Hi everyone, The discussion regarding "user confusion" vs. "accounting accuracy" is very relevant. I recently saw a real-world case where a user didn't maintain a minimum balance, resulting in a -₹3,000 state due to bank charges. When they eventually deposited funds, the money was "auto-deducted" to cover the debt. Because the system didn't make the negative balance transparent, the user was left confused, thinking their deposit had simply disappeared until they contacted the bank.
This supports Mohammad's point about the importance of General Ledger accuracy and transparency. If we use a "shadow" or "pending" balance as Alberto suggested, we might actually increase user support tickets because the debt isn't visible to the customer until their new deposit vanishes. I suggest we prioritize a model that reflects the true liability on the user's dashboard to avoid this "missing money" experience. Best, Ayush Singh On Thu, Feb 5, 2026, 9:37 PM Mohammed Saifulhuq < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Alberto, > That is an interesting approach, but I see a few architectural risks with > a 'Pending Transaction' model versus a true 'Negative Balance' model for > this specific use case: > Regulatory Reality: When a 'Force Post' occurs (e.g., a tax levy or > regulatory fee), the liability is often immediate. The customer is in debt > to the bank at that exact second. Keeping the balance at 0 and hiding the > debt in a 'pending' state might misrepresent the actual General Ledger (GL) > position of the bank. > Interest Calculation: If the account is effectively overdrawn, the bank > usually needs to accrue interest on that debt immediately. Fineract's > existing interest engine handles negative balances (overdrafts) naturally. > If we use a 'pending' queue, we would need to rebuild the interest > calculation logic to look at the 'shadow' balance, which adds significant > complexity. > Complexity on Deposit: Your approach requires a new event listener on > every deposit to 'sweep' the pending queue. This introduces concurrency > challenges. > I believe the 'Negative Balance with Limits' approach stays closer to > standard GAAP/IFRS accounting principles where a liability is recognized > immediately on the ledger. > Thoughts? > > Best, > Mohammed Saifulhuq > > On Thu, 5 Feb, 2026, 9:27 pm Jose Alberto Hernandez, < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello! >> >> I would like to propose a more robust method: >> >> 1. Keep the Savings Account as is, don't update the allowed overdraft or >> something else, >> 2. Generate a new transaction type that will be applied once the account >> has some balance, this can be added to the Savings Account with a new >> command >> 3. Include a new Balance amount, similar as we have now, totalBalance >> amount and available amount, to include those transactions, this new >> balance usually will be negative when the Savings Account has these >> transactions to be applied >> >> The idea of this new transaction type is to record the different pending >> stuff to be applied the next time the account has some deposit >> >> What do you think? >> >> Thanks and regards >> Alberto >> >> On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 8:09 PM Mohammed Saifulhuq < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Anu and Campbell, >>> This is a critical feature for regulatory compliance, especially for >>> institutions handling automated service charges or tax deductions where >>> rejecting the debit is not a legal option. >>> I agree with Anu's architectural approach, particularly separating this >>> into a distinct API command (withdrawal-force-post). Mixing this logic into >>> the standard withdrawal flow could create dangerous loopholes where >>> overdrafts happen accidentally. >>> One additional consideration: >>> If we enable allow-negative-balance, we should also consider if this >>> requires a 'Limit' configuration (e.g., 'Max Overdraft Amount'). Allowing >>> infinite negative balance might pose a risk if a force-post API is abused >>> or looped. >>> I am happy to pick up the implementation of the Global Configuration and >>> the Permission structure if we have consensus on the design. >>> Best, >>> Mohammed Saifulhuq >>> >>> On Thu, 5 Feb, 2026, 6:08 am Anu Omotayo via dev, < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> I had a similar discussion with my colleague on savings account with >>>> negative balance about two weeks ago. The ask was to debit customer savings >>>> accounts for regulatory reasons even if the account balance is 0. >>>> >>>> Also, I had a negative balance in my account with a commercial bank >>>> days ago due to a bank charge that I wasn't expecting. >>>> >>>> Below is a suggestion on how I think this feature can be implemented in >>>> fineract. >>>> >>>> 1. An "allow-negative-balance-on-savings-account" can be added to the >>>> global configuration to enable/disable this feature. >>>> >>>> 2. It should be implemented as a separate API due to its sensitive >>>> nature e.g (e.g ~ >>>> /fineract-provider/api/v1/savingsaccounts/14/transactions?command=withdrawal-force-post). >>>> The "allow-negative-balance-on-savings-account" setting should be >>>> checked before the transaction is posted. >>>> >>>> 3. New permissions such as WITHDRAW SAVINGSACCOUNT FORCE DEBIT, >>>> WITHDRAW SAVINGSACCOUNT FORCE DEBIT CHECKER should be created and used for >>>> the new API. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Anu Omotayo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sunday, January 11, 2026 at 01:12:07 AM GMT+1, Campbell Burgess < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Paul.... Very well laid out. Thank you. >>>> >>>> Bottom line... negative consumer deposit (savings accounts in Fineract) >>>> routinely go negative, with and without, formal arrangements and with (but >>>> also without) account holder opt-in. >>>> >>>> If what I am now guessing is correct, that Fineract does not readily >>>> support a force-post, what is the best path forward. >>>> >>>> Again, we are happy to do all the lifting and contribute the work >>>> product to the community, of course, expecting independent review and >>>> oversight. >>>> >>>> Campbell >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1/10/2026 10:37 AM, Paul wrote: >>>> >>>> *Regulation E (Electronic Fund Transfers):* For one-time debit card >>>> and ATM transactions, banks cannot charge an overdraft fee unless the >>>> consumer has explicitly *opted in*. However, even without an opt-in, a >>>> bank is legally permitted to pay the transaction (creating a negative >>>> balance) as long as it does *not* charge a fee. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Herring BANCORP ® >>>> >>>> >>>> *C. Campbell Burgess *President/CEO >>>> Office: (806) 373-3921 | Direct: (806) 242-3704 >>>> >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> *Herring Bancorp* >>>> 2201 Civic Circle, Suite 1000 >>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/2201+Civic+Circle,+Suite+1000+%0D%0A++++++++++++Amarillo,+TX+79109?entry=gmail&source=g> >>>> Amarillo, TX 79109 >>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/2201+Civic+Circle,+Suite+1000+%0D%0A++++++++++++Amarillo,+TX+79109?entry=gmail&source=g> >>>> >>>> www.herringbank.com >>>> >>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail is intended only for the use of the >>>> individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information >>>> that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under >>>> applicable law. If the reader of this e-mail message is not the intended >>>> recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of the message >>>> to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, >>>> distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have >>>> received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at >>>> (303) 565-7001 and also indicate the sender's name. Thank you. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>
