An interesting article, but it doesn't sufficiently emphasize the lede: When you use a reward card, the merchant is charged a higher fee than if you used a "normal" card. Simply by putting a different branding on the plastic you pay with, the credit card issuer gets more money from each transaction.
The article goes on to ask the question "Why isn’t every card a rewards card?", meaning why doesn't every card pay cash back, but I think the more interesting question is why every card isn't branded in a way that makes the issuer more money. Why do they bother to issue cards where they get paid less? Why not brand every card as a "Signature Preferred" and then pocket the money instead of giving it to the less discerning customers?
And the most interesting question only gets a handwave: "The basic intuition underlying rewards cards as a product is that highly desirable customers have options in how they spend their money." But how far does this go in explaining why merchants "choose" to participate in this program. The obvious answer would seem to be that they get no benefit from the system as it exists but have no real choice, but maybe there is a better answer?
I liked the topic, but wished the author could have given more insight on what's happening behind the scenes to produce the outcome we see.
> But how far does this go in explaining why merchants "choose" to participate in this program. The obvious answer would seem to be that they get no benefit from the system as it exists but have no real choice, but maybe there is a better answer?
The simple reason why issuers don’t make every card a signature rewards card is that merchants would revolt.
The interchange fee schedule[1] is fascinating. Dozens of categories of merchants with different rates. There is no technical reason for this. Fraud costs are borne by merchants and to some extent processors, but not the issuer banks that receive the interchange fee.
The fee schedule reflects a kind of battle for customers. It’s worth repeating that most of interchange for these higher end cards is passed back to the customer in the form of rewards. Essentially, merchants are willing to pay higher fees to support the cards that higher spending customers prefer.
But there is a limit. We can observe that not all merchants accept AmEx, which has some of the highest interchange rates. If every visa/MC card were a signature card, more merchants would push back.
Point in case, there's an interchange fee cap of 0.3% for credit and 0.2% for debit cards in the EU. And there are entire countries moving to cashless, so obviously everyone is happy with it.
> Fraud costs are borne by merchants and to some extent processors, but not the issuer banks that receive the interchange fee.
Merchant fraud and merchant credit risk is borne by acquirers (although, if they went under the issuing baking is ultimately on the hook). But fraud by the cardholder and cardholder credit risk is borne by the issuer.
There is a government to government payment fee category in there. Why on earth would two government agencies ever need to use a CC to pay each other and lose over 1% in fees?
Maybe it's not just that the merchants prefer high-spending customers, but that they're ok paying a little more for customers who have a lower chance of fraud, since they've passed through whatever hoops to have those special credit cards.
>But how far does this go in explaining why merchants "choose" to participate in this program. The obvious answer would seem to be that they get no benefit from the system as it exists but have no real choice,
Some merchants like Amazon, Target, Home Depot etc do want the ability to refuse the "rewards cards" with higher fees but can't because of the current contracts they have for credit-card acceptance. If a merchant signs a contract to accept VISA cards, they must accept all VISA cards and therefore can't selectively choose to reject some VISA cards because of higher swipe fees.
This is actually the reason lower fee cards exist. If every card had a 5% transaction cost no merchant would sign up for that card brand. If the merchant is convinced their average transaction cost will be lower because some of the cards will be cheaper you can get away with some expensive cards.
Are they bound by contract not to offer a discount for casher buyers?
I ask because when I was in Germany (and, granted, this was a few decades ago) you got some percent off the price if you paid cash. Merchants there seemed pretty credit-card averse.
What I want to do is pass on the exact processing fee to my customers, then they can choose their payment method based on how much it is going to cost them. I might then choose to cover a portion of the fee for electronic transactions, because they mean I save money vs processing cash. But the customer would pay the excess.
I would need a system that can display to the customer what fee they would be charged with their selected payment method, and be given an option to switch to a less expensive payment method.
That would cause a massive customer support and frustration problem as regular customers don't know or care how their card is classified and would complaint that it doesn't work. This would affect both the merchant and the issuer negatively.
The only thing I would add to your comment is that merchants aren’t the ones being forced to pay these stupid fees, it’s their customers (and primarily their poorer and often non-card using ones) who are being quite heavily taxed to fund a marketing scheme for rich customers. Most competitive businesses can’t afford to fund such an elaborate targeted marketing campaign directly out of their fees without some competitive pushback: hence the actual question you should ask is why the entire system exists, and the answer has to do with a pile of inefficiency and rent collection based on regulatory capture.
> The only thing I would add to your comment is that merchants aren’t the ones being forced to pay these stupid fees, it’s their customers (and primarily their poorer and often non-card using ones) who are being quite heavily taxed to fund a marketing scheme for rich customers.
Counterpoint: i will pay you $500 if any of the big retailers (>2k stores) lowers prices now and cites "lower credit card fees means we can charge less".
Doesn’t seem like regulatory capture is the issue, if the market was totally free to new entrants and you brought in a low fee card with no rewards then it’s going to fail in an unregulated environment because merchants won’t go to the hassle of offering tiered pricing to low fee cards if they’re not already offering tiered prices for cash, so no-one’s going to give up their existing rewards to still have to pay the same prices. Deregulation just ends up stuck in a local minimum where everyone’s effectively paying for the highest fee cards that the merchant will accept.
It's the legislation that disallows vendors to have different pricing based on the payment system that disaligns the incentives.
If I have a card that gives back 2% to me, back causes 5% fees to the vendor, both of us would be better off if I used a card with 1% fee, and the vendor gives me 2% discount. Unfortunately, not allowed.
The real reason that most merchants don’t charge surcharges is that they don’t want to lose the sale, calculating the actual interchange is wildly complex and in general they prefer cards to cash.
Is it legislation or the contract with the credit card? My understanding is the contract to take ie VISA has terms that you cannot apply a discount for customers using other payment methods (ie cash or someone else's card). There are a few places that don't have those terms (mostly government where often a card does cost more to use).
What people forget about these fees is a credit card is cheaper to take for the merchant. The credit card is never counterfeit money. The clerk never takes money from the credit cards, nor does the manager counting it (I wasn't in retail long but I saw both). You never have a robber come in to take your credit card money. Even when all goes well, you don't pay the clerk and manager by the hour to count all the cash twice. You do have some risk of taking a stolen credit card, but overall it is cheaper for the merchant to take credit cards and that savings should be what pays for the card costs (I have no idea how to count the different costs to see if that is true)
The answer is that the system doesn’t work if a 3%-fee card isn’t held by a low-risk, high-spend rich person. Indeed if that weren’t the case, merchants would reject the tiered fee structure.
(This is also the answer as to why in the absence of regulation, exchange fees aren’t higher than they already are.)
> the system doesn’t work if a 3%-fee card isn’t held by a low-risk, high-spend rich person
There's many rewards cards that require an annual fee (which encourages a high spend to recoup the fee with rewards). But there are plenty of 1.5%-2% cards with no annual fee. You just need a good credit score.
Credit card processors actually provide a service for both their cardholders and the people who accept their cards…
Yes there is the downside for businesses when the processors reverse charges but if this was big enough of a downside then people would stop accepting the card.
Yes sometimes people get their number stolen and are out the money for a while during an investigation, but again if this downside were big enough people wouldn’t use that card anymore.
Yes there are new types of fraud enabled by the technology.
The big benefit is you don’t have to have liquid cash sitting around where people can grab it and disappear.
Some merchants don’t accept some cards… they’ve decided that the cost outweighs the benefit. My grocery store fought against accepting Apple Pay and they do now. Walmart doesn’t.
>Yes sometimes people get their number stolen and are out the money for a while during an investigation
One of the main benefits of credit cards over most other forms of payment is that that isn't the case. A fraudulent transaction on a credit card ties up some of your credit limit during resolution. A fraudulent debit card transaction or personal check takes money out of your account. Of course, if you wait long enough, you may have already paid the bill containing the credit card transaction and then you're in the same boat.
Boy are you going to be shocked when Walmart, target, Amazon brag about the X% income increase when that happens and while prices continue to rise.
Zero, zero companies will discount the sales price when the rewards cards are gone.
There is a strong argument that discontinuing rewards cards actually helps the extremely wealthy by taking from the middle class and giving it to the Uber rich shareholders and big business owners.
Returning merchandise should be illegal and allowing returns is basically a privately levied tax on those who make good purchase decisions and a subsidy to the impulse buyer.
I see this sentiment sometimes, but I disagree. I have excellent credit score and several good rewards cards, despite never spending more than $10k/yr through them. I'd say someone making $10k/yr is dirt poor and yet they too can have a good rewards card.
> privately levied tax on the poor and a subsidy to the wealthy
That's 2/3s of capitalism. Hold enough MA and V -- directly or through just having enough net worth in an index -- and you'll start to see this as a feature, not a bug.
The merchant doesn't generally have much choice. I have some friends who ran a restaurant, and they stopped accepting Amex because the fee was too high. They sold the restaurant to an employee and he immediately started accepting Amex again. Too many high spending clients use it and he didn't want to miss out.
Also, even though Costco only accepts a single brand of card (used to be Amex, now Visa), despite their size and market power they accept any Visa card a customer presents.
Simply because these customers are likely to buy more and at premium prices and not be a pain in terms of refunds etc. They are willing to pay more in commission knowing they are dealing with richer people.
> The article goes on to ask the question "Why isn’t every card a rewards card?", meaning why doesn't every card pay cash back, but I think the more interesting question is why every card isn't branded in a way that makes the issuer more money. Why do they bother to issue cards where they get paid less? Why not brand every card as a "Signature Preferred" and then pocket the money instead of giving it to the less discerning customers?
I didn't see any other comments actually answer the question, so I'll try my hand at this. (Caveat: I've never worked in the finance industry professionally, but I consider myself one of the Redditors mentioned in the article.)
From my layperson understanding, banks undertake not to issue more than a certain percentage of cards as "Signature Preferred" cards, and there is a minimum credit limit required to open such card accounts.
The Chase Sapphire Reserve mentioned in the article is a Visa Infinite card, and Chase requires a $10,000 credit limit to open it. Chase doesn't give $10,000 credit limits to just about anyone, and considering how flexible the US is with identity and income requirements, Chase needs to be more stringent with their underwriting and verification processes to avoid issuing such cards to people who are more likely to default.
From further research, it looks like the Visa Core Rules do offer guidelines [1], for anyone interested:
The bank would incur additional costs to satisfy the requirements to issue higher tier cards. For Visa Infinite, banks are required to offer benefits like "Priority assistance and convenience", "Exclusive privileges and rewards", and "Safety and security", and in some countries, concierge services. Visa Signature cards must have 24/7 customer support.
The PDF is a gold mine for anyone interested in learning more about the various tiers.
Some merchants reject cards with higher fees; i.e., Amex is not accepted at some merchants with lower margins (i.e., grocery stores).
It would be impractical for merchants to accept some branded cards and not others. Imagine "we accept "Chase Premium One" card, but not "Chase American Airlines" card." Very confusing for consumers. If it's a whole category, like Amex, it's easier to refuse it (besides, low income consumers are unlikely to have an Amex card).
It seems pretty clearly implied from his Starbucks example: these rates are negotiated (at least with big merchants).
Presumably, for example, Starbucks is willing to pay higher interchange on the Chase sapphire series than on the Chase freedom series because they believe that the people carrying Chase sapphire cards spend more money. Starbucks would not be willing to pay that for less profitable customers.
>Redditors are frequently sophisticated with their spreadsheets; many of them could clearly earn three orders of magnitude more from the financial industry if they stopped thinking that the right way to monetize spreadsheet skill was in gaming credit card signup bonuses.
It's a pretty decent outlet for having something complicated to work on. Another would be EVE Online with the added bonus that it's also an actual game. My guess is most of those people are just trying to min-max what the companies allow them, rather than trying to find an exploit in the system that prints money per spreadsheet CPU cycle.
I am suspicious that anyone can get a job in finance with only churning (or EVE) spreadsheet skills. I have rarely found "well if you can do that hobbyist but seemingly proximal activity, you can walk into a decent-paying job" to be true in tech and I suspect it's true for finance too.
Maybe the finance bros just need a leetcode-for-spreadsheets website to run their technical interviews to open the floodgates though.
I am pretty deep into the credit card hobby and most of the people in it are high-earning professionals already. The last meetup I went to consisted of half of software engineers.
So we already have jobs that pay well for optimizing things.
It’s hardly a difficult skill. I have a spreadsheet with the date , credit limit, money needed to spend to get the reward and a date to cancel the card. Wall Street better get ready for me
At the end of the day, it's mostly a hobby and you either find keeping track of everything and making effective use of rewards worth it or not. Personally, I have a few cards for targeted use but mostly I just take 2% cash back on a free card and figure that's close enough.
I was also intrigued by that quote and find it rather dubious. Coincidentally today, I and 5 other family members are boarding business class international flights worth ~$60k cash, paid for with signup bonus points. This doesn’t even include the other tens of $thousands of redemptions we’re doing on both this trip and the rest of the year. This is also just side hustle/hobby-that-pays-for-itself “money,” in addition to the (not) “three orders of magnitude” faang income.
I'm guessing (but could be wrong) that you would not actually have paid $60K for business class seats for your family had you not had points that would cover. (I have gotten really good deals using points for something I'd have paid for anyway--but it's been rare.)
Is $60K cash split between these 6 people? Then it is not that impressive.
If you want higher ROI on spreadsheet hobby start using it for your own financial/retirement planning. Playing with numbers in that field can change outcomes by hundreds of thousands dollars.
I think churning is just a hobby for bored divorced guys and used as a proxy for developing any real (non-financialized) interests. Normal cash back for most cards is good enough for most people, and you aren't going to get big point kickbacks unless you already have a lot of money to spend.
The Acquired podcast did an episode on the history of Visa that covers a lot of how the credit card industry works.
As another commenter noted, this article doesn’t pull out clearly how this whole credit card reward scheme actually works. The Acquired episode does, by the end.
It works like this: the ‘luxury’ credit card providers, partnering with Visa, take money away from merchants in order to extract profit for themselves while keeping the credit card consumers happy. The merchants are pissed about this, and regularly make lawsuits to regulate interchange. The money extracted by the credit card companies and Visa causes merchants to raise prices for everyone regardless of whether they have a rewards card or use a credit card at all.
This creates in effect a massive money transfer from the poor, who do not use rewards cards, to the rich consumers who do. The Acquired podcast provides specific numbers on just how much worse off poor consumers are given this system, and how much the richest consumers benefit.
I come from Australia where interchange fee regulation tamps down on the kind of credit card mania and fetishism seen in the USA.
To add to your point; there's an IMF paper[1] backing this claim of "massive money transfer from the poor...to the rich".
I'm quoting the summary below
"We study credit card rewards as an ideal laboratory to quantify redistribution between consumers in retail financial markets. Comparing cards with and without rewards, we find that, regardless of income, sophisticated individuals profit from reward credit cards at the expense of naive consumers. To probe the underlying mechanisms, we exploit bank-initiated account limit increases at the card level and show that reward cards induce more spending, leaving naive consumers with higher unpaid balances. Naive consumers also follow a sub-optimal balance-matching heuristic when repaying their credit cards, incurring higher costs. Banks incentivize the use of reward cards by offering lower interest rates than on comparable cards without rewards. We estimate an aggregate annual redistribution of $15 billion from less to more educated, poorer to richer, and high to low minority areas, widening existing disparities."
I don't read that paper as backing that claim. At best the paper finds that the mechanism is more complicated than "money transfer from the poor... to the rich". To quote the conclusion directly:
"Notably, our results are not driven by income, as they hold within the sub-samples of low-, middle- and high-income individuals. In particular, high-FICO high-income consumers benefit the most from reward credit cards, but they do so at the expense of low-FICO high-income consumers. While credit card rewards are often framed as a “reverse Robin Hood” mechanism in which the poor subsidize the rich, our results show that this explanation is at best incomplete."
Technically this paper doesn’t say “poor to rich” it says “subprime borrowers to super-prime borrowers”. Income-to-FICO score is only moderately correlated. Well, it says rich to poor in the abstract and conclusions, but not the actual writing.
The paper says high-income borrowers who run balances “lose” the most in this transfer - because they spend more in absolute terms, and banks are better able to capture that through balance increase.
To quote: “our findings are inconsistent with the reverse Robinhood hypothesis”.
This is interesting. The study you cite and quote is about a transfer of money from "naive" credit card consumers to "sophisticated" credit card consumers, which correlates to "poor to rich", "less educated to more educated", etc. I'm even more interested in the transfer that occurs from both cash and non-reward-card consumers to specifically reward-card users.
Can't this be rewritten in plain English as "unsophisticated (dumb) people don't know how to use credit cards in their own interest?". Isn't that just the free in free market?
Why is a principled objection to a paternalistic state intervening to protect dumb people from making bad decisions seen as unethical? What entitles dumb people to such protection?
That's a one sided view of it. Credit cards increase customer spending behavior which benefits merchants. For low end customers, the appeal is access to credit, either long-term or just in between paychecks. For high end customers, the appeal is the rewards and perks they get, and the convenience and safety of payments.
This is why you are most likely to see credit card surcharges for tax payments, court costs, and other non-discretionary charges. Anything that either is optional to pay, or isn't but they really want you to pay now (ex. a debt collector) has every incentive to subsidize the card acceptance fee as it will increase their sales.
A huge aspect people ignore is how expensive it is to handle cash. From storage, administration, transportation, loss, etc. it's usually a little more expensive to take cash vs. card.
This is why your grocery store partners with an ATM network to let you take out extra cash at the POS. As long as you're paying the fee, they'll do whatever they can to trade you cash for a digital deposit into their bank account.
I think the other thing that happens is that governments outsource electronic payment collection to a third party which imposes a surcharge for its collection and remits the full nominal amount to the government.
Which can lead to seemingly ludicrous results somethings. I paid a "convenience" fee for parking the other night because presumably collecting a bunch of quarters from a meter was cheaper for the municipality than getting a bit less money transferred from the parking app people?
The other side is also that this is great for card users because we're the price sensitive side of the transaction. I feel like this dynamic is rarely talked about when it comes to two sided transactions. Businesses can't "just pass it to the consumer" is a lot of cases and just have to eat it because businesses don't have that kind of pricing power.
This is how Doordash works on the restaurant side, they can't charge you the customer 20-30% of gross on orders, everyone would stop ordering. So mostly they just have to eat it or lose those sales. Some places choose to lose, some choose to raise prices on DD if they can but mostly they eat it.
A large segment (in the US) that does _not_ subsidize credit card fees are gas stations, where, for the most part, the price for paying in cash is lower than with credit, or there is a per transaction surcharge for using a credit or debit card.
Car-centric as it is, gas prices are arguably the commodity that US consumers are most price sensitive to (and which is also most commonly evoked in politics). So this shows that consumers would prefer to discriminate between card and no-card purchases if given the option, except that the vast majority of retail outlets do not give them that option.
>This creates in effect a massive money transfer from the poor
I'm always a little confused on exactly HOW this plays out. I could see someone with terrible credit being denied, but most cash back cards I use are hardly gated / limited to "rich folks only".
I feel like the reasons / the way it plays out are more complex than the results. And really if someone is poor, struggling to pay their card, that's a larger issue than the type of card they use.
I'm just not sure reward cards = "This creates in effect a massive money transfer from the poor" as simply as stated.
There was a study by the Federal Reserve that came to the conclusion last year that rewards cards is basically a money transfer of ~$15 billion from poor to rich per year. Discussion on Hacker News about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34492502
It plays out this way because anything anyone buys with a credit card, reward card or not, ends up costing 2-3% more than it would otherwise have, because of interchange fees. If you have a rewards card, the CC issuer turns around and gives you, say, half of that back (1% cashback on everything) and keeps the rest. It's kind of like a tax break that you only qualify for if your credit score is above a certain threshold, but you have to pay into regardless of income/credit score.
because poor people, typically:
- do not quality for high-rewards cards (which have higher credit score thresholds)
- if not savvy, carry a balance because they can't afford to pay off the amount in full, are subject to higher interest rates because those are the cards they qualify for, and thereby pay much more than than well off consumers (increasing the transfer of wealth)
- if savvy, realize that having a credit card costs them more than not, and stick to cash
- are more likely to be receiving payment for services in cash themselves and will just spend that rather than depositing and using a CC (if they even have a bank account)
> The money extracted by the credit card companies and Visa causes merchants to raise prices for everyone regardless of whether they have a rewards card or use a credit card at all.
There has been nothing stopping US merchants from offering cash and/or debit card payers a discount since Oct 2011.
Most merchants are betting that people paying with credit cards are willing to buy sufficiently more or buy at sufficiently higher prices such that credit card transaction costs are more than offset.
That is the only reason why a cash/debit card discount would not be advertised.
Edit to respond to below:
I don’t buy that. Merchants of all types already engage in myriad types of discounts and promotions to price discriminate customers all the time.
A simple sign saying “x% discount for paying cash/debit” is of negligible complexity.
Does accepting cash really save a business that much money? I've heard arguments in the past that it ends up being a negligible difference once you account for all costs of processing cash (someone has to take it to the bank, it can get stolen in a robbery, employees can skim, you have to count it, you need a safe, you need cash deliveries, etc).
I have no numbers, so it could be totally off-base, but it feels not-impossible that it costs a percentage or two to process all your cash anyway, so the difference between cash & credit cards isn't actually that big. It's just that the interchange fees show up as one big chunk whereas the cash processing is lots of little bites, or even accounting for things that didn't happen (like skimming).
I guess this only applies if you're legitimately reporting all your cash take, if the business itself is skimming for tax reasons then the savings on cash would be substantial.
yes there is. that's an enormous added pricing and communication complexity for businesses. which we know has a high cost because of all the businesses who have decided it would be higher than just stomaching the credit card fees.
I don't disagree with your point; I do want to point out, though, that whether it's "the merchants have to raise their prices" or "the merchants benefit too and are complicit", the end result is still that it's still the poor who lose.
> The money extracted by the credit card companies and Visa causes merchants to raise prices for everyone regardless of whether they have a rewards card or use a credit card at all.
Case studies indicate otherwise.
Dodd-Frank Act postulated what you stated, that higher fees result in higher prices for consumers ... and if you lowered the fees for the merchants, merchants would lower their prices (to pass along that savings back to the consumers).
But studies have shown otherwise, and merchants did not lower fees.
Claiming that merchant fees result in higher prices is different from claiming that reducing merchant fees would directly, immediately, or measurably lower prices. Isn't a plausible explanation that companies are hesitant to lower prices for any reason?
Let's consider the opposite scenario, if Visa raises their fees do merchants keep prices where they are? I suspect not.
> Two thirds of the merchants surveyed reported no change or didn't know the change in their debit costs post-regulation. One fourth actually reported an increase in debit costs
This is an interesting flywheel. Once I realized that by not using a CC I was subsidizing everyone else, I decided to opt into using a high reward credit card myself.
Many jobs require a college degree as a blunt filter for employee quality. Now that more and more people have that so it's been devalued. You now need specific majors or to come out of an elite college to get the same advantage that used to be conferred by being a college grad. Colleges talk about affordability but many colleges spend big on recruiting star professors and new facilities to compete in the rankings and alumni donations arms race.
Car traffic makes not driving dangerous so people are incentivize to drive. SUVs make driving a sedan more dangerous during crashes so people choose to buy bigger cars.
Marketers race to the bottom on ever more annoying, numerous, and louder ads. People block or mentally tune out ads which feeds back into advertisers pushing the envelope to get noticed.
If ransomware victims did not pay it would become unprofitable. But each business is rightfully concerned about mitigating its immediate business interruption.
> The money extracted by the credit card companies and Visa causes merchants to raise prices for everyone regardless of whether they have a rewards card or use a credit card at all.
This creates in effect a massive money transfer from the poor, who do not use rewards cards, to the rich consumers who do.
Not quite. Credit card companies obligate merchants to charge the same prices regardless of whether you pay with a card, but merchants frequently don't honor that obligation. And there are also merchants who only take cash.
The poorest customers are likely to patronize these merchants. They're also likely to be given discounts that aren't card-related; the whole idea of price discrimination is that, because impoverished customers have low willingness to pay, you charge them less.
In a voluntary system, money transfers are always going to end up being much smaller than they looked like they would be when you thought about their effects, because people adjust their behavior to avoid them.
I see interchange is capped at 0.20%. How do credit card companies not lose money by giving a 60 day interest free loan to customers? That is what interchange fee covers. BNPL providers charge 4% for 90 days interest free loans to the merchant.
In jurisdictions that cap interchange banks cut the fat. No rewards programs, and ending perks like price protection and extended warranties. On the revenue side they are more likely to charge an annual fee. Some customers carry balances at 29.99%.
Yes because they are required to charge non reward customers the same amount and competitive markets forced prices down.
Suppose the reward is 2% so someone is paying 98% of the listed price. Now if everyone was a rewards customer the price just moves to 102.04$ from 100$, in effect nothing changes. However not everyone uses a rewards card, and the prices stay the same.
Net result with an even split would be that 98% discount applies to 101$ and Bob an unrelated customer is stuck paying the extra 1% to give the reward customer their 1% savings.
However, it’s not split 50/50 so rewards cards sometimes have more victims funding their rewards and other times few victims and it’s effectively just a marketing gimmick.
There's also everything required for the credit card company to operate, down to building leases, datacenters, hardware, employee pay. All of that is vastly funded by late payment fees and interest, which are almost exclusively funded by the poor.
At one time I wanted to start an "ice bucket challenge" to start a snowball of rich people donating 100% of their credit card rewards to the poor in some capacity. I'd happily join if I could get the snowball going, but unfortunately, if the snowball doesn't happen with a bunch of multi-millionaires I'll just end up indirectly giving my money (not poor, not rich) to the actually rich and I don't want that either.
Merchants pay 3%.
Cardholders borrow from banks, not card payment networks.
Rich people can donate to poor people regardless of the credit card situation.
Fun fact: this is why crypto never took off as a replacement for credit cards. Too many entrepreneurs focused on “lower fees” as if it were some technical property. But it was never about the technology.
Interchange fees primarily fund consumer rewards programs and benefits. To become an appealing choice for consumers, any new payment method has to offer competitive benefits. Those benefits are funded by the fees.
Visa/MC/AmEx have essentially created a system whereby higher-spending customers are able to wrench more value from merchants in the form of higher fees. This is reflected in the fee schedules that slice and dice merchants by category and customers by card tier.
If you want to build a new payment system it is important to understand that it’s not just a negotiation between merchants and issuers. It’s a two-sided market where customers also leverage their spending power, directly or indirectly.
> this is why crypto never took off as a replacement for credit cards
If this were true you would expect crypto to have taken off in countries with low interchange rates. Europe, for example, has far less of a rewards and points culture for payment, and (compared to the US) much lower interchange.
Crypto never took off as a replacement for credit cards for many reasons - the biggest coins out there are simply too volatile to be usable as a currency, they lack the consumer protections you get paying with a credit card, and they’re simply too complex for an average person to understand.
Interchange is regulated in Europe. You would likely run into legal issues if you tried to jack up merchant fees via a novel payment method.
However, even if it were legal, I don’t think this would counter my claim. I’m merely saying that you’d need to match existing rewards schemes in markets where they are established. Introducing them into a new market is an entirely different matter. The system we have today evolved through many decades of negotiation and deal making among merchants, issuers and card networks.
You’re right about consumer protections —- it would be very expensive for a crypto-based system to provide those without an intermediary that can adjudicate and reverse transactions (chargebacks).
The second biggest is the missing need: Most people don't have any advantage of using crypto. They go to work, get a salary, buy/sell things and thats it.
If you don't need to buy something illegal or really believe that there is still a soviety left to take some crypto in worst case scenario, fiat is great.
And because it's uncompelling. I have a bunch of consumer protections around my credit card, why would I want to use crypto instead? Especially when it's a wildly fluctuating speculative asset and the burger I buy for $15 worth of coins today will be $60 dollars of coins tomorrow.
They can take either; waiting for confirmations is only a matter of reducing double-spend risk.
In practice, seconds after a transaction has been signed and broadcast, it is already very unlikely to double-spend. Miner incentives are such that the first-seen transaction is the most likely to be used. A delay of a couple seconds is sufficient to account for network-propagation lag.
You wouldn't do this for high-value transactions, but there's some threshold where real-world risk is lower than the convenience of a fast transaction, and that threshold is reasonably high.
That is almost certainly one reason and an important one. But as the other commenter to your comment shows, there is a lot more. Protections is a big one. I also personally side that, you need a way for people to interface with their crypto like they do with their current bank and as simple as possible. Normal people don't want to have to juggle around keys. Hell, Im a software engineer and I hate having to keep track of keys. So every time I get a new machine, I create fresh new SSH keys. My SSH keys are disposable to me.
Funny, because I would pay twice the CC fee for credit card transactions to be as painless as crypto. I'd rather scan a barcode and wait two minutes, compared to typing my address, handing over my phone number, confirming my zip, waiting for my CC's TOTP to arrive. Only for it to still fail 5% of the time for who knows what reason.
You should try Apple Pay (or maybe Google Pay?) It addresses all those pain points and more, while still giving you the consumer protections and fast transactions of cards.
It's not just crypto it's any alternative payment system. Multiple payment vendors have tried to up-end the credit card companies by focusing on lower fees for merchants, but customers have no incentive to use that new system if they have a benefit to using their credit card, at least in the US.
It's why, though, there are a bunch of payments companies that have popped up in places throughout Asia that aren't competing with rewards systems off the back of interchange.
> Fun fact: this is why crypto never took off as a replacement for credit cards. Too many entrepreneurs focused on “lower fees” as if it were some technical property.
I always thought the big problem with crypto was that the fees were atrocious for any small transaction.
And the fees only get higher as the network gets busier. You can choose to have a send some money with a small fee, but the miners will never confirm your transaction, as each block is limited.
The only way to cost in cc fees is to always assume the highest tier plus one time fees. This is then built into the retail cost of everything
If you pay with a lower fee card, you subsidize the higher fee customers
If you pay cash, debit, or check and don’t say anything - you subsidize the higher fee credit card payers
If you ask me, I’ll give you 2% discount for cash or check. I’ve built in 3%+
Visa debit is the biggest scam going, they’ve found a way to charge 2.5% to take debit cards. In Canada forever it’s been 0.10 a transaction for debit for higher volume clients
Pretty much - you need to get a high reward cc and use it for all your purchases and pay it off every month. If not, and you don’t ask for a discount, you subsidize the people who do.
Example - last month I was “funded” $130,681.33 this includes debit cards which I pay a low flat rate for (but this is changing)
On $130,681.33 I paid $2,433.51 in service charges or 1.86% . Plus the liability of the possibility of a charge back, also I do not accept Amex.
A lot of businesses give more than a 2% discount for cash. Personally I find that I instinctively tip less when I use cash than a credit card. The act of getting bills out of my wallet is viscerally more painful than writing numbers down, so I tip less without thinking.
- In the EU the main reason Rewards cards have declined is that the regulator capped interchange to a very small amount in 2015. The US will follow suit at some point (as noted debit cards have gone that way) but I guess not as low
- I think the simple answer to nkurz's point on why don't all cards charge the maximum in interchange is - it's just market forces. It's not worth enough money to long-term piss off the bigger merchants (i.e. Amazon). When you have a 30% APR card non-rewards card, the 3% interchange is small beans. Also the acquiring bank would probably want a bigger piece of the pie if it were more widespread
- Credit Card economics is radically different across different countries (for all sorts of reasons). So for example, a third of card users in the US explicitly seek the rewards and another third have it for the various protections/security vs. debit cards. In the UK only 12% seek rewards, with the two biggest use cases being to spread costs of big transactions or to improve their credit score. (so for that reason it's sort of hard to have a global view of this problem)
A fun fact is that most US reward cards with up to 5% rewards work fine in the EU.
I have noticed some strange behavior with some cards at certain supermarkets. That may be them trying to fight back against the US interchange fees, but there are workarounds.
It's not worth enough money to long-term piss off the bigger merchants (i.e. Amazon)
But most individual issuers (excluding Chase and maybe 1-2 others) have a small impact on the overall mix, so why wouldn't they issue exclusively the top tier (highest interchange) cards?
My credit card is a Fidelity 2% cash back Visa. (I think it was originally American Express, but it's Visa now. Presumably that happened sometime after 2016.) I don't travel much, so getting cash deposited into my brokerage is more useful to me, and with a "2% on everything" card, it's not really worth it to me to carry around other cards for specific categories.
After I bought my current home, I put a bunch of expenses on the card. I didn't realize I had gone over the limit until I got a letter in the mail telling me that they automatically increased the limit. They keep increasing it every year or two, so at this point I could put a mid range car on the card.
All that said, I would prefer if rewards cards in general were banned and everything was just 2% cheaper. The whole concept feels a little dirty to me, like I'm taking a bribe to use a specific form of payment. But, at the same time, it doesn't make sense not to in the current market.
I likewise have this card and it worked for me in a certain point in my life but it depends on what you spend money on. As a family of 4 we spend a lot on groceries and eating out so its good to use a card for those things that gives us 3%. The sort of most obvious one is the amazon visa which you can connect to your amazon account and get the 3% off on everything there automatically.
It's not a life changing amount but it's free money.
> All that said, I would prefer if rewards cards in general were banned and everything was just 2% cheaper.
Would you prefer that reality literally, or just if it was effectively like that? Literally doing that seems way worse than payment methods competing for your business with rewards.
I think either would be an improvement over the current situation. I'd be happy with regulations that put a cap on the fees, similar to what the EU has.
I want payment methods to compete by offering better service for lower fees, not by bribing consumers with rewards (and explicitly charging the businesses higher fees to pay for those bribes).
I've had the Fidelity 2% card for a long time. It's simple, and mostly no-nonsense. It's one of my two "everyday carry" cards, and what I use for everything except Amazon and Whole Foods Market (WFM).
For Amazon and WFM, I use the Amazon (Chase) card. Since WFM has replaced or outlived most of the grocery stores near me, this is my other carry card, and it doubles as a backup card if the Fidelity 2% has a problem.
I almost added a Target 5% store card recently, because being a cheap bastid overrides being a minimalist bastid. But I abandoned the card application form, when something about it seemed a little too invasive. So I'll keep doing the Fidelity 2% card when I shop at Target, and that makes Target prices a little less competitive.
Yeah, that's the other reason I like it: I rarely have to think about it. Both paying off the monthly balance and cashing out the rewards are fully automated.
All I have to remember to do is save a copy of the annual summaries at least once every 3 years, because they don't let you go back farther than that.
I try to keep most of my finances "on rails" like that where bills, savings, etc. just happen automatically.
I am really interested in the content of this post, and I assume other posts from the author. But his writing style is extremely long winded.
For instance, this is somehow only two sentences.
It is a fee, ultimately paid by the card-accepting business, which gets sliced up between various parties in the credit card ecosystem to incentivize them to put their logos in the wallets and on the phones of well-heeled customers and increase the amount they spend and the frequency with which they spend it. (In industry, we sometimes distinguish interchange—which mostly goes to the issuing bank—and scheme fees—which mostly go to the credit card brand itself—but as interchange is much larger, let’s just call them both interchange for simplicity.)
This gentleman discusses topics that I think I'd be interested in, but like the half dozen times I've tried to read this guy, I've just lost my motivation so quickly. I feel some arrogance in his long-windedness. Is there any parallel to make with The Last Psychiatrist?
Came here just to write the same. I've squandered to find an explanation because I absolutely enjoy the subject. Perhaps it's because I'm not a native speaker and generally have non-native speakers around so I don't understand some of the metaphors, perhaps it's because I'm just not used to reading these kinds of long sentences anymore, or perhaps it's just not my kind of beer. I really don't know.
On the other hand, I really enjoy both reading and writing long sentences, as long as they are logically easy to follow, for they exude a certain eloquence and elegance that elevates the style and, most importantly, refines my audience by filtering away potential readers who had not had sufficient high school language classes to get used to understanding such long sentences effortlessly, which, this being a matter of personal expression rather than instruction, I certainly have the right to.
Readit News
The article goes on to ask the question "Why isn’t every card a rewards card?", meaning why doesn't every card pay cash back, but I think the more interesting question is why every card isn't branded in a way that makes the issuer more money. Why do they bother to issue cards where they get paid less? Why not brand every card as a "Signature Preferred" and then pocket the money instead of giving it to the less discerning customers?
And the most interesting question only gets a handwave: "The basic intuition underlying rewards cards as a product is that highly desirable customers have options in how they spend their money." But how far does this go in explaining why merchants "choose" to participate in this program. The obvious answer would seem to be that they get no benefit from the system as it exists but have no real choice, but maybe there is a better answer?
I liked the topic, but wished the author could have given more insight on what's happening behind the scenes to produce the outcome we see.
The simple reason why issuers don’t make every card a signature rewards card is that merchants would revolt.
The interchange fee schedule[1] is fascinating. Dozens of categories of merchants with different rates. There is no technical reason for this. Fraud costs are borne by merchants and to some extent processors, but not the issuer banks that receive the interchange fee.
The fee schedule reflects a kind of battle for customers. It’s worth repeating that most of interchange for these higher end cards is passed back to the customer in the form of rewards. Essentially, merchants are willing to pay higher fees to support the cards that higher spending customers prefer.
But there is a limit. We can observe that not all merchants accept AmEx, which has some of the highest interchange rates. If every visa/MC card were a signature card, more merchants would push back.
[1] https://usa.visa.com/content/dam/VCOM/download/merchants/vis...
Point in case, there's an interchange fee cap of 0.3% for credit and 0.2% for debit cards in the EU. And there are entire countries moving to cashless, so obviously everyone is happy with it.
Merchant fraud and merchant credit risk is borne by acquirers (although, if they went under the issuing baking is ultimately on the hook). But fraud by the cardholder and cardholder credit risk is borne by the issuer.
Some merchants like Amazon, Target, Home Depot etc do want the ability to refuse the "rewards cards" with higher fees but can't because of the current contracts they have for credit-card acceptance. If a merchant signs a contract to accept VISA cards, they must accept all VISA cards and therefore can't selectively choose to reject some VISA cards because of higher swipe fees.
https://thepointsguy.com/news/retailers-want-to-reject-rewar...
https://www.google.com/search?q=merchants+want+to+refuse+rew...
I ask because when I was in Germany (and, granted, this was a few decades ago) you got some percent off the price if you paid cash. Merchants there seemed pretty credit-card averse.
I would need a system that can display to the customer what fee they would be charged with their selected payment method, and be given an option to switch to a less expensive payment method.
Counterpoint: i will pay you $500 if any of the big retailers (>2k stores) lowers prices now and cites "lower credit card fees means we can charge less".
Fwiw I don't really care what the technical reason is, it's a rhetorical question to add to the ways the credit system holds back the poor.
If I have a card that gives back 2% to me, back causes 5% fees to the vendor, both of us would be better off if I used a card with 1% fee, and the vendor gives me 2% discount. Unfortunately, not allowed.
The real reason that most merchants don’t charge surcharges is that they don’t want to lose the sale, calculating the actual interchange is wildly complex and in general they prefer cards to cash.
What people forget about these fees is a credit card is cheaper to take for the merchant. The credit card is never counterfeit money. The clerk never takes money from the credit cards, nor does the manager counting it (I wasn't in retail long but I saw both). You never have a robber come in to take your credit card money. Even when all goes well, you don't pay the clerk and manager by the hour to count all the cash twice. You do have some risk of taking a stolen credit card, but overall it is cheaper for the merchant to take credit cards and that savings should be what pays for the card costs (I have no idea how to count the different costs to see if that is true)
Deleted Comment
(This is also the answer as to why in the absence of regulation, exchange fees aren’t higher than they already are.)
There's many rewards cards that require an annual fee (which encourages a high spend to recoup the fee with rewards). But there are plenty of 1.5%-2% cards with no annual fee. You just need a good credit score.
Low risk is clear -- the lower the risk the more money is left, after handling problems, for the rebates and profits.
Yes there is the downside for businesses when the processors reverse charges but if this was big enough of a downside then people would stop accepting the card.
Yes sometimes people get their number stolen and are out the money for a while during an investigation, but again if this downside were big enough people wouldn’t use that card anymore.
Yes there are new types of fraud enabled by the technology.
The big benefit is you don’t have to have liquid cash sitting around where people can grab it and disappear.
Some merchants don’t accept some cards… they’ve decided that the cost outweighs the benefit. My grocery store fought against accepting Apple Pay and they do now. Walmart doesn’t.
One of the main benefits of credit cards over most other forms of payment is that that isn't the case. A fraudulent transaction on a credit card ties up some of your credit limit during resolution. A fraudulent debit card transaction or personal check takes money out of your account. Of course, if you wait long enough, you may have already paid the bill containing the credit card transaction and then you're in the same boat.
Zero, zero companies will discount the sales price when the rewards cards are gone.
There is a strong argument that discontinuing rewards cards actually helps the extremely wealthy by taking from the middle class and giving it to the Uber rich shareholders and big business owners.
That's 2/3s of capitalism. Hold enough MA and V -- directly or through just having enough net worth in an index -- and you'll start to see this as a feature, not a bug.
Deleted Comment
Also, even though Costco only accepts a single brand of card (used to be Amex, now Visa), despite their size and market power they accept any Visa card a customer presents.
Deleted Comment
I didn't see any other comments actually answer the question, so I'll try my hand at this. (Caveat: I've never worked in the finance industry professionally, but I consider myself one of the Redditors mentioned in the article.)
From my layperson understanding, banks undertake not to issue more than a certain percentage of cards as "Signature Preferred" cards, and there is a minimum credit limit required to open such card accounts.
The Chase Sapphire Reserve mentioned in the article is a Visa Infinite card, and Chase requires a $10,000 credit limit to open it. Chase doesn't give $10,000 credit limits to just about anyone, and considering how flexible the US is with identity and income requirements, Chase needs to be more stringent with their underwriting and verification processes to avoid issuing such cards to people who are more likely to default.
From further research, it looks like the Visa Core Rules do offer guidelines [1], for anyone interested:
The bank would incur additional costs to satisfy the requirements to issue higher tier cards. For Visa Infinite, banks are required to offer benefits like "Priority assistance and convenience", "Exclusive privileges and rewards", and "Safety and security", and in some countries, concierge services. Visa Signature cards must have 24/7 customer support.
The PDF is a gold mine for anyone interested in learning more about the various tiers.
[1] https://usa.visa.com/content/dam/VCOM/download/about-visa/vi...
It would be impractical for merchants to accept some branded cards and not others. Imagine "we accept "Chase Premium One" card, but not "Chase American Airlines" card." Very confusing for consumers. If it's a whole category, like Amex, it's easier to refuse it (besides, low income consumers are unlikely to have an Amex card).
Presumably, for example, Starbucks is willing to pay higher interchange on the Chase sapphire series than on the Chase freedom series because they believe that the people carrying Chase sapphire cards spend more money. Starbucks would not be willing to pay that for less profitable customers.
The high fee for rewards cards can be justified to merchants because those are their best customers, i.e. rich people, people to travel a lot, etc.
It’s actually kind of messed up because rich people are getting a larger discount on goods than poor people who can’t get a rewards card.
Deleted Comment
That seems absolutely ridiculous. The FTC doesn't think this is a problem?
It's a pretty decent outlet for having something complicated to work on. Another would be EVE Online with the added bonus that it's also an actual game. My guess is most of those people are just trying to min-max what the companies allow them, rather than trying to find an exploit in the system that prints money per spreadsheet CPU cycle.
I am suspicious that anyone can get a job in finance with only churning (or EVE) spreadsheet skills. I have rarely found "well if you can do that hobbyist but seemingly proximal activity, you can walk into a decent-paying job" to be true in tech and I suspect it's true for finance too.
Maybe the finance bros just need a leetcode-for-spreadsheets website to run their technical interviews to open the floodgates though.
So we already have jobs that pay well for optimizing things.
This was otherwise an interesting article.
I'm guessing (but could be wrong) that you would not actually have paid $60K for business class seats for your family had you not had points that would cover. (I have gotten really good deals using points for something I'd have paid for anyway--but it's been rare.)
If you want higher ROI on spreadsheet hobby start using it for your own financial/retirement planning. Playing with numbers in that field can change outcomes by hundreds of thousands dollars.
As another commenter noted, this article doesn’t pull out clearly how this whole credit card reward scheme actually works. The Acquired episode does, by the end.
It works like this: the ‘luxury’ credit card providers, partnering with Visa, take money away from merchants in order to extract profit for themselves while keeping the credit card consumers happy. The merchants are pissed about this, and regularly make lawsuits to regulate interchange. The money extracted by the credit card companies and Visa causes merchants to raise prices for everyone regardless of whether they have a rewards card or use a credit card at all.
This creates in effect a massive money transfer from the poor, who do not use rewards cards, to the rich consumers who do. The Acquired podcast provides specific numbers on just how much worse off poor consumers are given this system, and how much the richest consumers benefit.
I come from Australia where interchange fee regulation tamps down on the kind of credit card mania and fetishism seen in the USA.
I'm quoting the summary below
"We study credit card rewards as an ideal laboratory to quantify redistribution between consumers in retail financial markets. Comparing cards with and without rewards, we find that, regardless of income, sophisticated individuals profit from reward credit cards at the expense of naive consumers. To probe the underlying mechanisms, we exploit bank-initiated account limit increases at the card level and show that reward cards induce more spending, leaving naive consumers with higher unpaid balances. Naive consumers also follow a sub-optimal balance-matching heuristic when repaying their credit cards, incurring higher costs. Banks incentivize the use of reward cards by offering lower interest rates than on comparable cards without rewards. We estimate an aggregate annual redistribution of $15 billion from less to more educated, poorer to richer, and high to low minority areas, widening existing disparities."
[1]
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023/03/10/Who...
"Notably, our results are not driven by income, as they hold within the sub-samples of low-, middle- and high-income individuals. In particular, high-FICO high-income consumers benefit the most from reward credit cards, but they do so at the expense of low-FICO high-income consumers. While credit card rewards are often framed as a “reverse Robin Hood” mechanism in which the poor subsidize the rich, our results show that this explanation is at best incomplete."
The paper says high-income borrowers who run balances “lose” the most in this transfer - because they spend more in absolute terms, and banks are better able to capture that through balance increase.
To quote: “our findings are inconsistent with the reverse Robinhood hypothesis”.
Why is a principled objection to a paternalistic state intervening to protect dumb people from making bad decisions seen as unethical? What entitles dumb people to such protection?
This is why you are most likely to see credit card surcharges for tax payments, court costs, and other non-discretionary charges. Anything that either is optional to pay, or isn't but they really want you to pay now (ex. a debt collector) has every incentive to subsidize the card acceptance fee as it will increase their sales.
This is why your grocery store partners with an ATM network to let you take out extra cash at the POS. As long as you're paying the fee, they'll do whatever they can to trade you cash for a digital deposit into their bank account.
Which can lead to seemingly ludicrous results somethings. I paid a "convenience" fee for parking the other night because presumably collecting a bunch of quarters from a meter was cheaper for the municipality than getting a bit less money transferred from the parking app people?
This is how Doordash works on the restaurant side, they can't charge you the customer 20-30% of gross on orders, everyone would stop ordering. So mostly they just have to eat it or lose those sales. Some places choose to lose, some choose to raise prices on DD if they can but mostly they eat it.
This will vary depending on where you are.
Most retailers here in New Zealand pass the fee on to customers. Even paywave gets the percentage fee.
Car-centric as it is, gas prices are arguably the commodity that US consumers are most price sensitive to (and which is also most commonly evoked in politics). So this shows that consumers would prefer to discriminate between card and no-card purchases if given the option, except that the vast majority of retail outlets do not give them that option.
I'm always a little confused on exactly HOW this plays out. I could see someone with terrible credit being denied, but most cash back cards I use are hardly gated / limited to "rich folks only".
I feel like the reasons / the way it plays out are more complex than the results. And really if someone is poor, struggling to pay their card, that's a larger issue than the type of card they use.
I'm just not sure reward cards = "This creates in effect a massive money transfer from the poor" as simply as stated.
It looks like a number of decent rewards cards require a credit score over 670.
(update: 4.5% of US households are unbanked; these are mostly from the lower quantile) https://www.fdic.gov/analysis/household-survey/index.html
https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/visa
There has been nothing stopping US merchants from offering cash and/or debit card payers a discount since Oct 2011.
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/new-rules-el...
Most merchants are betting that people paying with credit cards are willing to buy sufficiently more or buy at sufficiently higher prices such that credit card transaction costs are more than offset.
That is the only reason why a cash/debit card discount would not be advertised.
Edit to respond to below:
I don’t buy that. Merchants of all types already engage in myriad types of discounts and promotions to price discriminate customers all the time.
A simple sign saying “x% discount for paying cash/debit” is of negligible complexity.
I have no numbers, so it could be totally off-base, but it feels not-impossible that it costs a percentage or two to process all your cash anyway, so the difference between cash & credit cards isn't actually that big. It's just that the interchange fees show up as one big chunk whereas the cash processing is lots of little bites, or even accounting for things that didn't happen (like skimming).
I guess this only applies if you're legitimately reporting all your cash take, if the business itself is skimming for tax reasons then the savings on cash would be substantial.
Case studies indicate otherwise.
Dodd-Frank Act postulated what you stated, that higher fees result in higher prices for consumers ... and if you lowered the fees for the merchants, merchants would lower their prices (to pass along that savings back to the consumers).
But studies have shown otherwise, and merchants did not lower fees.
https://www.cutimes.com/2015/09/03/durbin-failing-to-lower-m...
Let's consider the opposite scenario, if Visa raises their fees do merchants keep prices where they are? I suspect not.
[1] https://laweconcenter.org/resources/the-effects-of-price-con...
Many jobs require a college degree as a blunt filter for employee quality. Now that more and more people have that so it's been devalued. You now need specific majors or to come out of an elite college to get the same advantage that used to be conferred by being a college grad. Colleges talk about affordability but many colleges spend big on recruiting star professors and new facilities to compete in the rankings and alumni donations arms race.
Car traffic makes not driving dangerous so people are incentivize to drive. SUVs make driving a sedan more dangerous during crashes so people choose to buy bigger cars.
Marketers race to the bottom on ever more annoying, numerous, and louder ads. People block or mentally tune out ads which feeds back into advertisers pushing the envelope to get noticed.
If ransomware victims did not pay it would become unprofitable. But each business is rightfully concerned about mitigating its immediate business interruption.
This creates in effect a massive money transfer from the poor, who do not use rewards cards, to the rich consumers who do.
Not quite. Credit card companies obligate merchants to charge the same prices regardless of whether you pay with a card, but merchants frequently don't honor that obligation. And there are also merchants who only take cash.
The poorest customers are likely to patronize these merchants. They're also likely to be given discounts that aren't card-related; the whole idea of price discrimination is that, because impoverished customers have low willingness to pay, you charge them less.
In a voluntary system, money transfers are always going to end up being much smaller than they looked like they would be when you thought about their effects, because people adjust their behavior to avoid them.
No longer true in most of the US, actually.
https://www.lawpay.com/about/blog/credit-card-surcharge-rule...
Deleted Comment
Suppose the reward is 2% so someone is paying 98% of the listed price. Now if everyone was a rewards customer the price just moves to 102.04$ from 100$, in effect nothing changes. However not everyone uses a rewards card, and the prices stay the same.
Net result with an even split would be that 98% discount applies to 101$ and Bob an unrelated customer is stuck paying the extra 1% to give the reward customer their 1% savings.
However, it’s not split 50/50 so rewards cards sometimes have more victims funding their rewards and other times few victims and it’s effectively just a marketing gimmick.
There's also everything required for the credit card company to operate, down to building leases, datacenters, hardware, employee pay. All of that is vastly funded by late payment fees and interest, which are almost exclusively funded by the poor.
At one time I wanted to start an "ice bucket challenge" to start a snowball of rich people donating 100% of their credit card rewards to the poor in some capacity. I'd happily join if I could get the snowball going, but unfortunately, if the snowball doesn't happen with a bunch of multi-millionaires I'll just end up indirectly giving my money (not poor, not rich) to the actually rich and I don't want that either.
Interchange fees primarily fund consumer rewards programs and benefits. To become an appealing choice for consumers, any new payment method has to offer competitive benefits. Those benefits are funded by the fees.
Visa/MC/AmEx have essentially created a system whereby higher-spending customers are able to wrench more value from merchants in the form of higher fees. This is reflected in the fee schedules that slice and dice merchants by category and customers by card tier.
If you want to build a new payment system it is important to understand that it’s not just a negotiation between merchants and issuers. It’s a two-sided market where customers also leverage their spending power, directly or indirectly.
If this were true you would expect crypto to have taken off in countries with low interchange rates. Europe, for example, has far less of a rewards and points culture for payment, and (compared to the US) much lower interchange.
Crypto never took off as a replacement for credit cards for many reasons - the biggest coins out there are simply too volatile to be usable as a currency, they lack the consumer protections you get paying with a credit card, and they’re simply too complex for an average person to understand.
However, even if it were legal, I don’t think this would counter my claim. I’m merely saying that you’d need to match existing rewards schemes in markets where they are established. Introducing them into a new market is an entirely different matter. The system we have today evolved through many decades of negotiation and deal making among merchants, issuers and card networks.
You’re right about consumer protections —- it would be very expensive for a crypto-based system to provide those without an intermediary that can adjudicate and reverse transactions (chargebacks).
The second biggest is the missing need: Most people don't have any advantage of using crypto. They go to work, get a salary, buy/sell things and thats it.
If you don't need to buy something illegal or really believe that there is still a soviety left to take some crypto in worst case scenario, fiat is great.
I thought it was because transactions take minutes instead of seconds.
In practice, seconds after a transaction has been signed and broadcast, it is already very unlikely to double-spend. Miner incentives are such that the first-seen transaction is the most likely to be used. A delay of a couple seconds is sufficient to account for network-propagation lag.
You wouldn't do this for high-value transactions, but there's some threshold where real-world risk is lower than the convenience of a fast transaction, and that threshold is reasonably high.
Blockchain is a distributed and complicated one.
It's why, though, there are a bunch of payments companies that have popped up in places throughout Asia that aren't competing with rewards systems off the back of interchange.
While looking up a representative link for that, I also saw that it appears Venmo is in that game, too: https://www.cryptovantage.com/best-crypto-credit-cards/venmo...
I always thought the big problem with crypto was that the fees were atrocious for any small transaction.
And the fees only get higher as the network gets busier. You can choose to have a send some money with a small fee, but the miners will never confirm your transaction, as each block is limited.
[1] https://www.gasfees.io/
The only way to cost in cc fees is to always assume the highest tier plus one time fees. This is then built into the retail cost of everything
If you pay with a lower fee card, you subsidize the higher fee customers
If you pay cash, debit, or check and don’t say anything - you subsidize the higher fee credit card payers
If you ask me, I’ll give you 2% discount for cash or check. I’ve built in 3%+
Visa debit is the biggest scam going, they’ve found a way to charge 2.5% to take debit cards. In Canada forever it’s been 0.10 a transaction for debit for higher volume clients
Pretty much - you need to get a high reward cc and use it for all your purchases and pay it off every month. If not, and you don’t ask for a discount, you subsidize the people who do.
Example - last month I was “funded” $130,681.33 this includes debit cards which I pay a low flat rate for (but this is changing)
On $130,681.33 I paid $2,433.51 in service charges or 1.86% . Plus the liability of the possibility of a charge back, also I do not accept Amex.
- I think the simple answer to nkurz's point on why don't all cards charge the maximum in interchange is - it's just market forces. It's not worth enough money to long-term piss off the bigger merchants (i.e. Amazon). When you have a 30% APR card non-rewards card, the 3% interchange is small beans. Also the acquiring bank would probably want a bigger piece of the pie if it were more widespread
- Credit Card economics is radically different across different countries (for all sorts of reasons). So for example, a third of card users in the US explicitly seek the rewards and another third have it for the various protections/security vs. debit cards. In the UK only 12% seek rewards, with the two biggest use cases being to spread costs of big transactions or to improve their credit score. (so for that reason it's sort of hard to have a global view of this problem)
I have noticed some strange behavior with some cards at certain supermarkets. That may be them trying to fight back against the US interchange fees, but there are workarounds.
> ... the capping of interchange fees should result in lower fees charged by banks to retailers for processing card payments.
If users of US cards still get 5% rewards when using their cards in the EU, I'm curious about who pays for the 4.7% shortfall.
[0] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_1...
FX is expensive in general regardless of the way you do it.
After I bought my current home, I put a bunch of expenses on the card. I didn't realize I had gone over the limit until I got a letter in the mail telling me that they automatically increased the limit. They keep increasing it every year or two, so at this point I could put a mid range car on the card.
All that said, I would prefer if rewards cards in general were banned and everything was just 2% cheaper. The whole concept feels a little dirty to me, like I'm taking a bribe to use a specific form of payment. But, at the same time, it doesn't make sense not to in the current market.
It's not a life changing amount but it's free money.
It carries an annual fee of $95, but the 6% back on groceries (on your first $6000/yr) and 3% on gas add up pretty quickly.
Would you prefer that reality literally, or just if it was effectively like that? Literally doing that seems way worse than payment methods competing for your business with rewards.
I want payment methods to compete by offering better service for lower fees, not by bribing consumers with rewards (and explicitly charging the businesses higher fees to pay for those bribes).
For Amazon and WFM, I use the Amazon (Chase) card. Since WFM has replaced or outlived most of the grocery stores near me, this is my other carry card, and it doubles as a backup card if the Fidelity 2% has a problem.
I almost added a Target 5% store card recently, because being a cheap bastid overrides being a minimalist bastid. But I abandoned the card application form, when something about it seemed a little too invasive. So I'll keep doing the Fidelity 2% card when I shop at Target, and that makes Target prices a little less competitive.
Yeah, that's the other reason I like it: I rarely have to think about it. Both paying off the monthly balance and cashing out the rewards are fully automated.
All I have to remember to do is save a copy of the annual summaries at least once every 3 years, because they don't let you go back farther than that.
I try to keep most of my finances "on rails" like that where bills, savings, etc. just happen automatically.
Deleted Comment
For instance, this is somehow only two sentences.
They’re not essays you can skim. But I enjoy a word journey.