According to Wix, there are 27 types of websites:
https://www.wix.com/blog/types-of-websites
According to Wix, there are 27 types of websites:
https://www.wix.com/blog/types-of-websites
It seems as though a payment process is a (relatively) easy flow to sketch. There are many out there, but here is one:
http://mqs.gtpl.net/mqsubscribe/Help/Online_Payment_Flow.htm
Here's what's funny (not funny "haha" but funny "hmm") to me. This is one of the biggest money grabs in the world, almost $32 billion in 2021 alone. This explains why the space to process payments is so crowded and why there are so many companies acting as middlemen. In fact, the payment systems in the US are quite inefficient compared to those in many other developed countries.
But nobody wants to work with the consumer. Like... nobody.
I mean, I think this is true generally. We, as consumers, don't get the new new thing from companies because they think we are stupid, stubborn, unwilling to change, etc. etc. - and in many cases they are right. On the other hand the enterprise side of this world is loading up on new technology and the consumer has a government filled to the brim with octagenarians on his/her side. Rough stuff.
There are some basic ideas that could help the consumer quite a bit here. In particular, what if I want to change my bank or I get a new credit card. In all of this mess shouldn't I just be able to swap out the account and routing numbers for new ones and carry on with my life, payment rails intact? The answer seems to be "yes" but you can't do it.
Why?
Well, I suppose it's mostly because JPMorgan Chase won't build a tool to let you jump ship to Wells Fargo in a heartbeat. Admittedly you'd need to have an account at WFC anyway, so that gets in the way. But on the other other hand (back to the original hand?) you have to complete (basically) the same document every time you open a new account. You can't just say "see my existing account @ Bank Y instead, please."
SO if you want to open a new account you have to complete the same document again. If you need to change something you have to tell everyone one at a time. If something changes in your life and you don't tell these companies, then they never find out and keep at you with their data-driven marketing that is now more off-target then it was when your information was correct.
Brutal...
We find a lot of value in books that were written a long time ago but usually ignore works that are only a few decades old. To our peril...
I have found some interesting ideas in a bunch of books from the 80s and 90s that I think are not really put into practice as they "should" be in business.
Today I was listening to "Beyond the Goal" that is a follow on to (obvi) "The Goal" from 1984(ish).
Interesting concept:
1. A technology can be useful in improving life if and only if it solves a limitation...
and
2. Before we have a technology to address a limitation we worked around it and usually just considered it a "fact of life."
Here's the problem. When you are living in conditions and rules from #2 and you develop the tech in #1, if you keep operating in the world of #2 then the tech won't work - or at least it won't deliver the value it could.
You see this a lot in commentary that technology hasn't really helped the world improve or businesses to get efficient. But this is exactly the problem these two ideas describe. A new technology is developed and inserted into (usually large) companies who only implement some of it. THis is mostly because many of them are generating a lof of income/profit/cash and so they aren't going to risk that with a new tech. Meanwhile, the old rules and processes prevent the new tech from really changing how things are done.
We're not stupid. We're just creatures of habit.
ZIRP (Zero Interest Rate Policy) created many distortions in the world.
When it comes to technology and fintech companies, there are two big ones:
1. The biggest companies hired thousands of engineers and stuck them in the middle of the company to work on *meh* projects. Now those people are in the market carrying those names on their resume and it's hard to tell just how good they are (anymore...).
2. Business models that cannot survive were perpetuated. Some examples are fundamental to the business and others are a broader problem with the concept. You can see this across technology but in fintech you can:
- cancel someone's subscriptions until you've done all of them and then...
- negotiate down someone's bill until you've done all of them and then...
- get rid of nuisance fees until you've gotten rid of all of them and then...
- eliminate trading fees on stocks and then...
- reduce investment fees to almost nothing and then...
... and then... you're done.
The argument is supposedly that the underlying user data that you get has a lot of value in and of itself. I find it unlikely that this is true for most of the companies created (and some acquired) for the ideas above (and more).
Simple isn't always the answer but it is usually the best place to start.
If you draw a Venn diagram using three circles:
Financial Services - Bank, investment, insurance, payment, tax, and lending products
Merchants - Goods and services
Consumers - Personal identifying information, contact methods, address, family members and structure, contacts, employment, and balance sheet
--------
Financial Services + Merchants - Financing
Financial Services + Consumers - Account opening, KYC, suitability, qualification, maintenance, and documentation
Merchants + Consumers - Logistics, payment type, relationship, billing, documentation, purchase venue, and warranty.
--------
Financial Services + Merchants + Consumers - So... what is in the center?
YOU are in the center, which extends your consumer circle. You are the only one with all the information in your head. You are the only one who knows when something changes (but you may not know if that change matters). You are the one who has to do something about anything that happens.
Today you can hire a dashboard to aggregate most of this information. But if you are like most people - literally if you consider the usage statistics for these kinds of platforms - these products will create more work for you and will likely relegate your accounts to registered but inactive (read: not valuable). This is one step away from the incumbent models.
On the other hand, my sense is that we are not ready to take three steps into the future, where everything is automated. In the same way that driverless cars may someday bask in the sun, fully automated consumer finance platforms may emerge. But, we are not ready for either yet.
So, I ask you what is two steps into the future?
My answer.
...
Coming soon!
One of the reasons I'm interest in a fintech company is that we don't really know how impactful technology "should have been."
Wut?
People who do no think that innovation in established businesses is important point to the lack of measurable and significant impact across industries. But I don't think you can lay this at the feet of the tech.
The responsibility here lies at the feet of management in two primary ways.
1. I've sat across from the CFO of two of the largest banks in the United States. Both before COVID hit. Each of them regurgitated the old MBA line that they use capital to buyback stock when it is viewed as a good use of capital (using the cost of capital as a guideline). Then, COVID hits and nobody is ready to even consider implementing remote work. How can a bank like JPMorgan, with an $8 billion+ technology budget miss this? Because the mone is being spent to directly benefit shareholders, rather than making employees more efficient and effective which would impact shareholders but indirectly.
2. Tech is never fully implemented. The reverberation would have been much more significant in terms of jobs and other issues. INstead enough money is spent to "adopt" new technology without disrupting the business as completely as it could. Is this a bad decision? Not if you are printing billions of dollars a quarter. But it does blunt the potential impact of technology on the business.
What should have the impact from technology advances over the 20 years have been? I don't think we'll ever know.
Not only is the consumer consistently underrepresented in existing markets but it is also starting to happen (again) in new technology markets.
I get it.
Nobody wants to build for the consumer because he is unwilling to change, uninformed, dispersed, unreliable, etc.
And sure, we (you and me) as consumers are responsible for changing that reputation if we want to get "the good stuff."
That is why everything I'm seeing is about building AI and LLMs to help existing enterprises do their jobs better. I heard this a while ago (maybe 2-3 years) and almost nothing has proven to be more accurate:
Incumbents don't adopt technology to change their business model. They adopt it to make their distribution channels (existing and perhaps new) cheaper.
So yes, there are a ton of AI-driven assistance being built. Trust me, there are more than you can count. As I expect(ed) they are falling flat because they were a rush to build "something I can sell to Google." There has not yet been a great consumer-focused company that disrupts the enterprise and gives the power-to-the-people (TM).
This is the opportunity no matter the industry (almost). This is the opportunity in fintech. Not just to use technology to change the landscape but to change the business models that we confront. In the case of fintech, to truly be able to own, understand, and manipulate our data to match and change each of our unique circumstances.
According to Wix, there are 27 types of websites: https://www.wix.com/blog/types-of-websites Types of websites eCommerce website Business ...