Bank transfers as a payment method • Hacker News Board

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method

#131

Post by CaptainJustin » Sat, Nov 27, 2021, 9:11 AM UTC

zuppy wrote: post #78

louwhopley wrote: post #63

Bank-to-bank money transfers in South Africa is a mostly solved problem. (Electronic funds transfer/known as EFT locally) - payments above coffee-shop prices often happen by EFT. - it arrives within 2 days, bank sends proof of payment instantly and sellers accept that as sufficient proof. - can opt to send instantaneously which reflects within seconds to minutes (for a small fee, like ~$1). - non reversible - need ba…

Guy from Romania here: we can even pay to phone numbers if you’re on ING (Dutch bank) or Revolut (from UK). They will get their client’s IBAN for you. At least in Bucharest almost every person around me has an account on both of these.

In South Africa you can send money to anyone's phone number from several of the big banks. They can even be 'unbanked'. Regulation allows them to receive up to a certain amount before having to KYC and go through AML checks etc.

To access their money they go to an ATM and a challenge response is sent to their phone number.

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method

#132

Post by blntechie » Sat, Nov 27, 2021, 9:13 AM UTC

lubien wrote: post #127

Worth mentioning Brazil has new transfer method called Pix that takes mostly 10 seconds to exchange money to another bank account and you only need the other person/company ID or email or phone number or a random key (the account owner choose which ones they want to allow). It came just a few years ago but basically everyone has it now since it's a payment method directly coming from the Central Bank and all banks im…

I believe UPI of India and Pix of Brazil actually cross absorb features from each other which is nice to see.

UPI is getting from 1st December a way to send payments by phone number or random number(key) which I believe are partly inspired from Pix. Earlier phone number lookup was a layer on top of the UPI built by the fintech companies and now it will be part of the base system.

Now that UPI's operator NPCI is focusing on cross border transactions, some day Pix and UPI can interoperate. UPI is already integrated with Singapore's payment system and similarly in discussions with few other countries.

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method

#133

Post by Semaphor » Sat, Nov 27, 2021, 9:15 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #95

jkirsteins wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's less "factually incorrect" and more "nuanced and incomplete". As a European that moved between countries, I was very surprised when I learned that SEPA allows a "pull" mechanism even exists. I lived 30 years in Latvia without knowing this is a feature in SEPA because every single payment is a "push" mechanism. I'm not sure if banks can turn this feature off, or if it just culturally never gained traction…

SEPA 'pull', aka merchant initiated transfers require a one time authorization, repeat debits require a one time authorization for the first payment and can be re-run afterwards (used for subscriptions), and can be revoked up to 90 days after the payment was done.

Were old transactions grandfathered in, or did Germany implement the laws differently? Because I never had to do any authorization besides checking a box that I allow them to debit my account (either on paper or online). All my existing ones predate PSD2, though.

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method

#134

Post by Semaphor » Sat, Nov 27, 2021, 9:16 AM UTC

sofixa wrote: post #116

vesinisa wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most banks charge a hefty fee for an instant payment (mine charges €1.25). Interesting. In my country (Finland) all banks that have joined the TIPS (SEPA Instant Settlement) always use it automatically if the destination bank supports it as well - at no extra charge to the account holder of course. Are you sure you are talking about TIPS / SCT Inst payments? Either way, your bank is not allowed to charge extra fees…

Yep. Entirely depends on the bank - in France neobanks ( e.g. Boursorama, Aumax, Fortuneo, N26 ) have them for free, while old banks usually charge you a small fee.

Huh. N26 in Germany charges me for instant payments.

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method

#135

Post by narag » Sat, Nov 27, 2021, 9:18 AM UTC

jkirsteins wrote: post #87

elric wrote: post #75

The article is factually incorrect when it talks about "SEPA payments", claiming they are a "pull" mechanism. What it probably meant to talk about, is SEPA Direct Debits -- where the counterpart charges your account, as opposed to you paying the counterpart. Given that these direct debit agreements are revokable at any point in time, I doubt the claims of very high fraud rate. A normal SEPA payment, is a "push" affai…

I think it's less "factually incorrect" and more "nuanced and incomplete". As a European that moved between countries, I was very surprised when I learned that SEPA allows a "pull" mechanism even exists. I lived 30 years in Latvia without knowing this is a feature in SEPA because every single payment is a "push" mechanism. I'm not sure if banks can turn this feature off, or if it just culturally never gained traction…

In fact it is so cumbersome, that I prefer to pay for many services by credit card every month)

Phone and the gym are the only services that I do not pay by card, but not even by my choosing. Netflix gave me no option. Utilities are bulk included with the rent (transfer) so yeah, just those two.

Oh and I know the card number and codes by heart in case I need to buy anything. Verification is done by SMS.

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method

#136

Post by blntechie » Sat, Nov 27, 2021, 9:25 AM UTC

thelittleone wrote: post #25

charlieyu1 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it could work, it would have worked three decades ago. Bank transfers are just a pain in the ass. I still remember all the fees I paid just to transfer money to another bank/another country. Cryptocurrency was considered a way to simplify the problem, but probably didn’t work in this aspect

This seems out of touch with modern offerings e.g. wise.com. Easier than PayPal with none of the crazy bank transfer fees.

Wise is too slow (especially for transactions involving the US) and still expensive.

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method

#137

Post by Hamuko » Sat, Nov 27, 2021, 9:25 AM UTC

fogihujy wrote: post #112

alexott wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MobilePay in Denmark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MobilePay

Also in Finland.

There's also Siirto to some extent. It doesn't work with all banks, but I think that the banks that are part of it are like 70% of the personal banking market share.

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method

#138

Post by kgdinesh » Sat, Nov 27, 2021, 9:28 AM UTC

klodolph wrote: post #108

DeathArrow wrote: post #101

If pay with debit card you are doing a bank transfer. Maybe in the US most people are using credit cards but in EU many are using debit cards.

In the US, there is a difference between debit cards, ACH, and bank transfers. They are three separate things.

care to explain?

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method

#139

Post by akdor1154 » Sat, Nov 27, 2021, 9:29 AM UTC

laurencei wrote: post #117

seb1204 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a delay of first transactions. PayID is what it it is called for most banks.

I believe it is 24 hours for the first, then instant after that.

What a coincidence, a fraud protection scheme that happens to make NPP unsuitable for retail payments right off the bat. Surely unintentional and nothing to do with banks and credit cards wanting to preserve their racket of skimming every purchase in the country.

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method

#140

Post by grncdr » Sat, Nov 27, 2021, 9:29 AM UTC

Semaphor wrote: post #133

jacquesm wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SEPA 'pull', aka merchant initiated transfers require a one time authorization, repeat debits require a one time authorization for the first payment and can be re-run afterwards (used for subscriptions), and can be revoked up to 90 days after the payment was done.

Were old transactions grandfathered in, or did Germany implement the laws differently? Because I never had to do any authorization besides checking a box that I allow them to debit my account (either on paper or online). All my existing ones predate PSD2, though.

I'm fairly certain that SEPA mandate identifiers for recurring direct debits existed for years before PSD2. the way it works from the merchant perspective is you include the mandate identifier and a "type" to indicate if this is a first/recurring debit. The merchant only finds out about any problems some days (or months) later.

How your bank presents (or doesn't present) a new SEPA mandate to you for approval is up to them. I'd guess that at least some of them never show you anything, and assume that you will notice and revoke the payment if it was unexpected or fraudulent.