posted on November 1, 2000 09:02:21 AM new
Well lets see...
PayPal Damon said that the reason PayPal chose to do a bank account verification instead of a credit check for verifying the user's identity was because users would be hesitant to give out their social security number over the web.
And now this... Kinda makes on wonder about PayPal's motives...
posted on November 1, 2000 09:08:19 AM new
I suppose if you don't want the interest you don't give your social security number... that should be easy enough. I don't know any institution that offers interest that doesn't require your social security number, I believe its the law.
posted on November 1, 2000 09:10:47 AM new
If they are going to pay interest, Paypal has absolutely no choice in the matter -- the IRS requires them to report your social security number.
What's next? Blaming Paypal because you have to pay income tax on your profits?
posted on November 1, 2000 09:14:29 AM new
amal, that's not my point...the money market thing is obviously an attempt to get you to sign up for a business account. Yet it says nothing about it on the page.
posted on November 1, 2000 09:30:12 AM new
uaru,is right. If you want interest, you need to give your SSN. That way the IRS can keep track of who is declaring interest earned & who isn't.
Has nothing to do with Paypal. Don't let paranoia become stupidity. If Paypal is going to pay me interest & not require my SSN, please let me know as I will soon be closing all my checking account. 5.25% is really good. Most money market account require a high min. balance to start earning high interest. Of course since they are only like 50000 banks in the US, you can probably tell me you've found one where the min balance is $25 with a 10% interest.
posted on November 1, 2000 09:51:07 AM newHaving a credit check done is the only other option, which is, in the eyes of consumers, far more intrusive and you have to ask for a Social Security number to perform it ( as well as the additional cost factors associated with a credit check). Verification is the closest thing to doing one while remaining fair to the consumer, being timely and cost-effective.
This is PayPal Damon's post from another thread (see link below).
*(More customers are reluctant to give out their social security number, which is not as "available" as a checking account. Checks traditionally have your name,phone number,bank accountnumber,routing transit number, and (sometimes) your driver's license number.How many users do you think would want to supply their SSN on-line? Not many)
This is also PayPal Damon's post from another thread (see link below).
I suppose that it's PayPal's assertion that users will balk at giving PayPal their Social Security Number for verification, yet they will gladly fork it over in order to earn a few cents worth of interest.
posted on November 1, 2000 10:00:04 AM newHas nothing to do with Paypal.
Wrong!!! It has everything to do with PayPal. PayPal tried to tell us that the reason they chose the worthless bank account verification over a credit check was because users would be hesitant to give PayPal their SSN. We now know that that was just a smokescreen.
The posters who said that PayPal has to get the user's SSN before thay can pay interest is 100% correct. This is the whole point. People are used to providing their SSN when applying for any type of financial account, whether they are applying for a credit card, a checking account, or the ability to cash a check at a check cashing center or a corner market. A 30 minute search on the web will uncover anyone's SSN anyway.
The point is that PayPal lied once again. The real reason they chose the bank account verification over a credit check for identity purposes (what a joke) is to be able to go into the user's bank account to confiscate funds.
posted on November 1, 2000 10:07:25 AM new
abingdoncomputers,
I can see you are upset with PayPal (still). Offering interest bearing accounts in my mind is encouraging folks to keep a balance in their account. Yes its a carrot, and 5.2% is a damn nice carrot.
What do you think PayPal is going to do with your social security number? Take away your retirement? I'm not sure I understand the problem.
posted on November 1, 2000 10:14:41 AM new
hmm...uaru...i guess i made another big blunder about this money market thing, it says it's available for personal and business accounts....
BUT when paypal first introduced business accounts they were offering interest ONLY on business accounts.
posted on November 1, 2000 10:23:26 AM new
Well, I'm very suspicious of this. There's gotta be a catch-
PayPal said that they make money on the float. And they have been- although apparently not enough to operate in the black. So they start charging fees. OK.
NOW- they offer to give the "float" back to the users? There's gotta be a catch somewhere- and it's not just giving up the SS#.
PayPal would never offer to give up 5+ % interest on the money they've been holding unless it benefits them.
The only thing I can think of- is the fine print says that title to these funds will now be in the users' names, not in PayPal's name. Not sure what it is, but I think the "catch" is there somewhere....
Any ideas why they would give up millions of dollars in interest?
You are (yet again) missing my point completely. I am not against PayPal collecting SSN's. Quite the opposite.
Their justification for the worthless bank account verification scheme was to avoid requiring users to provide their SSN so that PayPal could do a credit check. Their assertion was that users would balk at such an idea.
A credit check is :
a) Instant ( a few seconds while the user waits on-line). No more waiting days to verify the 2 deposits into the bank account.
b) Reliable as a means of verifying identity (the info provided to PayPal has to match the info in the credit file or PayPal can request hard copy evidence to support any deviations).
c) A standard, accepted industry practice that is required when any account dealing with credit cards is opened. Why does a bank do a credit check before issuing a secured credit card when they already the applicant's credit is in the dumpster? To verify the applicant's identity.
A credit check insn't foolproof by any means, but compared to verifying a bank account they are in a different universe as far as reliablility is concerned.
Again, I am not opposed to PayPal obtaining my SSN for verification purposes. I was shocked when they didn't. What kind of financial institution wouldn't (rhetorical question, we all know the answer)?
Why in heavens name does PayPal think customers will balk at providing their SSN for verification purposes (making PayPal infinitely safer for ALL users) but willingly hand it over just in order to receive a few cents in interest? This makes no sense whatsoever.
It's plain the see that the only logical reason for the bank account verification is to give PayPal access to the user's bank account. Which is fine if PayPal would be honest about it. They have every right to recover money from a fraudulent transaction. But to lie about the real reason for a policy such as this is inexcusable. And as of today, they still have not come clean with their users. This is why I'm still upset.
posted on November 1, 2000 11:12:23 AM new
Here's the catch, I think:
**The Fund's annual returns are based on the annual returns of the Master Portfolio in which the Fund invests, but have not been adjusted to account for expenses payable at the Fund level. As a result, the annual returns from the Fund would have been lower than those shown above because the Fund has higher expenses than the Master Portfolio.
What, exactly, are the "expenses payable at the Fund level?"
Paypal's cut, I wold imagine. And how much is that? There's no way to tell from the information presented.
But the figures they are using are meaningless if they are only based on the "Master Portfolio." What would the returns on the fund have been if the "expenses" were included? 4 percent? 3 percent? No way to know, at least from what I can tell.
posted on November 1, 2000 11:31:51 AM newabingdonthe only logical reason for the bank account verification is to give PayPal access to the user's bank account. Which is fine if PayPal would be honest about it. They have every right to recover money from a fraudulent transaction. But to lie about the real reason for a policy such as this is inexcusable. And as of today, they still have not come clean with their users. This is why I'm still upset
The bank verification is old stuff for me. Heck, I've even verified two bank accounts with PayDirect. PayPal doesn't need a bank verification to go after fraudulent fund, the bank verification doesn't give them free access to withdraw from your bank.
I see you're still upset but honestly I've gotten over divorces in less amount of time.
You're still missing the point. PayPal lies repeatedly. This was proven today with their willingness to ask for SSNs for such a trivial matter (from a user's perpective) as paying interest on PayPal balances after they using the excuse that customers would not freely give up their SSN over the web. That was just a smokescreen. The issue of the bank accounts for verification in and of itself is small potatoes but what it represents is mind boggling.
PayPal handles millions of dollars of other people's money on a daily basis. Does it honestly not bother you that they have no ethics whatsoever?
posted on November 1, 2000 11:51:15 AM new"You're still missing the point. PayPal lies repeatedly. This was proven today with their willingness to ask for SSNs for such a trivial matter (from a user's perpective) as paying interest on PayPal balances after they using the excuse that customers would not freely give up their SSN over the web."
While asking for a SSN before they'll pay interest might be 'trivial' to you I suspect they don't want the federal government coming down on them for violating the law. I'm funny about 'trivial' matters like that too. It isn't a requirement, you don't have to give them you SSN, you don't have to verify your bank account.
You're still missing the point and I just don't know how to simplify it any further. We're not talking about the SSNs being trivial as far as PayPal's requirements when dealing with the IRS. They are vital.
The point is that the entire concept of paying interest on PayPal account balances is indeed trivial when compared to the concept of a reliable verification system. Both require the use of the SSN. That isn't the issue.
The issue is that PayPal used the SSN excuse to try to explain why they wouldn't do credit checks. But yet they turn around and implement a policy that is far less important (interest bearing accounts) than reliable verification, which also REQUIRES that PayPal collect SSNs. If you can't understand this concept then I guess I just have to give up trying to explain it. It cannot be simplified any further than this.
posted on November 1, 2000 01:56:21 PM new
uaru,
It's not so much a new lie, as it is uncovering more of an old one. PayPal never had a good reason to require people to give them permission to withdraw money from their bank accounts in order to be verified. If you asked them why - they would not answer, but instead say - people had to be verified and they couldn't do credit checks because they couldn't get people to give them their ssn over the internet.
Of course if you give people interest, then you have to get their ssn so you can report it to the IRS, so obviously they are going to have to get it anyway. At any rate, there is no reason now at all for PayPal to require people to do that bank account dance to be verified. Once they have your ssn, they can do credit checks, which are far more reliable than the bank account checking for verification purposes.
What it means to us, is that PayPal will tell us anything assuming we will swallow it as apparently most of us will even when someone points out the logic holes.
By the way - I had a problem with Billpoint this week and when I posted about it I got a phone call from a rep personally to help me work it out. I'm not saying that Billpoint is perfect - there is a lot I don't like about it - but that impressed me - not to mention Billpoint was quite willing to publically admit that there are some problems with how their system is designed which caused my problem.
[ edited by KateArtist on Nov 1, 2000 01:58 PM ]
posted on November 1, 2000 02:30:05 PM newKate At any rate, there is no reason now at all for PayPal to require people to do that bank account dance to be verified
One reason to do the bank account dance is to verify a person, that still works and has taken the place of the physical address verification. You can whine, moan, groan, and warn others of impending doom till hell freezes over, but that's the way it is.
The second reason to do the bank account dance is it also allows members to be able to fund their PayPal accounts, which is something that PayPal prefers to keep the credit card costs down. They are trying to make a buck, while that might be unethical in some people's eyes it is legal.
Yeah, PayPal lies... they said they'd release International payments on 10/31 but it wasn't rolled out till 11/1. They said they'd offer 26 countries, but it's only 25. When I feel I can't trust PayPal I won't use them... but 10 months of service hasn't given me the same evaluation of their service that some others have gotten.
posted on November 1, 2000 02:35:44 PM newWhy does anyone want to use PayPal anymore?????
Always free! Always! Well, not always, but sometimes, maybe... for some people (maybe not you), but then again, IT'S ONLY A QUARTER! Well, sometimes (for some people), it's a little more, but it's almost free, always! Well, for today anyway, maybe not tomorrow- you never know, but it will probably be okay.
posted on November 1, 2000 02:39:26 PM newOne reason to do the bank account dance is to verify a person, that still works and has taken the place of the physical address verification.
It obviously does not work or you wouldn't have PayPal "customers" from Romania (which isn't on the list of approved countries BTW) sending payments to sellers using stolen credit card numbers.
The second reason to do the bank account dance is it also allows members to be able to fund their PayPal accounts, which is something that PayPal prefers to keep the credit card costs down.
There is no reason whatsoever why PayPal has to "verify" a bank account to make authorized withdrawals from it. All it takes is for you to give PayPal your bank account number and the bank's routing number and to check a box on their website giving them permission to initiate an ACH withdrawl.
The "verification" deposits were supposedly used to verify that the account belonged to the user (another terrible joke). They had nothing whatsoever to do with PayPal's ability to take the money from your account. All the verification really did was give PayPal explicit permission to access your bank account at any time.
posted on November 1, 2000 02:43:19 PM new
I'm starting to gather many reasons not to do business with online auction payment houses! Did I say many reasons loud enough?
posted on November 1, 2000 02:54:31 PM new"There is no reason whatsoever why PayPal has to "verify" a bank account to make authorized withdrawals from it."
Okay... maybe, just maybe it is a tool to elimate some fraud. Can you tell me why PayDirect has the same requirement before you can fund your PayDirect account from your checking account? PayPal and PayDirect both at one time required a voided check to be sent in and both have since started making direct deposits the the member confirms.
posted on November 1, 2000 04:04:46 PM new
uaru, I have accounts at Billpoint, PayDirect, ExchangePath, BidPay, and PayPlace. None of them require access to my checking account, vis a vis "verification," like PayPal does.
Come to think of it, I don't recall submitting anything but my credit card and checking account numbers for any of them (i.e. no SS#).
Why is that, do you suppose? When one sifts through the rhetoric and sound bites, there's only one explanation that makes any sense at all: they want the ability to withdraw funds from the accounts when they deem necessary.
Perhaps others are comfortable with granting such access to a non-FDIC-insured, non-regulated, mismanaged dot com, but my comfort level is a little higher than that.
posted on November 1, 2000 04:38:58 PM new" None of them require access to my checking account"
If you have a BillPoint account you are mistaken. In the case of a dispute in favor of the buyer they will withdraw a chargeback (the actually ammount + a $10.00 fee) go to your BillPoint account and check it out.
posted on November 1, 2000 06:24:20 PM new
I sold an item in May and this guys Visa was declined twice, his next CREDIT CARD number was OK. In October(5MONTHS LATER)I was notified that xxxxxxxxxx had taken the $365.00 from my account because the buyer claimed it was not as described.. Of course I am protesting this AND BAD PART IS HE STILL HAS THE MERCHANDISE!! MY POINT IS "ANY TIME SOMEONE HAS YOUR CREDIT CARD NUMBER AND/OR BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER THIS SOMEONE CAN WITHDRAW FUNDS AND OR CLEAN OUT YOUR ACCOUNT FOR ANY REASON". I THINK I WILL STAY WITH MONEY ORDERS AND CHECKS ONLY.
I too thought that the interest bearing accounts were only for business accounts too at one time.