Community

If 20% of UK consumers say that they have a daily banking relationship with a Neobank and one in five millenials say the same, then given that 20% and one in five are mathematically identical, millenials are no different to any other users. So why highlight it?

But my point is that you can insure the other assets, but you cannot insure crypto (at least, as far as I am aware)

There are 180 countries in the world that do not belong to the EU. Does that mean N26 will not be operating in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other major countries? How are Santander & Sabatell going to cope?

As you say, I suspect that N26 are struggling in the UK and Brexit gives them an excuse to quit.

There are a remarkable number of assets that you can hold besides crypto and gold - think art, classic cars, liquid (whisky, wine, etc). All have the possibility of increasing and decreasing in value, just as currency, crypto and gold. My problem is theft. When crypto is stolen it is gone foreever. I can insure against theft for anything but crypto. As a result, crypto is not on my radar as far as investments go.

Where do you get the statistic 'two-thirds of British adults now use mobile banking'? I can believe that two-thirds of British adults use internet banking, but not mobile.

Why do you open the blog with 'one fifth', a fraction, and then repeatedly use percentages throughout the rest of the article?

To answer the second comment - the regulator will do none of those things. Open Banking is just not that important.

Perhaps I have missed something, but I do not see anything here that explains the benefits to a bank to provide Open Banking. It is common when investing in any new technology to carry out a cost / benefit analysis. The cost is obvious. What are the benefits?

The cost to Square of making the transfer is the same whether it is $10 or $1 million, so why is the transfer charge a percentage of the transfered amount? This is robbery when it comes to large sums.

You seem to have forgotten to mention that all of the big tech companies named at the start of this article are American. You then go on to mention Apple & Goldman Sachs, also American.

If I have a problem with my financial supplier, I feel much more comfortable dealing with a European organisation, because I am certain that I can get the problem resolved. In my experience, US regulators almost always come down on the side of the US company. Thus I am highly unlikely to win any dispute.

I don't trust some of those companies mentioned now, so I am very unlikely to put my finances their way. I believe that many other people think the way that I do.

I trust the banks that I use in the UK. Why change?