Cheapest way to pay into US bank account?

Discuss it with your bank. If you have an account manager then they should be able to do you a deal> It helps if you know someone who is also a customer of theirs who is getting a good deal.

You'll get charged fees for direct transfer I think too. A friend was paid directly by a company and there were huge charges on it.

Ask for a copy of their leaflet on foreign money fees and they'll prob not be able to produce one.

What bank? And is it business account?

Abbey Business

Ring them and ask your account manager about the charges. See if you can put a few cheques in together and if they'll offer a discount on fees. say you're thinking of moving to another bank who'll not charge you.

They're all very vague on charges which I take to mean negotiable. :)

Payments 3 ways: Receiving payments

Receiving money directly from an overseas bank ? give your customer your IBAN number, (shown on your statements). If your customer is located in a country that does not currently use IBAN numbers, you will need to give them your correct account number and sort code and any relevant reference number. Your customer then instructs their bank to make a payment directly. Once we?ve received the money, we credit it to your account by the close of business on the next working day.

Paying in cheques ? you can pay foreign cheques into your account if they are payable to you and are less than six months old. We credit foreign cheques to your account in two ways:

Negotiation ? cheques less than £2,500 (sterling equivalent), are credited to your account, without confirmation that the cheque has been paid by the bank on which it is drawn. However, if the cheque is returned unpaid we will debit your account at the prevailing exchange rate ? so the amount debited may be more than the original credit. This usually takes six days. This service is subject to status.

Collection ? we send the cheque to the bank of origin. We wait for the arrival of the funds before crediting your account. This process usually takes between four and eight weeks, depending on the country of origin.

try xe.com

I want to pay someone in the US!! What is the cheapest way to avoid excessive fees as any fees they incur will be billed to us

American Express will sell you a money order, as will many High Street banks, perhaps at higher fee.

US$ travellers cheques are probably the cheapest way: 1% commission. You sign them twice. You can write on the back "for deposit only to the account of payee" -- the equivalent of crossing the cheque. Hold the cheque in front of you, right side up. You turn it one quarter turn clockwise and then flip it over and write the restriction at the top of the back. (That's the endorsement area, fixed by the mechanized check handling rules some years ago.)

That's a bad description because it's ambiguous. There are two ways you can flip it. Flip the bottom up or top down (rotate it about the now horizontal short axis) or flip the left right or the right left (rotate it about the now vertical long axis). The two methods will put the endorsement on opposite sides of the back of the cheque, and I presume from what you're saying that only one of them is correct.

You need to say whether the "top of the back" corresponds to the left or right edge of the cheque when the right way up.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Hey, RR - get out of my head & stop saying what I was thinking all the time! ;-)

OK then. The end of the check where the endorsement goes is usually shown on US checks. I have in front of me a checkbook for a US account. However you turn it over and twist it, the end that gets endorsed is the one that is the reverse of the left edge when you hold the front of the check, right-side up, in front of you.

If you look at

what is at the top of the image is the left edge of the check when you are looking at the front side, right side up. Maybe that confuses you even more, but I can't remember my secondary-school geometry.

No, that clears it up just fine, and means when you say "flip" you mean rotate it about the long axis. I would have tended to use the other one.

May I offer a simpler explanation? Grab the cheque (sorry, check) (when the right way up) at its lower right hand corner and flip it in such a way that (without letting go) you're still holding it at the new lower right hand corner. The endorsement area is then at the top. This is what a right handed person would do. A leftie could instead grab the *top* left corner and similarly flip so that the new top left is still being held.

Alternatively: Flip the check over by rotating it about an imaginary line, at 45 degrees to the sides, drawn from the bottom right hand corner to partway along the top edge, or from the top left to part way along the bottom.

Can't you just put payee's name in middle of cheque, the endorsement should be done by the payee? or have I missed something? Eric

Of course that's what you do. But in the USA

(1) a check has to be endorsed in order to be cashed or deposited, and if not endorsed the bank has to stamp "absence of endorsement guaranteed" (obviously they often don't, but they're supposed to, and the check could be returned unpaid otherwise)

(2) the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code, the US's only true "code" of laws, with all due homage to David Dudley Field and his aborted "Field Code" and all the rest, including California's so-called "Civil Code"), unlike the Cheques Act 1992, makes checks true "negotiable instruments" in the sense that they can be transferred to another by endorsement, and a transfer for value means that the "holder in due course" has a claim against the maker irrespective of any defences the original payee might have. (In England, the writing of a cheque is not a novation, the holder never has better title than the original payee, cheques are (by default) for payment through the payee's account only (although a bank may, if it wishes, accept a third-party cheque for deposit or encashment "with recourse").

(3) In the USA one arrives approximately at the English system by stamping or writing 'FOR DEPOSIT ONLY' just above the endorsement signature.

(4) In Canada you can endorse a cheque anywhere on the reverse side; in the USA it has to be within the 1-1/2 inch endorsement margin at the specified edge. I guess the FBI and the Secret Service pay you a visit if you may a mark in another place.

Gosh, I'm not accustomed to being so vehemently agreed with.

In message , Stormlx writes

No, not by default, only if they bear a restrictive crossing such as where a cheque is crossed and bears across its face the words "account payee" or "a/c payee", either with or without the word "only". Bank cheque forms generally have such restrictive crossing already printed upon the face of them, but this isnt a legal requirement, just common practice. If a cheque does not bear such a crossing or if a pre-printed crossing is 'opened' by the drawer then a UK cheque is negotiable in much the same way as an American cheque and the paramount status of 'holder in due course' can still be attained.

This has approximately the same effect as the restrictive crossing described above.

Other than travellers cheques and giros (a failed Royal Mail experiment, really), and a very few special cases where government agencies believe that the recipients of a cheque may not have a bank account

Uncrossed cheques are nonexistent in the UK. Whether one would constitute a novation and create a holder in due course defence remains to be seen. Nothing on LexisUK. And these days anyone presenting one is likely to be arrested for moneylaundering, tax evasion and illegally trying to pass a document denominated in £.s.d.

I did learn in my Google search that Canadian law provides for crossing of cheques. But in 40 years of handling Canadian cheques (that goes back to when most non-governmental out-of-town Canadian cheques did not clear at par, there was a percentage-based clearance fee dependent upon distance) I have yet to see one.

In message , Biwah writes

Not even the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 and Cheques act 1957?

The acts referred to above quite clearly establish negotiability, transferability etc., and provides for the various states of holding a cheque , holder, holder for value, holder in due course etc., and defines the extent to which those states are effected by various crossings. Bank customers could choose either 'open' or 'crossed' cheque books.

The 1992 Cheques Act merely altered the collecting banks protection previously afforded to it.

As a result all banks thought it prudent to alter their standard cheque forms to include an 'a/c payee only' crossing and withdrew the 'open' option.

Therefore, the principle of an uncrossed cheque still stands, it just isnt used in practice.

It's the _practice_ that scares me. Whenever I go into a financial institution wearing my usual bike headgear and carrying my chain saw, I meet with a very negative response. Bullet-proof shield notwithstanding.

And, dare I say it, the last time I told my newsagent that the bill of exchange I wanted him to take in exchange for the Sunday Times and a copy of Loot had been properly endorsed and accepted by the Bank of England and he could count on its acceptance in good form and time, he took out a shotgun and chased me off.

In message , Biwah writes

:-)

Custom House/XETrade, no fees and favourable exchange rate.