Community

@Bill Trueman:

One day, it'll all come down to limitations of ISO 8587 v. ISO 20022 and differences in implementation in different parts of the world but I think we're not there yet. As of now, the problem seems to lie with incompleteness / vagueness of specs and that's applicable virtually all over the world. We're seeing this in Open Banking, with specs on access method, consent type still undecided. We're also seeing this in FPS. Like I quoted from FPS website in PSA: Insist On Receipt When You Pay By NEFT And FPS, "Once the payment has been made, ... Each sending bank will decide how this confirmation will be made available to its own customer." With total ambiguity around such a crucial element of the transaction, it's not surprising that different customers have different levels of comfort w.r.t. security of FPS, NEFT and other A2A PUSH MOPs.

On a side note, any idea what's the status of the Enhanced Remittance initiative in your part of the world?

Personally, I have a big problem with PUSH payments: Lack of receipt by default. PSA: Insist On Receipt When You Pay By NEFT And FPS. Unless this problem is addressed and redressed, I'll find PUSH insecure and will prefer card payments (PULL). Either way, it's Pay By Bank:)

"It would however enable those retailers to become for competitive as the margins they currently pay to the major card schemes could (in part or in full) be passed on to their customers." This is highly delusional. Retailers already incur less cost on debit card than credit card payments. How many retailers pass on the benefit by charing a lower price to customers paying by debit card? Replace debit card in the above statement with cash and the question still remains. OTOH, when the V/MC removed the No-Surcharge rule, several merchants slapped 7.5% surcharge even though they incurred only 2% MDR. End of the day, virtually every industry is greedy. Banks act out their greed with sophistication and remain the most profitable industry. Retailers act out their greed crudely and remain one of the least profitable industries.

Nice list on paper. Can you cite a case study of its adoption in any other industry? For example, Facebook Twitter LinkedIn are all social networks. Do they all use the same API to make info available to third parties?

@Bob Lyddon:

To summarize my understanding of what Michael Lewis wrote in his bestseller "Big Short", guys who created structured financial products are top of class from Ivy League colleges; guys who rated structured financial products are middle of class from Tier 2 colleges; GFC is not the first time that smart guys hoodwinked mediocre guys; it won't be the last time either.

Maybe his worldview is cynical, stereotyped and politically incorrect but it sounds quite plausible. It also explains why the same CRAs still have 94% market share - the smart guys wouldn't want the existing mediocre guys to be replaced.

@Bob Lyddon:

I'm from IT and I guess I'm guilty as charged. Your last paragraph is the money quote. To the list of culpabable parties, let me add CRAs. As I'd written at the time in my post entitled Credit Rating Agencies & The Financial Meltdown on my personal blog, consumers and banks were partaking in the festivities of easy loans and hefty fees whereas CRAs were sleeping at their post (if not worse). And, what's worse, for all the talk of disruption from fintechs and regtechs, the same CRAs still enjoy 94% market share today (Source: WSJ).

If this "zero sum" notion were true, the GDP of Earth should have remained constant - since there are no exports out of Earth. But we all know that combined GDP of all nations on Earth has been growing with time. I guess some of the commenters haven't heard about MBS, CDO, CDO2 and other structured financial products that banks have created out of thin air and from which they've made huge revenues and whopping margins, which is one reason why, despite all the competition and threat of disintermediation by every Tom Dick and Harry, finserv has remained the most profitable sector in FORTUNE 500 for a long time.

I've been hearing calls for relationship banking, personalized banking, etc. for at least 10 years. The jury's out on whether banks have delivered personalized banking or not. But one thing is absolutely clear: Banking is the most profitable sector in the world. And this trend has continued despite threats of disruption from fintechs for the past 5-7 years. 

OTOH, personalization in financial services is somewhat antithetical to its business model that's predicated on pooled risk. Besides, there's a thin dividing line between personalization and discrimination in a regulated industry like banking. As I'd highlighted my experience and anecdotal evidence in my blog post Banks Will Know Chipotle Is Going Bankrupt Before Chipotle, customers DON'T want too much personalization in financial services.

While banks do have a lot of data for providing personalized products / services, I'm not too sure if personalization beyond a certain extent is a smart thing.

RTP has been around for nearly 10 years in the form of Faster Payments but card is still the most popular cashless payment. Merchants can only dream. It's really the actions of banks and consumers that will decide whether Open Banking / RTP will overtake card payments. Banks by virtue of the control they exercise over the account authorization journey by Open Banking PISPs. Per Open Banking in the UK; a disaster in the making?, there's so much friction in the authorization journey that there isn't a single PISP that uses API access. Coming to customers, they get deferred payment, reward points and fraud protection when they pay with card. They don't get these benefits with OB / RTP. What's their compelling reason to switch to an OB / RTP payment (if and when one is available)?

@Rittick Banerjee:

You're preaching to the converted when you say branch expansion is not industry-wide because that's exactly what I've said myself in my original post:) That said, I can assure you that the phenomena is not restricted to the said bank. My OP has several examples of other banks that are also setting up / expanding their branch networks e.g. payment banks. Subsequent to my OP, Axis Bank (India) and JPMC (USA) are two more banks that have announced new branch openings as their GTM to enter new markets where their presence is nil / low.

Not sure why you think topline of banks is not "glamarous" (sic). The said bank is hailed for its consistenly-above market topline and bottomline performance. Besides, FINANCIALS is the largest sector by revenues and profits in the latest FORTUNE 500.

I firmly believe that convenience dictates channel preference far more than cultural differences, tech savviness, demographics, which banking activity / product is simple versus complex, and other factors. This is somewhat borne out by what Simple's CEO said in a recent interview: "...the reality is that most millennials, like most Americans, bank at the top four banks".

@Vijay D: 

TY for your kind words. I knew about JPMC but I missed BofA's announcement about the addition of 400 new branches. Thanks for the info.