Intersekt FinTech Pitch Night

The opening event of the Intersekt 2021 Australian FinTech Conference was a startup pitch night, organised by FinTech Australia, hosted by YBF Ventures, and sponsored by Seed Money. The esteemed judging panel was drawn from a range of VC funds: Todd Forest (NAB Ventures), Nicole Small (Rampersand), Rohen Sood (Reinventure), Lynda Coker (SpeedSpace) and Lucinda Hankin (Grok Ventures).

The pitches in order of presentation (links are in the names):

Boulevard

A cloud-based share registry management platform for startups, founders and their employees. Designed to to be an exchange for unlisted securities, the platform also offers Investor Relations support and automated compliance solutions. Using Distributed Ledger Technology (which underpins Blockchain), the team are working with ASX DLT Solutions (responsible for the CHESS replacement) and deploying DAML, the programming language for modelling digital assets. They have also developed ASICLink, to automate company filings with the corporate regulator, plan to support corporate actions (including the verification of company financials), and are working with equity crowdfunding platforms. Boulevard has already on-boarded 30 companies, comprising 4,000 shareholders.

COGSflow

Describing itself as “Performance based finance”, this is essentially a merchant service offering cash-flow funding solutions for physical goods. This involves purchasing client inventory, and getting repaid on the sales performance. Using a funding ratio calculation as the basis of its credit risk model, the COGSflow will track sales data from the likes of eBay and Amazon (although both of these platforms, like PayPal, Alibaba etc. already offer SME financing of various forms). COGSflow will also analyze variable marketing and customer acquisition costs as inputs to its lending model, and plans to become a member of the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR), as well as seeking B Corp certification.

Archa

Archa is solving the challenges many SMEs face when trying to access corporate credit cards – banks generally demand personal guarantees from owners or directors before they issue cards, and when they do the “product is awful”. As the pitch described it, many bank-issued corporate cards are really designed as “a line of credit to acquire air miles”. With a mobile app already in the market, Archa incorporates an administration and expense management solution. A major bug bear for many companies is managing corporate subscriptions – all those SaaS apps that are tied to individual employee cards; consolidating, renewing and cancelling those services can be time-consuming and painful. The account administrator can also manage each card’s credit limit. Archa itself has principal issuer membership with MasterCard. In addition to an equity raise, the team is seeking debt funding to offer lines of credit. Channels to market will include SME lenders, accountants and lawyers.

Sherlok

According to the founders, most people paying too much on their mortgages – based on their home loan rate. Because mortgage brokers have 60% of the market, and rely on trailing commissions, there is little incentive for brokers to help their clients find a better rate or provider. However, 15% of brokers’ clients are leaving each year. Sherlok is an SaaS platform that uses AI to help brokers reprice and refinance their existing mortgage book. Using a broker subscription model, Sherlok is aiming to offer “single click refinancing”, although there was some equivocation about becoming a virtual brokerage itself. The founders feel that mortgage broking is still a relationship based business, and requires a human touch.

Axichain

Axichain is building a blockchain-based agricultural supply chain – a digital trading solution for cross-border commodities trading, with an initial focus on red meat. The founders are addressing three main supply chain pain points – market access, paperwork and payment.
Axichain combines smart contracts, an escrow solution and traceability linked to legal processes. Overall, the platform envisages multiple products and revenue streams. The team are seeking both equity and debt funding, the latter to provide lines of credit lines.

Parpera

The meaning of “Parpera” is “fair wallet”. By that, the founders mean they want to offer a range of banking and related services aimed at SME owners, sole traders and freelances. This could include business registration and set-up, better financial insights, and access to smarter banking products etc. It will include card services, payments and invoicing. The plan is to target customers who are about to set up a business, and to promote the service at the start/end of the financial year, hence the intention to use accountants as a channel to market.

Next week: Monash University Virtual Demo Day

FinTech Australia Road Show

This week I had hoped to blog about the latest FinTech Australia Road Show in Melbourne – unfortunately, COVID-19 intervened, and the event has been postponed.

So instead, here is my personal quick take on recent developments in the local FinTech scene:

A tale of 2 neobanks

Maybe Australia isn’t ready for challenger banks, despite the early interest and apparent market demand. Xinja* has decided to give back its banking license, having spent a ton of money on obtaining it in the first place. It couldn’t sustain savings and deposit accounts (even in a low-interest rate environment) without sufficient regulatory capital, the funding for which has failed to materialise; and without deposits, Xinja couldn’t offer loans. There is talk of launching a US share-trading app instead (à la Robinhood) but given the recent shenanigans with Wall Street Bets, Reddit, hedge funds and GameStop day traders I don’t suppose the regulatory path to market will be that easy. Xinja looks like it’s done.

Meanwhile, NAB has just announced that it is acquiring the shares in 86 400 that it does not already own, in order to merge it with NAB’s digital brand, Ubank. Which further suggests neobanks can’t survive on their own in the Australian market, with the dominant and regulatory protected cartel of the Big 4. (My good friend Alan Tsen has described this latest transaction as a turducken….)

Other challenger brands in Australia are having to take different approaches: Up is piggybacking off Bendigo and Adelaide Bank’s ADI license; Volt describes itself as a BaaS provider (“banking as a service”); Judo is focused on business banking; and the UK’s Revolut is bringing a mix of credit cards, payment solutions and forex services (including crypto), rather than transaction banking. Meanwhile, another BaaS from the UK, Railsbank is currently recruiting locally for a GM to leads its Australian roll-out.

Finally, despite some concerns about the BNPL sector (“buy now, pay later”), Afterpay is partnering with Westpac‘s BaaS platform to offer banking services to its customers.

Whither the Big 4?

Speaking of which, what are the Big 4 doing in the broader sphere of FinTech?

Despite (or because of?) buying a neobank, NAB has apparently closed down the Labs part of NAB Ventures, the often-mentioned, but largely silent startup incubator. CBA has created X15, a similar FinTech ventures platform with the ambitious goal of launching 25 businesses in 5 years (I seem to recall NAB Ventures once had a similar mandate?). Westpac‘s own FinTech fund, Reinventure is expected to do well out of the forthcoming Coinbase IPO; so much so that Reinventure is planning to decouple from Westpac, and launch a new fund focused on DeFi opportunities. ANZ has been putting out some commentary on its ANZi platform for FinTech innovation and partnerships – but its remit is limited to trade finance, home ownership and open data, and it is being very coy as to what specific bets they are making. Ho hum.

Did somebody mention crypto?

In case you hadn’t realised, we are experiencing something of a bull market in crypto.

Coinspot just announced they have 1,000,000 customers. Raiz Invest has launched its retail savings portfolio product with a 5% allocation to Bitcoin. Other funds like Every Capital are planning similar retail offerings. Luno is advertising on Melbourne’s tram shelters. And the Australian division of eToro is talking up DeFi. Game on!

Next week: Transition – post-pandemic career moves

* Declaration of interest – the author participated in the Xinja equity crowd-sale a few years ago

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

 

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