Matt Wilcox Pro

There was a time when applying for a loan meant sitting on a hard, wooden chair across the desk from a stern-faced banker, nervously clutching your derby, kneading the brim with your fists, and trying to look like a good risk.

Not much has changed except for, well, all of the above. You can apply for a loan perched comfortably in your living room. Digital data, not your appearance, establish your ability to repay. And, really, does anyone wear a derby anymore?

And in the world of digital lending, FinTech is making its mark. The latest numbers from Transunion suggest that an increasing number of borrowers are bypassing traditional financial institutions and going straight to FinTech:

The FinTech revolution has propelled unsecured personal loans to another record-breaking quarter … personal loan balances increased $21 billion in the last year to close 2018 at a record high of $138 billion. Much of this growth was driven by online loans originated by FinTechs.

FinTech loans now comprise 38% of all unsecured personal loan balances, the largest market share compared to banks, credit unions and traditional finance companies. Five years ago, FinTechs accounted for just 5% of outstanding balances. As a result of FinTech entry to the market, bank balance share decreased to 28% from 40% in 2013, while credit union share has declined from 31% to 21% during this time.

The rapid rise of FinTech lending shouldn’t surprise. Data is their business, and data drive lending and approvals. The very nature of FinTechs allows for unprecedented nimbleness. As finance reporter John Detrixhe, writing for Quartz, notes:

Fintechs have reinvented personal loans. Their digital platforms can quickly analyze and make a decision on whether to lend money. The lack of collateral means less paperwork, which speeds up the borrowing process. 

Transunion blogger John Wirth puts it more bluntly:

FinTechs are unencumbered by legacy technology systems, more conservative corporate cultures and the layers of approvals that can be present in traditional lending organizations. FinTech lenders’ ability to start from scratch and make quick decisions enables rapid iteration, refinement and aggressive adoption of the latest solutions.

Yet the “traditional” in “traditional lending organizations” is an unfairly loaded term. To be sure, some “traditional” banks exhibit sluggishness when it comes to adapting to the digital world. But the likes of Wells, Citi, Bank of America, Chase, and Capital One have shown themselves to be blazingly fast in seizing and running with the digital ball. 

One could equally argue that “traditional” banks bring everything to the party that FinTechs bring plus a few things that FinTechs cannot, such as physical facilities and face-to-face meetings. Such features are not de facto encumbrances, and they still matter to clients. Writing for Consumerist, Kate Cox reported that small business owners still seem to like visiting the bank in person:

Sure, a trendy new salon or boutique might operate almost entirely off an iPad in the front running Square, but there are still plenty of small businesses that need to deposit cash or make change runs frequently. The proprietors of those small businesses may also want to negotiate business loans or talk money matters face-to-face.

“Proximity to their business is a very, very important factor to their bank selection and their continuing relationship with a bank,” a U.S. Bancorp executive told Reuters.

Moreover, CNBC’s Kate Rooney raised a note of concern concerning the volume of unsecured loans figuring in the growing Fintech portfolio:

Fintech firms like SoFi, LendingClub, Prosper, Avant and GreenSky offer digital or mobile-first options that often use data points aside from FICO scores when assessing creditworthiness. Square and PayPal use similar metrics. But they tend to reach further down the credit curve, raising questions about how many would fare in their first-ever economic downturn. In 2018, most of the growth was at the lower end of the risk spectrum.

Nor did remarks by Transunion’s Jason Laky, senior vice president, consumer lending business leader, reassure in his remarks quoted by CNBC: 

“Subprime borrowers are the ones that, if the economy turns and growth slows, are likely to be at risk of losing their jobs or hours, that creates financial stress,” Laky said. “As long as we believe [the] economy is still on solid path of growth, there shouldn’t be an issue.”

Wirth would parry concerns by pointing out that finance companies’ portfolios are even riskier:

… when we compared the FinTechs’ risk appetite to other lenders, FinTechs were actually somewhere in the middle. FinTechs are more conservative than traditional finance companies, but have a higher risk appetite than banks.  

Wirth’s argument indulges the Privation Fallacy, the notion that if you’re in a wheelchair when you could be in a body cast, you have nothing to complain about. Whose portfolio is riskiest isn’t the issue. The issue is whether FinTechs operate with an acceptable level of risk. 

It may be premature to dismiss “traditional” financial institutions as too stodgy, and likewise premature to dismiss emergent models as too reckless. As tends to happen in market economies, the best finance companies, FinTechs, and “traditional” financial institutions will likely borrow one another’s strengths, in time blurring the distinctions.

If you tried using a Visa credit card at one of Foods Co.’s 19 California grocery stores lately, you’ll recall being told, politely I hope, “We don’t take that any more.” 

But that’s old news. What’s new news is that the Visa credit card ban has just been extended to an additional 142 food stores and 108 fuel centers across seven states.

Now, Visa, Inc. isn’t exactly a small company. Each year, Visa processes more than 100 billion transactions, about $6.8 trillion worth. When you’re that size, the opting out of 19 stores might not so much hurt as tickle. But when the ban grows to another 142 stores with 108 fuel centers, it might at least begin to itch. Especially if the 19, 142, and 108 belong to the largest supermarket chain in the United States, which owns and could extend the ban to some 3,000 more stores.

By “largest supermarket chain in the United States,” I refer to The Kroger Co. Itself no small player, Kroger operates across 35 states with 2,764 retail food centers under various banners—Kroger, Smith’s, Ralph’s, Food 4 Less, Fred Meyer, Dillons, Fry’s, and 18 others, give or take, as of this writing. 2,270 of these properties sport a Kroger-owned pharmacy, and 1,537 sit adjacent to a fuel station. Kroger also owns 253 fine jewelry stores and 38 food manufacturing and production companies.

The above-referenced 142 stores and 108 fuel centers operate under Kroger’s Smith’s Food and Drug banner. In fact, it was Kroger’s 1999 acquisition of the by-then merged Smith’s and Fred Meyer stores that rocketed the company to the top of the U.S. retail grocery heap. 

All of which is to say that The Kroger Co. is of sufficient size that the ban must surely have gained Visa’s attention. And Visa must surely have considered that if Kroger prospers without the card, other large retail chains might be tempted to follow suit.

Kroger’s press release announcing the ban minced no words:

“Visa has been misusing its position and charging retailers excessive fees for a long time,” said Mike Schlotman, Kroger’s executive vice president and CFO. “They conceal from customers what Visa and its banks charge retailers to accept Visa credit cards. At Smith’s, Visa’s credit card fees are higher than any other credit card brand that we accept. Visa’s excessive fees and unfairness cannot continue to go unchecked. That’s why, starting April 3, Smith’s will accept all forms of payment except Visa credit cards.”

Note the “all forms of payment except Visa credit cards” part. Smith’s and Foods Co. stores will continue accepting other credit cards, including Kroger’s own cobranded Kroger REWARDS World Mastercard, and Visa debit cards. Whether that proves confusing to consumers remains to be seen.

Business Insider reported Visa’s response:

… Visa released a statement saying, “It is unfair and disappointing that Kroger is putting shoppers in the middle of a business dispute.”

“We have put forward a number of solutions to allow our cardholders to continue using their preferred Visa credit cards at Foods Co. and Smith’s without Kroger-imposed restrictions, and we continue to work toward a resolution. Visa debit and prepaid cards continue to be accepted across all Kroger Stores, including Foods Co. and Smith’s.”

The suggestion that Kroger may be shooting itself in the foot was inevitable. Reporter Adam Shell wrote in USA Today:

Not having the option of using a Visa credit card could be viewed as a big enough inconvenience to drive shoppers away, analysts say. The trend in the industry, of course, is a shift away from cash payments to electronic transactions. 

“Consumers want choices, and they end up losing if they don’t have the option of using their Visa credit cards to buy items,” says NerdWallet’s[credit card expert Kimberly] Palmer. “Some consumers might even decide not to go to Kroger as a result of that inconvenience.”

But, come on. It would be naïve to think that the possibility of a self-inflicted podiatric gunshot wound hadn’t occurred to Kroger. The company has been around a block or two, or, if you prefer another metaphor, it has been in more than one rodeo. As co-director of Tuft University’s Center for Cognitive Studies Daniel Dennett quipped in his paper in his paper “Reflections on Free Will”:

As I tell my undergraduate students, whenever they encounter in their required reading a claim or argument that seems just plain stupid, they should probably double check to make sure they are not misreading the “preposterous” passage in question. It is possible that they have uncovered a howling error that has somehow gone unnoticed by the profession for generations, but not very likely.

Kroger does not lack for skilled analysts who would have considered whether the Visa credit card ban would backfire. It’s not unlikely that the Foods Co. ban was a test foray. If so, then the extension of the ban to Smith’s would seem to indicate that results have been encouraging.

Playing musical credit cards isn’t new. For years, Costco managed just fine taking American Express credit cards, Visa debit cards—but not Visa credit cards. Then, in 2016, Costco traded the American Express for the Visa credit card after all. And, as MarketWatch’s Maria Lamagna points out, Citigroup purchased BestBuy’s cobranded credit card from Capital One in 2013, and Walmart dumped its cobranded Discover card for a cobranded Mastercard in 2014.

I see three possible outcomes to the Kroger-Visa stare-down: (1) Kroger capitulates and mends ties with Visa; (2) Visa capitulates and gives Kroger a better rate; or (3) Kroger and the Visa credit card carry on without each other. I know better than to make an attempt at predicting which it will be.

As of July 1, cashless stores and restaurants in Philadelphia will be no more. Existing cashless businesses will not be grandfathered but required to revert. Outside of a few exceptions such as parking lots, hotels, and car rental agencies, the Philadelphia City Council has deemed cashless businesses discriminatory. 

If you have a bank account, as I suspect most readers of this blog have, the discriminatory thing may at first blush be hard to see. It make more sense when you consider that, as U.S. News and World Report estimates, about 6.5 percent of adults in the United States, or about 14 million people, are unbanked. Cashless stores exclude them. And, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, about 18 percent more have bank accounts but still prefer cash transactions.

Not just Philadelphia is sticking up for the cash-inclined. According to New York Times, the city of brotherly love is in good company:

The New Jersey Legislature and the Philadelphia City Council have passed measures this year that would ban cashless stores. New York City, Washington, San Francisco and Chicago are weighing similar bills.

Eager as people immersed in the digital payments business (like me) may be for the ultimate demise of cash, there’s little reason to believe it will happen anytime soon. An article by Fiserv strategic partner ATM Marketplace, cited before in this blog, pointed out that studies …

… consistently show the hype about the decline of cash to be inaccurate and wildly overstated … Despite continuing growth in alternative payment options, consumers still rely on cash as their primary form of payment for gifts, food, personal care, automotive, entertainment and transportation services.

Were cashlessness ever to come about, there are a few scenarios as to how it might happen. In what could be called a libertarian scenario, the market would cheerfully abandon cash of its own accord. In more of a push scenario, merchants would opt to accept only card and digital transactions, forcing the market to abandon cash. And in what me might call an edict model, cashlessness would come about by government fiat.

As it stands, the edict model doesn’t look workable. One would be hard-pressed to name a nation more motivated than India to move attain cashlessness, yet, as NPR reported, India is finding the task “easier said than done.” Not least among impediments is that only 17 percent of Indians own a smartphone and only 20 percent have Internet access.

In the U.S., Visa has put some effort into the “push” model. Take for instance, its “Cashless Challenge,” in which …

… Visa put a call out to small businesses across the U.S. to tell us how going cashless could benefit their business … 50 winners were selected to receive $10,000 each for envisioning less-cash solutions as a means to more convenient, secure and easy transactions.

While one could—correctly—accuse Visa of interfering with market forces by helping make cash increasingly unusable, laws like the Philadelphia ordinance likewise interfere with market forces by keeping cash viable.

The libertarian scenario may be taking hold in Sweden. Yet according to the New York Times, the Swedish government appears more concerned than enthusiastic:

Consumer groups say the shift leaves many retirees—a third of all Swedes are 55 or older—as well as some immigrants and people with disabilities at a disadvantage. They cannot easily gain access to electronic means for some goods and transactions, and rely on banks and their customer service. And the progress toward a cashless society could upend the state’s centuries-old role as sovereign guarantor. If cash disappears, commercial banks would wield greater control.

A few straw-clutchers contend that in the United States refusing cash is illegal at the federal level. From Finextra:

The ATM Industry Association highlights that every US banknote states: “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” Says the group’s CEO Mike Lee: ‘Why decrease freedom of choice for citizens in a free market democracy?’”

But straw-clutchers they are. The U.S. Department of the Treasury, arguably an authority on the subject of legal tender, has put speculation on the federally required acceptance of cash to rest:

There is … no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services.

Meanwhile, comedians are having fun with the concept of a cashless society. In the UK, hosts Steve Punt and Hugh Dennis offered this satirical take on the March 8 episode of the BBC’s “Now Show”:

… No one is really ready for a world with no notes and no coins. It will change so many things. For a start, what are thugs going to throw at footballers? … ‘The match at the Emirates this afternoon was held up after someone in the crowd threw an iTunes gift card at one of the goalkeepers. The card turned out to be worth 50 pounds, but was unused as no one could find 10p to scratch the silver strip off with.’”

As for American football, who knows? The day may not be far off when games start with a gift card toss.

A bank in the making? (Computer image courtesy of Wikipedia, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. Chip image and type added.)

Innovation doesn’t always move forward. Sometimes it circles back.  

For instance, Amazon saved you from having to travel to physical stores, and then circled back and opened physical stores.

Starbucks made it so you’d never again have to brew supermarket coffee at home, and then circled back and placed its products in supermarkets so you can brew coffee at home.

The cellphone industry all but obviated wristwatches with its time-displaying phones, and then circled back with smart wristwatches.

And now, after creating Apple Pay so you wouldn’t have to carry around plastic cards, Apple has circled back and joined forces with Goldman Sachs to offer a plastic card.

The Wall Street Journal broke the story on February 21, reporting:

Apple Inc. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. are preparing to launch a new joint credit card, a move that would deepen the technology giant’s push into its customers’ wallets and mark the Wall Street firm’s first foray into plastic.

Neither Apple nor Goldman Sachs made themselves available for comment, so other news media reported on the WSJ story. According to NPR, Apple and Goldman hope to introduce more than just another credit card.

… the card will be integrated with the iPhone and offer features to track spending and points …Rather than competing with other credit cards offering lots of points, the Apple and Goldman Sachs card may try to attract users with features that emphasize budget management.

Finextra points out that Apple is positioned to bring to the party features beyond the reach of competing cards:

The new Apple-branded card will offer cashback rewards for spending and will be complemented by new iPhone features designed to help users to track rewards, set spending goals and manage their account balances.

The Apple credit card will rely on the Mastercard network, so card users will likely earn cash rewards of around two percent for general purchases with the possibility of more for purchases of Apple products. “Beyond the bonuses,” CNBC reports, citing the WSJ article, 

… Apple and Goldman Sachs hope to attract users with extra features in the technology company’s Wallet application, such as tracking rewards and spending, as well as managing account balances.

It doesn’t take much imagination to see why Apple would want to venture into new profit areas. iPhone sales declined 15 percent in the last year. Perhaps the plastic card and smartphone combination will boost sales of both in an upward spiral. 

From the same CNBC report:

Apple is trying to up its take of iPhone credit card purchases, as the company currently gets a small cut when users make purchases through Apple Pay. Additionally, Apple is looking to boost revenue from things other than gadgets, and the payments space is in the midst of intense competition from banks and tech startups.

Finextra adds that the move is …

… part of a push by Apple to focus on fee-generating services and it continues Goldman’s campaign to appeal to rank-and-file consumers.As for Goldman Sachs, the NPR story says “… the card appears to be part of its effort to capture new customers: the middle class.” PYMNTS.comsheds more light on what’s in the deal for Goldman:

… as securities trading wanes as a business, the company [Goldman Sachs] has pushed into online lending, notably through Marcus—and reports Thursday said the company would offer Marcus and wealth management products to Apple users.

As for Goldman Sachs, the company has committed no small investment to the venture and, in fact, has begun spending. According to Reuters, 

Goldman Sachs has already started adding customer-support call centers, and building an internal system to handle payments, a project that could cost the bank $200 million, WSJ said, a time when banks are focused on reigning in expenses to boost their bottom lines.

As I wrote last week, adaptation is the paramount business tool for surviving a changing environment, which today’s digital world is. There is no better example of adaptation than Apple Inc. Since its 1975 launch, Apple went from fledgling circuit board maker, to personal computer company, to smartphone maker, to tablet company, to music purveyor, to movie streamer, to applications marketer, to smart-watch maker. 

Apple stuck a toe into the waters of financial services with Apple Pay. Evidently it found the water temperature agreeable. The introduction of a credit card could be a serious step toward Apple’s adapting into a increasingly bank-like entity.

Blackberry: Your future chauffeur?

Remember Blackberry? It’s still around—and making headlines. The company just announced its $1.4 billion cash purchase of Cylance, known among other things for AIs that guard against cyberattacks. And in particular, the autonomous car industry has taken notice.

A little over a decade ago, you weren’t cool, much less current, unless you were packing a Blackberry phone. With its tiny mechanical keyboard, groundbreaking trackball, full-color screen, and ingenious, secure integration of text, email, phone, and Internet capabilities, Blackberry was the bee’s knees. So strong was users’ dependence on the darned thing that envious people stuck with fading-star phones like Nokia ruefully dubbed it “crackberry.” 

Yet today, and perhaps you have noticed, not many people are walking around with their eyes and ears glued to Blackberrys. Its demise began in 2007, when Apple debuted iPhone. At the time, Google was set to launch its own phone with a Blackberry-esque design, but with one look at iPhone they round-filed their plans and went to work on what would eventually be the Android Operating System.

As for the folks at Blackberry, they succumbed to the temptation as market leader to rest smugly secure. Blackberry assumed, incorrectly, that their base would remain loyal. WordPerfect Corporation similarly miscalculated when, with the debut of Microsoft Windows, they elected to introduce another DOS-based product. By the time they came up with a Windows-based offering, Microsoft Word was well into eating their lunch.

There’s a lesson in there, and I don’t pretend to be the first to point it out: In a fast-changing environment, businesses and products that fail to adapt face extinction.

That sure has a familiar ring to it. It sounds a lot like this:

It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change.

Were you to attribute the above statement to Charles Darwin, you’d be incorrect but in good company: just about everyone does. Actually, the phrase dates back only to 1963. It appeared in “Lessons from Europe for American Business,” an article written for Southwestern Social Science Quarterly by Leon C. Megginson, who taught at Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge.

To be fair, Megginson was attempting to summarize what Darwin was getting at. But what is significant for present purposes is that Megginson wasn’t a professor of biology. He was a professor of management and marketing.

It wasn’t long before the folks at Blackberry realized they were being left behind. When they hurried and introduced the all-touchscreen Blackberry Storm, it was too little too late, and the device pulled poor reviews. Hoping to cash in on the tablet frenzy, Blackberrry introduced the Playbook. It was feature-poor and also pulled bad reviews.

In 2013, Blackberry brought on John Chen, known for turning companies around, made him CEO, and charged him with the company’s rescue. Under Chen’s leadership, Blackberry adapted—by exiting the phone business. Choosing to capitalize on legendary Blackberry security, the company reinvented itself as a provider of secure mobile device management software. Apps the likes of Blackberry Work, Blackberry UEM Client, and Blackberry Access enjoy a solid reputation and respectable sales.

It wasn’t the first time Blackberry adapted to a changing environment. Prior to making phones, the company, then known as RIM (for Reality In Motion), broke significant ground when it introduced two-way pagers and, later, email pagers. Phones came along yet later.

The Cylance acquisition is definitely a visionary step in Blackberry’s ongoing adaptation. Last week, calling itself “… a billion-dollar cybersecurity firm with the technology portfolio enterprises need to intelligently connect, protect and help build secure endpoints,” Blackberry announced that it had …

… completed its previously-announced acquisition of Cylance, a privately-held artificial intelligence and cybersecurity company based in Irvine, California.

“Today BlackBerry took a giant step forward toward our goal of being the world’s largest and most trusted AI-cybersecurity company,” said John Chen, Executive Chairman and CEO, BlackBerry. “Securing endpoints and the data that flows between them is absolutely critical in today’s hyperconnected world. By adding Cylance’s technology to our arsenal of cybersecurity solutions we will help enterprises intelligently connect, protect and build secure endpoints that users can trust.”

PYMTS.com notes that the addition of Cylance positions Blackberry to participate in a big way in the autonomous car market: 

BlackBerry Engineering VP Rupen Chanda told PYMNTS about the large amount of data that needs to be processed and protected in order for connected cars to operate securely … “We’re talking about literally hundreds of millions of lines of code—and automakers will be responsible for making sure it is all up to industry standards and secured against attacks from cybercriminals.” … The unfortunate reality, he said, is that cybercriminals are already working hard to crack car systems, and will only work harder as cars become more connected and increasingly software-dependent.

The idea of a hacker’s taking over your car while you nap in the backseat is unsettling to say the least. Who knows? The maker of that once-cool phone may one day save your life in traffic. Of course, if Blackberry and Cylink get it right—there’s every reason to believe they will—riders will remain unaware of the close calls they never had.