4 x4 Virtual Salon – the Year Ahead for Embedded Finance

with Christine Schmid, Kelvin Tan, Paul Prendergast and Christoffer Malmer.

We are delighted to share with you  this 4 x 4 Virtual Salon focused our recently released Embedded Finance predictions report Ben Robinson [aperture] hosted a lively panel discussion featuring 4 speakers: 

 

Main topics discussed:

1. Are incumbents fighting back?
2. How embedded finance is changing
3. How to achieve differentiation in embedded finance
4. Lessons learned and getting the strategy right

We ran 4 polls and we took questions from the audience. Watch the recording below.

 

4 X4 Virtual Salon – The Year Ahead For Embedded Finance

 

Full transcript:

4×4 Embedded Finance predictions

[00:00:11] Ben: Hi everybody. Welcome to today’s 4×4 virtual salon, where we’re going to be discussing what’s in store for the embedded finance market in 2023. I just wanted to remind you of the format. In one hour we’re going to attempt to cover four topics. We’re going to take four questions from you, our audience; we’re going to hold four polls, and we also have four speakers, who I shall introduce now.

I’ll start with who is bottom left, at least on my screen, which is Kelvin Tan, who is the lead for Nexus, which is Standard Chartered Banking a service offering which launched in 2020. Next, we have Christine Schmidt, who is head of Strategy Additiv, which is a Swiss-based platform providing relationship banking as a service. Next, we have Christoffer Malmer, who is the CEO of SEB Embedded, which is the bass arm of Sweden’s SEB Bank, which launched officially 18 days ago. It’s fresh, fresh, fresh. Lastly, we have Paul Prendergast, who is CEO of Kayna, which is an embedded insurance company, which goes to market through vertical sass platforms.

The 4×4 format is intended to be interactive. Do please submit your questions, comment on the discussion, and please do also vote in the polls.

I’m going to move on to the first of our four topics. Until now, embedded finance has been dominated by start-ups. the first question that we want to discuss is whether in 2023, this is a year when large incumbent institutions start to get more active in this market. Chris, I want to come to you first and I want to ask you, why did SEB decide to launch SEB Embedded in January 2023?

[00:02:07] Christoffer: Thanks for the intro, Ben. Great to be here and thanks for hosting this event. The story goes back a little bit further. Back in 2018, we started something in SEB called SEBX, which had a very free mandate to effectively explore new product offerings and build new tech. We went about starting doing that and we started piecing together a new technology. SEB Bank dates back to 1856, we’ve been building our own legacy system for many, many years. Here was a fresh opportunity to say, look, if we were to rebuild a bank from scratch today, what would look like?

One of the things we wanted to get into the equation early on was this openness and connectivity to the outside world, to make sure that whatever we build should be able to be distributed by ourselves, but it should also be able to be distributed by others.

We went on, we launched our first internal product on this platform, which is a small business offering in Sweden. Then SEB Group started looking at building next generational mobile apps on top of this platform. Then in the beginning of last year, we officially made public our first external customer who’s now building their product on top of our platform, and that’s a retail conglomerate in Sweden called Axel Johnson. They are now embedding our platform into their user journeys. When that became public and when we started talking more about our strategic ambitions within banking as a service, and we’ve sat it for the group, SEB as one of our strategic targets for our next business plan is to be a leading player in banking as a service, we really got a great response in the marketplace and we’ve had so many exciting conversations. We’re starting to see that, we really think there is an opportunity.

We think coming from being an incumbent bank, piecing together both the license, the capital, liquidity, all those things, the brand recognition, and having that technology piece that sits on top, that is really designed to distribute product internally, but as well as externally.

When we started to see that, we think there’s an opportunity in the market, we really felt that there was a good response, we said we probably need to take it out of the innovation lab, which was SEBx, and put it as a business unit in and of itself. That was announced back end of last year. We’re calling it SEB Embedded, and to your point, officially launching 1 January, 2023. We’re hard at work right now broadening the product offering, onboarding more customers and really trying to scale this business.

[00:04:37] Ben: Fantastic. Well, congratulations on the launch.

Kevin, I wanted to come to you next because you’ve been at this for slightly longer. I’m wondering, what is your sense of what the Nexus competitive advantage is? I would mention three things that Christoffer said, license, capital, brand recognition. Would you say they’re the sorts of things that help to differentiate a large incumbent versus a start-up in this market?

[00:05:04] Kevin: Yeah. Thanks, Ben. I’ve spoken to Chris before, a couple of months ago when we caught up, got introduced and had a real conversation. Everything that Chris said was effectively this; we went through this exact same journey. Pretty much the same thing. I started a couple of years earlier than Chris. I started five years ago when the whole idea of this embedded finance, before it was even called Nexus, before embedded finance was even in the official Lexicon of financial services, this was me and five slides and a coffee with the CEO of Standard Charter Bill Winters. That’s how it started.

As part of building up exactly the same, the technical platform in order to enable massive scale, we decided we should really try to solve the of scalability for the bank in multiple geographies. From Standard Charter’s perspective, everything that Chris said is absolutely true. It is not just the license, the regulatory know-how, the capital, all which the banks have in relative abundance to most of the other fintechs, but specifically at Standard Charter we also have the footprint in most of the developing markets in the world where this becomes the most impactful from one of our key stands, which is lifting participation. It drives financial inclusion at a scale that the bank has never experienced before and did not have the capacity to do previously without the advent of this capability.

Just as an example of that, in Indonesia where we have launched with our first partner, Bukalapak, which is open account in Indonesian, it has almost 60-70% of the accounts being opened outside of Jakarta. As you know, Indonesia is a massive archipelago with 200 islands. It’s quite good. We have a huge number of customers that previously had not been reached by Senate Charter Bank, and now we are able to do that. We are about to go live, hopefully with second partner really soon in Indonesia, and we also have expansion plans to other developing markets which we’ll announce in due course.

But I absolutely agree with Chris in terms of the advantages. The only other thing I would say on top of that is, because obviously Chris is in Europe and we are in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, the license footprint becomes a lot more beneficial than the European one where you get passport licenses.

[00:07:33] BEN: Just one small follow up question. You’ve said that a lot of the focus is on financial inclusion, is that why you’ve been able to coexist so successfully with the rest of the group, because they don’t perceive any cannibalization risk? Because you’re going after effectively new customers, people that have not been banked before?

[00:07:54] Kevin: Absolutely. To be fair, we are not thinking of deploying in large, mature city states like Singapore and Hong Kong. That’s not really the place you want to do embedded finance, at least at scale. We are looking at Singapore, we’re looking at Vietnam, we are looking at Thailand, we’re looking at developing markets across the world. That’s where this is a good, effective, cost efficient way of onboarding, acquiring, as well as serving those customers. We want to be able to crack a profitable mass market banking, which is really what we all about.

[00:08:27] Ben: Clear. Fantastic. Christine, question for you. Additiv works with a lot of different brands on the demand side, a lot of different financial institutions on the supply side. Do you have a preference in terms of the kinds of partners that you work with on the supply side? Do you favor, for example, large incumbent institutions like Nexus and like SEB?

[00:08:50] Christine: I would say we are an open orchestration platform. Maybe one or two words on Additiv, because this brand might not be as known as the other twos that were before me, we are a wealth tech house. We provide services across Asia, in Europe, and we are live in the Middle East. As Kevin just stated, we are live with solutions as well in Indonesia. We are on the ground in the Philippines, we’re on the ground in the Middle East. We provide solutions into the Nordics, but also we are live with clients in Germany, UK, or Switzerland, for example. We are the technology, the glue in the middle. Yes, we partner with regulated financial houses, obviously.

No, we do not have a preference. We are an open orchestration platform and I think that’s one of the big differences. But there are certain prerequisites that definitely helps, back to your question, Ben. First of all, clearly the financial house has to be technology wise ready. Not talking about having the solution but on a PowerPoint, but really have it built that we can dock on, and to get a sell towards brands and clients.

More important, I think that’s where SEB and Standard Charted nicely fit. The mindset has to be ready. It has to be a strategic opportunity by the management. It has to be a business opportunity. This is not IT, what we talk here. Absolutely clear. It is a business model change. As McKinsey calls it, it’s a 20 trillion breakup opportunity. This what will drive business forums, what we strongly believe into.

Thus what we need to partner with are win-win situations. We have a lot of inbound at the moment client brands that are looking to engage on the embedded finance side, but they want to engage in an open situation. For example, we partnered with Saxo, where we provide services across the Middle East. We partnered in the Philippines, for example, with Atram, where we provide financial services to the wealth management side across the Philippines.

[00:11:11] Ben: Fantastic. Thanks. I would remind you that if you submit questions, I’ll put them to our guests. Paul, I’m going to come to you next. In your stack, in the Cana stack, how much do you work with incumbent insurers?

[00:11:25] Paul: Well, that is our model. We’re a non-regulated, we’re that infrastructure, not unlike Christine, that infrastructure layer. We’re big fans of working with incumbents, whether it be insurers or brokers, giving them an opportunity to open up new distribution opportunities through vertical SaaS platforms, which is what we’re pretty much obsessed about.

Yeah, we’re working with relationships with some of the largest insurance brokers and insurance carriers globally as we roll this out. Again, if you look at some very similar themes, embedded insurance in our view is a number of years behind your traditional embedded finance. We’re learning a lot and taking lots of notes in terms of what’s happening in embedded finance. Working with people who have the regulatory know-how, the capital base, the knowledge, really understand. When the InsureTech started in 2016, everybody said insurance is dead and the start-ups are taking over. After a grind of six years I think people realize, okay, this is not as easy as everybody thought. This is not a zero sum game. This is about collaboration, and our job is to bring some technical know-how, and to Christine’s point, a different business model to the market. It’s a win-win situation for the small businesses we’re working with, the vertical SaaS, and the incumbents.

[00:13:05] Ben: Fantastic. I’m going to move us on to our second topic, which is about how the embedded finance market is changing. I’m going to come to first, Paul, so I’m going to mix things up. I wanted to ask you, in a lot of the things that you’ve written, and I saw you on a podcast recently or I’ve watched you on a live interview recently, and you were using the expression embedded finance 2.0 quite a bit. My question to you is, what do you mean by that? What’s changing in in embedded insurance?

[00:13:3711] Paul: The first wave of embedded insurance, embedded insurance has been around quite a lot. You walk into a car, buy a phone you get mobile phone insurance, you go onto Rhino Air, you buy travel insurance. Quite recently there’s been a number of companies doing embedded insurance 1.0, which is effectively being, we have a product, we’re going to put it on digital platforms, and it’s going to be a better customer experience. Fantastic. Some really, really good companies doing some decent business.

Our view is the next wave of embedded insurance, and there’s some really interesting companies in the space, and we’re one of them, we would hope, is not just treating the distribution partner as a distribution partner, but treating them as a source of unique data. You see it in FinTech, and as I said, we’re taking lots of notes, where people are using data on the platform for capital ending, et cetera, in real time. That’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re enabling the platforms to solve their customers’ insurance problems using the unique data on the platform. It’s not just a product that you can get on the high street, this is a unique solution but using the data. That’s the big wave we see coming in embedded in insurance 2.0. Again, learning from our colleagues on the embedded FinTech side.

[00:15:09] Ben: Thank you, Paul. Kevin, I’m going to come to you. I would invite you to also apine on whether you think embedded finance is going to become more personalized in the way that Paul says embedded insurance will become. But I also wanted to ask more specifically about Nexus, whether you are starting to see some changes in the kinds of brands that are approaching you or the kinds of services they’re asking you to embed in in their offering.

[00:15:38] Kevin: Yeah, absolutely. First, I’m surprised by Paul’s view of embedded finance 2.0, because I think embedded finance 1.0 has hardly taken off. We are still in its infancy. It’s not even a toddler, hasn’t started walking yet. But what we’ve done is, in Nexus we see a significant amount of interest, and it is spans all industries. We are looking at mobile wallets, we’re looking at telcos, we are looking at e-commerce platforms, we’re looking at o to o retailers. We are looking at even PE firms who want to embed their services within their own ecosystems that they built. Hotel chains, and airlines across the world. Depending on the region, the asks are different.

We have had conversations from what we’ve done in Indonesia, which is effectively gave Buka Lapa its own version of its own bank to its customers, to completely embedding the experience via the provision of APIs and accepting specific data from the partner in some of the markets, which we are in the midst of deploying and designing right now.

But I absolutely agree Paul’s view on using data. Even today as we’ve executed it, we get access to the partner’s data and that changes the way we onboard and we underwrite the customer. In Buka Lapa’s case, for example, we would see data on the customer’s activities, which is the equivalent of an Amazon in Indonesia. That completely changes the way we onboard. We’ve managed to create the ability, I would imagine a first in Indonesia, whereby it’s fully digital end-to-end onboarding. There is no video call-back, no physical kiosk, nothing.

Our fastest onboarding to date, I believe the record is 1 minute 30 seconds, in Indonesia. It’s pretty sweet. Our average median time is about 8 minutes. Obviously the guy who onboarded it 1 minute 30 seconds read less of the decencies than the guy who onboarded at 8 minutes.

But absolutely, we see a lot of interest in some, we see a lot of interest across all industries, depending on the geography. The ask for how we deliver the embedded finance experience also varies across geographies, from truly embedded to a companion app, to specific use cases only. Each one is obviously evaluated on its own merits and business case, and whether or not it makes sense for the bank, both from a strategic standpoint, from a tactical revenue standpoint, and from lifting participations and financial inclusion standpoint before we make a decision on who to partner.

[00:18:18] BEN: Fantastic. Chris, you raised your hand, so I’m going to come to you.

[00:18:22] Christoffer: Yeah, I wasn’t sure about the house rules here, Ben, but I politely raised my hand there.

[00:18:25] BEN: No, please. The rule is there are no rules.

[00:18:29] Christoffer: Just chime in whenever you want. Okay. I just wanted to make that comment on what Paul was saying about the data, and Kevin followed through, but this point about, I think one of the things that we found certainly, and we talk about the relative competitive advantages as well versus alternatives in the market, I think one of the things that we found certainly as a key point of discussion is access to that data.

In our case, embedding an SEB embedded product into the usage journey of a distributor means that that distributor gets access to a whole range of data that previously wasn’t available, and that is entirely for the distributor to manage. The distributor can decide what role they want to take, a processor or controller, or however they want to set things up. But they can also be confident that we are not using that data in any shape or form at our end to present something coming from SEB or cross marketing between different distributors, or approaching those end customers in any shape or form.

Here our offering is really to say to the distributor, hey, here’s an opportunity to you to level up significantly on data and insight in your ability to build relevant products and offerings on top of that, and keeping and accessing that data for yourself. That we’ve found has been certainly a compelling part of the of the value proposition.

[00:19:50] BEN: Chris, it’s easy to understand how better data leads to better insurance, because insurance is all about risk and if you understand the customer better you can manage the risk better. Where do you see the opportunity is more in the banking domain for better data? Do you think it’s just greater personalization, or do you think it’s bigger than that?

[00:20:15] Christoffer: I think there’s a number of interesting use cases. For example, if you provide access to data to a distributor who is not active in financial services, all of a sudden, for example, our first customer Johnson, their billion loyalty program, with data from financial transactions that otherwise wouldn’t have been available to that distributor to that same extent, the ability to gather the financial footprint of that customer from outside of their traditional channels or outside of where maybe the way they would normally meet their customers, enables them to build with partners and develop those programs.

I think the second aspect is also credit scoring. To be able to gather data to better credit score and build credit models that becomes both personalized, but more and more clever over time as you gather those data points, which I think certainly is another area. Particularly let’s say if you are an ERP provider, sit with accounting systems, and all of a sudden you start embedding financial services. Well, then you have a data from the accounting systems straight into the heart of the corporations, and then you can start building credit models that take those data points into account.

Another one, we’ve been talking to retailers who want to more effectively deal with their returns to make sure that some customers we can give the money back before they’ve even sent me back that television set or whatever is that they bought, because I trust that that customer will then immediately be able to redeploy those funds, whereas others we probably need to wait till the goods are back in our warehouse before we release the funds. There’s so many valuable usage journeys that can be enhanced and improved with that data.

[00:22:00] Ben: Fantastic. I completely agree on the three areas that you highlighted there: loyalty, credit scoring, returns.

Christine, I wanted to come to you because our poll suggests that people very much believe that embedded finance is moving from being very transactional to being more relationship based. That’s certainly the view at Additiv. I wonder, could you just expand on how you see Additiv, the market evolving towards more relationship based embedded banking?

[00:22:31] Christine: Let me comment briefly before I answer your question, on the comments by Chris. We have done a vast consumer survey asking clients across Asia, Europe, but also the Middle East. What came out, I think are thought staggering there, as well as the loyalty programs. From a loyalty programs it can be consumer platforms, it can be even an airline. They have a lot of insight into their clients. Clients are super, super open also to use that loyalty programs on the finance side. The ‘don’t make me think, don’t make me feel my savings’ aspect here is a very, very strong one. That opens I would say another slightly different angle on the loyalty programs, but where embedded finance could come in.

Now coming back to your question Ben,  on the transaction versus the relationship aspect of embedded finance, I think Paul has mentioned it. Payment we started early the year 2000, later came ‘buy now pay later’. Both of them are closed transactions. I buy something, it’s done. But we are now, our strong belief and I think the consumers underpin that, and the banks in particular I hear you talking, realize it’s a business opportunity, we are at the business where the revenue stream for the banks is first of all material, and the services material. We enter on the embedded finance side what we call the wealth angle, the insurance angle, but also the pension angle. Mortgage, for example. Again, these are businesses that normally come with a longer term relationship once you’ve closed it, it’s not a single transaction. These are businesses that might come with an additional advice angle to it, and even advisors that help you as a consumer over the lifespan.

If you think alongside financial planning, where wealth pension comes nicely together, this is not a simple transaction. This is a relationship business. That’s where embedded finance is starting to enter into. This value chain breaking up further.

Again, coming back to our consumer survey, clients are ready to jump to non-financial brands that provide that service. It can be a pension platform. It can be any HR system. Just think alongside HR systems’ new kids on the block, such as Personio, where you could include these services. Thus, I think the distribution channels we have here in front of us are materially changing the way we serve the consumers. Our finding is, having asked the consumer, because it only flies if we all use it, the time is now to engage.

[00:25:40] Ben: Just a follow up question. Our audience definitely agrees with you, if you look at the poll, but as this shift happens, do you think the way in which embedded finance products or services are delivered will change? Because at the moment, they’re very seamless, they’re offered exactly at point of need. But when you talk more about relationship banking, I think that’s something that might be less digital. It might be it more difficult to understand exactly the context and deliver something very concrete at that time. Because if you’re talking about wealth management, for example, that tends to be something that’s not delivered at a moment in time, but over a period. How do you think the nature of embedded finance will change if it becomes more relationship-based?

[00:26:26] Christine: Again, the services will be delivered at the point where the client has frequent interaction, because the interaction outside of the financial system then triggers the demand, the demand as well to interact. We think the digital traffic you have and the contextual relevance the service has, is absolutely crucial as well for the relational services going forward not only for the transaction.

Just think alongside, if you’re looking for example for an apartment, and you can directly link it to a mortgage, it’s the channel where you screen for an apartment, even if you own one and you want to switch, it’s not the bank you engage. But it might need a bit of an interaction. Maybe fully digital up to a certain size of a mortgage, and evolve a certain size of a mortgage non-standard might be a bit of interaction. But you have to keep the client close, and if you do that in a siloed approach you’re not keeping a client close. I think this is changing.

The same with, if we think alongside financial wellbeing or sustainable development goals, one as well is tailored to all of us; if you are employed, not self-employed. Thus for every employer out there, this kind of service is gaining importance. HR system and on the accounting side, like Chris has mentioned, the accounting systems, and that’s where the interaction is way stronger and where the services will be provided.

[00:28:07] Christoffer: Ben, can I interrupt you? We can’t really see the poll. I don’t know if you have participants. I can’t see the poll results from my end. I don’t know if they have participants.

[00:28:15] Ben: Okay. I can, so let me just tell you. The first question was unanimous, that incumbent institutions will play a bigger role. It’s 100% in favour. The second one is slightly mono nuanced, but there’s a big majority that believe that it’s going to become more relationship based. We’ll see if we can fix that so that you can see the poor results as well. Kevin, you’ve got your hand raised. I’ll invite you to comment.

[00:28:47] Kevin: I pretty much agree with most of what Christine has said. The only thing I would add to that narrative is, so far we’ve been talking about embedded finance as a singular silo. We’ve been talking about, oh we work with one airline, or we work with one mobile app. That’s not the case. What we really want to do, I’m sure SEB Embedded, and at least the ambitions of Standard Charter Nexus, is pretty similar. We provide the platform and you onboard multiple partners, and it’s multitenant and multi-market. You onboard multiple partners on the front end.

Now what happens when the bank now gets access to various forms? It’s your e-commerce partner, your airline partner, your property shopping platform, whatever that may be, in the same market and with a singular custom ID. what does that change in terms of our ability to offer just in time capabilities, and build that relational aspect, which Christine talked about?

I think while we believe that a better finance will take on a more relationship or relational role, that doesn’t preclude the ability of it to be completely digital. I think that’s something we need to think through.

[00:30:04] Ben: Great. Thank you very much. I think this very, very neatly brings us into our third topic, which is about achieving differentiation in embedded finance.

Christine, I know you just answered the question, but I’m going to ask you to speak first, because what Kelvin’s talking about there, which is moving from siloed financial services to something which is more bundled, if you like, is something you are very much a believer of. I think you’ve coined the phrase ‘orchestrated finance’. What is orchestrated finance? Tell us how you perceive that it will change and become or less siloed and the services become more bundle to what customers need.

[00:30:50] Christine: We often say as Additiv, we are a two-sided open ecosystem. It’s exactly what Kelvin said, it’s no longer siloed. Honestly, orchestration is the simple act of combining and the ranging services for an optimum result. This means on both sides various partners, where you can learn and exchange and learn from. This means rearranging the financial services into the value chain, because the value chain is breaking up further what we have in front of us. This gives the consumers the financial experience, not only contextually, what we all fully agree, but also in the right form, in the right size.

Orchestration is bundling to such an extent that you have the right service at the right point in time, intelligently and seamlessly delivered. This is literally, it might sound a bit academic, but this is what we do day to day. We bring the services together, for example, for an insurance company going into, into banking services, for any asset managers going direct and leveraging up from there, for any non-financial brand wanting to enter be it on the landing side or be it on the wealth side, and combining with any loyalty points. This is what orchestration means. It combines, be it our services or partner services, into the value proposition for the client.

[00:32:30] Ben: Sorry to interrupt. We had our first question, which is basically about, can we give some examples? Could we make this slightly more concrete? Could you give an example of one brand you’ve worked with, what they embedded and how complex that was?

[00:32:45] Christine: Yep, that’s another question. Let’s take an insurance company that is not in banking and wants to offer advice beyond the insurance services they do. Of course we partner there with the banks, on both sides. In that case it’s multiple banks across three countries. On top we link that into the service for the full advisor network of this insurance company to leverage out on the wealth side. Nicely, additionally, this is an open ecosystem as well on the asset manager’s side, to offer the right investment products via the Insurance Advisor Network out.

This is one example of what we have done. That’s not new, we’ve done that a couple of years ago. I think it was before it was called on the embedded finance side. We are growing there as we speak with further services, on the mortgage side, for example.

What all finance was called a couple of years ago, or decades ago when I still was a banking analyst, and this is now technology-wise enabled, and driving forward. We see a lot of demand from the insurance side coming in for these services. I think Chris has raised his hand.

[00:34:20] Christoffer: I think it’s interesting. To the question as well, what does it practically mean? I think when we talk about customers here, we think of banking as a service very much as what we deliver. That is in our minds, very much of a B2B product. When we talk about our customer, that is the distributor. Then we’re talking here also a lot about the end client, the mortgage holder or the insurance holder, or the credit holder. In essence, the primary relationship sits between them and the distributor.

If you take our case for example, and I was also trying to answer the question in the chat, for us we are asking Axel Johnson to set up a front end. They have the user experience, they have the front end, they do all the customer interactions. Technically speaking, they access our APIs. What happens is you step into the mobile app of their brand, and you say, apply for a card, and then card application goes down in with our APIs and we create the arrangements, the agreements, everything digitally. We do all the checks and controls, we do the sanction screenings, we do the fraud prevention, everything, then we send back yes or no onboarding to that card.

Practically speaking, how complex is it to onboard? I think is one of the relative competitive advantages for how easily and how smoothly can you actually onboard a distributor? I think the question is spot on. This has to be really easy. Right now, I think Kelvin is spot on when he says this is in its infancy. We are still developing our offering, we’re still building the product, still piecing it together. But what we’re certainly finding in our conversations, in our experience with Axel Johnson, is that onboarding of a distributor is a critical competitive advantage, particularly if they’re not dealing with financial services prior. If you are a financial service institution, you a lot of those things. But if you’re not, there’s a lot of new things to pick up.

Our vision for this is that we want this almost to be self-service, so that you should be able to onboard yourself fully, digitally select what are the features you want on your financial services product. That’s all being configured and operated in our platform, then results come back up. But I think this is something we’re working a lot on to make that onboarding as smooth as possible.

[00:36:44] BEN: Thank you, Chris. We’ve had another question here from the audience, and I would invite everybody to comment on this one. I’m going to add a second part to it as well. The question is, what are the biggest hurdles you face when convincing brands to embed financial products, and how do you overcome them? I want to add a second part to that, to use your term, Chris, distributors, or we call them embedded brands in our parlance, a lot of times they know they want to launch a product, but they’re not banking institutions, they’re not expert in taking financial products to market. The second part of that question is, how much do you have to help them to package the products and take them to market? The assumption here is, they know what they want, they come to you, you provide the service and then they’re on their own. But I guess it’s not that simple, right? Maybe Kelvin, you can start us off there if that’s right.

[00:37:42] Kevin: Well, in my experience, there wasn’t much resistance in terms of convincing brands to embed financial services. That’s really quite easy conceptually. The devil comes down to the details. What does the brand want? Does it want it fully embedded in their app? Do they want a companion app? Do they want something else, or something in between. How do you want to execute? What’s the data sharing arrangement going to be like? How do we embed the permissions? And so on and so forth. The conceptual resistance is next to none. The actual conversations on the details is where it gets a little bit more complicated to execute.

But from that perspective it’s not been the biggest hurdle. The biggest hurdle really is convincing the bank to start taking progressive steps towards becoming a lot more open-minded on how to get business and how to grow balance sheet, how to create user journeys. Can it be completely embedded? Is the brand of the bank that super important in our discussions or for this particular segment? Those are the conversations that generally take a lot more time to get through, rather than convincing the embedders to take on the service. That’s my experience so far from Nexus perspective in Asia.

[00:39:02] Christine: If I might add to that, that’s what I said the first question, it’s really the mindset of the boss provider, on the management. It’s a business opportunity. It’s not technology. It’s a business opportunity out there. Adding to Kevin, we see the same from a distributor or client point of view. For them it’s, it’s a business case. Conceptually convincing them, that’s not the hurdle. The hurdle is in the two nitty gritties. I think you mentioned one, is the nitty gritty on the technicalities. But also I might add what it needs and what we have learned, it needs a very solid legal framework underneath. You have to define the rules; who has what rules in this concept very clearly. Then it flies. This is what we have learned. Then it flies and it takes up from there.

[00:40:07] Christoffer: I completely agree with Kelvin’s experience and Christine’s comment. I think what we have seen though is that there are very different categories of embeders or distributors. You have those who have a very clear idea what they want. It’s like, this is what we’re looking for, then we go straight into the practicalities. Then you have those like, yeah, we think it’d be cool to explore this space, and we’re much more ideation sessions and thinking how this could be done, what are your business goals, how can we help you achieve them, and what are they?

Our experience is that when there is that view, and I think the most exciting conversations are really the ones where there is a business problem to solve but it’s not crystal clear whether that should be an account with a credit line or whether that should be a prepaid card or whether that should be something else. But where there’s really the challenge in the business, we can solve this with financial services and this is how we set it up.

Those are the different conversations that we’re having and the different categories of conversations that we’re seeing.

[00:41:20] Paul: I think from an insurance point of view, culture is a huge thing. There’s a big clash of cultures. Software platforms are used to having a simple API, they don’t build everything themselves, they consume services all day long from different providers. Then when they talk to some insurance incumbents who are saying, yeah, no problem, we’ll get this going, it’ll only be a 12 month IT project. That’s just a whole different world. That’s not acceptable. That won’t work, number one. The second interesting piece we find is fear around regulation. It’s tail wagging the dog, compliance rules, the roost in a lot of places. Obviously hugely important, but it terrifies people who are not in a regulated space.

Obviously regulation is super important, but like anything else, it can be managed and it could be done. I think it’s educating them how to do that and the different approaches and the different technical implementations that will match up with those types of approaches.

Culture, regulation, I think to Kelvin’s point, everybody loves this. Everybody wants to do it, but it is the nitty gritty. It is the getting into the details, and we would enable to happen in an interesting place. It’s great to see some incumbents on this panel who are so enthusiastic about it. We’re working with some really interesting incumbents who bring huge amounts of value to the table. But sometimes they need a little bit of a helping hand making it happen.

[00:43:10] Ben: One question about that relationship with incumbents. A lot of the value adds that you bring, and to get back to this point about differentiation, is you provide every single type of insurance that a small business would want, right? How comfortable is an incumbent allowing you to arrange that on their behalf? What discretion do you have in terms of deciding on who gets what?

[00:43:37] Paul: We don’t. We’re the technology enabling layer. Our customer is the software platform, we bring a huge amount of insurance experience, we bring the insurance ecosystem to play, and then the insurance or the broker will contract directly with the software platform. They decide. We’re not going to change their thoughts in terms of risk management, et cetera, what lines they want to cover and don’t want to cover, their pricing. That’s not what we do. Obviously over time, as we get access to huge amounts of data, we can help them build new risk models down the line. But if somebody says, I don’t want to cover plumbers who work with heat at height, that’s not up to us. Most insurers really know their business and know what lines of business they want to cover.

 What I would say as well is the worry as well I think about taking a view on platforms and just say platforms or platforms. They’re not, they’re hugely different businesses. Some are very much transactional, some are very much building. We are very much focused on one particular platform type. We see this in financial services as well, but that’s not my area of expertise, where there’s lots of start-ups now emerging and they’re just going after certain subsegments of business. I’m just going to be the payments company for restaurants, for example, or et cetera. That’s verticalizing from an insurance point of view. That’s where the word came in, but we’re seeing a lot of that in financial services because platforms are not just platforms. It’s just like saying retail is retail. That’s madness as well.

[00:45:39] Ben: Just one tiny follow up question, we had that question earlier on about examples getting specific. I remember when we chatted before, you were working with in the equine space, which seems a bit exotic. Just tell us what that is, just to give a concrete example. That might seem quite fun.

[00:45:58] Paul: We’re working with a really interesting company. You’ve got trainers and horse owners who are managing all their medical records of all the horses. That’s incredibly unique information. Number one, they have a really close relationship with those owners and you’ve got really interesting data about those horses that are completely unique. You’re leveraging all that to provide a better insurance experience. It’s fascinating. From our point of view, we do not have to become an expert in equine insurance, thanks to God. The data is there, the distribution is there. We have the right insurers now lined up to provide this and let’s going live in Q1 of this year.

 On purpose, we’re going after very different platforms across lots of different lines of business. But the whole vertical SaaS type approach is quite different than say, working with Rhino Reiner. That’s it, transactional one and done type relationship.

[00:47:18] Ben: Great. I’m going to move us on to our fourth and final section, which is on lessons learned in getting this right. We’ve already alluded to the fact that, I’m going to borrow your phrase, Kevin, because I thought it was excellent. The conceptual resistance to embedded finance is almost zero, but once you actually move into trying to do it, it’s much more complex than people think. I would say much, much more complex, having worked on a few of these projects ourselves. I want to start and to delve into that, both the organizational standpoint as well as the standpoint of the distributor or the embedded brand.

Chris, I’m going to come to you first, because both you and Kevin, your businesses were ventures built within a large organization. That’s a hard thing to do, because you always have that immune system reaction to whenever you try to do anything different, particularly change business models. There are other large institutions listening to this. What’s your recommendation for those that are looking to launch BaaS services themselves? Do you think it can only be done if it comes out of a venture, like with the case with Nexus and the case with SEB Embedded?

[00:48:35] Christoffer: Yeah, it’s a great question. I think some of the comments that were touched upon previously is that there needs to be a clear a strategic direction that this is a business that you want to engage in. That means overcoming the conversation. Somebody alluded to cannibalization previously. It’s overcoming that to say that, if this is happening, if this is adding value to end customers, if our B2B customers are asking for this, we have a choice. Either we say, let’s just hope it doesn’t take off and we can keep all the relationships that we would like to keep in the banking system. Or we’d say, this is probably happening, why don’t we lean into this and become a player and a provider?

I think critically, it does not mean that we’re not going to have our own distribution channels. I think that’s an important distinction. When the conversation around cannibalization comes up, and of course I’m sure Kelvin would’ve had the same, we’d say that there’s no reason why we shouldn’t continue offer our products and services under the SEB brand. We do that really well. We’re top ranked with customers in many segments and markets. But we’re not offering everything to everyone in every channel. If we have a platform that lends itself both to distribute under our own brand and through others, there’s really the added opportunity. The only reason that you wouldn’t do it, in my mind, is if you don’t think it won’t ever happen. If you strategically think embedded finance is not going to work then don’t waste your time. But if you think this is a direction of travel that you think will come more and more to fruition and we think will take off, then lean into that space.

 But then critically in our mind, dealing with it as a B2B business, it’s a different value proposition. If we distribute a credit or a mortgage or an account through a third party distributor, it is not the SEB B2C offering. It doesn’t mean that you can step into an SEB branch. You don’t see the account in an SEB app. You don’t call SEB call center. Somebody else takes that customer relationship on that first line. It becomes a wholesale product that we offer to the distributor, the distributor comes up with the value proposition, the usage journey, and everything else.

I think it really makes sense to ground that conversation and say, how do we look at this strategically? Once you’ve concluded that this is something that we want to do, it fits into our strategy, then we’re having great conversation with our whole corporate coverage team. Because we’re talking to so many large customers across. Just like Kevin being part of a universal bank, a lot of customer relationships are already there on the wholesale side.

Sitting with those client coverage people and talking about what are the opportunities in your portfolio, which customers could be relevant for your portfolio, aall of a sudden you say, hey, here’s another product that we have that we can offer to our customers. Then the organization’s like, this is cool, we like it.

I’m absolutely humbled and conscious that it’s a conversation that needs to be had and it needs to be buttoned out so that you feel that, hey, this is something that we really want to lean into.

[00:51:31] Ben: I think you already said this, which is, it was very much customer driven. It wasn’t like you had to make the business case and convince all of your internal stakeholders. It was something that was more customer led in your case. Is that right?

[00:51:44] Christoffer: Yeah. From our experience when we started to put the platform together, we started using it ourselves and then we started to see the opportunity, and we got the demand for distributing through distributors. That’s what we had set ourselves up from the beginning. Then the response in the market since our first customer became public, and I think Kelvin would mirror that experience. Then all of a sudden it becomes very business driven.

I think that’s an important distinction. Wwhen we started SEBx and when we started the initiative, we said, this is to build new business. It is not just to check if AI is cool or if machine learning could be used for something. It’s like, I wanna be measured on business, on revenue and profits. With that in mind, you have a driver inherently in the culture that you want to add and grow and build a business. That’s also an important message for the rest of the organization, I think.

[00:52:42] Ben: Fantastic. Kevin, I’m sure you’ve got a ton of things to add to that. Also, if you don’t mind, we’ve got a really good question, I don’t know if you’ve seen here in the Q&A, which is, how did Nexus and SEB (you don’t have to comment from the SEB side), but how did Nexus manage the transformation from being only a bank with a B2B B2B business to becoming a partner bank, which also operates as a best provider in a B2B to X business? If you could bring that into your answer as well, that would be excellent.

[00:53:11] Kevin: Sure. I love having Chris on the same call because that saves me so much time. I don’t have the same thing. The journey is almost completely the same, right? Just I started maybe one or two years earlier. The mindset shift, the bank has been ridiculously supportive at the senior management level of getting this done. The only difference between me and Chris here is that I didn’t start out having a ton of corporate customers asking for it, because it’s slightly earlier. We came up with the idea and then started sourcing for the deals. But like Chris points out, once we had the first one up and running, suddenly so many people come and say, can we do this together? We had plenty of conversations with our corporate RMs on this opportunity with their clients.

To give a better answer to the question that was raised in the Q&A, it’s a mindset shift. At the highest level, we are extremely supportive. It is the day-to-day, the nitty gritty, where we need to change the conversation. There is compliance, having a real conversation around can we actually access partner’s data and use it? What fields can we use? There are 5,000 fields that Ben, Chris, Christine, and Paul, all of us use Amazon or Netflix to some extent, I’m sure. How much data do they have on you? What fields can we use with or without consent? How do we explicitly get consent? And so on and so forth.

That conversation causes pain across the cause of execution. But we should not mistake that pain for the conceptual support that the bank actually has for something like this. I just want to make that clear.

The mindset shift from saying, now you have two real customers, Chris. You have a customer, you have the partner in our case, we call it the partner, which is the corporate customer, and you have the end customer. Both of whom will want proper customer service from us in two different veins. One is, for the partner or the corporate customer, the ability to build, iterate customer value propositions according to their designs, according to their customer journeys, and having a close cooperative relationship with multiple partners at the same time, is going to require for some a mindset shift on how to actually engage multiple partners concurrently. For the end consumer, our standards for onboarding, our standards for credit underwriting, it has to be programmatic, completely digital, and yet provide them the comfort and security that a bank would provide as if you were being served by an actual human being on the other end.

In my view, it raises the standard for the bank, both from a corporate relationship as well as from a consumer relationship standpoint. That’s been a very exciting journey to be on. I can’t say we’re perfect. There’s always a gap. Every day we see a gap that we need to fill, and every day the partner comes back to say, this is something that we need to improve on. But I think we are all starting on that journey. Check back with me and Chris, I guess in the next three to five years.

[00:56:36] Ben: Thanks so much. I’m just going to try squeezing two more questions if I may in the time we have left. Christine, I wanted to ask you a question specifically about managing complexity. Because in many of the embedded finance implementations that we’ve seen, it gets very complex very quickly as you start to work on multiple use cases. What’s your best advice for brands that could be listening to this about how you can help them to manage complexity?

[00:57:02] Christine: Yeah, you’re absolutely right. The appetite rises while eating. First of all, it is an open discussion on the business development side and deciding where to start. What helped us materially was integration. We’re in that business for quite some time now, rolled out the first insurance into the bank service five years ago. We have standardized integrated partners. That helps. Then take it from there. The second thing is, start with an option and do not spend tons and tons of time in the UIUX side. Go out, and then it’s easy to adjust. That’s certainly something. The playfulness, don’t lose playfulness. On our side, we are fully flexible to handle that.

I think there is another business line, what we have learned that will come fast our way, which is more in the marketing angle, which is all the data analytics and the add-on services there. That’s where what we call our orchestrated finance will, by the way, move on next and quite fast.

Have a clear plan, decide where to start. Don’t be afraid to adjust. That’s the second thing, don’t be afraid to adjust. Keep the playfulness and then add from there and grow. This is what we have seen with all the clients we have so far. Literally all of them are coming back and we’re growing together with them.

[00:58:44] Ben: Fantastic. We’ve got one minute left. I’m going to come to you, Paul, for the last question, which is, this is your third start-up. The two start-ups previously were in InsureTech, but they weren’t an embedded insurance. What’s different third time around? What are the challenges, opportunities that you see, advice you would give to people trying to get into embedded insurance?

[00:59:07] Paul: Yeah, it’s quite new, the regulatory set of things. Obviously, you’re not going directly, it’s not just selling to insurance companies, which we had done previously. You’re really getting those software partners on board. We’re very much focused on the small business space. There’s a big shift in how they’re starting to run their businesses online on these vertical SaaS platforms. We see that as a complete game changer and will fix the massive issues around small business. 40% of small businesses in the States have no insurance. Three quarters of the rest of them are massively underinsured, and it’s a huge data problem. All that data is on these vertical SaaS platforms, and that’s where small businesses are going to live, and that’s where we’re going to enable insurers to distribute it properly there.

It’s a big structural shift, I suppose, for us, but it’s a much more complicated. You have lots more people to get on board. But this is our third InsureTech, myself and Peter, and this is definitely the most exciting one to date.

[01:00:12] Ben: Fantastic. Unfortunately, we have run out of time.

[01:00:17] Christoffer: I’ve been trying to answer some of the questions in the chat, Ben. Me and Kevin have been typing away there.

[01:00:22] Ben: Oh, good. Thank you. That’s good, we’re multitasking. I told you it was interactive. Good. I just want to finish by thanking our four speakers. Thanks so much for participating, for your openness. I think you were very open with the questions we had. Just to recap, we covered the question of whether we think incumbents are fighting back and I think the audience consensus was yes, and I think the consensus from this discussion is yes. We talked about how embedded finance is changing, and I think the consensus there was it’s becoming less siloed, more bundled, and moving more multiples relationship-based interactions. Then how to achieve differentiation we talked about, and I think a lot of that was around personalization, and that was also the consensus of our poll. Lastly we talked about some of the lessons learned, and I think we got some excellent sage advice from our speakers here. Thank you for that. The last thing I’ll say is, if you enjoyed it, we’ll share the recording and you can share that with your colleagues and connections.

The next 4×4 we’re going to be doing, which is going to be next month, is on AI, how AI is going to be impacted by open AI and ChatGPT. If you enjoyed this and you think you might like to listen to that discussion, we’ll send around details in a short while on that. Thanks again, and thanks to our panellists. See you on the next 4×4. Thank you.

Mastercard et Moderna font partie des entreprises ayant l’impact le plus positif sur la planète, selon le nouveau rapport de classement

aperture together with Impaakt launch their inaugural “Global Impact Rankings”, listing the companies having the most positive and negative impacts on the planet.

Genève, 29 novembre 2022 Aperture, la société de capital de croissance et de services marketing, et Impaakt, une plateforme d’intelligence collective fournissant des données d’impact, lancent aujourd’hui leur premier “Global Impact Report”, un classement des entreprises ayant le plus d’impacts positifs et négatifs sur la planète.

Le rapport donne un aperçu de l’impact des entreprises sur un an, en utilisant Impaakt, une plateforme de données pour la finance durable. Impaakt s’appuie sur l’intelligence collective d’une communauté de plus de 50 000 membres qualifiés pour collecter des informations factuelles concernant l’impact des entreprises sur la planète et évaluer leur importance relative, en utilisant comme cadre les objectifs de développement durable (ODD) des Nations Unies. Cette méthode est fondée sur les opinions collectives de la communauté, qui sont non seulement fiables, mais aussi plus neutres et objectives que les méthodologies de tout fournisseur de notation individuel.

Au niveau macro, les résultats montrent que la plupart des entreprises ne font pas encore le nécéssaire pour améliorer leur impact global. Parmi les entreprises évaluées, les contributions aux ODD des Nations Unies sont plus négatives que positives. La plupart des entreprises – quelle que soit la qualité de leurs produits – ont toujours une empreinte environnementale négative dûe à leurs activités. Néanmoins, bien qu’aucune entreprise n’ait un bilan exclusivement positif, il y en a quelques-unes qui ont un impact positif considérable tant sur la société que sur l’environnement.

Les entreprises d’énergie renouvelable sont en tête de liste. Comme on peut s’y attendre, ces entreprises obtiennent de bons résultats dans le classement, avec First Solar et Sunrun occupant les premières places. Cependant, des entreprises d’autres secteurs, aux noms peut-être moins évocateurs, figurent également dans le top 10, comme Mastercard, Schneider Electric et Moderna, le fabricant des vaccins COVID-19. 

Les entreprises des secteurs du pétrole et du gaz, des mines et du tabac sont celles qui obtiennent les scores les plus négatifs, avec CNOOC, Vale et Saudi Aramco arrivant en fin de liste. Le rapport met également en lumière d’autres entreprises, telles que Apple et Nestlé, dont on pourrait supposer qu’elles obtiennent un score positif élevé, et révèle que, lorsque plusieurs facteurs sont pris en compte, le bilan est plus complexe.

Ben Robinson, cofondateur et PDG d’aperture, a commenté:

“Nous pensons que ce rapport arrive à point nommé. Comme la Cop27 nous l’a montré, nous ne pouvons pas compter uniquement sur les gouvernements pour mener la lutte contre le changement climatique. En tant qu’individus – consommateurs, employés, investisseurs – nous devons également jouer un rôle en demandant des comptes aux entreprises. Ce rapport – et, par extension, la plateforme Impaakt – donne aux gens une vision simple et claire des entreprises qui ont un impact positif ou négatif sur notre planète, afin que nous puissions choisir de leur apporter notre soutien ou non.”

Bertrand Gacon & Sylvain Massot, cofondateurs d’Impaakt, ont expliqué :

“De par sa nature même, la durabilité est un effort collectif. Les entreprises ne peuvent réaliser des progrès significatifs que si l’ensemble de leur écosystème est impliqué dans le processus. Ce rapport est l’occasion idéale de démontrer l’approche participative d’Impaakt, qui implique les parties prenantes qui comptent le plus (et qui ont une connaissance directe) dans l’ensemble du processus de durabilité. Il en résulte une évaluation d’impact plus significative et une gestion d’impact plus efficace.

Consultez le rapport complet sur aperture.co/global-impact-report  

À propos d’Impaakt

Impaakt est une plateforme collaborative. Notre mission est de fournir des évaluations d’impact qualitatives et des scores d’impact significatifs en temps réel, permettant de diriger les capitaux vers les entreprises ayant le meilleur impact possible sur la planète et la société. Nous utilisons l’intelligence collective (c’est-à-dire vous !) et l’IA pour fournir une profondeur et une diversité d’analyse qu’aucun autre système n’offre. 

Pour plus d’informations, visitez www.impaakt.com

A propos d’aperture

aperture aide à dé-risquer la croissance des entreprises technologiques en phase de démarrage. Pour ce faire, nous fournissons une combinaison de services go-to-market, de conseil et de capital d’investissement en phase de démarrage. Aperture est spécialisée dans le travail avec les entreprises de plateforme, notamment dans le secteur des services financiers. Nous sommes investisseurs dans Impaakt et fiers de présenter ses recherches révolutionnaires.

Pour plus d’informations, visitez www.aperture.co 

Pour toute demande de renseignements: media@aperture.co

First Solar, Mastercard and Moderna among the companies to have the most positive impact on the planet, according to new ranking report

aperture together with Impaakt launch their inaugural “Global Impact Rankings”, listing the companies having the most positive and negative impacts on the planet.

Switzerland, Geneva, 29 November 2022 – aperture, the growth capital and marketing services company, together with Impaakt, a collective intelligence platform for impact data, today launch their inaugural “Global Impact Rankings”, listing the companies having the most positive and negative impacts on the planet.

The “Global Impact Rankings” report takes a snapshot of company impact data, using the Impaakt data platform. Impaakt relies on the collective intelligence of more than 50,000 trained community members to source and rate the relative importance of factual information about companies’ impact on the planet, using the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as the framework. The premise is that the community’s collective views are not only valid, but more neutral and objective than the views or methodologies of any individual ratings provider.

At a macro level, the results show that most companies are not yet doing enough to improve their planetary impact.  From the companies assessed, the contributions to the UN Sustainable Development Goals are more negative than positive. Most companies – however good their products – still have a negative environmental footprint from their operations. Nonetheless, while no company’s impacts are wholly positive, there are some companies that have significant positive impacts on both people and planet.

Clean energy companies top the list. Unsurprisingly, clean energy companies score well in the rankings, with First Solar and Sunrun taking the top spots. However, companies from other sectors, and possibly less intuitive names, also feature in the top 10, such as Mastercard, Schneider Electric and Moderna, maker of the COVID-19 vaccines. 

Companies from the oil and gas, mining and tobacco sectors are those with the most negative scores, with CNOOC, Vale and Saudi Aramco coming bottom of the list. The report also shines a light on other companies, such as Apple and Nestlé, which one might assume would have a high positive score, and shows how, when multiple factors are taken into account, the picture is more complex.

Ben Robinson, co-founder and CEO of aperture, commented:

“We believe this report is very timely. As Cop27 showed us, we cannot rely solely on governments to lead the action on climate change. We as individuals – consumers, employees, investors – must also play a role in holding companies to account. This report – and, by extension, the Impaakt platform – gives people a straightforward and easy-to-understand picture of which companies are positively or negatively impacting our planet, so that we can vote with our feet.”

Bertrand Gacon & Sylvain Massot, co-founders of Impaakt, explained:

By its very nature, sustainability is a collective endeavour. Companies can only make significant progress if their entire ecosystem is involved in the process. This report is an ideal opportunity to demonstrate Impaakt’s participatory approach, which involves the stakeholders who matter most (and have direct knowledge) in the entire sustainability process. This results in more meaningful impact assessment and more effective impact management”.

View the full report at aperture.co/global-impact-report  

About Impaakt

Impaakt is a collaborative platform. Our mission is to provide qualitative impact assessments and meaningful, real-time impact scores, helping direct capital to companies with the best possible impact on the planet and society. We use collective intelligence (i.e. you!) and AI to deliver a depth and diversity of analysis that no other system offers. 

For more information, visit www.impaakt.com

About aperture

aperture helps de-risk the growth of early-stage technology companies. We do so by providing a combination of go-to-market services, consulting and early-stage investment capital. Aperture specialises in working with platform business, especially in the financial services sector. We are investors in Impaakt and proud to present its ground-breaking research.

For more information, visit www.aperture.co 

For enquiries: media@aperture.co

The potential for intelligent automation — and why we’re (re)investing in Jaid

Jaid helps large institutions to intelligently automate important but mundane tasks, like resolving customer post-trade queries or updating CRM systems for changes in deal statuses.

Jaid helps large institutions to intelligently automate important but mundane tasks, like resolving customer post-trade queries or updating CRM systems for changes in deal statuses. The system makes everything look simple — but it’s an engineering feat that is opening up a market opportunity worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Marketing services drive deal flow

We first met Dan Kramer, Jaid CEO, thanks to a referral. Someone we’d worked with in the past had told Dan that aperture could raise his company’s profile in the US. When we explained to Dan our model — which is to provide a full-stack marketing execution platform — Dan realized we could do much more. He could see that overnight we could turbocharge demand generation across key markets — while also massively raising the company’s profile. So, he was sold and wanted to sign us up. However, through those early discussions, meeting the team, and seeing the product, we had also become convinced of their value proposition. And so, we worked hard to persuade Dan to let us invest in their seed round in the summer — to ensure all our interests were aligned.

A system of intelligence

Why did we like Jaid?

First of all, because it was self-evident that the solution could be applied to a multitude of use cases, across a multitude of industries (finance, healthcare, government, etc). We’d lived many of the use cases (name one marketing person that doesn’t have a hard time getting salespeople to update the CRM?). We’ve also observed through consulting work how many people are employed in organizations doing exactly these kinds of tasks today. This underpinned our confidence in the size of the opportunity.

Second, we liked the team. Down-to-earth, and pragmatic, the core team has scaled several successful start-ups before, so they know what they’re doing, and can leverage a massive network of contacts and advisors to help them get there.

Third, they are extremely progressive in their attitude to scaling the business. Echoing thoughts we’ve articulated before, the team is super focused on the areas where they have a demonstrable competitive advantage (especially technology) and happy to outsource critical functions (such as marketing) to partners they perceived also to have a sustainable competitive advantage.

Fourth, demand for the solution isn’t cyclical. It will of course sell well when times are good and budgets are brimming, but it will also sell well — maybe even better — in difficult times. For a single use case, the solution can be implemented in a few weeks. And the effects are dramatic — one client realized a 95% reduction in staff processing time of inquiries. And that combination of quick implementation plus large impact leads to extremely quick time to value — costs savings that can be materialized in a quarter or half year — which are the holy grail in a downturn.

Fifthly, and most importantly, the solution is a system of intelligence and architected as such.

The Jaid system specializes in use cases where it needs to interpret human, natural language commands (such as an email asking about a missing payment). It then queries other systems to retrieve the right answer and presents that answer back, also in natural language (e.g. an email explaining and resolving the problem), while also updating the CRM system with logs of what has happened.

Most companies that try to tackle these types of problems tend to do it in one of two ways. They either observe how a human deals with a specific query and then seek to automate the same response, so that it can be done without the humans and at scale. However, the problem is that each process needs to be automated separately, which takes time and doesn’t allow for flexibility. The second approach is to try to build intelligence into channels or into systems of record. The challenge here is that it’s necessary to mediate between the two, interpreting inquiries received via any channel and resolving them by querying any and all relevant record-keeping systems — therefore it requires a separate platform.

Jaid is built as an independent system of intelligence. It means that clients can add more channels and more use cases over time, without additional development cycles. It also means that the solution gets better over time. With more training data, the accuracy gets better, so that the solution can resolve more inquiries without having to involve a human in the workflow. All of which massively boost value-add and return on investment for clients.

Inside-out due diligence

We have been working with Jaid since July. In that time, operating side-by-side with the team, we have seen how the value proposition is being received by prospective customers, we have seen how the pipeline has grown (27 enterprise-level SQLs have been created in less than 5 months), we have seen the strong team dynamics, we have seen how deployments are managed, and we have seen the satisfaction and ROI of live clients. In short, our conviction levels, strong from the start, have multiplied and we stand ready to make a much bigger investment into the Series+ round, being led by Sure Valley Ventures.

To learn more about Jaid and its system of intelligence, visit www.jaid.io

To learn more about aperture, visit www.aperture.co

Thanks to Allison Chapman and Carla Venter, who also contributed to this post.

The Market Map
Embedded Insurance 2.0

The most comprehensive analysis of the multi-trillion dollar Embedded Insurance market opportunity for brands, insurers, entrepreneurs and investors.

90+ pages; 46 Embedded Insurance providers profiled; 19+ Charts, diagrams and tables; 20 case studies; The Market Map quadrant.

Share on linkedin
Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on whatsapp
Share on email

Three facts we learnt from the Embedded Insurance 2.0 Report

Jaid helps large institutions to intelligently automate important but mundane tasks, like resolving customer post-trade queries or updating CRM systems for changes in deal statuses.

Technology has continued to infiltrate and improve every part of our day-to-day lives and insurance is no exception.

Despite the hype around and investment into insurtech coupled with the eagerness from big corporates all the way to smaller fintechs to disrupt the space, it may come as a surprise that the current model for insurance is still not working, although it is clear that there is huge potential to close the ‘protection gap’, and bring significant gains for just about any brand.

So, why is that? First and foremost, insurtech is a highly complex vertical and one that is truly misjudged; for example, non-financial brands misunderstand the potential for embedded insurance into everyday goods and what the first steps to successfully making it work is.

Secondly, part of the problem is that today’s insurance products are primarily designed for the well-off. Those with enough discretionary income can afford the prices the incumbent industry needs to charge to make a profit.

Lastly, the feelings attached to the industry from the wider population range from ‘scam’ to ‘unnecessary’ all the way to ‘unaffordable’, yet all three sentiments around insurance could not be further from the truth.

At Aperture, our vision for embedded insurance is: “More and better protection baked into the everyday lives of everyone.”

Over the next decade, the world is due to, cumulatively, spend roughly $80 trillion on insurance, yet the gaps between what people need for protection against risks and threats and the coverage they have are getting wider and wider.

When done well, insurance brings peace of mind to consumers and businesses, protecting them from threats and giving them the confidence to try new things. By incorporating ‘peace of mind’ and ‘resilience’ into their customer propositions, brands have the potential to create new growth and value for themselves.

At Aperture, we’re constantly looking at how embedded insurance can transform industries and solve very real problems faced in today’s world. Here are our three takeaways on the landscape pulled from our extensive coverage report (which you can access here).

Investors want to see more innovation from the insurance sector

For the last decade, institutional investors have seen the insurance sector as a relatively safe haven for investments in the financial space.

Yet, the insurance market is untapped. Truly, there is nothing investors love to see more than a space ready for a renaissance, that can create ethical profits for the business and really benefit the end-user’s day-to-day life.

Many firms are noticing that the addressable market is way bigger than originally anticipated. 

They are keen to delve into much-hyped industries, however, without seeing actual impact and justification for why sectors like insurtech are ripe for disruption, it can be harder to get them excited once the hype dies down.

Today, the worldwide retirement savings gap is over $98 trillion…

… which is only a fraction of the bigger picture. Closing the protection gap is a noble cause and one that looks at the amount of money that can protect for the future, whether its life insurance, retirement savings or insurance on everyday goods.

Protection gaps are defined as the difference between the amount of insurance that is economically beneficial and the amount of coverage actually purchased. 

According to Mercer and the World Economic Forum, in India the retirement gap is more than $3 trillion today, growing at 10% per year. Even in ‘rich’ countries like the UK, the retirement savings gap is over $10 trillion today. In emerging markets, insurance and savings typically meet less than 10% of the population’s protection needs. In Mexico, for example, over 60% of vehicles are without motor insurance. In China, out of pocket expenditure on healthcare stands at $193 billion, which is three times insurance cover.

These figures are not easy to rectify, and local governments will not be able to address these gaps alone.

One of the most effective routes to decrease these figures – brands have an intimate relationship with their customers and are in a golden position to provide the most appropriate protection solution.

Any brand regardless of industry can benefit from the opportunities embedded insurance provide

Over $5 trillion of insurance could be distributed by non-insurance brands, worldwide.

Currently, brands have not had much involvement in the process of designing protection or peace of mind solutions for their customers, therefore insurance comes off as a supplementary product that looks and feels years behind the brands own image and mission, creating a disconnect for end-consumers.

Unfortunately, this is because it has been left to insurance companies to create risk management solutions, operating without consideration for the everyday lives of the general public and using partial information to create products which are too complex and difficult to supply profitably.

The companies – brands – that create the products, services and solutions that enable these everyday activities – retailers, banks, healthcare providers, transporters, media, telcos, equipment suppliers, realtors, NGOs, employers, manufacturers, and digital platforms across all sectors – have more knowledge about the risks and threats inherent in the products and services they offer than anyone else.

This knowledge is becoming increasingly enriched with data as more and more products and services are digitised. Building thoughtful and useful embedded insurance solutions into well loved brands can change the widespread.

As outlined in this blog, it is very clear to us that the possibilities are endless. We see embedded finance, in particular insurance, as the clear future of financial integration powering up industries as wide ranging as the travel space, e-commerce space, even the delivery space.

To really take advantage of embedded insurance, it is critical to have the right tools to understand what you need and the addressable market as it stands today.

Download the ultimate guide to embedded insurance, or to hear how leaders within the space see it, you can watch our 4×4 Virtual Salon on Embedded Insurance here.

The Market Map
Embedded Insurance 2.0

The most comprehensive analysis of the multi-trillion dollar Embedded Insurance market opportunity for brands, insurers, entrepreneurs and investors.

90+ pages; 46 Embedded Insurance providers profiled; 19+ Charts, diagrams and tables; 20 case studies; The Market Map quadrant.

Share on linkedin
Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on whatsapp
Share on email

Embedded Insurance 2.0: Best case studies

4×4 Virtual Salon with Graeme Dean, Sriram Jayanthi, Jim Dwane and Roberto Gonzalez.

Following the launch of the Embedded Insurance 2.0 Market Map report, we run this virtual salon to showcase some of the best case studies of brands exploiting Embedded Insurance from around the world.  Organised by aperture and Embedded Finance & Super App Strategies, Simon Torrance hosted four excellent guests:

 

Main topics discussed:

1. What (exactly) is ‘Embedded Insurance 2.0’ and why is it important to business and society?
2. What specific problems does Embedded Insurance solve for brands and their customers, and how does it do so?
3. How to make an investment case for Embedded Insurance, at a brand and an insurer?
4. What does the future hold for brands and insurers with embedded insurance?

Read transcript ->

The Market Map
Embedded Insurance 2.0

The most comprehensive analysis of the multi-trillion dollar Embedded Insurance market opportunity for brands, insurers, entrepreneurs and investors.

90+ pages; 46 Embedded Insurance providers profiled; 19+ Charts, diagrams and tables; 20 case studies; The Market Map quadrant.

Share on linkedin
Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on whatsapp
Share on email

 

Embedded Insurance 2.0: Best case studies

 

Full transcript:

[00:00:00] Simon: Hello everybody. My name is Simon Torrance, and I’m going to be moderating this webinar on Embedded insurance 2.0. We’ve gathered some people who are experts on this topic. They are going to share some of their experiences of delivering this concept in different parts of the world. Let me introduce them to you.

Firstly, we’ve got Graeme Dean, who is VP of Global Insurance Solutions at Cover Genius. Cover Genius is one of the leading embedded insurance companies. It raised, I think recently about $80 million in a new round of investment, and works across 60 countries around the world helping brands create embedded insurance programs. One of his clients is Sriram Jayanthi, who is a Senior Product Manager at Omio. Omio is a unicorn business; it’s a multimodal journey booking platform that helps you get from A to B through any type of transport. Omio operates now across many countries in the world, and indeed facilitates about 10 million journeys per annum in Europe alone. Sriram has been leading the insurance program, working with Cover Genius for the last year; he’s going to share his experiences.

I’m delighted also to welcome here Jim Dwane, who runs Bolttech in North America. Jim’s a veteran from the insurance industry. For the last few years he’s been in the tech industry, driving Bolttech forward. Bolttech also is a unicorn business; it describes itself as an insurance exchange. It connects brands with insurance solutions and insurance companies. Last year they facilitated insurance quotations to the value of $44 billion, Jim, wasn’t it? Doing really well, growing very fast, and operates across the world. One of his great customers and clients is Roberto Gonzales, who runs Keller Covered, part of Keller Williams. Keller Williams is one of the biggest real estate companies in the world. It operates in 80 countries, has 170,000 estate agents that work with it. Keller Covered is their insurance proposition which has been set up, or been updated in the last year or so, works closely with Jim and Bolttech to enable that.

I’m really delighted to have this group of experts together with you today. I should give you one word of apology: we are all men. We normally like to have a mix of sexes in our webinars. Next time we’ll ensure that we do, but for now bear with us, please. The agenda for today’s as follows: I’m going to share a few slides to set the scene and create the framework for our discussion today, then I’m going to ask the panelists to give their views on these questions here.

Firstly, what is embedded insurance and why is it important to society and businesses? Then we’re going to spend a bit more time delving into the details of what problems it addresses for brands and their customers. We’re going to ask Sriram and Roberto about their experiences, then Jim and Graeme are going to share some of their knowledge and expertise working with other companies as well. What problems is it addressing for brands and consumers? Then we’ll look at how do these types of companies, brands of different types and different sectors create business cases for embedded insurance? What are the methods and processes and lessons for that? We’ll end by looking at the future. How might the future look? How is this market going to evolve?

To engage you, the audience and the people who are taking their time to come and listen to us today, we’ve got some polls, some surveys that will run throughout the discussion today. You can also input your questions and comments in the chat or the Q&A function that you can see. I know you’ve all used Zoom before. Please do that. We almost certainly won’t have time to answer all of them during this session, but we will commit to responding to them afterwards. We’ll review them and we’ll write up a Q&A, FAQ document to cover the questions you might have.

Thank you all of you who’ve taken time to be with us today. Big thank you to the panelists as well. Let’s get started on this interesting topic.

The background to it is a report that myself with my friends at Aperture have just finished writing, called Embedded insurance 2.0. It’s been a labor of love for the last six months, looking at this market and how brands and insurers and others can take advantage of developments. It’s about 90 pages long. We surveyed and spoke to nearly 50 leading pioneering companies in this space, including Bolttech and Cover Genius, and we benchmarked them against various criteria. You can see a redacted version on the right hand side. The reasons we invited Bolttech and Cover Genius along today was they were very much in the top right hand quadrant there compared to others. I should say that there are many players in this space. Many of them do different things in different ways, and there’s a great deal of innovation happening in this market. It’s still early stage, but very vibrant and growing much faster than the rest of the InsureTech market today. If you want to get details of this report, you can see the URL there. It’s also in the chat space here as well. The URL, if you want to get more details on the report, is there.

Let me set the scene. What is emerging that is enabling embedded insurance. 2.0 is the following: essentially some brands have sold insurance for some time, but technology is dramatically changing the way that’s happening, and also the nature of the insurance solutions and the nature of the way that consumers consume them. Let me just try and bring that to life briefly for you. We always need to start with the end consumer. As many of you know, the world is getting riskier. There are more and more severe risks facing us as individuals, businesses, and humans on the planet. That is creating protection gaps, gaps between what we need to be resilient and have peace of mind, and what we have; the types of solutions that are available to us and that we have, that are going to protect us. Those gaps are getting bigger and bigger as the world gets bigger in terms of more people, and the risks increase. There is increasing demand for protection solutions.

What’s interesting in the past is that traditional insurers would provide those to consumers, if the consumer knows about them, understands them, can access them and can afford them. There are many people in the world who are completely uninsured. There are even more people who are underinsured. Even in advanced economies like North America or Europe, there are many people who don’t have the right type of protection to suit their lifestyle or their situations. The UN is very worried about this.

What we’re starting to see is the potential for a new type of organization to help consumers get what they need. Let’s call these brands, brands and digital platforms that interact with consumers on a more regular basis than insurers do, that understand their needs in the context of what they support their customers with, and have a lot more data – often real-time data – about customers that can be used to create more appropriate, relevant and affordable protection solutions for end consumers. Of course, brands and digital platforms have their own pressures. They need to find, keep and retain customers. They’re looking for new ways to do that. Insurance, we’re going to hear about it later on, is a way of helping them to keep closer with their customers.

At the same time, on the supply side, in the past individual insurers would sell their products to customers and those products, those capabilities tend to be tracked within individual organizations. But now digital technology is allowing those capabilities to be released, abstracted into software, turned into almost Lego bricks that can be reconfigured by organizations in new and creative ways. We are seeing the capability, not just in insurance, but also in financial services and other adjacent areas that are relevant to protection, prevention services, or other types of value added services.

What we’ve now seen, and this is what our report was focused on and why we’ve invited the panelists to join us, is a new breed of organization that is sitting in the middle, that is enabling those Lego bricks to be drawn in, configured to help brands support their customers with their needs. Cover Genius and Bolttech are two prime examples of companies that are doing this, that are focused on this as their business. I call them operating systems, because they essentially help to orchestrate innovation between the supply base, all the capabilities that are needed; and the demand, which are brands, digital platforms and end users.

Today, where our panelists fit in, we have Roberto from Keller Williams, who is a brand in the real estate sector, which is digitizing rapidly; and Sriram, who runs product management for Omio, which is a digital platform. Bolttech and Cover Genius are companies that enable them to offer protection solutions to their end users. Down the bottom, those companies also create some of their own solutions, customized solutions when required, and collaborate with other parts of the value chain as well, often the traditional insurers.

That’s the framework we’re going to use to discuss around. In terms of why this is such an interesting market, we’ve done some sizing and it looks quite attractive in terms of the growth of embedded insurance over the next 10 years, which is essentially a new method of distributing protection and insurance solutions that will eat into other distribution channels. If you are on the insurance side, wondering how this affects you, the value at stake for traditional distributors. We also see that if we can enable brands that have large customer bases to be involved in the creation and distribution of new protection solutions, we could also grow the total insurance market as well, create net new value above where we are or the current forecasts. If you are a brand or if you’re an investor, if you add up all that written premium, the premiums of insurance that could be distributed in this way, you get to an exciting business opportunity in the trillions for brands to not only add value to their customers, but create value for themselves as well. That’s why there’s a lot of investment and focus on this topic today, because the opportunity is so significant.

Finally, what’s our noble purpose with Embedded insurance 2.0? I think it’s something like this. If we have these protection gaps, how can we close them by working with brands that have closer interactions with those end users on a more regular daily basis, enabled by new operating systems? Maybe this is our noble purpose. It’s not just about making money. It’s about ultimately enabling more and better protection to be baked into the everyday lives of everyone. I think that’s something that we can all get excited about in terms of helping to achieve.

I hope that has been a useful opening stimulus for our debate. I wanted to ask each of the panelists just to give their opening thoughts of what Embedded insurance 2.0 means to them, and what protection gaps ultimately do you think it could address? Then we’ll get into the meat of how it works for brands and their end users. Roberto, would you like to start?

[00:13:54] Roberto: Of course, Simon. Thank you for that, that was a great introduction. I think it explains to everyone very nicely how this ecosystem is being built. From my perspective working for KWX, which is the holding company for Keller Williams, which as you mentioned is the one of the leading real estate franchises in the US, what we do at the end of the day is have a team of realtors, over 170,000 realtors, help people purchase what ends up being the most valuable asset for most people in their lifetime, which is their home. The whole idea of how insurance fits into that is in every single home transaction, you need to buy insurance.

But his is what’s interesting, the person is buying the home. The person isn’t buying insurance; no one gets excited about, I’m going to go buy insurance. Insurance is like an add-on that you have to have. From our perspective, and the reason why Keller Covered was created was not only to help the end user, but also to help the realtor, who is the enabler in that transaction, have access to a tool that can provide the most value to the end user. The realtor helps the customer find the right home in the right district with the right schools, for their right lifestyle. The realtor doesn’t really need to be an insurance expert in reality; they can’t even give insurance advice unless they’re licensed. That’s why providing them with a tool such as Keller Covered, powered by Bolt Insurance, is so valuable.

Answering your question, what is embedded insurance, it really means automating or facilitating the right coverage to make sure that when that person led by that realtor is buying their home, that they don’t have any gaps in coverage. I love the way you said it, because a lot of people are underinsured or they’re overpaying for insurance. But having the right protection, that is really something that most of us sometimes take for granted, unless a disaster comes along. Being able to provide that guarantee to a consumer that, hey, you’re going to have the right protection, the right levels of protection, you’re going to have enough money to rebuild your home in case something happens, you don’t have to know all the details because we’re going to use third party data to facilitate and to automate the underwriting and make sure that the real risk is assessed, automating all that process, which otherwise it’s very tedious because insurance is a complicated issue, that is something that people don’t understand and they don’t want to get into, making that easy for them is just the end game for us. That’s my view on it and how it relates to the real estate business.

[00:16:29] Simon: Yeah, because after just your health your house is really quite critical. I’ll ask Sriram, your views on this?

[00:16:40] Sriram: Hello everybody. On this, I think it’s a very interesting question. Because if you look at embedded insurance, I would think it’s like some sort of disruption to the insurance industry. I think it’s very analogous to what happened in payments and banking. Across the globe, there are a lot of underbanked and underserved individuals, which basically the new payment services help disrupt and provide access to them. I think with insurance it’s very similar. It provides access and relevant access to a wide variety of consumers who currently don’t have insurance.

If you brought it down to the noble purpose, this can actually provide access to a relevant insurance for a wide variety of uninsured customers, because essentially most of them are also one catastrophic event away from poverty. Embedded insurance can essentially save them if they get access to it.

[00:17:36] Simon: Great. Thank you. Jim, your perspective.

[00:17:40] Jim: I love the fact that you use the term gap before, because one of the ways we characterize this emergence of embedded insurance is insurance distribution is essentially democratizing. Why is it democratizing? The reason it’s democratizing is the traditional means of insurance distribution, which is certainly not going away, was as you said, creating a large population of un and underserved consumers. There was a lot of protection not being served.

I think embedded insurance fills almost three different dimensions of gaps. The first gap it fills is one of, of different places. You can now buy insurance in a multitude of different places. Those places may be physical. You want into a store, you buy a cell phone and you can buy insurance on the spot. That in essence is an embedded experience. It’s a physical embedded experience. Then you’ve got the digital embedded experience, where you’ve got a digital journey. There’s something broader happening, like someone’s buying a house, and there are a series of things that people need when they buy a house, including a mortgage and title insurance, you need some access to legal services, and if you’re going to get a mortgage, you can need homeowner’s insurance. There’s a digital gap created, or a digital location. Finally, one of the most fascinating parts of this, and I thought it was great that you had Cover Genius and Bolttech on the product side portion of your slide as well, that is the emergence of these previously unknown exposures. The whole sharing economy has created a multitude of previously unaddressed coverages.

Embedded insurance affords the opportunity, not just to distribute insurance in unique ways, but it also allows you to concurrently invent coverages that satisfy or protect whatever the particular circumstance is, whether it’s the emergence of pool sharing or boat sharing and things like that. There’s all sorts of interesting things you could do in terms of product invention. I view it as a three dimensional filling of the gaps.

[00:20:12] Simon: Thank you. Graeme, what do you think?

[00:20:15] Graeme: To use your 2.0 language, I think embedded insurance 1.0 was really finding a way to offer an insurance at a point of sale. Typically, it was probably an airline selling insurance, a travel insurance with their flight. But as we’ve evolved, and people are using more digital and technology companies where there’s different touch points, there’s different channels that they’re interacting with those brands, I think 2.0 is the evolution of that in just being broadening the product suite that we’re able to offer and make available to customers through all of those different touch points, through all the different experiences. I think it’s just double downing on a lot of those experiences that people are used to, and they want to interact with those brands. They want to continue that experience that they’re used to. I think it’s about making products available at a relevant time at the right price.

People don’t really want to go and do a lot of shopping now. The likes of Amazon have made us impatient and lazy. We want it all to be ready for us and ready to go in one simple click. I think it’s just utilizing that same ethos, and then broadening the products suite. Because it’s not just for consumers. It’s also for businesses. That’s the evolution where it’s going to go.

[00:21:36] Simon: Brilliant, thank you. Let’s do a little poll just to engage the audience. If we put up the poll, Diana, let’s see what they think. Here it is. Which of these questions do you agree with most? Protection gaps being the gap between what you need and what you have. Let’s think about it on a global basis, but which of those statements do you agree with most? Does it have a very significant role, a significant role, a limited role, or a very limited role in helping to address protection gaps compared to other things that are going on? If I can ask you just in the next 20 seconds to submit your vote, and we’ll see what you are thinking about this, then we’re going to move on to talking about some of the practicalities of creating an embedded insurance program for brands and the value to their end customers.

Let’s just give you another 10 seconds now to cast your vote. Unfortunately, the host and the panelists are not allowed to vote for some reason. It means that we can’t be biased, I guess. I think time is up. Let’s see what you said. A significant or very significant, that’s good to know. That’s great. There’s a reason for getting out of bed in the morning to enable this topic. Thank you for that.

Let’s move on to the next part of the discussion. I wanted to get into the nitty gritty and ask particularly Roberto and Sriram first about their company. Let’s bring it to life with a case study. I wanted to ask you how you are using embedded insurance specifically. I know Roberto you gave a little bit of a hint of that, but maybe go into a bit more detail. What specific problems does it solve for you and your customers? If you could just bring it to life in terms of how exactly it works, where it’s placed, how it’s offered, how much it costs, things like that, that would be great. I’m going to ask Sriram, would you be happy to go first? I’ll ask Roberto, and then I’ll ask the other guys to give some other case studies and news cases that they’re seeing in the market.

[00:23:50] Sriram: Sure, I can first. I think when we looked at embedded insurance as a brand as Omio, the first thing that we wanted to do was look at user research and understand what users particularly think about insurance. It came to be one of the top concerns. I think it was also driven by the fact that we had a pandemic, and a lot of cancellations and people lost a lot of money on different travel tickets. Insurance and flexibility was top of minds for our customers.

Once we decided that we were going to be investing in this area, what we looked at was the fact that accessibility was very important. We wanted all the customers to have access to one insurance product, at least. The second thing was, we are also a digital first platform. We placed very strong emphasis on tech fidelity. We wanted the APIs to be up all the time, even if they’re down, so we can reach out to teams and then get them back up and running. We had issues in the past when working with traditional insurers, when APIs were down, sometimes for months. That was the second important thing that we looked at. Thirdly, we also innovate in the travel sector. We tried to provide unique travel products to our customers. For example, we tried to stitch together a journey. We wanted somebody to work along with us in offering unique insurance solutions for this, like a guaranteeing, a connection between a trade and a bus. This is not something that you can take off the shelf, but you need to work along with somebody to build these products. These were the things that we looked at when we considered investing in embedded insurance and why it made sense for us.

[00:25:26] Simon: You were telling me that something like 10% of the journeys that you enable people take is insurance, is that correct?

[00:25:37] Sriram: Yes. A little more than 10% of our journeys that we enable currently have an insurance attached to them. This metric, we worked on it for the last six to eight months along in a partnership with Cover Genius. We brought different value additions, we changed the customer experience, we gave them data products. Currently more than 1 in 10 Omio customers traveled with an insurance.

[00:26:02] Simon: Is it convenient that makes it attractive to the customer? Would you say it’s just there when you need it and it’s easy to access, and if you’ve done it once because the claims process is nice, you’ll do it again? Is that it?

[00:26:18] Sriram: I think it’s convenience, and also the fact that it is also relevant, because we are offering relevant insurance products that tailor to their particular journey. We also believe that our customers trust our brand. When we are offering an insurance at the right point, we believe it also extends to them that we are saying that this is a relevant product for you to be using right now, given that there’s a little bit of flux in the travel industry. I think both put together.

[00:26:48] Simon: It’s very commercially attractive to you, isn’t it? Because if you’re doing 10 million journeys, 10% of a million journeys that are covered, you charge about 10 or 15 euros, isn’t it? That’s a lot of money. Then you take your revenue share, which is quite significant as well. That’s quite a lot of high margin new business for you, isn’t it?

[00:27:13] Sriram: Yes, exactly. Not just for the customers, like I said for the customers it’s very relevant and it’s top of mind, top of needs, but even for us as a company it’s a significant source of revenue. That warrants the investment that we had. We have teams working behind this that make sure the product is serviced in the most relevant way, and customers have the most relevant experience. To do that, we need case study and we need some numbers to back this up. Like you said, with the current numbers there is quite a significant addition to the bottom line, because margins on journeys with insurance attached is quite high.

[00:27:53] Simon: I think you said also when you moved to a more modern, what I call operating system, in this case working with Cover Genius, you quite dramatically increased your attach rates of insurance as well?

[00:28:07] Sriram: Yes. I think that is because we worked on the product in close partnership, and then we decided that this is the right product strategy and the right product to be offering to this particular set of customers. We do multiple transport; we have like trains, buses and flights, and we need to be offering relevant products. Also the way we service it up, at what point we do, we needed somebody who work along with us in data mining and making sure that we have the right tools for this. This is very important for us. This was quite an equal partnership right from the beginning.

I think that helped us improve this metric, which was quite stagnant when we worked with more traditional insurers before. Post this, we managed to more than double our rates with this.

[00:28:49] Simon: Brilliant. Well, thank you for that. Let me just ask Roberto, can you tell us a bit more about how in practice your proposition works, and then the benefits because you’ve got the agents and you’ve got the end customer and then you’ve got you as well. Just tell us a bit about how that works in practice.

[00:29:09] Roberto: Like you’re mentioning, from our perspective for Keller Williams, I think it’s a very unique position because every initiative that we undertake at KWX the first question that we have to answer is: how does this benefit the agent? Because at the end of the day, that is our core business. Keller Williams is a brokerage, it’s a training company. We help agents succeed, build large businesses, successful businesses, and provide the tools so that they can do that.

We also have to keep in mind that whatever service that has the Keller brand attached to it has to have the highest quality of service, the highest quality of products. These are all the things that we have to look at. KWX has different companies that have been created with the goal of forming a home ownership experience that helps the realtor remain at the center of the transaction, and be able to like compete with other realtors from other brokerages because they have access to additional tools. Additional to Keller Covered, there’s Keller Mortgage Keller Offers, Keller Manage, Keller Title. There’s other companies that are out there or in the making to help this this whole ecosystem succeed.

Going back to insurance, how does insurance help the realtor? When you buy a home and you’re using a mortgage, like Jim mentioned, you need to have insurance. That is just one additional hurdle that everybody needs to go over in order to complete the purchase transaction. Having a tool like Keller Covered, the idea originally was helping the end user have a very streamlined, very efficient, very effective, very unintrusive experience where they could go into a website, they could answer a few questions that everybody knows, not ask anything random or that. You wouldn’t know about a hazard you don’t even know, like how far away are you from a fire station or how far away are you from a fire hydrant, which are questions you need to answer in order to get a quote from an insurance carrier. We built this website that is very streamlined. We ask only seven questions. We use third party data to prepopulate the rest of the questionnaire. We send all that over to Bolt. We leverage their insurance exchange to get back the quotes and populate the quotes.

Basically a realtor doing a transaction with a customer is able to get that customer in less than three minutes, most of the time real accurate quotes on what insurance would cost and what protection they would have for that new property. It makes the realtor seem more knowledgeable, makes them seem more efficient. It provides additional value to the end user. It’s just part of the ecosystem where you bring this additional value. Where we insert Keller Covered, and that’s really my job, we integrate in our own CRM so that realtors have an easy way to invite customers to shop for insurance. We we’re embedded with our Keller Mortgage affiliated business so that every loan that comes through also gets invited to shop for insurance, and make sure that when the loan goes through that insurance is already there and it’s not something that’s going to hold off on the actual approval of the loan.

We’re trying to find these spots where people are going to need insurance, and make sure that we service the solution at that point in time while we work with Bolt to provide the quotes for the customer.

[00:32:32] Simon: That’s very good for the agent, because it’s also an excuse after the sale of a house to get in touch in a year’s time. You might want to change your insurance, let me get in touch with you about that. You keep in touch every year until the time when they want to move house again. It’s a nice way of keeping in touch, isn’t it? I guess also for you it’s a great product, because typically the average lifetime of a house insurance is about eight years. It’s a nice recurring revenue, if you can retain them for that time.

[00:33:09] Roberto: Absolutely, what you’re mentioning is very valuable because for us providing the agents with an additional touchpoint, like you’re saying, outside of the transaction, that’s something that none of the other affiliated businesses in Keller Williams universe do right now. That’s a really nice piece of insurance right there. You’re absolutely correct.

[00:33:26] Simon: Great. Well, I want to ask Jim and Graeme about maybe another case study in other sectors that you are seeing, that you think demonstrates the art of the possible. Graeme, would you like to go first? Give us an example.

[00:33:39] Graeme: Sure, I could give you a couple of examples that that might be interesting. What we’ve found is that when we’ve embedded insurance to be sold alongside another product or service at a point of sale type scenario, that the actual underlying product or service conversion rate has increased by the mere fact of having the insurance offered. We’ve tested this in various products and various markets. It’s a really interesting case for the brands to be able to not only potentially making money for yourself from a commission point of view of the insurance, but your underlying product and service by offering the insurance is increased as well. I thought that’s an interesting case to share.

Also what we found is by giving a little bit more choice to customers, rather than ramming down their throat a really big comprehensive type policy, actually breaking it up and what we call unbundling that a little bit and allowing a little more choice to customers, builds a higher attach rate in the long term and yield as well, because they want that little bit more flexibility and the ability to say, “I want a little bit more control. I don’t want you to tell me that I need everything and I don’t feel that I do.” Or having that negativity around, I bought this policy but I don’t even need these sections so now I feel like I’m getting ripped off. It’s having that little bit more control back to the customer. We’ve found it increases the conversion rate as well.

[00:35:18] Simon: Good, thank you. Jim, any good examples that you are seeing at the moment?

[00:35:23] Jim: Listen, but one of the exciting things about embedded insurance in the future of embedded insurance, Simon, as you touched on in your opening is there feels like there’s a limitless opportunity for, the way I say it is the intersection of commerce and risk. It’s constantly changing where commerce, some type of a commercial or personal transaction intersects with some moment of risk or some identification of risk. We joke around at Bolt, about how every week we wake up and we find a place that might be appropriate to sell insurance. We think about it in the context of commerce and risk. That creates lots and lots of different scenarios. That’s the first thing.

I like what Sriram said before, and I think Graeme touched on it as well, this whole continuum of simplicity to choice. There will always be a robust market for the simpler type products. I almost analogize them to the point of purchase display when you’re checking out of the grocery store. You get to the end and they say, would you like this? They’re not giving you choice, but it’s a simple, seamless pleasant experience that just catches you on your way out. However, on the other end of the perspective, you’ve got choice. Graeme is exactly right. For the insurance geeks among us, this is some of the exciting stuff around optimizing conversion. At the end of the day, it’s about economics as well as protection. Figuring out what that optimal combination of choice generally for the more complex products; the more complex the product the more beneficial choice is as it relates to conversions. That’s something that we consider important, and something that at this juncture of the embedded journey 2.0 is something I think we’re all learning more and more every day.

One of the things that I think is the next frontier is services. Right now many of the insurance offerings are oriented around indemnification with not as much services. Again, it depends, obviously something like travel is service. But I think we’re going to see a proliferation of services as well here in the future. It’s almost like a three act play. Act one was the simple line, act two is the choice, and act three is the service oriented offerings on a much broader scale.

[00:38:04] Simon: Do you mean services in terms of risk services, to help prevent risk or mitigate them?

[00:38:09] Jim: Exactly. Risk services, response services et cetera.

The last thing I’ll say Simon is, I think what the industry’s beginning to learn, and when I say industry it’s everybody, it’s Sriram, it’s Roberto, it’s Graeme, it’s myself, we all do slightly different things, but at the end of the day we’re all part of this journey, roper intent wins the day. What does that mean? You can plug insurance into a bunch of different situations. But if you haven’t plugged it in at a place in a moment where the intent is high or where the intent is appropriate, you’re really not going to accomplish a whole lot. It’s one thing to actually run around embedding the insurance purchase opportunities, whether it be choice based or more simple based. The true winners are the ones who are going to figure out how to optimize, not just the where, but the when of that journey.

Finally, along those lines there’s something else I say called the myth of the digital journey. I think we all know that insurance purchasing is going more and more human-less. The current hypothesis is the companies that are going to win are not the companies that are going to force their consumers into a completely digital journey. The companies that are going to win are the ones that perfect when exactly someone might need to be plucked out of that journey and carried across the finish line. Technology can’t front run human behavior and human comfort. As human beings become more and more comfortable with the digital journey, the companies that are succeeding are the ones that know, this person’s about to abandon, pluck them out, carry them across. I think that’s also something we have to keep an eye on.

[00:40:06] Simon: Yeah. There’s a great example during COVID, where some Uber operations just couldn’t get anybody to drive because people were worried they were in a catch COVID, they’d be ill, they could die, they couldn’t work, and so on, particularly in emerging markets. In the middle east, they gave insurance for free to their drivers to enable their business to operate at all. That encouraged people to. We talk about products, selling products, but there’s also the component of risk mitigation or risk transfer capabilities that you can insert into a proposition, like the example I just gave there.

Let’s ask the audience again, a poll. Could we put the next poll up please, Diana? Here it is. If we think about brands and maybe think about a brand that you know well, what’s the most attractive proposition to non-insurance brands for adopting embedded insurance? Is it to create new revenue streams from insurance sales? Is it about making our core business offerings more attractive by adding insurance components to them, a bit like the example I gave? Or is it retaining existing customers by integrating insurance solutions into loyalty programs, things like extended warranties, for example? Or is it a mix of the above? Let’s get your thoughts on this. Again, I’m going to give you 15 seconds this time to give your vote on that. We’ll see what you think about the value to brands. Just use one of those and we’ll see what you think. I’m going to ask you separately about value to consumers in a minute, but let’s just see what you think.

You’ve got another five seconds to make your vote, and that is just about up now. Let’s see, Diana, what do people think? Well, yeah, a mix of all of the above. I think that’s exactly right. Because the examples we’ve just talked about are not just about reselling insurance or about making the core business offerings attractive or about retaining. It’s mix of all of that. That’s a great result there. Good.

A quick other poll, thinking about consumers now. If we can put the next poll up. This is from the consumer point of view. What is the most compelling aspect of embedded insurance proposition to end consumers? So they could be business customers, or individual consumers, but which of these three? Is it convenience? Like Sriram was saying, I’ve booked my trip and now I’m going to buy some travel insurance. It’s so convenient to access that solution at the right place and time. Is it price? Because maybe the brand will make it cheaper because they’re trying to package it up with other propositions. Or is it simplicity? It’s just so easy to understand, to access, to manage; and particularly what these guys do is to make the claims experience really easy as well. Is it just, I don’t want any hassle, it’s so simple to do because brands have worked with companies like the ones that are with us today to make it a much better experience.

What are your thoughts on that? Again, I’m going to give you another five seconds now to get your final thoughts on that, or is it a blend of all of those three? Let’s just see what you’ve said to that. Convenience. This is really interesting Graeme, isn’t it? Because I know you always say convenience is really important. Price is less of the driver. In fact, people are happy to pay for something that’s good. Graeme, any comments from you on that one.

[00:43:54] Graeme: That’s right, you probably heard me say it before. Convenience is the number one driver. It isn’t about price, and it isn’t about the insurance brand per se either because it really is about the brand that’s actually offering it, which is the distribution brand. It’s at the right time, the pricing is likely right because you’ve probably had some smarts in there, but it’s not the main driver. It really is convenience.

[00:44:22] Simon: Any other comments from anybody else on this one to tally with your experiences?

Good. Let’s move to the next section about creating a business case. Part of the reason for us writing that big report recently is to try and educate and engage brands about the art of the possible. It feels to me that this is a very Greenfield market still. You’ve had big companies in the past that, like retailers or banks that have sold or resold insurance. Telcos have done that to some degree with handset insurance. Then there’s big manufacturers or retailers that have sold extended warranties.

But what it seems to me is that that’s just part of the market. There’s a huge sway of the rest of the market that doesn’t even realize what they can do, the sorts of things we’re talking about, particularly non-digital companies. There’s a lot of small companies that never thought they could embed insurance. Small retailers of e-bikes, as a classic example, which it’s great to offer at point of sale theft, injury, warranties, and so on. But in the past, it was just way too expensive to do that. Now through technologies any company can do this.

I wanted to ask you a bit about how even for very sophisticated digital companies like Omio and increasingly Keller Williams, how does your organization go out thinking about creating a business case? What are the key things that the CFO and the CEO and ultimately the board resonates with? I’m going to ask Sriram and then Roberto, and I’ll ask the other guys to come in with their experiences. Sriram, what made this compelling to your leaders?

[00:46:17] Sriram: I think the first thing, like I mentioned previously, is the fact that there has to be an inherent customer need. We saw in various user research that we did that there was this need to have flexibility and peace of mind. That was top of mind. Once we took that problem statement then we started understanding the economics behind it, we created the case in terms of, what is the potential reach that we can offer this product to? We wanted to offer, for example, on let’s say a hundred percent of our transactions, all our transactions have one insurance product attached to it. We took industry leading, we attached rates to these products, we had consultations with different partners. We understood what is the potential, attached it for these products. We also had historical data from working with traditional insurance partners, so know potentially what percentage of our transactions or bookings or journeys have or can potentially have an insurance with them.

Then we also know the market size of the insurance product. We have an estimate of what the value proposition for insurance. Then we took that into how it will affect the company’s bottom line and economics. We built a very simple business case using this, and when we looked at those numbers, they were very compelling. First, there was an inherent customer need to offset risk, especially in the industry. We looked at the numbers and the adapt rates and the market dynamics. Everything put together, I think it was a very compelling case both from the customer standpoint and from the company standpoint. While we are offering something that offsets risk, we are also adding significantly to our revenues.

[00:48:08] Simon:  Great. The numbers stacked up quite easily once you put them down and work them through. Roberto, just tell us from your point of view. I’m just wondering, if I could ask, because once you’ve started to sell, you’re selling a certain type of insurance, maybe you could go on and sell other types of insurance to your customers given that you have this relationship with them. I was almost thinking, could you not sell insurance to the agents, liability insurance and so on? Tell us your thoughts on at least the business case, and how that might evolve.

[00:48:42] Roberto: In order to understand that, I’ll quickly go over how this whole thing started. Keller Covered has been around for four years. Originally, we had direct relationships with carriers, and we just had a legion website where we would collect the information, send that information to an array of different carriers, and just show the quotes. That was the end of it. We started to realize that there were some pain points, and this is where we started to create the business case for switching the business model. Some of the pain points that we had were complaints from our agents saying, I sent the customer through and I don’t know what happened. Can you tell me if they purchased a policy or not? Can you tell me what happened with this customer? We had no idea because all we were doing was collecting information, showing quotes and sending them off to 20 different call centers.

That’s when we started to analyze the possibility of not just being a legion website, but becoming an insurance agency. When we decided to become an agency, we had two options. We could become like a real agency or we could become a virtual agency. That’s when we started to look at the availability of how quickly are we able to scale to support 170,000 agents in all 50 states overnight. That’s really where we started to do the whole process of, let’s find a partner that can provide us with the technology to replace what we already have, which is a connection with carriers that shows quotes, but also allows us to have the servicing part of it and have the agency and have that human touch, which is still necessary.

That’s the history up to this point. We started with homeowners’ insurance because we are Keller Williams. We work with realtors, we work for realtors, and that’s initially the solution that they need. Today, through our partnership with Bolt, we’re able to sell auto insurance and an array of different policies, but we don’t have the online solution yet. When will we get there? Eventually. We’ll eventually have an auto flow, we’ll eventually have a bundle flow. But we’ll always add on top of the home ownership, because that is the sector that we’re in and that’s the starting point from where we will go forward.

[00:50:53] Simon: Great. Thank you for that. You touched on one thing, I know someone asked a question in the chat here about regulation. You explained it quite well there; you didn’t want to take on the burden of being a full agent and being regulated that way so you have this proxy approach, which essentially you’re outsourcing that licensing to Bolttech.

[00:51:16] Roberto: No. We are a licensed agency, but the operation is being handled by Bolt. The manpower is outsourced.

[00:51:23] Simon: Exactly. One of the questions we had was, do brands then need to take on all the balance sheet overheads and license, and so on? What we’re saying is that these new operating systems that are in available now take that worry away. They can manage that for a brand if it doesn’t want to take on some of those regulatory overhead.

[00:51:49] Roberto: That’s correct. A lot of the overhead is absorbed by their operations. But because of the existing regulations, if you have an entity and you want to sell or promote or solicit insurance, in the US you need to be licensed. That’s why we got the license in place.

[00:52:03] Simon: Perfect. I want to ask Jim and Graeme, in terms of creating business cases, are there any other things that you’ve seen that have been really compelling beyond what we’ve just heard now?

[00:52:16] Jim: I might just add something to what Roberto just said. It goes to how we got where we were as partners. Our view of it is in terms of building a successful embedded insurance strategy over a long term, a durable strategy over a long term, there’s a continuum. On one end of the continuum, our companies that want to be digital, but are not. On the other end of the continuum, you’ve got companies that are completely digital already. But the reality of it is the vast majority of companies either by preference or just where they are in their journey, are somewhere along that continuum.

Our philosophy is we can deliver the best in class technology, however you’ve got to have that human element. Regardless of where a company drops in along that continuum, you essentially catch them and help them along their digital journey, wherever that may be. Not everyone wants to be completely digital, not every business orients itself toward digital. That’s an important part of the broader embedded insurance story, is having as minimal amount of human intervention as possible, but not abandoning it. At the end of the day, and it gets into the business case question you asked Simon, which was why do people do this, there’s more than this but I think about it in three very simple buckets. The first one is, and Graeme touched on this earlier, it’s the economics. There’s direct economic benefit to doing something like this, and there’s indirect economic benefit to doing something like this. Graeme used a great example of when you sell a product alongside another product, the other product gets a lift from a conversion perspective. We all have data that proves that. The second one is just brand and product value. By having a more comprehensive offering, you create extra value and tangible value in the product you’re offering. Finally, and this really is where the technology works as magic, is creating a great experience. You could argue that that’s not terribly dissimilar from point number two, but I think it’s important that creating that beautiful experience and that easy convenient experience is really important. I think when people are putting business cases together, they think about it among other things across those three dimension.

[00:54:48] Simon: Yeah, that’s great. Graeme, your perspective.

[00:54:52] Graeme: I think it’s actually about understanding the motivations of that brand, because each vertical has quite different motivations. It might be a case of just wanting to make money, and that’s fine pretty early on. Or it might be a case of maybe they need to offer some coverage because there’s some regulations around those customers having, or their members needing some cover, or maybe they want to increase the total basket price of what they’re selling. There’s many different motivations. You’ve got to understand that to then build the business case for that partner that you’re talking to for their internal purposes.

But on top of that, and going further from what Jim was saying, you’ve got to be able to service these brands. They want to know, can you service them now, but also for their growth plans. They obviously have growth plans. It might be expanding internationally. It might be expanding to different verticals and things. From a Cover Genius’s point of view, we identified that pretty early on. We’re very big on making sure that we have that global framework to then service those big global brands. then the technology, can you service, can you do multi lines, multi products? because part of the business case, they don’t want to have to do multiple integrations with multiple contracts and things like that. You’re actually solving a real issue there. It’s just simple and they can actually go, I’ve got the provider of choice now and in the future. That’s where we come from.

[00:56:24] Simon: It’s very important because often some of the digital companies that you’re working with, they might be quite small today, but they’re growing fast, you want to latch onto that. If you are there at the beginning and you are helping them to do that, it’s a collaboration because it’s a revenue share, then you can really take off with their success as well, which is good. Of course traditional insurers say, we must make this profit margin or we’re not going to do the deal if we can’t do that. But often that can be a bit shortsighted.

We’ve got just three minutes left. I’m going to ask the audience about the barriers to this. Then I’m going to ask you for a very quick comment to all of you if I could. In the interest of time, let’s put up the final poll, which says: what are the barriers to embedded insurance? The biggest barrier, you have to just choose one if you had to, to more widespread adoption of Embedded insurance 2.0.

I’ll read it out for you and please make your vote. Is the biggest barrier awareness and understanding by brands about what is possible? Is it that business cases are quite difficult to create? Is it regulation? Is it about the incumbent insurance industry being slow to develop this market? Is it there aren’t enough insurance techs like the guys with us today, to help develop the market? Is it technology? Or is it end customer willingness to adopt?

I want you to choose one. You can do it in order, but just choose one now. In the next five seconds, we’ll show the results. Then I’ll ask the panelists to give a very brief summary of what they think the future might look like, if I can ask you to think about that. Then we’ll finish right on time. Let’s see the result now. Here we go. Quite interesting. The one that’s got the most, interestingly, is the ability of the incumbent insurance industry to develop this market. I guess the point being that the incumbents have all the power today, and we need to co-op them and enable them to, to drive this market. We probably can’t do it round them or without them. The second highest was just the awareness and understanding of this topic by leaders of brands. There doesn’t seem to any be any problem with VC investment in startups to develop the market.

I’m just going to ask it, we’ve got one minute left. If I could just ask you to have a brief statement; you could either respond to this in some way, or how you think the market is likely to develop, which will be useful for our participants and listeners today. Let’s start with you, Roberto.

[00:59:20] Roberto: I agree with the poll; I think it’s the incumbent. I think it’s the legacy carriers, because even if we have companies like Cover Genius and Bolt facilitating and enabling technology, we still rely on those carriers to update, to be sure that they’re on track to provide these services. That that’s my perspective as well.

[00:59:36] Simon: Brilliant. Sriram.

[00:59:40] Sriram: I tend to agree with the poll too, but I think I’m more in the awareness category. It is more awareness that prevented us from doing it, but once we were aware we did this case study and then it was an open and shut case for us.

[00:59:58] Simon: Brilliant, thank you. Graeme?

[01:00:00] Graeme: Well, I’ll give you final thoughts. I think what needs to evolve with the future is just making sure that that customer experience is optimized the whole way through, right from the buying and through to claims. If the claims fall down and is poor, it’ll reflect on the embedded insurance generally, because they’ll go, I bought it from this brand, I had a bad claims experience. They won’t want to buy again from that brand or perhaps even others. I think we just need to optimize the whole thing.

[01:00:28] Simon: Brilliant. Jim, final thoughts from you?

[01:00:30] Jim: I think what will be interesting to watch over the coming years, and it’s not today, it’s not next year, but it’s into the future, is this blending together and the seamlessness that’s going to occur between either a purchasing experience or an experience of a coverable type situation and the actual insurance offering itself. You see it in some of the OEMs now in the auto industry, when you buy the car the insurance can come along with it. I think we’re going to see that proliferate over the next 10 years. I don’t know exactly where it’s going to go first, what’s going to happen, but just watching the blending of the insurance into the actual daily lives of people in terms of providing that protection. Essentially they will become one and cease to become two things.

[01:01:16] Simon: Yeah, baked into the everyday lives of everyone. That’s great. Thank you, lovely sum up. There’s a few questions people have asked, I should say the report does answer many of those questions and it’s in the chat. The link to the report is in the chat if you want to have that details of that. I know that a lot of you who are here today can be startups, smaller companies. Although it’s a payable report, get in touch with me if you’d like a special often.

Finally, thank you very much to the panelists. I’ve really enjoyed it today. Thanks for your expertise and sharing that with the world. Thank you who’ve joined and listening in, and we will be in touch. Please do connect with me on LinkedIn for more access to useful information, insights, and knowledge. Thanks to everybody for their time today. It’s been a great pleasure to be with you. Thank you.

[01:02:10] Jim: Thanks Simon.

Embedded Insurance 2.0: Best Case Studies

4×4 Virtual Salon with Graeme Dean, Sriram Jayanthi, Jim Dwane and Roberto Gonzalez.

Following the launch of the Embedded Insurance 2.0 Market Map report, we run this virtual salon to showcase some of the best case studies of brands exploiting Embedded Insurance from around the world.  Organised by aperture and Embedded Finance & Super App Strategies, Simon Torrance hosted four excellent guests:

 

Main topics discussed:

1. What (exactly) is ‘Embedded Insurance 2.0’ and why is it important to business and society?
2. What specific problems does Embedded Insurance solve for brands and their customers, and how does it do so?
3. How to make an investment case for Embedded Insurance, at a brand and an insurer?
4. What does the future hold for brands and insurers with embedded insurance?

Access Virtual salon Recording

The Market Map
Embedded Insurance 2.0

The most comprehensive analysis of the multi-trillion dollar Embedded Insurance market opportunity for brands, insurers, entrepreneurs and investors.

90+ pages; 46 Embedded Insurance providers profiled; 19+ Charts, diagrams and tables; 20 case studies; The Market Map quadrant.

Share on linkedin
Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on whatsapp
Share on email

 

Embedded Insurance 2.0: Best case studies

 

Full transcript:

[00:00:00] Simon: Hello everybody. My name is Simon Torrance, and I’m going to be moderating this webinar on Embedded insurance 2.0. We’ve gathered some people who are experts on this topic. They are going to share some of their experiences of delivering this concept in different parts of the world. Let me introduce them to you.

Firstly, we’ve got Graeme Dean, who is VP of Global Insurance Solutions at Cover Genius. Cover Genius is one of the leading embedded insurance companies. It raised, I think recently about $80 million in a new round of investment, and works across 60 countries around the world helping brands create embedded insurance programs. One of his clients is Sriram Jayanthi, who is a Senior Product Manager at Omio. Omio is a unicorn business; it’s a multimodal journey booking platform that helps you get from A to B through any type of transport. Omio operates now across many countries in the world, and indeed facilitates about 10 million journeys per annum in Europe alone. Sriram has been leading the insurance program, working with Cover Genius for the last year; he’s going to share his experiences.

I’m delighted also to welcome here Jim Dwane, who runs Bolttech in North America. Jim’s a veteran from the insurance industry. For the last few years he’s been in the tech industry, driving Bolttech forward. Bolttech also is a unicorn business; it describes itself as an insurance exchange. It connects brands with insurance solutions and insurance companies. Last year they facilitated insurance quotations to the value of $44 billion, Jim, wasn’t it? Doing really well, growing very fast, and operates across the world. One of his great customers and clients is Roberto Gonzales, who runs Keller Covered, part of Keller Williams. Keller Williams is one of the biggest real estate companies in the world. It operates in 80 countries, has 170,000 estate agents that work with it. Keller Covered is their insurance proposition which has been set up, or been updated in the last year or so, works closely with Jim and Bolttech to enable that.

I’m really delighted to have this group of experts together with you today. I should give you one word of apology: we are all men. We normally like to have a mix of sexes in our webinars. Next time we’ll ensure that we do, but for now bear with us, please. The agenda for today’s as follows: I’m going to share a few slides to set the scene and create the framework for our discussion today, then I’m going to ask the panelists to give their views on these questions here.

Firstly, what is embedded insurance and why is it important to society and businesses? Then we’re going to spend a bit more time delving into the details of what problems it addresses for brands and their customers. We’re going to ask Sriram and Roberto about their experiences, then Jim and Graeme are going to share some of their knowledge and expertise working with other companies as well. What problems is it addressing for brands and consumers? Then we’ll look at how do these types of companies, brands of different types and different sectors create business cases for embedded insurance? What are the methods and processes and lessons for that? We’ll end by looking at the future. How might the future look? How is this market going to evolve?

To engage you, the audience and the people who are taking their time to come and listen to us today, we’ve got some polls, some surveys that will run throughout the discussion today. You can also input your questions and comments in the chat or the Q&A function that you can see. I know you’ve all used Zoom before. Please do that. We almost certainly won’t have time to answer all of them during this session, but we will commit to responding to them afterwards. We’ll review them and we’ll write up a Q&A, FAQ document to cover the questions you might have.

Thank you all of you who’ve taken time to be with us today. Big thank you to the panelists as well. Let’s get started on this interesting topic.

The background to it is a report that myself with my friends at Aperture have just finished writing, called Embedded insurance 2.0. It’s been a labor of love for the last six months, looking at this market and how brands and insurers and others can take advantage of developments. It’s about 90 pages long. We surveyed and spoke to nearly 50 leading pioneering companies in this space, including Bolttech and Cover Genius, and we benchmarked them against various criteria. You can see a redacted version on the right hand side. The reasons we invited Bolttech and Cover Genius along today was they were very much in the top right hand quadrant there compared to others. I should say that there are many players in this space. Many of them do different things in different ways, and there’s a great deal of innovation happening in this market. It’s still early stage, but very vibrant and growing much faster than the rest of the InsureTech market today. If you want to get details of this report, you can see the URL there. It’s also in the chat space here as well. The URL, if you want to get more details on the report, is there.

Let me set the scene. What is emerging that is enabling embedded insurance. 2.0 is the following: essentially some brands have sold insurance for some time, but technology is dramatically changing the way that’s happening, and also the nature of the insurance solutions and the nature of the way that consumers consume them. Let me just try and bring that to life briefly for you. We always need to start with the end consumer. As many of you know, the world is getting riskier. There are more and more severe risks facing us as individuals, businesses, and humans on the planet. That is creating protection gaps, gaps between what we need to be resilient and have peace of mind, and what we have; the types of solutions that are available to us and that we have, that are going to protect us. Those gaps are getting bigger and bigger as the world gets bigger in terms of more people, and the risks increase. There is increasing demand for protection solutions.

What’s interesting in the past is that traditional insurers would provide those to consumers, if the consumer knows about them, understands them, can access them and can afford them. There are many people in the world who are completely uninsured. There are even more people who are underinsured. Even in advanced economies like North America or Europe, there are many people who don’t have the right type of protection to suit their lifestyle or their situations. The UN is very worried about this.

What we’re starting to see is the potential for a new type of organization to help consumers get what they need. Let’s call these brands, brands and digital platforms that interact with consumers on a more regular basis than insurers do, that understand their needs in the context of what they support their customers with, and have a lot more data – often real-time data – about customers that can be used to create more appropriate, relevant and affordable protection solutions for end consumers. Of course, brands and digital platforms have their own pressures. They need to find, keep and retain customers. They’re looking for new ways to do that. Insurance, we’re going to hear about it later on, is a way of helping them to keep closer with their customers.

At the same time, on the supply side, in the past individual insurers would sell their products to customers and those products, those capabilities tend to be tracked within individual organizations. But now digital technology is allowing those capabilities to be released, abstracted into software, turned into almost Lego bricks that can be reconfigured by organizations in new and creative ways. We are seeing the capability, not just in insurance, but also in financial services and other adjacent areas that are relevant to protection, prevention services, or other types of value added services.

What we’ve now seen, and this is what our report was focused on and why we’ve invited the panelists to join us, is a new breed of organization that is sitting in the middle, that is enabling those Lego bricks to be drawn in, configured to help brands support their customers with their needs. Cover Genius and Bolttech are two prime examples of companies that are doing this, that are focused on this as their business. I call them operating systems, because they essentially help to orchestrate innovation between the supply base, all the capabilities that are needed; and the demand, which are brands, digital platforms and end users.

Today, where our panelists fit in, we have Roberto from Keller Williams, who is a brand in the real estate sector, which is digitizing rapidly; and Sriram, who runs product management for Omio, which is a digital platform. Bolttech and Cover Genius are companies that enable them to offer protection solutions to their end users. Down the bottom, those companies also create some of their own solutions, customized solutions when required, and collaborate with other parts of the value chain as well, often the traditional insurers.

That’s the framework we’re going to use to discuss around. In terms of why this is such an interesting market, we’ve done some sizing and it looks quite attractive in terms of the growth of embedded insurance over the next 10 years, which is essentially a new method of distributing protection and insurance solutions that will eat into other distribution channels. If you are on the insurance side, wondering how this affects you, the value at stake for traditional distributors. We also see that if we can enable brands that have large customer bases to be involved in the creation and distribution of new protection solutions, we could also grow the total insurance market as well, create net new value above where we are or the current forecasts. If you are a brand or if you’re an investor, if you add up all that written premium, the premiums of insurance that could be distributed in this way, you get to an exciting business opportunity in the trillions for brands to not only add value to their customers, but create value for themselves as well. That’s why there’s a lot of investment and focus on this topic today, because the opportunity is so significant.

Finally, what’s our noble purpose with Embedded insurance 2.0? I think it’s something like this. If we have these protection gaps, how can we close them by working with brands that have closer interactions with those end users on a more regular daily basis, enabled by new operating systems? Maybe this is our noble purpose. It’s not just about making money. It’s about ultimately enabling more and better protection to be baked into the everyday lives of everyone. I think that’s something that we can all get excited about in terms of helping to achieve.

I hope that has been a useful opening stimulus for our debate. I wanted to ask each of the panelists just to give their opening thoughts of what Embedded insurance 2.0 means to them, and what protection gaps ultimately do you think it could address? Then we’ll get into the meat of how it works for brands and their end users. Roberto, would you like to start?

[00:13:54] Roberto: Of course, Simon. Thank you for that, that was a great introduction. I think it explains to everyone very nicely how this ecosystem is being built. From my perspective working for KWX, which is the holding company for Keller Williams, which as you mentioned is the one of the leading real estate franchises in the US, what we do at the end of the day is have a team of realtors, over 170,000 realtors, help people purchase what ends up being the most valuable asset for most people in their lifetime, which is their home. The whole idea of how insurance fits into that is in every single home transaction, you need to buy insurance.

But his is what’s interesting, the person is buying the home. The person isn’t buying insurance; no one gets excited about, I’m going to go buy insurance. Insurance is like an add-on that you have to have. From our perspective, and the reason why Keller Covered was created was not only to help the end user, but also to help the realtor, who is the enabler in that transaction, have access to a tool that can provide the most value to the end user. The realtor helps the customer find the right home in the right district with the right schools, for their right lifestyle. The realtor doesn’t really need to be an insurance expert in reality; they can’t even give insurance advice unless they’re licensed. That’s why providing them with a tool such as Keller Covered, powered by Bolt Insurance, is so valuable.

Answering your question, what is embedded insurance, it really means automating or facilitating the right coverage to make sure that when that person led by that realtor is buying their home, that they don’t have any gaps in coverage. I love the way you said it, because a lot of people are underinsured or they’re overpaying for insurance. But having the right protection, that is really something that most of us sometimes take for granted, unless a disaster comes along. Being able to provide that guarantee to a consumer that, hey, you’re going to have the right protection, the right levels of protection, you’re going to have enough money to rebuild your home in case something happens, you don’t have to know all the details because we’re going to use third party data to facilitate and to automate the underwriting and make sure that the real risk is assessed, automating all that process, which otherwise it’s very tedious because insurance is a complicated issue, that is something that people don’t understand and they don’t want to get into, making that easy for them is just the end game for us. That’s my view on it and how it relates to the real estate business.

[00:16:29] Simon: Yeah, because after just your health your house is really quite critical. I’ll ask Sriram, your views on this?

[00:16:40] Sriram: Hello everybody. On this, I think it’s a very interesting question. Because if you look at embedded insurance, I would think it’s like some sort of disruption to the insurance industry. I think it’s very analogous to what happened in payments and banking. Across the globe, there are a lot of underbanked and underserved individuals, which basically the new payment services help disrupt and provide access to them. I think with insurance it’s very similar. It provides access and relevant access to a wide variety of consumers who currently don’t have insurance.

If you brought it down to the noble purpose, this can actually provide access to a relevant insurance for a wide variety of uninsured customers, because essentially most of them are also one catastrophic event away from poverty. Embedded insurance can essentially save them if they get access to it.

[00:17:36] Simon: Great. Thank you. Jim, your perspective.

[00:17:40] Jim: I love the fact that you use the term gap before, because one of the ways we characterize this emergence of embedded insurance is insurance distribution is essentially democratizing. Why is it democratizing? The reason it’s democratizing is the traditional means of insurance distribution, which is certainly not going away, was as you said, creating a large population of un and underserved consumers. There was a lot of protection not being served.

I think embedded insurance fills almost three different dimensions of gaps. The first gap it fills is one of, of different places. You can now buy insurance in a multitude of different places. Those places may be physical. You want into a store, you buy a cell phone and you can buy insurance on the spot. That in essence is an embedded experience. It’s a physical embedded experience. Then you’ve got the digital embedded experience, where you’ve got a digital journey. There’s something broader happening, like someone’s buying a house, and there are a series of things that people need when they buy a house, including a mortgage and title insurance, you need some access to legal services, and if you’re going to get a mortgage, you can need homeowner’s insurance. There’s a digital gap created, or a digital location. Finally, one of the most fascinating parts of this, and I thought it was great that you had Cover Genius and Bolttech on the product side portion of your slide as well, that is the emergence of these previously unknown exposures. The whole sharing economy has created a multitude of previously unaddressed coverages.

Embedded insurance affords the opportunity, not just to distribute insurance in unique ways, but it also allows you to concurrently invent coverages that satisfy or protect whatever the particular circumstance is, whether it’s the emergence of pool sharing or boat sharing and things like that. There’s all sorts of interesting things you could do in terms of product invention. I view it as a three dimensional filling of the gaps.

[00:20:12] Simon: Thank you. Graeme, what do you think?

[00:20:15] Graeme: To use your 2.0 language, I think embedded insurance 1.0 was really finding a way to offer an insurance at a point of sale. Typically, it was probably an airline selling insurance, a travel insurance with their flight. But as we’ve evolved, and people are using more digital and technology companies where there’s different touch points, there’s different channels that they’re interacting with those brands, I think 2.0 is the evolution of that in just being broadening the product suite that we’re able to offer and make available to customers through all of those different touch points, through all the different experiences. I think it’s just double downing on a lot of those experiences that people are used to, and they want to interact with those brands. They want to continue that experience that they’re used to. I think it’s about making products available at a relevant time at the right price.

People don’t really want to go and do a lot of shopping now. The likes of Amazon have made us impatient and lazy. We want it all to be ready for us and ready to go in one simple click. I think it’s just utilizing that same ethos, and then broadening the products suite. Because it’s not just for consumers. It’s also for businesses. That’s the evolution where it’s going to go.

[00:21:36] Simon: Brilliant, thank you. Let’s do a little poll just to engage the audience. If we put up the poll, Diana, let’s see what they think. Here it is. Which of these questions do you agree with most? Protection gaps being the gap between what you need and what you have. Let’s think about it on a global basis, but which of those statements do you agree with most? Does it have a very significant role, a significant role, a limited role, or a very limited role in helping to address protection gaps compared to other things that are going on? If I can ask you just in the next 20 seconds to submit your vote, and we’ll see what you are thinking about this, then we’re going to move on to talking about some of the practicalities of creating an embedded insurance program for brands and the value to their end customers.

Let’s just give you another 10 seconds now to cast your vote. Unfortunately, the host and the panelists are not allowed to vote for some reason. It means that we can’t be biased, I guess. I think time is up. Let’s see what you said. A significant or very significant, that’s good to know. That’s great. There’s a reason for getting out of bed in the morning to enable this topic. Thank you for that.

Let’s move on to the next part of the discussion. I wanted to get into the nitty gritty and ask particularly Roberto and Sriram first about their company. Let’s bring it to life with a case study. I wanted to ask you how you are using embedded insurance specifically. I know Roberto you gave a little bit of a hint of that, but maybe go into a bit more detail. What specific problems does it solve for you and your customers? If you could just bring it to life in terms of how exactly it works, where it’s placed, how it’s offered, how much it costs, things like that, that would be great. I’m going to ask Sriram, would you be happy to go first? I’ll ask Roberto, and then I’ll ask the other guys to give some other case studies and news cases that they’re seeing in the market.

[00:23:50] Sriram: Sure, I can first. I think when we looked at embedded insurance as a brand as Omio, the first thing that we wanted to do was look at user research and understand what users particularly think about insurance. It came to be one of the top concerns. I think it was also driven by the fact that we had a pandemic, and a lot of cancellations and people lost a lot of money on different travel tickets. Insurance and flexibility was top of minds for our customers.

Once we decided that we were going to be investing in this area, what we looked at was the fact that accessibility was very important. We wanted all the customers to have access to one insurance product, at least. The second thing was, we are also a digital first platform. We placed very strong emphasis on tech fidelity. We wanted the APIs to be up all the time, even if they’re down, so we can reach out to teams and then get them back up and running. We had issues in the past when working with traditional insurers, when APIs were down, sometimes for months. That was the second important thing that we looked at. Thirdly, we also innovate in the travel sector. We tried to provide unique travel products to our customers. For example, we tried to stitch together a journey. We wanted somebody to work along with us in offering unique insurance solutions for this, like a guaranteeing, a connection between a trade and a bus. This is not something that you can take off the shelf, but you need to work along with somebody to build these products. These were the things that we looked at when we considered investing in embedded insurance and why it made sense for us.

[00:25:26] Simon: You were telling me that something like 10% of the journeys that you enable people take is insurance, is that correct?

[00:25:37] Sriram: Yes. A little more than 10% of our journeys that we enable currently have an insurance attached to them. This metric, we worked on it for the last six to eight months along in a partnership with Cover Genius. We brought different value additions, we changed the customer experience, we gave them data products. Currently more than 1 in 10 Omio customers traveled with an insurance.

[00:26:02] Simon: Is it convenient that makes it attractive to the customer? Would you say it’s just there when you need it and it’s easy to access, and if you’ve done it once because the claims process is nice, you’ll do it again? Is that it?

[00:26:18] Sriram: I think it’s convenience, and also the fact that it is also relevant, because we are offering relevant insurance products that tailor to their particular journey. We also believe that our customers trust our brand. When we are offering an insurance at the right point, we believe it also extends to them that we are saying that this is a relevant product for you to be using right now, given that there’s a little bit of flux in the travel industry. I think both put together.

[00:26:48] Simon: It’s very commercially attractive to you, isn’t it? Because if you’re doing 10 million journeys, 10% of a million journeys that are covered, you charge about 10 or 15 euros, isn’t it? That’s a lot of money. Then you take your revenue share, which is quite significant as well. That’s quite a lot of high margin new business for you, isn’t it?

[00:27:13] Sriram: Yes, exactly. Not just for the customers, like I said for the customers it’s very relevant and it’s top of mind, top of needs, but even for us as a company it’s a significant source of revenue. That warrants the investment that we had. We have teams working behind this that make sure the product is serviced in the most relevant way, and customers have the most relevant experience. To do that, we need case study and we need some numbers to back this up. Like you said, with the current numbers there is quite a significant addition to the bottom line, because margins on journeys with insurance attached is quite high.

[00:27:53] Simon: I think you said also when you moved to a more modern, what I call operating system, in this case working with Cover Genius, you quite dramatically increased your attach rates of insurance as well?

[00:28:07] Sriram: Yes. I think that is because we worked on the product in close partnership, and then we decided that this is the right product strategy and the right product to be offering to this particular set of customers. We do multiple transport; we have like trains, buses and flights, and we need to be offering relevant products. Also the way we service it up, at what point we do, we needed somebody who work along with us in data mining and making sure that we have the right tools for this. This is very important for us. This was quite an equal partnership right from the beginning.

I think that helped us improve this metric, which was quite stagnant when we worked with more traditional insurers before. Post this, we managed to more than double our rates with this.

[00:28:49] Simon: Brilliant. Well, thank you for that. Let me just ask Roberto, can you tell us a bit more about how in practice your proposition works, and then the benefits because you’ve got the agents and you’ve got the end customer and then you’ve got you as well. Just tell us a bit about how that works in practice.

[00:29:09] Roberto: Like you’re mentioning, from our perspective for Keller Williams, I think it’s a very unique position because every initiative that we undertake at KWX the first question that we have to answer is: how does this benefit the agent? Because at the end of the day, that is our core business. Keller Williams is a brokerage, it’s a training company. We help agents succeed, build large businesses, successful businesses, and provide the tools so that they can do that.

We also have to keep in mind that whatever service that has the Keller brand attached to it has to have the highest quality of service, the highest quality of products. These are all the things that we have to look at. KWX has different companies that have been created with the goal of forming a home ownership experience that helps the realtor remain at the center of the transaction, and be able to like compete with other realtors from other brokerages because they have access to additional tools. Additional to Keller Covered, there’s Keller Mortgage Keller Offers, Keller Manage, Keller Title. There’s other companies that are out there or in the making to help this this whole ecosystem succeed.

Going back to insurance, how does insurance help the realtor? When you buy a home and you’re using a mortgage, like Jim mentioned, you need to have insurance. That is just one additional hurdle that everybody needs to go over in order to complete the purchase transaction. Having a tool like Keller Covered, the idea originally was helping the end user have a very streamlined, very efficient, very effective, very unintrusive experience where they could go into a website, they could answer a few questions that everybody knows, not ask anything random or that. You wouldn’t know about a hazard you don’t even know, like how far away are you from a fire station or how far away are you from a fire hydrant, which are questions you need to answer in order to get a quote from an insurance carrier. We built this website that is very streamlined. We ask only seven questions. We use third party data to prepopulate the rest of the questionnaire. We send all that over to Bolt. We leverage their insurance exchange to get back the quotes and populate the quotes.

Basically a realtor doing a transaction with a customer is able to get that customer in less than three minutes, most of the time real accurate quotes on what insurance would cost and what protection they would have for that new property. It makes the realtor seem more knowledgeable, makes them seem more efficient. It provides additional value to the end user. It’s just part of the ecosystem where you bring this additional value. Where we insert Keller Covered, and that’s really my job, we integrate in our own CRM so that realtors have an easy way to invite customers to shop for insurance. We we’re embedded with our Keller Mortgage affiliated business so that every loan that comes through also gets invited to shop for insurance, and make sure that when the loan goes through that insurance is already there and it’s not something that’s going to hold off on the actual approval of the loan.

We’re trying to find these spots where people are going to need insurance, and make sure that we service the solution at that point in time while we work with Bolt to provide the quotes for the customer.

[00:32:32] Simon: That’s very good for the agent, because it’s also an excuse after the sale of a house to get in touch in a year’s time. You might want to change your insurance, let me get in touch with you about that. You keep in touch every year until the time when they want to move house again. It’s a nice way of keeping in touch, isn’t it? I guess also for you it’s a great product, because typically the average lifetime of a house insurance is about eight years. It’s a nice recurring revenue, if you can retain them for that time.

[00:33:09] Roberto: Absolutely, what you’re mentioning is very valuable because for us providing the agents with an additional touchpoint, like you’re saying, outside of the transaction, that’s something that none of the other affiliated businesses in Keller Williams universe do right now. That’s a really nice piece of insurance right there. You’re absolutely correct.

[00:33:26] Simon: Great. Well, I want to ask Jim and Graeme about maybe another case study in other sectors that you are seeing, that you think demonstrates the art of the possible. Graeme, would you like to go first? Give us an example.

[00:33:39] Graeme: Sure, I could give you a couple of examples that that might be interesting. What we’ve found is that when we’ve embedded insurance to be sold alongside another product or service at a point of sale type scenario, that the actual underlying product or service conversion rate has increased by the mere fact of having the insurance offered. We’ve tested this in various products and various markets. It’s a really interesting case for the brands to be able to not only potentially making money for yourself from a commission point of view of the insurance, but your underlying product and service by offering the insurance is increased as well. I thought that’s an interesting case to share.

Also what we found is by giving a little bit more choice to customers, rather than ramming down their throat a really big comprehensive type policy, actually breaking it up and what we call unbundling that a little bit and allowing a little more choice to customers, builds a higher attach rate in the long term and yield as well, because they want that little bit more flexibility and the ability to say, “I want a little bit more control. I don’t want you to tell me that I need everything and I don’t feel that I do.” Or having that negativity around, I bought this policy but I don’t even need these sections so now I feel like I’m getting ripped off. It’s having that little bit more control back to the customer. We’ve found it increases the conversion rate as well.

[00:35:18] Simon: Good, thank you. Jim, any good examples that you are seeing at the moment?

[00:35:23] Jim: Listen, but one of the exciting things about embedded insurance in the future of embedded insurance, Simon, as you touched on in your opening is there feels like there’s a limitless opportunity for, the way I say it is the intersection of commerce and risk. It’s constantly changing where commerce, some type of a commercial or personal transaction intersects with some moment of risk or some identification of risk. We joke around at Bolt, about how every week we wake up and we find a place that might be appropriate to sell insurance. We think about it in the context of commerce and risk. That creates lots and lots of different scenarios. That’s the first thing.

I like what Sriram said before, and I think Graeme touched on it as well, this whole continuum of simplicity to choice. There will always be a robust market for the simpler type products. I almost analogize them to the point of purchase display when you’re checking out of the grocery store. You get to the end and they say, would you like this? They’re not giving you choice, but it’s a simple, seamless pleasant experience that just catches you on your way out. However, on the other end of the perspective, you’ve got choice. Graeme is exactly right. For the insurance geeks among us, this is some of the exciting stuff around optimizing conversion. At the end of the day, it’s about economics as well as protection. Figuring out what that optimal combination of choice generally for the more complex products; the more complex the product the more beneficial choice is as it relates to conversions. That’s something that we consider important, and something that at this juncture of the embedded journey 2.0 is something I think we’re all learning more and more every day.

One of the things that I think is the next frontier is services. Right now many of the insurance offerings are oriented around indemnification with not as much services. Again, it depends, obviously something like travel is service. But I think we’re going to see a proliferation of services as well here in the future. It’s almost like a three act play. Act one was the simple line, act two is the choice, and act three is the service oriented offerings on a much broader scale.

[00:38:04] Simon: Do you mean services in terms of risk services, to help prevent risk or mitigate them?

[00:38:09] Jim: Exactly. Risk services, response services et cetera.

The last thing I’ll say Simon is, I think what the industry’s beginning to learn, and when I say industry it’s everybody, it’s Sriram, it’s Roberto, it’s Graeme, it’s myself, we all do slightly different things, but at the end of the day we’re all part of this journey, roper intent wins the day. What does that mean? You can plug insurance into a bunch of different situations. But if you haven’t plugged it in at a place in a moment where the intent is high or where the intent is appropriate, you’re really not going to accomplish a whole lot. It’s one thing to actually run around embedding the insurance purchase opportunities, whether it be choice based or more simple based. The true winners are the ones who are going to figure out how to optimize, not just the where, but the when of that journey.

Finally, along those lines there’s something else I say called the myth of the digital journey. I think we all know that insurance purchasing is going more and more human-less. The current hypothesis is the companies that are going to win are not the companies that are going to force their consumers into a completely digital journey. The companies that are going to win are the ones that perfect when exactly someone might need to be plucked out of that journey and carried across the finish line. Technology can’t front run human behavior and human comfort. As human beings become more and more comfortable with the digital journey, the companies that are succeeding are the ones that know, this person’s about to abandon, pluck them out, carry them across. I think that’s also something we have to keep an eye on.

[00:40:06] Simon: Yeah. There’s a great example during COVID, where some Uber operations just couldn’t get anybody to drive because people were worried they were in a catch COVID, they’d be ill, they could die, they couldn’t work, and so on, particularly in emerging markets. In the middle east, they gave insurance for free to their drivers to enable their business to operate at all. That encouraged people to. We talk about products, selling products, but there’s also the component of risk mitigation or risk transfer capabilities that you can insert into a proposition, like the example I just gave there.

Let’s ask the audience again, a poll. Could we put the next poll up please, Diana? Here it is. If we think about brands and maybe think about a brand that you know well, what’s the most attractive proposition to non-insurance brands for adopting embedded insurance? Is it to create new revenue streams from insurance sales? Is it about making our core business offerings more attractive by adding insurance components to them, a bit like the example I gave? Or is it retaining existing customers by integrating insurance solutions into loyalty programs, things like extended warranties, for example? Or is it a mix of the above? Let’s get your thoughts on this. Again, I’m going to give you 15 seconds this time to give your vote on that. We’ll see what you think about the value to brands. Just use one of those and we’ll see what you think. I’m going to ask you separately about value to consumers in a minute, but let’s just see what you think.

You’ve got another five seconds to make your vote, and that is just about up now. Let’s see, Diana, what do people think? Well, yeah, a mix of all of the above. I think that’s exactly right. Because the examples we’ve just talked about are not just about reselling insurance or about making the core business offerings attractive or about retaining. It’s mix of all of that. That’s a great result there. Good.

A quick other poll, thinking about consumers now. If we can put the next poll up. This is from the consumer point of view. What is the most compelling aspect of embedded insurance proposition to end consumers? So they could be business customers, or individual consumers, but which of these three? Is it convenience? Like Sriram was saying, I’ve booked my trip and now I’m going to buy some travel insurance. It’s so convenient to access that solution at the right place and time. Is it price? Because maybe the brand will make it cheaper because they’re trying to package it up with other propositions. Or is it simplicity? It’s just so easy to understand, to access, to manage; and particularly what these guys do is to make the claims experience really easy as well. Is it just, I don’t want any hassle, it’s so simple to do because brands have worked with companies like the ones that are with us today to make it a much better experience.

What are your thoughts on that? Again, I’m going to give you another five seconds now to get your final thoughts on that, or is it a blend of all of those three? Let’s just see what you’ve said to that. Convenience. This is really interesting Graeme, isn’t it? Because I know you always say convenience is really important. Price is less of the driver. In fact, people are happy to pay for something that’s good. Graeme, any comments from you on that one.

[00:43:54] Graeme: That’s right, you probably heard me say it before. Convenience is the number one driver. It isn’t about price, and it isn’t about the insurance brand per se either because it really is about the brand that’s actually offering it, which is the distribution brand. It’s at the right time, the pricing is likely right because you’ve probably had some smarts in there, but it’s not the main driver. It really is convenience.

[00:44:22] Simon: Any other comments from anybody else on this one to tally with your experiences?

Good. Let’s move to the next section about creating a business case. Part of the reason for us writing that big report recently is to try and educate and engage brands about the art of the possible. It feels to me that this is a very Greenfield market still. You’ve had big companies in the past that, like retailers or banks that have sold or resold insurance. Telcos have done that to some degree with handset insurance. Then there’s big manufacturers or retailers that have sold extended warranties.

But what it seems to me is that that’s just part of the market. There’s a huge sway of the rest of the market that doesn’t even realize what they can do, the sorts of things we’re talking about, particularly non-digital companies. There’s a lot of small companies that never thought they could embed insurance. Small retailers of e-bikes, as a classic example, which it’s great to offer at point of sale theft, injury, warranties, and so on. But in the past, it was just way too expensive to do that. Now through technologies any company can do this.

I wanted to ask you a bit about how even for very sophisticated digital companies like Omio and increasingly Keller Williams, how does your organization go out thinking about creating a business case? What are the key things that the CFO and the CEO and ultimately the board resonates with? I’m going to ask Sriram and then Roberto, and I’ll ask the other guys to come in with their experiences. Sriram, what made this compelling to your leaders?

[00:46:17] Sriram: I think the first thing, like I mentioned previously, is the fact that there has to be an inherent customer need. We saw in various user research that we did that there was this need to have flexibility and peace of mind. That was top of mind. Once we took that problem statement then we started understanding the economics behind it, we created the case in terms of, what is the potential reach that we can offer this product to? We wanted to offer, for example, on let’s say a hundred percent of our transactions, all our transactions have one insurance product attached to it. We took industry leading, we attached rates to these products, we had consultations with different partners. We understood what is the potential, attached it for these products. We also had historical data from working with traditional insurance partners, so know potentially what percentage of our transactions or bookings or journeys have or can potentially have an insurance with them.

Then we also know the market size of the insurance product. We have an estimate of what the value proposition for insurance. Then we took that into how it will affect the company’s bottom line and economics. We built a very simple business case using this, and when we looked at those numbers, they were very compelling. First, there was an inherent customer need to offset risk, especially in the industry. We looked at the numbers and the adapt rates and the market dynamics. Everything put together, I think it was a very compelling case both from the customer standpoint and from the company standpoint. While we are offering something that offsets risk, we are also adding significantly to our revenues.

[00:48:08] Simon:  Great. The numbers stacked up quite easily once you put them down and work them through. Roberto, just tell us from your point of view. I’m just wondering, if I could ask, because once you’ve started to sell, you’re selling a certain type of insurance, maybe you could go on and sell other types of insurance to your customers given that you have this relationship with them. I was almost thinking, could you not sell insurance to the agents, liability insurance and so on? Tell us your thoughts on at least the business case, and how that might evolve.

[00:48:42] Roberto: In order to understand that, I’ll quickly go over how this whole thing started. Keller Covered has been around for four years. Originally, we had direct relationships with carriers, and we just had a legion website where we would collect the information, send that information to an array of different carriers, and just show the quotes. That was the end of it. We started to realize that there were some pain points, and this is where we started to create the business case for switching the business model. Some of the pain points that we had were complaints from our agents saying, I sent the customer through and I don’t know what happened. Can you tell me if they purchased a policy or not? Can you tell me what happened with this customer? We had no idea because all we were doing was collecting information, showing quotes and sending them off to 20 different call centers.

That’s when we started to analyze the possibility of not just being a legion website, but becoming an insurance agency. When we decided to become an agency, we had two options. We could become like a real agency or we could become a virtual agency. That’s when we started to look at the availability of how quickly are we able to scale to support 170,000 agents in all 50 states overnight. That’s really where we started to do the whole process of, let’s find a partner that can provide us with the technology to replace what we already have, which is a connection with carriers that shows quotes, but also allows us to have the servicing part of it and have the agency and have that human touch, which is still necessary.

That’s the history up to this point. We started with homeowners’ insurance because we are Keller Williams. We work with realtors, we work for realtors, and that’s initially the solution that they need. Today, through our partnership with Bolt, we’re able to sell auto insurance and an array of different policies, but we don’t have the online solution yet. When will we get there? Eventually. We’ll eventually have an auto flow, we’ll eventually have a bundle flow. But we’ll always add on top of the home ownership, because that is the sector that we’re in and that’s the starting point from where we will go forward.

[00:50:53] Simon: Great. Thank you for that. You touched on one thing, I know someone asked a question in the chat here about regulation. You explained it quite well there; you didn’t want to take on the burden of being a full agent and being regulated that way so you have this proxy approach, which essentially you’re outsourcing that licensing to Bolttech.

[00:51:16] Roberto: No. We are a licensed agency, but the operation is being handled by Bolt. The manpower is outsourced.

[00:51:23] Simon: Exactly. One of the questions we had was, do brands then need to take on all the balance sheet overheads and license, and so on? What we’re saying is that these new operating systems that are in available now take that worry away. They can manage that for a brand if it doesn’t want to take on some of those regulatory overhead.

[00:51:49] Roberto: That’s correct. A lot of the overhead is absorbed by their operations. But because of the existing regulations, if you have an entity and you want to sell or promote or solicit insurance, in the US you need to be licensed. That’s why we got the license in place.

[00:52:03] Simon: Perfect. I want to ask Jim and Graeme, in terms of creating business cases, are there any other things that you’ve seen that have been really compelling beyond what we’ve just heard now?

[00:52:16] Jim: I might just add something to what Roberto just said. It goes to how we got where we were as partners. Our view of it is in terms of building a successful embedded insurance strategy over a long term, a durable strategy over a long term, there’s a continuum. On one end of the continuum, our companies that want to be digital, but are not. On the other end of the continuum, you’ve got companies that are completely digital already. But the reality of it is the vast majority of companies either by preference or just where they are in their journey, are somewhere along that continuum.

Our philosophy is we can deliver the best in class technology, however you’ve got to have that human element. Regardless of where a company drops in along that continuum, you essentially catch them and help them along their digital journey, wherever that may be. Not everyone wants to be completely digital, not every business orients itself toward digital. That’s an important part of the broader embedded insurance story, is having as minimal amount of human intervention as possible, but not abandoning it. At the end of the day, and it gets into the business case question you asked Simon, which was why do people do this, there’s more than this but I think about it in three very simple buckets. The first one is, and Graeme touched on this earlier, it’s the economics. There’s direct economic benefit to doing something like this, and there’s indirect economic benefit to doing something like this. Graeme used a great example of when you sell a product alongside another product, the other product gets a lift from a conversion perspective. We all have data that proves that. The second one is just brand and product value. By having a more comprehensive offering, you create extra value and tangible value in the product you’re offering. Finally, and this really is where the technology works as magic, is creating a great experience. You could argue that that’s not terribly dissimilar from point number two, but I think it’s important that creating that beautiful experience and that easy convenient experience is really important. I think when people are putting business cases together, they think about it among other things across those three dimension.

[00:54:48] Simon: Yeah, that’s great. Graeme, your perspective.

[00:54:52] Graeme: I think it’s actually about understanding the motivations of that brand, because each vertical has quite different motivations. It might be a case of just wanting to make money, and that’s fine pretty early on. Or it might be a case of maybe they need to offer some coverage because there’s some regulations around those customers having, or their members needing some cover, or maybe they want to increase the total basket price of what they’re selling. There’s many different motivations. You’ve got to understand that to then build the business case for that partner that you’re talking to for their internal purposes.

But on top of that, and going further from what Jim was saying, you’ve got to be able to service these brands. They want to know, can you service them now, but also for their growth plans. They obviously have growth plans. It might be expanding internationally. It might be expanding to different verticals and things. From a Cover Genius’s point of view, we identified that pretty early on. We’re very big on making sure that we have that global framework to then service those big global brands. then the technology, can you service, can you do multi lines, multi products? because part of the business case, they don’t want to have to do multiple integrations with multiple contracts and things like that. You’re actually solving a real issue there. It’s just simple and they can actually go, I’ve got the provider of choice now and in the future. That’s where we come from.

[00:56:24] Simon: It’s very important because often some of the digital companies that you’re working with, they might be quite small today, but they’re growing fast, you want to latch onto that. If you are there at the beginning and you are helping them to do that, it’s a collaboration because it’s a revenue share, then you can really take off with their success as well, which is good. Of course traditional insurers say, we must make this profit margin or we’re not going to do the deal if we can’t do that. But often that can be a bit shortsighted.

We’ve got just three minutes left. I’m going to ask the audience about the barriers to this. Then I’m going to ask you for a very quick comment to all of you if I could. In the interest of time, let’s put up the final poll, which says: what are the barriers to embedded insurance? The biggest barrier, you have to just choose one if you had to, to more widespread adoption of Embedded insurance 2.0.

I’ll read it out for you and please make your vote. Is the biggest barrier awareness and understanding by brands about what is possible? Is it that business cases are quite difficult to create? Is it regulation? Is it about the incumbent insurance industry being slow to develop this market? Is it there aren’t enough insurance techs like the guys with us today, to help develop the market? Is it technology? Or is it end customer willingness to adopt?

I want you to choose one. You can do it in order, but just choose one now. In the next five seconds, we’ll show the results. Then I’ll ask the panelists to give a very brief summary of what they think the future might look like, if I can ask you to think about that. Then we’ll finish right on time. Let’s see the result now. Here we go. Quite interesting. The one that’s got the most, interestingly, is the ability of the incumbent insurance industry to develop this market. I guess the point being that the incumbents have all the power today, and we need to co-op them and enable them to, to drive this market. We probably can’t do it round them or without them. The second highest was just the awareness and understanding of this topic by leaders of brands. There doesn’t seem to any be any problem with VC investment in startups to develop the market.

I’m just going to ask it, we’ve got one minute left. If I could just ask you to have a brief statement; you could either respond to this in some way, or how you think the market is likely to develop, which will be useful for our participants and listeners today. Let’s start with you, Roberto.

[00:59:20] Roberto: I agree with the poll; I think it’s the incumbent. I think it’s the legacy carriers, because even if we have companies like Cover Genius and Bolt facilitating and enabling technology, we still rely on those carriers to update, to be sure that they’re on track to provide these services. That that’s my perspective as well.

[00:59:36] Simon: Brilliant. Sriram.

[00:59:40] Sriram: I tend to agree with the poll too, but I think I’m more in the awareness category. It is more awareness that prevented us from doing it, but once we were aware we did this case study and then it was an open and shut case for us.

[00:59:58] Simon: Brilliant, thank you. Graeme?

[01:00:00] Graeme: Well, I’ll give you final thoughts. I think what needs to evolve with the future is just making sure that that customer experience is optimized the whole way through, right from the buying and through to claims. If the claims fall down and is poor, it’ll reflect on the embedded insurance generally, because they’ll go, I bought it from this brand, I had a bad claims experience. They won’t want to buy again from that brand or perhaps even others. I think we just need to optimize the whole thing.

[01:00:28] Simon: Brilliant. Jim, final thoughts from you?

[01:00:30] Jim: I think what will be interesting to watch over the coming years, and it’s not today, it’s not next year, but it’s into the future, is this blending together and the seamlessness that’s going to occur between either a purchasing experience or an experience of a coverable type situation and the actual insurance offering itself. You see it in some of the OEMs now in the auto industry, when you buy the car the insurance can come along with it. I think we’re going to see that proliferate over the next 10 years. I don’t know exactly where it’s going to go first, what’s going to happen, but just watching the blending of the insurance into the actual daily lives of people in terms of providing that protection. Essentially they will become one and cease to become two things.

[01:01:16] Simon: Yeah, baked into the everyday lives of everyone. That’s great. Thank you, lovely sum up. There’s a few questions people have asked, I should say the report does answer many of those questions and it’s in the chat. The link to the report is in the chat if you want to have that details of that. I know that a lot of you who are here today can be startups, smaller companies. Although it’s a payable report, get in touch with me if you’d like a special often.

Finally, thank you very much to the panelists. I’ve really enjoyed it today. Thanks for your expertise and sharing that with the world. Thank you who’ve joined and listening in, and we will be in touch. Please do connect with me on LinkedIn for more access to useful information, insights, and knowledge. Thanks to everybody for their time today. It’s been a great pleasure to be with you. Thank you.

[01:02:10] Jim: Thanks Simon.

Embedded banking: cutting through the noise

4×4 Virtual Salon with Christine Schmid, Eric Mouilleron, Scott Gordon and Tue Mortensen.

Today, we have a special podcast episode, which is all about Embedded Banking. We hosted four excellent guests:

 

Main topics discussed:

1. What is embedded banking?
2. The mechanics of embedded finance
3. Making the business case for embedded finance
4. What creates differentiation in this space?

Read transcript ->

The Market Map
Best BaaS Providers 2021

Your comprehensive guide to the burgeoning Banking-as-a-Service market. Who does what, who operates where, who runs on who, who’s regulated and who’s the best fit for your needs.

35+ pages; 45 BaaS Providers in the Spotlight; 14+ charts and tables; The Market Map quadrant.

Share on linkedin
Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on whatsapp
Share on email

 

Embedded Banking: Cutting Through The Noise

 

Full transcript:

[00:00:00] Ben: Hi, everybody. Welcome to today’s 4×4 Virtual Salon. The topic of today’s discussion is embedded banking. For this discussion, I’m joined by four esteemed practitioners of embedded banking. Just before I introduce you to the speakers, I just wanted to make sure everybody was familiar with the 4×4 format. The reason we call it a 4×4 is because we have four speakers, because we cover four different topics under the umbrella of embedded banking, because we have four polls, and because we’re going to take four of your questions.

The topics for today are on defining embedded banking, the mechanics of embedded banking, the business case from embedded banking, and what creates differentiation in this space. As I mentioned, we’re going to have a poll related to each of those topics, and we’re going to take one of your questions related to each of these topics. I would invite you to please get involved in and to submit questions, to post comments, and to also take part in the poll.

Let me now introduce our speakers. I’m going to start with Christine who’s in my top left. Christine Schmid, she’s a regular on these 4×4 Virtual Salons. She’s head of strategy, Additiv. Additiv is based in Zurich in Switzerland, and it’s focused on investment management. It has two business lines: software as a service and banking as a service. For the latter, it partners with a broad range of service partners, including regulated banks, such as Saxo Bank. Which brings me nicely to the next segue to talk about Tue Mortensen, who is regional head of institutional business at Saxo Bank Saxo Bank has been active in banking service long before it was called banking as a service, or long before it was as fashionable as it is today. Since 2015, Saxo Bank has been providing its investment and trading services via APIs to companies that want to build products on top of one; to embed those services into an existing offering. It serves banks or financial institutions directly, and also works with some intermediaries such as Additiv to reach a broader audience.

Next, we have Eric. Forgive me if I’m pronouncing your surname incorrectly, but Eric Mouilleron. He is the CEO and founder of Bankable. Eric was early to the space. Eric is a bit of a visionary who saw early on how banking distribution was splitting from banking distribution, and he created Bankable back in 2010. Bankable helps brands and financial institutions to bring innovative payment solutions to market more quickly and easily than would’ve been the case otherwise. One of his customers is Kard, which brings me to Scott Gordon, who is CEO of French Mobile Bank Kard, which is focused on the team market. A core part of the offering is a prepaid payment card, which allows parents to have some control and visibility over what their children are spending. As I mentioned, Scott chose Bankable as its platform on which to build that card offering.

I’m going to now move on to the first topic, which is, what is embedded banking? I’m going to start with Eric, by asking you that seemingly simple question, which is, what is embedded banking?

[00:03:44] Eric: Thank you Ben for the intro. I’ll try to make it very simple. If you remember Matt Harris from Bank Capital, what they said very simply that everybody understood that is the goal is to make every company a FinTech company. What that means is that we’re repackaging the bank into relevant B2B or B2C solution, instead of a product. It’s a way to put the bank in the backend with API, and we co-work with the financial institutions to build things that are innovative and real-time. Embedded finance has been around for quite some time, especially in e-commerce. By all definition, a bank is more to provide people with what, the brands that they’re missing to their clients. They don’t do that clients to sell the distribution to their clients. It’s a finance solution to create proximity with the client, so you can understand your clients a bit more and go direct. That’s for brands.

Bank as well are quite keen to all those embedded finance, because I think they are not as static as journalists think. I think they are somehow agile and retaliatory. For us, we have two categories applying to the FinTech. We’re going to provide embedded solutions to corporates or others. Then there’s the provider of the banks, who as well are not staying put for some of them, and they’re using the tools of FinTech to go to market quickly and to address all these markets. It’s more of a solution view of the world than a product view of the world, I would say.

To address the embedded finance market, you need banking as a service. That’s transitions from my friend Scott, that’s how those two are linked. You can’t go with a theory, that I’m going to go to embedded finance. You need tools; and tools that are modern, real-time, and that put together an offer. It’s more what you had in the past – before embedded finance you had the bank period. You’d go to the branch. The world has changed, and we can work with multiple banks, multiple solutions, and build a Bespoke solution. I don’t like Bespoke, but it’s customized more than Bespoke because Bespoke you can scale and do once at a time.

It’s all about customer experience. That’s where we are leading with embedded finance. I think the opportunities are enormous. When you talk to a client who’s got 1 million, that’s an opportunity to have a 1-million client. Nobody loses. In FinTech there is always a bank. For us, we’ve been at banking over the five years since inception, and we want to keep it this way. FinTech is going to market, but it’s the same for banks. They want to demonstrate the speed with the tools that the FinTechs are using, and not with their legacy advantage.

I think that puts the picture of embedded finance clearly. Matt Harris is right; his vision is materializing every day. More and more companies want to add additional revenue by embedding financial solutions, and they know their customers.

[00:07:42] Ben: Good. Scott, I think Eric has lined you up for the next question. The question for you would be, why didn’t you build all of these services yourself? Why did you choose to work with a partner to bring your services to market?

[00:07:57] Scott: To be honest with you, why are traditional banks being drastically disrupted and have been drastically disrupted the last past 10 years is probably because if you’re trying to do everything, chances are you’re not going to do everything well.

When you look at a bank, perhaps 75% of all their investment from the tech side are made on maintaining legacy systems – legacy systems that are built in the 1970s and the 1980s, which is incredibly hard to maintain, and simply de-focuses their main value proposition, which is driving customer satisfaction. For us, when you’re trying to create a banking product or a payment product, there’s two sides of the equations. One, what are you trying to solve for? Customer experience. We had identified a very clear pain that financial literacy is not happening in younger generations. We wanted to fill that gap by offering families a banking product that really solved that.

Either we have the opportunity to, one, say we’re going to try to recreate all the tech stack of a bank. That would probably take us maybe 36 months if we managed to do it, and we would have probably failed 20 times trying to do it, and ultimately down the line we would have never touched a single customer or gathered feedback. Our main DNA was: what we want to do is drive customer satisfaction. We want to be very, very close to our customers. We want to understand their needs and we want to better serve them. Let the experts do the rest. Down the line, I think it’s just about finding the right experts at the right positions and really build that product. At the end of the day, my teenagers and my parents don’t care if it’s bankable or if it’s XYZ behind. It’s really about driving the proper solution at the right time and delivering the right customer experience and the right services at the right time.

I think the area or opportunity guys like Eric and Bankable are driving is pretty phenomenal, because it gives the opportunity to broader actors in fintechs to drive satisfaction, drive customer engagement, and answer needs where customers had really tremendous pain in the past. I think it’s a great opportunity for traditional banks. Instead of maintaining legacy systems, they’re going to leverage solutions like Eric’s or others to drive customer satisfaction. At the end of the day, when you look at Banks NPS today, that’s where they need to be focusing on.

[00:11:10] Ben: If I were to attempt to summarize what you’re saying, it is about speed of market, it’s about specialization, and it’s about opening up innovation or wider pool of companies. Quick follow-up question if I may, how quickly were you able to take this service to market? You said this would’ve taken years if you tried to build everything yourself. How long did it take using somebody else’s platform?

[00:11:34] Scott: We were pretty much up and running in four and a half months, five months. We obviously worked day and night together with Eric’s team. But from kickoff to first better customer, about six months. Now, the  solution wasn’t amazing! We bootstrapped the product. But up and running, yeah, it was really efficient.

[00:12:00] Eric: I think there was a sense of urgency because you had thousands of clients waiting for the solution. We were all running to sell them.

[00:12:10] Ben: There’s nothing like creating a problem, to move quickly. Christina, I want to come to you because a lot of people say that banking as a service is just another name for white labeling. But it seems to me that there probably is quite a bit of difference between white labeling a banking service and building something which is much nimbler and agile. Can you tell us how you think about the difference between embedded banking and white labeling?

[00:12:40] Christine: Sure, thanks. White labeling literally is taking an existing solution end-to-end, and simple said, color-code it differently. Which, if the solution is changed, you need to adapt it as well, you have full dependency, you have no flexibility at all with the providers, how you run it, with the ad-ons. It’s really super static. It might be a cheaper and faster way to market, yes.

What we see currently, for example, take three regional banks, all of them want to launch a pension offering. One does it in blue, the other one in red, then the third one in green. The development might take them less long than the alignment they had to align on the solution. In the end, it is just static.

Embedded finance is completely different. You start with open sourcing, and that’s very important. You have flexible partners such as the Saxo on the banking side, that can serve as well a broader expansion, for example. An open sourcing is absolutely crucial. Then you have such as Additiv or Bankable – the orchestration layers, the service providers in the middle, that sewers your add-ons, whatever you want in an ad and provide to your end client. Then either you build yourself upon the APIs, which is a way to do, or you look into predefined value proposition on a predefined set of platform. Just to give you some examples, the first platform, and we soft launched that on the wealth management side in the Nordics a couple of weeks ago, we’re adding literally as we speak one IFA after the other. It is a pick and choose a solution to go into the market. You do not have a dependency. If you want to change, for example a data provider, let’s talk a bit ESG, do it, include it, and run ahead.

Dependency is a big topic. If I might add up to the debate, we had an embedded finance before in the end. It’s all of us who decide. Absolutely the key is the end customer. What embedded finance means for us is we get the solution at the point where it’s relevant for us. Payment. When I’m hungry, I order something. Mobility, holiday booking. Or I want to buy a house, and guess what, you might need indirect motorization and all that stuff. It brings more complex use cases together; not only single transitional radials, but really complex use cases at the point of contact. Maybe no longer at the banking channel. If I order a ride, I don’t want to open another app to pay. It is seamless. It is super convenient.

I completely agree with what was said before, convenience and the customer is what is driving embedded finance. It’s a paradigm shift what we have in front of us.

[00:16:12] Ben: Fantastic. If I were to summarize, more flexibility, fewer dependencies, lower switching costs, you’re able to build more complex use cases to meet the end customer needs.

Tue, I’m going to come to you next because I want to ask: what are the conditions that have come together that have made this step change from white labeling to embedded banking?

[00:16:39] Tue: My vantage point is that we today cover around 150 banks, so we see a lot of these, let’s say tendencies playing out. Working with Additiv as an example, we really see it up close. We have a course a lot of other client examples as well, but we see this really playing out.

A lot has been said already by Eric and Scott in terms of what are the drivers, time to market. For or the bank, the speed is a low complexity compared to building stuff internally. There is of course also a scale advantage, and they don’t need to invest CapEx, and they have a lot of running costs and so on. It’s a much nimbler. You pay as you go rather than setting aside a big team of developers and other people to build these services and then hope that it will go well at the end of the day.

One observation we haven’t talked as much about is that the banks now are starting to redefine themselves. They have seen the successes of Amazon and others, and they’re trying to mimic that to the extent that they are able to do that within the confinement of their business models. I’ve had several meetings with CEOs and others, where they start saying: if we can’t do it in a superior way ourselves, executing to better timelines and a lower cost and whatever we can like buy our source from the product ecosystem, then we shouldn’t do it. Which is a massive paradigm shift from just three to five years ago when we came out with the API, and where a lot of the bank were saying: that’s interesting, that API talk, about we need to control everything that goes into delivering a service.

Now they understand they want to be in control of the last mile and what the client sees, and be able to work with a more flexible third parties to deliver that user experience. But they don’t need to own the plumbing to deliver these services. I think that’s a major shift. The trust in working with the ecosystem has grown a lot in the last five years that I’ve been a witness to this.

[00:18:52] Ben: Would you argue that one of the things that’s made a difference, some of the tech stack is new? But would you argue the other thing that’s changed as the maturity of the ecosystem around banking as a service?

[00:19:08] Tue: Yeah, the whole concept has evolved a lot. But there was also just that basic thing called margin pressure that the banks are seeing. They’re seeing margin pressure. They want to increase the non-interest income, and they start looking at the different business lines. How can we scale this without adding a lot of costs? We have a lot of cases also where banks are coming to us, they want to improve the client experience and the last mile, but maybe the main driver for them is also getting rid of costly back office processes and the cost and other things. That’s a part of it, along with what we talked about before – the competitive pressure from new entrants and the ability to create a whole new different way of embedded experience for the client, which is very hard to do if you are siloed and working on mainframe systems, stuff like that.

[00:20:07] Ben: Fantastic. We’ve had our first audience question, and it’s addressed to you, Scott. This is a question from Mike O’Sullivan. He says: love the speed at which the team have established Kard. Could Scott comment on the appetite of French people for new, more clear banking solutions than the old banks?

[00:20:30] Scott: It’s a very good question. I think the appetite for good financial services is pretty much the same everywhere. Particularly in Southern Europe, certainly in France, where Banking NPS has been negative, negative, negative, and terrible customer experience. I think all in all banks have failed to address transparency to their customers, have taken margins where they shouldn’t have and without being transparent. Ultimately, since the subprime crisis, there’s a hatred from banks, in France particularly, or traditional banks. They’ve failed to be there for their customers when they needed to.

I just think people are looking for good, practical, driven UX, UI banking services. We’re seeing the appetite where, particularly in our market, if you look at the teen market, for instance, it’s still a very much untapped markets. Less than 15% of teenagers actually have a debit card or a credit card to their names. COVID has been a crazy accelerator for our markets.

Put it that way, I think we’ve probably gained three to four years in the acceleration to digital payments, which is already the case in Northern countries where people in pay in cash. It’s pretty much, you’re not from the world. In France, it’s coming in a very high speed. It’s a serious lack. I’m 32 years old; when I was 14 years old, I could pay everything I wanted with cash. Today it’s really not the case anymore. Teenagers, 50% of their spending has to be made by a digital payment. Today there are they’re left by using cash, which doesn’t serve them; or using their parents’ credit card, which is not practical. We’re clearly seeing amazing adoption towards products like ours, and ultimately towards product that serve customers in a better way than traditional banks haven’t in the past. It’s great for the consumer, it’s great for the customer, it’s great for traditional banks as well, because they’re really redefining their model and the way they serve customers.

At the end of the day, we’re all trying to better serve the customer. It’s a very good way to do it,

[00:23:25] Ben: Fantastic.

[00:23:26] Christine: May I add to that? We had yesterday a long discussion at an event with a smartphone bank called Neon. It’s a Swiss example. Not even looking only at the teenagers, but the broad population; they are close to reaching 100,000 clients. It just gives you an idea; if you have the right value proposition, easy serve to the clients, providing an overview. Another example in Switzerland, I would say well-banked, it’s not overbanked, really well-banked. But if you reach clients and if it’s intuitive and attractive to use, not only from a pricing point of view, but the user experience, the market is there.

[00:24:14] Ben: A follow up question: do you think that in the new world of embedded banking, you get higher adoption because you don’t have to switch in the way that you had to in the past? You don’t actually have to close down a bank account to have a new bank account. Well, these services are complimentary and they can coexist. Does that make customer acquisition much easier? Anyone can take that, maybe you Scott, because you’re living this everyday.

[00:24:36] Scott: I’m a firm believer that primarily banking relationship wins. I am in awe and admiration of Revolut’s success and their ability to attract millions and millions of customers. However, when you look deep down into their customer base, about 15% are, I would say, daily or weekly active users, i.e., they get their salary and Revolut acts as their main bank account. Why is because churn in the banking industry is very low, simply because there’s an incredible stickiness to banks. When we look at our case, a teenager is going to inherit from the bank of their parents at 90% of cases. It’s just how it goes. The real churn happens when you get your first mortgage, where whatever bank is more generous will ask you to switch banks.

For me, the whole play is really get in there as soon as possible, which is amazing because by definition they have never been met in the past. What is great is you can invent a new banking product from a blank sheet of paper and from scratch. What is hard is these kids have been growing up with incredible business models, incredible apps, where if you tell them: we have instant notification for payments, they’re going to say: what else do you have? It’s just very uncommon. You’re going to have to drive your products, your UX, or UI in a very different way than in the way Revolut has. It is, we’re just prettier and much quicker, we can give you an error of freight or product.

I very often described Kard as if you know, Revolut had a baby with Snapshot and Venmo. That’s how we think of the product. Ultimately it is creating a real value proposition to a customer base that is in demand and in need of a product, and not a replacement product. I do think that by equipping and giving teenagers their first bank account early and serving them, hopefully they will never leave and we will be able to continue offering great services as they grow older.

[00:27:12] Ben: Fantastic. We’ve started to get more questions through from the audience. I’m going to move us on to the next topic, then we’ll work on some of these other questions. The next topic is more around the stack, the mechanics of embedded banking. Christine, I’m going to come to you, if you don’t mind. Can you break down that banking as a service stack for us, and the different players that you see within that value chain?

[00:27:40] Christine: Sure, we can look into that from the basic product to the end solution, to embedded on the channel side.

Clearly, the first layer is the supplied side, or how we call it – which are the finance as a service provider. It can be an account, it can be an e-wallet, it can be a Kard, it can be an execution service. That’s really the base upon which it is built. The second layer normally is how to run the operations. The operations can come from the supplier side, but they can come as well from an efficient third party, or it can as well be fully automated. Yes, if you talk a bit the wealth management space, rebalancing a portfolio can be done by an operations provider, but also it could be done fully automatically with certain supervision. That’s how we look at the second layer. Then comes the whole orchestration layer with the sourcing part to it, which brings the intelligence to it – the portfolio management tools, if needed the CRMs, with the data, the regulated part as well. We have more and more reporting regulated needs, in particular in wealth management, alongside ESG, but also MiFID or Filec. That’s the intelligence layer on that stack.

The we have on both sides, our APIs. Then you go into the front end solution. The front end solution, the beauty of it is it can really play around of what you want to build for your end clients. The front end is important. It’s no longer only a financial company. It’s wide open. It can be a search engine. It could be a super app. It can be a real estate provider. As we have learned mortgages and all that stuff might be related to it. Pension might be related. It can be any corporate providing financial wellbeing. That’s the last layer. How we look at it, it’s the demand side, i.e., the ones providing the solution to the end client.

[00:29:53] Ben: Fantastic. Eric, I’m going to come to you next. You sit in that chain between the regulated service and the brand. Why would somebody need to use Bankable when they could get directly to the underlying regulated license holder? Make the case for Bankable and for these bass intermediaries that are popping up all over the place.

[00:30:30] Eric: We work with banks as well. For a client, we need to own log values. First, the stack is very simple. It’s an account. Our system is an account management solution surrounded by a processor. We own all the stack. then we have an API orchestration layer that provides the option to clients to build a customized solution. If you want to go to a bank, it’s possible, but I think it’s going to take in most cases much longer; unless you go to Saxo, because they’ve been in this space for quite some time.

I think the forest is very important to provide a service with multiple regulated entities, as opposed to just one. If it’s a very big project, the risk appetite of the bank, there’s different views of the same risks. For us, we are the ambassador of our client to pitch the business case to the bank. Going to the bank you will not achieve time to market, you’re going to go for their compliance and all that. It’s going to take you a lot of time. plus, the tools that the bank uses are made for them. All the regulated banks that you find on the market, and there’s more and more, the purpose of their stack is to serve their own regulation; whereas the purpose of our stack is to serve multiple regulatory entities in multiple jurisdictions. That’s why we can address global brands or global clients like Paysafe. We’ve launched Paysafe in 17 countries, and there’s others to come. It’s not the same.

There’s a lot of different BaaS, and I think the bank might be the right solution if you’re a top 20 corporate client of the bank. We see that more and more. We are in discussion with very large banks to become their BaaS, so they can onboard quicker corporate clients. Otherwise the bank is a chat-chat. “Hey, would you like to do banking as a service?” Okay, that’s a nice chat, but banks should stop chatting and should stop proposing pilots to their clients. That’s what we will see on the market now.

I think when you’ve got 30 million clients, 50 million clients, that’s a huge opportunity to address. The bank adapting is not something you can do. I’ve got nothing against legacy, quite frankly. That’s what the banks have. Legacy shows history, and history is good. But to address embedded finance, you’ve got to use the systems they have, so you need to be a bank on the side to serve your multiple business cases. I hope I’ve replied to your question.

[00:33:31] Ben: I don’t want to position Saxo in any way as a legacy bank, but you are a bank and sometimes you do work with BaaS intermediaries. I suppose the question is: in that stack where you’ve got the brands, somebody like Kard or any consumer brand, then you’ve got the best intermediary and underneath you’ve got the bank, is the bank not being reduced to a utility over time? If you don’t have any access to the customer directly, it’s difficult to have pricing power, it’s difficult to be able to upsell or cross-sell. I suppose to make the case for the bank working with a bas intermediary.

[00:34:15] Tue: It was a bit special in this case because we both act as the BaaS intermediary sometimes. We have a lot of developers and so on. We are a mix of a bank and a tech company. But we also work as the custodian bank, for instance working with Additive, where they orchestrate the client experience and work with the financial institution to deliver what’s required there, and we work then in the back on the so-called boring things of execution, custody, and asset servicing and all of that stuff that needs to happen. Of course these things are to some extent a commodity, so there’s a lot of other banks that could provide. But even there, there is a lot of parameters for differentiation. You could say, like Eric talked about, being able to work across legal jurisdictions, understanding the compliance layer that comes now. All the regulatory changes being on top of that is a massive investment on our side, and also something that we can then leverage and help other providers with.

I think there’s plenty of room for differentiation even within something that is fairly commoditized, both on the reg side, but also in terms of the products. As you can see many of the new investment models coming through, for instance, they rely on fractional services, they rely on margin and segmenting, and other things to be able to bring good economics into those solutions. For me, there a lot of interesting innovation going on in that space as well.

As I mentioned earlier on, it is also very much a scale game. We can see on our side, when we started with the API about five years ago, we had around 15 billion of assets. Now we are around 80 billion euros of assets. Unfortunately, we haven’t seen this similar rise in revenue. You really need to bring scale to a platform like this.

[00:36:16] Ben: Fantastic. We’re going to take a couple of audience questions. the first one is: can the panel share with an example, what we mean by orchestration layer and what an orchestration layer might do?

I think it was Christine that used the term orchestration layer. What do we mean by an orchestration layer, and if we can, can we get a practical example?

[00:36:36] Christine: Well, I can share it certainly from a wealth management point of view and Eric can share it from the Kard’s point of view.

From a wealth management point of view, it is really the system that provides you the end solution. If you want a simple ETF savings plan or robo, someone has to orchestrate it; has to handle the design; has to do the link over then to what I explained, execution; has to make sure that it runs smoothly. This includes as well what we call role model, not role model by different client segments. An example that was made before by Kard, if you want to handle community features and real client features, with Kard you could take the prospect view and turn it upside down. Today’s clients are the teenagers and your prospects are the parents. But you could run on an orchestration layer to different segments and make a seamless solution to the end client.

For us, a huge topic is the wealth transfer, the next generation wealth transfer. Therefore, you want prospect handling, for example, and current client handling, and you might want different end models. If you look into a search engine, they might have real estate on and they might need an offering that helps in direct amortization on the mortgage side. Sounds quite complex. Isn’t that complex? What do you need behind? You need what Tue has described, then you need the right icings and the right setup. You then can provide that as an embedded wealth model into the solution. This is what is meant by orchestrating – by bringing the supply and the demand side together seamlessly.

Maybe Eric you might want to add?

[00:38:45] Eric: I agree. For us it’s a technological layer to on board and unlimited number of partners. We don’t do everything. We do the accounts, the processing, the payments and all that. But we don’t own our own card manufacturing. We are connected to TELES and Idemia or Globalli. The purpose of this API orchestration layer is to add relevant partners on a long-term basis.

When I go see a Scott at Kard, I can provide him optionality. Would you like this or that? It goes from KYC, AML, account manufacturing, the list is pretty long. Some partners, like Visa or MasterCard. are global, some are regional, the majority are domestic. It’s regional or national. If it’s multiple countries, it’s multiple terms, multiple regulations. This is for us a key part of what we provide. It’s to make sure we can tailor a solution for customers based on all these things. That’s how we can achieve to market.

Otherwise we’d have to buy a puzzle ourselves. We’d go see 20 partners. But I think that’s more ambitious than building a puzzle. It’s building something bigger with real customers. When you have a good business case, your priority is not to become yourself regulated, it is to reach a certain level of customer satisfaction and volume. Without orchestration, we can’t satisfy demanding clients like Kard and others.

[00:40:40] Christine: The point you raised is super important. It is the flexibility that is added for the end client. On our side, it’s exactly the same. In terms of typically investment, barriers on the asset management side, the same with the data providers or the regulatory layers, there are various providers out there. We bring them together on one platform and the end client chooses. It is like using a puzzle, but instead the puzzle is completely white. We provide potential that it is an end solution, a beautiful picture on top.

[00:41:16] Ben: Yeah. Scott, anything you would like to add? You’ve been talked about quite a lot there on a third person, anything you would like to add? I just have another question for you from the audience.

[00:41:23] Scott: I totally agree. I think vice versa is, whenever we get the customer need for us it’s really important to go to bank and say, “I need this. However, I don’t have time to focus on one, benchmarking; two, implementation; three, I just need this for my customers.” Then it’s up to them to figure out which is the best provider, and leverage that provider, given the fact that they have much more scale and they have more customers.

For us, just about not defocusing our engineering teams on the front end bids, and let the experts do it on the back end bits. Just being much more efficient in order to accelerate time to market.

[00:42:13] Ben: Fantastic. The next section is more on making the business case from embedded banking. I think it might be good to focus on some of the more interesting use cases that we’re seeing. I’m going to take a question here from Parak. This is coming your way too, I think it is best if you kick us off here. Doe the panel have any examples in the wholesale banking or B2B banking space where BaaS has been successful? Which corporate banking use cases could you point to as working well for embedded banking?

[00:42:48] Tue: From my own neck of the woods, we service a lot of smaller hedge funds and wealth managers and others. That’s where you could say the wholesale bank is also involved. But where I’ve seen most innovation are cases we have already brought up, the likes of Revolut, Robinhood and others, where we see some of these mass marketplaces that have been extremely successful.

I’m really looking forward to see as the next step, and maybe that’s jumping a little bit ahead in the discussion, but we’ve seen a lot of plays for, as we talked about early, adopters and younger generations waiting for the wealth transfer to happen and all of that, and then banking on that, which I totally get that play. But what I think is really an interesting next wave is to also see some of the more affluent and wealthy clients, how they will be better serviced by embedded finance. We are seeing things come out of that again, where you can use what I talked about before with fractions and different ways. Some of the models you see playing out in the retail space will also be relevant for those more wealthy segments. But that’s really what I’m looking forward to see.

I’m also looking forward to see some of the models which today are very person-driven. Either you have a tied agent, and you have a banker, advisor, or whatever they’re called, but how do you blend that with technology to give clients relevant engagement and not waiting for a call from some guy? That blend of the client wanting to express their own views in terms of buying shares, stocks, whatever it is, but also having access to advice and to some discretionary services when that comes into play.

Some of the stuff that banks and private banks are doing today still has a huge need to be digitized. I think there’s a lot of potential there. That’s some of the stuff we work with Additive to make happen. That’s probably where I have had the highest expectations. As a bank, we’re not in the space of doing corporate banking, so I don’t have a lot of views on how that sector is working.

[00:45:13] Ben: You didn’t mention crypto; I suppose the question to you Christine: is crypto a big area for growth for embedded banking? Or is that still a bit an edge case, do you think?

[00:45:24] Tue: We are offering cryptos, but so far it’s been a bit more of a marketing gimmick, I will say. There’s always demand for that, people want to be able to access it in their portfolios, but it’s a very small percentage of the investible assets right now. Even though some banks are warming to it, like you have the Goldman Sachs and others taking it more seriously now, but it’s still a fairly small part of at least the portfolios that we see. But as a provider of access to markets, we need to also have that in our armor.

[00:46:05] Christine: I completely agree. You need to be able to combine what is called digital assets and today’s traditional assets into one portfolio. It really reminds me of the early 1990s, for example, structure products, or when we had the debate about adding alternatives into a portfolio.

The first are warming up, looking at strategic asset allocation, and guess what, a 5% percent addition could be a diversifier. I think it will start to broaden. As Tue has said, you need providers that can deliver both.

[00:46:43] Ben: Eric or Scott, what use additional use cases are you guys seeing or thinking about within the whole payments card area? What other use cases are working well?

[00:46:59] Eric: Well, there’s tons! What I always say, we’re as good as the business case we support. The average business case is not going to be a great solution. But if you look at Spendesk, for example, they grew in multiple countries from scratch. They are changing the way a team can buy or purchase a subscription or a trip or whatever. It’s team finance.

You usually used to go to the pool treasurer, you had to do a cash advance and all that. That’s what Spendesk is displacing, to make sure you have a budget for your team and your team approves the budget that the team can use to buy Amazon license or going to assure all that. It’s what Scott said before, it’s new. It’s a very new way and a very powerful niche.

We’ve had success as well with Deutsche Bank. We’ve done a corporate product completely outsourced, with them in the past, corporate product that was sold to Airbus and Emirates and others. The majority of what we do is B2B. Kard is probably the exception. We also do B2C, but B2B is where we are focused initially, because it’s predictable whereas B2C is not. You never know if that customer is going to buy an iTunes Belmont’s, or are going to buy a motorcycle, or whatever. That’s why we’re on B2B.

I think the success is on B2B. With Emirates, we’re in 160 airports doing real time cash disbursements. That’s something they could not do with their bank. But it’s something that we could do with the bank. There is a lot of together with the bank that we can enable.

I’ve never liked this story that FinTech are better than banks or banks are losers and we’re winners. That’s completely stupid. There is no FinTech without banks, why not complement each other? What’s the business logic? There is no business logic, it’s just ego. We have no place for ego at the bank at all5, it’s not good for business.

[00:49:33] Ben: I’m going to move on to the final topic, which is, what creates differentiation? I’m going to take this from multiple vantage points if I can. I’m going to start with you two. When you work with a BaaS intermediary, how discerning are you about who that partner is, and what are you looking for when you look for a bass intermediary? When we think from the source supply side up, what do you look for in a bass intermediary?

[00:50:00] Tue: I almost wanted to quote my good colleague, Eric, on this call. Even the best solution without the right business plan is not really going to go anywhere.

Reflecting on the six years we’ve had a full API solution in the market, we’ve worked with maybe 50 different entities on API solutions and we’ve been in talks with probably tenfold that number. From the outset, we were so keen to get our APIs into market and have them tested and so on. If there were two guys in a garage rocking up with a cool app, we would just start integrating it day one. We learned pretty soon that one thing is having a great UI or smashing idea, but if it’s not backed up by access to a client franchise of some sort or ability to go viral in some way, then it was very hard for some of these early players to have a sustained business. Quite a few of them went out of business or got bought, which was their other option.

We realize we’re not in private equity, trying to pick the winners. If we were super good at that, then you shouldn’t be doing banking and the things, but we should just be investing in our own fund and making fortunes out of that. We are looking much more at some of the established players who have the client franchises at their disposal and who are now looking to see how they can offer more relevant, contextual, and so on, service to their clients. That’s what we talked about before, where the orchestration layer comes into play.

The agenda for us has changed quite dramatically, but we still have a lot of discussions with newer banks and others. But we also, each I would say each week, turn down if some new robo that wants to do something for a niche segment of whatever white men above 50 who like to play chess, would like to have their own little investment circle and then they would bring an app out on. Even though I’m a white man around 50, I don’t think there’s a market for that. Again, we’ve been a lot more discerning than we used to be in the past.

[00:52:37] Ben: Fantastic. Same question to you, Scott. When you were looking for a bass partner, what criteria where you taking into account? Was it the breadth of services that that partner could give you access to? Was that geographical coverage? What things were important to you when you chose a bass provider?

[00:52:57] Scott: The first thing was the quality of the tech stack, by far the main driver. Ultimately, due diligence, the tech stack gives you answers to a couple answers. The first is the quality of the team to implement new products at a very efficient rate. That was definitely the first and main driver.

The second was array of products or offered solutions. Lastly, I don’t remember exactly who said it, but the distinction between the licensing and the technology for us was a no-brainer, simply because I don’t think the two fit together. Either you’re trying to be a technology company or you’re trying to be a bank. For us, it was very important to partner with a tech company for the reasons I just mentioned.

Lastly was international; the ability to go really fast in other countries. For a very young and ambitious startup, it was one of our main drivers.

[00:54:11] Ben: Great. Can we infer from that that Kard is coming to other countries?

[00:54:17] Scott: Fingers crossed.

[00:54:19] Ben: Fantastic. Then Christine, you’re head of strategy at Additiv. With your strategy hat on, what are you thinking of in terms of how you’re going to build increasing differentiation for Additive, versus whatever the competitive landscape looks like for investment management as a service?

[00:54:43] Christine: I’ve lost you, Ben, briefly.

[00:54:46] Ben: When you think about Additive and the competitive environment, how do you think that you’ll create more and more differentiation over time? What things are you thinking about beyond the tech stack, the breadth of products, international coverage, if anything else?

[00:55:03] Christine: In the end it is who you can serve as not end clients, but as your clients. One of the main differentiations, what we see in the wealth management, embedded wealth space, we can bring financial planning to any employer out there for his or her employees. It’s really opening up the way the channels the services are provided.

If I might add to one of the discussions before, in the past in the wealth development management side, various tried to cooperate with the banks. But then it was rather captive, i.e., if you get the execution and the custody, please as well get our views and our products. That’s opening up completely.

You can source in terms of the investment products, in terms of the end solution, literally anything you’re like. Differentiation and development management side will be with the end clients to be served, as said, corporates, search engines, retailers, but as well as what you serve there. There important point is the aggregation.

Like on the Kard side, we want to know what we have spent. The same on the wealth management side today, we have to build it, quite cumbersome. We want to know what our pension looks like, to be able to simply dissimulate it, from a mortgage our amortization and over into long-term planning. I think this services are coming our way and provided through channels that do not need to be traditional channels, but it can be partially provided by financial companies.

It was said FinTechs and banks always go hand in hand, and I completely subscribe to that. It is opening up new ways of distribution, serving all of us best IU and clients.

[00:57:09] Ben: Fantastic. Eric, anything you would add in terms of when you look at your competitors, where you see areas of differentiation?

[00:57:20] Eric: As you find in the report that appear, for us there’s one thing we need to do right. We need to connect our platform to as many banks as we can in different countries. Why? Because we are now meeting clients, they want to start, and that’s what we’ve done. They say they are in dozens of countries., they want to open in a new country. Instead of being led by the client, we push our network to the client, saying: we are now opening Brazil, are you interested?

If I come to Scott with, we are live with IBAN accounts, everything in 20 countries, why don’t you raise 50 million to address that? Why don’t you get marketing budget? The world has changed. I think 20 years ago to be on an international company was much more difficult. Now you’ve got a lot of tools. We want to facilitate this network of global bass for global clients, either fintechs or corporates, or even banks. There are some banks who are overpaying services in companies outside their native country. For us, one agenda is to change the way custody bank is set up. If we have an account in all of these banks to power corporates, then we’ve got something powerful for the bank as well as for the premium flow we could bring to the bank.

[00:58:54] Ben: Fantastic. Sadly, I think we’re out of time. I just want to thank the four of you for what I thought was a really wide range and interesting discussion. I’m going to conclude with something you said, Eric, which is, I think embedded in banking is really about giving every company the possibility to be a FinTech company. I think that was a pretty pithy comment from me right at the start.

I can’t resist, Eric, what you mentioned there, we just published a report about the embedded banking market in which we evaluated 45 banking as a service providers. Both Bankable and Additive are considered by us to be best in class as transformers capable of transforming both business models and technology of the companies that they work with. We are lucky to have the two companies on this discussion as part of this panel.

Thank you also to you Scott, for your insights.

We have more questions that we didn’t have time to ask, but that sadly was the case. Hopefully you guys will agree to come on another 4×4 in the future. Last thing to do is thank everybody for attending. Thank you for your questions. We’ll make the replay of this available if you want to watch it again or share it with any of your colleagues. But thanks very much everybody for participation and your attendance at this discussion. Much appreciated, and see you at the next step 4×4.

[01:00:19] Eric: Thanks.

[01:00:23] Tue: Thanks.

aperture launches The Market Map for Banking-as-a-Service Providers

aperture, the Swiss strategy consultancy, today launches a new report on the embedded banking market, “Embedded Banking: The Opportunity and the BaaS Providers Best Placed to Help Companies Capitalize on It”.

  • The second Market Map produced by aperture – first was focused on wealth management software
  • The Market Map for BaaS Providers applies the firm’s proprietary, digital age, evaluation methodology to 45 provider solutions
  • The Market Map assesses providers according to their ability to enable business model innovation and technology innovation

Geneva, 29 September 2021 – aperture, a strategy consultancy, today launches a new report on the embedded banking market, “Embedded Banking: The Opportunity and the Providers Best Placed to Help Companies Capitalize on It”. The report includes The Market Map for Banking-as-a-Service (BaaS) Providers, an evaluation of 45 BaaS platforms based on digital age criteria.

Embedded banking is the phenomenon whereby consumer-facing companies can offer banking products and services, seamlessly embedded into existing user journeys, without having to become banks themselves. Since embedded – or contextual – banking promises to give consumers banking services when and where they need, it will increase conversion and the overall size of the market. According to estimates from Simon Torrance – founder of Embedded Finance & Super App Strategies – the embedded banking opportunity could add USD3.7 trillion to the market capitalization of the companies able to exploit it.

Embedded banking is attracting a lot of start-ups and venture capital. The size of the market opportunity has drawn significant venture capital investment  – USD22 billion in 2020, according to Pitchbook – and a wave of start-ups. These start-ups are mostly focused on Banking-as-a-Service (BaaS), providing the infrastructure that allows brands to offer discrete banking services, such as payments. Some incumbent banks, such as Goldman Sachs, are also pursuing the opportunity.

The challenge for embedder brands is navigating this complex and fast-moving space. Not only is the number of BaaS providers proliferating, but there are significant differences between the providers, such as whether they are vertically integrated or modular, where they operate and what services they provide.

aperture’s Market Map provides a digital age framework to help decision makers select the right platform to meet their strategic needs. The Market Map is a proprietary methodology that assesses platforms on the basis of the ability to enable business model innovation and their ability to enable technology innovation. In addition to The Market Map, the report also includes extensive information for each provider about services offered and geographies covered  – all compiled using publicly available information, complemented by a proprietary RFI process.

Simon Torrance, CEO of Embedded Finance & Super App Strategies, commented,

“Embedded banking is a hugely exciting and nascent market opportunity. Most brands are only starting to wake up to the possibility of providing digital banking services alongside their existing offering to grow customer lifetime value and loyalty.”

Simon added:

“This aperture report is unique and timely in that it both takes a comprehensive look at the BaaS provider landscape and applies digital age criteria to assessing it. After reading the report, a decision maker will be able to determine which BaaS providers are able to meet their use cases in the location where they operate, but also which will enable the company to achieve their business objectives – whether adding a service to enhance an existing value proposition or using banking to springboard a more fundamental change in their business model.”

Ben Robinson, co-founder of aperture, added:

“The aim of this report is to throw light on an area of fintech that is fast-growing, exciting, but still unexplored by industry analyst research. Unlike other evaluation matrixes, The Market Map is not meant to separate good from bad, but to help those charged with system selection to understand which platforms can help them to achieve their strategic goals.”

Ben continued:

“Ours is a new approach where we’re not concerned with how big a provider is or how many consultants it has, but the extent to which its solution can fundamentally improve end-user experiences and/or fundamentally change a business’ operating, sourcing and distribution models. Because this is our objective and because we use mainly publicly available information to compile The Market Map, we can be highly inclusive – featuring 45 providers in the report, even those with small revenues and customer numbers.”

The Market Map for BaaS is the second market assessment of its kind. The first (The Market Map for Wealth Management Software, H1 2021) was published in February 2021.

END

About aperture

At aperture, we grow digital-age businesses. We do this on behalf of incumbents launching new business units, universities spinning out commercial projects, and start-ups.

We provide strategy consulting, marketing services, product and project management, and investment – individually or as a bundle, as needed.

Our roots are in the B2B fintech space (enterprise banking tech platforms), but we also work with B2C companies (challenger banks, marketplaces, embedded banking).

For more information, visit www.aperture.co

For enquiries: strategy@aperture.co

BaaS 2.0 : Every Company is a Finance Company (#43)

Structural Shifts with Hasan NAWAZ, CEO at HUBUC

Today we speak with Hasan Nawaz, co-founder and CEO at HUBUC — a banking as a service (BaaS) platform that enables brands to open up new revenue lines by seamlessly embedding financial products into their customer journeys. HUBUC takes care of all the regulatory requirements and manages compliance risk. This allows their customers to get their services to market in less time with fewer resources. In this episode, you are going to learn what banking as a service or BaaS actually is, why it’s not the same as embedded finance. What’s happening right now in the BaaS landscape, the difference between BaaS 1.0 and 2.0, and more.

Before we get to the show, we want to flag that on May 1st we say happy birthday to aperture. We’re two years old! In case you are brand new to us, we design build, fund, and scale digital age companies. Now on with the episode.

 

Main topics discussed:

[00:02:12] Banking as a Service (BaaS) vs Embedded Finance

[00:07:43] White Labeling vs Embedded Finance

[00:15:55] BaaS landscape and main players

[00:22:42] HUBUC and BaaS 2.0.

[00:40:55] The competitive environment for BaaS 2.0.

[00:49:08] Recommendations: Hasan’s favourite book, article, company, influencer, brand.

Full transcript
BaaS 2.0 : Every Company is a Finance Company w/ Hasan NAWAZ

We combined compliance with technology, and then the magic happened.

Full transcript:

Ben: [00:01:36] Hasan, welcome to the Structural Shifts podcast. We are delighted to have you on.  I think we’re catching you early in your trajectory. You’re clearly on this massive growth journey; and even though HUBUC might not yet be a household name, I don’t think it’s a question of if, it’s a question of when. We’re so excited to have you on. We’re going to talk all about the next generation of banking as a service.

Hasan: [00:02:03] Thank you. Excited to be here. It’s amazing. I have read through some of your older articles when we were starting, and it’s a pleasure to be here.

Banking as a Service (BaaS) vs Embedded Finance

Ben: A good jumping off point might be to define what we mean by banking as a service. Hassan, what’s your definition of BaaS?

Hasan: Banking as a service, I think there is a trend right now going on that everybody seems to be doing banking as a service. It’s mixed up now. Everybody has a different definition. My personal point of view on banking as services, if you use the word ‘bank’, you should be at least a chartered bank. You can’t be an electronic money institution saying that you’re a bank.

My definition is there’s banking as a service version 1, which has existed for the last four or five years; then there’s the next generation. For me, banking as a service provider right now is normally a regulated entity who has some together on KYC, AML, and the different set of tools from different service providers, slap an API on top of it, and they go out to the market and say this is banking as a service – which worked great for the last four years.

Ben: In terms of definitions, a lot of people use the term ‘banking as a service’ interchangeably with embedded finance. How do you differentiate between those two terms?

Hasan: From our point of view, it’s a clear distinction between two different go-to-markets, two different type of customer bases, and stacks. It’s a completely different thing.

Let’s make an analogy. For example, before Amazon cloud or Google cloud or Azure cloud, there used to be these data center service providers, like they were monolithic systems where you have like a single service provider and they have a couple of data centers and they’re building some layer of software on top. There’s the previous generation or banking as a service provider, which is the Version 1 let’s say, and then there’s an embedded finance.

The Version 1 service providers, it worked great, similar to analogy of data center service providers before the cloud happened. The difference is it works great in your specific use case. It helped a lot of startups to become FinTech, and N26 were built on top of Wirecard and GPS and everybody else. That was great. But embedded finance is talking about embedding these FinTech features and these financial services into your existing products. We are talking about a whole different customer base, if I were to say, especially in the B2B space. It is like having a sleeping majority of people where you have to first educate and also they need to understand what is the value for them – mostly it’s about know monetization and retention for them. If you’re looking at how they access or they want to access the financial services, they’re not looking for signing several different contracts and waiting for a year and setting up a compliance thing. Their business might be freight forwarding, accounting, retail, vendor payout – there’s all those B2B stack companies on the business operating system.

Kind of provide services for these service providers. That’s where I think embedded banking service partners need to come in, like us for example. We target that customer base and help them understand what this can provide, but it’s like a white glove managed service, to be honest. You have to make a single layer, which takes care of compliance and all these different hard tanks, which is settlements and KYC, AML, regulation, and all that stuff.

You need to make sure that the customer is not affected with it, in a way that they want the feature, but they don’t want the hard things about it. How you can build that layer on top, is I think it.

Ben: Essentially the difference between BaaS and embedded finance is really looking from the vantage point of whether you’re on the supply side, whether you’re a license holder; or whether you’re on the demand side, with your brand that’s looking to offer financial services through your existing distribution channels or together with your existing offering. Is that the way to think about it? You are the orchestration layer that sits between the supply and the demand side – you make it possible for existing financial services providers to open up new distribution channels and you make it possible for non-financial services to offer financial services solutions for the first time? 

Hasan: It’s not about providing APIs. It’s more about managed versus non-managed. Just to give you an analogy, there are quite a few in history, but for example, before Shopify or Stripe, banks were giving acquiring channels online, so you could take payments. People were setting up e-commerce stores. I was a software developer, I set up a lot of e-commerce for companies.

The difference is now anybody can do it right. That anybody can do it comes with an enabling through a different take on the risk compliance and making sure that anybody can access that. That’s where you can seamlessly embed in your value proposition those features. If you cannot do that, if you’re going to have set up compliance calls and have to set up a whole department of looking at AML policies and drafting them, then you’re probably not there yet for that. No code embedded happening.

 

White Labeling vs Embedded Finance

Ben: [00:07:43] If we go back to the early 2000s, there was lots of white labeling that was happening. A lot of supermarkets started to offer insurance products, they started to offer banking products. The difference here is the extent to which this is truly seamless, and the speed with which you can change providers, the speed in which you can onboard. How would you draw the distinction between white labeling and embedded finance?

Hasan: If you see a little bit, even further down back, it seems like now everybody’s doing banking as a service with cards and accounts, which was basically co-branded card programs from the past. Every bank had one, every supply chain had a co-branded card. There are still active ones with big ones, but most of them failed, because there was no real customer pain being sold for the end user but just giving them more and more cards. I think that is very true.

That co-branding worked for some companies, bigger ones. Let’s say, for example, in Spain, there is Zara and these guys who have distribution power and they really enable their customer to use something and in return they are getting rewards and stuff. But that only works for a certain limit. How many more cards do you want?

If you look at now, what is happening, I think it’s not about how easy the access is, it’s deeper stack level features. For example, it’s not about only issuing a debit card or a prepaid card, it’s about, can you enable customers of yours to have access to real IBAN and mapped bank accounts guaranteed by a local banking partner, and they can pay taxes, salaries, receive money, send money, just like a high street bank.

In a nutshell, I think it’s about feature parity with a high street bank. It provided for a new generation like a FinTech or a non-FinTech player to be able to use those features, because normally they cannot get those. It’s about changing the scenario of how banks used to be. They are the best people to do compliance and they’ve saved that for hundreds of years.  There’s no question about it. But I think the scenario has changed in a way that now you cannot go full stack into the market, to the end user, and be also covering the wholesale side of things.

Now there’s an opportunity, I think. In this case, we work with smaller banking partners. For smaller entities who have a smaller liquidity base and user base, I think it makes sense to become the store of value and the store of compliance and safeguarding. That’s the core which they are really experts on; and leave the distribution to providers who can really make better customer experience by embedding them into different ones.

As a regulated entity, you get the deposit, and your value where you store eventually. All the features which you are distributing through your own channels now are being used through an API, and have 10 X or 100 X more reach to customer Bases because you’re getting an aggregated access to those customer Bases/

For example, one of our customers, Wage Stream, they do early salaries. They launched in Spain, and they’re like, “Look, we’re going to need 300,000 accounts.” Now, our banking partner had I think one fourth of those. For them, it was like, “Wait, what?” I think smaller entities; it’s really helped with opening a revenue stream. Indirectly, you don’t have to put your marketing, and also the regulator is happy because you’re holding more balance and you can use it for other accesses.

That is where we see both sides getting some interest. It’s not about only giving prepaid cards.

Ben: [00:11:43] It is sort of driving more of a distinction between manufacturing on the one side and distribution on the other. The reason it seems that people are so excited is because you are now distributing banking through a channel that has higher engagement, lower cost of customer acquisition, the potential for high lifetime value, because it’s easier to cross it onto an app because you understand the customer context. Is that the reason why people are just over themselves with excitement about embedded finance? Because it’s about growing the addressable market and making banking much more contextual?

Hasan: Yes and no. It’s not about only the user experience. You want to give the best features to the user, but in return what are you getting? There’s a saying: if something is free, you are the product. If you have providing the customer something, what is the benefit for the person who is providing it? Why people get excited about us or venture capitalists or investors, or in general? Every company is going to be a FinTech company, let’s say.

I think every company at some point touches the payment stack. The value prop or the USP for the company or the provider, is that I get to see and improve my retention of my customers, or I’m looking for monetization and I’ve happened to land in products and increase my unit economics by user APR by adding an intro deck provider, get affiliates to be on top of itself. If you have a distribution channel, you can add on top features by working with an embedded provider and get on top of monetizing your user base.

Then people like N26, an amazing company, they were the first ones to start overdraft, and then they started noncash to cash conversion from stores in Germany. Now, last time I checked, they were embedding. Grab also does it. They embed Chubb, for example, their insurance company product. They embed seamlessly. Instead of going and filling out forms for insurance while you’re covering for three days, just hit a button and it automatically books.

Yes, the user experience is great, but also the providers getting something out of it. It’s not about just contextual user experience. It’s about what are you getting out of it as a provider? Then of course the service provider in the background always get some revenue. I think it’s both sides of the table: the customer and the user and the provider.

Ben: What you just said there about N26 is interesting because we tend to think about embedded finance as being embedding finance into non-financial channels. But it can also be embedding into existing financial channels. The difference is you don’t have to build everything yourself.

Hasan: Exactly.  You’re not going to start doing underwriting for an insurance company. They do better. You want to work with one of them. They understand probably more risk profiles than a FinTech can, because of their wider data set across multiple services and the history of underwriting all those risks.

You end up working with one, the question is: which is the better one? Do you want to go and spend seven to eight months integrating with one, or you just want to come to a platform which provides different sets of services and pick one and use it?

That is what happened with, for example, you see Amazon web services or Google cloud as well. They started with service for internally; they were built for internal use of Amazon itself. Then they started on top of features. Now, eventually, you just join AWS for the hosting service and end up using Elasticsearch and AI models. There’s a ton of services. You think about, I don’t need to build it. I don’t need to reinvent the wheel, it’s already there. Use it as a service, and the cost is pretty similar of integrating versus managing it.

That’s why people started using a cloud provider instead of having your own data centers. I think there’s an opportunity over there.

BaaS landscape and main players

Ben: [00:15:55] Hassan, let’s talk bit about the landscape for BaaS. A lot of people think that all BaaS providers are essentially the same. ostensibly it looks like it’s just the question of APIs and linking with brands on the demand side and banks on the supply side. Everybody gets lumped into the same bracket. But it’s much more nuanced and layered than people think. Help us out here. Help us, if you can, to provide a schematic of who does what and what the differences are between the different BaaS players?

Hasan: Let’s start with somebody like SolarisBank; they are a fully chartered bank and they have the right to say they are a bank, because they have a charter. Then they have brought in a couple of service providers for KYC, AML, some processor, a lot of different things. Although everybody talks in terms of partners, but we all know the partners behind. Eventually they’ve got a license and some partners, and then stitch it up together and then have a API on the hub.

The value proposition for the customer is good because it gives them security of a full bank license, and they can passport hopefully in other European countries. The lending part, if you think about how they make more money, it’s not only on account basis. It’s more about how – and this came out of our report- I think that there’s a lot of revenue for them. That is also value proposition for the customer, because it’s not only cards and accounts, they have a German IBAN. It’s a very good proposition for the local market in Germany, especially.

Then you have the likes of Modeler, Railsbank, Swan, or older players like Treezor from France; they have powered a lot of good startups who became FinTechs. Everybody knows about them. Then there’s there was Wirecard, the original. What happened over there is bad, but what they built initially was an amazing scalability of the product. They powered the likes of Curve. They have innovative companies who build on top of the N26. Number 26, the original name, came out of Wildcard AG. I was one of the first customers; we had a card transplant and the name of the bank.

That is great. That is regulated on a lower level than a bank charter, but doing similar things – no lending, nothing like that. “Here’s an account and a wallet,” most of the time. If you want to go fast, let’s do a prepaid card instead of a debit card. How your KYC requirement for a debit card versus lower against the prepaid card, that’s where Revolut started. It didn’t say debit on the card, it just was a card for a map class. That is like having any prepaid card attached to a wallet.

Then you have, in the US if you look at Synapse. They are running on top of a banking partner, one partner. They integrated with them and they’re running on top of it. Similar to Synapse, but not having the regulatory and compliance obligations of running the whole stack by themselves.

This is where you see different service providers, but their offerings change as well because they’re mostly in their countries, wherever they are. Synapse in the US or where the partner band has access. On the Baffin, SolarisBank is in German bank eventually. it is a FinTech, but it’s also a bank. You have the likes of Railsbank, and Swan, and Treezor, and everybody else. Then in the US you have unit and bond and all those players doing different things.

This is all what I think as monolithic. Everybody does one of everything: one of service providers, one of KYC, one AML, one processor, one of everything.

Ben: It is kind of monolithic. It can be vertically integrated, like something like Solaris or Marcus, for example; or it can be modular, as you said, Synapse and so on. But it tends to be narrow in the sense that it’s a single geography or a single vertical of banking. Is that right?

Hasan: Yes. That is how it works. Somebody was powering the fintechs of neo-banks, and somebody was starting to focus on expense management software, a little bit on corporate because corporate had a higher interchange fee versus consumer, especially in Europe, they’re not super regulated. There are tons of different things inside, but eventually, if you think from a technology or software paradigm, it’s monolithic. Versus the new way, which is going to come, is how do you have a service-oriented architecture? It’s microservice architecture, for example.

In software terms, monolithic is one single system with one database, one service provider, one of everything. In microservices, it looks like chaos from the outside because you have tons of different services interchanging, but then you have a central message bus or a service process orchestrator, which we think HUBUC is. That’s where we focus, is where you have tons of different service providers. Why it’s happening – I’ll come to that in a minute –there’s tons of KYC providers. There are seven or eight different KYC providers, and we can easily name them. Then there’s different AML providers, anti-money laundering software providers. Then there are manufacturers, big ones, small ones. There’s a few of them, like five or six, ten, definitely.

Then there is the awakening of these old school entities like Treezor, who were doing that co-branding stuff from the past. Now suddenly they’re also calling themselves banking as a service. But they have accounts which are mapped to a proper bank and stuff.

What we see is that there’s this fragmentation in the service supply side. If you look at the theory of marketplaces, a really good moment is when you have fragmentation on the supply side, when you want to build a marketplace on top of it. Your customer is isolated from so much different information; seven or eight different contracts, to build a small use case, you can just provide it as a marketplace, one contract, one compliant, and one commercial relationship, and then they don’t have to do anything directly.

That is how we see the old school versus the new generation.

 

HUBUC and BaaS 2.0

Ben: [00:22:42] That’s great, we can dig into that. I think that’s a nice segue to talk about HUBUC. Let’s maybe just zoom out for a second and you can tell us how HUBUC started. I think that’s relevant, talking about how you’re different and BaaS 2.0. Let’s start there. How did you start HUBUC? Where did the idea come from?

Hasan: This is our fourth FinTech product, or let’s call it fourth FinTech pivot. We started on the other side of the table; we were the consumers. We started with an initial idea in 2018, me and my co-founder. Of building a high-frequency trading board for the crypto market. It’s like we’re quants build software for the crypto. Didn’t work out, what a crazy idea!

We pivoted towards launching a neo-bank for crypto. That is 2018. None of the European partners wanted to work with us. Went outside Europe to a country called Bahrain, it’s a crypto friendly regulator. They did come a compliance sandbox; it’s a copy of their FCA regulation sandbox. Got in, there was no infrastructure, came back to Spain. Said: let’s build a QR payments app because we believe offline businesses have also the right to understand their customers, and nobody’s built a Google analytics for offline businesses. In order to do that, what you want is a closed loop payment system like Alipay, and WeChat have done it in APAC. Those guys went from nothing to basically directly 4G, or 5G.

We tried to do that. We build it using a QR code library. It was a two-sided marketplace, and merchants could understand who’s coming, what their agenda is, what are their profiles, retention rates and everything, and then he could do segment. On the consumer side, we thought that that was great, to get a deal when you want. But there was not really a lot of pain, in Europe at least. Either we were early or too contrary.

QR versus MasterCard and Visa in 2018, it didn’t work out. People want to pay with cards and iWatch and iPhones and all of that. Changing market habits is very expensive. It failed. We pivoted again, let’s build something which really the market needs.

We started working on a corporate expense card. We build it on top of a banking as a service provider, from UK, Ireland. It’s a great company, but we found out that there’s a lot of work to be done, especially from a customer point of view, when you are a B2B corporate expense card, where your customers are asking questions about: where’s my money going to be safeguarded, where is your bank? Then you say, “It’s in UK. But they have a license in Estonia or Latonia,” and your customer is like, “Why do I have to change all of this just for a card.” They want feature parity.

If they are switching from the old, let’s say high street bank, towards you to get a better experience, they also want the same features. It’s not about giving wallets to kids and cards for neo-banks for kids, it’s about providing service to people like Volkswagen and these bigger, huge corporates who are going to have corporate expense. You want to enable them to do that. The CFO of the company is going to ask you: where’s my money going to be safeguarded. That’s the responsibility. Who is responsible? What is the guarantee? Why is your license in Baltics, why not here? Why are you not working with a local banking partner? It doesn’t work. It doesn’t fly.

It’s good to build an MVP with banking as service providers, but as soon as you raise money, like seed round or something, you’re going to graduate from them. I’ve seen it happen. We see Revoluts graduating from them, everybody graduates eventually because the core business of finances service.

We launched Pigari. It was a great product. Corporate expense in Spain, similar to Soldo or Conto for Spandex for Spain and Mexico. The Spanish speaking market, in March COVID hit, we just launched it the first week, end of March there was COVID lockdown. There’s not corporate expense to be managed. We tried find a distribution strategy for our product, ended up finding out that there’s other companies who want the product but under their own brand, but they don’t want the compliance hassle and everything else, which we went through; to understand and build ledgers and sub-ledgers and how these spending controls and how the CFO can give a virtual card for IT team versus a physical card for a sales guy on the road who just needs to spend in petrol pumps and parking and food and the card shouldn’t work at the end of the day and the weekend the cards should be blocked.

All of this, which is what a CFO wants, the people who have been doing corporate expense software, they understand. But they don’t understand how to make this happen on a FinTech product or with a banking partner. They will probably need expert financial service developers who have built mail banks before to consult, and then it never happens. That’s where we came in.

They reached out to us and said, “We love what you build. Can you give us under our brand?” That’s where we pivoted. We had our first NOYC. This time we were not going to pivot towards the intersection there, but we actually saw signs of real traction. That was May 2020. We are a very young company, if you think about it. It’s like not even a year old. We launched with that one customer on demand and then we built a platform. We looked at all of the market. We looked at how many different FIS and Marquette and GPS and Paymentology – there were all these different service providers who were processing. Then you have KYC providers and AML providers and manufacturers. All of this, and now with PSD 2, you will probably need an FX rate provider, because it’s mandated. It goes on, it goes like way beyond on.

I think I did twenty-four or something interviews with different companies I looked at, when we were looking at how we were going to work with each partner. The opportunity was, what if you aggregate them? There is a higher set of costs for us to work against their APIs and have three card manufacturers instead of one. But for our customer, it lowers the cost 30%, than it was before with one card manufacturer. They have a wider feature set. You can ask us gold-plated cards all the way to organic cards; all the way to dynamic SIB cards, which are for online fraud. It changes the three-digit code of the CVV PIN every five minutes.

We have this wider set because we were able to aggregate it for the insolvent. The mode eventually ended up being, yes, there’s a lot of demand, but that demand needs a white glove service and a managed service. Somebody’s not going to knock on your door to get your API. You’re probably going to go and have a chat with them, have a scope of work session, have a flow of funds meeting to understand what they want to build and if it’s the right thing to build from a regulatory and compliance and everything point of view, and then prescribed them a solution. Then you make sure that your banking partners and everybody else on the other side of the market side is also happy with the risks you are taking. Have you built a mode on manual compliance versus digitalize it in real time? Are you doing sections and transaction monitoring as you should be? Are your partners happy? Are you embedding?

We work with three banking partners right now, and we made sure that we digitalize all of their rules and requirements which they had for us, for our customers, into one policy. That is very hard to do. Our head of compliance, she comes with 30 years of experience, but still it’s an exercise that’s not been done before. You are trying to take three different compliance policies and pull them into one single and making it simpler for the end customer and us, and making sure that it’s in real time and implemented on the technology stack. It’s not about checking in PDFs and putting out PDFs on rules and regulation, it’s about really implementing and enforcing those rules on the platform.

Yeah, that’s where we come from and that’s how we think about the product.

Ben: [00:31:29] If I may try to summarize, the insight came from the fact that you were on the demand side. You understood the pain that sometimes brands go through when they want to embed financial services. Then the other insight was around that fragmentation of the BaaS space. There was room for somebody to do the aggregation. But it sounds like more than that as well. Maybe that’s just the other things you talked about, just a function of reducing the friction for the brand. You’ve talked about being able to operate across geographies, about being able to do some level of compliance. Help us out, if we were to create a list of criteria for BaaS 2.0, what would be in there? Sounds like multiple geographies, aggregation, compliance. What else would you put in that list?

Hasan: Similar to what Amazon had, their three core values. Everybody wants a cheaper product, fastest delivery, and everybody wants the widest feature set.

For us, if you follow it, it’s very simpler. But just add on top of it, which is, we want the customer to have a managed service and cheaper than probably another place. They’re not going to come in for the core feature, they are looking for monetization and revenue, so how can you enable them? You’re giving them wholesale rates, you get them better prices.

Secondly, they want the widest feature set. Okay, I can do cards; can I do accounts, can I pay salaries, can I pay taxes on these accounts? Okay, great, how many countries do you have with these accounts? Okay, you have three different islands, what are you looking for next? Okay, we have seven different countries. Can I go from Europe to US? Because naturally, European startups and companies when they grow up, the natural way is looking at the US market. There are very few who go to other countries, mostly it’s US. Can you build a bridge between both markets? Yes. Okay, what is the capability and feature parity of your service versus a high street bank versus the global scalability of your platform?

Can you do everything that you just said in Spain, Germany, UK, Netherlands? Can you also do this in the US? In US, it’s a whole different way of looking at it. There’s ACH and things, people are still taking paper cheques. There are service providers for cheques. What is the feature set over there? So, the widest feature set, a good price, speed to market is important because people want to launch in 8 to 12 weeks, maximum. They are not waiting for months.

Then it’s about the most important one: compliance. That is included. Your banking partners are looking for it, your customers are looking for it. Customers are looking not to do anything, because they don’t understand it, they are waiting for you to guide them, like managed service. “Don’t worry, you don’t have to become an agent. We will take care of your compliance. We’ll take care of onboardings. You just have to follow these different guidelines and you have to do this, this, this.”

Always, as a program manager as well, you are thinking about different programs. If you’re talking about Cardwell’s, that everything is being followed. Basically, you are taking risks and passing it through to the end customer. This is normally what happened before. With all due respect to our colleagues in the market, there were registering agents and distributors passing along the risk saying, “I’m not the only one doing it. Here’s this guy who’s actually a reseller and he’s also doing it.” When the regulator comes, they can also point to you saying, “He didn’t follow. We told them to follow these guidelines.”

Now you’re saying that HUBUC is taking the risk for you. It’s not only dilated risk, it’s about floats. Can you manage float settlements? How do you manage liquidity when you pass through three or four or five days of Visa float, or versus MasterCard asking you three days sometimes, depending on the use case? Is your customer going to put in like days of transaction volume float for you? No, HUBUC is going to take care of it.

The current customer, you’re looking for that.

The regulator is looking for: are those perhaps sanctions? What is happening to these transactions coming in, going out into ledgers? Are you monitoring them? Fintechs, all of these different things, SCA regulation now coming in – are you following? They want to see from a regulatory point of view. I think when we worked with the Central Bank of Berlin, we learned something, which was working with the regulator is very different from providing service to the market. But good regulators understand and they adapt, but they also want to build trust with you. Trust is a very key factor. To build trust is very hard. You really have to work for it. But you can lose it in a second, like Wildcard did.

Ben: [00:36:21] Yup. It’s interesting, if we continue with the Amazon analogy, you’ve talked about how the customer wants cheaper, they want faster, they want richer feature set. Amazon is also working with a whole bunch of other suppliers in its marketplace and they want fulfillment, and they want certain things as well. It seems to me that you’re doing both, and regulation or compliance is a critical interface between both because the customer doesn’t want to have to worry about it. At the same time, the banking partner wants certain levels of assurance as well. My sense is that, if we talk about BaaS 1.0, I think there was this almost lazy assumption that if I can provide the APIs and the interface between banks and brands, then I’ll always be able to attract banking partners and other BaaS services providers. But I guess it’s going to be more competition on both sites; more competition for demand, more competition for supply. Do you think that it is compliance that’s going to make the difference in terms of winning both sides of the marketplace?

Hasan: Yes. How do you make comfortable your banking partner or the regulator? It comes down to compliance. Can you make a mode out of it?

At HUBUC, the biggest team is product team, the software development team. The second biggest, and the most important one at the core of the heart of the company, is compliance. If you combine compliance with technology, that is where you can build interesting stuff. But you have to know what you’re doing, and it has to be scalable, and it has to go across all of your customer base.

Ben: That’s clear. I feel I’m getting this real picture of what’s different about BaaS 1.0 and BaaS 2.0. When you were talking about BaaS 1.0, it was almost like the tech didn’t really matter, because everybody has great API, everybody can provide a sandbox. Almost like there wasn’t that much differentiation in the tech; versus what you’ve got, which is a new tech stack. You’ve got aggregation and you’ve got compliance. There’s the basis or the kernel of something which is differentiated and defensible.

Hasan: That is very true. We are not only also providing the compliance layer or that as at the heart of the company. With regards to tech, just to give you an idea, when we think about tech (I’m a software developer with 12 plus years of experience), we have unit tests. It’s a test with automated tests, which fail if there’s any part of the platform which does not respond over 100 milliseconds. The SLA is 100 milliseconds. At 100 milliseconds, you feel everything instantly. So that is where we think about scalability from a product and technology point of view. You can build all the compliance and everything, but if your tech stack, for example, is slower, the person building on top of you is also getting that. It’s aggregates.

Ben: The compounds, right? Across the latency compounds.

Hasan: Exactly. We are not only trust-building compliance from a technology point of view, we have to be scalable as a platform, which you can power any number of Revoluts on top of you. The transaction volume, all of them aggregated generate.

We are also in a system of authorization. Just to give you an idea, we are the system of ledger as well and authorization. What it means is, our cards, when somebody touches one of our customers at the point of sale or online payment, is going to come through the scheme rails all the way to us. We have two seconds (normally SLA from the scheme is two seconds) to respond to it, implement business logic on top of it. So, if it’s a corporate expense card, somebody put some spending rules on top of it, that all needs to happen before two seconds. We have to check, that card might be having three different ledgers and three different banking partners for us.

All this orchestration, that is where we come in. I do not want to say that we only care about compliance. We are a product and a compliance company. We combine compliance with technology, and then magic happens. It’s not about just sales – which is great, we have a lot of customers – but this is where you build the mode. You build trust with your regulators and partners. You build trust with your customers by providing a great SLA on services. Then you can also scale out, that is where you build trust with your investors, because you’re not actually having larger churns, your contracts are longer term, you’re betting on the next 5 to 10 years of the market.

The competitive environment for BaaS 2.0

Ben: [00:40:55] You just raised a very healthy seed round through Y Combinator. As I understand, it was very heavily oversubscribed. It seems to me that smart investors get what you’re doing. They understand how you’re evolving into the next generation of BaaS.

My question is: what does a competitive environment look like for BaaS 2.0? Is it people like Stripe treasury? Is it potentially people coming in from different spaces, people that already manage many-to-many orchestration? I would think people like open banking platforms that already provide the routes from customers into many banking providers or potentially even some of the more advanced SAS providers that again provide many to many interactions.

When you look out, where do you see the competition coming from? Is it BaaS 1.0 competitors and step up, or is it a new generation of competitors that maybe coming from adjacent spaces?

Hasan: I think first priority is a validation of our these of one part, which is, instead of competing against the bank, we need to work with them and aggregate them. They’re aggregating or they’re at least staying on the website, their YC Lam is a great company, an amazing company. They’ve changed the internet e-commerce world. But they are talking about aggregating four big banks. We say, “That is great, somebody needs to aggregate the rest of the smaller banks.” But we are both agreeing that it’s time to build a platform which is scalable, trustworthy, and that customers don’t have to go through hoops of how to use it. It’s a management way of doing.

But then their outlook, coming from their businesses, is that: here’s the form, fill up the form. There is no touch point. It’s all automated, digitalized, and you’re going to get an API and you’re going to build it. That’s where we differ. That’s where we are completely opposite. Our approach is: we come, we look at the use case, or we have a chat with you, we understand the flow of funds. It’s a very enterprise point of view. Here we are very similar to Adrian, for example, who has 400 merchants and makes more revenue than Stripe with hundreds and thousands of merchants. It’s completely different go-to-market strategies.

With regards to Banking 1.0 competitions, here’s the thing: when I was like actively developing (I still sometimes do, but from a solutions architect or software architect point of view), if you have built a monolithic system, you’re looking at the rewrite. If you’re happy to do that, you’ll be doing that to rewrite it into a service-oriented architecture or microservice architecture. If you want to do that, that means recordings, reissuing, a lot of which people don’t know.

Ben: In short, it’s going to be hard to go from BaaS 1.0 to BaaS 2.0. But what about the people entering from adjacent spaces? People that are already not monolithic, already have pretty powerful extraction platforms?

Hasan: It’s not like there is no competition. Stripe Treasury just raised 600 million or something and are opening in Europe. They started issuing Euro. But then they are giving you cards, and their go-to-market is their Stripe connect user who is already using the Stripe connect function of taking payments for their marketplace and they’re only doing the merchant payouts with a slapping on top of a card that is a corporate expense card. Then if you have an account, you can hold it for a longer term, and that’s it. That is banking as a service, or Stripe Treasury is focused on their marketplaces business.

We, on the other hand, look at talking about petroleum companies and mobility companies and expense management companies and taxes or vendor payouts. We have customers who are doing B2B payments. It is a very different approach towards what their market is versus what should ours. The market is super huge, and we can talk how we think about marketing, and then there is the markets and there’s players Vodeno and Ion Bank, and Phoenix, for example, in the US, Modern Treasury. They have different players in different go-to markets, but it’s very hard, I still think, to understand coming from acquiring, which is easier, almost commoditized, where aggregators of aggregators and pay facts of pay facts. Aggregating pay facts, like prime ratio; versus payment method. It’s completely different. The KYCs and merchant onboardings for opening accounts for KYB is very, very hard and expensive than onboarding end consumer, which is easy. Anybody can do it. On Fiddle, take a picture, loudness check, there you go. Pass it through compliance Wantage, perhaps in sanctions, that’s it.

Now, onboarding a company, it is a corporate with complicated subsidiaries everywhere else. How do you go along that? That is where you come in. Are you taking emails of zip files of compliance KYBs, or are you actually having an API end point which actually digitalizes, at least giving it a try on first digitalizing a KYB fully completed digitalize, and going through the API, versus sending zip files over emails.

There are very diff different ways of looking at it, but there is definitely competition. But the market is huge as well. To give you a flavor on how we think about the market, there’s the trillions and all of that stuff. We have a very simple thing, coming from YC, you learn something, which is you need to go bottoms up. It doesn’t matter the market size, because that increases. We have seen examples of Coinbase and Stripe YC alumni, we have a Brexit YC alumni, Grump YC alumni, the list goes on. These are the big ones. Then you have Airbnb and everybody else.

Somebody started with air, bed-and-breakfast on air bed, literally air bed, and then it became Airbnb.

What we think about is, the market size is bottoms up we take, it’s very hard to do it because there is so many different features you can add to build a bigger market or a smaller market. We think a base point, good example is the go to the ECB, European Central Bank, and look at the non-cash transactions. If you look at non-cash transactions across the countries where we can operate, for example US, Europe, APAC – almost all of it, 58 countries we can open accounts we can issue in 22 countries MasterCard and Visa. You work with both streams. But if we take across these countries bottoms up approach, take number of non-cash transactions (any transaction which is not cash), that is around 800 billion transactions last year. It’s growing 7-8%, depending on the region. APAC is doubling almost, but Europe is still growing slowly, but not bad. Then there’s the US as well.

If you take this market size and you say: do you charge per transaction? Yes. Hypothetically, if you’re charging 20 cents, divide the total number of non-cash transactions by the total number of cents per transaction, that is around 150 billion of bottoms up market size for non-cash transactions.

Ben: Give us a flavor of how fast you’re already growing.  

Hasan: We joined YC in the stammer with $54,000 of annual recurring revenue. We did demo day in March with a $750,000 of revenue. We are currently at $890,000 revenue, and we have total booking across 11 customers of $3.6 million.

 

Recommendations: book, recent article, company, influencer, brand

Ben: [00:49:08] Really substantiates what I said at the start, which is you guys are really on a tear. I think those people who haven’t heard of you now will be hearing about you pretty soon. Hassan, this has been a wonderful discussion. I think everybody would have learned a lot and everybody will now have a clear sense of what is Banking 2.0.

Just before we wrap up, I wanted to talk about recommendations. So every podcast we finish with asking our guests for sets of recommendations. If you’re game, I’m going to ask you for five recommendations, the first of which is a favorite book.

Hasan: I have multiple of those.

Ben: I’m sure. You’re a very learned man. Just give us one, if you don’t mind.

Hasan: I’m just a student of trying to understand things. A very good book is, The Innovation Stack, Jim McKelvey. He’s the co-founder of Square. It talks about how to build innovation and compete with companies who have never been competed. I think Amazon and at Squarespace, and then left at quarterly. And I think it’s the only company they left the space so far. That is a very good world to understand.

Ben: [00:50:22] Is Square a company that you particularly admire?

Hasan: Uh, yes. I really like how they think about things.

Ben: I think really understand how you build grossly upon grossly.  

Hasan: Yes. I think the key over there is they take risks, but they take them in a way that they first understand the secrets behind it. For example, if I was to talk about card issuing and if I don’t know what is a APW profile to register the card with MasterCard, which is a basic thing if you do with card recommendations (CNS profiles and stuff), then you don’t really understand what you’re doing. If you don’t really understand what you’re doing, first you need to understand it and then you can innovate on top of it. They have done it multiple times.

In the book they also talk about the banks were not willing to go outside those city walls and give machines to somebody like a merchant in the marketplace, and they needed it. There are two options there: either you can be horribly wrong, or you can be very good and very right. Most of the time if you take risks and you understand the market, you might be right. They have been right multiple times so far.

Ben: Good. First recommendation, Innovation Stack by Jim McKelvey. Next one, a favorite recent article.

Hasan: It’s called The New Mode in Financial Services by Mr. Ben Robinson from Aperture. It is a very, very good read if you give it a couple of times. You have to read it a couple of times – at least in my case, I’m probably slower. I read it a couple of times and I still have it. I think it’s a great piece.

Ben: Well, that’s extremely kind. I want to tell you, I don’t know how many podcasts we’ve done, but it’s lots and nobody’s ever recommended an Aperture article before. Thank you very much, indeed. That’s very kind. The next one is a favorite influencer. Somebody who’s essays, thinking you regularly turn to for inspiration or to learn.

Hasan: There are multiples of them, but there’s somebody very interesting. They are not invested, by the way, it’s Ben Horowitz. He has a particular way of using rap to explain things directly. He also has a great book. If I was to give an option number two for a book read or listen to, Hard Things About the Hard Things from them. It’s an amazing read, especially for CEOs and founders. You feel like you’re not alone, which most of the time happens.

I think that is a very distinctive way of looking at business and entrepreneurship, and he uses those rap lyrics. Which is, if you think about it, they are amazing because in two lines they convey you a message which most of the time I would, or some good entrepreneur would spend three, four days of writing a letter to explain the same thing which they’d just explain in two to three lines. I think he’s amazing to read.

Ben: To paraphrase Ben Horowitz, would you describe yourself as a wartime or peacetime CEO?

Hasan: Uh, wartime.

Ben: That’s good, I think you need to be. I think the growth rates you were talking about, they’re not peacetime growth rates.

Hasan: It’s 39% month over month!

Ben: Yeah. The next one is, a favorite brand.

Hasan: That is hard. SpaceX. Second would be Tesla; I don’t own one and I’m not invested in any way, but it’s like somebody who came in and really disrupted something, which is not building an app for something of something.

Ben: It’s funny you say SpaceX as a brand because Elon Musk is one of these people who says he doesn’t invest in marketing, he doesn’t invest in branding. Is it the brand of SpaceX or is it the ambition that’s captured through SpaceX?

Hasan: If you ask me what SpaceX means to me, it’s the next gen thing – really hard innovation, real innovation. It’s not building just another app for something, which we have been doing as an industry for several decades. What is the big bang which has happened?

This is a cool thing, and where really the next leap lies. We, or our kids, might be able to travel and live on other places. That’s really commoditizing and bringing mainstream that space travel. But from a design and aesthetic and a product point of view, it’s an amazing achievement. It is engineering in general, so as an engineer I’m probably focused as a brand on that side. It’s very hard to make simple things. It’s very, very hard to make simple designs, and you have an example of Apple.

But the designer doesn’t work without robust nest and scalability and service levels. I used to use Ubuntu and Linux, I come from the other side of the table. I was the guy who would not use Windows, thinking, I don’t like it, I don’t want to get logged into their system. I would rather prefer Linux and compile my own kernel and all those different variables needed to use a laptop. Then one day I switched to Apple, and it had the same core, which is the BSD core of Linux. But the product itself just works, the most important part. It’s not only the design, but it also just always works. It never lets you down. That is what changes something from other competitors or other products.

Ben: [00:56:40] I also think that Elon Musk is being a bit disingenuous when he says he doesn’t invest in marketing, because product is marketing and placement is marketing. Having Tesla showrooms at the center of every major city is marketing. Anyway, let’s move on. The last one is a productivity hack. So how do you make sure that you are productive every day in your role as a wartime CEO?

Hasan: It’s really hard. Something I read from a blog from a company, also YC alumni, they’ve built an amazing tool called superhuman and they talk about gated calendars. How to make sure that the years, you have enough time for concentrated work versus just changing context from one lawn to another meeting and now with remote. It’s just going crazy. It’s a very good read about, if you can stack together, for example, in my case, your one-on-ones on Mondays, or your reports, if you have any. They have their one-on-one on Mondays, then it goes down on Tuesdays to a specific set where everybody comes in with a clear idea of what we didn’t talk about, and you have those pizza type small meetings like Amazon. Then Thursdays you have a full committee. Everything which revels from Mondays to Tuesdays can be touched on Tuesday, and then your still have two days away from managing meetings into concentrated work.

Ben: I think that’s an excellent step, particularly in the remote world. The mental gymnastics; jumping between meetings, clients, it’s tough. I think that’s an excellent productivity tip. Hasan, I’ve really, really enjoyed this conversation. Thank you so much for coming on the show, I’m looking forward to doing this again sometime.

Hasan: Thanks a lot, Ben. Really appreciate it.