NACSTV — April 26, 2010 — NACS, the association for convenience and petroleum retailing, delivered a record-setting number of consumer signatures to Congress on April 27, telling them that hidden credit and debit card swipe fees are unacceptable and that Congress must fix a clearly broken system. Learn more at http://www.fightswipefees.com
Media Statement – Visa Statement Regarding the Canadian Code of Conduct – Yahoo! Finance
April 19, 2010[And Visa, too. Interesting that the same banks that owned Visa own MasterCard; the two giant credit card association (which say they are independent) regularly act as if they are operating from the same corner office]
TORONTO, April 16 /CNW/ – Visa supports the Canadian government’s goal to encourage transparency and merchant choice within the payments marketplace – two important pillars on which Visa has built its business domestically and internationally.
Visa already provides merchants much of what today’s Code of Conduct requests payment networks offer, such as full transparency of interchange rates, merchant choice on acceptance of Visa Debit cards, and the ability of merchants to offer discounts for other methods of payment. We appreciate the government’s inclusion of all payment networks to ensure merchants are equally informed through a level playing field.
via Media Statement – Visa Statement Regarding the Canadian Code of Conduct – Yahoo! Finance.
Join the conversation on Twitter: http://www.Twitter.com/WayTooHigh
NRF Urges Dodd to Address Swipe Fees in Bill (via CSP)
March 16, 2010WASHINGTON — The National Retail Federation (NRF) expressed disappointment that a wide-ranging financial services reform bill unveiled earlier this week by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) does not address the $48 billion in credit-card swipe fees paid by merchants and their customers each year.
“Chairman Dodd’s bill takes many steps to curb the excesses of the financial services industry, but the failure to address swipe fees is a glaring omission,” NRF senior vice president and general counsel Mallory Duncan said. “These fees drive up prices for the average family by hundreds of dollars every year and depress the ability of main street merchants to thrive and grow.”
“Financial services reform isn’t complete without swipe fee reform,” Duncan said. “Chairman Dodd has acknowledged the impact of these fees on consumers in the past, and we hope to see them addressed in the final version of this legislation.”
Visa and MasterCard banks charge merchants a fee called interchange each time one of their cards is swiped to pay for a purchase. With the fee averaging about 2%, “swipe fee” collections totaled $48 billion in 2008, triple the $16 billion collected when NRF began tracking the fees in 2001. Visa and MasterCard rules effectively force merchants to pass the fees on to consumers by requiring them to be included in the advertised price of merchandise and making discounts for cash, checks or cheaper forms of plastic difficult. As a result, the average household paid an estimated $427 in higher prices in 2008, up from $159 in 2001.
Dodd included a provision in last year’s Credit CARD Act requiring the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study of interchange fees. The study concluded that credit-card swipe fees have been increasing despite card industry claims that they have remained steady, that the fees drive up prices for consumers and that consumers could see lower prices if they were reduced. Dodd has also said that he would consider legislation barring Visa and MasterCard placing restrictions on merchants’ ability to offer a discount for cheaper forms of payment such as cash, checks and debit cards.
Three major bills that would address swipe fees are pending in Congress. H.R. 2695, the Credit Card Fair Fee Act, sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Senate companion bill S. 1212, sponsored by Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) would require Visa and MasterCard banks to negotiate with merchants over the fees rather than continuing to impose them on a unilateral basis. H.R. 2382, the Credit Card Interchange Act, sponsored by Representative Peter Welch (D-Vt.) would require increased transparency, give the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) authority to prohibit interchange practices that violate consumer protection or anticompetition laws and make cash discounts easier.
NRF is the world’s largest retail trade association, with membership that comprises all retail formats and channels of distribution including department, specialty, discount, catalog, Internet, independent stores, chain restaurants, convenience stores, drug stores and grocery stores as well as the industry’s key trading partners of retail goods and services. NRF represents an industry with more than 1.6 million U.S. retail establishments, more than 24 million employees—about one in five American workers—and 2008 sales of $4.6 trillion. As the industry umbrella group, NRF also represents more than 100 state, national and international retail associations.
PBS Frontline: The Card Game
November 24, 2009Complete info on the PBS Frontline segment called: The Card Game”
Click here to watch
“As credit card companies face rising public anger, new regulation from Washington and staggering new rates of default and bankruptcy, FRONTLINE correspondent Lowell Bergman investigates the future of the massive consumer loan industry and its impact on a fragile national economy.”
THE FIGHT OVER INTERCHANGE FEES: “Interchange fees are now the central issue in what is being called the largest private antitrust litigation in U.S. history. Five years ago, Mitch Goldstone, an independent owner of scanmyphotos.com, an online photo service company, was struggling to keep his Southern California shop afloat. He began scrutinizing every expense and revenue stream of his small business. When he realized that an already costly expense — interchange fees – was increasing, he was livid. “It got to the point where I had just a few employees and things were looking really bleak,” said Goldstone. “Interchange fees were the one expense that was going up, no matter what I did.” In 2005, Goldstone (PDF) and more than 30 other merchants filed antitrust lawsuits in U.S District Court against Visa, MasterCard and several of their member banks, accusing them of breaching federal antitrust law by fixing the prices on interchange fees.”
NRF Testifies that Credit Card Companies are in an ‘Arms Race’ to Increase ‘Swipe Fees’ Paid by Merchants and Consumers (NRF via BW)
October 8, 2009WASHINGTON–(BUSINESS WIRE)–The National Retail Federation today warned Congress that credit card companies are in an “arms race” to increase the $48 billion in “swipe” fees paid by merchants and their customers each year, and urged passage of legislation that would put rules governing the fees under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission.
“There is an arms race to create cards with higher fees and more bells and whistles,” NRF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Mallory Duncan said. “The market checks that would normally exist to curb this escalation in fees are diminished because the card companies know that every merchant is required to take these expensive new cards or lose their ability to accept any cards. The Welch-Shuster bill would allow the most expensive cards to be refused, and while we expect that few merchants would actually refuse cards if this were passed, it would make the card companies think before they reflexively introduce cards with higher fees.”
“Most consumers don’t know it, but every time they swipe a rewards card with its miles and concierge services, they are driving up the price of everything they buy even higher,” Duncan said. “This particularly hurts less-privileged Americans who don’t have rewards cards or can’t get cards at all because Visa and MasterCard rules effectively require that everyone pay the credit card price even if they are paying with cash, check, debit card or even food stamps.”
“There is no regulator that reviews whether credit card company rules are unfair, deceptive or anticompetitive,” Duncan said. “This legislation would deal with this absence of oversight by directing the Federal Trade Commission to review card company rules and prohibit practices that meet that description. That is the minimum level of protection that this market needs to begin to function properly.”
Duncan testified before the House Financial Services Committee today during a hearing on H.R. 2382, the Credit Card Interchange Act of 2009, sponsored by Representative Peter Welch, D-Vt., and co-sponsored by Representative Bill Shuster, R-Pa. The bill would require credit card companies to disclose interchange rates, terms and conditions, and give the Federal Trade Commission authority to review interchange and prohibit any practices that violate consumer protection or anti-competition laws. Merchants would be allowed to give cash discounts and set minimum credit card purchase amounts, and could choose which credit cards to accept.
Interchange is a fee averaging 2 percent that Visa and MasterCard banks charge merchants each time one of their credit cards is swiped to pay for a purchase. But Duncan explained to the committee that the rate can range from as low as about 1.5 percent for an ordinary card to 3 percent or more for “gold” and “platinum” cards that offer rewards like travel miles or concierge services. In recent years, card companies have created an escalating series of rewards cards – each carrying more rewards but also higher fees – and “upgraded” millions of consumers. The higher-fee cards can’t be turned down by merchants because of Visa and MasterCard’s “Honor All Cards” rule. The practice, along with marketing that has pushed the use of plastic and introduced cards into new areas like taxis, has helped triple interchange revenue from the $16 billion collected when NRF began tracking the fees in 2001 to the $48 billion collected last year.
Visa and MasterCard rules effectively force merchants to pass the fees on to consumers by requiring them to be included in the advertised price of merchandise and making cash discounts difficult. The result is that the average household paid an estimated $427 in higher prices last year, up from $159 in 2001.
Merchants have long sought to offer cash discounts, but Duncan said an amendment to this spring’s credit card reform bill that would have blocked credit card companies from interfering with that ability was met with “howls of protest’ from the card industry and was not included in the final measure.
The National Retail Federation is the world’s largest retail trade association, with membership that comprises all retail formats and channels of distribution including department, specialty, discount, catalog, Internet, independent stores, chain restaurants, drug stores and grocery stores as well as the industry’s key trading partners of retail goods and services. NRF represents an industry with more than 1.6 million U.S. retail establishments, more than 24 million employees – about one in five American workers – and 2008 sales of $4.6 trillion. As the industry umbrella group, NRF also represents more than 100 state, national and international retail associations. www.nrf.com.
More Scheming by Visa and MasterCard
August 16, 2009About three months ago, I bought new tires and was pleased to learn that it included a $50 rebate. But, the hoops to redeem that incentive were challenging.
Here is what happened:
Rather than receive a $50 check (which would have no interchange fee), a Visa-branded credit card was mailed and JUST received. The credit card issuers have created a giant windfall scheme for themselves at the expense of consumers.
The rules for redeeming the card is extensive and means that if there is a micro-balance, they keep it. I did a previous posting on this situation.
Premier Shopping Mall Agrees with WayTooHigh.com
All About the Visa and MasterCard Promotional Gift Card Scheme
To access the funds on the electronic payment card you MUST present the card to the service station attendant inside when you fill up. Don’t try to insert it into the gas station pumps’ electronic card reader. It won’t work. Another rule is: “Please note. Ask the attendant to swipe the card after you have filled up to assure the success of your transaction.” Yeah, right! Try doing that, as clerks must swipe the card to reserve payment up front.
For regular checkouts, “you must always select ‘Credit’ when making purchases. You are authorized to make purchases that do not exceed your available balance.” This is a pure SCAM. Who makes an exact $50 purchase? Try using the “gift” card at a restaurant. Imagine being on a date, presenting the card and having the server explain that you can’t! Either way, the merchant is charged the much higher credit card interchange fee, rather than the debit card flat rate. If it was a check that we deposited into our bank account, there would be no fees and we easily would have the entire gift valued, rather than these games which reduces the value.
My guess is many consumers get frustrated and use part of the balance and dispose or file away the card and thus the issuer gets to keep the balance. What happens to the company that tendered the rebate “gift card? Did they pay full price to the card issuer, or a discount? I can only imagine the amount never redeemed.
Another scheme and pure profit center for the credit card issuers.
Recent Tweets
July 16, 2009Collection of recent Tweets from @WayTooHigh. Follow us on Twitter
Why Credit Card Companies Full of Hot Air
April 13, 2009
A leading argument to sustain soaring merchant interchange credit card fees is to cover the cost of affinity reward programs. The banks were passing along the frequent flyer reward costs to merchants, and thus consumers, who are the ones buying the merchandise.
Now that millions of cardholders are losing their accounts, those rewards are being terminated as well. When a cardholder is delinquent on their credit card bills by even a day, they risk losing all their accumulated reward points as well.
Well, what is it? If interchange fees are lowered, Visa and MasterCard’s argument is that consumers will have to pay higher fees. As it is, the banks are already raising rates, closing accounts and changing the terms with wanton disregard for their customers.
Where are the Pro-Interchange Fee Bloggers and Tweets?
April 9, 2009In baseball, it is easy to keep score – look at the scoreboard. In politics – read the polls. But, for interchange fees, run by the banking cartel, there is little notice, other than those bi-annual fee “adjustment” letters. As retailers continue battling against MasterCard and Visa – the two leading credit card associations with 80% market power and its member banks, it is also easy to keep score.
With nearly 1,300 postings on WayTooHigh.com– The Credit Card Interchange Report, we have yet to read any pro-interchange fee blogs that weren’t connected with the banking industry and their paid advocacy firms.
Well, there is always that one “pro consumer,” “pro competition” group that “enjoys the financial support of Visa,” but that really shouldn’t count. Where are the merchants championing 1.7% interchange fee rates, and challenging WayTooHigh.com?
Where are the U.S. retailers thanking Visa® and MasterCard® for charging among the highest rates in the world, while abroad, the interchange fees are 0.7%, 0.5% and even 0.0% – there are no interchange fee for debit PIN-based cards in Canada.
The reason for such silence?
Merchants understand they are being taken on a ride when cardholders present their affinity frequent flyer cards. The merchants, and thus the consumers are paying for these perks and the nearly $40 billion a year in interchange fees. Since we were the first to launch the merchant interchange litigation back in mid-2005, there have been no pro-interchange fee blogs that we are familiar with. That speaks volumes about our cause and the unfair fees.
Edited by Mitch Goldstone, president and CEO – ScanMyPhotos.com
Watch What Congress Needs to Know About Interchange Fees
April 1, 2009If You Thought The Madoff Scandal Was Large, Look at Visa and MasterCard Fees
February 4, 2009Visa’s earnings are up 35%, when the global economy is depressed. The credit card giant even had a 17% increase in its revenues. This at a time when merchants are going bankrupt and some of the credit card association’s member banks are defaulting or being nationalized by the U.S. Government, yet both credit card companies are shining.
Why?
During the past four years, along with many others, I have been exhaustively blowing the whistle and calling attention to the banks anti-competitive and illegal price fixing of the merchant interchange fees. As the nation looks for ways to remedy the fiscal crisis through tax refunds and billions in new spending, the best and most instant solution is to force MasterCard and Visa to end its unbridled market power and cease its interchange fees, which is nothing more than an antiquated pricing model that has little relevance today. The nation could instantly benefit by putting the nearly $60 billion in fees paid by U.S. consumers and merchants back into our pockets, rather than into the highly mismanaged and arrangant banks’ vaults. Forget the banks’ Vegas trips and charter jets, look instead at the interchange fees for real savings. Redirecting the interchange fees and Visa and MasterCard’s collusive merchant discount fees could immediately help the economy recover.
After reading today’s House Financial Services subcommittee meeting with Harry Markopolos, a private fraud investigator from Boston, I was reminded why this case is so important. Just as Mr. Markopolos blew the whistle nine years ago and nobody listened, I began blowing the whistle and calling attention to the illegal price fixing and anti-competitive credit card fees back in early 2005. Today, the class-action litigation is nearing class certification and it remains as perhaps the largest antitrust litigation in U.S. history.
I see the role of the lead plaintiffs in this litigation as a cross between Erin Brokovich and Harry Markopolos, and we will prevail.
“A Quiet Windfall For U.S. Banks” (via Washington Post)
November 10, 2008[source: Washington Post, Nov 10]Excerpt, by Amit R. Paley, Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, November 10, 2008; A01. Click here to read more
The financial world was fixated on Capitol Hill as Congress battled over the Bush administration’s request for a $700 billion bailout of the banking industry. In the midst of this late-September drama, the Treasury Department issued a five-sentence notice that attracted almost no public attention.
But corporate tax lawyers quickly realized the enormous implications of the document: Administration officials had just given American banks a windfall of as much as $140 billion.
Section 382 of the tax code was created by Congress in 1986 to end what it considered an abuse of the tax system: companies sheltering their profits from taxation by acquiring shell companies whose only real value was the losses on their books. The firms would then use the acquired company’s losses to offset their gains and avoid paying taxes.
Lawmakers decried the tax shelters as a scam and created a formula to strictly limit the use of those purchased losses for tax purposes.
Lawmakers decried the tax shelters as a scam and created a formula to strictly limit the use of those purchased losses for tax purposes
The Treasury notice suddenly made it much more attractive to acquire distressed banks, and Wells Fargo, which had been an earlier suitor for Wachovia, made a new and ultimately successful play to take it over.
The Jones Day law firm said the tax change, which some analysts soon dubbed “the Wells Fargo Ruling,” could be worth about $25 billion for Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo declined to comment for this article.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member on the Finance Committee, was particularly outraged and had his staff push for an explanation from the Bush administration, according to congressional aides.
Visa and MasterCard’s Roadmap to Bankruptcy?
October 10, 2008The rational for merchant credit card fees is mostly obsolete today. It was designed to be cost-based – to cover the four-party electronic payment network back when we had manual charge card receipts. The fees keep growing, even though efficiencies keep declining. Many other nations understand that whether the forced merchant credit card fees are .50% or .70 %, the rates are unfair and too high; the average merchant interchange credit card fee in the U.S. stands at about 1.70 percent.
This nearly $50 billion annual credit card fee scheme seemed like a hefty chuck of change. But, now that banks are facing billions in lost market capitalization and disdain from American consumers, they have even larger worries.The public’s unrestrained infuriation with the banks is just as vast as are the nation’s retailers. The approval ratings for the banks, and by proxy, Visa and MasterCard’s market power and alleged price fixing are getting as low as are their plunging Moody’s ratings. It is even getting to the point that the scorn against the banks and credit card companies are more humiliatingly low then even the anemic approval rating for outgoing President Bush. Presidential candidate John McCain and his cozy relationship with the banks and call to support them at the expense of consumers will be no better.
Back in 2005, which I was among the first to file a Federal antitrust complaint against Visa, MasterCard and its member banks, the battle was much simpler. Today, the banks are fighting for their future. They are at risk of being seized by a Federal nationalization of their operations. Visa and MasterCard are facing their own profound disgust for their business model, control of Washington legislators and lead cause for harming American families facing financial disaster.
It is turning out that what appeared like an ocean-sized legal challenge for the banks, Visa and MasterCard, has become diminutive in comparison to their larger hurdle and fiscal afflictions brought on by gross mismanagement, greed and un-American pursuits. Maybe Visa and MasterCard’s lawyers knew something when they cautioned that if the merchant interchange antitrust class-action litigation is successful their clients will also face bankruptcy.
—————————
News Alert: Paulson gives new detail of bank ownership plan
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Friday gave some new details of the emerging plans by the federal government to inject capital directly into a “broad array” of financial firms. In a statement after the G7 meeting, Paulson said that officials are working on a “standardized program that is open to a broad array of financial institutions.” The plan is to attract private capital to complement the government’s funds, he said. Paulson went out of his way to say existing shareholders would be protected, saying the government would only make the purchases through a “broadly available equity program” without any voting power, “except with the market standard terms to protect our rights as investors.
Along the way, thousandsof its member banks reaped millions. They glamorized
Visa Inc. and MasterCard International’s Insolvency
September 23, 2008A funny thing happened on the way towards justice over Visa and MasterCard’s alleged price-fixing collusion charges. The anxiety faced by the two leading card associations and its thousands of member banks turned into a temporary distraction when many banks failed due to other pricing schemes.
Three-and-a-half years ago, when I became part of the first antitrust class action filings against Visa, MasterCard and its member banks, things seemed pretty calm. Millions of merchants knew that the credit card associations violated the law and illegally fixed prices and used their cartel-like market power to dominate. With treble damages, the potential financial liability amounted to anywhere north of $300 billion. That was a great deal of money. Visa and MasterCard warned that if they were found guilty, they risked insolvency.
How the financial markets and the world has changed. Many of the banks named as defendants are no more. Even big investment banks and brokerage firms have been bailed out or closed down. Some of the giant financial institutions were nationalized by the government, bought at fire sale prices or actually became insolvent and declared bankruptcy. Many of the regulations that were designed to preclude such a meltdown are the same types of antiquated policies that enable MasterCard and Visa to maintain their market power and charge fees that are unfair in today’s high tech world, where electronic transactions should move at lightening fast speed and cost next to nothing to process.
Who would have thought that what was a mighty complaint became dwarfed in size?
Today, Republicans are calling for the head of the SEC, supporting nationalization of a major industry, seeking to plunder another $700 billion and more to bail out what they knew all along was a slow motion car crash. Less regulation and oversight was their mantra.
The question is with the Credit Card Fair Fee Act and the Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation threatening to force MasterCard, Visa and its member banks to give up billions in unfair fees, what is the government doing now? Will they wait until even more money is wasted? Joining millions of retailers, I understand that through illegal antitrust price fixing, the nearly $50 billion in annual merchant interchange fees is wrong and in violation of the law.
According to the Wall Street Journal, today we read that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke wants “swift action on a Treasury Department plan to buy illiquid mortgage-linked securities and avoid severe spillover effects on the economy.”
Why haven’t U.S. presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain both publicly addressed what amount to the largest antitrust case in our nation’s history. And, why is our government nearly silent on this issue which is placing an unfair burden on shop owners and consumers? It seems that they are chasing the news that the banks’ management failed and caused this nearly one-trillion dollar mess, but why aren’t they being proactive and commenting on Visa and MasterCard’s price fixing business model?
This is another mess decades in the making.
The once mighty banks are now looking weak and threatened. Their arguments about credit card fees is on the same level as they are handling their other financial crisis.
Our nation is facing extraordinary economic stress on the financial markets, but it seems that government and politicians only put out fires when the entire building is engulfed in flames and not before. The U.S. is forced to pay among the highest merchant interchange fees in the world, when technology and efficiencies over the years have led to nearly no actual costs to transact a credit card transaction.
Visa and MasterCard look out!
“Every 6 months, Visa/Mastercard raise their rates by 4-8 basis points”: Nova
September 12, 2008I just received a call from a Nova sales rep with an interesting pitch. He explained that every six months, Visa and MasterCard raise their rates. In Nova’s own words is the email followup I just received.
Mitch,
Thank you for your time on the phone today! As you know, I am a representative of Nova, one of the largest credit card processors in the industry. In addition to a very competitive rate, some of the other benefits of doing business with us are as follows:
Local Customer Support
- Next Day Funding
- FREE Supplies
- No Term Commitment
- Can Work with Existing Equipment
- Seamless Transition
- 1 Year Rate Guarantee
- Paid Cancellation / Software Fees (based on volume)
As we discussed, there was just a rate increase that occurred in April and there is another one coming up in October. Every 6 months, Visa/Mastercard raise their rates by 4-8 basis points. Many businesses take the time during these periods to reevaluate their situation. I would like the opportunity to prepare a formal credit card comparison for ScanMyPhotos.com. If you are able to fax a current statement to my attention, I am confident that I can secure you a competitive rate. Once received, it would only take me a day or so to get back to you. If you have any questions/concerns, please feel free to contact me. Thanks again Mitch and have a great weekend!
Kind Regards,
Jeff ……
Account Executive
NOVA / MPS
“Hidden Credit Card Fees Are Costing You” (via CNN Money)
August 1, 2008NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Swiping your credit card at the register may save you time, but it certainly won’t save you money. Thanks to hidden fees, credit card purchases are costing you more than you may know.
Whether you use a card or not, you’re probably paying more than $400 a year in “interchange fees,” which are factored into the prices of everything from gas to groceries.
Every time a credit card or debit card is used to pay for a transaction, merchants pay a “merchant discount fee” to the bank for processing the payment. That covers the cost of renting the credit card terminal, customer service and an interchange fee, which all adds up to about 2% per transaction.
The interchange fee is by far the biggest chunk of the merchant discount fee. But it goes largely undetected by consumers because it’s included in the advertised price of items and, merchants say, is too complicated to break out on individual receipts.
But credit card use has become so prevalent, it’s costing retailers a fortune in fees. So merchants pass on this cost to consumers by way of higher prices, which means that even shoppers who don’t use plastic end up paying more.
The average American family will pay $427 because of interchange fees in 2008, up from $378 in 2007, according to National Retail Federation estimates. The amount has nearly tripled from the $159 paid in 2001, the year NRF began tracking interchange fees. Collectively, that’s $48 billion that the credit card companies will make from interchange fees this year, up from $42 billion last year and $16.6 billion in 2001.
So where does all that money go? Credit card issuers use this revenue stream to pay for the processing, in addition to reward programs, credit losses and general operating costs.
But many consumer advocacy groups believe it’s time to put a stop to the bank fees that eat into retailers’ profits, and push up prices paid by consumers.
“At a time when Americans are struggling to pay for groceries and to fill the gas tank, doing something about a hidden fee that drives up the cost of basic necessities should be one of Congress’ top priorities,” Steve Pfister, NRF senior vice president for government relations said in a statement.
Last week the House Judiciary Committee voted to move forward with the Credit Card Fair Fee Act of 2008, which requires lenders to negotiate with merchants and retailers on terms for fees paid when processing card transactions. The hope is that more flexibility to negotiate will bring interchange fees down, which will in turn allow merchants to keep their prices down. It also calls for the credit card companies and banks to be more transparent about their fee structures.
Most retailer and consumer groups support the change. As the legislation moves to the House floor, banking groups are voicing their opposition.
Edward Yingling, president and CEO of the American Banker’s Association, said in a statement that the bill “interferes with the smoothly functioning electronic payment system that currently works to the benefit of consumers, businesses and the broader economy.”
Not only would hindering the electronic payment system hurt businesses that benefit from faster transaction times and increased sales, the banking group said, but the legislation could also hurt consumers, by forcing credit card companies to raise their interest rates to cover costs.
Josh Floum, general counsel for Visa Inc., called the Credit Card Fair Fee Act “an anti-consumer bill that would mandate unnecessary regulatory intervention into a fiercely competitive industry that is benefiting consumers, merchants and financial institutions.”
And if passed, the bill would give more power to the largest retailers and therefore “suppress competition and innovation and result in unintended and harmful consequences for consumers,” Floum said.
MasterCard echoed the sentiment in a press release issued in response to the Judiciary Committee’s approval. “It would be inappropriate for the U.S. government to set prices and negotiate the terms of contracts for private commercial entities.”
But merchants aren’t buying it. Mallory Duncan, chairman of the Merchant Payments Coalition, a retailing advocacy group, said the system as it stands hurts retailers more than it helps them.
And retailers aren’t the only ones losing out, says Duncan. In tough economic times, consumers can’t afford to cough up extra cash to credit card companies. “They’ve had a very sweet ride for 30 years,” Duncan said.
Now lawmakers in Washington will duke it out. The issue pits those who say they are trying to alleviate the financial burden on consumers against those who are aiming to prohibit regulatory intervention and uphold the free market policy the credit card contracts are based on.
Congress is likely to vote on the Credit Card Fair Fee Act by the end of this year.
[Source: CNN Money]
Rally to Stop Skyrocketing MasterCard and Visa Fees on Gasoline
July 1, 2008Click here for Media Advisory
Consumers and Merchants Tell Congress to Support the Credit Card Fair Fee Act
IRVINE, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE) Consumers and merchants alike will rally in Irvine on July 3rd, Thursday morning at 7:30 – 9:00 am at the Chevron station at Jamboree and Barranca Parkway to call for independence from Visa and MasterCard’s hidden credit card fees that add another 8-10 cents a gallon on top of already skyrocketing gasoline prices.
Consumers and merchants will also be rallying in favor of the Credit Card Fair Fee Act which would end price-fixing by the credit card industry and help cut interchange fees. This bill would allow retailers to have a seat at the table to negotiate with the credit card industry for the terms and rates of the fees.
“Service station owners and consumers are paying record credit card fees as Visa, MasterCard, and their member banks reap the windfall from the 100% increase in the price of gasoline since 2007,” said Mitch Goldstone, event organizer and editor of WayTooHigh.com – The Credit Card Interchange Report. Goldstone is also president and CEO of 30 Minute Photos Etc. and ScanMyPhotos.com.
With $4-plus gasoline, gas customers typically shell out $2 or more to the credit card industry every time they fill up. Goldstone said, “Except for OPEC, nobody makes more money from skyrocketing gasoline prices on American consumers than Visa and MasterCard member banks – over $10 billion this year alone if gas prices stay above $4.”
“About two dollars of every $100 consumers spend in stores or buying gasoline goes directly to the credit card industry in the form of the interchange fee, the biggest credit card fee you’ve never heard of. Interchange has skyrocketed in recent years. Interchange is a hidden fee; the rates are set in secret by the credit card industry,” said Goldstone.
American businesses and consumers paid $42 billion in total interchange fees just in 2007 on all goods and services, far more than they paid in late fees, over-the-limit fees, annual fees, universal default, double cycle billing, exchange fees, and inactivity fees combined. Consumers not only pay more than they should through unfair fees but also through inflated retail prices, especially on gasoline.
The credit card industry has come under increased scrutiny from the public, consumer groups, the Federal Reserve, and Congress in the past three years for their unfair credit card practices, policies and fees. Interchange fees have been the subject of hearings three times in recent years under both the Republican and Democratic Congresses. Large number of Democrats and Republicans favor the Credit Card Fair Fee Act; it has bi-partisan support in both chambers of Congress.
“Old Foes Unite to Keep Charging Credit Card Fees to Merchants” (via The Hill)
May 12, 2008WayTooHigh.com – The Credit Card Interchange Report Comments:
Let us not forgot that interchange fees were designed decades ago to cover the cost of a four-party electronic payment network – back when we used manual credit card imprinters and mailed in thick bundles of carbon copy credit card receipts to clear the payments. Back then, it took days to transfer funds, today it is instant and efficient.
This is the “perfect storm.”
Understanding the Word “Insolvency” Is Crystal Clear
Visa Inc. Files 10-K Annual Report, Amends S-1 Registration
Visa and MasterCard: How to Profit Off a Devistating Natural Disaster
May 11, 2008Visa and MasterCard profiting from a devastating natural disaster?
This is another image crisis for the two leading credit card associations and their thousands of member banks. When the public understands that with each electronic payment donation to help the people affected by the Asian cyclone, Visa and Mastercard are doing more than clearing the charges. They are reaping profits from a global tragedy. There should be additional pressure placed on their continued profiteering – this time at the expense of vital aid needed for that region of the world, ratherthan to help fund the banks’ other fiscal missteps.
If you thought that Visa, MasterCard and thousands of banks were heartless by reaping windfall profits during our economic energy crisis and record fuel prices, just wait. Even more dismaying than forcing credit and debit card holders to pay upwards of $2.50 for merchant interchange fees when they pay at the pump, is the current Asian disaster.
The United Nations estimates 1.5 million people have been “severely affected” by the May 2nd cyclone that swept through Myanmar. The death toll in that Cyclone-ravaged region could hit hundreds of thousands of people. What are Visa and MasterCard doing? As far as we know, every time an electronic payment donation is sent to The American Red Cross and other relief efforts, the two leading credit card associations and their thousands of member banks make a profit. The interchange fee, which could be upwards of 2.0% from each donation is being delivered to financial institutions, rather than in direct aid to the people in need.
Even with this horrendously inappropriate level of profiteering, your help is needed. Our ScanMyPhotos.com blog: Tales from the World of Photo Scanning has more info on how you can help.
Even worse is that the American Red Cross is in violation of their credit card merchant agreement and is risking disqualification from Visa and MasterCard because nation’s premier emergency response organization demands a minimum electronic payment of $5.00. Click here to read how they explain the merchant interchange fee issue.
Will Visa and MasterCard waive its interchange fees for American Red Cross and other related transactions?
As the pressure grows for Citigroup Inc’s new CEO, Vikram Pandit to address the troubled bank’s missteps, I wonder whether he has the influence to make the call to Visa and MasterCard on behalf of all the card associations’ member banks?
Are Visa and MasterCard Merchants Violating Their Rules?
“Tragedy of Dead and Survivors in Myanmar Grows Worse” (via Aung Hla Tun reporting for Reuters)
Payments and Banking Blogs
April 30, 2008From PaymentsNews.com, they have assembled a link to several of the most recent and favorite payments and banking blogs.
- Aneace’s Blog by Aneace Haddad
- Bankervision by James Gardner
- Banking Kismet by George Pasley
- Banking on Customers by Thad Peterson
- Banking Unwired by Ehab Bandar
- The Bankwatch by Colin Henderson
- The Digital Money Forum Blog by Dave Birch
- The FinanSer by Chris Skinner
- Forte Financial Blog by Erin McCune
- Javelin Strategy & Research Blog
- Mobile Banking by Brandon McGee
- Merchant Account Blog by Jamie Estep
- NetBanker by Jim Bruene
- OneTouch Online Purchasing Blog
- Payments Industry Thoughts by Will Burns
- Payment Systems Blog by David Bergert
- The Official PayPal Blog
- PIN Debit Blog
- WayTooHigh – The Credit Card Interchange Report
Will the government Bail Out Visa and MasterCard Next?
April 4, 2008We’re just saying… based on the rash of Federal Reserve and government bail outs to the financial services industry, we can’t help but wonder whether the next target for a giant handout will be Visa, MasterCard and its thousands of member banks when payment due on their merchant interchange antitrust liability comes do, as we expect it will?
Will Wall Street and regulators explain away that the banks again will need financial support to cover their multi billion dollar antitrust liability, should they be found guilty of illegal price-fixing?
Assault on Visa and MasterCard’s Merchant Fees Escalates in the WSJ
April 3, 2008The magnifying attention to what we assert is illegal price-fixing by Visa, MasterCard and its member banks is gaining concentrated global attention.
After a recent Wall Street Journal commentary (Credit-Card Wars,” Review & Outlook, March 29) that was favorable to one of the publication’s largest advertising categories – financial services – we anticipated a monstrously loud examination from retailers and the public. Today it happened.
There were four letters published in Thursday’s WSJ “Letters to the Editor” section. Our guess is that many more did not make the cut either, including ours (see below). Then again, we already had one published on Jan 10th. See link. For an overview of today’s response and our letters, see below.
-
Merchants Must Submit To MasterCard’s Power
WSJ, January 10, 2008; Page A13The European Union has found, again, that interchange fees charged by MasterCard to merchants are fixed at anticompetitive levels. Instead of recognizing that the nearly $40 billion annual hidden tax on merchants and consumers is based on illegal price-fixing, Joshua Peirez of MasterCard Worldwide hauls out the usual replies (“EU Killing of Interchange Fees Won’t Help Customers,” Letters, Dec. 28).
The fact is that consumers, the marketplace and technology, not interchange fees, are what force innovations within the electronic-payment network. The actual cost of an electronic payment is a tiny fraction of the total fees collected, yet Mr. Peirez suggests that “interchange fees are necessary to fairly share the cost of an electronic payment system.”
Merchants are unable to pay a fair price for using MasterCard’s (and Visa’s) payment network; we are all forced to submit to their market power and their member banks’ ability to collectively fix interchange fees at noncompetitive levels. MasterCard’s long history of anticompetitive price-fixing corrupts its understanding of Economics 101, where the marketplace controls competition, not a board of directors who stand accused of illegal price-fixing.
Mitch Goldstone
President and Chief Executive
ScanMyPhotos.com
Irvine, Calif.(Mr. Goldstone is the lead plaintiff in merchant-interchange litigation against Visa, MasterCard and leading member banks.)
“Are Credit-Card Fees Fair, to Whom, and How Best to Set Them?” LETTERS/EXCERPT:
-
Interchange fees in the U.S. are far higher than those in other western countries. Unfortunately, a market solution is not currently possible because of the credit-card network rules that insulate interchange fees from market discipline. Some credit cards (those with lots of rewards points) cost merchants twice as much as others.
In a normal, free market, we would expect to see these cards priced differently. Credit-card networks, however, forbid merchants to charge more for credit cards than for other, cheaper payment methods, to charge different prices for different card brands or cards within a brand, to accept only certain cards within a brand, or to accept cards only at certain locations and for certain transactions.
Innovation and competition cannot push down interchange rates until the card networks’ artificial constraints on the market are banned.
Adam J. Levitin
Associate Professor of Law
Georgetown University Law Center
Washington
————————————————- -
Your editorial comes to the conclusion that soaring Visa and MasterCard “interchange” fees that cost merchants and consumers more than $35 billion each year are no big deal because “retailers have options to avoid the fees.”
You say merchants can offer a cash discount. In fact, Visa and MasterCard rules make it almost impossible for anyone but gas stations to post both cash and credit prices. And even if they didn’t, the card companies’ systems don’t tell the merchant how much interchange is being charged at the time of purchase, making it impossible to calculate how much of a discount to offer.
You also claim that large chains negotiate lower fees. There are lower-rate categories for a few large merchants based on dollar volume, but Visa and MasterCard refuse to negotiate these rates and impose them on a take-it-or-leave-it basis just as they do for smaller merchants.
Finally, with Visa and MasterCard controlling more than 80% of the market, the question of competition isn’t about other cards or PayPal. The issue is that the thousands of banks issuing Visa and MasterCard cards won’t compete to lower interchange rates. Instead, they have historically come together and agreed to all charge the same high fee for each specific type of card. As we have testified before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, that is a blatant violation of federal antitrust law.
Visa/MasterCard rules effectively require that billions of dollars in interchange costs be passed along to consumers — a hidden credit-card fee of more than $350 a year — yet most families don’t even realize their pockets are being picked. During the shaky financial times you note, what better way to help the economy than to bring the greed of the card companies under control?
Tracy Mullin
President and CEO
National Retail Federation
Washington
——————————————– -
One important point to merchants that was not developed in the article: It is not the “basic” set of fees for accepting charge cards that many of us take issue with. What aggravates so many merchants and service providers is the fee surcharges that are unilaterally imposed upon merchants for accepting certain types of credit cards most often associated with the multitude of rewards programs so widely advertised.
How do the likes of Capital One so generously offer the merchandise, discounts, and cash back without losing money? They attach a surcharge to these cards over and above what the merchant expects to pay for accepting these credit cards. The merchant must pay the extra fee. Merchants have no control over the surcharge amount which they are charged, so the card issuers can be ever more generous to the card holder at the expense of the merchant.
Bill Gardella, Jr.
Norwalk, Conn.
——————————————- -
Credit-card fees are an ever growing expense for all retailers. Credit-card fraud is rampant. Consumers are now starting to default on their credit-card debt the same way they’ve defaulted on mortgages. Your argument that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, doesn’t hold here. Would you have said the same thing about subprime mortgages two years ago? Government should be monitoring this ever expensive and important industry.
Stuart Burke
Hopkinton, Mass.
Our prevous letter to the WSJ didn’t make the cut, but, here’s a copy in response to a WSJ article.
Dear Editor (drafted, Feb 29), There’s more to Eric Felten’s “the burden of gratuitous gratuities” (Weekend Journal, Feb 29) than just that flaunty tipping jar at Starbucks. Most consumers don’t know that when they use a credit or debit card to fund their daily fix of java, it adds to a very hefty tip for Visa, MasterCard and its thousands of member banks that make up their cartel. As Starbucks attunes away from its financial miscues, a giant cost savings would be to return to cash to save consumers from the merchant interchange fees. Each year, electronic payment interchange fees – including those micro-payments of a buck or two bestow nearly $40 billion in cash to the banks. These rich fees were once cost-based and designed for clearing those manual credit card imprinter carbon copy transactions on the Visa and MasterCard network. Today, the lack of competition (Visa and MasterCard own nearly 80% of the market) and the unbridled collusion forces the question: why are these obsolete fees still in force?
Technology and innovations enable instant, automated and efficient settlements that no longer warrant these tips to the banks
Mitch Goldstone
Co-Editor – WayTooHigh.com – The Credit Card Interchange Report Excerpts from The Wall Street Journal, April 3, 2008
“Congress Grills Oil Execs on High Prices” (via AP)
April 1, 2008The joke was on American consumers today – April Fool’s Day – in Washington, D.C.
Congress heard from oil industry executives to discuss the record-setting economic energy crisis and profiteering at the pumps. The group that was not there were MasterCard, Visa and the major banks. And, the question to them that was not asked was why they are able to demand a percent from every fill-up when electronic payment cards are used? The banks reap about $2.00 in interchange fees from every fill-up when you use plastic to pay at the pumps.
WayTooHigh.com: Influencing Opinions and Raising Awareness
March 25, 2008Today marks the third year since ScanMyPhotos.com launched WayTooHigh.com – The Credit Card Interchange Report. It is also about the time we received that infamous rate increase letter from Chase Paymentech which was sent to millions of merchants just like us.
Some rates have risen more than 300% in the past few years. The most recent rate “adjustment” letter arrived days ago, but does not identify the new fees until after they take effect. That sympathetic letter from our payment processing service announced a rate increase when cardholders had us process their affinity, frequent-flier signature cards; a quality causing retailers to effectively also be taken on a ride. That was the letter which led to The Wall Street Journal front-page Marketplace profile on our parent company [30 Minute Photos Etc.] and the beginning of our Federal class-action complaint against Visa, MasterCard and international major banks.
Changes have occured over the years. Merchant interchange rates have continued to ascend, while our traditional photographic film business wallowed due to the same technological shifts which made digital more practical. These are the efficiencies which also helped bring down many antiquated analog services. Next to film, the yellow page directories, fax machines and thousands of other businesses, the changing times also drew attention to the $40 billion annual merchant interchange debacle which didn’t budge.
But, unlike other businesses that were forced to change, the two giant credit card associations and their 80% market power kept trudging along. Today, film, phone books and other once shining business models are historic vestiges from an antiquated past. However, the electronic payment network, which today is super-fast, efficient and liberated from the days of manual credit card imprinters and carbon-copy receipts (that had to be mailed away for processing) remains.When you study the free interchange processing for checks, and international interchange rates that are a third and less the cost in the U.S., you quickly understand that Visa and MasterCard’s game – managed by thousands of member banks – is blemished. Their anti-competitive price-fixing is illegal and drawing international attention and loud shouts from Washington D.C.
While this website has been written in our voice, as a retailer who best understands the issues, we have also become the leading personality and fixture behind the interchange battle. And, it continues to gaining traction. Visa and MasterCard restructured their companies, but the issues and fees remain as do their potential liability.The mix of banks, public relations and legal firms which read our comments each day is shared with close scrutiny by Visa, MasterCard, and much more importantly by other business owners, governments and associations around the world. From giant multi-national conglomerates to “mom-and-pop” shopkeepers, we have been reporting, sharing commentary and observations with the world community which is also causing grief to Visa and MasterCard. WayTooHigh.com and the nearly fifty other class-actions suits after we filed the first are shining a knock-down message that time is running out on the cartel’s imposing might.
Many of you have been following the shift in our business too – from film to digital and our extraordinary international media coverage for the new super-fast photo scanning business model we pioneered. From multiple articles in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today and scores of other media coverage, the entrepreneurial passions at ScanMyPhotos.com was successful in making the leap from analog to digital. So, why hasn’t Visa and MasterCard also transitioned from an ancient , cost-based interchange fee structure to one that represents today’s technological realities?
In the late 1980’s technology evolved where transactions were processed electronically and paper records were not needed for most payment card transactions. Since that time, the costs of various components of credit card transaction processing (phone, data processing and Internet services have decreased significantly. These changes led to significant reductions in the costs of processing payment card transactions.
As class-representatives, on behalf of the millions of merchants with shared dedicated to eradicating supra-competitive interchange fees, we will continue to engage and call attention to this multi-billion dollar injustice.
Visa Inc. $45 Billion Market Value Still $5 Billion Under Potential Liability
March 19, 2008[Click here for March 19, AP story on Visa Inc. IPO by Michael Liedtke]
Based on Visa Inc’s. closing stock price after its first day of trading (down by more than 12-points from its intra-day trading high of $69 a share), the giant credit card association’s market value is about $45 billion. The stock was up just $1.50 a share from its trading-day low of fifty-five dollars. Even so, the credit card cartel’s valuation is still $5 billion shy of the reported $50 billion potential legal liability, according to Legal Times. As with MasterCard, the antitrust liability could lead to the company’s insolvency, according to Visa’s SEC filing.
While Visa might be somewhat insulated from credit problems facing the banks, which still own nearly half the company, they along with MasterCard are very much in the cross-hairs of the merchants who are forced to accept the card cartel’s dominant 80% market power.
Even as a new group of owners join the thousands of member banks by stepping onto the field, the years of antitrust price-fixing charges remains with the new and prior owners.
“Why the Visa IPO is So Hot” (via MSN: MoneyBlog)
March 19, 2008Click here to read Anthony Mirhaydari’s report in MSN’s MoneyBlog)
Excerpt:
-
“…And there are some legal issues too: Since 2003, for every dollar of revenue Visa generated, 28 cents was paid out in settlements. Most of the litigation centers on the interchange rates Visa charges to merchants on each transaction and various other antitrust issues.”
Shareholders Take Visa; Banks Run With $10,000,000,000 Payday
March 19, 2008Because the new Visa Inc. shareholders remain hypnotised by the market success of MasterCard’s IPO, here are some leading morning-after profiles about why the banks bailed on Visa, cashed out $10 billion, plus another $3 billion for litigation reserves.
Visa is the richest IPO ever in U.S. history, but for who?
Did you know that the initial initial public offering was expected to yield only $5 billion? And, after deducting the legal reserves, the banks and the underwriters proceeds that is about all that might be left.
“At Stake is More Than $50 Billion if the Merchants are Successful” (Legal Times)
Visa Inc. IPO Valuation – $74 a share?
“[B]anks Also Stand to Shed Some Liability” (The Charlotte Observer)
“Visa’s Lucrative House of Cards” (SF Chronicle)
Twilight Zone: The Movie, Visa and MasterCard Style
“Significant Victory” Announced Against MasterCard by Class Plantiffs
“Visa’s initial offering expected to fetch $5-billion”
Visa’s Inc’s $10,000,000,000 Misguided Hedge From Litigation
“Visa’s IPO Use of Proceeds Plan and Interchange Overview
Visa Inc. Files 10-K Annual Report, Amends S-1 Registration
How the Fed’s $200-Billion Intervention Indirectly Boosts Visa’s IPO Valuation
“Will Visa IPO Deter Antitrust Lawsuits?” (Financial Week)
“IPO View – Visa IPO Hit by Unexpected Snag–Recession Fears” (Reuters)
—————————————————————–
Want to know more about lead plaintiff ScanMyPhotos.com? Click here and read their daily blog: Tales from the World of Photo Scanning
It’s a Record!
March 17, 2008If it isn’t delayed or cancelled, the Visa Inc. IPO won’t be the only record to be broken.
Today marks the highest – record-setting number of domestic and international visitors to WayTooHigh.com – The Credit Card Interchange Report since we launched this news and commentary site in 2005 to chronical our battle against Visa, MasterCard and its member banks’ anti-competitive merchant interchange fee price-fixing litigation.
—————————————————
Want to know more about lead plaintiff ScanMyPhotos.com? Click here and read their daily blog: Tales from the World of Photo Scanning
Visa Inc. IPO Update
March 17, 2008Although it is just our opinion that the Visa IPO will be derailed, we still assert that potential investors are still hypotized with the same exuberance that Bear Stearns’ chairman, James Cayne possessed when playing in the recent North American Bridge Chapionship in Detroit.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Cayne was away from a cell phone and email during last summer, during the firm’s impending fiscal crisis. Even our company, ScanMyPhotos.com is always accessable with iPhone, 24/7 Live Support and other tools to provide instant access.
In the case of Mr. Cayne, as quoted in the Journal [“Cayne on Golf Links, 10-Day Bridge Trip Amid Summer Turmoil”] by Kate Kelly [Nov 1], “[a]ttendees say Mr. Cayne has sometimes smoked marijuana at the end of the day during bridge tournaments.” In the case of what might turn into an oversubscribed Visa IPO, unless Visa pulls the plug, we can’t help but ask what the new shareholders are also smoking?
The IPO, along with its risk factors represents a new vanguard of greed in the eye of the financial markets’ tornado-like storm.
——————————————————
Want to know more about lead plaintiff ScanMyPhotos.com? Click here and read their daily blog: Tales from the World of Photo Scanning
Visa IPO Derailed, Suggests Mitch Goldstone
March 17, 2008[March 18, 2008, update: Visa prices IPO at $44 a share, above expected range, raising a record $18 billion]
With thirty-minutes until the U.S. financial markets open, Mitch Goldstone, co-editor of WayTooHigh.com – The Credit Card Interchange Report is making the call that this week’s planned multi-billion dollar exit parachute for thousands of banks which own the giant credit card association will fizzle. The Visa IPO was planned as the nation’s most ambitious public offering, yet Visa Inc. is also facing the largest antitrust litigation too, one which in their own words could cause the credit card processing firm to become insolvent if we are successful.
This should now come as no surprise, especially after former Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan described the financial mess as being the worst since WWII: “Greenspan Worns of Worst Crisis Since 1945.”
Obviously, the banks think differently, especially JP Morgan Chase, which is much more than a lead underwriter. Did you know that they are also a primary investor in Visa Inc and own one of the largest Visa and MasterCard electronic payment processors, Chase Paymentech?
“I had more than a feeling that the IPO was dead on arrival several weeks ago and have been calling attention to the reasons ever since,” said Goldstone, who is lead plaintiff in the merchant interchange class-action against Visa, MasterCard and major banks. On March 1st, WayTooHigh.com, which has been chronicling the interchange battle with daily news and commentary updates since early 2005, had this posting: Why the Visa Inc. IPO Might be Delayed for Shelved? Several other similar commentaries were subsequently published by WayTooHigh.com.
“Although there have been no other public reports which we read suggesting Visa Inc. might delay or cancel its IPO, we are not surprised. After all, the banks were equally in the dark when it came to not protecting themselves and shareholders by acting to thwart the sub-prime mortgage meltdown and other costly missteps,” said Goldstone.
Want to know more about lead plaintiff ScanMyPhotos.com? Click here and read their daily blog: Tales from the World of Photo Scanning
World Stock Markets Plunge More than 5% on Monday; Oil at $111.00; Gold up 2%
March 16, 2008We cannot help but think back to the recent presidential news conference where the U.S. president seemed stunned and in disbelief that there was $4.00 a gallon gas being sold in the States. We wonder whether Mr. Bush is also aware of this dire global market crisis, where the Federal Reserve is ponying up unprecedented billions to a multitude of bankers? The same bankers who are hoping to reap billions from this week’s Visa Inc. IPO, and the same bankers who looked the other way during the sub prime mortgage fiasco, and the same bankers who stand accused of illegal price-fixing by agreement by artificially setting the MasterCard and Visa merchant interchange fees.
Visa and MasterCard Adjusting Interchange Rates – Part II
March 15, 2008On the eve of Visa Inc’s bank bailout, we have this news: interchange rates are changing, but we have no clue what it will be until after the IPO is completed.
What other business can announce they will adjust their fees, but will not let you know its new rate schedule and how it will impact your wallet until the day it takes effect? No, not the petroleum industry. But, it does take a mirror-like cartel with unbridled market power to decree these types of changes.
Over the past years, MasterCard and Visa have both attempted to retool and convert from their bank-owned control by hiring an independent board of directors and restructuring to help respond to our antitrust assertions.
This, along with other measures were designed to soften the reality that both credit card associations run a monopolistic enterprise, where its card network fixes prices at supracompetitive levels. Even the letter we received from Chase Paymentech married MasterCard and Visa together to virtually make them indistinguishable from each other – they are so similar that the processing company didn’t need to send two separate letters, but, instead batched both announcements together as one.
It seems that all the good changes that Visa and MasterCard enacted to move forward were just window-dressing. The reality is all here in this letter.
On April 1st, the two credit card associations will press a button and unilaterally change several merchant interchange rates. As merchants, we will be kept in the dark until … April Fool’s Day!
We will not even know the new rates until we view our statement a month later, or visit the Visa and MasterCard websites, which require an advanced degree in gobbledygook to decipher.
Visa and MasterCard Interchange Rates Revised on April 1
Want to know more about lead plaintiff ScanMyPhotos.com? Click hereand read their daily blog: Tales from the World of Photo Scanning
“Will Visa IPO Deter Antitrust Lawsuits?” (Financial Week)
March 10, 2008Click here to read the March 10th FW article by Carleen Hawn.
Abstract, key Ppints from the Financial Week article:
-
Investment banks may collect about $480 million in underwriting fees from the Visa IPO
-
J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup, are among Visa’s largest shareholders, and stand to gain hundreds of millions of dollars—$1.1 billion in J.P. Morgan’s case—from unloading large portions of their stakes.
-
Visa may have a different motivation for going public now, suggests antitrust litigator K. Craig Wildfang of the Minneapolis law firm Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi. “The purpose of Visa’s IPO is solely to try to get more lenient treatment from the courts under the antitrust laws,” he said. The timing of the offering, Mr. Wildfang believes, is part of Visa’s attempt to limit “its legal exposure to the Sherman Act.”
-
Civil suits based on the same argument followed from American Express and Discover. Visa settled with American Express for $2 billion, and Discover’s case is scheduled to go to trial in September, though a person familiar with the matter told Financial Week it is likely to “be settled before it ever reaches a courtroom—probably for an amount in the B’s.”
-
Visa plans to set aside $3 billion of its IPO proceeds to pay for “settlements of, or judgments in, covered litigation.” But $3 billion may not be enough, considering the other suits coming down the pike.
-
The most pressing may be the case being argued by Mr. Wildfang on behalf of a group of retail merchants who accept Visa credit cards as a form of payment.
-
Visa does not issue credit cards or lend money. That’s the job of its member banks, such as B of A, Wells Fargo and Wachovia. Instead, Visa processes the credit card transactions on its electronic payment network, in return for which it charges a host of fees that generated more than $5 billion in revenue for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30.
-
The claim in the “merchant litigation,” filed in 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, is that Visa and MasterCard regularly meet to agree on the interchange fees each will charge its merchants. “That is price-fixing, and it is a violation of the Sherman Act,” Mr. Wildfang alleged. “In any other industry, that would be illegal.”
-
Going public may help Visa defend itself against the charge by convincing courts that it is a single entity. Under the Sherman Act, the “concerted activities” of groups, or “trusts,” are subject to greater scrutiny than the activities of “single actors.”
-
But there is a last wrinkle in this theory: Despite MasterCard’s IPO, the European Commission recently said in a ruling that it still regards MasterCard to be a group, not a single entity. If U.S. courts use the EU as any guide, Visa may not have much more luck in court after its own IPO.
“Banks Face ‘Systemic Margin Call,’ $325 Billion Hit: JPM” (Reuters)
March 8, 2008Click here to read the Reuters article by Eric Beech.
“As IPO Looms, Visa’s Outside Counsel [Arnold & Porter] See Litigation Bonanza” [Law.com]
March 7, 2008Arnold & Porter.
With millions of merchants, the fresh eyes of Washington, the European Union, nation’s around the world, and entrepreneurs like us, the question is: how can Visa, MasterCard and its member banks explain the annual $40,000,000,000 hidden tax that (we assert) is based on illegal price-fixing by agreement and unbridled collusion?
Even more questions about Visa’s IPO-planned multi-billion dollar bank bailout are raised from the March 7th Legal Times article by reporter Attilla Berry. Click here to view.
Even the gigantic-sized billable hours for law firms like Arnold & Porter pale in the shadow of the potential liability, which was reported to be “more than $50 billion if the merchants are successful,” according to the article.
____________________________________________________
Want to know more about lead plaintiff ScanMyPhotos.com? Click here and read their daily blog: Tales from the World of Photo Scanning
“Saving Billions for Consumers – Opening up and Reducing Interchange Fees” (via Chris Cannon Website)
March 6, 2008[Via press release]
WASHINGTON DC – Congressman Chris Cannon (R-UT), along with Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), today introduced the “Credit Card Fair Fee Act” (HR 5546) to address the anti-competitive aspects of credit card interchange fees and save American consumers and American families billions every year.
Upon introducing this legislation, Congressman Cannon said, “Free market capitalism is the most successful economic system the world has ever witnessed. Bedrock principles of that system include transparency and competition. The current system of setting fees that merchants pay for credit card transactions is anti-competitive and secretive. This bill does not set prices. Instead, it would require that fees be set in a transparent manner so other companies can compete for business and consumers would not pay artificially high rates.”
Cannon continued, “In the end, credit card companies should set whatever fees the market will tolerate. This bill is a win for consumers, for retailers, and for the credit card industry which will benefit from competition.” In closing, Congressman Cannon said, “This is a complicated issue. This bill may not be the final answer, but society’s interest in this is so great that we hope all interested parties will come to the table.”
For more information, please visit: http://chriscannon.house.gov/ChrisCares/CreditCards.htm
For a graphical depiction of how this bill would mandate negotiations, please visit: http://chriscannon.house.gov/UploadedFiles/ccflow.pdf
Each year, consumers pay billions of dollars in hidden fees that never appear on their monthly statements. Those fees are called “Interchange fees.” Credit card companies and their banks charge them to store owners, businesses, or anyone else anytime a credit card is used to make a purchase. As much as $2 of every $100 you spend goes to interchange companies or the banks behind the card. Last year, more than $36 billion in interchange fees were collected, up 17 percent from 2005 and 117 percent since 2001.
The average American family is now paying more than $300 a year in credit card interchange fees. Retailers are then pass along the credit card interchange fee to consumers in the form of higher prices. The credit card interchange fee increases the price of everything consumers buy, even those who don’t use plastic and choose instead to pay for their purchases in cash or by check because retailers are not allowed to offer lower prices for cash or debit transactions because of their agreements with Visa and Mastercard.
For example, with the price of gas at more than $3 a gallon, credit card companies and their banks are collecting as much as 8 cents a gallon in interchange fees. Americans are paying the highest interchange fees in the world, an average of two percent, compared with less than one percent in most other industrialized countries. Credit Card fees have a complex pricing structure, which depends on the card association, the type and size of the merchant, the type of credit card and the type of transaction.
Convenience stores, supermarkets, warehouse clubs and other merchants that sell low-margin items may have lower rates. Hotels and car rental businesses have higher rates. Among transactions, those with a credit card have higher rates than those with a signature debit card, whose rates are in turn higher than PIN debit card transactions. Sales that are not conducted in person, such as over the phone or Internet, have higher interchange rates, apparently due to their increased risk of fraud. What are Interchange Fees?Why are They Hidden?What Else Has Congressman Cannon Done to Put Money Back in My Pocket?Outside Information – Get Information From Organizations Dedicated to Encouraging Free Market Capitalism on This Issue
“Retailers Welcome Antitrust Legislation Addressing $40 Billion in Hidden Credit Card Fees” (Via NRF News Release)
March 6, 2008[Via Businesswire, March 6, 2008]
WASHINGTON–The National Retail Federation today welcomed the introduction of landmark antitrust legislation that would address hidden MasterCard and Visa fees that cost merchants and their customers more than $40 billion a year.
“This legislation would use the nation’s antitrust laws to rein in the greed of the credit card companies,” NRF Senior Vice President Mallory Duncan said. “With the rapidly increasing use of plastic, credit card companies and their banks are seeing a windfall that is costing U.S. consumers tens of billions of dollars each year. These are fees that most consumers don’t even know they’re paying because Visa, MasterCard have tried to keep them secret. The introduction of this legislation marks the beginning of the end of credit card company rip-offs.”
“Rather than allowing these fees to continue to be set in secret and imposed on a take it or leave it basis, this legislation would require negotiations and allow retailers to seek fair terms and conditions that will ultimately mean a better deal for consumers,” Duncan said. “Consumers are already angry at the way they’ve been treated by credit card companies, and this bill is an important step toward making credit card companies treat both merchants and their customers with respect.”
The Credit Card Fair Fee Act was introduced today by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich. The bill is the first attempt by Congress to address credit card interchange fees, and is the outcome of a hearing held in July 2007 where Duncan, testifying on behalf of NRF and the Merchants Payments Coalition, argued that interchange practices violate federal antitrust law.
Averaging close to 2 percent, interchange is a fee Visa and MasterCard banks charge merchants every time a credit card or signature debit card is used to pay for a transaction. Visa and MasterCard collected an estimated $42 billion in interchange fees in 2007, an increase of 17 percent over the previous year and 150 percent since 2001.
Interchange is largely unknown to most consumers because Visa and MasterCard don’t disclose the fee on monthly statements and effectively keep merchants from disclosing it on receipts. But Visa and MasterCard effectively require merchants to pass the fees on to consumers by requiring them to be included in the advertised price of items and making cash discounts difficult. The fees amount to about $350 per household each year.
The Conyers bill would require credit card systems possessing “substantial market power” to negotiate with merchants to reach a voluntary agreement on credit card terms and conditions. If an agreement cannot be reached, both sides would be required to submit to binding arbitration by a three-judge panel appointed by the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission.
The arbitration proceedings would take place with a limited 60-day discovery period and other statutory deadlines, and the judges would be required to apply a market standard reflecting a perfectly competitive system where neither side had market power. Terms and conditions set by the panel would be in effect for three years, at which time the process would repeat itself. Both sides would receive limited immunity from antitrust laws in order to participate in the process.
The legislation requires that terms and conditions set under the process be available to any merchant regardless of size, industry or location. Individual merchants or groups of merchants would remain free to negotiate voluntary arrangements with credit card companies and their banks.
NRF is leading retailers’ fight against soaring interchange costs. During last summer’s testimony before the Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust Task Force, Duncan explained to lawmakers how Visa and its member banks come together to set interchange rates that all banks agree to charge regardless of which bank’s name is on a card. MasterCard follows a different procedure that also results in all its banks agreeing to charge the same. In either case, the two card associations each operate as illegal price-fixing cartels in violation of antitrust law, he said. With Visa and MasterCard together controlling at more than 80 percent of credit card purchase volume, retailers cannot afford to refuse the cards, he said.
The National Retail Federation is the world’s largest retail trade association, with membership that comprises all retail formats and channels of distribution including department, specialty, discount, catalog, Internet, independent stores, chain restaurants, drug stores and grocery stores as well as the industry’s key trading partners of retail goods and services. NRF represents an industry with more than 1.6 million U.S. retail companies, more than 25 million employees – about one in five American workers – and 2007 sales of $4.5 trillion. As the industry umbrella group, NRF also represents over 100 state, national and international retail associations. www.nrf.com
Credit Card Price Fixing Suit Could Cost Industry Over $100 Billion, Experts Say (Banking Business Review)
March 6, 2008[Repost, Jan 27, 2006]
“According to a group of prominent bankers, a lawsuit brought by retailers in the US alleging a number of major credit card issuers and banks colluded to fix processing prices will have far reaching consequences for the industry at large if it is successful…”
Click here to view the article in “Banking Business Review”
____________________________________________________
Want to know more about lead plaintiff ScanMyPhotos.com? Click here and read their daily blog: Tales from the World of Photo Scanning
More Windfall Profiteering – Barrel of Crude Oil at Record $105.97
March 6, 2008Is anyone else wondering why there is silence as the banks, Visa and MasterCard are celebrating extraordinary windfall profiteering at the pumps? Crude oil reached another record high – $105.97, which means even more profiteering.
____________________________________________________
Want to know more about lead plaintiff ScanMyPhotos.com? Click here and read their daily blog: Tales from the World of Photo Scanning
What is “Reason Code 96?”
March 6, 2008From the National Association of Convenience Stores:
Retailers also are hit with additional costs because of chargebacks, known as “Reason Code 96.” While retailers have not seen the specific rule (no retailer has seen the complete credit card operating rules that they are told to follow) they can be denied payment by the banks if they authorize a pay-at-the-pump transaction for more than $50 for Visa and more than $75 for MasterCard, even though the transaction is not challenged by the customer. As long as fuel prices remain high, “Reason Code 96” will substantially increase the cost of credit card acceptance.
Debit Holds for Fuel Purchases
Gas-buyers Fume at Credit Card Limits, ‘Blocks’
Why Visa, MasterCard and its Member Banks Are Accused of Illegal Price-Fixing by Agreement
March 3, 2008Repost from Nov 21, 2007. Click here
____________________________________________________
Want to know more about lead plaintiff ScanMyPhotos.com? Click here and read their daily blog: Tales from the World of Photo Scanning
Visa and MasterCard’s Member Banks’ Weak Assessment of Interchange Litigation
March 1, 2008If you thought the thousands of member banks failed miserably in how they extended billions in risky housing loans, that could end up being an understatement on the leadership in their executive suites.
Take a look at the banks plan to partly bail out from their Visa investment by using the expected IPO in an attempt to distance themselves from the merchant interchange litigation. Should the Visa IPO occur this month as planned, and we still think it might not – or be delayed due to market conditions and other factors – the real fiscal liability is fully understated.
Visa’s SEC filing explains that they plan to set aside $3.0 billion for its legal liability, but you would think that the real hit to the banks’ would be far greater.
Here is why:
In our opinion, any merchant interchange settlement would include removing or substantially reducing their current $40 billion annual hidden tax on retailers and consumers. Market analysts and several financial reporters have been explaining that the Visa Inc. IPO investment is solid if the legal liability is diminished. However, they all fail to equally assess the impact on the credit card association’s banking cartel to adjust for a diminished source of income from their anti-competitive and price-fixing interchange scheme.
What Do Visa and AT&T Have in Common?
February 27, 2008While financial writers are explaining that the planned Visa Inc. IPO will be nearly double that previously all-time high public offering by AT&T. There is also something much more ominous that the two have in common and should not be overlooked. Our antitrust litigation against Visa, MasterCard and major banks is also the largest antitrust case since the AT&T breakup; not very good company to keep.
Some talk by the financial media suggests that the thousands of banks which co-own Visa might be hoping for a multi-billion dollar settlement [they are planning to hold $3 billion in reserves]. But, the much larger payout is the $40 billion in annual merchant interchange fees that consumers and merchants are forced to pay. We think any settlement will include either the termination of or significant reduction in these obsolete electronic payment fees, and thus even more billions in revenues that would no longer be sent to the banks, but rather retained by American consumers.
Want to know more about lead plaintiff ScanMyPhotos.com? Click here and read their daily blog: Tales from the World of Photo Scanning
A Look into Visa’s Trojan Horse IPO Scheme
February 26, 2008Today, a reporter suggested we should be happy that Visa Inc. is setting aside a $3 billion reserve for our litigation. No, not really.
The credit card giant is playing an unfriendly game in its pursuit of detachment from their legal liability for illegal price-fixing by agreement. If you step back and read several of our preceding comments, you will notice that when first announced, many hinted that Visa Inc. could anticipate raising $5 billion, then it was $10 billion. Now, it is nearly $19 billion.
Was this caused by unearthly market conditions, inflation or because they were simply padding the amount of money they hope to raise to cover their legal liabilities?The worry is that they could simply use investor proceeds to fund settlement of our litigation and then continue raising merchant interchange rates to more than cover the lost revenues. To us, that is as unfair as are their interchange fees.A review of the earlier credit card litigation identifies that for merchants and consumers, the fair market economy is still broken and there still is no real electronic payment competition. Visa and MasterCard’s cartel-like pricing structure still precludes a real resolution to interchange fees. From the preceding resolution, Visa and MasterCard simply raised other rates to adjust for their penalties, thus more than paying for their fines.
Want to know more about lead plaintiff ScanMyPhotos.com? Click here and read their daily blog: Tales from the World of Photo Scanning
“Visa: Bailing Out The Banks” (NY Times)
February 26, 2008Click here to read Floyd Norris, chief financial correspondent for The New York Times’ comments on the Visa IPO and where the use of proceeds would be going. [Read the Visa prospectus]
As entrepreneurs, if we were to seek funding, our investors would require that the proceeds be used to invest in the future expansion of ScanMyPhotos.com, not pay off debt and cover legal bills. They will also dilute the banks’ ownership if the legal liability is greater than $3 billion; this suggests that Visa is understanding that our liability will be greater than $3 billion.
If you thought the banks were mismanaged before, due to their mortgage meltdown, the Visa IPO is a study in supra-competitive greed – which is exactly what their interchange fees are all about.
As with MasterCard, a proportionally large amount of capital will be placed in escrow to cover their legal liability to us. And, just as with MasterCard, the proceeds will also be used to contribute fresh cash to the banks. Mr. Norris covered many of the strange maneuvers that Visa Inc is preparing and hoping the public overlooks, due to their intoxication with the MasterCard valuations. Perhaps the most significant concern is their SEC-filed Risk Factors, and identifying that if our litigation is successful, the giant credit card association risks insolvency. Insolvency!
We think the reason for the IPO is to demonstrate that Visa is not owned and controlled by the banks; that’s part of our assertion in the antitrust litigation. So, just as with MasterCard, they paint the appearance that now shareholders are running the show. Unlike regular publicly held corporations, see what happens if a business tries to acquire a majority of its stock. See what happens if a company wanted to start from the top floor and buy their own electronic payment card network by acquiring Visa. They cannot.
As identified in the New York Times article, this is a giant conflict of interest shell game. JP Morgan Chase is a lead defendant and co-owner of Visa. They also own Chase and Chase Paymentech Solutions – the credit card processing behemoth. Yet, the bank is a lead underwriter and we guess already have their track shoes on to make this deal happen super-fast, while the red paint from their impending liabilities are still wet. Other lead defendants are poised to also cash out in the hundreds of millions of dollars, just as they did (to a lesser level) with MasterCard. But, not so fast, read this posting about the impending troubles facing MasterCard’s IPO.
“Significant Victory” Announced Against MasterCard by Class Plantiffs
Want to know more about lead plaintiff ScanMyPhotos.com? Click here and read their daily blog: Tales from the World of Photo Scanning
Record Visits to WayTooHigh.com – The Credit Card Interchange Report
February 25, 2008Beyond the Visa IPO news, today marked the largest number of unique visitors to WayTooHigh.com – The Credit Card Interchange Report.
Among the leading pages that were visited today included:
Want to know more about lead plaintiff ScanMyPhotos.com? Click here and read their daily blog: Tales from the World of Photo Scanning
Visa Inc. IPO Largest in US History; First it was 5, then 10 and Now $18.8 Billion – That’s Some Rich Valuation Appreciation
February 25, 2008Click here to read the AP story on Visa’s planned ~$19 billion IPO.
click here to read Reuter’s story on the Visa Inc IPO
[WayTooHigh.com Editor’s note: Investor’s, drunken with jubilation over MasterCard’s valuation, would be wise to sober up and read the Risk Factors which Visa Inc explains could lead to insolvency of our merchant antitrust litigation prove successful. Forget not what MasterCard did in an attempt to transfer its legal liabilities from the banks to shareholders. The Visa IPO smacks of a giant shell game. The same banks which owned MasterCard, tested the waters with by selling off a chuck of the much smaller credit card association. Now, the same thousands of banks – facing billions in losses from other management missteps are now seeking to cash out again, and at a much higher level. Check back often for regular updates and commentaries on the planned Visa Inc. IPO].
Related WayTooHigh.com postings
“Significant Victory” Announced Against MasterCard by Class Plantiffs
“Visa’s Initial Offering Expected to Fetch $5-Billion” (The Globe and Mail) [that’s some inflation…. From $5 billion to $19 billion?]
Will Visa USA’s “Consumer Education” Tool be Silenced During Their IPO?
Visa’s Inc’s® $10,000,000,000 Misguided Hedge From Litigation (WayTooHigh.com)
“Visa’s IPO Use of Proceeds Plan and Interchange Overview (commentary, WayTooHigh.com)
“Visa Reveals Plan to Restructure for IPO” (via AP)
Want to know more about lead plaintiff ScanMyPhotos.com? Click hereand read their daily blog: Tales from the World of Photo Scanning
Gold, Oil and WayTooHigh Hit Record Highs
February 20, 2008With almost 1,000 posts since our battle against Visa and MasterCard began in 2005, we have a milestone to announce.
It is not just the multi-billion dollar interchange fees that are at record highs. Even gold and oil’s record highs today are not in a field of their own. WayTooHigh.com – The Credit Card Interchange Report also recorded its highest number of recent daily visits today. And, to think, we are not even a cartel – just entrepreneurs taking on the banks and Visa and MasterCard!
While we are heartened that the credit card associations, banks, their legal teams, advocacy groups and major media outlets are also regular readers of WayTooHigh.com, it is much more reaffirming that we are also visited each day by America’s largest multi-national conglomerates and small mom-and-pop stores.
Sunday’s Academy Awards telecast and MasterCard’s commercials will be a reminder that gimmicks and visibility do not trump the law and conviction of outrage by its cardholder and retailer customers. This Sunday, it’s the Academy Awards MasterCard commercials, then this Summer, during the Olympics, it will be Visa’s turn to spin their story.
During the 60-second MasterCard spots on Sunday’s Academy Awards, think of the single mom walking into a corner convenience store in the inner-city, rather than the planned MasterCard sweepstakes contest they will instead be promoting. Back to our profile: The mom walks in, buys a gallon of milk for cash and thus subsidizes the signature cardholder’s free trip to Europe from an identical purchase of milk because they paid with a premium signature MasterCard. The merchandise cost the same, but the interchange expense is shared by the cash paying shopper. Then, ask the question: why exactly is the person paying with cash subsidizing the frequent flier mileage gained from affinity cardholders? It would take an Academy Award performance to explain how that is a fair transaction.
Our readers are part of the reason we want to incite millions of merchants and consumers to stand up and say enough to the nearly $40 billion in hidden fees forced upon us by Visa, MasterCard and its member banks. There is no choice and there is no competition.
Leading Recent WayTooHigh.com Postings
Want to know more about lead plaintiff ScanMyPhotos.com? Click here and read their daily blog: Tales from the World of Photo Scanning
“Significant Victory” Announced Against MasterCard by Class Plantiffs
February 13, 2008A publicly filed Report and Recommendation on Feb 12 from Magistrate Judge James Orenstein is recommending to Judge Gleeson that the Court deny MasterCard’s motion to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs Supplemental Complaint that challenges MasterCard’s reorganization and IPO.
[Click here to view the Report and Recommendation].
In our opinion, as Class Plaintiff, this is a significant victory as it undermines MasterCard’s legal and business strategy of attempting to avoid antitrust liability by transforming itself into a “single entity” immune from Section I of the Sherman Act.
We have written in depth on this topic ever since MasterCard launched its plan to transfer liabilities through a questionable public offering. While there are other remedies beyond overturning the MasterCard IPO, the situation is similar to those now faced by Visa Inc and its nearly identical planned IPO, which we now think could be modified to address these issues and even be deferred or rescheduled. [See Risk Factors]. We expect that yesterday’s Report and Recommendation could minimally have a materially negative impact on Visa’s IPO pricing.
Selected highlights from the Report and Recommendation
-
Background: In their First Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, filed on April 24, 2006, the merchants and trade associations that comprise the Class Plaintiffs alleged sixteen antitrust claims against a variety of networks and banks arising from those defendants’ use of fees and rules that enable the merchants to accept credit and debit cards as forms of payments for the goods and services their customers purchase.
-
[T]he plaintiffs allege that the IPO fundamentally altered MasterCard’s structure and operations, as well as the relationships between and among itself and the Banks, in ways that offend federal antitrust laws as well as New York State’s prohibition against fraudulent conveyances.
-
Before the IPO, the banks that made up the membership of the MasterCard consortium completely controlled the network: they owned all of its shares and populated its Board of Directors and other governance committees.
-
The plaintiffs assert that it [the IPO] was to avoid such liability that MasterCard’s banks determined to transform the consortium into a public company that would qualify as a single entity; however, in doing so, the plaintiffs contend that the banks sought only to divest themselves of enough participation in MasterCard to avoid antitrust liability, without losing their ability to engage in anti-competitive conduct. Id. 74-75. In making that allegation, they note that MasterCard publicly described one expected advantage of the IPO as being insulated against “legal and regulatory challenges involving our ownership and governance.”
-
The Class Plaintiffs contend that the net effect of these changes is to create the appearance but not the reality of a single entity, and thereby improperly to insulate MasterCard from Section 1 liability for what amounts to a continuation of its member banks’ continued unreasonable horizontal restraints of commerce.
-
I conclude that the IPO resulted in both MasterCard and the Banks making an acquisition that is properly subject to scrutiny under Section 7. First, the Banks Acquired stock in the new MasterCard entity, and that acquisition is not shielded from liability simply because it was paid for with arguably more valuable shares of the old entity. Second, MasterCard acquired assets from the Banks – namely, their shares of the old MasterCard entity and certain associated rights – and that acquisition is not shielded from liability simply because the assets can also accurately be described as MasterCard’s own stock rather than “the stock … of another person
-
… [T]he plaintiffs assert that the rules governing transfers and ownership of the new classes of MasterCard shares will concentrate effective control of the new entity in the defendants’ hands. Those rules ensure that the banks that were members of the old MasterCard consortium will retain a substantial economic interest – 41 percent ownership – in the new entity. Combined with ten percent ownership share guaranteed to the new MasterCard Foundation, it is impossible for outsiders to obtain a majority stake in the company. In addition, the restrictions on governance rights – including the ownership qualifications and veto powers associated with Class M shares and the limitations on voting rights available to public investors – further ensure that no outsider can gain enough power to operate MasterCard in a way that might be more competitive but less profitable for the banks.
-
… Given the plaintiffs’ plausible allegations about the characteristics of the relevant market and the effects of the acquisitions at issue, I conclude that the Complaint sufficiently pleads that the agreements leading to the IPO will probably result in a substantial lessening of competition. Combined with my earlier conclusion about the form of the acquisition, I further conclude that – with respect to both MasterCard’s alleged acquisition of assets from its member banks and the Banks’ acquisition of stock in MasterCard – the plaintiffs have identified, if not yet sufficiently pleaded, a viable claim under Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
Want to know more about lead plaintiff ScanMyPhotos.com? Click here and read their daily blog: Tales from the World of Photo Scanning
“EU’s McCreevy Pushes for New Payment Card Schemes” (via Reuters)
January 28, 2008Click here to read entire (Jan 28) article by Reuter’s Huw Jones.
Want to know more about lead plaintiff ScanMyPhotos.com? Click here and read their daily blog: Tales from the World of Photo Scanning
Twilight Zone: The Movie, Visa and MasterCard Style
January 25, 2008Do you remember the segment in the 1983 film, The Twilight Zone where a person befriends a mysterious 10-year-old boy and ends up trapped along with his relatives in an alternate reality created by the boy’s imagination? To us, that is how MasterCard and Visa operate. People are frightened to call attention to the two giant credit card associations’ collusive price fixing schemes. There are dozens of class-action law suits, all which followed after we initiated the first updated case in May 2005, but there are millions of other stories too.
Because nearly every merchant, non-profit and entrepreneur across the globe is beholden to Visa and MasterCard and its 80% market power, many are silent on what is a nearly $40-billion annual hidden tax.
WayTooHigh.com – The Credit Card Interchange Report has been filing news and commentary updates for nearly three years and are pleased to have such broad-based readership – beyond the defendants and their high-powered advisors.
But, how many other businesses were brave enough to do what 30 Minute Photos Etc. [ScanMyPhotos.com] did: actually call and email Visa and MasterCard and ask them to rescind their fees [see profile]? Because they were non-responsive, they now face a multi-billion dollar antitrust suit that, according to them could cause both card association’s to become “insolvent.” Not to fret, as the banks would never let that happen.
When we launched our litigation, the banks appeared much more stable, but over the years, they have paid out billions from their misadventures and executive mismanagement decisions. When a single trader can cause more than $7 billion in losses, our suit is looking less weighty. But, we long knew that we were well inside the Twilight Zone when we decided to stand up to the banks and their payment card pricing schemes.
More Interchange Revenue Centers
January 23, 2008Merchants already are forced to pay from upwards of one-hundred separate interchange fees. Few understand how these charges work, and even we didn’t know of one of the added chargeback programs.
Even though we are the lead plaintiff in the merchant interchange litigation and co-editors of WayTooHigh.com – The Credit Card Interchange Report, we didn’t know about the “chargeback fees.”
30 Minute Photos Etc and our ecommerce business, ScanMyPhotos.com might have had under a dozen chargeback requests over the past 17-years. These are generated when a customer questions a specific electronic payment charge.
Just today, we received a multi-page chargeback notification from Visa USA domestic. The customer disputed a charge from early December and reported that it was a duplicate processing charge for the same order. The fact was this customer placed two separate orders for differing amounts over the span of a few days.
As a merchant, our account was immediately dinged for the full amount. A financial adjustment was made to our account as a result of the chargeback initiation. While were were offered to dispute the charge, which we did, Chase Bank USA already took the money back. Can you imagine that? Ok, we are the lead plaintiff, suing JPMorgan Chase and the other member banks, along with Visa and MasterCard for what could be multiple billions of dollars, but did they have to be so petty?
What happens when other merchants overlook those chargeback notifications? Funds could also be automatically withdrawn and if not challenged, lost. Also, what happens to the interchange fee that we initially paid? Would a disputed charge still have to incur an interchange fee?
Fed Cuts Interest Rates .75%; Why Don’t Banks Cut Interchange Fees Too?
January 22, 2008Due to the global financial crisis of confidence, if the Federal Reserve can implement such fast-action by slashing key interest rates by .75%, why aren’t MasterCard and Visa’s member banks also at the same table, helping to soften the economic chasm?
Interchange fees – a relic pricing schemed from decades ago – account for nearly $40 billion in hidden charges each year. It is based on an antiquated system designed decades ago to cover a four-party payment system. If the Federal Reserve has no fees to clear checks, why are Visa and MasterCard’s network able to charge so much?
Today, the entire electronic payment network is seamless, automated and highly advanced. Think of the Internet network as a model for efficiency. There are few manual credit card imprinters today, instead, it is mostly automated and efficient, yet the fees are anything but modern. With today’s emergency market conditions, if the electronic payment system were to be altered, think of the immediate cash infusion that consumers and merchants would have, rather than the banks, which as we know are facing management quagmire, as they continue to report billions in write-offs and steep revenue declines.
Stock Market Meltdown… Visa’s IPO Mess… BAC Quarterly Profits Down 95%… Will Interchange Fees be Lowered?…
January 21, 2008
The banks must be in full throttle panic.
If you thought that it could not get worse than Bank of America (defendant in our litigation) reporting its quarterly profit fell by 95% and had trading losses of more than $5 billion, it did.
It potentially just got much worse.
When the U.S. markets open Tuesday morning, investors will recognize that the financial institutions’ latest flotation tool – unloading part of their Visa investment and trying to potentially pass off the litigation liability onto public hands – has become much less attractive.
Has their liquidity just been shattered?
If you thought the billions in bailout dollars to the banks was a huge chunk of change, just study our 931 prior WayTooHigh.com posts. Our multi-billion dollar merchant antitrust litigation – as we battle the banks and MasterCard and Visa over their years of alleged illegal, anticompetitive price fixing is impacting all consumers and merchants.
One news report indicated that the current bank bailout will be about $40 billion, an interesting amount, as it nearly parallels the annual bill that consumers and retailers are forced to pay to the card associations’ member banks each year.$40,000,000,000 is a great deal of money, especially when you multiply it over many years.
With the stock market meltdown, we cannot help but pause to reflect on the banks’ most recent billion-dollar planned bailout by cashing out part of their ownership in Visa. Will the IPO move forward, or be shelved due to market conditions? If so, think of the additional lost revenues to the banks; the IPO valuation must be much lower today than initially forecast.
WILL INTERCHANGE FEES BE LOWERED?
We guess that Tuesday’s market reactions will force more interest rate reductions. Why then aren’t Visa and MasterCard’s member banks also following along and lowering their merchant interchange fees too?
There are already calls for the U.S. Federal Reserve to suspend the pending market free-fall and change investor psychology by lowering interest rates a full 1.0 percent. We know where an additional $40 billion could come from to immediately upright the economy. Perhaps the presidential candidates will share our view too.
Want to know more about lead plaintiff ScanMyPhotos.com? Click here and read their daily blog: Tales from the World of Photo Scanning
Riddle: What’s The Difference Between The Cost To Send An Email And An Electronic Payment? $40 billion each year!
January 21, 2008repost.
As our company continues to make news for the super-fast photo scanning business we built that is transforming the photo imaging industry and using technology to slash prices for preserving generations of photo snapshots, we wondered why technology has not also led to rock-bottom and tumbled-down interchange fees?
To be more transparent and divulge just how ghoulish this hidden tax is, Visa® and MasterCard® should post the exact interchange fee for each transaction as a separate item on every debit and credit card receipt. We first raised this issue in January, 2006, but they seem too busy figuring out how to go public to distance the banks from our alleged antitrust violations. If they would only pause from what we assert is their attempt to pass along the liability from this litigation onto the public, and instead, agree to post the exact interchange fees on every receipt, then, all merchants and cardholders would understand why we are so passionate about this issue. There would no longer be a hidden tax, but, rather a very vocal cascade of resistance against the peddlers of these unfair fees.Why are the merchant interchange fees about 1.7% in the U.S. and as low as zero in other nations? And, as other electronic transactions have been slashed too rock-bottom, why have some of their rates [ex. debit cards] tripled in the past 8-years?
Let us pause for a brief study break and review the historical way of sending [”transmitting”] a traditional letter and the processing of a charge slip. In the previous decade, if you wanted to send a letter, you generally bought stationary, an envelope, postage and drove to the Post Office to mail it; days later it was received. Also about ten years ago, merchants, like us, had to stock up on thick, multi-page, carbon-copy charge card receipts, swipe the payment cards through a manual imprinter, mail it to the processing company on the other coast [Florida]. Then, days later, the transaction – less a substantially lower interchange fee than today – was credited to your bank account. As technology advanced, instead of lowering interchange fees, it has actually leaped ahead.
Today, we all use email, and essentially, it is free. Could you imagine if the two leading credit card associations and its thousands of member banks were also involved with the exploration of the Internet? Using their surreptitious market power and pricing domination, every electronic [email] “letter” would come with a beefed-up fee. But, the actual cost to use the Internet network to transmit an electronic message, must be about the same as the cost to transmit an electronic payment on its network, so why are the banks still granted the potency to exert such immense multi-billion-dollar hidden taxes on merchants, cardholders and our economy?
[Commentary: WayTooHigh.com]
Another Reason Why The Banks Interchange Fee Should Be Zero
January 21, 2008repost.
The National Association of Convenience Stores magazine (July 2005) reported that “interchange fees arguably are meant to cover the technology cost of account processing and the risk taken by the issuing bank that the credit will not be repaid. It is no secret that technology costs continue to fall while processing power increases dramatically.”
The previous posting addresses the risk factor, this column focuses on technology.
As well-known entrepreneurs, Mitch Goldstone and Carl Berman, lead plaintiffs in the antitrust litigation against Visa, MasterCard and member banks also co-edit The Credit Card Interchange Report – WayTooHigh.com. This column provides a real-life experience to understand why Visa and MasterCard may be forced to disband its merchant interchange charges.
The nationally recognized business leaders operate an online boutique photo service (30minphotos.com) which recently created an entirely new business model for preserving generations of photos. The company previously charged $5.00 to produce one high-resolution digital scan from a single photo; the process would take several minutes. Today, their ScanMyPhotos.com service scans 150 photos of any size — from wallets to 11×17 enlargements in just one minute. The charge is $49.95 for 1,000 photos; an entire shoe box of pictures is scanned within minutes and mailed back the same day for under 5-cents per print. They even launched “15-Minute Photo Scanning, or it’s free. see link.
This same math applies to the credit card associations. With technology advancing at lighting-fast speed, each few months yields entirely new cost-saving techniques, yet for banking card transactions the fees keep rising?
Just one decade ago when merchants used bulky non-electronic credit card imprinters, the multi-page carbon forms cost a great deal and had to be mailed for processing. This took several days and incurred costly clearing and processing fees, which was why the interchange fees were initially established; it was cost-based.
Today, just as how the cost for digitally preserving photos was cut by Goldstone and Berman from $5 to 5-cents, so too have the costs for banks to process merchant payments. Yet, the latter service continues to face huge, unjustified fee increases.
Visa and MasterCard can learn a great deal from their customers like Goldstone and Berman. Many business services and products share similar cost-savings to lower rates while enhancing the benefits.
“Credit or Debit? It Depends Upon Whom You Ask” (The Patriot-News)
January 13, 2008Reporter Sharon Smith, from The Patriot-News, has a comprehensive article in the Sunday, Jan 13th edition about the difference between debit and credit cards. She mentions the contests and games banks (Visa and MasterCard) play to entice cardholders to use their debit cards as signature credit cards, so retailers are forced to pay more. What is missing is the explanation that ultimately consumers end up paying more, as someone has to cover the higher signature-based interchange fee. More to the point, the larger question is why is there such a significant spread between the two services?
We have dozens of previous commentaries on this scheme and how it impacts retailers and consumers.
[Click here to view the article]
MasterCard Inc. Update I
January 10, 2008We see that the Wall Street Journal (Jan 10, page A-13) ran the “Merchants Must Submit to MasterCard’s Power” letter to the editor today by Mitch Goldstone
Reprinted in its entirety.
Merchants Must Submit To MasterCard’s Power
January 10, 2008; Page A13
The European Union has found, again, that interchange fees charged by MasterCard to merchants are fixed at anticompetitive levels. Instead of recognizing that the nearly $40 billion annual hidden tax on merchants and consumers is based on illegal price-fixing, Joshua Peirez of MasterCard Worldwide hauls out the usual replies (“EU Killing of Interchange Fees Won’t Help Customers1,” Letters, Dec. 28).
The fact is that consumers, the marketplace and technology, not interchange fees, are what force innovations within the electronic-payment network. The actual cost of an electronic payment is a tiny fraction of the total fees collected, yet Mr. Peirez suggests that “interchange fees are necessary to fairly share the cost of an electronic payment system.”
Merchants are unable to pay a fair price for using MasterCard’s (and Visa’s) payment network; we are all forced to submit to their market power and their member banks’ ability to collectively fix interchange fees at noncompetitive levels. MasterCard’s long history of anticompetitive price-fixing corrupts its understanding of Economics 101, where the marketplace controls competition, not a board of directors who stand accused of illegal price-fixing.
Mitch Goldstone
President and Chief Executive
ScanMyPhotos.com
Irvine, Calif.
(Mr. Goldstone is the lead plaintiff in merchant-interchange litigation against Visa, MasterCard and leading member banks.)
What Other “Networks” Charge $40 Billion Each Year?
January 2, 2008We couldn’t help but take note that if the thousands of banks which own Visa and own a large amount of MasterCard (prior to the IPO it was total control), are operating on an antiquated network strategy. Because it is no longer cost-based, could you imagine if the banks owned the Internet network or broadcast television networks, like ABC, CBS or NBC?
Fortunately, there isn’t an anticompetitive cartel which controls those and other networks which also use technology to disseminate information. But, in the case of the credit card associations, the network they control is impenetrable and their 80% market dominance is overpowering.
Their argument is the electronic payment network would not be efficient and of value if they (the banks) did not charge their myriad of overwhelming interchange fees.
Just imagine if the banks also owned the free Internet network.
[Commentary: WayTooHigh.com]
Crude-oil Futures Hit $100 a Barrel on Nymex
January 2, 2008Who Profits When Gas Prices Rise?
Even more, record breaking windfall profits from service station-charged interchange fees due to record gas prices at the pumps. Gas now over $100.00 a Barrel generates huge windfall for the credit card associations and its member banks who charge a pay as you go fee for most credit card transactions. Swipe your credit card at the pump and the card associations [Visa and MasterCard] along with their thousands of member banks win during our nation’s and the world’s economic energy crisis.
Recent WayTooHigh.com related articles
[commentary: WayTooHigh.com]
Good Thing MasterCard Worldwide Has An “Integrity Officer” On Staff
December 31, 2007Reaction to the Dec 28 Wall Street Journal Letter to the Editor by MasterCard Worldwide’s Integrity Officer.
The EU has found, again, that interchange fees charged by MasterCard to merchants are fixed at anticompetitive levels. These are the same findings that have been made by the Reserve Bank of Australia, the United Kingdom Office of Fair Trading, and every other investigation by a government enforcement agency. In his demonstrably incorrect response, Joshua Peirez of MasterCard Worldwide [“EU Killing of Interchange Fees Won’t Help Customers” Letters to the Editor, Dec 28] minimally provides a twinkle of whimsy corporate-speak. Instead of recognizing that the nearly $40 billion annual hidden tax on merchants and consumers is based on illegal price-fixing, he hauled out the usual replies.
The fact is that consumers, the market place and technology, not interchange fees are what forces innovations within the electronic payment network. The actual cost to transact an electronic payment is a tiny fraction of the total fees collected, yet Mr. Peirez suggests that “interchange fees are necessary to fairly share the cost of an electronic payment system…”
Merchants are unable to pay a “fair price” for using MasterCard’s [and Visa’s] payment network; we are all forced to submit to their market power and their member banks’ ability to collectively fix interchange fees at noncompetitive levels.
MasterCard’s long history of anticomptitive price-fixing corrupts their understanding of economics 101, where the marketplace controls competition, not a board of directors who stand accused of illegal price-fixing. Of course prices will be lowered once the nearly 2% forced interchange fees are removed. In Australia, England and Canada, and in other countries where rates are much lower than in the U.S., the credit card networks are working fine. [Canada has no interchange fees on PIN-based debit cards]. If it was not gargantuanly profitable, MasterCard and Visa would have pulled out of those markets, and they surely have not.
As for card benefits, study the endless grouping of fees that MasterCard and Visa charge. For instance, when an affinity frequent-flyer signature card is used, merchants are also taken on a ride. The interchange fees on those cards are even higher than other categories.
Interchange fees were established in the early 1970s in order to compensate card-issuing banks for the cost of issuing and maintaining credit card accounts. It was designed when merchants had to use bulky manual credit card imprinters and stacks of thick carbon copy receipts that were mailed away for processing. The check processing system in the United States manages the clearing the billions of paper checks that speed along that system, all without any interchange fees.
Over the years, the interchange fees charged by Visa and MasterCard have been a multi–billion dollar tool to generate revenues from non-cost based transactions. While Visa and MasterCard have a history of scorched-earth litigation and are mounting a vigorous public relations battle against its core customers, merchants and cardholders, merchants and consumers continue to challenge their every move. We understand that competition exists solely for card issuers in the form of ever increasing interchange fees. The nearly $40 billion annual hidden tax on merchants and consumers is the result of a broken and we are immovable in our commitment to fixing this unjust burden
[Commentary: WayTooHigh.com, in response to The Wall Street Journal “EU Killing of Interchange Fees Won’t Help Customers” Letters to the Editor, Dec 28. See link].
JUST IN: MasterCard FEE Increase In January
December 27, 2007MasterCard’s Happy New Year Gift to Merchants and Consumers
A letter dated Dec 10 from Chase Paymentech was just received (Dec 27) at our company.
The topic: “MasterCard Fees to be implemented beginning January 18, 2008”
MasterCard is actually going to double one of their interchange fees in 2008!
Although the letter is challenging to understand, the result is that MasterCard is again preparing to raise some interchange fees. This time the two categories of fee increases will affect the Acquirer Program Support Fee for MasterCard International’s non-U.S. transactions.
The Interchange rates for International Consumer transactions will change from a variable rate (.21% to .41%) to a fixed rate of .45%. This is a huge increase!
The Cross Border Transaction Assessment will increase from .20% to .40%. According to the letter, the Cross Border Transaction Assessment is separate from and in addition to the Acquirer Program Support Fee.
There were no announced changes for transactions in the U.S. for domestic cardholders.
[Source: WayTooHigh.com, via Chase Paymentech Dec 10 letter]
More Windfall Profiteering At The Pumps
December 27, 2007Today’s Los Angeles Times asks readers if they are ready to pay $4.00 a gallon? The article by Times staff writer Ronald White hints that “several factors point toward a nightmarish spring for motorists.” But, there is a bright side too. These are dreamy conditions for Visa, MasterCard and its member banks which continue to reap windfall profits as more motorists are forced to charge at the pumps.
We continue to rhetorically wonder why the credit card associations are able to grab a percent of each sale, even though the cost per transaction are about the same for a $1.00 or $1000.00 electronic payment on their networks.
Recent WayTooHigh.com related articles:
[Commentary: WayTooHigh.com]
MasterCard is Again Wrong
December 24, 2007We can’t help but remark on the disconnect that MasterCard and its PR machine has in reaction to the EU ruling last week [see news item].
The second largest credit card association, which was controlled by the same banks that are facing unparalleled billions in losses from the subprime mortgage crisis, is again misguided. The company suggests that interchange rates for consumers will not go down. They should know, because of their exhaustive leadership in what we assert is anticompetitive price-fixing and a fundamental adversity to competition.
In the real world of retail stores and real customers, competition lowers prices. As the credit card giant is forced to end or limit its merchant interchange fees, the result will be that retailers will adjust prices; that is the way competition works, it’s economics 101.
While their PR machine is global, today’s Internet technology provides a more balanced opportunity to instantly respond to their games. And, that is what we are doing, with daily news and commentary updates.
[Commentary: WayTooHigh.com]
Overview: Popular WayTooHigh.com Interchange Commentaries
December 18, 2007Interchange Fees Should Have Gone the Way of the IBM Selectric Typerwriters (WayTooHigh.com)
An Extraodinarily Fictional Read: MasterCard® Explains the Value of Interchange Fees (WayTooHigh.com)
Sixty-percent Rate Cut in 2008 by MasterCard Europe (Commentary, WayTooHigh.com, via WSJ)
Seventy-two pages, five-pages or one line? (WayTooHigh.com)
Every Credit and Debit Card Receipt Should Include Interchange Charge (WayTooHigh.com)
Merchants sue MasterCard, Visa over ‘exorbitant’ interchange rates
“MasterCard Expected to Settle with American Express:” AP
December 12, 2007Citigroup’s New CEO: Encouraging
December 11, 2007As a retailer and ecommerce business, we are encouraged that Citigroup Inc. has appointed Vikram Pandit as chief executive, because he doesn’t come with the hefty baggage that other, more well-known insiders have. Because he has never led a public company, let alone one facing billions in antitrust violations, this might be the turning point that merchants are seeking to regain credibility and question the bank’s (alleged) price-fixing allegations by setting merchant interchange fees by agreement. According to Reuters, Mr. Pandit has “no experience leading a consumer business,” so we hope his first lesson will be to study WayTooHigh.com and the millions of other merchants’ disdain for the supracompetitive electronic payment fees. Citigroup is a member bank of both MasterCard and Visa’s shared cartel and as we assert, has conspired to collectively fix credit card interchange fees.
We wonder whether Mr. Pandit will shift direction and take responsibility for the bank’s violations? Certainly, this would be a smart and prudent way to restore confidence in Citigroup.
[commentary: WayTooHigh.com]
You must be logged in to post a comment.