The customer pain point defined by the limited function of outdated banking monoliths was realised some time ago. And, as we look at the state of the market in 2019, there are many vendors out there all vying to do the same thing: to bring banking to the state of digital usability that other industries such as e-commerce and entertainment reached a long time ago. Below, Finance Monthly hears from Tobias Neale, Head of Delivery at Contis  on the three key areas to look at in order to be a successful FinTech in 2019.

Naturally, like any crowded marketplace, brand differentiation is vital in order to stay competitive in FinTech. After all, when there is an approximated £20 billion in annual revenue up for grabs in the UK alone, it makes sense that there are plenty of incumbents as well as new players joining every year, aiming to get a piece of the pie.

So, what truly makes a successful FinTech company stand out right now? Where are the areas that brands can truly get ahead? Also, and perhaps most importantly to consider, does FinTech look set to eclipse traditional banking altogether, or is there a way the two can grow closer?

Innovation

Building new infrastructure for financial services is not a new venture – the big payment giants have been shaking up the financial solutions market through regular technology investment projects for some time. However, given the recent wave of innovation instrumented by new and emerging rivals, it is increasingly evident that innovation has gone mainstream – beyond the big banks – and that continuous development is integral to keep pace for everyone, whether new or established. These new entrants, who put technology innovation at the forefront of their business, recognise that it is not just a case of creating technologies to contend with the big banking and payment giants, but also creating with them in order to integrate with and support them.

Agility

FinTech moves fast, and the pace at which a service provider can be disruptive is that which sets competitors apart. Start-ups have the advantage of being free of legacy systems that often prove a huge inhibitor to modernising quickly enough to keep pace for their long-standing and well-established counterparts. As a result, new entrants will do well to take advantage of this agile upper hand by ‘moving fast and breaking things’ with mobile-focused products. By quickly adapting to fill gaps left by traditional banking providers they can deliver services in record time.

Customer service at the core

In recent years, customer trust in the banking and payments industry from both the has been put to the test thanks to disruptions and data breaches affecting both businesses and consumers alike . This means that there is ample room for disruptors to capitalise on the need for a reliable and trustworthy provider that offers great services, extensive support and guidance, particularly for prospects that are looking to establish their first increment of banking services into their ecosystem.

What is important to remember is that disruption is not all about overtaking older established rivals – part of what makes a successful FinTech in 2019 is the ability to integrate with these institutions and move digital transformation for the industry and shared customers. Keeping innovation, agility and customer service at the core of a company’s proposition is what will truly define those looking to follow the success of companies like Monzo and Revolut, in 2019 and far, far beyond.

However, it can also refer to how many cycles of change and innovation a business has been through. For example, technology businesses will have to evolve and innovate at a faster pace than a toy manufacturing company, and thereby do more to succeed.

That said, businesses are still regularly failing, so anything the survivors can do to boost their efficiency is of interest to them. A big part of this is ensuring longevity throughout the company, ensuring processes run smoothly while protecting jobs for the long term.

Consequently, here’re the common habits of successful businesses aiming to ensure longevity.

1. Planning Ahead

A company can’t last long if it doesn’t plan ahead. Everything needs to be mapped out constantly; from staff intake numbers required through the years to market changes and trends. Put simply, longevity can only be possible for businesses that are more than willing to adapt. It’s crucial to survival; as the markets change, the businesses evolve with it all.

Additionally, financial affairs need to always be set in order too. Budgeting and auditing are two essential processes that a company needs to upkeep and maintain; without them, they cannot act within their means. It’s all about firm’s grounding themselves in a realistic vision, thereby not wasting resources on dreams and unachievable goals. Once they have some realistic goals in place, they can then workably move from strength to strength, and thereby ensure business longevity.

2. Implementing Technology

Few things are more important to a business than its data. Whether it’s employee information, customer statistics or performance data, it’s all incredibly sensitive material that’s vital to a business’s functionality. If any of it is misplaced or stolen, a firm can find itself crippled to varying degrees of severity depending on what’s lost.

However, businesses these days are implementing technology for all their data protection needs. They’ll use things like cloud services to ensure that all their information is easily accessible and safely stored. All the vital data can be viewed from one digital place that’s secure, boosting the efficiency, and of course longevity, of the firm.

3. Third-Party Advice

Few successful businesses achieved their goals alone. Especially during the early years, much wisdom and guidance would always be needed in order to safely navigate through the markets, whatever they may be. There’re many pitfalls and traps on a company’s journey, and its ultimately third-party advice that helps steer said companies in the right direction.

For example, consultancy companies like Hymans Robertson are always on hand to help, certifying businesses get all the mileage they can out of their operations. They’re a key aspect of ensuring a firm’s sustainability, using their innovative analytical and modelling tools to determine longevity risks within the business. In the end, the businesses that last longest are the ones who aren’t afraid to ask for help and subsequently learn.

In life we generally want to be right. This is why you may hear traders framing their trading success by saying they won nine out of the last 10 trades, or that they have a 90% success rate. However, this is something that you need to be weary of, having lots of winning trades does not necessarily mean that you will be a profitable trader in the long run.

Here, Simon Garner, Trading Floor Manager at Learn to Trade, lists five steps to understanding how important it is to be right when trading through your trade expectancy in order to help set yourself up for success.

1. Quality over quantity: understanding reward-to-risk ratios

As traders, the risk/reward ratio is something that we need to pay close attention to. It essentially refers to how much exposure you have in the market compared to what you stand to gain. As traders we will have particular criteria that must be met in order to take a position, which will be set out according to our trading plan. Whilst this means there will only be a limited number or opportunities each month, it means each trade is carefully thought through.

2. Mental expectations: finding your winning percentage

This is something that many new traders have an unrealistic expectation about. Many expect a 90-100 per cent win ratio and that they will identify trades that are a ‘sure thing’. In reality this is not the case. Many profitable traders will in fact have win ratios of 60-70%, which is why having the ability to find opportunities that provide the best risk / reward ratio is so important.

3. Knowing your real ratio

While being right more often than not certainly helps, to truly determine success you need to consider whether you’re making any net long-term profit. This can be shown through your average reward-to-risk ratio.

To illustrate this, imagine two traders: Sarah and Mike. Both have placed 100 trades and started with the same amount of money in their trading accounts. Mike has won 75 trades and lost 25, and Sarah 30 and 70 respectively. When Mike is right he makes a profit of £100 per trade on average, but when he’s wrong he makes an average loss of £300. This means that Mike’s reward-to-risk ratio is 1:3. Comparatively, when Sarah is right she makes £300 on average per trade and when she’s wrong she loses on average £100. This means Sarah’s reward-to-risk is 3:1.

4. Finding your trade expectancy

To really understand how strategies stack up against each other, we need to take into consideration the two things: firstly, how frequently we have winning trades, and secondly, how much is gained or lost with each trade.

The solution is called trading expectancy, and it is calculated by combining your risk / reward ratio and your winning percentage. Trade expectancy essentially tells us how much we stand to gain or lose for every pound risked. It is expressed in the following way:

Expectancy = (average gain x probability of gain) – (average loss x probability of loss). We can make this a bit clearer using Mike and Sarah’s results here:

Mike’s expectancy per trade = (£100 win x 0.75) – (£300 loss x 0.25) = £0

Sarah’s expectancy per trade = (£300 win x 0.3) – (£100 x 0.70 loss) = £20

What this tells us is that over the long run Mike is breaking even with each trade despite winning 75% of the time. For Mike’s strategy to become profitable he either needs to win more often and/or reduce his risk per trade. Sarah’s expectancy tells us that she is making an average £20 per trade in the long run, even though she is winning just 30% of her trades. Her reward-to-risk strategy means that she can be wrong much more frequently than Mike, but still make a profit overall.

5. Refine & repeat

Your trade expectancy can improve or worsen depending on trading conditions and whether you stick to your trading plan, nevertheless, expectancy is a good benchmark. You could also think of expectancy as how much you can theoretically expect to get paid for each trade you take over time. As such it is important to constantly track as you mature as a trader. Patience, consistency and education are the most important factors when it comes to trading and compounding interest.

As we all know, it’s impossible to always be right when trading forex. However, figuring out your expectancy helps shift focus away from being right per trade to instead how right you are overall.

In life we generally want to be right. This is why you may hear traders framing their trading success by saying they won nine out of the last 10 trades, or that they have a 90% success rate.

However, having lots of winning trades does not necessarily mean that you will be a profitable trader in the long run. This concept is Ray Downer, Senior Trader Coach at Learn to Trade, explores below as he talks Finance Monthly through trade expectancies.

Let’s take two traders: Sarah and Mike are both traders that have placed 100 trades and started with the same amount of money in their trading account:

• Mike wins 75 trades and loses 25 trades
• Sarah wins 30 trades and loses 70 trades

Who is the better trader?

Although we can see Mike is right more often than Sarah is when trading, to determine who is the better overall trader we are missing some key pieces of information.

Firstly, we need to know the amount of profit made when one of our traders is right, as well as the amount lost when wrong. Another way of putting this is that we need to know our traders’ average reward-to-risk over their 100 trades.

So let us look at both of our traders again, but this time take into consideration their reward-to-risk:

• When Mike is right he makes a profit on average of £100 per trade; when wrong he makes an average £300 loss. This means that his reward-to-risk is 1:3.
• When Sarah is right she makes £300 on average per trade and when she’s wrong she loses on average £100. This means she has reward-to-risk of 3:1.

This gives us a bit more insight into the traders. We can see that mike, for example, is willing to risk three times more than he stands to gain in any one trade. Sarah in contrast is looking for a bigger pay-off but not willing to risk as much as Mike per trade.

Neither of those approaches is inherently good or bad as a trading strategy.

To really understand how each of our traders’ strategies stack up against each other, we need to take into consideration the two things we have mentioned here: firstly how frequently our traders have winning trades and secondly how much is gained or lost with each trade.

In trading terms, what we are figuring out is Mike and Sarah’s trade expectancy. Trade expectancy essentially tells us how much we stand to gain or lose as a trader for every pound risked.

Expectancy = (average gain x probability of gain) – (average loss x probability of loss)

We can make this a bit clearer using Mike and Sarah’s results:

• Mike’s expectancy per trade = (£100 win x 0.75) - (£300 loss x 0.25) = £0
• Sarah’s expectancy per trade = (£300 win x 0.3) - (£100 x 0.70 loss) = £20

What this tells us is that over the long run Mike is breaking even with each trade despite winning 75% of the time. As a trader the long term goal is of course to make a profit rather than break-even or lose money. For Mike’s strategy to become profitable he either needs to win more often and/or reduce his risk per trade.

Sarah’s expectancy tells us that she is making an average £20 per trade in the long run, even though she is winning just 30% of her trades. Her reward-to-risk strategy means that she can be wrong much more frequently than Mike, but still make a profit overall.

Both Mike and Sarah’s expectancy can improve or worsen depending on trading conditions and whether they stick to their trading plans. Nevertheless, expectancy is a good benchmark to evaluate a trading strategy. You could also think of expectancy as how much you can theoretically expect to get paid for each trade you take over time.

As we all know, it’s impossible to always be right when trading forex. However, figuring out your expectancy helps shift focus away from being right per trade to instead how right you are overall.

Worldwide spending on blockchain is set to top $2 billion in 2018, according to the International Data Corporation.

Stacey Soohoo, research manager, customer insights and analysis at IDC, said: “The year 2018 will be a crucial stage for enterprises as they make a huge leap from proof-of-concept projects to full blockchain deployments.”

There is, clearly, a lot of time, money and effort being spent in tapping into the potential of this technology. But, how can we expect to see the benefit of all of this? How far will blockchain go in terms of changing the way we do business?

Finance

Having originally been met with some scepticism in the banking sector – probably due to its disruptive nature and the presence of scams targeted at early adopters – blockchain is increasingly being harnessed by financial institutions to change the way they do business.

Perhaps most obviously, this can help to add speed and security to the process of transferring money, something that everyone from a holiday-bound consumer to a novice investor dabbling with a forex demo account through to a FTSE100 CEO can appreciate.

Yet, as the FT notes, the process of clearing and settlement, the verification of a customer’s identity and the raising of syndicated loans can all be made more efficient with blockchain.

Traceability

Yet, to focus solely on banking and payments would be to ignore the broader scope of the benefits of blockchain.

In industries where ‘traceability’ is crucial, this provides a clear, immutable record of a financial transaction. Examples of where this is necessary include the charity sector – where organisations need to prove that donations ended up at the intended target and, perhaps most pertinently in a business context, for diamonds.

For diamond companies, being able to create and manage a record for customers and clients will enable them to be clear that their product in genuine and sourced responsibly – two things that will help reputable firms to stand out from companies engaged in practices that have threatened to tarnish the sector.

Privacy

While speed, security and a transparency are clearly important, so too is privacy, especially in sectors such as healthcare where it’s vital to protect patients’ data and, typically, there are issues with out of date security software and records systems.

While the US’ private healthcare system has already embraced blockchain, the NHS could benefit too. As Tech UK notes, tracking medical test results in real time, sharing data between medical teams in different locations for research purposes, speeding up compliance paperwork processes and handling documentation for short-term staff could all be done quickly and – crucially – with the required level of privacy. This doesn’t just benefit the NHS but also a number of science and healthcare companies that rely on the NHS for work as third parties.

In some respects, blockchain’s real power is not necessarily that it changes what can be done as a business. Rather, it enhances the way in which companies operate in the digital age, allowing to carry out the processes and practices that they have developed in recent years and allows them to be done quicker, safer and cheaper.

Ramphastos Investments is a venture capital and private equity firm focused on driving top-line growth in enterprises in all stages of their evolution: from start-ups to scale-ups to high-growth medium-sized companies and mature enterprises.

The firm was founded in 1994 by Marcel Boekhoorn, who left a career in accountancy at Deloitte after becoming the Netherlands’ youngest Partner to pursue his passion for entrepreneurship. Within a few years, Marcel had grown the firm’s portfolio and invested capital exponentially after realising spectacular returns through several high-profile exits. In this period, he also laid the foundations for the approach toward building businesses that the firm pursues today: a focus on driving growth on the revenue side of the equation through buy-and-build strategies, marketplace innovation, internationalisation, management empowerment and strategic partnerships.

Today, Marcel is joined by a team of seven partners who share his passion for and hands-on approach to business building as well as his upbeat, solutions-focused and status quo-challenging mindset. As founders, builders, operators and investors in businesses of all sizes and in all phases in their evolution across multiple sectors and geographies, Ramphastos’ partners have successfully turned around businesses, created and sold start-ups, launched IPOs and completed de-listings, achieving outsized average returns on investment throughout the firm’s growth.

The firm currently holds interests in more than 20 companies with a cumulative revenue above 3.5€ billion and more than 8,000 people employed across a range of sectors from financial services, gaming, new materials and advanced manufacturing and energy and across all continents. Ramphastos is focused primarily on acquiring majority stakes in companies that meet three criteria: a unique competitive position (through a patent, brand or operational efficiency), strong intrinsic growth potential and favorable underlying trends in the industry or marketplace. As an investor of its own capital, the firm has the financial independence and appetite to take on complex transactions and special situations.

This month, Finance Monthly had the privilege to catch up with Marcel Boekhoorn and hear about the exciting journey that founding and running Ramphastos Investments has been to date.

What was setting up your own investment company in the Netherlands back in 1994 like? What were some of the hurdles that you were faced with?

When I left my job as a Partner and M&A Expert at Deloitte & Touche, I had no money of my own to invest, so my first step was to set up shop as an independent M&A consultant. That work brought in enough money, and when one of my clients was unable to pay for my invoices, I decided to take a stake in his business. I made just about all the mistakes you can make, starting with taking a minority stake and having no control over the direction of the business. I also witnessed first- hand that a Founder’s entrepreneurial creativity doesn’t necessarily translate into day-to-daymanagement or leadership skills.

Within eight months, the company had folded, and I was on the verge of bankruptcy. But poverty breeds creativity, and within a year, I had earned enough to try it again, this time taking control of a struggling wood box maker and turning it around by focusing production on cigar boxes. We produced boxes for Davidoff, Tabacalera and other global brands, and I sold my shares for a good profit – enough to branch out into more investments.

My strategy from the start was to focus on unconventional companies that no one was interested in, like small wheelbarrow or spray can manufacturers, and to build them into market leaders through buy-and-build strategies. By realising significantly higher margins as market leaders through premium pricing strategies, these companies were able to accelerate outsized growth in their sectors. By purchasing them when they were small and selling them quickly as market leaders, I was able to realise outsized returns in the process.

Now, almost 25 years later, we’ve moved on to larger, different and more complex investments, but our fundamental emphasis on top-line growth, as well as our preference for taking a majority stake in our investments and our interest in companies, markets or complex transactions and special situations that others shy away from, are still our main priorities.

A key component of any successful PE investment is to turn the business around; what are the considerations in terms of operational integration? What are the typical challenges you face?

When we consider investing in a business to turn it around, we look to see how we can add value on the revenue side of the equation – through a buy- and-build strategy or by challenging the status quo with the introduction of a new channel strategy, internationalisation, or a new product portfolio or pricing strategy. We have seen that it’s on this side of the equation that we can make the biggest difference and add the most value. It’s also where we’re most at home. We are entrepreneurs and business builders first and foremost.

This sets apart from much of the private equity world, with its emphasis on the cost side of the business. Don’t get me wrong: all of the revenue- driving strategies I just mentioned will only succeed if the organisation and operations are structured effectively to deliver on them. And any successful turnaround includes robust cost control and simplified, streamlined operations. Getting that right will always be part of our turnaround strategy, but we are fundamentally more about catalysing growth through entrepreneurial innovation and management support on the revenue side rather than driving profit by slashing on the cost side of the equation.

A hallmark of our approach to turning businesses around is to focus on company leadership. The company’s management and its employees – the people – are the ones who will make or break the business. Our work starts at the top, getting the leadership bought into and aligned on the new direction, ensuring that they embrace the same vision of the future, the same sense of who we are today and where we are headed. We make it a point to be there for leadership teams and help them work through such processes. We’re hands-on builders, and this is a role we love to play. Getting a turnaround right throughout the organisation – not just among leadership’s direct reports but company-wide – hinges on consistent, well-aligned communication. We find time and again that executing consistent communication – from instilling an understanding of strategy to fostering a growth-focused culture among employees. This is one of the most important operational KPIs for a successful turnaround.

You ask about typical challenges. Well, for starters, most people aren’t hardwired for change, and if the change isn’t something that they introduced themselves, it scares them. They don’t like it – until they see that it works and benefits them, of course. Take the example of introducing a channel strategy to move a retail business entirely online – or vice-versa. We’ve done both in different sectors, geographies and cultures, and we have found that three things help mitigate resistance and galvanise employees to deliver on the new strategy: first, a clear and consistent communication about the strategy and its benefits, second, creating and showing progress against a roadmap with compelling short- and mid-term milestones and third, cultivating a culture of listening and dialogue among employees.

What is the state of the market in relation to venture capital right now? What challenges are faced by businesses looking for funding?

Looking at the markets for venture capital and private equity, we see that increased competition has driven up valuation multiples up consistently.

From 2009 to today, sustained low interest rates have made debt cheap and have driven investors’ money toward VC and PE in their search for higher returns. Strategic buyers with strong balance sheets and big cash reserves are competing with one another, driving prices up.

In spite of this overall pattern, there are plenty of businesses who struggle to find funding. In the VC space in particular, we see that geography plays a role. If you’re a start-up based in the States looking for, say, two-to-five-million dollars, you’ll be well served by the market. If you’re a European company looking for the same investment in

Europe, you’ll struggle. The VC market is far less developed than the market in the States, with investment concentrated around a handful of potential unicorns.

At Ramphastos, we have always focused as much as we can on companies in underserved markets and in investments that others avoid. Conversely, we’ve always stayed as far away as we can from competition with other investors. Our point of view is that if you have to compete in an auction with

20 or 25 other players, then you’ll always end up paying too much and struggle to reach your target IRR.

We build businesses with our own capital, and in doing so, we pursue the high-risk, high-return opportunities that others avoid. We’re currently focused on turning around larger enterprises that face complex challenges. Unlike typical private equity firms that are happy with 25 or 30% IRRs, we are looking for driving significantly higher returns. So far, our approach – which plays to our strengths as creative thinkers and hands-on business builders – has paid off. In our 24 years as a firm, we’ve realised average multiples of money invested above ten.

How are most of your investments structured? To what level do you, as the investor, want a say in the day-to-day running of the business?

We do the majority of our investments on our own.

We invest our own capital and value our financial independence. This keeps us flexible and agile as investors. We usually take majority stakes to allow us to do what we do best – roll up our sleeves to help company leadership hands-on as they build their business. As founders, builders and leaders of businesses of all sizes and in all phases in their evolution, our partners have first-hand experience with just about anything you can encounter as an entrepreneur. We usually take a board position in our portfolio companies working side-by-side with company leadership to shape strategy and – if needed – give them tactical counsel, talent, tools and innovations to deliver on their plans.

Whereas we’ve been successful to date in the VC space across multiple sectors from flight simulators (Sim-Industries) to online brokerage (TradeKing) to flooring technologies (Innovations4Flooring) and open to opportunities, we are increasingly focused with our investments in larger, more mature companies, particularly ones with three qualities: one, a unique competitive position through a patent, brand or operational efficiency; two, strong intrinsic growth potential; and three, strong underlying trends in the industry or marketplace. We also love helping companies tackle tough, complex problems and turn themselves around. We’re actively looking at opportunities in that space, particularly among larger enterprises.

How are exit strategies agreed and structured? What are typically the common areas of disagreement regarding exit timing and strategy between the business owner and Ramphastos Investments?

We don’t have a predefined exit strategy, but we never buy into an enterprise without having a good idea about whom we’re going to sell it to. If we don’t know our exit, we won’t buy it – it’s as simple as that. And because we invest our own money, we have no pressure or obligation to sell. Our capital is patient: we’re in no hurry. Rather than working towards a specific exit, we focus on the execution of a predefined strategic value creation plan. When companies continue to grow, they will sooner or later attract buyers. We are all about value creation, and that can take time. We exit when the time is right.

To date, we have never had disagreements with the management teams on timing or nature of the exit strategy. The social dimension is important to us. With a good deal, everyone should be happy: buyer, seller, management, employees, partners – everyone. When the ABN AMRO bank dared to support us with 200€ million on our first really big deal, we rewarded them with a discretionary 10€

-million premium at exit, without any contractual obligation to do so. They had never experienced anything like that before. We don’t do deals where we can’t make such things happen.

Out of all of Ramphastos Investments’ success stories, what would you say are your three biggest achievements?

The first is without a doubt Telfort, a Dutch mobile telecom provider, which we acquired as majority shareholder, grew exponentially and sold within nine months to market leader KPN for more than a billion € in 2005. That deal was a milestone for Ramphastos, because it earned us our first half billion. It’s also a good example of the success of a robust top-line strategy. While part of our success involved getting the costs under control, we grew the company’s value explosively by swiftly migrating the business from an online- only platform to the high street retail channel, through creative retail and consumer incentives, and we raised the consumer price sharply while remaining the market’s price leader, driving profits from 50€ million to 150€ million in just eight months. We also capitalised on excess network capacity by opening our network to mobile virtual network operators, and we closed a unique deal with Huawei, as the company’s European launch customer.

A VC success story that we’re super proud of involves Sim-Industries, a developer of flight simulators that we launched in 2004 and sold to Lockheed Martin in 2011. The story is a good one, because it shows how being flexible and thinking out-of-the-box can steer a start-up to success. Sim started out in the software business, developing software for flight simulators. When the market leader in that space stood in our way, we asked ourselves: Why not go further and build simulators too? We fought hard to gain a place in an oligopolistic market, with incumbents poaching our employees and trying to scare away our suppliers, clients and us. In the meantime, by taking a fresh look at design, we built a superior product, overcame legacy issues, installed a senior management team, focused on execution excellence and became market leader in civil aviation simulators for leading aircraft types.

A third story I’d like to share has less to do with business, but everything to do with deal-making. It’s a deal that centres on an issue that is close to my heart: the preservation of species; and it’s a deal that fulfils a dream that I worked personally, persistently and patiently to fulfil over 17 years – making a home for two giant pandas in the Netherlands. That dream began when I bought a zoo located to the east of Utrecht and returned it to profitability. After hundreds of hours’ worth trips back and forth to China, education, complex relationship building with the Dutch and Chinese governments - across three Dutch prime ministers and three Chinese presidents, the dream became a reality in October 2015, when I travelled with a trade delegation and our King to the Great Hall of the People in Beijing to sign a ten-year agreement in the presence of Xi Jinping. The agreement includes an annual contribution of one million dollars to the preservation of the panda and the conservation of its natural habitat in China. The pandas arrived almost exactly a year ago at the zoo and are thriving in their new home, which was voted this year as the world’s most beautiful panda enclosure.

Over the years, what has kept the company moving forward? What sets you apart from the competition?

What’s kept us moving forward first and foremost is that we absolutely love what we do. We love building businesses. We love wrestling with thorny challenges and innovating our way with management teams toward successful turnarounds and outsized growth. We love closing deals that make everyone a winner.

It hasn’t been smooth sailing every year. I founded the company with plenty of fits and starts, as you heard, and when the Great Recession hit, it didn’t look at us and say: They’re a nice bunch of people, let’s give them a break. I’m happy to report that all of the companies in which we hold a majority of shares are turning a profit today.

What’s gotten us through the tough times is a combination of our unbreakable optimism and solutions-mindedness, our deep respect for one another and our collective creativity.

There’s also the fact that that we nurture close, trusting relationships with the management of our portfolio companies. We’re open with one another, and all of us here are ready and willing to jump in and contribute. We’re able to anticipate problems before they surface or tackle them quickly before they spin out of hand.

To put your finger on what makes us different, add to that our resourcefulness, boundless energy and appetite for challenging the status quo. We thrive on pushing ourselves and our companies to innovate and adapt constantly to drive revenue and margin growth, and in today’s world, if you don’t have the mindset and wherewithal to be agile and adapt, you’re in serious trouble. As a financially independent investor, we are free to take risks, tackle problems that others avoid and make the kinds of bold moves that catalyse truly breakthrough growth.

What do you hope to accomplish in the near future? Are there any exciting new projects that you can share with us?

I have an important role to play as the chief motivator, inspiration and driver of creativity within our team, and I hope to continue to do so for many years. Entrepreneurship is what fires my heart and gives all of us here energy, inspiration and strength. And all of us at Ramphastos see the kind of creativity-driven value that we’ve been creating here pays itself forward to beyond Ramphastos to the management teams and employees and suppliers of our companies and markets they serve. We have been doing well for almost a quarter of a century and aim to continue to steer this course.

As for projects on the horizon, we have some really exciting deals on the way. I wish I could tell you more, but I can’t. Stay tuned - there are more chapters to come.

Website: http://www.ramphastosinvestments.com/

BDRC published its quarterly SME Finance Monitor. The largest and most frequent study of its kind in the UK, research findings have been gathered across 27 waves of interviews since 2011 and are based on more than 130,000 interviews with SMEs.

The data to year ending Q4 2017 published provides further updates on the period following the General Election and as negotiations over Brexit continue. Current demand for finance remains limited, but ambitious SMEs are more likely to be financially engaged.

Shiona Davies, Director at BDRC, commented: “There have been no dramatic market changes in SME sentiment since the referendum. Whilst there are some increased concerns about the economy and political uncertainty, larger SMEs in particular are more likely to be planning to grow and to be using finance, as are those SMEs with a long-term objective to be a bigger business.”

“4 in 10 SMEs are planning business activities that might benefit from funding, but SMEs are as likely to think they would fund a business opportunity themselves as approach a bank for funding. Awareness of equity finance, which could provide longer term funding, appears limited even amongst larger SMEs. For those who do apply for a loan or overdraft, success rates remain high. However, first time applicants’ success rates are currently lower than in 2015, albeit still higher than they were in 2012. Additionally, fewer SMEs who are not currently using finance show any appetite to do so.”

Key findings

Use of (and demand for) finance remains limited, as self-reliant SMEs use trade credit, credit balances and financial support from directors in addition to external finance. Awareness and use of longer term equity finance is also limited.

• In 2017, 8 in 10 SMEs (82%) were profitable and 42% reported having grown, both little changed from 2016.
• 38% were using some form of external finance, but more (47%) met the definition of a ‘Permanent non-borrower’ with little apparent appetite for finance, similar to 2016.
• 7 in 10 SMEs (70%) would rather grow more slowly than borrow to grow faster and this has changed little over time.
• Fewer SMEs in 2017 were ‘happy to borrow to help the business grow’ (34% in 2017, down from 45% in 2016) and the proportion of SMEs who are not using finance but would be willing to do so in future has declined over time (24% of all SMEs in 2015 to 16% in 2017).
• A third of SMEs (35%) received trade credit and 25% hold more than £10,000 in credit balances. In both cases, most of those with trade credit or credit balances say it reduces their need for finance.
• 29% have received an injection of personal funds from the owner/director. Given a (hypothetical) opportunity that would require finance to achieve, 39% said the directors or the business would provide the funding, compared to 37% who would approach their bank for funding. 1 in 5 SMEs (19%) would not take up the opportunity because of concerns over the risks associated with debt.
• In 2017, 5% of SMEs reported making a new or renewed loan or overdraft application in the 12 months prior to interview. This was unchanged from 2016 and remains at half the level reported in 2012 (when 11% of SMEs had made such an application).
• Overall, 15% of SMEs in 2017 reported any kind of borrowing ‘event’, and 2% had wanted to apply but something stopped them (the Would-be seekers). The Happy non-seekers (83% of all SMEs) remained the largest group, in line with 2016.
• In a new question for H2 2017, 62% of SME companies said that equity finance was a form of funding that they knew nothing about. Larger SMEs were somewhat more aware, but even amongst those with 50-249 employees, 52% knew little about this form of finance with just 6% of them using or considering using it. 1 in 5 companies were aware of equity finance, but thought it was not a suitable form of finance for them – this varied little by size of company.

Whilst appetite for finance remains limited, a consistent 8 in 10 of those who did apply for a loan or overdraft were successful – although those applying for new money for the first time were somewhat less likely to be successful than in other recent periods.

• 80% of all loan and overdraft applications made in the last 18 months (to Q4 2017) were successful, in line with other recent periods.
• Almost all renewals in this period were successful (97%).
• Applications for new money on loan or overdraft have always had a lower success rate than renewals. For the 18 months to Q4 2017, 63% of applications were successful. This was lower than was seen in the 18 months to Q4 2015 (when 70% of new money applications were successful) but remained ahead of the 49% who were successful in the 18 months to Q4 2013.
• Success rates for new money applied for by those who had borrowed before was stable (78%), so this decline in new money success rates was due to a lower success rate for first time applicants (currently 50% compared to a success rate of 60% for applications made in the 18 months to Q4 2015). However, as with overall success rates, this is higher than was seen in the 18 months to Q4 2012 and to Q4 2013 when 4 in 10 first time applicants were successful.

Looking forward, whilst more SMEs with employees are planning to grow, there are some concerns about the economic and political climate. Future demand for finance remains stable, but it’s worth noting that a quarter of SMEs are ‘Ambitious risk takers’ with a greater engagement with finance and 4 in 10 SMEs are planning a business activity that might require funding.

• 45% of SMEs in 2017 were planning to grow. This is somewhat lower than the 49% planning to grow in 2012, due to declining levels of growth amongst 0 employee SMEs (46% to 41% over this period). Growth aspirations amongst SMEs with employees was in line with, or higher than, their aspirations in 2012.
• The top 3 barriers to running the business remained “legislation and regulation” (15% in Q4 2017), “political uncertainty” (15%) and the “current economic climate” (14%). 29% of SMEs mentioned at least one of these as a barrier in 2017, up from 22% in 2016.
• 12% of SMEs in 2017 were planning to apply for finance, unchanged from 2016 but increasing quarter by quarter from 10% in Q1 to 14% in Q4 2017. Confidence that the bank would agree to lend was somewhat lower in 2017 at 50% and remained below the actual success rates achieved. Most of those planning to apply were already using finance.
• 27% of SMEs in H2 2017 agreed that they both wanted to become a much bigger business and that they were prepared to take risks to succeed. These were more likely to be younger, innovative businesses that were, in turn, more likely to use and to apply for finance. A willingness to borrow to grow was a key predictor of being one of these ‘Ambitious risk takers’.
• 42% of SMEs in H2 2017 were planning to undertake one or more business activities that might require funding, including 19% planning to take on more staff, 17% planning to invest in plant and machinery and 16% planning to develop a new product or service. Larger and younger SMEs were more likely to be planning such activities, as were those planning to grow overall (61%). 19% of those planning any of these activities was also planning to apply for finance, compared to 8% of SMEs with no activities planned.

(Source: Farrer Kane)

Management Consultancy firms are cropping up left, right and centre these days. It’s easy to find one willing to help, but how do you go about finding the right fit for your business? Below Mark Peters, Managing Director at Protiviti, talks Finance Monthly through the process of sourcing management help.

As the market environment continually shifts, businesses face an increasing need to make fundamental changes to their strategies if they want to continue to grow profitably, manage risks effectively and optimise the opportunities brought about by change. Both emerging and mature businesses need to navigate digital technological advancements; disruptive innovations threatening core business models; soaring equity markets; uncertainty brought by political disruption (e.g. Brexit); cyber breaches on a massive scale; increasing regulatory scrutiny; adjustments to corporate culture; and changing economic conditions.

These critical concerns are in abundance for boards and executives, and the expectations amongst key stakeholders for greater transparency about the nature and magnitude of risks undertaken in executing a businesses’ corporate strategy are high. Simply put, hiring more people is no longer sufficient to maintain growth; instead, today’s challenges are driving increased demand for management consulting expertise.

Management consulting can include a broad range of business advisory or implementation services. It consists of providing third-party independent expertise in areas such as business strategy; management organisation; financial management; risk and regulatory requirements; HR; and technology to solve business problems. There are many types of consulting firms in the market. Strategy firms focus on one or two of the areas outlined above, while large accounting firms offer a broad range of services, to name two examples. However, market demand for greater insight and choice has seen both the emergence of more specialist knowledge, and an increasing requirement for consulting firms to provide a ‘full service platform’ offering. At one end of the spectrum, potential clients are looking for high-value consulting services (e.g. realising opportunities of strategic change) for critical areas, while at the other end, they are also looking for more traditional commodity and lower cost consulting services (e.g. staff augmentation). Overall, the market is seeing increased demand for a cross-spectrum offering as well as a rise in independent consultants offering more niche services.

With this backdrop, to find the best consultants to support them, organisations need to develop their own criteria for selection. Factors might include the extent to which the consultant can show:

• An ability to discover value – The best consultants demonstrate an ability to clarify the stated need within the context of the client’s business and work collaboratively with the client to identify the ‘real problem’.
• An ability to deliver external insight and value – Executives that hire consultants often have their own perspectives on the problems they are facing but turn to consultants for help to make sure they aren’t missing the obvious or a better answer. The best management consultants team together with their clients to see beyond the surface of the initial changes and problems to discover opportunities that the client might otherwise miss.
• Specialism related to your ‘real problem’ – The most effective consultants provide a combination of consulting professionals and people who have held management positions to bring a wider perspective. They also demonstrate that they have worked with many different companies and may have worked through this problem in the past with another organisation. This breadth and depth of experience enables them to provide an informed perspective and bring both pragmatic and innovative solutions that the client would not have been able to discover alone.
• A desire to sustain a relationship – The best consulting firms can demonstrate a track record of success and will provide the client with a consistent experienced team with ‘skin in the game’ for the long-term and not just the ‘sales pitch’. The best firms focus on building strong relationships with the people in the organisations they are supporting, creating an exceptional working experience.
• Demonstrate value delivered –The best advisors don’t just provide a view on how they will solve problems at a price, but also provide hard numbers and statistics to show how the cost of their advice has generated value to the organisation. Finding the best consultant and value often doesn’t equate to the cheapest compared with one that might be more expensive but more effective. The top firms can measure their value in terms of risk reduced, improvements delivered or opportunities realised as a result of their work.

Experience tells us that no one competency or consulting firm is ever enough to solve today’s complex business problems. Most clients want to work with a consulting firm that can demonstrate the qualities described above, solve business-critical problems and offer an alternative, fresh perspective. Consulting firms that develop the expertise of their people in the areas of digital transformation, data analytics, robotics, risk, regulatory change and front-to-back office improvements, and tailor solutions to fit the unique business problems of every client, are seeing unprecedented demand from companies wanting help to face the future with confidence.

Alarming new research from bed manufacturer Sealy UK, has revealed the nation’s bankers and finance professionals are turning up for work sleep deprived - impacting not only on their productivity and mood, but even their safety. It is now spearheading a major initiative, appealing to bosses to take this often-overlooked issue more seriously.

The awareness campaign is based on data from Sealy’s recent Worldwide Sleep Census, which questioned 5,000 people of a working age from across the UK, revealing a staggering 79% of bankers and finance professionals admitted they could function better at work if they slept better.

This places the sector as the second most sleep-deprived profession in the UK, coming below hospitality (86%), but above construction, retail and transport.

It appears this ongoing sleep deprivation is causing some serious issues in the working week; 65% of bankers regularly lose their temper or have been irritable to a colleague, 30% claim they suffer a lack of productivity, while 19% say they’re often late into work or have time off as a result.

A shocking 1-in-25 even admitted falling asleep whilst at work.

However, perhaps most worrying is the 11% of bankers who have had a recent accident at work – such as a trip or a slip, due to feeling tired.

A call for bosses to put sleep at the top of their agenda

Despite the popularity of ‘wellness’ perks at companies across the UK, from gym memberships to medical insurance and even free healthy snacks, sleep remains something that is often overlooked by employers, and not treated as an important issue. This happens despite the potentially serious impact of staff not achieving adequate rest, as demonstrated in the study.

Neil Robinson, an expert on sleep at Sealy, comments: "Lack of sleep – and the subsequent fallout the next day – can be caused by a wide range of legitimate medical conditions, from stress, to mental health problems or respiratory disease. Even at the less severe end of the spectrum, there’s usually an underlying health issue causing sleeplessness. However, it’s often treated as an incidental issue by bosses, with a ‘pull yourself together’ attitude. This is not helpful for employees, especially when there are some potentially severe consequences of turning up exhausted.

“There are of course occasions when staff are tired as a result of staying up too late or burning the candle at both ends. However, this campaign is about helping bosses make that distinction, as well as encouraging a common-sense approach to effectively managing sleep in the workplace”.

To address this important issue, Sealy is working with a leading HR expert, Kate Russell, of Russell HR Consulting – a firm advising companies of all sizes across the UK when it comes to best-practice HR policy – to produce a ‘common sense’ guide for bosses to better manage sleep deprivation of staff.

(Source: Sealy)

Last week, the FTSE 100 saw a late upward rush as it closed at a new record high of 7,724.22 points. This was after a fresh record high at the end of the year, spurred by a rally in mining stocks and a healthcare burst. But how will FTSE kick off the year and will it sustain its consistency in record highs throughout 2018?

According to some sources, the success of FTSE in 2018 will largely depend on the outcome of Brexit negotiations, although a rise in the pound may make it a mixed blessing. Below Finance Monthly has heard Your Thoughts, and listed several comments from top industry experts on this matter.

Jordan Hiscott, Chief Trader, ayondo markets:

I believe the FTSE 100 will go above 8,000 in 2018. In part, this is due to the current political turmoil we are experiencing, with the incumbent UK government looking increasingly unstable as each week passes, an economy that seems to be lagging behind Europe on a relative basis, and the ongoing turbulence from Brexit.

However, all these factors are already known to investors and traders and so far, the FTSE has performed well despite these fears. For 2018, I believe the Brexit turmoil will increase dramatically as negotiations with Europe continue down an incredibly fractious route.

Craig Erlam, Senior Market Analyst, OANDA:

Two key factors contributing to the performance of the FTSE this year will be the global economy and movements in the pound. The improving global economic environment was an important driver of equity market performance in 2017 and many expect that to continue in 2018, with some potential headwinds having subsided over the last year. The FTSE 100 contains a large number of stocks that are global facing, rather than domestically reliant, and so the global economy is an important factor in its performance. Stronger economic performance is also typically associated with stronger commodity prices and with the FTSE having large exposure to these stocks, I would expect this to benefit the index.

The global exposure of the index also makes the FTSE sensitive to movements in the pound. After the Brexit vote, the FTSE continued to perform well as a weaker pound was favourable for earnings generated in other currencies. The pound has since gradually recovered in line with positive progress in Brexit negotiations and a more resilient UK economy. Should negotiations continue to make positive progress this may create a headwind for the index and offset some of the gains mentioned above. A negative turn for the negotiations though would likely weaken sterling and provide an additional positive for the index.

While many people are confident about the economy, Brexit negotiations are more uncertain and will have a significant impact on the index’s performance, as we have seen over the last 18 months.

Sophie Kennedy, Head of Research, EQ Investors:

We believe that the synchronised global growth and continued easy monetary policy should support global risk assets going forward. As such, equities should deliver a reasonable return over the next year, which will be the starting point for FTSE performance.

The deviation of FTSE performance around global equity performance will likely be a function of a few factors:

1. The level of sterling is extremely important. Many FTSE companies have very global revenue streams. As such, when sterling falls, foreign earnings are inflated. The level of sterling over the next year is likely to be a function of Brexit-negotiations, the result of which we are not attempting to forecast.
2. There are a number of large commodity producers in the FTSE. Their profits and share prices tend to rise and fall with the price of commodities. The oil market looks more balanced than it has previously and strong global growth should boost global commodity demand. However, we have already had a large rally since the middle of 2017, so upside is likely to be more muted.
3. The trajectory of the UK economy is also relevant, particularly for the smaller capitalisation parts of the market and sectors including housebuilders and utilities. We are not hugely positive on this point, on account of the real income squeeze and continued weak investment environment.

We feel that points 1 and 2 are neutral but point 3 is negative. As such, we expect the FTSE to deliver positive returns but likely underperform the MSCI World.

Tim Sambrook, Professor of Finance, Audencia Business School:

2017 ended the year strongly and is now around all-time highs. The 7% return and 4% dividend gain was better than most had hoped. But will this positive trend continue or will investors worry about the price?

The FTSE has performed strongly, because the global economy has done well. The FTSE is largely a collection of international conglomerates who happen to be based in the UK. The political mess has had little effect on the economic environment (fortunately!).

Strangely, a poor negotiation on Brexit will have a positive effect on the FTSE (if not the UK economy) as a large part of the earnings of the larger companies are overseas. Hence a fall in sterling will lead to a boost in earnings and hence push up the price of the FTSE.

Currently there is little reason to believe that the global economy, and hence corporate earnings, will not continue to do well in 2018. The current PE of the FTSE is not cheap at around the 18-20, and is without doubt above the long-term average of around 15-16. However, this is not excessive and could even support some negative surprises this year.

However, the underpinning of the current bull market has been dividend yields. The FTSE is currently offering 4% and is likely to increase over the coming year, with many of the large caps having excess liquidity. This is very attractive compared to other assets, particular as we shall be expecting higher rates in the future. The large number of income seekers are likely to increase the positions in the FTSE this year rather than reduce them.

Ron William, Senior Lecturer, London Academy of Trading:

The UK’s FTSE100 was reaching all-time record highs into the New Year, fuelled by a global wave of investor euphoria. 2018 was the best start to a year for S&P500 since 1999, marked by the Dow’s historic break above the psychological 25K handle.

All these technical new high breakouts are being supported by the highest level of upward earnings revisions since 2011, coupled with extreme levels of market optimism last seen at the peak of Black Monday 1987.

From a behavioural standpoint, it seems that analysts and investors are silencing tail-risk concerns in a precarious trade-off for fear of missing out on the party.

The “January Effect” is part of a tried and tested maxim that states “as the first week in January goes, so does the month”; and even more importantly, “as January goes, so does the year”. So our recommendation would be to see how January plays out as a potential barometer for the next 12 months.

However, keep in mind that we still live in known unknown times; some major markets have not even had a 5% setback in 16 months and the VIX index is at new record lows.

Back to the FTSE100, all eyes remain on the next glass ceiling: 8000. While there is an increasing probability that the market will achieve this historic price target, we must also apply prudent risk management as the asymmetric risk of a violent correction remains.

The long-term 200-day average, currently at 7422, is key. Only a sustained confirmation back under here would signal a major cliff-drop ahead from very high altitudes. Brexit tail risk will more than likely continue to weigh heavily on it.

We would also love to hear more of Your Thoughts on this, so feel free to comment below and tell us what you think!

All beginnings are difficult. Studies show that, on average, nine out of ten start-ups fail (1), and the shark tank that is the financial industry isn’t exactly renowned for allowing tender start-up shoots to flourish. The risk of failure and the fierce competition should not, however, deter you from launching your own FinTech. Instead, you can learn from others’ mistakes. Anyone seeking to start a successful FinTech company should carefully examine why others fail and avoid making the same mistakes.

So how do FinTech entrepreneurs meet the demands of a competitive and turbulent market, while trying to make it out on top? Tobias Schreyer, Co-Founder of PPRO Group reveals for Finance Monthly.

1. Thoroughly analyse your market

The crux of any start-up is the business idea. The fact that an idea initially looks promising, however, is no guarantee that it will work in practice. The key here is for FinTech start-ups to begin analysing the market as early as possible to determine whether there is an appropriate and suitably large target audience for their business. By far the most common reason for the failure of a start-up is that there is no market for their idea. You must know the size of target market, what the competition is like, and what prices comparable products and services are fetching. Never ignore market analyses and align your business plan precisely with the results.

2. Secure your funding in advance

Even (and sometimes, particularly!) FinTech start-ups want to attract financial backing. As with any other start-up, the issue of funding is right at the top of every FinTech start-up’s list. This issue can be roughly divided into two sections. The first is self-explanatory and covers the considerations which should be part of a traditional business plan and the questions which should ideally be resolved before the company is founded. These include things like how much capital is needed, the outgoings expected, and the potential profits. This is where you should investigate loans for company founders or appropriate grants and subsidies. The second part of the funding issue is more FinTech-specific. As, in most cases, you will be competing with banks or other FinTechs with a lot more money, so attracting partners and potential investors early on in the process is important. You should look for people who are excited about your idea and ready to invest.

3. Always keep an eye on your finances, particularly post-launch

After the business idea, finances are the highest priority for any start-up, including FinTechs. This is a very broad subject. Not only should the company be liquid, it should also have a handle on accounting and taxes. Seemingly simple tasks like setting up a business bank account or applying for a company credit card can be a challenge initially. What if you have a business trip coming up, but your bank won’t give you a company credit card? What if it’s simply not available soon enough? Nowadays there are many clever financial products on the market which can also be used directly and easily by start-ups. Prepaid credit cards with associated online accounts are quick to set up, but are also secure and flexible to use. The centralised company account provides an overview of all expenses at all times, as well as the requisite flexibility when expenses arise. You must never lose sight of your company’s financial status. This may seem obvious, but failure to manage finances has spelt the downfall of many a start-up.

4. Determine the appropriate form of organisation for your company

Choosing the right legal form of organisation is an important decision for a new company, and one that start-ups need to consider very carefully. Although, once selected, the legal form is not set in stone, changing it later can involve some effort. The form of organisation defines the legal and taxation framework conditions for a company, so your choice must suit the needs of a FinTech start-up.

5. Apply for licenses and register in good time

Start-ups should focus much of their attention on their product offering and customers, but even the best product and customer service can be at risk if you don’t have a handle on your day-to-day business operations. Start-ups must perform a great many administrative tasks, including registering with the tax office, listing the company in the commercial register, accounting, sales tax, and more. But to add to that already extensive list, FinTech’s are also subject to additional regulatory pressures. The second Payment Service Directive (PSD2) will, for example, come into force at the beginning of 2018 and can mean major changes for providers of alternative payment methods. Any financial service which can make automated payments at an end-user’s request while collecting and transferring data must obtain a PSD2 licence from the national financial regulatory authority.

(1) forbes.com/sites/neilpatel/2015/01/16/90-of-startups-will-fail-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-10/#915f29c66792

(2) cbinsights.com/blog/startup-failure-reasons-top

(3) crosscard.com/solution/crosscard-expense

If everyone is one step ahead of the competition, how is it possible for anyone to be one step ahead? The FinTech sector is currently facing a complex situation where start-ups are one-upping tech giants, and vice versa, on a daily basis. So how is it possible to maintain an edge in the industry? Finance Monthly hears from Frederic Nze, CEO & Founder of Oakam, on this matter.

The financial services industry has entered the Age of the Customer -- in this era, the singular goal is to delight. With offerings that are faster, better and cheaper, new fintech entrants have the edge over traditional institutions who struggle to keep pace with consumers’ rising expectations around service. Yet this is not the first or last stage in the industry’s evolution. Just as telephone banking was once viewed as peak disruption, so too will today’s innovation eventually become the standard in financial services.

What will become of today’s new entrants as they scale and mature? The answer largely depends on why a particular fintech company is winning with customers today -- a hyper focus on problem-solving.

If customer review site Trustpilot is used as the litmus test for customer satisfaction, then clearly banks and other traditional financial firms are falling short of the mark. Looking at the UK’s Trustpilot rankings in the Money category, not a single bank appears in the top 100, and their ratings range from average to poor. Fintech entrants like Transferwise, Funding Circle and Zopa, on the other hand rank highly in their respective categories.

So how is it that such young companies have elicited such positive responses from consumers, beating out institutions with decades of experience and customer insight?

The advantage fintechs have over banks is that their products are more narrowly focused and are supported by modern infrastructure, new delivery mechanisms and powerful data analytics that drive continuous user-centric improvement and refinement. Still, they’ve had to clear the high barriers of onerous regulatory and capital requirements, and win market share from competitors with entrenched customer bases.

The halo effect of innovation and enthusiasm of early adopters, hopeful for the promise of something better, has buoyed the success of new entrants and spurred the proliferation of new apps aimed at addressing any number of unmet financial needs. This of course cannot continue unabated and we’re already approaching a saturation point that will spark the reintegration or rebundling of digital financial services.

In fact, a finding from a World Economic Forum report, Beyond Fintech: A Pragmatic Assessment Of Disruptive Potential In Financial Services, in August this year stated that: “Platforms that offer the ability to engage with different financial institutions from a single channel will become the dominant model for the delivery of financial services.”

Whether a particular app or digital offering will be rolled up into a bank once again or survive as a standalone in this future world of financial services, will depend on the nature of the product or service they provide. This can be shown by separating businesses into two different groups.

Firstly, you have the optimizers. These nice-to-haves like PFM (personal financial management) apps certainly make life easier for consumers, but don’t have competitive moats wide enough to prevent banks from replicating on their own platforms in fairly short-order.

For the second group, a different fate is in store. These are offerings that are winning either on the basis of extreme cost efficiency (the cheaper-better-fasters) or by solving one incredibly difficult problem. Oakam belongs to this second category: we’re making fair credit accessible to a subset of consumers who historically have been almost virtually excluded from formal financial services

The likely outcome for the cheaper-better-fasters, like Transferwise in the remittances world, is acquisition by an established player. They’ve worked out the kinks and inefficiencies of an existing system and presented their customers with a simpler, cheaper method of performing a specific task. However, their single-solution focus and ease of integration with other platforms make them an obvious target for banks, who lack the technology expertise but have the balance sheets to acquire and fold outside offerings into their own.

Integration into banks is harder to pull off with the problem-solvers because of the complexity of the challenges they are solving for. In Oakam’s case we’re using new data sources and methods of credit scoring that the industry’s existing infrastructure isn’t setup to handle. In other words, how could a bank or another established player integrate our technology, which relies on vastly different decision-making inputs and an entirely new mode of interacting with customers, into their system without practically having to overhaul it?

For businesses who succeed at cracking these difficult problems, the reward is to earn the trust of their customers and the credibility among peers to become the integrators for other offerings. Instead of being rebundled into more traditional financial firms, these companies have the potential to become convenient digital money management platforms, enabling access to a range of products and services outside of their own offering.

Self-described “digital banking alternative,” Revolut was first launched to help consumers with their very specific needs around managing travel spending, but today has offerings ranging from current accounts to cell phone insurance. While some of their products are proprietary, they’ve embraced partnership in other areas, like insurance which it provides via Simplesurance. This sort of collaboration offers an early look at the shape of things to come in finance’s digital future

One might ask how the digital bundling of products and services differs from a traditional bank, with the expectation that the quality and customer experience will diminish as new offerings are added. A key difference is PSD2 and the rise of open banking, which will enable closer collaboration and the ability to benefit from the rapid innovation of others. What this means is that an integrator can remain focused on its own area of expertise, while offering its customers access to other high quality products and services

At Oakam, this future model of integrated digital consumer finance represents a way to unlock financial inclusion on a wide, global scale. Today, we serve as our customers’ first entry, or re-entry, point into formal financial services. The prospect of catering to their other financial needs in a more connected, holistic way is what motivates us to work towards resolving an immediate, yet complicated challenge of unlocking access to fair credit.