CategoriesAnalytics Cloud Digital Banking IBSi Blogs IBSi Flagship Offerings Open Banking

Digital Disruption: How FinTechs Are Outpacing Traditional Banks in Trade Finance

Trade finance has always been pivotal for global trade, shoring up global supply chains and addressing liquidity concerns. However, there has been a significant shift in its landscape in recent years. While traditional banks once dominated trade finance, FinTechs are rapidly ascending due to several prevailing industry trends.

FinTechs: Pioneers of a Digital-First Era

As in many other industries, the COVID-19 pandemic expedited the digital transformation of the trade finance sector. Data from Statista highlights that the trade finance deficit recently rose to $2 trillion, up from $1.5 trillion before the pandemic.

As the world’s trade infrastructure felt the strain, it became clear that established systems and conventional bank services were lagging behind, enabling the growth of the trade finance gap. Many traditional banks struggled to adapt quickly enough, causing disruptions and delays in trade financing processes.

Enter FinTechs – with digital, cloud-centric solutions that boosted the accessibility of trade finance, which particularly benefited SMEs in emerging markets. In contrast to banks, burdened by paperwork and red tape, FinTechs harnessed innovations like open banking, digital data capture, and cloud-based storage.

By Oliver Carson, CEO and Co-Founder of Universal Partners

Oliver Carson, CEO and Co-Founder of Universal Partners

This gave way to a much more refined, agile process – introducing a modern approach that has effectively addressed the inefficiencies of traditional trade finance, heralding a new era for the industry.

Tailored Financial Solutions for SMEs

For decades, traditional banking practices, with their rigid criteria and legacy systems, have often disadvantaged SMEs. The innate nature of SMEs, characterised by limited credit histories and sporadic cash flows, has frequently resulted in declined trade finance applications.

However, FinTechs recognised an overlooked opportunity. Rather than viewing SMEs through the same lens as traditional banks, FinTechs delved deeper into understanding their unique needs, challenges, and potential.

FinTechs saw SMEs’ requirements and developed tailored financial solutions, such as non-recourse financing. This not only placed the responsibility of payment recovery squarely on the financiers but gave SMEs the crucial working capital they needed without the usual risks.

The success of this approach is evident in the numbers, with FinTechs able to offer a faster, more cost-effective digital service. According to Bain & Co’s projections, by serving these previously underserved SME sectors, FinTechs could earn an extra $2 billion annually in trade finance fees and potentially drive trade volumes up to a staggering $1 trillion by 2026.

A Battle of Agility and Reputation

Traditional banks, once dominant, are now facing challenges in the trade finance domain. Regulatory measures like the Basel III framework, designed to ensure financial stability, have inadvertently decreased the operational flexibility of banks, making it harder for them to adapt swiftly to changing market dynamics.

Compounding this is the banks’ cautionary approach toward SMEs, and this conservative stance has not only limited the growth potential of these enterprises but has also dented the banks’ image as holistic financial service providers.

In contrast, FinTechs have shown remarkable agility in adapting to the current market needs. Their strategies, inherently more favourable towards SMEs, have filled the void left by traditional banks. By leveraging the latest technological advancements, FinTechs have introduced enhanced security measures and streamlined operations, providing a more user-centric experience.

While banks recognise the evolving landscape and are making concerted efforts to innovate with platforms like ‘we.trade’ and ‘Trade Finance Gate’, there’s a palpable sense the institutions are trying to regain lost momentum. The challenge is not just about introducing new tools or platforms but fundamentally reshaping their approach to be more inclusive and adaptive, much like the FinTechs they now compete with.

In summary, FinTechs, with their proactive models and emphasis on customer needs, are continuously making their mark in the trade finance landscape. For traditional banks, the onus is now twofold: not only to innovate but to re-establish the trust of SMEs who now see FinTechs as more dependable allies. As the financial world moves ahead, agility, innovation, and customer-centricity will be at the heart of success, and at present, FinTechs are leading the charge and will find themselves the trusted partners of the global giants of the future.

CategoriesAnalytics Banking as a Service (BaaS) IBSi Blogs IBSi Flagship Offerings

What’s the difference between BaaS and embedded banking? Quite a lot

The problem with a loosely defined term is that its meaning can become stretched. Anyone who has described a stadium-filling act such as Ed Sheeran as “indie” because he plays a guitar is guilty of this.

Banking-as-a-Service (BaaS) is just such a loosely defined term.

Some providers have stretched the term to encompass services such as Open Banking, card platforms, and APIs. This confusion is further exacerbated when aggressive marketing campaigns overlap BaaS with another fast-growing term: embedded banking. Using one term to describe all of these disparate services makes about as much sense as using the same word to describe a multi-platinum-selling artist and the band playing to three people in the local pub.

By John Salter, Chief Customer Officer at ClearBank

John Salter, Chief Customer Officer at ClearBank

 

Confusion over these terms is already widespread. According to Aite, a third of fintech providers do not believe there is any difference between embedded banking and BaaS.

There are, however, important differences between BaaS and embedded banking. Businesses need to understand the differences between these two concepts if they are to understand their own responsibilities, especially around governance and compliance, and what it could mean for scaling up or adding new features in the future.

Breaking it down: What’s the difference?

Despite its name, BaaS does not necessarily mean working directly with the holder of a banking license or that the services provided require a license. Instead, providers offer banking-related services and infrastructure, sometimes on behalf of a licensed bank, to firms including fintech startups, e-commerce platforms, and even other financial institutions.

BaaS is a “push” model. A banking product is created and offered “as a service” to a potential user. BaaS is the distribution of banking products to financial institutions and non-financial institutions. For example, non-bank players like Uber or Lyft work with a BaaS provider that is responsible for payments, cards, accounts, and loans. However, who is responsible for compliance and governance can vary between providers and use cases.

On the other hand, embedded banking is on the “pull” side. This simply means that financial services and products are embedded into financial or non-financial platforms, such as e-commerce and mobile banking applications. Embedded banking is the provision of a banking service directly from the holder of a banking license and embedded directly into the user experience. A typical example would be the Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) functionality online shops have included at the point of purchase for customers to access installment payment options.

Do businesses need to understand the difference?

Should anyone care about this? This is a good question as most businesses won’t start with the question of whether they want BaaS or embedded banking. In fact, they’re unlikely to ask this question at all. Instead, they will have specific requirements for banking or banking-like services, and approach the right provider with those needs in mind.

So, who cares? Aren’t we simply over-analysing the technicalities?

It may seem so, but there are important implications for regulation and who is responsible for compliance.

BaaS providers may have a banking licence, or they may hold an EMI licence. Embedded banking providers are, by definition, holders of a banking licence. It’s important when entering into any agreement that the customer-facing business understands the regulatory nature of the agreement—who is responsible for compliance and KYC, how funds are safeguarded, and whether they are protected by a full banking licence. There is already concern from regulators around where consumers’ money is held and how safe it is—is there enough transparency? Knowing the difference is important, especially when the “gold standard” is when funds are held by a bank in an embedded solution.

Businesses aiming to enhance their offerings with financial services have the potential to create differentiated services that set them apart from the competition. But working with the right partner is crucial to success. When evaluating a partner, businesses must consider the range of services on offer, technology implications, compliance, security, and more.

So, a clear understanding of the differences between BaaS and embedded banking will make it easier for any business to decide what is right for them and their customers.

CategoriesAnalytics Digital Banking IBSi Blogs IBSi Flagship Offerings

How Embedded Banking is transforming customer loyalty

The impact of loyalty programmes for brands looking to foster lasting relationships with their customers has been well-established for years. Research from Nielsen, for example, found that the vast majority (84%) of consumers are more inclined to remain faithful to brands with loyalty programmes. However, 79% of consumers are no longer interested in simply earning points for their loyalty.

By Kim Van Esbroeck, Country Head for Aion Bank Belgium & Chief Revenue Officer for Vodeno/Aion

Kim Van Esbroeck, Country Head for Aion Bank Belgium & Chief Revenue Officer
Kim Van Esbroeck, Country Head for Aion Bank Belgium & Chief Revenue Officer

Today, the loyalty ecosystem is shifting. In the age of eCommerce, competition for the customer is more fierce than ever, and brands are turning to embedded finance to differentiate themselves and drive engagement.

To find out more about changing loyalty preferences, Vodeno commissioned a survey of more than 3,000 European consumers in the UK, Belgium, and Germany to understand how embedded finance is innovating brands’ customer loyalty strategies.

How is embedded finance being integrated into loyalty programmes?

Embedded finance is a broad term that covers a wide variety of banking products – from payments to lending to savings. According to the Vodeno/Aion research, branded debit cards and digital wallets are popular embedded finance solutions, with 48% of respondents having used a branded debit card and 40% a branded credit card.

Today, early adopters are seeing how embedded finance can supercharge their existing loyalty schemes by providing customers with financial products that add convenience and tangible financial benefits. For instance, the Starbucks loyalty app, which enables customers to earn rewards and pre-order coffee with their smartphone, holds more than $1.2 billion in deposits as customers load cash onto their Starbucks Cards and app. In context, this is more than 85% of US banks have total assets, making embedded finance a clear route to profitability. Another powerful example of embedded finance in action is Target’s REDcard, which offers customers 5% cash back on purchases, contributing over $8.9 billion in volume annually and 12.1% of all Target sales.

How are consumers responding to embedded finance?

In today’s eCommerce landscape, consumers expect a frictionless customer journey, and financial solutions that make their lives genuinely easier – like flexible payment solutions and Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) – are key.

When it comes to their loyalty, just under half (46%) are more likely to use a brand’s loyalty card to make purchases if it includes BNPL. This figure was highest amongst the youngest consumers surveyed, increasing to 53% for those aged 16-24 and higher still (65%) in the 25-34 demographic.

Vodeno’s research went further, revealing a strong consumer appetite for embedded financial products, citing that over a third (37%) of respondents are actively seeking out brands offering BNPL as a result of rising costs, while 40% are only loyal to brands providing financial benefits such as BNPL and cashback, rising to 50% among those aged 25-34.

The benefits of loyalty

Embedded finance has a direct impact on conversion and repeat visits, with respondents claiming they shop with brands offering embedded financial solutions more frequently. According to the findings, 36% visit the brand’s app or website three to five times a month, with this figure rising to 43% among the 25-34 age group. Additionally, more than a fifth (22%) of respondents say they are likely to make more purchases with brands offering embedded banking, while 23% are more likely to spend more money with them over competitors.

Building bonds that last

Embedded banking has already revolutionised the customer journey and now it is changing the loyalty game. Our findings indicate that consumers are already actively recognising the benefits of financial solutions offered at the point of need, which is incentivising bigger shopping baskets and repeat visits. In a fiercely competitive market, brands stand to gain from new revenue-building opportunities and stronger customer relationships, powered by embedded banking.

Call for support

1800 - 123 456 78
info@example.com

Follow us

44 Shirley Ave. West Chicago, IL 60185, USA

Follow us

LinkedIn
Twitter
YouTube