1.1a2

Thursday, April 22, 2004

Paypal data...

This E-bay press release contains the following data:

-eBay International Net Transaction Revenues - eBay International net transaction totaled $257.1 million in Q1-04, representing 87% year-over-year growth.

-Payments Net Transaction Revenues – Payments net transaction revenues totaled $ 155,5 million in Q1-04, representing 67% year-over- year growth.

-Total Payments Accounts – eBay’s PayPal business had 45.6 million total accounts at the end of Q1-04, a 67% increase from the 27.2 million reported in Q1-03.

-Total Payment Volume (TPV) – PayPal’s TPV was $4.3 billion in Q1-04, a 64% increase from the $2.6 billion reported in Q1-03.


Meaning that the average Paypal user receives/pays 95 $ and provides eBay with net revenue of $ 3,4 per Paypal account.



We need more payment mechanisms for broadband....?

Our Ministry of Economic Affairs wants to stimulate broadband usage. It will use 13 million euro to spend on an action plan. Part of the action plan is to stimulate initiatieves for mobile payments in the Netherlands. See this press release (Dutch).

I think we've seen earlier that the lack of payments via the Internet was not so much due to a lack of payment mechanisms but to a lack of trust / quality of services (with the major obstacle being that services weren't delivered properly). Still, it appears to be the case that with new technology some policy makers forget all they could learn from the old innovation. So once again the idea is that we should focus on payment instruments to increase usage of broadband.

Wrong. We need an emphasis on good delivery, good user interfaces and customer service. The payment mechanism (Moxmo, Way2Pay, Minitix, Tootz, pre-paid funds of telco-players, Wally, WWW-bon, mobile2pay, direct debit, credit-transfer etc) comes second, if not third.



Survey of developments in electronic money and internet and mobile payments (CPSS Publications No. 62, March 2004)

Although the CPSS has been monitoring e-money since 1996, only in later years (1999) the information became public. This report: Survey of developments in electronic money and internet and mobile payments (CPSS Publications No. 62, March 2004) is the latest update. Some newspapers consider this to be a sign that central banks will be monitoring e-money more closely. That's quite incorrect: they already were.



Thursday, April 15, 2004

Mastercard's reply to the EU's legal framework and e-money proposals

The EU Commission has published the contributions of interested parties with respect to the new legal framework for a single payments area. The Mastercard contribution is very clear on the subject of e-money (as dealt with in Annex 1 of the EU-consultation document):

MasterCard is concerned that this section of the document does not accurately reflect the present situation with regard to e-money in that:
• The interpretation of e-money is at odds to that in the E-Money Directive and moreover the definition as understood by most Member State regulators, the e-money industry and the ECB;
• The alternative definition is not technologically neutral which will result in a position where different e-money products will not be dealt with in a consistent manner. On the basis that all e-money products seek to target the same need, and their underlying business propositions are the same, it would be inequitable for an inconsistent approach to be adopted;
• The reference to the majority of e-money schemes that are more or less close to “real emoney schemes” being operated by undertakings which hold a credit institution license is inaccurate;
• The suggestion that some e-money products are closer to deposit-taking (the phrase “are closer to credit transfers in a centralized account system” is used) is misleading. The issue has been discussed at length by a number of regulators including the ECB and it has been agreed that deposit-taking does not arise in any of these products;

In view of the above comments, MasterCard believes that using this interpretation of the EMoney Directive as a basis upon which to regulate other payment service providers and providers of money remittance services is flawed.

MasterCard is opposed to the exemption of any payment services from the legislation unless transactions only take place between the consumer and the service provider. The introduction of third parties into such schemes must result in that scheme being liable to regulation even if it is an integral part of another service. To allow such services to be unregulated would not result in a level playing field.




Wednesday, April 14, 2004

Link naar meer algemeen weblog over betalingsverkeer

Copyright 1.1a2
Gebruik van het log wordt aangemoedigd, zij het wel met bronvermelding.