Showing posts with label M and S Bank. Show all posts
Showing posts with label M and S Bank. Show all posts

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.

Sunday, 15 September 2013

Why Seven Day Current Account switching will not turn up competition

The launch this week of the Current Account Switching Service whereby UK banks will have just seven working days to switch customer's current accounts to a rival has been heralded as a key enabler of competition in the UK retail banking. In particular the Chancellor sees it as a way of encourage new entrants to build up market share.

The banks have been forced to spend hundreds of millions of pounds to rapidly put in place a system that will enable this to happen, however the expectations set by the Chancellor are unlikely to be met.

For a start this assumes that there is pent up demand to switch bank accounts that is held back simply because the process of changing accounts is too complicated or too slow. The reality is that most customers are simply consumers of banking services and see banking as a commodity much like gas, electricity or water. Despite what the banks might want to believe most bank customers rarely or never think about their banks. Who provides their banking service simply isn't  that important to most customers as long as it works.

Not only that but most customers think all banks are alike. Why would they change from one bank to another, even if the new switching services makes it marginally easier than before. Just the effort of researching an alternative bank and initiating the process of changing is more effort than most customers think is worth for the benefit they will get.

With so called 'free banking' it is even more difficult for banks to differentiate themselves for the average customer. When there is no perceived charge for writing cheques, paying bills and taking money out of a cash machine, then how do the banks make a difference in the mind of customers?

The slow take up of the M&S Bank Account can be partly attributed to the requirement to pay monthly fees, particularly given that that the target customers probably do not  believe that they pay anything for their existing accounts.

So-called 'value-added' accounts, where for a monthly fee customers can receive a bundle of addtional services such a travel insurance, breakdown cover and airmiles, have had some moderate success, but research shows that either customers do not use the additional services or they could have bought them cheaper as individual items. They are also potentially the next product to be subject to a misselling investigation given the similarity with the incentives and targets to sell these offerings to customers as were there for  Payment Protection Insurance.

The Chancellor has suggested that if the seven day switching service does not create the flood of switching that he is expecting then account number portability may be imposed on the banks. Account number portability is seen as the equivalent of phone number portability, except it blatantly isn't. Where traditionally people have had to know each other's telephone numbers to contact each other (even for this with the advent of the smart phone the number is stored and not really 'known'), there is little need to know bank account numbers in order to use the banking system. A customer only shares their bank account number with a few people and very infrequently in comparison to their telephone number. The use of bank account 'aliases' avoids the customer ever needing to know their bank account number. Having to have a new bank account number is not the reason people don't switch banks.

Should the Chancellor decide to ignore the evidence and impose account number portability then this will make the several hundred million pounds spent by the banks on the switching services look like loose change. To architect a long term solution to industry wide account number portability (unlike the switching service which has been thrown together with little thought about architecture and long term durability and has created an expensive legacy solution to maintain) will require very significant changes to the underlying banking infrastructure and the cost will be measured in billions and will be borne not only by the existing players but also new entrants. See http://www.itsafinancialworld.net/2011/01/why-portable-bank-accounts-arent-going.html

Fortunately the head of the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority, one of the two bodies that has replaced the Financial Services Authority), Martin Wheatley,  at his reason appearance before the Treasury Select Committee has already made it clear that the CASS (Current Account Switching Scheme) should be allowed to run for at least a year to see whether it has had the desired effect before any further consideration or detailed studies of the costs of providing account portability should be started. This effectively kicks it into the long grass and to after the General Election, which will be a great relief to many bank CEOs.

The Chancellor has also suggested that making direct debits and standing orders be moved from one bank to another at no cost to the switching customer should also be imposed on the banks if switching doesn't create the movement that he is looking for. This idea seems reasonable and it is reasonable as that is what the banks do already today, but is not a material factor in encouraging customers to switch accounts.

The ease of movement of  customers is only one half of the argument that the Chancellor and consumer lobbyists make for the introduction of the switching service. The other reason is to encourage new entrants and competitors into the banking industry.

However the ease of attracting and on-boarding customers is not the reason for there being so few sizeable new entrants in the market. With the increasing regulation, the higher levels of capital that need to be held (even if it can be raised and afforded in the first place) and the reduction in the ability to make a fair profit from retail banking makes entering the UK retail banking market unattractive to new entrants. Even Vernon Hill, the entrepreneur and founder of Metro Bank, the first new entrant to the UK for many years, has said that if he knew then what he knows now about how difficult it would be to get a UK banking licence he wouldn't have started. One of the reason that Tesco Bank has been delayed in its full launch has been the time it has not only taken to get a banking licence but also the time it has taken to get its executive's FSA approved.

So now that seven day switching is introduced will the big banks be quaking in their boots trying to lock the branches to stop customers leaving, making amazing offers to make them stay? Will new entrants such as Tesco Bank, M&S Bank, Virgin Money and banks we have not even heard of yet be having to close offers because of the volume of customers trying to switch to them? The answer is almost certainly 'no' because seven day switching is not the answer to creating competition in the market and the time and money spent on it will prove to have been a poor investment.

Friday, 7 June 2013

Will challenger banks make a real impact on UK lending?

Antony Jenkins, the CEO of Barclays, told investors that the challenger banks will fail to make a real impact on the lending market in the UK in the coming years.

His argument was that those who look to acquire the branches available by the forced sale of Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland branches when customers are using branches less and less in favour of online banking are buying a wasting asset.

Simplistically this is right, however even in markets where customers are carrying out a greater proportion of their banking business online such as The Netherlands, where 50% of branches have been closed, when a customer has a complex financial problem that needs fixing those customers are still showing a strong preference to address these face to face in a branch.

Even in a digital world the branch is still an important part of the marketing and branding for all the world's major banks. Branches are perceived as a reassuring sign of the stability of the bank, that by having a physical presence the bank is not going to disappear overnight.

What Anthony Jenkins did not explore is how the role of the branch is and needs to evolve (something which Barclays as an organisation is very aware of). The challengers recognise that branches are generally under-utilised assets and are being far more creative about their role in the community whether it be for business meetings, book clubs, music soirees or simply somewhere to go for a coffee. Banks such as Oregon's Umpqua (www.umpquabank.com) and Virgin Money with their lounges (http://uk.virginmoney.com/virgin/about-lounges/) are taking forward the thinking on the future of the branch. Antony Jenkins is right that the big five banks are increasingly closing branches but the challengers with their far smaller branch footprint are opening new branches rather than closing them. Handlesbanken (www.handelsbanken.co.uk) have been quietly opening branches and have been having a not insignificant impact on the market particularly on business lending.

When Jenkins referred to the challengers he appeared to limit that to those who might acquire the Lloyds Banking Group and the Royal Bank of Scotland branches, but of course this is not where the only challenge to the lending market is going to come from. Tesco, M&S and Sainsbury's banks already have very large branch networks they just happen to be retail outlets. Betting against these three making a success of their banking business is the height of folly.

Where Jenkins is completely correct is that for a challenger to simply open branches, and specifically traditional branches, would not be a wise move given the evolution of the customer and the banking industry. However the main challengers are not doing that. They are looking at an omni-channel strategy where online, mobile, call centre and branches come together to provide a new and better customer experience. There is a recognition that even in the branch customers may want to access their mobile or online banking services, that digital opens up the range of services that a branch can perform.

Taken at face value Antony Jenkins' comments that challenger will have little real impact on the UK lending industry smacks of complacency which the challenger banks should be delighted to hear. However given Jenkins' experience and knowledge of retail banking the challengers should not underestimate the fight they have on their hands. This can only be good for customers.

Thursday, 14 March 2013

How to make it easier to get new entrants into UK Banking

Let your customers through.

There are many complaints from politicians and consumer lobbyists that there is not enough competition in UK banking and in particular that there are not enough new entrants. Whilst seven business day switching will be introduced in September 2013 as discussed in http://www.itsafinancialworld.net/2013/02/why-faster-bank-switching-will-not-turn.html this alone is not enough.

There are five actions that need to be taken together to encourage new entrants into the market and allow them to compete. These are:
  1. Speed up the process of issuing banking licences
  2. Speed up the process of approving executives
  3. Reduce the  initial capital required
  4. Provide low cost access to the payments system
  5. Make current account switching easier
Looking at each of these in turn.

The process of applying for and being granted a banking licence is tortuous, time-consuming and very expensive with no guarantee of success. This alone is putting off banks, particularly where the new entrant is foreign. Without a banking licence new entrants are not able to take deposits a vital source of funding given the costs of wholesale funding. Vernon Hill, founder of  Metro Bank, the UK's most visible new entrant, has said  that if he knew then what he knows now about how difficult it would be to get a UK banking licence he wouldn't have started.

This is a major barrier to entry not only for consumer banking, but also corporate and commercial banking.

The process of approving executives by the FSA is typically taking nine to twelve months. This is not only effecting new entrants but also existing players. Even when an executive of one of the Big 5 banks changes role it is often necessary for them to be re-approved for their new role, which makes it difficult for banks to be agile in changing their organisations, which means that poor performing executives are left in place because it is too difficult to replace them. Whilst an executive is going through the approval process they are not allowed to perform their new role. If an executive was approved for a role in an existing bank they will need to be re-approved for the identical role in a new bank. For new entrants this can cause a significant delay in launching the new bank.

Currently when a new entrant wishes to launch a new bank they will need to present their 5 year plan and put aside  from day 1 the 9% capital that they will require when they achieve their 5 year plan. This clearly represents a significant cost to the new entrant and effectively means that the initial capital may represent not 9% but anywhere up to and over 100% of the assets that they will have by the end of the first year of  operating. Whilst the government has annouced that new entrants will in the future not have to put up the full 9% but rather 4.5% this does not go far enough. What is needed for new entrants is that the capital put aside is allowed to increase in line with the assets that they take on. Whilst the practicalities of doing this real time may be too difficult certainly doing it on a projected year by year with a true up at the end of each year would be a far more reasonable approach.

One of the recognised barriers to entry for new entrants is access to the payments infrastructure, both local and international. The cost of this is seen as prohibitive, but without it they will not be able to offer customers the essential ability to withdraw cash from ATMs, make direct debits and standing orders and international payments. The government has talked about making the payments infrastructure a national utility or forcing the Big 5 banks to offer new entrants low cost entry. This sounds eminently sensible, but it cannot and should not be at an incremental cost to the current volumes that go across the payments infrastructure. The reason for this, just like for traditional utilities such as gas, electricity and water, is that the companies that provide them have invested billions of pounds to build the high performing, resilient infrastructure and need to constantly upgrade and improve that infrastructure and those investments need to be paid for by the users of that infrastructure. So whilst the politicians may say that processing of an ATM transaction can be measured in pence and that that is the price the banks should be charging other banks, a  price based on a fair fully loaded cost, including future investment, needs to be calculated. One way to address this would be to get an independent assessment of the cost of providing and investing in maintaining and upgrading these services. This could a role that the proposed Payments Regulator could play.

Finally, as already mentioned, making current account switching is already in progress and is due to deliver in September 2013.

The combination of these changes, announcements on which have either already been made or will shortly be made, will significantly reduce the barriers to entry for new players into the UK Banking sector, but what are the implications of these changes, have they been thought through sufficiently and will they be enough to shake up competition in banking?

Speeding up the issuing of banking licences should purely be about the efficiency of the FSA and its successor. It should not be about dropping the quality of the testing. It is clearly dependent upon the quality of the submission and this falls at the feet of the applying new entrant.

Simillarly speeding up the approval of executives needs to be about efficiency and re-thinking how this approval process is designed.  The current process is far too bureaucratic. There needs to be a distinction between whether the executive is new to the UK financial services sector, new to the role or simply performing the same role for a different bank. Questions need to be also asked as to whether the examiners know enough about the detail of the role to really evaluate the individual's suitability and fitness to hold the position. The current process requires executives to spend a considerable amount of time preparing answers to questions that go no way to deciding whether this person is fit to perform the role. However speeding up the process should not add risk to the banking sector.

Reducing the initial capital required for a new entrant undoubtedly does increase the risk should the new entrant fail. The question is whether that is an acceptable risk. Northern Rock was a retail business - it had no investment banking business. It was also not a large player. However it failed largely due to irresponsible lending. If Northern Rock had been permitted to hold lower amounts of capital the losses would have been even greater. In the rush to create disruption to the hold of the Big Five banks the regulators must get the balance right between making it easier for new entrants whilst still protecting customers from banks that are not as well established and who's balance sheets are not as well protected from changes in the market. Given the measures being taken to electrify the ring fence between retail and commercial banking that are being enforced on the large banks, the Big 5 banks will continue to be a safer option for customers than the new entrants following the introduction of lower capital requirements being proposed.

Forcing a reduction in the cost to use the payments infrastructure comes with the inherent risk that owning and managing the payments infrastructure will become increasingly unattractive to the current owners which could lead to a lack of investment which in turn could lead to a reduction in the resilience of the infrastructure which would in the long term be bad news for both customers and businesses. After 9/11 it was not the destruction of the Twin Towers that nearly brought the US to its knees, but the closure of the airspace which prevented the movement of cheques, which effectively stopped the payments structure working that was the biggest threat to the US economy. An economy cannot survive without an efficient and resilient payments infrastructure.

Faster switching will only encourage customers to move when there is a significant difference in the customer experience and value for the customer to make it worth their while.

As the government and the regulators look at the measures to create increase the number of new entrants coming into the banking sector rather than rushing these in to get good headlines thorough and considered analysis needs to be conducted to really understand the full implications of lowering the barriers to entry.

In the meantime the lack of competition in the UK banking sector should not be overstated. With the likes of Marks & Spencer, Tesco, Virgin Money, Metro Bank, Handlesbanken and Nationwide there has probably never been a time where there has been as much choice and competition in the sector.

Friday, 8 June 2012

M&S to take on high street banks



UK retailer Marks & Spencer is to launch M&S Bank, rolling out 50 branches over the next two years. A 50:50 joint venture with HSBC with current (checking) accounts to be launched in the Autumn and mortgages 'later'. This gives M&S a head start on Tesco who has had to delay the launch of its current accounts until 2013. Ironically these two 'new' retail-based banks are frequently adjacent neighbours on retail parks across the UK, where the big four high street banks are rarely to be found, so it maybe that they find themselves competing with each other rather than taking on the big boys.

Of course neither Tesco or M&S are really new entrants into Financial Services both have been offering products for some time. M&S first started offering FS products in 1985 and has the successful &more credit card, but this will be the first time it is calling itself a bank.

The timing of M&S's announcement is good. Not only does it come after a set of disappointing results for its retail business, it comes at a time when the high street banks are both unpopular and mistrusted. This can only be good for M&S with it's slightly older, more affluent and loyal customer base.

With the opening hours of the branches being the same as the retail stores and the initial prototypes of the branches looking very retail, calm and sophisticated and, as they are keen to point out, with fresh flowers, this will, to coin their phrase, not be any bank it will be a Marks & Spencer Bank.

But will it really shake up competition in the banking sector? Fifty branches over two years is not that many. Given that Virgin already has 75 branches (since its acquisition of the 'good' Northern Rock), Yorkshire Building Society has 227, Handelsbanken (the least well known, but the bank with the highest customer satisfaction) has over 100 branches and whoever (Co-op, NBNK or a flotation) acquires the Verde branches, that Lloyds Banking Group has to dispose of, will have 632 branches, just like Metro Bank with its 12 branches, this is not going to be an immediate threat to the high street banks.

Certainly in the short term it will not make a significant difference to the M&S share price. However it has every chance of being a success that will build over time. M&S has decided not to take the route that Tesco is finding to be so challenging of going it alone without a bank behind it. M&S by partnering with HSBC is able to stick to what it does best - retailing while HSBC can focus on managing the banking operations. The CEO of M&S Bank, Colin Kersley, was with HSBC for 30 years, so he knows the bank extremely well. The UK CEO of HSBC is Joe Garner, who spent his early career with Dixons. The two organisations have worked together for a number of years (HSBC acquired M&S Money) and understand where each is coming from, so this has to be a significant advantage.

Overall from a consumer perspective this move by M&S is to be welcomed. Whilst Joe Garner is quoted as saying that this is 'the most significant innovation that HSBC has carried out since First Direct' only time will tell whether he is right.