Raising capital for a mortgage neo-lender is a very difficult task even for modest amounts. It’s not yet trending, and the market is sceptical.
On the other hand, although only recently, it’s the flavour of the month to start a challenger or neo-bank with significant capital being raised by the sector at full valuations.
Does this make sense or is it just the latest fad? There really is no single correct answer. The hype around the challenger banks that started in the UK and Europe certainly effects investors decisions where soundly based alternatives seem less attractive for the wrong reasons.
Australia has gone through a long period where no new mortgage funders of any significance, either banks or non-banks, were created but we are now seeing a new era of neo-lenders and challenger banks appearing on the scene.
Since 2007 the financial system has heavily favoured finance incumbents, especially the major banks, excluding new entrants from being able to compete.
Consequently, new entrants have been almost non-existent. Over the last few years the financial system has evolved so that new disrupters are not only poised to enter the market but to take significant market share from the incumbents.
A short summation of the reasons that new entrants can now compete are: Regulatory and capital requirement changes, Loss of trust of banks by the public and intermediaries, Inefficiencies of incumbents, and technological solutions that add to the efficiency of banking and borrower solutions.
Clutch of neo-banks
AMM and Athena are launching as neo-lenders, regulated by ASIC and focusing on mortgages while Xinja, Volt, 86400 and Judo are launching as challenger or neo-banks regulated by APRA (and ASIC) and focusing on retail deposits, multiple loan classes and other products.
There is a raft of existing non-banks that fund mortgages and other loans and have long histories for the larger institutions.
Whilst these existing non-banks have been receiving much attention in the last year with three being purchased by private equity funds, none appear to be evolving into the new digital world or changing their funding structures through major bank warehouses and traditional securitisation.
The non-banks were the disrupters of the 90s and 00s and have performed very useful roles during that period, while even gaining market share currently.
The new neo-lenders are not focused on the old existing model but are re-inventing both the origination methodology and the way mortgages are funded in the capital markets.
The challenger banks, as demonstrated overseas, are reinventing banking in the digital form without branches.
The neo-lenders and the challenger banks would not consider the old disrupter non-banks to be competitors; rather their competitors are traditional banks dominated by four major banks.
The new disrupters should consider the network effect that being part of this new disruptive group gives; great credibility with success breeding success.
So, what’s it better to be, a neo-lender subject only to ASIC regulation, or a challenger bank primarily regulated by the prudential regulator?
The answer does depend on the lender's business plan and the product focus, as there are many different positives and negatives of APRA regulation that given a different focus will produce a different paradigm.
It may be useful though to list those positive and negatives to perhaps better understand why organisations make the choice: to be, or not to be, a bank?
Being a bank
The positives of being a bank (APRA) include: access to 'cheap' funding through deposits; the average cost of wholesale funds is cheaper than for a non-regulated organisation; access to RBA system liquidity (funding) and access to the federal government’s support of deposit losses.
The positives are quite significant and would seem compelling for a budding finance business, but as always, there’s a cost.
The negatives include: the cost of APRA reporting and regulated compliance; complying with APRA capital requirements to protect the balance sheet; capital dilution of early shareholders due to tier one equity requirements as assets grow and the cost of deposit customer acquisition from competitors.
The negatives are not insurmountable but do come at a large cumulative cost that is manageable for existing banks but can be considerable for a new lender.
The positives of being a neo-lender without APRA regulation are: the ability to use and rely on internal risk models; proper pricing for risk without focus on regulatory capital; the freedom to be fully transparent on the asset base and offer assets as security for funding and the freedom to use any funding or security structure available.
The positives of being a neo-lender need to be weighed with the positives and negatives of an APRA regulated bank. It's no simple equation.
Clearly the new challenger banks have done their sums and come out in favour of regulation. Or, to put that another way, the challenger bank's business models stand up under the costs and benefits of regulation.
On the other hand, for a neo-lender that sources funds in the capital markets and is mono-focused on mortgage lending through broker networks, as is AMM, the equation is different and so is the answer.
Just like the mortgage non-banks that started in the 90s and before, the business model of the new neo-lenders just does not warrant or support the costs and benefits of APRA regulation.