🚀 go-pugleaf

Maelle,
I don't know about Alan's banks, but in this area it happens. My wife is a
cashier in the Post Exchange (a military version of a K-Mart) and she was
telling me this actually happened just two days ago.
A wife was in cashing a check, my wife did her normal routine of accessing
the system to make sure this person wasn't on the 'bad check list,' and at
the same time, outside the PX, her husband was at the ATM withdrawing cash
from the same account. They didn't have overdraft protection (everyone
should if it's available at your financial institution), and the wife's
check ended up bouncing for lack of funds.
Chris

Maelle Pean wrote in message <37548DB5.1E0F3944@yahoo.com>...
>Greetings,
>
>I have a question here, if two people with the same account (let's say a
>husband and a wife) and they submit their request at the same time i.e
>for $100 and unfortunately that's what they have left in their account
>($100), what controls are in place to ensure that the account is not
>overdrawn? How does the application ensure that only one request is
>granted? Anyone knows about this?
>
>
>

>I have a question here, if two people with the same account (let's say a
>husband and a wife) and they submit their request at the same time i.e
>for $100 and unfortunately that's what they have left in their account
>($100), what controls are in place to ensure that the account is not
>overdrawn? How does the application ensure that only one request is
>granted? Anyone knows about this?

Every (err, all 3) banking system I've worked on would serialise
access to the account.  The first one in the queue, whether by a
millisecond or less, would get the loot.  The other would bounce.
problem seems no different (simpler in fact) to numerous like problems
- airline reservations; operating system resource allocation, etc etc
etc
Cheers, Alan Vidler

In article <375e1ba4.18513949@news.dynamite.com.au>,
Alan Vidler <avidler@pcug.org.au> wrote:
:>I have a question here, if two people with the same account (let's say a
:>husband and a wife) and they submit their request at the same time i.e

:Every (err, all 3) banking system I've worked on would serialise
:access to the account.  The first one in the queue, whether by a
:millisecond or less, would get the loot.  The other would bounce.

About 3 years back, my bank was bought by another bank. Eventually the
two account systems were merged, at which time they changed the
"card-hold agreement" (the fine print that goes with the ATM card.) The
new agreement contained a clause that allowed the bank to give out my
SIN (Social Insurance Number, Canadian equivilent to the US SSN; a
number that is only *intended* to be used for tax purposes) to third
parties. Nominally only if the bank was running a credit check on me,
but the wording allowed them to give it out at will. I pushed through
the initial explanations (the bank doesn't need to run a credit check
on me, I've never asked them for a loan, I have no credit cards, and I
have a solid balance), and was eventually told this:

  Some of the ATM machines in the city, associated with some of the
  smaller financial institutions, are only on-line during the day, and
  at night process requests locally and transmit them to the bank in
  the morning. Also, sometimes the ATM machines that are usually online
  24 hours lose contact with the bank, in which case they fall back to
  processing transactions locally and transmit them when the link
  becomes available again.

  In either case, the ATMs are (or were then) programmed to allow
  withdrawls of $C100 at a time, up to $C500 per night: they would
  assume that I had at least that much in the account. Now, because I
  could hypothetically run around from offline ATM to offline ATM
  withdrawing up to $C500 per machine, I could hypothetically empty out
  my account and more, in which case the bank would consider the
  overdrawl as a "loan". Because the bank could thus theoretically be
  loaning me money in this way, they wanted to be able to run credit
  checks on me when the situation came up, just as they would for other
  loans and lines of credit, and as their normal practice was to give
  out the SIN when running a credit check, that's why the clause was in
  the card-holder agreement.


I refused the agreement and did without an ATM card.

Walter Roberson wrote in message <7je6ro$mio$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>...
>In article <375e1ba4.18513949@news.dynamite.com.au>,
>Alan Vidler <avidler@pcug.org.au> wrote:
>:>I have a question here, if two people with the same account (let's say a
>:>husband and a wife) and they submit their request at the same time i.e
>
>:Every (err, all 3) banking system I've worked on would serialise
>:access to the account.  The first one in the queue, whether by a
>:millisecond or less, would get the loot.  The other would bounce.
>
>About 3 years back, my bank was bought by another bank. Eventually the
>two account systems were merged, at which time they changed the
>"card-hold agreement" (the fine print that goes with the ATM card.) The
>new agreement contained a clause that allowed the bank to give out my
>SIN (Social Insurance Number, Canadian equivilent to the US SSN; a
>number that is only *intended* to be used for tax purposes) to third
>parties. Nominally only if the bank was running a credit check on me,
>but the wording allowed them to give it out at will. I pushed through
>the initial explanations (the bank doesn't need to run a credit check
>on me, I've never asked them for a loan, I have no credit cards, and I
>have a solid balance), and was eventually told this:
>
>  Some of the ATM machines in the city, associated with some of the
>  smaller financial institutions, are only on-line during the day, and
>  at night process requests locally and transmit them to the bank in
>  the morning. Also, sometimes the ATM machines that are usually online
>  24 hours lose contact with the bank, in which case they fall back to
>  processing transactions locally and transmit them when the link
>  becomes available again.
>
>  In either case, the ATMs are (or were then) programmed to allow
>  withdrawls of $C100 at a time, up to $C500 per night: they would
>  assume that I had at least that much in the account. Now, because I
>  could hypothetically run around from offline ATM to offline ATM
>  withdrawing up to $C500 per machine, I could hypothetically empty out
>  my account and more, in which case the bank would consider the
>  overdrawl as a "loan". Because the bank could thus theoretically be
>  loaning me money in this way, they wanted to be able to run credit
>  checks on me when the situation came up, just as they would for other
>  loans and lines of credit, and as their normal practice was to give
>  out the SIN when running a credit check, that's why the clause was in
>  the card-holder agreement.
>
>
>I refused the agreement and did without an ATM card.

Right on dude!

schm3ar

Hi Michael

It is impossible for two transactions to go through at the 'exact' same
time.  Whichever gets processed first will get in first.

SiR_RaBBiT


Maelle Pean <wonokitri@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37548DB5.1E0F3944@yahoo.com...
> Greetings,
>
> I have a question here, if two people with the same account (let's say a
> husband and a wife) and they submit their request at the same time i.e
> for $100 and unfortunately that's what they have left in their account
> ($100), what controls are in place to ensure that the account is not
> overdrawn? How does the application ensure that only one request is
> granted? Anyone knows about this?
>
>
>

One bank I worked for could theoretically have had two withdrawals on the
same account at once, as they relied on batched transaction transfers from
remote locations and also if ATM-bank communications were disrupted. ie. if a
person could organise withdrawals to happen from two different remote
locations at the same time, both amounts could be withdrawn.

Regards

Ross