significant anticompetitive effects are likely, the Department has no present intention to
challenge R TP.
The development
of
the RTP system
may
yield procompetitive benefits. Many other
countries already have such a system, and the Federal Reserve has encouraged its development
in
the
United States. The need for
a:
faster payment rail is predicated on the value that end users
get from real-time fund-transfer services, and the risks currently undertaken by banks and
payment
service providers that provide these services using existing payment rails. Currently, a
bank
that immediately releases funds to an end user payee assumes settlement risk because the
payer's
bank could fail to complete the promised fund transfer. This risk could be eliminated
with
the real-time settlement mechanism that RTP offers. The lack
of
a real-time payment rail
may
cause banks and payment service providers to impose limitations on the real-time fund-
transfer services they provide to end users. For example, TCH claims thatthe existing real-time
fund-transfer services that payment service providers offer to their end user customers "do not
provide for real-time transfers between bank accounts, have other limitations
(e.g., only enrolled
users
of
a service may send and receive funds), and generally utilize existing payment rails to
settle transactions."
13
Thus, TCH's development
of
RTP could create a payment rail that
facilitates real-time fund-transfer services for end users and reduces banks' and payment service
providers' risks.in providing those services.
By
creating a new payment rail, RTP also may increase the variety
of
payment rails
available to banks, payment service providers, and ultimately their end user customers.
TCH
represents that
it
will allow banks and payment service providers to use other payment rails
in
addition
to
RTP, and TCH will not steer banks toward using RTP. Also, TCH asserts that
it
will
continue to offer ACH and wire services, and that RTP will "creat[e] no barriers to the continued
use
of
existing payment systems."
14
TCH also asserts that RTP will offer other advantages to its customers (the banks) and
end
users. For example, banks may be able to offer services that implement RTP's enhanced
messaging capabilities such
as
its RFP function, which may reduce end users' payment
reconciliation and billing costs.
Many collaborations
of
significant competitors, such
as
TCH, have some potential to
harm
competition.
15
None
of
TCH's currently-proposed rules seem to limit rivals' ability
to
access RTP
in
a way that appears to be anticompetitive, although we note that TCH retains the
right
to change its rules at any time, and it has complete discretion over enforcement and
implementation decisions. The Department has no current reason to believe, however, that TCH
will use RTP to harm the rivals
of
the TCH owner banks.
In
light
of
the lack
of
current evidence
13
Request
Letter,
supra
note
I,
at
6;
see
also
id
at
6-7
(discussing limitations ofbanks'
existing
real-time fund-
transfer
services
offered
to
end
users),
14
Id
at2.
15
The Department
also
considered
whether
TCH'
s
RTP
may
be
an
over-inclusive joint
venture
- i.e., whether
some
subset
of TCH
owner
banks
could
create
an
RTP-like product. Based
on
TCH's
representations
and
the
Department's investigation, that
does
not
appear
to
be
likely.
5