Comments on: Why the Fed needs to lead on payments A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: ChrisFoltz Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:29:50 +0000 New Technology Eases the Burden and Slashes the Cost of Peer to Peer Money Transfer

CHICAGO, Sept. 28, 2011- With the rise of the tech friendly society, one Chicago based business is changing the way people send money back and forth to each other. Payment Over Mobile Solutions (POMS) has developed a system to not only cut the burden that peer to peer (P2P) money transfer is traditionally accompanied by, but also cuts the cost anywhere from 50-80% for the consumer.

For generations, the staple in peer to peer money transfer has been methods like Western Union and Money Gram. With the shift of Americans to a more on-demand lifestyle, traditional money transferring will soon be taking the back seat with other relics of the pre-mobile tech era.

POMS is a new payment platform being developed in collaboration with key partners of the retail payment ecosystem. POMS will facilitate secure, real-time payments and services via web, mobile, or retail locations, giving consumers the most flexibility of any P2P system to-date.

“The problem with new startup payment companies and merchant solutions is the cost of technology. We have developed POMS utilizing legacy technology already in place at retail establishments across the country. By creating a turn-key software solution for our retail transaction processing partners, we have been able to keep the costs low and cut the financial, logistical, and time delay burden most consumers face with P2P money transfer today,” commented Rahier Rahman, Co-Founder and COO of POMS.

POMS will initially target the immigrant and underbanked demographics, particularly those who lack access to a payment card or are without a traditional banking relationship. There are approximately 80 million underbanked consumers in the U.S. This consumer segment receives approximately $1 trillion in annual income and relies heavily on cash for everyday transactions. POMS convenience store footprint dovetails well with the consumer’s retail activity at the local marketplaces leveling the playing field and serving as an alternative method to send and redeem P2P money transfers.

The POMS pilot program will be accepted at approximately 20,000 retail outlets across the United States including nationally recognized convenience stores which operate under brands like Shell, Chevron, Piggly Wiggly, and BP. “We are excited to receive such a positive reception from our partners who represent some of the leading retail convenience store brands across the nation. Working within their existing systems has been one of the top selling points for our scalable platform. We will be rolling out our test platform later this winter with much anticipation from merchants across the globe,” finished Rahman.

For more information on POMS technology including investor inquires, you can visit

By: Publius Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:24:07 +0000 Um, guys, have you noticed that float is worthless?

By: lambertstrether Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:40:45 +0000 It’s all about the rents, Felix. Why would the banks want to transfer my money immediately, when they can hang on to it and grab a tiny bit of interest? Just another example of the looting classes at work.

By: bob5525 Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:11:45 +0000 I think that, as is usual, this is about profit. Time is money. Whoever controls the float gains that interest. Making a tiny amount of money for a very large amount time is a popular new business model; it hits no customer very hard and if there are a lot of customers it makes a great deal of money. Banks have shown their eagerness to adopt this nickel-and-dime approach. Isn’t this just another aspect of the same philosophy?

By: Finster Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:30:38 +0000 Felix, it’s not that the American payment system is backward and there is no demand about fixing it. It’s that there is no demand because of the ignorance about the backwardness.

I remember my macro economics professor late from the Bundesbank shaking his head at the notion that they were still sending checks by mail in the US on regular occasions.

I completely agree with the comment about the quasi monopolies running rampant in a framework of bad regulation. The ante for that has just been upped through the coming patent battles which are going to substitute litigation for innovation and competition.

The US is under siege economically by a mercantilistic, breakneck innovative, IP non respecting world power and no one in Washington has even woken up to the fact. (If you’re late, History will punish you. – Gorbatchev)

By: Anonymous Wed, 31 Aug 2011 06:52:20 +0000 Công ty Cổ Phần BTK Cơ Điện (BTK ME jsc.,) là đơn vị thành viên của Tập đoàn Phát triển Công nghệ BTK, chuyên phân phối các thiết bị Phòng cháy chữa cháy và Cơ điện.
Hoạt động trong lĩnh vực PCCC, một lĩnh vực đặc biệt quan trọng, do đó phương châm “Chất lượng, sự hài lòng của khách hàng là hàng đầu” đã thấm nhuần trong từng sản phẩm, từng cán bộ, công nhân viên của công ty và trở thành kim chỉ nan cho mọi hành động của chúng tôi.
Hiện nay,công ty là đại lý cho các tập đoàn lớn về thiết bị phòng cháy chữa cháy với sản phẩm nổi bật

+ Bình bột chữa cháy trung quốcABC 4KG MFZL4 có dung lượng 4±0.08, áp suất làm việc 1.2 MPa, phạm vi xả ≥4, thời gian xả ≥1, nhiệt độ làm việc -20~+55˚C
+ Lăng phun Sản xuất trên dây truyền công nghệ Việt, sản phẩm thể hiện rõ tính ưu việt, dễ sử dụng và mang lại hiệu quả tốt.
+ Van chữa cháy là loại van cứu hỏa lắp đặt trong hộp phòng cháy chữa cháy, được sử dụng để cho lính cứu hỏa tháo nước ra ngoài trong suốt quá trình chữa cháy.
+ Vòi chữa cháy D65-10AT: có áp suất hoạt động(MPa): 10MPa, chiều dài (m) là 20m, chất liệu là PVC
+ Bơm chữa cháy dragon DBD Series. Lưu lượng 250(m³/h). Cột áp 220m. Được sử dụng rộng rãi trong phòng cháy chữa cháy
Hãy đến với công ty chúng tôi để chọn được sản phẩm tốt nhất.

By: leoklein Wed, 31 Aug 2011 06:41:37 +0000 “The US is often so big and lumbering that it lags well behind the rest of the world in terms of adopting new technology. Cellphones were one such…”

In other news today: “If you’ve been wondering just when you’ll be able to get Europe’s hottest smartphone from last year, wonder no more…” (Engadget)

Monopoly corporations run amok with a regulatory framework largely dismantled. It wasn’t always this way.

By: Moopheus Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:13:52 +0000 I recently arranged for an electronic funds transfer between two different banks. It took three days to complete the transaction, for at least two of which, the money was in limbo between banks. Why? It doesn’t seem like there is a technological barrier; I mean, if credit card payment systems can work as fast as they do, surely interbank transfer should be just as fast. It used to be that banks could make money on the float. I don’t know if this is still true in these zero-interest days, but perhaps. But it pays to remember that financial services are arranged for the benefit of the bank, not the customer. It’s safe to assume that this is the way it is because it is more profitable for the banks to do it that way.

By: Publius Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:07:50 +0000 Felix, your advocacy reminds me of Chesterton’s fence. The activist says, “I see no need for this fence; I shall tear it down.” The conservative responds, “You see no need for this fence; I shall certainly not let you tear it down.”

Fences exist for reasons; payment systems exist for reasons. Fraud is a big one. Immediate payments cannot be canceled. There is a physical limit to how much cash can be physically transferred; there are no such natural limits to EFT. There are good reasons for the payment infrastructure that exists in the world’s biggest economy; changing it may have all sorts of second-order and third-order effects. Can you see a couple of them?

If all you can do is advocate for IFT because other nations have it (Which? In what context?), I shall certainly oppose it.

By: FifthDecade Wed, 31 Aug 2011 02:05:39 +0000 Living in Switzerland where IFT was old hat ten years ago I can’t understand why the US and UK aren’t further ahead on this issue. When you transmit money as cash it’s instant, so why insist on a slower, less efficient system not being replaced with IFT?