One time, I needed $300 from an ATM, but this particular ATM had a $200/transaction limit. I took $200 dollars out of my checking account and took my card. Literally a few seconds later, I put my card back in and took the other $100 out with no issues. What is the point of transaction amount limits if they can be circumvented by simply doing multiple transactions?
-
8I am wondering a bit about the way your limit is applied. I only know daily limits. Once you withdraw (let's say) 1000€, you are done for the day. This is limiting damage when the card is stolen while your kind of limit is just a nuisance – Manziel Aug 24 '22 at 12:06
-
@Manziel but the exact opposite is the case here. This ATM would just require a thief to steal in multiple withdrawels – Jimmy T. Aug 24 '22 at 15:40
-
1@Manziel On the new TV show "Sprung", the protagonist got advice on how to commit crimes from other inmates while he was in prison. One who was teaching him how to commit ATM fraud recommended doing it around midnight, so you can do it twice to get in each day's limit. – Barmar Aug 24 '22 at 16:55
-
that gives the bank more opportunity to consider the operation fraudulent – njzk2 Aug 24 '22 at 16:55
-
@Barmar Very interesting! I would assume by default ATMs with daily limits would actually limit based on hours instead of actual time checking, so I would have never thought of that – GrumpyCrouton Aug 24 '22 at 21:47
-
4Presumably there are engineering factors involved too. The machine will be designed with some upper limit on the number of banknotes that can reliably be handled in a single transaction. Also, transaction limits probably help to discourage customers from making large withdrawals that empty the machine too quickly. – avid Aug 24 '22 at 22:49
-
8After being a bank customer for a few decades and collaborating with them for a few years professionally, I have to say that many rules seem to stem from "because that's how we have always done it" or "because it gives our customers an illusion of security", sometimes peppered with "because national regulations require it". – xLeitix Aug 25 '22 at 08:44
7 Answers
It's rather common for an ATM to only be stocked with $20s and lower (or even with nothing but $20s). That means your $200 transaction limit might actually be a more customer-friendly way of saying the machine has a limit of 10 bills per transaction.
The ATMs that I've used in recent memory all used the same type of bill dispenser mechanism. A little panel opened and bills were fed halfway out, propelled by rollers above and below. Those rollers also held the bills in place until you took them. That style of mechanism will naturally have a limit as to how far the rollers can spread apart and thus how thick a stack of bills they can dispense. Going over that limit means the bill feeder could jam, disabling the machine or shredding your cash. Also, the rollers are made of high-friction rubber but a well-used bill can be rather slick. If the stack gets too high and the rollers can't squeeze hard enough to keep the bills in the center of the stack in place, then some of your bills could fall out of the machine or blow away in the wind.
I have a feeling this is one reason for the limit because you'll get a similar limit when you try to deposit something at an ATM. Deposits are fed into the machine by a feeder that looks just like the output feeder. Some units even use a single slot that does double duty. When you tell the machine you want to make a deposit, it will typically say that you can deposit multiple items at once but you can only deposit X number at a time. I made a deposit the other day and do you want to guess what it told me? "Deposit up to 10 checks or bills at a time".
- 2,557
- 8
- 16
-
1Good thinking! But even if it’s a physical limitation of the dispenser mechanism: They could just solve it in software by asking you to remove the money, then dispensing a new stack of bills without starting a whole new transaction. – Michael Aug 25 '22 at 10:59
-
1@Michael but the machine can also only hold so many notes in the first place. Incidentally here where we've recently switch to polymer notes, the limits haven't changed but they no longer come out in a nice neat stack, and aren't held so securely by the rollers – Chris H Aug 25 '22 at 11:03
-
Interestingly, I found an article stating that in Poland ATMs had a limit of 30 to 40 notes, before the transaction limits got lowered. – jaskij Aug 25 '22 at 14:57
-
This is certainly plausible. I feel like for decades most of the ATMs I've used have happily handed out 20 or more bills, but who knows- maybe newer technology can't handle it anymore. (Hehe- just kidding. More likely it's different ATMs using different technology or maybe reducing the number of bills lowers the likelihood of a sticky bill getting undetected, etc.) – TTT Aug 25 '22 at 15:17
-
In Tanzania, the usual limit on ATMs is 400,000, and it's given out in 10,000 bills (there are no higher ones). Means usually you get 40 bills at once. – Paŭlo Ebermann Aug 25 '22 at 23:53
Likely only your bank can answer this for sure, but I think we can make an educated guess as to some reasons for this. All of these ideas assume that it's in the bank's best interest to limit the amount of cash withdrawn from their ATMs, while still maximizing the value of having an ATM in the first place:
- Fees: maybe you aren't paying any fees in this case, but some people might be, and this would be one way to extract addition profits from the ATM (per dollar withdrawn).
- Some people don't know your trick. Even those that do may simply not go through the extra effort to perform an additional transaction.
- In the (hopefully) rare event that someone is being forced to withdraw cash against their will, or their card is stolen, the lower limit may help to protect the victim in the case that the perpetrator doesn't know your trick, or doesn't wish to take the extra time to use it.
Certain account types have a transaction limit per month. For example, a savings accounts may be limited to 6 withdrawals per month.Apparently "Regulation D" is no longer in effect, at least federally, and furthermore it may not have applied to ATM or teller withdrawals anyway.
I also want to draw special attention to user11153's answer which expands upon a very likely motivation being additional Fees, with the subtle distinction that the ATM owner profits per transaction from the banks themselves. Also see jaskij's comment below where one company admitted this exact reasoning.
- 47,155
- 7
- 99
- 151
-
Thank you! Another scenario regarding the forced withdrawal issue that I just thought of is if someone had put the card in and entered the PIN, but then a theif forced them away from the ATM. If the person is not willing to re-enter their PIN for the thief, the theif will only get $200. – Someone Aug 24 '22 at 04:33
-
-
3"Some people don't know your trick. Even those that do may simply not go through the extra effort to perform an additional transaction", this seems to make an assumption that it is desirable that people do not withdraw more via the ATM. Why is unclear to me. – Andrew Savinykh Aug 24 '22 at 09:52
-
25I'm wondering if ensuring the ATM doesn't run out of cash could be another reason, especially those in high-traffic areas. – MetalMikester Aug 24 '22 at 11:02
-
2"but some people might be" and even if you aren't paying any fees personally, it is likely that your bank is paying some kind of fee to the ATM operator. ATM operators don't work for free. – Peter Green Aug 24 '22 at 13:28
-
"savings accounts may be limited to 6 withdrawals per month". This limit is not always hard (depending of the banks policy). The bank might successfully process more than 6 withdrawals from savings, and then charge fines for excessive withdrawals. – SolutionMill Aug 24 '22 at 13:53
-
2@SolutionMill yes, I learned that the hard way. I used PayPal to make 17 individual purchases from my savings account in one day. All but the first 6 had a $5 fee. It was especially frustrating because most of the purchases were only about $2. – Someone Aug 24 '22 at 13:55
-
@AndrewSavinykh - yes, that's correct, and stated in this answer's second sentence: "All of these ideas assume that it's in the bank's best interest to limit the amount of cash withdrawn from their ATMs." The comments from MetalMikester and PeterGreen are some of the reasons for this. – TTT Aug 24 '22 at 14:10
-
@SolutionMill Agreed. The reason I mentioned it is to provide another reason a user may choose not to do a second transaction (e.g. if they were withdrawing from savings and approaching their monthly transaction limit). – TTT Aug 24 '22 at 14:30
-
2@Someone $55 in fees in a single day is unfortunate! In my experience if you are generally in good standing with the bank, a phone call and asking nicely might reverse some or all of those charges. – TTT Aug 24 '22 at 14:34
-
Fees make the most sense to me. If the ATM has to be refilled too often because of people withdrawing big amounts the cost might get too high – Jimmy T. Aug 24 '22 at 15:42
-
2@TTT The "6 transactions per month" on a Savings account is a regulatory thing, not a bank policy thing. The bank may not be able to waive those. – Michael Richardson Aug 24 '22 at 18:03
-
@MichaelRichardson Maybe? But I'd be very surprised if there's a regulation that dictates that a bank must charge a customer exactly $5 for each violation. – TTT Aug 24 '22 at 18:37
-
2@TTT It looks like the various options previously were fees, having the account converted to a non-interest bearing account or even having the account closed. So banks did have options. Though it looks like this regulation was amended in early 2020 to allow unlimited transactions anyway. – Michael Richardson Aug 24 '22 at 18:48
-
@MichaelRichardson right. I was just reading the same. I updated the answer to reflect this new information. Apparently, some banks might still enforce it even though they don't have to! – TTT Aug 24 '22 at 18:51
-
3Family used to work in the banking industry and fraud was the #1 reason. So if someone has your card & your pin, they can't empty your account. Usually, there's a daily limit on top of the per transaction limit. – technogeek1995 Aug 24 '22 at 19:14
-
3@technogeek1995 That's good info regarding daily limits in general, but may not be relevant to this particular question. Note this question has a subtle difference: Why is the transaction limit lower than the daily limit if you are allowed to make multiple transactions in a row? I covered a similar angle in point #3, and it's possible that it's the top reason here as well. – TTT Aug 24 '22 at 19:33
-
Regarding protection from criminals, one specific scenario it helps with is if you were part-way through your transaction, and a criminal waited for you to enter your PIN then jumped in, pushed you out of the way, and either entered a sum to withdraw or simply grabbed the money you had requested as it comes out of the machine. A per-withdrawal limit prevents you losing too much. – Stuart F Aug 24 '22 at 20:43
-
2And yet another case might be if you hit the 0 key too many times and entered $200 instead of $20 by mistake and didn't notice before you hit enter/OK - no accidentally withdrawing huge sums of money. – Stuart F Aug 24 '22 at 20:44
-
@TTT ah! the subtly I didn't see. You're a better human than I :) – technogeek1995 Aug 24 '22 at 20:48
-
2Addition to #3: in the event your card was stolen, forcing the thief to make multiple transactions greatly increases the amount of time he spends standing in front of the ATM's security camera, hopefully resulting in a nice, clear image. – bta Aug 25 '22 at 00:19
-
I did precisely that, @StuartF, many decades ago. Went to get $20.00 from the ATM and accidentally hit an extra
0then just hit OK. I was rather uncomfortable walking around the corner from the ATM and into the bank in midtown Manhattan to deposit the extra $180 back into my account. Wanting $200.00 and accidentally getting $2000.00 would be slightly worse. (Of course, if ATMs simply eliminated the cents entry, that would simplify things, but why most still require that is a whole 'nother question.) – FreeMan Aug 25 '22 at 11:44 -
1When searching for the current limits for ATMs, I found an article where Euronet directly admitted they lowered the limit due to rising costs. – jaskij Aug 25 '22 at 14:56
i used to work for an institution that did this. it was because the per-transaction limit and the per-day limit were controlled in separate systems. they could raise the per-day limit on the card easily on the central server, but could not raise the per-transaction limit on all the atm's for technical reasons because it was stored in a decentralized way. so they raised the per-day limit, but left the per-transaction limit in place.
- 3,002
- 12
- 17
-
1Good info! This implies that originally they were probably the same limit. I then wonder why the per transaction limit is even needed at all? Wouldn't the daily limit block the transaction on its own? – TTT Aug 24 '22 at 19:52
-
4@TTT The user-experience of "The ATM tells me I can only take out $200" is much better than the user-experience of "The ATM lets me take out however much I want, but if I try to take out too much I get a weird error code. The ATM doesn't tell me how much is too much." So if the ATMs only support a per-transaction limit, setting it to the per-day limit improves the user-experience for most people. – Gavin S. Yancey Aug 24 '22 at 20:03
-
@JamesTurner any chance it was OnPoint? It was a Capital One debit card but I used an OnPoint ATM iirc. – Someone Aug 24 '22 at 21:29
-
@GavinS.Yancey That's plausible. This assumes the daily limit error is "weird". NSF errors are pretty clear, but I don't recall what a daily limit error code looks like. Perhaps it varies. – TTT Aug 25 '22 at 15:30
-
@GavinS.Yancey My bank uses the latter method. In fact, if I try to withdraw too much at once, it simply says my account doesn't have enough money. Very bad user experience if you're not aware of it! – user253751 Aug 25 '22 at 18:01
-
per-txn limits are common in the payments industry because high-dollar transactions tend to carry more risk than small transactions. in the context of a face-to-face transactions fraudsters would prefer to make a single large transaction and hope to avoid being remembered or recorded rather than a serious of small transactions, each of which is a new opportunity to get caught. obviously this doesn't make a lot of sense for atm's since they're not a human who would find these duplicate transactions more suspicious and memorable. – teldon james turner Aug 25 '22 at 20:41
I think it's to prevent a situation where someone accidentally withdraws thousands of dollars accidentally.
For example, some people may throw a few extra 0s on the end either confused about if they need to include cents, or simply not paying attention.
Obviously it's suboptimal for people to be carrying around thousands of dollars accidentally.
- 478
- 3
- 8
-
If "someone accidentally withdraws thousands of dollars", they can just deposit it. And, of course, you cannot withdraw more than you have in the account. – warren Aug 25 '22 at 12:53
-
3
-
1I don't know that I've looked at deposit options at gas station ATMs (which I haven't had need to use in years), but every bank-run ATM I've seen in the last 30 years accepts deposits – warren Aug 25 '22 at 13:53
-
-
@warren But maybe you are correct. To be honest, my bank doesn't even have their own ATMs. – Gregory Currie Aug 25 '22 at 13:57
-
-
1@warren They are(/were?) ATMs for business owners to use at the end of day to drop off cash so they didn't have to keep it at home or on-premises. – Gregory Currie Aug 25 '22 at 14:00
-
2Bank-branded ATMs in the US and Canada almost always have deposit. In other regions, including Europe and Asia, this is significantly more rare, and even at bank branches, restricted to one or two units. (This difference is why Europeans think checks are obsolete, where in US and Canada we don't understand the hassle) Another thing to note is if you're using an ATM at a different bank than your own, you likely do not have deposit ability. (Credit union networks are the exception) – user71659 Aug 25 '22 at 18:43
-
@user71659 Thanks for the info. The rationale you present make a lot of sense. – Gregory Currie Aug 26 '22 at 02:54
-
2@user71659, no, we think cheques are obsolete because everything you can do with a cheque can be done via online banking, with none of the insecurity, inconvenience (yes, even if you have an ATM where you can deposit them, you still have to physically go to it) and (I assume) much less overhead for the banks – DaveyDaveDave Aug 26 '22 at 07:01
-
1@DaveyDaveDave A perfect example of Europeans not knowing how checks work. We don't go to the bank or ATM, we take a picture with our phones now. The overhead is the same for the bank because checks are cleared electronically, they flow through the same systems as electronic payments (ACH). And electronic push payments are full of fraud (In the UK, 40% increase in 2021, reaching £1.3 billion). – user71659 Aug 26 '22 at 16:45
-
@warren You can withdraw more than you have in your account in the US, a lot of ATMs don't check that strictly or it is a "feature". When I was a broke student I did exactly this--put an extra 0 and overdrew my account. It was actually at an ATM at a bank branch of my bank, so I was able to run inside and deposit it but I still had to call to get the overdraft fee reversed. (I think this was a point when you still needed an envelope to make deposits, so even though the ATM might have been able to receive deposits I wasn't necessarily able to return it that way.) – user3067860 Aug 26 '22 at 18:44
-
1@user3067860 That's basically no longer true: as a result of regulatory forces, US banks no longer allow you to overdraft via a debit card transaction unless you opt in via overdraft protection. Now in Europe, that's a regular thing as in many countries, they push overdraft lines of credit. There, it serves as short-term consumer borrowing, like credit cards do in the US. – user71659 Aug 26 '22 at 20:13
-
@user71659 OK, so the overhead is about the same (excluding the cost of printing little books), but if it's flowing through the same systems, then so is the security, except that there's this magic bit of paper flowing around that doesn't need login credentials to use or edit (https://www.npr.org/2022/02/03/1077766541/usps-checks-mail-fraud-bank) – DaveyDaveDave Aug 30 '22 at 06:00
-
@DaveyDaveDave Under the UCC, the bank cashing the check guarantees check is legit and the person cashing it is authorized (presentment warranty). Thus, banks do not cash checks unless they feel the customer is identified, trustworthy (via checking history) and there is recourse (a sufficient account balance). If a fraudulent check is presented against my account, I simply notify the bank and the financial impact goes back on the cashing bank. This is not true in many electronic transfer schemes, particularly wires, and in countries, particularly the UK, hence the need for authentication. – user71659 Aug 31 '22 at 05:05
-
@DaveyDaveDave Another important part of the check system is that checks do not clear instantly when they reach the paying bank: the bank has 24 hours to decide whether to pay. This allows time for people to verify the checks. My bank sends me a push notification when a check comes and I view the image, see the endorsement, and mark it as paid in my records. Businesses automate this with a system called Positive Pay: they upload a file of check numbers and values, and the bank automatically verifies presented checks against this list. – user71659 Aug 31 '22 at 05:17
-
1@user71659 Nothing you say will convince me that pieces of paper are somehow superior to something electronic. – Gregory Currie Aug 31 '22 at 05:50
-
@user71659 yes, we have that too, only it's text and numbers on a screen, not a picture of a piece of paper with someone's hand-writing on it. And I thought you said the overhead was the same. Your long-winded description of the workaround for proper authentication sounds like an awful lot more work for the banks than just making the system secure in the first place. – DaveyDaveDave Aug 31 '22 at 07:31
It's common thing in ATMs that are not operated directly by your bank, but by some independent network. That's because your bank has to pay fee to owner of ATM for each transaction. So for the owner it's more profitable to serve more transactions using the same number of bills.
- 143
- 1
- 5
-
1Nice answer! It is a subset of my answer regarding fees, but I like the distinction here that it's in the best interest of the ATM owner to do this, to extract additional fees from each bank, rather than the banks extracting fees from their customers. – TTT Aug 25 '22 at 15:12
-
While I like bta's answer best (and I think it's the main reason), here's one more aspect that hasn't been considered: fraud protection.
Suppose you get a large amount of illegal money in your account. Say, a forged check. You know that it will be discovered soon so you want to withdraw it in cash and disappear. Having a limit in place makes sure you can't empty the whole ATM at once. In fact it will be a very slow and tedious process to withdraw large sums of money (tens of thousands). This makes it both impractical and also gives the bank time to react.
- 1,127
- 10
- 14
While I don't think I'm going to add anything other answers haven’t already covered, I wanted to frame it slightly differently. This is based on speculation as much of the other answers are and I have no experience in the field of ATMs.
ATMs are stocked with a finite amount of cash, and need to be restocked regularly. How much cash they hold is a balance between not having to restock too frequently and not making it too much of a target for criminals.
Restocking requires a secure van and a couple of people driving about so naturally costs money. They don't want someone to empty it in a single transaction so a limit has to be set somewhere but they also need to cover the costs of restocking each time. A transaction fee charged to the bank and value limit allow for predictable minimum revenue between restocks.
- 31
- 2