How can Schwab afford to refund all my ATM fees?
I am using my debit card regularly: in ATM's with a pin, in stores with my signature, and online. But later you say  But from what I recall from starting my own business (a LONG time ago), for debit cards there's only a per-transaction fee of like $0.25, not a percentage cut. Only pin transactions have just a per-transaction fee paid by you to the merchant (and you are reimbursed by Schwab).  If you use your card with just a signature or online without a pin, then it is a credit transaction from the merchant's perspective.  The merchant pays a fee and Schwab gets its cut of that.  So for two of the transaction types that you describe, the merchant pays Schwab (indirectly) out of your payment.  Only when you enter your pin does it process as a debit transaction where Schwab pays the merchant.   Because check cards withdraw the money from your account immediately, you don't even get the twenty to fifty day grace period.  So those merchant fees are pure profit for Schwab, offsetting the loss from the ATM fees.   You claim $4-5k in fees at $.25 each.  That's sixteen to twenty thousand transactions.  Assuming that several is four to five years, that's more than ten transactions a day.  That seems like a lot.  I can see three for meals, one for miscellaneous, and maybe some shopping.  But if I go shopping one day, I don't normally go again for a while.  I have trouble seeing a consistent average of five or more transactions a day.   Even if we use just the higher ATM fees (e.g. $2), that's still more than a transaction a day.  That's an extreme level of usage, particularly for someone who also makes frequent purchases via card.   I haven't done any other business with them. I find this confusing.  How does money get into your account?  At some point, you must have deposited money into the account.  You can't debit from an account without a positive balance.  So you must have done or be doing some kind of business with them.  If nothing else, they can invest the balance that you deposit.  Note that they make a profit off such investments.  They share some of that profit with you in the form of interest, but not that much really.   Of course, Schwab may still be losing money on your transactions.  We can't really tell without more information on how much of each transaction type you do and how much of a balance you maintain.  Perhaps they are hoping that you will do other, more profitable, activities in the future.   I doubt there are that many Schwab customers like you describe yourself.  As best I've been able to see, they advertise their banking services just to investment customers.  So it's unlikely that many customers who don't use their investment services use their banking services just for ATM reimbursements. "Schwab is a highly diversified operation and has a multitude of revenue streams.  Schwab obviously thinks it can make more off you than you will cost in ATM fees and it's probably safe to assume most Schwab clients use more services than the ATM card. It's not worthwhile to discuss the accounting of ATM/Debit/Credit card fee norms because for a diversified operation it's about the total relationship, not whether each customer engagement is specifically profitable.   People who get Schwab accounts soley for the ATM fee refunds are in the minority.  In 2016 10-k filing Schwab posted $1.8B in net earnings, 10 million client accounts with a total of $2.78T in client assets.  A couple grand in ATM fees over several years is a rounding error.  ""ATM"" doesn't even appear in the 2016 10-K." "Like a lot of businesses, they win on the averages, which means lucrative customers subsidize the money-losers.  This is par for the course.  It's the health club model.  The people who show up everyday are subsidized by the people who never show but are too guilty to cancel. When I sent 2 DVDs a day to Netflix, they lost their shirt on me, and made it up on the customers who don't. In those ""free to play"" MMOs, actually 95-99% of the players never pay and are carried by the 1-5% who spend significantly.  In business thinking, the overall marketing cost of acquiring a new customer is pretty big - $50 to $500. On the other side of the credit card swiper, they pay $600 bounty for new merchant customers - there are salesmen who live on converting 2-3 merchants a month.   That's because as a rule, customers tend to lock-in.  That's why dot-coms lose millions for years giving you a free service.  Eventually they figure out a revenue model, and you stay with it despite the new ads, because changing is inconvenient. When you want to do a banking transaction, they must provide the means to do that.  Normal banks have the staggering cost of a huge network of branch offices where you can walk in and hand a check to a teller.  The whole point of an ATM is to reduce the cost of that.  Chase has 3 staffed locations in my zipcode and 6 ATMs.  Schwab has 3 locations in my greater metro, which contains over 400 zipcodes. If you're in a one-horse town like French Lick, Bandera or Detroit, no Schwab for miles.  So for Schwab, a $3 ATM fee isn't expensive, it's cheap - compared to the cost of serving you any other way. There may also be behind-the-scenes agreements where the bank that charged you $3 refunds some of it to Schwab after they refund you.  It doesn't really cost $3 to do a foreign ATM transaction.  Most debit cards have a Visa or Mastercard logo.  Many places will let you run it as an ATM card with a PIN entry.  However everyone who takes Visa/MC must take it as a credit card using a signature. In that case, the merchant pays 2-10% depending on several factors.** Of this, about 1.4% goes to the issuing bank.  This is meant to cover the bank's risk of credit card defaults. But drawing from a bank account where they can decline if the money isn't there, that risk is low so it's mostly gravy. You may find Schwab is doing OK on that alone.  Also, don't use debit cards at any but the most trusted shops -- unless you fully understand how, in fraud situations, credit cards and debit cards compare -- and are comfortable with the increased risks.   **  there are literally dozens of micro-fees depending on their volume, swipe vs chip, ATM vs credit, rewards cards, fixed vs online vs mobile, etc. (Home Depot does OK, the food vendor at the Renaissance Faire gets slaughtered). This kind of horsepuckey is why small-vendor services like Square are becoming hugely popular; they flat-rate everything at around 2.7%. Yay!"
When you submit for reimbursement, the cash you get should be FIFO (first in, first out) and a large bill should empty out 2011 first, automatically tapping 12 for remaining amount owed. I doubt you need to do anything. I've had good experiences with a regional bank. All the perks of Wells but without the bullshit fees (except ATMs unfortunately but I just get cash back in the rare instance that a card / my phone won't cut it). Since you have presumably now been living here for six months you may already have discovered that Australian banks charge a transaction fee whether the funds are deposited from overseas by check/cheque or telegraphically. I have an account with Bank of America and used to be able to draw funds from Australian bank Westpac via their ATMs without incurring a fee, because BofA and Westpac are both members of a Global ATM Alliance that did not charge fees to each others customers. But now they have initiated a new policy, and take 3% of every sum withdrawn. Not quite usury, but in the same ballpark. I'm now investigating the possibility of opening a Schwab or a Capital One account in the US, and using one of their credit cards, which, I believe, would allow withdrawals at Australian ATMs for no fee. If you find or have found a good answer to your dilemma I hope you will share it. "Everything I have read here sounds good except for one small detail.  My bank does indeed identify ATM rebates as taxable income.  They, in fact, seemed to have begun this practice several years ago but somehow forgot to send 1099's to their own customers despite sending them to the IRS.  This ended up costing me nearly $2,000 in back taxes to cover 2012, 2013 and 2014.  My bank sent a letter of apology and will cover any penalties and interest accrued ""due to their error"". No one from the bank ever told me that these rebates could be taxable when I signed on for this special checking account for which I pay a fee each month to continue.  So what is the truth, is it taxable income or not?  I have now paid for the 2012 and 2013 tax years for something I still say is not income.  I am about to pay the 2014 tax bill and will have to pay another $850 or so due to this ruling by my bank.  How can this be right??" "I second what ""powercow"" and ""Osetic"" said.  I switched away from Wells Fargo to Patelco (Pacific Telephone Company, i'm in the bay area).  They are world's better.  My biggest issue with WF was the overdrafts, how much they charged, and the way in which they processed incoming transactions (which they are being sued in a class action for, btw).  I had my new account setup so it could never overdraft, it would just decline.  In my first month with Patelco, I ordered checks.  When that charge processed, it dipped my account into the negative due to it being an internal CU charge and their system not performing all the checks/balances first.  They called me about 24hrs after it happened to let me know:  * How sorry they were * That they would refund me the amount of the checks * That they added $10 on top of the refund to ensure I understood it was a mistake * If there was anything else they could do to make the situation right  And like others here, I have shorter lines, more helpful tellers, a more inviting atmosphere, oh and free coffee.  You gotta find a better CU, yo" "This summer I used a loan from my 401(k) to help pay for the down payment of a new house. We planned on selling a Condo a few months later, so we only needed the loan for a short period but wanted to keep monthly payments low since we would be paying two mortgages for a few months. I also felt like the market might take a dip in the future, so I liked the idea of trying to cash out high and buy back low (spoiler alert: this didn't happen). So in July 2017 I withdrew $17,000 from my account (Technically $16,850.00 principal and $150 processing fee) at an effective 4.19% APR (4% rate and then the fee), with 240 scheduled payments of $86.00 (2 per month for 10 years). Over the lifetime of the loan the total finance charge was $3,790, but that money would be paid back into my account. I was happy with the terms, and it helped tide things over until the condo was sold a few months later. But then I decided to change jobs, and ended up having to pay back the loan ~20 weeks after it was issued (using the proceeds from the sale of the condo). During this time the market had done well, so when I paid back the funds the net difference in shares that I now owned (including shares purchased with the interest payments) was $538.25 less than today's value of the original count of shares that were sold to fund the loan. Combined with the $150 fee, the overall ""cost"" of the 20 week loan was about 4.05%. That isn't the interest rate (interest was paid back to my account balance), but the value lost due to the principal having been withdrawn. On paper, my account would be worth that much more if I hadn't withdrawn the money. Now if you extrapolate the current market return into 52 weeks, you can think of that loan having an APR ""cost"" of around 10.5% (Probably not valid for a multi year calculation, but seems accurate for a 12 month projection). Again, that is not interest paid back to the account, but instead the value lost due to the money not being in the account. Sure, the market could take a dip and I may be able to buy the shares back at a reduced cost, but that would require keeping sizable liquid assets around and trying to time the market. It also is not something you can really schedule very well, as the loan took 6 days to fund (not including another week of clarifying questions back/forth before that) and 10 day to repay (from the time I initiated the paperwork to when the check was cashed and shares repurchased). So in my experience, the true cost of the loan greatly depends on how the market does, and if you have the ability to pay back the loan it probably is worth doing so. Especially since you may be forced to do so at any time if you change jobs or your employment is terminated." I know that many HSBC ATMs at branches in the US and Canada offer this service (they actually scan and shred checks as you deposit them). Perhaps they do same in Germany... but not all ATMs offer this feature. Get a checking account with Ally Bank. They refund all ATM fees from within the US, so effectively, every ATM transaction will have no surcharge. "It's very straightforward for an honest vendor to refund the charge, and the transaction only costs him a few pennies at most.  If you initiate a chargeback, the merchant is immediately charged an irreversible fee of about $20 simply as an administrative fee.  He'll also have to refund the charge if it's reversed.  To an honest merchant who would've happily refunded you, it's unfair and hurtful.  In any case, now that he's out-of-pocket on the administrative fee, his best bet is to fight the chargeback - since he's already paid for the privilege to fight. Also, a chargeback is a ""strike"" against the merchant.  If his chargeback rate is higher than the norm in his industry, they may raise his fees, or ban him entirely from taking Visa/MC.  For a small merchant doing a small volume, a single chargeback can have an impact on his overall chargeback rate.  The ""threshold of proof"" for a chargeback varies by patterns of fraud and the merchant's ability to recover.  If you bought something readily fungible to cash - like a gift card, casino chips, concert tickets etc., forget it.  Likewise if  you already extracted the value (last month's Netflix bill).  Credit card chargeback only withdraws a payment method.  Your bill is still due and payable. The merchant is within his rights to ""dun"" you for payment and send you to collections or court.  Most merchants don't bother, because they know it'll be a fight, an unpleasant distraction and bad for business.  But they'd be within their rights.  Working with the merchant to settle the matter is a final resolution." If this matters to you a lot, I agree you should leave. My primary bank account raised chequing account and transaction fees. I left. When I was closing my account the teller asked for the reason (they needed to fill out a form) and I explained it was the monthly fees. Eventually, if a bank gets enough of these, they will change. I want to get back those features for the same price it cost when I opened it They are in their rights to cancel features or raise prices. Just as you are in your rights to withdraw if they don't give you a deal. The reason why I mention this is that this approach is comical in some instances. A grocery store may raise the price of carrots. Typically you either deal with it or change stores. Prices rise occasionally. thus they will lose a lot of money from my savings From my understanding, a bank makes a large chunk of their money from fees. Very little is from the floating kitty they can have because of your savings. If you have an investment account with your bank (not recommended) or your mortgage, that would matter more. I've had friends who have left banks (and moved their mortgages) because of the bank not giving them a better rate. Does the manager have any pressure into keeping the account to the point of giving away free products to keep the costumer or they don't really care? Depends. I've probably say no. One data point is an anecdote; it is expected in a client base of thousands that a few will leave for seemingly random reasons. Only if mass amounts of clients leave or complain will the manager or company care. A note: some banks waive monthly account or service fees if you keep a minimal account balance. I have one friend who keeps X thousand in his bank account to save the account fee; he budgets a month ahead of time and savings account rates are 0% so this costs him nothing. It's actually becoming a lot more common these days because the smaller banks and CUs have to compete with the Bank of Americas of the world - they have ATMs everywhere and people really cling to that feeling of convenience.  Rebating foreign ATM fees is actually more cost effective than setting up a billion ATMs in a lot of cases too, so it makes sense from a couple of perspectives. Yes, overall, it is a big inconvenience to you. This same issue applies for those that for example, receive Social Security benefits (and perhaps other government cash benefits) on a pre-paid card (rather than direct deposit to a bank account). They allow a few ways to get cash from the card:   You can get cash back (no fee) when you make a retail purchase. You could use the card for relatively small items you would purchase anyway, and get $100 or more back in cash each time. Every store/chain will have it's own limits on how much cash back they will allow per transaction. And, be careful, some stores charge a fee for cash back, but it's not at all common. If even these small purchases are an issue, you can then (presumably later) return the item you purchased without returning the cash-back you received (if the store allows returns/refunds). And, since a transaction with cash back is processed as a debit (rather than a credit), usually if you later return the purchased item, you will be refunded in cash (rather than a credit back to your card/account). Also, for other cards, sometimes you can go to a branch of the bank that issued the card and make a no fee withdraw, sometimes in cash and sometimes by check. This depends on the policy of the issuing bank, and the card account. Finally, most of this assumes that you are given a pin (or the opportunity to create one) with the card, because cash-back and ATM access requires a pin. And there are some banks/cards that don't allow any of this. Simple Schwaab does not have actually your securities they have leased them out and have to borrow them back. all assets are linked with derivatives now. They show on the balance sheet but have to be untangled. Thats why the market drops disproportionally fast to the actual number of shares sold. I had one of those banks that reordered transactions. Deposit cash first thing in the morning means you should have money in your account, right? Nah son. First they're going to take your balance at the beginning of the day, then they'll deduct all of the transactions you made that day, in order from largest to smallest. Did one of those put you in the red (ignoring the deposit)? Time to apply an overdraft fee to that one and every single one that comes after (in order of largest purchase to smallest, mind you). Only then would they apply your deposit, but, for many, that wasn't enough to cover the overdraft fees. I eventually received money from either a class action or a CFPB thing, but not enough to cover the amount they took in fees through that scheme. Thankfully, my deposits were large enough to at least cover the fees, so I didn't have those damnable daily fees on top of it all. "There are two ways to handle this. The first is that the better brokers, such as Charles Schwab, will produce summaries of your gains and losses (using historical cost information), as well as your trades, on a monthly and annual basis. These summaries are ""ready made"" for the IRS. More brokers will provide these summaries come 2011. The second is that if you are a ""frequent trader"" (see IRS rulings for what constitutes one), then they'll allow you to use the net worth method of accounting. That is, you take the account balance at the end of the year, subtract the beginning balance, adjust the value up for withdrawals and down for infusions, and the summary is your gain or loss. A third way is to do all your trading in say, an IRA, which is taxed on distribution, not on stock sales."