3 ms·

Mastercard are likely to not change the FPS fee as Vocalink is easy to supplant. There are bigger issues at play set out for this coming decade. For example ca

Mastercard are likely to not change the FPS fee as Vocalink is easy to supplant. There are bigger issues at play set out for this coming decade. For example card not present transactions are going to have their fees jacked up (internet transactions) vs in store ones. The real battle will be against this. Chargebacks not being possible are beneficial too, it depends on your merchant. For instance topping up your brokerage account with chargebacks possible would be very problematic.

avianlyric 6y ago
> Mastercard are likely to not change the FPS fee as Vocalink is easy to supplant. What on earth makes you think this is true? Do you have any idea how complex it is to set up an inter-bank payment scheme? Vocalink are not even remotely easy to supplant, banks will just pass the extra costs onto merchants and wash their hands of it. There’s no profit in providing free financial services. > For example card not present transactions are going to have their fees jacked up No doubt. MasterCard and Visa are both looking to make sure profits stay healthy. But if there’s something I know for sure, it’s that both companies know how to extract their pound of flesh. They’re masters of creating new fees, if they want to increase fees on card not present, then they will. If they can’t do it directly, they’ll find a way to do it indirectly. > For instance topping up your brokerage account with chargebacks possible would be very problematic. Chargebacks are not a simple one-size-fits-all thing. There are hundreds of pages of rules outline when you can and can’t raise chargebacks. There are also ways to allow merchants to immunise themselves against chargebacks. It’s already possible to top up brokerage accounts using a Credit/Debit card. That’s because carve outs already exist in the chargeback rules which make it very difficult for a customer to raise a valid chargeback in those scenarios.
- neximo64 6y ago
  > What on earth makes you think this is true? Do you have any idea how complex it is to set up an inter-bank payment scheme? Vocalink are not even remotely easy to supplant, banks will just pass the extra costs onto merchants and wash their hands of it. There’s no profit in providing free financial services. I know this industry quite well. Btw, this has already happened. NPSO now runs Faster payments not Vocalink anymore. Vocalink sells the stuff to banks to connect to NPSO & that helps square up card transactions too. You can also connect to NPSO directly using documented open ISO standards and not pay Vocalink anything. [1] https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/2018/may/consolidation-of-three-uk-payment-system-operators https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/2018/may/consolidation-...
  - avianlyric 6y ago
    Except VocaLink still own and operate FPS’s central infrastructure, that’s not going to change anytime soon. Even if there was the political will to change it, there isn’t really the technical capability. They also own the only real FPS payment gateway (although you don’t need to use them). It’s true that Pay.UK sets the participants fees etc But it’s not hard to see them increasing them to help deal with fraud costs if Open Banking payment initiation takes off. I know this because I was involved in preventing the fees from being increased that last time this was proposed. You can also bet money that MasterCard will use their ownership of VocaLink to find a way to increase their cut of FPS fees.

avianlyric 6y ago

> Mastercard are likely to not change the FPS fee as Vocalink is easy to supplant. What on earth makes you think this is true? Do you have any idea how complex it is to set up an inter-bank payment scheme? Vocalink are not even remotely easy to supplant, banks will just pass the extra costs onto merchants and wash their hands of it. There’s no profit in providing free financial services. > For example card not present transactions are going to have their fees jacked up No doubt. MasterCard and Visa are both looking to make sure profits stay healthy. But if there’s something I know for sure, it’s that both companies know how to extract their pound of flesh. They’re masters of creating new fees, if they want to increase fees on card not present, then they will. If they can’t do it directly, they’ll find a way to do it indirectly. > For instance topping up your brokerage account with chargebacks possible would be very problematic. Chargebacks are not a simple one-size-fits-all thing. There are hundreds of pages of rules outline when you can and can’t raise chargebacks. There are also ways to allow merchants to immunise themselves against chargebacks. It’s already possible to top up brokerage accounts using a Credit/Debit card. That’s because carve outs already exist in the chargeback rules which make it very difficult for a customer to raise a valid chargeback in those scenarios.

neximo64 6y ago
> What on earth makes you think this is true? Do you have any idea how complex it is to set up an inter-bank payment scheme? Vocalink are not even remotely easy to supplant, banks will just pass the extra costs onto merchants and wash their hands of it. There’s no profit in providing free financial services. I know this industry quite well. Btw, this has already happened. NPSO now runs Faster payments not Vocalink anymore. Vocalink sells the stuff to banks to connect to NPSO & that helps square up card transactions too. You can also connect to NPSO directly using documented open ISO standards and not pay Vocalink anything. [1] https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/2018/may/consolidation-of-three-uk-payment-system-operators https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/2018/may/consolidation-...
- avianlyric 6y ago
  Except VocaLink still own and operate FPS’s central infrastructure, that’s not going to change anytime soon. Even if there was the political will to change it, there isn’t really the technical capability. They also own the only real FPS payment gateway (although you don’t need to use them). It’s true that Pay.UK sets the participants fees etc But it’s not hard to see them increasing them to help deal with fraud costs if Open Banking payment initiation takes off. I know this because I was involved in preventing the fees from being increased that last time this was proposed. You can also bet money that MasterCard will use their ownership of VocaLink to find a way to increase their cut of FPS fees.