Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why do all payment processors charge 2.9% + $0.30 per transaction?

news.ycombinator.com

61–70 of 88 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why do all payment processors charge 2.9% + $0.30 per transaction?

#61

Why can't the merchant's funds simply be quarantined for say 2-3 months? ... Victims of a fraudulent merchant would have 30 days to 1) get their bill and an extra 30 days notice of the fraud charge on their bill to cancel/dispute. If the customer did not pay bill; the 'visa' could avoid crediting the merchant. A 2.9% transaction fee is like a 1 year quarantine. quite long me thinks.

Cash flow is the major priority for most merchants. You wouldn't get 0 rates anyway, and the majority would rather pay 2.9% instead of 2% + 3 month extra delay; especially growing businesses - for a stable business you can plan for $x being frozen; but with quick growth if you're getting 'old&small' revenue while having 'new&increased' expenses for the goods; you'd run out of cash in no time. Don't compare the cost o…

return politics('expected ROI for VC') == war;

Re: Ask HN: Why do all payment processors charge 2.9% + $0.30 per transaction?

#62
post #4

I've wondered this for a while – could it simply be competition? Nobody wants to drop below that mark?

Presumably on a Visa transaction the payment provider takes a cut and Visa takes a cut. There's competition between payment providers to keep their cut down, but you can't charge Visa cards without Visa's help, meaning there's no competition on their cut. Unless a merchant is bold/foolhardy enough to decline Visa.

In the UK a lot of stores don't accept American Express due to their higher processing fees [1].

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/money/2009/nov/29/american-expres...

Re: Ask HN: Why do all payment processors charge 2.9% + $0.30 per transaction?

#63
There are some great answers here.. I'll take a higher-level perspective of looking at having your own merchant account versus using a payment processor's merchant account (e.g. Stripe, Braintree).

By establishing your own merchant account with the processor, you'll have lower rates but signing up will require a lengthier process of providing your business info and having that reviewed. Basically this mean that you're taking on the risk of fraud or chargebacks directly. The benefit of course is that you'll have lower net costs esp. at higher transaction volumes with the variable pricing aspects that has been mentioned here already. It also allows you to add more value-added services that align to your business needs, such as subscription billing or other servicing layers.

On the other side, signing up under a payment processor's merchant account (e.g. Stripe, Braintree) can get you up and running instantly with a simple pricing structure. This often make sense for businesses who need to get up and running quickly without having to go through a merchant account review process. Also, the risk is actually taken on by the processor since it's their merchant account with the processor. Of course the processor in this case monitors fraud on your activity in order to protect themselves. What you'll find though is that as your volumes grow, there will be an inflection point where it'll be more cost effective to switch to the first option.

There's benefits in both models, but as always, companies should see what makes sense for them.

Re: Ask HN: Why do all payment processors charge 2.9% + $0.30 per transaction?

#64
There are some great answers here.. I'll take a higher-level perspective of looking at having your own merchant account versus using a payment processor's merchant account (e.g. Stripe, Braintree).

By establishing your own merchant account with the processor, you'll have lower rates but signing up will require a lengthier process of providing your business info and having that reviewed. Basically this mean that you're taking on the risk of fraud or chargebacks directly. The benefit of course is that you'll have lower net costs esp. at higher transaction volumes with the variable pricing aspects that has been mentioned here already. It also allows you to add more value-added services that align to your business needs, such as subscription billing or other servicing layers.

On the other side, signing up under a payment processor's merchant account (e.g. Stripe, Braintree) can get you up and running instantly with a simple pricing structure. This often make sense for businesses who need to get up and running quickly without having to go through a merchant account review process. Also, the risk is actually taken on by the processor since it's their merchant account with the processor. Of course the processor in this case monitors fraud on your activity in order to protect themselves. What you'll find though is that as your volumes grow, there will be an inflection point where it'll be more cost effective to switch to the first option.

There's benefits in both models, but as always, companies should see what makes sense for them.

Re: Ask HN: Why do all payment processors charge 2.9% + $0.30 per transaction?

#65
post #48
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dwolla doesn't charge that way because they're not billing credit cards. You give them your bank details and they do an ACH transfer with them, IIRC. I've heard both good and bad about them, but they don't have large use yet.

That's correct on the ACH bit. In so far as large use cases, they have some really good traction in the bitcoin market. I believe that they are the go to for transferring USD in and out of MT. Gox.

Not anymore: http://www.coindesk.com/dwolla-bitcoin-companies-virtual-cur...

Re: Ask HN: Why do all payment processors charge 2.9% + $0.30 per transaction?

#66
post #46

Everyone forgets points/cashback. That visa card you just got that gives you 2% cashback? That doesnt come from thin air. It comes from the merchants pockets paying their transaction fee.

It was VISA et al's way of taxing people purchasing with cash. They had contract terms that wouldn't let you sell at a discount when the customer paid in cash; under Obama the federal government finally banned them, and several states had already done so, but I think usually only for gas purchases. I think the contracts (or consumer inertia) still make stores advertise at the credit-card price, and the different pric…

VISA et al can still take away a merchant's ability to charge customers' credit cards if they catch you asking for minimum payments on cards or offering discounts for cash. It doesn't happen all the time, and usually consumers don't report establishments that practice this behavior.

Re: Ask HN: Why do all payment processors charge 2.9% + $0.30 per transaction?

#67

Why can't the merchant's funds simply be quarantined for say 2-3 months? ... Victims of a fraudulent merchant would have 30 days to 1) get their bill and an extra 30 days notice of the fraud charge on their bill to cancel/dispute. If the customer did not pay bill; the 'visa' could avoid crediting the merchant. A 2.9% transaction fee is like a 1 year quarantine. quite long me thinks.

Depending on your history, and how your merchant account is backed, you may in fact also be required to hold a cash reserve with the merchant bank. Holding all, or a percentage of transaction funds is called a "rolling reserve," and it's one of the worst things that can happen in these deals if you have substantial turn-over in cash. My experience has been that direct merchant banks like to ask for specific reserve amounts based on your activity/risk profile, and places like paypal like rolling reserves. (This is not an exhaustive analysis, simply my experience.)

The problem with cash reserves is that they hold cash for product you have already delivered, a 90-day 100% rolling reserve means that you are effectively extending net-90 terms for all of your customers. You're issuing credit, but not collecting any interest on it, while you have to pay your own vendors and other service fees/employees in the mean-time.

Another side-effect of this is running negative cash flows when your business surges. Say your business booms around the holidays, to meet the demands, you place larger orders with your vendors, and thereby incur larger costs - but have to pay them out of reserves from a slower period in the year. You cash flow for that ninety days around the holidays would be substantially negative (you've paid out a lot more than you've paid in), and the interest you may have to accrue from your vendors to float until disbursement may greatly exceed the nominal transaction fees you'd pay if you didn't have a 100% rolling reserve.

Generally speaking, I've always found higher fees (up and to a point) to be better than higher reserves. If you can combine just-in-time manufacturing (or purchase) with credit terms from vendors, you can "play the float" wherein you're paid today for something you don't have to pay for until a month (or, in reality, as much as 59 days later on a net-30 account) down the road. This is very effective at the beginning of the year for LLCs where members need to distribute all profits at the end of the year to members due to taxes being due, and minimizing the re-capitalization of the business to get through the 1st quarter.

Re: Ask HN: Why do all payment processors charge 2.9% + $0.30 per transaction?

#68
post #29

It's not quite true that all payment processors charge 2.9% + $0.30. In the real world you'll find rates almost half that for brick and mortar merchants, more like 1.8% + $0.15, which is very close to a processor's wholesale cost (called "interchange"). It's specifically ecommerce processors that are easy for anyone to sign up with. There are two main reasons "no hassle / developer-friendly" ecommerce processors char…

It's worth mentioning a specific term here, too: "card not present" That covers all ecommerce, and even some card scanning technology, too, EVEN if the card is present. As you pointed out, it's all about fraud/risk. It's easier to circumvent the credit card companies' "security" features (magnetic strip, hologram, signature on the backside of the card, the actual card itself, a chip if your card has one, etc.) when the card is not present during a transaction. A good analogy would be paying with counterfeit $100 bills. There are security features built into cash that allow merchants to verify their authenticity. It's difficult to prove that the person on the other side of the internet is who he says he is when paying with a card. Is the card stolen? So as you pointed out, card not present transactions are riskier, thus require a higher interchange fee, etc.

Re: Ask HN: Why do all payment processors charge 2.9% + $0.30 per transaction?

#69
post #66
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was VISA et al's way of taxing people purchasing with cash. They had contract terms that wouldn't let you sell at a discount when the customer paid in cash; under Obama the federal government finally banned them, and several states had already done so, but I think usually only for gas purchases. I think the contracts (or consumer inertia) still make stores advertise at the credit-card price, and the different pric…

VISA et al can still take away a merchant's ability to charge customers' credit cards if they catch you asking for minimum payments on cards or offering discounts for cash. It doesn't happen all the time, and usually consumers don't report establishments that practice this behavior.

Minimum payments maybe. But you have the right by law to give a cash discount (and apparently the right to charge a credit card fee):

http://www.interest.com/credit-cards/news/you-soon-could-be-...

From that article it sounds like it was part of a lawsuit that was settled. I had thought it was through one of the consumer financial protection bills that happened after the housing bubble pop.

Re: Ask HN: Why do all payment processors charge 2.9% + $0.30 per transaction?

#70
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the vast majority of merchants would find more utility in the expedited payout & resulting liquidity than the extra 2-3%.

Retail merchants have capital tied up in product; what difference does it make if its on the shelf or already in customer's hands? ... sure cash strapped people always pay more. But the reason the rate is so high; 3% on month > 36% APR b/c of network leverage and government regulations.

> what difference does it make if its on the shelf or already in customer's hands?

Actually, it makes a huge difference:

1) I pay property taxes on all inventory held on the shelf at the beginning of the year

2) I can offer a discount to move product off of the shelf now at a lower rate (equivalent to paying a higher transaction rate) to achieve actually present cash-flows

3) I can write-off inventory that sits on the shelf too long and depending on my accounting method, I may have to claim income on a sale today, even though I haven't been paid yet.

> % on month > 36% APR b/c of network leverage and government regulations.

No, it's 3%. Period. Not 3*12, just 3%. Don't conflate accrual of interest with acquisition costs. That'd be like saying that since labor on production is 2% of COGS, firing everyone increases my yearly margin by 24% (at best, it would be 2%, if you could still produce). Consider that any method of capturing payment, whether cash or credit card, has an acquisition cost (time, money, labor, etc.). Paying a 3% fee on CC optimizes time and labor in exchange for money.

Post reply on HN