Tuesday

28th Mar 2017

Letter

Capping interchange – not the future for electronic payments

In an article Credit card companies are pocketing dazzling profits published on EUobserver on 14 February, MEPs Bas Eickhout, Sven Giegold and Jean Paul Besset present a number of arguments related to the future regulation of electronic payments.

Although it outlines a politically attractive theory, their arguments are not grounded in the real life experience of European consumers.

Dear EUobserver reader

Subscribe now for unrestricted access to EUobserver.

Sign up for 30 days' free trial, no obligation. Full subscription only 15 € / month or 150 € / year.

  1. Unlimited access on desktop and mobile
  2. All premium articles, analysis, commentary and investigations
  3. EUobserver archives

EUobserver is the only independent news media covering EU affairs in Brussels and all 28 member states.

♡ We value your support.

If you already have an account click here to login.

  • The service comes at a cost (Photo: MyTudut)

Firstly, the electronic payment system offers incredible benefits to consumers, retailers, businesses and governments. Like any valuable service, with an advanced technology behind it, it comes at a cost.

Therefore, the idea behind interchange fees is to balance the interests of both the consumer and merchant and their respective banks.

In this context, one widely repeated misconception is that card schemes like MasterCard receive money from interchange. This is not true; this small fee goes solely from the acquirer (e.g. retailer’s bank) to the issuing (consumer’s) bank. This is because the latter bears most of the costs of the transaction. Consumers contribute their share of the cost too, e.g. through a yearly fee for their card.

Of course, it is in MasterCard’s interest to get the interchange levels right. We want to ensure that all those who benefit continue to use electronic payments, and this means each paying their fair share for the service. This is why the interchange level should be neither too high nor too low.

While we share the broad objectives of the European Commission’s proposal we have consistently expressed our concern that the proposed solution of inflexible interchange caps (or indeed scrapping them for debit cards as suggested by Eickhout, Giegold and Besset) would drive the cost of cards up for consumers.

The current proposal effectively means shifting the retailers’ contribution to the electronic payments system onto consumers.

Our doubts also stem from the absence of any justification for proposing “one-size-fits-all” fees across over 30 countries, where market conditions vary considerably.

Last autumn, the French Senate opposed the Commission’s proposal exactly for those reasons.

There is no doubt that the idea of capping fees is politically attractive – but it makes no sense if, in the end, it favours retailers over consumers.

Eickhout, Giegold and Besset also advocate scrapping the so-called Honour All Cards Rule and allowing retailers to choose which card they accept. However, they do not touch on what this would mean for consumers.

In reality, the number one quality consumers look for in payments cards is the certainty they can use them wherever they go around the world.

Javier Perez is President of MasterCard Europe

MEPs back cap on credit card fees

MEPs have backed plans to cap card payment fees charged to shops by credit card giants Mastercard and Visa in a move aimed at saving €6 billion per year.

Analysis

Lukashenka: End of an era?

The political spring in Belarus ended just as the actual season began, but greater changes loom after 23 years of dictatorship.

Column / Brexit Briefing

The Union under threat

The effect of Brexit will be much more profound on Northern Ireland than on Scotland. Some kind of border controls with Ireland seem inevitable.

Birthday wishes to the European Union

With the EU soon to celebrate its 60th birthday, there are still lingering questions about the bloc's future and whether there can be a change in fortune.

Column / Brexit Briefing

The Union under threat

The effect of Brexit will be much more profound on Northern Ireland than on Scotland. Some kind of border controls with Ireland seem inevitable.

News in Brief

  1. Uber pulls out of Denmark over new taxi-regulation
  2. EU court validates sanctions on Russia's Rosneft
  3. Luxembourg to team up with Ireland in Apple tax appeal
  4. EU majority against GM crops, but not enough to block them
  5. Turkish referendum voting starts in Europe
  6. Le Pen says she lacks election funds
  7. UN dinner for Cyprus leaders to restart stalled peace talks
  8. Nato moves summit forward so US can attend

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. ACCAG20 Citizens Want 'Big Picture' Tax Policymaking, According to Global Survey
  2. Belgrade Security ForumCall for Papers: European Union as a Global Crisis Manager - Deadline 30 April
  3. European Gaming & Betting Association60 Years Rome Treaty – 60 Years Building an Internal Market
  4. Malta EU 2017New EU Rules to Prevent Terrorism and Give More Rights to Victims Approved
  5. European Jewish Congress"Extremists Still Have Ability and Motivation to Murder in Europe" Says EJC President
  6. European Gaming & Betting AssociationAudiovisual Media Services Directive to Exclude Minors from Gambling Ads
  7. ILGA-EuropeTime for a Reality Check on International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
  8. UNICEFHuman Cost to Refugee and Migrant Children Mounts Up One Year After EU-Turkey Deal
  9. Malta EU 2017Council Adopts New Rules to Improve Safety of Medical Devices
  10. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Energy Research: How to Reach 100 Percent Renewable Energy
  11. Party of European SocialistsWe Must Renew Europe for All Europeans
  12. MEP Tomáš ZdechovskýThe European Commission Has Failed in Its Fight Against Food Waste