Deposit Checks To Your Bank By Taking a Photo

Pickens writes "The Mercury News reports that consumers will soon be able to deposit a check by snapping a photo of it with a cell phone and transmitting an encrypted copy to their bank. Although some critics contend paperless deposits are an attempt by the banking industry to eliminate 'float,' the standard one- or two-day waiting period between the time someone writes a check and the time the money is actually taken out of their account, actually remote-deposit capture started out as a way for big companies and financial institutions to process huge numbers of checks without having to ship them around the country. 'Our customers are becoming more and more tech-savvy,' said an SVP for mobile banking at Citibank. 'We're trying to support those people on the go.' Although the process adds a new wrinkle to concerns about fraud and the privacy of financial data, banks and the technology companies helping them say they have largely overcome these concerns. Another bank SVP said, 'For many institutions struggling to raise deposits and differentiate, this is an outstanding offering they can roll out inexpensively [note: interstitial]. It's a sticky product.'"

Comments

Checks

[sopssa]

Or what if US just stops using inferior checks and just wires money like rest of the world? It's also possible to even push money in to credit cards directly, in addition to normal bank wires. Checks are insecure, inconvenient and pretty useless in today's electronic world. For non-electronical purposes you can just use cash.

Re:Checks

[Securityemo]

Mod parent up - this suggestion, together with "tech-savy", sounds absolutely retarded when you're used to european instant wire transfers. Who runs the US banking system, stuffy 200-year old vampires?

Re:Checks

[realsilly]

Good God, push your money into to credit cards directly? Are you insane? Can you imagine the fees the credit card companies can and would likely impose?

Your deposit is too small - FEE
Your deposit is too big - FEE
Your deposit is greater than your minimum payment we'll just apply your paycheck to what you owe us and here's a Fee for that service - FEE
Your deposit is not every week - FEE
We don't like who you work for, they are not in our network - FEE
Your direct deposit bounced - FEE

Ok so those are a little crazy, but if you look at what credit card companies employ already, those aren't that far off.

Re:Checks

[Lumpy]

That would mean forcing the banks to serve the customer instead of the shareholders.

Are you INSANE???????

customers are nothing but pests that must be tolerated.

Re:Checks

[ircmaxell]

Agreed. And with the direct photo taking of checks, you are removing one of the layers of security that they have (the security paper they are printed on)... I wonder how much of an increase in check photoshoping, err I mean forging we'll see...

Re:Checks

[sopssa]

Just saying it's possible. Wire transfer is the normal way and usually doesn't cost anything unless it's an international transfer.

Re:Checks

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to have a pretty firm grasp of our banking system :D

Re:Checks

[realsilly]

Wire transfers cost $25 a transfer here.

Re:Checks

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a 35+ year old Swede ... ... and I've never, ever, written a check.

(I seem to vaguely recall my parents doing it when I was really young though)

The US is on top of technology as usual.

Re:Checks

[elrous0]

Anything that would give me an excuse to tell the handful of throwbacks who still insist on paying me with a check that they can't do that anymore would be fine with me. I still have to drive down to the bank every time I deal with anyone over fifty (who seem, with rare exception, genetically INCAPABLE of understanding even the simplest paypal transaction). I hate to think of all the gas I've wasted in the last few years on these people, when the U.S. could move to a much better system (sorry unemployed bank tellers).

Re:Checks

[aicrules]

I haven't paid by anything other than electronic methods for years now...what bank is screwing you?

Re:Checks

[Aladrin]

I pay my credit card by logging into my bank's site and clicking 'transfer funds'. It works just like a regular account, except that I can only push money to it, not draw from it.

This was actually my only criteria for picking my existing bank. I never have to write a check or visit the bank, except the odd instance when I end up with a physical check from someone else. It says a ton of my time. And theirs.

So yes, some banks might choose to go the fees route that you're outlined above, but at least 1 bank is already doing it without the fees.

Oh, and as a bonus, that credit card is hooked to my overdraft protection. There's a fee when it happens, and I'm sure the interest on the amount is insane, but since it's for emergencies only, that's fine.

Re:Checks

[g0bshiTe]

You obviously don't bank with Wachovia.

Re:Checks

[bickerdyke]

So it's no wonder you're trying to keep that cheque-zombie alive!

$25 for transfering money from account to account? It's rather around 25ct over here! (ok, on average. It's usually more for buissness accounts, but less for personal accounts (usually you get a large enough number of free transactions))

At most you pay around 1Eur if you dare using actual paper forms for the transactions.

Re:Checks

[mikeraz]

As the employee of a large bank that makes ~30% of its income from credit card transaction and processing fees I say: Yeah! Bring it on!

Re:Checks

[mikeraz]

But ACH - and it takes a banker to know the difference - is free and happens close to real time.

Re:Checks

[bigdavex]

I still have to drive down to the bank every time I deal with anyone over fifty (who seem, with rare exception, genetically INCAPABLE of understanding even the simplest paypal transaction). I hate to think of all the gas I've wasted in the last few years on these people, when the U.S. could move to a much better system (sorry unemployed bank tellers).

You could mail your deposits to the bank instead of driving.

Re:Checks

[AndrewNeo]

This is something I have never understood. Why on earth do normal people use banks when there are credit unions?

Re:Checks

[Anonymous Coward]

This, like almost all /. comments, reflects a lack of understanding about the country in which you live and vocabulary. A wire transfer is not the only way to transfer money between banks, individuals, or online. It is not a ubiquitous term, it is a specific form of transfer. Europe does rely more heavily on this, but this is because the EU has heavily regulated fees for Wire Transfers, thus making it cheap and popular.

In the US, wire transfers can cost up to $45, so no one uses them. Instead EFTS (Electronic Funds Transfer) is enormously popular in the US. You can pay almost anything online with a routing number and a bank number. I can, and do, pay all of my bills this way.

The only real difference between a Wire Transfer and an EFTS is that the Wire Transfer acts like a Cashier's Check and the EFTS acts like a Personal Check. This is important because a Cashier's Check is "guaranteed" by the bank. In a wire transfer, the bank, for lack of a better description, takes the money out of your account and gives it to another entity. In an EFTS transaction, the company receiving the money requests it from the bank, at which point the bank goes and checks to see if you have the money.

The difference is where the work is done. If you are doing the work of keeping track of your own money (running the risk of the bank finding insufficient funds) then you pay nothing and use EFTS. If the company you are going to pay doesn't trust you, or if you want to make sure this particular amount is going to go through, etc, the bank has to do some legwork. Historically, this legwork was considerable so there is a sizable fee. Today I admit this charge makes little sense unless you are dealing with particularly large amounts of money. Because the US is not a nanny state and forced banks to use particular payment or dispersment methods for low cost, the EFTS system grew more popular. Now that wire-transfer is almost exclusively used for large dollar amounts, it makes not sense to lower costs, and no one is forcing them.

In short, wire transfers are popular in Europe not because Europeans are more technologically savvy, but rather because there government stepped in an forced the market to offer it cheap or free. In the US a different, payer responsible, system was developed to offset bank costs and offer the same service for free. The other service still exists and elitists from other countries who can't do their own banking think that US citizen's still use checkbooks because they don't bother to learn how banking actually works.

This is similar to how England does overdraft. Overdraft is almost ubiquitously used in England. it took me a while to understand that you can just overdraw our account in England and pay interest to the bank. In short, everyone has a credit card who has a bank account. Everyone has a line of credit because mismanagement of accounts is so big a problem the bank just cashed in on it.

You may find it silly that I sometimes still write checks (like for my landlord who lives upstairs). That's fine. I find it silly that your entire country seems to be unable to manage basic home economics. We'll call it even.

Re:Checks

[Jeff DeMaagd]

There seem to be different kinds of electronic transfers, but what's referred to as a "wire transfer" by the bank industry can be pretty expensive. It seems like both sides of the transaction get charged for those, the sender gets charged $15 and the recipient gets charged $15. I've had worse too, especially for international transfers, my end cost me $40 on a recent one.

I do use some kind of electronic bill payment system, I don't know what the technical term is for it, at least it doesn't cost so bloody much, I don't know if there is a transfer fee. But it's not for everything in my opinion, I've paid for cars using a paper check. Other irregular payments seem more convenient to just pay up with a paper check.

Re:Checks

[Skater]

I use online bill payment for most things, but there is one check I write every month for the electric bill, because the company's online bill payment setup is horrendous, so I don't want to use it. If they ever ask me why, I'll explain the problems with their site and that I use plenty of other sites without a problem.

Re:Checks

[operagost]

Or what if US just stops using inferior checks and just wires money like rest of the world? It's also possible to even push money in to credit cards directly, in addition to normal bank wires. Checks are insecure, inconvenient and pretty useless in today's electronic world.

9 out of 10 Nigerian 419 scammers agree!

Re:Checks

[lowrydr310]

You can do a wire transfer in the USA... if you pay the additional $25 fee from the bank! I don't understand this policy - I would guess it requires many more resources and expenses to process a paper check.

I'm quite surprised people still use checks, however I'm stuck using them for one specific case. I only use a check to pay my rent because the company that runs my apartment charges a $5 fee for electronic rent payments which I refuse to pay.

Re:Checks

[mcgrew]

Checks are insecure, inconvenient and pretty useless in today's electronic world? Are you daft? Nothing is more secure than a check, debit cards are too convenient, and checks serve me well. In fact, I only use checks and cash since an experience a few years ago.

Some checks and my debit card were stolen by someone who had watched me type in the PIN number, and drained my checking account. The signature on the checks were obvious forgeries, and the bank made good on them. The debit card withdrawals, however, I had to eat, since if someone has your PIN they are automatically authorized to use the card. Even withdrawls made after I reported it stolen!

That's the last time I used a debit card; no more debit cards for me. Meanwhile, the credit cards had so munch interest and fees, even paying the bills on time, that I got rid of them, too.

You can have my checkbook when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers -- Oh wait, no, you can have it. I can get more checks and the ones you stole won't hurt me a bit, unlike electronic transactions.

Re:Checks

[jank1887]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_a_wire_transfer_and_an_automated_clearing_house

" Answer:

A wire is a real-time method of transferring immediate funds and supporting information between two financial institutions and is relatively expensive to use. An ACH is similar to a wire transfer only it uses a batch- process. Transactions received by the bank during the day are stored and processed later in batches and normally do not become available to a beneficiary until the next day. ACH transfers are less expensive than wire transfers."

Re:Checks

[Urza9814]

I've never actually _written_ a check, but I've had to deposit tons of them. For most things I prefer to use cash, and if I don't have the cash on me I use my debit card. But checks have the advantage that they can be sent safely through the mail. Also, checks don't require knowing an account number or anything. For example, my university mails out a check if you get any charges refunded. Which is great. There really is no other option there, short of requiring every student give out their bank information when they enroll, as the payment isn't always from the same person that the refund goes to - and hell, fairly often the payment is from multiple people, so how would they know who to refund it to? Not to mention the fact that around holidays and such when large amounts of money are going through the mail, a check is a far better choice - I mean would you really feel safe mailing a hundred bucks in cash?

As for the main story - I don't see the point. Maybe to save 40 cents on a stamp...but then you gotta pay for a text. With my bank I can just go online and tell them I'm mailing in a deposit and it's added to my account immediately. Solves both problems - I get the money immediately, but it's not taken out of the other person's account for several days.

Re:Checks

[operagost]

$25 for transfering money from account to account?

No, if you have enough brains to use billpay services (it's ACH as mikeraz posted) it's nearly always free. If the payee isn't in the system, it will cut an old-fashioned check on the date you specify. So you go ahead with your wonderful wire system from 1890. HOT GRITS POURED DOWN PANTS STOP PETRIFIED NATALIE PORTMAN STOP

Re:Checks

[Lumpy]

All american ones.

If I transfer cash to a friend it costs me $25.00 processing fee plus a $15.00 transaction fee.

This is normal for american banks.

Granted I could use a credit card and pay interest on that but why should I do that. credit cards are for credit NOT bill payment.

I still write a check to pay my electric bill because the electric company charges an extra $3.50 for me to pay electronically.

It's all about screwing the customer, banks love to do that here in the United states. Over in europe they are more restricted when it comes to screwing people.

Re:Checks

[clone53421]

The debit card withdrawals, however, I had to eat, since if someone has your PIN they are automatically authorized to use the card. Even withdrawls made after I reported it stolen!

It seems very unusual that they’d honour transactions made after the card was reported stolen... or even process them. That reeks of gross incompetence; the card should have been electronically canceled immediately; the first ATM they stuck the stolen card in should have just eaten the card. If you could prove that you reported it stolen before the transactions, they would have to refund your money. No question.

In any case, the first thing I’d do on a stolen debit card, after hearing of your experience, would be to call the bank and change the PIN. This would be effective immediately and then I’d report the card stolen. Furthermore, I don’t run debit transactions unless necessary... a debit card can be run as a credit card and this doesn’t require entering a PIN, but it’s also subject to the laws governing credit card transactions and you’ll get your money back if someone fraudulently uses the card for credit transactions without knowing your PIN. By running a credit transaction, you avoid using the PIN, and nobody can watch you type it.

Re:Checks

[hacker]

Checks are insecure, inconvenient and pretty useless in today's electronic world. For non-electronical purposes you can just use cash.

And what happens when systems go down? Power goes out? Electronic transactions are blocked/denied/lost for any reason? What then?

No, no, I'm afraid paper money (currency, checks, notes) will be here to stay, for many, many decades to come.

Re:Checks

[RawJoe]

I don't understand. I use Bank of America. Yes it's one of the big evil banks, but between my wife and I with 2 checking, 2 savings, 2 credit cards, and 1 mortgage, I've seen no fees. Never once for using on-line bill pay, never once for sending money to a friend. Like a previous post, the only time I've incurred a fee is when my overdraft protection kicked in.

Re:Checks

[tom17]

In Germany at least, you don't. You have their bank information (Most businesses have it publicly displayed). They don't have a fucked up system whereby anyone having your bank details is a bad thing. Tom...

Re:Checks

[mikeraz]

Yet ACH, like debit card authorizations, are checked against current balance and in some cases given provisional credit immediately. The practical difference is close to nil.

Re:Checks

[Eivind]

USA is insane. I mean, the entire cheque-thing ? Hello ? As if it's not ridicolous to begin with, do you send email by handwriting it on paper, then taking a PHOTO of the letter, and sending that to your friend ? No ? Then why is doing the same thing with cheques reasonable ?

I pay my credit, exactly like you do, it's an account like any other, with the exception that the saldo is generally negative other than positive, and so I pay, rather than get, interest.

But differently from yours, mine really -is- an account like any other, meaning I can transfer money into that account, or out of it. Yes, this means if my credit is at -1000 and I transfer and additional 100 out of it, I now owe 1100. What a concept !

Oh, and what's up with paying huge interest-rates on a "credit card" when most people have a much cheaper line of credit backed by their house anyways ? How does it make sense to borrow from the credit-card-company and pay 10% interest or something, when mortgage-rates are a third that ?

I've only -got- one line of credit. It's secured with the house. There's a limit at 75% of fair market value, and the interest is like 3%. (i.e. what people generally pay for a mortgage here at the moment)

Cheques ? Yeah, my grandmother used to have those, when I was real tiny. Like in the 70ies. They where obsolete even then, frankly, but some older folks where still using them.

US banks should get with the program. Being able to take a -photo- of a cheque and mail it to your bank is something only Rube Goldberg would've been proud of.

Re:Checks

[plague3106]

Ok, but checks are still cheaper here. A box of them (a few hunderd) is $15. What you're talking about would cost everyone that uses a check more than they are paying now. Add in the fact that most people don't use checks, but credit cards or debit cards hooked into the credit card system, and wire transfers are pretty much a nonissue. I right maybe 10 checks a year; I use my debit card multiple times daily. Why would I want a wire transfer?

Re:Checks

[mdwh2]

Although useful, and I do often do that myself, it's a long way of replacing cheques in all situations:

What if I want to give someone money when I don't have an Internet connection? (Similarly with a wire - I can't believe that the OP of this thread thinks going into a bank is easier than just writing out a cheque, although maybe these things have different names in the UK to the US?)

Or what if I don't have the security keypad device thing that my bank requires me to use? Or I don't have access to the strong passwords on me at that moment? What if the bank introduces new security measures, and you can't access the website until then (yes, mad as it sounds, Barclays pulled this one on me, when they started requiring the aforementioned keypad device things).

What if the website's "down for maintenance"?

What about liability? In the UK, there have been cases of people paying the wrong person, and it's their fault because they're the ones who typed it in - the recipient legally is entitled to the money. If there's a mistake due to the bank person typing it in wrong, it's harder for them to argue this.

Give me something that satisifies all of those, and I'll throw away my chequebook. Remember that most of the pain for dealing with a cheque is on the recipient - what incentive do I have to take on the issues listed above, if I'm giving someone money? (Of course if someone's able to accept cards, that's fine, but this doesn't work for personal transactions and some small businesses like B&Bs.)

Re:Checks

[JayGuerette]

Checks may seem "quaint" to you techies, but vast swaths of America's infrastructure and social mechanisms are still greased this way. Checks are superior to cash in too many ways: if I'm carrying my checkbook, I'm technically carrying as much cash as I have, and the recipient doesn't have to make change. If I send my kids to school with a check, lost,stolen, or "misdirected" is not an issue. Plus, I always have a receipt.

I've been doing this for years through my credit union, with my flatbed scanner. With cell phones commonly pushing over the 3 megapixel mark, it's not at all surprising to see this as a natural extension of the existing process.

Re:Checks

[mdwh2]

Out of interest, what do you use to transfer money to another person instead? (Especially since with that timespan, it predates widespread Internet access.)

Re:Checks

[apoc.famine]

You need a better credit card.

I've got one from my credit union. There are no fees. The intrest rate (not that it often applies to me) is reasonable. I have my paycheck direct deposited, and have the option to automatically funnel some amount of money to my card every month. (Since I pay it off every month, I don't.) When I want to pay, it's three clicks and done.

And there are no fees. For anything but overdrafts.

Stop banking with criminals and thieves. It's stupid.

Re:Checks

[sopssa]

Yes, it's enough to have just the account number like 495893-5889298 to do a transfer. If you're doing international transfers, then you need IBAN (International Bank Account Number) and information like name and address of the receiving bank. Not exactly complicated.

Re:Checks

[plague3106]

Most people don't treat their house like an ATM. Oh, well some did, and now they're fucked. That's why credit cards are higher interest, BTW. They're unsecured, meaning that if I don't pay, I also won't lose my house, but because they're unsecured its a bigger risk for the bank.

Anyhow... running up 100,000 in debt by having a card linked to your house is a terrible idea.

Most people don't use checks here though; if I need to lend a friend money I have cash. For anything else, I have a debit card tied to my bank account.

Re:Checks

[mdwh2]

Cheques are a pain to receive, but I'd rather that than everyone switching to Paypal, and being dependent on them.

I used them, until they randomly decided they wouldn't accept my cards anymore, no reason given. They have no means of contact, so that was that.

They behave like a bank and people use them like a bank, but the problem is they're not, AFAIK, subject to the same rules as banks.

when the U.S. could move to a much better system

What system is that? Not Paypal, I hope.

Re:Checks

[MachDelta]

Are you sure you can only push money to your CC? I can pull money from mine too, straight into a normal account. It's called a cash advance. It's not something i've had to use very often though.

Re:Checks

[ottothecow]

But have you tried to do a "Wire Transfer?" Not any other kind of transfer (which tend to only be between accounts that you have control over, but a wire transfer that could be to anyone in the world. Every American bank charges hefty fees for this--this isn't really a sign of evil, just a different evolution of the banking system--wires are typically only used for large transactions where the cost is insignificant. If we were to start using them more often, the price would fall off as the system became even more automated (although that is a bit of a chicken/egg problem).

As to the grandparent poster, I have a few similar arrangements where I still have to write checks for things because they want to charge me extra money to pay electronically. Of course, I don't actually write checks for those things any more...citibank cuts a check on my behalf and mails it to them on the date I choose (no fees at all). The only thing I would prefer is if I could pay everything including rent with my credit card...the frequent flier miles would be nice and then there is only one payment I have to make sure goes through each month.

Re:Checks

[plague3106]

Because they're stupid and don't like being told no when they ask a credit union to help them live beyond their means.

Re:Checks

[mdwh2]

What - a cheque is less convenient and less secure than cash? And what if you don't have enough cash on you, exactly?

And I don't see how going to the bank to wire something is less hassle than simply writing a cheque there and then. Even if you mean online transfer, a cheque is still easier, especially if you don't have Internet access there and then, or you don't have the necessary physical security devices, or password information, or the website is down for maintenance, etc.

Cheques are a pain to receive, but there's yet to be a replacement that works in all situations.

Re:Checks

[sopssa]

Tell that to European banks who don't really even accept checks anymore. If you really want to cash in a check, you have to wait like 3-4 weeks so it clears for the bank and then they transfer it to you. With high costs, of course. A bank woman even said that 99% of checks now a day are fraudulent and that's why they have to do it.

Paying via wire transfer (or ACH, not sure which is the equivalent) is a lot safer as is online banking. Here at least - it seems like US banks managed to fuck up that too with username/password like protections, instead of running physical pin list like we have here.

Physically you can just pay with cash if you're worried about credit cards. Then you avoid the fees and privacy issues too.

Re:Checks

[jollespm]

Might want to check out a credit union. They may not have as many ATM locations, but I get free bill pay, ATM fee reimbursement (I get the $2.00 back BoA charges to use their ATM!), and high interest checking from LGECCU. Any fees I do get charged like overdraft, are fairly reasonable compared to a big bank.

The fact that companies charge you to make electronic payments is criminal. Luckily, Progressive is the only company I deal with that does that to me.

Re:Checks

[sopssa]

Wire transfer (or it's more close to a system like ACH I guess) is mostly for paying bills and rent and such or otherwise transferring money between people. Debit/Credit cards are good for purchasing in stores, eating in restaurants or buying online, unless you prefer cash of course.

Re:Checks

[clone53421]

Oh, and what's up with paying huge interest-rates on a "credit card" when most people have a much cheaper line of credit backed by their house anyways ? How does it make sense to borrow from the credit-card-company and pay 10% interest or something, when mortgage-rates are a third that ?

Eh? I pay -ZERO- interest on my credit card. I just pay the balance every month.

Credit cards are not loans and if you use them as if they were, you’re an idiot. It doesn’t make sense to borrow from the credit card company and pay 14% (or higher) interest. You aren’t supposed to.

Re:Checks

[bickerdyke]

I find it silly that your entire country seems to be unable to manage basic home economics. We'll call it even.

Because we pay less overdraft interest on our debts than americans pay on their regular credit card debts?

But granted, with a working credit card ecosystem there was probably hardly any need to modernise the cheque system. (read: getting rid of it) And with the combination of debit cards, bank accounts and overdraft, there is still hardly any need over here for credit cards. I tend to call THAT even.

And for the rest of your comment: Its something between right on spot, wrong translations (for things that probably can't be translated) and BS. I'll start with the last: Gouvernment only stepped in and regulated the price on international money trensfers.

Wiring money: Isn't that what "Western Union" does? then at least the german expression "telegraphische Anweisung" would be close to sending something "by wire" and the costs would be the same. What you described as EFTS sounds pretty much similar to how we do it over here, but with the use cases "A sending Money to B" and "B receiving money from A's account" cost about the same. There is a slightly more secure, more expensive (and less used) way of transfering money which actually includes the bank checking B's permission to withdraw from A's account, but thats just more cost (but far from $25) and more hassle.

Re:Checks

[gumbi west]

The interest is better at my bank than at the credit unions I have access to. Plus I've never paid a fee to my bank but the credit union has fees that I would have to pay. Next question.

Re:Checks

[oji-sama]

Well, I'm slightly younger, nor Swede, but a long time ago I went to a bank with an account number and told them to transfer money to the account. A bit less time ago I went to banking automat with my 'bank card' and typed in the account number. Last ten (or so) years I've done this over internet.

Re:Checks

[bickerdyke]

Ah.

We use the same system for both sender-initiated transfers (one time bills), standing orders (rent) or receiver-initiated transfers (regular bills with varying amounts, automatic debit and most uses of your debit card)

All these transactions can either be initiated by a paper form (rather expensive) or electronically.

Re:Checks

[gumbi west]

How do you: (1) pay rent if you have a land lord with only a few properties? (2) buy a car? (3) sell something over the internet?

Re:Checks

[vegiVamp]

I suspect there's a confusion in terms here.

I think "wire money" in the US means money transfer services a la Western Union. What GP is talking about, is probably account-to-account transfers (dutch is overschrijving, french is virement, use the fish for your local sound), which is indeed (mostly) free nationally, and also free in-Euroland.

Re:Checks

[gumbi west]

Uh, he said, "Many in the US have no bank account at all." nothing about our stupid system where you must protect your bank account number.

Re:Checks

[oji-sama]

Oh. And I've never, ever, written a check either. I've claimed two or three though, as they are sometimes used as a fancy way to give money as gift. Checks really are a curiousity around here.

Re:Checks

[sopssa]

What if I want to give someone money when I don't have an Internet connection? (Similarly with a wire - I can't believe that the OP of this thread thinks going into a bank is easier than just writing out a cheque, although maybe these things have different names in the UK to the US?)

Then you give him cash or tell him you transfer it from your bank account. Wire transfer (or it's closer to ACH I guess) everyone mostly does from Internet now a days. There's no need to go to bank just to transfer money (while it still of course is a possibility)

Or what if I don't have the security keypad device thing that my bank requires me to use? Or I don't have access to the strong passwords on me at that moment? What if the bank introduces new security measures, and you can't access the website until then (yes, mad as it sounds, Barclays pulled this one on me, when they started requiring the aforementioned keypad device things).

We use two level one-time pin lists. Other one is running one-time list to login to bank account, and the other one additional list to confirm payments. Secure and easy and there's no need to change it (and I can't understand why US banks don't use the same kind of system).

What if the website's "down for maintenance"?

They rarely are. If one bank happens to be down a few hours during night time it's usually mentioned in news too. Bank's aren't run off someones basement, you know.

What about liability? In the UK, there have been cases of people paying the wrong person, and it's their fault because they're the ones who typed it in - the recipient legally is entitled to the money.

It's illegal to keep money not send to you. If you're mistakenly send money to a wrong person and they haven't send it back, you contact bank and they contact the recipient (or his bank if it's not the same bank) and ask to send it back. Unless they do in reasonable amount of time, it's a criminal matter and will be liable if theres no good reason (ie., on holiday so didn't receive letter or call and so on)

Re:Checks

[tibit]

In many U.S. banks, wire transfers are processed 100% manually. Even if they have an on-line front for it, there are peons somewhere who retype it all into green screens, or -- worse -- fax the info around. An international wire transfer almost always ends up being faxed once or twice. No kidding. It fucktarded.

Re:Checks

[bickerdyke]

At least we don't have to sign up to something besides a regular account to pay bills (/or collect money)

Could we at least agree that "wiring money" is obsolete here too?

Re:Checks

[vegiVamp]

I still have some, somewhere. They were rather convenient for the bail on rented equipment and suchlike, as the money never got out of your account if it was returned in order. VISA offers a similar service, I believe, although the money is actually blocked off your limit.

The paper things are still valid here in .be, too, although use has plumetted as planned when the 5000BFr (about 125€) bank warranty was removed years ago.

Re:Checks

[sopssa]

And to add to that last point, it's not that easy to send money to wrong bank account number as some of the digits are checksums. If you write a number wrong it refuses to transfer the money as the checksum doesn't match.

Re:Checks

[vegiVamp]

You're required to accept legal tender, but do cheques really fall under that ? Aren't you free to refuse them ?

Re:Checks

[Jenming]

A credit card is unsecured debt, meaning if you lose your job and are unable to pay your credit card bill then the bank closes your account, trashes your credit rating and sends you bitchy letters.

A mortgage is secured debt, meaning if you lose your job and are unable to pay your mortgage then the bank takes your house.

Obviously the interest rate on the mortgage is going to be less. However the loan terms on the credit card are much better (you don't need any equity, you can't lose your house). Both types of loans have there place.

Re:Checks

[Jenming]

My local bank gives better service and better rates then the available credit unions. Plus I like having access to the owners of the business' I use if I need it for some reason.

Re:Checks

[HopefulIntern]

1) Direct debit or standing order 2) Cash? Debit card? 3) Paypal....

Re:Checks

[natehoy]

Hmm, if only there was a way to avoid that drive to the bank. If only there was some way to, I don't know, somehow get the information on the check to your bank so it could be deposited, but in a simple enough way that someone who only deals with a few checks a month doesn't have to buy any really high-tech gear.

News: Deposit Checks To Your Bank By Taking a Photo

Oh, yeah, right. The article we are discussing.

Re:Checks

[Jenming]

Cash is incredibly insecure when compared to checks.
What do you do if you want to pay some money, but you also need to explain what you are doing (i.e. fill out forms or send a letter with the money)?

Re:Checks

[realsilly]

No, a wire transfer from my account to yours costs between $25 and $35 dollars on average, depending on the bank.

When I file a tax return, for the govt. to deposit my return to my account via a wire transfer I am charged a wire transfer fee.

It is only free from my one account to another one of my accounts, based on the account type.

There is no confusion of terms.

Send an inquiry to any US bank about wire transfer fees. It's still cheaper to write a check, those are still free.

Re:Checks

[Registered Coward v2]

USA is insane. I mean, the entire cheque-thing ? Hello ? As if it's not ridicolous to begin with, do you send email by handwriting it on paper, then taking a PHOTO of the letter, and sending that to your friend ? No ? Then why is doing the same thing with cheques reasonable ?

Well, checks do have some advantages

I can simply write one for a service instead of having to gain internet access, find the person's account and transfer the balance. Do I really want to do that for every transaction. No; I prefer deciding when to use electronic transfer.

I can avoid giving out my bank account information - I deposit checks simply by scanning them into my account; I don't have to provide everyone that sends me money with my account details; the security of which becomes questionable as more people have access to it.

I have a scanned copy of every check I wrote and was paid; if a question arises about payment I can prove they got paid.

I like being able to chose how I pay; rather than have someone tell me I can only use their desired system.

Re:Checks

[bdenton42]

I've never, ever, written a check.

But is your bank writing checks for you? I use the billpay feature on my bank's website, but more often than not it sends a physical check to the recipient. Sure I didn't write the check but effectively it is still the same thing.

Re:Checks

[ceoyoyo]

Around here we call that "making a payment." You're quite free to pay more than the balance on your card (through an error on my part and a refund, both VISA and Mastercard currently owe me money). I make those payments electronically, so I'm effectively "pushing money into credit cards directly."

There is no fee. The credit card companies are quite happy to have you give them money. Apparently they're not so good at giving it back (you have to spend it), but there aren't any fees.

Re:Checks

[jonwil]

We have this idea in Australia.

I can log onto my internet banking and instantly transfer money to any other Australian bank account if I have the account details. And it doesn't cost me a cent to do it. (some of the big banks may charge a very small fee, I dont know since I no longer bank with a big bank)

Also we have EFTPOS that many merchants (everything from McDonalds to Shell to Medical Practitioners to Toyota Dealers) sign up to. With EFTPOS you can use your bank account card and pin into a machine and you can pay for whatever it is you want to pay for. Again, my bank changes no fees for using EFTPOS. I was even able to pay a tradesperson with EFTPOS thanks to the invention of portable mobile EFTPOS machines that work anywhere with a mobile signal.

And I was able to pay for petrol/gas at a gas station in the middle of nowhere with EFTPOS (presumably they had a sattelite link)

I havent written a cheque in my life and the only times I have cashed a cheque in years were a couple times when relatives sent me money as birthday or xmas gifts and also for some reason if the real estate agent needs to pay me money they will use a cheque (e.g. if I have to get emergency work done on the rental property and then get reimbursed for the work, they will send me a cheque for some reason instead of simply doing an electronic transfer)

Re:Checks

[JonStewartMill]

I bought some real estate last year. I had to bring $16,000 to the closing. I had two options: have my (out of state) bank snail-mail me a 'bank check' or have them wire transfer the money to a local bank where my co-purchaser has an account. The fee to have a check drafted, printed and mailed to me was about $5. The fee to have the money wired to a local bank was three times that. Wire transfer may be easy and fast, but it's not cheap, not yet anyway.

Re:Checks

[mdwh2]

Then you give him cash

So I have to go to the cash machine, get out a load of money - which he then has to keep safe, and then take and deposit into his bank, just like with a cheque anyway? How is that an improvement?

tell him you transfer it from your bank account.

This one I wasn't aware of - is it possible to get money out of someone else's account? What details are needed?

We use two level one-time pin lists.

I'm unclear how you mean - if I want to log in using a random Internet connection, what information do I put in?

They rarely are.

Sorry, "rarely" isn't good enough if I need to transfer money there and then. I'll still keep cheques for those rare occasions. The claim isn't that cheques are "rarely" used (which I'd agree with), it's that they're apparently completely obsolete.

My bank has "maintenance" scheduled more than just rarely, in my experience.

It's illegal to keep money not send to you.

That's what I thought, but apparently it's not so straightforward:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8251679.stm

As for checksums, the issue was with people having the names stored on their online bank system. So that's another advantage of cheques, as there's no risk of that happening.

Re:Checks

[mcgrew]

In any case, the first thing I'd do on a stolen debit card, after hearing of your experience, would be to call the bank and change the PIN.

That's what I should have done of course, but I was so worried about the stolen car I wasn't thinking straight.

Re:Checks

[mdwh2]

Fair enough - but I find it much more convenient to just write a cheque than have to go to the bank myself, so it seems odd that cheques are written off as being the inconvenient method.

Also there is the issue of trust - whilst cheques can still bounce, I guess people would still rather receive a cheque from you when you're paying them, than "I'll go into my bank sometime soon, honest" (e.g., you're paying a small business that doesn't accept cards, as opposed to a friend).

As for a "fancy way" to give money, well there's also the risk. It means you can send money through the post, but if the post goes missing, the money isn't lost.

Re:Checks

[xaxa]

In British English it's commonly called a "bank transfer", "electronic transfer" or "online transfer".

(The bankers have their own acronyms for the different kinds of electronic transfer. Most people use the normal, free service 99.9% of the time.)

There's also Direct Debit, a regular transfer initiated each time by the recipient (e.g. for paying bills).

Re:Checks

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Hey, if it's regulated at all (like the same check-less system is in Europe), then it's not a big deal. As is, my paycheck is deposited to my savings account automatically and 90% of my bills are debited automatically. While you want debits tied to a card to reduce fraud, making it easier to set up one-time direct deposits (which is basically what a check-less scheme looks like) should be trivial. PayPal is designed around it; the fact that banks *don't* do it is the confusing thing.

Re:Checks

[jonadab]

> Or what if US just stops using inferior checks and just wires money like rest of the world?

Unlikely. Checks are much cheaper. You can get a whole box of checks (anywhere from a hundred or so to more like twice that, depending on whether you get the carbon-copy ones or the ones where you have to use a ledger) for the price of wiring money *once*.

Re:Checks

[oji-sama]

Even small businesses here accept cards. Most very small ones don't accept credit cards, but do accept debit cards (where the sum is taken from bank account). I don't think any company accepts cheques here... Or maybe they do, I certainly haven't tried.

And there are ATMs pretty much everywhere, so finding a place where you can't use card isn't really a problem here.

Re:Checks

[ncc74656]

When I file a tax return, for the govt. to deposit my return to my account via a wire transfer I am charged a wire transfer fee.

You're doing it wrong, then. The IRS sent my refund straight to my checking account, and it didn't cost a dime. All I did was fill in the routing and account numbers on my 1040. I could've had them cut a check and mail it to me, but the electronic transfer is faster. The full amount of the refund was deposited in my account, with nothing taken out for fees.

Re:Checks

[KingMotley]

Well first, I just the other day finished writing my 25th check from my checking account that I've had for 12 years. So I write about 2 checks a year, and I'd guess the majority of those were to set up direct deposit/auto withdrawl. See when you enter an agreement with a company to have them automatically pull the correct funds from your account every month, typically they ask you to send them a voided check because the bank information, and account number are on the check, which eliminates some errors in the process (debiting/crediting the wrong account because either it got copied wrong, remembered wrong, or their handwriting was so bad it can't be read).

And they aren't talking about mailing the checks. They are transmitting them online. Although, I agree that if I know someones routing number and account number, I should be able to transfer funds to it immediately with little to no hassle, and have it show up in the other account in less than 24 hours, but that's not the way it typically works unless you want to do an expensive wire transfer over here.

Re:Checks

[Ponder Stibions]

Like the UK is still 'threatening' to do? We haven't got rid of them yet, and we can spell Cheques properly!

I run a small business and anything over £100 that my clients pay me is by cheque, And quite a few things under £100 are done that way. I do accept money via paypal/credit card, but since they charge me a few percent to receive, I charge customers 5% to cover that, it's just not sensible.

Re:Checks

[fbjon]

Though I'm not him, I believe the answers are: (1) transfer account-to-account (2) transfer account-to-account (except perhaps for payment arrangements, loans and such, which complicate things) (3) transfer account-to-account. I'm in Finland, and transfers within the bank happen instantly, and bank-to-bank take no more than 3 bank days. All you need is the recipient's account number and some sort of name, and off you go. No fees at any point for anyone.

Re:Checks

[Hurricane78]

Frankly, we don’t use credit cards much. Exactly because of the fees.

We use EuroCheque (EC) cards. Which, as the name suggests, are a replacement for checks. As long as you use you own bank’s ATMs, or that of partner banks (usually enough so you don’t have to go far to find such an ATM), it costs absolutely nothing. Zero.
(With non-partner ATMs, it’s around 4€. But nobody uses that, unless pretty desperate.)

Re:Checks

[Orgasmatron]

Ahh, nothing makes me happier than some random euro tool posting evidence that they know nothing about the US banking system.

A banking system can choose to put security at the beginning of a transaction, or at the end. Putting it at the start means that the initiation of a transfer requires authentication that is, in someone's imagination, strong. Putting it at the end means that you audit the record after the fact and find errors and fraud that way.

In the US, the banking system decided a long, long time ago to use the audit approach. There are obvious trade-offs involved. For one, anyone that you give a check to now has literally everything they need to clean out your entire checking account. On the other hand, since everyone knows that the system has zero security on the front end, the clean up on the back end is generally pretty smooth.

Wasn't there a story not too long ago about a criminal operation in Europe that was doing some high tech ATM fraud? Weren't thousands of people deprived of their cash for years because the banks were so secure that they considered a breach to be impossible?

And before anyone gets into convenience, I should point out that US banking customers are not lacking for convenient ways to transfer money. I use my credit card whenever possible and earn 2% cash back on everything. For the few places that won't accept a credit card, they can use ACH (basically a check minus the paper) to pull the money from my account, or I can use my bank's online bill pay system to print a check (for free) and mail it (again free) to them, or better yet, straight to their bank for deposit. And if I need to do something in person, I still have the ability to write a check by hand (about 2 per year).

Re:Checks

[MozeeToby]

Oh, and as a bonus, that credit card is hooked to my overdraft protection.

FYI, this could be a seriously bad idea. At minimum, I would double (and then triple) check what you are responsible for if that card is stolen and the thief hits your overdraft protection for a few grand before you realize what's happening. It's entirely possible that the theft protections on your credit card won't cover what's pulled out of savings to cover overdraft. At minimum, it's quite likely that they won't cover the fees associated with that service.

Re:Checks

[Anonymous Coward]

Here the electric company would probably charge extra for a check, it they accept it at all.

Re:Checks

[quenda]

Or, here is a thought, why can't the local bank take a scan of the deposited cheque, instead of shipping them around the country?
I think that's how it works outside the US.

Me, I stopped using cheques some time last century, along with telex, telegrams, CB radio, 1c coins, and Imperial measurements.

The only good thing about the US banking system is drive-though teller machines. Why can't we have them here?

Re:Checks

[misexistentialist]

ING--admittedly not really a US bank--does "Person2Person" transfers for free.

Re:Checks

[nolife]

What bank do you use? Just asking because I'd like to consider that bank.

Re:Checks

[Clandestine_Blaze]

Does your debit card give you the option of using it as a credit card? My debit card has a VISA logo, so when I swipe my card and the PIN input screen shows up, I just hit cancel and it charges it as credit instead of debit. The money still comes out of my account the same, but since it's now going through Visa's network, there are extra protections against fraud.

What this does is if you choose credit, you're forced to sign the receipt (or the electronic screen) as opposed to inputting a PIN. When you sign, you're protected by Visa's Zero Liability policy.

The downside is -- again -- the money is immediately withdrawn from my available balance. By contrast, if I use a real credit card, I still have my money in my account, and in the case of fraud, I will never have to pay for it. If I use my debit (as a credit card) in the case of fraud, Visa will extend provisional credit within 5 days or something like that.

Re:Checks

[mtmra70]

Same could be said for cash. Checks are just a variable value cash bill if you think about it.
 
I prefer using my debit card for everything (unless I want to float a payment) because A) I only have to carry the one item and B) it costs me nothing to use it as debit/credit any place I go.

Re:Checks

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't insured the same way as banks are. In Canada for example the CDIC does not insure credit union deposits, only bank deposits. A cursory googling shows that FDIC is about the same. This is what puts people off credit unions.

That's because the Credit Unions are protected by provincial equivalents of the CDIC (DICO for Ontario etc...). Protection is exactly the same.

Re:Checks

[clone53421]

You don’t even have to start it off as a debit transaction... just say it’s a credit card and it’ll work fine.

Re:Checks

[tom17]

Good point, I missed that he said that.

My answer? Give them cash or get them to get with the fucking programme and get a bank account lol. If you don't have an account, don't expect to use efficient modern banking methods.

I get that you can cash cheques and they would like to use this. Tough tittie for them I say, it's an antiquated system.

Tom...

Re:Checks

[businessnerd]

As someone who uses both a credit union and a bank, I recently had a discussion with the credit union about switching my checking over to the credit union. My first question was ATM availability and fees. This pretty much decided it. As someone who travels constantly for work, I need ATMs available without fees in most of the country. The credit union had plenty of ATMs where I live, but none outside of that area. While they offered 8 free transactions at out-of-network ATMs, that wasn't good enough for someone who travels weekly. On top of that, the actual ATM fee was higher than what my current bank charges. I don't get reimbursed for ATM fees, so this expense adds up very quickly.

The other factor was online banking. The credit union's web site is terrible and their online bill pay tools even worse. I pay all of my bills online and even send checks to individuals via the online bill pay (saves the cost of both checks and stamps). Not having decent tools for this is a deal breaker. Granted, the credit union is not all bad. They gave me a very competitive rate on an auto loan, but then at the same time, paying that loan is not as easy as it was when I had a loan with Volkswagen Credit. I hear a lot of people touting the superiority of credit unions over banks, but I have yet to see any evidence of this for my own banking needs.

Re:Checks

[david_thornley]

Really? My wife has been using electronic money transfer on our Wells Fargo account without charge. It's a big national bank here in the US, so I'd imagine if you're in the US you could open an account with them. You might want to see about changing banks.

Re:Checks

[david_thornley]

Speaking for my family, the banks are just a lot more convenient than our credit union. We still have savings accounts and do business with it, but the real financial activity is easier with the banks.

Re:Checks

[Man Eating Duck]

But is your bank writing checks for you? I use the billpay feature on my bank's website, but more often than not it sends a physical check to the recipient. Sure I didn't write the check but effectively it is still the same thing.

This is incredible. I had absolutely no idea the U.S. still was this backwards (I assume you're from there). In Norway banks use those fancy mainframe computers, a common payment network, and file transfers to deal with simple transactions. Pushing single transactions around on paper must be horribly inefficient. Before computers became a commodity among the population here the banks OCR'ed invoices or had automated touch-tone phone centrals where the payer entered the transactions into a similar system. It would then deposit it from my account to the recipient's more or less automatically. Once in the bank's systems the transaction would not use the money-over-paper protocol.

This is not meant as flamebait, mod me down if you must, I'm simply flabbergasted by what the PP and others write here. The 'submit a picture of your check' (check by fax?) concept as an improvement of anything-regarding-checks sounds like a bad joke someone would tell about 'fancy technology' in some very poor country with a made-up name.

Similar to another poster, I'm 33 and I've never written a check, I do remember that my parents used them in the mid-eighties though.

Re:Checks

[bberens]

These days your debit card transactions are all ACH also.

Re:Checks

[CarlosM7]

My bank gives me a checking account + Visa debit card for $5 a month, the credit union where I do hold a savings account gives you a checking account + ATM (eg, not Visa nor Master Card debit cards) card for $8 a month (haven't checked their competitors, though).

Re:Checks

[Eivind]

Yeah. I agree. People who insist on behaving like children, should rather have the bank hold their hand.

Here's a hint: many adult human beings are perfectly capable of realizing that just because they -can- max out the credit-line, doesn't mean it's a wise thing to do.

But by all means, if you're happy with paying 10% rather than 3%, for the benefit of being held in the hand by the bank, rather than treated as an adult human being, then more power to you. (and more money to the bank !)

Re:Checks

[realsilly]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_transfer

http://www.bankofamerica.com/deposits/checksave/index.cfm?template=lc_faq_wire

https://www.wellsfargo.com/investing/styles/wt/com_fees/fees

https://online.citibank.com/JRS/portal/template.do?ID=MoneyXfrCompare

This is just to name a few.

Re:Checks

[Eivind]

I don't. And I'm aware of that loophole. That credit-card-companies give 1-2 months of interest-free credit, in an attempt to make people use the cards more, because they know that many of the people who plan to pay the entire debt, infact fail to do so.

Yes, for people with the required self-control, that's a reasonable thing to do, take advantage of the free credit, but never pay any interest. I agree.

Most people though, don't have that self-control in practice. Did you look up the average interest-bearing credit-card-debt of american households anytime recently ?

Re:Checks

[Eivind]

Well, I guess that's true for those people who have nothing of value except the house. For the rest of us though, the credit-card-companies do a lot more than "send bitchy letters". You're in essence arguing that credit-card-debt is preferable, if you take up debt that you expect there's a high risk you'll be unable to pay. That's a pretty stupid thing to do in the first place though. And in -practice- lots of people -do- pay the minimum payments, year after year. In other words, they manage to cover the dept at 14%APR or whatever. If they can do that, they obviously could do it even better at 3%.

Re:Checks

[AndrewNeo]

Actually I guess I forgot about this in my post. My primary bank is a credit union, but I use ING Direct to get 1.1% interest compared to my CU's 0.25%.

Re:Checks

[AndrewNeo]

Yet my credit union gives me both a checking account with a Mastercard debit card, and a Visa credit card, for no fees at all.

Re:Checks

[LanMan04]

It costs $20 to wire money at my credit union. I'm sure regular banks are even more expensive.

How about international ACH?

Re:Checks

[Eivind]

I know. It just seems so.... archaic ? you know ?

A bit like discovering that your boss still writes all business-correspondence with a feather that he dips in a inkwell and write on parchment.

Yes, sure, one can do that. And yes, sure, there's -some- advantages to that, I suppose. Nevertheless most people would react by going "you do -WHAT- ?"

I wonder sometimes, if you're aware of -how- archaic cheques seem to someone from say Scandinavia. Sure, you -can- use cheques here too, you know ? It's just that people will look at you as if you show up at work with a horse instead of a car.

Not only is internet-banking with direct-transfer the norm, but I can, for example, completely change banks without leaving the chair in which I'm currently sitting, and have, agreements with companies to directly withdraw from my account stay in effect. Some companies instead send an electronic bill, which show up in the bank automatically (but must be manually confirmed to be paid), and yes, those too will show up in my new bank as they should, with no need to inform the companies that I've switched banks.

That's just one random example. The point is that at a first glance, the bank-services I see in USA, remind me most of how things used to work here, in the 1970ies or 80ies. Very far from what I'd consider modern or practical.

Re:Checks

[Eivind]

But that's not what you do for a simple service. You insert your chip-card in the reader, and enter your TAN when asked to confirm the amount. The entire process takes less than 10 seconds, to the point where people who pay -cash- are holding up the line because it takes twice as long as paying by card. And yeah, behind the scenes, when you do that, what happens is that money is transfered from your account to the service-provider. So what ?

Re:Checks

[Anonymous Coward]

Very few US financial institutions still ship checks. Almost all use a Check 21 product. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Check_21_Act

Re:Checks

[Aladrin]

I pay it every month as well. But when withdrawing cash from the credit card, there is -immediate- interest accrued. It doesn't have the 1-month loophole. And overdraft counts as withdrawing cash.

So as I said, for emergencies it's fine.

Re:Checks

[Aladrin]

Not from my account online. I can do it at an ATM machine or at the bank, I'm sure.

Re:Checks

[clone53421]

That’s a cash advance fee, and it’s completely different from a normal interest. The charges are entirely different and probably have a different interest rate as well.

Just to illustrate that they’re completely different:

One of my credit cards had two different types of checks that they sent me. One type was considered a cash advance, charged a flat rate fee on top of the check’s face value, and had a low interest rate for the duration of the loan. The 2nd type was considered identical to a normal purchase, had no fee, the same 30-day grace period beyond the end of the statement date, and then the same interest rate if it wasn’t paid off by then.

Of course, if you mail them a payment, they’ll apply it to your cash advance balance before your credit transactions, because the interest rate is lower and that’s most beneficial for them...

Re:Checks

[Aladrin]

Immediate is the wrong word, then. There is a cash advance fee, yes, but interest starts accruing immediately as well.

Re:Checks

[cayenne8]

"Oh, and what's up with paying huge interest-rates on a "credit card" when most people have a much cheaper line of credit backed by their house anyways ? "

Many people...hell, I'd dare say most people don't own their own house.

Re:Checks

[gumbi west]

Thanks for the tip. Yo don't have to be a member to bank with them.

Can you also (a) link a savings account with good interest and have 0 cost transfers and (b) pay bills online (including to individuals, not just the utilities et cetera)?

Re:Checks

[serialband]

If you're a long time customer and have sufficient funds, BofA kisses your ass and frequently waives your fees. It's been decades since they've ever tried charging me for anything. BofA has alway screwed the little guy with. That happened to me when I was in college and I knew several other people who kept getting screwed. Their motto in my mind has always been "Banking on the Backs of Americans" whenever I heard their old commercials claimming to be "Banking on America". It was why Wells Fargo succeeded in the 80s, they were nicer with fees to the college students back then.

All the major banks treat you like dirt if you have very little in the accounts. They charge fees on everything. Once you reach a certain threshhold of money in your accounts, they try to go out of their way to keep you happy and waive fees. When I was just starting out in college, I kept bouncing up and down from that threshhold, so they frequently attempted to charge me fees until I point out the other accounts in other BofA branches that are out of state. Because of antitrust laws, BofA in each state is officially a separate entity. In retarded California, the NorCal and SoCal branches of BofA are also separate entities. They have to pull up a separate database to access the accounts in the other BofA entities to find all of your accounts, before they realize you have more money than just in their branches in that state.

It was a constant hassle back then to keep asking for the fees to be waived because my other accounts were not in the same state, but in the same BofA. It's the same BofA owned by the same corporate masters, but they are different entities. I had to retrain each of their new hires, because the goddamn banks had such high turnover. As long as you have sufficient money in the bank you don't get charged. Below that threshhold, they'll find numerous ways to nickel & dime you to death. I can only imagine the perks that multimillionairs get at their banks.

Re:Checks

[gumbi west]

That would be slick if we could do that. One problem is that in the US we have a semi-broken system called ACH which allows someone to take money from our account if they know our bank number. This is regularly used by companies legitimately but you can't control who can do it, so others can just take your money. In many instances, your bank can't even tell you where they money went.

Re:Checks

[gumbi west]

(3) is the deal breaker (although see the next post). When I last checked, if you want to receive money on paypal you had to link it to a bank account. I had a friend and a friend of a friend have their bank accounts emptied out this way. Really fun experience. They got nothing back.

Re:Checks

[Registered Coward v2]

But that's not what you do for a simple service. You insert your chip-card in the reader, and enter your TAN when asked to confirm the amount. The entire process takes less than 10 seconds, to the point where people who pay -cash- are holding up the line because it takes twice as long as paying by card. And yeah, behind the scenes, when you do that, what happens is that money is transfered from your account to the service-provider. So what ?

You assume everyone has a reader and or checks are only written to established fixed businesses - I write checks to a lot of individuals - to replace checks would require every individual to have a reader and some sort of mobile access - clearly not a practical solution when checks work just fine now. DO I write a lot - no; but when I do it is helpful. In addition, many small business I do regular business prefer checks form their good customers - they pay no processing fee; unlike with other electronic methods. While the cost per transaction is small, it adds up over a number of transactions; and I doubt banks will do this for free, even if it reduces the cost of processing checks.

Re:Checks

[Dahan]

Why do you feel the need to artificially limit the discussion to "wire transfers"? While it's true that all US banks that I know of do charge fairly hefty fees for wire transfers ($10 and up), a wire transfer isn't the only way to electronically send money to someone.

FYI, Discover Bank lets me do an ACH transfer to anyone (given their bank routing number and account number) for free. Funds will be available to the recipient in about 3 business days. Now if 3 days is too long, domestic wire transfers cost $20, and funds will be available the same day. However, for non-emergency uses, 3 days is no problem, and I've never had to make a wire transfer.

Re:Checks

[josath]

ING Direct allows you to make electronic transfers from your Checking account to any US checking or savings account at any US bank, for free. It's not instant like wire transfers, it usually takes 2-3 business days.

Re:Checks

[742Evergreen]

Not the other poster, but I guess it would be something similar to how I would do it (in The Netherlands):

- I go to my bank's site and log into my account
- Select the amount I want to transfer and the account I want to transfer it to.
- Press send and wait for the confirmation code that arrives by SMS after a few seconds

This won't cost me a cent.

Alternatively I can go to the ATM machine of any bank and withdraw the money if I want to pay in cash. Also free.

Re:Checks

[ottothecow]

Because most ACH transfers require a two way relationship to exist. Also ACH transfers can have some strict limits...BofA and Citibank both seem to limit you to something around 3000 a day and 6-10k a month from a bit of googling...there are some online-only places with higher limits (25k/day and 50k/m for discover) but I prefer to do my standard payments with brick and mortar banks (we ARE talking about replacing checks here...not occasional transfers from your high interest savings account). Also, if its a high-interest savings account, you will hit reg D limits after 6 transactions...

Also, 3 days may not be much of a problem but it is not good enough to replace a check. I hand you a check right now and you can deposit it right away (withdrawal availability times may vary, but the balance will show and some will be available). I can also write you a check for $10,000 without issue. A wire transfer does this the same or better--thus making it a good replacement for a check. Funds are available fast and there are no silly limits...It is a workable solution that is used the rest of the world over...so why does it cost so much here? It's not an artificial limit at all--I have been asked to wire money to Europe in quantities less than the fee for sending a wire transfer (my cost-minimizing solution was to make an international phone call and read them my credit card number). ACH can't do this (and honestly why in this world should moving numbers between electronic accounts take 3 days?)

Re:Checks

[plague3106]

Actually I pay 0%, because I pay the purchase off before the grace period expires. And I keep my limit well within my means (my CC limit is MUCH less than the equity in my house). I get an interest free loan for 20 days or so.

You see, its actually most cost effective for me to have a single small limit credit card, and since I'd like to actually OWN my home sometime in the near future, borrowing its equity doesn't allow me to do that.

So do as you please, and if you believe having a home equity loan vs. a credit card loan is a good idea, because you somehow believe its superior, more power to you. But a loan is a loan, and it wasn't that long ago that my (still) 8% rate card was lower than any home equity rate.

Re:Checks

[Moridin42]

Well, yes, there is a fee for the cash advance. And usually a different rate for purchases than cash advances. But Aladrin is right. Interest for cash advance transactions starts the day the transaction posts. There is no grace period.

Re:Checks

[ergean]

You can use Western Union/National postal services or other services - all you need is the name and the address. In some cases only the name and the city you want it delivered.

In Romania - Posta Romana even comes to your door and hands you the money. I know is crazy - the lady that delivers the mail around here handed me the equivalent of 2000 euros in the street in front of my house. It's insane, but it is how it works.

Here anyone employed usually has a bank account to receive the paycheck.

If I want to make a transfer via internet it takes me 2-3 minutes, if the transfer is to an account in the same bank it is instantly available, if it's between banks the money are available in 1-2 hours. The fee for less the 100 dollars is like 1 dollar and for more then 100 is like 2 dollars, half in the same bank.

Re:Checks

[mrmeval]

Kiting a check is illegal. I do believe the shiny new law was supposed to do the same thing back to the banks and make it illegal for them to do and adverse sort on deposits vs withdrawals.

Re:Checks

[jonadab]

> But have you tried to do a "Wire Transfer?"

Yeah, I had to do that once. The fee for the service was insane, like $10 plus 5% of the amount or something outrageous like that. Not such a big deal for a one-time thing, but it's definitely not something I'd want to do on a regular basis for paying my monthly bills.

Re:Checks

[longbot]

Because credit unions have shitty customer service (at least the one I was with did) ancient technology, and a grand total of SIX in-network ATMs within a 20-mile radius of where I lived. Oh, and checks were 10x as expensive through them as through the bank I switched to.

Re:Checks

[Eivind]

Fair point, if you want to pay private individuals on a regular basis, and don't want to carry cash to do that with. As for businesses, I've got no idea why you think the business needs to be "fixed", there's mobile terminals for doing this, there's no more reason a payterminal needs to be tethered, than say a phone needs to be tethered.

It's true there's costs. Typically not transaction-fees, but you do pay a fee to borrow or permanently have one of the terminal-thingies. It's considered cheaper than dealing with cash though. (dealing with cash takes -time-, and is an inherently high-risk operation, if you have a lot of it lying around, you need precautions against theft etc, which also isn't free) I guess cheques might be better than cash, from the payers perspective. The recipient, though, has an additional worry: he doesn't actually know that there's money to cover the cheque. Want to take a guess at what it costs businesses to deal with bounced cheques ?

Re:Checks

[drkim]

HEY! Nobody calls us "stuffy"

Re:Checks

[Registered Coward v2]

Fair point, if you want to pay private individuals on a regular basis, and don't want to carry cash to do that with. As for businesses, I've got no idea why you think the business needs to be "fixed", there's mobile terminals for doing this, there's no more reason a payterminal needs to be tethered, than say a phone needs to be tethered.

It's true there's costs. Typically not transaction-fees, but you do pay a fee to borrow or permanently have one of the terminal-thingies. It's considered cheaper than dealing with cash though. (dealing with cash takes -time-, and is an inherently high-risk operation, if you have a lot of it lying around, you need precautions against theft etc, which also isn't free) I guess cheques might be better than cash, from the payers perspective. The recipient, though, has an additional worry: he doesn't actually know that there's money to cover the cheque. Want to take a guess at what it costs businesses to deal with bounced cheques ?

I agree that a POS terminal virtually eliminates the bad check problem; and that mobile terminals can handle a lot of business transactions as well. Although, many of the places I used to pay with check, such as pizza delivery, take internet orders so now I just pay via credit card online. Quite a few places also take echecks online as well.

There's the issue of consumer protection to sort out as well. While someone could wash a check, if someone gets your card info they can wipe out your bank account and your stuck waiting to sort it out; that's why i prefer a credit card over both methods - at least I am not out money on a fraudulent charge.

There are pluses and minuses to all methods of payment. I think one reason Europe developed a more advanced payment system was due to all teh currency in use prior to the Euro - they needed a way to make cross-border payment easy and so developed teller machine networks, postal payment schemes, and the old EuroCheck and card system for paying in say, DMs or Escudos when you have a Swiss account; that eventually morphed into an electronic payment system as people became used to electronic transfers.

In the US at least, the push is more from banks to go to such as scheme as it reduces their costs; and it is starting to gain steam but is not yet a normal way to do business. I'd guess more is done via credit card than debit cards; at least from my anecdotal observations.

Re:Checks

[ResidentSourcerer]

As a small businessman I like cheques. I grow trees, and sell from the farm and from farmers markets. A point of sale terminal to accept plastic would cost me $40 per month, and on top of that I'd lose 2-3% of each sale to the banks.

With cheques, I take them in the next day, and deposit them.

Sure there's a risk of getting a bad cheque. So far that hasn't happened.

When I order trees from across the country I offer to pay by visa or cheque. The bigger outfits prefer VISA, the smaller ones cheques.

Re:Checks

[lsatenstein]

Why can't we just use the checks as cash. Pay by a cheque, and if it below the amount, add some cash or another cheque. Why keep the money in banks.

Re:Checks

[left00coaster]

Actually, I've been depositing checks this way to my bank, USAA, for years.

Though I'm not sure other institutions have been following what used to be the PRIMARY rule in banking: "Know Your Customer," USAA requires an existing trust relationship with the customer. Otherwise, the potential for fraud becomes too great to support the method.

Cheques?

[unixcrab]

Those are those paper thingies that nobody seems to accept these days aren't they?

Re:Cheques?

[WrongSizeGlass]

I wonder if my iPhone will be able to get a good enough picture of the giant check I'll get when I finally win the lottery?

Oh yeah, great idea

[Pojut]

Just what I want on my cell phone...a picture of a piece of paper that has my checking account number and bank routing number on it. ::eye roll::

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[Lev13than]

Just what I want on my cell phone...a picture of a piece of paper that has my checking account number and bank routing number on it. ::eye roll::

Everyone you have ever given a cheque to already has your account number, bank routing number and home address. Despite the little lock watermark and "micro-printing", cheques are 100% non-secure and should be treated as such. At least the iPhone has a four-digit password to protect it...

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[OzPeter]

Just what I want on my cell phone...a picture of a piece of paper that has my checking account number and bank routing number on it. ::eye roll::

You forgot about the second pic of the back side of the check that also has your signature on it - nothing could ever go wrong with that, even thought TFA assures that the images will be encrypted when sent.

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[Pojut]

I have a checkbook that I got from my bank when I opened my first checking account when I turned 16 (almost 10 years ago)...and every one of those checks are still attatched to their little booklets:-)

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[OzPeter]

Everyone you have ever given a cheque to already has your account number, bank routing number and home address. Despite the little lock watermark and "micro-printing", cheques are 100% non-secure and should be treated as such. At least the iPhone has a four-digit password to protect it...

Its not that the checks are currently not secure - its the element of collecting the data electronically and punting the information around additional networks.

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[jittles]

USAA Bank app for the iPhone already lets you do this. You don't actually save the image to your phone, it is stored in RAM and then immediately transmitted over the air to the bank servers (hopefully encrypted but who knows?).

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[knarf]

iPhone?

Why on earth did you have to mention that thing in your posting?

If this continues I suggest a corollary to Godwin's law: mention anything fruity out of context and you're out of the game.

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[Lumpy]

checks are supposed to have magnetic ink for the MICR code on the bottom.. Problem is that buying a drum of magnetic toner to print fake checks is trivial. and with scumbag companies like quicken selling blank check paper to anyone, you have a super easy way of faking checks with a $30.00 used laser printer and a $100.00 thowaway computer.

Shit scan someone signature and you can completely fake the check in gimp without effort.

Paper checks needed to be done away with 50 years ago, the greedy banks simple dont want to do wire transfers for free to each other, they love being able to rape their customers with those made-up fees.

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[xaosflux]

You forgot about the second pic of the back side of the check that also has your signature on it - nothing could ever go wrong with that, even thought TFA assures that the images will be encrypted when sent.

Easy enough, don't sign it..."FOR DEPOSIT ONLY" is pretty much universally accepted, you should never have to actually sign your check unless you are exchanging it for cash or transfering it to someone else.

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[PPalmgren]

Whatever happened to people saying "my phone." Not "my iPhone, Droid, n900..." Its quite possibly the douchiest way of trying to make yourself seem more important(99% of the time the brand isn't relevant to the conversation). I wonder if these are the same people that hold their phones and beer bottles so everyone else can see the logo.

Yes, traffic sucked this morning. /rant off

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[plague3106]

There should be a law where if you mention Godwins law you're out of the game... because invariable people that invoke it thinks it ends the discussion, which isn't the case. Godwins law only states that it WILL come up, but it says nothing on if its relevent or can or should end the discussion.

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[plague3106]

Even if you write for deposit only, you still need to sign it. You also should indicate your account number, otherwise I can deposit the check to my account..

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[mdwh2]

I fully agree with the above two posts. It seems to be something particularly specific to Apple - e.g., also people referring to their "MacBook" or indeed "Mac" rather than generic terms like laptop, computer or PC. You can always tell an Iphone user, as they'll get out their phone and make a big thing of "I'm going to check a website On My Iphone" as so on, as if this was some impressive feat (it was impressive in 2001; it became bog standard on any old phone by about 2005). This probably helps lead to the myth that Apple are most popular, as the 95% with Nokias, Motorolas and so on simply don't mention it.

I wonder if these are the same people that hold their phones and beer bottles so everyone else can see the logo.

I'm surprised Apple haven't added a projector, so that the Apple logo can be projected onto a nearby wall, everytime they get out their phone.

It's even more bizarre and annoying when you get these people referring to "Iphone style devices". Yes, if only we had a generic term for the type of device that the Iphone was...

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[drseamus]

Agreed. All you non-USAA people are chumps, I've been doing this for almost a year.

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[clone53421]

If it is marked “For deposit only” and signed, it can only legally be deposited into an account held under the name that is written on the check, and that you signed.

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[Inda]

It's normal to quote your account number and sort code on invoices in the UK. What good are those number in the USA? I have no qualms about people paying money into my bank account.

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[natehoy]

Not only that, but the quality of MICR is iffy from check printer to check printer, so most check processing companies have a little yellow strip they can stick on the bottom of the check and re-code a new MICR line so the check can be processed. So you really don't need magnetic ink on the check at all.

Plus many of the check processors have moved on to OCR and don't care if the ink is magnetic anyway.

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[KingMotley]

It's important because the iPhone has an absolutely horrid camera.

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[JoeWalsh]

I was reading your post on my Blackberry while sipping some Starbucks when I realized you're right!

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[StuartHankins]

Mod parent up. This is old news for USAA members.

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[Syberz]

At least the iPhone has a four-digit password to protect it...

Which can be cracked 20 times faster with and ATI card and the ElcomSoft software! l@@k!
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/03/16/1346258/Blazing-Fast-Password-Recovery-With-New-ATI-Cards

Note: Editors, you can wire my slashvertisement cut to the usual account ;)

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[nilbog]

Also available for Android. USAA FTW!

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[mdwh2]

Nonsense. The higher end phones had fully usable browsers years before the first Iphone model (e.g., Opera Mobile was first released in 2000; Symbian has been around for years too). It's the cheaper lower end phones that had simpler browsers - but then these were way cheaper than the cheapest Iphone anyway, so it's an irrelevant and unfair comparison.

Sure, I suspect that the Iphone browser in 2007 might have been slightly better than a smartphone browser in 2005 or before, but there were also better non-Iphone browsers in 2007. If the best you can say is that the Iphone was slightly better than old phones - well duh, I should hope so. All companies have been making better phones, it's called progress.

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[Genocaust]

Yep, 3 USAA. Old news for us, even on Android platforms. Been using Deposit@Home with the scanner even longer though :)

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[jeffrlamb]

Mod parent up. This has worked for months and is awesome for USAA customers. www.usaa.com

Checks!

[OzPeter]

Another technology where the US is the world leader!

Go USA! Go USA!

Re:Checks!

[dunezone]

Please the chant is...

USA! USA! USA!

Obviously you are traitor, commie, or even worse a socialist.

Re:Checks!

[OzPeter]

Obviously you are traitor, commie, or even worse a socialist.

If by that you mean foreigner, then you are correct.

Re:Checks!

[mdwh2]

It's not the USA where cheques are still used - it's the world outside of Slashdot, i.e., people who don't sit at their computers all day long.

Re:Checks!

[Delkster]

I don't know a single non-geek in my country, or anywhere outside of the USA, who would use cheques. That includes my ~70-year-old parents who are definitely not Slashdot geeks. They just pay their bills through their online bank service, as do any number of other relatives who didn't grow up with computers either. As for paying for purchases at shops, it's cash or bank/credit/debit cards, as it has been for ages.

I have some relatives who have probably never used a computer at all, and I guess they still pay their bills either by physically visiting banks or at payment ATMs, but I don't know of anyone using cheques in any kinds of everyday situations.

Cheques might still be used for trophies in some kinds of lotteries etc., for their symbolic value of looking fancy, but not really much of anything else. I've never paid anything with a cheque, and I think I've received one exactly once, sometime about 20 years ago.

Re:Checks!

[shutdown -p now]

It really is a North American thing.

I've first seen a cheque (apart from pics in Wikipedia) when I came to Canada, slightly over a year ago. My mother got her checkbook when she opened a Canadian bank account a few years before that, and she still has no idea as to how to actually write a cheque, and only a vague idea of how they work in general.

Re:Checks!

[rdnetto]

Obviously you are traitor, commie, or even worse a socialist.

Judging by his username, I'd say he's an Australian. So I guess that makes him a socialist convict.

USAA has been doing this for years

[Not-a-Neg]

USAA has offered "Deposit@Home" for years. Instead of taking a photo you can just scan the check and upload it. The only problem is they require you to have a credit card with them as well to qualify for the service. Hopefully, if other banks offer this service for free than USAA will change that policy. I hate having to mail in checks and sit around for two weeks waiting for them to deposit it.

Re:USAA has been doing this for years

[clone53421]

I hate having to mail in checks and sit around for two weeks waiting for them to deposit it.

Typically if you make the deposit at an ATM or branch location it doesn’t take nearly as long. I can’t imagine why I’d want to mail a check for deposit.

US Bank, on the other hand, puts a 5 or 7 day hold on all checks over $5,000, which is stupid and I hate it.

Re:USAA has been doing this for years

[Pojut]

All of the ATMs that the bank I belong to operates (Chevy Chase bank...somewhat local bank here in Maryland) can accept straight up cash or a signed check without needing to put it in an envelope...the money is available in your account right then and there (unless it's a Sunday and you are depositing a check...if you deposit cash in one of their ATMs, even on Sunday, it's available instantly.)

Re:USAA has been doing this for years

[viking099]

I believe USAA also has an app for the iPhone and Android systems where you can snap a photo and upload it.

I've been using Deposit@Home for a while now and it's awesome.

Re:USAA has been doing this for years

[japhering]

USAA has offered "Deposit@Home" for years. Instead of taking a photo you can just scan the check and upload it. The only problem is they require you to have a credit card with them as well to qualify for the service. Hopefully, if other banks offer this service for free than USAA will change that policy. I hate having to mail in checks and sit around for two weeks waiting for them to deposit it.

USAA has been offering services via cell phone including check deposits for better than a year now. Everything you can do via computer and the web you can do via cell phone

Re:USAA has been doing this for years

[Brandee07]

The problem lies when you move away from MD, where there aren't Chevy Chases. You can withdraw from any ATM (for a fee), but have fun trying to deposit a check to your Chevy Chase account at a WaMu ATM. In this case, your only options are to switch banks or to mail in your checks.

So, I gladly welcome the ability to scan checks in. Right now, USAA is the only bank I know of doing it, and they only have one branch, but service military personnel and families all across the country. My bank, SECU, has a total of six branches, none of which are near my home or work, so I have to make a dedicated trip to go deposit a check. If I was eligible to join USAA, I would in a heartbeat. As it is, I have to hope SECU will think about implementing it.

Re:USAA has been doing this for years

[vekrander]

The only reason for mailing here is that USAA doesn't have physical branches in every state but is still available there. Of course to remedy that you can deposit@home with a scanner as I have for two years without any issues. Also, they credit your account instantly as well. Then when you need to go to an ATM and you get charged fees for using one that isn't in your banks network, they pay fee on your behalf. Overall, I would rate them very successful as far as doing everything I used to do at my physical bank, except the convenience is better. Now why would someone use a bank that they can't physically go to? Personally, I do it for the customer service. I'm not sure exactly how their banking branch is, but their insurance branch is owned by the policy holders, which I also am a member of and the service there is what convinced me to use them as my financial institution. Either way, they've proved to me that there are many less reasons to need a physical bank now.

Re:USAA has been doing this for years

[DarkSarin]

They do.

I've been using Deposit@Home for a few years now. I'm not sure if you have to have a credit card through them or not to make it work, but it is a very slick process.

I was confused why this is news--the USAA iPhone app was featured on /. when it first became public information. Other banks are just slow I guess....

Re:USAA has been doing this for years

[ArtemaOne]

They don't require a credit card. They require two services, so if you do banking and car insurance for example, that would work.

Re:USAA has been doing this for years

[shoehornjob]

You might want to check into this because I have USAA and one of their debit cards tied to a checking account and they let me use the Deposit@Home service. It's a pain in the ass scanning both sides of the check but it beats sending it by snailmail. Oh and btw the Mercury News is a bit behind the times because Bank of America already has this.

Re:USAA has been doing this for years

[yellekc]

USAA's deposit@mobile service is pretty neat. But it takes a bit of work. You need something dark for the background. I usually use a black shirt or jacket. You also need good lighting. You still get use of the funds instantly. I've used their check scanning for years, but I now use the mobile version more often. Feel bad for my old Canoscan, scanning checks was practically the only reason I've kept it.

Re:USAA has been doing this for years

[clone53421]

Yeah; that’s why I don’t deposit checks to US Bank. UMB will clear the check within a day or so.

Re:USAA has been doing this for years

[eDrifter]

Yes, Deposit@home, scanning checks on your desk top has been around for years. Deposit@moble, snapping a pic of a check from your iPhone (or android?) has been around for about a year. This feature has been incredible since I live in the sticks and the closest bank has been lifted a dozen times in as many years. You just sign the check, write "For deposit only to..." and snap a pic of the front and back, your done! I should point out a couple pros/cons about the service:
The Good: Its just awesome! The second I upload the photo of the check the money is available in my account. (checking or savings) It save so much time, seriously, who goes to the bank? My Grandfather!
The Bad: The app can be difficult to use, often having to take the picture repeatedly. If you jack-up that signature line your SOL. You do need a credit card with USAA to use this service. There is a $10,000 limit to daily deposits.
The Ugly: I recently received a call from USAA, one of the pictures did not come out... The check had been deposited almost three months prior to the call, and they took that money right out of my account and basically said "go get another check." My Grandfather, the originator of the check (he still gives me birthday money!) took advantage of the situation to give me one of those ol' time lectures about how he used to walk to the bank, in the snow...
- My Grandfather is my hero!

Re:USAA has been doing this for years

[viking099]

I love my old Canoscan, too. Except Canon didn't release a driver for it under Windows 7. So now I'm considering loading up XP on a VM, and continuing to use it.

Overkill? Probably.

Re:USAA has been doing this for years

[Manuka]

USAA has allowed this from their iPhone app for over a year now as well.

meh, should have used USAA

[TheDawgLives]

I've been doing this for months using USAA's iPhone app. When I showed my mom, she went out and got an iPhone and started using it. Before that I used their deposit@home service to scan checks on my computer. Beats driving to the bank just to deposit a check.

Re:meh, should have used USAA

[Luyseyal]

I use a tiny credit union that probably won't have this for awhile. That said, when grandma mailed us a check for five lousy dollars a couple of months ago, it would have been nice to have this technology available. Instead, I waited until I got a much larger check from an insurance company before I made the trip to el banco.

If every bank was like Paypal, I could just send her my info and she could send me the money directly. Screw you and your good ideas, Europe!

-l

Scanning a check exists now

[yog]

USAA lets me scan a check for instant deposit using a Windows browser, a Java applet and an attached scanner.

I'm a Linux kind of guy and, sadly, I have not found a way to make it work on my Ubuntu and Suse systems. But, it works great with my Windows laptop and it's simply the next best thing to direct deposit.

Obviously, a good secure app for smartphones (hopefully one is coming soon for Android but they've only announced for iPhone so far) will be a step beyond the scanner approach.

I kind of like the idea that someone hands me a check, and by the time they have closed their briefcase I have already made the deposit. No more canceling. It would be interesting to see if they can determine whether the check is good or not, and send instant feedback.

The next step is going to be depositing cash. I would love to be able to quickly scan my cash into my account, and then tear up the paper money (honors system). Hmm; gotta think that one through a bit more.

Re:Scanning a check exists now

[loafula]

USAA has both an iPhone and Android app. The android app requires OS version 1.6, so it won't run on an Eris unless you upgrade to 2.1 with the leaked firmware. I don't have the link handy, but it's somewhere in here http://androidforums.com/htc-droid-eris/

Re:Scanning a check exists now

[spvo]

Almost all the checks I cash are rebates, which USAA's applet can't handle, so I have to mail everything in anyway. But I did manage to get it working with linux. All I had to do was change my useragent string (useragent plug-in) to firefox on a mac and it will just prompt you to upload the jpeg image of your check.

Re:Scanning a check exists now

[yog]

great tip, spvo! It works. And as the AC below points out, the USAA android app does indeed have the Deposit@Mobile feature now. Boy am I glad I clicked on this story.

Re:Scanning a check exists now

[smaddox]

I run Ubuntu, as well. I've found it's easiest to install virtualbox and create a winxp virtual image for this purpose. If you make a snapshot after installing your drivers & java, then you can just restore to it so you don't have to worry about a virus somehow getting in. This is much safer than running an actual windows box, IMHO (for financial reasons, no less).

Re:Scanning a check exists now

[RandyOo]

I've deposited quite a few rebate checks over the past few years using Deposit@Home without any problems. Even deposited a USPS money order (purchased on base), as a last-resort way to get cash from my wallet in Germany into my USAA bank account.

If memory serves, there may have been one rebate check (out of dozens) that the system couldn't handle. Might be worth your while to give it another shot...

I hate cheques!

[bsDaemon]

First off, why would people be critical of eliminating float?! This is the worst part of using cheques -- sort of like making a "credit" purchase on a debit card. If I'm paying someone, I want them to take the money out of my account NOW so that my balance updates immediately. Of course, no one really takes cheques anyway except for leasing offices and the like -- people who know where you live without a shadow of a doubt. I only ever write cheques for my leasing office, which is why I'm still on the same box I've had since I was 18... which reminds me, I sort of need to get some more.

Re:I hate cheques!

[The MAZZTer]

"sort of like making a "credit" purchase on a debit card"

But isn't it harder to dispute a debit charge since the money is long gone by the time you notice the errant charge? With credit you can look over the charges before you pay and dispute anything suspicious.

Re:I hate cheques!

[bsDaemon]

why can't we just have a better form of authenticating purchases and skip the whole waiting period?

Re:I hate cheques!

[Lev13than]

First off, why would people be critical of eliminating float?!

Float is a critical feature for the one segment that still relies on paper cheques - small business. Many, many small businesses would go bankrupt if they lost the ability to float their suppliers' payments. If you eliminate float on the way in (require payment via cash/debit/credit) this can easily equate to an interest-free loan worth several thousand dollars. Canada is a lot further ahead than the the US in the elimination of paper cheques, with almost no consumer or P2P use. However, there is considerable resistance from small businesses to abandon cheques, mainly because of the float. Not a great reason to keep them around, but the market will need to find an alternative before eliminating paper completely.

Re:I hate cheques!

[FSWKU]

I do the same thing. I only use them for paying rent, and for paying utilities (since the ass-backwards utility company wants to charge a $5 "transaction fee" to pay with a card online). For everything else, there's my debit card or (rarely) cash. Of course I don't sit and wait for my balance to update, either. Once the card is swiped or the cheque leaves my hand, that money is mentally gone. Whenever I get home at the end of the day, all receipts are entered into gnucash, and that's the balance I go by. That way there is no looking at my online balance and having to adjust the numbers in my head for things that have not yet processed.

Re:I hate cheques!

[mdwh2]

If I wanted to give you money, you're able to accept debit/credit cards? Most people aren't able to do this, at least in the UK.

Re:I hate cheques!

[ELitwin]

Technically, this doesn't eliminate float - it just transfers it from one party to another. One party loses interest by having the funds transferred out faster, while the other party gains the extra interest by having the funds transferred in faster.

Re:I hate cheques!

[Delkster]

If I want to give a friend or someone money, I either do a wire transfer in my online bank or give cash. Usually the former. Everyone can accept one of those.

Re:I hate cheques!

[lewiscr]

If they're receiving interest-free float loans in Accounts Payable, they're also giving interest-free float loans in Accounts Receivable. Do they think they're pulling a fast one that nobody else has figured out?

Re:I hate cheques!

[lewiscr]

I do all those "transaction fee" transactions on my bank's website. Every place that charges a transaction fee for online payment will accept the electronic transfer from my bank for free. My bank will mail a paper check to places that don't have electronic transfer setup. I only have one, my trash service provider. I believe they only payment they accept is a check via mail or in person.

It must be at least 10 years ago

[badger.foo]

In Europe, checks are rare if not extinct, for something like the last 10 years at least. Direct transfers (IBAN) or similar just work and most people here do their banking mainly online anyhow.

Most likely you could talk your bank here into issuing a check for you if you ask them nicely, but it would almost certainly be more expensive than a straight electronic transfer.

On the other hand, somebody likely had fun and made a modest amount of money developing that check scannin app, so the effort I guess is not totally wasted.

Re:It must be at least 10 years ago

[maxume]

A lot of Americans don't trust banks, so they get paid by check, and then pay to cash it.

Electronic transfers aren't going to help them much.

(Just to be clear, I use direct deposit and think they are insane)

Re:It must be at least 10 years ago

[maxume]

Their employer won't pay them in cash, so they don't really have much of a choice.

Re:It must be at least 10 years ago

[Brandee07]

Checks are largely dead in the US as well, at least for personal use. I write exactly one check a month, for rent, and that's because I rent from a nice old lady, not a business, and nice old ladies rarely have merchant accounts set up to receive credit card payments.

However, in my work at a small business that does a lot of work for other small businesses, perhaps 90% of the invoices we send out are paid by check.

Re:It must be at least 10 years ago

[Engeekneer]

Actually, I needed a cheque once (France... yes the only place here that still uses them?), and my bank (actually two, in different countries) were a bit confused and said that they really don't do that kind of thing. Other than that, I think the last time I saw them were in the mid 80's. So no, in many countries you can't talk your banks into it.

Re:It must be at least 10 years ago

[mdwh2]

Not true, I'm in Europe - I still use cheques when I'm not at my home computer, or to pay people whose bank account details I don't know, and I still receive cheques, e.g., from family who don't have my bank account details or have Internet access.

What non-cheque systems are there to address these issues? I mean, they do exist right, if you really have no need of cheques?

Do you have a source for "most people here do their banking mainly online anyhow"?

Re:It must be at least 10 years ago

[mdwh2]

Indeed, this was what I used cheques mainly for too. I think it's worth distinguishing between "largely dead" and "no use at all". Something used once a month is still in use - if cheques were scrapped, you'd have the pain of how to pay you rent.

Re:It must be at least 10 years ago

[TheThiefMaster]

I pay my rent by a standing order directly into my landlady's bank account, which I set up through my bank's online banking. All of this (the bank account, online banking, standing orders, direct money transfers) are free.

If this is not true in the US, the US banks are backward.

Re:It must be at least 10 years ago

[Brandee07]

the US banks are backward

Pretty much.

Re:It must be at least 10 years ago

[Delkster]

What non-cheque systems are there to address these issues?

I guess if you're on the road for quite a while (several weeks) and don't have access to any trusted computer during that time, it might come in handy to be able to pay bills or such with cheques. I've never had that kind of a need, though.

As for paying people whose bank account details I don't know, if I can't pay in cash, I ask for the number of an account I can pay to. In any case, pretty much anybody I'd need to give money to would be either family, a friend, their friend, or someone else I'm in contact with, so asking for payment details has never been an issue. I suppose there can be use cases for cheques that I (and everyone else I know) just haven't run into but which some people still commonly encounter, but I tend to think those cases are pretty rare for most people.

Floating dowm profit river

[mcgrew]

The bankers say they want to eliminate "float" while using the float scam on their customers. They do all their internal transactions electronically, yet when you deposit a check it is the next day or longer before your money is available. Meanwhile they're collecting interest on YOUR money.

I deposited my tax return this year, and was not able to access the funds later that afternoon, although they were profiting. I had to wait until the next day to get my money; meanwhile they collected interest.

The bankers call "float" a scam, are all bankers scam artists?

Re:Floating dowm profit river

[jimicus]

The bankers call "float" a scam, are all bankers scam artists?

I think events of the last couple of years make the answer to that fairly obvious.

Re:Floating dowm profit river

[Lumpy]

The bankers call "float" a scam, are all bankers scam artists?

without a doubt, yes. That is one solid fact of life, rule 1 about life. NEVER EVER trust your bank, always look at them with distrust. The ONLY person you can trust with your money is you.

Re:Floating dowm profit river

[hal2814]

"The bankers call "float" a scam, are all bankers scam artists?"

If I get my deposit in by 2PM at my bank, funds are immediately available. If I make my deposit after 2PM and need the money immediately for some reason, I can talk to the branch manager and make that happen (which I have done before). If your bank is scamming you, maybe you should shop for a new one.

Re:Floating dowm profit river

[mcgrew]

I can't even trust me with my money, especially if I'm drinking and there are women around.

Re:Floating dowm profit river

[tompaulco]

To expand on this, the other lie in the article is that banks are sending paper winging around the country. While it is true that some banks still do this, most of the large banks have their own private image sharing network where they scan the checks on high speed scanners (usually around 1200-2000 docs per minute), or even on check scanners at the tell station, and then send the image to the bank that the check originated on. I worked for a company that built and hosted an image exchange that ANY bank could get on and do this (the national bank of Singapore was their first customer). The bulk of checks deposited clear overnight, and the funds from the check you wrote your buddy will be withdrawn from your account overnight, but he may not be able to spend the funds for anywhere from a day to, depending on the amount, as much as two weeks later.

Re:Floating dowm profit river

[Delkster]

If the system is working properly, the banks are supposed to have business interest in not driving their customers away.

Of course they try to gain an advantage in every deal they make with you, requiring service fees etc., and you should look closely into the terms and compare with other banks. You know, exactly the same thing you should do as a customer in any business.

If you have other trouble trusting your bank with your money, something is wrong. Grossly cheating their customer is so far from their interests that they won't want to do that. If it's not, your system is horribly broken.

Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[tomalpha]

I mean this as a genuine question: why is the US so far behind Europe in this?

I haven't seen a cheque in years. Is it too expensive to move everyone over to electronic transfers (surely it's cheaper to get rid of cheque processing)? Too difficult to change the habits of a large population quickly? Concerns about fraud? Plain unwillingness to change? It can't be the recent banking crisis because we had that too...

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[cyn1c77]

I mean this as a genuine question: why is the US so far behind Europe in this?

I have an answer for you in the form of another question: Is the US actually ahead of Europe in any aspect of life?

(And I am asking that as an American.)

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[John Hasler]

> I mean this as a genuine question: why is the US so far behind Europe in
> this?

Because the USA was far ahead of adopting cheques to begin with.

Wire transfers are readily available here but I rarely use them. Why should I?

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[eastlight_jim]

Because you can pay a credit card bill (one of many examples) instantly from your own PC with no need to send a letter or wait five days for it to clear.

I make tens of transactions a month this way. It would cost me a small fortune in stamps if I sent a cheque every time.

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[bickerdyke]

Another poster stated fees of $25 for transfering money.

I'd stick to sending those clumsy paper forms too...

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[flyingfsck]

In Canada one can do Interac email transfers for amounts up to $999.99. Actually there is no limit, but hit $1000 and the bank 'loss prevention department' may freeze your account. This service has been available for many years. I also pay all my bills online, except for rent - that is the only service that wants cheques. Then of course, there is also Paypal... In the USA, similar services should be available, but they are always technologically behind the curve. Somehow Amerikins always think that they lead the world, but the rest of world knows better...

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[Maddog Batty]

I really don't understand this.

Everybody used to use cheques here (UK) but they are now almost completely replaced by plastic and bank transfers.

Why? Because people prefer carrying plastic than cheque books. Because people hate having to pay them in. Because cheques bounce. Because banks charge businesses to both write and receive cheques. Because there is a greater chance of fraud. Because it takes around three days for the money to arrive in your account and even then it is not guaranteed to have cleared.

Bank transfers are free, plastic costs the receiver a few %. Both are easy, simple, quick and fairly secure.

Why anybody would want to use a cheque, I really don't understand. Please explain.

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[frankxcid]

What in the hell are all of you talking about, I have had free bill pay on all the banks I do business with for years. Europe has less freedom of choice. Here in America if you don't want to use a check don't. If you don't want to accept a check, don't. You europeans are so used to being told what to do that you cannot believe another country would leave it up to its citizens how to do banking. Alas, don't worry, the national debt is getting to be like europe's so very soon we will be just as "advanced" as the rest of the "world" (by world i mean europe, since the other posts state that latin america, asia, and africa do not really exist)

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[tgd]

I write checks for two things: paying my water bill, and paying for heating oil. Both are a pain in the ass, but cities in the US are crushed for money these days, and upgrading IT infrastructure loses. The oil companies, it seems, don't want to take the 2% hit in the cost of the oil.

The only time I ever receive a check is when a friend is paying me back, and frankly there just isn't any other good option other than the near crooks at Paypal.

There have been banks accepting home deposits of checks for a good year and a half now, so its nothing new even in the US. I've used my iPhone and JotNot to grab the images I need to deposit them a few times. (In fact, I did one last night...)

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[Deag]

Actually existing as a country.

Often when people say in Europe they mean their corner of it, or one country. Often the comparison is the US system against the best of > 30 different ones.

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[tepples]

I pay my credit card bill through ACH direct debit. It's just difficult to pay another individual through wire transfer.

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[operagost]

We have ACH transfers for that. I don't know why ignorant europeans keep insisting that Americans are still chiseling checks on slabs of granite with a bird's beak. I guess you like pretending that you're way ahead of those silly Americans. By the way, don't ask us for help when France and Greece melt down this year.

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[Pro777]

There is definitely one. Free public bathrooms.

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[MightyYar]

I mean this as a genuine question: why is the US so far behind Europe in this?

Are we really so far behind? I can write a check anywhere in the 3.5 million square miles of the US to any of the 300 million inhabitants. Any of those people can take that piece of paper to any bank or check cashing establishment that they desire and get their money. If for some reason I don't have a checking account, I can get a money order from any convenience store and use that in exactly the same way.

Furthermore, most of our bills can be paid electronically, and most banks allow free electronic transfers between linked accounts. The number of checks one has to write each month is actually vanishingly small.

So Europe may have a more technologically advanced system, and it may be less susceptible to fraud, and it may be cheaper for the banks... but is it really "ahead"?

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[DerekLyons]

Well, not if you consider (as many seem to do) "the way Europeans do it" as the template for behavior, then no the US isn't 'ahead' (whatever that means) of Europe in any aspect of life. (Nor can it be.) And really, that's what people seem to believe - just look at the reactions in this thread... "America offers options that you don't get in Europe, well it must be America that is wrong". No consideration, no comparison, just knee-jerk dogma.

They complain of checks not being secure... Well, if you aren't doing 100% of your transactions personally and online, credit/debit cards aren't any more secure. There's no difference between handing a waiter a check and handing him your credit card. If I put my personal info along with my debit card info on a bill and stick it in my mailbox, it's the same situation. It's no more secure than a check.

Not to mention, I've never heard a report of a laptop with customers checking information being stolen.

If Europeans have all but eliminated the option of using a check, then it's they who are backwards in my opinion.

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[crimperman]

Everybody used to use cheques here (UK) but they are now almost completely replaced by plastic and bank transfers.

Why? Because people prefer carrying plastic than cheque books. Because people hate having to pay them in. Because cheques bounce. Because banks charge businesses to both write and receive cheques. Because there is a greater chance of fraud. Because it takes around three days for the money to arrive in your account and even then it is not guaranteed to have cleared.

You forgot to mention: because the retailers stopped accepting cheques or at the very least look at you as if you have just crapped on their carpet when you pull your chequebook out.

Not that I am entirely against the move away from cheques. I have a client who pays by cheque and it's a real PiTA! I don't begrudge them doing so but it sure is easier for me when someone pays by EFT. Even considering that though, there's no way I would want the scheme mentioned in TFS!

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[jimicus]

Yes. We still have the freedom to own a firearm,

I don't have that unless I get a license and deal with a whole lot of legislation.

choose where to live,

I can live anywhere I please in the EU. What makes you think I can't?

express religious and political opinions without being jailed,

I can do this. What makes you think I can't?

choose our own doctors,

I can do this. What makes you think I can't?

choose whether to buy health insurance,

I can, if I so choose, buy private health insurance. Though for some idiot reason, many private insurance policies don't cover diagnostic procedures and finding out what's wrong with you is half the battle on the NHS. There's no legislative reason for the private insurers to refuse to cover diagnostic procedures, they're just wankers like that.

and choose where to go to college-- this week anyway. Next week? Who knows.

I did choose where to go to college. As did my brother. In both of our cases, a major part of the decision making process was "at least 100 miles away from here".

Seriously, are you trolling or do you have some vision of Europe as being a dystopia where everyone is told what to eat, what to think and how to shit from cradle to grave?

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[ckhorne]

Of course. Live in Europe for a few years, and you'll see this.

The systems are different for sure. Due to timing, initial adoption speed, geographical differences, political differences, and far too many other factors to list, there will always be differences between industrialized countries and how they operate. But both will have advances that the other does not. It's simply the nature of the beast. Again, go live in a different place for a while and you'll see for yourself.

The grass is always greener on the other side of the pond....

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[will_die]

As an American living in Europe please, please, please give me US style checks the Europian systems suck.
Here when I want to pay a bill or send money to a club I have to go to the bank or some banks are now doing on-line forms, where I have to provide the routing number, account number and bank name of the account I want to send money to. Luckly most of the time this is preprinted for you. Then most banks charge you the equivalent of US$2-$3 for doing this, some service plans or have a large balance at lower then US interest rates give you it for free. I then have to keep track for 6 months to a year just to verify that everything was properly approved, bank recommendations since they have to many complains of the receiving banks or companies not providing proper credit.
With a US check system I would of just given or mailed them the check then they have instant proof that I paid and it is up to them to deposit the check and the money does not get withdrawn until they do which give me a check, as opposed to the system over here in Europe where the money gets withdrawn the instant they process my request.
BTW,this works for banking done in country, but once I want to pay for something in a different country the routing numbers don't work so I have to switch to wiring money.
The only thing worse is the system for paying utilities, I have lived in 3 places only one of them actually had a system to automaticly withdrawn the exact amount I owed them each money. For the others I have to make to setup an automatic payment of what I guess it will be then once a year we reconsile. It is really going to suck this year because of the cold temperatures last summer and this winter.

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[clone53421]

I pay all of my bills online. Then of course, there is also PayPal... I’m in the USA, and I have news for you.

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[ArsenneLupin]

Is the US actually ahead of Europe in any aspect of life?

Oppression of the citizen? Big brother (oops, sorry, the UK is part of Europe...)?

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[xaxa]

Wire transfers are readily available here but I rarely use them. Why should I?

- Instant money transfer
- Free (for people) or the cheapest option (for businesses)
- No chance of reversing/cancelling them
- No chance of them getting lost
- No need to go to the bank with a bit of paper

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[CastrTroy]

I live in Canada, and it seem that we are kind of like the US in this regard. At least from what I'm reading. We have electronic money transfers, and we can pay credit card, utility and almost anything else on our PCs at home. However cheques still exist. Most businesses accept them as a form of payment, especially the ones I mentioned above (utilities, credit card, basically anybody who mails you a bill). I think a lot of it is due to the older generation just not catching on to the new way of doing things. One odd thing is that it seems that the ones least likely to deal with money transfers (at least in my experience) is landlords. Even large corporate ones that own many buildings. They require you to pay by cheque. I'm not sure why this is. You would think it would be easier to just automatically withdraw the money from your account each month, rather than process thousands of cheques, but they don't. So, at least in Canada, and I'm pretty sure the US is the same, we can do wire transfers, and many of us never use cheques at all. However, there is a large population of people who do everything by cheque, and refuse to change their ways.

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[mdwh2]

I'm in the UK, and cheques are still occasionally needed here.

As for why, give me answers to my questions at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1583934&cid=31494914 .

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[molo]

Crime. Gun ownership. Incarceration. (draw your own cause/effect inferences)

-molo

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[xaxa]

I have an answer for you in the form of another question: Is the US actually ahead of Europe in any aspect of life?

(And I am asking that as an American.)

Mobility. Legally it's very simple for me to move to another EU country (although more complicated than moving within the same country). However, except for Ireland I'd want/need to learn another language.

Identity. We know what it is to be British, or German, or Romanian. It's less clear what it is to be European -- though I think most people would figure something out if they thought about it, or at least agree that the countries have a lot in common.

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[HopefulIntern]

Actually, to add to your point, owning a firearm (well, a shotgun anyway) in the UK is not very long-winded and difficult. However, other European countries have different laws on this matter. Norway requires you to take a hunting license, which encompasses vast knowledge of the surrounding wildlife and what can be hunted, etc. The idea that you can get a gun just "for no reason" or "for home protection" doesn't really fly.

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[HopefulIntern]

Why cant you do an online bank transfer from home? I pay my rent, bills, and even other private persons online through my bank. It doesn't cost anything...

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[slprice]

Convenience. It is a lot easier than carrying wads of cash. Not all payees can take electronic payments, some may not even have a bank account.

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[jonwil]

With a telco, cable company, electricity company, insurance company etc, the number of people who pay bills each month is big so the cost for setting up to receive electronic transactions (as well as implementing a system to guarantee that every transaction made contains the info needed to match the transaction to the customer so the bill can be marked as "paid") can be spread out over a lot of people.

Whereas, with landlords (even the big ones with lots of properties) the cost to set this up may be prohibitive. Plus many landlords have systems in place to receive a cheque for a given property, record the cheque (e.g. photocopy it or record its details) and send it to the bank to be cashed along with all the other cheques and dont want to change such systems to benefit those customers who would switch to paying by bank transfer (many would stick to cheques I suspect)

In my case though I can pay my landlord (fairly large real estate agent here in Australia that manages the property on behalf of the owner) any money I need to via direct bank transfer.

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[coolmoose25]

One word: NASCAR, Baby!

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[Kapiti Kid]

You still have public baths? And you think this shows you are advanced? Here, all homes have baths and/or showers.

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[SleazyRidr]

You should check out Amsterdam, they have urinals out in the street there!

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[cmseagle]

yes.

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[GayBliss]

Yes. We still have the freedom to own a firearm, choose where to live, express religious and political opinions without being jailed, choose our own doctors, choose whether to buy health insurance, and choose where to go to college-- this week anyway. Next week? Who knows.

What the hell are you talking about? Do you know anything about Europe? Do you really think these things don't exist there?

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[GayBliss]

If Europeans have all but eliminated the option of using a check, then it's they who are backwards in my opinion.

They haven't eliminated the option of using a check, they've eliminated the necessity of using a check.

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[doktor-hladnjak]

Three things come to mind from my years living in Germany (may or may not be applicable to other European countries):

1. Dental care
2. Accomodations for the disabled
3. Smoking (this is changing quickly across Europe though now)

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[geekoid]

Don't get information about the US on slashdot. I haven't used a check in years either.

However, the banks make a lot of money from bad checks, so they will likely keep them around in the guise of helping people to 'float' while slapping them with a lot of fees if the check is bad. People who start doing this end up in a spiral that puts them in debt to the bank.

The banks have very little incentive to move away from checks.

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[pablodiazgutierrez]

Toilet seat covers :). I really miss those when I go back home to Spain.

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[DerekLyons]

Since, in the US, checks are rarely if ever a necessity... your point is what exactly?

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

"express religious and political opinions without being jailed,"

I can do this. What makes you think I can't?

Most Europeans are more restricted in this regard, see here (and read the section on the USA too).. With the possible exception of porn, the USA rules the roost in regard to daying whatever the fuck you want. Of course, if you are like most of the Eurotrash I read from on slashdot, you don't consider anything the government outlaws to be free speech.

Re:Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[DCFusor]

Because there is value in a paper trail, any competent programmer should know all these proposals are open to easy fraud.

Further, where I live, in the boonies of SW VA, USA, checks are "in" bigtime. Yes, we are sort of living in the past here. People still trust one another -- is that bad?
My checking account pays interest, and zero fees for the checks other then printing them. Here if you forget your checkbook at the general store, you can just ask them to pay later -- interest free loan on your asking.

You city folk who sadly, are the majority think this and that are the best way, and perhaps in a trust-free society such as you've managed to create for yourselves, those ways are best -- for you. But lets not forget that not all of us have gone down that road and see "catching up to you" as a very stupid move indeed. That must be why they tax us to fix your roads, and you try to export all your pipelines and power plant pollution to us -- many of whom are off the grid and on solar power....Is your way really better for all, or just you?

Where everyone knows everyone else, things are a lot different. The cops know who did what without having to invade the privacy of the rest of us, and many other significant benefits accrue. If we don't like what the county government does, we can go do something about it -- we outnumber them and aren't sheeple here. Our cops are well known to all and if they become abusive, we fire them. Can you do that? We do with some regularity. Remember this country is as strong as it is because of diversity. Making one size fits all, \centralization of power which sadly isn't something that can be fixed by partison politics, as both parties do it, is the WRONG move. Let's at least not break the parts that work trying to shore up the broken parts.

That's the tale of equality by slamming down all things that stick up - rather than bringing up the low, we simply chop off the high. Sounds all "fair' but is that truly good? I doubt it.

Been using it for 6mos

[Anonymous Coward]

I have had this option with usaa.com for almost a year now, and it's GREAT. As for the photo, it is NOT saved in your phone, ever. Once the bank accepts the images, it instructs you to write VOID on the check and shredd it. Quite nice to be able to drop a check in within minutes of receiving it, and use it too!

Photoshop?

[FireofEvil]

How do they solve the photoshop problem?

Re:Photoshop?

[WyrdOne]

Simple, funds really aren't in your account till money is transferred from the check writers account. If you, the consumer, is accepting a check it's your legal obligation to trust the person writing it.

Checks are a form of "I trust that you have the money in your account and it will be transferred from your financial institution to mine in a timely manner." If you don't trust the person writing you a check, don't accept it and only accept cash.

Re:Photoshop?

[FireofEvil]

Say you write me a cheque for $50 and I photoshop that into $500, how can they detect that?
I did not touch the serial number and, as the summary suggests, the photo was taken with a lousy cell-phone camera.

If they have a minimal requirement for picture quality, the system will most likely reject a lot of deposit attempts (motion-blur, out of focus, low resolution, etc..)

Doesn't really seem worth the trouble.

Re:Photoshop?

[plague3106]

There's no legal obligation for me to trust the person giving me the check. If the check bounces, I can sue them for the amount (and probably for any fees I've incurred as well). A check is a legal promise from them to you to pay you. Your advise is sound though because sueing is a pain and the person might have high-tailed it out of there... but a court will take a very dim view of someone giving you a check and it not clearing.

Re:Photoshop?

[Jaime2]

They expect the payor to do that. If you write someone a check for $50 and you see a withdrawal of $500, it's your responsibility to report it. The only thing keeping the entire sysytem from crashing down is the stiff penalties for screwing with it. I have software at work that allows me to accept a check from a customer over the phone. They literally read the numbers and I type them in. This is no less secure.

If you can't join USAA

[mahsah]

Some credit unions offer this service as well; I'm using Alliant Credit union's eDepositplus and its working great. You just need to donate to a PTA or certain charities to join, not hard at all.

Checks are "old school"

[oddaddresstrap]

I hardly ever use checks these days. Can I just take a picture of some cash and deposit it instead?

Re:Checks are "old school"

[Theoboley]

You'd have to take a picture of a handwritten note stating "I Promise I will come in and give this to you" as well.

Last time I used a check

[Zedrick]

...or even SAW one, was in 1997. And that was in the 19th century country Ireland. I really didn't think anybody still used checks.

old news?

[horatio]

You can already do this at USAA Bank. My sister has had this option for a few years now. USAA has recently added the ability to snap a photo and make a deposit from your iPhone.

Re:old news?

[GeekGirl007]

You can do it on a Droid too. I love it!

Digital Credit Union

[self assembled struc]

Not only do you get some sort of possible bizzare nerd cred for using DEC's old credit union, but just like USAA, you've been able to deposit via check for about 3 years now. Sure DCU has no snazzy iPhone app, but, damned if i've ever lived near one of their banks in my lifetime.

Re:Digital Credit Union

[N1ck0]

Yep DCU is a great credit union...although I've only deposited 3-4 random checks by scanning over the past 2 years. But yes they've accepted scans for quite some time now.

Re:Digital Credit Union

[bastion_xx]

With all the talk about USAA I was wondering is DCU would be mentioned. Back in my DEC days I used them but dropped off after leaving. Ironically, they have a local branch in Alpharetta (next to a good Indian food store, so two birds, one stone).

As you mention, the site isn't anything special, but the services match up with other banks and credit unions (heck, all use only a few back end services), but they are nice to work with. I really wish I could have reused my old account number for the DEC nerd cred.

Interesting stopgap

[ErichTheRed]

As much as this raises privacy concerns, it's a good step towards eliminating paper check processing. Everyone knows checks are pretty much things of the past - most people in the current generation pay all their commercial bills with electronic paymens. Only person-to-person debt settlements or gifts are done through checks by anyone under 35 or so. Remote deposit capture has been around in large businesses forever, and is even more prevalent with Check 21 now.

Checks are old-fashioned, but what can replace them in the US? In the current banking system, giving out your account number for wire transfers isn't secure. I think Europe has figured out a way to do EFTs securely (chip and pin cards? PIN-based wire transfers?) Here in the US, I think a lot of people don't think of wire transfers as a way to settle "normal" debts. The image that comes to my mind is of secret numbered Swiss bank accounts and multi-million dollar transactions, and I'm all for getting rid of checks. Plus, wire transfers in the current banking system cost a lot of money to perform. You have to find an easy, safe way, including authentication of both parties, to transfer funds that is just as easy as writing someone a check.

Banks probably love this too. They have to process even fewer paper checks, and there will no longer be an excuse to have as many bank branches.

Re:Interesting stopgap

[flyingfsck]

Uhmm, you don't have something like Interac Email funds transfer in the USA? You probaby do have it, but just don't know about it.

Re:Interesting stopgap

[Maddog Batty]

Checks are old-fashioned, but what can replace them in the US? In the current banking system, giving out your account number for wire transfers isn't secure.

Why do you think giving out an account number is insecure? You do it every time you write a cheque. All companies here (the UK) give out their account details every time they invoice somebody as otherwise they won't get paid. Most utility bills come with a paying in slip which includes the utility companies bank account details. It really isn't a problem.

Re:Interesting stopgap

[ArsenneLupin]

Checks are old-fashioned, but what can replace them in the US? In the current banking system, giving out your account number for wire transfers isn't secure. I think Europe has figured out a way to do EFTs securely (chip and pin cards? PIN-based wire transfers?)

Nope, in some European countries (such as Germany), giving out your account number is not secure either. Knowing your number, companies can drain your account without your consent (Lastschrift). And electronic banking doesn't help there either, because here to, you need to know the account to which you are sending money, so the receiver still needs to trust you that you aren't doing anything funny with the number.

In other countries (such as Luxembourg), such abuse is not possible.

Interestingly enough, in those countries where withdrawing money by just knowing the account number is not possible, Paypal does not operate a full service (no withdrawals...). I wonder why that is...

Re:Interesting stopgap

[rapiddescent]

the idea of transferring money electronically is totally accepted here in the UK.

I bought a car off an old couple - I turned up, drove it, liked it made them an offer and then went back to to their home, had a cup of tea and logged into my ebanking system and transferred the money to their bank account. I have a pocket sized two factor authentication device that I slide my debit card into and type the pin for verification. I log off, the old boy logs in and hey presto - the money is in his account. I don't need to carry cash, he doesn't need to worry about a cheque bouncing or a trip to the bank.

Re:Interesting stopgap

[xaxa]

[in the US] In the current banking system, giving out your account number for wire transfers isn't secure.

Why not? Unless I'm missing something, those are the same details that are printed at the bottom of every cheque. And the cheque has your signature on it!

Pentagon Federal Credit Union

[WyrdOne]

We are in the process of rolling out this same sort of program at our company as well (as I've been building about a dozen servers to support it). We've had the ability to deposit by mail for ages and this is the next logical step.

With most of our userbase being military and deployed to locations where they cannot access any branch services at all. Our userbase has become tech savvy enough to support a system like this. The largest impediment to implementing a system like this has been having the tech easy enough to use a "non-geek" can perform the tasks necessary without needing a large amount of training.

To those saying "What if I want to deposit counterfit checks". Well several systems are in place to prevent or at least mitigate that damage. You are only allowed to deposit up to a certain amount via the system (and have funds immediately accessible), the checks are processed real-time and won't be accepted without several validity checks passing and the account money is being collected from also happens as close to real-time as possible. Remember, just cause you deposit a check doesn't mean it can't bounce, that money is not truely in your account until funds are transferred from the check writers account. If you have those funds available for use immediately, it's because your financial institution trusts you to now deposit bad checks.

The the comment above about "great, just what I want, images of checks on my phone". The application itself handles taking the photo and no local copy is retained on the phone after the process is completed. (The image of the check is still available on the company's servers for review just like if you mailed in checks or deposited them via our branches.)

The news isn't about the check scanning

[Yvanhoe]

It is about the cryptographic signing. Finally banks understand that cryptography offer better proofs than hand signatures ! It was about *ucking time !

Say hello to mega fraud...

[JRHelgeson]

Say that company X issues a check to a Mr. Victor Timothy, who we'll refer to is VicTim, for short.
So, all I need to do is take a photo of VicTim's check, and I photo-deposit it into my account, Then VicTim deposits the paper check into his account, it gets rejected for already having been processed, and it is left to him to fight it out with the company and his bank?

My how crime has evolved...

Re:Say hello to mega fraud...

[WyrdOne]

Hmmm lets see.

1) Nice of you to deposit a fraudulent check to your account. Mr FBI Agent will now place a lock on your account and seize all funds pending a several month if not year+ long investigation. You have to have an account that allows this type of deposit. That $1000 you just attempted to steal has now tied up all your funds. Additionally, most banks aren't allowing someone to use remote deposit technologies till they have been a member for at least a few months.

2) Is Mr Victor Timothy named the same as yourself?

3) How is it you have access to said check?

Remember, checks are not legal tender. They are a promise that X's financial institution will transfer available funds to Y's financial institution based on a whole fleet of criteria (avaiable funds, account in good standing, etc). The FDIC keeps records of check transactions so you can't simply deposit it via this system and try and deposit the paper copy at another bank/account.

Re:Say hello to mega fraud...

[clone53421]

You’d have to get a photograph of both sides of the check.

You’d have to forge his signature on the back of the check, and this would eventually (we hope) be detected. You’d be in deep shit, and he’d get his money.

Unless he had already blank-endorsed the check, which is really his fault... if he wrote “For deposit only”, you’d only be able to deposit the check into an bank account opened under his name.

Re:Say hello to mega fraud...

[Jaime2]

The best part is that they'll never figure out who did it!!!! Oh, wait.

Anybody you have ever written a check has the technical means to drain your bank account tomorrow. Unfortunately, with this type of check fraud, it is really easy to identify who did it.

I would be more concerned about being framed than being scammed with this. Unfortunately, being framed doesn't require you to do anything, just the existence of the technology.

O rly?

[Alarindris]

Our customers are becoming more and more tech-savvy

Then why the hell are they still using checks?

This is like adding a tow package to the front of your car so you can pull it with a team of sled dogs.

Security Issues

[wiredog]

I don't know about Europe, but in the US banks eat the cost for someone vacuuming out a personal account. Businesses are on their own, however. See Krebs on Security for fun details.

$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[fantomas]

You mean if you want to give your friend $50 for something you owe him/gas money/share of the house bills etc it costs you $25 to transfer the money from your account to his? Or the same if you want to move money from one bank account to another account (held in a different bank) ?

If this is the case, wow. To be fair I don't know your banking system and maybe where I am (the UK) the bankers make their money some other way but if the above is true, that's brutal. Most people here just transfer money around through internet banking. I think "Wire transfers" are the same as this but maybe they are an older, guaranteed form of transfer, perhaps you can explain?

Lots of folk here would freak out if internet transfers cost money, it's how they move money around. I lived in a rented house a couple of years ago and the old fashioned landlord insisted on cheques. We had to show a new 25 year old housemate how to write a cheque as he'd never done one before in his life...

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[clone53421]

PayPal doesn’t charge fees for personal money transfers between two PayPal users. (I think you have to choose “Gift” or “Other” or something like that for the type of the transaction.)

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[ottothecow]

Yes.

As others mentioned, there are other transfer mechanisms in place at various parts of the system (ACH, ACAT, whatever they want to call moving funds between two accounts at the same bank) but the wire transfer costs $35 at each of the banks I have an account with. ACH transfers are free although they carry a transaction limit and are not instant (most of my banks say they will take 3 days...citibank is able to do less than $1000 next day). They also require account information on both sides...when I set up my bank to bank transfer relationship, I had to enter login info for the other bank and when I set up relationships with my brokerage (and paypal IIRC), I had to verify small deposits before it could work.

Wire transfers would be a good option but they are far too expensive here. I stayed in a hostel in lisbon last summer and they wanted me to wire them the deposit (which was only $30...so less than the wire fee)--even if I hadn't used skype, it was far cheaper to make an international phone call and read them my credit card number.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[sopssa]

maybe where I am (the UK) the bankers make their money some other way

Banks make their money by loaning the money you gave them (well, actually "loaned") to other people on higher prices. That's why it makes no sense to ask high fees from people who are pretty much loaning you money.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[plague3106]

Great, but what idiot trusts paypal with their money?

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[rapiddescent]

The US banking system is basically where we (UK) were in the 1980's. I even saw someone writing a check in a supermarket when I was in the US recently! I haven't written a cheque for many years and, in fact, APACS will be outlawing cheques here in 2012. The US banking system is much more fragmented in the USA and doesn't have the regulatory structure and capital guarantee that UK banks have to have. Some banks only span a few towns (although these are disappearing) and don't have a national presence. They still have "bank managers" too and you can go in an "speak to them" - Most UK branches haven't had this for years.

It's only since "faster payments" was introduced a 4 years ago that person to person payments using online banking etc have really taken off. I don't think any of the big UK banks charge for faster payments. Of course, you can have fun sending 0.01 to your friends with a transfer label "goats.cx" etc.

They also don't have the concept of "direct debit". something that astounds me. You either have to go to an online bill consolidator service of have to pay each bill (sending a cheque!!!!) individually!

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[clone53421]

Me.

The issues of people having their accounts frozen by PayPal were long, long ago. I’ve been using PayPal for years and I’ve never had problems with them.

In fact, I got a few dollars out of the class action settlement that was made against PayPal over that, and I really can’t complain because I was on the winning side of that deal. I’d had no problems and they paid me anyway.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[Jenming]

Internet Banking and Wire Transfers are different things in the US. If I want to pay a bill or transfer money to another person in the US using Internet Banking I can do so for free. Either the money will be transfered electronically using ACH, intrabank transfer or my bank will just write and mail a check to the person.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[lowrydr310]

They also don't have the concept of "direct debit". something that astounds me. You either have to go to an online bill consolidator service of have to pay each bill (sending a cheque!!!!) individually!

That's not entirely true. I'm not a big fan of the bill consolidation services that are usually offered for 'free' by your bank, as long as you meet the minimum criteria of $X minimum balance, direct deposit, X transfers per month, X debit purchases per month, etc.

Every service that I need to pay for, from my gas utility, electric utility, student loan, and credit card bill can be paid directly at the company's website as a direct debt. I enter my routing and checking account numbers, and the bill gets deducted from my bank account.

Everything but my rent gets paid this way, and that's only because the company managing my apartment charges an additional $5 fee for electronic transfers. They can keep the $5 and instead take the extra effort to pick up their mail, open my envelope, and run to the bank to deposit the check I give them (you'd think that effort would be more than a $5 expense to them?)

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[ArsenneLupin]

The issues of people having their accounts frozen by PayPal were long, long ago.

True enough, these issues were many seconds ago, but these were only high profile cases (you'd hope that they would think twice before freezing somebody well-known's account, such as Cryptome or Wikileaks...). I suppose lesser known cases happen more often than that, even right now as we type.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[dekemoose]

Banks used to make their money by loaning the money you deposit to other people at higher prices. Interest rates being what they are today it's hard to make the kind of profits that banks are accustomed to that way. They're far more likely to make money by charging various fees, paying you nothing for your deposits and investing your deposits in high paying (assuming they don't fail) risky investment opportunities. In spite of the promise of financial system reform this is very likely to continue.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[davaguco]

I'm afraid UK banking system is now where spanish banking system was 15 years ago... US banking system is what spanish banking system was 50 years ago... I think my parents don't remember how to write a cheque... I only had to write a cheque when I spent one year on the US.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[clone53421]

On the contrary, lesser known cases have no reason to happen. The only reason those happened in the first place was because they were well-known and somebody decided that their activity was questionable.

I’m much less concerned about my assets being frozen as myself than, say, I would be if I was an entity which the US government has been trying to shut down...

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[0100010001010011]

How do you use a computer in BFE? All of my bills are automatic bill pay, however I still use checks for a large portion of personal transactions, including eBay sometimes.

If I buy something from someone impromptu for greater than the amount of cash I carry, I can always use a check. Wirelessly, No internet required. Not everyone has a smart phone and can log in to PayPal or their bank anytime they want to send money.

Yes I can be scammed, but I always check that the address on the check matches the drivers license. Sure they could be on their way out of town, but usually leave enough of a paper trail if I get taken.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[ArsenneLupin]

It happens to lesser known entities too.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[clone53421]

That site has been around for a very long time and the stories on it are old.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[jonadab]

> I even saw someone writing a check in a supermarket when I was in the US recently!

Yeah, most of us do that. Some people pay cash, but when you're buying a week's worth of groceries for a whole family you don't really want to carry that much cash around. A few groceries (mainly the larger ones, particularly chains such as Meijer) have started to take credit cards, but buying everyday stuff like groceries on credit is not fiscally responsible and will quickly land you hip-deep in debt -- unless you keep a ledger like you would for a checkbook, but if you're going to do that it's no longer more convenient than writing a check.

> Some banks only span a few towns (although these are disappearing)

Disappearing, really? As far as I'm aware, *all* the banks in my immediate geographical area (Crawford County, Ohio) are small like that. I've seen no evidence that they're disappearing. The bank I use (First Federal) has, I think, eight branches altogether, and a couple of those are just loan offices. Their headquarters is four blocks from here.

The big chain banks don't seem to bother with small towns (where most of the population of the US lives, unlike in Europe where everyone lives in the big cities). They just put in branches in the major cities and call it quits. Even in the big cities, the major-chain banks are in the minority. Perhaps this is because most Americans are more comfortable with a local bank. The big chain banks tend to evoke distrust, similar to the way you'd feel dealing with a bank that has changed ownership six times in the last five years. You don't know who they are or what they're going to do with your account, or what their policies and rates and hours are going to be next month. Who needs that?

Buying stuff from a retail chain is different, because the stuff is right there, you can hold it in your hands and walk out with it, and you know what you got for your money. No problem. Hence, Wal-Mart. But the psychology is very different with a bank. If Wal-Mart offered a banking service, most Americans would not trust it. We'd continue buying stuff from their stores, but we wouldn't put our money in their bank, because we'd worry about whether it would still be there next Tuesday.

Many banks advertise the fact that they've been locally owned and operated for generations. It's a selling point. (First Federal's letterhead/logo says "Locally Owned and Operated Since 1891", for instance.) Remember, too, that over here that's a long time. (Difference between Brits and Americans: The British think a hundred miles is a long ways, and Americans think a hundred years is a long time. A hundred miles? Half the population commutes that far round-trip to work. But a hundred years is, like, basically forever.) So for us, if a bank has been locally owned and operated since the late nineteenth century, it has achieved a reputation for reliability, for always being there through the generations. You can have confidence doing business with a bank like that.

> They still have "bank managers" too and you can go in an "speak to them"

Well, yes, that's sort of a requirement, or at least a very strong expectation.

> - Most UK branches haven't had this for years.

Such banks would be considered extremely disreputable over here. The reaction would be along the lines of "What do you mean, there's no manager you can speak to? Holy cow, what is this, some fly-by-night scam run out of the back of a truck? Did you forge this FDIC member placard?"

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[ArsenneLupin]

That site has been around for a very long time

So has Paypal.

and the stories on it are old.

I agree that some stories are literally tens of thousands of minutes old, but I guess the site needs some time to process the stories before they put them online.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[clone53421]

Most of those are cases of someone getting scammed, and their mistake is relying on PayPal to protect them. I guarantee PayPal is going to be more cooperative if the Attorney General’s office is involved, as it should be if there was actual consumer fraud.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[ArsenneLupin]

Paypal "protects" its users the same way that the mafia "protects" its victims. In most of the stories, they are the source of the problem, not the other way round. Please read them.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[clone53421]

I’ve been scammed before, so I know. No, PayPal didn’t make the seller prove that he’d mailed the item (I never received it). Could they have done more? Probably. Was it their fault? No more than it was mine.

Aside, I was somewhat pleased when googling the little shit’s name (Mitchell Fillmore) turned up this article.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[FireFury03]

They also don't have the concept of "direct debit". something that astounds me.

Every service that I need to pay for, from my gas utility, electric utility, student loan, and credit card bill can be paid directly at the company's website as a direct debt. I enter my routing and checking account numbers, and the bill gets deducted from my bank account.

I think you misunderstand what "Direct Debit" means in the UK. Direct Debit is basically a system where you authorise a company to withdraw money from your account each month. This is very similar to a standing order (where you instruct your bank "transfer X amount to another bank account on this day each week/month/year") except that for Direct Debits the amount to withdraw is determined by the recipient of the payment.

This means that my phone bill is automatically paid in full each month, even though it is not a fixed amount. I don't have to do anything after the DD is initially set up - no logging into the telco's website to organise the transfer each month, etc.

On the face of it, DD sounds like a security nightmare since you're basically authorising a third party to withdraw however much they like from your account. But it is backed by the direct debit guarantee, which is a legal requirement for the bank to protect you from fraudulent transactions and immediately refund you if there is any dispute. So from the consumer's point of view, the security is reasonable.

Pretty much all regular bill payments can be done by direct debit or standing order, so the need to actually go and pay it manually (whether that is by handing over cash, a cheque or organising an electronic transfer each month) is pretty much non-existent.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[FireFury03]

buying everyday stuff like groceries on credit is not fiscally responsible and will quickly land you hip-deep in debt

It will? I can't say I've noticed - I've always used my credit card to buy pretty much everything that's over £5 (almost every shop takes cards... and practically no shop takes cheques) and I've never landed in "heaps of debt". My credit card bill arrives at the end of the month and gets paid off by an automatic direct debit from my current account when the bill becomes due a month later.

Sure, if my bank account is empty when the direct debit goes out then my account will go overdrawn and I'll get charged, but that would happen if I was writing a guaranteed cheque too.

If you lack the discipline to only spend within your limits, you can always use a debit card instead, which will be declined at the time of the transaction if your bank account is empty.

So no, using a credit card is not "fiscally irresponsible" and won't land you "hip-deep in debt" unless you're a complete idiot.

You don't know who they are or what they're going to do with your account, or what their policies and rates and hours are going to be next month.

You're right, I don't know what they are going to do with my money, but I don't pretend to know what a small local bank is going to do with it either. My money is protected by laws that require the government to protect it in the event that the bank goes under, and if I don't like what my bank are going to do the next month (which would have to adhere to the contract I have with them anyway) it is trivial to switch to a different bank.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[Belial6]

A few groceries (mainly the larger ones, particularly chains such as Meijer) have started to take credit cards

Wow. I guess that just puts a spot light on the diversity of the U.S. Here in California, I haven't seen a grocery store, restaurant, bakery, or even convenience store that didn't take credit cards in years. Heck, even the fast food places take credit cards here.

but buying everyday stuff like groceries on credit is not fiscally responsible and will quickly land you hip-deep in debt

No, there is nothing irresponsible about using a credit card for every day stuff like groceries. What is irresponsible is to use a credit card for long term debt., and to spend more money than you have. This is no different than with a paper check. People don't seem to understand that a check IS A LOAN. It is not money. It is a promise that your agent will hand over money on your behalf if they take that piece of paper to them. There is nothing about buying everyday items with a credit card that leads to being hip deep in debt. Not understanding what money and not being able to do simple math leads to people being hip deep in debt.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[cayenne8]

"You mean if you want to give your friend $50 for something you owe him/gas money/share of the house bills etc it costs you $25 to transfer the money from your account to his? Or the same if you want to move money from one bank account to another account (held in a different bank) ?"

Well, I generally give my friend $50 in cash next time I see him if I own him $$. Or, I might sent it to him via PayPal.

And why would most normal people have more that 1 back account? I happen to have 2x accounts now, one for my business and one for personal to keep things separate and clean, but the avg person needs more than one bank account why?

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[cayenne8]

"I think you misunderstand what "Direct Debit" means in the UK. Direct Debit is basically a system where you authorise a company to withdraw money from your account each month. This is very similar to a standing order (where you instruct your bank "transfer X amount to another bank account on this day each week/month/year") except that for Direct Debits the amount to withdraw is determined by the recipient of the payment."

No, many companies have that over here in the US, especially the utilities, etc. I personally do NOT like this as that I don't like giving hardly anyone or any company direct access to my bank account.

However, many banks here are offering free bill pay from the banks website, where if the company is hooked to the 'system' (I forget the name) when I set up a bill to pay it is often transferred from the bank to the company electronically in about 1-2 days. If the bill to pay is a person or company not in their electronic system, the bank cuts them a physical check and mails it to them..free of charge.

As for automatic payments!??!

Eeek...not me. I like to see exactly what the bill is for everything, and pay the amounts out myself. Heck, what happens if you make a mistake in checking somehow...and your funds are lower than thought..and all those automatic bill payments come in and cause numerouse NSF (insufficient funds) penalties?? That can cost you serious cash since those can often be $25 - $39+ per overdraft.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[cayenne8]

"It will? I can't say I've noticed - I've always used my credit card to buy pretty much everything that's over £5 (almost every shop takes cards... and practically no shop takes cheques) and I've never landed in "heaps of debt". My credit card bill arrives at the end of the month and gets paid off by an automatic direct debit from my current account when the bill becomes due a month later. Sure, if my bank account is empty when the direct debit goes out then my account will go overdrawn and I'll get charged, but that would happen if I was writing a guaranteed cheque too. If you lack the discipline to only spend within your limits, you can always use a debit card instead, which will be declined at the time of the transaction if your bank account is empty. So no, using a credit card is not "fiscally irresponsible" and won't land you "hip-deep in debt" unless you're a complete idiot."

Well, likely what the GP was referring to, was being able to easily track expenditures.

Most every checkbook I've ever seen or used also has a built in ledger, where you have balances against charges with you at all times. It is easy to see how much money you have left. Not as easy, at least in the past, to instantly see what you had in your account. Nowdays, granted, many people have smartphones that can access your bank account and see balances, but that is a pretty recent thing. And...not everyone has that type of phone with access these days...that is still a bit $$ for many people.

It is easier to get in CC-hell, since you charge, but rarely keep a running total in your head of everything you've charged over the month. I do a decent job of that, and even I get surprised from time to time at EOM of how much I may have charged.

I actually try to go more on a cash basis these days myself.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[cayenne8]

"Wow. I guess that just puts a spot light on the diversity of the U.S. Here in California, I haven't seen a grocery store, restaurant, bakery, or even convenience store that didn't take credit cards in years. Heck, even the fast food places take credit cards here."

I've seen fast food chains over recent years start taking CC's. I don't, however, eat there very often, as that there aren't that many around where I live here in New Orleans.

I'd say most of our restaurants here are local restaurants...and you do actually see quite a few, especially the OLD ones, that do not take credit cards. I guess they don't want to pay the fees. I do have to keep it straight in my head when going out to eat..which ones do and do not take 'plastic'.

These days...I often just try to mostly carry and spend cash. I take out about $200-$300 a week, and that usually lasts me most of the week. I cook most of my week day/night meals on Sundays...so, I don't go out much during the week. Not much time actually...work - gym - bed, rinse, repeat.

But Fri-Sun, I like to go out and have fun, and have a nice meal and drinks out.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[FireFury03]

I personally do NOT like this as that I don't like giving hardly anyone or any company direct access to my bank

As I said, whilst they have direct access to your bank account, the agreement is also backed by the guarantee that your bank will refund the money immediately if you ask them to, no questions asked. This tends to work very well for the majority of the UK's population (although there are complaints that those without bank accounts are penalised since most utilities offer a discount for paying by DD as it reduces their costs).

However, many banks here are offering free bill pay from the banks website, where if the company is hooked to the 'system' (I forget the name) when I set up a bill to pay it is often transferred from the bank to the company electronically in about 1-2 days.

You can also do this in the UK if you don't want to pay by DD - you just tell your bank to transfer the funds into another bank account via BACS or FPS (BACS takes about 3 days and can be used to transfer money between *any* UK bank accounts, FPS is almost instantaneous but isn't yet supported by every bank). Both BACS and FPS are usually free.

If the bill to pay is a person or company not in their electronic system, the bank cuts them a physical check and mails it to them..free of charge.

That is unnecessary here since every bank accepts BACS transfers for current accounts. The only time I can think of where a cheque is required to transfer money between accounts is when you are paying into certain savings accounts (some ISAs, bonds, etc).

As for automatic payments!??!
Eeek...not me. I like to see exactly what the bill is for everything, and pay the amounts out myself. Heck, what happens if you make a mistake in checking somehow...and your funds are lower than thought..and all those automatic bill payments come in and cause numerouse NSF (insufficient funds) penalties??

From my point of view, I think the chances of me forgetting to pay a bill (and getting penalised or cut off by the service provider) is much higher than the chance of going overdrawn due to an automatic payment, mainly because I'd be having to manually pay a bill every other day and something is bound to get missed.

Also, like many people I have an overdraft agreement with the bank which costs me nothing. Using an overdraft like a long term loan is, of course, crazy and I'd never do that; however, it does mean that if I accidentally go overdrawn then I am only charged a bit of interest (probably a few pennies for the few days it takes me to move money around to cover the shortfall) rather than a "unauthorised overdraft" penalty charge.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[FireFury03]

Most every checkbook I've ever seen or used also has a built in ledger, where you have balances against charges with you at all times. It is easy to see how much money you have left.

I've never bothered to use the ledger in my chequebook - it might make sense if the chequebook is the *only* way money leaves your account, but I'm not going to easily keep track of all the direct debits, standing orders, ATM withdrawals, debit card transactions, etc. on a little handwritten ledger. And that's before you even consider money going *in* to your account (I'm a sole trader, so I don't have a regular monthly salary going into my account on a fixed date - money appears in my account on a reasonably ad-hoc basis).

I do use Gnucash to manage my finances (its a good discipline that I picked up when I became self employed, because I have to keep track of that stuff for tax reasons), but that is a very "after the event" affair because I only bother to enter transactions into it when I get the statement that they are on. Keeping track of my balance on a day to day basis is usually done through web banking or by asking the ATM for my balance.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[Moridin42]

You have a lot more bills that regularly come due than I do, if you'd be paying something every other day. Or even remotely close to that.

The most bills I will receive in a given month is 6. Credit cards, mortgage, auto. And only 6 is I have transactions on every card, which is never. Utilities and whatnot get paid by credit card.

I wouldn't want to have anybody pulling from my deposit accounts simply because I have to be aware of the problem before I can have it corrected. As it is, if there are erroneous transactions, it is my credit card issuer's problem until it gets sorted out.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[FireFury03]

You have a lot more bills that regularly come due than I do, if you'd be paying something every other day. Or even remotely close to that.

Off the top of my head: National insurance, credit card, phone, TV licence, internet, satellite TV, regular donation to the RNLI, contact lenses, gas, electricity, mortgage, critical illness insurance, water, council tax.

That's 14, so pretty close to every couple of days, and I've probably forgotten some. Then there are the annual bills like income tax that I pay by a manual BACS transfer.

I wouldn't want to have anybody pulling from my deposit accounts simply because I have to be aware of the problem before I can have it corrected. As it is, if there are erroneous transactions, it is my credit card issuer's problem until it gets sorted out.

You have to be aware to get fraud fixed on your credit card too. If you blindly pay your credit card bill without ever looking at the statement then someone can make fraudulent transactions and they will never get fixed (that makes it your problem, not the credit card company's). Similarly, if you check your bank statements like you'd check your credit card statements then you can get any erroneous transactions fixed.

Maybe you missed what I said about the direct debit guarantee - the bank is legally obliged to reverse a direct debit *immediately* if you tell them to.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[jonadab]

> > buying everyday stuff like groceries on credit is not fiscally
> > responsible and will quickly land you hip-deep in debt
>
> It will? I can't say I've noticed

Evidence: about twenty percent of the population of North America.

> My credit card bill arrives at the end of the month and gets
> paid off by an automatic direct debit from my current account
> when the bill becomes due a month later.

Ah. That would help a little. Here, if your credit card bill becomes overdue, they just start charging usurious interest rates, not to mention late fees. However, even with that difference...

> If you lack the discipline to only spend within your limits

It's not just a matter of discipline (though that is relevant too), but also of keeping track. With a checkbook, you generally have a record of what you've spent. (With carbon-copy checks, you always have a record of what you've spent.) With a credit card, you don't know until the end of the month when you get your bill. Unless you keep a ledger, but if you do that the credit card is no longer more convenient than writing a check.

> If you lack the discipline to only spend within your
> limits, you can always use a debit card instead,

Oh, yeah, I definitely want to be charged use fees in excess of a dollar for each and every transaction. How could I pass up a deal like that?

And, like with a credit card, if you keep a ledger so that you know your balance, it's no longer more convenient than writing checks.

> which will be declined at the time of the transaction if your bank account is empty.

Many debit cards in the US don't even do that. They automatically transform into credit cards if your balance goes below zero. (No, I don't understand why this is legal. Some loophole, presumably, probably having something to do with some waiver hidden in the microscopic print of the contract you have to sign when you get the card, or something. You don't necessarily have to go in to the bank and sign paperwork to get a credit card, but to get a debit card, you do.)

And again, if you keep a ledger so that you know your balance, it's no longer more convenient than writing checks. I know I keep saying this, but it's really a fairly major point.

I'd like to know what Europeans think is so bad about a checkbook. It's actually quite handy.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[jonadab]

> I've never bothered to use the ledger in my chequebook

Yeah, I don't mess with that either. I use carbon-copy checks, which makes it unnecessary.

> it might make sense if the chequebook is the *only* way money leaves your account

How *else* would money leave a checking account? I suppose I could go to the bank and fill out a withdrawal form and get cash, but why bother, when I can just write a check?

> I'm not going to easily keep track of all the direct debits,
> standing orders, ATM withdrawals, debit card transactions, etc.

Exactly. That's the point.

> And that's before you even consider money going *in* to your account

Money goes into my checking account when I deposit checks. And just in case I don't remember to write down the amounts beforehand, the bank teller hands me a deposit receipt with the amount printed on it. But generally I put my paychecks into the computer first and take them to the bank later.

> I do use Gnucash to manage my finances

I just use a spreadsheet. It's easier.

> but that is a very "after the event" affair

Yeah, me too.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[FireFury03]

> > buying everyday stuff like groceries on credit is not fiscally
> > responsible and will quickly land you hip-deep in debt
>
> It will? I can't say I've noticed

Evidence: about twenty percent of the population of North America.

That is no evidence at all - that is simply evidence that 20% of the population of North America are incapable of managing their finances. This has nothing to do with using a credit card not being "fiscally responsible" and everything to do with *certain individuals* not being fiscally responsible.

It's not just a matter of discipline (though that is relevant too), but also of keeping track.

There's not a lot of excuse for not being able to keep track these days - you can check a current bank statement at any time over the web.

With a checkbook, you generally have a record of what you've spent.

That only works if a cheque book is the *only* way you withdraw money from your account. I certainly don't have the discipline to note down every transaction (debit card payments, credit card payments, direct debits, standing orders, ATM transactions, BACS/FPS transfers) on a handwritten ledger at the time it happens. Especially since the bank does it all for me on their website anyway. I guess you can stay in the dark ages and refuse to pay by anything other than cheque, but you can kiss goodbye to phone/web shopping if you do that.

> If you lack the discipline to only spend within your
> limits, you can always use a debit card instead,

Oh, yeah, I definitely want to be charged use fees in excess of a dollar for each and every transaction. How could I pass up a deal like that?

Sounds like the US banking system is utterly kerrayzee to me. I don't pay any fees for my transactions, whether they are done by BACS, FPS, debit card, credit card, cheque or cash.

And, like with a credit card, if you keep a ledger so that you know your balance, it's no longer more convenient than writing checks.

And like with a credit card, the bank does all this for you and makes a ledger available for you to see 24 hours a day.

> which will be declined at the time of the transaction if your bank account is empty.

Many debit cards in the US don't even do that. They automatically transform into credit cards if your balance goes below zero.

It can work in various ways in the UK - most of the time the debit card transaction happens online (i.e. the terminal connects to the bank while you are making the payment). In this case, the bank can decline the transaction (whether or not they do so, or just let you go overdrawn is down to your agreement with the bank). Some transactions are done offline and then submitted to the bank at the end of the day, and in this case the bank obviously can't decline. If you are someone who has a history of being incapable of managing your finances, the bank will issue you a card that does now allow offline transactions.

I know I keep saying this, but it's really a fairly major point.

It seems like a really irrelevant point to me, since as I keep mentioning, you can check your current balance and get a statement 24 hours a day. You don't even need a computer and an internet connection since the ATM will print you a mini statement at no cost.

I'd like to know what Europeans think is so bad about a checkbook. It's actually quite handy.

I think a chequebook is fine - I use mine for paying money to friends when I don't have their bank details. I don't use them in a shop though, and the reasons for this are many:
1. A chequebook is *really* bulky compared to a credit/debit card. My wallet is big enough as it is without carrying a bloody great chequebook with me.
2. If I pay by credit card then I get 30-60 days credit for

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[FireFury03]

> it might make sense if the chequebook is the *only* way money leaves your account

How *else* would money leave a checking account? I suppose I could go to the bank and fill out a withdrawal form and get cash, but why bother, when I can just write a check?

> I'm not going to easily keep track of all the direct debits,
> standing orders, ATM withdrawals, debit card transactions, etc.

Exactly. That's the point.

I'm sure as hell not going to write a cheque and walk to the post box every few days to pay a bill. Bills go out of my bank account automatically - saves a lot of hassle. It doesn't exactly make stuff hard to track because I can see all the transactions every time I log into my bank's website or use an ATM.

> I do use Gnucash to manage my finances

I just use a spreadsheet. It's easier.

Your finances must be *really* simplistic if a spreadsheet is easier than a financial management package. As soon as you have more than one account, a real financial management package makes things a lot easier.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[jonadab]

> Wow. I guess that just puts a spot light on the diversity of the U.S. Here in California

Culturally speaking, from the perspective of a midwesterner, California is basically a foreign land. Canada, for instance, is much more culturally similar to us than you folks are. Heck, even the deep south is not as culturally distant from us as California.

As for geography, California is basically the ends of the earth. It's so far, it's pretty much like going overseas, because you pretty much have to fly to get there. I mean, *theoretically* you can drive to California, but you need at least two weeks, three if you want to stay for a few days before you head back. That's crazy. We can drive to Florida (or, in a different direction, New York City) in two days, Chicago or Niagara Falls in one day. These places are far apart, but we've got good roads in the US, so it's doable. But California is far, even farther than Mexico. It takes about as long to fly there as it takes to fly to Europe.

Also, it's rumored that California is nearly as *expensive* to visit as Europe. I don't know if this is true, because I haven't been there myself, but they say everything costs 5-10 times as much as it does here.

But hey, your paper money is the right color, so we have that in common.

(In fairness, we probably imagine California as being even more different from us than you really are, because a lot of what we know about it comes from Hollywood.)

> What is irresponsible is to use a credit card for long term
> debt., and to spend more money than you have.

Yeah, but people who use credit cards on a daily basis invariably end up spending more than they have, because they never know how much they already spent until the statement comes weeks later. Also, a very large percentage of the people who use credit cards on a day-to-day basis are doing so precisely *because* they already spent all their money and won't have any more until their next paycheck comes in. Financially responsible people don't *need* credit cards, because there's money in their checking accounts.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[Moridin42]

You have to be aware to get fraud fixed on your credit card too. If you blindly pay your credit card bill without ever looking at the statement then someone can make fraudulent transactions and they will never get fixed (that makes it your problem, not the credit card company's). Similarly, if you check your bank statements like you'd check your credit card statements then you can get any erroneous transactions fixed.

Maybe you missed what I said about the direct debit guarantee - the bank is legally obliged to reverse a direct debit *immediately* if you tell them to.

No, I saw the guarantee. But I have to be aware of the problem and contact the bank. If I make legit transactions before I'm aware, there are further potential issues which I may need straighten out. Overdraft and whatnot. Maybe your banks treat you well, and in addition to crediting back your money, will forego the overdraft interest and any other fees imposed. My particular bank probably would. They're pretty good in a number of other ways. But most of the commercial banks in the US, would quibble over all that crap endlessly.

Yes, I do need to be aware of the credit card transactions. But with my cards and their no fraud liability, it makes no difference to me whether or not I discover the problem during the month or upon reading the statement. There are no potential extra fees or anything. I just see the problem, call them up and inform them. At that point, they can attempt to get their money (not mine) back or they can write it off, or whatever. Besides which, my credit cards are giving me a no interest loan every month. There is no way in which immediately drafting my account, however painlessly, is currently better than my credit cards. And at least one way in which it is worse. So..

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[Belial6]

Yes, California is a different place. Yes, most of what you see about it is movie fiction. No, we are not all blond. In fact, you have a full six weeks to get your hair bleached before the local municipalities start fining you for having dark hair.

More seriously, keeping track of your credit card balance is exactly the same act as keeping track of your checking account balance. Neither is easier nor harder than the other. Either you write down your purchases or you do not. On top of that, even in the far off land of Ohio, they have this think called...The Internet. Virtually all credit card issuers will let you log on and check your purchases, so even if you don't write down how much you spent, you can easily go online and see how much you have spent up to a couple of days prior.

Claiming that credit cards are bad because dumb people use them dumbly is a pretty serious fallacy. Either a person spends more than they make, or they don't. For people so irresponsible that they are incapable of living within their means, having a bank who will slap their hands and say no, might be helpful, but for any reasonably intellegent person, the fact that you COULD overspend doesn't mean you WILL overspend. In fact, people bounce checks all the time because they spend more than they make.

Of course, financially responsible people don't *need* credit cards anymore than they *need* checks. Financially responsible people understand what credit cards are, and use them to be MORE financially responsible. For example, every person you give a check to, now has access to everything they need to withdraw from your account. The same is true of credit cards. The difference is that when someone commits fraud on your checking account, your mortgage, utilities, and various other payments bounce, and you end up paying large fees, and are pretty much screwed until you get it sorted out. With a credit card, you just submit a form contesting the charges, and you good to go.

The worst choice is a "check card" it is all the weaknesses of a credit card combined with all of the weaknesses of a checking account.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[cayenne8]

Interesting thing I'm hearing here that seems to be a big difference between bills in the US and the UK, your bills seem to come due sporadically throughout the month.

Myself and most people I know..pretty much only have bills due roughly at the first and 15th of the month. I only have to pay twice a month for things. I'm currently back on a W2 gig, so I get paid on the 7th and the 22nd of the month, so, when I get paid, I know I need to pay bills.

And most of my bills also come in the mail, so I have that as a reminder, I open them and when it is 'bill day' I go through the stack of everything due that period and pay it....99% these days through my bill pay on my banks website.

Again, I prefer to be in control of my money, and it is only a couple of minutes twice a month to click each bill, set the amount and click send.

I have at least as many bills as you it seems, car, motorcycle, car/household renters insurance from one company, motorcycle insurance from another, rent, cable/internet, cell phone, 3x difference credit cards, water, electricity.....my health insurance and all comes directly out of my paycheck and is only about $80 a month for my full coverage....and a couple of other bills.

But seems the primary difference is how ya'lls bills seem to be spread throughout the month....

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[FireFury03]

Interesting thing I'm hearing here that seems to be a big difference between bills in the US and the UK, your bills seem to come due sporadically throughout the month.

Myself and most people I know..pretty much only have bills due roughly at the first and 15th of the month. I only have to pay twice a month for things. I'm currently back on a W2 gig, so I get paid on the 7th and the 22nd of the month, so, when I get paid, I know I need to pay bills.

Some companies ask you what date you want to be billed each month, a lot don't. But even for the ones who do, you choose a date that lines up with your pay date, then change job and your pay date moves, then change some of your utilities and line them up with your new pay date, then change job, etc. Eventually the billing dates get all over the place - you could contact all the utilities and move the billing date when you change job, but.. effort.

And most of my bills also come in the mail, so I have that as a reminder

Many utilities offer a discount for using paper-free billing these days, so very few of my bills come in the post (I just electronically archive the PDF bills they generate). There are some other problems with this of course - places like banks like to take a couple of utility bills under 3 months old as ID (proof of address) and I had real problems when I moved house a few years ago since I simply didn't have enough paper bills. At some point they are going to have to change this method of proving your address, not least because it would be trivial to forge a utility bill anyway.

I _think_ the only paper bills I get these days are:

• Credit card (monthly statement)
• Water (a yearly statement of monthly payments that will become due over the coming year)
• Council tax (a yearly statement of monthly payments that will become due over the coming year)
• Income tax (a yearly bill)

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[jonadab]

> I'm sure as hell not going to write a cheque and walk to the post box every few days to pay a bill.

I generally pay all my bills for the month at the same day, and drop them in the mailbox on my way to work.

> Your finances must be *really* simplistic if a spreadsheet is easier
> than a financial management package. As soon as you have more than
> one account, a real financial management package makes things a lot easier.

Actually, my spreadsheet tracks money in three places: my savings account, my checking account, and the cash I have on hand. It's not hard. I took me a couple of minutes to set up the formulas, but it wasn't *difficult*. I mean, I already know how to use a spreadsheet anyway, because it's a standard and generally useful piece of software.

I don't know if you're old enough to remember, but spreadsheets *used* to be considered one of the three basic computer applications everyone should know how to use. Word processing and database were the others, and by "database" here we're talking pre-SQL non-relational single-table database with about three data types. The first spreadsheet I ever used was running on an Apple //c. So like I said, I already know how to use a spreadsheet, and it does absolutely everything I need or could want for balancing my checkbook. I even have it automatically calculating my Ohio Use Tax. All I have to do is stick a 1 in a certain narrow column for transactions that are out-of-state no-sales-tax purchases, and the money for the tax is moved aside out of my general fund column into a "use tax savings" column. Other columns, designated for certain spending categories, automatically receive funds every time I put in a paycheck (I believe the technical term for this is "following a budget"). It's all very straightforward and very easy to use.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[FireFury03]

I don't know if you're old enough to remember, but spreadsheets *used* to be considered one of the three basic computer applications everyone should know how to use.

Yes, I'm plenty old enough to remember this, and I do know how to use a spreadsheet just fine. However, spreadsheets have always been a tool that can be used for everything, but does nothing _well_. Financial management software has supplanted spreadsheets because it happens to do financial management much better than a spreadsheet can.

Just because something used to be considered a basic tool that everyone should know doesn't mean that it shouldn't be replaced when something better comes along. No one programs computers with toggle switches any more, because it turns out that better methods were invented.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[jonadab]

> that is simply evidence that 20% of the population of North
> America are incapable of managing their finances. This has
> nothing to do with using a credit card not being "fiscally
> responsible" and everything to do with *certain individuals*
> not being fiscally responsible.

You seem to have missed the strong correlation between using credit cards on a regular basis and being one of those "certain individuals". Fiscally responsible people (at least around here) don't use credit cards much. The people who do can't pay their bills. The two phenomena go hand in hand.

> you can check a current bank statement at any time over the web.

Actually, I receive a bank statement in the mail, once a month, same as everybody else.

> That only works if a cheque book is the *only* way you withdraw money from your account.

We discussed that in another part of the thread. The short version is, it's a checking account, so obviously writing checks is how money goes out of the account.

> Sounds like the US banking system is utterly kerrayzee to me.

The banks are fine.

Well, most of them. You'll want to stay away from the large multi-national chain banks: they tend to do stupid stuff like lend all their money to irresponsible third-world governments (in the eighties) or treat aggregated risky sub-prime mortgages as a low-risk investment (more recently). But normal (locally owned and operated) banks are fine.

It's the *credit card* companies (which also are the outfits responsible for debit cards) that you don't want to have anything to do with. (Come to think of it, some of the credit card companies are also large multinational chain banks, which I already said you want to avoid.)

> 1. A chequebook is *really* bulky compared to a credit/debit card.

Oh, good grief. It's almost twice as long as a credit card and maybe three sixteenths of an inch thick. Woo. It fits in a standard shirt pocket. This is too much to carry? What are you, a smurf?

> 2. If I pay by credit card then I get 30-60 days credit for free.
> This isn't actually very important to me, but it's a bonus.

Yeah, maybe it's just me, but I don't find that one compelling.

> 3. If I pay by credit card I get certain legal protections.
> For example, if I buy a product which then breaks and I can't get
> a refund/replacement (e.g. because the vendor is no longer in
> business) then the credit card company will refund me.

Interesting. Americans (well, the ones with brains) tend not to do business in the first place with vendors who haven't been around very long ("fly by night", we call them), so this generally isn't an issue.

> 4. Paying by card is a lot faster than writing out a cheque - stick
> the card in the terminal, bang in my PIN and the transaction is done.

Over here, you generally also have to sign, using one of those stupid electronic screen-and-stylus touchscreen-like signing things that doesn't work very well. Granted, you don't have to fill out the date and amount, but now we're nitpicking. The difference isn't that big.

> 5. Most shops just plain won't take cheques any more.

Over here, more places take checks than take credit cards.

My employer, for example, takes cash or check. No plastic.

There are places that won't take a check, but we're talking like fast food restaurants and stuff, and you're never spending much, and you just pay cash.

> I wouldn't be at all surprised if the banks charged businesses more
> to cash a cheque than take a card payment

I can tell you for sure that the reverse is true here. The vendor pays significant fees to the credit card company for every credit card payment, which they are expected to just swallow. In practice, places that take credit cards just build those fees into their prices for everyone. There are no such charges for checking from most banks, because if there wer

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[FireFury03]

You seem to have missed the strong correlation between using credit cards on a regular basis and being one of those "certain individuals".

Not at all. Certain individuals are incapable of managing their finances, so it is dangerous for them to use a credit card (or any other method of easily acquiring credit). The majority of people _are_ capable of managing their finances, and for them there is nothing "irresponsible" about using a credit card.

Since this is Slashdot, a car analogy is probably in order: some people are incapable of driving safely, and therefore letting them drive a car is dangerous. However, the majority of people are (reasonably) safe drivers, so it is not "irresponsible" for them to drive a car. The difference here is that you have to prove your capabilities before you can get a licence to drive a car, whereas no such barrier to entry is required for a credit card.

There are *many* technologies/services/products that can be a problem for minority groups. Using these products does not automatically make one "irresponsible" unless one is a member of the minority group that cannot cope with it. You can draw a similar correlation showing that most people involved in car accidents are people who use cars, but that doesn't mean that using a car is irresponsible.

Oh, good grief. It's almost twice as long as a credit card and maybe three sixteenths of an inch thick. Woo. It fits in a standard shirt pocket. This is too much to carry? What are you, a smurf?

Standard chequebook size here is 200x75x4mm - yes, that's far too big. And no, it doesn't fit in my shirt pocket because I don't wear shirts. My wallet (containing numerous cards, cash and my driving licence) fits in my jeans pocket, a chequebook doesn't.

Interesting. Americans (well, the ones with brains) tend not to do business in the first place with vendors who haven't been around very long ("fly by night", we call them), so this generally isn't an issue.

Yeah because big companies *never* go bankrupt or try to screw you over. (That was sarcasm).

Personally I tend to try and do most of my business with small companies, since in my experience they offer much better value for money and a much better service. Either way, of all the vendors I've purchased from, the big ones have been the ones to go bankrupt - I think the bigger companies are more inclined to overstretch themselves, and then when something goes wrong they struggle to recover. Its also always been the larger businesses who have gone out of their way to screw me over - I guess the small businesses figure that they can't afford to lose customers by trying that one.

The protection also covers things like the costs incurred in getting you home after an airline/holiday company goes bankrupt (there has been a _lot_ of this going on over the past couple of years) or goes on strike, etc. so IMHO it is well worth having. Sure, you can buy insurance to do all this stuff, but it comes free if you use your credit card, so why not?

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[jonadab]

> However, spreadsheets have always been a tool that
> can be used for everything, but does nothing _well_.

I think it does very well for what I use it for. Frankly, it would be extremely difficult to design another UI for finance management that simultaneously offers A) the flexibility to let me do everything I do and B) the ease of use that comes from an already-familiar standard interface. Basically all I have to do is type the numbers in in the appropriate column, and it does everything I want. What could be easier than that?

Yes, I did have to spend a few minutes setting up the formulae, several years ago. But it took a lot less time than it would have taken to learn Quicken. (Gnucash didn't exist yet at the time.)

By using a spreadsheet, which is a standard tool, I was able to easily migrate my finances from Lotus 123 for DOS to Microsoft Works for Windows 95 to StarOffice (which is now called OpenOffice.org) and take it from operating system to operating system (Windows 95 to RedHat to Mandrake to Windows Me to Gentoo to some other distro I'm forgetting at the moment to FreeBSD to Debian) without redoing everything or switching to a new kind of software with a new interface. I have never had to go back and start over from scratch and set up all my columns (funds) and formulae again.

All I do is just punch in the numbers. What could be easier?

(Okay, yeah, sometimes I add a column/fund to my list of budget categories. This also is very easy and takes almost no time.)

As far as I'm concerned, Quicken and Gnucash and so on are a solution in search of a problem. I fail to see the point of using a special software with a different interface to do something that is basically a textbook case of what the excellent software that I'm already using was designed for.

I mean, it's all well and good for people who aren't already comfortable using a spreadsheet. In that case, sure. But that doesn't apply to me.

Re:security?

[WyrdOne]

As close to real-time processing as possible.

Also, if you don't trust the person your accepting the check from, don't accept it.

And there is still a paper check, just that you the consumer now has it instead of it sitting in a branch, being shipped to a check processing facility and likely it has just two fingerprints on it now instead of the hundreds between the time it left your hand at a branch and final processing.

So last decade

[qrv9412]

Who really writes checks anymore? the only one i ever write is for rent, and when im at the store i do find myself rolling my eyes when someone is writing a check...get a debit card like the rest of the world!

Reminds me of an old joke

[ArsenneLupin]

I heard a news report on Chicago radio that a guy in California got a speeding ticket that was sent to him via the mail. It was one of those new "camera" set-ups that got him, where a camera is positioned along the highway, sans officer. The camera took the picture of his speeding car & tag number. A letter was generated by a computer & sent to him with the PHOTOGRAPH of his car speeding and the date & time of the offense. The letter went on to state that he had to send in a fine of $40. The story went that the guy was so mad that he sent back the letter with a PHOTOGRAPH of a check of $40. A week later he got a letter back from the police. He opened up the letter and inside was a PHOTOGRAPH of a pair of handcuffs!

Nowadays, the police would just forward the photo of the check to the bank...

money order or certified checks

[roman_mir]

So why not completely eliminate the checks, leave the money orders/certified checks around for those who need them, this will eliminate the 'float' immediately?

It's an outdated technology, don't we know how to wire money at this point?

Aww, checks!

[Bromskloss]

I wish I could use them here in Sweden. Wouldn't it be elegant and different to take out a check book when paying for something? I think it would. However, checks are so unusual here, that I don't even know which banks offer them without large fees. Does anyone know?

Re:Aww, checks!

[jason8]

"That will be $1.99, sir."

"One dollar and ninety-nine cents," I say, taking my delicious time. I pause, look at the cashier, pause again, and then break into a slow grin. "One full dollar, plus ninety-nine one-hundredths of a dollar..."

I then reach into my breast pocket and leisurely extract my slim, calf-bound check book, artfully raising an eyebrow as I do so. Extracting it approximately 50%, so that the cashier gets a glimpse of it, I ask, "Do you take... checks?"

"Of course, sir."

A satisfied, elegant, slightly ironic smile breaks over my face as I fully extract the check book and lay it on the counter. I cast my eyes about for a pen. The cashier offers a battered blue Bic. I visually inspect it and decline with a wry and rueful grin. My left hand rises slowly and deliberately to my other breast pocket, and eventually emerges holding a dark and slender pen. A fountain pen, its barrel chased with gold and etched with mysterious swirls.

And although at this point the store closed for the night and I had to leave without completing my transaction, I think you'll get some taste of the elegance of paying for a purchase with a check.

Re:Aww, checks!

[Bromskloss]

Haha! Excellent! That's what I want.

Re:Why I recently used checks....

[clone53421]

I used “digital checks” to pay my water bill online, because they charged something like 3% for a credit card transaction. They asked for the routing number and account number, name on the account, etc. then drew the money from the account electronically.

Personally I think it is absurd that a large-scale business would charge extra fees for certain modes of payment, but whatever.

Photoshopped!?

[TehBrando]

Great, now banks are going to spend more money analyzing the checks to make sure they're not photoshopped.

When do I use checks?

[odin84gk]

1.) Tithe at church
2.) Trying to reimburse a friend/family member for more than $50
3.) Paying my gas bill. (That stupid company charges $3 for internet payments. Jerks)
4.) Setting up my direct deposit at work

I use a check fairly regularly. Credit card companies still charge a fee per transaction, so not all retailers accept them. (The dry cleaners near my home doesn't accept credit cards, and I'm in a major city).

I hate checks. I wish they would disappear, but I haven't seen a great alternative.

Yet.

Re:When do I use checks?

[bastion_xx]

The capabilities of online bill pay are important for me. Even though it's online, paper checks are still mailed from places such as checkfree and can cover those places that don't accept online payment or charge a crapload to process (I'm talking about you Georgia DMV!).

We go through about 100-200 checks a year, and like you, mostly for offertory at church. I was able to setup up payroll with the routing number and account number although it was mandatory a voided check be provided. The main reason? Proof I didn't screw up the numbers. A quick prenote of my account was enough.

OLD news

[baldbobbo]

USAA has been doing this for some time now. Most of USAA customers (military personnel and families) aren't around a local branch, mainly because the only branch is in San Antonio. They were the first bank to allow faxes of checks to be sent in, then when the iPhone came out, they had an app to take pictures and upload. It's a very helpful service, and they rarely get the credit they deserve. Yet no mention of them anywhere in the article or the comments? Boo.

Maybe we're not

[Quiet_Desperation]

It's mostly the old farts writing checks, and I mean *old*. I'm 44 and I've been doing online bill pay since 1999 with Yahoo and then going to my credit union's own system when Yahoo dropped the service.

I keep a book of checks around for big ticket items like home improvement projects or car down payments. For groceries and other relatively small expenses I just use a credit card that I pay off each month. I have my whole life routed through one card that gives me gift certificates. There's also "check cards" and most places let you use an ATM card right there in the store. We actually have quite a lot of options now that I think about it.

Maybe checks were more ingrained into the USA? We still have a cottage industry of companies that will do custom checks with photos or user selected artwork. I once thought about getting checks with satanic symbols on them in the off chance that periodically some religious person at some company would be too scared to cash it. :-)

Because it costs a lot more

[Chemisor]

Writing a check is the only way to transfer money for free. Online bill payment is basically writing a check that the bank prints and mails for you (I know because I had one returned to me once). A credit card is only good at a store, you can't pay to an individual, and it costs the store money to accept it (you don't know this because the store is required to eat the charge and not pass it on to you). Paypal requires your payee to have a paypal account, which is not always an option for nontechnical people, and there are small fees there too. A wire transfer is very expensive (~$25 paid by you to send, and the same amount charged to the receiver), so is not economical most of the time. Cash is bulky if you have to give a lot and you may get some attention from the FBI for "structuring withdrawals". A certified check is fast, but is also expensive, ~$20. That leaves checks, which are still free. Sure, the float sucks, but unless you want to pay, there is simply no way around it.

Old news, but still cool!

[GeekGirl007]

I just did it through USAA mobile - pretty slick! It helps because my bank doesn't have ATMs to deposit through, so now I don't have to wait for checks to get to them through the mail!

What do you mean "soon?"

[DrOct]

USAA customers have been able to do this with their mobile phones for quite a long time now. They've also been able to use scanners and software at home to do it for even longer (years).

Re:One word.

[DrOct]

Yes, but forged checks has always been a potential problem. If the routing numbers etc match up and the bank/customer doesn't dispute it it'll go through. That's the way checks have always worked. There's really not much more danger here than there has always been within the check system.

Re:One word.

[DrOct]

Additionally, at least if the banks follow USAA's lead on this (USAA has been doing this for a long time now), the only customers who will be able to do this are the most trustworthy. That is those with a good account history with the bank, good credit etc.

cheers for info on "wire" expression

[fantomas]

cheers for info on what "wiring money" means -over here in the UK we don't use the expression, it is USA-English, at most people use it colloquially just to mean transferring money via technology somehow.

I must admit I am still not sure what it means, how it is different from doing an internet bank transfer sitting on my home computer and logging in to my bank account and transfering £100 to my friend's account or the electricity company's account or whatever? Is "wiring" money going into a bank and asking them at the counter to set up the transfer and send it through their system?

Float time

[geekoid]

has destroyed more people under the guise of 'helping'.

Stop using checks, this will force people to budget better; however this means less money for banks.

Actual question: Why is the US so far behind

[aussersterne]

Europe (and Asia) in every . last . thing . on . earth ?

Answer: STUPID, ideologically blinkered, ultracapitalist/fascist public that votes against their own interests aggressively, continuously, and with tremendous joy, each believing that they will one day be the CEO of a major corporation or investment firm with six Bentleys and a pony (despite the fact that they are an unemployed plumber right now), and wanting to preserve every last advantage for themselves on . that . day .

cash point machine, credit card

[fantomas]

In the UK folk will just drive to a cash point machine (ATM) if they need more money out for small amounts. ATMs are pretty well in every settlement. People plan ahead if going out to the islands or somewhere really remote camping. Internet is pretty well everywhere here so with non-time critical transfers that's usually an option ("when I get back to my friend's house tonight I'll get on their computer and send over the money into your account"). Credit cards are popular for non-trusted payments as credit card companies here insure all purchases over about $80 - you get scammed by somebody and they'll pay you back everything over the initial 80 or so. Government and public service advice is to pay for online purchases with credit cards as you're insured against scamming (and I guess there's a trail they can work with).

Re:cash point machine, credit card

[0100010001010011]

I've been to many a town with out a 24/7 ATM. People think that everywhere in the US is like NYC. There are places in the US that resemble rural Romania. Keep in mind that England is 7k sq miles (~18k sq km) smaller than my State.

Although it is 'peace of mind' and doesn't mean much. I'd MUCH rather have a piece of paper with personal info on it that "Oh, I'll send that when I get home."

Burden of getting paid is on the person I give the check to. I don't have to take their account information and enter it later. I write them a check and if they decide not to deposit it, fine.

Re:cash point machine, credit card

[iJusten]

It's nothing to do with the size of the country, but with population density. I live in Finland, most of the towns are few hundred people in the middle of nowhere, the population density is less than in most of your States, and they still have ATM (usually several). You may recall the earlier "Internet/mobile access in Finland vs. USA" discussions we had some months ago.

Reminds me of the old story

[jamrock]

Does anyone else remember the old story (probably apocryphal) that made the email rounds a few years ago? Apparently a British driver ran a traffic light and his license plate was photographed by the traffic cam. He received a photo of his plate in the mail, along with the traffic ticket. As a lark, he made out a cheque to the authorities, snapped a picture of it and mailed them the photo of the cheque. A couple days later he received another letter from the cops. In it was a photo of a pair of handcuffs. He mailed them the cheque, along with a note thanking them for their sense of humor.

Re:Reminds me of the old story

[profplump]

They should have just cashed it. I don't know what the rules are in the UK, but around here if it contains the legal elements of a check (i.e. drawn on a bank, unconditional order to pay, etc.) then it's a check, photograph or otherwise.

For that matter, that's more or less the subject of the article -- that more consumer banks are offering the same convenience they've offered to larger customers for years, by allowing them to send pictures of checks instead of the original paper, as pictures are equally valid.

Re:Reminds me of the old story

[clone53421]

Most checks also have security features such as microprint, VOID screening, and special paper, and there is a statement on the check to the effect that the check is invalid if those features are not present.

Credit cards are safer

[TheLink]

In my opinion credit cards are way more secure than cheques.

If anything happens with my credit card, it's not my money that's gone. The bank may say I owe them, but meanwhile I actually still have my money. And since I have more money, I have more options.

Whereas if there is cheque or debit card fraud, it's my money that's gone. So I will have to jump through hoops to get my money back. If I don't have enough spare money left to jump through all the hoops this might be a problem. If the person did a good cheque forgery, I might have problems getting the money from the bank as quick and easily as you did, or even at all.

I don't know why you get charged fees and interest for paying credit card bills on time. Over here in 3rd world Malaysia I don't get charged if I pay on time. Transferring money to a different (e.g. competing) local (not internatonal) bank account costs about USD0.60. International transfers cost more and require more hassles.

Kind of interesting that US bank customers get treated so badly and yet US banks still got huge bail outs.

Lastly, transferring money by taking and sending pictures of cheques with a cellphone is ridiculous. I don't see how that can cost the banks less than "electronic" transfers that are done in other countries around the world. The latter requires minimal human intervention (if the transaction is not flagged as suspicious by the system).

Re:Credit cards are safer

[mcgrew]

A credit card is WAY more secure than a debit card, since you're only liable for $50 of loss with a credit card. However, with a forged check there aren't really any hoops to jump through, at least there weren't when my checks were stolen.

I stopped using credit cards because of the cost. Here in the US the banks, like all large industries, pretty much get anything they want from government (including bailouts; see this week's Jim Hightower column).

Handwriting

[mgichoga]

That still does not solve the issue of unreadable handwriting. In my days, I have seen some handwriting that was so bad it almost induced me to a hypnotic state.

Government

[profplump]

I would never write checks if there were some other way to send money to the government. Of the 63 checks I've written in the past 5 years, 47 of them went to the state or local government. And half the rest probably went to someone that wanted a copy of a check to setup ACH (though why I can't just copy the account number is beyond me).

What's particularly sad for me is that in some cases -- for example, paying withholding tax or collected sales tax through my business -- I am required to use ACH to pay the state. But when I go to file my personal taxes or renew my vehicle registration I have to use a paper check. And don't even get me started on the number of sub-$50 checks I've had to write to file forms and whatnot; around here the county government essentially won't take cash (I'm sure they would if I whined enough, but they sure don't like it), and they won't even look at credit cards, so every time you file form with a $18 fee there's another paper check, which must be made out separately from the one your wrote 5 minutes ago for the last form.

Float

[Zed is not Zee]

Although some critics contend paperless deposits are an attempt by the banking industry to eliminate 'float,' the standard one- or two-day waiting period between the time someone writes a check and the time the money is actually taken out of their account

How about eliminating the other kind of float, where the bank gets a free loan of your money for the period of several days between the time they take it out of the check writer's account and the time it gets "cleared" to the depositor's account.

worth1000....

[ghostis]

Imagine the worth1000 Photoshop contests you could do with this ;-) "Biggest deposit by scratch-created check"...

For the same reason

[ThatsNotPudding]

For the same reason that paperless electronic voting is a seriously bad idea; s/he who controls the database controls your ass.

USAA Also Allows iPhone Deposits

[pgrady7]

USAA allows account holders to take a picture of a check with an iPhone and has for about a year. Now if I only had an iPhone... .

USAA FTW

[gront]

USAA also has deposit@home, you can scan a check with yer handy dandy scanner and e-deposit it e-electronically without going to the bank. One could email you a jpg of the endorsed check and you could deposit it without the hassle of postage, if you were so inclined.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Nothing New, USAA

[DustoneGT]

USAA has been doing this for quite a while. Their iphone app allows remote deposits.

USAA has an iphone app

[rsborg]

One of my favorite ideas (though I'm not with USAA): https://www.usaa.com/inet/ent_utils/McStaticPages?key=usaa_mobile_iphone_main

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

this is why I like checks

[ffflala]

Checks serve as physical evidence. I get my canceled checks mailed to me with each --print-- copy of my bank statements. I do not have to rely on a server or other records that are out of my control.

I have had a few instances where companies --public and private utilities, municipal agencies like parking enforcement and hospitals-- have contacted me with erroneous claims that I have an outstanding unpaid balance. In each case resolving this in my favor was simply not possible until I was able to provide them with the copy of my check and the bank's cancellation stamp. If I hadn't been able to do this, I'd have paid around $2,000 to cover bills that I'd already paid once.

I have had to do this for claims that were over six years old, claims which had already been successfully disputed with the company, yet not updated and were sold at a discount to some schmuck debt collector who didn't demand verification of the claims. I've been able to do this for accounts that were drawn from banks that no longer exist. I've been able to do this for accounts that I had closed years ago, and so would not have been able to access my past account records.

If my choices for archiving financial information comes down to: (1) print material in my possession, (2) digital material in my possession, or (3) digital material out of my possession, I prefer print to digital, and possession to non-possession. While a bit cumbersome, it has simply saved me money.