Banking UP

Only last November, I wrote about how 75% of our mobile customers were using a smartphone to access their account. Well, 2 months later, the number is now beyond 80%:

• 56.7% Android
• 24.2% iPhone

This penetration ratio is astounding. The technical team at Plastyc is getting itchy to release the applications we have prepared for both platforms.

Below is a sneak preview of the iPhone application:

Once released, anyone among the 80%+ with a smartphone will be able to manage the entirety of their account without touching a PC again.

Last week, Consumers Union (the non-for-profit publishers of Consumer Reports) provided an update to their September 2009 study of Prepaid Cards, somewhat provocatively entitled “Prepaid Cards: Second-Tier Bank Account Substitutes?”
Click here to download the new report.

What this report articulates overall is: even new, born-in-the-21st-century, financial services and products (like prepaid cards) can be more expensive and less people-friendly than they need to be, jeopardizing their potential to be a replacement for 19th-century services like checking accounts.

The report does not analyze the cause for this, but it is really what I have been talking about time and again on this blog: a lot of financial services suppliers are both greedy and incompetent.
Too many fat cats unwilling or unable to use innovation to improve the performance-over-price ratio of what they deliver.

If it was not for poor execution by many companies, here is why prepaid cards are actually a good substitution for checking accounts:

Pay by card

I do have a few specific issues with the Consumers Union report. In the interest of full disclosure, I run a company that provides prepaid cards, and am evidently disappointed that our product (the UPside Visa Prepaid Card) was not mentioned in it. I guess when you want to make a point that products are too expensive and not consumer-friendly enough, leaving out the lowest cost and most complete products available helps strengthen that point.
But, hey, product reviewers have to select a manageable subset and can’t include everybody. And why would I complain that our product is not listed in a rather negative report?

Back to what I think is not entirely justified in the Consumers Union report, in reference to their Policy Recommendations in paragraph V:

• Fees: for sure they ought to be limited and transparent. Overdraft and dormancy fees which are mostly punitive should go away (we don’t have any on UPside cards). However, requesting that paper statements be always provided at no fee or a nominal fee makes little sense in the days of Internet and increasing postage costs. Almost no cardholder is asking for paper statements.
• Rights to re-credits in case of lost or stolen cards: here Consumers Union is confusing the theory – i.e. what Terms & Conditions have to legally say- and the practice – i.e. what companies really do-. Most issuers will re-credit an account that was previously suspended following a loss or theft, rather than risking to lose the cardholder by waiting too long to do it. So most incidents are resolved well beyond what the T&C’s of a cardholder agreement typically say. Requesting that re-credits be systematic, generalized and the same as with bank accounts that often rely on minimum balances and other fees to cover operational costs, is unrealistic.
• Reduce Loss Cap to $50 on all cards, including prepaid. Same as above: most issuers will actually waive loss caps rather than losing a customer, even though they have a lot less headroom to do so with a prepaid card than with a debit or credit card. Forcing alignment of all cards without understanding the underpinning differences in profitability and business models will not work.
• Chargeback Protection. Well, this is not even discussed in the report, so not sure why that point is there, besides juste making the list longer. I am not aware that prepaid card issuers are behaving any differently than issuers of debit cards linked to a checking account.
• FDIC protection. What they mean here is what is called “pass-through” protection, i.e. making it clear that the protection applies to cards individually rather than all the cards in aggregate at the issuer. I agree with this, but let’s remember that no prepaid card reviewed in the report nor any prepaid card that I know of in the US, can exceed a balance of a few $1,000′s. So demanding a $250,000 protection per card is somewhat extreme. I am not sure what the Anti Money Laundering enforcers would think about prepaid cards with balances of up to a quarter million dollars…

Overall, the prepaid card industry has some progress to make and Consumers Union does a good job of keeping stakeholders on their toes. However, giving the impression that all prepaid cards are ‘second tier’ compared to bank accounts, is somewhat unfair to those of us who are trying hard to do better than checking accounts at a lower cost and without the risks of overdrafts.

For the sake of transparency, here is what the UPside Visa fee schedule, as formatted by Consumers Union in Appendix A of their report would have looked like if they had included it: (click on the image to download in PDF format)
And here is the same for the evaluation of the monthly cost: (click on the image to download in PDF format)

Bump, POPmoney and Buxter are a few of the person-to-person (P2P) money transfer services introduced recently. They are preceded by a long line of failed attempts to beam money from one person to another that I have witnessed since my days in the smart card industry in the mid-90’s, when UK-based Mondex attempted chained electronic payments from an individual payer to the next.

As a particular category of payments, I am prepared to declare that P2P is hopeless, at least in the Western world.

There is no shortage of brilliant minds at PayPal, Obopay, Cashedge, Click & Buy or other market players jumping into P2P. It’s just that, when one of the two P’s is not a merchant trying to sell something to the other P, there are very few realistic use cases. And the barrier of requiring people to install software or sign up and remember a username and password is too high for most people, however cool the new P2P payment system may seem.

Even in the hyper-connected world of “Generation Y” consumers (teens and 20-somethings), I Owe You’s are usually settled with good old cash, and other modes of payment remain too infrequently used to justify new businesses.

At Plastyc, we have tens of thousands of customers using our more innovative features, such as suspending a misplaced card from a cell phone or sending paper checks to their landlord via our virtual checkbook. But our free, ultra-accessible Facebook P2P service for our UPside Visa cardholders is another matter. The service does not even require that the recipient of the money be a cardholder to start with, as we automatically offer him or her a new card to receive the money, if needed. The truth is: we have very little traffic with that service as compared with other features.

When I asked my own 20-year old son why he was not using it, he shrugged the question off as almost irrelevant: he buys online a lot, but he never has to send money to his friends.

So I can only imagine how little traction service providers may have when they charge for P2P money services, require more than just logging into a Facebook account, and perhaps insist on people installing an app on a mobile phone.

If one of the P’s is a “pseudo merchant” (over-used example: the piano teacher; more exotic example introduced recently by Square: the local glass-blowing artist), it’s a different story. Then we’re back into retail payment scenarios with the need for charge back rules and security compliance, which both require a trusted third party in the middle to ensure payment and resolve disputes.

If the two persons are in different countries, we are venturing in the world of international remittances. This is a huge market. But it is not for the faint of heart, because there are strict money transmitter licensing rules and anti-money-laundering regulations to comply with. There’s also a need to solve the “last mile” problem of making sure that the received money can be spent easily, usually in cash. Everybody wants to eat Western Union’s lunch in this market, but this will be an uphill battle.

Now, here is an example of a genuine P2P payment scenario that would make a difference and produce decent transaction volumes inside the US: parent-to-student allowances or emergency funding when the student is a few hundred miles away from mom and dad.

The US has 17.5 million people aged 18-20 who are too old for teen prepaid cards and too young now for their own individual credit card, since the CARD Act took effect last month.

Here are the issues and requirements for servicing these people:

• The transfer should not take days. At most a few hours: “Mom, my car broke down late last night and I need to get it towed to the garage this morning…” So bank transfers via ACH are out.
• The student should be able to spend the money in the brick-and-mortar world. Joe’s Towing does not accept PayPal.
• If Mom’s credit card is the source of transfer, it should really be Mom’s card, not someone else’s, which is difficult to verify because Mom probably does not live on campus and may have a different last name.
• If money is needed more frequently than in emergencies, then having both sides of the transfer walk or drive to a money transfer retail location like those operated by Western Union or Moneygram is too inconvenient and costly.

Solving the parent-to-student payment case is not as easy as it sounds. But because this is one of the few problems big enough to support innovative solutions, I expect new services to emerge soon to serve the Parent-to-Student (P2S?) market.

Frankly, I was quite taken aback when I saw all the media buzz around “Kwedit” in the otherwise serious financial and payments trade press a few weeks ago.

While many of us are busy devising new products and services that allow people to be more responsible with their money, Kwedit essentially encourages young users to buy virtual goods with money they don’t have yet.

This is introduced the exact same month when the CARD Act finally starts making credit cards less accessible to users less than 21 year old with the hope of curbing student debt and reducing the abuse of young users by big card companies.

Given the pedigree of the founders and investors, there is no doubt that Kwedit will execute nicely on a product that is not only useless, but is pro-actively contributing to the disastrous level of financial illiteracy in this country.

So, I was delighted to hear that Stephen Colbert devoted his “The Word” segment to Kwedit.

Here its is: “Kid Owe”

On Feb. 22, new first of many new financial regulations to protect consumers takes effect. It’s not a moment too soon. Banking, especially retail banking, is ripe for change, and the new regulations provides the catalyst that will help shift the power from the bankers to the consumers with technology fueling the reaction.

A key piece of new regulation, The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, act includes important provisions that go into effect in three weeks. One important change makes it illegal to provide credit cards to people under 21 unless an adult over 21 co-signs for the card or the younger adults show proof that they can pay off the debt. Other provisions limit certain fee types and gee charging methods for most credit cards.

In response to this and other new regulations, traditional banks are scheming up new ways to charge customers, as Ron Lieber at the New York Times profiled here. The banks customer-unfriendly reaction will drive increasing numbers of individuals to discover that there’s a new game in town and embrace change.

That new game in banking is technology. It makes it possible to service people’s payment needs in new ways that are better, faster and more affordably than before,

In particular, people who have long been overlooked and underserved by the old banking establishment – the young and people with low balances — will adopt new products and services online, on cell phones and on cards that are more accessible, more affordable and that meet their needs better than the corner branch of a large bank.

It’s unlikely that people will see these innovative new products come first from large banks. Their overhead costs – including large executive salaries and real-estate leases — are too high, and they have too much to lose from change to undercut their existing business. But in response, over time, even the traditional banks will be forced to innovate without fee-gouging in order to compete for customers.

These new services will come in many varieties. There are good examples in a recent report by analyst firm Forrester Research titled “Hot Banking Banking Tech Companies to Watch In 2010” . For instance, Bling Nation works with community banks to provide local payment services using contactless tags affixed to the back of cellphones. And Econiq helps community banks and credit unions coach customers about financial services based on their life events such as a new child. (My company, Plastyc, Inc., is also mentioned the report. It has no commercial ties to Forrester Research.)

And in my conversations with industry innovators, I’m hearing exciting ideas for new ways to embed payment services into other products and services that people use on a daily basis.  Here are three examples:

• Merchant debit accounts. Rather than dragging consumers further into debt, some merchants of durable goods like appliances or used cars, are securing recurrent direct debits from un-banked but dutifully employed consumers, by encouraging them to sign up for a prepaid card account into which salaries can be direct-deposited by employers and from which monthly payments for access to the goods can then be directly debited.
• Paying for cell phone services. Consumers who use prepaid cell phones for themselves or their family will be able to top up those phones with airtime right from within a payment card account, instead of having to buy “scratch cards” or obtain a “PIN” and redeeming them over the phone
• Cause-related services. Non-for-profit organizations like the Economic Empowerment Initiative or Amar’e Stoudemire’s Each One Teach One foundation are coupling their financial literacy programs with prepaid cards for teens.

These examples are transformative because they flip the payment services model by aligning the vendor and the customers’ interests in finding effective, affordable, reliable payment options. This alliance is especially promising for customers who are not served well by traditional financing options.

In order for these next generation services to transform banking, people have to trust them. So many of them will be linked to safety nets such as FDIC insurance and payment networks such as Visa.

Even with those safety nets, change will stem from the early adopters and those feeling left out or angered by the old consumer banking establishment.

But very quickly, smart consumers across the economic spectrum will realize that there’s a new game in town and power balance is shifting from the bankers to the consumers.