Venmo seems to be doing fine though?
Venmo was saved by being acquired by Braintree, which was acquired by Paypal, who is licensed.
Nasty Truths About U.S. Fintech
41–50 of 88 posts
Re: Nasty Truths About U.S. Fintech
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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...
Thanks, I've bookmarked that link. It's actually very interesting, and I'm surprised is hasn't been more widely discussed, or used as an example.
Another link (from that article) straight from the IMF, with some more info: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2011/Surveyart...
Re: Nasty Truths About U.S. Fintech
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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…
There is little wrong with fees, let alone interest. Considering how many banks and credit unions exist there is little excuse for not finding one that provides the services you want with a fee structure you accept. Credit unions usually provide the best value and membership rules are very flexible. Regulation on any industry cost that industry money. It also does not help when your in an industry which gets investig…
> Considering how many banks and credit unions exist there is little excuse for not finding one that provides the services you want with a fee structure you accept.
While it'd be great if that were true, it's by no means guaranteed. We have a choice in wireless carrier here in the US but still most folks aren't terribly pleased with theirs.
Just because there are a lot of players it does not follow that you'll find one you like. There can be many players but other forces which prevent what you want from existing at all. Government regulations, "generally accepted practices", uncreative management, etc.
Re: Nasty Truths About U.S. Fintech
#44The 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
Call me cynical, but I think most of the legislation introduced is driven by lobbyists from the start anyway.
General public may have the illusion that these regulations are in the interest of citizens, because of clever wording and names used, etc. The "Freedom Act" is SO not about freedom, it is almost funny.
EDIT: I am not cynical - this is a well recognized practice (thanks to cfreeman for his post below):
Re: Nasty Truths About U.S. Fintech
#45The 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.
Just like the NSA spying on US citizens, right?
Re: Nasty Truths About U.S. Fintech
#46Ripple 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 sens…
following a European model where banks have historically turned a blind eye toward (or even actively courted) criminal clientele
I don't think this is particularly a US/EU distinction. Switzerland's history of banking privacy and neutrality, possibly.
Re: Nasty Truths About U.S. Fintech
#47Earlier 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.
There have been FinTech meetups in Boston and NYC going on for a while now. Predictably popular (given the two cities' role in finance)
Will not comment on whether it is a fad/scene word :-)
Re: Nasty Truths About U.S. Fintech
#48Is it possible to argue that these hurdles are in place for some systemic or historically-shaped reasons? Would be curious to hear someone explain the regulation and high cost of entry outside of banking cartel and government incompetence.
Re: Nasty Truths About U.S. Fintech
#49Earlier 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
Perhaps. Living in China. In terms of finance, similar :)
Term adoption probably related to HTFs and the only ~5 year ago widespread recognition they started to get. Gotta call it something. Established players jump on the term to show they're relevant.
Re: Nasty Truths About U.S. Fintech
#50Ripple 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 sens…
following a European model where banks have historically turned a blind eye toward (or even actively courted) criminal clientele I don't think this is particularly a US/EU distinction. Switzerland's history of banking privacy and neutrality, possibly.
I guess my statement is more accurate in recent history, post-2001. US-chartered banks are getting extremely vigilant about AML. The attitude of US bankers I've worked with is much more cooperative than Europeans, who view this AML focus as the Yankees trying to impose US law where it doesn't belong (a fair criticism).