The post below from Kabir is one of the better posts I've read here recently. I've got a few takes on it:
👍 Kabir is 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯 when he points out that "Chime did more to change overdraft fees than years of mandates, the political theater of hearings, including yet another one recently, or even some well designed and intentioned public interventions. It was the threat of competition, not regulation. The best pro-consumer policy is the one that makes room for innovators to deliver."
😡 However, his point that "we need both parties to get behind that!" misses the nuance that one party has been far more of a blocker of banking innovation, preferring to have just a small number of institutions, making it easier for them to control and regulate the industry.
🤔 Referring to NuBank's application for OCC charter, Kabir commented, "simply putting in an application signals how far we’ve come in enabling financial innovation in the US." Couple of issues with this comment:
1️⃣ We've only "come this far" because of a change of administrations in DC. If the results of the Nov 2024 election were different, I doubt we would have seen any increase in bank charter applications.
2️⃣ The so-called "financial innovation in the US" isn't really coming 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 the US. Instead, it's non-US-based companies like Revolut and NuBank who have achieved scope and scale 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦 the US, and can afford to go through the charter process here.
It was great to see the news earlier this week from Konrad and Michele about their hand in facilitating NuBank's application for OCC charter. What struck me is that even the act of applying for a charter is worth celebrating. Two decades ago, the number of OCC charters nearly fell off a cliff. Today, simply putting in an application signals how far we’ve come in enabling financial innovation in the U.S.
This is also the lesson from Chime that I tried to capture in my piece for The Financial Brand. Chime did more to change overdraft fees -- representing true pro consumer outcome -- than years of mandates, the political theater of hearings, including yet another one recently, or even some well designed and intentioned public interventions. It was the threat of competition, not regulation. And Chime was possible in part because of a tiny piece of enabling policy from the Durbin amendment to Dodd Frank.
Chime will continue to grow to be massive and continue to bring long overdue real competition to banking. And I don't want to lionize the Durbin amendment. But this lesson in the Chime story to date is absolutely crystal clear -- the best pro-consumer policy is the one that makes room for innovators to deliver. We need both parties to get behind that!
This is not a new observation. Former Comptroller Thomas Curry pushed for a special-purpose fintech charter and led the OCC’s Office of Innovation, arguing for responsible innovation that balances ambition with protection. The Chime story is a more recent demonstration of that idea.
We could have a tier of licenses for digital banking only awarded within months of applying. Imagine the impact that level of competition would bring to the financial sector? That’s something worth celebrating more often.
https://lnkd.in/eMhycHSx
CEO at AlgoPear | Driving Deposit Growth With The Embedded Robinhood For Community Financial Institutions
3wWe’re seeing the same! If fintechs provide a budget-friendly way to test or adopt right away without extra cost, it’s a way forward. Something we do at AlgoPear