Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts after Silicon Valley Bank collapse

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 131 posts

Re: SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts after Silicon Valley Bank collapse

#61

Post by walrus01 »

ummonk wrote: post #32

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 employees of the companies which outsourced their payroll operations to Rippling did not receive the ACH credits to their account on the specified date and time. This is not clickbait. Payment did not occur as scheduled. Payments have been delayed.

Re: SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts after Silicon Valley Bank collapse

#62

Post by FireBeyond »

maxerickson wrote: post #59
FireBeyond wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Aren't they telling their customers to cancel transfers into SVB? (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.

Right, but that's my point, not necessarily agreeing with the motivation or such. If the transfer went through before the FDIC shuttered them this AM, it could be argued that the transaction was entirely authorized _at the time_ the ACH debit occurred.

Hopefully banks will sympathize, but I don't know that you can say "the bank was forcibly closed the day after this ACH transaction, so it's unauthorized, because I intended to have those funds flow outbound later".

It would be unauthorized if the ACH debit was _initiated_ after the closure of the bank.

Re: SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts after Silicon Valley Bank collapse

#63

Post by c22 »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #38
ummonk wrote: post #32

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.

Gp was adding nuance to the discussion that I found informative. Parent's post offers only a trite reminder with the goal, I suppose, of suppressing said nuance?

Re: SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts after Silicon Valley Bank collapse

#64

Post by jjulius »

crote wrote: post #60
jjulius wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

No, there is a substantial difference between the two. 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 scenar…

I mean, there are issues at Rippling. They had to switch banks and it caused a delay in getting payments to their clients' employees. That's a fact.

Yes, the issue was caused by their bank and not Rippling themselves, but the purpose of the article is to highlight how a separate company is impacted by the SVB fallout. At the end of the day, it's still an issue Rippling has to deal with.

I mean, that's why the headline goes on to say, "after SVB collapse". It makes clear that Rippling is suffering because of SVB.

Re: SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts after Silicon Valley Bank collapse

#65

Post by hartator »

crote wrote: post #60
jjulius wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

No, there is a substantial difference between the two. 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 scenar…

How it is not Rippling responsibility which bank they use? We are not even arguing responsibilities anyway. There are delays if you are using Rippling which is the title.

Re: SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts after Silicon Valley Bank collapse

#66

Post by FireBeyond »

jmvoodoo wrote: post #39
FireBeyond wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Right now, the funds are still showing at least in our online portal. I will be visiting the branch tomorrow and hopefully can prevent the transfer from completing. Not a fun email to receive either way.

Oh no, I can only imagine, and please don't think for a moment that I'm saying that you shouldn't be able to cancel the transfer. And I hope you can!

Just more that it's odd for Rippling to say that people should report the transaction as unauthorized, because on a strict technical timeline, it wasn't, until the bank was closed, so if it had already debited someone's account before then...

Re: SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts after Silicon Valley Bank collapse

#67

Post by c22 »

walrus01 wrote: post #61
ummonk wrote: post #32

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 employees of the companies which outsourced their payroll operations to Rippling did not receive the ACH credits to their account on the specified date and time. This is not clickbait. Payment did not occur as scheduled. Payments have been delayed.

I scrolled to the comments, as I often do, to see if this link was worth clicking. After reading GP's comment I decided not to click. Sounds like clickbait.

Re: SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts after Silicon Valley Bank collapse

#68

Post by VirusNewbie »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #38
ummonk wrote: post #32

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.

There’s a huge difference between “oops we had a payroll issue it will be there tomorrow” and “oops lol our money is gone we can’t make payroll, maybe we can get a loan next week”.

Re: SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts after Silicon Valley Bank collapse

#69

Post by OJFord »

n0us wrote: post #41
ummonk wrote: post #32

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 it’s literally not clickbait and payments were delayed…

We're talking about a 1-2 working day delay, depending on recipient bank. You wouldn't bat an eyelid if it weren't already in the news, I've certainly had pay delayed or incorrect longer, for non-big-news reasons.

The title is perhaps yes strictly speaking accurate, but it's still clickbait, it deliberately implies trouble pouring on an already flaming fire, when actually this sounds like an extremely minor symptom - some ash in the hair of the stoker.

Re: SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts after Silicon Valley Bank collapse

#70

Post by parker_mountain »

ummonk wrote: post #32

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.

"has to delay payouts" -> "the only delay is because"

so there are in fact delayed payouts.

Post reply on HN