- Constraints on capital and liquidity
- Cost of compliance
- Changing client expectations
- Competition from new entrants
This week I’m in Singapore, which provides a beautiful backdrop for Sibos 2015, the annual conference that brings together thousands of business leaders, decision makers and topic experts from a range of financial institutions, market infrastructures, multinational corporations and technology partners.
This year’s conference theme is connect, debate and collaborate and takes place at a time of increasing headwinds from a slowing global economy, higher compliance costs, increasingly global corporates, and competition from both banks and nonbanks alike. I spent the past few months taking a deep dive into corporate banking performance over the past 10 years–a period of both tremendous growth and unprecedented upheaval. As expected, corporate banking operating income and customer deposit balances have experienced healthy growth rates over the past 10 years. But surprisingly, despite increases in customer deposits, corporate banking income was largely stagnant over the past few years.
Corporate banking plays a dominant role for the largest global banks. In 2014, corporate banking was responsible for 33% of overall operating income and 38% of customer deposits across the 20 banks included in this analysis.
As outlined in the new Celent report, Corporate Banking: Driving Growth in the Face of Increasing Headwinds, this critical banking sector is shaped by four external forces: economic conditions, the regulatory environment, business demographics, and financial technology. These same factors are slowing corporate banking growth and creating an environment in which banks are overhauling client offerings in the face of regulatory pressure, re-evaluating geographic footprints in response to shifting trade flows, and investing in technologies to ensure a consistent, integrated customer experience.
Much of the discussion at Sibos is on exploring transformation in the face of disruption. As they look to an unsettled future, corporate banks that are flexible, adaptable, and creative will be the ones that succeed. Changing time-tested ways of doing business is painful, but critical for future success.
- The fact that no clear conclusions could be reached yet, and that the sample size achieved was only 50% of the initial target highlights, either just how hard this is to do and/or, actually it’s much closer than they thought. For example, if one payment type had substantially more costly than another it’d surely have been highlighted
- The low response rate and the bias to large merchants is likely to leave the survey open to criticism
- More detail is required to give comfort – for example, the cost seems to suggest some significant missing costs (such as CIT fees, bank cash handling fees, etc)
Competition in the banking sector
1.157 …..The Government demonstrated this commitment by asking the Independent Commission on Banking (ICB) to consider competition as part of its remit. Having accepted the competition recommendations of the ICB in full, the Government is currently delivering an extensive programme of reform. ……:
• that the Government will shortly issue a consultation document on bringing payment systems into a competition-focused regulatory regime. The regulator will have strong powers to ensure that challenger banks have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field with their larger competitors by requiring that challengers can access the payments infrastructure fairly and transparently. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, the Government intends to legislate for the new regime in the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill;Some points to note. The first statement is misleading. Whilst it did accept the recommendations in full, the Treasury also seems to be including things that weren’t recommended – the ICB report clearly states that did not find evidence that access to the payment systems was a barrier to entry, nor did the report recommend a PayCom – the emphasis below are mine, not the reports:
“In its interim report, the ICB raised possible concerns about the ability of small banks to access the payment systems. It said there was some evidence to suggest that the ability of banks to access the payment systems through incumbents, and the ability of the Payments Council to maintain a level playing field in payments, were not conducive to a competitive market.
However, the evidence was not clear-cut, and this was not raised as a substantial barrier by most new entrants. Therefore, the ICB did not make recommendations in this area, beyond suggesting that the Bank of England, in collaboration with the FCA and OFT, should monitor access to the payment systems and the effectiveness of the Payments Council in providing adequate governance to ensure innovation and competition.
The Government believes that more needs to be done to bring the Payments Council within the scope of financial regulation, taking into account the relationship between the Payments Council, its members and inter-bank payment systems. The Government is therefore developing a number of options for potential reforms. HM Treasury will publish a consultation on the options, including options for creating a new regulatory structure for the Payments Council and the inter-bank payments regime, taking into account the need to preserve the stability and integrity of payment systems; enhance open competition by reducing barriers to entry; promote innovation; and reflect the needs of end users, as well as the needs of payment service providers.
The consultation will take place early in 2012.”The ICB was very clear – it was the Government not they who believe that the Payments Council should be brought into the scope of regulation. And during my time working for one of the UK payment schemes, we had more enquiries about leaving the scheme, than joining (2 versus 1 if memory serves correct). So what does this mean? I am not suggesting a review is a bad thing, nor even that PayCom itself is a bad thing. Unless the industry reflects on what it does well and what it doesn’t well, it cannot ensure that it fixes what needs fixing and preserve what doesn’t. And that’s my fundamental issue. The Government has prescribed the medicine, ignoring the advice of the specialist it had appointed (i.e. the ICB, the Cruickshank report, the OFT and it’s latest consultation), and is about to forcibly administer it yet has neither articulated the diagnosis nor listened to the symptoms. PayCom cannot ever succeed unless it is clear what it is trying to achieve, why it seeks to achieve those goals, and what the measures of success are. We can only hope that the forthcoming consultation provides some reassurance.