vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"For some people, it's easier to stick to a budget if they have separate checking and savings accounts because they can deposit funds directly into their savings account and not have those funds accessible by debit/credit card, checks, etc. This allows people to pay themselves first and accumulate savings, while making it slightly more difficult to spend those savings on a whim. One a more technical/legal note, one key difference in the United States comes from Regulation D. §204.2(d)(2) of the law limits you to six withdrawals from savings and money market accounts. No such limit exists for checking accounts. Regulation D also forbids banks from paying interest on business checking accounts.  In the simplest case, checking accounts and savings accounts are a tradeoff between liquidity and return. Checking accounts are much more liquid, but won't necessarily earn interest, while savings accounts are less liquid because of the withdrawal limits, but earn interest. Nowadays, however, sweep accounts blur this line somewhat because they function like checking accounts, in that you can write an unlimited number of checks, make an unlimited number of withdrawals, etc. but you can also earn interest on your account balance because some or all of the funds are ""swept"" into an investment account when not in use. The definition of ""in use"" can vary from business to business and bank to bank."
I've had all my account with the same bank for all my life. Generally, the disadvantage is that if I want some kind of product like a credit extension or a mortgage, I have the one bank to go to and if they don't want to help me I'm out of luck. However, occasionally there are also perks like the bank spontaneously offering you increased credit or even a whole line of credit. They can do this because they have your whole history and trust you.
Check global ATM alliance they are banks that use reciprocal benefits on each other in other countries without fees. For example the in the USA Bank of America and In France it is BNP Paribas. Both are banks in this alliance. I use this option between the United States and the Caribbean my banks of choice are Bank of America in the US and in the Caribbean I use Scotia Bankand since I have accounts in both weekends I can use both ATM cards on any of these two banks without any processing fees!!!!  You should check the global ATM  alliance to see if it is an option that you could use.
When I went on vacation to London a few years ago, I looked around at banks with ATM deals with UK banks. I found that B of A had a deal with a UK bank that you could use their ATMs to take out money from your US account for practically no fees. So the week or so before I left, I opened an account at B of A, put a bunch of money in it, and used the B of A debit card during my trip as much as possible.
You can't roll her HSA account into yours, but you can roll her HSA account into another HSA account that is hers.  A $5 per month fee for an HSA account is ridiculous. Find another account that has no fees, and move the money there. I suggest talking to your local credit union.
My wife and I set up a shared bank account. We knew the monthly costs of the mortgage and estimated the cost of utilities. Each month, we transferred enough to cover these, plus about 20% so we could make an extra mortgage payment each year and build up an emergency fund, and did so using automatic transactions. Other shared expenses such as groceries, we handled on an ad-hoc basis, settling up every month or three. We initially just split everything 50-50 because we both earned roughly the same income. When that changed, we ended up going with a 60-40 split. We maintained our separate bank accounts, though this may have changed in the future. A system like this may work for you, or may at least provide a starting point for a discussion. And I do strongly advise having a frank and open discussion on these points. Dealing with money can be tricky in the bounds of a marriage.
The standard customer is actually pretty satisified with BofA because he gets access to the large number of branches for free. But that money has to come from somewhere, that service isn't free. BofA gets it from those who are less responsible with their money. Alternatively, BofA can just charge everybody evenly across the board. Due to low interest rates, deposits are not very profitable, they cannot lower the interest on your savings account any more. Banks are actually losing money on most of their depositors because the stuff involved with maintaining an account costs money. That's why some banks are actively doing things to push some depositors away (some banks even charge you money to store money in the bank).  Logically, it makes sense for me to bank at a place where the profits are not squeezed from me. So as someone who doesn't get hit with fees, I'm happy with BofA. That might sound weird, but logic dictates that I go to where I get the best value.
Having separate savings account for your kids college fund, retirement fund, holiday fund etc is one way to compartmentalise savings. Downside to this is the management of these funds especially if you have them with different banks. Like others here have pointed out, keeping track via spreadsheet is relatively easy and especially most banks now like OCBC, HSBC , DBS, POSB etc offer online banking, however from a financial standpoint, spreading your funds doesn't allow you to get as much interest as you would from one account that has the highest interest rate.
You could make an entry for the disputed charge as if you were going to lose the dispute, and a second entry that reverses the charge as if you were going to win the dispute.  You could then reconcile the account by including the first charge in the reconciliation and excluding the reversal until the issue has been resolved.
"My revised, bottom-line advice: offer to send a 2nd payment (preferably in the form of money order or cashier's check) for the difference you are agreeing to pay. I cannot imagine any reason why they would object to this - there is no fee to cash a check, there's less risk of error, and less work involved. Alternatively, offer to send a new check only once the other has been returned. Don't issue one more full-amount check while the other is still outstanding. There is a good reason not to accept partial payment by them, which is that accepting a partial payment of a debt comes with a varieties of strings attached depending on the nature of the debt (such as with evictions, court processes may need to be restarted, etc). They likely want to avoid such a situation - but this does not provide any support for why they can't just take a second payment and then cash it all at once as a single, full settlement of the debt. In a perfect world, you could skip all the non-sense by simply having your bank put a stop-payment on the old check before sending a new one. Unfortunately, this might not work with 100% accuracy - but in your case if the ""partial payment"" is a significant amount of money to you, I'd go ahead and spend the $20-40 to put in the order now as an extra safety on them not doing what they claim, if for some incredibly stupid reason you can't handle this with a 2nd payment instead of one single full one. It turns out banks have lots of surprising and stupid rules, like stop payments on a check expiring in 6 months (and they may even cash stale checks over a year old), no guarantee of a stop being successful, etc. The real rule is: they might cash the check unless you close the account. Sigh - this is one of many reasons I never, ever use checks. I am not aware of any law that requires a check to be physically returned if requested, or proof or destruction provided, or anything like that. It's a large part of the reason why we have the ability to stop payment on a check, and so void it through the bank without having any physical access to the check - but this process is spotty and imperfect, and cannot be relied upon.
"Its a broker fee, not something charged by the reorganizing company. E*Trade charge $20, TD Ameritrade charge $38. As with any other bank fee - shop around. If you know the company is going to do a split, and this fee is of a significant amount for you - move your account to a different broker. It may be that some portion of the fee is shared by the broker with the shares managing services provider of the reorgonizing company, don't know for sure. But you're charged by your broker. Note that the fees differ for voluntary and involuntary reorganizations, and also by your stand with the broker - some don't charge their ""premier"" customers."
I have a fair number of cards floating around some reasons I have opened multiple accounts. I am not saying that it is for everyone but there are valid scenarios where multiple credit cards can make sense.
The reason banks charge fees for wires, is because the Federal Reserve charges banks to send the wires.  The Fed charges the banks a hefty fee, so the banks have to charge you a hefty fee to make up for it. Any time any business gives you a service for free, its because they think they can make more money off of some other service or product they are selling you.  So the question becomes, How can I make myself valuable enough to a bank that they will waive my wire fees? The account you linked to is a good example of this: the monthly service charge, along with the $0.50 charge every time you use your debit card, would make up for the number of wires most people send.
"Most banks offer prepaid cards nowadays that should fit the bill here. I would recommend first checking with your bank to see what they offer, as that's probably the easiest, and perhaps cheapest, option. My bank, for example, has an entirely fee-free prepaid card that, while marketed towards teens, is entirely applicable for this case.  Other banks seem to offer similar products; some of them have more or less fees, but almost all that I've seen are better than the commercial products you'd find in a grocery store.   As an example (and I don't know anything about it so I don't specifically recommend this, just exemplifying what I mean): Note that the fees vary, some should be able to be used without ever incurring fees and some have fees you won't avoid.  Most seem to have the concept of ""sponsor"", or NFCU inverts it (you are the cardholder, your dad would be the ""companion cardholder""), but in either way it means you can load money (and generally would be the sole money loader) and your dad could then spend it. If your bank doesn't offer what you want, you may want to consider getting an account with a provider that offers what you're looking for, so to make deposits easier.  Most of these allow deposits from other sources than checking accounts with that bank, but in many cases you may incur a fee or take longer for the money to clear."
"As far as I can recall, savings and chequing accounts exist due to regulations on the banking industry that put were into effect after the depression to prevent a ""run"" on the bank.   A chequing account is a ""demand"" account, meaning you can go and demand your money, and they have to pay immediately, by means of a withdrawal or a cheque.  Banks used to get out of hand and loan out pretty much all the money they had on deposit, and of course those people with loans just put the money they borrowed into another chequing account and the bank loaned that out to someone else.  The money that people believed they had access to multiplied indefinitely.  However, when everyone goes to take that money out at the same time, you have a run on the bank.  Therefore, government regulations stipulate a % that the bank must have on-hand.  The typical number is 5%.  That effectively limits the money multiplier to 19 times. Savings accounts get around this restriction by putting limits on how much and how quickly you can withdraw the amounts.  They pay you more interest because the money in a savings account is worth more to them, because it's not subject to those restrictions. Some chequing accounts pay interest, but you have to maintain a minimum balance.  Some savings accounts allow you to write cheques, but I assume the withdrawal limitations probably still apply. There's also something to do with deposit insurance (as in, the chequing accounts are covered by government deposit insurance, but savings accounts are not).  I'm not 100% certain of that though."
The original poster indicates that he lives in the UK, but there are likely strong similarities with the US banking system that I am more familiar with: The result is that you are likely going to be unable to be approved for 10 checking accounts opened in rapid succession, at least in the US. Finally, in the US, there is no need to have checking accounts with a bank in order to open a credit card with them (although sometimes it can help if you have a low credit score).
"You do not need to write anything on the second line.  There are a variety of helpful things that you can add, e.g.: For Deposit Only.  This tells the bank to deposit the check into your account and ignore other signatures.   Your account number.  Especially useful when added to ""For Deposit Only"".   A countersignature.  This tells the bank to pay the check to someone other than you.   Countersigned checks used to be much more common than they are now.  Someone who didn't have a bank account might ask someone who did to cash a check for them.   See also:  Four ways to endorse a check which gives the correct format for endorsing a check in these ways."
"Money market accounts, insured in the same way as other deposits, are strange hybrids of traditional bank deposits and bond mutual funds. Because of the high inflation of the 1970s, banks were starved of deposits and could not produce loans at sufficient rates.  For this reason, they desired a way to fund loans, and Congress enacted the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act which permitted a new form of account that retained the functionality of a deposit account, such as checking and now electronic transfers, yet transferred the risk to the account thus most of the profit.  This allowed banks to fund each others' new loans through packaging them into asset backed securities to be held in these special accounts. As an added ""protection"", they are not permitted to carry a market value less than what's owed to depositors and are forcibly liquidated and paid in such event.  This is a rare occurrence because of the nature of the assets held: credit assets such as commercial paper, mortgages, and corporate bonds.  This is the opposite case of deposits because so long as a bank can maintain payments on its liabilities and satisfy a few other regulatory requirements, non-regulation satisfying assets could theoretically carry a zero balance, meaning that a bank could owe depositors more than what could be paid by liquidating all assets. Money market accounts will typically pay a higher rate because of their structure.  While inflation is low and immediate term interest rates set by the central bank are also low, the net figure will not appear high, but the ratio will be fantastic, usually something like 3x. The one downside to money market accounts is that withdrawals are restricted by frequency.  This is not such a problem as before since brokerages are now issuing debit cards tied to brokerage accounts, and excess money can be ""swept"" into money market accounts, bypassing the regulatory restriction. In short, money market accounts are currently a far better choice than traditional checking accounts but pay less than savings accounts."
"Open a personal account to link SQUARE with,  open a savings account with same bank.  Register as ""PERSONAL USE"",  make as many transactions you want for whatever you want $5.00 to $1,000.00 or more, you get paid, square collects a fee. Money is in your ""personal account"" in 24 hrs, transfer it to your savings acct.  2 years now no issue.   I've done the EIN, vendors license, registering business crap, if you work for yourself for private citizens it's none of anyone else's concern."
I was just wondering, are banks in India federally insured? Yes the Banks in India are insured for Principal and Interest upto Rs 1,00,000/- per holding type per Bank. See the DICGC website. So if you have one or more accounts [in the same or different branches of a bank] and the Principal is say Rs 98,000/- and the interest accrued at the time of liquidation is say Rs 4,000/- you will get Rs 1,00,000/-  If you have more than Rs 1,00,000/- you will not get only 1 lac. If you have an individual account, and your wife has an account and both of you have a joint account. The total limit will be Rs 3,00,000/-. If you are guardian to your Children, its again considered separate. RBI Site as a good example on this. If you open Accounts in Different Banks, the limit increases.  What happen if banks like Yes Bank or IndusInd bank goes bankrupt? Both Yes Bank and IndusInd are participants in the DICGC and are insured. See the full list here. How will we recover money in those cases? Although insured, the process to get the money back would be time consuming. More often the bank is placed under moratorium, an effort is made for amalgamation or reconstruction ... Only if everything fails, the bank goes into liquidation. So it could be anywhere from few months to few years for you to see you money.
"They say that banks earn 4 - 5% on deposits, so with lower costs they can give away 2-4%. They cite [this article](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-banking-industry-annual-profit-hit-record-in-2016-1488295836) which says that ""return on equity [for banks] up at 9.32%, the highest level since 2013"". But [net interest margin](https://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/qbp/2017mar/chart4.html) is lower (2.5%-4.5%). And that's in a good year. They elaborate in a blog post: ""Fed Funds rates are supposed to affect deposit rates that banks pay to their customers, as, after all, deposit is a form of short term loan from depositor to the bank (see the explanation in our recent blog). However, as WalletHub notes in their recent report, it has not actually happened recently. As the report notes, for traditional branch-based banks, savings and checking account rates are virtually unchanged. You are probably getting the same 0.01% in your checking or savings account? Meanwhile, rates on your credit card went up by 0.53% since December 2015."" ""So why aren’t deposit rates increasing? One reason often cited, is actually the relative decrease in the levels of competition in the U.S. market (as we described in our earlier blog). While there are still thousands of banks in the U.S., 4 control ~40% of the assets and close to half of the assets (loans). The other reason could be, perhaps, that after almost 10 years of getting close to zero in your bank account, you will forget that it could be any different. In fact, bank executives are puzzled why consumers are not “demanding” more on their deposits. You can walk to the branch and “demand” more money from your bank, but you may end up in county jail. The only other viable option is to take your deposits elsewhere, or vote with your feet."
"For personal accounts, I can't imagine that this is too much of a problem.  The only concern that I can think of (for American banks) is that FDIC only insures you up to $100,000 if the bank were to go belly-up.  If you're getting over that amount of money, you may want to ""diversify"" a little more."
Banks need to provide a free mechanism to deposit and withdrawal money.  Banks are free to charge fees as long as it is well published. If you are not happy with services you can complain to Banking ombudsman.
"I have checked with Bank of America, and they say the ONLY way to cash (or deposit, or otherwise get access to the funds represented by a check made out to my business) is to open a business account. They tell me this is a Federal regulation, and every bank will say the same thing.  To do this, I need a state-issued ""dba"" certificate (from the county clerk's office) as well as an Employer ID Number (EIN) issued by the IRS. AND their CHEAPEST business banking account costs $15 / month. I think I can go to the bank that the check is drawn upon, and they will cash it, assuming I have documentation showing that I am the sole proprietor. But I'm not sure.... What a racket!!"
I recommend a Capital One 360 account. Personal experience, I'm a current undergraduate and while Capital One ATMs are everywhere and while account fees do not exist while I work, my normal Capital One bank account would be shut down, every time, over the summer. Why? Because I didn't work over the summer and I couldn't keep the minimum balance in my account. With a 360 account, I don't have to worry about paper working being mailed home when I need it at my dorm (or vice versa) and I don't have to worry about minimum balance fees closing my account (it doesn't screw my credit when that happens, but I have to open up a NEW account; frustrating). The advantages of a 360 account is that it's all online, there are no minimum balance requirements, and that I can easily access it online and even deposit checks with the Capital One app.
With overdraft fees, I feel it is no different than a loan shark.  They charge 35$ fee no matter if you buy a 25 cent pack of gum or something much more expensive.  Every time you over drafted you payed 35$.  My wife has seen some people with 500 or more in fees because they spent 100 bucks or so over several transactions.
For the first case to occur, you need to have an agreement in place with the bank, this is called overdraft protection. It's done at a cost, but cheaper than the potential series of bounce fees. I've never heard of the second choice, partial payment. That's not to say that it's not possible. The payment not made is called a bounced check, you and the recipient will be harmed a fee. I believe it's a felony to write bad checks. Good to not write a check unless there's a positive balance taking that check into account. As Dilip suggests, ask your bank.
This may not answer your question but it may be an alternative. My credit union credits my account for deposits immediately (ones I make in an envelope).  They view it as a service to their members.  They take the risk that the member could deposit an empty envelope, say they deposited $400, and then withdraw the money. There may be banks in your country that do business this way.
CTRs are made all the time, and yes, the banks do need to consider one-off transactions that aren't $10,000 per se but amount effectively to $10,000 or more. But if you're doing nothing improper, just pay your bill and be done with it.  No need to split it up just for this reason.