Valid points. There is no question that competing on account coverage is nearly impossible since Yodlee/CashEdge claim to support 10-12k interfaces. While I d

Valid points. There is no question that competing on account coverage is nearly impossible since Yodlee/CashEdge claim to support 10-12k interfaces. While I do agree that building out really wide coverage initially would be extremely capital-intensive, what about just building out the top 20, 50, 100 institutions? I would imagine that accounts have a very long tail, but supporting the top banks would yield the majority of accounts. Of course with aggregation, limited bank support can ruin your value proposition. But what if you build-on-demand? I mean, you build out support for the top 50 banks, then rapidly build out new ones as they are demanded? Still costs a lot of money, but if you can get revenue to roll in then it's more manageable. A lot of online bank UI's offer the same data options (download CSV, MS Money, Quicken, etc). I really see 3 big activities that can be abstracted, then customized based on URL structure and UI: 1. Login and security verification 2. Gather account information (nicknames, balance, limits, interest, etc) 3. Gather account transactions (download statements in one of the provided formats) Many of these formats even include categorization text or SIC numbers. Normalizing the data would be a pain the ass, but could get better as you have more raw bank data to analyze. Of course, there will be tons of outliers, but a lot of banks could be supported with slight modifications. Just feel like this whole aggregation space is ripe for some disruption.