8 ms·

No! They are not being "optimistic," they are just following Regulation CC. Ask anyone on the street when they can get the money from their paycheck direct dep

No! They are not being "optimistic," they are just following Regulation CC. Ask anyone on the street when they can get the money from their paycheck direct deposit. Unless they just opened their account, they are not waiting days.

jsjohnst 9y ago
> Ask anyone on the street when they can get the money from their paycheck direct deposit. That’s because payroll isn’t sent the day of your payday. Go ask the person who handles payroll at the company you work for, they don’t submit it the day of payday (or even usually the day before). It’s normally submitted several days in advance.
- tinokid 9y ago
  Again...no, it is not. You are confusing different things here. Even if they just learned about it the night before, your bank cannot withhold your direct deposit without breaking the law. Unless there is some special situation like a new account or they suspect fraud.
  - jsjohnst 9y ago
    > Again...no, it is not. You are confusing different things here. Not to get in a pissing match, but you are the one confusing unrelated things. There’s a reason I’m getting upvoted and you are being downvoted. 1) for credits, the RDFI doesn’t place holds on the funds (except in very unusual circumstances). So your apology here is flawed. 2) read the link provided by @ad_hominem, it very clearly and eloquently explains the time lines involved, by a company doing payroll. Better yet, read the whole series of posts they wrote. (Part 1/2 are linked at the top of the article). In general, try to understand that your personal experiences might not reflect the “way things work”. There are folks on HN who have generally “been there, done that, have battle scars to prove it” (like me in this specific case) for many topics and you’d be wise to keep an open mind rather than keep fighting against them when they are trying to help you understand.
    - tinokid 9y ago
      No...the claim that ACH takes "3-5 business days", "several days", or whatever, is just flat out wrong. I can do ACH (not wire transfer, not "credit") between my totally unrelated bank accounts--whether those be at big banks or tiny little credit unions--with a total delay to myself, the end user, of about 14 hours and change. And that isn't new, it has been the case for well over a decade. And using ACH delays as an excuse for why people can't get money out of Bitcoin quickly-- the original context of this thread-- is completely disingenuous.
      - jsjohnst 9y ago
        Your personal experience doesn’t mean it’s a fact. As I’ve stated multiple times and you keep ignoring, ideal case, it can take under 12hrs (almost all of my ACH transactions are that window too). That does not mean there aren’t significant amount of exceptions!
        tinokid 9y ago
        >As I’ve stated multiple times and you keep ignoring, ideal case, it can take under 12hrs I must have missed where you said that. You said I was likely mistaking ACH for wire transfer because mine were happening that fast. The point stands that "inherent delays" in the ACH system are negligible, on the order of hours. I reacted strongly to the person claiming otherwise because it was presented as an excuse for people not having access to their money quickly. If people are being told they can't get their money because of "ACH delays", "check is in the mail", "clogged tubes", or whatever, they should not be afraid to call BS!
        jsjohnst 9y ago
        > The point stands that "inherent delays" in the ACH system are negligible, on the order of hours. Which has been repeatedly called out as wrong with proof in this thread, but you won’t listen. Have an enjoyable life!
- notyourday 9y ago
  Reg CC trumps developer perspective. Bank can revert ACH in case of a book keeping error (there was no ACH). It can revert ACH in case of a fraud (someone at the bank committed fraud). ACH was not originated by the customer. It can revert ACH in if it gets a court order. It cannot revert ACH because Sally did "oops". Source: SVP of compliance of a very large bank sitting next to me.
  - jsjohnst 9y ago
    The person sitting next to you is over simplifying things then. There are far more reasons that an ACH can be reverted. > It cannot revert ACH because Sally did "oops". Quite a few of the defined ACH return codes[0] seem to be loosely in the “oops” you said wasn’t possible. [0] https://gusto.com/ach_return_codes https://gusto.com/ach_return_codes
    - notyourday 9y ago
      That would be possible as a) first response b) bank-to-bank journaling based on the bank to bank agreement. But dont look at me - just try doing it and see how successful you would be.
      - jsjohnst 9y ago
        I’ve issued stop payments on ACH transactions multiple times with success, so yes, it’s definitely possible to cause an ACH return.
        notyourday 9y ago
        Have you noticed that by doing that you have indemnified your bank?
        jsjohnst 9y ago
        Sure, but that doesn’t change my point. What about closed accounts, invalid account numbers, or NSF? All three of those cause ACH rejects/reverts without any indemnity, yet weren’t in your list.
- bhouston 9y ago
  In Canada, I have run payroll and it takes one day. It is vis direct deposit.
ad_hominem 9y ago
Not sure why you got downvoted, I think you're right there. I misspoke when assuming that banks had much leeway in holding those funds (I'm not very familiar with banking regulations). However I still think it's accurate to not think of the funds as fully clearing for several days given the nature of the protocol, and that regulation simply forces the banks to be "optimistic" in giving a next-business-day credit.
- jsjohnst 9y ago
  He’s being downvoted because he’s wrong and rather than replying directly to the points made, he tangents off on one small detail and still misses the narrative. Per Title 12 → Chapter II → Subchapter A → Part 229 → Subpart B → §229.10b(1), in general a bank shall make funds received for deposit in an account by an electronic payment available for withdrawal not later than the business day after the banking day on which the bank received the electronic payment. [0] So reading that there are several observations. - first, they say in general, emphasis theirs, and don’t define exceptions explicitly. - next business day, so that means they are perfectly allowed to be two days delay for a payment initiated by Wednesday night, or up to five days for one initiated Thursday night (Thursday send, Friday received but held, Monday being next business day). If Monday is a bank holiday, then it could even be six days! - in (2)(i) they further go on to state Payment in actually and finally collected funds. There are a number of reasons that could be delayed. Ultimately, saying an ACH should always be by next morning is just flat wrong and no amount of experience with your own personal transactions negates that. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=b82e479da1df29eaa4aab825dccc3d3f&mc=true&node=se12.3.229_110&rgn=div8 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=b82e479da1df29eaa4...

jsjohnst 9y ago

> Ask anyone on the street when they can get the money from their paycheck direct deposit. That’s because payroll isn’t sent the day of your payday. Go ask the person who handles payroll at the company you work for, they don’t submit it the day of payday (or even usually the day before). It’s normally submitted several days in advance.

tinokid 9y ago
Again...no, it is not. You are confusing different things here. Even if they just learned about it the night before, your bank cannot withhold your direct deposit without breaking the law. Unless there is some special situation like a new account or they suspect fraud.
- jsjohnst 9y ago
  > Again...no, it is not. You are confusing different things here. Not to get in a pissing match, but you are the one confusing unrelated things. There’s a reason I’m getting upvoted and you are being downvoted. 1) for credits, the RDFI doesn’t place holds on the funds (except in very unusual circumstances). So your apology here is flawed. 2) read the link provided by @ad_hominem, it very clearly and eloquently explains the time lines involved, by a company doing payroll. Better yet, read the whole series of posts they wrote. (Part 1/2 are linked at the top of the article). In general, try to understand that your personal experiences might not reflect the “way things work”. There are folks on HN who have generally “been there, done that, have battle scars to prove it” (like me in this specific case) for many topics and you’d be wise to keep an open mind rather than keep fighting against them when they are trying to help you understand.
  - tinokid 9y ago
    No...the claim that ACH takes "3-5 business days", "several days", or whatever, is just flat out wrong. I can do ACH (not wire transfer, not "credit") between my totally unrelated bank accounts--whether those be at big banks or tiny little credit unions--with a total delay to myself, the end user, of about 14 hours and change. And that isn't new, it has been the case for well over a decade. And using ACH delays as an excuse for why people can't get money out of Bitcoin quickly-- the original context of this thread-- is completely disingenuous.
    - jsjohnst 9y ago
      Your personal experience doesn’t mean it’s a fact. As I’ve stated multiple times and you keep ignoring, ideal case, it can take under 12hrs (almost all of my ACH transactions are that window too). That does not mean there aren’t significant amount of exceptions!
      - tinokid 9y ago
        >As I’ve stated multiple times and you keep ignoring, ideal case, it can take under 12hrs I must have missed where you said that. You said I was likely mistaking ACH for wire transfer because mine were happening that fast. The point stands that "inherent delays" in the ACH system are negligible, on the order of hours. I reacted strongly to the person claiming otherwise because it was presented as an excuse for people not having access to their money quickly. If people are being told they can't get their money because of "ACH delays", "check is in the mail", "clogged tubes", or whatever, they should not be afraid to call BS!
        jsjohnst 9y ago
        > The point stands that "inherent delays" in the ACH system are negligible, on the order of hours. Which has been repeatedly called out as wrong with proof in this thread, but you won’t listen. Have an enjoyable life!
notyourday 9y ago
Reg CC trumps developer perspective. Bank can revert ACH in case of a book keeping error (there was no ACH). It can revert ACH in case of a fraud (someone at the bank committed fraud). ACH was not originated by the customer. It can revert ACH in if it gets a court order. It cannot revert ACH because Sally did "oops". Source: SVP of compliance of a very large bank sitting next to me.
- jsjohnst 9y ago
  The person sitting next to you is over simplifying things then. There are far more reasons that an ACH can be reverted. > It cannot revert ACH because Sally did "oops". Quite a few of the defined ACH return codes[0] seem to be loosely in the “oops” you said wasn’t possible. [0] https://gusto.com/ach_return_codes https://gusto.com/ach_return_codes
  - notyourday 9y ago
    That would be possible as a) first response b) bank-to-bank journaling based on the bank to bank agreement. But dont look at me - just try doing it and see how successful you would be.
    - jsjohnst 9y ago
      I’ve issued stop payments on ACH transactions multiple times with success, so yes, it’s definitely possible to cause an ACH return.
      - notyourday 9y ago
        Have you noticed that by doing that you have indemnified your bank?
        jsjohnst 9y ago
        Sure, but that doesn’t change my point. What about closed accounts, invalid account numbers, or NSF? All three of those cause ACH rejects/reverts without any indemnity, yet weren’t in your list.
bhouston 9y ago
In Canada, I have run payroll and it takes one day. It is vis direct deposit.

ad_hominem 9y ago

Not sure why you got downvoted, I think you're right there. I misspoke when assuming that banks had much leeway in holding those funds (I'm not very familiar with banking regulations). However I still think it's accurate to not think of the funds as fully clearing for several days given the nature of the protocol, and that regulation simply forces the banks to be "optimistic" in giving a next-business-day credit.

jsjohnst 9y ago
He’s being downvoted because he’s wrong and rather than replying directly to the points made, he tangents off on one small detail and still misses the narrative. Per Title 12 → Chapter II → Subchapter A → Part 229 → Subpart B → §229.10b(1), in general a bank shall make funds received for deposit in an account by an electronic payment available for withdrawal not later than the business day after the banking day on which the bank received the electronic payment. [0] So reading that there are several observations. - first, they say in general, emphasis theirs, and don’t define exceptions explicitly. - next business day, so that means they are perfectly allowed to be two days delay for a payment initiated by Wednesday night, or up to five days for one initiated Thursday night (Thursday send, Friday received but held, Monday being next business day). If Monday is a bank holiday, then it could even be six days! - in (2)(i) they further go on to state Payment in actually and finally collected funds. There are a number of reasons that could be delayed. Ultimately, saying an ACH should always be by next morning is just flat wrong and no amount of experience with your own personal transactions negates that. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=b82e479da1df29eaa4aab825dccc3d3f&mc=true&node=se12.3.229_110&rgn=div8 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=b82e479da1df29eaa4...