The other day, such a “remarkable study” was released, Moody’s named the consequences of reducing commissions on acquiring.
I don’t understand on what basis the Moody agency made its conclusions.
Russian retail is lobbying for a reduction in acquiring rates. Now, due to interchange (this is the fee that the bank that issued the card receives, on average 1.6% in Russia), the payment infrastructure is supported - this includes ATMs, support for cardholders, bonuses and rewards, such as miles, priority pass cards, cashbacks.
We, the cardholders, pay for it. The acquiring rate, which retailers so often complain about, is already included in the commission of goods.
What happens after it is reduced? For us - nothing good, the difference will just fall into the retail pocket. And we, cardholders, will lose all bonuses and most likely card servicing will become more expensive for us.
In fact, what I see is that a public opinion is now being created that stores cannot afford the “high” fees for accepting payments.
This was done during the budget deficit with customs duties on purchases in foreign stores. In fact, some representatives of Russian retail, selling the same Chinese goods, simply protected themselves from competition from Aliexpress and ebay.
There is a term in economics - protectionism, when protective duties stimulate domestic production. That situation has nothing to do with stimulating our domestic production, creating new jobs and growing the economy.
In my opinion, legislative resources and the government should not be used to please the wallets of specific entrepreneurs. The government should stimulate the development of its own producers.
Russia's balance of payments depends very much on the prices of natural resources, of which our country is an exporter. And its positive balance is largely due to current oil prices. While China is the world's largest exporter of goods. This is what we should be striving for, rather than remaining a commodity economy with a full range of Chinese goods.
For starters, I don't work for a bank, so I'm not defending their point of view. I have experience working in a payment company. In this regard, the article I wrote is a reflection of the view of the consumer, who has his own point of view based on the knowledge gained.
So, my idea is that the size of the interchange is a matter of the bank and the cardholder, but not of the retailer. And we should be given the choice of what we will get for this - a loyalty program, cashback, or give an extra% to the seller.
In his book Visa and the rise of the Chaordic Organization, Visa creator Dee Hock wrote that he deeply regretted that he could not get cardholders to participate in his organization on an equal basis with banks.
I write about our rights! I hope those who appreciate my work will give me a plus in my karma.
I don’t understand on what basis the Moody agency made its conclusions.
Russian retail is lobbying for a reduction in acquiring rates. Now, due to interchange (this is the fee that the bank that issued the card receives, on average 1.6% in Russia), the payment infrastructure is supported - this includes ATMs, support for cardholders, bonuses and rewards, such as miles, priority pass cards, cashbacks.
We, the cardholders, pay for it. The acquiring rate, which retailers so often complain about, is already included in the commission of goods.
What happens after it is reduced? For us - nothing good, the difference will just fall into the retail pocket. And we, cardholders, will lose all bonuses and most likely card servicing will become more expensive for us.
In fact, what I see is that a public opinion is now being created that stores cannot afford the “high” fees for accepting payments.
This was done during the budget deficit with customs duties on purchases in foreign stores. In fact, some representatives of Russian retail, selling the same Chinese goods, simply protected themselves from competition from Aliexpress and ebay.
There is a term in economics - protectionism, when protective duties stimulate domestic production. That situation has nothing to do with stimulating our domestic production, creating new jobs and growing the economy.
In my opinion, legislative resources and the government should not be used to please the wallets of specific entrepreneurs. The government should stimulate the development of its own producers.
Russia's balance of payments depends very much on the prices of natural resources, of which our country is an exporter. And its positive balance is largely due to current oil prices. While China is the world's largest exporter of goods. This is what we should be striving for, rather than remaining a commodity economy with a full range of Chinese goods.
For starters, I don't work for a bank, so I'm not defending their point of view. I have experience working in a payment company. In this regard, the article I wrote is a reflection of the view of the consumer, who has his own point of view based on the knowledge gained.
- In reducing acquiring rates, we are talking about reducing the exchange (Acquiring cost) - this is what the bank that issued the card receives from each transaction (in Russia on average it is 1.6%). Initially, the interchange fee was introduced to stimulate the issue (issuance of cards). It is by retaining this commission that banks can afford to maintain a network of ATMs, provide telephone support, support loyalty programs, cashbacks, etc.
- A certain association called ORANGE (the name has been changed) is lobbying for a rate reduction. This is an association of large retailers whose payment acceptance rate ranges from 1.6-2%. They actually operate at a cost that cannot be reduced. Those. The acquirer earns pennies from large stores, the main percentage goes to the issuer.
In this association ORANGE (the name has been changed) there are GR (Government Relations) and PR (Public Relations) people - so they earn their salaries.
I asked them whether it was possible for them to reduce prices for goods if the interchange was reduced for you. To which I received an absolutely honest answer “NO”. Moreover, some even proposed to blackmail the state and the Central Bank with higher prices - inflation, if they do not agree to their terms. - As for the comment “It’s hard for a restaurant to pay a 4% commission” – such rates have not existed for a long time. If you still have a 4% commission, it means you are lazy and don’t want to call 1-2 competing banks. Moreover, large businesses account for 80% of the turnover, and their rates (see above) are almost the cost of production. At the same time, such large stores as AUCHAN enjoy special conditions from Visa/MC. Therefore, examples about 3-4% were “thrown into the press” to form public opinion.
- There are industries with reduced interchange, for example: mobile recharge, air tickets (1%).
- All commissions are already included in the price of the product. It is we, the cardholders, who pay this price. Nevertheless, ORANGE is most concerned about this international change.
Let's take an example from Britain: British MasterCard users filed a lawsuit against MasterCard - it was we (cardholders) who overpaid the data by 1.6%. What does the store “Long Live the King” or “360 Degrees” (the names have been changed) have to do with it? Then we should get the overpaid money back, but not the retailers. - Now let’s figure out what the duties on online orders have to do with the comment “everything is mixed together”?
And despite the fact that it was ORANGE that achieved their introduction. It is headed by the “360 degrees” store (the name has been changed), which sells the same Chinese goods. In other words, this action does not protect its manufacturer. There is a banal defense of speculation - “it is we who should resell this Chinese product,” and not Aliexpress.
So, my idea is that the size of the interchange is a matter of the bank and the cardholder, but not of the retailer. And we should be given the choice of what we will get for this - a loyalty program, cashback, or give an extra% to the seller.
In his book Visa and the rise of the Chaordic Organization, Visa creator Dee Hock wrote that he deeply regretted that he could not get cardholders to participate in his organization on an equal basis with banks.
I write about our rights! I hope those who appreciate my work will give me a plus in my karma.
