I appreciate the sentiment, and I agree, but this really matters. There have been so many stories of fintechs collapsing recently, where people were really just trying to make an extra few percentage points of yield, and then people lost all of their savings.
I also like to root for the little guy, but the trust barrier will be the largest hurdle I think that this company needs to overcome, and so it's fair to discuss it.
Every possible angle is "fair" when it's your money. To look the other way because it's being discussed on HN is madness. For folks that aren't aware of the fintech failures the point being reiterated makes a statement and if the OP / founder doesn't address the issues in the thread then it doesn't seem like I should have a ton of faith in their service.
It's absolutely fair when you're evaluating a potential fiduciary. I personally don't consider small regional banks secure beyond the FDIC limits for the same reason. But one of the "big guys" is fine as they're too big to fail.
> As part of the agreements with the United States Attorney’s Offices for the Central District of California and the Western District of North Carolina, the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Civil Division, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, Wells Fargo admitted that it collected millions of dollars in fees and interest to which the Company was not entitled, harmed the credit ratings of certain customers, and unlawfully misused customers’ sensitive personal information, including customers’ means of identification.
> As a result of HSBC Bank USA’s AML failures, at least $881 million in drug trafficking proceeds – including proceeds of drug trafficking by the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico and the Norte del Valle Cartel in Colombia – were laundered through HSBC Bank USA. HSBC Group admitted it did not inform HSBC Bank USA of significant AML deficiencies at HSBC Mexico, despite knowing of these problems and their effect on the potential flow of illicit funds through HSBC Bank USA.
You're misunderstanding what the benefit of being large is, and what the risk of being small is.
I totally accept and understand that large businesses do all sorts of shady and nefarious things. What I don't expect them to do is lose all my money with no recourse. And that's not just the case because they're big, but the regulatory regimes are set up to deal with these known entities. The reason I've personally become wary of fintechs recently is because many of them want to "move fast and break things", and think they can offload all of the regulatory responsibilities to partner institutions. Like, if you're such a great fintech, why not open as an actual bank or as an actual broker dealer (note, I'm not saying that's the case here, as they are an RIA, but I don't know the protection that is entailed by that designation).
When you say "Madoff had $65B AUM", he also had like 10 employees, which is why he was able to hide the fraud for so long.
RIA doesn’t have a guarantee as such — it’s a license to sell you securities and, also, give you advice on which securities to buy. Such a person or company doesn’t even necessarily keep an account: it’s a financial advisor certification. But this is the “actual broker-dealer” certification you’re asking for.
They keep your account at Apex Clearing, which is a very very large company that is not going anywhere anytime soon.
So, the key bit here is: do you trust them on that? They’ve got SEC filings and it’s as above-board as any other fintech.
And next, are you prepared to argue with Apex for your money when/if they fail? And is this worth it to you for the product offered?
More importantly, though, that's not what I'm saying. Getting over the consumer fear about their financial security absolutely has to be a primary priority of this company, and if they don't address it, then they have a shitty business plan.
I also like to root for the little guy, but the trust barrier will be the largest hurdle I think that this company needs to overcome, and so it's fair to discuss it.