Regarding financial institutions, AmEx is basically the only one I enjoy dealing with.
I’ve never had any issues with them.
A short conversation with a bank
21–30 of 316 posts
Re: A short conversation with a bank
#22A short conversation with Blue Shield of California last month:
BS: Have a question? Ask us via this very useful secure messaging form!
Me: Great! Can you explain the difference between these two arcane out-of-pocket limits that you display that are un-Googleable and nowhere in your documentation that I can never find anyway?
BS: Sure! We will wait two days and then send you an email suggestively titled "a response to your inquiry" that really just contains an attached PDF with a link to a completely different portal where you have to register a new account to download an image of a scanned fax that tells you to call customer service where you can wait on hold forever to answer whatever question it was you had that we also don't remember! Yay secure messaging!
Me: Wow such technology! I now very understand the difference between "out of pocket max" and "max out of pocket max"! I feel much secure that I won't go bankrupt the next time I have an incident and get treated by the wrong doctor at the right hospital! Thanks, 2022!
Fin.
Re: A short conversation with a bank
#23This is funny, but also not funny because of its truth.
Re: A short conversation with a bank
#24the existence of a terrible bank doesn't mean they're all awful
like any market, there are competently run companies and there are terrible ones (e.g. HSBC)
Re: A short conversation with a bank
#25Banks are not in the business of giving you services. Banks are in the business of selling you money. And they like charging as much as possible for the money they sell you.
Sure, but my local hardware store is also trying to sell me stuff and is trying to charge as much as possible for it, yet I don’t have to jump through opaque and frustrating procedures and barely functional web systems to buy a 2x4. The author’s issue comes down to banks being apparently uninterested in attracting business by solving actual customer pain points. Instead of solving real problems (terrible UX around a…
Never had these problems with my CU (LMCU), and honestly Cap1 bank has been doing a pretty bang up job with my CC's. I'm considering trying them for banking.
Re: A short conversation with a bank
#26the existence of a terrible bank doesn't mean they're all awful like any market, there are competently run companies and there are terrible ones (e.g. HSBC)
> there are competently run companies
You're just gonna leave us hanging like that?
Re: A short conversation with a bank
#27the existence of a terrible bank doesn't mean they're all awful like any market, there are competently run companies and there are terrible ones (e.g. HSBC)
> there are competently run companies You're just gonna leave us hanging like that?
I thought about it but I don't want to reveal who I bank with
sorry :)
Re: A short conversation with a bank
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not true, they maintain them as a backup in case you corner a customer service representative on the phone and they are about to have to do what you asked. That's when they tell you you need to visit a branch.
Yeah, and then in the branch they call the customer service line, and hand you the phone.
OMG I've had that experience! It was ... weird.
Re: A short conversation with a bank
#29Best part: "but did you write it in rust?" Missing: Q: "So can I just walk into one of those zillion bank branches you've set up in the last 10 years, squatting on all that storefront real estate that could be used for real businesses that sell me something, attract tourists, or whatever?" A: "No, they're just for show. We don't actually do any business there, we just rent that space to piss you all off, as a visible…
That's not true, they maintain them as a backup in case you corner a customer service representative on the phone and they are about to have to do what you asked. That's when they tell you you need to visit a branch.
Branches are equally powerless.
See: Bank of America's policy on two-party "and" checks.
I walk in, having had a checking account with them for decades: "Hi, I need to deposit a two-party check into my account here. This is the other party with me, and we're happy to show ID."
Door greeter / agent: "Sure, I can do that for you." {Proceeds to verify my information and set up deposit on her tablet} "Hmm." {Walks over to her manager, discusses}
Manager: "Hello. I'm sorry, we only allow two-party checks to be deposited into joint accounts that list both parties."
Me: "I have the other party standing right here, with ID."
Manager: "That's our policy. Even if I pushed it through, the central system would kick it back out."
... which is a policy they can have. But the annoyance to me, is that it's a policy they choose to have, rather than a policy they're required to have. Corrections welcome, but there's no law that mandates this handling of two-party "and" checks. It's just risk mitigation on BoA's part.
Which, if a multi-decade relationship with your customer doesn't facilitate taking additional risk (over a Needless to say, I closed my BoA accounts.
Re: A short conversation with a bank
#30A short conversation with Blue Shield of California last month: BS: Have a question? Ask us via this very useful secure messaging form! Me: Great! Can you explain the difference between these two arcane out-of-pocket limits that you display that are un-Googleable and nowhere in your documentation that I can never find anyway? BS: Sure! We will wait two days and then send you an email suggestively titled "a response t…
Generally, anything not-for-profit and older than 40 years is a technological shit-show.
There's neither the individual or management will to successfully migrate or upgrade at the pace required. Consequently, everything is held together with duct tape and person-hours.