Judge Approves Interchange Fee Settlement with Visa, MasterCard(paymentsnews.com)
paymentsnews.com
Judge Approves Interchange Fee Settlement with Visa, MasterCard
http://www.paymentsnews.com/2013/12/judge-gleeson-approves-interchange-fee-settlement-with-visa-mastercard.html
13 comments
> You've go to to love the hackernews spin on this. No more free miles, blah, blah. Do you really think the miles were actually free? Of course they are not.
While they may not have been "free" in the strictest sense in the laws of economy, miles and cash back are a big part of savvy shoppers. I'm still shocked when I find out someone using a traditional credit card with no rewards, or worse, their debit card.
When we got to this point I don't know, perhaps I wasn't young enough, but you would be fiscally foolish not to take "advantage" of them while you can.
While they may not have been "free" in the strictest sense in the laws of economy, miles and cash back are a big part of savvy shoppers. I'm still shocked when I find out someone using a traditional credit card with no rewards, or worse, their debit card.
When we got to this point I don't know, perhaps I wasn't young enough, but you would be fiscally foolish not to take "advantage" of them while you can.
The entirety of these 'reward' programs was to get you to use your cards more, and secondarily spend more. Spending extra hundreds per year to get a free flight now and then generally isn't 'savvy'. You think you're getting something back, but you're contributing to the problem, and giving cover to the whole 'increased consumerism' lifestyle.
Thinking to yourself "sure, I'll spend a few extra bucks - I'll be getting 2% cash back next month/year!" or "hey - I almost have a free flight - sure, buy a bit more!"... encourages spending more than you need.
I know there are people that do extreme gaming of the system, paying utilities and such with every rewards card out there, transferring balances and such to get a free flight. These are the outliers, much like extreme couponers spending days per week figuring out how to get $200 in groceries for -$18. It's not reality for most people.
It's far easier to not spend on frivolous stuff, save up, and buy a plane ticket when you want it vs buying extra crap then trying to figure out which 10% of the days you can use your 'free miles' on. My wife's got 150,000 miles with an airline, and they have no 'air mile' seats available on any flight she needs for the next 12 months - it'll be 2015 at least before she can use all these 'free flight' miles (earned from travel, not from rewards cards).
Thinking to yourself "sure, I'll spend a few extra bucks - I'll be getting 2% cash back next month/year!" or "hey - I almost have a free flight - sure, buy a bit more!"... encourages spending more than you need.
I know there are people that do extreme gaming of the system, paying utilities and such with every rewards card out there, transferring balances and such to get a free flight. These are the outliers, much like extreme couponers spending days per week figuring out how to get $200 in groceries for -$18. It's not reality for most people.
It's far easier to not spend on frivolous stuff, save up, and buy a plane ticket when you want it vs buying extra crap then trying to figure out which 10% of the days you can use your 'free miles' on. My wife's got 150,000 miles with an airline, and they have no 'air mile' seats available on any flight she needs for the next 12 months - it'll be 2015 at least before she can use all these 'free flight' miles (earned from travel, not from rewards cards).
Why do you think that everyone spends extra hundreds per year to get a free flight? Most people I know that use rewards cards use them because they put most of their expenses on credit cards anyway so getting an extra 2% back is just a nice perk.
Buying anything on a credit card (accepted almost everywhere) encourages many people spend more than they originally intended/budgeted for.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/20333-guide-to-credit-cards-...
"A Dunn & Bradstreet study found that people spend 12-18% more when using credit cards than when using cash."
Most people you know might be an extreme minority when it comes to the range of financial habits targeted by credit card companies.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/20333-guide-to-credit-cards-...
"A Dunn & Bradstreet study found that people spend 12-18% more when using credit cards than when using cash."
Most people you know might be an extreme minority when it comes to the range of financial habits targeted by credit card companies.
The study compared credit cards and cash. I suspect the difference is related more to the _card_ aspect than to the _credit_ aspect, as the former takes away the 'did I bring enough cash with me' issue.
"McDonald's found that the average transaction rose from $4.50 to $7.00 when customers used plastic instead of cash."
I have a certain amount of money in my pocket. If the bill is higher than that amount, I will definitely pay by card. If it's lower, than I'll choose card or cash. So, even if the card/cash choice had no impact on my spending patterns, you would expect my cash transactions to have a lower average value.
"McDonald's found that the average transaction rose from $4.50 to $7.00 when customers used plastic instead of cash."
I have a certain amount of money in my pocket. If the bill is higher than that amount, I will definitely pay by card. If it's lower, than I'll choose card or cash. So, even if the card/cash choice had no impact on my spending patterns, you would expect my cash transactions to have a lower average value.
You are correct, those people are not 'savvy' if they are just spending 1000s to make a couple extra bucks.
However, I need to buy groceries, I'm sure you do to. Are you getting 6% cash back?
I don't live in a big city and require a car which requires gas. 5% cash back there
I sure do buy a bunch of the things off Amazon and get 3% there
Then you have 2% for your everything else bucket and 5% in those rotating categories cards
There is a reason Coin was invented: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6733615
I'm not buying anything I wouldn't and I am getting easily over $1500 in total cash back each year. To me that is being savvy when you purchase something you need at the expense of very little effort.
Anywho, like I said, when I old enough to have credit cards we were already in the state of rewards. You can take "advantage" of it or not, either way you are (or were until this law goes in) paying the same as everyone else. $1500 isn't exactly making me rich, but why not take it while you can?
I'm certainly not going to use a rewards card if it costs me more net money in the future.
technically you can get more than 3% with Amazon but involves converting points to giftcards or something and I'm too lazy :P
However, I need to buy groceries, I'm sure you do to. Are you getting 6% cash back?
I don't live in a big city and require a car which requires gas. 5% cash back there
I sure do buy a bunch of the things off Amazon and get 3% there
Then you have 2% for your everything else bucket and 5% in those rotating categories cards
There is a reason Coin was invented: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6733615
I'm not buying anything I wouldn't and I am getting easily over $1500 in total cash back each year. To me that is being savvy when you purchase something you need at the expense of very little effort.
Anywho, like I said, when I old enough to have credit cards we were already in the state of rewards. You can take "advantage" of it or not, either way you are (or were until this law goes in) paying the same as everyone else. $1500 isn't exactly making me rich, but why not take it while you can?
I'm certainly not going to use a rewards card if it costs me more net money in the future.
technically you can get more than 3% with Amazon but involves converting points to giftcards or something and I'm too lazy :P
Replied in the other reply too:
Buying anything on a credit card (accepted almost everywhere) encourages many people spend more than they originally intended/budgeted for.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/20333-guide-to-credit-cards-...
"A Dunn & Bradstreet study found that people spend 12-18% more when using credit cards than when using cash."
No doubt you are the special snowflake exception, but the majority of people overspend and carry a balance. Paying interest on stuff they bought that they don't need to get rewards that are a fraction of what they'll owe.
We use the target card and simply get 5% off everything at target. That's it - no gas cards, no anything else, no flyer miles, etc. And it seems to me that target's approach is such that they're simply keeping the savings of involving a merchant bank by processing the transactions themselves from my debit account - that's saving them 2-3% right there, so the 5% isn't really much skin off their nose.
Buying anything on a credit card (accepted almost everywhere) encourages many people spend more than they originally intended/budgeted for.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/20333-guide-to-credit-cards-...
"A Dunn & Bradstreet study found that people spend 12-18% more when using credit cards than when using cash."
No doubt you are the special snowflake exception, but the majority of people overspend and carry a balance. Paying interest on stuff they bought that they don't need to get rewards that are a fraction of what they'll owe.
We use the target card and simply get 5% off everything at target. That's it - no gas cards, no anything else, no flyer miles, etc. And it seems to me that target's approach is such that they're simply keeping the savings of involving a merchant bank by processing the transactions themselves from my debit account - that's saving them 2-3% right there, so the 5% isn't really much skin off their nose.
The 5% and higher rewards programs you mentioned may not even disappear. The CC companies are already losing money on them because the interchange fees are closer to 2% for Visa/MC and maybe 3% for Amex. The expectation, of course, is that a significant percentage of consumers will end up paying interest which will make up the lost profit. Considering how long such programs have been operating, I assume this is true and it's profitable.
I'm a bit torn on the interchange rate argument altogether. Here's how I see it:
- From a merchant's PoV, the service credit cards offer to them is "customers can purchase something now for up to $XXXX (or higher), the merchant will get paid and won't have to worry about credit risk."
- On one hand, you have your "essentials" merchants, such as grocery stores. Such merchants sell products that consumers would be purchasing no matter what, whether they pay via CC, check or cash. They aren't getting much value for that interchange fee.
- On the other hand, you have more luxury merchants. Think along the lines of Apple. How many $2000 computers does Apple sell simply because of the pay-over-time ability? I'm willing to bet it's a decent amount. Obviously, merchants like that are receiving a lot more value from the credit card system.
I think the fairest way of doing this would be to classify merchants into those two categories. Even doing that can be difficult, though, because what is "luxury"? For example, is McDonald's "luxury"? IMO, the best answer would be "does the merchant actually benefit from customers being able to pay over time?" Going by that definition, McDonald's doesn't - nobody buys a burger and expects to pay for it over time, even though McDonald's may be considered by some to be a luxury for a less-than-middle-class person.
Finally, you have the issue of coming up with a fair rate. It's not fair to directly compare with cash and checks because those have their own expenses too. Counterfeit cash, bounced checks, and the expense of processing both, not to mention having cash on hand is a robbery risk. Also, cash does have "processing" costs - someone has to deposit that in a bank usually every day, and for larger stores that would normally be an armored car service which costs money.
Here's my take on fair rates: Capital One has a Visa CC that offers 1.5% cashback on all purchases with no limits. (That's the highest rate I'm aware of for Visa/MC besides the "loss leader" category rewards or promos.) Obviously the rates are currently high enough for that. Going by the current rates being in the 1.6%-2% area, it would seem 0.3-0.5% should be a fair enough rate to adequately cover the CC companies operating costs, make a fair (not exorbitant) profit, etc.
Now, should there be a premium over that for "luxury" merchants? Debatable. And so is the issue of what it should be.
I'm a bit torn on the interchange rate argument altogether. Here's how I see it:
- From a merchant's PoV, the service credit cards offer to them is "customers can purchase something now for up to $XXXX (or higher), the merchant will get paid and won't have to worry about credit risk."
- On one hand, you have your "essentials" merchants, such as grocery stores. Such merchants sell products that consumers would be purchasing no matter what, whether they pay via CC, check or cash. They aren't getting much value for that interchange fee.
- On the other hand, you have more luxury merchants. Think along the lines of Apple. How many $2000 computers does Apple sell simply because of the pay-over-time ability? I'm willing to bet it's a decent amount. Obviously, merchants like that are receiving a lot more value from the credit card system.
I think the fairest way of doing this would be to classify merchants into those two categories. Even doing that can be difficult, though, because what is "luxury"? For example, is McDonald's "luxury"? IMO, the best answer would be "does the merchant actually benefit from customers being able to pay over time?" Going by that definition, McDonald's doesn't - nobody buys a burger and expects to pay for it over time, even though McDonald's may be considered by some to be a luxury for a less-than-middle-class person.
Finally, you have the issue of coming up with a fair rate. It's not fair to directly compare with cash and checks because those have their own expenses too. Counterfeit cash, bounced checks, and the expense of processing both, not to mention having cash on hand is a robbery risk. Also, cash does have "processing" costs - someone has to deposit that in a bank usually every day, and for larger stores that would normally be an armored car service which costs money.
Here's my take on fair rates: Capital One has a Visa CC that offers 1.5% cashback on all purchases with no limits. (That's the highest rate I'm aware of for Visa/MC besides the "loss leader" category rewards or promos.) Obviously the rates are currently high enough for that. Going by the current rates being in the 1.6%-2% area, it would seem 0.3-0.5% should be a fair enough rate to adequately cover the CC companies operating costs, make a fair (not exorbitant) profit, etc.
Now, should there be a premium over that for "luxury" merchants? Debatable. And so is the issue of what it should be.
"From a merchant's PoV, the service credit cards offer to them is "customers can purchase something now for up to $XXXX (or higher), the merchant will get paid and won't have to worry about credit risk.""
Except... the card issuers will almost always side with a customer over a merchant in a dispute. They still have to worry about that credit risk.
"Give me a refund or I'll initiate a chargeback!" is a threat with a lot of weight behind it. Mutiple chargebacks and your rate goes higher or you're just dropped altogether.
Except... the card issuers will almost always side with a customer over a merchant in a dispute. They still have to worry about that credit risk.
"Give me a refund or I'll initiate a chargeback!" is a threat with a lot of weight behind it. Mutiple chargebacks and your rate goes higher or you're just dropped altogether.
True, I hadn't considered that. What I had in mind was no default risk (that probably would have been a better way to put it), even when the customer has the ability to pay over time and may be able to purchase things now that they wouldn't normally purchase.
Of course, if you muddy the waters (complex reward schemes vs simple cash prices), you create an environment which a few "savvy operators" can exploit.
At the expense of the majority.
But what you're missing is that the guaranteed winners are the ones doing the muddying, and at everyone's expense.
At the expense of the majority.
But what you're missing is that the guaranteed winners are the ones doing the muddying, and at everyone's expense.
Was there some law saying that the retailers had to allow payment with these cards? It seems like a "free market" as you put it should allow retailers to no longer accept payment via certain cards if it doesn't make business sense to do so.
The payment processors have a disproportionate amount of power over merchants because they form an oligopoly. The barrier to entry is extremely high, which significantly distorts the markets.
The payment processors used this asymmetry to force merchants to hide their costs from the market at large. The market can't affect something when it isn't allowed to set different prices for using the service or not!
Yes, merchants could stop using the payment processors. But, crucially, consumers can't: if a merchant used a payment processor under the old scheme, even customers paying in cash had to pay a higher price to subsidize this!
Couple this with the fact that the payment processor market is entirely dominated by a bare handful of large companies, and you get something really far from a "free" market.
The payment processors used this asymmetry to force merchants to hide their costs from the market at large. The market can't affect something when it isn't allowed to set different prices for using the service or not!
Yes, merchants could stop using the payment processors. But, crucially, consumers can't: if a merchant used a payment processor under the old scheme, even customers paying in cash had to pay a higher price to subsidize this!
Couple this with the fact that the payment processor market is entirely dominated by a bare handful of large companies, and you get something really far from a "free" market.
As dminor said, it was part of the agreement, but more to the point, you don't always necessarily know when you're taking the card. You'd only see the fee after running the purchase. IIRC, there was some way to decipher some 'types' of cards (airmiles reward card vs free gas vs cash back cards, etc) by some of the prefix numbers, but I don't think that was reliable, nor feasible. It's been a couple years since I discussed this with my bank's merchant account person, but in a nutshell it was "you don't now until after you take the card how much it'll cost you".
There was a base fee, and most cards would fall in to that - 2.1% in my case, IIRC. But, if someone used some 'get 2% cash back on all purchases!' card, I'd be charged 4.1% (again, IIRC, might have been a bit more or less). When you don't know what the price is going to be, you end up needing to err on the high side, and factor in higher overall fees to every price, raising the price for everyone along the way. And the banks make more money because the whole 'free air miles!!!!' mentality gets people to use their card more.
The banks get their fees on a per transaction cost (and interest on balances that carry on month to month) - the merchants effectively paid for all your 'free air miles'.
There was a base fee, and most cards would fall in to that - 2.1% in my case, IIRC. But, if someone used some 'get 2% cash back on all purchases!' card, I'd be charged 4.1% (again, IIRC, might have been a bit more or less). When you don't know what the price is going to be, you end up needing to err on the high side, and factor in higher overall fees to every price, raising the price for everyone along the way. And the banks make more money because the whole 'free air miles!!!!' mentality gets people to use their card more.
The banks get their fees on a per transaction cost (and interest on balances that carry on month to month) - the merchants effectively paid for all your 'free air miles'.
Of course, but then they are turning away custom.
Why shouldn't they be allowed to charge customers different prices depending on which payment method they use, given different methods have different costs to them.
Now they can.
Why shouldn't they be allowed to charge customers different prices depending on which payment method they use, given different methods have different costs to them.
Now they can.
It was part of the merchant services agreement - e.g. if you want to accept Visa, you have to accept all Visa.
Yeah the difference between the headline's implication and the content of the actual article is really jarring. This is objectively a good decision.
Miles were never free. They just used to be paid for equally by everyone--including people not using credit cards! In effect, it was a sales tax imposed by Visa and Mastercard on everyone.
This change will make the price of using a credit card more transparent to the customers and will stop non-customers from subsidizing Visa et al. It's more fair and lets the market react much more efficiently to payment processors.
This change is a net positive for the market and therefore people in general.
This change will make the price of using a credit card more transparent to the customers and will stop non-customers from subsidizing Visa et al. It's more fair and lets the market react much more efficiently to payment processors.
This change is a net positive for the market and therefore people in general.
> "Miles were never free. They just used to be paid for equally by everyone--including people not using credit cards! In effect, it was a sales tax imposed by Visa and Mastercard on everyone."
You say that as if this new policy of charging extra for the airmilers will result in lower prices for everyone else, including people not using credit card. I don't think so.
You say that as if this new policy of charging extra for the airmilers will result in lower prices for everyone else, including people not using credit card. I don't think so.
Can you please elaborate on why you think this way?
>Miles were never free. They just used to be paid for equally by everyone--including people not using credit cards! In effect, it was a sales tax imposed by Visa and Mastercard on everyone.
Well, no. Interchange fees come out of retailer profits. That's why retailers care about them.
Well, no. Interchange fees come out of retailer profits. That's why retailers care about them.
Retailers on average increase prices to account for these fees.
If the title is accurate, this effectively means prices are going up another 3%+ on everything over the next few years. People don't usually lower prices.
If someone was selling a $10 pizza before and paying 60c in payment processing, he's most likely gonna charge $10.60 for the pizza now and call the 60c additional profit. I'd be very surprised if most merchants decided to keep charging customers with cards $10 and give a 60c discount to cash customers.
If someone was selling a $10 pizza before and paying 60c in payment processing, he's most likely gonna charge $10.60 for the pizza now and call the 60c additional profit. I'd be very surprised if most merchants decided to keep charging customers with cards $10 and give a 60c discount to cash customers.
Are there any studies on this? It's something I've wondered about.
In an efficient market, competition would force retailers to reduce prices. But efficient markets don't exist, especially not in the short term.
I'm most interested in the long run effect. How would a shift in CC fees play out over the long term and through the whole supply chain.
In an efficient market, competition would force retailers to reduce prices. But efficient markets don't exist, especially not in the short term.
I'm most interested in the long run effect. How would a shift in CC fees play out over the long term and through the whole supply chain.
American Express still has a no-surcharge policy and Visa/MC got MFN clauses declared legal in the settlement, so this won't effectively change anything.
Does anyone in the payments industry know if it is possible to get the interchange rate prior to processing a transaction? I assume only the issuing bank has the information, and there is no way to get it from the number alone. Do issuing banks include the interchange category with the response when transactions happen, or is that figured out during the batch processing?
My point is, I think this judge can rule whatever he wants, but as far as I know, there is no way to technically implement these fees.
My point is, I think this judge can rule whatever he wants, but as far as I know, there is no way to technically implement these fees.
From the linked article:
"...permit merchants to surcharge credit cards at both the brand level (i.e., Visa or MasterCard) and at the product level (i.e., different kinds of cards, such as consumer cards, commercial cards, premium cards, etc.)"
The last time I dealt with a bank for a merchant account (in the UK), there were only two tariffs: one for debit cards, and another for credit cards. (We accepted only Visa/MC.)
The sentence above suggests that the fee structure differs among credit cards.
Can anyone share their experience of paying different rates for Visa vs. MC and, in particular, different rates for different credit cards from a single network?
The last time I dealt with a bank for a merchant account (in the UK), there were only two tariffs: one for debit cards, and another for credit cards. (We accepted only Visa/MC.)
The sentence above suggests that the fee structure differs among credit cards.
Can anyone share their experience of paying different rates for Visa vs. MC and, in particular, different rates for different credit cards from a single network?
Our merchant bank gives us interchange plus pricing, so we see all the rates. We see about 30 different categories on our monthly statements. It is not until we get the statement that we know what is going on. I don't think it is possible to know the rate before doing the transaction.
Here is a link to the interchange rates for Visa (10 pages of rates):
http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/visa-usa-interchange-...
Here is a link to the interchange rates for Visa (10 pages of rates):
http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/visa-usa-interchange-...
Thank you. Page 4 of that doc makes it much clearer. It seems like the fees paid to the issuer of a Visa credit card can vary by up to ~1% dependent on the scheme.
One more question: when you say 'interchange plus pricing', is the 'plus' uniform across all transactions (i.e. the same $ or the same % or the same %+$)?
One more question: when you say 'interchange plus pricing', is the 'plus' uniform across all transactions (i.e. the same $ or the same % or the same %+$)?
I'm pretty sure it's possible to get the fee before running a charge. You definitely get it back in the response.
I imagine this is the beginning of the end of credit cards with rewards in the U.S. Unless Congress passes some relevant law (which would not surprise me).
It's rather the sign of an abusive HN-specific editorial title. The op read the article way deeper than between the lines.
No ways. Unless you want to have a hard time getting a place to rent or get a mortgage, you WILL need to have credit. I learned that the hard way when I cancelled all my credit cards two years ago and have had no debt or loans since. I just used debit cards for everything. And now, I'm almost a millionaire having a hard time finding a place to rent because my credit is not the greatest anymore.
He only said "credit cards with rewards", as in there's no incentive for people to use credit cards that have a reward if they end up charged more for every purchase.
Also if you are a millionaire and are having a hard time finding a place to rent, why not just offer to pay 6 to 12 months of rent up front? Even in NYC that tends to work.
Also if you are a millionaire and are having a hard time finding a place to rent, why not just offer to pay 6 to 12 months of rent up front? Even in NYC that tends to work.
Yeah, you'd think that having "good savings" is at least as good as "good credit".
The only reason I have a credit card is in case I need good credit in the future for a mortgage or something. Otherwise a debit card would suit me fine.
The only reason I have a credit card is in case I need good credit in the future for a mortgage or something. Otherwise a debit card would suit me fine.
[deleted]
I expect this will be used as another tool to obfuscate prices. Just like sales tax is effectively a semi-hidden last minute fee in America, I think we are going to start to see all sorts of purchasing method fees at the cash register.
It will start with credit cards but soon it will be for debit cards and there will eventually be a "cash handling" fee if you insist on paying with cash.
These will never be included in the listed prices and they will be just small enough that its not worth it for you to put the items back.
It will start with credit cards but soon it will be for debit cards and there will eventually be a "cash handling" fee if you insist on paying with cash.
These will never be included in the listed prices and they will be just small enough that its not worth it for you to put the items back.
This is the bad for the consumer scenario I'm concerned about. It could waste millions of hours of mental consumer math to save a few tens of hours of retailer pricing math.
Will [could] this affect the price of paying for goods with my Visa/MasterCard debit card, i.e., will this essentially make it possible for stores to charge more for using any cards? This could motivate a huge swing back to carrying cash and checks. That being said (and understanding the inherent cost to merchants), won't this ruling essentially set back payments by a decade?
Debit cards are exempt and cannot be surcharged.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I'm not sure how one could actually take advantage of this. Suppose I want to make people with rewards cards pay more at my shopping card. How do I know they are using a rewards card, and if so how much that adds to my processing bill?
As I understand it, something like the first 8 digits of your card number encode information about what kind of card you have. It allows the merchant to tailor how much you pay, to the type of card. It could take a couple of forms:
1. A surcharge for certain kinds of cards.
2. A discount for certain kinds of cards.
In either case, I think this is just a logical step in a progression that makes it so that a merchant can recover a portion of their credit card fees from the consumer. Good or bad? It might create an opportunity for competition among credit card processors to offer their services for the lowest possible fee.
1. A surcharge for certain kinds of cards.
2. A discount for certain kinds of cards.
In either case, I think this is just a logical step in a progression that makes it so that a merchant can recover a portion of their credit card fees from the consumer. Good or bad? It might create an opportunity for competition among credit card processors to offer their services for the lowest possible fee.
[deleted]
Finally! I've felt for a while now that rewards cards are basically a legalized form of bribery and I've avoided using them at merchants that I like.
Essentially this ruling allows retailers to pass on bank card payment fees to customers. Previously these fees were hidden, and the retailer had to swallow the fees, and of course ultimately pass them on to ALL customers equally as a cost.
Now, customers themselves get to pay the fees directly, and thus have a choice, and consequences, in which payment methods to use. And of course this will likely have downward pricing pressure on the payment service providers, so in a reverse of the usual story, consumers in general will benefit at the expense of the banks.
This is the way free markets are supposed to work, as opposed to the current cosy backroom agreements that only benefit the banks.