They say that banks save loads of money when people go to a machine rather than a real teller. The machine may have a large up-front installation cost, but it has a low maintenance cost over time. A real teller, on the other hand, has a high cost that never drops over time. Banks say that may be true, but there is a real cost associated with each transaction, and it needs to be borne by someone. In addition, banks contend that the cost is higher for transactions that are handled by an ATM owned by one bank for a consumer that doesn t have an account with that bank.
Bankers are on the most solid ground with that assertion.
They have to do extra bookwork to handle a transaction between a customer and that customer s own bank, and so it s reasonable to expect them to extract some kind of fee for that service. I ve not seen any industry figures, but the advent of the ATM has to have afforded bankers huge savings in personnel costs. ATMs don t draw a salary or hourly wage. They don t accrue sick leave or take holidays. They don t have insurance or 401K plans.