Interchange Evidence?
Both sides in the interchange fee debate have pointed to a recent Richmond Fed study as evidence supporting their position (here and here). Frankly, it's hard to tell without agreeing on a baseline for analysis: pre-Durbin interchange fees or what the fees would have been but for Durbin or the anticipated post-Durbin drop in fees? The finding that most merchants didn't notice a change in their merchant fees (which, of course, aren't the same as interchange fees) means very different things depending on the baseline used: that Durbin is pointless, that Durbin saves merchants money, or that Durbin isn't working as intended because of a defective rulemaking by the Fed.
In the midst of the race to claim vindication based on the study, however, no one seems to have noticed that a least some of the data used in the study—which comes from a merchant survey conducted by Javelin Strategy and Research—seems a little screwy.
The very weird survey response on surcharging and discounting makes me wonder about the overall representativeness and reliability of the survey. Having done a similar survey of credit unions, I can say that wacky responses would not surprise me—the survey is not asking for data that most merchants have around in a standard form.
In any case, the strange responses to the surcharging/discounting questions caution us against reading too much into the survey in general and underscore the need for more evidence about the impact of the Durbin Amendment.
Comments