[tptacek]

Of the various regulatory hurdles you have to jump over to be a business that handles money for other people, money transmitter licenses seem like one of the most reasonable requirements, so I guess I agree. It must suck a lot to have to deal with every state on these, but I'm not sure we'd like federal requirements any more.

[aristus]

If the bond requirement becomes daily volume times 50 states, they are boned.

[dsl]

The bond requirements are per state for daily volume, so if they needed one in every state it would be equal to one days volume.

[AnIrishDuck]

I wonder if they can post one bond that meets the requirements of all 50 states somehow... that seems reasonable, the issue is which party they would post the bond with.

[thinkcomp]

No. The bonds must be separate as it currently stands, and they are very expensive, not to mention a horrible way to handle insurance.

[tptacek]

Two questions. First, insurance underwriters sell surety bonds, so what makes them a "horrible" way to handle insurance? If the states mandated actual insurance, you'd be held hostage to the arbitrary requirements of insurance companies; the bond requirement allows you to substitute your own capital for the judgement of insurance underwriters if that's what you want to do, but also allows you to avail yourself of the insurance industry.

Second, even though separate bonds are required by each state, what prevents insurance companies from simply selling you a surety bond product that meets the requirements of multiple states simultaneously?