Welcome back!
To access the BAI Banking Strategies subscriber edition, please log in with your BAI Account ID and password.

 

Not sure if you are a BAI Member?




 
 
 
 
Forgot your password?
Please enter the Account ID you used to subscribe and we will send you an email with instructions on how to change your password.
 
 
 
     Cancel

Subscribing gives you free access to hundreds of articles and other benefits including BAI Banking Strategies daily email alerts. Already a BAI Member? Click here to log in and subscribe. Not sure if you are a BAI Member? Click here to find out. Otherwise, become a BAI Member below to subscribe.

*
*
*
 
*
 
*
*
*


highlights

 

Connecting to Payments Change

The changing world of payments technology confronts bank executives with many tough decisions in regard to allocating scarce investment dollars. Should we play in the mobile wallet space, and if so, with which partners?



The Year Ahead: CIO Perspectives for 2013 Executive Report

When did technology take over our lives? For most of us, it was about the time we purchased our first smartphone and then later added a tablet on top of that, both of which we now can’t leave home without.



Less Branches but not Branch-less
Despite all the talk about branch-less or cash-less banking, customers still seek out the human touch in their financial transactions. by CHRIS SKINNER
Mar 19, 2012  |  6 Comments

There are regular discussions at conferences about the cashless, branchless future. Visa and MasterCard are huge advocates of a war on cash, as are the mobile wallet providers. Brett King and the Bank 2.0 crowd talk about a branchless world of banking and how branches are all irrelevant to future bank operations.

But let’s be clear: it won’t happen.

There is no such thing as a branchless world and a cashless future will not happen in my lifetime. Much as I would love to see this branchless, cashless future – don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge advocate of getting rid of bricks, mortar and paper – the reason it will never happen is that these forms of commerce and finance are important.

Branches are required for advice, sales and service but, more importantly, trust. Regardless of how irrelevant branches may be in terms of distribution, any bank that wants to get new account openings has to have a branch. That’s why U.S. banks are still on a branch-leverage strategy, and why ING Direct opened ING Cafes. Not sure this is true? Just take a look at the “office” expansion (substitute office for branch) as reported by the FDIC in 2009.

Although the expansion has slowed since the credit crisis hit – more branches have closed (7,809) than opened (6,737) – this is more a reflection of the 418 bank closures by the FDIC than a recognition of the lessening importance of branches.

That is why you can see a similar shift as new banks enter the UK retail banking markets:

  • Santander purchased Abbey, Bradford & Bingley and Alliance & Leicester’s branches to become one of Britain’s largest branch-based bank networks, behind Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland (NatWest);
  • Virgin purchased Northern Rock’s branches to get some form of physical footprint in the UK;
  • The Co-operative Bank is buying the 632 branches Lloyds has been forced to sell due to the European Commission’s verdict on UK bank competition after the HBOS merger; and
  • Metro Bank is opening their tenth UK branch in High Wycombe, with a plan to achieve 24 branches by the end of this year, and then organically grow to over 200 branches by the end of the decade.

Some people argue that branches are irrelevant. Yet, if they were, why are U.S. banks growing their bricks and mortar space and why are all of these new and expanding banks opening or acquiring branches? Because branches create trust and because it is regularly shown that most people, including and especially the young, want a branch locally if they open an account. Even HSBC’s branchless bank, First Direct, has the backing of HSBC and its ATM network to rely upon if things go wrong – as do Cahoot (Santander) and Smile (Co-operative), our Internet-only banks.

Branches are a core part of community and relating to people with a human touch. This is why branches will always exist. So, we talk about a branchless future, but we should be talking about a less branch future. The same with cash.

We will never be cashless, just less cash. This has been shown in many economies, such as Iceland and Sweden. They get to a certain level of cashlessness and then the cashless process ends. This is because there is no substitute for cash today: cash is anonymous, immediately facilitates a value exchange, fuels the shadow economy and is totally trusted. No other form of currency exchange has the same capabilities. Not yet anyway.

We can talk about a branchless/cashless future but the reality is many years away. I’d rather talk about a less-branch, less-cash future, and see what that means. How far can we push the less-branch, less-cash world? What is the minimum number of branches to be effective (in the UK, they say about 250). What is the minimum level of cash that can be in play to run an economy effectively (in Sweden, they say about 3.5% of the value of GDP, which would equate to about a fifth of the volume of transactions).

Can we push this any further? If so, by when and how? This is something that will be debated for years to come, I’m sure.

Mr. Skinner is chairman of the Financial Services Club, CEO of Balatro Ltd. and comments on the financial markets through his blog the Finanser. He can be reached at cskinner@balatroltd.com.

 

 

 

 

Stay connected to Expert Perspectives, Research and Intelligence — subscribe to BAI Banking Strategies now!

 

comments

Would you like to make a comment? Log In

john harrington
7/20/2012 12:40 PM

Yup,have to say I am of a similar disposition, I commented on this last week (see link to blog), and whilst everyone is "declaring" the future, it will not be clear until certain cornerstones,such as what the mobile banking full proposition is, what the optimum size and offer for a branch is (by varying demographics) and last but not least who else comes to play in the banking space as we knew it. I would love to have your comments on what you think a "whole mobile experience" would consist of, if anyone feels like commenting on my blog.

david mooney
3/22/2012 12:31 PM

While I agree that branches won't disappear in our lifetime, I must disagree with the assertion that "any bank that wants to get new account openings has to have a branch", and that branch proliferation is evidence of their importance. USAA's banking business has grown and prospered without branches - and they are highly trusted - as have several others with "direct" models. And branch-based institutions have no option but to expand their footprints if they want to grow. In the traditional branch banking model, market share is roughly equal to share of branches. Growth, therefore, depends on exanding the number of locations, which has spawned the branch arms race. With banking increasingly non-local, that model is under significant pressure. The internet provides tremendous price transparency, time and place utility, and reduces the friction of moving funds between institutions. In the emerging marketplace, low cost online providers have a significant price advantage which they are using to cherry pick higher balance accounts. This will leave traditional branch-based providers with lower balance, high cost-to-serve business. And, unlike the branch model, online providers aren't constrained by geography (footprint). The market dynamic is shifting from one based on locational convenience to price, experience and brand. Branches will continue to exist, but they will have to be far fewer, smaller and staffed by professional generalists. And if your primary relevance is branch location, you will find yourself trapped in the model.

robert vinnacombe
3/21/2012 11:40 AM

The idea of a “less-branch” operating model is in line with the consumer’s direction as shown by their selection preference of banks that have branches in their area. Consumers want branches even if it is just to decide which bank is the best place to open their account. It is true that if you are not in the market, you may be able to serve the market but can you acquire profitable market share? Sure, some cashless banks exist but they are not a significant threat to the banks with physical presence in a market. They are an alternative, not a replacement. Some consumers will choose the alternative but most will not, at least not yet. If every bank became branchless overnight, consumers would still demand a bank with branches and the first bank to reinstate branches would dominate the markets where they exist. Make no mistake; the consumer drives the banking interaction. Technology has and will be introduced to benefit the consumer [and the bank] but the consumer will decide whether it is adopted as a primary delivery mode or just becomes another channel of delivery in the mass of options. Banks are already deploying small-footprint, reduced-staff branch models. Those banks are ahead of the curve and have positioned themselves for a future where branches are still critical but the cost of the branch is in line with the banks income and profit goals. As transactions decline in the branch, the same physical outlet can pivot to be more sales and information oriented. They can more effectively change to meet the consumer’s needs. The bank can have the physical presence and the cost savings as well. Reduced capital cost and reduced operating cost branch models give the bank a foothold in a market and reduce overall costs, thereby increasing profitability and market share. Consider how less-branch, as Chris put it, is already being realized today with great results. Robert Vinnacombe Branch Development Group, LLC www.BranchDevelopmentGroup.com

chris skinner
3/20/2012 4:27 PM

@serge - Sweden's been trying to get rid of cash for years, but realise that it'll never go away and represents 30%+ of transaction volume and 4%+ of value of all commerce @darryl and @serge I opine that branches will remain and the key question is: "what for?" that is what bank management needs to figure out, rather than blindly keeping branches for no other reason than that they are there ...

darryl demos
3/20/2012 10:55 AM

The argument that "trust" is the reason branches will be around along time is risky in that is could also imply it will be enough to do "similar-to-today", advice based work in the future to justify a branch. We do think branches at some level will survive but the real challenge for leaders today is to figure out "for what purpose" and trust to open new accounts is not enough. Those who will lead the next generation of successful retail banking will bring in new products, services, solutions and partnership to make a bank branch serve a new purpose tomorrow. Trust will still be important but it won't be the driver of new branch economics ,,, innovation and meeting new financial service or other professional service, perhaps even retail needs of the various financial services customer segments will.

serge milman
3/20/2012 10:07 AM

Mr. Skinner opines that "There is no such thing as a branchless world and a cashless future will not happen in my lifetime." How would he react to the fact that Sweden is very quickly moving towards cashless economy (http://bit.ly/Cashless)? Further - perhaps we ought not focus too much on absolutes... frankly the notion of completely Branchless Banking is not relevant... what is extremely relevant is that the Banking experience for the vast majority of consumers will be largely Branchless.