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

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

Intersekt Festival 2018

This year’s Intersekt Festival, held in Melbourne last month, was put together in quite challenging circumstances, given some of the recent events within key industry body FinTech Australia, the primary event host. It was a credit to all involved.

Not surprisingly, given some of the regulatory and industry changes underway in Australia, the key themes included: Open Banking and access to data: Trust in the banking and financial services sector (thanks to the Royal Commission, and the APRA report on the CBA); Data Privacy; Payments and the NPP; Comprehensive Credit Reporting and predatory lending practices; and Equity Crowdfunding. And of course, a little bit about Blockchain, Cryptocurrencies and Security Tokens.

There was a lot of discussion on “Trust”, especially in the age of Uber and Airbnb – how have these marketplaces managed to earn so much public and consumer trust in such a relatively short time? Yet as consumers, we obsess about Open Banking vs Data Privacy,  while banks themselves appear to be more infatuated with their Net Promoter Score…. whereas “Trust” is clearly a huge issue. In the case of the banks and the fall out from the Royal Commission, there was a discussion about whether our key financial institutions have come close to losing their social license to operate.

Meanwhile, with the prospect of self-sovereign digital identity becoming a practical reality (fuelled by blockchain, decentralisation and trust-less protocols and standards), there is a demand for cross-functional  (and cross-border) solutions for KYC/AML processing and identity management. But a lack of mutual regulatory recognition or harmonization (as opposed to “mere” industry standards) plus a diversity of business models confounds regulatory harmony, often within a single jurisdiction, let alone across multiple markets.

When it comes to payments and the NPP, it’s clear that regulation lags technology. For example, despite the existence of a (complex and somewhat uncertain) licensing regime for purchased payment facilities, APRA has only licensed one such PPF – PayPal. As former ASIC Chairman, Greg Medcraft once observed, by the time the NPP is fully operational, Blockchain will have gotten there long beforehand. And given the preponderance of stored value cards, digital wallets, peer-to-peer crypto exchanges, and multiple overseas and cross-border mobile payment apps, the respective regulatory roles of RBA, APRA, AUSTRAC, ATO and ASIC need to be clearly defined and set out.

On the topic of data protection and “big data”, there was a lot of discussion about getting the balance right between privacy and innovation. One the one hand, industry incumbents should not be allowed to use their market dominance to resist open banking and stifle the emergence of neo-banks; but on the other, there is a need to shelter the forthcoming consumer data right (CDR) from potential abuse like predatory lending (e.g., not simply define the CDR standards by reference to existing banking products and services) – mainly because the CDR is designed to empower consumers (not embolden the industry), and it is designed to be sector neutral (i.e., equally applicable to utilities, ISPs, telcos, insurance firms).

Other topics included SME lending, where new, tech-driven providers are not only originating new loans, but also refinancing existing businesses as the big 4 banks are seen to withdraw from this market; home loans (where technology is driving new loan origination, funding and distribution models); social impact (“FinTech for good”); equity crowdfunding (and the role of STOs); insurance (creating a decentralised market place) and Superannuation (which prompted perhaps the most contentious panel discussion – more on that to come!).

If there were any criticisms of the conference, based on local and overseas delegates I spoke to, they related to the length (was there enough content to sustain nearly 3 days?); the need for clearer roles and participation by the major and regional banks; the absence of investors (despite a speed-dating matching event….); and a desire to see a broader range of speakers and panelists (too many of the “usual suspects”?).

Next week: The Future of Super

 

 

 

Startup Vic’s FinTech Pitch Night

This month’s Startup VIC pitch night on FinTech was a curtain raiser for the annual Intersekt conference. Sponsored by Square and FinTech Australia, it was hosted at the Victorian Innovation Hub, and MC’d by Finch’s Shahirah Gardner and Melissa Mack, Head of Community at MoneyPlace and a Director of FinTech Australia.

As usual, the startups are mentioned here in the order they pitched:

i=Change

i=Change allows retailers and brands to “give back” to the causes their customers care about. Offering a “plug’n’play” solution for their clients, i=Change claims to have 60 brands on board already. It’s fair to say the target audience is fashion-conscience women, with an emphasis on charities, campaigns and causes that are primarily supporting the lives of women and children. Which is all good. But would it be churlish to suggest that many of the brands and products (and their associated imagery) might not be accessible to women in many of the countries where these projects operate? So, there is a potential disconnect between products and causes….

Nevertheless, as well as the feel-good factor for consumers, i=Change also claims to be reducing the retailers’ problem of abandoned online shopping carts, as the prospect of being able to donate to one of the selected causes leads to greater sales conversion and completion.

i=Change applies a fixed transaction fee on top of the customer donation, with a 30% tax rebate available to participating brands. After 5 years, i=Change is generating $8k per month in transaction fees, and is currently seeking a capital raise of $1m.

The judges were keen to understand the level of transparency under which i=Change operates, and whether in-store options are available (not just on-line retail).

For me, I can’t help thinking that this is an attempt to salve the conscience of certain parts of the fashion industry. I would also be interested to understand how much screening there is of both retailers and causes, against CSR measures or other relevant criteria.

Lucidity

Under the product brands of tradeDOX and xpertDOX, Lucidity is digitizing trade finance operations, particularly for import/export commodities transactions.

Offering a pay-per-transaction model, a subscription service, or a custom solution, Lucidity is still pre-revenue, having raised $50k in seed funding. Claiming to be streamlining and automating much of the paper document and manual processes still in use in much of the trade finance industry, it was not clear what technology they are using, nor the average transaction size they are processing. I also couldn’t help thinking that Blockchain solutions for supply chain, logistics and export/import financing will likely render Lucidity redundant.

CoinBot

CoinBot is an algo trading solution for cryptocurrencies that tokenizes individual trading strategies designed by the platform users, and fuelled by native SIT coins (Strategy Instance Tokens). The coins are used to pay for “prospecting” (i.e., scanning for unique trading signals), strategy (devising trading models) and exchange fees (to cover the cost of execution).

Currently seeking to raise $3m for 14% equity (plus SIT tokens), CoinBot supports strategy back-testing written to the Blockchain, and essentially allows users to avoid things like slippage by spreading the timing of instances over a defined trading period.

Personifi

Personifi is a data-driven marketplace for personal loans. It matches consumers with the most suitable lenders (across 30 brands on their platform).

What is supposed to make Personifi different to traditional brokers, lenders and comparison sites is the level of personalised advice, and its credit decision criteria.

With accreditation for the new open banking data regime and the new comprehensive credit reporting system. Personifi can offer improved interest rate options. It has to be noted that some of the loan providers on their platform may once have been considered “lenders of last resort” – not pay-day lenders, but certainly providers who service borrowers who have been turned down by banks and other primary lenders. So, the quality of the loan origination and the standards for lending will no doubt be critical to success.

Previously known as compeer.com.au, Personifi continues to test the broker market, and is bringing more transparency on its fees and loan T&C’s. Current revenue model is based on a 2% commission for referrals. Having pivoted from P2P lending, Personifi is targeting millennials who lack either a long or a strong credit history.

On the night, i=Change took out both the Judges’ prize, and the People’s choice.

A few observations about these pitch nights. First, I miss the audience Q&A that used to be an integral part of proceedings – if part of Startup VIC’s remit (and I am a long-standing, paid-up member) is to foster better founders, there is a missed learning opportunity for prospective and current founders if there are no questions from the audience. Second, I wish they could fix the PA problems – I had thought this had been sorted by using this new(ish), state of the art venue? Finally, it seems the pitch rules have changed, as one of tonight’s teams managed to sneak in a live product demo during their pitch – I just hope that every contestant was afforded the same opportunity, and if this is going to become a regular feature, then the organisers need to be more observant of the time limits…

Next week: Intersekt Festival 2018