5 ms·
If the banks cared they would provide either token-based API like oAuth or at the very least, a read-only password for users to give these sites that aren't ful
by davidu 11y ago
If the banks cared they would provide either token-based API like oAuth or at the very least, a read-only password for users to give these sites that aren't fully credentialed.
Customers will always want to extract their data.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- chuckcode 11y agoCompletely agree! I think it is ridiculous that financial institutions don't have a read only password for sharing with accountants, tax advisers and other programs.
- ac29 11y agoMine (US) bank does just that.
- sanderjd 11y agoWhich bank?
- imgabe 11y agoExactly. Of course it's going to flood their servers if Mint has to crawl through the megabytes of "special offers" bs that banks bombard you with when you log in to the website. Provide a separate API that just delivers account information in a few K of JSON. Problem solved.
- KirinDave 11y agoThe only way that is going to happen is if it is legally required to happen or if banks are financially incentivized to make it happen. It's absolutely true that offering data migration services decreases bank account stickiness, and that's something everyone is terrified of doing in the finance industry. Customer acquisition costs are so high, I doubt you'd believe me if I explained them to you.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago>Customer acquisition costs are so high, I doubt you'd believe me if I explained them to you. Of course we would believe you. When you use a metric like "customer acquisition costs", you can say pretty much whatever you like. I'd rather hear something like, "We have such little deployed value at the retail level that no one wishes to contract with us unless we spend a lot of money over here (legalized entrapment codes and marketing)."
- KirinDave 11y agoBanks actually don't have or need a ton of law to lock in customers. They use fees and consumer apathy pretty effectively. But if you think that even pro consumer banks like Simple had better costs, think again.
- theptip 11y agoThis. I've been wanting this sort of thing for ages. It could actually be extended into a very compelling product; imagine being able to issue not only read-only tokens, but a token which authorizes the bearer to withdraw up to $100/month. Parents could issue such tokens to children for emergencies, or other such situations.
- amsb 11y agoIt's amazing that we can grant revokable, read-only and audited access to our social accounts, but not our bank accounts. Even though the largest aggregators operate under some level of federal supervision (via FFIEC and the OCC), there is an obviously better way. TxPush (http://txpush.org http://txpush.org) looks like an initiative in this direction. There will likely be an ongoing need for aggregators to maintain access to laggard financial institutions and possibly to buffer load on the bank servers as consumers use more and more financially connected apps.
- jackgavigan 11y ago> It's amazing that we can grant revokable, read-only and audited access to our social accounts, but not our bank accounts. The UK is moving in this direction. The ODI/Fingleton report into Data Sharing and Open Data for Banks[1] recommended creating a open banking API standard and suggested using OAuth, using Twitter as an example (see p24 of the report). Work has begun on defining the roadmap towards creating an API standard[2]. 1: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/data-sharing-and-open-data-for-banks https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/data-sharing-and-... 2: http://theodi.org/news/open-banking-working-group-uk-experts-impact-consumers-regulators-industry http://theodi.org/news/open-banking-working-group-uk-experts...