What Banks Missed

It’s a classic case of a couple of upstarts upending the business of banking.

Increasingly familiar names such as Affirm Holdings, Afterpay Ltd. and Klarna Bank, as well as few household names such as PayPal Holdings, are busy taking credit card business away from banks by offering interest-free, installment loans at the point of sale.

Almost overnight, this type of lending has grown into a national phenomenon, starting with online merchants and then spreading throughout the industry, as Bank Director Managing Editor Kiah Haslett wrote about earlier this year.

C + R Research reports that of 2,005 online consumers, nearly half are making payments on some kind of buy now, pay later loan. More than half say they prefer that type of lending to credit cards, citing ease of payments, flexibility and lower interest rates as their top reasons why they prefer to buy, now pay later.

The amount of money flowing into the space is substantial. In August, Square announced that it would purchase Afterpay for $29 billion. Mastercard is trying to get into the game as well, announcing a deal in September to partner with multiple banks such as Barclays US, Fifth Third Bancorp and Huntington Bancshares to bring buy now, pay later to merchants.

Whatever your skepticism of the phenomenon may be, or your lack of interest in consumer lending, it’s clear that financial technology companies are chipping away at bank business models. This phenomenon begs the question: Why are fintech companies having such success when banks could have taken the opportunity but did not?

Banks have the data. They “know their customer” — both in the regulatory and relationship sense. Yet, they didn’t anticipate consumers’ interest or demand because they already had a product, and that product is called a credit or debit card.

Few companies cannibalize their business models by offering products that directly compete with existing products. But increasingly, I believe they should. Banks that don’t acknowledge the realities of today’s pressures are vulnerable to tomorrow’s innovation.

When we think about the business of banking today, I think about a glass half empty. It doesn’t mean we can’t put a little bit more water into it. But it does require an honest assessment of gaps in your current strategy and an assessment of the team you’d need — not necessarily the team you employ.

As I head into Bank Director’s Audit & Risk Committees Conference in Chicago this Monday through Wednesday, these are some of the themes on my mind. In some ways, having a glass half empty is sometimes the best thing for you.

It gives you the chance to do something positive to change it.

2021 Technology Survey Results: Tracking Spending and Strategy at America’s Banks

JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon recognizes the enormous competitive pressures facing the banking industry, particularly from big technology companies and emerging startups.

“The landscape is changing dramatically,” Dimon said at a June 2021 conference, where he described the bank’s growth strategy as “three yards and a cloud of dust” —  a phrase that described football coach Woody Hayes’ penchant for calling running plays that gain just a few yards at a time. Adding technology, along with bankers and branches, will drive revenues at Chase — and also costs. The megabank spends around $11 billion a year on technology. Products recently launched include a digital investing app in 2019, and a buy now, pay later installment loan called “My Chase Plan” in November 2020. It’s also invested in more than 100 fintech companies.

“We think we have [a] huge competitive advantage,” Dimon said, “and huge competition … way beyond anything the banks have seen in the last 50 [to] 75 years.”

Community banks’ spending on technology won’t get within field-goal distance of JPMorgan Chase’s technology spend, but budgets are rising. More than three-quarters of the executives and board members responding to Bank Director’s 2021 Technology Survey, sponsored by CDW, say their technology budget for fiscal year 2021 increased from 2020, at a median of 10%. The survey, conducted in June and July, explores how banks with less than $100 billion in assets leverage their technology investment to respond to competitive threats, along with the adoption of specific technologies.

Those surveyed budgeted an overall median of almost $1.7 million in FY 2021 for technology, which works out to 1% of assets, according to respondents. A median 40% of that budget goes to core systems.

However, smaller banks with less than $500 million in assets are spending more, at a median of 3% of assets. Further, larger banks with more than $1 billion in assets spend more on expertise, in the form of internal staffing and managed services — indicating a widening expertise gap for community banks.

Key Findings

Competitive Concerns
Despite rising competition outside the traditional banking sphere — including digital payment providers such as Square, which launched a small business banking suite shortly after the survey closed in July — respondents say they consider local banks and credit unions (54%), and/or large and superregional banks (45%), to be the greatest competitive threats to their bank.

Digital Evolution Continues
Fifty-four percent of respondents believe their customers prefer to interact through digital channels, compared to 41% who believe their clients prefer face-to-face interactions. Banks continued to ramp up their digital capabilities in the third and fourth quarters of last year and into the first half of 2021, with 41% upgrading or implementing digital deposit account opening, and 30% already offering this capability. More than a third upgraded or implemented digital loan applications, and 27% already had this option in place.

Data Dilemma
One-third upgraded or implemented data analytics capabilities at their bank over the past four quarters, and another third say these capabilities were already in place. However, when asked about their bank’s internal technology expertise, more than half say they’re concerned the bank isn’t effectively using and/or aggregating its data. Less than 20% have a chief data officer on staff, and just 13% employ data scientists.

Cryptocurrency
More than 40% say their bank’s leadership team has discussed cryptocurrency and are weighing the potential opportunities and risks. A quarter don’t expect cryptocurrency to affect their bank; a third haven’t discussed it.

Behind the Times
Thirty-six percent of respondents worry that bank leaders have an inadequate understanding of how emerging technologies could impact their institution. Further, 31% express concern about their reliance on outdated technology.

Serving Digital Natives
Are banks ready to serve younger generations? Just 43% believe their bank effectively serves millennial customers, who are between 25 and 40 years old. But most (57%) believe their banks are taking the right steps with the next generation — Gen Z, the oldest of whom are 24 years old. It’s important that financial institutions start getting this right: More than half of Americans are millennials or younger.

To view the full results of the survey, click here.

Business Banking’s Digital Transformation Pain Points

Digital bank transformation often comes with some fairly common pain points. For most banks, these can be distilled down to issues of speed, transparency and unification of systems.

Successfully addressing these issues starts at the strategy level. The industry’s rapid pace of change means banks should look further than just their usual 1 to 5-year outlooks. Institutions must focus on several key steps to craft the best strategy, approach and outcome. This ties back to fundamental questions: Where do we make our money? Where do we see our future growth? Where are we headed as an organization? It allows banks to gain a better understanding of their needs and ensure they are on the best path. And it often means taking a step back before proceeding.

Phase Zero
Creating the best plan requires perspective. This “Phase Zero” is critical for ensuring any project begins, and stays, on the right trajectory. In addition to curbing spending waste, it can greatly eliminate “shiny object syndrome” that plagues organizations during these projects. During this step, organizations should run front-end surveys to shed light on the possible outcomes, including some that may not have been considered prior to embarking on the digital journey.

A pitfall for many banks is taking a tech-first approach for these projects; the tech tends to become both the problem and solution for every issue. While technology is important, people are critical. People can be resistant to change, so approaching projects with a people-first viewpoint before beginning can preemptively turn a project’s nay-sayers into its biggest advocates. Conducting workshops or focus groups ahead of any project not only allows team members to become more comfortable with the changes, it can provide valuable input on their concerns.

Banking is a compliance-driven industry; many bankers struggle with the innovation mindset, even as regulators often push for new, more efficient processes. But the current interest environment has put fee income at a premium and competition for small business accounts continues to grow. The question for many banks is how to leverage what they already have to push further, while aiming for better efficiency at the same time.

Speed and Transparency
While the consumer bank side has made good strides when it comes to digital transformation, commercial and business banking have remained somewhat neglected. For these accounts, it often comes down to two main concerns: speed and transparency.

Successful digital transformation projects can involve a lot of trial and error. It is here that banks should learn a lesson from the tech world: be agile, fail fast, move on. Moving to a more agile mindset can result in outcomes perhaps once considered impossible. Banks must maintain compliance even as they push and innovate, and this requires speed.

Banks understand the need and benefits of making things easier for their customers, but the employee experience is equally as important. Tools and technology that allow employees to do their jobs faster and more efficiently means less time needed to help customers. It also means they can spend their time focused on other tasks, like new business.

Unification of Processes and Systems
Typically, there are multiple systems across a digital transformation project that must communicate. Conveying data between these systems can consume time and resources better spent on more strategic elements. For a commercial lender, answering calls on the status of a loan or opening a new account can require numerous queries and manual processes. While commercial loans may not have the compliance issues of consumer lending, the desired outcome is the same. It is about decision speed, convenience and transparency to the customer, and also for the team member working with the customer.

With so many disparate systems in a typical commercial lending process, this is often the biggest pain point for banks seeking a true 360° view of their business clients. Not only is it inefficient and makes tracking the process a challenge, it also makes it difficult to know where the data is located. Does that view include not only the loan process, but the treasury, deposits and personal accounts of the business owner? Is the bank even collecting this information? With so many different systems involved for a single commercial loan mapping, it is vital that banks bring that information into a transparent view that is easy to read and understand.

It is crucial that banks solve these specific points to grow their margin and fend off the competition. Both traditional and non-traditional competitors are growing, becoming a looming challenge on the commercial side. While client relationships are still very important, tech-enabled relationships are the future of the industry. Technology is the enabler, rather than a driver. Those banks that can thoughtfully, effectively innovate in these areas will be much better able to help their customers and thus, better positioned for success.

Governance Best Practices: Taking the Lead

Due to ongoing changes in the banking industry — from demographic shifts to the drive to digital — it’s never been more important for bank boards to get proactive about strategy. James McAlpin Jr., a partner at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner and global leader of the firm’s banking practice group, shares his point of view on three key themes explored in the 2021 Governance Best Practices Survey.

  • Taking the Lead on Strategic Discussions
  • Making Meetings More Productive
  • The Three C’s Every Director Should Possess

Navigating Four Common Post-Signing Requests for Additional Information

Consolidation in the banking industry is heating up. Regulatory compliance costs, declining economies of scale, tiny net interest margins, shareholder liquidity demands, concerns about possible changes in tax laws and succession planning continue driving acquisitions for strategic growth.

Unlike many industries, where the signing and closing of an acquisition agreement may be nearly simultaneous, the execution of a definitive acquisition agreement in the bank space is really just the beginning of the acquisition process. Once the definitive agreement is executed, the parties begin compiling the information necessary to complete the regulatory applications that must be submitted to the appropriate state and federal bank regulatory agencies. Upon receipt and a quick review of a filed application, the agencies send an acknowledgement letter and likely a request for additional information. The comprehensive review begins under the relevant statutory factors and criteria found in the Bank Merger Act, Bank Holding Company Act or other relevant statutes or regulations. Formal review generally takes 30 to 60 days after an application is “complete.”

The process specifically considers, among other things: (1) competitive factors; (2) the financial and managerial resources and future prospects of the company or companies and the banks concerned; (3) the supervisory records of the financial institutions involved; (4) the convenience and needs of the communities to be served and the banks’ Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) records; (5) the effectiveness of the banks in combating money laundering activities; and (6) the extent to which a proposal would result in greater or more concentrated risks to the stability of the United States banking or financial system.

During this process, the applicant and regulator will exchange questions, answers, and clarifications back and forth in order to satisfy the applicable statutory factors or decision criteria towards final approval of the transaction. Each of the requests for additional information and clarifications are focused on making sure that the application record is complete. Just because information or documents are shared during the course of the supervisory process does not mean that the same information or documents will not be requested during the application process. The discussions and review of materials during the supervisory process is separate from the “application record,” so it helps bank management teams to be prepared to reproduce information already shared with the supervisory teams. A best practice for banks is to document what happens during the supervisory process so they have it handy in case something specific is re-requested as part of an application.

Recently, we consistently received a number of requests for additional information that include questions not otherwise included in the standard application forms. Below, we review four of the more common requests.

1. Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic. Regulators are requesting additional information focused on the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. Both state and federal regulators are requesting a statement on the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic that discusses the impact on capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity and the local economy. State and federal agencies are including a request to discuss trends in delinquency loan modifications and problem loans when reviewing the impact on asset quality, and an estimate for the volume of temporary surge deposits when reviewing the impact on liquidity.

2. Additional, Specific Financial Information. Beyond the traditional pro forma balance sheets and income statements that banks are accustomed to providing as part of the application process, we are receiving rather extensive requests for additional financial information and clarifications. Two specific requests are particular noteworthy. First, a request for financial information around potential stress scenarios, which we are receiving for acquirors and transactions of all sizes.

Second, and almost as a bolt-on to the stress scenario discussion, are the requests related to capital planning. These questions focus on the acquiror’s plan where financial targets are not met or the need to raise capital arises due to a stressed environment. While not actually asking for a capital plan, the agencies have not been disappointed to receive one in response to this line of inquiry.

3. List of Shareholders. Regardless of whether the banks indicate potential changes in the ownership structure of an acquiror or whether the consideration is entirely cash from the acquiror, agencies (most commonly the Federal Reserve), are requesting a pro forma shareholder listing for the acquiror. Specifically, this shareholder listing should break out those shareholders acting in concert that will own, control, or hold with power to vote 5% or more of an acquiring BHC. Consider this an opportunity for both the acquiror and the Federal Reserve to make sure control filings related to the acquiror are up to date.

4. Integration. Finally, requests for additional information from acquirors have consistently included a request for a discussion on integration of the target, beyond the traditional due diligence line of inquiry included in the application form. The questions focus on how the acquiror will effectively oversee the integration of the target, given the increase in assets size. Acquirors are expected to include a discussion of plan’s to bolster key risk management functions, internal controls, and policies and procedures. Again, we are receiving this request regardless of the size of the acquiror, target or transaction, even in cases where the target is less than 10% of the size of the acquiror.

These are four of the more common requests for additional information that we have encountered as deal activity heats up. As consolidation advances and more banks file applications, staff at the state and federal agencies may take longer to review and respond to applications matters. We see these common requests above as an opportunity to provide more material in the initial phase of the application process, in order to shorten the review timeframe and back and forth as much as possible. In any event, acquirors should be prepared to respond to these requests as part of navigating the regulatory process post-signing.

With Sector Primed to Consolidate Further, Large Mergers Magnify Opportunity, Risk

The highly competitive and regulated US banking industry has grown increasingly concentrated over the past few decades, and continued ultralow interest rates will spur increased consolidation over at least the next two years, particularly among small and midsized banks that rely heavily on net interest income. Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) offer these banks opportunity to achieve greater scale, efficiency and profitability, a credit positive, but also introduce execution and integration risks that can erode these benefits.

Low interest rates are not the sole driver of consolidation but they increase the likelihood of a jump in M&A activity. The pace of sector consolidation slowed in 2020 as the coronavirus pandemic subdued business activity. But small and mid-sized banks retain a particular motivation to pursue M&A because their earnings potential rests more heavily on net interest income, which is hobbled in the current low interest rate environment. Other motivations for M&A include opportunities to cut expenses and the need to obtain and invest in emerging technologies.

In-market transactions present the greatest cost-saving opportunities. Acquisition targets that present the opportunity for efficiency gains have greater relative value. They are also easier for management teams to assess and evaluate, particularly because loan growth and business activity remain hard to forecast in the present economic environment. Branch reductions are a primary means of reducing expenses.

Banks have warmed up to larger deals and so-called ‘mergers of equals.’ The attractiveness of these transactions has grown in the past couple of years, partly because of favorable equity market response. However, execution risk grows with the size of a transaction because issues such as cultural fit become more prominent, with the potential to erode the credit benefits of the combination.

Click here to explore these trends further as part of Moody’s research.

The Coming Buyback Frenzy

Capital planning is examined as part of Bank Director’s Inspired By Acquire or Be Acquired. Click here to access the content on BankDirector.com.

The banking industry hasn’t been this well capitalized in a long time. In fact, you have to go back to the 1940s — almost 80 years ago — before you find a time in history when the tangible common equity ratio was this high, says Tom Michaud, president and CEO of investment bank Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, during a presentation for Bank Director’s Inspired By Acquire or Be Acquired platform.

That ratio for FDIC-insured banks has nearly doubled since 2008, he says, reaching 8.5% as of Sept. 30, 2020, says Michaud.

A big part of the industry’s high levels of capital goes back to the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, the Congressional response to the financial crisis of 2008-09. Because of that law, banks must maintain new regulatory capital and liquidity ratios that vary based on their size and complexity.

During the pandemic, banks were in much better shape. You can see the impact by looking at the capital ratios of just a handful of big banks. Citigroup, for example, had a tangible common equity ratio in the third quarter of 2020 that was nearly four times what it was in 2008, Michaud says.

With a deluge of government aid and loans such as the Paycheck Protection Program, the industry’s losses during the pandemic have been minimal so far. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has closed just four banks, far fewer than the deluge of failures that took place during the financial crisis. So far, financial institutions have maintained their profitability. Almost no banks that pay a dividend cut theirs last year.

Meanwhile, regulators required many of the large banks, which face extra scrutiny and stress testing compared to smaller banks, to halt share repurchases and cap dividends last year, further pumping up capital levels.

That means that banks have a lot of capital on their books. Analysts predict a wave of share repurchases in the months ahead as banks return capital to shareholders.

“The banking industry continues to make money,” said Al Laufenberg, a managing director at KBW, during another Bank Director session. “The large, publicly traded companies are coming out with statements saying, ‘We have too much capital.’”

Investors have begun to ask more questions about what banks are doing with their capital. “We see investors getting a little bit more aggressive in terms of questions,” he says. “‘What are you going to do for me?”

Bank of America Corp. already has announced a $2.9 billion share repurchase in the first quarter of 2021. In fact, KBW expects all of the nation’s universal and large regional banks to repurchase shares this year, according to research by analysts Christopher McGratty and Kelly Motta. They estimate the universal banks will buy back 7.3% of shares in 2021, while large regionals will buy back 3.5% of shares on average. On Dec. 18, 2020, the Federal Reserve announced those banks would again be allowed to buy back shares after easing earlier restrictions.

Regulators didn’t place as many restrictions during the pandemic on small- and medium-sized banks, so about one-third of them already bought their own stock in the fourth quarter of 2020, according to McGratty.

In terms of planning, banks that announce share repurchases don’t have to do them all at once, Laufenberg says. They can announce a program and then buy back stock when they determine the pricing is right.

Shareholders can benefit when banks buy back stock because that can reduce outstanding shares, increasing the value of individual shares, as long as banks don’t buy back stock when the stock is overvalued. Although bank stock prices compared to tangible book value and earnings have returned to pre-Covid levels, the KBW Regional Banking Index (KRX) has underperformed broader market indices during the past year, making an argument in favor of more repurchases.

Robert Fleetwood, a partner and co-chair of the financial institutions group at the law firm Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum & Nagelberg LLP, who spoke on the Bank Director session with Laufenberg, cautions bank executives to find out if their regulators require pre-approval. Every Federal Reserve region is different. Regulators want banks to have as much capital as possible, but Fleetwood says they understand that banks may be overcapitalized at the moment.

High levels of capital will help banks grow in the future, invest in technology, add loans and consolidate. For the short term, though, investors in bank stocks may be the immediate winners.

Strategic Insights from Leading Bankers: WSFS Financial Corp.

RankingBanking will be further examined as part of Bank Director’s Inspired By Acquire or Be Acquired, featured on BankDirector.com, which will include a discussion with WSFS CEO Rodger Levenson and Al Dominick, CEO of Bank Director, about weaving together technology and strategy. Click here to access the content.

Digital transformation in the banking industry has become an important factor driving deal activity, evidenced by recent acquisition announcements involving First Citizens BancShares, PNC Financial Services Group and Huntington Bancshares. A more tech-forward future also drove $13.8 billion WSFS Financial Corp.’s August 2018 acquisition of $5.8 billion Beneficial Bancorp, expanding its presence around Philadelphia and putting it well over the $10 billion asset threshold. Importantly, it provided the scale WSFS needed to make a $32 million, five-year investment in digital delivery initiatives.

The Wilmington, Delaware-based bank’s long-term focus on strategic growth, particularly in executing on its digital initiatives, led to a fourth-place finish in Bank Director’s 2021 RankingBanking study, comprised of the industry’s top performers based on 20-year total shareholder return. Crowe LLP sponsored the study. Bank Director Vice President of Research Emily McCormick further explores the bank’s digital transformation in this conversation with WSFS Chairman and CEO Rodger Levenson. The interview, conducted on Oct. 27, 2020, has been edited for brevity, clarity and flow.

BD: How does WSFS strategically approach strong, long-term performance?

RL: It comes from the top. The board has always managed this company with the goal of sustainable long-term performance, high performance. Every discussion, every decision and every strategic plan that we put together is looked [at] through that lens. And I would point to the most recent decision around the Beneficial acquisition as an opportunity for us to invest in [the] long term while recognizing that we’d have some short-term negative impact. And by that I mean, if you look back over the last decade or so, coming out [of] ’09, 2010 — WSFS had been on a fairly consistent, nicely upward-sloping trajectory of high performance. … But what the board said as part of our strategic planning process and the conversation with Beneficial was that we could only continue down that path for so long if we didn’t address a couple of important issues.

One was, if you look at that growth, it was primarily centered on our physical presence, mostly in Delaware. It’s our home market, but it’s a pretty small market, less than a million people. A very nice economy, but certainly not as robust as we grew to the size that we had grown to support that. We needed to get into a larger market, particularly into Philadelphia, [which is] very robust demographically, very large to give us that opportunity to continue to grow at above-peer levels.

The second thing as part of that process is like everybody else — and this was obviously all pre-pandemic — we were analyzing and watching our customers shift how they interacted with us to more digital interaction and less physical interaction. And we said, for us to keep up we’re going to have to start shifting some of that long-term investment, that we’ve historically [put] into building branches, into funding our technology initiatives.

The two of those things came together for Beneficial, [which] obviously gave us the larger market; it also gave us the scale to attack that transition from physical to digital. We knew it would impact earnings for a couple of years while we put that together and prepared for the next decade or so of growth. The board had a very robust dialogue around the trade-offs that were involved, and clearly said that we need to manage the company for the long term.

This is a great opportunity to invest in the long term; we’ll take the short-term knock on performance because of where we’re ultimately headed. We saw that with the reaction of the Street to our stock price, but that didn’t change or waiver the long-term vision. … Our board principles and guidelines [have] been ingrained in us all the way down through management: If you want to provide the best long-term value for your shareholders, you have to not get tied up in quarter-to-quarter or year-to-year performance. You have to look at it over longer horizons and make decisions that support that.

BD: How are you strategically approaching technology investment?

RL: It was really a decision to follow our customers. … There’s nothing we can do to try and compete with [the] big guys. You know the stats. You know how many billions of dollars they’re spending on technology. We’re not trying to catch up to them or be like them. We want to have a digital product offering that allows us to be very flexible and have optionality so that when new products and services come along that our customers want, we can move quickly toward offering those products and services, and have an offering that is competitive with the big guys, but maybe not the bleeding edge. We’re marrying it with the traditional community bank model of access to decision-making, local market knowledge [and] a high level of associate engagement, which translates into what we think is world-class service. Our vision is to have a product offering that we can marry up with those other things that will allow us to compete effectively against the big guys.

Most of what the big guys spend their money on is R&D. They have teams and teams of technology people, data [scientists and] all those other things, because they’re building their proprietary products and services. Our view is we don’t have to do that R&D, because that R&D is getting done in the fintech space for us.

BD: WSFS has brought on board some high-level talent around digital transformation; you’ve also got expertise on the board. You’re working to recruit more in the data space, as well as building your in-house technology expertise. In addition to building relationships with fintechs, why is that internal expertise important, and how are you leveraging that?

RL: When we got started on this, we had almost nobody focused on it in the company. We realized for us to be as effective as we felt we needed to be, we needed to have some teams that were fully involved in this as a day-to-day job. In terms of funding it, obviously we closed or divested a quarter of our branches with Beneficial after the deal. When you do that, you not only have the cost savings from the savings in the lease expense, but there’s people expense as well. Fortunately, even though net/net, our positions in our retail network decreased by about 150 from those closures or divestitures, nobody lost their job. We were able to absorb that through natural attrition or in the one case, we sold six of our branches in New Jersey, and all those people were guaranteed a job as part of that deal.

This was a process that occurred over the course of a year. It was methodically laid out, leading up to the conversion of the brand and the systems in August 2019. Over that year, our teams did a fabulous job [of] managing people and the normal attrition that goes on in that business. That gave us the ability to fund not only some of the technology that we’re buying, but also some of these other positions internally. It’s exactly aligned with shifting that investment that we made in branches — which is not just the bricks and mortar; it’s the people, it’s the technology, it’s everything else — shifting a chunk of that into digital. This is a part of that whole process.

EM: How did the pandemic impact your strategy?

RL: The pandemic confirmed and accelerated everything that we’ve seen over the last few years, and reinforced our desire to [respond] as quickly as we can to the acceleration of these trends. Clearly, 2020 has been a totally different year because of remote work and all those things, but the longer-term trends have been validated and reinforced the strategic direction that we embarked upon before the pandemic. At some point, we will start moving back to a more normal environment, and we feel like we’re uniquely positioned.

It feels like there’s not a week that goes by with a bank that’s announcing some big branch reduction program and shifting that money into digital. We’re not trying to pat ourselves on the back, but I do think we happened to have that opportunity with Beneficial. It provided us the forum for attacking that issue sooner rather than later, so we’ve got somewhat of a head start down that road. This is just a confirmation of everything we saw when we did that analysis.

How Open Finance Fuels the Money Experience and Drives Growth

If one idea encapsulates a significant trend in the current business environment, it’s “openness.”

Society is placing a greater value on transparency and “open” approaches. Even Microsoft Corp., the long-time defender of closed software, under the leadership of CEO Satya Nadella, has proclaimed they are “all in open source.” One industry where being open is of particular importance is banking and finance.

Open banking is the structured sharing of data through an application programming interface, or APIs. These APIs allow data to move freely from financial institutions to third-party consumer finance applications. Customers initiate and consent to data sharing, establishing a secure way to grant access and extract financial information from the financial institution.

Open finance, on the other hand, is a broader term. It extends open banking to include customer data access for a range of services beyond the banking industry — to retail stores, hotels, airlines, car apps and much more.

Open finance is popular in Europe and is now gaining momentum in the United States. The goal, similar to open banking, is to enhance the way consumers in all industries interact with money. There are numerous far-reaching benefits of the open finance movement, both for consumers and organizations.

Consumers receive fast access to apps and services. Opening up data access allows someone to sign on and share their data with popular third-party apps (such as Netflix or Amazon.com) so they don’t have to re-enter their information every time. Taking it a step further, a stream of innovative applications such as fraud monitoring, automated savings, accelerated mortgage reduction and more are possible once access to financial information is opened up.

Greater security and control. With currently available technology, financial institutions, can leverage API connections to allow account access or facilitate money movement for their customers. This control provides a sense of autonomy and security for consumers and bankers alike, creating an improved and secure money experience. Banking APIs also impact business models, and most significantly, allow banks to adapt to changes in the marketplace.

But security is critical when “opening up data” to the world. When we launched our open finance platform, MX Open, we ensured that financial institutions would be able to help protect their user’s financial data. Security needs to be at the heart of any successful open finance strategy, so that  financial institutions, third-party financial apps and other companies can create more personalized money experiences that give customers greater access and control.

Easier connection of services, apps, cores and systems. Establishing a secure, end-to-end mechanism for sharing data not dependent on credential sharing allows banks and fintech companies can connect to many, many more services — resulting in even more services and offerings for users. Data connectivity APIs exist for that purpose: to empower organizations beyond the constraints of legacy systems, connecting financial institutions with new services, apps, cores and systems.

As a company focused on the financial services space, we recognize that data should be open to everyone. This movement of opening up — from open-source, to open banking to open finance — can only help bankers and boards maintain the advocacy-focused approach they desire in serving their customers, while increasing control over their roadmap to innovate faster and deliver the right tools and products to the right customers.

Strategic Planning in an Age of Uncertainty

How do you plan in an environment where the future is so uncertain?

If this was a bad joke, the answer might be “very carefully.” The real answer is more like “very nimbly.”

The Covid-19 pandemic has presented the banking industry with an almost-unprecedented set of challenges, including a deep recession and the necessity to manage a distributed work force. The variable that no one can predict is the pandemic.

Most economist agree that the U.S. economy won’t fully recover until the pandemic has been brought to heel — and that probably won’t occur until an effective vaccine has been widely distributed. Many banks are also reluctant to repatriate their remote employees in large numbers until it’s safe to do so.

Strategic planning in such a confused situation has to be different than at other times. In a webcast discussion for Bank Director’s AOBA Summer Series — a run-up to the 2021 Acquire or Be Acquired conference in January — Stephen Steinour, chairman and CEO at Huntington Bancshares in Columbus, Ohio, talked about the challenges of strategic planning today.

In an audio recording of that conversation with Editor-at-Large Jack Milligan, Steinour detailed some of the steps that Huntington has been taking through the pandemic, including processing tens of thousands of Paycheck Protection Program loans for its business customers and adapting to a virtual work arrangement for most of its employees.

Steinour also describes a new approach that Huntington’s senior management teams and board of directors is adopting toward strategic planning. Traditionally the bank has planned on a three to five-year cycle, but today’s uncertain environment requires a shorter time horizon.

“I think we’re going more into a continuous planning mode rather than a cyclical mode,” he says. “It requires us to be more nimble.”