Fintechs

eskbanker

OceanSound said:

eskbanker said:

OceanSound said:

eskbanker said:

OceanSound said:

eskbanker said:

'Fintech' is an unhelpfully vague term but is increasingly used to denote online-only financial institutions without branch infrastructure and offering smaller ranges of services (rather than the underlying technology itself) - however these ultimately still fit within the categories defined by the FCA (bank, payment service provider, e-money institution, etc), based on the activities they're authorised to conduct, so to my mind it's always important to cross-refer back to the regulatory definitions:

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/glossary/

So, I suppose my question would be 'do we actually need a collective term for "the likes of Wise (formerly transferwise) and revolut"?' and what useful purpose does this serve, when it's still necessary to differentiate between those that are authorised to accept deposits versus those that aren't, for FSCS purposes, and other such distinctions?

Aren't all banks FSCS protected?

Yes, that was my point - banks, or other types of institutions with regulatory permissions to accept deposits, are protected, but companies like Wise aren't.  The loose term 'fintech' is too vague for this sort of differentiation, as it encompasses both those with such protection and those without, so I'm trying to understand how it actually helps anyone to lump dissimilar institutions together, whether labelled as 'fintechs' or any alternative term....

Well, it's useful to have a pronoun to refer to a financial institution such as Chip that offers FSCS protection (albeit indirectly). This is so that we can then refer to it in posts with that name. Using 'bank' is a no go, because as soon as one does, there'll be one or more forumites (part of the 'x is not a bank' police) straight on the case. 

see: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80023699/#Comment_80023699

we have forumite worriednoob saying 'I thought, as a bank [chip] would have been financially stress-tested to ensure that they wouldn't go bust and leave customers out of pocket?'

Reply by jimexbox is 'Chip are not a bank.'. I presume what they are saying is as CHip is not a bank therefore they (Chip) is not stress-tested?

What useful purpose does the distinction serve here (apart from picking on semantics)? Being part of the FSCS is what is relevant in that thread/post and that attracts stress-tests (not just being a bank).

A more useful response would be 'Chip wouldn't be stress tested as it's neither a bank (which undergoes stress-tests to become and stay a bank) or have FSCS protection itself. However, the bank (ClearBank) is a bank and would've been stress tested when getting their banking license (and I presume periodically?) and that is the bank that Chip uses to hold your funds. 

All that is a separate point from what this thread is about - the subject of this thread is whether or not 'fintech' is a useful catch-all term for a variety of financial institutions, some of which are FSCS-protected and some aren't.

It would seem that you're looking for a catch-all term for institutions offering FSCS protection on deposits, some of which will be banks and some of which won't, but that's a different subject....

Well, my post which was originally posted elsewhere on another thread was moved here by a senior forumite on the premise that this was the appropriate place for it.

Now that it has been moved, I'm being told this is not the the correct place for the question either - by the forumite who moved it in the first place I might add! 

Seems seeking a home/thread for my post/question is proving to be nay impossible. Perhaps, I ought to have been advised to create a new thread (without moving it to a thread where my question will be a 'separate point')

I don't believe anybody moved anything as such, but this thread's OP chose to repost your question about fintechs in a more appropriate place than its original location, but it related to how to refer collectively to "the likes of Wise and Revolut", which is clearly a different question from whether or not there's a snappy collective term for "institutions offering FSCS protection on deposits" (of which Wise isn't one, as above)!

The fact that it's a different question doesn't in itself make it invalid though, but to cut to the chase, I'm not aware of any term that accurately defines this - 'fintech' doesn't cut it and neither does 'bank'....

OceanSound

eskbanker said:

OceanSound said:

eskbanker said:

OceanSound said:

eskbanker said:

OceanSound said:

eskbanker said:

'Fintech' is an unhelpfully vague term but is increasingly used to denote online-only financial institutions without branch infrastructure and offering smaller ranges of services (rather than the underlying technology itself) - however these ultimately still fit within the categories defined by the FCA (bank, payment service provider, e-money institution, etc), based on the activities they're authorised to conduct, so to my mind it's always important to cross-refer back to the regulatory definitions:

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/glossary/

So, I suppose my question would be 'do we actually need a collective term for "the likes of Wise (formerly transferwise) and revolut"?' and what useful purpose does this serve, when it's still necessary to differentiate between those that are authorised to accept deposits versus those that aren't, for FSCS purposes, and other such distinctions?

Aren't all banks FSCS protected?

Yes, that was my point - banks, or other types of institutions with regulatory permissions to accept deposits, are protected, but companies like Wise aren't.  The loose term 'fintech' is too vague for this sort of differentiation, as it encompasses both those with such protection and those without, so I'm trying to understand how it actually helps anyone to lump dissimilar institutions together, whether labelled as 'fintechs' or any alternative term....

Well, it's useful to have a pronoun to refer to a financial institution such as Chip that offers FSCS protection (albeit indirectly). This is so that we can then refer to it in posts with that name. Using 'bank' is a no go, because as soon as one does, there'll be one or more forumites (part of the 'x is not a bank' police) straight on the case. 

see: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80023699/#Comment_80023699

we have forumite worriednoob saying 'I thought, as a bank [chip] would have been financially stress-tested to ensure that they wouldn't go bust and leave customers out of pocket?'

Reply by jimexbox is 'Chip are not a bank.'. I presume what they are saying is as CHip is not a bank therefore they (Chip) is not stress-tested?

What useful purpose does the distinction serve here (apart from picking on semantics)? Being part of the FSCS is what is relevant in that thread/post and that attracts stress-tests (not just being a bank).

A more useful response would be 'Chip wouldn't be stress tested as it's neither a bank (which undergoes stress-tests to become and stay a bank) or have FSCS protection itself. However, the bank (ClearBank) is a bank and would've been stress tested when getting their banking license (and I presume periodically?) and that is the bank that Chip uses to hold your funds. 

All that is a separate point from what this thread is about - the subject of this thread is whether or not 'fintech' is a useful catch-all term for a variety of financial institutions, some of which are FSCS-protected and some aren't.

It would seem that you're looking for a catch-all term for institutions offering FSCS protection on deposits, some of which will be banks and some of which won't, but that's a different subject....

Well, my post which was originally posted elsewhere on another thread was moved here by a senior forumite on the premise that this was the appropriate place for it.

Now that it has been moved, I'm being told this is not the the correct place for the question either - by the forumite who moved it in the first place I might add! 

Seems seeking a home/thread for my post/question is proving to be nay impossible. Perhaps, I ought to have been advised to create a new thread (without moving it to a thread where my question will be a 'separate point')

I don't believe anybody moved anything as such, but this thread's OP chose to repost your question about fintechs in a more appropriate place than its original location, but it related to how to refer collectively to "the likes of Wise and Revolut", which is clearly a different question from whether or not there's a snappy collective term for "institutions offering FSCS protection on deposits" (of which Wise isn't one, as above)!

The fact that it's a different question doesn't in itself make it invalid though, but to cut to the chase, I'm not aware of any term that accurately defines this - 'fintech' doesn't cut it and neither does 'bank'....

I edited my previous post. 

How about 'challenger bank (with FSCS protection)' for Chip 

And

Challenger bank (without FSCS protection) for Wise. 

Dosen't roll off the tongue but something. Maybe shorten it to an acronym.

wmb194

OceanSound said:

eskbanker said:

OceanSound said:

eskbanker said:

OceanSound said:

eskbanker said:

OceanSound said:

eskbanker said:

'Fintech' is an unhelpfully vague term but is increasingly used to denote online-only financial institutions without branch infrastructure and offering smaller ranges of services (rather than the underlying technology itself) - however these ultimately still fit within the categories defined by the FCA (bank, payment service provider, e-money institution, etc), based on the activities they're authorised to conduct, so to my mind it's always important to cross-refer back to the regulatory definitions:

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/glossary/

So, I suppose my question would be 'do we actually need a collective term for "the likes of Wise (formerly transferwise) and revolut"?' and what useful purpose does this serve, when it's still necessary to differentiate between those that are authorised to accept deposits versus those that aren't, for FSCS purposes, and other such distinctions?

Aren't all banks FSCS protected?

Yes, that was my point - banks, or other types of institutions with regulatory permissions to accept deposits, are protected, but companies like Wise aren't.  The loose term 'fintech' is too vague for this sort of differentiation, as it encompasses both those with such protection and those without, so I'm trying to understand how it actually helps anyone to lump dissimilar institutions together, whether labelled as 'fintechs' or any alternative term....

Well, it's useful to have a pronoun to refer to a financial institution such as Chip that offers FSCS protection (albeit indirectly). This is so that we can then refer to it in posts with that name. Using 'bank' is a no go, because as soon as one does, there'll be one or more forumites (part of the 'x is not a bank' police) straight on the case. 

see: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80023699/#Comment_80023699

we have forumite worriednoob saying 'I thought, as a bank [chip] would have been financially stress-tested to ensure that they wouldn't go bust and leave customers out of pocket?'

Reply by jimexbox is 'Chip are not a bank.'. I presume what they are saying is as CHip is not a bank therefore they (Chip) is not stress-tested?

What useful purpose does the distinction serve here (apart from picking on semantics)? Being part of the FSCS is what is relevant in that thread/post and that attracts stress-tests (not just being a bank).

A more useful response would be 'Chip wouldn't be stress tested as it's neither a bank (which undergoes stress-tests to become and stay a bank) or have FSCS protection itself. However, the bank (ClearBank) is a bank and would've been stress tested when getting their banking license (and I presume periodically?) and that is the bank that Chip uses to hold your funds. 

All that is a separate point from what this thread is about - the subject of this thread is whether or not 'fintech' is a useful catch-all term for a variety of financial institutions, some of which are FSCS-protected and some aren't.

It would seem that you're looking for a catch-all term for institutions offering FSCS protection on deposits, some of which will be banks and some of which won't, but that's a different subject....

Well, my post which was originally posted elsewhere on another thread was moved here by a senior forumite on the premise that this was the appropriate place for it.

Now that it has been moved, I'm being told this is not the the correct place for the question either - by the forumite who moved it in the first place I might add! 

Seems seeking a home/thread for my post/question is proving to be nay impossible. Perhaps, I ought to have been advised to create a new thread (without moving it to a thread where my question will be a 'separate point')

I don't believe anybody moved anything as such, but this thread's OP chose to repost your question about fintechs in a more appropriate place than its original location, but it related to how to refer collectively to "the likes of Wise and Revolut", which is clearly a different question from whether or not there's a snappy collective term for "institutions offering FSCS protection on deposits" (of which Wise isn't one, as above)!

The fact that it's a different question doesn't in itself make it invalid though, but to cut to the chase, I'm not aware of any term that accurately defines this - 'fintech' doesn't cut it and neither does 'bank'....

I edited my previous post. 

How about 'challenger bank (with FSCS protection)' for Chip 

And

Challenger bank (without FSCS protection) for Wise. 

Dosen't roll off the tongue but something. Maybe shorten it to an acronym.

They're not banks, though. You have to be careful with that term as it has a very specific meaning and it sets people's expectations.

From Chip's most recent annual report: "The directors highlight that Chip acts as an intermediary between different financial institutions which are regulated by the FCA in their own right. This means that all customers' money is ring-fenced and sits outside the balance sheet of Chip Financial Ltd. All interest accounts currently offered are eligible for FSCS protection up to £85,000."

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10113174/filing-history

So a, 'fintech intermediary'? 'Bank intermediary'?

Wise doesn't even know how to describe itself. From its 2022 annual report: "Wise is a global technology company building the best way to move and manage money around the world." What do we normally call money transfer businesses?

https://wise.com/owners/

Band7

I am not entirely sure what the merits of collective terms for a variety of companies would be but perhaps the FCA definition of "non-bank payment providers" might help some people. Though this still wouldn't fully address companies such as Raisin or Chip or others who offer some products with FSCS protection and some without. 

IMO, it would all be a lot simpler if we just stuck to mentioning/confirming whether a given account comes with FSCS protection or not.

That's all I can say about this matter.

OceanSound

Great. Not sure of the merits, even when its been explained. Also, not sure, but I'll suggest anyway. 

eskbanker

OceanSound said:

eskbanker said:

Yes, that was my point - banks, or other types of institutions with regulatory permissions to accept deposits, are protected, but companies like Wise aren't.  The loose term 'fintech' is too vague for this sort of differentiation, as it encompasses both those with such protection and those without, so I'm trying to understand how it actually helps anyone to lump dissimilar institutions together, whether labelled as 'fintechs' or any alternative term....

How come you assume that they are always lumping 'dissimilar institutions together'?

This anyone could be an editor of a financial news publication writing an article. They are comparing the likes of Chip, Plum, and Cleo. They could say something like 'as far as fintech's go...Chip has taken the impetus to introduce ......', or 'as far as challenger bank's goes....'. 

Okay, so how about challenger bank as a catch-all term? Any thoughts, ideas on that?

I'm not assuming anyone is always lumping dissimilar institutions together, I'm just saying that the term 'fintech' isn't sufficiently defined and is used loosely to encompass institutions that have different characteristics, so that lack of precision is unlikely to be helpful when looking for an institution that meets a specific requirement, although that's not to say that journalists are typically bound by such antiquated concepts as accuracy!

As above, 'challenger bank' is fine for those institutions that actually are banks (a term formally defined in the FCA glossary linked earlier), but is inappropriate for those that aren't.

RG2015

OceanSound said:

eskbanker said:

OceanSound said:

eskbanker said:

OceanSound said:

eskbanker said:

'Fintech' is an unhelpfully vague term but is increasingly used to denote online-only financial institutions without branch infrastructure and offering smaller ranges of services (rather than the underlying technology itself) - however these ultimately still fit within the categories defined by the FCA (bank, payment service provider, e-money institution, etc), based on the activities they're authorised to conduct, so to my mind it's always important to cross-refer back to the regulatory definitions:

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/glossary/

So, I suppose my question would be 'do we actually need a collective term for "the likes of Wise (formerly transferwise) and revolut"?' and what useful purpose does this serve, when it's still necessary to differentiate between those that are authorised to accept deposits versus those that aren't, for FSCS purposes, and other such distinctions?

Aren't all banks FSCS protected?

Yes, that was my point - banks, or other types of institutions with regulatory permissions to accept deposits, are protected, but companies like Wise aren't.  The loose term 'fintech' is too vague for this sort of differentiation, as it encompasses both those with such protection and those without, so I'm trying to understand how it actually helps anyone to lump dissimilar institutions together, whether labelled as 'fintechs' or any alternative term....

Well, it's useful to have a pronoun to refer to a financial institution such as Chip that offers FSCS protection (albeit indirectly). This is so that we can then refer to it in posts with that name. Using 'bank' is a no go, because as soon as one does, there'll be one or more forumites (part of the 'x is not a bank' police) straight on the case. 

see: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80023699/#Comment_80023699

we have forumite worriednoob saying 'I thought, as a bank [chip] would have been financially stress-tested to ensure that they wouldn't go bust and leave customers out of pocket?'

Reply by jimexbox is 'Chip are not a bank.'. I presume what they are saying is as CHip is not a bank therefore they (Chip) is not stress-tested?

What useful purpose does the distinction serve here (apart from picking on semantics)? Being part of the FSCS is what is relevant in that thread/post and that attracts stress-tests (not just being a bank).

A more useful response would be 'Chip wouldn't be stress tested as it's neither a bank (which undergoes stress-tests to become and stay a bank) or have FSCS protection itself. However, the bank (ClearBank) is a bank and would've been stress tested when getting their banking license (and I presume periodically?) and that is the bank that Chip uses to hold your funds. 

All that is a separate point from what this thread is about - the subject of this thread is whether or not 'fintech' is a useful catch-all term for a variety of financial institutions, some of which are FSCS-protected and some aren't.

It would seem that you're looking for a catch-all term for institutions offering FSCS protection on deposits, some of which will be banks and some of which won't, but that's a different subject....

Well, my post which was originally posted elsewhere on another thread was moved here by a senior forumite on the premise that this was the appropriate place for it.

Now that it has been moved, I'm being told this is not the the correct place for the question either - by the forumite who moved it in the first place I might add! 

Seems seeking a home/thread for my post/question is proving to be nay impossible. Perhaps I should've created my own thread with the original question. 

As it is, I'm not quite sure who the OP is on this thread. I asked the original question. That's been posted as a new thread but the senior forumite creating the thread has added his/her/their own interpretation of the question. i.e. 'to do with a collective term for institutions paying interest.'. Well, this ought to have been mentioned in the OP for a start.

to respond to your question in this post:

eskbanker said:

OceanSound said:

eskbanker said:

'Fintech' is an unhelpfully vague term but is increasingly used to denote online-only financial institutions without branch infrastructure and offering smaller ranges of services (rather than the underlying technology itself) - however these ultimately still fit within the categories defined by the FCA (bank, payment service provider, e-money institution, etc), based on the activities they're authorised to conduct, so to my mind it's always important to cross-refe<blockquote class="Quote">

  <div><a rel="nofollow">eskbanker</a> said:</div>

  <div><blockquote class="Quote">

  <div><a rel="nofollow">OceanSound</a> said:</div>

  <div><blockquote class="Quote">

  <div><a rel="nofollow">eskbanker</a> said:</div>

  <div>'Fintech' is an unhelpfully vague term but is increasingly used to denote online-only financial institutions without branch infrastructure and offering smaller ranges of services (rather than the underlying technology itself) - however these ultimately still fit within the categories defined by the FCA (bank, payment service provider, e-money institution, etc), based on the activities they're authorised to conduct, so to my mind it's always important to cross-refer back to the regulatory definitions:<br><br>https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/glossary/<br><br>So, I suppose my question would be 'do we actually&nbsp;<i>need </i>a collective term for "the likes of Wise (formerly transferwise) and revolut"?' and <b>what useful purpose does this serve, when it's still necessary to differentiate between those that are authorised to accept deposits versus those that aren't, for FSCS purposes</b>, and other such distinctions?</div>

</blockquote>

Aren't all banks FSCS protected?</div>

</blockquote>

Yes, that was my point - banks, or other types of institutions with regulatory permissions to accept deposits, are protected, but companies like Wise aren't.&nbsp; The loose term 'fintech' is too vague for this sort of differentiation, as it encompasses both those with such protection and those without, so I'm trying to understand how it actually helps anyone to lump dissimilar institutions together, whether labelled as 'fintechs' or any alternative term....</div>

</blockquote>

<br>r back to the regulatory definitions:

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/glossary/

So, I suppose my question would be 'do we actually need a collective term for "the likes of Wise (formerly transferwise) and revolut"?' and what useful purpose does this serve, when it's still necessary to differentiate between those that are authorised to accept deposits versus those that aren't, for FSCS purposes, and other such distinctions?

Aren't all banks FSCS protected?

Yes, that was my point - banks, or other types of institutions with regulatory permissions to accept deposits, are protected, but companies like Wise aren't.  The loose term 'fintech' is too vague for this sort of differentiation, as it encompasses both those with such protection and those without, so I'm trying to understand how it actually helps anyone to lump dissimilar institutions together, whether labelled as 'fintechs' or any alternative term....

How come you assume that they are always lumping 'dissimilar institutions together'?

This anyone could be an editor of a financial news publication writing an article. They are comparing the likes of Chip, Plum, and Cleo. They could say something like 'as far as fintech's go...Chip has taken the impetus to introduce ......', or 'as far as challenger bank's goes....'. 

Okay, so how about challenger bank as a catch-all term? Any thoughts, ideas on that?

In response to your suggestion of using challenger bank as a catch all term, Wikipedia has the following.

Challenger banks are small, recently created retail banks that compete directly with the longer-established banks in the UK, sometimes by specialising in areas underserved by the "big four" banks (Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group, and NatWest Group). As well as new entrants to the market, some challenger banks were created following divestment from larger banking groups (TSB Bank from Lloyds Banking Group) or wind-down of a failed large bank (Virgin Money from Northern Rock).

The banks distinguish themselves from the historic banks by modern financial technology practices, such as online-only operations, that avoid the costs and complexities of traditional banking.

While recognising the limitations of Wikipedia it is useful as a starting point.

In my opinion "challenger bank" suffers from the same shortcomings as "fintech", and including the word bank leaves it open to the same problems previously identified.

My preferred term FI (Financial Institution) suits my purposes.

I understand that my interpretation differs from yours, but I am not sure that I can add anything more that would satisfy your specific requirements.

ForumUser7

RG2015 said:

OceanSound said:

eskbanker said:

OceanSound said:

eskbanker said:

OceanSound said:

eskbanker said:

'Fintech' is an unhelpfully vague term but is increasingly used to denote online-only financial institutions without branch infrastructure and offering smaller ranges of services (rather than the underlying technology itself) - however these ultimately still fit within the categories defined by the FCA (bank, payment service provider, e-money institution, etc), based on the activities they're authorised to conduct, so to my mind it's always important to cross-refer back to the regulatory definitions:

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/glossary/

So, I suppose my question would be 'do we actually need a collective term for "the likes of Wise (formerly transferwise) and revolut"?' and what useful purpose does this serve, when it's still necessary to differentiate between those that are authorised to accept deposits versus those that aren't, for FSCS purposes, and other such distinctions?

Aren't all banks FSCS protected?

Yes, that was my point - banks, or other types of institutions with regulatory permissions to accept deposits, are protected, but companies like Wise aren't.  The loose term 'fintech' is too vague for this sort of differentiation, as it encompasses both those with such protection and those without, so I'm trying to understand how it actually helps anyone to lump dissimilar institutions together, whether labelled as 'fintechs' or any alternative term....

Well, it's useful to have a pronoun to refer to a financial institution such as Chip that offers FSCS protection (albeit indirectly). This is so that we can then refer to it in posts with that name. Using 'bank' is a no go, because as soon as one does, there'll be one or more forumites (part of the 'x is not a bank' police) straight on the case. 

see: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80023699/#Comment_80023699

we have forumite worriednoob saying 'I thought, as a bank [chip] would have been financially stress-tested to ensure that they wouldn't go bust and leave customers out of pocket?'

Reply by jimexbox is 'Chip are not a bank.'. I presume what they are saying is as CHip is not a bank therefore they (Chip) is not stress-tested?

What useful purpose does the distinction serve here (apart from picking on semantics)? Being part of the FSCS is what is relevant in that thread/post and that attracts stress-tests (not just being a bank).

A more useful response would be 'Chip wouldn't be stress tested as it's neither a bank (which undergoes stress-tests to become and stay a bank) or have FSCS protection itself. However, the bank (ClearBank) is a bank and would've been stress tested when getting their banking license (and I presume periodically?) and that is the bank that Chip uses to hold your funds. 

All that is a separate point from what this thread is about - the subject of this thread is whether or not 'fintech' is a useful catch-all term for a variety of financial institutions, some of which are FSCS-protected and some aren't.

It would seem that you're looking for a catch-all term for institutions offering FSCS protection on deposits, some of which will be banks and some of which won't, but that's a different subject....

Well, my post which was originally posted elsewhere on another thread was moved here by a senior forumite on the premise that this was the appropriate place for it.

Now that it has been moved, I'm being told this is not the the correct place for the question either - by the forumite who moved it in the first place I might add! 

Seems seeking a home/thread for my post/question is proving to be nay impossible. Perhaps I should've created my own thread with the original question. 

As it is, I'm not quite sure who the OP is on this thread. I asked the original question. That's been posted as a new thread but the senior forumite creating the thread has added his/her/their own interpretation of the question. i.e. 'to do with a collective term for institutions paying interest.'. Well, this ought to have been mentioned in the OP for a start.

to respond to your question in this post:

eskbanker said:

OceanSound said:

eskbanker said:

'Fintech' is an unhelpfully vague term but is increasingly used to denote online-only financial institutions without branch infrastructure and offering smaller ranges of services (rather than the underlying technology itself) - however these ultimately still fit within the categories defined by the FCA (bank, payment service provider, e-money institution, etc), based on the activities they're authorised to conduct, so to my mind it's always important to cross-refe<blockquote class="Quote">

  <div><a rel="nofollow">eskbanker</a> said:</div>

  <div><blockquote class="Quote">

  <div><a rel="nofollow">OceanSound</a> said:</div>

  <div><blockquote class="Quote">

  <div><a rel="nofollow">eskbanker</a> said:</div>

  <div>'Fintech' is an unhelpfully vague term but is increasingly used to denote online-only financial institutions without branch infrastructure and offering smaller ranges of services (rather than the underlying technology itself) - however these ultimately still fit within the categories defined by the FCA (bank, payment service provider, e-money institution, etc), based on the activities they're authorised to conduct, so to my mind it's always important to cross-refer back to the regulatory definitions:<br><br>https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/glossary/<br><br>So, I suppose my question would be 'do we actually&nbsp;<i>need </i>a collective term for "the likes of Wise (formerly transferwise) and revolut"?' and <b>what useful purpose does this serve, when it's still necessary to differentiate between those that are authorised to accept deposits versus those that aren't, for FSCS purposes</b>, and other such distinctions?</div>

</blockquote>

Aren't all banks FSCS protected?</div>

</blockquote>

Yes, that was my point - banks, or other types of institutions with regulatory permissions to accept deposits, are protected, but companies like Wise aren't.&nbsp; The loose term 'fintech' is too vague for this sort of differentiation, as it encompasses both those with such protection and those without, so I'm trying to understand how it actually helps anyone to lump dissimilar institutions together, whether labelled as 'fintechs' or any alternative term....</div>

</blockquote>

<br>r back to the regulatory definitions:

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/glossary/

So, I suppose my question would be 'do we actually need a collective term for "the likes of Wise (formerly transferwise) and revolut"?' and what useful purpose does this serve, when it's still necessary to differentiate between those that are authorised to accept deposits versus those that aren't, for FSCS purposes, and other such distinctions?

Aren't all banks FSCS protected?

Yes, that was my point - banks, or other types of institutions with regulatory permissions to accept deposits, are protected, but companies like Wise aren't.  The loose term 'fintech' is too vague for this sort of differentiation, as it encompasses both those with such protection and those without, so I'm trying to understand how it actually helps anyone to lump dissimilar institutions together, whether labelled as 'fintechs' or any alternative term....

How come you assume that they are always lumping 'dissimilar institutions together'?

This anyone could be an editor of a financial news publication writing an article. They are comparing the likes of Chip, Plum, and Cleo. They could say something like 'as far as fintech's go...Chip has taken the impetus to introduce ......', or 'as far as challenger bank's goes....'. 

Okay, so how about challenger bank as a catch-all term? Any thoughts, ideas on that?

In response to your suggestion of using challenger bank as a catch all term, Wikipedia has the following.

Challenger banks are small, recently created retail banks that compete directly with the longer-established banks in the UK, sometimes by specialising in areas underserved by the "big four" banks (Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group, and NatWest Group). As well as new entrants to the market, some challenger banks were created following divestment from larger banking groups (TSB Bank from Lloyds Banking Group) or wind-down of a failed large bank (Virgin Money from Northern Rock).

The banks distinguish themselves from the historic banks by modern financial technology practices, such as online-only operations, that avoid the costs and complexities of traditional banking.

While recognising the limitations of Wikipedia it is useful as a starting point.

In my opinion "challenger bank" suffers from the same shortcomings as "fintech", and including the word bank leaves it open to the same problems previously identified.

My preferred term FI (Financial Institution) suits my purposes.

I understand that my interpretation differs from yours, but I am not sure that I can add anything more that would satisfy your specific requirements.

I just tend to use Financial Institution (like you), or Financial Provider, to cover all

RG2015

ForumUser7 said:

RG2015 said:

OceanSound said:

eskbanker said:

OceanSound said:

eskbanker said:

OceanSound said:

eskbanker said:

'Fintech' is an unhelpfully vague term but is increasingly used to denote online-only financial institutions without branch infrastructure and offering smaller ranges of services (rather than the underlying technology itself) - however these ultimately still fit within the categories defined by the FCA (bank, payment service provider, e-money institution, etc), based on the activities they're authorised to conduct, so to my mind it's always important to cross-refer back to the regulatory definitions:

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/glossary/

So, I suppose my question would be 'do we actually need a collective term for "the likes of Wise (formerly transferwise) and revolut"?' and what useful purpose does this serve, when it's still necessary to differentiate between those that are authorised to accept deposits versus those that aren't, for FSCS purposes, and other such distinctions?

Aren't all banks FSCS protected?

Yes, that was my point - banks, or other types of institutions with regulatory permissions to accept deposits, are protected, but companies like Wise aren't.  The loose term 'fintech' is too vague for this sort of differentiation, as it encompasses both those with such protection and those without, so I'm trying to understand how it actually helps anyone to lump dissimilar institutions together, whether labelled as 'fintechs' or any alternative term....

Well, it's useful to have a pronoun to refer to a financial institution such as Chip that offers FSCS protection (albeit indirectly). This is so that we can then refer to it in posts with that name. Using 'bank' is a no go, because as soon as one does, there'll be one or more forumites (part of the 'x is not a bank' police) straight on the case. 

see: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80023699/#Comment_80023699

we have forumite worriednoob saying 'I thought, as a bank [chip] would have been financially stress-tested to ensure that they wouldn't go bust and leave customers out of pocket?'

Reply by jimexbox is 'Chip are not a bank.'. I presume what they are saying is as CHip is not a bank therefore they (Chip) is not stress-tested?

What useful purpose does the distinction serve here (apart from picking on semantics)? Being part of the FSCS is what is relevant in that thread/post and that attracts stress-tests (not just being a bank).

A more useful response would be 'Chip wouldn't be stress tested as it's neither a bank (which undergoes stress-tests to become and stay a bank) or have FSCS protection itself. However, the bank (ClearBank) is a bank and would've been stress tested when getting their banking license (and I presume periodically?) and that is the bank that Chip uses to hold your funds. 

All that is a separate point from what this thread is about - the subject of this thread is whether or not 'fintech' is a useful catch-all term for a variety of financial institutions, some of which are FSCS-protected and some aren't.

It would seem that you're looking for a catch-all term for institutions offering FSCS protection on deposits, some of which will be banks and some of which won't, but that's a different subject....

Well, my post which was originally posted elsewhere on another thread was moved here by a senior forumite on the premise that this was the appropriate place for it.

Now that it has been moved, I'm being told this is not the the correct place for the question either - by the forumite who moved it in the first place I might add! 

Seems seeking a home/thread for my post/question is proving to be nay impossible. Perhaps I should've created my own thread with the original question. 

As it is, I'm not quite sure who the OP is on this thread. I asked the original question. That's been posted as a new thread but the senior forumite creating the thread has added his/her/their own interpretation of the question. i.e. 'to do with a collective term for institutions paying interest.'. Well, this ought to have been mentioned in the OP for a start.

to respond to your question in this post:

eskbanker said:

OceanSound said:

eskbanker said:

'Fintech' is an unhelpfully vague term but is increasingly used to denote online-only financial institutions without branch infrastructure and offering smaller ranges of services (rather than the underlying technology itself) - however these ultimately still fit within the categories defined by the FCA (bank, payment service provider, e-money institution, etc), based on the activities they're authorised to conduct, so to my mind it's always important to cross-refe<blockquote class="Quote">

  <div><a rel="nofollow">eskbanker</a> said:</div>

  <div><blockquote class="Quote">

  <div><a rel="nofollow">OceanSound</a> said:</div>

  <div><blockquote class="Quote">

  <div><a rel="nofollow">eskbanker</a> said:</div>

  <div>'Fintech' is an unhelpfully vague term but is increasingly used to denote online-only financial institutions without branch infrastructure and offering smaller ranges of services (rather than the underlying technology itself) - however these ultimately still fit within the categories defined by the FCA (bank, payment service provider, e-money institution, etc), based on the activities they're authorised to conduct, so to my mind it's always important to cross-refer back to the regulatory definitions:<br><br>https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/glossary/<br><br>So, I suppose my question would be 'do we actually&nbsp;<i>need </i>a collective term for "the likes of Wise (formerly transferwise) and revolut"?' and <b>what useful purpose does this serve, when it's still necessary to differentiate between those that are authorised to accept deposits versus those that aren't, for FSCS purposes</b>, and other such distinctions?</div>

</blockquote>

Aren't all banks FSCS protected?</div>

</blockquote>

Yes, that was my point - banks, or other types of institutions with regulatory permissions to accept deposits, are protected, but companies like Wise aren't.&nbsp; The loose term 'fintech' is too vague for this sort of differentiation, as it encompasses both those with such protection and those without, so I'm trying to understand how it actually helps anyone to lump dissimilar institutions together, whether labelled as 'fintechs' or any alternative term....</div>

</blockquote>

<br>r back to the regulatory definitions:

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/glossary/

So, I suppose my question would be 'do we actually need a collective term for "the likes of Wise (formerly transferwise) and revolut"?' and what useful purpose does this serve, when it's still necessary to differentiate between those that are authorised to accept deposits versus those that aren't, for FSCS purposes, and other such distinctions?

Aren't all banks FSCS protected?

Yes, that was my point - banks, or other types of institutions with regulatory permissions to accept deposits, are protected, but companies like Wise aren't.  The loose term 'fintech' is too vague for this sort of differentiation, as it encompasses both those with such protection and those without, so I'm trying to understand how it actually helps anyone to lump dissimilar institutions together, whether labelled as 'fintechs' or any alternative term....

How come you assume that they are always lumping 'dissimilar institutions together'?

This anyone could be an editor of a financial news publication writing an article. They are comparing the likes of Chip, Plum, and Cleo. They could say something like 'as far as fintech's go...Chip has taken the impetus to introduce ......', or 'as far as challenger bank's goes....'. 

Okay, so how about challenger bank as a catch-all term? Any thoughts, ideas on that?

In response to your suggestion of using challenger bank as a catch all term, Wikipedia has the following.

Challenger banks are small, recently created retail banks that compete directly with the longer-established banks in the UK, sometimes by specialising in areas underserved by the "big four" banks (Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group, and NatWest Group). As well as new entrants to the market, some challenger banks were created following divestment from larger banking groups (TSB Bank from Lloyds Banking Group) or wind-down of a failed large bank (Virgin Money from Northern Rock).

The banks distinguish themselves from the historic banks by modern financial technology practices, such as online-only operations, that avoid the costs and complexities of traditional banking.

While recognising the limitations of Wikipedia it is useful as a starting point.

In my opinion "challenger bank" suffers from the same shortcomings as "fintech", and including the word bank leaves it open to the same problems previously identified.

My preferred term FI (Financial Institution) suits my purposes.

I understand that my interpretation differs from yours, but I am not sure that I can add anything more that would satisfy your specific requirements.

I just tend to use Financial Institution (like you), or Financial Provider, to cover all

I have a stay at home wife and two children so I myself am a financial provider. 

RG2015

I am resurrecting this thread following something I read today. It was in a BBC online piece about the Farage, NatWest, Alison Rose situation although not directly related.

"Legislation says a credit institution (legal jargon for a bank).........."

I picked up on it as it included a generic term which provides a possible answer to the original question on this thread.

It is still not a particularly elegant term but the implication is that it may be frequently used in some circles.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66312762