Community

I admire Mr. Andy Chalklin's clairvoyance (not just iPhone6 but NFC on iPhone6), optimism (mobile wallet payments are not subject to chargeback) and supreme negotiation skills (getting a 50% discount on interchange for mobile wallet transactions, especially when MasterCard has just threatened PayPal, GW and other mWallet providers with additional charges on top of existing interchange fees). Maybe he knows something the rest of us don't.

@EricS:

Since you'd written only about mobile banking apps, I specifically didn't bring in P2P apps. If you're referring to Barclays PingIt type of mobile app, they continue to be A2A, just that they add a layer on top which uses mobile / email as a proxy for a/c #, sort code, etc. By no stretch of imagination are they anonymous.

Study after study has shown that people ascribe different strengths to different channels and that there's a strong case for coexistence of multiple channels working together to deliver omnichannel banking (more on that in my personal blog if you're interested). "Adding Payee" is not exactly the strength of mobile banking. Too many keystrokes, not done so often that it must be done while coming home from nightclub - these factors inhibit this transaction on a mobile phone, whether secure or not. So, security is not the deciding factor. 

While I can't cite any studies in support, I'm sure most of the 5M+ subscribers of Mint and BillGuard do have a locked door in front of their homes. Point is, perception of functionality-versus-security varies from channel to channel.

Mobile banking only supports A2A transfers and, somehow, I can't imagine a typical streetside mugger having a bank account, let alone knowing about a/c #, sort code and things like that. Criminals with that level of sophistication would've left the streets long ago, graduating to the much richer pickings possible with ACH and wire transfer frauds. 

As I'd highlighted in If This Is Mobile Banking, mobile banking will really take off only if leverages Bluetooth, camera, GPS, accelerometer and other basic smartphone specs to deliver new functionality that are not possible on Internet Banking. Once that happens, we'll see security rapidly fading away from the background. Mint, BillGuard and a few others have proved that security is not even a hygiene factor when a service provides compelling value. 

This just out: 

Islamic banking could become available in India

Earlier, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had come out against the introduction of Islamic banking... The bank has since rethought its position, according to Khan, the minority affairs minister.

Welcome to the "customers want convenience and don't want lack of security" club, just as I'd commented here. 

I can never forget that legacy systems will "ultimately be replaced" - after all, I've been hearing it so often for the past decade or two. For vendors planning major investments in products based on open systems just to replace legacy applications, here's my paraphrased version of the famous saying by John Maynard Keynes about how markets will eventually turn logical: "Companies can remain with legacy systems longer than open systems vendors can remain solvent". 

@FinextraM: Very simple answer: There's no interchange fee in realtime P2P the way Barclays or RBS are doing it. Visa did try web-based realtime P2P between Visa cardholders a few years ago. Not sure if the service is still available but they did attract a big furore at the time when it was rumored that they'd start charging interchange and cash withdrawal fees on these transactions.

I promise that I hadn't read this article when I wrote, "Forget about fearing them, savvy banks will simply bypass TELCOs to maintain their leadership in financial services." in this Finextra post!

Banks Have Nothing To Fear From TELCOs

Apart from perhaps the last point about Advertising / Communication, I'd argue that banking solutions vendors - at least the one I used to work for - have been doing the other three things for ages. To take Manufacturing / Prototyping as an example, I can't remember winning a single deal without doing a prospect-specific demo, or what we'd call  "scripted demo". As for evaluation copy, it takes a lot of time and energy to enter prospect-specific sample data, set up process flows and provide rudimentary training in the software. All this costs the vendor a lot of money but I know many vendors who would be happy to support an evaluation phase if the prospective customer is willing to pay for the PoC. Unfortunately, most prospects expect all this for free, which is where part of the problem lies. Let alone something as extensive as a banking solution, I'm currently evaluating a much smaller SaaS-based website visitor tracking solution. Nearly a month after signing up for the free evaluation version of the software, I can't say that I've managed to understand the software completely. Neither can I blame the vendor for not providing the required handholding support. 

"Adding business value while achieving compliance" is a strong value proposition in general. However, we've seen it resonating well only when the basic compliance measure fixes something that's broken. I'm not sure if SEPA falls in that category, especially when it comes to domestic payments.