Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by happyflower 1712 days ago
Why can a 78-year old widow's life savings be managed through an online bank system?

Bring back local branch offices where people have to manage their high-risk accounts in-person.

7 comments

That's pretty interesting, because the US is often stereotyped for being aggressively cost-cutting in pursuit of margin. And yet in the middle of nowhere in the US local bank branches are still very common. I can easily get someone from my bank on the phone any time I need to. And if anyone attempts to move a large sum of money out of my account, the bank will promptly call me and freeze the action unless I allow it. Best of all the account is entirely free of fees with no minimum balance.

That's still considered normal customer service by a local bank here in the US. I assume it degrades if you bank with one of the giants like Bank of America.

The US has weird banking regulations dating back to the depression that lead to this situation. I'm sure banks in the US would love to close everything and consolidate into 2-3 megabanks like in the UK.
> consolidate into 2-3 megabanks like in the UK

The UK has greater industry competition in the form of challenger banks than the US

Because in person banking services are really really expensive and no one will pay for them.

Because you're not allowed to ban old people from your services.

Because at least some old people use these things successfully and at least some young people get defrauded.

Because UK banks are closed more than they are open (my local NatWest.

People should be able to opt out. But that won't really help as the core issue here is the customers themselves...

You know the answer - because branchless operations are cheaper. If you want to mandate in-person transactions, who would you have pay the extra costs?
Banks make no money from retail customers as it is, they certainly aren't going to be reopening branches any time soon.
That's where effective legislation and regulation can play a role. It's not as if other parts of the same bank aren't making money hand over fist.
Is it better to spend money subsidising bank branches? Or generally improving security and beefing up the police? I would say the latter - it benefits everyone and reduces crime.

The actual actions of the government have been to do neither.

Unless governments subsidize this, all this does is hurt small banks.
You can't even talk to a live support person on the phone anymore. Just moved to the UK (from Czech Republic) and was shocked how everything is IVR here. We are all just numbers in the database here.
For most of us avoiding telephone queues is a blessing.

I have 3 "proper" bank accounts (different banks), a couple of "challenger"/app bank accounts, and 3 credit cards and haven't stepped foot in a branch to open or deal with any of them in 20 years. I've had to get on the telephone with a couple maybe a couple of times.

I couldn't be happier with this arrangement, as long as someone is reachable when shit really does hit the fan.

Sounds like a business model, you can try it and see what happens.
It is a huge problem if we cannot have vital services because they disappear. No banks given the trends, no cars given the trends, no documents given the trends... (In the terms of, many would not use a computer at all if the only option were UntrustedOS.) You can raise the issue of "more profits the other way", but it does not fully work ("dirt served at the restaurant, cheap and profitful") and an amount of people will remain serviceless.
There's a challenger bank (aka startup) doing exactly that: https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-8595205/...
Sure; and bring back bank charges for in-credit accounts.