It could be just a publicity stunt. Announce an unbelievable thing, get ton of attention and then figure it out later.
> I need to coin a term for this concept, I see it on every Hacker News thread once it reaches a certain size. It is the attribution of the topic to some nefarious intention of a dude in marketing. Once you start noticing it you can't unsee.
> Intel fires their CEO? It's a PR stunt.
> Startup abandons Europe due to GDPR? PR STUNT!
> AlphaZero beats professionals at Dota 2? You guessed it, it's just PR for oligarchy parent Alphabet.
> I see this so often now it's becoming humorous. As if some how this being all about PR explains everything. It doesn't explain anything! Although I'm sure Bill over in marketing loves that he has subsumed the historical role of deity in explaining the unknown.
The timing was also terrible, right after their big crash earlier in the week. Every single interview addressed that.
Where trust is involved, bad publicity can be worse than no publicity.
Furthermore, this fits into their narrative of disruption. Their target audience will likely see this as, "stupid big banking industry trying to make it hard for them again."
Because not only will I not use them for this, I closed my account entirely 'cause this is the sign of a disreputable company.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that's a lie.
That's a pretty small target audience, and those people are heavy into crypto and gold. Robinhood needs customer growth, and a nice, safe interest-bearing chequing account would have been a good way of doing it.
One-off press events with negative sentiment typically only affect brands that are getting to be known for the first time.
While a disastrous launch, most people who heard about this Robinhood checking already knew about the app. I don't think it's going to affect their brand much but will have driven app downloads to check it out, or re-acquisition of churned users. Referral events like this end up driving more core activity, which for Robinhood is making more deposits and trades (not signing up for checking).
Robinhood got a lot of press from this, well beyond their existing target market.
The fact that they announced this before confirming it with regulators smacks of CEO arrogance in the "Funding Secured!" vein.
From my comment:
>One-off press events with negative sentiment typically only affect brands that are getting to be known for the first time.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%203-m&ge...
https://www.lmcu.org/personal/banking/checking-accounts/max-...
In contrast, for LMCU:
Maximum of $15,000 for the 3% interest rate, most people with houses and/or families are going to want to have an emergency fund greater than $15,000, I spent almost $10,000 on emergency house repairs a couple weeks ago. If you're saving for a major purchase (car, down payment on house, major purchase, etc.) you're probably going to have more than $15,000. There is ZERO interest paid over $15,000!!!
The following are required to earn the 3% interest:
Direct deposit (self employed need not apply)
Minimum 10 debit card purchases per month (this alone should be a dealbreaker, one should almost always be using a credit card over a debit card if you're going to use plastic)
Minimum 4 logins to home banking per month
Requires eStatements
You're only getting an extra $12.50 a month over if you're keeping $15,000 in an Ally or Discover Savings account, and if you spend a modest $500/month on your debit card you're leaving at least $10 on the table in credit card cash back, not to mention the other benefits that come with using a credit card (extended warranty, price protection, purchase protection, travel insurance, etc. - depending on your card)
I use a credit card and then pay it off with the money in my LMCU checking account, the day after the interest hits :) I only do the minimum number of transactions with the debit card and I use them on low cost purchases.
>You're only getting an extra $12.50 a month over if you're keeping $15,000 in an Ally or Discover Savings account
Savings accounts have restrictions on the amount of times you can move money in and out of them. Checking accounts do not have that restriction. I'm sure I could find a savings account with better interest, but in my current life position I need a checking account.
I am unemployed right now, but I am meeting the direct deposit requirement with my monthly dividend from a stock I own, O. They also accept things like transfers from PayPal towards the direct deposit requirement.
If I were instead a homeowner with a family, I could get my spouse to make a separate checking account to double up on the amount emergency reserve money kept in a checking account. But again, it makes way more sense for emergency reserve money to be kept in a savings account. That's what they're made for.
IM(potentially uninformed)O, if your family is keeping more than $30K in a checking account, then you should probably be investing in stocks or bonds or mutual funds at that point anyways. It's not like you can't sell off investments to pay for emergency costs.
What possible benefit could LMCU receive if you log in four times a month instead of just the one time to pay off your credit card? There is none, it's a dark pattern.
I don't login to pay off my credit card, that's set up to happen automatically on the credit card company's side.
I basically just login to see if I've done 10 transactions yet. If I've met that but haven't logged in enough, I'll just logout and login real quick until that part is done. It's really not that big of a deal.
The benefit LMCU could receive from requiring monthly logins is:
- Not having to pay interest to a dead person
- Potentially being the institution you go to when you need a loan. This is where they (and other financial institutions) really make their money. In this respect, it's in their best interest to be with the customer as they become more financially savvy.
>IM(potentially uninformed)O, if your family is keeping more than $30K in a checking account, then you should probably be investing in stocks or bonds or mutual funds at that point anyways. It's not like you can't sell off investments to pay for emergency costs.
Emergency fund should not be invested! It needs to be in a liquid account that has zero (or near zero) risk to the principal. How big your emergency fund should be is dependent on your life situation. You're most likely to need your emergency fund at the same time the market tanked. I'm not selling securities (maybe at a loss) when I have an emergency, I'm going to use the money I've already set aside for such an occasion.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/emergency_fund.asp
>Financial advisers view an investment strategy as a pyramid. A strong base is fundamentally important to support the levels of risk an investor bears as securities with varying levels of volatility layer over the foundation. Before an individual ventures into intermediate- or long-term investment vehicles, the establishment of an emergency fund is recommended as the first step toward creating stability and minimizing risk. Stashing three or even six months’ income in a highly liquid account, such as a money market, should preclude the purchase of any instrument that holds risk to principal or requires lock-in periods during which penalties are assessed for early withdrawal. As more volatile securities sit atop above the base of savings accounts or Treasury bills, overall portfolio volatility is minimized and necessary access to risk-free capital is optimized.