21–30 of 88 posts
The article seems to overlook the main obstacle: the banking cartel. The big bankers in the U.S. are among its most powerful lobbyists. The current system benefits them plenty. They like it the way it is. They'll sure push to streamline red tape where possible but a near-zero barrier to entry would eat into their profits. So, they'll continue paying politicians to ensure the status quo and collecting all kinds of fee…
The article seems to overlook the main obstacle: the banking cartel. The big bankers in the U.S. are among its most powerful lobbyists. The current system benefits them plenty. They like it the way it is. They'll sure push to streamline red tape where possible but a near-zero barrier to entry would eat into their profits. So, they'll continue paying politicians to ensure the status quo and collecting all kinds of fee…
Now that's a conspiracy theory.
> To perform due diligence in New York, you need: audited financial statements, a certificate of good standing, bank account details, background checks, credit checks, and criminal records from each and every single executive. Essentially, getting a license in New York means a two-year financial colonoscopy in the 10th circle of hell. I'm not a fan of overzealous regulation, and there is plenty of regulation in finan…
The article seems to overlook the main obstacle: the banking cartel. The big bankers in the U.S. are among its most powerful lobbyists. The current system benefits them plenty. They like it the way it is. They'll sure push to streamline red tape where possible but a near-zero barrier to entry would eat into their profits. So, they'll continue paying politicians to ensure the status quo and collecting all kinds of fee…
But it is true that the excess of regulation is reenforcing the position of the incumbents. Banks have to staff full time employees just to read the amount of draft regulations and consultation papers published every day. A start up stands no chance in that environment.
Venmo seems to be doing fine though?
I don't see how this could be mistaken to be applied to "any website that receives commerce" - the important part here is transmission - i.e. only sites that receive money for the purpose of transferring it to a different location.
`New York’s banking department defines money transfer as the “business of selling or issuing payment instruments, such as checks, or engag[ing] in the business of receiving money for transmission.”` I don't see how this could be mistaken to be applied to "any website that receives commerce" - the important part here is transmission - i.e. only sites that receive money for the purpose of transferring it to a different…
Does that cover practically all commercial activity? Yes. Does it make any sense to use that interpretation? No. Do regulators anyway? Yes.
The article seems to overlook the main obstacle: the banking cartel. The big bankers in the U.S. are among its most powerful lobbyists. The current system benefits them plenty. They like it the way it is. They'll sure push to streamline red tape where possible but a near-zero barrier to entry would eat into their profits. So, they'll continue paying politicians to ensure the status quo and collecting all kinds of fee…
I'm waiting for a politician to really go after the banks on this his very issue. Yes, we have other problems, but capping/eliminating fees would get my attention.
There's only one Elisabeth Warren, and the Bankers are making her out to be out of touch with the way the system works? Could anyone imagine if the government let the banks suffocate in 2008? Sure Jamie Diamond's bank would have magically survived--according to that ego?
The innovative competition that would have arose from the ashes might have been interesting? We will never know. Why do I feel these banks are in conclusion with fees?
The title should be "4 nasty truths about becoming a money transmitter in the U.S." ... FinTech is much larger than just payments and transmission.
I honestly didn't know the word "FinTech" was a thing—this is the first time I've seen it.
The article seems to overlook the main obstacle: the banking cartel. The big bankers in the U.S. are among its most powerful lobbyists. The current system benefits them plenty. They like it the way it is. They'll sure push to streamline red tape where possible but a near-zero barrier to entry would eat into their profits. So, they'll continue paying politicians to ensure the status quo and collecting all kinds of fee…
"So, they'll continue paying politicians to ensure the status quo and collecting all kinds of fees/interest." I'm waiting for a politician to really go after the banks on this his very issue. Yes, we have other problems, but capping/eliminating fees would get my attention. There's only one Elisabeth Warren, and the Bankers are making her out to be out of touch with the way the system works? Could anyone imagine if th…
Regulation on any industry cost that industry money. It also does not help when your in an industry which gets investigated for not providing services to many who cost you money to serve.
The only concerns I have with fees is that they need to be always out front so that the customer is not caught unawares.