Post image for Bitcoin, the Two-and-a-Half Party Model, and New Payment Rails

One of the immediate applications for Bitcoin and the math-based currencies that are emerging in its wake is its potential as a new set of payment rails. Rather than the incumbent industry’s reliance on the four party model and its hierarchy of providers, authorization messages, and settlement steps that are necessary to connect the payer and the payee, Bitcoin and other math-based currencies promise a simpler cash-like push payment.

It’s not quite that simple of course but it’s not far off. Call it the two-and-a-half party model. There are, of course, the payer and the payee. The other half provides services such as currency exchanges, cash-in services to purchase bitcoins, trading desk, secure storage, and more.

Bitcoin is all about push payments between two end points. The facilitators of the Bitcoin ecosystem avoid settlement risk because of Bitcoin’s funds push nature. There’s no authorization message and settlement lag. Once value is converted into btc, transactions run over the peer-to-peer communication protocol that provides the payment rails. This works because every device, from the Internet Protocol’s point of view, is more or less equal. Despite our reliance on huge intermediaries like Google and Facebook, the Internet is a peer-to-peer scheme. Bitcoin and other digital currencies are simply using that Internet DNA in value exchange.

Putting aside the “bitcoin as store of value” discussion, payments professionals should consider how these math-based currencies could function as payment rails. As a Mashable article put it, they have the potential to function as the currency equivalent of Esperanto, an intermediate lingua franca in the service of value exchange.

International Remittance Rails

The potential for this approach in international remittance is squarely in the sights of multiple startups, from BitInstant to OpenCoin. While merchant uptake is tiny, use cases are already in the market. Expensify has added an interface supporting bitcoin transfers between its accountholder and independent contractors performing project work. Other than providing the capability, Expensify has no involvement in the transaction. Remember, this is person-to-person payment. And it is a no to very low cost transaction within the Bitcoin ecosystem. What it costs to convert bitcoin to the local fiat currency is another matter.

FX Built-In

A scheme (surprisingly) omitted from the Mashable article is OpenCoin, Inc’s Ripple currency. Ripple’s designers, as with other digital currency builders, have taken more than a few pages from the Bitcoin book but they are all trying to improve on Bitcoin’s limitations. While transaction speed is one (more on that in a later post), Ripple also includes a trading market capability for multiple currencies. Ripple “gateways” or exchanges will need to exist, of course, to move the value across the Ripple network’s border but the protocol allows value to be stored in individual currencies.

Getting Onto the Rails

As a payment vehicle, Bitcoin is largely useless without practical currency exchange capability. For first time Bitcoin participants, performing the currency exchange function is confusing at best if not baffling. Most exchanges ask for one’s banking information, an immediate stopper for most of us.

Using a cash-in facility is one way to begin. LocalBitcoins.com is a market maker that connects buyers and sellers. My nearest contact operates out of a Starbucks about 15 miles away.

Another is BitInstant, an outfit that facilitates transfers among various exchange accounts including Mt. Gox. The firm also offers cash loading services at over 700,000 locations through its affiliation with Zip Zap. You can go to a local CVS and have your purchased bitcoins sent to your public Bitcoin wallet address for a 3.99% fee plus a $3.95 fee to the ZipZap cash loading network. BitInstant has coverage in the US, Turks and Caicos, Puerto Rico, both the U.S. and British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Bahamas, and in the slightly cooler Russian Republic, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine. Not cheap at an 8% FX cost, but it can get you in the Bitcoin game.

Bitcoin’s impact on the foreign exchange market is infinitesimal compared to the nearly $4 trillion in daily spot or cash foreign exchange markets. From that perspective, there’s only upside.

Merchant Transaction Privacy

An intriguing issue and potential downside for using Bitcoin payment rails, given its publicly available transaction ledger, is a merchant’s ability to keep its transaction flow private. If the merchant’s public Bitcoin address is not thoroughly obfuscated (at extra cost), it is possible to determine the transaction volume going into and out of that bitcoin wallet, revealing not only a coffee shop’s customer receipts, for example, but potentially revealing some portion of its supply chain partners. Since a merchant’s supply chain is often a closely held secret that provides no little competitive differentiation, the block chain’s lack of privacy could be a real concern for merchant uptake.

There are ways, of course, to programmatically obfuscate these transactions by breaking them up into random sizes and sending them to programmatically generated wallets belonging to the merchant. Such services already exist in the Bitcoin ecosystem. However, unless the merchant is savvy enough to understand the privacy implications of the block chain, it’s not an obvious step.

There are other concerns about Bitcoin, transaction speed within the Bitcoin ecosystem is among them that we will address in an upcoming post. In the meantime, we continue to evaluate the potential for what some consider to be an open source payment gateway that speaks Esperanto. We look forward to your questions and comments.

We’re using the emerging convention of capitalizing the Bitcoin ecosystem and leaving the currency bitcoin in lowercase. The currency is abbreviated as btc.

{ 0 comments }

Bicycles are my preferred form of transportation so I was eager to explore London using the Barclay’s-sponsored bike share program. Unfortunately, you need a Chip & PIN card to rent a bike using the automated stands and all I have are U.S. issued mag stripe cards. I was foiled:

Twitter

After I tweeted about my disappointment (above) a number of payment geek friends offered to help me out (including Frank Mastrangelo at Bancorp who offered to issue everyone at Glenbrook a Chip & PIN prepaid card for travel).

Locally, here in London Dave Birch of Consult Hyperion (payments professional #2) came to the rescue and gave me a prepaid card of his own, kindly loaded with a bicycle budget. But when I went to use it I realized that I didn’t ask Dave for the PIN (or if he told me I promptly forgot it!).

Luckily I was with Chris Jones of PSE (payments professional #3) and he has an annual membership in the bicycle scheme. So he simply inserted his little key fob and off I went:

LondonCycle

After a flurry of emails with Dave I did eventually get the PIN for his card and was able to hire a bike to get to my meetings in the City of London later in the afternoon.

This little cycling fable illustrates a troubling breakdown of the International card brand promise, something we’ve explored previously on Payments Views (here). And it wasn’t just bicycle hires – I wound up getting cash from the ATM and using it to buy tube tickets and train tickets (rather than wait in the long queues at Waterloo to pay a person at the counter with my mag stripe card). As a result I now have a huge handful of very heavy British coins that I received as change from the ticket machines.

I realize that the US is planning to move to EMV. But when we do eventually shift over to EMV, we’ll be using a combination of Chip & PIN and Chip & Signature (it’s up to the Issuers) so I am not entirely sure that this problem will be resolved. Just in case, I’m going to take Frank at Bancorp up on his offer.

{ 7 comments }

Post image for The Future of B2B Payments – And Suggestions on How We Might Get There

I am in London this morning, where I had an opportunity to present a vision for the future of business payments at Experian‘s Payments Strategy Conference 2013. Acknowledging that it is always dangerous to make predictions, this is what I envision for the future of B2B payments:

Interoperability – I expect the future of business payments will be dominated by an ecosystem of interoperable solutions, across ERP and accounting platforms, supplier networks, and payment schemes, so that data flows freely between counterparties and their preferred vendors.

Track and Trace — As a result of that interoperability there will be transparency so that suppliers understand when they will be paid, and can plan accordingly. From our B2B payments work here at Glenbrook, we’ve heard time and time again that predictability is more important than speed.

Rational Transaction Pricing — And finally, in the future, B2B transaction pricing will be determined not by the payment method (wire, bank transfer, check, card) but by a combination of factors including: urgency, finality, transaction value, and the manner in which remittance data is delivered (PDF, via a web portal, or in a system-digestible format).

That sounds good doesn’t it? Interoperability, predictability and value based pricing, what’s not to like?

How on earth do we get there? I have six suggestions for you: [click to continue…]

{ 1 comment }

Post image for Considering Bitcoin’s Role in Value Transfer

Now that the recent fever of Bitcoin speculation that swept up both a worried global constituency and a hype-hungry media has subsided, it’s time for Glenbrook to examine the Bitcoin ecosystem in particular and math-based currencies in general. While there is still no end of open questions, certainties have emerged as well.  This Payments View post addresses a few of them.  It is also the first of a series by Glenbrook on Bitcoin’s role in value transfer. While the Bitcoin currency has strong commodity-like characteristics—gold does come to mind—it is the potential of Bitcoin in value transfer of all kinds and payments in particular that has caught our imagination.

We’re not alone. Scores if not hundreds of Bitcoin start-ups are seeking funds from the smallest of angels as well as the VC archangels on Sand Hill Road, NYC, Boston, and almost everywhere else.

Now that Bitcoin has survived at least two major crashes and the accompanying media hype cycle has subsided (see the Google Trends chart below), it’s time to get real on the topic.  Let’s begin with a few things we know.

btcinterest

In Bitcoin, Some Trust

Bitcoin is a resilient currency because of the trust a broad set of users have in it and that’s despite recent history that’s tested that faith.

Bitcoin’s been through several wild rides, not the least of which took place in April. That ride was fueled by a number of factors, including:

  1. The media hype cycle (see the previous chart).  While non-state, fiat currencies deserve thoughtful examination by economists and regulators, there was a lot of hype.  But not even close to iPhone levels. (Just to keep this in perspective, check this version of the chart).btcapple1
  2. Well founded concerns for currency value and availability in places like Cyprus and Argentina
  3. The organic spread of interest in Bitcoin as investment and currency
  4. Manipulation of exchanges.  A look at the chart of Bitcoin value and volume (below) is revealing.  Immediately after btc peaked at $230 on April 9, a precipitous drop began, fueled by DDoS attacks on dominant exchange Mt. Gox.  Panicked Bitcoin holders fled, driving the price down by 70% in a week. And then btc trading volume spiked once more.

btcvol

Since the April ride, the dollar value of btc has fluctuated between $100 and $150, settling down in this week’s range at just over $120.  Homeland Security’s investigation of Mr. Gox as an unlicensed money transmitter didn’t affect price at all.  Indeed, it’s risen since then.

It’s this price stability that is significant. It’s proof that there are some (unknown number of) hundreds of thousands who believe in Bitcoin.

In Dollar Terms, Not a Big Deal. Yet.

Bitcoin is proof we love shiny new things, excitement, and a bit of mystery.  But the numbers tell a modest little story about an experimental new currency that’s getting some traction. A little perspective is in order:

At the current range of value of $125 / btc and 11.249 million btc mined, the total dollar value of all that btc is just over$1.4B. Not bad at all for an experiment but, for example, Bitcoin’s “market cap” is less than half the annual sales of California grocery chain Raley’s, which occupies the number 100 spot on the NRF’s 2012 Top 100 Retailer list.

In other words, we’re not talking Big Money here. Yet. It’s the “yet,” of course, that’s gotten our attention.

It’s Still Amateur Hour

While angels, archangels, some nefarious types, and just plain miners evaluate their options, entrepreneurs by the hundreds have been brainstorming new ways to make money in Bitcoin.  As a programmable platform, it has endless potential (more on that topic later).

But simple development of the transactional infrastructure around the Bitcoin core has been a first order of business because a functional Bitcoin ecosystem requires currency exchanges, trading platforms, wallets for individual uses, and vaults, among others. Exchanges and wallets, in particular, have been the focus of early entrepreneurial effort and the results have been, from a security point of view, mixed.

Multiple exchanges have been hacked via the standard toolkit of social engineering, phishing for malware delivery, and other tricks. Some of these breaches were childishly simple. While actually doing something with stolen btc appears to be quite difficult, it’s hard to be confident in such weak operations.

Of more concern is the market concentration of exchange functions in Mt. Gox.  With some 70% of the overall volume, over reliance on its services cannot be healthy.

Given the panic sown by the DDoS attacks against Mt. Gox, Bitcoin needs more redundancy at exchange points and better run exchanges at that. To that, the FinCEN’s classification of miners selling bitcoin for profit and exchanges as money transmitters could be a very healthy stimulant to professionalizing the ecosystem.  Acquisition of money transmittal licenses is a fiscally non-trivial activity, requiring $1 million and more in legal fees, licenses, and effort to cover the US. If investment follows talent and has an ounce of prudence, then stronger operators should emerge, fuelled by smarter money, to create more reliable, secure services for the Bitcoin community.

Bitcoin Will Be Hard to Kill

Internet history demonstrates that once a new capability is introduced that gains user traction it is hard to dislodge.  This is particularly true for services that operate at multiple levels.  Bitcoin operates as a P2P network that has its own API. Bitcoins can be programmed via its transaction scripting language, a powerful way to define novel, flexible transactions.  Its JSON-RPC APIs expose services valuable to client-facing wallet and other user applications.

Open source, decentralized tools have legs.  The star-stable Internet is growing another leg.  Whether or not it becomes the native means for programming money on the Internet won’t be decided for years.  Even if governments regulate it into the shadows, Bitcoin will be very hard to kill.

Glenbrook has assembled a practice around math-based currencies for two constituencies: first, for members of today’s payments industry trying to discern opportunity in the Bitcoin ecosystem and for Bitcoin entrepreneurs confronted by the incumbent payment industry’s rules and complexities.  We’re looking forward to exploring the potential of what looks certain to become a permanent component of internet infrastructure. Let us know what you think!

[Editor's Note: Follow Bitcoin news on our PaymentsNews.com daily news blog!]

{ 6 comments }

Post image for Is AribaPay a Game Changer for B2B Payments? Maybe. For now we have more questions than answers.

Recently Ariba/SAP and Discover announced that they intend to “transform” commercial payments. AribaPay is either the most significant B2B payments news in decades or just one more courageous entrant into the discouraging battlefield of B2B payments networks.

We’re optimistic, and encouraged to see two strong players enter the fray.  We hope they will tackle head-on some of the obstacles that have suppressed the adoption of electronic B2B payments.  But it all depends on what AribaPay actually is.

[click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

Post image for The Bill from Ipanema: A Foundation for Brazilian Mobile Payments

I’m just back from a trip to Brazil and while I was there, the government introduced long-awaited legislation on mobile payments.  This is an important task as Brazil now has 265 million mobile subscribers  – more than 1 per inhabitant. Needless to say, the machinations of politics kicked off immediately and there will undoubtedly be many amendments before the bills passes through Congress. Nevertheless, the core legislation presented by the government is worth noting.

First of all, the bill is not limited to mobile payments.  It represents the latest in a series of payment system reforms in Brazil that will have significant impact on the overall financial services landscape.

The key provision of the bill is the definition of a new category of “payments institutions” that will fall under central bank supervision. This broad definition will encompass a range of providers, including mobile money providers (including Telco’s, but only if they are involved in the payment process), digital wallet providers and, significantly, card companies and merchant acquirers. These rules also apply to banks that want to offer mobile payments. This is a bold step that will significantly shape how and who can establish payments schemes. This provision follows the general direction that Europe has taken – a direction that the U.S. has not (yet) chosen to follow.

[click to continue…]

{ 2 comments }

Post image for Think Big: What Could Change Our Industry

Here are some thoughts on big actions that industry incumbents could take to strengthen their positions and the U.S. payments industry. What do these ideas have in common? First of all, they are infrastructural or market-wide. Secondly, they all ask one or more incumbent constituencies to bite the bullet – and accept some reduction of current revenue (aka “cannibalization”) in order to secure a stronger future position. Can they do it? Christenson talked about “The Innovator’s Dilemma” – maybe this is the “Incumbent’s Challenge”.

Rethink CNP

The card networks could issue new rules specifying secure “card not present” transactions, with liability protections and interchange close to point-of-sale parameters. Could apply to cloud wallets but also to “card on file” transactions which meet certain card-network-specified standards.

Dongles for All

Card issuers – credit and debit – could distribute mobile card acceptance “dongles” broadly to their customer bases. After all, it’s just a way of getting deposits in, right? Card networks could support with rules and interchange structures to support P2P and other domain usage.

Commercial Card Economics

The card networks are getting shut out of the serious B2B opportunity – particularly in cross-border payments – with unrealistic interchange levels. Drastically lower (and capped!) rates could open up much larger opportunities.

UPIC for All

Banks in the United States could support a universal account-aliasing system that would be used for all domains (B2B, P2P, C2B, etc.). The Clearing House’s old “UPIC” scheme is a good example – Australia’s BPAY system is even smarter.

Faster Payments

Banks could create a real-time, broadly used system similar to systems in place or in implementation around the world. Faster, better, cheaper – more of my thoughts here.

Dollar Chip?

Speaking of incumbents,  maybe the Federal government could issue digital money?  Canada’s already thinking about it (see: MintChip).

What do you think? Let us know.

 

{ 3 comments }

Post image for Live Blogging Finovate Spring 2013 San Francisco

It’s Spring in San Francisco, so it must be time for the annual Finovate conference. Once again, Eric and Jim have pulled together an impressive group of companies and all my favorite payments geeks are in attendance, eagerly awaiting the start. Up on stage for the kick off Eric tells us this is the biggest Finovate ever; it feels like it! [Learned later that there were 1250 attendees]

For the un-initiated, Finovate is a two-day marathon of financial tech demos from start-ups launching new solutions as well as incumbents showing off new products and features. Each company gets 7 minutes and there is no PowerPoint allowed – as I type this there are a number of people making offerings to the demo gods.

FS2013_high

This is one big long post and will be updated over the course of the conference. The demo schedule is listed below. You can use the links immediately below the schedule to jump ahead by session. I tried to keep my editorial commentary [in brackets]… pls forgive typos, incomplete sentences, etc.. Presenters, do not hesitate to contact me to clarify/correct any mistakes as appropriate.

Finovate Spring 2013 Schedule

Jump ahead by session:

Session #1
Session #2
Session #3
Session #4
Session #5
Session #6
Session #7
Session #8
Best of Show

[click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

Post image for ATM Cash-outs, Security, and the Coming Authentication Battles

The arrest of eight in New York who participated in a global $45 million ATM cash-out attack revealed, once again, some hard truths about the cyber security posture of financial systems and the enterprises that operate essential payment infrastructure.

First, the organization and sophistication of the attackers continues to improve.  These are global organizations peopled by professionals with the resources, talents, and patience to identify and compromise high value targets in the financial ecosystem.  In this case, the targets were a pair of prepaid card processors, one in India, and the other in the U.S.

Prepaid processors are particularly valuable targets.  If you can spearphish your way into a prepaid processor by identifying key individuals and emailing them with malware-laden messages, you can remove usage controls and reset prepaid purse balances to massive amounts. Who needs a debit card tied to a real bank account when you can top-up a prepaid card account on a grand scale?

In advance of those arrests, two weeks ago, at MasterCard’s Global Risk Management Conference in San Diego, two sessions addressed the ATM cash-out scam.  The message was consistent.  The attacker is resourceful, sophisticated and patient, skilled in exploiting both human fallibility via phishing and making the most of technical weaknesses.

While the forensics of the Great ATM cash out of 2013 (so far) have not been revealed, I surmise, based on remarks at the MasterCard event, that some combination of the following was in play:

  1. Spearphishing opened the door using social media data, targeting the specific individuals most likely to have access credentials to the processing platform.  Malware-carrying email was the vector.
  2. Once the malware was installed, the attackers carefully mapped the processor network.  One of the favorite files to search for is the victim’s own network map diagram.
  3. Tools are uploaded to examine how applications and data are organized.  Anti-virus software is disabled.  Files and databases containing user names and passwords are sought.  Card track data and the holy grail of PIN data, if it’s stored, are compromised.  PIN data values are reset.
  4. Once the attack is underway, the hack operators, still in control of the processing platform, monitor the progress in realtime of the cash-out operation, refilling prepaid purse values as needed.
  5. In some cases, the attacker carefully resets purse balances to pre-attack values and cleans up as many footprints as possible.  Other attackers, confident of their invisibility, don’t steal everything at once, just small amounts over a long period of time.

The pity of all of this is, according to the forensics experts, is that attacks like these succeed because target companies fail to follow basic security protocols. The list of classic weaknesses has hardly changed in a decade: unpatched database software vulnerable to SQL injection, misconfigured web servers, out of rev software (Windows 2000 Service Pack 4), weak access controls to sensitive data, decryption software located next to the encrypted database, the famously insecure Unix telnet remote login utility still enabled.

One of the recommendations from the MasterCard security event was real-time monitoring for events such as unusual prepaid balance and PIN resets, never mind network egress activity.  But that only works if someone’s there to react to the alarms. Both attacks took place at night, one over the Saturday night of a holiday weekend. Even security people have to sleep!  Post-breach forensics are made harder because event logging is either disabled or the log files are over-written too frequently.

Wider EMV deployment will make this kind of attack harder but the magstripe will be with us for at least another decade or two.  If hackers can remove security controls at the network level even EMV controls are weakened.  Perfection at the payment perimeter is a long way off.

With so many points of failure, perimeter defenses are not enough.  One of the speakers at the recent MasterCard event, Shawn Henry, president of CrowdStrike Services and a former Executive Assistant Director at the FBI, emphatically made the point that chief information security officers (CISO) have to assume hackers have already penetrated their defenses and focus on controlling the damage through monitoring network egress points and tightening internal controls to enterprise resources.

Internal controls that require stronger authentication, as well as broader encryption of data assets, have to be on the agenda for CISOs as well as global internet-scale operators like Google and PayPal.  Both companies are attempting to replace user IDs and passwords with far stronger authentication methods.  At this week’s Internet Identity Workshop Conference, Google unveiled a new five-year plan that is anchored by greater reliance on the smartphone as both an identity attribute provider and an active participant in authentication processes.

If “identity is the new money” then stronger authentication will be one way that money is made as it protects the old money we already have.  We are going to see competitive, vendor-specific authentication schemes that will both compete and cooperate with more open approaches from the likes of the FIDO Alliance.  The appeal of federating authentication includes the sharing of deployment and operational costs across more users and more use cases.  That economically rational approach will run into the real security requirements of particular applications and the desire to gather data if not exert outright control.

Now that everyone recognizes the failure of the password-based model, authentication technology is entering a new phase of innovation that will have a major impact on payments.  Even though the U.S. is just getting around to deploying nineties-era EMV technology, it is time to build the next generation if we hope to further expand e-commerce and mobile payments.

Authentication, and the cost of authentication services, is a key focus area at Glenbrook so check back for more on this subject or contact me directly.

{ 1 comment }

Post image for The Geeks Weigh In: Immediate Funds Transfers Are Happening!

Are you a payments geek?  You might be interested to hear what your peers think about immediate funds transfer (IFT).

The recent 2013 NACHA Payments Conference was full of interesting conversations and panels and the hottest topic was (IFT). I counted no fewer than four panels on the subject, including the one I organized with fascinating contributions from Bankgirot in Sweden, KIR in Poland, VocaLink in the U.K. and the Banco de México. We packed a lot into the panel – see the presentations here.

What We’re Talking About

Processing cycles for IFT in each of these countries all take place within a matter of seconds. Three of the four countries settle those payments in central bank money. Based on the number of puzzled looks among the audience, it seemed to me that there was some disbelief about this possibility. Is it possible that the failed vote to move the U.S. ACH to a same day processing and settlement (Expedited Processing and Settlement) option makes us doubt that other countries are already making immediate – and by this I mean almost instant – funds transfers?  If so, we should keep in mind that the global card networks already run quasi-IFT systems: the authorizations are immediate, even if the settlement lags.

Glenbrook Survey on IFT

Glenbrook conducted an online quick survey about IFT prior to the conference, polling our audience of payments professionals.  First, a big thank you to everyone who took the time to complete the survey and comment. There were 89 responses from payments industry practitioners around the world. Yes, that’s a relatively small sample and everyone who responded has a vested interested in some type of payment activity. At the same time, the responses were diverse and worthy of comment and reflection. Click here for the complete responses.

[click to continue…]

{ 5 comments }

George Peabody

Merchants and terminals were a key focus at two major payments conferences this week:  NACHA and CARTES.  The issue of EMV in the U.S. and the high cost for merchants to replace their terminals was raised repeatedly.

Estimates for the cost of replacement in the U.S. market vary widely: we’ve heard numbers from $2 billion to as high as $11 billion.  We’ve run the numbers at Glenbrook, and have our own opinions, but my key take-away from the conference is the fact that this isn’t just – or even mostly – about the numbers. The EMV terminalization question is hitting the merchant marketplace at the same time as a wide range of related, and arguably more strategic, questions.

[click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Sharp Turn Ahead: Is your organization facing a payments inflection point?

Glenbrook is kicking off a new payments organization optimization project for a biller client. Each time we do one of these projects, our client – with some embarrassment – admits that they think they are the only ones facing payments challenges. Nothing could be further from the truth! In fact, the smooth-running, optimized payments organization is the exception: even the most established, big-brand companies have payments challenges.

sharp turnAs businesses grow, they reach inflection points. The associated payment inflection point typically lags somewhat, but is inevitable. Many factors contribute toward a need to re-evaluate payment processes. Sometimes these work individually, but more typically multiple factors are in play at the same time – further complicating the landscape!

Here are a few real life examples of inflection points that cause organizations to re-evaluate their payments infrastructure: [click to continue…]

{ 1 comment }

Post image for Annual Glenbrook Payments Survey: Tell Us About YOUR Payments Organization

We are conducting our third annual payments organization survey to learn how companies’ internal structures are evolving to manage the ever-increasing complexity of payments.

We are eager to learn how your company manages payments, and how your payments organization is changing – whether you are a biller, eCommerce merchant, or retailer; whether you sell to consumers or businesses (or both). And we’re also interested in learning how the payments function is managed within payment providers of all kinds. We want to understand the inter-relationship between finance and the payments function, and also how the balance between payments and risk management varies from company to company. In our third iteration we’ll have an opportunity to track changes over time, noting how organizations adapt to increasing globalization and the blurring of online and offline commerce providing critical benchmarking insight to you and other participating companies.

In order to better understand payments organizations we are eager for your insight. Please take our Payments Organization Survey now.

All survey respondents will receive a copy of the forthcoming research report and Jacqueline Chilton will be presenting the results via webinar over the summer.

Click here to take survey

{ 0 comments }

Post image for Dreams of Glory: Business Payments and Network Fantasies

At Glenbrook we talk about “network fantasies” a lot.  These are hopes that payments innovators, and incumbents, have about the so-called “network effect” in payments.  Many a payments start-up has sat in our conference room and predicted the flood of transactions that will come their way due to the network effect.

The payments industry features a classic chicken and egg scenario: in a retail example, you need a lot of consumers to use your payment scheme in order to attract merchants, but you need a lot of merchants accepting the payment scheme in order to get consumers to adopt. That’s hard to do.  But if you succeed in getting over the “hump” of initial adoption real momentum gets going.  When it works, the network effect is very real and very powerful.

There is a strong tendency toward network fantasies in the business-to-business (B2B) payment world.  Electronic payments in this domain are generally arranged by individual agreement between the payer (a business buyer) and the payee (a supplier). The allure of network fantasies is particularly strong due to a related concept, the notion that “the hub controls the spoke”. This is the number one myth when it comes to commercial transactions — it is hard to overestimate how much the industry has bought into this fallacy.  Yes of course, powerful corporate buyers exert pressure on small or dependent suppliers. (And powerful suppliers can do the same with vulnerable customers.) But this represents the small minority of commercial relationships.

[click to continue…]

{ 1 comment }

Post image for Don’t Trash-Talk Cash

As I read about mobile payments, it always entertains me when relatively green journalists make references to using mobile phones rather than payment cards to make purchases. Typically, they are confusing the instrument (the phone, the plastic) and the system: after all, most mobile payments are made using card systems.

I think there is an analogy here to how many of us think of cash. We are confusing the instrument (the bill or coins) with the system.  And what, you may ask, do I mean by “the system”? I think that cash as we know it today should be thought of as a non-account-based payments system. Cards (debit, or credit), checks, and ACH are all account-based payments systems. So are many online or wallet systems, like PayPal. (These systems, like prepaid card systems, record the transactions on a notional basis, rather than passing them through individual bank accounts, but it is essentially the same thing.)

Cash, on the other hand, is used for transactions that have no equivalent accounting. New systems of “digital cash” (an old term, with much complicated history!) share this non-account based attribute – most notably BitCoin, but also the Royal Mint of Canada’s “concept coin”, the MintChip.  (Read Glenbrook’s Jacqueline Chilton on MintChip.) [click to continue…]

{ 5 comments }

Clicky Web Analytics