Everyone, Every month for the last five years, I receive my Citibank Credit Card Statement in the mail in the beggining of the month and the payment is due on the 20th....every single month. Well, I already got this months statement on the second of the month and made my payment last week since it was due on the 20th. WELL, today, I got another statement that had one week worth of charges (substantial charges from just a week or so ago ), and it is due on the 3rd of January....weird. I could draw many conclusions from this ranging from a computer glitch to a panic over not being able to collect any money after the CDC. I mean, the 3rd of January is the first business day of the year. I would have to have my payment in before then to make the deadline...what do you guys think????

-- Jim Torrez (jimtorres21@hotmail.com), December 20, 1999

Answers

Hmm, just looked at my bill from Citibank. Due on the 3rd too. Its usually due around the 15th or so. Maybe your on to something...

-- Jim Bob (izzitover@yet.com), December 20, 1999.

Citibank is toast and will be one of the large enterprise failures Cory Hamasaki refers to.

You may have legal precidence to hold off until the 15th to pay your statement. Upping the due date in that fashion could only mean trouble for them.

-- See ya CB (@ .), December 20, 1999.

I am going to call them tomorrow and see what they tell me....then I will relay it to the board...sound good??

-- Jim Torrez (jimtorrez@hotmail.com), December 20, 1999.

Learned this from a SLED Captain. Mail it the 3rd, then tell them federal code supercedes their state law on this matter, and they are required to credit receipt of EVERY bill on the day you mail it, regardless of when they get it and when the check clears. Any lawer here got a code on this, or wanna say my source is full of it? It works.

-- Hokie (nn@va.com), December 20, 1999.

Learned this from a SLED Captain. Mail it the 3rd, then tell them federal supercedes their state law on this matter, and they are required to credit receipt of EVERY bill on the day you mail it, regardless of when they get it and when the check clears. Any lawer here got a code on this, or wanna say my source is full of it? It works.

-- Hokie (nn@va.com), December 20, 1999.

HOKIE:

If what you say is true, it seems that you missed out the important part about having a postal receipt(e.g.registered) showing that you really DID mail said payment, or an envelope of some kind, on the date indicated?

-- profit of doom (doom@helltopay.ca), December 20, 1999.

Jim -

Very likely CitiBank is just taking precautions of doing as much work in '99 as possible.

One possible explanation is that they're perhaps shutting down the '99 system & starting up a new system (files) for '00. What with all the yelling & shouting we shouldn't loose sight of the fact that two digit years work just fine as long as operationally you know where the correct lines are.

For a busines system with such a short memory as demand deposit accounting (checking accounts), once they get into early '00 it should be ok.

So they hurry up & get you (statistically they probably have a pretty good handle on what percentage of accounts will be paid when due... & then just take the hit for manually coping with late accounts) to pay in '99.

As long as the '00 system doesn't have to look backwards (again there are potential operational tricks available) into '99, they'll be ok.

-- David Eddy (deddy@davideddy.com), December 20, 1999.

"As long as the '00 system doesn't have to look backwards (again there are potential operational tricks available) into '99, they'll be ok."

Do you know of many revolving credit systems that *don't* do aging?

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), December 21, 1999.

My Citibank visa bill came today. Just opened it and it is due the 11th of January

-- Nancy (wellsnl@hotmail.com), December 21, 1999.

Ron has a good point, used to work in this business....all bankcard operations look back--they HAVE to, to age. What, does you account just get started up anew on 1/1/00? That is the only case in which it would not have to "look back", so to speak. Otherwise, how do they figure interest paid, etc?

-- preparing (preparing@home.com), December 21, 1999.

Jim,

Interesting. Perhaps all Citibanks's bills due on, say, the 15th or later have been speeded up to January 3, and those dues in the first two weeks of January are being left as is--not enough of a difference to fool with. Interesting. C_int_n is not worried. Someone with money on the line is worrying.

I have bookmarked this thread and will return. i recommend others do the same. If this is for real, there has to be a reason for it.

-- Rick (rick7@postmark.net), December 21, 1999.

Just paid a Citibank bill due on the 28th of December.

-- (I'm@here.today), December 21, 1999.

This somes to correspond to the earlier threads on the Deutsche Bank crash of December 1. There were one or two threds over the last week, and a good one on Satruday, Dec. 18 I believe it was, which groped at tentative conclusions arising out of the Fed response to the crash. IN OTHER WORDS, that the banks were still using "production code" and had not yet put their remediated code into operation. If the same is true for Citibank, perhaps these statements "tying up loose ends" in the 20th century, are a reflection of it.

>"<

-- SH (squirrel@huntr.com), December 21, 1999.

What did Citibank say when you queried it?

-- Sir R (richard.dale@unum.co.uk), December 22, 1999.