Owning an account and being able to use your own money are not the same thing: you can have a bank account and still be unbanked.
As Michael Herron, CEO and President of PointsKash, explains in this interview, the most underestimated barrier to financial inclusion is not a missing product but a lack of convenience: branch hours that don’t fit a double shift, fees that stack up across several providers, and trust that is lost after a single bad experience.
InclusiveMoney. Millions of American households have a bank account, yet they can still be considered underbanked. What does that gap tell us about how well the traditional banking model actually serves people’s everyday financial needs?
Michael Herron. I think it tells us that having a bank account and having access to the financial services you actually need are two very different things.
We've made tremendous progress in banking technology over the years. People can deposit checks from their phones, transfer money electronically and manage their accounts without ever walking into a branch. Those are real improvements, and I don't want to diminish their value.
But having access to those tools doesn't necessarily mean all your financial needs are being met.
Someone may have a checking account but still need to visit a separate location to cash a check, send money to a family member or handle a transaction outside normal banking hours. Another person may have money available in cash but need to use it for something that only accepts electronic payments.
That's where the system can become unnecessarily complicated.
I also think the traditional banking industry has historically designed its services around how financial institutions operate, rather than always considering how people live. Banks have business hours, account requirements, processing schedules and regulatory obligations. Those things exist for legitimate reasons, but they don't always line up with a customer's immediate needs.
At PointsKash, we're looking at the problem from the consumer's perspective. If someone has money and needs to use it, how do we make that process easier, more convenient and reasonably priced?
I don't believe the answer is to replace traditional banks. It's to recognize that financial access needs to extend beyond the bank branch and become more closely connected to people's everyday routines.
IM. In your view, what are the main barriers (fees, minimum balances, branch closures, slow access to funds, lack of trust) that keep financial access out of reach for so many consumers, and which of these is the most underestimated?
MH. All of those barriers matter, but if I had to choose the most underestimated, I'd probably say convenience, or more specifically, the lack of it.
We tend to think of financial access in terms of whether a service exists. Is there a bank in the community? Can someone open an account? Is there an app they can download?
But that doesn't tell us how practical the service is for the person who needs it.
Consider someone working two jobs who gets home after most bank branches have closed. They may have an account, but getting to the bank can mean taking time off work or making a separate trip on their day off.
Or think about someone who needs to pay a bill immediately but has to wait for a deposit to clear. The money may technically be theirs, but they can't necessarily use it when they need it.
Then you have fees, minimum balances, transportation costs and unfamiliar technology. Individually, some of those obstacles might seem manageable.
Together, they can make routine financial tasks far more difficult than they should be.
Trust is another issue that deserves more attention. If someone has experienced unexpected fees, poor customer service or difficulty resolving a transaction, they're naturally going to be cautious about trying another financial product.
What I find interesting is that we sometimes spend enormous amounts of money developing new financial technology while overlooking these fairly basic problems.
Making financial services more accessible doesn't always require inventing something entirely new. Sometimes it means putting an existing service in a more convenient location, explaining it more clearly or making it available at a time when someone actually needs it.
Those improvements may sound simple, but they can make a meaningful difference in someone's daily life.
IM. When people can’t get what they need from their bank, they often turn to alternatives like check cashers, prepaid cards or payday lenders. What is the real cost of this friction for households, and who ends up paying the most?
MH. The cost goes well beyond the fee someone pays for a transaction.
There's the time involved, the transportation, the inconvenience and sometimes the additional expense of having to use multiple providers just to accomplish something that should be relatively straightforward.
Imagine someone who receives a paycheck on Friday but needs access to those funds immediately. If their bank places a hold on the deposit, they may choose to use a check-cashing service instead.
That service may solve an immediate problem, but it comes at a cost.
Now imagine that same person needs to pay a bill electronically or send money to a family member. They may encounter another fee and another trip.
Over time, those costs add up.
And the people who often feel them most are the households that have the least room in their budgets for unexpected expenses.
There's also a broader issue here. When accessing your own money becomes expensive or inconvenient, it can make an already difficult financial situation worse.
I do think it's important to recognize that alternative financial-service providers exist because they're meeting needs that traditional institutions haven't always addressed effectively. The answer isn't necessarily to criticize those businesses or pretend the demand doesn't exist.
We should be asking how to provide those same essential services more conveniently, transparently and competitively.
That's one of the opportunities we're pursuing at PointsKash.
If we can bring several financial services together at a location someone already visits, we may be able to eliminate unnecessary trips and give consumers another option.
We're not going to solve every household's financial challenges with a kiosk or a mobile app. But reducing the time, expense and frustration associated with everyday transactions is a worthwhile objective.
IM. How do PointsKash’s kiosks and digital tools work in practice, and what makes them a smarter alternative for someone who needs to access, transfer or grow their money instantly? Why did you choose to combine a physical presence with digital services rather than going purely digital?
MH. The decision to combine physical kiosks with digital financial services really came from looking at how people use money in the real world.
The financial industry has spent years moving everything toward smartphones, and for good reason. Digital technology has made many transactions faster and more convenient.
But cash hasn't disappeared, and I don't believe it's going to disappear anytime soon.
People still receive cash, carry cash, budget with cash and use it for everyday purchases. The challenge comes when they need to move between that physical money and a financial system that's increasingly digital.
That's the problem we're trying to address.
Our KashPoint Pro kiosks are designed to bring several financial services together in one location, including cash transactions, check cashing, bill payments, money transfers and cryptocurrency services.
We also have KashPoint Lite, a smaller kiosk focused on more targeted cash-in or cash-out functionality, and KashPoint Express, which is designed to connect cash transactions with digital wallet services through participating retail point-of-sale systems.
The idea is to place these solutions in locations people already visit, such as convenience stores, grocery stores, fuel stations and hotels.
So someone stopping at a store on their way home from work may eventually be able to take care of a financial transaction without making another trip.
We're also developing our PK Pay digital ecosystem, which is intended to give consumers access to additional financial services through their phones.
What makes the combination interesting is that customers can choose how they want to interact with us.
Someone may prefer using a kiosk and have no interest in downloading another app. That's perfectly fine. Another person may begin with a kiosk transaction and later decide to use PK Pay for additional services.
We don't want to force either customer into a particular way of managing their money.
And I would be careful about suggesting that every service is instantaneous or that we can help someone grow their money simply by using our platform.
Transaction timing depends on the service, and building financial stability involves much more than access to technology.
Our goal is to make everyday financial services easier to reach and use.
That's what we mean by "Where Money Meets Everyday Life." We want our services to fit naturally into people's existing routines.
IM. You’ve said that the future of financial services isn’t about eliminating banks, but about extending access beyond the branch and meeting consumers where they already are. What does that collaboration look like concretely, and what role should traditional banks play in this new ecosystem?
MH. I believe banks and fintech companies have an opportunity to complement each other in ways that can be very beneficial to consumers.
Banks bring something extremely important to the relationship: regulated financial infrastructure, experience managing risk, established compliance programs and the ability to safeguard and move money within the financial system.
Fintech companies can bring different strengths, particularly when it comes to technology, distribution and finding new ways to make financial services more convenient.
At PointsKash, we're building our business around bringing those capabilities together.
For example, we've been working with Herring Bank on banking relationships and infrastructure intended to support parts of our financial-services platform.
The bank's responsibilities and our responsibilities need to be clearly defined, and the appropriate regulatory requirements have to be met.
But the broader concept is fairly straightforward.
A bank doesn't necessarily need to build and operate a branch inside every convenience store or hotel to make certain financial services accessible there.
A company like PointsKash can provide the physical technology, retail relationships and consumer-facing experience, while qualified banking and financial-service partners support the regulated functions behind those transactions.
That can create additional access points without trying to recreate a traditional bank branch in every neighborhood.
I think the most successful partnerships will be the ones where everyone understands their role and works toward the same objective: giving consumers dependable, understandable financial services.
We're not interested in competing with banks simply for the sake of competing with them.
I'd much rather work with institutions that recognize the value of reaching customers through new channels.
There's room for both traditional banking and new financial technology. In fact, I believe the future will depend on them working together more effectively.
IM. Reaching underserved consumers means earning the trust of people who may have had negative experiences with financial institutions. How do you address security, transparency and consumer protection, and what role does regulation play in building a more equitable system?
MH. I think trust is probably the most important thing a financial-services company has to earn, and one of the easiest things to lose.
When you're dealing with someone's money, a bad experience isn't simply an inconvenience. It can have real consequences for that person and their family.
That's why I believe security, transparency and consumer protection have to be part of how a service is designed from the beginning.
For us, that means making sure customers understand what they're doing, what a transaction will cost and what happens after they complete it.
It also means having appropriate identity verification, transaction monitoring, fraud-prevention measures and customer support.
Cryptocurrency is a good example of why those safeguards matter.
We've all heard about situations where someone is contacted by a scammer pretending to be a government official, a bank representative or even a family member. The person may genuinely believe they're sending money for a legitimate reason, when in reality they're being manipulated.
Simply having someone press a confirmation button doesn't mean the transaction is safe.
Operators need to take suspicious activity seriously, provide clear warnings and have procedures for reviewing or stopping transactions when appropriate.
Regulation plays an important role in that process.
I understand that some people in the technology industry view regulation primarily as an obstacle to innovation. I don't see it that way.
Good regulation helps establish standards, protects consumers and creates accountability. Those are important things, particularly when you're introducing financial services to people who may already be cautious about the industry.
At the same time, regulations need to be clear enough that responsible companies can understand their obligations and develop useful services within those requirements.
At PointsKash, we're working with qualified banking and financial-service partners because different services carry different regulatory responsibilities.
We also recognize that requirements can vary by state and by the type of transaction involved.
I don't believe making financial services more accessible should ever mean lowering the standards that protect the people using them.
If anything, the more accessible these services become, the more seriously we need to take that responsibility.
IM. What will it take, from policymakers, banks and fintechs alike, to move toward a truly equitable financial system in the next five years? And do you see lessons from the U.S. experience that could apply to other markets, including Europe?
MH. I think the first thing we need is a more realistic understanding of what financial inclusion actually means.
For years, much of the conversation has focused on whether people have bank accounts or access to digital financial products.
Those are important measures, but they don't tell us whether someone can conveniently use their money, understand the services available to them or afford the cost of completing everyday transactions.
Over the next five years, I'd like to see policymakers, banks and fintech companies spend more time addressing those practical issues.
For policymakers, that means creating regulatory frameworks that protect consumers while allowing responsible innovation to move forward.
For banks, it means recognizing that financial services don't always have to be delivered through traditional branches or conventional customer relationships.
And for fintech companies, it means developing products around how people actually live, rather than assuming everyone wants or needs the same digital experience.
I also believe the industry needs to pay more attention to the physical side of financial access.
We talk a great deal about digital wallets, mobile payments and the future of cashless transactions, but physical cash continues to play an important role in many people's lives.
That isn't unique to the United States.
Europe has made substantial progress with digital payments and banking technology, but consumer habits, cash usage and access to financial services still vary considerably between countries and communities.
I think there's a lesson in that.
Financial innovation works best when it respects the habits and circumstances of the people it's intended to serve.
What works in a major metropolitan area may not be the best solution for a rural community. What works for someone who is comfortable managing everything through a smartphone may not work for someone who prefers cash or needs in-person assistance.
At PointsKash, we're trying to build a model that recognizes those differences.
Our immediate focus is the United States, where we're preparing to expand through national retail and hospitality relationships, including Choice Hotels and a soon-to-be-named national commercial enterprise convenience store & fuel station merchant.
Those relationships represent access to networks totaling approximately 18,500 locations, although actual deployments will take place in phases and depend on individual property participation and operational readiness.
We're planning our first 300 KashPoint Pro deployments at selected Choice Hotels properties beginning this December, with broader expansion planned throughout 2027.
I see those efforts as part of a larger shift in how financial services can be delivered.
Five years from now, I'd like to see consumers have more convenient options, clearer pricing and greater confidence in the financial services they use.
And I'd like to see banks, fintech companies and regulators working together more effectively to make that possible.
I don't think we'll ever reach a point where every person has exactly the same financial needs or preferences. Nor should that be the objective.
The goal should be to give people fair, practical choices and make sure the financial system works for more of them.
Because financial inclusion isn't about convincing everyone to use money the same way. It's about making sure people have the freedom and ability to use their money in the way that works best for their lives.
