Crypto House Auction

Earlier this month, through my work with Brave New Coin, I was lucky enough to attend the first live property auction to be conducted in cryptocurrency. Although the property was passed in on the day, the event generated enough interest and PR value that it will surely be only a matter of time before more large ticket assets are transacted in this way.

Image sourced from LJ Hooker

Let’s not forget that it’s nearly 9 years since Laszlo Hanyecz paid 10,000 BTC for two pizzas (then valued at about US$41).

Although we may not yet be paying for our morning espresso with Bitcoin, a growing number of merchants are enabling customers to pay for goods and services with crypto, via payment platforms and intermediaries such as Living Room of Satoshi, and TravelbyBit. And services such as Coin Loft and CoinJar make it easier to buy and sell the most popular cryptocurrencies without having to set up accounts on multiple exchanges.

Meanwhile, the house in Casuarina, on the northern coast of New South Wales, was passed in at 457 BTC (A$3.4m). The property was listed by LJ Hooker, and the auction was facilitated by TrigonX and Nuyen, while Brave New Coin supplied real-time market data convert the crypto bids to Australian dollars.

Next week: Demo Day #1 – Startupbootcamp

 

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

The Future of Fintech

Predicting (or at least hypothesising upon) the Future of FinTech in 2019 at NextMoney last week were three brave souls from the Melbourne FinTech community: Alan Tsen, GM of Stone & Chalk and Chair of FinTech Australia; Christina Hobbs, CEO of Verve Super; and Paul Naphtali, Managing Partner at Rampersand. Referencing the latest CB Insights report on VC funding for Fintech, various regulatory developments in Australia (especially Open Banking), as well as the outcomes of the recent Royal Commission on Financial Services, the panel offered some useful insights on the local state of FinTech.For all the positive developments in the past 2-3 years (Open Banking, New Payments Platform, Comprehensive Credit Reporting, Equity Crowdfunding, ASIC’s Regulatory Sandbox, Restricted ADIs etc.) the fact is that innovation by Australian FinTechs is hampered by:

1) fallout from the Royal Commission (although this should actually present an opportunity for FinTech);

2) the proposed extensions to the Sandbox provisions (which are stuck at the Federal level); and

3) lack of regularity clarity on the new class of digital assets made possible by Blockchain and cryptocurrencies (cf Treasury Consultation on ICOs).

Overall, the panel agreed that the channels of distribution have been locked up in an oligopolistic market and economic structure, especially among B2B services. But things are changing in B2C, with the rise of P2P payment platforms, market places, mobile and digital solutions, and challenger brands (e.g., neo-banks).

However, there are under-serviced segments especially among the SME sector, and products and services for part-time employees, contractors and freelancers. For example, meeting the superannuation and insurance needs of the “gig economy”? (Maybe something will come out of the recent Productivity Commission review on Superannuation.)

A number of areas have already benefited from FinTech innovation and disruption – lending (origination, funding, distribution), robo-advice (at scale but not yet offering truly tailored solutions), and P2P payments (and which largely happened outside of the NPP).

When it comes to disrupting and innovating wealth management and financial advice, there is still a distribution challenge. Whatever your views are on the Royal Commission findings and recommendations, there is clearly a problem with the status quo. But is the appropriate response to “smash the banks” or to enable them?

One view is that we are going through a period of un-bundling of financial services. Personally, I think customers want ease of use and interoperability, not only standalone products that are best in breed. For example, if I have established sufficient identification to open and maintain a bank account with one ADI, shouldn’t I be able to use that same status to open a deposit, savings or transaction account with another ADI, without having to resubmit 100 points of ID? And even use that same ID status with an equivalent ADI overseas?

There is often a tension between incumbents and startups. Whether it’s procurement processes, long-term sales cycles, stringent payment policies (notwithstanding the BCA’s Supplier Payment Code) or simple risk aversion, it is very difficult for new FinTech companies to secure commercial supply contracts with enterprise clients. Even though a Blockchain platform like Ripples is working with major financial institutions, most times the latter don’t readily engage with FinTech startups.

Then there is the problem with “tech for tech’s sake”. For example, don’t offer “smart” solutions that actually make it harder or more complex. And don’t build great tech products that offer lousy UX/UI.

A key issue is defining “trust” – whether at the sector level (on the back of the Royal Commission); or at the individual level (the current environment of personal privacy, data protection, identity theft): or at the product level (e.g., decentralised and “trustless” platforms). As one panelist commented, despite the news, “headlines don’t change behaviours”. We love to bash our banks, but we rarely switch providers (mainly because it is far more difficult than it actually needs to be…) And the backlash against social media companies has not resulted in any major movement to unfriend them (witness the response to campaigns like QuitFacebookDay…).

So what are some of the predictions for the next few years (if not the next few months)?

  1. Within 5 years, the 5th pillar will be a challenger bank.
  2. A period of un-bundling followed by re-bundling
  3. A trend for “Financial Wellness” (especially financial education and literacy, not just wealth management and accumulation)
  4. A switch in personal asset allocation/accumulation from mortgages to superannuation – (i.e., new brands like Verve want to be your lifetime financial partner, so that “we invest together”)
  5. Superannuation funds will obtain banking licenses (or maybe one of the FAANGs will?)
  6. Personal Statements of Advice vs ASIC’s MoneySmart – who’s going to be paying for financial planning, advice, products and distributions?
  7. Capitalizing on the lack of trust among incumbents and centralised platforms
  8. More diversity and inclusivity in access to products and services
  9. Payments FinTechs that will disrupt lending (if they can solve the problem of
    going international)
  10. The growth of RegTech – a model of agile governance supported by great UX
  11. The equivalent of open banking for Personal Financial Management services
  12. Banks as data fiduciaries

Next week: An open letter to American Express

The Future of Super

As I mentioned in last week’s blog on the recent Intersekt conference, there was an interesting panel discussion on Superannuation – interesting not just because of the topic, but also because it was about the only session I attended at the conference where there was some real disagreement among the speakers. Just goes to show how sensitive and contentious Super has become – and this was not even a discussion about the Royal Commission!

L to R: Peter Stanhope, Carla Harris, Greg Einfeld, Jon Holloway. Moderator Erin Taylor. (Photo sourced from Facebook)

The protagonists were Jon Holloway (Zuper), Carla Harris (Longevity App), Peter Stanhope (GIG Super) and Greg Einfeld (Plenty Wealth).

With around $2.7tn in assets under management, we were told that the Australian model for state-sponsored, privately funded retirement planning is the envy of the world. Yet we also heard that it has been so badly executed at home that we are in the midst of a huge shift in our attitudes towards this defined contribution scheme. And this is not just about disruption or technology – there are serious concerns that many Australians are not willing and/or able to set aside enough assets to provide for their retirement living; that the system is being rorted via skewed tax rules, gender-based wage disparity and expensive management fees; and that there is an overall lack of investor education, interest and engagement.

But for context, and in Super’s defence, the system has helped to make Australians a lot wealthier (along with property), and rank higher than Switzerland for median wealth. And as The Economist recently reported, for good or for bad, Super means that Australia does not have as heavy a state pension cost as most of the OECD.

Some of the issues facing the industry, as outlined by the panel include:

  • the changing definition of “ordinary Australians” (who are they? how is this even defined?)
  • the changing nature of work (the gig economy etc.)
  • the need for Open Super Data (to make choice and switching easier)
  • redefining “retirement” (given we are living longer beyond the traditional working age)
  • addressing gender imbalance in wages and contributions
  • redundant marketing imagery used by much of the Super industry
  • why the audience is under-educated and under-engaged on this topic
  • too little industry competition (although the regulator APRA is known to favour consolidation of smaller funds which are not sustainable)
  • the advice delivery channel needs to change, as does access to, and choice of, products and providers
  • the technical infrastructure is not fit for purpose for things like custody and administration (still living in the 80s?)
  • tax planning (a key rationale for how super is managed is determined by tax minimization)
  • generational change (linked to changing work patterns)

The panel discussion was followed by a fireside chat between Kerr Neilson of Platinum Asset Management, and Simon Cant of Reinventure. According to Mr Neilson, the key structural changes facing the industry are a direct result of financial planning advice becoming less profitable: no more trailing commissions (probably a good thing?); fewer advisors in the market (due to increased professional education requirements) with a resulting shift to accountants; and even robo-advice is not truly scalable. Meanwhile, for anyone watching their Super balance and returns, beware the Trump knock-on effects of trade tariffs and interest rates – this will require greater asset diversification, and robust currency risk management, to take advantage of new investment opportunities.

Next week: What they should teach at school