Are account holders with a bank better able to receive a loan from that bank?
"Banks are businesses, and as such should have the right to refuse service, so they should probably be able to choose one customer over another at will.   [I say ""should"" because business owners protecting themselves against litigation related to discrimination could restrict their freedom as business owners.] However, banks are businesses and if the customers are identical, both will be approved (or not) according to credit records.  Does not make sense to approve one person with a given credit record and refuse someone with a similar record.  Unless they barely qualify.  Since no two credit histories are identical, there are surely edge cases. Finally, if a customer is a long term customer with large deposits and/or significant amounts of business with the bank, the bankers will likely be inclined to do more business."
It certainly is possible for a run on the bank to drive it into insolvency.  And yes, if the bank makes some bad loans, it can magnify the problem. Generally, this does not happen, though.  Remember that banks usually have lots of customers, and people are depositing money and making mortgage payments every day, so there is usually enough on-hand to cover average banking withdrawl activity, regardless of any bad loans they have outstanding. Banks have lots of historical data to know what the average withdrawl demands are for a given day.  They also have risk models to predict the likelihood of their loans going into default.  A bank will generally use this information to strike a healthy balance between profit-making activity (e.g. issuing loans), and satisfying its account holders. In the event of a major withdrawl demand, there are some protections in place to guard against insolvency. There are regulations that specify a Reserve Requirement.  The bank must keep a certain amount of money on hand, so they can't take huge risks by loaning out too much money all at once.  Regulators can tweak this requirement over time to reflect the current economic situation. If a bank does run into trouble, it can take out a short-term loan.  Either from another bank, or from the central bank (e.g. the US Federal Reserve).  Banks don't want to pay interest on loans any more than you do, so if they are regularly borrowing money, they will adjust thier cash reserves accordingly. If all else fails and the bank can't meet its obligations (e.g. the Fed loan fell through), the bank has an insurance policy to make sure the account holders get paid.  In the US, this is what the FDIC is for.  Worst case, the bank goes under, but your money is safe. These protections have worked pretty well for many decades.  However, during the recent financial crisis, all three of these protections were under heavy strain.  So, one of the things banking regulators did was to put the major banks through stress tests to make sure they could handle several bad financial events without collapsing.  These tests showed that some banks didn't have enough money in reserve.  (Not long after, banks started to increase fees and credit card rates to raise this additional capital.) Keep in mind that if banks were unable to use the deposited money (loan it out, invest it, etc), the current financial landscape would change considerably. I've read this claim many times in the news: banks are making less profit from the lending business when interest rates are historically low. The issue with most loans is they can be satisfied at any time.  When you have falling interest rates it means most of the banks loans are refinanced from nice high rates to current market low interest rates which can significantly reduce the expected return on past loans.  The bank gets the money back when it wants it the least because it can only re-lend the money at the current market (lower) interest rates.  When interest rates are increasing refinance and early repayment activity reduces significantly. It's important to look at the loan from the point of view of the bank, a bank must first issue out the entire principal amount.  On a 60 month loan the lender has not received payments sufficient to satisfy the principal until around 50th or 55th month depending on the interest rate.  If the bank receives payment of the outstanding amount on month 30 the expected return on that loan is reduced significantly. Consider a $10,000, 60 month loan at 5% apr.  The bank is expected to receive $11,322 in total for interest income of $1,322.  If the loan is repaid on month 30, the total interest is about $972.  That's a 26% reduction of expected interest income, and the money received can only be re-lent for yet a lower interest rate. Add to this the tricky accounting of holding a loan, which is really a discounted bond, which is an asset, on the books and profitability of lending while interest rates are falling gets really funky. And this doesn't even examine default risk/cost. Currency exchange is rather the norm than the exception in international wire transfers, so the fact that the amount needs to be exchanged should have no impact at all. The processing time depends on the number of participating banks and their speeds. Typically, between Europe and the US, one or two business days are the norm. Sending from Other countries might involve more steps (banks)  which each takes a bit of time. However, anything beyond 5 business days is not normal. Consider if there are external delays - how did you initiate the sending? Was it in person with an agent of the bank, who might have put it on a stack, and they type it in only a day later (or worse)? Or was it online, so it is in the system right away? On the receiver side, how did you/your friend check? Could there be a delay by waiting for an account statement? Finally, and that is the most common reason, were all the numbers, names, and codes absolutely correct? Even a small mismatch in name spelling might trigger the receiving bank to not allocate the money into the account. Either way, if you contact the sender bank, you will be able to make them follow up on it. They must be able to trace where they money went, and where it currently is. If it is stuck, they will be able to get it ‘unstuck’. Update: here is a message the seller just sent me. Does this make sense?  I spoke with my bank again and they explained it a little better for me. I guess how it works is they will print out something for you that is called an affidavit in lieu of title that states they are no longer the lein holder and to release it to you. You then take that to the dol and they get it put in your name. He says that's how they do it all the time. When we get to the bank, the teller just verifies the check and I deposit it and they release the funds to pay off the account and that's when you would get the paperwork. You would be there for the whole process so nothing is sketchy. Sorry it's such a pain, I didn't understand how that worked. We've never sold a car with a loan on it before. The SWIFT format has multiple place holders. The Beneficiary Bank and Account can be specified using Local Sort Codes [ABA number in this example]. However you would still need to specify the Correspondent Bank and its BIC. I read Q#4 as  Will $250 in one account earn more interest than $250 in five accounts? in which case Excel says no, assuming a constant interest rate for all accounts. I dunno if the same holds true for banks. "this is purely psychological.  most people are absolutely terrible at keeping track of their finances.  to the point where they will use multiple separate accounts for different types of spending or savings goals.  when the average person tells the banker they want an account for the money they are saving, they get handed a ""savings account"" and don't bother to question how it is different from a checking account." A loan from a bank with no real purpose could be a bad idea and end up costing you more money than it needs to. As someone with a loan and credit card debts accrued over university, I would say avoid it if at all possible. Certainly don't sign up to a large loan if you have no current plans for the money (car, house repair, etc). It sounds as though you're fairly careful with your money, but just want a bit of extra security in case a purchase you didn't account for slips by. If this is the case and you're set on obtaining a source of credit, I'd suggest getting an overdraft if you haven't already. Overdrafts are a lot more flexible, and are better for short term debt that you plan to pay off immediately, such as unexpected charges coming in at the end of the month.  It's worth mentioning that this is from the perspective of a UK banking customer. Overdraft conditions will vary depending on the country.