Community

Actually, there's a fourth way in which Banks have already taken on Fintech: Do my dirty job while I make my money.

Square extends sub Merchant Account to nano and micro merchants and takes on the greater Acquirer Risk. Plaid harvests bank account creds via phishing attacks. BNPLs lend money to subprime.

Fintechs have enjoyed frothy valuations by promising to disrupt Banks. By investing in many of these Fintechs, Banks have earned multibagger returns.

Banks will lose market share to Fintechs but they will not lose money.  

BNPL Ain't Killing Banks. It's Making Them Rich

Sounds like good ole Factoring / Accounts Receivables financing. Amazing how a noob becomes a unicorn just as a former unicorn in the same field goes bust (Greensill).

Tricky topic.

In my decades-long experience in marketing and sales, I've found that, for every customer who protests about receiving too many updates from her supplier, there’s another who complains about being ignored by his supplier. 

IMO, key to comms to existing customers is to get two things right: Frequency, Relevancy. Some best practices can be found in my company blog at Two Secrets Of Selling More To Existing Customers. 

Open Banking has been in the works for 10 years. If there's still ambiguity on one basic rule, banks have every right to demand non-enforcement of another basic rule.  

I'm guessing banks will refuse to accept anything resulting from improper authentication by fintech as fraud in the first place. I see this going the way of APP fraud, with the Payer replaced by Fintech. Accordingly, I expect refund rates to be 90% from some banks and 10% from others.

Why is OB fraud a bank's problem? If the fraud happens via a compromised Fintech, then the Fintech should be held culpable for the fraud, not the Bank. For a bank to do all this totally defeats the charter of OB to provide a secure way to access a bank account.

In a word, Bill Shock (I know that's two words, still...).

That has already driven some banks like Wells Fargo to move back to On Prem from Public Cloud. Their experience is likely scaring away other banks from moving to Public Cloud.

I believe hidden costs like "Egress Charges" are a major cause of public cloud Bill Shock. 

More in my comment here. 

Amazing why it takes such a long time for regs to wake up and take punitive action on such an elementary and visible infraction by a neobank - despite having the prior experience of rapping the knuckles of another neobank - then MovenBank - on exactly the same infringment years ago.

Not sure about the academic background of the founders of Chime and Moven but this reminds me of Michael Lewis's somewhat politically incorrect explanation for how Wall St investment bankers were able to score AAA ratings for toxic MBS, CDO and other structured financial products in the runup to GFC: "Top of Class of Ivy League colleges always manage to hoodwink middle of class of mediocre colleges".

The latest Chime incident suggests how regs don't seem to learn from past mistakes and can be hoodwinked by the same crime more than once.

At least in the USA, Plaid first carries out a phishing attack to harvest users' banking creds and then uses scraping technology to access their banking data. That doesn't seem to fit the canonical description of Open Banking. Unless I'm missing something, I find it hard to read about Plaid and Open Banking in the same sentence.

£249M is an impressive figure for value of fraud prevented but, with due respect to Voice ID and other forms of Biometric ID, the equally important question is, what's the value of False Positives like @AndrewCarrier exhibited by this system?

I recall reading about "Whitelabeled Branch Provider" at Post Office a few years ago. 

What exactly does "bank agnostic" mean?

Does it mean I have an account with OneBanks, which in turn, holds my account as a part of its own master account at some licensed bank that I don't know about? That's what Neobanks do if they don't have a banking license. 

Or something else??