The Bankwatch

Tracking the consumer evolution of financial services

Banque 2.0 – why its an effective model for Banking

Nicolas analyses the idea of Banking business models with Community as a base.  What I found interesting is how he pulls out the distinctions in Zopa and Prosper as different but effective community models.

hat tip Jean Christophe 

J’en tire pour conclusion qu’il existe deux modèles de Banque 2.0 :

– Modèle “Top down” : Le portage du modèle de la banque dans le mode de fonctionnement des communautés.

– Modèle “Bottom up” : L’extension à l’ensemble des communautés d’un modèle d’intermediation monétaire inter-personnel.

Google translation

I draw some for conclusion which there are two models of Bank 2.0:

– Model “Top down”: The the model of a bank in the operating mode of the communities.

– Model “Bottom up”: Extension to the whole of the communities of a model of monetary intermediation interpersonal.

Source: Nicolas Guillaume: Banque 2.0

Top Down:

In essence acts like more like a financial institution, yet uses community methodologies to attract investments, and loan applications.  The community interacts with each other, but not at the loan and investment level.  The financial classes are insulated within Zopa.

Consider Zopa … they aggregate loans into risk classes, and investors can invest into those classes.  Zopa has gone further and in proposing to have those investments eligible within SIPP, the UK self retirement fund.

Bottom Up:

In this model the process is designed to maximise the interaction within the community.  Lenders interact directly with borrowers, through the community process, get to know about the individual lenders, their history, work, income, and credit history.  They use this information to bid small amounts on each borrower, thus diversifying their risk.

Consider Prosper … loans are placed as listings, and auctioned to lenders.

In the bottom up model, there remains some insulation of information, and contact to protect privacy.  Sufficient information is shared to make decisions, and sufficient is retained to protect personal data.

Analysis:

So what are the real differences between these models, and traditional Banks?  In each model the borrower must repay his loan, or collection agencies and bad credit history will result.  At that level, there is no distinction. 

Similarly investors place money, at a certain level of risk, and get a return on their investment.  Again at that level, there is little distinction between the models.

I would suggest the differences lie in two areas, of process and distribution.

Process

Bank 1.0:- Processes are internal, and orchestrated by salaried personnel.  Confidentiality and privacy of all information is paramount in this model.

Bank 2.0:- Process of loan and investment evaluation is outsourced to community.  The firm is responsible to make the right information available to facilitate processes, yet maintain confidentiality on the rest.  The firm must provide processes to validate reputation, to support community interaction.

Distribution channels (customer contact, service, and sales)

Bank 1.0:- Channels are self owned, including branches, online banking, call centre, personnel to manage customer contacts

Bank 2.0:- No centralised channels.  Customer acquisition, and retention is increasingly viral in nature as community members tell each other, and attract new members through word of mouth.  The accountability of the firm is increasingly to provide the right flow of information between members, and and environment that is comfortable, and engaging, that will bring them back.  The culture has to be open and transparent, to engender trust, and promote customer advocacy.  Everyone in the firm is an advocate, as are all customers.

 

Technorati tags: , , ,

Written by Colin Henderson

April 8, 2007 at 11:29

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. […] Beitrag von Nicolas Guillaume (entdeckt via TheBankWatch) versucht Banking in den Kontext Communities zu stellen und beurteilt die Ansätze von Prosper und […]


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: