Hi Bharath, Thank you for the feedback and the kind words. I appreciate the guidance.
I completely agree with the Acceptance Criteria regarding the 'Negative Balance' behavior and the global limits. However, I would like to double-check the approach regarding the Single API vs. Separate API decision, specifically regarding Permissions and Risk Management. While using the existing withdrawal API is cleaner implementation-wise, it introduces a significant security gap: 1. Granular Permissions: If we use the standard withdrawal command, we rely on the standard WITHDRAW_SAVINGSACCOUNT permission. This means if we enable the Global Config, any front-line staff (Teller) could accidentally overdraft an account up to the global limit. 2. Intent: As Anu mentioned, this feature is primarily for Regulatory Levies or Charges (Force Post), which is distinct from a customer-initiated withdrawal. 3. Auditability: A separate withdrawal-force-debit command allows the Bank to explicitly audit *who* bypassed the balance check and *why*. My Recommendation: I propose we stick to the Separate Command ( withdrawal-force-debit) strategy. This allows us to attach a specific WITHDRAW_SAVINGSACCOUNT_FORCE_DEBIT permission to it. - Teller: Has WITHDRAW_SAVINGSACCOUNT. Can withdraw only if funds exist. - Manager/System: Has WITHDRAW_SAVINGSACCOUNT_FORCE_DEBIT. Can withdraw into negative (up to limit). If we merge them into one API, we lose this control layer. Does that align with your view on the security requirements? Best, Mohammed Saifulhuq On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 6:08 PM Bharath Gowda <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > This has been a very good discussion with great idea sharing around the > topic. > I really appreciate Mohammed for taking the initiative to work on this > enhancement. > > Could we please have a story created in Fineract JIRA with all the > required details captured? > > Regarding the acceptance criteria for this enhancement, I am aligned with > the following points: > > > - The system should allow debit transactions on a savings account even > when there is an insufficient balance. > - In such cases, the savings account should move into a negative > balance, and any further debit transactions on the same account should be > restricted until the negative balance is fully settled. > - There should be a global configuration named > allow-negative-balance-on-savings-account, which should be disabled by > default. > - There should be a configurable global limit on the maximum allowed > negative balance. > - Accounting behavior should remain unchanged and follow the existing > accounting configuration for savings product debit transactions. > > > My only concern is around introducing a new transaction type or a separate > API for this functionality. From a customer perspective, this is still a > standard withdrawal. > > Using the existing debit transaction flow should be sufficient and would > help avoid the following scenarios: > > > - Organizations must explicitly check account balances before > initiating debit transactions. > - Any additional complexity, when the existing configurations for > “allow-negative-balance-on-savings-account” and the "negative balance > limit" can already govern the behavior using current transaction types. > > So I believe the existing debit transaction mechanism with the above > configurations should address the requirement cleanly without new API or > new permissions for the same. > > > > Regards, > Bharath > Lead Implementation Analyst | Mifos Initiative > PMC Member | Apache Fineract > Mobile: +91.7019635592 > http://mifos.org <http://facebook.com/mifos> > <http://www.twitter.com/mifos> > > > On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 5:59 PM Paul <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Great team work. 👍 >> Thanks for the effort. >> >> -- >> Paul >> >> On Fri, Feb 6, 2026, 5:33 AM Anu Omotayo via dev <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Mohammed, you can go ahead please. >>> >>> In terms of naming convention, I think we should use "force debit" >>> because its a banking terminology: >>> >>> API: withdrawal-force-debit >>> >>> Permissions: WITHDRAW SAVINGSACCOUNT FORCE DEBIT, WITHDRAW >>> SAVINGSACCOUNT FORCE DEBIT CHECKER >>> >>> System configuration: allow-force-debit-on-savings-account, >>> force-debit-on-savings-account-limit >>> OR allow-negative-balance-on-savings-account, >>> negative-balance-on-savings-account-limit >>> >>> Regards >>> Anu Omotayo >>> >>> On Friday, February 6, 2026 at 05:39:58 AM GMT+1, Mohammed Saifulhuq < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi Ayush, >>> >>> Thank you for sharing that real-world scenario. That is exactly the >>> 'silent failure' risk we want to avoid. >>> >>> It seems we are converging on the *'Negative Balance with Limits'* >>> approach as the most robust solution because: >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> *Accounting:* It respects GAAP/IFRS liability recognition >>> immediately (General Ledger accuracy). >>> 2. >>> >>> *Transparency:* As you noted, it prevents the 'missing money' >>> confusion for the end-user. >>> 3. >>> >>> *Safety:* The proposed min-overdraft-limit configuration prevents >>> the infinite debt risk I mentioned earlier. >>> >>> @Anu / @Paul — seeing as we have consensus on both the technical and >>> functional sides, are you happy for me to proceed with drafting the >>> implementation plan for the *Negative Balance with Configurable Limits* >>> model? >>> >>> Best, Mohammed Saifulhuq >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 10:07 PM AYUSH SINGH <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>
