kanadajin

Today on the RTVE website (excerpt in Spanish):

"El Banco de España considera que la retirada de efectivo en un cajero automático constituye un único servicio de pago, con independencia de que se realice en un cajero propiedad de la entidad emisora de la tarjeta bancaria o de otra entidad. En consecuencia, ese servicio solo puede originar el cobro de una comisión, ya sea por la entidad emisora de la tarjeta o por la entidad propietaria del cajero.

De esta forma, la institución gobernada por Luis María Linde sale al paso ante el anuncio de diversas entidades de cobrar una comisión a los no clientes por extraer efectivo de sus cajeros. En concreto, CaixaBank decidió hace unos meses aplicar una comisión de dos euros a los no clientes, una operación que iban a poner en marcha BBVA o Santander después de verano."

It looks as if it will get more difficult to avoid ATM fees when getting Euros in Spain. As I will be there this fall, are there any suggestions as to which financial institutions I should look for to avoid these fees (over and above the ones my Canadian bank is already charging me)? I hope this trend does not spread throughout Europe, but expect/fear it might.

janisj

it is a €2 fee -- on a €250 transaction that is .8%. I personally wouldn't sweat it. As far as I can tell it isn't all ATMs but even if that turns out to be so -- it is tiny compared to the rest of one's expenses.

Christina

I agree, a 2 euro fee doesn't particularly bother me at all. I only use an ATM a couple times a week, at most, when I travel. IN fact, I think that convenience is well worth 2 euros (to be able to use their ATMs when abroad).

What is bad is when it is a percentage of the amount you withdraw, and it doesn't say that. They actually do that in Mexico, first time I saw that, and all the banks do it where I was (San Miguel de Allende and Guanajuato) (charge you a percentage fee, if you aren't a client, about 2-3 pct). I'm not talking about DCC, either.

kanadajin

Thanks, I understand it is indeed a small fee. I simply viewed it as an irritant. In hindsight, I actually remember having to use traveler checks in the 1970s for European travel - the commissions charged to cash them as needed were usually quite higher than this.

I appreciate both your views on this.

cova

It is more of an irritant to ourselves, spanish citizens. If you have an account on a small bank, or in one of the internet banks such as ING, or the small town you are only have one bank ... you cannot avoid paying 2 or 3 euros for the transaction.

Right now La Caixa is charging 3 euros, and coming September it will be BBVA and probably Sabadell and Santander. The charge relates to the debit transactions, not the credit ones.

Rgds, Cova

Bedar

I no longer have any of my ATM receipts, but these fees came on my US bank statement. Was charged out of netwook fees ($2.50 ea) and international processing fees which varied with the amount withdrawn. Doing the math, I came up with .04 % in fees on the money withdrawn. Seem a bit high, but there is the matter of convenience, and must admit I didn't look for the logo of the bank network (there were few banks where we were, as Cova mentioned).

ribeirasacra

It maybe a small fee if you take the full 250€ but remember when you take less the percentage goes up.
Besides why make these banks even more greedy. As it happens BBVA has just announced very good profits and then they slam this on consumers.
There is also talk that this is a double charge and it may not be legal.

Michael

<i>. In hindsight, I actually remember having to use traveler checks in the 1970s for European travel - the commissions charged to cash them as needed were usually quite higher than this.</i>

But required more labor. Electronic transfers cost pennies.

annhig

Part of the trouble, in the UK at least, is that we have become used to "free banking". of course it isn't free and the banks have to make their profits somewhere as shareholders demand a return on "their" money.

And being profit-making institutions, if they can levy a charge, they surely will.

Michael

<i>we have become used to "free banking".</i>

It isn't free. Banks make money on the deposits, which is why free checking often comes with direct deposits. The term "usury" has disappeared from the world of finance.

annhig

Michael - that's what I said. Hence my use of inverted commas and the phrase "of course it isn't free".

kanadajin

Interesting comments! I then wonder if there are any financial institutions in Spain which are not planning to institute these fees at this time, at least not yet. I suspect the temptation will be very strong to follow suit ...

thursdaysd

Capital One refunds foreign ATM fees up to $25/month on my account with them. Will try to keep it to less than 12 withdrawals, lol. I do object to paying two euro for something that costs the bank fractions of a cent.

Michael

annhig,

And what I meant is that it never was "free". The bank makes money on our deposits, as it always did. They simply discovered new ways of charging the public. BofA originally encouraged us to use ATMs by charging us for teller services, and now they turn around and charge for taking money out of a non-BofA ATM at a rate that is far beyond the actual cost of the transaction (including the maintenance of the ATMs).

Christina

I'll admit I think it's great not to pay any fees, and I pay very few as I have ATM cards where I pay nothing (neither for the withdrawal nor the foreign transaction). But I actually do think using another bank's ATM is a service I am getting which is very convenient and useful to me and which doesn't profit that bank at all, if I don't have an account there. So I guess I don't think this is so horrific that a bank charges noncustomers something for using their services and equipment. In some cities/banks, I believe I've noticed that you can't actually do that as the doors are locked and you need a customer code to get in. So why is that any different.

I think people have a right to complain about their own bank charging them a fee for using another's ATM, but don't quite see the outrage when they have no financial relationship with you. And if you choose a bank where you live without convenient ATMs for you, that's within your ability to change that. It's the same thing for me at home, I deliberately choose a bank with convenient ATMs, that's just practical. If I didn't, then it would be because I chose that those extra possible fees were worth it for me for whatever I was getting from that other bank. People choose banks based on those reasons.

So I think there is a difference in saying that a bank benefits from this when you aren't even a customer of theirs vs. when you are.

Michael

Even if one accepts the idea that a bank can charge a non-customer for its service, does the term "usurious" in its affective meaning apply at any point?