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....

:(:(

:Oh crap:Oh crap

I thought that was already in place.

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

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

I can confirm that this is true.

Oystein

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...

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.

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

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.

hmm 1% that sucks

were pretty low but 1% is really really low

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! :winkwink:

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! :winkwink:

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

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.

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 :)

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 ?

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

Satan - not bad at all buddy! :winkwink:

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! :winkwink:

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 :thumbsup

Brad