US ventures aimed at helping the unbanked are taking cues from developing world
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
"Basic bank accounts" were a game changer. They're what the US calls "checking accounts" (minus the checks) with them you get a debit card, the ability to pay in, take out, and transfer money; however absolutely zero ability to go overdrawn (no loan, no line of credit, etc).
But everyone could get one, even those who declared bankruptcy, since it was decided that it was not-viable in the 2000s for someone, anyone, to not own or have the ability to own a bank account. Which is right.
Banks make money via the spread between the general interest rate and the lower interest rate offered by the account, in addition to sales opportunities (e.g. offering to upgrade to a full account, savings accounts, small loans, etc).
However in general in the US banks are under-regulated and antiquated. Banking in the US Vs. UK feels like going back in time twenty years, everything is slow, complex, expensive, they charge for a basic checking/current account(!), you still have to physically go to a branch [ever!], transferring money between two banks is annoying, checks still exist, their anti-fraud is pathetic, and they're only getting C&P right now.
PS - Although I am at Wells Fargo so maybe my opinion about US banks is really more Wells Fargo biased than general banking. Maybe there are better US banks, but I don't know who they are.
In the US a good portion of the unbanked also happens to be undocumented immigrants. There is also the problem of AML/KYC process in the US which has been stricter in the US than in the UK (as you could tell from the UK headquartered banks getting fined by US Regulators -- not saying it is better though) and as a consequence the cost of compliance goes up for the bank. They pass on these costs to the consumer but with an upsell mentality that you had mentioned (increased min balance requirement removes fees, for e.g.) -- this leads to the upper middle class paying nothing and the poor and middle class paying bulk of the fees.
The economist had a very nice article about the cost of being poor: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21663262-why-low.... This is a very difficult problem and will be hard to address properly without adequate support from the govt. For example, the govt. could provide easier access to banking license for those who want to serve low-income customers and allow for innovative solutions in this space.
In order to stop money laundering and fraud they do require some things:
- Proof of address (2x of the following): Bills (e.g. utilities), council tax bill, benefits agencies, a UK driving license, tenancy agreement, or a letter from your employer.
- Proof of identification (1x of the following): Passport, driving license (even foreign), national identity card, letter from benefits agency or local authority, or a verification letter from an individual in an trusted position (these are verified, and only individuals in certain notable roles are trusted, like commanding officers in the military, parole officers, and your priest, etc).
We had mobile banking in 1999 via SIM toolkit...
The problem is that in the US you get trapped in fees
One solution to this problem would be a legal requirement to have cost-free basic bank accounts. This could be a necessary requirement to getting a banking license.It's funny, the left treats wealth like a fact of nature (the only problem is how to distribute it!) and the right treats protection like a fact of nature (I ain't givin up nothin in exchange for protection of my assets!)
Lending to this segment of the population is fraught with write-offs, its just not possible to give a great deal on loans with that kind of risk unless you are a non-profit. If it were possible, one of the payday lenders would do it and corner the market.
The market is efficient; therefore the market is efficient.
Would you have something apart from 'personal experience' to back your claims? It's an interesting issue: a cultural mistrust of financial institutions to take care of money, and is bound to have generated much research if there is any truth to it. If this is the case (as it may well be, I don't understand the downvotes, perhaps your generalization of 'black people'/'white people' instead of pointing out cultural issues at play?), social (non-economic) solutions are likely to be more effective than strictly financial/technological ones. As in, how east Africa has gotten people to put complete faith in mobile banking, but South Asia has failed completely. Perhaps lessons from here could be useful for South Asia?