Mobile banking adoption growth is slower than you think

In March of this year the Federal Reserve released the newest iteration of its consumer survey report on mobile banking, Consumers and Mobile Financial Services 2016. One fact that sticks out is how slow mobile banking adoption has been over the last few years.  While 53% of smartphone users have used mobile banking in the last 12 months (nowhere near “active”), that number has only grown 3 points since 2012, a CAGR of just 1.9%! This is hardly the unrelentingly rapid pace of change espoused by many who thought evolving customer behavior would overwhelm traditional banks’ ability to adapt.

1

Obviously there’s a disconnect between the hype surrounding mobile banking and the reality of how consumers are actually interacting with financial institutions.  But why then have forecasted rates of adoption not been realized?  There are a few possibilities.

  1. Mobile banking is reaching peak adoption: In the consumer survey by the Fed, 86% of respondents who didn’t use mobile banking said that their banking needs were being met without it.  73% said they saw no reason to use it. While the idea that mobile banking adoption would peak at around 50% doesn’t intuitively make sense for those in the industry, it’s obvious that many consumers are perfectly fine interacting with their bank solely through online banking, ATMs, or branches; they may never become mobile users.
  2. Mobile banking apps need improvement: It’s likely that many mobile banking apps still aren’t mature enough to ease some of the UX friction and convince a large portion of consumers that they provide sufficient value. In the same Fed survey, 39% said the mobile screen is too small to bank, while 20% said apps were too difficult to use.  With three-fourths of non-using respondents (mentioned in the previous bullet) finding no reason to use mobile banking, apps may need to improve functionality and usability to attract end users.  The correlation between features offered and mobile consumer adoption is also well established. Mobile banking apps may have reached an adoption peak relative to their maturity, and institutions will likely see adoption grow as apps advance and as demographics increase usage.
  3. Channel use is a lot stickier than perceived: Consumers are still consistently using the branch.  The two figures below illustrate what’s happening. The first graph comes from the Federal Reserve report on mobile banking usage, while the second is taken from the Celent branch channel panel survey taken of more than 30 different midsize to large banks.  On average, 84% of consumers surveyed by the Fed report using a branch, while respondents of Celent’s survey see 83% of DDA/savings accounts and 79% of non-mortgage lending products originated from the branch channel.  Mobile only has a 2% share of total sales.  While many institutions find it difficult to attribute sales across multiple channels and have a well-known historical bias towards branch banking, these stats don’t support the notion that consumers are migrating away from the branch and towards mobile banking.  We’re aware these numbers don’t take into account transaction migration, and likely the sales mix will shift as more banks launch mobile origination solutions, but regardless, it’s obvious the branch is still the most used channel by far.

 

Capture2 Capture3

Mobile banking isn’t taking over the financial lives of consumers as much as institutions and many analysts predicted it would, and at least for now is settling into a position alongside other interaction points. Consumers are clearly opting to use channels interchangeably, and it’s not obvious that mobile will have any predominance in the next few years.   As a result, banks need to move away from arbitrary goals surrounding channel migration and instead let the consumer decide what works best for them.  This certainly doesn’t imply that institutions should stop developing mobile—there’s clearly lots of areas for improvement—but it’s important to not get swept up in the hype surrounding emerging channels.

Remember, more than 60% of FI customers aren’t enrolled in mobile banking, and it accounts for only 2% of sales. Focusing so intently on capturing such a larger share of mobile-first or mobile-only consumers risks misaligning bank resources towards projects that don’t offer the maximum value. Banks shouldn’t be rushing into things—they’ve got time to do this right and in an integrated way.

Financial institutions need a mobile strategy for younger consumers who will most certainly prefer mobile, but older consumers aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. Mobile, at least for now, isn’t the end-state. Mobile-only banks aren’t going to take over the world anytime soon and institutions should be considering the broader proposition of digital in the organization. ​​​​This means a solid digital strategy across all channels, and a focus on driving the experience, not pure adoption.

Why are credit unions changing vendors at a higher rate than banks?

Credit unions are almost twice as likely to change vendors as banks, with competitive churn rates of 7.6% compared to 2.7% for banks.  Churn Rate measures the number of institutions in a given time period that either change or drop a vendor contract.  Churn is broken down into two components: competitive churn, which measures the rate at which institutions are opting to change vendors, and consolidation churn, which measures uncontrollable factors like acquisitions or liquidations. The figure below (powered using data from FI Navigator) references total churn for the year ending March 31st, 2016.

FINPic

The figure reveals significant differences in churn between banks and credit unions.  But why is this difference so large? There are two possible drivers:

  1. Customer centricity: A focus on the customer could be a driver for higher churn. Banks and credit unions operate differently, and Celent has explored the variations in blogs and publications.  The mission statement of the credit union market has historically revolved around extreme customer centricity.  Over the last decade, mobile has become a critical component in quality customer service.  Emphasizing the needs of the customer could be driving credit unions to take more concerted efforts to maximize mobile/ digital, exploring competitive options more frequently than banks. Credit unions are low margin businesses that often give higher interest rates for products like auto-loans or deposit accounts through non-profit tax breaks.  Being member-owned, most of the smaller profits also go back into the business.  This creates a natural incentive to streamline the back-office, and credit unions have adopted cost effective technologies at higher rates. Thin margins combined with a focus on customer service could mean credit unions are more likely to evaluate provider options more frequently.
  2. Solution providers: Another perspective is that it’s the vendor market, not the CUs that are driving the churn. The vendor spectrum for credit unions in the US is much more diverse, with 43 vendors compared to 22 selling to banks.   This would reinforce the argument that competitive dynamics are more intense, and it would be reflected in sales cycles. With cost pressures that originate from their smaller size and lower margins, credit unions are more likely to look for alternative ways to provide products and services, leveraging mechanisms like Credit Union Service Organizations (CUSOs) to enhance the business.  Other similar joint ventures leverage cooperative arrangements to develop homegrown software products.  Consortiums not present in the banking market would introduce more competitors into the market, and as a result impact competitive dynamics.

Credit unions skew much smaller than banks (the mean credit union asset size is  $200 million vs. banks with around $2.5 billion), leading to a noticeably higher consolidated churn. Celent examined the pressures on credit unions here. As minimum viable institution size continues to get bigger, smaller institutions will be challenged to stay afloat. Vendors will face the risk that their customers are becoming targets for M&A activity resulting in more vendors competing for a shrinking demographic.

Credit unions need to think about how to best streamline their operations to remain viable.  This includes a mix of cost-effective customer service technologies like mobile banking.  Vendors need to have a better understanding of the competitive landscape into which they sell, as competition is intense.  Better data and detailed benchmarks can help vendors plan their strategy.

Celent is collaborating with FI Navigator to analyze the mobile banking market in financial services (in fact, FI Navigator wrote a great piece about credit unions and banks last year).  FI Navigator assembled a platform that leverages a proprietary algorithm to track every financial institution offering mobile in the US, as well as nearly 50 vendors.  Beginning with the first report at the end of April, Celent will be releasing a biannual examination of the mobile market. FI Navigator will also be making the platform available for further custom reporting and data analysis.  For more information on the nature of the collaboration and availability of data, go here.

I hate being wrong: A precise look at mRDC adoption in the US

Nobody likes being wrong. I’m no exception.

Sometimes it’s not so much being wrong as much as being inaccurate. Here’s an example of where my best-effort estimates have been a bit off.

Mobile RDC (mRDC) has been a fairly hot topic and a mobile banking capability that has gained rapid and widespread adoption among US banks. But how rapid and how widespread? I’ve taken a stab at answering these and other questions over the past few years. Relying on a combination of financial institution surveys and RFI responses from the leading vendors, Celent has published comprehensive annual reports on the evolving state of remote deposit capture, including mRDC.

Back to the question…

Since empirical methods would be tedious and time consuming, I created estimates of mRDC bank adoption annually based on vendor-reported client base and implementation backlogs. It turns out that two of my last three annual estimates weren’t all that accurate. How do I know?

Last month, FI Navigator and Celent announced a collaboration to publish the industry’s most comprehensive report detailing mobile banking offerings on the more than 6,000 U.S. financial institutions that offer mobile banking and more than 50 vendor providers.

The report, Mobile Banking Quantified – Comprehensive Benchmarks for US Vendors & Institutions, will be available for download in late April 2016. The research leverages FI Navigator’s mobile banking data and analytics module, along with Celent’s industry research methodologies, to provide vendor and institution performance standards from nearly three years of month-to-month historical data.

Look at how my historical annual estimates compare to the more accurate FI Navigator data since mid-2013.

mRDC History

Back in 2013, vendors were implementing as quickly as they could. In aggregate, vendors reported over 700 banks and credit unions were under contract, but not implemented. It turns out that implementations proceeded faster than I thought, as my year-end estimate was 40% low! I did better in 2014, but estimated 9% high in 2015.

I look forward to the extraordinary precision and depth of insight Celent’s relationship with FI Navigator will bring the industry. For more information on the report and additional offerings, please go to http://discover.celent.com/FIN-Mobile.

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?

Mobile in the time of digital

Bank of America recently announced that it would triple spending on its mobile app. While no exact dollar amount was given, it made me wonder: what exactly does that entail? In the past, Celent has praised the Bank of America mobile banking apps as some of the best out there. The bank has been going strong with its digital strategy for years, even closing branches and reducing overhead to drive adoption. Bank of America recently added features like touch ID, debit card toggling, two-way fraud alerts, and more to its app, and has been outspoken about the desire to personalize the digital experience. Its commitment to new features and functionality is reflected in the comments and ratings on iTunes and Google Play. Shown in the graph below, the bank´s mobile banking adoption has been steadily growing, with a growing share of deposits. Pictureforblog                     Source: BofA Annual Reports/ Investor Presentations So again: what does “tripling” mean when talking about an app that has obviously been well-funded for quite some time? As digital assumes a larger role with the business, the funding required to build a digital customer experience will extend beyond the reaches of mobile. The capabilities many consumers demand can be difficult if not impossible without significant effort on the backend to align technology. Banks are starting to realize this, building out unified digital platforms that streamline the architecture and better position institutions to offer truly modern, data-driven, and value-added consumer experiences. These kinds of initiatives can often run in tandem with larger cultural and multi-channel efforts. In the press release for the announcement, Bank of America said it was launching a digital ambassador initiative which, similar to the Barclays Digital Eagles program, will see front-line branch staff reskilled to be able to assist with digital channels. The bank is also launching cardless ATMs later this year. I´m assuming the coincidence of these announcements is anything but, and that the funds for “mobile” will largely be dispersed over (or fit into) a wider array of strategic digital initiatives. Institutions need to create a solid digital base within the institution, bringing in culture, personnel, and technology across all channels and lines of business to start transforming digitally. Banks are being challenged by the notion of “becoming digital.” Many have reached the point of recognizing the inevitable digitization of the business model, and are in the throes of decision making that will determine how equipped they are to appeal to the new digital consumer. Most institutions are experiencing these growing pains, and very few have committed to digital at the level demanded by customers. If Bank of America is indeed tripling its budget just for mobile, then I´ll be very interested to see the kind of features the bank develops over the next few years. Yet there´s a lot that goes on to make the front end look good and spending more on the front will mean more spending on the back. Mobile banking is a significant part of digital banking, but remember that it’s only ONE part. While new functionality gets the headlines, it’s what’s under the hood – culture and backend – that truly matters.

Is the tablet banking honeymoon over?

Only a couple years ago, as mobile banking was growing rapidly, and the conversation around development strategies was at its height, tablets played a prominent role in channel strategies at the largest and most digitally mature institutions. The consumer interest in tablets over the last year or two, however, has plateaued—even waned. Tablet is nowhere near dead, but sales have started to level off. According to ABI Research, tablet sales experienced a 19% YoY decline in growth from 2014-2015. There are a few reasons for this:
  • Tablets have low replacement cycles: Tablets aren´t being recycled at nearly the rate of phones. Partially this has to do with wear and tear—tablets typically sit at home, aren´t charged as often, and aren´t dropped nearly as much—but likely a bigger reason is the lack of major advancements in hardware.   There simply hasn’t been a new tablet feature in the last couple years for which consumers are choosing to shell out another $400-600 (or more).
  • Phablets have taken over as the preferred device: consumers are increasingly going for phones that can provide the screen space of a tablet with the mobility of a smartphone. Phones have been steadily growing in size to meet this need. Phablets can provide the processing power to accommodate the needs of consumers for less.
  • Tablets haven´t carved out a distinct enough use case: It´s still unclear to what extent tablets are devices of leisure, business, lifestyle, etc. There´s the Surface 4 and others that are starting to seriously go after the laptop market with a full operating system and keyboard, but the best-selling tablets on amazon are all those with small screens and cheap price tags.
Celent´s discussions with banks have largely echoed this change, moving to a broader understanding of digital strategy and what it means to be “mobile.” It´s not that tablets aren´t important—far from it—but banks have limited resources dedicated to digital channels, and institutions should be thinking about prioritizing development where the opportunity is highest. A recent Celent report on digital transformation showed that more than 65% of banks cite resources and availability as a barrier to digital maturity. So what’s a financial institution to make of all this?
  1. Use responsive design: A bank may have been able to manage native apps when there were only a handful of devices, but that´s no longer the case. Responsive design has evolved to the point of being able to provide the same look and feel through an experience automatically tailored to the user´s device.
  2. Think about the consumer-facing branch tablet: This could be roaming personnel in the branch, tablet-like ATMs and kiosks, or as a way to streamline the on-boarding process.   The characteristics of tablet interfaces should influence design in other channels.
  3. Design the right app if large tablets are going to continue to be a priority: As the form and function of smartphones and tablets begin to move closer together, institutions will have to reassess where the full tablet experience sits within its strategic digital priorities. The consumer-facing tablet experience may need to reflect the evolving use case.
Celent will continue to discuss the role of tablets in financial services going forward, but the conversation around mobile banking will reflect the larger digital channels picture, rather than tablet vs smartphone vs. online banking. We feel this is more in line with the way the market is moving.

You can lead a horse to water…

A story on Finextra this week caught my eye. It’s a survey carried out by YouGov on behalf of ACI Worldwide, with these headline stats. Of 2000 UK adults, the survey found that:
  • 88% have no intention of switching bank accounts within the next 12 months.
  • 82% never use mobile payment services such as PayM or PingIT during an average month,
  • 59% never use mobile banking within this same time frame.
It struck me that you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t necessarily make it drink. Or rather, becoming digital doesn’t mean your clients will be. The first bullet has been extensively discussed in previous blogs. Consumers perceive no value in swapping, with a view that banks pretty much offer the same thing. The second bullet for me, is actually surprisingly high. PingIT is not yet 4 years old and PayM not even 3 years old, making an 18% “market share” pretty impressive. It’s also for one-off payments primarily, usually P2P, and given how (relatively) few transactions of those take place each month, it’s even more impressive. The last bullet to me is the most interesting, and perhaps is a reflection of the UK market as much as anything. Given my job, I suspect it’ll come as a surprise to some that I am in that 59% – I don’t use mobile banking, and nor do I necessarily have plans to. There are a few reasons. In the UK, Direct Debit rules. 71% of household bills are paid by Direct Debit, with an average household having 7 direct debits. Therefore, the same transactions happen the same way every month at the same time. This means I have to only actively make a few payments a month, which typically fall at the same time every month. The rest of my spending is primarily on my credit card – which isn’t issued by my bank. Another theme from previous blogs is that consumers typically hold their financial products across a range of banks – as a result, the mobile banking app will never tell me my financial position. I rarely even use my card providers app either – with the alerts I’ve set up, I get a text when I near the limits I set. As a result, there is little need then to check my spending on the app. But perhaps the most simple reason is that the UK has had mobile banking for over a decade. And whilst it is good to be cutting edge, equally consumers will give up quickly on something if it doesn’t work or value from day 1. And if you’d try using WAP banking back in the day, or the app of even a few years ago, you too would be thinking there is little point. The light at the end of the tunnel hopefully is PSD2 and the XS2A (access to account) proposal. Perhaps finally a good software designer will think through the customer experience differently, will have access to all my accounts and be able to deliver something that is truly revolutionary. It will be fascinating to track what impact the PSD2 has.

Why banks should pay attention to “Assistant as an App”

Last week I had the pleasure of going to Finovate, a biannual event (at least in NA) where startups and established vendors show off their newest creations. My colleague Dan Latimore wrote an in-depth piece about it last week. It’s usually a good temperature read of where the market is and what banks are thinking about. PFM used to be hot, now it barely makes an appearance. Mobile account opening and on-boarding was massive. Each year you can count on a few presentations tackling customer communication, whether it´s customer service applications or advisory tools. While this year was no different, I didn´t see any presentations representing an emerging trend in mobile: assistant as an app. What is assistant as an app? Basically, it puts a thin UI between two humans: the customer and the service provider (e.g. retailer or bank). The UI layer enhances the interaction by allowing each party to push information back and forth, whether its text, pictures, data visualization, etc. There are a wide range of possibilities. Apps are already starting to incorporate this idea. For a monthly fee, Pana offerings a human personal travel assistant who will take care of any travel related need. The concierge books restaurants, hotels, rental cars, and flights, all via in-app communication. Pana Vida Health allows users to push dietary information to a health coach that can then send back health plans, ideas to diagnose health issues, or create a weight loss regimen. The dating app Grouper uses a concierge to coordinate group dates. EasilyDo is a personal assistant that can manage your contacts, check traffic, schedule flights, etc. The app Fetch uses SMS to let users ask the concierge to buy just about anything. For a small fee (sometimes free, subsidized by business or premium services) these companies provide value-added premium services to customers through a mobile device. The applicability for banks is obvious. Finances can be complicated; most people aren´t good at managing money, and according to Celent research, consumers still prefer to speak to a human for important money matters. Assistant as an app would offer institutions a clear path towards monetising the mobile channel, moving interactions away from the branch, and capturing a growing base of digitally-directed consumers. I predict this will be a major trend in financial services in the future. What do you think? Feel free to comment below.

Unbundling, Fidor, and the model for approaching financial startups

I´ve recently had multiple conversations with financial institutions about the trend of unbundling financial services by FinTech startups. In fact, it’s hard to discuss the future of the industry without touching on it. Articles from Tanay Jaipuria, Tech Crunch, and CBInsights speak openly about inexorable disruption. They all tell a fairly similar story. Unbundled products and services disintermediate financial institutions by improving on traditional offerings. Banks lose that value chain. Banks become a utility on the back end, essentially forced by the market to provide the necessary regulatory requirements and accounts for nonbank disruptors. With images like this (see below), it’s hard to argue that it isn’t happening—at least at some level. Unbundling-of-a-bank-V2 There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about the hype surrounding disruption by FinTech players (shallow revenue, small customer base, etc.), but even if only a few manage to become sizable competitors, that still represents a significant threat to banks´ existing revenue streams. There’s also data pointing to higher adoption in the future. A study from Ipsos MediaCT and LinkedIn showed that 55% of millennials and 67% of affluent millennials are open to using non-FS offerings for financial services. This number is surprisingly high, and the largest banks in the world are paying attention. The threat of losing the customer-facing side of the business is a legitimate risk that banks face over the next 5-10 years. But there´s a possible solution that could enable banks to remain relevant even as they begin to see some of their legacy products or services fall to new entrants: be more like Fidor Bank. Fidor Bank is a privately held neobank launched in Germany. It has a banking license and wants to transform the way financial institutions interact with their customers by creating a sense of community and openness. The bank views its platform, fidorOS, as a key differentiator that allows it to offer customers services from start-ups or new financial instruments. For example, it offers its customers Currency Cloud for foreign exchange as well as the ability to view Bitcoin through its platform. Going forward, it may make more sense for financial institutions to take this approach. Banks can´t be everything to their customers, and there´s a healthy stream of market entrants trying to chip away at the banking value chain. A middle way is that banks become an aggregator for popular nonbank FinTech offerings as they become popular. This would preserve the benefits of traditional bundling by aggregating offerings and re-bundling them alongside its home grown services. Some benefits include:
  • Maintain the consumer facing side of the business by letting customers access these service through your platform
  • Increase cross-selling and marketing opportunities
  • Preserve a convenient and frictionless experience by reducing the fragmentation of unbundling
These benefits would provide value to both the FI and the FinTech partner, and it´s not a new concept. Netflix is effectively an aggregator of content from a variety of production companies (along with creating great content of their own). The music industry has been offering bundled services for more than a decade. Banks are loath to forfeit parts of the business, but as other industries have seen, the longer they wait the more disruptive the change will be.

Biometrics: the next generation of corporate digital banking authentication

Corporate treasury departments initiate and approve millions of dollars in high-value payments on a daily basis. As an example, in May 2015 the average amount of a US Fedwire transfer was $5.7 million. Because of the dollar value of these transactions, banks were early adopters of enhanced authentication for corporate online banking applications. Many banks continue to offer one-time-password authentication (on top of traditional username and password) using RSA SecurID or Vasco DIGIPASS hardware tokens at both login and payment initiation. When Celent published its report “Corporate Mobile Banking Update: Adoption Conundrums and Security Realities” in September 2014, it highlighted alternatives to traditional two-factor authentication for corporate online and mobile banking applications. Alternative methods include voice, pattern and biometric authentication methods. As discussed in the Celent Banking Blog “Logging Into Your Bank in a Heartbeat”, several banks have rolled out Apple’s Touch ID fingerprint authentication technology for consumer online banking login authentication. However, as quickly demonstrated by clever hackers, Touch ID is vulnerable to various hacking methods. For this reason, banks are turning to more sophisticated biometric authentication methods for its corporate online and mobile banking applications. The focus remains on layered, multi-factor authentication, but combines authentication technologies in unusual and unique ways. Barclays Bank’s offering combines biometric and digital signature technology in an offering called “Barclays Biometric Reader.” To overcome limitations with traditional fingerprint scanners, Barclays is implementing Hitachi Europe’s Finger Vein Authentication Technology (VeinID) which reads and verifies the user’s unique finger vein patterns. The latest authentication announcement comes from Wells Fargo who is combining facial recognition with voice biometrics. Wells Fargo is working with SpeechPro to pilot the new bi-modal security solution (VoiceKey.OnePass) and fine-tune the biometric authentication features. The solution uses a standard smartphone microphone and camera to capture a facial image and voiceprint. Wells Fargo is also working on authentication using eye vein scanning (as opposed to typical retina scans). Biometrics New authentication technologies, from a slew of relative newcomers to the financial services space, could eventually replace traditional hardware tokens and eliminate multiple authentication hoops throughout the digital corporate banking experience. Watch this space.