Sunday, July 15, 2007

Google AdSense Ran Out of Fund

A recent blog post from a AdSense publisher reveal that AdSense's bank account does not have adequate funds to cover the amount listed on the check. Here is an extract from the conversation between the unlucky publisher and the bank teller:

“There aren’t sufficient funds in the account to cover your check.” *stunned silence* I say, “Excuse me, could you repeat that?” She does. ...

First, denial and disbelief. I say, “Are you sure? Do you know who Google is? You’re kidding me, right?” She says she does know who Google is, but that this particular account doesn’t have enough funds to cover my check. I’m too stunned to move. I look down at the check handled back to me and look back up at her confused.

Next, shock and awe. I say to the teller, “How does a gazillionaire company like Google have a bank account with so little money in it?” She laughs. I laugh.

I really don't know how to comment on this ... It sounds insane to me.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sounds like a bullshit story to me.

#1) The bank doesn't tell you that the check doesn't have sufficient funds when you go to the teller. They happily deposit it, then try to stick you with a fee when the check bounces.

Keith Chan said...

You're not the first one to question the legitimacy of the story and I, too, have some unanswered question in mind.

Ultimately ... only the original person who told the story knows whether it is real or not.

Anonymous said...

Ahem.
I am less wealthy than Google, and I have a form of "bounce-proof" checking (I think the bank has a more formal name for it, like "overdraft protection"). One would think that a bank customer with very good credit (like we are talking about here), (Google, this means you) would also want to take advantage of a similar type of service, offered by the bank. Why would they not?
Also, at least in the past, there have been some occasions, when making a deposit in to a checking account, where there would sometimes be some fine print, saying something like, that if the amount of the check is large, then the funds might not be "available" right away, to be withdrawn. (even though they have already started earning interest, say); I think this is to protect the bank, in cases where they think the check might bounce, and they don't want to be stuck if the account holder disappears, with a negative balance. But even in that kind of situation, couldn't a bank accept a deposit in a tentative way, as a so-called "collection" item? I remember reading something about that (ianal) in a book about business law. There was also something in there about a situation where a person is considered to be a "holder in due course"; but that might not have been, for a holder of a check. I think it was for a holder of a bond coupon.
If this story was on the level, then I would expect the holder of the check to post a scanned copy of the check, and not just a story.
my 0.02 ...

Keith Chan said...

Nice suggestion! I suppose the accountants in Google would find a way to figure this out soon.

Post a Comment

New! You can now receive emails whenever there are follow-up comments by signing into Blogger.

Off-topic posts will be deleted