by John Lipsky – Acting Managing Director, International Monetary Fund
Kurt Viermetz Lecture – The American Academy in Berlin
Good evening. I’m delighted to be back at the American Academy in Berlin, and am honored to be delivering the Kurt Viermetz Lecture.
We meet at a highly uncertain time. While the global economy has bounced back solidly from the trough hit in 2009, the recovery remains uneven and subject to downside risks. Some countries—including many emerging economies in Asia and Latin America, as well as Germany—are doing well. But in many other countries, growth has not been strong enough to reduce unemployment rates significantly. More worrying, downside risks to the outlook have increased recently—reflecting persistent fiscal and financial stresses in the European periphery, uncertain progress toward fiscal consolidation in Japan and the United States, and possible overheating in some emerging market economies.
Stepped-up policy actions are needed to keep the global recovery on track. Some countries are delaying reforms, however, reflecting understandable concerns about their possible impact on near-term growth prospects. This is where economic policy cooperation can make an important contribution: when reforms are designed and implemented coherently, all countries can be better off.
This conclusion was demonstrated during the global financial crisis, when unprecedented international policy cooperation helped prevent a much deeper global recession. Policy cooperation is equally important today, as countries seek to secure the global recovery and create the conditions for strong, sustainable and balanced growth. But as the recovery proceeds along different paths around the world, keeping policy adjustments coherent has become more difficult.
Thus, a key challenge in the post-crisis era is to sustain international policy cooperation. In fact, greater cooperation and coordination here in Europe will be an essential element in overcoming the serious threats to the region’s stability and progress, and in completing the single market project. In my remarks today, I’ll discuss how new mechanisms for economic policy cooperation are helping the global recovery—but also the challenges still faced in sustaining cooperation over the longer term.
The global economy – more interconnected and more complex
I’ll begin with the global economic context—and specifically, how growing interlinkages among economies have made the world more complex, and by extension, have made policymaking more challenging.
Let’s start with a standard geographic map of the world. It needs no introduction.
Now let’s see what happens if we redraw the world map based on GDP at market exchange rates. The United States clearly is very large. So are Europe and Japan. Interestingly, some of the fastest growing economies are not so large, even though they are very important in terms of their contribution to global growth.
Now let’s transform this map into one that weights economies by trade. A very different picture emerges. Europe—and especially Germany—is very large. So is Japan. And a few countries with rather small populations, like Australia and Canada, also are relatively large.
And now, a final transformation, weighting countries by financial assets and liabilities. This shows yet another reality: The United States and Europe are very large—whereas most emerging economies appear quite small. And Africa is hardly visible at all.
These maps underscore how varied and shifting interlinkages have added considerable complexity to the global economy. This complexity helps explain some of the key policy failures leading up to the recent crisis. But the interlinkages that give rise to greater complexity also have been the source of major policy successes, both before and after the crisis.
When we consider what went wrong before the crisis, we must include failures of command and control systems in both the private and the public sectors. The inability to grasp the strength and breadth of macrofinancial linkages was a major failing. Financial interconnections simply were not perceived clearly—nor did we understand their implications for the real economy. And what began as a crisis of subprime mortgage financing in one country helped to produce the deepest global recession since World War II.
But rising global interlinkages also have been associated with some notable policy successes. Two in particular are worth mentioning:
First, increasing interconnectedness—especially of trade and finance—has produced the strongest sustained period of global growth in world history, lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. As shown by the Commission on Growth and Development—led by the Nobel laureate Michael Spence—every case of a nation rising out of poverty involved a period of strong and sustained growth. In turn, each such case involved an economy that was opened to world markets. In other words, embracing globalization led to better economic outcomes.
A second success is the remarkable increase in global policy cooperation that has taken place in the wake of the 2008-09 global financial crisis. When the world last faced such grave danger—during the Great Depression—countries acted in their own, perceived self-interest with beggar-thy-neighbor policies that in fact deepened the downturn. This time, countries acted together to tackle the crisis. And as a result, the downturn lasted only three quarters—from mid-2008 through the first quarter of 2009—a remarkable result considering the severity of the threat.
New policy challenges
Today, we face a new challenge—namely how to reestablish strong, sustained, and balanced growth. Currently, the global economy is growing at a fairly healthy clip. Our latest forecasts—released just last week, in the quarterly update of the IMF’s “World Economic Outlook”—anticipate global growth of about 4½ percent both this year and next. But as you can see from the chart, this average masks an uneven recovery across the world. While growth in the emerging economies is powering ahead robustly—and in some cases, verging on overheating—growth in many advanced economies is not fast enough to make up for the significant ground lost during the crisis.
Slow progress in closing the output gap means that unemployment remains stubbornly high in the advanced economies—with the notable exception of Germany, where employment is above pre-crisis levels. Slow job creation is especially worrisome for young people, for whom it is even harder to find a job. In the Middle East and North Africa, it is perhaps more obvious how high youth unemployment has contributed to great social tension. In other countries, youth unemployment may not be as high in absolute terms, but the risk of a “lost generation” of young people, forever marked by higher joblessness and lower incomes, cannot be ignored.
High public debt is another major challenge facing many advanced economies. The crisis led to an increase in debt-to-GDP ratios of 25 to 30 percentage points on average for this group. Most of this reflected the crisis, as it depressed tax revenues and required public support for financial sectors. But the long-term fiscal challenges reflect factors that pre-date the crisis, including demographic pressures and unsustainable social transfer programs. This slide shows the amount of fiscal adjustment needed over the next twenty years to first stabilize and eventually return public debt to pre-crisis levels relative to GDP. Virtually every advanced economy faces a need for substantial fiscal adjustment.
Focusing specifically on the challenges here in Europe, the overall recovery is broadly favorable—and the outlook for Germany is considerably better than that. But serious challenges in the periphery—including severe competitiveness problems, very high debt levels, and fragile banking systems—threaten this outlook, including potentially even for Germany. If these challenges are not resolved, the spillovers to the eurozone could be severe. European financial institutions could suffer major financial losses from their exposures to the periphery countries. Eurozone growth could suffer from a downturn in demand from the crisis countries. And there could be even worse consequences, if instability in the periphery shakes consumer and investor confidence.
Strong policy actions by national authorities in the peripheral European countries clearly are essential to overcome these challenges. But these actions are unlikely to succeed without a truly cohesive approach from all euro area stakeholders. With deeply intertwined fiscal and financial problems, failure to undertake decisive action could spread the tensions to the core of the euro area, and beyond. At the same time, moving ahead with the broader policy agenda—to secure stronger potential growth and establish a more resilient EMU—remains equally pressing.
Turning to the emerging economies, we find an entirely different set of policy challenges. Many of these countries either are near or already back at potential output. At the same time, real policy rates in almost every country are negative in real terms—meaning that monetary policies remain expansionary even though the need for monetary stimulus has passed. Easy liquidity has stoked credit growth, which remains elevated in almost every country—only in China is it slowing, albeit from very rapid rates.
These loose monetary conditions present a serious threat to one of the emerging economies’ most impressive accomplishments—namely bringing down inflation. As you can see, average CPI inflation in the emerging economies has declined tremendously since 1995, so that it is now in the 5-7 percent range. This dramatic policy achievement is an important reason why investment in emerging economies has become such an attractive proposition.
If we look at recent performance, you’ll see that after a long period of decline, there was a brief uptick in emerging economy inflation in 2007-08 as commodity prices spiked. But after that, inflation continued falling. Today, there is once again an uptick in energy and commodity prices. But current macroeconomic conditions are very different from those in 2007-08—today, these economies are close to, or even out of, excess capacity. Their fiscal and monetary policies are expansionary, and credit growth is very rapid. In other words, rising commodity prices is only one of several reasons that inflation is under upward pressure.
This combination of factors also is raising inflationary expectations. Here you can see inflation expectations for the BRICs—Brazil, Russia, India, China—in December 2010. And here are expectations today—a clear deterioration from six months ago.
To sum up: Although the global economy has weathered the worst crisis since the Great Depression, it still faces serious headwinds in both advanced and emerging economies. It also has become clear that to overcome these global challenges, we will need global solutions. In the remainder of my remarks, I’d like to look at how the IMF and the G-20 are helping to make this possible.
Global policy cooperation through the IMF
The global financial crisis holds many lessons for how the IMF can serve its members more effectively, and how it can better foster international policy cooperation. We already have moved forward in many ways in response to these lessons. Let me focus on four key areas: (i) surveillance; (ii) financing instruments; (iii) resources; and (iv) governance.
I’ll begin with surveillance, which refers to the IMF’s unique mandate to consult with its 187 member countries about their economic and financial policies, while ensuring that such policies are consistent with global economic and financial stability. There have been several important innovations since the crisis:
• We introduced the “early warning exercise”—in cooperation with the Financial Stability Board—through which we’ve strengthened our monitoring of tail risks faced by the global economy.
• We made the Financial Sector Assessment Program—or FSAP—mandatory for twenty-five IMF members with systemically important financial systems. Over the past year we’ve conducted the first-ever FSAP for the United States and for China—and we also completed an FSAP update for Germany.
• We have increased our focus on interlinkages among economies, and how policies in one country can impact—or “spill over”—onto others. We are focusing in particular on the spillovers from the five most systemically important economies and economic regions in the world—China, Japan, the Euro area, the United Kingdom, and the United States—and will present our analysis in a new series of spillover reports later this summer. For Germany, our analysis noted the importance of reforms that support strong domestic demand—both for delivering sustainable medium-term growth in Germany itself, and for contributing to a stronger European and global economy.
• We are improving our understanding of macrofinancial linkages. As I mentioned earlier, failure to recognize the specifics of these linkages was one of the contributors to the crisis. We are also paying more attention to the quality of growth as we ask ourselves how the distribution of income and unemployment rates may affect macroeconomic stability.
We also have made important enhancements to our financing instruments. We streamlined our financing programs so that they focus on the core policies needed to reestablish growth and stability. And to address the need for insurance-like crisis prevention products, we introduced the Flexible Credit Line and the Precautionary Credit Line, that provide large-scale liquidity at times of heightened financial stress to IMF members with strong policy track records. Another innovation is enhanced cooperation with regional financing arrangements. In Europe, we have partnered with the EC and the ECB to provide financing for Greece, Ireland and Portugal. And we are looking forward to deepening our cooperation with the Chiang Mai Initiative in Asia.
We are also exploring whether the global financial safety net needs to be strengthened further. During the crisis, short-term liquidity provision required a series of one-off actions by individual central banks. But will this model be sufficient to deal with future crises? It is worth considering whether a multilateral facility, perhaps with the IMF and central banks working together, is worth developing.
In the area of resources, our capacity to provide financial support has been boosted significantly. Our members agreed to double our quotas to about $767 billion, and to expand the New Arrangements to Borrow, a facility that allows us to draw additional funds from our members on relatively short notice. Since the crisis, the IMF has committed about $330 billion to member countries facing financing pressures. We also sold some of our gold holdings. While the proceeds ultimately will be used to help finance the IMF’s operations, these resources currently are helping to provide additional subsidized support for our low-income country members.
The final area of IMF reform is governance. Last year, our members agreed historic reforms that are delivering a greater voice for the dynamic emerging market economies, in line with their weight in the global economy. Once the latest round of already agreed reforms are in place, China, India, Brazil, and Russia will be among the IMF’s top ten shareholders (along with the United States, Japan, and the four largest European economies). At the same time, the voice of our poorest members has been protected. As a result, it is our expectation that doubts regarding the IMF’s “legitimacy” will have been laid to rest.
Global Policy Cooperation through the G-20
I’ll turn now to the changes in international policy cooperation that are taking place under the auspices of the G-20—the grouping that brings together nineteen of the world’s largest economies, plus the European Union. I’ll use the timeline of the five G-20 leaders’ summits to highlight the most important achievements so far.
Let’s begin with the first-ever G-20 leaders’ summit, held in Washington during November 2008. At this time, fears were rising rapidly about the economic fallout of the financial crisis. G-20 leaders decided that a broader policy response was needed to deal with the crisis, and agreed on an action plan involving closer macroeconomic policy cooperation, as well as regulatory and other financial sector reforms.
The next summit took place in London, during April 2009. By this time, concerns about the global economy were at a crescendo. In the face of this threat, leaders decided that a global, cooperative solution was needed to overcome this global crisis. They agreed on a massive policy stimulus—fiscal and monetary—to shore up economic growth. They also agreed to provide the IMF with $1 trillion in additional resources.
The next summit was held in Pittsburgh during September 2009—a time when it was clear that the global economy was growing again. Leaders recognized that their unprecedented policy cooperation had played a major role in preventing a much deeper recession. The challenge faced in Pittsburgh was how to sustain cooperation into the recovery phase. This was addressed in two ways. Leaders agreed that the G-20 would be the premier forum for international economic and financial policy cooperation. They also launched the Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth—which provided a blueprint for policy cooperation in the recovery. And to underpin this framework, the G-20 launched the Mutual Assessment Process—or MAP—through which members would share their medium-term policy frameworks, and evaluate whether their policies are collectively consistent with sustainable and balanced global growth. The IMF was asked to provide analytical support for this effort.
Moving forward to the Toronto summit—in June 2010—leaders considered the results of the first stage of the MAP. The key question was whether a better global outcome could be achieved if countries acted cooperatively—rather than adopting policies without explicit consideration of what other countries were doing. Analysis prepared by the IMF showed that the answer was clearly affirmative—a cooperative alternative indeed provided a superior outcome. On this slide, the green line represents what we call the upside scenario, which reflects full policy cooperation between advanced and emerging economies.
The point here is simple, yet powerful. Arguments for policy cooperation need not be based on one country making a sacrifice for the global good. Instead, it can be motivated by the premise that if countries act coherently, they can achieve an outcome that is better for everybody. And in Toronto, G-20 leaders expressed their belief in this premise, and agreed to take the actions needed to achieve the upside scenario. They also agreed on the broad policy framework—which is presented in this matrix. Amongst the advanced economies, those with external surpluses need structural reforms. And those with external deficits need fiscal consolidation. Emerging surplus economies need to rebalance demand toward domestic sources. And emerging deficit economies need structural reform, and other demand management measures. And across the board, all countries need to repair and reform their financial systems.
The critical achievement of the November 2010 Seoul summit was that countries provided specific policy commitments for reaching the upside scenario. Leaders also decided to take the MAP to a new stage, and assess how excessive imbalances in member countries—whether internal or external—might contribute to global economic instability. The G-20 subsequently decided to focus their analysis on seven economies whose imbalances are considered particularly important in this regard.
The next summit will take place in Cannes this November. Between now and then, the G-20’s Framework Working Group will be drawing on a range of inputs—including IMF analysis —to assess whether the policy commitments made by the seven key countries and others are sufficient to reach the upside scenario. The G-20’s recommendations will feed into a Cannes Action Plan. In some sense, this will be the acid test for policy cooperation under the auspices of the G-20: Will countries take the steps needed to fulfill their commitments?
There is one additional aspect of this framework that I consider to be extremely important. For the first time, G-20 countries are committed to a specific mechanism that will support policy cooperation—over time. In other words, international policy cooperation has become a repeated game. Of course, this new framework won’t solve all the world’s economic problems quickly—nor is it intended to. Can it make a difference? I think so. But political support will be essential for it to succeed.
Financial sector reform
I’d like to touch briefly on one piece missing from my presentation so far—financial sector reform. Obviously this is a very broad topic, so I will limit my comments to three important developments: the creation of the Financial Stability Board, the agreement on four pillars of financial sector reform, and the new focus on macroprudential policies.
The Financial Stability Board was created in April 2009—at the behest of the G-20—as the successor to the Financial Stability Forum. The FSB was given a broadened mandate to promote financial stability, and was also expanded to include all G-20 members. With greater legitimacy, the FSB can be a more effective agent in advancing financial sector reform.
The second important development is the FSB’s agreement on four pillars of financial sector reform: (i) regulation, (ii) supervision, (iii) resolution mechanisms for systemically important financial institutions (or SIFIs), and (iv) assessment of the implementation of new standards. This provides an important framework to guide reform efforts at the national level, and also efforts to coordinate reforms across countries.
So far, the only pillar that has received substantial public attention is regulatory reform—and there have been some notable achievements in this area—for example, the agreement on Basel III. But in the IMF’s assessment, weakness in supervision—the second pillar—was every bit as important as weakness in regulation in bringing about the financial crisis. Progress on strengthening this pillar has been much slower.
Turning to the third pillar, a clear lesson from the crisis is that resolution mechanisms are needed that are capable of dealing with institutions that are “too important to fail”. But how do we resolve important financial institutions operating in multiple jurisdictions? This is fiendishly complicated work, and it will likely take a long time to reach international agreement on how to move forward in this area.
The fourth pillar—assessment of the implementation of new standards—is one where considerably more progress has been made already. As I mentioned earlier, the FSAP has been made mandatory for the most systemically important economies from a global financial perspective. And the FSB already has a peer review process that will draw on the FSAPs.
The final development I’d like to note is the recognition that macroprudential policies are essential to increase the stability of the financial system. In a traditional form of financial regulation, the focus was on instruments and institutions. Today, we know that we need to think about how the global economy affects the stability of the financial system—and vice versa—to effectively safeguard financial stability. The new European Systemic Risk Board represents a key initiative in this area.
Wrapping up, it is clear that we face a challenging moment for the global economy. But it is also a moment of great opportunity, to strengthen economic policy cooperation and build a stronger global economy.
Here in Europe, integration since World War II already has been an incredible success. And in the wake of the global financial crisis, Europe has taken unprecedented steps towards strengthening fiscal discipline, underpinning the single financial market, bolstering competitiveness, and enhancing crisis resolution mechanisms. But for the euro area to live up to its full potential, more efforts are needed. I am confident that they will be forthcoming.
Thank you very much for your attention.
ECB launches small climate-change unit to lead Lagarde’s green push
FRANKFURT (Reuters) – The European Central Bank is setting up a small team dedicated to climate change to spearhead its efforts to help the transition to a greener economy in the euro zone, ECB President Christine Lagarde said on Monday.
Lagarde has made the environment a priority since taking the helm at the ECB, taking a number of steps to include climate considerations in the central bank’s work as the euro zone’s banking watchdog and main financial institution.
She is now creating a team of around 10 ECB employees, reporting directly to her, to set the central bank’s agenda on climate-related topics.
“The climate change centre provides the structure we need to tackle the issue with the urgency and determination that it deserves,” Lagarde said in a speech.
She said that climate change belonged in the ECB’s remit as it could affect inflation and obstruct the flow of credit to the economy.
The ECB said earlier on Monday it would invest some of its own funds, which total 20.8 billion euros ($25.3 billion) and include capital paid in by euro zone countries, reserves and provisions, in a green bond fund run by the Bank for International Settlement.
More significantly, ECB policymakers are also debating what role climate considerations should play in the institution’s multi-trillion euro bond-buying programme.
So far the ECB has bought corporate bonds based on their outstanding amounts but Lagarde has said the bank might have to consider a more active approach to correct the market’s failure to price in climate risk.
“Our strategy review enables us to consider more deeply how we can continue to protect our mandate in the face of (climate) risks and, at the same time, strengthen the resilience of monetary policy and our balance sheet,” Lagarde said.
(Reporting by Balazs Koranyi; Editing by Francesco Canepa and Emelia Sithole-Matarise)
What to expect in 2021: Top trends shaping the future of transportation
By Lee Jones, Director of Sales – Grocery, QSR and Selected Accounts for Northern Europe at Ingenico, a Worldline brand
The pandemic has reinforced the need for businesses to undergo digital transformation, which is pivotal in the digital economy. In 2020, we saw the shift to online and cashless payments accelerated as a result of increased social distancing and nationwide restrictions.
The biggest challenge on all businesses into 2021 will be how they continue to adapt and react to the ever changing new normal we are all experiencing. In this context, what should we expect this year and beyond, in terms of developments across key sectors, including transport, parking and electric vehicle (EV) charging?
Mobility as a service (MaaS) and the future of transportation
Social distancing and lockdown measures have brought about a real change in public habits when it comes to transportation. In the last three months alone, we have seen commuter journeys across the globe reduce by at least 70%, while longer-distance travel has fallen by up to 90%. With it, cash withdrawals for payment has drastically reduced by 60%.
Technological advancements, alongside open payments, have unlocked new possibilities across multiple industries and will continue to have a strong impact. Furthermore, travellers are expecting more as part of their basic service. Tap and pay is one of the biggest evolutions in consumer payments. Bringing ease and simplicity to everyday tasks, consumers have welcomed this development to the transport journey. In-app payments are also on the rise, offering customers the ability to plan ahead and remain assured that they have everything they need, in one place, for every leg of their journey. Many local transport networks now have their own apps with integrated timetables, payments, and ticket download capabilities. These capabilities are being enabled by smaller more portable terminals for transport staff, and self-scanning ticketing devices are streamlining the process even further.
Ultimately, the end goal for many transport providers is MaaS – providing an easy and frictionless all-encompassing transport system that guides consumers through the whole journey, no matter what mode of travel they choose. Additionally, payment will remain the key orchestrator that will drive further developments in the transportation and MaaS ecosystems in 2021. What remains critical is balancing the need for a fast and convenient payment with safety and data privacy in order to deliver superior customer experiences.
The EV charging market and the accelerating pace of change
The EV charging market is moving quickly and represents a large opportunity for payments in the future. EVs are gradually becoming more popular, with registrations for EVs overtaking those of their diesel counterparts for the first time in European history this year. What’s more, forecasts indicate that by 2030, there will be almost 42 million public charging points deployed worldwide, as compared with 520,000 registered in 2019.
Our experience and expertise in this industry have enabled us to better understand but also address the challenges and complexities of fuel and EV payments. The current alternating current (AC) based chargers are set to be replaced by their direct charging (DC) counterparts, but merchants must still be able to guarantee payment for the charging provider. Power always needs to be converted from AC to DC when charging an electric vehicle, the technical difference between AC charging and DC charging is whether the power gets converted outside or inside the vehicle.
By offering innovative payment solutions to this market segment, we enable service operators to incorporate payments smoothly into their omnichannel customer experience that also allows businesses to easily develop acceptance and provide a unique omnichannel strategy for EV charging payments. From proximity to online payments, it will support businesses by offering a unique hardware solution optimized for PSD2 and SCA. It will manage both near field communication (NFC) cards and payments from cards/smartphones, as well as a single interface to manage all payments, after sales support and receipt with both ePortal and eReceipts.
Cashless options for parking payments
The ‘new normal’ is now partly defined by a shift in consumer preference for cashless, contactless and mobile or embedded payments. These are now the preferred payment choices when it comes to completing the check-in and check-out process. They are a time-saver and a more seamless way to pay.
Drivers are more self-reliant and empowered than ever before, having adopted technologies that work to make their life increasingly efficient. COVID-19 has given rise to both ePayment and omnichannel solutions gaining in popularity. This has been due to ticketless access control based on license plate recognition or the tap-in/tap-out experience, as well as embedded payments or mobile solutions for street parking.
These smart solutions help consider parking services more broadly as a part of overall mobility or shopping experience. Therefore, operators must rapidly adapt and scale new operational practices; accept electronic payment, update new contactless limits, introduce additional payments means, refund the user or even to reflect changing customer expectations to keep pace.
2021: the journey ahead
This year, we expect to see an even greater shift towards a cashless society across these key sectors, making the buying experience quicker and more convenient overall.
As a result, merchants and operators must make the consumer experience their top priority as trends shift towards simplicity and convenience, ensuring online and mobile payments processes are as secure as possible.
Opportunities and challenges facing financial services firms in 2021
By Paul McCreadie, Partner at ECI Partners, the leading growth-focused mid-market private equity firm
Despite 2020 being an enormously disruptive year for businesses, our latest Growth Index research reveals that almost three quarters (74%) of mid-market financial services companies remained resilient throughout the pandemic.
This is positive news, especially when taking into account the economic disruption that financial services firms have had to go through since the crisis began. No doubt 2021 will also hold its own challenges – as well as opportunities – for firms in this sector.
Unsurprisingly, the biggest short-term concern for financial firms for the year ahead involved changing pandemic guidance, with 42% citing this as a top concern. With the UK currently experiencing a third lockdown many financial services businesses will have already had to adapt to rapidly changing guidance, even since being surveyed.
Businesses will also be considering the need to invest in working from home operations, and there may be uncertainty over re-opening offices on a permanent basis. According to the research 30% of financial services firms are planning to adopt remote working on a permanent basis, so decisions need to be made now about whether they invest more in enabling staff to do this, or in their current office premises.
Due to Brexit, UK financial services firms are no longer able to passport their services into Europe, which may cause problems, particularly in the next 12 months as the Brexit deal is ironed out and the agreement is put into practice. Despite this, Brexit was only cited by 24% of financial firms as a short-term concern. While it’s comforting to see that UK financial firms aren’t hugely concerned about Brexit at this juncture, it is going to be vital for the ongoing success of the industry that the UK is able to get straightforward access to Europe and operate there without issue, otherwise we may see these concern levels rise.
Looking ahead to longer-term concerns for financial services businesses, the top concern was global economic downturn, of which 40% of firms cited this as a worry when looking beyond 2021.
Investing and adopting tech
Traditionally, the financial services sector has been slow to adopt digital transformation. Issues with legacy systems, coupled with often large amounts of data and a reluctance to undertake potentially risky change processes, have meant many firms are behind the curve when it comes to technology adoption. It’s therefore promising to see that so much has changed over the last year, with 45% of financial services firms having invested in AI and machine learning technology – making it the top sector to have invested in this space over the last 12 months.
One business that exemplifies the benefits of investing in machine learning is Avantia, the technology-enabled insurance provider behind HomeProtect. The business has undergone a large tech transformation in the last few years, investing in an underlying machine learning platform and an in-house data science team, which provides them with capabilities to return a quote to over 98% of applicants in under one second. This tech investment has allowed them to become more scalable, provide a more stable platform, improve customer service and consequently, grow significantly.
This demonstrates how this kind of tech can help businesses to leverage tech in order to offer a better customer experience, and retain and grow market share through winning new customers. This resilience should combat some of the concerns that firms will face in the next year.
Additionally, half (51%) of financial services firms have invested in cybersecurity tech over the last year, which allows them to protect the platforms on which they operate and ensure ongoing provision of solutions to their customers.
Clearly, there is a benefit of international revenues and profits on business resilience. In practice, this meant that businesses that weren’t internationally diversified in 2020 struggled more during the pandemic. In fact, the businesses considered to be the least resilient through the 2020 crisis were three times more likely to only operate domestically.
Perhaps an attribute towards financial services firms’ resilience in 2020, therefore, was the fact that 53% already had a presence in Europe throughout 2020 and 38% had a presence in North America. This internationalisation gave them an advantage that allowed them to weather the many storms of 2020.
Looking at how to capitalise on this throughout the rest of 2021, half (51%) of are planning overseas growth in Europe over the next 12 months, and 43% in North America. Further plans to expand internationally is not only a good sign for growth, but should further increase resilience within the sector.
While there are many concerns, the fact that financial services businesses are investing in technology like AI and machine learning, as well as still planning to grow internationally, means that they are providing themselves with the best chances of dealing with any upcoming challenges effectively.
In order to maintain their growth and resilience throughout the next 12 months, it’s imperative that they continue to put their customers first, invest in technology and remain on the front foot of digital change.
Staying connected: keeping the numbers moving in the finance industry
By Robert Gibson-Bolton, Enterprise Manager, NetMotion 2020 will certainly be hard to forget. Amongst the many changes we have come to...
How to lead a high-performing team
By Matthew Emerson, Founder and Managing Director, Blackmore Four When we think about a great team, the image we conjure...
A practical guide to the UCITS KIIDs annual update
By Ulf Herbig at Kneip We take a practical look at the UCITS KIID What is a UCITS KIID and what...
Oil prices steady as lockdowns curb U.S. stimulus optimism
By Noah Browning LONDON (Reuters) – Oil prices were steady on Monday as support from U.S. stimulus plans and jitters...
Dollar steadies; euro hurt by vaccine delays and German business morale slump
By Elizabeth Howcroft LONDON (Reuters) – The dollar steadied, the euro slipped and riskier currencies remained strong on Monday, as...
Hong Kong’s Cathay Pacific warns of capacity cuts, higher cash burn
(Reuters) – Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd on Monday warned passenger capacity could be cut by about 60% and monthly cash...
Stocks rise on recovery hopes
By Ritvik Carvalho LONDON (Reuters) – Global shares rose to just shy of record highs, as optimism over a $1.9...
Fragile recovery seen in global labour market after huge 2020 losses – ILO
By Stephanie Nebehay GENEVA (Reuters) – Some 8.8% of global working hours were lost last year due to the pandemic,...
“Lockdown fatigue” cited as UK shopper numbers rose 9% last week
LONDON (Reuters) – The number of shoppers heading out to retail destinations across Britain rose by 9% last week from...
Alphabet’s Verily bets on long-term payoff from virus-testing deals
By Paresh Dave OAKLAND, Calif. (Reuters) – For Alphabet Inc’s Verily, a healthcare venture that is one the tech giant’s...