0

Obviously, when you look at your bank's transaction history, it will show the date when transactions were cleared, as that's the date that really matters. But I also know that banks are capable of recording the date/time of the original transaction. On my bank website, pending transactions show the exact date and time that the transaction was actually initiated. But once it clears, that date/time is no longer available for me to see.

The same thing on my prior bank, except the prior bank didn't even show me the time of day.

Is there a particular reason why this information is not available after transactions clear? Or is it just that the two banks I've worked with never saw a good reason to provide it, or didn't want us to get confused?

closed as primarily opinion-based by quid, JoeTaxpayer Jul 12 '17 at 16:16

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • "Is there a particular reason" is "opinion based"??? I'm not looking for opinions, I'm looking for facts. Sure, everyone has an opinion about this, but that is not what I asked for. If someone doesn't know the facts, only has an opinion, I'd expect them to not respond at all. – Jerry Dodge Jul 12 '17 at 16:21
  • The reason(s) a particular bank made a business decision to show or not show a date and/or a timestamp is not a universal published fact. – quid Jul 12 '17 at 16:59
  • On a side note, since I opened a credit card with Capital One, it appears they actually do keep track of original transaction information. They understand the importance of this data. They also show the company logo and map, if available. – Jerry Dodge Jun 22 at 22:35
5

The authorization date becomes irrelevant after the transaction posts. Since almost every bank uses batch transaction processing, providing actual transaction times could easily mislead people to believe they post in chronological order.

  • 1
    Indeed, that's pretty much what I already said in my question. The original date/time is extremely useful though, for me even more than the posting date, because of tracking down, for example, the location of a stolen card at a given time. – Jerry Dodge Jul 12 '17 at 16:24
  • 1
    Well your suspicion was correct, this is the particular reason, the banks have nothing to gain from providing this information to you after the transactions post. – Hart CO Jul 12 '17 at 16:39
  • As @HartCO says, banks' core systems were/are batch-processing, where "time of transaction" is a meaningless concept, so it never existed. When ATM/on-line transactions were introduced new systems were needed to "feed into" the core batch-processing system. Recording the time in the new system did make sense, and (some) banks may display this to users (while entries are in the new system) but the times are not fed into the core system. The times almost certainly are archived in the new systems, but so far, banks have seen no benefit in making this available to end users. – TripeHound Jul 13 '17 at 7:33
  • As I commented on my question, the banks do have something to gain. They gain the business of customers who value this type of data. Capital One gets it. – Jerry Dodge Jun 22 at 22:37
  • @JerryDodge I'm a Capital One customer and didn't think they showed anything but dates, just logged in to check statements and the online views but I'm missing timestamps. Where are seeing timestamped transactions? I would like that data too. – Hart CO Jun 22 at 23:23

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