[HN Gopher] Two Americas, one bank branch, and $50k cash
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Two Americas, one bank branch, and $50k cash
        
       Author : dangrossman
       Score  : 55 points
       Date   : 2025-03-05 18:08 UTC (4 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.bitsaboutmoney.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.bitsaboutmoney.com)
        
       | danso wrote:
       | Jesus _CHRIST_ -- this article should be taught in writing
       | classes everywhere, specifically, on why editing is absolutely
       | important. I 'd about how this article could be vastly improved
       | if you cut out x% of its 6,500 words, but I can't even make that
       | estimate b/c by the time I reached the end, I was no longer sure
       | what the point of the article was.
       | 
       | > _A style magazine published an account of a large cash
       | withdrawal that didn 't match my understanding of banking
       | reality. I burned several thousand dollars and a year
       | investigating. I now doubt that account less, because I
       | understand the context better._
       | 
       | I'm truly at a loss at understanding how the author spent so much
       | time and money to arrive at basically the same conclusion made by
       | anyone who had closely read The Cut's essay [0] and the next-day
       | NYT followup [1]. The Cut writer's family wealth [2] was already
       | tweeted about during the viral discussion. The police report that
       | apparently satisfies the author's skepticism was something that
       | could have been pursued as soon as he finished reading the
       | article, which clearly asserts that she made a police report.
       | 
       | Kudos I guess for detailing this laborious process. But if it
       | took author this long to find a police report, then maybe he
       | could trim the roughly 2,000 words devoted to exploring how dumb
       | the media can be.
       | 
       | edit: one example of how tendentious this article is:
       | 
       | > _The writer's positive home equity, trivially available to the
       | bank which wrote their mortgage, is well in excess of ten years
       | of the median household income for New York City. The writer is
       | the president of the family charitable foundation, which per its
       | annual filings with the IRS has in the recent past held
       | approximately $2 million in marketable securities. And the family
       | estate in Connecticut (which the writer's parents live at) was
       | featured in the local paper, highlighting two hundred years of
       | history._
       | 
       | > _Discovering these facts radically changed my impression of
       | why, per the writer's written communication with me, she was not
       | asked for the purpose of a $50,000 withdrawal by any bank staff.
       | It no longer looks like a surprising lapse in procedure, when
       | someone attempted to empty their entire savings account and
       | wasn't even half-heartedly counseled about caution._
       | 
       | So the author links to U.S. Census [3], which says the median
       | household income is $79k. But it also says the median value of an
       | owner-occupied home is $751k. I suppose having $800k in _positive
       | home equity_ is different than owning a $750k home...but she 's a
       | New York City-based writer at a prestigious magazine. Even if you
       | didn't look up her address, it should have been obvious that she
       | was obviously a different kind of bank customer than the ones
       | that fit Bank of America's profile for scam victim.
       | 
       | [0] https://www.thecut.com/article/amazon-scam-call-ftc-
       | arrest-w...
       | 
       | [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/your-money/scam-new-
       | york-...
       | 
       | [2]
       | https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/850...
       | 
       | [3]
       | https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/newyorkcitynewy...
        
         | pchristensen wrote:
         | Patrick's audience (for BAM especially) is 1) people who enjoy
         | or are professionally interested in nitty gritty details of
         | financial regulation, and 2) people who enjoy Patrick's
         | personality and writing style. It's ok to not belong to either
         | group.
         | 
         | And the point of the article is basically: Patrick can get
         | obsessive about details, and here is an example of how that
         | plays out in real life.
        
           | danso wrote:
           | It's not word-count or details that I'm averse to, but
           | _purposeless_ word count. Patrick spends a huge amount of
           | words alluding to why he thinks The Cut 's story is total
           | horseshit -- and let's be clear, it was a comically
           | bewildering story by any standards. But all of those details
           | are pointless when the story abruptly concludes with "Well,
           | she said it to the police so I guess it's likely not
           | bullshit". If anything, I wanted _more_ words of reflection
           | by Patrick, explaining what made him so willing to bet an
           | extravagant amount of time and money in investigating
           | something so trivially affirmed? AFAICT, his skepticism
           | starts from the assertion of  "Banks just don't let an
           | average person take out $50k in cash in a day". How is that
           | assertion addressed by the fact that the victim gave the
           | police a brief report of events? As if it wasn't possible
           | that someone who fabricated this massive story in NYMag
           | wouldn't also fib to the police?
        
             | tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
             | The assertion is addressed by:
             | 
             | 1. The discovery of new facts that explain why a bank that
             | won't let the _average_ person take out $50k in cash would
             | still plausibly let _this_ person take out $50k in cash
             | 
             | 2. The story having (verifiable) details that would be
             | unlikely to exist if someone fabricated it, unless they
             | went through a massive effort to fabricate a perfect story.
             | While it is possible to fabricate a story that would pass
             | thorough scrutiny, most fabricated stories would show
             | inconsistencies or otherwise fall apart if looked at this
             | closely.
        
               | danso wrote:
               | Here's the graf that most resembles a thesis statement:
               | 
               | > _Then, I read the article, with a particular attention
               | to the paragraph quoted above. I felt that several
               | elements of this paragraph were inconsistent with the
               | standard practice of banking._
               | 
               | The quoted paragraph that he refers to:
               | 
               | > _When I reached the bank, I told the guard I needed to
               | make a large cash withdrawal and she sent me upstairs.
               | Michael [a member of the scamming team] was on
               | speakerphone in my pocket. I asked the teller for
               | $50,000. The woman behind the thick glass window raised
               | her eyebrows, disappeared into a back room, came back
               | with a large metal box of $100 bills, and counted them
               | out with a machine. Then she pushed the stacks of bills
               | through the slot along with a sheet of paper warning me
               | against scams. I thanked her and left._
               | 
               | How does "The Bank of America branch that she named by
               | address (in the police report) has a second-floor teller
               | window" a meaningful verification of the NYMag's
               | problematic paragraph? Unless you think that literally
               | the main problem with the NYMag graf is the first
               | sentence: _I told the guard I needed to make a large cash
               | withdrawal and she sent me upstairs_
               | 
               | > _The story having (verifiable) details that would be
               | unlikely to exist if someone fabricated it_
               | 
               | She knows there's a Bank of America on 1 Flatbush Avenue.
               | You really think that someone who spent months writing
               | and working with an editor to publish a massive
               | fabrication is too lazy to actually visit that actual
               | location, especially when it's a short subway stop from
               | her home?
        
         | tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
         | I generally _hate_ long form articles. Something about this one
         | was sufficiently different that I enjoyed reading it from start
         | to end.
         | 
         | I think a big part of it is that there isn't any actual
         | bullshit filler, and a lot of interesting information (even
         | though it may not be critical for the TL;DR of the story). Most
         | long form articles end up describing irrelevant details like
         | the weather on the day of the interview, or the interior
         | decoration of someone's house. Here, it's immediately clear why
         | every piece of information is included, the article shares a
         | lot of background information but tells something interesting
         | with every paragraph.
        
         | jccalhoun wrote:
         | > > The writer's positive home equity, trivially available to
         | the bank which wrote their mortgage, is well in excess of ten
         | years of the median household income for New York City. The
         | writer is the president of the family charitable foundation,
         | which per its annual filings with the IRS has in the recent
         | past held approximately $2 million in marketable securities.
         | And the family estate in Connecticut (which the writer's
         | parents live at) was featured in the local paper, highlighting
         | two hundred years of history.
         | 
         | Agreed. The author could have written, "it turns out the writer
         | was from a wealthy family, grew up in a 200 year old home, and
         | is president of the family's $2 million charity."
        
       | lxgr wrote:
       | Coming from a fan of the blog/newsletter, and with all due
       | respect for publishing negative results and long-form writing
       | about money as an aesthetic as much as a journalistic/educational
       | endeavor:
       | 
       | This would have really benefited from a "tl;dr: I was wrong; that
       | one bank branch really has a teller window on the second floor".
       | 
       | Still a worthwhile read if you enjoy the genre, but a small part
       | of me wants my lunch break back that I spent reading this...
        
         | pchristensen wrote:
         | The point was that the mention of the 2nd floor teller window
         | was an inconsequential detail that was enough to identify the
         | branch in question, and a gateway to show off his obsessiveness
         | for researching minutiae. But definitely a "genre" article more
         | than his other, more informative ones.
        
           | danso wrote:
           | What's not clear to me is: why the confirmation that the
           | NYMag writer's bank has a 2nd floor teller window is enough
           | to mollify Patrick's intense skepticism that her $50k
           | transaction happened like she asserts. If she was already
           | going to torch her own reputation and journalism career to
           | fabricate this scam story, why wouldn't she have the
           | intrepidness to research what various Brooklyn banks look
           | like? Or actually, why would a purported fabricator even
           | bother to give that specific detail at all, which would make
           | it easier for anyone (as Patrick attempted) to narrow down
           | where the fakery did/didn't happen?
           | 
           | I mean the NYMag story was _incredibly_ dumb and far-fetched,
           | even compared to most scam stories. But the fact that she
           | didn 't write it pseudonymously, and gave the specific date
           | that it happened, and also claimed to have called the police,
           | that felt enough for me to give her the benefit of the doubt
           | her story was more or less rooted in reality.
        
             | BryantD wrote:
             | It wasn't; the key part of the piece is the revelation that
             | $50K was not in fact a huge sum of money for someone in her
             | socio-economic class. The thing that caught Patrick's eye
             | originally, if I'm reading correctly, was that she didn't
             | get the usual "come back in a day so we can get the funds
             | together" message.
             | 
             | I suspect although I can't be sure that this is one reason
             | why he's elliptical in this piece. The core piece of
             | information is that she misrepresented her wealth in the
             | original article. Personally if I'd just been scammed I
             | would also want to minimize myself as a target, so I can't
             | blame her, but it's the discrepancy that caught his eye.
        
               | danso wrote:
               | > _The core piece of information is that she
               | misrepresented her wealth in the original article._
               | 
               | She does not misrepresent her wealth in her article. At
               | no point does she claim to be scraping by. She states
               | upfront that she has a gainfully-employed husband and a
               | child and they live in Brooklyn, that she has $50k stowed
               | away in an emergency savings account, and that she's been
               | a financial columnist for the NYT and NYMag for around a
               | decade.
               | 
               | Is it possible that such a New Yorker could have all
               | those things while barely making in the middle-class?
               | Sure, but an easy assumption in New York, and even
               | Chicago, is that such a person is provided for means
               | beyond their job income, e.g. maybe she or her husband
               | worked at Goldman Sachs before their current careers, or
               | come from rich families.
               | 
               | I too assumed that $50k was too big of a cash draw for
               | any non-business account, but it didn't seem like a
               | stretch to imagine that she fit the bank's profile of a
               | wealthy customer (esp. at her young age). Patrick knows
               | far more about the financial system than I do, so I have
               | to assume his skepticism was founded in what he thought
               | were widely applicable hard-coded rules and policy. I
               | wish he would have spent a fraction of his word count
               | telling us the assumptions/knowledge about bank rules
               | that he had been misinformed on. Because this year-long
               | multi-thousand dollar fraud investigation of his couldn't
               | have just been because he didn't imagine a NYMag
               | financial columnist might be wealthy?
        
               | jldugger wrote:
               | > Sure, but an easy assumption in New York, and even
               | Chicago, is that such a person is provided for means
               | beyond their job income
               | 
               | Probably the biggest giveaway in the article was the
               | $50,000 inheritance from a grandparent. When my
               | grandparents died, they left the grandchildren a small
               | amount ($500 each, IIRC), and the vast majority to their
               | direct children. This seems standard to me, and if the
               | ratios hold then she presumably stands to inherit far,
               | far more in the future.
               | 
               | I find it hard to fault anyone for assuming people are
               | like themselves in most ways. But maybe don't follow his
               | twitter hot takes. Or twitter in general?
        
         | patio11 wrote:
         | You can put theses in the third paragraph but you can't force
         | everyone to actually read them.
        
           | lxgr wrote:
           | Well, the phrase "I now doubt that account less" didn't evoke
           | "this article outlines the non-refutation of a null
           | hypothesis" for me when I initially read it.
           | 
           | After reading the article, sure, I can see that that's what
           | was implied, but I can only say that it wasn't clear enough
           | for me. I still enjoyed it for what it is, but I think I
           | could have enjoyed it more if primed differently.
        
       | foobarian wrote:
       | > Mandating a cooling-off period causes some scams to effervesce
       | like dew in the morning sun.
       | 
       | This had me scratching my head a bit. Perhaps they meant to say
       | "evaporate" instead of effervesce?
        
         | cbfrench wrote:
         | Probably meant _evanesce_ , which has the same sense as
         | _evaporate_ and could be easily confused with _effervesce._
        
       | rufus_foreman wrote:
       | It's not just withdrawing money. Walk into a bank and try to
       | deposit a check for $200,000 into your checking account that
       | typically never has more than $2,000 in it and you will likely
       | get some attention.
        
         | lxgr wrote:
         | For very different reasons, though: If the check bounces, the
         | bank potentially takes the loss if the depositor has already
         | withdrawn/spent the funds.
         | 
         | In other words, this is a direct credit risk to the bank, not
         | the more indirect reputational or relationship risk of
         | potentially unwittingly or negligently facilitating a scam
         | described in TFA.
        
           | jandrese wrote:
           | No bank is going to let you withdraw funds off of that $200k
           | until it actually clears the ACH, plus a couple of days.
        
       | anigbrowl wrote:
       | This is so overwritten.
       | 
       | tl;dr author was skeptical of a famous story about a writer who
       | got scammed out of $50k cash she withdrew from her bank, because
       | it's actually very hard to get any bank to just hand you $50k of
       | your own money in cash. After months of diligent investigation,
       | author established that writer was well off and was treated
       | differently from regular people because her bank branch is in an
       | upscale neighborhood with a lot of rich clients.
        
         | Fade_Dance wrote:
         | I felt like I was giving it a second and third chance, and then
         | I realized it was only a third of the way in. Thank you for
         | confirming my suspicion here.
        
         | emodendroket wrote:
         | When I heard about this story I had assumed she kept the money
         | in her home. How did she get all the way through withdrawing
         | the money without at any point thinking something about the
         | story didn't add up? Mystifying.
        
           | lxgr wrote:
           | By her account, she did so at least at one point:
           | 
           | > As I walked back to my apartment, something jolted me out
           | of my trance, and I became furious. No government agency
           | would establish this as "protocol." It was preposterous.
           | 
           | Unfortunately, the doubts apparently didn't win.
           | 
           | I guess there's a sort of Anna Karenina principle of scams: A
           | successful scam takes a long list of things going exactly
           | right for the scammers, and the unsuccessful ones are much
           | less likely to be widely publicized.
        
         | MostlyStable wrote:
         | That's because the point of this article isn't really
         | investigative journalism about this one case and whether or not
         | it actually happened (or at least, it's not _only_ that). It 's
         | using that as a jumping off point to inform someone about some
         | of the ways banks operate. If you are not interested in that,
         | then the article isn't for you, but it's not "overwritten".
        
           | danso wrote:
           | But that's what's infuriating about this article: it doesn't
           | really inform us about the ways bank actually operates,
           | because it seems clear Patrick had made some massively
           | misinformed assumptions about how banks actually operate. He
           | goes into many words about how $50k is such an unwieldly
           | amount for the average bank to have on hand. So is that
           | assumption about the average bank wrong? Or did he wrongly
           | assume that a New York branch of America's 2nd-largest bank
           | operated similarly to any small-town independent bank, and if
           | so, why would he do that?
        
             | jldugger wrote:
             | My read on patrick's article is that he knows that banks
             | operate differently for a select few, and his primary error
             | was assuming the author was not in that elite class. And
             | the Vox article sends a mixed message that encourages the
             | error.
             | 
             | For Patrick's part, he does preface this entire article
             | with a "file drawer effect" caveat. It's more of a Twitter
             | corrections column than an HN worthy post:
             | 
             | > It no longer looks like a surprising lapse in procedure,
             | when someone attempted to empty their entire savings
             | account and wasn't even half-heartedly counseled about
             | caution. It looks like trivial cash management of a well-
             | off, presumptively sophisticated client, whose household,
             | resources, and probable financial future were thoroughly
             | known to the bank.
        
       | pavel_lishin wrote:
       | Going to pivot away from piling on the author for their writing
       | style, to instead pile on the author for using one of the
       | shittiest AI-generated images I've seen in awhile. Nightmare fuel
       | faces.
        
         | thrance wrote:
         | Seriously, I quit any post that begins with a shitty irrelevant
         | AI image. I really wonder what reasoning could possibly lead to
         | one thinking "yeah, this will definitely improve my article".
        
         | MichaelZuo wrote:
         | I'm beginning to think the lumpy intelligence theory is true...
         | that if someone is way above average in some area they must
         | also be below average in some other area(s).
         | 
         | The only exceptions being literal super-geniuses.
        
         | HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
         | Yeah, but it's so obviously fake that it's not bad :-)
        
       | renewiltord wrote:
       | Haha patio11 is great but he sometimes does things slowly that I
       | can do fast. I went to Chase and needed to withdraw $50k from my
       | account and they were willing to do it. I had some $115k at the
       | time in it.
       | 
       | In the end I only needed $15k. There's some stuff you have to
       | fill out explaining why but it's not something that requires too
       | much work.
       | 
       | In my case, I was paying a wedding vendor and they only took
       | Zelle or cash. I only needed $15k but I wanted to keep more in
       | case other vendors were going to be like this too.
       | 
       | They asked me why, I told them, and then asked them if they'd
       | make me 100 accounts so I could get around the Zelle limit. They
       | said it wouldn't work but that they wouldn't do that anyway.
        
         | RandomBacon wrote:
         | > There's some stuff you have to fill out explaining why
         | 
         | I have never had to fill out anything. My credit union didn't
         | even ask why I wanted the cash, they just asked for a second
         | form of identification due to the amount being over 10k.
         | 
         | I know they fill out a SAR (Suspicious Activity Report) as
         | required by law, but it's seemless on my end (besides waiting
         | while they fill it out).
         | 
         | I always read about people being hassled by their banks, but
         | never credit unions.
        
           | jagraff wrote:
           | Banks are not required to file a SAR just because you
           | withdraw (or even deposit) over 10k. They are required to
           | report it, but the report is not a SAR - having a SAR filed
           | can be bad, because too many filed about you will likely
           | cause banks to refuse to open accounts for you.
        
             | ValentineC wrote:
             | > _having a SAR filed can be bad, because too many filed
             | about you will likely cause banks to refuse to open
             | accounts for you._
             | 
             | Aren't SARs private? I thought having too many filed
             | against a person would cause a bank to terminate a banking
             | relationship, but not prevent _other_ banks from opening
             | new accounts.
             | 
             | From what I understand, there are other reporting systems
             | in the US like ChexSystems and EWS that do facilitate this
             | form of information sharing.
        
         | bombcar wrote:
         | Banks have always worked with me when I needed large cash
         | withdrawals. They always like if you talk about it beforehand
         | (e.g., don't go in and say you need $30k for a car NOW, but
         | tell them you'd like it next week).
         | 
         | It helps tremendously if the bank manager knows you, or at
         | least recognizes you.
        
         | brianleb wrote:
         | >> I had some $115k at the time in it.
         | 
         | I'm sorry, but you are an order of magnitude out of touch with
         | the average American consumer. Average savings balance under
         | the age of 64 is below $73k.[1] Median savings is below $9k.
         | Most people will, outside of their retirement savings, never
         | have access to an account that has over $100,000 in it.
         | 
         | Never.
         | 
         | Not one day in their life.
         | 
         | Median household income is $80k/yr.[2] Personal savings rate is
         | under 5%.[3] As is noted in the title of the article, there are
         | two Americas.
         | 
         | [1] https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/average-
         | savings-... [2]
         | https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2024/demo/p60-28...
         | [3] https://www.bea.gov/data/income-saving/personal-saving-rate
        
           | stetrain wrote:
           | That's true but I'm not sure how it's relevant.
           | 
           | Most people asking their bank to withdraw $50k+ in cash are
           | by definition going to have above-average assets.
        
           | ZeWaka wrote:
           | I don't think the OP ever purported to be doing something the
           | 'average American consumer' would be doing, just relating
           | their experiences to the linked article.
        
           | danso wrote:
           | Yes, generally the only people who would be able to withdraw
           | $50k from a savings account are people who are well-off
           | enough to have $50k in a non-retirement savings account.
           | Doesn't it follow, then, that such a person would be seen by
           | the bank as a "well-off customer" and thus enjoy higher
           | withdrawal thresholds?
        
           | ty6853 wrote:
           | They don't have access to an account with 100k in it because
           | that would generally be pointless for a normal person. A
           | great deal of people have 100k in clear real estate or
           | stocks. Only a moron leaves 100k sitting doing nothing but
           | wait for it to get inflated to oblivion.
        
       | ahoy wrote:
       | I closed this (and any!) article because it opens with an AI
       | image. It makes me think the author doesn't value authenticity
       | and thinks very little of their readers.
        
       | JaakkoP wrote:
       | Thoroughly enjoyed the writing style and the process of solving
       | the mystery withdrawal, even though the outcome wasn't what I
       | expected. Consumed through an email client so the AI image didn't
       | bother me either.
        
       | jessekv wrote:
       | This one was a bit like reading Sherlock Holmes.
        
       | iwanttocomment wrote:
       | Encyclopedia Brown and the Case He Created for Himself Based on
       | His Own Misguided Skepticism Where Everyone Turned Out to Be
       | Honest and Accurate and There Was No Actual Mystery at All
        
       | Evidlo wrote:
       | I've never seen so much literary analysis on HN before.
        
       | JohnMakin wrote:
       | Everything else aside, I find it very unusual from an amateur
       | journalist's perspective that his intuition led him to doubt the
       | veracity of this story, yet, his biggest clue he went on was
       | supplied by the writer themselves, who he was doubting. Seems
       | like a good way to waste a lot of time or come to a completely
       | wrong conclusion.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-03-05 23:02 UTC)