Card Issuing & Programme Management

Card Programme Design

A card programme is not a product category: it is an interconnected set of commercial, technical, and regulatory decisions that determine the economics, risk profile, and customer proposition of every card the programme issues. The fundamental decisions that must be made before a card processor is selected or a scheme agreement is signed include: the target customer segment (consumer, corporate, prepaid, payroll), the card network (Visa, Mastercard, Amex, or a domestic scheme such as mada, BENEFIT, or Meeza), the programme model (bank-issued, fintech co-brand, branded prepaid), and the commercial structure (interchange-funded rewards, fee-based, FX revenue).

Each of these choices interacts with the others in ways that are not always visible until implementation is underway. A consumer rewards card designed to maximise interchange revenue will have different processor requirements, different fraud characteristics, and different regulatory treatment than a payroll prepaid card targeted at migrant workers in the GCC. Getting the programme architecture right at the design stage prevents expensive restructuring after launch.

We work with banks, fintechs, and non-bank issuers at the programme design stage to define the product architecture, model the unit economics under realistic volume assumptions, and produce a requirements specification that drives processor selection and scheme negotiation from a position of clarity rather than reaction.

• Programme architecture: card type, network, customer segment, and commercial model definition
• Unit economics modelling: interchange income, processor costs, fraud losses, reward liability, and contribution margin at scale
• Regulatory classification: banking licence vs e-money licence vs BIN sponsorship: implications for each
• Go-to-market strategy: distribution model, partner channels, and customer acquisition cost modelling

Discuss this →

Card Processor Selection

The card processing market has changed significantly since the era when a bank's only credible options were the large incumbent processors. API-first card issuing platforms: Marqeta, i2c, GPS (Global Processing Services), Thredd (formerly GPS), Nuvei, and regional alternatives , have introduced a generation of processing infrastructure that is faster to deploy, more configurable, and better suited to fintech and embedded finance use cases than legacy systems. The trade-offs are real: modern platforms typically offer superior developer experience and configurability at the cost of some of the depth and coverage that incumbent processors offer for complex banking products.

Processor selection for a card programme is one of the most consequential technology decisions an issuer makes. Migrating a live card programme between processors is expensive, operationally risky, and disruptive to cardholders. Getting the initial selection right: based on objective evaluation against requirements, not on sales presentations and reference sites curated by the vendor , is worth the time and analytical effort it demands.

Our processor selection engagements cover requirements specification (functional, technical, regulatory, and commercial), RFP design, scoring framework, reference client interviews (independently arranged, not vendor-curated), commercial negotiation support, and implementation readiness review.

• Requirements specification across processing functionality, scheme support, regional coverage, and API quality
• RFP design and evaluation scoring framework calibrated to programme priorities
• Independent reference checks with implementations comparable to the client's programme
• Commercial term negotiation: processing fees, per-authorisation costs, minimum volume commitments, and penalty structures
• Transition planning for programmes migrating from an existing processor

Discuss this →

BIN Sponsorship and Scheme Membership

Issuing a Visa or Mastercard requires access to a BIN (Bank Identification Number): a range of card numbers allocated by the scheme to a licensed member institution. For fintechs, non-bank issuers, and new market entrants, there are two routes to BIN access: BIN sponsorship, where the issuer operates under the BIN of an existing scheme member bank; or direct scheme membership, where the issuer applies for principal or affiliate membership in its own right.

The choice between these routes is not simply a cost question, though cost is a significant factor. BIN sponsorship is faster to launch, requires no direct scheme relationship, and places regulatory responsibility primarily on the sponsoring bank. Direct membership provides greater control, removes commercial dependency on the sponsor, and is essential for programmes that need to access scheme programme benefits (such as Visa Commercial Solutions or Mastercard Business Card programmes) directly. Direct membership also requires meeting scheme capital requirements, completing a technical certification programme, and entering a direct scheme agreement: a process that typically runs six to twelve months in GCC markets.

• BIN sponsorship structure: sponsor bank selection, contractual terms, liability allocation, and commercial economics
• Scheme membership assessment: principal vs affiliate, capital requirements, technical certification, and application support for Visa and Mastercard in GCC jurisdictions
• Domestic scheme participation: mada (Saudi Arabia), BENEFIT (Bahrain/regional), Meeza (Egypt), Jaywan (Qatar): membership requirements and technical integration
• Scheme product programme selection: Visa Commercial Solutions, Mastercard Business Card, consumer rewards programme eligibility

Discuss this →

Commercial Card Programmes

Commercial card programmes: corporate cards, purchasing cards, virtual cards for B2B spend, and travel and entertainment card programmes , operate on different commercial logic than consumer programmes. Interchange rates for commercial cards are typically higher than for consumer cards in markets without regulatory interchange caps, reflecting the additional data richness and the corporate credit risk carried by the issuer. In markets with interchange caps (the EU and UK under the IFR), commercial cards are generally exempt from the consumer card caps, preserving a different interchange economics.

The commercial card value proposition for corporates centres on spend visibility, policy control, and programme economics: rebates on spend volume, category-level controls, and integration with expense management systems. For an issuer, a well-designed commercial card programme delivers higher interchange revenue per transaction than a consumer programme (particularly where Level 2 and Level 3 data is submitted correctly), lower fraud losses (corporate authorisation models and spend controls suppress fraud rates), and longer cardholder tenures.

Virtual Card Programmes

Virtual card issuance: single-use or multi-use card numbers generated programmatically for specific suppliers or transaction types , has become a foundational capability for B2B payment programmes, travel management companies, and embedded finance platforms. The commercial model varies: some virtual card programmes generate issuer interchange revenue on each transaction; others are positioned as a working capital or reconciliation tool where the revenue model is a platform fee or yield on the float.

For GCC corporates and fintechs building virtual card programmes, the processor selection is critical: not all processors support the per-transaction controls (exact-match authorisation rules, single-use expiry, supplier-specific limits) that make virtual cards operationally useful for AP automation.

• Corporate card programme design: credit structure, spend controls, integration with ERP and expense management systems
• Level 2 and Level 3 data submission: qualification requirements, technical implementation, interchange savings modelling
• Virtual card programme architecture: single-use vs multi-use, per-transaction controls, reconciliation data requirements
• Rebate programme design: spend threshold structures, category-based accelerators, and payment mechanics
• T&E programme strategy: lodge card integration, travel management company partnerships, and airline/hotel acceptance

Discuss this →

Portfolio Management and Interchange Optimisation

A card portfolio that was designed and launched correctly will still underperform its potential if portfolio management practices do not evolve as the programme scales. Interchange optimisation: ensuring that every transaction is submitted with the data required to qualify for the most favourable interchange tier , is the most consistently underexploited revenue lever in card issuing, particularly for commercial programmes.

Fraud rate management, credit loss provisioning, and authorisation rate optimisation are the three other primary levers that determine net portfolio economics. An authorisation model that declines too conservatively suppresses cardholder satisfaction and reduces interchange income; one that approves too liberally increases fraud losses and credit exposure. Calibrating the correct balance requires continuous monitoring of approval rates, fraud rates, and false-positive rates by cardholder segment and transaction type.

• Interchange qualification audit: identifying data submission gaps that result in downgrade to higher-cost interchange categories
• Authorisation strategy optimisation: approval rate improvement without increasing fraud exposure
• Fraud model review: transaction monitoring calibration, cardholder risk segmentation, and dispute rate analysis
• Portfolio profitability analysis: revenue and cost decomposition by card type, channel, and customer segment
• Cardholder lifecycle management: activation rate improvement, early spend stimulation, and attrition reduction

Discuss this →