Apple Customers Say It's Hard To Get Money Out of Goldman Sachs Savings Accounts (wsj.com) 59
Apple's savings account, a partnership with Goldman Sachs, launched in April to great fanfare. Some customers say it has been hard to get their money out. From a report: Nathan Thacker, who lives outside Atlanta, had been trying to transfer $1,700 from his Apple account to JPMorgan Chase since May 15. Each time he called Goldman's customer service department, he said, he was told to give it a few more days. The money arrived in his Chase account Thursday morning, he said, after The Wall Street Journal contacted Goldman about his and other customers' experiences. Others said they also had trouble transferring money from their new Apple accounts. Customer service representatives at Goldman, which holds the deposits, sometimes gave differing responses about what to do, they said. Sometimes, their money appeared to have simply vanished, not showing up in their Apple account or in the account they were trying to move it to.
[...] On brand-new accounts, like Apple's, transfers that make up a large share of the overall balance can trigger anti-money-laundering alerts or other security concerns that require additional review, according to people in the AML field. Those delays usually last five or so days, they said. It can also be a red flag when a customer tries to transfer a large amount of money from a newly opened savings account into an account that is different from the one where the money originally came from.
[...] On brand-new accounts, like Apple's, transfers that make up a large share of the overall balance can trigger anti-money-laundering alerts or other security concerns that require additional review, according to people in the AML field. Those delays usually last five or so days, they said. It can also be a red flag when a customer tries to transfer a large amount of money from a newly opened savings account into an account that is different from the one where the money originally came from.
need to pay that 30% fee to move funds! (Score:3, Funny)
need to pay that 30% fee to move funds!
It's Not A Checking Account (Score:1)
From what we're seeing in the various forums, a LOT of people are thinking of this like a checking account. They expect quick withdrawals, with some even demanding the card be able to pull out cash at an ATM. That's not what a savings account is. While you should be able to get it transferred in a couple days (it's generally 1 business day in my own experience with Goldman Sachs other savings product Marcus), it shouldn't be something you're pulling from all the time. The idea is to leave the money there an
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
From what we're seeing in the various forums, a LOT of people are thinking of this like a checking account. They expect quick withdrawals, with some even demanding the card be able to pull out cash at an ATM. That's not what a savings account is. While you should be able to get it transferred in a couple days (it's generally 1 business day in my own experience with Goldman Sachs other savings product Marcus), it shouldn't be something you're pulling from all the time. The idea is to leave the money there and not touch it. It shouldn't be super simple to access.
I have a savings account and I can transfer money in and out just as fast as my checking account, but I don't do any business with big banks. I switch to credit unions after my bank got bought out twice before I could move my money away.
Re: (Score:2)
I switch to credit unions after my bank got bought out twice before I could move my money away.
Presumably, you then moved your money away *after* they were bought out, so the point you're making here is what?
My initial bank account was with Perpetual, which was sold to Crestar, which was bought by SunTrust, which just merged with BB&T to become Truist. I've *never* had any problems accessing my funds before, during and/or after those changes.
Re: (Score:2)
From what we're seeing in the various forums, a LOT of people are thinking of this like a checking account. They expect quick withdrawals, with some even demanding the card be able to pull out cash at an ATM. That's not what a savings account is. While you should be able to get it transferred in a couple days (it's generally 1 business day in my own experience with Goldman Sachs other savings product Marcus), it shouldn't be something you're pulling from all the time. The idea is to leave the money there and not touch it. It shouldn't be super simple to access.
I have a savings account and I can transfer money in and out just as fast as my checking account, but I don't do any business with big banks. I switch to credit unions after my bank got bought out twice before I could move my money away.
You can transfer money from the Apple/Goldman Sachs High Yield Account into "Apple Cash" (I frankly don't know what that is) instantly, just like I can transfer money between my checking and savings accounts at my regular bank instantly; but between one financial institution and another is technically an ACH transfer, and thus takes 1-3 business days (so try to avoid Thursday and Friday Transfers!).
People are just clueless. We're all just conditioned to instant access to nearly everything. This is typical i
Re:It's Not A Checking Account (Score:5, Insightful)
For much of modern history, a savings account has been easy to pull money from, generally into a checking account and often nearly instantly.
I guess you have been well trained to lower your expectations.
There are other savings like accounts that may have penalties attached if you withdraw too much too soon, but if you're willing to accept the penalty the withdrawal can be done instantly. But they also pay much higher interest.
Re:It's Not A Checking Account (Score:4, Interesting)
Not so
Savings and "money market" accounts at a lot of banks historically offered higher rates of interest, but came with strings like transfers typically only were processed daily (unless it was an intra-bank transfer, ie savings -> checking) and usually there was some limit on non-deposit transaction per month before fees were incurred or interest forgone. These were often "pass book" accounts and I don't think many banks still offer them because they are not competitive.
However with the recent spike in interest rates I have observed similar things going with other financials. A lot of banks are or until very recently were offering really appealing introductory CD rates. I opened 6 mon CDs at two (large national banks not naming names here) funding them with checks from my usual financial institution a small regional bank that even though has been offering me rather noncompetitive rates I have had long and good relationship with so I stay with them (that and bank interest isnt much of income source for me anyway ). I had not problems getting the accounts opened and the funds cleared almost immediately my bank -> the big nationals. However when the deposits matured and I wanted to close the accounts and transfer the money back ( rates on existing deposits less attractive ) mysteriously it took almost two weeks for funds to clear... big nationals -> my bank.
We are only talking like 5 figure sums here, which does trigger FED reporting of course but should not really create a ton of scrutiny and the money was being returned to the ONLY other account to have ever transacted with the CD accounts, original source of funds. My belief is the banks are just creating additional float because they can.
Re: (Score:3)
You say not so, then back my claim noting you had no problem at all from small bank to large bank.
In the '70s a savings account typically paid 5.25% interest.
They did their processing batch style on a mainframe. It may have taken a day to reconcile their accounts, but they would make the funds available at the speed of an actually answered phone call.
That started going away when federal regulations allowed them to tear down the chinese wall between investment and retail banking.
It was boosted by the S&L
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's Not A Checking Account (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
From what we're seeing in the various forums, a LOT of people are thinking of this like a checking account. They expect quick withdrawals, with some even demanding the card be able to pull out cash at an ATM. That's not what a savings account is. While you should be able to get it transferred in a couple days (it's generally 1 business day in my own experience with Goldman Sachs other savings product Marcus), it shouldn't be something you're pulling from all the time. The idea is to leave the money there and not touch it. It shouldn't be super simple to access.
I've never heard of a savings account where you can't withdraw money quickly. At a bank, at an ATM, or on-line. Unless you're triggering anti-money laundering events, usually by moving more than $10,000, it would be absurd to think you can't get quick access to money in a savings acount.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"It shouldn't be super simple to access [your money]." - WankerWeasel
Slashdot never fails to deliver the comedy, lol.
Re: (Score:2)
That has never been my experience with any bank. The whole point of a savings account is you have easy access to that money as compared to other investments, with the tradeoff being you earn lower interest than you would with those other types of investments.
We've had a Chase Bank checking account for many years. We recently (during the past few months) inherited some money and opened a new savings account there. In three different transactions, we've subsequently transferred a significant portion of that m
Re: (Score:2)
In all three cases, the transfers from Chase savings to Chase checking were immediate.
Well, yes. Transfers that don't go through an inter-bank clearinghouse can happen instantly. Between two banks it doesn't usually fully settle for 2-3 business days.
Re: (Score:2)
I transfer stuff between Chase and USAA quite often, and unless it's the weekend it always happens same-day.
Regardless, many of the complaints in TFA are not inter-bank - they're simply trying to move money from Apple Savings to Apple Checking.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no such thing as "Apple Checking".
Re: (Score:3)
> The idea is to leave the money there and not touch it. It shouldn't be super simple to access.
These 2 sentences are orthogonal.
Re: (Score:2)
Or I could continue using my interest-bearing savings account I currently have, that allows me to move funds instantly with my phone app to either my checking account, or through regular payment networks via the mastercard number applied to the account.
This is pretty standard, and the fact that it can take you two weeks to get your money where you need it means it's an unviable product. I could beat that by putting the money in a fucking index fund, and I'd probably see better returns too.
Re: (Score:2)
In Australia for the last few years interbank online transfers have been instantaneous. It seems to US banking system is way behind the times. There is no need for a savings account to be any different to any other account type.
Re: (Score:2)
No point in evening having "savings accounts" if they're no different from other accounts.
Re: (Score:2)
From what we're seeing in the various forums, a LOT of people are thinking of this like a checking account. They expect quick withdrawals, with some even demanding the card be able to pull out cash at an ATM. That's not what a savings account is.
You can get money out of savings at an ATM by just pressing the button to select that account, what are you talking about?
So what you're saying... (Score:2)
...is that they are holding it wrong.
Sounds like growing pains... (Score:1)
Like any new process, product, etc.. there are some growing pains associated with it. But it shouldn't take a call from the WSJ to fix something such as this.
Sounds like GS sales said 'sure, we can do that', Apple said 'works with us' and no one setup / ran out of time to setup the rest of the bits needed to make this successful.
Will they get it straightened out? Yes.
That's a massive ouchie! (Score:2)
Like any new process, product, etc.. there are some growing pains associated with it. But it shouldn't take a call from the WSJ to fix something such as this.
I'd characterize the following as much more than a simple "growing pain":
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bank account, that's not a "new process".
Re: (Score:3)
That's some fantastic excuse making.
We're talking about one of the biggest banks in the world, failing at some of the simplest banking there is. There shouldn't be any "growing pains" associated with simple transactions being added to a ledger, since this is what GS does tens of thousands of times a day, every day.
In this age of instant access... (Score:2)
Everything seems to be automated and controlled by computer systems, but some transactions still seem to take a long time.
I know nothing of the banking industry, but it seems to me that the longer a bank can hold on to money, the longer they have to make money off of it, so that's the motivation I always ascribe to situations like this.
It's a cynical view, but computers don't take vacations, yet for some reason we have all of these seemingly arbitrary bottlenecks where there is no visibility into what is ac
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
This. Not too many decades ago, when banks were limited to batch processing on a mainframe, or even further back when it was a room full of people with hand cranked adding machines they were 'able' to move much faster than now when every teller has more computing power than the entire bank had in the '70s.
Re:In this age of instant access... (Score:4, Informative)
While you are 100% correct, do remember that banking software is simultaneously some of the most advanced software out there, as well as some of the most ancient, decrepit, hamstrung garbage software out there.
Example: you have high-frequency trading software that generates millions of dollars through fractional-penny arbitrage running right next to ACH batch jobs that transmit and receive bank routing info in clear text files (NACHA) with fixed-width columns, which stack up until the batch job runs to reconcile all of that shit as if it was still 1972.
Rule #1 (Score:3)
Once you have their money... you never give it back.
Life follows art once again.
Re: (Score:2)
Once you have their money... you never give it back.
Rule of Acquisition #1!
AML Thresholds (Score:3)
There is no way a transfer of $1700 will trigger AML thresholds. The standard threshold is $10,000, that is when FinCEN rules apply.
If this is tripping at $1700 then something at Goldman is busted.
Formal Ombudsman Complaint (Score:2)
Apple Customers Think Savings Account Is Checking (Score:2)
The whole philosophy behind a savings account is "this is an account that's slightly - SLIGHTLY - more difficult to withdraw money from than a standard checking account, and in return for the slight guarantee that the money will remain in there for a reasonable amount of time, which makes it easier to invest and play with, the bank pays a slight - VERY slight - amount of interest".
Remove either of those fundamentals, and the whole thing falls apart. From the sound of TFS, this is mostly uneducated first-tim
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You need to read the article.
The referenced people are not saying "it's taking a day or three to move my funds."
They are saying "it's taking weeks to move my funds." "Sometimes they are telling me that I can't transfer it to the bank I told them to."
And other times yet the funds simply disappear. Goldman is showing the transaction happened and the funds never arrive at the destination bank.
These are not small "apple people are stupid and think it's a checking account" problems.
Re:Apple Customers Think Savings Account Is Checki (Score:4, Insightful)
You need to read the article.
The referenced people are not saying "it's taking a day or three to move my funds."
They are saying "it's taking weeks to move my funds." "Sometimes they are telling me that I can't transfer it to the bank I told them to."
And other times yet the funds simply disappear. Goldman is showing the transaction happened and the funds never arrive at the destination bank.
These are not small "apple people are stupid and think it's a checking account" problems.
I'd love to read the article, but as a WSJ article it's paywalled and I'm not going to get a subscription just to do that. I hate links on slashdot to paywalled original articles.
I spent about 20 years of my professional career in the ACH industry (electronic funds transfers). Taking weeks to move funds? Should never happen. The Federal Reserve handles those transfers overnight.
"I can't transfer it to the bank I told them to." The only time this should be true is if it's a bank/credit union/etc. that is outside the US and doesn't have access to the Federal Reserve system.
"other times yet the funds simply disappear. Goldman is showing the transaction happened and the funds never arrive at the destination bank." That sounds like outright fraud and/or theft. If one bank (GS) tells you one thing and another (the destination bank) tells you otherwise, this should be trackable through the Federal Reserve system. If you don't get satisfactory answers, take it to the DA's office. Seriously, because that's actually criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who has worked in the ACH industry, what's your take on the seemingly lack of authentication for most transactions?
e.g., if I mail a check to a recipient, if there's a small error in the address or even payee, it will most likely go where it intended without issue whereas if there's a single digit off on the account or routing number, the transfer either won't work or will end up in someone else's account
Further, it seems much more difficult to reliably transmit remittance advice type information
Re: (Score:2)
Routing (ABA) numbers contain a check digit, so it's impossible to have a valid routing number by starting with a valid one and changing a single digit. It would take 2 digits being changed (one from positions 1-8, and the check digit at position 9, and even then the new 9th digit would have to be correct according to the algorithm for the changed routing # to be valid).
A single-digit change in an account # is supposed to get caught by the receiving bank, since they are supposed to check that the account ho
Re: (Score:2)
didn't know that about ABA check digits - that's comforting
by receiving bank, do you mean whoever receives the ACH push or pull request?
yeah, 15 digits is often not enough space
realistically speaking though, there's little to prevent a motivated criminal from siphoning money from someone's account one way or another these days since anyone can print any check routing/account number on any "secure" stock and "sign" it close enough esp when positive pay isn't in place on the majority of accounts anyway...
Re: (Score:2)
didn't know that about ABA check digits - that's comforting
by receiving bank, do you mean whoever receives the ACH push or pull request?
Yes.
yeah, 15 digits is often not enough space
Unfortunately, that's what the ACH file format standard defines.
realistically speaking though, there's little to prevent a motivated criminal from siphoning money from someone's account one way or another these days since anyone can print any check routing/account number on any "secure" stock and "sign" it close enough esp when positive pay isn't in place on the majority of accounts anyway...
It doesn't even have to particularly be "secure stock". Legally, you could write a check on a piece of blank paper and it may get accepted by the account holder's bank. Positive pay and/or a "no paper checks" type account are both safeguards against that. Of course, "no paper checks" doesn't work if you have a need to write/send them. Most banks will reimburse you for the kind of fraud you've described. So even there are only a few ways of
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of crappy savings account do you have? I can walk up to an ATM and make withdrawals from mine.
And none of that explains weeks-long delays. There's either mass incompetence or some type of fraud happening here.
Relax (Score:2)
Money is with Goldman now.
I remember an analysis of the account agreement.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Goldman Sachs put some absolutely draconian stuff compared to a typical savings account. Seems like Goldman Sachs is using the marketing value of Apple to get people onboard a dubious account agreement.
Try this one simple trick! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Once you have their money... (Score:2)
Not really a savings account. Same delays. (Score:3)
I transferred a significant amount from my bank to the Goldman-Sachs "savings account". It took five business days to show-up in the G-S account. But what I found is I could not pay my apple card balance, or move money to my Apple cash card either. The only thing I could do is transfer it back to my bank account. That transfer took three and half business days to complete. It did probably trigger a review.
How's that surprising? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Neither Apple, nor Goldman Sachs, are banks.
This may be part of the problem. They are non-bank financial institutions pretending to be banks. As such, they are not covered by the same stringent regulations that actual banks are.
Goldman Sachs is an investment bank (Score:2)
Goldman Sachs is an investment bank not a retail bank. It is no wonder that they do not know how to run a retail banking operation effectively - or at least not yet.
Re: (Score:2)
They won't get the time to improve. Apple is going to in house it all, banking AND payment network. Mastercard&Visa will get fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
Payments are one thing, paying interest is another. Paying interest on demand deposits is no mean trick. Banks fail because they cannot manage to do that on a regular basis. Deposits at "Apple" will not be FDIC insured either unless Apple affiliates with an FDIC member bank. Somehow I don't think Apple plans to fail the way SVB did or be associated with such a disgrace to their reputation either.
Re: (Score:2)
They are going to become a bank and do full reserve. Consumer banking is a penny and steamroller business, they'll do the bank on the side to get more people to use their payment system. Skimming almost every consumer transaction in the economy, that's where the money is. They will have a share of transactions mastercard/visa could only ever have dreamed of.