To the Editor:
In the hubbub over check conversion to ACH, there continues to be little coverage of the larger question of "is this really a good idea?" ["
No one would disagree that the move to electronic payments is a good idea; what remains to be seen, though, is if ACH is the correct payment of the future, as Nacha and the large ACH operators would have us believe.
The fact that ACH is easy doesn't make it the right answer. For example, Check 21 makes it possible to capture the image of the check at the point of sale, and process the item as a check, rather than going through the machinations and confusion of turning the check into an ACH item. Check image exchange networks such as Endpoint Exchange already exist and have been proven to work. The entire point of this article becomes moot if you process the item as a check, which imaging would allow.
Further, you could consider Check 21 to be a good first step. Work has already been done on creation of a fully electronic check (a true check rather than the conversion product marketed by Nacha) that would make use of modern technology to offer better functionality and better security.
With enabling legislation in place to eliminate the need to create the original paper check and go fully electronic at the point of creation, all of these conversion issues would go away. The need to force customers to accept a conversion to a payment mechanism they did not choose goes away. The fraud and customer service issues pushed down on the receiving banks go away.
I don't know whether something like this is the answer, but it would seem that we ought to at least be looking at these kinds of alternatives.
