July 6, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
As Visa and MasterCard have been making announcements recently, there has been a lot of speculation about their strategy and intent. In particular, Tom Noyes recently wrote about the networks tilting away from issuers and Cherian Abraham wrote about the networks routing more than transactions and the widening “moat” around Visa and MasterCard.
Both of these insights hint at a potentially bigger change: allowing new, non-traditional players on the network. Understanding this possible shift requires some background on how networks operate today. Historically, Visa’s VisaNet and MasterCard’s BankNet have been walled gardens with (intentionally) high barriers to entry. Only certain types of endpoints were allowed on the network: issuers, acquirers and processors acting on issuers or acquirers behalf. The certification process to gain access to these networks is onerous in large part to maintain the security and integrity of the service. Even the documentation that details the operation of the network, the message formats used to communicate on the network, and the certification process is limited to licensees. Again, these licensees are typically limited to issuers, acquirers, processors, or companies working on their behalf.
If Tom is right that the networks are tilting away from issuer-centricity, and if Cherian is right that the networks want to handle more than just payments, the way the networks think about endpoints has to change. First, the networks will have to differentiate between the acquirer/issuer/processor players (first-class citizens with full access to the network) and limited-service players. These limited-service players can play important roles in the payments ecosystem: they may interact with token services, generate certain (limited) types of transactions, or provide other value-added services to the first-class citizens.
Second, these limited-service players must have lower-barriers to entry. If the network can restrict the capabilities of an endpoint, it makes sense to make the certification process less demanding. This could be done by:
These changes would create immense opportunity for the fintech community which has historically been boxed out of network access without a bank partner. On the last three points, the networks have already begun this shift as they have rolled out more developer-friendly offerings like MasterCard’s MoneySend API and Visa’s Checkout SDK.
The networks have a unique market position. They:
Let’s take these points one by one.
Metcalfe’s Law states that the value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system. Adding endpoints to the network generates value and creates customer inertia that new entrants must overcome to compete with incumbent networks. Creating a network of similar scale is prohibitively expensive and would require overcoming virtually insurmountable merchant, issuer and consumer inertia.
Access to this network is incredibly valuable for reasons best explained in the next two points.
Networks sit at the center of tokenization processing, ID&V services for digital wallets, and provide a number of value-added services that most consumers never see. The networks provide sophisticated stand-in services when issuer authorization systems are down, fraud detection and prevention services, account renumbering services for merchants, dispute resolution services for issuers, and more. All this adds up to more than “dumb pipes”: there are complex business and operational problems that the networks have solved using decades of payment processing experience. The view that the networks just route transactions, manage an acceptance brand and adjudicate disputes is a dramatic over-simplification.
As new businesses – and business models – are created using newer network capabilities, these services will suddenly become very useful to new players. Tokenization and near real-time money sending are the two services that have tremendous value for creating new business. Fintech companies in particular could benefit from leveraging these kinds of foundational payment services and focus on product specialization. Networks could charge for these services, basically becoming the Amazon Web Services of payment infrastructure. Similar to Amazon, it would create a new revenue stream out of fixed-cost assets that the network has already deployed and, in many cases, are already fully depreciated. It’s gravy for the networks. While this approach is often highlighted as one that banks should be exploring, there has not been much focus on the untapped potential available to the networks as well.
Apple Pay and Android Pay are prime examples of new business models adding value to customers by sitting on top of network services. Both companies realized that the quickest path to support from the merchant, issuers, and every party in-between was to utilize the existing networks already in place.
It stands to reason that mobile wallets and tokenization are just the beginning. The networks have effectively solved the near real-time money movement problem with Visa OCT and MasterCard MoneySend and there are hundreds of use-cases for new businesses that are enabled by reliable, ubiquitous, fast money movement.
The last point is significant because it explains the historic “tilt” towards issuers that Tom highlights in his article. Visa and MasterCard are still evolving… It takes time to turn the ship, but their obligation to shareholders mandates that they maximize profits, even if it means upsetting the status quo put in place by their issuer origins. The organizational muscle memory that comes from their issuer-focused beginnings cannot be understated. The Visa and MasterCard that we see today is one that is still adapting to their relatively recent independence while also recognizing that the issuers are actively working on alternative routes for their transactions as well.
This evolution will continue to lead Visa and MasterCard to finding innovative ways to leverage their market position and assets. Merchants and payments observers in particular are quick to ascribe this behavior to some evil motivation, but we believe the reality is much simpler – the networks are acting the way that a rational, publicly traded company should behave to maximize their value. In the search for maximizing growth and profits, it’s impossible to ignore the value their network could create for new players.
The networks are just getting started. Our advice for each of the ecosystem players:
Founder, Chief Executive Officer
Chris has more than 15 years of technology leadership experience with a specialized focus on financial technology solutions in the consumer, commercial and wealth management space. He has led software development, infrastructure, and QA organizations at multiple Fortune 100 companies and also helped grow and launch a number of early-stage technology companies. Chris’s technical expertise, startup experience, and global program management background enables our ability to support a wide range of clients at all stages of transformation.
Now that 2020 has arrived, the reality of RTP adoption has begun to outpace planning for implementation. The RTP conversation is no longer around should it be implemented, but rather of use cases that have been missed to better serve customers.
Throughout this series we'll provide answers to frequently asked questions surrounding product management for RTP, such as managing the product(s) long term, dealing with cannibalizing current products, and more.
TCH’s RTP adoption is rising. A recent study noted 74 percent of small and large institutions are considering RTP or have begun implementation. Although a large majority are adopting RTP, there are many differences for RTP within small or large FIs.
API design is crucial, giving structure to application interaction. Given cross-functional teams and applications, development time is reduced with a clear, intuitive way to access data. API development often follows two approaches: REST and GraphQL.