[pyre]

Large banks will do things like structure charges so as to extract the maximum amount of overdraft charges. For example:

  You have $40 in your account. You spend $20, then $12,
  then $5, then $120. One would logically conclude that at the
  end of the day, the bank will resolve these *in order* and
  you will have a single overdraft fee. Large banks *cough*
  Bank of America *cough* will explicitly structure those charges
  to resolve like this: $120, $20, $12, $5. Now you have 3
  overdraft fees ($35 a pop when I was with BoA) instead of a
  single overdraft fee.

Do you not see anything morally and ethically wrong with this?

[jeffasinger]

The even crazier thing about your example, is that they have different offerings for their high net worth" clients, and with those offerings, the structuring is usually much more in the favor of the client than what someone walking in off the street will get.

Essentially, a poor person will be charged higher fees than a rich person.

[rcarrigan87]

I've personally experienced this, so frustrating!

[Touche]

> Do you not see anything morally and ethically wrong with this?

That's not the language the person I was responding to used.

[danharaj]

They don't have to because most people know that powerful institutions tend to act in bad faith in order to extract as much gain as they can from the vulnerable.

[Touche]

Yes! We do know this. Which makes getting screwed a highly avoidable situation.

[pyre]

So when people act in bad faith it is "ok" so long as we mistrust them anyways?

[tsotha]

Wasn't the law changed so they can't do this any more?

[ars]

Yes, it was.