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

441–450 of 452 posts

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

#441

Post by danielmarkbruce »

jgilias wrote: post #432
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Continue down the chain on your house example. Imagine in each case instead of transferring money in bank accounts, people do the work on credit. Add up all the credit at the end of the chain. Then go back and add up all the bank account balances in the "pay with money transfer". It'll be the same (except for the fraction). Now, go look at a bunch of public company balance sheets - you'll see payables and receivables…

I see. You use "money" in a kind of a metaphysical 'total value' sense. That's fine, but very confusing when talking about "money creation", because that term typically means the particular mechanism by which units of a particular currency come into existence. In particular, M2 money growth, and where that line comes from. You're right when you say that it's all debt all the way down, but you're very much wrong if yo…

M1 (and thus M2) money includes checking accounts - a checking account is literally credit. You have lent the bank money and you have a receivable.

I never said "fiat" - you seem to be conflating things. In my example you call out "no new fiat" (which is true) and in your example you say "more M2!"(which is true). Make a valid comparison. The best way is by comparing the total assets and liabilities in the system and the total amount of economic activity driven by those.

In the end, a receivable is a receivable. The only difference is that we've created a very neat system to trade bank receivables, and tend to call them "money". When you hear someone say "money was created" mentally translate it to "receivables were created". "M1", "M2", "fractional" etc make it all sound so sophisticated when it's just ideas from 100,000 years ago, and you and I can create receivables too.

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

#442

Post by delusional »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #437
delusional wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was actually a fascinating research topic for me, because I can only agree that it seems arguably hostile or at least silly and backwards. I found that the provision in question. The part of the bill defining "food" as "any food except hot food" was actually from the rewriting in 1977, where it was added to (and this comes from a single second hand source) supposedly ensure fair competition with fast-food joints…

In 1977 I can believe it as an anti competitive thing. Today though, there's plenty of legislators who are happy, and vocal, to keep something like this there out of a paternalistic spite towards the poor.

The house has actually introduced legislation to remove the "hot food" part. It's been referred to a subcommittee of the Agriculture committee, but I can't find any hint that they've even discussed it. I've actually struggled to find any evidence that the subcommittee has discussed anything.

I agree with you that it seems likely that some legislators would fight to keep it with some bad arguments, but right now they haven't even had to make those bad arguments because nobody is pushing it.

The conclusion I can draw is that nobody cares about it. It was included for free market reasons and kept around because nobody gave a shit.

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

#443

Post by 1oooqooq »

1oooqooq wrote: post #155
kylecazar wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting... We've had scanned check deposits at Chase (US) for at least 15 years, I think.

most countries abandoned checks at least 15 years...

ppl dowvoting facts now

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

#444

Post by Mistletoe »

RandomBacon wrote: post #358
Mistletoe wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know if it counts as disruption exchanging one behemoth for another but my life got a lot better when I started using a Fidelity cash management account as my bank.

That doesn't have the same protections (at least FDIC) as a standard checking or savings account, correct?

No it doesn’t. But I would never keep large sums of money uninvested in the market and in a CMA anyway.

https://www.fidelity.com/spend-save/fidelity-cash-management...

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

#445

Post by throwaway2037 »

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #329
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #318

Earlier 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

    > This account posts a lot of off-topic straw-man arguments, and wild context guesses like regular bot slop.
"This account" -- Do you mean account "JumpCrisscross"? No, I disagree. This person posts lots of intelligent things about securities markets and trading. You can review their history. I assume they work in securities trading on Wall Street (or something nearly adjacent).

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

#446

Post by hakfoo »

Every time I have any interaction with my bank accounts online, they seem to see it as an opportunity to try to cram paperless statements down my throat. Evidently they learned from the software industry that there's no such thing as "no", just "ask again later".

Whatever spin they put on it (ecology typically) it's about them wanting to save 70 cents a month on postage. The fact they keep trying to slip it under my radar shows a disrespect for me as a customer.

More seriously, I could see it breaking the workflow of people who traditionally used the arrival of the statement as a trigger for other things (maybe they ONLY check their statement for fraudulent transactions once a month, or send off bills when they recieve it), and having it suddenly disappear breaks their workflow.

Rather than "we've got a shinier app" or a new way to insert a chatbot between you and the services you want to perform, a disruptor bank should be going all-in in customer service. If you want statements, you'll get them. No dark patterns or "we changed this setting because you gave us the vaguest hint of consent." First contact on the customer service hotline is straight to a human being. Nothing that requires a custom app-- everything online should work on any device with a browser, and 2FA should be a standalone token provided at the bank's expense. (Aside from providing a simpler UI, it's one more hurdle in turning "stolen phone" into "account compromise")

All the large national banks are interchangeable for a consumer-- they all pay dreck interest, and their primary selling feature is "you might find a no-fee ATM while travelling." But they'd be very suited to the customer-service pivot because they already have the in-person footprint that allows for handling the "I'm in over my head and want to go down and talk with an actual person to get sorted out" scenarios.

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

#447

Post by eadler »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #343
Joel_Mckay wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> having a robust legal position is still rather important Zero competent securities lawyers will argue waiving FINRA arbitration universally puts one into a more robust legal position. For most Americans, it waives significant consumer safeguards and opens up realms of litigation tactics that are barred by industry rules but not law.

I'd believe this in very specific contexts but I can't find any reliable explanation of what those might be. Can you point me to anything worthwhile to read on the topic?

I am fairly certain that consumer and employment pre-dispute arbitration agreements are strongly negative but I haven't learned enough about FINRA/securities arbitration to have a strong opinion.

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

#448

Post by Joel_Mckay »

eadler wrote: post #447
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> having a robust legal position is still rather important Zero competent securities lawyers will argue waiving FINRA arbitration universally puts one into a more robust legal position. For most Americans, it waives significant consumer safeguards and opens up realms of litigation tactics that are barred by industry rules but not law.

I'd believe this in very specific contexts but I can't find any reliable explanation of what those might be. Can you point me to anything worthwhile to read on the topic? I am fairly certain that consumer and employment pre-dispute arbitration agreements are strongly negative but I haven't learned enough about FINRA/securities arbitration to have a strong opinion.

In general, forced arbitration is not an effective legal posture for investors, and a common instrument applied to suckers.

Sociopath structured parasitism always poses a liability around treasure. Handle or hire your own due diligence solutions... Seriously, don't assume either of our nonsense applies in your country. =3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNSHZG9blQQ

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

#449

Post by Joel_Mckay »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #445
Joel_Mckay wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> This account posts a lot of off-topic straw-man arguments, and wild context guesses like regular bot slop. "This account" -- Do you mean account "JumpCrisscross"? No, I disagree. This person posts lots of intelligent things about securities markets and trading. You can review their history. I assume they work in securities trading on Wall Street (or something nearly adjacent).

"This person posts lots of intelligent things"

A broken clock is still right twice a day...

Thread hijacking is not necessarily intelligence, but rather an attempt to cow people with off-topic rhetoric. However, I do respect your opinions =3

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

#450

Post by throwaway2037 »

lxm wrote: post #159
throwaway2037 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> worker 401k vulnerability to dubious ETFs Can you explain this part in my detail? Do you mean money market funds that "broke the buck"?

ETFs are a relatively recent phenomenon, the criticism I remember from 2008 era is having paycheck + employee stock purchase plan + 401k concentrated in a single stock - employer's.

Do 401k plans allow people to buy single stocks? I never saw it in my experience. I cannot believe that would be considered "prudent" by financial regulators. However, when you leave a company you can "roll-over" your 401k into an IRA, then you can go wild and buy anything that you want (IBRK allows it).
Post reply on HN