> > But hastening the movement of money creates risk for banks, because it generally means less time to catch fraudulent transactions.
> That's got to be a risk in Europe, too, no? How is it dealt with differently?
This is probably the case of someone trying hard to come up with at least some downsides. Most transactions are relatively mundane, and for an automated transaction between two bank databases, there is, I think, very little that can be done in a day that cannot be done instantly. The part that screens fraudulent transactions is very likely already automated, I can't believe it wouldn't be. It's probably not even the most common/dangerous type of fraud.
European banks have collective agreements about money transfers with each other. I imagine it might be harder to implement these schemes if you are the only bank trying and need to cooperate with other banks. Uncompetitive markets can be strange sometimes.
> That's got to be a risk in Europe, too, no? How is it dealt with differently?
This is probably the case of someone trying hard to come up with at least some downsides. Most transactions are relatively mundane, and for an automated transaction between two bank databases, there is, I think, very little that can be done in a day that cannot be done instantly. The part that screens fraudulent transactions is very likely already automated, I can't believe it wouldn't be. It's probably not even the most common/dangerous type of fraud.
European banks have collective agreements about money transfers with each other. I imagine it might be harder to implement these schemes if you are the only bank trying and need to cooperate with other banks. Uncompetitive markets can be strange sometimes.