3 ms·

So we don't have to pay a monthly fee of 2.95 euros just to have a bank account! Competition brings lower fees.

lxgr 3y ago
Competition should work just fine with a handful of large banks and a vigilant regulator. In fact, I suspect that there are actually huge inefficiencies in these very small regional banks people are paying for one way or another. It might still be worth it for society, in the end, but I highly doubt that it’s cheaper/more efficient than in other countries. One example is the fact addressed in the article: It takes way too long to roll out technical innovations that have been commonplace in other countries for decades or even centuries.
- andrewjl 3y ago
  The US hasn't ever had a vigilant financial services regulator.
  - junofan 3y ago
    Not sure that’s true—practically the entire planet finds NYDFS prudential enough.
- nirvdrum 3y ago
  It turns out many others prefer banking locally with smaller banks or credit unions. The market is meeting the demand. I’m not even sure why you’re intent on blaming small banks for the slow rollout. The article notes that the large banks introduced a competing system in 2017 and it took years to deploy. That’s with all of the advantages of large bank efficiencies and none of the pesky government bureaucracy. We always hear stories about the legacy COBOL systems these big banks have and how it hinders innovation. It seems to me this more a case of no incentive. If this were such a highly sought after feature, customers would flock to the banks providing it, but they’re not. It’s worth considering why so many choose smaller banks. They can certainly choose large banks but aren’t, despite whatever efficiencies large banks can supply.
- Liebnitz 3y ago
  Ok, I just HAVE to comment after that: Take any local bank vs Wells Fargo. Who would YOU choose... (unless you've lived under a rock for the last 20 years)
nly 3y ago
In general, nobody pays for bank accounts in the UK and there are only really ~4 retail banks worth mentioning. Barclays was founded in 1690 though

lxgr 3y ago

Competition should work just fine with a handful of large banks and a vigilant regulator. In fact, I suspect that there are actually huge inefficiencies in these very small regional banks people are paying for one way or another. It might still be worth it for society, in the end, but I highly doubt that it’s cheaper/more efficient than in other countries. One example is the fact addressed in the article: It takes way too long to roll out technical innovations that have been commonplace in other countries for decades or even centuries.

andrewjl 3y ago
The US hasn't ever had a vigilant financial services regulator.
- junofan 3y ago
  Not sure that’s true—practically the entire planet finds NYDFS prudential enough.
nirvdrum 3y ago
It turns out many others prefer banking locally with smaller banks or credit unions. The market is meeting the demand. I’m not even sure why you’re intent on blaming small banks for the slow rollout. The article notes that the large banks introduced a competing system in 2017 and it took years to deploy. That’s with all of the advantages of large bank efficiencies and none of the pesky government bureaucracy. We always hear stories about the legacy COBOL systems these big banks have and how it hinders innovation. It seems to me this more a case of no incentive. If this were such a highly sought after feature, customers would flock to the banks providing it, but they’re not. It’s worth considering why so many choose smaller banks. They can certainly choose large banks but aren’t, despite whatever efficiencies large banks can supply.
Liebnitz 3y ago
Ok, I just HAVE to comment after that: Take any local bank vs Wells Fargo. Who would YOU choose... (unless you've lived under a rock for the last 20 years)

nly 3y ago

In general, nobody pays for bank accounts in the UK and there are only really ~4 retail banks worth mentioning. Barclays was founded in 1690 though