The Simplifier

"Apponomics" and Online Banking

When it comes to mobile internet, app stores are the hottest thing since sliced bread.  Apple's App Store (and now Google's Android Market) have created an entirely new marketplace for mobile software, the size and diversity of which is truly astounding.  

So it's not surprising to see other technology segments gaze longingly upon these new franchises and look for ways to replicate their success.  And why shouldn't they?  These app stores are providing their purveyors with a new source of revenue, low distribution costs, and platform innovation and lock-in--all good things for sure.   

As proof, look no further than the financial technology industry, where we have started to see app stores pop up inside third-party online banking systems in the past 12 months.  Both Yodlee and Open Solutions have app stores up and running, and I know that other OLB companies are not far behind in releasing app stores of their own. 

A recent Booz research report on retail banking even talked about the power of "Apponomics" and how retail banking needs to move given the new app-driven reality of the consumer online experience.

So what does all this mean for online banking?  Will the app store concept be the key that allows banks to crack the code on online product sales/revenue generation?  Or will it serve primarily as way for online banking providers to extend their platforms and access innovation via third parties?  Both?  Neither?

It's too early tell.  But before we get too excited about the app store's potential for online banking, we need to point out a few differences--and challenges--to keep in mind when thinking about current app stores vs. the online banking app stores currently in production (and on the drawing board):

1) Apple's App Store and Google's Android Market are vehicles for enhancing the usefulness of a device (a smartphone or computer), not for enhancing the usefulness of a service (like Apple's Keynote or Google Docs).  I think this is an important distinction.  Many software services have extensible features (font libraries, add-on's, Excel's data pack, etc.), but they are almost always peripheral to the user experience.  

The smartphone app store is successful because apps have become a critical part of the core user experience.  They are not peripheral--outside of phone functionality, dowloadable apps often provide the most-used and most-loved user functions.  So the lesson here is clear:  for online-banking app stores to be successful, their apps will have to be core to the user experience, not periphery. 

2) Smartphone OS's were designed with app stores as part of their DNA.  Online banking systems have no such functionality in their DNA, which means vendors will have to rewrite/redesign their software to do so.  Vendors will be reluctant to undertake such a major rewrite, so they will be forced to bolt on an app store concept to their current software, which will make it very difficult to make the app store a core component of the service (see #1 above).  The good news is this may create opportunities for new entrants into the marketplace. 

3) App Stores still haven't solved the challenge of "free;" in fact, they have probably made it worse.  The ratio of free to paid apps in both stores is quite high (33% for Apple and 65% for Android), and this doesn't give us the ratio of free vs. paid app downloads, which I'm sure is highly skewed towards free.  Free apps are a huge part of smartphone apps, and both Apple and Google are fine with this--remember, they are primarily in the business of selling devices, not apps.

So any way you slice it, counting on paid apps to generate significant revenue within online banking seems highly doubtful.  Having said that, there is certainly an opportunity to leverage free apps from financial product/service providers to create ancillary commission/fee income that could be shared with vendors and FI's. But that would mean FI's actively introducing their customers to third-party product providers, which they have historically been very reluctant to do.               

Despite these challenges, I'm bullish on the "Apponomics" of online banking.  I look forward to seeing how current online banking vendors deal with the integration and user experience challenges app stores present, and I'm even more interested to see if--and if so, how--FI's embrace the opportunities created by app stores.   

PFM Truths We Don't Believe--And Lies We Do...

As the CEO of a company that is part of the "PFM Movement," I've read just about everything that has been written about personal financial management technology over the past 3-4 years.  And I must say that while the volume of material continues to increase (a good thing), so does the noise-to-signal ratio (not a good thing). 

Bottom line, there are a lot of unproven--and flat-out wrong--ideas about PFM that have been floating around for so long that they have become part of the conventional wisdom within the industry.  And while some of these ideas may be helpful in the short-run to companies like ours, I think it's better to dispel them now so as to avoid the likely backlash that comes with services that have been oversold.

So with that, here is my list of Top 3 Truths about PFM we don't believe and the Top 3 Lies we do:

Truth #1: Online banking customers are not interested in financial management
This is a harsh truth that we all have to face up to.  Consumers don't want to manage their finances.  They don't want to build budgets and tag transactions, or plan for the future, or figure out how much insurance they need.  They just don't--most people think these tasks really, really suck. 

Now don't get me wrong.  These same people definitely want their finances to be managed--meaning they want bills to paid, checks/debit cards not to bounce, insurance to be bought, savings to grow, etc.  But they don't actually want to DO THE WORK.  If someone could create a financial management fairy, it would be a smash hit.  Until then, online banking must focus on giving users simple, easy-to-use tools that almost "trick" customers into actively managing their finances, because this is the only chance we have to get people to do something they know they should do--but really don't want to.

Truth #2: Online Banking = PFM
No, I don't mean that online banking already has all the features and functions of PFM--it doesn't.  What I mean is that for most online banking customers, online banking "is" their PFM--because they don't use anything else to manage their finances.  Online banking is the closest thing to PFM they have--for better or worse.  Whatever tools and information they have access to inside online banking, that's what they use. 

So if they can only see transactions, make transfers, and pay bills, then that's what they do.  Why?  Because those tools are there, and therefore it's easy (see Truth #1).  Sure, they occasionally use other tools/services to do financial stuff, but with very little frequency.  Whatever PFM tools or services we think consumers need/want must become part of online banking--because it's the one "PFM" tool most of them actually use. 

Truth #3: Banks aren't interested in customer financial management, either
This is another harsh truth that the banking community needs to admit.  Currently, banks are not in the business of helping customers do financial management--they are in the business of selling financial products. 

Moving into the financial management arena pushes banks out of their comfort zone for sure--for the most part, retail banks have not been in the financial management advice business, so we're talking about a whole new ballgame, service-wise. 

And there is, of course, the natural tension that exists between selling products and giving good advice that banks must face if they go this route (just ask the brokerage industry!).  Helping customers avoid overdrafts or pay off high-interest credit cards (good advice, bad for business) are some simple examples of the conflicts that must be faced.  I believe banks can (and must) overcome this challenge, but to do so they must first admit it's a problem and discuss ways to fix it (and not leave it to the CFPB to dictate solutions).  

And now, the Lies...

Lie #1: Account aggregation = PFM
This is more of an oversimplification than an outright lie, but it's still an idea that needs debunking.  Giving online banking customers the ability to view "foreign" accounts inside the virtual walls of an online banking app is a good service, but only because it gives customers more access to information.  It doesn't do anything to help customers better manage their finances.  Aggregated account information is helpful, but it's only a first step in the move towards PFM--it's not even close to the end game. 

Lie #2: PFM helps customers do a better job of managing their finances
The benefits of using traditional PFM have been touted far and wide.  But if you take a close look at the toutings, you will notice something:  so far, there isn't any evidence that using a PFM service actually helps consumers improve their financial situation.  Other than survey research--where many PFM users say they "feel" more confident in their financial management--there is almost nothing to show.  The only hard-data example I've found is from HelloWallet, and it's pretty preliminary.    

Now, I truly believe that PFM tools have the potential to help customers do a better job of managing their finances.  It's just that the current tools aren't there yet.  And I don't believe they will ever get there if they don't move away from providing information and move towards giving advice (tell customers what to do) and offering behavioral-modification mechanisms (that's a fancy way of saying tools that help customers regulate their own self-defeating financial impulses). 

For example, I think Mint's alert emails are the best feature they offer, because they can help customers avoid making bad decisions.  And I believe the list of customized action steps that we give our customers at SimpliFi is our best product feature, for much the same reason.

Banks have a role to play here as well, by developing new products that complement/extend the advice and behavioral-modification features of PFM.  Again, there is a long way to go here.  The only product innovation I've seen that really fits the bill is the "keep the change/top-up" debit card for forced savings.  (It certainly isn't merchant-funded rewards...)    

Lie #3: PFM is about customer retention
We know that online banking customers are fairly "sticky," so it's almost impossible for for PFM to amplify this much further, especially when you consider that the type of online banking customer most likely to use PFM is what I like to call an intense user:  frequent visits, online bill pay usage, remote deposit capture.  Their retention profile is already very, very good--so the value pitch for PFM based on boosting retention is weak.

The other problem with the retention pitch is it undersells PFM's potential.  PFM, if it's done right, can be a key component in moving online banking from it's current state (information, internal money movement, bill pay) to a true sales/service platform, with advice and guidance, customized offerings based on smart analytics, and consultative selling (automated and via human interaction).  Selling retention as its value proposition will keep PFM in the "nice-to-have" bucket, and that simply won't do.    

So there you have it, my list of Top 3 PFM truths we don't believe and Top 3 lies we do.  I feel sure that PFM is a topic of interest to many of you, so please share your thoughts and comments.  If you agree, tell me why.  If you disagree, do the same. 

Banking and Justin Bieber

Last weekend I watched Never Say Never, the Justin Bieber movie, with my 13-year-old daughter.  Like most young girls with a heartbeat, she loves Justin Beiber and can't understand why I don't love him, too.  She had already seen the movie when it came to the theater earlier this year, but she insisted that I watch it on DVD, saying it would change my opinion of JB.

And she was right--although not necessarily in the way she thought.

First, about the movie.  It's actually a pretty good story about a young man overcoming long odds to achieve his dream of musical success.  He's charming and very talented, and the people who work with him are likeable.  And if you care about social media, there's a good angle there as well.  All in all, it's worth 2 hours of your time.

But it wasn't the story--or Justin Bieber--that inspired this post.  It was the fans.  The literally thousands of fans you see on the screen during the movie.  I would say that at least a third of the movie is footage of fans--at concerts, being interviewed, waiting in ticket lines, at appearances, even onstage at concerts.

His fans are ubiquitous in the movie.  And they are ALL FEMALES.  Every last one of them.  During the movie, the camera showed exactly ONE male fan who wasn't a dad there with his daughter. 

Now, at this point you're probably saying:  Duh!  Cute teenage boy singing sappy love songs?  Of course his fans are all girls!  And you would be right.  JB follows in a long line of teen idol singers, from Sean Cassidy to Ricky Martin to Justin Timberlake.

So here's what is so fascinating.  Despite what would appear to be a slamdunk case, Justin Bieber couldn't get a record deal.  The record companies said there wasn't a market for him on the radio; his demographic was too narrow, and therefore wouldn't appeal to the advertisers that radio station formats target.

So he took his music (and hair) directly to potential fans.  To be more specific, female fans.  And they bought it.  Bigtime.  After a few years of leveraging YouTube and personal appearances to build a following, Bieber headlined his first big tour last year, and it was a huge success, ranking third in total tickets sold, right behind Bon Jovi and the Dave Matthews Band.  

And I would bet that 98% of those almost 1 million tickets were purchased by females.  Either girls or more importantly, their Moms.

Record companies haven't seem to have caught on to the fact that the Justin Bieber phenomenon isn't an exception to the rule--it IS the rule.  Females drive consumer purchasing decisions for just about everything, and it's time retailers accepted this and start acting accordingly.  (To be fair, it's not just record companies or banks that haven't fully embraced this).

Which brings me to what JB can teach banks. 

Just because financial products are not naturally female-oriented doesn't mean that banks shouldn't find ways to make their offerings female-friendly. 

The first step is to think very, very seriously about how females view your institution--your products and services, your people, your physical spaces, your advertising.  All of it.  Learn what you can, and be prepared to be humbled--because if you ask, females will definitely tell you, and it might not be what you want to hear.  And then I would urge you to use these learnings to retrain your people and reposition your products and services for this audience.

If you want to see one big bank's effort, check out Citi's Women & Co.  I'm not crazy about this, because it focuses on women as a niche audience rather than the dominant force within Citi's retail base, but hey, it's a start.    

Never Say Never goes to great lengths to show how dedicated Justin Bieber's fans are--and how dedicated he and his team are to the fans.  Banks should try their damnedest to build the same kind of dynamic with their female customers and prospects. 

So banks and credit unions gotta get with the program and start selling to women--there simply isn't any other way.  And to think it took a 15-year-old teen idol with great hair to spell it out for us...

Personal vs. Personalized

One old-school banking concept that I've always loved is the Personal Banker.  The idea has great appeal:  as a customer, you have a specific person that knows you, has responsibility for your relationship, and is available to you when you need something.  It's a great idea, and one that some banks still use--although usually only for the bank's best customers.  

And therein lies the rub:  it's fiscally impossible for a bank (or credit union) to give every customer their own personal banker.  The numbers just don't add up--it's too expensive. 

In the online world, it's this ideal--the personal banker ideal--that web-based retailers have been working to transform with their virtual services.  Let's call it personalized rather than personal.  Zappos and Amazon are the two highest-profile examples, but there are certainly others.  The delivery of this kind of service springs from a powerful mix of user-driven content/interactions, relational customer databases, and highly-selective human interaction (to hold down costs).

None of this is particularly novel--we all know these companies very well, and many of us use their services regularly.  So the real question is this:  what relevance does this idea of personalized service have for banks, particularly online banking?

Based on the current state of online banking, I would say "not much."  Online banking is not a personalized experience for most customers--it's a fixed set of screens and services that looks very similar to the screens/services all other banks provide. 

The lack of a personalized online experience is the biggest hurdle for banks and credit unions to overcome--even bigger than security and fraud issues.  Customers are becoming accustomed to personalized experiences in the online world, so it's only a matter of time before they expect that same type of experience from their online banking experience.  Old modes of doing online banking won't cut it.  

Here a just a few examples of the kinds of personalization that are available and technically feasible (there are many, many more): 

Customers controlling their screen views (dashboards, data sorting, graphing). 

Customers using smart tools to understand their own situation and do analytics in areas like budgeting, planning, and risk management. 

Customers saying when--and how--they want to receive communications. 

This isn't the future--it's the present (hell, it's the past for many online retailers).  Financial institutions (and their online vendors) have to step up and meet this personalization challenge head-on, sooner rather than later.  The ability to compete online is at stake. 

And being competitive online matters for all banks and CU's, even for the ones that it doesn't seem to right now.  Within the next decade, for all but the most niche banks and CU's, it will be practically impossible to be financially successful without being successful online.    

It's time for all of us to roll up our sleeves and get to work.

Celent's Future Of Online Banking Panel

I was in Atlanta on Thursday, so I had the chance to drop in on our VP of Sales, who was attending the Celent Banking Innovation & Insight Day, and sit in on one of their panel discussions.  The panel was titled "The Future of Online Banking" and it was moderated by Jacob Jegher and had panelists from ING Direct, Bank of Montreal, and BBVA Compass.  

The panel was short (a good thing!) but very interesting.  First of all, the inclusion of Todd Sandler from ING Direct was a nice move.  ING Direct's approach is so different from the traditional large-bank approach, which both Bank of Montreal and BBVA Compass represented, that his comments gave the discussion some diversity. (Plus, their sale to Capital One dominated yesterday's headlines--nice timing, Jacob!).  

Having said that, I think a panelist from one of the online banking providers (DI, FIS, Fiserv, Q2, S1, etc.) would have been a good addition, if no other reason than these companies are responsible for most of the online banking systems in use.  Perhaps their take on the issues and questions Jacob raised would have been different from that of the big banks.

While there was general agreement among the panelists on most of the major issues, there were a few exceptions.  There was disagreement around merchant-funded rewards (both banks expressing interest in them and Todd Sandler from ING Direct criticizing them) and the current value of PFM (BMO seeing the most value and ING Direct seeing the least right now).

The biggest point of agreement was around the need for additional online services to be more fully integrated into the online banking experience.  For example, the BMO guy said that adoption of their PFM service (powered by Strands) wasn't as high as they would like, but it's separately deployed via SSO with a different look and feel than their online banking app.  He believes that if that service were more seamlessly integrated into the online banking app, more adoption would follow, and the others wholeheartedly agreed.

The other interesting point of agreement was around the drive to develop more innovative services in-house.  All three panelists expressed their intent to do this.  It will be interesting to see how that plays out--given that we have seen very little innovation spring from internal bank development efforts.  Time will tell on this one...  

Paying for a Bank's Online Services

As the CEO of an early-stage technology company that sells to the financial industry, my work-related reading tends to fall into one of two main categories:  material that deals with entrepreneurial/startup issues or financial/banking innovation.  The nature and focus of these two are quite different, so it's rare that I come across articles from both categories that seem to address the same issue.

But it happened this week. 

The first--from the entrepreneurial/startup world--was a blog post at The Startup Foundry called "It Sucks to Build a Startup with the Google Method."  In it, TSF's Editor, Paul Hontz, lays out the danger for startups inherent in what he calls the "Google Method" of building a business:  launch a free service, spend lots of money to drive traffic/build a user base, then monitize with ads.   His point is that unless you are truly an advertising company, it's very difficult to make this model work. 

The second--from the financial/banking innovation world--was actually two separate blog posts from Jim Bruene (of Netbanker/Finovate fame) that dealt with the concept of FI's making their customers pay for online services.  Jim's first post talked about trying to measure the ROI of banking innovation and how there would be more innovation in online products/services if banks acted more like product manufacturers and charged for online banking and other online services.  And then 3 days later, Jim wrote what felt like a followup post, giving a positive review of a monthly subscription service that M&T Bank is rolling out that will allow customers to pay within online banking to get their FICO score on demand.

Now, at first glance these might not seem related, but they are.  And here's why.  In essence, FI's have employed the "Google Method" when it comes to online services--and not in a good way.  Banks are not advertising companies, so giving away online services and hoping to generate indirect revenue from elsewhere has many of the same problems that TSF identified for startups. 

The primary problem is that online banking has what experts call high customer engagement, but low intent--meaning a bank's revenue-generating activities are not integral to the experience.  The easiest way to compare is think the how integral ads are to the Google search experience vs. ads within the Facebook experience.  Google = high intent, Facebook = low intent.  

Given this reality, FI's have a choice:  either charge overtly for online banking (or bill pay, or credit score monitoring, or remote deposit capture, etc.) or figure out a way to make revenue-generating activities an integral part of the online banking experience. 

I will say that the second option is incredibly difficult to do--especially after customers have been "trained" that all online services are free--but if charging for online banking is not an option, banks have no other choice.   

The good news is we are starting to see movements in this direction.  The emergence of online banking app stores is a prime example.  Inline offers/merchant-funded rewards are another.  And of course, who can forget payments, with their promise of transaction fee income?

I applaud the emergence of these services (even if I don't think all of them are great for customers), because they hint at a move towards legitimizing online as a channel--which means moving away from "retention" and "stickiness" benefits and towards tangible revenue generation. 

The interesting thing will be to see how FI's use online services to sell more bread-and-butter products, not just ancillary services like FICO scores.  Using online services to effectively cross-sell/upsell core products (deposits, loans, insurance, investments) will be the real win, so FI's who do this--or vendors who help them do it--stand to gain big-time.

Proving PFM Moves the Needle

Despite the current obsession with payments, personal financial management (PFM) services continue to be a key focus within financial services innovation.  In the past five years, we have seen PFM go from a curiosity to mainstream, and it's pretty clear the concept is here to stay. 

As evidence, Mint and Thrive were both scooped up by public companies (Intuit and Tree.com), the big online banking and core processing companies are inking deals to provide PFM services within their platforms, and scrappy startups like Geezeo, Jwaala, and our company, SimpliFi, are feeling pretty good about our prospects.

But does all of this market traction mean that PFM is successful?  Not necessarily, at least when you think about it from a customer perspective.  The only way to really "prove" that PFM is successful is to show that using a PFM service actually helps you do a better job managing your personal finances.  After all, this is why PFM services were created, and why customers take the time to use them.    

So this leads to the next logical question, which no one seems to be asking:  does PFM work?  Or more specifically, do users of PFM services do a better job of managing their personal finances than those who don't use PFM services? 

This is a testable proposition, and I'd love to see some data that answers this question (or at least begins to answer it--some measures will take time to fully test).  Over the past few years, I've seen a few analysts make references to survey research that indicates PFM users "feel" more in control of their finances.  And I know the PFM companies have done customer surveys as well (SimpliFi included), with similar results. 

But survey research is pretty squishy.  I'm looking for quantitative measures like increased wealth/savings, reduced debt usage/interest payments, or reduced bank fees (because of alerts).  And there is no reason we can get these kinds of answers--using the information from account aggregation and bank feeds, the raw data is there to be analyzed.  

Having this kind of proof is critical for PFM's long-term success.  We can trot out all the satisfaction surveys we want, but until we prove that using a PFM service makes consumers better off financially, we're still playing in the minor leagues, so to speak.   

To be fair, I think SimpliFi should be measured by the same burden of proof.  We need to be able to demonstrably show that customers who use our planning service save/invest more, are better protected against financial risks, and are making faster progress towards their financial goals than average.  Anything less than that is unacceptable.  And I applaud HelloWallet for their efforts to quantify this type of impact for their service.

So...calling all analysts (Ron, Jacob, Stessa, Mark, etc.).  Please consider setting up some experiments to test this question and get some preliminary answers.  SimpliFi will be happy to participate, and I'm sure the other services will as well.

The Perils of Peer Comparisons in Personal Finance

I think I was probably eight or nine years old the first time I heard the expression "keeping up with the Joneses."  At the time, I didn't really understand it--mainly because I was wondering who the Joneses were.  But once someone explained it to me, I quickly understood it:  "keeping up with the Joneses" was a way of describing the urge or desire to stay on par with our peers financially.

But here's the thing:  I've never heard anyone use this expression in a positive way.  It's always used as a way of criticizing economic decisions made for the wrong reasons.  The not-so-subtle message behind keeping up with the Joneses is that you shouldn't be trying to keep up with the Joneses, whoever they are.  

Based on what I'm seeing in the financial industry, the idea of helping customers figure out if they are keeping up with the Joneses is rapidly becoming a key component in online banking and personal financial management (PFM) technology.  Peer comparisons are integral to pure-play PFM services like Bundle and Mint, and they are becoming part of socially-oriented rewards and coupon programs embedded in online banking platforms.

Let me be clear:  peer comparisons have their place in financial services--IF they help consumers make better financial decisions.  I'm all for services that help consumers compare financial product prices and features, especially if they can help consumers make apples-to-apples comparisons. 

But I can't say the same thing for services that use peer comparisons to provide financial guidance or help consumers make better financial decisions.  Knowing how much your peer group is spending on various budgetary categories or how much they have saved for retirement may be interesting, but it won't help you make better spending, saving or investing decisions.  In fact, it might just make your financial decision-making worse.

Personal financial management isn't like baseball, where the measure of success is relative (score more points than the other team).  In baseball, a team can play terrible and still win; it just needs the other team to play even worse than it did.

Personal finance couldn't be more different. If everyone around you is undersaving or drowning in debt, it doesn't mean you're all good just because you're only "sort of" undersaving or drowning in debt.  You aren't going to be successful financially, even though you are doing better than everyone else.

For the most part, the rules for making financial decisions are simple and absolute.  Any particular decision should either increase your wealth, improve your monthly cash flow, or lower your financial risk. 

And the metrics for measuring how well you are doing in these areas are already well-established:  things like debt/income ratios, savings/expense coverage ratio (# of months), income replacement ratio for insurance, etc.  Savvy financial planners use these metrics every day to help clients measure how they are doing.

What your peers are doing (or not doing) financially is irrelevant--and potentially misleading.

Keeping up with the Joneses isn't the way to financial success--and technology tools that attempt to leverage peer comparisons to help consumers make financial decisions do so at their peril.

What Was Missing at Finovate

There is no question that the Finovate series is one of the best financial technology innovation showcases out there.  If you have any interest in seeing first-hand what's new and interesting in financial technology, you need to get to one of their shows (they have 3 a year:  one in SF, one in NYC, and one in London). 

The most recent Finovate showcase took place last week in San Francisco, and as usual, it was a solid event.  Lots of interesting demos, from both big and small companies, and while the presentations were diverse, overall it was heavy on demos featuring mobile payments and merchant-funded rewards.   

Which is all fine and good--if you believe mobile payments and merchant-funded rewards are the critical areas of need for financial consumers (consumers in this case can mean retail or business consumers).  I happen to believe this are not particularly critical areas of need, so as I sat drinking from the information firehose that is Finovate, I couldn't help but think about the issues and problems that I do think are critical, but got little to no play onstage.  Here's my list:

1) Wealthbuilding Tools - There were hardly any demos focused on helping consumers build wealth.  And of the presentations that touched on it, HelloWallet was the only presenter that even tried to present data to demonstrate that their application actually helps people build wealth.  This is a critical area of need for consumers, so if Finovate is an indicator, there needs to be a lot more innovation going on in this area--and not just by non-profits like CFSI that are focused on the underserved.    

2) Personal Financial Management 2.0 - Up until last year, it was a running joke that you couldn't present at Finovate if you didn't work "PFM" into your demo.  Boy, what a difference a year can make.  PFM was  barely even mentioned last week.  Even the granddaddy of PFM's, Mint, focused their presentation on their advertising platform.  And while the early rush into PFM was overdone, there is no doubt that consumer need better tools for understanding and managing their day-to-day finances.  So here's the problem:  where is PFM 2.0?  The first generation of PFM tools all help consumers do basically the same thing:  aggregate account and tag transactions.  You're telling me that's all we can do with PFM?  What about robust predictive analytics, bundled advice, pay-yourself-first programs, escalated savings modules, automated spending controls, etc. etc...  Consumers need more PFM innovation, especially within online banking; unfortunately, there was precious little to be found last week.    

3) Mortgage Lending - You're telling me that after the worst housing crisis the world has ever seen, there isn't at least some innovation going on around mortgage lending?  And if there is, was nothing good enough to demo at Finovate?  I was absolutely shocked by the complete lack of demos around mortgage lending. The point was driven home earlier this week, when a colleague of mine, who had just closed on the purchase of her first home, complained to me about how onerous, slow and expensive it was to complete the process.  She wondered aloud why it had to be this way.  Mortgage lending is crying out for innovation--where are the intra/entrepreneurs?

So that's my list of what was missing from Finovate San Francisco.  Hopefully we'll see more action in these areas at FinovateFall in NYC in September. 

Fin-spiration...

Going to Finovate always inspires me, and the latest edition--held last week in San Francisco--was no exception.  This was my seventh conference--twice as a presenter--so I certainly feel like I professional Finovate-er. 

Talking with old friends and meeting new ones, seeing a barrage of new ideas on stage, and reading the post-conference analyses (not to mention the play-by-play on Twitter)--it totally fires me up and makes me feel like I need to up my game.

And one of the ways to do so is to jump back into the industry conversation flow.  So, in addition to more actively using my Twitter feed, I'm recommitting to blogging at least once a week for the foreseeable future.  There are certainly plenty of industry topics to write about, and hopefully I can do so in a way that is interesting to others and helpful to me, as I try to make sense of this crazy world of financial technology. 

My first post will be up tomorrow AM.  I would say stay tuned, but that would be way too presumptuous.  How about this instead:  read it if you get a chance--especially if you went to Finovate, or think you might like to go in the future.