advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

Fed Lets Retailers Shop For Their Payment Networks—But They’re Probably No Bargain

July 6th, 2011

Where there is a choice, it just keeps getting more complicated. Card issuers and networks are explicitly barred by the Fed rules from doing anything to force retailers to choose one particular network or to punish retailers if they choose a competing network. However, networks are explicitly allowed to offer “payments or other incentives to encourage the merchant to route electronic debit-card transactions to the network for processing.” Issuers can also specify a default network to use if a merchant or processor doesn’t want to make a choice.

For retailers that want to minimize interchange fees, all that’s left to do is keep track of every different card’s combination of networks and what the current interchange terms are for them, and then choose the cheapest network for the transaction as soon as the card is swiped. Yeah, that should be easy.

Building a secure system to identify what category of card the transaction is using, based on the card number? Expensive and a whole new can of worms for PCI, because it will require handling the unencrypted card number. Paying for a service to keep the card-type database updated, so it will actually pick the cheapest network for each transaction? An ongoing expense, and it won’t be cheap.

It probably makes more sense for that pick-the-network system to reside at your processor. Then you’re dodging the potential PCI issues but still paying an extra fee for finding the cheapest way to process the card. You’re also giving up any sort of fine-tuned control of the process. In addition, it means every transaction will take just a little longer, and jumping among networks could break (or at least complicate) some existing security measures such as tokenization.

That’s without any guarantee there will be noticeable competition based on interchange fees. Card issuers aren’t required to pick their networks for each card until April 1, 2012. And remember, they’re the ones who pick the competing networks, and they’re also the ones who get much of the interchange money. How likely will they be to pick networks that have deeply cut interchange rates?

So will trying to squeeze every last nickel out of interchange fees be worth it? It’s likely to be costly and risky (when it comes to PCI), and the payoff is largely theoretical. Starting on the project early—before you know for sure whether there will be any advantage at all to being picky about payment networks—means your ROI calculation will be even more of a crapshoot than usual.

But good luck explaining that to your CFO.


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 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.