Applying Loose Coupling software principles to enterprise digital transformation


Loosely coupled vs tightly coupled is no longer much of a debate in software. There are debates about how to do it well, but it is generally recognized that loose coupling is more robust to failure (even anti-fragile) and more scalable. The best example is the Internet itself. Imagine a version of the Internet controlled by a single big company or government. You would get something like Prestel or Minitel. If you have not heard of either, I rest my case.

This debate becomes relevant to business strategy and digital transformation, as many of the most valuable companies are simply software systems with an economic model attached – think of Google, Facebook, Alibaba, Amazon etc. When we talk about digital transformation of incumbents, we are really talking about turning industrial era companies into software systems with an economic model attached.

The question then is how should the components in that software system interact with each other? Or to put it in more MBA terms, how do business units work together to create synergistic value (aka one plus one is more than two).

This is not an academic debate for bankers. The question today is less about “too big to fail”. Governments do not have the cash for a bailout (with the possible exception of China). The debate is now more about “too big to manage”, or to put it more accurately “too complex to manage” (because big is good as long as it is robust). Tightly coupled is complex and fragile.

To understand how bad tight coupling is, try fixing one line of code in a legacy system. For the non-technical subscribers let me walk you through that one.

Try fixing one line of code in a legacy system

Many enterprise systems have thousands of components. If you ever wondered why big banks with lots of legacy systems are not agile, try fixing one line of code in one of those legacy systems. You will see what it looks like when a butterfly flapping its wings in China creates a hurricane in Florida. Developers have a term for how to deal with this – dependency management. If you fix one component you must know how it will impact related components and any change needs lots and lots of testing (failure to do so is career threatening).

Stack, platform, ecosystem and other faulty analogies

This is from one of my favorite thinkers about the future of software called Jon Udell:

“Here are some analogies we use when talking about software:

Construction: Programs are houses built on foundations called platforms.

Ecology: Programs are organisms that depend on ecosystem services provided by platforms.

Community: Programs work together in accordance with rules defined by platforms.

Architecture: Programs are planned, designed, and built according to architectural plans.

Economics: Programs are producers and consumers of services.

Computer hardware: Programs are components that attach to a shared bus.”

Analogies are useful to introduce a subject to a lay audience, but they can get in the way when trying to get to the next level. I tend to prefer “Ecosystem” as the analogy because the APIs do not only work up or down the stack. For example, one consumer-facing application could interact with another consumer-facing application without necessarily going through a layer below them in the “Stack”. I also try to avoid the Architecture analogy because that implies a level of rigidity which is dangerous. In an ecosystem we have emergent behavior. When one releases an Open API to the outside world, a good result is the unexpected, serendipitous application that nobody had planned for but which totally changes the game.

Applied to digital transformation, all of these are a form of systemic innovation.

Systemic innovation

Back in the summer of 2015, we interviewed Haydn Shaughnessy, co-founder of the consultancy The Disruption House, whose book Shift, A User’s Guide to the New Economy is a look at systemic innovation.

He told us:

“The system threatening innovation is coming from outside the industry, from China tech companies, which have quite different balance sheet constraints, and as ever the open source community. Banks don’t understand system innovation. They think in terms of product. Compare this to what the Chinese technology platforms are doing.  I think western banks will be swamped by system level innovation soon and FinTech investments won’t provide an answer to that. The change is not just about digital and the start ups we see right now are just not scaling fast enough. The change is about new skills, new processes, new services and new business models. Digital is the wrong war cry and the start-up is not a big enough axe.”

The way Steve Jobs created a product like the iPod is by assembling it from lots of loosely coupled components. Of course they were tightly integrated within the product, but via well-defined interfaces so that one vendor can easily be replaced by another vendor. Apple is the opposite of open. They like secrecy and control. Today’s consumer electronics business in China works more like an open ecosystem. Branded, consumer facing companies such as Xiaomi emerge from this ecosystem, but it is the ecosystem that is more interesting than any single company. Like Silicon Valley, this is an ecosystem that rapidly creates big companies, but it is a fundamentally different ecosystem.

Chinese business ecosystems

John Hagel, one of the leading business strategists, is author of The Only Sustainable Edge where he describes how Chinese tech companies are partnering to build products way more efficiently than they could by creating everything in-house.

This is an example of necessity being the mother of invention. Chinese companies have grown despite lacking two critical things that we take totally for granted in the West:

  • Intellectual Property (IP) protection
  • Well-developed capital markets.

The Chinese firms turned these weaknesses into advantages through their approach to partnering – classic Jiu Jitsu.

Enterprise vs Silicon Valley vs Shanzhai

Traditional 20th century enterprises are tightly coupled. That is the essence of vertical integration and it worked well when the challenge was the manufacturing and distribution of physical products. This changes in the digital era, when the winners are companies that create digital ecosystems such as Google, Amazon, Alibaba and AirBnB.

Digital transformation does not just mean adding a digital front end – however mobile savvy it is. It means re-engineering the company from the ground up to create a digital ecosystem. That re-engineering has to be based on loose-coupling.

The Silicon Valley ecosystem has been much studied. The Chinese electronics ecosystem dubbed Shanzhai is less well known. For a good description of Shanzhai, go to this article in The Atlantic.

Both Silicon Valley and Shanzhai ecosystems work on loosely coupled principles and that means that the companies that emerge from those ecosystems are loosely coupled in their DNA. Partnering is not an add-on, it is a core competency.

A bank is a tightly coupled enterprise ecosystem

A traditional Bank is a tightly coupled enterprise ecosystem comprising these 4 different accounts each serving a different need:

  • Current/Checking account (payments in and out).
  • Deposit/Savings account (having some spare cash for emergencies without any risk to capital).
  • Wealth Management Account (earning money on longer term savings using fixed income, equities and other assets, earning more return by taking some risk).
  • Loan account (borrowing money).

The only new account innovation in hundreds years is the Lending Account from Marketplace Lending. This the Loan account in reverse.

Startups are unbundling this tightly coupled enterprise ecosystem of accounts. They do one thing and one thing only. Regulatory innovation is keeping up, so that you can now for example just get a Payment License to use as Current/Checking account and a different license for a Deposit Account.

This is great for innovation. It does however leave the consumer to become their own systems integrator, using a lot of sneaker net and spreadsheets. As most consumers don’t want to do this, traditional banks are OK for now with their tightly integrated offerings.

The next wave of innovation is about “rebundling” and this is done using loose coupling.  The Fintech Rebundling can be done by startups or by Banks. It is a genuinely level playing field enabled by Open APIs. It is perfectly suited to Red Ocean markets. In Blue Ocean markets, the “do one thing and one thing only” startup mantra is more appropriate.  Startups tend to go for Blue Ocean markets and banks tend to fail at Blue Ocean markets due to organizational forces that attack such a radical idea. So Banks tend to operate in Red Ocean markets where they need to innovate in order to counter moves by traditional competitors and Fintech ventures to capture Millenials and other parts of the market that are up for grabs.  Rebundling is a strategic response by Banks in these Red Ocean markets and a way to create new competitive moat.

The Unbundled Bank looks like this (replace those HiFi components with standalone accounts):


Digital transformation is about building something more like this:


Image Source

If you want to see these insights before your competitors, join over 16,600 of your global peers who subscribe by email and see these trends reported every day. Its free and all we need is your email.


Wrap of Week #7: CXA, Calpers, Sofi & Zenbanx, P2P lending, Innovation


This week we wrote about the discomfort of uncertainty, as an essential part of innovation. Read Embrace uncertainty to give your fintech start-up the edge.

In Insurtech dont miss our insights in CXA Group $25 million Series B shows the maturing of InsurTech and future of Innovation Capital.

We devoted two days in the growing private markets, starting the week with Calpers and the quiet data driven disruption of Private Equity and ending the week with our insights in SoFi buying Zenbanx either signals the first Mega NeoBank or a unicorn losing the plot.

Last but not least, don’t miss reading A little bit of P2P is all I need – Mambo in Lending while listening to the Lou Bega’s classic.

The Fintech Genome platform

Join any of the conversations on the Fintech Genome. The global community is sharing insights, creating great conversations, and business is starting to happen.

Check the latest topics that include ICOs, binary options, crowdfunding, digital asset marketplaces, etc


If you enjoy reading the Daily Fintech insights by our experts è Subscribe to this newsletter.

If you want to engage and converse with the Fintech community è Register on Fintech Genome. 

Embrace uncertainty to give your fintech start-up the edge

If there is one thing I’ve learned during my time working for a growth company, it’s that you have to get comfortable with uncertainty. In start-up and growth-stage land, uncertainty is a place you should actively want to inhabit.

As I write that, it strikes me how counter-intuitive this concept is to the daily rhetoric we are exposed to via our media and business peers. Uncertainty is the destroyer of stock markets, economic policies and sound decision making. Give me road-maps, requirements documents, hierarchies and the three year road-map. Most people crave certainty – it’s human after all.

And while there is some truth to the ripple effect of the downside of uncertainty in particular domains, the negative press the word has received has possibly blinded many in business to its hidden, positive traits. Especially when it comes to creatively outwitting your competition.

While uncertainty with respect to ‘what is the purpose of our company’ is negative, uncertainty at a ‘how do we get from A to B’ can be a healthy thing. Why? Because it forces you to continuously experiment and tinker with your operational model until your growth engine is humming satisfactorily. In fact, continuous innovation requires you to be completely uncertain as to whether your tinkering will make anything any better at all – that’s the point of hypothesis testing. For many people, that’s a really scary place to be. ‘I don’t know if this will work’ is a brave phrase in business.

When you move from a quasi-regulated institution to a fully-regulated institution, as we are at Tyro, plenty of headaches arise. Many fintech’s will encounter this as they move into a more banking-esque world. Lack of consistent data on your customers or systems that don’t interface smoothly is one such headache, creating unforeseen blockages in your growth engine. And, thanks to Murphy’s Law, they usually arise the day before you plan to launch something.

But when you’re still small, you don’t have the luxury of time to fix them over 3 -6 months. You need to think up creative solutions fast, some hacky, some possibly more elegant, to unblock those growth stoppers within days. And you need to have the courage to try the hacks, uncertain as you are as to their effectiveness. They will sometimes surprise you, in a good way. And that’s why I love the phrase, ‘why don’t we test it and see what happens’. Kills it in meetings every time.

People often ask me, ‘what will X look like in 3 months?’, or ‘how will the sales process for Y operate in the future?’ They ask me that because they want to build processes that are future proofed around this. I get it. But when you can’t give this to them, because you’re really discovering as you go yourself, this can be hard for many people. Especially if they are not used to ‘feeling’ their way towards a shared goal.

But if everyone can align around the fact that there are degrees of uncertainty as they collectively march towards that common goal then, as a team, you can achieve amazing things. Not only this but you’ll all somehow feed off each other and become far more open to thinking up more creative solutions to get there. This is because as a team you’re autonomously forging your own path and not following dictated directions.

I like uncertainty. I enjoy continuously being surprised by things no one ever envisaged would work. It’s like a continuous state of discovery, or a learning adventure that never really ends. I believe this mentality, when executed on at a start-up or growth-stage company is a distinct advantage. Even more so in financial services, where your opposition will for a long time to come have unavoidable tissue rejection, right throughout the organisation, to the very word.

But that means you have to choose your teams incredibly carefully. You need to place those that like the cut and thrust of the new in the parts of the engine where there is a high degree of uncertainty, and move the more stable ones to the periphery where the cogs move smoothly against each other and only need a little oiling now and then.

Simon Sinek has a great quote that sums up what I think I’m trying to get at. ‘We crave explanations for mostly everything, but innovation and progress happen when we allow ourselves to embrace uncertainty.’ Couldn’t agree more.

Daily Fintech Advisers provides strategic consulting to organizations with business and investment interests in Fintech. Jessica Ellerm is a thought leader specializing in Small Business.

Announcing our Chief Commercial Officer

I am delighted to announce that we have appointed a Chief Commercial Officer to grow our business.

Julia Spiegel brings lots of entrepreneurial experience in both the commercial and non-profit worlds, with a strong focus in brand development, marketing, sales management, and event planning. Julia is global in her experience and outlook, which is critical as Daily Fintech subscribers (over 16,500 as I write) come from 130 countries. Julia is an American, currently residing in Switzerland, having lived and done business in Singapore, India and the United States.

Julia is fascinated by how history and geography play a role in the development of different cultures. She brings an openness, respect, and curiosity to working across regional and business cultures, looking for common interests to unify groups towards shared goals. Julia is keen to help grow the Daily Fintech brand and business with a clear understanding of the value that our content brings to our readers.

Contact information:

julia at DailyFintech dot com

Wrap of Week #6: Regulatory competition, Robos & systemic risk, Xero & SMEs, N26, Reinsurance as a service.


We started the week with a focus on policymaking and regulations. Fintech Regulatory competition heats up as governments calculate the economic return on innovation.

We prompted great discussions after sharing our insights regarding the comments of the Governor of BOE. Read I am with French when it comes to robo-advisors.

Consumer banking is being transformed; N26 is using an app store to become a digital universal bank.

In Insurtech we are moving from vertically insurance companies that control the whole stack to a horizontal stack with services at the application layer by consumer facing born-digital ventures. Read Reinsurance As A Service.

Fintech for small businesses is a huge opportunity. Read Xero opens the door for fintech banks to become SME advisors.

The Fintech Genome platform

Join any of the conversations on the Fintech Genome. The global community is sharing insights, creating great conversations, and business is starting to happen.

Check the latest topics that include ICOs, binary options, crowdfunding, digital asset marketplaces, etc


If you enjoy reading the Daily Fintech insights by our experts è Subscribe to this newsletter.

If you want to engage and converse with the Fintech community è Register on Fintech Genome. 

Fintech Regulatory competition heats up as governments calculate the economic return on innovation


For a long time, entrepreneurs faced competition and regulators sent them the rule book. Regulators were government employees who thought about competition only in the abstract.

Today, the environment is more fluid as governments recognize the economic return on innovation in terms of jobs and GDP growth. The regulators now face real competition because their political masters have to keep citizens happy and citizens care about jobs and GDP growth.

With both Fintechs and global banks being increasingly mobile, jobs can disappear fast if regulators get it wrong. Plus, innovation is the primary driver of productivity which drives GDP per capita.

Pity the poor regulator who must balance that with protecting citizens from fraud and abuse.

In this post we review the Fintech regulatory initiatives in these countries:






Hong Kong




We end by looking at common themes across jurisdictions.

USA: Fintech Charter vs States Rights

America is the largest single market in the world, is home to the biggest banks and the biggest tech companies. So when the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) issues a draft Fintech Charter, we pay attention.

The problem is that there is always a push & pull between central government initiatives such as this and States Rights.

In simple terms, more central power means less state power. One of the comments on the OCC Fintech Charter (which is still only a draft) is from the New York State Department of Financial Services and it is not positive.

A national Fintech charter would mean there will be no reason to have a state license. States do not have the authority to regulate national banks, even those located in the state. This will reduce fee income from granting charters and regulating banks. Looked at from the other side, this will reduce the cost of going national for Fintech ventures. Banks that are already national may lobby to keep it like it is.

Nor do States agree at the policy level. California, home of tech, tends to favor the Tech in FinTech and New York, home of Wall Street, tends to favor the Fin in FinTech.

The politics of this currently are really unclear. So this falls into the wait and see category.

UK: the Post Brexit Landscape

The UK pioneered using smart regulation to promote financial innovation. Initiatives by the FCA helped turn London into the Fintech Capital of Europe and  that sparked Fintech growth that was giving credence to the idea of London as the Fintech Capital of the World. Financial Regulators around the world studied how the FCA did it and how Government, Banks and Fintechs worked together. The ability to have a conversation with regulators and have them listen was pioneered by the FCA and was a major breakthrough.

Then Brexit happened.

There are two scenarios:

  • Scenario 1: UK is too small a market to matter on the global stage, business will flow to other centres in Europe (Dublin, Frankfurt, Berlin, Luxembourg etc) and globally to New York and Singapore.
  • Scenario 2: Freed from the bureaucratic constraints of Brussels, London can innovate away on the global stage and become the Fintech Capital of the World (and thus of Europe by default).

This is another fluid, wait and see situation where politics will be key.

Switzerland: This is mission critical for this tiny rich country

Financial Services accounts for 10% of GDP and 5% of employment in Switzerland and the country is a global leader in Wealth Management. So, what happens here really matters.

In November 2016, Switzerland announced a Fintech License. Like the US Fintech Charter, this is not yet law. These are the key features:

– No “maturity transformation” allowed. This is mandated Asset Liability Management and that eradicates systemic risk (no more bailouts) and favors Market Place Lending without any lending from their own balance sheet.

– Deposit Only License. You can provide deposit services, but not lend. You can accept up to SF100m once licensed. Separating Deposits from Lending is a bold and radical move in a world of ZIRP. Deposits is a nascent area of Fintech innovation.

– Up to CHF 1 million via sandbox innovation area. This allows a startup to build an MVP and get to PMF before investing in being regulated

– minimum of SFr300,000 in capital (vs SF10m for banks). If a startup has got to PMF that is a very manageable hurdle.

– not covered by deposit protection (read, no risk to taxpayers). It is a buyer beware free market.

–  crowdfunding grace period in settlement account. This defines when donors can withdraw the money. Today it is 7 days. The proposal is to raise it to a 60 days. which would give the company greater security.

– No limit to how many lenders or investors for crowdfunding services.

– You must abide by money laundering rules applied to banks.

Bitcoin is also legal currency in Switzerland and is home to some major crypto ventures. The Swiss Fintech License is a bold move, but it is not yet law. With so much employment at risk in traditional banks, the politics are still uncertain..

Singapore: Hub for the fastest growing region

Asia is where the growth is and Singapore is the hub for that growth, with people who are equally comfortable doing business in India and China and all other parts of Asia. The Singapore Monetary Authority is very open to innovation and the most proactive regulator at reaching out to the Fintech community. They have a Fintech Festival and a very approachable online presence and people who mingle with ease at tech oriented conferences.

Singapore itself is a small market and each country in Asia makes their own rules. There is no United States of Asia or Asian Union as yet, but we can be confident that Singapore will be central to any harmonization initiatives.

Shanghai: The Wild West gets a Sheriff

This data from KPMG shows the return on innovation. The line that matters is the P2P Composite Interest Rate that is falling like a stone in that chart. For China to transform from export led to a consumer economy, it must have low interest rates. If Fintechs and BAT can deliver that better than Banks, the regulation will deliver what is needed. This is the context for the news and plans we see in the Five Year Plan for 2016-2020.


As always, the regulator must balance the risk from fraud as Market Place Lending (MPL) moves from the Wild West phase (with hundreds of marketplaces and lots of scams and very crude, violent debt collection practices) to the Settler phase, when the Sheriff rounds up the bad guys and the settlers move in and we get towns and cities and the big money is made.

These are the 12 commandments laid down in December 2015 by the China Banking Regulatory Commission (“CBRC”). Thou shalt not (my comments in italics):

1. Use the platform for self-financing or for financing of related parties. (This stops the most egregious scams).

2. Directly or indirectly accept and manage lender funds. (This is interesting. It prevents what in the West has become called Balance Sheet Alt Fi Lenders and it is unclear if that is a bad thing).

3. Provide guarantees to lenders or promise guaranteed returns on principal and interest.

4. Market or recommend loan investments to users that have not completed identification verification after registering on the platform

5. Directly make loans to borrowers, unless stated otherwise by applicable laws and regulations

6. Structure loans into investment products with liquidity timing that differs from the original loan term (“thou shalt not have have Asset Liability Mismatch” is another way of saying “thou shalt not have systemic risk”).

7. Sell bank wealth management products, mutual funds, insurance annuities and other financial products (Hmm, so MPL can only be an exchange, China is banning the 20th century strategy of vertical integration).

8. Unless stated otherwise by applicable laws and regulations, collaborate with other investment or brokerage businesses to bundle, sell or broker investment products (sounds like the sort of grey area that would make fortunes for lawyers and/or those with good connections).

9. Provide false loan information or create unrealistic return expectations.

10. Facilitate loans for the purpose of making investments in the stock market. (No borrower would offer this as a reason to get a loan, so this sounds like the Casablanca scene “I am shocked. Shocked!! to find that there is gambling going on”).

11. Provide equity crowdfunding or project crowdfunding platform services. (Separation of asset classes by statute sounds like a hindrance to innovation).

12. Other activities forbidden by applicable laws and regulations (legal catch all phrase).

In a single party system there is no political risk; what the Government says is law is the law.

Hong Kong: Competing with Singapore and Shanghai

This headline says it all about regulators facing competition

Outdated fintech regulations hurting Hong Kong, Jack Ma says

Ant Financial to pick Hong Kong for IPO only if city is ready for innovation, Alibaba’s founder says

Hong Kong now faces competition on the Mainland from Shanghai and as a regional hub from Singapore. In the latter case, most commentary (such as this one on Bloomberg) puts Singapore in the lead.

India: The Dark Elephant

Often overlooked with all the attention on the China dragon, the Indian elephant is making some smart moves in Fintech and like China benefits from a growing economy and lack of legacy processes. India has pioneered with the Payment License and may be the first major economy to move to a cashless society. For more about India, go to our India Week.

Eurozone: Pencil Pushers or Tech Smart Regulators

Despite Brexit, this 28-country marketplace is still very big and the regulators seem to understand the Fintech innovation imperative pretty well. We see 8 regulatory initiatives;

Basel 3

Why: make sure banks have adequate capital so that there is not a “run on the bank” during any future financial crisis.

What: Tier One Capital is increased from 4% to 6%. Plus, banks must maintain enough “Liquidity Coverage Ratio” (a new concept in Basel 3) for 30 days.

When: Gradual rollout from 2014 to 2019. Banks need time to adjust and their strategies are already aligned to this rollout.

Where: Basel 3 is global, but voluntary. It is a “good housekeeping seal of approval” that gives confidence to the Bank’s investors. The US version of Liquidity Coverage Ratio is a bit tougher.

Elevator: Banks will be lending less. Plus Banks will be cross selling more (to show they have an operational relationship as it relates to Liquidity Coverage Ratio). US banks generally have stronger balance sheets than European ones.


Why: reduce the cost of payments within Europe.

What: Single Euro Payment Area. Making bank-to-bank transfers cheap and quick within the Eurozone.

When: Completed by 2010. These are the IBAN numbers that still baffle some paying into Europe.

Where: Specific to Europe, which was playing catch up with America on this front (now caught up).

Elevator: payments within the Eurozone are quick and cheap (cross border to and from Eurozone is still a pain point)


Why: protect investors from misselling and fraud.

What: Markets in Financial Instruments Directive. There is a lot in MiFID 2 and this FT Video is a good 6 min explainer. In short, MiFID 2 will a) reduce use of dark pools in equities, b) push derivatives and fixed income trading away from Over The Counter (OTC) to centralized clearing and c) curb abuse of High Frequency Trading.

When: From summer 2015 to early 2016.

Where: This is a European initiative, but as it is a big market and big global Fund operations are in Europe (Luxembourg, Dublin, London), this could set the benchmark globally

Elevator: Trading will become cheaper and more transparent. Wealth/asset managers will have to follow more rules in how they report to investors.

Solvency 2

Why: Protect consumers from insolvency of an Insurance company (ie they cannot pay on an insurance claim because they went bankrupt).

What: Specific to Insurance. Defines how much capital they need. Like Basel 3 but specific to Insurance rather than Banks.

When: Jan 2016 was final deadline.

Where: Specific to Europe.

Elevator: European insurers will be more conservative which may make premiums go up but will lessen chances of them not being able to payout due to insolvency.


Why: A global standard for accounting.

What: International Financial Reporting Standards.

When: Voluntary.

Where: The de facto standard is GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) although this tends to be viewed as an American standard.

Elevator: Use both GAAP and IFRS (using automated translation tools) until it is clear which has become the global standard.


Why: Reduce Money Laundering.

What: The European standard for Anti Money Laundering (AML).

When: Still being defined.

Where: America led the way on this, rules are already clear.

Elevator: Follow American rules but have some flexibility in case European rules end up being tougher.

PSD2. This is a game-changer that we have written about many times  before. It is an example of tech smart regulation and key to creating a level playing field between Banks and Fintechs.

Directive on electronic invoicing in public procurement. This will cover all B2G e-invoices by November 2018. If this moves Europe’s current e-invoicing adoption rate of 24% closer to 95%, which is the tipping point for AP and AR to go fully digital, then this will be a very big deal. When AP and AR go fully digital, two big things happen. First, companies take a lot of cost out of AP and AR processes. Second, even more significant, working capital finance will scale beyond its niche today into a mainstream asset class and financing tool. The theory is that mandating it when Government is the buyer will set the ball rolling for adoption by corporates.


Three other countries making smart moves in Fintech regulation are Japan, Australia and Canada.

Common Themes

  • To be regulated or not to be regulated, that is the question. It is easier to get a  Bank License and Charter these days. The question for many Fintechs is do they provide a tech service to regulated entities or become regulated entities? There is no simple answer, but we can see that the number of banks is declining.
  • Unbundling. Startups focus in one service and usually don’t try to offer an all-encompassing service that compete directly with Banks. So we see the trend to unbundled regs (eg a Payment License and a Deposit License and a Current Account License).
  • More tech savvy regulators. PSD2 and Payment Bank Licenses in India are examples of regulation that moves from “throwing the paper rule book at your compliance team” to sending “standards docs to your tech team”.
  • Immigration and Talent question. No matter how smart your regulation, if the best talent is denied immigration, the innovation hub cannot thrive. This is clearly a political hot potato at the moment.

There is a great conversation happening on this subject over on Fintech Genome

Image Source

If you want to see these insights before your competitors, join over 16,400 of your global peers who subscribe by email and see these trends reported every day. Its free and all we need is your email.

Wrap of Week #5: Mainland China Fintech thematic week

The year of the Rooster is upon us and both the size of the market in China and the unique accelerated pace of fintech innovation beckons us to turn our head towards the East and pay attention to what is happening there.

You can start with our introduction and follow the order of our posts, on WealthTech, Smallbiz, Insurtech and MPL. Or you can pick what interest you the most.

Introducing China Fintech Week

Digital Wealth – Shùzì cáifù – in China

No score, no problem. The lenders opening up access to SME credit in China

The Zhong An IPO in China could be the Netscape moment for InsurTech

With Lufax, Marketplace Lending is becoming a 4 horse global race

The Fintech Genome platform

Join any of the conversations on the Fintech Genome. The global community is sharing insights, creating great conversations, and business is starting to happen.

Check the latest topics that include P2P investments, digital asset marketplaces, mortgageTech. etc


If you enjoy reading the Daily Fintech insights by our experts è Subscribe to this newsletter.

If you want to engage and converse with the Fintech community è Register on Fintech Genome.