Fintech 🧠 Food - Jan 23 2022
Hey everyone 👋, thanks for coming back to Brainfood, where I take the week's biggest events and try to get under the skin of what's happening in Fintech. If you're reading this and haven't signed up, join the 10,820 others by clicking below, and to the regular readers, thank you. 🙏
☀️ gm Fintech frens.
The whiplash of my day job is sometimes spectacular, from meeting great Fintech companies to meeting with some of the largest banks in the world.
This week I had two back-to-back meetings, the first with an early-stage company pushing the boundaries of Fintech and DeFi was about finding the balance of UX and messaging. The second was with a top 20 global bank, whose team had decided it's not worth the fight to suggest to their superiors they might adopt or use open banking or Plaid.
Sadly that's still the reality at many of the world's largest banks, but not all of them. Incumbent banks are about to get their moment in the sun again as interest rates rise. Banks will be profitable once more and perhaps can relax; maybe this Fintech threat was all a tech bubble?
It made me wonder why JP Morgan Chase is going all-in on tech investment? JPMC has been the best performing bank of the past two decades. In 2006, JP Morgan was a fraction of its size, but it has consistently played the market well.
No giant organization is without its challenges, sure, but if you're interested in Fintech, the prospect of Fintech IPOs, or how the market plays out, we have to unpack why JPMC zigs when most others zag.
🔌This week, 11:FS published its first annual Pulse Report, a curated look at the best in Fintech UX globally. If you work in Fintech and build experiences, you have to check this out.
Weekly rant 📣
JPMC is going all-in vs. Fintech
As interest rates rise, public market Fintech stocks are getting a beating, especially those that went via SPAC. Are we past peak Fintech? Are the banks making a comeback?
Temporarily yes, the banks will do well as interest rates rise. Overnight banks become much more profitable, especially those with scale. So why is JP Morgan Chase increasing its spending massively when it could sit back and be profitable?
JPMC is going big
JPMC announced it will increase its tech budget by 26% to $12bn, substantially more than BofA ($10bn) Citi ($9bn). This sent the stock down, as analysts expected it to hurt profit, especially as interest rates rise. Banks are about to be super profitable again, so why is JPM going so hard?
Timing is everything. JPM is playing a longer game (Jamie Dimon said as much), and they know the battle isn't to produce next quarter's numbers; the war is vs. Fintech companies.
Threats JPMC sees from Fintech companies.
Even if public market Fintech companies are down, BNPL providers are likely squeezing margins on overdrafts. Jamie Dimon described Fintech companies like this.
Look, the competition is very bright. They're bobbing and weaving."
The boxing metaphor to bobbing and weaving says (to me at least) he sees Fintech companies moving quickly, executing, and finding opportunities rather than focusing just on size or power.
What's the $12bn going on?
Ron Shevlin wrote a great piece that pointed out JPMC is global and has countless products for countless segments. It costs a massive amount just to maintain all of that. JP Morgan estimates that $6bn of spending just to "run the bank." This leaves $6bn for things like:
It's an industry norm that anywhere between 70 to 80% of tech budget is actually on "run the bank," so yes, JPMC is spending substantially more than its peers.
I'd wager most other banks have on their 2022 strategy things that look similar to the list above, so we need to go a layer deeper to see why there might be more going on at JPMC than just a bazooka of cash being injected. If you read the words, the outputs, and the M&A activity, there's something else going on here.
It's not what you do; it's the way you do it.
Focus on talent. Before 2008, one of the most attractive jobs was to work in Finance and investment banking. Talent flocked to the financial markets for the innovation and thrill of it all. And in many cases, it was (and still is) at the cutting edge of technology and maths.
For decades, incumbents had made poor technology choices driven by procurement, spreadsheets, or culture. Tech budgets are set annually, managed as a cost, and outsourced to large incumbent providers who enjoy long contracts and little competition (Think giant professional services firms, old school database providers, offshoring firms, et al.).
That all changed as the big tech firms rose to prominence in the past decade. Early in the 2010s, the hottest talent was drawn to tech companies or early-stage companies (perhaps in the past year, we've seen that really shift to Web 3 and Crypto).
Big tech changed the talent experience; they worked with modern tools, empowered staff with autonomy, and challenging work. Tech company salaries skyrocketed, and while engineering was a skill being outsourced by big banks, the engineer was celebrated in tech culture.
I think JPMC has properly understood this shift, and it's not just about pay and comp. The best people want to work on the most challenging problems and solve things correctly. As the market corrects and stock options suddenly don't look quite as compelling as they did last year, will talent look at the high 6 or low 7 figure salaries at a bank? Yes, especially if that bank has projects or programs doing exciting stuff in the right way.
There's also a class of talent who can't (or shouldn't) take as much family risk. 30 to 40 somethings, who live near a major city with kids, often have a high cost of living. The risk/reward of joining early stage to make it big often doesn't calculate for these folks. The folks that haven't made it rich but are ultra-talented, stuck in some other job in another bank is a huge source of intellectual capital an incumbent that gets it can draw.
Focus on the how. "Innovation" in most incumbents is live-action role-playing (LARPing) for corporate executives that want to feel like they're digital too. You can see so many big corporates copying the symptoms of digital success without the results. My go-to anecdote for this is like buying the jersey of your favorite sports star and expecting to be as good as they are. No matter how many Mo Salah jersey's I buy, I'll never be as good as him at soccer (football!).
You can see the rationale of the incumbent here: "Big tech has lots of data and machine learning, so let's launch a big data and machine learning project." The problem is that project is a bank project, not a tech company project.
A bank project has its budget set annually and is approved centrally. Before it can go anywhere near a customer, it must be approved by countless committees, teams, or executives. Any change to the "roadmap" must also be approved, even if early testing shows customers don't care. I've seen banks go live with products they knew wouldn't gain traction because it worked out better to go live and get the expenditure capitalized from an accounting perspective. 🤦♂️
A good tech company project may have an annual budget, but once it receives that, how it uses the budget has much more autonomy. The product team is then in control of how this gets delivered to a customer and can pull expertise from across the group to make it happen. The unit can adjust features, experiences, or even pricing (within reason) to drive towards a set of KPIs.
Anecdote time, my co-founders at 11:FS, David and Jason, were invited to a bank board meeting and discussed the above based on experience building these project teams and getting Neobanks live and scaling them (multiple times).
On hearing this, the CEO said, "We know all this already." And yes, every bank CEO has likely listened to those words and hired McConsultants who've said those words. Likely annually, in "agile transformation programs," where tech teams are organized into "cells" or "pods" and given whiteboards.
Which begs the question, if you already know this, why aren't you getting results? The answer is always, it's you. A personal trainer can show you how the equipment works, they can even do the reps and move the machinery, but they can't make you get it.
I think JPMC gets it (or at least is showing signs of it). They've announced a product-focused operating model that aims to shorten the release cycle. As I've pointed out before, the pace of change is a power law in Fintech. Those with the fastest release cycles learn faster.
Dealing with tech debt smartly. While every bank has a "cloud migration strategy," adopting modern tools and using them well are two different beasts.
Consider the metaphor of the early iron bridges for the railroads. When engineers constructed an iron bridge, they used the techniques, rivets, and tools that had worked with wooden bridges. Yet, when they tried to test those bridges with a steam engine, the bridge would often collapse. How can this be? Surely, the new material with higher tensile strength should be stronger, not weaker? It wasn't until new techniques were developed that the real benefit of iron (and then steel) could be seen.
The same is true in modern software engineering vs. legacy. If I take an old codebase, data structure, and business "into the cloud," it doesn't copy+paste well. This is why most incumbent cloud migrations are doomed to failure (or, more likely, to become a net increase of tech cost that benefits the cloud vendors much more than their customers).
Cloud vendors will often front cash to a big incumbent to migrate to the cloud and deliver some new products along the way if the incumbent commits to volumes. But this, too, is dangerous if you don't get it. I've seen a few banks make the big migration push and hire professional services firms to deliver. That firm is paid by the hour, not for success. In the worst-case, this can be a lose-lose for the incumbent, who is now contractually bound to pay for cloud volumes they're not able to use. They're likely still running their legacy platform or data centers too.
On this one, I have no insight as to if JPMC is doing it right, but their recognition that it's not easy to do and long term in nature are encouraging. (To quote the CFO, edited slightly for clarity and emphasis mine).
Recommended by LinkedIn
Retiring technical debt is easy to not do if you're applying defense focused on short-term targets. But if you're playing offense for the long term, it's exactly this type of decision… that's critical for the company's long-term success.
Producing results. Chase launched in the UK and, by all accounts, is doing quite well. Since launching in September, early customer and market feedback has been that the digital-only bank offering from Chase is quite good. Sure, they're essentially buying customers with 1% cashback and 5% interest on round-ups, but nobody (other than Santander) was really doing that in the UK.
The app is also 100% digital-only, so they have no branches or legacy tech to manage. Their "hurdle rate" to make a customer profitable is much closer to what a Neobank would expect.
It's not all good news.
JPMC is right that it faces headwinds. Hidden costs in its legacy, new competitors that get it and have their own war chest to spend, and entirely new competition categories.
Hidden costs. I cannot underemphasize how challenging it is to take an old mainframe with 59 million customers and make that work in the cloud. Not least because that mainframe is the beating heart of 1000s of other systems and manual processes. Many of the people who built Mainframes are retired or dead, and yet they are the engine that drives the incumbent's revenues and profits. Turning off the legacy tech is simply not an option.
The old cost isn't going away; new costs are being created. As banks invest in innovation to compete, their "run" costs aren't going down; they're actually increasing. Incumbents have often duplicated their cost base. So the analysts that can't see the return on investment have a point. Bank tech spending is predicted to increase 10% YoY for the next half-decade (much to the joy of every professional services firm).
I actually don't think that's all bad. If you can prove a low-cost digital-only operating model in a separate Geo (like the UK), then perhaps it could work in the US. The trick everyone misses here is that instead of migrating customers with their existing products, you're better off just bringing them through a slick re-application for a new product. You might lose some customers in churn, but frankly, modern digital-only product applications are so frictionless it's worth it for the cost/benefit.
New competition. BNPL is a monster, and it's eating away at overdraft and fee revenue. Block and PayPal can invest as many retail customers and so many ways to monetize. They're also much more experienced at the digital operating model.
The digital community banks are focussing on niches. Whether it's consumer groups (LGTBQ, African American, Gamers) or SMBs (tradespeople, dentists, therapists), there's a niche Neobank for everything. Each of these steals some transaction volume and potential growth from incumbents.
Then there are folks like Goldman on the larger end or the community banks on the smaller end who embrace partnerships, BNPL, banking-as-a-service, and more. There are plenty of well-funded, savvy competitors bobbing and weaving.
JPMC is unlikely to reduce its tech spend in the next 5 years, nor should it. But to get the results it craves it can play to its strengths and do what others can't or won't. Let legacy migration continue over the long term while focussing on new revenue lines that take advantage of assets like its global payments connectivity and diverse balance sheet.
Now that JPMC came to play, what should Fintech companies do?
Direct to consumer or direct to business Neobanks can focus on their niche, deepening customer engagement and cross-sell. Neobanks with 5m+ customers might not threaten JPMC any time soon, but they can be great businesses in their own right.
The SuperApps are gonna SuperApp. If Block and Paypal create a true consumer/merchant ecosystem and flywheel, they could be unstoppable (same for some BNPL providers).
JP Morgan might be the best of the big incumbents, but it's changing because its new competition plays a different game.
As an observer, I'm excited to see Neobanks, SuperApps, and Fintech companies react to this. The following 5 years are going to be interesting.
ST.
4 Fintech Companies 💸
1. Cryptosimple - Betterment for Crypto (EU initially, then the US)
2. Payflow - Earned Wage Access for Spain
3. Burnt Finance - DeFi NFT Marketplace on Solana
4. Wealthkernel - Drivewealth for the UK (EU soon)
Things to know 👀
Bit of a BNPL flavor this week
Good Reads 📚
More BNPL than you can shake a stick at
Tweets of the week 🕊
Only for subscribers
That's all, folks. 👋
Remember, if you're enjoying this content, please do tell all your fintech friends to check it out and hit the subscribe button :)
Head of Primary Research at Council Ring Capital
2yGreat content, and interesting to read as Affirm is down 15% today. I'd be curious to hear you expand on this in future posts: "what makes open banking payments unique is combining account data with the payment."
Top Global Fintech & Tech Influencer • Trusted by Finserv & Tech Global • Content & Influencer Services • Advisory for Digital Transformation • Speaking • connect@efipylarinou.com
2yBookmarked to read this.
Fintech Growth Specialist
2yReading this has become a Sunday staple for me. Thanks for the great insights!
CEO at Pipe, father of 4, fintech geek.
2yReally good this week. Thanks Simon.
Embedded Finance | Business Development | Institutional Sales | B2B | Trading | Crypto | Web3 | Banking | GTM | Multilingual | Payments | Country Manager | BaaS
2yWill we see #bnpl involving #crypto in 2022? What do you think Simon Taylor ? #cryptopayments #futureofpayments Mercuryo