• filter:
  • Page :
  • 1
  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
Voting History
rated:
TLDR

I'm looking for private (ie not business) checking that allows me to do an ACH push (electronic check/deposit) to another account (not owned by me) using account holder name, routing, and account numbers.  The receiving party should NOT have to sign up for an account to receive the money, it should NOT be based on email addresses or phone numbers.  It is just an electronic check/deposit.  I would prefer ACH based system because the fees are much lower than doing a SWIFT wire-transfer.  Doesn't need to be a free account for me.

Merchant accounts and business accounts that support direct deposit are overkill for me...so looking for private checking with this feature.

Detailed (long) info...

CapitalOne 360 (formerly INGDirect) checking accounts offer a free direct ACH transfer functionality called Person2Person.  Basically it allows you to do an ACH push of funds to another unrelated person's account without linking/verifying the account.  All you need is account/routing numbers and their name.  There is a confirmation email to "pick up" the funds...but that just involves them (or me) confirming their bank account number and routing details.

I am currently living/working in Germany but have lots of bills/reimbursements in the US.  So I normally do a forex transfer (EUR->USD) into my CapitalOne360 account and then do a series of free domestic ACH pushes from there in USD in order to make payments.  

If people want to send me money (given this is such a hassle)... I have them write me a check and scan it (assuming they have a scanner).  Then I use a mobile banking app to take pictures of the check on my computer screen in order to make a deposit (after digitally endorsing of course).  Amazing the efficiency of the technology we have eh?  This is acceptable for me to receive money...even if it is inefficient since I am relatively technical.  Doesn't scale for any random person/company I need to send money to.

Just saw today that CapitalOne360 is discontinuing the ACH service and moving to clearXchange.
CapitalOne said: Hey there. Just a heads up that we'll be retiring this P2P Payments service later this year and switching over to a new one, P2P Payments powered by clearXchange. The new service lets you send money even more easily - all you need is the recipient's email address or mobile phone number.

Curious? Go ahead and try the new experience today. Otherwise, you can keep using the old version for now and we'll send you an email with more details when we get closer to making the switch.


Basically if a payee (person I am sending money to) doesn't have a bank that participates in the clearXchange network...then the payee has to create a clearXchange account to receive my money.  So why don't I just use paypal or something?  If I have the funds in my account and I want to deposit them in another domestic account even if it isn't owned by me...  I could walk into a bank and make a deposit into a friend's account....provided I have his/her name and account number.  If I don't present ID to the bank showing I am the account holder, they won't give me a receipt showing account balance...just a receipt that the deposit was made to the account number specified.    I am allowed to do that right?  Or have the rules changed?

I guess it is back to traditional check-by-mail bill-pay where I have my bank send paper Checks In The Mail to the bank-by-mail address of the recipient's bank with their name and account details as the memo.   Then the payee's bank deposits the paper check in the payee's account.  This has worked for a long time and as far as I know will continue to work.

...but isn't that the point of ACH, to support these kind of transfers?  Is the problem that money senders have too many typos in the bank account and/or receiving banks are not doing any payee validation (ie account holder name) when they receive the payment?  Or is this somehow related to post-911 money laundering regulations that the banks don't want to deal with themselves so they leave ACH push in the scope of large business accounts?

I mean... INGDirect/CapitalOne360 supported this...so can't be illegal.  They had this annoying email step where the person receiving the money had to confirm their account number every time...I assume because they don't want to be liable for mis-delivered payments? 

Now that they are removing this feature, I will be shopping for a new bank.  I heard USAA supports this (as of 2010 anyway), but I am not military, so that isn't an option.

Any other ideas/suggestions for other banks where I can continue to do this via online banking?  For me this is a big selling point.  I am even willing to pay fees for an account with this feature.



Rant continues...

By the way, the only logical explanation(s) I can come up with for why this isn't a standard feature are the following:

  • the banks don't have a way of validating account numbers
  • and/or ACH doesn't easily support the return of "mis-addressed" payments (ie account holder name doesn't match payment, or account doesn't exist)
  • and/or the receiving banks don't have the systems in place to check/validate incoming ACH payments.


Would be great if the banks just worked on fixing whatever the issues are that prevent them from offering direct bank-to-bank transfers without involving some third party payment provider hack.  Specifics....

  • updating account numbering scheme to be validated.  by the way, this is why there was recently a painful/mandatory move in europe to IBAN/SEPA for account numbers transactions.  IBAN supports a checksum which gives an easy way to catch user typos (still need receiving bank to validate on some level).  https://www.iban.com/structure.html
  • Pretty sure ACH network has the mechanics to support return/rejection of ACH funds.  https://www.nacha.org/ach-network
  • Receiving banks can implement a few things to check/accept/reject incoming transfers (ie account exists, account holder name matches what is on payment, account rules allow incoming payments, etc)


You still don't get it?

For those people that don't understand why anyone would want to do this, think of it as an electronic check that shows up in the other person's account without any hold on the money anywhere from same day to 1-2 business days.
Here (attached) is what the payment transfer looks like from my german bank.  Can initiate a domestic, european or international transfer from the same tool.  I check the foreign currency box if I am transferring to an account that isn't EUR and it lets me specify how much should show up in the recipient's account in terms of the foreign currency.  Then of course there are wire transfer fees... but for normal EUR->EUR transfers, especially within Germany there are no fees.

Basically just:

  1. Pick which account (of mine) I want to fund the payment from.
  2. Enter the recipient name and account number (IBAN)...or pick from a saved payee - see attached image
  3. Enter the amount I want to send, any notes/memos/description for the payment, and the date I want to send it.
  4. Optionally: save the payee for future use, or schedule recurring payment.
  5. Enter a single-use PIN ("TAN") to authorize/confirm the transaction.  
  6. Recipient doesn't have to do anything.  Money shows up in their account anywhere from same-day to within 2 business days.  It shows my name, source account number and notes/memo.

The receiver could send money back to me if they like just based on that.  Neither the receiver or I pay any fees for this transfer.

There is no consumer protection/charge-back functionality in these types of transfers...for that use paypal or credit cards.  

However there are lots of use cases for these simple person 2 person bank transfers.  In germany these are used to pay large reputable online retailers (include your order number in the memo) in exchange for a discount relative to using credit cards.  You pay your dentist, doctor, plumber, auto repair shop, etc all with these bank transfers.  Normally they provide the service and then send you a bill later.   In some cases they may accept payment at time of service, but that is often with a direct debit card ("EC" Card) anyway as credit cards are not widely used.  

Basically having a functioning account 2 account payment system is a complete universal replacement for the typical american bill-pay systems.  Next time you are in your online banking, take a look at the number of payment/transfer/bill-pay tools and work-flows in your online banking system.  Usually there are at least 3 or more different ones each for a very specific/limited use-case.  Wouldn't it be nice to just have a single system that allowed you to transfer to your own accounts or external accounts.  One time or on a schedule.  ACH (the inter-bank pipe for electronic transfers) is already there... not sure why this is so hard.
 

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
Have had major trouble with Capital One 360 and ClearExchange. In the old system I sent money to a friend several times ... (more)

jenlmulder (Dec. 15, 2016 @ 6:15p) |

Well the only alternatives I've seen where you can push directly to an end account are using PopMoney. The monthly limit... (more)

elcaudillo (Jan. 05, 2017 @ 2:30p) |

If you're a real baller then Silicon Valley Bank has very high PopMoney Limits, $100k per month and $25k per day

https://... (more)

elcaudillo (Jan. 05, 2017 @ 5:03p) |

Staff Summary
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

rated:
tl;dr but in an effort to help you out, have you tried square cash? I think it will do what you are looking for, granted the other person needs to sign up as well but it's free.

rated:
S197 said:   tl;dr but in an effort to help you out, have you tried square cash? I think it will do what you are looking for, granted the other person needs to sign up as well but it's free.
  
Yes I have square, also merchant account.  But no, it doesn't help because requiring all the people/businesses I send money to to create a square account to receive the money is a no go.
They provided me their routing/account numbers and I should be able to push money out of my account directly to them via electronic check.

rated:
Apparently the cost of the service you want is not negligible to the bank, which may explain why it's hard to find and being discontinued by Capital 360. How much are you willing to pay? Bank of America and Popmoney do what you want, but there are fees unless you make in-network transfers.

rated:
Nearly every major bank is on ClearXChange. Look at the routing numbers of the people you're sending money to. It's likely all these folks are in CX already.

The reason banks don't want to offer this service is that manual (unverified) ACH has a huge return rate which equals $$$$ spent by the bank to track down the returned transactions and bad customer experience if you mistargeted it to a different account.

Further, many banks now do not let you walk in and deposit into someone else's account (e.g. Chase), because of money laundering fears. I wouldn't be surprised if this also is motivated by that bogeyman.

rated:
Right, Chase has been the most aggressive on trying to stop any loophole to get unverified or untraceable funds deposited in any way (including card payments).

BofA has just announced something similar. So, there does appear to be something going on in this part of the banking space that has become a problem for the banks in recent years.

What is happening is the banks want to stop using ACH for many reasons (Chase's Dimon has given interviews on his opinion of the ACH networks). So, any method you have that relies on ACH is going to go away faster. Now that many of the largest banks in the country have their own network, it will not be long before business payments and payroll start using the same platform. The mobile banking revolution happened to be a big boost to clearXchange.

The key is clearXchange can charge nothing even to those who signup to get funds at a smaller bank because as mentioned up thread, the majority of the funds will never leave the big banks (self transfers) without any external sharing of bank information.

This is not very different from how Visa and Mastercard started (including the ownership structure ). Instead of card numbers, you are using mobile numbers and email addresses.

Rasheed

rated:
mapen said:   Apparently the cost of the service you want is not negligible to the bank, which may explain why it's hard to find and being discontinued by Capital 360. How much are you willing to pay? Bank of America and Popmoney do what you want, but there are fees unless you make in-network transfers.
  
Thanks for the tip about BofA, I will check into their offering.  The problem with popmoney and clearXchange is that either users have to create accounts or banks have to be members.  I guess at least clearXchange is has pretty large membership now.  The ACH network is already universal for US banks.  

In terms of the per transaction fees Nacha charges for ACH, my understanding is that it is tiny.  $ .000162 per transaction to be exact.  But perhaps I am mistaken, feel free to cite sources that show something different.... but it sounds like you are just speculating?   https://www.nacha.org/system/files/resources/Network-Admin-Fee-S...

I think most of the cost comes from the fact that the banks haven't added support for this and so managing mis-addressed transactions causes problems.  However I can't imagine this is a "real" problem since all the banks in Europe have no trouble with this...rather just something the US banks don't want to implement support for for one reason or another.  But now I'm speculating.  

rated:
gergles said:   The reason banks don't want to offer this service is that manual (unverified) ACH has a huge return rate which equals $$$$ spent by the bank to track down the returned transactions and bad customer experience if you mistargeted it to a different account.

Further, many banks now do not let you walk in and deposit into someone else's account (e.g. Chase), because of money laundering fears. I wouldn't be surprised if this also is motivated by that bogeyman.

  I would think that a small amount of investment in software would reduce any manual work.  You mis-address it, the receiving bank returns it and it gets deposited back in your account.  You send it to the wrong account...your problem.  Improving account numbering to include checksums will catch basic typos, would help a lot as well.

At least within the last few months I haven't had issue doing a bill-pay to a bank-by-mail address of the payee.  This resulted in the check being deposited in the payees account... but probably costs a lot more to the bank since they have to handle paper.  So if they are starting to block that, I haven't seen it yet.  Haven't tried to walk in an do a deposit in a while to someone else's account...but they aren't checking my ID when I do a deposit without cash back.  As long as the deposit slip is filled out with the right name and account number, they don't ask for ID.  Has that changed for you?  Last time was maybe 6 months ago (chase).

I don't really get the money laundering bit since with ACH or electronic check there is no difference in bank records than with a normal check.  Debit on my account showing name/account I made payment to (via check, eCheck, ACH, etc).  Credit on other side showing they received a payment from me including my account number and things.  Involve a third party (ie another layer of indirection) in the transaction and it must make it much harder for the NSA to reconcile who is sending money to who within the US.  I think they are more concerned with international transfers anyway.  But maybe I am missing something?

rated:
BofA uses clearXchange too, so it'll be the same thing.

Ally uses Popmoney and has the option of giving the routing/acct number. I've used it to send money and it's free for now. I don't know if the Target bank has to be part of Popmoney or not though. btw, Popmoney uses ACH underneath.

rated:
rasheedb said:   Right, Chase has been the most aggressive on trying to stop any loophole to get unverified or untraceable funds deposited in any way (including card payments).

BofA has just announced something similar. So, there does appear to be something going on in this part of the banking space that has become a problem for the banks in recent years.

What is happening is the banks want to stop using ACH for many reasons (Chase's Dimon has given interviews on his opinion of the ACH networks). So, any method you have that relies on ACH is going to go away faster. Now that many of the largest banks in the country have their own network, it will not be long before business payments and payroll start using the same platform. The mobile banking revolution happened to be a big boost to clearXchange.

The key is clearXchange can charge nothing even to those who signup to get funds at a smaller bank because as mentioned up thread, the majority of the funds will never leave the big banks (self transfers) without any external sharing of bank information.

This is not very different from how Visa and Mastercard started (including the ownership structure ). Instead of card numbers, you are using mobile numbers and email addresses.

Rasheed

  Thanks for the answer.  Sounds like you are definitely more in the loop about what is happening around the inter-bank networks.  

So clearXchange is owned by a bunch of the large banks and they want to use this to replace ACH altogether at some point?

The phone-number/email bothers me, because I don't want to rely on people's email and phone numbers never changing.   I know I am not the average consumer.  I've had the same bank accounts (many different institutions) for a long time, but my emails and mobile numbers are always changing.  I also have to hope no one sends me money at an old phone number that is now owned by someone else...not sure if there is any "charge-back" mechanism in these cases.

I have to hope that payment email notifications get noticed by the business/person I am sending money to and don't end up in their spam box.  

Not sure how this works when the recipient has many accounts but only one phone number.  If they are a business it sounds like a lot of extra work if they have to "pick up" every payment...whereas before the payment would post to their account and their accounting system would pick it up automatically (ie my account/invoice ID in the payment memo).

clearXchange feels like a very simplistic payment system that will work well for consumer-consumer payments for average consumers that have 1 email, 1 phone number and 1 bank account.  I mean imagine not getting your paycheck via direct deposit because you got a new mobile number and didn't tell your employer in time.

If ACH is really on the way out, do you know what the plans are to replace the current business/merchant functionality that ACH provides?

Sorry for whining.  Not trying to just piss in the wind...I do want to understand where things are going, so I appreciate you sharing.

 

rated:
libralibra said:   BofA uses clearXchange too, so it'll be the same thing.

Ally uses Popmoney and has the option of giving the routing/acct number. I've used it to send money and it's free for now. I don't know if the Target bank has to be part of Popmoney or not though. btw, Popmoney uses ACH underneath.

  
Popmoney is also sending based on someone's email address or mobile number being associated with a popmoney account via their bank or popmoney directly.  In 50% of my use-cases I don't have email addresses or mobile numbers.  Just business line phone and customer support addresses.  I do have account-holder, bank-name, routing number and account number.

I have a feeling CapitalOne360 was the last hold out and that all the banks are going to try to push consumers in the clearXchange/popmoney direction since the banks don't see consumer payment use-cases beyond how paypal is used.

It may be that I just need to setup a merchant account again and use that for issuing payments (credits) via ACH. 

 

rated:
rasheedb said:   Chase's Dimon has given interviews on his opinion of the ACH networks
 

  If you have links to specific interviews, I would be interested to hear the opinion about the future of ACH/inter-bank transfers from the horse's mouth as it were.  Appreciate you sharing your knowledge.  Thanks.

rated:
libralibra said:   BofA uses clearXchange too, so it'll be the same thing.
 

  
Bank of America has different services. One of them uses Cashedge, which I remember from the earliest days of the Internet allowed you to transfer with ACH info only (I can see it in the URL).  In BOA, the link says "Transfer, Using their account number at another bank". If you click that one, an email address and phone number is not required, only the ACH account numbers. To be clear, it does prompt for a phone number, but it is not required and you can leave it blank. Like the OP mentions, this service allows you to keep a contact list of people to ACH to.

Unfortunately, it appears they charge $3 for non-BOA transfers.

rated:
mapen said:     
Bank of America has different services. One of them uses Cashedge, which I remember from the earliest days of the Internet allowed you to transfer with ACH info only (I can see it in the URL).  In BOA, the link says "Transfer, Using their account number at another bank". If you click that one, an email address and phone number is not required, only the ACH account numbers. To be clear, it does prompt for a phone number, but it is not required and you can leave it blank. Like the OP mentions, this service allows you to keep a contact list of people to ACH to.

Unfortunately, it appears they charge $3 for non-BOA transfers.

  Thanks for coming back to followup and clarify.  This is exactly what I was looking for.  Would love to have other options still (ie non-mega-bank), but this is a good start.  I will check it out.

rated:
Capital One 360 has always been an anomaly in the US Banking system for allowing such ACH push transactions. Many years ago US politicians passed laws in most US states forbidding anonymous deposits to a Bank Account (by any means) without given the account holder the right to accept or reject each  deposit. Some politician was embarrassed when it was discovered a Mobster had deposited funds into his campaign bank account and claimed he was being "framed". In the rest of the world this is not only legal but also the norm for paying bills and making payments.

I suspect Capital One 360 got away with it because it was originally a foreign Bank (ING) that was not subject to state level Banking regulation.

rated:
matp said:   

  If you have links to specific interviews, I would be interested to hear the opinion about the future of ACH/inter-bank transfers from the horse's mouth as it were.  Appreciate you sharing your knowledge.  Thanks.

  
Sure. Just search for ACH in these pages.

2015 Chase annual shareholder letter:
http://fintechranking.com/2015/04/09/jamie-dimons-annual-letter-...

On a podcast:
http://www.businessinsider.com/jamie-dimon-says-tech-companies-c...

To your other questions...
matp said:   
  Thanks for the answer.  Sounds like you are definitely more in the loop about what is happening around the inter-bank networks.  

So clearXchange is owned by a bunch of the large banks and they want to use this to replace ACH altogether at some point?


Sidestep ACH it would seem. There would still have to be some sort of bank-level reconciliation at some regular basis. The large banks feel they are getting the raw deal via the current ACH system, but they are totally okay with smaller banks joining their real-time network because they know they will still have the majority of the volume.

The phone-number/email bothers me, because I don't want to rely on people's email and phone numbers never changing.
I have to hope that payment email notifications get noticed by the business/person I am sending money to and don't end up in their spam box.


See, they have to accept the transfer on a P2P, so if it is in the spam box, no big deal, the transfer doesn't occur. They can also see it in the banking site (or clearxchange site). Thankfully, spam folders for mobile numbers texts are not so common yet.
I find the email/phone dependency is really not an acceptable concern. So many websites including "high-secure" banking and financial sites depend on mobile number keys for two factor authentication. Facebook, What's App, you name it have used email addresses or global mobile numbers (and maybe a backup or two) as the foundation of their authentication systems. This is not a clearXchange issue and is considered to be much more portable than an account number.

Not sure how this works when the recipient has many accounts but only one phone number.  If they are a business it sounds like a lot of extra work if they have to "pick up" every payment...whereas before the payment would post to their account and their accounting system would pick it up automatically (ie my account/invoice ID in the payment memo).
clearXchange feels like a very simplistic payment system that will work well for consumer-consumer payments for average consumers that have 1 email, 1 phone number and 1 bank account.  I mean imagine not getting your paycheck via direct deposit because you got a new mobile number and didn't tell your employer in time.


I don't see how different it is than when a person change's their bank account and doesn't tell their employer for a DD. Anyway, the rule today is that a unique email address or mobile phone number can only be listed with one institution. I had this collision situation occur as more and more banks came onboard and the cross-referenced database found the duplicate matches. I can assure you when businesses are allowed to accept such payments, it will be pretty seamless. Pretty much every business you pay bills to today has your email and mobile numbers as well.

If ACH is really on the way out, do you know what the plans are to replace the current business/merchant functionality that ACH provides?


So, the original intent of clearXchange was real-time money exchange. That has worked well (within the member banks). Business would love that too because billpay still sends out lots of checks and you still have lots of 1-2 day before payment delivery and payroll situations (where the money is just floating around frankly). I think this is one of the main reason many businesses offer payment via credit cards (or rather people use debit cards very often -- which seems like a transaction fee waste for the banks and merchants). Right now, the bank consortium that owns the real-time network is focused on volume capture. I think the tipping point is maybe 50-75% of banking customers (via the largest banks) need to be connected automatically to this network for it to make the payroll and other non-P2P payments worthwhile.  To be clear, I think the evidence from Dimon and others support that clearXchange is not going to stop at P2P, but be a foundation for real-time money exchange (translated payments and payroll money transfer) for all situations.  Consider the P2P aspect the best testing for the banks involved to get their systems to be interoperable.  Even for the founding banks (BofA, Chase and WF), it was a very tough challenge to get their P2P systems talking and took 2-3 years I think.  Just awhile ago, you had to ask if the person sending you money was a BofA, Chase, or WF customer to give them the proper P2P instructions.  Now, they do not have to know any of those details, they just enter your email or mobile and send or request the money.  You will also note that the limits on these systems are relatively high for P2P purposes.  This is all intentional to avoid barriers to adoption.

Rasheed

rated:
One more note..

i went for *years* without a "real" checking account using only ACH and credit cards (that were paid via ACH). Then Regulation D started to get enforced (which is just government silliness because I wanted to have paperless banking). To setup ACH was a major pain as you have to do each one practically via a paper letter application in those days. Only now can you setup everything online to be 'automated'.

So, this "progress" is still way behind for me. The other technology process I felt I was just before my time was not using SMS, but data to send messages (when SMS was not unlimited). The OTT service though just took awhile to have good mobile support (although the Messengers of different types had been around for awhile). The only reason why SMS or voice has gone unlimited because they have been mostly abandoned due to their limitations.

I don't think anyone in this thread has mentioned Venmo which has some buzz right not, but I am still firmly in the camp that the ones done by the banks will be the most effective for volume money transfers.

Rasheed

rated:
ananthar said:   Capital One 360 has always been an anomaly in the US Banking system for allowing such ACH push transactions. Many years ago US politicians passed laws in most US states forbidding anonymous deposits to a Bank Account (by any means) without given the account holder the right to accept or reject each  deposit. Some politician was embarrassed when it was discovered a Mobster had deposited funds into his campaign bank account and claimed he was being "framed". In the rest of the world this is not only legal but also the norm for paying bills and making payments.

I suspect Capital One 360 got away with it because it was originally a foreign Bank (ING) that was not subject to state level Banking regulation.

  I appreciate your feedback.  Can you share a link or something for your story so I can read more?

 

rated:
matp I am in the same boat as you, I used Capital One 360 for its ACH push feature as well.

FYI Ally Bank's PopMoney does allow you to ACH out directly out with recipient routing and account, however, you are limited to $10,000 total per 30 day rolling period. Would that suffice for you?

With Capital One 360 P2P you were able to send $5k a day.

rated:
The initial CapitalOne360 implementation of P2P through clearXchange is half baked. There is no address book and no future payments. Two features that were available in their "old" P2P. There is apparently no way to decline a payment sent to you although I believe other banks that use clearXchange allow you to decide whether to automatically accept payments or require they be accepted by you. Also their "old" P2P required the last 4 digits of the receiver's account number to send a payment. This was actually a good security feature in that if you accidentally sent a payment to an incorrect email address that happened to belong to someone else, that someone else probably would not be able to claim the money since their account number would most likely not end in the same 4 digits. Unfortunately the CapitalOne360 terms of service for the clearXchange system put all the risk of sending a payment to the wrong person back on the customer (sender). Imagine sending a payment to nicole@whatever.com when you really meant nichole@whatever.com. You don't know Nicole, but you do know Nichole. All the wrong Nicole has to do is register with clearXchange and claim your payment. Now imagine that payment is your half of the rent for the month and Nichole is your housemate. But someone else named Nicole got your rent payment! Ouch. This "convenience" of sending money to just an email address or mobile number comes with a lot of risk in my opinion. Also, not allowing or requiring you to accept payments sent to you probably opens up all large can of legal worms if you receive illicit funds from someone you don't know.

rated:
iloop said:   The initial CapitalOne360 implementation of P2P through clearXchange is half baked. There is no address book and no future payments. Two features that were available in their "old" P2P. There is apparently no way to decline a payment sent to you although I believe other banks that use clearXchange allow you to decide whether to automatically accept payments or require they be accepted by you. Also their "old" P2P required the last 4 digits of the receiver's account number to send a payment. This was actually a good security feature in that if you accidentally sent a payment to an incorrect email address that happened to belong to someone else, that someone else probably would not be able to claim the money since their account number would most likely not end in the same 4 digits. Unfortunately the CapitalOne360 terms of service for the clearXchange system put all the risk of sending a payment to the wrong person back on the customer (sender). Imagine sending a payment to nicole@whatever.com when you really meant nichole@whatever.com. You don't know Nicole, but you do know Nichole. All the wrong Nicole has to do is register with clearXchange and claim your payment. Now imagine that payment is your half of the rent for the month and Nichole is your housemate. But someone else named Nicole got your rent payment! Ouch. This "convenience" of sending money to just an email address or mobile number comes with a lot of risk in my opinion. Also, not allowing or requiring you to accept payments sent to you probably opens up all large can of legal worms if you receive illicit funds from someone you don't know.
  I've just had to go through this "half baked" nonsense yesterday and made a payment this morning to the usual P2P account that was so simple and convenient with the old system.

The new system, which is supposedly convenient, is anything but....

I'm simply transferring an amount to another 360 account (my GF's) and now I need to refer to 6 digit emailed codes to make the payment and there's now this $2000 limit.
Presumably, I'll need to do any payments over $2000 over a number of days manually. The old system allowed you to schedule such things, via a calendar over a number of consecutive days.

This new method is like a "homebrew" solution, I think a chat with customer service will be in order later today...

rated:
What's funny here is most of the policies you mention are not due to the bank, but are pretty standard on the clearXchange network. There is nothing "homebrew" about it.

Yes, it is possible if you use the wrong email address or mobile number that an unintended person will get the funds. However, the transfer is in near-real-time. If the person you are sending the money to does not acknowledge it almost immediately, then cancel it and start over.

Most of the network banks have moved to automatic acceptance of funds. The idea of illicit funds is interesting, but silly because the funds are traceable.

The $2k limit is definitely a Capital One decision. I am very confident that the limit will be increased after the bank has been operating the program for awhile.

Further, while some of the "what if" scenarios are interesting, this network is not new and has been operating for many years. So, how the network handles these "issues" has been reviewed and the traceability has allowed these concerns to not be warranted.

I have already seen from others what happens when they enter the wrong mobile or email. The transaction doesn't go through, it is reversed or after a few days, it is cancelled by the network. Not a big deal.

Rasheed

rated:
Good luck talking to customer service.  I received canned answers like "we've noted your concerns", blah-bitty, blah, blah.  Which is code for "we've already ignored you and proceeded with the implementation of this inferior solution and turned off the old P2P system".  "clearXchange" is actually backed by a partnership of several major banks. I won't mention their names, so as not to embarrass them. It's a lame attempt to fight back against the "Fintech" players. It's difficult to say where the ball was dropped on CapitalOne360's poor implementation. Clearly not much thought was put into it.

rated:
Other banks do offer repeating and address book capabilities. So, it should be possible for them to add this feature at some point.

Rasheed

rated:
Have had major trouble with Capital One 360 and ClearExchange. In the old system I sent money to a friend several times and she received it in her Capital One 360 account within 1-2 days. With the new system she had to register with Clear Exchange, which she did immediately and 8 days later, still no money. Customer service was useless and it took 2 hours of me complaining on the phone to various managers for them to open investigation. Now they are claiming she never registered with Clear Exchange, which is a lie. I was on the phone with her when she confirmed her registration at Clear Exchange. Meanwhile, the money was deducted from my account over a week ago. Someone is definitely profiting from this system and it's not us! I'm going back to writing old fashioned checks.

Jen

rated:
Well the only alternatives I've seen where you can push directly to an end account are using PopMoney. The monthly limits are per bank with PopMoney and bank sets fees, from lowest to highest limits:

PNC: $5k per master account, $1k per transaction (No Fees)
PopMoney: $5k per master account, $2k per transaction ($0.95 per send)
TD Bank: $5k per master account, $2k per transaction ($1 per send)
Ally: $10k per master account, $5k per transaction (No Fees)
Princeton FCU (Can join by becoming member of NJ Consumer Org): $15k per master account, $5k per transaction (No Fees for regular 3 day send, $5 fee for express send)

Between Ally and Princeton, that $20-$25k @ $5k per transfer should cover most people's needs. If you were pushing $5k on cap one more than once a week...you probably qualify for a private banking account with a decent number free wires or are a customer no sane bank wants.

Princeton says higher limits monthly are available for customers who meet the requirements (be prepared for them to ask for financial details).

Anyone have any other PopMoney banks with decent limits to add?

rated:
If you're a real baller then Silicon Valley Bank has very high PopMoney Limits, $100k per month and $25k per day

https://www.svb.com/pb-banking/popmoney-agreement/

They pretty much only work with startup folk, private equity, venture capital, and CEO's / C-Suite execs.

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.


Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017