I realised recently that my course of opinion is rather different to several other commentators and felt it worth noting where we agree and disagree. Where I agree with most FinTech people is that:
- Digital replaces physical
- FinTech is changing banking forever
- Mobile is getting rid of cash
- You can have money without borders
Where I disagree with most FinTech people is that:
- Branches are necessary
- FinTech is not disrupting banks
- We need banking and we need banks
- You cannot have money without government
In other words, some FintTech people believe branches are irrelevant, banks will disappear and a libertarian dream of the free markets controlling the world are all feasible. I don't.
Now I’ve covered these in depth before:
- The role of the bank branch in the digital age
- Fintech is not disruptive, as banks adapt and thrive
- Watch out Fintech, the Banks are Coming!
- Why banks have no competition
- What is money?
The list goes on, so why am I writing this again?
I guess because it’s becoming blatantly obvious that most banks have woken to the technology debate. Digital is on the boardroom agenda and when Jamie Dimon says Silicon Valley is coming, we all know it’s taken seriously. However, you talk to some banks, and you think they have no idea. They’ve not heard of blockchain, think of mobile as being their iPhone app and reckon that Fintech is what you attach to a fish.
Source: Junji Ito
Those banks are likely to disappear due to their complacency and ignorance, but those banks are in the minority.
This is then where the discussion gets interesting. As mentioned on Friday, banks have time to adapt. Most banks have millions of customers and customers suffer from great inertia. After all, all banks are the same aren’t they?
So banks have the advantage of being there already, with a customer who is unlikely to change banks. In addition, they have a licence and most banks know that anything to do with money needs a government licence. Just as James Bond needs a licence to kill, or he’ll get jailed as it would be murder, banks need a licence to bank. Otherwise it’s illegal as it would easily allow money laundering and robbery.
This is why we can have the idealistic hope that society can run without a legal system, but the reality is it has one and needs one. Otherwise, every day would be like The Purge.
So banks have the upper hand. New Fintech firms have been attacking the business model of banks, but the start-up has to build customers, trust and critical mass, and that takes time. Equally, when they do get critical mass, the law steps in. Just look at the challenges Uber is having as licencing and law catches up. The same is felt to be true for the likes of payments and crowdfunding firms, and certainly we have seen that with the likes of peer-to-peer lenders and bitcoin. Just look at the American laws on the sourcing of funds for P2P or the BitLicence and you’ll see what I mean.
This does not mean that banks can sit back and ignore the challenge and they do have to change, and this is where the real zinger hits. After all, it’s the old but still salient point made by Charles Darwin*:
And banks are adaptable to change. This is why, when it was forecast they would all go belly up twenty years ago, they are still here and bigger than ever. Banks will still be here in twenty years. They will be different. They will be far more technology integrated and enabled. But they will still be banks, with licences and customers and trust to keep value and not lose it.
* it is claimed that this quote http://friendsofdarwin.com/memes/not-the-strongest/ is actually based on the writings of Leon C. Megginson, Professor of Management and Marketing at Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge, USA, who had set out to paraphrase his understanding of Darwinian Natural Selection.