This is a very US centric article, a lot of the disruptions listed are incumbent 'big bank' products in other jurisdictions. I feel the lack of adaptability is likely a result of US market conditions/regulations rather than lack of innovation.
With both having happened over time.
They also at least somewhat try to compete with Paypal on online payment on EU specific shops (not they they have much success, not just because of network effect but because a combination of their products being sub-par and them realizing that various other even less competitive/ux friendly competitors would make them more money if anyone would just be using it..., so they are in the process to "get innovated" again by forcing impl. of certain ideas related to person-to-person money transfer which have proven to work/being useful in a few countries where they/their banks did adapt them years ago.)
Paypal is needed in USA due to archaic systems. In Europe many banks allow instant transactions without the risk of blocking your money for 180 days - what paypal seems to do
Pretty much every single online shop/website ever allows paying with PayPal (and Credit Card). And you pretty much have to use it as not allowing paying with PayPal will reduce your sales noticeable, especially for international orders. This is something people funnily frequently rediscover, again and again.
Also I don't thing many people do use PayPal to send money between each other tbh. when I mean competing I mean for paying online not for p2p money transfer. Like sending other private people money always had been trivial, through slightly annoying, in the EU, even before smartphones where a thing.
When I sayed "competing with PayPal" I meant for paying online, i.e. alternatives to both PayPal and Credit Cards. Not p2p money sending.
Also you never replied about paypal not being a real bank, ao it can block money for months. Are you connected to them in any way?
why should I reply on things which have nothing to do with the discussion?
This never had been about weather PayPal is good or bad or anything, but that it's is very dominant in huge parts of the (western) world _for online shopping_ (not for sending money between people). Something which is a fact weather I like it or not.
> Are you connected to them in any way?
no
through the way you jump from a normal discussion to conspiracy theories is not normal, are you trolling?
And yes it is thanks to a byzantine system of history, regulations and very few Americans travelling abroad to experience radically better systems.
Crypto is the last offshore banking for the middle class. It essentially took over right when FATF eliminated banking privacy and bearer shares -- which IMO is no mere coincidence.
I opened my first account in Canada while I was still a US resident. FATCA compliance was a matter of a single extra form, and providing my US SSN. It was about the same for my Caribbean accounts with international banks.
If what you are trying to do is open an account that is not visible to the US government, that is much harder.
Why? I’d much rather have anything said in writing.
Your pizza order needs no clarifications and if you get it wrong, it's just a pizza. If you misunderstand your mortgage you're looking at far more costly consequences.
Although you could well be right about the nature of the transaction, it's definitely a bad idea to be doing that with the bank!
If it's not the bank, and it's not you, it has to be someone else. You can ask over email for all the information available on the products from the bank and take it to an independent advisor. Eventually you'll run into the need to have a live chat with that trusted advisor or risk moving one mail per day in each direction trying to explain what you want and what you could get.
Maybe I'm in graduate school and my salary is called a 'stipend' and I don't get any payslips, plus I have a part-time job in sales where my base salary is very low and about 75% of my income is commission, and also my girlfriend will be helping with the mortgage, but not the deposit, and she's a Ukrainian refugee and self-employed content creator.
An expert who's seen it all before would know how to navigate my situation properly.
> That doesn't make any sense.
Tell me about it. They still won't give you a mortgage, though.
There is a reason why "face to face communication" is a phrase.
The incoming market volatility will likely have winners and losers... but historically it was mostly losers (>6.4 million families and counting.) =3
> worker 401k vulnerability to dubious ETFs
Met a lot of bums in suits trying to sell me on several flavors of BS over the years. lol =3
> Regular mutual funds usually have higher risk ... than the ETFs.
In general, most amateur holds permute well below 3 to 4 months on average. Note the old joke: "Bulls make money, bears make money, pigs get slaughtered"... was never funny for those providing cash capital to gamblers.
Most people assume they are luckier than average... and most of Las Vegas was also built on losers money.
Have a great day, =3
Personally, I prefer retaining the option to sue people that pull stunts. But to each their own... =3
If that's an option for you, sure. I work in finance and retain FINRA arbitration as a customer. When I'm signing with clients, I do not like to include it--I have a strong advantage in court and don't want a venue that's biased against me as a professional.
All of this is totally irrelevant to ETFs, mutual funds and CMOs because those are distributed funds whose terms aren't negotiable after offering. (If you're worrying about suing the guy selling you ETFs, you're doing something wrong. Probably overtrading.)
They seem to be posting a lot of word-salad comments, but assuming good faith, they're saying these are separate downsides of mutual funds over ETFs.
Mutual funds trade on your behalf, like an ETF, but they pass through the gains and losses. That can be painful if they realise those gains when you'd rather not have them, or crystallise losses when you don't have offsets. In this, they're correct. On risk, they're wrong--you can stuff nonsense into ETFs as comfortably as mutual funds. What they're indirectly criticising here is active versus passive management, which is its own can of worms.
The only advantage of a mutual fund over an ETF is it provides friction to trading. Otherwise, they're a vestige from the cusp of computerised portfolio management. (If you have more than ~$1 to 10mm, you should be rolling your own portfolio in most cases.)
My issue with bank-fool recommend mutual funds is primarily they are often a self-serving structured product. i.e. the odds a sucker never sees a consistent behavior is far greater than random chance, and a unconstrained arbitrary guess of a chicken would likely perform better in the markets.
Best of luck, =3
Again, you’re criticising active management in general. (And seem to be mixing up alpha and tracking error. Passively-managed funds aren’t aiming to outperform the market.)
There is no evidence actively-managed ETFs (or hedge funds, for that matter) outperform actively-managed mutual funds. There is also not a material difference in tracking error between their passive products.
ETFs are a retail product. Like mutual funds. Make financial decisions based on the product, not the wrapper. (Also, where in the fuck does one go to get mutual funds in 2025 anyway?!)
You have exceeded my off-topic straw-man limit for the day.
Best of luck, =3
> This account posts a lot of off-topic straw-man arguments, and wild context guesses like regular bot slop.