Community

Considering ACH takes a day within US, 10 min across countries is not that bad. The way I see it, the retail footprint is increasingly expensive with Amazon and online shopping so they're finding ways of maximizing the foot traffic. They're probably hoping that the increased foot traffic will drive more sales. Grocery stores experimented with bank branches and ATMs in store. I don't believe it worked well. However, times are different now so worth retrying.

The irony is that open banking makes sense precisely because of these concerns. Consumer need to have permissioned access to data in non-bank applications is critical for a variety of personal and business financial tasks. Open Banking in UK is facilitating that while creating safeguards that result in secure, sanctioned means. As for the banks investing in fintechs, a number of banks have already struck partnerships in that space in other countries so unclear what the barriers are in Canada. 

That's an innovative way to tap into the moment of consideration that should result in a bump in the number of mortgage inquiries to the bank.

Interesting move! Should the clearing houses be centralized? It appears that would induce more instability than if they allowed other entities besides ChapsCo to enter the clearing market. Making that a part of BoE likely makes the system less resilient.

A good catch! I have no idea what that means

I read your post, and it is very much on the money. The essential point I'm making is that there aren't any financial incentives on part of the acceptance networks to make lives easier - either on loyalty or payments. Most retailers now allow you to simply put in your phone number to get rewards. I haven't carried a reward card ever. With payments, most people are used to carrying 1 or 2 cards, and swiping is still the most widely available, consistenlty predictable, fastest and easiest method. Mobile offers a leap ahead but unless the acceptance networks play ball or till consumers drive it via lost sales when a merchant doesn't take Apple Pay, don't expect it. It will eventually happen either via phone or activity tracker or whatever else replaces the phone as the convenience factor is indisputable, and security is very high. Or, it may take someone like Square to goad the industry forward.

It is only a matter of time. The biggest barrier is the inconsistent implementation at the point of sale, and a natural learning curve - yes there is a learning curve even with mobile :). Also, in most places there are no brand/ or visible markings indicating mobile acceptance. It is primarily because the acceptance networks don't have a monetary incentive to squat about it. It is also the reason why the acceptance network dragged their feet forever on chip, and even now have only implemented chip & signature. Same old story of incumbents too lazy to move their fingers just for the sake of new tech esp when it costs them money for no obvious gain. 

ACH is an overnight settlement system so money movement shouldn't take more than 24 hours. Beginning this month, NACHA is introducing rules to enable same day ACH so you can technically have the same day money money movement during one of the windows. All of the delays occur either because of holds placed for risk management, or because an intermediary such as PayPal is in the middle of your bank and your payee's bank. So, a one step credit push (almost no risk), becomes a 2 step - debit/ credit transaction with credit & float risk. When you add in the governmental protections where a consumer has over 90 days to challenge an unauthorized debit, and a business has 3 days, a transaction that technically can occur in less than a day ends up taking multiple days. Even Visa and MC do not settle in real time (ask any merchant who takes credit card payments!) however, with appropriate authorizations and network rules, they can create the perception for the consumer.

ACH isn't slow. The banks can choose to speed it up, but they won't till they can figure out a way to monetize it. But you're right - it wasn't designed for the front-end interactions, just for the back-end settlement. The disruption was PayPal's successful use of the mechanism to effectively create an outsized margin by funding for 'free', while charging at the card rates. I'm surprised that it's taken the banks and their surrogate visa/ mastercard networks this long to figure out a way to throttle that and get in on it. The key turns out to be their offline presence, and the threat of the digital wallet fees. PayPal tried very hard to gain a foothold offline on its own, and to fight the digital wallet fees, but failed. Hence, the agreement.

BTW, I'm not sure how you think we avoid the fees. The merchants will continue to cough it up, and pass it on to the consumers.

Successful arm twisting by MasterCard and Visa to put a kabosh on PayPal's many years of successful arbitrage between ACH and cards. While I don't feel too sorry for PayPal, it is a part of trend towards closing the 'free' ACH / Bill Pay capabilities. Unless there is another disruption, consumers and businesses can expect to see higher fees for money transfers, and payments.