Community

As they say, the only way to surpass Google is by making search irrelevant and not by making a faster-better-cheaper search engine. The same perhaps applies for SWIFT. On second thoughts, may be not: Havala and a few other forms of cross-border money transfers have been around for ages. They bypass banks and SWIFT but have still not managed to disintermediate banks and SWIFT in this business. Maybe there's something in the nature of money that secures a place for banks in the value chain - by statute or otherwise.

Sorry but, based on my knowledge, I disagree with the premise. Merryl Lynch is one of the largest retail brokerages in USA and it's owned by a bank, BofA. Likewise ICICIdirect and HDFCSec in India, both of which are owned by eponymous banks.

And, based on my personal experience, the prescription is like preaching to the converted. The e-brokerage business of my bank (ICICIdirect) has been providing self-service, dashboard, relationship managers, frictionless funding, and other things for close to 15 years. And these features are a class above what nonbank brokerages provide.  

If mass affluent investors are not entering the equities / derivative markets in sizable numbers, that has nothing to do with banks are doing or not doing. IMHO, their behavior is a reflection of the growing realization that these markets are weighed much more in favor of institutional investors and, in the aftermath of Flash Boys, HFT. In fact, their apathy has apparently resulted in many nonbank brokerages shutting down their retail businesses and banks reaping more profits on the rebound (Source: Economic Times). 

For a fintech company, "disruption" is a great story to attract VC funding and sell out after a couple of years. If it manages to get customers and generate revenues in the process, that's a bonus. Making profits seems to be nowhere on the radar. By this yardstick, I predict a very bright future for the next "SWIFT-Killer" startup.

Having predicted that The Death Of Cash Is At Least 190 Years Away, I'm not surprised by Fed's naming cash to the #1 position. But I'm shocked to learn from this report that mobile payments account for a measly 0.5% of retail payments - after 100s of millions of $ of investment poured into them for nearly a decade. I'm tempted to paraphrase John Maynard Keynes in predicting that "the world will stay with cash for longer than mobile payment vendors will stay solvent."

"The programme team failed to push back hard enough against the business demand for amendments to the Finacle product". Sigh, how flexibility, which is a great virtue for a services company, turns into a major liability at times.

As the next step, if Lenddo is planning to post all credit card transactions on the cardholder's social media pages, Blippy's experience should serve as lighthouse.

Great move. Resonates with initiatives by other industry players (e.g. ICICI Bank) to use MobilePOS, Tablet and other technologies to literally take banking to the customer's doorstep. 

"But 47% say they will definitely not use Paym". One day before its launch, I doubt if anywhere near 47% of people even knew about FPS / SCT / SDD, let alone offer concrete reasons for not wishing to use the new payment methods. By that token, PayM has done a great job of spreading awareness about itself. Assuming that PayM is gated by a password or two, security concerns should diminish rapidly.

"...reveals that 122.8 non-cash payments...". 122.8 Million or Billion or...?

SQUARE essentially delivers risk-free interchange revenues to banks and doesn't disintermediate them, as is commonly hyped. I was assuming that, in the process of doing so, it was earning enough money for itself. I now realize how mistaken my assumption is. On another note, banks have been making money hand over fist for 40-50 years in this business. It's amazing how wannnable disrupters enter it and bleed so badly. But, credit where credit's due, they've mastered the art of getting acquired for billions without much to show by way of revenues or profits.