Are Stored Value Accounts a Replacement or Complement to Traditional Banking?
(New York, NY) The rapid evolution of FinTech solutions continues to reshape consumer perceptions of banking, with stored value accounts (SVAs) emerging as a potential competitor to traditional banking accounts and cards. Auriemma Group’s latest issue of The Payments Reports uncovers positive sentiments around SVAs, underscoring their role in the financial ecosystem and raising questions about their long-term viability as a banking alternative.
SVAs offered by providers like PayPal and Venmo allow consumers to preload or receive funds and use them for a variety of transactions. Auriemma’s research shows that 61% of debit cardholders view SVAs as at least complementary to traditional banking, while 31% believe these accounts could replace at least some banking functions. Notably, 8% feel SVAs could entirely replace traditional banking services.
“Stored value accounts represent an important evolution in financial tools, but the collapse of Synapse underscores the risks of fintech intermediaries not covered by the FDIC,” says Jonathan O’Connor, Senior Manager of Research at Auriemma Group. “While stored value accounts offer benefits like lower fees and faster transactions, traditional banks deliver stability, security, and trust—advantages that consumers continue to value.”
What Can Traditional Banks Do?
SVAs are causing a modest stir among cardholders. Less than three-in-ten say they would be likely to use the option if offered by a FinTech provider. However, as SVAs grow in popularity, traditional banks can differentiate themselves by doubling down on their strengths and addressing evolving consumer needs. Auriemma’s research highlights several strategies banks can use to endear themselves to current and potential customers:
- Building Trust: Traditional banks should emphasize their strong track record of security—including FDIC backing—and fraud prevention. Providing clear, transparent policies and educating customers about safeguards can build trust that SVAs may not yet fully inspire.
- Enhanced Digital Experiences: Streamlining mobile and online banking interfaces can help banks compete with the tech-first approach of FinTechs. User-friendly apps with integrated budgeting tools, instant payments, and easy account management could make a significant difference.
- Personalized Financial Products: Banks can leverage their broad customer data to offer tailored financial products, such as personalized savings plans or rewards programs that align with individual spending habits.
- Bundled Offerings: By packaging SVAs with more traditional banking services—like high-yield savings accounts, credit cards, and loans—banks can create holistic financial solutions that FinTechs may struggle to match.
Opportunities for Growth
Most of those who have used a SVA with a FinTech provider say they would likely use more of that provider’s products, if available. This highlights the possibility of expansion SVAs create for those who use them. While largely benefiting FinTechs hoping to expand into other financial services, SVAs could also be a gateway for traditional banks hoping to deepen their relationship with new and existing customers.
“Traditional banks have the advantage of deep customer relationships, established financial stability, and the trust that comes with rigorous regulatory oversight. By leaning into these strengths and innovating alongside FinTechs, banks can remain central to their customers’ financial lives,” says O’Connor. “Our research shows that the future of banking will likely blend the reliability of traditional institutions with the agility and accessibility of modern FinTech solutions, creating a dynamic ecosystem that meets a diverse set of consumer needs.”
Survey Methodology
The Payments Report
This Auriemma Group study was conducted online within the US by an independent field service provider on behalf of Auriemma Group (Auriemma) in October 2024 among 804 adult debit cardholders. The number of interviews completed for both is sufficient to allow for statistical significance testing among sub-groups at the 95% confidence level ±5%, unless otherwise noted. The purpose of the research was not disclosed, nor did respondents know the criteria for qualifying.