A single customer view is what none of the banks have (some of them not even within their own group) and is what will expose opportunities. Especially when this customer view can be seen relative to  other people of the same profile. 

Maybe 22seven is not about this in the short term. But this potential is what the banks fear and should really be taking on themselves.

22seven tries to help a client change their spending habits.  It has nothing to do with the bank.  If you think that changing to another bank will magically make you spend less on entertainment or groceries, then there’s something fundamentally wrong with your thinking.  Yes, it might make you spend a little less on your credit card or pay your mortgage off faster, but unless you’re going to take the saved cash out and keep it in your matress, the bank still has it in their coffers and is doing stuff with it.

They’re going to have to confront them sooner or later. Really stupid waiting after launch to do it. 22seven has started their relationships with all the banks on the wrong foot. The banks had no choice but to warn everyone against this unknown site asking for bank login details. 22seven should have at the very least have given the banks concerned an audited report of their systems and partners weeks ago, wherein their security procedures and controls were documented, then they’d have some ammunition to play the victim, rather than coming off looking like amateurs.

>. “Sure Christo, we think our customers being able to see a complete picture of their banking charges is a great idea”.

I don’t know why people keep going on about the bank charges being exposed as if the banks hide and obfuscate them like a dirty secret.  On my bank statements (from FNB) it has a whole column dedicated to them!  It has “Amount/Balance/Accrued Bank Charges” columns – and it also has another entry where it actually adds them up and takes them from your account.  I really don’t see how 22seven could make this any clearer.

I would suggest that it’s Christo’s history of taking on the major players that frightens them. If it wasn’t for Saambou’s misadventure in micro lending via Unifer, 20Twenty could well have become a serious upper-end player. 

On the topic in general… We must be clear that the act of requesting one’s sensitive personal details (PINs, passwords) is a direct contravention of the industry-wide standard anti-phishing message of ‘never divulge these details to anyone’.

The ability of this statement to be communicated and understood with absolutely no exceptions is fundamental to ensuring the security of ALL online customers’ security.

Your writing reflects the frame of reference from which it has emanated: that of a highly intelligent man who is – in the first place – not likely to fall victim to phishing and online fraud.

I’m sure you’ll agree the ability to understand issues from another’s perspective is a goal to which we all continually strive. In this specific case I suggest to you that there exist those who are less capable than yourself of distinguishing between a valid/legal PFM integrator and a phishing site, those for whom any exception to the golden rule of never divulging private information, will pose a risk.

Interestingly in your article you indicated that some time last year you met MD of Yodlee, Jason O’Shaughnessy. Do you mind sharing reasons for your meeting? Me thinks you knew about this development before launch and took time to investigate it.

Anyway, i am not against this service. It is innovative. However, i just think they should have approached the banks before launch. Also, their monthly charges of R 70 a month is too high considering that banks will charge from about R 85 a month for a cheque account.