Tagged: banks Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • user 8:41 pm on June 12, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: banks, , , fintech hub singapore, , ,   

    Singapore emerging as top fintech hub in APAC 

    AAEAAQAAAAAAAAhVAAAAJGVkNTQ2ZTFkLTg1NGItNDQ0MS1hNGMxLTA4N2YwZDYwODRkNQ

    South East Asian capital is busy building a infrastructure, but Hong Kong rather serving as a base for Chinese companies, according to law firms.

    Singapore is likely to be the top choice for fintech companies to start their businesses thanks to regulations, government support and funding access, said Astrid Raetze, a partner in Baker & McKenzie’s Sydney office who is leading the firm’s fintech group. A second option would be Australia and Hong Kong would be third, she said.

    “Singapore is putting their money where the mouth is,” by making regulatory changes, setting up fintech bridges and encouraging talent to live there. “Other regulators in the region are not responding in the same fashion.”

    The Singapore government has adopted the “regulatory sandbox”, which allows start-ups to operate businesses without having a full license, while Australia is considering it, she noted. The former has also set up a fintech bridge with UK last month. She also observed that no Asian are participating in the experiment at the moment, as compared to active development by US and European peers. Blockchain is a public ledger of all financial transactions that have been executed, which can be shared across networks.

    B2B fintech

    In Australia, high costs to acquire new customers online are shifting development of -advisers from a business-to-customer approach to business-to-business.

    The focus on the B2B side is also likely to be the trend in Hong Kong. “There is more feasibility and potential on the institutional platform in Hong Kong than on the retail side. China has a good shadow over Hong Kong and there are more opportunities there,” said Gavin Raftery, another partner based in Tokyo.

    “In the SAR we are seeing fintech working together with financial institutions, as opposed to the disruptive type of fintech,” as banks are already quite easily accessible in Hong Kong compared to the mainland, said Karen Man, a Hong Kong-based partner. Hong Kong can also serve as a base, or a “launching pad” for Chinese domestic fintech players to expand overseas.

    Huge domestic Chinese fintech firms try to go offshore and expand into international markets – both the developed and emerging markets. They include some peer-to-peer lending companies, but some are trying to bring the whole online platform, which includes payment, banking or wealth management, to overseas markets as well.

    For further regulatory information please refer to:


    [linkedinbadge URL=”https://www.linkedin.com/in/alex-bursak-18360137″ connections=”off” mode=”icon” liname=”Alex Bursak”] is ASEAN Head of Risk Information and Grading at Euler Hermes Singapore (Allianz Group) and this article was originally published on linkedin.

     
  • user 12:20 am on June 12, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , banks, , , , ,   

    Final Days of API Survey with Open Bank Project 

    Innovation and Berlin-based Bank reunited this year for a second annual on API use at . This week is the week to contribute to the research. We have already received many responses &; and thank you to all those who have contributed answers &8212; but weRead More
    Bank Innovation

     
  • user 11:38 am on June 11, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: banks, , enablers, , ,   

    Fintech firms more enablers, than disruptors: KPMG-NASSCOM report 

    I love a good story, be it through advertisements, movies or an entrepreneur who dared to think differently. I believe in bringing in fresh perspectives — to a corporate profile or a Facebook post — like new wine in an even newer bottle. I graduated with a journalism degree from the Xavier Institute of Communications. My weekend rituals involve watching Bollywood movies and reading up on style trends.

    inancial () companies are increasingly being viewed as an enabler, instead of a disruptor to the financial services sector, according to a KPMG-Nasscom report released on Tuesday.The report states that Indian customers, both individual consumers and corporates, have shown an unexpectedly fast adoption rate towards fintech offerings. This surge is thanks to rising customer expectations, e-commerce and smartphone penetration across India. The fintech market in India is expected to double to $2.4 billion by 2020 from $1.2 billion in 2015, according to the report.India is home to about 200 fintech companies out the total 12,000 fintech startups across the globe.“The prima-facie catalyst for the success of the fintech industry in India is the government and the multi-pronged approach it has taken towards enabling higher penetration of these digital financial platforms for institutions and the public is commendable,” states Naresh Makhijani, Partner and Head, financial services, KPMG in India.Emergence of fintech companies in India has been a prelude to the transformation in payment systems, lending and personal finance space. Fintech companies are enabling the entire value chain of the traditional financial institutions, like and mutual funds,  to provide new products and more efficient services to its  customers.The report lists seven potential areas that could redefine the financial services space. In India, payments and financial inclusion have attracted the most market attention. P2P lending and remittances are other fast growth areas in India. Going forward, security and biometrics would be areas of expansion.A handful of companies are also exploring -device and bank-in-a-box as new investment avenues. is an emerging tech-mammoth and has the potential for mass market implementation in the future.

    Angel deals in fintech companies in India have grown to 691 in 2015 from 370 in 2014. Investments in fintech companies  have jumped to $1.5 billion in 2015 from $247 million in 2014. Most of the venture capitalist backed investment deals were concentrated in Bengaluru (11 deals), Mumbai (9 deals) and Gurgaon (6 deals).

    For the sector to grow, it is essential for all the stake holders to ‘connect, engage and share ideas across vibrant communities and networks, as well as identify and convert opportunities into business,’ the KPMG-Nasscom report says.

    Forming an independent fintech-focussed industry association, introducing special visas for start-up entrepreneurs and technology experts to attract foreign talent, strengthening the talent pool, offering coherent tax incentives to start-ups and venture capitalists and adopting leading practices of regulatory initiatives from global markets, are some of the recommendations given by the report to key stakeholders.

     

     

     
  • user 7:36 am on June 9, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , banks, , , ,   

    The Rebundling of UK Financial Services 

    AAEAAQAAAAAAAAeSAAAAJDI0OGQ5ZjllLWNiZjItNDZkMy05ZDhjLTQ5YWIzMWQxZjQ3Mg

    If you enjoyed this please like it and then share it 🙂

    This post appeared first in The Times and Raconteur in the .

    Until the financial crisis had enjoyed decades of growth unencumbered by the disruption seen in the newspaper, telecommunications and music industries.

    During the good years banks’ profits soared and, while they embraced customer-facing internet and mobile apps, the foundations, processes and on which banks are built, despite billions spent on technology, would look familiar to those who worked there in the 1970s.

    UK banks now face the perfect storm of significant technological advancements plus a regulator and government that want to foster innovation, and an ever-growing disillusionment of banking customers to banks’ offerings.

    Disrupting

    In recent times the UK has been hailed as a global leader for a new type of company called a “” which combines financial services, technology, and innovative processes and customer experiences to compete with traditional banking products.

    Companies such as Nutmeg, TransferWise, MarketInvoice, Mondo Bank and their kind, offer a genuine alternative to the major banks for financial services. These fintech companies have the advantage of starting with a blank canvas and standing on the shoulders of advances in technology brought in the internet and smartphone age.

    Fintech companies are now breaking from the pack, and highlighting the depth and seriousness of the technological and cultural deficiencies that most banks suffer.

    It’s important though not to see fintech as some sort of banking panacea which will right all the banking wrongs. As recent revelations around Lending Club have shown, there are downsides to fintechs, although it’s worth noting banks have not been immune from controversy in recent years. However, generally speaking, fintech is leading the charge for disrupting how financial services are created and delivered to customers.

    Key to the success of fintech has been the use of APIs (application programming interfaces). Think of APIs as a set of rules that computer programs can follow to communicate with one another. Imagine a plug and plug socket; APIs offer a standard way for two bits of software to interact with each other across the world.

    Whole companies have been created off the back of integration of great ideas and APIs that others have exposed. For example, if you’ve ever used Rightmove to look for a property, Rightmove didn’t build the map that you use to find your property. Google did. Rightmove then added their own properties over the top of Google’s maps via API integration.

    AAEAAQAAAAAAAAjfAAAAJDdkNzkwMWVjLTZiNGItNDhmYS1hN2RjLTA2ODlhZGU1MjRjNw

    The use by banks of internal APIs – those for internal development – is increasingly becoming common as they try to drive speed and cost effectiveness into traditional legacy systems. But open APIs – those exposed to allow third parties access and development – have been reserved for banks that have reached the right level of maturity for new ways of working.

    This reluctance to adopt open APIs has been a major driver for the slow evolution of banking across Europe and has led to the European Commission stepping in with the revision of the Payment Services Directive (PSD). While the aim of the original PSD, adopted in 2007, was aligned with the bigger economic vision for the EU, namely to create a single market for payments, PSD2 has a very different agenda.

    “Banks now have the opportunity to become platforms, connecting, curating and controlling new services offered by fintech”

    In short, PSD2 mandates into law in December 2017: third-party access to accounts whereby e-commerce providers can take online or mobile payment directly from a consumer’s bank account without going via intermediaries; use of APIs to enable payment by directly connecting the merchant and the bank; and the ability to consolidate account information in a single portal. In the latter, an API enables a new type of financial services company – an account information service provider or AISP – to aggregate account information to let consumers with multiple banks view all bank details in one portal.

    For banks that currently sit in a position of significant power, PSD2 is likely to cause a major change with the departure from a hub-and-spoke model, which has traditionally governed the relationship between centralised data and the internal distribution channels. Within Europe, PSD2 and the rise of fintech offer a true vanguard moment for traditional banks.

    Smart banks getting ahead

    Banks now have the opportunity to become platforms, connecting, curating and controlling these new services offered by fintech. This would in turn allow them to drive real growth in their business. Or, if they lose control, the banks face the real risk of becoming separated from their customers by the new breed of fintechs that are creating their own intelligent platforms which could relegate banks to utilities.

    Bad decision-making at this critical point could see banks facing the real prospect of becoming like mobile phone networks or interchangeable, commodity infrastructures, and by shying away from this new world, they may inadvertently make their worst fears become…

    For the full article and views on what some awesome banks are doing to get this right go and read the rest here on Raconteur 🙂


    [linkedinbadge URL=”https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidbrear” connections=”off” mode=”icon” liname=”David M. Brear”] is Co-Founder and CEO at 11FS and this article was originally published on linkedin.

     
  • user 3:36 pm on June 8, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: banks, Benötigt, , , , kurz, lang, , , Vollbanklizenz   

    Benötigt ein Fintech-Startup über kurz oder lang eine Vollbanklizenz? 

    Vollbanklizenz

    Ralf Keuper

    Die Frage steht schon seit längerer Zeit im Raum: ein -Startup, um auf Dauer erfolgreich zu sein, unbedingt ?
    Sagen wir mal so: Wenn ein Fintech-Startup mit dem Anspruch auftritt, eine Bank zu ersetzen, dann wird es um eine Vollbanklizenz nicht herum kommen.

    Dies gilt um so mehr, je abhängiger die neuen Banken von den existierenden Bankinfrastrukturen und je ähnlicher ihre Kosten- und Erlösstrukturen (und damit ihre Geschäftsmodelle) denen der klassischen Banken sind. Sollte es jedoch Absicht des Fintech-Startups sein, nur bestimmte Bereiche des Bankgeschäfts anzubieten, die lediglich einer eingeschränkten Regulierung bedürfen, dann ist eine Vollbanklizenz zumindest nicht zwingend.

    Ob eine Banklizenz Light, wie sie in der Schweiz diskutiert wird, die Lösung ist, bleibt abzuwarten. aber das Fintech-Startup verfügt über so viel Kapital und technologisches Know How, dass es in der Lage ist, eine eigene Infrastruktur zu betreiben, wie Ant Financials/Alibaba bei den Internet Payments. Ein weiteres Beispiel ist PayPal, wenn man jetzt PayPal und Ant Financials als Fintech-Startups betrachtet.

    &8220;Die Internet-Banken konnten zum damaligen Zeitpunkt die in sie gesetzten Erwartungen nicht erfüllen.&8221;

    Schaut man sich die Zahl der Banken an, die in den letzten Jahrzehnten neu auf der Bühne erschienen sind und es geschafft haben, sich zu etablieren, fällt der Befund recht mager aus, wie auf diesem Blog vor einiger Zeit in Bankgründung als Mittel der Wahl?thematisiert wurde. Wirklich etabliert haben sich Direktbanken, Autobanken, Umweltbanken, Teilzahlungsbanken und neuerdings Whitelabel Banken; also eigentlich Spezialbanken oder Limited Purpose Banken. Reine Online-Banken haben es dagegen schwer, wie Chiwon Yom bereits im Jahr 2005 in Limited Purpose Banks: Their Specialties, Peformance, and Prospects feststellte:

    Die Internet-Banken konnten zum damaligen Zeitpunkt die in sie gesetzten Erwartungen nicht erfüllen. Zwar verfügten sie auf den ersten Blick gegenüber den etablierten (Filial-)Banken über den Vorteil geringerer Alt-Lasten, jedoch konnten sie ihren technologischen Vorsprung nicht in einen ausreichenden Gewinn ummünzen. Zu groß war auch hier bereits der Kostenapparat, bestehend aus IT-Infrastruktur und Personal.

    Die Erlöse aus Zinseinnahmen waren im Vergleich zu den anderen untersuchten Limited-Purpose-Banken gering, was ja auch so gewollt war, da die Internet-Banken mit hohen (Guthaben-) Zinsen, geringen Kredit-Zinsen und günstigen Konditionen warben. Auch die Einnahmen aus Provisionen, Gebühren und Service-Leistungen konnten hier für keinen Ausgleich sorgen. Erschwerend kamen die hohen Kosten der Internet-Banken für die eigene Finanzierung hinzu. Weiterhin schlugen die im Vergleich zu anderen Banken deutlich höheren Kosten für Werbung und Marketing zu Buche (Eigenzitat). 

    Source: http://bankstil.blogspot.com/2016/06/benotigt-ein-fintech-startup-uber-kurz.html

    The post Benötigt ein Fintech-Startup über kurz oder lang eine Vollbanklizenz? appeared first on Fintech Schweiz Digital Finance News – FintechNewsCH.

    Fintech Schweiz Digital Finance News – FintechNewsCH

     
  • user 10:00 am on June 7, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: banks, , q, , ,   

    RegTech: Building A Regulatory Tool Kit for the 21st Century 

    [Transcript of Keynote given at FinnovAsia on May 30th 2016]

    ===

    Since the 2007 financial crisis, we have witnessed a series of scandals ranging from PPI mis-selling to the LIBOR rigging scandal. The direct consequences of this has been the implementation of a more stringent regulatory regime increasing overall compliances costs. Indeed, since 2007, financial fines have increased 45-fold, incurring additional compliance costs of multiple billions of dollars. Indirectly, the financial instability that is being generated impacts the population with most recent reports estimating that cancer mortality has increased by 500’000 and 50%+ of Americans cannot afford an unexpected expense of US$400.

    In my opinion, Regulatory () represents a dual opportunity. Economically, it resolves compliance cost concerns of CEOs, whilst socially it delivers a direct add-value to regulators to enhance market stability and consumer protection.

    In other words, while in advanced economies early developments (e.g. P2P lending) appear to be a re-action to the symptoms of the previous financial crisis (e.g. credit shortage), RegTech appears as a more mature approach that may limit the severity of the next crisis.

    AAEAAQAAAAAAAAhyAAAAJDNlYzlmNTY3LTg2YmEtNDRkMS1hNjlkLWUwMDQwNGQxZjY3OQ

    Similarly to FinTech, the benefits of automatizing reporting and compliance processes are not new, as demonstrated by the introduction of pattern analysis or the work done by the SEC in the US in 2000. Furthermore, most of the post-crisis reforms focus on data transparency (e.g. Central OTC clearing), openness (e.g. PSD2) and standardization (e.g. unique entity identifier) However, whilst not new RegTech as a term has increasingly been used in the last 6 months. This uptick of activity warrants the necessity to start re-conceptualizing RegTech and set a foundation of understanding across the industry, regulators and policy makers.

    Establishing a topology of the sector, RegTech covers four key areas:

    • AML/KYC – Anti-Fraud
    • Risk Management
    • Data Management
    • Compliance

    As it currently stands, the most visible RegTech innovation seems to be in the e-KYC space, similarly to how payments and alternative lending used to define the bulk of FinTech innovation. The pain points encountered by given their current AML/KYC process and relative simplicity of developing a certified third party authentication platform (versus implementing a wide scale use of smart contracts to identify contractual liability of a firm in real time) explains the immediate focus given to this specific sub-sector. However, the digital AML/KYC process represents a superficial (i.e. customer-facing) use of RegTech similarly to how certain digital banking propositions are simply a better UX skin on top of an outdated core banking engine.

    In my mind the real long term value (both from an investment and social perspective) is embodied in solutions that redefine the way is being created so that risk identification and compliance can leverage on data and automation to really be proportionate (e.g. to actual risk) and real time (e.g. as opposed to batch reporting). In that respect, the development of Regulatory Sandboxes represents an initial step for regulators to deploy and learn how to use RegTech as part of their regulatory toolkit.

    In that regard, the FCA (in the UK) has, once again, championed the promotion of this objective with the announcement of a “regulatory sandbox” in Nov 2015 (e.g. currently accepting applications and will go live with 10 participants in September 2016). This approach has so far been positively echoed in other jurisdictions with ASIC in Australia and MAS in Singapore holding consultations. The benefits of sandboxes are diverse. For external stake holders (e.g. start-ups), they reduce time to market and compliance costs. For internal stakeholders (e.g. regulators) they add an interaction method with start-ups as well as a transition tool towards a more data-driven supervisory model.

    AAEAAQAAAAAAAAe1AAAAJGRjNTZkNDVkLTUyZmUtNDViZC1iOTM1LTA5MzEzZDQxODNiZg-2

    However, these developments are currently very much in experimental phase. The fact that access to the sandbox is limited to a handful of participants and the scope of experimentation constrained by EU laws (e.g. exclusion of credit institutions, insurance or alternative fund managers as well as base line regulatory capital for some activities irrespective of portfolio/market size) shows that only specific FinTech start-ups will benefit. The counter to that being considered, given the current Brexit discussion. Was Brexit to materialize, the FinTech eco-system in the UK (heavily driven my EU regulatory requirements) would lose its appeal (and VC funding in EU is already down 40%+ in Q1), making the rationale of a sandbox a moot point. In other words, a Brexit would leave the sandbox with not enough kids to play inside!

    I therefore see the current sandboxes (e.g. virtual, umbrella, regulatory) as the first building block towards a reconceptualized regulatory regime that is truly real-time and proportionate. This means that the parameters of the sandbox also need to be conceived with an end objective in mind and leverage a true opportunity to change the current paradigm of market supervision/regulation and firms’ compliance and reporting processes. An illustration of this shift would be as follows:

    AAEAAQAAAAAAAAiZAAAAJDY3ZGVhOWNlLWFjOWYtNDM2Zi04OGI0LWQwYTZiNWY3N2RmOQ-2

    This is very much an ongoing conversation and a very rare occasion where the interest of FinTech, FinServ and Regulators fell easily aligned.


    [linkedinbadge URL=”https://www.linkedin.com/in/jbarberis”off” mode=”icon” liname=”Janos Barberis”] is Millennial in FinTech | HKU Law | Founder FinTech HK & SuperCharger | Co-Editor The FinTech Book

     
  • user 6:00 am on June 7, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: banks, , derivatives,   

    Blockchain Technology Will Profoundly Change the Derivatives Industry – NASDAQ.com 

    As the hype and pessimism around converge toward reality over the next several years, one certainty emerging among Wall Street and Main Street traders is that advancements in platform technology will profoundly change how commonly used securities known as derivative contracts will be traded. The distributed ledgers inconceivable just a couple of years ago are on the precipice of ushering in a new era of innovative financial engineering and precision in risk management.

    Wall Street firms are beginning to tinker with blockchain and smart contract technology that will allow buyers, sellers and central clearing houses of derivative trades to share information, such as KYC (Know Your Customer), in real time across various distributed ledger platforms unleashing incredible efficiencies.

    Last month it was reported that Barclays tested a blockchain platform called Corda, developed by the bank consortium R3. Electronic documents that served as derivative contracts were pre-populated with standardized values, which, one day, will allow the contracts to be hashed out between counterparties, traded on an exchange across multiple and then cleared and settled instantaneously.

    Derivative contracts are financial instruments that derive their value from some underlying asset, such as stocks, bonds, commodities or even interest rates. Derivative contracts have become increasingly fundamental in effectively managing financial risk and creating synthetic exposures to asset classes. For example, airlines use future contracts, a form of derivative, to hedge against fluctuating oil prices . Hedge funds use options, another form of , to speculate in questionable company stock without baring the cost of purchasing a large number of shares. Derivative contracts typically have shelf lives of 30-day increments.

    Industry leaders expect distributed ledger infrastructure to foster new approaches to financial engineering, enabling financiers to customize derivatives consisting of individual cash flows to meet precise needs in terms of timing and credit risk. According to a report produced by Oliver Wyman, a management consulting firm, blockchain-enabled derivative contracts could be financed by issuers selling their own instruments that match the cash flows they expect to achieve, “in essence creating swaps without the need for balance sheet intermediation.” Traditional swap agreements are traded over the counter.

     

     

     
  • user 6:26 pm on June 6, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Answers, banks, , , , , , , ,   

    90 Central Banks Seek Blockchain Answers at Federal Reserve Event 

    A number of major worldwide have organizing working groups dedicated to exploring and digital currencies.
    fintech techcrunch

     
  • user 7:35 am on June 6, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: axzz4ALNEamMS, banks, , , ,   

    The Road Ahead: 3 Big Insurance Trends for the Next 12 Months 

    AAEAAQAAAAAAAAdEAAAAJDE1YTcwNGMwLWQwNDQtNDk4OS04YWY3LTZhZDAxZTlkOGI0Zg

    and prognostication must be traits buried right in the genetic core of the human species. People’s desire to peer around the corner into what they can’t see and try to make sense of the shapes and shadows is almost a basic need.  It makes us feel smart, it provides comfort as a source of clarity, it lets us show off our expertise.

    So, while I may be motivated by some weird base instinct to call the industry’s shots- I also genuinely think the next year will turn out to be unlike any the industry has ever seen. At the least, we’re beginning to see some tectonic shifts in how insurance does business as it starts succumbing to the inexorable forces of , customer demand, and most importantly, as it finally gives in to good old fashion evolution.

    Here are the three big trends in insurance that I see taking shape over the next twelve months.

    1.  Venture capital firms will start to pick leaders

    There’s strong demand for insurance technology investments in the VC community right now. According to CB Insights, there was $2.65 billion in VC investments in insurtech companies in 2015, about three-and-a-half times the amount invested in similar companies the prior year. This makes sense too. Insurance is one of the remaining industries that hasn’t yet taken a huge, technology-based step forward and VCs are finally realizing the potential impact technology could have on how it’s bought, sold and administered.

    So, while there has been a massive demand for insurance investments from the VC community, beyond employee benefits, the actual pace of investment has been relatively low due to an almost complete lack of investment opportunities with attractive business models, proven teams, and productive uses for their capital.  Even including benefits, while $2.65 billion is a lot of money, it’s a small percentage of the $128.5 billion in VC money that was raised last year.

    Over the course of the next year, we’ll see a few strong financial models emerge from companies who took seed rounds over the last 18 months that will attract sizable Series A rounds to fund growth and establish leads in their market segments.  The noise and buzz around insurtech has already spawned a growing number of me-too copycats and business model clones but, as has happened with other formerly hot sectors for venture capital- the on-demand economy and marketplace lending- the benefits of scale and access to capital will accrue almost entirely to the innovative first movers. 

    2.  Carriers will start more meaningful partnerships with startups to drive innovation

    You can bet that all carriers are already having discussions about this in their boardrooms right now, it’s reflected in strategic VC investments even if not yet in meaningful operating partnerships, but over the next year we’ll see which carriers will actually pull the trigger on deals – be it acquisitions or partnerships – that lean on startups to help them jumpstart the pace of innovation inside the company.  We’ve started to see meaningful partnerships with technology companies from the large only recently, but there is reason to think that insurers will move faster.

    Most of this activity will happen around finding new means of distribution, new ways to help claims adjusting, big data analysis for underwriting, and early efforts at incorporating the Internet of Things. It will be a fairly incredible thing to see for a couple reasons: first, it will be impressive to see massive companies realize that they can no longer “move at the speed of insurance,” and, second forward-thinking carriers who welcome technology to the fold will create sizeable business advantages against their more luddite rivals, and do so more quickly than ever before possible.

    3.  Migration of talent from old guard companies to insurtech startups

    As insurtech companies raise larger amounts of capital, more and more executives from established insurance companies will start to join their ranks. Lemonade’s hires from AIG and ACE and Embroker’s own recent addition of Tom DeMichael from Willis will be the first wave of a larger trend as property and casualty focused startups will by their nature require more industry expertise than the first wave of employee benefits startups like Zenefits.

    As funding increases for insurtech leaders (see prediction No. 1), on-hand cash at these startups will allow them to lure top talent away from the industry giants, just as the massive carriers and brokers alike will be adjusting to the brave, new world of insurance by trying to cut bloated cost structures. Seasoned execs that are dynamic enough to thrive in the fast-moving startup environment will be in short supply, creating great opportunities for the available free agents and new entrants alike.

    Each of these are trends that will be at play not only over the next 12 months, but for several years at least to come.  However, I expect now is when we’ll start to see real movement on each.  One thing is clear: the insurance industry – as well as the burgeoning insurtech market – will be an incredibly interesting space to watch.


    [linkedinbadge URL=”https://www.linkedin.com/in/millermatthewc” connections=”off” mode=”icon” liname=”Matt Miller”] is founder & CEO of Embroker and a version of this post first appeared in the Embroker Blog

     
  • user 10:54 pm on June 5, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: banks, engage, , , , , ,   

    How Fintech Startups should engage Finserv Incumbents 

     

    shutterstock_327573749If my thesis on the growing importance of Corporate Venture Capital, b2b business models and (banking or insurance)  as strategic partners for  &; in lending, capital markets, payments, asset management and insurance &8211; then it is of the utmost importance for said startups to know how to with their future investors/customers/partners. To be clear, for the purposes of this exercise I will assume there is a business/ rationale and intent to partner.

    The most optimal way to know how to engage with someone is to learn how they engage with you.

    A finserv Incumbent will engage you along three vectors: a) the venture investing vector, b) the innovation vector, and c) the business vector.

    Answering questions around what, how, who and where along these three vectors is paramount to your future success. Answers to many of the questions I am mapping out below will help you gauge not only the mechanics of engagement but the culture of the strategic partner you are dealing with and if that culture fits with your vision.

    Your goal is to figure out how difficult the road ahead is and what to do to maximize success. Remember that dealing with a finserv Incumbent is eminently more difficult that dealing with an independent venture investor.

    As a rule of thumb the more abstracted, specialized and sophisticated each of these vectors are, the easier it will be to achieve your goals, assuming business alignment and intent are present. Picture a finserv Incumbent where there is no venture or innovation team per se and where all decision will be made on balance sheet by business leaders with little understanding of early stage technology or business models and you will readily understand that your path will be rather arduous.

    Here are a few pointers I recommend fintech entrepreneurs pay heed to when interacting with a bank or an insurance company. Answering these questions will lead you to better understand what beast you are dealing with.

    1) How does an Incumbent invest in startups: Does the group you are dealing with have a dedicated team specialized in venture investing or a generalist team that takes care of any type of investment? Is the venture team investing on balance sheet or are they organized as a separate entity? How much capital is dedicated to venture investing? Who sits on the Investment Committee, only the venture team, only executives, a mix? What can they invest in and what cannot they invest in? What makes them consider making an investment? Can they invest without a commercial or strategic rationale?

    2) How mature is an Incumbent&;s venture investing practice: How many investments have they made? What is their due diligence and investment process? How long does it take? How deep is the due diligence process? How much capital is left to make investments in the next 3 years? What is their reputation? Are they specialized enough to know venture investing is as much of an art as it is a science, if not more?

    3) How does an Incumbent approach innovation: Do they have an innovation group? Is it centralized or decentralized &8211; especially important if you are dealing with a global incumbent? In case there is a central innovation group and decentralized teams, who is the decision maker when considering innovation projects? Is the innovation group divided into specialized teams?

    4) How mature is an Incumbent&8217;s innovation group: How long has the group been in existence? How many projects has the group worked on? How many projects can the group work on simultaneously? Does the group work on projects with early stage startups as well as established service providers? How savvy are they with your technology? What is their reputation in the marketplace? Are they leaders, &;me too&; players?

    5) What is the role of the business group involved: Do they have decision making powers when contemplating an investment, when contemplating a commercial agreement? When do they get involved &8211; early in the process, late? Can they contemplate a commercial agreement without making an investment?

    6) How mature are the Incumbent&8217;s business groups when dealing with startups: How many startups have they dealt with? How many commercial agreements have they completed? Where they front line or did they rely on Venture and Innovation? What is their reputation? What is the average time for them to go to market with new projects? How is their incentive, top line or cost wise, with your particular business? Are they urgently in need of your business solution?

    7) Interaction between Venture, Innovation and the Business groups: Who leads, who follows, who reports to whom? Is the interest in interacting with your startup initiated by Innovation, by Venture, by the Business group and what are the implications? How will Venture or Innovation help you navigating potential commercial agreements with Business groups? Who has &8220;skin in the game&8221; compared to the others? Who has more &8220;skin in the game&8221; than others?

    8) How is the decision making process influenced: Who are the decision makers, the gatekeepers and the champions? Where do they sit in the org chart and among the Venture, Innovation and Business groups.

    9) Motivations of each of Venture, Innovation and Business groups: Are the motivations aligned? What are the goals? Pay special attention to how aligned the Business group is with Venture and Innovation. Do commercial imperatives trump innovation imperatives? Do long term strategic imperatives trump short term commercial ones? How do these motivations and imperatives apply to you and your startup?

    10) Reporting Structure: Who do Venture and Innovation report to? Directly to the CEO, the CFO, the Board? If not who do they report to? Does Venture report to Innovation? Are both Venture and Innovation hidden within the bowels of an Incumbent or do they have the necessary and required exposure and support from C-level executives?

    11) Explore the role of legal, compliance and regulatory: How convoluted will be the legal and compliance process? Will you be dealing directly with legal and compliance or will you be shielded by Venture, Innovation of the Business group? When will legal and compliance be involved? Are they well versed in the legal arts of early stage investing? Will they bring a bazooka to a knife fight? How much of a burden will they impose on you? Will there be a regulatory approval hurdle to clear?

    12) Explore the role of procurement: Assuming there is a vendor management or procurement group, will you need to clear that hurdle too? What will it mean to you, how many resources will you have to engage immediately and over time? What type of data will you need to provide? Are they gatekeepers or decision makers too?

    13) Explore who will be in charge of a commercial project implementation and integration: Will the Business group be responsible? Will they have the skills and understanding required to fully digest your technology and business model? Will they rely on a separate IT or operations group? If so, how does the IT/Ops group interact with new vendors when implementing and integrating? How mature and sophisticated is the IT/Ops team? Have they engaged startups in the past or are they more of a &8220;we build our own stuff&8221; outfit?

    14) Explore how your future finserv Incumbent partner interacts with the broad ecosystem: Are they aligned with independent hackathons, independent accelerators? Who are their natural peer partners &8211; other or insurers they have invested with in the future or entered in JV or commercial agreements with? Who are their natural competitors &8211; those they will not want to deal with or invest with or JV with? Which traditional VC investors have they invested with in the past? Which non-bank companies do they partner with? Does partnering accelerate your chances of additional partnerships?

    15) Gauge how you will need to adapt: Inevitably, you will need to adapt based on answers and observations you glean along the way. I do not mean adapting in fundamental ways such as radically changing your business model or your technology, and if that is a requirement then you think twice about the costs and benefits before engaging fully. Rather I mean marginal adaptation to clear certain understandable hurdles around technology delivery for example. How much professional services will you need to incorporate? Will you need to localize to a certain geography? Will your partner&8217;s compliance thresholds lead you to tweak your technology? The sooner you get clarity on the need to adapt and how you will need to adapt, the sooner you will be able to quantify and qualify the associated costs.

    16) Explore post integration life as a startup partner: Are the rules of engagement well defined? Will there be periodic reviews? How will you be reviewed? Will the relationship be balanced? Who will participate? Will the champions, gatekeepers and decision makers that you identified during the pre commercial phase be the same?

    I realize I have mapped many questions. My purpose is not to scare a fintech entrepreneur. Do realize the end goal is a potential prize of investment, referenceable client, commercial agreement and cash flow generation. In other words, the rewards are overwhelmingly worth the pain of discovery and engagement strategy building.

    Additionally, even if there is a demonstrable strategic/commercial rationale, answer to the above may lead you to realize you are not ready for that particular finserv Incumbent as a partner, or that they are not ready for you. That type of epiphany may save you form serious heartburns down the road.

    More specifically, dealing with a finserv Incumbent is unique from the point of view of regulatory, compliance and legal complexities as well as the type of individuals you will encounter (business leaders may not know how to engage with a startup, IT/Ops may not be up to par knowledge wise). Knowledge will allow you to mitigate more effectively.

    Finally, remember that the mature service providers and vendors that sell to banks or insurers are very sophisticated and know how to sell, to whom to sell, how complex it is to sell. As a fintech entrepreneur you are competing with these mature service providers with limited resources. You need the smarts and the framework to close that gap and become a sophisticated &8220;enterprise&8221; focused fintech startup in your own right.

    FiniCulture

     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel
Close Bitnami banner
Bitnami