govt now trying to regulate ATM fees?

Jul 10, 2007
12,041
3
0
their argument is that they shouldn't be able to make THAT much profit.
are they stupid? no one is forcing you to use an ATM, let alone an ATM not owned by your bank.
if you don't want to get hit by fees, use an ATM from your bank or use a teller. this is not a difficult concept.

same with trying to regulate overdraft fees. don't want to get hit by fees, don't write checks that amount to more than what you have in your account.
people are retarded.

As Congress debates the new rules of the road for the U.S. banking industry, some lawmakers have an ambitious proposal: They want to cut ATM fees.
Last week, a trio of Democratic senators led by Iowa's Tom Harkin proposed capping automated teller machine fees at just 50 cents.

The number of cash-dispensing machines located across the country has nearly doubled in a matter of a decade.
Currently, banks and other ATM operators are free to charge consumers whatever they want for using their machine. And backers of the amendment maintain that those who tend feel the brunt of those fees are lower- and middle-income Americans, precisely those who can't afford it.
Indeed, ATM fees aren't cheap these days. Last year, consumers were assessed $3.54, on average, every time they used an ATM that isn't controlled by their own bank, according to Bankrate.com.
Despite this, experts suggest that the Harkin proposal is a long shot. With so many amendments vying for the attention of lawmakers to make the final draft of the financial regulatory reform bill, chances are this one will get left on the cutting room floor.
But suppose it did pass - would lower ATM fees really deliver a much-needed break for cash-strapped American consumers?
Not necessarily.
In fact, some experts suggest that capping fees might result in more harm than good for consumers.
One likely consequence would be a reduction in the number of ATMs. At the end of last year, there were roughly 425,000 cash-dispensing machines across the country, according to industry figures. About half of them were controlled by independent operators like Cardtronics (CATM) and Louisville, Ky.-based firm Payment Alliance.
Experts said these companies would be devastated by a fee cap since they earn nearly all of their revenue from charging customers that visit their machines.
Independent operators, as a result, might choose to operate only in locations that generated a lot of foot traffic, where a greater volume of transactions would offset the decline in fees. Some community lenders and credit unions might also rethink whether it's worth having so many ATMs for their customers.
Consumers, of course, might argue that a decline in the number of ATMs wouldn't necessarily be a terrible thing, given the glut of cash-dispensing machines.
But some experts fear the contraction would be far more severe than people expect.
"You could get an ATM wasteland," said Nicole Sturgill, research director in delivery channels for consulting firm TowerGroup.
How high is too high?
Still, wouldn't some consumers be willing to tolerate fewer ATMs as a side effect of lower fees? One of the reasons consumers are angry about high ATM charges is because they are paying extra simply to access their own checking or savings accounts.
Industry groups are quick to point out that the fees are necessary and help to cover a wide variety of costs involved with setting up and running an ATM.
According to industry figures, it costs between $9,000 to $50,000 to purchase an ATM. Banks and other operators then have to pay an additional $12,000 to $15,000 annually to keep the machine running.
What consumer advocates have taken issue with however, is that some banks and ATM operators charge far beyond the simple processing fee.
The Harkin amendment estimates that it only costs banks somewhere in the neighborhood of 36 cents to carry out an ATM transaction - far less than what consumers typically pay.
"Banks shouldn't be able to turn accessing your own money into a profit center," said Jean Ann Fox, director of financial services for the Consumer Federation of America.

Experts suggest that number is a little bit low, but not that far off.
What does trouble them however are some of the other unintended consequences from capping ATM fees, including stifling innovation.
Operators may no longer see the value, for example, in offering the latest technology such as allowing consumers to email receipts.
Even more worrisome is the possibility that banks could decide to impose a fee on all of their ATM users in order to compensate for the costs of running their ATMs, notes TowerGroup's Sturgill.
"When you use another bank's ATM you are helping defray the costs for everyone using that ATM," she said. "I think that is a piece that gets lost in there."
 

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,973
6,337
136
their argument is that they shouldn't be able to make THAT much profit.
are they stupid? no one is forcing you to use an ATM, let alone an ATM not owned by your bank.
if you don't want to get hit by fees, use an ATM from your bank or use a teller. this is not a difficult concept.

same with trying to regulate overdraft fees. don't want to get hit by fees, don't write checks that amount to more than what you have in your account.
politicians are retarded.
fixed
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
What does trouble them however are some of the other unintended consequences from capping ATM fees, including stifling innovation.
LOL... capping ATM fees stifles innovation eh? I'm not for capping fees, but c'mon. That's just stupid.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
688
126
Even though I think ATM fees are ridiculously high, the government needs to mind their own business and concentrate on issues that really matter.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
LOL... capping ATM fees stifles innovation eh? I'm not for capping fees, but c'mon. That's just stupid.

It would certainly stifle their ubiquity. I hate paying $5 fees when I hit the cash machine in some bar, but I love the convenience and I'm willing to pay it. If I'm not, I'll wait until I can visit one of my banks locations.

This is just more populist pandering.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Good to see Government doing what Government is supposed to. By the way the Commie Fascist Socialist Anti-Capitalist Quick Trip Store is advertising No-Fee ATM, Damn THEM!!
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Good to see Government doing what Government is supposed to. By the way the Commie Fascist Socialist Anti-Capitalist Quick Trip Store is advertising No-Fee ATM, Damn THEM!!

So what you're saying is that the free market already provided a no-fee ATM? How is that commie fascist socialist?

Are you retarded?
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
all I can say is that is a dumb move. As the OP put it, if you don't want to be hit by a fee then don't use another banks atm. That simple. I have gone out of my way to avoid other banks atms because my bank charges me on top of another banks fee. So I get hit doubly.

Besides, there are other ways to avoid fees even when not near your bank. Stopping in a grocer store or most gas stations and picking up something cheap that you could use like a bottle of water. Rather pay $0.50 for a bottle of water and get some cashback on top, than pay a few bucks in atm fees that I get nothing tangible from.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
It's all in the grand scheme of redistribution of wealth. The "progressives" feel this is better for us.

How did we _ever_ get by as a society in those dark ages *before* ATM machines?
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Free market has provided us with no fee ATMs. Most all banks won't charge you if you use theirs. Heck, my bank even refunds ANY ATM fees charged by any bank on any ATM.

Don't like your bank ATM fees, find another bank. Go go gadget free market.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
How much does it cost the bank when some vandal steals the ATM machine, or at least damages it?

Oh, but ATM fees shouldn't be used for those expenses, the CEOs should suck it up and pay it out of their salaries.


Banks have expenses too they need to cover, they must bring money in from somewhere, this "progressive" experiment will be a failure any way you look at it... makes me sad...
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
The net effect of such legislation is simply going to be that you won't be able to withdraw money from another bank's ATM. Why would they let you use their equipment if they can't profit from it? But instead, we have a bunch of idiots who think they can wave their magic wand and "fix" a non-problem.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
The net effect of such legislation is simply going to be that you won't be able to withdraw money from another bank's ATM. Why would they let you use their equipment if they can't profit from it? But instead, we have a bunch of idiots who think they can wave their magic wand and "fix" a non-problem.

We have a bunch of idiots who think they can wave their magic wand and win re-election.

They just want a talking point to prop up the party by. We Democrats fought hard for your interests over those evil bankers, while Republicans want to protect their interests not yours.

Our government puts party ahead of country. Instead of doing what is right, they will do what they perceive will give their party the greatest advantage over the other.
 
Last edited:

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
LOL... capping ATM fees stifles innovation eh? I'm not for capping fees, but c'mon. That's just stupid.

Indeed. I have not paid a fee in like 3 years since I have a CU ATM card and even the 7-11's don't charge a fee for me to use my card. I didn't know that me avoiding ATM machines that do charge meant I stifle innovation. I am more interested in the news that they are going to start capping interest rates on CC's. That is welcome news to many but I am sure the resident BB defenders will whine.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
ATMs are gay. I sooner use credit card to buy a pack of gum.

Actually, most of us use our debit or credit cards for just about everything. So your first sentence is wrong, and your second one makes you gay.
 

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,973
6,337
136
Actually, most of us use our debit or credit cards for just about everything. So your first sentence is wrong, and your second one makes you gay.
Actually, I use my bank card like a credit card. $$ comes out of my checking and no pin #. If it's compromised, my $$ is safe just like a credit card.

I think the machines are reverse whores. You put your plastic in and it gives you $$ back. Score.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
their argument is that they shouldn't be able to make THAT much profit.
are they stupid? no one is forcing you to use an ATM, let alone an ATM not owned by your bank.
if you don't want to get hit by fees, use an ATM from your bank or use a teller. this is not a difficult concept.

same with trying to regulate overdraft fees. don't want to get hit by fees, don't write checks that amount to more than what you have in your account.
people are retarded.

So according to the article the likelihood of this passing is almost nil? Arrghh, the outrage:rolleyes:
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,630
6,721
126
We are a society of vampires, make that mosquitoes, where everybody tries to suck blood out of everybody else. When one sector of the society gets really bloated up on blood their shear weight and volume crowds out other mosquitoes and those call for more fairness in who gets to suck all the blood. But so it is when those who compete hate themselves because competition IS nothing but hate.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
So according to the article the likelihood of this passing is almost nil? Arrghh, the outrage:rolleyes:
So we should ignore idiotic legislation simply because it's unlikely to pass? If I were from Iowa, I'd like to know about this so I could avoid voting for this idiot in the future.