[dangrossman]

The reason Visa/MC so rigorously enforces those ratios has nothing to do with immediate financial danger from the reversals themselves. They bear no actual risk there.

Visa/MC work with an ever-changing mix of tens of millions of merchants that they never have direct contact with. There's a long chain of banks, ISOs, MSPs and other resellers between the card networks and the businesses that accept cards, yet they still need to provide some kind of oversight to avoid working with businesses or business models that would damage the integrity and trustworthiness of their brand with consumers.

The only way they can do that is to have policies that create incentives for the behavior they want to promote, and that prevent the behavior they want to discourage. The mandate to have a reversal ratio under 1% is one of those policies. Because it's enforced at the top, it trickles down the pyramid to every single business accepting credit cards even though they never directly interact with Visa/MC. Anyone with any kind of business that leaves customers dissatisfied, whether it's due to fraud, abuse, incompetence or ignorance, will end up being excluded from the network until they can rectify their issues despite Visa/MC never knowing they existed.

[codexon]

And unfortunately it is encouraging poor behavior from customers to be able to get things for free.

I think everyone can agree that maybe with a 20% chargeback rate, there is something wrong with the business but 1-2% seems possible for a legitimate business.

As a credit card user, I don't think it is their job to dictate which businesses are worthy of operating or not.

As long as I get my money back when I do a chargeback, then they did their job.

[dangrossman]

> 1-2% seems possible for a legitimate business

Somehow, all the businesses that currently exist and accept credit cards are doing so without more than 1-2% chargeback rates. That's a pretty good indicator that this isn't a problematic level to set the bar at. It's really much higher than you seem to think. 1 in 50 people walking into a store shouldn't have some payment problem so serious they have to go to their bank instead of the store to resolve it. Neither should online sellers be generating chargebacks every single day; 50 sales a day is a very small business. If 2% were an acceptable level, Wal-Mart would be allowed to generate 300,000 chargebacks every day, millions per year. 300,000 people who have a problem with charges on their credit card per day at a single retailer would clearly not be good for Visa or MasterCard's brands.

> As a credit card user, I don't think it is their job to dictate which businesses are worthy of operating or not.

As a credit card user, don't you prefer that you don't have to call your bank and dispute a transaction on a regular basis? It's this bar that ensures bad actors aren't there to take your card in the first place, that the stores you shop at don't engage in shady practices resulting in charging you more than you expected to pay, that they have reasonable return/refund policies, and that they have good and prompt support so they can resolve issues with you directly without you going through a third-party mediator.

Ensuring low chareback rates ensures high customer satisfaction rates across millions of businesses. If a business wants to operate despite large numbers of dissatisfied customers, they're free to do so. They can take cash, or checks, or debit your bank account. They just won't be allowed to take Visa or MasterCard cards. That's not a right.

[codexon]

> Somehow, all the businesses that currently exist and accept credit cards are doing so without more than 1-2% chargeback rates.

Citation needed.

https://www.quora.com/Online-Payment-Gateways-and-Processing...

"Amount over $2400-$2500 mark suddenly experiences a surge and it is almost 3.0% to 3.5%"

I have personally had times where my chargeback rate has been above 2%.

Being able to accept credit cards is more of a right rather than a privilege given how much of a monopoly they have and it is virtually impossible to accept payments online through any other means.

I take it you are in favor of credit card companies being able to block payments to arbitrary entities such as wikileaks?

[mootothemax]

"Amount over $2400-$2500 mark suddenly experiences a surge and it is almost 3.0% to 3.5%"

Did you read the rest of that comment?

"I can cite figures for Remittance industry only."

From Wikipedia:

"A remittance is a transfer of money by a foreign worker to an individual in his or her home country."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remittance

Frankly, I'm kinda surprised that they're able to operate in that industry with credit cards at all, given how attractive it'll be to credit card fraudsters.

[codexon]

And what is your point? The remittance industry is not a valid business?

[pbreit]

It is very common knowledge that 1% is the cutoff. Are you seriously questioning that?

[codexon]

I don't doubt 1% is a common standard but the parent was making the assertion that "all the businesses that currently exist and accept credit cards are doing so without more than 1-2% chargeback rates".

[pbreit]

Maybe not "all", just 99.9%.