Talk:Wire transfer

message: Would it be possible - preferably by someone from a financial institute itself - to write about the background of why wire transfers costs so much. It is awkward that it is more or less free in Europe while it is so expensive (starting with 15 dollars) in the US. Are there physical barriers that hamper a cheap electronic implementation? Or there (old-fashioned) laws that make it difficult? Or is this just price fixing between the major banks, see wire-transfer-fees-2013? 
Andy (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background information 

message: It doesn't make much sense that a citation would be needed for the underlined paragraph in the SECURITY section.  In this particular case, it's difficult to prove a negative.  How do you prove that an intermediate bank can't do a money grab on a wire transfer?  Of course it happens; and it happens so often it's simply accepted by consumers as a general practice, but it's never been publicly challenged, and there's no official document making a positive statement that it's possible.Jgombos (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proving a negative 

message: The article fails to discuss China and Africa. Africa in particular makes use of wire transfer services that are very different to the western model. How money is transferred in Japan, China, Korea etc should be mentioned in the article.
:: It seems mainly US centred to me. For example in this whole article about electronic bank transfers there isn't a single mention of the BACS system used in the UK. Ridiculous! 91.125.43.174 (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  US and EU focus 

message: The two banks that I do business with both offer wire transfer services via their internet banking sites. One bank offers "Online wire transfers," with which I can enter in the recipient's bank and account number and have that money transferred usually the same day. The other bank offers "Western Union Money Transfer" service, which lets me input the person's name and location but not their bank account information. I'm confused by this second bank's online form, as I'm not entirely sure how the money gets to the recipient's account if you don't enter the recipient's account information. I suspect that this bank's wire transfer service is more akin to WU's "Money in Minutes" service, which requires the recipient to show up in person at a WU service center to receive the cash, but I'm not sure and have not had a chance to ask the bank if this is the case. I wish they would make it more clear on their site...
The reason I bring this up is because I think it would be helpful if someone could better explain the various forms of wire transfer in this article. I searched this article for help in my case (I wanted to know before I instituted the wire transfer) and found it rather lacking. For example, a look at WU's U.S. web site shows the "Money in Minutes" service (which transfers cash between WU service centers) and the "Direct to Bank" service (which transfers cash between bank accounts). These are two distinct services, and it would be good to differentiate them in this article. I would, but I'm not sufficiently familiar with wire transfers (this is my first one). cluth 02:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a lot of info about these services. NickBurns 15:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that Western Union should be considered bank transfer. A bank transfer is from one account to another while Western Union works in a completely different way. Here in Germany, wire transfer is the most common payment method - It takes 2 to 3 days between banks, within the same bank it's often instant, and if you have online banking it just takes you one minute to send from your computer and many banks even do wire transfers for free while western union even costs more than an international wire transfer. Also, I believe that Western Union involves a lot of paperwork (I haven't ever used it). -- Dynam1te3 (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Union and transfers 

message: What are the differences between electronic funds transfer and wire transfer? Shawnc 14:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shawn - Electronic Funds Transfer, or EFT, is someone using your bank's routing number and your checking account number to withdraw money from your account (or deposit money into it, etc). Most banks are using the ACH clearinghouse to make those debits or credits to or from an account. Wire transfer uses either the Fed wire system (via ABA's) or, in the case of an international/foreign currency wire transfer, the SWIFT system, to make those credits and debits. NickBurns 15:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EFT vs wire transfer 

message: I sent some money from one country of Europe to another. There was a mistake with the recipient's name so the money arrived much later. However then I was noticed that the money were still in transit, waiting in a bank from Frankfurt. Question: Are most of the banks in EU sending trough some kind of International Exchange office located in Frankfurt? Details? Dreamcow 06:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route in EU bank transfers? 

message: >> Chargeback is unlikely, although wires can be recalled
Is there a reference for this claim?  Under what conditions can a wire be recalled?  Without elaboration, this statement appears to contradict the assertion that bank-to-bank transfers are "safe".
New (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that wires can be recalled. Direct debits can be recalled easily. I don't know about checks though because we hardly use checks here in Germany (too much paperwork). -- 217.229.46.94 (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wires can be recalled? 

message: "..monthly bills are usually paid with a direct transfer (by cellular phone or Internet, or at the bank or an ATM)"
I've read somewhere, and know from personal experience, that direct debits and standing orders are much more common as payment methods. Anyone have any sources on this? - Al.locke (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That may so be. I did not read fully up on this, but it seems like those two are just an interface for wire transfer.  (Given that wire transfer is 'any electronic transfer of money from one account to another') But i may have read it wrong. I personally (in Norway use 3 payment methods, debit card, online banking and cash. If i understand it correctly, a debit card initiates a wire transfer (or at least an electronic one) same goes to online banking, that leaves only cash. So in essence I use only wire transfer and cash. (I don't carry a credit card)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christoffervi (talk • contribs) 08:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those things have anything to do with wire transfer.  It's confusing, because they're transfers and they involve wires, but "wire transfer," as explained at the top of the article is a particular kind of transfer.  It's older than all those other things and more final.  It's like handing someone currency.  I have removed the sentences that talk about European customers paying bills because they don't do that by "wire transfer."  Bryan Henderson (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A standing order is basically a service of your bank that makes your bank send recurring wire transfers from your account. "On the wire" between your bank and the receiving bank as well as on the receipient's side, there is no actual difference between a wire transfer and a standing order. However, the receiving bank is usually notified that the transaction has occured as result of a standing order rather than a wire transfer. (That is, when I receive money here in Germany, I can see whether it was sent to me by wire transfer or by standing order.) However, direct debit should not be confused with wire transfer. Wire transfer means that the transaction is initiated by the paying party, executed electronically and usually irrevocable. A direct debit however is initiated by the receiving party and executed electronically as well. Due to the high abuse risk that is caused by a direct debit system, it is usually required that the paying party gives prior authorization (here in Germany, this authorization only needs to be expressed to the beneficiary, either orally, in written form, through a web form or otherwise). In addition to that, the paying party can revert direct debits in the event of abuse. -- 217.229.44.1 (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Common Bill Payment Methods

message: Wouldn't it be of some interest to mention something about the costs a bank in the US charges to wire what amounts to a bank in the Eurozone?
AdrianAbel (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Costs 

message: Very real.
Nick  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.42.141.82 (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  MUTONOVO? Real or Or not? 

message: Does this article include the European wire transfers or not? Because in the European Union, it is completely free to send wire transfers by law. And for this reason the banks are unable to collect any fees for doing a wire transfer from one EU country to another. --95.234.171.142 (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true.  EU wires are not necessarily free, and the article describes in detail the law EC 924/2009.  European banks are able to collect wire fees - and in fact they will grab the money directly out of the wire being transferred.  French banks have recently been criticized for their high wire fees in the EU.Jgombos (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are both wrong. An international euro-denominated wire transfer within the european economic area (that is, the EU, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, but does not include Switzerland, Monaco, San Marino, the Vatican, Andorra, Kosovo or Montenegro although some of these use the Euro) is not allowed to cost more than a domestic wire transfer denominated in euro, required that the amount is below EUR 50 000.01. That means that if my bank charges EUR 10 000 for a domestic wire transfer within Germany, then they are allowed to charge the same amount for a wire transfer from Germany to Austria or Bulgaria. Fortunately, my bank happens to do domestic wire transfers for free so they have to do european wire transfers for free as well.
This regulation, however, does not apply when
* I am sending (or receiving) more than EUR 50 000
* I am sending (or receiving) money to or from a country outside the European Economic Area, no matter whether the other country is part of SEPA or not (My bank charges EUR 7 for transfers to SEPA countries outside the EEA)
* I am sending or receiving funds in another currency than Euro
* I am not splitting charges with the holder of the other account, but instead charges are entirely paid by the beneficiary or by the sender. This leads to the paradox situation that a split-charge wire transfer costs the same for me as a wire transfer that is entirely paid for by the other party.
Also, european banks are NOT allowed to grab money out of the amount being transferred by regulation. Banks have price lists for bank transfers (in my case, this price list says that domestic wire transfers are free). Whenever you make a wire transfer, each bank will charge their own customer for this. This usually happens at the end of the month or quarter of the year when your bank charges you for your bank account. However, in the case of an international wire transfer, the originator is able to choose who is going to pay for the transfer:
* OUR: The originator pays all fees (doesn't work reliably when sending money from Germany to the US)
* SHARE: Each party pays the fees of their own bank
* BEN: The beneficiary pays all fees
Intermediate Banks (that is, banks that are sitting between the originator's and the beneficiary's bank) based in Europe are NOT allowed to grab money out of the amount that is being sent. They have to agree with at least one of the other two involved banks on a transit fee and that bank has to include the transit fee in their own fees. Banks outside Europe, however are allowed to grab money out of the amount being sent. -- Dynam1te3 (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europe? 

message: I read in some forum that (in the US) "wire transfer" was "more expensive than ACH" and that these were two different systems which are charged at different rates. I found a web site of a bank which had significantly different rates for "ACH funds transfer" and "wire transfer". However, given that there's an interwiki-link from de:Überweisung to Wire transfer , I assumed that wire transfer simply means transferring funds from one account to another, initated by the payer, i.e. wire transfer does not refer to a particular clearing system. Can someone clear this confusion? -- 89.204.137.120 (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is explained in the section "Other Electronic Transfers" near the bottom (maybe new?).  I have added text to clarify, including to the introduction.  Wire transfer is a specific kind of electronic transfer, and is much older than the others.  An ACH transfer is equivalent to writing a check, whereas a wire transfer is equivalent to handing someone currency.  E.g. in case of a mistake or fraud, a bank can get back money it transferred via ACH, but once a wire transfer settles (typically within hours), it's irreversible (if the recipient really isn't entitled to the money, the bank would have to sue him to force him to wire the money back).  But wire transfer is not a specific clearing system; the introduction mentions two wire transfer clearing systems, for example.  Bryan Henderson (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology: wire transfer vs. ACH ... confusion 

message: I have read through this article but can not find the answer to a question which has been bugging me for many years.
I'm wondering what sort of regulation is in place to ensure that the banks themselves do not simply commit fraud. For example: Bill banks with Barclays and requests that £100 is sent to Henry, who banks with Halifax. Barclays sends an electronic instruction to Halifax (a wire transfer) telling them to credit Henry's account with £100. BUT... Barclays fails to deduct the £100 from Bill's account! If you send physical money in the form of paper or coins then there is a physical commodity to be exchanged: it is impossible for one person to receive it without another person giving it. But an electronic "transfer" is just data. When you "send" someone a file by e-mail, you're not really "sending" anything - you're just instructing the e-mail servers to create electronic pulses to replicate the binary data - which is ultimately copied to the recipient's hard drive when they download their e-mail. In order to really "send" a file over the internet in the traditional sense, the sender would have to delete the binary data from his own computer sequentially at the same time the pulses were sent to the modem.
So what system is is place to ensure that a bank does not simply create electronic money out of thin air, by changing the numbers? Do they have to copy a government audit department in to all transactions or something, who checks that everything is legitimate? I thought this article would clarify the situation - but unfortunately it does nothing to address this point. Can someone answer it? Thanks. EuroSong talk 08:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you don't understand how money works. Money is usually issued by a central bank. For example, Euros are issued by the European Central Bank and UK pounds are issued by the Bank of England. There are two kinds of central bank money: cash and electronic central bank money (the latter can only be owned by banks and can only be stored on a account that lives at the central bank). When you have a bank account with money on it, the money on your account is not central bank money. It is something that we refer to in Germany as Girogeld (I couldn't find that word in the dictionary) and it is created by your bank. Now when you withdraw cash from your bank account, you are exchanging giro money (which is issued by your bank) for cash (which is issued by the central bank). Your ability to do this is the only reason why your giro money has an actual value. If your bank refused to exchange your giro money for central bank money (which can happen when a bank goes bankrupt), your giro money is worthless. Now let's come back to wire transfer: When you send money to someone who has their account at a different bank, your bank has to give the amount you're sending to the reciepients bank in central bank money. That means, that you're exchanging giro money (I don't know if this is a correct translation of the German "Girogeld") for central bank money which is given to the receipient's bank which in turn exchanges that central bank money for its own giro money. This system prevents the type of fraud you're talking about and it is also the reason why wire transfers between banks can take several days while wire transfers within the same bank are instant. By the way, the UK is special in that it allows certain private banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland to print their own cash rather than declaring Bank of England banknotes legal tender in the entire country. The result of this is that people living in Wales and England have actual central bank money in their wallets while people living in Northern Ireland and Scotland only have private bank money in their wallets which can only be exchanged for central bank money as long as the issuing bank has enough central bank money. I don't know of any other currency where private banks can print their own banknotes. Brussels even issued an EU regulation (maybe it was even a directive) that makes clear that Euro banknotes must NOT be issued by private banks which means that Britain has to change this practise if it decides to join the Eurozone. -- 217.229.44.1 (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously a long time ago but this is actually a very useful explanation. Perhaps someone could clean it up a little and place it appropriately in the article. 2A02:810D:E80:2ED4:1CF:DF80:EC99:8F64 (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  But how is the money actually "sent"? 

message: There seems to be an incorrect statement in the section titled "Security":
"European privacy law may be breached by some USA operators such as SWIFT,"
But SWIFT is not a "US operator".  I'm not sure what is intended by this sentence. Gwideman (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security section error: SWIFT is not a US operator 

message: I have boldly added a "History" section. The sources I found might not be good enough. Anybody else has better citations and can please add the section? Alefu (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: "SWIFT or IBAN wire transfers are not completely free of vulnerabilities." -- At this point in article, both terms have been previously mentioned once, but neither is specifically dealt with or defined (e.g. the acronyms).
188.103.182.64 (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  SWIFT/IBAN lack proper introduction 

message: "Bank transfer" is more logical than "wire transfer" because the actual transfer is often wireless these days. 85.193.232.158 (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bank transfer