Community

IME, apps from banking are far more robust than those from any other industry barring, maybe, ecommerce and transportation.

It'd help if you could cite 2-3 examples of problems caused in banking systems that could've been averted by more / better testing. Memory serves, the RBS issue was caused by the bombing of an update in production despite the fact that the same update had been tested and found okay in staging. Not sure what kind of testing could've prevented such a disaster.

Not saying there's no scope for improvement of testing in banking but credit where credit's due. One clear area for improvement I see is improving the testing methods so as to reduce downtime caused by planned maintenance. I don't see the Amazons and Expedias of the world shutting down for planned maintenance very often and wonder why the HSBCs and HDFC Banks should.

I covered two examples of Blockchain insurance in AXA Fizzy - The New Kid On The Blockchain and Atlas Etherisc - Another New Kid On The Blockchain. Claimless settlement is the key customer benefit. But, as I've highlighted in both posts, that doesn't need Blockchain. It can be accomplished equally well via electronic versions of conventional contracts. That roughly speaks to your point #1. I honestly don't get the Blockchain advantage under your point #2 and #3. 

End of the day, insurance buyers don't decide the architecture of insurance apps - insurers do. Blockchain must have a compelling benefit for insurers if they were to move their existing insurance apps to the Blockchain. And there is. I'll be covering it in a follow on post.

TBH, you're deluding yourself if you think previous generations were agreeable to restart the thread from the beginning at every touchpoint with the bank. If anything, Millennials are more tolerant of repetition, especially while dealing with authority figures like bankers. 

The way big banks work, Corporate Banking and Retail Banking operate as two silos. They rarely share any information, let alone details of their loan applicants. There's little scope for retail banking to target rejects of corporate banking. Assuming it even wants to. 

NO, it's NOT early days for millennial strategy. Banks have been trying it for several years. Just that it hasn't worked all that well and has almost exited their strategic agenda.

What Citizens Bank did now with student loans has nothing do with targeting of Millennials. It has been doing similar things forever with people of college-going age, whether they belonged to Baby Boomers or Gen X or Millennial generation. Ditto other banks. I'm wondering if you're confusing Millennials with people of a certain age.

The Wells Fargo study cited by you confirms exactly what I'm saying - banks don't want to give loans / LOC to Millennials.

Bankers are savvy business people - they know what people say in surveys is not necessarily what they do in actual practice. When BofA recently tweaked its checking account terms to make it harder to qualify for a free checking account, Millennials didn't say, "great, here's the money I'm willing to pay more as a Millennial for financial products and services". They didn't even threaten to close their accounts with BofA. Funnily, BofA doesn't want them, but they still want to cling to BofA.

You can keep quoting studies of what Millennials want from banks but all that matters is what banks are willing to provide them. It'd be helpful if you can quote reports wherein banks have acknowledged that they've made so much extra revenue or profits from Millennials by using a Millennial Framework to target and engage with Millennials in a specific manner. 

Then you should also beg to differ with your own post. Your post raises concerns about delays caused by "security polices,..." but your comment seems to accept delays caused by "security clearances", etc. Besides, I don't see any mention in your post of your concerns about delays caused by lax culture, ingrained inertia, etc., which are mentioned only in your comment?

Anyway, as I said before, "I'm glad banks are making it hard for startups to access their production systems." I really don't care why that's the case.

Startups are driven by credos like "fail fast", "iterate", and so on. While okay for selling t-shirts, apples and oranges, a typical startup approach is catastrophic while handling money. I'm glad banks are making it hard for startups to access their production systems. And, in any case, I haven't come across a single earth-shattering product from a fintech that'd make me want to rush to get it.

CX is not a key component of improving customer experience. CX is Customer Experience:)

UX and CX are restricted to existing channels only in the old-school multichannel way of thinking.

Modern omnichannel banking recognizes that customers don't think in terms of channels and that channel hopping is a feature for today's customer, not bug. With that recognition, omnichannel banking accepts existing systems as they are, lets each channel play to its strengths, and uses connectors to let an end-to-end customer journey hop across multiple channels in a way that enhances UX and CX.

No, my context was not just neobanks. It was banks as well.

IMO, you're confusing banks with non-profits.

1. Yes, imparting financial literacy to Millennials is a noble goal but what's in for banks?
2. Yes, making Millennials save more with intelligent financial apps is a noble goal. But the moment banks - or even nonbank fintechs like Digit - try to levy a fee for the service, the same Millennials rise up in arms to protest against the fee. So what's in it for banks to provide such apps? 
3. Intelligent financial apps - aka PFM / MoMMAs - have been around for nearly 10 years but they've still not contributed in any significant way to a bank's revenues or profits. 

I could go on and on but my point is this: Right or wrong, moral or immoral, the highly profitable business model of banks is predicated upon going where the money is, not where the money is needed. The last time the government urged them to change that model and go where the money is needed was the root cause of the GFC.

As the old saying goes, "A bank is a place that will lend you money if you can prove that you don't need it." And Millennials can't.

Maybe my sarcasm was too subtle because I meant exactly the opposite: Better never than late.

Many assumptions made by neobanks about Millennials have turned out to be false. Fact is: (1) 60%+ wealth is in the hands of Baby Boomers (2) Millennials have taken a huge amount of student loans from traditional loans. Whether they like traditional banks or not, they can't escape traditional banks. The more relevant question is whether traditional banks want to deal with broke Millennials (3) Millennials have poor adoption of mobile payments despite high adoption of mobile phones and mobile banking (Source: Financial Brand). 

As a result, neobanks have been struggling to grow and achieve any meaningful market share. Far from disrupting traditional banks, neobanks have started chanting the bank-fintech partnership in an attempt to prolong their survival. If banks had taken the advice of finsurgents' advice about targeting millennials, they would've been in a bad shape today. Thankfully, they didn't do that and therefore continue to go laughing all the way to the - ahem - bank.

Today's banks? Actually finsurgents preached to banks to become more Millennial-centric 3-4 years ago. Then fintechs focused on Millennials started going out of business one by one. Thankfully, banks didn't take that advice. Will Millennials Bankrupt Neobanks?