Using multiple bank accounts
There is nothing conceptually wrong with it.  If you like it that way, go ahead. The only thing to watch out for is bank policies that effectively penalize having many small accounts.  For instance, some banks charge you a fee for checking accounts with a balance below a certain minimum, but will waive the fees for accounts with a higher balance.  You may be able to avoid such fees by judicious management of your funds (or by switching to a different bank), but it's something to be aware of.  (The interest rates on savings accounts also often vary with the balance, making many small balances less efficient than one big balance.  However, right now, at least in the US, interest rates on savings accounts are so low that the difference here is likely to be minimal.) "I live near historic Concord, Massachusetts, and frequently drive past Walden Pond. I'm reminded of Henry David Thoreau's words,  ""Simplify, simplify, simplify."" In my opinion, fewer is better. 2 checkbooks? I don't see how that makes budgeting any easier. The normal set of expenses are easily kept as one bucket, one account.  The savings 2&3 accounts can also be combined and tracked if you really want to think of them as separate accounts.  Now, when you talk about 'Retirement' that can be in tax-wise retirement accounts, e.g. 401(k), IRA, etc. or post tax regular brokerage accounts. In our situation, the Schwab non-retirement account was able to handle emergency (as money market funds) along with vacation/rainy day, etc, in CDs of different maturities. As an old person, I remember CDs at 10% or higher, so leaving money in lower interest accounts wasn't good. Cash would go to CDs at 1-5 year maturities to maximize interest, but keep money maturing every 6-9 months.  Even with the goal of simplifying, my wife and I each have a 401(k), an IRA, and a Roth IRA, I also have an inherited Roth, and I manage my teen's Roth and brokerage accounts. That's 9 accounts right there. No way to reduce it.  To wrap it up, I'd go back to the first 4 you listed, and use the #4 checking attached to the broker account to be the emergency fund. Now you're at 3. Any higher granularity can be done with a spreadsheet.  Think of it this way - the day you see the house you love, will you not be so willing to give up that year's vacation?"
Usually problems like what you're running into mean that the megabank hasn't finished digesting acquisitions, or they cannot meet some state regulatory issue with the main system. Bank of America is/was like this for a few years -- tellers had access to separate Fleet Bank, BankSouth and BoA systems, but you as customer got stuck when doing seemingly routine transactions. You're probably in a situation where your older accounts are in System A, and the newer ones are in recently acquired System B. You should be able to avoid this problem by opening new accounts at Citibank, or just getting another bank. If you have a good rapport with a branch manager, explain the situation and see if they can do anything. FWIW, Unless you're spending alot of time in Manhattan or travel overseas often, there aren't many advantages to having a Citibank account these days. "There are some banks that offer ""pot"" accounts like this (off the top of my head I think Intelligent Finance does, although they call them ""jars"").  The other option for charity specifically would be a CAF account:  https://www.cafonline.org/my-personal-giving/plan-your-giving/individual-charity-account.aspx" "First, there are not necessarily two accounts involved.  Usually the receiving party can take the check to the bank on which it is drawn and receive cash.  In this case, there is only one bank, it can look to see that the account on which the check is drawn has sufficient funds, and make an (essentially irrevocable) decision to pay the bearer.  (Essentially irrevocable precisely because the bearer did not necessarily have to present account information.) The more usual case is that the receiving party deposits the check into an account at their own bank.  The receiving party's bank then (directly or indirectly - in the US via the Federal Reserve) presents the check to the paying party's bank.  At that point if the there are insufficient funds, the check ""bounces"" and the receiving party's account will be debited.  The receiving party's bank knows that account number because, in this case, the receiving party is a customer of the bank.  This is why funds from check deposits are typically not available for immediate withdrawal." "When I was younger I had a problem with Washington Mutual.  Someone had deposited a check in to my account then ran my account negative with a ""dupe"" of my debit card.  WaMu tied up my account for three months while they investigated because it wasn't simply a debit card fraud issue, this was check fraud (so they claimed).  At the time all the money I had in the world was in that account and the ordeal was extremely disruptive to my life.  Since the, I never spend on my debit card(s) and I keep more than one checking account to disperse the risk and avoid disruption in the event anything ever happens again. Now one of the accounts contains just enough money (plus a small buffer) to pay my general monthly expenses and the other is my actual checking account.   There's no harm in having more than one checking account and if you think it will enhance your finances, do it. Though, there's no reason to get a business account unless you've actually formed a business." "All of these answers are great but I wanted to add one piece of advice from someone who has been married 8 years and been in various financial ""situations."" Have one of you (whoever the two of you feel is more organized and more financially responsible) be solely in charge of paying the monthly bills, but keep a spreadsheet or some other tracking mechanism so that the other can monitor this as well. That way if you guys ever decide to switch roles there won't be much of a learning curve. Also, don't do three bank accounts. One or two is enough, more than that starts becoming more difficult to keep track of and if you have any sort of monthly fees on the accounts it also wastes money. My wife and I each have our own account and we get money for each other if necessary. She handles paying the bills but keeps a monthly spreadsheet that has all pertinent info. We have a number and color coding system to determine which paycheck (1st or 2nd of the month) the bill is paid in and whether it has been paid, not paid, or past due (green, yellow, red). Hopefully you don't ever have to see the red color :P" The thing is that you only need one entry, not two. That's the beauty of double entry - since you have double entry system, every transaction will create two entries. So you don't need to create two transactions, you only need one. So you got a $30 gift. You credit Income:Gifts and on the other side Assets:Checking. Your general ledger entry (Menu->Tools->General Ledger) will look like this: You end up with balances: Which represent your total income and your current balance. Similarly with expense for food: GL will look like this: Balances: And you keep track of totals properly. The SWIFT format has multiple place holders. The Beneficiary Bank and Account can be specified using Local Sort Codes [ABA number in this example]. However you would still need to specify the Correspondent Bank and its BIC. "JoeTaxpayer's answer mentions using a third ""house"" account. In my comment on his answer, I mentioned that you could simply use a bookkeeping account to track this instead of the overhead of an extra real bank account. Here's the detail of what I think will work for you. If you use a tool like gnucash (probably also possible in quicken, or if you use paper tracking, etc), create an account called ""Shared Expenses"". Create two sub accounts under that called ""his"" and ""hers"". (I'm assuming you'll have your other accounts tracked in the software as well.) I haven't fully tested this approach, so you may have to tweak it a little bit to get exactly what you want. When she pays the rent, record two transactions: When you pay the electric bill, record two transactions: Then you can see at a glance whether the balances on ""his"" and ""hers"" match." It should be in the name(s) of whomever puts money in the account.  When filing your taxes there will be a question or space to mark the percentage of income in each others name. If you're just looking for small amounts of income splitting, then it's legal for the higher earning spouse to pay household expenses and then the lower earning spouse can save all or some of his/her income. Whether or not to have 2 accounts or not has more to do with estate planning and minimizing account fees if applicable.  It can also help in a small way for asset allocation if that's based on family assets and also, minimizing commissions. The easiest options appear to be to open an account with one of the large multinational banks like Citi. They have options such as opening two separate checking accounts, one in each currency, and Citi in particular has an international account that appears to make mutli-currency personal banking easier. All of the options have minimum balance requirements or fees for conversion, but if you need quick access this seems to be the best bet. Even if this is a one-time event and you don't need the account, a bank like Citi may be able to help you cash the check and get access to the funds quicker than a national or local bank. http://www.citibank.com/ipb-global/homepage/newsite/content/english/multi_cap_bank_depo.htm Alternatively if you know anyone with a US bank account you can deposit it with them and take the cash withdrawal from their account, assuming they agree, the check isn't too large, etc. "I'm not aware of banks offering savings account for specific reasons, other than certain accounts for college funds, as the number of reasons someone might want to open a savings account is almost infinite.  What I did was open 3 savings accounts with the same bank (I could have opened more, but I didn't need more). Each account is labeled with a nickname for it's specific purpose: Vacation, Emergencies, and Annual fees. This way, I can make automated deposits to each one based on my monthly budgets and track them independently. Most E-Banks offer this type of setup (CapitalOne even advertises it as a ""feature"") and the interest rate will likely be better than a standard brick-and-mortar bank." A technique that is working pretty well for me: Hide the money from myself: I have two bank accounts at different banks. Let's call them A and B. I asked my employer to send my salary into account A. Furthermore I have configured an automatic transfer of money from account A to account B on the first of each month.  I only use account B for all my expenses (rent, credit card, food, etc) and I check its statement quite often. Since the monthly transfer is only 80% of my salary I save money each month in account A. I don't have a credit card attached to the savings account and I almost never look at its statement. Since that money is out of sight, I do not think much about it and I do not think that I could spend it. I know it is a cheap trick, but it works pretty well for me. I found out there is something called CDARS that allows a person to open a multi-million dollar certificate of deposit account with a single financial institution, who provides FDIC coverage for the entire account.  This financial institution spreads the person's money across multiple banks, so that each bank holds less than $250K and can provide the standard FDIC coverage.  The account holder doesn't have to worry about any of those details as the main financial institution handles everything.  From the account holder's perspective, he/she just has a single account with the main financial institution. "Bookkeeping and double-entry accounting is really designed for tracking the finances of a single entity. It sounds like you're trying to use it to keep multiple entities' information, which may somewhat work but isn't really going to be the easiest to understand. Here's a few approaches: In this approach, the books are entirely from your perspective. So, if you're holding onto money that ""really"" belongs to your kids, then what you've done is you're taking a loan from them. This means that you should record it as a liability on your books. If you received $300, of which $100 was actually yours, $100 belongs to Kid #1 (and thus is a loan from him), and $100 belongs to Kid #2 (and thus is a loan from her), you'd record it just that way. Note that you only received $100 of income, since that's the only money that's ""yours"", and the other $200 you're only holding on behalf of your kids. When you give the money to your kids or spend it on their behalf, then you debit the liability accordingly and credit the Petty Cash or other account you spent it from. If you wanted to do this in excruciating detail, then your kids could each have their own set of books, in which they would see a transfer from their own Income:Garage Sale account into their Assets:Held by Parents account. For this, you just apportion each of your asset accounts into subaccounts tracking how much money each of you has in it. This lets you treat the whole family as one single entity, sharing in the income, expenses, etc. It lets you see the whole pool of money as being the family's, but also lets you track internally some value of assets for each person. Whenever you spend money you need to record which subaccount it came from, and it could be more challenging if you actually need to record income or expenses separately per person (for some sort of tax reasons, say) unless you also break up each Income and Expense account per person as well. (In which case, it may be easier just to have each person keep their entirely separate set of books.) I don't see a whole lot of advantages, but I'll mention it because you suggested using equity accounts. Equity is designed for tracking how much ""capital"" each ""investor"" contributes to the entity, and for tracking a household it can be hard for that to make a lot of sense, though I suppose it can be done. From a math perspective, Equity is treated exactly like Liabilities in the accounting equation, so you could end up using it a lot like in my Approach #1, where Equity represents how much you owe each of the kids. But in that case, I'd find it simpler to just go ahead and treat them as Liabilities. But if it makes you feel better to just use the word Equity rather than Liability, to represent that the kids are ""investing"" in the household or the like, go right ahead. If you're going to look at the books from your perspective and the kids as investing in it, the transaction would look like this: And it's really all handled in the same way an Approach #1. If on the other hand, you really want the books to represent ""the family"", then you'd need to have the family's books really look more like a partnership. This is getting a bit out of my league, but I'd imagine it'd be something like this: That is to say, the family make the sale, and has the money, and the ""shareholders"" could see it as such, but don't have any obvious direct claim to the money since there hasn't been a distribution to them yet. Any assets would just be assumed to be split three ways, if it's an equal partnership. Then, when being spent, the entity would have an Expense transaction of ""Dividend"" or the like, where it distributes the money to the shareholders so that they could do something with it. Alternatively, you'd just have the capital be contributed, And then any ""income"" would have to be handled on the individual books of the ""investors"" involved, as it would represent that they make the money, and then contributed it to the ""family books"". This approach seems much more complicated than I'd want to do myself, though." Yes. Although I imagine the risk is small, you can remove the risk by splitting your money amongst multiple accounts at different banks so that none of the account totals exceed the FDIC Insurance limit. There are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example)