Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
241–250 of 452 posts
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
What type of transactions do you need to make outside of business hours that you can’t do electronically? And who actually deals with physical checks? Even the various contractors I used when preparing my home for sell took some form of electronic payment
if i transfer money from one bank's account to another, it takes minimum of 48 hours if I make the request before 3pm cutoff time. Day 1, the transfer request is made at 1pm. Day 2, the money is no longer available in the sending account yet not in the receiving account. Day 3, the money is available in the receiving account. If I do it after 3pm, the request is not placed until Day 2. Why? WTF does a computer have a…
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#243Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
I don't get the need for synchronous comms at all. I can book airplane tickets, food delivery, e-commerce generally, and most other things through a web interface. Not sure why I need to talk to somebody to get a mortgage aside from Know Your Customer but even then a short signing ceremony at the end would be best.
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#245If you count private credit funds like Apollo Global Management, the story is very different: private credit is seriously encroaching on the balance sheets of banks. Not very tech, but very fin. In investments, ETFs and podshops are both fin and tech, and crushing it.
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#246Earlier 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.
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.
Of course not. I don't know the laws of the country you live in, but in the US, the dollar is always acceptable as the payment of a court judgement and for the payment of taxes. That's not perception of value, that's value.
All money is just IOUs, but getting an IOU from your landlord is different than getting an IOU from a stranger. You will have to pay your landlord in the future, or the landlord will send someone to physically throw you into the streets, and might be given license from the government to just take arbitrary possessions from you. An IOU from the landlord will automatically offset that.
When you get IOUs from entities you don't have a ongoing financial relationship with, you need buyers who either 1) have an ongoing relationship with or are willing and able to transact with that entity, or 2) trust that they can find someone who has a relationship with that entity who will buy the IOU.
1) is value, 2) is the perception of value. Crypto has 3), in which there is no entity issuing or accepting the currency against a real debt (such as taxes or legal liabilities, which if not paid result in men in uniform hitting you with sticks, chaining you up, and locking you in a room), and no place to dump the currency other than other speculators.
You can find people who believe in bitcoin, so bitcoin is liquid. But bitcoin support relies on a constant and enormous amount of marketing and lobbying, in the exact same way as "hawktwa." Crypto (thus far) only has value in that it can aid in criminal transactions (semi-privacy), and that enough wealthy people own it that they're now convincing weak governments to subsidize it. Dodging law enforcement and government handouts to the wealthy on one hand; maintaining preexisting legal obligations and paying taxes already owed on the other. Both fiat and crypto rely on government, but crypto is government subverting itself. Crypto only has value to the degree that governments allow or encourage lawbreaking and corruption. Crypto (as it is, not a hypothetically) is parasitic.
> Zimbabwean dollar isn't remotely like the Swiss frank
The Zim dollar is exactly like the Swiss franc, except it's harder to find people who pay Zim taxes and court judgements than people who pay Swiss taxes and court judgements. Just as hawktwa is exactly like bitcoin, except they lack the lobbyists, and the marketing is focused around a viral youtube clip. The big difference between the two classes is that you don't have to be convinced that government fiat is worth something, you know it is. The reach of crypto, outside of fraud and government graft (which is real value) is simply the reach of crypto marketing.
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#247Or by "disrupting" does he just mean "end run around the laws and regulations"?
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#248What isn’t the bank doing for me that is in need of “disruption”? High Yield Savings Accounts? Amex offers a HYSA that is 3.8% vs LendingClubs 4.5%. How many people have enough money in savings to make the difference worthwhile and make them willing to trust a non traditional bank? I have a year’s worth of expenses in mine (in addition to retirement savings) and I wouldn’t even bother. My bank is there to accept my m…
It is so easy to move money around now there is no reason to keep that much in savings. It is crazy how easy it is to move money from a savings account to a brokerage account and buy a tbill in 2025 vs 1990.
Retail banking has really been stripped to its absolute bare essentials. There is no growth in banking in the US other than growth by acquisition.
I can't think of a worse investment than a bank startup.
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#249You can't really "take deposits and issue loans" without just becoming a bank yourself. People start new banks all the time. Or by "disrupting" does he just mean "end run around the laws and regulations"?
Is that true in the US? In the UK there was recently a period of around 150 years during which not a single new banking licence was issued. There's a film called Bank of Dave which dramatises the attempts of Dave Fishwick - a businessman from the North of England - to set up a local community bank. It's distressing the lengths that the established banks went to to quash it.
If I understand correctly, he still does not have a licence, although Metro bank did manage to get one in 2010.
Wiki article about the film: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Dave_(film)
Guardian article from the real-life inspiration for the main character: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2012...
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ban…
There actually is a way they can sync up to say this is an authorized regular transaction and they get the ability to keep charging even when the old number expires and a new card gets issued.
I forget what it's called, and I don't believe it's supported everywhere.