TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Judge: Citibank isn't entitled to $500M it sent to various creditors last August

1232 pointsby danbrover 4 years ago

92 comments

airstrikeover 4 years ago
<i>&gt; Raj thought that checking the &quot;principal&quot; checkbox and entering the number of a Citibank wash account would ensure that the principal payment would stay at Citibank. He was wrong. To prevent payment of the principal, Raj actually needed to set the &quot;front&quot; and &quot;fund&quot; fields to the wash account as well as &quot;principal.&quot; Raj didn&#x27;t do that.</i><p>I don&#x27;t even have anything to add. The paragraph speaks for itself... You can&#x27;t make this up
评论 #26181361 未加载
评论 #26181019 未加载
评论 #26182449 未加载
评论 #26181888 未加载
评论 #26187714 未加载
评论 #26185077 未加载
评论 #26181314 未加载
评论 #26183182 未加载
评论 #26181262 未加载
评论 #26188228 未加载
评论 #26183454 未加载
评论 #26192968 未加载
评论 #26195387 未加载
评论 #26183321 未加载
评论 #26187138 未加载
评论 #26184224 未加载
评论 #26181026 未加载
评论 #26181194 未加载
评论 #26188595 未加载
评论 #26183426 未加载
CivBaseover 4 years ago
&gt; The actual work of entering this transaction into Flexcube fell to a subcontractor in India named Arokia Raj.<p>&gt; Citibank&#x27;s procedures require that three people sign off on a transaction of this size. In this case, that was Raj, a colleague of his in India, and a senior Citibank official in Delaware named Vincent Fratta.<p>The names of these individuals seems like an unnecessary detail, especially since the article names the software interface as the culprit. I can&#x27;t help but think about the recent NYT&#x2F;SSC incident.
评论 #26181980 未加载
评论 #26185662 未加载
评论 #26182647 未加载
评论 #26182811 未加载
评论 #26182013 未加载
评论 #26185431 未加载
评论 #26182255 未加载
评论 #26186066 未加载
评论 #26184609 未加载
评论 #26183929 未加载
评论 #26181648 未加载
评论 #26200165 未加载
评论 #26182815 未加载
评论 #26187227 未加载
onliover 4 years ago
This really is an awesome example of a bad UI. These are exactly the kind of UIs you see in the enterprise all the time, with the article containing the totally crazy description of what was expected plus the screenshots to show that there was absolutely no way to get this, if not being the programmer who wrote it (and even then, no guarantee at all to get it right). To have a somewhat exact approach of detecting and fixing issues like this, that is what usability is all about.<p>So it&#x27;s really the design of the software and not just the style of it that was wrong and had to be improved. A usability professional would have caught that immediately - and would have been way cheaper.
评论 #26181747 未加载
评论 #26181149 未加载
评论 #26181107 未加载
评论 #26181193 未加载
评论 #26183597 未加载
评论 #26184792 未加载
评论 #26182073 未加载
xyzelementover 4 years ago
To be sure, this is an ugly UI but this is not <i>necessarily</i> a pure UI issue at root.<p>Internal applications have to be more complex that external applications - that&#x27;s why you sometimes have to call a company to do something the consumer frontend doesn&#x27;t support. The employees are expected to operate a more powerful&#x2F;flexible system than the customer, and I think there&#x27;s always a risk inherent there.<p>In this case, it&#x27;s <i>likely</i> that it&#x27;s not just a dumb UI thing that the employee <i>&quot;needed to set the &quot;front&quot; and &quot;fund&quot; fields to the wash account as well as &quot;principal.&quot;</i> I suspect thank &quot;front&quot; and &quot;back&quot; are actually real business concepts in how the bank models transfers which the employee&#x2F;reviewer did not understand well. Instead they expressed a different model of a transfer (an external one) which is a totally legitimate use case, just not the intended one.<p>That&#x27;s kinda one level of empathy, I suspect this really happened because these users think about these operations as &quot;I check this box, then I check that box&quot; rather than &quot;I get how transfers work and I am going to express my intention using that understanding.&quot; So it&#x27;s probably much more of a training issue, because to give these people a very narrow and polished consumer-style frontend would take away the flexibility they likely need to actually execute their roles.
评论 #26184541 未加载
评论 #26184270 未加载
评论 #26185046 未加载
评论 #26184419 未加载
评论 #26184451 未加载
评论 #26184081 未加载
dekertaover 4 years ago
Not surprising that Oracle&#x27;s promotional video for Flexcube is all corporate-speak and buzz-words, and doesn&#x27;t actually show the product or even explain what it does. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;videohub.oracle.com&#x2F;media&#x2F;t&#x2F;1_mxpp4dyv" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;videohub.oracle.com&#x2F;media&#x2F;t&#x2F;1_mxpp4dyv</a><p>All enterprise software is terrible like this. It&#x27;s because the people ordering the software are disconnected from the people who will have to use it
评论 #26183456 未加载
评论 #26182618 未加载
评论 #26182487 未加载
评论 #26183562 未加载
评论 #26185826 未加载
bob1029over 4 years ago
I had to share this with my team today. We produce an app for banking that is used at the front line (i.e. in the branches). We have <i>explicitly</i> acknowledged the fact that the bulk of our users are going to be new to the business &amp; are going to be paid peanuts while simultaneously being expected to produce consistent business outcomes. As a result, we have tailored our interfaces for self-discoverability and intuitiveness. Making a UI intuitive is a book all by itself, but suffice to say that we spend a lot of time agonizing over how UI elements are laid out so that users are less likely to make errors in judgement.<p>Our application is not immune to exposing exceptions to the business. But, we have added measures throughout to minimize this as much as possible. In areas where there is a lot of jargon which might confuse new employees, we put help buttons which allow a user to quickly review important terms &amp; other documentation in-line with the actual functionality. This makes our application almost a training course in and of itself.<p>Additionally, in cases where we identify that poor choices could have broader impacts to other parts of the business (i.e. lighting 500mm on fire), we add explicit validations with hard cutoff limits to prevent insane things from happening. In this specific case, we would probably walk the user through a decision tree to force them down a valid path and ensure the funds were being tagged to the correct account(s). We also have approval loops in our application for more sensitive operations, but even these have integral validations &amp; other measures to ensure that &quot;experienced&quot; employees don&#x27;t screw up either.
评论 #26190800 未加载
lefstathiouover 4 years ago
I would like to point out that Flexcube is built by Oracle. Citi&#x27;s mistake here was in tying themselves to what is likely the &quot;safest&quot;, &quot;market leading&quot; solution.<p>If you all could see how frustrating Ariba (by SAP) is, you&#x27;d have a great laugh.
评论 #26181754 未加载
评论 #26182460 未加载
评论 #26181587 未加载
评论 #26186173 未加载
gzer0over 4 years ago
&gt; <i>Ordinarily, the law would be on Citibank&#x27;s side here. Under New York law, someone who sends out an erroneous wire transfer—for example, sending a payment to the wrong account—is entitled to get the money back.<p>&gt; But the law makes an exception when a debtor accidentally wires money to a creditor. In that case, if the creditor doesn&#x27;t have prior knowledge the payment was a mistake, it&#x27;s free to treat it as a repayment of the loan.</i><p>There&#x27;s a major UI issue here, no doubt about it.<p>But, it&#x27;s important to also point out how bizzare this exception is, how did this even get included as the one and only exception?
评论 #26181239 未加载
评论 #26181306 未加载
评论 #26182302 未加载
评论 #26181545 未加载
评论 #26181357 未加载
评论 #26181208 未加载
评论 #26181302 未加载
评论 #26181484 未加载
评论 #26186087 未加载
评论 #26183120 未加载
评论 #26181370 未加载
评论 #26181216 未加载
评论 #26183247 未加载
gregoriolover 4 years ago
Everyone here seems to focus on the bad UI and blames those who made the software because this particular operation was complicated to perform and failed. But all this is missing the points: the UI reflect the business, the UI has likely been designed to perform many very complex banking operations and works well for that, we just don&#x27;t know how powerful it is from the screenshot and are not experts in the field. It&#x27;s as if we were shown a shell and people were like &quot;wow look at that horrible UI, no wonder they deleted the production database&quot;.<p>Sometimes a basic UI is the most efficient at some tasks, but one has to be trained to use it properly and processes have to be in place to prevent horrible issues. This is the problem here and this is where they failed.
评论 #26185954 未加载
perlgeekover 4 years ago
OK, so they payed $500M about two years early, right?<p>That&#x27;s very bad for your cash flow, and you lose 2 years worth of interest from that, but in the long run, citibank isn&#x27;t $500M poorer, right?<p>I&#x27;m trying to understand what the real financial impact is. Interest rates aren&#x27;t very high right now, so can maybe a few percent of the $500M per year?<p>Regarding the UI issue: Not only is it bad that the user interface is weird, but that approval seems to use the same bad UI as entering the data. The approval stage <i>really</i> needs a line like &quot;this will result in a $ X being sent out on $Date to $Recipient&quot;.
评论 #26181624 未加载
评论 #26181749 未加载
评论 #26183372 未加载
评论 #26181685 未加载
评论 #26181726 未加载
ineedasernameover 4 years ago
<i>But the law makes an exception when a debtor accidentally wires money to a creditor</i><p>Okay, but Citibank wasn&#x27;t the debtor here, they were simply the middleman. And:<p><i>&quot;To believe that Citibank, one of the most sophisticated financial institutions in the world, had made a mistake... would have been borderline irrational&quot;</i><p>Sure, if you hear hoofbeats, the likely guess is horses, not zebras. But if someone calls you up and says &quot;Hey, I got some nice pics of zebras running by your house&quot; then you know the probable guess was wrong, and should act accordingly.<p>Absolutely the mistake was Citibank&#x27;s fault. Maybe you think that means, inherently, that they should lose the case. But if you look at the actual laws on the books, I really don&#x27;t understand how the interpretation of the laws comes down against Citi here. Though a half $billion mistake on UI design might still be a very beneficial lesson for the entire UX design community to remember.
评论 #26187078 未加载
ab_testingover 4 years ago
I have a contrarian view that this is not a UI design issue - instead a user training issue. Oracle and bad UI design often comes up on HN and every time the debate is that Oracle software is very bad and ripe for disruption. However, most of what Oracle has built or bought is complex because the purposes it serves is complex. You cannot expect a user to just sit in front of this screen (or any other Oracle screen for that matter) and figure it out. There is a lot of tribal knowledge involved and most of the times it is a user training issue.<p>If the user and his manager was unsure, they should have tested it on a dev system or with a smaller amount. Blaming bad software is easy. But having worked with complex ERP systems for more than a decade, I can easily say tat most of these systems are designed keeping user feedback in mind. In fact a lot of modules that Oracle sells were systems that their users built as add-ons to Oracle and were finally embraced by Oracle.<p>Everybody blames bad ERP systems from Oracle (PeopleSoft, JD Edwards, Oracle EBS) and SAP. Yet noboody is building competing systems at a mass scale. Because they are complex and needs lots of integrations.<p>That is why, you see lots of small business ERP systems but very few complex full scale ERP systems -the kind Oracle dabbles in.
评论 #26183474 未加载
评论 #26183531 未加载
austincheneyover 4 years ago
Imagine working on the complexities of financial software for a major financial institution. I don’t have to imagine this as I work for a much larger financial institution with many more financial products.<p>Now take that complexity that is in your imagination now and couple it with internal software. Think about the last megacorp you worked at and how awesome the internal tools are.<p>Now imagine writing the applications and processes that govern and that internal software. The internal end product doesn’t get the product attention it deserves, because well... it’s just internal and not seen by customers. The stuff you write to support that end product gets even less product attention. It’s an act of God to get a few more lines in on top of the millions of redundant lines already present. Now couple that with the inane process of financial management internal to the financial industry.<p>Shitty enough yet knowing the product management requirements to make this good user facing software? Try imagining then testing it with automation.<p>The complexities are vast enough that converging, in my area, to git for version control from various other tools was a multi year effort to avoid completely halting the business requirements.
MattGaiserover 4 years ago
Used to work in banking innovation and have plenty of friends that work&#x2F;have worked at banks. Bad UIs cause errors and inability to help customers all the time.
评论 #26181048 未加载
tppiotrowskiover 4 years ago
A lot of people are pointing to the UI here but I think there’s a more fundamental problem of using a system in a way it wasn’t designed to in the first place.<p>The need for transferring principal to your own “wash” account in order to make an interest payment to other parties seems unconventional.<p>It’s violating the problem domain. Similar to using special int values like -1 or -2 in an orderId DB field to indicate that order was cancelled or in progress instead of creating an explicit orderStatus field.
评论 #26183401 未加载
hnedeotesover 4 years ago
So they put 3 guys who seem to never had done such a thing in charge of a $1B transaction, that requires special parameters, and they didn&#x27;t even checked if their assumptions were right?<p>And here I am, tearing out my hair, sleepless nights, wondering if using iodash instead of pure JS incurs in needless overhead for people I don&#x27;t know from anywhere visiting my website.<p>(probably someone got a nice check out of it though)
评论 #26182220 未加载
redkoalaover 4 years ago
Oracle Flexcube is a packaged banking product. While Citibank did make the choice to purchase the product, the UI design flaw is really inherent in the product itself.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.oracle.com&#x2F;industries&#x2F;financial-services&#x2F;banking&#x2F;flexcube-universal-banking&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.oracle.com&#x2F;industries&#x2F;financial-services&#x2F;banking...</a>
评论 #26181982 未加载
评论 #26181849 未加载
评论 #26181889 未加载
maxwellover 4 years ago
Wasn&#x27;t actually about the UI, here&#x27;s the buried lede:<p>&gt; Ordinarily, paying back a loan early wouldn&#x27;t be a big deal, since the parties could simply negotiate a new loan on similar terms. But in this case, some of the lenders were not on good terms with Revlon and Citibank.
评论 #26181330 未加载
boatsieover 4 years ago
Obviously Citibank was at fault here for not understanding how the software was supposed to be used, but they did not write the software Flexcube, Oracle did. And if you look at some of the manuals for the software, it is all very poorly designed:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.oracle.com&#x2F;cd&#x2F;E53393_01&#x2F;homepage.htm" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.oracle.com&#x2F;cd&#x2F;E53393_01&#x2F;homepage.htm</a><p>However, Citibank&#x27;s real mistake was trying to use the software for something it probably was not really designed for. It seems they created a &quot;hack&quot; to make this type of interest-only and rollover payment possible so that they didn&#x27;t have to bother trying to figure out the correct interest payments for the loan holders.
isolliover 4 years ago
Isn&#x27;t this a core design failure, rather than merely a UI failure?<p>&lt;&lt; On Flexcube, the easiest (or perhaps only) way to execute the transaction was to enter it in the system as if paying off the loan in its entirety, but to direct the principal portion of the payment to a &quot;wash account&quot; (an internal Citibank account) to help ensure that money does not leave the bank. &gt;&gt;
评论 #26186242 未加载
bravoetchover 4 years ago
I bet flexcube is extremely expensive software too. And I dont just mean because of the mistakes that must be made all the time.
评论 #26181445 未加载
njovinover 4 years ago
One of the most fascinating parts of this story, to me, is that Revlon&#x27;s creditors were able to use a mistake made by Citi and a legal loophole in New York to recover debt that had increased in risk due to some allegedly-shady asset management by Revlon. It&#x27;s like a perfect storm formed to repay bad debt.
评论 #26187885 未加载
Angosturaover 4 years ago
This looks like one of those delightful UIs where basically some database field are thrown onto the screen, with very little though as to the U and the I
qzwover 4 years ago
When faced with UI as shitty as this, they could’ve (and in hindsight obviously should’ve) instituted a two step procedure where not just the principal gets put into an internal wash account, but the interest also goes to an internal account. Then the next day they can pay out from the interest only account. That way a mistake would be caught before the money leaves the bank. But hey, I don’t feel too sorry for them if they still haven’t figured out this whole banking thing after 208 years in the business.
gistover 4 years ago
&gt; Ordinarily, the law would be on Citibank&#x27;s side here. Under New York law, someone who sends out an erroneous wire transfer—for example, sending a payment to the wrong account—is entitled to get the money back. But the law makes an exception when a debtor accidentally wires money to a creditor. In that case, if the creditor doesn&#x27;t have prior knowledge the payment was a mistake, it&#x27;s free to treat it as a repayment of the loan. Judge Furman ruled that that principle applies here, even though Citibank notified its creditors of the mistake the very next day.<p>Key point &#x27;wrong account&#x27; is not &#x27;right account but for the wrong reason&#x27;.<p>The article most likely written by a non business person confuses a mistake (money sent to the wrong account) with money sent to the right account. The law almost certainly doesn&#x27;t allow a wire transfer sent to be recovered for that reason and type of mistake. Importantly though it does (by design) allow a transfer sent to a mistake (like a typo) to be recovered. This actually makes sense and here is why:<p>A wire transfer is payment for &#x27;goods or services&#x27; let&#x27;s say. Often that &#x27;goods or services&#x27; is released (or relied upon) when money is received. In the sense that it is not reversable under any and all circumstances. A wrong account is &#x27;going to the wrong place&#x27;. The right account is the right place.<p>Wire transfers are by design &#x27;final&#x27;. ACH is not. An ACH can be reversed (for a number of reasons).<p>If you could claw back wire transfers all sorts of things (that depend on them being final) would break down and you&#x27;d have many problems down the transaction line.
netsharcover 4 years ago
They should just add a checkbox that says &quot;Dry run&quot; to see if the money would be transferred to the right place...<p>I&#x27;ll take $100,000 for this consultancy recommendation, thanks Citibank. ;)
评论 #26181106 未加载
评论 #26181080 未加载
ChuckMcMover 4 years ago
I find this somewhat hilarious, but on the plus side it allows Citibank to put a $ figure on what it could cost to outsource key software infrastructure.
6gvONxR4sf7oover 4 years ago
&gt; To believe that Citibank, one of the most sophisticated financial institutions in the world, had made a mistake that had never happened before, to the tune of nearly $1 billion—would have been borderline irrational<p>This seems weird. There are all sorts of novel mistakes all the time, even by very competent groups. Even if it’s not a mistake, it would be a surprising action to take.<p>But most of all, it seems really weird to say it would be irrational to expect what happened would happen. Like people who profited off of 2008. Were they irrational or prescient? It’s impossible to tell a lot of the time, so “it would be irrational to be correct” seems like a very over strong statement.
评论 #26182764 未加载
cm2187over 4 years ago
I am baffled that most developers seem to see (even in banks) thousands separators as a useless gimmick, and somehow expect users to mentally count the number of digits when they are dealing with amounts in billions (or even more in JPY).
评论 #26182457 未加载
评论 #26184060 未加载
Gene5iveover 4 years ago
Everything about banking is devoid of aesthetic. Banks don&#x27;t care how things look. My nearest BoA has fake plants and dinged-up furniture. This is the kind of culture that would put up with horrendously bad UI&#x2F;UX until it bit them in the ass and then they would probably just fix the problem with lawyers instead of finding or demanding a better software. Design matters.<p>Now let&#x27;s talk about Flexcube. Oh, it&#x27;s an Oracle app! Guess who else is rich, has no interest in aesthetics, and loves lawyers. I&#x27;m seeing a pattern here. Design. Matters.
Jtsummersover 4 years ago
If you&#x27;re involved in designing critical systems (whatever critical may mean to you and your customers), I can recommend this book for a collection of case studies of where things went wrong:<p><i>Tragic Design</i> by Shariat and Saucier<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Tragic-Design-Impact-Bad-Product&#x2F;dp&#x2F;149192361X&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Tragic-Design-Impact-Bad-Product&#x2F;dp&#x2F;1...</a><p>If you have an O&#x27;Reilly subscription, you can read it on their site.
dec0dedab0deover 4 years ago
This seems like the kind of thing that was originally a paper form that got coded 1-1 to avoid friction, and then decades later someone was not trained properly on how to use.
coding123over 4 years ago
More about training. Walk into any shop, heck a title company, and you&#x27;ll see UIs that have no explanations or anything just abbreviations that are understood by internal people. Look at the screen they use in Grease Monkey. There&#x27;s probably people at your insurance company that still logs into a Telnet session to do things with your account.<p>There&#x27;s more software out there like that than your Twitter UI for posting a message than you can imagine.
DonHopkinsover 4 years ago
I&#x27;d reword the title &quot;Citibank just got a $500M penalty for bad UI design&quot;, because &quot;lesson&quot; implies they actually learned something.
TimMurnaghanover 4 years ago
This isn&#x27;t Citibanks UI design. This is about Oracle&#x27;s core banking software Flexcube. It&#x27;s way deeper than UI. The loan entity didn&#x27;t support the update they needed to make so they tried delete and re-create - which involved paying off the first loan - but the counterparty didn&#x27;t agree with the &quot;re-create&quot; bit. Take the &quot;U&quot; part of CRUD seriously people.
ineedasernameover 4 years ago
<i>subcontractor in India named Arokia Raj... Citibank official in Delaware named Vincent Fratta</i><p>Raj probably still has a job working on non-Citibank accounts. I doubt Vincent Fratta is still employed by Citi. I guess this is fair? Raj made a mistake for one client where the client-- the experts-- signed off on it.
meagherover 4 years ago
Technology as a literal cost center.
mandevilover 4 years ago
Human error is a terrible concept, a crutch for bad engineering. Take the story of the VSS Enterprise (SpaceShip Two) that broke up back in 2014. It broke apart because the co-pilot hit a button four seconds early[1]. But if hitting one button four seconds early is the difference between nominal flight and falling from 15 kilometers up <i>without a pressure suit</i> that&#x27;s really the fault of the person who designed and built the thing[2].<p>[1]: Outside analysis, sync up a video from an earlier flight with the failed flight, sync&#x27;d up to T-0 ignition. The successful flight the co-pilot Alsbury hit the button at T+13s, the fatal flight at T+9s. The fatal flight was the first test of a new engine, so there is some error in this calculation. Wikipedia claims it was 14 seconds too early, but I&#x27;m not sure how much I trust the source it cites.<p>[2]: The feathering device was a clever idea that the designer, Burt Rutan, had: if you fold the entire spacecraft in half while you are up in space then it will pretty much always be in a safe attitude for reentry and you don&#x27;t need to have much maneuvering authority in space. But below Mach 1.4 there isn&#x27;t enough aerodynamic pressure to keep the spacecraft from folding in half when you don&#x27;t want it to (and then the spacecraft gets torn apart by all of the aerodynamic pressure that is there- not enough to keep it from folding in half, but too much to survive if it does fold in half). So they put in these big honking locks to prevent it from folding when you don&#x27;t want it to. But now you have a new problem: if those locks prevent it from folding while you are up in space now you burn up in the atmosphere because you don&#x27;t have enough control to keep the spacecraft oriented in a safe manner. So you have to undo the locks above mach 1.4 but before you have burned enough of your rocket fuel that you are committed to going into space: if you try and undo the locks and they don&#x27;t go, you immediately stop the rocket engine and glide back down to a safe landing. So you have a very narrow window that the button has to be hit, and if you are out of that window you can either accidentally feather and die or fail to feather and die. At a certain point you just have to give up on your clever ideas and admit that they are not helping you.
trinovantesover 4 years ago
Reminiscent of the therac25 incident except the poor UI led to loss of money instead of lives<p>I wonder if the CS education in countries that critical software often gets subcontracted to teaches about software disasters like this
评论 #26184161 未加载
AcerbicZeroover 4 years ago
There is some beautiful poetic justice in watching a major financial institution suffer from a choice they lobbied for.<p>They wanted accidental repayment of loans to be a one way street, and that’s exactly what they got.
templarchampover 4 years ago
The next generation of software is going to include check boxes and text fields to confirm to enter data in &quot;front&quot;, &quot;fund&quot;, &quot;but*&quot; and check boxes to confirm &quot;I am not smoking&quot;, &quot;Yes, I understand the software cryptic codes 110%&quot;, &quot;I acknowledge that the workflow is super dumb down&quot; and &quot;We all thank Oracle consultants&#x27; support for super intuitiveness&quot;. It is a question of time Oracle gets dodo dna. The one trick pony has outlived itself..
1MachineElfover 4 years ago
<i>Under New York law, someone who sends out an erroneous wire transfer—for example, sending a payment to the wrong account—is entitled to get the money back.<p>But the law makes an exception when a debtor accidentally wires money to a creditor. In that case, if the creditor doesn&#x27;t have prior knowledge the payment was a mistake, it&#x27;s free to treat it as a repayment of the loan.</i><p>I wonder if folks here on HN agree with this law or not. It sounds like it could be construed as an unfair rule put in due to lobbying by lenders. Thoughts?
评论 #26183497 未加载
评论 #26185065 未加载
avi_vallarapuover 4 years ago
Well, why just the blame on the UI unless it is a glitch ? In general, It is the blame on the process, trainings and Users not participating in the Development life cycle.<p>Why would someone not want to refer to some true documented procedures while processing such large transactions ? Firstly, is there such a documentation or a procedure or a checklist in place ? Documentation and process is a key to every unique tool or solution.
JohnTHallerover 4 years ago
This is widespread at Citibank. Citibank&#x27;s website will show you the correct minimum credit card payment on the summary screen, but when you click through, it will show you a different lower payment. If you only pay that one, your account will be flagged as not paying your minimum payment every month. This has been reported to Citibank multiple times over the last few years. It won&#x27;t be fixed.
timrichardover 4 years ago
If this followed along the lines of the Thomas J. Watson anecdote, Citibank would say &quot;fire him? We just spent $500M training him.&quot;
jonplackettover 4 years ago
Wonder how many other times this has happened with smaller amounts of money and noone noticed.<p>That form looks like it&#x27;s been around a loooooooong time.
BuckRogersover 4 years ago
The genius business folks at Citi can get their $500,000,000 out of the money they saved outsourcing to India.<p>I&#x27;ve always had a great experience with my onshore and offshore Indian colleagues, I have family of east Indian origin. But all of the offshore call centers and IT should be banned or hit hard with high penalties by the US government given the COVID pandemic.
leesalminenover 4 years ago
One of the major detractors to Bitcoin et. al. That you hear about on HN is that transactions in USD has a legal recourse to recoup funds in these types of oopsie situations. Does this court decision make anyone feel more bullish about Bitcoin seeing that there isn’t always a legal recourse in USD? Does it at least temper that discussion slightly?
jamesgreenleafover 4 years ago
I&#x27;ll state the obvious:<p>UI&#x2F;UX isn&#x27;t a nice facade that you put on top of critical infrastructure.<p>It <i>is</i> critical infrastructure.
mumblemumbleover 4 years ago
If ever there were a direct challenge to the (regrettable) idea that UX experts are just a luxury, it&#x27;s this.
adrrover 4 years ago
I wonder if that weird rule if you accidentally send the wrong amount to a creditor comes from credit card industry lobbying. Say if a consumer accidentally sends $10,000 to his credit card company instead of $1,000. Consumer can’t claw back the money. Citibank has probably benefited from the law.
评论 #26182139 未加载
dclover 4 years ago
I&#x27;m so glad the blockchain is coming to prevent and fix these mistakes in the future &#x2F;sarcasm
chmod600over 4 years ago
&gt; &quot;To believe that Citibank, one of the most sophisticated financial institutions in the world, had made a mistake that had never happened before, to the tune of nearly $1 billion—would have been borderline irrational,&quot;<p>Really? People make mistakes. Institutions make mistakes.
nnurmanovover 4 years ago
There is a big issue with UX with Oracle products, I have been telling it for ages, no changes. Even Thomas Kurian said “I want to make sure that the entire HCM dev organization understands what a disgrace your UI [user interface] is and stop living in denial on that.”
评论 #26182777 未加载
评论 #26182974 未加载
selimnairbover 4 years ago
Tell me again how it’s cheaper to keep crappy legacy systems running rather than upgrading?
fungiblecogover 4 years ago
Why so surprised? 80% of &#x27;enterprise software&#x27; is similarly terrible. Nobody involved in the business of creating this crap gives two shits about users or quality except for a few developers that nobody listens to.
arey_abhishekover 4 years ago
Their UI sucks! Poorly designed form, no tooltip explaining the fields, bad contrast ratio, and a button with just an icon. A bank will spend $$$$$ on consumer facing UI, but spare almost no thought on UI used by employees.<p>But this is definitely not as bad as some of the other UI I&#x27;ve seen in SAP, Oracle, etc. It&#x27;s certain that nobody who ever uses this UI actually approved this UI. Even if you do use it, hate it, you have no way of asking for a change.<p>Shameless plug, I run an open source project to build internal and enterprise apps. We&#x27;ve built it so you can set up warnings and confirmations to prevent such errors. Our pitch: Use Appsmith and save at least $500M <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;appsmithorg&#x2F;appsmith" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;appsmithorg&#x2F;appsmith</a>
评论 #26183033 未加载
mdomsover 4 years ago
It&#x27;s a shame they doxxed the Indian contract worker who made the mistake.
评论 #26183031 未加载
kumarharshover 4 years ago
Wow, what an interesting piece of UI to manage such a critical piece of financial process. Banks are probably one of the worst offenders of UI and UX design, and half the times, I can&#x27;t even reason why.
myroover 4 years ago
I truly wonder if this chsnge at least something in the industry. Like, you know, it is loud news, and huge numbers. Will the competitors look into their systems, involve some ux&#x27;ers to sleep calm?
poloteover 4 years ago
Same thing happened 2 years ago in Hawaii <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=16140761" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=16140761</a>
1024coreover 4 years ago
HN Discussion when the case was filed: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=24222045" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=24222045</a>
larodiover 4 years ago
Oracle Forms ftw. so much software built just to make it run, without any UX design put to work. well.. there&#x27;s so much more of these forms running worldwide, so - just get used to it..
taylorwcover 4 years ago
As usual, it&#x27;s worth going out of your way to read Matt Levine&#x27;s column on the matter [0].<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bloomberg.com&#x2F;opinion&#x2F;articles&#x2F;2021-02-17&#x2F;citi-can-t-have-its-900-million-back" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bloomberg.com&#x2F;opinion&#x2F;articles&#x2F;2021-02-17&#x2F;citi-c...</a>
评论 #26181070 未加载
vmceptionover 4 years ago
How much did this really cost them? It is essentially a prepayment for something they were already going to pay<p>So, given the time value of money this cost them closer to 2%&#x2F;yr of that balance?
评论 #26184972 未加载
beachtaxidriverover 4 years ago
My takeaway is that by now every company is a &quot;tech company&quot; whether they want to be or not, and needs a bench of in-house software engineers, NOT contractors.
jdhnover 4 years ago
As a product designer who works in the enterprise space, it&#x27;s good to know I&#x27;ll have a long career barring any personal failures due to programs like this.
fireeyedover 4 years ago
What is the strategic advantage to a bank to oursource an important transaction (ie transferring money in ginormous amounts) outsourced to India ?
评论 #26185022 未加载
Zelphyrover 4 years ago
I&#x27;m surprised it took this long for the kind of UI&#x27;s that are typical in enterprise software to cause a problem of this magnitude.
pixel_tracingover 4 years ago
I like the some debt is society is paid off even if it is a mistake haha, maybe this will have overall net positive results in our economy
m3kw9over 4 years ago
Ambiguous UI for bank operations can be deadly
fudged71over 4 years ago
Do you think they’re going to fix some Software UI, or just pile on more training to their employees&#x2F;contractors?
dreamcompilerover 4 years ago
This UI resembles a register transfer language; it&#x27;s what programming in microcode looks like. It doesn&#x27;t even rise to the abstraction level of assembly language. Expecting humans not to make errors at this level of abstraction with high consequences for failure is moronic. It&#x27;s sad that the only motivation for improving outsourced lowest-bidder enterprise crapware like this is when it costs the company $$$.
bilekasover 4 years ago
&gt; he noticed there was something drastically off about the previous day&#x27;s figures<p>I thought I&#x27;ve had bad mornings..
drummerover 4 years ago
Everyone who received the money by mistake should give it back. Anything else is immoral. Mistakes happen.
anonymouse008over 4 years ago
Hmmm, I&#x27;m having fun dreaming that this was in BTC and they fat fingered the wrong address...
_pmf_over 4 years ago
How is this a UI design issue? There is no UI design involved. It&#x27;s a generated form.
ChrisMarshallNYover 4 years ago
That screen is terrifying.<p>I expect to receive a Jakob Nielsen newsletter, soon, discussing this.
iamleppertover 4 years ago
This is what happens when a company is penny wise and pound foolish.
Friedduckover 4 years ago
Inept judge, or certainly one not steeped in the ways of finance. People make wire errors all the time. Fraud occurs, things happen. I haven’t read the statute but as written the exception doesn’t even apply (Citibank being an agent and not the lender.)
评论 #26187594 未加载
remoqueteover 4 years ago
And the importance of proper UX writing and user documentation.
spoonjimover 4 years ago
I know they’ve outsourced customer service agents to India but didn’t think they also outsourced the execution of billion dollar transfers. Hope the wage arbitrage was worth it boys!
xwdvover 4 years ago
How could they have trusted some Indian subcontractor to do something so important with their money? Guess it&#x27;s also a lesson in &quot;you get what you pay for&quot;.
评论 #26182702 未加载
pyrealover 4 years ago
Kitboga would find this supremely ironic.
agumonkeyover 4 years ago
A lot of finance software is really subpar. I&#x27;m a tiny tiny bit eager to know how the defi crowd will do there, they come with a different culture and might find cute ipodsy ways to design financial UIs.
graycatover 4 years ago
The CITI event was a real disaster, likely enough for the importance of UI design to be taken more seriously around the world. IMHO, there are some quite good contributions in this thread with several excellent ones.<p>I will chip in my 2 cents from my experience on both sides of user interfaces:<p>In parts of user interface (UI) design, there has long been a principle that to make good use of the UI the user should have accumulated experience with the UI where they ran essentially experiments to discover how the UI and associated system worked.<p>So, with this principle, the CITI people just needed more experience with experiments, at ~$900 million per experiment!<p>So, right, the principle is flawed and for some applications expensive&#x2F;dangerous.<p>While this principle of users getting experience from experiments has worked for the UIs of a range of applications, to be careful a principle should be that a user should be able to use an application as intended the first time and with no experiments.<p>Case 1. Last week I went to the Web site of my bank and used its UI to transfer some money from one account to another. The experience was Excedrin headache #394,325,757,110: I entered the data, and nothing happened.<p>So, I had to start running experiments. I hit Enter and left&#x2F;right single&#x2F;double clicked on everything in the window, and nothing happened. It appeared I was seeing all of the window horizontally, so I checked vertically, and to do that I looked for a vertical scroll bars. There were none. So, I converted the application to full screen and still saw no vertical scroll bars or way to make the money transfer happen. So, I did some more study and finally discovered that the window was so tall that the bottom of the screen was hidden by my tilted keyboard, and the part I could not see had the HTML push button for approving the transfer.<p>So, the UI designers just assumed, insisted, never told anyone, that, naturally, of course, all the users will be using their Web site with the windows expanded to full screen. And for some reason, whether their window is full screen or not, the UI designers don&#x27;t like vertical scroll bars. The screen for the transfer had only a few lines of text and didn&#x27;t need so much vertical screen space, but the designers seem to like using as much screen area as they can.<p>Okay, I learned how to use their UI. Still not so good: (a) The bank keeps changing their UI, and in this case made it worse. So, with that bank I will have to go through such mud wrestling nonsense several times a year. (b) To me, the original HTML <i>controls</i> were nicely designed, including the scroll bars, and one result was that nearly all the many millions of Web pages worked somewhat the same. Then somehow many UI designers wanted their screens to work in some unique way until they changed to another unique way a few months later. The power of JavaScript made this problem much worse.<p>Case 2. Also last week, in a weak moment, I decided to get a user id and password (PW) at one of the social media Web sites. They stated some rules for passwords; I followed those and typed in a password in a file where I keep such things; copied that PW to the system clipboard, pasted it into their HTML single line text box for passwords, and nothing happened. I hit Enter, clicked around, etc. and nothing happened. I pasted the password in again, reloaded the page, closed the browser and tried again, etc. and nothing happened -- no messages, nothing. I still don&#x27;t know what is wrong except it isn&#x27;t me.<p>As I&#x27;ve mentioned at Hacker News before, for my startup I have 100,000 lines of typing of software for a Web site ready to go live. In that code I used eight design principles in UI: (i) No icons. Instead all the links are words in the English language that clearly describe the function of the link. For icons, I usually am not sure what they mean, can&#x27;t look them up in a dictionary, and can&#x27;t pronounce them, spell them, or type them -- IMHO, bummer. (ii) There are no acronyms. None. (iii) The only controls used are standard HTML. I wrote no JavaScript at all although Microsoft&#x27;s ASP.NET wrote a little for me; apparently it has to do with cursor positioning but is optional. (iv) Each page (screen) has a link &quot;Help&quot; to explain the screen in detail. (v) Each screen has both vertical and horizontal scroll bars. (vi) The screens are designed for a window 700 pixels wide and are still usable in a screen 300 pixels wide. (vii) All the fonts are large and have high contrast. (viii) All HTML control bounding boxes are bold and black with high contrast. IMHO (i) - (viii) help UI design.
tobipristupinover 4 years ago
test comment
cambalacheover 4 years ago
So, we have Citibank, a shitty financial institution.<p>Revlon who is in terminal phase and who screwed up its creditors.<p>Money-lenders.<p>This is like a Roman-Empire time gladiator combat of criminals who were sentenced to death.
EGregover 4 years ago
$900M
评论 #26181315 未加载
ameliusover 4 years ago
Any modern UI should at least support <i>undo</i>.
评论 #26181815 未加载
评论 #26183089 未加载
noxerover 4 years ago
misleading title<p>They send back money before they had to<p>some returned it back but 500M didn&#x27;t came back<p>that&#x27;s not a 500M mistake at all.<p>stop support that click-bait nonsense
评论 #26181680 未加载
pratioover 4 years ago
3 people were required to okay the transaction and none of them saw anything wrong with it. This is not just bad UI but bad user trainings as well. Mistakes happen and in systems as complex as these with very few visual cues this was an accident waiting to happen and when it did, it was an expensive one.<p>I was moaning when i had to use SAP for a little while
评论 #26181158 未加载