There are *exactly* 608 US firms offering banking fingerprint authentication

There are *exactly* 608 US firms offering banking fingerprint authentication
Biometrics are hot. Fingerprint authentication (Apple’s version is Touch ID) is one of the most common forms of biometric verification. So, quick – how many American banks let customers log on to their accounts using this method? Based on the press, you might optimistically think a few thousand, right? And, in fact, ApplePay just activated its 1000th bank (adoption is another story, and the subject of another post). Well, as of January 31, the actual number (not an estimate, not an extrapolation, and not a piece of data from Apple) was 608. That’s 9.52% of the 6,388 FIs offering a mobile banking application. How does that compare to three months ago, at the end of October 2015? At that point just 252 FIs were offering it. That’s an increase of 241% in a quarter, certainly a sign of robust growth. Some of the increase comes from clients implementing from their hosted solution provider. Others (generally bigger banks) are developing it in-house. And yet, it’s not as popular with the large banks as one might think (of the 21 with more than $100bn in assets, only 8 offer fingerprint authentication; 3 of the top 4 have it). Bucketed Adoption Does fingerprint authentication pay off? By one measure, something we call “feature lift,” it does indeed make a difference for customers. Banks whose customers have installed fingerprint authentication have an uplift of 53% in enrolled customers per deposit account relative to banks who don’t offer it. While this is correlation, not causality, it shows that the banks who offer this feature have more customers enrolled in mobile banking than those who don’t. We’re looking forward to analyzing many more mobile banking features to see which ones offer the biggest impact on customer enrollment. Uplift How did we access this information? I’m very excited to say that Celent is collaborating with FI Navigator to analyze the mobile banking market in an unprecedented depth of detail. FI Navigator has assembled a database of every US bank and credit union offering retail mobile banking, together with the vendors who host them. We’re feverishly analyzing this trove of data to bring you a report at the end of April. It’s different from, and additive to, work made available to our existing clients; you can find the particulars here. To let you in on how the sausage is made, we originally tried to find out how many banks offered fingerprint ID by doing a standard search (which turned up press releases and the like) and by contacting a few vendors. We were able to arrive at roughly 250 banks in total, including several dozen from one vendor (from whom it was difficult to get precise answers in terms of commitments, scheduled go-lives, and actual implementations). It turns out that we undercounted by more than half. The beauty of the FI Navigator data is that it’s derived from a variety of sources – on a monthly basis – that let us deduce and infer a huge amount of actual information about the entire US retail mobile banking population, not just a subset. By integrating unstructured website data and conventional financial institution data, FI Navigator expands the depth of peer analytics and the breadth of market research to create vertical analytics on financial institutions and their technology providers. So, in addition to my excitement at this new and powerful data source, I have three takeaways about fingerprint authentication:
  1. The gap between hype and reality for fingerprint authentication is big, but shrinking;
  2. Banks don’t have to be large to do this; and
  3. More banks should be offering fingerprint authentication.
Why is your bank or credit union not offering your customers the chance to authenticate with their fingerprint?

The UK open banking API framework – more questions than answers?

The UK open banking API framework – more questions than answers?

This week the Open Banking Working Group (OBWG) published its framework for the UK Open Banking Standard. The framework seeks to create:
• An open API for data that is shared, including, but not limited to, customer data, and
• An open data API for market information and relevant open data

Secure, publicly accessible Web APIs have been around for more than ten years in the financial services sector. Many popular eCommerce platforms employ APIs to increase adoption by exposing various features of the underlying platform to third-party application developers. These include PayPal, Stripe, Authorize.Net and LevelUp. Payment APIs have grown by almost 2,000% since 2009, with Financial APIs growing at more than 470% during that time.

Banks embrace APIs to modernize and streamline back-office connectivity, especially for customer-facing digital channels. However, except for a smattering of bank API hackathons featuring mock customer account data and the well-publicized external APIs made available by digital bank Fidor, banks are reluctant to publish open, external APIs for customers or third-party to access financial data. Two major government initiatives are forcing their hands.

The account access provisions of PSD2 require Euro Area banks to open access to customer information where third-parties have the explicit consent of the customer. The UK HM Treasury Open Banking initiative strives to improve competition and consumer outcomes by giving customers the ability to share their transaction data with third party providers (3PPs) using an open API standard for UK treasury.

The UK government established the Open Banking Working Group in August 2015, giving it the remit to design a detailed framework for the development of an open API standard in the UK. The detailed framework was published this week after review by the HM Treasury.

Open Banking Framework

Sifting through the 128-page report, several key issues remain to be addressed:

Governance: The report recommends the creation of an independent authority to oversee the development and deployment of the Open Banking Standard. As co-chair of the OBWG, is the Open Data Institute vying to become that independent authority? IMHO, the banking industry doesn’t need yet another standards body. Why not engage the expertise of an existing organization like the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the governance body of the popular ISO 20022 standard, to ensure an internationally agreed upon approach with the involvement of a diverse group of stakeholders?

Data Standard: The report recommends that existing standards, datasets and structures be reused where possible but also mentions further investigation as to whether the Open Banking Standard will need a separate reference data model. I hope that the OBWG examines the widespread adoption of the ISO 20022 financial industry message scheme and its contribution to standardizing and simplifying financial data exchange worldwide.

Data Protection: The report states that banking customers (individuals and businesses) need to understand their responsibility for informed customer consent and ensuring their data is protected. This is problematic in light of continued social engineering banking losses, an emerging global fraud threat. The report acknowledges that it is likely that cyber-criminals will specifically focus on the open API as a new attack vector. Consumer education needs to be the responsibility of the Open Banking ecosystem: Banks, 3PPs, government agencies, and consumer watchdog groups.

Developer Resources: The recommendation that a central developer hub be created to support developers is a seemingly practical idea. However, there are a number of leading API platform providers and no universally accepted RESTful API design methodology, which will lead to a scramble by the proponents of RAML, SWAGGER and Apiary.io to be the provider (and language) of choice for creation of common open APIs and developer sandbox.

Implementation Schedule: The report outlines a multi-year release schedule with the first release to be completed within 12 months of the report’s publication—February 2017. This seems to be very aggressive considering that detailed design specifications are not yet complete, nor has an independent authority been selected to oversee development of the standard.

Monetization: Respondents to the February 2015 Call for Consultation estimated the cost of developing an open API standard would range from “negligible to tens of millions of pounds.” At first glance the Open Banking initiative seems to provide all of the benefit to fintech firms with all of the cost shouldered by UK financial institutions. Celent anticipates acceleration of bank/fintech partnerships aimed at creating differentiated value propositions.

Interoperability: Banks and solution providers are closely watching the intersection of the UK Open Banking initiative and the account access provisions of PSD2. There is significant overlap between the two initiatives and industry participants hope that they will be joined up, but for now the HM Treasury is actively seeking to take the lead with its aggressive implementation schedule. Interoperability across geographies and sectors fosters sustained innovation and broader participation by third parties, contributing to the UK Treasury’s goal of improving competition and consumer outcomes.

The recommendations for implementing the Open Banking Standard will be carried out by the Open Banking Implementation Entity. Celent analysts are watching developments closely and assessing their impact across our coverage areas. We welcome your feedback—what are your thoughts about opening up customer banking data to third-party providers?

Cardless ATMs and disappointing mobile wallet adoption

Cardless ATMs and disappointing mobile wallet adoption
While I’m an outspoken advocate of financial services technology, I have been a bit of a curmudgeon when it comes to mobile wallets. My skeptical attitude reached an apex when I dropped my smartphone in a glass of merlot several years ago and hasn’t recovered. Had my smartphone been my mobile wallet, embarrassment would have been the least of my problems. Said simply, I just don’t see a compelling use-case for most consumers. Until they arise, I expect industry press to continue to publish stories of lackluster adoption. There have been many. One in particular caught my eye. A recent article in Digital Transactions makes my point in its opening statement, “The introduction of cardless ATMs, which rely on a financial institution’s mobile wallet instead of a debit card to make an ATM withdrawal, could help further the adoption of mobile wallets and mobile payments.” Said another way, if the industry offers consumers enough reasons to configure and use a mobile wallet, adoption may eventually result. This doesn’t sound remotely compelling to me. I can hear the rebuttals now. In defense of Bank of America, BMO Harris, Chase, Peoples Bank and other institutions that have invested in cardless ATM access, physical debit card usage at the ATM could pose an annoyance to mobile wallet adopters, few that they are. With ATM usage roughly twice the customer penetration of mobile banking (below), the last thing banks need is a reason for customers to be dissatisfied with their ATM experience. In my opinion, that’s a more compelling rational for investment than some vein attempt to bolster mobile wallet adoption.

US P12M Channel Usage 2014Source: Consumers and Mobile Financial Services 2015, U.S. Federal Reserve, March 2015

In the article, one banker summed up the challenge associated with mobile cash access this way: “We found the biggest struggle is explaining what it is and the benefit it offers.” If the biggest struggle is communicating a compelling value proposition, then maybe the value proposition isn’t compelling. I don’t think it is – at least not yet. Please don’t misunderstand, I think cardless cash ATM access is a reasonable initiative, but not for the reason stated in the article. I applaud efforts to better integrate retail delivery channels, and ATM cash access is a baby step in that direction. Combine cardless ATM access with other capabilities such as broader P2P payment mechanisms, geo-location and a merchant-funded rewards program, and mobile wallets begin to look compelling. Until then, banks have a bevy of higher priority initiatives to deliver in my opinion. But, even if my bank enabled cardless cash access, I still wouldn’t abandon my physical wallet. In the event of another tragic merlot mishap, traditional ATM cash access might be a real life-saver.

The paradox of digital payments

The paradox of digital payments
At Celent we run a couple of Banking research panels – one on Branch transformation and another on Digital – where any US-based bank or credit union can participate in surveys we administer on a regular basis. Last week we published the report with findings of our survey we conducted in November 2015 on Digital Payments. 42 institutions participated and answered our questions on:
  • How important are digital payments in the context of other priorities?
  • What has been the industry’s experience with digital payments?
  • Where is the industry in its EMV migration journey?
The survey results highlighted the paradox of digital payments:
  • Nearly everyone thinks that digital payments are important, but only 13% view it as strategic priority, aim to lead and invest accordingly. 63% aim to be fast followers and another 23% only invest to stay on par with peers.
  • 71% of participants agree that financial institutions (FIs) should offer branded digital payments (e.g. own digital wallet), but they are more likely to participate in third party wallets, such as Apple Pay, Android Pay and others, than to invest into their own HCE wallets – 46% have no plans for HCE.
So, what should the FIs do in digital payments? Accept that “payments are disappearing” and focus on ensuring that their payment credentials are available for customers to use wherever they want them or fight back with their own branded wallets? Does it have to be an “either/ or” choice? Can they/ should they do both? What are your thoughts? P.S. Our panels are open to any FI in the US – Celent clients and non-clients – and we share the results report with all respondents. If you’re a banker and would like to participate in future Digital Panels, please contact info@celent.com.

Banks and Fintech: friends or foes?

Banks and Fintech: friends or foes?
The question in the title of this post has become a rather hot topic lately. Earlier this week, I was kindly invited to join the panel on “what’s hot in Fintech” at Citi’s Digital Money Symposium, and it was one of the central questions we debated as a group. My colleague Stephen Greer has also discussed Bank-Fintech relationships on these very pages, for example, see here and here. The question is not necessarily new. Back in 2011, I wrote a report titled Innovative Payment Startups: Bank Friends or Foes? In the report, I looked at companies presenting at the inaugural FinovateEurope and concluded:
“Banks have little to fear from this particular group of payment innovators. Some solutions actively support the established payment systems, in particular cards. Others are expanding the market by enabling payment transactions in places where they may not have been possible before.”
There is no question that the pace of innovation has increased in the last five years since that quote. However, today we also have many startups and Fintech companies that are actively serving banks with their technology tools (from authentication and fraud management to back- and middle-office systems). Others, such as Apple partner with banks to develop propositions that “wrap around” a card transaction. In the last few months, we have also noticed an increase in stories around collaboration between banks and Fintech. Most payment unicorns (private companies with valuation of over $1bn) achieved their impressive scale and valuations mainly by competing with banks in a specific niche and focusing on being the best in class in that area. Often, it is in merchant services, such as those provided by the likes of Stripe, Adyen, Square, and Klarna, while TransferWise is successfully attacking banks in the international payments market. Yet, even among the unicorns there are those that have chosen to partner with banks, such as iZettle which has partnerships with Nordea, Santander, and other banks in Europe. TransferWise, a unicorn that has long been positioning as an alternative to banks, is now partnering with LHV, an Estonian bank, to offer its service via the bank’s online and mobile channels, and is rumoured to be in discussions with “up to 20 banks” about adopting its API. The Wall Street Journal recently quoted Ben Milne, the CEO of Dwolla, as saying, “Time humbles you. Working with banks is the difference between running a sustainable business and just another venture-funded experiment.” It has become fashionable to pronounce the death of banking. The disruption caused by Fintech is supposed to blow the old-fashioned banks out of the water. Of course, we acknowledge the disruption and recognise that banking is changing. We simply don’t agree that banks will disappear — at least not all of them:
  1. Today’s smartest banks will figure out a way to stay relevant for their customers.
  2. Some of today’s disruptors are becoming banks (e.g. Atom, Mondo, Starling in the UK)
  3. Both Fintech and banks are starting to acknowledge the value they each bring to the relationship and will learn to collaborate effectively.
My colleague Gareth Lodge and I have just published a series of reports on reimagining payments relationships between banks, retailers and Fintech. Commissioned by ACI Worldwide, the reports take a perspective of each party and explore this topic in a lot more detail. Just like a family is locked into a set of relationships, banks, retailers, and FinTech form a payment ecosystem that we believe is more symbiotic than many would want to admit.

Corporate digital delivery channels and the customer experience

Corporate digital delivery channels and the customer experience

Celent feels (and others agree) that it’s important that banks deliver an omnichannel digital customer experience, but the term means different things to different people. Based on our own research, we believe that omnichannel is about delivering a customized but consistent financial institution brand experience to customers across all channels and points of interaction.

An omnichannel experience is even more critical when delivering services to corporate clients. Each client has a unique set of business and technology requirements based on their corporate treasury organizational structure, geographic footprint, and treasury technology sophistication. A consistent financial institution brand experience is important to corporate clients, but the experience needs to be tailored to each client segment’s unique needs. For the largest, most complex organizations, an even more bespoke and customized experience is critical.

With banks investing increasing amounts of capital in technology incubators and startup accelerators, the pace of innovation in digital channels continues to grow. But for corporate clients, innovation isn’t about incubators, accelerators, or hackathons. Innovation is about simplification — increasing usability, straight-through processing, and digitization. As outlined in the new Celent report, Tailoring the Customer Experience: External Forces Impacting Corporate Digital Channels, the competitive environment, regulatory climate, economic conditions, and technology impacts are shaping the evolution of corporate digital channels. But emerging technologies will have the largest impact. External Forces Corporate digital channels are just one component of a complex treasury technology landscape, but a critical one. Corporates maximizing the efficiency and transparency of digital channels today are enabling and preparing themselves for innovative technologies for the future.

Silicon Valley? No, Chilecon Valley

Silicon Valley? No, Chilecon Valley
In previous blog posts regarding fintech in Latin America my position was, and remains, that one of the reasons for being behind is that it lacks of a “Silicon Valley” equivalent. Efforts to create a fintech ecosystem, as Finnovista is doing, become a good alternative to overcome the absence of a geographical pocket of innovation. Particularly consider the market fragmentation of Latin America comprised by 19 countries, some of which have 3M inhabitants to Brazil having +200M. People in most countries may speak the same language but markets are far from being similar just for that. Under (or against?) these circumstances, Chile is working to become Latin America’s Silicon Valley. One of its most attractive initiatives is “Start-Up Chile”, created four years ago to transform the Chilean entrepreneurial ecosystem. It began with a question: “What would happen if we could bring the best and brightest entrepreneurs from all around the globe and insert them into the local ecosystem?” The initiative offers work visas, financial support, and an extensive network of global contacts to help build and accelerate growth of customer-validated and scalable companies that will leave a lasting impact on the Latin American ecosystem. The idea is to make the country a focal point for innovation and entrepreneurship within the region. Start-up Chile, with only four years, is a start-up itself but it has a good starting point and great potential:
  • Chile has demonstrated for years its entrepreneurial spirit, with Chilean companies competing successfully in various industries (air transportation, financial services, and retail, just to mention a few) and a stable economy.
  • This year two Chilean start-ups were the winners of the BBVA Open Talent in Latin America: Destacame.cl, aiming to financial inclusion by creating a credit scoring based on utility payments; and Bitnexo which enables fast, easy and low cost transfers between Asia and Latin America, using Bitcoin.
While other countries and cities in the region are working in offering support to start-ups, it seems Chile is leading the way. Hopefully this triggers some healthy competition in the region, which in the end will benefit all. In the meantime, let’s meet at Finnosummit in Bogota – Colombia next February 16th. Join financial institutions, consultants, tech vendors, startups and other digital ecosystem innovators, to learn how startup driven disruption and new technologies are reshaping the future of financial services in the region. Remember to use Celent’s discount code C3L3NT20% for a 20% discount on your conference ticket.  

Reports of small business lending’s death are greatly exaggerated

Reports of small business lending’s death are greatly exaggerated

I’ve spent much of my career in and around the financial services sector focused on small business banking. In the US, small business customers get bounced around like Goldilocks—they are too small to be of interest to commercial relationship managers and too complex to be easily understood by retail branch staff.

I applaud those banks that make a concerted effort to meet the financial needs of small businesses. After all, in the United States small businesses comprise 99.7% of all firms. (According to the US Census Bureau, a small business is a firm with less than 500 employees). In general, larger small businesses are better served as they use more banking products and generate more interest income and fee revenue than smaller small businesses. The lack of “just right” solutions for many small business financial problems has been a golden opportunity for FinTech firms.

In the FinTech space, much of the focus is on consumer-oriented solutions like Mint for financial management, Venmo for P2P payments, and Prosper for social lending. But FinTech companies figured out early on that small businesses weren’t getting the attention they deserved from traditional banks. Many of the top FinTech companies—Square for card acceptance, Stripe for e-commerce, and Kabbage for business loans, have gained prominence serving primarily small businesses.

Online small business lending by direct credit providers has especially taken off. Disruptors like Kabbage, OnDeck, and Lendio were quickly followed by more traditional players like PayPal, UPS, and Staples. Morgan Stanley reports that US small business direct lending grew to around $7.5B in 2014 and projects expansion to $35B by 2020. They also maintain that most of this growth is market expansion, not cannibalization of bank volumes. This makes sense—direct lenders usually attract borrowers that can’t get bank loans and charge accordingly. For example, Kabbage averages 19% interest for short term loans and 30% annually for long term loans. According to the Federal Reserve, the average interest rate for a small business bank loan (less than $100k) in August 2015 was 3.7% and current SBA loan rates range from 3.43% to 4.25%.

And that common wisdom that US banks have pulled back from small business lending? Let’s take a look at data compiled by the FDIC starting in 2010.

Small Business C&I Loans The overall volume of small business loans increased year-over-year from 2010 to June 2015, with a CAGR of approximately 3%. The total dollar value of small business loans outstanding dipped slightly in 2011 and 2012, reflecting slightly smaller loan amounts, a result of tighter lending standards. The facts are that US small business loan volume and dollar value outstanding are at their highest levels since the FDIC began collecting this data from banks. And by the way, there are almost 2,200 fewer banks in the US today than prior to Lehman’s collapse in 2008. Banks are happy to work with credit-worthy small businesses to meet their working capital needs. And direct lenders are happy to work with everyone else—-a win-win for all.

Helping build the fintech ecosystem in Latin America

Helping build the fintech ecosystem in Latin America
A few weeks ago, Dan Latimore and I had the chance to attend Finnosummit in Mexico City. IMG_1341 While Dan was the one really working (he presented on “How Big Data can change Financial Services”) I mingled around the participants of this vibrant ecosystem encompassing entrepreneurs, financial institutions, investors, and regulators among other stakeholders. It is amazing how the ecosystem continues to grow and how fintech start-ups are booming.IMG_1349         Celent has been collaborating to help create the fintech ecosystem in the Latin American region since its inception and I had the honor, for 2nd time, to judge the fintech start-ups participating in the BBVA Open Talent, which brought the Latin American finalists into town as part of Finnosummit. They had their 5 minutes of glory (or suffering) by pitching their venture to the audience and two winners were selected at the end of the day. Discover the finalists of all regions here. In Latin America two chilean start-ups were the winners: Destacame.cl, aiming to financial inclusion by creating a credit scoring based on utility payments; and Bitnexo which enables fast, easy and low cost transfers between Asia and Latin America, using Bitcoin. In the US & RoW the two winners were: ModernLend enables users with no credit profile to create one in just 6 months by using alternate metrics; and LendingFront which facilitates short term commercial lending through a simple platform. In Europa the winners were Everledger, specialized in anti-fraud technology for financial services and insurance; and Origin an electronic platform that facilitates bond issuing in the capital markets. Many fintech startups that made it to the finals focus on Blockchain technology and payments. These seem to be the areas of major investment for the last two years. If you are interested in these themes I suggest that you follow my colleagues John Dwyer, Zilvinas Bareisis and Gareth Lodge. Coming back to Dan’s presentation, he made a very interesting observation around the need to move from the old paradigm (Customer response optimization) to a new paradigm (Anticipate and shape customer intent) based on the use of big data and analytics, but also warning that disruptors are out there applying the new paradigm today. If you want to get deeper into any of the subjects covered here, please let me know. By the way, is there any fintech start-up you believe has great potential? Share with us please!

The importance of customer experience in financial services

The importance of customer experience in financial services
Service Design. Journey Maps. Customer Stories. Mood Boards. Experience Recovery. These are a handful of the topics discussed at this week’s Customer Experience for Financial Services (CXFS) Conference, organized by Worldwide Business Research in Charlotte, NC. As an analyst currently immersed in research on corporate banking financial performance, regulatory environment, economic conditions, business demographics, and financial technology, the CXFS event was a welcome change of scenery.
Journey Mapping

Journey Mapping

The CXFS conference was all about the “voice of the customer” (VoC) and how financial institutions (FIs) can improve their customer “listening” skills. One of the sessions mentioned that FIs are listening to anywhere from four to ten channels including web site, call center, e-mail, Internet, customer surveys and social media. But as one presenter stated, having more VoC channels doesn’t automatically result in a better customer experience. For example, in recent years many global banks fully integrated their major lines of business with product, operations and technology grouped organized under one segment leader. These integrated groups have created silos which create a highly verticalized client experience (CX), preventing consistency across a firm. Event attendees were encouraged to “climb over the silos and create a collective story to make things change”. Customer experience strategy and technology have gone a long way since I was involved in online banking user interface design in the early 2000s. Technology providers at the event are enabling banks to digitize and tag unstructured data such as call center recordings, agent notes, e-mails, and social media posts. This enables firms to mine and analyze the data to inform customer-centric innovation. Other firms specialized in market research including voice of the customer and voice of the employee surveys. Customer experience consultants are helping firms to understand how customers are thinking, feeling, seeing, saying doing and hearing so that people, processes, products and technology can be improved. The event featured discussions on how to build CX into people, processes and products by creating centralized information stores, centers of excellence, customer councils, and shared KPIs. Most of the FIs at CXFS were early in their customer experience journey and still working out a comprehensive solution. My favorite quote of the event was advice from Ingrid Lindberg, CXO of ChiefCustomer.com: “Have the patience of a saint, the heart of a lion, and the tenacity of a street fighter because it is one giant game of Whack-a-Mole.”