Showing posts with label Atom Bank. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Atom Bank. Show all posts

Friday, 5 August 2016

Digital Transformation in Banking is not happening

There is a lot of talk about digital transformation by banks but the reality is that despite what they say they are not doing it. What the vast majority of banks are actually doing is digital enablement. They are simply using digital technologies to do what they are doing today only slightly better. There is nothing transformational about what they are doing.
Fundamentally the products and the services that banks are offering are no different than those they have been offering for the last fifty years, if not longer. They may be offered through different channels like the mobile, tablet and over webchat but they are still fundamentally the same as those offered to your parents when they were your age.
It is not only the big banks that are guilty of digital enablement but also the majority of the so-called challenger banks. For most of them the term ‘challenger’ is not even appropriate. What is challenging about providing free dog biscuits in branches! Their impact on the market share of the big banks is negligible and not growing at a sufficient rate to be a significant threat anywhere in the short term.
The reality is that the majority of the challenger banks are simply competitors offering a subset of the products and services that the big banks provide. However the emergence of a large number of competitors into the market is to be welcomed as the choice for individuals and small businesses as to where they get their bank services from has, and continues, to expand.
When you take the UK market as an example the competitors break down into a number of categories:
Existing Competitors
These are the likes of Co-op Bank, Nationwide Building Society, Clydesdale and Yorkshire banks who have been around for many years with a fairly consistent market share. They are all in different ways and at different speeds enabling their businesses with digital technology. Some are being more ambitious about growing market share of current accounts than others.
The Clones
These banks are the ones that have been spawned from previously existing organisations, been re-sprayed with a new or revived brand and trade on the fact that they are not one of the big four banks. The main players in this category are Santander (Abbey National), Virgin Money (Northern Rock), TSB (Lloyds Banking Group) and Halifax (Lloyds Banking Group). Of course the latter is still owned by one of the big four, but is positioned as their ‘challenger’ brand.
The Clones offerings differ from each other. Santander has expanded the range of products that Abbey National offered with a push into current accounts and SME banking. While the Santander 123 account has shown some innovation it is still fundamentally a vanilla current account. Virgin Money has expanded the Northern Rock offering into balance transfer credit cards, but despite previous announcements is holding back from entering either the current account or SME banking markets for the moment.
None of the clones are leading in their application of digital technologies and, at best, are enabling some of their processes with digital.
The New Traditionals
Into this group fall the likes of Metro Bank, Shawbrook, Aldermore, Oaknorth, Handelsbanken and OneSavings Bank. New banks that are offering an alternative to the Big 4 banks but all of which have a small market share and whilst growing quickly will take years on their current trajectory to be of serious concern to the large banks. Like The Clones they position themselves as not being one of the big four and differentiate themselves on offering superior, personalised service. They have not invested heavily in digital - Metro Bank has only just (August 2016) launched its customer website. In the cases of Metro Bank, Handelsbanken and Aldermore have made their branches and face-to-face service a key point of their differentiation.
The Mobile banks
These are the banks that are being designed with mobile in mind for the Millennials the likes of Mondo, Atom, Tandem, Starling and Monese. While a number of these have been granted their banking licences and a number are in beta testing these banks have not really been launched yet. We have some indication of how they will operate however until they move to full launch it is difficult to judge how transformational in terms of their digital offering they will be.
So if today’s banks are only undertaking digital enablement what is it that they would need to do to be undertaking digital transformation?
Re-imagining the business models for banking
Transformation is about fundamental change – something that the banking industry has not seen since the Medicis created the first bank. This is about changing the business models for banking to reflect what customers want and also how the way industries boundaries are blurring.
Banks that are truly undertaking digital transformation are reimagining the business models for banking
Customers do not want to do business with banks. Customers do not fundamentally want a mortgage they want a home. Customers do not want a loan they want a car. Banks for customers are a means to an end. Banks who get this are recognising that they need to be offering services beyond the banking product. For example some banks are forming agreements with online estate agents so that when a customer is looking at a property online the banks knows this and can tell the customer whether they can afford it and whether the bank is prepared in principle to offer them a mortgage.
Banks have lots of SME customers many who will have offers that are of interest to other SMEs or individuals. The banks know how well those SME businesses are performing so banks are in an ideal position to create a SME marketplace where their customers can do business with other bank customers knowing that the supplier is backed by the bank. Equally the supplier will know that the customer is backed by the bank. In this model the bank operates as the introducer adding value to both the business and the customer.
For those banks that have invested in building a modern banking IT infrastructure they recognise that this is a highly valuable asset and there are opportunities to offer banking as a service to either businesses outside the banking industry such as retailers who want to offer banking services to their customers or to banks in other countries. Two good examples of organisations that already do this, both German, are SolarisBank https://www.solarisbank.de/ and Wirecard www.wirecard.com
The three examples of different business models above are just illustrative of what banks and other organisations are doing to use digital as an enabler to fundamentally change the banking industry.
This is true digital transformation and for those organisations that embrace it the future is positive and full of hope; for those who don’t the future is a slow decline into obscurity.

Monday, 31 August 2015

What makes a challenger bank a digital challenger bank?

Let’s face it challenger banks are nothing new they have been around for a long time. In the UK there has always been a large number of challenger banks – the Co-op, Yorkshire Bank, Clydesdale Bank, Alliance & Leicester, Bradford & Bingley, Abbey National, Nationwide Building Society to name just a few past and present challengers. In Australia you would look at the likes of Bendigo, Bank West, BoQ as examples. However despite there being the challengers in the market, the share that the Big Four (in the UK) or the Four Pillars (in Australia) have not fundamentally been impacted by the presence of the challengers.

Over the last few weeks in the UK a number of the new challenger banks have been reporting their results. The UK’s Sunday Times produced the chart below: 
 
This shows just how the share price of some of the challenger banks has risen despite the stormy market conditions due to delivering a good set of results. Whilst the market share all three of these banks have picked up is good considering where they have started from, it is still tiny in comparison to the share of the Big Four banks. Even if they continued at the rate that they are growing at it would take years for them to have a significant share.
What each of these challenger banks have in common is that there basis for competition is entirely traditional and they are competing in exactly the same way, albeit providing a marginally better service, that the Big Four banks go to market, so why is there any surprise that their impact is so little?
Some of the other challengers will argue that they are providing customers with a better experience by providing customer lounges, opening longer hours, providing a debit card immediately in branch on opening an accout, offering drive through services or putting edgy images on credit cards. However these are cosmetic changes and are not fundamentally challenging the way that banking services have been procured for the last two hundred years.
For the challenger banks to make any significant impact on the incumbent players they need to become digital challenger banks.
What is a digital challenger bank?
The terms ‘challenger bank’ and ‘digital’ are continually bandied around with little common agreement as to what they mean.
For the purpose of this argument a digital challenger bank is one that fundamentally changes the way that customers experience and procure banking services, that acts in real time based on customer insight and demand, is available 24x7 and is accessible across any channel and most importantly is agile being able to rapidly adapt to changes in the way that the customer wants and needs to do business.
Taking each of these parts of the definition what does that mean for a bank wanting to become a challenger bank?
Being truly driven by the customer
For too long banking has been operating on a push model where the bank is in the driving seat pushing its products, operating its processes. While many banks talk about being customer centric they still take an inside out view of customers that asks the question what can the bank sell/do for a customer rather than an outside in view which is answering the question what does the customer want of its financial services providers. Without this fundamental change in thinking it will not be possible to be successful in the long term.
Real Time
The whole banking system is still upon a branch based architecture, even those without branches. The fundamental philospohy is that branches hold accounts (hence the sort code that each account has), that at the end of the day branches tally up their accounts (which is why they traditionally closed at 3pm so the branch staff could do this before going home) and then post those accounts to Head Office. Overnight the transactions between branches and other banks are reconciled and at the beginning of the day the cycle all starts again. However in the digital ages consumers expect their service provider to not only to be available 24x7 but also the information that they share to be absolutely current and accurate. While most banks simulate real time to more or less an extent their IT architectures are batch-based and historical. Hours of every night are spent reconciling accounts and establishing at one moment of time the financial position of the bank.
With the arrival of mature real time, high performance supercomputing platforms true real time banking has finally arrived.  This means that it is possible at any time to have a real time financial position.
Customers have grown used to expecting real time. When they search Google they don’t expect to see only search results as of last night. When they go on Facebook they expect to see their friends’ latest updates not as of two hours ago. They expect the same from their banks.
Without using supercomputing realtime platforms the digital challenger bank will not be able to deliver the experience that customers are demanding.
Driven by customer insight
Customers do not expect to have to repeat the information that their banks should already know about them every time they interact with their bank. When they go onto Amazon, Spotify or any other digital native business they expect tailored recommendations and therefore they should be able to expect the same from their bank. Underpinning the recommendations that these digital native organisations make is real time analytics.
Many banks have large and sophisticated analytics teams, however they are almost exclusively working offline i.e. not based on current, real time transactional data let alone the masses of amount of data that customers generate from their use of social media.
The digital challenger bank will be driven by real-time customer insight and predictive analytics that has drawn on structured and unstructured, internal and external, transactional and social data. This will allow them to provide a far better service than the incumbent banks can.
Available 24x7 365 days a year
Customers do not want to do their banking when the bank says they can. They want to be able to do it whenever they want to do it from wherever they are in the world. This means that banks need highly resilient, high performance IT infrastructures.
The costs to own, manage and run such an IT infrastructure is likely to be prohibitive for almost all challenger banks except for those with the deepest pockets. However the smart challenger will not look to own this, but rather give responsibility for delivering this to organisations whose core competence is delivering this type of service.
You only have to look at the hundreds and thousands of small businesses that rely on Amazon Web Services to host and manage their websites allowing the SME to focus on their customers to realise that ownership of IT is no longer an essential part of running a successful business.
Omnichannel
An ugly word and one that doesn’t encapsulate the full meaning of what customers want, however as it is in common usage the one that is used here. Customers wants to be able carry out their financial services transactions using any channel whether it be in a branch (yes some customers still want to use them despite what every Fintech evangelist says), Apple Watch, mobile or tablet. Not only that they want to be able to move around channels during a financial transaction seamlessly without having to re-enter data or waiting for one channel to catch up with another. The way that the experience of interacting on the channel is presented must be in the context of that channel. Too often banks believe they have achieved this when they have simply automated a form on a mobile device.
Without offering a functionally rich mobile experience a bank cannot be a digital challenger.
A digital challenger bank should have a contextual presence on all the channels that their customers want. However some digital challenger banks, for instance Atom (mobile banking), will choose to support only some channels  and so will dictate the customers that they will attract.
Agile
The one certainty in banking is that there is no certainty. Who could have predicted five years ago that largest taxi company in the world would own no taxis? The pace of change means that no one can predict how financial services will be delivered in five years let alone any longer than that. This means that for the digital challenger bank the most important competence is agility. Agility is a core weapon that a digital challenger bank needs to have to overcome the incumbent banks many of whom are saddled with legacy processes enforced by legacy IT.
One significant way of addressing agility is by the use of standardised software operating in the cloud. The reason that this aids agility is that whereas typically on premise software is updated once very eighteen months by half of customers, cloud software providers are able to automatically update the software as frequently as once a quarter or whenever needed. This means that a challenger banks that uses standardised software can adapt its customer proposition far faster than a similar organisation with an on premise solution.
The need for agility has a fundamental impact both the way that the business is run and how it is supported by IT. A unified, simplified business and IT architecture provides an advantage for a digital challenger bank. Picking best of breed solutions without the context of an overall architecture brings the danger of building a new inflexible legacy. Even with the benefits of an overall architectural framework it still means that there will be high amounts of integration effort.
CRAMS
The IT and consultancy industries are full of acronyms, but for a digital challenger bank to be more than a nuisance to the incumbent banks then it really needs to adopt Cloud, Real time, Analytics, Mobile and Social technologies.
While the incumbents can also adopt these for the digital challenger bank to succeed it must be a master of agility.

Wednesday, 21 January 2015

Why 2015 won't be the year of the challenger bank


When politicians and consumer finance champions talk about challenger banks they are looking for new players to eat into the 77% of the current account market and the 85% of the small business banking market that the Big 5 (Barclays, Lloyds, HSBC, RBS and Santander) currently have.

The figures from the Financial Conduct Authority for potential new banks could give the impression that 2015 could be the year that finally the Big 5 sees their market share being significantly reduced:

6 banking licences issued
4 banks proceeding through the application process
26 new banks being discussed

In addition there are already the likes of Nationwide, Co-op, TSB, Yorkshire Bank, Clydesdale Bank, Metro Bank, One Savings Bank, Handelsbanken, Aldermore, M&S Bank, Tesco Bank, Virgin Money and Shawbrook operating in the UK.

However on closer scrutiny the picture isn't quite as rosy and is unlikely to cause any executive from the Big 5 banks to lose any sleep.

The existing “challengers” broadly fall into one of four camps.

Camp 1: Existing established Players:

Nationwide

Co-op

Yorkshire Bank

Clydesdale Bank

Post Office (Bank of Ireland)

The established players have been operating current accounts in the UK market for many years, Nationwide being the newest of these to this specific market. Despite having been in the market for some time these established players’ impact on the market share of the Big 5 has been minimal. Nationwide is the most proactive in trying to acquire new customers within this group as is reflected by their being one of the biggest beneficiaries since the introduction of 7 Day Switching. Their market share is small but growing and its offering is something that clearly appeals to customers who do not like the Big 5 banks.

Camp 2: Banks created from former banks:

One Savings Bank (Kent Reliance Building Society)

TSB (Lloyds Banking Group)

Virgin Money (Northern Rock)

Williams & Glyn (RBS) – still to be launched

These are all banks that have (or will) relaunch themselves and have existing customers, branches and IT infrastructure. What this means is that in terms of offering a true alternative to the Big 5 banks they are limited by the legacy technology and cost bases they have inherited when they were set up. In the case of TSB and Williams & Glyn both of these were compulsory disposals by their parent banks following the 2008 financial crisis, however both of them have significant shareholdings by Lloyds Bank Group (TSB) and RBS (Williams & Glyn) so whether they can really be seen as challengers when they are still owned by one of the Big 5 is questionable.

One Savings Bank does not offer a current account and is focused on the specialty lending sector. Virgin Money does not currently market a current account.

Camp 3: Banks owned by larger organisations

Handelsbanken

Tesco Bank

M&S Bank

These three are each quite different.

Handelsbanken which has more than 175 branches in the UK has its parent company in Sweden. It is primarily focused on SME banking but does offer a personal current account. It is building a presence and has very high customer satisfaction but is still sufficiently subscale to not be a threat to the market share of the Big 5. However it is picking off customers that the Big 5 banks would rather not lose.

Tesco Bank has only relatively recently launched its current account so it is difficult to judge how successful it will be. With the size of the Tesco customer base and the insight it has into its customers from the Clubcard it has the potential to be a serious challenger however achieving sufficient scale will be beyond 2015. There is also a possibility with the woes of Tesco that the bank could be a candidate for disposal which could change significantly Tesco Bank’s market position.

M&S Bank while it does offer current accounts cannot be seen as a challenger as it is owned by HSBC, one of the Big 5 Banks. 

Camp 4: Greenfield challenger banks

Metro Bank

Aldermore

Shawcross

Atom Bank

Charter Savings Bank

Hampden & Co

These (and there are more) are the genuine upstarts the ones that are doing or planning to do something different in the market. The last three are still to launch. They are all primarily Private Equity funded.

Of those listed on Metro Bank offers a personal current account and Atom has a stated intention to offer one.

What each of these Greenfield challengers does not offer is scale and will certainly not bother the Big 5 banks in 2015.

Big 5 bank executives can sleep easy in 2015
When an examination is made across the four Camps as described above the inevitable conclusion is that while there may be some headlines and excitement about the number of potential challengers in and coming into the UK banking market there can be no doubt that in 2015 there will be very little dent in the current account market share of the Big 5 banks.

Wednesday, 6 August 2014

Creating competition in retail banking

With the recommendation by the UK CMA (Competition and Markets Authority) to conduct a review of competitiveness in the current account banking market, what are some of the areas that they may consider to increase competitiveness?

Breaking up the banks. This is the Labour party’s big idea - creating a set of competitor banks by splitting the big banks. The primary focus for this would be the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group. However this isn’t a new idea and is already being tested with the creation of TSB from Lloyds Banking Group and Williams & Glyn’s from RBS. However already there are lessons to be learnt from this process.

While there was initial interest from a number of players the list of serious bidders rapidly shortened when the complexity, the capital required and the price being sought became clear. The initial two successful bidders the Co-op (Lloyds) and Santander (RBS) after lengthy negotiations and detailed planning withdrew their bids.

Separating the bank’s technology whether cloning (TSB) or migrating to a new platform is proving to be enormously complex and very expensive.

The payback period is very long and without the subsidy and support of the selling bank would be even longer. TSB for instance does not expect to break even for many years and that is despite being helped by Lloyds lending the new bank a book of loans.

While breaking up the banks will mean that there are more places to have a current account there is no guarantee that this will ensure better deals for customers, particularly given that the easiest option for the broken up banks is to be clones of the original banks just simply without the scale advantages. With little to differentiate them having more players in the market doesn’t result in real consumer benefit.

Creating a payments utility separate from the big banks. One of the often heard complaints from new entrants is that the big banks have an advantage because they own the payments infrastructure and the cost for new entrants to use that infrastructure is a barrier to entry. One option would be to create a separate payments utility not owned by the banks. However that does not mean that it will necessarily be cheaper for new entrants. For a start there is the cost of acquiring and separating the infrastructure from that of the banks that currently own it which would need to be paid by customers of the utility. There is also the question of how to charge for the use of this utility. The charge would need to reflect the significant cost of running, maintaining and investing in modernising the infrastructure – it is not simply the cost of using the infrastructure because otherwise what is the incentive for whoever ends up owning the infrastructure to invest in it to make it not only continually available but also suitable for new innovations as they come along? Commercial reality dictates that for banks with high transaction volumes that cost per transaction should be lower.

Portable bank account numbers. Many of the challenger banks are supportive of the concept of portable bank account numbers. They look at the mobile phone industry and see the way that customers can take their phone numbers with them. However before recommending this change the CMA needs to research just how big an inhibitor to switching bank accounts for customers is the change of account number. Given the Seven Day Switching Service where the banks guarantee no interruption to direct debits and standing orders and given the limited numbers of times customers actually have to know their account number in order to transact, would portable bank account numbers really open the floodgates of customers switching bank account numbers?

Ending ‘free when in credit’ banking. In the UK customers have got used to so-called ‘free banking’ where as long as a customer remains in credit, whilst they get little or nothing for the balance that they retain, they don’t pay charges. A number of the challenger banks have complained that this gives the incumbent banks an advantage as it is difficult (but not impossible) to compete on price and because it gives banks offering current accounts a distinct advantage over those who don’t in terms of the low cost of all those balances when it comes to lending. It will take a brave politician to move to compel the end of free banking. Of course to attain transparency then the cost of each transaction e.g. cost of an ATM withdrawal, the cost of paying in a cheque, the cost of a direct debit, etc, would need to be made clear to customers and, the challengers would argue, that that would enable customers to choose between banks. However looking at a market where this is the way banking is conducted, Australia, then not only is there a greater concentration of current accounts held with the Four Pillars (Nab, Westpac, CBA and ANZ) than with the equivalents in the UK, but Australian banks are amongst the most profitable retail banks in the world. Despite that there are not lots of new entrants fighting to get a slice of the pie. For customers Australia is also one of the most expensive countries to bank. It would appear that ending ‘free banking’ alone would not solve the perceived competition problem.

Set a maximum market share for current accounts. On paper this would appear to be the solution. The big banks could be given a period of time over which they must reduce their share of the market to for instance to no more than 15% of the market each leaving the challenger banks to fight over the remaining 40%. The banks would need to be told the mix of customers they must dispose of, just as Lloyds was instructed for the disposal of TSB. However what does this do for consumer choice? Not all customers were happy to be told that they were moving from Lloyds to TSB without an option. Given that the CMA investigation is about creating competition and making it easier for customers to switch banks this does not appear to be the solution.

Make it even easier for new challengers to enter the market. Measures have already been put in place to reduce the capital required, shorten the process and allow challenger banks time to grow into being a full scale bank. The benefits of this are already being seen with the likes of Atom Bank being announced. It is difficult to see what more could be done in this area.

Make retail banking more profitable to encourage more new entrants. There is little chance of this being one of the recommendations of the CMA. The reality is that with increased regulation, increased scrutiny and rising costs for compliance retail banking is becoming less and less attractive a sector for investors. As JC Flowers have recently remarked with Returns on Equity going from double to single digits there are more attractive sectors to look at investing in.

Is the CMA looking to solve a problem that customers don’t see as a priority? With the advent of Seven Day Switching the number of customers changing banks has risen – over one million customers have chosen to do that. The biggest beneficiaries have been TSB, Santander and Nationwide Building Society. There more than a handful of challenger banks out there – Tesco, Marks & Spencer, Metro Bank, Co-op Bank, Handelsbanken, Aldermore and others with current accounts on the way – amongst them Atom Bank and Virgin Money. Despite that the market share of the large high street banks hasn’t changed significantly. The question is why aren’t customers changing banks? Is it simply because they see banking as a utility, that each of the banks are pretty much the same, that for most customers (unlike bankers, politicians, financial journalists and consumer champions) banking doesn’t enter their consciousness unless they have a bad experience. In the grand scheme of things for most customers they have far more important issues to think about than whether they should switch their bank accounts.

Perhaps it is time that the CMA focused on something of more day to day importance to consumers.