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.”

News

Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy loses in Republican primary, does not advance to runoff

Published

on

Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy loses in Republican primary, does not advance to runoff

One observer of the current Senate race in Louisiana noted that Sen. Bill Cassidy could lose his reelection bid.

Annie Flanagan for NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Annie Flanagan for NPR

Sen. Bill Cassidy lost Saturday’s Louisiana Republican primary according to a race call by the Associated Press.

Cassidy, who served two terms in the Senate, was one of seven Republican senators who voted to convict President Trump after the January 6th insurrection at the Capitol. That vote put him at odds with Trump and his MAGA coalition, ultimately leading Trump to push Rep. Julia Letlow to run against Cassidy.

Cassidy’s bid for a third term was viewed as a test of Trump’s grip on the party–and of what voters want from their representatives in Washington. The primary pitted Cassidy, a veteran lawmaker, former physician and chair of the powerful Senate health committee, against Letlow, a political newcomer and a millennial MAGA loyalist.

Advertisement
A detailed view of a hat that reads, Run Julia Run, is seen at a campaign event for Rep. Julia Letlow (R-LA) on May 6, 2026 in Franklinton, Louisiana.

A detailed view of a hat that reads, Run Julia Run, is seen at a campaign event for Rep. Julia Letlow (R-LA) on May 6, 2026 in Franklinton, Louisiana.

Tyler Kaufman/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Tyler Kaufman/Getty Images

Advertisement

A former college administrator, Letlow won a special election in 2021 for the House seat her late husband, Luke, was set to assume before he died from COVID in 2020.

In Congress, Letlow sponsored a bill to collect oral histories from the pandemic and has focused on education and children. She introduced the “Parents Bill of Rights Act,” which would allow parents to review classroom materials like library books and require schools to notify parents if their child requests different pronouns, locker rooms or sports teams.

She also serves on the powerful appropriations committee and has embraced Trump’s agenda.

Advertisement

Letlow, who came first in Saturday’s primary, will face Louisiana state Treasurer John Fleming in the runoff on June 27. Cassidy came in third.

The election result is a victory for President Trump who has put Republican loyalty to the test on the ballot so far this year in Indiana state senate primaries and in Cassidy’s race.

Another major test of Trump’s influence comes in Kentucky’s primary on Tuesday when Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, who has found himself at odds with the president, faces a challenger endorsed by Trump.

Continue Reading

News

Brass bands in Beijing make way for sticker shock at home as Trump returns to escalating inflation

Published

on

Brass bands in Beijing make way for sticker shock at home as Trump returns to escalating inflation

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump returned from the spectacle of a Chinese state visit to a less than welcoming U.S. economy — with the military band and garden tour in Beijing giving way to pressure over how to fix America’s escalating inflation rate.

Consumer inflation in the United States increased to 3.8% annually in April, higher than what he inherited as the Iran war and the Republican president’s own tariffs have pushed up prices. Inflation is now outpacing wage gains and effectively making workers poorer. The Cleveland Federal Reserve estimates that annual inflation could reach 4.2% in May as the war has kept oil and gasoline prices high.

Trump’s time with Chinese leader Xi Jinping appears unlikely to help the U.S. economy much, despite Trump’s claims of coming trade deals. The trip occurred as many people are voting in primaries leading into the November general election while having to absorb the rising costs of gasoline, groceries, utility bills, jewelry, women’s clothing, airplane tickets and delivery services. Democrats see the moment as a political opportunity.

“He’s returning to a dumpster fire,” said Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal think tank focused on economic issues. “The president will not have the faith and confidence of the American people — the economy is their top issue and the president is saying, ‘You’re on your own.’”

The president’s trip to Beijing and his recent comments that indicated a tone-deafness to voters’ concerns about rising prices have suggested his focus is not on the American public and have undermined Republicans who had intended to campaign on last year’s tax cuts as helping families.

Advertisement

Trump described the trip as a victory, saying on social media that Xi “congratulated me on so many tremendous successes,” as the U.S. president has praised their relationship.

Trump told reporters that Boeing would be selling 200 aircraft — and maybe even 750 “if they do a good job” — to the Chinese. He said American farmers would be “very happy” because China would be “buying billions of dollars of soybeans.”

“We had an amazing time,” Trump said as he flew home on Air Force One, and told Fox News’ Bret Baier in an interview that gasoline prices were just some “short-term pain” and would “drop like a rock” once the war ends.

Inflationary pain is not a factor in how Trump handles Iran

Trump departed from the White House for China by saying the negotiations over the Iran war depended on stopping Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing: We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said.

That remark prompted blowback because it suggested to some that Trump cared more about challenging Iran than fighting inflation at home. Trump defended his words, telling Fox News: “That’s a perfect statement. I’d make it again.”

Advertisement

The White House has since stressed that Trump is focused on inflation.

Asked later about the president’s words, Vice President JD Vance said there had been a “misrepresentation” of the remarks. White House spokesman Kush Desai said the “administration remains laser-focused on delivering growth and affordability on the homefront” while indicating actions would be taken on grocery prices.

But as Trump appeared alongside Xi, new reports back home showed inflation rising for businesses and interest rates climbing on U.S. government debt.

His comments that Boeing would sell 200 jets to China caused the company’s stock price to fall because investors had expected a larger number. There was little concrete information offered about any trade agreements reached during the summit, including Chinese purchases of U.S. exports such as liquefied natural gas and beef.

“Foreign policy wins can matter politically, but only if voters feel stability and affordability in their daily lives,” said Brittany Martinez, a former Republican congressional aide who is the executive director of Principles First, a center-right advocacy group focused on democracy issues.

Advertisement

“Midterms are almost always a referendum on cost of living and public frustration, and Republicans are not immune from the same inflation and affordability pressures that hurt Democrats in recent cycles,” she added.

Democrats see Trump as vulnerable

Democratic lawmakers are seizing on Trump’s comments before his trip as proof of his indifference to lowering costs. There is potential staying power of his remarks as Americans head into Memorial Day weekend facing rising prices for the hamburgers and hot dogs to be grilled.

“What Americans do not see is any sympathy, any support, or any plan from Trump and congressional Republicans to lower costs – in fact, they see the opposite,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Thursday.

Vance faulted the Biden administration for the inflation problem even though the inflation rate is now higher than it was when Trump returned to the White House in January 2025 with a specific mandate to fix it.

“The inflation number last month was not great,” Vance said Wednesday, but he then stressed, “We’re not seeing anything like what we saw under the Biden administration.”

Advertisement

Inflation peaked at 9.1% in June 2022 under Biden, a Democrat. By the time Trump took the oath of office, it was a far more modest 3%.

Trump’s inflation challenge could get harder

The data tells a different story as higher inflation is spreading into the cost of servicing the national debt.

Over the past week, the interest rate charged on 10-year U.S. government debt jumped from 4.36% to 4.6%, an increase that implies higher costs for auto loans and mortgages.

“My fear is that the layers of supply shocks that are affecting the U.S. economy will only further feed into inflationary pressures,” said Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY-Parthenon.

Daco noted that last year’s tariff increases were now translating into higher clothing prices. With the Supreme Court ruling against Trump’s ability to impose tariffs by declaring an economic emergency, his administration is preparing a new set of import taxes for this summer.

Advertisement

Daco stressed that there have been a series of supply shocks. First, tariffs cut into the supply of imports. In addition, Trump’s immigration crackdown cut into the supply of foreign-born workers. Now, the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz has cut off the vital waterway used to ship 20% of global oil supplies.

“We’re seeing an erosion of growth,” Daco said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Top Drug Regulator Is Fired From the F.D.A.

Published

on

Top Drug Regulator Is Fired From the F.D.A.

Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, the Food and Drug Administration’s top drug regulator, said she was fired from the agency Friday after she declined to resign.

She said she did not know who had ordered her firing or why, nor whether Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. knew of her fate. The Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The departure reflected the upheaval at the F.D.A., days after the resignation of Dr. Marty Makary, the agency commissioner. Dr. Makary had become a lightning rod for critics of the agency’s decisions to reject applications for rare disease drugs and to delay a report meant to supply damaging evidence about the abortion drug mifepristone. He also spent months before his departure pushing back on the White House’s requests for him to approve more flavored vapes, the reason he ultimately cited for leaving.

Dr. Hoeg’s hiring had startled public health leaders who were familiar with her track record as a vaccine skeptic, and she played a leading role in some of the agency’s most divisive efforts during her tenure. She worked on a report that purportedly linked the deaths of children and young adults to Covid vaccines, a dossier the agency has not released publicly. She was also the co-author of a document describing Mr. Kennedy’s decision to pare the recommendations for 17 childhood vaccines down to 11.

But in an interview on Friday, Dr. Hoeg said she “stuck with the science.”

Advertisement

“I am incredibly proud of the work we were doing,” Dr. Hoeg said, adding, “I’m glad that we didn’t give in to any pressures to approve drugs when it wasn’t appropriate.”

As the director of the agency’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, she was a political appointee in a role that had been previously occupied by career officials. An epidemiologist who was trained in the United States and Denmark, she worked on efforts to analyze drug safety and on a panel to discuss the use of serotonin reuptake inhibitors, the most widely prescribed class of antidepressants, during pregnancy. She also worked on efforts to reduce animal testing and was the agency’s liaison to an influential vaccine committee.

She made sure that her teams approved drugs only when the risk-benefit balance was favorable, she said.

The firing worsens the leadership vacuum at the F.D.A. and other agencies, with temporary leaders filling the role of commissioner, food chief and the head of the biologics center, which oversees vaccines and gene therapies. The roles of surgeon general and director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are also unfilled.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending