Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

popularfintech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 452 posts

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#221

Post by Symbiote »

kylecazar wrote: post #134
1a527dd5 wrote: post #114

They might not be disrupting them, but they are definitely causing competition in the market place again. My main bank account is with Halifax, everyday spend is with Starling. Then Monzo for anything risky. Before Starling/Monzo the Halifax app was _crap_. Barely got any updates and was very basic. Now? The Halifax app is on par with the newer banks, and sometimes even release new features before (e.g. scan cheque i…

Interesting... We've had scanned check deposits at Chase (US) for at least 15 years, I think.

Cheque use in the UK is now around two per year per person. (This includes business-to-business cheques.)

The over-65 age group is most likely to use them, and least likely to use an app, so you can see why it wasn't a big priority for most banks.

It's been at least 15 years since the banks stopped giving account holders chequebooks by default. If you want one you have to ask.

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#222

Post by PeterStuer »

jiggawatts wrote: post #214
ranger207 wrote: post #88

The products being pointed out in this article as an attempt to disrupt banks seem to be basically the same product for a different price. Like, a high-yield savings account is just a savings account with a better price, right? How do you disrupt an industry by selling the same products? The advantage of startups is that they're more nimble, can pivot to fit the market better, and can adapt to customer requests faste…

I can tell you right now what I want from a "bank" as a consumer: Putting the consumer first, not seventeenth or whatever I typically experience with retail banks. As a random example, I had $3,600 stolen from one of my accounts by transactions labelled "Microsoft Online Services" or something like that. The bank reversed most , but not all of the transactions, and then had the nerve to lecture me -- an IT profession…

"You can't see who's got recurring subscriptions on your account. You can't trivially cancel or block someone from pulling money from your account"

This is because any company that has the potential for creating recurring subscriptions can do so to anyone at any time with nothing but an account number.

There is no pre-verification of authorization whatsoever. The only thing you can do is continuously monitor your bank statements and dispute the charges when you see something turn up, then hope for the best.

This system is croocked by design. Most people can't even believe it is this way , but presentations by budding fintech to small companies tout this 'feature' as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#223

Post by Johanx64 »

ahtihn wrote: post #39
perrygeo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> mega banks have the sole power of creating credit out of thin air Amazing that more people don't know this. Most people will insist until their face is red that bank credit is a "loan" with equal debits and credits on both sides of the balance sheet. Wrong. The borrower's bank account goes up. And the bank's balance sheet goes up (the loan is an asset). Viola, new money.

If you count the loan as an asset, surely you have to count it as a liability for the borrower. And the bank has to actually give the money, so they're down that money. In the end both are net zero.

It's not net zero because you collect all the interest on money you didn't have to begin with and created out of thin air via an accounting trick.

Now obviously the liability will get zeroed out in the end, but in the meantime you get to keep all that accumulated sweet interest for ... uh... "managing risk"... it's a very beautiful thing!

So you have in fact created money out thin air, it's in the interest payments! You pay interest for basically "nothing!" (cough, cough, "managing risk"). And that interest does not get zeroed out! It's "pure" profit from an accounting trick.

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#224

Post by PeterStuer »

Waterluvian wrote: post #6
scarface_74 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and crypto doesn’t have any inherent risk like a sitting President creating a crypto currency where he has 80% of the currency, will probably make a half billion dollars and then do a rug pull. https://fortune.com/2025/01/22/donald-trump-net-worth-memeco...

That’s the thing I can’t ever come to understand about crypto. It’s purely about perception of value. At least with some precious metal, it has a floor value as a function of its practical uses and abundance. Which leads me to believe that the only thing that could be honestly said is that a crypto is purely about winners and suckers and timing.

And fiat currency isn't purely about perception of value?

Just as not all crypto is equal, the Zimbabwean dollar isn't remotely like the Swiss frank, just as bitcoin isn't remotely like hawktua.

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#225

Post by rasmus-kirk »

tenthirtyam wrote: post #23
Waterluvian wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the thing I can’t ever come to understand about crypto. It’s purely about perception of value. At least with some precious metal, it has a floor value as a function of its practical uses and abundance. Which leads me to believe that the only thing that could be honestly said is that a crypto is purely about winners and suckers and timing.

> At least with some precious metal, it has a floor value as a function of its practical uses and abundance. I don't really give this argument much credence any more. If the value of, say, gold or diamonds were to drop their practical-use-floor-value, they'd be valued at probably less than 1% (maybe much less) of current value. I mean, how much gold is actually consumed by industry? And we even have industrial diamon…

> A friend argued to me that crypto is "A Terrible Thing" because its just used to fuel the (illegal) narcotics industry.

That's a good thing, though.

Jokes aside, as a person who loves crypto technologically and agrees with the more cipherpunk roots of bitcoin, I have not seen anyone serious use crypto for anything other than drugs or small transactions, just for the sake of it. People usually just seems to hoard the stuff, which is incredibly stupid since the main value proposition of crypto is being able to transact it. I almost respect the people buying drugs with it more, since they at least use cryptocurrency, rather than just speculating in its value to fuel their gambling addiction.

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#227

Post by netdevphoenix »

WeylandYutani wrote: post #144
ikr678 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very US centric article, a lot of the disruptions listed are incumbent 'big bank' products in other jurisdictions. I feel the lack of adaptability is likely a result of US market conditions/regulations rather than lack of innovation.

I think it could also be cultural. In my country people are perfectly happy to have a video chat with a bank employee about mortgages but in other country's you still need to go into a branch office for that kind of thing.

Just curious, why do you need a video chat? Can't you just have a phone call? I don't get the need to see someone's face

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#228

Post by owenversteeg »

jdminhbg wrote: post #128
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting a banking license in the US at least is totally doable and lots of banks are created de novo every year. As another commenter noted, anyone can create "money out of thin air". Come to my corner store and buy an apple on credit. Poof! Credit was the original money, made out of thin air, and can be by anyone.

There used to actually be lots of new banks, now there are some: https://www.statista.com/statistics/193052/change-in-number-...

Huh, from about 150/yr from 2000-2008, not one from 2011-2016, 10/yr 2017-2023. Interesting.

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#229

Post by netdevphoenix »

xwolfi wrote: post #165
ranger207 wrote: post #88

The products being pointed out in this article as an attempt to disrupt banks seem to be basically the same product for a different price. Like, a high-yield savings account is just a savings account with a better price, right? How do you disrupt an industry by selling the same products? The advantage of startups is that they're more nimble, can pivot to fit the market better, and can adapt to customer requests faste…

Plus hum, would you deposit large money amounts in a small fintech company ? The advantage of giant banks is that you sort of trust their size will make them able to weather a crisis, if only because so many taxpayers are involved that the government has no choice but to help. A fintech with 1M users screwing up loan rate timings being unable to finance savings accounts and facing a run, would not have much runway an…

Ideally, financial regulation should be there for you in terms of bank failure without you having to trust old players and further making disruption harder. And no matter how big or small the bank, you should never put all your savings in the same bank.

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#230

Post by mandmandam »

Waterluvian wrote: post #6
scarface_74 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and crypto doesn’t have any inherent risk like a sitting President creating a crypto currency where he has 80% of the currency, will probably make a half billion dollars and then do a rug pull. https://fortune.com/2025/01/22/donald-trump-net-worth-memeco...

That’s the thing I can’t ever come to understand about crypto. It’s purely about perception of value. At least with some precious metal, it has a floor value as a function of its practical uses and abundance. Which leads me to believe that the only thing that could be honestly said is that a crypto is purely about winners and suckers and timing.

> That’s the thing I can’t ever come to understand about crypto. It’s purely about perception of value.

It's not though. It became about that, in general, but there are crypto projects out there which don't focus on hype or valuation.

It is functional and useful to be able to move value worldwide for 10% of the energy of a credit card transaction, decentralized, at sub-second speed, with no fees, even when just moving tiny fractions of a cent.

There are a lot of maxis and bag holders trying to prevent people from figuring that out, but sooner or later a crisis will hit and everyone will remember what crypto was about in the first place.

Post reply on HN