Do U.S. consumers really benefit from payment card rewards?

Payment card rewards programs have become increasingly popular in the United States. But do consumers really benefit from rewards? In the United States, rewards are paid for primarily by the fees charged to merchants, and merchants may pass on the fees to consumers as higher retail prices. Further, some regulators and analysts claim that rewards may send consumers distorted price signals, which in turn may lead consumers to choose payment methods that are less efficient to society. ; Card networks and merchants have taken opposing sides in the rewards debate. Card networks claim their fee structures, including rewards, are crucial to achieving the right balance between merchant acceptance and consumer usage of their cards. Rewards can also reduce the total costs to society by inducing more consumers to switch from costly payment methods, such as checks, to less costly payment cards. Merchants benefit as well, they claim, because rewards card users make higher-value transactions than other consumers. Finally, more generous rewards are even more beneficial to consumers because they receive more as they make more card transactions. ; Merchants, on the other hand, claim they pay for the rewards through their fees to card issuers. They argue that competitive pressures and customer expectations prevent them from rejecting cards even though the fees outweigh their benefits. They reject the idea that accepting rewards cards is profitable despite the higher fees. Instead, they argue that customers with rewards cards spend more than those without rewards cards simply because their incomes are higher—not because they receive more rewards. Finally, they argue that more generous rewards actually harm consumers, because higher fees to merchants lead to higher prices for goods and services. ; Hayashi seeks to provide insight into these issues by considering whether current rewards programs benefit consumers and society. While definitive answers await further data, the analysis in this article suggests that the currently provided payment card rewards programs, especially credit card rewards programs, are not likely to be efficient. Further, rewards may potentially be too generous, lowering overall consumer welfare.

The economics of payment card fee structure: policy considerations of payment card rewards

This paper considers possible public policies that could improve efficiency and welfare distribution in the U.S. retail payments industry. Mainly, four options, i) encouraging competition; ii) allowing merchants to surcharge; iii) regulating merchant fees; and iv) regulating payment card rewards, are discussed, but each option has advantages and disadvantages. Any single option may not achieve the policymakers' objective; rather, combining several policy options may be required. ; Also issued as a Payments System Research Working Paper.

Pricing and welfare implications of payment card network competition

This paper examines how competition among payment card networks three-party scheme networks and four-party scheme networks affects pricing as well as the welfare of various parties. A competing network has an incentive to provide rewards to its card users. By providing more generous rewards than its rival networks, the network can increase its own card transactions because multihoming cardholders who hold multiple networks cards choose to use its card instead of using its rivals. Although a monopoly network does not have such an incentive, in a monopoly four-party scheme network, competition among card issuers likely makes issuers provide rewards. Due to rewards, the merchant fees under competition can be higher than the merchant fees set by a monopoly network, unless the majority of cardholders are multihoming. Generally, cardholding consumers are better off under network competition. In contrast, non-cardholding consumers are better off only when network competition reduces merchant fees lower than those under monopoly. The results suggest that policies that simply encourage network competition will likely increase cardholder rewards but will not necessarily lower merchant fees in the U.S. payment card market. Several empirical indicators may possibly tell which direction the U.S. payments system needs to go.Competition ; Credit cards ; Debit cards ; Payment systems

The economics of payment card fee structure: what is the optimal balance between merchant fee and payment card rewards?

This paper theoretically considers the optimal balance between the merchant fee and the cardholder fee (rewards) from both efficiency and equity perspectives. First, the paper constructs the models that can be used by the U.S. policymakers. Because theoretical results are very sensitive to the assumptions of the models, it is important to construct models that reflect the reality of the market. Second, the most efficient fee structure and product price are considered under the various combinations of the assumptions. And finally, the paper considers welfare consequences of the most efficient fee structure. ; Also issued as a Payments System Research Working Paper.

Payment card rewards programs and consumer payment choice

Card payments have been growing very rapidly. To continue the growth, payment card networks keep adding new merchants and card issuers try to stimulate their existing customers’ card usage by providing rewards. This paper seeks to analyze the effects of payment card rewards programs on consumer payment choice, by using consumer survey data. Specifically, we examine whether credit/debit reward receivers use credit/debit cards relatively more often than other consumers, if so how much more often, and which payment methods are replaced by reward card payments. Our results suggest that (i) consumers with credit card rewards use credit cards much more exclusively than those without credit card rewards; (ii) even among those who carry a credit card balance, consumers with credit card rewards use a credit card more often than those without rewards; (iii) among consumers who receive credit card rewards, those who receive credit card rewards as well as debit card rewards tend to use debit cards more often than those who receive credit card rewards only; and (iv) reward card transactions seem to replace not only paper-based transactions but also non-reward card transactions.

Product innovation and network survival in the U.S. ATM and debit card network industry

This paper studies product innovation and firm survival in the U.S. ATM/debit card industry. The industry started with a few shared ATM networks in the early 1970s. The number of networks grew quickly up until the mid 1980s, but then declined sharply. We construct a theoretical model based on Jovanovic and MacDonald (1994). In contrast to their model focusing on cost-saving technological innovation, our model shows a major product innovation may also trigger the shakeout. The theoretical predictions are tested using a novel dataset on network entry, exit, size, location, ownership and product choices. The findings suggest introducing the point of sale debit function in the mid 1980s played an important role driving the network consolidation. Unlike previous studies, we find little advantage of being early industry entrants. Rather, due to network effects in the industry, large networks had better chance to adopt the product innovation and survive the shakeout. ; Original title: Product innovation and firm survival in a network industry ; Also issued as a Payments System Research Working Paper

Payment Card Rewards Programs and Consumer Payment Choice

We estimate the direct effects of rewards card programs on consumer payment choice for in-store transactions. By using a data set that contains information on consumer perceived attributes of payment methods and consumer perceived acceptance of payment methods by merchants, we control for consumer heterogeneity in preferences and choice sets. We conduct policy experiments to examine the effects of removing rewards from credit and/or debit cards. The results suggest that: (i) only a small percentage of consumers would switch from electronic to paper-based payment methods, (ii) the effect of removing credit card rewards is greater than that of removing debit card rewards, and consequently, (iii) removing rewards on both credit and debit cards would reduce credit card transactions, but increase debit card transactions.Consumer Choice; Payment Methods; Rewards Programs; Interchange fees

Competition and credit and debit card interchange fees: a cross-country analysis

This paper seeks to provide a bridge between the theoretical and empirical literatures on interchange fees. Specifically, the paper confronts theory with practice by asking, to what extent do existing models of interchange fees match up with actual interchange fee practices in various countries? For each of four countries—Australia, the Netherlands, the UK, and the United States—models that “best” fit the competitive and institutional features of that country’s payment card market are identified, and the implications of those model are compared to actual practices. Along what competitive dimensions is there alignment? Along what competitive dimensions is there not alignment? What country-specific factors appear to be important in explaining deviations from theoretical predictions? The results suggest that a theory applicable in one country may not be applicable in another, and that similar interchange fee arrangements and regulations may well have different implications in different countries.Credit cards ; Debit cards ; Competition

Interchange fees in Australia, the UK, and the United States : matching theory and practice

Interchange fees are an integral part of the pricing structure of credit and debit card industries. While in recent years the theoretical literature on interchange fees, and payment cards in general, has grown rapidly, the empirical literature has not. There are several reasons for this. First, comprehensive data are hard to obtain. Second, the industries are very complicated, and empirical models need to incorporate many industry-specific features, such as payment-card network rules and government regulations. And third, empirical studies may require a generalized empirical model since, typically, only a few payment card networks exist in a given country. However, because of the first and second reasons, generalizing empirical models may prove problematic. ; Hayashi and Weiner seek to provide a bridge between the theoretical and empirical literatures on interchange fees. Specifically, they confront theory with practice by asking, to what extent do existing models of interchange fees match up with actual interchange fee practices in various countries? For each of three key countries—Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—models that “best” fit the competitive and institutional features of that country’s payment card market are identified, and the implications of those models are compared to actual practices. Along what competitive dimensions is there alignment? Along what competitive dimensions is there not alignment? What country-specific factors appear to be important in explaining deviations from theoretical predictions? The results suggest that a theory applicable in one country may not be applicable in another and that similar interchange fee arrangements and regulations may well have different implications in different countries.Credit cards ; Debit cards

The economics of payment card fee structure: what drives payment card rewards?

This paper investigates potential market forces that cause payment card rewards even when providing payment card rewards is not the most efficient. Three factors-oligopolistic merchants, output-maximizing card networks, and the merchant's inability to set different prices across payment methods-may potentially explain the prevalence of payment card rewards programs in the United States today. The paper also points out that competition among card networks may potentially make payment rewards too generous, and thus deteriorate social welfare and its distribution. The situation may potentially warrant public policy interventions. ; Also issued as a Payments System Research Working Paper.