This sounds quite similar to a situation which occurred to a close relation over 20 years ago. Again, even in-person with government-issued ID at a branch of the bank, access to funds was impossible (though the account itself was not terminated). The lockout similarly occurred whilst travelling, and they were unable to access funds whilst on an extended holiday, though regained access once they'd returned home.

Another element is that many banks effectively centralise virtually all decision authority within computer systems. Patio11's recently submitted essay on branch banking addresses this in part. See <https://bam.kalzumeus.com/archive/branch-banking/> <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32679233>

Most banks, even quite large ones (though Citi might be an exception) no only centralise operations to software but use the same very small number of vendors for that software. Brian Krebs wrote an essay in 2018 giving some details on just how consolidated that market is: <https://krebsonsecurity.com/2018/03/what-is-your-banks-secur...>

Discussed on HN at the time: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16534820>

The fact that the banks have tied their own hands doesn't excuse them, though this may in part explain what's going on, and how you might choose to calibrate your expectations, risk models, and mitigations.

Seems that way with Citi. They've been getting out of retail banking in several countries lately. I have an account with them in Australia - but it's operated by an Australian Bank.

Threadreader: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1567315945143603204.html

Out of sheer curiosity, what's the appeal of threadreader to you? I see a lot of threadreader noise on twitter and I can't figure out why people prefer its (ad ridden) article-ish view to simply scrolling through a thread on twitter.

I find it less distracting with all of the chrome around each tweet. It combines them into a single block of paragraphs.

Twitter on the Android app works well for reading a thread, but on the webpage it is frustratingly cluttered. Admittedly I do have an adblocker so don't see the ads on thread reader.

Threadreader doesn’t have an obnoxious pop up killing my access and demanding that I download the twitter app as soon as I scroll down one tweet. Much like with Reddit, I’d rather disengage from the platform than install the app.

Pretty much the answers given by aembleton, bombcar, and abduhl.

Twitter is annoying, invasive, naggy, and surveillance tech. I've disabled JS on the site which both nudges me to alternatives and adds significant friction to reading using it.

A big one is you can’t scroll through a thread on Twitter anymore without it demanding a login for many people, and if you’re running an adblocker thread reader is easier to read.

Honestly I don't know why anyone would lock all their money up with a single bank. Accounts are so trivial to open and manage nowadays. Diversify not just your investments but also your fiat holdings.

Poor people (which generally includes young folks) simply do not have investments nor enough actual money to pay for two bank accounts. A bank account for poor people is a utility, not an investment. It keeps money a bit safer than keeping it on you at work (for example). It is only trivial when you don't need to spend all of your money each and every month.

Those same folks could easily wind up homeless if this happened to them.

I've been poor. Six figures in debt with less than $10 in my checking account. I know what it is like. But there are plenty of accounts in the U.S. which have no minimum balance and no fee. You can have $5 in there.

I've been poor, and no one would let me have even one bank account. On payday, two trucks would pull into the factory parking lot. One would cash my check (for 4% of it), and the other would sell me snow cones and hot dogs.

I would line up with the other poor people who were too stupid not to have multiple bank accounts, even though like me they may have had a bank branch a block from their apartment (that had already turned them down.)

I'm shocked that they gave a physical paycheck instead of requiring a prepaid card to deposit money on.

But why? Getting your account randomly closed is not commonplace, and if you are poor, not having the $X in Account B when you need to pay for food from A is not just inconvenient, but also makes you pay more in overdraft fees. Yes, you can do it, but I’d say the disadvantages outweigh the benefits by a huge margin.

> but also makes you pay more in overdraft fees

Overdraft services have been opt-in only for over a decade: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/100...

Sure, not buying food at all is certainly better ;) or standing at the register and having to return items in front of everyone.

$5 doesn't pay rent, nor will it buy much food. If your main account gets closed, you probably won't get your next pay check because it takes time to switch the direct deposit. If you get something like disability, it might leave you a month without money.

You can be poor without debt, btw: I do not include debt in with poverty. Debt amount doesn't reflect your quality of life (though garnished wages sometimes might hint at it).

No poor person would get a $100k loan.

In general, I agree with you and I almost typed the same. Getting a car loan is absolutely difficult, hence the existence of buy here pay here sorts of places. Predatory loans are basically the only thing available in an emergency.

But I figure some fringe cases would absolutely make someone be both poor and that much in debt, generally stemming from things like a family losing an income after buying a home and to a lesser extent, things like student loans and medical debt - though I*m not sure either go as high.

$100k of debt for a poor person is not unrealistic, between student loans and/or medical debt.

This is a really odd definition of poor. Six figures of debt is almost nothing in the US, particularly if you have a real estate mortgage. You could have a six figure debt on a million dollar property for example.

Having $10 in your checking account, OK yeah that is weird. Considering just your liquid cash vs. your debt doesn't make sense. You have to take into account monthly post-tax income, monthly expenses, and the time it would take to pay off said debt using your remaining income.

It was a private student loan in the 90s with no asset backing it. I was in school so did not have to make payments at that time.

The truth is I should of never of been given the loan as my parents had very little income and no significant assets. It was ridiculous. But I was lucky enough to finish my degree in CS so eventually I was not poor and paid off the loan. But even with the CS degree and diligent saving it took almost a decade.

I guess I would say you were broke, but not necessarily poor. But I do understand the point you are making. Student debt is non-dischargable in the US.

Also congratulations on getting out of debt and having a career.

> Accounts are so trivial to open and manage nowadays.

They are not. When you come back from work after a 12-hour night shift the last thing you want to do is managing your bank accounts. You just want one account to work, and to work well, if possible without the bank screwing you too much.

Am I an anomaly here?

We're not money savvy people particularly, however my girlfriend and I both have 3-4 bank accounts (UK based, it takes <1 hour to setup a brand new bank, from start to finish).

We have a couple of traditional banks, and then also some more modern "internet" only banking (great for travel with their zero conversion fees, and more granular tracking of spending).

This seems to be the norm between all my friends also.

I personally just don't see the point of having multiple banks manage my accounts. In the USA many of these banks require a minimum amount to avoid fees and since they can arbitrarily set those limits and they can change at any time I find that having multiple accounts ends up being a liability. On top of the non-existant interest why would I park $1000 in a bank account? Instead I can at least invest it in something. Heck even just adding that $1000 to my mortgage payment would be a vastly better investment.

> I personally just don't see the point of having multiple banks manage my accounts.

Have we gotten so deeply nested that we've forgotten the title of the thread?

Also UK, mostly because it's easy to get one account, fairly easy via your phone to get a joint.

I have 3 accounts, one for salary deposits, one for bills and one for spending so that I always know bills are covered every month without thinking about it and my "fun money" being pre-allocated each month helps me be mindful of my spending.

Since moving to that system I've been able to save significantly more each month.

Because banks can have IT outages, and you can have no access to your money until they get resolved. They also can go bust which means you can be waiting a long time for what's left of your money.

Well I use a credit card for almost all my purchases and I don't even need access to my bank to make my monthly payment. I wouldn't split my cash equally between two banks either. That seems silly. If for whatever reason my bank went bankrupt I'd simply open a new account and change my direct deposit at work. It's not really a show stopper. Plus there's federal insurance on all accounts up to 250k.

I think having a second bank for savings/emergency can make sense for a number of reasons (harder to conflate your money, accessible if the first has an issue, etc, better rates, etc).

I have an online centered account and a local one, they serve different purposes.

99% of FDIC receiverships happen over the weekend without a customer disruption.

Multiple accounts in use greatly increases the chance that you have the money but it’s in the wrong place.

Not you're not, but maybe the UK is different.

I too have multiple bank accounts, mainly because in the case of bank failure your deposits are only guaranteed up to something like £80k.

Also, in the UK basic current accounts are free, I doubt this is the case everywhere.

I still have one main account that my wages go into, and all bills come out of. The other account is just a backup.

I think one big difference in the UK is instant payments, if you have money in the wrong account and need to move it you'll be able to do it within a few minutes. If that wasn't the case then it'd probably be a lot more stressful to have your money split up.

Opening an N26, Revolut or Bunq account (in Europe) can be done from the couch. Maybe this is much different in the US.

Revolut works in the US all right.

I suppose you are not subject to FBAR reporting

Here in Germany bank accounts are pretty expensive. In the UK you are legally only allowed 1 current account afaik

In the UK - that's simply untrue. Many accounts will stipulate in the T&Cs that you use the account to deposit your salary and 1 or 2 utility payments from, or they might levy a charge or remove benefits (free overdraft, fee free card usage abroad etc) - this is pretty easy to game though. It is fairly common for people to have more than one current account.

That's just what Nationwide told me when I was in the UK. I guess it is a common myth. If I google it, it sounds like it is

It does sound like you were mis-informed, and sadly that seems to be common with banks all over.

The only account that is legally restricted that I can think of is the ISA which offers good tax incentives for saving but with a limit to how much can be contributed in a year, and I think you can only open with one provider in a given tax year.

> In the UK you are legally only allowed 1 current account afaik

If that's anything like the truth, absolutely nobody here knows about it. In an effort to get customers, banks will often give you "introductory" rates which are better than the market, but only for a fixed amount of time (6 months or a year). I know people who have accounts at basically every major bank.

I live in the UK and have multiple current accounts.

For the UK it is the first time I hear that. I am pretty sure it's not the case.

I am in Germany, and I have several free bank accounts (I have DKB, ING, and Revolut, but I could easily also get e.g. N26 or comdirect). A quick Google search for "freies girokonto" results in a comparison between the 31 best offers here: https://www.biallo.de/girokonto/ratgeber/kostenloses-girokon... (no affiliation), so I have no idea what you mean by that.

The online banks are very risky though, but that is true they are often free. The physical banks are almost always not, unless you want the extremely basic account for people with no address registration

What do you mean by risky here? DKB is owned by the Bayerische Landesbank (mostly owned by the state of Bavaria). Their online security measures seem at least as good as my Sparkasse account, too. I use a physical TAN machine to authenticate transactions for both.

There is basically no customer support if anything goes wrong

What about N26? The UK also has a couple of options like Starling and Monzo. I know some of these "challenger" banks have their own issues but as secondary/ backup accounts they work well. They are cheap and easy to set up.

N26 is free, I think DKB might also still be (though they arbitrarily with a minor update decided to block every rooted android user, so I wouldn’t trust them). Most others require a certain influx of money every month to be free IIRC.

I don’t know where you got that from but in the UK you can have as many current (or savings or whatever) accounts a you like

Some banks try and entice people with nice offers (£100 cash, free overdraft for months etc). To get the offer, you need to start paying your salary into the account and use it for bill payments.

Without the deal, there's no restrictions.