Is there such a thing as a deposit-only bank account?
Do you write checks?  You are giving your bank account and routing number to anybody you have ever given a check to.  Your employer is paying taxes on your behalf, so they need your social security number so they can pay your social security taxes. Account and routing numbers are how deposits are made.  If you are concerned, create a free checking account, collect the direct deposit and each payday go to the bank and withdraw your money to put it where you like. Nothing is deposit only because you will want your money back. Finally, you would be shocked at how little it takes to make a draft on your account in the US.  Certainly not your SSN, Address, or even your name. Usually the most significant risk scenarios here are: Third parties can abuse your routing/account numbers to initiate debits, but this is a type of fraud that is easily traced. It can happen, but it is more likely that it would be a scenario where you were specifically targeted vs. the victim of some random fraud. Defending against someone who is specifically going after you is very difficult, especially if you don't know about it. Your SSN isnt used for the bank transfer, you are providing it so that the entity making the payments can report on payments to you for tax purposes. If you are truly worried about this type of scenario, I suggest setting up a dedicated savings account for the purpose of receiving these payments and then sweeping (either manually or automatically) the funds into another account. Most stock brokers will allow you to automate this, and most banks will let you do this manually. "I would suggest opening a bank account that you use to accept deposits only, and then get a system set up where it automatically transfers the money over to your main account. If not instantly it could transfer the money hourly or daily. Of course you would have to pay a premium for this ""peace of mind"" ;)" "There is such a thing as Deposit Only. This will allow the individual's account to function only for collection of monetary deposits.  NO ONE will be able to withdraw...only deposit.  The account holder may still physically withdraw at their banking institution.  Think of it as taking your account from a ""public"" profile to a ""private"" profile.  Doing this is beneficial for ppl who may have been scammed into a program or product where there account is bieng fraudulently overdrafted, or simply to protect your funds from bieng drafted without your approval or despite your requests for ceasing the drafts.  When making your account a deposit only account it's a good idea to open a NEW account at a Different banking institution, because some banks will still allow an account that is ""attached"" to the deposit only account to be drafted from it.   WIth the new account you can utilize that one for paying day to day bills and just transfer funds from the deposit only account to the new account.   A deposit only account is also a good way to build up a nice nest egg for yourself or even a young adult! source- Financial Adivsor 4years-" Legally, no one else can withdraw from your account. If you suspect the direct-deposit websites are making withdrawals, you can monitor your account balance and dispute any transactions that were not made by you. But realistically, any company that did that would soon be out of business and in so much legal trouble that it wouldn't be worth the money they could get from you.
"The short answer is that banking is complicated, but the bank really doesn't need your money because it can get it from the Fed almost free, it can only use 90% of the money you give the bank, it can only make money on that 90% from very low-risk and thus low-return investments, and as it has to show a profit to its shareholders it will take whatever cut it needs to off the top of the returns. All of these things combine to make savings account interest roughly .05% in the US right now. The longer answer: All FDIC-insured banks (which the US requires all ""depositor"" banks to be) are subject to regulation by the Federal Reserve. The very first rule that all banks must comply with is that depositor money cannot be invested in things the Fed terms ""risky"". This limits banks from investing your money in things that have high returns, like stocks, commodities and hedges, because along with the high possible returns come high risk. Banks typically can only invest your savings in T-debt and in certain Fed-approved AAA bonds, which have very low risk and so very little return. The investment of bank assets into risky market funds was a major contributor to the financial crisis; with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, banks had been allowed to integrate their FDIC-insured depositor business with their ""investment banking"" business (not FDIC insured). While still not allowed to bet on ""risky"" investments with deposits, banks were using their own money (retained profits, corporate equity/bond money) to bet heavily in the markets, and were investing depositor funds in faulty AAA-rated investment objects like CDOs. When the housing market crashed, banks had to pull out of the investment market and cash in hedges like credit-default swaps to cover the depositor losses, which sent a tidal wave through the rest of the market. Banks really can't even loan your money out to people who walk in, like you'd think they would and which they traditionally used to do; that's how the savings and loan crisis happened, when speculators took out huge loans to invest, lost the cash, declared bankruptcy and left the S&Ls (and ultimately the FDIC) on the hook for depositors' money.  So, the upshot of all this is that the bank simply won't give you more on your money than it is allowed to make on it.  In addition, there are several tools that the Fed has to regulate economic activity, and three big ones play a part. First is the ""Federal Funds Rate""; this is the interest rate that the Fed charges on loans made to other banks (which is a primary source of day-to-day liquidity for these banks). Money paid as interest to the Fed is effectively removed from the economy and is a way to reduce the money supply. Right now the FFR is .25% (that's one quarter of one percent) which is effectively zero; borrow a billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) from the Fed for one month and you'll pay them a scant $208,333. Banks lend to other banks at a rate based on the FFR, called the Interbank Rate (usually adding some fraction of a percent so the lending bank makes money on the loan). This means that the banks can get money from the Fed and from other banks very cheaply, which means they don't have to offer high interest rates on savings to entice individual depositors to save their money with the bank. Second is ""quantitative easing"", which just means the Fed buys government bonds and pays for them with ""new"" money. This happens all the time; remember those interest charges on bank loans? To keep the money supply stable, the Fed must buy T-debt at least in the amount of the interest being charged, otherwise the money leaves the economy and is not available to circulate. The Fed usually buys a little more than it collects in order to gradually increase the money supply, which allows the economy to grow while controlling inflation (having ""too much money"" and so making money worth less than what it can buy).  What's new is that the Fed is increasing the money supply by a very large amount, by buying bonds far in excess of the (low) rates it's charging, and at fixed prices determined by the yield the Fed wants to induce in the markets. In the first place, with the Fed buying so many, there are fewer for institutions and other investors to buy. This increases the demand, driving down yields as investors besides the Fed are willing to pay a similar price, and remember that T-debt is one of the main things banks are allowed to invest your deposits in. Inflation isn't a concern right now despite the large amount of new money being injected, because the current economy is so lackluster right now that the new cash is just being sat upon by corporations and being used by consumers to pay down debt, instead of what the Fed and Government want us to do (hire, update equipment, buy houses and American cars, etc). In addition, the ""spot market price"" for a T-bond, or any investment security, is generally what the last guy paid. By buying Treasury debt gradually at a fixed price, the Fed can smooth out ""jitters"" in the spot price that speculators may try to induce by making low ""buy offers"" on T-debt to increase yields. Lastly, the Fed can tell banks that they must keep a certain amount of their deposits in ""reserve"", basically by keeping them in a combination of cash in the vault, and in accounts with the Fed itself. This has a dual purpose; higher reserve rates allow a bank to weather a ""run"" (more people than usual wanting their money) and thus reduces risk of failure. An increased reserves amount also reduces the amount of money circulating in the economy, because obviously if the banks have to keep a percentage of assets in cash, they can't invest that cash. Banks are currently required to keep 10% of ""deposited assets"" (the sum of all checking and savings accounts, but not CDs) in cash. This compounds the other problems with banks' investing; not only are they not getting a great return on your savings, they can only use 90% of your savings to get it." "The best reason for endorsing a check is in case it is lost. If the back is blank, a crooked finder could simply write ""pay to the order of "" on it and deposit it in his own account. You do not need a signature for the endorsement. The safest way to endorse a check is to write ""FOR DEPOSIT ONLY"" followed by an account number, in which case the signature is not needed. most businesses make up rubber stamps with this and stamp it the minute they receive a check. That way it has no value to anyone else. Depositing checks is increasingly going the way of the dodo. Many businesses today use check truncation - the business scans the check in, sends the digital image to the bank, and stores the check. I was surprised that Chase already has an applet for iPhones that you can use to deposit a check by taking a picture of it!" In my opinion, separating your money into separate accounts is a matter of personal preference. I can only think of two main reasons why people might suggest separating your bank accounts in this way: security and accounting. The security reasoning might go something like this: My employer has access to my bank account, because he direct deposits my salary into my account.  I don't want my employer to have access to all my money, so I'll have a separate account that my employer has access to, and once the salary is deposited, I can move that money into my real account. The fault in this reasoning is that a direct deposit setup doesn't really give your employer withdrawal access to your account, and your employer doesn't have any reason to pull money out of your account after he has paid you.  If fraud is going to happen, it much more likely to happen in the account that you are doing your spending out of. The other reason might be accounting.  Perhaps you have several bank accounts, and you use the different accounts to separate your money for different purposes.  For example, you might have a checking account that you do most of your monthly spending out of, you might have a savings account that you use to store your emergency fund, and you have more savings accounts to keep track of how much you have saved toward your next car, or your vacation, or your Christmas fund, or whatever.  After you get your salary deposited, you can move some into your spending account and some into your various savings accounts for different purposes. Instead of having many bank accounts, I find it easier to do my budgeting/accounting on my own, not relying on the bank accounts to tell me how much money I have allocated to each purpose.  I only have one checking account where my income goes; my own records keep track of how much money in that account is set aside for each purpose.  When the checking account balance gets too large, I move a chunk of it over to my one savings account, which earns a little more interest than the checking account does.  I can always move money back into my checking account if I need to spend it for some reason, and the amount of money in each of the two accounts is not directly related to the purpose of the money. In summary, I don't see a good reason for this type of general recommendation. A central bank typically introduces new money into the system by printing new money to purchase items from member banks.  The central bank can purchase whatever it chooses.  It typically purchases government bonds but the Federal Reserve purchased mortgage-backed-securities (MBS) during the 2008 panic since the FED was the only one willing to pay full price for MBS after the crash of 2008. The bank, upon receipt of the new money, can loan the money out.  A minimum reserve ratio specifies how much money the bank has to keep on hand.  A reserve ratio of 10% means the bank must have $10 for every $100 in loans. As an example, let's say the FED prints up some new money to purchase some office desks from a member bank.  It prints $10,000 to purchase some desks.  The bank receives $10,000.  It can create up to $100,000 in loans without exceeding the 10% minimum reserve ratio requirement.   How would it do so?  A customer would come to the bank asking for a $100,000 loan.  The bank would create an account for the customer and credit $100,000 to the customer's account.  There is a problem, however.  The customer borrowed the money to buy a boat so the customer writes a check for $100,000 to the boat company.  The boat company attempts to deposit the $100,000 check into the boat company's bank.  The boat company's bank will ask the originating bank for $100,000 in cash.  The originating bank only has $10,000 in cash on hand so this demand will immediately bankrupt the originating bank. So what actually happens?  The originating bank actually only loans out reserves * (1 - minimum reserve ratio) so it can meet demands for the loans it originates.   In our example the bank that received the initial $10,000 from the FED will only loan out $10,000 * (1-0.1) = $9,000.  This allows the bank to cover checks written by the person who borrowed the $9,000.  The reserve ratio for the bank is now $1,000/$9,000 which is 11% and is over the minimum reserve requirement.  The borrower makes a purchase with the borrowed $9,000 and the seller deposits the $9,000 in his bank.  The bank that receives that $9,000 now has an additional $9,000 in reserves which it will use to create loans of $9,000 * (1 - 0.1) = $8100.   This continual fractional reserve money creation process will continue across the entire banking system resulting in $100,000 of new money created from $10,000. This process is explained very well here. Nowadays, all checks you write will not be send to your bank anymore, but instead the bank where they get deposited does an ACH from your bank. That implies that not allowing this to happen, your bank would not be able to honor any checks you wrote (without enforcing paper check delivery in the mail, but the Check21 bill does not allow such enforcing anymore). Basically, your bank would not be able to do business with anyone. The obvious conclusion is that no such bank exists. I know that many HSBC ATMs at branches in the US and Canada offer this service (they actually scan and shred checks as you deposit them). Perhaps they do same in Germany... but not all ATMs offer this feature. The deposit insurance isn't provided by the bank; it's provided by the Singapore Deposit Insurance Corporation (SDIC). In the event that the bank fails or is declared insolvent, the SDIC will pay deposit holders their total balance in all accounts with that bank, up to S$50,000. If you hold S$60,000 in all of your insured accounts, you'll only receive S$50,000 if the bank fails.  The SDIC provides an example page with sample calculations, and this is exactly what they show. If you deposit an amount greater than $S50,000, it's only insured up to S$50,000.  So does it mean one should open multiple accounts under different banks to spread the money around and maintain only S$50,000 in one deposit account? This is one option. The calculations page I linked to above gives this reminder: Deposits are not insured separately in each branch office of a DI Scheme member i.e. all your eligible accounts maintained with different branches of a DI Scheme member are aggregated and insured up to S$50,000. This seems like common sense, but it's important to remember that if you open an account with two branch offices of Bank A, your deposits are aggregated and insured up to S$50,000. The SDIC insurance is per institution (called a Deposit Insurance Member), not per branch. If you hold S$45,000 in each branch office, for a total of S$90,000, you're still only insured up to S$50,000 for that bank. If you want to spread out your accounts between multiple banks, make sure they're different banks, not just different branches. Another option, if it applies to you, is to open a joint account with your spouse. In the FAQ page, the SDIC gives this example under point 14: if you and your husband have a joint account with S$70,000, and you have a separate account of S$20,000, your total deposits of S$55,000 will be covered to the maximum of S$50,000. The deposit of $S70,000 is split evenly between the spouses, so in the eyes of the SDIC, each are holding S$35,000. Then, the husband's additional S$20,000 is added to S$35,000 for a total of S$50,000. This is then insured up to S$50,000 as usual.  I'm sure there are other options specific to Singapore that I'm not aware of; if you're well above the limit, i.e. holding millions of dollars, I'm sure a professional accountant in Singapore could guide you further. "Some banks allow mint.com read-only access via a separate ""access code"" that a customer can create.  This would still allow an attacker to find out how much money you have and transaction details, and may have knowledge of some other information (your account number perhaps, your address, etc). The problem with even this read-only access is that many banks also allow users at other banks to set up a direct debit authorization which allows withdrawals.  And to set the direct debit link up, the main hurdle is to be able to correctly identify the dates and amounts of two small test deposit transactions, which could be done with just read-only access. Most banks only support a single full access password per account, and there you have a bigger potential risk of actual fraudulent activity. But if you discover such activity and report it in a timely manner, you should be refunded. Make sure to check your account frequently. Also make sure to change your passwords once in a while."