Today technology plays a key role
in the performance of financial institutions. Financial institutions invest
heavily into information technology to improve delivery channels as well as for
compliance and risk management purposes. With the advent of Internet and mobile
banking we can now access our accounts from home, work and just about anywhere.
These new delivery channels reflect the changing needs and preferences of customers,
coupled with growing technological innovations. At the same time these new
channels have added to the ballooning cost of investments in technology for the
banking sector.
According to Capgemini’s “Trends
in Retail Banking Channels: Improving Client Service and Operating Costs” global
IT spending on retail banking channels remained stagnant in 2009, but was expected
to grow to $45.8bn at a compound annual growth rate of 4.2% through 2012. To
combat the heavy cost associated with their investments in technology most
banks are forced to look for cost saving measures particularly in their back
office operations and this has resulted in the further automation. With the
cost of investments in technology seeming growing unabated banks are now forced
to seek out revenue enhancement measures to drive profitability.
The search by banks for revenue
enhancing measures is taking place at the same time that Bitcoin and virtual
currencies is building momentum towards more widespread adoption. In this post,
I will argue that the momentum in Bitcoin has placed its development and
adoption squarely on a trajectory that clashes with efforts by banks to increase
their revenue streams.
The fact is banks want to control
a great portion of a customer’s entire financial relationship or portfolio. They
have invested heavily into costly technology and are now looking for ways to increase
the share of consumers’ wallets. Banks are by their nature inefficient
creatures as their legacy systems or antiquated systems are designed to collect
and process information by product and transaction, and not necessarily by
customer. Unlike, insurance companies that collect information on individual
consumer so as to segment and price different types of risks, banks have done a
poor job at collating customer information. One exception to this is the regulatory
demand placed on banks during the post 911-era to collect more information on
both corporate clients and individuals for the purposes of combating money
laundering and terrorist financing. Even in this latter case, banks have had to
either retrofit or discard legacy systems and invest in new technologies that
allow for better capturing of clients’ information for the purposes of
compliance with anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing rules and
regulations.
What is the point? Banks are not
just inefficient. They are also regarded as poor financial stewards and
lambasted for the role in precipitating the 2008-financial crisis, the worst
financial crisis since the Great Depression. It is this negative image of the
banking sector that is driving innovations such as Bitcoin to challenge the
hegemony of the banking and financial systems. Bitcoin, can easily be viewed as
Libertarians opposition to the status quo of the banking and financial system
similar to the Tea Party Movement opposition to the political influence that
swept across the North America in the aftermath of the 2008-financial crisis.
The battle lines are drawn even
when consumers know that banking need Bitcoin and Bitcoin need banking. The
banking sector is straddled with legacy systems that do not make it easy to
slice product and transactions data per customer. The systems were designed with
transaction processing, per product, in mind. Consequently, while banks have
made some progress in achieving multi-channel integration to achieve seamless customer
navigation across different channels, banks face enormous challenges around
their existing legacy applications, systems, and processes which often operate
in silos. Our banks have to overcome the challenges of its legacy system to deliver
true seamless experience across channels to consumers. Today, there is a
greater demand to understand relationships, data has to be mined and collated
from a variety of systems and geographies. This is a massive and costly
undertaking but one that might be readily addressed with Bitcoin.
Bitcoin and virtually currencies
by design represent one of the most significant innovations to hit the financial
system in a long time. It is perhaps the most significant development since swaps
were first introduced to the public in 1981 when IBM and the World Bank entered
into a swap agreement that revolutionise risk management and hedging. If Bitcoin
and virtual currencies gain traction, it will represent the most significant
competitive threat to the hegemony of the financial system.
The banking sector and the
Bitcoin community are at odds and at polarizing ends of the spectrum. Bitcoin
has the potential to become an important protocol for the exchange of money
online at enormously lower fees than banks and credit card companies charge for
online transactions. It also has the potential to drive the transaction costs for
cross border transfers lower. As an immigrant and a consumer that is like music
to my ears. The World Bank estimates that remittances totalled USD 440 billion
in 2010, of which USD 325 billion went to developing countries, involving some
192 million migrants or 3.0% of world population. In many cases, the cost to
consumers of these remittance transactions is expensive relative to the often
low incomes of migrant workers, the amounts sent and the income of remittance
recipients.
Like most immigrants I also have
to remit funds back home to help take care of love ones in Jamaica. As a
consumer I find the cost of remittances and wire transfers is enormous. It is costly
to use money services businesses such as Western Union. Bitcoin in its current
form allows free transfers done from one Bitcoin address to another, unless the
sender elects to pay an optional transaction fee, which usually amounts to
pennies, for faster confirmation. Most consumers will welcome any reduction in
remittance transfer price or transaction that would result in more money
remaining in the pockets of migrants and their families. The World Bank
estimates that if the cost of sending remittances could be reduced by 5
percentage points relative to the value sent, remittance recipients in
developing countries would receive over $16 billion dollars more each year than
they do now. This added income could then provide remittance recipients more
opportunity for consumption, savings, and investment in local economies.
Bitcoin also offers near real
time settlement which is also a big plus for online businesses. Bitcoin can
settle transactions within seconds for good. Allow me to share a personal
experience. Recently, I received a cheque from a client. My client and I conduct
our financial affairs with the same bank. Despite this little fact, the bank
held onto the funds for seven business days. If my client had used email money,
I would merely accept the payment and then deposit the funds directly in my
account. No problem.
To add further insult, the teller attempted to clear the cheque in what I consider
to be archaic. She first called my client to confirm that he had written out
cheque to me. She then proceeded to call my client’s branch to request a fax
copy of his signature. The kicker for me was when my client’s branch informed
the teller they could not find or retrieve client’s signature. I could not help
but think that despite the significant the investment in technology banks are
just as inefficient today as when I started my banking career in the late 1980s
in Kingston, Jamaica.
As inefficient as banks are, they
will not lose their hegemony of consumers’ wallet that easily to the innovators
and developers of Bitcoin. They are going to fight to hold on to a greater
share of consumers’ wallet. This is the battle ground. This is a gigantic political
conflict. In my view, Bitcoin aficionados and enthusiasts are at a slight disadvantage.
The Bitcoin community seem fragmented and opaqueness. The community seem to
lack of transparency the hallmark for building public confidence and trust. They
seem to lack the public relation and marketing savviness as a true competitor. Bitcoin
aficionados cannot expect to continue to position Bitcoin and virtual
currencies as merely empowering the average consumer. Bitcoin and virtual
currencies are far from unsophisticated. It is complex. In the battle for
consumers’ wallets, banks have first mover advantage since they already serve a
custodians and intermediaries of the financial services. The banking sector also
holds significant political clout.
Bitcoin can play an important
role in address gaps and deficiencies in the global payment systems as well as
reduce transaction costs in the current banking and payment system. To be truly
competitive Bitcoin will have to move beyond the dark clouds of the recent
collapse of Mt. Gox, the Malleability or denial of services attacks (DOSAs),
the Liberty Reserve criminal and money laundering case. These incidents caught
the attention of governments around the world and the public igniting
discussions about regulations, which I do believe are relevant. However, lost beyond
the clouds are the threats Bitcoin poses to the banks for a share of consumers’
wallet as well as the possible benefits of Bitcoin to the banking and financial
system.
Bitcoin need the support of banking
sector and the banking sector need Bitcoin. Bitcoin also need broader public
support. In order to win broader public support Bitcoin innovators and
developers have to work on creating a positive image of their products and the
Bitcoin community. It cannot be seen as merely a bunch of Libertarians or even
anarchist wanting to either disrupt or revolutionize the financial system. They
have to dispel the view that the Bitcoin and virtual currencies is overrun by
organised crime groups and criminal enterprises. This can only be accomplished
by being transparent about their business. Share with the public information on
security, compliance and risk management measures taken to safeguard their
operations. They have to strengthen corporate governance including disclosure
of information on key personals.
What do you think?
Mark McKenzie is a leading Subject
Matter Expert in financial services regulation and supervision as well as a
professional motivational speaker, corporate trainer and youth mentor. He can be contacted by email
mastbmckenzie@gmail.com or by telephone 647-406-4622. Read my blog http://mastbmckenzie.blogspot.ca/ and always
write me a comment and share. Follow me on Twitter @mackynacky. Connect with me
on www.youtube.com, Google+, Facebook and Linkedin.