NACHA passed a 1% CB threshold rule for ACH ??? - GoFuckYourself.com

Satan · 12-18-2007, 03:30 PM

I was speaking to a buddy of mine who told me that NACHA passed a 1% Charge Back threshold that passed and go into effect on Dec 21st '07!

Has anybody else heard this and please can you confirm or deny this??

I hope that its not true because if It's true, this could have huge repercussions in the industry....

munki · 12-18-2007, 03:37 PM

pornguy · 12-18-2007, 03:45 PM

I thought that was already in place.

WiredGuy · 12-18-2007, 03:47 PM

What are the CB ratios like for ACH transactions compared to Visa/MC?
WG

Satan · 12-18-2007, 10:45 PM

WG ill get you stats for ours tomo or thursday, Im out of town right now

OY · 12-18-2007, 11:30 PM

I can confirm that this is true.

Oystein

rowan · 12-19-2007, 12:43 AM

How can you sustain a 1% thresshold when it's so easy to complete a fraudulent transaction? It's almost like the days of old where all you needed to stiff someone was a program to generate a random (but valid) CC number...

V_RocKs · 12-19-2007, 03:19 AM

And why did they do this?

Because Visa and Mastercard are owned and operated by banks. They want people to stop using checks to pay for shit and start using credit cards. Get hooked on credit cards. And owe a shitload of money on their high balances.

Eman - PG · 12-19-2007, 04:22 AM

Good luck to everyone trying to stay under 1% with ACH.

Satan · 12-19-2007, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eman - PG

Good luck to everyone trying to stay under 1% with ACH.

Never had a problem with CC wont have a problem with checks, you just gotta watch who sends you traffic

Bossman · 12-19-2007, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

And why did they do this?

Because Visa and Mastercard are owned and operated by banks. They want people to stop using checks to pay for shit and start using credit cards. Get hooked on credit cards. And owe a shitload of money on their high balances.

I would also suspect that they try to stay "proactive", so they avoid being regulated by idiotic politicians who love enslaving businesses and people by making laws.

DutchTeenCash · 12-19-2007, 06:29 AM

hmm 1% that sucks

were pretty low but 1% is really really low

bpj · 12-19-2007, 08:08 AM

NACHA indeed finally passed the new Network Enforcement Rules.
You can see a press release here: nacha.org/News/news/pressreleases/2007/Pr112607/Pr112607.htm
These rules go into effect this Friday, Dec 21st, with new reporting requirements for banks (ODFI's) coming in March of '08.

This certainly can and will have an effect on those companies that haven't been preparing for this. Although it seems like a hard number to reach (given the lack of tools that are available for ACH), I can tell you first-hand that they are obtainable!

Satan - you are right. webmasters have to do their best in proper disclosure, not being deceptive, providing good customer support, etc, in order to HELP their processor in minimizing CB's!

V-rocks - there is much truth to what you say!

rowan - i guess it depends on which processor you're trying to get transactions through (lol). I would encourage you to test them all... and please let us know what you find out!

If any WTS merchants would like to know their CB ratios, feel free to hit up myself, or Ben and we'll be happy to let you know what they are! I think you'll be pleasantly surprised as to what your numbers are with WTS. We've been preparing for this for some time.

[email protected]
800-982-9366
achdebit.com

tony286 · 12-19-2007, 10:22 AM

I figure the bigger problem with checks wasnt cb but ones that werent good. Using WTS was one of the best choices we made. When I think how I used to get screwed with checks with ibill, its makes me want to cry.

Satan · 12-20-2007, 08:17 AM

I had Ben get my CB ratio since the day we launched satancash we have less then half a percent cb, NOT bad NOT bad

Turf · 12-20-2007, 08:55 AM

http://www.ach-payments.com/ach-return-codes.pdf

Does anyone know which of the return codes in the pdf above that are "classified" as being a chargeback ?

Ben.Z · 12-20-2007, 10:24 AM

Turf - the following R-codes are all considered charge-backs... R05, R07, R10, R29 and R51.

Satan - not bad at all buddy!

rowan · 12-20-2007, 02:41 PM

Hmmm, thought just popped to mind... is a returned check (ie deliberate falsifying of details to gain a few days free access) considered a chargeback?

Ben.Z · 12-20-2007, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rowan

Hmmm, thought just popped to mind... is a returned check (ie deliberate falsifying of details to gain a few days free access) considered a chargeback?

Only if the owner of the account revokes authorization through his bank. Hopefully, your processor is doing a good job of "authenticating the consumer", making this much more difficult to do!

corvette · 12-20-2007, 02:53 PM

That?s the thing. We are not talking about returns where a merchant was presented a made up account # and routing # and the check was returned because it could not be linked to an account.

Its my understanding that its only for "unauthorized" transactions (the equivalent of a chargeback on the banking network), which make up a small portion of the total returns.

Brad Mitchell · 12-20-2007, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corvette

That?s the thing. We are not talking about returns where a merchant was presented a made up account # and routing # and the check was returned because it could not be linked to an account.

Its my understanding that its only for "unauthorized" transactions (the equivalent of a chargeback on the banking network), which make up a small portion of the total returns.

thanks for clarifying Mark that's great information to know

Brad

12-18-2007, 03:30 PM	#1
Satan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hell Posts: 1,626	NACHA passed a 1% CB threshold rule for ACH ??? I was speaking to a buddy of mine who told me that NACHA passed a 1% Charge Back threshold that passed and go into effect on Dec 21st '07! Has anybody else heard this and please can you confirm or deny this?? I hope that its not true because if It's true, this could have huge repercussions in the industry.... __________________ WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU?

12-18-2007, 03:37 PM	#2
munki Do Fun Shit. Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OC Posts: 13,393	__________________ “I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best.” -Oscar Wilde

12-18-2007, 03:45 PM	#3
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	I thought that was already in place. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

12-18-2007, 03:47 PM	#4
WiredGuy Pounding Googlebot Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 34,500	What are the CB ratios like for ACH transactions compared to Visa/MC? WG __________________ I play with Google.

12-18-2007, 10:45 PM	#5
Satan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hell Posts: 1,626	WG ill get you stats for ours tomo or thursday, Im out of town right now __________________ WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU?

12-18-2007, 11:30 PM	#6
OY Industry Pioneer Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA/EU/ASIA Posts: 5,401	I can confirm that this is true. Oystein __________________ Around since 1997, and the company that introduced "Cascading Billing" in MPA3® Affiliate Management and Tracking Software Outsourcing With A Norwegian Twist - NordBits - Inquire within!

12-19-2007, 12:43 AM	#7
rowan Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 17,393	How can you sustain a 1% thresshold when it's so easy to complete a fraudulent transaction? It's almost like the days of old where all you needed to stiff someone was a program to generate a random (but valid) CC number...

12-19-2007, 03:19 AM	#8
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,428	And why did they do this? Because Visa and Mastercard are owned and operated by banks. They want people to stop using checks to pay for shit and start using credit cards. Get hooked on credit cards. And owe a shitload of money on their high balances.

12-19-2007, 04:22 AM	#9
Eman - PG PG Co-Boss Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: GFY Posts: 524	Good luck to everyone trying to stay under 1% with ACH.

12-19-2007, 06:29 AM	#12
DutchTeenCash I like Dutch Girls Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: dutchteencash.com Posts: 21,684	hmm 1% that sucks were pretty low but 1% is really really low __________________ ICQ 16 91 547 - SKYPE dutchteencash bob AT dutchteencash DOT com ... did you see our newest Sweet Natural Girl Priscilla (18)?

12-19-2007, 08:08 AM	#13
bpj Registered User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 7	Your info is accurate Pete! NACHA indeed finally passed the new Network Enforcement Rules. You can see a press release here: nacha.org/News/news/pressreleases/2007/Pr112607/Pr112607.htm These rules go into effect this Friday, Dec 21st, with new reporting requirements for banks (ODFI's) coming in March of '08. This certainly can and will have an effect on those companies that haven't been preparing for this. Although it seems like a hard number to reach (given the lack of tools that are available for ACH), I can tell you first-hand that they are obtainable! Satan - you are right. webmasters have to do their best in proper disclosure, not being deceptive, providing good customer support, etc, in order to HELP their processor in minimizing CB's! V-rocks - there is much truth to what you say! rowan - i guess it depends on which processor you're trying to get transactions through (lol). I would encourage you to test them all... and please let us know what you find out! If any WTS merchants would like to know their CB ratios, feel free to hit up myself, or Ben and we'll be happy to let you know what they are! I think you'll be pleasantly surprised as to what your numbers are with WTS. We've been preparing for this for some time. [email protected] 800-982-9366 achdebit.com __________________ WTS - ACHdebit.com "Ahead of the Competition.... and Behind Your Business!"

12-19-2007, 10:22 AM	#14
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	I figure the bigger problem with checks wasnt cb but ones that werent good. Using WTS was one of the best choices we made. When I think how I used to get screwed with checks with ibill, its makes me want to cry.

12-20-2007, 08:17 AM	#15
Satan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hell Posts: 1,626	I had Ben get my CB ratio since the day we launched satancash we have less then half a percent cb, NOT bad NOT bad __________________ WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU?

12-20-2007, 08:55 AM	#16
Turf Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: ICQ: 64644691 Posts: 1,865	http://www.ach-payments.com/ach-return-codes.pdf Does anyone know which of the return codes in the pdf above that are "classified" as being a chargeback ? __________________ Daddy Strokes - mature men stroking their meat Mature Gay Movies - mature men fucking everyone! Pleasing Daddy - young girls fucking mature men Looking for submitter accounts for older men niche content (both gay and straight) so hit me up if you run a tube and offer submitter accounts for paysites.

12-20-2007, 10:24 AM	#17
Ben.Z Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: CardReady.com Posts: 1,164	Turf - the following R-codes are all considered charge-backs... R05, R07, R10, R29 and R51. Satan - not bad at all buddy! __________________ *Credit Card Processing for Adult Merchants* Contact me: Ben Z. (ben\|AT\|CardReady.com) ICQ_138827832 Toll Free: 1.888.398.6001 Ext.212

12-20-2007, 02:41 PM	#18
rowan Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 17,393	Hmmm, thought just popped to mind... is a returned check (ie deliberate falsifying of details to gain a few days free access) considered a chargeback?

12-20-2007, 02:53 PM	#20
corvette Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: scottsdale Posts: 7,880	That?s the thing. We are not talking about returns where a merchant was presented a made up account # and routing # and the check was returned because it could not be linked to an account. Its my understanding that its only for "unauthorized" transactions (the equivalent of a chargeback on the banking network), which make up a small portion of the total returns. __________________ If you need a good company for check writing services, then check out checkissuing, and for webhosting, check out Phoenix NAP