Community

@Dinesh Katyal:

I did say bank should reimburse for the first time. But, beyond that, forget it, consumers must take responsibility for their actions. Out-of-band authentication has been a best practice for this kind of workflow for ages.

Of course, if you prefer, there's the alternative where the bank blocks access to the app to all users who were defrauded and compensated once. 

@Paul Penrose: TY for the clarification. 

Only £456M? A couple of days ago, Finextra reported that APP fraud loss was £1B. 

On a side note, there's no end to the amount of security measures that can be implemented by banks. But, they all come at the cost of increasing friction, creating the risk of failed payments, and reducing adoption, as we've seen in India. Banks here have taken a lot of steps but UPI Fraud, which is the Indian version of APP fraud, is rampant. I wish there was a better way of saying it, but, end of the day, as the old adage goes, a fool and his money are easily parted, and there's no point to designing a system for the <1% suckers. In my experience, such people will anyway not be able to handle the extra friction caused by increased security measures and will end up giving their phones to somebody else to fulfill their transaction, which opens up the field for an entirely new fraud threat vector. IMO, the solution to this problem is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Instead, the <1% consumers who get defrauded should be reimbursed by banks for the first fraud, receive training on how to use these apps, and be told in no uncertain terms that they won't be reimbursed if they fall for APP fraud another time.   

Digital has improved but that's only a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition for mainstream adoption of "all digital" banking. My posts may be old but the assertions I made in them have even more backing today than when they were published 3-5 years ago. 

Let me quote some recent research about the banking industry in USA and UK: 

=====

Why Millennials and Gen Z Love Megabanks

You'd think younger consumers would be heavy users of digital-only banks. Not so according to research, which reveals a surprising demand for in-person support. For now, the big four U.S. megabanks dominate — not just with Millennials and Gen Z, but among all generations.

In total only 4% of Gen Z respondents have bank accounts with digital banks.

“The main obstacle holding [consumers] back from opening an account with challenger banks … was the lack of physical branches, with 37% agreeing that banks without any branches was off-putting.”

The research found that Gen Zers want face-to-face service alongside tech-led channels from their banking providers. 

"Better in-branch experience and service" is the #1 reason why people choose their primary banking provider.

Neobanks in USA have only 7M retail deposit accounts (Source).

"Despite the launch of half a dozen new banks in last few years, largest legacy banks still have 77% of UK market now vs. 69% in 1999." (Source). 

=====

Sorry but, based on the above data, the "no branch, all digital" model is snakeoil. 

Not just personal experience and anecdotal evidence but solid research is now available to support my years-old contention that branch and digital channels will coexist with one other for the forseeable future.

"As we move closer to the migration deadline"?

LOL. Didn't SWIFT just announce that we're moving farther from the migration deadline? 

Swift delays ISO 20022 cross-border payments migration

From a cryptoexchange, Bakkt seems to have pivoted into a Blockchain Loyalty Platform. Only time will if it will Crack The Holy Grail Of Loyalty Programs.

@Bob Lyddon:

Yes, I noticed that. But, having seen the program delay announcement playbook at work several times - and having helped write it on occasion, I must confess - that's not surprising. Even 3-4 months ago, SWIFT maintained that start date would be 2021. It's only as the date has approached that the postponement to 2022 has been announced. End date of 2025 is too far away. If we wait until 2024, we'll hear about the postponement of the end date.

My "Waiting for Godot" feeling about ISO 20022 just got stronger.

Swift delays ISO 20022 cross-border payments migration

Sorry but, for reasons I highlighted in Secret Of Survival Of Bank Branches, "eliminate go to the bank" is tantamount to elimination of new product sales. Since no bank would like that, Branch And Digital Channels Will Coexist Forever.

There are indeed compelling reasons to have multiple bank accounts. I too had two when I was in UK, currently have three in India, and so on. The accent is on "juggle". When people are willing to go thru' the major hassles of having multiple bank accounts (due to compelling reasons), the hassles of juggling them with multiple apps are comparatively small. If at all they seek a solution for that hassle, I suspect it would be via a third party app like UPI (India) or Zelle (USA) - not an app from one of the involved banks. This is somewhat similar to what happened in the PFM space: I know banks who tried account aggregation across multiple bank accounts. But such apps haven't gained traction compared to a third party PFM app like Mint.