If a bank has a transfer limit, what happens if another bank pushes/pulls more than that?
If bank B has a transfer limit set, you bet that there is a nice reason for that. Either risk of fraud, liability, client preferences, profiling, credit scoring, etc, etc. For a bank, the cost of denying something [1] is way lower than the potential damages and liabilities of allowing something to go through.  Regarding your concerns for the ACH, here is the summarized transaction walkthrough source: An Originator– whether that’s an individual, a corporation or another entity– initiates either a Direct Deposit or Direct Payment transaction using the ACH Network. ACH transactions can be either debit or credit payments and commonly include Direct Deposit of payroll, government and Social Security benefits, mortgage and bill payments, online banking payments, person-to-person (P2P) and business-to-business (B2B) payments, to name a few. Instead of using paper checks, ACH entries are entered and transmitted electronically, making transactions quicker, safer and easier.  The Originating Depository Financial institution (ODFI) enters the ACH entry at the request of the Originator.  The ODFI aggregates payments from customers and transmits them in batches at regular, predetermined intervals to an ACH Operator.  ACH Operators (two central clearing facilities: The Federal Reserve or The Clearing House) receive batches of ACH entries from the ODFI.  The ACH transactions are sorted and made available by the ACH Operator to the Receiving Depository Financial Institution (RDFI).  The Receiver’s account is debited or credited by the RDFI, according to the type of ACH entry. Individuals, businesses and other entities can all be Receivers.  Each ACH credit transaction settles in one to two business days, and each debit transaction settles in just one business day, as per the Rules.  Take heed of this like:  The Originator initiates a direct deposit/payment transaction. In your scenario, the originator would be B. But since the transaction amount is higher than the limit, B would not even initiate the ACH transaction. The request would be denied. So the transaction would look like this: [1] Usually this cost comes down to just the processing costs of the denied transaction (and it is rather fail-fast like). For the other parties involved it may have additional costs (missed deadlines, penalties for not fulfilling an obligation, fines, etc), but for the bank that is irrelevant. Or at least I saw it do so with Bank of America.
I'd say it's a limitation of your bank. Every bank I've ever used had instant transfers between accounts at the same bank. "After this happened the second time, I wonder if there could be a ""catch"" on this.  No I mean, what is my bank's real motivation for allowing me to spend more money.  Credit card companies make money in a few ways. By giving you a higher limit the credit card company hopes you will spend more on the card. This immediately gets them more merchant fees and if they are lucky means you will have to carry the balance for a while earning them interest. If they get really lucky you will miss a payment or two earning them some fees. Of course if they let you borrow too much you might never pay it back. So the credit limit is a balancing act. Letting you borrow more money gives them the potential to make more money but also the potential to lose more money. As you build up a history of paying as agreed they feel comfortable lending you more money." It seems possible if the Euro is partially/entirely unwound that policies could be enacted to prohibit exactly this behavior, otherwise what will stop outflow to the stronger countries on a massive scale? (Thus amplifying the resulting decade-long clusterfuck)  We've never had this situation in Europe before, and already for Greece and Spain there are suggestions to instigate withdrawal controls. It doesn't seem far fetched to imagine retroactive controls placed on private deposits in newly-foreign-currency banks.  If I were concerned about the Euro's collapse I'd be more inclined to move assets out of the eurozone entirely So this method makes sense and is reasonable and possible.  The money multiplier effect ends up capped by the fact that the bank can only lend a percent of its 'cash'.    My issue understanding this is I've been told that banks actually don't hold 10% of the cash and lend the other 90% but instead hold the full 100% in cash and lend 900%.  Is this accurate?  The issue I see with it is that it becomes exponential growth that is uncapped.  If the bank lends 900%, it has created this money from nothing, which by itself isn't different that the bank loaning 90% and keeping 10%.  The issue comes because the next bank who gets that money deposited will treat that amount as cash as well, so they loan 900% of the 900%.  And so on and so forth.  How does the system prevent this from happening? "Let's divide all bank accounts into savings and checking. The main difference is that checking is easy to get money from; savings is hard to get money from. Because of this, the federal Reserve requires that banks keep more money on hand to cover transactions in checking accounts. Here is a related question from a banking customer regarding a recent notice on their bank statement: Deposit Reclassification. It seems that the bank was moving the customer's money between hidden sub accounts to make it look like the checking account was really a savings account and thus ""reduce the amount of funds we are required to keep on deposit at the Federal Reserve Bank."" If they didn't have to transfer the money many times the bank could keep less cash on hand. But once they did 5 hidden transactions the rest of the money in the hidden savings account would be moved by the bank. The 6 transaction limit is done to not allow you to treat savings like checking. Here is a relevant quote from the Federal Reserve Savings Deposits  Savings deposits generally have no specified maturity   period. They may be interest-bearing, with interest computed or paid   daily, weekly, quarterly, or on any other basis. The two most   significant features of savings deposits are the ‘‘reservation of   right’’ requirement and the restrictions on the number of   ‘‘convenient’’ transfers or withdrawals that may be made per month (or   per statement cycle of at least four weeks) from the account. In order   to classify an account as a ‘‘savings deposit,’’ the institution must   in its account agreement with the customer reserve the right at any   time to require seven days’ advance written notice of an intended   withdrawal. In practice, this right is never exercised, but the   institution must nevertheless reserve that right in the account   agreement. In addition, for an account to be classified as a ‘‘savings   deposit,’’ the depositor may make no more than six ‘‘convenient’’   transfers or withdrawals per month from the account. ‘‘Convenient’’   transfers and withdrawals, for purposes of this limit, include   preauthorized, automatic transfers (including but not limited to   transfers from the savings deposit for overdraft protection or for   direct bill payments) and transfers and withdrawals initiated by   telephone, facsimile, or computer, and transfers made by check, debit    card, or other similar order made by the depositor and payable to   third parties. Other, less-convenient types of transfers, such as   withdrawals or transfers made in person at the bank, by mail, or by   using an ATM, do not count toward the six-per-month limit and do not   affect the account’s status as a savings account. Also, a withdrawal   request initiated by telephone does not count toward the transfer   limit when the withdrawal is disbursed via check mailed to the   depositor.  Examiners should be particularly wary of a bank’s practices   for handling telephone transfers. As noted, an unlimited number of   telephone-initiated withdrawals are allowed so long as a check for   the withdrawn funds is mailed to the depositor. Otherwise, the limit   is six telephone transfers per month. The limit applies to telephonic   transfers to move savings deposit funds to another type of deposit   account and to make payments to third parties." You may still get an exception hold on the transfer if all of the named account holders on the checking and savings do not match. In my time in banking such an internal hold was exceedingly rare but did occur if other red flags were present.  Usually a hold is not an issue when transferring to savings.  Further, regardless of the factors above, your institution may require you to complete the transfer with a teller rather than digitally, but that's the institution's choice. Side note about large transfers: When you're doing an internal transfer of $100,000.00 or more, even if named account holders match, some banks' back-end systems will only process this amount in one day as a wire. If so, they will likely waive the wire fee. "Probably the most significant difference is the Damocles Sword hanging over your head, the Margin Call. In a nutshell, the lender (your broker) is going to require you to have a certain amount of assets in your account relative to your outstanding loan balance. The minimum ratio of liquid funds in the account to the loan is regulated in the US at 50% for the initial margin and 25% for maintenance margins. So here's where it gets sticky. If this ratio gets on the wrong side of the limits, the broker will force you to either add more assets/cash to your account t or immediately liquidate some of your holdings to remedy the situation. Assuming you don't have any/enough cash to fix the problem it can effectively force you to sell while your investments are in the tank and lock in a big loss. In fact, most margin agreements give the brokerage the right to sell your investments without your express consent in these situations. In this situation you might not even have the chance to pick which stock they sell. Source: Investopedia article, ""The Dreaded Margin Call"" Here's an example from the article: Let's say you   purchase $20,000 worth of securities   by borrowing $10,000 from your   brokerage and paying $10,000 yourself.   If the market value of the securities   drops to $15,000, the equity in your   account falls to $5,000 ($15,000 -   $10,000 = $5,000). Assuming a   maintenance requirement of 25%, you   must have $3,750 in equity in your   account (25% of $15,000 = $3,750).   Thus, you're fine in this situation as   the $5,000 worth of equity in your   account is greater than the   maintenance margin of $3,750. But   let's assume the maintenance   requirement of your brokerage is 40%   instead of 25%. In this case, your   equity of $5,000 is less than the   maintenance margin of $6,000 (40% of   $15,000 = $6,000). As a result, the   brokerage may issue you a margin call. Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/university/margin/margin2.asp#ixzz1RUitwcYg" There is nothing to worry about. There is absolutely nothing unusual about moving money between your own accounts, even if they are in separate financial institutions. I moved $200,000 when I was getting ready to by my house; I have moved similar sized chunks for other purposes. A large transfer may get some attention to make sure you aren't doing anything illegal with the money and aren't being scammed... but if the transaction is legitimate, that attention is harmless. In addition to @mhoran_psprep answer, and inspired by @wayne's comment.  If the bank won't let you block automatic transfers between accounts, drop the bank like a hot potato They've utterly failed basic account security principles, and shouldn't be trusted with anyone's money. It's not the bank's money, and you're the only one that can authorize any kind of transfer out.  I limit possible losses through debit and credit cards very simply. I keep only a small amount on each (~$500), and manually transfer more on an as needed basis. Because there is no automatic transfers to these cards, I can't lose everything in the checking account, even temporarily. "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." Here's a point in favor of central banks: With a central bank in the middle making sure payments clear, transactions can happen with near perfect trust. When a bank has a daylight overdraft, the Fed covers it. When a bank needs overnight funding, the Fed provides it. If a bank needs vault cash, a truck shows up from the Fed.  Without this, no one could ever be entirely confident the other party was money-good. With a volume of transactions that can amount to annual GDP in as little as six days, this level of trust is critical to a smoothly functioning system of payments. There are restrictions on transferring money OUT OF Egypt (although less tight than previously: http://www.aawsat.net/2014/01/article55326839 ) but there aren't any such restrictions on sending money INTO Egypt.  If you go to HSBC's retail UK banking pages and locate the page for International Money Transfers, http://www.hsbc.co.uk/1/2/international-money-transfer you can see that you can transfer up to £50,000 per day into Egypt via online banking, £10,000 via telephone banking, or unlimited by visiting the branch. I'm not sure exactly what question you asked them or exactly what they said to you in response, but it sounds like there was some misunderstanding along the way. It depends on the bank and network. Banks are to provide outgoing data at the certain time for the processing by the central clearing house (the Federal Reserve system, for ACH), which then distributes incoming data back to the banks. All this has to be done between the closing of the business day and the opening of the next one. If the transaction hasn't completed the full path during that time - it will wait at the position it was stuck at until the next cycle - next night. That's why sometimes ACH transactions take more than 1 day to complete (if, for example, multiple Fed banks have to be involved). "Like the old American Express commercial: ""no preset spending limit"". It is really up to the bank(s) in question how big a cheque they are willing to honour. A larger amount would likely be held longer by a receiving institution to ensure that it cleared properly, but nothing written in law (in Canada, that I am aware of)." The direct debit is an authority to withdraw money from your account. Depending on how it was set up it may limit how much may be withdrawn, how often and for how long. I haven't seen a direct debit agreement that limits the total that may be withdrawn, but they may exist. A reputable creditor will stop taking your money when they're supposed to, which would be when the loan is paid off.