Tagged: banks Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • user 3:35 pm on May 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , banks, , , , , , ,   

    Morgan Stanley Shares Roadmap for Blockchain Adoption 

    While the long-term opportunity offered by is clear, widespread by financial institutions will take between 5 and 10 years from now, according to .

    Morgan Stanley Global Insight blockchain techIn a new report entitled &;Global Insight: Blockchain in Banking: Disruptive Threat or Tool?&;, Morgan Stanley a timeline for blockchain adoption.

    The financial services firm believes 2016-2018 will be the years during which and corporations will be testing use cases of blockchain. These proof-of-concept tests will be aimed at assessing if blockchain can scale and effectively reduce costs.

    During the years 2017-2020, we will begin to see shared infrastructure emerge, with proven assets being adopted well beyond the initial proof-of-concept stage.

    Between 2021-2025, more assets will move onto blockchain as efficiencies prove out.

    Morgan Stanley's roadmap for adoption of blockchain by financial institutions

     

    Use cases being explored

    According to a report by Magister Advisors, financial institutions are expected to spend over US$ 1 billion on blockchain projects in 2017.

    Among the proposed applications, blockchain is expected to provide greater efficiencies for post-trade settlement and change in title, but also trade finance, international payments and regulatory.

    Post-trade settlement: A distributed ledger could enhance the audit function as specific securities are more easily tracked. The technology could enable all participants to see where the documents are in the sequenced approval process. Additionally, there are opportunities to shorten the settlement window which would allow for lower costs to trade.

    Trade finance: Using a blockchain would allow all parties to see when the goods have been shipped and release funding appropriately.

    International payments: Moving to a blockchain would shorten settlement periods, speed up transactions and reduce the risk of fraud.

    Reference data: Blockchain technology could offer significant efficiencies to transactors by holding reference data for individual securities.

    Regulatory: A blockchain hosting the data for regulator could be more efficient for banks assessing the data intra-firm as well as for regulators wanting to compare their regulated entities.

     

    10 challenges to overcome

    While blockchain technology has the potential to offer many benefits for the financial industry, there are still key hurdles to surmount before blockchain implementation becomes a reality.

    Use case cost benefit: Given the high cost of building a blockchain system, an proposed use must have a position return on invested capital.

    Cost mutualization: If a shared blockchain were to work like an interoperable industry utility, banks would need to share the cost of building the infrastructure, which could be a challenge.

    Aligning incentives: In the case of a shared blockchain, different entities may have conflicting priorities.

    Evolving to the right standards.

    Maintaining scalability: A blockchain must scale effectively from proof-of-concept to succeed, a key reason why most new blockchain proposals are looking at a range of rules, including ones that restrict users or centralize all, or part, of the blockchain.

    Governance: A blockchain would need a governing body to decide who can access the blockchain and who are in charge of maintenance.

    Regulation: The challenge of regulating digital identities and cross-border standards would need to be addressed.

    Legal risks (KYC/AML): Banks and policymakers need close control for KYC and AML issues. Finding a single digital identity passport authorizer will be key

    Security: Banks will have to perform extensive research to ensure that any blockchain they implement is at least as resilient as their current infrastructure against attack.

    Simplicity: Blockchain solutions need to be uncomplicated and easy to understand. They also need to interface with other parts of the parts of the technology chain seamlessly, enabling faster set-up time, training time and fixing time.

     

    Featured image: Morgan Stanley in Canary Wharf by Gordon Bell, via Shutterstock.com.

    The post Morgan Stanley Shares Roadmap for Blockchain Adoption appeared first on Fintech Schweiz Digital Finance News – FintechNewsCH.

    Fintech Schweiz Digital Finance News – FintechNewsCH

     
  • user 10:47 am on May 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: banks, , ,   

    Fintech investment frenzy. Or just another way to make money – just what are the bank’s up to? Sink, swim or just richer? 

    AAEAAQAAAAAAAAjOAAAAJGQ0M2U2ZGJmLTlmMzItNDdjZS1iMjk2LTI5MWFhYzVmOGI0MQ

    London is the innovation centre of the world, and there is an inherent belief that these new start up firms are going to be the saviours of the broken and dysfunctional global banking sector. Right here, right now, everyone wants a piece of the burgeoning Fintech action – which brings to mind the immortal words of Del boy, the nations much loved cowboy trader – “Rodders, with a bit of luck if this goes well, this time next year we’ll be millionaires.”

    Whilst on the surface, the new Fintech frenzy is intoxicating, and potentially game changing for the , the new service providers and for the early investors alike – is it really everything it’s cracked up to be? Go back some 16 years, and to me, what’s going on now feels a bit like the dot.com ‘boom and bust scenario’ we experienced in the early ’00s. A time peppered with telephone number valuations based on no track record of success and with multimillion investment dollars available to anyone with a ‘good idea’. Undoubtedly at the time some got lucky and cleaned up, but overall very few people really profited from that particular overhyped bubble.

    Fast forward to today. Pick up every newspaper, tap into any social media channel, and turn on the TV and they are full of stories and sound bites evangelizing the ‘amazing opportunities’ and potentially mouthwatering valuations that the new world of 21st century fintech potentially offers. Sound familiar? My fear is that just like at the beginning of the new millennium when a plethora of new businesses were launched in a fanfare and then almost overnight failed dramatically, leaving many people badly burnt and out of pocket. All in all it was a bloodbath which pretty much plunged us all into a global recession. Have we learnt anything from that unhappy situation, or are we in danger of the banks, the vendors and investors blindly repeating the same mistakes all over again?

    The much heralded Level 39, Accenture led, initiative in Canary Wharf has been aggressively promoting the advantages of the new Fintech firms for sometime now. Everyday across the world financial institutions are setting up investment vehicles or incubator funds designed to provide finance for the new players, and cash rich family offices from all four corners of the globe have also jumped onto the investment bandwagon. Added to this, the advantageous tax breaks offered, by the UK government, in the form of SEIS and EIS schemes to private individuals is further fueling the fintech investment frenzy. On paper, it looks fantastic, or is it? Just how exactly, does this translate into meaningful and profitable business relationships between the banks and the new players and also provide a reasonable return to the investor community? And let’s be clear just as way back in the Dotcom days, quite frankly some of the ideas were completely nuts and did not have a snowballs chance in hell of ever succeeding, the same is true today for many of the new start firms. So buyer beware.

    Consumers at all levels have never been so empowered and are demanding change, completely fed up with being being penalised for years of under investment or in some cases downright illegal practices by the banks. Trust had gone completely out of the window – and it will be a long and rocky road before confidence in the banking sector is restored, if ever. Actions speak louder than words – and the banks need to be seen to be taking action now. To address these negative perceptions many financial firms have embarked on global marketing and advertising ‘charm offensive’ campaigns, spending millions of dollars designed to convince customers that they really are ethical upstanding members of society. But one only has too look at recent examples such as the outrageous behaviour of the outgoing chairman of the supposedly uber ethical Cooperative bank, the shenanigans at Barclays under the tutelage of Mr Diamond and the tax evasion scandal at HSBC, to know this is always going to be an uphill struggle. While bad behaviour prevails, despite all the new rules and regulations – all the advertising spend in all the world will not change a thing until the consumer sees a positive change in terms of acceptable service capabilities, fairer commercial engagements and as importantly – respect.

    It’s no secret, banks desperately need to innovate in order to survive and prosper in the harsh new world, post the 2008 financial meltdown and are no longer enjoying their once impeachable monopoly over the business of banking. , chat rooms, the rise of the smaller more agile challenger banks, the growing number of alternative payment service providers, not to mention global giants such as Google, Apple and Amazon, all these guys are no longer just nibbling around the edges, but are in fact taking bite size chunks out of a traditional and once protected banking enclave.

    But the $640,000 question (taking inflation into account) is do the established financial firms have wherewithal and courage to make the wholesale changes required to stay in the game? And its not just about implementing new technologies, it’s as much about transforming the traditional business models, as well implementing a complete overhaul of the legacy cultures and sharp practices which have dogged the industry for so many years. Arrogance is no longer tolerated.

    Money is allegedly being poured into ‘fixing’ aged and constantly failing systems. RBS continues to be the poster child of broken infrastructure horror stories, with the likes of Nationwide and Barclays Bank not far behind. The inability of any financial institution to process vital transactions, such as salary receipts, standing orders and mortgage payments is nigh on criminal. And the standard response to these addressing these outages – is to allocate a few million quid to ‘patch up ‘ the problem. But therein is the crux of the matter – this make do and mend attitude is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard . Whilst I am pretty sure there are some amazing transformation initiatives already in play – what are they and where are they happening? And why are they so secretive about what’s going on? Job protection, not invented here, fear of change and sometimes downright inertia are all cited as potential reasons as to why change is so slow in coming. But there is a clear and very present danger that if the banks stay in the slow lane for much longer there may be very few jobs left to protect.

    These days there is an awful lot of talk about transparency, but how does that work when most banks cast a complete shroud of secrecy over their internal operations. And how is that helpful? The continuing refusal to support the good work being delivered by vendors has always baffled me. User evidence is king, and in my long experience of this sector, most banks, before making any purchasing decisions always want to know who else within their peer group is already using the product or service, and sadly in the main they refuse to disclose. The excuse of not giving away competitive advantage just doesn’t wash. Surely it’s what you do with the technology, the robustness of ones internal processes and how one collaborates with the provider is actually the secret sauce of success.

    Many of the start up organisations will not have live references to present, and those more established firms with satisfied customers face the same challenge.

    if this aversion to supporting third party providers persists, it creates yet another barrier to success, and just as we saw back in the dot.com day, far too many of these new smaller, innovative businesses who could help to make the changes so desperately needed will go under. And with them goes those hard earned investment dollars as well.

    Which brings one almost full circle – is the Fintech investment frenzy really being viewed as a serious strategic opportunity? Are funds internally really being allocated to implement the innovative new service offerings for the good of the customer and shareholders alike. Can the new world vendors deliver against their promises? And will the banks really ever embrace the much talked about concept of openness and transparency?

    Or is the sad truth they are just another ‘get rich quickly vehicle’ which will enable the banks to grab potentially massive returns without actually having to fundamentally change anything? My fear is that it’s more of the latter. And so spare a thought for Poor Delboy and Rodders, and everyone else who invests, if the status quo continues, dreams of being millionaires by Christmas will always remain a pipe dream.


     [linkedinbadge URL=”https://uk.linkedin.com/in/clare-walsh-5972143″ connections=”off” mode=”icon” liname=”Clare Walsh”], is consultant and this article was originally published on linkedin

     
  • user 3:38 am on May 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: banks, , FINRA, , IOSCO, , ,   

    FCA, IOSCO and FINRA to regulate FinTech and Blockchain 

    In the aftermath of the financial crisis 2007-09, financial regulators across the world implemented tighter controls on the majority of sectors within the financial services industry. One of the reasons for their activism may have been the lot criticism regulators have received for often being ineffective when it mattered most.

    In any case, the onus lying on regulatory bodies to ensure fairness within financial markets is now greater than ever. And one of the lessons learnt over the last eight years or so, regulators are today more alert to the far-reaching implications of the industry.

     

    The booming industry

    Investment in the booming sector tripled to over $ 12bn last year and is expected to hit $ 46bn by 2020. Given such explosive growth, the immediate challenge for regulators is how to keep up with the industry’s development and ensure consumer protection is maintained, particularly when many FinTech sectors, such as peer-to-peer lending, operate outside of the traditional regulatory space for financial services. Indeed, this is the view taken by David Wright, secretary general of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (), the global standards setter for the securities sector which brings together the world’s securities regulators.

    Wright warned in October that regulators across the world need to quickly become au fait with the FinTech revolution, otherwise it will be too difficult to implement reform on areas such as clearing, settlement and collateral management further down the road, once the floodgates have opened. While praising FinTech’s ability to provide credit to small companies, Wright has urged the need to address the possible risks, adding that the IOSCO needs “to get up to speed very, very quickly”.

    The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), a non-governmental regulatory body whose mission is to ensure the successful operation of financial markets, has been one of the most pro-active authorities in responding to FinTech growth. Christopher Woolard, the FCA’s director of strategy and competition, recently outlined three major challenges that regulatory bodies need to consider when facing FinTech:

    1. What do we think about the emergence of ‘-advice’?
    2. What are the benefits and risks of ?
    3. Can help solve some of the problems we face around identifying customers and combatting financial crime in a more frictionless way?

    It has also been just over one year since the FCA launched Project Innovate, an initiative designed to effectively engage with FinTech innovators, and as part of the project, the FCA has also created Innovation Hub which more specifically provides support for innovation in financial services. A team of FCA staff guides FinTech start-ups through the process of regulatory authorisation and then provides support for one year after receiving approval. The FCA will also explore how regulation can continue to be adapted to encourage growth without sacrificing consumer protection.

     

    Regulatory Sandbox

    Most recently, the FCA has emerged with the idea of a ‘regulatory sandbox’, effectively a controlled ‘playground’ environment where UK start-ups who are currently unauthorised to conduct business within the financial services industry can test their new products without having to apply for a full license. The FCA’s chief executive Martin Wheatley has perhaps best described the UK regulatory approach towards FinTech: “Innovation can benefit consumers; whether by reducing hassle, reducing costs, or improving products. So we want to ensure that regulation unlocks these benefits, rather than blocks them”.

    Global regulators also appear to be creating specific institutional initiatives, much like the FCA, to ensure they can work alongside FinTech companies as closely as possible. For example, Malaysia’s Securities Commission launched the Alliance of Fintech Community in September, a project in which the regulator intends to promote the country’s network of FinTech stakeholders, in order to drive growth and innovation. It also seeks to provide regulators with more clarity about the way in which to promote financial innovation responsibly.

    The commission’s chairman Ranjit Ajit Singh believes that the regulator “could play a facilitator’s role in a number of ways – be it by assisting businesses in navigating the regulatory environment, sponsoring accelerator programmes or strengthening the venture capital and private equity ecosystem to provide much-needed financing for FinTech entrepreneurs”.

     

    What is Asia regulating?

    Asian regulators, similarly, are keen to support the development of FinTech during this crucial growth phase. At the World Capital Markets Symposium in September, which brought together regulators from across the region, many policymakers emphasized that they must strike the right balance between promoting innovation and protecting market participants. Liu Jun, head of the Research Centre at the China Securities Regulatory Commission, believes that the Chinese government is adopting “a so-called laid-back approach in dealing with FinTech companies…allowing market forces to do their decision making process”, and adding that “the authorities watch closely but don’t want to intervene the consumer-facing industry”.

    However, the reality is that China’s regulatory authorities have been far from reticent when proposing potential market intermediation. Indeed, the Chinese central bank is currently mulling over whether to impose a cap on online transactions as a way to curb the growth of China’s exploding mobile payments and third-party payments market (which includes notable FinTech firms such as Alibaba).

    For Australian regulators, trust and confidence for the investing public appears to be top of their priority list. John Price, commissioner of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), recently asserted that without the trust and confidence promoted by regulatory bodies, ‘investors, consumers and participants in the financial services sector, including FinTech start-ups, are less likely to participate in it”.

    Indeed, in much of its literature to date, the ASIC has taken a more risk-averse approach to FinTech innovation than a number of its peers in that it appears to determine potential risks to investors first before proceeding with discussions about collaboration.

    On balance, the UK’s FCA appears to be leading the global regulatory discussion on FinTech – undoubtedly due to its status as a hub for both finance and technology, and regardless of the fact that the overwhelming amount of FinTech investment still originates from the US. This means that the position of US regulators on FinTech still carries the most weight from a global perspective. The director of the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Richard Cordray has emphasised the need for the legal and regulatory framework to keep up effectively with FinTech “so that all consumers can be well served and remain protected, whether they are opening their wallet or scanning the screen on their smartphone&;.

    Thomas Curry, the US Comptroller of the Currency (the top regulator for national ) has also recommended that policymakers remain alert, noting that some FinTech innovations &;signify real points of departures that will require a significant amount of scrutiny to ensure that they can be offered safely and soundly, consistent with applicable laws and regulations, and in a way that ensures adequate consumer protections&8221;.

     

    Conclusion

    The cost of regulation and compliance is often one of the biggest hurdles for new FinTech companies to overcome. Therefore, it makes sense that while the industry is in a significant growth phase, the regulatory burden is not so heavy as to unnecessarily choke off innovation. Furthermore, the role the FinTech firms will play in the finance industry, especially in relation to traditional financial institutions, has not yet been ascertained – will they largely be collaborative friends to big banking, or competitive foes? It is probable they will be both; nonetheless, FinTech’s growth has triggered alarm among banks who have voiced concerns that the regulatory playing field is becoming increasingly uneven. Addressing the disparities between the two industries on an international level is likely to be a key area of focus for regulators going forward.

    The post FCA, IOSCO and FINRA to regulate FinTech and Blockchain appeared first on Fintech Schweiz Digital Finance News – FintechNewsCH.

    Fintech Schweiz Digital Finance News – FintechNewsCH

     
  • user 12:19 am on May 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: AllinOne, banks, , , Whitelabel   

    Plastc Will Whitelabel All-in-One Cards for Banks 

     is &;in talks with major issuing ” to roll out a white labeled single issuer card for partnering banks, CEO Ryan Marquis told Bank Innovation. This move shows both an unexpected interest in this type of card from banks, and a new business model for a somewhat troubled product line.Read More
    Bank Innovation

     
  • user 9:35 am on May 23, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: banks, , ,   

    FinTech is not about disruption. It’s renovation. 

    AAEAAQAAAAAAAAeeAAAAJDc4MTM1NTU2LTFkZjYtNGIxZi1hYTY0LTRkZmIxOWI3ZmFhZA-2

    2016 is the year of big changes in .

    While VC investments have continued to rise in the first quarter of the year,many question marks are arising on real capacity of FinTech startup to build up enough critical mass and reach a long-term sustainable and scalable business model (see for instance the growing critics to pure web advisors and recent troubles of Lending Club). 

    Is it FinTech wave in trouble? Is it it’s disruption promise already dead?

    My own answer is that those who really thought that FinTech startup could disrupt and replace got it all wrong. Yet, at the same time those from banks who are thinking that resistance will prevail got it all wrong too.

    Banking is going under a major transformation since the arrival of internet. Digital banking, born at the end of last century in many geographies, is a reality and it is here to prove that banks can transform and embrace the digital world providing customers with the expected UX and solutions. There are so many examples, of digital first banks especially in Europe, Poland and Turkey leading the way, where they already enjoy millions of customers. Yet, digital banking is transforming itself and it is getting in to its second phase, converging with FinTech recent developments.

    From one side FinTech startups are starting to collaborate, consolidate, inevitably moving to a more sustainable marketplace banking model (partnering with banks and/or among themselves).

    AAEAAQAAAAAAAAkCAAAAJDQ2NWEzZTU4LWNkODktNGQ3Yi05ZGVkLTYxOWYxZjlmMWU4Mg

    On the other end the rise of open API banking and a pro-market regulation (see PSD2) is going to open up the doors also for banks, and especially for digital banks, to a broader, fruitful collaboration  also with FinTech companies. Digital banks are the best positioned to get the most of the second digital phase. New FinTech aggregators will arise too.

    In a nutshell, FinTech development will prove to be the new lifeblood to  digital banking, a second, stronger, broader, faster, stage where collaborations and partnerships will strongly increase (instead of disruption). M&A as well will see a strong hype (albeit not at the exit prices dreamed by investing VC just one year ago)  not just between banks (needed for efficiency and regulatory constraints) but also between FinTech companies and from Banks buying startups.

    This is not disruption, it is banking renovation on the go, thru the very strong impact of the and the customer oriented design brought by FinTech, that will shape up the financial services of the new century, and will transform banking. You may call it FinTech banking or Markeplace banking. 

    FinTech disruption is dead. Long live FinTech.


    [linkedinbadge URL=”https://www.linkedin.com/in/robertoferrari” connections=”off” mode=”icon” liname=”Roberto Ferrari”] is General Manager CheBanca!, Chairman of the board YellowFunds Sicav. This article was originally published on linkedin.

     
  • user 2:12 am on May 23, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , banks, , , , , , ,   

    How will marketplace lending become a mainstream investment asset class? 

    moneyhands A friend who recently started his own business couldn&;t obtain a mortgage from three . I suggested he try platforms like SoFi to take advantage of the ongoing innovation in . However, SoFi turned him down, as well, because it abides by the same underwriting rules as traditional banks. Like the banks, SoFi sells their mortgage loans to Fannie Mae. Read More


    fintech techcrunch

     
  • user 9:36 am on May 22, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: banks,   

    Did banks just become obsolete? 

    AAEAAQAAAAAAAAh-AAAAJGUyYWExOTg5LWFlMDktNDVkOC1hMWExLTY3MDlmYWY4MTBjZQ

    The hits are coming in for 2016, which is shaping to be The Year of . Just recently DBS launched Digibank, their forward thinking mobile only offering, and now Fidor and Telefonica have done something very similar in Germany. Although, there’s something missing here.. hmm, I can’t quite put my finger on it. Oh wait, I got it!!

    This is a real bank, yet
    there’s no bank involved!

    This is that watershed moment we’ve been waiting for. We will look back in a few years and think it normal to do banking without , but years of research, development, positioning, lobbying, legislation, failures and breakthroughs have taken place to get here. So let’s break it down. What the heck is so special here, isn’t this just another digital wallet…?

    Banks are so 2015

    I’ve already heard a few people compare this to previous tie-ups with banks and telcos. There are several examples around the world. In Singapore, the collaboration of Singtel and Standard Chartered springs to mind. There’s a natural synergy there, to provide simple mobile payment or wallet facilities through the telco channel. Co-branding and co-marketing. Throw in contactless for added innovation points. Yay. Yawn. It was solid marketing. Transformative? Disruptive? Not so much.

    AAEAAQAAAAAAAAc7AAAAJDc1ZmViZDBjLWQyNTItNDhjYy1hNmFmLTdjMzEzNGE5MzQ1NQ

    We’ll call you, don’t call us

    This is different. Instead of opting to leverage an established financial services brand, like a bank, Telefonica is effectively doing their own thing. By partnering with a startup in Fidor, they call the shots. Make no mistake, Fidor is a provider to Telefonica, not the other way around.

    For Telefonica, this move represents a new revenue stream, increased revenue per user, and opportunity to create stickiness with their customers. How many of their telco competitors also offer you banking services? Uhh. Yeah not many. Actually, ZERO! Globally! Not often you see that these days.

    Cool, so what is it, some kind of app right?

    Not a mobile wallet!

    Fidor has been busy for years building a complete offering, including their own banking license, which is a feat in and of itself. Yes this initial service is for Germany, but Fidor’s license is valid across Europe! Imagine that! When’s the last time you saw a Fintech startup in Asia with a license across the region? The answer is never! A few hopefuls like Bambu, Tryb and Marvelstone are paving the way…

    (photo credits: REUTERS/Lucas Jackson)

    broken wallet - photo credits: REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

    What mobile wallets are to Fidor

    That’s what makes this so different. It’s a real bank. Not a quasi financial wallet thingy that you have to top up at 7-Eleven, and can only buy things at compatible vendors with some special payment terminal. Pfft, I say! This is a real bank account, on your phone. Yes it’s an app, just an app. That means no branch, no queues, no crap. You get a virtual credit card by Mastercard, and they’re even doing small loans! Not your father’s mobile wallet, then!

    Let’s talk about KYC baby

    Know. Your. Customer. If banking is the least sexy field to work in, the compliance team is the least sexy division inside a bank. KYC is the thing they like to do the least. So, gives you an idea.

    I want to do KYC when I grow up.

     – said no one, ever 

    The burden of all financial institutions is regulation and compliance. Nobody wants it, but everyone needs it. Customers need it. Banks need it. Governments need it. It’s necessary so that firms don’t get greedy and accidentally fund hippies, terrorists and the like. The result is piles of paperwork, multiple layers of authentication, and bags of tokens for every occasion. So what is Fidor doing in this area?

    Full online onboarding, supposedly in “a few minutes”. No paper. No meetings. As an interesting addition, they are using a video link inside the app to verify identity. Let’s see if that approach catches on. They could be onto something here… MAS, wink wink.

    Telco customers

    So what’s in it for Fidor? Why not go at it alone and challenge all the institutions? Because B2C is haaaaard. As a startup, you’re that guy on the street handing out discount leaflets that nobody wants. Nobody wants to be that guy. So don’t be that guy. Increasingly, startups are looking to leverage institutions for that very reason. Institutions already have customers. Why reinvent the wheel, when you can just use theirs?

    AAEAAQAAAAAAAAjNAAAAJDY2MzljNzMyLTU1NTEtNGI4Zi05ZGQ3LTY4MjUyMjFmOGYyMA

    Don’t be that guy in the popcorn suit

    One of the more innovative things Telefonica have done is to incentivize their existing users to adopt their banking app. For example, you might get additional free data on your 4G plan as a reward. Synergy, convergence and gamification. Hmm.. I wonder where could this go..?

    Where to from here?

    If you haven’t heard, two banking licenses were handed out in Korea in 2015. One was a telco. The other a chat app. Tencent and Alibaba already have banking licenses in China. Expect big things. Dinosaur big.


    [linkedinbadge URL=”https://www.linkedin.com/in/akiranin” connections=”off” mode=”icon” liname=”Aki Ranin”], is Commercial Director at Tigerspike and this article was originally published on linkedin

     
  • user 10:54 pm on May 21, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , banks, , , , , Lexicon, ,   

    The Alternative Fintech Lexicon 

    shutterstock_294517823

    The Lexicon

    – Accelerators: Where startups go to learn. What they learn is anybody&;s guess. See Decelerators.

    – Alternative Lending: An alternative way to make the same mistakes in lending, over and over again. See Crowdfunding.

    – Anonymity: Required when discussing either financial services executives bonuses or the use of offshore centers when optimizing taxes and ownership structures. Not required when users interact with financial services firms. See Privacy.

    – AML (Anti Money Laundering): A set of procedures, laws and regulations financial services firms occasionally follow and regulators occasionally enforce. See KYC.

    &;  API (Application Programming Interface): A set of routines and protocols Wizards use to develop magical and frictionless interaction between software applications. Alternatively, an acronym Muggles use when pretending to be wizards.

    – API Call: A call muggles make to a private fintech investigator when trying to crack innovation, as in &;I think I I am going to make A Private Investigator Call now as this digital innovation thingie is very tricky.&;

    – Artificial Intelligence (AI): Neither Artificial nor Intelligent. A major vector for future unemployment in the financial services industry.

    – Augmented Reality (AR): Where the sex industry and the financial services industry will eventually meet.

    – Big Data: Applied to most data analytics projects to produce negative returns.

    : A Numismatist&8217;s worst nightmare.

    – Bitcoin : A group of digital prisoners, chained to one another, and bound to perform menial digital tasks recorded on a digital ledger in return for the promise of a better future life.

     &8211; Brick and Mortar: A Financial Services Incumbent&8217;s Alzheimer&8217;s moment.

    – Cards: Credit, Debit, Reloadable, Gift. The most profitable scam in the history of the financial services industry.

    – Card Not Present / Card Present (CNP/CP): Arcane revenue producing schemes for the payment industry.

    – Checking Account: Soon to be yesterday&8217;s money machine.

    – Conferences (Fintech): Gathering places where thought leaders pretend to educate, startups pretend to pitch, corporates pretend to care, venture investors pretend to scout for investments. Contrary to popular belief, pizza is not served freely at conferences. See Hackathons.

    – Consensus Ledgers: Free range Blockchains. Also, for the accountants in the audience, not a ledger. See Bitcoin Blockchain, Ethereum.

    – Consensus Machines: Free range Consensus Ledgers, bred with organic Turing corn.

    – Core Systems: The tools with which service providers keep , insurance companies, asset managers hostages.

    – Corporate Venture Capital (CVC): The art of pretending superior investing will occur when informed by corporate fiat. Alternatively, the science of Fin over Tech. See Venture Capital (VC).

    – Crowdfunding: Applies to either equity or lending. The art of pretending it takes a crowd to finance stuff. See Alternative Lending and Equity Crowdfunding.

    : A currency which adheres or belongs secretly to a party, sect, or other group.

    – Customers: The one thing most fintech startups are still looking for. See Traction.

    – Decelerators: Where startups go when they move too fast. See Accelerators.

    – Digital: Related to the storing of information as either a 0 or a 1. Example of a 0: &8220;Soon we will have zero brick and mortar branches&8221;. Example of a 1: &8220;Banking executives compensation is again approaching 100% increases.&8221;

    – Digital Banker/Insurer/Asset Manager: Tomorrow&8217;s endangered species.

    – Disintermediation: The act of creating another overlord as in &8220;My API will rule over your API.&8221; See API.

    – EMV (EuroPay, MasterCard, Visa): A technical standard built to promote online fraud.

    – Entrepreneur: Central protagonist in ancient Greek tragedies or comedies involving the critique of money. Alternatively, a post Marxist practitioner. See Startup.

    – Equity Crowdfunding: Platforms that may provide much work for litigation lawyers in the future.

    – Ethereum: A public blockchain platform which promises to free digital prisoners shackled to other public blockchains. See Bitcoin Blockchain.

    – Ethics: An extraordinary expense that appears below the EBITDA line both in GAAP and IFRS.

    – Financial Inclusion: An issue solved by according to blockchain enthusiasts. A profitability issue according to financial services incumbents. A game changer according to social impact investors.

    – Fintech: Neither &8220;Fin&8221; nor &8220;Tech&8221;. Modern day alchemical process.

    – Fraud: The act of defining loose operations control in order to elicit fraudulent activities which will eventually be billed at cost plus to the end user. In the payments industry, the tradeoff between convenience and privacy.

    – Free: A new &8220;source of revenue&8221; paradigm, e.g. free trading, free investing, free payments. To be noted, free fraud is not yet recognized as a new source of revenue.

    – Gateway: A purgatory software interface where payments transit before reaching heaven.

    – Governance (in Fintech): What often lies beyond the wall.

    – Hackathons: Events that bring fintech developers, designers, corporate executives and innovation managers together around pizza. Hackathons organized around the summer solstice are sought-after events, as it is believed pizza tastes better during that period of the year.

    – Hash: Non-edible but still intriguing recipe comprising mathematical algorithms that map data of arbitrary size to data of fixed size. Frequently used in the Insurance industry as exemplified by the old saying &8220;The actuary made a hash of the life expectancy of millennials.&8221;

    – Incubators: Where corporations are able to smother good fintech ideas to death.

    – Innovation: What VCs overpay for. What corporations are seldom capable of delivering. What only a few startups can deliver.

    – Insurtech: Ego booster term crafted for the Insurance industry. See Fintech.

    – Interchange Fee: Soon to become a land far far away, especially in the US.

    – Interest Rate(s): A conceptual think piece for most fintech startups. Baudrillard&8217;s famous tirade comes to mind when addressing the Sorbonne in 1968, &8220;If interest rates were so important we would have used the term FinInt or IntTech, not Fintech.&8221;

    – Jinn: Spirit capable of appearing in human or animal form and influencing VC investors, corporations and startups alike via consulting analysis, recommendations, white papers. See White Papers.

    – Joy: What fintech startups seldom experience. Referred to in the context of an Initial Public Offering (IPO).

    – Know Your Customer (KYC): The process whereby a business weighs the cost of verifying a client&8217;s identity against the profitability of said client. For a fintech startup, that which will be developed and financed when the sooner of a cease and desist letter from a regulator is received or a $ 100 million funding round is closed, maybe. See AML.

    – Lead Generation: A poor man&8217;s version of revenue building.

    – License(s): Put or Call Options that give a regulator the right but not the obligation to levy fines in the future based on real or perceived violations of the terms of the license granted.

    – Menagerie: Pack of Thought Leaders focused on cornering the market for social media power ranking and industry top lists via &8220;elaborate&8221; insider trading techniques. See Thought Leader.

    – Millenials: What fintech startups say they focus on and financial services incumbents know they have no clue about. See Customers.

    – Mobile Wallet: Darwinian evolution of a checking account. That which will generate revenue, but not necessarily to financial services incumbents.

    – Near Prime Credit: A set of customers who are sub prime but for marketing purposes are labelled near prime as copywriting and creativity is important in the lending industry. See Sub Prime.

    – Net Interest Rate Margin (NIM): The wet dream bankers and insurers dream every time they sleep.

    – Network effect(s): Often talked about, seldom witnessed in the financial services industry.

    – Non Performing Loans: According to alternative lenders, crowd lenders, p2p lenders, marketplace lenders, a mathematical impossibility.

    – Non Traditional Data Sets: Data sets you would not want your mother to know about, let alone look at.

    – Omnibus Account: A money-carrying vehicle, originally horse-drawn. Most bank-operated omnibus accounts are allegedly still operated manually and horse-drawn.

    – P2P: A business model that allows people or entities that have nothing in common to do business with one another. From the word &8220;peer&8221; which means &8220;complete stranger&8221;.

    – Payday Lending: The act of producing indentured servitude.

    – Paying Customer: The rarest of species, seldom observed in the wild by startups.

    – Payments: Payments come in two varieties. The &8220;slow&8221; variety which refers to the medical condition whereby financial services incumbents produce revenue via the sloth-like pace of provisioning of payments. The &8220;fast&8221; variety which refers to a simple technology feat which most financial services firms pretend is impossible to achieve.

    – Payment Network(s): Money printing machines.

    – Personal Financial Management (PFM): Movement originally triggered by the wealth transfer mechanism that occurred between Intuit shareholders (buyers) and Mint shareholders (sellers).

    – Platform(s): The shoes many incumbents want to wear.

    – Prime Credit: A set of customers lenders desperately would like to lend to but never do as these customers seldom need credit. See Near Prime.

    – Privacy: What is enforced after weighing the cost of breach and compliance against executives bonuses as in &8220;We only had to pay $ 10 million fine for the latest data breach&8221;. See Anonymity.

    – Proof of Work: An emerging contributor to global warming.

    – Quantum Computing: That which will render many things and many people redundant.

    – Rails (Payment): Train tracks over which steam locomotives shuffle back and forth wagons chock full of payments.

    – RegTech: Because regulators should have their tech too. Alternatively, because why not.

    – Regulator(s): Satan and his minions, unless they use technology. See RegTech, White Walkers.

    Advisors: Not a robot. Not a financial advisor. Fancy term for a digital channel.

    – Scaling: The ability to gain traction in unique ways in fintech, e.g. &8220;Startup bankruptcies tend to scale well.&8221;, &8220;NPLs scale with ease in a down credit cycle.&8221;

    – Smart Contract: Neither smart, nor a contract. For a blockchain developer, nirvana. For a lawyer, anathema. It is believed that through selected breeding a new specie of lawyer/developers will be created thereby enabling the wide adoption of smart contracts.

    – Spice: A highly addictive Melange which fintech celebrities &8211; VCs, entrepreneurs &8211; consume daily and heightens their awareness and prescient abilities. Repeated exposure to &8220;Up&8221; Spice mutates fintech celebrities bodies into virtual social media avatars. Repeated exposure to &8220;Down&8221; Spice is deadly.

    – Startup (Fintech): Ancient Greek play. Can either be a tragedy or a comedy. Focused on exploring and expanding upon a post Marxist critique of money. See Entrepreneur.

    – Sub Prime: A set of customers that even copywriting cannot disguise and that, with the help of advanced data analytics, will yield positive returns, up to a breaking point. See Big Data.

    – Token(s):  Reduces fraud, makes EMV obsolete, helps with authentication and authorization of transactions in the payments industry. In other words, a really cool and useful thing which explains why it is so darn difficult to adopt industry wide.

    – Traction: The startup science of demonstrating progress in the absence of Customers. See Customers.

    – Thought Leader: Rhetorician who occasionally attends conferences for the pizza, not realizing hackathons are where the dough is. See Menagerie, Conferences and Hackathons.

    – Uberization: An event that simultaneously holds the lowest probability of occurrence and the highest probability of utterance in fintech.

    – Underbanked: A universe of people and businesses that refuse to comply with traditional profitability measures as defined by financial services incumbents.

    – Unicorn: Animal hunted for its skin by rational investors. Alternatively, animal bred for its magical properties by irrational investors.

    – Valuation: A +/- rounding error. Also, one of the key ingredient of Spice. See Spice.

    – Venture Capital: The art of pretending superior investing will occur when informed by market fiat. Alternatively, the science of Tech over Fin. See Corporate Venture Capital (CVC).

    – Veteran: Old hand operator with minimum 30 years experience in the financial technology industry and minimum 4 credit or business cycles under his/her belt. There are few veterans in activity. The only credible actors to be equally efficient and effective at either of fintech investing, fintech startup building, fintech innovation. One can recognize a veteran based on his/her use of profane language and colorful views on his contemporaries.

    – Wallet: What any participant in the industry wants to &8220;share&8221;, as long as it is not theirs, as in &8220;Our share of the customer wallet is important for our future health.&8221;

    – White Papers: Exercise in casuistry.

    – White Walkers: Government officials who hold the power to resurrect dead banks but not yet the power to resurrect fintech startups to the dismay of VC investors.

    – Xanadu: An idyllic place otherwise known as the Silicon Valley. &8220;In Xanadu did the great VC Khan / A stately pleasure dome decree&8221; is a alternative copycat poem published in the 19th century describing fintech venture investing and venture eco systems.

    – Yield: See Interest Rate(s).

    – Zelig: Describes the act of mimicking the fintech activities of leaders, as in a &8220;me too&8221; fintech VC or a &8220;me too&8221; startup. For example &8220;This fintech venture fund is so zelig!&8221;

    FiniCulture

     
  • user 8:24 pm on May 21, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , banks, , , ,   

    The New Banking Standard 

    In this op-ed, enthusiast Martin Hagelstrom touches on the slow but steady embrace of by the world’s .
    fintech techcrunch

     
  • user 3:32 pm on May 21, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: banks, , , , , , Pressure,   

    Central Banks Face Bitcoin Pressure 

    Given that the ‘distributed ledger’ upon which has been developed allows a payment system to operate without the need for intermediaries such as , it is looking increasingly likely that the financial system is set to undergo a comprehensive transformation.

    It also implies that centralized payment systems could begin to be phased out and replaced by decentralized ones, with trading, clearing and settlement being just three examples of processes likely to undergo disintermediation.

    Whereas a centralized system relies on all parties to trust a third party (the central bank, in most cases) to keep a secure, correct digital record of transactions, the Bitcoin transaction relies on there being numerous copies of this record distributed across the network. Assuming, then, that the cryptography of the system works, the requirement for a third-party becomes largely irrelevant.

    Centralized vs Distributed Ledger | Bitcoin pressure

    (Source)

    The monetary system of Bitcoin challenges the central banks&8217; role

    Central banks play a pivotal role in ensuring financial stability within a monetary system, however, meaning that payment innovations are being closely monitored by banks such as the Fed, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England. Indeed, central banks have a responsibility in supporting safe payment systems.

    Bitcoin’s notable price volatility since its creation, for instance, is one of the key concerns for central banks &; were a systematic price crash to occur, it remains debatable as to just how much responsibility the central bank could or should bear. Even the bank is technically not at fault, a widespread loss of confidence in the bank and the financial system could still arise.

     

    More researches on digital currencies are expectedly conducted

    Most central banks are in ‘monitoring mode’ at present, generally stating that more research needs to be done before policy can be considered. More recently, however, Bitcoin’s growth has prompted some central banks to express interest in possibly issuing their own digital currencies, backed by their respective country’s government. While this is yet to materialise anywhere, the Bank of Canada has been among the most open to exploring such technology.

    The bank’s senior deputy governor Carolyn Wilkins stated last month that “we have to envision a world in which people mostly use e-money, perhaps even one that’s not denominated in a national currency, such as Bitcoin”, although remained wary of the ostensible risks that could arise, where central banks would struggle to implement monetary policy and where massive losses could be realized were the currency to crash. Wilkins has made clear that the Bank of Canada will explore the implications of digital currencies over the course of its three-year corporate plan.

     

    The idea is of Government-backed digital currency

    While much of the attention (and indeed, risk-aversion) on Bitcoin has primarily been concerned with the currency’s nascent price volatility, the Bank of England (BoE) has focused more on the potential impact of the distributed ledger technology. The UK central bank has provided particularly glowing feedback to , with the bank’s chief economist Andy Haldane recently praising the technology’s potential capability in solving the challenge of ‘how to establish trust – the essence of money – in a distributed network’.

    Like the Bank of Canada, moreover, Haldane is also in favor of issuing a government-backed digital currency, although in the UK’s case he argues that it could be used to charge a negative interest rate on currency, a measure which is not possible at present due to the widespread use of banknotes which could simply be held in safe deposit boxes to maintain value and would thus render attempts by the central bank to implement a negative rate as useless. The shift from paper to paperless currency, however, opens up the possibility of digital currency creation.

     

    Bitcoin circulation in the market is considerable

    In the BoE’s paper published last year, The Economics of Digital Currencies, the bank estimated that the amount of bitcoins circulating within the UK economy was less than 0.1% of sterling notes and coins and only 0.003% of broad money balances. As such, the impact from any serious Bitcoin fallout on the UK’s financial and monetary systems is considered negligible.

    The Federal Reserve, meanwhile, has gradually become more vocal about the subject. During Bitcoin’s early existence, the US central bank was notoriously silent about Bitcoin, but began discussing the subject soon after the FBI shut down Silk Road – the illegal online marketplace – when 26,000 BTC worth $ 3.6 million was seized in October 2013.

    In early 2014, Fed chief Janet Yellen stated that the Fed does not have the authority to regulate Bitcoin, due to the fact that this is ‘payment innovation that is taking place entirely outside the banking industry’. She did raise concerns about the potential for money-laundering, however, and has also recommended that Congress address the legality issues for those unregulated entities involved in virtual currencies.

    The Fed has also conducted empirical analysis which has sought to test the security of the cryptography for transactions and the distributed maintenance of the ledger. The US central bank has remained somewhat averse to Bitcoin, highlighting the February 2014 bankruptcy of Mt. Gox, the largest bitcoin exchange at the time, and concluding, therefore, that Bitcoin many risks “whose nature and proportion are little, if at all, understood”.

    More recently, the Fed’s official position has been to quietly monitor developments as they happen, but it has not stated whether it is considering issuing its own digital currency.

     

    Digital currency, Bitcoin, raises several potential risks

    The Bank of International Settlements (BIS), however, seems to have recently shown considerable enthusiasm towards the advancement of digital currencies. Although not explicitly a central bank, the BIS holds the membership of 60 global central banks, and has been instrumental in determining much of the regulatory landscape since 2007’s financial crisis. In its November 2015 paper, the CPMI Report on Digital Currencies, the BIS states several potential risks arising from the growing use of digital currencies, such as consumer losses resulting from excessive volatility, as well as fraud &8211; a problem which has plagued Bitcoin on previous occasions.

    The report also acknowledges the diminished role that financial intermediaries could play as digital currencies and distributed ledger systems become smarter. Ultimately, though the BIS’ opinion on digital currencies remains favorable, especially pertaining to those which have a decentralized payment mechanism, describing them as “an innovation that could have a range of impacts on various aspects of financial markets and the wider economy”.

     

    Yuan was used in 80% Bitcoin transaction

    The challenge in addressing Bitcoin appears to be more complex for China’s central bank at present, however. According to Goldman Sachs research from March 2015, the Yuan is being used for 80% of global transactions into and out of Bitcoin, indicating the digital currency’s overwhelming popularity in China. This wouldn’t be so much of a problem were it not for the fact that the People’s Bank of China banned the handling of Bitcoin transactions in December 2013, before closing down more than 10 of the currency’s exchanges in March 2014.

    The view from the central bank is that the currency has no ‘real meaning’, but the consensus view is that it is being used for large-scale money laundering. The huge popularity of Bitcoin in China suggests that, while some may be using Bitcoin for speculative purposes, a large proportion are using the currency to shift money illegally out of China.

     

    Conclusion

    More recently, however, it appears that China’s view towards Bitcoin could be warming. In an October publication, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) stated clearly that we are now in the “post-Bitcoin era,” acknowledging the development that bitcoin has ushered in through the “expansion of distributed payment and settlement mechanism”. Whether such sentiment will ultimately be transmitted through the corridors of the central bank remains to be seen at this stage.

    Given that minting and distributing a digital currency should cost a fraction of the cost of printing and distributing a physical currency note, one should also bear in mind the seignior age benefits of moving towards paperless currency – that is, the potential revenue the government will retain from such a cost-saving. Along with the fact that digital currency transactions will be easier to track and less susceptible to illegal uses, there seems to be plenty of incentives for central banks to promote the development of digital currencies like Bitcoin.

     

    The post Central Banks Face Bitcoin Pressure appeared first on Fintech Schweiz Digital Finance News – FintechNewsCH.

    Fintech Schweiz Digital Finance News – FintechNewsCH

     
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