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

Behind the ACH’s Sizzling Growth

digitaltransactions.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 81 posts

Re: Behind the ACH’s Sizzling Growth

#31

Post by jwr »

djhworld wrote: post #3

I was listening to a podcast a few weeks ago (Planet Money) and was genuinlely shocked at how poor the US payments network is in relation to here in the UK. Most bank transactions here complete within 2 hours (faster payments service) and are completely free.

I could not believe my eyes when I saw that a transfer (it's called a "wire transfer") will cost me $35 on the sending side, and the receiver will pay another $25. Then you need the bizarre routing numbers which banks bizarrely obfuscate for even more bizarre reasons and which are easy to get wrong because there is no checksum. And then it takes days.

No wonder when anything even slightly better appears, people jump on it.

For comparison, a SEPA transfer in the EU costs around 1 EUR, gets done within a single business day, and account numbers have checksums, so you can't easily make a mistake.

Re: Behind the ACH’s Sizzling Growth

#32

Post by getcrunk »

djhworld wrote: post #3

I was listening to a podcast a few weeks ago (Planet Money) and was genuinlely shocked at how poor the US payments network is in relation to here in the UK. Most bank transactions here complete within 2 hours (faster payments service) and are completely free.

You should check out our credit card processing fees

Re: Behind the ACH’s Sizzling Growth

#33

Post by StudentStuff »

Qworg wrote: post #23
jsmith45 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ACH is not a service directly exposed to consumers. Instead it is the backend for a lot of other services. It backs direct deposit, paying with "electronic cheque", and most interbank-bank consumer transfers, broker-to-bank transfers, and even many service-to-consumer transfers. For example, when you withdraw money from paypal in the US, it would normally be via an ACH transfer to your bank account. ACH transfers are…

I'll add that Zelle has significant volume limits and is only roughly real time.

What volume limits have you experienced with Zelle?

Re: Behind the ACH’s Sizzling Growth

#34

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

jwr wrote: post #31
djhworld wrote: post #3

I was listening to a podcast a few weeks ago (Planet Money) and was genuinlely shocked at how poor the US payments network is in relation to here in the UK. Most bank transactions here complete within 2 hours (faster payments service) and are completely free.

I could not believe my eyes when I saw that a transfer (it's called a "wire transfer") will cost me $35 on the sending side, and the receiver will pay another $25. Then you need the bizarre routing numbers which banks bizarrely obfuscate for even more bizarre reasons and which are easy to get wrong because there is no checksum. And then it takes days. No wonder when anything even slightly better appears, people jump…

> For comparison, a SEPA transfer in the EU costs around 1 EUR

That's ... expensive? In .de it's usually free for consumers with online banks, around 10 ct for business accounts ...

Re: Behind the ACH’s Sizzling Growth

#35

Post by digikata »

jwr wrote: post #31
djhworld wrote: post #3

I was listening to a podcast a few weeks ago (Planet Money) and was genuinlely shocked at how poor the US payments network is in relation to here in the UK. Most bank transactions here complete within 2 hours (faster payments service) and are completely free.

I could not believe my eyes when I saw that a transfer (it's called a "wire transfer") will cost me $35 on the sending side, and the receiver will pay another $25. Then you need the bizarre routing numbers which banks bizarrely obfuscate for even more bizarre reasons and which are easy to get wrong because there is no checksum. And then it takes days. No wonder when anything even slightly better appears, people jump…

A wire transfer is a little different than an ACH. Some transactions seem to require wire transfer, not sure if that's just momentum or there is some other driving reason for the choice.

https://www.thebalance.com/ach-vs-wire-transfer-3886077

Re: Behind the ACH’s Sizzling Growth

#37

Post by thanatos_dem »

ac29 wrote: post #36

Does anyone know what Banks and/or services use same-day ACH? The article says same-day volume was up to $160B last year, but I've yet to see anything faster than next-day ACH.

ACH in the EU is generally same day. The US is super behind the times in that regard.

The reason that it’s next day is that for most banks, the process of doing an ACH transfer is to effectively SFTP a file with the amount to transfer and account details to the receiving bank, and they batch process them nightly.

Also, with this system, there is no difference between a direct deposit and direct withdrawal. One just has a negative transfer balance. So once you approve someone such as your employer to direct deposit they can also withdraw from your account with no warning.

It pains me that a system so shitty powers the world financial market... that’s what you get from monopolies.

Re: Behind the ACH’s Sizzling Growth

#38

Post by Spoom »

jwr wrote: post #31
djhworld wrote: post #3

I was listening to a podcast a few weeks ago (Planet Money) and was genuinlely shocked at how poor the US payments network is in relation to here in the UK. Most bank transactions here complete within 2 hours (faster payments service) and are completely free.

I could not believe my eyes when I saw that a transfer (it's called a "wire transfer") will cost me $35 on the sending side, and the receiver will pay another $25. Then you need the bizarre routing numbers which banks bizarrely obfuscate for even more bizarre reasons and which are easy to get wrong because there is no checksum. And then it takes days. No wonder when anything even slightly better appears, people jump…

They obfuscate the routing and account numbers because once you have them, there's little that prevents someone from debiting money from that account.

Re: Behind the ACH’s Sizzling Growth

#40

Post by Qworg »

digikata wrote: post #35
jwr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could not believe my eyes when I saw that a transfer (it's called a "wire transfer") will cost me $35 on the sending side, and the receiver will pay another $25. Then you need the bizarre routing numbers which banks bizarrely obfuscate for even more bizarre reasons and which are easy to get wrong because there is no checksum. And then it takes days. No wonder when anything even slightly better appears, people jump…

A wire transfer is a little different than an ACH. Some transactions seem to require wire transfer, not sure if that's just momentum or there is some other driving reason for the choice. https://www.thebalance.com/ach-vs-wire-transfer-3886077

Wires are required at times because they're "good funds" faster - ACH may take up to 6 days to clear in bad cases.

Also, wires can't be reversed (generally). If that's a good or a bad thing is dependent on the transaction and transactors.

Post reply on HN