ask for it or requested it online. For both, the only option was to receive a check in the mail made out to the account holder (me). This usually takes about a week, although that does include waiting for the funds to settle after a stock sale which itself is about 3 business days. I know a lot of brokerages do have banks affiliated with them and one of the benefits of having a bank account with that affiliated bank is quicker transfers in and out of your bank account. But if you aren't willing to do that, I don't think you have many other choices other than receive a check in the mail.
Absolute scam.  Any time anyone asks you to open a bank account so they can send you money and then you have to send some portion of it back to them, it's a guarantee that it's a scam. What happens is that your dad will deposit the check and transfer it to this woman, then the check will bounce (or turn out to be fake altogether) and your dad will be on the hook for the money to the bank. These schemes are dependent on the fact that people want hope and believe in quick, easy money, and it works as long as the con artists are able to get the 'mark' (the person who deposits the check and sends them the money) to send the money before the check (always drawn on some obscure foreign bank) has a chance to clear. This is another variation of a long-running type of bank scam, and if you get involved, you'll regret it.  I hope you can keep your dad from getting involved, because it will create a financial mess and affect his credit as well. The basic premise of this scam is this:  In the interests of providing good customer service, most banks will make some or all of a deposit available right away, even though the check hasn't cleared.  The scammer has you withdraw the money (either a cashier's check, have you send a wire transfer, etc) immediately and send it to them. Eventually the check is returned because it is  The bank charges the check back against your account, often imposing pretty substantial penalties and fees, so you as the account holder are left without the money you sent the scammer and all of the fees. This is the easy version of events.  You could end up in legal trouble, depending on the nature of the scam and what they determine your involvement to be.  It will certainly badly affect your banking history (ChexSystems tracks how we all treat bank accounts, much like the credit agencies do with our credit), so you may have trouble opening bank accounts.  So there are many consequences to this to think about, and it's why you JUST SAY NO!! Don't walk away from this -- RUN!!!