What do we want? EMV! Where do we want it? Over there!

Gareth Lodge

Post by

Aug 27th, 2015

In my last post, I talked about the experience of using my credit card in the US, and how just inconsistent it feels. Some of it was undoubtedly tied to security – using photo ID or entering zip codes – though I’m far from convinced that they provided any security at all.

In some conversations we’ve had, there has been a feeling that US fraud is actually manageable at an industry level – a belief that they are in line or better than in many other countries. Yet the recent figures from Nilson seem to paint a very different picture.

Whilst accounting for 21.4% or $6.187 trillion of total volume last year, the US accounted for 48.2% or $7.86 billion of gross losses worldwide on plastic cards.

Zil has – and will! – discuss the implementation of EMV at length with anyone, so I won’t discuss that here. What struck me was how ineffective the checks were currently.

As a consumer (rather than a payments geek) it struck me:

  • Asking for zip code as authorisation seems pointless – if I’ve stolen a purse or wallet with cards in, I’m likely to have either the zip code already or have enough info to find it within seconds on the internet
  • Asking for a signature, yet not even checking it seems odd. Perhaps I have an honest face or perhaps the risk didn’t warrant the effort
  • Photo ID, at least for non-US, seems pointless. How many people can spot fake ID, or know what a, say, Latvian national ID card looks like?

Another thought that strikes me is that the figures probably hide some other issues too. Traditionally, a third of UK card fraud takes place overseas (in 2014, £150m of £479m). And given that most other countries have EMV, of that, the majority takes place in the US – it has been ranked the country with the highest losses every year for as long as I can find records for. I suspect the figure above does not include this.

The volume of fraud then that could be cut by EMV in the US would seem to be even higher. Whilst I know it’s not that simple, the US “accounts” for over 5% of UK card fraud. Full EMV in the US wouldn’t reduced this to zero – but equally, even if it halved it in the top 10 countries which lose most to the US, the reduction in fraud would easily be in excess of £100m a year.

Visitors to the US aren’t just wanting the experience to improve, they’re wanting to stop paying for fraud that takes place in the US as well.

 

Global acceptance doesn’t mean global experience

Gareth Lodge

Post by

Aug 13th, 2015

Zil wrote almost a year ago about his experience using a foreign card in the US. I’m just back from an extended stay in the US, and was really struck by how inconsistent the experience is for a consumer. Consider these variations I experienced, in just one day!

  • Check in at a hotel – swipe the card, pre-authorising a charge of $150 a day, no signature, no receipt
  • Pay at gas pump – different price for credit and cash, pre-authorised, required to enter zip code registered for card
  • Paying at till – card swiped, photo id, no signature, no receipt
  • Paying at till – card swiped, photo id, no signature, receipt only available by email
  • Paying at till – card swiped, no photo id, signature, standard receipt
  • Paying at table – card taken away out of sight, signature required, but no check on whether payment has been made before leaving the restaurant

And in no instance was the signature looked at, raising the question of what is the point of signing?! In one place I accidentally caught the enter button on the electronic pad before signing, and off it went, technically signed but with no signature – even that wasn’t challenged.

Over the course of three weeks, there were several variations even on these options. Nor did they (arguably) relate to the cost or risk of the transaction – the lowest transaction (<$10) had the most thorough checks, but the restaurants (the most expensive, and where, ahem, you’re already in receipt of goods!) the least.

To add to the confusion, it was almost funny to see the consternation that we split the bill with friends – x on this card, y on that please – something that is standard at least in the UK, but at least one restaurant claimed was both technically impossible and illegal.

Compare this to the UK, and most other countries I travel to – you either tap (though rarely) or enter your pin, and in either case the card never leaves your sight. So – just two experiences arguably vs the US multitude.

Being a geek (and with no shame, embarrassing my friends and family!), I asked, in just about the most unscientific survey ever, how they felt about EMV. Some hadn’t heard about it. Those who had felt it was going to put people off using cards because it was more difficult.

To those of us in the rest of the world, this seems bizarre, particularly those of us who have gone through the experiences in the US.

Then again, it’s understandable – human nature is often worried about any change and about the unknown. In addition to the messages about security benefits, we shouldn’t forget about the change management piece of the puzzle, and certainly not about taking the opportunity to see how the change could lead to improvements, particularly in customer experience.

 

 

 

Why I won’t be using Apple Pay during rush hour on London transport

Aug 10th, 2015

I am finally a proud user of Apple Pay! It came to the UK on July 14th while I was away on holiday, but I managed to set up my first card even while I was abroad. And I was very proud and pleased when I got back and completed my first Apple Pay transaction.

My experience has been more or less as expected. I got an email from American Express announcing that Apple Pay is available and suggesting that I should add my card to it. I have been using my Amex for iTunes, so adding it to Apple Pay was relatively straightforward. Somewhat unexpectedly, I now also get notifications on the phone for all transactions, including those made with a card – I would have thought Passbook would only have my Apple Pay transactions, but I guess it does make more sense to see all transactions on the card in the same place.

I also added a debit card issued by my bank. The bank also promoted Apple Pay to me, and when I logged into my mobile banking app, Apple Pay was featured prominently at the top of the “home screen.” Clicking on the banner took me to the screen within the bank app which explained about Apple Pay and had an “Add Card” button. Given that I was already inside the bank’s app having authenticated myself via TouchID, I was expecting that this button would give me a list of the bank issued cards I have and I could add any of them to Apple Pay by just clicking on it. Somewhat disappointingly, I was taken out of the bank’s environment into the regular Apple Pay “add card” process and had to scan my card, wait for the text message with a security code to arrive, and set it up just like I would have done with any other card. I can imagine that what I wanted is perhaps challenging technically, but it still seemed like an opportunity missed to “surprise and delight” me as a customer.

When everything works as expected, the transaction experience is brilliant. However, I already expressed my concerns about the reliability of TouchID on these pages before, and they proved to be true – TouchID does not always work for me when trying to use Apple Pay. While this is not much of an issue in a retail setting, it is not something you want when fighting the crowds to get on a tube or train platform during rush hour in London. As Transport for London confirmed in response to a number of complaints about over-charging, you have to touch in and out with the same device throughout the day to ensure the correct fare is charged; touching in with Apple Pay and out with a card or Apple Watch might result in being charged twice, even though all payments might eventually come out from the same card.

The other thing is that Apple Pay quickly conditions you to getting transactions confirmed on the phone. Because TfL has daily and weekly caps, it cannot confirm each transaction instantly. Instead, I was charged 10p when I touched in with Apple Pay, with the balance for the day’s travel being charged to my card much later. While this is understandable and a minor gripe, it still contrasts with the experience of other transactions.

None of this is TfL’s fault, which deserves plaudits for continuing to improve and give options to how we pay for travel. However, while I will definitely continue to use Apple Pay at the retailers, I am going to stick with a tried and tested Oyster card or a bank contactless card when travelling in London. It is simply not worth fretting every time I approach the gates whether the technology will work at the speed needed to keep the crowds flowing.

Don’t be surprised if your bank knows not just who but also what you are in the future

Aug 10th, 2015

We all know personality tests can be a little hit and miss – some are serious, long and can be scarily accurate. Others you do for fun on a Saturday afternoon whilst reading a magazine, and you never take the results too seriously.

I just came across a new type of personality test, Personality Insights powered by IBM’s Watson. According to the description, the test “uses linguistic analytics to extract a spectrum of cognitive and social characteristics from the text data that a person generates through blogs, tweets, forum posts, and more.” Interestingly, it claims to be able to reach conclusions just from a text of 100 words.

I was curious to see what the tool would say about me based on some of my blogs. I entered one of the recent texts and I got this back:

You are inner-directed and skeptical.

You are empathetic: you feel what others feel and are compassionate towards them. You are philosophical: you are open to and intrigued by new ideas and love to explore them. And you are independent: you have a strong desire to have time to yourself.

You are motivated to seek out experiences that provide a strong feeling of connectedness.

You are relatively unconcerned with taking pleasure in life: you prefer activities with a purpose greater than just personal enjoyment. You consider achieving success to guide a large part of what you do: you seek out opportunities to improve yourself and demonstrate that you are a capable person.

As always with these things, you never entirely agree, but I could recognise some of my personality there, so I was intrigued. I wanted to try it more and started entering other blogs written by me and my colleagues on this site. Most of the results turned out to be remarkably similar, suggesting that we are “shrewd, skeptical, imaginative, philosophical, driven by a desire for prestige, relatively unconcerned with tradition, etc.” Well, it is possible that we are a fairly homogeneous bunch – as analysts we often talk about new technologies, so we are “relatively unconcerned with tradition”, yet we can’t afford to succumb to the latest hype, so can come across as “skeptical.” But the homogeneity of results made me rather suspicious, so “for something completely different”, I entered an article on English football by a broadsheet journalist. While his profile turned out to be a bit more different, he was also “inner-directed, skeptical, empathetic, and philosophical.”

Not surprisingly, I wasn’t the first person to try out the tool with the extremes. A Mashable article described someone submitting “a 1919 letter from Hitler explaining his anti-Semitic agenda to a well-wisher” for analysis. Apparently, Hitler was also “shrewd, skeptical, imaginative, philosophical, laid back, appreciating a relaxed pace in life” and someone who thinks “it is important to take care of people around you.”

Now, it’s easy to show how something new is not yet perfect, but there is serious science behind the service. And even though this particular tool still needs to learn and improve, we are convinced that artificial intelligence and Watson-type technologies will have a big impact on customer servicing in Banking and other industries. Implementing and making use of these technologies is not easy, but there is no doubt that in the future more decisions will be driven by data and analytics. So, don’t be surprised if the next time you call up your bank to discuss the latest transactions or the new product you want to buy, you realise they know instantly not just who you are (e.g. via voice biometrics), but also what you are.

P.S. I just did sort of a “meta-test” by entering the above text into the service. The tool called me “unconventional” and suggested that I am “intermittent” and “have a hard time sticking with difficult tasks for a long period of time.” Is it not just smart, but potentially vindictive as well? :)

The acutely digital bank

Stephen Greer

Post by

Aug 4th, 2015

A few months ago there was a question posed on Twitter which sparked a pretty intense debate: “What makes a bank a digital bank?” Perspectives varied, but after a reading through many of the responses, it seemed most were answering a different question. How far do incumbent banks have to go in order to adjust to the new age of digital financial services?

At a very basic level, most bankers understand the importance of digital. Many started digital transformation years ago, but the strategies have often been too narrowly focused to make a significant impact. Efforts consisted of stand-alone projects running in isolation within a LoB, too vertical to meet the needs of a real transformation strategy. Simple point solutions and narrowly defined projects in turn produce lackluster results, and the perceived value of Digital decreases, potentially falling out of favor with key decision makers based on a cost/ benefit analysis. Stakeholders might think digital is important, but without a vision they´ll often decide that the risk isn´t worth the reward.

This can be underpinned by an organization´s lack of understanding around what it means to be a digital institution. A Celent report from December of last year, Defining a Digital Financial Institution: What “Digital” Means in Banking, proposed a definition for the industry. Digital banking is:

  • Delivering a customized but consistent FI brand experience to customers across all channels and points of interaction
  • … underpinned by analytics and automation
  • … and requiring a change in the operating model, namely products and services, organization, culture, and skills and IT…
  • … in order to deliver demonstrable and sustainable economic value.

We´ve used this definition quite a bit, but it´s important as institutions develop visions around digital. It´s difficult to develop a clear strategy around a topic so loosely defined within an organization. In a new report set to publish in a few days, The Acutely Digital Bank: Mechanisms for a new Reality, we outline a few of the mechanisms institutions are using to transform. The report will also propose a general model for how many organizations are evolving.

Digital transformation is not an easy proposition. The cultural and business model changes required for some institutions are daunting, and inertia always has a seat at the table. Without orienting the business towards digital, banks risk losing out to more agile and digitally adept competitors, both from within the industry and from nonbank challengers.

How is your institution approaching digital? Feel free to leave a comment.

Tags:

Banks are asking the wrong customer engagement question

Bob Meara

Post by

Jul 30th, 2015

I have heard banks ask, “How to we use digital channels to bring traffic into the branch?”

The rational is straightforward. After years of promoting self-service channels, branch foot traffic is declining – along with the sales opportunities that foot traffic represents. It’s a logical question, but the wrong question. A better question would be, “How do we enable effective customer engagement on their terms regardless of the channels involved?

Rather than seeking to influence customer channel preferences, banks should be all about maximizing the effectiveness of each and every engagement opportunity, regardless of channel. They don’t seem to be.

One no-brainer example is digital appointment booking – the ability for customers to book an appointment with a banker at a time and place of their convenience – using the bank’s online or mobile platform. Doing so represents convenience for the customer, a logical indicated action as part of online product research and an opportunity to improve branch channel capacity planning (because of the added visibility the mechanism provides). But, the most compelling reason to offer digital appointment booking in my opinion is because doing so maximizes the effectiveness of branch engagement. How so? Done well, frontline staff know who is coming and for what purpose. Consequently, they’re better prepared for the conversation. Banks that have implemented digital appointment booking are seeing significant improvements in sales results.

Digital appointment booking should be commonplace – but isn’t. In a October 2014 survey of NA financial institutions, just 8% of respondents offered this capability. Most were large banks.

OAB adoptionSource: Celent survey of North American financial institutions, October 2014, n=156

Even better would be to extend the appointment booking option to digital channels, as a phone or telepresence conversation. Engagement doesn’t have to be limited to face-to-face interactions – but is, in all but the largest banks. In the same survey referenced earlier, just 20% offered text based chat online, 12% offered click-to-call and 2% offered video chat.

Online Channel Engagement CapabilitySource: Celent survey of North American financial institutions, October 2014, n=156

So, while banks offer abundant digital transactional capabilities, engagement remains largely something only offered at the branch. That dog won’t hunt for long!

Paying banks to take your money — huh?

Patty Hines

Post by

Jul 24th, 2015

Corporations have historically parked excess cash in their demand deposit accounts to take advantage of earnings credit allowances. Each month, the bank calculates the earnings allowance for a client’s accounts by applying an earnings credit rate to available balances. The earnings allowance is then used to offset the cost of cash management services. In the United States, corporates got the option of earning interest in money market accounts with the repeal of Req Q by Dodd Frank. The Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) provisions of Basel III and the advent of negative interest rates in some European countries are upending traditional cash flow management for banks and their corporate and institutional clients.

The LCR requires large and internationally active banks to meet standard liquidity requirements. It makes assumptions for deposit runoff in times of financial stress, resulting in a liquidity squeeze. Banks must hold enough high quality, liquid assets (HQLA) to fund their operations during a 30-day stress period. Examples of high quality assets include central bank reserves and government and corporate bond debt.

The phase-in of the LCR started on January 1, 2015. It requires banks to distinguish between two types of short-term (30 days or less) deposits. Operational deposits include working capital and cash held for transactional purposes. Non-operational balances are other cash balances not immediately required and assumed to be investments; such as short-term time deposits with a maturity of 30 days or less and accounts with transaction limitations, such as money market deposit accounts.

Non-operating/excess balances are assigned a 40% runoff rate for corporations and government entities and 100% for financial institutions, making them the least valuable to banks. As a result, corporates with non-operational cash investments may find it difficult to place in overnight investment vehicles. Many banks are reducing their non-operating deposits either by encouraging corporates to place their funds elsewhere, or by creating new investment products such as 31+ day CDs, money market funds and repurchase agreements to avoid the LCR charge on excess balances. Similarly, corporates also face a risk of higher costs for committed lines of credit which also require more Basel III capital to be held by banks.

Bank demand for HQLA in the form of central bank reserves along with European fiscal policy has pushed central bank interest rates into negative territory for the safest monetary havens (Sweden and Switzerland). In other countries with central bank rates hovering near zero, once you take the inflation rate into consideration, those rates are negative as well (ECB and Denmark).

Central Bank Interest Rates

Central banks had hoped that negative interest rates would encourage commercial banks to increase lending, but there’s only been a slight increase in outstanding loan balances.

Financial institution clients are hardest hit by central bank negative interest rates, particularly deposits in Euros, Swiss francs, Danish crowns and Swedish crowns. Many global banks are charging “balance sheet utilization fees” or other deposit fees. For corporate clients, savvy banks are taking a collaborative approach—working with corporate treasurers to educate them on the impact of regulatory and economic forces on their cash management and investment decisions and advising them on the available options.

IBM’s Cognitive Bank: Big Data, bigger problems

Joan McGowan

Post by

Jul 21st, 2015

Last Wednesday I attended IBM’s analyst presentation on Transforming Banking and Financial Markets with Data. The crux of the presentation was the benefits of big data and cognitive analytics for financial markets. The return from better understanding the desires of an individual bank customer are well understood and IBM did a good job of illustrating the up-lift. But what were not discussed are the daunting challenges and complexities a bank will face in implementing and managing a big data project. The implementation and ongoing management of data will make or break the success of cognitive computing.

What I would like to see is an open discussion on the successes and failures of big data implementation programs by the banks, IBM, and other vendors working in this space. How smooth was the implementation process (time/budget/resourcing etc.)? Were your expectations set correctly? Did you get the required support from management? What were the lessons learnt? What value do you see from your big data program?

It’s not easy

Structured data tends to sit in multiple databases housed in silo-ed legacy systems; it is customized, lacks consistency, has incomplete fields, is often latent in nature and is prone to human error. All of which compounds the complexity of managing the data. Add to structured data the volume, variety, and velocity (known as the 3 Vs) of unstructured data and the challenge of implementing and managing information becomes even greater. And, the larger and more complex the bank the more likely its data architecture and governance process will hinder data-based implementations projects. Automating the management of data is time consuming and laborious and scope creep is significant, adding months onto implementation projects as well as extra expense and frustration. Resourcing such projects can be taxing as there is a limited pool of big data expertise and they are expensive. To perform cognitive analytics, massive parallel processing power is required and the most cost-effective operating environment is through the cloud. If you get the data right, cognitive analytics can be very powerful.

Cognitive analytics

Cognitive analytics (also referred to as cognitive computing) is a super-charged power tool that allows data scientists to crunch vast amounts of structured and unstructured data and to codify instincts and learnings found in that data in order to develop hypotheses and recommendations. Recommendations are ranked based on the confidence the computer has in the accuracy of the answer. How you rate confidence was not made clear by IBM and I would argue that this can only come after the fact, when you can use KPIs to validate the scoring and criteria. The modeling techniques include artificial intelligence, machine learning and natural language processing and, unlike us mere mortals, the more data you feed the computer, the higher the quality of the insight.

If you do get it right, the rewards are significant

We continue to leave behind mind-boggling amounts of digital information about our lifestyles, personalities, and desires. A sample of sites where I know I have left a hefty footprint include Facebook, Reddit, LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube, iTunes, blogs, career sites, industry associations, search history patterns, buying patterns, geo locations, and content libraries. IBM Watson offers banks a cost-effective way, through the cloud, of scouring such data to build up clues that provide a more in-depth view of what their customers’ desire. Current analytic segmentation is requirements-based and is modeled on past behavior to determine and influence future behavior. The segmentation buckets are broad and all within them are treated the same. Cognitive analytics allow a much more precise and immediate analysis of behavioral characteristics in different environments and, therefore, a more personalized and satisfying experience for the customer.

I’d welcome any feedback from those of you who have been involved in implementing or are in the process of implementing big data in banking. And, if you’re interested, take a look at Celent’s Dan Latimore’s blog Implementing Watson is Hard

On a side note, IBM introduced the term Cognitive Bank and it is not a phrase that works for me. It is disconcerting to describe a bank as having the mental process of perception, memory, judgment, and reasoning.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

 

The future: are you excited or scared?

Jul 10th, 2015

As industry analysts, we often comment on the impact emerging technologies and innovations have on our clients’ business. How can a financial institution become more “digital?” Will Apple Pay be successful and how quickly? How can a bank deploy data analysis tools to its advantage? These are questions we and our clients are dealing with on a daily basis.

Many of us have also seen presentations by futurists painting their visions of an increasingly digital future, where everything is connected and always on, where machines have reached human levels of intelligence, and so on. Given the relentless progress of technology, it is probably only a matter of time until such visions become reality.

However, I would argue that what many of us don’t do often enough is pause and reflect on the impact of technology on us as individuals and on the society as a whole, especially in the long term. I recently read a book that made me pause and think: The Circle by Dave Eggers. If you haven’t read it yet, Circle is a fictional internet technology company, sort of an imaginary amalgam of Apple, Facebook, Google, and Twitter. The best and brightest work there bringing to market their latest inventions, such as TruYou, “one account, one identity, one password, one payment system, per person.” Of course, that also means no more anonymity, so, for example, customer satisfaction survey scores are always close to a 100, and any lower ones are chased by the reps until they are re-scored. Tiny camera devices that can be left anywhere unnoticed and stream high quality video are introduced as an innocuous way for the surfers to check the waves at the remote beaches, but soon turn into a “Big Brother”-type ever-present eye. Some of the characters opt to go for “transparency” and start wearing always-on cameras, with unsurprisingly chilling implications for privacy.

What made the book particularly scary for me is that it is not an outlandish vision. Most of these things already happen today, albeit at a smaller scale. Anybody with a smart phone has a camera ready to shoot and post online, whether you like it or not (just ask Prince Harry!), and of course, we do need a better approach to digital identity, but hopefully not the kind that destroys any right to privacy and anonimity.

It’s not “just” the loss of privacy. If, as predicted, robots take over many of our activities, what are the implications for our societies built around work and jobs creation? And if you are not familiar with the work of Nicholas Carr, take a look at this essay, which warns against dangers of our brains being re-wired as a result of constant exposure to hyperlinks, tickers of “breaking news” and zings announcing a new email. We become easily distracted, always looking for the “next thing”; reading a longer piece or a book becomes a challenge.

Now, I don’t want to sound like a Luddite raging against technology. First, it’s not very original – Socrates warned us about the dangers of writing back in ancient Greece. Second, the progress of technology has brought and will continue to bring wonderful benefits. And I genuinely get excited about new technologies and amazing innovations. Overall, I am also excited and positive about the future. But it doesn’t mean that we can’t be critical, and have to succumb to every new hype or lose sight of what makes us human.

With summer holidays approaching, I will try and disconnect from gadgets. I look forward to spending time with my family and hopefully immerse myself in a book or two. If you are also heading for the beach, you could do worse than taking a copy of The Circle with you. Happy summer!

New banks, new names

Gareth Lodge

Post by

Jul 10th, 2015

Dave Birch over at Consult Hyperion wrote a very interesting article today around the need to better name the stream of new non-traditional banking entrants. Have a read here.

This is something we’ve talked about with Clients in a similar way, but in the context of traditional banks. When you run a brain storming sessions, particularly for innovation, it’s often useful to “blow up” the problem. That is, magnify the problem to its maximum so you look at truly radical solutions rather than incremental ones. One such example was a scenario where traditional banking ended up with two types of banks –

1) IT banks, providing products and services to others. Citi with its co-opertition model might be an example of this. I labelled these manufacturers.

2) The other extreme was banks focusing on the customer, and focusing on providing the best products and services, an agora of things built by the manufacturers. I called this ISO banking.

Dave used iso to define one of his groups but in a very different way. He used iso from the Greek to mean equal. I wasn’t quite so clever – I used ISO as in the US group of card solution providers known as Independent Sales Organisations.

Which leads to a broader thought. The PSD2 introduces the concept of XS2A – essentially any third party can access account level information of any financial institution in Europe and be able to initiate a payment from that account. That muddies the distinctions above even further. For example, Dave’s descriptions imply (I think!) two components – a front end (a mobile app) and a back end (a funding account). In the neo- and iso- flavours, it’s the back-end that distinguishes the two, with neo a traditional platform, and iso with a far simpler account platform (a pre-paid card).

In PSD2, there are numerous variations. Three examples off the top of my head that illustrate what I mean:

  • No-back-end. PSD2 could create a third category where the “bank” provides the front end, but no back-end at all as it uses the platforms of one or more other FIs
  • Every end. This is in some ways an extension of the above, but with a slightly different spin. Bullet 1 reflects that consumers often have products spread across multiple institutions. At its simplest, XS2A allows true PFM for the first time in some countries. But this second point reflects that the lines are blurred already, particularly for a consumer. I suspect many would want to include all their money holding accounts – say your PayPal acount. Most consumers would think that as an non-FI, but, as they have a banking licence I assume they would be included as well under PSD2 (thoughts please!). But what about the true non-FI’s?
  • Front/back weighting. With XS2A, how many will be provider slick but simple skins, and how many will provide functionally rich front-end (and perhaps back-end too) that will far enhance the standard offerings. You can imagine this particularly in the wealth management space. These feel very different beasts, and need distinguishing.

The upshot is that Dave has hit the nail on the head in that we need more/better/different nomenclature. However I wonder if in Europe in particular we probably need a much more fundamental rethink. As the regulator explicitly seeks to disaggregate the payments value chain, this, coupled with technology advances, have much broader implications, and make traditional labels misleading at best.

I’ve only just started really thinking about this – but the more I do, the more I realise the more I need to do.