基于成本的定价支付工具外文中英文翻译.doc

基于成本的定价支付工具外文翻译 COST-BASED PRICING OF PAYMENT INSTRUMENTS Earlier I have argued in favour of explicit cost-based pricing of payment instruments. This article analyses new cost estimates for the Netherlands, and provides an overview of positions recently taken by important actors such as central banks and the European Commission. The new cost estimates strengthen the case for e-money. The central bank reports indicate that many are now convinced that a transparent pricing structure can increase efficiency. The Commission, on the other hand, seems unlikely to allow commercial banks to make a coordinated move towards cost-based pricing in order to break the deadlock in which they find themselves today. WHY COST-BASED PRICING SHOULD BE PROMOTED The starting point of my argument in favour of cost-based pricing of payment services is the following. Suppose that e-money has, as many think, the potential to eventually provide a more efficient alternative to traditional cash in terms of the social cost involved _see next section_. If this is true, then the use of e-money should be encouraged and the use of cash discouraged. Under current pricing schemes, this is usually not what happens - quite on the contrary even. The reasons for this are, first, the flagrant underpricing of cash. The fees charged to consumers for making cash withdrawals, if any, clearly do not cover the full cost. The remainder is typically recovered via cross-subsidisation_via, for example, lower interest rates on transaction deposits. The second reason is that banks, if they charge for payment services, rely to a large extent on fixed, account-based fees. The result is that consumers who move away from cash to e-purse or other electronic payment instruments are in many cases not financially rewarded for their more efficient payment behaviour since lower usage of ATMs will have no impact on their annual bill. They also continue to pay their share of the social cost of cash since