3 ms·
Lol it's been that way for at least 20 years. Same with chase (well at least the bank one half of it). It seems remarkably stupid, but it's way cheaper for th
by jcims 7y ago
Lol it's been that way for at least 20 years. Same with chase (well at least the bank one half of it).
It seems remarkably stupid, but it's way cheaper for them to refund any losses and/or pay for lifetime credit monitoring than it is to deal with customer service calls from people getting locked out because they can't figure out how to deal with uppercase and lowercase letters.
- slumdev 7y agoI get that Amex would do this. It seems to be their attitude. They seem absolutely bent on eating the cost of fraud to make life easier for their customer. For the other banks, the motivation is harder to understand.
- jcims 7y agoSame motivation. Call center costs related to account recovery are astronomical when you have tens of millions of customers. The authentication systems at large banks are generally a bit more 'observational' than just watching what password is sent (not always of course) so you can still mitigate many threats while still allowing for reduced login friction.
- antisthenes 7y agoIt's funny that my small-ish credit union is not only more technologically advanced, but also way more ethical (looking at you, Wells Fargo) and convenient, and has top notch customer service. Seriously, I've never interacted with more pleasant customer service reps than my CU. Why are people giving their money to big banks again? Is it just advertising pressure?
- edoceo 7y agoWell, 25 years ago, when I opened at $BigBank the CU I use now didn't exist, and $BigBank offered services and availability that CU didn't (in 1995). Then, for the very long time I tied so many things to that account at $BigBank that it took almost three years for me to migrate all the accounts, business and personal and loans, etc to the new CU. So, to why: legacy and stickiness