Good morning,
.......
ATMs aren't the only way to get cash since loads of shops offer cashback these days.
But how much of that is because some people are still paying in cash?
If a retailer finds that they have to withdraw cash from their bank to offer this service will they still do so?
Being a cynic, the banks will come up with an incentive so that they can close the ATMs and then over the subsequent years make the incentives, less incentivising.
Although there is a strong argument for saying that if you want cash then you will have to cover the cost of using an ATM, in practice this cost seems to be around £1.50-£2 per transaction, but it would likely hit those who can afford it least.
I'm still depressed when I hear about people feeding a family of four on £25 per week and taking 10% of that it an ATM fee sounds outrageous.
I am unsure of the current legal position but a long time back it was different in England and Scotland but money in an ATM was a BoE asset not the banks' until it was issued. So banks could "over stock" their ATMs with cash.
For the commercial ATM operators the cash in the machine is theirs until it is issued and it is as risk of theft, probably a greater risk than the banks' ATM as the locations are less secure.
Let's not even talk about what happens if you card processor goes out of business, as the market opens up this becomes more of a possibility. To cover against this you could of course increase your costs even further by having two or three card processors and hope they have nothing in common.
Or the underlying technology failing, a lot of the internet between home/small business and the backbone can be concentrated into one two failure points. For example your card/phone reader might be internet reliant and you may have two phones that can provide that connection but both carrier mighty be sharing the same mast, the one that was just knocked down by a tractor.
A local pub might be happy to trade on trust for a day, but what about everybody else?
Bye
Ian