Pay a fee to get your own money back, or take the $100k in small notes

[makapaaa]

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Pay a fee to get your own money back, or take the $100k in small notes
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>




<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->MY WIFE'S time deposit with OCBC matured on Tuesday and she went to a branch the next day to withdraw the principal plus interest.
She was told that if she wanted a cheque (the bank called it a cashier's order) for the amount, she would have to pay $5. The alternative was for her to take cash. But because she had not given any advanced notice of withdrawal she would have to take the amount in small notes.
Because the amount was over $100,000, and she did not want to take the risk of carrying it in cash, she had to pay the $5 for a cheque to get back her own money.
It seems ironic that one has to pay to get back one's own money. It also seems that OCBC is putting senior citizens at risk by forcing those who do not want to spend $5 to get back their own money, to carry large sums of cash.
Goh Khee Kuan

 

[tima81]

idiot....don't the writer know that its a normal price to pay for a cashier order? He can always transfer the amount to a normal saving account and withdraw it slowly if he doesn't want to pay the $5

 

[jimmyfallon]

A cheque is not a cashier's order. OCBC is half service full price.

 

[Ramseth]

idiot....don't the writer know that its a normal price to pay for a cashier order? He can always transfer the amount to a normal saving account and withdraw it slowly if he doesn't want to pay the $5

Yes, S$5 is a normal charge for a cashier's order. However, this is not a withdrawal transaction from a regular savings account, it's the maturity proceeds from a fixed deposit. My experience with DBS and Standard Chartered was that they would allow to opt for a free cashier's order provided that it was to be payable to my name. Should I want to name a 3rd party payee, then I'd be charged the S$5.

In any case, you're right. It's just commonsense that if you don't want to handle large amount of cash, transfer to a regular savings account first. I'm sure that at >S$100K, there's no service charge for the account.

 

[SotongMee]

Got S$100k cash on hand plus interest so what is paying $5 for service?

The complain king could be some cheapskate big shot. He'd rather spent precious time on earth to waste life for $5 paid just to make a sour point?

Some people too free too rich and life too long.

Yes, S$5 is a normal charge for a cashier's order. However, this is not a withdrawal transaction from a regular savings account, it's the maturity proceeds from a fixed deposit. My experience with DBS and Standard Chartered was that they would allow to opt for a free cashier's order provided that it was to be payable to my name. Should I want to name a 3rd party payee, then I'd be charged the S$5.

In any case, you're right. It's just commonsense that if you don't want to handle large amount of cash, transfer to a regular savings account first. I'm sure that at >S$100K, there's no service charge for the account.

 

[SotongMee]

Although $5 can buy simple meal for 2, I'll pay $5 anytime to make sure I don't get robbed of my S$100k cash the moment when I stepped out of the bank

Yes, S$5 is a normal charge for a cashier's order. However, this is not a withdrawal transaction from a regular savings account, it's the maturity proceeds from a fixed deposit. My experience with DBS and Standard Chartered was that they would allow to opt for a free cashier's order provided that it was to be payable to my name. Should I want to name a 3rd party payee, then I'd be charged the S$5.

In any case, you're right. It's just commonsense that if you don't want to handle large amount of cash, transfer to a regular savings account first. I'm sure that at >S$100K, there's no service charge for the account.

 

[Wang Ye]

idiot....don't the writer know that its a normal price to pay for a cashier order? He can always transfer the amount to a normal saving account and withdraw it slowly if he doesn't want to pay the $5

Writer is an idiot. Most likely the wife was the home-maker sort and did not know much about dealing with banks. Likewise the bank officer did a lousy job in attending to their customer.

 

[SotongMee]

Your underestimated the cheapskate "house husband" he may be a retiree but he don't sound like a walkover.

This senior citizen Goh is likely to be a big shot or a former big shot take is why the world number 154th takes note of his complaint.

Writer is an idiot. Most likely the wife was the home-maker sort and did not know much about dealing with banks. Likewise the bank officer did a lousy job in attending to their customer.

 

[Wang Ye]

Your underestimated the cheapskate "house husband" he may be a retiree but he don't sound like a walkover.

This senior citizen Goh is likely to be a big shot or a former big shot take is why the world number 154th takes note of his complaint.

Sounds more like another complain king, but you may be right otherwise how to have that kind of $ lying around in useless FD.

 

[jw5]

Your underestimated the cheapskate "house husband" he may be a retiree but he don't sound like a walkover.

This senior citizen Goh is likely to be a big shot or a former big shot take is why the world number 154th takes note of his complaint.

Actually I also found that the bank had changed their policy and am not too happy about it either. I'm hoping that if more people write to the press, the bank will see fit to change the policy back to when they didn't charge for the first cashier's order payable to the account holder's own name.
Btw, you are right about him being a former big shot, in the context of SG anyway. (or at least shares the same name)

 

[halsey02]

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Pay a fee to get your own money back, or take the $100k in small notes
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>




<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->MY WIFE'S time deposit with OCBC matured on Tuesday and she went to a branch the next day to withdraw the principal plus interest.
She was told that if she wanted a cheque (the bank called it a cashier's order) for the amount, she would have to pay $5. The alternative was for her to take cash. But because she had not given any advanced notice of withdrawal she would have to take the amount in small notes.
Because the amount was over $100,000, and she did not want to take the risk of carrying it in cash, she had to pay the $5 for a cheque to get back her own money.
It seems ironic that one has to pay to get back one's own money. It also seems that OCBC is putting senior citizens at risk by forcing those who do not want to spend $5 to get back their own money, to carry large sums of cash.
Goh Khee Kuan

SINkees have either drank too much 'sai chwee' or have been screwed by the MIW's for so long, that, they have forgotten to use their brain?

Easy, open a Current Account with them immediatley, tf the money to CA, write a cheque, in their own name, go to the counter cash out the cheque...and see what they say?

Forgot to add, leave behind 3,000 to avoid service fees, after three months or so..close the darn bloddy account..

Furthermore the interest rate is so low...OCBC published rates Sept 11, 2009 are:

0.325%
0.55% for time deposits of 100,000 SINkeepore dollars...

We have forgotten to use our brains....no wonder the FT's are taking over........WAKE UP sinGAPOREANS!!!

 

[SotongMee]

If I was right it isjJust a good guess, I ever wrote to 154th about $10 issue a matter of principle, nobody gives me a damn.

Actually I also found that the bank had changed their policy and am not too happy about it either. I'm hoping that if more people write to the press, the bank will see fit to change the policy back to when they didn't charge for the first cashier's order payable to the account holder's own name.
Btw, you are right about him being a former big shot, in the context of SG anyway. (or at least shares the same name)