Patent Application
20150339637
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to the financial service industry and, more particularly, to a system and method for dealing with situations that generate non-sufficient funds (“NSF”) conditions in financial accounts.
2. Related Art
At present, the economy of today's modern society is very dependent on its financial system. This financial system includes numerous financial institutions that broadly speaking may be divided into three major types that include depositary institutions, contractual institutions, and investment institutions. Typically, depository institutions are deposit-taking financial institutions that accept and manage deposits and make loans. Examples of these deposit-taking financial institutions include banks, savings and loan, credit unions, trust companies, and mortgage loan companies. Examples of contractual institutions are pension funds. Furthermore, examples of investment institutions are investment banks, underwriters, and brokerage firms. Generally, all of these financial institutions are regulated by the national governments having jurisdiction to which these financial institutions are subject to. In the case of the United States (“U.S.”), these types of financial institutions are regulated by various agencies of the U.S. Federal government and at times the individual State governments having jurisdiction of these financial institutions.
At present, the U.S. payment system is the largest in the world. Each day, millions of transactions, valued in the trillions of dollars, are conducted between sellers and purchasers of goods, services, or financial assets. Most of the payments underlying those transactions flow between depository institutions, a large number of which maintain accounts with the Federal Reserve Banks of the Federal Reserve System (also known as the “Federal Reserve”) of the U.S. As such, the Federal Reserve performs an important role as an intermediary in clearing and settling interbank payments. Typically, depository institutions settle payment transactions efficiently by debiting the accounts of the depository institutions making payments and by crediting the accounts of depository institutions receiving payments.
Generally, the Federal Reserve utilizes three main payment and settlement systems. The first is Fedwire Funds Service (known generally as “Fedwire”), the second is the Automated Clearing House (“ACH”), and the third is other Check clearing services (including Check 21). Usually, participating financial institutions utilize Fedwire for large-value, time-critically payments, such as: payments to settle interbank purchase and sales of federal funds; to purchase, sell, or finance securities transactions; to disburse or repay large loans; and to settle real estate transactions. The U.S. Department of the Treasury and other federal agencies or government-sponsored enterprises also utilize Fedwire to disburse and collect funds. For other types of payments, typically, ACH is utilized.
ACH is an electronic payment system that was originally developed jointly by the private sector and the Federal Reserve in the 1970s as a more-efficient alternative to payments by checks. Since then, the ACH has evolved into a nationwide mechanism that processes credit and debit transfers electronically. ACH credit transfers are used to make direct deposit payroll payments and corporate payments to vendors. ACH debit transfers are used by consumers to authorize the payment of insurance premiums, mortgages, loans, and other bills from their account. The ACH is also used by businesses to concentrate funds at a primary bank and to make payments to other businesses. An example of an ACH is the Electronic Payments Network (“EPN”) that provides functions similar to those provided by the Federal Reserve Banks and is the only private-sector ACH operator in the U.S.
Check 21 services are based on 12 U.S.C. Chapter 50 (§§5001-5018), the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (known as the “Check 21 Act”). The Check 21 Act allows the recipient (i.e., a payee) of an original paper check to create a digital version of the original check, a process known as check truncation, in an electronic format called a “substitute check,” thereby eliminating the need for further handling of the physical original check. Once a check is truncated, businesses and banks can work with either the digital image or a print reproduction of the digitized images. Digitized images can be exchanged between member banks, savings and loans, credit unions, servicers, clearinghouses, and the Federal Reserve Bank. It is appreciated by those skilled in the art that Check 21 services are not subject to ACH rules.
As a result of the Check 21 Act, a new bank treasury management product has been created that is known as “remote deposit.” In general, remote deposit allows a depositing customer the ability to capture the front and rear images of his/her check along with the respective magnetic ink character recognition (“MICR”) data of the check which typically includes the routing number of the financial institution issuing the check, the account number at the financial institution to which the check may be drawn from, and the check number of the check. This data may then be uploaded (by the depositing customer) to a depositing financial institution of the depositing customer, at which time the account of the depositing customer is then credited with the monetary amount listed on the check. With remote deposit, the old need for merchants and other large depositors to travel to the bank (or branch) to physically make a deposit is gone.
In addition to remote deposit, other electronic depositing services are now available through the ACH.
As a result of all of these electronic payment services, it is possible that a negotiable instrument (such as, for example, a check or an ACH withdrawal) may be generated that for a number of different reasons may not be honored by the financial institution associated with the account on which the negotiable instrument is drawn, i.e., the Payor bank. One reason might be that there are insufficient funds available in the account on which the negotiable instrument is attempting to be drawn. This is generally termed non-sufficient funds (“NSF”). Similarly, a situation where the funds deposited in the account have not yet cleared (i.e., making the funds unavailable) is generally termed uncollected funds (“UCF”). It is appreciated by those skilled in the art that whether the funds are NSF or UCF, unless specified as differently herein, the term NSF will be utilized for both instances, The reasons for the insufficient (i.e., inadequate) funds may because the account is overdrawn (i.e., an overdraft has occurred and money has been withdrawn from the account in an amount that has caused the available balance in the account to be less than zero) or because the amount listed on the negotiable instrument exceeds the available balance in the account even though that balance is an amount greater than zero but less than the amount listed on the negotiable instrument. Since checks, substitute checks, and ACH withdrawals are negotiable instruments that are not preauthorized withdrawals (such as ATM withdrawals and debit or check card withdrawals), the financial institution associated pith the account may refuse to pay the negotiable instrument (in this example a non-preauthorized withdrawal request) and return the negotiable instrument as unpaid.
Unfortunately, even though the Payor's financial institution may refuse to honor a negotiable instrument if it is drawn against insufficient or unavailable funds, the reality is that if the bearer of the negotiable instrument (i.e., the Payee) does not physically come to the Payor's financial institutions to cash the negotiable instrument but, instead, deposits the check into his/her account (i.e., Payee account) at a different financial institution, then via overnight processing the Payor's financial institution may automatically pay/credit the amount listed on the negotiable instrument to Payee's account and then, only after Payor's financial institution performs a clearing process will Payor's financial institution learn that the negotiable instrument actually caused an NSF occurrence (also known as an NSF event).
On the Payor side of the equation, Payor's financial institution will generate an NSF notification and have to issue a Non-paid deposit notice (“NPD notice”). Once the Payee's financial institution receives the NPD notice the Payee's financial institution will have to repay the amount received less a charge for the risk. Further, the first financial institution (corresponding to the person generating the negotiable instrument—i.e., the Payor) will not honor the negotiable instrument and will send the Payor a NSF notification via first class mail and additionally charge the Payor a fee for generating a “bad” negotiable instrument.
On the Payee side of the equation, the Payee generally will be charged a fee from his/her financial intuition for the NSF instrument. Additionally, the Payee may have written negotiable instruments against the Payor's negotiable instrument thereby creating a snowball effect of bad instruments.
At this point, the Payee is left with the sole responsibility of collecting from the Payor the outstanding monetary amount listed on the negotiable instrument as well as any associated penalties, costs and fees. This may lead the Payee to bring legal action against the Payor. Moreover, the Payee's financial institution may also report the Payor to a database for bad check writers such as, for example, Check Connection, TeleCheck, Shared Check Authorization Network (“SCAN”) or ChexSystems. Finally, knowingly passing a “bad check” is a crime in most States with a range of criminal penalties.
Each business day every depositary financial institution generates a NSF list following reconciling accounts with the corresponding negotiable instruments (physical, ACH and electronic checks) received the previous business day. The list contains the NSF occurrence. Typically, for each NSF occurrence, the NSF list includes information about the corresponding account and the corresponding account holder. Traditionally, a manager of a given depositary financial institution would review the NSF list. In a very limited number of subjective situations, the manager had the discretion to have his/her financial institution pay a negotiable instrument (this is the exception traditionally linked to the manager knowing or having a special relationship with the Payor who wrote the negotiable instrument) to give that customer a chance to cover such an item. Typically this service was free and considered a benefit offered by some financial institutions to a very limited number of people. Unfortunately, this ad-hoc coverage was fully discretionary and the rare exception to the rule of returning the item unpaid.
In order to better understand the above discussed problem, the problem is illustrated in
In an example of operation, the Payer 102 generates 122 the negotiable instrument 100 (such as, for example, a check, substitute check, or automated clearing house (“ACH”) payment) that lists a monetary amount 124 and passes 126 it to the Payee 104 either physically or electronically. In this example, the negotiable instrument 100 is drawn on the Payor account 106 such that the Payor 102 is a “Drawer” of the Payor account 106 and the 1st FI 108 is a “Drawee” because the 1st FI 108 is where the negotiable instrument 100 can be presented for payment from the Payor account 106. Once received by the Payee 104, the Payee 104 then deposits 128 the negotiable instrument 100 into the Payee account 110 either physically or utilizing remote deposit under the Check 21 Act. Once the negotiable instrument 100 is deposited into the Payee account 110, the 2nd FI 112 may present 130 the negotiable instrument 100 (via for example, a substitute check) to the 1st FI 108 for payment via the signal path 114 that includes the communication network 116. In response, the 1st FI 108 sends a payment 132 for the monetary amount listed 124 on the negotiable instrument 100 via a computerized system (such as, for example, first computer server 118) utilizing the proper software. The Pst FI 108 may utilize a Check 21 system or other interbank transaction system.
In this example, once the 1st FI 108 has sent the payment 132 to the 2nd FI 112, the 1st FI 108 then withdraws the funds from the Payor account 106 and determines if there are sufficient funds available in the Payor account 106 to pay the listed monetary amount 124 of the negotiable instrument 100. If the funds are available in the Payor account 106, the listed monetary amount 124 of the negotiable instrument 100 is withdrawn from the Payor account 106 to satisfy the payment 132 made by the 1st FI 108. If, instead, the 1st FI 108 determines that there are insufficient funds in the Payor account 106 to pay the listed monetary amount 124 of the negotiable instrument 100, the clearing process designates the negotiable instrument 100 as causing an NSF occurrence and then places it as an NSF item on an NSF list that will be generated that day by the 1st FI 108. In this example, the clearing process may be performed by a computer system such as, for example, a reconciliation system 134. The reconciliation system 134 may be optionally part of the first server 118 or another independent computer system of the 1st FI 108. The reconciliation system 134 may include software that includes rules and decisions engines/modules to reconcile the amount paid on behalf of the Payor 102 with the funds available from the Payor account 106. The reconciliation system 134 has access to the 1st FI 108 customer lists and corresponding accounts such that it may generate a daily NSF list 136 that includes all NSF occurrences with the corresponding negotiable instruments that caused the NSF occurrences, the corresponding accounts of the negotiable instruments, and the corresponding customer information of the accounts. This NSF list 136 may then be received and reviewed by a manager 138 of the 1st FI 108.
In some exceptional cases, the manager 138 notices the Payor 102 is listed on the NSF list 136 as a result of negotiable instrument 100 causing an NSF occurrence and the manager 138 subjectively considers the Payor 102 an important or favorite customer of the 1st FI 108. The manager 138, in some instances, may have the discretion to have the 1st FI 108 pay the negotiable instrument 100 and because the negotiable instrument is then marked “pay,” an NSF notification 139 is not sent to the Payor 102 and the 2nd FI 112 is not notified, with a NPD notice 140, that the negotiable instrument was not paid.
In another example, as another exceptional instance the manager 138, or other 1st FI 108 representative, may notify 142 the Payor 102 of the need to cover the negotiable instrument 100 on the NSF list. In order to cover the instrument 100, the Payor must physically locate the manager (or his/her designee), pay cash and the manager (or his/her designee) must locate the NSF record in the 1st FI's 108 system and manually mark the negotiable instrument 100 as “pay.”
If the Payor 102 does not deposit the funds 144 within the time allowed by the 1st FI 108, the 1st FI will notify the 2nd FI 112 with a NPD notice 140 that the negotiable instrument 100 is not paid. Or in those cases when the 1st FI 108 automatically paid the 2nd FI 112 before reconciling the negotiable instruments, the 1st FI 108 must demand repayment of the funds previously paid to the 2nd FI 112 by the 1st FI 108 in relationship to the listed monetary amount 124 electronically paid for the negotiable instrument 100. The 2nd FI 112 will return the payment 146 to the 1st FI 108, usually, less a charge back or cost for the transaction. The 2nd FI 112 may then optionally charge the Payee 104 a returned payment fee 148 which will be withdrawn from the Payee account 110. The Payee 104 is then again left to enforce the payment of the listed monetary amount owed by the Payor 102 by himself/herself. As stated above, this could result in possible undesirable legal, personal financial, personal reputation, and criminal issues for the Payor 102.
Attempts to solve these problems have included overdraft protection plans, linked account protection plans, and methods that notify the Payor of an overdraft condition with an associated time to cure the overdraft condition. Unfortunately, these attempted solutions do not always protect the Payor when an NSF occurs. Providing a means to reduce the cost of overdraft fees to a customer who has opted into an overdraft program is a distinct banking area wherein the customer is utilizing overdraft protection (i.e., a loan) to cover a debt. As an example, while overdraft protection plans typically can cover checks (up to an specific amount), ATM withdrawals, debit or check card withdrawals, electronic transfers, and the like, they usually require that the Payor is capable of financially qualifying for the plans, which are interest bearing loans from the financial institution. As such, the Payor may be denied qualifying for an overdraft protection plan if the credit rating or other financial situation of the Payor does not meet the minimums required by the financial institution. Similarly, the Payor may not be in financial situation where he/she is capable of having multiple accounts at the same financial institution that may be linked so as to be part of a linked account protection plan. Finally, there a numerous problems associated with known systems or methods that allow the Payor to cure an overdraft condition within a specified time period.
As an example, a system and method for allowing a Payor to cure an overdraft condition within a specified time period is described in U.S. Pat. No. 8,364,581, titled “S
Unfortunately, the '581 patent only describes a situation where the account of the Payor is overdrawn (i.e., described earlier as an overdraft). As such, the '581 patent describes a situation where the account of the Payor is utilizing an overdraft loan vehicle to cover a debt. As mentioned earlier, a negotiable instrument that is a non-preauthorized withdrawal (i.e. a check, substitute check, or ACH withdrawal) will not cause an overdraft because most financial institutions will not honor payment of these types of negotiable instruments when there are insufficient funds in the account associated with the negotiable instrument. As such, these types of negotiable instruments will not cause the account associated with the negotiable instrument to become negative as described in the '581 patent
Specifically, the '581 patent describes situations whereby the account holder has opted into an overdraft protection plan and is not concerned with items returned non-paid as noted in the following discussion of the background section of the '581 patent (with emphasis added).
From this discussion, it is seen that the '581 patent recognizes that a NSF occurrence may occur that may cause an overdraft. However, generally an overdraft is a type of NSF occurrence but not all NSF occurrences are overdrafts because a NSF occurrence may occur when a withdrawal is attempted on an account that has insufficient funds to cover the withdrawal. Specifically, the '581 patent states that if this attempted withdrawal was the result of a check (also assumes a substitute check under the Check 21 Act) or ACH withdrawal, the type of withdrawal would be a non-preauthorized withdrawal (because it is not an ATM withdrawal, debit, or check card withdrawal) which “the account provider can return . . . as unpaid.” As such, the '581 patent specifically addresses the situation where the account holder (i.e., the Payor) has caused, either directly or indirectly, an overdraft on the account which shows up on a “list of overdrafts each day.” It does not, however, address the situation where an NSF occurrence is not an overdraft, which may be a larger problem than when the Payor causes an overdraft because checks, substitute checks, or ACH withdrawals may not be honored by the financial institution even though there are funds available in the associated account, which while being insufficient to pay the withdrawal request are still there and do not cause an overdraft.
An additional problem not addressed by the '581 patent is the form of payment that needs to be made by the Payor to “cure” the “negative balance of the financial account,” which is typically cash or cashier's check. Many times the Payor will not be able to make payment that cures the overdraft, or cures an NSF occurrence, unless he/she physically goes to, or contacts (typically via telephone), the financial institution. The reason for this is that financial institutions typically generate NSF lists and overdraft lists automatically via a computerized system (such as the reconciliation system 134 shown in
As such, there is a need for a system and method that improves the processing of NSF occurrences so as to address the above described problems.
A Financial Measure of Good Action Metric System (“MOGA”) is described in accordance with the present invention. The MOGA may be part of a Financial Alert Management System (“FAMS”), where the FAMS is a system that reduces the occurrence of a non-payment event where the a first financial institution (“1st FI) refuses to pay a negotiable instrument generated by a Payor having a Payor account at the Pt FI, where the negotiable instrument has caused a non-sufficient funds (“NSF”) occurrence because the monetary amount of the negotiable instrument exceeds the available funds amount in the Payor account.
A Financial Measure of Good Action Metric System (“MOGA”) used in a financial Alert Management System (“FAMS”) is described. The MOGA may be utilized to create a historic rating of how customers resolve NSF occurrences on their Payor accounts (i.e., metric scores). In general, if they are timely in resolving the NSF occurrences and, therefore, do not cause their respective Payor FI to issue and/or send NPD notices to other FIs on their negotiable instruments that have caused the corresponding NSF occurrences, their MOGA generated metric scores will be high. If, on the other hand, they are not timely in resolving the NSF occurrence and, therefore, do cause their respective Payor FI to issue and/or send NPD notices to other FIs on their negotiable instruments that have caused the corresponding NSF occurrences, their MOGA generated metric scores will be low.
Other devices, apparatus, systems, methods, features and advantages of the inventions disclosed herein will be or will become apparent to one with skill in the art upon examination of the following figures and detailed description. It is intended that all such additional systems, methods, features and advantages be included within this description, be within the scope of the inventions, and be protected by the accompanying claims.
The invention may be better understood by referring to the following figures. The components in the figures are not necessarily to scale, emphasis instead being placed upon illustrating the principles of the invention. In the figures, like reference numerals designate corresponding parts throughout the different views.
A financial Alert Management System (“FAMS”) is described having a Financial Measure of Good Action Metric System (“MOGA”) in accordance with the present invention. The FAMS is a system that reduces the occurrence of a non-payment event where a first financial institution rpt FI) refuses or declines to pay a negotiable instrument generated by a Payor having a Payor account at the 1st FI, where the negotiable instrument has caused a non-sufficient funds (“NSF”) occurrence because the monetary amount of the negotiable instrument exceeds an available funds amount in the Payor account.
The FAMS may include a first communication module, a database, a timing module, a second communication module, a payment module, and a controller. The controller may be in signal communication with the first communication module, second communication module, payment module, timing module, and database. The controller is configured to control the operation of the FAMS. The first communication module is configured to receive a NSF list, Payor contact list, and a FI predetermined time period from the 1st FI. The 1st FI produces the NSF list that includes the NSF occurrence as an NSF item within the NSF list, the Payor contact list that includes contact information for Payor, and the FI predetermined time period for receiving funds to cover the NSF occurrence before the 1st FI refuses to pay the negotiable instrument. The database is configured to store the NSF items from the NSF list and the contact information for the Payor from the Payor contact list and the timing module is configured to generate a FAMS predetermined time period based on the FI predetermined time period. The second communication module is configured to attempt communication with the Payor based on the contact information for the Payor and, if successful, communicate to the Payor the NSF occurrence, the need to pay at least the amount necessary to cure the NSF occurrence, and the FAMS predetermined time period and the payment module is configured to receive a payment from the Payor. The first communication module is further configured to send a payment notice to the 1st FI such that the 1st FI does not refuse to pay the negotiable instrument.
As an example of operation, the FAMS performs a method that reduces the occurrence of a non-payment event where the 1st FI refuses to pay the negotiable instrument generated by the Payor, where the negotiable instrument has caused a NSF occurrence because the monetary amount of the negotiable instrument exceeds the available funds amount in the Payor account. The method includes receiving the NSF list, Payor contact list, and FI predetermined time period from the 1st FI. Storing the NSF items from the NSF list and storing the contact information for the Payor from the Payor contact list. Generating a FAMS predetermined time period based on the FI predetermined time period and attempting communication with the Payor based on the contact information for the Payor. If the attempted communication is successful, communicating to the Payor the NSF occurrence, the need to pay at least the amount necessary to cure the NSF occurrence, and the FAMS predetermined time period to receive the payment. The method also includes receiving a payment from the Payor within the predetermined time period and sending a payment notice to the 1st FI such that the 1st FI does not refuse to pay the negotiable instrument.
In
It is appreciated by those skilled in the art that some of the circuits, components, modules, and/or devices of the system disclosed in the present application are described as being in signal communication with each other, where signal communication refers to any type of communication and/or connection between the circuits, components, modules, and/or devices that allows a circuit, component, module, and/or device to pass and/or receive signals and/or information from another circuit, component, module, and/or device. The communication and/or connection may be along any signal path between the circuits, components, modules, and/or devices that allows signals and/or information to pass from one circuit, component, module, and/or device to another and includes wireless or wired signal paths. The signal paths may be physical such as, for example, conductive wires, electromagnetic wave guides, attached and/or electromagnetic or mechanically coupled terminals, semi-conductive or dielectric materials or devices, or other similar physical connections or couplings. Additionally, signal paths may be non-physical such as free-space (in the case of electromagnetic propagation) or information paths through digital components where communication information is passed from one circuit, component, module, and/or device to another in varying analog and/or digital formats without passing through a direct electromagnetic connection. These information paths may also include analog-to-digital conversions (“ADC”), digital-to-analog (“DAC”) conversions, data transformations such as, for example, fast Fourier transforms (“FFTs”), time-to-frequency conversations, frequency-to-time conversions, database mapping, signal processing steps, coding, modulations, demodulations, etc.
In an example of operation, the Payer 202 generates 226 the negotiable instrument 200 (such as, for example, a check, substitute check, or automated clearing house (“ACH”) payment) that lists a monetary amount 228 and passes 230 it to the Payee 204 either physically or electronically. In this example, the negotiable instrument 200 is drawn on the Payor account 208 such that the Payor 202 is a “Drawer” of the Payor account 208 and the 1st FI 210 is a “Drawee” because the 1st FI 210 is where the negotiable instrument 200 can be presented for payment from the Payor account 208. Once received by the Payee 204, the Payee 204 then deposits 232 the negotiable instrument 200 into the Payee account 212 either physically or utilizing remote deposit under the Check 21 Act. Once the negotiable instrument 200 is deposited into the Payee account 212, the 2nd FI 214 may present 234 the negotiable instrument 200 (via for example, a substitute check) to the 1st FI 210 for payment via the signal path 216 that includes the communication network 218. In response, the 1st FI 210 sends a payment 236 for the monetary amount listed 228 on the negotiable instrument 200 via a computerized system (such as, for example, first computer server 220) utilizing the proper software. The 1st FI 210 may utilize a Check21 compliant system, an account (not shown) at the regional Federal Reserve Bank 224, or other interbank transaction system.
In this example, once the 1st FI 210 has sent the payment 236 to the 2nd FI 214, the 1st FI 210 then acts to withdraw (i.e., begins a procedure to withdraw but does not actually withdraw) the funds from the Payor account 208 and determines if there are sufficient funds available in the Payor account 208 to pay the listed monetary amount 228 of the negotiable instrument 200 utilizing a reconciliation process. If the funds are available in the Payor account 208, the listed monetary amount 228 of the negotiable instrument 200 is withdrawn from the Payor account 208 to satisfy the payment 236 made by the 1st FI 210. If, instead, the 1st FI 210 determines that there are insufficient funds in the Payor account 208 to pay the listed monetary amount 228 of the negotiable instrument 200, the clearing process designates the negotiable instrument 200 as causing an NSF occurrence (also known as an NSF event) for the Payor account 208 and then places it as an NSF item on an NSF list that will be generated that day by the 1st FI 210. In this example, the clearing process may be performed by a computer system such as, for example, a reconciliation system 238. The reconciliation system 238 may be optionally part of the first server 220 or another independent computer system of the 1st FI 210. The reconciliation system 238 may include software that includes rules and decision engines/modules to perform the reconciliation process that reconciles the amount paid on behalf of the Payor 202 with the funds available from the Payor account 208. The reconciliation system 238 has access to the 1st FI 210 customer lists and corresponding accounts such that it may generate a daily NSF list 240 that includes all NSF occurrences with the corresponding negotiable instruments that caused the NSF occurrences, the corresponding accounts of the negotiable instruments, and the corresponding customer information of the accounts. This NSF list 240 is then sent to the FAMS 206. A Payor contact list 242 of the contact information for corresponding Payors that caused the NSF items of the NSF list 240 may also be sent to the FAMS 206. It is appreciated that the Payor contact list 242 may not be sent if all relevant customer contact information is already provided in the NSF list 240. Additionally, if the FAMS 206 is part of the 1st FI 210, there may not be a need to send the Payor contact list 242 because the information is already available to the FAMS 206 through access to other databases (not shown) within systems located or controlled by the 1st FI 210. At this point, the 1st FI 210 may generate an optional NSF fee 243 that may be charged against the Payor account 208 for the specific NSF occurrence.
In this example, the Payor contact information in the Payor contact list 242 may include, for example, the account number that corresponding to the NSF item, Payor's name, Payor's home, work, and/or mobile telephone numbers, Payor's work and/or personal emails, mobile text number, social security number, date of birth, home and/or business address, third-party contact information (i.e., a “3rd party designee” such as, for example, contact information for a spouse, parent, offspring, sibling, friend, business colleague or associate, etc.), and Payor's personal preferences. In this example, FAMS 206 may be a system that is either a part of 1st FI 210 or a third-party system that is controlled and operated by an independent organization (i.e., a “FAMS organization”) that is associated with the 1st FI 210. If FAMS 206 is a third-party system, the FAMS organization may have a contractual relationship with the 1st FI 210. Additionally, the FAMS organization may also have contractual relationships with individual customers which may include Payor 202. In the case of the FAMS organization having contractual relationships with individual customers such, for example, Payor 202, the FAMS 206, as described below, allows an extra-level of protection for the Payor 202 to deal with a potential NSF occurrence.
Once the NSF list 240 is provided to FAMS 206, the 1st FI 210 will pause sending any Non-paid deposit notices (“NPD notices”) 244 to the 2nd FI 214, where each NPD notice 244 corresponds to an NSF item on the NSF list 240 (including the NSF item corresponding to the NSF occurrence caused by the negotiable instrument 200). In general, a NPD notice is a notification from the 1st FI 210 to the 2nd FI 214 that a request for the return of a deposited item. Specifically in this example, the NSF occurrence that was caused by the negotiable instrument 200 will be listed as an NSF item on the NSF list 240, which is passed to the FAMS 206, and then the 1st FI 210 will pause the sending of a NPD notice 244 to the 2nd FI 214 (which corresponds to the NSF occurrence caused by the negotiable instrument 200) for a 1st FI predetermined time period. In the example of a third-party FAMS organization, the pausing of sending the NPD notice 244 may be partly based on the contractual conditions agreed to by the FAMS organization and a plurality of FIs that include both the 1st FI 210 and 2nd FI 214. Alternatively, in case of the FAMS 206 being a system controlled and operated by the 1st FI 210, the FAMS 206 itself may pause the sending of the NPD notice 244 for the 1st FI predetermined time period. The 1st FI predetermined time period is generally the time from which the NSF occurrence was identified by the 1st FI 210 to the 1st FI cut-off time to reconcile the accounts at the 1st FI 210 at which time financial reconciliation information 246 needs to be sent from the 1st FI 210 to one of regional Federal Reserve Banks 224 unless the 1st FI 210 utilizes a difference reconciliation process that is based on a contractual settlement process between the plurality FIs (which includes both 1st FI 210 and 2nd FI 214) that does not utilize the regional Federal Reserve Bank 224. This 1st FI cut-off time may vary based on the time zone of the corresponding Regional Federal Reserve Bank 224 with which the 1st FI 210 has an account. Such that the 1st FI predetermined time period may be less for a Payor located on the west coast that is utilizing a FI located on the east coast of the U.S. versus a FI located on the west coast.
If FAMS 206 is a third-party system, once the FAMS 206 receives the NSF list 240 and the Payor contact list 242, the FAMS 206 attempts to contact 248 the Payor 202 via one or more electronic contact methods based on the contract information provided for the Payor 202. This may include, for example, robo-calling the Payor' s home, work with either pre-recorded or computer generate voice messages, and/or mobile telephone numbers, generating a computer message that can be utilized by a call center person to call and potentially talk to the Payor, sending computer generated text messages to Payor's mobile, sending computer generated emails to the Payor's personal and/or work emails. If contact 248 with the Payor 202 is established (i.e., someone picked up the phone when called by the FAMS 206, FAMS 206 was able to leave a voicemail on one of the listed telephone numbers, or FAMS 206 texts and/or emails where sent with bouncing back) by the FAMS 206, the FAMS 206 may be configured to note the time that contact was made in its database (not shown) and it may keep track of the time left to for the Payor 202 to respond before a FAMS predetermined time period runs out or a FAMS additional or repeat contact may be made. The FAMS 206 will then communicate in all its communications with the Payor 202 of the FAMS predetermined time period to respond to the Payor 202. The FAMS predetermined time period may be equal to or less than the 1st FI predetermined time period. If the Payor 202 responds 250 to the FAMS 206 within the predetermined time period, the FAMS 206 will attempt to negotiate a way of avoiding the NPD notice 244 being sent to the 2nd FI 214. This negotiation involves receiving a payment 252 from the Payor 202 that will cover the NSF occurrence caused by the negotiable instrument 200 before the expiration of the FAMS predetermined time period.
This payment 252 will include at least the necessary amount of funds to cover the insufficient amount resulting from the monetary amount 228 of the negotiable instrument 200 being applied against the available funds in the Payor account 208. The payment 252 may also include a FAMS 206 proceeding fee, NSF fee 243, and other fees. The payment 252 is optional in that making the payment 252 is the discretion of the Payor 202. If the payment 252 is made within the FAMS predetermined time period, then the FAMS 206 receives the payment 252, optionally deducts the FAMS 206 processing fee, and sends the remaining funds 254 to the 1st FI 210. The funds 254 are received by the 1st FI 210, applied to the Payor account 208 to reconcile one or more of the negotiable instruments that caused the NSF occurrence in the account, and, as such, the 1st FI 210 does not send the NPD notice 244 (corresponding to the NSF occurrence caused by the negotiable instrument 200) to the 2nd FI 214. In this example, as long as the Payor 202 makes a payment 252 to the FAMS 206 before the expiration of the FAMS predetermined time period, the 1st FI 210 will either pay the 2nd FI 214 (if a prior pre-reconciliation payment 236 was not paid), or not send the NPD notice 244 if the payment 236 had been made. It is appreciated that the FAMS predetermined time period communicated to the Payor 202 is either less than the FI predetermined time period because the FAMS predetermined time period takes into account the time lag in receiving the payment 252 from the Payor 202 and the actual FI predetermined time period or because the FAMS organization has a contractual agreement with the 1st FI 210 that if the FAMS 206 receives the payment 252 within the FI predetermined time period, it will guarantee payment to the 1st FI 210 with the funds 254. This disclosure also includes segregating Payors into groups which have been defined by attributes or criteria including but not limited to different pre-determined time periods. Such criteria may be related to FI or FAMS historical dealings with Payor, contractual agreement with Payor, estimate of credit worthiness of the Payor and the like.
In this case, since the FAMS organization is an independent entity from the 1st FI 210, the FAMS organization may choose to allow the FAMS 206 to accept non-cash payments or even cash payments at non-1st FI 210 locations from the Payor 202. As an example, the FAMS 206 may accept cash payments at branches or automated teller machines (“ATMs”) of other FAMS organization member FIs and may optionally charge an additional fee that may include a FAMS deposit fee and a receiving FI's deposit fee. Additionally, the FAMS 206 may accept payments from accounts at other FIs, wire transfer, ACH transactions, cashier's checks, one or more credit card payments, one or more gift card payments, one or more prepaid credit cards, one or more prepaid gift cards, one or more debit cards, PayPal® payments, money orders, foreign currency, Money gram® from Western Union® payments, credit line, home equity line, bit coin, digital currency or combination of these. Moreover, the FAMS 206 may allow the Payor 202 to apply, get approved, and be provided with a financial loan that will cover at least the funds needed for the payment 252. The financial loan may be based on the credit worthiness of the Payor 202.
In the case that the Payor 202 does not contact 250 the FAMS 206 within the FAMS predetermined time period or does contact the FAMS 206 but does not either agree to make the necessary payment 252 or makes the payment 252 past the expiration of the FAMS predetermined time period, the FAMS 206 either notifies 256 the 1st FI 210 that payment has not been made or simply does not make the funds payment 254 to the 1st FI 210 within the FI predetermined time period. As such, at the expiration of the FI predetermined time period the 1st FI will notify 210 the 2nd FI 214 that the negotiable instrument 200 is not paid. Or in those cases when the 1st FI 210 automatically paid the 2nd FI 214 before reconciling the negotiable instruments, the 1st FI 210 will send the NPD notice 244 to the 2nd FI 214 demanding repayment of the earlier payment 236 made to the 2nd FI 214 in relation to the listed monetary amount 228 electronically paid for the negotiable instrument 200. The 2nd FI 214 will return the payment 258 to the 1st FI 210 less a charge back or cost for the transaction. The 2nd FI 214 may then optionally charge the Payee 204 a returned payment fee 260 which will be withdrawn from the Payee account 212. The Payee 204 is then left to enforce the payment of the listed monetary amount 228 owed by the Payor 202 by himself/herself. As stated above, this could result in possible undesirable legal, personal financial, personal reputation, and criminal issues for the Payor 202.
Additionally, if contact information is available for a 3rd party designee 262, the FAMS 206 may try to contact 263 the Payor's 3rd party designee 262 based on the information provided by the 1st FI 210 (in the Payor contact list 242) or a customer database (not shown) of the FAMS 206 if the Payor 202 is a customer of the FAMS organization. Once the 3rd party designee 262 is contacted, the FAMS 206 may instruct the 3rd party designee 262 to contact 264 the Payor 202 so that the Payor 202 may respond to the request within the FAMS predetermined time period and/or allow the 3rd party designee 262 to respond 266 directly to the FAMS 206 for payment arrangements. If the Payor 202 responds 250 to the FAMS 206 in response to the FAMS 206 contacting 264 the 3rd party designee, the process proceeds as described earlier. If, on the other hand, the 3rd party designee 262 responds 266 to the FAMS 206, the FAMS 206 may allow the 3rd party designee 262 to make the same type of payment 268 arrangements as described above in relation to the Payor 202. In this case, if the 3rd party designee makes a payment 268 (similar to payment 252 made by the Payor 202) within the FAMS predetermined time period, the 1st FI 210 will not send the NPD notice 244 to the 2nd FI 214.
Specifically, the payment 268 is again optional in that making the payment 268 is the discretion of the 3rd party designee 262. Similar to payment 252, the payment 268 will include at least the necessary amount of funds to cover the insufficient amount resulting from the monetary amount 228 of the negotiable instrument 200 being applied against the available funds in the Payor account 208. The payment 268 may also include a FAMS 206 proceeding fee, the NSF fee 243, and other fees. If the payment 268 is made within the FAMS predetermined time period, then the FAMS 206 receives the payment 268, optionally deducts the FAMS 206 processing fee, and sends the remaining funds 254 to the 1st FI 210. The funds 254 are received by the 1st FI 210, applied to the Payor account 208 to reconcile one or more of the negotiable instruments that caused the NSF occurrence in the account, and, as such, the 1st FI 210 does not send the NPD notice 244 (corresponding to the NSF occurrence caused by the negotiable instrument 200) to the 2nd FI 214. In this example, as long as the 3rd party designee 262 makes a payment 268 to the FAMS 206 before the expiration of the FAMS predetermined time period, the 1st FI 210 will either pay 236 the 2nd FI 214 (if a prior pre-reconciliation payment 236 has not been made) or not send the NPD notice 244. Again, it is appreciated that the FAMS predetermined time period communicated to the 3rd party designee 262 is either less than the FI predetermined time period because the FAMS predetermined time period takes into account the time lag in receiving the payment 268 from the 3rd party designee 262 and the actual FI predetermined time period or because the FAMS organization has a contractual agreement with the 1st FI 210 that if the FAMS 206 receives the payment 268 within the FI predetermined time period, it will guarantee payment to the 1st FI 210 with the funds 254.
It is appreciated, that the FAMS 206 may allow for a combination of payment 250 and 268 from both the Payor 202 and 3rd party designee 262.
Again, in this case, since the FAMS organization is an independent entity from the 1st FI 210, the FAMS organization may choose to allow the FAMS 206 to accept none cash payments or even cash payments at non-1st FI 210 locations from the 3rd party designee 262. As an example, the FAMS 206 may accept cash payments at branches or ATMs of other FAMS organization member FIs and may optionally charge an additional fee that may include a FAMS deposit fee and a receiving FI's deposit fee. Additionally, the FAMS 206 may accept payments from accounts at other FIs, wire transfer, ACH transactions, cashier's checks, one or more credit card payments, one or more gift card payments, one or more prepaid credit cards, one or more prepaid gift cards, one or more debit cards, PayPal® payments, money orders, foreign currency, Money gram® from Western Union® payments, credit line, home equity line, bit coin, digital currency or combination of these. Moreover, the FAMS 206 may allow the 3rd party designee 262 to apply, get approved, and be provided with a financial loan that will cover at least the funds needed for the payment 252. The financial loan may be based on the credit worthiness of the 3rd party designee 262.
In this example, the FAMS 206 may generate a unique identifier code (“FAMS UIC”) to uniquely identify the NSF item (or items) corresponding to the Payor. The FAMS 206 may generate a plurality of FAMS UICs that are stored in a database (not shown) corresponding to different NSF items. By utilizing the plurality of FAMS UICs, corresponding FI that associated with the FAMS origination may utilize the FAMS UICs to identify a NSF item and the corresponding Payor. As such, in this example, the Payor 202 or 3rd party designee 262 may go to another FI (such as, for example, 2nd FI 214) to make a payment 252 or 268. Once at the other FI, the Payor 202 or 3rd party designee 262 may present the FAMS UIC to a FI teller (or enter it in an automated payments station such as, for example an ATM) and FI teller or automatic payment station will recognize the FAMS UIC and allow the payments 250, 268, or combination of both, to be made. In this example, the other FI may charge a FAMS convenience fee to the Payor 202 or 3rd party designee 262. Similarly, with the FAMS UIC, the FAMS 206 may allow the Payor 202 or 3rd party designee 262 to pay via a telephone call center, online via an Internet website, and via a mobile application.
In addition to FAMS UIC, the FAMS 206 may utilize coded messages to allow the Payor 202 keep his/her privacy. These communications may be coded via safe word, alpha numeric code, or other private type of communication.
If the FAMS 206 is a system within the 1st FI 210, the operation is basically the same as described above, except that the NSF list 240 and Payor contact list 242 is information that is internally (i.e., within the 1st FI 210) accessed by the FAMS 206. Additionally, since the FAMS 206 is part of the 1st FI 210, the FAMS predetermined time period and FI predetermined time period is the same. Moreover, since the FAMS 206 is part of the 1st FI 210, the FAMS 206 does not need to send funds 254 to the 1st FI 210 and notification 256 that a payment has not been made would be replaced by an internal confirmation that the payment, rather than be deposited in the Payor's account, was to be applied to remove the already processed NSF item from the NSF list. In this example, the payment 252 or 268 for the Payor 202 or 3rd party designee 262 would be made directly to the 1st FI 210.
In
Based on the description in
If the FAMS 300 is unsuccessful in reaching the Payor 304 or if the Payor 304 designates a 3rd party designee 378, the FAMS 300 will attempt to contact 380 the 3rd party designee 378. The FAMS 300 may utilize the same process (described earlier) in contacting 380 the 3rd party designee 378 as was utilized in attempting to contact 372 the Payor 304. However, the messages will typically be different because the messages may attempt to reach the Payor 304 through the 3rd party designee 378 and possibly allow the 3rd party designee 378 to make a payment 382 to the FAMS 300 for the Payor 304. In this variation, the controller 328 and a message module (not show) may generate a voice pre-recorded or machine generated message to send via telephone or a textual message to send via textual communications means such as, for example, email, mobile text messaging, or social media based text messaging. The message may be explicit such as, for example, “Please let [Payor] know that he/she needs to contact Bank “A” regarding reference number XXXX.” In the case that the Payor is a customer of the FAMS organization, the message may be even more explicit such as, for example, “Please let [Payor] that they need to contact Bank “A” regarding X number of NSF items, please use reference number XXXX.” Alternatively, the controller 328 and optional CMG 340 may then optionally generate a coded message to send to the 3rd Party designee 378 in instances when privacy is required such that less explicit communications and/or codes may be utilized. This coded message may be different than the coded message that would be generated for the Payor 304 had the FAMS 300 contacted 372 the Payor 304 directly. As mentioned earlier, the message to the 3rd Party designee 378 may also include information allowing the 3rd party designee 378 to make the payment 382 for the Payor 304. In this example, the message to the 3rd party designee 378 may be, for example, “Hello [3rd party designee] we are contacting you in an attempt to reach [Payor] regarding the need to contact Bank “A” regarding an urgent issue. If you would like to contact Bank “A” for [Payor], please use reference number XXXX.”
In this example, the payment module 326, timing module, UIC generator 336, optional metric module, and optional CMG may be modules and/or device that are implemented in hardware, software, or combination of both. Each of these modules may be software modules that run on a processor (such as, for example, controller 328 or other processor that is not shown) which may include a central processing unit (“CPU”), digital signal processor (“DSP”), application specific integrated circuit (“ASIC”), field programmable gate array (“FPGA”), microprocessor, etc. Alternatively, each module may also be or include hardware devices such as logic circuitry, a CPU, a DSP, ASIC, FPGA, etc. The first communication module 322 and second communication module 324 may include hardware and software capable of receiving and sending information to the communication network 320 (such as, for example, Ethernet circuitry) and other communication hardware and software capable of accessing the Internet, email, the cellular telephone network, the landline telephone network, PCS services, mobile text services, etc. The database of NSF items 330 is a FAMS 300 database capable of storing all the NSF items received by the FAMS 300 from the associated FIs through the NSF list 366 or through another sharing of customer information. The database of Payors 332 is another FAMS 300 database capable of storing all the customer information related to the Payors that may either be received from the associated FIs (through the NSF list 366, Payor contract list 368, or combination of both) or from the individual customers (that may include Payor 304) themselves. The FAMS 300 may also include other databases and storage devices (such as random access memory (“RAM”) modules), which are not shown, that allow the processing of the data within the database of NSF items 330 and database of Payors 332. The controller 328 may be any type of processor capable of controlling the functions and operation of the modules the FAMS 300. It is appreciated that the controller 328 may actually be multiple controllers acting in coordination to control the operation of the FAMS 300. The software module 342 may be a storage device, or devices, that stores the software needed to run the controller 328 or other FAMS 300 modules 322, 324, 326, 330, 332, 334, 336, 338, and/or 340.
Turing to
In
In this example, the table includes: the customer (or other title name for identifying the Payor) number 500; contact information 502 that corresponds to the contact information for sending text messages 504, contact information for sending pre-recorded or machine generated audio messages to a telephone number 506, contact information for sending emails 508, contact information for sending emails 510 to the 3rd party designee, contact information for sending text messages 512 to the 3rd party designee, contact information for sending pre-recorded or machine generated audio messages to a telephone number 514 corresponding to the 3rd party designee; time stamp data of time of receipt of the NSF item(s) that includes the date sent 516 and time sent 518 from the FI (as an example, from 1st FI 310), time stamp data of the date 520 and time 522 that the FAMS 300 contacted and sent the message to either the Payor or 3rd party designee; and a copy of the message sent 524. The date and time delivered 520 and 522 columns would include the actual dates and times that the messages were delivered (i.e., the Payor/3rd party designee has received the voice message or the FAMS 300 has left a voicemail on their respective telephones or the text or emails have been sent without being returned as undeliverable). If the messages were not delivered, the column entry would include a description of value indicating that there was “no answer,” “returned,” “undeliverable,” etc. Turning back to the columns for date sent 516 and time sent 518 from the FI, these columns also include other NSF items for that Payor (i.e., customer 001 432) that have occurred that day (i.e., date sent column 516). In this example, three NSF items 519 are shown in the
Based on the table showing the multiple requestors 424 shown in
In this example, the FAMS 600 may receive multiple NSF lists 618, 620, and 622 and Payor contact lists 624, 626, and 628, from the 1st FI 602, 2nd FI 604, and Nth FI 606, respectively. The FAMS 600 may also have a plurality of individual customers 630, 632, and 634. In this example, the Payor described in
As the FAMS 600 receives the NSF lists, Payor contact lists, and contact and personal information from the individual customers, the FAMS 600 may store all of the received data into one or multiple databases 648. From the information data in this, or these, database(s) 648, the FAMS 600 may organize and analyze this information data to provide a few optional features. These optional features would be to provide the FAMS 600 customers (both the FIs (602, 604, and 606) and the individual customers (630, 632, and 634) associated with the FAMS 600) with other types of financial alerts and information. Specifically, the FAMS 600 may include one of more modules such as, for example, an optional Financial Measure of Good Action Metric System (“MOGA”), an optional Dynamic Fraud Alert System (“DFAS”), an optional Financial Escheat System (“FES”), and an optional Mobile Interface for Financial Alert System (“MIFAS”).
In this example, the MOGA 650 may be utilized to create a historic rating of how customers (630, 632, and 634) resolve NSF occurrences on their Payor accounts (i.e., metric scores). In general, if they are timely in resolving the NSF occurrences and, therefore, do not cause their respective Payor FI to issue and/or send NPD notices to other FIs on their negotiable instruments that have caused the corresponding NSF occurrences, their MOGA 650 generated metric scores will be high. If, on the other hand, they are not timely in resolving the NSF occurrence and, therefore, do cause their respective Payor FI to issue and/or send NPD notices to other FIs on their negotiable instruments that have caused the corresponding NSF occurrences, their MOGA 650 generated metric scores will be low. These MOGA 650 generated metric may also take into account the number of NSF occurrence caused by Payors and the amounts that cause the NSF occurrences. These MOGA 650 generated metric scores may then be utilized by other customers to determine if they will accept a negotiable instrument from another person that has a MOGA 650 generated metric score. This may include individual customers 630, 632, and 634, and business entities that are FAMS 600 customers such, for example, retail store 658.
Another possible utilization of a MOGA 650 metric score is in a type of “credit score” for the individual customers 630, 632, or 634 because the metric score will help indicate how “good” an individual customer 630, 632, or 634 is in following through with their payments. Additionally, a high MOGA 650 metric score may allow the FAMS 300 to have some flexibility in how it deals with an individual customer 630, 632, or 634 when an NSF occurrence happens. Specifically, if an individual customer 630, 632, or 634 is a Payor that causes a NSF occurrence by generating and passing a negotiable instrument that causes an insufficient funds event, the FAMS 600 will receive the information on the NSF item caused by the Payor and will be able to compare the NSF item amount against the Payor's MOGA 650 metric score to determine the likelihood of the Payor paying on time the amount necessary to resolve the NSF occurrence. If the MOGA 650 metric score is high, the FAMS 600 may establish (unlike what was described earlier) a FAMS predetermined time period for the Payor to pay the FAMS 600 that is now greater than the FI predetermined time period. As described earlier, the FAMS predetermined time period is generally equal to or less than the FI predetermined time period so that the FAMS 600 has sufficient time to obtain a payment of funds from the Payor that caused the NSF occurrence. However, if that specific Payor has a history and a high MOGA 650 metric score that the FAMS 600 has been monitoring, the FAMS 600 may extend the FAMS predetermined time period to a time that is greater than the FI predetermined time period because the MOGA 650 may indicate that that this specific Payor is trustworthy enough to pay the amount required based on previous performances and that the FAMS 600 may take the risk of extending the time for the Payor to pay the funds even though that my expose the FAMS 600 to liability to FI if the Payor does not actually pay the FAMS 600. In this situation, the FAMS 600 may charge an additional fee (i.e., a payment time extension fee) to the Payor for extending the FAMS predetermined time period. This payment time extension fee may be part of subscription service if the Payor is a FAMS 600 customer. Based on this example, the FAMS 600 may either indicate to the corresponding FI that the Payor has made the payment and that the FI should pay the negotiable instrument that caused the NSF occurrence or FAMS 600 may send the required payment to the corresponding FI and then seek payment from the Payor. In this situation, the FAMS 600 would act as a lending or bonding entity to the Payor based on the MOGA 650 score of the Payor.
Similar to MOGA 650, DFAS 652 would be a system and method that utilizes the information stored in the FAMS 600 database(s) 648. DFAS 650 may be utilized to constantly monitor the NSF items that are received by the different FIs against known Payor personal data. If multiple NSF items appear to be associated with the same Payor personal data (such as, for example, social security numbers, driver's license numbers, home addresses, telephone numbers, etc.) and these NSF items associated to the same Payor personal data is being received from different FIs, there is a chance that the Payor's personal data has been compromised and that someone is producing fraudulent negotiable instruments using the Payor's personal data. The DFAS 652 may then produce a fraud alert to all associated FIs and vendors (such, as retail store 658) that informs these entities to hold, review, use caution or do not accept checks from this Payor until the fraud alert has been resolved. In the case of Payor's that legitimately have different accounts at different FIs, this information should already be in the FAMS 600 database(s) and as such should not be a problem. An advantage of the DFAS 652 is that in today's economic environment, identity fraud is a large and growing problem and while there are generally laws that protect non-business consumers (i.e., the individual customers 630, 632, or 634) from financial fraud, there generally are no such law protecting business against the same fraud. As such, if business such as the FIs, retail entities, etc. are properly warned against the potential fraud of negotiable instruments coming from a specific individual, or business, it allows those business to avoid potential loses by refusing to accept negotiable instruments for DFAS 652 altered accounts and/or Payors.
In addition to MOGA 650 and DFAS 652, the FES 654 is another system and method that utilizes the information stored in the FAMS 600 database(s) 648, a centralized hub which can request, mine or scrap information from member FIs, plus public information gathered from other public sources such as, credit reports, news organization, social media, Internet search engines, etc. In general, a problem that may FIs have is that some accounts and/or safety deposit boxes because old and inactive but they cannot close out the accounts without legally contacting the owner(s) of the account. Unfortunately, sometimes the owner(s) because unavailable or simply cannot be found by the FI. In these situations, associated FIs may send an escheat list 662, 664, or 666 of account holders that they are looking for to resolve issues with old inactive accounts (or safety deposit boxes). The FES 654 will then do a search for the Payors on the escheat lists based on searching the FAMS 600 database(s) 648 and other available information from external sources which may include requests to member FIs to search or provide information from their databases. If a hit is found, the FES 654 may either contact the Payor (in this case also the old or inactive account or safety deposit box holder) directly for the FI (and charge an associated fee) or send the contact information to the requesting FI for them to make contact with the missing Payor.
Turning to the MIFAS 656, the MIFAS 656 may be a system and method that allows the FAMS 600 individual customers 630, 632, and 634 to have a mobile application on their mobile computers, mobile phones (such as smartphones), and/or mobile tablet devices. This application may have a graphical interface that interfaces with the FAMS 600 and shows the NSF items that the user needs to resolve, the payment required from the Payor, and the FAMS predetermined time period to make the payment.
Turning to
If, instead, one of the forms of communication from the FAMS to the Payor (or 3rd party designee) is successful, the process continues to step 722 where the FAMS communicates with the Payor which may include communicating to the Payor the NSF occurrence, the need to pay at least the amount necessary to cure the NSF occurrence, and the FAMS predetermined time period in which the Payor must pay to prevent the 1st FI refusing to pay the negotiable instrument. The FAMS then time stamps the date and time that the communication was made with Payor or 3rd party designee and saves it in a database which may be, for example, the database for the NSF items. The FAMS then waits for the Payor's payment. If the payment is not received before the expiration of the FAMS predetermined time period the FAMS, in decision step 724, does not inform the 1st FI to not refuse payment of the negotiable instrument, which will result in the 1st FI refusing to pay the negotiable instrument or a NPD notice being sent by the 1st FI if the negotiable instrument had been paid or credited earlier.
If, instead, a payment is received from the Payor within the FAMS predetermined time period, the FAMS, in decision step 724, will proceed to step 726 where the FAMS will send a payment notice to the 1st FI such that the 1st FI does not refuse payment of the negotiable instrument or send a NPD notice. The negotiable instrument is then covered and the payment of the negotiable instrument proceeds through the normal process until it ends 720.
As an alternative to this process, it is appreciated that in steps 712 through 722, FAMS may attempt to communicate with the Payor using all the provided contact information, for example, the FAMS may determine that the Payor contact information includes a home telephone number, mobile telephone number, a telephone number for receiving texts, an email address, and 3rd party contact information. In this example, the FAMS would attempt to contact every contact point provide whether or not any of the contact points works or is able to receive a message.
Turning back to
In some instances, MOGA provides a way into the credit market to some underbanked individuals or entities. The MOGA generated metric score is a new banking/credit/action metric that provides a new system and method that receives, collects and/or monitors actions of a Payor. MOGA applies rules and/or decision engines to the data and produces a value for the actions and combinations of actions over time, thereby producing a good (or bad) actions metric that may also be used as a credit worthiness metric or as a part of a metric for determining creditworthiness. In other words, actions can speak louder than words.
In this example, MOGA 800 is configured to receive information about NSF items, corresponding Payors, and the interactions between the Payors and the FAMS 802. Specifically, in operation, MOGA 800 receives the receipt of an NSF list 836 and Payor contact list 838, the FAMS predetermined time period 840 produced by the timing module 810, the generated UIC 842 for a NSF item on the NSF list and the corresponding Payor 844, the communications 846 between the FAMS 802 and the Payor 844, and payments 848 from the Payor 844. In some instances MOGA 800 may monitor the process. The MOGA 800 may also receive information about, or in some instances monitor, the communications 846 between the FAMS 802 and a 3rd party designee (not shown) of the Payor 844, and payments 848 made from the 3rd party designee of the Payor 844.
Those of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that the payment data concerning when or if an NSF item was paid or not paid by a Payor and whether the item was sent back to the Payee as not accepted for deposit may alternatively be collected from one or more FIs, processed with aspects of the systems and methods disclosed herein and the resulting scoring would be within the scope of this invention.
The MOGA 800 may be utilized to create a historic rating of how Payor 844 resolves NSF occurrences on the Payor accounts. In general, if the Payor 844 is timely in resolving the NSF occurrences and, therefore, does not cause their respective Payor FI to issue and/or send NPD notices to other FIs on their negotiable instruments that have caused the corresponding NSF occurrences, their MOGA 800 generated metric scores will be high. If, on the other hand, Payor 844 is not timely in resolving the NSF occurrence and, therefore, does cause their respective Payor FI to issue and/or send NPD notices to other FIs on their negotiable instruments that have caused the corresponding NSF occurrences, their MOGA 800 generated metric scores will be low. As described earlier, these MOGA 800 generated metrics may also take into account the number of NSF occurrence caused by Payor 844 and the amounts that cause the NSF occurrences. These MOGA 800 generated metric scores may then be utilized by other FAMS 802 customers to determine if they will accept a negotiable instrument from the Payor 844 based on their MOGA 800 generated metric score. As stated previously, this may include individual customers and business entities that are FAMS 600 customers. As an example, tables 1 and 2 in
The tables are not intended to be an exclusive list of MOGA score parameters; the scoring system may be weighted on a multitude of criteria including but not limited to the Payee of the NSF item, the amount of the NSF item, whether the NSF item was the result of a dispute (intentionally cancelled instrument), whether the NSF event was connected to a deposit received by Payor being uncollected at the time the NSF occurred. Other criteria may include was the NSF payment to a municipality or governmental agency, or was it to a leasing entity. Additional criteria may also include were there multiple NSF events on the same day—a Payor who resolves a multitude of NSF events on a single day may be scored differently than a Payor who resolves the some number of NSF events in a longer period. Other factors may include a Payor who has established a Account with FAMS to expedite the payment of an NSF event. The action of having a FAMS account as a preparation for addressing the a future NSF event may be considered in scoring. The frequency that a Payor uses overdrafts to cover an NSF occurrence may also be considered in weighing the actions and determining a score. The raw data concerning events, timing and responses is transformed by MOGA engines utilizing algorithms into a value which can be represented as a measure against a scale. A heuristic system may be utilized to forecast future actions as at least a part of the score.
It is appreciated by those skilled in the art that in this example, a MOGA 800 metric credit score is an objective metric showing specific conduct in solving (or not solving) a concrete financial problem. A provider of goods or services such a lessor or lender will benefit from being able to assess the payment character of a Payor customer. In general, a customer that has many NSF occurrences but manages to cover and pay these NSF occurrences before they are returned is different than a customer who has NSF occurrences and is haphazard or less successful at paying them in a timely and consistent fashion.
Turning to
In decision step 1012, the MOGA determines if additional information is available, and if there is additional contact information, the process will then repeat steps 1002 through decision step 1012, thus over time, acquiring more and more information upon which MOGA generated metric scores can be generated. In essence, the MOGA may be continually monitoring the receipt of incoming information. If there is no information immediately available to be processed, then the process may proceed to step 1020, where it monitors requests for MOGA generated metric scores. If the MOGA receives a request for a MOGA generated metric score for a particular Payor, then in step 1022, the MOGA database is searched to see if there is a MOGA generated metric score in the data base for the Payor. If there is, then in step 1026, the process reports the MOGA generated metric score to the requestor. If there is no match, in step 1028, the process reports “no info” to the requestor.
In both cases, the process then ends 1034. However, it is understood that the process may also continue to either step 1012 or step 1020 to continue monitoring for the receipt of additional information or another request for a MOGA generated metric score, respectively.
It will be understood that various aspects or details of the invention may be changed without departing from the scope of the invention. It is not exhaustive and does not limit the claimed inventions to the precise form disclosed. Furthermore, the foregoing description is for the purpose of illustration only, and not for the purpose of limitation. Modifications and variations are possible in light of the above description or may be acquired from practicing the invention. The claims and their equivalents define the scope of the invention.
This application claims the priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/721,026, titled “Payment Alerts And Reminders For Accounts With Imbalances,” filed on Nov. 1, 2012, to inventors Joel Schwartz and Mark Krietzman, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety. Additionally, this application also claims the priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/736,081, titled “Reminders Alert Provider For Bank Accounts With Imbalances,” filed on Dec. 12, 2012, to inventors Joel Schwartz and Mark Krietzman, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety. Furthermore, this application also claims the priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/843,032, titled “Financial And Credit Management,” filed on Jul. 4, 2013, to inventors Mark Krietzman and Joel Schwartz, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety. Still furthermore, this application also claims priority to concurrently filed PCT Application Serial Number ______, titled “FINANCIAL ALERT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM,” filed on Nov. 1, 2013, to inventors Mark Krietzman and Joel Schwartz, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference herein it its entirety. Furthermore, this application also claims priority to concurrently filed PCT Application Serial Number ______, titled “DYNAMIC FRAUD ALERT SYSTEM,” filed on Nov. 1, 2013, to inventors Mark Krietzman and Joel Schwartz, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference herein it its entirety.
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 61721026 | Nov 2012 | US | |
| 61736081 | Dec 2012 | US | |
| 61843032 | Jul 2013 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | PCT/US2013/068178 | Nov 2013 | US |
| Child | 14701469 | US |
