![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-62793-100x100.png\")
I'm surprised he wasn't mugged ten minutes later.
6 replies
I'm surprised he wasn't mugged ten minutes later.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-206518-100x100.png\")
All that and the bank still has to be snarky? F them, take your business elsewhere.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-246207-100x100.png\")
@Saboth:
Uncle Sam is bailing out Kiwi banks?
OK, I think going to New Zealand is really a sign the Fed is overextending themselves.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-87429-100x100.png\")
@jaya9581:
I agree. However, banks don't need customers now...they know if they screw up, ol' uncle sam will bail them out, so they don't give a rat's patootie about actually having to provide service or keep good customers.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
@Saboth:
Not so sure the same people who rubber-stamped the last round will ever be eager to do that again, what with the political fallout it caused. The banks should probably watch their backs.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-498964-100x100.png\")
@Saboth: From what I understand, the people of New Zealand don't give a rat's patootie about what Uncle Sam says.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-762676-100x100.png\")
Good for him, and to hell with that bank. And, probably all banks. Shoebox under the bed FTW.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-901728-100x100.png\")
Jon Gunter: \"Good luck earning interest.\"
Daveinva: \"You don't bank much in 2009, do you?\"
@ Daveinva: You don't bank much out of the US, do you? this guy could be getting 6% at his bank. he could also get it at other major NZ banks.
there is an income tax on the return, however, it is still a damn fine rate and certainly better than 0%.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1202787-100x100.png\")
he should probably tell all his kids where he's going to hide the money. ya know, so they don't surprise him with any new mattresses or anything...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-547028-100x100.png\")
Mr. Griffiths is my hero. Every time I make this threat to my bank, they laugh at my paltry balance.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1161-100x100.png\")
But it was in kiwi dollars.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-157517-100x100.png\")
@Ben Popken: Two points:
First, his withdrawl is still a six-digit figure in US dollars -- $124,868, according to Google.
Second, his savings were clearly more than he was asking to borrow. No bank should take issue with that unless the savings disappear after the loan is issued.
I used to work for a bank and would love to know what kind of branch would refuse a loan for less than half of what a customer has in their savings account. Do they not have credit histories in New Zealand or something? Plus, 25 years? That kind of status is worth something, at least at the bank I used to work for.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-887707-100x100.png\")
@Stephen Perry: He was going to use that savings are part of the purchase of the property. So the bank would have been without that money in an account, either way.
@Skaperen: The article said $200,000 cash plus $110,000 from selling his camper i dont think that included his $150,000 savings sounds real stupid to me.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-272058-100x100.png\")
Won't all those bills weigh a lot?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-104115-100x100.png\")
@icantreplyright: No, not even close. It would be about 21 lbs:
Near the bottom of the page it says a $1 million total stack of $100s weighs about 22 pounds. There are 10,000 $100 bills in $1 million. It takes 9,500 $20s to total $190,000. Do the math.
@kelrod:
Yeah, but that's American money. I think you need like, at least 50 New Zealand twenties per American one.
$20 bills? Psh. He let them off easy. Should have asked for $1 bills. Or coins (the kiwis have those, right?).
@Coles_Law: Well it appears the 5 cent coin is not in production anymore ( [www.rbnz.govt.nz] ), so the worst you could do is get it in all 10 cent coins, 1,900,000 10 cent coins at 3.3g would come to 6270 kilograms (over a ton), but $1 bills will be much closer to 1g each (thats the number i get for US bills, i expect New Zealand to be close), which would work out to ~190kg (~480lbs), you won't hit a ton without going into coins.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-483565-100x100.png\")
Hey, looks like the Professor finally got off Gilligan's Island!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-436259-100x100.png\")
@RecordStoreToughGuy: Story like that makes me want to be wealthy. Just so i can withdraw millions from BoA (constrictor)
You have to provide income, that's one of the reasons the U.S. is in out current mortgage crisis. If you don't have a regular income (like this guy, or you own your own business, or work 100% commission, etc.) all you have to do is provide 12 months of deposits, and the bank will average your income.
A couple of years ago people were selling their $150k house, and using the $75k profit as down payment on a $300k house. They had a lot of money in the bank, had a nice down payment, and still defaulted. It's about history.
Even though it is more fun to dump on those greedy basterds!!
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-945163-100x100.png\")
Amusing, but I feel bad for the teller at the bank he deposited it in.
@dosdelon: Agreed. The first bank just pulled the money out of the safe and gave it to him. The next bank has to hand count it(Yes, I know they have machines that do it, but anyone who trusts a machine to count and signs/initials it's count as accurate w/o checking it themselves is just wrong. I trust NO ONE w/money, not even myself. I was known for triple counting my stacks when I worked in a cash room.).
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1169573-100x100.png\")
@HumungaCowabunga_GitEmSteveDave:
I triple counted too, even after using the machine when I was a teller, and then watched whoever was initialing it with me.
No one ever likes to audit the vault with me. :P
@dee1313: Nothing made me smile on the inside more than when the next shift would be presented with my count and my managers count, and if they differed, they would go with mine.
What is he torturing the local bank tellers for? It's not going to \"teach them a lesson\".
NZ has had incredible home price appreciation in the last few years, just as in places here in the US. Any prudent bank is clamping down on home loans, and it's not like it's one person who approves or denies your application, such that any measure of personal retribution is effective.
Does he really think that withdrawing his savings in $20 bills hurts the bank? Or will make them think before doing it again?
Hurrah for empty, stupid gestures.
@kepler11:
Oh yes it will hurt the bank. No bank wants to lose that much money, or make anyone that has that much an unhappy ex-customer AND get negative media attention for it.
I'm curious if another bank went ahead and did the loan for him though.
@kepler11: All you people whining about the tellers. THEY GET PAID HOURLY. Who the fuck cares. It was time that the teller could not take care of the banks customers (which HURTS the bank) and hurt their ability to have funds for another person requesting a withdrawl.
Good for him
Yeah, if I were that teller I personally wouldn't have cared to do all that, less time I have to spend actually interacting with people. I enjoyed counting money though, it was like meditation or something.
@kepler11: Unfortunate that tellers had to take the collateral damage - but the fact that we're all talking about this proves that this is not an empty gesture at all.
@kepler11: If this bank won't give someone a mortgage with a ~80% deposit, why would someone with only a 20% deposit even try to apply for a mortgage there? There's surely no way they'll be approved. And because of the new coverage generated, there is likely a few people who won't even try to get a mortgage through that bank.
All he did was annoy the teller, but the news of why he did it is what will lose customers for the bank.
@knacko: What are you even talking about? He applied for an 80K loan...
He wanted to buy a $385,000 property in Mapua, had $200,000 in cash and was going to sell his $110,000 campervan.
That more than met the bank's criteria for a 20 per cent deposit.
The banks criteria was 20%. Didnt you even think before writing that 80% is a bit pointless as a deposit requirement?
If someone already has 80% of what they want to borrow, wouldnt they just borrow the remaining 20% and put in a deposit from the original 80%?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-775841-100x100.png\")
@MostlyHarmless: You are missing knacko's point. The bank required 20%, but he was putting down approximately 80%. If the bank turned down a mortgage for the 20% left then what chance does a normal person have putting down only the 20% and wanting a loan for the 80%?
The bank wasn't REQUIRING 80% and knacko wasn't saying they were, just pointing out how others won't want to apply for a mortgage at this bank, believing it pointless.
@kepler11: Yeh... let's all just bend over, grab out ankles and... well, you know the drill. Sometimes empty stupid gestures are all you have.
This one wasn't all that empty anyway... the bank is now out their share of the interest on a fairly sizable (for people in my neck of the woods anyway) deposit.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-20312-100x100.png\")
@MinorAnnoyance: It's not just the tiny interest the bank is losing out on. Assuming NZ bank laws work the same as North American ones, the bank loses out on the interest they would charge on the 1.9 million dollars they could have created as debt with the 190000 dollars of real money this guy kept with them.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-327923-100x100.png\")
You have to be kidding!!!! The banks in this country are screwed up because they gave money to anyone with or without a pulse or a way to pay the bills but someone who actually had the DEPOSIT and they declined him because they were concerened of his ability to pay the amount? Banks here were giving away mortages with zero down payment and someone who the cash was turned down? I don't feel sorry for the teller and he should have asked for the amount in coins? Different country, same crap.
So making things crappy for some teller somehow impacts the bank as a whole? If banks in NZ are facing the same kind of circumstances and liquidity requirements that banks in the US face what he did helps the bank more than hurts it. When a bank is in trouble, and at risk of no longer being adequately capitalized they intentionally \"run off\" deposits by offering low rates in hopes that people will take their money out. Shrinking the amount of deposits shrinks the dollar amount of liquidity that the bank has to maintain. Basically, if you have $100k at bank of America earning whatever the going rate for interest is, unless you have some loans or use wealth management services, you are a less valuable customer than Bucko the Turd polisher who overdraws his account every month and pays a bunch of fees for always being broke. If times are good, and the bank wants to grow, they will want your $100k back. The way things are now - most of them don't want it.
@pupu:
While I see where you are going, your logic is flawed as it still doesn't make much sense to \"run off\" deposits no matter what type of customer you might be. Yes demand deposits are liabilities, but that cash stream is used to provide loans to others. Therefore, although times are tough banks still have to make loans in order to generate revenue which comes from the interest charged on those loans.
The interest paid out by the banks on deposit accounts (0% - .15%) is nothing compared to the interest earned by the banks on loans (4% and greater). So your logic surrounding the interest paid to those less \"valuable\" customers is a bit misleading.
The cash on hand (liquidity) required by the banks is a drop in the bucket for most banks and is usually tied in money market investments earning interest. No bank keeps that cash in the vault.
@bobbycreekwater: While I see where you are going, your logic is flawed as it still doesn't make much sense to \"run off\" deposits no matter what type of customer you might be. Yes demand deposits are liabilities, but that cash stream is used to provide loans to others. Therefore, although times are tough banks still have to make loans in order to generate revenue which comes from the interest charged on those loans.
Over time - like the next 50 years - you are right. But when the banks goal shifts from being larger in 50 years to avoiding government conservatorship in the next 2 years they do indeed run off deposits.
Logic has nothing to do with it. A bank is either well capitalized or not. That is determined using the formula I discussed. If the result of that equasion is <6% the bank is going to be classified as having failed and WILL be taken over by the govt. Sorry it may not be logical but that is the way it is and it has nothing to do with the amount of cash in the vault.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-543146-100x100.png\")
@pupu: Yes, it does affect the bank as a whole. That's 190k less that the bank now has on hand to use to make money for themselves. It's a sizable figure. Besides, that's one of the things the teller is there for. Like when I worked retail, and someone came to the register with a thousand dollars worth of CDs a half hour after closing (they had just won the lottery and were splurging). Yeah, it was time consuming, and a bit inconvenient for me, but that was kinda why I was there, so I took it as just part of the job.
@RecordStoreToughGuy: Unless this is an incredibly, incredibly tiny bank, $190,000 isn't a drop in the bucket.
It makes me feel poor when I think about it, but it's true.
@RecordStoreToughGuy: Yes, it does affect the bank as a whole.
It effects it, but not in a negative way. See above.
@pupu: Wait...isn't that $190k capital?
Sure the bank no longer needs to have 10% (or whatever) of his deposit as capital so they need $19k less...but they just lost $190k.
What am I missing there? (Seriously, not being saracstic.)
@JeffMc: Wait...isn't that $190k capital
Not for the bank. For the bank Assets are cash, investments, and loans that people owe the bank. Deposits (the guys $190k) are liabilities just like money the bank owes suppliers and employees (because the bank has to pay them out if requested) The banks net worth is the assets minus the liabilities. Basically if every depositor took out all their money this is what would be left over. To determine if a bank is well capitalized you divide the net worth of the bank by the total assets. The result has to be 7% or higher, if the result is less than 6% the government will say that the bank has failed and take it over. SO - if a bank has assets of 1 million and liabilities (deposits etc) of $900k the net worth is $100k. and the capital ratio is $100k/$1m or 10%. If an depositor pulls out $100k the banks assets go down to $900k (because cash is paid out) and the banks liabilities go down to $800k (because the bank paid that guy his $100k - so the bank no longer owes him $100k) Then if you calculate the new capitol you take the $100k net worth / $900k (new asses amount) and the capitol ratio has increased from 10% before the withdrawal to 11.11% after the withdrawal. If a bank has taken a buttload of losses (like mortgage loans that are not paid) that comes out of the net worth - so WHEN a bank is in danger because it has suffered losses and it is getting close to that 7% mark the bank is better off NOT having the deposit! If times are good and people are paying their bills and the bank wants to grow then they need and want deposits. But the way things are these days - if the situation in NZ is anything like in the US the guy actually did the bank a favor by taking his money out!
I mean capitol requirements
To be fair, he wasn't going to have that $190,000 in the bank anymore after he spent it on the property.
@grebby: To be fair, he wasn't going to have that $190,000 in the bank anymore after he spent it on the property.
Interest on the loan is the only thing the bank lost. If times are good and banks want to try to grow than they want big deposits. If times are bad and banks want to survive after suffering losses they don't want deposits. The funny thing is that the guy did the bank a favor and thinks he hurt them.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-532444-100x100.png\")
@pupu: Well, yes and no. Removing money from a bank lowers the banks net worth and lending ability. His actions not only inconvenienced a teller for a little while, but he probably took a good chunk of it's reserve cash fund from the vault and made the name of the bank synonymous with poor customer service and ineptitude.
@skizsrodt: Well, yes and no. Removing money from a bank lowers the banks net worth and lending ability. His actions not only inconvenienced a teller for a little while, but he probably took a good chunk of it's reserve cash fund from the vault and made the name of the bank synonymous with poor customer service and ineptitude.
No that is not correct. Think about the accounting entry. Credit cash and debit liability - deposits. It will not touch net worth.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-21229-100x100.png\")
@grebby: \"He wanted to buy a $385,000 property in Mapua, had $200,000 in cash and was going to sell his $110,000 campervan.\"
So he only need the loan to complete the deal without using the money in the bank.
@grebby: That was my thought. The article said he had $200,000 for a down payment, so he was just withdrawing the cash he would've spent anyway.
Sorry right now stated income loans or loans for self employed people without a 2 yr history of self employed income are a tough sell on the secondary market. I'm sure the bank which denied him wasn't going to hold onto the paper or else they would have written it. They most likely were going to turn around and sell the servicing of the loan on the secondary market which means it wouldn't be worth it to them.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-257922-100x100.png\")
The problem is that once he had the $80,000 mortgage, he would have no assets left besides the property. He wouldn't have the camper, and he wouldn't have the savings, so the bank probably decided in all likelihood there was a good chance he'd default on that 80 grand seeing as he has no steady income. I wonder if he had only offered to drop half of his savings account on it, they would have given him the loan.
I think that is what makes their case reasonable, he was paying too much deposit. There are a number of laws about what they can and can't repossess, and while I'm not sure what they are in NZ - I have been told that if you owe less thant 25% of the value of the property they bank can't forclose or repossess the property. So if he had no savings, not assets (except the property) and no income to pay the loan, the bank would be unable to collect on it's mortgage.
Having said that, it could easily be structured so that it was more flexible. Perhaps taking a loan for 80% of the property value and putting the cash in an offset account. And given that a portion of the property could be rented for $500 p/w I think he was in a decent position to borrow. The bank really stuffed up on this one.
@Blake Thompson: Whoever told you that is misinformed. You can foreclose no matter what the percentage is. People aren't likely to walk away from a 100k item that they owe 10k on because even if they sold it at half its market value it becomes $40k in their POCKET. When the bank sells the property in foreclosure and the person does not redeem, that person gets to keep the proceeds minus expenses.
@youbastid: What about the \"commercial premises that would have returned $500 a week\"? That's enough to pay the mortgage.
@MMD: The commercial premises that would have returned $500 a week was probably a figure dreamed up by the guy. There's no way you can guarantee that.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1201340-100x100.png\")
I think it's amazing that everyone is harping on this guy for making work for a couple of tellers. Except, that's what the tellers are there for!
What we don't see when we aren't in the branch is the tellers counting night deposits, counting ATM receipts and cash to go in, counting coins, counting for each other when there is a discrepancy, and counting the minutes until lunch.
This guy probably made the day for a few tellers who now have quite the story to tell! And, yes he certainly did make a statement. This guy is my personal hero; he voted with his dollars!
@zacox: I worked as a Teller and I would have loved doing this. I hated who I worked for so I was glad when people would close accounts. Doesn't directly affect me and gets me away from the counter for awhile. I once had a guy ask for 200 in quarters closing over an overdraft fee. Oh well sucker they are prewrapped so I just had to get him 20 of them. Sadly I never cashed out an account greater than 400.
Most accounts I closed were customers that either didn't use their accounts or every pay day went from a couple hundred dollars to under 30 then back to a couple hundred until they finally overdrafted and got ticked off.
@zacox: I think it's amazing that everyone is harping on this guy for making work for a couple of tellers. Except, that's what the tellers are there for!
Sheesh - where are all the tellers? When I suggested that a 12% tip was ok for 10 min of a waiters time people came out of the woodwork to tell me what a Dbag I am.
I've never been a teller but I think that it would probably suck about as much as being a waiter, pay about the same, and have the same fairly limited advancement potential.
It is true - tellers are there to serve the customer. Just like the hotel maid is there to clean up after me. Still, I probably shouldn't piss on the floor and walls etc just to torture the maid or express that I think the hotel sucks...
@pupu:
You're crazy to think that a teller would just look at counting out $190,000 in twenties as \"all in a days work.\"
Ask a teller or two if you don't believe me.
Tellers may count money for a living but they also have time between transactions, time between customers, discussions with customers, and so on.
Having to count money out to a single person for 90 minutes or so would be agonizing. Can you imagine standing in front of ONE person for 90 minutes doing something that is completely unreasonable because that person is pissed off at your employer?
@DaveDidNotPay: And yet we have a few tellers further up the page who are basically telling you your DEAD wrong.
@DaveDidNotPay:
A similar scenario happened to me back when I was a teller, but for $50,000. Admittedly less, but just a terrible situation with a very abusive customer. The best part is, in their attempt to evade taxes (which is why they wanted cash instead of a check), they ended up looking even MORE suspicious.
And yes, it is a whole different ball game when it's that much. Banks don't keep THAT much cash on hand, so they'd have to special order it, multiple people would have to be in the room to count it (so extra people may have to be scheduled depending upon how busy they are), and all sorts of reports about suspicious activity need to be filed (of which the customer is not notified).
I guess the thing that always fires me up about situations like this is that it's usually NEVER the teller who has anything to do with it, but they have to deal with the irrational, abusive customers. Before I worked as one, I never realized how many people viewed it as their right to be so abusive.
\"Suspicious activity\"? This is one of those things wrong with the world. I put my money in your bank, and then when I ask for it back in a denomination of my choosing, it gets called \"suspicious.\"
I damn well reserve the right to request that you return my property in the condition I see fit.
@pupu: Still, I probably shouldn't piss on the floor and walls etc just to torture the maid or express that I think the hotel sucks...
I shouldn't...but I do... HA HA HA HA HA
More people should do this .
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-38607-100x100.png\")
What a baby As if asking for twenties instead of a check is hurting anyone other than the teller. Arrogant fool
Bad ass.. Could you imagine having stacks upon stacks in your house cause you hate the bank?
Not me cause I'm broke :)
But It'd be awesome nonetheless
Good for you!!! By the way I'm looking to open a bank! I would LOVE to give you an $80,000 loan with your $190,000. That is just insane!!!!
Well good on him for showing his ass. I hear more and more about these incidents happening to people who have been loyal to a bank for many years. Too bad he didn't have more money in there, so he really could have given them a headache. I hope this story drums up some business for his art work so he won't need a mortgage.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-222420-100x100.png\")
You all forget that banks are NOT in the loan underwriting business anymore: they resell loans. Banks are in the overdraft and bounced check fee business.
?
Banks have rules. Rigid rules. To protect the assets of the banks.
The lack of proof of income has been a long standing problem of banks, especially for the artist, self employeed, small business owner etc.
There are procedures to get around the proof of income issues, but the procedures are time consuming and quite involved. Sounds like somebody at the bank just didn't want to do any heavy lifting. These days there is just no excuse for not wanting to do your job.
@StanTheManDean: Actually, it sounds like the customer didn't want to do the heavy (or, actually, minor) lifting. As the article says, \"The bank says that if he can provide evidence that he can make regular payments, they'd be happy to have him back.\"
So, he doesn't fit the criteria for the bank and he proceeds to throw a fit and do a dick move. He could have tried to work with the bank, but it doesn't look like he wanted to do it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-257467-100x100.png\")
Not for nothing, but at the time of request, he had no income. And even if he did have a ton of money to put down, no income means defaulting on the loan (especially since all that money would be tied up in the purchase of the property).
Banks do NOT keep that much cash on hand, and they really don't want to ever have to give out that much CASH to one single customer, more for their security than anything else. The only statement this guy made was that he's an idiot. Banks routinely deal with a lot of money, and when I was a teller, I'd often have people withdraw $100,000+, but in check form. In his attempt to make a statement, I can guarantee you this: the bank immediately noted the highly suspicious activity taking place, and if he tries to bring the cash to another bank, they'll also note the highly suspicious nature of one customer walking in with so much cash. In his attempt to make a stand, he's actually making himself the target of an investigation. Yep, good job.
@chocolate1234: Agreed. I have been working in Credit Unions for over 5 years, and in the lending department for 2 of the 5. Being in a branch and knowing compliance laws here in the US... anything in cash over 10K is going to get you a lovely form we have to send to the governement.
In reference to the loan... yes, Vriginia we need to know that you have steady income. Good job New Zeland. Don't make loans to people who may not have the income to pay it back... you don't want a mortgage crisis like the US is in because of dopey lenders!
A similar thing happened to my mom at a TD bank in Canada. She was trying to deposit a cheque and take out some money at the same time. The teller kept telling her that she couldn't take out the money until the cheque cleared and couldn't grasp the concept that my mom wanted to take out money that was already in the account. She got the manager to come over, he couldn't grasp that simple concept either so my mom closed her account, walked across the street to a Canada Trust and opened a new account. Of course a couple years later the two banks merged...
Mr Griffiths found no problem depositing his money in a community building society account despite the high media coverage in New Zealand and it wasn't reported that he was deemed suspicious. But in an ironic twist, the building society that he redeposited with doesn't store large amounts of cash on hand and Westpac, the original bank, is the one that stores it. So, full circle haha
come on, the normal min deposit (these days) in NZ is 20%, he was going to deposit 80%, the banks risk is 20%.this speaks more about bank policy not giving branch managers the ability to be realistic....
NB: NZ does not have 1 or 2 dollar notes, they are now coins, the smallest note is $5, and it would look like play money since its made of a plastic meterial with a see through window, and whats worse all the demoninations are coloured different colours....
I'm DONE with banks. I withdraw my direct deposit paycheck funds immdediately and put the money to MUCH better use. I use them, they make no money off of me, and it feels good.
If I were a bank, I would not have given him the loan either. Instead of making one big loan to one guy that I know can probably pay back the loan on time, I would rather loan out smaller chunks of money to many people that will be more likely to be tardy and rack up interest and late fees.
You might want to mention that the loan wasn't actually declined. It didn't proceed as the guy didn't give the bank the information requested.
The crazy thing is that the other financial institution that he then deposited the funds in actually uses Westpac for banking. So in the end he just gave it right back :)
It's not banks in general, it's the banking industry in New Zealand.
Mostly run (as the customer interface, at least) by clueless people.
How else would you explain away stuff like this
[youmustbefromaway.blogspot.com]
I don't think the bank did anything bad here. The cash wasn't going to be there any more after he bought the property, so he was going to have no assets to speak of outside of his collateral.
I guess the bank was doubtful of his claims of $500/week in income. Which makes sense if the property is seasonal. And also, the guy was going to need to pay for upkeep, in addition to needing money to live, so $500/week starts to disappear fast.
The bank made a judgment call based on perceived ability to repay. I don't see a problem here.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-538267-100x100.png\")
@sirwired: I keep thinking about it and the bank has a solid argument. They made a judgement based on the customers ability to repay. Not how much he has in the bank. He couldn't prove he had the ability to repay.
@EricLecarde: AND they said they would work with him if the situation changed. He's a dick and a show off. Why is he being congratulated?
What no withdrawing in large amount of 20's bank fee?
The article fails to mention that 190,000 New Zeland dollars equals $40 US. So the guy got two $20s.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6536-100x100.png\")
The bank says that if he can provide evidence that he can make regular payments, they'd be happy to have him back.
Oh yeah, I'm so sure he's just dying for them to take him back. /sarcasm
It kills me that they said that as if they would be doing him a favor.
Lets hope it doesn't end up in a mattress in the town dump like the woman from India
Isnt WestPac the same bank that allowed a mistake of two embezzling people to take 1.2 million dollars and high tail it to Hong Kong or something?
Im sure they want all the money back into the bank they can get!
Don't sell the campervan!
WOW now all criminals in the are know he is holding 190K in cash in his house...
Hope he moved that money to another bank quick
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-445010-100x100.png\")
I'd be scared shitless if I knew thousands of people were reading an article confirming that I had $190,000 in cash.
With all the publicity, it's amazing that he wasn't robbed in the parking lot. I guess Kiwis are more peaceful, law-abiding folks than Americans.
It seems to me that he just felt like grandstanding. The normal thing to do would be to wire the funds to his new bank of choice--or, if he hadn't decided on one yet, have the teller issue a cashier's check for the full balance of his account. If someone steals that in the parking lot, it's worthless to them and he can simply go back to the bank and get a replacement.
Most U.S. banks keep less than $20,000 on hand day-to-day, because cash is both a security risk and an asset that they aren't re-investing and making money from. If a customer requests a very large amount of cash, they are told to come back in a couple of days because it has to be specially delivered. I'm guessing that is the case in NZ as well, so the guy also inconvenienced himself to do this.
But noooo, he wanted cash so he could get his picture taken and be in the newspapers. Good on him for voting with his wallet, but I don't think that was the point for him...
My Brother in Arizona just informed me of this story. I think it is great!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-122097-100x100.png\")
How about this for proof that he had the ability to repay... He had 190,000 in savings. This does not include any other assets he may have including checking, investment accounts and the like. People who have 190,000 in savings are likely to be able to repay an 80,000 mortgage. The fact that he has income producing property and a clean history with the bank really should have made this a no brainer to me. I could be wrong though...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16563-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-285956-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-901550-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16075-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-479888-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-406200-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-349596-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-307161-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-849514-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1034061-100x100.png\")
I'm sure they'd be happy to have him back. bastards.