Showing posts with label Lloyds Banking Group. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lloyds Banking Group. Show all posts

Friday, 29 May 2015

Why banks should see ring fencing as an opportunity

Banks in the UK should be seeing ring-fencing as an opportunity rather than trying to wriggle out of or diluting the effects of the legislation.

Ring-fencing, the separation of the retail business from the non-retail business is estimated to cost each of the major banks between £1.5 and £2.5bn to set up and a subsequent additional annual charge of between £1.7bn and £4.4bn to run. Each of the UK banks are looking differently at what will be inside the ring fence and what will be outside. For instance Lloyds Banking Group, which is largely UK and retail banking focused, is looking to have most of the existing group within the ring fence and only the corporate bank outside of it. On the other hand Barclays is looking to put the minimum, the UK retail bank inside, while businesses like Barclaycard and the corporate and investment bank would be kept outside the ring fence. HSBC appears to be looking at a similar model to Barclays with the UK Retail Bank – effectively HSBC, First Direct and M&S Bank inside the ring fence with the rest outside with the distinct possibility that the Head Office of the Group would be relocated to Hong Kong.

However the UK based banks are seeing ring-fencing very much as an unavoidable problem that is both unnecessary and expensive.

There is a different, more positive point of view and that is the ring-fencing activity should be seen as an opportunity to fundamentally re-think both how the bank should operate and make those major investments that it has never been quite the right time to implement. Ring-fencing should be seen as a means of investing in the business in order to both reduce the cost base and enable the bank to better compete in the UK market.

Implementing a culture that results in market leadership

Since 2008 there has been a lot spoken and written about changing the culture of banking, moving from the Gordon Gecko ‘Greed is good’ investment banking culture  and back to one where the role of bankers is to serve their customers. The recent Libor and Forex fines handed out by regulators suggests there is little evidence of the change in culture being anything other than talk.

With the physical separation of retail from investment banking there is a one off opportunity to actually design and implement the different cultural model that each of these businesses should adopt. The reality is that there is no one culture that fits retail, corporate, private and investment banking. As Treacy and Wiersema wrote in their seminal work on the Value Disciplines it is not possible for organisations to be the leaders in more than one of the three values disciplines – operations effectiveness, customer intimacy and product leadership. Excelling at each one of those value disciplines requires a different cultural model. The current size and complexity of banks has led to a blended culture that has inevitably led to compromise and resulted in excellence at none of them. Ring-fencing provides the opportunity to put this right.

Use the opportunity to replace legacy IT with architecture driven solutions

Much has been written about the failure of the large banks to step up to the challenge from the digital natives due to the complex legacy IT systems. Ring-fencing provides the opportunity to step back, produce and implement the architecture required to deliver the front to back digital experience that customers, both retail and corporate, are demanding. Under the label of ring-fencing this is the opportunity to ditch the legacy systems that were designed for a simpler banking world and that have been twisted and forced to support a multi-segmented banking business. This is the right time to replace them with architecturally driven, agile, cloud-based, channel agnostic solutions that will enable the banks to deliver the experience and services that customers are demanding rather than the ones that the banks are forcing customers to take. The experience that a retail customer is demanding is quite different from the corporate or investment banking customer requires. After all if the banks are going to have to spend between £1.5bn and £2.5bn why not spend this on something better than today rather than just splitting and duplicating today’s systems across those businesses within and outside the ring fence?  

A chance to significantly drive down cost while improving customer experience

Today’s banks have a real challenge with costs. With the additional capital required to be held, the low interest rates and the increased regulation there is no doubt that the cost base for banks need to be dramatically reduced and changed. Ring-fencing provides the opportunity to look at whatthe cost bases of the businesses inside and outside the ring fence should be. This includes looking at which parts of the cost base the bank actually needs to own and which it can outsource to those better able to deliver the service on a more cost effective basis. Outsourcing can not only reduce the costs it can also allow the bank to focus its key resources on the strategic priorities such as digital.  Ring-fencing provides the opportunity to look at the processes from the beginning to the end and to decide which parts of the processes the bank actually needs to own, which parts of the process would be suitable for the application of Robotic Process Automation and which parts of the processes are no longer relevant. This should enable the bank to significantly improve the overall customer experience as well as drive down cost. This is also a chance to strongly embrace the use of analytics and deploy Next Best Action tools. By executing all of these activities cost can, without doubt, be significantly reduced while exponentially improving the customer experience. This means that not only should the additional cost of operating the bank in a post ring-fencing world be reduced significantly from the estimated £1.7-4.4bn annual charge but the banks that get this right will be far better positioned for whatever the world chooses to throw at them.

Ring-fencing is an opportunity to be welcomed

For banks that see the glass half full (rather than half empty) when it comes to ring-fencing who embrace the opportunity to fundamentally re-architect and re-launch their businesses they will emerge from ring-fencing far stronger, far more agile and far more profitable than those banks who resent the regulation and try to do the minimum to comply with it.

Thursday, 19 March 2015

Why TSB/Sabadell is no Abbey National/Santander



When news of the Sabadell, the Catalan bank, bid for TSB broke it was inevitable that parallels with the 2004 acquisition of Abbey National by Santander would be drawn. After all both banks are Spanish, have global footprints despite having started out as regional banks and are run by family dynasties.

However the two situations and players are quite different.

Sabadell is no Santander

Abbey National having made the transition from building society (savings & loans/community bank) to listed bank, at the time of the acquisition was struggling to decide what its role in the banking market was to be. With its launch of co-branded branches/coffee shops with Costa Coffee and its partnership with Safeway, the supermarket, it was not clear to its customers what it was. Santander came along to change all that.

Through its close relationship with RBS, including non-executive director roles, Santander had been observing the UK retail banking market for some time and understood the opportunities that were there.

Banking platform was key to Santander business case

The case that Santander made for Abbey National was that as leading global retail bank with a strong track record in successfully managing integrations and a world class technology platform that had been at the core of all their acquisitions, Santander could significantly reduce the costs of running Abbey National by replacing Abbey’s multiple banking systems with Santander’s Partenon banking platform, implementing Santander’s  best practice retail banking processes and Santander’s formidable disciplined approach to cost management.

It is interesting to note that despite Santander's assertion that the Partenon platform would be able to work for the UK market it took far longer and was more expensive to implement than originally envisaged.
Santander is quite unique in that as part of its journey from a small regional bank to one of the world’s largest banks IT has been at the heart of everything that they do and they even have their own IT company, Produban. Santander has set out not only to be a world class bank but also a world class IT company.

The situations for both TSB and Sabadell are quite different from that of Abbey and Santander.

TSB is no Abbey National

TSB has a very clear idea of the role that it wants to play in the UK retail banking market. It has strong leadership. As a result of the EU forced separation from its majority shareholder, Lloyds Banking Group, TSB is sitting with an infrastructure and balance sheet too big for the customer base and products that it currently serves. It is also using a legacy set of IT systems that Lloyds Banking Group runs for it. TSB has two main requirements that it needs to fulfil. Firstly it needs a significant increase in its customer base particularly in terms of lending to be able to make a profit. Secondly it needs a modern, agile IT platform that will both be able to deliver the fantastic customer experience that is so core to its strategy and at a significantly reduced cost than it is charged by Lloyds Banking Group today.

Sabadell due to its lack of a presence in the UK market will not directly bring the increase in the customer base or the additional lending, that a UK merger could bring TSB. Sabadell does not have its own IT company neither does it have a track record of building a modern banking system to manage businesses in multiple countries.

Digital excellence

What it does bring is excellence in the application of digital. Under the leadership of Pol Navarro, Head of Digital Transformation at Sabadell the bank has been a pioneer in digital banking and has demonstrated how banks can embrace digital. This is certainly something that TSB would want to exploit.

In addition Sabadell would bring to TSB deep experience in business banking something that inevitably TSB will need to offer to both meet it customer needs but also its shareholders’ profitability requirements.

£450m IT sweetener

Should Sabadell complete on the acquisition of TSB then Lloyds Banking Group will pay it £450m to assist it in getting TSB off the legacy Lloyds platforms. Should Sabadell get this then it should use this as a significant down payment to replace its group wide banking platforms, starting with the UK with a new platform architected for the digital age - agile enough to be able to quickly adapt to the inevitable and continuous changes in the financial services industry.

A Sabadell/TSB tie up would be good for Lloyds Banking Group (and UK tax payers since they are still shareholders), however the case for the deal going ahead is nowhere as easy to make as it was for the acquisition of Abbey National.

Thursday, 30 October 2014

Why shared branches could be the answer to avoiding closing the last branch in town

Shared-branches(1).gif (300×160)
The announcement by Lloyds Banking Group that it would stop honouring the promise to not close the last branch in a town at the end of 2015 caused some furore amongst politicians and those representing rural communities. Lloyds having the largest number of branches of the major banks in the UK and partially owned by the tax payer has in many cases been left as the last branch in town as competitors have closed their branches knowing that Lloyds were obligated not to close theirs.

The response by Vince Cable, the UK Business Secretary, to the Lloyds announcement was to give all the major banks yet another rap across the knuckles in a sternly worded letter stating that this was unacceptable. However unacceptable it is what is the answer? While the banks may point to the many transaction services that the Post Office offers on behalf of the banks, a better answer is for the banks to get together and have shared branches for those villages and towns where they cannot justify the costs of having a single dedicated branded branch.

This joint branch would allow customers to perform transactions with their bank either with the help of a teller or by using self-service machines. If there is a teller then they would need to be trained in using each of the banks’ technology for the transactions covered by the branch. The simplest implementation would be for the branch to have one teller device for each brand sharing the branch and similarly for self-service machines, however this would have the disadvantage of requiring a larger branch than each of the individual branches will have required. The smarter option would be to have single devices which allowed the customer to say which brand they wanted to deal with when they first signed in and then the appropriate screens for that bank to appear. This would keep the size of the branch down.

The shared branch could include one or more meeting rooms where customers could meet with advisors from the appropriate bank by making an appointment in advance, allowing the opportunity for the advisor to service multiple branches and therefore maximising their productivity. The advisor would not even necessarily have to be physically in the branch but could converse with the customer via videoconferencing. This way a branch could remain open in low populated areas at a relatively low cost to each individual bank.

This service could even be provided by a third party or the local community under a different overarching brand.

This is not a new idea and is one that was first floated (by me amongst others) at least ten years ago. However that was at a time when the banks were making larger profits, there was less regulatory pressure and the technology to easily and cost effectively deliver these types of solution was neither mature nor available. While there was some initial interest from the major banks it was the idea of collaboration amongst the banks that was unthinkable even though it provided a benefit to the customer.

Maybe as the big 5 banks look to reduce their number of branches and rebuild their reputations this could be the right time to look to shared branches as a means of not being seen as the bank who closed the last branch in town.

Friday, 3 October 2014

The FCA is wrong to focus on account portability

The news that the FCA is to explore the move to full account portability as part of a review of current/checking account switching is disappointing as the FCA appears to be rushing to a solution without having really understood why customers are not switching their account providers at the levels that politicians and consumer lobbyists would like to see. The reason that these parties wish to see higher levels of switching is that they see this as an indicator of competition in the current account market which is dominated by the big five banks – Lloyds, Barclays, RBS, HSBC and Santander.

Customer switching has gone up by only 19% since 7 day switching was introduced

The FCA have been triggered into action by their disappointment at the low increase in the level of switching following the introduction of seven business day current account switching service introduced in October 2013. Despite the investment of $750m by the large banks in creating this guaranteed switching service levels of customer switching has gone up by only 19%.

The large banks have been the beneficiaries of switching

The irony is that the biggest beneficiaries of the account switching services have been Halifax (part of Lloyds Banking Group), Santander (one of the world’s largest banks), Nationwide Building Society and TSB (a Lloyds clone and still partially owned by the bank). With the exception of Nationwide, the account switching service has done little to change the market share of the major banks and even Nationwide has hardly changed the percentage.

The parallels between mobile phone numbers and account numbers are not valid

However for the FCA to jump to the conclusion that this is down to customers being reluctant to change their bank account number and therefore account portability will change this is both bizarre and illogical. Parallels are often made with the mobile phone industry where phone number portability has encouraged customers to switch between providers. However the use of phone numbers and bank account numbers are quite different. Whereas in order for telephone customers to be able to keep in contact with the hundreds and even thousands of people who have their number programmed into their phones keeping their mobile number when changing suppliers is essential the same cannot be said for bank account numbers.

Most bank customers have not memorised their bank account numbers. Once access to internet and mobile banking is set up a customer very rarely needs to know that number. When paying bills, transferring money, checking their balances, setting up or changing direct debits or standing orders there is no need for customers to know their bank account number. With the seven day switching services direct debits are transferred and guaranteed that if a problem occurs that the customer will be refunded for any charges occurred during the transfer process. With the increasing availability of P2P (Person to Person) mobile banking applications such as Pingit customers only need to know the mobile phone number of the person that they are transferring the money to (which is very likely to be stored in their phone) and don’t need to know the bank account details of the person that they are wanting to transfer money to. It is a fallacy to say that the reason people are not changing their bank accounts is because they don’t want to change their bank account number.

Customer interest in switching accounts is far lower than politicians and lobbyists

One of the primary reasons that is quoted despite the Seven Day Switching Service making it far easier for customers to switch current accounts is what politicians refer to as ‘customer apathy or inertia’. The reason that customers aren’t bothered is because for most customers banking really isn’t that interesting (until it goes wrong or they have a financial crisis), that the actual amount that they would save by switching from one bank to another is so minimal that it isn’t worth the effort and that they see one bank account much the same as another. To most customers banking services are a commodity and a largely undifferentiated one. They have better things to do with their lives than monitor whether one bank account is better than another.

There are significant numbers of providers of current accounts

The fact that the main beneficiaries of account switching have been the larger players is not because there is not a lot of choice in the market. Examples of organisations offering personal bank accounts include Nationwide Building Society, Tesco Bank, Marks & Spencer Bank, Metro Bank, Co-op Bank, Yorkshire Bank, Clydesdale Bank, Bank of Ireland (via the Post Office) and Handelsbanken.

The reason that Halifax, Santander, Nationwide, TSB and Metro Bank (though on a lot lower scale than the other four) have been successful in getting current account customers to switch to them is because of their attractive propositions whether it be paying interest on current account balances, discounts on utilities and other bills, convenience of branches or even offering dog biscuits. The fact that some of the most attractive propositions have come from the larger banks is because for most banks most personal current accounts are either loss leaders or have very low margins and therefore to be profitable in the current account market you need scale. That is very difficult and takes a lot of time to build from scratch as Metro Bank is finding.

Many of the so-called challenger banks e.g. Aldermore, Shawbrook, OneSavings Bank and Handelsbanken are not even attempting to engage in the personal current account market because of how unattractive it is financially. They would rather focus on the mortgage market or SME banking where the margins are higher and the cost to enter the market are far lower. As Virgin Money comes to the market it is based on the profits from mortgages and credit cards that the value will be attributed not current accounts.

The FCA is not focusing on the real issue

If the FCA is really interested in seeing greater competition in the current account market then rather than investigating a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist (customer only don’t switch because they don’t want to change their bank account number) then they should look at how to make it more attractive for the existing sub Big Five and new players to engage in the market with customer friendly banking propositions. It is only when there is significant differentiation between bank accounts in customers’ minds that switching volumes will become significant.

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

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.

Wednesday, 2 July 2014

Interest rate rise will be the litmus test for challenger banks

Banks don’t like periods of stable interest rates and the rates in the UK have been stable for a long time now. The reason that banks like to have the interest rates changing frequently is because each change is an opportunity to improve the net interest margin, to squeeze a bit more profit out of the customer.

With the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, indicating and then soft shoe shuffling away from the position that interest rates could go up as early as the end of 2014 savers shouldn’t get too excited as firstly the rise won’t be large and secondly banks usually don’t pass on the full amount to customers but keep a bit back for themselves. Bank business plans are built on the assumption that they won’t pass on the full benefits to the customer. With bank profitability squeezed by regulation and low interest rates this is why the banks are looking forward so much to greater interest rate volatility.

So the question is whether the challenger banks will back their branding of doing banking differently by not following the herd and instead passing on the full amount of the rate rise? After all it isn’t as if they are incurring additional costs (other than typing into the computer the new interest rate which is not exactly difficult) when the rate rises so there is no justification for taking a slice of the interest rate rise.

Most of the challenger banks find themselves in the position where they have more deposits, whether from savings accounts or from balances on current accounts, than they need. A sure fire way to lose money as a bank is to be paying out more to customers in interest than you are receiving back in interest and fees. This is why you won’t find the likes of TSB, Metro Bank, Aldermore or Handelsbanken appearing in the best buy tables for savings accounts. They want you to like them but they’d rather not attract too much of your money, particularly at a high cost.

TSB, the spin off from Lloyds Banking Group, is in the worst position. So bad is the situation for TSB that Lloyds has had to pad out TSB by lending it a book of loans to soak up some of the excess savings for the next few years. Not only that it also has an infrastructure (branches, back office and IT systems) which is larger than it needs for its existing customer base. It is like a new boy at school where its mother has bought it a uniform that is a few sizes too big to allow for growth. This means that for TSB passing on the full interest rate increase will only extend the loss making period of the bank, which it is unlikely shareholders will support.

Equally you won’t find the challenger banks topping the lending price tables. They want to lend you money but, given their cost of acquiring deposits they can’t in the long term price aggressively. This is where the incumbent banks have a significant advantage. Their cost of funding is far lower. Having large numbers of current accounts with large balances for which the majority of customers are paid no interest they can afford to lend at far lower rates than the challenger banks if they chose to. Instead of passing this advantage onto customers they choose to make a larger profit whilst still charging competitive prices to win new business.

When it comes to existing customers the challenger banks don’t appear to be backing their customer focused words with actions. A primary source of profits for banks are made from customers whose fixed rate or discount deals and have ended and have been moved onto the bank’s Standard Variable Rate. This is always higher than what a new customer could get. If the challenger banks really are focussed on long terms relationships with their customers and with providing good value for money then when the end of a fixed rate or discount period is coming up rather than just telling the customer that they are going to move onto the SVR (which the banks wouldn’t tell them if they weren’t obligated to) they would be offering them a new fixed rate or a new discounted rate. However most banks don’t do this because they want the additional profit they make from having customers on the higher interest rate. Instead they mark the customers as DND (Do Not Disturb), waiting until a customer threatens to move their mortgage before considering making them a better offer. Only at that point and only for certain customers do they then offer them a better deal to keep them. The message this sends to customers is that there is no reward for loyalty. Instead their loyalty is a means of subsidising the price of loans to new customers.

For challenger banks that have started from scratch, rather than from acquiring another business or a book of loans the jury is still out as to their attitude towards existing versus new customers. They have not yet been tested by a large volume of maturing customers and have not had the chance to demonstrate whether they really want to do banking differently from the incumbent banks.

However the challenger banks that have been spun off from another bank or have grown by acquiring mature mortgage or credit card books and have seen customers offers mature have had the chance to demonstrate that they are doing something different but have not taken it.

When the first base rate rise is announced customers will have the chance to judge the challenger banks by whether they pass on the full rise to savers. This will tell customers whether these challenger banks are really serious about taking on the legacy banks, genuinely have a different attitude towards treating their customers fairly, and are putting their money where their mouths are or whether it is all just marketing hype.

Thursday, 24 April 2014

The challenges facing the next RBS CIO

With the news that Mike Errington, CIO of RBSG, is retiring the bank will be looking for a replacement. The new CIO will have an overflowing inbox, so for those considering taking on the role what are some of the challenges that he or she will have to face?

The immediate on-going work is to ensure the stability of the existing systems. Having had a number of serious, customer-impacting outages over the last few years (including a problem with Ulster Bank ATMs on the day this was written), the work of applying patches to and building resilience into both hardware and software needs to continue. RBS is not the only bank that in earlier times avoided doing maintenance as a way of saving costs and subsequently is feeling the impact of doing that in terms of reliability of systems.

The second tactical exercise is the simplification of the IT infrastructure. However this is far easier said than done as the IT systems have evolved over many decades, creating great complexity and the number of people who understand the older systems and how they interrelate is rapidly declining both as the result of retirement and cost cutting within the bank. Simplification is about retiring and rationalising systems and infrastructure. Given the complexity that exists this is alike disarming a booby-trapped Second World War bomb requiring both high levels of skills and nerves of steel.

Both of these steps are akin to re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, given the ages of the systems. There is no doubt that there has been significant underinvestment in IT since way before the RBS/Natwest integration. Whoever is the new CIO they should use the opportunity of as part of their taking the role to negotiate a commitment to a wholesale replacement of the core retail banking system as the likes of CBA (Commonwealth Bank of Australia), Nationwide Building Society and Deutsche Bank have carried out. However this would involve spending measured in the low to mid billions of pounds and a programme taking 3-5 years to execute. This is where making such an essential change becomes particularly difficult specifically for RBS as RBS is not just any bank, it is a state-owned bank. Such is the political pressure to see the bank returned profitably to the private sector and within the first couple of years of the next government i.e. almost certainly by the end of 2018, that it is highly unlikely that the funding for such a major investment programme will get approval from the key shareholder. However that is what both the CIO and the CEO should be looking for if RBS is to once again become a truly competitive UK bank.

There are however other major transformation programmes that the new CIO will have to pick up, drive and deliver.

Having negotiated an extension of the deadline to the end of 2016 for the disposal of the 308 branches that RBS was forced by the EU to sell as a result of receiving state aid, creating a separate clone of the RBS systems for the new Williams & Glyn’s bank to run on is another top priority for the new CIO. This is not dissimilar to the exercise that Lloyds Banking Group had to perform to create the platform for TSB to run on. However the Lloyds Banking Group platforms were in a far better state than the RBS systems benefitting from coming on the back of creating a single set of systems for the Lloyds TSB/HBoS merger. Even having that advantage for Lloyds Banking Group creating the separate TSB platform was not simple or easy with the eventual cost being in the order of £2bn. Delivering the William and Glyn’s separation to the 2016 deadline will be a major achievement.

This is not the only separation programme that the CIO will have to oversee. The IPO of the Citizens business in the US in Q4 2014 and the complete disposal by the end of 2016 will also need to be executed. This will entail the disengaging of Citizens from the Group systems.

In addition there is the question of what to do with Ulster Bank. The preferred option is to dispose of it by selling it to one of the challenger Irish banks e.g. Permanent TSB, Danske Bank. If that is to go ahead then the new CIO will have to look at the separation of Ulster Bank from the Group systems and supporting the clone until it is integrated into the buyers' systems.

One of the core strategies of RBSG is to scale back the investment bank, reducing costs to be aligned with the smaller bank and to return the bank to be more focused on the UK and supporting UK businesses. This will inevitably require changes to the investment banking platforms as businesses are closed or sold off. To achieve the reduction in costs and the required flexibility as volume drops will almost inevitably mean looking at further outsourcing of platforms and operations to third parties.

On top of the RBSG specific initiatives the new CIO will also face the plethora of transformation programmes and projects that will need to be implemented as a result of regulatory changes. One of the core ones will be the implementation of ring-fencing once that is fully defined. This will mean a significant change in the governance of RBSG and there is a question as to whether the role of Group CIO can persist under the new rules, requiring in a significant restructuring of Group Operations.

All of this will need to be delivered whilst digital, mobile and the use of data analytics for both competitive advantage and risk management continue to move at pace in an increasingly competitive banking market.

The new RBS CIO will need to face up to this hugely challenging environment all within the constraints of  a bank operating very much in the public spotlight, with the need to rebuild trust and the financial constraints imposed by  having the government as the largest shareholder. Only the bravest should apply.

 

 

 

Thursday, 20 February 2014

Challengers salami slice away at established banks dominance

The news that Paragon Bank (with an initial capital of only £12.5m) has become only the second new bank to be launched in the last one hundred years (Metro Bank being the first one), the first one to be authorised by the PRA (Prudential Regulation Authority) and to take advantage of the move by the regulator to simplify the process of setting up a new bank, is hardly going to have banks such as Barclays, Lloyds and RBS quaking in their boots. But is this just one more step in a trend that the big banks cannot afford to be complacent about?

The primary reason that Paragon has decided to apply for a banking licence is not so it can take on the established banks with a full offering of consumer current accounts and mortgages. It is so that it can take consumer deposits as a means of funding loans for the existing Paragon Group business. With interest rates low but expected to rise this should mean a lower cost of capital for the loans that they make than going into the wholesale market. With the experience that Richard Doe, the former ING Direct UK Chief Executive, brings from his former employer the new bank should be a success in competing for deposit balances. The low cost direct model for deposits has already been proven by the likes of the now defunct Egg and ING Direct. Whilst the press release from Paragon may talk about offering loans and asset finance it is clear from the recruitment of Richard Doe that the new bank will be initially focussed on raising the all important deposits.

Paragon Mortgages specialises in the Buy To Let (BTL) market for the residential market and has been very successful at this surviving during the crisis where the likes of Bradford & Bingley and Alliance & Leicester failed. It is this focus on a specific customer segment that gives it the advantage over the Big Five UK banks - Barclays, RBS, Lloyds, HSBC and Santander. It has taken the opportunity to build deep expetise in Buy To Let and are front of mind for mortgage brokers looking to play BTL business.

Competition in the BTL sector was decimated following the financial crisis with many small players and building players going out of business. However competition is picking up again with all of the Big Five, Nationwide and some of the other building societies increasingly attracted by the bigger margins that the Buy To Let market attracts over owner-occupied residential mortgages. Paragon is, to many extents, the incumbent that the other banks have to shake. It should still be able to succeed in this market because it isn't just another business for them it is the only business segment they are in. Paragon does not have the cost of running expensive branch networks distributing either directly or via brokers. As long as they can continue to excel in the service they provide to brokers and to landlords they should be able to continue to punch above their weights against the larger generalist players.

While the politicians champion the idea of a few large challenger banks coming into the market to take on the Big Five banks and reduce their market shares in deposits, current accounts and lending, with the Labour Party suggesting that they will break the banks up should they come into power, a different reality is going on in the market. The likes of TSB (still owned by Lloyds Banking Group but due to float), William & Glynn's (owned by RBSG and, again, due to float) and Tesco Bank attract the most attention from politicians and the media, but in the background smaller niche players have quietly gone about picking off rich segments of the traditional banks market share.

Handelsbanken with its 170 branches, largely in market towns, has targetted SME customers and private customers with above average earnings who appreciate having a local branch with a local manager who is empowered to make decisions rather than leaving it to the computer or Head Office has quietly gone about building a sizeable, highly profitable and satisfied customer base. Aldermore launched in 2009 focussed on SME customers has lent more than £3bn pounds. Metro Bank has focussed on customers in urban areas that like both visiting branches and having extended hours. There are other focussed challengers either already out there or preparing to launch.

Competition to the dominant banks from challenger banks is already here, it may not always be head on and obvious but rather by quietly salami slicing away the better, more profitable cuts from the market share of the established players, while the big banks are left with less desirable segments. It is for this reason the launch of Paragon Bank should be welcomed as just one more step forward towards a more competitive banking market.

Wednesday, 29 January 2014

Back to the future - a return to supermarket banking or the end of banking for all?

The report on the BBC News website that Barclays is looking at potentially closing 400, or a quarter, of its UK branches which was subsequentally retracted and replaced with a statement that Barclays is 'considering closing branches to reflect the that more customers are now accessing financial services online and via mobile devices',  reflects the sensitivity the big 5 banks have to announcing branch closures and comes on the back of a statement in November 2013 that in August 2014 it is to open four branches within Asda (the UK arm of the US supermarket behemoth Walmart), closing the standalone branches in the same towns. The model of putting bank branches into supermarkets brings back memories of the wave of supermarket banking experiments that took hold in the UK at the end of the last century with the launch of Sainsbury’s Bank (backed by Bank of Scotland), Tesco Personal Financial Services (backed by Royal Bank of Scotland) and Safeway Banking (backed by Abbey National). At that time the supermarkets were seen as a serious challenger to the established banks (despite being backed by them) and the world of banking was going to fundamentally change. It was also the time of the tie-up of Abbey National with Costa Coffee to create new and destination branches – very much building on the revolutionary Occasio branches that WaMu (Washington Mutual) launched in the US.
 
So what happened to all these new visions of banking? Abbey National was taken over by Santander who quickly took the axe to the partnership with Costa, Safeway was acquired byMorrisons who closed down the financial services arm and the remains of Washington Mutual following the financial crash of 2008 were acquired by JP Morgan Chase who effectively bulldozed the Occasio branches returning to a far more business like branch format.
 
Tesco Bank (as it became) with its 6.5m customers continues to make significant investments into becoming a full service retail bank. Sainsbury’s Bank bought out the Lloyds Banking Group share (that Lloyds inherited when it took on HBoSfollowing the financial crisis) in May 2013, however it made it clear that it has no intention of becoming a full service bank and is not planning to offer mortgages or current accounts.Sainsbury’s appear to have no intention of turning its supermarkets into bank branches.
 
In the meantime Marks & Spencer launched in late 2012 M&S Bank operated by HSBC offering a fee-paying current account. With Marks & Spencer continuing to struggle with their fashion lines the retailer is increasingly being measured principally as a supermarket. The jury is still out on how successful M&S Bank but there are no indications that it has been a runaway success.
So why is Barclays trying to re-visit the supermarket banking model? The reality is that it has very little to do with wanting to be in supermarket banking and much more to do with finding a way to reduce their costs by closing their branches. Barclays will benefit from the ability to sell or end the lease on the branches and will have significantly lower costs fromhaving an in store branch than a standalone one. It is also true that this move should make it easier for customers to visit their branches. As high streets increasingly become parking unfriendly through the use of parking restrictions combined with prohibitive parking costs where parking exists bank branches are becoming harder to just pop into or even to access (Metro Bank with their drive through branch opened in the mecca that is Slough would beg to differ). Typically supermarkets have large amounts of parking which will make it easier for customers to visit their banks if they are within a supermarket. It is not only the difficulty of parking that is reducing the number of visits by retail customers to banks. The increasing comfort and acceptance by consumers of all ages of carrying out activities online and the increased penetration of smart phones and tablets means that there are increasingly few reasons for customers to visit branches – cash withdrawals, making payments, getting foreign currency, paying in money into accounts no longer require a physical visit to a manned branch. Increasingly it is only at those key life moments such as buying a house, getting married, getting a loan, opening a bank account that a visit to a bank branch is necessary and some of that is driven not by the desire to talk to someone or to get advice but by the continued legal requirement to provide a physical signature on documents.
 
For those important financial transactions such as arranging a mortgage or a loan it is highly questionable how conducive a branch within a supermarket will be to have a meaningful discussionExchanging confidential information over the sound of the tills ringing and the promotional announcements over the loudspeakers is not what customers are looking for. Neither is taking out a mortgage or a loan one of those spontaneous purchases that supermarkets rely on to increase basket size. As a mother pushes her trolley around with her two screaming toddlers in tow she is unlikely to suddenly decide that she would like to talk to her banker about a loan.
 
However Barclays might have liked to position the opening of branches within ASDA supermarkets as for the convenience of their customers, with the review of their branch network (and the denied closing of 400 branches) with no confirmation that all closed branches will re-open in Asda stores, Barclays are making a statement of intent about the role of branches going forward.



Had the report of the potential for 400 branches being closed stood, Barclays would have been credited with the courage to be the first of major high street banks to make its intentions clear. This would have made it easier for the remainder of the big five banks to annouce their own closure plans. The other banks have hinted at their desire to close branches but none have been bold enough to say how many. They will eventually have to do this because it is an undisputable fact that less and less customers visit their branches. Many of those that visit their branches only do so because there are not currently convenient alternative ways to carry out transactions such as paying in cheques. However with the increasing penetration of smartphones with cameras built in even paying in cheques may soon no longer require a visit to a branch.



The future of branch  base banking is at a cross roads where the big five banks must decide whether they wish to continue to support customers who want to use branches or whether they should encourage those customers to move to banks that see branch banking as fundamental to what they do such as Metro Bank, Handelsbanken, Umpqua Bank (in the US) and Bendigo Bank (in Australia). It maybe that the end of the universal bank serving all segments of customers is in sight.

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.

Saturday, 11 January 2014

Removing incentives won't stop bank mis-selling


The news that Lloyds Banking Group has been fined £28m ($46m) by Britain’s FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) for having a bonus scheme that put pressure on sales staff to mis-sell products once again brings the spotlight to bear on the culture of banks and specifically, in this case, retail banks.  In Lloyds’ case it was not only the benefits of meeting or achieving targets that created inappropriate behaviour but the sanctions for missing targets including demotion and base salary reduction that put staff under pressure. For at least one sales person they felt under such pressure not to fail that they inappropriately sold products that they could not afford to themselves and their family as well as their colleagues.

The typical media and political response to incidents such as this is to suggest that incentives are bad, that remuneration shouldn’t be related to achieving targets as incentives lead to the wrong sets of behaviours.

However simply removing the explicit link between sales performance and pay will not remove the pressure to achieve sales targets.

The pressure comes right from the top. While the new CEOs of banks may publicly talk about changing the culture of banks, putting the customer at the heart of the bank, winning through providing a differentiated service and they may be completely sincere in those sentiments, by the time that that message is passed down through the organisation to the sales people at the frontline it will be measured in terms of targets, which will need to be achieved. Anglo Saxon businesses are run with a performance management culture where achieving or exceeding targets and  giving greater rewards to those who meet those targets than those who don’t  is fundamental to how those businesses operate. While it may never have been the intention of Antonio Horta-Osario, CEO of Lloyds Banking Group, that the staff be put under such pressure that they coerced customers into buying products that they did not need, by the CEO setting his or her direct reports stretch targets that was the almost inevitable consequence.

The reason for this is simple: banks are commercial businesses that have investors who are looking for returns and always have the option to invest their money elsewhere if the return is better. As such CEOs of banks are competing for investment and are accountable to their shareholders. This applies as much to new entrants and challenger banks as it does to the established banks. All of the new entrant banks without exception have investors backing them whether it is parent companies such as retailers, hedge funds, Private Equity funds or individual wealthy investors. Even the building societies and mutual have to look to the external market for capital and those who lend capital have options as to where they lend to and are doing to achieve competitive return.

But is a culture that is about beating the competition, about achieving the best that you can for your organisation really such a bad thing? Certainly the impression that many politicians gives is that yes it is. The sentiments being expressed have strong parallels with the period where some schools banned competitive sports because politicians believed they were harmful to children.  It wasn’t good for children because it meant that some of them would have to experience losing.

The politicians who rally against the banks and banker compensation schemes can’t have it both ways. On the one hand they say don’t want those in banks to be incentivised to sell customers products but on the other hand they want competition. Competition by its very nature requires a level of aggression, it requires you to play to win and for your opponents to lose.

To demonstrate that they are not solely focussed on financial outcomes most banks today use a balanced set of financial and non-financial measures to monitor the performance of the bank and their employees.   Typical non-financial measures include Net Promoter Score (NPS), customer satisfaction, numbers of complaints and staff engagement.  The argument being that by having a balanced set of measures sales staff are incentivised to treat customers fairly and to only sell customers what they need.

Some banks such as Barclays and HSBC have removed all financial incentives for their staff to sell customers products. Instead their staff are paid a basic salary with the ability to share in a bonus depending on the performance of the bank. However, even when that is the case, every customer facing bank employee who has responsibility for helping a customer to apply for a mortgage or open a savings account knows that, at the end of the day, when it comes to the annual performance review whether they have achieved or missed their financial targets will always be more important than whether they have achieved their non-financial ones. They know that their opportunity to receive a pay rise, to get a bonus or to progress their careers is dependent upon their ability to deliver profits for their bank. The financial incentive may not be explicit but it is still there.

There exceptions to this.  A bank that has taken a very different approach is Handelsbanken. At this bank if the profitability exceeds the average rate of its peers, then surplus profits are put into a fund and distributed to all the staff. However they can only receive these accumulated benefits when they turn 60, thus encouraging long-term thinking and loyalty. The staff, including the executives, have flat salaries with no bonuses. There are no sales or market share targets. Handelsbanken has very high customer satisfaction and is highly profitable. The bank has had no problems with mis-selling or wrongdoing.

However this model will not suit everybody. This is very much a Scandinavian model and the pace of growth whilst highly profitable will not be attractive to all investors. Detractors of this approach will argue that no highly talented executive would be attracted by this reward model when there are banks across the globe prepared to reward more in the short term. The sustained excellent results that Handelsbanken have delivered speak for themselves.  Handelsbanken  would probably argue that it has no desire to attract the sort of executives who are interested in only the short term and will move from bank to bank simply for better rewards.

Given that the reality is the Handelsbanken model cannot and should not be imposed upon all banks, what is the answer and how can this type of mis-selling be avoided in the future?

The reality is that it will never be totally eliminated. Indeed if there were never any complaints or if there were never any practices that could be open to question it would suggest that the hunger to be the best, the passion to grow the business was missing. Every sportsman who wants to be the best knows that you have to go the edge to succeed.   There will always be employees who are too aggressive or dishonest. It is that they are identified and the way that they are handled that sends out the signal to their fellow employees as to what is acceptable behaviour. That has to be called out loud and clear and demonstrated by actions from the top of the organisation.

Secondly, while many banks operate a balanced scorecard of financial and non-financial metrics to measure the performance of the bank, the financial rewards need to be truly aligned to that Scorecard and not just to the bottom line. Not only must reward be aligned to the scorecard it needs to be seen to be aligned. This means that for instance if customer satisfaction or employee engagement scores are part of that scorecard and those measures are not met or regulators impose fines despite financial targets being met, that the executives’ rewards are significantly financially reduced. This is something that has not been reflected across the banking industry despite the enormous financial fines handed out to the likes of JP Morgan and Barclays.

Thirdly there needs to be a recognition by investors that the days of retail banks being a licence to print cash are over, that most banks need significant investment both in terms of capital to fund the business but also to provide the infrastructure that a bank needs to have to compete in the 21st century and finally that an investment in a bank is for the long term – measured in double digit years.

Changing the culture of retail banks is not as easy as simply removing incentives, neither it is something that can be done overnight. To have a vibrant and competitive banking industry there needs to be some friction and a world without it will be a lot worse for the consumer.