I think that's the point. You're already being served by a one-size-fits-all algorithm at any place that doesn't know you. Those places are guessing at how to treat you based on how other people act en masse. By learning about you, their algorithm can adapt so that it isn't generic.
> By learning about you, their algorithm can adapt so that it isn't generic.
It will still be the same algorithm, for everybody. Yes, it won't offer health insurance to old people or viagra to youngsters. But it will be the same recipe. Banks and credit cards already use sophisticated generic algorithms for advertising. Just because an algorithm adapts to parameters doesn't mean it isn't generic. (In fact, most algorithms "adapt" in some way.)
A cool idea instead would be giving control to the customer. Not just configuration but allowing programming of some kind. People are not stupid (no matter what your MBA course taught you.) Sure, humans have issues coordinating and large groups tend to behave at their lowest common denominator, but this isn't the case.
If the algorithm contains more pidgin holes, should it be judged based on the fact that it is still an algorithm, or should we actually consider whether it might be a better algorithm?
I would also like to see one of these services predict periodic expenses properly. e.g., I pay my car insurance once every six months, and I would love to see this as an amortized expense (as if I'm "saving" monthly to pay this expense when it comes due). Mint does not do anything like this.
Whether in spendy behavior or overdraft fees, there's a reward in it for them.
Where? Less money in your account = less money for the bank to loan out and make money from. Also, in the US anyway, overdraft is "off by default", due to new laws (and that banks realizing customers hate overdraft fees). If you spend more money than you have, the transaction is declined.
If banks wanted you to spend money, they wouldn't give you fee waivers and higher interest rates when your balance goes over a certain level.
(Credit cards are a whole other issue. They want you to spend up to your limit and pay the minimum every month. But loans and deposit accounts are two very different beasts.)
That's a false dichotomy. We don't need to run things with our private data on third party servers.
There is a way out: browsers have very powerful JS engines and it is possible to do client-side processing and even store private data encrypted somewhat securely without the service provider having access. But since this concept doesn't lead to profits it is completely disregarded. There are many systems using this approach, like password managers and secure email services. It's not perfect but it's been out there for many years.
I'm confused. If BankSimple isn't a bank (it's not, right?), then why does it have "bank" in its name and issue statements like "how we're building a better bank?"
Be a bank or be something better that isn't a bank, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.
15 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 22.6 ms ] threadA cool idea instead would be giving control to the customer. Not just configuration but allowing programming of some kind. People are not stupid (no matter what your MBA course taught you.) Sure, humans have issues coordinating and large groups tend to behave at their lowest common denominator, but this isn't the case.
I would also like to see one of these services predict periodic expenses properly. e.g., I pay my car insurance once every six months, and I would love to see this as an amortized expense (as if I'm "saving" monthly to pay this expense when it comes due). Mint does not do anything like this.
Where? Less money in your account = less money for the bank to loan out and make money from. Also, in the US anyway, overdraft is "off by default", due to new laws (and that banks realizing customers hate overdraft fees). If you spend more money than you have, the transaction is declined.
If banks wanted you to spend money, they wouldn't give you fee waivers and higher interest rates when your balance goes over a certain level.
(Credit cards are a whole other issue. They want you to spend up to your limit and pay the minimum every month. But loans and deposit accounts are two very different beasts.)
Not when it's in their pocket.
If banks wanted you to spend money, they wouldn't give you fee waivers [...]
Doesn't that just re-enforce the behavior of spending? Why worry about it when it'll be waived?
[...] and higher interest rates
Waiving fees and giving higher interest is out of fear of you taking your money somewhere else.
Uh, exactly? When you buy useless crap from Walmart, that's bad for the bank. When you save your money, that's good for the bank.
Yup, they make money off of your good habits and bad habits. Hedging. :)
There is a way out: browsers have very powerful JS engines and it is possible to do client-side processing and even store private data encrypted somewhat securely without the service provider having access. But since this concept doesn't lead to profits it is completely disregarded. There are many systems using this approach, like password managers and secure email services. It's not perfect but it's been out there for many years.
It preceded powerful browsers by a couple of years but the ideas were very similar (I believe) to what you suggest.
Be a bank or be something better that isn't a bank, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.