[harperlee]

ATM withdrawal is not generally free; both the ATM network and your bank can charge fees for withdrawing money. At least in Spain this is true; I think it is generally true at least lso with French banks. Withdrawing abroad is normally with fees.

EDIT: Downvotes in HN are not a dissenting mechanism; they are there to bury inappropriate/misleading/etc. comments (not that I particularly care, but it seems a proper opportunity to clarify a misconception).

[richardknop]

In a lot of Europe it is free.

[aequitas]

Just as free as free shipping, at the end of the day you pay for it someway, like (higher) banking fees, cost for (extra) card, reduced interest rates, etc.

[richardknop]

Interest rates have been basically zero in all western world for a long time. Transferring money in Europe is also cheaper than in US, very few fees if any.

[tqkxzugoaupvwqr]

In Europe, if you use ATMs of your bank’s network, it is free. For example, customers of a bank that is part of the UniCredit group can withdraw money for free from another bank’s ATM as long as this bank is also part of the UniCredit group.

[harperlee]

In reality it depends on the ATM network, not on the bank (different companies!), although fees might be waived by your bank for commercial reasons.

For example, a spanish Santander card is free in the 4B network, but you will be charged on the german Santander ATM, as it is another ATM network (the Cash Group).

[zingmars]

> not on the bank (different companies!)

Not necessarily. Here in Latvia banks manage their own ATMs and whether you will have to pay a fee depends on your bank having a contract with the bank whose ATMs you're trying to use (usually there is no fee for taking money out of your bank's ATMs with a few exceptions, i.e. my bank has a 10% fee on withdrawals from credit cards, though most have debit cards anyway).

[chrisseaton]

> In Europe, if you use ATMs of your bank’s network, it is free.

Who do you think is paying to run that ATM?

[Aaargh20318]

As far as I know ATM withdrawals are free within Europe (if you're a customer of another European bank).

[harperlee]

Again, that depends on the bank. But there is no European legal obligation for it to be free of fees.

[richardknop]

That’s true but practically speaking if you live in Europe 9/10 times you will pay 0 fees. If you don’t travel much (and during travel use ATM at the airport), you might never pay any fees.

[tluyben2]

In my experience in Spain for instance, most ATMs make you pay a fee unless you are with their bank or if your bank pays for it. In north EU a less common see fees charged.

[Aaargh20318]

Why would you join a bank that charges a fee to use the ATM ?

[harperlee]

Perhaps because you save more money on a cheaper mortgage than you spend on ATM fees, as you don't take a lot of money from the ATM because you can pay by card almost everywhere, for example?

[Aaargh20318]

Except those aren't related at all. You can have a mortgage at bank A and a checking account at bank B. In fact, that's the most common case for most people.

[harperlee]

They are indeed related, it is not uncommon for banks to offer reduced mortgage rates if you have with them also other products, and often people prefer dealing with just 1 bank. So I would also contend your point of "having just a mortgage with 1 bank and the checking account elsewhere" being the most common case.

And nonetheless you were initially asking why would anyone join a bank that charged them ATM fees; the answer is that it might still make financial sense or be convenient for people. We are discussing about why there is a sizable population for which ATM withdrawal fees makes them prefer paying by card; you can of course "blame the victim" and say that it is the fault of those people not choosing the proper back. But it is just avoiding the topic, which is: this is a problem when travelling to Germany, and it I not a problem when travelling elsewhere in Europe.

[tomhoward]

> Downvotes in HN are not a dissenting mechanism

PG stated very early on in HN's history that downvoting to signal disagreement is reasonable [1], and that's been generally accepted as a guiding principle in the community ever since (though it's not in the guidelines, so it's a matter of individual preference).

What is in the guidelines is this: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." [2].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[harperlee]

Fair point, I was mistaken on that.

How can the community learn about the rules if we should not point to or discuss the rules? If it were not for my comment, you would not have pointed that to me :)

[tomhoward]

:)

A good starting point, aside from keeping familiar with the guidelines themselves, is to follow dang's and sctb's comment threads, where issues like this are discussed freqquently. That's how I keep up.

https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang

https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=sctb

The reason not to comment on things like voting behaviour is that it takes discussions away from their primary topic and into the territory of being repetitive, uninteresting, and sometimes resentful and hostile. Of course that can never be avoided altogether, but it can and should be minimised :)