Hacker News Reader

Comment by notyourday | Hacker News Reader

> Has she tried sending a wire outside of US lately?

Costs at most about $35 for any size wire, shows up in a corresponding bank within a day. If the corresponding bank is not the ultimate destination, takes whatever the amount of time it takes for the end transaction to complete. In event of a bank mess up on a transfer, the wire gets rejected/credited back. For banks that do "online" FedWire rather than batched, wires show up and are credited within seconds.

What, exactly, is the problem?

P.S. Non-immediate transfer is a feature and not a bug.

View on HN

This is 10000% bullshit. Everyone on here says "oh yeah, it's easy to send a wire anywhere in the world", but as someone who's actually spent decades living abroad as a US citizen, this couldn't be further from the truth. International banking never works the way it's supposed to. Shit always inexplicably gets delayed, or canceled, or fails for some obscure reason that requires spending 9 hours on the phone with clueless customer support monkeys.

There have actually been a few times where non of my bank cards (chase, bofa, credit union) work for cash withdrawal and I've used a Bitcoin ATM to get cash until I could get something figured out.

> Everyone on here says "oh yeah, it's easy to send a wire anywhere in the world", but as someone who's actually spent decades living abroad as a US citizen, this couldn't be further from the truth.

That's simply not the case as someone who authorizes or validates wire transfers for the companies would be able to confirm.

> There have actually been a few times where non of my bank cards (chase, bofa, credit union) work for cash withdrawal and I've used a Bitcoin ATM to get cash until I could get something figured out.

There have been several orders of magnitude more cases where standard bank cards worked in the ATMs and bitcoin ATMs did not.

I’m not a company, I’m a person. International wires probably work better if you have accountants to hammer out the bullshit.

I’ve never had a Bitcoin ATM fail, but I’ve had normal ATMs fail all the time even in first world countries like Japan, HK, Singapore.

I don't want to presume, but what you are describing is a theory of how it is supposed to work. That theory holds up for a majority (~80%+ depending on an institution - I am not willing to make more specific statements ) of wires, but remaining 20% can be held up for a variety of reasons ranging from fraud investigation, AML, or OFAC. For those 20% the banking system as it is right now, is a problem.

edit:

"P.S. Non-immediate transfer is a feature and not a bug. "

That may have been true/acceptable before - back when time span between order and payment was greater. If it is a feature, it is a feature for the bank, not the user.

> but remaining 20% can held up for a variety of reasons ranging from fraud investigation, AML, or OFAC. For those 20% the banking system as it is right now, is a problem.

AML, OFAC will absolutely take time and no interbank transfer would bypass it in any US chartered bank as they are triggered during a match in the FedWire or any other system that uses the Fed.

KYC and fraud investigations are triggered by the originating bank, most likely because the account has been flagged. Until the account is cleared any transfers out of the account would trigger them and delay them.

KYC-type and fraud investigations could also be triggered by the receiving bank if the account is either flagged or the activity is matching certain parameters - it is less likely but possible. Should that happen, no matter what is the method that was used to credit the account is likely to trigger it.

> For those 20% the banking system as it is right now, is a problem.

That makes it 1 out of 5 wires. It is extremely unlikely to be the case.

> That may have been true/acceptable before, where time span between order and payment was greater. If it is a feature, it is a feature for the bank, not the user.

It absolutely is a feature to the user - it allows for an easy rollback of journaling mistakes.

1 in 5 seems like a high proportion to me. I will admit that I find it mildly aggravating that people wave away a genuine complaint with 'it only happens in 1 out of 5 cases'. Is it an acceptable ratio? Would we accept a plane that lands for non-routine issue 1 out of 5 times?

>> That makes it 1 out of 5 wires. It is extremely unlikely to be the case.

I don't think I could honestly qualify 1 out of 5 with adverb extremely. Even unlikely feels like a stretch. Let me give you an example, if you submitted your taxes online and before you submitted it, it gave you a chance percentage of an audit, would you roll the dice at 20%?

>> It absolutely is a feature to the user - it allows for an easy rollback of journaling mistakes.

Having dealt with those mistakes, I still maintain that it is there cover the bank.

> I don't think I could honestly qualify 1 out of 5 with adverb extremely. Even unlikely feels like a stretch. Let me give you an example, if you submitted your taxes online and before you submitted it, it gave you a chance percentage of an audit, would you roll the dice at 20%?

There's no such thing as 20% of international wires that get delayed. American brokers do hundreds of thousands of international wire transfers every day. If 20% of those were delayed, it would collapse the global financial system.

You statements appear to be taken from various institution's brochures ( ranging from $35 wire transfer cost - international, which is what we were discussing, wire average cost is higher ; "shows up in a corresponding bank within a day" - technically true, but virtually meaningless to a sender/recipient ). They are also very definitive, matter-of-fact and made with aura of conviction, but allow me to quote to you stating the following.

"P.S. Non-immediate transfer is a feature and not a bug. "

Since we are playing with words, non-immediate transfer is a delay and it is at odds at the other statement you have made:

"If 20% of those were delayed, it would collapse the global financial system. "

It wouldn't, because it didn't. But clearly that part doesn't matter, because entities and individuals affected tend not to be well-heeled and so unlikely to be able to force the bank to take some sort of action.

All that said, I am done discussing this.

Over my life I have dealt with over a thousand wire transfers including international, both business and personal with over a dozen banks. So yes, I can pretty definitively say when something does not match the reality.

The delay in the international wires that are a feature ( 1-3 business days ) have nothing in common with the 20% arbitrary delay of unknown duration that you have promoted. That's the 20% delay that would collapse the world financial system.

If you need to send payments instantly, there are many other options out there, not the least of which is credit/debit card which is virtually instant and used... *everywhere*. What exactly do you want here?

What I want.. what I want is for people to stop accepting the world as it is just because it is in this set up in this particular configuration. I want people to realize that they can actually shape the world to fit their needs.

That is what I want.

And if you really tried to use credit/debit card for those purposes, you quickly understand their limitations ( amounts come to mind ).

What scenario do you need to instantly send more than a credit card limit? Sounds like you're talking big money, $10,000+ type of transfers.

This is very much so like the entire cargo/freight "Hyper-Loop" thing, or Rocketship cargo/freight, or even the Supersonic Aircraft thing... a solution in search of a problem.

There are very few scenarios were someone legitimately (and more importantly, frequently) requires sending a package to the other side of the world within minutes. Would it be nice? Perhaps... but just as Concord found out, after the novelty wears off, few actually want to drop $10K on a one way ticket.

With huge amounts of money being transferred, the delays are in fact a feature. It gives you time to cancel if there was a mistake... and it gives banks opportunity to sniff out fraud/laundering, that the money is in-fact real and not pending other transactions, etc.

I've just never heard of a scenario where someone needed $50k instantly sent anywhere for anything. When dealing with that amount of money, in a non-reversible/permanent system... being careful, deliberate and slow is pretty much what you want.

Even Bitcoin transfers are not instant...

> I've just never heard of a scenario where someone needed $50k instantly sent anywhere for anything.

maybe not $50k, but "deposit paycheck on same day rent is due" is a fairly common problem that people have. the person has the money to pay rent, but it might not clear before their rent check bounces. there still exist landlords that only accept payment via check.

I agree in general. wires are fast enough for most truly large transfers of money, if only because the recipient is usually willing to be more flexible with such a large amount on the line.

It's been quite some time, but every landlord I had which required a check only required having the physical check in-hand by the 1st (or more commonly by the 5th if it was being mailed).

If you're bouncing rent checks because it took too long to clear, you have other issues and immediate withdrawal isn't going to save you anyway.

Besides, if you're cutting checks of the same amount every month, you can setup BillPay (free at most/all? banks) and let your bank handle writing/mailing the check on time.

> If you're bouncing rent checks because it took too long to clear, you have other issues and immediate withdrawal isn't going to save you anyway.

I'm talking about people who barely make enough money to cover their monthly expenses, so yeah that financial situation is hardly ideal. someone in this situation definitely does not want to set up autopay against their checking account.

it's a sort of death by a thousand cuts for people in this situation. you generally have to pay rent in advance (ie, you pay that month's rent on the first of the month). you get "paid" at the end of a two week period, but then it takes about a week for your employer to process payroll. if your employer doesn't do direct deposit, you now have a check in hand that takes about two days to clear. that two days isn't the bulk of the problem, but it can definitely be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

> but "deposit paycheck on same day rent is due" is a fairly common problem that people have. the person has the money to pay rent, but it might not clear before their rent check bounces. there still exist landlords that only accept payment via check.

Two things:

1. For paper checks, this has been addressed via Check21 which took effect at the end of 2004. It enforces funds availability for even for non-local checks and/or bank drafts.

2. Writing a check against an account that does not have available funds has all the characteristics of check kiting. Check kiting is illegal.

For non-checks ACH credits settle before ACH debits or any other debit transactions.

The EU now requires 15'000€ transfers in under 2 minutes and less than 1,50€ fees, and any other transfers in under 24 hours for free (for non-commercial customers).

What do they mean by "transfer"? I can transfer money to a friend for lunch instantly already, using a plethora of apps such as PayPal, Cash, Venmo, etc.

Or, if I write a check, and they deposit it on their bank's phone app, nearly always the funds are available immediately.

$15,000 Euros is a lot of money... I honestly wonder what problem was solved by mandating that amount of money must be transferred, cleared, and available for withdrawal within 2 minutes. It seems to me nobody has a legitimate reason for that, unless you're a Nigerian Prince.

What problem did it solve and why is it considered a good thing?

€15000 (we have a whole symbol for the Euro) isn't that much money. You definitely might buy a second hand car for that much, and I don't want to give you the keys until the money appears in my account, even if legally you'd have "stolen" it if your money wasn't good, that's a huge hassle.

And I've certainly sent somewhat smaller amounts for stuff like "Hey trip is on, we booked that holiday villa, €1000 for single rooms, €800 each if you're sharing, let me know if you can't pay this week".

I'm sure this rule would have been fine if it was €10 000 rather than €15 000 but how often do you want politicians to re-authorise? If it was €1000 by now people would be annoyed at the size limit already.

> €15000 (we have a whole symbol for the Euro)

I don't have one on my keyboard unfortunately, otherwise I'd happily use it where appropriate!

> And I've certainly sent somewhat smaller amounts for stuff like "Hey trip is on, we booked that holiday villa, €1000 for single rooms, €800 each if you're sharing, let me know if you can't pay this week".

Your scenario doesn't seem to have been impacted by 2 minute mandatory transfer times in either direction.

> I'm sure this rule would have been fine if it was €10 000 rather than €15 000 but how often do you want politicians to re-authorise? If it was €1000 by now people would be annoyed at the size limit already.

Sure it's an arbitrary amount and they had to pick some amount I suppose. Even $10K is a lot for an ordinary person - potentially life changing if lost in some unfortunate instant transfer with the wrong number entered. That, of course, is a human problem (typing wrong number or whatever), but the delays we're talking about provide a safety cushion to cancel transactions in those scenarios.

Deliberately fooling people into giving the wrong account numbers for transactions they wanted to make, but to somebody else ("Push Fraud") was a thing in the UK. So, they told the banks to make the previously merely reference value for the recipient's name actually enforced.

If I try to give money to Victoria Smith 12-34-56 0123456789 then the backend will notice that's not Victoria Smith's account, and tell me I need to figure out what I did wrong. Maybe the problem is Victoria married, and is now Victoria Jones, you can clear that up. Maybe I got the number wrong. Maybe she's Victoria Smyth or Smithe and then it'll suggest this was just a typo using some heuristic. Or maybe it's the account of a scammer named Michael Black and the scam fails because the name doesn't match.

This was a bit awkward for my ISP because their name has an ampersand in it, and so of course this means some banks end up believing their name is "Andrews &AMP; Arnold" and similar stupidity. But it's been bedded down now a bit.

This approach leverages a reference for the payee that existed but was previously not checked, plus KYC checks already in place, it's hard these days to open accounts for names that aren't yours or with no apparent credit history for an organisation.

(a) using third party apps instead of the banking system itself is a workaround, not a solution. especially as those apps demand fees.

(b) cheques have been deprecated and stopped being accepted in the EU in 2004.

It solves the same issue as paypal, cash, venmo, etc, except the receiver can immediately use the money for any and all purposes, without fees, without yet another third party app.

This in turn allows new third party apps to be built on top of the new infrastructure.

Can I ask where this <2 minutes comes from? As various banks I work with don't follow that.

I get a few transfers in the EU per month and sometimes I am lucky if it is same day (if done in the morning) but in most cases I get it the next day.

Heck, in same country, I have two bank accounts and transfer between them have never been faster than 4-6 hours. (Same bank is seconds though)

That's the SEPA instant spec which is slowly being rolled out and will become mandatory to support in the future.

If your bank doesn't support it yet, the old 24h limit applies.

When you are sending with a credit card, you are not sending it anywhere near "instantly". The receiving end pays a 2-3% fee, and doesn't actually get access to the funds for anywhere from a few days to a month later. And even once they receive the money, it can be clawed back if it's fraudulent, was done with a stolen card, etc.

> What I want.. what I want is for people to stop accepting the world as it is just because it is in this set up in this particular configuration. I want people to realize that they can actually shape the world to fit their needs.

The more I do that - the more I want to go off into a corner and plant shit in the ground and stay the hell away from people. They are super dangerous. And honestly, I can shape the world exactly the way I want by doing it that way.

In all other efforts where people are involved, trying that for 42 years and it hasn't worked well yet.

> Costs at most $35

Well there's your problem. Where is that $35 heading? For a $35 transaction fee, I'd expect my money to arrive instantly and to work reliably. Sounds like that's pretty far from the truth.

I'm sure there are a hundred reasons why it's not that simple and it needs to cost a lot of money, but fundamentally, you're decrementing a number in one bank and incrementing a number in another. I can see why people would want that to be cheap, fast, and reliable given that it's a pretty simple thing to accomplish on the internet.

> Well there's your problem. Where is that $35 heading? For a $35 transaction fee, I'd expect my money to arrive instantly and to work reliably. Sounds like that's pretty far from the truth.

The bank charges the service fee. It ranges from $0.00 to about $35.00

> I can see why people would want that to be cheap, fast, and reliable given that it's a pretty simple thing to accomplish on the internet.

International wire transfer is, at most, a settlement service for payments, not a payment service.

As someone who has been living abroad for the better part of a decade, this is simply not consistently true, no matter how much you want to beat your chest about it.

If you are having a problem wiring from the US banks to the "abroad banks" while living abroad it is clear that you do not give a shit about it as if you are banking with the first tier foreign banks ( i.e. banks that have correspondent accounts with the US financial institutions such as JPM Chase, Bank of America, Citi, HSBS, Wells Fargo, etc ) it would be the case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com