Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Chase charges $5 to cash a check. My husband has an account with them and I went to cash a check he had written me. They said that there would be a $5 charge because I didn't have an account with them. I'm so cheap, LOL, I took the check back and just deposited it into my credit union.
They don't have to hire more tellers to handle the people coming to cash their checks. As one poster already pointed out the banks have all of the info on file to know the right signatures, if the check is good, etc. There is LESS of a chance of a customer getting a bounced check if they cash it directly at the bank it is drawn on, especially if the person writting the check is known to bounce checks. I worked in banking for over 10 years and as a business owner I REFUSE to bank w/ a bank that will charge MY EMPLOYEES or anyone else I owe money to in order to cash their check. They are entitled to 100% of the amount of the check I have written them. Therefore, I we bank at a locally owned bank and have NEVER had a problem. One time my husband forget to sign one persons check and the bank called him and verified it and cashed it for the employee. THAT is what TRUE customer service is about.
I don't see what the problem is. The financial services industry has undergone drastic changes in recent years. This is a financial institution's policy. I don't like it either, but it is what it is. It's not illegal. Wouldn't there be a fee if you were taking money out of "their" ATM machine/system? Your bank could reimburse you of course. I think more banks will be moving to this.
Sometimes people miss how much it costs to process checks. Besides the things that are obvious to you such as the teller, identification verification, providing the physical location and the cost of having cash available, there are many thousands of people and substantial equipment and support behind the scenes.
Each check must be encoded with the amount (computers do not reliably read handwriting), sorted, an image of both sides captured, the accounting done (often between banks), and the physical check either stored to delivered back to the issuer. Even with today’s more efficient electronic clearing system there is the cost that totals billions nationwide in networks, computers, check handling equipment, transportation, and technical support.
The move to electronic payment makes it cheaper for businesses and consumers alike.
Perhaps then, banks should pass on those charges to the people who write the checks.
This is nothing more than another "tax" on poor people who already don't have a bank account, now they have to pay extra for the privilege of turning a check into cash? And we're not talking about another bank's check, either. We are talking about checks drawn on that very bank. I don't not believe asking for par value on the check is outrageous.
I don't give a h00t about how much it costs to process the check.
I'm not shedding any tears for banks who claim their losing money processing the checks. Banks already make a ton of money investing the assets they hold. They only pass on a fraction of it to the customers who own those assets. In fact, many customers have non-interest bearing checking accounts, so the banks hold their money for free and don't have to pay a dime on the interest and dividends those assets are producing. Yes sometimes it costs money to service the account, that is a cost of doing business.
If it costs too much money to process checks, stop offering checking accounts.
If you wish to offer a product, you need be prepared to spend the money it costs to service that product.
If a bank can't absorb those charges and have to pass those charges on the holders of the checking account, so be it.
Last edited by DanielChang; 11-17-2007 at 01:19 PM..
Years ago I used to work for a company that bounced payroll checks on occasion. They used Wells Fargo as their bank. Basically if you had direct deposit you always got paid. But if you didn't have direct deposit and got a hard check, then you would have to bolt to the nearest Wells Fargo as soon as you got off work because usually at least one person's check wouldn't be honored.
I'm not a big believer in fees to cash checks. If a business has a payroll account with a bank the bank should cash those payroll checks at no charge to non-account holders. But with all the money the banking and finance industries give to US politicians, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for congress to pass reform legislation. Those guys in Washington stopped representing citizens a long time ago.
Location: Huntersville/Charlotte, NC and Washington, DC
26,700 posts, read 41,748,461 times
Reputation: 41381
I do get where the banks are coming from with the fees (hey, i work for Wachovia). I mean how would you like a giving a person 2k and them not doing anything for your book of business. Fees/policies are how banks make money. I dont really agree with some of them (the feature that wont allow a purchase to be made to protect you from overdraft having to be requested is one of them.) But i dont make the policies i just enforce them.
And please don't get mad at the teller for being charged!!!!!!! (we have no say with the bank policies)
I do get where the banks are coming from with the fees (hey, i work for Wachovia). I mean how would you like a giving a person 2k and them not doing anything for your book of business.
Alan, I just see it differently. What if you loaned me $2000 and when you asked for the $2000 back, I'd give you $1995 and keep $5 as a service charge.
I'm not disagreeing that banks need to make money. I just disagree on who should be paying for the services relating to checks.
Location: Huntersville/Charlotte, NC and Washington, DC
26,700 posts, read 41,748,461 times
Reputation: 41381
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinxor
Alan, I just see it differently. What if you loaned me $2000 and when you asked for the $2000 back, I'd give you $1995 and keep $5 as a service charge.
I'm not disagreeing that banks need to make money. I just disagree on who should be paying for the services relating to checks.
I do agree that the check maker should be charged instead of the check casher, but my employer thinks otherwise and i need to pay my bills. i wish to totally avoid this problem everyone would switch to direct deposit whenever possible. i realize that not everyone has or can get a bank account but DD eliminates a lot of problems.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
