Live data from Hacker News

The Long Shadow of Checks

bitsaboutmoney.com

11–20 of 112 posts

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#11
post #6

The compelling thing for me still with checks is that the banks take on nearly all the costs of processing them, and what costs are imposed on the customer are fixed, and do not scale with the amount of money being transferred. It's possible to do fixed-cost transfers using other systems (PayPal, Venmo, etc.) but it always feels like those transfers are only tolerated, and they really want to push you to their other…

> the banks take on nearly all the costs of processing them

Not for me. I live in Norway. I suddenly became an absent party of a class action lawsuit in the USA. The settlement came in the form of a check. A small amount, maybe around $50. But the cost of cashing it in Norway was more than the value!

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#12
This started out as a good narrative on the history of checks, but quickly devolved into a political rant about poor people being victims of banks, and no real criminals write bad checks.

The first is true, but the second is not. Check fraud was a very big deal for years for criminals. I don’t know if it is anymore given the progress in electronic payments.

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#13
The longer you live, and the more things you do, the more you realize that checks are still alive and well. You still need checks for:

  Charitable donations - Many charities maximize every penny, and electronic contributions eat into that.

  Paying my accountant - Good accountants make every penny count, and aren't interested in tithing from their revenue to credit card companies.

  Tipping the paper boy

  Tipping the doorman (Though recently, I've switched to cash for this, as it looks better in a Christmas card)

  Business license renewal in certain cities

  Some of my recent real estate transactions have required checks to be written to various local authorities, county clerks, etc.

  Making IRS payments without a fee

  Paying the gas bill.  My gas company charges $5+ to pay by credit or debit card.

  Paying the rent.  My building's management company charges $20 + a percentage to pay by debit card, or $50 + a percentage to pay by credit card.  If I pay my bill with a check, there's no surcharge. If I pay by credit card, I have to pay another $113.

  Paying the electric bill.  The electric company charges $5+ to pay by credit or debit card.

  Passport renewal fee.  Renewing a passport by mail in the United States *requires* a check or a money order.

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#14

I'm continually surprised by the political influence held by the thousands of tiny banks in the country. I must applaud the people behind the Check 21 Act: it's the combination of a neat backwards compatibility trick (if you want paper, we'll print it and send it to you) and political maneuvering that I must admire it. > Since the standard U.S. bank account is a checking account, even if it cannot write checks, it is…

[deleted]

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#15

The longer you live, and the more things you do, the more you realize that checks are still alive and well. You still need checks for: Charitable donations - Many charities maximize every penny, and electronic contributions eat into that. Paying my accountant - Good accountants make every penny count, and aren't interested in tithing from their revenue to credit card companies. Tipping the paper boy Tipping the doorm…

I don't undertand why there is not a better alternative in US, like a bank transfer/wire. In the EU, these transfers are often free at most banks, or at most, they incur a fee of 1 or 2 euros.

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#16

This started out as a good narrative on the history of checks, but quickly devolved into a political rant about poor people being victims of banks, and no real criminals write bad checks. The first is true, but the second is not. Check fraud was a very big deal for years for criminals. I don’t know if it is anymore given the progress in electronic payments.

I don't think that's a fair reading. At most, the piece describes a common political rant, and then says "Phrased that way, it sounds almost fantastically unjust. And… it’s complicated."

Your comment, in contrast, strikes me as being much closer to a reflexive political rant than the essay.

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#17
It's interesting to see this discussion about speeding up check processing, because it seems that a lot of people use checks to slow payments down. It's a convenient way to make it inconvenient for the receiving party!

It works like this: receive invoice, wait until due date, write a check dated for the due date, wait a few days, send it through regular mail, and complain about the past due notices because "I've already sent the payment!! Did you lose it or something?" Applying late fees doesn't work either, they'll just send a late payment again without the late fee included.

At first, I genuinely thought it was because they preferred checks for record keeping purposes, but when I set up echeck and told them how they just need to call us and give us the check number to pay. Or they can just enter their information at our payment processor's portal. Nope! It's "insecure" (Sir/Madam, you're sending me a piece of paper with your bank account and routing number and it's going through the mailing system where mail gets lost...). For that same reason, they don't want to pay with a card either.

That's why the cost of paying the transaction fees for card processing is so worth it to me. I got the check scanner years before the COVID lockdowns to speed things up, but nothing beats the sometimes instant card settlement deposits. I still accept checks from responsible, timely payors, but stop doing business with anyone who has a pattern of paying late with checks. It's not worth the additional work to get them to pay (there's truly no way to know what their intent is - are their lateness predictable or is this the month they're going to wait 45 days to pay?). I'm fine with letting someone else wait for them to pay late.

One thing that still seems to be missing from bank cards is the lack of ability to add your own identifier (namely the check number) to the transaction at time of payment. I understand that, for responsible payors, this is why they might prefer paying with checks - you not only get a reference number, a memo line, and a date that makes sense for your own internal system. Even with bank cards, the date of the transaction is sometimes not the date that it actually happened, which can be confusing for record association. Zelle has a memo entry, but the reference identifiers are letters and numbers, ew. An internal auto incrementing number to identify transactions would be really useful.

Anyway, hopefully paper checks will be phased out. Although I do still find them useful for interbank account transfers - the Zelle multi-account trick still makes me kind of queasy.

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#18

> “Clearing” is a magic finance word. Clearing a check refers to completing the process which the check agrees to: the writer sees money leave their account and the person depositing the check sees it enter theirs. This is much more complicated than it sounds in this quick gloss. Just because the writer of the check sees the funds of their check leave their account, this does not mean the recipient of the check has c…

For many years it was one of the entry-level jobs for pilots. "check runners" were essentially overnight couriers that would fly everywhere, even to rural areas, collect bags of checks and take them to major branches where they were cleared.

I remember an article, probably from 20 years ago, warning people that the check infrastructure was about to change and people who were "floating" checks for 2-3 days (relying on this behavior) weren't going to be able to rely on it any more. I think that was when they went to electronic scanning at the bank itself.

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#19
Honestly, I just hate how insecure and legacy everything involving banking in this country is.

For example, payroll - there's literally no reason your employer needs to store your account and routing number as another piece of your personal info that they can lose when some hacker finds out their MySQL admin password is "admin"

Like, the system should be that you give your employer your banks name, plus a UUID associated with your account that allows entitys to deposit but not withdraw funds for you account. It would be trivial to implement and make things much more secure, but instead we're stuck with the account+routing number system that's basically paper checks but put on a computer.

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#20

The longer you live, and the more things you do, the more you realize that checks are still alive and well. You still need checks for: Charitable donations - Many charities maximize every penny, and electronic contributions eat into that. Paying my accountant - Good accountants make every penny count, and aren't interested in tithing from their revenue to credit card companies. Tipping the paper boy Tipping the doorm…

I don't undertand why there is not a better alternative in US, like a bank transfer/wire. In the EU, these transfers are often free at most banks, or at most, they incur a fee of 1 or 2 euros.

I guess the opposite could also be asked: Why doesn't the EU use something proven, durable, redundant, and sensible like checks instead of relying on fragile computers that have thousands more points of failure?
Post reply on HN