Embracing Frictionless Loans by Eliminating Touch Points


lending-9-13-19.pngTo create a meaningful customer relationship, banks should drive to simplify and streamline the operational process to book a loan.

Automated touchpoints are a natural component of the 21st century customer experience. When properly implemented, technology can create a touch-free, self-service model that simplifies the effort required by both customer and bank to complete transactions. One area ripe for technological innovation is the lending process. Banks should consider how they can remove touch points from these operations as a way to better both customer service and resource allocation.

Frictionless loans can move from origination to fulfillment without requiring human intervention, which can help build or enhance relationships with clients. Your institution may already be working on decreasing touches and increasing automation. But as you long as your bank has an area of tactile, not strategic, contact between your staff and your customer, your bank — and customers — will still have friction.

Bankers looking to decrease this friction and make lending a smooth and seamless process for borrowers and originators alike should ask themselves these four questions:

How many human touchpoints does your bank still have in play to originate and fulfill a loan? Many banks allow customers to start a loan application online and manage their payments in the cloud, but what kind of tactile processes persist between that initial application and the payment? Executives should identify how many steps in their lending process require trained staff to help your customers complete that gap. Knowing where those touchpoints are means your digital strategy can address them.

What value can your bank achieve by reducing and ultimately eliminating the number of touches needed to originate a loan? Every touch has the potential to slow a loan through the application process and potentially introduce human error into the flow. But not all touchpoints are created equal.

Bankers should consider the value of digital data collection, or automating credit score and loan criteria review. They may be able to eliminate the manual review of applications, titles and appraisals, among other things. They could also automate compliant document creation and selection. Banks should assess if their technology enablement efforts produce a faster, simpler customer experience, and what areas they can identify for improvement.

Do you have the right technology in place to reduce those touchpoints? Executives should determine if their bank’s origination systems have the capabilities to support the digital strategy and provide the ideal customer experience. Does the bank’s current solution deliver an integrated data workflow, or is it a collection of separate tools that depend on the manual re-entry of data to push loans through the pipeline?

Does your bank have an organizational culture that supports change management? Does your bank typically plan for change, or does it wait to react after change becomes inevitable? Executives should identify what needs to happen today so they can capitalize quickly on opportunity and minimize disruptions to operations.

Siloed functional areas are prone to operational entrenchment, and well-intentioned staff can inadvertently slow or disrupt change adoption. These factors can be difficult to change, but bankers can moderate their influences by cultivating horizontal communication channels that thread organizational disciplines together, support transparency and allow two-way knowledge exchanges.

For banks, a human touch can be one of the most valuable assets. It can help build long lasting and meaningful relationships with clients and enable mutual success over time. This is precisely why banks should reserve it for business activities that have the greatest potential to add value to a client’s experience. Technology can free your bank’s staff from high-risk, low-return tasks that are done more efficiently through automation while increasing their opportunities to interact with customers, understand their challenges and cross-sell products.

Frictionless loan planning should intersect cleanly with your bank’s overall digital strategy. It could also be an opportunity for your bank to scale up planning efforts, to encompass a wider set of business objectives. In either case, the work you do today to identify and eliminate touch points will establish the foundation necessary to extend your bank’s digital reach and offer a competitive customer experience.

Leveraging Fintechs to Do More with Less

Fintech is often viewed as a disrupter to the banking industry, but it greatest influence may be as a collaborator.

Financial technology companies, often called fintechs, can provide benefits both banks and themselves, especially when it comes to lending. But banks need to be prepared for the potential challenges that can arise when forming and executing these partnerships.

Partnerships between community banks and fintechs makes sense. For community banks, the cost of building or buying their own online loan origination platform can be prohibitive. A partnership with a fintech can help banks achieve more with less risk.

Banks can partner with fintechs to improve services at a significantly lower capital expenditure, reducing the cost of doing business and reaching market segments that would otherwise not meet their credit criteria. Collectively, these relationships advance not only the business of community banks, but also their mission.

Partnering with banks offers fintech firms brand exposure, allows them to more quickly scale their business and increases their access to capital and liquidity, which can translate to better company returns.

Community banks and fintech firms should be natural allies, given the market dynamics and growth in online lending, the underfunding of small businesses and the increased competition facing smaller institutions.

Community banks are also ideal first movers in the bank-fintech partnership space, given the personal nature of the business, low cost of capital and ability to move quicker than regional banks. Community banks are the preferred source of funding for small- and medium-sized enterprises, and consistently receive high marks from clients for customer service and overall experience.

However, there can be challenges. Bank respondents cited their firms’ overall preparedness as a point of concern when considering a fintech collaboration, according to a recent paper on bank-fintech partnerships from law and professional services firm Manatt. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau mandate that banks must implement appropriate oversight and risk management processes for third-party relationships and service providers.

Other issues that could arise for community banks when pursuing a fintech partnership include data security, staff training and technology integration with legacy systems. It’s imperative that community banks are clear about the responsibilities, requirements and protections that will contribute toward a successful partnership in conversations with a fintech firm.

borrowe-chart.png

Despite their desire to fund local businesses, community banks sometimes encounter significant pressures that prevent them from doing so. These issues are amplified by various market forces and longstanding structural inefficiencies such as consolidation, slower economic expansion, increased regulation and more-stringent credit requirements. Consumer expectations around new channels and banking services compound the situation. Community banks need to adapt to this new dynamic and complex ecosystem. Without a strategy that includes technological vision, banks risk becoming irrelevant to the communities they serve.

Fintech firms — reputed as industry disruptors — can be powerful collaborators and allies in this land grab. They can help banks expand their borrower market by reaching customers with alternative credit profiles and providing technology-driven improvements that enhance the customer experience. The inherent advantages held by community banks make them well positioned to not only capitalize on these opportunities, but to lead the next wave of fintech innovation.

2019 Survey Results! Here’s How Banks Are Spending Money on Technology

The desire to streamline customers’ experience and improve efficiency is driving bank technology strategies across the industry, as most executives and directors believe their offerings are “adequate,” according to Bank Director’s 2019 Technology Survey, sponsored by CDW.

The survey, conducted in June and July 2019, reflects the views of CEOs, technology executives and independent directors. It seeks to better understand bank strategies, staffing and budgets around technology and innovation, as well as banks’ relationships with legacy core providers and newer vendors.

Seventy-eight percent of survey respondents say that improving the customer experience is a top objective driving their bank’s strategy around the investment, development and implementation of technology. Seventy-two percent say that fueling efficiency is a top objective.

These strategic objectives are driving where banks are investing in technology: 68% say they’re investing in automation in fiscal year 2019, and 67% are investing money to enhance the bank’s digital channels.

Most banks rely on their core provider to advance these goals. The cores are the primary providers for many of the technologies used by banks today, including application programming interfaces (68% say that API technology is provided by the core), business process automation (43%), data aggregation (42%) and peer-to-peer (P2P) payments (47%).

That relationship isn’t stopping many banks from searching for new potential partners; 60% are willing to work with newer fintech startups. The survey finds that the use of alternate providers is gaining ground, in particular when it comes to the cloud (57%), data aggregation (25%) and P2P payments (29%).

Despite the rise of the digital channel, 51% of respondents say the branch is equally important to online and mobile channels when it comes to growing the bank. More than half indicate they’re upgrading branch and ATM technology.

Just 30% say that driving top-line growth fuels their technology strategy, which indicates that most banks see technology as a way to save money and time as opposed to generating revenue.

Key Findings

  • Loyal to the Core. More than half of respondents say their core contract expires within the next five years. Sixty percent say they’re unlikely to switch to a new provider.
  • But Banks Aren’t Satisfied. Just 21% say they’re completely satisfied with their core provider.
  • Technology Pain Points. Sixty percent say their current core provider is slow to provide innovative solutions or upgrades to their bank, and almost half cite difficulty in implementing new solutions. These are major sticking points when 60% rely on their core provider to introduce innovative solutions.
  • It’s All on IT. Almost three-quarters point to the senior technology executive as the individual responsible for identifying, developing and implementing technology solutions. Almost half task a management-level committee to make decisions about technology.
  • Rising Budgets. Forty-five percent say their technology budget has risen between 5% to 10% for FY2019. Almost one-quarter report an increase of more than 15%. Responding banks budgeted a median of $750,000 for FY2019.
  • Where the Money’s Going. In addition to automation, digital enhancements and branch improvements, banks are hiring consultants to supplement in-house expertise (50%), and bringing on additional employees to focus on technology and innovation (43%).
  • Data Gap. Almost half describe their bank’s data analytics capabilities as inadequate.
  • More Expertise Needed. Fifty-three percent say technology is on the agenda at every board meeting — up three points from last year’s survey. Yet, 80% say the board needs to enhance its technology expertise. Forty-three percent say they have a technology expert on the board.
  • Cybersecurity Top of Mind. Protecting the bank from cyberattacks dominates board technology discussions, according to 96% of respondents. Many boards also focus on process improvements (63%) and implementing innovative customer-facing technology (46%).

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

How Innovative Banks are Eliminating Online Card Fraud

Card fraud has a new home. Just a few years after the prolonged and pricey switch to EMV chip cards, fraud has migrated from purchases where the card is physically swiped to transactions where the card is not present. The shift means that U.S. banks might be on the cusp of yet another move in card technology.

EMV chips were so successful in curbing cases of fraud where the card was swiped that fraud evolved. Fraud is 81 percent more likely to occur today in “card-not-present” transactions that take place over the phone or internet rather than it is at the point of sale, according to the 2018 Identity Fraud Study by Javelin Research.

Technology has evolved to combat this theft. One new solution is to equip cards with dynamic card verification values, or CVVs. Cards with dynamic CVVs will periodically change the 3-digit code on the back of a credit or debit card, rendering stolen credentials obsolete within a short window of time. Most cards with dynamic codes automatically change after a set period of time—as often as every 20 minutes. The cards are powered by batteries that have a 3- to 4-year lifespan that coincides with the reissuance of a new card.

Several countries including France, China and Mexico have already begun adopting the technology, but the rollout in the United States has been more limited. The new Apple Card, issued by Goldman Sachs Group, boasts dynamic CVV as a key security feature. PNC Financial Services Group also launched a pilot program with Motion Code cards in late 2018.

Bankers who remember the shift to EMV might cringe at the thought of adopting another new card technology. But dynamic CVVs are different because they do not require merchants to adopt any new processes and do not create extra work for customers.

But one challenge with these more-secure cards will be their cost. A plastic card without an EMV chip cost about 39 cents. That cost rose to $2 to $3 a card with EMV. A card with the capability for a dynamic CVV could cost 5 times as much, averaging $12 to $15.

But advocates of the technology claim the benefits of eliminating card-not-present fraud more than covers the costs and could even increase revenue. French retail bank Société Générale S.A. worked with IDEMIA, formerly Oberthur Technologies, to offer cards with dynamic CVVs in fall 2016. The cards required no change in customers’ habits, which helped with their adoption, says Julien Claudon, head of card and digital services at Société Générale.

“Our customers appreciate the product and we’ve succeeded in selling it to customers because it’s easy to use.”

He adds that card-not-present fraud among bank customers using the card is “down to almost zero.”

Eliminating card-not-present fraud can also eliminate the ancillary costs of fraud, says Megan Heinze, senior vice president for financial institutions activities in North America at IDEMIA. She says card fraud is estimated to cost banks up to $25 billion by 2020.

“A lot of prime customers ask for the card the next day. The issuer then has to get the card developed—sending a file out that has to be printed—and then it’s FedExed. The average FedEx cost is around $10. The call to the call center [costs] around $7.50,” she says. “So that’s $17. And that doesn’t even include the card.”

What’s more, dynamic CVVs could also create a revenue opportunity. Société Générale charges customers a subscription fee of $1 per month for the cards. The bank saw a more than 5 percent increase in new customers and increased revenue, according to Heinze.

Still, some are skeptical of how well a paid, consumer-based model would fare in the U.S. market.

“The U.S. rejected EMV because it was so expensive to do. It was potentially spending $2 billion to save $1 billion, and that’s what you have to look at with the use case of these [dynamic CVV] cards,” says Brian Riley, director of credit advisory service for Mercator Advisory Group. “If it tends to be so expensive I might want to selectively do it with some good customers, but for the mass market there’s just not a payback.”

Still, dynamic CVVs are an interesting solution to the big, expensive problem of card-not-present fraud. While some institutions may wait until another card mandate hits, adopting dynamic CVV now could be a profitable differentiator for tech-forward banks.

Potential Technology Partners

IDEMIA

Idemia’s Motion Code technology powers cards for Société Générale and is being piloted by PNC and WorldPay.

GEMALTO

Gemalto’s Dynamic Code Card hasn’t been publicly linked to any bank or issuer names, but the company cites its own 2015 Consumer Research Project for some impressive statistics on customer demand for dynamic CVV cards.

SUREPASS ID

SurePass ID offers a Dynamic Card Security Code. The company’s founder, Mark Poidomani, is listed as the inventor of several payment-related patents.

FITEQ

FiTeq’s dynamic CVV requires cardholders to push a button to generate a new CVV code.

VISA AND MASTERCARD

Visa and Mastercard are leveraging dynamic CVV codes in their contactless cards

Learn more about the technology providers in this piece by accessing their profiles in Bank Director’s FinXTech Connectplatform.

The Great Payments Opportunity


payments-5-20-19.pngBanks have an opportunity to deepen relationships with their corporate customers facing payment challenges. One promising product could be integrated receivables solutions.

While most business-to-business payments are still done through paper check, electronic payments are growing rapidly. Paper checks remain at about 50 percent of business-to-business payments, according to the 2016 Electronic Payments Survey by the Association for Financial Professionals. But Automated Clearing House payments grew 9.4 percent in 2018, according to the National Automated Clearinghouse Association — a trend that is forcing businesses with high receivables volumes to look for ways to process electronic payments more efficiently.

Electronic payments create unique challenges for bank corporate customers. While the deposit is received electronically at the bank, the remittance and detailed payment information are typically sent separately in an email, document or spreadsheet. The corporate treasurer must manually connect, or re-associate, the remittance information to the deposit, which creates delays in crediting the customers’ account. As electronic ACH volumes increase, treasurers solve this problem by hiring more accounting staff to reconcile these payments.

Corporates also face added complexity from payment networks, which are becoming a more common way for large companies to pay their suppliers. While more efficient for the payer, this process requires treasury staff to log onto multiple payment network aggregation sites and download the remittance information. These downloaded files require manual re-association to the payment in order to credit the customer’s account, which requires adding more staff.

Corporates are also using mobile to accept field payments, like collecting payment on the delivery of goods or services, new customer orders or credit holds and collections. However, mobile payments again force treasurers to manually reconcile them. Moreover, most commercial banking mobile applications are designed for the treasurer of the business, with features such as balances, history and transfers. Collecting field payments needs to be configured so that field representative can simply collect the payments and remittance.

The corporate treasurer needs increased levels of automation to solve these challenges and problems. Traditional bank lockbox processing was designed for checks and relies on manual entry of the corporate’s payments and delivery of a reconciled file. This paper-based approach will be insufficient as more payments become electronic.

Treasurers should consider integrated receivables systems that match all payments types from all payment channels using artificial intelligence. A consolidated payment file updates the corporate’s enterprise resource planning system once these payments are processed. The integrated receivable solution then provides the corporate with a single archive of all their payments, rather than just a lockbox.

Right now, corporate customers are looking to financial technology firms for integrated receivable solutions because banks are moving too slowly. This disintermediates corporate customers from the banks they do business with. But almost 73 percent of corporate treasurers believe it is important or very important for their bank to provide integrated receivables, according to Aite.

This is an opportunity for bankers. The integrated receivable market offers many software solutions for banks so they can quickly ramp up and meet the needs of their corporate customers.

Bankers have a wide range of fintech partners to choose from for integrated receivables software and should look for one with expertise and knowledge of the corporate market. The solutions should leverage artificial intelligence and robotic process automation to process payments from any channel, include security with high availability and be easy for the bank and corporate customers to use.

How Innovative Banks are Eliminating Online Card Fraud


technology-5-8-19.pngCard fraud has a new home. Just a few years after the prolonged and pricey switch to EMV chip cards, fraud has migrated from purchases where the card is physically swiped to transactions where the card is not present. The shift means that U.S. banks might be on the cusp of yet another move in card technology.

EMV chips were so successful in curbing cases of fraud where the card was swiped that fraud evolved. Fraud is 81 percent more likely to occur today in “card-not-present” transactions that take place over the phone or internet rather than it is at the point of sale, according to the 2018 Identity Fraud Study by Javelin Research.

Technology has evolved to combat this theft. One new solution is to equip cards with dynamic card verification values, or CVVs. Cards with dynamic CVVs will periodically change the 3-digit code on the back of a credit or debit card, rendering stolen credentials obsolete within a short window of time. Most cards with dynamic codes automatically change after a set period of time—as often as every 20 minutes. The cards are powered by batteries that have a 3- to 4-year lifespan that coincides with the reissuance of a new card.

Several countries including France, China and Mexico have already begun adopting the technology, but the rollout in the United States has been more limited. The new Apple Card, issued by Goldman Sachs Group, boasts dynamic CVV as a key security feature. PNC Financial Services Group also launched a pilot program with Motion Code cards in late 2018.

Bankers who remember the shift to EMV might cringe at the thought of adopting another new card technology. But dynamic CVVs are different because they do not require merchants to adopt any new processes and do not create extra work for customers.

But one challenge with these more-secure cards will be their cost. A plastic card without an EMV chip cost about 39 cents. That cost rose to $2 to $3 a card with EMV. A card with the capability for a dynamic CVV could cost 5 times as much, averaging $12 to $15.

But advocates of the technology claim the benefits of eliminating card-not-present fraud more than covers the costs and could even increase revenue. French retail bank Société Générale S.A. worked with IDEMIA, formerly Oberthur Technologies, to offer cards with dynamic CVVs in fall 2016. The cards required no change in customers’ habits, which helped with their adoption, says Julien Claudon, head of card and digital services at Société Générale.

“Our customers appreciate the product and we’ve succeeded in selling it to customers because it’s easy to use.”

He adds that card-not-present fraud among bank customers using the card is “down to almost zero.”

Eliminating card-not-present fraud can also eliminate the ancillary costs of fraud, says Megan Heinze, senior vice president for financial institutions activities in North America at IDEMIA. She says card fraud is estimated to cost banks up to $25 billion by 2020.

“A lot of prime customers ask for the card the next day. The issuer then has to get the card developed—sending a file out that has to be printed—and then it’s FedExed. The average FedEx cost is around $10. The call to the call center [costs] around $7.50,” she says. “So that’s $17. And that doesn’t even include the card.”

What’s more, dynamic CVVs could also create a revenue opportunity. Société Générale charges customers a subscription fee of $1 per month for the cards. The bank saw a more than 5 percent increase in new customers and increased revenue, according to Heinze.

Still, some are skeptical of how well a paid, consumer-based model would fare in the U.S. market.

“The U.S. rejected EMV because it was so expensive to do. It was potentially spending $2 billion to save $1 billion, and that’s what you have to look at with the use case of these [dynamic CVV] cards,” says Brian Riley, director of credit advisory service for Mercator Advisory Group. “If it tends to be so expensive I might want to selectively do it with some good customers, but for the mass market there’s just not a payback.”

Still, dynamic CVVs are an interesting solution to the big, expensive problem of card-not-present fraud. While some institutions may wait until another card mandate hits, adopting dynamic CVV now could be a profitable differentiator for tech-forward banks.

Potential Technology Partners

IDEMIA

Idemia’s Motion Code technology powers cards for Société Générale and is being piloted by PNC and WorldPay.

Gemalto

Gemalto’s Dynamic Code Card hasn’t been publicly linked to any bank or issuer names, but the company cites its own 2015 Consumer Research Project for some impressive statistics on customer demand for dynamic CVV cards.

SurePass ID

SurePass ID offers a Dynamic Card Security Code. The company’s founder, Mark Poidomani, is listed as the inventor of several payment-related patents.

FiTeq

FiTeq’s dynamic CVV requires cardholders to push a button to generate a new CVV code.

Visa and Mastercard

Visa and Mastercard are leveraging dynamic CVV codes in their contactless cards

Learn more about the technology providers in this piece by accessing their profiles in Bank Director’s FinXTech Connect platform.

The Future of Banking: Crypto, Blockchain and Fintech


banking-4-17-19.pngInscribed in the first block of the first blockchain ever created are the words: “The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks,” referring to the London newspaper’s lead story of the day.

This edition of the newspaper is now one of the most valuable crypto collectibles to date. It’s hard to deny the symbolism in the covert message encoded into the genesis block of the bitcoin blockchain.

That message signals problems in our modern fiat financial system while introducing a novel system that replaces centralized institutional trust with a system relying on decentralized cryptographic trust.

Today, bitcoin has celebrated its 10th birthday, despite critics predicting its doom since its inception. With bitcoin came another suite of technologies collectively known as blockchain.

Despite the actual word “blockchain” not appearing in the original white paper published under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto in October 2008, it has undoubtedly become one of the most talked about buzzwords in technology and banking, as well as the larger world of finance.

Blockchain is generally considered to be a subcategory of distributed ledger technology (DLT), referring to its distributed architecture in which there is no central point of attack, making it less vulnerable to hacks, fraud and manipulation.

A quick online search of the word “blockchain” will yield a wide array of differing definitions, because there is currently no universally recognized definition—something the International Standards Association is working toward. One way to define blockchain is as a shared ledger designed to produce immutable records through cryptographic techniques that facilitate the processing of transactions and tracking of assets.

Part of what makes blockchain so attractive is that it’s considered a general purpose technology, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with many potential applications across industry verticals.

The primary application for the technology thus far has been within financial services—specifically, payments.

Banking on Blockchain
A study performed by Accenture found nine out of 10 banking executives saying their bank is exploring the use of blockchain in payments, the most prevalent use being cross-border transfers.

But reaping the promised benefits of blockchain will require “fostering an uncommon coordination among banks,” according to Accenture’s study. The value is in the network—in collaboration. Examples of these interoperable networks between banks and corporations globally are using private enterprise blockchains, or DLT, like R3’s Corda platform and Hyperledger fabric.

Major benefits from blockchain include lower administrative costs and shorter settlement times. One bank that has sought to offer these benefits to its clients by leveraging blockchain technology is Signature Bank. The New York-based commercial bank launched its own blockchain-based platform for real-time, 24/7 payments on Jan. 1, 2019.

Signature’s platform is interesting, considering some alternatives can take several days to clear and can be unavailable on weekends, for instance.

While many of the largest banks in the U.S. may be exploring blockchain and distributed ledger technologies, and filing a litany of patents, cryptocurrency is listed as both a risk and competitive threat in some of their annual reports. Meanwhile, forward-looking community banks have embraced cryptocurrencies and seen their balance sheets improve with it, such as San Diego, California-based Silvergate Bank.

“The Times They Are A-Changin”
Cryptocurrency is only one of many risks cited in the annual reports of major banks.
The rise in the number and nature of fintech firms has brought an explosion of innovation and competition.

Since the financial crisis, younger generations are growing up without the same relationship with banks that their parents and grandparents had, which has helped propel the growth of fintech companies focused on convenience and customized digital experiences.

This has paved the way for many fintech startups to excel in the financial services market. These companies are disrupting the status quo by providing a user experience that quickly adapts to the needs and desires of their customers.

With the genesis of bitcoin and blockchain, and the explosion in fintech, one thing is certain. In the words of Bob Dylan, the times they are a-changin’. And they’re changing in financial services on an unprecedented scale.

Does Your Digital Strategy Include the “Last Mile?”


strategy-3-20-19.pngThe “last mile” is a ubiquitous term that originated in the telecommunications industry to represent the final leg of delivering service to a customer. Most of the time it referred to installing copper wire that connected the local telephone exchange to individual landlines.

More recently, the term represents what can be the final and most challenging part of a consumer interaction. Generally, it’s the point at which a broad consumer service interacts with an individual customer to deliver a personalized experience.

In banking, this is most often in the form of digital documents created to meet the exact specifications and compliance requirements of an individual transaction that allow a loan or deposit to be booked.

The last mile concept is changing the way financial institutions approach their digital strategy. Previously, many banks focused on digital services to a broad customer base that allowed end users to access account information, pay bills and transfer funds. Lesser in the strategy was the ability to originate a loan or deposit transaction through a digital channel, and even less likely to be contemplated was the customer experience while documenting and booking these types of transactions.

Often, what would begin as a digital experience through a mobile device, tablet or PC would quickly revert to a less accessible process that concluded with a customer coming to a branch to manually sign an agreement.

Banks today are recognizing that a shift in their digital strategy is required. Increasingly, institutions are reshaping their digital presence to focus on the “last mile” – the hardest part of the customer journey that requires an individualized experience. Building a foundation focused on this critical customer touchpoint requires banks to deploy technology that documents, in a fully compliant manner, consumer and commercial loan and deposit transactions while at the same time supporting a fully digital customer experience.

In seeking fintech partners that can support this digital strategy shift, institutions are identifying essential attributes and capabilities to enable effective execution:

  • Integrated Capabilities: Disparate systems require data to be imported and exported to avoid data conflict. A single system of record, integrated with digital document capabilities and a two-way data flow, supports data integrity while eliminating the need to access separate solutions.
  • In-house Compliance Expertise: Documenting transactions in a compliant manner is essential. State and federal mandates change frequently. In-house compliance expertise supported by unique research capabilities ensures the documented words are accurate and up to date.
  • Electronic Closing Enabled: The ability to leverage technology from origination to customer signature without deploying manual workarounds or static forms.
  • Reinvestment in Technology: Digital capabilities continue to evolve. Gone are the days of generic templates and static documents. A partner that’s focused on both current and future capabilities ensures an institution isn’t left behind the times.

As your bank begins to formulate a digital strategy or if you’re revising your existing strategy, ask yourself if you’ve contemplated the “last mile.” If not, focus on this part of the customer interaction first to deliver a comprehensive, compliant, and digitally enabled experience.

How Data Can Build Trust With Customers


data-12-17-18.pngIn mid-August, driven by a cyberattack against ATMs that withdrew close to $11.5 million, the FBI sent out a warning to financial services companies that their organizations could be targeted. In another bleak headline, an Australian bank lost data on 12 million of its consumers—containing financial records from 2004-14—without disclosing it to customers.

Misuse of customer data is beginning to sound like business as usual to consumers.

Bank directors and senior leaders face a constantly evolving list of risks that can erode trust in their organizations. As we explored in the [first part of this series], these kinds of risk incidents drive other negative impacts, including increased expenses and customer attrition that stall bottom-line growth.

To combat the trend of declining trust, it’s critical that dedicated teams are enabled to address risk and regulatory compliance. However, effective recovery demands the entire organization to restore trust through a holistic risk-mitigation strategy focused on protecting and using customer data in a trustworthy way.

The 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer highlights technology as a key enabler of trust in financial institutions, with fraud protection, use of technology to resolve customer issues, and mobile apps all cited as top drivers. Successfully deploying each of these elements commands a concerted focus on protecting customer data. Little things like requiring a complex password can signal the bank has the best interests of the customer—and the protection of his or her personal information—at heart.

By focusing on building trust through digital experiences and data, bottom-line impacts also will follow. For example, in a Forrester study on customer advocacy, customers of online banks performing well in customer advocacy tend to be more loyal: 80 percent of these customers believed they would choose that bank for their next financial product.
Bank directors and senior leaders can strengthen their bank’s business model, mitigate risk, and build trust through digital elements by empowering cross-functional teams to adhere to the following considerations:

Examine customer expectations. Customers’ digital expectations are relatively brand-agnostic. But it’s not a standalone channel, and how interactions are integrated into a more complex digital experience should be considered when forming a strategy.

Many studies have shown consumers prefer a combination of human and digital touchpoints. To build an effective customer engagement strategy, banks must enable customers in whichever channel they prefer. Doing so builds confidence, and ultimately trust—whether that be transferring funds or setting up a new account.

Mitigate risk by balancing security and design. While security measures have become increasingly important and key to establishing trust, they can also create user experience challenges. With voice-enabled search expected to comprise 50 percent of all internet searches by 2020, consumers will demand comparable capabilities from their banks—all supported by simple, streamlined interfaces. By ensuring that risk management, technology and digital design teams are finding common ground, banks can deliver a more seamless experience and reduce security concerns—giving customers the peace of mind that their finances and identity are protected.

Be a good custodian and user of customer data. Start with building a data management program with governing policies and procedures that support customer trust. Most consumers are on high alert for unapproved uses of their personal information. Banks should only ask for customer data when leadership can articulate where and how it adds value in a transparent way.

To start, banks can look across sub-sector domains like wealth management. Vanguard, one of the top customer advocacy performers in Forrester’s study, uses customer data to offer personalized investment advice to customers via mobile app, while also clearly defining the ways it uses that data on its website. By responsibly and transparently using data, banks can establish customer trust through tailored experiences.

By pairing a holistic data and risk management strategy focused on digital, banks will not only reverse the trend of waning customer trust, but also strengthen a business model equipped to thrive in the heightened risk environment in which retail banks operate today.

This article is the third in a series on building trust in financial services. Read the first two on building customer trust through experience design and creating empowered, more rewarding employee interactions.

A Regulator’s Advice on Vetting Tech Companies


regulator-12-13-18.pngAs a microcosm of the banking sector and the broader economy, North Carolina provides an interesting glimpse at some of the trends and issues impacting banks nationwide.

“North Carolina’s banks are strong and benefiting from a robust economy,” says Ray Grace, who has served as the North Carolina Commissioner of Banks since 2013. “A sign of the good times for banking here is the interest we’ve seen in this cycle from out-of-state banks buying their way into North Carolina markets.”

Out-of-state banks making recent acquisitions in North Carolina include Columbia, South Carolina-based South State Corp., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based F.N.B. Corp., and two Tennessee banks: Pinnacle Financial Partners, in Nashville, and First Horizon National Corp., in Memphis.

As the state’s banks consolidate, there is interest in opening new banks—the first since the financial crisis.

North Carolina also boasts a burgeoning technology sector, including the bank operating system nCino, based in Wilmington, and payment solutions provider AvidXchange, digital banking provider Zenmonics and IT consulting firm Levvel—all based in Charlotte.

In this interview, which has been edited for length and clarity, Grace explains why he’s seeing more interest in opening de novo banks in the state, shares his advice for banks exploring fintech partnerships and weighs in on prospective challenges for the industry.

BD: North Carolina just chartered its first de novo bank in a decade, with American Bank & Trust in Monroe, North Carolina. The Charlotte Observer reported you believe there’s more interest in opening new banks in your state. What’s driving that interest, and do you expect more activity to result from that interest?

RG: During the so-called Great Recession, the traditional economic drivers for bank formations disappeared. The economic downturn increased credit risks from borrowers, monetary policy wrung the margins out of lending, and the predictable tightening of the regulatory screws increased both the cost and the complexity of banking. Normally, we would have seen a faster return of de novo activity, but this was of course no normal recession, and fittingly, it was no normal recovery. Rather than the “V-shaped” recovery we had seen following previous downturns, this was the dreaded “L-shaped” variety, prolonging the drought.

On the heels of an epic consolidation trend, many North Carolina markets, including some that had been historically very supportive of community banks, lost those banks. As with previous consolidation episodes, this has left voids in these markets, particularly in rural areas. At the same time, we have seen a strong, decisive uptick in the economy through much of the state, a gradual return to normalizing interest rates, and, mirabile dictu, the beginnings of a swing of the regulatory pendulum toward a somewhat less restrictive environment. All these factors have contributed to the return of industry profitability and made the banking model attractive once again.

BD: Banks have been increasingly working with fintech firms to better expand and improve their own products and services, but properly vetting younger tech companies can be tricky. Do you have any advice for banks exploring fintech partnerships?

RG: Banks will need to embrace new technologies if they are to remain viable. That said, they need to focus on being cutting edge, but not bleeding edge. There is a dizzying array of gee-whiz products being introduced now, and it’s important to be careful in what you choose to implement.

Like a lot of advice, mine is more easily given than followed, but start with the fundamentals. What [or] who are your markets? What are you offering those markets and customers in the way of products and services, and why? What is trending, and in what directions? How does all this fit in with your business plan? Does your business plan still make sense? If not, change it.

In light of the foregoing, is your management team and board adequate to your bank’s current and future needs? For example, do you have a chief technology officer? A tech-savvy director or two?

Know what is available, [and] study and carefully assess the alternatives that fit the needs of your business plan. Discard applications or products that do not enhance customer value and the quality of their experience—while not breaking the bank.

What existing bank systems must be accessed by the new application? What firewalls or other protections are provided for access, data and systems security?

What is the financial strength of the company you are contracting with? What is their capacity to support the application? Do they have a track record with other banks? What would be the consequences to your operations in the event of failure of the vendor? Who owns the code in that event, and who could take over support?

Not long ago, there were any number of fintech startups with interesting offerings but limited resources and infrastructure, which made them risky to engage with. The good news is that’s changing, and clearly it is better to deal with companies that have some legs, financially and organizationally.

BD: Is there anything else you think is important that boards be aware of heading into 2019?

RG: Change, or the failure to meet its challenges, is the single greatest existential risk to banking as we know it. However, boards cannot afford to lose focus on more traditional risks. There is an old banking axiom that the worst of loans are made in the best of times. These are some pretty good times, and we are beginning to see some troubling signs that memories are short. Among those I would cite are the rising prevalence of “covenant light” loans and other structural concessions on the commercial side, and 100 percent financing in both the commercial and mortgage lending spaces. Some in Washington are again talking about the need to increase access to affordable housing. Déjà vu all over again?

Interest rates are likely to continue to rise, albeit at a modest rate. I think this is a good thing for the industry and the economy, but it will require an increased emphasis on sound funds management policies and practices on both sides of the balance sheet.

Our banking industry has always faced challenges: the Great Depression, disintermediation and the thrift crisis of the 80s, the repeal of Regulation Q, the Great Recession and resultant Dodd Frank Act, and a host of others. Yet, the industry has survived and reinvented itself time and again. Unfortunately, banks have also been the target of damaging criticism from Washington, sometimes for good reason but too often for political motivation. Restoring the public trust tarnished by this criticism will play a critical role in ensuring the industry’s future. We need to be reminded that banks are special. That they are the only industry that “creates” money. And that they are the place where people have traditionally gone when they wanted to buy a home or a car, or start a business. In a very real sense, banks are where people go to make their dreams come true. That’s a powerful story. It’s up to banks to tell it and to make it so.