NDP calls for ban on ATM fees

[RedHot25]

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/01/25/ndp-atm.html

The party has proposed changes to banking laws that would eliminate fees for using automated teller machines (ATMs), also known as automated banking machines, or ABMs.

...

Last December, NDP finance critic Judy Wasylycia-Leis in question period pressed Finance Minister Jim Flaherty to legislate the end of competitor automated banking machine fees. She noted that banks in other countries, including the U.K. and U.S., do not charge additional fees when a consumer uses a competitor's ABM.

I guess the question is then: why are we basically the only ones that get dinged? And if this is the case, anybody think that there is any realistic chance of getting this changed?

[ken0042]

Because so many people are apathetic when it come to bank fees. I'm pretty anal about using my own bank, but most people I know are not. If people would stop using "just any" machine, then the fees would go down until the price was fair.

I didn't mind paying $1 to use another machine. Now that it's upwards of $4 per withdrawl, that is a significant amount. On a $60 withdrawl, that works out to 2400% interest. (if you want to look at it that way)

[FlamesAddiction]

I heard that in some touristy places in Mexico, you can dinged $10.00 at an ABM.

[RW99]

Until we say something with our wallets, banks will do what they want. Every major bank in Canada is making millions/billions. Yes, I'm sure a fair bit of it is from investment. But they've also reduced hours, forced more ppl to use machines/phone/internet, increased fees to do the simplest of things, etc.

Charging a $35.00 NSF fee is a nice one too.

[return to the red]

Because so many people are apathetic when it come to bank fees. I'm pretty anal about using my own bank, but most people I know are not. If people would stop using "just any" machine, then the fees would go down until the price was fair.

I didn't mind paying $1 to use another machine. Now that it's upwards of $4 per withdrawl, that is a significant amount. On a $60 withdrawl, that works out to 2400% interest. (if you want to look at it that way)

Put me in the "not really paying attention to the fees crowd" My wife gets pretty ticked at me when she looks at our account online and see's these stupid $2.50 charges from the owners of the machine and then another $1.50 from the bank. I don't really think about it but you do that once a week and that's 15 bucks a month or so

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Because so many people are apathetic when it come to bank fees. I'm pretty anal about using my own bank, but most people I know are not. If people would stop using "just any" machine, then the fees would go down until the price was fair.

I didn't mind paying $1 to use another machine. Now that it's upwards of $4 per withdrawl, that is a significant amount. On a $60 withdrawl, that works out to 2400% interest. (if you want to look at it that way)

I'd like to see your math that says $4 works out to 2400% interest on a $60 withdrawl.

What is the period of the interest? What are you using as the period in which you are getting charged interest. Because the way I look at it is that $4 on a $6 withdrawl works out to 6.7% withdrawl fee. I'm not sure how you managed to figure out interest on an instantaneous transaction.

[Slava]

I hadn't planned on supporting the NDP next time around, but this is a good policy. It drives me crazy how much it costs for me to access my own money. I know that you can "use your own bank", but there is no incentive for the banks to have too many ATM's, because the consumer pays the fees anyway. I also hate the idea of service charges for internet banking....I'm the one doing the work!!

[ken0042]

I'd like to see your math that says $4 works out to 2400% interest on a $60 withdrawl.

I was basing it on getting $60 today from a compeditor ATM, as opposed to tomorrow from my own bank. So the 6.7% interest for a 1 day loan works out to 2400% per anum.

Yes, perhaps a bit of a reach. But there are laws in place that state that if I lend a friend money, I cannot charge him 6.7% interest for a 1 day loan. Yes this is a "service charge", however it is still way too much in my mind.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Good idea. Doubt it will ever get done though.

[ernie]

Not sure that's entirely true. It may be from bank to bank but I'm sure you pay an extra fee at the private ATM machines in the states.

[MarchHare]

I hate -- HATE -- the fees for using ATMs, but this is really none of the government's business. Banks are free to charge any exhorbitant fees they want, and consumers are free to choose not to pay them. If you don't want to get dinged with the fee, use your own bank's machines. It's not like you have to pay $4.00 at one of those expensive ATMs they have in bars and such; plan ahead and stop at your own bank for cash if you're going out for a night of drinking.

[TimSJ]

finally i agree with something that the NDP says.

[RedHot25]

The story is updated now, with the banks' view of things....

But the CBA issued a statement in response to Layton's announcement, saying the banks charge fees to help pay to maintain their ABM networks. Raymond J. Protti, president and CEO of the CBA, said in a release banks charge consumers a convenience fee when using a competitor's account to be fair to their own customers.
"It's like saying to clients of a gym, 'we're going to let customers of other gyms in to use the weight room. We're not going to charge them, and you'll be subsidizing their use of it,' " Protti said.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

I was basing it on getting $60 today from a compeditor ATM, as opposed to tomorrow from my own bank. So the 6.7% interest for a 1 day loan works out to 2400% per anum.

Yes, perhaps a bit of a reach. But there are laws in place that state that if I lend a friend money, I cannot charge him 6.7% interest for a 1 day loan. Yes this is a "service charge", however it is still way too much in my mind.


Okay, great but I could walk 15 mintues to the bank down the street and use their machine, so that works out to 340000% interest.

I'm gald you acknoweldge that it's a service charge, but looking at it as interest is just goofy, and comparing it to interest laws is just goofy as well.

Not it's a little unclear if this is to eliminate banks/ATM companies from charging their own customers of if it'll do away with ALL ATM fees. If you do away with all ATM fees (especially those little fastcash ones in every convenience store) then say goodbye to easy access to your cash, because there won't be any incentive for banks or indipendant ATM companies to build them.

[metallicat]

I hate -- HATE -- the fees for using ATMs, but this is really none of the government's business. Banks are free to charge any exhorbitant fees they want, and consumers are free to choose not to pay them. If you don't want to get dinged with the fee, use your own bank's machines. It's not like you have to pay $4.00 at one of those expensive ATMs they have in bars and such; plan ahead and stop at your own bank for cash if you're going out for a night of drinking.I agree with this stance.

I want to know how much our taxes would go up under an NDP government. Apparently it's OK for governments to take our hard-earned money, but it's not OK for private corporations to do the same. At least with banks we have a choice.

[worth]

As said before, most people (people I know anyway) don't bat an eye at the charges. I always try to use my own bank, and I have an account whereby if I keep a sufficient level of funds in it, I don't get charged any fees for debit or withdraw transactions.

Couple bucks might not seem like a lot, but when you pay $3 on $60, thats a lot.

Personally, I don't feel as if its up to any government to regulate what the atm charges you. Most of the time the $3 ones are independent cash machines and not banks. (nor should the government be taxing me as much as I am getting taxed. I suppose i'm part libritarian.)

If people would stop using them and use their own bank, they wouldn't be a need for them and the problem would be solved. As long as people are willing to pay outrageous fees to take out a miniscule amount of money, well, they'll be there. That is until the cashless society kicks into high gear. Fingerprint scans and microchips for everyone!

[FlamesAddiction]

Open up a President's Choice account. No dings from other banking institutions. You still get them from the bar machines though.

[Winsor_Pilates]

"It's like saying to clients of a gym, 'we're going to let customers of other gyms in to use the weight room. We're not going to charge them, and you'll be subsidizing their use of it,' " Protti said.
I think it's more like, you have a membership with a gym, but if you decide to go to another gym once a week, and rent a towel, your gym will charge you for using the competitors towels.

[Sample00]

gonna chime in with some stats about ATM's :

Ø Most adult people in Canada are permanently in possession of debit and/or credit cards (plastic money) with not enough cash in their pockets at a given time to cover their expenses.
Ø The average sum of cash that ATM users withdraw out of a Machine in each transaction is $60.00 (sixty dollars).
Ø 2% - 3% of the people who see an ATM sign and/or an ATM inside a business end up withdrawing cash out of the Machine.
Ø Due to the so called “cash impulse buying effect” users of ATMs spend more money inside a business than users of POS Terminals (Interac Machines).
Ø When ATM users withdraw cash inside businesses they usually spend back, right away in those places, between 15% and 70+% of the cash withdrawn, depending on the kind of business. For example: i) 15% - 40% is spent in Convenience/Grocery Stores, Gas Stations and Coffee Shops; ii) 50% - 70% is spent in Restaurants and 70+% is spent in Bars and Night Clubs.

now dont shoot the messenger as I got this information off a site that sells ATM machines, so the numbers could be a bit skewed, but after thinking about it a little bit, the numbers seem to make sense.

[Thunderball]

I hate to say it, but Layton has a bit of a point.

To me, bank fees are almost like usury, and since banking is somewhat protected in Canada, perhaps its something to look into.

Personally, I try to stick to my bank when possible, but sometimes that's not possible... I guess the argument is if its part of the "interac family" there shouldn't be a fee for using it.

[ken0042]

Most of the time the $3 ones are independent cash machines and not banks.

And I really don't have a problem with the "Joe's cash machine" in the bar or the 7-11. My biggest issue is the major bank machines who charge the same amount as those little ones.

The only way the owner of the Joe's machine has to make money is with a service charge. However when I use a CIBC machine to take money out of my TD account, they also charge the same fee. My back then tacks on the "other bank fee" which; when it was brought in, was explained that it covers the cost of using and maintaining the Interac network. CIBC pays for that machine to be there as a service to their own customers. An additional fee was set up for me to use it, but now we are getting dinged twice. To me that is like me making a phone call to Winnipeg, but getting billed from both MTS and Telus to make the call.

Maybe an idea would be to only allow 1 fee per transaction. That way if people see that it's $4, they might think twice.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Open up a President's Choice account. No dings from other banking institutions. You still get them from the bar machines though.

I've been mulling over that one for a while myself. Do they have online banking, if so, what's it like?

[FlamesAddiction]

I've been mulling over that one for a while myself. Do they have online banking, if so, what's it like?

I think so. I don't actually have one, but my girlfriend does. I will ask her later.

[mykalberta]

Ok so what is the debate about, fees at your own ABM or competitors. I am not getting why people are upset when they go to a different banks ATM and are charged. Thats what you get for choosing that bank. People who use Presidents Choice bank know that there may not be that many choices around for Autmated Banking and deal with the fees.

What is the problem, you use a bank machine of a bank you dont use, what should they let people use them for free.

In the US, is there a law about this or what, it seems strange that someone if pokonos Montana who uses the local bank would get free use of AmeriBank ATM in Florida - something seems screwy there?

MYK

[oddsrule]

I've been mulling over that one for a while myself. Do they have online banking, if so, what's it like?

Full everything, free everything as long as its a CIBC machine or one of the PC ones in a superstore. You get dinged for any 3rd party machine, but there are tons of CIBC ones out there. Only problem is if you deal with a lot of non-electronic deposits and don't have great credit as your deposits will be held for clearing no matter what.

Used to work for BMO and recommended these guys all the time.

[Bobblehead]

I'm a bit of an old-timer, but I remember when ATMs were rare. The primary reason they existed was to provide service when the banks were closed. There were no fees at that time. (Anyone recall the Canada Trust "Johnny Cash" machine commercials with Johnny Cash singing "I Walk The Line"?)
Then banks began to charge fees when you actually used a teller. The justification was they needed to pay the employees. But if you used an ATM there were no charges.
Then there were ATM charges. (now called a "convenience fee")
Then there were additional charges if you used an ATM supplied by a private vendor.
Then the banks started their own "private" lines with associated ATM fees.
Then using any ATM other than you Bank's ATMs is a fee.
And I haven't even factored in "no fees with a minimum balance".


The story is updated now, with the banks' view of things....

But the CBA issued a statement in response to Layton's announcement, saying the banks charge fees to help pay to maintain their ABM networks. Raymond J. Protti, president and CEO of the CBA, said in a release banks charge consumers a convenience fee when using a competitor's account to be fair to their own customers.
"It's like saying to clients of a gym, 'we're going to let customers of other gyms in to use the weight room. We're not going to charge them, and you'll be subsidizing their use of it,' " Protti said.

<begin off topic rant>Maintenance of the network is the same as mopping the floors of the local branch - they are the costs of doing business. When businesses give me my bill with all their specific costs itemized (utility bills primarily) it is stupid. I don't care what their different fixed costs vs variable costs are; it all comes to one total for me and I don't care if the price/fee is network maintenance or your year-end bonus, I just know I need to work to pay that bill if I want that service. <end off topic rant>

And the gym membership is a stupid analogy for a few reasons. I'm not going to be inconvenienced is someone else somewhere from another bank is using a machine on my bank's network. If my gym is constantly busy and I can't use the equipment, I'll switch gyms. My original gym better get more equipment (and if they are that busy then they can afford it).

I HATE bank fees as well, but as long as there are services (such as PC banking) that offer no fee banking, I don't think the gov't should be regulating this.

[Slava]

I still think the "try to stick to your own bank" argument is silly. At my bank (and most of them) I pay a charge each month for unlimited transactions. If I'm paying this, and paying increasing fees for other transactions then what exactly does that monthly fee cover? I'm sure that the banks can run their systems based on that monthly fee that everyone pays...

[redforever]

I hate -- HATE -- the fees for using ATMs, but this is really none of the government's business. Banks are free to charge any exhorbitant fees they want, and consumers are free to choose not to pay them. If you don't want to get dinged with the fee, use your own bank's machines. It's not like you have to pay $4.00 at one of those expensive ATMs they have in bars and such; plan ahead and stop at your own bank for cash if you're going out for a night of drinking.


AMEN, people should take responsibility for their own finances. Same thing with getting dinged $35.00 for insufficient funds. Like know how much money is in your account and just dont write a check if your balance is gonna put you in the red, take some responsibility. Today's world is almost too convenient and you better get used to paying for convenience. If you dont want to pay for that convenience, then do the homework and take out your money where your own bank machines are. From what I have seen, the worst offenders are the teenage crowd. I have seen them pay for a package of gum with their debit card or credit card and then get dinged more in fees than the gum was worth.

I think ATM machines in foreign countries are a different matter. There I think the convenience is worth it. I would rather pay a fee internationally than be walking about with all my money in traveller's cheques or worse yet with a huge wad of cash. And we just got back from Mexico, from a touristy place, never paid more than $5 for the ATM service charge, basically about the same as in Canada.

And most financial institutions have a package where you just pay a charge up front every month and most things are then covered. We pay $12 per month at the Royal, all cheques written are included, internet banking, fees for travellers cheques, you get a safety deposit box, forget what all, but for us it is worth it rather than getting dinged for every little transaction. And to me it is worth more to pay it up front and let me do the rest cause I hate wasting my time in lineups. So look into what your bank offers. If you are a long time customer, have been a good customer, you should have no trouble with your banks.

So leave the government out of it. They have a much higher percentage of screwing things up than you do, although some people should get help in managing their money. And sadly for them, no matter if govt changes regulations for banking or not, those people will still struggle managing their money.

[Agamemnon]

I've been mulling over that one for a while myself. Do they have online banking, if so, what's it like?
Yes they do... I've heard it can be difficult getting good customer services w/ PC Financial, but you make up for it in the lack of fees. Guess it depends on what you're prioritizing.

[ken0042]

I HATE bank fees as well, but as long as there are services (such as PC banking) that offer no fee banking, I don't think the gov't should be regulating this.

The thing with PC- they are picky about who they allow as customers. I was turned down when they started up. This was about 10 years ago, so it may have changed. But they flat out refused to give me an account. The next day I went into a Scotia Bank, opened an account, but then had a reasonable limit placed on my ATM withdrawls for the first little while.

[Log]

Until we say something with our wallets, banks will do what they want. Every major bank in Canada is making millions/billions. Yes, I'm sure a fair bit of it is from investment. But they've also reduced hours, forced more ppl to use machines/phone/internet, increased fees to do the simplest of things, etc.

Charging a $35.00 NSF fee is a nice one too.

I don't see a problem with this one..... If you have bad enough money management and write a bunch of rubber cheques, then so be it! Tisk Tisk. However if you write a bad cheque once and have a decent reason for it going bad, the bank I'm sure will waive those fees once.... if you ask them to.

[JimmytheT]

Until we say something with our wallets, banks will do what they want. Every major bank in Canada is making millions/billions. Yes, I'm sure a fair bit of it is from investment. But they've also reduced hours, forced more ppl to use machines/phone/internet, increased fees to do the simplest of things, etc.

Charging a $35.00 NSF fee is a nice one too.


HA, this one makes me laugh. Please don't complain about a fee for doing something that is ILLEGAL.
How about not writing cheques for money you do not have or have the money available in your account for a schedule automatic payment?
NSF fees are high to act as an incentive not write NSF cheques etc.

[ken0042]

Also, when a bank machine is not working and eats your card, why doesn't the bank give you an inconvienience fee. Also, why is there braille on bank machines?

So blind people can take out their money.

What I'd like to know is why there is braille on drive thru bank machines.

[CaramonLS]

Try using an ATM at a casino in Vegas.

Up front charge of 5$ + 2% of whatever you withdraw.

[Resolute 14]

I hate to say it, but Layton has a bit of a point.

To me, bank fees are almost like usury, and since banking is somewhat protected in Canada, perhaps its something to look into.

Personally, I try to stick to my bank when possible, but sometimes that's not possible... I guess the argument is if its part of the "interac family" there shouldn't be a fee for using it.

There is a fee for using Interac as well. The difference is that most stores and resteraunts absorb it and pass it onto the customers as part of the price.

Banks do the same as well. As part of my account type at Scotiabank, I do not pay their fees for using a non-Scotiabank ATM. I do, however, pay the fee that is charged by the bank that does own the ATM. That is why I tend to avoid using such machines.

Incidentally, the 2400% comment is just ridiculously weak. This cannot be compared to an interest charge becuase it is not a loan. It is a service fee. Makes about as much sense as trying to convert the cost of a haircut into an interest charge would.

[Resolute 14]

He already admitted that it was a stretch, it was obviously a little lighthearted, why are you guys going so ridiculously overboard about it.

Because it is a patently false statement designed to skew emotions in a certain direction?

[ericschand]

Haven't we been here before?

Over 20+ years ago?

If I recall, banks were charging fees for *everything*. Withdrawl, deposit,
you name it.

The catalyst came when an elderly lady went into a bank to get change
for $20, so she could go on the bus or something. The service fee charged
was $10. She got $10 back from her $20.

In the ensuing uproar, the government stepped in and said that bank
fees need to be regulated. The banks quickly, very quickly, changed
their fees, such that banking became almost free everywhere.

Now we're back to needing the lady to try to get change again...

ers

[ericschand]

Hmm, is that true? I don't remember that.

I just phoned my father, who is the oldest person I know, and asked
him. He said he recalls it, but can't remember what the change was for. :)
He also said it was in the early 1980's.

ers

[FlamesAddiction]

I wonder if an NDP government would consider a nationalized public bank. Not to necessarily make all banking nationalized (that would never fly), but to open a federal "credit union" that people could become members of. That way, they could charge no service fees and make a killing on interest like private banks do. Private banks could keep charging fees if they wanted, although they would probably have to stop because of the new option.

[Log]

Why not make it a $4000 fee then, I bet a lot less people would do it. It is sort of like a video game, step in the poison patch and you will be docked 2 hitpoints per minute.

Agreed, why not give jail time for that fact (for repeat offenders).....

[Winsor_Pilates]

I have a PC account and it has saved me a lot of money. CIBC machines are the most prevelent machines in Canada and they are free with a PC account.

The only downside, is no face to face tellers and they hold deposits for annoying amounts of time.

[Cowperson]

I wonder if an NDP government would consider a nationalized public bank. Not to necessarily make all banking nationalized (that would never fly), but to open a federal "credit union" that people could become members of. That way, they could charge no service fees and make a killing on interest like private banks do. Private banks could keep charging fees if they wanted, although they would probably have to stop because of the new option.

So . . . . what does Alberta Treasury Branch charge you in these circumstances?

Do USA, UK, German, Dutch, Egyptian banks, etc charge similar fees in similar circumstances?

Also, you are increasingly seeing foreign banks coming into Canada and cherry-picking lucrative aspects of banking - such as visa's or bank machines - while avoiding the infrastrucutre costs that many take for granted, such as physical branches.'

In other words, you can probably be charged $1.50 per transaction because that's what the foreign competition which does nothing else in this country is also doing . . . . and you're paying because you choose to.

Cowperson

[ShaolinFlame]

This makes no sense, as without a service charge, there is no incentive for two things:
1) THe companies, entrepeneurs (SP)(my friends mom owns a ton thanks to her husbands infiinite cash flow) who purchase these ATMS, put their names on it or w/e, and then sell the machine to whoever. These people would cease to exists (not the end of the world in my view). however...

2) your local corner store, drinking establishment, or where ever you may happen to get cash that is not a bank named machine. Without service charges these ATMs do not exist. You would be having to go to a bank every time you want money.

I would much rather have the choice of free withdrawl at my branch alongside the 4$ i might see at the bar when i dont necesarilly have the time, energy, or means to go to the bank. As opposed to free withdrawl at all branches.

As a bit of an aside, this is yet another incredibly stupid NDP ploy to maybe get votes from the 1% of people who actually have a huge issue with this. Clearly it is a very small people as the machine tells you what your losing and you have to agree, and i assume most every person understand how they are charged. The utility for the service of insta cash to the average consumer is $2.00-$4.00 (corner store - da cluuub). The market has set its price. If people are willing to muster these charges for this service then they are at least breaking even (as the Oppurtunity Cost of going all the way to the bank mut clearly be more than the 4 dollars). So getting rid of this is stupid, if it irks you that much don't stiffle ATM service, jsut go to your damn bank, and if it's not cose enough to you, etc, change banks. It's that easy.

[FlamesAddiction]

So . . . . what does Alberta Treasury Branch charge you in these circumstances?

Do USA, UK, German, Dutch, Egyptian banks, etc charge similar fees in similar circumstances?

Also, you are increasingly seeing foreign banks coming into Canada and cherry-picking lucrative aspects of banking - such as visa's or bank machines - while avoiding the infrastrucutre costs that many take for granted, such as physical branches.'

In other words, you can probably be charged $1.50 per transaction because that's what the foreign competition which does nothing else in this country is also doing . . . . and you're paying because you choose to.

Cowperson

I don't know. In all honesty, I don't know how banks work at all.

I was just thinking, if people are going to hand over billions to banks willingly by choosing to pay their fees and interest, then why wouldn't the government want in on that by offering personal banking to the people. At least the profit can be put into public use.

I'm not complaining about bank fees because I can avoid them if I want, but why not make it easier for people? Then again, it probably wouldn't work. I doubt I am the first person to think of it.

As a related note, I did live in a town before that only had 2 bank machines, so I couldn't avoid the dings. Anyone who lives in the Harrison-Agassiz area knows what I mean.

[jamesteterenko]

Wow, it sounds like I am one of the few that thinks this plan is silly. When I opened the thread, I thought it was going to be an NDP bashing thread. I personally believe that government should generally stay out of private businesses. There is no way that having access to ATMs across the country for free is a right that needs to be protected.

It isn't that hard to avoid these fees. I've probably paid only one ATM transaction fee in the last five years (I went to a Flames game with no cash and had supper at the Dome). I have a bank account that doesn't charge any fees with a minimum balance of $1000. I've heard some people argue that they can't afford to have that much money sitting around. But if you can afford spending $200/year on transaction fees but not a minimum balance, you probably have other financial management issues.

I avoid using cash whenever possible. My first choice is to use a credit card. There is no fee for that (I pay the balance every month), and I get money back for using it. If it is a place that doesn't take credit cards, I'll use Interac if they don't charge a fee, then resort to cash after that. In terms of my average monthly spending, I wouldn't be suprised if paid cash for less than 5% of it.

In terms of withdrawing cash, there two TDs within a couple of blocks from where I work, one ATM between home to work (I walk to work), and another branch a couple blocks away from home. It is not inconvenient at all to get money out from a TD. I don't think that TD is necessarily more prevalent than other banks, but I know where those are because I use them.

And as a shareholder of one of the banks (RBC), I don't really have a problem with them making a bunch of money off people who seem to have lazy habits that can't be controlled without government intervention. I am sure I will get attack for my point of view, but seriously, why does the goverment need to step in for an issue you can control yourself?

James.

[ShaolinFlame]

to think i used economics to bash this stupid NDP crap, i like your common sense post mush better james.

[Cowperson]

I was just thinking, if people are going to hand over billions to banks willingly by choosing to pay their fees and interest, then why wouldn't the government want in on that by offering personal banking to the people. At least the profit can be put into public use.

.

Why have any businesses at all? ;)

By the way, it appears the Alberta Treasury Branch, owned by the government, charges $1.50 per ATM transaction if you're not a customer of theirs.

Cowperson

[JimmytheT]

Why have any businesses at all? ;)

By the way, it appears the Alberta Treasury Branch, owned by the government, charges $1.50 per ATM transaction if you're not a customer of theirs.

Cowperson

It is true ATB's shareholder is the AB Gov't, however it is run by a seperate board of directors and as such, behaves as any other banking institution in Canada does.
Prior to 1997 of course, ATB had issues as it literally was a branch of the Alberta Treasury, and was managed from the top by politicians, not business people.

[BlackEleven]

What I'd like to know is why there is braille on drive thru bank machines.

In case NHL referees need to pick up some cash after the game.

[RW99]

I don't see a problem with this one..... If you have bad enough money management and write a bunch of rubber cheques, then so be it! Tisk Tisk. However if you write a bad cheque once and have a decent reason for it going bad, the bank I'm sure will waive those fees once.... if you ask them to.

HA, this one makes me laugh. Please don't complain about a fee for doing something that is ILLEGAL.
How about not writing cheques for money you do not have or have the money available in your account for a schedule automatic payment?
NSF fees are high to act as an incentive not write NSF cheques etc.

Thanks for jumping on me :rolleyes: You know, some stuff does happen by mistake. For example, Paypal. I bought something on paypal a few months ago and it went straight to my credit card. Bought something last month and it went straight to my bank instead, and charged NSF. Yes, it was my error for not noticing the changes in Paypal.

But please don't make it sound like it's all about people doing things illegally.

[transplant99]

She noted that banks in other countries, including the U.K. and U.S., do not charge additional fees when a consumer uses a competitor's ABM.



News to me.

[Bobblehead]

It is true ATB's shareholder is the AB Gov't, however it is run by a seperate board of directors and as such, behaves as any other banking institution in Canada does.
Prior to 1997 of course, ATB had issues as it literally was a branch of the Alberta Treasury, and was managed from the top by politicians, not business people.
ATB/West Edmonton Mall loan scandal anyone?

[redforever]

In case NHL referees need to pick up some cash after the game.


TOOOOOOOOOOOOO FUNNY!!!!!

[Resolute 14]

News to me.

How does it work in the US? She might be referring to the double dipping that often goes on with Canadian banks.

ie: If you are a CIBC customer and you go through a TD machine, then TD charges you $1.50 for the transaction as a non-TD customer, while CIBC charges another $1.50 for using someone else's ATM.

[Sample00]

The government should stay out of banking!
the government should be there to govern and not be involved in business ala ATB. Having a provincial or federally run financial institution changes the playing field. Banks have to follow the guidelines set out by the Federal and Provincial governments, yet the ATB can just make up the rules as they go along.
ie) downpayments on purchasing homes, business loans, service charges etc.
and the real issue I have with it is, is that its our tax dollars at work with them making lending or investment decisions that may not be totally sound business decisions.
the list with ATB seems to be endless.
WEM/ATB thing as previously eluded to and of course we are all familiar with the Pocklington fiasco

[Sylvanfan]

By eliminating bank fees for ATM's they're basically taking away a certain bussiness in the country's right to make money. So if they take away that bussinesses right to make money, what's next for regulation? It's one thing to regulate a bank and say that they can't charge their customers a fee to use their ATM's. But to say no one can....

I absolutely avoid withdrawing money from an ATM where it's going to cost me money unless I need the cash right than and there. But there are a lot of people who will go take $20 out of an ATM that charges a $1.50 withdrawal fee. Rather than view it as interest I prefer to see it as a surcharge, and 1.50 for 20 bucks is a 7.5% surcharge.

In a free market and free society we have the right to get our money from whereever we want and to keep it where we want. So I don't see why the government should regulate a bussiness to protect people from the poor choices they make. Whats next we'll have a big government central bank where we're forced to keep our money?

[Cowperson]

How does it work in the US? She might be referring to the double dipping that often goes on with Canadian banks.

ie: If you are a CIBC customer and you go through a TD machine, then TD charges you $1.50 for the transaction as a non-TD customer, while CIBC charges another $1.50 for using someone else's ATM.

How is that double dipping?

You can only say that if CIBC and TD were a single entity . . . which they're not.

Each has a fee . . . .

By the way, I think if we looked we would find that bank card trends are actually declining as people use debit more to avoid fees . . . .

Prior to 1997 of course, ATB had issues as it literally was a branch of the Alberta Treasury, and was managed from the top by politicians, not business people.

An obvious example of a government failing when it tried to run a business . . . . . in the end it probably cost taxpayers money instead of helping them.

Cowperson

[troutman]

ING - no fees?

http://www.ingdirect.ca/en/aboutindex.html

As you may have noticed, ING DIRECT isn't like your regular bank. For one thing, we have no branches. And because you do everything with us by Internet, phone, or ABM, we're able to pass those savings on to you, with much higher interest on deposits, lower interest on loans, and by charging no fees or service charges.

[Burninator]

ING - no fees?

http://www.ingdirect.ca/en/aboutindex.html

As you may have noticed, ING DIRECT isn't like your regular bank. For one thing, we have no branches. And because you do everything with us by Internet, phone, or ABM, we're able to pass those savings on to you, with much higher interest on deposits, lower interest on loans, and by charging no fees or service charges.

But you would still get charged by the original banks machine.

[Sylvanfan]

I think ING has an agreement with certain banks where you can use their machines for like 4 withdrawals a month or something like that. I think they also have their own ABM in like 1 location in cities like Calgary and Edmonton.

For example I use Presidents Choice no fee banking for my chequing account and I can use their machine or CIBC machines for no fee. But if I use any other bank machine I pay a fee. So it's only no fee banking, if I use the right banks. But theres a reason they give you brochures with fine print.....you're supposed to read them to find loopholes.

[Resolute 14]

How is that double dipping?

Sorry, I wasn't intending to use the word in the literal sense. It was more meant to explain that one is actually facing two different service charges for the same transaction.

[Slava]

Well to be fair in this thread, Manulife also has a no fee account with higher interest than the others here (I think, but don't hang me if its not!). I don't think that any bank anywhere lets you use another machine and not pay for that "privledge" though.

[edn88]

Jack Layton makes me SOOOOOOOO mad. I wish he would pack up his socialist bags and move to Venezuala.

I agree with pretty much every one else on this board that states that it is not the governments role to stop the banks from charging this kind of fee. In my economics course, one of the things that they teach, is that people will alter their behaviour based on the fees they pay. So if it is 'free' then the bank is going to bare the brunt of the associated costs. On top of that, if people are so freakin lazy that they cannot go to their own bank (hey that is me from time to time) then they are making a value judgement on that. I am of the no-cash use my credit card - and use it wisely variety.

It amazes me how poorly people manage their finances - and not just the low income folks (sometimes they are the best cause they have to be).

Anyway, Jack, to quote the Crue, don't go away mad, just go away.

[Slava]

Jack Layton makes me SOOOOOOOO mad. I wish he would pack up his socialist bags and move to Venezuala.

I agree with pretty much every one else on this board that states that it is not the governments role to stop the banks from charging this kind of fee. In my economics course, one of the things that they teach, is that people will alter their behaviour based on the fees they pay. So if it is 'free' then the bank is going to bare the brunt of the associated costs. On top of that, if people are so freakin lazy that they cannot go to their own bank (hey that is me from time to time) then they are making a value judgement on that. I am of the no-cash use my credit card - and use it wisely variety.

It amazes me how poorly people manage their finances - and not just the low income folks (sometimes they are the best cause they have to be).

Anyway, Jack, to quote the Crue, don't go away mad, just go away.

This is actually the exact opposite train of thought in the book Freakonomics...they studied daycare late fees and found that once they were implemented the incidence of lateness rose.

Let's face it, whether the government shouold be involved or not, the fees are too high.

[FireFly]

I don't mind paying the other bank for using their machine, it's their money. I mind paying my bank for using another bank's machines because they don't have enough to go around. That ****es me off. Sure, charge me because the closest bank it a bus ride away whereas the other company's machine is across the street. *******s.

Problem is I'm too lazy to open a new account with another bank. Perhaps that's what I should do on my next day off, as well as call my CC companies and tell them to lower my interest rate. Good plan.

[edn88]

This is actually the exact opposite train of thought in the book Freakonomics...they studied daycare late fees and found that once they were implemented the incidence of lateness rose.

Let's face it, whether the government shouold be involved or not, the fees are too high.

A little different I think - what they proved in Freakonomics was the late fee let people feel that they were off the hook and were 'buying' something.

For rational people, the ATM fees are a cost to be avoided and their behavior should reflect that. An absence of late fees will cause people to use more of the ATMs that are not from their bank.

We could conduct a study, but I am busy with my day job.:cool:

[Slava]

edn88, you may be right. As usual I'm on my high horse here...I go to which ever machine is closest and eat the fee. I just don't like it!

[Antithesis]

I couldn't disagree more with the NDP here; there is nothing that says you must use other banks' ATM machines than your own. What irritates me is when you get skewered on things like Automobile Insurance which is not optional (yes, I know, you could not have a car) ... like when these goofy insurance companies report record profits (in the BILLIONS of dollars collectively) and the government lets them raise our rates because they haven't earned enough? What?

[Hakan]

This board never ceases to amaze me.

Now we're all sticking up for the bank's right to essentially gouge you. Does anyone know what the marginal cost is for a non-client to withdraw $20 bucks from an ATM?

I'll tell you right now, it's nowhere close to $1.50.

[Sylvanfan]

This board never ceases to amaze me.

Now we're all sticking up for the bank's right to essentially gouge you. Does anyone know what the marginal cost is for a non-client to withdraw $20 bucks from an ATM?

I'll tell you right now, it's nowhere close to $1.50.

Well don't go to that bank machine. Back in 1988 if you wanted money for the weekend you went and stood in line at 5:00 on Friday afternoon for 45 minutes. Today you can go at whatever hour of the day you want and get money and get it for no fee if you go to the right bank. If people can't figure out what the right bank to go to is, it's their problem.

[Hakan]

The fees for withdrawing money from a teller are even higher than the ATM fee.

The banks are charging you from withdrawing you money. The marginal cost is exactly the same for your home bank as to a competing bank because they all use the same network and the costs of holding the extra cash are negligible because they would do it anyway.

Of course we are also ignoring that the Bank is already making vast amounts of money on your money anyway. Where they take your money and invest it themselves taking all the interest except for a measley .25% that they pay out at months end to you.

Why exactly is being gouged the person's problem?

[Antithesis]

Because they have a choice ...?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Jack Layton makes me SOOOOOOOO mad. I wish he would pack up his socialist bags and move to Venezuala.

No kidding. What's next?
Limitations on monopolys, child labour laws, minimum wages, workplace safety standards?
I'm sick of hippies telling big businesses to treat people fairly. We have the right to be ripped off and taken advantage of. You can't take that away from us Layton!!!!

[Devils'Advocate]

What is humourous here is people saying that, left to its own devices, the free market will correct itself. But this isn't a free market. The Canadian Bank Act doesn't allow foreign competition. What we have is a handful of large banks, all making incredible profits, all happy to have this free ride gouging Canadians. What makes fees lower in the U.S. is that there is far more competition. I worked in Boston for a few months and there were dozens of banks. Little Mom&Pop *BANKS*. How did these little guys make it? By having low service charges. How do big banks react? They lower their service charges. Lots of competition = lower prices. We don't have that here due to the protection the government gives our domestic banks.

Saying "let the free market decide" when there is no "free market" is foolhardy. I say let the banks decide. They can choose to let the ABM fees go, or we change the bank act to allow foreign competition. We'd see those ABM fees disappear lickity-split.

[Dion]

There is a fee for using Interac as well. The difference is that most stores and resteraunts absorb it and pass it onto the customers as part of the price.

That trend is going in the opposite direction. Many resturants now pass on the service when one uses a debit card to pay for ones meal. It shows up on the machine just before you punch in your password. Problem is they don't tell until you this ahead of time. When it first happened I asked for the manager and told him it was real petty to ding customers this way. Hide it in the the menu prices I added. We argued and he eventually agreed to take the service fee off the bill.

[Ha Ha Stupid Oilers]

The fees for withdrawing money from a teller are even higher than the ATM fee.

The banks are charging you from withdrawing you money. The marginal cost is exactly the same for your home bank as to a competing bank because they all use the same network and the costs of holding the extra cash are negligible because they would do it anyway.

Of course we are also ignoring that the Bank is already making vast amounts of money on your money anyway. Where they take your money and invest it themselves taking all the interest except for a measley .25% that they pay out at months end to you.

Why exactly is being gouged the person's problem?

I'd like to know how you figure the marginal costs is nowhere near $1.50

while you're on the topic, since you seem to think you know what the expenses are, tell me how much it costs for an ATM machine, maintenance, security guards to fill up the machines with cash and the transportation of it, monitoring and security measures used within the network.

If you could tell me what the breakdown of the expenses of an ATM machine, I wont think you're full of ****

[Hakan]

The banking fees that you pay to your home bank more than cover any operational costs on maintaining a banking machine. They wouldn't offer them otherwise. But thanks for pointing out that you really do have shyte for brains because I'll tell you that the marginal cost of offering atm access to non-bank users customers is essentially zero. (there may be some 'costs' from the bank holding extra cash in the abm instead of having that cash invested but as I outlined earlier, that isn't even the banks cash necessarily, it's YOURS)

Here's a suggestion: Have a clue what you're talking about before you make assinine accusations.

[Ha Ha Stupid Oilers]

The banking fees that you pay to your home bank more than cover any operational costs on maintaining a banking machine. They wouldn't offer them otherwise. But thanks for pointing out that you really do have shyte for brains because I'll tell you that the marginal cost of offering atm access to non-bank users customers is essentially zero. (there may be some 'costs' from the bank holding extra cash in the abm instead of having that cash invested but as I outlined earlier, that isn't even the banks cash necessarily, it's YOURS)

Here's a suggestion: Have a clue what you're talking about before you make assinine accusations.

In your later post, you claim its the cost for the home bank.

This board never ceases to amaze me.

Now we're all sticking up for the bank's right to essentially gouge you. Does anyone know what the marginal cost is for a non-client to withdraw $20 bucks from an ATM?

I'll tell you right now, it's nowhere close to $1.50.

In this post, you mention nothing about the cost to the home bank.
Understand what you've typed out because now you still sound like you're full of **** in knowing how much it costs the banks.

[Hakan]

What?

What the hell do you think non-client means?

I feel like I'm explaining something to George Foreman here.

The monthly fees that you and everyone else pay to their bank for the privilege of you giving them your cash for them to go invest elsewhere is justififed to cover the security and whatever other expenses incurred to maintain their ATM machines.

Therefore all of the fixed and significant variable costs are already covered and then some!

Meaning that the marginal cost of other people using that ATM is essentially zero. Can I get a holler here?

Otherwise, I'm done.

[Dion]

A friend of mine used to work for a bank and this was her explanation for ATM fees:

You withdraw money from that bank machine. Someone has to bring in
the money for the machines. That comes via the Bank Of Canada and is
delivered via armoured car.

Someone has to fill it several times a day. Someone has to remove all
of the record cards. Someone has to verify the reports. Someone has
to remove the deposit envelopes and double check the entries. Someone
has to watch for fraud and kiting.

What goes on behind the scenes is labour. Someone has to pay for it.

[Hakan]

Yes and all of those costs are more than paid for by everyone paying 5 to 10 bucks a month for the monthly banking fee.

[Ha Ha Stupid Oilers]

What?

What the hell do you think non-client means?

I feel like I'm explaining something to George Foreman here.

The monthly fees that you and everyone else pay to their bank for the privilege of you giving them your cash for them to go invest elsewhere is justififed to cover the security and whatever other expenses incurred to maintain their ATM machines.

Therefore all of the fixed and significant variable costs are already covered and then some!

Meaning that the marginal cost of other people using that ATM is essentially zero. Can I get a holler here?

Otherwise, I'm done.

In the perspective of the bank who owns the ATM, a "non-client" is also referred as a someone who isnt an account holder, but is withdrawing funds from another bank. If all the service charges are charged from the other bank who the non-client normally banks with, why should the bank who owns the ATM absorb the costs?
It works both ways, but you seem to generalize ATM usage altogether when you made that assumption

If banks didnt compensate for charging you $1.50 to let you use their machines when you're withdrawing it from another bank, you'd be looking at a higher monthly service fee at your own bank than what you're normally charged. With your own logic, you probably think that Money Orders, wire transfers and other services are covered in your monthly service fees

It's funny to think you know the system when you have no idea how it works.
You still havent broken down the expenses for a running ATM to justify this statement:

Does anyone know what the marginal cost is for a non-client to withdraw $20 bucks from an ATM?

I'll tell you right now, it's nowhere close to $1.50.

[Ha Ha Stupid Oilers]

Yes and all of those costs are more than paid for by everyone paying 5 to 10 bucks a month for the monthly banking fee.

LOL!!!

some people are just so naive....

[Hakan]

Well thanks for demonstrating to me and everyone else who knows what marginal cost means that you don't know what it means.

Hakan out.

[Ha Ha Stupid Oilers]

Well thanks for demonstrating to me and everyone else who knows what marginal cost means that you don't know what it means.

Hakan out.

Thanks for your ignorance comments on how you think bank service fees are dispersed

btw, labour is still not constant for each ATM they service. Individual trips need to be made to each machine to service it and refill it

[RougeUnderoos]

I'd like to know how you figure the marginal costs is nowhere near $1.50

while you're on the topic, since you seem to think you know what the expenses are, tell me how much it costs for an ATM machine, maintenance, security guards to fill up the machines with cash and the transportation of it, monitoring and security measures used within the network.

If you could tell me what the breakdown of the expenses of an ATM machine, I wont think you're full of ****

Well you obviously know the expenses are. Would you care to share that information?

I find it hard to believe that it costs anywhere near $4, or even $1.50, for me to get a hundred bucks out of a cash machine. Even if you factor in the security, gas, labour and the bullets in the guard's gun, it can't be all that expensive to get those 5 little pieces of paper in (and out) of the machine.

[Ha Ha Stupid Oilers]

those guards/service men arent paid and trained like those paladin guys who waltz around getting paid a few bucks more than minimum wage.
They also dont drive in Smart cars either

also not everyone takes out just $100 at once

Im sorry if I sound rude, but saying it that way is easier to understand

A guy like Hakan seem to think that adding a new machine is just slightly more work for one guy to monitor at the Bank's HQ

[Devils'Advocate]

Yes, I'm quite sure that if we get rid of ATM fees, the banks will not have the money to pay for the armoured cars that fill the machines. The banks will go bankrupt in days.

In the U.S. many small banks swallow the cost as "the price of doing business". Profits are lower for these small banks but they are trying to pull people away from the big monsters.
Example: http://www.wainwrightbank.com/html/about/news/news/articles/0005.html

If this were to pass, our oligopoly wouldn't stand for a decrease in profits. They simply would find other areas to gouge us even more. Increasing monthly service charges, increasing interest rates, etc... My guess is that Jack knows this full well and it will mean the banks shifting where the money is coming from. Instead of Joe Student needing to pay $3 to get a $20 for a pizza at the university cafeteria, the profits will be drained from the guy with the $1,000,000 mortgage.

[ken0042]

I don't mind paying the other bank for using their machine, it's their money. I mind paying my bank for using another bank's machines because they don't have enough to go around.

Best comment of this thread.

No matter what the costs are, the question remains- why are we being charged twice? As HHSO points out- maintaining an ATM costs money. I can see that. Why then does my bank charge me for not using one of their ATMs? You would think that they would want me to use somebody else's; one less transaction for them to have to pay Brinks to refill their ATM for.

As many have said; including myself- I don't mind there being some fee for using another ATM. Back when Interac first came about the fee was $1 (or less) and was charged by my bank; with the explanation that they were charging me a fee because the other bank charged them. Today I get charged twice, and I for one would like to know why I pay the other bank when my bank is charging me so they can pay the other bank?

If the fee is going to be $4, make it $4. Not $2 twice. I always say- give me a product and tell me how much its going to cost me. Don't make it like my Enmax electric bill where there are no fewer than 11 charges on there for one product.

[ericschand]

Dion:

"What goes on behind the scenes is labour. Someone has to pay for it."

And just operating a bank branch has no labour? Whether it's
delivered to a bank or an ATM, the cost structure will be similar,
given what your friend told you.

But to pay $1.50 to the ATM owner, and then $1.50 to my bank.
What did my bank have to do with the labour of that machine?

fotze:

- Cheese at Safeway, what a rip easily 40% than superstore.

You can go to Superstore then.

- Cords and cables at futureshop and big box electronics stores, you can get the same ones at memory express for a tenth of the price.

You can go to memory express then.

- Food at movies, $5.25 for a bucket of $0.10 popcorn, robbery, plus you are not allowed to bring in outside food, what if you are diabetic.

Exceptions will be allowed. Don't go to that theatre, find another,
or don't go at all. Wait for video rental, watch at home. I know people
with extreme peanut allergies that do this.

- Satellite TV. Me catching a signal that is being beamed past my house all the time anyway does not cost the company anything extra, it should be free.

Sure, you can take it. And it is legal. The illegal ones are the ones where
you have to unscramble the signal, and you do it without paying.

- Speeding, if I do not hurt anyone, it is not costing anyone anything, why should I pay a ticket.

A set of rules designed to keep the roads reasonably safe.
Not sure what this has to do with exhorbitant costs though?
Except maybe this city uses it as an additional tax?

- Quizno's, jeezus cripes, 9 dollars for a blah sub!

Don't go to Quizno's. Try your luck at Subway, or go to the aforementioned
grocery stores and pick up the stuff and make it to your liking at home.
Plus the number of other options to getting a sandwich made for you.

I know what you are trying to get at, however, it's the same as
trying to say, "If you don't like the gas prices at the pump, go to
another vendor." What other bank doesn't gouge (excluding ING
and PC Financial, which I use, just because they don't gouge)?
All of the examples you gave allow you to go somewhere else, banks
do not.

ers

[Resolute 14]

No kidding. What's next?
Limitations on monopolys, child labour laws, minimum wages, workplace safety standards?
I'm sick of hippies telling big businesses to treat people fairly. We have the right to be ripped off and taken advantage of. You can't take that away from us Layton!!!!

Don't forget taxing us to death, destroying the economy and sending Canada into recession. :lol:

[Agamemnon]

I'm pretty sure Fotze was being sarcastic there...

[Slava]

I saw the news article last night that said that in the UK there are no fees for these transactions, and the banks still have healthy profits. Now my opinion is that we are just being taken advantage of...(I know that someone else posted something about this yesterday, but no one seemed certain if it was true).

[RougeUnderoos]

those guards/service men arent paid and trained like those paladin guys who waltz around getting paid a few bucks more than minimum wage.
They also dont drive in Smart cars either

also not everyone takes out just $100 at once



Those guards aren't getting paid like the heavyweight champion of the world either, and the amount of gas needed to transport the money for the average ABM transaction (60 bucks, I think an above post said) would be measured in microlitres.

Look at the profits the banks rake in. It's pretty clear that those hefty service charges are doing a lot more than just covering the costs of operation. If they can get away with it then good for them, but it's obviously a gouge.

[Hakan]

The costs are faced by the bank anyway in providing the service to their clients. They have to provide ABM access to their clients because of various market pressures. Therefore, they are going to incur the costs of maintaining and policing the ABM's ANYWAY. That's why you get your monthly 'service charge' or whatever from your bank, a portion of it pays for those costs (the other portion is profit).

Now that those costs have already been paid for, now that the machine will already be serviced every day regardless of whether non-clients use it or not, what will the extra cost be of one non-client using the machine? Yup, you guessed it, the marginal cost is zero.

Therefore the fee that they charge you is 100% cream for them. They were already going to incur all the cost anyway.

That's why these fees are wrong, your monthly service fee already more than pays for whatever costs there are to the ABM. The rest is just flat out corporatist greed disguised as some kind of convenience fee. The bank doesn't incur a single bit more cost from a non-client using it then the machien would have otherwise already had.

Up to a limit. If tonnes of non-clients start using the machines then they will have to stock them with more cash meaning that the banks reserves can't be invested elsewhere making money for them. So maybe the fees are there to avoid rapid ABM anarchy of clients using any old machine and robbing the poor old banks of their investment earnings.

Hardly, you will most likely use your banks machine because it has much more services to offer. You can pay bills, transfer money, see balances, deposit items etc. Sure their will be more casual withdrawls of $20 but that really doesn't cost them at all. And in the end, the major banks would not need to have any more cash on hand as before because it's not like removing these fees will cause people to go out and withdraw more cash all of a sudden.

But yes, lets keep sticking up for our right to be gouged. Keep it up!

[JimmytheT]

The government should stay out of banking!
the government should be there to govern and not be involved in business ala ATB. Having a provincial or federally run financial institution changes the playing field. Banks have to follow the guidelines set out by the Federal and Provincial governments, yet the ATB can just make up the rules as they go along.
ie) downpayments on purchasing homes, business loans, service charges etc.
and the real issue I have with it is, is that its our tax dollars at work with them making lending or investment decisions that may not be totally sound business decisions.
the list with ATB seems to be endless.
WEM/ATB thing as previously eluded to and of course we are all familiar with the Pocklington fiasco

Please find me an example of ATB "making the rules up as they go along" after the year 1997. As I said before, ATB now has a board of directors and an independent executive that runs to the standards of any bank listed on the TSX.

[Cowperson]

The government opened ATM competition in 1996.

The large majority of ABM machines accessible in Canada are not owned directly by banks . . . . I think its about 61% to 39% in favour of independent operators.

It appears that less than 10% of ABM's not owned directly by banks are owned by corporations owned by banks.

I saw a CBC story from 2000 indicating one bank machine costs about $2,500 per annum to operate . . . probably higher now.

The average person withdraws between $60 and $80 . . . . . the average consumer advocacy group appears to use $20 in objecting to fees.

Some stats from interac

http://www.interac.org/en_n3_31_abmstats.html

Maybe I'm just more organized than some of you, but its a rare day when I'm paying $1.50 to use an Interac at 7-11 or a gas station. . . . . . I think the statistics also show consumers gravitating more towards debit cards at point of purchase instead of trying to grab cash from a machine in the story to pay for the purchase.

Time for the weekend!! :)

Cowperson

[Devils'Advocate]

- Cheese at Safeway, what a rip easily 40% than superstore.
- Cords and cables at futureshop and big box electronics stores, you can get the same ones at memory express for a tenth of the price.
- Food at movies, $5.25 for a bucket of $0.10 popcorn, robbery, plus you are not allowed to bring in outside food, what if you are diabetic.
- Satellite TV. Me catching a signal that is being beamed past my house all the time anyway does not cost the company anything extra, it should be free.
- Speeding, if I do not hurt anyone, it is not costing anyone anything, why should I pay a ticket.
- Quizno's, jeezus cripes, 9 dollars for a blah sub!


But none of these companies are gathering in huge profits because of government regulation. The government has ALWAYS played with profit margins of companies that have been protected. Even when local phone service was a monopoly, the CRTC would ensure that the local phone company wasn't acessively gouging the customer. If the phone companies had been making the same amount of money as the banks currently are, the government surely would have stepped in. Currently, since banks are an oligopoly and not a monopoly, the government hasn't said anything. But the market isn't correct itself as there is no business reason to lower prices (service fees, interest rates). Everyone is making a killing.

BTW, as someone on the verge of purchasing a house, I 100% fully agree with you about the CMHC fees.

[Bobblehead]

Now that those costs have already been paid for, now that the machine will already be serviced every day regardless of whether non-clients use it or not, what will the extra cost be of one non-client using the machine? Yup, you guessed it, the marginal cost is zero.

Marginal cost will NOT be zero. They will need to refill the machine more frequently, as well as the receipt paper amd increased use = increased maintenance. The costs per unit are small but they are definitely not zero.

Now take a look at the other side of the coin. How much revenue does a bank get from a non-client? Unless they charge a fee, it is zero. Why should they allow other bank's customers to use the machines they set up and maintain, for free?

[Hakan]

Should have said essentially zero. An extra roll of paper every month and incredibly small extra maintenance costs over the life of the machine.

Ok so lets say the marginal cost is 3 cents being generous.

Does that justify a $1.50 charge?

As to your comments about the Bank getting zero revenue from the non-client.

They dont' get cash revenue no, but they do get use and trust in the network that they desperately want to push you to, Interac/Direct.

Remember that the banks receive huge amount of revenue from the use of this network.

[DementedReality]

But yes, lets keep sticking up for our right to be gouged. Keep it up!

yes, we are being gouged. thats the right of the bank as they are providing a service.

you have that right as well. open up a business and create a demand for your product and charge what you want. if people pay it, even after you add more and more to the rate, then you can gouge as well.

the premise being, if you provide a service, you are entitled to charge for it. even if providing the service costs you nothing, you can still charge (as much as you want) for it. if people dont pay it, you will change your price.

whats your problem?

[Sample00]

Please find me an example of ATB "making the rules up as they go along" after the year 1997. As I said before, ATB now has a board of directors and an independent executive that runs to the standards of any bank listed on the TSX.

purchase of a commerical building. in most cases chartered banks or credit unions require a 35% downpayment when purchasing said commercial building.
ATB will do financing for 20-25% down and typically at a rate that is 1-1.5% lower than charters or credit union. it creates a greater exposure for the ATB should the building mortgage go into default. commercial properties typically dont move the same way in valuations than residential properties. there tends to be a great fluctuation than residentials.
great for the consumer, no doubt, but not exactly on the same level playing field as the other financial institutions.
ATB will typically pay more for term deposits, whether regular or RRSP's. again not on the same playing field.
As a consumer its great, but as a taxpayer I have issues with this.
they are a provincially governed financial institution and I dont believe that the government should be involved in business, no matter if its financial institutions or any other business.
Governments are meant to govern, not compete with other businesses.

[Rockin' Flames]

purchase of a commerical building. in most cases chartered banks or credit unions require a 35% downpayment when purchasing said commercial building.
ATB will do financing for 20-25% down and typically at a rate that is 1-1.5% lower than charters or credit union. it creates a greater exposure for the ATB should the building mortgage go into default. commercial properties typically dont move the same way in valuations than residential properties. there tends to be a great fluctuation than residentials.
great for the consumer, no doubt, but not exactly on the same level playing field as the other financial institutions.
ATB will typically pay more for term deposits, whether regular or RRSP's. again not on the same playing field.
As a consumer its great, but as a taxpayer I have issues with this.
they are a provincially governed financial institution and I dont believe that the government should be involved in business, no matter if its financial institutions or any other business.
Governments are meant to govern, not compete with other businesses.

Being a person who worked at ATB for 8 years of my life they definatly seemed to be playing on a level playing field with the big banks. I can't really comment on the business side of the loans that you said, however, they follow the same rules as the big banks. However, here are some examples of how they are playing on a level playing field with the big banks:

1. In order to have a conventional mortgage and avoid paying CMHC fees you must put 25% down (they didn't follow this prior to 1997).

2. I attempted to get deposits and loans from customers but was not able to bring their money into the bank because other banks were able to beat the rate I was offering. In fact they do not tend to give higher rates on deposits or discounts on loans unless a person has most of their business with ATB, which is very similar to the other banks.

3. When I was a lender I would have people approach me for loans which I turned down in a lot of cases because they thought they could do it just because of their collateral. However, ATB follows the same philosophy as the big banks in which you need to have collateral, good credit rating, and the cash flow to pay the loans.

4. Finally they are very profit driven and set quite agressive budgets for growth. Prior to 1997 ATB was losing money do to shady deals and plain bad business deals, however, since 1997 they have recorded a profit in every quarter. They are doing what they can to be independently financially viable because they are probably wanting to privatize so they are not restricted to operating in Alberta.

Don't get me wrong I don't believe government should be in business either. However, when it comes down to it the Alberta government has to be willing to let ATB privatize. My suspicion is that when ATB was losing money the government wanted to turn its fortunes around and distance itself from it, hence the crown corp in 1997, however, now that it is making so much money they are reluctant to let go of such a cash cow. That is just my take on the ATB.

As for what Taliban Jack is saying, it just seems stupid to me.

[Sample00]

Rockin Flames:
I wont argue with you here. You have obviously worked for them, but let me give you a current example.
My investment group and I are purchasing a commercial building right now.
PP $1.2M.
All other financial institutions that we spoke to and that included the RB and local credit union, required that we put down 35% and were offered a rate of 7.5%. dont recall the term.
ATB allowed the following. and my numbers may be off here as I have them at my office, a first mortgage at 75% of pp, with the vendor taking a second at prime +2 for 20% of the PP and us coming up with 5%. Plus they gave us a five year rate of 6.25%. And no we are not clients of the ATB
level playing field, I think not. Charters and local credit union wouldnt allow the vendor take back and they definately wouldnt go in on the deal with less than 35% down.
Our commitment to this deal is so little how, as consumers, how could we not take that deal with ATB?
Great for us, but in MY HUMBLE OPINION, its not a level playing field.

However, I still maintain, that the government should govern and not be involved in business.

[Winsor_Pilates]

yes, we are being gouged. thats the right of the bank as they are providing a service.

you have that right as well. open up a business and create a demand for your product and charge what you want. if people pay it, even after you add more and more to the rate, then you can gouge as well.

the premise being, if you provide a service, you are entitled to charge for it. even if providing the service costs you nothing, you can still charge (as much as you want) for it. if people dont pay it, you will change your price.

whats your problem?
The problem is that this is not an open market. Your arguement works for most businesses because there is competition that balances things out. That is the situtation that banks in the States have.

Here we only have a small handful of banks, and therefore not a fair market system that can regulate itself.

IMO, because of that they should not have the right to gauge you. Right now the banks are getting the double benefit of very little competition and no regulation.
If they don't want government to get involved, then government shouldn't protect them from competition either.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Marginal cost will NOT be zero. They will need to refill the machine more frequently, as well as the receipt paper amd increased use = increased maintenance. The costs per unit are small but they are definitely not zero.

Now take a look at the other side of the coin. How much revenue does a bank get from a non-client? Unless they charge a fee, it is zero. Why should they allow other bank's customers to use the machines they set up and maintain, for free?
fair enough. But what about your bank charging you to use another machine?
In that case, you are saving them receipt paper, armoured car costs, gas, maintenance and you're wasting the resources of their competition instead.

If anything, my bank should pay me to use someone elses machine since I'm saving them the costs.

[DementedReality]

The problem is that this is not an open market. Your arguement works for most businesses because there is competition that balances things out. That is the situtation that banks in the States have.

Here we only have a small handful of banks, and therefore not a fair market system that can regulate itself.

IMO, because of that they should not have the right to gauge you. Right now the banks are getting the double benefit of very little competition and no regulation.
If they don't want government to get involved, then government shouldn't protect them from competition either.

i didnt claim it was an open market. i said they are providing a service and therefore are entitled to charge for it. if it was an essential service, i would agree with your position, but its an optional service and the service charge is 100% avoidable by the consumer.

[Winsor_Pilates]

I agree the bank SHOULD do that but they don't. Women SHOULD also not ever need to get an abortion but I still don't want the government getting involved in that decision either.
I know you don't want the government involved and I understand that.
Government involvement is one factor of this issue and understandably people will disagree on it.

The other factor is whether or not the fees are necessary and that's what I was argueing against.
Certain people are claiming these fees are necessary to support the system, yet can't explain why your bank would charge you for using anothers machine.
If it really costs a bank anything near $1.50 per transaction to opperate their machines, they would gladly let you use everyone elses for free.