JPMorgan Scraps New App Service for Young People
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
But, at the same time, Chase's main mobile app is one of the better ones among a sea of banks making bad apps, so maybe it wasn't totally necessary.
Sometimes the Chase app refuses to let me login because it "Couldn't establish an internet connection." Happens to me quite frequently.
The regulations that the government implemented in response, Dodd Frank and before that Sarbanes Oxley, have actually just made it harder for startups to challenge the status quo. Starting a new bank is so regulated that most financial startups would rather buy an existing one than create a new bank.
The big banks pretend like the regulations are curtailing their behavior while pushing for them behind the scenes because they have teams of compliance people that can understand how to make money no matter what the regulations are. They would be dead and gone if the free market had been allowed to run its course.
Where do all these nonsense memes about the 2008 crash come from?
Not really, both JPMC and GS had large insurance contracts with AIG. If AIG fell it would have quickly led to both JPMC and GS collapse too.
Its called systematic risk for a reason.
Neither had enough exposure to fail due to AIG failing. Rita payouts to Goldman were less than $5bn, much of that being passed on to funds. I don’t recall numbers for JPM, but worst case they wouldn’t have been able to acquire like half of the banks they bought.
How? Any disruptive service would have to interface with the legacy, non-disrputive players. Visa + Mastercard have a monopoly on credit transactions. First Data + company have a monopoly on debit transactions. The banking of America is still backed by COBOL + mainframes and it hasn't changed yet for a culmination of a bunch of reasons. I just don't know when it ever will...
and then
By killing off Finn, the bank removes some confusion over the product: While the app was designed for the digitally-inclined, users still had access to the bank’s ATMs and tellers, although that access wasn’t heavily promoted.
So I'm curious here, would signing up for a bank account through the Finn app have been classified as a different type of account to get "zero fees"?
Asked perhaps in an illustrative way, if I sign up for an account through Finn and get zero fees, would my girlfriend be able to sign up for a checking account at a physical location the "good old fashioned way" and be able to get the same zero fee checking account type?
As a millennial trying to be more attentive to the minutia of his personal finance and uses his current bank's mobile app quite heavily for everything from transfers to travel notifications (so my card doesn't get flagged if I'm visiting family five states down I-35), I'm missing what the appeal of Finn was supposed to be. They had my attention at zero fees, and immediately lost it at "emojis".
Or is my confusion because I'm one of the "older millennials" and therefore not the target market for this service?
The app works great and allows you to connect to other banks directly and move your money between the two as if they were the same bank.
Downside is no physical locations, so cash has to move through another bank account then get transferred into Schwab.
Checking and saving both yield about .5% which is way better than big banks typically, although lower than inflation/Tbills.
Can’t recommend it enough for people that don’t enjoy a $10 a month charge for the bank to profit off of your deposits.
Yeah, that didn't work, huh? Sucks.