Where is “Cash Credit from Unsettled Activity” coming from?
"The Cash Credit from Unsettled Activity occurs because AGG issued a dividend in the past week. Since you purchased the ETF long enough before the record date (June 5, 2013) for that trade to settle, you qualified for a dividend. The dividend distribution was $0.195217/share for each of your six shares, for a total credit of $1.17 = 6 * 0.195217. For any ETF, the company's website should tell you when dividends are issued, usually under a section titled ""Distributions"" or something similar. If you look in your Fidelity account's History page, it should show an entry of ""Dividend Received"", which confirms that the cash credit is coming from a dividend distribution. You could look up your holdings and see which one(s) recently issued a dividend; in this case, it was AGG."
The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 requires that banks assist the U.S. Gov't in identifying and preventing money laundering. This means they're required to keep records of cash transactions of Negotiable Instruments, and report any such transactions with a daily aggregate limit of a value greater than (or equal to?) $10,000. Because of this, the business which is issuing the money order is also required to record this transaction to report it to the bank, who then holds the records in case FinCEN wants to review the transactions. EDITED: Added clarification on the $10,000 rule Gläubiger ID ungültig seems to indicate that the side trying to pull money from your account used a Gläuber-ID that has expired or has been revoked. (Just in case someone has the same question, two years later.) Essentially speaking, when you purchase goods worth $100 using your card, the store has to pay about $2 for the transaction to the company that operates that stores' credit card terminal.  If you withdraw cash from an ATM, you might be charged a fee for such a transaction. However, the ATM operator doesn't pay the credit processor such a transaction fee - thus, it is classified as a cash transaction.  Additionally, performing cash advances off a CC is a rather good indicator of a bad financial health of the user, which increase the risk of default, and in some institutions is a factor contributing to their internal creditworthiness assessment. There's still a paper trail for every transaction. There's gotta be a debit and credit in there somewhere. Plus these companies are supposed to be audited by an *independent* auditor who, if they're worth their salt, should be able to track down every penny. "I'm not sure if this answer is going to win me many friends on reddit, but here goes...  There's no good reason why they couldn't have just told him the current balance shown on their records, BUT...  **There are some good reasons why they can't quote a definitive ""payoff"" balance to instantly settle the account:**  It's very possible to charge something today, and not have it show up on Chase's records until tomorrow, or Monday, or later. There are still places that process paper credit-card transactions, or that deal with 3rd-party payment processors who reconcile transactions M-F, 9-5ish, and so on.   - Most transactions these days are authorized the instant you swipe the card, and the merchant won't process until they get authorization back from the CC company. But sometimes those authorizations come from third-party processors who don't bill Chase until later. Some of them might not process a Friday afternoon transaction until close-of-business Monday.   - Also, there are things like taxicab fares that might be collected when you exit the cab, but the record exists only in the taxi's onboard machine until they plug it into something else at the end of the shift.   - There are still some situations (outdoor flea-markets, auctions, etc) where the merchant takes a paper imprint, and doesn't actually process the payment until they physically mail it in or whatever.   - Some small businesses have information-security routines in place where only one person is allowed to process credit-card payments, but where multiple customer service reps are allowed to accept the CC info, write it down on one piece of paper, then either physically hand the paper to the person with processing rights, or deposit the paper in a locked office or mail-slot for later processing. This is obviously not an instant-update system for Chase. (Believe it or not, this system is actually considered to be *more* secure than retaining computerized records unless the business has very rigorous end-to-end info security).   So... there are a bunch of legit reasons why a CC company can't necessarily tell you this instant that you only need to pay $x and no more to close the account (although there is no good reason why they shouldn't be able to quote your current balance).   What happens when you ""close an account"" is basically that they stop accepting new charges that were *made* after your notification, but they will still accept and bill you for legit charges that you incurred before you gave them notice. So basically, they ""turn off"" the credit-card, but they can't guarantee how much you owe until the next billing cycle after this one closes:  - You notify them to ""close"" the account. They stop authorizing new charges.   - Their merchant agreements basically give the merchant a certain window to process charges. The CC company process legit charges that were made prior to ""closing"" the account.   - The CC company sends you the final statement *after* that window for any charges has expired,  - When that final statement is paid (or if it is zero), *THAT* is when the account is settled and reported to Equifax etc as ""paid"".   So it's hard to tell from your post who was being overly semantic/unreasonable. If the CC company refused to tell the current balance, they were just being dickheads. But if they refused to promise that the current balance shown is enough to instantly settle the account forever, they had legit reasons.  Hope that helps." I've seen an increasing number of writeups about this.  Some peers think people just use more credit cards nowadays (instead of cash for instance), and that it's normal.  I'm not buying it.  I think this is a serious problem and I'm wondering how we're going to see this play into the US economy moving forward.  Also, if anyone knows how the EU is doing with credit card debt, I'd be grateful for any data points. Read your bill, question things that don't look familiar. People who steal credit card numbers don't bother to conceal themselves well. So if you live in Florida, and all of the sudden charges appear in Idaho, you should investigate. Keeping charge slips seems counter-productive to me. I already know that I bought gasoline from the station down the street, a slip of paper whose date may or may not align with the credit card bill is not very useful. The half-life for a stolen card is hours. So you tend to see a bunch of charges appearing quickly. If someone is stealing $20 a week from you over an extended period of time, the theif is probably someone you live or work with, and paper slips won't help you there either. "You state ""Any info will be appreciated"", so here's some background information on my answer (you can skip to my answer): When I worked for banks, I was required to submit suspicious activity to the people above me by filling out a form with a customer's name, SSN, account number(s) and ID.  You may hear in media that it is $10K or sometimes $5K.  The truth is that it could be lower than that, depending on what the institution defines as suspicious.  Every year we were required to take a ""course"" which implied that terrorists and criminals use cash regularly - whether we agree or disagree is irrelevant - this is what the course implied. It's important to understand that many people use cash-only budgets because it's easier than relying on the banking system which charges overdraft fees for going over, or in some cases, you pay more at merchants because of card usage (some merchants give discounts for cash).  If someone has a budget of $10K a month and they choose to use cash, that's perfectly fine.  Also, why is it anyone's business what someone does with their private property?  This created an interesting contrast among differently aged Americans - older Americans saw the banking system as tyrannical busybodies whereas young Americans didn't care.  This is part of why I eventually left the banking system; I felt sick that I had to report this information, but it's amazing how quick everyone is to accept the new rules.  Notice how one of the comments asks you what you intend to do with the money, as if it's any of their business.  Welcome to the New America©! My answer: If you withdraw $100,000, here is what will more than likely happen: Now, watch the anger at this answer because I'm telling you the truth.  This article will explain why.  Your very question had a negative 1, as if asking what you're asking is wrong (see the absurdity)!  If Joseph Stalin ran for president in the United States, the majority of Americans would welcome him.  You have good reason to be concerned; others at this site have noticed this as well." I have to second what the poster said above me. The person at the dealership is outright lying to you, and I really don't know where the misconception comes from. I work in finance and specialize in credit. Credit is your ability to repay. Simple as that. To lenders, constant carrying a balance on your credit cards looks like your don't have the ability/discipline to repay your debt and will look bad in the future if you are ever trying to borrow more. Banks and credit unions are constantly required to improve their detection methods for suspicious transactions.  It's not just big transactions anymore, it's scattered little ones, etc. Our credit union had to buy software that runs through transactions sniffing for suspicious patterns.  More regulations and more costs that ultimately get passed on to customers in one way or another. Some of your transactions probably tripped a wire where there was none before. It will be considered 'unused credit'. I have tried it yeas ago. They just report zero usage. "Understood. But based on the OP, it's not categorically clear what they were refusing.   If they refused to quote the balance and/or refused to take a phone payment that was otherwise in keeping with the cardholder agreement (i.e., the cardmember called the correct number for phone payments and balance-checking, etc), then yeah, they were not only being unreasonable, but also violating the contract.   What I read as ambiguous is whether the cardholder was specifically asking for the *payoff* balance/amount, and whether they were following process for phone-payments and balance-checking, etc.   IOW, it's not necessarily ""illegal"" and might not even be unreasonable for the customer-service number to have different departments for balance-checking and phone-payments versus card-cancellation. It's not falsifiably clear from the OP that the cardholder was not asking the person on the other end of the phone for categorical statements of fact that they were obligated to make.   I'm not accusing anyone of lying or saying that the CC company was acting reasonably, I'm just saying that language such as **""They do not provide mid-cycle payoff quotes""** is not evidence that they were doing any kind of funny-business." You were an unsecured creditor. If Refco had a corporate credit card Visa would be in the exact same position you were. Nothing to do with being the little guy per se, just that UCC Article 9/the Bankruptcy Code has a massive preference for secured creditors over unsecureds. (Which I think is not the best idea, but for other reasons.)  Just took my Secured Credit final a few days ago. Good! The article says it was some kind of collateral protection insurance that customers were signed up for despite it being unrequired for the loan. The accusations is that WF racketeered about 800,000 loans by bundling in this bunk insurance cost as part of the loan structure. I'm glad you're not caught up in it. Fun Fact Followup: The war on terrorism is directly correlated to increases in measures to follow money that isn't being claimed as income (aka laundered). The acts being instituted to prevent the funding of terrorism have made cash increasingly difficult to spend and made the tracking of earnings more of a priority.