Tagged: banks Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • user 12:00 pm on May 19, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: banks   

    Will PSD2 and Open Banking impact the Under 18/Youth Banking market? 

    AAEAAQAAAAAAAAeYAAAAJDg2MGUyNjFiLWYwNDMtNDY3OS1iZjE1LTNjMGY4OTE0NzlmMQ

    A consumer survey in 2014 by the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) showed that 37% of consumers had been with their main Account Servicing PSP for more than 20 years.  57% of the consumers in the survey had been with their main Account Servicing PSP for more than 10 years.  We can broadly assume that the same customer retention rates hold true across the entire European Economic Area, the scope area for PSD2.

    It is not clear whether the CMA survey question started the clock for the 10 years or 20 years of retention with a single Account Servicing PSP at the point when the consumer opened a fully featured Payment Account designed for an adult or a reduced functionality account for a child.  However, we can assume that a very large number of bank customers opened their first account as a child and did not switch suppliers until adulthood, if they switched suppliers at all.   It is reasonable to assume that these very long periods of customer retention often started in childhood.

    The first question we can ask about PSD2/Open Banking and the Youth market is whether any of the popular non-bank brands in this market segment might be attracted to the increased opportunity?  The UK market has good sample data on the preferred brands for children aged 7 to 15.  The top 10 brands are Walkers Crisps, The Simpsons, McDonalds, Coca Cola, Nintendo, YouTube, Maltesers, Haribo, Cadbury and Apple.  We can probably eliminate the confectionary brands, as being unlikely to see Open Banking as a diversification/increased share of wallet opportunity.  While “Bank of The Simpsons” has instant appeal to children of all ages, this brand also an unlikely Financial Services market entrant (the potential appointment of Chief Wiggum as Compliance Officer could also be grounds for concern).

    The “tech platform” brands focused on gaming that appear at the upper end in the Youth Brand Rankings are significantly more likely to take an interest in the financial services industry.  These platforms are already taking some margin from traditional , in the form of cash float.  Many of these youth gaming platforms have a “wallet feature”, where value transfers can be accepted from the mainstream payment platforms.  In the youth market segment, there is a flow from the “Bank of Mum and Dad” through a Card platform into the in-game/in-platform wallet for youth gaming.  Does this provide a starting point for a wider, life-long financial service?  Nintendo seems constrained to be primarily a youth brand.  Microsoft has a presence but through a subsidiary brand (Xbox).  However, Apple, Facebook and Google have brand penetration in both the youth market and onwards into the older market segments.

    Children in the 7 to 15 age bracket can have very active digital and social media lives.  However, it is rare that they have active, self-managed and trackable financial lives in their own capacity.  The “Bank of Mum and Dad” is usually the major donor, day-to-day creditor, conduct regulator and lender of last resort. Youthful account holders typically live at home, so they don’t pay rent or buy provisions.  They typically don’t have a car nor pay utility bills.  They don’t insure themselves nor have significant property to be insured.  Their mobile credit top ups may be the mainstay of their simple expenditure patterns.

    PSD2 in Plain English (Payments Landscape
    for Non-Specialists) (Volume 1)

    PSD2 holds a broad promise of making financial behaviour data available from payment accounts to fuel competition and innovation.  While youthful consumers may leave a rich footprint of behavioural data and preferences directly on social media, the “Bank of Mum and Dad” probably contains and conceals most of the the financial transactions that benefit these younger economic actors.

    That said, even though the routine day-to-day account activity level is low, this does not mean that this age bracket does not have financial value.  Children can be regular savers.   Many youth bank accounts are likely to be savings accounts, rather than a Payment Account as defined by PSD2.  PSD2 defines a Payment Account as an account held in the name of one or more payment service users which is used for the execution of payment transactions.  The child who is the account holder may receive lump sum payments or recurring payments from a parent into the account, but this typically does not qualify the child as a payer using the account for a payments service.    The number of savings accounts in this market segment sharply reduces the potential scope of PSD2 and reduces the addressable market for non-banks.

    Nevertheless, again using the UK as a benchmark market, there are accounts for children that are used for payments rather than savings.  From the age of 11, accounts are available that offer Debit Cards, Cash Cards, Direct Debits and Standing Orders.  These meet the strict PSD2 definition of “Payment Account” but there is no certainty that these accounts are accessible online to the account holders.   Articles 66 and 67 of PSD2 grants the customer of an Account Servicing PSP the right to use a Third Party Payment Provider (TPP) only if the payment account is “accessible online”.  Many accounts for children are not accessible online.  Perhaps PSD2 rules will prompt banks to ensure that they stay offline.  In some cases, the child’s parent can view the account on their own Online Banking service, but they do not have a contractual right to be the payer on that account.

    Aside from the low levels of financial activity in these accounts, the service providers smoothly and automatically move this youthful population through the stages of the lifecycle.  The Youth Banking segment sets a pattern that attracts the attention of Competition Authorities because of concerns about “adverse effects on competition”.  Bank accounts for children are like accounts for adults in that they have no contract end date.   Competition Authorities can view this as a “lack of trigger points”, which means customers are not required periodically to consider if their payment account is best for them.

    It is commonplace in this market segment for Account Servicing PSPs to “auto-convert” the account service to the next payment account at the next stage of the lifecycle.  This means that a child can open an account aged 9 with features and benefits aimed at 7-14 years.  They do not close this account when they become ineligible by age to use the features and benefits of the 7-14 account.  The Account Servicing PSP will typically and automatically auto-covert this service into the 15-18 account when that birthday occurs; the same auto-convert process triggers a change to perhaps a “Student” account at age 19.

    This “auto-convert” process can be seen as making the customer very passive in their engagement with the provider. One of the remedies to this lack of “trigger points” being considered by Competition Authorities is a “prompt” to customers to review their payment account provider at times when they may have a higher propensity to shop around. There will be much discussion on the potential effectiveness and timing of prompts to customers; the content of these messages; their source; and the medium of their delivery.  The suitable times for these “prompts” being considered by Competition Authorities include an IT breakdown, a major dispute between a provider and a customer, a material change in the accounts terms and conditions, a branch closure or the expiry of a free banking period.  Interestingly, Competition Authorities have also cited a customer’s transition from a young person’s or student account to an adult account as a good time to prompt some shopping around.

    Banks may face a Conduct Risk dilemma on auto-converting Under 18 accounts to fully featured payment accounts following the implementation of the EU Payment Accounts Directive.  Will banks still be able to auto-convert to a fully featured and full fees Payment Account at a certain age and ignore the potential suitability of the new “Payment Account with basic features” being implemented under the Payment Accounts Directive?

    In crude conclusion, PSD2 and Open Banking may not have much impact on the Under 18/Youth market segment.   Many of the strongest Youth brands are not financial in nature.  Younger customers may like Apple, Google and Facebook, but their youthful financial lives are effectively managed by their parents.  Banks conveniently and automatically transition the youthful customers through the life stages to fully fledged Payment Accounts, leaving few triggers to prompt the adoption of a non-bank alternative.   Accounts for younger people can be savings accounts rather than payment accounts, moving them outside PSD2 and Open Banking. Even if they are payment accounts, they may not be accessible online, which is also outside PSD2 scope.

    The PSD2 APIs seem far more likely to be a source of value for new competitors when consumer incomes become strong and their expenditure becomes complex.  Highly active payment accounts for mature adults could show significant and diverse sources of income, which indicate a demand for savings, investments, mortgages and home improvements.  The same accounts will show significant and diverse expenditure on homes, travel, cars, utilities, insurance and household expenses.   The slim pickings of data from the Youth market would suggest that traditional banks will retain a very strong position in this segment.  However, the long-term endowment value of this Youth market position for traditional banks could have been sharply reduced by PSD2.  An Account Servicing PSP could now spend 20 years servicing a low value Payment Account from age 10, only to find a new competitor accessing data through PSD2 APIs and scooping a valuable pot of high value transactions at age 30.


    [linkedinbadge URL=”https://www.linkedin.com/in/paulrohan” connections=”off” mode=”icon” liname=”Paul Rohan”] , the author of this post, is also author of “PSD2 in Plain English”.

    PSD2 in Plain English (Payments Landscape
    for Non-Specialists) (Volume 1)

     
  • user 6:00 am on May 18, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: banks, ,   

    Old days at the branches, new days at the app 

    Last week I attended the Revolution Banking 2016 in Madrid, a conference where many bankers, Tech vendors and founders gathered to see the latest trends in retail banking, payments and customer experience. It was an incredible opportunity to listen first hand to top executives from the different financial institutions, explaining how they managed to turn obstacles into opportunities for success.

    It’s clear that drove many of the innovations brought to the Spanish market. All the big ones were there to share what they’ve done lately and their plans to keep bringing more and more products and services to delight their customers:

    • BBVA: Atom, Holvi and Nimble
    • CaixaBank:
    • BancSabadell: digital transformation project
    • ING: Twyp
    • etc…


    However the most interesting panel of all was reserved to the very last. The topic? To understand how a “bunch” of guys from Germany have broken the market: Number26. The presentation was called “Revolutionizing the banking experience”.

    AAEAAQAAAAAAAAfTAAAAJGFkYzcxZDA2LTg4ZDktNDkxZi05YjYyLTcwYTVhMTY5YTIyYwThe room was full of bankers, in fact there were many people standing, as everyone wanted to know how this FinTech startup managed to get 160.000 customers in 8 countries!! Incredible figures but the most important thing they’ve brought back to banking is how users can find banking appealing and exciting. I even saw bankers recording the session like if it was one of the brilliant keynote from Steve Jobs announcing one of the new gadget.

    It was indeed the very first time Number26 gave a speech in Spain. And it’s Nicolas Koop (Business Manager) the responsible to explain how CX is driving the market today and how companies from different sectors are pursuing the ultimate goal of delighting their customers by offering the very best experience regardless of the service provided.

     

    As slides went by some of the core principles of this new challenger bank were presented:

     AAEAAQAAAAAAAAieAAAAJGIxNTIzM2E2LTIwZWUtNDdmNS04ZDZiLWQ1MGFmMzNhYWZiZA

    The minute Nicolas finished and left the stage, he was surrounded by a bunch of “groupies” (a.k.a. bankers) handing him business cards and requesting follow up meetings.

    Are bankers really so desperate for answers? Has Number26 demonstrated that a new banking is possible? Is it so disruptive? And why hasn’t there been a Spanish startup able to do this? Is this a good thing? Does the Spanish market deserve a stronger Fintech presence?

    There is no need to be an expert to see that banks are struggling to get the same level of loyalty and respect for their firms so many years since the crisis began (fines, penalties, miss-selling products, etc.). Now these small players are trying to recover the trust lost and win over thousands of customers that are desperate to get a fresh new brand to deal with. Someone who really understand their needs and day-to-day problems instead of selling the promotional product based on the marketing campaign.

    Nothing the banks didn’t excel at, when branches were the only channel. People trusted their branch manager because they understood their financial needs. They knew everything about their customers life (wife’s name, number of kids, where they worked, etc…). Not anymore.

    This radical shift to digital channels has made banks caught them off-balance. They are struggling to keep the pace their customers are demanding (product tailored to them -nor the other way around-, transparency, simplicity, device-agnostic,…).

    Nicolas used a Steve Jobs’ quote to explain their idea of how to approach customers:

    Now banks have to turn data into insights to ensure they cultivate a fair and non-intrusive way of serving their customers. Until that day comes; bankers will have to mimic the way these challenger banks are smashing the market (doubling the number of customers in 6 months and having a waiting list for new customers). Things incumbent banks can only dream off.


     [linkedinbadge URL=”https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidjimenezmaireles” connections=”off” mode=”icon” liname=”David Jimenez Maireles”] is the author of this post and originally published it on linkedin

     
  • user 4:56 pm on May 15, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: banks, , , , , Jedi, ,   

    Return of the FinServ Jedi 

    Roberto Ferrari recently tweeted this:

    Screen Shot 2016-05-08 at 10.40.05 AM

    From roboadvisory to p2p lending to crowdlending, to PFM, to mobile wallet concepts focused on payments, to the early days of , there is a long list of d2c business models which have not reached the escape velocity investors had hoped for since 2008. I would be hard pressed to find one fintech startup out of this list that reached escape velocity without any help from a incumbent &; partnership, commercial agreement, warehouse facility, distribution access, white label deal, acquisition you name it. To be clear, I am speaking of real traction, not gravitation-free valuation. This factual observation has led many fintech pundits to state that, although the financial services industry will be disrupted and is in need of innovation, a direct and material challenge from fintech startups is unlikely.

    Bringing this factual observation in historical context I wanted to order the immediate waves of fintech we have experienced and attempt to forecast the industry&;s immediate future. This immediately led me to seek out the past. A much trickier proposition than I initially thought when studying financial services and .

    I came up with the following non-scientific historical narrative:

    – Ancient Financial Technology Period &8211; 3200 BC to 500 AD: Little is known about financial technology in this period marked by the beginning of mathematics and what astute observers can only assume was archaic credit provisioning and proto-fraud.

    – Financial Technology Middle Ages Period &8211; 500 AD to 1499 AD: Arguably the greatest advance in financial technology during this period was the invention of double entry accounting by Italian merchants.

    – Classical Financial Technology Period &8211; 1500 AD to 1900 AD: Much like the two prior periods, little is known about classical financial technology. We note the invention of the pantelegraph in 1865 in France (could not resist mentioning that), to verify banking signatures, and the laying of the first transatlantic cable in 1866 which was a crucial starting point for the globalization of financial communications

    – Modern Financial Technology Period &8211; 1901 AD to 1980 AD: As with every other human endeavor, this period sees an acceleration of innovation. We note the invention of the ATM, the credit card, the telex. The creation of FedWire, SWIFT, NASDAQ. The deployment of consumer credit on a massive scale, mortgages, securitization.

    – Postmodern Financial Technology History &8211; 1980 AD to 2008 AD: The rise of the internet permeates this period. Few people realize that Etrade was founded in 1982, online banking started in the mid 80s, that Intuit started in 1985 with Quicken, that by the mid 90s all major had been pushed kicking and screaming into internet banking. Lest we forget, Paypal was founded in December 1998. The bulk of financial technology action centered around financial technology service providers selling decidedly &;unsexy&; technology to incumbents.

    – Contemporary Fintech History &8211; 2008 AD to present: The rise of a new term and a new activity by 2008, &8220;FinTech&8221;. The first FinTech wave, from 2008 til 2014, focused on d2c models (mainly) + payments (mostly retail) + roboadvisory + p2p lending + digitizing distribution channels of banking and asset management. Competition and disruption were the central buzzwords. VC investors the main providers of capital. The second FinTech wave, from 2014 to 2016, saw a shift to b2b and b2b2c models and a widening to other areas of financial services such as insurance + capital markets + specialized lending. Collaboration between startups and incumbents became the central buzzword. VC investors saw the rise of Corporate VC investors (CVCs owned by banks, insurers). I believe we are witnessing the last moments of this second wave. Indeed, I believe we are witnessing the beginning of a third &8220;FinTech&8221; wave, starting with 2016. One which will still focus on b2b or b2b2c models. One where CVCs will play a more dominant role, relatively speaking, compared to their VC brethren. One where more startups will focus on becoming the new service providers to the industry and where the industry will acquire enabling technologies (Artificial Intelligence (AI), Augmented Reality (AR), Internet of Things (IoT), Quantum Computing (QC), /Consensus Ledgers) to upgrade itself in all manners and across its business/tech stack. I call this third wave the TechFin wave, to differentiate it from the origins of financial technology and the first two waves of fintech.

    As you can see from the above historical timeline, financial technology ruled prior to 2008. Most innovations were either b2b or b2b2c in nature. Direct to consumer was the exception (Intuit, Etrade, maybe Paypal to a certain degree). I chose 2008 as a pivot away from financial technology and towards fintech because startups such as Wealthfront and Betterment were founded that year and because, the 2007-2008 global financial crisis finally broke the dam so to speak with systemic and systematic innovation being enabled. Might the period from 2008 to 2015 be an anomaly where d2c became more prevalent than b2b and where for the first time there was a hope, a promise and an intent for startups to directly dislodge incumbents? If true, is the new TechFin wave of the Contemporary period borne out of a natural consolidation stemming from the breathless pace of investments since 2008? Or will it become the new normal for a long period? Food for thought assuredly.

    Let us focus on why this new TechFin wave makes sense.

    Think about how vulnerable most incumbent service providers are to innovation as they have mostly aborted any meaningful internal R&D efforts and resorted to M&A activities to stay relevant over the years. Think about how some independent VCs may reduce their exposure due to either losses from early investments or less than expected returns. Think about how CVCs will expand to include not only banks or insurers, but also consultancy firms, systems integrators, other third parties that live off of selling/implementing/integrating technology for finserv incumbents. Many of these top firms will want to make sure they stay relevant to their clients and will start investing in promising startups. (Whether firms that do not have a strong culture of venture investing will make good venture investors is another topic entirely.). Think about the wealth of subject matter expertise, capital, brand (even if eroded) and the advantage of being regulated (even if it comes at a cost) finserv incumbents&8217; CVCs can leverage.

    This third wave has the potential to help finserv incumbents close the technology gap. I wrote about this gap in one of my previous posts, see here: a dual gap where basic infrastructure will be upgraded (a necessary step but not a sufficient one on its own) AND where cutting edge technology will be embedded throughout an incumbent&8217;s business stack &8211; for a sense of what that means, see this post on the &8220;plasma&8221; approach to technology/business.

    I do mean &8220;potential&8221;. Incumbents will have to operate a cultural evolution in order to learn several skills necessary to actualize this potential.

    These are in no particular order and non-exhaustively:

    &8211; Master a platform strategy (think of the comprehensive platform strategies tech giants have deployed)

    &8211; Redefine their core businesses/services

    &8211; Develop new ways to deliver their core businesses/services (API, marketplaces, Banking/Insurance/Asset Management as a Service, or as a Platform)

    &8211; Learn how to collaborate (it is not enough to sing commercial agreements and partnerships)

    &8211; Upgrade and retain knowledge experts across a variety of subject matters

    &8211; Master and execute intrapreneurship (corporate entrepreneurship)

    &8211; Architect the right innovation &8220;engine&8221; to translate, digest and disseminate innovation, new technologies, new business models coming from the outside world.

    I am sure I am missing a few salient vectors here. The purpose of this exercise is to hint at the possibilities incumbents could create with the right approach.

    With capital, brand and knowledge expertise it is not far fetched to imagine a future where a finserv incumbent would be adept at: 1) building businesses from within, 2) spinning off said businesses, 3) invest and partner with young startups, 4) reinvent their core businesses. The end result would make for mean, lean fighting machines.

    I believe we are in the first innings of this potential transformation. We can witness most large banks and insurance companies as well as asset managers tinkering with venture investments, with both internal and external innovation groups, with participation in accelerators, incubators. Baby steps all, but important first steps nonetheless.

    Setting aside outside stimuli such as regulatory overview, interest rate environment, political interference, the central question is &8220;How should incumbents architect themselves to successfully operate such a transformation and ride the third TechFin wave?&8221; This I believe, is the issue finserv incumbents are in control of and which will define their future. Innovating from within when one is a large organization is also one of the most difficult if not the most difficult exercise in the corporate world, for reasons most know &8211; not flexible, not nimble, natural barriers to change, smartest minds focused on keeping main business afloat. Many corporations have tried in the past and failed. Indeed, some voices firmly believe genuine innovation can only come from outside of a finserv incumbent. Further, finserv incumbents face formidable competitors in the likes of GAFAA (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Alibaba)

    I am firming up my thinking around that central question and would be interested in your thoughts. In the meantime, are we observing the of finserv Jedis and the rise of TechFin service providers? Is TechFin here to stay?

    FiniCulture

     
  • user 7:09 am on May 15, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: banks,   

    Is FinTech Jumping Into Bed With The Wrong Partner? 

    AAEAAQAAAAAAAAfhAAAAJDUyZTFlMjAzLTVmMmMtNDExYy1hOTZiLWVkZjA4YWYyNzk5ZA

    Recently there has been a spate of articles describing the symbiotic relationship between the established financial services sector and the challengers. For those looking to take on the around the fringes, it’s a different story. For them, it’s keeping one step ahead and offering new services before the lumbering giants’ catch-up – or more likely – eat them up. But for those looking to add and sell services to existing banks, maybe the direct approach isn’t necessarily the best one.

    There’s no doubt that the recent proliferation of FinTech offerings has created some fantastic innovation that will shape and possibly redefine the banking industry. However, there’s also a large majority that will inevitably fail. With $90B of investment into the FinTech bubble last year, how does a bank pick the few winners from the inescapable majority that won’t be around when their VC funding dries up?

    So it’s no surprise that banks aren’t stopping what they’re doing and falling over themselves to partner with these new FinTechs. Banks don’t act impulsively and budgets are worked out a year or more in advance. Of these budgets, a large majority will be spent on regulatory change and keeping the show on the road (KSOR). Discretionary spending will be squeezed and haircuts to approved budgets are inevitable.

    People are waking up to the fact that gaining confidence and selling to the financial services is no easy feat, no matter how good your recently recruited sales team is. The usual financial incentives don’t wash; the banks won’t be rushed into anyone else’s timetable but their own, which is subject to frequent change and reprioritisation.

    Banks are keen on trying things out, proof on concepts, small user pilots – very few of these undertakings are paid for but with the potential carrot so large, the new-to-market FinTech, looking for their breakthrough sale, can’t turn them away. Some will be able to ride out the storm or will have such a great product it will succeed but the majority won’t and not through the fault of their offering.

    Also the banking IT landscape is complex. It is rare that you’ll be interfacing with just the bank’s staff. There’s likely to be a myriad of different vendors, system integrators, and contract staff all with their own agendas not necessarily in step with the bank’s needs. The procurement and change process of each bank requires a small team of specialised staff to navigate effectively, with each bank’s systems and processes being different. How does a small outfit with less than 50 staff in San Jose and a few international sales people navigate all this?

    That’s why I believe that FinTech should be looking for a new partner instead of going straight to the banks themselves. FinTech might live in the Agile world but it needs the assistance of traditional system integrators to help with the mundane and project-based work. Too many start-ups end up over stretching themselves trying to be the project manager, business consultant, technical integrator, documentation producers, change managers, etc., etc., etc.

    And while you might have a great solution running on AWS, what if the bank wants four 9s reliability, is concerned about General Data Protection Regulation 2017, has other concerns such as FINMA, or the need for 24/7 – 365 global support?

    This is where partnering with a SI like Fujitsu with a global presence, a network of data centres, and first class delivery teams can free up FinTechs to carry-on innovating and letting the bank work under an existing master services framework and support package.

    Fujitsu is actively creating an ecosystem of partners not only within FinTech but in all sectors and areas of expertise to help banks and other customers access the latest innovation without the hassle and complications of dealing with hundreds of SMEs that would not traditionally make it past the first hurdle of any large corporation’s procurement process.

    That’s why I believe FinTech should not only try to sell themselves to the Financial Services world but to the SI market. They should be looking for partnering opportunities not only to exploit the SI’s existing customer base but to add confidence and certainty to the question “Which FinTech should I back?”


    This post represent the opinion of the author [linkedinbadge URL=”https://uk.linkedin.com/in/fegan” connections=”off” mode=”icon” liname=”Gary Fegan”] .

     

     
  • user 7:00 pm on May 14, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: banks, , , ,   

    Blockchain is a disruption we simply have to embrace 

    By Alex Tapscott with Don Tapscott, co-authors, Revolution

    The likely to have the greatest impact on the financial services industry and the world of business has arrived. Not peer-to-peer lending, artificial intelligence, big data, -advisers or Apple Pay – I’m talking about the blockchain, the technology behind digital currencies such as . Blockchain represents nothing less than the second generation of the Internet, and it holds the potential to profoundly transform the financial services industry.

    Because the first generation of the Internet was built for moving and storing information, not value, it has done little to change how we do business or access financial services. When you send someone information, you’re really sending a copy, not the original. It’s okay to have a printing press for information – but not for money.

    As a result, we rely on powerful intermediaries, such as , to establish trust. Today’s financial intermediaries also perform eight important functions in business and society: authenticating identity and reputation, moving value, storing value, lending and borrowing, exchanging value, funding and investing, insurance and risk management, and audit and tax. We call these the “golden eight,” and they will all be transformed through blockchain.

    Over all, these intermediaries do an okay job, but with limitations. They use centralized servers, which can be hacked. They take fees. They capture our data. They run on outmoded technology. Regulations are antiquated. These intermediaries also exclude two billion unbanked people who can’t prove identity or don’t have enough money to justify a bank account. In sum, intermediaries capture a lopsided share of the benefits of the digital economy, just as they did in the predigital economy.

    Enter blockchain, a vast, global and distributed ledger running on millions of devices and open to anyone, where not just information but anything ofvalue – money, equities, bonds and other financial assets, titles, deeds, music, art, scientific discoveries, intellectual property, even votes – can be moved and stored securely and privately, and where trust is established not by powerful intermediaries but through mass collaboration and clever code.

    If the Internet was the first native digital format for information, then blockchain is the first native digital format for value – a new medium for money. It acts as ledger of accounts, database, notary, sentry and clearing house, all by consensus. And it holds the potential to make financial markets radically more efficient, secure, inclusive and transparent.

    Blockchain entrepreneurs and incumbents alike are working to devise new ways to perform the eight core functions of financial intermediaries through blockchain technology.

    Authentication of identity and reputation

    Today, we rely on rating agencies, analytics firms and banks to establish trust, verify identity in transactions and decide who merits access to the system. In contrast, reputation accrues on the blockchain itself. Blockchain technology lowers or eliminates the need for trust altogether.

    Moving and storing value

    Blockchain startups such as Circle, Abra and Paycase want to make retail banking a global free commodity, like Google, and can do so because their back end, supported by blockchain, is secure and inexpensive to run. “When was the last time you sent a ‘cross-border e-mail’?” asked Jeremy Allaire, CEO of Circle, rhetorically. He bets hundreds of millions of millennials globally will find this prospect appealing.

    Lending

    Retail, commercial and mercantile banks, along with credit scoring and rating firms, facilitate the issuance of credit card debt, mortgages, corporate and municipal bonds, T-bills and asset-backed securities. On the blockchain, anyone could check creditworthiness before issuing, trading and settling traditional debt instruments directly, reducing friction and increasing transparency. The unbanked and entrepreneurs everywhere could access loans from peers.

     Exchanging value

    Market-making will change profoundly as financial assets move from a paper-based format to a native digital format based on blockchain. Settlement times on transactions can be reduced from days or weeks to minutes or seconds. This is a huge opportunity for incumbents to reduce cost, but it also poses risks.

     Venture capital, IPOs and project finance

    The halcyon days of entrepreneurship may be upon us. Ethereum, a blockchain platform supported by Microsoft, Manulife, Deloitte and others, got its start as a “blockchain IPO” – issuing native tokens for bitcoins. No need for bankers, lawyers, auditors and stock exchanges. Today, it’s worth $1-billion (U.S.). Blockchain also automates the matchmaking, enabling more efficient, transparent, secure models for peer-to-peer financing, recording dividends and paying coupons.

     Insurance and risk management

    Using reputation systems based on a person’s economic and social capital, insurers will be able to make better-informed decisions, which explains why Manulife just announced a flagship agreement with blockchain developer Consensus Systems. The over-the-counter derivatives market, with a notional value of $600-trillion, is paper-based and opaque and relies too heavily on centralized clearinghouses. Moving all derivatives to blockchain would reduce counterparty and systemic risk in the financial system.

     Accounting

    Traditional accounting practices are not keeping pace with the velocity and complexity of modern finance. The blockchain’s distributed ledger will make auditing transparent through time-stamped third entries on a blockchain, enabling regulators to more easily scrutinize financial actions within a corporation in real time. Deloitte, PWC and others are investigating these “triple-entry” accounting schemes for their audit practices.

    Given the promise and peril, Wall Street has woken up in a big way. More than 45 leading banks, including Royal Bank of Canada , have joined the R3CEV Consortium to develop blockchain infrastructure for banking. IBM launched the Hyperledger project, which counts Deutsche Bank, the London Stock Exchange Group and Wells Fargo as members. Microsoft is in the game, as are Visa, Cisco, Intel and many other leading tech companies.

    Venture capitalists are piling in, too. In 2014 and 2015 alone, more than $1-billion of venture capital flooded into the emerging ecosystem, and the rate of investment is doubling annually.

    “We’re quite confident,” said Marc Andreessen, an Internet icon and venture capitalist, “that when we’re sitting here in 20 years, we’ll be talking about blockchain the way we talk about the Internet today.”

    Governments believe blockchain could simplify and improve the delivery of services and empower regulators and central bankers to do their jobs more effectively.

    So is this the death knell for financial services or a new platform for reinvention? For sure, blockchain will create winners and losers. Banks can thrive if they can steer clear of the innovator’s dilemma and disrupt from within. Leaders of the old rarely embrace the new, but we remain hopeful.

    The greatest opportunity for Canada is to use blockchain to kick-start our innovation economy by embracing the entrepreneurs who are instigating change.

    Canadian entrepreneurs have been on the leading edge of blockchain innovation from the beginning. Ethereum, mentioned earlier, was founded by a group of Canadian developers, led by Vitalik Buterin. It recently became the first crowd-funded blockchain “unicorn.” Consensus Systems, run by Canadian CEO Joseph Lubin, is a blockchain juggernaut, building applications to reinvent a dozen industries. And a growing constellation of entrepreneurs and technologists are trying to build the future at companies such as Ledger Labs, Paycase, Unocoin and Blockstream.

    Can we nurture an environment where entrepreneurs and their ideas can flourish? There is a critical mass of talent in Canada right now. What’s needed is bold, multistakeholder leadership. The unstoppable force of blockchain technology is barrelling down on the immovable infrastructure of modern finance. We would like this collision to transform the old money machine into a prosperity platform for all.

     


    [linkedinbadge URL=”https://www.linkedin.com/in/dontapscott” connections=”off” mode=”icon” liname=”Alex Tapscott”] is CEO and founder of Northwest Passage Ventures, an advisory firm building industry-leading blockchain businesses.

    This piece is adapted from his book, with co-author Don Tapscott, Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business and the World. A version of this article originally appeared on TheGlobeandMail.com

     
  • user 2:59 pm on May 14, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: banks, , ,   

    Major trends in global financial technology (fintech) 

    AAEAAQAAAAAAAAh1AAAAJDYzZGYwMTc2LWE2ODctNDhjNS1hNGM4LWU0ZDlmMjlhOTI5ZA

    I am honored to have been invited to speak at a panel during Innovfest unBound in Singapore regarding trends in globally. On top of this Kuchi and our coming product HiHedge has been granted exhibition space at Marina Bay Sands for the duration of the conference! This is pretty awesome, and I like the topic so here will deal in greater detail with the speech topics I’ll bring up at Innovfest! Let’s dig in!

    The state of, and differences between fintech in the US, Europe and Asia?

    Fintech is booming, and Asia is powering up a sprint on the leader, the US. With US$4.5 billion raised in 2015 in Asian investments, out of US$19.1 billion globally, Asia is betting hard on this. Especially when comparing the growth rates – near tripling in Asia – it is aggressive even in a market growing at 60% globally from 2014.

    The United States is leading the game – not just in terms of size of funding. They have an advantage in the maturity of the sector, and also in terms of their diversity and type of business/consumer problems that they are solving. The US has over the last few decades had a much stronger financial sector (Hello Wall St.!) and consulting-, legal-, and operational service sectors of which the financial sector has been one of the top clients. There is simply such a strong breath of talent, people with enough money to be able to bootstrap (go without external funding), and entrepreneurial culture in the US that enables a strong fintech startup ecosystem to grow. On top of this the size of the ecosystem does two things: 1) it allows people to specialize, which makes it more likely that you can start a company and run it successfully in a niche, and 2) it creates a breadth of connections and clients which are all available immediately to the new firm.

    In terms of the specifics of the market, you simply have a stronger B2B story in US fintech. This is mostly because the entrepreneurs there can draw on actual experience of working inside a financial institution or a company servicing them. / distributed ledger innovation is being driven by the same forces. Blythe Masters’s Digital Asset Holdings is one of the best examples of the nexus of payment going all the way to operations in the back office of and stock exchanges! Several other companies are attacking all B2B offerings between and on the side.

    Europe is much, much narrower in terms of fintech. Largely, one can say that fintech in Europe is very, very focused on payments and payments-related issues (authentication, processing, management and aggregation). Germany does however have an added focus on banking (lending, digital banking access) and London is starting to see an asset management sector slowly pop up.

    To a large extent, the payments focus I think is due to having a single market with in some ways different banking and payment systems, and less of a deep and wide pool financial industry talent to feed off of. Although sounding sad, it does bring Europe a focus and solutions that I can foresee will be very important in building broad financial inclusion.

    Broad financial inclusion however, is Asia’s Tour de Force.  Giving access to the unbanked. Finding out how to score credit for thin-file clients. Offering SMEs free B2B tools to run their businesses more effectively. And that’s just in the accelerator I am in! (Shoutout to Cefy and Banhji.) Huge new demographics will be coming into the financial system and will need services that banks are not operationally set to deal with. This is most likely to play out in the B2C space where Asian entrepreneurs have deep experience of the actual end-user problem.

    Couple this with Asia’s affinity for- and success with platform companies and you have an incredible mixture. Investment services on your chat app? Tencent’s WeChat does that at a time when Facebook is asking itself if chat-based commerce makes sense! Immediate payments in-app? Welcome to… well pretty much every Asian chat app. You’re a business and need financing? Were you using Alibaba in the last few years? Chances are that their big investment in Ant Financial gives them an opportunity to offer you a loan based on your Alibaba activity!

    If you’re innovating on a platform, the world can be yours! That applies to fintech and elsewhere, but fintech is simply so hot now.

    So where is the global fintech space going?

    I think the market will play out differently in different parts of the world because it’s being led by vastly different players!

    The US and Europe is led by the specialists, all essentially trying to do the services that financial institutions need (or some of their internal functions) but better. Better in this case means more efficient. Better in this case means lower cost. It’s good enough to make everyone happy.

    In Asia, financial entrepreneurship is largely about doing things differently. Use different solutions altogether and run them on a platform / app instead of jacking in to a chain of financial operations that is inefficient. But Asia is also largely in that stage of growth where large conglomerates can exist, and – by power of brute force, market recognition, management experience and money – are able to simply bring in talent in any field and have a competitive advantage. (This happened in the US with GM, Ford, Motorola, and large parts of Europe’s industrial titans too a few decades ago. Japan’s companies are largely still looking like this.) The execution of specialized tasks and need for deep niche understanding is simply not high enough in these new markets where there are few competitors.

    Asian platforms have all the width and reach you’ll need as an innovator, and they will be your most logical partner. Platforms are also the biggest competitors for incumbents since they can incorporate both scale and speed. If you’re a financial institution you shouldn’t be afraid of opening your e27, TechinAsia, TechCrunch or Wired for fear of seeing the competition. You should be petrified by the Asian companies that Bloomberg and Reuters cover! These are companies like Snapdeal & Flipcart in India; Baidu, Alibaba & Tencent (BAT to China-watchers) in China; and Rakuten, DeNA and LINE Corp. from Japan. These players already have reach, payments, data analytics, and a plug-and-play style platform ecosystem. As a startup, why work to build any of that instead of putting 100% focus in innovative, problem solving products and services?

    Musings on Machine Learning in finance:

    Machine learning will probably make high-paid, routine work obsolete. Unless customization is of the essence, and public data is scarce, large swathes of the time-consuming parts of investment banking, consulting, and accounting will go out the window. Get ready to figure out how you survive in this world, either by building experience or scale. Imagine a machine-learning algorithm going through all of PwC’s consulting database? All their accounting audit documentation? All of Goldman Sachs’s primary market deals database? The end-job still requires strong sales and deep understanding of the client that a human will still need to perform, but all the man-days spent crawling through and filing documentation are numbered.

    Will banks face an Uber Moment?

    No. If that happens that will be named whatever the name of the company is that disrupts them! Let’s compare use cases:

    1. A guy hails a cab on the street. Problem: get from point A to B where B is close to A, in a short time. Possibly also that the person cannot drive or needs to do something else in the meantime. Possible to solve with drivers. The incentives (for the two-sided market place) and regulation are tricky, but providing the service is easy. Duplicate for the use-case being checking in at a hotel. (Person needs space for 1 night, figure out incentives for people with spare rooms, circumvent regulation, and go.)
    2. Someone posts a classified in a paper. Problem: Buyers and sellers, employers and employees, potential friends, romantic partners, etc. can’t find each other. Possible to solve with online bulletin boards that include profiles. A weekend of coding and problem solved. Add people wanting to advertise to those users and you have a business!
    3. A professional walks into a bank. Problem: Well you can’t make a simple problem statement. Which in a million of the problems a bank can solve is this client interested in? Solving any of the problems probably requires the integration and cooperation of several internal bank departments.

    Innovation in banking will happen at the level of the B2B providers to the financial institutions, or potentially in individual bank units. It will be death by a thousand cuts if banks aren’t quick to buy up the innovators before they go to platforms. There will not be one Uber Moment, simply because banking is integrated and complex. Banks have a choice now of whether they want to be Android and provide a platform that works for both producers and end-users, or if they are content being like print newspapers and complaining about innovation being too fast for them.

    Let’s see what some of the Asian financial centers, like Tokyo, Mumbai, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Singapore can cook up in terms of driving fintech innovation!


     [linkedinbadge URL=”https://www.linkedin.com/in/tkalvner” connections=”off” mode=”icon” liname=”Tim Alvner”], the author of this article is CFO at Kuchi Inc. and Finance Consultant and this was originally published on linkedin

     
  • user 6:40 pm on May 13, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , banks, , , , , , ,   

    Bank of Japan Official: Central Banks Need to Watch Blockchain 

    A of said this week that should developments surrounding and “closely”.
    CoinDesk

     
  • user 10:56 am on May 9, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , banks, , , , ,   

    Exploring Banking as a Platform (BaaP) Model 

    Screen Shot 2016-03-19 at 9.46.35 AM

    I co-authored this post (and its sequel which will be published shortly) with David Brear, Chief Thinker at Think Different Group

    The integration and delivery of financial services is changing as new channels, products and partnerships are being explored. as a () is one of the alternatives. Platform strategies require a radically different approach to how a business is architected. Owning an entire business stack may not be feasible nor desirable anymore.

    In 2015, it became almost the expected cliché slide at any self respecting financial  conference that someone would stand up and reference the interesting infographic highlighting the success of new ‘sharing economy’ players. The references, first discussed by Tom Goodwin on TechCrunch, illustrates how the middle men get cut out and how companies that take over the customer interface are the ones to gain.

    Platforms

    If the presenter had an updated slide, they may have referenced Deliveroo, the biggest restaurant delivery service that makes no food.

    These companies have grown exponentially in both popularity and success in the last 4 years. They have scaled their business models and platforms to cover more geographies and locations than even the largest global . But while platform strategies have taken the world by storm in many other industries, platform strategies haven’t worked out in banking or insurance.

    By platform strategy, we mean those that IBMCiscoIntelMicrosoft developed in the 80s and 90s. Equally, AmazonGoogleApple and the firms previously mentioned have also employed more recently.

    The only exceptions in the banking sector may be found with Visa and MasterCard who, as networks, had to develop a platform strategy where issuers, acquirers, startups, various payments service providers and merchants are symbiotically linked. In that sense, most banks are part of Visa or MasterCard’s platform strategy, but do not have a platform strategy of their own. In insurance, developing a network of agents, brokers and master general agents does not really qualify as a platform as it is limited to a distribution channel.

    Why Didn’t Financial Services Organize As Platforms?

    There are three main reasons why financial services industry incumbent did not organize as platforms:

    1. Current Business Models – Banking and insurance company business models do not currently lend themselves to network effects. They do benefit from economies of scale – although this may be hotly debated – but not network effects. Without the benefit of network effects, it makes more sense to own one’s stack entirely and not share it. Why create a platform with partners when the benefits will be linear at best?

    2. We’re Number One, So Why Change? – Up until recently, banks and insurers were the perfect intermediaries. They were the best positioned to make credit or underwriting decisions. Why create a platform with partners when no one else knows how to lend or insure better than the current players?

    3. We ‘own’ the customer – Up until now, how individuals or corporations interacted with one another and between themselves lent itself to a top down organization for the selling of financial services. If the industry owns the narrative of how a financial product gets pushed to an end user, why create a platform with partners?

    These conditions have been unique and protected the financial services industry incumbent players from the reality faced into by many other industries and individual organizations. Today, though, we live in a world where computers and algorithms are proving to be very adept at pricing credit and underwriting risk. And where in the past data that was not readily available, it is very abundant and available in real-time today.

    Technological innovations, coupled with significant regulation changes, have lowered the barriers of entry into these markets to a staggeringly low level. Completely new organizations like Mondo Bank in the UK, Simple and Moven in the US, and some of the largest technology firms, like Apple and Google, now move freely into these markets at will.

    As this occurs, banks and insurers run the risk of losing their dominant position as primary intermediaries for customer interaction and engagement.

    Network Effects Have Changed The World

    Network effects impact us all on a daily basis, via social networks and other marketplaces. These same social networks and marketplaces, after having gotten us used to interacting with one another in a different way, are now encroaching on financial services, with payments and lending initially being their target.

    Smartphones, broadband internet, the 24/7 availability of commerce and data, and social networks have made us organize ourselves very differently than in the past. The Millennial generation, weaned on this new paradigm, now have completely different expectations than their parents or grand parents of communication and commerce.

    Screen Shot 2016-03-19 at 9.52.33 AM

    There are other reasons why financial services industry incumbents need to shift to a platform strategy. For example, financial services startups, competing against these incumbents, is one narrative brandied about. Frankly, the startup competition is a by-product of the root causes rather than a driver.

    Without  competition, financial services industry incumbents would still need to think about platform strategies, as the root causes are much more fundamental than that. Financial services industry incumbents need to transform into “fintech incumbents,” with a complementary platform business to better compete.

    We recommend the book Platform Leadership by Annabelle Gawer and Michael A. Cusumanoto to those who want to explore further what platform strategies are. In the book, the authors’ outline four sets of strategic choices that are part of platform leadership:

    1. Determine the scope of the firm: Is it better to create product complements internally or let someone else do it? How far into the technology value chain should a firm extend?
    2. Design the product with strategic intent: What degree of modularity is appropriate? Should product interfaces be open or closed? What information should be disclosed to other companies?
    3. Shape relationships with external complementors: How can the company balance competition and collaboration with outside players? What’s the best way to create and sustain relationships with complementary product providers?
    4. Optimize internal organizational structures: What processes and systems will allow the company to manage internal and external conflicts of interest most effectively? What’s the right way to resolve the tensions between industry players?

    7 Levels of FinTech Platforms

    For a bank or an insurance company to become a platform for financial services, profound transformations need to happen. Becoming a “digital bank”, if taken in the strictest sense of the term (i.e. bringing distribution channels to the digital realm) is not enough.

    A platform architecture implies transformational changes across the business/technology stack as well as fundamental choices that dictate how product, service, technology and HR resources are articulated between, 1) What is delivered internally by the core; and 2) What is delivered externally by partners active on the platform.

    The distinction is important as it defines the company and the core differentiator in the market. What do we have to be awesome at? What can we let other people do? How do we exceed consumer expectations?

    Below is a potential view of a financial services industry incumbent platform state. For the purposes of the analysis, we dissected the levers into 7 components (vs. the four in the Platform Leadership book).

    Screen Shot 2016-03-19 at 9.40.24 AM

    Because of current legacy mindsets and structures, a platform play would be very difficult to implement for the vast majority of organizations.

    Making a Platform Play in Banking Possible

    It is clear that any success in developing a platform strategy for banking (BaaP) will be largely dependent on wholesale cultural and technology mindset changes. Traditional business models are far easier since banks are in full control. Financial services industry incumbents created products and sold them to their customers. Value was produced upstream by the banks and consumed downstream by the consumer.

    Unlike traditional models, a Banking as a Platform structure does not just create and push products. The BaaP structure allows users to create and consume value. At the technology layer, external developers can extend platform functionality using APIs. At the business layer, users (producers) can create value on the platform for other to consume.

    This is a massive shift from any form of financial services model that exists today. Creation of network effects is more important than simply bringing in users or charging all users to make money.

    In this model for financial services, software and technology are not the end product. Instead, they simply serve as the underlying infrastructure that enable users to interact with each other. Most importantly, the business itself doesn’t create all the value.

     

    This post originally appeared on The Financial Brand in a different format

    FiniCulture

     
  • user 4:54 am on May 9, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , banks, , ,   

    Dynamic Pricing in Alternative Lending & P2P Lending 

    shutterstock_387505249

    in the market may be driven by the potential for relationship pricing in conjunction with traditional banking partnerships.

    As a follow-up to our article, “A Business Case for Dynamic Pricing in Banking,” there is a great deal of discussion regarding the role of dynamic pricing in lending and how it may be applied in the alternative lending market. Lending is steeped in risk and every nuance of a lending product is crafted to mitigate that risk. Is dynamic pricing even possible in the alt-lending market?

    With the obvious heavy hitters like Lending ClubKabbageProsper, and OnDeck garnering the lion’s share of attention, there are still approximately 1,300 companies in the US offering services to about 1% of the overall market – one projected to be upwards of USD$ 350 million by 2025. That leaves the 6,500+ traditional American bank providers fighting for the remaining 99%. Where’s the competition, you ask?

    In the ’ view, that 1% constitutes the “unbankable” or “undesirable” loans. But there is strong evidence that it’s not the retail consumer with bad or no credit history that the alt lenders are going after, but the small/medium enterprise (SME) business customer pool that is the primary, and most profitable, target.

    Be it consumer or SME, what makes alt lenders attractive to customers comes down to pricing.

    In the consumer market, peer-to-peer lenders like European based Zopa and Funding Circle offer investors (depositors) interest rates typically between 5-6%, attractive to those offered 2-3% traditional bank returns. Granted, borrowers face much higher interest rates (6-33%) than traditional unsecured loan rates from traditional banks (average cap of 16%).

    The market sets the price (as do the Central Banks). And no lender is in this for charity – they want a marginal return that covers operational costs, liquidity coverage requirements, and profit. How individual lenders, alt or not, manage their appetite for risk determines a portion of those margins. So, does risk lend itself to dynamic pricing?

    Can we Dynamically Price a Single Product?

    How elastic is single product price? We’ve asked this question in our previous post, and concluded that relationship pricing is difficult in singularity, but a competitive differentiator and a smart strategy when offerings are bundled. Questioning how the lending market may adapt to adopt dynamic pricing leads us to believe that alt-lenders will slowly start behaving more and more like traditional banks to take advantage of a pseudo-dynamic pricing strategy.

    Before we rationalize this assumption, let’s look at two pricing strategies that we predict will play a role in the lending market.

    Abandoning Strict Cohort Analysis Pricing: This method of pricing to market segmentation usually means lumping potential customers into a single risk assessment category based on FICO or credit scores. This is the primary factor that determines the price of unsecured risk. Including other factors like age, education, employment and salary history, geography, and potential lifetime earnings, as well as potential repeat lending business to assess risk is a nod to relationship pricing (and lifetime customer value to the lender) that paints a unique profile for each potential customer. With big data and behavioral analytics, the straight jacket of strict cohort pricing loosens up, and pricing inches closer to reflecting the lender/lendee relationship value.

    Alt-Lending/Bank Partnerships: While not a pricing option per se, a partnership is a risk mitigation strategy and customer service tactic by banks. It is also a way for banks to bolster their offerings, but the end result is more pricing flexibility. A recent partnership announcement between Regions Bank and alt lender Fundation underscore the advantage to banks:

    “This unique agreement….allows Regions Bank to expand loan-product offerings and method of delivery for small businesses while also cultivating long-term revenue and loan-growth opportunities.”

    RBS and Funding Circle have a similar program, something that Santander and Funding Circle did first, back in 2014.

    A referral requirement in the UK has pushed banks and alt lenders into partnership, but the US market could see a similar push towards alliances.

    Relationship pricing in this partnership context is possible when the customer’s portfolio from both the bank and the alt lender is taken into consideration when the risk pricing/rate is offered. This is especially true if a current bank customer is referred to an alt lender – because the bank doesn’t have appetite for that risk that customer poses – but has some assets at the bank the alt lender could consider collateral. We don’t see it now, but we could.

    If It Walks Like a Duck, and Talks Like a Duck …

    Let’s return to our assumption that alt-lenders will start to resemble traditional banks by offering non-lending products. While they may not accept deposits in the same way as a traditional banks, there is still a strong resemblance.

    SoFi, primarily known for its student loan refinancing, accepts cash “providers” and pays them a higher yield rate (up to 6.5% as opposed to the typical 0.03% banks pay out) for managing those loans to borrowers. It can be argued that “providers” are in fact depositors, just depositors who aren’t insured by the FDIC or subject to regulations imposed by the Federal Reserve or Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. They can call it one thing, but the subtext is “super risky deposit”.

    Zopa calls their product “savings”, but it’s the same principle. Deposit money that is in turn loaned out, and get paid a higher rate on those “savings”. It’s essentially a higher risk deposit not backed by the UK government’s Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

    Payments is a natural next step … isn’t a credit/debit type product issued by alt lenders just on the horizon? Alt lenders could easily provide a card or app that draws on those ‘savings’ or taps into the line of credit. This is because loans are not inherently sticky products, and “underbanked” and “undesirable” lending customers even less so. Because of the high risk, they’re not attractive to banks, so there’s no incentive to encourage loyalty, let alone cultivate customer lifetime value.

    But when an alt lender can provide savings and payments, as well as credit, the stickiness factor increases, and individual customer profitability margins can increase. Relationship pricing for even a small bundle of products is now viable. Nuanced pricing of loan rates could easily be tied to volume of payment product transactions, add in periodic reviews of the volume of payments and make the interest rate adjustable, dependent upon payment volume. The more the customer uses the payment product to dip into “savings”, the better the loan or savings rate.

    While this isn’t relationship pricing in strictest sense of the word, it can be dynamic.

    Of course once multiple product offerings become the de facto norm (or there’s even a whiff of it becoming a trend), regulatory scrutiny follows. What a new regulatory framework looks like is anyone’s guess, and we’re not exactly clairvoyant. But we do like to read the tea leaves.

    Alt-Lenders Expanding Their Reach

    Risk priced products are nearly impossible to price dynamically or in context of the customer relationship when offered as a stand-alone product. The current alt-lending market can’t adopt this pricing strategy. However, it can inch closer to dynamic pricing by approaching cohort analysis differently. And new bank/alt-lender partnerships crack open the door to more nuanced risk pricing.

    Our prediction is that alt lenders will start to offer new, non-lending products. If so, then the door to dynamic pricing swings ever wider and we will see bundled offerings that can be relationship priced.

    FiniCulture

     
  • user 10:57 pm on May 8, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: banks, , , Plasma, Solid,   

    Fintech: from Solid to Plasma 

    shutterstock_380892832

    Not a day goes by that I do not read or hear about how is finally disrupting the financial services industry. Entrepreneurs and traditional VC firms fueled the first wave of frenzy by respectively building and funding fintech startups intent on disrupting the status quo. These same actors fueled the second wave where many existing startups pivoted b2c to b2b models and started selling to finserv incumbents &; many new startups went b2b directly too. We are living the last innings of this second wave in my opinion as most finserv incumbents have now woken up to the reality of technology change in their industry. It remains to be seen how the third wave will shape up &8211; I have my own views which I will reserve for a future blog post.

    Most finserv incumbents claim to have seen the light and profess their new found fervor towards adopting new technologies. &;Adapt or die&; some say. &8220;Let&;s partner with fintech startups&8221; others declare. &8220;We have to integrate these new technologies within our existing business models&8221; others assert.

    Fine, yes, maybe.

    To the risk of being provocative, most of these views are equivalent to peddling horse manure at a fishmongers&8217; market. In other words these views are inadequate and originate from a fundamental misunderstanding of the new norm every corporation, big or small, is or will very soon be faced with when it comes to technology.

    Technology should not be viewed as a discrete building block anymore, where one decides on a technology solution, buys/rents/partners with hardware and software, and runs such a solution mostly in the background, separate from and supporting the &8220;real&8221; business. I would characterize this view as the &8220; state&8221; view of technology.

    To the risk of being even more provocative, any finserv incumbent that treats enabling technologies and fintech startups as solid building blocks of matter to adapt, integrate and implement within their existing business models will fail.

    Rather, technology should be viewed as the &8220; state&8221; vector that will reinvent how a corporation is architected, where technology and business ideas fuse together to create vastly different ways of delivering value to users, consumers and customers. To be a tad more precise, it will be more and more difficult to discern between business models and technology as technology becomes more pervasive throughout a corporation.

    This means finserv incumbents need to think about a) the human resources they need to attract and retain to run a plasma state business, b) the business models they have to or can create due to technology changes, and c) the strategic focus they have to or can chisel due to technology changes. Adapting by mere addition to protect a legacy business will fail. Adapting through fusion to create new paradigms is the key.

    The technology world we live in is making available to us new perspectives:
    &8211; peer to peer models
    &8211; decentralization of decisioning models
    &8211; scalable trust graphs
    &8211; intelligent automation
    &8211; news way to understand and share risk
    &8211; instantaneity of transaction processing
    &8211; frictionless value transfers and value sharing

    It stands to reason that these new perspectives will be part of the core of what it means to be a finserv corporation too.

    I do realize achieving &8220;plasma&8221; properties is easier said than done. The best fintech startups exhibit such traits from inception &8211; they live and breathe the fusion of business and technology. For a finserv incumbent the proposition is somewhat more complex. I have the utmost respect for many of the industry&8217;s leaders. To speak only of , most CEOs and Chairmans are sharp visionaries and leaders, and contrary to many pundits I believe they mostly &8220;get&8221; the challenge they are faced with. Their problem, as a very astute Managing Partner of a bank corporate venture fund I know puts it, is the pesky contingencies of day to day life where running behemoth organizations is a non trivial endeavor. In other words, to date, not enough executive bandwidth is dedicated to the plasma view I am outlining.

    We are currently witnessing massive a/b testing within the banking world &8211; I use banks as a proxy for all finserv incumbents and my comments apply to insurers equally &8211; where C-suite executives are tinkering with:
    &8211; innovation labs
    &8211; on balance sheet venture investing
    &8211; off balance sheet investing via corporate venture arms or traditional VC funds
    &8211; hackathons
    &8211; accelerators and incubators

    We witness this a/b testing via industry buzzwords and initiatives such as API banking, digital banking, omni channel banking, proof of concepts, pilot projects, partnerships and joint ventures with startups.

    I am convinced what we are witnessing is but an intermediary stage towards a more comprehensive incumbent response &8211; at least for those incumbents that will successfully transition to the future. I have advocated in previous posts that one of the responses incumbents need to articulate is a platform strategy, see here. I am even more convinced this approach will only be successful if it includes, at its core, a strong fusion of business models and technology.

    Focusing back on fintech startups, what I wonder is, both for those vying to be service providers to finserv incumbents as well as those competing against them, what will be their evolving natural responses and business strategies in light of eventual finserv incumbent plasma success.

    FiniCulture

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