I have no affiliation with Simple, but the relationship seems pretty straight forward. "Where" your money is becomes an abstraction. You hold an account with Simple, and are issued a Visa card with which you can access the funds in your account. Everything beyond that is transparent to you.
The accounts would technically be "in your name", since the funds are yours, but you never have to interface with the other bank, so it becomes a question of: do you want to know the technical specifics, or stick to what's pragmatic? Pragmatically, your account would be with Simple. Your money is in an FDIC insured depository bank, so you don't face any additional risk because of the "partner" distribution.
But pragmatically if they switch banks behind the scenes, that would usually require a hard credit pull every time it occurs. This would seem to hurt a person's credit score if that was what actually occurred (that's why the semantics are important).
Banking is an industry that is not nearly as simple as it seems. There is a difference between "you" walking in to a bank wishing to establish an account and a "partner" like Simple seeking to move depository funds between banks.
The bank pulls a credit check on you, the individual, to mitigate risk. A company like Simple would secure a bond or insurance to mitigate this risk for the partner bank, reducing the friction for a business critical action (moving partner banks).
Pragmatically, Simple wouldn't survive very long if every customer were hit with a hard credit pull every time Simple moved their funds. I'm not even sure that would be legal.
Sure. I would assume it would be very similar to the pre-screening credit card companies do (which does not negatively affect a person's credit); however, if you look at the common components of a person's FICO score, a number of factors _could_ be adversely affected depending on how these things are done (closing of revolving accounts, length of credit history, credit searches, etc.). People are asking questions because it's a complex subject...and while people want to believe they won't be adversely affected, that doesn't mean it won't happen. Simply due dilligence I think.
Maybe the definition of a hard credit pull should be changed? It discourages people from shopping for loans since you often cant get a real interest rate quote until that provider gets your credit rating themselves anyways.
Well...I think FICO scores should be revamped anyways, but if you're shopping for loans, from what I recall, you only get hit once per 30 days (as obviously if you're in the market for a loan, you shouldn't be negatively affected for every vendor you approach).
Fine, but if we're being pragmatic, then it's better to stay with BoA because they're the biggest and they're too big to be allowed to fail. Your money is safer with them than anywhere else.
I would be interested in knowing who the partners are so that I can assure myself that they are doing business in a way that differentiates them from the megabanks.
On a side note: I was onboard with the BankSimple idea when I thought they were building a bank, now, I'm not so sure. I think it's a good idea, but not a great idea.
Assumption alert: the account at the partner bank is in your name.
Your money must be in your name for it to get the FDIC's "$250,000 limit per depositor" insurance coverage. Having one big mattress with Simple's name on it would preclude your money being insured. Ergo, the account must be in your name.
I dont' think that's exactly true. There is such a thing as the CDARS program, which allows you to spread your money between accounts at multiple banks. Not sure what the limitations are on that, but I would be weary of assumptions on this.
If the money were not in my name, that would be deal killer.
It's per depositor per bank. Not per depositor period. Spreading your money across accounts at a single bank would not get you additional protection. Spreading your money across banks is how you protect more of your money.
Is the account at the partner bank in my name, or that of Simple?