Deposit Checks To Your Bank By Taking a Photo

Pickens writes "The Mercury News reports that consumers will soon be able to deposit a check by snapping a photo of it with a cell phone and transmitting an encrypted copy to their bank. Although some critics contend paperless deposits are an attempt by the banking industry to eliminate 'float,' the standard one- or two-day waiting period between the time someone writes a check and the time the money is actually taken out of their account, actually remote-deposit capture started out as a way for big companies and financial institutions to process huge numbers of checks without having to ship them around the country. 'Our customers are becoming more and more tech-savvy,' said an SVP for mobile banking at Citibank. 'We're trying to support those people on the go.' Although the process adds a new wrinkle to concerns about fraud and the privacy of financial data, banks and the technology companies helping them say they have largely overcome these concerns. Another bank SVP said, 'For many institutions struggling to raise deposits and differentiate, this is an outstanding offering they can roll out inexpensively [note: interstitial]. It's a sticky product.'"

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[Lev13than]

Just what I want on my cell phone...a picture of a piece of paper that has my checking account number and bank routing number on it. ::eye roll::

Everyone you have ever given a cheque to already has your account number, bank routing number and home address. Despite the little lock watermark and "micro-printing", cheques are 100% non-secure and should be treated as such. At least the iPhone has a four-digit password to protect it...

I hate cheques!

[bsDaemon]

First off, why would people be critical of eliminating float?! This is the worst part of using cheques -- sort of like making a "credit" purchase on a debit card. If I'm paying someone, I want them to take the money out of my account NOW so that my balance updates immediately. Of course, no one really takes cheques anyway except for leasing offices and the like -- people who know where you live without a shadow of a doubt. I only ever write cheques for my leasing office, which is why I'm still on the same box I've had since I was 18... which reminds me, I sort of need to get some more.

Re:Oh yeah, great idea

[Pojut]

I have a checkbook that I got from my bank when I opened my first checking account when I turned 16 (almost 10 years ago)...and every one of those checks are still attatched to their little booklets:-)

Why not all electronic? No really, why not?

[tomalpha]

I mean this as a genuine question: why is the US so far behind Europe in this?

I haven't seen a cheque in years. Is it too expensive to move everyone over to electronic transfers (surely it's cheaper to get rid of cheque processing)? Too difficult to change the habits of a large population quickly? Concerns about fraud? Plain unwillingness to change? It can't be the recent banking crisis because we had that too...

Re:USAA has been doing this for years

[japhering]

USAA has offered "Deposit@Home" for years. Instead of taking a photo you can just scan the check and upload it. The only problem is they require you to have a credit card with them as well to qualify for the service. Hopefully, if other banks offer this service for free than USAA will change that policy. I hate having to mail in checks and sit around for two weeks waiting for them to deposit it.

USAA has been offering services via cell phone including check deposits for better than a year now. Everything you can do via computer and the web you can do via cell phone

Digital Credit Union

[self assembled struc]

Not only do you get some sort of possible bizzare nerd cred for using DEC's old credit union, but just like USAA, you've been able to deposit via check for about 3 years now. Sure DCU has no snazzy iPhone app, but, damned if i've ever lived near one of their banks in my lifetime.

Re:USAA has been doing this for years

[vekrander]

The only reason for mailing here is that USAA doesn't have physical branches in every state but is still available there. Of course to remedy that you can deposit@home with a scanner as I have for two years without any issues. Also, they credit your account instantly as well. Then when you need to go to an ATM and you get charged fees for using one that isn't in your banks network, they pay fee on your behalf. Overall, I would rate them very successful as far as doing everything I used to do at my physical bank, except the convenience is better. Now why would someone use a bank that they can't physically go to? Personally, I do it for the customer service. I'm not sure exactly how their banking branch is, but their insurance branch is owned by the policy holders, which I also am a member of and the service there is what convinced me to use them as my financial institution. Either way, they've proved to me that there are many less reasons to need a physical bank now.

Re:$25 to transfer money to a friend?!

[rapiddescent]

The US banking system is basically where we (UK) were in the 1980's. I even saw someone writing a check in a supermarket when I was in the US recently! I haven't written a cheque for many years and, in fact, APACS will be outlawing cheques here in 2012. The US banking system is much more fragmented in the USA and doesn't have the regulatory structure and capital guarantee that UK banks have to have. Some banks only span a few towns (although these are disappearing) and don't have a national presence. They still have "bank managers" too and you can go in an "speak to them" - Most UK branches haven't had this for years.

It's only since "faster payments" was introduced a 4 years ago that person to person payments using online banking etc have really taken off. I don't think any of the big UK banks charge for faster payments. Of course, you can have fun sending 0.01 to your friends with a transfer label "goats.cx" etc.

They also don't have the concept of "direct debit". something that astounds me. You either have to go to an online bill consolidator service of have to pay each bill (sending a cheque!!!!) individually!

Re:Checks

[businessnerd]

As someone who uses both a credit union and a bank, I recently had a discussion with the credit union about switching my checking over to the credit union. My first question was ATM availability and fees. This pretty much decided it. As someone who travels constantly for work, I need ATMs available without fees in most of the country. The credit union had plenty of ATMs where I live, but none outside of that area. While they offered 8 free transactions at out-of-network ATMs, that wasn't good enough for someone who travels weekly. On top of that, the actual ATM fee was higher than what my current bank charges. I don't get reimbursed for ATM fees, so this expense adds up very quickly.

The other factor was online banking. The credit union's web site is terrible and their online bill pay tools even worse. I pay all of my bills online and even send checks to individuals via the online bill pay (saves the cost of both checks and stamps). Not having decent tools for this is a deal breaker. Granted, the credit union is not all bad. They gave me a very competitive rate on an auto loan, but then at the same time, paying that loan is not as easy as it was when I had a loan with Volkswagen Credit. I hear a lot of people touting the superiority of credit unions over banks, but I have yet to see any evidence of this for my own banking needs.