BNY Mellon Is Betting on Blockchain


blockchain-6-24-16.pngSometimes people ask BNY Chief Information Officer Suresh Kumar if blockchain is a friend or foe. “Why would I think of that as a foe?” Kumar told the magazine Fast Company in June. “It’s another piece of technology that could help us and our clients and remove friction from the system.”

Blockchain is the technology underlying bitcoin, the most popular form of cryptocurrency, a digital, encrypted currency that isn’t tied to a central bank. Blockchain is the public ledger for all bitcoin transactions, and each block on the blockchain represents a transaction. These transactions are irreversible.

Organizations, including banks, see potential for blockchain technology to revolutionize many areas of the financial industry and beyond, including securities trading, payments, fraud prevention and regulatory compliance. “We think blockchain can be transformative,” said BNY Mellon CEO Gerald Hassell, in the company’s first quarter 2016 earnings call. “We’re spending a lot of time and energy on it, but I think it’s going to take some time to see it play out in a full, meaningful way. We actually see ourselves as one of the major participants in using the technology to improve the efficiency of our operations and the resiliency of our operations.”

Saket Sharma, BNY Mellon’s chief information officer of treasury services, chairs a virtual team at the bank that includes all lines of the bank’s business. The team meets monthly, with the goal to foster understanding regarding how blockchain could impact each area of the organization. Meanwhile, BNY Mellon’s innovation center actively works with the technology. “We need to constantly be in touch with it, because technology’s evolving so rapidly,” he says.

BNY Mellon created an internal currency, called “BKoins,” to understand how blockchain technology could impact the bank. “We thought it would be good to do something purely internally, and learn about the technology,” says Sharma.

BKoin doesn’t have real value, but by working with it, the technology team now understands how the blockchain is generated, and from there is learning how it could transform different business lines, as well as the organization as a whole. It was widely reported last year that the cryptocurrency would be used as an internal rewards program, where employees could exchange BKoins for gift cards and perks. While the bank doesn’t rule out those possibilities for the future, Sharma says that this isn’t how BKoin is currently used and, aside from that, was never the goal. The goal is to educate BNY Mellon’s technology team and business lines about blockchain’s possibilities, and create a conversation about the technology’s potential for the organization. The approach has resulted in a significant increase in knowledge about blockchain at BNY Mellon in the span of just a few months, he says.

BNY Mellon isn’t the only bank using its own internal cryptocurrency to test blockchain’s potential. Citigroup and Japan’s Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ are also experimenting with proprietary digital currencies.

In addition to internal trials, BNY Mellon is also a member of a consortium of more than 40 global banks, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co. and Bank of America Corp., which is led by the financial innovation firm R3 in New York. Following a smaller test in January, 40 banks, including BNY Mellon, successfully traded fixed income assets in March using blockchains built by IBM, Intel and startup firms Chain, Eris Industries and Ethereum.

How blockchain will impact the banking industry is unclear for now. But the potential benefits are promising: Efficiency gains created through the technology could save the industry $20 billion annually by 2022, according to a joint paper released by Santander Innoventures, the consulting firm Oliver Wyman and London-based advisory firm Anthemis Group.

But the blockchain probably isn’t ready for primetime yet. In June, a hack resulted in the theft of almost 4 million “ether,” a cryptocurrency housed on the Ethereum blockchain, from the Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO), a crowdfunded venture capital firm. At the time, the stolen “ether” was valued at $79.6 million. After the discovery, the value of the cryptocurrency plunged precipitously. Bitcoin’s value stumbled as well.

Two days after the DAO incident, Ethereum creator Vitalik Buterin wrote: “There will be further bugs, and we will learn further lessons; there will not be a single magic technology that solves everything.”

Banks are less comfortable with the inevitable failures that come along with experimentation, but BNY Mellon and other global banks will continue to cautiously experiment, combining internal experiments with peer collaboration. “We’re going to have to work together with our industry peers to really drive [blockchain innovation],” says Sharma.

A Fear of Missing Out


missing-out-2.png

Recently, I had the opportunity to spend time with some of Deloitte’s most senior team in both New York City and at the White House Fintech Summit in Washington, D.C. Together, we explored issues on the minds of many bank executives today; namely, how banks should approach corporate innovation and work with fintech companies. Certainly, collaboration between technology companies and traditional financial institutions has increased — think proofs of concept, partnerships and strategic investments — but much still needs to be done.

From my perspective, the evolution of the banking world is first and foremost a business issue. Historically, banks organize themselves along a line of products. There are banks such as Umpqua Bank, BankMobile (a division of Customers Bank) and Live Oak Bank that have oriented their operations around customer needs and expectations. However, these are more exceptions then the rule.

Consequently, as new technology players emerge and traditional participants begin to transform their business models, there is growing sentiment that successful institutions need to enable financial services for life’s needs through collaboration and partnerships with the very fintech companies that once threatened to displace them.

As Joe Guastella, global and U.S. managing director for financial services at Deloitte Consulting, shared, “incumbents can indeed thrive in a disrupted world. They can learn from history and be proactive in managing the change instead of being passive participants. But first they need to understand how fintech affects them before taking advantage of all the potential benefits fintech offers.”

Accordingly, here are three questions that I posed to Guastella and his colleagues that anyone responsible with growing and changing a bank needs to address.

Q: What do banks need to do so as not to be left behind?

Michael Tang, a partner and head of global digital transformation and innovation at Deloitte, believes institutions must “experiment with intent and purpose… avoid the Fear Of Missing Out (#FOMO) syndrome and investing and dabbling for the sake of it.” He is of the opinion that banks need to “take greater interest in the customer needs analysis from ethnographic research and behavioral economics.”

Thomas Jankovich, a principal in Deloitte and the innovation leader for the U.S. Financial Services Practice, echoed this. He opines that banks should work towards becoming platform based, data rich and capital light — with an infinite ability to scale. He challenges those senior-most bankers to re-think how their executives are educated, immersed and motivated to make bold decisions and take hold of the concept of “Platform as a Service.”

Q: How are some of the more successful financial institutions developing corporate and/or business-unit strategies to take advantage of digital opportunities?

Tang and Jankovich shared that the more progressive and successful banks are taking advantage of emerging opportunities in nuanced ways. For instance, they are:

  • Using a combination of supportive leadership providing the mindset, right incentives and performance metrics to truly support a digital business model;
  • Curating the right talent_ while leveraging the “buy, build, partner” model for capability; and
  • Retaining customers by providing an experience that includes usability, data analytics and competitor awareness.

Q: Should banks become more like tech companies?

Cathy Bessant, the chief operations and technology officer of Bank of America, recently opined that banks shouldn’t see themselves as fintech companies. She reasons that a bank’s customers have such high expectations in terms of reliability and security, that the “fail fast” mindset of many technology firms doesn’t jive with customer expectations. As she made clear, “the potential cost of failure at scale is something to be avoided.”

So with most everything technology-oriented coming back to continuity, security and third parties, one must balance the need for exceptional service with the push for change. According to Michael Tang, one needs “a portfolio approach and clear expectations on the purpose and roles between run and change.” By extension, in terms of corporate innovation, Thomas Jankovich believes that banks need to move beyond the concept of “Run the Bank / Change the Bank” to actually “innovating the bank” in order to disrupt itself.

Yes, banks will be challenged to meet the future expectations of their customers as well as to assess the additional risks, costs, resources and supervisory concerns associated with providing new financial services and products in a highly regulated environment.

Size and scale doesn’t have to be a drawback. It can, however, be an advantage in this environment.

##

As a starting point for such an internal discussion, take a look at “Disaggregating Fintech: Brighter shades of disruption,” a report that looks at the the impact of fintech in six areas within financial services and across six business dimensions. Questions or comment? Email meat adominick@finxtech.com

Commercial Customers Want Fintech Innovation Too


fintech-6-3-16.pngOnline banking, electronic bill pay, and mobile deposits are no longer seen as innovative offerings by consumers. They’re simply check boxes—a bare minimum set of tools and services that they expect their bank to offer. Despite the fact that this technology is considered table stakes in the battle to win consumers, business customers at most banks are still waiting their turn to benefit from this technology. And as the workforce skews younger and gets even more tech savvy, they’re going to get frustrated from waiting for comparable services—if they haven’t already.

Just last year, millennials surpassed Gen Xers as the largest generation in the U.S. labor force. This is the first digitally native generation that grew up with computers in their homes and came into adulthood with near ubiquitous access to the Internet, social networking, and mobile phones. As they take over the workforce, they’re going to want—and expect—the same conveniences they’ve become accustomed to in their personal lives. But when it comes to banking technology, they’re not getting it.

The stark difference between bill payment processes of accounting professionals at home and at work is just one example of how a lack of adequate technology is holding them back. A study last year by MineralTree found that 81 percent of respondents use paper checks frequently or exclusively at work, whereas almost half (48 percent) said they rarely use checks in their personal lives and 7 percent said they never use them at all.

If banks don’t start providing business customers with innovative tools to do their jobs more efficiently, they’re going to start looking elsewhere for the technology they want. As JP Morgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon now famously noted in his 2015 annual shareholder letter, “Silicon Valley is coming.”

The Path to Business Banking Innovation
It’s not surprising that business customers have found themselves in this position. It makes sense that technology on the consumer side has paved the way for innovation in banking because it’s so much less complex to build and implement.

Take mobile deposits for example. Being able to take a picture of a check with a mobile phone and deposit it via a banking app is a significant advancement in mobile banking. But it’s much more realistic for a personal account holder to use this technology than it is for a business. For a company that might deposit hundreds of checks every day, taking photos of each of them with a mobile phone is simply not practical or efficient. Not to mention adding the complexities of a business’s need for increased security features like role-based permissions for different users, or integration with other enterprise systems.

Bill pay faces similar hurdles. On the consumer side, banks have proven capable of creating directories that include most of the vendors their customers regularly pay—companies like electric, cable TV or mortgage providers. But it would be nearly impossible for a single bank to create such a directory for all business payments because the size and scope of such a network is just too vast. And then there are complexities like supporting approval workflows, role-based permissions, and integrations.

Integration with other core enterprise systems is a major issue for business customers. Being able to seamlessly connect a bank’s bill pay technology with a company’s financial system of record—their accounting/ERP system—is a must have. But again, it’s a complex task that takes a high level of technical knowledge and expertise to achieve.

Innovations in consumer banking technology have made significant strides in moving the industry forward, but now commercial customers want their share of fintech innovation too. We’re at a tipping point where business banking technology needs to catch up, and the burden is on the banks to make it happen. They can either build the technology on their own or partner with companies who can. But if they don’t, they risk being left behind.

How One Bank Invests for Innovation


innovation-investment-1.png

“You don’t invest to stay where you are. You invest to go where you want to be in the future,” says Chris Nichols, chief strategy officer of CenterState Banks Inc., a $4.9 billion asset bank headquartered in Davenport, Fl. The term is everywhere–innovation. But what does it mean relative to banks? In an industry burdened with compliance and regulatory pressures, it is rare for bank leadership to have the bandwidth to also think creatively. And when it comes to financial technology, many bankers feel that they don’t really understand this new world they are trying to enter. Nichols was the keynote speaker at a recent conference put on by the law firm Bryan Cave–Crossroads: Banking and Fintech Conference. The following is an edited conversation between Nichols and FinXTech Head of Innovation Kelsey Weaver.

When it comes to innovation, who at the bank is or should be responsible?
Nichols: Everyone should be responsible for innovation. Anyone can lead the charge. Every banker needs to understand the basics of how a bank works–credit, deposit gathering, compliance, finance—and the same is true for innovation. Everyone within the bank should be on the lookout for how to improve a process and how to incorporate new technology. The mistake that many banks make is leaving innovation to their IT group. Technology and process improvement is democratized at CenterState so any business leader can spearhead an effort with the support of IT, compliance, management and other line staff.

What area of fintech do you think has had the most profound impact for your bank?
Nichols: Figuring out how to add value to our customer’s lives and figuring out how to become more efficient in delivering our services are two areas that all banks need to have a relentless focus on. As a metric, we want to become part of our customer’s lives once per day and want to cut our efficiency below 40 percent over time. Neither effort will be easy, but it is getting easier over time with new processes and technology.

What advice would you give to other bankers when it comes to innovation?
Nichols: Be intentional. Proactively develop a culture of innovation so experimentation is the norm and failure is just part of the process. Next, commit to improving a process. Start with creating a vision, incorporate that into an action plan, approve a budget and hold someone accountable for execution. Improving your loan process is an excellent place to start in order to deliver credit faster and cheaper. Next to cutting branch delivery costs, loan processing is the second largest functional cost for a bank. Operational leverage in these two areas is easy to obtain and can make a huge difference on the bottom line in addition to the lives of a bank’s customers.

What advice would you give to fintech companies looking to work with banks?
Nichols: It is no wonder banks have a hard time working with fintech companies. There is a disconnect on both counts. Banks need to understand the urgency and mindset of the entrepreneur while fintech need to understand the compliance and reputational risk that the bank has to be responsible for.

I can’t tell you how many times a fintech company just wants to connect to our core system or have us send over “sample customer information” as if these are simple tasks. Fintech companies need to understand that these types of requests are huge undertakings and don’t happen lightly. Vendor compliance for a start-up alone is daunting let alone entering into a beta test. At Centerstate Bank, like most banks, our customer is our most valuable asset and we are fiercely protective of both their data and their experience.

Further, we run into many fintech companies that just have not thought through their business model. We get pitched many models that just cannot work from a pricing or customer care standpoint. We will never let another fintech company aggregate our customer base or our brand value.

What other banks in your opinion are doing things right when it comes to innovation?
Nichols: We stand in awe of many banks that excel in different areas. USAA, C1 Bank, Commercial Bank of California, Citizens of Edmonds, Triumph Bank, Live Oak, Texas Bank & Trust, Austin Capital are just some of the many banks that make equal or greater progress around being innovative. We follow and learn from a great many banks.

FinTech Day Recap: Rapid Transformation Through Collaboration


Over the next few years, the financial services industry will continue to undergo a major transformation, due in part to the speed of the technology movement. With continuous pressures to innovate, how can banks leverage these new technologies to stay relevant and competitive over the next five years? Filmed during Bank Director’s annual FinTech Day in New York City at the Nasdaq MarketSite, industry leaders in the banking, technology and investment space share their insights and perspectives on the challenges and opportunities facing traditional banks.

FinTech Day Recap: The Times They Are A-Changin


Over the next few years, the financial services industry will continue to undergo a major transformation, due in part to the speed of the technology movement. With continuous pressures to innovate, how can banks leverage these new technologies to stay relevant and competitive over the next five years?

Filmed during Bank Director’s annual FinTech Day in New York City at the Nasdaq MarketSite, Al Dominick, president and CEO of Bank Director, shares his thoughts on how banks who are looking for partnerships and opportunities to develop new technologies, may find fintech companies eager to collaborate.

How Regulators Could Foster the Fintech Sector


fintech-innovation-3-30-16.pngRegulators can’t afford to wait any longer in developing a framework for their oversight of the fast-rising fintech sector. The number of fintech companies, and the amount of investment in them, is growing too rapidly for regulators to hope that they can supervise the sector by applying existing regulations for banks to fintech companies on an ad-hoc basis. That will only create gaps in regulators’ monitoring of the sector, and confusion among fintech companies trying to grasp the complexities of financial regulation in the U.S. Such gaps and confusion are already evident: Many fintech companies are failing to implement best practices in securing customer data, and many of them are also unaware of how existing regulations apply to them.

I addressed the security issue in a previous article, but regulators should be just as concerned with clearing up the confusion in the market. That’s because the government has a legitimate interest in encouraging fintech growth, which would be boosted by a clear regulatory framework. Some fintech companies serve customers that have been ignored by banks in recent years, bringing them into the financial system. For instance, companies like OnDeck Capital, Kabbage, Lendio, Square, and others are filling the credit needs of small businesses that banks have been hesitant to lend to ever since the Great Recession. Regulators should be careful about imposing standards that gash this new source of credit for underserved small businesses. Also, some new technologies that fintech startups are working on, like the blockchain, can improve regulation and compliance throughout the financial services industry.

Build Relationships Early
How can regulators help foster innovation without sacrificing security and integrity in the financial system? For one, they should start their interactions with fintech companies as early as possible to encourage innovation while also safeguarding customers. This means providing guidance to companies while they are still developing and experimenting with their solutions, so companies can incorporate compliance into their products early on. If regulators wait to offer guidance until after products have already been developed or released on to the market, then regulators will become an unnecessary obstacle to innovation.

U.K. regulators are taking steps to develop relationships with fintech startups early on to offer guidance on their solutions. At the end of 2014, the U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced it would launch a regulatory “sandbox” where fintech companies could test new solutions. When companies use the sandbox, the authority waives some of the compliance requirements normally applied to pilot tests for new products. Banks can also use the sandbox, and the authority guarantees that it won’t take enforcement action at a later date regarding any tests that the banks run. The sandbox experiment will go live later this year, and U.S. regulators should watch it carefully and explore similar initiatives.

Eliminating Confusion
Regulators also need to give fintech companies a hand in navigating the complexity of the U.S. financial regulatory system. There are so many different regulations and so many different agencies enforcing them, it creates a landscape that can easily overwhelm a small startup. Banks can sympathize with this issue; but fintech companies don’t have the compliance budget, knowledge and experience that banks do.

One way to eliminate all of this confusion would be to create a separate regulatory agency for fintech companies, but there are such a wide variety of fintech companies now offering solutions in almost every category of financial services, one agency couldn’t deliver effective oversight with such a broad scope of coverage.

Instead, existing regulators need to be more proactive in their outreach with fintech companies. Engaging with new startups as early in their development as possible will help with this. Regulators could further eliminate some of the confusion in the market by creating a central registry for newly formed fintech companies before they launch their products. The registry would collect some information about the company and its work. That information could then be used to determine which regulatory agencies it should report to, and provide some guidance on which requirements it must be mindful of.

Some fintech companies will certainly be averse to more regulatory oversight. However, a more refined regulatory framework that ensures security and eliminates confusion will be a blessing for the fintech sector. Right now fintech regulation is a big question mark, and a critical risk for fintech investors. Removing that risk will improve investors’ confidence in the fintech sector, helping fintech companies gain the venture capital they need to get off the ground.

How Regulators Could Foster the Fintech Sector


Fintech-innovation.png

Regulators can’t afford to wait any longer in developing a framework for their oversight of the fast-rising fintech sector. The number of fintech companies, and the amount of investment in them, is growing too rapidly for regulators to hope that they can supervise the sector by applying existing regulations for banks to fintech companies on an ad-hoc basis. That will only create gaps in regulators’ monitoring of the sector, and confusion among fintech companies trying to grasp the complexities of financial regulation in the U.S. Such gaps and confusion are already evident: Many fintech companies are failing to implement best practices in securing customer data, and many of them are also unaware of how existing regulations apply to them.

I addressed the security issue in a previous article, but regulators should be just as concerned with clearing up the confusion in the market. That’s because the government has a legitimate interest in encouraging fintech growth, which would be boosted by a clear regulatory framework. Some fintech companies serve customers that have been ignored by banks in recent years, bringing them into the financial system. For instance, companies like OnDeck Capital, Kabbage, Lendio, Square, and others are filling the credit needs of small businesses that banks have been hesitant to lend to ever since the Great Recession. Regulators should be careful about imposing standards that gash this new source of credit for underserved small businesses. Also, some new technologies that fintech startups are working on, like the blockchain, can improve regulation and compliance throughout the financial services industry.

Build Relationships Early
How can regulators help foster innovation without sacrificing security and integrity in the financial system? For one, they should start their interactions with fintech companies as early as possible to encourage innovation while also safeguarding customers. This means providing guidance to companies while they are still developing and experimenting with their solutions, so companies can incorporate compliance into their products early on. If regulators wait to offer guidance until after products have already been developed or released on to the market, then regulators will become an unnecessary obstacle to innovation.

U.K. regulators are taking steps to develop relationships with fintech startups early on to offer guidance on their solutions. At the end of 2014, the U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced it would launch a regulatory “sandbox” where fintech companies could test new solutions. When companies use the sandbox, the authority waives some of the compliance requirements normally applied to pilot tests for new products. Banks can also use the sandbox, and the authority guarantees that it won’t take enforcement action at a later date regarding any tests that the banks run. The sandbox experiment will go live later this year, and U.S. regulators should watch it carefully and explore similar initiatives.

Eliminating Confusion
Regulators also need to give fintech companies a hand in navigating the complexity of the U.S. financial regulatory system. There are so many different regulations and so many different agencies enforcing them, it creates a landscape that can easily overwhelm a small startup. Banks can sympathize with this issue; but fintech companies don’t have the compliance budget, knowledge and experience that banks do.

One way to eliminate all of this confusion would be to create a separate regulatory agency for fintech companies, but there are such a wide variety of fintech companies now offering solutions in almost every category of financial services, one agency couldn’t deliver effective oversight with such a broad scope of coverage.

Instead, existing regulators need to be more proactive in their outreach with fintech companies. Engaging with new startups as early in their development as possible will help with this. Regulators could further eliminate some of the confusion in the market by creating a central registry for newly formed fintech companies before they launch their products. The registry would collect some information about the company and its work. That information could then be used to determine which regulatory agencies it should report to, and provide some guidance on which requirements it must be mindful of.

Some fintech companies will certainly be averse to more regulatory oversight. However, a more refined regulatory framework that ensures security and eliminates confusion will be a blessing for the fintech sector. Right now fintech regulation is a big question mark, and a critical risk for fintech investors. Removing that risk will improve investors’ confidence in the fintech sector, helping fintech companies gain the venture capital they need to get off the ground.

Three Questions to Ask About Your Bank’s DNA


Today, numerous financial technology (fintech) companies are developing new strategies, practices and products that will dramatically influence the future of banking. Within this period of transformation, where considerable market share is up for grabs, ambitious banks can leapfrog both traditional and new rivals. Personally, I find the narrative that relates to banks and fintech companies has changed from the confrontational talk that existed just a year or two ago. As we found at this year’s FinTech Day in New York City on Tuesday, far more fintech players are expressing their enthusiasm to partner and collaborate with banking institutions who count their strengths and advantages as strong adherence to regulations, brand visibility, size, scale, trust and security.

With more than 125 attendees at Nasdaq’s MarketSite on Times Square, we explored the fundamental role financial technology firms will play in changing the dynamics of banking. While we heard about interesting upstarts, here are three questions that underpinned the event that I feel a bank’s CEO needs to sit down with his/her team and discuss right now:

1. Are We Exceeding Our Customer’s Digital Experience Expectations?
Chances are, you’re not. But you can re-set the bar to make clear to your team that while customer expectations have shifted in pronounced ways, this is an area that a bank of any size can compete, especially with the help and support of a fintech company. If you are looking for inspiration, take a look at these examples of successful partnerships that we highlighted at FinTech Day:

  • City National Bank in Los Angeles and MineralTree in Cambridge, Massachusetts, developed an online business-to-business, invoice-to-pay solution that enabled the bank to differentiate itself from its competitors and attract new corporate customers. (In June 2015, City National was acquired by Royal Bank of Canada.)
  • USAA in San Antonio, Texas, and Daon in Reston, Virginia, collaborated to roll out a facial, voice and fingerprint recognition platform for mobile biometric authentication that enhances security while enhancing customer satisfaction.
  • Metro Bank teamed up with Zopa, both in the United Kingdom, on a deal which allows Metro Bank to lend money through the peer-to-peer platform the fintech company developed.

Any good experience starts with great data. Many presenters remarked that fintech companies’ appetite to leverage analytics (which in turn, allows a business to tailor its customer experience) will continue to expand. However, humans, not machines, still play critical roles in relationship management. Having someone on your team that is well versed in using data analytics to uncover what consumer needs are will become a prized part of any team.

2. How Do We Know If We’re Staying Relevant?
How can new players show us whether the end is near? That is, what part of our business could be considered a profit center today but is seriously threatened in the future? As you contemplate where growth isn’t, here are three companies that came up in discussions at FinTech Day that could potentially help grow one’s business:

  • Nymbus, a Miami, Florida-based company which provides a cloud-based core processing system, web site design, marketing and other services to help community banks compete with bigger players.
  • Ripple, a venture-backed startup, whose distributed financial technology allows for banks around the world to directly transact with each other without the need for a central counterparty or correspondent.
  • nCino, based in Wilmington, North Carolina, which developed a cloud-based, end-to-end small business loan origination system that enables banks to compete with alternative lenders with quick processing and approval of loans.

3. Do We Have a “Department of No” Mindset?
Kudos to Michael Tang, a partner at Deloitte Consulting LLP, for surfacing this idea. As he shared at FinTech Day, banks need structure, and when one introduces change or innovation, it creates departments of “no.”

For instance, what would have happened if Amazon’s print book business was able to jettison the idea of selling electronic books? If you refuse to change with your customers, they will find someone else who does. Operationally, banks struggle to make change, but several speakers opined that forward-thinking banks need to hire to a new level to think differently and change.

Throughout FinTech Day, it struck me as important to distinguish between improvements to the status quo and where financial institutions actually try to reimagine their core business. Starting at the customer layer, there appears massive opportunities for collaboration and partnerships between established and emerging companies. The banks that joined us are investing more heavily in innovation; meanwhile, fintechs need to navigate complex regulations, which isn’t easy for anyone. The end result is an equation for fruitful conversations and mutually beneficial relationships.