I understand the security argument, and think it's a nontrivial one. However any reader is going to show you the URL you're going to before heading there, which rather defeats this scenario. However the user is still paying less attention to the URL than in the scenario that the user must type it in.
But users click on links all the time on the internet, and nothing's collapsed. Heck on the internet I can make a link that *says* foo.com and links to evil.com. Worse problem, in theory.
I don't think this changes between direct and indirect.
I do agree that the value proposition is not so overwhelming that every brand will think of this as must have. Evidence: look at the last 15 years. However I don't think you can say "it just saves 6 keystrokes". It's a no-click, 2 second action, or about 100 and a minute to enter a URL. That is a vast difference in barrier to resistance.
Would you click an ad on the web if it took even 10 seconds to complete? if it involved typing? Sounds comical right? that's the size of the difference. Google spends millions trying to deliver ads and results faster by 100s of miliseconds just because it makes enough difference.
Market Data 
Markets 
