Davos, interest rates and secular stagnation

| 08-02-2018 | Lionel Pavey |

 

Two weeks ago there was the annual meeting of more than 2,000 politicians, business people, economists etc. at the World Economic Forum. For 4 days the most pressing and urgent topics facing the world were discussed. Sifting through all the speeches and press statements, I saw a lot of articles relating to a rather old theme of secular stagnation.

What is it?

It is a theory dating back to the 1930s stating that developed countries can suffer from a period of too small investment and too large savings. This can be the result not only of an economic recession but, more importantly, as the result of changes in the underlying demographics within a country. This would in turn imply that growth would be low to negligible within the economy. As growth slows down, so demand for investment would also slow down, leading to more savings etc.

Normal theory would demand a reduction in interest rates (the cost of money) leading to an increase in long term investments by companies, a comparative feeling of wealth amongst the people and a kick start to the economy.

Since the crisis of 2008, we have experienced an extended period of low interest rates and low inflation. The expected increase in investment, leading to improved production processes and new goods does not appear to have materialised. Furthermore, the effect that the crisis has had on individual people – job losses, house repossessions, insecurity – has made them reticent to indulge in large bouts of consumer spending.

Even with negative interest rates there has been no rush to invest in productivity. Instead funds are invested in financial assets – shares, bonds etc. Whilst offering goods returns, such investments do not add to potential economic productivity and growth in the industries that provide it.

Furthermore, when consumers tighten their belts – restricting spending and increasing savings – they are not actually directly providing funds for investment. Banks operate as intermediaries and extend credit – individual investors do not in the present system.

The economy is growing – GDP forecasts are all up among the major developed countries and inflation appears to be restrained. So have we broken the long existing chain of recognised monetary theory – could we see a prolonged period of steady growth, backed by low interest rates and low inflation?

At this stage of the proceedings an added element was thrown into the debates – demographics.

Europe is experiencing a period of shifting demographics. The long term replacement fertility rate is 2.1 children per woman. There has been a steep decline of this rate within Europe, with the rate in Germany being as low as 1.4 children. At the same time people are living longer, which means they are retired for longer. In 2006 there were 4 active workers for every retiree – by 2050 this could be down to only 2. The median age in Europe is expected to rise from 37 to 52 by 2050. EU studies have forecast that by 2050 there will be a reduction of 48 million in the working age population and an increase of 58 million in the retirees.

At the same time other studies suggest there will be a 14% decrease in working population against a 7% decrease in total population. All these projections are based on the current situation and that the trend continues.

If this was to continue, then there would be significant challenges for Europe. The expectation of governments to be able to finance the existing outstanding debt by increases in national GDP will stall. Increased burdens will be placed on the state to provide the necessary facilities to an ageing population whilst the pool of available workers is shrinking, leading to lower productivity per capita. Within the last 10 years the distribution of wealth has been skewed – there is more inequality with the super rich having proportionally even more of the total wealth than before the crisis.

New technology has the ability to change the existing concept of productivity. However, if this could be more than enough to offset the expected developments caused by an ageing population is unclear. It could mean that we are entering a prolonged period of low interest rates, low inflation and low growth. If so, all the economic models – even within companies – will need to be reappraised and a new long term policy initiated.

Lionel Pavey

 

 

Lionel Pavey

Cash Management and Treasury Specialist

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beware of Greeks bearing bonds

| 29-01-2018 | Lionel Pavey |

Over the last year there have been impressive price gains in Greek Government bonds leading to equally impressive falls in yields. Greek 2-year bonds are now yielding 1.35% – down from around 7% at the start of 2017. Similarly, 10-year bonds are now yielding 3.66% – a significant fall since the start of 2017. In fact, the yield on Greek 2-year bonds is now lower than in USA where the current yield is 2.09%. Last week S&P upgraded Greece’s long term credit rating to ‘B’ from ‘B-‘. It would appear that Greece is doing everything right. Right?

Well, looking at it from another perspective it is clear that Greece is not in such a strong shape compared to the USA. Unemployment in USA is 4.1% – Greece is about 5 times higher at 20.6%. Clearly there must be another reason for lower yields in Greece. Athens hopes to issue new bonds in 2018 with tenors of 3, 7 and 10 years.  The answer would appear to be the very low to negative yields on German debt. The yield on German 2-year bonds -0.57% and on 10-years 0.63%. As investors search for any positive yield they have been attracted to the Euro countries on the periphery – Greece, Spain etc.

The ECB have regularly said that they think inflation will remain below their target for the foreseeable future. This has encouraged investors to seek out alternative countries that are offering a positive yield. There is almost a 2% yield pick up on Greek paper over Germany. This has proven to be attractive even though Greek debt-to-GDP ratio stands at 190%.

However, EU creditors hold around 80% of existing Greek debt. As they are wary of Greece reverting to the problems seen a few years ago, issuing new bonds could be difficult. With all the promises made in the past to ensure bail-outs for Greece, the rest of the EU will be extra cautious and vigilant – leading to no easing of the current reforms and restrictions that the EU has put in place.

It would seem, therefore, that the market is temporarily out of synch. The market is being distorted by the fact that there is an appreciable yield pick up in EUR (so no FX risk) when looking at Greek bonds versus German bonds. There appears to be no other logical explanation as to why Greek yields are significantly lower than those in USA.

If bond markets turn sour this year, which would you rather hold – Greek or American paper?

Lionel Pavey

 

 

Lionel Pavey

Cash Management and Treasury Specialist

 

 

What will be the new “normal” for interest rates?

| 23-01-2018 | Lionel Pavey |

Despite interest rate being very low for the last few years, general consensus is that rates will eventually rise – rates will become more normal. Rates are being held down by the actions of central banks with their quantitative easing. As QE is scaled backed and stopped this should allow rates to rise from their current low levels. The big question is – how high will rates rise? The Euro is not yet 20 years old and that means that whilst there is a lot of data, it does not require looking through 50 or 60 years of data to try and find the norm.

From a high of just over 5% in the summer of 2008, 10 year swap rates have fallen to a low of around 0.25% in the autumn of 2016 and are currently just under 1%. Historically, it has been usual to describe prices as moving back to around the average. However, having just under 20 years of data, it is possible to analyse the average fairly quickly.

The average rate for 10 year swaps for the last year is about 0.80%
The average rate for 10 year swaps for the last 2 years is about 0.70%
The average rate for 10 years swaps for the last 5 years is about 1.15%
The average rate for 10 year swap for the last 10 years is about 2.20%
And the average since 1999 when the Euro started is about 3.40%

The lowest rate was about 0.25% in 2016
The highest rate was about 6% in 2000

What is normal? From a personal point of view when I took out my first mortgage (back in the previous millennium) the advice I was given was that if long term fixed rates (10 years) were lower than 6.5% I should look to lock into that rate as the long term average was 7%. With every other property that I subsequently bought the long term fixed rates were lower than with my first mortgage. Currently mortgage rates for 10 year fixed are around 1.75%. Long term interest rates have been steadily falling for the last 30 – 35 years.

So, when we talk about rates eventually rising, we are still left with the problem that previous benchmarks – which were normal then – may not be applicable anymore.

A rate raise is absolute – the magnitude and its impact will be relative to our perception of the new “normal” benchmark.

Lionel Pavey

 

 

Lionel Pavey

Cash Management and Treasury Specialist

 

MiFiD II – 10 days old: Status Report

| 16-01-2018 | Lionel Pavey |


MiFiD II is a regulation leading to reform in the European financial industry. This is an update to the original MiFiD regulation which started in 2007. It is expected to offer greater protection to investors and to increase transparency within the markets. There is a strong determination to move trading from “Over the Counter” such as voice activated markets, to more established electronic venues as these are easier to audit and monitor.

 

What are the aims of MiFiD II

  • Greater transparency and efficiency in markets
  • Moving from OTC trading to regulated trading areas
  • To restore confidence lost by investors after the financial crisis

What markets are affected

  • Equities
  • Commodities
  • Fixed Income
  • Foreign Exchange
  • Futures

Who is affected

  • Everyone who is a participant in the market

How will it work

  • Caps on the volume that can be traded in dark pools
  • Pricing transparency for OTC markets
  • Division between payments for trading and payments for research
  • Increased standards for investment products

What has happened since 3rd January 2018

Some major exchanges – Eurex, London Metal Exchange, ICE – have received reprieves from implementation and do not have to fully comply with open access rules for the next 30 months. This is despite legislation that took more than 5 years and was delayed for 1 year. This also means that certain investors will choose a deliberate route to market for their transactions that do not need to be fully reported on for the next 30 months.

ESMA (European Securities and Markets Authority) announced on 9th January 2018 that there will be a delay in implementing the cap on dark pool trading volumes until at least March 2018. These dark pools are favoured by investors and traders who wish to trade a significant amount of stock without the rest of the market knowing or the price moving.

Markets that have traditionally worked on voice activated trading – fixed income and interest rate derivatives – are still going strong. However, there is a threat to their existence if more trades are done on recognized exchanges and/or platforms.

What about research

As the cost of research has now been split from trading, it will be very clear what an investor is having to pay. Furthermore, analysts will be more inclined to only produce analysis on the larger “Blue chip” companies – both for equity and fixed income. There is a fear that smaller companies will now fall away from the spotlight and little or no research will be produced and published. Consequently, investors might become averse to taking a position in a small company where there is no research available. There is a threat that what independent research is produced will be biased as the cost for the research has to be earned back. There are rumours that maybe the exchanges will pay for research – this could be paid out of listing fees.

So, to conclude, MiFiD II is alive and running – but they are some serious disappointments compared to how it was envisaged. Perhaps such all encompassing legislation should be reduced to bite sized chunks and drip fed into the market. Any legislation that is late in being implemented and extends to more than 17 million words is, perhaps, not what the market needs and/or wants all in one go.

Lionel Pavey

 

 

Lionel Pavey

Cash Management and Treasury Specialist

 

Planning & Operations – a clear vision and purpose

| 15-01-2018 | treasuryXL |

Planning & Operations
Treasury is a function which entails many different roles and responsibilities. The main task is to monitor and manage the cash within a company ensuring there is sufficient liquidity. This means monitoring all the cash flows – both inflow and outflow, together with the sources of the flows – current operations, investments, borrowing etc. There must be enough liquidity to maintain the daily operations, whilst excess funds need to be invested. At the same time, Treasury must ensure that excess funds are invested in a safe and prudent manner and that future assets and liabilities are hedged where appropriate.

Due to the complexity of the task, it is very difficult to give a short description of all the different roles. This is an overview of the main roles that Treasury undertake:

  • Planning and operations
  • Liquidity Management
  • Planning and operations
  • Risk Management
  • Funding
  • Stakeholder activity
  • Corporate Governance

Planning and Operations

This relates to the routines that Treasury perform to ensure that a company can move forward from day to day.

Payments – ensuring that a company meets its financial obligations – specifically to debtors, banks, tax authorities etc. It is very important for a company that it is seen by its counterparts to be secure, organized and that debts are paid on time.

Cash flow forecasting – this is the main planning element within Treasury. Information must be gathered from the entire organization both at head office level and subsidiary level. Information can come from accounting, capital investment budgets, operational budgets, loan maintenance records, tax and dividend records, etc. It is the responsibility of Treasury to ensure that there are sufficient funds within a company to meet all its operational requirements.

Risk assessment – Treasury needs to develop and maintain the risk matrix. This means not only identifying the risk, but also ascertaining the appetite within the company for the risk. A clearly defined matrix will ensure that all risks are recognized, and the correct procedures are carried out to mitigate the risk to the agreed level.

Treasury systems – how is data received and stored? If a decision is made to purchase a dedicated TMS, then Treasury is involved in discovering the criteria to meet the company mandate, the search for a relevant supplier, the implementation and maintenance of the system, together with the operation of the system. A good TMS system should enhance workflow, lead to more concise reporting and lead to financial savings.

Banks – banks and other financial service providers are an integral part of Treasury and their operations. This requires analysis, negotiation and selection of the preferred supplier. Treasury needs to keep a close eye on the costs charged against the service that is offered. This can mean regular appraisals and renegotiation of the fees. Ultimately, a company needs to know that the operations are performed smoothly, timely and accurately.

Strategic development – Treasury are responsible for the operational risk that have been agreed by the Board of Directors. Treasury needs to liaise, inform and alert the Board when issues arise – be they internally or the result of changes in legislation that have an impact on the smooth day to day operations that they perform on behalf of the company.

Next: Liquidity Management

Lionel Pavey

 

Lionel Pavey

Cash Management and Treasury Specialist

 

 

Bitcoin – hype or reality?

| 08-01-2018 | Lionel Pavey |

Having spent my  working life in international finance, I have patiently listened to all the news about the Bitcoin over the last few years. During 2017 whilst the Bitcoin was on a spectacular price rise, my interest was awakened in this new phenomenon – is this the future? I attended seminars, read articles, learnt the difference between the Bitcoin and the Blockchain, searched and investigated via the web, and tried to form an opinion. These are my findings:

Here is a technology that has recently been created – started in 2009 – that has caused a huge debate and led to passionate arguments on its merits or demerits. Those in the know understand its concept – the rest are baffled by its very existence. At essence it is a digital currency – there are no coins or notes in existence. It is decentralized – there are no governments controlling it. If you own it, your identity is anonymous to others – transactions take place via encryption keys. The supply is limited – protocol dictates that a maximum of 21 million Bitcoins can be produced. At the end of 2017 there were 16,774,500 coins in circulation – roughly 80% of the maximum allowed. So, the supply is clearly limited, but they have no real intrinsic value – they do not represent a claim on an asset.

My main area of interest has been on the price – the rise in 2017 of more than 1,400% is astounding. I decided to collate some information and have a chart showing Bitcoins price of the last 2 years.

Such a stellar performance should mean that the trade volume has increased dramatically.

Well……. here is another chart

The daily volume in September 2017 when the price was about $4,000 was the same as the start of February 2016 when the price was about $400. I had to create this chart as all the data I could find related to the $ value of turnover – which was phenomenal – and not the actual number of Bitcoins traded. Normally, when an asset sees a huge increase in price, this goes together with a corresponding increase in turnover. Clearly this has not happened with Bitcoin – why?

There appears to be a “strategy” of buying Bitcoin to hoard them. There does not appear to be a sizeable free float of Bitcoin. If there is more demand than supply, then obviously the price will increase dramatically. Bitcoin is touted as an alternative currency, yet the advocates do not seem to want to spread it around with everybody else. It is a currency that is not used to settle transactions – this makes it difficult to consider Bitcoin becoming a recognized mechanism for payments. One of the criteria of money is that it is a “medium of exchange” – yet again Bitcoin, which appears to be hoarded, does not meet the criteria.

How can a cryptocurrency replace a conventional fiat currency if it is not freely tradeable? Furthermore, if you hold Bitcoin and want to take your profit, then this will be realized in a fiat currency. As Bitcoin is generally quoted and traded in $, this means receiving your profit in an antiquated currency that your cryptocurrency wishes to replace – ironic?

The underlying technology – Blockchain – is here to stay. As to whether Bitcoin is here to stay – if people hoard Bitcoin, it will exist. What the value of Bitcoin should be – whatever someone is prepared to pay for it. Will it replace fiat currency – maybe one day, but not in its present Bitcoin form.

Lionel Pavey

 

Lionel Pavey

Cash Management and Treasury Specialist

 

Credit ratings Healthcare- a Fitch seminar

| 19-12-2017 | Lionel Pavey |

On 29th November treasuryXL attended a seminar organized by Fitch Ratings in Utrecht. It was a presentation by Fitch that explained the approach they had taken to determine credit ratings for 2 different entities within the Dutch healthcare industry: Stichting Elisabeth-Tweesteden Ziekenhuis in Tilburg – a hospital, and Stichting GGZ Noord-Holland Noord – a mental healthcare institute. There was a fair amount of interest in this seminar as more than 35 people attended, representing banks, financial advisors, healthcare industry and insurance companies.

Whilst both entities are in the healthcare industry there are distinct differences in focus and size: Elisabeth-Tweesteden caters to the surrounding area and had 632,000 hospital visits in 2016 and 4,000 FTEs, GGZ has 10,000 patients and 1,240 FTEs.

What is a credit rating?

A credit rating agency (Fitch) attaches a credit rating to an entity (debtor). A rating is an opinion as to the entity’s ability to meet financial commitments on a timely basis. It measures the ability of the debtor to repay principal and interest of loans on time and in full, together with the probability of default. To be able to come to a conclusion for the rating, the entity needs to supply all relevant information to the rating agency, which can then perform the necessary analysis to judge their creditworthiness.

Applying the criteria

Fitch uses two criteria to rate healthcare entities: the recently updated Government Related Entities Rating Criteria (currently published as an exposure draft) and the Revenue Supported Debt Rating Criteria. The first determines the likelihood of exceptional support in the case of financial difficulties at the Government related entity. The latter determines the Standalone Credit Profile.

An entity is defined as being government related if they are semi-publicly owned/controlled by the government and/or local authority has majority economic or voting control over the entity. Fitch assesses whether a government is likely to support an entity in financial distress to avoid negative socio-political repercussions of a default, or if the entity fulfills an important public policy mission. The Government Related Entity Criteria covers four key factors:

  • Status and control
  • Support track record and expectations
  • Socio-political implications of default
  • Financial implications of default

In order to determine the Stand-alone credit profile the Revenue Supported Debt Criteria is used that covers  revenue defensibility, operating risks and financial profile. Fitch concluded that both entities were able to receive a long-term credit rating of single A.

For investment grading criteria, Fitch applies a highest rating of AAA and a lowest rating of BBB-. A single A rating is a high credit quality. ‘A’ ratings denote expectations of low default risk. The capacity for payment of financial commitments is considered strong. This capacity may, nevertheless, be more vulnerable to adverse business or economic conditions than is the case for higher ratings.

What are the advantages of a credit rating?

  • Enhances access to capital markets
  • Facilitates risk pricing for funding
  • Improves bargaining power with banks and suppliers
  • Recognition amongst peers and in international capital markets
  • Rating process provides improved transparency and financial discipline for the rated entity
  • Annual Rating report may be used as a standalone marketing instrument

What are the implications in the Netherlands?

At present, the Dutch government has majority control in many companies including transport – NS; infrastructure – Prorail, Schiphol; energy – Gasunie, Tennet; and financial services – BNG (Fitch rated AA+, Stable, FMO (Fitch rated AAA/Stable). Furthermore local authorities also have majority control in local companies including transport – GVB, HTM, RET, energy – Eneco, and household waste – AEB, HVC. All the companies require funding, the majority of which is covered with either a national or local government guarantee, or direct participation. Fitch rates all types of government related entities, and with a rating it may be possible for these entities to further their scope for acquiring finance.

An important question that arises is: should national and local government restrict themselves to issuing guarantees and allowing the free market to determine the funding, or should they proactively engage in lending money to companies? Only if more entities were in the possession of a credit rating, could a clear decision be taken. At a time of low interest rates and a shortage of “prime” graded loans, it could possibly be advantageous if the loan market could be opened to more lenders – secure in the knowledge that the loans were guaranteed.

If you are interested in learning more, please contact us via email at [email protected]

Lionel Pavey

Cash Management and Treasury Specialist

 

 

Bitcoin – regulation and acceptance

| 06-12-2017 | Lionel Pavey |

 

As the price of Bitcoin reaches ever higher – more than $11,000 at the moment – Governments are starting to look at what regulation needs to be put into place. Bitcoin has gained a reputation as the currency of choice for tax evaders and drug traders due to its anonymity. It is a market with little or no regulation and, obviously, Governments are looking at lost revenue. Yesterday the UK Treasury stated the current anti-money regulations needs to be updated to encompass all virtual currencies.

It has been reported that criminals and terrorists have used virtual currencies to purchase illegal commodities via dark webs – ensuring complete anonymity. The proposal from the UK Treasury would mean that traders would be registered. At present, there are almost 100 ATM machines for Bitcoin transactions in the UK – with more than 70 in London. Cash can be entered into the machines and converted into Bitcoins. One transaction involved a customer paying in GBP 14,000 in cash.

For Governments, regulation would mean that the Treasury would be able to identify the owner of the money and investigate the source of the funds. Tax evasion would therefore be reduced. Naturally there are genuine investors who want to buy Bitcoin, but this can already be done via an electronic exchange.

To increase acceptance as a genuine alternative currency there needs to be a growth in financial products related to virtual currencies. Yesterday, the CBOE (Chicago Board Options Exchange) announced that it will start trading Bitcoin futures this coming Monday. Initial margins for trading will be 30 per cent and price limits will be put in place.

However, there are still many hurdles before complete acceptance can occur. It is still not a recognized currency – the retail outlets that accept payment in Bitcoin is still very small. In America, only 3 of the top 500 online retailers accept Bitcoin. Whilst the price of Bitcoin has surged in 2017, this very large price increase is having a negative effect on acceptance by retailers. As the currency has increased in value so much, there appears to be a reluctance among owners of Bitcoin to use Bitcoin to transact. It has become easier to speculate on its value than to trade for goods. This is a serious problem for a virtual currency to gain worldwide acceptance.

Another area of concern regards the transaction time. Confirmation of a transaction can take up to 20 minutes – if you ordered a coffee, then it would be cold before you could drink it!

Virtual currencies are certainly something that should be considered for the future, but until they are backed and trusted by the Government and residents of a country, they will only have a small niche marketplace.

 

 

Lionel Pavey

Cash Management and Treasury Specialist

 

 

PSD2 – new opportunities but an issue of trust

| 07-11-2017 | Lionel Pavey |

PSD2PSD2 (Payment Services Directive) is an extension on the existing PSD within the EU. The objective is to increase competition in the payments industry, whilst increasing access from non-bank firms. This should lead to standard payment formats, infrastructure and technical standards – at first glance an improvement for consumers. However, there appears to be a particular threat to privacy and the threat of third parties gaining excessive access to personal data.

What are the objectives of PSD2?

  • Standardising, integrating and improving payment efficiency across EU states
  • Harmonise pricing and improve security of payment processing across the EU
  • Providing better consumer protection
  • Encouraging innovation and reducing costs
  • Create a level playing field and enable new entrant payment service providers
  • Incorporate emerging payment methods such as mobile payments
  • Bring new and emerging payment services under regulatory control

For the fintech industry this is a welcome development – they are focused on providing alternative platforms for standard bank products.

 What changes will take place because of PSD2?

  • Third party Access to Accounts (XS2A) – E-commerce companies can take online or mobile payment directly from a consumer’s bank account without going directly through PCI intermediaries (Payment Card Industry); this process will be known as Trusted Third Party (TTP) Account Access.
  • The ability of API’s to take payment – The ability of an Application Programming Interface (API) enabling payment by directly connecting the merchant and the bank
  • The ability to consolidate account information in a single portal – An API enables a new type of financial services company – an Account Information Service Provider or AISP – which aggregates account information to let consumers with multiple banks view all bank details in one portal

A Dutch television programme that informs on consumer issues (AVRO/TROS RADAR) recently broadcast a report on the potential dangers of PSD2 with regard to issues around personal privacy. By granting access to TTPs they are able to access your bank account and retrieve all the data from the last 90 days. This will enable them to provide consumers with a better overview on products and services. However, it also means that they gain a valuable insight into how much you earn, how you spend your money and which companies you transact with. In theory they could offer you alternatives which are cheaper and more tailored to your individual requirements.

But to be able to do all this, they will also need access to your verification methods – in other words they will need to know your PIN numbers. We have always been told, especially by the banks, that this information is strictly confidential and should never be given out. There is also the possibility that they could offer you a special discount that can only be obtained if you give away your personal access codes.

This opens up the payments market to potential fraud – how do we know our personal data will be protected; how will the companies guarantee that the data is only used for a specific product or service; who can ensure that our data is not sold to data mining companies; how can we be sure that our personal data is erased if we decide to opt out in the future?

Commercial banks are subject to numerous directives to ensure they conform to all legislation regarding banking and data protection. How can we get the same guarantee from a fintech solutions provider who might be tempted to increase its revenue by selling data?

However advanced our technology becomes, finance is an industry that has always relied on trust. Banks can only thrive if customers trust them with their money. We assume that if we deposit money into a bank, the bank acknowledges our position as a debtor and will repay us when we demand it. We expect them to exercise a duty of confidentiality and not disclose information about us. When that trust is broken, confidence in the bank is lost and this can quickly escalate to a run on the bank as mistrust leads to customers wanting their money back.

Do we feel the same level of trust for non-bank parties who gain access to our bank data?

 

Lionel Pavey

Cash Management and Treasury Specialist

 

Trading places – is big tech the real threat to banks?

| 01-11-2017 | Lionel Pavey |

 

Reading yesterday’s article about Fintech banks reminded me that, in the last few weeks, I had seen articles in the news about the growing interest in providing banking services by so-called Bigtech companies. Bigtech is defined as established “platform” players such as Amazon, Google, Alibaba and Paypal. These companies are already providing finance to small businesses – Amazon has already lent USD 3 billion to online merchants.


Whereas Fintech startups are trying to find funding for their ideas, they do not have a large supply of capital to truly offer large scale lending facilities. They are well suited to participate in peer-to-peer lending initiatives and can certainly show established banks how to do things in a new way, but they do not have the true scale to compete against banks. Bigtech companies, with their vast cash reserves and huge databases, present a very serious problem for existing banks.

Bigtech already collect and analyse data from all their clients. This gives them a unique insight in how to review and redesign the processes for banking, allowing for faster services, reduced costs and reaching a critical mass for trading on an electronic platform.

According to research from consultants McKinsey & Company “Seventy-three percent of U.S. millennials say they would be more excited about a new offering in financial services from Google, Amazon, Paypal or Square than from their bank — and one in three believe they will not need a bank at all”. Platform companies therefore appear to have a very strong and loyal relationship with their customers.

Japan’s largest online retail marketplace – Rakuten Ichiba – offer their customers:

  • Loyalty points and e-money usable at hundreds of thousands of stores, virtual and real.
  • Credit cards issuance to tens of millions of members.
  • Financial products and services that range from mortgages to securities brokerage.
  • Run one of Japan’s largest online travel portals.
  • Instant-messaging app, Viber, which has some 800 million users worldwide.

This is a very comprehensive list of what are, basically, supporting services to their main function as a marketplace. Banks offer traditional services with little or no additional services.

Where can Bigtech make a difference in the current banking model?

All online marketplaces bring both buyers and sellers together. Most sellers are companies that can be classed as SME (Small and medium-sized enterprises). In the current market SME’s are experiencing difficulties arranging finance. A survey conducted by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) concluded that there is a gap in trade finance – based on bank rejections on applications for trade finance – of about USD 1.5 trillion. SME’s make up around 75 per cent of that total. Furthermore, 60 per cent of companies that responded, stated that rejection led to losing trade. Realistically, if 10 per cent of those rejections had been financed, that would lead to an increase of 1 per cent in staffing levels for SME’s worldwide.

Trade finance is a special form of banking. It provides finance for a relatively short time – the average tenor is less than 180 days. It is a crucial form of finance as shipping goods around the world places a great strain on working capital – all the costs are upfront and the goods are only paid for after receipt. Any form of lending entails risks and for trade finance a good source of information can be obtained at the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). This organisation is responsible for the business conduct codes for international trade. They analysed data between 2007-2014 with an exposure of USD 7.6 trillion. Defaults for short-term finance for import/export stood at 0.06%.

Providing trade finance is complimentary to online marketplaces and certainly an area where Bigtech firms can increase their presence in the financial industry. With all their data, they are better equipped than a bank to analyse the financial health of an export company. They can see how many orders have taken place, their geographical distribution, their trade value etc. They are also able to offer finance to buyers – their data is also available to Bigtech fims.

Bigtech companies have the means to take on banks; they have the data; knowledge of the marketplace; work completely in an online environment; are open 24/7 and are better known and regarded by young people. The opportunities are there – the question is how much of the supply chain do they want to influence?

When I first started in banking I worked in import and export departments. It provided a good insight into how an economy really works. I was raised on the South coast of England and, as a child, regularly played around the local commercial harbour. I still recall the smell of fresh timber and casks of Sherry and Port. The harbour was the gateway to the world; it was where adventures started. I still live on the coast – some things never change.

 

 

Lionel Pavey

Cash Management and Treasury Specialist