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

YBF #FinTech pitch night

It’s getting difficult to keep up with all the FinTech activity in Melbourne – from Meetups to pitch nights, from hubs to incubators. The latest Next Money / York Butter Factory / Fintech Victoria pitch night was a showcase for three startups-in-residence at YBF. As such, it was not the usual pitch competition – more an opportunity for the startups to hone their presentations.

First up was Handy, an app-based solution that connects trades with customers to streamline the settlement process for property insurance claims. There is an industry-wide low-level of satisfaction with property claims – which can take up to 60 days to process, even though 80% of claims are for less than $5,000. Handy offers a faster solution, and doesn’t require a lengthy estimate or quoting process, using instead fixed-price rates. With a target market of 100,000 claims per annum, Handy expects to generate 25% savings to the insurance industry, as well as having a broader societal impact in terms of speedier claims, better appreciation of service providers, and more consideration of the respective needs of householders and trades. Launching an MVP in November, there are four insurance firms in pilot test mode. Aiming for a white label solution, Handy will charge clients basic setup and maintenance fees, as well as volume transaction costs (although the exact pricing and revenue model still needs to be worked out). There were audience questions about the liability for quality of work and dispute resolution, the trade supplier on boarding and verification process, and the process for communicating to policy holders whether their insurance provider or broker is covered by the platform.

Next was FinPass, a startup appealing to the 40% of the workforce expected to be freelance by 2020 – a key feature of the gig economy. Targeting so-called “slashies“, FinPass is designed to help customers apply for personal loans when they don’t have a single, steady or stable source of income – and therefore, may lack a formal credit rating or personal credit score – while adhering to the five Cs of credit. Using a combination of blockchain and API to validate a loan applicant’s income profile, FinPass would then make this data available to approved lenders (subject, presumably, to consumer credit and lending standards, customer privacy and data protection requirements). To be fair, this project was fresh from winning a recent hackathon event, and therefore is still at the concept stage. However, it was clear that much needs to be done to define the revenue model, as well as designing the actual blockchain solution. Audience feedback questioned the need for a standalone solution, given the existence of various block explorers, APIs, vendors, protocols and bank feed sources. In addition, while blockchain provides a level of transaction immutability, and since only the hash-keys will be captured, the SHA’s will only confirm the hash itself, not the veracity of the underlying data?

Finally, there was Resolve, a two-sided market place for the insolvency services – a platform to buy and sell distressed businesses. Designed to capture turnaround opportunities, the platform has a target market of 14,000 transactions per annum – of which only 1% currently advertised, simply because it’s too expensive to use traditional media (i.e., finance and business publications). In addition, 92% of companies that enter insolvency return zero cents in the dollar to their creditors. Part bulletin board, part deal room, Resolve aims to create a passive deal flow for this alternative asset class. When asked about their commercial model, the founders expect a turnover based on a few hundred businesses each year, and revenue coming from a flat $1,000 per listing – but the key to success will be building scale.

Each of these early-stage startups represent promising ideas, revealing some innovative solutions, so it will be interesting to follow their respective journeys over the coming months.

Next week: Bitcoin – Big In Japan