advertisement
advertisement

MCX Sees ACH As Interchange Salvation. Many Chains Not So Sure

Written by Evan Schuman
January 23rd, 2013

The secret sauce for beating interchange is ACH. That, at least, is the plan of the Walmart-led Merchant Customer Exchange (MCX), according to sources familiar with the payment system being developed by the retailer consortium. By using ACH transactions to debit bank accounts or credit lines instead of going through payment-card brands’ networks, MCX expects to reduce transaction cost to as little as four cents—and cut Visa and card-issuing banks out of the loop.

MCX still hasn’t revealed most of the details of the system, but some things are becoming clear. Others are still up in the air—like whether banks will accept a few pennies per transaction when an ACH withdrawal typically costs them more than that. Also, will banks want to get into such an effort, knowing the toxic politics surrounding any effort to knock out Visa and MasterCard?

The much more fundamental issue for MCX is whether it can come up with—and agree to fund—a compelling reason for shoppers to participate. That, coupled with what some retailers—namely, those who have been pitched—see as an overly aggressive approach, has prompted some to question whether MCX can deliver the interchange relief it promises.

One example of the pitch approach some have cited: MCX demanding $30,000 from retailers just to see the official PowerPoint. (That slide deck must have some amazing images.) Although charter members were asked to kick in $1 million to join, retailers are being asked to give $500,000 or $250,000.

Chains are also being asked to commit to three-year mobile payment app exclusivity, meaning they won’t support any non-MCX mobile payment other than any mobile payment app they have already deployed. (There’s a one-year grace period from the start of membership—where retailers can get out of the deal—and that period is about to expire for most of the initial backers.)

One CIO of a major chain, who sat through the MCX salespitch (he declined to pay for the PowerPoint but the consortium showed it to him anyway—or at least a version of the slides), said he declined to join because of what he perceived as the sketchiness of the plan. “It didn’t seem to be that real,” the CIO said. “Paying a quarter of a million to get into a club to fight the banks seemed like a fool’s errand to us. What percentage of people are ready to pay with their phone?”

The group publicly confirmed at NRF that it planned on using QR codes for its approach but didn’t specify how the codes would be used. It’s now being described as the QR code identifying the shopper. The shopper would pay by launching the retailer’s app—or the MCX app, which would be marketed under a more consumer-friendly name—and the QR code would be scanned by the associate at the POS. The shopper’s mobile app and the POS would be connected in the cloud, which would get the shopper to confirm the account and then the associate would be told the purchase has been completed.

Some involved have said the initial launch will be a decoupled debit card, but one retailer who is very active in MCX said it would also act as a credit card, albeit one riding over ACH. That approach would be similar to Walmart’s current private label card through GE Capital.

The question of whether there will be a credit card option is crucial. Although debit card transactions—especially at Walmart—are soaring percentage-wise, the risks to the consumer are light years less with credit cards and the associated zero-liability programs. In theory, a zero-liability program could be created for debit cards, but it would mean banks agreeing to not bounce any transactions until they had established that no fraud is involved.

That’s because even if banks ultimately reimburse a shopper all monies stolen by thieves, the damage perpetrated by inappropriately bounced checks can be permanent and extensive. A credit card zero-liability incident grants a temporary credit, and the shopper is not hurt.

Although zero liability is always a nice benefit for consumers, the perception of greater security risks with mobile payments will make it essential. This is true even though mobile payments are actually more secure than today’s magstripes and even EMV.

When it comes to shopper fears, perception trumps reality every time. Fear is based on the unknown, and there’s nothing today more unknown—to shoppers—than mass mobile payment.


advertisement

2 Comments | Read MCX Sees ACH As Interchange Salvation. Many Chains Not So Sure

  1. ANN GRACKIN Says:

    As always, Evan, this issue is spot on!
    Why do technology, or other, projects fail? Do we need to repeat this 40 year old lesson?
    Awareness, training, low barrier to entry for users, incentives and in the case of the consumer advertising/promotion of the new idea!

    As far as ease of adoption: why would customers want to sign up for yet another credit card? Why are not these systems already integrated with the rest of the retailers apps, ala Starbuck, so if you a loyal customer it is all integrated and I don’t have to hunt and peck to get it right?
    We looked at these systems, including ISIS in our recent mobile research and there is so much ‘hope for strategy’ with these big companies. ISIS, for example is only Android. And it is shocking considering AT&T was the defacto Apple partner for years. When I suggested that the consumer or merchant could just use Square, they shivered, and told me that were going to have a partner who can embed an NFC chip in the phone protector/case. So those that sounds useful—all in one phone cover/NFC.
    But wait…. you don’t get the phone, you don’t get the chip, and you don’t get the case…and you don’t get your existing credit card points!!! The consumer has to go then and get each one, and pay for it. Oh, I feel that ease of adoption, motivations slipping away away away. And that ongoing ‘up sell/side sell–fleecing sell–the model of the cell phone company.

    Whatever happened to the Voice of the Customer? Hmm lacking in Voice carrier/mobile companies, I suppose.

    Keep up the good work with the writing, it may hit the Target, hmmm Wal-Mart, Verizon, AT&T et al to improve the programs for the CUSTOMER.

  2. Christine Speedy Says:

    The good, the bad, the ugly. A single, neutral, mobile payment app, such as MCX, to use at many stores is essential for the future growth of mobile payments. A single application for all consumers, driven by merchants deciding what that application is, is not the answer. Competition breeds security, excellence, innovation, and cost benefits; monopolies bring stifling mediocrity.

    Specifically regarding ACH, is the secret sauce really ACH, or is it interchange management? First, let’s consider would who opt-in to the MCX solution. Would a credit card user switch transactions to ACH? Doubtful. That means retailers will be converting the roughly 50 percent of customers using debit cards to some alternative payment method; three quarters of debit cards are qualified for low regulated debit rates at .05 percent and 21 cents per transaction.

    Interchange for credit card acceptance with Visa, MasterCard and Discover can reach over three percent. The difference between qualified and non-qualified rates can reach over one percent.
    New regulations enable product steering i.e. credit to debit. These situations, and others, present potential opportunities for merchants to manage payment acceptance cost and reduce risk. If EBITDA is a big concern, is it wise for merchants to lock-in MCX, solely focused on a future mobile application, when other technologies already exist to not only steer customers to new lower cost payment methods, but also help merchants with interchange and risk management?

    Is it easier to enhance an existing stable payment application that has some market share than to create one from scratch? The big boxes clearly have marked their stakes, but others may want to sit this one out and try out other options while waiting to see what MCX does next.

Leave a Reply

Readers, specifically those who want to comment on a story:
Our Comment SPAM system is getting very aggressive these days and has been blocking legitimate comments. If you post a comment and don't see it appear within 2 hours or so, can you please send a heads-up to customer-service@storefrontbacktalk.com? Ideally, please include the time you posted the comment. That will allow us to try and hunt for it. Thanks! P.S. We're working on fixing the system, but we don't want to lose any valuable comments in the meantime.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 17,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.