62 ms·
BankSimple: A Bank That Doesn't Suck
- earle 15y agoAnd have been waiting,.. and waiting,... and waiting.... shocked nobody has come around and beat them at their own game it's been so long...
- pitdesi 15y agoI feel the same way... but building a bank from scratch is very very complicated, so I understand.
- frossie 15y agoI am sure it is very complicated, but they need to be careful with the hype, especially since it the meanwhile some other online offerings (such as ING direct) have been getting better, to the point that it seems to me that the opportunity to truly impress is getting smaller.
- drewvolpe 15y agoBeat them at their own game ? BankSimple is a front-end for existing banks. They will still get their cut and control much of how this works.
- joshuahays 15y ago+1 I wrote this above. They are just a front-end, nothing more.
- benmccann 15y agoSaying they're "nothing more" detracts from the value you can provide with a frontend. Mint was a frontend for Yodlee and sold for $170m.
- joshuahays 15y agoThat's true, but I guess I expected a true online bank who was dedicated to customer satisfaction, not just a middleman.
- kwis 15y agoI'd argue that USAA is already trouncing BankSimple. USAA competes with the same sort of value proposition (convenient banking with great service, but without a B&M presence), and is a fortune 500 company with millions of happy customers. It's hard to find discussion about retail banks on the Internet without finding satisfied USAA customers telling their stories.
- earle 15y agoI agree -- I've been a USAA customer for twenty years, and they by far have one of the best mobile banking products around. From what I've seen on BankSimple, USAA has already been there for years.
- ISeemToBeAVerb 15y agoYup. I've been a USAA member for about 10 years now and I've never once had an issue with their service, not to mention that I know I can always get an actual human on the phone who is happy to help me. As someone who travels quite a bit, I can't imagine using any other bank. In the end though, I can't see how having another option in the marketplace could hurt. Any company seeking to offer better banking services gets a high five in my book.
- lowglow 15y agoI think a lot of the ideas that revolve around making things more convenient for clients have a lot of merit. It's not about gimmicks, but solid business sense: Convenience drives consumption. If they truly can make banking simpler for real people then hats off to them.
- dkl 15y agoING and USAA are two really good banks that have no physical presence. I use both of them. USAA has mobile deposit of checks, too. I can't see how BankSimple can beat them, but maybe they can.
- pitdesi 15y agoOf note: ING direct was sold to Capital One last week. Capital One has til now addressed an entirely different demographic, so it'll be interesting to see if there are changes... USAA is good, but it's interface doesn't compare to what BankSimple is shown so far. And many banks have mobile deposit of checks... PNC, Schwab, Chase, State Farm etc. I personally really like Schwab bank. Edit to reflect that USAA banking is now open to all
- zheng 15y agoTo be honest, ING was one of my favorite banks. They handled security very well, and the customer service always knew what they were doing. After hearing this, well, I'll keep my account for now, but prior experience with Capital One makes me very leery.
- rg3 15y agoJust a minor addition to the parent post. What was sold to Capital One appears to be ING Direct USA. Other branches of ING Direct in other countries were not affected by this operation. See https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ing_direct#ING_Direct_United_States https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ing_direct#IN... Edit: kirpekar was faster than me a few comments below.
- billpaetzke 15y agoING direct was sold to Capital One last week. Wow. That's the first I heard of the news. A quick Google News search shows many ING customers (like myself) are upset. This could be a boon for BankSimple. If Capital One botches the ING experience over the next two years, I'll definitely defect to BankSimple (assuming it's comparable).
- 15y ago
- zheng 15y agoTangent to the article, but what I really want is a bank that allows me to do funds transfers immediately. I understand they make a lot of money off of the floating period, but there's got to be a way to place some other kind of restriction on me so that I can transfer funds quickly. Or, just find a bank that offers both a checking account and a high interest rate...
- nicksergeant 15y agoFWIW, USAA does fund transfer immediately, at least perceptively. When I transfer from a BoA account to USAA, funds are available within 10 minutes (close enough to "immediate" for me). USAA also does interest on checking accounts, debit-card-as-credit points, and ATM fee kickbacks.
- zheng 15y agoI use USAA for my general banking, but their savings interest rates just aren't competitive. I've had smaller transfers go that quickly, but larger ones still seem to take a couple days.
- dkokelley 15y agoI've noticed that while funds show as arrived/available in USAA, the originating account stills shows the funds available as well. This tells me it might be a convenience offered by USAA, even if the transaction hasn't processed yet. This is similar to cashing a check that the bank hasn't collected from yet. They take your good standing with them into account, and give you the money.
- chris11 15y agoThat's what they do with deposit@home. I don't think USAA cashes the checks immediately when you cash your checks online. That's why they require you to have a line of credit with them. When you cash a check they give you an interest free loan for the amount of the check. When the check clears the loan is paid off. And if the check doesn't clear they have the ability to take the money out of the account, or they actually give you a loan to cover the check if you have drained your acccounts.
- Apocryphon 15y agoDo they trade in BitCoins?
- MatthewPhillips 15y agoWho is Fast Company serving with this article? So the PR firm BankSimple hired pitched an article; fine. Declaring that a product that hasn't even launched to anyone outside of family "doesn't suck" is irresponsible reporting. "Aims to not suck" is accurate. There's nothing in this article to indicate that the writer has been using the service (just perhaps seen the interface). I'm as excited about BankSimple launching as anyone else but these type of articles rub me the wrong way.
- tptacek 15y agoWho does Fast Company ever serve with an article? The charter of Fast Company is to identify what the cool kids are talking about, digest it, and regurgitate it for the kinds of people who use magazines like Fast Company to keep up with trends. With a few notable exceptions this is how all print tech journalism works. I think you're looking for a semiotic value to Fast Company stories that doesn't really exist. They aren't getting written up because something important is happening. They're getting written up because people have been talking about them. That is probably literally the only element of newsworthiness underpinning the story.
- smikhanov 15y agoI never heard of BankSimple anywhere except for the HN and al3x's Twitter which I happen to follow (and I read lots of technical news). There were maybe couple of mentions on TC. BankSimple is not Foursquare or Facebook, I seriously doubt anyone, leave alone cool kids, talks about it. So, yeah, it apparently was just a pitch from the PR firm.
- ghotli 15y agoEh, I for one have been talking about it. I hate banks and bank apps and things that only work with mint some of the time. If they solve this problem I'll be a happy man and I'll tell everyone I know. I don't care if this is just self serving PR. Here's hoping I'm pleased with the product and that they get the hype / exposure needed to become profitable.
- jason_slack 15y agoWe don't actually know that they dont suck..they have not launched yet. I was really hoping to move to a better bank. I am ready and BankSimple still is not available so I need to go shopping and exclude BankSimple from my list. I wont switch twice that is for sure..Lost my business.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- dkokelley 15y agoI think a good analogy is that they are an application layer over the banks, which typically have a horrible backend. If they can create a great customer-facing front end in all aspects (customer service, funds processing, etc.) then they might do well. The way I understand it is that BankSimple has deals with the other banks (or maybe just accounts) in which they process transactions through. In that case, they can mitigate much of the pain the traditional bank puts customers through.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- tedunangst 15y agoI can imagine them improving the front end. But how do they get rid of the "hidden" fees if they're backed by normal banks? Is BankSimple just going to pay all those fees for you? Or are they going to reprint the fine print in size 48pt extra bold?
- bkudria 15y agoFrom the article: "The FDIC-backed firms, in turn, get additional customers without paying for marketing, meaning "there's enough revenue for both of us to be happy," says Pete Chiccino of Bancorp, which is slated to join CBW Bank as a BankSimple partner. Reich also promises his company won't charge the kinds of extraneous fees that netted U.S. banks some $36.5 billion last year."
- dkokelley 15y agoBankSimple's account never goes negative, so there is no fee. When your BS account (funny abbreviation) 'goes negative', BS can charge whatever they want, or nothing at all. BS only needs to ensure that their master accounts are in good standing, to avoid backend bank fees.
- dreamdu5t 15y ago"We’re reinventing personal banking." means absolutely nothing. Marketing drivel, like when Chase says "Chase what matters." It's meaningless. It's not simple. It's not direct.
- meowzero 15y agoThere's already a bank that doesn't suck: Charles Schwab.
- zacharypinter 15y agoInteresting that the article mentioned one of their main revenue sources is planned to be debit cards. I use a credit card that I pay off monthly for all my purchases. I chose the credit card because it has the best rewards I could find (1.5% back for all purchases, anywhere VISA is accepted). Would BankSimple not work with that model?
- r00fus 15y ago1.5% seems very nice. Who's your bank?
- zacharypinter 15y agoMy credit card is through Fidelity, here's the link: http://personal.fidelity.com/products/checking/content/investment_rewards_card.shtml http://personal.fidelity.com/products/checking/content/inves...
- oasisbob 15y agoWould BankSimple not work with that model? Debit cards are going to be a lot less profitable due to the Durbin amendment. There's still some money to be made if you can scale up, but it won't be nearly as lucrative. Interchange fees currently average out to $0.44 a transaction. Come this July, the interchange fees will be capped at a flat $0.12 if the FRB maintains their current draft rules.
- cbailey 15y agoI was really impressed with the concept back in January when I tried to get a beta account. Being a 20-something and born into the tech generation, I would be comfortable with a bank that didn't have a brick and mortar presence and used the strategies that BankSimple uses (will use) to get great rates, etc. I can see how older generations would be very wary of truly online bank. I know people who were baffled when I told them I would be switching to ING or another online only bank.
- chris11 15y agoI really can't image using a brick and mortar store. I've used USAA all of my life, so I don't see any need to talk to a banker face to face. My father has bought several houses through them, and he has been able to do everything over the phone and at home. Any documents that need to be signed are 1-day fedexed. And local notaries are paid to come by and notarize docucments. So online banking is really convenient.
- michaelcampbell 15y agoSadly, like all computer programs must expand to include email, all banks that don't suck must eventually get bought by those that do.
- trebor 15y agoIs it just me, or does the article date say "July 22, 2011" when it's June?
- samtp 15y agoI'm going to be honest: it's hard to trust a bank who's founders look like people hanging out at my local dive bar. For them to get my money I need a more professional look from the company. This whole informal startup look only works for companies that provide non-critical services.
- nickik 15y agoI disagree, I think people should dress however they like. If I'm going to trust them depends on there skill. In a normal bank i feel like I'm not talking the people im talking to what the were orderd to be. In IT this works much better, some really good programmers walk around in suits others walk around well like Stallmen.
- samtp 15y agoThis appearance works well for the hacker crowd, but do you really think it helps for people over 40? I seriously doubt it
- Derbasti 15y agoDo they do at least two-factor authentification? Do they accept international wire transfers? Can they do online wire transfers? Is the transaction history accessible from some banking software? Do they not send me spam? Can I use their credit card abroad without a hassle? Does the credit card use the chip for authentification instead of the insecure magnetic strip? Do they transfer money instantly without holding back my money for days? Do they have 24/7 and helpful customer support? Can I call them without negotiating with some computerized voice for minutes? Can I call them without suffering through several minutes of elevator music? Can I call them for free? Can I withdraw money from every/enough ATMs without paying a fee? Can I manage account details at a bank franchise other than the one where I created it? Do they have a helpful, easy to use website? Do they have employees that are more than human computer interfaces and are actually helpful? Now that would begin to sound like a bank that does not suck indeed... (Suckage assembled from several countries)
- pennig 15y agoI'd hate to see your list of questions posed to a potential mate.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- Adam503 15y agoI prefer a bank that doesn't go bankrupt or steal.
- HoyaSaxa 15y agoI really do think there is a great opportunity for a better bank! However, I think BankSimple is making a big mistake by not becoming a real bank, and instead acting as a front end interface. BankSimple claims that all accounts will be FDIC insured "at launch." However, from what I am gathering, it will be impossible to keep these accounts FDIC insured in the long term especially since the company claims it will be transferring money around from bank to bank in order to acquire the best rates. Really? Banks are going to be open to opening a new account for every new customer (which is what would have to happen in order to be FDIC insured)? I am skeptical. Also, a big concern of mine is the claim they will move money between savings and checking automatically for you. Recent legislation prohibits more than 6 electronic transfers from the savings to checking accounts in a month. So if a computer is pushing your money around; you might be out of luck towards the end of the month when you need some extra cash, but all six of your transfers have already been used. Also, at the credit union I work at, we charge the normal returned ACH payment fee if you surpass these 6 charges ($25! yikes!!) and BankSimple states all fees will be passed onto the consumer. So in actuality, BankSimple is really just a nice mobile experience that moves money around the top few banks (which really aren't that great). You still incur the same fees. Just doesn't seem like a very good business structure to me. However, I would invest in BankSimple because a big bank would pay big $$$ to acquire the technology the company is developing. Mobile is the future of banking and that is what BankSimple recognizes so perfectly. Look for a big acquisition in the next few years.
- oasisbob 15y agoRecent legislation prohibits more than 6 electronic transfers from the savings to checking accounts in a month. IIRC, this is regulation DD, and is quite a traditional rule. On the books, banks account for savings and checking funds separately, and have separate capitalization requirements because checking accounts are assumed to be more liquid. Under these circumstances, you don't want consumers to treat savings accounts like checking accounts (which they have an incentive to do, because of traditionally higher interest rates), so you create a disincentive through transaction limits. For BankSimple, this is probably not much of a problem. Reg DD allows for more than six transactions if you charge a per-transaction fee. Most banks charge a buck or two (or $25), I'm not sure if there's any regulatory problem with them dropping the fee to $.01 or $.001
- famousactress 15y ago....aaaaand, didn't read it. Why? Cause I was confronted by a stupid countdown advert. At least when it's a movie or a tv show I file a "remember to go steal that" ticket in my brain.. but in the case of a magazine article, I'm certainly not gonna go torrent the thing. Just stupid.
- jarin 15y agoAll these articles about BankSimple are fine and dandy, but I feel like I've been waiting for my beta invite for at least a year. Meanwhile, companies like Dwolla are springing up and poised to pull the rug out from under them. As long as everything is bulletproof secure, just launch already.