Advertising Disclosure


Popular Posts

Beam Money Withdrawal Problems Highlight Risk of Banking at Fintechs

POSTED ON BY

The financial technology company (fintech) known as Beam has made news due to many of its banking customers reporting that they have been unable to withdraw their money for months. Beam attracted attention in the last year due to its high yield bank account that’s accessed through the Beam mobile app. Like many fintechs, Beam claimed to be working with banks that actually hold the customer deposits. Through these banks, it was claimed that the accounts offered FDIC coverage. The problem that Beam customers have been experiencing is shedding light on what can go wrong at these fintechs who are operating like banks.

CNBC is the news organization that published the exposé on Beam. In the CNBC October 28th article, five Beam customers were interviewed and described their failed attempts to withdraw their money from their Beam accounts. One has been trying since August.

In September, two DA readers posted similar issues in their reviews of Beam. Here’s an excerpt of one of the reviews:

Like many I was lured in by their interest rates and the easy ability to get Billies and boost the rates just by signing up for emails. Well that's garbage, the email-rates only last for a day and then push you back to .02%. But that's nothing compared to withdrawing.

MANY PEOPLE have requested withdrawals OVER ONE MONTH AGO, yet still haven't received their $$. I am one of them. Beam has totally stopped responding. If anyone knows how to file this issue with the FDIC, please post here!

Beam claimed to offer an FDIC-insured sweep account in which deposits would be transferred to a network of banks that actually hold deposits. This is one of the two typical arrangements fintechs use to provide banking services. The other arrangement is when the fintech partners with just one bank. As I described in my review of the safety of banking at fintechs, the sweep-account approach is the most problematic.

Not only are Beam customers lacking access to their money, there is significant uncertainty about who is holding their money. This highlights the problem that can occur when you’re dealing with a middleman for managing your bank account.

According to the CNBC article, at least five entities have been involved with the customer funds. The first is Beam itself which provides the frontend to customers. Then those funds were supposed to be transferred to the company R&T that handles Beam’s sweep accounts. R&T uses another bank to temporarily hold the funds. At some point, R&T is supposed to transfer the funds to one or more custodian banks which comprise the network of banks that provide long-term holding of the funds. The only custodian bank that CNBC was able to confirm was Huntington Bank. Beam had listed 50 banks that were supposed to be part of the network of banks that would act as custodians of the funds. Lastly, the company Dwolla was used to process ACH transfer requests.

Based on CNBC’s report, it appears customer funds are currently being held at an unnamed bank that R&T uses to temporarily hold funds. The Huntington Bank statement that CNBC shared is disturbing. According to the CNBC article:

Huntington is “not currently in possession of any [Beam user] funds and has not withheld any Beam funds,” the spokeswoman said. The funds “will be transferred to the custodial account, once R&T is instructed to do so by Beam,”

I find this disturbing since Beam had claimed that funds would be swept into Huntington and other banks in its network of banks. It appears that Beam’s customer funds never made it to Huntington Bank.

Also disturbing is that Dwolla has cut ties with Beam as of October 1st, and according to the CNBC article, R&T will be cutting ties on October 31st. Next week may be an important time for Beam customers who are trying to get back their money. If the money leaves R&T and its bank but is not transferred to either the Beam customers or Huntington Bank, the prospect dims that Beam customers will see a return of their money.

Safety of banking at any non-bank fintech?

In closing, this problem at Beam highlights the risks of banking at a fintech that uses a sweep account arrangement. It also suggests risks of banking at any fintech that’s not a bank. Even with fintechs that partner with just one bank, there may be more risk than we think. If the fintech doesn’t act responsibly, your money may be at risk. The FDIC may not be able to help if the money is not at the bank. If you’re dealing directly with a bank that doesn’t act in a safe and sound manner, the FDIC can force changes or shut down the bank to prevent loss of your insured funds. If you’re banking at a fintech that doesn’t act in a safe and sound manner, you may be out of luck.

Related Pages: savings accounts, bank health ratings, nationwide deals, Internet banks
Comments
ichaelm
  |     |   Comment #1
Amazingly, Beam is still advertising its account and claiming that you can receive withdrawals in 3-5 business days!!

https://meetbeam.com/
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #3
Holy smokes! they are still advertising FDIC insurance as well.
enduser
  |     |   Comment #15
Print anything you want, even if you can't back it up.
I suspect we will soon see a lawsuit brewing.

NO LOCKUP
24/7 access.
No minimum.
ichaelm
  |     |   Comment #18
I think the "24/7 access" which you're referring to means that if you request a withdrawal, you will receive your money 24 years and 7 months later.
GreenDream
  |     |   Comment #21
I think you are being overly optimistic. 24 decades and 7 years perhaps. ;)
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #2
That was exactly my take as well. I can't believe that Huntington bank never got the funds! It's like the lost socks episode of Ren and Stimpy: "Where do they go?.........nobody know".
As soon as I read about this I immediately took the $125 x2 bonus Cash out of my SoFi accounts just in case and will be closing them after the required 90 days is up.
Maybe there will end up being a class action but that's no guarantee they will get their funds back just pennies on the dollar.
ichaelm
  |     |   Comment #4
I guess that depositors were lucky, in a way, that they were limited to depositing a maximum $15,000.
P_D
  |     |   Comment #5
Dealing directly with a bank: risk=x

Dealing with a middleman for a bank: risk=x+y where y'>'0
Choice
  |     |   Comment #6
Then why do the more sophisticated banks allow middle persons? Acquiesced trademark use by non-banks/brokers/independent contractors leads also to more potential defendants when they do not proactively act!
111
  |     |   Comment #11
Please cite an example.
Choice
  |     |   Comment #20
Trademarks must be protected... As to who some of those middle persons are...PD, what do you say?
tbc3
  |     |   Comment #7
Can Ken comment on other FinTech companies, such as oneFinance or HMBradley that partner with a bank and supposedly are not using a sweep account? They have a routing/account number to directly deposit/withdraw, but the Beam situation makes me wonder...
calwatch
  |     |   Comment #8
Also, I think T-Mobile Money (the current rate leader for online savings accounts) may be fine because T-Mobile is lending its name to the endeavor. If they tried to pull this stunt their phone brand would get tarnished.
cjdtech
  |     |   Comment #9
I'm glad I dodged this bullet. Realized Beam was shady early last year.
Duck
  |     |   Comment #10
"Based on CNBC’s report, it appears customer funds are currently being held at an unnamed bank that R&T uses to temporarily hold funds."

Wondering if this unnamed institution is somehow located out of the US maybe in the Cayman's always heard that is a good place lol
#22 - This comment has been removed for violating our comment policy.
Rob5TCP
  |     |   Comment #12
I sent a note to Ken well over a year ago when I was on their waitling list. It seemed suspicious then, and obviously now. I never sent them money. I believe I was something like 500+ on their "waiting list" when they started. When I read all the complications to earn higher rates, it raised a red flag. Plus, when I checked BEAM had no FDIC and they were just an intermediary. Glad I never sent them a dime.
Rickny
  |     |   Comment #13
I think it's a great marketing tool to have these "waiting lists" for these Fintech accounts.  
   When these Fintech accounts came out I was wary.  Would I sent my money to some silicon valley wiz kids running a start up?  Also, If the rates are much higher than regular rates that sets a red flag for me.
bankingar
  |     |   Comment #14
Beam was a problem from day 1 doing "business" with them. Frankly any service that doesn't give me an account and routing number will worry me more in the future. I know that doesn't guarantee I'd be able to pull money in this situation but Beam's software was so awful and buggy that I'd need an emergency escape. In hindsight being limited to $400 and giving up on them early saved me from these thieves.
Qazwsxedcr
  |     |   Comment #16
Hi ken THANKS! I eagerly await ur emails and this us astoundung news re:FINTECHS. Though i must say not surprising. Have never geared towards this typesm of 'high interest' banking was always not taken in by them. Just didnt satisfy ideas of insured deposits. Have relationships with suggestions through your insured products and have experienced no difficulties. Yes rates are dwindling but in this environment its expected while others are encouraging through A+ customer support and ratings.
Rickny
  |     |   Comment #19
Perfect timing for this post by Ken as when rates get real low people are desperate for a greater return on their savings. Sometimes when this happens people don't do due diligence.
Qazwsxedcr
  |     |   Comment #23
Thanks for advice on some of the fi i have found them to be indispensable in these times AND W/O controversy. Never had interest in fintechs for insuring funds.
kcfield
  |     |   Comment #24
To expand on one of Ken's points: Even if one can determine which specific banks Beam is using; FDIC insurance would only cover in the case of a specific bank failure. Beam failure per se is not FDIC insured because Beam is not a bank.
ichaelm
  |     |   Comment #25
And to expand on kcfield's point, if you have a problem with Beam (or any other fintech) the CFPB (or any other governmental financial regulatory agency) cannot help you, because Beam is not a fi.
alan1
  |     |   Comment #26
ichaelm -- could you please provide a source for your statement that neither the CFPB nor any other government agency can help with such a problem unless the malefactor is a financial institution?

For example, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau states that it has a "Payday Lending Rule". As I understand it (and I may be wrong), that Rule does apply to lenders that are not "financial institutions".

See https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_payday-lending-rule_frequently-asked-questions.pd...

Whether "the CFPB (or any other governmental financial regulatory agency)" can help, with regard to Beam, is a question I would not endeavor to answer without conducting further research. But ichaelm could obviate any need for further research by anyone by simply providing the basis for his statement. I would greatly appreciate it if ichaelm would provide us with the benefit of his knowledge. Thanks.
ichaelm
  |     |   Comment #27
here you go:
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/guidance/supervision-examinations/institutions/
ichaelm
  |     |   Comment #28
and here you go:
https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/fintech-regulatory-restraint-and-10-years-of-dodd-frank-by-david-zaring/
Note paragraph 7:
But it has not done so. Instead, the CFPB has generally supported the growth of fintechs as “consumer friendly innovation.” The agency created a regulatory sandbox in 2019, over the objections of a number of state attorneys general, for fintech firms. The sandbox was defined in a no action letter to mean that qualifying fintechs could assume that they would not be subject to CFPB enforcement actions for three years, in exchange for data sharing.
alan1
  |     |   Comment #30
I don't see how the sources you cite supports your claim.

For example, the Bureau went after "My Loan Doctor LLC". https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_loan-doctor_complaint_2020-07.pdf

It did so pursuant to 12 U.S. Code § 5481(6) which defines "Covered person":

The term “covered person” means—
(A) any person that engages in offering or providing a consumer financial product or service; and
(B) any affiliate of a person described in subparagraph (A) if such affiliate acts as a service provider to such person.

12 USC § 5481(19) defines "person" to include entities.
12 USC § 5481(15) defines "financial product or service" and appears to include Beam's activities; e.g. "engaging in deposit-taking activities, transmitting or exchanging funds, or otherwise acting as a custodian of funds or any financial instrument for use by or on behalf of a consumer;"

Again, I am not stating a position re the Bureau and Beam. I think further research is required.
GreenDream
  |     |   Comment #31
your statement: the CFPB (or any other governmental financial regulatory agency) cannot help you, because Beam is not a fi.
is contradicted by your follow-up statements:
fintechs could assume that they would not be subject to CFPB enforcement actions for three years, in exchange for data sharing.
(if the CFPB is putting them in a sandbox for three years, that's very much admitting the CFPB considers them under their jurisdiction)
and
Fintech companies, including marketplace lenders and payment companies, are subject to certain federal regulations.
(If they're subject to federal regulation than there is most definitely a federal agency that is behind those regulations).
Rickny
  |     |   Comment #32
I filed an onlinecomplaint with the CFPB. Took 2 weeks to hear from them. The problem is a simple one. The reply I got was that the financial institution has requested more time has 60 days to respond. So if the people with accounts with Beam file complaints they may have to wait up to 60 days.
Choice
  |     |   Comment #33
60 day cure period is unheard of! Good Luck
Rickny
  |     |   Comment #35
Thankfully it is not monetarily situation but information on my Checksytems profile.
#34 - This comment has been removed for violating our comment policy.
carnholio
  |     |   Comment #36
Update:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/10/beam-users-still-cant-get-their-money-now-the-lawsuits-have-begun.html

The financial institution, product, and APY (Annual Percentage Yield) data displayed on this website is gathered from various sources and may not reflect all of the offers available in your region. Although we strive to provide the most accurate data possible, we cannot guarantee its accuracy. The content displayed is for general information purposes only; always verify account details and availability with the financial institution before opening an account. Contact [email protected] to report inaccurate info or to request offers be included in this website. We are not affiliated with the financial institutions included in this website.