Community

No, credit unions in the US are regulated by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA). They did opine on this issue in 2021, not sure if they'll be 'folded in' with the new crypto "no prior permission" guidance of the FDIC, as they are both federal agencies. Here's what they said - seemingly more lenient at the time re: digital assets - in a letter to insured credit unions under their purview: https://ncua.gov/regulation-supervision/letters-credit-unions-other-guidance/relationships-third-parties-provide-services-related-digital-assets

Excellent overview of the B-Corp movement by Finextra's Sehrish Alikhan, especially as it applies to financial services organisations. Beneficial State Bank, Climate First Bank, Triodos, Moneyfarm and their growing list of North American and European counterparts face exceptionally strong challenges to achieving "people, planet, purpose, & profit" goals because as financial institutions their lending and deposit service processes have outsized influence on their customer behaviors downstream. They must REALLY know their businesses and community and financial impacts to 'do the work' to ensure qualification for the rigourous B-Corp application and renewals.

Anyone eligible can choose to be on of these B-Corps' customers, and most who do so are aware that they are proactively selecting a bank that truly walks the talk of sustainable finance and climate and social awareness and action. It's not easy to comply, but the value of becoming and continuing to operate as a B-Corp is becoming more known and validated everyday, all across the world. Being one doesn't mean perfection, but it does mean that corporation's aim is toward the future, in favor of keen and sensible awareness of its own business and impact, and building resilient programs, practices, and product offerings directly in line with the balanced values of "doing well by doing good" that are espoused by the majority among our latest generations in the marketplace.

Excellent analysis, Professor Skeie. Their potential to provide greater flexibility, financial inclusiveness, and wider access to financial services & products notwithstanding, digital currencies still pose lots of questions, as you point out. The key will be to ensure they deliver all of these benefits (and others) without opening new doors to fraudsters and money launderers. Interestingly, this should be more achievable on their 'blank slate' frameworks and platforms vs. legacy technology. The challenge is to make it so, and institute so much transparency of value and clarity of operation that they simply can't be compromised (or start going off the rails) without everyone knowing immediately or well in advance.

Very thorough analysis, and thank you Vladimir Krasik, for sharing it. I'm sure there are a few more questions still to be answered in this discussion. I am particularly wondering about the impact of the apparent dissolution of the Goldman/Apple partnership. I know it's just one example, and maybe not the best one, but will other high-flying fintech/banking partnerships grab such headlines, or scrutiny, as it has? And how will they be more fruitful for both parties? Supposedly, the bad blood is due to the link-up's reported unprofitability for Goldman and perhaps also to Apple's own discontent with the arrangement. What's next for Apple, a link with a larger, more established player in cards or retail banking? Also, I think a continuing question for many fintechs is how they get paid, i.e., if they provide 'free' services to customers, where is the revenue coming from to do so? In traditional banking models, it's from the spread between deposit and lending rates, fees for services, and in the case of credit card issuers, from interchange and related fees on purchases. You outline well how Wise and others decided that accounts and lending (cards especially) were an excellent opportunity for growth beyond their initial product offerings.

For a fintech becoming a bank - and especially for its present and future investors - this may be looked at as a more stable opportunity for growing revenue as opposed to building volumes on a potentially 'teetering' or vulnerable source of income, like credit card interchange (under significant attack recently in the courts), subscription fees, advertising revenue, or sale of customer data to others.

Ummm. I think a reality check is in order for Elon. Victory for Musk in so many ways, is fleeting. He has tremendous competition already outdoing Tesla now despite massive price cuts and the Cybertruck is a disaster as has been several of the solar roof and other initiatives. As Tesla falls to at best a competitor in a crowded and just-as or more-innovative field of well-heeled providers in EVs and battery tech, he'll need to pivot to something else to soothe his ego...so not surprised with his latest "X comments". As usual, his comments are half-explained (and maybe half-baked) hype. But that hasn't stopped him or his friends from claiming lots of things and lining up lemmings to invest in the past!

Very thorough analysis, Joris Lochy! Perhaps we can chat on further issues here, some of which we've previously explored in Finextra articles?

Great overview and analysis of the situation and opportunity for BNPL. The question is, who/what is really paying for paying later? Is it the company's price to the BNPL client (higher)? Is it some sort of fee to the referrer/storefront? (partial probably), and/or is it lower margins for the product seller for which BNPL is the chosen way to process the transaction? Most importantly, what does 'buying on impulse' do to help build proper financial behavior and reduce consumer debt while increasing savings for real things? Like experiences and homes or business capital, or paying down other debt, for example? These questions need answers from BNPL providers.

Silicon Valley Bank has failed and the FDIC is now stepping in to take charge and manage an orderly process. Look for a potential buyer to emerge/be acknowledged by the regulators shortly, per usual procedures in such cases.