In the UK, 97% of ATM transactions are done using free-to-use LINK-network ATMs (<a href="http://www.link.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">http://www.link.co.uk/</a> & <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATM_usage_fees#United_Kingdom" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATM_usage_fees#United_Kingdom</a>). I feel that there are situations where pay-to-use ATMs are acceptable as a matter of convenience (convenience stores, subways, airports, etc.), but it boggles my mind that I can go to RiteAid to buy a $1 juice bottle and withdraw $40 without penalty, but to use the Chase ATM across the street (I'm a Bank of America customer) I have to pay Chase $2.75 AND Bank of America a $2.00 out-of-network-ATM fee.
Maybe that'll be enough pricing pressure for someone to fix that stupid system. Routine transactions shouldn't cost 2 bucks a pop.<p>Not sure how that works when the banks control too many of the pieces, though.
Go Credit Unions.<p>My credit union refunds ATM fees charged by other banks, and through their CU network, all CU ATMs are free, and I can even walk into networked CU and do some operations as if I were at the local branch.<p>Don't support the criminal banksters who aren't beholden to their depositors.
The main issue banks are dealing with is the Congressional move to limit debit card interchange fees. I have spent a good part of the past 25 years working on systems that allow acquiring banks to claim the lowest interchange fee. It's not a trivial process, and acquirers and merchants make significant investments to improve things at the point of sale. They expect to recoup some of that investment by paying lower interchange fees. For a simple example, one of the earliest (circa 1985) distinctions was between electronically-capture and paper-keyed transactions. Electronic qualified for a lower fee because it was more secure, more accurate, and more timely. Then within electronic-capture, the networks began rewarding quicker deposits--deposit within 7 days and pay a lower rate, then 3 days, then 1 day. Now there are many, many (perhaps 100's) of fee programs worldwide, with each card network having its own rules and technologies. By crudely limiting fees to an unrealistic 0.12/transaction, Congress is destroying the marketplace effects that drive innovation in the networks. Banks are justified in an equally crude reaction: you take away our ability to price a service realistically over here, so I guess we'd better raise another price over there.
Chase can kiss my credit cards good by if that's the case. I don't hold checking/savings accounts with Chase, but that doesn't mean I need to support this behavior via their credit cards. Citibank is on the edge of being booted as well for similar reasons. Hey banks, you are here to hold my money under FDIC protection, not find ways to chip away at it.
I'd recommend switching to a bank account that refunds ATM withdrawals at other bank ATMs. My bank - Ally Bank - has free ATM withdrawals at any ATM. This easily saves me $20 a month in time and money.
I can never figure out why people complain about ATM fees. Especially when those same people proceed to take $20 out of an ATM, thus maximizing the fee ($5/$25 = 20%!)<p>The math is not particularly difficult: Always take out the absolute maximum that the machine will give you. $5/$505 =~ 1%. That's close enough to zero to ignore. Feel free to stash most of that cash in your sock drawer if you don't want to carry it around.
I can't tell if the article is talking about ATM fees for using an unaffiliated ATM or if Wells Fargo is going to start charging people for using Wells Fargo ATMs. The wsj links to another article that has one of those obnoxious "click to continue reading" banners, which is where I stopped. Does anyone know what this is actually talking about?
If you don't want to pay 5 for the fee, don't use the machine. It really is that simple. The owner of the ATM has the right to charge whatever the hell they want, it is their property, they have to service the machine why shouldn't they get to pick how much to charge?