Connect with us

News

Why fintech upstarts have failed to unseat UK banks

Published

on

Why fintech upstarts have failed to unseat UK banks

In a 2018 letter to new staff members, digital bank Monzo outlined a lofty series of ambitions. The company said it aimed “to do for personal finance what Facebook has done for keeping up with your friends, or Google for finding information”.

The company, barely three years old at the time, also set a “long-term goal” of reaching a billion customers worldwide. Alongside a new cohort of challengers that also included Starling and Revolut, it was on a mission to usurp “legacy” banks, particularly the Big Four of HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds and NatWest that dominate the UK market.

A decade after these fintechs burst on to the scene, they have arguably succeeded in their mission of setting new standards for digital banking; features such as foreign currency transactions and bill-splitting, along with reliable, smartphone-friendly technology, are loved by younger customers.

“They have been amazing at challenging some of the norms in the industry,” says Tom Merry, a partner at consultancy Accenture.

But they are now being tested in a downturn. The plentiful venture capital that financed their heady growth — globally, the sector attracted $102bn in investment in 2021 — is drying up. Yet they are still burning through cash to acquire new customers while higher interest rates are driving increased competition for consumer deposits.

Advertisement

You are seeing a snapshot of an interactive graphic. This is most likely due to being offline or JavaScript being disabled in your browser.

Traditional high-street banks have raised their game by upgrading their own digital banking services, with the result that about 60 per cent of adults living in Britain now use a mobile banking app, up from 33 per cent in 2015, according to trade body UK Finance

Critics say consumers are using neobanks as a convenient payment management service, rather than as a replacement for traditional current accounts.

Investors in fintechs are increasingly scrutinising the neobanks’ differing business models and assets, looking for proof they can be durably profitable and attract sufficient deposits to fund lending.

Their managers are working out alternative ways to generate revenue, including monetising data and licensing technology to others.

Advertisement

“Are neobanks an evolution or are they a revolution? They feel like an evolution,” says Tom Mendoza, fintech partner at EQT venture.

“Many of them are good companies but they will not fundamentally disrupt the fabric of retail banking.”


Launched within a year of each other between 2014 and 2015, the UK’s three leading digital challengers all benefited from ready access to venture capital funding.

The companies quickly reached “unicorn” status — defined as a private valuation of above $1bn — and valuations ballooned higher still during the mania for tech stocks. Revolut became the UK’s top fintech in 2021 after a funding round led by Japanese investment group SoftBank implied a $33bn valuation, though two of its investors last year reduced the carrying values of their stakes.

All have enjoyed a decade of rapid growth in customer numbers but pursued increasingly differentiated strategies.

Advertisement

Revolut is Europe’s largest neobank with 40mn customers worldwide. It has opted for rapid expansion across multiple markets and attracted users with a broad suite of services including multi-currency current accounts, cheap foreign exchange and cryptocurrency trading.

The fintech is based in London, where its offices are emblazoned with neon signs exhorting staff to “get shit done”, but licensed as a bank in Lithuania. Its application for a licence in the UK, its single biggest market, has been stalled for more than three years; the departure of several senior executives and a warning from auditors that it may have “materially misstated” its revenues on its 2021 accounts have not helped.

Anne Boden, chief executive of Starling
Anne Boden, chief executive of Starling. Its focus on banking for small businesses has helped it to reach an almost 10 per cent share of that market © Geoff Caddick/AFP/Getty Images

Starling and Monzo secured UK banking licences in 2016 and 2017, respectively. But the two banks, which split from the same company following a row between founders Anne Boden and Tom Blomfield, have also pursued divergent paths.

Monzo has focused on retail customers, while Starling has also expanded into banking for small businesses and built up a 9 per cent share of that market. 

Starling is also the only one of the three that is currently profitable, posting a £195mn pre-tax profit in the year to March 2023. Monzo and Revolut say they expect to do so in their next set of accounts.

Profitability has moved to the top of the agenda for the sector as higher interest rates and an investment slowdown in the last two years forced companies to drop their “growth at all costs” mindset.

Advertisement

Global fintech investment has dropped by nearly 50 per cent in 2023 compared with the previous year, according to trade body Innovate Finance.

Neobanks have undeniably achieved one of their mission statements: making digital banking easy. Their designed-for-mobile interfaces attracted a new generation of customers while clever graphics, clear copywriting and intuitive budgeting tools helped foster transparency around personal finance.

Features such as the ability to split bills, temporarily freeze bank cards, move money and get payment notifications in real time within an app have become staples of modern-day banking.

You are seeing a snapshot of an interactive graphic. This is most likely due to being offline or JavaScript being disabled in your browser.

Unlike traditional banks, whose IT often comprised multiple layers of mostly server-based systems, further complicated by mergers and acquisitions, fintechs have relied on newer, cloud-based applications.

They were also run like start-ups. Managers encouraged staff to move quickly to build and test new products. Lucas Johnston, a former software engineer at Starling and Monzo who now works in the FT’s consulting arm, recalls the nascent industry embracing “the Silicon Valley mantra of constantly talking to customers and iterating on [their] products”.

Advertisement

“That, combined with a relatively young team typically from a tech background working with a modern tech stack, meant that they found the core features that consumers wanted,” he says. 

Within a few years of existence, the new banks had forced some of the nation’s largest and oldest financial institutions to pour millions of pounds into the development of their own apps in order to compete with their younger peers. The big banks not only borrowed some of the fintechs’ flagship features, they also poached staff from their ranks.

“The progress that has been made by the incumbent high street banks would not have happened absent the intervention that these neobanks have made,” says Merry.

But the ability to quickly open accounts and make transfers has also proved a boon for criminals. Britons lost £1.2bn to financial fraud last year, according to trade body UK Finance, with experts pointing to the country’s digitised banking industry as a factor.

The start-ups struggled to scale up their anti-financial crime capacities at the same speed they were attracting new users, while a wave of new sanctions imposed after Russia’s 2021 invasion of Ukraine increased the amount of due diligence banks had to conduct on new customers.

Advertisement

The Financial Conduct Authority in 2022 warned that a spike in “suspicious activity reports” to the National Crime Agency had raised “concerns about the adequacy of [neobanks’] checks when taking on new customers”. The year before, the watchdog launched an investigation into Monzo over potential breaches of financial crime regulations. 

“There cannot be a trade-off between quick and easy account opening and robust financial crime control,” FCA executive director Sarah Pritchard said at the time. 

Tom Blomfield co-founded Monzo in 2015
Tom Blomfield co-founded Monzo in 2015. Higher interest rates and a recent investment slowdown has forced fintechs to drop their ‘growth at all costs’ mindsets © Charlie Bibby/Financial Times

A separate report from the UK’s Payment Systems Regulator said that Monzo and Starling had some of the highest fraud rates in 2022, with only 6 per cent of those who reported fraud to Monzo fully reimbursed by the bank — compared to 44 per cent for Starling, 70 per cent for NatWest and 91 per cent for Nationwide.

Revolut’s compliance has also raised concerns. A flaw in its payment system in the US allowed criminals to steal more than $20mn of company funds over several months in 2022, the FT has previously reported.

The FCA has also investigated Revolut over allegations it allowed money to be released from accounts flagged by the National Crime Agency as suspicious.


The push for profitability will require the challengers to tweak their business models away from simply acquiring more customers.

Advertisement

“The neobanks recognise they will not survive at scale and be sustainably profitable without a two-sided balance sheet [with loans and deposits] that’s deep, but they are not there yet,” said Accenture’s Merry.

Conventional banks have traditionally offered current accounts at little or no profit to attract customers and provide deposits that can then be recycled into mortgages and personal loans.

The differential between the interest paid on those deposits and that charged on loans — the so-called net interest margin — underpins their profits. Customers are also upsold other products, such as credit cards, insurance and investment services.

£1.2bnAmount Britons lost to financial fraud last year, according to trade body UK Finance

By contrast, and despite attempts to push into new areas including buy-to-let mortgages for Starling and passive investing for Monzo, fintechs still derive most of their revenue from transaction fees and interest on cash deposited with central banks.

Advertisement

“Outside of the current account, there hasn’t really been any other game-changing propositions [from neobanks],” says Julian Sawyer, who co-founded Starling but left the bank in 2019 and now works in crypto.

Many of their customers still rely on a traditional bank account to receive salary payments, then use the convenient functionality of a neobank to manage payments.

Jayne Opperman, chief executive of consumer relationships at Lloyds Banking Group, says that while many Lloyds customers hold multiple bank accounts, they still want “a trusted bank” and tend to rely on the legacy institutions for big life transactions such as buying a home.

Investors are closely watching the fintechs’ shares of “primary bank accounts” — typically those that receive salary payments. An FCA review in 2022 estimated that UK neobanks had a market share of about 8 per cent of personal current accounts.

But the same review found that relative to big banks, a smaller proportion of those were primary accounts. “This results in lower balances, lower volumes of transactions, and lower overdraft usage [leading] to lower funding benefits and less scope to generate fee income.”

Advertisement

Fintechs downplay the importance of primacy. Revolut’s head of growth, Antoine Le Nel, says that while “we may not have too many people bringing their salaries . . . we have a lot of people who move all their money to Revolut the day after”.

Its customers move about £2,000 to their Revolut account every month, Le Nel says. The company estimates that more than a third of its customers use Revolut as their primary bank account for day-to-day payments.

Revolut chief executive Nikolay Storonsky
Revolut chief executive Nikolay Storonsky. The digital bank is thinking of diversifying its revenue sources by moving into areas such as advertising © Charlie Bibby/FT

Monzo chief executive TS Anil told the FT in March that while it does not publish the percentage of salaries paid into its current accounts, “the quality of engagement” of its users was “off the charts” relative to the UK market.

Monzo and Starling rank ahead of other banks when it comes to how likely customers would be to recommend them to friends and families, according to an industry-wide survey conducted by Ipsos.

“Whether you look at weekly transactions, bank retention, customer love, net promoter score, it’s no accident that the largest share of our user growth comes from word of mouth and organic channels,” said Anil.

Even if digital banks can convince customers to trust them with a larger portion of their money, they will have to contend with wider structural changes in the UK banking market.

Advertisement

Analysts say that customers who would once have relied on a single institution for many of their financial needs — a frequent quip used to be that Britons were more likely to change their spouse than their bank — are increasingly using a potpourri of services from various providers.

One person may use Starling or Monzo to buy groceries while holding a mortgage with NatWest, sending cross-border payments via listed fintech Wise and trading crypto on Revolut.

60%Percentage of adults living in Britain that now use a mobile banking app, up from 33 per cent in 2015

Neobanks are also rushing to explore new sources of revenue beyond the traditional business of banking. Starling is betting that franchising its technological knowhow will boost its valuation, Monzo is expanding into the US, while Revolut is diversifying into areas such as advertising.

In addition to the reinvigoration of high-street banks, fintechs are also facing competition from digital challenger Chase UK, which has attracted more than 2mn customers since its launch in 2021 by offering market-leading interest rates, cashback promotions and a slick app.

Advertisement

Backed by US banking giant JPMorgan Chase, it is expected to launch a credit card this year and expand into Europe. Chief executive Kuba Fast says Chase UK was in “a unique position”, able to offer a fintech-like experience “with the reassurance of an established and trusted bank”.

Merry considers it unlikely that a large bank would acquire a fintech, even though their valuations have moderated. A purchaser would have to put in heavy investment, and the operational risks of adapting tech platforms designed for a smaller pool of customers and business lines to a wider product range and many more clients would be significant, he says.

Alex Barkley, head of strategic partnerships at HSBC Ventures, agrees most big banks would not want to write “a cheque that large”. Listing a fintech on the stock market would also be difficult, given that most still lose money and that the share price performance of challenger banks such as Metro has been poor.

Sir Ron Kalifa, who authored a government-commissioned review into the competitiveness of fintech in the UK, says collaboration between big banks and fintechs would benefit the industry as this would allow the latter to combine their tech and agility with the scale, customer bases and regulatory expertise of traditional banks.

But others argue that the main beneficiaries of the investment that has poured into fintechs have been consumers. “It’s silly to suggest that neobanks have materially challenged the hegemony of traditional institutions,” says Barkley.

Advertisement

“Arguably, their only lasting impact is pushing big banks to improve their own digital platforms.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Trump Says Israel and Lebanon Agree to Extend Cease-Fire by Three Weeks

Published

on

Trump Says Israel and Lebanon Agree to Extend Cease-Fire by Three Weeks

President Trump announced a three-week extension of a cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon that had been set to expire in a few days, after hosting a meeting between Israeli and Lebanese diplomats at the White House on Thursday.

Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group that has been attacking Israel from southern Lebanon, did not have representatives at the meeting and did not immediately comment on the announcement. The prime minister of Israel and the president of Lebanon also did not comment.

A successful peace agreement would hinge upon Hezbollah halting attacks, which Lebanon’s government has little power to enforce because it does not control the militia. Lebanon’s military has mostly stayed out of the fighting and is not at war with Israel.

The cease-fire, which was scheduled to end on April 26, would last until May 17 if it takes effect as Mr. Trump described it. Before the cease-fire was brokered last week, nearly 2,300 people were killed in Lebanon and 13 in Israel. Since then, the number of Israeli airstrikes and Hezbollah attacks have been dramatically reduced, though the two sides have continued exchanging fire.

The Lebanese Ambassador to the United States, Nada Hamadeh, credited Mr. Trump for extending the cease-fire, saying that “with your help and support, we can make Lebanon great again.” Mr. Trump replied, “I like that phrase, it’s a good phrase.”

Advertisement

Asked about the potential of a lasting peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon, Mr. Trump said that “I think there’s a great chance. They are friends about the same things and they are enemies on the same things.”

But Lebanon and Israel have periodically been at war since Israel’s founding in 1948. Israel has invaded Lebanon for the fifth time since 1978, incursions that have destabilized the country and the delicate balance of power between Muslim, Christian and Druze communities.

In the hours before the president’s announcement on social media, Israel and Hezbollah were trading attacks in southern Lebanon, testing the existing cease-fire.

Mr. Trump said the meeting at the White House had been attended by high-ranking U.S. officials, including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the U.S. ambassadors to Israel and Lebanon.

Earlier on Thursday, an Israeli strike near the southern Lebanese city of Nabatieh killed three people, according to Lebanon’s health ministry. Hezbollah claimed three separate attacks on Israeli troops who are occupying southern Lebanon, though none were wounded or killed.

Advertisement

Hezbollah set off the latest round of fighting last month by attacking Israel soon after the start of the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign in Iran. Israel responded to Hezbollah’s attacks by launching airstrikes across Lebanon and widening a ground invasion of the country’s south.

Continue Reading

News

U.S. soldier charged with suspected Polymarket insider trading over Maduro raid

Published

on

U.S. soldier charged with suspected Polymarket insider trading over Maduro raid

Smoke rises from Port of La Guaira in Venezuela on Jan. 3, 2026 after U.S. forces seized the country’s president, Nicolas Maduro and his wife.

Jesus Vargas/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jesus Vargas/Getty Images

Federal prosecutors on Thursday unsealed an indictment against a U.S. Army soldier, accusing him of using his insider knowledge of the clandestine military operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January to reap more than $400,000 in profits on the popular prediction market site Polymarket.

The Justice Department says Gannon Ken Van Dyke, 38, who was stationed at Fort Bragg, in North Carolina, was part of the team that planned and carried out the predawn raid in Caracas earlier this year that resulted in the apprehension of Maduro.

The Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed the actions against Van Dyke, the first time U.S. officials have leveled criminal charges against someone over prediction market wagers.

Advertisement

According to the indictment, Van Dyke now faces counts of wire fraud, commodities fraud, misusing non-public government information and other charges.

Trading under numerous usernames including “Burdensome-Mix,” Van Dyke allegedly traded about $32,000 on the arrest of Maduro, resulting in profits exceeding $400,000.

“Prediction markets are not a haven for using misappropriated confidential or classified information for personal gain,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton for the Southern District of New York. “Those entrusted to safeguard our nation’s secrets have a duty to protect them and our armed service members, and not to use that information for personal financial gain.”

Van Dyke’s defense lawyer is not yet publicly known. Polymarket did not return a request for comment.

The charges against Van Dyke come at a sensitive time for the prediction market industry, which has been growing exponentially, despite calls in Washington and among state leaders for the sites to be reined in.

Advertisement

Van Dyke is the first to be charged in the U.S. for suspected Polymarket insider trading, but Israeli authorities in February arrested several people and charged two on suspicion of using classified information to place bets about military operations in Iran on Polymarket.

Continue Reading

News

Senate Adopts GOP Budget, Laying the Groundwork to Fund ICE and Reopen DHS

Published

on

Senate Adopts GOP Budget, Laying the Groundwork to Fund ICE and Reopen DHS

The Senate early Thursday morning adopted a Republican budget blueprint that would pave the way for a $70 billion increase for immigration enforcement and the eventual reopening of the Department of Homeland Security.

Republicans pushed through the plan on a nearly party-line vote of 50 to 48. It came after an overnight marathon of rapid-fire votes, known as a vote-a-rama, in which the G.O.P. beat back a series of Democratic proposals aimed at addressing the high cost of health care, housing, food and energy. The debate put the two parties’ dueling messages on vivid display six months before the midterm elections.

Republicans, who are using the budget plan to lay the groundwork to eventually push through a filibuster-proof bill providing a multiyear funding stream for President Trump’s immigration crackdown, used the all-night session to highlight their hard-line stance on border security, seeking to portray Democrats as unwilling to safeguard the country.

Democrats tried and failed to add a series of changes aimed at addressing cost-of-living issues, seizing the opportunity to hammer Republicans as out of touch with and unwilling to act on the concerns of everyday Americans.

Here’s what to know about the budget plan and the nocturnal ritual senators engaged in before adopting it.

Advertisement

The budget blueprint is a crucial piece of Republicans’ plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security and end a shutdown that has lasted for more than two months. After Democrats refused to fund immigration enforcement without new restrictions on agents’ tactics and conduct, the G.O.P. struck a deal with them to pass a spending bill that would fund everything but ICE and the Border Patrol. Republicans said they would fund those agencies through a special budget bill that Democrats could not block.

“We can fix this with Republican votes, and we will,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and the Budget Committee chairman. “Every Democrat has opposed money for the Border Patrol and ICE at a time of great peril.”

In resorting to a new budget blueprint, Republicans laid the groundwork to deny Democrats a chance to stop the immigration enforcement funding. But they also submitted themselves to a vote-a-rama, in which any senator can propose unlimited changes to such a measure before it is adopted.

The budget measure now goes to the House, which must adopt it before lawmakers in both chambers can draft the legislation funding immigration enforcement. That bill will provide yet another opportunity for a vote-a-rama even closer to the November election.

Democrats took to the floor to criticize Republicans for supercharging funding for federal immigration enforcement rather than moving legislation that would address Americans’ concerns over affordability.

Advertisement

“This is what Republicans are fighting for,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the Democratic leader. “To maintain two unchecked rogue agencies that are dreaded in all corners of this country instead of reducing your health care costs, your housing costs, your grocery costs, your gas costs.”

Democrats offered a host of amendments along those lines, all of which were defeated by Republicans — and that was the point. The proposals were meant to put the G.O.P. in a tough political spot, showcasing their opposition to helping Americans afford high living costs. Fewer than a handful of G.O.P. senators crossed party lines to support them.

The G.O.P. thwarted an effort by Mr. Schumer to require that the budget measure lower out-of-pocket health care costs for Americans. Two Republicans who are up for re-election this year, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, voted with Democrats, but the proposal was still defeated.

Republicans also squelched a move by Senator Ben Ray Lujan, Democrat of New Mexico, to create a fund that would lower grocery costs and reverse cuts to food aid programs that Republicans enacted last year. Ms. Collins and Mr. Sullivan again joined Democrats.

Also defeated by the G.O.P.: a proposal by Senator John Hickenlooper, Democrat of Colorado, to address rising consumer prices brought on by Mr. Trump’s tariffs and the war in Iran; one by Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, to require the budget measure to address rising electricity prices, and another by Mr. Markey to create a fund to bring down housing costs.

Advertisement

Senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat who is up for re-election in Georgia, also sought to add language requiring the budget plan to address health insurance companies denying or delaying access to care, but that, too was blocked by Republicans.

While Republicans had fewer proposals for changes to their own budget plan, they also sought to offer measures that would underscore their aggressive stance on immigration enforcement and dare Democrats to vote against them.

Mr. Graham offered an amendment to allocate funds toward a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the apprehension and deportation of adult immigrants convicted of rape, murder, or sexual abuse of a minor after illegally entering the United States. It passed unanimously.

Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, sought to bar Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion and other services, and criticized the organization for providing transgender care to minors. Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, also attempted to tack on the G.O.P. voter identification bill, known as the SAVE America Act. Both proposals were blocked when Democrats, joined by a few Republicans, voted to strike them as unrelated to the budget plan.

The Republicans who crossed party lines to oppose their own party’s proposals for new voting requirements were Ms. Collins along with Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

Advertisement

Ms. Collins and Ms. Murkowski also opposed the effort to block payments to Planned Parenthood.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending