eBay Managed Payments vs PayPal ??? * Forced managed payments

[cc-192]

I'm going to ignore the small % cost differences when comparing.

For decades buyers and sellers have been able to buy and sell items domestically using Aus. bank accounts to send and receive payments for eBay items.
The cost of doing so has always been ZERO. Just as most basic bank transfers between Aus. banks has no charge.
So eBay have now forced themselves into the middle of these normal transfers , and claim now they "manage" it.
I can see they have managed to charge % for what has always been a free transfer, I see that they are guaranteeing their earlier payment of fees, and I can also see they are managing to delay $ transfer times between buyer and seller...so what exactly is the benefit to buyers and sellers ?
Specifically what would be the benefits of forced eBay managed payments for buyer and seller over that which the prior option of  having the choice between bank transfer and/or PayPal payment ?

I'm no staunch advocate for either eBay or PayPal but I am noting people getting bogged down in the fee percentage comparisons rather than the services these fees are actually claimed to be charged for.

PayPal has always charged fees for the service of most often instant money transfers and does function as a stand alone account for members,  from which they can use funds to purchase other goods - whether those goods on eBay or elsewhere.
Paypal has offered transfer services similar to that of Western Union International Money Transfer for those who send moneys or gifts to family members overseas for example, they handle currency conversions, and also offer buyer and seller assurances that many opt for given those guarantees.

The fees PayPal have charged then could be considered in line with a company and fee structure that offers a unique package of services to its members.

For me then eBay Managed Payments vs PayPal charges is comparing apples to oranges.

I am in fact a little perplexed as how eBay have gotten away with it to this point, ie stepping in the middle of standard Aus. bank to Aus. bank money transfers as to glean a % and also slow the transfer time.

I am so puzzled by this I will be contacting appropriate government regulatory departments to see if my speculative curiosity can be appeased.

[Anonymous]

SAME FUNCTION, ALMOST SAME FEE, MUCH MUCH MUCH SLOWER SERVICE, AND I USE COURIER SO I HAVE TO PAY ALL THE POSTAGE UP FRONT OUT OF MY POCKET FIRST, THIS IS NOT AN ETHICAL PRACTICE

[Anonymous]

YES SAME FEE, SAME JOB, BUT MUCH SLOWER, I HAVE TO PAY COURIER OUT OF MY POCKET, BECAUSE I HAVE TO WAIT FOR EBAY TO PAY ME.  ONLY OTHER OIPTION IS I AM FORCED TO USE EBAYS EXPENSIVE POSTAGE OPTIONS, SO I GAIN TIME BUT LOSE MONEY.  AND THATS WHAT IT IS ALL ABLOUT, EBAY USED TO OWN PAYPAL, THEY SOLD IT FOR A PROFIT, NOW THEY WANT PAYPAL GONE SO THEY CONTINUE TO GET THE FEES,  SELL PAYPAL, THEN DESTROY IT, SIMPLE

[Anonymous]

How can you say there is no downside for sellers?  Here is the downside for sellers:

I use a courier for postage, as it is MUCH cheaper than any of the ebay postage options.  I have NEVER had a problem with the courier or delivery.  When customer pays, I would receive the money (in paypal ac), book courier for next day pick up, and in the morning parcel is gone on its way, I am paid, ebay is paid.  Now, I have to either 1) pay for courier out of my pension, then wait days till ebay pay me back, or if I cannot afford to use my pension 2), use much more expensive postage options provided by ebay. so for me the system is losing me time and money

[novo2020]

Hi ,
I posted this on here before but am doing so again for your benefit should you feel inclined to send off a letter of concern, or make a phone call.

"Ongoing trends and complaints to these departments are of particular interest and cause action, so I'll say this first should others feel inclined to act.

NSW Fair Trading welcomed lodgement of formal complaint and sighted that the fact that eBay imposed restrictions on members should they not sign up for eBay managed payments was of concern and should also be discussed with ACCC in specification relation to Restriction of Trade laws.

ACCC have noted complaint and conveyed the importance of how the trends of such complaints bring about intervention.

ASIC, upon detailed description of situation , advised formal complaint to be forwarded.

Reserve Bank of Australia are of particular interest as they control the standards by which fees such as this are structured. They will be sending written reply once detailed advice is reviewed. "

What I deduced as my best course of action was to email RBA. I did this after lengthy phone conversation with them. They have an email address for sending concerns  and I was given a direct staff member contact to send email to during phone convo.
ACCC being the department that acts on what they hear from RBA.
ACCC also consider action according to the trends of concerns they hear via phone contact, so i spoke with them also.
Fair Trading advice was conflicting over two phone calls, and it seemed they were leaning toward the "you need to speak to some other dept" approach. So I will probably file complaint with them online just to see what the next person says.

[imastawka]

Please stop spamming every thread.

We know your situation 10 times over by now.

It's getting monotonous.

And stop yelling at us.

[digital*ghost]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

How can you say there is no downside for sellers?

---

I didn't. 

I said quite the opposite, maybe you didn't read this bit? (Or any of my other posts, where I have consistently acknowledged that cashflow can be an issue for sellers who rely on immediate access to funds).

"Again, I will never say there are no downsides to the managed payments system, I still have concerns particularly for sellers, but in this specific case I do think the overall benefit to sellers (in general) is being overlooked here. "

The point I am making is that the change is not all bad - there are pros and cons, even to the same point. My goal is to show some of the pros when only the cons are being focussed on (which is happening more often than not), because people are better off taking both into account when making a decision about what is (or isn't) right for them. 

[digital*ghost]

I wasn't suggesting you go elsewhere, I was just trying to highlight the pro to your con, as I explained in response to another post a short while ago. I don't want to convince anyone of anything, what I want is for people to understand that there are pros to the cons before they make their own decisions. It sounds like you made your decision a while ago, though, and your issues with managed payments is just a (partial) post-hoc validation of that decision. 

Businesses make decisions all the time that better their bottom line, and when it's a business we use instead of our own, our choices ultimately come down to "do we like it?" If yes, no problem, if no "can we fight it?" If yes, great, let's do that, if no, then it's a matter of "can I accept the change and accommodate that in my own business?" if yes, cool, do that and carry on, if no, then we don't do that and instead move on.

eBay getting a bit of extra cash instead of PayPal (speaking as someone who only ever posts items, so practically always paid PayPal fees on my sales), doesn't change anything for me at all. If I begrudge eBay that and take issue over it, there'd be no logical reason or basis for it, but I know this isn't about me, and that is not to say I think the new FVF incorporating payment processing is fair, especially when cash on pick-up remains an option so people can still use all of those transfer options at the point of sale, only now the whole fee is applied AFAIK - if I were a seller that predominantly sold cash on pick-up items and that's how the majority of my customers chose to pay, I would be at least a little ticked about that. 

I understand your concerns, and I share a lot of them - particularly in regards to just how much control eBay has over sellers' funds and how much recourse we have if a need arises to make a complaint. (Adyen is registered with AFCA, they registered shortly before ebay started transitioning sellers - member number 76814).

That is great and all, but it bothers me that eBay isn't, and I'm not sure exactly what it would do to submit a complaint against Adyen if eBay is refusing to release funds - I genuinely want to see what regulations - if any - are in place to protect Australian sellers from arbitrary or unfair decisions in that regards, and if there are none, I would be more than willing to advocate for that. 

eBay has never been all that reliable or useful for financial records, IMHO. I've been a GST-registered seller since 2018 and pretty much all of their records are completely useless to me (this is true for both before and after I registered), not least because my billing cycle means I get invoiced on the 15th of every month, so even if their new-fangled tax invoices were good enough, I'd never be able to just download them for a specific quarter and use them to help me with my BAS, eg I'd always have to go back through the Dec-Jan one and  extract the figures for just January, and then wait for the March-April one to try and get all the figures for March - utterly useless, so I've always done my own book keeping, as I suspect most who are running businesses ultimately do. 

For a lot of people, or more specifically the majority, it isn't more juice, it's the same amount, going down a different funnel, but with some sudden unknown factors involved. For me personally, I'll carry on, until the answer to "can I accept and accommodate this?" is a no, right now it isn't, but I absolutely have an exit / backup plan. 😉  

[case2018]

Hello again,

Just been considering bank transfers in general -in and out of eBay.

They are still the cheapest and most accepted means of transferring payments in Australia. If my memory serves me correctly not only private enterprise, but also government departments put on surcharges on all other types of payments. They obviously do so because Visa, PayPal etc charge them as receivers.

When I pay other regular domestic utility bills, private businesses or say quarterly BAS obligations I am always given a choice as what payment methods I use - and the free bank to bank option is always among those choices.

When an eBay sale bank transfer payment took place there were no fees from banks. By placing themselves and Ayden in the middle of a free service eBay is giving themselves the unique-to-eBay policy-right as "transfer managers" to charge an additional fee. I note eBay have a new adjusted final value fee but I do not see any reference to calling this additional 2.5% charge a transfer fee. As I say I have my doubts about the legality of removing the choice of the only free method of domestic money transfers.

Again, when considerate of fees don't forget all those years ago PayPal's services were first to offer a quick and convenient protected means to buy and sell internationally. with fees in accordance with service provision.

It is only due to eBay's format that buyers and sellers have been steered toward the use of PayPal over the years, and so paying those additional fees have been burdened upon the sellers even for simple local pick up sales. If not considerate of their own profits it would have probably been just as easy for eBay to promote Bpay some years back , and lately OSKO and Pay ID.

The ironically similar  fee total structure that eBay are now charging is being applied to domestic transactions and do not look to offer any substantial benefits to that which PayPal did, and still does.

If buyer MBG is the only real benefit then that's something PayPal already offered so that's nothing new. I do though understand it will now apply to a payment from debit card bank account but as we all know from experience ALL  of these online dealing are open to pitfalls, loopholes and unforeseen extenuating circumstances.

I also understand it's the sellers who pay the fees not the buyers. Although buyers and sellers are members, sellers are eBay's customers. 

I think the last step in the greed puzzle would be to pimp that up with a bit of  "necessitated and beneficial" policy in which buyers are also charged.

... and sorry for repeating myself but now I have found the bold text tab there's no stopping me 🙂

[digital*ghost]

FWIW, I'm not saying you don't have a point, I'm just trying to outline a counterpoint - perhaps the conversation is reminiscent of the scene in the spoiler below. 😁

I will just briefly say now, though, that the difference between paying utility bills and BAS etc, is that you are paying for services already rendered, or bills owing and there is nothing that the utility providers etc then need to do for you in return (except continue to supply, I suppose, or with the ATO, not financially cripple you for the rest of your life with penalties etc 😰) - generally they are also fully regulated within Australia, with independent complaint authorities that can sort out an issue if there is one. Buyers may or may not have that safety net when purchasing from "superbestsales123" on eBay (I hope that's not a real ID lol).  

Spoiler

[mtshed2014]

Helpful info again, thanks.

I appreciate the correction and reference for Ayden's AFCA registration.

Odd that Ayden haven't been added to the necessary drop down field on AFCA website complaint processing, which excludes website complaint progression if not found there.

The monetary difference to me is miniscule with these new changes so I think, for me personally,  it's more about this latest move being just another in a list of moves they've made winding the screws on their sellers whilst offering flailing support. The emotions and old topics showing up in forum titles leads me to think there's quite a few others feeling the same way. I'm not regular here so these things may get revisited on a weekly basis, I don't know.

I don't doubt though business evolves and I don't begrudge the fact as it can invoke a quickening response.

Maybe I'm just not feeling it yet.