How would you define the difference between neobanks and regular challenger banks.
Agree with this comment "the data that we receive to learn about customers becomes worse and worse"
Agree with this comment "the data that we receive to learn about customers becomes worse and worse"
Where we see and place all our analysis efforts are on companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, etc. From what we can see with Alibaba, since they own the contact points for the both the customer and retailer, they have data to gauge financing needs and more importantly risk.
You see banks like RBC starting the conversation earlier in the journey with their investments in various startup spinoffs where it's focused on the 'why' behind the financing (i.e. finding a home, buying a car, starting a business, etc.) before becoming involved in the financing portion later down the line.
Never thought of this distinction, but I don't hate it.
I think a material distinction between Apple/Amazon etc and Alibaba is that in Alibaba's operating environment there wasn't a strong digital financial ecosystem to compete with (not to mention that they were a national champion). I'm not convinced they all can do exactly the same thing Alibaba did. Apple is edging it's way there and doing it in an original way, but they're not doing it in a way that is in line with what I described at all (for example, if Apple were pursuing a vertical neobank strategy, they would launch a banking service for appstore developers, who AFAIK are the only customer segment for whom Apple is an income driver). For Amazon it could be sellers, for Google it could be Adsense advertisers, and I'm not sure what the equivalent would be for Facebook.
I also think a reason these folks havent gone the lending route (other than Amazon) is because I don't know if its believable that their data could be differentiated for lending purposes. Just a thought.