The FedNow Service itself is the tip of the iceberg in terms of what actually happens from an end-to-end perspective.
We've been working to become a Certified Service Provider so feel free to ask me anything. I'm happy to share anything that is not under NDA.
Like: Do developers spin up entire fake economies with two banks and the fed on their latop, or is it all incremental changes to individual microservices in a big permanent test setup? Do other banks / service providers / the fed run test instances of their systems with fake money for other companies to do interop with, like a "global test financial network", or do you generally test with "real" money?
What do you see on your screen in day to day developer live? Are there like dummy online banking web interfaces? Or is it all text logs?
Is it just normal software development like anywhere else, or is there anything that really sets it apart in terms of developer workflow?
Test env: Separate permanent envs. From playground where nothing matters, env with some fake data in similar databases and variants of all systems, to mirror of prod with anonymised data, then prod
There are dummy online banking web interfaces
What sets it apart is that the operating system is painful to use and never stops being painful to use. And your employer is paranoid and keeps you in a digital prison for security so very few permissions so there is no creativity or off-road improvisational innovation just assemblyline style development
That, um, sounds reasonable to me in the context of what they're developing.
But this is regretful, and slows down everything by orders of magnitude. One of the big problems is lack of EFFICIENT documentation/Quick Starts. The guides are labrynthine in layout, looping and colliding spiders' webs of wtfness.
Access to production and its data should be highly regulated. Ideally no dev machine has any kind of write access to prod - instead it's commit access to a (non-master) branch which needs multiple approvals to be merged into a release branch.
Access to dev environments and their local code? Who cares, let them explore. As long as all code is reviewed prior to deploying, they could even be developing on a compromised machine and the live system will still be secure.
I think anything that could be appropriately described as infrastructure could also be described as outdated and messy, so that's not necessarily a reason in and of itself to let people experiment on banking infrastructure. Are software engineers (again, the type who end up working for the federal government and banks and government contractors) any more qualified to experiment on this stuff than people who have working in banking and finance?
Are they qualified? Sometimes a fresh perspective and courage is what is actually required rather than the home blindness that comes with following the careful bureacratic method for decennia. I would want there to be at least one mechanism in the universe that willpower from the bottom to actually improve the health of the core of these old institutions and companies. There is no mechanism at all currently for the person doing the actual work to take ownership, out of passion or duty, without first climbing the corporate ladder and becoming the grey suit decisionmaker not actually doing the tinkering any more.
I want to be able to own my own risk. If I identify a team need or personal need or business need I want to prototype it autonomously and have the control over my own computer and systems to do so while following all tests and procedures. I can pass it upward for a green light while following all test and development practices. Not only put someone elses decisions into practice while being bottlenecked by guardrails. These old institutions and old companies would pay anything to have something resembling startup agility, but they won't give up any power to self-selected intrapreneurs. I say let me own my own calculated risk . It can even be calculated risk, agreed ahead of time, this happens, that consequence. Off with my head, sure, tell me the cost that comes if I fail with some freedom and if it's losing my job then I'll accept it. If it's paying out of my pocket then I'll accept it. I'm not saying be reckless or not know what sort of risk one is taking. Open the door for calculated personal risk and let me remove the appropriate part of the guardrail. What's the point of being here if I can't use my own life force to change for the better that which crosses my path. Certainly not going to waste time, just fire me or fine me, I agreed to it to do more and better work because I care, hypothetically.
I'll admit the risks that comes with more access, if the risk is uncalculated and can't be owned in scale. Don't take risks, any at all, where the worst outcome is unethical or illegal, for everything that is production and customer data, or where the worst outcome is not even understood or out of scale. So some mindfulness, yes.
If someones personal tool becomes actually useful and the person leaves, then it becomes a weak link in an already unhealthy codebase. Or if they take decisions that don't come from above and somehow have enough access to also leak customer data or cause production issues, then compliance fines could happen. Or getting hacked, or breaking laws with unlicensed software or piracy or anything else, or disrupting other teams, or causing irreversible damage or data loss. Scary, I admit it! I see the paranoia from the top and I empathise!
Let's use bottom-up freedom for replacing the infrastructure with new technology, or lifecycle treatment or archiving, not for entrenching it with new development, or just not knowing what one is doing. But let's not get paralysed with fear. The scale is too heavily tipped in one direction. Shift it in the right direction.
From a software development perspective, it's really quite normal.
Always so cool to hear about this sort of stuff.
Up until a point, we were able to (easily) reproduce these messages via the ISO8583 message format via software. Makes certification much more automation-friendly.
Once we got into hardware encryption/decryption via HSM devices, it wasn't as easily done.
So back to the question, what's the dev env look like? :)
Meta-questions that you quite possibly can't answer: broadly speaking, what parts of this system are under NDA? Why would any part of this system be under NDA? Did any government agencies impose the NDA, or was it private companies? Is the NDA intended to protect those running the system, or is it intended to protect those using the system (IOW, is it security by obscurity)?
Netflix is part of the RFP Work Group. So presumably they are interested in offering consumers the ability to pay for Netflix using FedNow instead of a credit card. Instead of Netflix paying ~$0.50 in credit card processing fees per U.S. subscription they'll probably be able to find a bank willing to charge them < $0.25. It also gives consumers more control as they have to authorize each charge.
I guess that includes some very small values, but the upper bound seems ridiculously high.
I do wonder how stuff like this will shake out. I will use a credit card, always, with any vendor that doesn't pass along credit card fees to the customer in some way. (Why would I choose otherwise? The credit card gives me rewards, and better fraud protection.)
But more and more, I see companies charging "convenience fees" for credit card usage or offering "discounts" for cash/debit. Hell, T-Mobile just started requiring you not use a credit card to get their $5/mo autopay discount.
So this is all cool (and perhaps would make it easier for people who don't have a credit card to pay for Netflix), but I don't see why I'd use anything but a credit card to pay for my Netflix subscription, unless they offer discounts for using FedNow. Which... they probably won't?
Rewards on top are an added bonus.
The argument that you save interest on savings account doesn’t make any sense at all because I count my credit cards towards my emergency buffer. If I maxed out the credit card I would absolutely make sure to keep more money in my savings account.
I get that it’s different for people living paycheck to paycheck. But arguing that credit is a solution for the poor is a slippery slope. We should solve those problems other ways.
You come out ahead because the card issuers expect to make money from you because you'll stay with them a long time so offer substantial sign up bonuses (I don't) and that you'll pay interest (I don't). There are generally annual fees, but if you ask they'll often waive them (if you spend enough, again not accessible if you're living pay to pay).
It's ~effortless (bills paid automatically in full from a mortgage offset account) and saves money even without rewards and other perks (0% loans via interest free "balance transfers").
https://www.cardrates.com/advice/secured-cards-with-rewards/
I want banks and stripe and gateways and shopify and visa/mc to weed out bad actors fast.
and if some small shop starts to transact a lot, let them manage their risk, don't require consumer side credit for this.
there's already a ton of data, endless kyc/aml paperwork put on consumers and banks/gateways they should figure it out, and if someone still insists on paying hundreds of thousands on totally-free-bitcoins.top after the bank, the app, the browser, their neighbor warned them then let them. and let them try a chargeback.
is that not an absurdly slippery slope?
what if rather than anyone having to take advantage of anything, things just worked better, and everyone agreed that such things matter?
In lieu of that, how would you envision any society arriving at such an end state?
But we don't, and never will again, for very complicated reasons.
The United States didn’t even “trust” Black folks enough to allow them to drink from the same water fountain, live in the same neighborhood, go to the same school or be part of the financial system as late as the 60s.
https://www.fdic.gov/analysis/household-survey/index.html
I’m not saying we shouldn’t do anything for that 4.5%.
But almost anyone who has a bank account should at least be able to get a secured credit card
Yes, it is; its 15 million people in the US, more people than any state outside of the top 4.
Wow. Absolutely stunning.
I don’t have much to say other than “yes it is”
The failure in your logic is that different credit cards do have different fees and that some form of consumer protection should apply to debit cards as well
Don’t take advantage of “free delivery” because you buy in store? You’re paying for it anyways.
Don’t care about the ability to return for full refund because you changed your mind? You’re paying for it anyways.
Don’t care about the ability to link your washer to your Wi-Fi and use an app to see if your laundry is done? You’re paying for it anyways.
As for fairness, I agree they should go away. Companies with margin can swallow the fee, companies without could be unprofitable and make no sense if they don't pass on the fee. It's a practical reality of the dollars and cents, but it is a private apparatus we opt into so I guess we can't complain that much.
I'm searching using the European/international term for this sort of payment ("direct debit usa") which gives me API documentation from many American payment providers, but nothing about the customer's rights. I assume it's the technical term there, and there's another term used with the public.
(In Britain and the EU this kind of bill-paying agreement has very strong rights for the payer, they can ask their bank to reverse any transaction for a long time without giving a reason. My online banking interfaces have easy buttons to do this, or to block future transfers.)
However there are a lot more knock on effects while you’re waiting for actual cash to be put back into your account than there are when you’re just waiting to get a credit card transaction reversed.
Not only can they potentially drain your checking account. They can also drain any linked Savings account that you have to cover overdrafts.
I only keep $500 in my linked Savings account to cover any of our accounts.
Currently FedNow is simply a push payment system i.e. bank account holder may be able to use FedNow to push money out from their bank account to someone else's bank account.
The limitation here is the bank account holder must know the account number of the recipient. This is a huge limiter in adoption since most people don't want to share their bank account numbers and maintaining a directory of people's bank account numbers is cumbersome to say the least
Yes, the Fed is working on a directory but they have not yet announced the launch date for such a directory, not have they mentioned the index i.e. will it be phone number ? email ? something else ?
Bottom line: FedNow launch: Step in the right direction but still a long way to go
While far less common these days, people gave this information to arbitrary payees (via personal checks) for decades. The idea that it's not to be given to payers, despite it having been given to arbitrary payees, seems misguided. If someone tries to commit fraud with that number, they're probably going to get caught, making it sufficiently unlikely, no?
Crappy usability, no security, abysmal throughput and latency.
Speak for yourself. In my book, paper wins the usability front over apps, because apps suck and have too much personal administrative overhead.
They’re secure: they can only be cashed by the person they’re made out to (unlike cash).
They have theoretically infinite throughput: you can write any amount on a single check.
They have extremely high latency, which is why digital payments are being preferred in many situations. But the remaining situations where checks are used high latency is acceptable or even desirable.
Now I live in the USA and I actually use checks all the time. I get paid via a check, I pay with checks at my local farmstand, I used to pay my rent with a check, my immigration fees were paid with a check etc.
I think every vendor passes along the fees, either in aggregate through pricing, or to the individual as a charge. At least in the latter case it is more transparant and fair to non cc users.
Yes. Visited a T-Mobile store to set that up. Brought in a voided check. Said "Set up an ACH transfer, please." "What's an ACH transfer?" Took about half an hour, two rejects from the T-Mobile payment system with both me and the clerk checking the numbers, and a conversation with Bank of America customer support ("We didn't reject that, we won't see it until the daily batch.") Too many people are going to be paying T-Mobile a $60/year "convenience fee".
(Worse, BofA is apparently still charging for outgoing ACH transfers. And they're not on FedNow.)
I was never a big fan of any of the smaller credit union websites. A lot of stuff still required either going into a branch or hanging out on the phone, though here’s the one place they’re almost all better: you’ll never talk to someone overseas with a local credit union, often tech support will be a real life unix greybeard, who you’ll appreciate talking to once you provide the right shibboleth. But everyone else will most likely be branch employees manning the phones when they’re not busy in the branch. So if you’re ok with needing to talk to people to perform a lot of stuff the bigger banks offer web services for, a CU is definitely a more personal experience.
If you’re ok with no physical presence, discover is a pretty good option, totally free checking, and last time I checked they gave checks for free. I got like 500 almost 10 years ago and haven’t used more than 50, so idk if this is still something they offer but it sure is nice not worrying about inning out of checks or needing to pay for them.
Most bills are paid using this exact system. Credit cards are very rarely used except in-person. Since you have to accept (or tell your bank to always accept certain vendors) debits using this system, there’s never any surprises. You usually have nearly a week to accept a debit.
The ability to resolve this electronically rather than with cash makes it less bad, but still easier and faster to resolve it in store.
Credit cards give you reward points/money so that's not really a positive.
I can't imagine netflix giving up the stickiness of automatic recurring billing to say <2% of the transaction cost.
At least in the EU, a recurring billing over bank transfer is totally a thing...
"Netflix is part of the RFP Work Group. So presumably they are interested in offering consumers the ability to pay for Netflix using FedNow instead of a credit card. Instead of Netflix paying ~$0.50 in credit card processing fees per U.S. subscription they'll probably be able to find a bank willing to charge them < $0.25. It also gives consumers more control as they have to authorize each charge."
NB that last sentense. FedNow does NOT support recurring.
Other than with credit cards, there are no costs for customer kickbacks and chargebacks.
I'm just randomly curious: do you know which Federal Reserve Bank FedNow was developed at?
I had no idea it was the opposite in the UK.
Edit: with the exception of writing physical checks, of course. I use those when the receiver doesn’t accept Venmo or Apple Pay.
The GP was saying they use wire transfers between friends day-to-day which isn’t the case in the US.
My bank's mobile app supports cashing them in via camera. Niche use case, but nice to have it for this attempt at government agency nickle-and-diming the populace.
For payments to friends we use bank apps. Usually the receiver generates a QR code for the payment on their phone, which you scan from your bank app, sign with a pincode, and the payment is executed immediately. If you are not near you can also use their account number to transfer money instantly.
However, I have cashed some cheques - a tax refund cheque and a refund for my remaining balance when I closed a utilities account.
They have the advantage, for the sender, that you can discharge your responsibility to offer a refund by sending a letter, rather than having to interact with the other party. Of course these days you could email them a link to a web form.
How quickly a bank responds in that window depends greatly on the bank. In practice at decent scale, we see banks using every possible hour of that two day window to fail transactions.
An ACH debit made on Friday night technically has until open of business Wednesday to fail.
The larger banks have their own systems that only work within the bank; some smaller banks offer systems that work with any bank that offers the same system.
ACH exists, and I've used it to move money between accounts I own, but there is some friction to set up. I don't know anyone who uses it for C2C payments.
No, there's already Zelle, which is fairly popular now, though not as ubiquitous as instant bank transfers in other countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelle_(payment_service)
That seems rather excessive. Why on earth are Polish bank accounts so long?
* Zelle is basically better bank transfers and is already supported by many (most?) US banks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelle_(payment_service)
* Random 'third party' money transfer services like Venmo, Cashapp, Paypal, etc.
But similar to messaging in the US, the main issue is fragmentation. There's isn't quite a national consensus like some other countries have.
And Zelle is a bank to bank transfer network, not a third party service.
That's...what I said? Well, I guess I should've contrasted it better with the old, 'traditional' bank transfer payments.
The interface is very weird. Many people can't figure out how to use it. I ended up having to set up new email addresses and assign them to different bank accounts in order to distinguish my accounts.
1) The recipient needs to download the app and sign up. How does the Payor know whether the recipient has Zelle app or not
2) Even with the app, there are only about 50-100 banks that allow Zelle transfers. If someone's bank does not offer Zelle they are directed to enter their Debit Card number using "Push to Card" to receive the funds. While the funds land up in the bank account instantly either way, some Debit Cards have limitations and will not be enabled to receive funds
3) Zelle is essentially a "messaging layer" i.e. the actual settlement happens overnight using ACH rails. As a result the sending as well as the receiving bank are taking some risk in terms of allow the recipient to withdraw money when the underlying settlement hasn't happened. If the settlement fails the receiver's bank will need to claw bank the money from the receiver As a result there are some really low limits on daily transfers i.e. between 1-2K/day for most banks
4) Above all Zelle (like most other payment rails ) is a push system i.e. one can push money using Zelle. One may not pull money using Zelle
> 1) The recipient needs to download the app and sign up. How does the Payor know whether the recipient has Zelle app or not
This is not strictly true. You can still send money to bank accounts directly, but it's not instant.
Zelle is run by Early Warning Services [1], a joint venture between Bank of America, Truist, Capital One, JPMorgan Chase, PNC Bank, U.S. Bank, and Wells Fargo.
It's most definitely not "government-based".
1) Write a physical check (2-10 days from deposit, usually 2) 2) Use ACH (a virtual check) (2-10 days, usually 2) 3) Fedwire which costs $10-$15 to both the sender and receiver (15 minutes).
[1] https://explore.fednow.org/resources/technical-overview-guid...
There may also be implementation details or code which are subject to NDA, either from the Fed itself or from service providers such as IBM in this case. Sometimes you can get that info from a FOIA request, but that doesn't negate the fact that the employees working on the system are bound by an NDA. The FOIA has to happen and run its course.
That smells like security through obscurity (which admittedly is the status quo in the banking world).
Contrasted to approaches like Bitcoin, for which full code and whitepaper are public, and which has managed to survive every attack vector thrown at it for the last decade and a half. Not arguing for Bitcoin as money here, just highlighting the diverse approaches to security and that it shouldn't be taken as a given that hiding those details makes it more secure.
No one is posting their private keys on github, and when they do their crypto goes poof nearly instantly. None of the exchanges publish their threat model documents. I sure as shit don't tell people where I store my private keys.
The bitcoin whitepaper and code are more analogous to the ISO standard, which is public.
They did talk about having the entire system's source code/design publicly available.
Bitcoin gets around this by having absolutely no fraud prevention, and just saying "lol sucks for you should've been more careful"...
This is exactly the thing you _shouldn't_ put under NDA. What on earth?
From who does it earn the money to self fund itself? It certainly isnt the commercial banks.
Fraud and people trying to mess with the system has been a long term problem and likely always will be. The results of which can hurt people. Keeping details private can make it more difficult for those folks.
If we try to prioritize goals of a system like this... security for people should be one of the highest. I think of the middle income single parent when I envision an example of a person in this system.
Hey, that's neat. I'm super curious how much the internals of this thing could be compared with something like a cryptocurrency. Are those signatures representative of the identities making the transaction? Might it be technically feasible some day for me to craft a transaction on my phone to send money to someone, then publish it directly, and have the person instantly confirm that they received a payment without needing to talk to a bank?
I'm really curious if this is what is going to eventually morph into the CBDC that everyone seems so excited about, or if that project is going to start from scratch.
U.S. banking is so far behind the rest of the world. This development is very much welcome.
It seems like requiring the consumer to manually set up a push payment to a company would probably be annoying and error prone, compared to having them entering their details on a website and then the company requesting payment.
If I am a service provider, and want to use the FedNow service to power one of my offerings, how can I get started with that?
Edit: "The FedNow Service will initially leverage IBM® MQ MQi Client for the payment message flows." according to https://www.frbservices.org/financial-services/fednow/blog/a...
As far as message queues go for something like the federal reserve, IBM MQ is really the only option that wouldn't raise a lot of eyebrows in the industry. The Fed is not the kind of institution that I think people would be lenient on for being open and innovative with their software solutions, banks really need to know that this thing is going to work and they all run IBM MQ themselves already. Not to mention the integration possibilities with Db2 and IMS, which are both huge in finance.
My only complaint is that it is very expensive. That's the story with most of the kind of hardcore technical products IBM sells that are likely to wind up near mainframes. I'd imagine the Fed gets a sizeable discount though.
If you want througput, Kafka is the better option. Use a message queue for transaction processing against a specific target, where it is a requirement for you to have guaranteed, one-time and one-time only delivery, and possibly that its secret and should only be delivered to one target. You should conceptualize Kafka as being a tool to maintain a sort of distributed, global state. A message queue is more like getting served to go to court.
Technically, Kafka is an event stream, not a message queue (this can be confusing because event streams are often implemented at a surface level like message queues). The difference between an event and a message on a conceptual level is important though. There's plenty of good literature out there if you want to dig deep into the difference.
I'm aware that Kafka is low-level (and that there is kmq, which tries to implement a message queue on top of it https://github.com/softwaremill/kmq/ ), but the exactly-once semantics seems isomorphic to having the sender and the receiver doing a 2 phase commit using the log.
what are MQ's guarantees? how are they implemented?
On the one hand, I guess. On the other hand, I have a pile of the WebSphere product stack in my life. The app server is ten times the cost of MQ. WPS is another ten times the cost of the app server. It looks cheap when you're buying the really expensive stuff!
Also if you're using MQ for things like guaranteed delivery and making use of clustering and security controls I suspect it's cheaper to pony up for the IBM software than it is to spend time messing about in the thickets of the free alternatives.
FIX is, at its core, a message queue, and it’s a free financial industry standard. And, for any serious use in which the message queueing ability is important, FIX is wildly unfit for purpose.
Seriously, a deliver-once [0] message queue between two parties is very simple, and it’s truly remarkable how severely it can be screwed up. I’ve never used IBM’s solution, but I assume it actually works.
[0] Yes, deliver-once is impossible. But arranging for a failure to result in all messages up to a point being delivered, subsequent messages not being delivered, and the fact that a failure occurred being obvious to both parties is straightforward.
Half the banking sector runs on IBM and has been running on IBM for decades. They know the domain well and have legitimate credibility for being reliable. It's not comparable to some of their other markets.
Hitching a horse to a different technology platform that has only been around for a few years to complete a project that should last for many more decades would be an architectural choice that would only lead to high costs and high risk of major changes in the future and puts the whole system at risk.
How will this eventually benefit consumers beyond what Zelle currently provides?
I don’t know why anyone would assume they aren’t going to link it with the IRS, and make it available to any agency that asks.
If the plan is to offer a “money request” service and offer much the same functionality as Venmo, there will be a “for” line.
Even with credit card payments now, they are coded at a minimum.
Everything is logged always.
I think that it's a pretty handy format to be familiar with, and is quite simple to work with too.
If the Fed or participating banks decide to open up the system like European banks have done so, it can be handy to get familiar with it for us financial hackers out there!
It is just an easier way to connect and link accounts and data alongside it.
Quite a bit more than you seem to think.
https://engineering.gusto.com/how-ach-works-a-developer-pers...
Strictly speaking the primary means in which money moves in the United States from a volume perspective is ACH today. That system is a T+1 day from a default perspective, but it has offered the option to same-day settle during a handful of batches throughout a business day. However, ACH is not irrefutable and so it is common to have holds associated with this movement of money.
FedNow is truly 24/7/365 and push only.
All payment flows are subject to an end-to-end payment timeout clock of 20 seconds, starting from the creation timestamp to the point at which the recipient FI (almost always really a Service Provider on their behalf) sends a formal response that they intend to accept or reject the message.
An accepted payment must then be posted to the receiving account "as soon as practicable, but no longer than a few seconds” unless there are compliance/fraud concerns.
In practice, it should rarely take 23 seconds and will likely take 1-5 seconds from an end-to-end perspective depending on the processing speed of the originator, receiver and FedNow Service itself.
> And yet! Man! What the heck! A lot has been written about how SVB was a bank run for a speedier, modern age. Instead of hearing a rumor at the coffee shop and running down to the bank branch to wait on line to withdraw your money, now you can hear a rumor on Twitter or the group chat and use an app to withdraw money instantly. A tech-friendly bank with a highly digitally connected set of depositors can lose 25% of its deposits in hours, which did not seem conceivable in previous eras of bank runs. But the other part of the problem is that, while depositors can panic faster and banks can give them their money faster, the lender-of-last-resort system on which all of this relies is still stuck in a slower, more leisurely era. “When the user interface improves faster than the core system, it means customers can act faster than the bank can react,” wrote Byrne Hobart. You can panic in an instant and withdraw your money with an app, but the bank can’t get more money without a series of phone calls and test trades that can only happen during regular business hours. And so sometimes a bank that theoretically has a lot of liquidity can just run out of cash.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-03-22/silico...
Anyway, I'm not talking about FDIC.
Also I'm not sure if ACID is sufficient or not for banking systems.
DuckDB and SQLite easily handle terabytes of data. They're just not so much for cloud based apps, or things that need multiusers and access control junk. They're the best choice for just about everything else though.
There are physical bank note, database from different system in trust or untrusted parties that need to be cross checked and reconsolidated
Light travels about 300km in one millisecond in a vacuum, about 200km in optical fiber. The best achievable theoretical fiber optic RTT for NYC-LA is about 35-40ms. In practice 65ms+ is more realistic due to routing overhead and the fact that cables aren’t always laid in a great circle. This being a financial API with three parties involved in most transactions (the two banks and the fed clearinghouse) there is sure to be more than one round trip involved for TLS establishment, authentication, verification of funds and account availability etc, many of which involve traversing many inevitably complicated systems on each side. It would shock me if such a system could realistically target anything less than 500ms P50.
Maybe I should delete this comment before someone gets an idea and starts selling their get rich quick course.
And this should be available to customer investors (dudes at home) before retail investors (hedge funds)
The only limitation is that if you day trade, you'll need $25k in your margin account. If you don't day trade or you have $25k, you can withdraw $0.01 a few milliseconds after selling $0.01 in shares
I use "customers" to refer to souls that occupy residential real estate.
[1]: https://explore.fednow.org/resources/technical-overview-guid...
Thanks!