Why are bank transactions not instant?
"If you want your bank to pay $1 to a beneficiary Bob, then the service (no matter how implemented) needs to result in Bob's bank saying to Bob ""Hey, I owe you $1"".    The usual way how this is done consists of two parts - your bank needs to somehow tell Bob's bank ""hey guys, do us a favor and please give Bob $1 with a message from the sender"", and your bank needs to convince the other bank that they'll pay for (cover) that. This is the main source for the delays in international payments - there are thousands of banks, and most of possible pairs have no legal contact between themselves whatsoever, no bilateral agreements, no trust and no reasonable enforcement mechanism for small claims. If I'm Bob's bank, then a random bank from anywhere from Switzerland to Nigeria can send me an instruction ""give Bob $1, we'll make it up for you"", the SWIFT network is a common way of doing this. However, most likely I'm going to give Bob the money only after I receive the funds somehow, which means that they have given the money to some institution I work with. For payments within a single country, it often is a centralized exchange or a central bank, and the payment speed is then determined by the details of that particular single payment network - e.g. UK Faster Payments or the various systems used in USA. For international payments, it may require a chain of multiple intermediaries (correspondent banks) - for example, a payment of $1mm from Kazakhstan to China will likely involve the Kazakhstan bank asking their main correspondent in USA (some major bank such as Chase JPMorgan) to give the money to the relevant chinese bank's correspondent in USA (say, Citi) to then give the money to that chinese bank to then give the money to the actual recipient. Each of those steps can happen because those entities have bilateral agreements, trust and accounts with each other; and each of those steps generally takes time and verification. If you want all payments to happen instantly, then you need all institutions to join a single binding payment system. It's not as easy as it sounds, as it is a nightmare of jurisdiction - for example, if you'd want me (as Bob's bank) to credit Bob instantly, then the system needs to provide solid guarantees that I would get paid even if (a) the payer institution changes its mind, made a mistake or intentional fraud; (b) the payer institution goes insolvent; (c) the system provider gets insolvent. Providing such guarantees is expensive, they need to be backed by multi-billion capital, and they're unrealistic to enforce across jurisdictions (e.g. would an Iranian bank get recourse if some funds got blocked because of USA sanctions). The biggest such project as far as I know is SEPA, across most of Europe. Visa and MasterCard networks perform the same function - a merchant gets paid by the CC network even if the payer can't pay his CC bill or the paying bank goes insolvent." It is a rather complex system, but here is a rough summary. Interbank tranfers ultimately require a transfer of reserves at the central bank. As a concrete example, the bank of england system is the rtgs. Only the clearing banks and similar (e.g. bacs) have access to rtgs. You can send a chaps payment fairly quickly, but that costs. Chaps immediately triggers an rtgs transfer once the sending bank agrees and so you can be certain that the money is being paid.  Hence its use for large amounts. Bacs also sits on the rtgs but to keep costs down it batches tranfers up. Because we are talking about bank reserve movements, checks have to be in place and that can take time. Furthermore the potential for fraud is higher than chaps since these are aggregrated transactions a layer removed, so a delay reduces the chance of payment failing after apparently being sent. Faster payments is a new product by bacs that speeds up the bacs process by doing a number of transfers per day. Hence the two hour clearing. For safety it can only be used for up to 10k. Second tier banks will hold accounts with clearing banks so they are another step down. Foreign currency transfers require the foreign Central Bank reserve somewhere, and so must be mediated by at least one clearing bank in that country. Different countries are at different stages in their technology.  Uk clearing is 2h standard now but US is a little behind I believe.  Much of Europe is speeding up. Rather like bitcoin clearing, you have a choice between speed and safety. If you wait you are more certain the transaction is sound and have more time to bust the transfer.
As far as I can see, this is an issue of the bank's policy rather than some legal regulation. That means that you'll need to work it out with the bank.  To give you a couple of ideas to work with when you talk with them, maybe something from this list will work: Good luck! "Quite a few Bank in India allow Funds Transfer via ATM. One has to first register the beneficiary account and wait for 24 hrs before transacting. However it looks like ""Indian Bank"" currently does not offer this service. You can call up Indian Bank and ask if they provide this service.  Alternativly use the Internet Banking to transfer funds to CitiBank or any other Bank in India." You mentioned BoA. I have had BoA accounts for about ten years. All of my transfers between accounts are immediate. I have never had to wait with BoA.  Scottrade Accounts are the worst in this respect. Once I had to wait 8 days. PayPal come in a close second for making you wait. "At this point, a great deal of the world's wealth exists only in electronic form, and just as you can write a check or pay by debit card and trust the banks will handle it, banks can conduct wire transfers"" through higher-level banking networks. In the US, when there is a need to convert physical money to electronic or vice versa, it is typically handled by armored car and armed guard transfer between a bank and the local Federal Reserve Bank office. Physical money is moved around only when necessary, and for as short a distance as possible, to the most secure facilities possible, to minimize risk. I can't vouch for how it's managed elsewhere in the world, where the networks and repository banks may not be as available. I would presume (I would hope!) that the same general concepts and approaches are followed." In the US, paper checks are still the rule, and there is a large amount of the population that does not care to use online banking. As a result, those people need to go to the bank once a week or more often, to deposit checks they get from anywhere, to get cash, etc.; so all those little banks have traffic. This is slowly changing, and banks start to automatic the processes even in the brick-and-mortar location, but for now, they are around. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_transfer: The entity wishing to do a transfer approaches a bank and gives the bank the order to transfer a certain amount of money. IBAN and BIC codes are given as well so the bank knows where the money needs to be sent.  The sending bank transmits a message, via a secure system (such as SWIFT or Fedwire), to the receiving bank, requesting that it effect payment according to the instructions given.  The message also includes settlement instructions. The actual transfer is not instantaneous: funds may take several hours or even days to move from the sender's account to the receiver's account.  Either the banks involved must hold a reciprocal account with each other, or the payment must be sent to a bank with such an account, a correspondent bank, for further benefit to the ultimate recipient.  Banks collect payment for the service from the sender as well as from the recipient. The sending bank typically collects a fee separate from the funds being transferred, while the receiving bank and intermediate banks through which the transfer travels deduct fees from the money being transferred so that the recipient receives less than what the sender sent. The last point may not be relevant in domestic transfers. This really should be a comment, but I can't yet. The question desperately needs a location tag. In at least some countries(New Zealand), the default action on all insufficient funds transactions is to refuse the transaction. Credit cards are the only common exception. Every bank operating in NZ that I know of acts this way. Sometimes there is a fee for bouncing a transaction, sometimes not, that depends on the bank. Any other option must be explicitly arranged in writing with the bank. Personally, coming from a country where declining transactions is the default, I'd be shocked and angry to be stuck with an automatic transfer from another account. Angry enough to change banks if they won't immediately cease and desist. "Most of your money doesn't exist as physical cash, but simply as numbers in a ledger. At any given time, banks expect their clients to withdraw a certain percentage of their balances... For instance, checking accounts are frequently drawn down to zero, savings accounts might be emptied once our twice a year, CDs are almost never withdrawn, etc. To cover those withdrawals, banks keep a certain amount of physical cash on hand, and an additional amount remains on the ledgers. The rest gets loaned out to their customers for use in buying homes, cars, credit cards,etc. Anything they can't loan out directly gets deposited with the federal reserve or loaned directly to other institutions who need it. However, those last two options tend to be short term (ie overnight) loans. With debit cards functioning 24/7, you could get cash at an atm or make a purchase anytime of the day our night. The weekend has nothing to do with it. Which is a long way of saying ""No, they do it all the time, not just on weekends"" ;)" "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" A bank is unlikely to provide a 'command line' interface because typical users consider a graphical interface easier to use than a command line interface. The extra effort in providing a command line interface for the remaining handful of people isn't worth it. It's the same reason that everything else in the world has a point and click interface. Command line-like features, such as easy repetition and keystroke shortcuts are also unlikely to implemented for the same reasons. They are hard to implement in a web interface, and most people aren't interested in them. Most people have only a few accounts and don't need to download multiple files on a frequent basis. They do typically provide link shortcuts to commonly used features. However all online banking works by implementing the HTTP protocol in some way. You should be able to deduce the HTTP transactions necessary to get the information you want, and implement your own 'command-line'style' interface, or any other interface you want. That won't be easy, especially since you will almost certainly have to implement the security protocols too, but it should be possible. Those fields are used in a bank-to-bank transfers that do not use SWIFT. SWIFT is a messaging system, however with the fields you have listed, banks can exchange messages directly without having to use SWIFT. Your bank may not support bank-to-bank transfers, in which you need to notify your client that it needs to be a SWIFT transfer. "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." "The second part of your question is the easiest to answer, how much manual work is involved in settlement processes? Payment systems which handle low value (i.e. high volume) transactions work on the basis of net settlement. Each of the individual payments are netted across all of the participant banks, so that only one ""real"" payment is made by each bank. Some days banks will receive money, others they will pay money. This is arbitrary and depends on whether their outbound payments exceed their inbound payments for that day.   The payment system will notify each Bank how much it owes/will receive for the day. The money is then transferred between all of the banks simultaneously by the payment system to remove the risk that some pay and others don't. If you're going to make or receive a very large payment, you're going to want to make certain that its correct. This means that if there's a discrepancy, you need operations people available to find out why its wrong.   When dealing with this many payments, answering that question can be hard. Did we miss a payment? Is there a duplicate? Etc.  The vast majority of payments will process without any human involvement, but to make the process work, you always need human brains there to fix problems that occur. This brings me to your first question. On every day that settlement happens, a bank will receive (or pay) a very large sum of money. As a settlement bank you must settle that money - the guarantee that every bank will pay is one of the main reasons these systems exist. For settlement to happen, every bank has to agree to participate, and be ready to verify the data on their side and deliver the funds from their account. So there is no particular reason that this doesn't happen on weekends and holidays other than history. But for any payment system to change, it would require the support of (at least) a majority of participants to pay staff to manage the settlement process on weekends. This would increase costs for banks, but the benefits would only really be for you and me (if at all). That means it's unlikely to happen unless a government forces the issue." "Banks don't generally ""Post"" transactions on Friday-Sunday, meaning any transfers made on those days don't show up until someone processes it on Monday. I would expect the money to show today, and call your bank tomorrow if it doesn't." lol- yeah, I know how banks work. My point is EVERY transaction should be recorded somewhere. Banks have both internal and external auditors who's only job it is to monitor the transactions to make sure everything adds up. It just doesn't make sense that the CEO of the company would have so little idea of what is going on. Shades of Enron to me.