There is nothing preventing PIX from going global (just like VISA/MC). If you look at the history of domestic systems e.g. China Unipay, India UPI/Rupay, Japan JCB they started off as local systems and went global.
Japan JCB is Internationally accepted. China Unipay is also considerably "international" i.e. internationally accepted and India's UPI/Rupay card is adding new countries at a fast clip. The reason most people "don't know" whether they can pay with China Unipay or India's Rupay is because they are not advertised with the same logos as VISA/MC on acceptance sites.
However both China Unipay and India's Rupay through their partnership with Discover Card (now owned by CapitalOne ) are accepted anywhere Discover card is accepted
The place where these "domestic" systems haven't quite measured up to VISA/MC is the issuing side i.e. the entities controlling these systems currently do not allow foreign banks to issue cards with their logos or use their network to settle the transactions. If you're in the US, you may not get a Unipay or Rupay card from a local bank. There are multiple reasons for that, some strategic some political.
It will be interesting to see how they evolve over time. In spite of the exponential rise of PIX , UPI and Unipay, VISA and MC themselves have been doing remarkably well in the past 10-20 years. Unlikely either of them will go belly up.
1) The recipient needs to download the app and sign up. How does the Payor know whether the recipient has Zelle app or not
2) Even with the app, there are only about 50-100 banks that allow Zelle transfers. If someone's bank does not offer Zelle they are directed to enter their Debit Card number using "Push to Card" to receive the funds. While the funds land up in the bank account instantly either way, some Debit Cards have limitations and will not be enabled to receive funds
3) Zelle is essentially a "messaging layer" i.e. the actual settlement happens overnight using ACH rails. As a result the sending as well as the receiving bank are taking some risk in terms of allow the recipient to withdraw money when the underlying settlement hasn't happened. If the settlement fails the receiver's bank will need to claw bank the money from the receiver
As a result there are some really low limits on daily transfers i.e. between 1-2K/day for most banks
4) Above all Zelle (like most other payment rails ) is a push system i.e. one can push money using Zelle. One may not pull money using Zelle
RFP i.e. Request for Payment is not part of this release. Furthermore there is no ETA from the Fed as to the release date for RFP.
Currently FedNow is simply a push payment system i.e. bank account holder may be able to use FedNow to push money out from their bank account to someone else's bank account.
The limitation here is the bank account holder must know the account number of the recipient. This is a huge limiter in adoption since most people don't want to share their bank account numbers and maintaining a directory of people's bank account numbers is cumbersome to say the least
Yes, the Fed is working on a directory but they have not yet announced the launch date for such a directory, not have they mentioned the index i.e. will it be phone number ? email ? something else ?
Bottom line: FedNow launch: Step in the right direction but still a long way to go
> most people don't want to share their bank account numbers
While far less common these days, people gave this information to arbitrary payees (via personal checks) for decades. The idea that it's not to be given to payers, despite it having been given to arbitrary payees, seems misguided. If someone tries to commit fraud with that number, they're probably going to get caught, making it sufficiently unlikely, no?
When I first came to USA as a tourist in 2011, one of the most amusing thing I witnessed was at a party at my Couch Surfer’s host when a friend of theirs payed back a debt by writing them a check. This cranked me up, as I had not seen a real world check in use since I was a kid in the early 1990s. I was equally surprised to learn how nobody else at the party thought anything of this. Coming from Iceland where you simply transfer them money via a bank app (or a website back then), this was my first American culture shock.
Now I live in the USA and I actually use checks all the time. I get paid via a check, I pay with checks at my local farmstand, I used to pay my rent with a check, my immigration fees were paid with a check etc.
This is orthogonal to the original point. Passing around your checking account number isn’t that big of a security risk. We do it now and banks have built guard rails in place because we do it now.
Checks are easy to use: just write a name and an amount on a piece of paper.
They’re secure: they can only be cashed by the person they’re made out to (unlike cash).
They have theoretically infinite throughput: you can write any amount on a single check.
They have extremely high latency, which is why digital payments are being preferred in many situations. But the remaining situations where checks are used high latency is acceptable or even desirable.
Australia's "PayID" system gets around this by allowing you to pay to a mobile phone number or email address (generally findable via your phone's contacts). The implementation is a little clunky, but an additional benefit is that it's a bit like DNS for your payments - you can associated those details with different bank account to redirect payments if you move.
So this is what Will wanted to do when he left Plaid. Having the financial means to "buy" a bank certainly helped. Nice!
Getting a new bank charter since the financial crisis of 2008-2009 has been virtually impossible. The number of banks in the US in the past decade or so has come down from ~6K to ~4K. New licenses for banks (State or Federal ) since 2008 have been negligible. So, let's buy a "small" bank. So far so good
Next part is core banking software as well as Money movement software. This is where is gets interesting.
Smaller banks use Fiserv/FIS/Jack Henry (and a long tail of other core banking providers) and larger ones have a mix of systems with legacy cores e.g. DXC, Misys and bunch of others. While it's tempting to build an entire banking stack from ground up it may not pass regulatory and compliance muster for a while. Plus even some the legacy cores have now built a rich RESTful API. Would be interesting to know how much of the core was built in house over the past 3 years
Next part is Money Movement. This is where ACH, Push to Card, Fedwire and RTP come in
ACH isn't that bad. Most banks use ACH "aggregators" which in turn connect to one of the two ACH Operators. Once a bank has a business relationship with the Fed it's not tough to connect to these aggregators and simply sftp files to/from them
Push to Card is available through VISA Direct and MC Send. Given their financial resources and fintech background it wouldn't be difficult to get a connection going there
RTP would be an interesting one but a relatively easy one since the Clearing House is already used to working with multiple banks and have "plug-ins"
So, now it all boils down to the business procedures and KYC/KYB on Fintechs that want to use Column's services. This can be done very efficiently online
The T&Cs are heavily skewed in favor of column. Some of them may be unenforceable. But those can be negotiated
Disclaimer: I'm the founder of Checkbook.io ( a payments platform with a single API for sending payments)
There are 2 parts to any payment, the sender side and the receiver side. Bill.com has historically pulled all the funds from the sender's bank account and held them in a custodial bank account controlled by Bill.com to pay out the recipients
They have earned float on this amount and given they are a public company you can see from the historical statements what percentage of their earnings are from carrying such float. (It depends on the interest rate and given the rates have been low recently it was about 10%-20% historically, may increase or decrease)
They have decided to do the same on the receiver side now i.e. instead of disbursing funds to the recipient they will simply hold them until the recipient manually collects them. This is somewhat unprecedented in the payments world - I don't know of any other Business payments processor doing it. It's basically a paypal type wallet being foisted on the recipient without an opt-in
In so far as "Are they allowed to do so" ? Bill.com is registered as a Money Transmitter (not a bank ) so in partnership with their bank they can do this. From the principles of ...let's say "generally acceptable payment processing rules" this is bad, particularly since it's an opt-in
There are multiple other alternative payment processors available, including the company I work for
Yes, use of cards i.e. Credit Cards is likely to decline in the US. However that does not mean Credit Card use is declining at all.
Instead it's increasing. There is a movement an shift toward using Cards for business payments. Given that business payments are an order of magnitude larger than Consumer payments the actual amount charged on Cards is continuing to and will continue to increase
Seems like a simple value proposition here:
BNPL is growing like crazy. Square doesn't have a strong product in BNPL space. Add to that it will get a presence in AUS/NZ and it becomes a good value to Square expanding product and global footprint. Paying about 20-25% of it's market cap to acquire a company at appx 20X multiple of it's revenue with a growth rate of 1X.
Seems like a fair deal in today's hot market.
Is there anything else to it ?
Japan JCB is Internationally accepted. China Unipay is also considerably "international" i.e. internationally accepted and India's UPI/Rupay card is adding new countries at a fast clip. The reason most people "don't know" whether they can pay with China Unipay or India's Rupay is because they are not advertised with the same logos as VISA/MC on acceptance sites.
However both China Unipay and India's Rupay through their partnership with Discover Card (now owned by CapitalOne ) are accepted anywhere Discover card is accepted
The place where these "domestic" systems haven't quite measured up to VISA/MC is the issuing side i.e. the entities controlling these systems currently do not allow foreign banks to issue cards with their logos or use their network to settle the transactions. If you're in the US, you may not get a Unipay or Rupay card from a local bank. There are multiple reasons for that, some strategic some political.
It will be interesting to see how they evolve over time. In spite of the exponential rise of PIX , UPI and Unipay, VISA and MC themselves have been doing remarkably well in the past 10-20 years. Unlikely either of them will go belly up.