Why don't banks give access to all your transaction activity?
"Things are the way they are because they got that way.   - Gerald Weinberg Banks have been in business for a very long time. Yet, much of what we take for granted in terms of technology (capabilities, capacity, and cost) are relatively recent developments. Banks are often stuck on older platforms (mainframe, for instance) where the cost of redundant online storage far exceeds the commodity price consumers take for granted. Similarly, software enhancements that require back-end changes can be more complicated. Moreover, unless there's a buck (or billion) to be made, banks just tend to move slowly compared to the rest of the business world. Overcoming ""but we've always done it that way"" is an incredible hurdle in a large, established organization like a bank — and so things don't generally improve without great effort. I've had friends who've worked inside technology divisions at big banks tell me as much. A smaller bank with less historical technical debt and organizational overhead might be more likely to fix a problem like this, but I doubt the biggest banks lose any sleep over it." "All the other answers here are correct, but I'll add one more perspective. I am a business architect at one of the world's largest retail banks. Every day I experience the frustration of trying to get large-scale corporate IT to do anything, so I feel that your question is just one facet of the wider question: ""why are banks so old and busted?"" While it's true that the cost of online, redundant, performant, secure data storage is significantly higher than you anticipate in the question, it should still be well within the capacity of a large enterprise. The true cost is the cost of change. Nothing at a bank is a green field development. Everything is a bolt-on to existing systems. Any change brings the risk that existing functionality will be affected, therefore vast schemes of regression testing (largely manually executed) spring up around even the most trivial developments. Costs scale exponentially with the number of platforms affected (often utterly distinct, decades-old, incompatible platforms that have arisen out of historical mergers and acquisitions). Only statutory, revenue-generating and critical maintenance change is approved. Any form of cost-cutting that increases risk is quickly extinguished. This is because when things go wrong, IT get blamed by their business colleagues. This is because the business colleagues in turn get blamed by the regulators, the media, the customers, and the public at large. Who doesn't cuss their bank when the ATM is unavailable? The bank's IT organization develops a kind of management sclerosis, risk averse in the extreme. Banks can't ship a beta version and patch it later. This ultra-low-innovation approach is a direct result of market and regulatory forces. If you were happy with a bank account that played fast and loose with your money the way Facebook plays with your data, then banking would be much cheaper, much more innovative, and much riskier. To get back to your specific question, some banks actually do offer a much longer back catalog of transactions for download (usually only a few key fields of each transaction though), and the ones that don't most likely don't see it as a revenue generating selling point, and it therefore falls above their innovation appetite." "I would say a lot of the answers here aren't quite right. The main issue here is that banking is a highly oligopolous industry - there are few key players (the UK, for example, has only 5 major banks operating under a variety of brands: it's all the same companies underneath) and the market is very, very hard to enter owing to the immense regulatory burden. Because the landscape is so narrow and it's possible to keep close tabs on all  your competitors, there's no incentive to spend money on shiny new things to keep up with the competition - the industry is purely reactive.  If nobody else has an awesome, feature-filled online portal, there's no need for any one bank to make one.  If everybody is reactive, and nobody proactive, then it's a short logical deduction that improvements happen at a glacial pace. Also take into account that when you've got this toxic ""bare-minimum"" form of competition, the question for these people soon turns to ""what can we get away with?"" which results in things like subpar online portals with as much information as you like delivered on paper for a hefty charge, and extortionate, price fixed administrative fees.  Furthermore your transaction history is super valuable information.  There are one or two highly profitable companies who collate international transaction data and whose sole job in life is to restrict access to that information to the highest bidders.  Your transaction history is an asset in a multibillion dollar per year industry, and as such it is not surprising that banks don't want to give it out for free." One reason why they limit it is to protect you. If I hack your account, I get your entire financial history. I can see a copy of every check you ever wrote. I can see the account number with every doctor, utility, and credit card. I can also see the account information on the back of those checks for all your relatives who you sent $10 for their birthday.  I can use the information in those accounts to see where you used to live, this allows me to spoof you when applying for new credit. If they ask if I ever lived on Main street in Anytown USA. I can confidently say yes. If I only let you download a window of time, the responsibility is on you to protect that data that is before the window. They protect it in file isolated from the internet, and finally only in archive locations. Some of the information doesn't exists in electronic form. Data from the 1990's and earlier may not exist in the form you want. They have been expanding the windows over time. I can see/download a pdf of my monthly statement going back 7 years. Of course that data can't go directly into quicken. Some places do let you get a file that goes back farther, but they charge you for it, and it can only be done by them sending you the file. That prevents you from downloading your entire  history everyday. That times 70 Million customers would overwhelm their server and other infrastructure. Regarding the amount of data: Although if you count only your data, it would be quite less 10 MB, multiply this by 1 million customers and you can see how quickly the data grows. Banks do retain data for longer period, as governed by country laws, typically in the range of 7 to 10 years.  The online data storage cost is quite high 5 to 10 times more than offline storage. There are other aspects, Disaster recover time, the more the data the more the time. Hence after a period of time Banks move the data into Archive that are cheaper to store but are not available to online query, plus the storage is not optimized for search. Hence retrieval of this data often takes few days if the regulator demands or court or any other genuine request for data retrieval. To add technical detail to other answers, your (and some commenters') estimates of storing that data is woefully (many orders of magnitude) off. Let's take your 10MB of transaction data per user. You're only estimating text records like in Quicken. Now add on the volume of storing everye check's image. That's 100K (if not 500Kb depending on resolution of the scan) per check. If you have 100 checks per year (not unrealistic, if you pay all utility/morgage bills by check, as well as purchases), you now have 10Mb/year to 50MB/year. Now you're asking for 10 years of this, so you have 100-500MB per customer. NOT 10MB-70MB as you initially assumed. Let's take a mid-range figure, 300 MB. You were estimating using consumer grate cheap-o storage (which Facebook can afford for their data, as they don't store transaction data). Now let's up that to enterprise server hard drives. Your storage costs just rose 2x-5x. Now, typically you'd have RAID. So 2x more. Most large financial institutions have multiple data centers. You typically store all data's copies in those data centers for DR purposes. Your multiplier added another 2x-4x Most production data servers have multiple copies (Write DB server + one or more read-only copies). Multiply by 2x-4x With some rare exceptions, most banks don't just have one central database server. Each major app  / business line would have its own DB, so you multiply that by 2x-20x depending on the bank, especially if it's arrived at its size by merging with other banks and has dozens of inherited legacy systems. multiple backups. Regulatory backup requirements means you don't just back up your data once a year. You do it daily, till the data is purged from DB. Meaning, you don't store ONE copy of your transaction in backup. You stored, say, 10*365 copies, assuming 10 year retention) So, at the low end, your cost estimates are 30*2*2*2*2*2 = 900 times off (3 orders of magnitude) just for live database storage, and 3500 times off for backup costs. At the high end, they could be 50*5*2*4*4*20=16,000 times off (4-5 orders of magnitude) At this range, no, it isn't worth it for the bank to keep your transactions available in DB and online any longer than bare-bones absolutely critically necessary. Many good points have been brought up, and I'll just link to them here, for ease. Source: I work at a credit/debit card transaction processing company on the Database and Processing Software teams. See mhoran_psprep's answer. See Chris' answer. Believe it or not, banks don't expose their primary (or secondary) database to end users. They don't expose their fastest / most robust database to end users. By only storing x days of data in that customer-facing database and limiting the range of any one query, any query run against it is much less likely to cause system-wide slowness. They most definitely have database archives which are kept offline, and most definitely have an employee-facing database which allows employees to query larger ranges of data. What would a bank have to gain by allowing you to query a full year of transactions? A big issue for historical data in banking is that they don't/can't reside within a single system. Archives of typical bank will include dozen(s) of different archives made by different companies on different, incompatible systems. For example, see http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/big-bank-theory-chart-large.jpg as an illustration of bank mergers and acquisitions, and AFAIK that doesn't include many smaller deals. For any given account, it's 10-year history might be on some different system. Often, when integrating such systems, a compromise is made - if bank A acquires bank B that has earlier acquired bank C, then if the acquisition of C was a few years ago, then you can skip integrating the archives of C in your online systems, keep them separate, and use them only when/if needed (and minimize that need by hefty fees).  Since the price list and services are supposed to be equal for everyone, then no matter how your accounts originated, if 10% of archives are an expensive enough problem to integrate, then it makes financial sense to restrict access to 100% of archives older than some arbitrary threshold. Well, I know why the Rabobank in the Netherlands does it. I can go back around one year and a half with my internet banking. But I can only go further back (upto 7 years) after contacting the bank and paying €5,- per transcript (one transcript holds around a month of activities).  I needed a year worth of transcripts for my taxes and had to cough up more than €50. EDIT It seems they recently changed their policy in a way that you can request as many transcripts as you like for a maximum cost of €25,- so the trend to easier access is visible. If you need access to your data beyond the online availability, you download the transactions and manage the archive yourself. Six months to eighteen months is generally enough time for most people to manage their own archived data. Big banks have the power to store and retrieve all the data online. Unfortunately, the older records are not frequently accessed. Why have these records online when they will be rarely accessed? Backing up data will take longer. Queries to retrieve data will take longer. Everything will take longer just so you can have records that 99% of customers will never access.
http://www.mint.com attaches to all your accounts and lists all your transactions.  I love it. Banks need to provide a free mechanism to deposit and withdrawal money.  Banks are free to charge fees as long as it is well published. If you are not happy with services you can complain to Banking ombudsman. The only people who should know my online bank password are me & my spouse. Forget it, I won't share that sensitive information with any other company. I might as well give a blank check! Besides, don't banks require people to keep their username & password & PIN private? I signed an agreement to that effect, I think!  So even if I did find the online services compelling enough to try, I would want to check with my own bank first & ask them if it's OK to give my password to somebody else. I wonder what they would say to that!! "Welcome to the 21st century, the New Order. Forget all that legal mumbo jumbo you may have read back in law school in the 1960s about commercial code. Its all gone now. Now we have Check 21 and the Patriot Act !!! Basically what this means is that because some Arab fanatics burned down the World Trade Center, the US government and its allied civilian banking company henchmen now have total control and dictatorship over ""your"" money, which is no longer really money, but more like a ""credit"" to your account with THEM which they can do with what they want. Here are some of the many consequences of the two aforementioned acts: (1) You can no longer sue a bank for mishandling your money (2) All your banking transaction information is the joint property of the bank, its ""affiliates"" and the US Treasury (3) You can no longer conduct private monetary transactions with other people using a bank as your agent; you can only request that a bank execute an unsecured transaction on your behalf and the bank has total control over that transaction and the terms on which occurs; you have no say over these terms and you cannot sue a bank over any financial tort on you for any reason. (4) All banks are required to spy on you, report any ""suspicious"" actions on your part, develop and run special software to detect these ""suspicious actions"", and send their employees to government-run educational courses where they are taught to spy on customers, how to report suspicious customers and how to seize money and safe deposit boxes from customers when the government orders them to do so. (5) All banks are required to positively identify everyone who has a bank account or safe deposit box and report all their accounts to the government. (6) No transactions can be done anonymously. All parties to every banking transaction must be identified and recorded. So, from the above it should be clear to (if you are a lawyer) why no endorsement is present. That is because your check is not a negotiable instrument anymore, it is merely a request to the bank to transfer funds to the Treasury. The Treasury does not need to ""endorse"" anything. In fact, legally speaking, the Treasury could simply order your bank to empty your account into theirs, and they actually do this all the time to people they are ""investigating"" for supposed crimes. You don't need to endorse checks you receive either because, as I said above, the check is no longer a negotiable instrument. Banks still have people do it, but it is just a pro forma habit from the old days. Since you can't sue the bank, the endorsement is pretty meaningless because it cannot be challenged in court anyway. You could probably just write ""X"" there and they would deposit it." You don't have much choice other than to open an account in your business name, then do a money transfer, as @DJClayworth says.  You will not  without providing your name and street address and possibly other information that you may consider to be of a private nature. This is due to laws about fraud, money laundering and consumer protection. I'm not saying that's what you have in mind! But without accountability of the sort provided by names and street addresses, banks would be facilitating crimes of many sorts, which is why regulatory agencies enforce disclosure requirements. "TLDR:  Why can't banks give me my money? We don't have your money. Who has my money? About half a dozen different people all over the world. And we need to coordinate with them and their banks to get you your money. I love how everyone seems to think that the securities industry has super powers.  Believe me, even with T+3, you won't believe how many trades fail to settle properly.  Yes, your trade is pretty simple. But Cash Equity trades in general can be very complicated (for the layman).  Your sell order will have been pushed onto an algorithmic platform, aggregated with other sell order, and crossed with internal buy orders. The surplus would then be split out by the algo to try and get the best price based on ""orders"" on the market.  Finally the ""fills"" are used in settlement, which could potentially have been filled in multiple trades against multiple counterparties. In order to guarantee that the money can be in your account, we need 3 days. Also remember, we aren't JUST looking at your transaction. Each bank is looking to square off all the different trades between all their counter parties over a single day. Thousands of transactions/fills may have to be processed just for a single name. Finally because, there a many many transactions that do not settle automatically, our settlements team needs to co-ordinate with the other bank to make sure that you get your money. Bear in mind, banks being banks, we are working with systems that are older than I am. *And all of the above is the ""simplest"" case, I haven't even factored in Dark Pools/Block trades, auctions, pre/post-market trading sessions, Foreign Exchange, Derivatives, KYC/AML." "Do you think that your bank has a separate vault for just your money?   Of course not. The bank just has one big pot of money that everything gets dumped into.   They know exactly how much money each person is supposed to have. The problem is when they add up all the money in the vault... well lets just say a lot of it is missing.   That's why they are supposed to have two vaults, one with the customer's money and one with the investor's money. But since all the account tracking is done internally it becomes real easy to ""borrow"" from one vault to fund the other.  Vault: MF Global's at another bank" This is why financial industry rules reform and stricter oversight is so necessary.   Information is money and information should be universally accessible or off limits for use. People knowing things others can't makes them money and costs money for the people not in the know. This is the antithesis of free markets. You need to track every buy and sell to track your gains, or more likely, losses. Yes, you report each and every transactions. Pages of schedule D. God, if the last **[partial audit that revealed trillions in secret loans](http://www.goldstockbull.com/articles/federal-reserve-secret-bank-bailouts-topped-16-trillion/)** wasn't enough- I can't see why we wouldn't give them a full audit.   31 USC § 714 - AUDIT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EXAMINATION COUNCIL, FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD, FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS, FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, AND OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY   (a) In this section, “agency” means the Financial Institutions Examination Council, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (in this section referred to as the “Board”), Federal reserve banks, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. (b) Under regulations of the Comptroller General, the Comptroller General shall audit an agency, but may carry out an onsite examination of an open insured bank or bank holding company only if the appropriate agency has consented in writing. **Audits of the Board and Federal reserve banks may not include—** (1) transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or nonprivate international financing organization; (2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, and open market operations; (3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or (4) a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to clauses (1)–(3) of this subsection. (c) (1) Except as provided in this subsection, an officer or employee of the Government Accountability Office may not disclose information identifying an open bank, an open bank holding company, or a customer of an open or closed bank or bank holding company. The Comptroller General may disclose information related to the affairs of a closed bank or closed bank holding company identifying a customer of the closed bank or closed bank holding company only if the Comptroller General believes the customer had a controlling influence in the management of the closed bank or closed bank holding company or was related to or affiliated with a person or group having a controlling influence. (2) An officer or employee of the Office may discuss a customer, bank, or bank holding company with an official of an agency and may report an apparent criminal violation to an appropriate law enforcement authority of the United States Government or a State. (3) Except as provided under paragraph (4), an officer or employee of the Government Accountability Office may not disclose to any person outside the Government Accountability Office information obtained in audits or examinations conducted under subsection (e) and maintained as confidential by the Board or the Federal reserve banks. (4) This subsection shall not— (A) authorize an officer or employee of an agency to withhold information from any committee or subcommittee of jurisdiction of Congress, or any member of such committee or subcommittee; or (B) limit any disclosure by the Government Accountability Office to any committee or subcommittee of jurisdiction of Congress, or any member of such committee or subcommittee.  ...  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/714     The people here who are under an illusion the federal reserve has any sort of meaningful audit, and that it is coincidental that the last audit outside of this limited scope resulted in the information related to trillions of secret loans is very deluded or brainwashed.  Open your fucking eyes, world! The federal reserve bank exists to rob you of the country your fathers conquered! Any institution that issues checks and is connected to the ACH system can be the passive side. Any institution that clears checks and is connected to the ACH system can be the originating side. Not any institution that can be - in fact is. Your credit union doesn't provide this service because they don't want to. It costs them money to implement and support it, but they don't see the required benefit to justify it. They can. My credit union does that. As a merchant I can tell you that the only thing the bank gets from me.  Is the total amount and a category for my business.  No detail, not ever. Aren't we doing something wrong if we must restrict people's financial transactions to be safe?  PS: To clarify: Shouldn't we arrange our lives in such a way that our safety isn't dependent on what financial transactions banks or others engage in? I wonder if there are times (like when BofA bought Merrill) when it might be alright to not disclose everything right away.  Particularly if what needs to be disclosed are losses and the government has told you that they'd cover them. "There is no ""reason why this cannot be done"", but you can tell your friend that these actions are officially shady in the eyes of the US government. Any bank transactions with a value of $10,000 or more are automatically reported to the government as a way to prevent money laundering, tax evasion, and other criminal shenanigans. ""Structuring"" bank deposits to avoid this monetary limit is a crime in and of itself.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_transaction_report"