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

361–370 of 452 posts

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

#361

Post by delusional »

bArray wrote: post #305

What 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…

Why would "the government" do that? I hate it when people talk about "the government" doing something.

The real mechanics you'd see in your example is that the business elite would begin astroturfing support from the American public, with some nonsense about helping the poor better control their finances. Nobody would believe it, and progressives would be against it. In reality it will be driven by the commercial desire to FORCE people to purchase coca cola or whatever.

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

#362

Post by rvba »

dathinab wrote: post #240
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.

The EU also has put pressure on Banks for decades now to either "innovate" or "get innovated" by regulations forcing them to implement innovative ideas not coming from them. With both having happened over time. They also at least somewhat try to compete with Paypal on online payment on EU specific shops (not they they have much success, not just because of network effect but because a combination of their products be…

In some markets paypal has no market share at all - its whole value proposition is something that banks allready have.

Paypal is needed in USA due to archaic systems. In Europe many banks allow instant transactions without the risk of blocking your money for 180 days - what paypal seems to do

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

#363

Post by Galatians4_16 »

wussboy wrote: post #336
bArray wrote: post #305

What 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.

That's basically the same thing.

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

#364

Post by ianwalter »

kcatskcolbdi wrote: post #47
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.

Everyone has their own opinion of "lots" I suppose, but the quickest info I could come by in a quick search was 8 de novo created in 2021.

Sure, but because of fintech not as many need to get created. Fintech has made it relatively easy for new entrants to work with partner banks through BaaS platforms.

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

#365

Post by Galatians4_16 »

delusional wrote: post #361
bArray wrote: post #305

What 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…

Why would "the government" do that? I hate it when people talk about "the government" doing something. The real mechanics you'd see in your example is that the business elite would begin astroturfing support from the American public, with some nonsense about helping the poor better control their finances. Nobody would believe it, and progressives would be against it. In reality it will be driven by the commercial des…

You can think of it in terms of political parties, if it helps.

"The Democrats would never do that" then Republicans pass the bill, and the Democrats protest, but run with it and don't abolish it when back in power… Swap parties as required for your flavour of government.

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

#366

Post by reginald78 »

vel0city wrote: post #250
PeterStuer wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 is no pre-verification of authorization whatsoever. 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.

This "feature" pisses me off. I was going to switch to capital one virtual cards but from reading around it seems that these two can be updated and even have spending limits overridden in the case of subscription services. Since protection from overcharging is the main draw that product had it seems like a useless feature once I read the details. They bill it as a benefit but with the possible exception of my life insurance I'd much prefer it the other way.

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

#367

Post by ForHackernews »

elric wrote: post #312

US 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…

How are they incompetent? My boring old bank has never lost my money, it sends out bill payments on time. Those are the main things I ask for it to do, and it has done them competently for decades.

As far as I can see, none of the fintech/web3/crypto-nonsense companies can be trusted to do those things well.

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

#368

Post by Centigonal »

onlypassingthru wrote: post #204
Centigonal wrote: post #202

Capital One did a great job shaking up consumer credit in the late 90s, and then branch banking in the mid 2000s with their weird combination cafe+branches. They're eighth in the US by domestic deposits today. Does the firm need to be headquartered in Silicon Valley for disruption to have occurred?

It was ING Direct who built the unusual US cafe/bank operation and eventually sold it all to Capital One as part of the great financial crisis restructuring in 2011. https://www.ing.com/Newsroom/News/Press-releases/PROld/ING-t...

Interesting! I didn't know that

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

#369

Post by hcarvalhoalves »

rapfaria wrote: post #21
pqdbr wrote: post #11

In Brazil traditional banks are totally being disrupted. See Nubank.

Not sure abou that: Credit portfolio in 2023: Itaú - $1176 billion Banco do Brasil - $1109 billion Bradesco - $877 billion Nubank - $91 billion Nubank also had the highest default rate between them (some 6%). It was great when it was created (fully digital, no credit score check for a credit card), but it is now dealing with the same problems as the big banks

To be fair, you have to compare credit portfolios by product and customer size. That is how the Central Bank reports and tracks these numbers.

Nubank offers consumer credit (credit card, personal loans), but you're comparing portfolios that include mortgages, large companies, industry, agriculture, etc.

Similarly, the default rate of the entire portfolio varies according to the product mix, so you can't compare that way.

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

#370

Post by fsflover »

saalweachter wrote: post #355
fsflover wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reach of crypto, outside of fraud and government graft (which is real value) is simply the reach of crypto marketing. Except when your government is not trustable and you have to find a way to store and transfer value in an independent and anonymous way.

The tricky part is there is a difference between "your government is not trustable" and "you don't trust your government" that you can never bridge.

Why does it matter here?
Post reply on HN