The Best Way To Increase Digital Deposits

Consumers have come to expect the ability to do banking — and a wide range of other activities — online. These expectations are only likely to grow with the Covid-19 pandemic.

While some banks have offered online services for some time, many others may be rethinking their strategy as they consider options that might help them grow market share beyond their traditional or geographically limited service areas. After all, digital banking has the potential to draw deposits and service loans from a broader pool of potential customers. As banks of all sizes contend with margin compression and increased competition, one of the easiest and most expeditious ways to cut costs is through the use of technology.

As banks work to increase deposits in an increasingly digital world, they have the opportunity to take different, sometimes divergent, approaches to connecting with audiences and compelling them to become customers. Two key strategies are:

  • Establishing a digital branch — a digital version of an existing branch
  • Launching an entirely new digital bank, with an entirely different look and feel from the existing brand

There is no right approach as long as banks are meeting customers’ digital needs. Each bank should pursue an approach that incorporates their brand, their core strategies and their target audiences. But small community banks don’t have to be hampered by the lack of big budgets or deep pockets when providing excellent experiences to their customers and fuel consistent growth, though. By leveraging truly optimized digital capabilities, community banks can grow faster and at a low cost.

Extending the Brand Name
There’s great value in brand loyalty. Many community banks have long-standing positive relationships; strong brand awareness and loyalty are firmly established within the communities they serve. When doubling down on offering online services, leveraging its existing brand name can help the bank establish immediate awareness and preference for its services.

Leveraging the existing brand name can be a less-costly undertaking, since new logos, branding platforms, key messages and marketing collateral don’t need to be established.

The potential downside? When reaching into new markets, an existing brand name may not have enough awareness to compete against the large, national, online brands. Fortunately, the online landscape offers even very small community banks the opportunity to build a very large footprint. To do that, some are launching new brands designed to reach an entirely new target audience.

Launching a New Online Brand
Reaching a new audience is one of the biggest benefits for banks that launch a new online brand. It also creates an opportunity to shift the bank’s image if the existing brand has not been strong or does not convey the modern, nimble image that tends to appeal to younger audiences.

The drawbacks, though, include the costs of creating a new brand, both in terms of time and money with no certainty or guarantee that the new brand will gain traction in the market. In addition, launching a new brand relinquishes any opportunity to leverage any existing brand equity. Operational planning and related costs may also be higher, given the likelihood that some positions and services will be duplicated between physical and online branches.

Still, community banks should carefully consider both options in light of their unique positioning, strategies and goals. While both approaches represent some level of risk, they also provide specific benefits that can be capitalized on to grow market share and revenue. We’ve worked with banks in both camps that have seen incredible growth and gained operational efficiencies well beyond their goals.

No matter the approach, when it comes to digital banking, it’s imperative to have clear objectives, buy-in from all stakeholders, focused resources to make it happen, and partners that can provide guidance and best-practices along the way.

Customer Experience: The Freedom to Experiment

NYMBUS.pngSurety Bank faces the same geographic limits to growth that other small community banks do. The $137 million bank operates four branches in Daytona Beach, Pierson, Lake Mary and DeLand, Florida, its headquarters. These are, at most, no more than 45 miles from one another.

But CEO Ryan James believes the bank can fuel deposit growth nationwide through the launch of a digital brand, booyah!, which targets college students and young graduates with fee-free deposit accounts. The bank’s relationship with its core is enabling him to make this bet.

Surety converted from a legacy core provider to the Nymbus SmartCore in 2018. It launched booyah! a year later using Nymbus SmartLaunch, a bank-in-a-box product designed to help banks quickly and inexpensively stand up a digital branch under an existing charter.

Nymbus SmartLaunch received the award for the Best Solution for Customer Experience at Bank Director’s 2020 Best of FinXTech Awards in May. Backbase, a digital banking provider, and Pinkaloo, a white-labeled charitable giving platform, were also finalists in the category. (Read more about how Pinkaloo worked with a Massachusetts community bank here.)

Bigger banks have reported mixed results from their efforts to establish digital brands. Wyomissing, Pennsylvania-based Customers Bancorp was one of the first to do so when it established its BankMobile division in 2015, targeting millennials. The $12 billion bank partnered with T-Mobile US three years later to offer accounts to the cell phone carrier’s 86 million customers. Meanwhile, JPMorgan Chase & Co. closed its digital bank, Finn, last year.

Growth costs money. Opening a freestanding branch can cost anywhere from $500,000 to $4.5 million, according to a 2019 Bancography survey. And unlike bigger banks, small institutions face significant obstacles in opening a separate digital brand to differentiate themselves nationwide — they don’t have capital to spend on experiments.

But if a small bank can establish a new digital brand at a reasonable cost, the experiment becomes more feasible.

“Why can’t you start a digital bank cheap?” says James. Surety’s legacy customers and booyah!’s new customers share the same user experience — SmartLaunch offers online applications for deposit and loan accounts, along with remote deposit capture, payment options, bill pay and debit card management. Bank customers can also set custom alerts and take advantage of personal financial management tools. Creating booyah! was really just a matter of adding a new logo and color scheme.

“It’s the same thing [we] already have,” he says. “Why does it have to be hundreds of millions of dollars in investments?”

That was the story from his old core provider, he says. But Nymbus didn’t leverage hefty fees to make booyah! a reality. What’s more, Surety isn’t locked into its experiment.

“What I love about them is you test, you pivot, and you do what makes sense” for your bank, James says. “You don’t have to give away years of your profits to try something new.”

Whether or not booyah! is a success, Nymbus provides Surety with the flexibility to quickly and easily spin up other brands that focus on specific customer segments, or shutter anything that doesn’t work, like Chase did with Finn.

If its digital brand works, Surety has a lot to gain. With the industry squeezed for profits in a prolonged low-rate environment, cheaply expanding its footprint to draw more deposits could help the bank maintain its high level of profitability in an increasingly challenging environment. The bank maintains a high return on equity (15.11% as of Dec. 31, 2019), return on assets (1.68%) and net interest margin (4.05%), according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

In a world populated with countless First National Banks, Farmers Banks and the like, booyah! certainly doesn’t sound like a typical bank. So, why booyah? Curious, I asked James. “Why not?” he replies. 

The name, frankly, isn’t the point.

Ultimately, Chase didn’t need Finn; it was already a nationwide bank with an established, well-recognized brand and millions of customers using its mobile app. But for Surety Bank, booyah! represents the potential to gain deposits outside its Florida footprint — without putting the bank’s bottom line at risk.

Don’t Under-estimate the Megabank Threat

Clearly, things in the marketplace are very uncertain at the moment.

But one thing is certain to continue when things stabilize: The megabanks’ domination of the banking industry when it comes to consumer deposit market share and growth.

If you think Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup, Wells Fargo & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group are sitting back, basking in a victory that comes at the expense of regional and community financial institutions, think again. The lack of a credible response to stop them means there’s nothing preventing them from continuing to execute their strategies.

Here are examples of the mindset at a couple of megabanks about their view of, and plans for, increasing their consumer marketplace dominance.

Bank of America
Chairman and CEO Brian Moynihan declared in mid-January that he believed the bank could double its consumer market share in the United States. He also believes the bank could double its retail business without opening more branches.

“If we do a good job for the customers and clients and we’re fair in our pricing, I think that’s good because … the scale that we have enables us to do more for customers,” Moynihan said.

He also mentioned that doubling the retail business could happen without opening any more branches. His plans for the next couple of years include opening 500 financial centers and modernizing 2,500 centers with technology upgrades by 2021, creating fully automated branches with ATMs and video conferencing facilities so customers can communicate with off-site bankers, adding 2,700 more ATMs, and increasing the use of AI-powered chatbot Erica to improve digital offerings and cross-sell products like mortgages, auto loans and credit cards.

Doubling the bank’s business may not be the actual end goal at all. Moynihan sees a massive market opportunity. Not only does Bank of America have the scale, but regional and community banks are not responding to consumers’ deposit needs urgently or effectively. Encroaching on their market share doesn’t seem to be a herculean undertaking.

Moynihan doesn’t expect to see a challenge from “traditional large competitors or even regional banks,” but existing and new online bank competitors. “The struggle that BofA will have in increasing market share will not come from traditional large competitors or even regional banks, but more likely from new online banking companies,” he said.

Let’s find out what one of those online banks is working on today.

Marcus by Goldman Sachs
“We aspire to be the leading digital consumer bank,” stated Eric Lane, global co-head of Goldman’s consumer and investment management division. “We’re starting with loans, we added savings and cards, and we’re working to build out the balance of the digital products suite, including wealth and checking. We’re trying to deliver a retail bank branch through your mobile phone.”

From 2016 to 2019, Marcus has grown customers from 200,000 to 5 million, deposit balances from $12 billion to $60 billion, and loan and card balances from $200 million to $7 billion. That has culminated in revenues growing from $2 million to about $860 million, according to the bank’s investor day presentation.

Despite Lane’s desire to deliver a retail branch through phones, Marcus’ growth to-date has been without a mobile app — which was finally released in January. Adding mobile to the digital delivery platform supports the bank’s commitment to the retail consumer and is a crucial foundation for their growth plans. Goldman Sachs plans to more than double consumer deposits, to at least $125 billion over the next five years, and to grow loans and credit card balances fourfold, to over $20 billion during the same period.

Leveraging its perceived advantage over traditional banks, Marcus also just announced plans to offer retail consumer checking accounts in 2021. It will also provide zero-fee wealth management services accessed through the mobile app by the end of 2020 and is reportedly in talks to offer small business loans to Amazon.com’s e-commerce platform business users.

This is just the mindset of two of the megabanks. Bankers should study the plans of others, like Chase and Citi, to learn about their aggressive plans to materially grow consumer market share. They all plan to compete for customers of regional and community banks more than ever while defending their existing relationships and turf.

Regional and community bankers need to pay close attention to the mindset of these megabanks and shift from denying their negative impact on consumers to devising realistic plans to compete against them.

Whipsawed by Interest Rates

One of the things that bankers hate most is uncertainty and abrupt changes in the underlying economics of their business, and the emerging global crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic is confronting them with the perfect storm.

You can blame it all on the Federal Reserve.

Indeed, the higher rates that the Fed gave in 2018, it is now taken away — and that is creating a big challenge for banks as they scramble to adapt to a very different interest rate scenario from what they were dealing with just 15 months ago.

On March 3, as the economic impact of the coronavirus both globally and in the United States was becoming more apparent and fears about a possible recession were mounting, the Fed made an emergency 50 basis-point cut in interest rates, to a range of 1% to 1.25%. The Fed’s action was dramatic not only because of the size of the reduction, but also because this action was taken “off cycle” — which is to say two weeks prior to the next scheduled meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, which is the Fed’s rate-setting body.

And as this article was being posted, many market observers were expecting that the Fed would follow with another rate cut at its March 17-18 meeting, which would drive down rates to their lowest levels since the financial crisis 12 years ago. Needless to say, banks have been whipsawed by these abrupt shifts in monetary policy. The Fed increased rates four times in 2018, to a range of 2.25% to 2.50%, then lowered rates three times in 2019 when the U.S. economy seemed to be softening, to a range of 1.50% to 1.75%.    

Now, it appears that interest rates might go even lower.

What should bank management teams do to deal with this unexpected shift in interest rates? To gain some insight into that question, I reached out to Matt Pieniazek, president of the Darling Consulting Group in Newburyport, Massachusetts. I’ve known Pieniazek for several years and interviewed him on numerous occasions, and consider him to be one of the industry’s leading experts on asset/liability management. Pieniazek says he has been swamped by community banks looking for advice about how to navigate this new rate environment.

One of Pieniazek’s first comments was to lament that many banks didn’t act sooner when the Fed cut rates last year. “It’s just disappointing that too many banks let their own biases get in the way, rather than listen to their balance sheets,” he says. “There are a lot of things that could’ve been done. Now everyone’s in a panic, and they’re willing to talk about doing things today when the dynamics of it are not very encouraging. Risk return or the cost benefit are just nowhere near the same as what they were just six months ago, let alone a year, year and a half ago.”

So, what’s to be done?

Pieniazek’s first suggestion is to dramatically lower funding costs. “No matter how low their funding costs are, very few banks are going to be able to outrun this on the asset side,” he says. “They’ve got to be able to [be] diligent and disciplined and formalized in their approach to driving down deposit costs.”

“In doing so, they have to acknowledge that there could be some risk of loss of balances,” Pieniazek continues. “As a result, they need to really revisit their contingency liquidity planning. They have to also revisit with management and the board the extent to which they truly are willing to utilize wholesale funding. The more you’re willing to do that, the more you would be willing to test the water on lowering deposits. I think there is a correlation to comfort level and challenging yourself to lower deposits and well thought out contingency planning that incorporates the willingness and ability to prudently use the wholesale market. Aggressively attacking deposit costs has to be accompanied by a real hard, fresh look at contingency liquidity planning and the bank’s philosophy toward wholesale markets.”

This strategy of driving down funding costs might be a hard sell in a market where competitors are still paying relatively high rates on deposits. “Well, you know what?” Pieniazek says. “You’ve got two choices. You either let village idiots drive your business, or you do what makes sense for your organization.”

Most banks will also feel pressure on the asset side of their balance sheets as rates decline. Banks that have a large percentage of floating rate loans may not have enough funding to offset them. As those loans reprice in a falling rate environment, banks will feel pressure to correspondingly lower their funding costs to protect their net interest margins as much as possible. And while community banks typically don’t have a lot of floating rate loans, they do have high percentages of commercial real estate loans, which Pieniazek estimates have an average life span of two and a half years. The only alternative to lowering deposit costs to protect the margin would be to dramatically grow the loan portfolio during a time of great economic uncertainty. But as Pieniazek puts it, “There’s not enough growth out there at [attractive] yield levels to allow people to head off that margin compression.”

Pieniazek’s second suggestion is to review your loan documents. “While I’m not suggesting [interest] rates are going to go negative, most banks do not have loan docs which prevent rates from going negative,” he says. “They need to revisit their loan docs and make sure that there’s lifetime floors on all of their loans that will not enable the actual note rate to go zero. They could always negotiate lower if they want. They can’t negotiate up.”

His final suggestion is that community banks need to strongly consider the use of derivatives to hedge their interest rate exposure. “If you think in an environment like this that your customers are going to allow you to dictate the structure of your balance sheet, you better think again,” he says. “Everyone’s going to want to shorten up … What you’re going to find is retail customers are going to keep their money short. In times of uncertainty, what do people want to do? They want to keep their cash close to them, don’t they?”

Of course, while depositors are going to keep their money on a short leash, borrowers “are going to want to know what the 100-year loan rate is,” Pieniazek says. And this scenario creates the potential for disaster that has been seen time and again in banking — funding long-term assets with short-term deposits.

The only thing you can do is augment customer behavior through the use of derivatives,” Pieniazek says. “Interest rate caps are hugely invaluable here for banks to hedge against rising rates while allowing their funding costs to remain or cycle lower if rates go lower. In a world of pressure for long-term fixed rate assets, being able to do derivatives … allows banks to convert fixed-rate loans in their portfolio to floating for whatever time period they want, starting whenever they want.”

During times of uncertainty and volatility, Pieniazek says it’s crucial that bank management teams make sound judgments based on a clear understanding of their ramifications. “Don’t let panic and fear result in you changing your operating strategy,” he says. “The worst thing to do is make material changes because of fear and panic. Let common sense and a clear understanding of your balance sheet, your risk profile, drive your thought process. And don’t be afraid to take calculated risks.”

Defending Commercial Deposits From Emerging Risks

The competition for commercial deposits has become fiercer in the new decade.

The rate of noninterest deposits growth has been declining over the last three years, according to quarterly reports from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. The percentage of noninterest deposits to total deposits has also dropped over 250 basis points since 2016. This comes as the cost of funding earning assets continues to rise, creating pressure on banks’ net interest margins.  

At the same time, corporate customers are facing changes in their receipt of payments. Emerging payment trends are shifting payers from paper-based payments to other methods and avenues. Checks and paper-based payments — historically the most popular method — continue to decline as payers’ preferred payment method. Electronic payments have grown year-over-year by 9.4%.

Newer payment channels include mobile, point of presentment and payment portals. However, these new payment channels can increase the cost of processing electronic payments: 88% of these payments must be manually re-keyed by the accounting staff, according to one study. This inefficiency in manually processing payments increases costs and often leads to customer service issues.

Treasurers and senior corporate managers want automated solutions to handle increased electronic payment trends. Historically, banks have served their corporate customers for years with wholesale and retail lockbox services. But many legacy lockbox services are designed for paper-based payments, which are outdated and cannot handle electronic payments. Research shows that these corporate customers are turning to fintechs to solve their new payment processing challenges. Payments were the No. 1 threat that risked moving to fintechs, according to a 2017 Global Survey from PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Corporate customers are dissatisfied with their current process and are looking to use technology to modernize, future-proof, and upgrade their accounts receivable process. The top five needs of today’s treasurer include: enterprise resource planning (ERP) integration, automated payment matching, support for all payment channels, consolidated reporting and a single historical archive of their payments. 

Integrated receivables have three primary elements: payment matching, ERP integration and a single reporting archive. Automation matches payments from all channels using artificial intelligence and robotic process automation to eliminate the manual keying process. The use of flexible business rules allows the corporate to tailor their operation to meet their needs and increase automated payments over time. A consolidated payment file updates the corporates’ ERP system after completing the payment reconciliation process. Finally, integrated receivable provides a single source of all payment data, including analytics and reporting. An integrated receivables platform eliminates many disparate processes (most manual, some automated) that plague most businesses today. In fact, in one recent survey, almost 60% of treasurers were dissatisfied with their company’s current level of AR automation.

Banks can play a pivotal role in the new payment world by partnering with a fintech. Fintechs have been building platforms to serve the more-complex needs of corporate treasury, but pose a threat to the banks’ corporate customers. A corporate treasurer using a fintech for integrated receivables ultimately disintermediates the bank and now has the flexibility to choose where to place their depository and borrowing relationships. 

The good news is that the treasurer of your corporate customer would prefer to do business with their bank. According to Aite Research, 73% of treasurers believe their bank should offer integrated receivables, with 31% believing the bank will provide these services over the next five years. Moreover, 54% of the treasurers surveyed have planned investments to update their AR platform in the next few years. 

Many fintechs offer integrated receivables today, with new entrants coming to market every year. But bankers need to review the background and experience of their fintech partner. Banks should look for partners with expertise and programs that will enable the bank’s success. Banks should also be wary of providers that compete directly against them in the corporate market. Partnering with the right fintech provides your bank with a valuable service that your corporate customers need today, and future-proofs your treasury function for new and emerging payment channels. Most importantly, integrated receivables will allow your bank to continue retaining and attracting corporate deposits.

The Year Ahead in Banking Regulation

Although it is difficult to predict whether Congress or the federal banking agencies would be willing to address in a meaningful way any banking issues in an election year, the following are some of the areas to watch for in 2020.

Community Reinvestment Act. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. issued a proposed rule in December 2019 to revise and modernize the Community Reinvestment Act. The rule would change what qualifies for CRA credit, what areas count for CRA purposes, how to measure CRA activity and how to report CRA data. While the analysis of the practical impact on stakeholders is ongoing and could require consideration of facts and circumstances of individual institutions, the proposed rule may warrant particular attention from two groups of stakeholders as it becomes finalized: small banks and de novo applicants.

First, for national and state nonmember banks under $500 million, the proposed rule offers the option of staying with the current CRA regime or opting into the new one. The Federal Reserve Board did not join the OCC and the FDIC in the proposed rule, so CRA changes would not affect state member banks as proposed. As small banks weigh the costs and benefits of opting in, the calculus may be further complicated by political factors beyond the four corners of the rule itself.

Second, a number of changes in the proposed rule could impact deposit insurance applicants seeking de novo bank or ILC charters, including those related to assessment areas and strategic plans.

Brokered Deposits. The FDIC issued a proposed rule in December 2019 to revise brokered deposits regulations. While the proposed rule does not represent a wholesale revamp of the regulatory framework for brokered deposits — which would likely require statutory changes — some of the changes could expand the primary purpose exception in the definition of deposit broker and establish an administrative process for obtaining FDIC determination that the primary purpose exception applies in a particular case. Also, the new administrative process could offer clarity to banks that are unsure about whether to classify certain deposits as brokered.

LIBOR Transition. The London Interbank Offered Rate, a reference rate used throughout the financial system that proved vulnerable to manipulation, may no longer be available after 2021. The U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority announced in 2017 its intention to no longer compel panel banks to contribute to the determination of LIBOR beyond 2021. In the U.S., the Financial Stability Oversight Council has flagged LIBOR as an issue in its annual Congressional report every year since 2012. Its members stepped up their rhetoric in 2019 to pressure the financial services industry to prepare for transition away from LIBOR to a new reference rate, one of which is the Secured Overnight Financing Rate, or SOFR, that was selected by the Alternative Reference Rates Committee.

For banks in 2020, it is likely that federal bank examiners, whose agency heads are all members of the FSOC, will increasingly incorporate LIBOR preparedness into exams if they have not done so already. In addition, regulators in New York are requiring submission of LIBOR transition plans by March 23, 2020.

The scope of work to effectuate a smooth transition could be significant, depending on the size and complexity of an institution. It ranges from an accurate inventory of all contracts that reference LIBOR to devising a plan and adopting fallback language for different types of obligations (such as bilateral loans, syndicated loans, floating rate notes, derivatives and retail products), not to mention developing strategies to mitigate litigation risk. Despite some concerns about the suitability of SOFR as a LIBOR replacement, including a possible need for a credit spread adjustment as well as developing a term SOFR, which is in progress, LIBOR transition will be an area of regulatory focus in 2020.

How Innovative Banks Grow Deposits


deposits-8-14-19.pngCommunity banks are under enormous pressure to grow deposits.

Post-crisis liquidity concerns have challenged firms to find low-cost funds, while mega-banks continue to gobble up market share and customers demand digital offerings. In this intense environment, some banks are looking for ways to shake up their approach to gathering deposits. But some of the most compelling opportunities — digital-only banks and banking-as-a-service — require executives to rethink their banks’ strengths, their brands and their future roles in the financial ecosystem.

Digital Bank Brands
When JPMorgan & Co. shut down its digital-only brand called Finn after just one year, some saw it as a sign that community banks shouldn’t bother trying. But Dub Sutherland, shareholder and director of San Antonio, Texas-based TransPecos Banks, argues that there are too many unknowns to make extrapolations from Chase’s decision to ditch Finn.

Sutherland’s bank, which has $224 million in assets, successfully launched a digital-only brand that caters to medical professionals: BankMD. TransPecos is using NYMBUS’ SmartLaunch solution to focus on building products that meet the particular needs of medical professionals. BankMD has its own deposit and loan tracking system, so it doesn’t affect TransPecos’ existing operations. Sutherland says most BankMD customers don’t know and don’t seem to care about the bank on the back end.

Bankers who’ve spent decades crafting their institution’s brand might bristle at the thought of divorcing a digital brand from their brick-and-mortar signage.

I think there’s a fear for those who don’t understand branding and marketing, and don’t understand the new customer. The fact that being “First National Bank of Wherever” doesn’t really carry anything in this day and age,” explains Sutherland. “I do think there are a lot of bankers who fear that they’re going to somehow dilute their brand if they go and launch a digital one.”

That should never be the case, if executed properly. Sutherland explains the digital brand should be “targeting entirely different customers that [the bank] didn’t get before. It should absolutely be accretive.”

Community banks may be able to use a digital-only offering to develop expertise that serves different, niche segments and to experiment with new technologies — without putting core deposits at risk.

Banking-as-a-service
A cohort of banks gather deposits by providing deposit accounts, debit cards and payment services to financial technology companies that, in turn, provide those offerings to customers. In this “banking-as-a-service” (BaaS) model, banks provide the plumbing, settlement and regulatory oversight that enables fintechs to offer financial products; the fintechs bring relatively lower-cost deposits from their digitally native customers.

Essentially, BaaS helps these banks get a piece of the digital deposit pie without transforming the institutions.

“These are low-cost deposits. [Banks’] don’t have to do any servicing on them, there’s no recurring costs, no KYC calls,” says Sankaet Pathak, CEO of San Francisco-based Synapse. Synapse provides banks with the application programming interfaces (APIs) they need to automate a BaaS offering. He says banks “have almost no cost” with deposit-taking in a BaaS model that uses a Synapse platform.

Similar to a digital brand, providing BaaS for fintechs means the bank’s brand takes a back seat. That was a big consideration for Reinbeck, Iowa-based Lincoln Savings Bank when it explored the BaaS model, says Mike McCrary, EVP of e-commerce and emerging technology. Lincoln Savings, which has $1.3 billion in assets, has been running its LSBX BaaS program for about five years, using technology from Q2 Open.

McCrary began his career at the bank in the marketing department, so the model was something his team seriously weighed. In the end, though, McCrary says he’s proud to be enabling fintech partners to do great things.

“It doesn’t diminish our brand, because our brand is really for us, within the places that we touch,” he says. “We definitely continue to try to maximize that and increase the value of the brand within our marketplace, but we’re able to then offer our services outside of that immediate marketplace, with these other really great [fintech] brands.”

Bankers need to grapple with whether they are comfortable putting their firms’ brand on the backburner in order to launch a digital bank or BaaS program. But regardless of how banks choose to grow deposits, the time for considering these new business models is now.

“The cost of deposits, in particular, is a challenge that creates a ‘We need to do something about this’ statement inside a board room or an ALCO committee,” says Q2 Open COO Scott McCormack. “My advice would be to consider alternative strategies sooner than later[.] The opportunity to grow deposits by building a direct bank, partnering with or enabling a fintech … is a strategy that is more compelling than it has ever been.”

Potential Technology Partners

NYMBUS SmartLaunch

SmartLaunch leverages Nymbus’ SmartCore to offer a “digital bank-in-a-box” that runs deposits, loans and payments parallel to the bank’s existing infrastructure.

Q2 Open

Its CorePro system of record helps developers easily build mobile financial services. With a single set of API calls, CorePro can also be used to develop a BaaS offering.

Synapse

BaaS APIs serve as middleware, allowing banks to offer products and services to fintechs and automate the internal Know Your Customer, Anti-Money Laundering and settlement processes for the bank.

Treasury Prime

Their APIs enabled Boston-based Radius Bank to provide BaaS support powering a new checking account called Stackin’ Cash.

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

2019 Mid-Year Bank M&A Outlook


merger-8-5-19.pngWhat might the second half of 2019 bring for bank mergers and acquisitions (M&A)?

The favorable drivers in the first half of 2019 — the regulatory landscape, enhanced earnings as a result of tax reform, desire for scale and efficiency, and the search for digital capabilities — will likely continue to be the catalysts for bank M&A activity in the second half of 2019. While the market has not seen a spike in the bank M&A deal volume, overall deal values continue to rise because of a few large transactions, including mergers with price tags of a $28 billion and a $3.6 billion. The following trends and drivers are expected to continue to have an impact on banking M&A activity in the second half of 2019 and beyond.

Intensifying Battle for Secured Customer Deposit Bases
U.S. banks’ deposit costs rose far more quickly than loan yields in the first quarter of 2019; further increases in deposit costs may prevent net interest margins from expanding in 2019. As the competition for deposits intensifies, buyers are increasingly looking for banks with a secured deposit base, especially those with a significant percentage. Moreover, as deposit betas accelerate — even as the Federal Open Market Committee slows rate hikes — it becomes more difficult for banks to grow deposits.

With the largest banks attempting to grow their deposit market share via organic customer growth, the regional and super regional banks are trying to develop similar presences through acquisitions. Banks that can navigate this rate environment ably should emerge as better-positioned acquirers via their stock currency, or sellers through the attractiveness of their funding base.

Favorable Regulatory Environment
Dodd-Frank regulations have eased over the past 12 months, increasing the threshold for added oversight and scrutiny from $50 billion in assets to $250 billion. Easing bank regulations and tax reforms that create surplus capital could continue driving regional and super regional consolidation. Moreover, banks with $250 billion to $700 billion in assets may continue to benefit in the second half of 2019 from a more-favorable regulatory landscape.

MOE’s Potential Change on the Competitive Landscape
There were a couple of mergers of equals (MOE) in the first half of 2019 that were welcomed by investors — an indication that the industry could be likely to see a rise in the volume of larger transactions in 2019. Regional banks that miss the MOE wave in the near term may soon find themselves without a “partner” after the initial wave of acquisitions occurs.

As the banks pressure-test their MOE strategy, the key may be to find a partner with strategic overlap to drive the synergies and justify the purchase price premium yet also provide an opportunity for growth and geographic footprint. Furthermore, unlike smaller tuck-ins, MOE requires additional strategic diligence and capabilities. This includes the ability to successfully integrate and scale capabilities, the ability to cross-sell to newly acquired segments, the ability to consolidate branches in overlapping markets and integrating divergent management processes and culture.

The Hunt for Digital Capabilities
Evolving consumer wants and the table stake needed to provide an integrated digital ecosystem are compelling many bank executives to differentiate themselves via technology and digital channels growth. Investors typically place a premium on digital-forward banks, driving up multiples for banks with efficient ecosystems of digital capabilities. The hunt for digital capabilities may provide an opportunity to not only add scale, but also transform legacy banks into agile, digital-first banks of the future.

Bank boards and executives should remain cognizant of above trends as they progress through their strategic M&A planning. Their resulting decisions — to be buyer, seller or an observer on the sidelines — may shape bank M&A activity in the second half of 2019 and into 2020.

Moreover, while the banks continue to assess the potential impact of the current expected credit loss (CECL) standard, the general market consensus is CECL may require a capital charge. As such, M&A credit due diligence should be treated as an investment in reducing future losses, even though the loan quality is currently viewed as benign. Successfully driving value from acquisitions while mitigating risks requires a focused lens on M&A strategy with the right set of tools, teams and processes to perform due diligence, execute and integrate as needed.

Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited a UK private company limited by guarantee (“DTTL”), its network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. DTTL (also referred to as “Deloitte Global”) does not provide services to clients. In the United States, Deloitte refers to one or more of the US member firms of DTTL, their related entities that operate using the “Deloitte” name in the United States and their respective affiliates. Certain services may not be available to attest clients under the rules and regulations of public accounting. Please see www.deloitte.com/about to learn more about our global network of member firms.

This publication contains general information only and Deloitte is not, by means of this publication, rendering accounting, business, financial, investment, legal, tax, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such professional advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your finances or your business, you should consult a qualified professional adviser. Deloitte shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person who relies on this publication.

Copyright © 2019 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.

What’s Trending at Acquire or Be Acquired 2019

Smart Leadership – Today’s challenges and opportunities point to one important solution: strong boards and executive teams.
Predicting The Future – Interest is growing around mergers of equals, commercial deposits and shifting team dynamics.
Board-Level Concerns – Three characteristics define the issues facing bank directors.
Spotlight on Diversity – Diverse backgrounds fuel stronger performance.
Digging into Strategic Issues – The end of the government shutdown could yield more IPOs.