BankSimple invites first customers; rebrands itself as Simple
simple.com
simple.com
What is "BankSimple?" A way to bank that's simple. Sounds interesting! Everyone hates how complicated banking is, right? Let's go to the website to find out more.
What is "Simple?" Who knows. A website that has something to do with banking--or so I'm told--with yet another web 2.0 one-word "brand", a really uninspiring one too. Hey, I wonder what's on Reddit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ally_Financial
Though I suppose 'Ally' was a spectacular renaming, and their advertising is working, if it gives people the impression Ally is a can-do startup!
Rife with fraud internally (My mother used to work there and told some horrible stories of how they screwed over customers).
I think it is good and forward looking to rebrand it Simple before launch so that becomes synonymous with banking. Imagine if Google was instead called GoogleSearch? Google became synonymous for Search and therefore the Search portion of their name is superfluous.
I for one applaud this move and think the branding is nice, clean, and, of course, simple ;)
To clarify, I don't really care either way- I'm sure they had other reasons for dropping the "Bank" from their name, especially since they're not really a bank.
Official name "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." owned by "Wells Fargo & Company".
So my response was to point out that actually the banks we think of as not having "bank" in the name do, and it hasn't stopped us from referring to them without it. So if they stuck with Bank Simple, it would help people initially understand what they do, then once (if) they become a household name, people could refer to them as "Simple".
Of course, this is all ignoring the whole legislation stuff.
Telling someone that you have your money in a simple account doesn't convey as much meaning as telling someone you have your money in a Barclay's account.
There are also many other large banks that omit "Bank" from their name such as Wells Fargo.
Keep in mind this is not a traditional bank, so following the rules of traditional banks would be inappropriate. They are better off following the rules of progressive startups which have been using simplicity in their names quite successfully as of late (e.g. Square).
As for Bank of America, you couldn't remove the Bank from Bank of America or it'd just be America which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I don't think Bank of America, aside from controlling most of the banks in this country, is an objectively great brand. Rather, I thought it always tried to piggyback and sound like a federal entity which it's not and always found its name disingenuous.
Of course they are top for 'banksimple' or 'simple bank'.
Shoes.
Sorry you're not crazy about the new name, but we're happy with it. It gives us a lot of room to grow.
The changed spelling is to indicate that it is not a bank and its accounts are not insured by the FDIC.
e.g. Banc of America Securities, U.S. Bancorp
It seems that a technologically driven bank could offer even more interesting services to individuals and businesses.
Edit: Or would love to chat in person over coffee (on twitter @scottmarkwell)
I agree, calling it "BankSimple" feels limiting, and carries baggage from bad experiences I've had with banks in the past.
Now if only I could get an invitation to open an account!
If you do qualify, USAA is about the best company you'll ever deal with for insurance or banking.
By the way, the on-page anchors in your footer aren't working atm (#features, #vision, #sign-up, etc.).
I wish companies could so something like a pretend re-brand and make a fake post on their blog, submit it to HN and then see what the feedback is before just jumping in. HN provides some of the best and most brutal feedback I've seen in a community that simply can't be replicated by a focus group or board meeting.
Simpel just means simple. Maybe it is not seen like the simpleness which American people try to express with the word but either it just means simple.
I love to have more simpleness in Germany. Please do consider to expand to Germany or Europe!
Don't hear it used much though, and it's unlikely to be the first thing that pops into someone's head.
Who is the relationship with?
As in... who has my money?
I read it as them hiding that from you for simplicity... you get this one interface and customer service which is wonderful, but to achieve this they are the proxy to your bank?
So... do they set up the bank accounts, or do you? Do you have the ability to go straight to your bank, or does Simple preclude that ability?
In this text:
> Simple is not a bank. Simple replaces your bank. We build the services and support you need to manage, understand, and automate your everyday spending and saving. Meanwhile, we integrate with chartered banks who manage your deposits in FDIC-insured products. We take care of you, our partner banks take care of your money, and jointly, we’ve designed a better financial experience.
I come out confused. Who has the money, can I go straight to them to get it?
That's the missing bit of clarity that would make me feel the love (trust).
What if you took mint.com, and instead of interfacing with hundreds of banks, you interface with a single bank. You can integrate much more closely and provide a better experience, and the customer shouldn't really care what the underlying bank is.
We work with partner banks who hold on to deposits. For all intents and purposes, you never have to think about who that partner bank is, but if you ever need to contact them directly, you'll know where your funds are.
You might find our FAQ informative: https://www.simple.com/faq/.
Is the account at the partner bank in my name, or that of Simple?
Your money must be in your name for it to get the FDIC's "$250,000 limit per depositor" insurance coverage. Having one big mattress with Simple's name on it would preclude your money being insured. Ergo, the account must be in your name.
If the money were not in my name, that would be deal killer.
EDIT: for clarity.
The accounts would technically be "in your name", since the funds are yours, but you never have to interface with the other bank, so it becomes a question of: do you want to know the technical specifics, or stick to what's pragmatic? Pragmatically, your account would be with Simple. Your money is in an FDIC insured depository bank, so you don't face any additional risk because of the "partner" distribution.
The bank pulls a credit check on you, the individual, to mitigate risk. A company like Simple would secure a bond or insurance to mitigate this risk for the partner bank, reducing the friction for a business critical action (moving partner banks).
Pragmatically, Simple wouldn't survive very long if every customer were hit with a hard credit pull every time Simple moved their funds. I'm not even sure that would be legal.
I would be interested in knowing who the partners are so that I can assure myself that they are doing business in a way that differentiates them from the megabanks.
On a side note: I was onboard with the BankSimple idea when I thought they were building a bank, now, I'm not so sure. I think it's a good idea, but not a great idea.
Yes, you'll know what institution your funds are at. When you get your Simple card, it'll say "issued by {Bank Name}" on the back.
(Also, what bank do you currently work with? What will the first round of cards say?)
You call us if you have a problem or question. We'll let you know what bank your funds reside at, but you should never need to contact them. We have our own in-house customer relations staff.
Thank you for taking the time to answer some of our questions on what is surely a busy day.
Do you plan to use customers leverage to get better terms with the actual banks? Like could you move all the accounts to another bank if it paid better interest or something like that? Do you take a cut of the action?
Banking is a commodity product. Other than access to ATMs, customer service, and online banking there's not much difference between banks (other than rates & fees, of course).
Same goes for the customers, honestly. If the bank doesn't extend you credit anyway, its a "your money is green" situation.
Yet the marketplace is still inefficient, and they think they can make money by making it efficient.
To do so, Simple has defined a standard checking account, if you will. It has x% interest, y fees, etc. Since banks and customers are a commodity, Simple can then say "we have 10000 customers at this price. Any FDIC insured bank - do you want them?" and perform a reverse auction of sorts. Its very much like LendingTree or FeeFighters.
The obvious obstacle is the same with internet banking - what if I need to talk to someone or get money out of an ATM? You're not going to convince me a random bank in New Mexico is interchangeable with Wells Fargo when I need cash.
They are handling this objection by providing a front-end which standardizes the customer service, ATM access (they pay the fee so use whatever ATM), and online banking pieces, and hopefully that standard is high quality.
So you still have an account with XYZ bank in Nowhereville, USA, but you've got a nice front-end instead of a questionable online banking product/customer support. All XYZ bank does is hold your cash for you, and its insured anyway so they can't screw that piece up.
Sounds great to me.
That doesn't sound very great to me.
EDIT: Yes, I know they are FDIC-insured. But inside accounts setup by Simple. Are those accounts also in Simple's name, or jointly setup? What could potentially happen then during the lawful unwinding of the company?
Edit: I would liken it to startups that are built on top of some cloud; I don't need to know that because ultimately I hold the startup responsible for their reliability/security, not their underlying provider.
I put my money in a bank because there is an assurance that I'll be able to get it out later and that it is safe there.
My bank (USAA), for example, is pretty good. The idea of putting a startup between them and me just seems odd.
It all just seems like a glorified IT system for banks.
Most banks do use "glorified IT systems". Very few of them develop their technology in-house.
Think about it this way: you can have a bank that buys their technology from another company, or you can have a technology, design, and customer service company that partners with banks. Both are viable options, but I think our approach is going to better for retail banking customers in the long run.
This isn't a knock on the team you're putting together, or your ability to build a great company. It's caused by the realities associated with venture capital.
Now that you took VC money, there's countdown to an exit, and I have to think about likely buyers. If you're successful, one of the top possibilities is a strategic acquisition from a major bank. This basically means that if I buy into the vision and support it, I'm likely to end up right where I started.
I want to like this idea, because I want to see more great, customer-service oriented banks. But I just can't quite bring myself to like it, because of the guaranteed change in ownership that is pending and the lineup of probable buyers.
There's a ton about when and how and if we exit that's out of our control, and I wouldn't presume to predict exactly what's going to happen. But, please know that our goal is not to sell out to a big bank. We're building this because we want to use it, and part of what we want to use is a banking service that's provided by people who are acting in the best interests of their customers.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that going with a smaller or local bank provides a more solid guarantee that you won't be banking with a giant down the road. The economic crisis of the past few years has seen a ton of consolidation in retail banking, and I think there's even more to come.
When Josh proposed the idea to me I asked a few people about their experiences with their banks. One of my friends told me how she had accidentally double-booked an airline ticket. This overdrew her account and--since she uses her debit card for everything--she started incurring overdraft fees on everything she purchased. She ran up several hundred dollars of overdraft fees before she even realized she was overdrafted. When she called Bank of America to explain, she was given the runaround. They eventually refunded half the fees (their standard offer) but refused to refund the rest without her jumping through hoops.
My friend is a single mom with two kids and a full-time job. She did not have time to constantly monitor her bank, nor the time to jump through the bank's hoops. Paying the fees caused her significant hardship.
The big banks in this country make their living by preying on those least able to protect themselves. They are evil. Again, I can't speak for the other investors, but I am not interested in selling out to a big bank. Success for me is either beating the other banks or forcing them to compete on Simple's terms: by treating their customers like people.
That said, I can't help but think about the capital required to scale the business due to the high customer acquisition costs in the sector. This large capital requirement seems likely to reduce the ability of Simple to have meaningful control over their exit, as it won't all come from impact investors.
I hope the Simple team makes a mark on the market, but I still fear that success means that a large bank purchases them, increases the cross-sells, adds incremental fees, and "streamlines" customer service. I hope my concern is misplaced.
Either way, I'm excited to see what develops, and I think you made a great investment.
Simple would do well to match USAA's service, but in reality they are competing with the BofA's, Chase's, and WF's of the world, and beating them on service shouldn't be too difficult. I think Simple is a step between your bank's actual web interface and a service like Mint.com. It's certainly a gap in the market. The question remains "is there a market in the gap?"
I don't think we're likely to allow customers to choose which partner bank holds their funds, but we do make that information transparent.
Edit: it looks like you disclosed two partner banks at http://www.simple.com/blog/Simple/partners-funding/, but I'm not sure that this is a conclusive list.
"No partnership, common law trust or association, or individual using a trade name, shall use, either as a part of its name or as a prefix or suffix thereto or as a designation of the business carried on by it, the word "bank", "banking", "banker", "bankers", "trust" or "savings", "
Who can use Simple?
To be eligible, you must:
- Be a resident of the United States and over the age of 18; - Have a Social Security number; and - Own a smartphone (iPhone or Android).
Do I really need to have a smartphone?
Well, you need to have an iOS (version 4.2 or higher) or Android device. Android phones and iPhones are preferable so that you can deposit checks using your smartphone’s camera and receive push notifications when you buy things.
I can't believe you need a smartphone to sign up. That seems absolutely crazy to me. Why can't you just accept scanned checks from a scanner? I would hazard more people have access to a scanner (even the one at work) than own a smartphone.
We require a smartphone for more than just mobile check deposit. We want people to have our app installed so we can use it for multifactor authentication, for example. We also want to do rich push notifications of account activity, and SMS (the only viable non-smartphone option for that) isn't a great experience.
Today, there's still a bunch of people who don't have smartphones. But the previous generation of iPhone is now basically "free" at some carriers, as are many Android phones. By the time we're off our invite list and open to anyone who wants to sign up, it's going to seem crazy to support anything that isn't a smartphone.
A number of Internet banks used to say "hey, you could mail us checks, or you know, just keep a brick-and-mortar account open and transfer them over." The way the FAQ reads to me is that Simple are a bit bloody-minded about it, what if I never get checks? (I must have had about 2 or 3 this year, total). Then I wouldn't need a smartphone, but Simple would still not let me sign up. Saying things like multifactor authentication would help push the idea that the smartphone is really required, rather than just something helpful.
Simple (from what I can see on their site) is about creating a wonderful banking experience for its customers. There is nothing wonderful about scanning and uploading checks. If the service requires a smartphone, so be it.
From a strategy standpoint, it can be assumed that most of their launch market is going to have an iOS or Android device.
That's probably not true; Reading The US smartphone landscape (http://www.asymco.com/2011/11/06/the-us-smartphone-landscape...).
Also, Nielsen points out that 43% of all cell phones in the US are smartphones; it's just a matter of time before every cell phone sold is going to be a smartphone. Apple's iPhone 3GS is free with a two-year contract.
62% of users 25-34 years old own smartphones: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/generation...
So requiring a smartphone (iOS and Android have a combined installed base of 63 million devices in the US) isn't as whacky as it sounds.
I'm all for introducing new types of banking entities, and I'm willing to even try this company out, but in the age of post-Madoff and personally having my identity stolen, how do I know who these guys are, and that they will protect my money and my information?
it means that "simple"/"banksimple" is not a bank itself. you deposit your funds through their interface into actual banks while simple provides an interface to track and visualize your money. thats my understanding, at least. they definitely can't bill themselves as a bank when they aren't one.
> your cash is deposited with our bank partners in FDIC-insured products.
If I trust Joe Schmo with my money, he can put that money in a FDIC insured bank. In a way, you could say that I am protected by the FDIC insurance because if there is a run against the bank or something, my money would still be safe.
However, the mere fact that Joe is storing my money in an FDIC insured location doesn't mean that I get the same legal protections. What if Simple goes out of business? If it goes bankrupt?
I infer from this comment that my money would go nowhere if Simple went out of business, that I actually have a relationship with some bank that I could access and completely bypass Simple if I so chose, and that would continue to exist even if Simple went out of business. I would absolutely not trust you without this explicitly stated in the FAQ though.
Since it's pretty much the standard for startups to tell about themselves on their web site, this must have been a deliberate choice. What advantage does it have – especially in the case of Square and Simple – not to show who you are?
We had a "team" page on our previous site (under the BankSimple name). We plan on revising and reviving that page, it just didn't make the cut for our updated site for the Simple rebranding.
I like knowing who's behind the products and services I use too.
From a regulatory perspective, we're a lot like a prepaid card. It's a well-known model that banking authorities, legal experts, and the government is comfortable with. You probably already use financial products that work similarly to the way we do.
That said, we hold ourselves to the same security standards that "real" banks do. I'd like to think we're going above and beyond when it comes to security.
Now do you see the problem?
I still have no idea why I would need their service. My current financial institutions provide awesome service without cryptic bs. Consumer banking and small business banking is simple to the moderately educated.
I think we're doing some stuff that's pretty different in terms of making your financial data easy to explore and helping you meet savings goals and automatically earn more interest. Those things might not be compelling to everyone, but a lot of people seem interested.
There are some people who do some work to make sure they choose a bank that will not treat them poorly and then continue to do the work to make sure that they don't incur surprise fees or other pitfalls. Those people think their banks are just fine. But, really, why is all that work necessary? The idea behind Simple is to have a company that treats you well by default.
Moderately educated means that a person as spent a few days in their lifetime informing themselves how simple accounting and consumer/small business banking works. It's not rocket science. If you can't read a simple financial or income statement, you can't make an informed decision about a choosing a bank or understand starting a company. Most people do cargo-cult personal finance.
Why should people pay a middle man for good treatment when they can shop around and find a credit union that will do so, sans the vig?
Anyway, in point of fact, most people don't inform themselves of these things, and I don't think those people should be punished for assuming their bank will be trustworthy.
Q: Are you like Mint?
A: No. ... Also, we hate pie charts.
Couldn't agree more.
I never visit my bank website, partly because it sorta sucks, but partly because I have no reason to—I really just care about the balance. Additional views would be nice, but I need it at the macro level to incorporate all my accounts (which Mint, admittedly, falls short on). I don't use my debit card for anything other than ATM cash.
My checklist for a checking account is pretty short:
1. No fees. (Including ATM fees. I'm reimbursed if a third-party charges one, too.) 2. Smartphone check deposit. 3. Features / Customer Service / Interest Rate, etc.
Simple's down in that third bucket (and they don't meet criteria #1).
Although you may be referring to third-party ATM fees. I'm curious which banks still reimburse for third-party ATM fees. Can you share the name of your bank?
Anecdote: I have been with Schwab for years and love their offering. One weekend in Vegas I accumulated something like $150 in ATM fees and they refunded every penny of it. Like Alex said, this was only possible through previous trade commissions/fees they've generated from me.
And yeah, you have to open a brokerage account but you can leave it with $0 and no positions forever. That said, Schwab has some pretty killer deals on ETFs on the brokerage side..
Fidelity also has a similar account although it is a joint checking/brokerage account and the interface is tailored towards the brokerage side.
Glad to see more competition in this space. Give me something even better than Schwab :)
Also no foreign transaction fees (very nice for a traveller).
So, we may not be a perfect fit for you, but I hope you'll give us a second look with that in mind.
Like basically every US bank, we issue a debit card. That card needs to be on one of the card networks. We chose Visa for our cards.
What we're issuing is a debit card, not a credit card. It's standard practice for banks.
I guess it's also somewhat logically defensible, since FDIC-insured credit unions are just as qualified to be Simple's back-end partners. Though it still feels like a dodge, given how foggy the relationship is between Simple and their partner institutions. It feels like they want people to not think about Simple accounts supporting places like BofA, while still being free to partner with BofA in the background.
That said, I wonder if they've considered a "community-focused" account option, where people can specify that they only want their funds to be deposited with credit unions, accepting whatever slightly worse terms come with less competition.
It's extremely unlikely that we'd ever partner with an institution like BofA. We chose bank partners who are comfortable with our vision, and that includes not charging outrageous fees and engaging in other customer-hostile practices. The big banks have shown time and again that they're not in business to act in the best interest of their customers, and that makes them poor partners for us.
We don't currently have plans to allow customers to select the institution with which their funds reside, but it's something we'll take under consideration. Thanks for your thoughts.
I don't mean to snipe, but you did partner with Visa, right? I understand that real life doesn't always present ideal choices, but that was rather part of my point. That people might switch to Simple with the idea that they won't be supporting those kinds of institutions, when via a partner deal, they may still be.
Or, in other words, if BofA woke up tomorrow and offered Simple a great customer-friendly back-end deal, while remaining customer-hostile to individuals who deal with them directly, would Simple's philosophy prevent a deal? And how happy would a customer be, if they switched from BofA to Simple only to find out that their money is technically in a BofA account?
And please don't take the criticism as something that it's not; I'm only posting because Simple sounds interesting and I'd like to see it do well.
We're focused on banking right now, but one of the things we like about the Simple name is that it gives us room to grow.
Another thing the new name gets us is freedom from both legal issues around the term "bank" and negative associations with the retail banking industry.
Plus, people kept mixing up "BankSimple" and "SimpleBank". That was driving me nuts :)
I don't want to change that relationship because I am happy with it, and I certainly don't want to abstract the whole thing through a middleman. It doesn't look like Simple is really right for me anyway as I have several joint checking accounts and a business account as well.
But, I really wish my bank had some of the really slick online banking/mobile deposit capture features that Simple is promising. I hope that if Simple gains some traction, they can offer white label online banking services to banks or brand it as "LocalBankCo online banking, powered by Simple."
We're also not super interested in getting into white labeling, but it's something we've thought about.
(Josh - CEO, Simple)
In addition to the co-mingled account, everyone gets an individual interest baring account, which is directly titled in the name of the customer.
Either way, you can access your funds at any time.
In the case of the co-mingled account, we generate pseudo-account numbers that correspond to your portion of that account.
It is a complicated answer, but unfortunately, banking is complex. We do a lot of heavy lifting on the back end to make it as simple as possible for you.
I understand that your goal is to create the appearance of simplicity via complicated obfuscations. Those of us who are concerned about where our accounts live, and how they're structured, are not your prospective customers. So while I have no need for an invite, I wish you the best of success. Certainly some people will enjoy your service.
Banking with us does not obfuscate where your funds reside. It does, however, mean that you don't have to deal with a bank for support and technology issues. Instead, you get to deal with a company that's focused on those things rather than on managing a treasury, making loans, etc.
How would I handle these issues with Simple?
We're issuing checks, so you can always make a check out to "cash" and take that into any physical bank if need be. Over time, though, I expect products like Square to make it possible to transact with your Simple debit card in places that might have previously required cash or a check.
Here is a list of reasons I have needed large amounts of cash:
* Last week a friend needed cash right away, I loaned it to them. That friend actually had the money in the bank, except that there are no local branches for my friend's bank. After this experience I think my friend will be getting a bank with nation-wide branches.
* I've never taken out a car loan, I've always paid with cash or a bank secured check (money order). Try buying a car with a personal check or debit card.
* Buying a MacBook on craigslist. Random people don't use Square.
* I use to modify/build cars. Buying used engines and parts costs a lot, cash or money order required.
* Neiman Marcus only takes AMAX. Visa debit cards are useless there. There isn't much you can buy at Neiman Marcus that is less than an ATM max.
It wasn't a cheap domain, but our investors felt it was worth the expense. It's memorable, flexible, and to-the-point. We're generally not a profligate company, but we felt strongly about this.
I literally can't wait to open my Simple account, especially as 2011 is winding down.
Being an early adopter and someone who became disillusioned with our financial institutions, especially the banks, signing up for Simple was a no-brainer for me.
I cringe every time I have to deal with old-school, traditional banks; every month I hope it'll be the last one I have to deal with these archaic and broken institutions.
As far as I'm concerned, I can't open my Simple account soon enough. I don't have any connection to the company or any of its employees. However, I do recognize when there's a better solution to an existing pain-point.
I know I'm not alone in experiencing how broken banking has become—I have a $35 overdraft because I bought a $1.99 app that overdrew my account. Yeah, I'm looking at you Bank of America.
I have my fingers crossed that I'll be in the first big wave of customers as Simple continues expanding its customer base since I signed up long before the Johnny-come-lately's showed up.
I do think maybe they should pick a better username though.
My brick & mortar bank provides me with a free-to-use checking account w/debit card in exchange for the interest made off my deposits. My credit card, paid in full each month, provides the same free service with flyer miles. The value proposition of making my data easier to search and filter from the information already given to me at my current bank/CC websites doesn't do it for me.
Love what I've seen, but I hope you guys find a better value/price point.
1. We just aren't the right banking service for you. 2. We find out that a lot of people are interested in rewards programs, and we come up with a really compelling one. We've addressed that briefly in our FAQ, FWIW.
Either way, thanks for your feedback.
Some people are driven to change banks because of interest rates, but those people are not the majority. Most people change banks around major life events: moving, getting married, getting your first job, etc. Or, they change banks when they have an extremely negative experience with their current bank.
Either way, changing banks is a hassle, and we really have to make it easy and compelling. But interest/rewards aren't the only motivation, or even the primary motivation, for switching one's bank according to bank industry research.
Simple does nothing to solve the bigger issue of our insecure networks. From what I've seen, they're no different from any other company offering online banking services. Add in the fact that they don't have any physical collateral, and maybe they're even more vulnerable than traditional banks...
Do you have data on banks increasing fees to combat the expense of "cyber-theft"? That's a new one to me. Banks have mostly been raising fees because new legislation in the US has cut into their interchange revenue. Plus, the cost of building and maintaining physical branches remains high, and foot traffic to those branches is decreasing.
I'm not sure what you mean by "physical collateral", but we do take steps above and beyond what many banks offer to make our systems and our customers more secure. We're offering multi-factor authentication, and we participate in rigorous internal and third-party security audits.
In some ways, our partner-based model improves our security stance. Our systems never touch sensitive data like customer debit card numbers.
I appreciate your concerns about security. Please understand that it's a top priority for us.
You're right that user experience is a primary concern for us. The interface that most people have their financial data is extremely poor. This makes answering questions about your financial life slow and clumsy, if it's even possible given the tools your bank provides. That keeps a lot of people from making the right financial decisions to stay debt-free and grow their savings.
To your point about your checking account: many checking accounts don't actually have simple terms. Increasingly, they're full of hidden fees and complex conditions.
More broadly, we're doing what we're doing because many banks aren't investing in design, technology, and customer service. Instead, they're investing in new ways to squeeze as much money as they can out of their customers without innovating. We're here to continuously experiment and improve. That may mean that we're not the right banking solution for everyone, but we think a lot of people are going to like what we've built.
I'm not sure if your ability "to see" anything is relevant, but your characterization seems extremely shortsighted. Do you honestly believe that innovative startups of this kind launch with one set of features and never make improvements or add features later? I can think of lots of ways a company could innovate in the banking world, so I guess they are only limited by imagination.
Actually, I have a bank account (and debit card) in a small bank in Iowa so maybe this is not an issue at all.
Now I'm confused. Can someone who knows or lives in the US clarify this one?
Basically, reimbursing ATM fees is an illusion. They charge you over here and reimburse you over there. No net win for most consumers, unfortunately.
I ask honestly: what illusion am I missing?
Seriously broken website, at least it is in IE8.
One question, though, I can't find on the site, is whether I receive any interest. And, if so, at what rate?
I don't know when we'll start publishing our interest rates, but we have some additional info about interest rates on our FAQ: https://www.simple.com/faq/
> When you get your Simple card, it'll say "issued by {Bank Name}" on the back.
How does that fit around moving money around behind the scenes? Will each customer's money be limited to a single bank, and moved around between account types? Will all Simple's customers be using one bank that you have partnered with?
If not, could one Simple account actually have its funds stored between multiple different banks (or multiple accounts within a single bank)?
And when you say "we automatically move your money..." are we talking about the automated equivilent of when a bank phones / writes to you saying "looking at your behaviour over the last 5 years this account might fit you better...", or is it more like "every day your money might move somewhere else", or (I assume this) where between those two?
If I weren't English then I'd be signing up for sure, good luck :)
The way it works is the card gets linked to an account on signup. This account is a non-interest bearing card account. When you deposit funds, we place those funds in other accounts. The other accounts are determined by what products we have available from our partner banks, and your historic usage patterns.
For example, if you start spending less, we'll move more of your money into an interest bearing account so that you can benefit from your financial restraint.
As you spend money, we (in real time) move funds to the card account from your other accounts to cover the cost of anything you buy using the card.
As our portfolio of financial products grow, we'll continually rebalance your money across these products to maximize your return.
This system automates what most people try to achieve, but banks make difficult to do: namely, earn as much interest on money you have and pay as little interest on money you borrow.
We do this because it is the right thing to do for our customers & quite easy for a computer to manage. Other banks don't do this because they earn significant revenue when people make mistakes in managing their money. We have none of those punitive fees, so our interests are aligned with our users.
(PS: I'm in London right now. What's up with English Bacon??)
My usage patterns might suggest that every month I spend around $2200, so you could leave that on the card and play around with say $7k. What happens if I then want to go out and, in a single transaction, spend more than $3k. Do you let me go technically "overdrawn" without charging me a fee and instantly move money in from elsewhere to replace it? Or do I have to inform Simple in advance of spending that much? Or do people without enough money to give plenty of buffer just not get their money moved around as much?
Thanks for your answers - and what's wrong with our bacon, it's amazing! How long are you over here for?
We don't have the notion of 'overdraft'. Instead, we set up a special savings goal for each customer called an Emergency Fund. We automatically start saving a small amount each day towards the Emergency Fund. So, you might have $1,000 in your account and $500 in your Emergency Fund. If you then went to a store and spent $1,200, we would draw $1,000 from your Safe-to-Spend and an additional $200 from your Emergency Fund. Again, no overdraft fee. In fact, instead of paying a fee and then paying interest on the overdraft, you will be earning interest on any money in your Emergency Fund. A small tweak on how overdrafts typically work, but a huge bonus for customers.
I'm just here for the day. I came to town to speak at The Economist's banking conference. Flying back tomorrow to celebrate the launch with our team.
It drives me nuts. I haven't had a decent bacon sandwich in years :(
Two questions though:
1) Are actual branches in the roadmap at all? Digital banking is great but has its limitations.
2) How about deposits? Can we take pictures of a check? Or make deposites at an ATM?
What happens then?
We're in the same position that your current bank is in when it comes to fraud and theft: we're insured for it, and we follow industry-standard practices when something bad happens.
Most likely, what would happen is:
1. You realize that your account has been compromised. 2. You call us up. 3. We investigate your claims with our partners. 4. You get reimbursed. 5. If there was a security flaw on our side that we can fix to prevent this from happening in the future, we do so.
We have a comprehensive security review process and participate in internal and external (third-party) security audits. We're also taking steps to make it more difficult for attackers to compromise your account through multi-factor authentication and other mechanisms.
If you have any other questions about our security practices, please contact us: hello@simple.com or security@simple.com.
So when you say you aren't a bank, you really do follow many standard banking industry practices (at least in terms of security/insurance).
I think it is important that you show this when advertising a service like this to possible customers.
I appreciate the importance of keeping the pitch simple, but for me, I act a little more cautiously with my money than I would signing up for a new social network or something of that nature.
I want to be able to read all of the fine print and know exactly what recourse/assurance I have, before I fill out an application. Having it spelled out somewhere is important. Perhaps I simply couldn't find that part of the site, (but even if that is the case), any security guarantees might be worth putting front and center.
not trying to be down on you, just asking about it now because when I make stuff for others I don't have this corellation and to me the simplest thing is many times command-line.
This is a good point.
We think there's a difference between "simple" and "stark" or "minimalist". Our goal is to create an experience that's inviting, explorable, and clear. That doesn't necessarily mean doing away with all visual ornamentation.
Sure, plain text is "simple", but iconography, texture, and other design elements can contribute to that ideal as well. Thanks for your thoughts!
Have you guys standardized the number of loops or is the number of loops a clever way of denoting different products?
I would just be really careful when doing this very rich design that the designer doesn't get carried away and forget that the design should be serving simplicity and not the other way around.
Good luck with the product!
There's a study by the EU on this topic: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/rights/docs/study_bank_fees_en...
Why?
-They have multiple backend banks, so I suppose that keeps you the customer from getting locked into one bank's crappy fee policy.
-They can focus on customer satisfaction and UI rather than be bogged down by becoming a "real" bank.
Any doubts about their trustworthiness because they're not a bank is nothing but FUD, since they explicitly stated multiple times that your money is in a bank.
"Simple" is definitely a generic term, but brands are built over time. Personally, I love our new logo (by our own @3n), and I think it'll resonate when you start seeing it on actual debit cards and such :)
Obviously, I support your business idea, and I look forward to it shaking banks up a bit. If the product is strong enough, a generic brand won't kill the business. I still believe
BankSimple was a better name (in my opinion), as it actually positioned you as a new player in a game to change the status quo. I can understand if there were potential legal issues with a non-bank calling itself a bank. If this is the reason a change was made, then I'm wasting my keystrokes.
Send me a beta invite!
Now, the other angle here is that banking might simply be their entree into the abstraction business at large. So maybe today I bank through Simple, but in a few years I buy insurance through them. And maybe my cell phone plan.
There's a lot of confusion and noise interfering with the efficiency of consumer markets as mediums of value exchange. Abstraction, quantification, and objective selection could be a neat way to cut down on some of the inefficiency, misinformation, and confusion.
The logo though. Good type, horrible website icon. It has the Star of David on it. The only ethnicity to Google auto-complete to banking conspiratorial pages is represented by this symbol. There are lots of idiots in the world, I know, but I wouldn't go with this logo. The one on the actual card is much, much better.
I put my money into a bank and take it out when I want to spend it. I look at my statement to see where I spent it. It's simple. There is absolutely nothing else I want a bank to do for me. I do want a clean and useful mobile-optimized interface, a friendly and helpful customer service staff, and to not be charged a penalty (sorry, 'fee') every time I make a mistake. That's the Simple proposition. Why would you want it to be complicated?