The EU caps fees on Visa and MasterCard

A certain feeling of déjà vue.

With a certain feeling of déjà vue, the European Commission is again gunning for the major card issuers.

The EC has been trying to sort out alleged anti-competitive behaviour by MasterCard and its larger rival Visa since 2007. It is all to do with interchange fees – the charges paid by retailers on card transactions. Merchants argue that card companies unfairly overcharge them; in the other corner, the card companies contend that the fees are justified by the services they offer in return, such as easy payment collection.

The EC seems to be proposing that interchange fees be capped at 0.2 per cent for debit card payments and 0.3 per cent for credit cards. According to the EC, the proposed cap will cut total debit card fees across the EU to around €2.5bn from €4.8bn; credit card fees will fall to €3.5bn from an estimated €5.7bn once the cap is in place.

As consumers, I suspect we will barely notice any difference. MasterCard and Visa Europe have already capped their fees. I would wager – not huge sums but perhaps the loose change in my pocket – that we may expect to hear about the experience in Australia when the regulators capped interchange fees.

There was a well publicized survey in Australia – sponsored by MasterCard by the way – that concluded that once the government regulated interchange fees it was impossible to determine whether merchants passed on price reductions to customers.

I expect that we may also hear of gloomy predictions that a cap on interchange fees will inevitably lead to increased reliance on annual cardholder fees. The argument will be that card issuers, faced with reduced income from one source, will look for other ways to make good that loss. Expect also to hear that loyalty and rewards programmes may become a thing of the past due to the EU’s meddling.

The market barely batted an eyelid at todays news with MasterCard shares inching down by 1 per cent today. The issuers continue to continue to win new customers and expand their range of innovative services and products. For example, MasterCard has introduced mobile apps that are able to reduce expense accounting overheads and improve expense tracking for businesses. Major contract wins include one from the government of Canada that will convert its travel expense programme to MasterCard.

It is also among the biggest financial services sponsors of sports and the arts. If you watch any of the coverage of the Open Golf championship teeing off tomorrow, you will do well to avoid seeing the MasterCard logo as a constant presence on the screen.

Visa and MasterCard are two of the strongest performing financial services firms and are extremely well placed to enjoy further earnings and profits growth. Interchange fees will never be popular with the consumer press. They are however here to stay.

Photograph: Getty Images

Douglas Blakey is the editor of Retail Banker International

GETTY
Show Hide image

Erdogan’s purge was too big and too organised to be a mere reaction to the failed coup

There is a specific word for the melancholy of Istanbul. The city is suffering a mighty bout of something like hüzün at the moment. 

Even at the worst of times Istanbul is a beautiful city, and the Bosphorus is a remarkable stretch of sea. Turks get very irritated if you call it a river. They are right. The Bosphorus has a life and energy that a river could never equal. Spend five minutes watching the Bosphorus and you can understand why Orhan Pamuk, Turkey’s Nobel laureate for literature, became fixated by it as he grew up, tracking the movements of the ocean-going vessels, the warships and the freighters as they steamed between Asia and Europe.

I went to an Ottoman palace on the Asian side of the Bosphorus, waiting to interview the former prime minister Ahmet Davu­toglu. He was pushed out of office two months ago by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan when he appeared to be too wedded to the clauses in the Turkish constitution which say that the prime minister is the head of government and the president is a ceremonial head of state. Erdogan was happy with that when he was prime minister. But now he’s president, he wants to change the constitution. If Erdogan can win the vote in parliament he will, in effect, be rubber-stamping the reality he has created since he became president. In the days since the attempted coup, no one has had any doubt about who is the power in the land.

 

City of melancholy

The view from the Ottoman palace was magnificent. Beneath a luscious, pine-shaded garden an oil tanker plied its way towards the Black Sea. Small ferries dodged across the sea lanes. It was not, I hasten to add, Davutoglu’s private residence. It had just been borrowed, for the backdrop. But it reminded a Turkish friend of something she had heard once from the AKP, Erdogan’s ruling party: that they would not rest until they were living in the apartments with balconies and gardens overlooking the Bosphorus that had always been the preserve of the secular elite they wanted to replace.

Pamuk also writes about hüzün, the melancholy that afflicts the citizens of Istanbul. It comes, he says, from the city’s history and its decline, the foghorns on the Bosphorus, from tumbledown walls that have been ruins since the fall of the Byzantine empire, unemployed men in tea houses, covered women waiting for buses that never come, pelting rain and dark evenings: the city’s whole fabric and all the lives within it. “My starting point,” Pamuk wrote, “was the emotion that a child might feel while looking through a steamy window.”

Istanbul is suffering a mighty bout of something like hüzün at the moment. In Pamuk’s work the citizens of Istanbul take a perverse pride in hüzün. No one in Istanbul, or elsewhere in Turkey, can draw comfort from what is happening now. Erdogan’s opponents wonder what kind of future they can have in his Turkey. I think I sensed it, too, in the triumphalist crowds of Erdogan supporters that have been gathering day after day since the coup was defeated.

 

Down with the generals

Erdogan’s opponents are not downcast because the coup failed; a big reason why it did was that it had no public support. Turks know way too much about the authoritarian ways of military rule to want it back. The melancholy is because Erdogan is using the coup to entrench himself even more deeply in power. The purge looks too far-reaching, too organised and too big to have been a quick reaction to the attempt on his power. Instead it seems to be a plan that was waiting to be used.

Turkey is a deeply unhappy country. It is hard to imagine now, but when the Arab uprisings happened in 2011 it seemed to be a model for the Middle East. It had elections and an economy that worked and grew. When I asked Davutoglu around that time whether there would be a new Ottoman sphere of influence for the 21st century, he smiled modestly, denied any such ambition and went on to explain that the 2011 uprisings were the true succession to the Ottoman empire. A century of European, and then American, domination was ending. It had been a false start in Middle Eastern history. Now it was back on track. The people of the region were deciding their futures, and perhaps Turkey would have a role, almost like a big brother.

Turkey’s position – straddling east and west, facing Europe and Asia – is the key to its history and its future. It could be, should be, a rock of stability in a desperately un­stable part of the world. But it isn’t, and that is a problem for all of us.

 

Contagion of war

The coup did not come out of a clear sky. Turkey was in deep crisis before the attempt was made. Part of the problem has come from Erdogan’s divisive policies. He has led the AKP to successive election victories since it first won in 2002. But the policies of his governments have not been inclusive. As long as his supporters are happy, the president seems unconcerned about the resentment and opposition he is generating on the other side of politics.

Perhaps that was inevitable. His mission, as a political Islamist, was to change the country, to end the power of secular elites, including the army, which had been dominant since Mustafa Kemal Atatürk created modern Turkey after the collapse of the Ottoman empire. And there is also the influence of chaos and war in the Middle East. Turkey has borders with Iraq and Syria, and is deeply involved in their wars. The borders do not stop the contagion of violence. Hundreds of people have died in the past year in bomb attacks in Turkish cities, some carried out by the jihadists of so-called Islamic State, and some sent by Kurdish separatists working under the PKK.

It is a horrible mix. Erdogan might be able to deal with it better if he had used the attempted coup to try to unite Turkey. All the parliamentary parties condemned it. But instead, he has turned the power of the state against his opponents. More rough times lie ahead.

Jeremy Bowen is the BBC’s Middle East editor. He tweets @bowenbbc

This article first appeared in the 28 July 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Summer Double Issue