that older customers and small businesses won’t adopt mRDC has been well debunked by now (Bain). Banks are understandably cautious when it comes to the risk of fraud. Checks remain by far the largest source of fraud, and there has been speculation that mRDC will create new vulner-ability for fraudsters. So far, not much evidence has materialized that this is true, and losses do not appear to be increasing even as the dollar value per check transaction continues to rise. One of the less talked about sources of resistance is the dis-appointment reported by some banks whose early attempts to implement mRDC have not been widely adopted. Everyone has heard the stories about low adoption rates, about customer concerns around security and privacy, and about lack of motiva-tion to learn new habits. Th ese fears are real, but all have been overcome many times over by banks and credit unions. MAKING MRDC INVESTMENTS PAY OFF Th e risks we’ve been talking about may exist as separate worries by diff erent departments in an institution, but they’re closely related. Th e question is how to make mRDC profi table. If the payoff for mRDC investments comes from shifting users from in-person to self-service deposits — plus increased customer satisfaction and retention — then the technology and implementation decisions need to be focused through the lens of the customer experience. What are the boxes your customers want to check off when they are evaluating you? Author Bob Meara, speaking about another digital service at a late 2016 Alogent webinar also observed that, “unless in-stitutions understand the omni-channel customer journey, and know how many of their prospective accountholders they are turning away, they literally have no way to quantify the oppor-tunity costs they are already beginning to pay.” Long-term success requires a consistent experience across all channels. Users need a single learning curve and expect a uniform interface. A deposit in a branch, online, and on a phone or tablet should work essentially the same way — provide funds access within the same time, have the same deposit limits and eligibility criteria. Making sure the rules are the same for in-branch and remote deposits can be facilitated by a combination of features that are available with today’s advanced technologies: • Integration of deposits of all types and from all points of presentment. • Real-time fraud detection, particularly for duplicate, fraud-ulent and counterfeit checks. • Continuous, near real-time check review and posting. • Easily confi gured business rules that can be set by customer groups rather than channel. It goes without saying that mRDC solutions must also be easy and intuitive. Th is means a smooth, ergonomic UI, recognizable branding and fl ow across channels, and supple-mented with a strategic campaign incorporating both pro-motion and training to lower the barrier for even the most reluctant customer. Th e bottom line is that without mobile banking and RDC, banks will not remain relevant to their current customers, much less to prospective customers. By selecting the right technol-ogy and embedding it in an enterprise-wide, customer-centric planning environment, digital investments can and do pay for themselves in mobile adoption rates and account growth. Th is article was provided by Alogent, a market leader in deposit automation, item processing, enterprise content management and omni-channel account-opening solutions. For more information, visit www.alogent.com. PRICES RISE FOR DE NOVO BANKS BY BILL POQUETTE, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF C apitalized at a cool $31 million, Th e Bank of Austin was approved by the Texas Banking Commissioner on May 9, noting it was the state’s fi rst de novo charter since 2009. Subject to being granted FDIC deposit insurance, the bank is expected to open this summer. Assuming that occurs, Th e Bank of Austin will be the second de novo to launch in 2017, after Southern California’s Blue Gate Bank in January — with capital of $30 million. Is $30 million the new norm to capitalize a de novo bank? Th ese two banks are in very robust markets; arguably, the tab might not be so steep in other parts of the country. But the capital levels of new banks over the past 10 years suggest a trend rising toward the California and Texas price tags. United Republic Bank in Omaha was capitalized at $12 million when it opened in 2006. After a virtual moratorium until 2013, Bank of Bird-in-Hand in Pennsylvania came to life with $16 million of investors’ cash. Organizers of Primary Bank in Bedford, N.H., raised $25 million prior to launch in 2015. If the steep cost hasn’t been enough to discourage potential organizers, even with deep pockets, low interest rates and regu-latory burden have been aggravating factors. “Investors have options,” said Kenneth L. Burgess Jr., chair-man of FirstCapital Bank of Texas in Midland, testifying for the American Bankers Association in March before the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit. “If the impediments to starting a new bank are too great, they will invest elsewhere,” added Burgess, who is also chairman-elect of the ABA. So why have the de novos mentioned here succeeded in sur-mounting daunting obstacles? “What made our situation unique was that our investors have not only decades of banking experience, but a passion for this type of work,” said Blue Gate’s director of banking, J. Chris Walsh, in an interview with BankNews Media earlier this year.