Tag Archives: #FinTechMelb

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….

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

Do we need a #FinTech safe harbour?

Posted on by
Reply

As part of the recent FinTech Melbourne Meet Up, there was some discussion on the regulatory challenges startups face when trying to validate an early-stage concept. The notion of a safe harbour or “regulatory sandbox” has gained some momentum, with ASIC’s Innovation Hub, and a commentary by Deborah Ralston, of the Australian Centre for Financial Services, who is also inaugural Chair of ASIC’s Digital Finance Advisory Committee.

If we assume that the main purposes of financial regulation are: system stability, minimum professional standards, consumer confidence, investor protection, market transparency and risk mitigation, then I doubt anyone can deny the benefit of a formal and robust compliance regime. However, technology and innovation are combining to challenge and disrupt the inherent inefficiencies that can accrue within a static regulatory environment (especially one that is reactive, rather than pro-active), which is largely designed to monitor legacy frameworks and incumbant institutions.

While the ASIC initiative is not the same as obtaining an ATO private tax ruling, it does at least show that the regulator is keen to be more consultative in helping startups test new ideas. But the reality is the cost of initial compliance and licensing can be a barrier to a new venture, before the concept has even been market-tested. So perhaps there is an opportunity to ring-fence emergent FinTech ventures, so they can explore real-world applications, but limited by market scope, number of participants, transaction values and timeframes. (Such a model already exists for private equity offerings….)

As it stands, in the case of P2P lending platforms, a startup might find itself having to be licensed and regulated as a financial services provider, an approved consumer credit provider, an authorised depository institute and possibly a licensed financial planner as well. That’s a lot of compliance for a new business that might not even have a single customer.

From my own experience, what constitutes “financial advice” is subject to very wide interpretation. Several years ago, I was responsible for introducing a new financial product to the local market – a bond pricing information service. The service was aimed only at institutional investors (not retail customers), based on collated and published data supplied by existing market participants. Nor was it a real-time data feed; rather, it delivered intraday and end of day prices calculated on actual traded bonds. Yet the regulator determined this constituted “financial advice”, even though no trading recommendation or investment decision was inherent in the data. It was also designed to offer a more transparent and objective process for pricing portfolios of less liquid or rarely traded securities, where mark-to-market solutions are unavailable or inappropriate – thereby providing some clarity to market participants.

Meanwhile, the responses to shady advice and other malfeasance inflicted upon retail investors by “established” financial institutions and “traditional” financial planners usually take years to work their way through the legal and regulatory processes of investigation, mediation, settlement and prosecution. (And if anyone wants to understand what actually caused the GFC, well before the term FinTech had been coined, check out John Lanchester’s book “Whoops!”)

Next week: What I want from a mobile banking app.

A Tale of Two #FinTech Cities – Melbourne vs. Sydney….

Posted on by
Reply

Inter-city rivalry between Melbourne and Sydney is nothing new. The fact that neither city is the national capital only adds to the frisson. The usual debates as to which is the better for sport, culture, beaches, food, weather, property prices, live music, public transport and coffee normally mean Melbourne edges out Sydney in most categories. (But then, I’m probably biased – however, having lived and worked in both, I think I am reasonably objective.)*

When it comes to startups, and FinTech in particular, the debate is beginning to hot up. At a recent FinTech Melbourne Meetup the topic was “is there room for both?”. The speakers, Toby Heap for Sydney, and Stuart Richardson for Melbourne, remained tactful and diplomatic, as it’s not really appropriate to talk about which is better – more a case of choosing “which is the right location for your own particular FinTech”. So, the debate avoided mere point-scoring, and tried to establish some commonalities, as well as provide some considered views on the benefits inherent within the key differences.

Both cities have a growing reputation for startup success, built on some core foundations: groups of angel investors and VC funds with an increasing FinTech focus; several accelerator programs, incubators and co-working spaces; and a community of founders and aspiring tech entrepreneurs.

From an industry perspective, two of the four Pillar Banks are headquartered in Sydney, and two in Melbourne. More insurers have their HQ’s in Sydney compared to Melbourne (apart from health insurance, where Melbourne hosts the largest market providers), while Tier 2 and regional banks (by their very nature) are more likely to be located outside either city (not including wholly owned brands of the Big 4).

As for pension funds and asset management, particularly in relation to Australia’s superannuation sector, Melbourne is clearly the bigger player, particularly for the largest industry funds (based on their historical links to the trade union movement). In addition, Melbourne is home to some substantial family offices, as well as specialist asset managers, including overseas firms. After all, Melbourne’s establishment wealth comes from the nineteenth century gold boom.

When it comes to markets, Sydney wins out by virtue of housing the main equities exchange, as well as being a hub for futures, fixed income and forex. Sydney also hosts more investment banks, including local branches of foreign players.

In some respects, the differences can be likened to the market roles and dynamics of London vs Edinburgh, New York vs Boston, Frankfurt vs Munich, or even Hong Kong vs Singapore, for example.

For me, however, the key distinction between Sydney and Melbourne can be summarised as: “Sydney trades, Melbourne invests”.

* Note: Content in Context is taking a well-deserved break. Starting this week, the next few posts will feature some brief blogs on different aspects of FinTech. Normal service will be resumed in early November

Next week: do we need a #FinTech safe harbour?