Managing Risk When Buying Technology for Engagement

No bank leader wants to buy an engagement platform, but they do want to grow customer relationships. 

Many, though, risk buying engagement platforms that won’t grow relationships for a sustained period of time. Most platforms are not ready-made for quality, digital experience that serve depositors and borrowers well, which means they threaten much more than a bank’s growth. They are a risk to the entire relationship with each customer.  

Consumers are increasingly expressing a need for help from their financial providers. Less than half of Americans can afford a surprise $1,000 expense, according to a survey from Bankrate; about 60% say they do not have $1,000 in savings. One in 5 adults would put a surprise expenditure on a credit card, one of the most expensive forms of debt. More than half of consumers polled want more help than they’re getting from their financial provider. However, the 66% of those  who say they have received communication from their provider were unhappy about the generic advice they received. 

This engagement gap offers banks a competitive opportunity. Consumers want more and better engagement, and they are willing to give their business those providers who deliver. About 83% of households polled said they would consider their institution for their next product or service when they are both “satisfied and fully engaged,” according to Gallup. The number drops to 45% if the household is only satisfied. 

Banks seeking to use engagement for growth should be wary of not losing customer satisfaction as they pursue full engagement. As noted earlier, about 66% of those engaged aren’t satisfied with the financial provider’s generic approach. What does that mean for financial institutions? The challenge is quality of engagement, not just quantity or the lack thereof. If they deliver quantity instead of quality, they risk both unsatisfied customers as well as customers who ignore their engagement. 

According to Gallup, only 19% of households said they would grow their relationship when they are neither satisfied nor fully engaged. This is a major risk banks miss when buying engagement platforms: That the institution is buying a technology not made for quality, digital experiences and won’t be able to serve depositors and borrowers well any time soon. 

But aren’t all engagement platforms made for engagement? Yes — but not all are made for banking engagement, and even fewer are made with return on investment in mind. Banking is unique; the tech that powers it should be as well. Buyers need to vet platforms for what’s included in terms of know-how. What expertise does the platform contain and provide for growing a bank? Is that built into the software itself?

A purpose-built platform can show bankers which contact fields are of value to banking engagement, for example, and which integrations can be used to populate those fields. It can also show how that data can become insights for banks when it overlaps with customers’ desired outcomes. And it offers the engagement workflows across staff actions, emails, print marketing and text messaging that result in loan applications, originations, opened accounts or activated cards.   

Previously, the only options available were generic engagement platforms made for any business; banks had to take on the work of customizing platforms. Executives just bought a platform and placed a bet that they could develop it into a banking growth tool. They’d find out if they were right only after paying consultants, writers, designers, and marketing technologists for years.  

Financial services providers no longer need to take these risks. A much better experience awaits them and their current and prospective customers clamoring for a relationship upgrade.

Banking’s Single Pane of Glass

Imagine looking at all the elements and complexities of a given business through a clear and concise “single pane of glass: one easily manageable web interface that has the horizontal capability to do anything you might need, all in one platform.”

It may sound too good to be true, but “single pane of glass” systems could soon become a reality within the mortgage industry. Underwriters, processors, loan originators and others who work at a mortgage or banking institution in other capacities must manage and maintain a plethora of different third-party software solutions on a daily basis.

It’s complex to simultaneously balance dozens of vendor solutions to monitor services, using different management console reports and processes for each. This cumbersome reality is one of the most significant challenges bankers face.

There are proven solutions and approaches to rationalizing these operational processes and streamlining interactions with customers, clients and new accounts. In the parlance of a technologist, these are called “single panes of glass,” better understood as multiple single panes of glass.

That does exist if you’re talking about a single product. Herein lies the problem. Heterogenous network users are using single third-party platform solutions for each service they need, with a result that one would expect. Too many single panes of glass — so much so that each becomes its own unique glass of pain.

How can banks fix this problem? Simply put, people need a single view of their purposed reality. Every source of information and environment, although different, needs to feed into a single API (application program interface). This is more than possible if banks use artificial intelligence and machine learning programs and API frameworks that are updated to current, modern standards. They can unify everything.

Ideally, one single dashboard would need to be able to see everything; this dashboard wouldn’t be led by vendors but would be supported by a plethora of APIs. Banks could plug that into an open framework, which can be more vendor-neutral, and you now have the option to customize and send data as needed.

The next hurdle the industry will need to overcome is that the panes of glass aren’t getting any bigger. Looking at pie charts and multiple screens and applications can be a real pain; it can feel like there isn’t a big enough monitor in the world to sift through some data spreadsheets and dashboards effectively.

With a “single pane of glass” approach, banks don’t have to consolidate all data they need. Instead, they can line up opportunities and quickly access solutions for better, seamless collaboration.

Focusing on one technology provider, where open-source communication can make integration seamless, might be a good adoption route for bank executives to consider in the short term while the industry adapts to overcome these unique challenges.

Crafting a Modern Customer Service Strategy

Customers increasingly demand immediacy and accountability in their service interactions, whether that means ordering a pair of shoes from Amazon.com or a pizza from Domino’s Pizza.

Financial institutions are not immune to this standard; as customer expectations evolve, so too must banks’ approach to customer service. To retain relevance and customer loyalty, bank executives must prioritize the digitalization and personalization of customer service. If institutions are not working towards this transformation, they’re already behind.

Leveraging capabilities like digital customer service can enhance the customer and employee experience while diminishing the risk of complacency — strengthening a bank’s overall competitive position.

Many banks still employ a phone-centric approach to customer support, which can be inefficient and cumbersome for all involved. Even though bank transactions are frequently initiated or occur on digital devices, customers are often required to dial into a contact center when they encounter issues or have questions. Recent research from Bankmycell found 81% of millennials experience anxiety when making a phone call. But this dislike for phone calls isn’t unique to younger generations; a study by Provision Living found that baby boomers made even fewer phone calls than millennials do on their smartphones.

The customer service bar is set by the likes of Apple, Netflix and Meta Platform’s Facebook: companies that facilitate seamless, uninterrupted interactions with as little friction as possible. It’s time for bankers to be able to meet customers in the digital domain and empower them with choice on how to communicate, whether it’s through chat, video or voice. Such an approach boosts the customer experience and fosters long-term loyalty.

Digital customer service can improve the employee experience as well. The customer service agent role has traditionally been one of low satisfaction and high churn, which is especially concerning as the country continues to experience the Great Resignation. Digital customer service allows frontline agents to join a digital interaction in progress on the customer’s own screen, eliminating the risk of miscommunication and expediting resolution time. Such technology even allows agents to guide customers in how to solve the issue themselves next time. As a result, agents shift from customer care representatives to become a teacher or coach, instilling confidence in users to solve future issues through digital self-service. Digitalized customer service and a seamless on-screen experience allows agents to complete tasks with greater speed and efficiency — while making the role itself more enjoyable and fulfilling.

Complacency is both a common barrier and a looming threat for bank executives; many keep legacy processes and strategies in place because of comfort and fear of change. But the failure to innovate can be a death knell for banks when it comes to keeping up with competitors. And technology continues to shorten the innovation cycle — making complacency that much more dangerous.

Financial institutions are at the vanguard of innovation in the consumer-driven market; experiences are the key differentiator. Customer service, and how customer-facing employees work, are experiencing dramatic digital transformation. As a result, financial institutions must examine, reconsider and frequently adapt to new technologies as they emerge.

The banks that recognize the urgency of modernizing customer service and act accordingly will benefit from a competitive advantage for years to come. Those that fail to act risk falling behind competitors and face significant customer attrition.

Why There Is No ‘Back to Normal’ for Banks

In the past few weeks, I’ve started to go back into the office more frequently. Despite any inconveniences, it’s refreshing and invigorating to see colleagues and clients in person again. It’s clear that most of us are ready for things to go back to normal.

Except, they most likely won’t.

Last year was largely favorable for banks, with industry ETFs outperforming the broader market and rebounding from 2020’s contractions. Larger banks with diversified revenue sources — including mortgage lending and banks with active capital markets or wealth management businesses — did particularly well.

Now, with rising inflation and a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape, there may be different winners and losers. But after two years of the global pandemic, we have learned what the future of work could look like, and how much the environment will continue to evolve. The recent challenges in Eastern Europe remind us that ongoing change is the only certainty.

In PwC’s latest look at the banking environment, Next In Banking and Capital Markets, we see investors being far more interested in growth than in saving a few dollars. And we see potential for that growth across the banking industry — regardless of size, geography or customer segment. In particular, we see five opportunities for institutions that focus on digital transformation, build trust — with a particular emphasis on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, win deals, review and respond to regulation, and adopt cloud technology.

Digital Transformation: My colleagues researched how consumer behavior has changed over the past two years. We found that the pandemic significantly accelerated the trend toward digital banking — and many banks weren’t prepared. The implications go far beyond adding a peer-to-peer payment tool to your consumer app. In fact, nearly every bank should be thinking about developing a growth strategy based on a customer focus that is much sharper than “They live near our branches” or “Businesses need access to capital.” Digital transformation is here to stay; aligning to a disciplined growth strategy can help make technology investments successful.

Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Frameworks: Community reinvestment, diversity initiatives and strong governance models are not new issues for banks. In fact, the industry has been laser-focused on building stakeholder trust since the 2008 financial crisis. But with a solid baseline of social and governance investments, banks have now shifted their focus to helping define and deliver commitments around the environment, namely climate change. Banking industry leaders are looking for more effective ways to integrate climate risk management throughout their operations. But the data we use to report on ESG issues is very different from typical financial metrics, and most firms struggle to tell their story. Leading firms can help enhance transparency with trustworthy data, while developing strategies to drive their climate agenda.

Deals: The industry experienced historic rates of bank mergers and acquisitions last year — everything from some foreign banks stepping away from the U.S. market, to regional bank consolidation, to banks of all sizes adding specialty businesses. But with valuations at current levels, corporate development teams should get far pickier to make the numbers work. Increasingly, this may require a greater emphasis on creating growth than on finding cost synergies. To do that, banks and their leaders need to have a very clear idea of whom they’re serving, and why.

Regulation: Evolving concerns over the global economy have resulted in a different approach to regulation. While this does not represent a 180° turn from where we had been, it is clear that banks have been attracting new attention from regulators and legislators, especially with respect to consumer protection, cybersecurity, climate risk, taxation and digital assets. Banks should be particularly diligent about control effectiveness, as well as identifying effective ways to collect, analyze and report data. But regulation isn’t just a matter of defense: The more banks understand and manage risk, the more they can take advantage of “new economy” opportunities like mitigating climate change and digital assets.

Cloud: Virtually every bank has moved some of its work to cloud-based systems. But with definitions of “cloud” as imprecise as they are, it is no wonder that many executives have not yet seen the value they had hoped for. If you set out to consolidate data centers by moving some background processing to the cloud, don’t expect major rewards. But emerging cloud capabilities can, for example, help banks improve the customer experience by being more agile when responding to client demands — and this could be a game changer. Today’s cloud technology can help institutions rethink their core business systems to be more efficient. It can even help solve new problems by more efficiently integrating services from a third party. This year, we’re likely to see some banks pull farther ahead of their peers — perhaps, even leapfrogging competitors — by making strategic choices about how to use cloud technology to jump-start digital transformation, rather than just as a way to manage costs.

Last year, I made the case that banks needed to stay agile, given economic uncertainty and the rapid pace of change. This is still the case. But bankers and boards should also keep their eyes on the prize: Whether you are a community bank, a large regional institution or a global powerhouse, you will have plenty of chances to grow this year. The five opportunities described above can offer significant value to banks that adopt them strategically.

How to Build a Bank From Scratch

Corey LeBlanc is best known as the man behind the @InkedBanker Twitter handle, inspired by his affection for tattoos. He’s also co-founder, chief operating officer and chief technology officer of Locality Bank, a newly chartered digital bank based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. In the interview below, which has been edited for length, clarity and flow, he talks about the value of standing out and the process of standing up a de novo digital bank.

BD: How did you become known as the InkedBanker?
CL: A few years ago, Jim Marous, co-publisher of The Financial Brand, told me that I had to get on Twitter. When my wife and I created the profile, we needed something that made sense. I’ve had tattoos since I was 18 – full sleeves on both arms, on my back and chest — so that’s what we picked. It’s turned out to be incredibly important for my career. People remember me. It gives me an edge and helps me stand out in an industry where it’s easy to get lost in the mix.

             Corey LeBlanc, Locality Bank

BD: What’s your vision for Locality Bank?
CL: The best way to think about Locality is as a digital bank that’s focused on the south Florida market. There’s a void left in a community after its locally owned banks are either bought by bigger, out-of-state rivals or grow so much that they no longer pay attention to their legacy markets. Our vision is to fill that void using digital distribution channels.

BD: Was it hard to raise capital?
CL: Not especially. Our CEO, Keith Costello, has been a banker for many years and was able to raise an initial $1.8 million in December 2020 from local investors to get us off the ground. We later went back to that same group to raise the actual capital for the bank, and they committed another $18 million. Altogether, including additional investors, we raised $35 million between October and November of 2021. Because that was more than the $28 million we had committed to raise, we had to go back to the regulators to make adjustments to our business plan, which delayed our opening.

BD: How long did it take to get your charter?
CL: It was about 10 months. We filed our charter application on St. Patrick’s Day of 2021. We received our conditional approvals from the state in mid-September, and then we had our conditional approval from the [Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.] in early November. Our full approval came on Jan. 11, 2022.

BD: What was it like working with the regulators?
CL: You hear bankers say that regulators make everything difficult and stop you from doing what you want to do. But we didn’t find that to be the case. Just the opposite. They served more like partners to us. They worked with us to fine-tune our business plan to better meet the needs of the customers and markets we’re targeting, while still trying to accomplish our original objectives.

BD: What’s your go-to-market strategy?
CL: We’re going to be a lend-first institution. Our primary focus is on the south Florida commercial market — small to medium-sized businesses all the way up to early stage, larger enterprises. We’ll expand as we grow, but we want to be hyper-focused on serving that market. To start out, we’re offering two commercial accounts: a basic commercial checking account and a money market account. Then we’ll expand to providing accounts with more sophisticated capabilities as well as [Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts] for lawyers. Because of the markets we’re in, those two accounts are absolutely necessary.

BD: As a new bank, how do you ensure that you’re making good loans?
CL: It was a top priority for us to recruit good, trusted bankers who understand that you need to balance the needs of the bank and the needs of the market. The bankers we’ve hired know how to do that. On top of this, if you can get a banker who’s been successful with the tool set that most traditional institutions give them, and then you give them a better set of tools, imagine the experience that you’re creating for those bankers and their customers. You’re empowering them to do something exponentially greater than they could in the past. And by giving them that set of tools, you’ve now inspired and motivated them to push even further and start challenging systems that otherwise they would have never challenged. We see it very much as a virtuous circle.

Former Bank Disruptor, Turned Ally, Talks Innovation

A career that began with upending traditional banks has given Alexander Sion perspective on what they can do to accelerate growth and innovation.

Sion is the director and co-head of Citibank’s D10X, which is part of Citigroup’s global consumer bank. Prior to that, he oversaw mobile banking and mobile channel governance for the consumer and community banking group as general manager of mobile at JPMorgan Chase & Co.

But before he worked at banks, he attacked them.

Sion co-founded “neobank” Moven in 2011 to focus on the financial wellness of consumers. The mobile bank disruptor has since become a vendor; in March, the company announced it would close retail accounts and pivot completely to enterprise software.

Bank Director recently spoke with Sion about how banks can create new models that generate growth, even as they face disruption and challenges. Below is a transcript that has been edited for clarity and length.

BD: How should banks think about innovation as it relates to their products, services, culture and infrastructure?

AS: Citi Ventures focuses on growth within a dynamic environment of change. It’s very difficult to achieve, and it’s very different from core growth with existing customers. But all innovation, particularly at incumbent firms, has to stem from a desire to grow.

Banks that struggle with growth, or even getting excited about innovation, need to ask themselves two sets of questions. No. 1: Do you have a deep desire to grow? Do you have aggressive ambitions to grow? No. 2: Is that growth going to be coming from new spaces, or spaces that are being disrupted? Or are you considering growth from existing customers?

If a bank is focused on existing customers, retention and efficiencies, it’s going to be hard to get excited about innovation.

BD: What’s the difference for banks between investing in tech and merely consuming it?

AS: They’re very different. If your bank is focused on growing within its core business, then you would lean more towards consuming tech. You’re building off of something that already exists and trying to make it better. You’ve got existing customers on existing platforms and you’re looking for more efficient ways to serve them, retain them or grow share.

If you’re interested in new growth and exploration — new segments, new products, new distribution channels — you might be more inclined to partner in those spaces. You have less to build from, less to leverage, and you’re naturally trying to figure things out, versus trying to optimize things that already exist.

BD: What kind of a talent or skills does a bank need for these types of endeavors? Do people with these skills already work at the bank?

AS: Existing bank employees know the product, they know the customer. At Citi, what we do at D10X and Citi Ventures is to try to expose bank employees to a different way of thinking, expand their mindset to possibilities outside the constraints of what or where the core model leans towards and think from a customer-centric view versus a product-centric view of the world.

The dynamics of customer behaviors are changing so much. There’s so much redefinition of how customers think about money, payments and their financial lives. Creating a more customer-centric view in existing employees that already have the deep knowledge and expertise of not only the product, but how the bank’s customers have evolved — that’s a very powerful combination.

BD: Why should a bank think about new markets or new customers if they found great success with their core?

AS: If most banks in the United States were honest with themselves, I think many would admit that they’re struggling with growth. America is a very banked place. The banking environment hasn’t changed all that much, and most banks are established. Their focus has been on existing customers, efficiency of the model and maybe deepening within that customer base.

But now, fintechs coming in. These commerce, payments and technology players are doing two things. No. 1: They are legitimately opening up new markets of growth and segments that weren’t reachable, or the traditional model wasn’t really addressing. No. 2, and maybe more important, is they are widening and changing the perspective on customer behavior. I don’t think any bank is immune from those two trajectories; your bank can be defensive or offensive to those two angles, but you’ve got to be one or the other.

BD: What are some lessons you or Citi has learned from its testing, refining and launching new solutions?

AS: Venture incubation has to be about learning. There’s a saying that every startup is a product, service or idea in search of a business model. The challenge that every existing incumbent bank will have is that we have existing business models.

Banks need to be able to test ideas very rapidly. It’s easy to test an idea and rapidly iterate when you’re in search of a business model. It’s much more difficult to test new ideas in an already-operating business model. A typical idea is debated internally, watered down significantly and will go through the wringer before the first customer gets to click on anything. In this kind of world, that’s a difficult strategy to win on.

The Big Picture of Banking in Three Simple Charts


banking-3-22-19.pngOne thing that separates great bankers from their peers is a deep appreciation for the highly cyclical nature of the banking industry.

Every industry is cyclical, of course, thanks to the cyclical nature of the economy. Good times are followed by bad times, which are followed by good times. It’s always been that way, and there’s no reason to think it will change anytime soon.

Yet, banking is different.

The typical bank borrows $10 for every $1 in equity. On one hand, this leverage accelerates the economic growth of the communities a bank serves. But on the other, it makes banks uniquely sensitive to fluctuations in employment and asset prices.

Even a modest correction in the business cycle or a major asset class can send dozens of banks into receivership.

“It is in the nature of an industry whose structure is competitive and whose conduct is driven by supply to have cycles that only end badly,” wrote Barbara Stewart in “How Will This Underwriting Cycle End?,” a widely cited paper published in 1980 on the history of underwriting cycles.

Stewart was referring to the insurance industry, but her point is equally true in banking.

This is why bankers with a big-picture perspective have an advantage over bankers without a similarly deep and broad appreciation for the history of banking, combined with knowledge about the strengths and infirmities innate in a bank’s business model.

How does one go about gaining a big-picture perspective?

You can do it the hard way, by amassing personal experience. If you’ve seen enough cycles, then you know, as Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co., has said: “You don’t run a business hoping you don’t have a recession.”

Or you can do it the easy way, by accruing experience by proxy—that is, by learning how things unfolded in the past. If you know that nine out of the last nine recessions were all precipitated by rising interest rates, for instance, then you’re likely to be more cautious with your loan portfolio in a rising rate environment.

You can see this in the chart below, sourced from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis’ popular FRED database. The graph traces the effective federal funds rate since 1954, with the vertical shaded portions representing recessions.

Fed-Funds-Rate.png

A second chart offering additional perspective on the cyclical nature of banking traces bank failures since the Civil War, when the modern American banking industry first took shape.

This might seem macabre—who wants to obsess over bank failures?—but this is an inseparable aspect of banking that is ignored at one’s peril. Good bankers respect and appreciate this, which is one reason their institutions avoid failure.

Failures.png

Not surprisingly, the incidence of bank failures closely tracks the business cycle. The big spike in the 1930s corresponds to the Great Depression. The spike in the 1980s and 1990s marks the savings and loan crisis. And the smaller recent surge corresponds to the financial crisis.

All told, a total of 17,365 banks have failed since 1865. A useful analog through which to think about banking, in other words, is that it’s a war of attrition, much like the conflict that spawned the modern American banking industry.

A third chart offering insight into how the banking industry has evolved in recent decades illustrates historical acquisition activity.

Acquisitions.png

Approximately 4 percent of banks consolidate on an annual basis, equating to about 200 a year nowadays. But this is an average. The actual number has fluctuated widely over time. Twitter_Logo_Blue.png

From 1940 through the mid-1970s, when interstate and branch banking were prohibited in most states, there were closer to 100 bank acquisitions a year. But then, as these regulatory barriers came down in the 1980s and 1990s, deal activity surged.

The point being, while banking is a rapidly consolidating industry, the most recent pace of consolidation has decelerated. This is relevant to anyone who may be thinking of buying or selling a bank. It’s also relevant to banks that aren’t in the market to do a deal, as customer attrition in the wake of a competitors’ sale has often been a source of organic growth.

In short, it’s easy to dismiss history as a topic of interest only to professors and armchair historians. But the experience one gains by proxy from looking to the past can help bankers better position their institutions for the present and the future.

Take it from investor Charlie Munger: “There’s no better teacher than history in determining the future.”

Enhancing Shareholder Value



Bank stocks have taken a dive in late 2018, and bank boards play a key role in the strategic decisions driving shareholder value. Scott Sommer and Steve Williams of Cornerstone Advisors explain the issues impacting shareholder value in 2019, including technology.

  • Bank stock trends
  • Focus on fintech
  • Board decisions

Aligning Risk With Strategic Growth



The banking industry is experiencing change like it never has before. Digital delivery channels will have a profound effect on the typical bank’s business model, and further change is coming through regulatory relief. Both can offer new opportunities and new risks. KPMG’s David Reavy details what you need to know about these changes and how boards should focus on today’s risks.

  • The Future Bank Business Model
  • Regulation and Industry Change
  • Expectations for Boards

Competitive to Collaborative: How Fintech Works With Banks and Not Against Them


collaboration.png

Over the past two decades alone, the advent of new technologies has undeniably changed the way we communicate, work, travel, invest, shop and more. This has forced traditional financial institutions to adopt more efficient and modern business models. It comes as little surprise, then, that the banking industry—long renowned for its staid, traditionalist approach to business—is ripe for disruption, operates under significant financial pressure and is subject to renewed scrutiny as a result of the liquidity spiral of 2008. Enter fintech.

Fintech has come a long way since Peter Knight, a business editor at the United Kingdom’s Sunday Times, first coined the term back in the 1980s, and since early entrant PayPal first revolutionized electronic payments. In its most current iteration (circa 2007, give or take), fintech emerged as a knight in shining armor: a disruptive force ready to save us all from those —evil’ financial institutions deemed responsible for the Great Recession.

Much has changed since 2007 and it seems that, as many predicted, banks, alternative lenders and fintech companies have come full circle in how they view each other relative to the ecosystem they occupy—from perceived partners, to “frenemies” (companies that cooperate for the mutual benefit despite competing in the same industry niche) and enemies (companies that compete in the same industry niche), then back to perceived partners. An increasing number of these actors have been adopting a more collaborative rather than adversarial approach, recognizing the overlap in business objectives in everyone’s self-interest. This can be seen as an extremely positive thing; partnerships with fintech companies can provide financial institutions with the ability to serve new segments, engage new customers and expand business with efficient technological solutions.

Bottom line, when banks and fintech companies work together, they are able to bring products to market quickly and seamlessly, all while providing a significantly enhanced client experience.

But what is behind this paradigm shift? There are three main factors driving this new wave of collaboration:

The Competitive Landscape
Beholden to prohibitively complex and cumbersome financial regulations, banks have seen significant consolidation and increasing competition over the past 40 years. They responded in large part by rebalancing their business models from a strict asset transformation approach, to blended fee-based models. Now, however, when fintech and banks collaborate, they’re able to not only leverage the resources of banks, but also leverage fintech’s nimbleness in order to effectively and expediently bring products to market. Data has exposed many previously underserved market opportunities, long overlooked due to bloated cost structures riddled with antiquated IT infrastructures and heavily layered processes, impeded further by the highly siloed nature of financial institutions’ operational structures.

Traditional Customer Service Role Has Changed
Traditional banks, be they large too-big-to-fail banks or regional and community banks and credit unions, have a strong position not only from a capital perspective, but also from a customer vantage point—they have records of all of their customers’ information. This is an important distinction between traditional and well-established institutions versus new alternative finance companies—banks would have a much lower cost of customer acquisition when compared to alternative lenders that face massive marketing expenditures.

The traditional role of the bank is to take in and manage deposits, allocate that capital and service a traditional portfolio with traditional loan parameters. Banks lend, borrow and ultimately help keep money in circulation. However, unless there is commitment by senior management at these financial institutions to adapt modern technologies, success is unlikely for traditional financial institutions.

Innovation Overdue
Lastly, driven by the competitive landscape, banks seem to have recognized that they are not viewed as bastions of innovation. Many are responding accordingly by teaming up with fintech companies that are well-positioned to steer them forward into the digital age. Deals between traditional financial institutions and alternative lenders and fintech players (like JP Morgan and OnDeck or Kabbage and Santander) are illustrative of the complementary and mutually beneficial qualities that players in banking and fintech bring to the table.

These factors, in combination, will likely result in an ecosystem of fintech companies assuming 25-30 percent, if not more, of the current banking system’s value chain. Catering to both traditional and alternative financial institutions, fintech companies enable banks to focus on their individual core competencies by offering expanding toolkits of services from origination (customer acquisition and digital onboarding) to underwriting and portfolio management (know your customer, otherwise known as KYC, anti-money laundering compliance, predictive data analytics and loan management).

The financial ecosystem is changing regardless of how market participants feel. Change is the only certainty, after all. Survivors will adapt by leveraging technological innovation through fintech partnerships, creating significant value for customers and the company itself. Those that don’t will quickly be left behind and ultimately perish.