Guillaume’s blog

I searched the SXSW interactive panel picker for “banking”, “money”, “finance”, “financial”, etc. Here are the panels I found:

• Banking 2.0 - Algorithmically Fixing the Sub-Prime Mess (suggested by Christopher Hughes, PennyMac): Sub-prime debt may be causing the collapse of the worldwide economy. Speculators, investors, banks, mortgage brokers, honest home-owners have all been duped into believing that that the real estate market was a “sure thing”. Can a solution be found with a computing cluster, open source software, and a semi-complex algorithm? Yes.
• Future of Money: Life after the Fed (suggested by Blake Stephenson, Flow): Ron Paul’s presidential campaign shone a light on the impossibility of central banks to “regulate” the economy and the inherent problems with fiat money (paper money). The internet is playing and will continue to play a critical role in the creation of the future of money. What is the future of money?
• Mobile Ubiquitous Banking and the Future of Money (suggested by Kyle Outlaw, Avenue A | Razorfish): Nearly half the world’s population now has a mobile device and more than a thousand cell phones are being activated every minute. The ubiquity of mobile devices will make new services available to billions of people worldwide who have not had access to traditional banks or credit cards. In developing countries such as Kenya - where nearly 80% of the population is excluded from the formal financial sector - text messaging is being used to transfer money to friends and family living in other countries. Moreover, new forms of currency are being created - trading cell phone minutes for goods and services, for example. This panel will explore the challenges and opportunities as banks go mobile, and how the revolution in mobile financial services will change the way we think about money.
• Strategies for Establishing Social Media in B2B Relationships (Brad Garland, The Garland Group | Banktastic.com) Social media in the consumer space is clearly talked about and prevalent. What is barely getting addressed is how these technologies can be implement in the business world and what are ways to do it successfully. This panel will explore that concept and how B2B relationships can be formed using these tools.

About SXSW:

SXSW Interactive Festival features five days of exciting panel content and amazing parties. Attracting digital creatives as well as visionary technology entrepreneurs, the event celebrates the best minds and the brightest personalities of emerging technology. Whether you are a hard-core geek, a dedicated content creator, a new media entrepreneur, or just someone who likes being around an extremely creative community, SXSW Interactive is for you!

The Bankwatch had an interesting post titled Payments - the impossible dream for Banks? this week outlining the importance of payments for banks and the challenges they face in bringing about innovative and user-friendly payment solutions. Colin’s line of thought is that:

1. Banking has moved to self service
2. Self-service allows two types of financial activity … view balances, or move money.
3. Moving money is payments.
4. Payments, as currently offered by banks, are mostly hell and they cry out for innovation
5. Payments innovation is not about technology or standards (SEPA), but about customer experience

I cannot but connect this “hell” experience with one of the most interesting questions raised during the Mobile Web Wars conference last week:

Why  people are willing to pay for apps on the iPhone, but not on Facebook?
Why people are willing to pay $3 for ringtones, but not $1 for music files?

A participant was arguing that the reason was the “mobile effect” i.e. the fact the mobile is a relatively new communications channel that is so personal that people value it more than the PC channel. But at the same time, Bart Decrem, CEO of Tapulous, a social app company for the iPhone, was saying in the background: “Ease-of-use, Ease-of-use, Ease-of-use”, in other words: convenience drives customer value and their willingness to pay.

Something pretty obvious some would say, but this idea was made to me much clearer in the last few days while trying out two new services: expensure.com, a London-based bill sharing online application, and TipJoy, an online tipping (”micropayment”) service. Both services address different user problems, but they both address it very well with an extreme focus on convenience.

TipJoy for instance, does not require what you would normally call “payees” to register: you can simply donate to any URL on the Web you want. As Web site owners register and add the TipJoy button on their Web site, they essentially claim by the same token URLs and collect tips. From the payer / tipper perspective, a single click on the TipJob button is required, nothing more: the button is already configured by the payee with a pre-defined amount (in the order of 5 to 50 cents). This is convenience at its best.

Expensure solves the problem traditionally solved by complex spreadsheet. I used it to share bills between an upcoming WE trip with my friends and I was extremely satisfied with the application. It’s all in the details. For instance, I was able to set a ledger and experiment adding expenses to it without having to invite my friends to the service, something that would have refrained me from starting to use it, b/c my friends are too busy to receive unwanted invites from applications I found not worth using after a trial. In this case, I did, and ultimately send the invite to 5 friends.

Both applications touch on the problem of payments, but with an extreme focus on a relatively highly context-specific problem and a very well designed solution to the problem. Yes, I could have used my bank’s transfer service, or checks, plus a shared Google Spreadsheet, as I did in the past, but I will certainly not do so now that my social network is almost set up with Expensure. Same thing with TipJoy: while I could have used a PayPal button on my blog, I can see the value of simply providing a pre-defined amount to users willing to tip me, and will most likely go with them in the end if I ever want to be tipped for writing these articles (I’m not really and I’m doing this on the side of my day job).

What was the most interesting to me, what the following FAQ excerpt from Expensure:

Can I pay somebody back using Expensure? Soon. Right now we are focusing on making Expensure the best shared expense tracking app out there.

and from TipJoy:

Why can’t I withdraw cash from my Tipjoy account? There are legal implications to allowing this transaction which we are currently working through. We expect that you will be able to withdraw cash very soon. In the meantime, if you have a minimum of $5 in your account after removal of applicable fees, then you can do the following with your earnings: 1. Donate to any official charity you’d like 2. Purchase an Amazon gift

Both of these companies are clearly focused on providing the best customer experience first, then only will they figure a way to monetize it. They probably have listened very well to this presentation from Paul Graham on how being benevolent and focusing on solving problems is more important than thinking about making money when starting a business.

The only thing that these companies are missing is that they are not a bank or Credit Union, but as good entrepreneurs, starting a new CU or bank is probably not an option they will choose. Just like PayPal partnered with Wells Fargo, I would not be surprised to see an innovative bank or CU partnering with them to handle the back-end aspect of their solution, in particular legal compliance in each legal framework/geography they do business in.

So, when real-estate agents are asked about RE investments strategy, it’s: “Location, Location, Location”. When asked about early-stage investments, VCs talk about “People, People, People”. Perhaps, when banks are asked about their payment strategy, or their general banking strategy for that matter, bank should say: “Convenience, Convenience, Convenience”.

I was encouraged this WE to look into the cost-per-click of some financial services keywords in the U.S. using Google Adwords Keyword Tool.

As of the time of this writing:

• “video cameras” costs you an estimated $3.14 per click,
• “buy car” costs you $4.81,
• “wireless” and related: ~$5.00,
• “dsl” and related: ~$6.00
• “real estate investments”: $5.47
• “buy computer”: ~$8.

Now get this:

• “buying mutual funds”: $12.66, “online stock trading: $18.06
•  ”best credit card deals”: $25.94, “balance transfer credit cards”, $18.23
• “auto insurance quotes”: $34.58, “insurance quotes: “$29.77″
• “high yield checking account”: $17.81, “checking account rates”: $20.44
• “mortgage refinancing”: $32.58, “home equity loans: $23.74

I know this is a very superficial research study, but there seems to be a pattern here: financial services firms are paying significantly higher than firms from consumer sectors for prospective customers’ attention.

What can we learn from it? IMO the cost per click is a function of

• profitability of the related service offered over the average customer relationship duration, and
• likelihood that the prospective customer who has clicked will subsequently actually buy the service online,

then my quick conclusion is that there is probably good business opportunities in online comparison services for financial services products, as well as in new financial services that leverage the Web and social networks to be cheaper and mass-market. Peer to peer lending is probably one of them.

Imagine if a bank or CU was exposing their system via a GData-like API, and was outsourcing innovation to third-parties, possibly creating a dedicated VC fund or prize to finance startups building applications on their API, managing innovation as a good old option portfolio, possibly acquiring only the most successful and profitable of these innovators.

Well, that’s not really possible yet, but it seems the idea is in the air, at least the API part. Here are some excerpt from the comments section of OpenSourceCU report on BarCampBankDallas. Here is a summary:

In the current economic context, some credit unions may be pushed to innovate to survive, and one effective tool would be to expose their API. Tim McAlpine says:

As far as the API goes, traditional FIs are the opposite of open source. Being open requires a start-up mentality. Unfortunately today’s old dogs are more interested in keeping the vault full and closed. […]

This API opportunity lies with the credit unions. If an open CU was backed into a corner to survive, they may think differently if we could get them to understand the concept and potential power of an API. This type of CU may be ripe for innovation and may just turn that API over. If they did, I bet the geek world would love to slide in the door and innovate on their behalf!

In a subsequent comment, Robbie Wright took this vision to the next level: what if someone was providing a platform for anyone to start their own financial institution, leaving the difficult paperwork part to the platform provider:

I believe a large opportunity exists in helping people start new CU’s. It is so tough from a regulatory perspective and from a capital perspective, that it always seems starting a CU is impossible. That is what we need to change. Aside from the open source core processor idea that has been kicked around for a while now, there exists the possibility to create an entirely new industry of the outsourced FI.

Now, what would this API would look like?