Sections

Is It Fintech Or Techfin? (Part 1)

Chris Skinner

In conversations with bankers and startups, it is clear that there they have differing views of the world. It is not as clear-cut as “nimble innovator versus dinosaur incumbent,” which is how many portray the chasm, but there is a radical difference in thinking, perhaps best summed up by a banker’s recent comment to me: “surely this is Techfin rather than Fintech.”

I thought about what he meant and realized that this is the subtle difference between the innovator and the incumbent. An innovator thinks of this as Fintech: taking financial processes and applying technology. Incumbents think of this as Techfin: taking technology to work with financial processes. This difference in thinking, although subtle, does create a very different thought process and output in the way technology is used. So I thought I would delve a little deeper, as this is a key to seeing how the world differs between the innovators and incumbents.

First, the startup Fintech firm. This firm looks at the world through the eyes of a technologist. This means that the start point is technology. Apps, APIs, analytics, and more are the foundations of their thinking. Open source, open operations, open thinking are at the heart of their culture. Embracing diversity and working globally without reference offices or structure are the tools of their skillset. And a mentor, an angel, and an investor are the base capital requirements to get them started.

This startup begins by thinking about how technology could transform financial processes. This means that they take something that exists – loans, savings, investments, payments, trading, and more – and think about how they could reinvent these processes. Peer-to-peer (P2P) lending is a good example. When Zopa started in business in April 2005, they told me about their business model and it sounded weird, to be honest. “We’re an eBay for loans,” they told me. “You give us your money and we lend it out on your behalf. You get better interest on your money than you would with a savings company, and people pay less for their loans,” they continued. “Want to invest £10,000?”

No way, as it sounded crazy. An untested, unproven business that would take my investment and manage the risk of lending that investment to borrowers? An eBay for loans? That’s startup thinking. A decade later, that startup is taking over £1.2 billion in funds from over 53,000 consumers to lend at the most competitive rates in the UK. In fact, the startup P2P model is so popular that it’s been copied worldwide. The US is one of the fastest growing markets – over $8 billion has been loaned, doubling year-on-year. It is why Lending Club had one of the hottest IPOs of 2014 followed up by SoFi receiving over $1 billion investment in its latest funding round.

These are significant numbers, but nowhere near as significant as the forecasts by banks like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Goldman Sachs predicts that almost $11 billion of bank profits from lending will move to the new startup social economy by 2020 – about 5% of the current market – while Morgan Stanley estimates that global marketplace lending should reach $290 billion by 2020, with a CAGR (compound annual growth rate) of 51% from 2014-2020, and China and America the two largest markets.

Base Case: Global marketplace lending can reach $290 billion by 2020, with expected CAGR of 51% from 2014-2020.
Base Case: Global marketplace lending can reach $290 billion by 2020, with expected CAGR of 51% from 2014-2020.

And this is the key to the innovators’ Fintech thinking: How can we take an existing market with a middleman and replace the middleman with a technology intermediary? That is what Bitcoin is focused upon – replacing the bank with the Internet for value transfer; it is what new trading schemes like T0.com focus on – replacing the stock market with the blockchain; and it is what firms like TransferWise and Currency Cloud believe – replace FX markets with P2P connectivity to enable money to move.

There are many more examples. The rapidly growing and disruptive Fintech scene is hot because it is all about using technology to transform financial processes. The incumbent thinking of the Techfin is very different.

Thanks to the Internet, mobile technology and soon the Internet of things, people, places, organisations and objects are linked together like never before. Learn more about The Hyperconnected Economy and how that’s changing how we work and connect.

Comments

About Chris Skinner

Mr. Skinner is chairman of the Financial Services Club, CEO of Balatro Ltd. and comments on the financial markets through his blog the Finanser. He can be reached at Chris.Skinner@BalatroLtd.com

Time For Banks To Fight Back

Laurence Leyden

Metamora, Illinois, USA --- USA, Illinois, Metamora, Close-up of man photographing checque --- Image by © Vstock LLC/Tetra Images/CorbisThe financial services industry has suffered consecutive blows in recent years. The global banking crisis, new regulations, empowered customers calling the shots, not to mention a new breed of digital disruptors out to steal market share, have wreaked havoc on business as usual.  Profits have been slashed, reputations have been damaged, and management has been blindsided.

The only way forward is change – a change of business model, a change of mindset, and a change of ecosystem.  It’s a major upheaval, and not to be taken lightly. Banks in particular have operated largely the same way for the past 300 years. Management is facing a once in a generation reassessment of 21st century banking.

Changes in customer behaviour, including 24×7 omnichannel service expectations, lack of loyalty by current customers willing to exchange privacy for easier access to information, generational expectations of future customers – “screenagers” and tech savvy Millennials – and technology advances in cloud, mobile, real-time data, and predictive analytics make yesterday’s business model redundant.

Banking isn’t actually about banking anymore. It’s about enabling people’s lifestyles. That means you have to completely re-think how you engage with customers. The lessons are everywhere in parallel industries. Nokia, for example, thought it was about the phone, not the customer experience. Digitisation has both emboldened and empowered customers. Ignoring this fact is pointless. You need to cater to what consumers want. That means your back-end systems need to be integrated, consistent, contextualised and easy to deploy across any channel.

There’s also a whole new ecosystem required to support this new business model. Banks are facing disaggregation as they no longer own the end-to-end value chain, as well as disintermediation as new market entrants attack specific parts of the business (think Apple Pay). Smart banks are forging relationships with different and unexpected partners, such as mobile and retail organisations, even providing products from outside of the group where they are the best fit for a customer’s needs.  As I’ve said in one of my previous blogs, there’s a new mantra for modern banking: “Must play well with others.”

Old-fashioned banking is gone, and with it so have old style processes, business models and attitudes. Nobody wants to be the last dinosaur.  It’s time for the industry to dust itself off, and step up. Embracing change is easier – and far more profitable – than risking irrelevance in the widening digital divide.

I’ve briefly summarised only some of the key drivers of digital transformation, but you can find much more insight – including views from thought leaders in banks, insurance companies, fintech providers, challenger banks and aggregators – by downloading the eBook from the recent SAP Financial Services Forum: The digital evolution – As technology transforms financial services who will triumph.

It’s essential reading if you’re going to successfully fight back.

Comments

Laurence Leyden

About Laurence Leyden

Laurence is general manager of Financial Services, EMEA, at SAP and is primarily involved in helping banks in their transformation agenda. Prior to SAP he worked for numerous banks in Europe and Asia including Barclays, Lloyds Banking Group and HSBC. He regularly presents on industry trends and SAP’s banking strategy.

Why Banks Should Be Bullish On Integrating Finance And Risk Data

Mike Russo

Welcome to the regulatory world of banking, where finance and risk must join forces to banking executiveensure compliance and control. Today it’s no longer sufficient to manage your bank’s performance using finance-only metrics such as net income. What you need is a risk-adjusted view of performance that identifies how much revenue you earn relative to the amount of risk you take on. That requires metrics that combine finance and risk components, such as risk-adjusted return on capital, shareholder value added, or economic value added.

While the smart money is on a unified approach to finance and risk, most banking institutions have isolated each function in a discrete technology “silo” complete with its own data set, models, applications, and reporting components. What’s more, banks continually reuse and replicate their finance and risk-related data – resulting in the creation of additional data stores filled with redundant data that grows exponentially over time. Integrating all this data on a single platform that supports both finance and risk scenarios can provide the data integrity and insight needed to meet regulations. Such an initiative may involve some heavy lifting, but the advantages extend far beyond compliance.

Cashing in on bottom-line benefits

Consider the potential cost savings of taking a more holistic approach to data management. In our work with large global banks, we estimate that data management – including validation, reconciliation, and copying data from one data mart to another – accounts for 50% to 70% of total IT costs. Now factor in the benefits of reining in redundancy. One bank we’re currently working with is storing the same finance and risk-related data 20 times. This represents a huge opportunity to save costs by eliminating data redundancy and all the associated processes that unfold once you start replicating data across multiple sources.

With the convergence of finance and risk, we’re seeing more banks reviewing their data architecture, thinking about new models, and considering how to handle data in a smarter way. Thanks to modern methodologies, building a unified platform that aligns finance and risk no longer requires a rip-and-replace process that can disrupt operations. As with any enterprise initiative, it’s best to take a phased approach.

Best practices in creating a unified data platform

Start by identifying a chief data officer (CDO) who has strategic responsibility for the unified platform, including data governance, quality, architecture, and analytics. The CDO oversees the initiative, represents all constituencies, and ensures that the new data architecture serves the interests of all stakeholders.

Next, define a unified set of terms that satisfies both your finance and risk constituencies while addressing regulatory requirements. This creates a common language across the enterprise so all stakeholders clearly understand what the data means. Make sure all stakeholders have an opportunity to weigh in and explain their perspective of the data early on because certain terms can mean different things to finance and risk folks.

In designing your platform, take advantage of new technologies that make previous IT models predicated on compute-intensive risk modeling a thing of the past. For example, in-memory computing now enables you to integrate all information and analytic processes in memory, so you can perform calculations on-the-fly and deliver results in real time. Advanced event stream processing lets you run analytics against transaction data as it’s posting, so you can analyze and act on events as they happen.

Such technologies bring integration, speed, flexibility, and access to finance and risk data. They eliminate the need to move data to data marts and reconcile data to meet user requirements. Now a single finance and risk data warehouse can be flexible and comprehensive enough to serve many masters.

Join our webinar with Risk.net on 7 October, 2015 to learn best practices and benefits of deploying an integrated finance and risk platform.

Comments

About Mike Russo

Mike Russo, Senior Industry Principal – Financial Services Mike has 30 years experience in the Financial Services/ Financial Software industries. His experience includes stints as Senior Auditor for the Irving Trust Co., NY; Manager of the International Department at Barclays Bank of New York; and 14 years as CFO for Nordea Bank’s, New York City branch –a full service retail/commercial bank. Mike also served on Nordea’s Credit, IT, and Risk Committees. Mike’s financial software experience includes roles as a Senior Banking Consultant with Sanchez Computer Associates and Manager of Global Business Solutions (focused on sale of financial/risk management solutions) with Thomson Financial. Prior to joining SAP, Mike was a regulator with the Federal Reserve Bank in Charlotte, where he was responsible for the supervision of large commercial banking organizations in the Southeast with a focus on market/credit/operational risk management. Joined SAP 8years ago.

How Much Will Digital Cannibalization Eat into Your Business?

Fawn Fitter

Former Cisco CEO John Chambers predicts that 40% of companies will crumble when they fail to complete a successful digital transformation.

These legacy companies may be trying to keep up with insurgent companies that are introducing disruptive technologies, but they’re being held back by the ease of doing business the way they always have – or by how vehemently their customers object to change.

Most organizations today know that they have to embrace innovation. The question is whether they can put a digital business model in place without damaging their existing business so badly that they don’t survive the transition. We gathered a panel of experts to discuss the fine line between disruption and destruction.

SAP_Disruption_QA_images2400x1600_3

qa_qIn 2011, when Netflix hiked prices and tried to split its streaming and DVD-bymail services, it lost 3.25% of its customer base and 75% of its market capitalization.²︐³ What can we learn from that?

Scott Anthony: That debacle shows that sometimes you can get ahead of your customers. The key is to manage things at the pace of the market, not at your internal speed. You need to know what your customers are looking for and what they’re willing to tolerate. Sometimes companies forget what their customers want and care about, and they try to push things on them before they’re ready.

R. “Ray” Wang: You need to be able to split your traditional business and your growth business so that you can focus on big shifts instead of moving the needle 2%. Netflix was responding to its customers – by deciding not to define its brand too narrowly.

qa_qDoes disruption always involve cannibalizing your own business?

Wang: You can’t design new experiences in existing systems. But you have to make sure you manage the revenue stream on the way down in the old business model while managing the growth of the new one.

Merijn Helle: Traditional brick-and-mortar stores are putting a lot of capital into digital initiatives that aren’t paying enough back yet in the form of online sales, and they’re cannibalizing their profits so they can deliver a single authentic experience. Customers don’t see channels, they see brands; and they want to interact with brands seamlessly in real time, regardless of channel or format.

Lars Bastian: In manufacturing, new technologies aren’t about disrupting your business model as much as they are about expanding it. Think about predictive maintenance, the ability to warn customers when the product they’ve purchased will need service. You’re not going to lose customers by introducing new processes. You have to add these digitized services to remain competitive.

qa_qIs cannibalizing your own business better or worse than losing market share to a more innovative competitor?

Michael Liebhold: You have to create that digital business and mandate it to grow. If you cannibalize the existing business, that’s just the price you have to pay.

Wang: Companies that cannibalize their own businesses are the ones that survive. If you don’t do it, someone else will. What we’re really talking about is “Why do you exist? Why does anyone want to buy from you?”

Anthony: I’m not sure that’s the right question. The fundamental question is what you’re using disruption to do. How do you use it to strengthen what you’re doing today, and what new things does it enable? I think you can get so consumed with all the changes that reconfigure what you’re doing today that you do only that. And if you do only that, your business becomes smaller, less significant, and less interesting.

qa_qSo how should companies think about smart disruption?

Anthony: Leaders have to reconfigure today and imagine tomorrow at the same time. It’s not either/or. Every disruptive threat has an equal, if not greater, opportunity. When disruption strikes, it’s a mistake only to feel the threat to your legacy business. It’s an opportunity to expand into a different marke.

SAP_Disruption_QA_images2400x1600_4Liebhold: It starts at the top. You can’t ask a CEO for an eight-figure budget to upgrade a cloud analytics system if the C-suite doesn’t understand the power of integrating data from across all the legacy systems. So the first task is to educate the senior team so it can approve the budgets.

Scott Underwood: Some of the most interesting questions are internal organizational questions, keeping people from feeling that their livelihoods are in danger or introducing ways to keep them engaged.

Leon Segal: Absolutely. If you want to enter a new market or introduce a new product, there’s a whole chain of stakeholders – including your own employees and the distribution chain. Their experiences are also new. Once you start looking for things that affect their experience, you can’t help doing it. You walk around the office and say, “That doesn’t look right, they don’t look happy. Maybe we should change that around.”

Fawn Fitter is a freelance writer specializing in business and technology. 

To learn more about how to disrupt your business without destroying it, read the in-depth report Digital Disruption: When to Cook the Golden Goose.

Download the PDF (1.2MB)

Comments

Tags:

Our Government's Legitimacy Is In Danger

Hein Keijzer

It is a growing phenomenon: Governments are gradually losing support from their citizens. Citizens in European countries are also becoming disillusioned with their governments. This calls for a drastic improvement of the services provided to the most important and sole shareholder of the government—the citizen—because the government’s legitimacy is at stake.

Citizens’ confidence in government has been waning for some time now. There are reasons why populist and eurosceptic parties  have been gaining votes over the past years. The government must do everything within its power to win to rebuild confidence, and not just by fulfilling its basic tasks, because a feeble six can no longer save the parliamentary democratic system.

The victory of populist parties is the beginning of the end of the current democratic order. It is very likely that these parties will not participate in the government, because the other parties will mostly exclude them. As a result, the chasm between citizen and government keeps growing, creating a situation that reinforces itself and that holds very little chance of success in the future.

The base

We must return to the base to touch on the core of the problem. Western governments are complex bodies, but the basic idea behind them is rather simple: Citizens pay tax to a central, democratically elected system. In return, they expect basic services such as security, education, physical infrastructure, healthcare—and in the case of the Netherlands, dry feet, i.e. protection against water. It is not unreasonable to expect a western country to provide at least this bare minimum.

But this is where things is going wrong these days. Every country is dealing with at least one case in which the tax payers’ money is not allocated correctly. The Panama Papers is a recent example of this. The term cover-up often does not apply anymore, because civil servants are no longer even capable of hiding the chaos in a cover-up. These days the media are capable of making the content  of the cesspool available to the public in no time. A ministry that cannot manage its internal affairs has even more trouble proving its legitimacy to society.

The government must not only deal with organizational problems; mentality comes into play as well. Many governmental institutions see the taxpayer as such: a taxpayer with mostly obligations. This mindset need to change. It is time for a customer-centric approach: The citizen is the customer, and the customer is king. As is the case with the boardroom of a commercial party where shareholders cannot get away with mismanagement, the government should not be able to get away with mismanaging the assets of their sole shareholder: the citizen.

This approach requires a number of very strong measures:

1. Earnest use of apps and social media

In the past it was necessary to go to an office and make an appointment in order to communicate with the government. These days, social media allow for much more efficient communication. Governments can use apps and social media—potentially—to more quickly discover trends, indicate problems, and communicate with citizens. Now digital communication is mostly housed in separate departments. This is not sufficient for the much-needed model in which the citizen is the shining center of the services provided. Communication with the citizen should be at the core of the organization.

2. Make the policy completely transparent

Backroom politics and convoluted decision-making are no longer feasible. Citizens are entitled to the best possible access and information provision. The government has come a long way with open data, but is still very far from doing enough.

3. Clear communication

It is the duty of a good service provider to communicate clearly with its client. This also applies to the communication of the government with the citizen. Unfortunately, this fails all too often. Vague, official language and unclear wording are the order of the day. If a citizen does not understand the government, it creates a wedge. Civil servants should be forced to follow compulsory courses on clear communication on a B1 level. This is an official language level that is understood by the majority of the population and is effective to communicate messages in a clear way.

4. Smarter information linking

The government knows a lot about their citizens, but this information is not linked well or not linked at all. As a consequence, the government does not know anything about us at all. From a privacy point of view, this is of course not unattractive, but it is disastrous for the provision of good services.  The government cannot think with us if it doesn’t know who we are, if it doesn’t know our preferences and our problems. In order to achieve this, systems and an integral data policy must be connected, for one version of the truth.

Unfortunately these four points are still far from reality. This isn’t the first time that I have broached these problems. The communication between the government and the citizen is often very difficult. There are few apps, and the government uses social media in a very reactive way. It is not rare to only receive an answer after a few days. Smart connections between citizen data points are missing. Many governments are developing the majority of their IT solutions themselves, and barely believe that integration via standard solutions is possible. The government’s outlook is inward and doesn’t change, because there is barely any staff turnover.

Governments could follow the example of the Australian government, which started a digital transformation with a genuine Digital Transformation Office. Its primary focus is efficient and transparent service provision toward the citizen. Its motto: “Simpler, clearer, faster public services”—an easy but meaningful statement. It touches the core of what has to happen here as well.

The gap between government and citizens will not close on its own. A digital transformation is unavoidable if the government wants to stop the downward trend and not lose its legitimacy completely.

For more insight on digital transformation in the public sector, see Unlocking The Benefits Of Digitization For Governments.

 

Comments

Hein Keijzer

About Hein Keijzer

Hein Keijzer is customer solution manager for the Public Sector Business Unit at SAP Nederland. After his education in Applied Economics and Public Administration, Hein worked for the Dutch Ministry of Finance, Budget Affairs directorate, and since 2000 at SAP. Connect with me on Twitter @heinkeijzer or <a href="https://nl.linkedin.com/in/heinkeijzer"LinkedIn.