Live data from Hacker News

Nasty Truths About U.S. Fintech

venturebeat.com

31–40 of 88 posts

Re: Nasty Truths About U.S. Fintech

#31

If you haven't seen it already (was posted yesterday I think), check out Standard Treasury's Series A deck: http://slideshare.net/linhir/standard-treasury-series-a-pitc... They explain why they decided to start their bank in the UK instead of the US. For once, the USA seem to have no competitive advantage.

The global reserve currency will always act as a dramatic inherent advantage; it acts as a massive force of gravity. As will having the world's largest economy, the largest government, the largest bond and debt markets, the largest tax base, ~40% of all global private wealth, the largest real estate market, and by far the largest stock market. It also has by far the best business / financial news, and financial infor…

The US has the largest local markets, but London is larger for international transactions and many markets such as foreign exchange and derivatives.

Re: Nasty Truths About U.S. Fintech

#32
post #5

I'm OK with all of the fees as long as they go towards enforcement and regulation. If they exist just to increase the price of entry, then they need to be lowered. 2008 was a great reminder of how a lack of oversight and enforcement can cause huge problems for everyone. I hope we have not already forgot that.

What specific sort of oversight/enforcement/regulation do you believe would have prevented 2008?

Glass Steagall did an excellent job - until it started being ignored, and before it was repealed.

Re: Nasty Truths About U.S. Fintech

#33

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…

Seems like another example of "Baptists and bootleggers" [0]. Well-intentioned people trying to protect citizens from financial malfeasance support the same regulations that the big financial players use to keep competition out of the market.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists

Re: Nasty Truths About U.S. Fintech

#34
post #12
post #4

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.

Having worked in banking/finance/technology for a decade+, the first time I remember registering hearing the term was around 3 months ago, from a lawyer I contacted regarding opening an office in the UK, who was quite proud to say "technology in finance is called FinTech, which is becoming a big thing".

This led me to conclude it is a fad/scene word.

Re: Nasty Truths About U.S. Fintech

#35

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…

>> Could anyone imagine if the government let the banks suffocate in 2008?

I've heard from multiple sources that Iceland let their banks fail, and they're actually doing better than most now.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/key-lesson-from-icela...

Re: Nasty Truths About U.S. Fintech

#36
post #34
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly didn't know the word "FinTech" was a thing—this is the first time I've seen it.

Having worked in banking/finance/technology for a decade+, the first time I remember registering hearing the term was around 3 months ago, from a lawyer I contacted regarding opening an office in the UK, who was quite proud to say "technology in finance is called FinTech, which is becoming a big thing". This led me to conclude it is a fad/scene word.

I heard it 4 years ago. You've been living under a rock. :p

Re: Nasty Truths About U.S. Fintech

#37
Ripple consented to pay a fine and restructure their operation, to settle civil charges related to Ripple's failure file a SAR on the aborted purchase of xrp by Roger Ver (who by the way was a Ripple investor). The underlying behavior that drew the attention of regulators was that their compliance program was basically a sham during the period in question. The transaction was not "suspicious" in any conventional sense of the word -- Ver was a Ripple investor and well known to the company; his prior criminal history relates to selling fireworks by mail or something, when he was 18 or so. But technically, yes, this is a transaction that Ripple should have reported. People make a big deal of this, but keep in mind that BSA compliance, FinCEN registration, and filing SARs is the EASY part of compliance. Just file SARs on every transaction that meets the definition, that's easy. If that were the only requirement, the US would be a bastion for fintech startups. The hard part is complying with 50 state laws, many of which are non-standard and contradict each other. It is a joke that we don't have a preemptive federal regime to set a consistent rule for compliance.

At the same time, on a real level, any payment provider has to be aware that a convenient and privacy-promoting platform inevitably becomes a sort of honeypot for people who are shut out of the conventional system. This is true of any data hosting company, whether financial or otherwise. We would like to think that there's no responsibility on the part of the platform provider to police content, b/c that seems a violation of freedom. On the other hand, if you look into the activity on your platform, and realize that a significant portion of it, in terms of usage, or money, relates to illegal and immoral activities that hurt other people...well, it's a hard question to balance that with notions of freedom and innovation. Unfortunately I don't think the answer is as easy as just letting providers self-police, or following a European model where banks have historically turned a blind eye toward (or even actively courted) criminal clientele.

Re: Nasty Truths About U.S. Fintech

#38

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.

Do you realize "conspiracy theory" doesn't mean "false"?

Re: Nasty Truths About U.S. Fintech

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What specific sort of oversight/enforcement/regulation do you believe would have prevented 2008?

Glass Steagall did an excellent job - until it started being ignored, and before it was repealed.

Would preventing WaMu and Countrywide Financial from running prop desks (which they didn't do anyway) have somehow prevented the crisis? Or would preventing Bear Stearns from issuing mortgages (which they didn't do anyway) have somehow prevented them from going bust?

Please be specific on what would have happened differently if Glass Steagall were still in force.

Re: Nasty Truths About U.S. Fintech

#40
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having worked in banking/finance/technology for a decade+, the first time I remember registering hearing the term was around 3 months ago, from a lawyer I contacted regarding opening an office in the UK, who was quite proud to say "technology in finance is called FinTech, which is becoming a big thing". This led me to conclude it is a fad/scene word.

I heard it 4 years ago. You've been living under a rock. :p

Fintech term is years old, but trend spiking recently

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=fintech

Post reply on HN