Hosted by top 5 banking and fintech influencer, Jim Marous, Banking Transformed highlights the challenges facing the banking industry. Featuring some of the top minds in business, this podcast explores how financial institutions can prepare for the future of banking.
While we are not seeing the end of banking, we are observing a changing of the guard in financial services. Powered by a deluge of funding, fintech firms are altering the battlefield for customers and relationships.
Without quick and decisive action, legacy financial institutions could become invisible to consumers and small businesses by 2030. To a degree, this has already occurred in payments. What’s next?
We are very fortunate to have Philippe De Backer and Juan Gonzalez from Arthur D. Little on the Banking Transformed podcast. They discuss the challenges facing traditional banking organizations and the actions that must be taken today for long-term survival.
Jim Marous: Hello, and welcome to Banking Transformed, the top podcast in banking. I'm your host, Jim Marous, owner and CEO of the Digital Bank Report and co-publisher of the Financial Brand. While we are not seeing the end of banking, we are observing a change of the guard in financial services. Powered by a deluge of funding, FinTech firms are altering the battlefield for customers and relationships. Without quick and decisive action, legacy financial institutions could become invisible to consumers and small businesses by as early as 2030. To a degree, this has already occurred in payments. So what's next?
Jim Marous: We are very fortunate to have Philippe DeBacker and Juan Gonzalez from the firm, Arthur D. Little on the show today. They will discuss the challenges facing traditional banking organizations and the actions that must be taken today for long term survival.
Jim Marous: Philippe and Juan, in your book, Disruption: The Future of Banking and Financial Services, How to Navigate and Seize the Opportunities, you make a case that the future of banking may not include the names of the banks that we've become so familiar with unless significant changes are made by traditional financial institutions quickly. What makes such a dismal future even possible at a time when virtually every legacy bank is making money?
Philippe De Backer: Jim, let me start by addressing it. The dismal outlook is really a description of fundamental changes, set of discontinuities. Not that the industry itself is said to be doom and gloom. The challenge will be for the different market participants to align their strategy, their model capabilities, in order to basically address how to pick the right battle for me and how to win within the space.
Jim Marous: Philippe, as you and your team were developing the premise and plan of action going forward for your book, what changed as a result of the pandemic?
Philippe De Backer: The pandemic essentially accelerated, it was a tipping point, but it was not a discontinuity. It might have been a psychological discontinuity in a number of people's minds. But fundamentally things have been in the making for a very long time and we have seen, for instance, the advent of a new distribution model, the advent of technology being applied in a competitive manner for now almost a decade. Therefore, this pandemic serves more as a catalyst than a real driver of change.
Jim Marous: Juan, what stood out from your perspective as the most important trend that is changing banking as we know it today?
Juan Gonzalez: I think it comes from a long time back, which is the fact that customers are losing trust in traditional financial institutions. And that financial institutions tend to see the problem with their eyes, from their point of view, rather than the customer's point of view. What we see is the emergence of new players who are not banks by the technical definition of banks, but who provide services that customers realize that serve as adequate substitutes for services that banks used to provide. They can provide payment services, they can provide savings, they can provide credit, they can provide many of the different services that banks used to provide in a different way and in a way that is much more attuned to customer preferences. That's slowly eroding the trust that clients had in banks in the past, because they see that things can be done differently. That transformation is very slow, but at the same time, very powerful.
Jim Marous: Juan, from your perspective then, it's not like the banks have lost trust because they're not trustworthy, they've lost trust because they haven't kept up with the needs of the consumer?
Philippe De Backer: That's exactly the point. To me, it's banking is essential, banks are not essential. Many banks have not realized that the function is essential, but the way they provide it is not exactly the one that is needed. Also, the big financial crises of late 2008, 2009, this has not helped banks create an impression of being the trusted advisor that they have to be. So they have burned a lot of brownie points in the process.
Jim Marous: Philippe, some of the key imperatives you mentioned in your book is that digital transformation and speed, finding the right leadership, and the role of technology, and importance of innovation are all major components of the future. Which component do you believe is the most important for survival if you were to prioritize those?
Philippe De Backer: As you correctly highlighted, obviously there are a number of drivers and there's no silver bullet. However, there's one common denominator, which basically is capabilities. But more specifically the ability to lead during this transformation and it goes back to management and the leadership in management. That leadership is essentially a required alignment between the board, the C suite and the rest of the organizations in order for all the other elements that drive this change to be aligned and fall into place. But it starts with the CEO, it's leading from the top, having the vision, the courage to pick their battle and just apply it systematically with the support of the board.
Jim Marous: Philippe, if the leadership may not be right, can you invest your way out of the problem? In other words, can the investment in technology offset maybe leadership that's somewhat unwilling to change? Or really is the leadership really the key component you need even more than just a lot of money being spent on technology?
Philippe De Backer: If you've misaligned your strategy, if you have the wrong business model, revenue model, you cannot throw money at the problem. You cannot try to solve some fundamental business and strategic issues through a silver bullet called technology. We've seen the failure of that in previous decades with CRM, that failed to deliver on the promise. Not because the technology was at fault, but because institutions were incapable of leveraging that technology within their business model.
Juan Gonzalez: You can also look at new entrants as the disruptors. Many of them have amazing technologies. Most of them will not make it. Technology on in its own is not going to be the road to riches. It's definitely required, you cannot play without technologies in next generation metaverse or whatever world we're going to move into. Data is going to be at the center, but technology on its own is not going to be the road to riches.
Jim Marous: It's interesting, technology almost becomes the entry point. You have to have good technology to support everything else. But all these other elements come into play. I was fortunate enough to be in [Shenzhen 00:07:53] China and visiting WeBank back in January of 2020. It was interesting, yes, they had amazing technology. They were running four parallel cloud platforms at the same time. But one thing that really stood out was their focus on innovation and how important very quick iterative innovation was. I'm wondering, Juan, how important is the ability to not innovate the big thing, the silver bullet, but really being able to innovate on an iterative basis as quickly as possible?
Juan Gonzalez: To me, that's the most important element in a strategy these days. In a world of changing customer requirements, changing customer preferences, entrants coming from anywhere, everywhere to your traditional domains, your ability to adapt becomes the fundamental capability. It's not that you can set a course and say, "Let's move steadily along this prototype that we have devised," but rather the ability to realize quickly that things are changing and to come back with additional solutions to what customers or competitors propose. You see, it's not only banking, it's the trend that we are seeing in every business that is facilitated by technology. The value of the new cloud players is not in the cost that they provide, but rather their ability to provide new services. The value that we're finding in eCommerce is the variety and the speed that they adjust to customer needs. It's a general trend and banking cannot be isolated from that broad trend.
Jim Marous: Philippe, I'm wondering is the banking industry then, given all these challenges, is the banking industry being lulled into maybe a false sense of security since most banks, as I mentioned earlier, are still very profitable? Attrition appears to be low, and the market share of any single FinTech is really not that significant. Is there a concern here that it may not just feel broken, so that change by itself is being ignored?
Philippe De Backer: It might seem like a contradiction in terms. On one hand, we see fundamental disruptive trends, new entrants, disruptive models, incredible valuation for pure play non banks in the financial sector. At the same time, we see indeed high profit within banks because customer base is fairly sticky. But it's a bit like a restaurant they will die with their last customers. In the meantime, there's a fundamental shift that is happening in the marketplace that there are however, tell-tale sign. These very profitable banks are currently trading at a discount. Today, their market cap is less than net tangible book, which means that the market is basically saying you will be worth tomorrow, less than you are worth today. There's a contrast between where the market views the value creation potential of the entity and where short term accounting reported profits that basically hide the inability for banks to compete successfully and profitably in the years to come.
Jim Marous: As you just mentioned, the market valuation of traditional banking organizations has been hammered as of late. Is the answer to this problem as seen in the United States right now, increased M&A, or retreating from a mission of market share dominance to being more of a specialized big banking model? As I mentioned in the United States we're seeing a lot of organizations combined, but they're not combining to be the big five or the big six. Really they're just combined to be bigger. Is that the answer, or should they be specializing more?
Philippe De Backer: Why would you want to buy legacy assets even at the discount when the market will discount you more? The fundamental issue is that universal banking model has run its course. It hasn't run its course because capital requirements have changed. We've seen those brackets, we have seen the money centers having to pull out of many geographies because the inability to earn their cost of capital based on new regulatory, but also shareholder expectations. Also, a required hard look at the different businesses they're in. So we will see not an increased M&A activity to reach scale, but to refocus their portfolio. The path forward is basically pick your battle, choose the customers, the lines of business, the capabilities, the technology, to create alignment, rather than increase size for the sake of size. Because honestly, when the bracket value of financial institutions is greater than market cap, we know what happens. The M&A is more selling at a premium pieces that you bought at a discount.
Jim Marous: It's interesting, Juan, because when we look at the whole M&A model, it continues to look like the financial institutions are just trying to become come more efficient. They're not really changing the way they serve customers. They're really saying, "Can we deliver our products cheaper than we did before?" But you're not going to get down to the cost basis of what a digital organization can do. So when you look at this and you look in the dynamic of, let's say the big tech firms, what do you see as the ultimate impact of firms like Apple, Google, Amazon, and others on the overall financial services landscape, and even more around the idea of efficiency and customer experience?
Juan Gonzalez: In my view, we need to break apart banks into at least two very different types of businesses. One is transaction processing, which is a scale or efficiency business. When you are recording transactions, the only way to differentiate is to record them more cheaply than your competitors. Okay, that's one business. Then there's another business which is credit and risk taking. Risk taking, you do not go with the cheapest risk analyst, but with the best risk analyst. Risk analysis is built around better understanding of the person or the institution that is asking for credit. Those are completely different businesses.
Juan Gonzalez: Now, the big techs have an advantage on both sides, but for different reasons. They have extremely efficient platforms, extremely efficient platforms. Amazon is able to record a transaction for much less than the cheapest bank is able to record. They have an advantage on the cost processing. But also they understand the customers so much better than banks. The big techs have been able, Google, Amazon, Facebook, to know the customers in a much deeper way than any bank is able to because banks only record the financial transactions, but with these other guys, we are telling them our lives. Someone looking at our lives is much more able to find the sweet spots on who needs resources, is able to repay their resources under which circumstances and the like.
Juan Gonzalez: You have to see companies like Stripe, to take an example. They're extremely efficient on payment processing. But at the same time, they're building such a wealth of knowledge on the customers that they will be able to provide credit in a much more efficient way than any of the traditional banks. That's why I think that technology is attacking from two fronts and it's extremely difficult for a traditional bank to defend itself with this view on we are more efficient, we are bigger, we have the license. That's not enough.
Jim Marous: Philippe, as we mentioned here, the biggest delta between a traditional bank operating model and a FinTech firm is probably efficiency. But it's also the ability to know the customer in a segmented way, or in the big tech world, in a global way. When you look at the efficiency deficit and the customer awareness, or understand the customer deficit of many of the traditional financial institutions, how do the bank or credit union address this difference?
Philippe De Backer: You're quite right to say that traditional banks have lost contact with their own customers. They have actually spent, as you know, decades trying to get customers out of their branches without necessarily having a means of maintaining that customer intimacy. Today, when you're buying a financial product, you go online, check with the community, go and be informed and you're buying decision is made outside of the distribution network or physical network. They are therefore, saddled with a very high transaction cost. Whether they write it off, whether they depreciate over time, the transaction remains high. The challenge will be for the FinTech, on the other hand, as Juan highlighted, is how do I go from being a category killer, that is having extraordinary capabilities in one particular narrow product, usually globally, and then have the right cross sell and business revenue model that makes sense both on the technology capabilities, but also from a customer perspective without falling into the trap of legacy banks? Which is trying to be all things to our people.
Philippe De Backer: Where is the balance? It's essentially a balance around the mitigating point of serving your customer better. As Juan mentioned, not necessarily the cheapest price wins. You really have to look at all the dimensions of customer experience. If the credit union were to fight back, it would have to be first on client intimacy and buying time, the way most legacy banks have done with digital. What they have done is to basically have an app that allows you to check your balance and make payment, but you really don't have a digital interaction or distribution model. As a result, the cost of acquiring a customer or the cost of serving a customer actually went up instead of dropping.
Philippe De Backer: To answer your question, I think as always, the starting point has to be the customer. Again, through intimacy, leverage your existing assets, which is your distribution, and try to accelerate the technology transformation to lower your cost. It's walking on a tight rope, but it's possible. The faster you do it, I think for those that tap the capital markets will be rewarded by the right valuation.
Jim Marous: Philippe and Juan, the entire concept of digital transformation is still relatively undefined for many organizations, despite the mass amount of discussion on this subject. We talked about before the podcast, the fact that even the thought of being a digital bank is sometimes completely mis-defined. To be prepared for the future, where do you both feel organizations need to start? I'll start with you, Philippe.
Philippe De Backer: Organizations must first start with strategy. It's all about defining the choices, where to pick the battles and therefore align the rest of the organization. That sits squarely with the leadership team B to C suite and the board. That has to be the starting point. Secondly, you have to live within your means in the existing situation, rather than dreaming. Most people have a pretty good idea of what the point of arrival might look like. They have far less idea of how to navigate between where they are and where need to end. Therefore, trying, testing, being agile, not being afraid to fail, but quickly adapt is one of the models that has worked well. But it starts with strategy, it starts with knowing where you want to fight, how to pick your battles and what will be the basis of competition.
Jim Marous: Juan, from your perspective is the ability to compete for a bank or credit union defined by size, or is it something else? In other words, can any organization, any size organization succeed and be future ready for competing as we go forward?
Juan Gonzalez: I believe any size organization may probably compete in the future provided they choose where to compete. I don't see a full stack kind of organization with all functions. The production, the distribution, the marketing, all the functions run by a single entity. We are seeing that there can be very efficient organizations, very nimble organizations that focus only on customer engagement. There you don't need to be a huge organization, but rather focus on the segments that you want to cover. You can be a specialist on product, you can be other forms of distribution that become a partner to third parties in different size and shapes. There are functions that will become I guess, more and more scale dependent. Anything that goes in back offices. Back offices that provide no differentiation, only cost, that probably goes through to a long way down to the scale business. But everything that has to do with specialist products, with segments of customers, there you can be a very small, efficient player, and you don't need to cover everything for everyone.
Juan Gonzalez: As Philippe mentioned before, it's not that you can be a small universal bank and succeed, it's an oxymoron. We believe that the universal bank model has run its course and now we will see the emergence of different types of players with different skills and capabilities to compete, size not being essentially one of them.
Jim Marous: Juan, I'm sticking with you, how important is it for leaders and entire organizations to have a challenger mindset? The ability to act quickly, invest efficiently and actually embrace the change that's in front of us, rather than trying to ignore it.
Juan Gonzalez: We believe that it's not only the ability to face change, but also to remember where you come from. We call this [inaudible 00:23:04] dexterity. You need to be able to be adaptive, to be able to exploit what change offers, but also you need to be able to leverage the existing assets you have and provide services very efficiently. It's not that you need to be either/or. So not very effective in innovation, which can open some roads, but once the market matures or that specific service that you're providing matures, then you need to be able also to provide that in a very efficient manner because banking is an extremely competitive business. Not only the traditional banks, but with the new entrants, it's becoming extremely competitive. So you need to have both abilities inside. This ability to explore innovation and to be very efficient providing services. Don't forget, don't put all your eggs in the innovation adaptability basket. You need also to be extremely efficient.
Jim Marous: Philippe, when you look globally at organizations in the financial services area, what organizations excite you because you think, "They're getting it right," both from a scale and a speed and a customer focused perspective. What organizations in any country right now are maybe not getting it right, but on the right path to getting it right?
Philippe De Backer: Who will be among legacy players first, and then we'll think in terms of the new entrants. Because I believe that the challenge resides as much with the new model, so-called FinTech or digital model as it resides with legacy banks. One cannot fail to be impressed with a bank like JP Morgan. The reason why I mention that is that they have really started by first picking their battles. If you look at their revenue model domestically, they are in some businesses, but they don't necessarily pursue that universal banking model geographically. It's basically a capital market firm internationally and it's a corporate bank with a bit of retail for balance sheet reasons in North America. Secondly, they have embraced technology in a massive manner to embed capabilities, but also building alliance. I think it's an interesting example because it's the largest bank and they've managed to reach to scale.
Philippe De Backer: On the other side of the spectrum, we've seen some banks being challenged. If we look at market cap as an indicator, we see for instance, a Deutsche Bank is really being challenged, trying to find its roots strategically. They went from guardrail to guardrail over the past 10, 15 years, and now they're trying to find their new strategic point of arrival.
Philippe De Backer: On the new models, ultimately, what we see is the race for customer acquisition only as a driver of value creation will not necessarily be sufficient. You cannot in financial services, simply play the Chinese money game by playing the valuation increase to avoid dilution. At one point in time, the increased number of customers has to translate into income and profit. We've seen some of that faltering happening with the Robin Hoods of the world, et cetera. But if you get it right, then a Stripe, as Juan mentioned, is executing so well on their payment, but also now their treasury products, building on their core capabilities. Again, picking their battles and focusing very well on where to play and how to win.
Jim Marous: Is there any neobank out there that is a new player in the banking arena that is seeming to get it right? Is there any neobank that's going to be able to be similar to a traditional bank, not from a global standpoint and not even maybe across all product lines, but is there any organization that you see doing it pretty well right now?
Juan Gonzalez: Forecasting is difficult, especially when you talk about the future. There's a few banks, neobanks that seem to be doing it right. Nubank in Latin America for one, seems to be going the right way. Starling Bank in the UK, a smaller one, but seems to be working in the right direction. N26 has moved fast and is retreating a little bit. I think they have solid foundations, but the jury is still out. Those seem to be the full banks, reinvented banks in a way. I would look more into providers of specific services like payments and there's a lot of change in the payments space now. Stripe seems to be a winner, but we will see the [inaudible 00:28:19], what happens with the new forms and what Apple is doing is intriguing. That may change the paradigm there. Those to me, are the companies.
Juan Gonzalez: I like very much, very small niche players like OakNorth in the UK, who provide very specific services for SMEs. Those kind of things, that's when you ask me is the scale the only way to play? I think no, there's ways to play without being a full scale, fully fledged bank and then being able to provide good returns to your shareholders and good services to your customers, which I think is essential to reach that level of valuation that we're talking about.
Jim Marous: It's interesting, we talk also about open banking quite a bit. Are there any organizations that you see right now, and I'm not talking about maybe the ones who are trying to make this super app platform. But are there any organizations that seem to be doing well in the open banking environment outside of China?
Philippe De Backer: Well, let's define open banking. The modest definition is the ability for a customer to consolidate their different statements and the host bank have access to other banks' statements. However, that doesn't really address the core of open banking. Ultimately, the real open banking is embedded finance and the non-banks there have a huge advantage. Why? Because they're driving the client relationship. One cannot fail to see how well an Amazon or Alibaba have done in capturing every possible financial flows, both on a B2C B2B and B2C. Really capturing absolutely every part of the financial flows.
Juan Gonzalez: I would say that you have players like Cross River providing backend services. They are leveraging the open banking model for their advantage. When you think about open banking, everyone thinks about customer facing. But if someone's doing customer facing, someone has to do the operations in the back. There's a space of opportunity for people such as The Bancorp or Cross River, who provide backend services, who are in my view, are building an effective way to think about open banking.
Juan Gonzalez: Or you have companies like [inaudible 00:30:50] who are creating a new space. They're not a bank, but they have so much information about each customer that they can provide a level of intimacy that no existing entity can provide. Open banking is I think much richer than the pure separation of front to back. When you break something, you create more opportunities for smart players to leverage the holes that appear in the cheese.
Jim Marous: Now, do you see a potential for brand new revenue models coming out of the open banking environment, where you'll be able to get revenue from third party providers that want to have access to specific customer sets? Is banking looking at this not as globally as they should? Not globally from a geographic standpoint, but from an overall product standpoint. Are they not aware of the fact that there can be significant revenue opportunities and new ways to build revenue models?
Juan Gonzalez: We have seen a couple of examples of entities, not banks, but rather new entrants thinking about subscription models, which are intriguing, but there's definitely a way to think about them. There could be advertising support models. Definitely when you have information about the customers, there's ways to leverage advertising; embedded or in between with other services. There's definitely new players who are thinking about new ways to interact with the customer in a way that banks have not traditionally thought of because they were very focused on a specific transaction. I charge you for your checking account or for check processing or for whatever. Then I charge you money for the spread between the price I get money, from the price I lend you money. There's many ways that are emerging. Many of them link to eCommerce platforms who have rethought value for the customer and have started to push around these new models
Philippe De Backer: And the most holistic level, the big change is that banking was defined by the regulators in compartmentalized business lines. Today, banking has become a transversal capability that cuts across every economic sectors, every business that used to be at arm's length. Today, we see that convergence and that creates opportunities, as Juan mentioned, that did not exist before.
Jim Marous: Philippe, when you look at where banks and credit unions are today, traditional banks and credit unions, and you look at how much change has to take place, how important are third party alliances and partnerships to be able to get up to speed, to get up to the scale quick enough? How important is this to the potential for success?
Philippe De Backer: I think it's absolutely critical. In fact, it is one of the key advantages of technology. It allows you to integrate different parties into a coherent delivery model. The advantage is twofold. Number one, for the ones who execute well, a vast part of their cost structure will become variable as opposed to fixed. And secondly, they will benefit on the portfolio scale of the service or product provider. Which means that new entrants can from day one, be at scale on a unit cost because they have so many customers and they have scale. Or they basically have variable cost because they'll pay per customer or per transaction. So absolutely critical.
Jim Marous: It's interesting, when I picked up your book and read it, what I liked was, I liked a lot of things about it. But one thing I thought was really interesting was at the end of the book, you provided 11 questions that financial institutions should ask themselves to determine if they're future ready. Is there one question, I'll ask this of both of you, is there one question that stands out as being this is the one that probably is key? This is the one that's probably more important than the rest.
Philippe De Backer: I think the first one really has to do around the choices around customers and markets and models. This is where I think the biggest mistakes, where the value at stake is the highest and where people are afraid of saying no to many and yes, to very few opportunities. All the questions pertaining to where to play requires diligence, courage, leadership, and organizational alignment.
Jim Marous: Boy, that's good. How about you, Juan? What was your question that you thought, "Boy, it may not be the most important, but it's certainly doggone important from the standpoint of understanding if it's going to hold you back or not."
Juan Gonzalez: My favorite one is question number 10. Are you willing to set aside your corporate ego? Because many times when we discuss these topics with banks, with bank executives. Not with banks, but with bank executives, the first thing we get, "But these guys we're competing against, they're not banks." So what? It doesn't matter. Then if they are banks, they are [inaudible 00:36:48]. It's from a position of superiority. Bank executives tend to have a disdain for these new entrants, which I believe is the weakest link in their defense strategies. If you don't recognize that there is change coming against you, it's very difficult that you will start the process that Philippe was mentioning of rethink your strategy, take the courage to make changes, look for the leaders that will be in place to run the game. There's no danger and Jim, you were asking it once and many times over, we are making good money. Why should we worry about it? We are fine. To me, that's the weak point that they should address.
Jim Marous: It's interesting, Philippe earlier mentioned Chase and JP Morgan Chase. I think it's interesting to see what they're doing right now, and even more interesting to see how Jamie Dimon is not only educating his bank, but educating the investor public to say, "You know what? We have to pay attention to these other players. We need to do things differently than we've ever done them before." And its most recent battle, we need to invest much more in research and development and in innovation at a time when shareholders usually just expect those earnings to be rolled back into their pockets, as opposed to into the research and development area. It's what really stood out between what I'm used to in the United States and what I saw in China, was the commitment to R&D across the board.
Jim Marous: When we talk about disruption, your book, Disruption, really does a great job of discussing what the financial institutions have to do to make their future more likely to be successful. How do my listeners get ahold of your book, Philippe?
Philippe De Backer: It's available online and it has been well received by the major critics. I encourage people to read, I think it's a great read. We're simply trying to help readers pause and think for themselves. It's not a silver bullet, as you highlighted. It's a number of questions at the end. But hopefully it will help everyone think and look at disruption and transformation differently.
Jim Marous: It's interesting, I like the book the way it's structured, because it really laid out what the problems were, how FinTech organizations are addressing these problems in many cases better than legacy financial institutions. As I talk about on my podcast and in my webinars and such, sometimes I tend to want to make the client or the listening audience sick before I make them well. You do this in your book and you also provide a lot of guidance as to every organization going to have to look at these situations differently. There's not just one answer. But I think what's interesting is the 11 questions in the back of your book really have a wake up call to organizations and say, "Here's how you identify if you're sick, here's how to identify if you're not being aware of what's around you. And here's how to identify the potential and the opportunities out there."
Jim Marous: Thank you both for being on the show today. I really appreciate our time together.
Philippe De Backer: Great being on the show. Thank you for inviting us.
Juan Gonzalez: Thank you very much.
Jim Marous: Thanks for listening to Banking Transformed, winner of three international awards for podcast excellence. If you enjoy what we're doing, please take 30 to 45 seconds to give us a review on your favorite podcast platform. It really helps us to get the kind of guests we have today. Finally, be sure to catch my articles on the Financial Brand and check out the research we're doing for the Digital Bank Report.
Jim Marous: This has been a production of Evergreen Podcasts. A special thank you to our producer, Leah Longbrake, audio engineer, Sean [inaudible 00:40:53] Hoffman and video producer, Will Pritts. I'm your host, Jim Marous, and till next time remember as Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase stated, "Incumbent banks should be scared shitless of FinTech rivals."