Comments on: Matt Colebrook on the future of banking

By: Ian_Rachwal

Ian_Rachwal — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:45:00 +0000

Interesting comments above from jdr (26/09) but perhaps a bit dramatic.

“By 2050 banks will no longer exist as they do today”. Did anyone actually think they would? Banks 40 years ago are unrecognisable from what is available today.

“Banks will be redundant within 10 years”. I don’t think so despite many people salivating at the possibility.

I am not sure that P to P lending will be “mainstream” in 10 years however I do agree that it will grow substantially over coming years to the point that banks will have to seriously consider the threat to its business.

My question to Matt is – How does he see P to P lending altering the way that banks do business? Will banks perhaps retreat into facilitating P to P lending to stay in the market but with a reduced margin?

Ian Rachwal

By: goveyesnears

goveyesnears — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:14:39 +0000

If frontline staff successfully listened, learned and engaged better with consumers would social media be so important to First Direct?

By: jdr

jdr — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 11:25:14 +0000

Banks will be redundant within the next ten years. P to P lending will be mainstream. The internet has done a great job of disintermediation and the banks are he ultimate middle men doomed under the p to p model. They argue we need them to keep our money safe. Well firstly they dont actually keep our money in any physical state, and as far as safety is concerned they do not own the IP to security system far more secure than currently being deployed.

By 2050 banks will no longer exist as you know them today , and large co-ops with p to p lending structures will have totally replaced them with low trasnaction costs and higher rates of interest being paid to the lender as a result. http://www.crowdsourcecapital.com

By: radicalman

radicalman — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:23:51 +0000

Why do we need banks at all for domestic transactions? Why cannot people be their own bank? The transfer of value is now so easy and efficient the banks have no part to play apart from supplying a central system. As custodians and administrators of our money banks are expensive and inefficient. But they do have a role as suppliers of credit. Social dialogue with banks is a ridiculous notion. Life isn’t like that. People vote with their feet.
Businesses need banks. Then dialogue is automatically generated.

By: crm911

crm911 — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 23:50:58 +0000

I can’t agree with the above views. I have no idea in which country this First Direct is based, which is not my ignorance (being in Australia) but making a point that its presence in social media is not in my face. It doesn’t even rate a mention in my networks (mainly AU and US).

All businesses that sell to the masses need to be present where customers will notice them. If they are not present, they will have fewer customers. That’s all I see in this article.

Of course consumers of all ages want to do whatever takes their fancy. If they start a SM conversation about a brand, the brand should be aware of and be capable of joining the conversation. I agree that the social medium alone can’t “create conversations” — people do. There is nothing in the article suggesting that First Direct intends to bombard millions of people with conversation starters.

Being visible means that consumers have one more way to complain or praise a bank. Surely this is a good thing. My bank has a Twitter account but has sent 0 tweets. This doesn’t stop me and others from “talking” to them.

Good on them.

By: DanMux

DanMux — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:29:48 +0000

As Matt rightly says customers want to access their bank when they want, but more than that they want to bank on their terms.

The quote ‘I see social media within the financial sector creating conversations’ – is a tell tale. It should be financial services as one small strand in social media. Banks need to stop thinking of themselves as so important, they must accept they are but one strand in the Y-Gen consciousness.

For financial institutions to be able to flow useful data and be part of the conversation, does Matt recognise they have to make a mental leap in terms of security models? – release read only API’s – use open web standard like oauth. Of course protect core assets and transactions, but let the data flow out, and see the value start to be added. Does Matt see that this shift is key to enabling the conversation.

By: GWRace

GWRace — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:26:35 +0000

Leave Business to run them selves and don’t interfere