Text 26966, 249 rader
Skriven 2012-03-18 08:17:31 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
  Kommentar till text 26920 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Nicholas Kill's name
============================
18 Mar 12 09:59, Robert Bashe wrote to Roy Witt:

 RB> Roy Witt wrote to Robert Bashe on Saturday March 17 2012 at 08:20:

 RB>>> I was talking about the trouble a recipient has to transport a
 RB>>> paper check to the bank and the time it takes to clear, not about
 RB>>> the processing time in the bank.

 RW>> The Check 21 Act doesn't require the recipient to transport anything
 RW>> to a bank.

 RB> [Sigh] I feel certain we're talking to cross purposes.

 RB> You have to write (or order your bank to have written) a check, do
 RB> you not?

Not necessarily...I could have used the online banking service and
transfered payment directly. But I prefer paper checks.

 RB> And that check has to be somehow transported to the recipient, dies
 RB> it not?

Let's say transported by mail.

 RB>  And the recipient has to present that check somewhere for payment,
 RB> does he not?

Yes, but not in person. He may choose to digitize the check and present it
for immediate payment via electronic transfer.

 RB> What happens afterward may well be what you state, but the process up
 RB> to that point is as I mentioned above.

True, except for the 'go to bank and present the paper' part of it. BTW,
since my finacial institution is a Texas ONLY entity with no out of state
branches at all, the 'paper' recipient would have to travel from GA, IL or
OR to TX to present a paper check in your scenario.

 RB>>> A "normal" payment here simply appears as a credit in your account
 RB>>> max. 3 days (and often sooner) after the transfer was initiated at
 RB>>> the payer's bank (in future the EU plans to cut the allowable time
 RB>>> to only _one_ day). You have immediate and full use of the money.

 RW>> You should have immediate access to it when it arrives in your
 RW>> account.

 RB> A _check_?? In the States? And what happens if it bounces?

The Check 21 Act rules apply. If the electronic version of my check
doesn't have enough money to cover it, the check (or a notice) is sent
back as an insufficient funds reverse transaction. That would happen
within the same hour that the 'paper' was received, digitized and sent,
on the same day the it was presented for payment.

 RB>>> When I send a check, the recipient first has to physically process
 RB>>> it, get it to the bank, and then the money is credited to his
 RB>>> account

 RW>> Such an ancient banking system. And here you thought the Euro
 RW>> banking system was some how superior to the American system.

 RB> Roy, you have no idea what you're talking about.

I get the same feeling reading what you think the American banking system
is like.

 RB> A check _must_ be presented to be cashed, whether you do it at a
 RB> bank, a supermarket or whatever. Otherwise it's just a piece of
 RB> paper, and not even as negotiable as a $5 bill.

It may be a piece of paper in your mind, but it becomes a 'digitized'
photograph presented electronically from places as far away as Juno is to
Miami. Or, I can present a digitized photograph of a paper check and make
a deposit with it, online. The bank presents the digitized photograph to
the payor's bank (electronically) and my account receives payment within
minutes of the deposit. At the latest, that deposit can be used the next
day to pay someone else in the same manner.

 RB>>> - but with a proviso that the sum will be debited to the account if
 RB>>> the check bounces. You only get full, unlimited use of the money 10
 RB>>> days after the check has been deposited.

 RW>> LOL! Such an ancient banking system.

 RB> Bullshit. Now you're trying to get a rise ;-)

I already have. ;)

 RB>>> I'm aware of the system, but the disadvantage is that you still
 RB>>> have to send a _paper_ check through the mail (several days
 RB>>> delivery time)

 RW>> This is part of the 'punish the payee' syndrome that Check 21
 RW>> diverts to no punishment at all, by instant electronic transfer of
 RW>> payment.

 RB> AFTER the payee has presented the check for payment.

Yeup, it all has to start with something negotiable, just like any other
payment method. i.e. you have to physically start a payment, whether you
use paper or go online and do it with your bank's software. Same in the
USA as in Germany.

 RB>>> and the recipient still has to cash it and wait for the check to
 RB>>> clear. This isn't comparable to the direct account transfer system
 RB>>> we use here.

 RW>> Such an ancient banking system.

 RB> ;-) You're repeating yourself.

Making a good impression always begins with making a point.

 RB>>> But you point out still another matter - you have to make out paper
 RB>>> checks, get them into an envelope and pay postage to get them
 RB>>> mailed (or have your bank do this for you, so-called "Internet
 RB>>> payment" which doesn't have much to do with the Internet at all).

 RW>> That is a choice that I make, not a rule of thumb to judge the
 RW>> American banking system by.

 RB> You have no oither choice except when making payments to entities
 RB> like large companies, utilities or the government. _That's_ the
 RB> point.

No it isn't. The point is that there is no difference between what you do
in Germany than what I can but choose not to do in the US. If I wanted to
pay Joe Blow for (insert your reason here) I could go online and add his
bank routing number and his account and pay him electronically, if I want
to...

 RB> And I judge the American banking system on the basis of it's
 RB> fees, it's inability to make direct account transfers and it's
 RB> reliance on the antiquated paper check system.

As I thought, you don't have a clue how it works here.

 RB>>> All I have to do is use a home banking program to make out an
 RB>>> account transfer slip and send it off via the Internet to the bank
 RB>>> computer. Never have to leave my chair behind the monitor to do
 RB>>> that, and so I pay my bills as they arrive.

 RW>> Too bad too. You could probably use the excercise in making the trip
 RW>> to your postal box at the curb, or on your porch. Or don't they
 RW>> pickup out going mail in Germany?

 RB> Nice diversion attempt ;-)

You didn't answer the question...that's a diversion if I ever saw one.

 RB>>> Or I set up an automatic payment on such and such a day of each
 RB>>> month (or every quarter, or on a specific day) for recurring
 RB>>> payments, and can then forget the affair. Or I can also allow the
 RB>>> payee to directly withdraw the payment from my account, something
 RB>>> that is very popular here (by law, you can reverse the debit
 RB>>> without giving a reason for up to 6 weeks after it is made, and the
 RB>>> payee has to foot the bill), but that I don't care for since I like
 RB>>> to do my banking myself.

 RW>> I refuse to allow that to happen, simply because they will take the
 RW>> money out, or attempt to at their leisure instead of mine. i.e. They
 RW>> want it on the 1st, I don't want them to have it until the 2nd
 RW>> Wednesday of each month.

 RB> Assuming such a thing is even possible in the States, the problem is
 RB> legislation allowing you to reverse such debits when made
 RB> (intentionally or unintentionally) without your authorization. Does
 RB> such legislation exist and is it national rather than state
 RB> legislation?

It's not a matter of legislation, it's a matter of mutual agreement. When
one party refuses to accept the other party's terms, there can be no
agreement and thus a refusal to use the system. This is why checks are
still a viable method of payment in the US...

 RW>>>> If that applies to an electronic transfer as outlined above (Check
 RW>>>> 21), then that is the same day the paper check is processed by the
 RW>>>> payee.

 RB>>> Not quite. First, the payee has to receive the check. Then -
 RB>>> cursing me for the inconvenience ;-) - he has to process the check
 RB>>> in his accounting.

 RW>> This is where the banking systems of the EU v US end.

 RB> Not quite. I don't normally use checks except to irritate a payee. A
 RB> direct account transfer is much easier and faster.

I use checks for the reason you state, not because it is the only method
in existance.

 RB>>> Then he has to send the check to his bank. Then there's a 10-day
 RB>>> period in which he has no full, unlimited access to the money.

 RW>> This is where the two systems differ. Check 21 allows the recipient
 RW>> to change the paper into an instantanios electronic payment. There
 RW>> is no one in between the recipient and the bank.

 RB> Depends on your bank, I guess.

Check 21 is common practice with every banking institution in the US...

 RB> The ones I'm familiar with credit your account with a check, but you
 RB> can only make use of the money after a certain period of 7-10 days.
 RB> In this case, I mean in the USA, not in Germany.

Check 21 made the waiting period obsolete, 8 years ago. In this case, I
mean the USofA, not Germany...

 RW>>>> i.e. electronic transfer from account to account...

 RB>>> Only after the check has arrived at the payee. In the direct acount
 RB>>> transfer, nothing ever has to be on paper, and there is no time
 RB>>> lost sending a check through the mail.

 RW>> If one prefers a time-loss, that is the best route to follow. It
 RW>> doesn't negate the fact that a paper check may be used to instantly
 RW>> transfer payment within a few minutes of processing time once it is
 RW>> in the hands of the payee.

 RB> ONCE IT IS IN THE HANDS OF THE PAYEE. Thanks for the confirmation.

See 'prefers a time-loss' above. After it is in the hands of the payee,
that ends the 'time-loss'. Instead it is turned into an immediate payment
by electronical methods.

 RB> I really think we can finish up this particular thread, Roy. The fact
 RB> is simply that I'm familiar with _both_systems and you know only one
 RB> of the two.

Fact is that you're living in the past where you have no clue how the US
banking system has evolved into the modern day equivelant of the EU
banking system...

 RB>  Even granting differences among banks, I think I have a better basis
 RB> for comparison than you do.

Even if you're wrong about the one you like to kick around... ;)


                R\%/itt


  ... Only those who will risk going too far can possibly
  ... find out how far one can go ~ TS Eliot


--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10
 * Origin: Roiz Flying \A/ Service * South Texas * USA * (1:387/22)