Interesting. My bank has lots of different account types that aren't checking or savings, and all of them have different rules (and I use a few of those).

There is a big temptation to assume that banks don't do stuff because they're technologically inept, but I don't think that's the case. The bank I worked for was a subsidiary of the Chase Manhattan bank and as far as the hardware went they were cutting edge at the time.

Software driving products that were the banks income was extremely well documented and extremely well protected in terms of changes to the code and who could do what with it. Security was tighter than a gnats ass, both physical and network wise, with round the clock monitoring and so on.

A banks idea of disruption is not the fear of some new tech, banks know that technology only appears to move fast, they can afford the wait until something has proven itself.

A bank fears things like paypal, that obviate the need for banks and their 'products which are the privilege of accessing your own hard earned money'.

Banks have tons of special products in their inventory, the fact that you don't actually see them in the wild is that you are mostly looking at the consumer side of the operation. On the business side the special products are the majority. Then there is all the regulatory business, that too is responsible for an enormous amount of code.

For a newcomer the barrier to entry is not technology, it is simply the vast headstart that existing banks have in terms of knowledge, marketing power and financial resources.

I'm only aware of one bank that started in recent times that was not tied to another bank, and unfortunately it went bust.

Thanks for the exchange by the way, that was interesting. Who knows, maybe one day you'll found that disruptive bank based on high-technology!