Money2020 China

Greyscale backing image

What an interesting experience the first Money2020 in China was. It was held in Hangzhou, the home of AliPay, and I was delighted to have been invited along to share some of our experiences in the payments and to learn first hand about the Chinese approach to the sector.

Money2020 China gets underway

The event was well-staged and with simultaneous translation from Chinese it provided an opportunity to hear about the wide variety of fintech activities in China. It was, as you might imagine, very different from the Las Vegas event last month. There was no discussion of cryptocurrency because of the Chinese regulatory context and while I did see one presentation on the use of digital signatures in smart contracts, there was little discussion of blockchain and related technologies.

Ron Kalifa talking about value-added merchant services

I particularly enjoyed Worldpay vice-chairman Ron Kalifa’s fireside chat (in which he said that people were underestimating the impact of open banking) and presentation of their annual world payments report. To a payments nerd like me this was a great opportunity to look at key trends in payments on a country-by-country basis and try to work out which trends are relevant to our clients around the world as they formulate strategies for the always-on, mobile-centric, open-banking future. Key to these strategies is, of course, security and so I always pay attention to the big picture presentations around fraud. In China, these have scary numbers attached to them, but you have to take into account the size of the Chinese economy (I think the Chinese cybercrime losses are lower than in many other countries).

Real, and scary, fraud numbers

Given the widespread use of scores of one form or another to determine trustworthiness it is no coincidence that China sees a rise in frauds relating to the manipulation of these scores. Without commenting on the benefits or otherwise of such models (most Brits, myself included, can only think of Black Mirror when social scores are discussed) it is worth making the point that preventing “gaming” of these scores while preserving individual privacy means dealing with paradoxes that might well be resolved through the use of cryptographic techniques that have no conventional analogues and are therefore difficult for policymakers to bear in mind.

Reputation fraud in action

Most of what I found thought-provoking, both in the presentations and the water cooler discussions, was to do with business models rather than new technologies. The new business models emerging in a regulated, platform-centric, dynamic market are what we should be studying. We might choose to implement some of these models in a slightly different way taking into account the varying cultural norms around security and privacy, but the idea of separating payments from banking and then turning payments into platforms, and then using these platforms to acquire customers at scale for other businesses is certainly very interesting.

These new models, of course, centre on data and value-adding using that data. When people pay for everything with their mobile phone, they lay down a seam of data that is waiting to be mined. Despite this, the convenience of the mobile-centre platforms is so great that people are clearly willing to put privacy concerns to one side. I chaired a great session on privacy with CashShield, Symphony and eCreditPal with, I think, gave out a very comforting message: if you build services with privacy in the first place, then actually complying with GDPR and other global regulations is actually not that much of a problem.

 

One more thing that struck me about the context for these developments that it seems to me that China is making its e-money regulation more like the EU’s. With an EU electronic money licence, the organisations holding the funds must keep them in Tier 1 capital and are not allowed to gamble the customer’s money, whereas in China there was no such restriction. Now the People’s Bank has said that from January 2019 the Chinese operators will have to hold a 100% reserve in non-interest bearing deposits at a commercial banks, a decision that will likely cost the main players (Tencent and Alipay) a billion dollars or so in revenue.

It was interesting spend a few days inside the mobile-centric, QR-everywhere, always-on, app and pay world of the future and picking up some useful lessons for our clients. A very interesting week.

And Relax …

Greyscale backing image

According to a reputable news source well, the (Daily Mail) the Royal Mint is casting (sic) around to find things to do when the Treasury caves to the inevitable and tells them to quit wasting everyone’s time and money by minting coins. They’ve come up with the idea of making a credit card out of real gold. This isn’t the Royal Mint’s idea, of course. They stole it wholesale from 30 Rock a few years ago.
 
The cards will have the owners signature engraved on the back (I’ve no idea why, since the card schemes are discontinuing the use of the pointless signature panels on cards) and will apparently be worth $3,000 each which (as a number of Twitterwags immediately pointed out) will greatly increase the number of fake ATMs in the streets around Belgravia after midnight. They are apparently working on ways to get these 18-carat gold cards to work in ATMs and, of course, at contactless terminals.
 
Wait, what?
 
Contactless?
 
How do you make metal cards work in contactless terminals? The metal card messes with the magnetic jiggery-pokery that makes contactless cards work. I know this because Consult Hyperion’s awesome contactless robot test rig (below) has a frame for the card, terminal or card under investigation that is made from wood so the there’s no metal in the field when testing.
 

 
The metal contactless cards that I’ve seen before are made using a plastic laminate or by cutting a segment from the metal and replacing it with plastic, so I discounted this report on the Royal Mail’s bold ambitions and filed it away and went off to enjoy Money20/20 in Las Vegas with my Consult Hyperion colleagues.
 

 
I had a great time in Las Vegas chairing the “Around the World of Identity” session on the first day, and then I enjoyed the tremendous privilege of interviewing Jed McCaleb and Adam Ludwin of Interstellar on the main stage on the third day. Interstellar is the crypto giant formed by the takeover of Adam’s Chain by Stellar’s Lightyear. This was particular fun for me because I’d visited both Stellar [here] and Chain [here] for our “Tomorrow’s Transactions” podcast series some time ago (we rather pride ourselves on helping clients to spot what’s coming next) and had noted that both of these guys were really smart and really nice. As they proved on stage.
 

 
During a break from conference sessions, business meetings and blackjack I went for a stroll around the exhibition floor to catch up with old friends and see what sort of fun fintech things are heading our way. You could have knocked me down with a feather when spotted a stand from Amatech, who are based in Galway in Ireland. They were prominently displaying the bold claim that they had working contactless metal cards. Naturally, I went to investigate, it turns out that they were telling the truth. They’ve developed a clever manufacturing process that combines multiple layers of metal with different elecromagnetic characteristics so that the metal card now helps the chip on a card to communicate contactlessly instead of blocking such communications. Wow. Very cool (and they can do it with graphite too). I saw it working with my own eyes…
 

 
For all the talk about changing business models in the self-sovereign identity world to orient around data sharing, re-imaging AML with AI to change the cost-benefit around the regulations and on using cryptocurrency to transfer value across borders, you just can’t beat talking with someone who has made something that you didn’t know existed until you saw it. The satisfying clunk of a metal card on a glass counter was the highlight of the day for me. Apart from running into Shaq in the green room, of course.
 

 
Money2020 was exhausting, because all of our clients (and a great many of our prospective clients) are all there and I loved meeting all of them, but I wouldn’t miss it! I’m already looking forward to flying the CHYP flag at the inaugural Money2020 China next month. See you all there!

Avoiding Costs Abroad

Greyscale backing image

Vacation season is upon us! In a few weeks’ time, you could be leaving your home country for some relaxation. Perhaps to the Mediterranean for some sun or somewhere further afield off the beaten track. In full holiday mode, as the sun shines high and mighty, you’re about to indulge in another sundowner. Just only one last hurdle before you can quench your thirst, as you hand over your credit card and are promptly presented with the mobile POS, whilst being asked politely “Would you like to pay in Sterling or local currency?”.

What will you choose?

It is a familiar situation experienced by many of us who have ventured abroad. In that instance, we must decide our fate without fully comprehending the ramifications of our choice. EUR or GBP? And with seeming enlightenment, many rookie fingers have floated reluctantly towards the more familiar currency, GBP, sheepishly smiling, whilst not knowing whether it was the right choice and perhaps not thinking further of the implications (because after all, there is only one cardinal rule during vacation time – no stress allowed!). Was it the right choice though? Well, not according to Starling Bank who have shed some light on the matter through an experiment on Dynamic Currency Conversion (DCC), as reported by This is Money in the article (http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-5784137/The-proof-pay-local-currency-never-pounds-holiday.html).

DCC is the capability that allows a purchase or cash withdrawal to be done either in the local currency abroad or in the home currency associated with the debit or credit card being used. If the home currency is selected, then the POS terminal does a currency conversion on the spot from the local (e.g. EUR) to the home currency (e.g. GBP) at an exchange rate decided by the merchant. The merchant could potentially add their own commission to that conversion operation, resulting in a more expensive purchase than it would be if the local currency were selected. Whereas, in the case of the latter, the purchase or withdrawal is carried out in the local currency, following which a currency conversion is done by the issuer bank or credit card provider at an exchange rate defined by the card scheme network, which is invariably about as good as you can get.

As an example, in their experiment, Starling Bank have found out that an ATM cash withdrawal of EUR 200 costed £195.18 when GBP was selected, meaning that the withdrawn amount was converted on the spot to the home currency (i.e. GBP) by the local bank. In comparison, when EUR was selected whilst keeping all other factors alike, the same withdrawn amount costed £177.44 since it got converted later by the Issuer bank or credit card provider at a better rate. Indeed, that is £17.74 in savings when carrying out the transaction in local currency (EUR) rather than converting it on the spot to the home currency (GBP). This was also true for all the purchases made; albeit the difference was much less (in pence) for each individual purchase. Yet, we all know that the cumulative amount of these smaller differences over purchases made during an entire week’s holiday could potentially result in significant savings. The bottom line from the experiment, and the article, is that you are much better off almost always paying in the local currency.

Understanding the workings of DCC is only one part of the puzzle when trying to save costs for card usage abroad; but there are additional “hidden” costs, which we need to be aware of. More specifically, Issuer banks or credit card providers could charge a fee per transaction for purchases or withdrawals abroad (on top of the conversion rate), which could accumulate during a holiday stay and set you back considerably. Personally, I prefer to completely avoid these costs by opting for payment cards (prepaid, debit or credit) tailored for frequent travelling that do not charge for usage abroad and can offer additional features. However, you do need to be familiar with the terms and conditions for using these cards, since the card providers could restrict their usage, for instance, by limiting the total daily spend, or the number of times you can withdraw cash from an ATM in a day. Most of these restrictions align with typical leisure spending behaviour abroad, including mine so I never had an issue, but every person has different needs. The advantage is that the majority of these travel-specific payment cards come with a companion mobile application that allows you to manage your card, including various features such as viewing your transaction history, topping up your balance (in case of prepaid), blocking your card if stolen or lost, requesting emergency cash, etc.

Prepaid travel cards are quite popular for usage abroad since they allow you to manage spending overseas with ease. An advantageous feature of prepaid travel cards is that they can be associated with different currencies. So, I could load the balance on the prepaid card with a choice from various popular currencies such as GBP, EUR, USD, etc whilst potentially locking in the exchange rate at the time of loading. This gives you total control (and certainty) over planning your holiday spending budget allowing you to make significant savings when compared to using any payment card not tailored for usage abroad. There are many prepaid travel card products available with different features and costs, so it is important to choose the right product that suits your needs and demand. Also, be aware of other costs that prepaid card providers might impose such as card inactivity fee. There are various comparison web sites that table out the different fees and limits associated with the various prepaid products, and of course always refer to the terms and conditions for each card product. For more information on different types of prepaid travel cards I suggest checking out a web site like the following https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/credit-cards/prepaid-travel-cards.

Although prepaid travel cards are ideal for daily spending abroad, I still recommend that you take other types of payment cards, preferably from different card network schemes, only as a fall-back. Unfortunately, a prepaid card might not be accepted in certain situations that would require pre-authorisation such as petrol stations, car rental deposits or hotel reservations, so it is best to have other travel specific debit or credit payment cards in hand. Also, as witnessed recently with the service disruption of one of the international card scheme networks, it is best to diversify the scheme network as a contingency measure.

Working for Consult Hyperion, I’ve had the opportunity to work for the kind of payments innovators who identify areas like this where customers get a bad deal and there are opportunities to make things better. It is thanks to the work of those striving to improve payments, with the support of people like us, that in today’s world we have different payment products to choose from. It is just a question of finding the right product for you, whilst making sure that you fully understand the terms and conditions, such as fees and limits for operating the product. Understanding DCC and carefully planning for the right payment instruments before travelling abroad could help you avoid certain costs, ultimately having more funds available to spend on that well-deserved vacation. So, start looking for the right payment instrument, so you can fully enjoy a stress-free summer vacation! Oh, and if during your vacation you have a great idea for a new payments product, we’d love to hear from you and help you turn the idea into reality.

Contactless bank cards not safe

Greyscale backing image

According to Katie Morley from the Telegraph:

Millions of passengers across Britain could be left stranded under plans for every bus in Britain to go cashless despite widespread security fears over contactless technology.

She goes on to say:

Which? said that despite nine in ten of its members owning a card with a contactless option, 40% of them had not used it for at least 12 months, opting instead to pay via chip-and-pin.

This is odd, because TfL has found that in London, c. 25% of journeys are now paid for using contactless bank cards rather than Oyster or paper tickets.

She also asserts:

Busses in Scotland and Northern cities such as Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield are looking to copy London busses which do not allow travellers to pay by cash onboard, according to plans outlined in a major report by the UK Cards Association, a body which represents the payments industry.

This kind of justifies her headline:

Millions of travellers could be stranded under plans for every bus in Britain to go “cashless”

Except that it is not true. Yes, our work at TfN has plans for rolling out modern smart ticketing technologies across the north of England. Yes, there are current plans for contactless payments cards to be accepted by the largest bus operators across the UK. But they have not committed to banishing cash from buses like London has.

And when London did stop accepting cash on buses, were millions stranded? No.

Open-loop payment in transit

Greyscale backing image

In my previous blog, I talked about the trends in smart ticketing systems leading to account-centric and open-loop payments which I want to consider in more detail in this blog.

‘Open-loop’ Payments

‘Open-loop’ is the term used for transit payment instruments which can also be used for generic payments outside of the transit system. By contrast, traditional transit payment smart cards (such as Oyster in London) have required customers to convert their money to transit-only funds stored in a transit account and used to pay for travel. Customers have been prepared to do this because of the benefits of speed of access to the transit system without having to stop to purchase tickets. However, the down-side is that they have to periodically load funds to their CTCs, such funds then being unavailable for other purposes unless a refund from the CTC is sought.

There are many payment instruments emerging, but the one which is currently most ubiquitously accepted by merchants is EMV, the smart debit and credit standard used by the large payment networks including MasterCard, Visa and American Express whose members are the banks. These Payment Schemes are currently lobbying the transit sector for their open-loop cards to be accepted as payment instruments within transit.

This approach has the obvious benefits that (i) fewer CTCs need to be issued by the transport operator, and (ii) customers can arrive in a city from anywhere in the world and travel using the bank cards in their pockets.

The leading example of open-loop payments in transit is London where all Oyster readers have accepted contactless EMV (cEMV) payment cards from across the globe since 2014. Other transit schemes already committed to rolling out acceptance of cEMV open-loop payments include the national OV-Chipkaart scheme in the Netherlands and MTA in New York.

UKCA Transit Framework Model

The country with the most practical experience of a large-scale open-loop payment transit deployment is the UK, and, in particular, Transport for London which now sees more than one million journeys per day using ‘contactless payment cards’, the generic term used to described all EMV-compliant contactless devices, including ApplePay.

The deployment in London was pioneering and occurred before any models existed for cEMV use in transit. Subsequently, a payment model framework has been developed by the UK Cards Association (UKCA) in conjunction with the transport industry. The Association’s members issue the vast majority of debit and credit cards in the UK.

UKCA has identified three models which are described below. Two of the models are ‘pay as you go’ (PAYG) and the third model assumes that a ‘travel right’ or PAYG balance has already been purchased.

The important point to understand is that UKCA models 1 and 2 exploit EMV payments and are therefore bound to EMV-issuing banks, which are communicated with via the Merchant Acquirer. These models are different from transit account-centric solutions which could accept pre-payment from any payment instrument, not just bank cards. Furthermore, the ‘token’ used to identify the passenger in the account-centric solutions can be either an open-loop (CPC) or a closed-loop (CTC) token.

This last point is important in relation to ‘unbanked’ passengers. It has been shown (e.g. Ventra in Chicago) that cEMV technology cards can be issued to the unbanked and used as smart ticketing ID tokens to access pre-purchased transit products.

The bank business model for APIs: Identity

Greyscale backing image

Dgwb blog white border

In Europe the banks are being forced to open up APIs for third-party access to bank accounts. Obviously, this will cost money and entails risks. But from the work that Consult Hyperion has already done for banks in this area, I think I can see at least one way to build a positive business model around them.

For the Chancellor’s cheque-list today

Greyscale backing image

Dgwb blog white border

Why are people who use debit cards, PingIt and other modern contrivances required to pay for people who want to mess around posting pieces of paper to each other? It’s time to either draw a line under cheques or shift to full cost recovery pricing on cheque books.


Subscribe to our newsletter

You have successfully subscribed to the newsletter

There was an error while trying to send your request. Please try again.

By accepting the Terms, you consent to Consult Hyperion communicating with you regarding our events, reports and services through our regular newsletter. You can unsubscribe anytime through our newsletters or by emailing us.