Why does it take 3 days to do electronic transfers between banks? [duplicate]
"I was perplexed by this until a few days ago when it finally clicked in a meeting with our fraud and money laundering teams in work (I work on trading surveillance). Apparently fraud detection and prevention of money laundering are currently the biggest delayers when it comes to electronic transfer of funds, checking that the transferring party has the funds to transfer etc. takes no time at all. It takes some time for a bank user to ""release"" a funds transfer; once it has been initiated it is put into a queue to be reviewed as potentially fraudulent or money laundering activity. Almost every transaction has to be monitored for this from a legal standpoint. The compliance process can take multiple days. Once the process is complete the request also has to go through ""settling"" which is an end of day process whereby banks ""net off"" their customers' transactions with other banks and only pass the net value between them. This is an end of day process by nature so only happens once a day meaning that once all of the checks have occurred any transaction will take until the end of the day to crystallise for the bank and so get credited to their customers' accounts. Incidentally in the UK and Europe banks are moving to streamline this process through ""faster payment"" systems (that is the industry term for the technology) so that customers see the effect within a few hours (2 in the UK currently) and then the banks net off at the end of day as usual. This means reducing the time it takes to do the checks that have to be done using specialist software to flag transfers as potentially fraudulent or not and making banks' processes much clearer and faster." "When Laurence Olivier took the role of Douglas Macarthur in the Unification Church's filming of Inchon, he told the press, ""People ask me why I'm playing in this picture. The answer is simple: Money, dear boy."" Banking systems are typically decades old and subject to innumerable legal and technical restrictions. Moving money more quickly from one client's account to another would definitely be in the clients' interest, but"
"Debit Cards have a certain processing delay, ""lag time"", before the transaction from the vendor completes with your bank. In the US it's typically 3 business days but I have seen even a 15 day lag from Panera Bread. I guess in the UK, payment processors have similar processing delays. A business is not obliged to run its payment processing in realtime, as that's very expensive. Whatever be the lag time, your bank is supposed to cover the payment you promised through your card. Now if you don't have agreements in place (for example, overdraft) with your bank, they will likely have to turn down payments that exceed your available balance. Here is the raw deal: In the end, the responsibility to ensure that your available balance is enough is upon you (and whether you have agreements in place to handle such situations) So what happened is very much legal, a business is not obliged to run its payment processing in realtime and no ethics are at stake. To ensure such things do not happen to me, I used to use a sub-account from which my debit card used to get paid. I have since moved to credit cards as the hassle of not overdrawing was too much (and overdraft fees from banks in the US are disastrous, especially for people who actually need such a facility)" "Echoing that bank fees are mostly ""because they can"", although partly this is because simply holding onto the money doesn't really pay enough for the physical infrastructure of branches, ATMs and staff. So like a budget airline they make it up on additional fees. But that document doesn't actually say they charge 3% for currency conversion! It's ""0.20% of transaction amount"" for currency conversion, which is not bad (although watch out for the ""spread"" between buying and selling rates). I see ""International POS/ATM Transaction Fee 3% of transaction amount"", which is very different. That's a card fee. The big issue with these is fraud - your card number suddenly being used in a different country will nearly always trigger extra fraud checks. It also involves a much more complicated settlement process. I'm more unimpressed with the monthly service charges and the huge $85 fee for international wire transfers." Generally, unless you're doing a wire transfer, bank transactions are processed in batches overnight. So the credit card company won't be able to confirm your transfer until the next business day (it may take even longer for them to actually receive the money). I phoned Tangerine; they enlightened me. It generally takes 2 hours for the email to arrive. Next, the recipient must open the email, click the link, and enter their bank account number. They'll generally receive the money 2-3 business days after that. This forum post suggests that the delays are due to systemic risk management, tendering, and clearing. Automated Clearing House transactions are used in the US for direct deposit of pay checks and direct debit of many payments for accounts such as mortgages, credit cards, car loans, insurance premiums, etc. The reason they take one or more business days to clear is that the transactions are accumulated by each processor in the network during the day and processed as a batch at the end of each business day.  The ACH network processes 20+ billion transactions per year worth $40 trillion, (estimates based on 2012 figures). Wire transfers normally run through either the Fedwire system or the Clearing House Interbank Payments System (CHIPS). The process generally works like this: You approach a bank or other financial institution and ask to transfer money. You give the bank a certain code, either an international bank account number or one of several other standards, which informs the bank where to send the money.  The bank sends a message through a system like Fedwire to the receiving bank, along with settlement instructions.  This is where the process can get a bit tricky. For the wire transfer to work, the banks must have reciprocal accounts with each other, or the sending bank must send the money to a bank that does have such an account with the receiver. If the sending bank sends the money to a third-party bank, the transaction is settled between them, and the money is then sent to the receiving bank from the third-party bank. This last transaction may be a wire transfer, ACH transfer, etc.  The Federal Reserve fits into this because many banks hold accounts for this purpose with the Federal Reserve. This allows them to use the Fed as the third-party bank referred to above. Interestingly enough, this is one of the significant ways in which the Fed makes a profit, because it, along with every other bank and routing agent in the process, collects a miniscule fee on this process.  You'll often find sources that state that Fedwire is only for transferring large transactions; while this is technically correct, it's important to understand that financial institutions don't settle every wire transfer or payment immediately. Although the orders are put in immediately, the financial institutions settle their transactions in bulk at the end of the business day, and even then they normally only settle the difference. So, if Chase owes Bank of America $1M, and Bank of America owes Chase $750K, they don't send these as two transactions; Chase simply credits BAC $250K.  You didn't specifically ask about ACH transfers, which as littleadv pointed out, are different from wire transfers, but since ACH transfers can often form a part of the whole process, I'll explain that process too. ACH is a payment processing system that works through the Federal Reserve system, among others. The Federal Reserve (through the Fedline and FedACH systems) is by far the largest payment processor.  The physical cash itself isn't transferred; in simple terms, the money is transferred through the ACH system between the accounts each bank maintains at the Federal Reserve.  Here is a simple example of how the process works (I'm summarizing the example from Wikipedia). Let's say that Bob has an account with Chase and wants to get his paycheck from his employer, Stack Exchange, directly deposited into this account. Assume that Stack Exchange uses Bank of America as their bank.  Bob, the receiver, fills out a direct deposit authorization form and gives it to his employer, called the originator. Once the originator has the authorization, they create an entry with an Originating Depository Financial Institution, which acts as a middleman between a payment processor (like the Federal Reserve) and the originator. The ODFI ensures that the transaction complies with the relevant regulations. In this example, Bank of America is the ODFI.  Bank of America (the ODFI) converts the transaction request into an ACH entry and submits it, through an ACH operator, to the Receiving Depository Financial Institution (RDFI), which in this case is Chase bank. Chase credits (deposits) the paycheck in Bob's account.  The Federal Reserve fits into all of this in several ways. Through systems like Fedline and FedACH, the Fed acts as an ACH operator, and the banks themselves also maintain accounts at the Federal Reserve, so it's the institution that actually performs the settling of accounts between banks. Transaction fees are part of the income for banks, and as we know they are profit making corporations just like any other Company. The differene is that instead of buying and packing and Selling groceries, they buy and package and sell Money. Within the rules and the market they will try to maximize their profit, exactly like Apple or GM or Walmart and so on. Sweden and Holland are part of the European union and the leaders of the union has defined (by law) that certain types of transactions should be done without fees. In order to transfer Money from your Swedish account to the Dutch account you do what is called a SEPA transaction, which should be done in one day without cost to you as a customer. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Euro_Payments_Area Gunnar "Your bank is maintaining different states for transactions, and changing the state depending on real-world events and the passage of time. withdraw €100 from my bank account on 30 September […] my bank does not process the transaction until 2 October. The bank probably have that transaction marked as “pending” on 30 September, and “cleared” on 2 October. transfer €100 from Bank A to Bank B, Bank A's statement dates the transaction on 20 September, but Bank B dates it as coming in on 22 September. Similarly, bank A will have the transaction marked as “pending” initially. Bank B won't have a corresponding transaction at all, until later; they'll have it “pending” too, until they confirm the transfer. Then (probably at different times from each other) the banks will each mark the corresponding transactions “cleared”. The bookkeeping software that I use doesn't seem to allow for this ""transfer time"" between accounts. When I enter a transfer from one account to another, they both have to have the same date. You may want to learn about different bases of accounting. The simpler option is “cash-based” accounting. The simplification comes from assuming transactions take no time to transfer from one account to another, and are instantly available after that. Your book-keeping software probably books using this simpler basis for your personal finances. The more complex “accrual-based” accounting tracks each individual transaction through multiple states – “pending”, “transfer”, “cleared”, etc. – with state changes at different times – time of trade, time of settlement, etc. – to more accurately reflect the real world agreements between parties, and different availability of the money to each party. So if your book-keeping program uses “cash basis”, you'll need to pick which inaccuracy you want: book the transfer when you did it, or book the transfer when the money is available at the other end." I believe there are electronic exchanges that run continuously,  but the older ones don't want to change their practices since some people may have strategies which  (claim they) are based on this behavior so there would be a lot of unhappy people if it was altered. The pause doesn't seem to do any harm. There are alternatives if you dislike it. Don't try to fix what isn't broken. The reason they want the transaction to go through is because they make money that way. Remember the overdraft protection might incur a fee. If it does their experience may show them that the fee is a greater source of profit when balanced against the losses incurred because of insufficient funds. Even free overdraft transactions are limited. If they didn't want to make money they would have a way to make sure that multiple overdrafts in a short time window wouldn't require multiple protection events. Remember each time they transfer funds they only bring you to zero. As it is now the coffee you buy after putting money on your subway fare card might also trigger an overdraft transfer. Behind the scenes of banking are a lot of very manual processes especially when something goes wrong. These take extra time not only because it involves people reviewing what went wrong but also because the bank will take extra steps to reduce human error (e.g. technical jargon about maker/checker, dual controls). Something like this can easily get held up for a month and the best way to jump the queue is to start complaining a lot, calling customer service frequently, asking to talk to management and otherwise pestering the bank until someone senior gets your problem fast-tracked so you stop giving them a headache. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_gateway There is essentially a lead time between when the transaction is made and when it is settled, 2-3 business days is the lead time for settlement. The link explains the process step-by-step Mainly because they can.  Yes, there is a cost for banks to execute such transactions, and yes, there is a cost to cover the implied risks, but it is far from 3 or 4%. There are banks that charge a flat rate of less than 30$ (and no percentage), so for larger amounts, it is worth shopping around. Note that for smaller amounts, which are the majority of personal transactions, that is probably about as, if not more expensive, than paying 3% - below 1000$, 3% is less than 30$. So charging a percentage is actually better for people that want to transfer smaller amounts. I have taken to using the service TransferWise. I have found them to be faster and cheaper and easier than using SWIFT, given the US Banking's... antiquated system of doing things. I've made dozens of transfers between my international accounts with TransferWise over the past 18 months. Some of them very large and some of them tiny, and even when there's been an issue (I once wrote an offensive joke in my narration for the transfer and they noticed) they have handled it respectfully and quickly. Prior to transferring money to US accounts, I used the SWIFT system - but SWIFT has a pretty spotty record in the US. Some banks you can do it all online but other banks, as Dheer mentioned, you have to go into the bank and sometimes find a senior staff member before you can find someone who even knows what SWIFT is. "To add in a brief expansion to Portman's complete answer.  The payment can also be thought of as compensation for your ""switching cost"".  Obviously it is inconvenient to transfer your account from one bank to another (changing static payments, stationery, that sort of thing).  The cash is offered as payment towards that inconvenience.   Given the profits that banks make you can think of the $100 in much the same way as a store offering you a 5% discount on your next shopping trip."