Startup Vic’s Impact Pitch Night

Last month’s Startup Vic’s Pitch Night focused on Impact investing. Hosted by Startup Vic and the Giant Leap Fund (part of the Impact Investment Group), it was held at the Goods Shed with support from Stone & Chalk, Weploy, Pawa, Pak360, Waste Ninja and Marketing Entourage. The MC on the night was Mike Davis of the Humans of Purpose podcast, with an opening address by The Hon, Martin Pakula, Victorian Minister of Jobs, Innovation and Trade. The Minister made some announcements regarding the establishment of Angel Networks in Victoria.Given that Impact investment is demonstrating a propensity to generate better returns, this is a topic of growing interest alongside ethical investing, corporate social responsibility and the move towards ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) reporting.

The Judging Panel was drawn from Work180, YourGrocer, Australian Impact Investments and Impact Investment Group.

Pitches in the order they presented (websites embedded in the names) were:

The Neighbourhood Effect

With the goal of making the transition to green living easier, this startup has been featured here before. It comprises an app-based solution and uses behavioural science to map a user’s carbon footprint. It also uses gamification to make recommendations linked to location and lifestyle preferences.

Generating revenue from referral fees and subscriptions, the team are targeting energy retailers and banking services among the first commercial partners, and have already attracted $100k via paid pilots and Crowdfunding. The judges sought clarity on what exactly the product “does”, and how localised the solutions can be.

Gecko Traxx

Unusually for these regular pitch nights, this is a tangible, manufactured product – a solution for portable and affordable off-road access for wheelchair users. It takes the form of an accessory attached to the existing wheels – expanding the surface area and increasing traction. With a James Dyson national design award, and as a member of the University of Melbourne Accelerator Prgram for 2019, the team already have15 re-sellers lined up. With a proposed retail price of $599 (and costing $95 to manufacture) the device is NDIS eligible, making it more accessible.

The judges were keen to understand the addressable market as opposed to the profile and size of the actual user base – for example, does the device appeal to users of both motorised and self-propelled wheelchairs? How does it fit in with other categories of assisted mobility products and devices? Had the team considered crowdfunding? What is the startup’s status as a NFP? What is the marketing plan?

Sempo

This startup offers a solution for inclusive payments and savings for the 1.7bn people in emerging markets who remain unbanked. Using Blockchain technology, Sempo claims to be backed by a global reserve token pegged to multiple local currencies – but it wasn’t clear which assets comprise the treasury ecosystem.

Part of the use case is to get cash to victims in crisis quickly without the associated NGO costs. With 4% transaction fees (as opposed to the typical 20% incurred by other soluitons) Sempo seeks to avoid regulatory controversy since it is not claiming to be an unofficial local currency.

Typical transaction costs comprise a 1-3% exchange fee, and a 0-1% transfer fee. Part of the solution is to grow local, in-market capacity, particularly for remittance services. With an AfterPay investor on board, the founders are seeking a $2m seed round. The initial focus is on the Pacific region, a major impediment are the compliance and regulatory costs – in meeting both the in-country and original jurisdiction obligations.

One use case is giving refugee access to bank accounts – when asked about KYC obligations, the founders responded that they can code KYC into the Blockchain without the need for “formal” KYC.

Bring Me Home

This startup makes surplus food accessible and affordable to everyone – utilising fresh food that is unsold in shops, cafes and restaurants. According to the founders, globally, one third of all food is wasted – if this represented a country, it would rank 3rd after the US and China in terms of carbon emissions.

Structured around a commission-based app, users become advocates. The market segments are B2C (consumers and SMEs) and B2B (food production, manufacturing and wholesale distribution). Seeking a $1m seed round, the founders are also running a crowdfunding campaign.

There are specific versions of the app for vendors to help them manage their inventory and schedule their daily listings in advance. Peak demand is between 2pm and 6pm, and after 8pm – underlining the need for vendors to get their offers uploaded in a timely fashion.

The app is starting to see some significant retention – of the 12,000 users, 75% are in Victoria, with half in Melbourne. 15% are deemed returning customers, of which 45% represent repeat business. Currently, the service is in 126 venues across Melbourne.

The judges asked how the business can ensure they are dealing with true surplus supply, and not just creating artificial demand. In response, the founders stressed that vendors need to map to their usual “full display”, rather then offering “made on demand” products.

The People’s Choice award went to Bring Me Home, while the Judges made Sempo the overall winner.

Next week: Musical Memories – Of Time and Place

The Finnies

The third annual FinTech Australia awards were celebrated in Melbourne last week, following the organisation’s relocation from Sydney during the past 12 months. Any concerns the organisers and sponsors may have harboured (given the switch in geography) were easily allayed, as the event was sold out, with over 300 guests in attendance.

The overall winners were definitely B2C brands – challenger banks, consumer lenders, payment providers – with Airwallex, Afterpay (which despite some recent negative press was named the FinTech of the year for the third time) and Up Bank taking out more than a third of the awards between them.

Despite the 30 per cent increase in the number of entries (over 230 in all), it did feel like the Fintech community is still something of a village, as several award presenters were themselves presented with awards. Maybe something for the organisers to think about for next time, as it’s not always a good look when winners end up presenting to each other.

On the other hand, the organisers are to be commended for the running order – unlike some industry events, the awards were all presented in a single session, and not dragged out from soup to nuts. It was also a great decision to use the Victorian Innovation Hub as the venue, as well as have grazing-style catering instead of a sit-down dinner. And the choice of live band was excellent, as past, current and future bankers cut a rug.

Next week: Brexit Blues

 

FinTech Fund Raising

In the wake of the Banking Royal Commission, will FinTech startups capture market share from the brands that are on the nose with customers? And will these upstarts manage to attract the necessary funding to challenge the deep pockets and huge balance sheets of the incumbents? This was the underlying theme of a recent panel discussion hosted by Next Money Melbourne.

The panel comprised:

Nick Baker from NAB Ventures, typically investing $1m-$5m in Seed to Series C rounds, self-styled strategic investor with a particular focus on RegTech, Data and Data Security, and AI/Deep Learning

Ben Hensman from Square Peg Capital, writing cheques of $1.5m-$15m into Series A onwards, more of a financial investor, mainly in businesses starting to scale. Sees that the industry is ripe for disruption because of the mismatch between profit pools and capital pools, compared to the size of the economy.

Alan Tsen an Angel investor, making personal investments of $10k-$25k, mostly into teams/founders that he knows personally and has had an opportunity to see the business evolve fairly close up.

Key topics included:

Open banking – Will this be the game-changer that many people think it will? Are the banks being dragged kicking and screaming to open up their customer databases? What will be the main opportunities for FinTech startups? While customers often express an intention to switch banks, the reality is that few actually do. In part because current processes make it relatively difficult (hence the current Open banking initiative, which will later be extended to utilities); in part because there is little to no differentiation between the major banks (in products, costs and service). Also, it seems that banks are quietly getting on with the task in hand, given that resistance is futile. My personal view is that banks may have a significant role to play as custodians or guardians of our financial and personal data (“data fiduciaries”) rather than directly managing our financial assets. For example, when it comes to managing the personal private keys to our digital wallets, who would we most trust to hold a “back up of last resort” – probably our banks, because even though we may love to hate them, we still place an enormous amount of trust in them.

Full stack financial solutions – Within FinTech, the panel identified different options between full stack startups, compared to those that focus on either the funding layer (sourcing and origination), tech layer, and the CX layer.

Neo-banks – Welcome source of potential competition, but face huge challenges in customer acquisition, brand awareness and maintaining regulatory capital requirements.

Unbundling the banks – Seen as a likely outcome from the Royal Commission, given that we have already seen the major banks largely exit the wealth management and advice business. But the challenge for FinTech startups will be in developing specific products that match and exceed current offerings, without adding transactional friction etc.

Identifying Strong FinTech Teams – There needs to be evidence of deep domain expertise, plus experience of business scaling. Sometimes it’s a fine balance between naivety and experience, and outsiders versus insiders – bringing transferable external experience (especially with a view to disrupting and challenging the status quo) can easily trump incumbent complacency.

Funding Models – While most VC funding is in the form of equity, some VCs offer “venture debt” (based on achieving milestones) which can be converted to equity, but while it can lead to founder’s equity dilution, it may represent a lower cost of initial capital for startups. The panel mentioned the so-called “Dutch model” (because it has been used by Dutch pension funds) that local mortgage company Athena has brought to the market. Rather than seeking wholesale funding or warehouse financing to back their home loan business, Athena allows institutional investors such as superannuation funds, to lend direct to homeowners. This means that the funds receive more of the mortgage interest margin than if they were investing in RMBS issued by the banks and mortgage originators. Athena is mainly geared towards refinancing existing mortgages, rather than new loans, but also offers a new approach to mortgage servicing and administration.

Generally, VCs prefer simpler structures rather than, say, funding milestones, because of the risk of misaligned goals, and the impact this may have on subsequent price rounds. There are some models that create a level of optionality for founders, and others which are royalty-based, or which use a form of securitisation against future cash flows.

Meanwhile, the panel were generally not in favour of IPOs, mainly due to the additional regulatory, compliance and reporting obligations of being a public company. So it would seem their favoured exit strategy is either a trade sale or a merger, or acquisition by a private equity fund or institutional investor.

Next week: Crypto House Auction

Life After the Royal Commission – Be Careful What You Wish For….

In the wake of the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Financial Services Industry (aka the Hayne Report), one of the four major banks announced that it would be removing bonus payments for its front line tellers. This was supposedly in line with Hayne’s proposal that performance-linked remuneration, financial incentives and sales commissions in the financial services industry need to be restructured.

Image sourced from Small Caps

This prompted a mixed reaction among the public, based on some of the comments I have read on social media. Some felt that the tellers were being made scapegoats for the banks’ bigger failings – others felt that this was an inevitable outcome from the banking backlash.

Personally, I believe the announcement is potentially just one of the many likely “unforeseen consequences” to come out of the Royal Commission – I’m not saying this particular decision is good or bad, just that we need to be aware of what’s likely to happen based on Hayne’s key recommendations. Be careful what you wish for. And, as an underlying theme to this whole debate, let’s not forget that most Australians are shareholders (directly or indirectly via their Super) of the Four Pillar Banks (one of the greatest government-endorsed and legislatively protected market oligopolies around which also helped steer us through the GFC relatively unscathed….).

So, what else might we see?

First, as with financial advice, residential mortgages will move to a “buyer pays” model. Brokers would not be able to receive commissions from mortgage providers or other intermediaries based on the products they sell, recommend or refer – instead, mortgage applicants will be expected to pay for the services of a broker, who will therefore be under an obligation to find the best product for their client. But removing trailing commissions and other conflicted remuneration may also mean that brokers could seek to earn additional fees from their mortgage clients by re-contacting them a year or so later (with permission, of course) to inform them of a better deal. (Even now, lenders are not explicitly obliged to let existing customers know if they have a newer product that may be better for them). Some estimates suggest that fee-for-service will add about $3,000 to the initial cost of applying for a mortgage. Whether this will also lead to more competition among mortgage providers (who will no longer have to pay broker commissions) is not clear.

Second, the increased focus on acting in the best interests of the customer may result in placing all financial planners, brokers, advisors, insurers, and banks (and their officers, agents and employees) under a fiduciary duty of care to their clients – even if they are not directly managing specific assets, selling a specific product or advising on specific services or financial strategies. In other words, advisors etc. will be deemed to have taken ALL of a client’s needs and circumstances into account. (This is largely the result of the miss-selling of financial products, and the charging of fees for “no service”, by banks and their retail wealth management arms.)

Third, the increased cost of compliance will disproportionately impact smaller financial institutions such as credit unions, member-owned banks and other mutual societies, who came through the Royal Commission pretty much unscathed. Those costs will need to be passed on, to customers and members. Of course, there has also been some political debate around the need for some sort of banking levy – which will ultimately be passed on to shareholders or customers (who are often the same people…).

Fourth, and related to the above, the separation of roles between those superannuation trustees who act as both fund trustees and as responsible entities of managed investment schemes will have a knock-on effect in terms of operating and compliance costs. Such dual-regulated entities will have to decide whether to focus on their trustee role, or appoint a separate and independent responsible entity in respect of the asset management.

Fifth, the higher compliance and regulatory obligations may deter or inhibit more competition – either from new market entrants from overseas, or from local start-ups. The recent restricted ADI model (aimed at enabling challenger or neo-bank brands) has not exactly seen a raft of applications, and off-shore banks tend to come and go in successive waves, largely driven by market conditions. If lending standards are further tightened, it may be less attractive for foreign firms to set up local operations. In fact, there have been calls to force some smaller superannuation funds to merge with larger funds, or exit altogether for reasons of scale and efficiency – potentially taking out some of the competition in that sector. And if mortgage brokers have to move to a fee-for-service model, it will likely force some providers to exit the industry, as happened with the FOFA reforms in financial planning and wealth management.

Sixth, at the level of corporate governance, boards of financial services providers will need to be mindful of their duty to act in the best interests of the company – which has traditionally meant the share holders – and the increased duty of care towards their customers, which may at times be at complete odds. Non-executive directors willing to serve on the boards of banks and insurers may also be harder to find, at a time when there is already a high concentration of directors who sit on multiple boards across Australia’s biggest companies. So, board diversity may be even harder to achieve, especially if non-executive directorships become subject to even greater formal qualification, to ensure board members have appropriate professional experience, industry knowledge and technical expertise, as well as financial competence and risk management skills.

Finally, all this is happening as we face something of a credit squeeze (thanks to increased lending standards and greater provisioning for risk-weighted assets) heightened economic uncertainty (slowing GDP growth, lower productivity, wage stagnation, falling property prices), and an upcoming General Election campaign during which the Hayne Report will be held up as a key reason for why “things have to change”. The irony being that, except in a few areas, the complaints aired and wrong-doing uncovered during the Royal Commission could have been addressed by the regulators and enforcement agencies via existing laws on financial services, prudential standards, and general consumer protection (unfair contract terms, unconscionable conduct, deceptive and misleading behaviour). Plus, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (which combines the remit of the former Financial Ombudsman Service, the Credit and Investments Ombudsman and the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal) has a wide jurisdiction over consumer complaints relating to Credit, Finance and Loans, Insurance, Banking Deposits and Payments, Investments and Financial Advice, and Superannuation. And as with most External Dispute Resolution agencies, AFCA and its predecessors have an obligation to report on systemic issues within their industry.

Next week: Pitch X