Retailers Don’t Like Paying the Fees for Apple Card
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
Personally I blame my bank for poor quality cards, but it's still another situation where NFC payment technologies win out.
In the Netherlands all ATMs are chip only for all debit cards (which everyone uses) and this isn’t an issue at all, if you take reasonable care of your belongings.
I've never heard of this problem ... does the US have different chips to us here in UK?
The future. It's not in America.
The financier's freedom from regulation makes it easier for them to limit the freedom of the financed. The borrower's freedom from deception makes it harder for the banker to achieve record profits.
In this case, the merchants got their freedom, and it seemed like a win for consumers too... until it was time to upgrade.
I replied, "I paid for a bottle of water in a vending machine with this 10 minutes ago."
When the rest of the world had the whole system in place waiting or crying for Apple Pay. In the early days they couldn't be bothered.
Apple Pay was introduced 5 years ago, yet in 2019 they somehow managed to sign up ( or make it work ) with more regions and banks than all of the 2017 and 2018 combined.
They were so fixated on certain market like Germany and Australia as if they were blocking procedures.
I hope most of the world dont have to wait 5 years for Apple Card.
Consumers don't care because they don't (directly) pay the bill for these benefits, and only see the kickback rewards as a positive.
Banks don't care, actually they like it, because rewards help them attract customers who don't care who pays.
Merchants can't put up too big a fight because they can't leave unless they're big enough to stomach the loss in revenue, or can make customers shift payment method (like Costco, say).
CC processors love it because regardless, they get payment traffic and commissions.
Whereas in other countries, this system would be crazy.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_19_...
Control-F "The Commitments"
In the US, debit card fees are regulated (the Fed won it's case in 2015 at the Supreme Court regarding this), but not credit card interchange fees.
A cash discount IS allowed. So, a $.10/gal cash discount for gas is OK. The register having a sign that says "we charge $.75 for card transactions under $30" is not. Not that you don't see that all the time...
(It's been a while since I've drank the regulatory alphabet soup on this, could be mistaken. )
https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/what-are-my-rig...
>Today’s ban means that it will be unlawful for retailers to charge additional fees when someone uses a particular credit or debit card, or other payment systems like PayPal, to make a purchase. This will ensure consumers can be confident that there won’t be any nasty surprises, and they won’t be penalised for wanting to pay in a particular way.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/card-surcharge-ban-means-...
I suppose in a microecon 101 model, there’s some elasticity that causes the cost of the fees to be borne partially by the merchants?
American Express isn't Visa or Mastercard, they are all on different payment network. I have no issue with them having different fees because they are different.
The Apple Card is a Mastercard. Does Mastercard have different fees based on the type of card? I would certainly hate Mastercard more if that was the case.
Visa and Mastercard both do. "Premium" cards with more rewards have higher interchange rates.
And they pass it on to us.
It'd be much fairer if they surcharged rewards cards, or if we went the European approach and capped interchange fees at something reasonable. The current system is basically a regressive tax on people with lower credit scores.
I refuse to play those games and it surely costs me, but at least I don't have to deal with any of the stupid paperwork and multiple cards in my wallet and keep track of how much pocket money some pointless company is going to give me.
I get $500/year back on health insurance premiums alone from that, let alone all the other spending. Everything except my mortgage can be run through it.
There are certain credit cards with higher rewards at certain companies - if you buy a lot at Amazon, for example, it makes sense to get their 5% cash back card. Target has one as well.
- It is perfect rent collecting: minimal costs, benefits hugely from scale, high barrier for competitor entry. You're an "invisible" profit center, if done right.
- It is percentage of transaction: So increases naturally with inflation and your client's success. Loses little on your client's failures.
But instead of just sitting on their hands and raking in their 6% basically forever, they're inflating the percentage which is causing disgruntled clients to look elsewhere and to give a gap where competition can enter.
This is one industry where "boring is king." But it seems like greed may result in legislative or competitive market correction if they keep engaging in these practices.
This basically describes the Planet Fitness model. They sign up thousands of people around New Year's, none of them ever show up, and a handful of them can't be bothered to go into their location and cancel, so they just end up paying $10 / month forever.
However, 10 states prohibit such surcharges, including CA, NY, FL, MA, and TX...i.e., the states with most CC transactions.
Collecting ~1.5% on Global average spending turns out to be very lucrative business. ( Or they have other means of revenue I am not aware of )
Give that 5% discount. Customers love discounts.
Do you have a source for this?
https://squareup.com/us/en/townsquare/myths-about-cash (full disclosure: clearly a potentially biased source)
> Research shows that cash-handling costs range from 4.7 to 15.3 percent of revenues for businesses that accept cash. The majority of those costs are associated with starting and closing drawers at the start and end of the day.
> Said another way, for every $100 a business makes in cash, it’s spending $4.70–$15.30 to handle all the costs associated with managing the drawer, preparing deposits, making change orders, dealing with possible theft or fraud, and auditing. Fewer cash transactions means less time counting money, less time making change, and a lower likelihood of mistakes or theft.
Do any banks or CUs offer rewards programs for debit cards?
Yes, Discover, for one. But percentage is lower, because I assume the fees are lower for debit.
The tl;dr is: high reward cards (like Apple Card, or any other "premium" card) incur a high transaction fee for the credit card processor, thus they eat into the retailer's profits.
> Hilarious how much mansplaining is flowing in this thread. Every single poster questioning my wife’s credit score, a man. Every single defense of Apple blaming GS, a man. Almost like men are over represented in the defense/justification of discrimination that doesn’t affect them?
which immediately costs him all credibility in this specific case. Factually, it is GS making the decision. It's Apple's problem to address because they're contracting to GS, but it was GS's algorithms (oh no, he calls that out too!) that rendered the credit decision. And he glosses over that credit score pretty issue quickly, which is kind of sexist and bullshitty in itself. Without saying whether her score is decent, he says she should get the same credit he does because she's married to him, as though her creditworthiness derives from their relationship. What the...? Does the have income of her own? A credit history of her own? If DHH isn't co-signing, his existence even involved in the decision.
There are plenty of things to protest in the credit score game. You can fairly criticize it in many, many ways. But I saw nothing in his complaint that was unique to Apple or GS, and DHH's complaint seems to come down a non sequitur complaint against Apple and GS for their use of industry-standard credit ratings.
Edit: he does say her credit score was higher than his. My bad. He still doesn't mention their relative income.
Because it doesn't matter. As of 2013, you enter combined household income on a credit application, and your income isn't part of your credit score either.
True.
However, income and current debt is used to in figuring out how much credit is extended.
I seem to recall that he mentioned his wife doesn't work so she stated her income at $0 instead of the household income.