Why do the 1 and 2 euro cent coins exist and why are they used?
While dealing with US pennies and not 1 and 2 cent euro pieces, you may find this Wikipedia article of interest and analogous: Penny debate in the United States This article briefly summarizes both the arguments for and against retaining the one cent piece.  The arguments against include: Arguments for preservation include: Already a number of countries have removed their equivalents of the one and two cent coins, including New Zealand, Sweden, Australia, Israel, and Brazil (to name a few). I guess other than tradition and inflation, probably because the merchants want them.   In the US, what currently costs $2.00 used to cost $0.10.   So 75 years ago, those individual cents made a pretty bid difference.  Inflation causes prices to go up, but doesn't get us to just change our currencies patterns. In your example, you are assuming that in an average day, the rounding errors you are willing to accept happen a couple of times.  2 or 3 cents here and there mean nothing to you.  However to the merchant, doing hundreds or thousands of transactions per day, those few cents up and down mean quite a bit in terms of profit. To an individual, looking at a time frame more than a single day (because who only participates in economies for a single day) there are potentially millions of transactions in a lifetime, mean potentially giving away millions of dollars because they didn't want to wait. And as for the comment that people working each 3 cents every 10 seconds, I would assume at least some of the time when they are waiting for rounding errors, they are not at work getting paid.  That concept is assuming that somebody is always willing to pay them for their time regardless of where that person is in the world; I have no facts and wild assumptions, but surely that can't be true for even a majority of workers. Finally, you should be happy if you happy to have an income high enough that you don't care about individual cents.  But there are those business people who see opportunity in folks like you and profit greatly from it.  I personally worry very much about who has my money; gov't gets paid to the penny and I expect returns to the penny.  A super polite service employee who smiled a lot serving me a beer is getting all the rounding errors I have.
At one point it was illegal to melt silver coins in the US, but it is legal now.  I don't know that will happen with copper coins, but that's what happened with silver coins. Accumulating nickels and leaving them as-is (in their spendable state) is legal.  It's also a way to take physical ownership of copper. I expect to see more sales of nickels based on weight.  People are already selling high-copper-content cents on eBay, by weight.  There are machines in production that sort the zinc ones from the copper ones.  Gresham's Law has small business backing. ;) Copper cents are already worth twice their face value in the copper content.  Nickels will get up there, too. They are awfully heavy and bulky relative to their value, though.  Precious metals give you better bang for your ounce. "When you invest in an S&P500 index fund that is priced in USD, the only major risk you bear is the risk associated with the equity that comprises the index, since both the equities and the index fund are priced in USD. The fund in your question, however, is priced in EUR. For a fund like this to match the performance of the S&P500, which is priced in USD, as closely as possible, it needs to hedge against fluctuations in the EUR/USD exchange rate. If the fund simply converted EUR to USD then invested in an S&P500 index fund priced in USD, the EUR-priced fund may fail to match the USD-priced fund because of exchange rate fluctuations. Here is a simple example demonstrating why hedging is necessary. I assumed the current value of the USD-priced S&P500 index fund is 1,600 USD/share. The exchange rate is 1.3 USD/EUR. If you purchase one share of this index using EUR, you would pay 1230.77 EUR/share:  If the S&P500 increases 10% to 1760 USD/share and the exchange rate remains unchanged, the value of the your investment in the EUR fund also increases by 10% (both sides of the equation are multiplied by 1.1):  However, the currency risk comes into play when the EUR/USD exchange rate changes. Take the 10% increase in the price of the USD index occurring in tandem with an appreciation of the EUR to 1.4 USD/EUR:  Although the USD-priced index gained 10%, the appreciation of the EUR means that the EUR value of your investment is almost unchanged from the first equation. For investments priced in EUR that invest in securities priced in USD, the presence of this additional currency risk mandates the use of a hedge if the indexes are going to track. The fund you linked to uses swap contracts, which I discuss in detail below, to hedge against fluctuations in the EUR/USD exchange rate. Since these derivatives aren't free, the cost of the hedge is included in the expenses of the fund and may result in differences between the S&P500 Index and the S&P 500 Euro Hedged Index.  Also, it's important to realize that any time you invest in securities that are priced in a different currency than your own, you take on currency risk whether or not the investments aim to track indexes. This holds true even for securities that trade on an exchange in your local currency, like ADR's or GDR's. I wrote an answer that goes through a simple example in a similar fashion to the one above in that context, so you can read that for more information on currency risk in that context.  There are several ways to investors, be they institutional or individual, can hedge against currency risk. iShares offers an ETF that tracks the S&P500 Euro Hedged Index and uses a over-the-counter currency swap contract called a month forward FX contract to hedge against the associated currency risk. In these contracts, two parties agree to swap some amount of one currency for another amount of another currency, at some time in the future. This allows both parties to effectively lock in an exchange rate for a given time period (a month in the case of the iShares ETF) and therefore protect themselves against exchange rate fluctuations in that period.  There are other forms of currency swaps, equity swaps, etc. that could be used to hedge against currency risk. In general, two parties agree to swap one quantity, like a EUR cash flow, payments of a fixed interest rate, etc. for another quantity, like a USD cash flow, payments based on a floating interest rate, etc. In many cases these are over-the-counter transactions, there isn't necessarily a standardized definition.  For example, if the European manager of a fund that tracks the S&P500 Euro Hedged Index is holding euros and wants to lock in an effective exchange rate of 1.4 USD/EUR (above the current exchange rate), he may find another party that is holding USD and wants to lock in the respective exchange rate of 0.71 EUR/USD. The other party could be an American fund manager that manages a USD-price fund that tracks the FTSE. By swapping USD and EUR, both parties can, at a price, lock in their desired exchange rates.  I want to clear up something else in your question too. It's not correct that the ""S&P 500 is completely unrelated to the Euro."" Far from it. There are many cases in which the EUR/USD exchange rate and the level of the S&P500 index could be related. For example: Troublesome economic news in Europe could cause the euro to depreciate against the dollar as European investors flee to safety, e.g. invest in Treasury bills. However, this economic news could also cause US investors to feel that the global economy won't recover as soon as hoped, which could affect the S&P500.  If the euro appreciated against the dollar, for whatever reason, this could increase profits for US businesses that earn part of their profits in Europe. If a US company earns 1 million EUR and the exchange rate is 1.3 USD/EUR, the company earns 1.3 million USD. If the euro appreciates against the dollar to 1.4 USD/EUR in the next quarter and the company still earns 1 million EUR, they now earn 1.4 million USD. Even without additional sales, the US company earned a higher USD profit, which is reflected on their financial statements and could increase their share price (thus affecting the S&P500). Combining examples 1 and 2, if a US company earns some of its profits in Europe and a recession hits in the EU, two things could happen simultaneously. A) The company's sales decline as European consumers scale back their spending, and B) the euro depreciates against the dollar as European investors sell euros and invest in safer securities denominated in other currencies (USD or not). The company suffers a loss in profits both from decreased sales and the depreciation of the EUR.  There are many more factors that could lead to correlation between the euro and the S&P500, or more generally, the European and American economies. The balance of trade, investor and consumer confidence, exposure of banks in one region to sovereign debt in another, the spread of asset/mortgage-backed securities from US financial firms to European banks, companies, municipalities, etc. all play a role.  One example of this last point comes from this article, which includes an interesting line: Among the victims of America’s subprime crisis are eight municipalities in Norway, which lost a total of $125 million through subprime mortgage-related investments. Long story short, these municipalities had mortgage-backed securities in their investment portfolios that were derived from, far down the line, subprime mortgages on US homes. I don't know the specific cities, but it really demonstrates how interconnected the world's economies are when an American family's payment on their subprime mortgage in, say, Chicago, can end up backing a derivative investment in the investment portfolio of, say, Hammerfest, Norway." they did crash because supply caught up to demand.  &gt; because the only reason people were buying them is because they would go up in value  that is the explanation for why price shot up so quick.  &gt; Sounds exactly like Bitcoin in my opinion  There's genuine utility in cryptocurrency.  Bitcoin is the anchor to all of them.  Btw, there is significant cost to mining bitcoin  &gt; How many people do you know using Bitcoin as a currency?  You can pay bills with it.  A lot better than gold in that regard.  &gt;  It isn't backed by a government or military  historically always a terrible thing for every currency.  The freedom from political whim based valuation is a plus.  &gt; When it crashes and criminals are the only ones using it, then what is it worth?  Criminals would be better off using cash or Monero (a crypto with better privacy safeguards).  But criminal can be a bit subjective.  Bitcoin for instance is the best vehicle for transporting money protecting from thieves whether or not they are government employees.  &gt;  Maybe $100 a coin? $10? Who knows, it sure as hell isn't $5,000 a coin though.  I think we'll see $5000 again, before $3000 or $1000. Coinstar will charge zero if you will take one of the gift cards they offer. Since my daughter likes iTunes, a $20 gift card is just as easy to get at the Coinstar machine as anyplace. They offer a multitude of choices, Amazon gift cards among them.  Really, stop saving coins. It's no big deal to give a cashier at the supermarket up to 10 pennies, or a toll guy $2 in coins. Just don't give the toll guy $1 in pennies. Remember, stores often need coins or $1/$5 bills, so they are happy to take them as long as the timing is right. Bitcoin isn't exactly backed by any substantial economic factors, like a good, skill, etc., and people are less familiar with it than a bond.  The idea of currency existing as debt has been with humankind for thousands of years, and we've just forgotten, so I thought using the bond equivalent wold refresh that thought in peoples minds, and begin a period of rethinking our culture on social and economic terms. When economies are strong, it is particularly alluring to have a single currency as it makes trade and tourism simpler and helps reduce costs. The problem comes when individual member economies get into trouble. Because the Eurozone is a loose grouping of nations, there is no direct equivalent of the US Federal government to coordinate a response, there is instead an odd mixture of National and Central government that makes it harder to get a unified approach to the economy (OK, it's maybe not so different to the US in reality).  This lack of flexibility means that some of the key levers of international finance are compromised, for example a weak economy can't float its currency to improve exports. Similarly individual country's interest rates can't be adjusted to balance spending. I suspect the main reason though is political and based on concepts of sovereignty and national pride. The UK does the majority of its trade with the Eurozone, so the pros would possibly outweigh the cons, but the UK as a whole (and some of our papers in particular) have always regarded Europe with suspicion. Most Brits only speak English and find France and Germany a strange and obtuse place. The (almost) common language makes it easier to relate to the US and Canada than our near neighbours. It seems the perception amongst the political establishment is that any attempt to join the Euro is political suicide, while that is the case it is unlikely to happen. Purely from a personal perspective, I'd welcome the Euro except it means a lot of the products I routinely buy would become a lot more expensive if price is 'harmonised'. For an example compare the price of the iPod Touch in the UK (£209.99) to France(€299). The French pay £262 at the current exchange rate, which is close to 25% more. Ouch. See also my question about Canada adopting the US Dollar Why do these fees exist? From a Banks point of view, they are operating in Currency A; Currency B is a commodity [similar to Oil, Grains, Goods, etc]. So they will only buy if they can sell it at a margin.  Currency Conversion have inherent risks, on small amount, the Bank generally does not hedge these risks as it is expensive; but balances the position end of day or if the exposure becomes large. The rate they may get then may be different and the margin covers it. Hence on highly traded currency pairs; the spread is less.  Are there back-end processes and requirements that require financial institutions to pass off the loss to consumers as a fee? The processes are to ensure bank does not make loss. is it just to make money on the convenience of international transactions? Banks do make money on such transactions; however they also take some risks. The Forex market is not single market, but is a collective hybrid market place. There are costs a bank incurs to carry and square off positions and some of it is reflected in fees.  If you see some of the remittance corridors, banks have optimized a remittance service; say USD to INR, there is a huge flow often in small amounts. The remittance service aggregates such amounts to make it a large amount to get a better deal for themselves and passes on the benefits to individuals. Such volume of scale is not available for other pairs / corridors. Every now and then I fill a pocket with a handful of coins and spend it on a very small shop on my way home, i.e. a loaf of bread (£1.50), a pint of milk (50p) by using the self-check out (Tesco/Sainsbury's) which has a coin slot or even better the little bowl where you put coins down. I find this pretty straightforward. There's no point having a jar at home worth £50.