View Single Post
Old 10-04-2012, 02:50 PM   #60
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 958
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoogetyBoogety View Post
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which See.

Which would trigger an audit from your Processor, and would result in procedures put in place to eliminate the chargebacks. As a retail banker, you should be aware no one... not the bank, not the Processor (usually two different entities, by the way), and for sure not the Merchant... wants chargebacks on an ongoing basis. If it happens frequently, the Merchant is usually at fault, due to inattention, not adhering to their Agreements, or outright fraud.
GLB only covers information obtained and held by the bank, so it's incorrect to say that it's relevant to this kind of transaction.

You're talking about a single merchant losing a bunch of chargeback disputes. I'm talking about merchants in general across the entire channel losing chargeback disputes because they're the ones that have the fewest options if they feel they're treated unfairly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yousharenow View Post
But they are.

And it works, they accept payment despite their attempt to violate the MS agreement.

LOL @ integrity comment.

Kind of the pot calling the kettle black no? I have a merchant trying to set a min. debit card purchase despite it being outlined in their Merchant Agreement.

But woah is the merchant trying to screw customers, I'm the one enforcing them playing by the rules and I lack integrity
You lack integrity because you're a liar. You're bragging about what you can get for yourself by lying, and at the same time you're whining about merchants not adhering to their agreements. You claim to be "enforcing them playing by the rules" but yet you lie without a second thought.

So you're absolutely correct, you're the pot calling the kettle black. Excellent analogy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by yousharenow View Post
http://blog.visa.com/2010/09/02/mini...over-minimums/

Do as you like, 4th paragraph down from Visa encourages us card holders to call them about said practice.
Nowhere in that link does it say to report merchants to VISA, and certainly the 4th paragraph says no such thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond42262 View Post
The problem would be solved if VISA and MC automatically charged the expense back to the customer instead of making the merchant absorb it.
You think there's a magic bucket of money somewhere that these expenses get paid from? The customer pays for it no matter how it's adminstered.

Who do you think pays for it? Merchants don't "absorb" it. They charge for it one way or another. Either they raise prices, or they have less staff, or they ship more slowly, or they lower their inventory, or they charge other fees. The customer pays in some way, either higher prices, less selection, worse service, etc.

If the expense was shifted back to the bank, the bank would just find a way to pass the expense along to the customer in the form of fees, lower interest rates on deposits, higher interest rates on credit. Or the bank would lessen other expenses by having shorter hours for branches, cheaper plastic, not replacing ATMs as frequently Or they'd make their stockholders "pay" for it in the form of smaller dividends or less stock price increase as a result of lower ROI.

It's a closed system. A give one place is always a take from some other place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond42262 View Post
Can you imagine how much more money / more profitable merchants would be if consumers picked up the tab for cc expenses ?

Let's pretend Target and WM have 3k charge expenses a day per store.
At one dollar each.
If they were eliminated there would be 1m extra profit per store.
Google the Durbin Amendment. Regulated interchange fees for these kinds of transactions, basically shifted a large chunk of that money away from banks and to merchants.

Now run down to Target and see how much of that $ they passed on to you when they lowered their prices to offset the huge drop in merchant services expense they experienced as a result of the implementation of Durbin.

I know it will take you a while to count up all the money you've saved. I'll give you a few minutes.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
As a juror, do you think the trial was a publicity stunt?

Yes
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote