Is there a bank which doesn't hold outgoing payments 'for review'?

TheBanker

IanManc said:

Band7 said:

It is of course totally ok by me if you believe the checks on your accounts are not random.

Isn't that kind of Colsten/Dahlia/Band7? You have her permission to have your own beliefs @TheBanker .

Meanwhile, her belief that checks on her bank transactions are random is presented as an incontrovertible fact. Which, of course, it isn't. 

My belief is based on my professional experience and knowledge. I am pleased that I am permitted to continue to believe this.

It is important to understand the difference between things that appear to be random, and things that truly are random.

RG2015

TheBanker said:

IanManc said:

Band7 said:

It is of course totally ok by me if you believe the checks on your accounts are not random.

Isn't that kind of Colsten/Dahlia/Band7? You have her permission to have your own beliefs @TheBanker .

Meanwhile, her belief that checks on her bank transactions are random is presented as an incontrovertible fact. Which, of course, it isn't. 

My belief is based on my professional experience and knowledge. I am pleased that I am permitted to continue to believe this.

It is important to understand the difference between things that appear to be random, and things that truly are random.

However, it is possible that @Band7 may be correct for some banks.

I do not know the answer. In fact it is my belief that nobody knows the correct answer for every bank.

The only way this would be possible is if there was legislation mandating that random checks were or were not allowed.

RG2015

IanManc said:

RG2015 said:

TheBanker said:

IanManc said:

Band7 said:

It is of course totally ok by me if you believe the checks on your accounts are not random.

Isn't that kind of Colsten/Dahlia/Band7? You have her permission to have your own beliefs @TheBanker .

Meanwhile, her belief that checks on her bank transactions are random is presented as an incontrovertible fact. Which, of course, it isn't. 

My belief is based on my professional experience and knowledge. I am pleased that I am permitted to continue to believe this.

It is important to understand the difference between things that appear to be random, and things that truly are random.

However, it is possible that @Band7 may be correct for some banks.

I do not know the answer. In fact it is my belief that nobody knows the correct answer for every bank.

The only way this would be possible is if there was legislation mandating that random checks were or were not allowed.

Banks will not have unlimited resources that they can, or are prepared to, devote to checking transactions.

Checking transactions at random is wasteful of those resources, because it would cause the checking of vast numbers of innocent transactions which were picked for no reason; whereas @TheBanker 's suggestion that checks are targeted by use of algorithms would mean that potentially suspicious transactions would be highlighted and looked into, while most innocent transactions would proceed unmolested. 

Therefore, based on @TheBanker 's experience of how banks work, and on the obvious logic of banks wanting to use limited resources for their best effect, it is vastly more likely that @TheBanker is correct and that Colsten/Dahlia/Band7's trenchant assertions are completely wrong.

You present a compelling argument.

Perhaps, the algorithm at Santander has picked up something in @Band7 's transactions or pattern of transactions that triggered the checks.

I am just speculating, but it may be that the algorithm includes the tenth of a run of large value transactions to check.This would satisfy the claim that several transactions went through fine and then one was held up. This would appear to be random but in fact is not.

As I say, I am speculating, but I cannot know either way. I would also suggest that keeping the precise details secret must help to combat fraud.

Band7

Amazing how some people who neither know myself nor anything about my banking transactions do know that I am "completely wrong" when I describe what happened with my banking transactions. 

saajan_12

gsmh said:

I was just wondering if there are any banks which are less likely to hold on to your money once you've made a transfer. I know what's going on and why they're doing it, but there must be some institutions which are more stringent than others. It's not about being 'lax' and having the 'loosest' security or allowing anybody to withdraw any amount without impediment. That's just silly and an emotive use of words to support what the banks are doing. It was a genuine question and genuine answers are most welcome.

Its the same thing.. if one institution has more stringent checks, then the other has less stringent checks, aka looser or more lax. Softening the words to make it sound better also doesn't change the facts. If there were known 'less stringent' banks, then criminals would just use those.. 

gsmh said:

I can't help feeling disgruntled at not being able to do what I want with my own money. How on Earth do very rich people manage if they can only move small amounts around without the third degree? Do you think Sunak has this problem?

Banks wouldn't have a fixed amount threshold, its more about patterns and what's unusual for a particular customer. So if your hypothetical rich person frequently moves larger sums then another large transaction is within their normal behaviour, so may not get as many questions. 

TheBanker

Band7 said:

Amazing how some people who neither know myself nor anything about my banking transactions do know that I am "completely wrong" when I describe what happened with my banking transactions. 

I have certainly not said you are completely wrong. But you did say that about me, even though I have knowledge of how this works. I accept that I do not know how every single bank works, but its been the same in all the ones I've worked at, and the ones my colleagues have worked at.

I thinkbwhat you might be missing is that the bank are not just comparing your transaction to your previous spending pattern. They are also comparing it to the transactions made by all their other customers, looking for patterns that may indicate fraud based on previous experience.

DavidT67

grumbler said:

gsmh said:

Is there a bank which doesn't hold outgoing payments 'for review'?

In our dreams and in Hollywood films.

In Hollywood films bank transfers also occur one dollar at a time over a dramatic number of minutes...

flaneurs_lobster

DavidT67 said:

grumbler said:

gsmh said:

Is there a bank which doesn't hold outgoing payments 'for review'?

In our dreams and in Hollywood films.

In Hollywood films bank transfers also occur one dollar at a time over a dramatic number of minutes...

...with a digital display counting up (or, indeed, down).

Shakin_Steve

IanManc said:

Band7 said:

Amazing how some people who neither know myself nor anything about my banking transactions do know that I am "completely wrong" when I describe what happened with my banking transactions. 

It isn't "amazing" Colsten/Dahlia/Band7. 

Oooooo......have I missed something?

phillw

IanManc said:
Meanwhile, her belief that checks on her bank transactions are random is presented as an incontrovertible fact. Which, of course, it isn't. 

It is as random as you can get with a computer.
Entropy goes in, seemingly unrelated outcome is calculated.

I await you providing evidence you can predict the decision.


They are also comparing it to the transactions made by all their other customers, looking for patterns that may indicate fraud based on previous experience.

So the outcome is random, because you can't control what other customers are doing at any particular time.