Building Supply Industry Profits Impacted by EMV chip card terminals

EMV terminal selection directly impacts interchange rate qualification, the bulk of credit card processing fees.

November 4, 2015– EMV, short for Europay, MasterCard,Visa, chip card terminals are in high demand, short supply, and most likely an unwelcome expense. Building material suppliers go to great lengths to negotiate with their payment processors for reduced rates, but this approach only impacts a fraction of costs. There is much bigger value is managing the entire payment process to affect the biggest component of fees – card interchange. The EMV terminal implemented will directly impact interchange rate qualification, and none of the most popular terminals recommended today meet critical lumber and building supply requirements.

Interchange rates are non-negotiable, but they can be influenced. There are hundreds of fees that can be tacked on based on each transaction type. Due to complexities, building material suppliers must have an intelligent solution to manage the payment process and ensure compliance with all the rules.

PURCHASING CARDS

To qualify for the lowest interchange rates, transactions must meet all the rules for the specific card and transaction method. For building material suppliers business to business (B2B), processing level III data for Corporate, Purchasing, and Business cards is critical. Their card use is growing and savings of 90 basis points or more for some cards is an attractive margin difference worth achieving.

mastercard rates level-lll

Sample interchange rates for the same credit card transaction; Failing to follow rules results in costly extra fees.

Countertop terminals like the popular First Data FD Series, Verifone VX series, or Ingenico iCT series, with downloaded programming, cannot support level III. The US EMV ecosystem requires a web-based payment gateway with EMV terminal and level III retail certification. For example, CenPOS has certified the Verifone MX915 to First Data, Chase Paymentech and Tsys, the latter which enables use with most processors. Merchants can use CenPOS via a web browser virtually instantly or an integrated application.

EMV COMPLIANCE DATES

While EMV is not a mandate, effective October 1, the party that does not support EMV (short for Europay, MasterCard, Visa) chip card acceptance is liable for counterfeit card, and sometimes lost or stolen card transactions. Because card issuers previously absorbed most of these losses without any notification to the merchant, businesses can expect losses if action is not taken. Additionally, non-EMV compliance fees have already been announced by at least one provider, NPC, starting January 1, 2016.

Christine Speedy, CenPOS global sales and integrated solutions reseller, 954-942-0483. CenPOS is a merchant-centric, end-to-end payments engine that drives enterprise-class solutions for businesses, saving them time and money, while improving their customer engagement. CenPOS? secure, cloud-based solution optimizes acceptance for all payment types across multiple channels without disrupting the merchant?s banking relationships.

Optimal Payments data breach

(Reuters) – British mobile payments company Optimal Payments Plc said it was investigating allegations that personal data belonging to some of its customers had been compromised and was available in the public domain.

Optimal shares fell 11 percent to 309.5 pence, their sharpest fall in a day this year and lowest since Sept. 16.

The company said the allegations were that the data breaches had occurred at two of its units in 2012 or earlier.

The data consists of names and email addresses of customers and is available for purchase on the “dark web”, a source with knowledge of the hack told Reuters.

The dark web is an area of the Internet that can only be accessed through software that makes web browsing anonymous.

Optimal’s NETELLER and Moneybookers Ltd units had suffered data breaches as a result of cyber attacks in 2009 and 2010, but none of its customers lost any money as a result, the company said.

Optimal said it had informed the Information Commissioner and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) about the matter.

The company said it came to know about the allegations following media enquiries.

(Reporting By Mamidipudi Soumithri in Bengaluru; Editing by Anupama Dwivedi and Gopakumar Warrier)

EMV chip and pin liability shift hidden merchant risk

EMV terminal and EMV technology selection can impact merchant liability depending on chip and pin capabilities and management of them. Use this information to ask key questions before selecting an EMV solution.

Liability shift for stolen cards for MasterCard, American Express, and Discover

  • If the card is chip & sign, and the terminal is EMV only, the card issuer is liable
  • If the card is chip & pin, and the terminal is EMV only, the merchant is liable
  • If the card is chip & pin, and the terminal is EMV with pin, the issuer is liable

What if the terminal supports EMV & pin, but the customer does chip & sign? The merchant is liable.  Acquirers generally support chip and pin bypass to chip and signature. The only way to effectively manage liability is to steer customers to the action protecting the merchant.

emv fraud liabilityTerminals may be able to be programmed to disable pin bypass; First Data ships terminals with PIN bypass disabled.

  • Integrated payment gateways and and standalone virtual terminals can also drive terminals; because the terminals have no programming, the payment technology must have the capability to dynamically determine the best way to process, and prompt the consumer to the actions allowed. This is a tall order for most gateways, as they do not have that type of dynamic capability, and or, the gateway may not have the needed EMV certification. CenPOS disables the consumers ability to select signature over pin at the POS.

The entire EMV transaction process is certified. If an EMV certified terminal, including integrated or non-integrated payment gateway with terminal, doesn’t support the option to require chip and pin when the card issuer supports it, merchants need to weigh the associated financial risks.

 

NAFCU to House Small Business Committee: EMV Not a ‘Silver Bullet’ to Broader Problem of Data Security

NAFCU to House Small Business Committee: EMV Not a ‘Silver Bullet’ to Broader Problem of Data Security

Washington (Oct. 7, 2015) – State Department Federal Credit Union President and CEO Jan Roche will testify today on behalf of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU) before a House Small Business Committee hearing on how credit unions are protecting consumers in the payment system, the impact of the EMV transition and what steps are needed to better protect consumer financial data moving forward. Roche is telling lawmakers that EMV “is not a ‘silver bullet’ to the broader solution of data security” and is urging action from Congress to enact H.R. 2205, the “Data Security Act of 2015.”

“NAFCU urges Congress to modernize data security laws to reflect the complexity of the current environment and insist that retailers and merchants adhere to a strong federal standard in this regard,” Roche says in her prepared testimony.

Roche, whose credit union is headquartered in Alexandria, Va., is testifying before the House Small Business Committee in today’s hearing, “The EMV Deadline and What it Means for Small Businesses,” which began at 11 a.m. Eastern.

NAFCU’s Participation in Data Security and Cyber Initiatives

Roche highlights NAFCU’s involvement in various industry and government payments, data security and cyber initiatives. NAFCU is a member of the Payments Security Task Force, a diverse group of participants in the payments industry that is driving a discussion on payments system security. NAFCU is also a member of the Financial Services Sector Coordinating Council and the Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center, which work on infrastructure cybersecurity.

The EMV Transition

The EMV transition deadline established by the four major U.S. credit card issuers (Mastercard, Visa, Discover and American Express) was Oct. 1 of this year. Roche says that her credit union “was an early adapter to the U.S. transition, first issuing EMV cards in June of 2012 for new cards and replacements for lost and stolen cards. Our credit card portfolio of over 28,000 cards is now 100 percent EMV.”

“It is important to note that the EMV transition in the U.S. is a voluntary one established by the market, and not a government mandate,” says Roche. Consumers remain protected in the new system as “all credit cards have zero-liability provisions for consumers, and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act limits consumer liability for any fraud on debit cards.”

A NAFCU study of its members found that a majority of credit unions are ready for the EMV transition and are issuing EMV credit cards to members as they issue new cards or replace oldmagnetic strips. “There is a greater cost for an EMV card for credit unions,” Roche says. She states that at her credit union, the cost (not including staff costs, set-up and postage) to produce a non-EMV card is approximately $3.04 and to produce a new EMV card it is approximately $5.81.

A study released by the Strawhecker Group on Sept. 17 of this year reported only 27 percent of merchants were going to meet the EMV deadline. “We believe that successful protection of the payments system requires all parties to be actively involved and hope that these businesses will work with the financial services community to recognize their role in making the payments system safer,” says Roche.

The PIN Debate

Roche discusses the debate among some that the EMV transition should have included a PIN mandate so consumers would be required to enter PINs for each transaction. “Imposing such a mandate or requirement would be unrealistic and would not be a panacea for the problem of data security,” Roche says. “It is the chip technology that makes new cards secure, not the PIN or signature.”

Roche states, “A truly secure payments system must be one that is constantly evolving to meet emerging threats and uses a wide range of dynamic authentication technologies – EMV, tokenization, encryption, biometrics and more.”

Credit Unions and Consumers Suffer from Data Breaches

A survey of NAFCU-member credit unions found that respondents were alerted to potential breaches an average of 164 times in 2014; two-thirds of respondents said they saw an increase in these alerts from 2013. In response to merchant data breaches that took place last year, 88.5 percent of credit union respondents said they notified a member; 65.4 percent issued new cards at a member’s request; and 57.5 percent placed a fraud alert on a member’s account.

“A credit union faces potential fines of up to $1 million per day for compliance violations,” says Roche. “In contrast, retailers are not covered by any federal laws or regulations that require them to protect the data and notify consumers when it is breached.”

Consumers are also the victims of data breaches. “Data security breaches are more than just an inconvenience to consumers as they wait for their plastic cards to be reissued,” says Roche. “Breaches often result in compromised card information leading to fraud losses, unnecessarily damaged credit ratings, and even identity theft.”

Credit Unions and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

Credit unions and financial institutions have been subject to strict data security standards since the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. “Under the rules promulgated by the NCUA, every credit union must develop and maintain an information security program to protect customer data,” says Roche. “Additionally, the rules require third-party service providers that have access to credit union data take appropriate steps to protect the security and confidentiality of the information.” Roche states the “GLBA and its implementing regulations have successfully limited data breaches among credit unions.”

Preventing Future Data Breaches

NAFCU has long argued for a national data security standard for retailers and merchants similar to what credit unions already comply with under the GLBA. In addition, NAFCU has developed a number of key principles that should be considered and incorporated into the data security debate. These include:

Payment of breach costs by breached entities
National standards for safekeeping information
Data security policy disclosure
Notification of the account servicer
Disclosure of breached entity
Enforcement of prohibition on data retention
Burden of proof in data breach cases
While some have argued that voluntary industry standards should be the solution, the recently released Verizon 2015 Payment Card Industry Compliance Report found that four out of every five global companies fail to meet the widely accepted Payment Card Industry (PCI) data security standards for their payment card processing systems.

Legislative Solutions

NAFCU urges Congress to support H.R. 2205, the “Data Security Act of 2015,” introduced by Reps. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, and John Carney, D-Del. This bipartisan legislation “creates a national data security standard that is flexible and scalable, does not mandate static technology solutions and recognizes those who already have a working standard under the GLBA,” Roche says.

The National Association of Federal Credit Unions is the only national trade association focusing exclusively on federal issues affecting the nation’s federally insured credit unions. NAFCU membership is direct and provides credit unions with the best in federal advocacy, education and compliance assistance.www.nafcu.org.

###

Debit Fraud Surges in 2015 – Cost of Fraud Study for Merchants

2015 LexisNexis® Risk Solutions True Cost of Fraud Study: Merchants Contend with Increasing Fraud Losses as Remote Channels Prove Especially Challenging

September, 2015 report examines the cost of retail, mcommerce, ecommerce fraud, and offers recommendations for risk mitigation across all sales channels. Good report for merchants and those studying trends.

Key fraud trends for merchants:

  • They lost an average of 1.32% of revenue to fraud and fraud related costs, an increase of 94% over 2014
  • In-person fraud is trending up, with increased number of fraudulent transactions, at the same time more transactions were prevented
  • While merchants prevented more MOTO and online fraud, they found it 7x harder to prevent compared to retail
  • Buy online, pick up in-store, contributed heavily to shrink
  • Mcommerce and international merchants consistently take greatest hit from fraud
  • The average value of successful fraudulent transactions is about the same, while unsuccessful value increased
  • Debit card fraud nearly doubled to 30%
  • Alternative payment fraud (Paypal, Google Checkout, Bill me Later) grew about 70%

Click here to get the full 2015 fraud report from Lexis Nexis.