As many of you know, I recently got married to the love of my life (awwww!) and had a wonderful wedding and reception this past weekend. Everyone had a blast, we had a blast, and all in all I think the entire weekend went very very well considering the magnitude (both in size and importance!). Anyway, with a wedding comes gifts and some gave a gift in the form of a check.

Why is this worth mentioning? As you can probably tell from the title, the tricky part was in the fact that the checks were made out to my name and my wife’s name. That, in and of itself, is not big deal except they put it in my wife’s new (and, dare I say, better) name, which is not the name on our joint account. So, in the eyes of both the state and the bank, one of the person’s listed on the “Pay To The Order Of” line doesn’t actually exist. So, what were we to do? There are in fact two solutions.

Change Account Name

One solution is to change her name from her maiden name to her new (better) name and all we need for that is the marriage certificate. With the account name changed, she would simply sign the back of the checks in her new name and be done with it.

Double Endorse The Check

The other, far easier, solution would be for her to sign the check twice: first with her new name (name on the check), then with her old name (name on the account). While this struck me as a bit shady, it seemed to be the typical result. If the two names were in fact two different people, this is how we would’ve signed the checks to deposit them into the account. When she signed her new name, she was endorsing the check for deposit anywhere (you can write, “For Deposit Only” on the check to force it into an account your name only). It seemed tricky but the Bank of America tellers (two at two different branches) seemed to think that was business as usual and an accepted practice. Either way, no one will be disputing the deposits so it’s no big deal either way.

After those shenanigans, I needed to sign the check in order to deposit it. If a check has two names (with an “and” between them, rather than an “or”), both have to endorse the check before it can be cashed, deposited, etc.

Biometrics, loosely defined as the process of using a person’s physical characteristics for identification, is slowly gaining popularity and their use may soon extend to credit cards. Privacy is always a hot button concern in the US, just think back to when AOL released all that search data, and the collection and storage of your physical characters, one of the most personal of things, is something that probably would both a lot of people. So I’m curious, if biometric data were required, would it bother you? If it was optional, would you elect it?

I have mixed feelings on this. I’m not a gung-ho privacy advocate in some aspects and conservative in others. For example, I’m comfortable with people being able to see the websites I surf but I don’t want my information stored somewhere if it’s not absolutely necessary. I can see the value of using biometrics as a means of authentication and so would definitely elect to “activate” any biometric-related security features. It’s easy to fake a signature, it’s much harder to fake a fingerprint or retina scan.

As you probably suspected, one of the places where biometric authentication has become pretty popular is Japan (they get all the cool gadgets and gizmos before we do!). One of the reasons is because in Japan you can generally withdraw from the ATM the equivalent of thousands of dollars each day, so the higher security measures are required. Granted, this is the bank, which knows all your financial information anyway, but it’s an example of how biometrics have been rolled out and accepted.

So, what are your thoughts?

Nearly 1 year ago I wrote 50 Fun Facts about Credit Cards, a post that was very well received, so I figured why not follow that up one year later with another 50 fun facts post – this time talking about banks. I like reading about history so the first batch of facts revolve around the central bank, starting with the First Bank of the United States and ending with our current Federal Reserve system (you can see the progression!), then wash that meal down with some more entertaining facts like some other firsts, a few mind boggling statistics, and then some fun stuff like bank robberies and banking sponsorship information. It was fun (and educational) putting it together so I hope you enjoy reading the list. (much like last time, I added in a few bonus facts!)

(Click to continue reading…)

According to an article in USA Today, Citigroup, Bank of America, Chase, Wachovia, Wells Fargo, HSBC, U.S. Bank and SunTrust, eight of the ten largest largest banks in the united states, will cash checks that they receive on the same day in an order that maximizes overdraft possibilities. They will cash the largest checks first and the smallest checks last – this rule also applies for electronic transactions as well.

The banks defend their move by saying they want to give priority to the largest checks because they say that the larger checks are typically more important and you’d rather get a credit card payment bounced than a mortgage payment. Consumer advocates that banks are trying to screw the consumer because banks are relying on fees to make their money now that the spread is smaller. To be entirely honest, the order those checks are cashed shouldn’t matter – you should always have enough money in the bank to cover every check you write, otherwise you shouldn’t write them (whoops, typo, thanks Nick).

The articles goes on to explain the plight of Sean Tucker, 29, whose ego wrote checks (one of which was for $3.33) his body couldn’t cash to the tune of six overdraft fees and $200 out of his pocket. I’m sorry Sean… you need to be cognizant of how much money you have in the bank and you certainly shouldn’t be writing checks if you’re even close to being over, it’s simply not difficult to keep track of that stuff and if you’re simply careless, you deserve the fees so you’ll learn not to do it next time.

Personally, I prefer the checks cashed from the largest to the smallest because I’d rather have a $50 water bill bounce than my mortgage payment.

This promotion as ended, but you can still open a E*Trade savings account with a great interest rate.

Be Unbeatable! That’s the slogan splashed across the page of this ETrade promotional offer of $50 free for opening a new ETrade Money Market Account (sent to me by loyal reader Charles, Thanks Charles!). As a side sweetener, you get a 5.15% interest rate on the account for the first three months. After that three month teaser rate, the rate falls to 1.51%.

If you have a balance under $1000 you’ll be dinged with a $10 monthly fee but otherwise I see nothing that should hold someone back from taking a free $50. Anyone else see something I missed?

Fine print:

$50 will be credited to your new E*TRADE® Money Market account within 30 days of the account being funded with a minimum deposit of $100. Payments will be reported as interest income. Accounts must be opened by September 30, 2006 to qualify for the $50 offer. Must be a new account opened with new funds. Offer applies to one new account per customer. Not good with any other offer. This offer is not valid for E*TRADE FINANCIAL employees.

Relevant Fees:

A $100 minimum deposit is required to open a new EMM and account holders must maintain a minimum average monthly balance of $1,000, or $5,000 in total E*TRADE Bank deposits, by the end of their second statement cycle to avoid a $10 monthly fee.

Update: My funds are now safely split amongst FNBO Direct, ING Direct, and an HSBC Direct account. (ING Direct is merely my online account firewall with PayPal, so it doesn’t have the same amounts as the other banks)

Right now I have all my savings, including my 0% balance transfer funds, in an Emigrant Direct account. With the latest hubbub about Bankrate lowering their rating to two stars (read the discussion here, hat tip to Tessa to clueing me into it initially), I started to rethink my online savings “strategy.” Tessa mentioned that Emigrant Direct could potentially hold my funds hostage for 30 days and so I thought… I shouldn’t have all my eggs in one basket. (Honestly, if I’m in a bind and need the money, any delay is too long) Right now, 75% of my cash is in that Emigrant Direct account (but half of that is 0% balance transfer money)… which is way too much anyway.

(Click to continue reading…)