Community

Most startup banks and payments institutions 'live or die' around and from the regulatory position, compliance and governance. The burdens are there (rightly) to protect the customer (you and me) by making sure that people stting up a FS business do so responsibly, ethically and properly and always within the law. 

The regulation, governance and compliance / AML, risk management, capitalisation / liquidity, consumer duty requirements are just the starting-point; and getting regulatory approval always takes more than 12 months...... 

Let's see what happens and how these hurdles are addressed!

What a poor piece of reporting, as Melvin says above. THis does not reflect any usage volumes. Traditionally, card fraud is measured by all, and certainly by the card schemes: a) Fraud basis points as a % turnover on cards and b) Fraud per card.  Both of these can be a little distorted by the number of cards in issue (that is very different) and of course by usage makes it much more revealing. 

Then as GRaham points ou: where is the fraud. i.e. is it OTC or CNP/internet? So where is this perceived problem?  i.e. from this artcle we simply cannot deduce anything or take any actions. A bland government action suggestion is very very poor.

Get a grip please and think a little about the real issues, real questions and actions. In this case, the article could have been a great exposé of the shallow thinking of the EU research; OR a broader critique of the EU adoption of card scheme cards, OR the banks for say, late adoption of 3DS technologies in 2019.

Lastly, what has happened since 2019? The market has changed massively since this time! 

A poor article for not having asked (or better still, answered) the obvious question: "Why did these banks pull out?". Whilst we can imagine, giver the prevalence of domestic schemes in these jurisdiction; someone should have helped us to understand the real reasons given individually across the companies that have exited.

More importantly though, is why they might have been exiting 'en masse' across countries. It all sounds a bit 'cloak and dagger' without answers. Have the card schemes intervened in some way? 

Is there a way that a CMA may have a quiet strategy to want the OB community to evolve an on-line payments plan to properly displace 'e-com by card'. Maybe CMA has a deeper strategic perspective; as it would probably be a rather silly 'tactic' to try to shoe-horn e-com into VRP.

Anonymous posts about government taking away freedmon by clamping down on crypto-currencies controls only makes me want to support this to stop the people who use cryptocurrency as the 'oil' for illegal transactions and money laundering. Who else would have an anonymous 'poke' at government controls?

There are two factors that SHOULD annoy us all:

- Whilst it is tough on the average (small retailer), the retailer trade bodies puched hard for this and drove the changes to EU law to get the current solutions to replace the inadequate ones associated with 3DS.

- Associated with this, the law is over 5 years old now for this, the project has been going for this time, and we have been granted delays by the regulators for about three years to allow this to be properly implemented. It is no good for these banks/acquirer to no winge-on about it on behalf of their merchant communities: when it has always been their responsibiity to introduce the solutions and services to their merchants and to help their merchants through the challenges.

There are of course a myriad of other issues, not least that the merchants that ***may** well be affected most are those that have high levels of fraud, high rates of chargebacks and poor processes.

Accordingly, the responsible, forward thinking and proactive merchants with adept management and systems will win the business that is lost by others. And this is the way it should be!

The clear and obvious questions from this article, that I would have wanted the journalist to have answered are: "Why have Wise and N26 decided to allow transfers of money to Russia?", and: "Do they feel ethically and morally right to have done this?"

@Lu @Roberto - Did the UK not import the 'no  surcharging' law into the Payment Services Regulations - i.e. into UK law though?

THere is so little detail her to be able to understand what is going to happen, how this will protect the provenance, how checks will actually be made, how the policing with work and how/when the fashion items will be subsequently checks (or why).

One would imagine, that one should by the items from a legitimate store: and know that the provenance is good. Then this is the end of the story. 

When one buys the goods in a market / side of the street, one knows that the provenance will NOT be good, and equally, the purchaser then has no way of checking the provenance. 

Accordingly, everyone knows what they have. 

If goods get seized in transit, the authorities doing the seizing will not have the knowledge or tools to validate the goods provenance there and then, and probably will no more care that there is a'blockchain' ledger: as they will simply do as they always have done. 

The main questions here must be:

- Why is this being done apart from the publicity

- Why is Mastercard involved.

There simply is no detail here and nothing particularly informative or interesting with the absence of any detail.

The bucking of the process order here concerns me greatly. Any other business, company and/or industry has a process to follow. This process that should be followed is that the company involved must establish its business plan and business and with that it must complete an application and with that approach the appropriate licensing authorities, regulators and/or government agencies in the jurisdiction in which they intend to operate and apply for appropriate registration, regulation and/or licensing. 

What has happened here? Has this already happened here? The licences have been progressed and this is now a response to those applications? I doubt it.

It would seem that the data protection people have seen this announcement and are either a) Afeared that these people are going to go ahead without and of this compliance and outside the law of all jurisdictions including tax authorities! OR b) That the data protection people want to help fast-track the processes.

Either way: I am worried and so should everyone else be – that these people are getting privileged access to regulatory time when they do not pay for it through taxes: or that our regulators should feel the need to be so proactive.