Split Funding Models

Traditionally, when merchants processed their transactions, the processor simply deducted processing fee and funded the merchant the rest. Presently, there is a growing need to split the part into several deposits. One of the main reasons for that is the emergence of online marketplaces.

From conceptual viewpoint, there are two ways to implement split funding mechanism. A company may need to implement one way or another, depending on its business model. Some business models, however, need to accommodate both ways at the same time in order to function effectively.

The purpose of this article is to inform the readers about the two types of split funding platforms, so that they could choose the more suitable platform type.

Customized split: split funding on the submitter’s end

The most common and simple type of split funding mechanism is as follows. When a transaction is processed, the submitter specifies, how the funds are to be split. Say, there are two or three recipients specified at the moment of transaction submission. Recipients are merchants or users, registered within the system, that are going to receive their shares of the total transaction amount.

In other words, the submitting system specifies particular splitting (fund distribution) rules on per-transaction basis.

This approach is more suitable when the distribution of funds depends on the specific context of the transaction, such as the number of affiliates involved, or the number of items purchased.

Example 1

A customer purchases a t-shirt for $25, and the submitting system determines that there is an affiliate, involved in the transaction, who should receive $5. Therefore, the system specifies that the total transaction amount is $25, of which $5 should go to the affiliate.

We should note that, when the next t-shirt is sold, the distribution of funds might, actually, be different.

Pre-defined distribution: split funding on the gateway’s end

Under the second model (the more complex one), the split funding rules are set up in advance in the system itself (on the payment gateway’s end). Some information on merchant services commission sharing is available here {link}.

The second model is more suitable when the distribution rules are the same from transaction to transaction.

Example 2

An online rent payment software vendor partners with some specific payment gateway. The gateway charges a convenience fee. For each transaction the rent payment software charges $4.50 from that convenience fee. The rules can be configured accordingly in the rent payment software and recorded on the gateway’s end.

Example 3

An online store sells t-shirts and hoodies online. T-shirts and hoodies are provided by two different vendor companies. For t-shirt sales the online store marks up 10%, while for sales of hoodies it marks up 8% of net transaction amounts. The rest (90% and 92%) of net transaction amounts, respectively, goes to the vendors. Consequently, after the respective distribution rules are setup, when a transaction happens, it will be sufficient to specify the vendor involved.

Split funding peculiarities

We should note, that in each split funding scenario it should be clear, who is responsible for the payment of fees. In most cases it is easier to make the account, under which the transaction is processed, responsible for the entirety of the fees. In other words, the entire fee is paid by the merchant and not split into parts. However, there might be scenarios, when the fee needs to be split between multiple parties.

Another issue to address is handling of void and refund transactions. As every sale transaction is eventually split into multiple ones, it is necessary to define, how the sub-transactions can be voided or refunded. The simplest option is to allow void/refund of the main transaction and, subsequently, void or refund all sub-transactions. However, more customized scenarios may also be required.

Conclusion

Your choice of split funding platform should depend on particular split funding needs of your business.
If splitting logic is complex and context-dependant, while the software integrator (customer) needs to have full control of the distribution rules, the first (customized split) model is preferable.
If splitting rules are more or less consistent from case to case, the second approach (pre-defined distribution) might be more appropriate.