Tagged: banks Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • user 7:35 am on June 4, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: 4b1dadde6992, banks, , fintech in germany, , ,   

    Why German FinTech is now trending 

    AAEAAQAAAAAAAAdXAAAAJGM3YzM2OTlmLTUwOTItNGI2MS05ZDMyLTFiMTlmZmUzMGQzOA

    Something is happening in .

    The local  industry is up-and-coming – objectively so. While for some time, the domestic Fintech scene was not commonly known for its breathtaking speed of innovation, things are changing rapidly.

    Only within the last few months, a significant uptake in activity within the  Fintech industry is visible:

    • Deals and investments: In Q1 2016, investments into German Fintechs have soared. A respectable €107 million was invested in local companies, up from €10 million one quarter before (more). And this trend of growing investor appetite was already on the horizon last year. While across Europe, overall Fintech investment more than doubled between 2014 and 2015 (+120 percent), investments in German Fintech ventures grew by staggering +843 percent over the same period (Source).
    • Mergers between Fintech start-ups: P2P lender Kapilendo and equity-based crowdfunding site Venturate announced their merger in April 2016 (more). Around the same time, Berlin-founded payleven and SumUp merged to form one of Europe’s largest payment Fintechs (more).
    • New business models: The first Banking as a Service (BaaS) platform just launched in Berlin: Solaris Bank aims to provide an API-based banking platform for Fintech startups – uniquely built on the basis of a fully regulated German banking license (more). – see also Pascal Bouvier’s in-depth blog post)
    • International growth: More and more German Fintechs are growing up and become international players. FidorBank recently started to offer its services to UK customers (more). Berlin-based Spotcap is targeting SMEs in Spain, Australia and the Netherlands. Despite the recent controversy, Number26 continues to expand into 6 other European markets

    What is more, German financial institutions themselves are at the forefront of this new Fintech momentum. Some examples how they are spearheading the current movement:

    • Take-over of Fintechs: The 220-year old German private bank Hauck & Aufhaeuser just acquired one of the largest local -advisors easyfolio in May 2016 (more). Deutsche Boerse took over trading network 360T, one of the rising stars in the German Fintech scene, in October 2015 (more).
    • Minority investments: CommerzVentures, the investment vehicle of Commerzbank, has already completed more than a handful of Fintech investments. In May 2016, the 4th largest German bank by asset size, DZ Bank AG, completed a 25% investment into the invoice marketplace company TrustBills (more). 
    • Partnerships with Fintechs: Germany’s largest bank, Deutsche Bank, just announced three strategic partnerships with domestic Fintechs: In the near future, Deutsche Bank’s customers will be offered robo-advisory services (in cooperation with Fincite), multi-account aggregation (partnering with Figo) and European short-term deposits as investment opportunity through the Deposit Solutions platform (more).
    • Business model innovation: In April, Germany’s second largest bank, Commerzbank, announced to be working on a disruptive online P2P lending platform for small businesses (more). The nation-wide Savings Bank Finance Group (DSGV) seems to be silently developing a mobile-first bank for the young generation – codename ‘Yomo’ (more). And many expect further news from Deutsche Bank which just opened up its new Silicon Valley-based Innovation Lab in April 2016 (more).

    Supported is all of this by an evolving national Fintech ecosystem which is now coming together: 

    • Innovation facilitators: A number of players and incubation programs are nurturing innovation all over Germany. Those include the comdirect Start-up GarageFinLab AG, FinLeap, the UniCredit innovation labmain incubator as well as Deutsche Boerse’s brand new Fintech Hub, just to name a few.
    • Sizeable domestic investors: Equally promising, 2016 is seeing the rise of corporate investors such as METRO Group, getting involved in Fintech. New local growth equity funds such as the recently launched Digital+ Partners fund are emerging. They are epitomizing a new generation of German FinTech investors who are able to back larger investment rounds  (more). 
    • Supportive regulatory environment: The German Finance Ministry has just launched its own Fintech forum, the so-called ‘FinCamp‘ as a forum to foster mutual dialogue between various players. The first event in April 2016 was attended by 150 representatives of German FinTech start-ups, and associations, as well as staff members of the Finance Ministry, Deutsche Bundesbank and the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) (more).  
    • Industry collaboration: The conservative German private banking industry association (Bundesverband deutscher Banken) has taken an explicit stand to make Fintech a priority from 2016 onwards (more). While a formal membership is still not up for grabs for Germany’s Fintech companies, a number of them were invited by the BdB to a joint communication forum in April 2016 – a widely noticed move with positive symbolic meaning.
    • Public investment money: Germany’s largest public bank, KfW. launched its first-time €225 co-investment vehicle coparion in March 2016. The ambition is to support German growth companies, explicitly targeting the Fintech segment. The public fund is able to provide risk capital of up to €10m per company (more).

    Taking it all together – in 2016, the ground seems to be prepared for German Fintech to finally take off.

    Reason enough for McKinsey & Company to publish the first major analysis on :

    DOWNLOAD: McKinsey & Company (2016): Challenges and Opportunities for fintech in Germany. How digitization is transforming the country’s financial services sector

    In this whitepaper we analyze the magnitude and some underlying drivers of the Fintech phenomenon in Germany.  The recent momentum should not come as a surprise. Germany is an attractive banking market to tackle. More than 80 million people, a vigorous SME segment (‘Mittelstand’) and world-class corporates have a need for modern banking services. In the corporate banking segment there is still ample opportunity for new disruptive solutions.

    A lot of further potential remains for both Fintech companies and banks if they successfully adapt to this new paradigm. 


    [linkedinbadge URL=”https://www.linkedin.com/in/danieldrummer” connections=”off” mode=”icon” liname=”Daniel Drummer“] is Management Consultant at McKinsey & Company and this article was originally published on linkedin.

     
  • user 10:41 pm on June 2, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: banks, , ,   

    PSD2 Use Cases 

     

    I have been involved in many conversations over the past few months which have included a number of potential ideas around how will revolutionise the customer experience. Having thought about it a bit more, I have concluded that there are 4 primary use cases for PSD2 and that all of the ideas fit into one or more of these use cases:

    1) Aggregation & Cash Management/Payments Management

    Whether such aggregation and initiation is managed through an existing banking relationship or an external entity such as a Google etc. this can be seen as a key use case for the consumer and corporate to manage their cash in a real time manner and initiate payments between accounts as well as to third parties.

    In the corporate space, this can see the demise of the SWIFT cash management services which have prevalent over the past 30+ years and a migration from the overnight/intraday MT940/MT942 messages and use of realtime balances and transaction data enabling realtime reconciliation

    2) Checkout

    Today we see the likes of Amazon, Paypal etc use the credit/debit card as the means to effect checkout settlement – PSD2 offers the opportunity to display realtime account balances and initiate the push payment for goods and services. For the likes of Amazon, this could lead to incentives similar to those offered to Prime customers who are willing to sacrifice the next day service and receive a £1 credit to the digital wallet to be used against MP3 or Kindle purchases.

    There is a down side to this approach that consumers will need to be aware of which is the consumer protection that is afforded from using credit cards.

    3) Comparison Websites

    Today the comparision sites provide information on utilities, credit cards etc. By allowing access to realtime information, these sites could provide the automated management of savings to the best deals available with selected institutions. The next step to that could be the virtual banking with the website as they will manage the banking current account relationship. Using CASS to move the current account to the best deals in the market. A user could indicate they bank with the comparrrison website, be assigned a virtual sort code and account number which links to the physical sort code and account where the account is presently held.

    4) Credit Management/Decisions

    Finally, when applying for a loan or other form of credit, the ability for the consumer to allow the credit insitution/provider to be granted access to latest transaction data as a basic for making the credit decision. Moving to a more ‘knowledgeable’ basis of decision making will allow for better control of credit decisions which should reduce risk and could/should lead to lending at lower cost.

    If I’ve missed anything outside of the above then please let me know, I’d be very happy to add to my list above.

    What will make these use case a reality is the adoption by various actors (, Google, Amazon, Comparision sites etc.) but also the community to develop the apps to drive and expand the horizons of what and how any or all of the use cases can bring added value to all parties.


    [linkedinbadge URL=”https://www.linkedin.com/in/bobford” connections=”off” mode=”icon” liname=”Bob Ford”] is Payment SME, Consultant at Bob Ford Associates, and this post was originally published on linkedin.

     
  • user 6:01 am on June 2, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , banks, , ,   

    Why the “newly banked” will become the biggest problem for digital banks 

    AAEAAQAAAAAAAAmEAAAAJGQ2NDdkNzdmLTY1MDAtNGMwNC1iNmQxLWI4ODMxZmQ0YzUzMg

    In the past three years, 100 million people have opened accounts for the first time in Africa. In China, there are 500 million people who are ‘newly banked’. In India, 187 million new accounts were opened in just one year on a governmental scheme. In the UK, around 100,000 people came into the stream, either for the first time or after a long break, in the last three years.

    This growing segment of the newly banked, who have emerged from the unbanked population and not-quite-yet-in-the-fully-banked category represents one of the biggest challenges for traditional and challenger in the world (yet, is not talked about as much as it should be!). They have a unique set of problems, and deserve a unique set of solutions – that are not available in the market today.

    The newly banked population does not find a bank account useful

    India’s unbanked population halved in the last four years, according to a report, which means 324 million new accounts were taken in that period. In just the past year, under a Prime Ministerial PMJDY scheme, 187 million new accounts were opened. However, 43% of these accounts lay dormant, with no balance and no deposits or withdrawals.

    In the UK, around half of the people with new, basic bank accounts still chose to manage their money and make transactions in cash. Around 15% of newly opened accounts were closed or abandoned.

    These figures paint such a dire image that it’s a mystery why banks are not taking more steps to bring the newly banked into the well-banked, or at least, the underbanked groups. Offering financial literacy is just one obvious element to fix the problem – the most important change needed is for the bank accounts to offer relevant transaction channels and sensible costs. In Africa, for example, mobile payments on basic phones have taken over the transaction ecosystem, and banks offering viable alternatives is a difficult proposition, yet possible.

    This is because the experience of moving into banking hasn’t been great

    The newly banked population probably used cash for transactions before the bank account, and transferred money using either mobile phone text messages (Africa) or specialised remittance firms (India and UK). In reality, it probably worked fine for them. There was a clear lack of perceived need.

    The expected customer experience (once the bank account is opened) is that it caters to a specific niche challenge the customer visualises would be solved with a bank account. It could be something like reduced bill costs or ease of bill payments, better loan facilities for agriculture, or sometimes availability of online shopping. A good example of catering to a specific demographic is that of six Zambian banks coming together several years ago to provide a secure money transfer mechanism that effectively replaced cash and cheques in the region. In China, a firm offers a SIM overlay that can be used on any phone to access bank accounts remotely.

    Solutions from banks, including those in partnership with technology firms, have to cater to these niche socio-demographic and geographic challenges. If appropriate pricing along with these direct solutions to solve niche problems are not present in a newly opened bank account, it’s unlikely this population will stay with the bank. They will either go back to their old ways with cash, or will look at apps or technology solutions to meet their specific needs.

    The newly banked population may not have access to a branch

    Over 66% of the newly banked population were considered “rural” by a study. If this population doesn’t have access to a branch, it is likely they will not get the personal customer service support or financial product aid they would otherwise be getting. Despite all the branch-bashing that banks face on a regular basis (especially from us fintech fans), branches are in fact one of the best ways to put the newly banked at ease. If full branches are not viable, banks could consider using retailer shops as mini branches, or using field agents to encourage financial access (both models being used exceedingly well in Ghana and Kenya).

    How do we keep them there?

    The only solution to keep them with a bank is unfortunately not quite pleasing: a bank will have to exert greater focus on customer service, financial literacy and access channels specifically targeting the newly banked. This does mean increased costs, increased effort and investment into segment personalisation, but in the long run, without this investment, this population is unlikely to remain with the bank. A simple preventative measure like this will also help them face the fintech competition head-on. A student lending app or an app that helps improve your credit score may appeal more to this young, financially untapped population than having a bank account that provides no clear benefits.

    Banks are increasingly partnering with fintech firms to handle this gap. Technology investments are great, but banks need to know and be in control of what those investments are being made for.

     

    Read the full blogpost at http://banknxt.com/56824/newly-banked/ 

    View my slides from the Dot Finance Africa event on fintech trends in the region:

    http://www.slideshare.net/DevieMohan1/africa-fintech-investment-trends

    Disclaimer: These are my personal views. 


    [linkedinbadge URL=”https://www.linkedin.com/in/deviemohan” connections=”off” mode=”icon” liname=””] is  FinTech Market Strategist | Industry Speaker, Blogger and this post was originally published on linkedin.

     
  • user 8:41 pm on June 1, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: banks, , ,   

    Direct Lending: The Making of a Market 

    AAEAAQAAAAAAAAkGAAAAJDY3YjBiMWU0LWMyMWUtNGUyMi1iNWIzLTg4NjAyZmQ5OGEyOQ

    Eight years after the financial crisis there is no sign of returning to their all-dominant position in the economy. New capital markets have sprung up and are themselves now experiencing growing pains. How can one of them – the institutional ‘direct ‘ sector – now reach its potential and become a permanent option for Europe’s capital-hungry companies?  

    Crowd-funding and lending arrived on the financial scene with an almighty splash soon after the financial crisis. At the same time quieter but perhaps equally significant waters have been starting to flow deeper in the financial system. The ‘direct lending’ sector – where large savings institutions channel credit to companies via expert asset managers but without the involvement of banks – has grown steadily but significantly since 2008. Direct lending funds are now raising about $100bn per year globally from pension funds and insurance companies, about eight times the amount of only four years ago. Low interest rates have made the corporate debt funds being offered by these lenders an essential allocation for increasing numbers of institutional investors, despite their lack of liquidity. Regulators have embraced the emergence of the direct lending managers as an opportunity to shift some financing activity from a crisis-ridden and systemically threatening banking sector to patient pension funds. Some governments, including the UK, have even made seed money available to stimulate the launch of new direct lenders, such is the desire to nurture that elusive creature – a large and stable credit .    

    But still, the direct lending market hasn’t yet worked out as some of its participants and promoters hope it will. This is because only a fraction of the expert lending funds now raising capital from big savings institutions will lend direct to firms for growth or refinancing purposes – what’s known in the market as ‘sponsorless’ lending. The overwhelming majority of the $400-500bn in direct lending capital raised since the 2008 crisis has been lent to private equity firms – ‘sponsors’ – to carry out leveraged buyouts. While the sponsors point to evidence that they most often improve companies’ performance and create jobs, the sector understandably sticks to its favourite industries and is highly cyclical. Moreover, private equity sponsors will tend to use their financial firepower on larger deals, or to buy familiar firms being recycled through the market by their peers. Some of the larger European direct lending funds raised in the past year have been providing individual loans of over 100m per clip to private equity buyouts. The $100bn annual global private debt raised is so concentrated in buyouts that it is not registering as even the tiniest blip for the broad mass of small and medium-sized firms in Europe. Credit provision is still way down on pre-crisis levels and Europe is stumbling along with paltry growth.

    It is not that there haven’t been notable past successes to build on in ‘sponsorless’ lending. Asset management groups like Harbert Management in the USA and Mezzanine Management (MML) in Europe have been successfully running sponsorless lending funds for their investors since the early 2000s. However, these firms and their peers typically offer high-interest growth capital (known as variously as mezzanine) to entrepreneurs and family-owned business keen to keep their equity intact. This is a niche play therefore, suitable for certain types of borrowers and for certain types of investors looking to invest in niche funds for higher returns. These sponsorless mezzanine funds have also been far smaller than the multi-billion mega-funds now offering senior credit to the big buyout deals. Some of the most successful sponsorless lending funds have been set up in one country where the expert manager feels comfortable investing in niche sectors. These country funds are typically less than one twentieth of the size of the big debt funds now being raised.

    What is holding back the big new direct lending funds from now scaling up their sponsorless lending activity? Why are they not reaching out to the tens of thousands of middle market companies across Europe seeking financing options? Firstly there is the justifiable consideration of risk in the smaller, sponsorless deals. However industry analysts point to compelling data that shows sponsorless companies carrying less leveraged balance sheets than private equity-backed firms. Lenders are often able to negotiate more favourable terms – and higher returns – where a firm is independently owned and operating well. There is also an element of the ‘path of least resistance’ at play. A manager can deploy a 2 billion fund in 20 buyout debt deals at $100m each where a private equity firm has done the due diligence in each case and provided them with all the financial data in tidy packets. Otherwise the debt fund manager would need to do their own due diligence on large numbers of sponsorless borrowers where data is relatively scarce and financial sophistication is potentially low. Faced with these two alternatives for a similar level of fees to earn – between 1% and 1.5% per annum and a performance fee – it is hard to argue against the buyout option – as long as it is available. And this is a paramount question at this stage in the credit cycle. Participants in the sponsorless lending sector stress that they would rather not take the risk of being beholden to a highly competitive and cyclical M&A and LBO market. They also argue that the two options are not ‘apples to apples’: the higher return and lower leverage in the sponsorless sector outweigh the greater difficulty of accessing suitable borrowers as they build their asset management firms.

    From here I see four clear requirements for the direct lending market now to break out of the private equity trench and start to connect meaningfully with small and mid-sized companies. Some of these are indeed already in train and the prospects look fair. But without each of these four things happening the big, profitable and sustainable direct lending market that many have envisaged may never emerge.

    1. Become truly ‘investable’ for the large pension funds

    To attract the big allocators such as sovereign funds and state pensions, the sponsorless lending market firstly needs to offer bigger funds. Few funds making direct business loans have a final size target of more than 400m. This is the actual ticket size of some sovereign funds, which is why they have to allocate to the 2bn+private equity debt funds. What would be the attraction of such funds to these large allocators? Direct SME lenders point to several. The funds offer much-needed diversification for investors from their private equity commitments, which may be exposing them to the same underlying deals across several debt and equity funds. Furthermore, sponsorless fund investors can typically be shown higher returns than buyout debt funds, while portfolios are themselves more granular than in the debt mega-funds. But these positive investment attributes count for naught if they can’t invest for technical reasons because the fund is too small for their ticket size. To run bigger funds, asset managers will need to build out well-resourced, fully AIFM-compliant platforms, so strong backing will be required for new players and new teams. New asset managers-forming who are not blessed with large capital sources of their own to pay for teams and the costs of a large platform have to be prepared to share equity in their platform. Several talented new start-up direct lenders in Europe have done just that and shared what looked like large stakes in their management company with key investors and other backers. One or two have grown to 5bn or more under management in a few short years and bought out their original backers. For some asset managers independence is everything, but independence without options in a competitive market like this is can be a deadly trap.   

     2. Understand and serve the insurers better

    Despite complications associated with their Solvency II regulations, some of the most prominent insurance names in the UK, France, Germany and Scandinavia have begun to allocate small percentages of their vast asset books to illiquid debt funds to enhance yields. In most cases, however, insurance companies have been channelled to the senior debt of the private equity LBO market. To make the sponsorless lending market investable for insurers, three things are required. Firstly, asset managers need to originate primarily senior debt rather than mezzanine or growth capital in sponsorless situations. This means operating alongside banks in Europe and adding extra capital where needed to senior corporate debt transactions rather than being in subordinated positions to banks. Secondly, asset managers will need to establish credit platforms that insurance companies can be comfortable with. This may mean independent credit groups or even ratings assignment processes which insurers can become comfortable with. Finally, these funds will also need to be far bigger than the typical sponsorless offerings. Funds of less than 500m will not be able to take the ticket size of insurers, who do not have the capacity to analyse many different fund managers.

     3. Educate and help to ‘professionalise’ SMEs  

    The most common reason fund managers cite for not pushing more actively into direct business lending is the lack of professional processes when they deal with potential borrowers. A private equity-backed company will bend over backwards to make it easy for lenders to understand and get comfortable with a credit. In a true direct lending situation the lender may be working from scratch with limited financials and may be working with a management team who have never before worked with non-bank lenders. This provides a big opportunity for advisers to potential borrowers and the fund management community. By providing a professional advisory service to management teams, an advisor can play a useful role. Typically debt advisors have worked to place debt into the private equity community. As more capital comes in to the sponsorless sector, advisory boutiques can gear up to play a crucial role in arranging new deals. Simply modelling a companies past and projected cash flow in detail and providing a detailed professional offering memorandum will make the job much easier for the many direct lenders who have capital available.  

     4. Revive the funds of funds

    A crucial catalyst in the early development of the private equity and hedge fund sectors was the development of a large funds of funds market. For a large investor allocating for the first time to esoteric new asset classes an efficient way to get exposed was to park money with a fund of funds who would do the due diligence on a range of different funds. As those markets have matured investors have become less willing to pay the double layer of fees that a fund of funds involves. However, for a large pension investor to access the smaller sponsorless debt managers who are lending in one country where they have deep local presence, a fund of funds may be the right model. Funds of funds catering to the German market like Yielco Investments and Golding Capital Partners have successfully allocated to specialist debt managers on behalf of their own investor clients. Finnish direct lending and private equity expert Certior is advising clients on how to allocate into single country lending funds. Further development of this sector is required to further boost sponsorless lending.

     

    If these opportunities are grasped by market participants over the coming period there is a good chance that a permanent funnel from the savings system into SMEs will open up. Yes, asset managers will need to work to set up the right systems, advisors will have to retool some of their processes and investors themselves will need to take the time to understand different risks. The upside for investors will be greater diversification and more yield. Asset managers themselves will be able to develop new products and serve new clients. SME companies will be able to access patient and potentially more understanding capital pools. Collectively we will have laid at least one ground-stone for a more resilient, less cyclical credit system.  


    [linkedinbadge URL=”https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-newsome-2606303a” connections=”off” mode=”icon” liname=”James Newsome“] is Managing Partner at Arbour Partners and this post was originally published on linkedin.

     
  • user 3:41 pm on June 1, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: banks, , , , Publishes, ,   

    R3 Publishes Vitalik Buterin Report on Ethereum for Banks 

    R3 has released a evaluating how could be used by engaged in consortium and private initiatives.
    CoinDesk

     
  • user 10:00 am on June 1, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: banks, , ,   

    From FinTech to TechFin: Data is the New Oil. 

    AAEAAQAAAAAAAAdgAAAAJGZiMDgyMDg1LTNjNDUtNDY1Zi04OTNlLTlhMTAwZTM1MjE4NQ

    [Transcript of the Closing Keynote in Hanoi on May the 12th 2016]

    When I arrived in Hong Kong slightly over a year ago to build a Accelerator I knew I wanted to do three things.

    1. To inspire my generation to join or build a FinTech company
    2. To adapt myself to Asia, accepting that financial brands are global but financial behaviors are local.
    3. To embrace the fact that China will lead the world in terms of innovation.

    However, I wasn’t prepared to fully appreciate the difference between FinTech and TechFin. To me it was all about establishing a FinTech Hub, developing a FinTech regulatory Framework and measuring FinTech investment growth. Yet when I spoke to start-ups in China they kept telling me they didn’t consider themselves FinTechs, but instead were TechFins. I thought it was splitting hairs and miscommunication but it was more than that. It was a misunderstanding.

    We often quote Jack Ma for saying”

    “There are two big opportunities in the future financial industry. One is online banking, where all the financial institutions go online; the other is Internet finance, with is purely led by outsiders.”

    We read reports on China’s leadership in FinTech. Ant Financial valued at over US$50billion after a series B round. Tencent facilitating over 8 billion red envelopes to be shared in a day, up by 7 billion compared to the previous year. We know these facts but do we understand them?

    Let’s forget the Fin and Focus on the Tech. Breaking down what the BATs do. We essentially have:

    • Baidu connecting People with information
    • Alibaba connecting People with products
    • Tencent connecting People with People.

    Each of these companies have hundreds of millions of users, and for them FinTech is just a commoditized layer that is used to enhance their core product:

    Baidu can better sell information by letting you not only search for your favorite restaurant, but also handle the reservation of the table, the payment of the menu and the taxi ride back home.

    Alibaba can better sale products by facilitating express checkout via Alipay and can facilitate the number of products available by financing the SMEs that it knows will sale.

    Tencent can better connect people by splitting bills in a restaurant via WeChat Wallet or reconnecting families millions of kilometers apart during Chinese new year simply by digitizing Red-envelopes

    Each of this FinTech layers within their products is incredibly valuable and valuated, yet their growth is finite. There is only so many friends you will have, restaurants you will search and products you will buy. However, what is exponential is the information around your decision. What is valuable is not just the content, or the , but the context. The meta data. It is then that I learned the source of my misunderstanding.

    Money has been digitized and Now Data is monetized – this was my Eureka moment. Whilst the first part is about FinTech today, the second is about TechFin tomorrow. So let’s look at the consequences this has for our industry.

    Let’s break down the opportunity of TechFin across two sectors that have been said to replace : Internet Service Providers and E-Commerce Platforms.

    We often draw parallels between telco’s and bank’s. Both laid the infrastructure and risked to become dumb pipes to the Internet 2.0 companies like Facebook. Let’s stop and think what flows in this pipes? Data. Data that if properly understood can generate money. AOL increased its revenue by US$300 million, which was a 50% Increase in 1 quarter, “just” by adding data analytic from Verizon to its ISP business.

    What about E-commerce platforms? Sesame Credit in China is now used not just to originate loans, but to instead sell you non-financial products and services. Your credit score is an asset that can be traded for a better service, and the BATs are brokering that. They make money by taking a fee on selling a better hotel room as opposed to post more regulatory capital for originating a loan (note: this was in 2015!). In both case they used the same credit score.

    FinTech to TechFin represents a shifting trend that China has simply leapfrogged.

    We are going towards a new industrial epoch coined by Professor Klaus Schwab, who designated it the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution.’ According to his book, the previous three eras had the following as juncture points: First, 1784 with the creation of the steam engine. Second, 1870 marked by the introduction of electricity, and third, 1969 signified the rise of communications and IT systems. 

    Today, we are entering an era of data analytics and artificial intelligence. These in turn transform data from simply a byproduct of human interaction into a core commodity for economic growth. Data has been designated ‘the new oil’ because it pushes companies to “find, extract, refine and monetize it.

    We are indeed at the beginning of a new cycle simply because less than 1% of the world’s data is analyzed, with over 80% is unprotected.

    Starting with Data Protection. From a regulatory perspective this creates a direct challenge. Data Privacy laws were designed with human in minds. However today this is irrelevant.

    “Computers can’t abstractly reason nearly as well as people, but they can process enormous amounts of data ever more quickly (if you think about it, this means that computers are better at working with meta-data than they are handling conversational data). […] Computing power is still doubling every eighteen months, while our species’ brain size has remained constant. Computers are already far better than people at processing quantitative data and they will continue to improve.” (Data & Goliath) 

    As for data analysis, deep learning is the new enabler. We all heard about Alpha Go beating world champion Lee Sedol. It is fascinating, however not fully disruptive.

    • Deep Mind is the start-up behind AlphaGo, acquired for GBP 242 Million in 2014.
    • Deep Blue was the IBM program started in 1985 that beats Garry Kasparov in 1997 at a cost of 5% of IBM Revenues
    • Watson beat the worlds best Jeopardy players in 2011 at a cost of US$ 1.8 billion

    If you want to run Watson software, irrespective of license cost you will need a US$1 million supercomputer? In other words – great headline but still very much boys with expensive toys.

    What is really disruptive is something else.

    • A university researcher has in 2015 taught in 72h its algorithm to go from 0 to win international chess tournament as part of its research project.

    In that example we have university resources matching a multimillion if not billion program. If we conceptualize it we are taking about commoditizing Deep Learning and AI and start-ups are already doing it.

    So here is the timeline of the future of FinTech:

    FinTech 1.0: Was about Infrastructure

    FinTech 2.0: Was about banks

    FinTech 3.0: What about Start-ups

    FinTech 4.0: Will be about TechFin

    The next time you look at your mobile phone don’t just use it for selfies. Realize that this item changed from a communication tool (3rd industrial revolution) to one of data collection and analysis (4th industrial revolution). You all hold the shift in your hands.

    Note: It can be debated that FinTech is just a service layer within the company value chain, especially as Ant Financial is an independent spin-off (but for transfering back 37% of profit to Alibaba).


    [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 1, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: banks, , shadow banking   

    Why Fintech has absolutely nothing to do with shadow banking 

    AAEAAQAAAAAAAAeRAAAAJDFiMzExNjlmLTZjMTAtNDY0Zi1iMzg0LWFlOWU1Y2UxM2M5OA

    Chances are some of the thoughts that come to mind when hearing the concept ‘’ relates to bank opacity, excessive risk-taking, malpractice, negligence or fraud. Unsurprisingly, the term is often abused by which often place (particularly lenders) under such shadow banking umbrella.

    The concept got itself a bad name as a symbol of the many failings of the financial system leading up to the global crisis. Indeed it was coined by Paul McCulley (former Pimpco’s chief economist) in 2007 when describing the securitisation of mortgages, which fell out of the supervisor’s sight. You may have probably heard of it in the news when referring to those reckless bank-like businesses that were not regulated as banks.

    Regulators like the Financial Stability Board (an international body that monitors and makes recommendations about the global financial system) are trying to describe and define the economic activities that should fall under this shadow banking label. Although the concept is still evolving, the FSB has defined it as “credit intermediation involving entities and activities (fully or partly) outside the regular banking system” (e.g.  maturity/liquidity transformation, imperfect credit risk transfer and/or leverage). Once we have disentangled the meaning of this sentence, it becomes clear that Fintech has nothing to do with such activities.

    This definition refers to non-bank institutions (i.e. non prudentially regulated institutions) that take funds and/or securities from investors and lend them out to borrowers. This pretty straightforward process could involve very complex financial instruments (derivatives, asset back securities, repurchase agreements…), but let’s keep it simple. Investors loan the money to the non-bank institution which in turn lends it out to the borrower. This activity is called credit intermediation and involves some credit risk for the intermediary institution since it would be the one exposed to the borrower’s potential default. Besides, this process usually involves maturity transformation, i.e. when the intermediary borrows short-term funds from investors and makes long-term loans. Such risky business requires a very exhaustive management of liquidity risks (otherwise the institution may incur maturity mismatches).

    As you can see, these activities and processes (which again, I tried to simplify) are quite similar to what traditional banks do in their lending business. The main difference relies on the fact that funds attracted by the banks come not only from investors, but from retail depositors (who are covered by the deposit guarantee scheme and cannot take losses) which in turn are fueled to a great extent to the real economy (especially SMEs). That is why they are subject to much more strict (prudential) regulation and need to have liquidity and capital requirements.

    Does Fintech fall under such a definition then? Although this ecosystem involves a wide range of different financial activities, it is pretty clear that a huge proportion of them (e.g. money transfer, FX, equity funding, retail currents accounts, mobile payments…) cannot be described as shadow banks according to the FSB’s definition.

    And what about lending? Similar answer. Through peer to peer lending firms, which have evolved to become marketplace lending platforms, investors’ funds are matched directly to specific borrowers (which will vary depending on the risk appetite of the lender), so there is no credit intermediation. The credit risk is not held by the p2p institution but by every individual investor since each of them would be responsible for the potential default of the matched borrowers. This is known as credit disintermediation and the role of p2p institutions here is more limited to providing the agents with both a platform for undertaking this matching and a risk management service that analyses the trustworthiness and the credit risk of all the parties involved. What follows is that, unlike traditional banks (and unlike other credit intermediaries that would be classified as shadow banks), there is no money creation (i.e. no money multiplier), no possibility for maturity mismatches (since lenders and borrowers are synchronised) and no leverage. Bank runs are not possible, neither in the modern Northern Rock style nor in the classical bank run style since the lenders are not on-demand depositors. Again, investors risk their money according to their risk profile and are directly responsible for the losses of the borrowers.

    Two conclusions can be drawn from this. First, that neither the Fintech ecosystem nor the Fintech lending industry can be defined as shadow banking according to the FSB’s definition. Second, that p2p lending regulation should differ from traditional banks’ prudential rules since both undertake different activities, are exposed to different risks and pose different risks to the economy.

    This debate is independent of whether you defend that ‘Unregulated Shadow Banks Are a Ticking Time Bomb’ or that ‘Shadow Banks Are Not a Source of Systemic Risk’. However, since the term is still going to be used in the public and the regulatory debate, and has such a negative connotation (due to the name itself and its roots), the least traditional banks could do is try to be more rigorous when making use of it, especially since the reputation of other businesses is at stake.


     [linkedinbadge URL=”https://www.linkedin.com/in/philippegelis”off” mode=”icon” liname=”Philippe Gelis“] is CEO at Kantox and this post was originally published on linkedin.

     
  • user 12:18 am on May 31, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: banks, , , Cyborgs, , , ,   

    Breaking Banks: Fintech Future — Cyborgs and Digital Currency 

    In this episode, Brett King is hosting one of the leaders in global revolution, David Orban. David is a fierce proponent of financial and government transparency. He is a founder/trustee of the Network Society Research, member and advisor of Singularity University, as well as the founder of Dotwords. Today,Read More
    Bank Innovation

     
  • user 6:53 pm on May 30, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: banks, DBS, fidor,   

    Banks, this is your Über moment 

    In case you missed it, 2016 is quickly becoming a year to remember in digital disruption of financial services. The two momentous events you need to look at are launching their mobile-only Digibank in India, and the upcoming launch of O2 Banking, the mobile lovechild of a startup and telco ( & Telefonica).

    What’s the story here? A sea change of digital banking. 

    These aren’t mobile banking apps.

    These are mobile-only .

    This is your Über moment

    You might be wondering what separates a startup like Fidor from a bank? Both offer a banking app. Both have banking licenses. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck?

    Cost. Massive, immovable cost. Human. Material. Immaterial. Everywhere. Glossy branches. Tellers. Automatic and human. Office towers with fountains. Commissioned sculptures. Armies of lawyers. Committees. Armies of middle managers. Committees about having more committees. Armies of auditors that audit the other armies.

    Banks spend an average 65% on branches, yet only 12% of interactions happen there

    Just like Über and taxi companies. Both have apps. Only one has massive fixed costs that prohibit scale. The other is mobile-only. Just a digital platform, that can scale almost infinitely. Ask yourself, are they on equal footing to compete in today’s marketplace? Tomorrow’s marketplace?

    Learn from DBS, or lose your footing

    Do what DBS did. It’s really that simple. They’re also a bank. They have branches, offices, fountains and tellers too. Yet they decided to try, well…  not being a bank.

    Digibank is a real digital bank. Mobile-only. No branchesJust an app. See here’s the difference with mobile-only. When you sign up, you don’t go to a branch. You tap. And you’re done.

    If a million customers decided to join DBS Digibank today, at the same exact time, it would take them a grand total of 90 seconds to become customers.

    Let that sink in… it stings, doesn’t it? How long does it take your bank to onboard a million customers? More than 90 seconds? Try 90 months. You’re toast.

    If their Digibank experiment works in India, do you think that’s the end of the story? Think again. In fact, it’s an extremely savvy insurance policy against disruption. If things go all Über, they’ll be right there, positioned to benefit. Positioned to remain relevant. Positioned to stay alive.

    If you wait, Telefonica will teach you a hard lesson

    The onslaught is already under way. In cubicles around the world, developers are hatching their evil plans to launch digital banks. They didn’t ask your permission. They don’t sit on your committees. They don’t work for you. They don’t work for your competitors. They work for startups, telcos, eCommerce giants, chat apps, you name it. 

    They’re going to make you look like a taxi company. What are you going to do about it?


    [linkedinbadge URL=”https://sg.linkedin.com/pub/aki-ranin/8/b9b/719?trk=cws-ppw-member-0-0″ connections=”off” mode=”icon” liname=”Aki Ranin”], is Commercial Director at Tigerspike and this article was originally published on linkedin

     
  • user 6:00 am on May 30, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , banks, , ,   

    Digitised Bank Payments – Their Struggle Saga with Friend FinTech 

    AAEAAQAAAAAAAAdlAAAAJDEyZTZmN2EyLTY5MjItNDEwNi04OWYzLWY4NDBiMThkYjc5Mw

    Abstract – This article is neither a conclusion nor a claim by any means this is just an assumption and current picture focused on African markets. Idea for this write up is to explorer, read, enjoy, deliberate and put suggestions or new thoughts/ideas on table offcourse comments in agreement/disagreement are welcome. The evolution of financial systems has been a long but interesting journey characterised by sudden changes in underlying . Retail in Africa is far from where it should have been never followed the natural progression. Financial and banking started in a very inefficient and traditional way which was slow but still acceptable to the customers due to the stage in the information age.

    Experts in any form of payments like mobile, Internet, paper or card should not get disappoint after reading this as said its not meant for detailed or deeper understanding. Focus here is on high level discussion and showing what is happening payment industry and contribution/future impact by , MNO, MFS Companies and  well known campuses for all type of payments i.e mobile, internet, paper, plastic cards and even vouchers. There are lucrative but under-utilised banking opportunities in Africa and banks in the region need to step up and grasp these opportunities to succeed. Banking definition as per me  “beautiful and useful phenomena” and for Bank to define it would be “long long ago; a big building use to employe lots of people and consume too much space, money, power, and IT machines but use to works very slow and for very limited time of day and weeks”.

    Introduction – Initially, almost all the fun & joy in the financial banking services (except non-banking services) space was attributable to banks with all the revenue being collected by the same entities. With advancement in technology, organisations outside the banking industry diversified into financial services targeting margins in the space. These were organisations servicing millions of customers through broad distribution channels, be they mobile operators, retailers or on-line merchants. If we had any global ministry of innovation for regulation and control then for sure on date cash will be only the single king. A small study on Informal Financial System of Indonesia depicts very clearly; there are three products/services which are key in Indonesian market “Savings, Loans and Remittances (Domestic[Money traveling from cities to villages & International)” which are also a key products for banks but due to bank mind set of playing with BIG/LARGE figures this will never rise up well.

    If Reserve Banks, Regulator, Fintech companies and MNO plays well then this market size can grow up to approximately for about billion USD a month and can grow to even much higher. Following few crisis, most countries have increased monitoring and regulation on banks.elf regulation upto an extend by FinTech service providers really pushing hard to change the world; entrepreneurs are leading a pack of disrupters, most of them raised in the shadow of companies like PayPal, who wants to change business relationship to money forever. BaaS came as friend for all such companies to break Banks attitude as they were long seen as a highly technical, highly complex with rocket science technology using industry, employing Finantists (Financial Scientists), highly regulated industry dominated by giant banks that were only doing one thing that was to resist disruption. Banking as a Service (BaaS) on Banking as a Platform(BaaP) can be provided by any one.

    Main Story – Africa is dealing with the challenges of putting in place efficient, secure, low cost operating models, centralised operations, multichannel and multi-product capabilities coupled with low price, lighter and lean operating models. According to a study by Google available on various links, 80% of Africa’s total adult population do not have access to any form of formal financial services. FinTech’s (Under cover by MNO’s) in Africa are winning the race due to their focus and attitude of “be my customer” as opposed to the banks “who is eligible to be my customer” approach. MNO’s speed to achieve their goal to standardise, automate, digitise, remove boundaries by brining cross order financial/remittances service in form of payments, cash, airtime, paperless and online. At the same time banks are still in their canteens with their coffee mugs without any sign of worry but in reality all African banks face tough challenges from MNO’s & Fintech players.

    The role of informal institutions in providing financial services to the members of the community, and concludes by highlighting the opportunities these are present for formal financial service providers but in order to ensure accessibility of banking services, a bank has to have a wide branch network of fully branded brick and mortar marble banking halls with all the necessary security systems. The set up costs of these are so high and to recoup the same, the bank has to pass on the cost to the ultimate consumer. Times have changed and with change comes opportunity. Over the past few years, the face of financial payments in most developing countries has taken a radical change from a bank model to an FinTech (backed by MNO) company dominated model. This change has brought about financial inclusion to most marginalised citizens and has greatly brought efficiency in the payment industry. This article will focus on why banks mobile banking can never out beat MNOs mobile money and happy to get feedback in agreement or against with reasons as these are pure my own views. Accessibility is a critical success factor for any service.

    Banks on the other hand have limited operating hours and for those who have utilised technology by diffusing access to service from banking halls have a great limitation of country borders. MNO makes money on transactions but banks earns on money remain in account (Though this model has changed completely for most of African countries). MNOs on the other hand have embraced the concept of an extensive agent network at minimal cost. MNOs agent network is usually dense with at least 1 agent for every 1km radius. Customer does not need to travel long distances or fork out any money access an agent and perform agent centred transactions. Due to the nature of business, FinTech’s have excelled in “24×7, around the globe, use me” phenomena. This assures timeless and borderless access to services which provides for ease of use, more transactions and higher revenue for the MNOs.

    In order for any business to thrive, it has to observe a wide cost to revenue ratio, however banks are subject to a high customer acquisition cost at $10 to $100 per customer whereas MNOs stand at between $2 and $10. This acquisition cost has a ripple effect on the charging structure throughout the life cycle of the relationship between the bank and the customer. Naturally, when the cost of customer acquisition is high, the resultant transactional cost will follow the same trend. The cost of transacting on a banking platform is very high compared to transacting on a Mobile Money platform. – MNO’s interest in retaining subscriber is more then banks by giving service which may or may not generate revenue and always try to run promotions around same to win back. Usually the cost of setup and signage is borne by the agent itself in a bid to be more visible and to attract more customers as revenue is highly dependent on the volume of transactions pushed by the agent.

    This is the time when customer centricity, financial inclusion and customer serving infrastructure (Agents, Merchants, Billers, Remittance partner’s network) should be the top agenda for banks in Africa but sadly it is not. Banks wants to run only behind high value with high dollar value transactions not dollar or two dollar value transactions. Banks in the region only continue to develop strategies to achieve sustainable growth which may not materialise as of now since it looks like the only strategy nothing beyond that. At the same time without a doubt I need to be honest as well with specific examples wherein a Bank is trying to jump the MNO’s role with the idea of strengthening and furthering financial inclusion. Kenya’s Equity Bank, Kenya & South Africa’s FNB bank opted to be a Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO). 

    A few golden rules/bullet points to get quick wins;

    • Needs to focus outside “digital and social media channel” i.e focus on radio, road show with village communities, focus on groups with in local language and style
    • Trust local people to act as brand ambassadors for increasing customer loyalty and trust
    • Focus on creating a cost-effective and efficient operating model is the golden key
    • Carefully thought through branch expansion verses setting up an agent network
    • Managing risk, security, compliance and bringing it up to global standard
    • Leveraging mobile as primary medium for transactions and queries and online banking
    • Technology enabled customer engagement and continuous innovation
    • A complete set of counter-measures against Money Laundering and the financing of terrorism and proliferation, covering the required legal, regulatory and operational measures through and through knowledge set
    • In-depth knowledge & willingness to attain knowledge on principles for mobile financial services Infrastructures.
    • Understanding and willingness to attain in depth knowledge and hands-on core banking platform integration with MFS systems, architecture, banking grade switching and rules around same

    The world is currently facing an economic crisis and most people are living on a hand to mouth basis. Banks go against the economic tide by encouraging savings (Which is correct and required for country economy and betterment of each person life) while MNOs encourage spending. There is little savings and investment in most countries hence most citizens spend whatever they earn on basic survival requirements. MNOs were quick to realise this and enabled ease of payment for most commodities through merchant payment facilities and payment for most utilities and bills through bill payment services. In case of New Start up – MNO helped boost GDP by helping people with the will to startup their own business and grow, free consultation and support – “You Grow – I Grow” philosophy. For Distribution Channels Money distribution should be treated as distribution of cigarettes, coke & water bottles; which MNO can do easily with flexibility and Banks never thought of creating Agent networks where MNO’s Key success factor is Agent Banking only, on Limits side MNO Finical services limits set on upper limit and for Banks its on lower values. So MNO whole game is on Volume and Bank only wants value

    MNOs run exhibit a high affinity to retain subscribers than banks. This is observed by the multiple promotions which may or may not be revenue generating and encourages customer win back. An MNO can run as much as 3 promotions per quarter while banks could go for a year without any activity simulating promotion. Banks have generally been found lacking in the areas of innovation, technology utilisation and adoption. A typical bank will review the architecture of their banking system once every 5 years while MNOs employ solution architecture who work hand in hand with their product development and innovation arms to deliver efficient and relevant solutions which meet the needs of the market. Suppliers of core banking systems have kept the system eco system as complex as rocket science which makes integration to other systems a nightmare. This is in opposition to the open API approach adopted by MNOs. Most countries have slackened regulation on MNOs while banks are subject to stringent regulation by respective central banks and deposit protection bodies. Banks were known to be the centre of most economies financial transactions and in order to ensure stability to economies, most governments maintain a close watch on transactions in the formal payment system.

    This education encompasses the knowledge, attitudes, skills and behaviours of consumers with regard to managing their resources and understanding, selecting, and making use of financial services that fit their needs. Mobile financial service providers i.e MNOs or Banks or even Independent MFS companies can succeed by focusing on some key areas to hold a much better position from today to tomorrow. Because financial capability is a relatively new area, alternative definitions and approaches to its measurement exist in parallel. The term “financial literacy” refers to one aspect of financial capability—the knowledge and awareness of financial concepts and products. The framework developed for the financial inclusion and financial services for unbanked communities differ country to country and different service providers (Banks, MNO and FS/FinTech companies). Relaxed regulation allows MNOs to diversify and tap into financial services while banks find it difficult to venture into any other industry outside the usual core financial payments.

    Most regulators impose stringent KYC requirements for account opening on banks. These requirements form a wide spectrum spanning from proof of residence, copy of ID, confirmation of employment to assure source of funds and a passport sized photo. Most citizens fall short on some of these requirement and failure to meet any one of the above immediately makes one ineligible to open an account. This places banks at a disadvantage because most people operate outside the formal employment system hence lack part of the account opening prerequisites. The relationship between customer and bank is a relationship of trust, any customer deposit held by the bank is a liability which has to be honoured whenever it falls due. Some banks have failed to manage liquidity risk resulting in them being placed under curatorship by the respective regulators. Such a move has catastrophic effects of disrupting the banks ecosystem as bank hold cross investments with each other.

    The informal trade market size is estimated to be worth around $7.4 billion for most African countries(Based on assumptions and reading on internet articles). Banks have a restrictive approach when it comes to on boarding customers. When one approaches a bank with a request, be it a new account opening or a loan request, they are subjected to rigorous checks and processes which frustrate would be customers. This “who is eligible to be my customer” approach results in a low on boarding rate for banks. MNOs on the other hand use a “please be my customer” approach which proves to be a hit as they on board multiple subscribers daily. For this reason, MNOs are more inclined to tap into both the formal and the informal sectors of the economy while banks concentrate on the formal sector. Informal sectors prove to be more profitable than formal sectors because they push high volume, low value transactions.

    The restrictive KYC requirements can also be applied in a tiered approach depending on the value at risk and the transactional volume of the account. A number of banks in Africa have embarked on agency banking to increase their footprint in the operating countries. MNOs through underlying banks, have started giving instant loans using online credit rating systems basing on credit data, transactional data, tenure with the MNO, daily spend and other conditions. Banks take days to approve loans as they have a low risk appetite. The telecoms business is also characterised by a high rate of churn as subscribers switch operators looking for favourable deals. Some countries have adopted number portability where subscribers maintain their number when they switch operators.

    Banked customers on the other hand have a lot of thinking and clearance to do before changing banks because a number of financial services like loans, investments and mortgages are coupled to their bank account number. In order to improve profitability and gain relevance in the mobile payment space, banks should invest more in market research and gather the requirements of the markets they operate in. this is easily achieved by setting up a dedicated R and D division and allocating an adequate budget for this cause. Basing on the closed nature of core banking systems, banks can separate a mobile money system from the core banking system to achieve the flexibility required from a mobile payment system.

    AAEAAQAAAAAAAAPnAAAAJDA1MWZlYjRlLWYxNGItNDY1Mi1hOTc4LWJiZmRmMWI2Yjg5MwConclusions: Running on unknown path without roadmap or direction with due respect running like a headless chicken often result in disasters. I personally have seen and taken part in programs to build my experience or hands on mastery in such situations where Mobile Payments or Mobile Wallet based Cross Border remittances support country economy and proven in 100% confidence level that when it came to the crunch, many countries including Greece, Cyprus & Italy had no choice but to accept rescue terms that affected not only bank bondholders and shareholders – but many thousands of private deposit holders. Their cash or savings were simply scalped and went to help fund the closure of one bank and the propping up of others. Opportunities are countless; one who seizes them first gets the upper hand. Thanks to regulation and central bank support through the Ministry of Innovation. Get up, spread your wings and grab as much sky (I guess there is no more land left) as you can. 

    These policies from Ministries of Innovation MNOs are the best admirer and advantage takers. Sadly for majority of the banks this is still unknown path and some not a preferred route. The so-called “haircut” imposes comes along the way that helps in worsening the problem in negative smiley way. Solution that is hastily designed to fall with large sums in offshore accounts can be avoided very well with MFS. Mobile Payments expected to explode beyond 3 trillion euros by 2020 , Mobile Money save 2 billion USD for few African countries , Mobile Money is not just cash in , cash out via agents any more or P2P money transfer Africa have given new and very different dimension and speed of like blink of eyes , getting Money from UK, US or any where in the world within seconds around 24X7 directly to your wallets , all bill payments, merchant payments, loans, insurance …. and never stopping or ending story. 

    Banks need to take a radical change from their current modus operandi in order to beat MNOs in the field of mobile payments or else take back seat as clerk for reconciliations and accounting units and regulator should allow MFS companies to innovate and bring new solutions and products in no time and make customers life easy, less costly and much faster. I guess banks still looks like banks but shift in paradigm and model so if need to transact more or above $10,000. In nutshell retail is almost underwater and corporate still have chance and time.

    ================ About the Author ================

    Read about Author  at : About Me   

    Thank you all, for spending your time reading this post. Please share your feedback / comments / critics / agreements or disagreement / remark for more details about posts, subjects and relevance please read the disclaimer.

    Facebook Page                Twitter              Blog                   Linkedin Pulse  

     
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