Want to win a real ATM filled with cash?

You can…. if you play the Win For Life game run by the Georgia Lottery.

Nonwinning tickets can be entered in a second-chance drawing. On July 31 a grand-prize drawing will be held. The top prize? A real Tranax 1700W ATM, provided by ATM Network and filled with $52,000 in cash.

The ATM itself is worth a couple of thousand dollars, so it’s really a $54,000 payoff. And if you find a location to install it (with free processing from ATM Network), it could be the start of a business.

The promotion is being advertised with full-size cardboard displays (that’s what the picture’s of) in more than 8,000 stores statewide, with the ATM Network logo right in the center.

Who says ATMs can’t be fun?

Tranax Technologies Inc., an ATM manufacturer that sells machines to independent sales organizations, has filed for Chapter 7 voluntary bankruptcy, citing debts of $1 million to $10 million. Tranax said its assets equal its estimated liabilities.

The Hayward, Calif.-based company filed June 11 in United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland. In its bankruptcy filing, obtained by ATMmarketplace.com, Tranax listed 13 creditors, including Hyosung Corp. of America.

Tranax’s bankruptcy filing occurred less than a month after U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker entered a judgment May 25, ordering Tranax to pay Hyosung America Inc. and its parent company, Nautilus Hyosung Inc., $5.01 million plus daily interest of $1,742.52 until Tranax pays its debt. Nautilus Hyosung had to wait 14 days from that date before taking action to seize property to satisfy Walker’s ruling. Walker issued his ruling May 6.

As noted in our earlier post, there may be more to the bankruptcy than first appears:

In 2008 Tranax was acquired by Hantle USA. This year, the company announced that Hantle would take over ATM marketing, while Tranax would focus on kiosks, scanners and ATM components. Hyosung is now suing Hantle USA, alleging that Hantle USA has taken over many of Tranax’s assets, making it difficult for Hyosung to collect the judgment.

Chapter 7 means Tranax will be shut down and its remaining assets sold off to satisfy creditors, including Nautilus Hyosung. But while the Tranax name will go away, Tranax’s line of ATMs and ATM products will continue to be sold and developed under the Hantle brand.

However, if Nautilus Hyosung persuades a court that Hantle improperly transferred assets out of Tranax in order to avoid paying Nautilus the $5 million court award, then Hantle USA or its parent could be on the hook for the money.

In any event, a name associated with the explosive growth of the non-bank ATM industry is going down in a lawsuit-inspired bankruptcy.

But here’s some good news: RBS has since determined that the change is unnecessary. So its end-of-day close will stay at 4 p.m.

Editor’s note: ATM Network technicians have the experience to solve even the thorniest problems, and routinely go above and beyond to do so. This is one such story.

One day the ATM Network service department got a call from a bar and grill in southern Minnesota. Their ATM had suddenly stopped contacting the transaction processor, rendering it useless. When it printed receipts, they said “System unavailable.”

The technician had the owner print out the machine’s electronic journal, which showed that the the ATM was running into “protocol errors”. That usually meant that transactions were getting interrupted in the middle of processing. The most common causes all involve the phone line: too much static, interference from a DSL connection, a shared phone line or (for technical reasons), phone service provided by cable companies.

Further questioning, however, revealed that the bar didn’t have cable TV, much less cable phone service. It didn’t have an Internet connection of any sort, so there wouldn’t be any DSL interference. And the ATM had its own dedicated phone line.

That left static on the line. The tech called the local phone company, which checked its lines and said they were fine. But just in case, they installed a DSL filter to block DSL interference.

A couple of days passed, and the customer called back: the ATM still wasn’t working. In the meantime, the techs had gotten another call from a customer in a neighboring town. He had two machines: One was on an Internet connection, and it was working fine. The other used a phone line, and it was having exactly the same problem as the first customer.

The tech asked which phone company owned the line. It was the same company that served the first customer. This wasn’t unusual: the company serves a large swath of southern Minnesota. The tech called the company and told them a second machine was down. The company checked that line, too: it was fine.

Then a third customer called with the same problem. Different machine, different model – but the same phone company.

The tech thought about it for a little bit, then looked up the phone company’s service area and began calling ATM Network customers in the area. He found four more clients with ATMs that couldn’t communicate with the transaction processor.

He called the phone company for the third time and told them what he found. They still insisted it wasn’t their fault, and suggested it might be ATM Network’s server.

The tech seriously doubted that, but to be sure he called up merchants who had ATMs from competitors that didn’t use our processing network. They, too, reported processing problems.

He called the phone company a fourth time. The company said it couldn’t be their fault, but they’d look into it.

Two days later, everything started working again. The phone company never admitted anything.

The donation comes after independent ATM operators faced two direct threats to their businesses in less than two months.

BACKGROUND
In early April, Mastercard unilaterally reduced the transaction fee it pays to independent ATM networks while tripling the fee it charges to process Mastercard-branded cards or use its Cirrus network. Bottom line: Mastercard will siphon an additional $26 million a year from independent ATM operators — a transfer of wealth from thousands of small-business owners all across America to one of the world’s largest financial companies.

Then in mid-May, during Congressional debate over a financial-reform bill, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) proposed an amendment that would have capped ATM surcharges at 50 cents — making most nonbank ATMs unprofitable to operate. Its passage would have resulted in ATMs disappearing from business establishments of all kinds, as well as destroying several thousand jobs.

Thankfully, the Harkin amendment was defeated. But the prospect of it being reintroduced in some form, as well as worries about future moves by Mastercard, has prompted the ATM Industry Association (ATMIA) to address the problem head-on with the creation of a “defense fund”.

THE FUND
The fund, made up of voluntary contributions from members and nonmembers, will pay for two things:

1. Legal advice in the wake of Mastercard’s profound changes to the industry’s fee structure.

2. A “white paper” on the nonbank ATM industry, to better explain what it does, how it works, and why proposals like Harkin’s would be disastrous for it.

ISSUES THAT AFFECT EVERYONE
Why should anyone outside the industry care? Let’s take a look.

In the case of the Harkin amendment, it’s pretty simple: a limit on ATM surcharges would make many ATMs unprofitable to own and operate.

Sen. Harkin clearly doesn’t understand the economics of nonbank ATMs. He assumes the only cost associated with an ATM transaction is the cost of processing — a cost erroneously estimated at 36 cents by Harkin’s staff.

But that ignores the cost of the ATM itself, as well as the time and cost of installation, maintenance, insurance, supplies and cash. Harkin seems to think that merchants would be happy to install and maintain a money-losing ATM. That’s simply ridiculous.

In the case of Mastercard and Cirrus, anti-competitive behavior hurts everyone who uses an ATM. Mastercard’s fee changes mean processing a Mastercard or Cirrus transaction is more expensive for merchants than, say, processing a Visa card. That leaves merchants with few choices — including raising surcharges for everyone (even if you don’t use Mastercard or Cirrus) or removing the machine because it’s no longer profitable.

None of the available options are good for either merchants or customers. The ATMIA fund will help the industry explore legal, regulatory and market strategies that would let us avoid such harmful choices.

WHAT CAN BE DONE
ATMIA has asked each member company to donate $500 to the fund. ATM Network has donated $3,000. We strongly urge others to step forward, too. You can donate online at the following links:

ATMIA members
https://www.atmia.com/unitedstates/membership/membershiprenewal

Nonmembers
https://www.atmia.com/unitedstates/membership/join

Thank you for joining us in this effort!

It will move up one hour, to 3 p.m. Eastern time from the current 4 p.m. Eastern time.

That means that any transaction processed after 3 p.m. Eastern time will be included in the next day’s total.

Please be aware of this when you begin reconciling your ATM Portal, ATM journal and bank activity statements for July. If your ATM’s operating hours differ from the RBS schedule, your daily transaction count may differ from theirs.

UPDATE: RBS has since determined that it won’t need to change its end-of-day close after all. So it will stay at 4 p.m.

The case stemmed from the contract dispute between Hyosung and Tranax that led to Hyosung dropping Tranax as it’s U.S. distributor and Tranax becoming an ATM manufacturer in its own right.

Starting in 1998, Tranax was the U.S. distributor for Hyosung ATMs. Then in 2006, Hyosung discovered that Tranax was substituting another manufacturer’s cash dispensers in some Hyosung models. Hyosung suspended shipment of the models in question; Tranax responded by suspending payment on all outstanding invoices.

Hyosung ended Tranax’s distribution contract in January 2007 and filed an arbitration grievance over the unpaid invoices later that year, alleging Tranax had breached the terms of its distribution contract.

In February, the arbitration panel ruled in Hyosung’s favor and ordered Tranax to pay the full amount of the unpaid bills, plus interest. On Wednesday, a federal court upheld the ruling.

Tranax did win one small victory: it had long sold Hyosung ATMs using the “Mini-Bank” trademark, and the arbitration panel ruled that Tranax owned that trademark. So Hyosung has stopped using the term in its advertising.

The story isn’t over yet. In 2008 Tranax was acquired by Hantle USA. This year, the company announced that Hantle would take over ATM marketing, while Tranax would focus on kiosks, scanners and ATM components. Hyosung is now suing Hantle USA, alleging that Hantle USA has taken over many of Tranax’s assets, making it difficult for Hyosung to collect the judgement.

Stay tuned.

Whether you think he’s truly the inventor of the ATM depends a little bit on how you define “ATM.” The machine he invented bears little resemblance to modern ATMs:

The first automatic teller machine, now known as ATMs, was installed at a branch of Barclays Plc in a north London suburb on June 27, 1967.

Plastic bank cards had not been invented yet, so Shepherd-Barron’s machine used special checks that were chemically coded. Customers placed the checks in a drawer, and after entering a personal identification number, a second drawer would spring open with a 10 pound note.

Two years later, a completely different machine, invented by a completely different person, was installed at a bank in Manhattan. That machine was the first modern ATM, and all subsequent models were patterned after it, not Shepherd-Barron’s machine.

Shepherd-Barron also claims credit for inventing four-digit Personal Indentification Numbers (PINs):

Shepherd-Barron originally planned to make personal identification numbers six digits long, but cut the number to four after his wife Caroline complained that six was too many.

“Over the kitchen table, she said she could only remember four figures, so because of her, four figures became the world standard,” he told the BBC.

As with many world-changing inventions, the ATM was an idea being worked on by several different people at the same time. Barron’s machine came first, but because of the cumbersome interface, didn’t catch on. It was a company named Docutel, selling a machine invented by an American named Don Wetzel, who produced the first commercially successful ATM.

But both men can claim credit for an idea that launched a financial revolution. There are now nearly 2 million ATMs installed worldwide. And it all a little over 40 years ago today, in the minds of a Scotsman and a Texan.

Thank you to everyone who called, faxed or wrote their senator to oppose this ill-considered amendment.

The amendment is not dead — Harkin could try to bring it up again, either with this bill or with a different bill later on in the session. But at this point it seems unlikely to be part of the current bill.

Meanwhile, here are a few more people speaking up to oppose the amendment.

From a letter in the Des Moines (IA) Register:

I have to tell you, Sen. Tom Harkin, how disappointed I am with your proposed 50 cents maximum per ATM withdrawal fees. I’m a small-business owner in the ATM business, not a bank, but a hard-working, tax-paying U.S. and Iowa citizen.

It is an absolutely ridiculous statement that ATM withdrawals cost us a mere 36 cents, Senator Harkin. I have quite a few ATMs and drive more than 1,800 miles per week. I have the cost of gas, a vehicle, the cost of the ATMs, the interest for the cash in the ATMs, etc. I pay my locations between 50 cents and $1.50 per withdrawal as I lease the space in the locations.

Is Congress going to stop the person who charges $2.29 for a cup of coffee versus the store that charges 99 cents? Is Congress going to put a cap on Nike shoes when a merchant charges more than $200 for a pair of shoes that cost him $65, but the demand is there, so he can charge what he wants?

The biggest difference is my ATMs have a screen that asks the customer if they agree to the charges. If not, they hit cancel.

— Jeff “Ole” Olson, Guttenberg

And the Cato Institute resurrects a paper from 1998, the last time a senator (in that case, Republican Al D’Amato of New York) proposed capping surcharges:

Consumers have the ability to obtain money from their bank accounts without paying a surcharge. ATM surcharges allow banks and other ATM operators to deploy machines in more convenient locations than might otherwise be possible. Customers who are unwilling to pay a surcharge incur the cost of inconvenience, while those who value the convenience more than the cost of the fee have the option of paying for it. Senator D’Amato, Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)–Congress’s self-proclaimed socialist–and numerous consumer groups have formed an unlikely coalition to put an end to ATM surcharges. If successful, that campaign would limit the options of consumers, since there would be no means to support the more convenient ATM machines. Prohibiting ATM surcharges would only harm consumers by slowing the expansion of ATMs and reducing the number of ATMs currently deployed without making anyone better off.

The 1998 effort failed, which is why you find privately-owned ATMs all over the place, complementing the bank-owned ATM networks. It looks like the latest effort will fail, too — which is good for consumers and good for business.