Jettis passed Mastercard fines?

[Ken]

Originally posted by Hooper@May 21 2003, 10:54 AM
I doubt anybody would be complaining if the agreement had always been that "we'll pass fines on to you".

As sponsored merchants that decision could make some sense, but as a true 3rd party aggregator it seems to me that the aggregator should be responsible for it, especially with regards to transactions that occurred without sposnored merchant status.

Personally i'd rather have processing rates go up and just know that i wont be hit by any suprise fines than get a great deal on processing only to find out a year later that i have to pay a hefty six figure fine.

We've been lucky thus far not to have any fines and are working triple time to improve product quality and customer service. but when you have a large recurring database, you have to continually add more and more and more new transactions.. it seems almost impossible that a larger organization (not the ipsp.. but the actual sponsored merchant) gets into a position of being unable to find enough new transactions to offset the refunds and cb's resulting from the recurs.

If you're not already aware of it ken, you should be... but you are taking much higher risk transactions than any other processor i have seen. If you dont know what i mean i'll be happy to show you because it's gonna create a chargeback nightmare for you and i'd hate to see anybody lose in this biz.

Hooper,

Every processor reserves the right to pass on fines, so it HAS always been in the agreement. We are simply being upfront and honest about it, instead of delaying payments with no explanation.

We could have delayed payments and made up some excuse. It would sound better , but ultimatly it's the same difference. Other processors have passed on fines, but have hidden it with lots of smoke and mirrors. We just prefer to be honest about it.

I understand what you are saying about raising processing rates instead of passing on fines, but that doesn't really work. First of all, we would have to raise rates to about 20% or more to even get close to offsetting the amounts of the fines. Second, that would penalize customers who have very low chargebacks, which would not be fair. Fines are passed on to clients in a direct perportion to the chargebacks they actually created, which seem like the only fair way to handle it to me.


Regarding those transactions - I think I know what you are talking about and that model is in beta test with about 20 transactions a day going thru it. Trust me....we won't put anything through our system unless we know it's good clean business.