In “Understanding Credit Card Fees, Part 1: The Basics,” I outlined the information you need to know to receive the best rates from your merchant account provider.
This article is "Part 2" of that series where I help you understand your credit card fees. In this installment, I address merchant account statements, and identify key fees and charges on them. I sympathize with merchants when it comes to reading their statements. I decipher statements every day, and there are times when I want to pull my hair out trying to understand their rates and charges.
The legitimacy of various fees and charges is hard to know without looking at a specific statement. To be sure, I've seen fees that are fair and reasonable. But, I've also seen bogus fees, inflated fees, questionable fees, and even nonsensical fees. For example, I recently analyzed an ecommerce merchant’s statement that had a "terminal support fee" on it. Terminals are for physical retailers, of course, not pure-play ecommerce merchants. In this case, the merchant account provider apparently had a cookie-cutter approach to processing, regardless of whether the merchant was brick-and-mortar or online.
The important point here is that not all merchant account providers are competent with ecommerce. If you see a questionable fee on your statement, ask your provider about it.
Fees and Charges
PCI Fees. The first fee you should look for in your statement is a “PCI Noncompliant Fee,” or words to that effect. Not all merchant account providers isolate this fee in their statements. If your merchant account provider does, you will probably find it at or near the bottom of the last page of fees. If you see this fee, you have a severe issue. PCI — Payment Card Industry — compliance is critical. Noncompliance could end up costing you your job or your company if you are breached and card holder information is stolen. Your merchant account provider should insist that your company become compliant. Unfortunately, some merchant account providers use noncompliance as just another income stream by charging merchants a higher monthly fee — say $25 — versus the more common monthly PCI rate of $5 to $10.
You may see a monthly — or yearly — “PCI Fee” on your statement. Some merchant account providers have not started charging a PCI fee, yet. Those that do typically charge $5 to $10 per month — or up to $99 per year. This fee covers the cost of conducting certain functions to help them ensure you are compliant. Merchants should ask their merchant account provider specifically what it is doing for the amount it charges you.
Annual Membership Fee. Many merchant account providers charge an "annual fee" or "membership fee." This is typically around $100, and it's usually charged to smaller merchants who process less than $250,000 per year in card volume. However, I have seen much larger merchants charged this fee. What is the purpose of the "annual fee" or "membership fee"? In my view, it's simply to increase profits of the merchant account providers. Merchants should view this fee as a red flag about how the merchant account provider views its business relationships.
Supply; Merchant Club; Terminal Support Fee. These fees all apply to physical merchants. No ecommerce company should be paying them.
Monthly Minimum Fee. Very small merchants — those processing less than $50,000 a year in card volume — need to be aware of the monthly minimum fee. Moreover, merchants with fluctuating monthly card volume should pay attention to this fee. Some merchant account providers may quote very low discount rates to small merchants because they know the merchants will end up paying the much higher monthly minimum fee. I have seen these monthly minimum fees as high as $75.
Monthly Gateway Fees. Ecommerce merchants may be charged both a monthly gateway fee and a per-item (per-transaction) gateway fee. Every ecommerce merchant needs a payment gateway, which links the shopping cart to the merchant account. However, remember that the monthly gateway fee is negotiable.
2011年5月22日 星期日
IMO's MSC issues counter-piracy guidelines concerning armed security
The guidance to shipowners notes that flag State jurisdiction and any laws and regulations imposed by the flag State concerning the use of private security companies apply to their vessels. Port and coastal States’ laws may also apply to such vessels.
The guidance notes that the use of privately contracted armed security personnel (PCASP) should not be considered as an alternative to the Best management practices to deter piracy off the coast of Somalia and in the Arabian Sea area (BMP) and other protective measures. MSC says that placing armed guards on board as a means to secure and protect the vessel and its crew should only be considered after a risk assessment has been carried out. It is also important to involve the Master in the decision making process. The guidance includes sections on risk assessment, selection criteria, insurance cover, command and control, management and use of weapons and ammunition at all times when on board and rules for the use of force as agreed between the shipowner, the private maritime security company and the Master.
The interim recommendations for flag States recommend that flag States should have in place a policy on whether or not the use of PCASP will be authorized and, if so, under which conditions. A Flag State should take into account the possible escalation of violence which could result from the use of firearms and carriage of armed personnel on board ships when deciding on its policy. The recommendations are not intended to endorse or institutionalize the use of PCASP and do not address all the legal issues that might be associated with their use onboard ships.
The MSC also adopted an MSC resolution on Implementation of Best Management Practice guidance, which strongly urges all parties concerned to take action to ensure better implementation of these important measures, recognising the urgent need for merchant shipping to take every possible measure to protect itself from pirate attack and that effective self-protection is the key to avoiding, evading and deterring pirate attacks.
The resolution strongly urges all those concerned to take action to ensure that as a minimum and as recommended in the Best Management Practices: ships' masters receive updated information before and during sailing through the defined High Risk Area; ships register with the Maritime Security Centre Horn of Africa and report to United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) Dubai; and ships effectively implement all recommended preventive, evasive and defensive measures.
The MSC also agreed Guidelines to assist in the investigation of the crimes of piracy and armed robbery against ships, which are intended to be used in conjunction with resolution A.1025(26) Code of Practice for the Investigation of the Crimes of Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships. The guidelines are intended to assist an investigator to collect evidence, including forensic evidence, to support the submission of written reports which may assist in the subsequent identification, arrest and prosecution of the pirates that held the vessel and crew captive. Formats for crew statements and logging of evidence are included, as well as guidelines on recovery and packaging of exhibits such as blood, clothing and weapons.
IMO Secretary-General Mr. Efthimios E. Mitropoulos welcomed the progress made by the Committee in addressing the piracy issue. “I am pleased with the progress the Committee was able to make on all the piracy related items it had set out to consider during the session and, in particular, on the development of guidance to the industry and recommendations to flag States on the use of privately contracted armed security personnel on ships scheduled to sail through Indian Ocean areas exploited by pirates launching their operations from Somalia or mother ships. The decision of the Committee to convene an intersessional working group in September to draft guidance to flag, port and coastal States shows its determination to deal with this sensitive issue in the most expeditious and effective manner,” he said. “I also welcome the Committee’s decision to promote wider compliance of merchant ships with the industry Best Management Practice guidance, as I believe that their diligent implementation will contribute substantially to keeping pirates at bay.”
The number of acts of piracy and armed robbery against ships reported to IMO and which occurred in 2010 was 489, against 406 during the previous year, an increase of 20.4% from the figure for 2009. The areas most affected (i.e. five incidents reported or more) in 2010 were East Africa and the Indian Ocean followed by the Far East and, in particular, the South China Sea, West Africa, South America and the Caribbean. During the year, it was reported that two crew members were killed and 30 crew members were reportedly injured/assaulted, while 1,027 crew members were reportedly taken hostage or kidnapped. Fifty-seven vessels were reportedly hijacked, with one vessel reportedly still unaccounted for.
The guidance notes that the use of privately contracted armed security personnel (PCASP) should not be considered as an alternative to the Best management practices to deter piracy off the coast of Somalia and in the Arabian Sea area (BMP) and other protective measures. MSC says that placing armed guards on board as a means to secure and protect the vessel and its crew should only be considered after a risk assessment has been carried out. It is also important to involve the Master in the decision making process. The guidance includes sections on risk assessment, selection criteria, insurance cover, command and control, management and use of weapons and ammunition at all times when on board and rules for the use of force as agreed between the shipowner, the private maritime security company and the Master.
The interim recommendations for flag States recommend that flag States should have in place a policy on whether or not the use of PCASP will be authorized and, if so, under which conditions. A Flag State should take into account the possible escalation of violence which could result from the use of firearms and carriage of armed personnel on board ships when deciding on its policy. The recommendations are not intended to endorse or institutionalize the use of PCASP and do not address all the legal issues that might be associated with their use onboard ships.
The MSC also adopted an MSC resolution on Implementation of Best Management Practice guidance, which strongly urges all parties concerned to take action to ensure better implementation of these important measures, recognising the urgent need for merchant shipping to take every possible measure to protect itself from pirate attack and that effective self-protection is the key to avoiding, evading and deterring pirate attacks.
The resolution strongly urges all those concerned to take action to ensure that as a minimum and as recommended in the Best Management Practices: ships' masters receive updated information before and during sailing through the defined High Risk Area; ships register with the Maritime Security Centre Horn of Africa and report to United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) Dubai; and ships effectively implement all recommended preventive, evasive and defensive measures.
The MSC also agreed Guidelines to assist in the investigation of the crimes of piracy and armed robbery against ships, which are intended to be used in conjunction with resolution A.1025(26) Code of Practice for the Investigation of the Crimes of Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships. The guidelines are intended to assist an investigator to collect evidence, including forensic evidence, to support the submission of written reports which may assist in the subsequent identification, arrest and prosecution of the pirates that held the vessel and crew captive. Formats for crew statements and logging of evidence are included, as well as guidelines on recovery and packaging of exhibits such as blood, clothing and weapons.
IMO Secretary-General Mr. Efthimios E. Mitropoulos welcomed the progress made by the Committee in addressing the piracy issue. “I am pleased with the progress the Committee was able to make on all the piracy related items it had set out to consider during the session and, in particular, on the development of guidance to the industry and recommendations to flag States on the use of privately contracted armed security personnel on ships scheduled to sail through Indian Ocean areas exploited by pirates launching their operations from Somalia or mother ships. The decision of the Committee to convene an intersessional working group in September to draft guidance to flag, port and coastal States shows its determination to deal with this sensitive issue in the most expeditious and effective manner,” he said. “I also welcome the Committee’s decision to promote wider compliance of merchant ships with the industry Best Management Practice guidance, as I believe that their diligent implementation will contribute substantially to keeping pirates at bay.”
The number of acts of piracy and armed robbery against ships reported to IMO and which occurred in 2010 was 489, against 406 during the previous year, an increase of 20.4% from the figure for 2009. The areas most affected (i.e. five incidents reported or more) in 2010 were East Africa and the Indian Ocean followed by the Far East and, in particular, the South China Sea, West Africa, South America and the Caribbean. During the year, it was reported that two crew members were killed and 30 crew members were reportedly injured/assaulted, while 1,027 crew members were reportedly taken hostage or kidnapped. Fifty-seven vessels were reportedly hijacked, with one vessel reportedly still unaccounted for.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)