Connect with us
https://tickernews.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AmEx-Thought-Leaders.jpg

Money

No more card surcharges: what the Reserve Bank’s proposed changes mean for your wallet

Published

on

No more card surcharges: what the Reserve Bank’s proposed changes mean for your wallet

Angel Zhong, RMIT University

That extra 10c on your morning coffee. That $2 surcharge on your taxi ride. The sneaky 1.5% fee when you pay by card at your local restaurant. These could all soon be history.

The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has proposed a sweeping reform: abolishing card payment surcharges. The central bank says it’s in the public interest to scrap the system and estimates consumers could collectively save $1.2 billion annually.

But like all major financial reforms, the devil is in the detail.

The 20-year experiment is over

Surcharging was introduced more than two decades ago to expose the true cost of different payment methods. In the early 2000s, card fees were high, cash was king, and surcharges helped nudge consumers toward lower-cost options.

But fast-forward to 2025, and the payments ecosystem has changed dramatically. Cash now accounts for just 13% of in-person transactions, and the shift to contactless payments, accelerated by the pandemic, has made cards the default for most Australians.

When there’s no real alternative, a surcharge becomes less a useful price signal and more a penalty for convenience.

After an eight month review, the bank’s Payments System Board has concluded the surcharge model no longer works in a predominantly cashless economy. The proposal now on the table is to phase out surcharges and instead push for simplified, all-inclusive pricing.

Who saves – and who pays?

At first glance, removing surcharges looks like a win for consumers. Every household could save about $60 per year, based on the RBA’s estimates. But payment costs don’t vanish – they shift.

This is where the Reserve Bank’s proposal is more sophisticated than it may appear. Alongside banning surcharges, it plans to lower interchange fees (the fees merchants pay to card networks like Visa and Mastercard) and introduce caps on international card transactions.

These changes aim to reduce the burden on merchants, which in turn limits the pressure to raise prices.

Could prices still rise?

Some worry that without surcharges, businesses will simply embed the costs into product prices. That’s possible. However, the bank estimates this would result in only a 0.1 percentage point increase in consumer prices overall.

There are three reasons for that:

  1. most merchants already don’t surcharge, especially small businesses. Of them, 90% may have included card costs in their pricing
  2. competition keeps pricing in check. Retailers in competitive markets can’t raise prices without risking customers
  3. transparency is coming. The reforms will require payment providers to disclose fees more clearly, allowing merchants to compare and switch – fostering more competition and lower costs.

That said, the effects won’t be felt evenly. Merchants in sectors that do currently surcharge, like hospitality, transport, and tourism, will need to rethink their pricing strategies. Some may absorb costs; others may pass them on.

The winners

Consumers stand to benefit most. They’ll avoid surprise fees at checkout, won’t need to switch payment methods to dodge surcharges, and won’t have to report excessive fees to the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission. Combined with lower interchange fees, this means consumers should face less friction and more predictable pricing.

About 90% of small businesses don’t currently surcharge and would gain around $185 million in net benefits. These businesses often pay higher interchange fees, so the reform will reduce their costs. New transparency requirements will also make it easier to find better deals from payment service providers (PSPs).

Large businesses already receive lower domestic interchange rates, but they’ll benefit from new caps on foreign-issued card transactions, which is a win for those in e-commerce and tourism.

The losers

Banks that issue cards stand to lose about $900 million in interchange revenue under the preferred reform package. Some may respond by raising cardholder fees or cutting rewards, especially on premium credit cards. But they may also gain from increased credit card use as surcharges disappear.

The 10% of small and 12% of large merchants who currently surcharge will have to adjust. They may face retraining costs and need to revise their pricing strategies.
Most will be able to adapt, but the transition won’t be cost-free.

Payment service providers will face about $25 million in compliance costs to remove surcharges and provide clearer fee breakdowns. For some, this may involve significant system changes, though one-off in nature.

Will it work?

The Reserve Bank’s proposal tackles real problems: an outdated surcharge model, opaque pricing by payment service providers, and bundling of unrelated services into payment fees. Its success depends on how well these reforms are implemented and whether they deliver real price transparency and lower costs.

Removing visible price signals may create cross-subsidisation, where users of low-cost debit cards subsidise those who use high-cost rewards credit cards. Some economists argue this could reduce overall efficiency in the system.

International experience offers mixed lessons. While the European Union and United Kingdom banned most surcharges years ago, outcomes have varied depending on market conditions. Efficiency gains haven’t always followed, and small business concerns persist.

The road ahead

The Reserve Bank is seeking feedback until August 26, with a final decision due by year-end. If adopted, the reform will be phased in, allowing time for businesses to adapt.

For consumers, this may mark the end of hidden payment fees. But for the broader system, success will depend on more than just eliminating surcharges. It will require meaningful competition, transparency, and vigilance during the transition.

While not a major omission, mobile wallets (such as Apple Pay) and Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) services represent a missing component in the broader payments ecosystem that the current reforms do not yet address.

These platforms operate outside the traditional regulatory framework, often imposing higher merchant fees and lacking the transparency applied to card networks.

Their growing popularity, especially among younger consumers, means they increasingly shape payment behaviour and merchant cost structures. To build a truly future-ready and equitable payments system, these emerging models may need to be brought into the regulatory fold.The Conversation

Angel Zhong, Professor of Finance, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Money

Green finance was supposed to contribute solutions to climate change. So far, it’s fallen well short

Published

on

Simon O’Connor, The University of Melbourne; Ben Neville, The University of Melbourne, and Brendan Wintle, The University of Melbourne

A decade ago, a seminal speech by Mark Carney, then governor of the Bank of England and current Canadian prime minister, set out how climate change presented an economic risk that threatened the very stability of the financial system.

The speech argued the finance sector must deeply embed climate risk into the architecture of the industry or risk massive damages.

It was Carney’s description that stuck, calling this the “tragedy of the horizon”:

that the catastrophic impacts of climate change will be felt beyond the traditional horizons of most actors, imposing a cost on future generations that the current generation has no direct incentive to fix.

He added that by the time those climate impacts are a defining issue for financial stability, it may already be too late.

What happened next

Carney’s speech triggered global financial markets to start accounting for risks related to climate change. Done well, green finance would flow to those companies contributing solutions to climate change. Those damaging the climate would become less attractive.

Governments rolled out strategies to support this evolution in finance, in the European Union, United Kingdom, and Australia’s Sustainable Finance Strategy in 2023.

Carney’s solution to this tragedy lay in better information. In particular, companies must report consistently on their climate change impacts, so that banks and lenders could more clearly assess and manage these risks.

A global taskforce was established that set out standards for companies to disclose their impacts on the climate. These standards have subsequently been rolled out around the world, most recently, here in Australia.

Finance has yet to deliver for the environment

But has Carney’s tragedy of the horizon been remedied by these efforts?

There have been some successes: the global green bond market has grown exponentially since 2015, becoming a critical market for raising capital for projects that improve the environment.

However, beyond some positive examples, the tragedy of the horizon remains. Indeed, the Network for Greening the Financial System (a grouping of the world’s major central banks and regulators from over 90 countries) concluded climate change is no longer a tragedy of the horizon, “but an imminent danger”. It has the potential to cost the EU economy up to 5% of gross domestic product by 2030, an impact as severe as the global financial crisis of 2008.

A report this year found climate finance reached US$1.9 trillion (A$2.9 trillion) in 2023, but this was far short of the estimated US$7 trillion (A$10.7 trillion) required annually. A step change in the level of investment in low carbon industries is required if we’re to achieve Paris Agreement goals.

In the decade since Carney’s speech, other critical sustainability issues have arisen that threaten the financial system.

The continuing loss of biodiversity has been recognised as posing significant financial risks to banks and investors. Up to half of global GDP is estimated to depend on a healthy natural environment.

The economic cost of protecting nature has been put at US$700 billion (A$1.07 trillion) a year, compared with only US$100 billion (A$153 billion) currently being spent.

The finance sector is falling well short of delivering the level of capital needed to meet our critical sustainability goals. It continues to cause harm by providing capital to industries that damage nature.

Dealing with symptoms, not the cause

Despite nearly a decade of action in sustainable finance, the extensive policy work delivered to fix this tragedy has merely subdued the symptoms, but to date has not overcome the core of the problem.

The policy remedies put forward have simply been insufficient to deal with the scale of change required in finance.

While sustainable finance has grown, plenty of money is still being made from unsustainable finance that continues to benefit from policies (such as subsidies for fossil fuels) and a lack of pricing for negative environmental impacts (such as carbon emissions and land clearing).

While policies such as better climate data are a prerequisite to a greener finance system, research suggests that alone they are insufficient.

The University of Melbourne’s Sustainable Finance Hub works to rectify this tragedy, using interdisciplinary solutions to shift finance to fill those significant funding gaps.

1. The tools of finance need to evolve, in terms of the way assets are valued and performance is measured, ignoring negative impacts. Currently, investors disproportionately focus on the next quarter’s performance, rather than the long-term sustainability of a company’s business model.

2. Big sustainability challenges such as climate change and nature loss require a systems-level approach. Chasing outsized returns from individual companies that are creating climate problems can undermine the success of the whole economy. This in turn can erode overall returns across a portfolio.

3. Capital is simply not flowing to sectors critical to our achievement of net zero and a nature-positive economy. These include nature protection, emerging markets, climate adaptation, health systems and Indigenous-led enterprises.

4. “Invisible” sectors in the economy continue to emit greenhouse gases without investor scrutiny. State-owned enterprises and unlisted private companies are essential to decarbonise, but are left out of the regulatory response.

Without a doubt, Carney helped us to recognise that our biggest sustainability challenges are also our biggest economic challenges.

Despite a decade of momentum for sustainable finance, the tragedy of the horizon looms large. New approaches to finance are required to ensure our future is protected.The Conversation

Simon O’Connor, Director, Sustainable Finance Hub, The University of Melbourne; Ben Neville, A/Prof and Deputy Director of Melbourne Climate Futures, The University of Melbourne, and Brendan Wintle, Professor in Conservation Science, School of Ecosystem and Forest Science, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Money

Are we in an AI bubble or just a market reality check?

Tech stocks falter as AI boom faces reality; market shifts towards gold amidst growing investor caution.

Published

on

Tech stocks falter as AI boom faces reality; market shifts towards gold amidst growing investor caution.


Global tech stocks are losing altitude as investors question whether the AI boom has gone too far — or if the market is simply returning to earth after years of euphoric growth. With valuations for chipmakers and AI giants stretched to perfection, analysts warn that expectations may finally be colliding with economic reality.

In this segment, Brad Gastwirth from Circular Technologies joins us to unpack the trillion-dollar question: is this a healthy correction or the first crack in the AI gold rush? From hyperscaler capex surges to regulatory risks and fragile market leadership, he breaks down what’s driving investor nerves.

We also explore how the market rotation into gold and real assets reflects growing caution, and what this could mean for the future of AI-driven investing.

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#AIBubble #TechStocks #MarketCorrection #Semiconductors #Investing #FinanceNews #AIStocks #TickerNews


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Money

Inflation rise reduces chances of Reserve Bank rate cut

Inflation spikes, drastically reducing chances of a Reserve Bank rate cut amid economic pressures and rising costs

Published

on

Inflation spikes, drastically reducing chances of a Reserve Bank rate cut amid economic pressures and rising costs

video
play-sharp-fill
In Short:
– Rate cut likelihood by the Reserve Bank has decreased due to a rise in annual inflation to 3.2 per cent.
– Significant price increases in housing, recreation, and transport are raising concerns for the Reserve Bank.

The likelihood of a rate cut by the Reserve Bank has decreased significantly after a surge in annual inflation.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that inflation for the year ending September rose to 3.2 per cent, reflecting a 1.1 per cent increase.

Banner

Trimmed mean inflation, a crucial measure for the Reserve Bank, was recorded at 1 per cent for the quarter and 3 per cent for the year. The bank anticipates inflation to reach 3 per cent by year-end, while trimmed mean inflation is expected to slightly decrease.

The quarterly rise of 1.3 per cent in September exceeded expectations. Governor Bullock noted that a deviation from the Reserve Bank’s projections could have material implications.

Financial markets reacted promptly, with the Australian dollar rising against the US dollar, while the ASX200 index fell.

The most significant price increases were observed in housing, recreation, and transport, indicating widespread price pressures that concern the Reserve Bank.

Despite the unexpected inflation rise, some economists believe the Reserve Bank may still consider rate cuts in December, viewing current price spikes as temporary due to the winding back of subsidies.

Economic Pressures

Broad-based economic pressures suggest that the Reserve Bank may not reduce interest rates at its upcoming meeting. Analysts highlight the need for ongoing support for households facing cost-of-living challenges.


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Trending Now