Happy

You obviously do not get the point - CC funding carries much greater risk to the bank in term of the deposit (the funding) versus CASH deposit.

That is exactly why Citi shut the CC Funding down because it finally wised up it should not allow CC funding.

Why do you think a check deposit of large amount is subject to 3 to 7 business days hold? and that includes Cashier Check no less! Even an ACH in is subject to 3 to 7 days hold by the brokerage firms? The ACH can be reversed if it is from fraudulent activity in case you do not know about this.

Only CASH deposit has had a much less probability of being reversed. But then the bank would wonder where the hell you get all this cash through what means?

Enough of banking 101.

Stoughton

I'm guessing Citi and Amex care quite a bit about the transaction fees generated on the 100's of $1,000 of coins ordered every year, and even more about the interest money generated on the FF'ers who don't pay their bills on time

jamesteroh

There are people who order the coins and DONT pay their balance in full??? WHY???? The interest is going to be a LOT more than the miles/rewards.

QL_714

Thank you for the banking lesson. I see you like to change the subject. Would you mind if we get back to my original statement. “It only works because this is not seen as a cash advance. That could change at any time.”

Please explain why when I place an order with the Mint and they give me legal tender cash that this would not be a cash advance?

Stoughton

Simple: People suck at paying their bills on time

deant

The issue is that the CC division and the banking division are separate entities and report profits to corporate as separate entities.

Just because the CC division makes money does not mean the bank division is happy when they "lose" money taking in the coins.

deant

In reality, it should be. But it is too much of a hassle to differentiate between an order of, for example, Proof Sets vs direct ship dollars.

aviators99

If you can't get along and provide useful information, we will have to shut this down again for a while.

Reasonable people can disagree. Stop attacking each other, and get on with the business of how to turn time into points/miles.

xp0

Yeah, I asked my bank if they were OK with me bringing in 15-20k every two weeks. Since they are fine with it, that's what I do.

pierre mclopez

Because the Mint is up to their gills in coins Congress compelled them to make. They are happy to get rid of them in any way possible as long as they don't get bad press. At $1000 a whack, we give them an escape from an untenable situation.

And heck, they make 83 cents per dollar.

Happy

First of all, it is you who change subject to CC funding... and I just try to follow suit to straight up the illogical argument.

In essence IT IS. However in practice the merchant in this case the Mint cannot code it correctly or chooses NOT to code it correctly. Though it has already made an effort to denote it as the other name we saw on the description.

The banks are doing what they can to weed out what they see are high risk activities by shutting down the accounts selectively. Chase apparently is managing its risk much more vigorously than others. There are reasons why it is the strongest bank in this country and vigorously managing risk exposure is certainly one of them. At the same time the banks do not see all accounts that have the coin activities are high risk accounts when the accounts have many other normal banking activities, sometimes fairly substantial normal banking activities such as incoming wire or ACH going through those accounts - because other than CASH deposits, all other types of deposit can be tracked perfectly - essentially reduces the possibility of fraud. That is where the risk assessment model comes into play - evaluate the risk outweigh the benefit of doing business with a certain customer. Dont forget the risk is not just simple loss of fund, but also means lots of expenses involved when fraud is detected and government law enforcement is involved - the expenses in compliance are not something the banks like to see.

That is enough for Banking 102. No more to discuss.

In a way this is what it boils down to. It is already differentiated by the description but not by the code - because when incentive is taken away, WHO would order the $1 coins?

QL_714

Banking 102? I was just getting the hang of banking 101.

Something I learned in banking 101 was that the CC issuer has the final say if it is going to charge a cash advance fee not the merchant.

Am I correct in assuming we both agree that this really is a cash advance but for whatever reason the CC companies at this time are not seeing it that way?

I appreciate you can carry on a discussion without personal attacks or false accusations.

skchin

Has anyone tried to redeem the dollar coins at your local casino?

youreadyfreddie

Yes.

Happy

Yes. If they want to. Empirical data so far say that they do not want to, as of now, for this particular transaction. Therefore the CC funding issue you brought up really has no place in the discussion even without considering the fundamental difference between the two - you do not have immediate access to the funding by credit card until the deposit is cleared of hold, versus you have immediate access to the cash deposit, from the view point of the banks where you fund your account with CC versus you fund your account with cash deposit.

Correct. Since the operative word is HOW it is being coded, not What it really is, therefore there is no point to debate what it really is. We all know what it really is, but we only care HOW it is being treated by way of coding.

The only thing matters is HOW it is being treated. I think everyone can at least understand this part.

Until someone reports something differently, so far it is business as usual if you know how to handle your bank accounts, both in terms of the bank which issues the cards you use, and the bank which you use to deposit your haul.