Community

"... clients of private banks are asking - why can I login and do this day-to-day stuff through HSBC, Barclays or BofA, but I can't through my Private Bank?".

One reason could be, the stakes in terms of bank balance, transaction value and other day-to-day activities are likely much higher in private banking, so strong security is of paramount importance. Improving security often comes at the cost of a drop in convenience, as we've seen in the case of regular retail banking. Although frictionless online interactions are as important in the case of regular retail banking, the potential cost to a bank of a busy high networth individual getting turned off by a website fraught with friction and exiting the banking relationship are far higher.

So, until the point where security no longer compromises convenience, bankers might tread more cautiously when it comes to implementing Private Banking 2.0.

When I urgently needed cash while staying at a hotel near Manchester airport, I had two choices: Use the ATM inside the hotel lobby for a GBP 1.50 surcharge or go to the closest free ATM at Altrincham, which was around GBP 6 away by taxi. Of course, I could've withdrawn cash from the free ATM in LCY or Euston before leaving London; or I should've combined my trip to the free ATM at Altrincham with other things, and so on. But, the fact was, I hadn't done any of that, so the choice of ATM was simple. 

This hotel ATM solved a pain and more than justified its cost. As long as charged ATMs continue to do so - through appropriate locations and value-added services - I think there's no chance of their going extinct. 

As I had pointed out in a recent blog post, when it comes to cross-border B2B payments involving the US, cheque/check seems to be the only mode of payment that actually works, even as it takes weeks to receive credit.

Why B2B Suppliers Should Accept Credit Cards

However high a fee corporate treasurers might be willing to pay for mobile corporate banking, it can't be more than a fraction of the fees levied by banks for providing the basic corporate banking service. By explicitly charging for mobile corporate banking, banks risk being perceived by corporates of "nickel and diming" them, which could explain the big disconnect in the views between banks and corporates around revenue opportunities present in this service. Implicit - rather than explicit - pricing of the service could work better under this situation to broaden the adoption of mobile corporate banking.

Kudos to O2. Unlike Visa, O2 has explained upfront how recepients can withdraw funds credited to their accounts. 

@Dirk:

Let me try it out.  

In Favor Of Paper Statements

Puzzle Versus Mystery: Who’s To Blame For The Great Recession

Yes, it works! Thanks.

Mass adoption of e-billing has to contend with far more severe challenges as I'd described in a recent blog post. Hoping the hyperlink shows up, here it is: http://sketharaman.com/blog/2011/02/12/in-favor-of-paper-statements/

Why blame Verizon singularly when many software product EULAs, most credit card agreements and virtually all retail financial product terms and conditions contain similar language? I'd covered this in another post: http://sketharaman.com/blog/2010/10/25/puzzle-versus-mystery-whos-to-blame-for-the-great-recession/

How well a bank's data is secured by the cloud service provider against hackers - 'security', in other words - turns up quickly as a challenge for the adoption of cloud computing. However, equally important - whether the issue is explicitly articulated or not - is 'trust' that the cloud service provider will not misuse a bank's data, especially that pertaining to customers, billing, fees, and other business-critical areas.

While the security risk can largely be mitigated via robust infrastructure, PCI-DSS compliance and other technical means, it would be interesting to hear the Finextra Community's views on whether banks have recourse to anything other than legal action in the event of breach of trust.  

Craig: Kudos for pointing out that the end goal isn't about getting all payments onto one system: With personal experience of selling and implementing so-called strategic payment hubs in many mid-to-large banks, I've begun to feel that one hub for all payment types is (1) an impossible goal to achieve, given the diversity in payments across types and geographies (2) is perhaps not even desirable goal since the the current state of technology poses too much risk in putting all your eggs in one basket. I'd written a blog post about it. Here's the link, assuming it comes through:

http://sketharaman.com/blog/2011/01/15/about-technology-stress-tests-in-liquidity-risk-management/

For some reason that I've never understood, billers in many countries (USA, UK, India) don't provide their bank account details in their bills, which poses a big challenge for apps of this nature. Besides, even where billers (ex: Germany) do provide this information on their bills, the less than 100% accuracy found in OCR consumer apps adds to the challenge. If only billers would provide this information and in the form of a barcode / QR Code that can be scanned by a mobile app accurately, that'd make life easy for customers to pay their bills.