Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

To my knowledge, credit card / bank signup bonus are not marketed / packaged as asset classes.

Learning that a non-crypto investment instrument was based on bank signup bonuses would be shocking to most, no?

To me, that’s the source of the astonishment in the podcast. If what we’re talking about is built on non-sustainable foundations, fine. Call it that. But that’s the opposite of an investment opportunity.



sort by: page size:

Question is what exactly does "participating" means.

Banks generally hate anything that takes away their branding. Less sleek of this -- i.e. reprogrammable Visa cards -- have been around for a few years but banks never supported them, again because of branding.


That is what I referred to as "slippery marketingspeak". It makes no mention of bank support.

Old idea. There's banks and cc companies that currently and previously have offered this. It never caught on because there's not a market for it.

I've never had a bank promote their mutual funds to me that way.

Yep, that's the point in the last sentence: many of these financial services companies end up partnering with banks, but not for the "wallet" component of their services. The "wallet" part remains a relatively under-regulated financial product, while the debit card is only accessible to those who can pass KYC or otherwise meet the underlying bank's requirements.

The description makes it sound like this is lending to businesses, not consumers.

Huh, wonder why that is. Maybe it's because they try to pitch it to banks?

This is not about banks.

"So if you're not a young person without an existing attachment to a bank, it's not really for you." This seem like a non-sequitor to me.

I've never heard of a bank offering such a thing, and it sounds like a horrendous nightmare to manage.

That's not really interesting at all. See Citi Double Cash, Fidelity Visa, PenFed Powercash...

No.

This is about offering a consumer product, and attempting to disrupt the market for banking services in the US.


This article does not make a lot of sense.

As you can see it is sponsored by Nordigen, and they try to say that open banking has some ugly and bad aspects in everything that is not the particular points of their marketing offer.


I should have clarified - banks don't take on market risk.

This has nothing to do with banking.

Not unless it's bundled into some other set of services with profit for the bank attached.

It doesn't seem like that to me. It seems like they tried to sidestep the required regulatory hurdles to offer a real checking/savings account and got a wake up call.

It’s not available to banks, only to used-to-be-banks.

Not if it's a bank that specifically caters to this crowd and doesn't take any of the normal risks associated with lending.
next

Legal | privacy