Hi all,Have posted similar on another forum (ss), but I'm sure...

Hi all,
Have posted similar on another forum (ss), but I'm sure there's room for doubt about the expected $1.75 per transaction claimed in this thread, and reason to think carefully about company prospects, at least locally with the upcoming move to Direct Charging.
Here's my post from SS:

"Do we really think Direct Charging will be a saviour in 2009? Apart from the risk of further delay (it's a HUGE project for many in the industry, don't underestimate the workload & therefore delay risks), I also cannot help but feel it's likely to further threaten the already under-preforming transaction volumes.
Many cardholders use a convenience ATM regardless of cost and still will, but surely a fair percentage of these remain ignorant of that cost or willing to wear it as it's unseen (until you get the bank statement). When faced with a screen showing "This will cost you $2, do you want to continue", how many cardholders will change their habits and go back to using the ATMs of their own bank's Network? There's not just the ATM fee being disclosed, but also the warning about the chance the card issuer will still charge you a fee regardless, it's bound to discourage some convenience ATM users.
To balance this however, there's always the likes of ING, and now NAB with their recent advertising, where cardholders are not charged fees for using other bank's ATM's, which one presumes will still apply under Direct Charging. If more issuers start absorbing these fees and cardholders know it, it supports the ability of ATM owners to increase fees I suppose.
Declaration: I do not hold shares in CUS, but have worked for Cashcard in the past."
Since then I've also reflected on the likes of the NAB product. It's more likely that they are getting in early to look like the good guy and gain market share now, but once Direct Charging comes in it's not them charging the fee to the cardholder, they won't need to absorb the fee at all. Under Direct charging I expect most banks would do similar and stop charging cardholders for use of another bank's ATM, NAB's just wearing some costs early to get market share perhaps?"

Also regards some other thread comments, the fee paid to CUS is likely to be the same for regional & city atms today (though the ATM operator might be on varying deals from one site to the next), but of course under DC they can try to get more for remote devices if they can get away with it. The thing to remember for both city and country, is cash costs are HUGE, and that hoped for $1.75 would likely be gross, not nett. If BoQ or St George still have their brand on CUS machines they'll be taking a cut. $1.75 gross income per txn, less fee to site owner, less fee to STG/Bank Q, less cost of running switch if link to SPS, less the big cost of Cash and device maintenance, less cost of funds for buying/owning the machine, less maintenance & insurance and compliance costs etc etc. Then say Cashcard offers convenience ATMs at a lower cost to cardholder, and volumes drop....I just feel from what I read there's some possibly misplaced enthusiasm around the CUS prospects. Maybe I'm a pessimist.
Hay