Defending Commercial Deposits From Emerging Risks

Written by

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 But many legacy lockbox services are designed for paper-based payments, which are outdated and cannot handle electronic payments.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.

Winners Announced for the 2019 Best of FinXTech Awards

Written by


Awards-9-10-19.pngBanks face a fundamental paradox: They need to adopt increasingly sophisticated technology to stay competitive, but most have neither the budget nor the risk appetite to develop the technology themselves.

To help banks address this challenge, a legion of fintech companies have sprung up in the past decade. The best of these are solving common problems faced by financial institutions today, from improving the customer experience, growing loans, serving small business customers and protecting against cybersecurity threats.

To this end, we at Bank Director and FinXTech have spent the past few months analyzing the most innovative solutions deployed by banks today. We evaluated the performance results and feedback from banks about their work with fintech companies, as well as the opinions of a panel of industry experts. These fintechs had already been vetted further for inclusion in our FinXTech Connect platform. We sought to identify technology companies that are tried and true — those that have successfully cultivated relationships with banks and delivered value to their clients.

Then, we highlighted those companies at this year’s Experience FinXTech event, co-hosted by Bank Director and FinXTech this week at the JW Marriott in Chicago.

At our awards luncheon on Tuesday, we announced the winning technology solutions in six categories that cover a spectrum of important challenges faced by banks today: customer experience, revenue growth, loan growth, operations, small business solutions and security.

We also announced the Best of FinXTech Connect award, a technology-agnostic category that recognizes technology firms that work closely with bank clients to co-create or customize a solution, or demonstrated consistent collaboration with financial institutions.

The winners in each category are below:

Best Solution for Customer Experience: Apiture

Apiture uses application programming interfaces (APIs) to upgrade a bank’s digital banking experience. Its platform includes digital account opening, personal financial management, cash flow management for businesses and payments services. Each feature can be unbundled from the platform.

Best Solution for Revenue Growth: Mantl

MANTL developed an account-opening tool that works with a bank’s existing core infrastructure. Its Core Wrapper API reads and writes directly to the core, allowing banks to set up, configure and maintain the account-opening product

Best Solution for Loan Growth: ProPair

ProPair helps banks pair the right loan officer with the right lead. It integrates with a bank’s systems to analyze the bank’s data for insights into behaviors, patterns and lender performance to predict which officer should be connected with a particular client.

Best Small Business Solution: P2BInvestor

P2Binvestor provides an asset-based lending solution for banks that helps them monitor risk, track collateral and administer loans. It partners with banks to give them a pipeline of qualified borrowers.

Best Solution for Improving Operations: Sandbox Banking

Sandbox Banking builds custom APIs that communicate between a bank’s legacy core systems like core processors, loan origination, customer relationship management software and data warehouses. It also builds APIs that integrate new products and automate data flow.

Best Solution for Protecting the Bank: Illusive Networks

Illusive Networks uses an approach called “endpoint-focused deception” to detect breaches into a bank’s IT system. It plants false information across a bank’s network endpoints, detects when an attacker acts on the information and captures forensics from the compromised machine. It also detects unnecessary files that could serve as tools for hackers.

Best of FinXTech Connect: Sandbox Banking

The middleware platform, which also won the “Best Solution for Improving Operations” category, was also noted for working hand-in-hand with bank staff to create custom API connections to solve specific bank issues. In addition, banks can access three-hour blocks of developer time each month to work on special projects outside of regular technical support.

Banks, Fintechs Share This Three-Letter Word

Written by


technology-9-6-19.png“Try.”

This one humble word reflects the mindset I encounter in nearly every high-performing executive today. And it might just be the theme at next week’s Experience FinXTech Conference at the JW Marriott Chicago.

Simple as it first appears, breaking away from the known and attempting to explore what’s possible requires leadership, conviction and a commitment to try something new.

While other fintech-oriented conferences highlight “funding paths” or “successful exits,” we built this event for bank leaders seeking growth and efficiencies through the application of financial technologies. Over two days, we’ll look closely at the implications of technology on the banking business, and explore how and where traditional brick-and-mortar institutions can generate top-line growth and bottom-line profits through new business relationships.

A word of encouragement to those joining us from community banks: Don’t let your asset size limit your aspirations.

Yes, technology companies continue to impact consumer expectations and challenge existing business models. And yes, this is changing the basis of competition in the industry. But it’s your mindset, not the size of your bank’s balance sheet, that will dictate its future. That’s why Experience FinXTech brings banking peers together from across the country to share how they pursue collaboration and creativity.

There’s something for all of us to learn.

For those attending from the technology sector, I urge you to tell us stories that demonstrate your resiliency, curiosity and resourcefulness. I continually hear that banks prize anecdotes that reflect a tenacity of purpose — a trait that many technology companies joining us can rightfully claim.

Ahead of Experience FinXTech, I’m inspired and intrigued by three companies making waves in the financial space:

  • Aspiration, which offers socially responsible banking and investment products and services, and has attracted 1.5 million customers as of June 2019.
  • Chime, which advertises itself as one of the fastest-growing bank accounts in America.
  • N26, a German direct bank that promises to provide real-time payments information and early access to paychecks to woo new U.S. consumers.

Executives should think about what these companies hope to accomplish, how they are building their presence and how it could impact community banks across the country.

At the conference, we’ll talk about companies like these, as well as the technology firms that have gained traction with banks. We look at the choices and challenges facing small and mid-size banks as they apply to payments, lending, data and analytics, security and digital banking. We’ll explore changing the basis of competition when it comes to earnings, efficiency and engagement.

Given that many community banks specialize in particular verticals or business lines to remain competitive, we’ll also talk about how they can cultivate a culture that prizes creativity and authenticity. We’ll look at tools and strategies to help them grow. Throughout the program, we’ll encourage conversations about inspiration and transformation.

The underlying theme is to encourage attendees to try something new in order to build something great.

For those joining us at the JW Marriott Chicago, you’re in for a treat. Can’t make it? Don’t despair: We intend to share updates from the conference via BankDirector.com and over social media platforms, including Twitter and LinkedIn, where we’ll be using the hashtag #FinXTech19.

Leveraging Fintechs to Do More with Less

Written by

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

Written by

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 Community Banks Can Compete Using Fintechs, Not Against Them

Written by


fintech-7-15-19.pngSmaller institutions should think of financial technology firms as friends, not foes, as they compete with the biggest banks.

These companies, often called fintechs, pose real challenges to the biggest banks because they offer smaller firms a way to tailor and grow their offerings. Dozens of the biggest players are set to reach a $1 billion valuation this year—and it’s not hard to see why. They’ve found a niche serving groups that large banks have inadvertently missed. In this way, they’re not unlike community banks and credit unions, whose people-first philosophy is akin to these emerging tech giants.

Ironically, savvy fintechs are now smartly capitalizing on their popularity to become more like big banks. These companies have users that are already highly engaged; they could continue to see a huge chunk of assets move from traditional institutions in the coming year. After all, what user wouldn’t want to consolidate to a platform they actually like using?

The growth and popularity of fintechs is an opportunity for community banks and credit unions. As customers indicate increasing openness to alternative financial solutions, these institutions have an opportunity to grab a piece of the pie if they consider focusing on two major areas: global trading and digital capabilities.

Since their creation, community banks and member-owned organizations have offered many of the same services as their competitors. However, unlike fintechs, these financial institutions have already proved their resilience in weathering the financial crisis. Community banks can smartly position themselves as behind-the-scenes partners for burgeoning fintechs.

It may seem like the typical credit union or community banking customer would have little to do with international transactions. But across the world, foreign payments are incredibly common—and growing. Global trading is an inescapable part of everyday consumer life, with cross-border shopping, travel and investments conducted daily with ease. Small businesses are just as likely to sell to a neighbor as they are to a stranger halfway around the globe. Even staunchly conservative portfolios may incorporate some foreign holdings.

Enabling global trades on a seamless digital scale is one of the best avenues for both community banks and credit unions to expand their value and ensure their continued relevance. But the long list of requirements needed to facilitate international transactions has limited these transactions to the biggest banks. Tackling complex regulatory environments and infrastructure can be not only intimidating, but downright impossible for firms without an endless supply of capital earmarked for these such investments.

That means that while customers prefer community banks and credit unions for their personalization and customer service, they flock to big banks for their digital capabilities. This makes it all the more urgent for smaller operations to expand while they have a small edge.

Even as big banks pour billions of dollars into digital upgrades, an easy path forward for smaller organizations can be to partner with an established service that offers competitive global banking functions. Not only does this approach help them save money, but it also allows them to launch new services faster and recapture customers who may be performing these transactions elsewhere.

As fintechs continue to expand their influence and offerings, innovation is not just a path to success—it’s a survival mechanism.

Outsourcing the Service, Not the Oversight

Written by


oversight-7-2-19.pngEvery bank director has heard it: You can outsource a service, but you cannot outsource the responsibility.

That sounds clear enough, but how does a board know what its role should be when an opportunity to partner with a financial technology firm, or fintech, arises? The board’s role is oversight and guidance, not day-to-day management. But oversight is not passive. So what does board oversight look like in the evolving world of bank and fintech relationships?

Consider a bank that is reviewing a proposal from a fintech. Management believes that this is a great opportunity for the institution, and presents it to the board for approval. What is the board’s role here? The board’s involvement must be flexible enough that it can react to these situations, but it should also consider some essential inquiries, such as:

Does the proposal match up with the bank’s strategic plan? The board is responsible for the strategic direction of the bank. Directors should consider if the proposal is an appropriate project for the size, resources and initiatives of the bank. They must also think about whether the proposal aligns with the bank’s strategic plan. If the proposal does not match up with the strategic plan, they may also want to consider if it is material enough that the strategic plan should be amended.

What are the risks? The board is responsible for ensuring that an effective risk management program is in place at the bank, which includes the ability to fully assess risks and establish controls and oversight to mitigate those risks. It should assess the fintech proposal through its risk management process

Management should provide the board with a comprehensive risk assessment of the proposed relationship that thoroughly outlines how each identified risk will be mitigated. The board should look at that assessment critically. Was it prepared by competent and experienced personnel? Does it appear to be thorough? Does it focus on IT risks or other narrow issues, or take into account all of the compliance issues? Does it include state laws, which is especially important if the bank is state-chartered? How does the assessment address concerns about privacy and cybersecurity? What does it say about reputation risk?

Is there a negotiated contract that addresses all of the risks? The board is responsible for ensuring that all third-party relationships are documented in negotiated contracts that protect the interests of the bank. The board needs to ensure that appropriate legal counsel is engaged to negotiate the arrangement, depending on the riskiness of a proposed fintech relationship. Counsel should have a thorough understanding of the legal issues involved in the proposed program and the applicable regulatory guidelines for third-party contracts.

The actual contract negotiation should be done by management. However, the board could consider requiring a summary of the important contract provisions or a presentation by management or legal counsel about the terms, depending on the level of risk involved and materiality to the bank.

How will the board know if the program is performing? The board should receive ongoing reports relating to monitoring of the program and the fintech. These reports should be sufficient for the board to establish that the program is compliant with law, operates in accordance with the contract and meets the strategic objectives of the bank. If the program is not performing, the board should know whether appropriate action is underway to either facilitate performance or terminate the program.

A bank’s board cannot outsource its responsibility for outsourced services, even if a fintech partner seems to have a fantastic product. The board must ask enough questions to be certain that management has engaged in appropriate due diligence, identified the risks and determined how to mitigate those risks through the contract and oversight. The implementation of all of those steps is up to management. But one role in particular rests with the board: ensuring that the relationship with the fintech partner furthers the strategic goals of the bank.

The Most Important Question in Banking Right Now

Written by


banking-2-15-19.pngTo understand the seismic shifts underway in the banking industry today, it’s helpful to look back at what a different industry went through in the 1980s—the industry for computer memory chips.

The story of Intel Corp. through that period is particularly insightful.

Intel was founded in 1968.

Within four years, it emerged as one of the leading manufacturers of semiconductor memory chips in the world.

Then something changed.

Heightened competition from Japanese chip manufacturers dramatically shrank the profits Intel earned from producing memory chips.

The competition was so intense that Intel effectively abandoned its bread-and-butter memory chip business in favor of the relatively new field of microprocessors.

It’s like McDonald’s switching from hamburgers to tacos.

In the words of Intel’s CEO at the time, Andy Grove, the industry had reached a strategic inflection point.

“[A] strategic inflection point is a time in the life of a business when its fundamentals are about to change,” Grove later wrote his book, “Only the Paranoid Survive.”

“That change can mean an opportunity to rise to new heights,” Grove continued. “But it may just as likely signal the beginning of the end.”

The parallels to the banking industry today are obvious.

Over the past decade, as attention has been focused on the recovery from the financial crisis, there’s been a fundamental shift in the way banks operate.

To make a deposit a decade ago, a customer had to visit an ATM or walk into a branch. Nowadays, three quarters of deposit transactions at Bank of America, one of the biggest retail banks in the country, are completed digitally.

The implications of this are huge.

Convenience and service quality are no longer defined by the number and location of branches. Now, they’re a function of the design and functionality of a bank’s website and mobile app.

This shift is reflected in J.D. Power’s 2019 Retail Banking Advice Study, a survey of customer satisfaction with advice and account-opening processes at regional and national banks.

Overall customer satisfaction with advice provided by banks increased in the survey compared to the prior year. Yet, advice delivered digitally (via website or mobile app) had the largest satisfaction point gain over the prior year, with the most profound improvement among consumers under 40 years old.

It’s this change in customers’ definition of convenience and service quality that has enabled the biggest banks over the past few years to begin growing deposits organically, as opposed to through acquisitions, for the first time since the consolidation cycle began in earnest nearly four decades ago.

And as we discussed in our latest issue of Bank Director magazine, the new definition of convenience has also altered the growth strategy of these same big banks.

If they want to expand into a new geographic market today, they don’t do so by buying a bunch of branches. They do so, instead, by opening up a few de novo locations and then supplementing those branches with aggressive marketing campaigns tied to their digital banking offerings.

It’s a massive shift. But is it a strategic inflection point along the same lines as that faced by Intel in the 1980s?

Put another way, has the debut and adoption of digital banking changed the fundamental competitive dynamics of banking? Or is digital banking just another distribution channel, along the lines of phone banking, drive-through windows or ATMs?

There’s no way to know for sure, says Don MacDonald, the former chief marketing officer of Intel, who currently holds the same position at MX, a fintech company helping banks, credit unions, and developers better leverage their customer data.

In MacDonald’s estimation, true strategic inflection points are caused by changes on multiple fronts.

In the banking industry, for instance, the fronts would include regulation, technology, customer expectations and competition.

Viewed through this lens, it seems reasonable to think that banking has indeed passed such a threshold.

On the regulatory front, for the first time ever, a handful of banks don’t have a choice but to focus on organic deposit growth—once the exclusive province of community and regional banks—as the three largest retail banks each hold more than 10 percent of domestic deposits and are thus prohibited from growing through acquisition.

Furthermore, regulators are making it easier for firms outside the industry—namely, fintechs—to compete directly against banks, with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s fintech charter being the most obvious example.

Technology has changed, too, with customers now using their computers and smartphones to complete deposits and apply for mortgages, negating the need to walk into a branch.

And customer expectations have been radically transformed, as evidenced by the latest J.D. Power survey revealing a preference toward digital banking advice over personal advice.

To be clear, whether a true strategic inflection point is here or not doesn’t absolve banks of their traditional duty to make good loans and provide excellent customer service. But it does mean the rules of the game have changed.

Banking Enters a New Age Of Technology

Written by


industry-1-29-19.pngTen years ago a technology session at a banking conference wouldn’t have drawn a standing-room only crowd of experienced community bankers, but in 2019 you’ll see a much different scene.

Many of the 800-plus bankers attending Bank Director’s Acquire or Be Acquired Conference at the JW Marriott Phoenix Desert Ridge resort in Phoenix, Arizona were eager to soak up knowledge about technology—which many experts see as the answer to both the competitive pressure being applied by fintech companies from outside the industry, and from customers who want digital alternatives to the industry’s traditional distribution channels.

The shift in attention to tech-focused content is a clear indication that bankers are taking technology more seriously than they ever have—and for good reason.

“We’re entering a time where outside forces feed on the unprepared—maybe not directly but I think they create conditions that will make it very hard for unprepared institutions to survive,” said Mike Carter, executive vice president at the consulting firm SRM Corp., who made a presentation Monday on the threats posed by nonbank payments companies.

The good news, Carter said, is community banks can now more easily compete up-market despite the wide gap in deposit share compared to the country’s biggest money center banks that invest as much as $11 billion per year on technology. It no longer requires millions in up-front investment, Carter said, as many fintech firms now sell their technology through licensing fees.

The catch is that some banks will have to recalibrate their strategies and think of it as “banking in reverse,” said Frank Sorrentino, chief executive officer of $5.6 billion asset ConnectOne Bancorp, based in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Sorrentino, who participated in a panel discussion Sunday outlining strategies for growth, said ConnectOne has operated from its formation as a de novo in 2005 with the customer’s needs foremost in mind. Instead of thinking about what products would sell best, they thought about what the customer wanted and how they could provide that—and that has contributed to the rapid growth that ConnectOne has experienced.

“Technology gets you on the road to (grow),” Sorrentino said.

Before he became a banker, Sorrentino was a home builder who had become frustrated with the service he received from his bank—so he decided to start his own bank with a customer-first strategy.

Sorrentino’s philosophy is one that is becoming increasingly common among executives, said Pierre Naudé, CEO of nCino, which markets a cloud-based bank operating system to banks.

“I think it’s a new breed of C-suite people that’s coming up that’s actually adept and used to technology and very comfortable talking about it,” Naudé said.

That philosophical shift among bank executives has been a transition, Naudé said, which began with the initial wave of fintech firms that caused disruption in the industry through their technical innovation.

This disruptive dynamic has been exacerbated by the growth in market share by the country’s largest institutions.

Since 1992, deposits held in the country’s 100 largest banks have increased more than 700 percent compared to a mere 18 percent in the smallest institutions, according to data presented Monday by Don MacDonald, chief marketing officer for MX, a Utah-based fintech firm.

MacDonald made the case that the industry is entering a fifth age—the so-called “data age”—that emphasizes the use and leverage of various levels of information to reduce cost, increase revenue and deliver an exceptional customer experience, regardless of asset size.

“What’s amazing about it is the role of the consumer,” MacDonald said.

That role was a common thread in technology-focused presentations and conversations at the conference, where most agree that the focus should become what the consumer wants, not what banks can deliver that will appease them.

It’s a reversal in the traditional relationship between banks and customers.

“We as consumers have more choice than we’ve ever had in our lives, and perhaps more important is the friction to change is virtually nil,” MacDonald said.

“So if I don’t like you I can move from you at the click of a button, or from my current provider I can move to you at the click of a button.”

That precipitates a shift in perspective about how banks will think about growth, and in what terms that’s defined.

“Size isn’t a number,” Sorrentino said. “Size is your capability.”