Community

Fitbit pay has of course been available in the UK for ages via Starling Bank but its good to see other providers offering the service.

Seems unlikely, given that we're in December that "Pay by Bank will finally be made available to HSBC customers later this year, with others to follow.".

I also think that unless a new system is merchant led and gives benefits to consumers from cutting out the bank and its fees any new system will fail. For consumers, who don't see the cost of the card network there is no benefit. There is perhaps scope though for a challenger payment network from a retail consortium and fintech using open banking payments to cut out the card companies.

That won't be Pay By Bank of course and Pay By Retailer just isn't snappy!  Success will also depend on who owns the payment terminals and whether the terminals are open to rival payment networks as the cost of new hardware will be a barrier. 

Am I missing something or is this just an expensive pager? Will the system use the data generated to identify training needs, propose staffing shift patterns and improve information available to customers? If not its hard to see what the benefits of buying expensive Samsung kit is. The tablets which staff have can surely do this job?

Since when has first direct been a digital bank? It is a telephone bank primarily.

So Lloyds are saying that if customers spend to their credit limit to buy something (Crypto currency) they may not be able to afford to repay. Doesn't this suggest that they have set the credit limits wrong and that these all need to be reduced? They're not suggesting that crypto currencies are illegal or immoral (more usually used as reasons to prevent transactions) so it seems to me that they have their credit assesments wrong.

Wow! Is this News or History? The survey referred to seems to have been conducted over a year ago "The 2016 MFS Survey was opento banks and credit unions in the seven Districts between September 19 and October 28, 2016." Despite this the report has only just been published in December 2017.

Any "results" which have taken the survey company over a year to report on would seem to be suspect although the conclusions that mobile payments lag mobile banking in the US is hardly a surprise.

Interesting but why as a consumer should I pay £75 to fix the underlying insecurity of allowing card not present transactions? I'm not liable for fraud (unless grossly negligent) so what is the benefit I get for my £75?

A better solution would be for the card networks to ban card not present and offer a truly secure way to buy goods online that doesn't rely on card details.

Sounds great but it depends on whether the fees have been truly dropped or passed to the card issuer. The latter surpresses competition. 

The old banking joke was that a Guarantee is: "Where someone who can't pay, gets another who can't pay, to say he will".

Better tracking of retail obligations will be helpful but ultimately it is the interconnectedness of liabilities and creditworthiness of the retailers that matters. Transparency may lead to some unintended consequences as the extent of the interconnected liabilities becomes clear.

Monzo have just announced that the issue has been resolved. Once agian they have been on the front foot in keeping their customers (Beta Testers) informed.

It's also good to know that they will working directly with Mastercard when the "Current Account" is launched so they won't be reliant on third parties.