This is a self-promotion blog entry, but hey, we really deserve to toot our own horn.

In an  industry not known for its honor and integrity, our company, IntelliCollect / Intelli-Collect, is doing its best to show that there are merchant account providers that are more than happy to educate and enlighten business folks -- processors who always engage in fair-minded business practices.  Any company that has a long-term perspective and hopes to get its fair share of referrals, must place the customer first before any profit motive and communicate its policies, procedures, and rates in an atmosphere of full disclosure.  

In the course of discussion with merchants, many have informed me that they accept their customers' checks but often worry whether such checks will bounce -- especially those with high dollar amounts.  Although it's counterintuitive to believe, in this day and age of privacy, a great number of banks will verify funds in a customer's checking account.  This is ideal for the merchant who wants to avoid cashing an NSF check and provides a quicker lead and response time for the merchant to take measures in recouping the owed funds.

First, how does the merchant know which bank to call?  By glancing at the customer's check, the name and address of the bank should be apparent.  Some may only reveal the name of the bank and the city, state, and zip code, but with the help of some Google research, the bank's telephone number may be obtained.

Before speaking with a customer service representative, it's crucial for the merchant to find out the customer's bank account number.  Again, this source of information may be gleaned from the bottom of the check.  By process of elimination, you can find the bank account number by discarding the other two sets of numbers: One is the actual check number, also viewable at the top of the check; the other is the routing number -- the number between the "smiley faces."  The other set of numbers represents the customer's bank account number.  This number has two vertical lines next to it with a dot at the upper right hand corner -- either at the end and/or beginning of the number. 

The next step may be difficult for some merchants as they don't feel comfortable encroaching on their customer's privacy, yet it's still necessary if one is to verify funds in the checking account: Simply call the bank and perform the check verification process.  Yes, it's alright to inquire as to whether Mr. Smith has ample funds to provide payment to you.

Be forewarned that not all banks will cooperate and disclose whether the client has x amount of dollars in the account.  Bank policy varies regarding their customer's financial disclosure.  Some banks may require you to come into the branch to receive this type of information.  However, other banks will not restrict access to this info and relay whether Mr. Smith's check is either good or not at the time of the call.

Of course, any information is only going to provide a snapshot at the time of the call to the customer service representative.  Seconds later, who knows if Mr. Smith will put a "stop payment" on the check, withdraw all funds from his bank account to take his family on vacation, or close the account altogether.  But hearing the news that Mr. Smith has ample funds in the account provides some reassurance that payment is soon forthcoming -- although there's no guarantee. 

Still, it's worth the time and labor expenditure to perform a small bit of research and make a quick call to verify the customer's funds.  The worse case scenario is that you will not be privy to the information that you seek; the best case scenario is that you will be cleared to receive news -- hopefully discovering that the check will also clear.      

Of course, some merchants opt to open a check guarantee service so that they don't have to worry whether the customer's paper check will be good.  Indeed, all checks will be guaranteed.  However, there are fees involved and for those merchants who rarely encounter bounced checks, it may be best to be your own detective, take matters into your own hands, and attempt to verify the funds in the customer's checking account.

You thought chocolate and peanut butter was a winning combination.  Try "Visa - Authorize.net" which should prove to spur incessant growth for both companies.  On April 21st, Visa acquired CyberSource, Authorize.net's parent company, for a mere $26 per common share, or roughly the equivalent of $2 billion dollars.  It should prove to be a wise investment for Visa, and perhaps a source of angst for the competitors of Visa and Auth.net.

With this acquisition, Visa gains access to Google, Inc. and Facebook, Inc.  -- two behomoth websites with everflowing traffic.  Moreover, Visa will now further profit from e-commerce business, taking ownership of Authorize.net's 300,000 (and growing) accounts.  Indeed, merchant account experts are noting that Visa just picked up 25 percent of Internet market share -- keeping it away from third party processing powerhouse, PayPal.

This deal underscore's Visa's realization that e-commerce will continue to expand globally and that a prominent payment gateway provides the perfect infrastructure to facilitate Internet business.  Authorize.net has name brand recognition and a Visa - Authorize.net gateway may appeal to even more merchants as some business owners may feel a sense of reassurance going with a product, owned by a ubiquitous, easily recognizable American global payments technology company.  In essence, Visa's  profit centers will expand: It will continue to accrue cash flow from interchange fees paid by credit card processors and now receive direct and ancillary profit from its new payment gateway division.

Moreover, Visa will piggyback on Cybersource's ever burgeoning expertise on fraud prevention.  Cybersource has extremely advanced software analytics and a well of knowledge on e-merchant data.  Visa will benefit from Cybersource's leading role in Internet fraud prevention and be in a better position to manage e-commerce transactions.

The news of the Visa Authorize.net merger received its share of criticism -- primarily eminating from Authorize.net's competitors.  They cite a conflict of interest as Visa's PCI Security Standards Council must oversee all processing-related companies.  Monopolistic concerns center on the fact that Auth.net may obtain "trade secrets" on how to curb e-commerce fraud as all companies must report how they store data electronically.  Moreover, will the council's scrunity be greater for Auth.net competitors?  Such competitors may be undermined and not so readily receive compliance approval (i.e., acknowledging that they are managing and storing data safely).

How does this partnership affect Authorize.net merchants?  CyberSource’s president and CEO, Mike Walsh,  writes: “In the near-term nothing will change. The way you work with our company and partners will remain the same, as will our commitment to deliver the highest quality service and support."

Mr. Walsh adds that Authorize.net merchants can expect greater security measures to reduce the possibility of fraud, an enhanced platform to sell on a global scale, and an increased array of products and services, stemming from additional partnerships in the future.

Let's just hope that the cost for Authorize.net or credit card processing does not (dramatically) increase under the new Visa Authorize.net regime.  

Telephone credit card processing is becoming more popular and wCharge hopes to lead the bandwagon

All iPhone, Blackberry, Android phone users, or anyone with a mobile browser, listen up: Telephone credit card processing is only a few clicks away with wCharge – an application that is starting to galvanize a lot of interest among folks who wish to accept credit cards.  Combining simplicity and affordability, wCharge enables merchants on the go to easily, quickly, and cost-effectively receive their customers’ payments.

Here’s how it works: The merchant first signs up with a third party processor, such as PayPal, or with a merchant account provider, such as IntelliCollect, to obtain the wCharge application.  This application is eventually installed on the merchant’s mobile device.

The merchant first inputs his/her telephone number and pin number via the touch tone buttons on the phone – the same information that was registered with the credit card processing company.  It is essential to input the pin number or you will not be able to proceed to the next step – inputting the customer’s credit card information.  Before leaving the setup screen, you can also complete the “default description” field – i.e., a description of what you’re selling or service you’re offering.

Press “Save” and it’s on to the main menu screen where you’ll be able to perform the actual telephone credit card processing.  Here, you input the customer’s credit card number, expiration date, CVV2 code (the extra 3 or 4-digit number on the card), and the total amount of the sale.  

Press the optional button and you will be able to key enter the following fields: E-receipt which will send a copy of the transaction to the customer’s email address, customer’s name, billing address, zip code, and the description of product or service, if one was not provided on the setup screen.  (It’s particularly important to indicate the zip code to help prevent the transaction from downgrading to a higher rate.) 

Once all the information has been inputted and submitted, the merchant then receives the following confirmation fields (assuming transaction approval): Authorization number, date of transaction and time, the amount of the sale, the last 4 digits of the credit card, the customer’s name, and e-receipt address. 

The wCharge application also enables you to view the last 50 transactions.  If there is a particular transaction that must be refunded, you highlight it and then indicate that “Yes,” you do want to credit the amount back to the customer.  Once again, you should receive confirmation that the refund went through.

Any merchant on the go should appreciate the system’s ease of use and relative modest cost.  There are merchant account providers who offer wCharge at no initial charge where the monthly fee is typically anywhere from $5 to $20.  It is a viable alternative for business folks who do not process a great number of transactions.  Such individuals may not want to allocate a lot of money on an expensive wireless machine and open a more costly wireless merchant account.  Telephone credit card processing may be a perfect solution in this scenario, particularly as multiple phone numbers can be tied into one account.

(For those who anticipate a lot of transactions, it may be a better idea to go the wireless merchant account route, and take advantage of the lower swiped transaction rates.  Remember, when you swipe a card, it’s always cheaper than keying in the customer’s payment information.)

wCharge reviews have been primarily favorable and those in search of affordable telephone credit card processing should consider this program.  Review it yourself, weigh the costs vs. benefits, and you may just decide to accept credit cards by phone via wCharge. 

As part of a growing call for government regulation of the banking and merchant account industry, several Senators are now espousing the view that a fee limit should be imposed on the ATM machine business.  Three Senators, led by Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin, assert that ATM fees are too high – and are especially problematic for lower- and middle-income Americans.  As such, the senators assert that the cost to withdraw money from ATM’s should be no more than 50 cents.

Senator Harkin chimes in on this issue:

“In recent years, Congress has acted to protect consumers by setting appropriate limits on the types of fees that financial institutions can charge consumers. However, one area that lacks these sensible restrictions is the fees charged to consumers for using Automated Teller Machines (ATMs).  Consumers are being charged ATM fees that are well in excess of the cost of providing services, in some instances, as much as $5 per withdrawal.  These fees are outrageous, are anti-consumer, and they need to be reigned in.”

At present, banks and independent operators of ATM machines set their own fee structure and can charge any amount they deem that the market will bear.  It’s estimated that the average consumer’s cost to withdraw money from a different bank is $3.54 – well beyond the deemed approximate cost of 36 cents to facilitate the transaction.

Banks and especially independent ATM operators who vehemently oppose the Harkin amendment assert that the costs to carry out an ATM machine business transaction are well above the quoted 36-cent figure.  They declare that all their expenses should be considered: Buying the device (which can typically run from $5,000 to $50,000), gasoline expenses to feed the machine money, purchasing parts and providing general upkeep of the device also entail costs.

Nevertheless, some politicians and consumer advocates feel that banks and independent entities should not reap great profit (any profit?) when consumers are simply trying to access their own funds.  In their estimation, by capping ATM fees at 50 cents, owners of ATM machine businesses cannot unfairly gouge prices.

If this amendment comes to pass – and it is presently stalled in the Senate – the ramifications may be far-reaching and perhaps the net outcome, many aver, will not help consumers at all.  Consider what a price cap may do to the ATM machine business itself?  In the absence of any meaningful profit, many banks and independents may simply provide less ATMs in neighborhoods.  While it may appear that there is a glut of these devices now, a steady contraction may render many communities without a nearby ATM machine.  Those devices that remain may be less sophisticated as enhanced technology costs money.

Moreover, if banks are to receive less revenue from outside ATMs, they can find other ways to make up the difference.  For example, they can impose a general fee for ATM use to their entire customer base.  In contrast, independents would not be able to accrue another stream of revenue and may be forced out of business.

Many consumers seem divided on the issue, too.  While those applaud a financial ATM cap (embracing the notion that a buck saved is a buck earned), others are truly concerned about price setting as it relates to our capitalist economy.  This camp believes that consumers have choices and they don’t need to withdraw money from certain ATMs if they want to avoid an expense.

I read where one forum member posted in a tongue and cheek manner that popcorn at movies seems way over-priced.  Popcorn comes from corn, he added, grown in Iowa, and as such, price limits should be set on popcorn and Iowa corn.  He wondered where price setting ends?  It may very well begin with the ATM machine business.