From my own random sampling of banks, I find the exact opposite - pulls generally have higher limits than pushes. This makes sense when you think about how the system operates.
A push puts the financial responsibility for fraud on the originating bank. Imagine account X pushes to account Y, and then account owner Y walks into the bank looking to withdraw cash. From Bank Y's perspective, everything looks fine. Later on, bank X finds out the push was fraudulent, but bank Y has relied on the transaction to dispense actual cash. Bank Y may help investigate, but they surely aren't going to be out the cash due to relying on X's false transaction.
Whereas the pull transaction (with Y as the originator), bank Y will put a withdrawal hold, scrutinize the cash withdrawal and ask if this is really their customer, etc, since there is no other party they can blame.
I also personally tend towards using pulls because that's the way the system expects to work since it grew out of checks. If one pushes money and it never shows up, then the blame is ambiguous. From the originator's perspective they've completed what you've asked them to do, and from the receiver's perspective they know nothing. Whereas with a pull, the main thing you're doing is asking the originator to credit your account. If the transaction gets lost without your other account getting debited, then the discrepancy doesn't really affect you.
Do you have or can you add real check and ACH withdrawal security? I want my bank to decline all externally initiated withdrawals unless explicitly authorized. In other words, when I write a check, I want to tell my bank, and if someone tries to cash a check drawn on my account, I want it to be rejected. The same should go for ACH debits.
This might be harder, but it would be even better if unrecognized debits we’re out of hold for a day or two so I could approve or reject them.
Is pull a totally different process? I’ve noticed for pull you have to authenticate the account (usually) with the “verify the two small deposits” dance while push will sometimes let you skip that.
In fact, I just called Citi earlier today because I’d closed a CC with them and had a credit. The CS rep asked for my routing and acct number and without even verifying it with me immediately said “you’ll see the credit in a couple days.” I asked her to verify the account number and she said “I’m sorry but the number is no longer visible to me but rest assured I sent it to the correct account.” So if those funds went somewhere else I suppose I’ll never see them?
I was also able to establish the ability to wire from my discount broker today to another checking account I have without performing any verification of the destination beyond providing the routing/acct number.
I have a feeling I actually don’t want to know how this all works...
I think this kind of makes sense. Think about it the other way, if it were to use transactions the flow would be like this:
[Assuming you've entered the PIN, and you've pressed the 2000 button to withdraw cash]
a) Check the cash dispenser has enough funds to withdraw 2000
b) Contact bank, reserve 2000
c) Tell cash dispenser to dispense 2000
d) Contact bank, commit 2000
Now for newer ATMs I'm assuming it is a bit different, but older ATMs used dial up modems which I'm guessing were pretty slow and unreliable. Ping times in the hundreds of milliseconds wouldn't have been uncommon. During the time taken to dispense it, you could even yank out the telephone cable. My point is, if the ATM failed to send the commit message, the bank would have just given out 2000 to someone for free.
> but they can't walk into a bank and withdraw money.
Depends on how you define withdraw. If you define it as filling out a withdrawal slip and giving to a teller, then probably correct. If you however mean in a generic sense taking the money from your account, then no, it’s certainly possible and not very hard, and all you need is account number.
Oof, that seems like a bad thing to do in America. In the EU thanks to SEPA regulations banks allow you do withdraw direct withdrawal consent at any time luckily.
Yes, having them control the amount and timing of the transfer is exactly what I am trying to avoid. I can easily set up direct debit, but it has led to too many erroneous and poorly timed withdrawals.
In the UK there is also a 'pull' system (Direct Debit) in which you instruct your bank that a given third party can regularly take money out of your account until further notice.
It's commonplace for bill payments, subscription services, etc.
You seem to think savings account do not get withdrawn against. If you take the customers cash to put into a T-bill but the customer withdrawals money before the T-bill matures, where do you get their cash from to honor the request?
Not everyone uses offerings in the manner the offerer expects. As software types, this is familiar territory. If you design a thing with only the happy path in mind while never allowing for that path not being followed, you’re in for a very rough time.
A separate party (not you) initiates the actual transaction, then the bank either accepts it or doesn’t.
reply