"Nobody is going to put their money in Fred's Bank."---Steve Martin
No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
331–340 of 452 posts
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#332This is probably a good thing. I don't want disruption in my bank.
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
> no particular connection between a fund's risk and tax exposure They seem to be posting a lot of word-salad comments, but assuming good faith, they're saying these are separate downsides of mutual funds over ETFs. Mutual funds trade on your behalf, like an ETF, but they pass through the gains and losses. That can be painful if they realise those gains when you'd rather not have them, or crystallise losses when you…
This account posts a lot of off-topic straw-man arguments, and wild context guesses like regular bot slop. My issue with bank-fool recommend mutual funds is primarily they are often a self-serving structured product. i.e. the odds a sucker never sees a consistent behavior is far greater than random chance, and a unconstrained arbitrary guess of a chicken would likely perform better in the markets. Best of luck, =3
> bank-fool recommend mutual funds…the odds a sucker never sees a consistent behavior is far greater than random chance
Again, you’re criticising active management in general. (And seem to be mixing up alpha and tracking error. Passively-managed funds aren’t aiming to outperform the market.)
There is no evidence actively-managed ETFs (or hedge funds, for that matter) outperform actively-managed mutual funds. There is also not a material difference in tracking error between their passive products.
ETFs are a retail product. Like mutual funds. Make financial decisions based on the product, not the wrapper. (Also, where in the fuck does one go to get mutual funds in 2025 anyway?!)
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#334US banks are weird [1]. Archaic. Slow. Filthy rich. Incompetent. And yet they're nearly impossible to disrupt due to the benefit of size. Starting a new bank is expensive, unless you want to pretend at being a real bank and letting another bank handling all of the nitty-gritty details. In which case you've now become a reseller of that bank, and will likely be even worse. The only thing that can disrupt US banks is c…
What about Japanese banks? They have a reputation of being terrible, justified for the little experience I had with them.
Lots of fees, bureaucratic, inconvenient opening times,...
In Japan, cash is king, and loan sharking is very prevalent. Not a very good sign for the banking system.
Note that it is now becoming increasingly possible to go cashless, though cash is still the most widely accepted option. And I think it is mostly thanks to foreign banks like Citibank.
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem confused by my frustration with tools towing the company line rather than providing reliable investment advice. Personally, I prefer retaining the option to sue people that pull stunts. But to each their own... =3
> I prefer retaining the option to sue people that pull stunts If that's an option for you, sure. I work in finance and retain FINRA arbitration as a customer. When I'm signing with clients, I do not like to include it--I have a strong advantage in court and don't want a venue that's biased against me as a professional. All of this is totally irrelevant to ETFs, mutual funds and CMOs because those are distributed fun…
[flagged]
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#336What does "disruption" look like in the banking space? Banks want the perception of immovable, confidence, reliable, resilience, etc. It's what gives them the credibility to move big money. They don't want to "move fast and break things". Some may think about digital currencies. My warning is this: Be careful what you wish for. If we were to switch to a full digital currency, there are significant concerns that money…
I'm not worried about the government doing these things, I'm worried about corporations colluding to do these things.
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because a lot of people don't understand how the products work or what they need. Trying to understand a complex product, with multiple options that come with advantages and disadvantages, and having adding on top that it's a very consequential decision is much easier if any misunderstanding can be corrected and explained real-time. The alternative is to do it async with some lead time for every back and forth. Your…
You should never be taking the advice on such a thing from the person who has a vested interest in you buying it. Although you could well be right about the nature of the transaction, it's definitely a bad idea to be doing that with the bank!
This applies to everything, a mechanic, a lawyer, a dentist. You can't have all the prerequisite knowledge on every field where you may need to make big choices so eventually you'll need to talk to someone.
If it's not the bank, and it's not you, it has to be someone else. You can ask over email for all the information available on the products from the bank and take it to an independent advisor. Eventually you'll run into the need to have a live chat with that trusted advisor or risk moving one mail per day in each direction trying to explain what you want and what you could get.
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because a lot of people don't understand how the products work or what they need. Trying to understand a complex product, with multiple options that come with advantages and disadvantages, and having adding on top that it's a very consequential decision is much easier if any misunderstanding can be corrected and explained real-time. The alternative is to do it async with some lead time for every back and forth. Your…
You should never be taking the advice on such a thing from the person who has a vested interest in you buying it. Although you could well be right about the nature of the transaction, it's definitely a bad idea to be doing that with the bank!
That's why there's independent financial advisors.
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#339Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have had video chats with my bank. The video part was not super important but nice given the magnitude of the transaction (house loan things). The more important part was the screensharing to sho the advisors calculations and other info.
Why do you need someone to show you the calculations? All of the important numbers including principal, fees, points, interest rate, and amortization schedule fit on a short PDF. You can verify the calculations yourself on a pocket calculator if you want, it's like grade school level arithmetic.
There are different sorts of loans that you can do in different ways. It certainly does not fit a short pdf (I am not in the US). So it’s nice to have someone walk you through that consequences of the different choices.
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#340The collapse of Synapse is a pretty good example of why people don't -- and shouldn't -- put their money in the hands of a "fintech startup". And while not a "startup", the collapse of SVB certainly doesn't help due to its close association with SV and by extension FinTech startups.
I'm happy to use FinTech startup products for certain transactions -- CashApp and Wise are great and I might keep a small balance with them. But it takes decades of being around before people are willing to entrust serious deposits with them.