Community

Take a typical English Breakfast in a 5 star hotel in London: The cost of ingredients is less than 50p. The selling price is around GBP 25. How come the price is so high when the cost is so low? Is there really any competition in the Hospitality market?

There are more such examples in my blog posts entitled Competition Keeps Prices In Check — But Not Necessarily Low and The Tug-of-War Between Different Pricing Models (hyperlink removed to comply with Finextra Community Rules but this post should appear on top of Google Search results when searched by its title).

If someone believes there's competiton in Hospitality, Telecom, etc., then they can't deny that there's competition in Banking. 

IMO, the real problem is the average consumer expects too much out of competition. While competition can keep prices in a certain band, it can't keep prices low. Ergo, while competition is keeping interest rates of all banks in a certain band, it can't ensure that interest rates are high enough by consumer's reckoning.

Good job Monitise. The gap between its peak valuation and current valuation is now only £1.925B.

"When we started Level Money back in 2013, there weren’t many tools to help people manage their money." Wut? Hasn't this company heard about Wesabe, Kublax, et al, which launched in circa 2007 and shut down a couple of years later? This is yet another startup that has shuttered down because it failed to take cognizance of the competitive landscape when it launched.

If Apple gets a banking license and becomes a bank, then, contrary to your claim, it will not cut out the middle man. It will just become another middle man and a competitor to existing banks. BTW, are you aware that AAPL's revenue has fallen by 7.7% in its latest financial year? (Source: FORTUNE 500). So its brainwashing of even the mobile device community has lost its shine. 

@JohnCandido:

Much as I'd like to think that I'm doing something exceptional - and be lauded for it - figures don't bear me out: 70% of credit card holders in India are so-called "Transactors" and pay off their monthly balances in full and don't incur interest charges. Only 30% are "Revolvers" who don't pay off and do incur. In USA, Transactors are 35% and Revolvers are 65% (Source). 70% and 35% are not exceptions by any stretch of imagination.

I could argue that cash is adequate and that there's no need for any digital payments including debit card. The point is not about adequacy but about choice and suitability for wide-ranging usage scenarios. Credit card is arguably still the only instrument suitable for handling emergency use case. People tend to forget that, while a debit card enables cashless payments, it funds payments only up to the bank balance. In emergencies, such as hospitalizations, very few people have enough money in their bank account to meet expenses via debit card. In any case, it's poor PFM to keep big time money in a low-interest bearing checking account just to be able to use a debit card to tide over a potential emergency. It's better to keep that money in a higher-interest bearing fixed deposit, use a credit card to meet the emergency expense if and when it arises, then break the FD prematurely to pay off the credit card bill a month later.

None of this is rocket science. If the average credit card holder lacks the basic discipline and ability of how to use a credit card responsibly, that's no reason to ban credit cards. Governments all over the world allow the sale and consumption of many other potentially more harmful things by simply mandating a "Drink responsibly" kind of warning on them. At most, they can insist that all credit cards should carry a warning message such as "Spend responsibly"!

So mobile wallets haven't killed cards - even in Australia!

On a side note, why the heck is this based on a survey / sample? Doesn't the central bank have access to the universe of retail payments? In India, the central bank periodically releases the actual payment volumes by method of payments.

Why would anyone with more than half a brain jump to the conclusion that credit card means interest charges?

I got my first credit card 30 years ago. Since then, credit card is my go-to payment method for more reasons than one: Deferred payment, chargeback protection, rewards. During this period, I've incurred interest only once and it was entirely by my choice. The tax year end was fast approaching, I wanted to open a Public Provident Fund account (India's equivalent of pension) to save tax, I didn't have the spare cash to deposit into the account, therefore took a cash advance on my credit card to fund my account opening. The tax I saved was 5X the interest I paid. 

It's not a natural law that credit card means interest charges. And even when it does - out of customer choice - my example shows that it can result in very profitable PFM outcomes.

@Anon:

How many times has Cleo saved you from bankruptcy by telling you to avoid that £5.00 coffee? LOL:)

Innovative Fintechs Don’t Need No PSD2 Regulation

"Cleo ... is now managing more than £400 million in assets".

Whoa. Give a PFM access to your bank account and watch it claim that it manages your assets. As a marketer, I'm no stranger to hype, but this one takes hype to new heights.

How soon before Cleo claims that it has overtaken the BlackRocks of the world to become the #1 asset manager in the world?

@AlexanderPeschkoff: True that!