Subject:
|
Re: More changes at Paypal
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.services
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:38:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1783 times
|
| |
|
|
I'd prefer they pay for it with advertising and an IPO. But seriously, if
the costs of CC transactions are part of the industry then they should have
introduced some of nominal transaction fee from the start, even 1%-2%, and
then raised it from there as needed for growth. Instead of sucking
everybody in with "free" services. Oh, I'm sorry, then they wouldn't have
such a large clientel now would they.
junior
In lugnet.market.services, Frank Filz writes:
> In lugnet.market.services, William Brumbach writes:
> > Don't you love these people? It's OK to suck money OUT of your bank
> > accounts pretty much unlimited but not the other way around. It also peeves
> > me that the default payment option is the bank account given and now you
> > really have to dig to use the credit card option. Of course, that's just my
> > opinion, I could be wrong.
>
> Well, perhaps you'd prefer they eliminated the free option? What they are doing
> can't be done for free. They are almost certainly being charged by a credit
> card clearing house to process the credit card transactions. Where do you
> propose they get this money from? It's also not clear to me that bank drafts
> are without charge, so we may be being lucky there also.
>
> The unfortunate thing is that no matter how you slice or dice it, there is a
> cost to exchanging money. Normally individuals doing transactions between
> themselves don't see it. Your bank eats most of those costs (the individuals
> eat some of the cost in that if I give you money for a bunch of LEGO sets, you
> don't time how long it takes to deposit the money in the bank, and charge that
> to me also), except that they aren't willing to eat the costs if you don't have
> a lot of money invested, and this is why banks set minimum balances and all
> that fun business. On invested money, they recoup the costs, and earn profit
> for their owners by making investments with your money which earn them more
> than the interest they pay (which of course is all the earnings on non-interest
> bearing checking accounts).
>
> Look at Larry's descriptions of the efforts to run his factoring service if you
> want a clue as to the costs of offering such services (and note that Larry is
> not even earning as much as the possibly underpaid teller at your bank for his
> efforts).
>
> Frank
>
> > In lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, Julie Krenz writes:
> > > Shouldn't they be required to email us with these changes???
> > > Here's the latest:
> > > Notice Date: December 6, 2000
> > > Effective Date: December 20, 2000
> > >
> > > In order to increase the predictability and consistency of our credit card
> > > processing costs, the Personal Account $500 limit on receiving credit card
> > > payments every six months will be changed to a $100 monthly limit. This • change
> > > increases the actual limit from $1000 per year to $1200 per year. Payments
> > > funded from the sender's bank account or existing PayPal account balance will
> > > not count against the recipient's limit. At the beginning of each monthly
> > > cycle, the limit will be reset to $100. Recipients exceeding the
> > > $100 limit in a given month will no longer be able to accept credit card
> > > payments unless they choose to upgrade to a Premier or Business Account. • Credit
> > > card payments sent to a Personal Account in excess of the limit will be held
> > > as "pending" until the recipient chooses to accept the payment by upgrading • or
> > > to return it to the sender by refusing the payment. Personal Accounts • exceeding
> > > the limit will still be able to receive payments funded from a bank account • or
> > > existing PayPal account balance.
> > > ====================
> > >
> > > Julie
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: More changes at Paypal
|
| (...) Advertising, sure... good idea, but what do you mean when you say "an IPO"? That they should find some sucker investors to buy stock in a company that doesn't have a revenue model and fund operating expenses out of capital, forever? Or did you (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.market.services, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: More changes at Paypal
|
| (...) Well, perhaps you'd prefer they eliminated the free option? What they are doing can't be done for free. They are almost certainly being charged by a credit card clearing house to process the credit card transactions. Where do you propose they (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.market.services)
|
15 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
