Personal Financial Wellness: A Banking Opportunity And Imperative

With the explosion of digital banking during the pandemic, financial institutions (FIs) have their sights set high for growing revenues through digital channels. To do that, however, they’ll need to become more intertwined in and relevant to the daily lives of their customers.

One way to achieve this is by taking all the information they have about their customers and turning it into services that enhance customers’ financial wellness. Doing so would be especially welcome in the post-pandemic landscape and the financial uncertainty it has spurred.

To put it into perspective, more than 40% of UK adults are now considered “financially vulnerable,” and nearly 40% of UK adults have seen their financial circumstances deteriorate since February 2020.

Financial wellness at a personal level

While almost every bank now offers financial wellness tools of some sort, whether a budgeting app, a financial literacy course or education on financial planning, these services are generalized to all customers rather than addressing individuals’ personal financial wellness needs. Because financial situations vary greatly across individuals, the truly personalized element is vital.

For example, to help individuals build their savings, banks can use predictive AI technologies to understand customer transactions and cash flow patterns and automatically divert the right amount of extra funds to savings or investments. Royal Bank of Canada says it has helped clients save an average of $358 per month with this type of tool.

Further, by mining debit card data, banks can gain insights into spending habits that they can share with customers or incorporate into personalized offerings. Through AI-driven interventions, personalized “nudges” and micro-level targeting, banks can ensure customers take the steps needed to embrace their financial destiny.

Data and AI underpinnings

Achieving a new hyper-personalized banking future requires the right customer data and digitizing front-to-back-office operations. The financial services industry is arguably the most data-intensive sector in the global economy. Banks, in particular, have enormous amounts of customer data (e.g., deposits/withdrawals, POS purchases, online payments, KYC profiles). Historically, however, they haven’t been very good at utilizing these rich datasets.

By harnessing data responsibly — taking into consideration ethical and regulatory aspects, and striking the right balance between machine-driven and human-centric work — FIs can identify and serve new customer segments of one.

At HSBC, for example, customers can begin a conversation in the bank’s mobile app with an AI chatbot, answering simple questions immediately. Complex inquiries get passed to front-line colleagues. The AI system provides agents with details on the issue and guidance on how to resolve it.

We’ve been working with FIs to pull history and experience via AI into the conversation. We use emotion recognition tools (e.g., intelligent real-time language processing and sentiment analysis) to better understand the context of a customer’s inquiry and when a customer might be vulnerable, even if they’re not aware of it themselves.

This type of information can be harnessed to create personalized engagement plans that customize interactions. These tools can also enable banks to match agents’ personality and strengths with customers to help build deeper, more trusted customer relationships.

Time for a new approach

In addition to the customer benefits of personalization, banks can also realize cost savings and performance gains. According to Boston Consulting Group, hyper-personalization can lower rates of customer churn and boost sales, leading to annual revenue uplifts of 10%. 

However, there’s plenty of work to do. Right now, only 45% of consumers are satisfied with the quality of personalized services they receive from their banks. Here are three key ingredients for progressing toward personalized banking capabilities:

1. Technology

Banks need a mashup of data analytics, AI and automation to deliver personalization, intelligence and predictions at speed. This requires harnessing high-quality data to feed AI/ML algorithms so they can deliver experiences and services that anticipate customers’ needs, wants and desires, as well as combining automation with human supervision to build trust and empathy.

For example, we are working with FIs to link up data sources and introduce AI-powered algorithms that provide a dynamic view of a customer’s financial profile. This helps customers with their financial wellness plans and enables FIs to suggest products that enhance customers’ financial wellness.

2. Talent

Along with adroit technologists, banks need designers, anthropologists, ethnographers and others with social science pedigrees to apply human-centric design thinking to product and service development.

Social scientists are equipped to understand and apply the complexities of human behavior to help FIs predefine user personas and scenarios and use these to shape and personalize the experiences they provide.

In this spirit, we are helping a European state-owned organization to implement a user-centered digital product and service offering, including completely reengineering its mobile banking app. The existing app was plagued by a number of challenges, including a dated technology platform, poor user experience, low adoption and high cost-to-serve across non-digital channels.

We helped the organization define its go-to-market, mobile-first digital strategy, identifying key market-facing propositions based on user research as well as delivering these propositions at scale. Multiple subject matter experts were involved in the project from the outset to ensure a holistic approach, including program/project managers, scrum masters, data architects, human-centric design leads, UX and UI designers, researchers, developers, business analysts and process improvement specialists.

With this project, the bank aims to significantly increase its customer base over the next five years, by combining customer trust with a best-in-class user experience on its re-engineered mobile app, which puts it on par with challenger banks.

3. Culture

To drive change, customer well-being and digitization need to become part of the FI’s culture. This is more than merely embracing Lean methodologies and/or more flexible ways of working. Helping customers achieve financial wellness demands a fresh outlook that maximizes new, agile ways of working and data-driven approaches embedded enterprise-wide — from leadership down to every employee.

Turning the tables

For banks whose business models are based on profiting from customers’ lack of financial wellness (overdrafts, fees, charges, etc.), it can be challenging to adopt this approach. The majority of banks have a high cost-to-serve, with legacy infrastructures and high overhead.

In the face of tough competition from savvy fintechs and non-bank disruptors, however, it’s clear that incumbents urgently need to pivot their approach. FIs that incorporate personalized financial wellness into their business strategy have an outstanding opportunity to support their customers while also reinvigorating their brands — and realize growth and cost savings at the same time.

To learn more, visit the Banking Technology Solutions section of our website.

Andrew Warren is Head of Banking & Financial Services and a member of the Executive team at Cognizant UK & Ireland. He leads a team responsible for driving results for Cognizant’s

Source: Personal Financial Wellness: A Banking Opportunity And Imperative

.

More contents:

How To Protect Yourself From Overdraft Fees

Citing the impact of Covid-19 on many consumers’ finances, some banks, including Ally Bank and KeyBank, have stopped charging overdraft fees or have offered relief from them. Other banks, however, have gone in a different direction. Between March 13, 2020, and September 20, 2021, account holders filed over 1,600 complaints against various banks to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) about overdraft fees, the agency’s records show.

“Wells Fargo picks and chooses when they are going to charge overdraft fees and when they are going to pay a bill or not,” one complaint filed against Wells Fargo on September 1, 2021, reads. “I will go to sleep and my account [is] positive and there is enough to cover pending charges. Then all of sudden days later the date of the [charge] is changed and I have been charged an overdraft fee. They have recently even had notices within the app that says your balance amount may not be accurate.”

These fees, which can be as high as $35 per overdraft transaction, are an incredible hardship for some consumers. As the complaint continues, “I have a second chance checking account and because of some hardships I am limited in who I can bank with. I feel like Wells Fargo takes advantage of the underprivileged.”

Overdraft fees composed $2.32 billion of those service charges in Q4, a 64 percent spike from Q2 2020

Though some US banks temporarily paused on charging overdraft and other service fees, an analysis of banks with more than $1 billion in assets and some smaller institutions that chose to disclose data suggests that banks are on their way to charging service fees at pre-pandemic levels even as the Covid-19 pandemic resurges.

A March 2021 report from S&P Global Market Intelligence indicated that banks collected $3.6 billion in service fees in the fourth financial quarter of 2020. Overdraft fees composed $2.32 billion of those service charges in the quarter, a 64 percent spike from just six months prior in the second quarter of 2020, the report noted.

Put simply, these fees amount to another tax on the poor, an extraction from the country’s poorest Americans to its wealthiest banks, experts say. Overdraft fees are meant to safeguard banks from risks associated with covering account holders’ overspending, but they can disproportionately hurt low-income consumers who need protection the most, experts told Vox.

Lawmakers and advocacy groups had called for the curtailing of these fees even before the Covid-19 pandemic disrupted the US economy. Now, the call to regulate bank fees has returned as the coronavirus crisis continues to upend consumers’ financial lives.

Why do banks charge account maintenance and overdraft fees?

The FDIC defines overdraft fees as a fee assessed whenever an account holder spends more than what’s in their account. Banks may also charge an account maintenance fee, also known as monthly service fees, just for having the account or for falling below a certain minimum balance, per the FDIC. Banks, of course, can charge a range of other fees, including ATM use fees, per-check fees, and stop-payment fees.

It’s hard to pinpoint when banks began charging overdraft fees in the US. Vox reached out to JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America to ask when they started charging account maintenance and overdraft fees, but none of them shared when they implemented these charges.

According to a 2020 report from the Center for Responsible Lending, banks historically declined debit card charges when account holders lacked the funds to cover charges. But over time, banks — at the urging of software consultants who were promoting overdraft programs on a contingency fee basis — began allowing overdraft transactions to go through and charging customers fees.

“I think that at some point it was clear that it was a helpful situation, so that bills didn’t bounce, checks didn’t bounce, mortgage payments didn’t bounce,” said Peter Smith, senior researcher at the Center for Responsible Lending. “This was a fairly informal service, but when people started using debit cards more [and] people started using electronic payments more, I think banks began to see this as an opportunity for revenue and not just a convenience service they could offer their account holders.”

“I think banks began to see this as an opportunity for revenue and not just a convenience service they could offer their account holders”

Though overdraft fees can be costly for low-income households, they make up a small share of banks’ overall income. Per the Center for Responsible Lending’s analysis, bank overdraft fees average $35. That fee tends to be higher than the value of the transaction that triggers it, which is $20 on average. For banks with assets of $1 billion or more, overdraft or insufficient funds fees are about 5 percent of their non-interest income, the report noted.

Banks charge overdraft fees to account for the risks associated with covering charges on overdrawn accounts, said Deeksha Gupta, assistant professor of finance at the Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon University. Though banks are profitable without charging these fees, they want to avoid risks for paying merchants’ charges and deter account holders from overspending, Gupta said.

Bank fees’ impact on vulnerable consumers

Banks don’t want to take on the risks of covering consumers’ overdrawn transactions, but it remains up for debate whether the fee is truly worth it given its impact on low-income consumers. Overdraft fees tend to prey upon low-income consumers, Rebecca Borné, senior policy counsel at the Center for Responsible Lending, said. The center’s 2020 report found that 9 percent of bank account holders pay 84 percent of the more than $11 billion overdraft fees banks collect every year.

Borné said while other fees serve a function — it does cost banks to administer checking accounts, rendering account maintenance fees somewhat necessary, for instance — with overdraft, the effect is different. Besides charging a high overdraft fee per transaction with insufficient funds, banks engage in a range of practices that can leave customers with compounding overdraft fees, including charging more than one fee per day, charging fees for debit card purchases and ATM withdrawals, and imposing another overdraft fee if previous fees aren’t paid within a set period of time, the Center for Responsible Lending’s report explained.

As some banks resume charging overdraft fees, pre-pandemic research suggests such fees play a role in excluding unbanked consumers from accessing traditional bank accounts. According to the FDIC’s 2019 How America Banks report, about 5.4 percent (7.1 million) of US households were unbanked, meaning nobody in the household had a checking or savings account at a bank or credit union.

Among the reasons why respondents said they don’t have a bank account: Almost half of respondents said they don’t have enough money to meet minimum balance requirements, and more than a third said bank account fees are too high.

Complaints filed to the CFPB offer a window into consumers’ struggles with overdraft charges. “In … 2021, US Bank had enrolled me into an overdraft protection program which I never authorized. One time I was out traveling and forgot to put money in my checking account, and my balance hit negative. I was unaware and kept using my debit card for small transactions like coffee,” reads one complaint filed August 27 against US Bancorp. “The majority of these transactions are below [$10].

Instead of declining these charges, US Bank charged me a series of overdraft fees, each of them [$36]. In the end, the total overdraft fees ended up being [$360] for over a couple of days. They waived three of them, bringing my loss down to [$250] … Talking to their customer service, they never offered an option to opt out of their overdraft ‘protection’ program. They offered some even more predatory protection options instead which I declined.”

With bank fees pushing consumers away from traditional bank accounts, vulnerable consumers may be driven to use even costlier alternative financial services. According to a May 2020 Federal Reserve report, 16 percent of US adults were underbanked in 2019, meaning they had a traditional bank account, but also used alternative financial services like check cashing services, money orders, and payday loans.

The report also noted that unbanked and underbanked Americans were more likely to have lower education levels, be people of color, or have lower incomes. For consumers who are worried about overdraft fees, they’d rather turn to riskier alternatives instead.

As for why consumers turn to alternative financial services, some consumers have no other option, and these alternatives are actively targeting them. The Federal Reserve report noted that 43 percent of credit applicants with incomes of less than $40,000 were denied credit, compared to 9 percent of applicants who earn more than $100,000.

Even for underbanked consumers who have traditional bank accounts, payday lenders and other high-cost installment lenders aggressively target customers in low-income neighborhoods, communities of color, and people who need extra cash, Borné wrote in a follow-up email. Meanwhile, banks don’t always offer affordable small loans for consumers, and they have little incentive to do so because regulators can allow them to charge high overdraft fees for each overdraft, she added.

“Those who go to payday lenders because they believe they will be in and out of the loan quickly are often stuck for the long term, incurring a lot of overdraft fees when the payments are extracted from their accounts,” Borné wrote. “Ultimately, they often lose their accounts. These wealth-draining products tend to feed each other, creating needs rather than filling them, and leaving customers with fewer credit options down the line.”

“These wealth-draining products tend to feed each other, creating needs rather than filling them”

Gupta agreed underbanked and unbanked consumers are often forced to turn to more expensive alternatives. As the coronavirus pandemic continues with no discernible end in sight and assistance programs come to an end, overdraft and account maintenance fees can compound for households that are struggling now, she added.

“Ideally, the banking system should be helping low-income consumers. We don’t want that type of money to be flowing from lower-income households to banks because they’re in overdraft,” Gupta said of the billions of dollars in overdraft charges.

Even though overdraft fees and other service charges make up a small share of major banks’ revenue, some experts questioned whether limiting these fees would disincentivize banks from offering affordable financial services that could attract low-income consumers. As Gupta explained, some banks could opt not to offer certain affordable bank accounts to avoid taking on additional risk. An April paper from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau also suggested that capping overdraft fees could cause banks to offer fewer affordable account options for low-income people.

What to do if you’re being charged too much in overdraft fees

Banks could do a better job of disclosing bank fees to consumers, said Desmond Brown, assistant director of the CFPB’s office of consumer education. He said depending on the institution, overdraft fees can be structured in a complex way. Some bank accounts offer the option to opt in to overdraft fees, so consumers should see whether it’s an option to opt out when looking for a new account.

When signing up for a new account, Brown said, consumers concerned about fees should shop around and ask for bank accounts that are tailored to low-income consumers and learn about the bank’s cost structures. Consumers can also look for banks that provide alerts when their funds are low, he added.

Brown also encouraged consumers to file complaints with the agency if they’re experiencing fee problems with their bank. Doing so not only allows CFPB to assist consumers directly, but it also helps the agency assess issues happening in the marketplace, he said.

“If we have seen a spike in an area of complaints, then we can look to other tools at the bureau to help drill down and find out exactly what’s going on, and be more responsive to consumer needs,” Brown said.

For consumers looking for affordable bank accounts, Brown pointed to the FDIC’s Model Safe Accounts program, which works with banks to determine how they can offer affordable bank accounts. Some financial services firms offer accounts with no overdraft or account maintenance fees.

(In their respective statements, JPMorgan Chase said during the pandemic it has waived $650 million in fees, including overdraft fees, between January 2020 and March 2021; and Wells Fargo touted its low-cost, no-overdraft-fee bank account, its zero balance alerts, and its overdraft fee waivers.)

“We’re talking about billions of dollars every single year being drained, disproportionately from Black and brown communities”When asked what the agency is doing to assist consumers who’ve been charged excessive overdraft fees, a CFPB spokesperson said, “Overdrafts have the potential to be very costly for consumers, and we are continuing to closely monitor developments in this area.”

But as consumers file complaints or seek low-cost bank accounts on their own, advocacy groups and lawmakers have pushed for more restrictions on overdraft fees. On June 30, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) introduced the Overdraft Protection Act of 2021, a bill that aims to regulate the marketing and charging of overdraft fees at financial firms. During a House Committee on Financial Services hearing on July 21, Borné provided a statement on behalf of the Center for Responsible Lending calling for Congress to hold regulatory agencies like the CFPB to protect consumers from harmful overdraft fee practices.

“What to me is especially frustrating is that financial inclusion is all the buzz in a lot of circles. I feel like in a lot of these conversations people just try to talk around the elephant in the room, which are bank overdraft practices,” said Borné. “We’re talking about billions of dollars every single year being drained, disproportionately from Black and brown communities, and kicking people out of the banking system, eroding trust in banks. It’s just a huge barrier to real financial inclusion.”

Source: How to protect yourself from overdraft fees

.

More contents:

Bank Mergers Are On Track to Hit Their Highest Level Since the Financial Crisis

It took less than three months for a deal to be reached between Columbia Banking System and the smaller Bank of Commerce Holdings. Banks are on pace this year to merge at a level not seen since the 2008 financial crisis. It is a sharp turnaround from last year, when the economy spiraled and many regional and community banks put merger plans on the shelf. Now, bank executives are feeling more certain about what the future holds, but some are finding it hard to make it on their own. Though the economy has in many ways recovered from 2020, loan demand is still low and profits from lending are slim.

Banks have announced more than $54 billion in deals through late September, according to Dealogic. That puts industry mergers and acquisitions on pace for their biggest year since 2008, when some big banks had to sell themselves to stave off collapse. At this time last year, banks had announced just $17 billion in mergers.

Banks typically spend weeks or months turning a potential target’s loan book upside down, searching for risky loans or other red flags, before agreeing to acquire it. But the Covid-19 pandemic muddied that process. For months, lenders struggled to assess the creditworthiness of their own customers, much less those of their competitors.

“Neither potential sellers nor buyers really wanted to do a transaction last year because of the uncertainty that could be on folks’ balance sheets,” said Kevin Riley, chief executive of First Interstate BancSystem Inc. FIBK -0.17% in Billings, Mont.

But the expected wave of loan defaults never materialized, and by the end of last year, serious merger conversations resumed, according to executives and regulatory filings. This month, First Interstate FIBK -0.17% agreed to buy regional lender Great Western Bancorp Inc. in a deal that will boost its assets to more than $32 billion.

“[Banks] are no longer fearful of the bottom falling out,” said Nathan Stovall, an analyst at S&P Global Market Intelligence. “They are no longer looking at a deal like trying to catch a falling knife.”2019 was also a big year for bank mergers, but more of the major regionals are in play this year. So while there are fewer deals this year than at this point in 2019, the overall value is higher than it was two years ago.

Minneapolis-based U.S. Bancorp last week said it plans to buy MUFG Union Bank’s core retail-banking operations, boosting its presence on the West Coast. Another major regional, Citizens Financial Group Inc., said in July that it plans to buy Investors Bancorp Inc. Investors Bank had shelved merger talks with another bank when the pandemic hit in 2020, according to regulatory filings.

The Federal Reserve cut interest rates to near zero when the pandemic hit, and low rates have made it more difficult for banks to profit from their bread-and-butter business of lending. The average net interest margin, a measure of lending profitability, reached a record low of 2.5% in the second quarter, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

Smaller banks have also struggled to compete with the high-end digital offerings and technology of the megabanks.

Sacramento, Calif.-based Bank of Commerce Holdings began courting potential merger partners in the spring of 2021. The board and management of the $1.9-billion-assets bank had for years considered different options to overcome ever-narrowing industry margins, including being acquired by a larger bank, CEO Randy Eslick said. It took less than three months to iron out a deal with $18 billion Columbia Banking System Inc. of Tacoma, Wash.

The deal was announced in June, and the combined bank will have the resources to invest in technology and other areas—trust departments, wealth management, specialty lending—that the smaller Bank of Commerce wouldn’t have been able to fund on its own.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

What impact will the boom in bank mergers have on customers? Join the conversation below.

“Those types of things bring technology to the table that we could not afford to,” Mr. Eslick said. “At the end of the day, we have more arrows in our quiver.”

The pressure to scale up has only grown more intense in recent years, said Scott Wylie, CEO of the $2 billion First Western Financial Inc. in Denver. In July, First Western said it would buy the parent company of a smaller bank, the nearby Rocky Mountain Bank.

“For a $300- or $500- or $700-million bank, it used to be you could have a nice little business that could go for a long time,” Mr. Wylie said. “These days, that’s really hard.” Conway, Ark.-based Home BancShares Inc. said this month it would buy Happy Bancshares for more than $900 million. Within weeks, CEO John Allison got pitched another deal.

“Someone said to me, ‘Johnny, the body hasn’t even gotten cold yet…and they’re bringing all these other deals,’” Mr. Allison said.

By: Orla McCaffrey at orla.mccaffrey@wsj.com

Source: Bank Mergers Are On Track to Hit Their Highest Level Since the Financial Crisis – WSJ

.

Related Contents:

4 Missteps For Banks To Avoid When Migrating Payment Services To The Cloud

Banks and financial services providers can realize the efficiency and cost savings of cloud-based payments by taking proactive steps to guard against these common mistakes, notes Rustin Carpenter, a Global Payments Solution Leader for Cognizant’s Banking & Financial Services Industry Services Group.

The cloud’s lure of simplification is a powerful incentive for payment providers, as its role enabling modernization and permanently switching off legacy applications. Where banks struggle, however, is in shaping a strategy to get their payment services to the cloud. By understanding the common missteps, banks can create a plan for payment migration that maximizes benefits while minimizing risks.

The pandemic was a digital tipping point for banks, forcing them to implement in just a few months capabilities that otherwise would have taken several years. Research published in 2019 found that financial services firms lagged in adoption of public cloud infrastructure as a service (IaaS), with just 18% broadly implementing IaaS for production applications, compared to 25% of businesses overall.

Now many banking leaders we talk with are taking a serious look at cloud-based payment services, motivated by the age and complexity of their core payment applications as well as their business’s growing confidence in the security of cloud platforms such as Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure and Amazon Web Services (AWS). As banks contemplate migrating payment services to the cloud, here are some common mistakes to avoid that will ensure a smoother journey:

1. Assuming the cloud is cheaper.

Cloud-based services are indeed less expensive to run — once applications and services have been migrated. To manage a successful payments migration, be aware of the costs along the journey. The cloud can be a heavy lift. While banks and financial services providers often consider themselves proficient at consolidation and rationalization, the extensiveness required for cloud migration frequently far exceeds the effort of previous initiatives. For example, we helped a bank reduce its infrastructure footprint by 25% and lower its total cost of ownership by migrating its applications to the cloud.

That outcome, however, required careful analysis of the bank’s application source code and development of a migration strategy and cloud deployment architecture, as well as assessing and migrating more than 800 applications over three years. Cloud-based services are more streamlined and less expensive to operate, but accurately budgeting for the upfront time and resources of a cloud payment migration is challenging due to the many unknowns. Careful attention to planning is critical for a realistic cost assessment.

2. Underestimating the amount of prework.

The cloud promises to reduce complexity but getting to that point takes a thoughtful migration plan that’s complete and doesn’t skimp on details. What steps will be taken to ensure there’s no disruption to clients? Which applications make sense to retain and manage in-house, and which can be leveraged as payments as a service? For instance, fund disbursements for a retail consumer bank that administers 529 plans are typically a low-volume service for which cloud automation is a great fit, replacing paper checks with significantly less costly cloud-based payments.

But when it comes to payments as a service, managing risk and ensuring value also come into play. Wire transfers might appear to be good candidates for migration to cloud payments, but if most of the bank’s transfers are for high net worth individuals with equally high customer lifetime value, then the transfers may require levels of personalized service best handled with an on-premise platform rather than in the cloud. A well thought out strategy that addresses all impacts and value opportunities helps bank leaders avoid the unintended consequences that keep them awake at night.

3. Failure to prioritize.

A payments migration needs to be phased in a way that provides strategic competitive advantage. Setting priorities is key. For example, a bank may choose to align its payments migration with a specific strategy, such as a planned de-emphasis on branch offices. Another approach is to migrate the costliest payment applications first. Some banks may reserve cloud adoption for when they’re ready to add new payments capabilities.

Each bank’s path to cloud payments is nuanced, yet there’s often a feeling among banking leaders that moving to the cloud is an all-or-nothing proposition. That is, payments are either entirely cloud-based or all on premise. A more realistic goal is to craft a migration roadmap for a hybrid environment that accommodates both types of infrastructure for the near future, and to then prioritize and phase the payments migration in a way that makes strategic sense.

4. Testing in a dissimilar environment.

Replicating legacy operating environments for testing is expensive, so it’s not uncommon for banks to settle on environments that are similar but not identical — though the variation often leads to production environment errors that can derail cloud migration efforts. Performance falls short of expectations, typically due to the tangle of payment applications resulting from years of mergers and acquisitions.

For example, post-merger banking platforms often utilize more than one legacy payment hub, and there’s little chance that a bank’s current IT staff fully understands or can predict the unintended consequences for the hubs when making changes to the platform. Don’t fret over creating the perfect testing environment. Rather, build an environment that’s as close as possible.

By avoiding these common missteps, payment providers can reap the benefits of a simplified, modern infrastructure and application environment and minimize the risks.

To learn more, please visit the digital payments section of our website or contact us.

Rustin “Rusty” Carpenter leads payments solutions within Cognizant’s Banking & Financial Services’ Commercial Industry Solutions Group (ISG). In this role, he works with group leaders and client-facing teams to elevate Cognizant’s client relevance, industry expertise and challenge-solving capabilities. Over his career, he has developed deep and broad expertise in payments and the emerging alternative and digital/mobile payments arenas. He is a frequent speaker on these topics at conferences worldwide and serves as a board advisor to fin-techs in all areas of payments and fraud prevention/mitigation.

Carpenter most recently was Head of Sales & Service, NA for ABCorp. Previously, he ran the Instant Issuance business for North America at Entrust Datacard; served as COO for Certegy Check Services, N.A.; was General Manager, NA for American Express Corporate Services; and completed multiple assignments at Andersen Worldwide and Dun & Bradstreet. Rustin has a Bachelor of Arts degree from Denison University and an MBA in finance from Rutgers Graduate School of Management. He can be reached at Rustin.Carpenter@cognizant.com

Source: 4 Missteps For Banks To Avoid When Migrating Payment Services To The Cloud

.

Related Contents:

“Launch of IBM Smarter Computing”. Archived from the original on 20 April 2013. Retrieved 1 March 2011.

 

JP Morgan Chase Launches Its Own Health Business Unit Three Months After Haven Implodes

https://g.foolcdn.com/image/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fg.foolcdn.com%2Feditorial%2Fimages%2F616249%2Fjpmorgan-branch-courtesy.jpg&w=1200&h=630&op=resize

JPMorgan Chase is staking out its own healthcare venture, after its joint project with Berkshire Hathaway and Amazon failed earlier this year. On Thursday, the financial firm announced the launch of Morgan Health, a business unit focused on improving employer-sponsored healthcare, to be led by Dan Mendelson, founder and former CEO of the Washington, D.C.-based healthcare consultancy Avalere Health.

The move comes a little over three months since the joint venture Haven Health, which also aimed to lower employee healthcare costs and boost quality services, said it would be winding down.

Morgan Health will invest up to $250 million in “promising healthcare solutions” and will also enter into strategic partnerships, the company said. The new division, which will be headquartered in Washington, D.C., will also focus on health equity issues.

“JPMorgan Chase has been focused on improving healthcare for its employees for many years,” Morgan Health CEO Mendelson said in a statement. “We are going to take what we’ve learned and accelerate healthcare innovation in the employer-sponsored healthcare market, partnering with and investing in companies that share our goals, and measuring key health outcomes to show what works.”

Mendelson has a background in both health policy and finance. He was an operating partner at healthtech PE firm Welsh Carson for the past two years and served as the associate director for health in the Office of Management and Budget in the Clinton White House prior to founding Avalere. With 165,000 employees in the United States, JPMorgan Chase provides health insurance to around 285,000 people, including dependents.

Haven was announced with much fanfare in 2018, with billionaire Warren Buffet calling rising employee healthcare costs “a hungry tapeworm on the American economy.” Around half of Americans receive healthcare benefits through their employers, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The federal government estimates total national healthcare spending reached $3.8 trillion, or $11,582 per person, in 2019. And health spending continues to outpace inflation, growing 4.6% in 2019.

The implosion of Haven three years later demonstrated how even well-capitalized corporate juggernauts could be thwarted by the complexity of the U.S. healthcare system. “We were fighting a tapeworm in the American economy, and the tapeworm won,” Buffet said at Berkshire’s annual shareholder meeting earlier this month, according to Yahoo Finance.

“Haven was supposed to show how creativity, ingenuity and private sector, entrepreneurship could beat the healthcare sector. And it failed,” David Blumenthal, a physician and president of the healthcare think-tank The Commonwealth Fund, told Forbes in an interview earlier this year.

He said the speculation as to one of the big challenges Haven faced was that each company wanted to make its own choices for its employees, which has been the downfall of many similar coalitions. Amazon has also been making its own big push into the healthcare sector recently with a virtual primary care service called Amazon Care, the launch of its wearable Amazon Halo and its purchase of online pharmacy PillPack for $750 million.

The radical change needed to control healthcare costs requires buy-in on many levels, including some that employees might not be happy about, says Blumenthal. It could mean narrower networks of physicians to choose from or requiring travel for certain surgeries so they take place at top-ranked facilities, as opposed to the comfort of a local community hospital.

But the biggest impediments are structural—the lack of purchasing power for employers and consolidation among health systems, he said. “In the end, controlling costs in almost every other Western country is a responsibility that government assumes,” Blumenthal said. “It’s for precisely this reason that the alternatives are not effective.”

Despite what may be an uphill battle ahead, JPMorgan leadership is giving it another go. “Covid has shed light on both the greatness of our healthcare system and its challenges,” Peter Scher, vice chairman of the company who will be overseeing Morgan Health, said in a statement. “The firm has been investing in developing solutions to address social and economic challenges over the past 10 years. We plan to take what we’ve learned there and apply it to healthcare.”

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Send me a secure tip.

I am a staff writer at Forbes covering healthcare, with a focus on digital health and new technologies. I was previously a healthcare reporter for POLITICO covering the European Union from Brussels and the New Jersey Statehouse from Trenton. I have also written for the Los Angeles Times and Business Insider. I was a 2019-2020 Knight-Bagehot Fellow in business and economics reporting at Columbia University. Email me at kjennings@forbes.com or find me on Twitter @katiedjennings.

Source: JP Morgan Chase Launches Its Own Health Business Unit Three Months After Haven Implodes

.

References

 

“The History of JPMorgan Chase & Co.: 200 Years of Leadership in Banking, company-published booklet, 2008, p. 5. Predecessor to J.P. Morgan & Co. was Drexel, Morgan & Co., est. 1871. Retrieved July 15, 2010. Other predecessors include Dabney, Morgan & Co. and J.S. Morgan & Co” (PDF).

%d bloggers like this: