35 ms·
Robinhood Checking Moved Fast and Broke
- Derek_MK 8y agoHopefully the author here is right in that the SEC will continue to step in and say "No, you can't just call it something else. What you're providing is a bank account." If Robinhood manages to get away with saying "It's not a bank account; it just does everything a bank account does", and therefore that it doesn't require the same level of regulation, then that's going to be a HUGE problem.
- the_clarence 8y agoMy guess is that it is really hard to become a bank in the US and this has slowed down innovation. Look at The UK and what they did with openbanking. You now have new banks like Monzo and Revolut which are completely disrupting the industry. I’d advise anyone to get a Revolut card, Monzo is unfortunatey UK-only, to see what it means to have a bank 2.0
- Derek_MK 8y agoThe reason why it's hard to become a bank in the US is because there are regulations in place to keep companies from screwing over customers for their own gain or in their own stupidity. In this case, Robinhood didn't look into what they needed to do to follow those regulations. If they DID follow the regulations, then they could provide their banking service.
- vikingcaffiene 8y ago> slowed down innovation When it comes to money and ensuring people manage mine correctly and honestly, I’ll take safety over innovation thank you very much. Feel free to continue “disrupting” low stakes stuff like juicers and scooters. Call me old fashioned.
- the_clarence 8y agoAgain. You should probably get a revolut card. You’ll save way more money this way believe me. It is disrupting shitty banking.
- mprev 8y agoIt is difficult to get a backing licence in the UK, though. OpenBanking is tangential to this and you still need regulatory approval (min £50k and several months of paperwork). Monzo spent a long time as a card provider only, while working to obtain their licence. Revolut has been operating for years and only just got their European banking licence four days ago. Other UK bank newcomers have bought smaller, established banks just for the licence; Aldermore bought Ruffler Bank mostly for its licence.
- the_clarence 8y agoRight. Can you do this is in the US?
- poof_he_is_gone 8y agoDid anyone get an account opened or make a deposit before this got shut down?
- jmcgough 8y agoIt was announced, not available.
- ada1981 8y agoYeah I mean this feels like it amounted to some marketing and a viral sign up page. I have no reason to believe there was any tech built yet.
- minimaxir 8y agoEven assuming that they moved-fast-and-broke-things on the legal side, the development lifecycle of something as important as replacing conventional banking takes months, if not more. Robinhood likely lost a good amount of development opportunity cost with the cancellation.
- dvtrn 8y agoEven assuming that they moved-fast-and-broke-things on the legal side Doesn't moving fast and breaking things on-as you say-"the legal side" in essence mean breaking the law, or did you mean something else and I've misunderstood?
- minimaxir 8y agoLegal as relating-to-the-law, not legal as against-the-law.
- dvtrn 8y agoRight, that much I grok, but when you say "move fast and broke things", in the context of "relating-to-the-law" what are you hypothesizing was 'broke'? I think it's a matter of phrasing perhaps, that has me a bit confused of what your post is suggesting as a matter relating to the law.
- 3jckd 8y agoIt seems odd to me that they would make such move in the first place without proper legal analysis. Especially, given that it's fintech which already is quite tightly regulated and Robinhood has been in the stock game for a while as well. Or was it just "the magical ampersand" as the article suggests and hope that they would slide under the radar.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- bitxbitxbitcoin 8y agoWe shouldn't rule out the possibility that they did have seemingly proper legal analysis, it just wasn't complete.
- minimaxir 8y agoRobinhood has been in the game long enough and has had enough support at all levels such that it's hard to attribute their actions to ignorance.
- brootstrap 8y agoThis is fair, but if you are a zillion dollar startup company and can not see what is so blatantly obvious to the general public, you have to question the efforts... For me it's actually hilarious. The follow-up response letter from the founders group is hilarious. If , robinhood did have a legal team to audit this new tool, they suck ass. They probably made a couple hundo thousand a pop, didnt do any work, and they are now living their lives just a tad richer.
- saalweachter 8y agoEh, I think you immediately run into one of the lawyer-earmarks of a scam in that case. A lawyer can't really tell you what will happen in a novel situation. They can speak with great confidence about legal precedents and where the law is black and white, but once you start walking into the grey areas, where the law isn't clear and there is no precedent, the law isn't a computer program interpreted by machines. There's a whole layer of human judgement in deciding what happens in that case, you don't just overflow onto the stack and get to rewrite the legal code to suit your needs. So when a lawyer says something like, "Ahh, but the law only talks about 'checking accounts' and 'savings accounts' not 'checking & savings accounts'", at best they are giving you a preview of the argument they will make to a judge or jury at your trial. Then future lawyers will be able to refer back to the precedents set in your court case with more confidence.
- vthallam 8y agoThis whole thing was a net negative PR for Robinhood. The fact that they removed old tweets, blog post and started calling this cash management is downright fraud. It doesn't make sense even as a growth hack, because they already have millions of users, it's not like without this, they will not be able to acquire more users. My reaction was, "What were they thinking"?
- imjk 8y agoTheir having to remove old tweets, blog posts, and marketing material likely had to do with pushback from regulators.
- max76 8y agoThey were hoping to collect a different type of finical data, mainly how the ATM card was used. They thought issuing an ATM card was easier than it actually is.
- gammateam 8y ago> its not like without this, they would not be able to acquire more users The “personal financial independence” crowd avoids this stuff like the plague, although seemingly ironic, those crowds primarily cater to people that lack the most basic understanding of a bank account who need to repair and control horrible financial situations They are steered clear from capital markets, aside from managed ETFs and retirement plans But add .25% interest rate improvement in a bank account and these people will salivate over it Robinhood going above competitors, even at the expense of going above market rate, would have gotten there attention They would park their money in that account and have easy access to stocks and cryptocurrencies, allowing Robinhood to continue their big data/market sentiment/payment for order flow selling business with greater efficacy
- mbesto 8y agoDisagreed. You aren't the target market market here (highly analytical). They just want millennials who see "ohh 3% checking thats more than I'm getting". Very likely those people will forget that they signed up, but are now in the RH activation funnel ("Oh I guess I never really needed this but look at how easy it is to buy stocks! One button...vs 8 buttons on E-Trade")
- anonu 8y agoThere's no free lunch. A quick check of the markets and where short-term treasuries are trading can tell you that 3% is too good to be true.... Glad it broke quickly rather than deluding people into thinking their money was safe and getting a good return. High Reward =~ High Risk... If you can call 3% high...
- spullara 8y agoYou can buy CDs from Ally Bank that give you 3.1% with only a 90 day interest penalty for early withdrawal. Not too far off what they were offering assuming that you aren't using it as your main checking account.
- pishpash 8y agoUh, 90 day penalty is a 25% per annum haircut on day 364 => 2.325% and even lower on any day before. Saying that's "not too far off" is the financial illiteracy that upthread is talking about.
- klenwell 8y agoInterestingly, 3% was the magic number that helped break the global economy in 2008 according to Planet Money: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/355/the-giant-pool-of-money https://www.thisamericanlife.org/355/the-giant-pool-of-money In short, finance professionals looking for reliable 3% annual returns could no longer count on US treasuries to help get them there so they turned to securitized mortgages.
- catacombs 8y agoA tale in two acts: Act 1: Checking available to everyone! Several days later... Act 2: Sorry, no more.
- jaclaz 8y agoTo be fair three acts: 1. announcing the thingy 2. gather emails of people interested in it [1] 3. Sorry, not going to happen... [1] and possibly interested in other products ...
- dragonwriter 8y agoAlso, emails of other people: there was a waitlist bump for referrals.
- catacombs 8y agoHah! A worthy correction.
- paulpauper 8y agoI want robinhood to succeed. Retail brokers charge huge fees for poor order execution, and also charge fees for arbitrary stuff. $7-10/trade adds up fast and also huge fees for options.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoI want Robinhood to fail. Most retail brokers pass through price improvements to their customers, and their fee structure is reasonable for the services they provide. I don't want a Facebook Of Financial Services (you don't pay directly, you pay through being the product). Robinhood is what Moviepass rebranded as a hip fintech startup that provides trading services would look like. They target the financially illiterate, and should be nuked from orbit. If a few dollars per trade are breaking you, you have no business actively trading (and should have at least $25k in working capital per FINRA pattern day trading guidelines [1]). Put your money in an index fund at Vanguard and stop gambling in what is a glorified loot box at Robinhood user scale. [1] http://www.finra.org/investors/day-trading-margin-requirements-know-rules http://www.finra.org/investors/day-trading-margin-requiremen...
- pishpash 8y agoOnly for small accounts. For large accounts with large transactions that fee is the least of your worries. Spread, execution quality, speed of transfers, margin and deposit rates, reliability/availability and yes, events like this or even the possibility of robinbros "breaking" some feature you rely on, would be. Don't be myopic. I hope RH grows with its customers, otherwise it'll eventually be outgrown by them. One of the most obvious and biggest disruptions that still hasn't happened is to let you set a custom portfolio on autopilot. At the end of the day that's what anyone should want.
- mholmes680 8y ago>>to let you set a custom portfolio on autopilot Can't you invest in a set of 5 passive ETFs and forget about it for 40 years? Or even build your own ETFs for that purpose: https://www.motif.com https://www.motif.com? Or are you talking about "if risk of market crash is too high, sell everything for a bit -- buy back in when this calms down" type stuff?
- chromaton 8y agoFWIW, Fidelity now offers brokerage accounts that include checking, bill pay, etc. and have access to no minimum, no fee, no load index funds.
- jamiek88 8y agoFDIC insured?
- JumpCrisscross 8y agoYes, up to $1.25 million through a sweep program [1]. They also reimburse ATM fees and let you trade anything inside them. [1] https://www.fidelity.com/cash-management/fidelity-cash-management-account/overview https://www.fidelity.com/cash-management/fidelity-cash-manag...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jamiek88 8y agoInteresting! Thanks!
- artursapek 8y agoFidelity's cash management offering kicks ass. I use it exclusively. I paid the down payment for my house through Fidelity.
- picodguyo 8y agoI'm curious why you would want to do that. I have an IRA/brokerage with Fidelity but haven't yet understood the value prop for their cash management product.
- astura 8y agoNo account fees whatsoever No minimum balances No minimum debit card purchases No minimum direct deposits No minimum bill pays Free checks Free wire transfers ATM fee reimbursements (If you pay $2 to the ATM owner to take out money, you'll see a $2 credit on your account immediately) No limit to ATM fee reimbursements FDIC insurance Paycheck posts a day early (not advertised, but that's been my experience) It's obviously a loss leader to encourage you to use their brokerage offerings, but no brokerage account is required to open the account. The only other companies that offer products that are comparable is Schwab (which is another brokerage), and USAA (whose membership is limited to military, veterans, and immediate family)
- sealthedeal 8y agoSounds brilliant to me. They had over 100,000+ people sign up for a wait list. There is a clear demand for such a product...
- ngngngng 8y agoI'll be honest, 90% of the reason I signed up was their debit card looked super clean.
- sjroot 8y agoI am guilty of making decisions like this as well.
- lsc 8y agoI think it's important to acknowledge our vulnerability to irrational and emotional manipulation in things like product design where product design shouldn't matter and in advertising; our own irrationality. It's hard to admit, at least for me... but denying it makes us more vulnerable to such manipulation, I think.
- sjroot 8y agoThat's exactly why I posted my comment! You just elaborated on the idea much better than I did. :)
- guelo 8y agoDo you ever introspect that commercial "super clean" design is a hack on your brain to make you buy things that you wouldn't otherwise and that you should not use design as a purchase criteria?
- kevin_thibedeau 8y agoThe whole thing may have just been a viral marketing scheme never intended to be implemented. They get to ride the wave of the news cycle for a week or so and potentially gain new trading accounts with the free publicity.
- rchaud 8y agoAt a time when newspapers struggle to sign people up even with a "$1 for 4 weeks" deal, you really think people are pulling out their credit cards to do business with a financial firm that just got publicly told off by a reglator?
- jpm_sd 8y agoThis is amazing and beautiful. They're disrupting the bullshit cycle! Speeding it up by orders of magnitude!
- mlthoughts2018 8y agoOne of the main things it communicates to me is that the decision makers in these start-ups are no different than the decision makers in bloated old firms that survive with regulatory capture. If you follow the money trail, it eventually bottoms out with the same musical chairs of people making the same tired business moves with overt and deliberate goals to manipulate people into product lock in before changing terms to be unfavorable. Most start-ups, even fancy seeming ones backed by sexy VCs where you think, surely this one must be genuinely innovating in some way, are just the same centuries old bureaucratic anti-consumer bullshit, just dressed up with a sleek infinite scroll and using hashtags and the word lolz on the webpage.
- beachwood23 8y agoI'm curious how this compares to SoFi's Money program. SoFi manages student loans and now they are moving into cash management. It seems that this is an area new companies feel is ripe for disruption.
- matt4077 8y agoSure, yes. Disruption, freeing us once and for all from, like, the shackles of deposit insurance?
- dang 8y agoWould you please stop posting in the flamewar style to Hacker News? You've been doing it enough that your username has started to stand out for it. And we've asked you already. Also, please don't use HN primarily for ideological battle. That's destructive of the purpose of this site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- astura 8y agoWell, SoFi Money hasn't launched yet, so the product doesn't exist. The difference is SoFi Money claims to plan to offer 1% less interest than Robinhood claims to offer, also SoFi Money claims to plan to be FDIC insured.
- DevX101 8y agoRobinhood's whole business model is making money from people who think they're getting a free lunch. You're still paying money for the trade. But instead of paying a direct fee, you're paying more money via the bid-ask spread. Everytime you make a trade, Robinhood sells that trade to a market maker. Robin hood charges more money for forwarding this trade than most other brokers. To make up for this increased cost to market makers, they then pass the cost to you by charging more money for the trade. This is akin to restaurants that claim you get free delivery. You don't really get free delivery. They just increased the price of the food. Looks like they were trying to play a similar game with that 3% savings account by claiming your money was risk-free when it really wasn't. https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-free-trading-on-robinhood-isnt-really-free-1541772001 https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-free-trading-on-robinhood-i...
- jcfrei 8y ago> Robinhood's whole business model is making money from people who think they're getting a free lunch. You're still paying money for the trade. But instead of paying a direct fee, you're paying more money via the bid-ask spread. This gets brought up in every thread about Robinhood and is simply wrong. Check out this explanation of Robinhood's business model: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-16/carl-icahn-wants-to-fight-dell-again https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-16/carl-i...
- andrewla 8y agoThis is an old trope that gets passed around a lot. It simply isn't true -- you are, in fact, getting a free lunch [1]. If you place a limit order at a given price, you will get that price or better, period. Just as you would at any other retail brokerage. At any other retail brokerage you will get charged fees as well. It is structurally impossible (modulo odd lot requirements that are unlikely to affect you unless you are buying extremely thinly traded stocks) for the price to pass you by while your limit order is active -- if you want to buy at $100, nobody in the US, retail or institutional, trading on any regulated market, will get executed at a better price than $100 while your order is active. For market orders it is more complex, but you will never do worse than picking up the best price available. Yes, you will cross the spread; market orders are always taking orders, but at any retail brokerage you will also cross the spread, in addition to paying fees. All retail brokerages eat price improvement above the executed price, and Robinhood is no different except that they don't charge you fees on top of that. Retail flow is by far the most valuable to wholesale market makers; they pay through the teeth for it, but regulation does not permit Robinhood to front run its customers. [1] There is, of course, no such thing as a free lunch -- your lunch is being paid for by the wholesale market makers and the dark pools of liquidity. More specifically, you are paying for your lunch by expressing a liquidity preference.
- m23khan 8y agofolks, be super careful with your money - even if they survived and got X number of customers, if they were to fail - I don't know how and when the customers would get their money back. In the past, I have seen small mom-and-pop brick-and-mortar 'finance groups' pop up which promise to give you much better returns than the markets based on investing in some 'magical fund'. Such groups then take your money and for a while the going is good until Government halts them and then overnight these 'money mills' are gone and your money is stuck as is money of other folks with tax authorities taking action against the customers who had no idea. And the way these operations are setup and run, folks running these money mills get off scotch free only to shy away for few years until they come back again with yet another 'idea'.
- fredcy 8y agoMatt Levine is a treasure. His Money Stuff column/email has taught me, a programmer not versed in fintech, a lot about the intricacies of the financial world. In particular, his clearheaded view of blockchain tech is useful counterpoint to the hype.
- wuunderbar 8y agoDo you have any particular links for Matt Levine content you found interesting?
- nlh 8y ago(Not PP) I just discovered his writing recently, and he publishes a daily newsletter that's, more often than not, all of funny, interesting, and informative. I haven't gone back to the archives, but the day-to-day is terrfic: http://link.mail.bloombergbusiness.com/join/4wm/moneystuff-signup http://link.mail.bloombergbusiness.com/join/4wm/moneystuff-s...
- mbesto 8y agoHonestly - I read Money Talks daily and it's pretty much all interesting.
- isseu 8y agoIs nice that Bloomberg has an rss by author https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/authors/ARbTQlRLRjE/matthew-s-levine.rss https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/authors/ARbTQlRLRjE/matthe...
- creade 8y agoHe's doing an AMA right this minute, if you're interested: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/a72gc8/im_matt_levine_money_stuff_columnist_at_bloomberg/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/a72gc8/im_matt_levine...
- tanderson92 8y agoHis "are index funds communist"[0] theme is great and he has said it's a personal favorite of his (there are many of his articles over the years which discuss this question, I've only linked to the most in-depth one). I also recommend his discussion of the DAO 'hack'[1], and for pure absurdity value this story about insurance contracts[2]. [0]: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-08-24/are-index-funds-communist https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-08-24/are-in... [1]: here, he also links to other analysis by him around the same time: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-17/blockchain-company-s-smart-contracts-were-dumb https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-17/blockc... [2]: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-02-27/arbitrage-discovered https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-02-27/arbitr...
- vxxzy 8y agoGorilla Marketing at its finest. Way to hack society Robinhood
- dqpb 8y agoIn other news: Bloomberg Moved Fast and Broke https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-11/super-micro-says-third-party-test-found-no-malicious-hardware https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-11/super-mic...
- Armisael16 8y agoIs that at all relevant? This is an opinion piece.
- dqpb 8y agoSorry, but "this is an opinion piece" is not a valid argument ever since the news media started going after social media where literally everything is an opinion piece.
- Armisael16 8y agoI’m afraid that I have genuinely no clue what you’re getting at here. This is an opinion piece, which means that the journalistic side of Bloomberg you were criticizing had nothing to do with it. Do you have any criticisms of the piece other than Matt Levine’s choice of magazine to submit it to?
- lgleason 8y agoNo big surprise here. I worked on a project for a fintech startup. They were dealing with small business bank accounts in the US and were missing some basic security. Had there been a data breach someone could have come in and cleaned out their customers accounts. Unlike consumer accounts, US banks have no legal obligation to make a business customer whole under that circumstance. Some small businesses have gone out of business over things like this. When I brought it to the founders attention they blew it off so I immediately told them that I'm rolling off the project. I'm all for disrupting the industry, but not at the expense of knowingly putting your customers in harms way.
- lordnacho 8y agoSo why don't they get a banking license? Aren't they stuffed full of VC money? Either get a licence for RH, or buy a small bank that has a license. A guy was telling me I could do that with just $10m a few years ago, just go and buy some small bank and there would be deposit capital to invest. Surely the thought must have crossed their minds to become a bank?
- dunpeal 8y agoBecause running a bank isn't easy, especially in post-2008 USA. For example, you have to maintain a fraction of your total deposits in a cash account. That means that if RH becomes a wild success story, they may have to keep millions or even billions worth of cash stack. I believe there are many other requirements that are not easy to satisfy when you're a small nimble startup. Personally I hope the banking industry in the US gets disrupted, right now it's a dinosaur and consumers suffer. However, with the current legal framework that doesn't seem easy. Seems like RobinHood was trying to disrupt banks and then the big boys (SIPC) shut them down fast.
- denimnerd42 8y agoI work at a top 3 bank. The amount of regulators a bank deals with on a regular basis is insane. we have several $200 million applications just in my department to satisfy them.
- CJKinni 8y agoSorry, I'm very interested in how this all works. What does an application mean in this context?
- bridanp 8y agoI'm not at a top 3, only a large regional. But I'm going to guess software packages and services from companies like Wolters Kluwer Financial Services (http://www.wolterskluwerfs.com http://www.wolterskluwerfs.com for those interested).
- Animats 8y agoCompanies are racing to do things that were done in the 1920s, before modern financial regulation came into effect, only this time with an app. The regulators know how to handle that. Yes. Come on, a fake bank? The ICO industry is the penny-stock market, but with "blockchain". Some of the same suspects, too.
- Forge36 8y agoDid it break? Or was the cost to announce vs total new accounts worth it?
- mmartinson 8y agoA comment on the title and not the content. As a Canadian, I find the American revised spelling of English words to range from helpful and reasonable to needlessly confusing. This is one of those cases where my brain spent a while trying to figure out what exactly Robinhood was checking for before I realized it was about bank accounts.
- calebm 8y agoI couldn't help but wonder if it could have been some gigantic robinhood scheme to take from the rich and possibly give to charities or something. Now we'll never know.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dcchambers 8y agoWell if the goal was to get people interested in the brand and create accounts on robinhood (needed to sign up for early access) then they succeeded. :) Now they can try to convert some of these new users to their core product.
- Ice_cream_suit 8y ago"In many areas of fintech, though, companies are racing to do things that were done in the 1920s, before modern financial regulation came into effect, only this time with an app. The regulators know how to handle that."
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- skywhopper 8y agoLet me just say that this is a fantastic summary of why financial regulation is important and good: Long experience has taught that those basic ideas are mostly good, but have some problems, and a regulatory system has been built to remember and address the problems. If you borrow short to lend long you’ll want deposit insurance; if you sell shares of a thing you’ll need to give buyers some disclosure; if you trade derivatives you should make sure your counterparties understand them; etc.
- TAForObvReasons 8y agoAll types of regulation are important and good, for the reason stated in first sentence. It's just tragic that so many people in the tech industry fight tooth and nail against any sort of regulation, like during the GDPR discussion.
- cle 8y agoIn part, it's because things move fast in the tech industry, and regulations based on expired premises can impede one's ability to react to change. It's the cost of regulation. It seems deceptively simple and cheap at first to pass a law or engineer a mechanism to protect us from something. But that should be weighed with the long-term cost and risk of the regulation/mechanism going out of date. It's a lot harder to get rid of it than to add it.
- rchaud 8y agoThe biggest tech companies in the world do advertising, retail, video distribution and business software services. What about any of these moved so fast that regulations would have stifled their innovation? I would argue that DoJ vs Microsoft and EU v Microsoft encouraged healthy competition, and didn't hurt innovation. It even forced Microsoft to look outside of the Windows/Office businesses to make money.
- jorblumesea 8y agoIt's because they stand to make the most off deregulation. Really not hard to understand, incentives tie directly into profit. There is a trade off, but I've found many in Fintech refuse to acknowledge the huge pluses of regulation.
- abb1234etric 8y agoI'd be shocked if RH can eventually launch this product in any form. People on HN seem to think its a marketing issue, but it isn't. The problem with the product is much deeper. The core issue is that there is no way right now to provide savers with a 3% risk free interest rate. 1 year treasuries for e.g are at a 2.7% yield and that assumes you lock up your money for a year. Basically, their "novel" idea was to supplement the rate they would theoretically be getting from investing your money in t-bills with interchange revenue. But the interchange revenue wouldn't be a sure thing. It depends on the behavior of the customer. This in turn means that they would have to just pay depositors out from their VC money until they attract that type of customer that could support their interchange revenue assumptions. There is a good reason that ideas like this are strictly regulated. If I could just set up a company and promise main street investors a guaranteed return based on my rosy view of the world, a lot of people could end up hurt. I'd be shocked if the product, after they finally launch it, offers any of the features that attracted people to the offering in the first place.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- russdpale 8y agoThe 3% was definitely interesting, but to me at least, moving money quickly between my account and trading/investing account would be nice. Especially when its all in one application. To me, the 3% is not that interesting. 3% is chump change, 3k on 100k.. who cares? Most Americans don't even have 400 bucks in any of their accounts. I don't think most people are going to sign up with a bank for 10 bucks extra per year. Usually much less than that.
- abootstrapper 8y agoI’ve chased hot new banks and their interest rates before. It’s always a bait and switch. Or in this case a complete fumble. Credit Unions are where it’s at. Boring, safe, aligned with their members interests.
- jamessanders123 8y agoIt's why I think apps like Revolut, Neat, and N26 might be the next big thing and Robinhood is trying to compete. https://financeandpurpose.com/easy-ways-open-foreign-digital-nomad-bank-accounts/ https://financeandpurpose.com/easy-ways-open-foreign-digital...
- zenexer 8y agoThis article is brilliantly written. I could write an article about how much I enjoyed reading this article, but then I’d be distracting you from what I actually want you to read. Go read it.