Three quarters (75%) of UK small businesses have been rejected by banks when trying to access funding, according to independent research commissioned by Capital on Tap.

The research discovered that access to funding was especially difficult among smaller and micro businesses. Over two fifths (43%) of sole traders have had funding requests rejected while 44% of organisations with 10-49 staff experienced the same fate.

The study also revealed that almost half (48%) of UK small businesses have been left waiting for more than two weeks to receive a funding decision from banks, while more than a quarter of firms (27%) have had funding requests rejected outright.

David Luck, CEO and founder at FinTech Capital on Tap, said: “It’s clear that banks are denying small businesses the chance to fulfil their growth opportunities. Typically, smaller businesses have limited access to credit so the importance of having a facility that can provide a quick cash injection to invest in equipment or make the most of a busy trading period is essential to stability and future growth.”

The research also revealed that there is a strong diversity in the types of credit that businesses are looking to secure. The most popular funding application was for term loans (51%) with overdrafts (28%) and business credit cards (19%) also being very popular options. Out of those companies that had sought funding in the past five years, the majority (35%) had been looking to secure relatively modest amounts of funding, generally under £5,000.

“What we see from the study is that businesses are generally looking for small, flexible credit facilities, whether at times of need or opportunity. This is exactly where banks struggle to service the millions of SMEs in the UK as they are geared for consumers or large corporate clients. The next generation of entrepreneurs expect the flexibility and quick service from banks that they can attain in their personal lives, which includes easy access to funding. We are seeing the success of alternative lenders in the UK because there is a clear demand for this type of fast, transparent service.”

(Source: Capital on Tap)

More than a third of financial institutions (37%) find that legacy data platforms are the biggest obstacles to improving their data management and analytics capabilities, according to research from Asset Control. Whereas, for 31%, the cost of change is seen as the biggest hindrance to progress.

The poll of finance professionals, conducted through Adox Research Ltd., also revealed that for more than half of financial institutions (56%), the integration of legacy systems is the biggest consideration as they plan investment in future data management and analytics capabilities.

“What we’re seeing is financial institutions being held back by legacy data management platforms which they have acquired or developed over the years. These systems can slow down organisations as they are costly to maintain, miss audit or lineage information, often cannot scale to new volume requirements, and do not quickly and easily provide business users the data they require. While businesses recognise there is a need to update their data management systems they are sometimes reluctant to do so due to cost of change and perceived difficulties of integrating their systems with new solutions. Although I understand where these concerns come from, businesses also see the risks posed by inertia,” says Mark Hepsworth, CEO, Asset Control.

However, when it comes to considering new data management and analytics capabilities, firms remain focused on the fundamentals. More than a third (36%) of respondents cited ease of use and flexible deployment as their top business consideration, while 41% deemed ROI to be the biggest determiner.

“It is clear that while firms are currently being held back by the cost of change and legacy systems, they can see that both these challenges can be overcome with the right solution. While ROI is, of course, important in any business, these organisations must also consider how much their current data management systems are holding them back by delaying processes, lowering productivity and causing data discrepancies because they lack a clear and comprehensive view on their sourcing and validation process,” adds Hepsworth.

(Source: Asset Control)

Initial Coin Offerings are one of the most tempting investment options for those hoping to profit from the ever-evolving world of cryptocurrency. However, the lack of regulation has allowed ICO investors to become targets of sneaky schemes.

Though ICOs have snowballed, with more than 750 being invested in during 2018 alone, the number of scams has also steadily risen, with more victims of fraud falling prey to cryptocurrency criminals.

Following Satis Group’s revelation that approximately 80% of 2017 ICOs were identified scams, new data from Fortune Jack has found that just ten of the most high-profile ICO scams have swindled $687.4 million from unsuspecting investors.

In fact, the notorious Pincoin and iFan scam stole $660 million, with an estimated 32,000 investors falling prey to the money-making plot from Modern Tech.

As cryptocurrency continues to dominate headlines, more investors are pouring cash into ICO schemes in the hope of turning a quick profit. And with more than 150 scams listed on popular website Deadcoins, it’s easy to see how inexperienced ISO investors are being suckered.

The losses have become so prevalent that the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) launched its own ISO scam in a bid to show investors how easy it is to set up such schemes.

The top ten most notorious ICO scams to date

Despite the SEC warning that ICOs “bring an increased risk of fraud and manipulation” due to the lack of regulation, the number of ICOs as well as the amount invested has increased over the past year.

In 2017 $6,240,046,555 was raised across 371 ICOs. However, in 2018 a staggering $20,074,423,238 has been raised across 789 ICOs to date.

This reveals a 222% increase in the amount raised in 2018 so far, compared to the full year of 2017. Additionally, there is a 113% increase in the number of ICOs in 2018 so far compared to 2017.

If Satis Group’s suggestion that almost 80% of 2017’s ICOs were identified scams is correct, 297 ICOs in 2017 may have been fraudulent. If this trend was to continue in 2018, 631 ICOs could be fraudulent.

Despite such shocking statistics, ICOs remain a relatively popular investment in 2018, with $20.1 billion being invested into ICOs so far.

The amount invested in ICOs in 2018 to date

So, what are the red flags that may alert you to an ISO scam? The following were present in the most high-profile incidents:

- Silence from companies when contacted by investors

- Lack of a whitepaper and inconsistencies on the ISO website

- Fake Linkedin Profiles of “the team” with stock images or stolen photos

- Any text humourous or otherwise outlining a scam

- Promise of fixed profit or guaranteed ROI

(Source: Fortune Jack)

New research reveals a UK technology market which has attracted the eye of US businesses and seen a huge increase in transactions, with acquisitions of UK technology companies up 386% in 2017 than there were in 2009).

Of the 247 UK companies to have exited into the US in 2017, almost a third (32.3%) of those were technology companies, followed by manufacturing, which has also seen an increasing interest from the US over the same period.

While technology has been one of the principle drivers of the UK M&A market in the mid-market, the results highlight there has also been a wider trend of increasing activity from US acquirers. Overall, the UK has seen the acquisition of companies below £1billion increase by 86% over the last decade (2009 to 2017), with sectors such as Business Services and Manufacturing having increased in the number of sales to US acquirers.

Commenting on the findings, Andy Hodgetts, Senior Corporate Finance Manager at Buzzacott said: “The UK’s technology landscape is changing dramatically and is far more active than it was just under a decade ago. Silicon Valley is no longer the sole proprietor for developing new innovations, the UK is a hotbed for talent, and in the US’ acquisitions of UK companies, they are gaining access to that talent pool.

Hodgetts continued: “There has been a lot of uncertainty around Brexit and what it means for the UK, which has left many businesses unsure as to when might be a good time for them to sell. What we are seeing however is that there are a number of opportunities and buyers out there, especially in the US. For UK companies that are planning on exiting, but have waited due to the uncertainty the UK faces, it is important to not just think about companies within the UK that might want to acquire the business, but explore internationally too as there are plenty of buyers available, whatever the sector.”

(Source: Buzzacott)

New research from Haven Power, one of the UK’s largest business electricity suppliers, reveals two fifths of Financial Services firms think renewable energy is just a passing trend. A perception that is significantly higher than any other industry.

Despite scepticism, almost two thirds of businesses in the sector are keen to start selling energy back to the grid. The Financial Services industry is one of the greenest compared to others surveyed, with 41% stating they already had onsite battery storage facilities installed.

The survey of Utility Decision Makers in Financial Services showed the biggest barrier preventing them from implementing sustainable change was cost (44%), followed by uncertainty on both how to measure the impact and ROI (30%) and how to discuss with investors or senior management (26%).

Paul Sheffield, Chief Operating Officer at Haven Power, commented: “Despite a proportion of firms still seemingly sceptical about the future of renewables, it’s encouraging to see that many are implementing positive changes. Understanding of renewable energy and its benefits varies greatly from sector to sector. We believe that every industry needs to start making sustainable changes to help reduce carbon emissions and embrace cleaner energy.”

When asked to list whose responsibility it is to lower carbon emissions, energy suppliers were cited top (48%), ahead of the Government (47%) and manufacturers (44%). Additionally, almost half (46%) strongly agree it is the energy providers’ responsibility to educate decision makers on the different types of energy available.

Paul Sheffield continued: “It’s imperative that organisations of all sizes across different industries work together with their energy provider to ensure the future of British business is low carbon. By moving beyond viewing energy as a commodity, we can help to drive sustainability and profitability. Here at Haven Power we are keen to help businesses understand the wider benefits of renewables.”

Haven Power is one of the UK’s largest business electricity suppliers, founded over ten years ago, it aims to help businesses control spend, manage risk and boost sustainability by using renewable electricity, energy efficiency and bespoke energy solutions.

(Source: Haven Power)

The investing landscape has changed significantly over the last decades. Historically, the large banks have been happy enough to manage investors’ money and keep hold of the information. For those wanting to become involved, it was too tough, or too expensive. Here Finance Monthly hears from Kerim Derhalli, CEO at Invstr, on the potential for fintech to succeed in a complex evolving landscape.

Now, with an unprecedented amount of tools at our fingertips to make the process of committing cash to the stock market – or indeed other assets such as bonds – much easier, you’d expect us to be experiencing a golden age for financial independence and empowerment.

Despite this, the data tells a very different story. A recent US study by Gallup, for example, found that the combined age of adults younger than 35 with money in the stock market in 2017 and 2018 stands at 37%, down from 52% in the two years leading up to the financial crash.

While it’s true that a lingering distrust of financial institutions is impacting millennial sentiment towards stock ownership there’s a bigger story here of a more fundamental failing across the fintech industry – which is still not even scratching the surface of its potential.

Let’s look at this in simple, real world terms. If I were to stand on a street corner and hand out £5 notes to anyone passing by, I'm sure I would have several million people taking up the offer of free cash. If I stood on a digital street corner, the uptake would be even higher.

However, fintech brokers who have deployed these same techniques have apparently failed to attract huge followings. What are they missing?

Well, what many of these platforms are failing to understand is that investing is a process, not an event. Understanding what is going on in the world or at an individual company level, reading the news, following the markets, looking at charts, reading research, talking to friends, peers or strangers to get investment ideas are all part of the process.

The last part, the buying and the selling, only represents 1% of the investment process, and is by far the least exciting part of it. Companies that make the transactional and comparatively dry element the focus of their product are missing the fundamental quality of what makes fintech such an exciting proposition – and doing wannabe investors a disservice in the process.

For me, fintech is the manifestation in the financial markets of the information revolution. Whether it’s about internet or social networks, the sharing economy and now cryptocurrencies – it’s all about empowering individuals.

With investing apps, this means giving users access to data that was formerly the reserve of the large financial institutions and teaching them to interpret how real world events can impact on the stock market.

This is excellent practice for investing, whether via a mobile app or otherwise, where those who truly profit chart a path by making their own investment decisions rather than relying on passive funds that track the major exchanges.

Ultimately, it’s about putting people in a position where they can manage their own money. The disruption we’ve seen in every other consumer sector, where the empowerment of individuals has done away with intermediaries is the real opportunity. If more companies in the fintech industry can capture that space then the impact on finance will be truly transformative.

Taking a closer look at the start-up industry in Europe, card processing specialists, Paymentsense, have conducted research to find out which countries have seen the most significant rise in start-ups between 2013 -2017.

 The data has been mapped out across Europe allowing users to uncover the industries that each country specialises in and how fast those industries are growing.

Paymentsense analysed 30 European countries and ranked each one of them based on how many new businesses have been registered in that 5-year period and which business types have been the most popular in these countries.

Turkey tops the list with the most start-ups registered, followed by France and then the United Kingdom. However, data reveals that the UK is the fastest growing start-up nation in Europe and has brought more than a few successful companies to Europe, including Transferwise and Deliveroo.

Top 10 countries fuelling the European start-up industry:

Among all these countries, the UK has seen the biggest growth in the number of start-ups between 2013 and 2017 at 5.09%, followed by Romania and Portugal. What all of them have in common is a business-friendly environment that gives founders the possibility to grow and nurture their company over time.

When looking at what type of start-ups have dominated Europe in the last few years, wholesale and retail have the largest presence with 3.7 million new businesses started up.

This is surprising to see when in recent years we have seen a retail crash with companies like Woolworths and ToysRUs go bust.

The type of companies that have started up in Europe between 2013-2017

Guy Moreve, Chief Marketing Officer at Paymentsense, says: “It’s interesting to see that the UK ranks among the top five countries with the highest numbers of registered new businesses. It shows that the country offers a great setting for those interested in founding their own company.

Further afield, it’s fascinating to see how Europe has changed in recent times. A number of countries are now placing more emphasis on technology which has helped create a ‘golden era’ for tech startups.

“In order to thrive a business in your respective country, make sure you analyse the market you’re addressing – what works best and what doesn’t; It’s also worth looking at the legal and environmental conditions in order to make sure your business idea is a success”.

(Source: Paymentsense)

Online research from Equifax, the consumer and business insights expert, reveals a lack of awareness of banking options among Brits. When presented with a list of digital banks 60% hadn’t heard of any of the brands and only 20% would opt for a challenger bank if opening a new account today.

The survey, conducted with Gorkana, showed 44% of Brits would choose a traditional bank, and when choosing which brand to bank with, they prioritise good customer service (41%), ease of managing money via a good app or online service (34%), and availability of a physical branch (32%). Media influence was least important; only 3% of people factor news stories about a bank into their decision.

Good customer service also topped the list of priorities for people who would choose a challenger bank (31%), followed by incentives such as a joining fee (28%) and a good app or online service (27%). Friends or family using the bank was the least important factor – just 5% of respondents would take this into consideration.

People who would opt for a challenger bank appear to be more value conscious; one fifth (20%) said better rates when using their card or withdrawing cash abroad would appeal to them, compared to 12% of people who would use a traditional bank. Over a quarter (27%) rate more competitive rates, for example on overdraft fees or loans services a contributory factor when choosing a challenger bank, versus 19% for traditional banks.

Jake Ranson, Banking and Financial Institution expert and CMO at Equifax Ltd, says: “Challenger and digital banks have been making their mark in the banking sector bringing attractive, consumer friendly services to market, yet many consumers are still unaware of these brands. The government has taken action to increase competition in the sector but there’s still a lot of work to do to encourage consumers to fully explore the options available to them and make informed decisions on selecting or retaining accounts.

“Open Banking is underway and is a huge advance for consumers. Services are coming to market that will help people get better value from banks, for example identifying sign-up incentives or better rates tailored to their needs. The next step is for the industry to work together to increase consumer awareness of the value Open Banking unlocks.”

(Source: Equifax)

In the past year MIFID II has enticed change and development across the financial markets and research sector. Here Fabrice Bouland, CEO of Alphametry, analyses said change and the impact it has had on innovation.

Six months in and MiFID II research unbundling regulation has appeared to create an even worse market for investment research than we had previously. With many commentators decrying the ‘unintended consequences’ of the new legislation – namely bringing the research market to a grinding halt as asset managers assess their needs and sparking a price war which has all but crippled smaller, niche research houses – one might wonder if there is anything positive to say about the impact of MiFID II on the research market and whether anything which can be done to revive it?

In truth, MiFID II has ultimately shown us the historical ambiguity investment managers have always had with research. There has never been an easy way to answer fundamental questions like ‘what research is needed’, ‘how much should we pay for it’ and ‘how do we measure the value’. This lack of structure has been pulled well and truly into the spotlight under the new EU regulation, as well as the financial services sector’s slow take-up of new technology to answer these questions.

Thanks in some part to the new regulation, active management might be at a historic turning point. The progress in investment technologies is about to experience a quantum leap forward plus the expected deluge of new alternative data will unleash an unprecedented potential. R&D and new technology must play a leading role in this and MiFID II can claim credit for creating this opportunity to innovate.

Time to innovate

From a buy-side perspective, research providers need to adopt entirely new strategies to survive.

In the past six months, we have seen two developments. Firstly, Tier-1 providers are pushing content exclusively on their websites. This is a step back from a user experience perspective as remembering numerous passwords is impractical for portfolio managers to the extent that some have cut providers which do not provide easy access to their portals. Distributing research via aggregators or marketplaces in order to reach the maximum number of channels is another option in today’s market. This could be applied to any type of research or data, in whatever format, for the easier and faster use of the portfolio manager.

The second innovation we are starting to see is from research providers who, in response to plummeting prices, are reducing the number of analysts and opted for more automated production. Commerzbank is one provider which is experimenting with artificial intelligence to see if it can write basic analyst notes automatically to trim research costs.

Alternative research and AI

With regulation forcing active managers to value their historical research franchise, it’s become clear that research has barely evolved whereas the world of investible assets has changed dramatically. Factors affecting a company’s valuation go way beyond the simple analysis of its financials or strategy.

The rise of alternative datasets which cover a wide range of digital inputs from social media to credit card data, are becoming increasingly valuable to asset managers. In many ways, the rise of alternative data is one of the first manifestation of how research is changing for the better under MiFID II.

Similarly, the research product may no longer be exclusively research reports but also the technology layer which is able to extract intelligence from them automatically, quickly and at scale. Since the buy-side has always heavily relied on the sell-side when it comes to technology, most active investors are stuck in a technological gap. Capturing and processing a more and more sophisticated and voluminous information resource seems the way forward.

Is MiFID II helping or hindering innovation in financial markets? It already seems that asset managers are considering how tomorrow’s technology is affecting today’s research – let’s hope the speed of implementation can match the exponential changes in data volume and value which we are seeing in the wider world.

RiskIQ, the global leader in digital threat management, recently released an infographic mapping and profiling the global cryptocurrency mining landscape, which has swelled in size due to the rush by companies and threat actors alike to capitalise on cryptocurrency's skyrocketing valuation.

The infographic is based on data collected by RiskIQ's web crawling infrastructure, which downloads and analyses website content to identify the individual technical components that load when rendered to detect cryptocurrency miners across the Internet. The research highlights the influx of revenue-generating miners in domains in the Alexa top-10,000 and analyses their attributes, such as prevalence, longevity and associated infrastructure.

Since these miners require an expensive amount of computing power — Fundstrat reported that the cost of mining a single Bitcoin reached about $8,038 and the costs of mining other coins are not far behind — actors often source it from unwitting users. To do so, they take advantage of the fact that security teams lack visibility into all the ways that they can be attacked externally and struggle to understand what belongs to their organisation, how it’s connected to the rest of their asset inventory and what potential vulnerabilities are exposed to compromise.

While some brands capitalise by running cryptocurrency mining scripts in the background of their sites to leverage the computers of their visitors legally, threat actors exploit this blind spot to hack vulnerable sites or spin up fake, illegitimate websites to siphon money, often with typosquatting domains and fraudulent branding. RiskIQ reported back in February that an upwards of 50,000 total websites have been observed using Coinhive in the past year–many of them likely without the original owner’s knowledge.

"In the case of cryptocurrency mining scripts, organisations must be able to inventory all the third-party code running on their web assets and be able to detect instances of threat actors leveraging their brand on illegitimate sites around the Internet,” said Adam Hunt, chief data scientist at RiskIQ. “Threat actors realise the lack of visibility these organisations have and are targeting it accordingly.”

The report found that threat actors leveraging domains or subdomains that belong, or appear to belong, to major brands, trick people into visiting their sites running cryptocurrency mining scripts to monetize their content.

(Source: RiskIQ)

Is globalised trade in reverse? Is protectionism on the rise with the potential of a spreading trade war? These are questions at the top of many business leaders’ minds. The answer to both these questions is yes, and business models are going to have to change as a result. Dr Joe Zammit-Lucia, co-author of ‘Backlash: Saving Globalisation from Itself’, explains for Finance Monthly.

WTO figures already show a significant slowdown in the growth of international trade as a percentage of GDP. We are still only at the early stages, but a trade war and a stalling of globalized trade is almost inevitable.

This first part of the 21^st century has seen many shifts from the post-war global world order that we had all become used to and on which the trans-national business model has been built. These changes are significant, encompassing political, cultural and economic shifts that have upended old assumptions.

To cite but a few examples, global governance structures (WTO, IMF, World Bank, etc) were previously seen as fair arbiters of the global order. Now their governance structures are seen by developing countries as dominated by the West and by the developed world as no longer serving their interests.

‘World trade produces net benefits for all’ was the 20^th century mantra. Now it is clear that such benefits are very unevenly distributed with consequent economic, social and political implications. The free movement of global capital was seen as a vital fuel for growth and development. Now it is seen as potentially destabilizing, a system for hiding large amounts of illicit money, and a facilitator of tax arbitrage.

Low labour costs were seen as the competitive advantage of developing countries. Now they are seen as the basis of ‘unfair competition.’ Persistent trade imbalances were dismissed. Now we understand their corrosive effects on deficit countries.

In an information driven world, privacy and national security issues affect trade – from the manufacturing of routers to the security of data platforms, to building self-driving cars. For instance, Qi Lu of the Chinese tech company Baidu explains: “The days of building a vehicle in one place and it runs everywhere are over. Because a vehicle that can move by itself by definition it is a weapon.

But maybe most important is the major geopolitical shift. The post-war world order was characterized by Western dominance and overseen by the hegemonic power of the US. Now we have three more or less equally potent trading blocs – the US, China and its sphere of influence, and the European Union. Economists have known for decades that in such a structure, competition between blocs was much more likely than co-operation.

Trans-national business has played a role in these changes. A meaningful proportion of the US trade deficit comes not from ‘Chinese goods’ but from American goods that are being manufactured in China (the computer I am writing this on, for example). Businesses have long engaged in arbitrage between countries in investment, jobs and taxes, nurturing, over time, what has turned out to be a political time-bomb.

Neither can business leaders be blamed for such behaviour. They were doing their job: optimizing their business models. But times have changed. The rules of world trade need overhaul. And business models will have to change with them.

Some business leaders are already taking action. “The days of outsourcing are declining. Chasing the lowest labor costs is yesterday’s model” says Jeff Immelt of GE. “Now we have a strategy of localization and regionalization” states Inge Thulin of 3M.

It is also worth bearing in mind that the trade agreements that we have all become used to were developed in a world of trading largely in goods. They are poorly suited to trade in services, digital commerce and large financial flows.

It is tempting to dismiss talk of trade wars as a Trump phenomenon. Much bombast, little meaningful action, and something that will soon pass. That would be to misunderstand the slow but sure tectonic shifts – political, cultural and economic – that are happening.

How individual businesses react, or, preferably, pre-empt these shifts will determine their future performance. And they will determine whether the political consequences of their actions will, over time, smooth things out or make them worse.

Online research from Equifax reveals over half (51%) of Brits under 45 years old would be interested in banking products or services from technology giants like Apple, Amazon or Google. Of those, 45% said that products or services like loans, credit cards or current account from these technology companies would only appeal to them if they offered better value than their existing bank.

Across all age groups, the level of interest in banking products from leading technology firms falls to 40%, with over a quarter (27%) of Brits stating they would rather use their existing bank as they’re more familiar with them.

Jake Ranson, Banking and Financial Institution expert and CMO at Equifax Ltd, said, said: “The recent announcement that Apple is joining forces with Goldman Sachs to launch a consumer credit card highlights how tech companies plan to shake up the banking industry, creating products and services to compete against the big high street banking names as well as newer digital entrants.

“Although a sense of brand familiarity pins many people to their current bank, there’s an appetite for new products and a desire for alternatives that can offer something genuinely different. The tech giants have a loyal brand following in their own right, if they can combine this with a competitive product offering we’ll see an interesting shift in dynamics as the fight to attract customers heats up.”

(Source: Equifax)