Community

Ketharaman

The report from a couple of days recording £1.1 billion lost to APP fraud was referring specifically to lossses incurred over the past three years., including the 2019 figure of £456 million.

Apologies. Try it now

No connection at all between Finextra and Revolut. It's a top story because it garnered the most page views on the day. We're just reflecting the interests of our readership

To be fair, that massive uptick may be a reflection of the output from our company announcements (ie PR) section, since every company in the world seems to want to add the fintech tag these days.

I can send you the contents of my heaving inbox if you want the proof.

Alex, just a point of correction, Finextra didn't 'swallow the bait', but instead spat it out and produced a news item that inverted the initial spin (which didn't go down to well with ACI Worldwide)

It's quite clearly labelled as a company announcement as is the source material. For reference, Finextra receives no payment for running company PR - it's just part of our long-tail news service for financial technology professionals worldwide.

While we contemplated deleting this news item, we thought it would be instructive - although painful for the news desk - to keep it live on the understanding that readers would find the comment stream interesting. As a rule, Finextra only ever runs consumer polls were the sample size is 2000 or more. Then we take a close look at the wording. So, for instance, a poll that told us that 20% of UK consumers would 'consider' moving to a challenger bank usually finds it way into the trash. I might 'consider' having the Finextra logo tatooed on my chest, but it doesn't necessarily mean that I would rush off and have it done. Alternatively we might invert it with the result that three-in-five UK consumers wouldn't even consider moving to a challenger bank. In this case, Intelligent Environments were quite specific about their claims (or so we thought). Still, we should have smelled a rat (critical faculties dulled by a busy news round) and for that we can only apologise. Standards slipped, but lessons learned.

We've made further inquiries about this poll and found that Intelligent Environments were a little economical with the truth. It transpires that the numbers relate only to millennials who are in possession of a wearable device. Which frankly makes a mockery of the claims. We've pressed for more details on how many of the 2000 consumers polled were in fact millennials, and how many of them sported a wearable device. We've yet to receive any response. Intelligent Environments have in the past run similar surveys on trust-based issues in banking. Perhaps they should consider undertaking similar research into trust-based issues in vendor marketing claims.

Here you go: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Law_Enforcement/Financial_related_crime/Report/c06