MasterCard and Visa targeted in Target lawsuit

The Target data breach, which compromised the data of 40 million cardholders continues to have ramifications across the industry. Following a class-action lawsuit against Target for the data breach, MasterCard and Visa are now targets of a separate class-action lawsuit related to the breach.

However, even if EMV had been adopted earlier in the US, this would not have prevented the data breach from occurring, given that it was the result of malware-infected POS systems. EMV does not prevent card-not-present fraud, which is a growing problem for online merchants. Instead, payment networks and other stakeholders are now focusing on tokenisation, which encrypts payment data at the POS. 

In an order dated August 13, the US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation detailed claims that the networks’ delay in implementing EMV in the US was a factor in the breach occurring. The lawsuit also asks why the networks “declined to implement that technology in the US, and whether the technology would have prevented harm to plaintiffs and class members – not just from the Target data breach, but from any number of data breaches in the last two decades,” the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation stated.

 

 Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   Website

What you need to know about Merchant category codes (MCC)

Accepting credit and debit cards as a payment option can be a highly profitable choice for most merchants, as it offers customers the convenience of one of the most commonly and easily used forms of payment, thereby making it simpler for them to patronize the merchant’s business and potentially spend more than they otherwise might. However, as any merchant who has applied for a payment card processing account is aware, not all merchant accounts are the same. When a business first applies to a processing institution for an account, it is assigned a merchant category code (MCC) based on the primary kind of business it offers. This four-digit code was originally implemented in 2004 as a means of simplifying tax reporting, but has since expanded to have a number of other applications.

Merchant category codes allow payment card processors to describe succinctly the type of market segment a given business occupies based on the primary form of goods or services it offers. A restaurant, a gas station, and a computer software store will each have a different MCC number that indicates the sort of merchant it is. The original purpose for these codes was to make 1099 reporting simpler for commercial customers, who needed to report payments made for the purchase of services, but not for goods, on their tax forms. Rather than having to review each individual transaction, they could simply refer to the merchant’s MCC number to indicate whether the business was listed as a seller of goods or a service provider.

Since then, merchant category codes have been put to other uses, some of which have more immediate relevance for the merchant itself. Credit card processing companies charge an interchange fee for each transaction they process. The interchange fee is separate from the markup these companies apply for their own profit, and reflects the expected risk of chargebacks and refunds for transactions of a given type. Interchange fees vary based on a combination of factors, including the type of payment card being used, whether the transaction is keyed, swiped, or online, and what kind of business is receiving the payment. This is where your merchant category code comes into play. Certain types of businesses carry a lower risk for payment processors, and thus have lower interchange fees for the merchant. By ensuring that your merchant category code is accurate, you may discover that you qualify for a different interchange rate, which could be lower than the typical rates.

Another usage of merchant category codes is most relevant to your customers, but a savvy merchant may be able to exploit it to make their business a more appealing place to spend money. Many credit cards offer rewards, such as cash back or airline miles, to cardholders who use their card for transactions at certain types of businesses. Some will offer double or triple points when the card is used to buy groceries, gas, prescriptions, or similar everyday needs. Whether these bonuses apply is determined by the MCC number of the terminal where the transaction takes place. Which code a given merchant has been assigned isn’t always obvious – often, different store locations within the same franchise will have different merchant category codes. For instance, one Target store might be categorized as a grocery store, but the Target in the next town may have the MCC of a discount store. Some stores have separate MCC numbers for their pharmacy terminals. Ensuring that your MCC number is accurate and reflects a business type that offers maximal rewards to your customers can make your business a more attractive place to shop.

We have a team of experts to answer any additional questions you may have regarding MCC Codes or merchant accounts in general. Contact us at below:

 Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   Website

How to Stop Chargebacks Before They Hit Your Bottom Line

When a customer disputes a charge, the issuing bank assumes the retailer is guilty until proven innocent. You’re left holding the bag as the bank debits your account and charges a fee for the chargeback.

Is this just a cost of doing business? It doesn’t have to be. You can fight back and prevent the pain chargebacks inflict on your business’ revenues and profits.

However, you first need to understand that you’re starting from behind in the race against chargebacks.

The Chargeback Lifecycle is Long and Leaves the Merchant in the Dark

Merchants are usually kept in the dark about a chargeback issue until very late in the process as noted below.

1. A customer disputes a transaction, typically bypassing the merchant and going directly to their card issuer. In fact, Verifi’s research shows that 86% of the time cardholders will not contact the merchant until after a dispute was filed…or not at all!

2. The issuer, a bank or institution that offers credit to the cardholder, credits the customer.

3. The card brand, such as Visa or MasterCard, processes the dispute.

4. The acquirer, the bank or financial institution that processes card payments for the merchant, receives the chargeback and resolves the issue or forwards it to the merchant.

5. The merchant either accepts the chargeback or decides whether to dispute and represent the chargeback, resubmitting the charge to the acquirer.

6. The acquirer then reviews the evidence from the merchant, and if they believe the merchant has addressed the chargeback, they represent the chargeback to the issuer. If the evidence supports the merchant, the issuer reposts it to the cardholder’s account. If not, they may request further information.

Finally, the cardholder receives the dispute resolution information and is either re-billed or credited for the item.

Too Many Cooks in the Kitchen

Because of the multi-step, multi-party process, merchants sometimes aren’t informed about chargebacks until 180 days or more after the sale. By the time you receive a dispute, it’s usually too late to stop an order delivery or to avoid a chargeback, resulting in lost merchandise and profits.

All these “cooks in the kitchen” trying to address the cardholders’ problem are effectively burning up hard-earned dollars from your bottom line.

 

Chargeback Notifications

One way to cut chargebacks and boost profits is to use chargeback notifications. Why? Because they put you ahead of the curve when a customer is challenging a charge. In addition, notifications enable you to relax overly restrictive fraud prevention measures which may lead to false positives, negatively impacting conversion, sales and profits.Why? Because they put you ahead of the curve when a customer is challenging a charge. In addition, notifications enable you to relax overly restrictive fraud prevention measures which may lead to false positives, negatively impacting conversion, sales and profits.

Chargeback notifications put you directly in touch with top banks. When a customer disputes a charge and goes directly to their bank, as they are likely to do, the bank immediately alerts you, providing you with the opportunity to resolve the issue before it becomes a chargeback.

Notifications get you off the sidelines and allow you to be part of the high-stakes chargeback game. You have a chance to resolve disputes on both friendly and fraudulent chargebacks in a timely fashion. As a result, you avoid costly fines, fees and penalties…and the potential loss of your processing privileges.

Talk to us about your problem and let us help you and your business make a meaningful difference. Contact us to find out what card issuer-to-merchant collaboration can do for you and your company’s bottom line!

 

 Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   Website

PCI 3.0 – What You Need to Know

The PCI DSS was updated for the fourth time (1.0, 1.2, 2.0, 3.0) in November 2013. As always, the changes the PCI Council made address the latest vulnerabilities and include additional clarification and new guidance.

The following covers the most important changes affecting the majority of merchants.

Requirement 0 – PCI Intro

The introduction section probably holds the biggest change for PCI 3.0. Web redirection systems are now defined as system components, which means they’re now part of scope for PCI DSS.

The principal of redirection is when a website points users to a third party that collects and processes all card data. Another form of redirection is client side redirection, in which a customer types card data into a web form generated by the merchant, and is then sent directly to a third party. Either way, card data will not pass through the original website.

In the past, these forms of redirection were validated using SAQ A, but new emphasis in PCI DSS 3.0 changes that.

The new SAQ-A EP form is designed for ecommerce merchants using client side redirection.

Review the new PCI 3.0 SAQ forms 

This new direction will affect many merchants who were previously completing an SAQ A and now must move to an SAQ A-EP, which is significantly longer and includes things such as external vulnerability scans and penetration testing.
The reason behind this requirement change? If a hacker is able to manipulate redirection code, he could direct your customers to a fake payments page that looks identical to the one you had originally outsourced.

Attacker directing customers to a fake payments page (i.e., man-in-the-middle attack)

 

Requirement 1.1.3

A cardholder data flow diagram should show how cardholder data enters your network, the systems it touches as it flows through your network, and any point it may leave your network (e.g., sent to a payment processor). You’ll want to maintain a diagram for each card flow that exists. Most businesses will have just one flow, but you might also have an additional flow if your website processes payment cards.

Simple card present flow diagram

Physically creating a document that explains the processes will help you better understand where card data lives on your network.

Requirement 2.4

This requirement involves a document that lists all in scope device types and their function (e.g., POS systems, computers). This inventory list is also a great place to document software/firmware versions. If you’re feeling a little daunted by this task, interviewing department heads is a great place to start.

Requirement 4.1

In addition to GSM (cellular) connections and wireless Internet, it is now required that any communication that includes cardholder data sent over satellite should be encrypted. Depending on your business, this may not have much impact.

SecurityMetrics has many large retail chain clients (e.g., gas stations, hospitality, restaurant chains). Many of these chains use satellite communications between chains and even as a backup connection. According to the PCI Council, it’s no longer good enough to rely on the link provider’s system security. It’s your responsibility to keep this data secure.

Requirement 5.1.2

For systems not commonly affected by viruses and don’t have anti-virus software installed, you are required to implement and document a new process that shows you periodically evaluate these systems against emerging threats.

The point of Requirement 5.1.2 is to acknowledge hackers invent new ways to hack into systems every day. It requires merchants to research and pay attention to security notices from PCI vendors. If a new attack method is deemed a threat to your system, evaluate if the threat requires anti-virus.

Requirement 5.3

This requirement states that anti-virus can’t be altered without managerial approval. Often, anti-virus needs to be turned off to do system maintenance. During maintenance, who knows what could slip past your unguarded system.

My advice is, if you are updating an application that requires disabling an anti-virus, don’t. Instead, take that system off the network or cut off its Internet connectivity for that period. As a side note, it’s not OK for system admins to just give all users admin access to get around the requirement. That’s missing the point entirely.

Requirement 6.3

Any custom software application for a cardholder environment (whether in-house or commissioned by a third party developer) is under your jurisdiction. It’s ok to outsource your software development, but it’s not OK to outsource your responsibility to ensure secure development practices are followed. If you’re planning to use the application, remember that it’ll be part of your PCI assessment…not your third party’s.

Requirement 6.5.10

This requirement to protect against broken authentication was added to fix common application vulnerabilities. You should create/add/adjust your application code to mitigate any exposure to vulnerabilities. This can be done through not exposing session IDs in URLs, using secure cookies, and enforcing appropriate session timeouts.

Requirement 7.1.1

You’re required to have a role-based access control system. That means access to card data and systems should only be granted on a need-to-know basis. PCI 3.0 requires a defined list of the roles that have access to the card data environment.

On this list, you should include each role, definition of each role, access to data resources, privilege level, and what privilege level is necessary for each person to perform normal business responsibilities. Users must fit into one of the roles you outline.

Requirement 8.4

Organizations are now required to not just document, but also train their users on how to implement password policies. This training should include guidance on how to select a strong password, how to secure it, and instructions not to reuse it.

It’s also crucial that you communicate password policy to your users. This will help them understand how to change their passwords and also not to use the same password between work and home.

Requirement 8.5.1

This new requirement is targeted specifically towards service providers who have remote access into a customer environment. This is common practice with vendors who do remote support or software training.

Any service provider with access to multiple customer systems is now required to maintain unique credentials for each customer environment. The PCI Council knows this requirement in particular will take some time to change, so they’ve given until July 2015 before this is officially required.

Requirement 8.6

The use of alternative authentication mechanisms (e.g., logical tokens, smart cards, certificates) must be tied to an individual user account and not shared among user accounts. To ensure this is met, every merchant must implement a control to enforce those authentication methods can only be used by the intended user (e.g., requiring a PIN, password, or biometric scan in addition to the token to validate the person is authorized).

Requirement 9.3

This requirement is all about controlling employee access to sensitive areas, which must be related to an individual’s job function. To meet this requirement, it’s  exactly who has access to these environments and their business need. Access must be kept up to date, especially when individuals are terminated or their job role changes.

 

Requirement 9.9

This is a huge addition to the PCI standards. Organizations that use point of sale systems, PIN pads, mobile devices etc., are required to do three new things:

1. Maintain an up-to-date list of all devices (9.9.1) including physical location, serial numbers, make/model.
2. Periodically inspect devices (9.9.2). That means looking at device surfaces to make sure they haven’t been tampered with, making sure the serial numbers match, checking that seals haven’t been broken, etc. This could be a very large task depending on the size of your organization. Whether you inspect devices every day or month is based on how at risk you are of tampering (e.g., publically accessible 24/7 gas station terminals vs. a behind-the-counter card swipe device). Make sure you document what you find.
3. Provide staff awareness training (9.9.3) for staff that interact with card present devices on a day to day basis (e.g., cashiers), and record the who, what, and when for future reference. Ideally, the training will help staff detect any suspicious activity around a payment device. Training should include how to report suspicious behavior and what to do when third parties claim they need to work on the system. For example, rather than assuming IT came in last night to install a new device on the side of her terminal, an employee should question if its supposed to be there and notify appropriate persons.

 

Requirement 10.6.2

Depending on its size and complexity, this requirement could have a large impact on your environment. In addition to the logging requirements in 10.6.1, you’re now required to review logs of all other system components periodically, based on your policies and risk management strategy.

Lots of different systems in your environment may impact your payment security. As part of your annual risk assessment, you need to identify systems that pose risk and define a process to periodically look at their logs to determine suspicious activity.

Requirement 11.1.1

Maintaining a complete list of authorized wireless access points will require extra documentation, especially in large environments. This list should include a documented business justification for each wireless access point.

It’s difficult to determine which wireless devices to remove if you don’t have an accurate list of them to begin with. That’s why the PCI Council requires you create a total list. If you’re a small ecommerce provider and all your systems fit into a single rack in your data center, this requirement should be pretty easy. If you’re a widespread organization, it will take a bit more time.

Requirement 11.3

The rewrite of section 11.3 is intended to provide additional guidance to both merchants and penetration testing organizations on penetration testing’s intended coverage.

Penetration testing organizations are now required to have documented and standardized testing methodologies that meet industry accepted standards, such as NIST 800.115. In addition, guidance is provided on how best to scope the penetration test and identify critical systems.

A penetration test Special Interest Group has been organized by the PCI Council to help merchants and penetration test organizations best interpret this new set of requirements.  Results from this SIG group are expected near the end of 2014.

The PCI Council knows this requirement in particular will take some time to change, so they’ve given until July 2015 before the changes in the penetration testing requirement become official. However, this doesn’t mean you can wait to receive a penetration test until July 2015. The guidance provided in PCI DSS 2.0 for penetration testing is still valid until then.

Requirement 12.8.5

Not only should merchants maintain a list of a third party service providers, but now they must maintain a list of all PCI requirements their service provider meets, and a list of PCI requirements they’re required to meet.

Requirement 12.9

In conjunction with Requirement 12.8.5, service providers are now required to provide written documentation to all customers stating which PCI requirements they cover on their behalf. These two requirements attempt to avoid past mis-communication problems between service providers and merchants. SOURCE

 Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   Website

Bigger big banks

The world’s top banks are changing their strips

A DECADE ago, Europe counted five banks among the world’s top ten. Today there is only one, HSBC. During that time Chinese banks not only made the list, but vaulted into the top two places, according to annual rankings by The Banker released on June 30th. Last year China Construction Bank shoved aside America’s JPMorgan Chase to become second largest in terms of tier-one capital. ICBC (formerly known as Industrial and Commercial Bank of China) kept the top spot; with more than $200 billion, it is also the world’s most profitable bank. Though Japan’s Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group is close to leaving the list altogether, until 2007 its $117 billion heft would have made it the world’s biggest bank. Despite regulations designed to keep banks’ ambitions modest so that none are too big to fail, today’s groups are larger than ever. Global banking profits are at a record high of $920 billion—a third from Chinese banks alone. SOURCE

Paymundo has a broad global network which runs via our processing banks to merchant accounts with an effective credit card processing service.  Since our strength grow on servicing merchants , we have close relationship with over 29 banks globally and still growing !

 Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   Website

 

Raptor Racing Knockhill Race (27-29 June 2014) Report

The Knockhill circuit in Fife Scotland was the next venue for the Raptor racing Paymundo sponsored sidecar racing team of driver Tony Brown and passenger Ashley Hawes. Making the long trip, over the weekend of the 27^th to 29^th June 2014, it proved to be an eventful weekend for them in the third round of the Eastern Airways British Formula one sidecar championship. With a large crowd expected, more track time and two 15 lap early afternoon races, the Sunday race being televised live along side the British Superbike championship, the pair were really looking forward to the event. Tony has never seen the circuit let alone raced there and it was some time since Ash had raced there, so it would be a learning curve for them both. Taking it steady in Friday’s practice the pair were to shock themselves and the other team by taking position for Saturday’ first race. Completing 16 laps they were trading places with Lovelock/Alto and championship leaders Hegarty/ Neave when they took pole on lap 15 by 0.043 of a second averaging 87 mph. The top nine sidecars were only separated by one second. Back in the paddock the pair looked shocked by what they had achieved and speaking to Tony he just couldn’t believe it. Perhaps the 10 hours sleep they had the night before had helped.

Saturday’s first race was a fast affair with the expected battle between Hegarty/Neave and Lovelock/Alto taking place the Raptor boys keeping in third place trying to close the gap, but not being helped by back markers over the fast 1.2 mile circuit. At the flag the team took a well deserved third place. Tony was disappointed with his start which put him back several places and was aiming not to make the same mistake in race two.

Sunday’s race was held in glorious conditions straight after the first Superbike race. Again from the start Tony and Ash went about the business of chasing down Hegarty/Neave and Lovelock/Alto, especially with the good start they made. Settling into a safe third place and catching the leading pair disaster struck on lap five when the mudguard on the sidecar came lose and they had to retire.

The frustration was clear for all to see especially with the cameras following them as they stopped. The result keeps them in sixth place in the championship. A clearly disappointed Tony knows that they need to be more consistence to keep moving up the championship positions. Since the race Tony has now found an engine fault with metal small metal parts in the engine which means the Yamaha engine needs a rebuild before the next round at Brands Hatch in three weeks time.

The team would like to thank the following for their support:

www.paymundo.com

Wallace interior solutions

Pagid

Keith Whiting

Ian Hamilton at Express Tyres

Herne Bay Motorcycles

Infinity Pro

Jennifer Shone at Knox

John Mcqueen at LS2

Ros and Lawrence Tumber

Surlingham Solutions

Wurth

AMR Exhausts

Sam Christie

Sam Ryder

Steve English

And of course all our family and friends supporting us, fingers crossed our luck picks up from now on 🙂

(Words and pictures by John Mushet)

 

 Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   Website

 

 

Official Media release from RKB-F1Motorsport & Eastern Airways British Sidecar Championship

 

 

Double Eastern Airways Scotch, for Hegarty and Neave at Knockhill 27-29^th June

With the promise of live TV on Sunday, and a mid-afternoon slot Saturday, combined with the tight nature of the Knockhill circuit, round three was always going to be spectacular. Whilst on paper, another double victory for the Felixtowe based Sean Hegarty might look a yawn, nothing could be further from the truth.

Race One – Pre-race rain gave many crews a dilemma with tyres. As it happened, a wet tyre choice wasthe wrong one, and several teams paid the price. From his first-ever Eastern Airways pole position, Tony Brown/Ashley Hawes slotted into third behind Hegarty and Roger Lovelock/Aki Alto. It then became a two-horse race at the front with several passing moves from each. The run down to the hairpin had the crowd on its toes, each and every lap, with Sean Hegarty hanging on for the tightest of victories at the flag. There was frantic action all down the field, and a great scrap between Craig Chaplow/Patrick Farrance and the Ben Bygrave/Justin Sharpe combination. Andy Peach, despite a back-row start and problems mid-race, recovered the L&W BMW eighth ahead of Grabmuller. Ben Holland/Lee Watson (Finning Cat Kawasaki) fell victim to a wrong tyre choice but claimed a few points behind Ricky Stevens/Ryan Charlwood (AOS Kawasaki).

Race Two – Hegarty was fired up, and starting from pole, was in determined mood for this one. After early laps pressure, he was never headed, and made it a comfortable win by eleven seconds. Lovelock again showed his class and consistency with another podium in second, and Tony Brown retired on lap six when his front mudguard came adrift. The story of the race however, and thrilling for the live TV audience, was the charge of Andy Peach through the field from eighth on the grid. What looked like a certain podium for Ben Bygrave, was snatched from under his nose by a whisker at the flag, just ahead of Craig Chaplow. Again, this was an action packed affair, and met with complete appreciation of hugely enthusiastic Scottish sidecar fans. Ben Holland salvaged some points from the back of the grid and the Austrian Grabmuller again recorded a solid result to maintain his consistency in the standings.

Race One Result -1/Hegarty/Neave (Hegarty Suzuki) 2/Lovelock/Alto (Driverwolf Laxton BMW)3/Brown/Hawes (Paymundo.com Yamaha) 4/Bygrave/Sharpe (Blue Machinery Suzuki) 5/Chaplow/Farrance (E-Aide Motorsport Kawasaki) 6/BarryJames/Sam Christie (James Racing) 7/Mark Edwards/Lee Barrett (AOS Kawasaki) 8/ Peach Richardson (L&W BMW)

Race Two Result – 1/ Hegarty/Neave 2/ Lovelock Alto 3/ Peach/Richardson 4/ Bygrave/Sharpe 5/ChaplowFarrance 6/James/Christie 7/Edwards/Barrett 8/Holland/Watson 9/ Kershaw/Wilson 10/Grabmuller/Lawson

Standings – Hegarty 170, Lovelock 132, Peach 95, Edwards 81, Chaplow 76, Brown 56, Holland 52Grabmuller 49, Bygrave 46, Stevens 45, Kershaw 36, Holden 29, James 26.

Round Four comes from Brands Hatch 18-20^th July

 Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   Website

New Role for Credit Card Payments in Credit Scores

Up until now, it’s not been hard for those with credit cards to understand how to avoid their plastic having a negative effect on their credit scores. All they had to remember was:

1. Make every payment (at least the minimum due) every month on time.
2. Keep balances below 30% of the cards’ credit limits. The lower that percentage the better, but the difference 10 and 20% make to your score compared with 30% is minimal.
3. Apply for new credit cards only when you need them. Having lots of recently opened accounts of any sort may be harmful.

Observe those three rules, and you’d have every reason to expect your cards to help rather than hinder your achievement of a good or great credit score.

Credit Cards and Scores: New Factor

But now a new factor might soon affect your score, according to a recent report from The New York Times. It suggested that at least one of the Big Three credit bureaus was already using the amount by which you pay down your cards each month to help calculate your score. Other bureaus and scoring companies may well follow suit.

The purpose of this is to differentiate between “transactors,” who pay down their balances in full each month, and “revolvers,” who routinely carry forward (“revolve”) balances from one month to the next. The theory is that transactors are likely to be more creditworthy, and so deserving of higher scores, though a FICO spokesperson told the Times that it was still studying the data, and was yet to change its systems. FICO is the company whose credit-scoring technologies are used in over 90% of lending decisions in this country.

If FICO and others in the credit-reference industry do in future begin to differentiate between transactors and revolvers, it could see the latter’s scores being downgraded even if they always make minimum or higher credit card payments on time every month. And that could see a significant change in how people view their plastic.

Credit Card Companies Likely Want Status Quo

This could be bad news for credit card companies because it could result in fewer revolvers. After all, would you use your credit cards to borrow if you knew that was likely to make your home, auto and other loans more expensive?

And the interest those who roll forward balances pay represents an important revenue stream for these purveyors of plastic. Indeed, within the card industry, transactors are known, unflattering, as “deadbeats,” because those who never borrow generate little profit.

Credit Scores Like Ketchup and Ice Cream

People talk about “your credit score,” but in fact pretty much everyone who has one has many. There may not be quite as many varieties of these as Heinz has, nor flavors as Baskin-Robbins, but it’s perfectly normal for an individual to have a couple dozen.

There are three main reasons for that:

1. Some lenders prefer to use older versions of FICO and other scoring applications, sparing themselves the expense of upgrading their systems. So they may use scores calculated slightly differently.
2. Scores are often often customized so that they’re especially good indicators for particular types of borrowing. So the score auto loan lenders see for a particular consumer may be different from the ones supplied to credit card companies, which may be different again from the ones viewed by mortgage lenders.
3. There are three main consumer credit bureaus (Equifax, Experian and TransUnion), and, although they all use FICO and probably VantageScore technology, they each tweak calculations to provide their own proprietary versions of your score.

Of course, the factors that create a good or great credit score remain the same, and whichever of your score or scores a lender views, it’s likely to reflect your past behavior. But it is worth being aware that, when you access your own score, the one you see may be different from the one used to decide whether to lend to you — and, if so, at what interest rate.

More to Come?

Using your status as a transactor or revolver to help calculate your score may be just the beginning. Although the companies behind scoring systems are likely to be conservative about change, so as to maintain the credibility and predictability of their products, they are also constantly looking out for ways to better satisfy the credit card companies and other lenders who pay them.

Already, FICO is working on so-called big data concepts, though these are currently intended to help clients with marketing rather than credit scoring. But, over the medium and long term, we might see all sorts of new factors affecting our perceived creditworthiness. SOURCE

 Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   Website

Procesa tus Tarjetas de Crédito de forma Segura y Eficiente en el mundo del comercio electrónico

Paymundo ayuda a los comerciantes a que acepten tarjetas de crédito en línea con soluciones y portales de pago electrónico seguros y servicios que logran que la aceptación de pagos electrónicos sea de forma fácil, rápida y segura.

Incremente sus ventas en línea al aceptar tarjetas de crédito, débito, y pagos ACH a través de tu sitio web.

Por otro lado, simplifique el proceso de compra mediante la integración con los principales métodos de compra y proporcione a sus clientes la posibilidad de tener transacciones rápidas y seguras.

Además, Paymundo cumple con las normas PCI DSS para proteger sus datos en línea.

Paymundo es tu fuente de solución para todas tus necesidades en línea de procesamiento de tarjetas de crédito y comercio electrónico.

 

 Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   Website

Programa de Socios de Paymundo

Paymundo le da una cordial bienvenida a todos los distribuidores y socios potenciales a que se unan a nuestro Programa de Socios de PAYMUNDO.  Este programa esta orientado a asociaciones que desean aprovechar mas los mercados y las oportunidades de distribuir nuestras confiables soluciones de pago en línea.

En Paymundo, ofrecemos a nuestros distribuidores un amplio respaldo y apoyo para así asegurarnos de que están bien equipados para promocionar nuestra oferta.

Nuestro Programa de Socios ofrece un esquema rentable y beneficioso con soluciones justas para nuestros socios y distribuidores.

Para mayor información sobre como convertirse en uno de nuestros socios y distribuidores, puede contactarnos a sales@paymundo.com

 

 Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   Website