My hypothesis on this is they just don’t want to facilitate moving money out of their bank to another one. Moving money between accounts held by the same bank is usually much easier. The major US banks are for-profit businesses, after all.
Alternative hypothesis - US banks aren’t implementing new features because they’re mostly all still running on ancient IBM mainframes.
My guess is no one is willing to take on the liability. Any new system that introduces bugs or introduces attack vectors from hackers don’t want to be responsible for any lost money and I’m sure banks/insurance don’t want to take on the risk either.
Magnetic tape and clearing houses for the indefinite future!
Given that banks’ whole thing is transferring money you’d think they’d have got that sorted from the start but no.
My hypothesis on this is they just don’t want to facilitate moving money out of their bank to another one. Moving money between accounts held by the same bank is usually much easier. The major US banks are for-profit businesses, after all.
Alternative hypothesis - US banks aren’t implementing new features because they’re mostly all still running on ancient IBM mainframes.
My guess is no one is willing to take on the liability. Any new system that introduces bugs or introduces attack vectors from hackers don’t want to be responsible for any lost money and I’m sure banks/insurance don’t want to take on the risk either.
Magnetic tape and clearing houses for the indefinite future!