-4

As per this, there is always a middleman for transferring fund between two banks.

Why can't there be a direct communication between two banks? What problems would be arouse if there was direct communication between two banks? And thus, what problems are solved by having a middleman like PSP/PSO in between two different banks?

enter image description here

Improve this question
1
  • 1
    It seems to me that the very article you link to has more than enough explanation to answer your question...
    – AakashM
    Sep 24 at 20:27

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2

There are 25000 banks in the world. Banks to do not want to establish 25000 connections to each of the other banks. without payment networks, you would have situations where most banks would tell you “we can send or receive payments to/from these banks (a few dozen, maybe a few hundreds), but not the other 24000”.

That’s why there are payment networks. You connect to one, you get accès to thousands of other banks at once.

Improve this answer
2

Do you know how many banks there are? For direct transfers, each and every bank would have to link with every other bank.

That’s a LOT of interconnections. (The math racks up some pretty huge numbers, but I’m not sure whether you use factorials or exponents.)

This is why banks use centralized clearing houses: every bank connects to a single CH, simplifying much of the work.

It’s also why airlines and package delivery services use the hub-and-spoke model for organizing transportation.

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    Actually, the math uses "merely" squaring, so tens of thousands of banks amounts to "only" hundreds of millions of interconnections
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    Sep 25 at 4:43

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .