A card programme looks like a product decision and is actually a set of contractual and regulatory relationships. Someone issues, someone sponsors the BIN, someone processes, someone manages the programme, and someone holds the customer funds — and the economics and the regulatory obligations differ sharply by role.
We help programme owners decide which role they should occupy, which they should buy, and how the whole stack fits together. Getting that wrong produces the classic failure: a programme that launches and then cannot alter its pricing, its roadmap or its issuer without renegotiating everything.
Alongside the structure we build the economics — interchange, scheme fees, program-manager and issuer margins, and the servicing cost per card — because a programme that cannot fund itself will not survive its second year.
- You are launching a card programme and have not settled which role you occupy in the stack.
- You need BIN sponsorship or an issuer relationship and cannot find one.
- Programme economics were never modelled and the unit contribution is unclear.
- Your existing programme agreement prevents you from changing pricing, roadmap or issuer.
Roles decide the regulation
Issuer, sponsor, program manager and distributor carry different obligations. Choosing your role is choosing your regulatory footprint, and it should be deliberate.
BIN sponsorship is the scarce resource
Access to a sponsored BIN through a bank or issuer is the gating item, and the terms of that relationship determine your pricing power for years.
Interchange is a design input
Consumer versus commercial, debit versus prepaid, domestic versus cross-border — the programme design determines the revenue, so the economics have to be modelled before launch.
- Role and stack design — issuer, sponsor, program manager and distributor
- BIN-sponsorship and issuer-partner strategy, with introductions
- Processor, scheme and program-manager selection
- Safeguarding and funds-flow model for the card programme
- Interchange, scheme-fee and servicing economics model
- Programme agreements, terms and compliance framework support
- 01
Choose your role
Program owner, program manager, distributor or issuer — settled against your licence, your capital and the control you need.
- 02
Secure the BIN and issuer
The sponsorship relationship that unlocks the scheme, negotiated with the roadmap and pricing flexibility in view.
- 03
Assemble the stack
Processor, program manager and scheme connectivity, with the funds flow and safeguarding documented end to end.
- 04
Model the economics
Interchange and fee revenue against scheme, issuer, processing and servicing cost, at your projected volumes.
- 05
Launch and iterate
Programme launch, then pricing and product iteration — which is only possible if the agreements were written to allow it.
Structure and economics read
A written assessment of the roles available to you, the BIN route and whether the programme funds itself.
Programme build
Role design, BIN and issuer selection, stack assembly and launch support.
Agreement review and renegotiation
Restoring flexibility to an existing programme agreement that constrains pricing or roadmap.
- Programmes with no credible route to positive contribution per card at realistic volumes.
- Teams seeking card issuance without resolving the safeguarding of customer funds it entails.
No. Most programmes run on a sponsored BIN through an issuing bank or an authorised issuer, with the program owner managing the customer experience. What that means is that the bank controls a critical dependency, which is why the terms of the sponsorship matter as much as the licence.
A program manager handles the operational layer — card lifecycle, disputes, servicing, scheme compliance — between the issuer and the program owner. Some owners take that role themselves; most buy it. Which is right depends on your team, your licence and your volume.
Primarily interchange, plus scheme incentives, FX margin, subscription or fee revenue and, in some models, lending. The mix is determined by whether the card is debit, prepaid, credit or commercial, and by the market — which is why the economics have to be modelled before the programme is designed.
Technically yes, practically it is slow, expensive and disruptive — new BIN, new cards, migration risk. That is the argument for negotiating the original agreement with an eye on the future, and for choosing a partner whose appetite matches your roadmap.