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

Monday, 18 August 2014

CBA proves the case for core banking replacement

CBA (Commonwealth Bank of Australia) has delivered record profits of $8.6bn AUD (£4.8bn, $8.0bn USD) for the year to June 2014. With a return on equity of 18.7% (versus typically 5-7% for US/UK banks and less for European banks) and a cost:income ratio of 36% for the retail bank (42.9% for the bank overall), this puts CBA amongst the most profitable banks in the world. It is also one of the banks with the fastest growing profits. This is despite fees paid by customers going down. The profit is being driven a combination of growing the revenues outperforming their competition and by increases in productivity. The CEO, Ian Narev, is clear that a major factor in the high performance of the bank is due to the major investments in technology, including the replacement of their core banking platforms.

For many banks the idea of replacing the core banking platforms is the equivalent of performing a full heart and lungs transplant while running a marathon. However, whilst most banks have not had the courage to embark on such a challenging endeavour, in 2006 CBA decided to. CBA made the task even harder by rather than choosing to replace their old legacy systems with proven technology they chose to be one of a very few pioneers with the new SAP Banking platform that, at that point, was largely unproven.

CBA have not been risk averse in adopting new technologies. They were one of the first banks to outsource their internet banking infrastructure to Amazon Web Services (AWS). See CBA and Amazon

The journey to their new banking platforms was not straight forward, bumps were found along the way and the costs rose above original estimates but there were releases along the journey which released business benefits and they have succeeded in delivering a completely new set of platforms to drive their business from. This has given them significant competitive advantage.

One consequence of simplifying their IT landscape has been a dramatic decrease in the number of high impact system impacts from 400 in FY2007 to a mere 44 in FY14. Considering the number of major outages that some of its competitor banks have had and the damage to the brand this is a significant achievement. It will undoubtedly have contributed to why CBA is #1 for customer satisfaction amongst Australian banks.

Among the benefits that the bank and the customers have experienced is a dramatic reduction in the time it takes to get innovations into production – two recent examples of this are Lock & Limit (allowing customers to block and/or limit the size of transactions) and Cardless Cash (customers being able to withdraw from ATMs using their mobile phones) which came to market in May 2014 ahead of competitor offerings.

CBA has also seen a significant increase in self-service with the percentage of deposits completed via an Intelligent Deposit Machine going from 10% to 37% over a twelve month period. With the launch of online opening of accounts (savings and current accounts) customers can now open accounts in less than 60 seconds.

None of the big UK banks has embarked upon a core banking platform replacement programme. Lloyds has consolidated and simplified its systems based on the legacy TSB platform. Santander has a single platform, Partenon, which is based on a banking package but it is legacy technology.  HSBC embarked on developing a single system for the Group, One HSBC, but that programme was stopped after a number of year. Nationwide Building Society is some way down the journey of implementing SAP Banking and is beginning to see the benefits with reduced times to launch products and propositions.
One of the key architects and sponsors of the technology transformation programme at CBA was Michael Harte. He is shortly to take up the role of COO with responsibility for IT at Barclays. There can be little doubt that his experience at CBA was the major attraction for his recruitment. The benefits that CBA is reaping following this six plus years journey are clear to see. The question is with all the challenges that Barclays faces, the size of the investment and the length of the return on that investment, the decreasing margins in banking and the amount of work needed to keep up with the regulatory burden whether Barclays will have the appetite and the staying power to embark upon what can be a highly rewarding but hazardous journey

Tuesday, 25 March 2014

Should the CIO be on the Executive Board?


The news that the CIO of Co-operative Group (which has a minority holding in Co-operative Bank), Andy Haywood, is to move off the Executive Board but to remain Group CIO brings a further spotlight onto what is the role of the CIO going forward and, whilst not directly related to the demotion of Mr Haywood, specifically what is the future role of CIOs in banks.

The reporting lines of CIOs have evolved with the increasing use of technology in organisations. Even the title of the person responsible for IT has evolved alongside the technology.

When computers were first introduced into banks their sole purpose was to act as a giant calculator and move what was held in physical ledgers onto computers so that the bank’s financial position could be calculated. The person responsible for making that happen would have had one of a few titles including EDP (Electronic Data Processing), MIS (Management Information Systems) or simply Computer Manager. The role would have reported to the Finance Director or Chief Accountant as that was the department that was primarily serviced by computers. Indeed today in many organisations today IT continues to report to the CFO.

As automation started impacting the back office operations of the banks and IT started being used outside of Finance, the Head of IT or CIO may have found the reporting line moving to the Chief Operating Officer. For many banks today that continues to be the case.

However with the rise of digital, IT has increasingly permeated beyond the back office and accounts departments and an increasingly large proportion of IT expenditure is being consumed by Marketing.

Banks in particular, where fundamentally the vast majority of their commercial, money-making operations are conducted electronically and not in the physical world, IT is increasingly seen as the lifeblood of a successful business. You only have to observe how little a bank can actually do when its IT systems crash and customers cannot access their bank accounts or their card transactions are not processed to see how important IT is to the operation of a bank.

There have been some interesting experiments in terms of what the right organisation structure for IT should be.

For instance at Barclays when Shayghan Kheradipir was Chief Operating and Technology Officer, he had a model where the COO and CIO of each business unit jointly reported to the CEO of that unit. (See CIO/COO joined at the hip). This meant that IT had a voice at the table for the key strategic decisions for that business unit rather than merely being represented by the COO.  With Mr Kheradipir leaving Barclays to be the CEO of Juniper Networks, it will be tempting for Barclays to revert to the more traditional model.

Commonwealth Bank of Australia has gone further than Barclays did by having the CIO reporting directly to the CEO. It is interesting to note that subsequent to that organisational change Commonwealth Bank has spent significantly more as a proportion of overall costs than other banks on refreshing its IT but as a consequence has one of the most advanced IT architectures and platforms of any retail bank of size globally. It is now being able to exploit that new platform to launch new products and services far faster than its competitors.

However with IT increasingly being outsourced, (whether it by the traditional route of selling IT assets to an outsourcer and buying back services or through the use of the cloud), the demands of digital and increasingly Business Intelligence and data analytics, there is a bigger question as to whether there is a role for the traditional CIO at the Executive table? If it isn’t the traditional CIO then who should be providing the strategic input of the role that IT can do to both lead and serve the bank? The skills are far more aligned with a business savvy enterprise architect who has no vested interest in building an internal organisation but is more interested in providing a pragmatic solution, wherever it is sourced from, who knows how to form strategic alliances, both within the bank and outside and who is driven by the desire to use technology to deliver the best value to both internal and external customers.

That doesn’t appear to be what the latest announcement from the Co-op regarding the role of the CIO is saying, indeed the organisational change sounds like a regressive step. But then the Co-op has far bigger problems to address than how to more effectively exploit IT.

Monday, 27 January 2014

How to be a successful challenger bank


So assuming you have got the capital raised and have got through the regulatory hurdles necessary to be a challenger bank what the critical factors for success?

Pick your battleground. Given that the big five banks (in the UK) or the Four Pillars (in Australia) or the equivalent in other markets are so called because they have the scale and the established track record trying to take them head on at their own game is a sure fire guarantee of failure. To paraphase the Chinese general Sun Tsu in his ‘Art of War’ only attack the enemy head on if you have a three to one advantage.  A bank that wants to take on the banks across their entire retail customer base is setting itself up to fail. The established big players have the depth of capital and the customer base to play the long game and can besiege the challenger bank until they have used up all their capital and their investors patience.

For challenger banks the better strategy is to ‘fragment’ i.e. to pick off part of the established banks’s customer base, preferably one of the more profitable segments.

By not having a clear customer segment strategy but simply competing for business that can be won from the established banks can end up with the so-called challenger winning the unprofitable business that the big five would happily like to exit.  

Handelsbanken have never sought to be a replacement for the big five banks in the UK for all their customers. They have deliberately adopted a strategy that focuses on small businesses in largely market towns where customers like to use branches, have face to face contact and are prepared to pay for that service. The result has been very high customer satisfaction along with high profitability.

First Direct (albeit owned by HSBC) set out to be a bank for customers that weren’t interested in visiting branches, liked to be able to talk to a person, liked a high quality of service and were prepared to pay for it. First Direct is very rarely at the top of the price tables. Equally First Direct has not tried to grow its customer base aggressively with its market share relatively stable and relatively small. What they have ended up with is the highest Net Promoter Score amongst the banks.

Consider competing from a position of better insight. The established banks have the scale, the benefits of a high margin back book and the deep pockets so competing purely on price is not a long term strategy. Neither is competing simply on not being one of them. Some of the legacy problems the established banks have is their data has grown up from individual product systems, there is a culture of not sharing data between organisational silos, their systems have often grown from a series of acquisitions and are based on old technology. This gives the challenger bank a real opportunity. Designing the bank from the start to be based around the customer not the product, designing the data infrastructure around the ability to analyse, model and forecast not only the customer, but the risk, the external environment and the way the business performance will be managed will give the challenger bank a significant advantage. By having better customer insight offers can be better tailored to what the customer actually wants (resulting in a reduced Cost Per Acquisition), pricing can be based on individual or segment risk (not only for lending but also for deposit pricing) and retention of customers can be significantly higher.

A good current/checking account offering is not optional. Without it being a real challenger is impossible. Unless you have a transactional product, one where the customer interacts with you frequently, you are not going to be able to own the customer relationship and whilst you might win in the short term it will only be for that. When you ask any customer who they bank with their first response will be the bank where their salary is paid into and which they use daily to buy goods and services with.

If the basis of competition is around taking  mortgages and savings market shares off the established banks, then effectively regardless of the ownership structure, this is a building society offering. Building societies have been around for over a hundred years and their attempts to be challenger banks can be seen in the demise of the likes of Alliance & Leicester, Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock.

Nationwide Building Society has shown that by having a good current account offering that they are a real challenger to the established banks. (Nationwide has done more than that as well but the current account has been a key building block to their success).

What’s more the current account offering needs to be designed to attract the customer segment that has been selected as part of the fragment strategy.

Most customers see one current account being the same as another. A lot of customers will also have been made more cynical because of the ‘value-added’ or packaged current accounts that were sold in the run up to the financial crash. These were accounts where it was questionable whether the ‘added value’ was worth the monthly fee. There are very few ways of differentiating a current account but certainly for a challenger bank it needs to be designed for being used on mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets. The established banks, whilst they may have deeper pockets, have old and under-maintained systems which should give challenger banks an advantage (see the comments about IT below)

The danger of coming out with a simple, low function current account is that the challenger bank ends up with the low income, highly unprofitable customers that established banks are obliged by governments to offer to the unbanked. While this may make the challenger bank popular with government it will do nothing to help investors and if that is not the customer segment being aimed for will only lead to brand confusion.

Design the business from the outside in. One of the biggest challenges the existing banks have is their organisation structure which is built around silos, largely product-based and very hard to change. This brings inflexibility and high cost. Challenger banks have a real opportunity to do something different, even if they have come into existence by acquiring an existing player. The way that the bank’s processes are designed should be driven by the experience that its customers, partners (intermediaries, aggregators, suppliers) want and then decide how it can be delivered profitably. Experience doesn’t just apply to getting a customer to purchase a product but also what happens after that. On-boarding is even more important now for retention, profitability and customer advocacy, particularly where business comes from brokers or comparison websites.

What typically happens is that organisations where there is any conscious design are built from the perspective of the bank and how it is easiest to manage, not from the customer’s or strategic supplier’s perspective. The challenger who gets this right will only be able to attract customers at a lower cost (reduced CPA), will reduce customer attrition and achieve higher customer referral rates.

Invest in talent and experience. Everybody thinks they are an expert in retail banking because everyone has a bank account. This is the equivalent of saying that everybody is a doctor because they have a body. If retail banking was really that easy and that profitable there would be no need for challenger banks. It is not only since the financial crash in 2008 that people have looked down on bankers and treated them as of less value than estate agents or tabloid journalists. Prior to the crash many banks employed retailers because they thought bankers were just staff who didn’t know how to sell properly. A probable consequence of the introduction of this retail talent was the PPI (Payment Protection Insurance) and the Structured Investments scandals, where sales techniques borrowed from the retail industry were applied to the banking industry. There is no doubt that the banking industry can benefit from the insights and experience of industries that deliver better customer service and use technology more smartly but that needs to be counterbalanced with deep experience of retail banking. Current account-based retail banking is far from the same as simply attracting deposits and selling mortgages. If retail banking was so easy why have the building societies (Nationwide excepted – see comment above) been so unsuccessful in making a significant dent in the established banks market share? To be a successful challenger bank investment in real expertise of current account banking is not optional.

Just because technology can do something doesn’t mean customers want it. There are plenty of digital gurus out there who are coming up with very imaginative ways of doing banking whether it is different ways of making payments (at least once a day someone somewhere in the world announces a new way of making payments), identifying the customer, wearing technology, and interacting in branches, but just because you can do it doesn’t mean you should. Unless it makes it more convenient for the customer (and many of the novel ways of making payments are cool but take longer than conventional ways of paying) then don’t do it. Being sexy is not a requirement to be a challenger bank.

Start from the goal of zero IT ownership - exploit the cloud, SaaS and outsourcing. The established banks have very expensive and old IT systems which they need to maintain. This comes from the legacy where banks were amongst the first organisations to use IT and therefore had no option but to build up their own expertise. With the maturity of the both the IT and the outsourcing industries there is no reason for banks to own or manage their own IT. Given the problems established banks have had with their legacy systems over the last few years their competency as an IT provider has been seriously tested. Not only does putting IT out to third parties save overall money but it also allows the challenger banks to focus on what is important and that is the provision of banking to their customers.

For many banks using the cloud to provide banking services has been unthinkable. However Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), the former public sector bank, has its internet banking hosted by Amazon. (See http://www.itsafinancialworld.net/2012/12/commonwealth-bank-of-australia-run-by.html) If a traditionally conservative bank has done that why wouldn’t challenger banks adopt that approach?

Metro Bank, one of the challenger banks in the UK, has bought the use of its core banking service on a per transaction basis (SaaS – Software as a Service). Its IT is outsourced. When the time it took to Metro Bank to launch its current account is compared with Tesco Bank (which is building its own platform based on a core banking package) then there is a clear argument for considering SaaS.

 Taking modern technology and commercial approaches should give challengers a great advantage; however it isn’t always turning out that way.  A number of challenger banks are being created by the acquisition of assets from existing players. They would argue that by having existing proven platforms that they can be up and running faster than starting from scratch. This is true in the short term but rather than being able to offer a truly differentiated service what they offer is a smaller but more expensive (due to the smaller scale and, in some cases, having to pay one of the big 5 banks to support the IT) version of the established banks. This is the situation that both TSB (the former Verde Lloyds Banking Group 630 branches) and William & Glyns (the 316 RBS branches) find themselves in.  (See http://www.itsafinancialworld.net/2013/07/can-tsb-be-challenger-bank.html) In the longer term this is not a viable solution for a challenger bank.

Challenger banks who have acquired legacy IT, need a transformational CIO working alongside the bank’s executives, to put in place a plan to get off the legacy and onto modern platforms enabled for mobile and digital as quickly as possible. They also need to be experts in strategic supplier management. The challenger banks need to educate their investors that this is not optional.

Have an exclusive relationship with major investors and get them committed for the long haul. There are plenty of hedge, private equity and sovereign funds who are interested in investing in challenge banks, however a number of them have placed investments in more than one challenger bank in the same sector in the same country. What does that say about their commitment?

To build a sustainable challenger bank will take time particularly given the limited availability of off the shelf banking technology and the time it takes to implement a new business model. Equally getting a return on these investments is not going to be quick, so investors who aren’t in for the long haul should be politely shown the door.

This isn’t meant to be an exhaustive list of what a challenger bank should be looking at but highlights some of the areas where the difference can be between success and failure.

Thursday, 24 November 2011

Barclays COOs/CIOs joined at the hip? ANZ doesn't agree

In an interesting move Barclays Global Retail Banking COO, Shaygan Kheradpir, has announced that the COO and CIO of each of the business units within the Global Retail Bank ( Barclaycard, UK Retail Banking, Barclays Africa and Western Europe) will jointly run their businesses and report to their CEO as well as to the GRB COO. This is sending a very clear message that, for retail banking, IT is as important as operations and that only by jointly working together can they succeed.

One can only assume that this is a move to change the behaviour often seen in banks where IT is seen as the whipping boy of Operations, the department that holds back the business from evolving and competing and the recipient of a lot of finger pointing.

In many banks and other financial services organisations IT reports into Operations and is not represented on the Executive Committees of their business units. This move by Barclays firmly places IT at the top table. It represents just how much more banks are dependent upon IT to be competitive.

Commonwealth Bank has gone one step further and has their CIOs reporting directly to the CEO, such do they see the significance of technology to the success of their banks.

Too often recently there have been tales of how IT has stopped the business working. You only have to look at the woes that National Australia has been enduring and the impact on the business of systems not working.
See http://www.itsafinancialworld.net/2011/04/deja-vu-as-nab-systems-down-once-again.html Interestingly NAB has a structure whereby they have split responsibility for IT between effectively BAU (Business As Usual) and New Technology with Adam Bennett as CIO and Christine Bartlett, the executive programme director of the NextGen technology upgrade programme.

However Barclays is clearly demonstrating how technology can help lead a business. First out with the tap and wave debit card in the UK and first out in the UK with the mobile wallet on a phone with their joint venture with Orange (see http://www.uswitch.com/news/communications/orange-and-barclaycard-launch-mobile-phone-payment-scheme-800550966/ )

For this joint responsibility to work effectively requires a special type of COO and a special type of CIO. The head of Operations will need to have far more than just an appreciation of IT than has traditionally been the case. Equally the CIO will need to have a deep understanding of how the business works and how IT can enable the bank to compete. Traditional CIOs who have come from an IT Service Delivery, focussed on keeping the lights on, may struggle to perform this role. The type of CIO required for banks is clearly evolving. This is discussed further at http://www.itsafinancialworld.net/2011/10/new-type-of-cio-is-required-for-todays.html
This dual leadership can only be seen as a temporary measure until enough executives emerge who can really master both banking and technology - people like Shaygan Kheradpir, whose last role was CTO at Verizon, and is an example of the Renaissance Man which is needed to manage banks in the 21st century.

In a move against the trend ANZ has announced that Anne Weatherston the CIO will no longer report directly to the CEO, Mike Smith, but will now report to Alistair Currie, the new COO, whilst still retaining her position on the management committee.

Shortly after the ANZ announcement Westpac has followed suit in going against the trend and has announced that they will not only introduce one COO but two and have a CIO reporting into each one, removing the CIO responsibilities even further from the CEO and the board.

Only time will tell whether either ANZ's and Westpac's or Barclays' and CBA's models are right. It will be interesting to see and costly for the banks that have got it wrong.

Wednesday, 4 May 2011

Why the Big 5 banks should be pushing for the end of 'free banking' (and the government shouldn't)

With the ICB (Independent Commission on Banking) looking at increasing competition in the retail banking sector, examining the market share of the big banks and overall looking for greater fairness and transparency in charging, strongly supported by the likes of Vince Cable and other politicians, increasingly it looks as if the end of 'free banking' is in sight. Of course 'free banking' doesn't really exist, rather it is a mirage in that rather than paying directly for the services provided, consumers are made to pay by low or no interest rates for money deposited in current accounts, low interest rates in deposit accounts, high mortgage rates and even higher overdraft charges. As consumers baulk at the costs charged for loans and going overdrawn and politicians continually call for fairer, transparent charges, the inevitable conclusion is a banking system where customers pay for the services they use.

Being able to charge a direct amount for the services they provide would bring some significant advantages to the big banks in the heavily regulated environment that they are increasingly operating in. When there is more focus on the market share that each of the banks has, and where more market share is seen as bad, then the banks will want to focus not on the absolute market share but the quality of the market share.

All of the big banks today have customers that they don't make any money from. These will be the types of customers that open a current account for their household money, for their book club, for their children, where the balances are low, transactions sizes are small and they have only one product. If market share is going to be restricted then these are the customers that the banks are going to want to be shot of. The problem is that in today's banking environment it is very difficult for a bank to fire customers. However if customers were made to pay directly for the services that they use then it would be far easier for the banks to adjust their charges to either makes the low balance/low transaction value customers profitable or, better still for the banks, to encourage those customers to take their business elsewhere.

With four out of the five big banks now being run by investment bankers not retail bankers, and Barclays, HSBC and Lloyds Banking Group focussed on a strategy of raising their Return on Equity (ROE) up to at least the 14-15% range, then there is clear evidence that making customers pay directly for the services they use can help achieve this. In Australia where this model has existed for many years, The 'Four Pillars' (National Australia, Commonwealth Bank, WestPac and ANZ), have in the past enjoyed ROEs of 20+%. Even with tougher regulation they are each expecting ROEs of around 16%, significantly higher than any of the UK banks.

However whilst this all sounds very attractive for the big banks, it is not great for the new entrants, who will struggle to compete with the scale advantages that will allow the big banks to make their charges attractive for the customers they want. It also raises the big question of who will provide the banking services to the customers that the big banks don't want? It has the potential to significantly increase the number of the unbanked. As the likes of Vince Cable continue their crusade against the banks and push for ever more transparency of charging for banking services, the politicians need to be wary of the consequences of getting what they wish for.