<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why do CUs oppose &#8216;Reasonable Fees&#8217; in card payment amendment</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lebleu.org/blog/2010/06/08/why-do-cus-oppose-reasonable-fees-in-card-payment-amendment/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lebleu.org/blog/2010/06/08/why-do-cus-oppose-reasonable-fees-in-card-payment-amendment/</link>
	<description>Thoughts on the future of money</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2013 05:52:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.42</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: oasisbob</title>
		<link>http://lebleu.org/blog/2010/06/08/why-do-cus-oppose-reasonable-fees-in-card-payment-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-1136</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[oasisbob]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 00:57:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lebleu.org/blog/?p=407#comment-1136</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Do we really need a replacement for cash back programs? As long as the incentives cycle needlessly in the system, I think the results will be counterproductive. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Can&#039;t debit cards  be magical in the same way as the internet: Fast, convenient, and practically free? The argument which Visa/MC make that debit cards SHOULD be more expensive because they&#039;re better than checks (this old canard is mentioned in the Mercator report [1]) seems ridiculous to me. By the same argument, the bill for a mobile phone with nationwide calling should cost hundreds of dollars a month, because long distance used to be so expensive, and they&#039;re so much more convenient...&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;http://bit.ly/bLXc0F&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://bit.ly/bLXc0F&lt;/a&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do we really need a replacement for cash back programs? As long as the incentives cycle needlessly in the system, I think the results will be counterproductive. </p>
<p>Can&#39;t debit cards  be magical in the same way as the internet: Fast, convenient, and practically free? The argument which Visa/MC make that debit cards SHOULD be more expensive because they&#39;re better than checks (this old canard is mentioned in the Mercator report [1]) seems ridiculous to me. By the same argument, the bill for a mobile phone with nationwide calling should cost hundreds of dollars a month, because long distance used to be so expensive, and they&#39;re so much more convenient&#8230;</p>
<p>[1] <a href="http://bit.ly/bLXc0F" >http://bit.ly/bLXc0F</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Guillaume Lebleu</title>
		<link>http://lebleu.org/blog/2010/06/08/why-do-cus-oppose-reasonable-fees-in-card-payment-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-1134</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Guillaume Lebleu]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 12:21:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lebleu.org/blog/?p=407#comment-1134</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I also tend to support cheaper payments. To replace the cash back programs, I  think FIs need to work with merchants to design attractive programs that benefit both merchants in term of $ costs of processing and in term of value given as reward to the cardholder.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I also tend to support cheaper payments. To replace the cash back programs, I  think FIs need to work with merchants to design attractive programs that benefit both merchants in term of $ costs of processing and in term of value given as reward to the cardholder.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: oasisbob</title>
		<link>http://lebleu.org/blog/2010/06/08/why-do-cus-oppose-reasonable-fees-in-card-payment-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-1133</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[oasisbob]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:02:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lebleu.org/blog/?p=407#comment-1133</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of the best papers I&#039;ve seen on this this topic is &quot;Interchange Fees and Payment Card Networks: Economics, Industry Developments, and Policy Issues&quot; [1]. I&#039;m still trying to get a grasp on the economics of interchange fees, and have found it to be a great help.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I think the key assumption here is that bilateral interchange agreements between small issuing institutions and the networks aren&#039;t going to happen: there are too many small institutions for this to work. (see pp46, ibid). I think it&#039;s safe to assume that Star/Plus/Visa/Mastercard are all going to go cheap and not do bilateral negotiations with smaller institutions. Besides, there&#039;s no way that Visa/Mastercard are going to destruct their brand identity by dismantling the honor-all-cards rule, and you&#039; d pretty much need to do that to stratify the interchange fees.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Therefore, an institution is going to need to differentiate their fees through their choice of networks. However, if the network is too expensive, it risks rejection by merchants. This strategy leaves a network open to a Metcalfe&#039;s-law dealth-spiral: I used to work retail, I remember a big pissing match between a regional network and the retailer, they simply rejected the cards of fell back onto another logo. (&quot;Run it as credit.&quot;)&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;As long as there is a Visa/Mastercard/Plus/Star logo on the card, there will be downward price pressure, and the CUs will lose interchange fees -- even if they&#039;re exempt from the regulations. And if you drop those networks, how usable is your card, anyways? (Remember, a big catalyst for interchange fees rising was network consolidation...)&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Getting back to your question: CUs are acting this way out of self-interest. The system is messed up, and I&#039;m disappointed by CUNA and the regional CU organizations, I think they could have given this some additional thought instead of being so reactive. There are merchants involved, as well as consumers. Both are members of our communities, something I&#039;m surprised that CUs seem to forget, with so many moving into small business loans aggressively. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;We have a strong &quot;buy local, be local!&quot; campaign up here, and it pains me that so many local businesses don&#039;t accept cards because of the fees involved. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;... not to mention the argument that interchange fees are regressive because they shift costs onto cash-only users, and give high rewards (1% cashback!) to the affluent. Rewards cards really show how convoluted this system has become. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Maybe I&#039;m wrong: but I fail to see how cheap efficient payments can be bad for anybody.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2009/200923/200923pap.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2009/20...&lt;/a&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the best papers I&#39;ve seen on this this topic is &#8220;Interchange Fees and Payment Card Networks: Economics, Industry Developments, and Policy Issues&#8221; [1]. I&#39;m still trying to get a grasp on the economics of interchange fees, and have found it to be a great help.</p>
<p>I think the key assumption here is that bilateral interchange agreements between small issuing institutions and the networks aren&#39;t going to happen: there are too many small institutions for this to work. (see pp46, ibid). I think it&#39;s safe to assume that Star/Plus/Visa/Mastercard are all going to go cheap and not do bilateral negotiations with smaller institutions. Besides, there&#39;s no way that Visa/Mastercard are going to destruct their brand identity by dismantling the honor-all-cards rule, and you&#39; d pretty much need to do that to stratify the interchange fees.</p>
<p>Therefore, an institution is going to need to differentiate their fees through their choice of networks. However, if the network is too expensive, it risks rejection by merchants. This strategy leaves a network open to a Metcalfe&#39;s-law dealth-spiral: I used to work retail, I remember a big pissing match between a regional network and the retailer, they simply rejected the cards of fell back onto another logo. (&#8220;Run it as credit.&#8221;)</p>
<p>As long as there is a Visa/Mastercard/Plus/Star logo on the card, there will be downward price pressure, and the CUs will lose interchange fees &#8212; even if they&#39;re exempt from the regulations. And if you drop those networks, how usable is your card, anyways? (Remember, a big catalyst for interchange fees rising was network consolidation&#8230;)</p>
<p>Getting back to your question: CUs are acting this way out of self-interest. The system is messed up, and I&#39;m disappointed by CUNA and the regional CU organizations, I think they could have given this some additional thought instead of being so reactive. There are merchants involved, as well as consumers. Both are members of our communities, something I&#39;m surprised that CUs seem to forget, with so many moving into small business loans aggressively. </p>
<p>We have a strong &#8220;buy local, be local!&#8221; campaign up here, and it pains me that so many local businesses don&#39;t accept cards because of the fees involved. </p>
<p>&#8230; not to mention the argument that interchange fees are regressive because they shift costs onto cash-only users, and give high rewards (1% cashback!) to the affluent. Rewards cards really show how convoluted this system has become. </p>
<p>Maybe I&#39;m wrong: but I fail to see how cheap efficient payments can be bad for anybody.</p>
<p>[1] <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2009/200923/200923pap.pdf" ></a><a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2009/20" >http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2009/20</a>&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
