Baltimore-Born, Florida-Living, Nati semi-obsessed. Finance, Sports, Tech in no particular order
1 story
·
0 followers

Yahoo Finance: ‘Apple Pay Sides With Credit Card Industry Over Consumer Interests’

6 Comments and 7 Shares

Aaron Pressman, writing for Yahoo Finance:

Apple has regularly delighted its customers with cool products on its way to becoming the most valuable company in the United States. But it hasn’t always stood up for its customers’ best economic interests.

Take the case of Apple Pay. Apple partnered with the three major credit card networks, Visa, Mastercard and American Express and the big bank card issuers such as JP Morgan Chase. That is likely a smart move from a business perspective, because so many Apple customers are frequent credit card users and prior mobile payment services have had trouble gaining much traction.

But the partnership decision also meant Apple was taking sides in a long running war between the credit card industry on one side and retailers and consumer advocates on the other.

Retailers typically pay 2% or more on every credit card purchase, costs that cut into their margins and raise prices for all shoppers.

First, the headline. I think it’s clear that Apple Pay is siding with the credit companies and banks — but they’re not pitted against consumers, they’re pitted against retailers. It’s retailers who want to reduce the use of credit cards (and the resulting fees). Not consumers. Any consumer who doesn’t want to use a credit card can simply not use a credit card. (They can still use Apple Pay with debit cards.) Apple Pay is only allowing us to more easily and securely use the credit/debit cards we already have. For consumers, nothing is worse post-Apple Pay (transaction fees are not higher — the banks pay Apple’s 0.15 percent cut), and much is better (security, privacy, and convenience).

I understand the argument that the 2-3 percent processing fees that retailers pay for credit cards are ultimately passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, but for consumers that can be offset by cash back and reward programs from their card providers.

I don’t understand how this article amounts to anything more than “Apple should have used magic” hand-waving. What could Apple have done differently that would have actually worked, without involving credit card processors? Remember, Apple Pay doesn’t require retailers to install Apple Pay-specific POS terminal hardware. It famously works with the standard NFC hardware that’s been out for years. Building atop the existing credit card infrastructure is fundamental to people’s willingness to try Apple Pay and to retailers’ ability to accept it. Pressman is implicitly arguing that Apple should have somehow reinvented the entire retail electronic payments industry, without the help of the banks or credit card companies, and presumably with the cooperation of retailers. But we see with CurrentC/MCX the sort of things the retailers would have demanded of Apple in such a hypothetical systems.

Update: Another point. Who is to say that Apple Pay won’t add additional non-credit-card payment options going forward? This is just the start. But the start needs to be something that gets the whole thing off the ground.

Read the whole story
UCJT
3458 days ago
reply
Commercial banker here. Cash handling has a cost to the merchant. And with rates at 0%, there is no earnings credit to offset this cash handling charge. It's a hard charge to the client. Article detailing is dated but conceptually accurate.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/18/business/la-fi-lazarus-20111118

In addition, the effects of the Bank Secrecy Act combined with the Patriot Act, are getting to where banks would rather not deal with a lot of cash, as any lapse in providing the Feds with appropriate reporting regarding big cash deposits are extremely punitive.

The push to plastic - or more importantly, trackable purchasing habits - comes from all sides.
US: 26.585346,-81.741754
Share this story
Delete
5 public comments
npiasecki
3459 days ago
reply
Working in e-commerce for some time, I can see this Apple Pay/CurrentC debate from both sides. Stay with me.

The credit card system is insecure, and it is expensive. Merchants are tired of getting blamed for breaches when the only reason the PCI DSS came into existence was that an ever-connected world revealed the network's fundamental security problem, namely that there is no security. If you know the number, you can charge it. The banks issuing the cards needed to do something to fix this or face government regulation in the 2000s when retailers were getting hacked left and right the first time around. The card networks "fixed" the system by asking every merchant on the planet to keep a number embossed in plastic a secret for all time, and they issued a set of guidelines (which has since ballooned to hundreds of requirements) for every merchant to follow. This was all they could do because the card networks like Visa are not all that advanced, at the end of the day they are shuffling balances and account numbers back and forth. They are the minimum of information exchange needed between banks to keep the charade going.

Think about it. Isn't it absurd that a merchant who is paying 2-3% just to accept your plastic is also the one who is blamed when something goes wrong? Better yet, if it's card-not-present, it's the merchant who is the one paying for your zero liability, which is why your favorite e-commerce site flips their shit when your billing address is wrong. The merchants didn't build the network, so they can't fix the network. All they can do is either (A) bend over, which they're sick of or (B) try to create their own network and hope that ends up doing something -- either by succeeding, or at least getting the banks to step their game up. Hence CurrentC. Some of them made this decision over a year before Apple Pay, and now their hands are tied.

The only people who can really fix the credit card network are the people who created it and issue the cards used in it. Those are the banks and their orchestrating interbank entities like Visa and MasterCard. Since they haven't really been footing the bill for card-not-present fraud and have been blaming merchants for the breaches, there's not much incentive for them to fix the broken system that they created. AVS has always worked poorly, heaven forbid you live in an apartment. CVV2 is a joke. These are the tools they give us, and it doesn't matter, because the merchants are the bad guys in the court of public opinion.

I think this will go down as one of Apple's master plays. They looked at Visa, said "look at these idiots," and got Visa to make changes to their system so that Apple could create a new secure payment platform that just happened to leverage Visa for acceptance and market share, positioning it as a win-win. Hook, line, and sinker: a few years from now, Apple offers an ACH-based balance option, and it's game over. They will have successfully created their own secure payment platform with a physical world acceptance rate that PayPal can only dream of, and the card networks will wonder when exactly they started being replaced.
gazuga
3459 days ago
Great backgrounder, npiasecki. Thanks for taking the time to write it. As we were discussing a few posts down, the thing to really keep an eye on is how Apply Pay makes the credit card a swappable element of the payment stack. In theory.
Spuzzy
3459 days ago
Wow, thanks for this insight.
samfarmer
3459 days ago
reply
Retailers have a cost of processing money that consumers use to pay for items with.

Cash received in a store needs to get to a bank. I don't know what that cost is but its not free.
Washington, DC
anthonylatta
3459 days ago
reply
Retail e-payment are dominated by two types: swipe and EVM (chip) cards. That's it. The only exception that's caught on in any scale is mobile money, eg, M-Pesa in Kenya, but that's the only MM system that's truly at scale, though Philippines, Ghana, and Tanzania could follow. NFC is the only technology in developed countries that has a wide enough base to scale. Apple's entry to this market could actually create a new e-payment ecosystem in developed countries. It's pretty cool for payment systems geeks.
Washington, DC
kenfair
3459 days ago
reply
Cash is still legal tender, or at least it was last time I checked.
Houston, Texas
steingart
3459 days ago
reply
grubes grubes grubes:

"I understand the argument that the 2-3 percent processing fees that retailers pay for credit cards are ultimately passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, but for consumers that can be offset by cash back and reward programs from their card providers."

what a shilly statement in an otherwise well reasoned piece.
Princeton, NJ
satadru
3459 days ago
But it is true, no? Consumers with a good CC do get a kickback from the issuing bank. By siding with banks vs retailers, they assume few of the fraud-related downside risks, passing that along to the banks. I would be shocked if Apple doesn't ask for a bigger cut than .15% in several years.
gazuga
3459 days ago
Interested in the empirics of the kickbacks claim as well, but I'm making a note to start all my comments under Daring Fireball posts with "grubes grubes grubes".
steingart
3458 days ago
kickbacks are the OG loc-kin. If cash is king, not spending it iin the first place is godliness