Hi embedded finance friend,
Welcome to another edition of Embedded Finance Review. This edition is a bit different than usual since I cover two infrastructure provider news stories and skip the longer story about a non-financial brand (if you have a preference for either category, you can let me know in this short survey).
On a personal note, I started a new interim’s role at NX Technologies, where I am responsible for growing the payment partnerships for products and geographical expansion (customers are car dealers and manufacturers). If you think we should talk about this or are interested in this role as a permanent position, reach out to me.
Also, I tried to settle the debate about whether the abbreviation for embedded finance is EF or EmFi, which was highly unsuccessful.
This edition features:
Let’s dive in!
Join FTT Embedded Finance & Super-Apps this May and meet 600+ innovators from retailers, marketplaces, brands, financial institutions, and tech providers. Immerse yourself in the latest industry trends and gain invaluable insights from industry leaders that will give you a competitive edge. Embedded Finance Review is an industry partner. Register now.
Europe
North America
US banking-as-a-service provider Treasury Prime has announced a strategic shift and will be focusing on banks instead of fintech companies and brands (this shift also includes a substantial reduction in workforce). Treasury Prime was founded in 2017 and has received investments from notable VCs such as Deciens and QED.
Treasury Prime enables non-regulated companies to launch financial products such as card and account products. Due to the absence of the concept of an e-money licence in the US, those companies usually work with two partners: a technology partner (like Treasury Prime) and a licence partner (a bank). But this model has recently gotten under a lot of pressure due to the various actions from US regulators (see news section below). The main challenge is that the bank often does not have the necessary oversight of the fintech programmes it supports and, therefore, cannot take action when it is necessary.
To avoid this, a bank could offer the technology themselves, which is, for obvious reasons, a big challenge for many banks. Crossriver Bank is one of the very few exceptions, and Treasury Prime’s offering aims to enable other banks to offer the same.
It appears that Treasury Prime, despite being one of the best-known players in the space, has struggled to gain momentum with it’s banking-as-a-service product. The regulatory scrutiny is likely just the cherry on top. Thus, the strategic shift does make sense from the outside, especially if this model is preferred by the regulator. Nevertheless, focusing on banks instead of fintech and non-financial brands seems (at least a bit) less attractive due to a smaller number of potential customers, even longer sales cycles, and a higher chance that some customers want to build the services in-house. But the market has obviously changed a lot since companies like Treasury Prime started. It will be interesting to see how the new product offering is being received by the market and if other BaaS players consider making a similar switch.
The Italian bank UniCredit is reportedly considering (!) acquiring Polish banking-as-a-service provider Vodeno. The story is in its infancy, and people involved in the process mention that the deal might not go through. But it’s worth a closer look nonetheless. For many, including myself, this news came as a surprise, most importantly because of the two names the news included.
I did not consider UniCredit to be a bank that would acquire an infrastructure fintech of this size. I did learn during my research that UniCredit CEO Andrea Orcel (who still looks great even when wearing a down feather vest under his suit jacket—an advantage of being Italian, I guess) is being held in high regard for his achievements at UniCredit in the past few years, but his background is ‘banking’ and not ‘technology’.
On the other hand, Vodeno employs more than 200 employees (according to LinkedIn) and has received a sizeable investment since its founding. The company is well-known for its services in the embedded finance industry; however, I have not seen any new customer launches in the past few months (in Germany, I am aware of their current customers, Metro FS and UnitPlus, as well as Vantik, before it went bankrupt). Perhaps Vodeno’s owner, private equity firm Warburg Pincus, is pushing for an exit in light of the challenging atmosphere for fintech infrastructure companies?
Personally, I believe many traditional banks (incl. UniCredit) have a big opportunity when they become an infrastructure provider for fintech companies and brands. And obviously, the technology piece is the hardest for them to build, so an acquisition seems logical. But I would assume that with an acquisition, the bank is trying to get talent and technology in-house, while the brand of the infrastructure provider (which will likely go away) and their existing customers and revenue are not that important. If we agree on this, is Vodeno then the ideal target for an acquisition? Or wouldn’t a different provider be more appealing?
I have a feeling that UniCredit started directly speaking with Vodeno and has not looked at any other provider in the market. Personally, I would have done this differently and scouted the market properly before going into deeper discussions with one provider (if anybody at UniCredit wants access to my European banking-as-a-service provider list with 34 names, let me know 😉 ).
For the reasons mentioned above, I have my doubts that this exact deal will happen, but it would be great to see more banks getting into the embedded finance space, either through acquisitions or other strategies.
Europe
North America
Asia