A post relating to this item from Finextra:
18 August 2011 | 10607 views | 0
Around one million Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) account holders will soon be prevented from using cash machines belonging to rival banks.
I think the move to charging certain people for use of other banks' ATMs is deplorable - and we have been here before, only to see it dropped.
Some of us remember that the introduction of ATMs was driven not only by customer convenience, but also by cost cutting initiatives. It was deemed cheaper to dispense by machine than it was to do so over the counter, so the deployment of ATMs was seen as
a powerful profit enhancer at the time. The banks should be satisfied that they achieved such cost savings (and the permanent boost to their profit line) and view any interchange costs between them as a considerable saving on the old, in-branch method of
I'd be interested to know what their views are on how the introduction of these charges will skew their ATM traffic and the net effect on their interchange flows. From what I remember, there was a big push in some banks to extend their networks, because
the more ATMs you had, the more other banks' customers used them and the more interchange income they got. What happened to all that? Is this no longer the case?
This is really nothing to do with 'recovering costs' charged by other banks. I recall that many banks were about even on the interchange stakes. It has, instead, everything to do with extracting more income from customers. Interesting how they have focused
only on one side of the 'business', to justify the introduction of this charge...
There is something repugnant about directly charging people to withdraw their own money from their accounts, especially when the banks are still making so much money out of the float they enjoy from those bank balances, and also especially now they have
successfully bombed the interest rates they pay out on such balances.
What next? Maybe they should start directly charging people (and I mean personal customers here, not businesses) to actually pay in. Why is there a difference between paying in and drawing out? Both of them are transactions, after all. Just think how
much they could make if they charged, for example 10p per credit (including automated salaries, etc.) received into an account!
Maybe those affected should register their disapproval by going into branches to withdraw instead, at every possible opportunity, and clog up the counters...