IDC Financial Insights Community > Consumer FinTech Focus

StonehamBank First Boston Area Bank To Launch Bling Nation Mobile Payment (1 Comment)

Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:15:48 +0000

Entry

Seeing is believing; My colleagues and I were lucky enough to receive a personal demonstration by Patricia Lauzon and Rule Loving of StonehamBank, with assets of $420 million, of their recent launch of Bling Nation mobile payment solution. StonehamBank had seen a demonstration of Bling Nation at the BAI Retail Delivery Conference last November in Boston and felt that offering Bling Nation would be a great way for them to expand into commercial banking, an important strategic direction of the organization. Although the product is still somewhat under a soft launch, a more robust marketing campaign is set to commence later this summer that StonehamBank hopes will generate much local buzz over Bling Nation.

The concept of Bling Nation is that all parties will get some sort of benefit from a Bling transaction. First, a financial institution with a significant local market share must agree to participate. The benefit to the financial institution is that they hope to attract new deposit relationships by individuals and SMB's who see Bling in action and want to participate. In StonehamBank's case, the ability to build or reinforce commercial banking relationships was a key driver. From an IT standpoint, there is very little the institution needs to do to setup Bling outside of coordination with their core provider and working with Bling Nation on parameters. Once the system is setup, then the process begins by lining up local merchants who want to participate. The benefit to the merchant is that transactions that go through Bling Nation are not subject to normal debit or credit interchange fees, but rather to lower fees negotiated by the bank and Bling Nation which uses an ACH formatted file delivered directly to the core processor. The consumer who wants to take advantage of the program then enrolls by attaching a BlingTag to their mobile device which has an RFID chip that allows the consumer to make purchases simply by tapping their phone onto the device (Blinger) next to the cash register. Most merchants also provide a rewards program such as a free cup of coffee for every five cups purchased. These rewards are integrated into the Blinger, which is a nicer experience than a statement credit.

So will Bling Nation be successful at StonehamBank? It is too early to tell as July 26^th represents the formal launch, but it seems like StonehamBank and Bling have done a great job at lining up local merchants. A big victory would come when say a large national coffee / donut chain gets involved, but the success of Bling Nation does not hinge necessarily on landing a large retailer. Auto shops, nail salons, sub shops, retail boutiques and other mom and pop operations may find that the reduction in interchange and loyalty programs are attractive enough to encourage their customers to use Bling Nation. What do you think? Will having a BlingTag or similar device be as ordinary as carrying rewards tags on your keychain or will this end up as being a trivia question in IT innovation?

Image

Keywords

mobile, payment, technology, bling nation, StonehamBank, mobile banking, mobile payment

Obituary: Wesabe; What Does This Mean For Online PFM?

Thu, 01 Jul 2010 17:11:47 +0000

Entry by Marc DeCastro

Entry

Announced today, July 1st, 2010, personal financial management (PFM) website Wesabe has announced that they will no longer be operational as of July 31st, 2010. According to a notice posted on their website by CEO Marc Hedlund.

"In recent months Wesabe has been operating on a shoestring budget, with support from some of the developers and operations people who made up our core team. While the site has remained online and we continue to hear from people who find it helpful, we have not been able to provide the support people need to use it for something so central as financial management. I've felt especially terrible that some members have a good initial experience but then hit a problem, often after investing many hours, and aren't able to get help with it. That's obviously a bad experience, and not what we want to offer. Also, because Wesabe stores such highly sensitive data, continuing to operate the service with shoestring operations and security staff is not acceptable, and we do not want to continue accepting new accounts if we cannot guarantee the security level we believe our service requires."

I commend Mr. Hedlund for addressing this upfront and providing information that is helpful to their users, while addressing what appears to be a quality of service issue that people may have been experiencing. I am sure many of the developers at Wesabe had invested many hours of blood, sweat and tears into the solution.

That said, nobody should be surprised. I was amazed (and still am) at the number of third party PFM providers. Obviously when the most recognized one (Mint.com) was acquired by Intuit, the writing was on the wall. Banks and Credit Unions now must ask themselves what is the next step for them when offering PFM solutions?

The first lesson learned should be that there must be a strategic business case behind every decision made. Offering a new solution like PFM must either generate new revenue, decrease hard dollar costs, or improve client satisfaction (which should lead to new revenue). A free model offered by so many of these independent PFM's is just not sustainable as we have seen today. Perhaps PFM should not be a free addition to online banking. Instead, use it as a tool for higher net-worth customers that may be willing to pay for such a service. Offer it as a value added service for the Wealth Management group who may use such a tool to manage all aspects of certain clients financial needs. Offering it simply because the technology is there without having a strategic plan around how this provides value is a mistake.

The early pioneers of developing online PFM's like Wesabe may have forced financial institutions hands. Utliize Web 2.0 technologies today to improve the performance and look and feel of your online offerings. This does not necessarily equate to building in as much functionality as possible and offering free, but rather to develop platforms that can easily be developed to offer customized solutions and flexible pricing strategies for your customers and clients. Let the customer choose the solutions that they want, at the price points that make sense and thank companies like Wesabe for forcing us to not accept the status quo.

Image

Debit Card Interchange Reform Finalized in Conference: What's Different? (3 Comments)

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:29:25 +0000

Entry by Aaron McPherson

Entry

On Monday, June 21, House and Senate conferees working on the financial regulatory reform bill announced a series of changes to the debit interchange provisions passed by the Senate (also known as the "Durbin Amendment". Ten days ago, I posted my thoughts on why these changes are unlikely to result in any actual change to debit card interchange rates, contrary to the assumptions cited in this Washington Post article on the matter. Do I need to rethink my position? Is the new bill better or worse, and for whom?

On the key question of whether debit card interchange rates will actually change, I think the new text actually makes that even more unlikely. First, the Fed is now allowed to consider fraud costs in setting rates, which gives them even more wiggle room than they previously had. Second, merchants are now prohibited from discriminating by issuer or network, which means that smaller issuers no longer need worry about being punished for having higher rates than the big guys. Finally, it reverses a provision I actually missed before, which was that the regulatory authority was going to be placed in an independent consumer financial protection agency. Fortunately (for me), the new text puts it back into the Fed, which is where I thought it was originally.

Reloadable prepaid cards are now exempted, as are government benefit cards, which further reduces the scope of the amendment, and provides issuers with another loophole to exploit. For example, Gigantor Bank can now issue a "rewards prepaid card," linked to your checking account, that automatically reloads whenever the balance is insufficient to cover the payment you are making.

Now look at the changes that weren't made: issuers with under $10 billion in assets are still exempted, which forces the Fed to contemplate dual price structures in the same market that are dependent on a metric that has little to do with debit card issuing. Even worse, banks can now petition the fed for a higher rate based on their fraud processing costs, which raises the spectre of dozens of different rates. This is if anything less palatable to the Fed, and reinforces my view that they are going to simply republish the rates that the card networks put out.

Credit cards still are not included, which is incredible, since they are twice as expensive for merchants as debit cards and are particularly laden with rewards and premium pricing models. If the Fed does actually cut debit card interchange rates, expect credit card rates to go up to compensate. That's exactly what happened the last time debit card interchange was cut, following the Wal-Mart settlement in 2003.

(No one seems to remember this now, but back then Visa and MasterCard agreed to pay $3 billion to the retailers and to cut their signature debit interchange by one-third - that settlement led directly to the card networks' decision to go public a few years later, and its flaws, which I don't have space to go into now, provide interesting context for this new legislation.)

There is one interesting change that I'm not sure about: the debit card networks can no longer require merchants to use their own network with their cards. I thought the Wal-Mart settlement covered this, but maybe Visa and MasterCard found a way around it. This could be a boon for PIN debit networks, but it could also mean that MasterCard would be allowed to process Visa cards, and vice versa. We will have to see the final language and wait for an interpretation from the Fed on this one. If anyone thinks they've got more insight on this, please enlighten me in the comments.

While I don't think the Fed will be pushing down rates, at least not now, that doesn't mean I think they should stay where they are. The political landscape has irrevocably shifted, and issuers need to proactively move to a fee-based or merchant-funded rewards model for all their cards, reducing the base interchange rate in the process. The survival of the Durbin Amendment makes clear that bipartisan majorities are willing to step in if the industry doesn't solve the problem itself, and that the government fix will certainly be worse than a voluntary restructuring. I urge the issuers to use the next year not to flout the new law, but to seriously commit to a fairer and more transparent pricing system, and thereby avoid a more onerous regulatory solution.

Keywords

debit cards, interchange, Durbin, payments, retail

Business Analytics ~ Establishing Rapid Inroads into Asia

Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:45:36 +0000

Entry by Li-May Chew

Entry

Business analytics (BA) is typically implemented to gain insights into and reveal patterns about consumers' behavior. It utilizes statistical technologies such as data mining, clustering and regression modeling to discover relationships in data that can determine the probable outcome of future events and allow for users to take preemptive actions if necessary. Often, such analytics are able to make predictions that are otherwise not apparent or too complex to be identified using core analytics software.

Interestingly, according to several recent IDC end user surveys, we found that BA is establishing rapid inroads into the Asian financial services community. Amongst the insights garnered, we discovered that three in four financial institutions have implemented a BA solution, with the bulk having opted for packaged BA solutions (a testament to the robust functionality of most vendors' off-the-shelf technology). However, almost one-third of the surveyed have issues quantifying the probable cost/benefit trade-off from BA. In addition, a core challenge in implementing BA solutions is poor data quality which limits the efficacy of analytics.

In terms of BA application deployment, financial analytic applications are currently the most commonly utilized software, while dashboard and scorecards tools are those ranked highest in terms of future planned implementation. Meanwhile, 22.6% of the respondents indicated intent to migrate BA software to a SaaS delivery model, convinced of the advantages of adopting an on-demand model to software provisioning. Going forth, we are forecasting that APEJ's BA software market is set to expand at a five-year CAGR of 6.4% to reach US$2,006 million in 2013, with circa 66% of the market being shared by the top five BA software vendors.

BA offers financial institutions an opportunity to leapfrog over decades of disparate data and gives them a leg up in their CRM strategies. IDC Financial Insights strongly believes that financial players will continue to place utmost importance to business intelligence and data management in the foreseeable future, and that you (if you are banker or insurer reading this column) would be no exception.

To find out what else we have to say about this topic, please refer to: Business Strategy: Enhanced Role of Analytics for the Financial Services Institution of Today at http://www.idc-fi.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=FIN223523. In this report, we further profiled the top five leading BA vendors in the Asia/Pacific region, provided guidance on how financial institutions can pragmatically utilize BA to deliver better business decisions, and how vendors can actively address customers' evolving BA requirements.

Keywords

business analytics, business intelligence, Asia Pacific, data, customer analytics

Debit Card Interchange Reform Said To Be In Final Bill: Is This The Apocalypse? (3 Comments)

Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:24:32 +0000

Entry by Aaron McPherson

Entry

Today's American Banker has an article, "Senate Holds Reg Reform Conference's Upper Hand," (subscription required) in which Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass) is quoted as saying that "You have 64 senators voting for [the Durbin Amendment], it's unrealistic to think that it is going to go away." Are those four horsemen I see coming over Capitol Hill?

For those not familiar with it, the Durbin Amendment, which was added to the Senate version of the financial reform bill in a last-minute vote that caught the card issuers completely by surprise, does three major things: first, it gives the Federal Reserve authority to set debit card interchange fees so they are based on actual processing cost to the issuer; second, it allows merchants to offer discounts for particular brands or types of debit cards; and third, it allows merchants to set minimum amounts for debit card purchases. There's more, but for our purposes I'll just focus on the first two provisions.

Assuming the Durbin Amendment ends up in the final bill, as Frank predicts, and assuming it passes, it's actually unclear how much will change. The Fed is probably going to do everything it can to avoid actually fixing prices, especially since the bill exempts all issuers with under $10 billion in assets (i.e., all but the top 75 issuers). Otherwise, there would be two separate sets of prices; one set by the Fed, and one set by the industry. Now, if the Fed's prices are lower than the industry's prices, you get a whole series of bad outcomes. First, merchants will start refusing debit cards from smaller banks, because they are more expensive, and the merchants will be allowed to do this. Second, the top 75 banks now have to cancel their debit rewards programs, or start charging an annual fee for them, because the interchange to pay for them is no longer there. So consumers will flock to smaller issuers, and there will no doubt be new decoupled debit issuers that will crop up to take advantage of the opportunity. Some of the smaller issuers may be pushed close to the $10 billion cap as a result of all the new business, and start refusing to issue new debit cards to avoid the revenue hit. Or, the top 75 could simply split themselves up into subsidiaries to get under the $10 billion cap, although this would create massive inefficiencies. In the end, the merchants pay as much (or more), and everybody is worse off.

Therefore, logic dictates that the Fed will simply match the industry prices, and nothing will change. This will no doubt be challenged by the merchants, but the Fed will have numerous ways to defend its decision. For example, who's to say that reward programs aren't part of the "cost" of processing a debit card?

So no, this isn't the Apocalypse; it is an ill-conceived political statement, and nothing more. If the Congress were serious, you'd see all issuers covered, and credit cards (the real problem) would be included. But don't take this as a message to stop worrying and do nothing; the fact that this amendment passed with a bipartisan 64-33 vote, with almost no debate, is a massive warning to the card industry to reach a settlement with the merchants, and fast. Congress will learn from this failure, and the next bill will be a lot more potent.

Keywords

debit cards, interchange, Durbin, payments

AT&T's New Pricing Model For Smartphones Might Be Just What Banks Want (1 Comment)

Wed, 02 Jun 2010 19:51:22 +0000

Entry by Marc DeCastro

Entry

AT&T's recent announcement that they will no longer offer an unlimited data plan for new customers of smartphones, including the pending new iPhone, may in fact be the beginning of a fundamental pricing model change across numerous industries. Financial service firms may possibly be front and center to adopt similar pricing models. How can AT&T's announcement help financial institutions capture more value-based rather than punitive non-interest income? Simple, we have to get used to paying for what we utilize.

When dial up Internet first became available, there was a flat fee based upon the amount of data that you downloaded, then a variable fee if you exceeded your limit. Those of us who really wanted to be pioneers and saw the benefit of being online appreciated the value and paid the price. Soon, Internet Service Providers (ISP's) began to covet market share, and offered faster services with unlimited bandwidth. That was terrific as it became the fuel to stoke the online fire which has provided us with so many innovative and time saving technologies and got so many Americans online at home. Go back twenty years from that, and the same situation happened with long distance calls. As a youngster, I recall when my parents had to pay a fairly steep per minute price to call from our home in St. Louis to my grandparents in Chattanooga. Eventually, the cost to dial across the country was no different than the cost to dial across the street, and that opened up the level of communication nationwide. There are many examples where Americans are accustomed to having a flat rate regardless of the variable cost behind the delivery; postage stamps, some mobile voice plans, and an all you can eat buffet at the local Chinese restaurant. But we also have situations where we pay for what we use, from electricity and natural gas, to utilizing shipping services outside of the USPS where distance is a factor, and with cable and satellite television.

Financial institutions have decided that the flat rate is best, but too often the flat rate is zero. For zero you get full access to your account at a branch, at the ATM, at a point of sale device, at a foreign ATM, writing a check, online, and now through your mobile phone. Meanwhile, all these delivery channels cost the financial institution hard dollars to setup, support, and provide upgrades. As financial institutions struggle with how to recoup lost non-interest income that has been regulated away, and potentially more financial hits with Congress ironing out the last pieces of the financial reform act, the bottom line will be that we will all have to pay for these services. Imagine your local financial institution provides you with three levels of accounts. One level may offer the most basic of services - with perhaps a limited number of checks and ATM transactions. The next level may cost a few extra dollars a month, but include a debit card and online banking along with unlimited check writing and ATM transactions. The final level may again add a few extra dollars, but add online bill payment, mobile banking, and mobile payment capabilities. It will only take the largest institutions to start doing this before all others follow suit. Remember when you used to be able to check your baggage for free? The same may be said about your banking account. Do you agree?

Keywords

AT&T, Apple, iPhone, Banking, Fees, Income, Technology

How online retail brokers innovate by keeping clients off their websites.

Wed, 02 Jun 2010 19:38:09 +0000

Entry by Sean O'Dowd

Entry

Retail online brokers are continually working to improve their trading client's online experience. There are always new and interesting technologies that brokers embed in their websites with the goal of driving more traffic to the site, make it more sticky or motivate you to consolidate financial activity on it. A new tool from Zecco takes the opposite approach. Rather than trying to funnel you into Zecco's site, the tool allows you to trade without ever going to it.

How? As you read through a website (so far only a handful of major market news and research sites are active) and come across a stock ticker, a little Z icon appears next to it. Clicking on the icon launches a login window, once in, you can execute your trade without every going directly to Zecco's website. They can even do this on competitor websites.

So? There are a few points. First, from a user perspective it's awfully handy. I actually observed my own trading behavior just the other day as I was buying on some market weakness - that could've been any day over the last month for that matter. What I found was before I trade I'll typically go to, what I imagine many other retail traders do, a number of websites to research the company, ETF or fund. Be it company news, technicals, charting, financials, etc what happens is at some point in my research I make a decision and look to trade. So once I'm ready, I type in the web address of my broker site, login, enter the ticker, place my order, and wait for the execution message. Doesn't seem too tedious, but after seeing the Zecco icon in action I thought that this was something that would have saved me some time and enhanced my trading experience.

The bigger point here is that Zecco has offered a few important lesson about how to innovate the customer experience. Zecco took the time to observe its client trade activity cycles, and this is a valuable way for companies to innovate new products or services. Just by asking you may never get a good answer. Conversely, creating something without any external input can be risky. So watching how your clients do the things, in the field so to speak, can give you tremendous insight into how and why your clients do the things they do. Its sounds simple enough and is out of the 1920's marketers handbook, but many financial services firms miss this concept completely.

Another lesson here is that Zecco has identified a unique way to insert itself into the extended network of news, social, and financial sites. Rather than pushing its products and services, it is trying to pull traders in. They're doing this by giving traders some simple tools that make it easy to enter and exit into a transaction. Doing so provides an ease of execution that tests the way many retail trading sites operate.

It all may seem like a gamble, but for a smaller outfit like Zecco, it needs to continually push the boundaries to grow its business. Further, I see it as an overall improved real time, user enabled, value-add experience that more retail financial services firms should learn from.

Image

what you can do when you're a small financial institution (4 Comments)

Fri, 06 Feb 2009 21:35:39 +0000

Entry by Jeanne Capachin

Entry

Just got off the phone with a credit union that created a blog hosted by their president, "Ask Jack". It's $200M Members Credit Union in North Carolina, and when internally there was concern about how the media was communicating about the financial crisis, they decided to turn to social networking to manage the message.

Within 1 day, their director of public relations had set up a site, they created a video, and the president started his blog to explain the financial crisis. Since then, it's been used to announce new offerings, respond to member questions, and educate members about how rates are set. For no money, and very little time, they've got a new channel to build a dialog with their members and test out the role of social networking in a financial services business context.

Keywords

web 2.0, credit union, blog

Should Online Banking Have a Separate iPad Application? (1 Comment)

Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:07:06 +0000

Entry by Marc DeCastro

Entry

First Apple came out with the iPhone and it changed the landscape for mobile devices. People began to see the power of TIME (technology, information, media, and entertainment) converging in a device that could fit in their pocket. Developers latched onto the popularity and now there is pretty much an application that will do anything from calculating nutritional values at fast food restaurants, to applications that utilize GPS to provide walking directions to the closest ATM. Early on, most (myself included) felt that downloadable applications for financial institutions were akin to developing software for PC banking of the 90's. I for one felt that the premise of having consumers go to a site to download a specific application would be foolish when we have become so accustomed to having the browser be our gateway. I may however have been premature to think that was the case. Apple certainly changed the rules and the habits of consumers and today it is a reasonable strategy to develop online banking applications that run on the iPhone, Android and Blackberry platforms. Now along comes the iPad which will require its own development efforts. Should banks develop specific iPad applications?

The short answer is yes; it is inexpensive, it gives the financial institution publicity, and perhaps will draw in some new business. The difficulty however lies in the fact that the mere form factor of the iPad does not really make it a mobile device and perhaps downloading a banking application on it will not be necessary. Have you seen what your bank website will look like on an iPad? Go to the site www.ipadpeek.com and take a look. Most sites on the iPad come across as pretty impressive. In fact, why not just utilize existing online banking and bill pay applications meant for access from PC's and Mac's and focus application development on the smaller form factors devices? Australia and New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ) in fact recently announced that they will be dropping mobile browser based banking and instead focus on SMS and downloadable applications - primarily because of low usage. I wonder how much the iPad played in their decision? Perhaps the writing is on the wall when it comes to offering access to financial services where a three prong approach would be:

Continue to develop and enhance traditional online banking for access from desktops, laptops, MacBooks,netbooks, iPads, etc.
Develop further functionality around SMS - an extremely popular and widely accepted method of communication.
Develop downloadable applications for the largest market share smartphones, such as the iPhone, Blackberry and Android.

What do you think?

Keywords

ONLINE BANKING, IPOD, IPHONE, ANDROID, BLACKBERRY, IPAD

P2P Payments: One Man's Experience (6 Comments)

Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:42:13 +0000

Entry by Aaron McPherson

Entry

Lately, I've been getting a flood of press calls and inquiries about P2P payments. I wrote about the general topic in a link available to our clients, but something nagged at me: I hadn't actually done a P2P payment myself. As luck would have it, on Thursday, April 8 I went out to lunch with some colleagues, and saw my chance. I paid the entire bill with my Amex card, and told my lunch companions I would send them a bill via PayPal. What follows is a chronology of my experience actually trying to do what many industry experts are saying is the next big frontier in payments.

Day 1 (April 8): Ran into my first issue when one of my colleagues opted out, preferring to give me cash, since he had it on him and did not want to be bothered with replying to a PayPal bill.

I ran into my second issue when I realized that I did not have my colleagues' personal e-mail addresses, and that they would be unlikely to be willing to create new PayPal accounts with their work e-mails just for this one transaction. I e-mailed them to ask for their PayPal e-mail addresses. Of course I had to use my personal e-mail address, which is not my actual name (long story), so I had to also walk by and let them know to expect an e-mail from that address. After a short while, I had both e-mail addresses, and I logged into PayPal

I ran into my third issue when I discovered that I would be charged 2.9% + $0.30 for each payment, or 79 cents. If I was not doing this for research, I probably would have abandoned the effort at this point, but I wanted to continue the experiment, so I persisted.

I ran into my fourth issue when one of my colleagues chose her bank account as the source of funds, causing a 3-5 day delay in settlement. The other one chose his credit card, and I got the money that evening - $17, minus 79 cents, or $16.21.

I ran into my fifth issue when I went to deposit the $16.21 into my bank account. I discovered this would also take 3-5 days, depending on my bank's policies.

Day 4: The $16.21 payment from my first colleague arrived in my bank account. Still nothing from the second one.

Day 11: Still no money in my PayPal account, so I went and asked my colleague what happened. She checked her PayPal account, and it turned out the money is still in there. Apparently, PayPal debited her checking account but then forgot to forward the money to me. Or perhaps she failed to respond to the payment request correctly (user error). She asked me to re-bill her, which I did, and the $16.21 arrived in my PayPal account an hour later. However, I was not done yet; I still needed to schedule another bank account deposit.

Day 13: The $16.21 arrived in my bank account (2 days, not bad actually), and the experiment was complete.

Final result: it took me 13 days and $1.58 to get $34 in reimbursements for lunch. I encountered 6 unexpected difficulties including a possible user error, costing me about an hour of work time in total to solve.

I'd love to hear if anyone else has tried to do P2P payments with PayPal, and how their experience was similar or different. After all, this is only one data point. However, it greatly concerns me that P2P payments seems to be the main use case on which so many emerging payments vendors are basing their futures. From my perspective, this was something I'd hesitate to do again, for the following reasons:

Too much time. The process was too complicated, and took 13 calendar days to complete, vs. the cash payment, which was instantaneous.
Too much money. The cash payment was free, and even though I had to wait an extra week to get my second colleague's payment, since she used her bank account, I paid exactly the same amount in fees. I don't think most consumers would be willing to pay $1.58 for this.

It is clear that this scenario would only work if both parties had money pre-loaded into their PayPal accounts. I'm not trying to pick on PayPal here; as far as I know, all the P2P services have this requirement. The problem is that they don't make it clear up front that you have to do the pre-load, and if you have to plan ahead like that, you might as well visit an ATM.

What do you think? Is my experience atypical? Did I make an obvious mistake? Let me know.

Keywords

P2P, PayPal, online payments

IDC Financial Insights Community > Consumer FinTech Focus

StonehamBank First Boston Area Bank To Launch Bling Nation Mobile Payment (1 Comment)

Entry

More

Image

Keywords

Obituary: Wesabe; What Does This Mean For Online PFM?

Entry

More

Image

Debit Card Interchange Reform Finalized in Conference: What's Different? (3 Comments)

Entry

More

Keywords

Business Analytics ~ Establishing Rapid Inroads into Asia

Entry

More

Keywords

Debit Card Interchange Reform Said To Be In Final Bill: Is This The Apocalypse? (3 Comments)

Entry

More

Keywords

AT&T's New Pricing Model For Smartphones Might Be Just What Banks Want (1 Comment)

Entry

More

Keywords

How online retail brokers innovate by keeping clients off their websites.

Entry

More

Image

what you can do when you're a small financial institution (4 Comments)

Entry

More

Keywords

Should Online Banking Have a Separate iPad Application? (1 Comment)

Entry

Keywords

P2P Payments: One Man's Experience (6 Comments)

Entry

More

Keywords