[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference 7.286::dcu

Title:	DCU
Notice:	1996 BoD Election results in 1004
Moderator:	CPEEDY::BRADLEY

Created:	Sat Feb 07 1987
Last Modified:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	1041
Total number of notes:	18759

193.0. "New Joint CD accounts policy" by APEHUB::RON () Fri Aug 25 1989 13:09

I have several CDs with the DCU. All of them are both in my own and
my wife's name, as a joint investor WROS. 

Yesterday, I tried to open a new CD account. It seems the DCU has a
new policy, as of several days ago. They refuse to list both owners
of the certificate and insist that only the 'primary member' name be
shown. 

When I explained that I was trying to open a joint account, I was
told not to worry, the account will be shown as joint in the DCU
data base, but not on the certificate. I assume many people would
accept this as gospel, but I trust banks (the DCU included) only as
far as I can throw the building. I believe that, if their verbal
promises were put to the test (say, I decide to kick the bucket
tomorrow morning), said promises would evaporate in a small cloud of
smoke. Besides, if it's really a joint account, why not show it as
such, right on the certificate? 

Their reason, it seems, is that even though the principal is owned
by both members, the interest is payable to the primary member
only. I find this difficult to digest, let alone accept. I know for
a fact that other banks happily open joint accounts.

Needless to say, the DCU is going to lose my investment business,
which currently runs in the 6 digit figures. I refuse to invest in a
way contrary to my interests, just to accommodate DCU's policy,
convenience or idiosyncrasies.

I realize that the sum I control makes a very small drop in the DCU
bucket. But, I also think that if other members refused to accept
DCU's glib "Don't worry, it's just a new policy" and realize that
verbal explanations are meaningless when the chips are down, then
DCU will think twice before it tries to dictates to us how to manage
our affairs. 

-- Ron

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
193.1		NOTIME::SACKS	Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085	`Mon Aug 28 1989 10:13`	8
	I don't understand something here. Is your complaint that the certificate itself has only one name, or that there's only one social security number on the account? If DCU is using the fact that there's only one SSN as an excuse for putting only one name on joint accounts, then it's another lame DCU excuse. All banks that I know of have one SSN and two names on joint accounts. Our joint DCU statement also has only my name on it, but I can't say it bothers me, since the paperwork to open the account indicates that it's a joint account.
193.2		APEHUB::RON		`Mon Aug 28 1989 15:49`	32
	Actually, the DCU allows the secondary member to sign the certificate and add their SSN. I feel this does not make it a joint account (If I somehow sign your car title, that does not make it mine). The DCU refuses to put more than one name on the certificate, because --they say-- only the primary member earns the interest. To me, this does not make sense. If the two members own the principal, they should both earn the interest. From the secondary member point of view, they have no access to the investment should anything happen to the primary member. I was not 'complaining'. I simply thought this radical change in DCU's policy should be made known to members. DCU people tried to downplay it's importance ("don't worry, it's the same as before") and I thought members should realize what DCU is really doing. > Our joint DCU statement also has only my name on it, but I > can't say it bothers me, since the paperwork to open the > account indicates that it's a joint account. In a CD account, the certificate is the paperwork to open the account. The DCU refuses to indicate it's a joint account, but say that they will keep this fact on their system. People are entirely free to trust the DCU, if they wish. To me, this new policy looks awfully fishy. -- Ron
193.3	Something's wrong here	ULTRA::KINDEL	Bill Kindel @ BXB1	`Tue Aug 29 1989 11:35`	4
	What happens if you need the title of the certificate to be of the form "Jane and John Doe, WROS" (with right of survivorship) or with some other tenancy clause? I'm not a lawyer, but these little items can make a BIG DIFFERENCE in the event of a death or other such event.
193.4		APEHUB::RON		`Fri Sep 08 1989 20:21`	11
	A couple of days ago, I called Mary Madden. She informed me that the DCU will no longer object to opening joint CD accounts. The explanation for the 'change of policy' is too involved (not to say, ludicrous) to repeat here. I find it nothing short of amazing. I understand the DCU is a non profit organization. I now understand why. -- Ron
193.5	Waiting with baited breath	SMAUG::GARROD	An Englishman's mind works best when it is almost too late	`Wed Sep 13 1989 23:09`	5
	Re .-1 You've got us curious now. What was the 'ludicrous' explanation given? Dave
193.6	Your wait is over	APEHUB::RON		`Thu Sep 14 1989 16:11`	16
	> -< Waiting with baited breath >- It seems the DCU used to report income on joint accounts for BOTH owners of the account. Apparently, some members objected, so --rather than report for one member only-- they refused to open new accounts under both names. I am not sure why they changed their minds. Since .0 stirred no great interest, I thought maybe they made a mistake in my particular case and called Mary Madden. She called back within the hour and said, no problem, they will do it now. -- Ron