As noted throughout our 2017 Acquire or Be Acquired Conference, partnerships between a bank and a tech company can take on many forms — largely based on an institution’s available capital, risk appetite and lending goals. With fintech solutions gaining momentum, many advisors at this year’s event encouraged banks to look at viable alternatives to meet consumer demands, maintain and expand their lending revenue and give formidable competition to those looking to take that market share.
Fintech lending has grown from $12 billion in 2014 to $23.2 billion in 2015 and is expected to reach $36.7 billion in 2016, a year-over-year growth of 93 percent and 58 percent in 2015 and 2016. This market, according to Morgan Stanley Research, is expected to grow further and reach $122 billion by 2020.
With this in mind, we invite you to take a look at our new Fintech Intelligence Report on Marketplace Lending. The research paper, developed by FinXTech, a division of Bank Director, and MEDICI, a subscription-based offering from LetsTalkPayments.com, explores current market dynamics along with technology and partnership models. As noted in this report, the gains of new fintech companies were widely thought to be at the expense of banks; however, many banks recognize the potential value from collaboration and have built relationships with fintechs.
Tell us what you think! As we work to provide you the latest information and research as it pertains to the financial services industry, we would appreciate your feedback on the Fintech Intelligence Report. Please email us your comments and/or suggestions at email@example.com.
Over the last three years we’ve implemented five strategic partnerships with fintech companies in industries such as mobile payments, investments and marketplace lending. In doing so, we’ve developed a reputation of being a nimble company for fintechs to partner with, yet we remain very selective in who we decide to work with.
We are very often asked–in places like the board room, at conferences and at networking events, how we choose what fintech companies to work with. It is a great question and one that needs to be looked at from a few angles. If you’re a financial institution looking to potentially begin partnering with fintech companies, below are some criteria to consider when vetting an opportunity.
A Strategic Fit: How does this relationship fit into your strategic plan? Finding a fintech that helps advance your goals may sound obvious, but it can be easy to get caught up in the fintech excitement, so don’t allow the latest fad to influence your choice of a partner. Don’t lose sight of your vision and make sure your potential partners buy into it. It’s better to have a few, meaningful partnerships than a host of relationships that may inadvertently distract you from your goals and spread your resources too thin.
Cultural Alignment: Make sure to do some research on the fintech’s management team, board of directors and advisory board. How do they–and their company’s mission-fit with your organization’s mission? Do you trust their team? Our CEO, Mike Butler, likes to say that we have a culture of trying to do things, not trying to NOT doing things. That’s important to us, and we want to work with teams that think similarly. Spending time together in the early stages of the relationship will help set the stage for a solid partnership in the future.
A Strong Business Plan: Is the company financially sound? Is their vision viable? Back to earlier commentary on not getting too caught up in the latest technology trend, consider testing the business idea on someone who isn’t a banker, like a friend or family member. While you might think it’s a great idea, does it appeal to a consumer that is not in our industry? If the business plan passes muster, another issue to consider is the fintech’s long-term plan and possible exit strategy, and the impact it would have on your business if the relationship went away. It’s important to understand both the fintech’s short- and long-term business plans and how those will impact your bank’s balance sheet and income statement today and in the future.
Compliance Buy-In: Does the fintech team appreciate the importance of security? Do they appreciate the role of regulation in banking and finance? Do they understand they may need to modify their solution in light of certain regulations? We know fintechs can sometimes look at banks with impatience, feeling that we’re slow to move. And while some might move at a slower pace than other, we banks know that there are good reasons to proceed cautiously and that compliance isn’t a “nice to have” when it comes to dealing with other people’s money. We are never willing to compromise security and are sure to emphasize that early in the conversation. It’s critical to find a partner with a similar commitment.
We’re in an exciting time; the conversations on both the bank and fintech sides are increasing about collaboration rather than competition. Considering criteria like the above will help banks take advantage of new possibilities in a meaningful way.
The shift away from the traditional banking model—largely due to technological advances and the growing disaggregation of certain bank services—has contributed to the rise of the marketplace lending (MPL) industry. The MPL industry, in particular, offers consumers and small businesses the means by which to gain greater access to credit in a faster way. MPL, despite its increasing growth, has managed to stay under the radar from regulatory oversight until recently. However, in a short span of time, federal and state regulators—the Department of the Treasury, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and California Department of Business Oversight, for example—have begun to weigh the benefits and risks of MPL, with the OCC, for example, going so far as to announce its intention to grant special purpose national bank charters to fintech companies.
Given the evolving nature of the industry and its regulation, in this article, we discuss three key issues for MPL participants to consider. First, we discuss the regulatory focus on the third-party lending model. Second, we consider the potential fair lending risks. Third, we focus on considerations related to state usury requirements. We conclude with a few thoughts on what to expect in this changing landscape.
Third-Party Lending Model The MPL model traditionally operates with three parties: the platform lender, the originating bank and investors purchasing the loans or securities. Based on the reliance on originating banks in the MPL structure, the FDIC, CFPB and others increasingly have considered the risks to banks from these third-party relationships. In particular, regulators appear to be concerned that banks may take on additional risk in these relationships, which are potentially similar to the lending model rejected by a U.S. District Court judge earlier this year when deciding CashCall was the real lender in dispute, not a tribal lender set up in South Dakota. Thus, the FDIC, for example, in its recent Guidance for Managing Third-Party Risk, asks institutions engaged in such third-party relationships to appropriately manage and oversee these third-party lenders before, during and after developing such a relationship. In addition, certain originating banks have also taken to retaining some of the credit risk to mitigate concerns that the MPL may be considered the true lender.
Fair Lending Another potential area to consider relates to fair lending risks regarding extensions of credit in certain geographical areas, underwriting criteria and loan purchase standards. For example, the potential for fair lending risk may increase particularly with respect to the data collected on borrowers for underwriting purposes, for example, where the use of certain alternative criteria may inadvertently result in a disparate impact to protected classes. In addition, restrictions on lending areas or the types of loans sold to investors similarly could pose such issues.
State Usury Requirements The recent Second Circuit decision in Madden v. Midland Funding LLC also highlights potential uncertainty regarding the MPL model. In Madden, the Second Circuit determined that a debt collection firm, which had purchased a plaintiff’s charged-off account from a national bank, was not entitled to the benefit of the state usury preemption provisions under the National Bank Act, despite originally being available to the originating national bank. Madden was appealed to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case. Thus, Madden has the potential to limit the ability for MPL firms to rely on their originating banks to avoid complying with state-by-state interest rate caps, as federal preemption would no longer apply to those loans later transferred to or acquired by such nonbank entities. Further, Madden increases the uncertainty regarding the originated loans that MPL firms may later sell to (or issue securities for) investors. While some lenders have chosen to carve out the Second Circuit (New York, Connecticut and Vermont) for lending and loan sale purposes, there is the continued risk that the decision may set a precedent in other circuits.
Conclusion Even with the increasing scrutiny of the MPL industry, regulators appear to recognize the benefits of access to credit for borrowers. For example, the OCC, CFPB and the Treasury have indicated that any increase in regulation should be balanced with fostering innovation. This may be a potential signal on the part of regulators to adopt a framework by which financial innovation is incorporated into the traditional banking model. Thus, looking forward, we think the regulatory uncertainty in this space provides the opportunity for MPL participants to take a proactive approach in shaping regulatory policy for the industry.