51–60 of 131 posts
Do businesses not do any risk assessments to prevent things like this from happening? Especially a business that is providing a critical service to businesses. Why are they using a regional bank to handle this?
"a regional bank", only 18th biggest in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you please explain why you normalize deviance and shoddiness? We have an issue here - business runs on trust, and crooks and sloppiness reduce the will to engage in commerce.
I think people are reacting to your suggestion that employees should report their employers for a circumstance that was entirely, 100% out of the hands of the employer. To be clear, this isn’t about employers using SVB. This is because Rippling, a payroll vendor, uses SVB to transact payroll on behalf of customers. This was entirely out of the control of the employer, most of which are scrambling along with Rippling…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it’s literally not clickbait and payments were delayed…
The "clickbait" part, is it makes it sound as if Rippling is fiscally unsound, and has to scramble to find capital. A non-clickbait would say what gp said.
The article headline is clickbait. They're immediately doing payouts through JP Morgan Chase now; the only delay is because some payouts were in flight when they got stuck in SVB, so if a payout was started via SVB a few days ago and was going to arrive today (because bank transactions aren't instantaneous), the new payouts will take a few days to arrive via JP Morgan Chase.
FedNow instant payments are supposed to go live this spring/summer. Feels like it should have been 10 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to make 100% timeliness guarantees when the courier that's carrying money from one place to another dies on its way. How would they have a redundant courier?
> would they have a redundant courier? Two or more banks. Process through both on a regular basis. Switch if something goes wrong.
SV bank had the funds this morning and says the paychecks are going out, FDIC comes in at noon Rippling heard that checks haven't gone out in the afternoon, and now JPMorgan has the info and is overnight processing.
The article headline is clickbait. They're immediately doing payouts through JP Morgan Chase now; the only delay is because some payouts were in flight when they got stuck in SVB, so if a payout was started via SVB a few days ago and was going to arrive today (because bank transactions aren't instantaneous), the new payouts will take a few days to arrive via JP Morgan Chase.
Oh? Okay, let's see, it starts with...
>SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts...
And then you said...
>The only delay is because...
So, two sentences later you've confirmed the headline's accuracy yourself.
The article headline is clickbait. They're immediately doing payouts through JP Morgan Chase now; the only delay is because some payouts were in flight when they got stuck in SVB, so if a payout was started via SVB a few days ago and was going to arrive today (because bank transactions aren't instantaneous), the new payouts will take a few days to arrive via JP Morgan Chase.
So people are not receiving their promised money on time? Sounds like the title is accurate. Not everyone has the float to handle an unexpected delay in money. People can also suffer liquidity events.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who will be liable? The employer? Rippling? To the employee, the employer. To the employer, Rippling. It's wild that, as a payment processor, they didn't have redundant rails.
It's hard to make 100% timeliness guarantees when the courier that's carrying money from one place to another dies on its way. How would they have a redundant courier?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We just received this from Rippling: Hi Rippling Customer, Yesterday afternoon, Rippling learned that Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) had solvency challenges. We have been working with SVB to ensure timely payments to our customers’ employees. However, this morning we learned that the FDIC had stepped in and taken control of SVB. We are reaching out to you because you have a payroll that has already been processed for 3/15…
> We ask that you please reach out to your bank and request that your bank return any ACH transactions debited from your account by Rippling into SVB under the premise that the transaction(s) are unauthorized, since the bank has ceased operations and is unable to honor the payments. This seems a little ... odd. To be very clear, I'm not on the bank's side at all... but if the ACH is already debited, then your bank wo…
(seems like the flow of funds is customer bank -> SVB -> [maybe more] -> payroll payees)
Seems likely enough that those transfers will fail to clear in a couple days, not bad to get ahead of that if possible.
The article headline is clickbait. They're immediately doing payouts through JP Morgan Chase now; the only delay is because some payouts were in flight when they got stuck in SVB, so if a payout was started via SVB a few days ago and was going to arrive today (because bank transactions aren't instantaneous), the new payouts will take a few days to arrive via JP Morgan Chase.
>The article headline is clickbait. Oh? Okay, let's see, it starts with... >SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts... And then you said... >The only delay is because... So, two sentences later you've confirmed the headline's accuracy yourself.
GP says that Rippling did not delay payouts. In fact, the payouts went out in time - they were delayed in transit, outside of Rippling's control, and Rippling immediately made another payout through a different bank.
The headline suggests that there were issues at Rippling, which meant that the payouts did not go out in time. That is a completely different scenario, so the headline would indeed be inaccurate.