Category Archives: Policy Making

Latest #FinTech Round-Up

Posted on by
Reply

The first quarter of 2016 has seen some significant FinTech developments in Australia. It feels the sector has finally “come of age”, at least in terms of government policy, as well as some significant deals. For anyone who may have missed the action, here is a very brief round-up:

FinTech_AustraliaThe formation of FinTech Australia as an umbrella group in late 2015 was seen as an important step in reducing inter-state rivalry. Following its first AGM in March, hopefully it will help the industry to attract further visibility, gain critical mass and co-ordinate the debate around legislation, funding, compliance and regulatory licensing, as well as fostering innovation and collaboration.

At the same time, the Federal Government has established the FinTech Advisory Group composed of some heavy hitters and key influencers. One of the first outcomes has been the Treasury’s response to a number of regulatory changes that the industry is prioritizing.

Having spoken to several members of both the Advisory Group and the FinTech Australia Committee, there is a clear sense that the industry has finally “broken through” to get on the ideas and innovation agenda.

FinTech Melbourne hosted a very interesting Meetup on Women in Fintech, set against the backdrop of the continuing gender diversity debate (in particular, across tech startups). An all-women panel comprising Charlotte Petris from Timelio and Jemma Enright from MoneyBrilliant, and facilitated by Anita Kimber from EY, explored some of the opportunities and challenges (and the struggles along the way) of being a startup co-founder, their experiences of launching new businesses and products, and how they go about hiring the right talent and building great teams.

Meanwhile, in London, The FINTECH Book was being launched, which includes a contribution written by DragonBIll‘s Melbourne-based CEO, Luke Hally.

Over at the MBTC , the Melbourne Bitcoin Meetup group hosted Brave New Coin‘s CEO, Fran Strajnar. Fran gave a detailed presentation on the market news, financial data and analytical infrastructure that Brave New Coin is building to support crypto-currencies and block chain technology, including the new Bitcoin Weighted Average Price (aka B-WAP). This new analytic will likely prove to be a key component for real-time and historical pricing data on specific bilateral transactions (e.g., calculating end of day evaluations or annual tax reconciliations), as well as providing underlying reference data (e.g., for index-linked instruments and associated derivatives, swaps, options and forwards). Exciting stuff indeed!

Finally, ASIC, as part of its work in building a more supportive regulatory environment (under its Innovation Hub) has announced a bilateral agreement with the UK’s FCA on greater co-operation between the respective market regulators, that may lead to mutual recognition for FinTech companies. Another similar deal is being explored with Singapore.

Next week: 4 more #startup hopefuls pitch at Startup Victoria

 

Technology vs The Human Factor

Posted on by
Reply

Several times over the past month I have been reminded that the pursuit of technology for its own sake can give rise to misguided innovation; so-called solutions that are divorced from real world problems cannot justify the effort or resources. It feels like we are entering a new phase of the post-industrial revolution era, where a lack of “the human touch” will render many new inventions as worthless, irrelevant or redundant.

Street scultpure, Nagoya. Photo © Rory Manchee (all rights reserved)

Street sculpture, Nagoya. Photo © Rory Manchee (all rights reserved)

In no particular order:

  • At the second Above All Human conference in Melbourne, there was a consistent theme: how do we make sure there is a real connection between human needs and bleeding edge technology?
  • A Slow School of Business excursion to an eco-friendly homestead in rural Victoria offered a practical lesson on how to create harmony between technology and nature, and still achieve a modern (but modest), highly personal and comfortable home.
  • The economic debate about whether technology is improving our standard of living (as reported in the latest CPA magazine), which also echoes a recent CEDA report on automation and the implications for job losses.
  • A Q&A with Shayne Elliott, the new CEO of ANZ Bank, which prompted the observation that big data analytics, process automation and digital disruption are all very well, but will prove meaningless unless they can improve the customer experience. (But Elliott also conceded that the likes of Uber and Airbnb have succeeded because of complacency among industry incumbents.)

Advances in technology don’t have to lead us to the dystopian worlds of “Modern Times” or “Metropolis” (or any of the other post-apocalyptic visions that cinema and literature like to give us). However, the understandable focus on innovation must take the “human factor” into greater account when making design decisions, undertaking cost-benefit analysis and opting for one technology format over another.

Conclusion? It’s not totally clear whether we are entering another dot.com market correction, but there is a case to be made for whether or not we are seeing enough of a “technology dividend” from the current digital disruption and economic displacement centred on the use of cloud, social and mobile platforms; and whether we need a new methodology to measure the impact of the Internet of Things, robotics, AI, nano-technology, AR/VR, cognitive apps, wearables, 3-D printing, etc.

Next week: It’s never too late to change….

Is this The Conversation we should be having?

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s a barbecue topic for Australia Day: What is happening to the quality of public discourse? Over the holidays, I read The Conversation’s 2015 yearbook, “Politics, policy & the chance of change”. It’s a collection of individual articles from the past 12 months, grouped into broad themes, covering key issues of the day, at least among the academic and chattering classes. As a summary of the year in Australian political, economic, cultural and social reportage, it’s not a bad effort. With “news” increasingly bifurcated between a dominant commercial duopoly and a disintermediated social media maelstrom, The Conversation can offer a calm rational voice and an objective alternative.

Screen Shot 2016-01-24 at 6.43.50 PMThe title promises a new direction in political debate, and I went to the book’s Melbourne launch at the start of the summer, where Michelle Grattan, The Conversation’s Chief Political Correspondent held court in an audience Q&A. I was looking forward to the event, because part of The Conversation’s remit is to foster informed debate that is more than tabloid headlines, news soundbites and party room gossip. It has also positioned itself as a non-partisan, independent and authoritative source of news analysis.

I was hoping the Q&A would provide a considered discussion on some of the key policy issues facing the country – long-term tax reform, addressing climate change, updating Federation, dealing with the post-mining boom economy, improving the quality and efficiency of our education, health and infrastructure systems, etc.

Instead, the first three questions from the audience concerned Mal Brough, Ian Macfarlane and Tony Abbot. How demoralising. Haven’t we moved on from this cult of personality? Haven’t we learnt anything from the past 10 years or so? If the same event had been held during Julia Gillard’s term as PM, the names would have been different (Craig Thomson, Peter Slipper, Kevin Rudd?) – and for quite separate reasons, I hasten to add – but the context and implication would have been very similar: “Never mind policies, what’s the chance of (another) leadership spill? How are the numbers stacking up in Parliament? When’s the court case?”

Although I admire the aims of The Conversation, and I understand why it exists, I have some concerns about the type of discourse that The Conversation is actually fostering among its audience. As with many public institutions, I appreciate that it’s there (even though I am not a frequent reader), but like other news media, it risks confirming the bias and prejudices of its audience. It can also feel as if it is serving only the vested interests of its contributors, partners and sponsors.

So much of Australia’s recent political history has been dominated by self-delusional egos, nefarious party factions, insidious vested interests and character assassination (which I blame for giving us five prime ministers in as many years).

When it was my turn to ask a question, it concerned the recent bipartisan compromise between the Coalition and The Greens to publish the tax records of companies generating more than $200m in revenue (as a step towards tackling corporate tax avoidance). I asked, “Should we expect to see more of this seemingly new approach to politics?” Although Ms Grattan gave a detailed (and somewhat technical) explanation for this particular Parliamentary outcome and its likely implications, I felt that most of the audience were not interested. They would probably have preferred to be talking about the ins and outs of the party rooms. For me, this does not bode well for the level and quality of public debate we are having on (non-party) political issues that really matter.

I also have a few other niggles about The Conversation and the 2015 Yearbook:

  1. By only sourcing content from “recognised” academic experts and policy wonks, I think this overlooks contributions from commercial and industry experts which are just as valid. As long as such authors also declare any interests, it should ensure balanced commentary – but to exclude them from the debate just because they don’t have academic, public or research tenure is self-limiting.
  2. The site as a whole (and the book in particular) is rather thin on actual data references, and when research data is included in articles, there are rarely any charts, tables or infographics. I think this is a shame and a missed opportunity.
  3. The book hardly mentions the critical issue of tax reform (which barely merits half a dozen pages). Whereas, reform of the education system (including academic research funding) gets around 40 pages – which rather smacks of self-interest (and bias?) on the part of the academic authors

Finally, The Conversation provides a valuable (and from what I have seen, an impartial) service via its factcheck section, which in tandem with the ABC’s Fact Check is doing a sterling job of trying to keep our pollies honest (at least in Parliament…). More power to it.

Next week: David Bowie Was – “It’s a god-awful small affair”

 

A big year in #FinTech

Posted on by
Reply

Looking back over the past year, it’s easy to see that 2015 has seen a giant leap forward for #FinTech in the Melbourne #startup scene. Much of this progress can be attributed to the efforts of the FinTech Melbourne Meetup Group, which, in little over a year, has established itself as one of the leading local startup groups, culminating in its first pitch night last month.
logo

Backdrop

There have been some significant business developments this year, including the launch and expansion of new P2P lending providers, payment platforms, digital currency solutions and robo-advice services. And while Melbourne does not yet have an equivalent to Sydney’s Stone & Chalk (a dedicated FinTech hub), there is enough momentum across the network of co-working spaces and the startup ecosystem of founders, advisors, incubators and accelerator programs to ensure that the city is building on its status as a financial centre.

For myself, the year in FinTech really got going with the inaugural FinTech Startup Weekend, which for me was a steep learning curve. I not only learned how to survive a hackathon, but I also gained a much deeper understanding of FinTech itself. I had become increasingly aware of the topic, via other meetup events, business networking and through reading (and writing for) specialist trade publications.* But until you actually see some of the innovative and practical ideas on new technical solutions for financial services, FinTech can seem like a lot of vaporware.

Emerging Winners

At the recent FinTech Melbourne Pitch Night, five local startups presented to a panel of distinguished judges in front of a packed audience at Melbourne Town Hall. Representing core fintech sectors (and the key messages from their pitches) were:

  • Fuzo – mobile payments platform: “2.5bn people don’t have a bank account”
  • CoinJar – a Bitcoin exchange: “targeting digital nomads”
  • StockLight – investment research: “24% of investors want help with analysis”
  • Moula – SME lending: “not a lender of last resort”
  • Timelio – cashflow finance: “factoring has missed the internet generation”

In what is traditionally a bank-dominated area of trade finance, Timelio is challenging the usual models for invoice discounting, while offering a new asset class for selected investors. I’ve featured Moula in this blog before, but this time around, I felt the presentation was quite low-key, and rather coy about the business model and the financials – maybe that’s because things are moving very quickly, and Moula is in the process of building significant traction via key commercial partnerships. The Fuzo pitch was quite complex (and probably too much technical information to present given the format), but the SIM card-based technology looks very interesting. StockLight‘s proposition is quite simple, and with access to quality content and a range of commercial models, could be one to watch as every financial institution is having to rethink wealth management and personal advice. However, on the night, CoinJar took out the first prize, and not for the first time, demonstrated how a simple concept can actually make the complex more straightforward: if nothing else, it proves that “Bitcoin can be done”.

Backlash

Some comments in the specialist trade publications have been quite scathing about FinTech, in particular those few startups that have embarked on public listings and IPOs. Much of this backlash relates to governance, disclosure and transparency; fair enough, they are important issues. But these criticisms should not be used to undermine the innovative technology, new business models and strategic partnerships that FinTech startups are bringing to the market.

Going mainstream

When otherwise conservative institutions such as industry superannuation funds start to embrace FinTech (e.g., Equip’s tie-up with Clover), or if the ASX decides to deploy blockchain technology to replace the CHESS clearing and settlement platform, it means that FinTech is definitely on the map, and can’t be written off or even ignored as some sort of irritating, disruptive upstart.

Next Steps?

In the wake of announcing the Victorian Government’s $60m LaunchVic startup initiative, the minister for small business, innovation and trade, Philip Dalidakis has been on a flurry of highly visible public speaking engagements, networking events and social media posts. Keen to get the message out there that his government intends to make Victoria a startup success, the minister is certainly generating considerable goodwill in the community.

I’m yet to understand fully the actual remit and stated goals of this new Quango. For example, what does “investing in core infrastructure” mean? Do we really need another bureaucratic body? Couldn’t the initiative have been better structured as a peak body to represent and support the private sector activities already underway?

If the minister is going to be true to his introductory remarks at the recent #hscodefest hackathon, the government needs to create the right environment for startups to flourish, not try to pick winners – leave that to the investors, entrepreneurs and industry experts. As an example, run a FinTech-themed hackathon to improve the Myki system…..

The Last Word…

Finally, for anyone needing an overview on crypto-currency and the future of money, I highly recommend Torsten Hoffmann‘s award-winning 2015 documentary, “Bitcoin: The End of Money as We Know It”, which received its Melbourne premiere last week at Collective Campus.

FOOTNOTE:

* I can’t claim any credit, but a few months after my Trade Finance blog, ICICI and Alibaba announced a new partnership – in part proving my theory that collaboration soon follows in the wake of disruption…

Next week: Crate-digging in Japan