Live data from Hacker News

Griffin – A fully-regulated, API-driven bank, with Clojure

juxt.pro

1–10 of 223 posts

Re: Griffin – A fully-regulated, API-driven bank, with Clojure

#5

Why are these API banks always in the UK? I've been waiting to do my banking using curl for years and no one has made it available in the US.

In part because of the "Regulatory Sandbox" - https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/innovation/regulatory-sandbox

Re: Griffin – A fully-regulated, API-driven bank, with Clojure

#6
Unfortunately in the UK a bank can (and do) freeze your account with no reason for up to 2 years without any recourse or access to funds. With API access you risk your money being frozen due to automatic fraud detection. The government have given up policing of finance to banks and they take the least risky options

Re: Griffin – A fully-regulated, API-driven bank, with Clojure

#7
“By law, fintechs must work with a bank to do these things, and right now that means a legacy high street bank with mainframes. Griffin is the bank plus technology platform that all future fintechs would build on.”

Did they write this in 2016? The market has moved on. Griffin looks neat but they’re years behind many others, a nice API for banking exists from well established players, like ClearBank. There’s room for more so it’s great to see Griffin join the market but I hope their pitch isn’t this weak.

Re: Griffin – A fully-regulated, API-driven bank, with Clojure

#8

Why are these API banks always in the UK? I've been waiting to do my banking using curl for years and no one has made it available in the US.

It's fairly common in Russia, too. Mostly because some "challenger banks" forced everyone else to modernise.

Re: Griffin – A fully-regulated, API-driven bank, with Clojure

#9

Why are these API banks always in the UK? I've been waiting to do my banking using curl for years and no one has made it available in the US.

Getting a new banking charter in the US is hard, but it's straightforward to be a challenger bank in the UK. Jarvis moved (back) to London from SF to start Griffin.

The banks in the US that have APIs tend to focus on large fintech partnerships, so even simple APIs will be expensive compared to a regular bank account. Grasshopper Bank in the US (for example) is one of the few that will do APIs on top of regular commercial bank accounts.

(I work at Treasury Prime, which powers many US banks that do APIs.)

Re: Griffin – A fully-regulated, API-driven bank, with Clojure

#10
Its not clear there will be small banks in the US to use this tech in the future. Here's why:

1. Deposit flight. Small banks are struggling to attract deposits at a time when money markets pay considerably more than deposit accounts.

2. Investment scarcity. Small banks are struggling to find places invest deposits where returns are safe, on a reporting adjusted basis. Meaning, small banks invest(ed) in US Treasuries, but as the Fed has rapidly hiked rates, the mark-to-market value of these investments has declined (though the funds are safe). The same can be said of new lending, which has similar problems due to credit risk, primarily in commercial real-estate.

3. Perceived risk. Rather than allow depositors to purchase additional FDIC insurance (above the $250k limit), which insurance would generate revenue for the FDIC and banks, the USGOV had done nothing. If you want to insurance excess deposits you must use an IntraFI account that spread deposits among different banks, and/or brokered CD's which does the same for that banking product. Both are higher friction, and both prevent instant access to funds - regardless of one's tolerance for penalties.

4. FISERV missteps. Small banks rely on Fiserv and a few other vendors to for back office and retail banking systems. In Fiserv's case their software is well behind big bank products that provide more features and easier user interfaces. Younger banking customers prefer big bank systems.

5. Regulatory overreach. Complex issue, but in sum its not clear bank regulators understand the banking business, or if they do, that they have any flexibility. By way of a few examples, its not clear to me regulators understand the safety & utility of brokered deposit use by small banks; the worthlessness of many bank capital asset appraisals, or the immense risk real-estate heavy loan portfolios are facing.

6. Asset-based lending death. Pre-2008 one could borrow against many types of capital assets, allowing businesses to purchase those assets with, say, 20% down. The asset secured the loan, with little or no reliance on personal guarantees or recent cash flow analysis. This practice led to problems in the 2008 GFC, but instead of tweaking the approach, lenders and regulators simply eliminated asset-based lending. When I write 'eliminated' I fully understand its still advertised as a lending product, but underwriting is reliant on cash flow, personal financial statements, and other factors that make 'asset based lending' a marketing term, not reality. This was profitable business for banks and didn't need to die.

More threats lie ahead for small banks in the US. Folks in the know speculate USGOV prefers the Canadian model, where most deposits are held by several big banks. It might be the case FedCoin opens new possibilities for small banks, reducing Fiserv and friends hold on small banking business. One can always hope.

Post reply on HN